‘Why I am a Zionist’

US Politics
on 311 Comments

The latest violence in Israel-Palestine is forcing an American debate we’ve long pushed for: Is Zionism– belief in the need for a Jewish state, and advocacy for it– an appropriate ideology for our moment in human history? And how widespread is Zionism inside the U.S. establishment?

That debate must involve Zionists coming forward to explain why they are Zionists. And while I approach this discussion as an anti-Zionist, I believe that only by respecting these individuals will they open up; and only when they open up will Americans get to examine the ideology– and will Zionists be able to let go of Zionism.

Over the the last few months I’ve tried to collect statements from American Jews about their Zionist adherences that indicate the nature or intensity of those commitments. Here are a few.

Leon Wieseltier:

I detest many of [Netanyahu’s] policies because I believe that they are hurting Israel and I do not like to see Israel hurt. Not all of Netanyahu’s policies, I should add: I share his opposition to Obama’s hallucinations about Iran, and I was exhilarated when he told the Jews of France to “come home” because he was expressing Zionism, which moves me to my soul…

All of these judgments are based on my study of Netanyahu’s behavior in power and on my loyalty to the Jewish people, which requires me to state what I believe to be true.

At the New America Foundation, Peter Beinart said:

I am sure we will talk tonight about the tension between Zionism and liberalism. There is absolutely such a tension…
The kind of Zionism I support would reduce that tension dramatically by stripping away many aspects of Jewish privilege inside Israel proper and of course it would require Israel to end its undemocratic control of the West Bank and Gaza. But it would still allow a preferential immigration policy for Jews and some Jewish public symbols. And even this thin Zionism would privilege Jews.
Is my view shaped by the fact that as a Jew I’m attached to the idea that in a post-Holocaust world, there should be one state on earth devoted to Jewish self protection and Jewish self-expression? Yes. I plead guilty. I’m not a pure universalist.

Leftwing journalist Ken Silverstein in the Observer:

I understood well—and supported—Hezbollah’s tactics against Israel when liberating Lebanon from occupation. Obviously, Zionists had used similar tactics when fighting for their own homeland, and in my view Israel is far and away the biggest obstacle to peace with its neighbors, and its treatment of Palestinians is vile.

However, I still support a Jewish state in the Middle East, which I think my hosts—and Hassan Nasrallah—can well understand. I lost roughly half of my family in the Holocaust and that’s something I can never forget, even if I can now forgive Germans for the crimes they committed against Jews, and millions more, during World War II, because in the end most Germans took responsibility for what they did to my people.

Dana Milbank, a columnist who sometimes speaks about foreign policy on MSNBC, wrote earlier this year in The Washington Post about putting his daughter through a religious ceremony:

Making sure [my daughter] is Jewish in the eyes of the Jewish state gives me peace of mind. If the Gestapo ever comes again, she and her descendants will have a place to go. Just in case…

after the Holocaust, and thousands of years of wandering, there was finally a place to which all Jews could go, and defend ourselves, if nowhere else was safe…

Joe Klein wrote in the wake of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in March:

When I was a little boy, my grandmother would sing me to sleep with the Israeli national anthem. It still brings tears to my eyes. My near annual visits to Israel have always been memorable.

Debra Pell, who moved from San Francisco to Israel and is a liberal Zionist leader, says hopefully that Israel is going to overcome its racial discrimination problems, as the U.S. has historically:

Judaism teaches us that each person was created in God’s image, and that therefore each person deserves respect and must have equal rights before the law. Over two millennia of statelessness, we Jews came to understand that minorities could easily be excluded from mainstream society and that this exclusion has profoundly negative consequences. In Israel, as envisioned by Herzl and the founders, there would be no such thing as a second-class citizen.

I believed then – as I do now – that this was possible because my home country of America had also endured and overcome major injustices. When the U.S. was barely fifty years old, women did not have the right to vote and the abolitionist movement was struggling to confront the reality of slavery. Today, America is still struggling with gender and racial inequality, and acceptance of minorities is still a work in progress.

Israel is a much younger society, facing enormous pressures within and without.

Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt in the New York Review of Books, apropos of an invitation from Iranians to speak in Tehran:

[My host] did not know that, as an eleven-year-old at Camp Tevya, in the New Hampshire woods, I fervently sang “Hatikvah.” But from my writing he had to be aware that I was Jewish, and he could have easily learned from my acknowledgments that I have frequently visited Israel, lecturing at its universities and collaborating with its scholars.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, announcing the birth of his son nine years ago:

His full name is Samuel Allon Marshall. … The name means ‘Oak’ in Hebrew. And it was also the name of Yigal Allon, after whom he is also named, who was one of the founders of and later the commander of the Palmach, the elite commando unit of the Haganah, the predecessor of the IDF.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, spoke at J Street earlier this year about her Zionist attachment. Notice how important militarism is in her praise for Jewish nationalism:

Like all of you, I have a deep personal connection to Israel. It is a product of my Jewish identity and life experience—including the fact that I come home to a partner who happens to be a brilliant and compassionate rabbi…

I’ve always found it powerful that our founders here in the United States didn’t seek to establish a perfect union, but rather a “more perfect union”—as if they understood that their
vision would require continual work, continual struggle. We have been doing that work for more than 200 years, so it should surprise nobody that Israel is still evolving just 67 years into its existence. And just as it has in the United States, it will take continual work and struggle to fully realize the dream of an Israeli democracy rooted in “freedom, justice and peace.”…

For our ancestors, if we had said: There will be a Jewish state—for the 6 million who died in the Shoah, there is now a homeland where more than 6 million Jews live—they would have said, “Dayenu.” [That is enough] A state with a powerful military. Dayenu. A vigorous economy. Dayenu. A proud democracy. Dayenu.

And yet none of those things alone—the economy, the military, the democracy—is enough to secure that future. Unless we act.

Jan Schakowsky, Illinois congresswoman:

As a Jew, support for Israel is in my DNA.  Throughout my nine terms in the U.S. House, I have advocated that Congress and the Administration stand with Israel in a bi-partisan way to protect Israel’s security and very right to exist.  I strongly agree with both the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the United States that Iran can never be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon.

The chairman of Americans for Peace Now, James Klutznick, emphasizes the Jewish people angle, in this declaration:

When a family member behaves self-destructively, what do you do? Do you become an apologist, an enabler, or do you call him out? Do you blame everyone else but him, or do you intervene? Do you sit back and just hope things will improve on their own, or do you take urgent action?

Israel is our family member. Most American Jews feel that way. My parents, Ethel and Philip Klutznick, instilled in their children a concern for and support of the young and emerging State of Israel. They first took my brothers and me there in 1959, when I was 16 years old. I remember meeting David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founder and first prime minister. I have always been proud of the Jewish state. But it must be said: Israel’s leaders are giving Israelis — and American Jews — less and less of which to be proud and increasingly more to be concerned about.

New York Times columnist Roger Cohen published a memoir in January that favorably quoted a Zionist credo: “We went from country to country and every place we went…. including the U.S. there was some next door neighbor who was going to call you a dirty Jew.” Cohen made a frank declaration of his Zionist views in The New York Times last year:

I am a Zionist because the story of my forebears convinces me that Jews needed the homeland voted into existence by United Nations Resolution 181 of 1947, calling for the establishment of two states — one Jewish, one Arab — in Mandate Palestine. I am a Zionist who believes in the words of Israel’s founding charter of 1948 declaring that the nascent state would be based “on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel.”

Chair of the Democratic National Committee Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz cried on CNN, explaining to Jake Tapper that she supported the Iran deal and has a Jewish mother’s obligation to protect her homeland, Israel.

You know, I’m the first Jewish woman to represent Florida in Congress. I’m a Jewish mother. And I wrote an op-ed today that is in The Miami Herald, my home–one of my hometown papers that talked about my Jewish heart [tearing up] and how important this was to me that, as a Jewish mother, that we have a concept of l’dor v’dor, from generation to generation.

There’s nothing more important to me, as a Jew, to ensure that Israel’s existence is there throughout our generations. And I’m confident that the process I have gone through to reach this decision is one that will ensure that Israel will be there forever. It’s the homeland of my people.

NYT columnist David Brooks, “On my 12th visit to Israel,” 2009.

As an American Jew, I was taught to go all gooey-eyed at the thought of Israel…

My two cents: Zionism is in crisis because for all the idealism that so many Jews obviously felt about it, it has produced a settler colonial security state that is perpetually at odds with “terrorists” and dependent on a superpower. I am an anti-Zionist because the challenge of modern states is to guarantee safety to minorities, because the liberal model of inclusion is far more compelling than segregation or supremacist ideas, because the 20th century United States provided protection and success for Jews, and because you can’t have safety if you build a state on stolen lands.

 

 

 

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

311 Responses

  1. Marshall
    October 30, 2015, 4:30 pm

    This whole idea that it gives peace of mind to have a refuge for the Jews in case the Gestapo comes back–that is the definition of ignorant, racist, privilege, because millions of Palestinian children have to not have that peace of mind so that you can. Shouldn’t everyone have the blessing of knowing their children will be safe? History shows that will never happen in the context of a cascading system of ethnocentric nation states.

    • RoHa
      October 30, 2015, 11:53 pm

      I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. (And probably again and again and again.)

      The sense of entitlement is stunningly outrageous.

      These people are saying that the safety of Jews from merely possible, future, injustice is more important than the actual injustice being afflicted now on the Palestinians. The Palestinians have to be sacrificed as an insurance policy for foreign Jews.

      It’s “We matter and you don’t.”

      This grotesquely immoral claim should be exposed and protested every time it emerges.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        October 31, 2015, 9:45 am

        I wish whoever was interviewing these people asked them straight out: “Do you think it is right and just that Palestinian children should grow up in refugee camps, living in fear of the next Israeli bomb, just so that you, living in the most prosperous democracy in the world, can have an extra country?” I’d love to hear what they would say, but of course they would never be asked.

        And in any case, as I said below, the whole ”insurance policy” thing makes NO sense. Let’s imagine the lurid nightmare of American Zionists came true, and a Nazi-like government came to power in Washington. What would be the first thing they would do? Obviously, they would cut off all aid, if not outright attack Israel. Because if a government dedicated to hatred of Jews had a chance to hurt the ”Jewish state”, how could they resist? Similarly, even if Israel had existed during WWll, it would not have helped the Jews of Europe, as they would not have been allowed to go there. Same thing would happen if this Jew-hating government Zionists fantasise about came to power in the US, or anywhere else.

        The whole thing is just a form of bizarre, self-obsessed paranoia. Millions of Arabs have suffered greatly because of Israel, but that’s OK because its existence makes Jews living in comfort in the US feel good about themselves.

      • Keith
        October 31, 2015, 11:23 am

        MAXIMUS- “I wish whoever was interviewing these people asked them straight out: “Do you think it is right and just that Palestinian children should grow up in refugee camps, living in fear of the next Israeli bomb, just so that you, living in the most prosperous democracy in the world, can have an extra country?”

        Well, that is one way to cut the interview short.

      • Kathleen
        October 31, 2015, 11:40 am

        “the sense of entitlement is stunningly outrageous” So ethnocentric, racist at its core. Which says something about each of these individuals. Interesting that in earlier statements Wasserman Schultz has referred to Israel being in her “DNA” and Schakowsky uses the same terminology.

        What other country could people refer to be as being in their “DNA” and they not be scrutinized.

        Out of all of the above I have found Brooks and Marshalls’ statements in the past to be racist at their core.

      • Vivek Jain
        October 31, 2015, 11:44 am

        Howard Zinn, who himself was a bombardier in WWII, in an essay titled “Respecting the Holocaust,” wrote:

        [T]he memory of the Jewish Holocaust should not be encircled by barbed wire, morally ghettoized, kept isolated from other atrocities in history. To remember what happened to the 6 million Jews, I said, serve[s] no important purpose unless it arouse[s] indignation, anger, and action against all atrocities, anywhere in the world….At the core of the memory of the Holocaust is a horror that should not be forgotten. But around that core, whose integrity needs no enhancement, there has grown up an industry of memorialists who have labored to keep that memory alive for purposes of their own…All who have taken seriously the admonition “Never Again” must ask ourselves—as we observe the horrors around us in the world—if we have used that phrase as a beginning or as an end to our moral concern. I would not have become a historian if I thought that it would become my professional duty to never emerge from the past, to study long-gone events and remember them only for their uniqueness, not connecting them to events going on in our time. If the Holocaust is to have any meaning, we must transfer our anger to today’s brutalities. We must respect the memory of the Jewish Holocaust by refusing to allow atrocities to take place now…. To build a wall around the uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust is to abandon the idea that humankind is all one, that we are all—of whatever color, nationality, religion— deserving of equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What happened to the Jews under Hitler is unique in its details, but it shares universal characteristics with many other events in human history: the Atlantic slave trade, the genocide against American Indians, and the injuries and deaths to millions of working people who were victims of the capitalist ethos that put profit before human life. In recent years, while paying more and more homage to the Holocaust as a central symbol of people’s cruelty to other people, we have, by silence and inaction, collaborated in an endless chain of cruelties…. My point is not to diminish the experience of the Jewish Holocaust, but to enlarge upon it…. The Holocaust might serve a powerful purpose if it led us to think of the world today as wartime Germany—where millions die while the rest of the population obediently goes about its business. It is a frightening thought that the Nazis, in defeat, were victorious: today Germany, tomorrow the world. That is, until we reverse our obedience and resist.

        See essay here: http://books.google.com/books?id=FiGX0LEy4jMC&pg=PA105

      • Kathleen
        November 1, 2015, 12:04 am

        Thanks for linking this insightful and moral statement of Zinn’s. What an incredible individual. May he rest in peace.

    • biggerjake
      October 31, 2015, 12:03 pm

      In the cold hard light of day, with the real history…the real truth being told…all of this weepy eyed nationalism for Israel…just like all the BS about American exceptionalism is incredibly misplaced.

  2. joemowrey
    October 30, 2015, 4:44 pm

    Respect these individuals? Really? I can barely keep my lunch down while reading this litany of elitist tribalistic nonsense. Zionism is racism, pure and simple. Respecting racists is a misguided moral compromise, and in the long run will prove to be a strategic error as well. What is accomplished, beyond enabling their willfully ignorant delusions about their own sense of entitlement and exceptionalism?

    Truly disgusting. These individuals appear to have absolutely no conscience. They are covered in the blood of so many innocents.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      October 31, 2015, 8:17 am

      I agree. ”Tribalistic” was the first word which came to mind when reading all this solipsistic, naval-gazing nonsense. That, along with ‘narcissistic’.

      One word which clearly did not come to mind for all but one of these armchair Zionists was ”Palestinian”. Because it’s all about the Jews, isn’t it? Who cares if millions of Palestinians are doomed to live as prisoners in their own land, or rot in squalid refugee camps, just so long as someone in America gets to feel all warm and fuzzy whenever he hears Israel’s (plagiarised) national anthem?

  3. Boomer
    October 30, 2015, 4:58 pm

    Your question, “Is Zionism– belief in the need for a Jewish state, and advocacy for it– an appropriate ideology for our moment in human history?” reminded me of another question sometimes asked: “does Israel have a right to exist?”

    Usually this is posed by a Zionist who will accept a “yes” as total vindication and dismiss any other answer as proof of racism that justifies ignoring the response. This in turn reminded me of an observation by some pundit that the real question was whether Israel has a right to exist “where it is.” One infers that his question implies “on land stolen from others.” One infers that it implies as well that Israel exists “where it is” as a racist state in which Jews are privileged over those non-Jews who have not been expelled.

    If I recall correctly, the pundit was Matthew Yglesias, but I’m not sure about that. It was years ago. A quick web search didn’t turn up the original comment. In any event, I think that the definition of Zionism in this universe isn’t just an abstract belief in the need for a Zionist state: it is also a very practical belief and practice of dispossession and oppression.

    During my fruitless search to find the quotation that I recalled I found a blog post by Juan Cole that is over a decade old, but still relevant. Not a lot has changed in that part of the world, or in American discourse about it.
    http://www.juancole.com/2004/02/reply-to-yglesias-on-palestine-matthew.html

    • Boomer
      October 30, 2015, 7:54 pm

      re: “Not a lot has changed in that part of the world, or in American discourse about it.”

      I should have noted that this website is probably the biggest change in American discourse on the topic. Thanks for that.

  4. Les
    October 30, 2015, 5:02 pm

    Real zionists have an obligation to make their aliyah to Israel.

    Those above are the all too common Israeli agents in the US, not to be confused with loyal Americans.

    • Sibiriak
      October 31, 2015, 12:34 am

      Les: Real zionists have an obligation to make their aliyah to Israel.

      ——————-

      “Aliyah”? Not possible. “Aliyah” means “ascent.”

      The term has been used to describe immigration to Israel as an elevation of the Jew to a higher form of living and existence.

      That’s not possible. Only “yerida” — descent. Descent into darkness, oppression, cruelty. Descent into hell.

  5. Parity
    October 30, 2015, 5:12 pm

    Thank you for telling us why you are an anti-Zionist.

    • JWalters
      October 30, 2015, 6:37 pm

      I agree. It’s a succinct and clear statement of modern and future values versus archaic and barbaric values.

  6. Annie Robbins
    October 30, 2015, 5:12 pm

    it’s not fair for an american jew to support a country so they can have a back up when residents of that very land are prevented from having a home due to racist policy. it’s one thing having a 2nd home or a vacation home if you’re a rich person. but if there were a housing crises and people were living on the street or stacked up 12 to a house other people might resent it. american jews have a home. they should come up with another reason besides, ‘just in case jews need it someday.’ because there are no people anywhere who might not be in danger and need a back up country someday. think of iraqis and syrians. where’s there back up country? since millions of jews have died in the holocaust many times more millions have died in wars, many of them produced by israeli weapons manufactures. this is silly logic. jews are not the primary victims in the world and we don’t have enough space to have spare ethnic countries with racist policies.

    it’s morally wrong. i don’t care how sentimental it is.

    • MaxNarr
      October 30, 2015, 5:18 pm

      This accusation of dual-loyalty is immoral and anti-Semitic. […] Most Americans support Israel, not only Jews. Remember, Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel. In fact there are new resolutions that will be submitted to the United Nations so that Jews will be recognized as indigenous to Judea and Samaria. Jews have the right to live, build and settle anywhere in Ramallah, Hebron, Gaza, Tel Aviv. This is a fundamental human right and it is morally wrong to attempt to deny this right for Jews in their ancestral homeland or to prevent Jews from praying at Al Aqsa / Temple mount en masse.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 30, 2015, 5:48 pm

        what accusation of dual loyalty? this:

        it’s not fair for an american jew to support a country so they can have a back up when residents of that very land are prevented from having a home due to racist policy.

        there’s no mention of dual loyalty. or maybe you meant this?

        american jews have a home.

        what pray tell are you referring to? i reference neither loyalty or dual loyalty. just this ‘need’ for a back up country on the backs of the indigenous people.

        btw, stating someone has dual loyalties is not, in and of itself, an accusation. it’s merely an observation and in most cases a matter of fact or circumstance. maybe you should consider hanging out on another site where your opinions could hold more weight or be taken seriously.

      • Mooser
        October 30, 2015, 6:08 pm

        ” In fact there are new resolutions that will be submitted to the United Nations so that Jews will be recognized as indigenous to Judea and Samaria.” “MaxNarr”

        Do tell!

      • JWalters
        October 30, 2015, 6:21 pm

        MaxNarr, nobody is denying Jews the right to live there. Jews were co-existing there peacefully before the Zionist movement. Your are making a totally bogus claim, and irrelevant to the current conflict. This illustrates the problems Zionists encounter when they try to justify their crimes with righteousness and logic.

      • ckg
        October 30, 2015, 6:49 pm

        Like all hominids, Afrikaners’ ancestral homeland is in South Africa, the cradle of humankind. Afrikaners from Europe clearly had the right to take the land for their apartheid regime. Right, Max?

      • talknic
        October 30, 2015, 7:35 pm

        @ MaxNarr “Remember, Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel”

        Including Chinese Jews https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Chinese+Jews&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI4drMo6rryAIVBsamCh2ZpQOQ&biw=1920&bih=932

        “In fact there are new resolutions that will be submitted to the United Nations so that Jews will be recognized as indigenous to Judea and Samaria”

        There’s no such place any more Max, The West Bank as it is now known, was officially renamed when it was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950).

        When it was illegally acquired by Israel in 1967, the West Bank was a part of the sovereign territory of Jordan, a UN Member State, a High Contracting Power and a signatory to GC IV. It has never been legally annexed to Israel.

        In fact no territory the Israeli Government officially claimed was “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”has ever been legally annexed to Israel.

        ” Jews have the right to live, build and settle anywhere in Ramallah, Hebron, Gaza, Tel Aviv.”

        Oh c’mon Max, lift your game. Conflating Israelis with Jews is Ziopoop 101

        Unless Israelis take out some form of alternative citizenship in territory “outside the State of Israel” , they don’t have any such right.

      • eljay
        October 30, 2015, 8:16 pm

        || MaxNarr: … Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel … their ancestral homeland … ||

        1. There is no “Land of Israel”.

        2. The only people indigenous to the geographic region of Palestine are Palestinians (non-Jews and Jews alike). The only people indigenous to the state of Israel are Israelis (including non-Jewish and Jewish refugees). The only people indigenous to Palestine (or whatever the state will ultimately be called) are Palestinians (including non-Jewish and Jewish refugees).

        3. The geographic region of Palestine is the ancestral homeland of Palestinians (non-Jews and Jews alike). It is not the homeland – ancestral or otherwise – of every person who undergoes a religious conversion to Judaism or who is descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

        4. There are no special human rights – nor should there be any special human rights – for people who undergo a religious conversion to Judaism or who are descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

      • Shingo
        October 30, 2015, 9:09 pm

        This accusation of dual-loyalty is immoral and anti-Semitic. […]

        The only one bringing up dual loyalty is you. And even if it had been brought up, it’s neither immoral nor anti-Semitic. IN fact, there is nothing inherently wrong with dual loyalty.

        Remember, Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel.

        Correction: SOME Jews are indigenous to Palestine. There is no such thing as the “Land of Israel”.

        In fact, the majority fo Jews in Palestine at the time of the Mandate were opposed to a Jewish state.

        In fact there are new resolutions that will be submitted to the United Nations so that Jews will be recognized as indigenous to Judea and Samaria.

        Bullshit. This would be antithetical to the UN Charter.

        Jews have the right to live, build and settle anywhere in Ramallah, Hebron, Gaza, Tel Aviv.

        Not without the permission of the PA they don’t. Ramallah, Hebron, Gaza are not in Israel.

        This is a fundamental human right and it is morally wrong to attempt to deny this right for Jews in their ancestral homeland or to prevent Jews from praying at Al Aqsa / Temple mount en masse.

        Wrong. Those ancestral homelands do not belong to Jews. The fact those places have a historical significance to Jews does not mean they have any right to one inch of the land in those regions outside fo Israel’s borders.

        I do agree that it is stupid to deny Jews the right to pray at the Temple mount. Then again, Palestinians from the occupied territories have the right to return to their homes in Israel. This is a fundamental human right and it is morally wrong to attempt to deny their return.

      • echinococcus
        October 30, 2015, 11:05 pm

        Indigenous is someone born in the territory from ancestry continuously in the territory for several generations. Khazars and Berbers are not Palestinians. Period. Shoo.

      • Sibiriak
        October 31, 2015, 12:57 am

        MaxNarr: …Jews will be recognized as indigenous to Judea and Samaria. Jews have the right to live, build and settle anywhere in Ramallah, Hebron, Gaza, Tel Aviv. This is a fundamental human right and it is morally wrong to attempt to deny this right for Jews in their ancestral homeland…
        ————————

        Do individuals have a “fundamental human right” to live, build, and settle anywhere in what they believe is their “ancestral homeland”?

        Hmmm.. let me check the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

        ——————-
        UDHR Appendix 5: (abbreviated)

        Article 1 Right to Equality
        Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
        Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
        Article 4 Freedom from Slavery
        Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
        Article 6 Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
        Article 7 Right to Equality before the Law
        Article 8 Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
        Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
        Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
        Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
        Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
        Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
        Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
        Article 15 Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It
        Article 16 Right to Marriage and Family
        Article 17 Right to Own Property
        Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion
        Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
        Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
        Article 21 Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections
        Article 22 Right to Social Security
        Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
        Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure
        Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard
        Article 26 Right to Education
        Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
        Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
        Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
        Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights

        ——————

        Nope. No right of individuals to live, build and settle in their so-called “ancestral homelands.”

        So, tell me, what legal document spells out this alleged “fundamental human right”?

      • Sibiriak
        October 31, 2015, 1:30 am

        Shingo: IN fact, there is nothing inherently wrong with dual loyalty.
        ——————

        Good point.

        And it’s worth recalling that historically the national “loyalty” theme has been a powerful instrument used by right-wing, ultra-nationalist and fascist movements to suppress legitimate dissent, stymie progressive reforms, and denigrate cross-national and cross-cultural solidarity.

        It seems, therefore, highly problematic for progressives to wield this traditional right-wing cudgel in the fight against Zionism.

      • Hanna Kawas
        October 31, 2015, 3:00 am

        The Executive Committee of the Association of Rabbis in Germany were the First who warned of the dual loyalty subject in 1897 when they issued an anti-Zionist manifesto on the occasion of the first Zionist Congress, where they declared: “Judaism obligates its adherents to serve with all devotion the Fatherland to which they belong, and to further its national interests with all their heart and strength.” Also Herzl stated that “anti- Semitism has grown and continues to grow, and so do I”

      • Hanna Kawas
        October 31, 2015, 3:09 am

        It is a joke to say that “Jews are the indigenous to the Land of Israel”. The European Jews who adopted the idea of Zionism were not even from the Hebrew tribe, see Forward article: Jewish Women’s Genes Traced Mostly to Europe — Not Israel http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/185399/jewish-womens-genes-traced-mostly-to-europe-not/

      • YoniFalic
        October 31, 2015, 10:19 am

        An article that I just saw in Haaretz.

        http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-1.682980

        In antiquity there was a tremendous amount of conversion to Hebraic religion among Phoenicians, Sarmatians, and Scythians.

        https://books.google.com/books?id=C5oSAAAAYAAJ

        I assume the gemstone is called Judean because of the name. Yet Elyashib makes perfect sense as a Samaritan or Phoenician name.

        To me Paleo-Hebrew and Phoenician are hardly distinguishable, and Paleo-Hebrew inscriptions are found throughout Samaria because Samaritans never stopped using the Paleo-Hebrew script while there were Paleo-Hebrew Judean Qumran texts that probably dated to the Herodian period.

        Phoenicians that converted to Judaism probably continued to use Paleo-Hebrew/Phoenician script long after Judeans abandoned Paleo-Hebrew.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-Hebrew_alphabet

      • Misterioso
        October 31, 2015, 10:57 am

        MaxNar

        “Most Americans support Israel, not only Jews.”

        Reality:

        A brief sampling.

        http://www­.israeltod­ay.co.il/d­efault.asp­x?tabid=17­8&nid=1039­5
        November 22/06
        “As if Israel’s position in the world in not bad enough, a new survey published in the US Wednesday says that Israel is suffering from the worst public image among all countries of the world.

        “The study, called the National Brands Index, conducted by government advisor Simon Anholt and powered by global market intelligence solutions provider GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.), shows that Israel is at the bottom of the list by a considerable margin in the public’s perception of its image.”

        “And there was one more unpleasant surprise: Whoever thought that the United States is Israel’s best friend and Israel is loved in the US, the index indicated that Americans ranked Israel just slightly above China in terms of its conduct in the areas of international peace and security.”

        http://www.worldbulletin.net/t
        World Bulletin November 20, 2014
        News Desk
        Support for Palestine soaring on US campuses
        Students for Justice in Palestine expand their support base in US colleges following Israel’s recent offensive in Gaza.

        A student-led movement taking shape on U.S. college campuses have seen a growing number of young activists organizing around solidarity with Palestine.

        http://forward.com/articles/18
        Jewish Daily Forward October 14, 2013
        Pew Findings on Israel Show Criticism Has Entered Jewish Mainstream

      • echinococcus
        October 31, 2015, 11:10 am

        Sibiriak,

        Wrong windmill. Dual loyalty is OK but what Zionism necessarily entails and what its followers are naturally being accused of is not dual loyalty. Many times it is expressed in those words only because of unthinking use of a cliché term.
        Theirs is by its very nature a fiercely demanding, single loyalty to the Zionist Entity only.
        Zionism is by definition an exclusive, pathologically intense nationalism, as it excludes sharing power with the owners of their necessarily invaded country of emigration, no matter if Palestine or Patagonia, under equal terms. As a result, even for non-nationalists the Zionists are a fifth column by definition, and rightly so.

      • Keith
        October 31, 2015, 5:26 pm

        SIBIRIAK- “And it’s worth recalling that historically the national “loyalty” theme has been a powerful instrument used by right-wing, ultra-nationalist and fascist movements to suppress legitimate dissent, stymie progressive reforms, and denigrate cross-national and cross-cultural solidarity.”

        All true enough, but as Echinococcus points out are we really talking about dual loyalty? This uncompromising Zionist support for Israel right or wrong seems to me little different from classical blood and soil nationalism, frequently fascistic, which suppresses dissent, stymies reforms, etc. So what is being criticized is not so much dual loyalty as it is Jewish blood and soil ultra nationalism in support of Israel and a powerful Diaspora. For example, your link to the French BDS protesters conviction being upheld is a striking example of these organized Jewish ultra-nationalists successful curtailment of civil rights. The uniqueness of Zionism lies in the transnational nature of this most unusual exploitation of blood and soil nationalism to unite a dispersed population into a mythological sense of peoplehood. I would also add the fusion of blood and soil nationalism with selected interpretations of Judaism and Judaic traditions to provide a quasi religion which gives it a certain metaphysical resiliency. Think about it. Atheist Jewish Zionists utterly transformed the direction of contemporary Judaism.

      • Kathleen
        November 1, 2015, 9:16 am

        Most Americans have in the past supported Israel because there have been decades of lies told to the American public through a complicit media about the conflict. That is changing if you take the time to notice.

        There will never be a resolution passed by the United Nations where “Jews will be recognized as indigenous to Judea and Samaria” First of all the UN recognizes the area as belonging to the Palestinians.

        If an individual has citizenship in two countries one would automatically assume they have dual loyalties.

    • bintbiba
      October 30, 2015, 7:40 pm

      Thank you annie !

      “it’s morally wrong, i don’t care how sentimental it is”

      Simples .

      • MaxNarr
        October 30, 2015, 8:01 pm

        @talknic is your assertion that the belligerent occupation of Judea and Samaria by Jordan was somehow legal? The Land was already in trusteeship and Du Jure sovereignty for the Jews of Palestine since the San Remo international agreements. This is the first time I have heard this international law argument. Please expand on it so I can internalize it, take notes, and destroy it line by line. Or, let’s create a new thread on this.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 30, 2015, 9:13 pm

        pleasure is mine bintbiba!

      • Shingo
        October 31, 2015, 4:06 pm

        is your assertion that the belligerent occupation of Judea and Samaria by Jordan was somehow legal?

        Yep. It was neither belligerent nor was it illegal. If it were illegal, then UNSC228, which condemned Israel’s bombing of the territory of Jordan of Hebron , would never have been voted 14-0.

        The Land was already in trusteeship and Du Jure sovereignty for the Jews of Palestine since the San Remo international agreements.

        Rubbish. The land was in trusteeship to the the state fo Palestine. Not one inch of land was given to the Jews

        The term you used, “historical connection”, was concocted to downplay the fact that the Zionists lack any legal standing to assert a claim to the territory of Palestine during the Post-WWI peace conferences at Versailles and San Remo. The Principle Allied Powers decided there were no bases for a legal entitlement, so Lord Balfour suggested that some polite words about the “historical connection” of the Jewish people be added to the Mandate instead. The travaux préparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee that was tasked with drafting the Mandate reveal that the Allies did not consider the historical connection as a basis for any Jewish claim:

        “It was agreed that they had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn “it”, that is the whole country, into their home.
        – See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100

        This is the first time I have heard this international law argument.

        Then you clearly have a lot of reading to do. Educate yourself before coming to this forum with your juvenile cliches about topics you have no clue about.

        Until then, you have no hope in hell fo destroying anything line by line.

        Please expand on it so I can internalize it, take notes, and destroy it line by line. There have been numerous threads created on this, so don’t waste out time with your trolling.

      • talknic
        October 31, 2015, 6:53 pm

        @ MaxNarr ” is your assertion that the belligerent occupation of Judea and Samaria by Jordan was somehow legal?”

        Uh? Are you really that stupid? Israel and Jordan sign an Armistice AGREEMENT. Do you know what an AGREEMENT is or are you completely ignorant?

        That AGREEMENT left Jordan as the Occupying Power over what was then legally annexed by Jordan with the consent of the majority of its legitimate inhabitants per the UN Charter on self determination and officially renamed “the West Bank” by the then sovereign.

        There are no UNSC condemnations of the legal bilateral annexation of the West Bank by Jordan, unlike the unilateral and illegal annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel which was condemned by the UNSC in UNSC resolution 252 for which there are EIGHT reminders to Israel affording Israel the opportunity to abide by the binding International Law, binding UN Charter and relevant conventions re-affirmed and emphasized in those resolutions.
        252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980. Israel has failed to take any of those opportunities to be a law abiding state. It is only protect by the US UNSC veto vote from action under Chapt VII of the UN Charter

        ” The Land was already in trusteeship and Du Jure sovereignty for the Jews of Palestine since the San Remo international agreements”

        Strange, the “League of Nations Mandate for Palestine” Article 7 says you are full of Ziopoop

        The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

        “This is the first time I have heard this international law argument. Please expand on it so I can internalize it, take notes, and destroy it line by line.”

        Go right ahead pal, drown in your own sh*te!

      • talknic
        November 1, 2015, 12:57 am

        Max? Max? You there?

        c’mon’ destroy it line by line …

      • Shingo
        November 1, 2015, 1:41 am

        Give him time Talknic,

        Max has to go buy a copy of Howard Grief’s book, read it (or read what someone who has read it has to say about it) and try and pick out his talking points.

        In fact, he probably has to look up what Du Jure means.

        I doubt this troll has ever had anyone call him on his BS.

      • MaxNarr
        November 2, 2015, 3:50 pm

        I already own the Grief book and have read and re-read it multiple times. There are virtually no sources arguing that the illegal and belligerent Jordanian occupation was in any way legal. Nobody recognized this illegal occupation save the UK and maybe Pakistan. There is some argument as to whether the US state department wanted to go along with it. In any case, that illegal occupation has been consigned to the dustbin of history after the 1967 liberation and thankfully so, they prevented Jews from praying at their holy sites.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 2, 2015, 5:59 pm

        so that would be a no. you have no way to counter this very well known agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1949_Armistice_Agreements#With_Jordan ‘line by line’ or any other way. because your god howard grief (who is a freak: http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/the-declaration-of-the-jewish-authority-in-eretz-yisrael ) didn’t preach it.

        here’s your nutcase:

      • MaxNarr
        November 2, 2015, 6:35 pm

        Annie are you calling Howard Grief a “freak” because of his involuntary mannerisms? That’s pretty low. That man is a hero to the entire Jewish people.

      • talknic
        November 2, 2015, 7:06 pm

        @ MaxNarr “I already own the Grief book and have read and re-read it multiple times”

        Without noticing the obvious flaws. That’s AMAZING! Brainwashing really works

        “There are virtually no sources arguing that the illegal and belligerent Jordanian occupation was in any way legal”

        There are no legal condemnations of it by any actual legal body, perhaps because the 1949 Armistice AGREEMENT between Israel and Jordan that ISRAEL signed tells us there was an AGREEMENT between Israel and Jordan. So if it wasn’t legal for Jordan, it would not have been legal for Israel, after all it was territory the Israeli Government had officially claimed was “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        ” Nobody recognized this illegal occupation save the UK and maybe Pakistan”

        LOL. So what? It’s a Ziononsense argument. The legality of occupation is not recognition, but by AGREEMENT or not and compliance with the laws of occupation or not.

        No one at all recognized Israel’s illegal unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, because since 1933 it has been illegal to recognize territory acquired by any coercive measure http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son
        and being unilaterally annexed, it was not in compliance with the UN Charter on self determination, whereby the majority of the legitimate citizens of a territory to be annexed, must agree to be annexed as they were in the case of Jordan annexing what became the West Bank. As they were when the US annexed Texas, Hawaii, Alaska

        In fact the unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel was condemned by the unanimous vote of the UNSC
        252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980 … a stream of resolutions reminding Israel and giving Israel the opportunity to adhere to the binding Laws those resolutions re-affirmed and emphasized

        “In any case, that illegal occupation..”

        No matter how many times you repeat bullsh*t pal, it remains bullsh*t! There are no official judgements by any world body condemning Jordan for the occupation and subsequent annexation of what was officially renamed the West Bank.

        “.. has been consigned to the dustbin of history after the 1967 liberation”

        Strange numerous UNSC resolutions have been unanimously adopted since

        “and thankfully so, they prevented Jews from praying at their holy site “

        More slimy Ziopoop. Israeli emergency law 1948 (still current) forbade residents and citizens of Israel from entering the territory of a hostile state. The West Bank was under the Sovereignty of Jordan, a hostile state. Jordan naturally did likewise.

        It’s NORMAL for states at war to expel or intern and freeze the assets of possible allies of their enemy. The US/UK/Australia interned or expelled their German and Japanese citizens in WW2 It’s also normal to allow their return and unfreeze their assets if they haven’t taken citizenship elsewhere.

        Don’t bother going through the Hasbara list of talking points Max, they’re all bullsh*t. They’ll make YOU look like a moron

      • Mooser
        November 2, 2015, 8:11 pm

        And to top it off, didn’t the Chief Rabbinate just reiterate the prohibition the Jewish prohibition, against Jews praying on the Temple Mount?

      • MaxNarr
        November 3, 2015, 1:01 am

        Reposting in the correct area: Annie it says right there in the link you posted to the armistice agreement “No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations. ” That includes our right to massively settle Ramallah and Gaza city. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/killed-palestinians-october#comment-807369

      • Annie Robbins
        November 3, 2015, 1:26 am

        max, i thought i’d address your last comment here to save space.

        are you calling Howard Grief a “freak” because of his involuntary mannerisms?

        i placed a colon “:” after the work freak that lead a link. my reference was to the information in the link. furthermore i wasn’t aware he had any involuntary mannerisms. however, i have not watched very many videos of him and maybe he’s developed some since then.

        regarding your last comment- how does your quote from the armistice agreement source your earlier allegation, that jordan’s occupation was illegal and belligerent? before you launch into more nutty allegations why not address talknics points?

        That AGREEMENT left Jordan as the Occupying Power over what was then legally annexed by Jordan with the consent of the majority of its legitimate inhabitants per the UN Charter on self determination and officially renamed “the West Bank” by the then sovereign.

        nothing in your quote refutes that. just divert.

      • talknic
        November 3, 2015, 1:39 am

        @ MaxNarr ” “No provision of this Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of either Party hereto in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question, the provisions of this Agreement being dictated exclusively by military considerations. ” That includes our right to massively settle Ramallah and Gaza city”

        Interesting theory.

        Let’s test it out. Settling in Occupied Territories is a military consideration is it? OK. Let’s go with that. So you’d be valid military targets. Fine, have it your way!

    • YoniFalic
      October 31, 2015, 9:11 am

      After reading Slavery by Another Name by Blackmon, I think that for American “Jews” (Jew should really only be used as a religious term like Catholic) liberal Zionism is something like white racist post-Civil War nostalgia for the Old South as a lost but not forgotten homeland.

      There was a whole class of historians that created a myth of good slave owners. They defamed former slaves just as “Jewish” racists defame Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims. Southern irredentists created a whole popular and scholarly discourse to justify the system of white racism. This discourse was accepted widely throughout the US with occasional opposition from extremely rare political figures like Theodore Roosevelt.

      It seems to have been very similar to what we see in the USA in the case of racist Zionist discourse.

      I was particularly impressed when Blackmon pointed out that at the end of the Civil War, literacy rates and ability to function in a skilled trade was about equal among whites and blacks in the South. Most of the violence in the aftermath of the Civil War came not from former slaves but from returning Confederate soldiers.

      How did the disparity between whites and blacks come to be? Wealth accumulated from effectively re-enslaving blacks went to creating a school system that differentially educated whites and blacks.

      For approximately 100 years southern whites used legal and irregular force to oppress and to subjugate the black population just as the racist “Jewish” invaders do throughout stolen Palestine, which includes pre-1967 Israel.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2015, 7:08 pm

        “Nostalgia for the Old South as a lost but not forgotten homeland.”

        Or a pre-67 Brownsville.

        “After reading Slavery by Another Name by Blackmon,”

        Great book.

      • MaxNarr
        November 1, 2015, 12:12 am

        @Shingo I appreciate your belief that Jews also have the right to pray on their most holy site. The Temple Mount. It gives me hope that there is some flexibility here and soon enough we will have hundreds of thousands of Jews ascending and praying, and maybe even some house of prayer up there!

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2015, 7:27 pm

        “It gives me hope that there is some flexibility here and soon enough we will have hundreds of thousands of Jews ascending and praying, and maybe even some house of prayer up there”

        And they seem to be very eager to resume animal sacrifices, too.

      • Shingo
        November 2, 2015, 4:13 am

        It gives me hope that there is some flexibility here and soon enough we will have hundreds of thousands of Jews ascending and praying, and maybe even some house of prayer up there! –

        Why hundreds of thousands? It’s clear that you don’t give a crap about prayer and are another messianic nut job who wants to invade and occupy the place and build the 3rd temple.

      • oldgeezer
        November 2, 2015, 12:05 pm

        @MaxNarr

        You didn’t strike me as the commie type.

        ” I appreciate your belief that Jews also have the right to pray on their most holy site. The Temple Mount. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist#comment-143836

        Unless the owners of the property decide to do you a favour then you will have to overturn private property rights. There is no right to pray on other peoples property

      • YoniFalic
        November 2, 2015, 12:22 pm

        From Max Narr

        @Shingo I appreciate your belief that Jews also have the right to pray on their most holy site. The Temple Mount. It gives me hope that there is some flexibility here and soon enough we will have hundreds of thousands of Jews ascending and praying, and maybe even some house of prayer up there!

        Narr’s description makes me think of a spectacle like the German Nazi Nuremberg Rally.

      • Mooser
        November 2, 2015, 2:30 pm

        “Narr’s description makes me think of a spectacle like the German Nazi Nuremberg Rally.”

        If burnt-offerings are part of the plan, they will need a Chef Rabbi on the Temple Mount.

      • MaxNarr
        November 2, 2015, 3:41 pm

        Not sure why you took such offense to hundreds of thousands of Jews praying on their most holy site. Far more muslims come up there to pray. Remember, under the illegal Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem, prior to liberation Jews were barred from praying at this site. Now that the property is back in the legal ownership of the Jewish state, all are allowed to practice freedom of religion.

      • talknic
        November 3, 2015, 1:48 am

        @ MaxNarr ” Remember, under the illegal Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem…”

        What “illegal” occupation you silly man? Israel signed an Armistice AGREEMENT, leaving Jordan as the Occupying Power.

        ” prior to liberation

        It wasn’t proclaimed or recognized as Israel’s to liberate

        ” Jews were barred from praying at this site.”

        Under the Israeli emergency law of 1948 Israeli citizens and residents weren’t allowed to enter the territory of a hostile state, then being Jordan.

        “Now that the property is back in the legal ownership of the Jewish state”

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

        Take your stupid Ziopoop somewhere else pal. It’s making you look like an idiot!

      • eljay
        November 3, 2015, 7:20 am

        || MaxNarr: … prior to liberation Jews were barred from praying at this site. … ||

        Israel did not liberate Jerusalem – it occupied and colonized it.

        || … Now that the property is back in the legal ownership of the Jewish state … ||

        Jerusalem does not belong to Israel, “Jewish State” or “the Jews”. It is currently under occupation by hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists.

  7. a blah chick
    October 30, 2015, 5:47 pm

    “Yigal Allon…was one of the founders of and later the commander of the Palmach, the elite commando unit of the Haganah, the predecessor of the IDF.”

    Here’s a story about this “hero” from 972mag:

    “Despite her olive complexion, Tziona Heiman only discovered that she had been adopted after a classmate let it slip. When she demanded that her parents tell her the truth, they admitted that they had found her in a hospital, and that Yigal Alon, who then served as commander of the Palmach [the elite pre-state strike force that served as the precursor of the IDF] and was a senior figure in the Labor Party, had arranged her adoption. Ultimately it was Alon who brought her to her parents “as a birthday present.”

    Yep, Josh Marshall has no problem admiring a man who stole someone else’s child and gave it to others as a “present.” Well, steal a country, steal a child, it’s all the same.

    • Annie Robbins
      October 30, 2015, 5:54 pm

      one of the palestinian children in susie abulhawa’s book morning in jenin was stolen like this, raised in a jewish home.

      “found” in a hospital. as if the child was rescued by the hospital and not collaborators in widespread kidnapping operation.

      • diasp0ra
        October 30, 2015, 6:01 pm

        Annie,

        Returning to Haifa is a novel by Ghassan Kanafani which broaches this very subject, I think you’ll enjoy it. (if you haven’t read it already!)

        Like most of Kanafani’s work though, it is sad.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 30, 2015, 6:10 pm

        i keep meaning to read this book, i will order it. thanks.

  8. JWalters
    October 30, 2015, 5:47 pm

    “Like all of you, I have a deep personal connection to Israel.”

    I notice all these people have strong emotions, acquired in childhood, at the center of their case. It’s well-known that strong emotions can derail rationality. Ironically, another group that famously fueled their military with emotional childhood stories was the Nazis.

    Israel was NEVER the “idealistic” place portrayed in their childhood stories. These people have all been duped by a highly financed propaganda campaign, waged by a gang of war profiteering Bernie Madoffs. It’s another case of a few greedy members of the Jewish community causing resentment toward the whole community.

    These folks, while possibly sincere, need to learn more facts, and get past their childhood bedtime stories.

    • JWalters
      October 30, 2015, 6:11 pm

      To learn more facts (which are all over the web) these people might start with this article by Jewish psychologist Avigail Abarbanel, “It’s time for American Jews to recognize they have been duped”.
      http://mondoweiss.net/2015/07/american-recognize-duped

      And former CIA analyst Ray McGovern “particularly highly” recommends a link to some relevant history here.
      http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/03/the-real-villains-of-the-bergdahl-tale/

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      October 31, 2015, 10:56 am

      “These people have all been duped by a highly financed propaganda campaign, waged by a gang of war profiteering Bernie Madoffs.”

      No they haven’t. If Phil Weiss could learn the truth about Zionism, so could other American Jews. Even in the US, it’s impossible for anyone who follows Middle East affairs to be ignorant of Israel’s crimes. American Jews have not been ‘duped’. They just prefer to adopt a ‘see no evil’ attitude towards Israel, because ethno-narcissism is much more important to them than the rights of non Jews.

      • JWalters
        October 31, 2015, 7:08 pm

        Maximus, you make an excellent point, especially for people such as Randi Weingarten, an education professional. Being informed, studying, analyzing, and having a commitment to the truth are all central elements of her chosen profession. And being a teacher, one might think she couldn’t miss the plight of Palestinian children.

        It may be that her immediate social network applies a lot of pressure, possibly including financial pressure. Those Big Donors seem to be behind many scenes.

        Also, the power of deeply implanted fear varies, depending on the intensity of the childhood emotional manipulation. Phil Weiss may have had a lighter dose. But for some people, their mind can subconsciously steer away from information that triggers those intense, planted fears.

        It seems to me that would be the source of the “ethno-narcissism” you mention. How else would one come to the conclusion / feeling that God has set Jews above the rest of humanity? From observing the world? No. From believing the Bible is literally true? That would be part of the ethno-narcissism, coming back to the planted fears.

        But as you point out, ignorance is a dubious explanation for these particular people.

  9. gamal
    October 30, 2015, 5:49 pm

    “Making sure [my daughter] is Jewish in the eyes of the Jewish state gives me peace of mind. If the Gestapo ever comes again, she and her descendants will have a place to go. Just in case…”

    you know the story of Death in the market in Damascus place surely, briefly a guy runs to his friend and says “lend me your fastest car man, got to get out of town going to Aleppo”

    “sure but why” replies the friend

    “I was in the market place and death made a threatening gesture at me! I could be in Aleppo by tonight if I ride hard”

    so man gives him the hot little hatchback and off he goes. you know how it is the friend gets to thinking thats my good good friend whats this Death thinks he’s up to, let me go and confront him.

    off he goes sure enough there is Death hanging out in the Market,

    The friend approaches “What do you mean by threatening my man” he inquires,

    “You got me all wrong” Death plaintively exclaims “I didnt threaten any body, Its just I was surprised to see him still in the Market at Damascus when I have an appointment with him tonight in Aleppo”

    The Gestapo is already in situ in the blessed haven.

    As they say plenty bad man live a foreign, remember way back when rasta had no friend.

    Bad boy dem af ta run tings
    Plenty bad boy live a foreign

    its the Israel Vibration, you’d think she would have integrated this basic wisdom, but these rough ghetto people love the Palestinans out of common humanity.

    https://youtu.be/ZGdmB1r82Vc

  10. diasp0ra
    October 30, 2015, 5:58 pm

    At the very crux of the matter, on its most basic level, those who believe in Zionism believe that they have a right to reside in Israel and that it is the Jewish homeland. Since the territory today named Israel was not empty, massive crimes needed to be committed to make it so that it was demographically sustainable.

    If you support Zionism you’re basically saying that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland whereas the Palestinians don’t. There are no two ways about it, because Israel effectively replaced the vast majority of the Palestinian homeland.

    There is a terrible colonial racism in people who knowingly support Israel with that knowledge, as they are basically saying that Jewish lives are more important than non-Jewish lives.

    Beinart proves once again that “Liberal Zionist” is an oxymoron. If he is the best the “progressive” Zionist scene can offer then it’s no wonder that Israel is having an image crisis like never before.

    As for the “backup plan” Zionists, how selfish can someone get? You’re barring me from my own historical homeland so that you might one day maybe sorta coulda maybe move there if something goes wrong?

    This is the privilege we’re talking about, this is why it’s a false equivalence to compare Palestinians and their supporters to Israelis and their supporters. One is struggling for their lives while the other wants to maintain domination.

    • johneill
      October 31, 2015, 10:27 am

      A little OT from your comment, but I was struck by the final line: “because you can’t have safety if you build a state on stolen lands”, especially as it wasn’t applied to America, where full scale genocide has brought safety (from the First Nations people at least). The dis-ease in israel could’ve been curtailed if their extermination/expulsion program was completed – but it was built on these ‘high ideals’ these zionists praise, and so bound to an infinite ‘peace process’ that necessarily takes place in perpetual unrest.
      Long story short, might used to make right until the world wars proved the evil of that axiom.

  11. Keith
    October 30, 2015, 6:12 pm

    I think that it is well to remember that contrary to the myth of some sort of Jewish longing for the sacred soil of a Jewish state, that prior to World War II the overwhelming majority of Jews were either anti-Zionists or non-Zionists. Even after the Holocaust, the majority of refugees preferred the US and Britain to Israel and had to be diverted to Israel. Same with the Russians later on. Zionism was and is a project of the Jewish elite. It provides the Jewish elite with a tribal cadre in their pursuit of power. The advantage of the de facto nepotism of perceived kinship. Solidarity. The Jewish tribe was splintering prior to World War II. The Zionist exploitation of the Holocaust reunited the tribe. The Zionist elites interviewed are loyal to Zionism because Zionism and Jewish Solidarity has been good to them. Their arguments are nothing but rationalizations in defense of their own power and privilege. As such, they are unlikely to yield to reason as long as their ideology is useful to them.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      October 31, 2015, 11:01 am

      ” think that it is well to remember that contrary to the myth of some sort of Jewish longing for the sacred soil of a Jewish state, that prior to World War II the overwhelming majority of Jews were either anti-Zionists or non-Zionists.”

      Also remember than long before Zionism, ”diaspora” Jews could have immigrated to Palestine any time they wanted, but almost none of them chose to do so. Until the foundation of Israel, there were significant Jewish communities all over the Middle East, notably in Alexandria, a stone’s throw away from Palestine. Yet the vast majority of these Jews stayed where they were. Very few had this ‘yearning for Zion’ that we keep hearing about.

  12. Jon66
    October 30, 2015, 6:14 pm

    MLK was a Zionist.
    Pope Francis is a Zionist.

    • gamal
      October 30, 2015, 6:42 pm

      Authority Demands You Be Zionist

      might i humbly suggest authority may want to go f*ck itself in that case, let all the creative forces of the cosmos be Zionist ( really man get over yourself) whats that to me? I can come to my own conclusions, or are you arguing 50 trillion flies cant be wrong? (eat shit)

      what is it with all these inquisitions (sorry its friday) we go from the camp Torquemada Proyect and the purification of ideology now ni**ering and popefying

      whats so frustrating is that its an incomplete syllogism ( emphasis on Gism)

      should we be awaiting the decision of the dear leader? may we think for ourselves, fully cognizant of the sever dangers involved.

      I am not sure but does this mean that a black catholic is a double Zionist, what happens if I disagree with MLK or reject the Pope, I know what happen when you dis Marcus (you must bite the dust), and equal rights and justice a what it a cost (problem right there Jonny) but if you dis Selassie boy you gonna die.

      https://youtu.be/HDzBav2gBKY

      • Jon66
        October 30, 2015, 9:41 pm

        Gamal,
        Of course you can make up your own mind. But the fact that respected civil rights leaders are both not Jewish and Zionist may make you pause about declaring Zionism a civil rights violation. I do think both of these men have considerably more stature in the filed of civil rights than Roger Waters, etc.

    • RoHa
      October 30, 2015, 7:59 pm

      So what?

      • Jon66
        October 30, 2015, 9:33 pm

        There are many Zionists who are not “tribal” or end times zealots. Many think it is a just and fair approach to the territory.

      • Mooser
        October 30, 2015, 10:25 pm

        “Many think it is a just and fair approach to the territory.”

        Good Lord, what self-sacrifice, what generosity, what justice, what fairness! What they think is “fair and just” is what gets them what they want. Isn’t that a fortuitous coincidence?

        Gosh, don’t you love it when a “just and fair approach” ends up giving you a free country?

      • Kris
        October 30, 2015, 10:36 pm

        Jon66: “Many ((Zionists)) think it is a just and fair approach to the territory.”

        Many parents think it is safer to let their children become sick “naturally” than to get them immunized against diseases such as measles. Many patients think it’s okay to stop taking their antibiotics when they feel better, instead of taking the whole course as prescribed. Many Jewish U.S. citizens think it’s their “birthright” to participate in the Israeli land grab in the Occupied West Bank, despite international law. Many dog owners think it’s okay to let their dogs nip at their hands in play, despite all the dog behavior experts who warn against this. Many European “settlers” in the Americas thought the indigenous peoples were animals and should be enslaved or slaughtered. I’m sure you can think of more examples.

        “Thinking” something doesn’t make it so.

      • echinococcus
        October 30, 2015, 11:11 pm

        “There are many Zionists who are not “tribal””
        Just like there are many trees who are not vegetal, there are many mammals who are not animals, etc.

        Calling Zionism “tribal” is using a particularly charitable expression: the proper, objective evaluation should be just racist and racial-supremacist. Period. I’ll remember to avoid somewhat euphemistic expressions like “tribal”.

      • eljay
        October 30, 2015, 11:19 pm

        || Jon66: There are many Zionists who are not “tribal” or end times zealots. Many think it is a just and fair approach to the territory. ||

        Zio-supremacists are hateful and immoral people. It’s no wonder that many think it just and fair to reward the unjust and immoral behaviour – the past and on-going (war) crimes – of their co-collectivists.

      • Jon66
        October 30, 2015, 11:49 pm

        Kris,
        Immunizations and antibiotics are not opinions. There is data to support their use and people may choose to follow it but the objective evidence is firm. The belief that Zionism is legit is an opinion. One you certainly can disagree with, but there is no data to support a conclusion in the same sense as with antibiotics.

      • talknic
        October 31, 2015, 12:42 am

        @ Jon66

        ” Many think it is a just and fair approach to the territory”

        Correction .. Many try to justify it as a fair approach to the territory.

        They’re evidence that brain washing works

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 9:14 am

        Mooser,
        Neither Dr. King or the Pope or the millions of other Non-Jewish Zionists are looking for a free country. You disagree with them but their motives are not those you attribute to them.

      • Kris
        October 31, 2015, 11:32 am

        @Jon66: “Immunizations and antibiotics are not opinions. There is data to support their use and people may choose to follow it but the objective evidence is firm. The belief that Zionism is legit is an opinion. One you certainly can disagree with, but there is no data to support a conclusion in the same sense as with antibiotics.”

        There is plenty of data (data means “facts or information”) demonstrating that Zionism is a racist, colonialist ideology. There is plenty of data documenting the violations of international law that have been the inevitable result of Zionism. The pages of mondoweiss are filled with this data, every single day.

        Slaveowners, the Third Reich, apartheid South Africa, the Jim Crow U.S. South, etc., all thought theirs was a “just and fair approach.” Despite all the evidence.

        History, and most of our religions, teach us that evil inevitably follows when we let our self-interest and desires, no matter how heartfelt, convince us that we are justified in harming other people.

        Here is an interesting explanation of why Zionism is a racist ideology: http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/11/05/zionism-as-racist-ideology/

      • echinococcus
        October 31, 2015, 11:43 am

        jon6666
        Just as the criterion for hard data in the case of “vaccine protection” is the clinical trial, the criterion for “illegitimate” is the relevant law.
        In fact, the latter is much harder data than for vaccine protection, as it does not rely on any statistical inference. It is unmistakably written so: Treaty of Westphalia forbidding territory acquisition by conquest, League of Nations charters vesting sovereignty in each territory’s inhabitants, Geneva Conventions forbidding settlement of civilian invaders, UN charter forbidding colonialism, all property and citizenship laws anywhere requiring an individual valid title –not a delirium that makes you one nice morning start raving mad, pretending you are a 3,000-year-old returning to your place of origin (which happens to be off by 10,000 miles but whatever.) That latter is not an absolute requirement: Uganda and Patagonia had been considered but both are expressly defined crimes against humanity anyway.
        All stone-hard data. Much, much harder than with antibiotics.

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2015, 12:26 pm

        “I must admit that some of his tremendous speeches have a somewhat hollow ring to me now.”

        Not to me. I have asked, nay, insisted, my wife quote MLK Jr.’s stirring evocation of the words of the old spiritual at my funeral.

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2015, 12:37 pm

        Period. I’ll remember to avoid somewhat euphemistic expressions like “tribal”.

        “Tribal” is an excellent description for Zionists. We could probably distinguish five to ten different main tribes in Israel, and all kinds of sub-tribes there and in the US. Oh yes, very “tribal”. And I bet the lines of authority, the distribution of benefits and information are very tribal within them, allocated in a “tribal” way.

      • biggerjake
        November 2, 2015, 8:28 am

        Using MLK to advance the idea of Zionism is an obvious example of the logical fallacy called Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.

        In formal logic, Argumentum Ad Verecundiam refers to arguing a point with an appeal to authority. This type is categorized as a logical fallacy. Citing one seemingly authoritative source is simply not conclusive evidence, even if the authority is seen as an expert on the given subject.

        For the sake of clarity, there are three degradations of this maxim enumerated in this essay. First, it is especially fallacious as proof when the quoted authority demonstrates no special knowledge on the subject. Second, when the authority who is not an expert on the given subject is also quoted out of context, the argument is even weaker. Third, the lowest violation of this formal logic principle is when an advocate uses a false rendition, or a fabricated quote, by the same authority who can claim no expertise.

        This is the best framework for understanding how various exponents of Israel have used Martin Luther King Jr. to promote their cause.

        https://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-apologists-and-martin-luther-king-jr-hoax/4955

        https://electronicintifada.net/content/fraud-fit-king-israel-zionism-and-misuse-mlk/4373

      • bryan
        November 3, 2015, 3:42 am

        Sibiriak “Great comment. It raises an interesting point though: Zionism– its central ideas –cannot be immediately construed as inherently racist. You need to know all those additional facts about the actual history of Zionist actions to come to that conclusion.”

        Thanks for the compliment, but you have now left me in the deepest gloom and despondency. You contrast “central ideas” with “actual history” raising the question of whether “central ideas” contain essential flaws or are merely perverted by their practitioners. Just to give a few examples of what I am now wondering might be a universal phenomenon:
        (1) “Judahism” (it was not yet Judaism) began in the Hebron hills as a revolutionary movement of the dispossessed against the corruption and gross inequality of the Canaanite city states, yet it ended with the moneylenders and a powerful priesthood controlling the people;
        (2) Christianity began as a liberating and egalitarian movement, until the bishops were installed, to establish a powerful and very wealthy elite, and is ending (hopefully) with the obscenities of the Vatican Bank, the protection of paedophile priests, the suppression of “liberation theology” and the backing of powerful and socially repressive states. (Islam too has similar echoes);
        (3) Communism began as a liberation movement for the urban masses, and ended (in Russia and China) with vastly enriched appatchiks controlling the proletariat;
        (4) Capitalism began in the days of Adam Smith as an intellectual rebellion against mercantile, aristocratic, monopolistic elites, and today (especially in the US) features a new elite of bankers and other money-men controlling the state and intellectual life;
        (5) America began as a rebellion against an oppressive imperialism, and became an oppressive imperialism;
        (6) Zionism began as a liberation movement, attracting many pasionate idealists, and is ending as …. (I don’t think I need to spell that out, here)

        Does every ideology inevitably contain the seeds of its own destruction, or is it that adherents are incapably of preventing their leaders from perverting the movement. “Permanent revolution” (as advocated by Marx, Engels and Trotsky) or constant renewal (as advocated by Christian reformers like Dominic, Francis, Luther etc) are clearly so very necessary. Where are the Zionist reformers and revivalists today who are fighting to prevent its self-destruction?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 3, 2015, 4:19 am

        Where are the Zionist reformers and revivalists today who are fighting to prevent its self-destruction?

        off the top of my head, here’s one: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/agonizing-boycott-country

      • RoHa
        November 3, 2015, 5:23 am

        Bryan, I think the crooked timber of humanity is a big part of the problem.

      • Jon66
        November 3, 2015, 9:44 am

        Bryan,

        I think there is a stronger case for the corruption of Christianity to begin with the adoption by Constantine and the transformation of a religion of the meek and downtrodden into a religion of conquest and militarism. From my standpoint, I want to prevent Judiasm from the same path. Many here will say it’s too late, but I think we have time.

      • Mooser
        November 3, 2015, 12:24 pm

        “I think there is a stronger case for the corruption of Christianity to begin with…/…I want to prevent Judiasm from the same path. Many here will say it’s too late, but I think we have time.”

        “Jon66” see a neuro-electrician, today. Your brain is wired backwards. But Jeez, thanks for the laugh! BTW, do you know what you just said? You just said you want to eliminate Zionism from Judaism. I agree, that is a laudable intention! Or is there some other part of Judaism which is like Constantine Christianity; “a religion of conquest and militarism”? (Did you get that comparison from Marc Ellis?)

        And BTW, if this is what you want to do, why the hell are you arguing with us about it. Why not go tell the Zionists the danger they are in, tax them with being like “Constantine Christianity”. They’ll hang their heads in shame and reverse course, right?

        And what is it you expect us to do about it? Be nice so the Zionists don’t get mad?

      • Jon66
        November 3, 2015, 1:24 pm

        Mooser,

        I want you to come to our side. To see the potential of Zionism and Israel as Dr King did, “I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. ”
        Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us join hands and walk together to “mend it, don’t end it”. If I were in charge I would cut a resonable deal with the Palestinians and move on. Jeez, America has been run by an idiot many times and I still think that although imperfect we are a wonderful nation.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 3, 2015, 2:19 pm

        I want you to come to our side.

        jon, have you thought about lifting “your side” out of this policy of shooting people on the street like dogs. “the potential of Zionism” is beside the point right now. go fix it, make it something worth aspiring to. you can’t recruit people for some love brigade while youth are getting slaughtered in the streets. talk about tone deaf. you’re barking up the wrong tree.

      • MaxNarr
        November 3, 2015, 2:28 pm

        Annie you know the people shot were neutralized knife attackers right?

      • Mooser
        November 3, 2015, 2:33 pm

        “the corruption of Christianity to begin with the adoption by Constantine and the transformation of a religion of the meek and downtrodden into a religion of conquest and militarism. From my standpoint, I want to prevent Judiasm (sic) from the same path.”

        Becomes, just a few comments later:

        “Many think it is a just and fair approach to the territory.”

        Which then becomes:

        “I want you to come to our side. To see the potential of Zionism and Israel”

        You’re just one big short circuit. Protip: Don’t go on about “babies” and “bathwater”. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn’t so bad if it keeps the baby from being burned to death by arsonists.

      • Mooser
        November 3, 2015, 2:45 pm

        ” If I were in charge I would cut a resonable deal with the Palestinians and move on.”

        First, of course, you might learn to spell “reasonable”, but let it go.
        Look, just do yourself one favor, okay? Please, whatever you do, don’t tell us what your idea of a “reasonable deal with the Palestinians” is, okay? And how it will be applied, enforced and paid for. Don’t do that to yourself. Your stock is low enough as it is.
        Just trying to help you out, “Jon66”.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        November 3, 2015, 2:52 pm

        “Neutralised”? Charming.

        But here’s the thing: for a would-be knife attacker to kill or even wound someone with a knife, he/she would have to be very close to the victim, and in a position to wield considerable force. Therefore, it’s pretty easy to ‘neutralise’ a knife wielder without shooting him/ her dead. The attacker could simply be physially disarmed, or, at worst, shot in the foot or leg. You can be 100% certain that if the assailant was Jewish, that is what would happen.

        It also doesn’t say much for the abilities of the Israeli ‘security forces’ if the only way they know to ‘neutralise’ a knife wielder is to shoot him/her in the head at close range. No wonder these fools ‘accidently’ bomb so many hospitals and schools.

      • Kris
        November 3, 2015, 2:53 pm

        @MaxNarr: “Annie you know the people shot were neutralized knife attackers right?”

        Actually, we don’t know that at all.

      • Jon66
        November 3, 2015, 3:26 pm

        Annie,
        you can’t recruit people for some love brigade while youth are getting slaughtered in the streets. talk about tone deaf. you’re barking up the wrong tree. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist?replytocom=807534#respond

        OR 13 year olds being stabbed or grannies being slashed. is violence inherent to Palestinian nationalism? Is violence inherent to Jewish nationalism? If we spend our time sermonizing one another instead of finding common ground we can’t find a solution. it is better to do something,than nothing, while waiting for everything.

      • oldgeezer
        November 3, 2015, 3:53 pm

        @Max
        “Annie you know the people shot were neutralized knife attackers right? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist#comment-806661

        I was wondering why anyone would shoot a neutralized attacker but then realized you were just being honest as there have been numerous incidents where Israeli terrorist forces shot, and killed, Palestinians who didn’t pose a threat at the time.

        btw I unconditionally condemn Israel and it’s zionist supporters for putting innocent civilians, including women, children, seniors of both genders, into the front lines of a conflict area.

      • MHughes976
        November 3, 2015, 3:56 pm

        Thanks to many colleagues for interesting series of comments.
        Argumentum ad verecundiam – verecundia is shame, so the argument would be ‘Aren’t you ashamed to find yourself in disagreement with a well-regarded authority?’ – well, that could be modified to something less aggressive, like ‘Doesn’t it give you pause when you note that…?’ I think that AAV is not entirely pointless: I am indeed forced to reduce the authority I accord to someone if I come to think him or her wrong on a matter where the authority was supposed to lie. Conversely, if I am not willing to reverse my previous regard for this person altogether, to say ‘not an authority, but the opposite, a great deceiver’ then there is a limit to the negative view I can take of others who made the same mistake. The lapse of time limits but does not quite remove this problem. To that extent, I have to agree with Jon in the conclusion he draws from the mistake, as I regard it, of MLK.
        The ‘Peasants’ Revolt’ interpretation of Joshua’s Conquest, the Mendenhall-Gottwald interpretation, doesn’t really convince me.
        Constantine’s militarism – well, he made Christianity into a kind of state religion when secularism was not really an option that anyone considered. The militarism and conquest came in the pagan days of the Roman Empire – the Christian Empire stood on the defensive and was slowly worn away by enemies who were militaristic in their own way, Goths and Persians.

      • MaxNarr
        November 3, 2015, 4:10 pm

        @oldgeezer and @annie is it your official positions that stabbing Jews that live in Jerusalem, of any age is ok because of your perceived Israeli wrongs?

        @oldgeezer said he condemns putting Israeli Jews in the frontline of a conflict area. This seems to say that all Jews in Jerusalem are fair game for stabbing. Is that your view @oldgeezer? Please clarify

        The answer really goes to the heart and soul of this website and its “War of Ideas in the Middle East”

        We have already established that not one person on this website will condemn the stabbing of elderly women in Jerusalem. The question remains, is it the official position of Mondoweiss and the CERSC that violence against Jewish civilians is justified?

      • talknic
        November 3, 2015, 6:15 pm

        @ MaxNarr

        “Annie you know the people shot were neutralized knife attackers right?”

        Neutralized = unarmed = Israeli war crime

        Keep it shut Max, you’re an embarrassment

      • RoHa
        November 3, 2015, 7:04 pm

        “First, of course, you might learn to spell … ”

        Now, now, Mooser. Don’t be pedantic.

      • Kris
        November 3, 2015, 10:06 pm

        @Jon66: “There are many Zionists who are not “tribal” or end times zealots. Many think it is a just and fair approach to the territory.”

        Please explain exactly why “Many think it is a just and fair approach to the territory.”

        I have made an honest effort to come up with convincing reasons why the Zionist approach is “just and fair,” and can’t find any.

      • bryan
        November 4, 2015, 6:12 am

        Jon666: “Many think it is a just and fair approach to the territory.”

        It wasn’t necessarily a bad idea to think that having a country might solve some problems, though a majority of Jews thought that their Judaism would be tainted by creating a state which would inevitably need a military. Others saw that such a thing would only spur anti-Semitism since bigots would be able to proclaim “you have a country of your own: what are you doing here?”

        The problem was not having a country, if a vacant lot could be found on a crowded globe. The problem was the “Zion” bit, not the “-ism”. The only arguments that these founding fathers, overwhelmingly secular, if not outright atheists, could put forward for a destination in Palestine, were (a) God said its ours (though that was often qualified by parental injunctions such as if you behave yourself, keep your room tidy, and do your homework) and (b) the absurdity that since once upon a time somewhat similar people had lived in that region, as well as many other regions, along with very dissimilar people who had lived there more recently and for much longer, that this could ever be reclaimed as an “ancestral home”.

        Nor was it impossible for religious Jews (which most Zionists were not) to go and live as individuals in this land (though for centuries this had been an option that very few had availed themselves of, and most had done so not to live there but to die there, and most had preferred, if they were to move, to go west within Europe or to the Americas, or anywhere except Palestine which was an alien and inhospitable land to those Europeans who were to be virtually the only Jews later attracted by Zionism). There were of course many non-European Jews who remained very happy to live in North Africa or the Caucasus region or Asia and only left their ancestral homelands after European Zionism disrupted their broadly peaceful and happy coexistence. (a slight exception may be for a few ultra-religious Yemenite and Moroccan Jews who were also infected with this Zio-malady, but were despised by the Europeans.)

        What most people think not in the least “just and fair” is the Zionist hallucination that the indigenous population could be persuaded to vacate their land (either by bribes or expropriation or by force) to make way for the alien colonists.

        Having said all that about the “unjust and unfair” historical background, most people would concede that it is “just and fair” that Israelis who now live and the many who have been born within Israel’s internationally recognized borders should continue to do so, but obviously justice and fairness, which I’m glad to hear we all respect, demands certain provisos: (a) that equal rights are extended to all Israelis irrespective of religion, race or anything else; (b) suitable recompense / relocation be made for the refugees; (c) Israel cease illegal settlement and occupation outside its recognised borders; (d) a Palestinian state with full independence be created in the parts of historic Palestine outside the Israeli state, (and for that to be meaningful connectivity between Gaza and the West Bank will be required).

        Justice and fairness will of course impose obligations upon the Palestinians: especially (a) a full cessation of all violence, and, even more, an active collaboration, as equals, to manage water resources, tourism, trade, environment management etc; (b) the granting of full and equal citizenship to any of the current squatters on Palestinian land who choose to remain in their homes(though this is complicated by whether those homes are built on stolen land); and (c) full respect for freedom of worship, and freedom not to worship. Such a solution, pie in the sky as it currently seems, would facilitate the eventual reunification of Palestine as a single state. Now that would be “fair and just”, wouldn’t it?

    • Shingo
      October 30, 2015, 8:52 pm

      Neither were Zionists.

      MLK led the civil rights movement. If such a movement were to be held in Israel, it would’ve crushed by the state.

      • Jon66
        October 30, 2015, 9:30 pm

        Shingo,
        Speaking at the annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly in 1968, Dr. King said:

        “On the Middle East crisis, we have had various responses. The response of some of the so-called young militants does not represent the position of the vast majority of Negroes. There are some who are color-consumed and they see a kind of mystique in blackness or in being colored, and anything non-colored is condemned. We do not follow that course in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and certainly most of the organizations in the civil rights movement do not follow that course.

        I think it is necessary to say that what is basic and what is needed in the Middle East is peace. Peace for Israel is one thing. Peace for the Arab side of that world is another thing. Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.

        On the other hand, we must see what peace for the Arabs means in a real sense of security on another level. Peace for the Arabs means the kind of economic security that they so desperately need. These nations, as you know, are part of that third world of hunger, of disease, of illiteracy. I think that as long as these conditions exist there will be tensions, there will be the endless quest to find scapegoats. So there is a need for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, where we lift those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder and bring them into the mainstream of economic security.”

        http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-ideas/cj/classics/1-4-12-civil-rights/conversation-with-martin-luther-king.pdf

        Pope Francis said that attacks both on Jews and the state of Israel are anti-Semitic.
        “To attack Jews is anti-Semitism, but an outright attack on the State of Israel is also anti-Semitism,” the pope said in a private meeting at the Vatican with Jewish leaders on Wednesday, according to a statement from the World Jewish Congress. “There may be political disagreements between governments and on political issues, but the State of Israel has every right to exist in safety and prosperity.”

        Read more: http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/323655/pope-francis-condemns-attacks-on-israel-as-anti-semitic/#ixzz3q6ZhxkiJ

      • Annie Robbins
        October 30, 2015, 10:01 pm

        lots of people who felt all warm and fuzzy about israel in 1968 don’t feel that way today. martin would have been one of them, absolutely.

      • Jon66
        October 30, 2015, 10:12 pm

        Annie,

        We have no idea how he would feel today. It’s purely speculation
        We do know that he supported Zionism in the past including the weeks before he died.

      • Donald
        October 30, 2015, 10:13 pm

        Assuming the MLK quote is accurate, what it shows is that he was misinformed.

      • Shingo
        October 31, 2015, 2:01 am

        There is nothing in that quote they points to MLK being Zuonist. He does not advocate Jewush privilege or a Jewish state, much less expulsion of Arabs and land theft to create such an outcome.

        Zionism is racism and inequality. and MLK fought against racism and inequality.

        Given that the quote attributed to Francis took place n a private meeting, it’s accuracy is dubious. I would agree that attacks on Jews is anti Semitic and I am no Zionist.

        Hasbara fail!

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 9:10 am

        Shingo,
        when Dr. king was asked about his support his support for Israel it was clear where he stood. At that time Israel was based upon Zionism. It’s disingenuous to claim that he supported the Zionist state of Israel but didn’t support Zionism explicitly because he didn’t list the principles. Israel was a Jewish state at the time he gave it his support.
        The quote from the Pope was widely published and not disputed by either the Pope or anyone else in attendance. There is no reason to believe it inaccurate.

        Donald,
        Dr. King was responding to the anti-israel stance of the Panthers and others. One option is that this bright educated and wordly man was misinformed. The second is that after looking at the facts and weighing them he came to a different conclusion than you would have. The idea that every intelligent well-meaning person who looks at Israel will automatically oppose Zionism is simply arrogant and self-centered.

      • MHughes976
        October 31, 2015, 10:36 am

        I presume that MLK’s Rabbinical Assembly speech is reasonably fairly transcribed and I can’t but read it as saying that the Israel of that time, the state established by Zionists by means including force and the exclusion of many previous inhabitants, had the right to exist in security. He made essentially similar points (which shows that the RA piece is not seriously falsified) in two letters to anxious Jewish supporters, preserved on his archives, in September 67. It was an extremely sensitive subject, threatening to tear his movement apart – hence the anxiety of his correspondents. So he avoided the matter in public as much as he could, keeping out of the way ( but for a brief appearance) at the recent and troublesome New Politics Conference, where Hosea Williams took up the slack. He showed all the reserve and discretion which ‘disappointed’ him on other occasions.
        Whether he was a Zionist at heart is hard to say – his 1959 Easter Sermon, mentioning his visit to the Holy Land, sounds quite neutral. But that was before he became the leader of a movement with crucial Zionist support.
        He was a liberal Protestant intellectual and the lib Prots at that time included important Zionist sympathisers, above all Niebuhr, who fought a battle with previous friends who were changing their minds quite parallel with the battle fought by MLK against the dreaded Young Militants.
        We hadn’t really heard of 2 states, later to be the Liberal Zionist shibboleth, in the late 60s. So MLK’s Zionism wasn’t particularly liberal by our standards – everything was to be done by the economic advancement, not by a right of return or suchlike, of the poor Arabs. This is in the line of ideas stretching from Altneuland to ‘economic peace’.
        MLK’s influence on Black politics in the United States and on the moral climate of the Western world was in this respect absolutely calamitous.
        The Pope meanwhile is reinforcing the status of liberal Zionism (which of course is sad about Palestine and disapproving of Netanyahu’s brutality and vulgarity) as the universal,position of the leaders and nice people of the West.

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 11:05 am

        MH,
        I obviously agree that Dr. King is clear.
        My purpose in this discussion is to show that those who support a Zionist state of Israel are not all mentally disturbed, or racist, or supremacist, or …

        It’s easy to label those we disagree with as evil, but that belies the complexity of human thought.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        October 31, 2015, 11:06 am

        “We have no idea how he would feel today. It’s purely speculation”

        So why the hell do you keep quoting him then?

        MLK has been dead nearly 40 years. What relevance does he have to what’s going on today?

        Your desperation is palpable.

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 11:26 am

        Maximus,

        The point of quoting King or the Pope or any of the other luminaries who are/were Zionist is to show you that although you believe ,
        ” They just prefer to adopt a ‘see no evil’ attitude towards Israel, because ethno-narcissism is much more important to them than the rights of non Jews. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist#sthash.dYlcgwEM.dupf

        Many good people have weighed the company meeting rights and claims and have supported Zionism. You want to categorize all people into good this and bad that. This issue is more complex than a Manichean approach will allow.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        October 31, 2015, 11:31 am

        The ”many people” you refer to (all two of them) are: a man who’s been dead nearly 40 years (and who, by your own admission, might well be anti-Zionist now since we cannot speculate on the hypothetical) and a bloke who heads an insitution which covered up for child abusers (and much else besides).

        I don’t think that’s exactly the ringing endorsement for Zionism that you think it is.

      • Kris
        October 31, 2015, 11:56 am

        @Jon66: “This issue is more complex than a Manichean approach will allow.”

        Actually, this issue is not “complex” or, as my own Jewish friends like to say, “complicated.” A Manichean approach–i.e., good vs. evil–is appropriate.

        The issue is “complex” or “complicated” only when you don’t want to admit to yourself that your own sense of religious/ethnic entitlement is supporting and enabling the slow-motion holocaust of the Palestinians at Jewish hands.

        Ethnic cleansing is evil. Driving people from their homes and stealing their land and resources because you believe that God gave you that land thousands of years ago is evil. Preventing Palestinian students from being able to travel to the universities that have awarded them scholarships is evil. Preventing ambulances from reaching people who need emergency care is evil. Etc., etc., etc. There is no end to the ways in which Zionism results in evil, every single day.

        OTOH, this is what would be good: ““That which is hateful to you, do not unto another: This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary — [and now] go study.”–Hillel

      • Donald
        October 31, 2015, 12:16 pm

        Jon66-

        It’s not a matter of opinion. If MLK really thought Israel was a model of democracy and coexistence he was mistaken. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had been forcibly expelled in a process involving massacres just 20 years earlier. Thousands more were shot in the late 40’s and early 50’s according to Benny Morris when they crossed the border–most of them were unarmed. It would be either absurd or hypocritical of King to praise Israel in that fashion if he knew these facts. Ethnic cleansing is not a model of democracy and coexistence. I am charitably assuming King didn’t know the darker side of Israe’s history–alternatively he did and was trying to keep his movement together since he might have been working with Progressive except for Palestine types. King in his final years was willing to alienate liberals with his criticism of the Vietnam war and US imperialism, so I am guessing he would have been willing to criticize the Nakba and not whitewash it if he knew, but maybe he did know and made a political calculation.

        As for Israel’s right to exist, I think that’s true. Israel is an internationally recognized country. The practical effect of this is that Israel should not be invaded, assuming anyone had any current plans to do this. That says absolutely nothing about their human rights record. Iraq under Saddam had a terrible human rights record and had itself started wars, but the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 12:23 pm

        Kris,
        I think it’s more analogous to affirmative action or abortion rights in which we must balance the rights of competing interests.

      • Donald
        October 31, 2015, 12:35 pm

        I am going to anticipate a possible response to my comment. If Israel has the right to exist, do they have the right to exclude the Palestinian refugees? No, because the Palestinians were forcibly expelled. People often use Israel’s right to exist as a way of surreptiously claiming that Israel had the right to commit an act of ethnic cleansing. This is obviously absurd, which is why it isn’t spelled out.

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 12:37 pm

        Donald,
        You’ve set it up as an “either or”. dr. King supported a Zionist Israel. Perhaps not because he thought it was a model state but because he thought on balance that it deserved support. A person, a cause, or a country does not need to be perfect or model to engender support.
        Your attempting to forgive or excuse him for beliefs that he held and was clear about and others in the civil rights movement disagreed with.
        The evidence we have shows King was made aware of the drawbacks of Israel by the Panthers, etc, but supported it anyway.
        The point is not what Dr.King thought 59 years ago, but that decent people can have differing stances on the issue although that kind of subtly is not popular around here.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        October 31, 2015, 12:38 pm

        “As for Israel’s right to exist, I think that’s true. Israel is an internationally recognized country.”

        One does not follow from the other. Yugoslavia was an internationally recognised country. So was the USSR. So was Czechoslovakia. None of these countries exist anymore, and I don’t see anyone taking the world to court about it. No nation state has the ”right to exist”. Countries either exist, or they do not. Other nations may recognise them, or they may not. There is no ”right’ about it – the whole ‘right to exist’ canard is spurious nonsense only ever evoked in the case of Israel.

        “The practical effect of this is that Israel should not be invaded, assuming anyone had any current plans to do this.”

        But where is this ”Israel” that should not be invaded|? Israel has never declared its borders, so its hard to know what an illegal invasion would be.

      • Donald
        October 31, 2015, 2:10 pm

        By “right to exist”‘, my understanding (which might be wrong) is that it is a legal phrase whose practical meaning is that all countries currently existing have the same right not to be invaded. Personally I don’t give a damn about the rights of nebulous entities like states, but I do think it is useful to have a legal principle in place which forbids invasions like the one of Iraq in 2003–it means that leaders who invade other countries are automatically war criminals.

        As for Israel’s borders, yes, it’s not clear to me that an invasion of the West Bank intended to free them from Israeli control would be illegal. It might be a bad idea given Israel’s reaction and anyway, I’m not going to get any deeper into a discussion of an unlikely hypothetical. I was just trying to acknowledge that one could grant a country’s legal right to exist without endorsing its massive human rights violations. In this case, Israel’s right to exist does not nullify the Palestinian right of return. The majority of the time the people talking about Israel’s right to exist are really trying to paper over the moral and legal rights of the Palestinians. I think we can refute this by accepting the right of all countries not to be invaded, but that doesn’t mean the Palestinian right of return is somehow voided.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        October 31, 2015, 2:50 pm

        “By “right to exist”‘, my understanding (which might be wrong) is that it is a legal phrase whose practical meaning is that all countries currently existing have the same right not to be invaded.”

        But it isn’t a ‘legal phrase’. Name me any other nation which has ever evoked a ‘right to exist’. No country other than Israel ever has, for the simple reason that no such ‘right’ exists under international law.

        ” I do think it is useful to have a legal principle in place which forbids invasions like the one of Iraq in 2003–it means that leaders who invade other countries are automatically war criminals. ”

        But such laws already exist. You are confusing the (non-existent) ‘right to exist’ with the right of a nation state to be soverign and not be invaded by foreign nations unless there is a VERY good reason to the contrary – usually the other nation acting in self-defence, although the bar for this is set very high. Just because certain powerful nations – most notably the US – regularly violate this law, doesn’t mean that the law does not exist. By contrast, the spurious ”right to exist” nonsense is just spurious zio-babble, rendered all the more spurious by the fact that Israel has never declared its borders, and therefore doesn’t seem to recognise its own ‘right to exist!’

      • Donald
        October 31, 2015, 3:15 pm

        Maximus–you might be right. I’ve picked this up from Chomsky someplace, but maybe it’s not a useful phrase, given how it s commonly used by the Israel defenders.

        Jon66– I was trying to give MLK the benefit of a doubt, but he was wrong on the facts. It was absurd to speak about Israel as a democracy and a model of peaceful coexistence. Why he did this I don’t know–my guess is that in the late 60’s and much later, many or most educated liberals in the US were socialized to believe that to question Israel’s moral behavior in anything other than the most limited way was to be guilty of anti-semitism. Some people still think that way. That might be the explanation for King’s remarks or maybe it is something else, but regardless of the reason, his comments are factually incorrect.

      • echinococcus
        October 31, 2015, 5:12 pm

        jon666

        You’re really too much. MLK was a civil rights leader, and he died fighting against racial discrimination. So you say he would have approved the most racist, genocidal, Apartheid regime remaining on earth? Good. Tells us a lot about you.

      • MHughes976
        October 31, 2015, 7:19 pm

        But he did approve Israel, echino. Israel was already what it is now and moreover he had visited Palestine, the bit of it under Jordanian control. I gave the main references above – and one of the main explanations, that such was the general view of the liberal Protestant world. He did consider leading a Holy Lamd demonstration for peace but gave up because he thought it would do him political damage. His influence on this question, which matters because he is one of the most authoritative voices of the last 50 years, was terrible. He may have said things that implied anti-Zionism but he absolutely refused to recognise any such implication.

      • talknic
        October 31, 2015, 7:31 pm

        @ Donald “… it’s not clear to me that an invasion of the West Bank intended to free them from Israeli control would be illegal”

        According to Schwebel, Lauterpacht, Herzog, it is admissible to ” restore the sovereign “ by war. http://wp.me/PDB7k-Y#JFNA

        It is not admissible to “acquire” territory by war/force (see UNSC res 242 http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r#unscresolution242 )
        nor is it permissible to recognize territory acquired by any coercive measure http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4so

        In 1967, the West Bank was a part of Jordanian sovereignty, a UN Member State and a High Contracting Regional Power. It’s the very reason UNSC resolutions on the matter cite GC IV.

        By Schwebel, Lauterpacht, Herzog, Syria also has the right to “restore” sovereignty over the Golan.

        “The majority of the time the people talking about Israel’s right to exist are really trying to paper over the moral and legal rights of the Palestinians. I think we can refute this by accepting the right of all countries not to be invaded, but that doesn’t mean the Palestinian right of return is somehow voided “

        There is no right for Israel to exist in territories the Israeli Government itself admitted on May 22nd 1948 in an official statement to the UNSC were“outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        There is no International Law or UN Charter article giving any state the right to exist. Nor is it mandatory to recognize any state. Numerous states within the UN do not recognize each other

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

        Israel has failed by invading all its neighbours. All of Israel’s wars have been fought in territories outside the State of Israel.

      • RoHa
        October 31, 2015, 7:37 pm

        ” decent people can have differing stances on the issue ”

        Decent people can be wrong. Even I can be wrong.* We can be mistaken about an issue because we are not aware of some relevant fact, or because we make some error of reasoning. We all have those moments (and especially as we get older) when the mental gears fail to engage, and the wheels stop or spin randomly. And then we do something silly, like misplacing a comma, or locking our keys in the car, or invading Russia.

        That is why we have moral debates. We hope that by testing each other’s reasoning and knowledge we will be able to discover the right, rather than simply pretending that difference of opinion means that there is no right.

        (*I know this is difficult to imagine, but scroll down, and the scales will fall from your eyes.)

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 8:56 pm

        Echi

        “You’re really too much. MLK was a civil rights leader, and he died fighting against racial discrimination. So you say he would have approved the most racist, genocidal, Apartheid regime remaining on earth? Good. Tells us a lot about you. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist#comment-806676

        As both MHughes and I have pointed out Dr King certainly supported a Zionist Israel. So yes a civil rights leader who fought against racism saw nothing preventing him from supporting Israel. It doesn’t mean that he thought Israel was perfect but he certainly did not see it as you do. You are letting your blind hatred for Israel obscure the facts. Just because King supported Israel doesn’t mean he was right, but he did support it. I think your denial says much more about your ability to analyze the facts. Dr.King supported and I do now support a flawed Israel.

      • Donald
        October 31, 2015, 9:47 pm

        Jon66–you keep ignoring the factual inaccuracies in MLK’s defense of Israel. It’ was to put it kindly, absurd to refer to Israel as an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. You want to use MLK’s moral authority and all you’ve done is show how he glossed over Israel’s massive crimes against Palestinians, if he knew about them at all. If he did, this speech is a blot on his record. I think this is interesting, but not for your reason. Rather, as MHughes says, it shows the unfortunate record of liberal Protestantism on this issue.

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 10:03 pm

        Donald,
        Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I’m not saying mlk missed the problems in Israel or ignored them. It’s the opposite. What I’m saying is that even aware of the imperfections of Israel and the problems inherent in Zionism, he was still a Zionist. What you call a misstatement of facts I call an interpretation of facts.

      • Sibiriak
        October 31, 2015, 11:26 pm

        Donald: By “right to exist”‘, my understanding (which might be wrong) is that it is a legal phrase whose practical meaning is that all countries currently existing have the same right not to be invaded.

        ———————

        I think a better way to phrase it is: The state of Israel exists, therefore it has rights under international law.

        Those rights go far beyond the right not to have its territorial integrity violated by invasion. They include rights to sovereign control over the national territory; the right to make and apply laws with full civil jurisdiction, and to operate police and security forces etc.legally and unchallenged over the national territory. They include the right to apply for UN membership, access to international courts , and other institutions of international governance etc.; the right to make legally binding treaties with other states–and so on and so forth.

        It should be immediately clear that in order for a state to have full rights under international law, the territorial extent of the state must be defined. It would be impossible to talk about a state being invaded without defining the borders which were transgressed.

        What are the borders of that define “Israeli territory” and thus the limits of Israeli sovereignty?

        Simple: the borders based on the armistice agreements of 1949 and subsequent peace agreements. With respect to Palestine, the armistice line, aka “Green Line” or “pre-1967 borders,” has become the provisional border that divides “Israeli territory” from “occupied Palestinian territory“; it is to be the basis for a final agreement and permanent border between Israel and Palestine. This conception was cemented by UN res 242 and has been reinforced by numerous UN resolutions and ICJ opinions since then.

        Despite talknic’s mistaken legal theory, under international law it is the Green line–not the original UN -recommended “partition borders”–that define the extent of Israeli sovereignty. Until and unless the parties involved agree to changes to that provisional border, Israeli retains full sovereignty within the Green Line. Thus, an invasion across the Green Line would be an act of armed aggression.

      • Jon66
        November 1, 2015, 1:01 am

        Roha,
        “That is why we have moral debates. We hope that by testing each other’s reasoning and knowledge we will be able to discover the right, rather than simply pretending that difference of opinion means that there is no right.

        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist?replytocom=806973#respond
        I agree completely. Sometimes there is a right and a wrong and we shouldn’t be afraid to say so, but without the name calling. Sometimes an act,like rape or throwing a firebomb into a house is always wrong. Other times, for example the legalization of pot, there are arguments on both sides and neither is neccesarily “right”. I happen to think Zionism is a case of the latter rather than the former. Others will disagree.

      • eljay
        November 1, 2015, 8:57 am

        || Jon66: … Sometimes an act,like rape or throwing a firebomb into a house is always wrong. Other times, for example the legalization of pot, there are arguments on both sides and neither is neccesarily “right”. I happen to think Zionism is a case of the latter rather than the former. … ||

        A Zio-supremacist equates Jewish terrorism, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands, land theft, occupation, colonization, oppression, torture, murder and sundry past and on-going (war) crimes with the legalization of marijuana.

        Whodathunkit.

      • Donald
        November 1, 2015, 9:19 am

        Actually, Jon66, the quote you supplied shows that MLK either didn’t know the full extent of Israel’s crimes or didn’t believe what he was told or else he simply lied about them, because he defends an imaginary Israel that was an oasis of democracy and coexistence. Calling it an interpretation of facts is nonsense–no one reading that speech would have any inkling of what Israel had done to Palestinians.

        If you or someone wants to make a case for the real Israel, it should acknowledge Israel’s crimes in some detail. The MLK quote you supplied is just an example of the sorts of falsehoods popular with many liberals decades ago.

      • lyn117
        November 1, 2015, 10:28 am

        Well, in 1968 I was pretty much a Zionist, if I thought about it at all. I completely changed when I learned the facts of the case.

      • Kris
        November 1, 2015, 11:17 am

        @Jon66: “Roha, “That is why we have moral debates. We hope that by testing each other’s reasoning and knowledge we will be able to discover the right, rather than simply pretending that difference of opinion means that there is no right.”

        Except that you avoid “moral debates” by pretending not to understand what you read here.

      • Jon66
        November 1, 2015, 11:45 am

        Kris,
        Except that you avoid “moral debates” by pretending not to understand what you read here. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist?replytocom=807065#respond

        It seems as if I am dammed if I do and damned if I don’t. If I ask for clarification you tell me I’m pretending not to understand. If I assume, for instance, that your Swedish plan involved legal permission from the Swedish government if you were to be persecuted, than I don’t understand simple English. You are asking for me to infer your meaning, but then castigate me when I am incorrect. In the Swedish example, I thought you were trying to make an analogy with Israel. In that example, all of the Zionists quoted would assume that immigration would depend upon permission from the Israeli government and so I assumed(incorrectly) that is what you meant.

      • MHughes976
        November 1, 2015, 12:15 pm

        I’m sad to say that I think Jon is somewhat understating his case. Carmen Carenen ‘The Fervent Embrace’ p.138 draws attention to the letter signed by 16 leading Protestants, including MLK and the likeminded Niehbuhr and Stendahl, supporting and celebrating permanent Israeli control of Jerusalem at a point when many were still entertaining the fantasy of international or interfaith dispensations. That was going far beyond the needs and pressures of politics into the realm of religious conviction. The matter is still serious because his moral authority is so great.
        Donald distinguishes between MLK’s moral authority and his factual information. But the truth is that MLK used his moral authority in Israel’s service. Donald entertains the possibility that he was duped or even lying, but these things would detract seriously from his moral authority, part of which depends on reasonable ability to assess facts and even more not to lie about them.
        MLK was no fool, had visited the Holy Land and was very concerned about it because a split was threatened in his movement because of it. This had led to an abortive plan for a pilgrimage of peace. He cannot have been in factual error about democracy and brotherhood in the sense of not knowing who had voting rights and who had been deprived of them, who owned and who had lost property, who held fraternal feelings for whom and who cherished hatreds. He chose to evaluate these facts using the positive terms brotherhood and democracy and the influence of that evaluation has been very marked and very bad. An explicit and forceful call from him for change in the ME would have made an enormous difference over the years.
        It is still a major difficulty in our way that someone whose moral authority stands so high was in fact a Zionist, perhaps a rather discreet Zionist but quite explicit when it came to the point. Facts aren’t reduced in impact by simple possibilities, such as that he might have changed – might of course have become a more conservative and establishment figure as he grew older. The stronger (not really ‘liberal’) Zionist statements come towards the tragic end of his life, so in this respect the movement of his thought, if any, was actually in the wrong direction.
        I once thought that MLK was so preoccupied with matters American that he didn’t really have time for matters international, including this one. The more I looked into it the more I saw the international, but terribly flawed, nature of his vision and the more I saw its connection with the liberal Protestant ethic of the time, which had impacted on me, a somewhat less famous lib Prot young person in those days. I must admit that some of his tremendous speeches have a somewhat hollow ring to me now.

      • Jon66
        November 1, 2015, 12:49 pm

        Hughes,
        Thanks. I do not bring up Dr. King because his opinion is definitive or to support my cause. I bring him up as an example of a paragon of civil rights who most posters here would admire. He felt differently about Israel than the majority of people here. There demonization of Zionists as evil (Kris) and racist(too numerous to list) does not help further the discussion. I think we would get a lot closer to a fair and peaceful solution if we recognized each other as people with differ wrong views striving for answers rather than as Nazis.

      • echinococcus
        November 1, 2015, 1:27 pm

        Hughes,

        It sure looks as if you were entirely right. I always forget to factor in the terrible damages of religion.

      • Donald
        November 1, 2015, 2:08 pm

        MHughes–I will accept your view of King as you have read more than I have on this. My feeling is that the banal statement that nobody s perfect is actually a deep truth about humans in general. I think we are all morally blind or hypocritical about one issue or another, both on large political issues and in our daily lives. So I can accept MLK as a moral giant, but he was also a flawed human being. Using his moral authority as a shield for Zionism just doesn’t work–given what you tell me he clearly lied and repeated the standard liberal line at the time.

        On liberal Protestantism, I think you are right. This is more a personal impression, but my sense is that after the Holocaust the liberal Christian world finally woke up to the long shameful history of Christian antisemitism. Unfortunately even people who think of themselves as sophisticated have difficulty holding more than one thought in their heads at the same time. So in an atmosphere where Christians were facing up to 2000 years of antisemitism they had difficulty seeing the fact that Israelis were themselves guilty of bigotry, racism, and various crimes. They shut their eyes. Taking a less charitable view, they didn’t want t be accused of antisemitism just when they were trying to come to terms with it.

        Were they monsters? No, just flawed humans being hypocritical. Which of course doesn’t mean we shouldn’t point this out.

        Jon66′ if you only meant to point to MLK’s moral inconsistency and argue that a good person could take a pro-Zionist view, then yes. Even good people can be wrong on some issues. But you were trying to claim that MLK recognized Israel’s flaws and defended it anyway, when the quote you cited actually shows KIng giving a badly distorted dishonest summary of the conflict. In your quote MLK portrays Israel as a virtual utopia, while the Arab antipathy is motivated solely by poverty, ignorance, and a need for scapegoats.

      • Jon66
        November 1, 2015, 2:41 pm

        Here’s another perspective from John Lewis, a giant in the civil rights movement and a close friend of MLK.

        http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/I-have-a-dream-for-peace-in-the-Middle-East-2880295.php#ixzz2IVJ7sbWb

      • Donald
        November 1, 2015, 3:24 pm

        I read your link, Jon66 and it’s the same perspective–he repeats MLK’s shamefully inaccurate summary of the conflict which puts all the blame on the Palestinians.

        I grew up on this stuff, Jon66. It was actually liberal in comparison to people who saw Arabs as Nazis in robes, but only just barely. It’s condescending racism in liberal form and dishonest about the history. Whatever one thinks about liberal Zionism, there are liberal Zionists who are far more honest about Israel’s crimes than MLK was and yet you keep citing civil rights icons as though their views are somehow compelling evidence of something. They are–they are compelling evidence of the sort of political correctness that dominated liberal discussion of Israel in the US for many decades.

        You claimed that MLK knew Israel’s flaws and supported Israel anyway, but the cite shows that whatever he knew he lied about it in public.

      • echinococcus
        November 1, 2015, 3:41 pm

        Yes, Jon666, John Lewis has been well known as a Zionist […] for a long time. So what?

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2015, 4:33 pm

        “A Zio-supremacist equates Jewish terrorism, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands, land theft, occupation, colonization, oppression, torture, murder and sundry past and on-going (war) crimes with the legalization of marijuana.”

        I know what that kind of slander is called. It’s not a pretty name, either.

      • tree
        November 1, 2015, 5:59 pm

        Jon, you are using an appeal to authority to justify the racism inherent in Zionism. The question is not was MLK a Zionist or not, but rather is ZIonism a form of racism and if it is, which I and most of us here agree it is, is Zionism wrong? Is racism wrong?

        Even civil rights icons can be imperfect and subject to fallacies and petty prejudices, whether positive or negative. MLK himself was clearly sexist in orientation despite also being a civil rights hero. Does that make sexism OK?

        No, it merely illustrates that even heroes and moral icons can have faults and and their own areas of moral blindness. Just as Thomas Jefferson could write the Declaration of Independence, declaring all men equal and yet own slaves, and ignore Native Americans’ rights (as well as women’s rights).

        This doesn’t mean that one can today pretend that acceptance of slavery or prejudice against people based on ethnicity or gender is just a matter of opinion on which reasonable people can differ. And yet that is your position on ZIonism. Is racism wrong in your opinion, or is it acceptable if Jews are the ones doing racist acts and governing a racist state?

        As an aside, concerning King’s statements at the Rabbinical Assembly, which were answers to questions rather than a speech, its clear from the time frame of his answers and the things that King said that when he was referring to the “Middle East Crisis” in March of 1968, he was referring to the then recent 1967 Six Day War, and his belief in the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state. He does not mention Palestinians at all, and when he mentions Arabs it is in the context of Arab nations, which no doubt referred at that time to Egypt, Syria and Jordan. His reference to Israel as a beacon of democracy and brotherhood was, as Donald points out, completely erroneous and only illustrates either profound ignorance on his part, or a pandering to his audience, or at worse case an expression of prejudice in favor of Jews, whom, in this assembly at least, were his allies in the US movement. I don’t see it as an endorsement of Zionism. I’m sure, if asked, he would have also averred his belief in the US’s right to exist as a sovereign state as well. It would be utterly ridiculous to therefore assume that he was a segregationist just because the US was in many ways and many places a segregated country in his lifetime. Israel does not need to be Zionist to exist, anymore than the US needs to be racist, or Italy needed to be fascist, etc, etc, in order to exist.

        To quote Michael Eric Dyson, who wrote about the sexism in the US civil rights movement, and the sexism of MLK himself, in his book, “I May Not Get There with You”:

        “We need not idolize King to appreciate his worth; neither do we need to honor him by refusing to confront his weaknesses and his limitations. In assessing King’s life, it would be immoral to value the abstract good of human perfection over concrete goods like justice, freedom, and equality — goods that King valued and helped make more accessible in our national life.”

        Whether or not MLK approved of ZIonism is not the important factor in judging Zionism. Zionism and what it stands for is the only moral basis on which to judge it. It most emphatically does not stand for justice, freedom and equality, and stands for racial/religious privilege (often in extreme and violent form) and thus is racist. If MLK was in fact a ZIonist, which is still unproven, it only illustrates a weakness of his, just as his sexism illustrated one of his weaknesses. It in no way exonerates Zionism, which must be judged by its own merits or lack of same, not whether someone you might admire endorsed it or not.

      • RoHa
        November 1, 2015, 7:05 pm

        Well said, tree.

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2015, 7:05 pm

        Thanks very much, “tree” for that generous and thoughtful response. I think you made it very clear, thanks again.

      • Jon66
        November 1, 2015, 7:38 pm

        Tree,
        Even civil rights icons can be imperfect and subject to fallacies and petty prejudices, whether positive or negative. MLK himself was clearly sexist in orientation despite also being a civil rights hero. Does that make sexism OK? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist?replytocom=807142#respond

        I still think that a fair reading of King’s interviews and speeches combined with the information provided by his claim friends such as John Lewis indicate strongly that he was a Zionist.
        I agree an “authority” on a subject can be wrong especially concerning areas outside their expertise. Dr.King was certainly not an expert on sexism or physics. He was however and expert on racism. That doesn’t mean he was correct, but I do give him considerable weight on the subject. I wouldn’t ask my orthopedic surgeon about my colon cancer, but I would give considerable weight to my oncologist. Of course both could be wrong.
        That is why I believe your analogy to Jefferson is flawed. The founding fathers all had ideas of how to form a new democracy and none were completely correct.

      • RoHa
        November 1, 2015, 10:27 pm

        “Sometimes an act, like rape or throwing a firebomb into a house is always wrong. Other times, for example the legalization of pot, there are arguments on both sides and neither is necessarily “right”. I happen to think Zionism is a case of the latter rather than the former. Others will disagree. ”

        Are you suggesting that there are situations which include a moral element, and yet which are not either right or wrong, or merely that there are situations regarding which people disagree about right and wrong?

        If the former, it seems contrary to the very notion of morality.

        If the latter, that is, as I said, the reason we have moral arguments. Even if we never arrive at a definite conclusion as to which side (and there may well be more than two) is right, that does not mean that no side is right, or that there is no right to be found.

        Where Zionism is concerned, the moral arguments come out firmly against Zionism. (If you disagree, present moral arguments for Zionism and we will discuss them.) Thus, it seems that those who support Zionism do so either through ignorance or perversity.

        And, although there are occasions on which name-calling is unproductive, there are also circumstances in which, when we see that the agricultural implement fits the definition, it is appropriate to say so.

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2015, 10:40 pm

        “Tree”, thanks anyway. I see the answer was wasted on “Jon66”. Or he is deliberately trying to evade the point. Unfortunately I think it’s the former.

      • tree
        November 1, 2015, 11:47 pm

        Jon

        You didn’t really answer my question about sexism except in a vague and roundabout way. Can I assume that you agree that sexism is wrong and that women’s rights are a subset of human and civil rights?

        You yourself called King a “civil rights paragon” and yet he had a blind spot with regards to women’s civil rights. This doesn’t make sexism right or acceptable so why do you assume that Zionism is acceptable just because you believe, rightly or wrongly, that King was Zionist? Or am I wrong and because King was sexist then its A-OK to be sexist as well, because you feel that you can relinquish your own responsibility for all your moral decisions to a simple question of “What would MLK think?”.

        And BTW, calling MLK sexist is just being honest about a moral flaw in a man who lived 50 years ago, when such a moral blind spot was commonplace. It isn’t “demonization”. So why do you claim that calling Zionism a form of racism and calling Zionists racists is “demonization”? It is just as accurate a description as calling someone who harbors sexist attitudes a sexist.

        I don’t know whether I’d call MLK an “expert” on racism, but he was a civil rights leader who called for equality of opportunity and for economic justice, and yet he failed on these two civil rights when it came to his attitudes towards women. He obviously could be fallible and mistaken on civil rights issues. Women’s rights are not some foreign subject so different from racial civil rights that could justify the difference you are attempting to claim between him being so wrong on women’s rights and yet somehow right by default of being a civil rights “paragon” and an “expert” in your words with respect to racism.

        And I would be willing to bet significant money that one subject on which MLK was clearly not an expert was Zionism. Frankly there were very few experts in the US on the intricacies and history of Zionism back in 1968.

        I doubt that King knew that the JNF, in its founding charter in 1901, demanded restrictive covenants on the land it bought in Palestine, preventing non-Jews from living or working on such land, and preventing non-Jews from ever purchasing that land in the future. I doubt he knew that Zionists evicted Palestinian tenant farmers from lands they and their ancestors may have worked for centuries; farmers who had clear usufructuary rights to work that land under Ottoman and earlier Muslim land law. I doubt that he knew that the Zionists called that discriminatory policy the “conquest of land” and they likewise engaged in the “conquest of labor” which not only advocated boycotting of non-Jewish labor by Jewish businesses, but also advocated that the British government give preferential employment to Jews over Arabs and pay Jews a higher wage than it paid non-Jews. I doubt that he knew that the Zionists opposed Great Britain instituting an agricultural loan program in the early 1920’s to help the Palestinian farmers who were hurt financially by the end of Ottoman agricultural loans, unless those loans were administered by the Zionist Anglo-Palestine Bank and distributed loans to foreign Jewish farmers as well, even though the Zionist apparatus already provided loans to foreign Jews, and only foreign Jews, itself. I also doubt that he knew that the Great Arab Revolt of 1936 against Great Britain began as a direct result of efforts by the Zionist Jewish Agency to forcibly, and sometimes quite violently, displace Palestinian workers in Jewish owned businesses in the mid 1930’s. I likewise doubt that he knew that numerous ZIonist founders and executives talked about the transfer of Palestinians out of the country for decades before the Palestinians were violently displaced en masse in 1948. I doubt that he knew that Israel’s “Law of Return” was originally formulated not to provide refuge for those who might have needed it, but to solve Israel’s problem of how to provide citizenship for all the Jews that then lived in what was then Israel while denying the same to the the vast majority of Palestinians who should have had exactly the same citizenship rights as the Jews who lived there. I likewise doubt that he knew Israel only accepted the Partition Plan with exceptions, including no agreement to the territorial limits of the Jewish state, or the guarantee of civil rights to non-Jews. In other words, all the Zionists “agreed to” was what they wanted in the first place, a Jewish state. I also doubt that he knew that from 1948 through 1966 the Palestinian non-Jewish “citizens” of Israel were ruled under military law, unlike all the Jewish citizens. Or that since 1948, not only has Israel confiscated land owned privately by the Palestinians who were forced out of the country, but also the majority of the land owned by its own Palestinian citizens, and for the most part it did so and continues to do so to provide more housing for Jews only. It’s refused to connect some Palestinian villages in Israel that existed prior to Israel’s creation to the same electrical , water and sewage services that it routinely provides to all Jewish localities in Israel and even to the majority of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, regardless of whether Israel even considers those Jewish settlements legal or not. I also doubt that he knew that the IDF shot and killed thousands of Palestinian refugees simply trying to return to their homes in the early 1950’s.

        I could go on and on with the racist things that Zionism, and the Israel that it created in its image, did prior to 1968 which exactly fit the definition of racist and discriminatory acts. Either MLK was completely ignorant of these things or he was one of the biggest hypocrites of all time, excusing and even supporting Jewish racism. I think its more likely that, like the vast majority of Americans, he was mostly ignorant of all this, and fed instead with the false narratives of eternal and universal Jewish innocence and high moral character. These points I mentioned are the facts of Zionism’s existence and its lack of morality. Trying to convince us all that Zionism isn’t racism despite its own actions and ideology just because MLK was supposedly a Zionist is an immoral folly.

        Again, the question is not what did MLK think of Zionism, but are all these actions I have enumerated, as well as the numerous ones I haven’t mentioned here, and the ones committed by Israel since 1968, acts of racism or not? I say they are and if you support an ideology that underpins and commits these racist acts, then you are supporting a form of racism, which honestly makes you a racist. Whether you like the label or not, it is an entirely accurate one.

        —-

        To Roha and Mooser, thanks for the kind comments.

        I strongly agreed with your eloquent comment above, Roha, although I must confess the occasional desire to invade Russia myself. Too much Dostoevsky as a child, I’m afraid. ;-)

      • Annie Robbins
        November 2, 2015, 12:39 am

        I doubt that King knew that the JNF…. I doubt he knew that Zionists evicted Palestinian tenant farmers …. I doubt that he knew that the Zionists called that discriminatory policy the “conquest of land” ….. I doubt that he knew that the Zionists opposed Great Britain instituting an agricultural loan program …… I doubt that he knew that Israel’s “Law of Return” was…..

        tree, i doubt martin knew much about the history and actions of the zionists either. why would he? information revealing israel’s true nature was covered up. you mentioned jon didn’t really answer your question. no he didn’t. he copy pasted it and then ignored it for the most part, reiterating what he’d previously stated.

        thank you, excellent comment ;)

      • yonah fredman
        November 2, 2015, 1:17 am

        Some comments regarding the 1960’s as it relates to American Jews, blacks and Israel. Among American Jews support for Israel was different than it is today: more widespread. Someone on one of the threads quoted Howard Zinn which prompted me to read quotes of his regarding Zionism. He was never really a Zionist but his consciousness of the damage done to the Palestinians seriously lagged behind his consciousness on other issues in 1967 and I suspect that there was greater support for Israel, more genuine support rather than trained and habitual support than there is today among American Jews for Israel. Although the issues of Shoah and Jewish statehood are two separate issues, I think the two issues particularly in 1967 were very intertwined in many American Jewish minds and even if the fears of Nasser were exaggerated, I don’t think many American Jews considered him a reasonable man and even if Israeli military actions in November 66 and April of 67 can give us perspective on the causes of the crisis of 67, very few were aware of those causes and instead focused on Nasser and the drumbeat towards war initiated by the Arabs in May of 67 and thus the overwhelming support for Israel among American Jews before that war was quite genuine and should not be underestimated.

        The enmity of black radicals towards the Jews in the civil rights movements can be studied in the person of Kwame Toure, (slave name Stokely Carmichael). The Black Power movement and the scorn thrust in the direction of white participants in the movement cannot be ignored when trying to understand where MLK’s stance was coming from and the type of rhetoric in the movement at the time. The anti Zionist rhetoric of the Soviet Union was parroted by the likes of H Rap Brown and was contiguous if not continuous with the anti Jewish rhetoric of the Northern urban riots that hit the Jewish businesses in the ghettos with arson and ruin. It was in that context that King was rejecting the anti Zionist rhetoric used by the radical part of the movement.

      • Sibiriak
        November 2, 2015, 3:04 am

        @tree Excellent well-written, well-argued, eloquent comments.

        Jon, you are using an appeal to authority to justify the racism inherent in Zionism.

        For me, the appeal to MLK as an authority fails on three counts.

        1) There is no value in an appeal to authority in this case since all the basic facts of Zionism/Palestine/Israel etc. are now on the table, easily accessible to any and all.

        2) MLK was not an authority on Zionism/Palestine/Israel etc.

        3) MLK demonstrably got the facts wrong.

        One question: do you feel that Jewish anti-goyism is inherently racist and is the taproot of Zionism?

      • bryan
        November 2, 2015, 3:48 am

        This entire discussion about MLK has been utterly fatuous. He died in 1968, when the occupation had barely got started. Even at his death the government was being advised that settlement in the territories would be illegal, the Greater Israel mob had barely got going and land for peace was the watchword. The immigration of fundamentalist bigots from Brooklyn and Moscow had not yet begun. Israeli platitudes about a light unto the world and the search for peace were then going unchallenged. Israel had not yet chosen to back Apartheid in South Africa, and still had friends in sub-Saharan Africa, because of a focus on medical, educational and agricultural development as a means to win friends, rather than simply dealing in blood diamonds and selling security systems to dictators. The authentic history of ethnic cleansing, massacre, and transfer was not to be written until two decades after his death by the likes of Morris, Segev, Flapan, Kimmerling, Masallah and Pappe. Israel was still apparently ruled by social democrats rather than by right-wing bigots. Israel may not have changed that much during the decades after MLK’s death, but public (and especially scholarly) perceptions of it certainly have, and any equivalent civil rights leader today could not possibly adopt the stance that at that time was the norm.

        Well done, Jon666, for devilishly diverting this discussion down a dead alley.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 2, 2015, 4:15 am

        Well done, Jon666, for devilishly diverting this discussion down a dead alley.

        apropos for a ‘Why I am a Zionist’ thread? but more like ‘how i am a zionist’: failed point scoring via divert divert divert.

      • Sibiriak
        November 2, 2015, 4:31 am

        bryan: This entire discussion about MLK has been utterly fatuous. He died in 1968, when the occupation had barely got started.

        […]he Greater Israel mob had barely got going and land for peace was the watchword.

        […]The authentic history of ethnic cleansing, massacre, and transfer was not to be written until two decades after his death by the likes of Morris, Segev, Flapan, Kimmerling, Masallah and Pappe. ETC.
        —————–

        Great comment. It raises an interesting point though: Zionism– its central ideas –cannot be immediately construed as inherently racist. You need to know all those additional facts about the actual history of Zionist actions to come to that conclusion.

      • Donald
        November 2, 2015, 7:13 am

        I’m glad jon66 brought it up–this was the comment section at its best, where a claim can be discussed and in this case shown to be false ( in the most detail by tree) on both factual and logical grounds. I don’t understand the complaint about this. Isn’t this a large part of what the comment section is for?

        Of course it is unlikely to stop jon66 himself from repeating the claim elsewhere. You can tell it is just too good for him to pass on using it and up to this point he has simply evaded responding in a clear fashion to the refutations. In some other venue he will probably continue to use MLK’s reputation to show that an ” expert on racism” gave Israel his seal of approval. He might even continue to make the claim here, so someone should bookmark tree’s response and link it when needed. I would like to be wrong about this–maybe Jon will reconsider and stop using the King statements, but judging from the way he then used Lewis I have trouble feeling much optimism.

      • Jon66
        November 2, 2015, 7:56 am

        Tree,
        Thanks for the lengthy reply. To answer your question, I think racism is wrong, but I don’t think Zionism is racism.

        As for Dr.King and sexism, I honestly don’t know much about his position. If he didn’t address it maybe he thought it was good and maybe he didn’t think it was an area of expertise. Do you have a statement saying he thought was acceptable?
        I think we will to continue to disagree on whether or not he supported Israel as a Zionist state. Given his speeches writings and the word of his close friends, I believe that he was supportive.
        As far as your list of biases, bad behaviors, and crimes -I have no reason to doubt you. I think Israel is a flawed state and has many problems. So does America and every other country. We are human and we are flawed. The question is whether those flaws are redeemable/correctable or inherently a part of Zionism. I think Israel can be “fixed” within a Zionist framework, but I know I am a monority here.
        Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly and politely.

      • Jon66
        November 2, 2015, 9:59 am

        Sib,
        Great comment. It raises an interesting point though: Zionism– its central ideas –cannot be immediately construed as inherently racist. You need to know all those additional facts about the actual history of Zionist actions to come to that conclusion. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist?replytocom=807212#respond

        That’s my point on the question of “Why I am a Zionist”. There is discrimination in Israel( I don’t call it racism because I don’t think there is a Jewish race). The question is whether or not that discrimination can be remedied or whether Zionism at its base is flawed. Is it principle or execution?

      • Mooser
        November 2, 2015, 12:01 pm

        “Yonah Fredman” “Some comments regarding the 1960’s as it relates to American Jews, blacks and Israel.”

        I got that far, and stopped. Why ruin what started out as the funniest Mondo comment ever?

      • Mooser
        November 2, 2015, 12:06 pm

        “Zionism– its central ideas –cannot be immediately construed as inherently racist.”

        Give me a dictionary and Thesaurus and I’ll do the exact same thing for slavery. I’ll make “its central ideas” sound like a huge favor on the part of the slave-owner. Luckily, we have its actions to judge by.

      • Mooser
        November 2, 2015, 12:22 pm

        The enmity of black radicals towards the Jews in the civil rights movements can be studied in the person of Kwame Toure, (slave name Stokely Carmichael). The Black Power movement and the scorn thrust in the direction of white participants in the movement cannot be ignored…/… the Northern urban riots that hit the Jewish businesses in the ghettos with arson and ruin. It was in that context that King was rejecting the anti Zionist rhetoric used by the radical part of the movement.

        A masterpiece, that last paragraph! A veritable masterpiece. Love the conflation of Jewish/White! The explication of the internal stresses of the Civil Rights movement! And the antisemitic Soviets! Jewish businesses in the ghettos! Man, that paragraph is so loaded, it nearly exploded. This poor Moosie shakes with alarm!

      • talknic
        November 2, 2015, 7:56 pm

        Sibiriak “… the borders based on the armistice agreements of 1949 and subsequent peace agreements..”

        There has never been an Armistice Agreement or Peace Agreement with Palestine.

        The Peace agreement between Israel and Egypt states that Israel will first withdraw from all of Egypt’s sovereign territory before peaceful relations are assumed. Doesn’t mention and Peace Treaty with Palestine.

        ” With respect to Palestine, the armistice line, aka “Green Line” or “pre-1967 borders,” has become the provisional border that divides “Israeli territory” from “occupied Palestinian territory“”

        Armistice Agreement :

        “2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.

        There has been no ultimate settlement of the Palestine question. The territories Israel has acquired by war since proclaiming its borders effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) are not yet Israeli

        ” it is to be the basis for a final agreement and permanent border between Israel and Palestine. “

        “is to be” meaning it is not yet!

        “This conception was cemented by UN res 242 “

        UNSC res 242 says nothing about Palestine. UNSC res 242 was to achieve peace between the warring UN Member states. The Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt is an example. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/isregypt.asp

        Note where it refers to UNSC res 242. Furthermore UNSC res 242 does not mention any negotiation over borders. All the warring UN Member states already had proclaimed and “recognized” borders. http://wp.me/PDB7k-6r

        “… under international law it is the Green line–not the original UN -recommended “partition borders”–that define the extent of Israeli sovereignty”

        International Law says it is inadmissible to acquire territory by force/war/any coercive means. Israel has never acquired any territory beyond its proclaimed borders by any legal agreement.

        “Until and unless the parties involved agree to changes to that provisional border, Israeli retains full sovereignty within the Green Line”

        Until and unless the parties involved agree, no territory acquired by Israel by any coercive measure since proclaiming its borders effective, is yet Israeli.

        “Thus, an invasion across the Green Line would be an act of armed aggression”

        Schwebel, Lauterpacht, Herzog disagree. The sovereign may “restore” their territory by force. This would be especially true when all peaceful means via UN Chapt VI resolutions have failed.

      • Dan
        November 2, 2015, 9:49 pm

        @talknic

        “The Peace agreement between Israel and Egypt states that Israel will first withdraw from all of Egypt’s sovereign territory before peaceful relations are assumed”

        Can you substantiate that claim, because according to the treaty, the withdrawal took place in phases,the final phase after diplomatic relations had already been established.

        Copy of Treaty from Egypt’s MFA website; Maps included.
        http://www.mfa.gov.eg/Lists/Treaties%20DB/Attachments/645/Peace%20Treaty_en.pdf

        Annex I. Article 1
        “3. The withdrawal from the Sinai will be accomplished in two phases:
        a. The interim withdrawal behind the line from east of El Arish to Ras Muhammed as
        delineated on Map 2- within nine months from the date of exchange of instruments of
        ratification of this Treaty.
        b. The final withdrawal from the Sinai behind the international boundary not later than
        three years from the date of exchange of instruments of ratification of this Treaty.”

        Diplomatic relations were established after the interim withdrawal, not the final withdrawal.

        Annex III. Article 1
        “The Parties agree to establish diplomatic and consular relations and to exchange ambassadors upn completion of the INTERIM withdrawal”.(bold emphasis added)
        Article 2
        “The Parties agree to remove all discriminatory barriers to normal economic
        relations and to terminate economic boycotts of each other upon completion of the
        Interim withdrawal”
        Article 3
        “The Parties agree to establish normal cultural relations following completion of
        the Interim withdrawal.”@talknic

      • talknic
        November 3, 2015, 12:13 am

        Dan “… the withdrawal took place in phases,the final phase after diplomatic relations had already been established”

        No problem. I’ll accept that point & change accordingly.

      • tree
        November 3, 2015, 4:05 pm

        Sibiriak,

        One question: do you feel that Jewish anti-goyism is inherently racist and is the taproot of Zionism? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist#comment-807170

        Sorry for the delay in answering. Between my struggle with writer’s block and lack of time, my reading and commenting here is someone constrained. I alwaus try to answer questions directed at me but don’t always get the chance.

        I guess I would have to answer yes and no. Yes, I think that most Jewish anti-goyism is racist (using racist in its broadest term here.) I don’t think it was the taproot of Zionism however.

        A taproot is the primary root of something and I think Zionism had multiple roots, rather than one taproot. I see its beginnings firmly rooted in the era of its time within European thought, deriving its ideation out of the concepts of scientific racism, polygenism, and romantic nationalism. Contrary to how it is pushed and perceived today, it was originally more interested in “improving” the Jewish “race” or “nation” than it was providing a refuge. The assumption being that this “new Jew” would obviate any need for a refuge in the first place. I see elements of Turnerism, eugenics and a simplistic form of epigenetics at play in the belief that hard physical outdoor work could create such a collective change. I also think it was influenced early on by concerns about losing traditional tribal Jewish cohesion through loss of religious belief and through communism. Zionism chose ethnocentrism as its way to cement tribal cohesion, and ethnocentrism is a form of racism. I think Akiva Orr describes it well here:

        Certainly Jewish prejudice against non-Jews was a significant factor in early Zionism, and its beliefs and actions towards the Palestinians, who were certainly seen as inferior. At this point I see the same general “anti-goy” prejudice, as well as the lack of any real acknowledgement of this prejudice, as the core reason why there is such pushback for Zionism and against treating all people as equal before the law and the state in Israel. That includes the prejudice of some American Jews and non-Jewish Zionists, and sometimes even among those who oppose Zionism.

        Rabbi Alissa Wisse’s speech to the Friends of Sabeel several months ago highlighted this lack of confrontation with Jewish prejudice. She talked about being told that no one helped the Jews during the Holocaust and how much that traumatized her. Of course she was taught that by her Jewish day school and still considers herself getting over her trauma. She doesn’t seem to recognize that what she was taught was not only incorrect, it was a manifestation of Jewish bigotry against non-Jews. She lauded the Christians there for “getting out from under” the Christian church’s anti-semitism, but only mentioned getting over her “trauma”, rather than getting over the anti-goyism of her Jewish childhood schooling. She isn’t facing her own prejudices, but instead urging others to do so with their own (non-Jewish) prejudices, in a setting concerned with helping Palestinians overcoming real and deadly consequences of Jewish bigotry. Cluelessness doesn’t even begin to describe her obvious thought patterns.

        I see a positive feedback loop feeding all this prejudice. The accepted positive stereotype is that Jews are more interested in social justice and not prejudiced the way non-Jews are. At the same time there is the negatiee stereotype that most non-Jews are anti-semitic on some level. Therefore when someone criticizes Israel or Zionists or an individual Jew or group of Jews , particularly if they point out the massive discriminatory or racist actions of a Jewish State, those who are invested to some extent in this stereotype as part of their self-identity can’t accept that. The critic MUST be wrong, because ‘Jews don’t do that’. So why are these other people falsely criticizing Israel, they ask themselves? It must be because they are anti-semitic, they think because they already believe that non-Jews are inherently anti-semitic at core. Thus a circular reaffirmation of their own prejudices occurs. Which is not to say that no Jews ever question the prejudice they might have been taught, or that might still exist in their own beliefs, but the number that haven’t confronted this prejudice in their environment and their own thought processes is significant. Its the vast majority in Israel and possibly even a majority in the US. White prejudice had to be confronted by whites on an individual as well as a group basis in order to accomplish the goals of the civil rights movement. And the majority of whites during that time did harbor various degrees of racism. The confrontation of those white prejudices has certainly not been complete, even at this late date, but so far there is very little self-confrontation of Jewish prejudice. I see that as a necessary component of attaining justice and equality for the Palestinians. It all boils down to a question of Jewish self-identity, and confronting the reality rather than embracing the stereotype.

        Sorry for the long and somewhat rambling response.

      • tree
        November 3, 2015, 6:16 pm

        Jon

        To answer your question, I think racism is wrong, but I don’t think Zionism is racism.

        Actually, the question I asked in my reply to you was whether you think sexism is wrong or not. You haven’t answered that one and your following paragraph doesn’t shed any light on your attitudes regarding this.

        As for Dr.King and sexism, I honestly don’t know much about his position. If he didn’t address it maybe he thought it was good and maybe he didn’t think it was an area of expertise. Do you have a statement saying he thought was acceptable?

        Jon, perhaps you didn’t understand this from my previous posts, but MLK was sexist in action and behavior as well statement. He didn’t “address” it because he wasn’t confronting it, in himself or in his movement or in the wider context of the US and the world. It wasn’t a case of him not thinking it an “area of expertise”. He simply accepted discrimination against women as a given not worthy of questioning. He was fallible. It doesn’t make him a bad person over all, it just shows that he was susceptible to moral blind spots like the rest of humanity. He was sexist. The book I mentioned above discusses some of the sexism he participated in and condoned, but if you want a few short articles to read there are these:

        http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/26/305106/martin-luther-king-jr-s-advice-to-the-ladies/

        http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2013/08/the_rampant_sexism_at_the_march_on_washington.html

        http://femadvocate.blogspot.com/2011/01/martin-luther-king-jr-in-feminist.html

        I think we will to continue to disagree on whether or not he supported Israel as a Zionist state. Given his speeches writings and the word of his close friends, I believe that he was supportive.

        My main disagreement with you is not whether he was or was not a Zionist, its that it is entirely irrelevant. He was not an expert on Zionism and knew little of its history, and apparently what he did “know” was false and he himself had moral holes in his vision. Co-opting your own morality to a formula of excusing your own beliefs by comparing them to some poorly informed man, even a “civil rights paragon” in your words, from 50 years ago is just wrong. And frankly a juvenile line of reasoning. You should be able to do better than that.

        As far as your list of biases, bad behaviors, and crimes -I have no reason to doubt you.

        I take it you mean that you were not aware of these things prior to my mention of them.* Can I ask you then, if you weren’t aware of these actions and ideological beliefs of political Zionism from its very beginnings, how can you consider yourself informed enough about the concept of Zionism to make any judgment about its merits or lack of same? Maybe you need to do your own research on Zionism in order to come to a conclusion about it rather than relying on simple excuses for your own lack of knowledge by relying on your belief that MLK endorsed Zionism (on a likewise uninformed basis). Right now you are judging Zionism as not racist on the basis of ignorance. As well as on emotional grounds rather than intellectual or informed grounds, I suspect.

        The question is whether those flaws are redeemable/correctable or inherently a part of Zionism. I think Israel can be “fixed” within a Zionist framework, but I know I am a monority here.

        I think the flaws in Israel are correctable. I fail to see how they can get there “within a Zionist framework.” Zionism is an ethnocentric ideology that puts Jews first above all others. How can one get to equality and justice (prerequisites for real and lasting peace) from an ideology which is so counter to equality and believes itself the state of all Jews, rather than the state of all of its citizens, regardless their ethnicity or religion? What would a “Zionist framework” look like in your opinion. A kinder and gentler occupation? Simply an end to the occupation? How could it even end the occupation when to do so would negatively impact the Jewish privilege, not to mention what equal treatment of all its citizens would do for Jewish privilege, which is the very basis of Zionism.
        It would be equivalent to “fixing” US civil rights flaws in a segregationist framework

        If you think you have a vision of what that ZIonism framework would be like I can only see two possibilities. One is merely lipstick on a pig, a more genteel racism in Israel; or two, the framework would not be a Zionist one. You can’t get to justice for all by clinging to Zionist ideology. Why do you have such an attachment to it, when it has caused such grief and you are so ill-informed on it?

        * I thought about providing links for the points about Zionism I mentioned but decided against it as being too time consuming to facilitate a timely response on my part. If you want more info you can click on my name and then search my archives . I have mentioned most of these points before, usually with links. I could also recommend some books and papers you could read if you are interested in more information.

      • Jon66
        November 3, 2015, 7:06 pm

        Tree,

        Actually, the question I asked in my reply to you was whether you think sexism is wrong or not. You haven’t answered that one and your following paragraph doesn’t shed any light on your attitudes regarding this. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist?replytocom=807585#respond

        I think sexism is wrong.
        I brought up MLK in the context of “why I am a Zionist”. I thought he would be an acceptable reference for many here who view all Zionists as evil doers. I don’t agree with all of MLK’s positions either. My support for Israel is independent of MLK. When I cite articles or persons here I do my best to use sources like EI or Mondo that are recognized and accepted. It is that vontext that I mentioned MLK. If I had said that I support Zionism I would have been dismissed.
        I’ve seen and read of the early and modern history of Zionism and it’s not without its flaws. Again, it’s a human institution and is imperfect. Can you say that Palestinian nationalism is without errors or crimes? I don’t know of any human institution that is not. It’s not an excuse for crimes or errors but an explanation.

      • Mooser
        November 3, 2015, 8:05 pm

        “Can you say that Palestinian nationalism is without errors or crimes?” “Jon66”

        Like what crimes? Happening to live there? Being ruled by outsiders for several centuries? Tell “Jon66” what are the “errors” and “crimes” of “Palestinian Nationalism?
        That they didn’t all just lay down and die when the Zionist came in? Was that their “error” or “crime”? Or was it being an extremely, by all evidence, pacific people and having no military tradition or organization to wipe out invaders?
        That they tried, insofar as humanly possible to live in peace, and allowed the Zionists to gain a foot hold? Please tell me of their “crimes” and “errors”

        What the hell are you talking about? No wait, let me guess, you’re about to bring up the Mufti, right?

        ” I don’t agree with all of MLK’s positions either.”

        Again, do yourself a favor and don’t tell us which of MLK Jr. “positions” you don’t agree with.

      • Mooser
        November 3, 2015, 8:24 pm

        @”Jon66″: So after all that, after all that, you just shrug and go, ‘well, the Palestinians must have done something (some “crime” or “error”) to deserve it’.

        Don’t stop there, please. Complete the circle and tell us it’s all for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

      • Sibiriak
        November 3, 2015, 10:52 pm

        tree: Sibiriak, […]Sorry for the delay in answering. Between my struggle with writer’s block and lack of time, my reading and commenting here is someone constrained.

        ————–
        Thank you for such a comprehensive, cogent response. Writer’s block? Whatever is “blocking” you, I wish I had some of that stuff!

        I hope to respond to some of your points shortly.

      • bryan
        November 4, 2015, 6:50 am

        Jon666: “I’ve seen and read of the early and modern history of Zionism and it’s not without its flaws. Again, it’s a human institution and is imperfect.”

        Please elaborate Jon or is there a tribal prohibition on reflection, transparency and honesty? Flaws and imperfections? Is Zionism to be sold at a discount as “seconds”, or can you demand your money back? Flaws and imperfections? Is that a slight scratch on the underside, or an unsightly knot-hole on the surface, or a small fray in the cloth along the inner seam? Or is it a euphemism for murder, theft and ethnic cleansing? And what do you mean by “early and modern”? Do you mean the developers released version 1 with a series of bugs in the software, and did not bother to fix these when they released version 7.91? Are we talking slight flaws or are we talking shoddy goods? What does trading standards have to say on the matter? Oh they have passed numerous resolutions, which have all been studiously ignored? Ah, I see what you mean about slight imperfections!

      • MHughes976
        November 5, 2015, 11:42 am

        May I add the results of a few days looking round for facts and opinions about MLK. I’ve had a look at the pro-Zionist (slightly smug) Martin Kramer, who claims to identify the time and place where M in conversation seems to have equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, an equation which I don’t think he ever made in a public speech or in writing. I’ve also looked at the long essay by Lenni Brenner, who takes a positive view of Stokely Carmichael, the most important anti-Z in the MLK circle: I found it in a site called Black Politics Online. There’s also a site I had not previously encountered called the Nurse Chronicles, (NC) very pro-Palestinian.
        M was under pressure to maintain his plan to visit the Holy Land in the aftermath of the 67 war, but slowly pulled out because it would look like endorsing ‘everything Israel has done, where I have questions of doubt’ – this apparently from an FBI wiretap. He considered his reputation would suffer with someone significant whatever he did – the same consideration as had once swayed the white moderates who disappointed him. These privately expressed ‘questions of doubt’ seem to be the closest he ever came to questioning Zionism: and it is not much to set against his public statements above mentioned.
        Brenner is convinced that M would have changed. He could not have resisted the anger that came to Black leaders when they became aware of the Israeli cooperation with the apartheid regime. This was, says Brenner, a decisive fact for Carmichael himself, who had grown up in left-wing and communist circles where enthusiasm for Z was universal. But as Brenner also says the tendency of Black leaders over the years was to condemn Israel for helping in the oppression of people with whom American Blacks already identified, not to develop any sense of identifying with Palestinians.
        M was in error factually or was misinformed – that is what most people here are saying. Brenner endorses the view that few Americans knew much of Palestine. However, M’s persona was both that of a highly educated and cultured person – think of his final Mountaintop speech with its invocation of Greek democratic culture – and of a hardheaded, well-informed, man of the world. He reports on his visit to London with some rather negative remarks about British imperialism, supported by a quote from Churchill on India, which he must have checked carefully. I don’t think this persona was a sham.
        We cannot, I think, suppose that a person of this kind was misled about the facts of Palestine enough to make all the difference. He had been to Palestine and must have talked to people who knew the facts. Later on, the same facts must have pressed on him by the likes of Carmichael.
        Discussions may never have reached the detailed facts which tree rehearses but we cannot take too much comfort from that. M must have known (Nurse Chron makes this point well) of Deir Yassin and Lavon – matters which were and are quite sufficient to put Zionism in deep question. The problem for us is with the moral mindset of the left-wing people and liberal Christians which prevailed at the time and is still very strong now. Bernie Sanders and all that.

  13. inbound39
    October 30, 2015, 7:52 pm

    Well…that was ALL a very interesting read. What I got from all that is Zionists are self centered and self obsessed thus breeding an air of self entitlement and thus granting the ability to recognise that in order to get their”safe haven” they are in fact subjecting Palestinians to the same treatment and dispossession they themselves were subjected to during WW2. 20 million Russians died also during that war….Many of them died in Concentration camps also. Do you hear Russia playing the victim card year after year? Do you see America giving Russia 3 billion dollars in aid yearly? No and nor do Russians ask for or expect it. They make their own way in the World and make their own money.They have more pride.

    Zionist seem okay with not obeying laws that govern the World and exempt themselves on the basis of being Jewish then wonder why everyone dislikes them. Right now Zionists think they can conduct themselves like the Gestapo and murder Palestinians at will just so they can impose their beliefs on ALL Palestinians and they will wonder why the World will want to remove Zionists. Zionists have created their own demise by their own self centeredness and air of self entitlement lacking totally in humanity,empathy and conscience. I do not ever want what Zionists have….what a gross insult to humanity they are.

    • RoHa
      October 31, 2015, 12:50 am

      “20 million Russians died also during that war….Many of them died in Concentration camps also. Do you hear Russia playing the victim card year after year?”

      And Chinese and Filipinos and Indonesians and Libyans and Indians and …

      • Citizen
        October 31, 2015, 12:59 pm

        Six million Polish citizens were killed during World War II. Half of these Polish citizens were non-Jews.

        The Gypsies were also moved into special areas set up by the Nazis and half a million of them – representing almost the entire Eastern European Gypsy population – was wiped out during the Holocaust.

    • Shingo
      October 31, 2015, 4:04 am

      What I got from all that is Zionists are self centered and self obsessed thus breeding an air of self entitlement

      This is most obvious when these so called liberals insist Iran should not be “allowed” to have nukes, while justifying Israel having them.

      Everyone else’s security is secondary to Israel’s.

  14. tokyobk
    October 30, 2015, 8:44 pm

    Cosign but sadly, Phil, many safe countries including ours were built on stolen lands.

    What I think you mean to say is countries built on stolen land shouldn’t be safe and that we have arrived at a new moment different from most of the human past.

    • Annie Robbins
      October 30, 2015, 8:50 pm

      What I think you mean to say is countries built on stolen land shouldn’t be safe

      i don’t think that’s what he meant to say at all. for one thing, it implies israel is not still colonizing the land. no one in the process of colonization or otherwise committing a crime (against international law especially) should anticipate protection or safety. that’s absurd.

      • tokyobk
        October 30, 2015, 9:24 pm

        I agree with Phil and what you are saying (I think) above.

        Phil says “you can’t have safety if you build a state on stolen lands.”

        Alas, this is not true in history, especially not in the history of my your and Phil’s own country. Hopefully its true going forward.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        October 31, 2015, 11:15 am

        “as, this is not true in history, especially not in the history of my your and Phil’s own country.”

        The situation in the US is very different to that in Israel.

        In the US (and also Australia) we had a situation whereby European colonists arrived in a very large land populated only by a small number of natives. It was quite easy for these technologically advanced Europeans to wipe out any resistance, and the remaining population was small and insignificant enough not to pose a threat to the colonists. So the US, and Australia, are what you might term ‘succesful’ colonial projects.

        The situation in Palestine is very different, and more akin (though not exactly the same) as the European colonies in Africa. Like America or Australia, Palestine was also invaded by European colonists, but not only did this happen later (and approaching a time when colonialism was no longer looked upon with favour) but the Zionists settled in a land which was small, relatively densely populated, and surrounded by millions of people ethnically and religiously close to the natives of Palestine. The Zionists cannot simply shunt off the natives to a few reservations and forget about them, like the Australians and Americans have done. There’s simply too many of them, and nowhere for them to go.

        Much as Israel would love to get rid of all Palestinians (by whatever means), they simply can’t. And even if they did, they would still be surrounded by millions of Arabs who hate them. That is why the Zionism colonial project is doomed to fail, and why Israel will never – and should never – enjoy safety and security.

      • JanetB
        October 31, 2015, 7:53 pm

        Colonialism in the “New World” was successful for the most part because of the susceptibility of the natives to “Old World” diseases. It is estimated that 100 million people died post 1492 most from diseases such chicken pox, influenza and small pox. Depending where in the Americas you are talking about the technological superiority of Europeans was not a given. For example the conquistadores would have been Aztec steak.

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2015, 12:09 am

        “Colonialism in the “New World” was successful for the most part because of the susceptibility of the natives to “Old World” diseases.”

        Thanks, Janet. And these diseases and depredations reached the New World even earlier than Columbus.
        An interesting book on the Americas in the 150 years preceding Coloumbus, is Tony Horwitz’ “A Voyage Long and Strange”

    • talknic
      November 2, 2015, 8:01 pm

      Israel is still colonizing

      The US, UK, every other nation on the planet bar one stopped long ago

  15. Shingo
    October 30, 2015, 8:58 pm

    These arguments are insane.

    Zionism and occupation are inseparable. It would be like arguing that pedophelia is fine, it’s just the sexual abuse of minors that’s the problem.

    Herzl called for spiriting the penniless populations away, so clearly there was no belief is equality and human rights.

    And thus argument that Israel just has a few bugs to iron out because it’s a young state doesn’t wash either. The US didn’t have an example to follow, no UN charter, no statute of Rome.

    Israel doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel. The formula for a true democracy and human rights is clearly spelled out. All Israel has to do is adhere to those guidelines. It simply refuses to.

  16. eljay
    October 30, 2015, 9:01 pm

    ‘Why I am a Zionist’

    Because I oppose the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality.

    Because I believe that people who…
    – undergo a religious conversion to Judaism; or
    – are descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism,
    …are entitled to special rights.

    Because I believe that acts of injustice and immorality committed against Jews justify acts of injustice and immorality committed by Jews.

    Because I believe that Jews are entitled to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

  17. kalithea
    October 30, 2015, 10:39 pm

    This was really painful. Is it my imagination or did this feel like deliberate chastisement? Did anyone else feel like they were being dressed down a level or reined in by the moral rectitude of Jewish self-pity or again am I just imagining this? Reading those excerpts, I had to hold my nose the whole time and find hard to describe the retching compulsion their repulsive self-indulgence provoked in me. I feel like I need a complete mind, body and spiritual detox in having ingested this noxious Zionist hasbara cocktail.

    After being exposed to the perpetual suffering that Zionism systematically inflicts on Palestinians on a daily basis; this experience was really insufferable. So obviously this cannot be the anecdote. These Zionists are so self-absorbed, so deluded or wanting to delude; they offend our intelligence. I’m not sure of the rest of the context that surrounds each excerpt but there is not one mention of P-a-l-e-s-t-i-n-i-a-n-s and their suffering in any of these Zionist comments. I can’t tell you how ignorant they sound to me. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been ethnically cleansed to satisfy Zionists’ need for a back-up, alternative homeland on reserve. Tens of thousands of homes were destroyed, children mutilated, deprived and traumatized, born into military captivity and as refugees throughout decades so these entitled Jews can feel wistful about a land inhabited 3,000 years ago by some tribes who happened to share the same religion they practice and that’s it. Ludicrous!

    Zionists should not be indulged in any way and they’re totally undeserving of our pity! I find Annie’s analogy with a vacation home or backup homeland very appropriate, but we all know the objective is more depraved; it’s a question of amassing power by means of holding on to a protectorate that they’ll only visit and never, ever permanently move to but are reserving with hordes of settlers they can’t even stand intellectually or socially relate to!

    Jews are not only not the primary victims today; they’re not today’s victims period! This is a hoax and a sham pretext just like the sham peace process; a cover for solidifying facts on the ground. I mean Jews have never experienced more protection, influence and affluence in their millennial history. The only threat to Jews today is ZIONISM and the crimes it’s committing and the antagonism these crimes ignite! Their peril is self-created by their association with Zionism and mostly it’s a propaganda tool for Zionists.

    And to think that a Palestinian boy was tortured, forced to drink petrol and then set ablaze so that these entitled pseudo-victims, deluded Zionists could hang onto a vacation resort reserved by Zio-hooligans and squatters, and lock in land that they’ll never use, that’s being sustained by an unrelenting crime against humanity sickens me to the core. This bunch are but the real gatekeepers of a crime only they can sell best, and in the meantime another Palestinian child is born in a refugee camp or ghetto with no rights whatsoever stripped of his or her only, legitimate homeland.

  18. Steve Grover
    October 30, 2015, 11:05 pm

    Weiss,
    Because you are an anti Zionist and a hater of Israel, you and those who share your disgusting point of view are not worthy of an explanation as to why I am a Zionist or why anyone is a Zionist.

    • eljay
      October 31, 2015, 9:58 am

      || Steve Grover: … you and those who share your disgusting point of view … ||

      It’s telling that Zio-supremacists consider justice, accountability and equality to be “disgusting”.

      || … are not worthy of an explanation as to why I am a Zionist or why anyone is a Zionist. ||

      The answer is already known: You and supremacists like you are hateful and immoral people.

      You’re also hypocrites, because you wouldn’t want others to do to you the sort of shit you do – or advocate doing – to others.

    • inbound39
      October 31, 2015, 9:58 am

      I personally am not interested in why the likes of you are a Zionist Mr Grover. I hardly think Zionism attracts many people these days other than those with a penchant for mass murder and victimhood. People become Zionists because they have unaddressed mental issues. Look at the crimes they are committing.

    • lonely rico
      October 31, 2015, 1:51 pm

      >Steve Grover

      … not worthy of an explanation as to why I am a Zionist …

      No explanation forthcoming, not because Weiss isn’t worthy, rather because the only explanation would be –
      I am a Zionist because I’m a racist supremacist, whose whole being is corrupted by violence, hate and fear of the Palestinians
      Your reluctance is understandable Grover, great courage needed to stand up and admit to this ugly truth.

    • Mooser
      November 1, 2015, 12:27 am

      “Because you are an anti Zionist and a hater of Israel, you and those who share your disgusting point of view are not worthy of an explanation…”

      Well, “Grobner”, you better start calling the people quoted in the article and tell them to retract, and why.

      ” as to why I am a Zionist or why anyone is a Zionist.”

      And nobody is asking you, and on the whole, I’m sure we would rather not hear it. Please don’t embarrass yourself by trying. There, satisfied?

  19. tombishop
    October 30, 2015, 11:17 pm

    Randi Weingarten has a right to her religious beliefs, but when they become the basis of Zionist political positions that her membership in the American Federation of Teachers do not share there is a problem.

    For a number of years she has been collaborating with the American Enterprise Institute which People for the American Way says “has been described as one of the country’s main bastions of neoconservatism.” Many of its members were involved in bringing us the invasion of Iraq and fighting the Iran nuclear deal.

    America’s public schools are under attack by corporate interests that want to privatize them. Here too the American Enterprise Institute has played a leading role and Randi Weingarten, the president of the largest teachers union in the U.S., has been collaborating with them.

    See this article on the internet for details: Randi Weingarten: Sleight of Hand Artist – Part 2 | Defend Public Education!

    http://www.defendpubliceducation.net/randi-weingarten-sleight-of-2/

  20. yonah fredman
    October 31, 2015, 2:15 am

    And while I approach this discussion as an anti-Zionist, I believe that only by respecting these individuals will they open up; and only when they open up will Americans get to examine the ideology– and will Zionists be able to let go of Zionism.

    Phil should have written: I believe that only by faking respecting these individuals will they open up. This paragraph itself shows the lack of respect and in fact just a week ago when some featured Zionists wrote in the Washington Post: we love Israel, Phil flattened all Zionists into one mold and stated that they must fear that America is going to get hot (for Jews) and thus need a place to escape to and that was the reason for their love for Israel. Nothing they wrote indicated that that was the core of their love for Israel, but Phil assumed it was. Total lack of respect.

    • just
      October 31, 2015, 12:37 pm

      “Total lack of respect.”

      That’s only your opinion, yonah. It’s lame.

      I can unreservedly say that Zionism of any flavor or category deserves a “total lack of respect”. In fact, it deserves much more than that.

    • Mooser
      October 31, 2015, 12:48 pm

      “And while I approach this discussion as an anti-Zionist,…”

      Of course you do!
      And I, of course, approach the discussion as a 1500 lb. palmate-antlered ungulate, the largest member of the Deer family.
      Now if you’ll excuse me, I’d better go borrow the cat’s Albuterol inhaler. Hysterical laughter can bring on an asthma attack.

      “Lack of respect”?
      He: “This photograph doesn’t do me justice.”
      She: “It’s mercy you want, not justice!”

      One of the very first jokes I learned, I think from Bennet Cerf.

  21. RoHa
    October 31, 2015, 2:19 am

    Jan Schakowsky needs the same grammar lesson as Max Narr.

    “As a Jew, support for Israel is in my DNA”

    This means ‘Support for Israel is a Jew, and it is in my DNA”.

    Clear nonsense.

    The rule is that when a sentance begins with an “As an X” clause, it is the subject of the following clause that is the X.

    “As a means of ensuring the safety of Jews, Zionism is not the best option.”

    This means “Zionism is a means of ensuring the safety of Jews, and it is not the best option.”

    The rule (like most grammar rules) is necessary to avoid confusion.

    “As a single mother, Doris thought that Jenny complained too much.”

    Who is the single mother? Without the rule, we do not know. With the rule, we know Doris is the sm.

    If Jenny is the single mum, then the “as a single mother” has to be attached to her.

    ” Doris thought that Jenny, as a single mother, complained too much.”

    And for Jan Schakowsky the best rewrite would be:

    “Since I am a Jew, support for Israel is in my DNA”

    But I suppose it is naive of me to expect clarity and rule-following from Zionists.

    • Steve Grover
      October 31, 2015, 9:31 am

      Yes Roha,
      Jan Schakowsky, who is my Congresswoman, might come to you for grammar lessons after she loses her seat in Congress in 2016 for not attending P.M. Netanyau’s speech before Congress and voting for that moronic nuclear deal with Iran.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2015, 1:26 pm

        “Jan Schakowsky, who is my Congresswoman, might come to you for grammar lessons after she loses her seat in Congress in 2016 for not attending P.M. Netanyau’s speech before Congress and voting for that moronic nuclear deal with Iran.”

        This is awful. Gosh, I hate to see this. Many workers in the recovery field despair of ever helping someone who has reached the ‘blackout’ stage. Jeez, I hope he doesn’t drive.

      • Shingo
        October 31, 2015, 4:10 pm

        Jan Schakowsky, who is my Congresswoman, might come to you for grammar lessons after she loses her seat in Congress in 2016 for not attending P.M. Netanyau’s speech before Congress and voting for that moronic nuclear deal with Iran.

        Clearly Steve Grover is an anti Semite who is pushing the theory that Jewish money is going to remove her for her lack of fealty to Israel.

      • RoHa
        October 31, 2015, 7:17 pm

        Perhaps I can give her grammar lessons, and she can give me spelling lessons in exchange.

    • Annie Robbins
      October 31, 2015, 4:44 pm

      The rule is that when a sentance begins with an “As an X” clause, it is the subject of the following clause that is the X.

      Roha, is sentance a word? i tried googling it but kept getting redirected to sentence. however, the urban dictionary shows 2 options:

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sentance

      TOP DEFINITION
      sentance
      The improper spelling of sentence by a high strung person, normally a Republican.
      This sentance was misspelled by Mr. Kyle Shook.

      and:

      2
      sentance
      a string of words that does not satisfy the grammatical rules of a language
      “He always spoke in grammatical sentances.”

      • just
        October 31, 2015, 4:48 pm

        ;~ 0

      • Annie Robbins
        October 31, 2015, 4:57 pm

        ;)))

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2015, 5:41 pm

        For RoHa:

        ‘Sentance, sentance, burning bright

        In the forests of the night,

        What immortal hand or eye

        Could frame thy fearful diddy-wah-diddy?’

      • just
        October 31, 2015, 6:59 pm

        lololol!

      • RoHa
        October 31, 2015, 7:15 pm

        Annie, If it is in the Urban Dictionary, it is a word. Not the one I intended to use, though.

        I’m glad that the dictionary compilers recognized the possibility of misspelling by non-Republcans.

      • Kris
        October 31, 2015, 7:32 pm

        Mondoweiss needs to add a new category, diagramming sentences, at the top of the page.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2015, 7:42 pm

        “Mondoweiss needs to add a new category, diagramming sentences, at the top of the page.”

        That ought to make sure the comments burning bright in the forest of the night around here are framed with a fearful symmetry!

        But it won’t solve the great big mystery, which, I admit, is troubling me…

      • RoHa
        November 1, 2015, 1:06 am

        “Mondoweiss needs to add a new category, diagramming sentences, at the top of the page.”

        Good idea. It would be an improvement over such pointless trivia as “Features” and “US Poliitics”.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 2, 2015, 1:57 am

        If it is in the Urban Dictionary, it is a word.

        really? i have just one word to say about that:

      • RoHa
        November 2, 2015, 3:13 am

        Even though she only works for Merriam-Webster, she is quite correct.

        There is a distinction between a word and an acceptable word.

  22. talknic
    October 31, 2015, 3:51 am

    What if the Chinese invade Australia and it isn’t safe for Australians. We need another country somewhere else

    • RoHa
      October 31, 2015, 5:26 am

      The Chinese need another country, too, just in case we invade them. And the same goes for everyone else. Which is your point.

      We need a whole spare earth.

    • inbound39
      October 31, 2015, 10:02 am

      Aussies will colonize and dispossess the Israeli’s……they can’t complain given they think its okay to do.

    • Kris
      October 31, 2015, 12:29 pm

      I live in Washington State, so I worry about being invaded by Canada. Or maybe the U.S. will target people like me and put us in concentration camps.

      Knowing that I can just take over a farm in Sweden, since my forebears lived there a long time ago, makes me feel much better.

      I feel a little sad for the people whose farm I will have to take, but it’s complicated.

      • just
        October 31, 2015, 12:38 pm

        +1, Kris!

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 12:49 pm

        Kris,
        If the Swedish government were willing to take you in as a refugee because of your heritage I wouldn’t see where this would be a problem. Sweden takes in many refugees and houses them. I don’t know if they would guarantee a farm. I’m assuming you would be as deserving as the other refugees are. You seem like a nice person.

      • Kay24
        October 31, 2015, 1:11 pm

        Love the sarcasm! :))

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2015, 1:42 pm

        “Knowing that I can just take over a farm in Sweden, since my forebears lived there a long time ago, makes me feel much better.”

        You are in Washington State, and you want a farm in Sweden? What on earth for? What the heck can you grow in Sweden? Chocolate?
        In Washington a farmer can do very well.

      • Kris
        October 31, 2015, 5:18 pm

        Jon66, I should depend on the compassion of the Swedish government? What if they, like the Palestinians, don’t want to be driven from their homes by hordes of people from the Pacific NW who want to establish their own state on Swedish territory?

        It’s as if you’re recommending that I try to get along with the present-day inhabitants of Sweden, behave kindly and respectfully, try to fit in as well as I can, and be grateful to them for including me in their society. Obviously you are making fun of me, since that is not the Zionist way at all!

      • Kris
        October 31, 2015, 5:26 pm

        @Mooser: “You are in Washington State, and you want a farm in Sweden? What on earth for? ”

        Sure, things are okay for me in Washington State right now, but we know from history that Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results , right? What if they start putting the people like me in concentration camps? This is not such a stretch; I remember when I was growing up in Texas, there were plenty of perfectly nice people around who would have liked to put Yankee agitators in camps. In fact, they put some of them in swamps.

        So of course I need a back-up country, and if I asked, God probably would tell me to pick Sweden. Or British Columbia.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2015, 5:54 pm

        Kris, you are more than likely right. I had a friend over and when I asked him “What on earth grows in Sweden” he said: “Blondes!”

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 6:10 pm

        Kris,
        I’m not reccomending any behavior on your part. If the Sewdish government wants to grant preferential asylum to people of Swedish ancestry over those of other countries I think that’s perfectly rational. why would I make fun of you. I’m in agreement with you. The Israeli government or the Swedish government or any other government should be able to prioritize immigration.

      • echinococcus
        October 31, 2015, 8:20 pm

        jon66

        Nonsense every time, seems you are addicted to it. The people of Sweden is on its own territory –has been continuously for a very long time. The crusader state declaring itself to be “Israel” is totally illegitimate on other people’s territory, usurping other people’s sovereignty rights, and their importation of aliens from different points across the world is illegal immigration. Moreover, that illegal immigration is directed at committing the war crime of settling civilians or pseudo-civilians on occupied land over the ceasefire line.

      • RoHa
        October 31, 2015, 8:38 pm

        There are countries which give priority to immigrants who can show that their recent ancestors were citizens of that country, but I cannot see anything particularly rational about the policy.

        Israel’s Law of Return is, of course, quite different. Very few Jewish immigrants to Israel can show that they had any ancestors who were citizens or residents in the land, let alone recent ancestors. On the other hand, Palestinians who can demonstrate that they themselves were born there are not permitted to return.

        I agree that a government should be able to set limits and regulations for immigration, but those regulations should be compatible with basic moral principles. That is why we eventually dumped the White Australia policy.

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 9:07 pm

        Echi
        Nonsense every time, seems you are addicted to it. The people of Sweden is on its own territory –has been continuously for a very long time. The crusader state declaring itself to be “Israel” is totally illegitimate on other people’s territory, usurping other people’s sovereignty rights, and their importation of aliens from different points across the world is illegal immigration. Moreover, that illegal immigration is directed at committing the war crime of settling civilians or pseudo-civilians on occupied land over the ceasefire line. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist?replytocom=806983#respond

        I’m not sure we’re I mentioned Israel or Palestine. Kris suggested that perhaps Sweden would accommodate her and I agreed. I don’t think she is being unreasonable. If you are upset please speak with her since she is the one who mentioned Sweden.

      • Kris
        October 31, 2015, 9:28 pm

        Jon66: “Kris suggested that perhaps Sweden would accommodate her…”

        Actually, that’s not what I said. Maybe English is not the language you usually use?

      • eljay
        October 31, 2015, 9:53 pm

        || Jon66: … If the Sewdish government wants to grant preferential asylum to people of Swedish ancestry over those of other countries I think that’s perfectly rational. … The Israeli government or the Swedish government or any other government should be able to prioritize immigration. ||

        Typical Zio-supremacist crap.

        Yes, the Swedish and Israeli governments should be able to prioritize immigration for people of Swedish and Israeli ancestry, respectively.

        But that’s not what Israel does, and you know it.

        In addition to barring Israeli refugees from returning to their homes and lands, Israel prioritizes immigration for people – regardless of the degree (if any) of Israeli ancestry they possess – who have undergone a religious conversion to Judaism or who are descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 9:55 pm

        Kris,
        “Actually, that’s not what I said. Maybe English is not the language you usually use? – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/why-i-am-a-zionist?replytocom=806973#respond
        Sorry
        If what you meant was that you as an individual without government authorization could simply show up in another country and take a farm without legal approval than I am mistaken.

      • Jon66
        October 31, 2015, 10:51 pm

        Eljay,

        All governments prioritize immigration by various criteria. The Spanish are now allowing Jews who descended from those expelled in 1492 to gain citizenship. In the near future I believe the U.S. will allow those undocumented citizens who have been here for some time to become citizens. Doesn’t Canada have an immigration system based upon the perceived value of the immigrant to the society? Can’t you ever begin a response with a statement of your case without a disparaging remark? It doesn’t strengthen your argument.

      • eljay
        November 1, 2015, 8:30 am

        || Jon66: All governments prioritize immigration by various criteria. The Spanish are now allowing Jews who descended from those expelled in 1492 to gain citizenship. In the near future I believe the U.S. will allow those undocumented citizens who have been here for some time to become citizens. Doesn’t Canada have an immigration system based upon the perceived value of the immigrant to the society? … ||

        Actual ancestry, naturalization and perceived value: These are reasonable criteria. None of them applies to Israel…unless you’re suggesting that to Israel only Jews have “perceived value”. (This would be consistent with Israel’s supremacist policies.)

        || … Can’t you ever begin a response with a statement of your case without a disparaging remark? … ||

        Zio-supremacism is to be disparaged. Why would anyone other than a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist speak approvingly of it?

        || … It doesn’t strengthen your argument. ||

        Neither does it weaken it.

      • lyn117
        November 1, 2015, 11:15 am

        And there’s those wiccans, whose ancient homeland in Wales and Britain is now inhabited mostly by Christians. Certainly, wiccans have historically been far more oppressed, than Jews, and there is no Wiccan state, so they certainly deserve one. We should all help them invade Wales and Britain, terrorize and massacre and evict the non-Wiccans and establish a Wiccan state.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        November 1, 2015, 11:31 am

        “All governments prioritize immigration by various criteria. ”

        They do indeed.

        However, to the best of my knowledge, Israel is the only country – certainly the only country claiming to be a ‘liberal western democracy” – which grants citizenship to those practicising a certain religion (or descended from someone who practised that religion), while refusing citizenship to people who do not practise that religion, even if they were born there and can trace back their ancestry there for several generations.

    • John O
      October 31, 2015, 1:02 pm

      The Aussies could go to New Zealand. Oh, wait. I’ve just looked at the latest score in the Rugby World Cup Final. They might get an icy reception…

      • RoHa
        October 31, 2015, 8:40 pm

        “The Aussies could go to New Zealand.”

        As an alternative to living under Chinese domination? Why do you hate Australians so much?

  23. Steve Macklevore
    October 31, 2015, 5:40 am

    I’d hard to express the loathing and contempt I feel for the views expressed in the article.

    This is blatant duel loyalty to a foreign state. A state whose values and behaviour are far closer to Apartheid South Africa than to the United States and other western democracies. There is paranoia expressed, and well as an unstated but ever present contempt and fear of gentiles.

    Then finally, my blood boils with the knowledge that to merely express the truth about these people is to flirt with professional and social suicide in the United States.

    Thank god for the Internet and the ‘people power’ that it brings to expose this self described ‘tribe’ who hold such loathsome views and wield such power.

    • Steve Grover
      October 31, 2015, 9:23 am

      Hey Steve Macklevore,
      You should be careful what you are thanking
      G-D for. My cousin Yitzi owns the internet and he is a Zionist and Jewish. He might not let you use it anymore. Just sayin’

      • Citizen
        October 31, 2015, 1:24 pm

        You wish such a Yitzi existed. I agree with Steve Macklevore.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2015, 1:45 pm

        “My cousin Yitzi owns the internet and he is a Zionist and Jewish. He might not let you use it anymore. Just sayin’”

        Yup, acute dipsomania, here served on the half-shell. “Grover” please don’t end up a shenandoah to the family!

      • James North
        October 31, 2015, 2:18 pm

        “Grober” has been knocked more senseless than usual by the Chicago Cubs’ crushing defeat.

      • Mooser
        October 31, 2015, 5:56 pm

        “Grober” has been knocked more senseless than usual by the Chicago Cubs’ crushing defeat.”

        “Grover” knows how to pick a wiener!

  24. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    October 31, 2015, 8:27 am

    “Making sure [my daughter] is Jewish in the eyes of the Jewish state gives me peace of mind. If the Gestapo ever comes again, she and her descendants will have a place to go. Just in case… -”

    Putting aside the morality (or lack thereof) of forcing millions of people into exile and hardship to indulge Ms. Millbank’s lurid nightmares, does she even realise how entirely f*****ed up her logic is? So she is ensuring her daughter conform to certain ethno-religious criteria just in case she ever becomes persecuted by those same ethno-religious criteria? Maybe I should convert to Zoroastrianism just in case anyone takes it into their head to persecute Zorastrians?

    Then there’s the bizarre notion that ”If the Gestapo ever comes again”, her daughter will be saved by the existence of an ethno-state on the other side of the world. Maybe my history’s a little rusty, but I don’t recall the Gestapo kindly granting leave of passage to Jews (or anyone else) simply because they had ”their own state” in another continent.

    You almost think these Zionists want to be persecuted. Or at least enjoy the feeling of speciallness from the mere possibility of it.

    • Boomer
      October 31, 2015, 11:30 am

      re: “You almost think these Zionists want to be persecuted. Or at least enjoy the feeling of speciallness from the mere possibility of it.”

      Your comment, like some others in the thread, alludes to one aspect of this that perhaps only a Jewish psychologist or sociologist can adequately address. I am none of those things, but I suspect that the dynamic is more complex than pleasure in being special and persecuted. Yet it does sometimes almost appear that way. Certainly I’m not qualified to explore that dynamic, but perhaps others–better qualified–will do so.

      For many years a Jewish family of survivors lived across the street from my parents. They were fine, decent people, who made a good life here. People like them are part of the reason that Jews are American’s favorite religious group (next to their own), as reported by the Pew Survey. The husband had narrowly managed to escape from the Baltic region after Germany invaded. His wife, whom he met in the U.S., and her mother (who lived with them) had tattoos from the time they spent in a concentration camp, where they too narrowly escaped death. I never heard them express fear of what might happen to them in America, but if they had done so, any decent human would have responded with sympathy and understanding.

      When powerful, privileged, influential Americans like Dana Milbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Milbank or Chuck Lorre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Lorre express such concerns, however, it is reasonable to infer that something else is involved. (In fairness, Lorre may have thought that he was making a joke, when he suggested that only the incompetence of non-Jewish Americans preserved Jewish Americans.) I suspect that this “something else” has to do with processes within individual psychology as well as group-level dynamics.

      The ambivalent reaction among some Jewish Americans to that Pew survey also suggests that something else is involved. For example, consider this discussion in the Washington Jewish Week:

      “Add the fact that the survey’s conclusions appear to conflict with our own perceptions about how others view Jews, and you understand the mixed reactions that have been expressed to the finding that Jews are America’s favorite religious group.” http://washingtonjewishweek.com/14176/what-it-means-to-be-number-1/

      Gilad Atzmon discusses some aspects of this dynamic in “The Wandering Who?,” but I sense that he is considered beyond the pale here, so I won’t quote him. (It may be relevant, in this context, that this pale is imposed by– not upon–the Jewish community.)

      Atzmon can, indeed, be offensive in the way he states some things. As far as I’m concerned, the objective of such an analysis of the social/
      psychological processes involved would not be to offend, criticize or demean any person or group, but to help extricate us all, if possible, from the quagmire.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        October 31, 2015, 11:48 am

        From your link:

        ” Fifty years ago, Jews were much less visible and vocal in American society, yet anti-Semitism was prevalent and institutionalized. How did things change so dramatically in so short a time?”

        Does this person not remember that 50 years ago, prejudice against all minorities “was prevalent and institutionalized”? It’s hardly as though Jews were singled out for special treatment, while blacks, Hispanics, Italians, native Americans etc were treated as equals. This was a time when electing a Catholic President was considered very daring.

        And yes, it does seem that many Jews were almost disappointed about being the nation’s favoured religious group (silly concept anyway). Which kind of supports my point: it does seem that many American Jews actually WANT to feel victimised, even though they are one of the most succesful and influential minorities in the US. Hence the ”need” for Israel: it feeds into their sense of being just on the edge of another holocaust, and needing a bolthole on the ohter side of the world. Whatever the cost to the native people of that land.

      • Keith
        October 31, 2015, 4:25 pm

        MAXIMUS- “Which kind of supports my point: it does seem that many American Jews actually WANT to feel victimised, even though they are one of the most succesful and influential minorities in the US.”

        Following Israel’s stunning success in the 1967 Six Day War, barriers to elite Jewish power-seeking crumbled. At the same time, Zionist exploitation of the Holocaust reached new heights. Essentially, Judaism which always emphasized Jewish victimhood morphed into a form of Holocaust religion for many Jews, where victimhood and anti-Semitism became the primary unifying ideology. This tended to reinforce tribalism on a secular basis which, in turn, contributed to the success of the Jewish kinship network. This sense of victimhood is not based upon rational analysis, but on the logic of the group ideology which promotes internal solidarity. A remarkably successful group strategy, I might add.

      • Boomer
        October 31, 2015, 8:04 pm

        Keith, that’s a good, concise summary; you covered a lot of ground. Thanks for that. I would only suggest that, while the ’67 war was indeed significant in changing attitudes, the “barriers to elite Jewish power-seeking crumbled” more due to the evolution of American society that led to the election of a Catholic president in ’60 (as noted by MDM) and to the Civil Rights Act of ’64 which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin..

        I might also observe that the word “strategy” as you use it need not necessarily imply that all members of the group are consciously using it as a strategy. You don’t say that it does imply that, but some might infer it.

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2015, 12:49 am

        “and to the Civil Rights Act of ’64 which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”

        Another aspect of this is: during the years that Jews were discriminated against in the US, say in housing and colleges, discrimination was legal. In fact, discrimination was considered laudable, at that time, and Jews could in fact, do it to, wherever we could afford to.
        When discrimination was finally outlawed in general, it was not discrimination against Jews which was the national problem demanding Federal legislation.

      • Keith
        November 1, 2015, 4:19 pm

        BOOMER- “I might also observe that the word “strategy” as you use it need not necessarily imply that all members of the group are consciously using it as a strategy.”

        Group strategy is, of course, developed by the group’s elites. The strategy may be implicit in the group mythology or explicit in organizational statements. Individuals who identify as Jews may or may not share in the group mythos, and may or may not be part of a Jewish organization. So, just as we understand that when we refer to “the WASPs,” we are talking about a certain group of power-seeking elites, not the dirt-poor white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant coal miners of West Virginia, so too, “the Jews” is properly understood as referring to the Jewish power-seeking elites, perhaps including the Jewish cadres of the more powerful Jewish organizations, most of whom are staunchly Zionist. An example of an explicit organizational statement of purpose:

        “The proven and effective voice of organized American Jewry for more than half a century, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Fund advances the interests of the American Jewish community, sustains broad-based support for Israel and addresses the critical concerns facing world Jewry.” http://www.conferenceofpresidents.org/about

        BOOMER- “…and to the Civil Rights Act of ’64 which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

        If that was the case, then Blacks would be infinitely better off than they demonstrably are. Sure it helped, but the Civil Rights Act never got anyone accepted on the Council of Foreign Relations, the Federal Reserve, or into the upper echelons of Wall Street. A lot of factors may have been involved, but a lot of scholars identify the 1967 war as a watershed. A lengthy quote of Norman Finkelstein to make a point:

        “Accordingly, American Jewish elites suddenly discovered Israel. After the 1967 war, Israel’s military elan could be celebrated because its guns pointed in the right direction- against America’s enemies. Its martial prowess might even facilitate entry into the inner sanctums of American power. Previously Jewish elites could only offer a few lists of Jewish subversives; now, they could pose as the natural interlocutors for America’s newest strategic asset. From bit players, they could advance to top billing in the Cold War drama. Thus, for American Jewry, as well as the United States, Israel became a strategic asset.” (p21, “The Holocaust Industry,” Norman Finkelstein)

        In other words, Israel and Zionism became a strategic asset for power-seeking American Jews who became staunch pro-Israel Zionists. And it seems to have worked out for them.

  25. shalom
    October 31, 2015, 8:55 am

    Phillip, you have created a serious and important stage to say your two cents: But I must say that taking a single quote from a variety of Jewish sources to explain their individual allegiance/belief/kinship to Zionism is like determining your future based on reading a fortune cookie after dinner. I couldn’t try to explain who you are, what you’ve learned and all that is built into you kinetically as a result of a thousand years of genetic combinations. I am a bit more complex that any single quote and yet I pride myself on being easily understood as a liberal, an American Jew and a Zionist.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      October 31, 2015, 10:50 am

      ” I pride myself on being easily understood as a liberal, an American Jew and a Zionist”

      The part of you which is liberal is not Zionist.

      The part of you which is Zionist is not liberal.

      • kalithea
        October 31, 2015, 12:03 pm

        Because Zionism creates a serious moral contradiction, is infused with hypocrisy and liberal Zionists are all afflicted with an identity crisis they’re in denial about.

        But then this doesn’t exonerate them; on the contrary, they are much more guilty than their rightist Zionist counterparts because they’re not only willing participants with eyes wide open; they are Zionism’s best salespeople; Zionism’s PR department and this obviously includes whitewashing, explaining away and skimming over the crimes of Zionism.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        October 31, 2015, 12:40 pm

        I agree.

        I detest ”liberal Zionists” more than I detest hard-core, in your face Zionists. At least the latter are honest, and have no pretences towards morality. They know that they are ethno-supremacists. By contrast ”liberal Zionists” are so full of their own ‘reasonableness’ and as you say, are a large part of the reason why Zionism is still (barely) acceptable in the wider world.

    • kalithea
      October 31, 2015, 12:38 pm

      As a liberal and a Zionist you have a real moral dilemma there; and we don’t need to know all the detailed, personal history of every Zionist who pretends to be a liberal; I think we’ve heard just about every excuse in the book; you guys sell it very well or at least you try to. I don’t think this is a psychologist’s cabinet either if you get my drift and if it’s empathy you’re after, mine ran out after your Zionism gased a baby.

    • Mooser
      October 31, 2015, 1:17 pm

      “I am a bit more complex that any single quote and yet I pride myself on being easily understood as a liberal, an American Jew and a Zionist.”

      Yes, I just read your archive. Oh yes, all too easily understood. It’s a shame you can’t see it. You end up taking every right-wing position by backing your liberal ass into it, as you argue yourself out of trying anything else. And endless, endless, BSing, and dude, try to do something about your distinct air of superiority.

      BTW, the word you wanted to mis-use is ‘genetically’, not “kinetically”.

  26. Kay24
    October 31, 2015, 9:41 am

    It seems yet another pro Israel wealthy American will be back Marco Rubio. Nothing ever changes in US politics..the same puppets look to wealthy zionists to pay for their miserable campaigns, and the undying loyalty to the fatherland will continue.
    I guess candidates can never find pro American wealthy backers with such influence, here at home.

    Paul Singer to back Marco Rubio”

    “A source familiar with calls the Singer team made told CNN they reached out to several major donors Friday afternoon to let them know that Singer would back the Florida senator. The source said the endorsement was a significant blow to Bush’s candidacy, because the billionaire has a vast network of people who will give hard dollars to Rubio and lots of money to his super PAC.

    Singer, 71, is perhaps the party’s most prodigious fundraiser, and his giving has been motivated primarily by two causes: protection of Israel and other Jewish causes, and support for the gay rights movement — a position that puts him at odds with many other leading players in the Republican Party.

    Singer previously raised money for Mitt Romney in 2012 and Rudy Giuliani in 2008.

    In 2014, Singer gave $11.5 million to conservative groups, more than any Republican in the country, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/politics/marco-rubio-paul-singer-endorsement/index.html

    • Citizen
      October 31, 2015, 1:35 pm

      Kay24
      Marco Rubio’s big Jewish backer and 7 other things to know about him http://nyv.me/l/by8I

      • Kay24
        October 31, 2015, 3:33 pm

        Interesting tidbits about Rubio. The article is basically showing that Rubio will be forever indebted to the Jewish backers, and that he will give Israel unwavering support, right or wrong, mostly wrong.

  27. Theo
    October 31, 2015, 10:46 am

    Gideon Levy, the respected Haaretz journalist, said once the following:
    “Who chose the chosen people? They chose themselves, and as long you teach your children that they are superior to other human beings, they will believe it and behave accordingly.”

    Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosseff of Israel said the following: ” Goyim are here to serve the jewish people and have less value than a donkey”, among other hateful comments.
    If the jewish religious leaders say such things, what can we expect from the average jew? Can you imagine the uproar if the Pope would say anything similar?
    During my life I have known many jews, some were and are close friends, who were not religious and were succesful in their respective countries, however at the end of discussions it boiled down to the following: although they were americans or citizens of european countries, in end effect they were jews!
    I would really like to know, if it came to a war between the USA and Israel, how would liberal jews, who today may critizise the zionists, react to it? After all, all their lives they were also told that they are superior to others.

    • Mooser
      November 1, 2015, 11:15 am

      Forget about Chief Rabbis! They are over, passe, done, old hat, nye-kulturny, and strictly L7.
      There is a new concept of Jewish religious leadership and learning which satisfies all tastes! A full-course, soup-to-nuts (I hope the soup isn’t too hot) leadership, which fills our souls, and leaves us hungry for more: The Chef Rabbi!
      Called to the ministry by a typo, and ordained by Spel-Chek, the Chef Rabbi lives to serve the Jewish congregation. These are men who can stand the heat, or slave over a hot Torah all day to prepare a sermon.
      And whether schul is in, or out for the summer, where ever Jewish folks meet and eat they’ve heard the word: Get out of the freier pan, and into the fire. Get yourself a Chef Rabbi.

      • Keith
        November 1, 2015, 5:53 pm

        MOOSER- “Called to the ministry by a typo, and ordained by Spel-Chek, the Chef Rabbi lives to serve the Jewish congregation. These are men who can stand the heat, or slave over a hot Torah all day to prepare a sermon.”

        My G-sh in heaven! Where do you come up with this stuff? What next, a historic meeting between the Chef Rabbi and Pope Peel?

      • Mooser
        November 2, 2015, 2:01 pm

        “What next, a historic meeting between the Chef Rabbi and Pope Peel?”

        I think you mean, of course, Ron Popeil . Yes negotiations may soon commence, I’d like him to endorse our line of Commastomy Bags.

  28. just
    October 31, 2015, 11:51 am

    “Bill Clinton, Rivlin to Speak at Rabin Memorial Rally in Tel Aviv

    Organizers say event will be apolitical, aim is to ‘denounce violence and racism, strengthen a moderate center.'”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.683230

    Uh- huh. pssst… there’s nothing “moderate” nor “liberal” about Zionism, so just stop with the bs. (pass it on)

    Was Zionism ever about creating justice for all?

    Nope. It’s an extremist and supremacist ideology. It inspires all of the folks that are quoted in Phil’s piece, and the practice and praise of it is sickening to me.

    I do not respect them nor their ideology that values and treasures their lives and safety while endlessly extinguishing the lives, hopes, and resources of an entire population.

    “If some peoples pretend that history or geography gives them the right to subjugate other races, nations, or peoples, there can be no peace.”

    Ludwig Von Mises

  29. Kay24
    October 31, 2015, 12:04 pm

    Sorry if this was linked earlier, but it seem the liar of Israel has retracted his statement about the Mufti. I guess we can now expect the hasbara to now apologize for the nasty attacks against ALL Palestinians…nah not a change, the have no decency to do so.

    JERUSALEM — After more than a week of local and international condemnation, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel issued a statement on Friday retracting his accusation that it was a Palestinian cleric who gave Hitler the idea of annihilating Europe’s Jews during World War II.

    Mr. Netanyahu, criticized even by Israeli historians for distorting facts, had already said he never intended to absolve Hitler of responsibility for the Holocaust by blaming the mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, but the new statement went further.

    “The decision to move from a policy of deporting Jews to the Final Solution was made by the Nazis and was not dependent on outside influence,” Mr. Netanyahu posted on Facebook, in Hebrew and English. “The Nazis saw in the Mufti a collaborator, but they did not need him to decide on the systematic destruction of European Jewry, which began in June 1941.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/world/middleeast/netanyahu-retracts-assertion-that-palestinian-inspired-holocaust.html?emc=eta1&_r=0

    • Kay24
      October 31, 2015, 12:08 pm

      It must have broken Rudoren’s heart to write the fact that her hero is a damn liar again.

      • Citizen
        October 31, 2015, 1:39 pm

        Did anyone ask Bibi what he intended to say or imply when he made his original statement?

      • Kay24
        October 31, 2015, 3:26 pm

        Unfortunately no one did, but then again everyone knows this is a half crazy leader of a nation, who has a filthy habit of lying, to make those he has no qualms about killing, look bad again.
        He is the “democratic” terrorist of the ME.

      • inbound39
        October 31, 2015, 5:04 pm

        It must have broken Netanyahu’s butt to retract what he said. There must be some large scale pressure coming upon him from somewhere. Otherwise he would not have retracted. Interesting development.

      • Kay24
        October 31, 2015, 10:46 pm

        Inbound, Nutty has a thick skin plus a thick head. I doubt common sense can pierce it.

      • inbound39
        November 1, 2015, 6:20 am

        Yes Kay I have to agree with that….common sense is not his forte and he is thick headed to think there will be no backlash to his actions. I did read on one occassion he has an agreement with the state of Israel that once he leaves office he and Sara will have Mossad protection for life. What a sick way to live.

      • Kay24
        November 1, 2015, 8:41 am

        Inbound for all the massacres, attacks, and land thefts, he has inflicted on his neighbors, he will need Mossad to protect him!

      • Mooser
        November 1, 2015, 11:41 am

        “Inbound for all the massacres, attacks, and land thefts, he has inflicted on his neighbors, he will need Mossad to protect him! “

        The neighbors? Netanyahoo isn’t worried about the neighbors. He is wondering who will protect him against left-wing Israelis! He knows how determined, implacable and unforgiving those left-wing Israelis are.

  30. Ossinev
    October 31, 2015, 3:00 pm

    Reading some of the heartfelt quotes in the article I feel a great flood of pathos welling up inside of me as in what a bunch of PATHETIC self delusional, self serving hypocrites.

    IMO the worst of the lot in this instance is the supposed “liberal Zionist” Beinart.

    “Is my view shaped by the fact that as a Jew I’m attached to the idea that in a post-Holocaust world, there should be one state on earth devoted to Jewish self protection and Jewish self-expression? Yes. I plead guilty. I’m not a pure universalist”

    Yes Peter we see your Jewish self protection and self expression in operation everyday in Gaza ,East Jerusalem and the West Bank and in Israel itself just as we saw Aryan self protection and self expression in Germany in the years leading up to the Holocaust.

    What hope when even a liberal softie like you cannot summon up the courage , take that last little step and acknowledge the true reality of Zionism in 2015.

    BOYCOTT APARTHEID ISRAEL

    • pabelmont
      November 2, 2015, 6:39 pm

      Beinart: “As a Jew I’m attached to the idea that in a post-Holocaust world, there should be one state on earth devoted to Jewish self protection * * * “.

      “As a Jew I necessarily believe that” — hunh? There are other Jews, even a few survivors of the death camps, who also live “as a Jew” but who don’t believe the crap.

      The crap was taught and the crap was learned. The crap can be unlearned. The mechanism for unlearning it is knowledge, thoughtfulness, and a human heart.

      And the most sinister part of the mechanism illustrated by Beinart is the [a] teaching / [b] interpretation that [1][a] every Jew must support all other Jews and [2][b] every Jew must support every Jewish manifestation of Zionism — the consequences of which is that [3][b] any Jew who does not support Zionism is a bad Jew or non-Jew; for which reason [4][b] there is therefore no Jewish duty to support the anti-Zionist Jews, even should they outnumber the Zionist Jews!

      • yonah fredman
        November 2, 2015, 8:09 pm

        pablemont- I am including a link to Isaac Deutscher’s “The NonJewish Jew”, https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/amersocialist/deutscher01.htm
        an essay that includes apologetics for Marx’s antisemitism , but also includes empathy with the will to statehood of Jews in the post WWII era, although a hope that this state of mind will pass and the Jews will again endorse the universalist ethos of the optimistic Non Jewish Jews that is his focus and ideal. It is probable that Deutscher’s sympathetic tone of the 1950’s or ’60’s was highly influenced by the proximity of the debacle of WWII and fifty years later he might have lost his patience with this Jewish inclination and been as condemnatory of it as you are. But then again maybe there is something that you might learn from his tone.

      • Mooser
        November 2, 2015, 10:25 pm

        “pablemont- I am including a link to Isaac Deutscher’s “The NonJewish Jew”, link to marxists.org -“

        “Yonah” thanks. Here, one good turn deserves another!

      • pabelmont
        November 3, 2015, 9:11 am

        Reply to yonah fredman, who writes: “But then again maybe there is something that you might learn from his [Isaac Deutscher’s] tone” and he links to Message of the Non-Jewish Jew

        Well, yes. He writes respectfully and kindly of Jews, although most kindly and most respectfully IMO of non-Jewish Jews, and here I write abrasively (of Jewish nationalists and apologists for modern — if not for all — Zionism). I feel (with the Palestinians who oppose “normalization”) that to write of Israeli racism et al. without expressing revulsion for it is to practice a horrible “normalization”, the same “normalization” I suppose that prompts Beinart and others to maintain their fondness for Zionism and their politeness toward Israel and Zionism.

        Like a policemen who describes a young man as a “thug” while his mother says “boys will be boys”, I am abrasive. Deutscher, taking a long view, is smoother.

        But Deutscher also praises universalism and rejects nationalism (implicitly of Israel among nations) and believes and hopes that socialism is the enemy of and will replace nationalism and particularism. (Or so I read him.)

        He concludes: , ” * * * therefore, that, together with other nations, the Jews will ultimately become aware—or regain the awareness—of the inadequacy of the nation-sate and that they will find their way back to the moral and political heritage that the genius of the Jews who have gone beyond Jewry has left us—the message of universal human emancipation.”

        And, in this closing paragraph, he hopes (as I hope) that the Jews-of-Israel and their supporters can “find their way back to the moral and political heritage that the genius of the Jews who have gone beyond Jewry has left us—the message of universal human emancipation.” But to express this hope it is necessary to describe or characterize the dreadful immorality of current racist Israel. Deutscher sees all this racist-nationalism as a small element on the large canvas of history; I, being more ignorant than he, react to the racist-nationalism of Israel more abrasively.

      • Mooser
        November 3, 2015, 3:01 pm

        “I, being more ignorant than he, react to the racist-nationalism of Israel more abrasively.”

        Ah, “pabelmont” you should learn to knock those abrasive edges off by emulating “Yonah’s” moderate discourse. Why it was just the other day that “Yonah” ended a comment (to Elliot!) by asking him if “his soapbox is chained to an ankle bracelet”.
        I mean, is that like putting honey on it, or what?

        I wonder where “Yonah” learned about ankle bracelets? He seems to have plenty of time on his hands.

      • RoHa
        November 3, 2015, 6:38 pm

        ‘“Yonah” ended a comment (to Elliot!) by asking him if “his soapbox is chained to an ankle bracelet”. ‘

        I missed that, Mooser. Had I not, I would have asked him why he didn’t know the word “anklet”.

  31. JoelReinstein
    October 31, 2015, 6:00 pm

    I just don’t understand how it makes sense to respect bigots. Zionism is racism that should be made unacceptable.

    • Kay24
      October 31, 2015, 10:47 pm

      Not as long as the US gives it unwavering support. The moment the US withdraws the aid, weapons and protection, the racists would be sunk.

      • Boomer
        November 1, 2015, 6:14 am

        re: “The moment the US withdraws the aid, weapons and protection, the racists would be sunk.”

        Racist it is. Ironic to see Obama, our first black president, keeping the flow of money and weapons, and the diplomatic protection in place.

      • inbound39
        November 1, 2015, 6:23 am

        Roll on the day America wakes up and stops the Aid and weapons et al to Israel. Israel will then see how truly vulnerable it is….and it needs to. Nothing like a reality check to get people back on track.

      • Kay24
        November 1, 2015, 8:40 am

        There is an unholy alliance between the US and Israel, which we may never know about. There are reasons why no President in the US, even if he/she wants to, can cut the parasites from our system. If only the Congress rejects any campaign funds from the zionists here, and refuse to put that nation over ours, and do what is right for America first, things would change. When you see the hasbara trolls brag about Israel being “indispensable” to the US, they are hinting at this unholy alliance, and why they can “control” us from so far away.

  32. Stuart Newman
    October 31, 2015, 10:43 pm

    I have a family history every bit as horrific as the worst of those recorded here. I also had an upbringing as imbued with Zionism as any of them. I nonetheless cannot understand how, as privileged public figures of our fraught contemporary world they can read their own ethnocentric, narcissistic ponderings without melting away from embarrassment.

    • pabelmont
      November 2, 2015, 6:05 pm

      Answer to Stuart Newman:

      Probably these “privileged public figures of our fraught contemporary world” exist, largely, nevertheless, within a bubble of like-thinking Zionists and don’t know there is anything odd or obscene about that thinking. The old practice among Jews and non-Jews alike of taking care not to offend Jewish-Zionist acquaintances silences opposing views.

      “Zionism was mother’s milk to him” (apologies to My Fair Lady).

  33. rsmatesic
    October 31, 2015, 10:54 pm

    Name a more obscene privilege than forcing people to endure your slaughter of them until your conscience has awakened, assuming you have one. Your point is that any just solution must be conditioned on these privileged people–who, at best, have falsely and obscenely drawn a moral equivalence between their professed anxiety, on the one hand, and the interest of Palestinians in not being slaughtered, on the other–coming to some new sensibility. I can think of other ways to accomplish a just solution, and they don’t require soul chats with deeply bigoted, narcissistic, sociopathic, imperialists.

    • just
      November 1, 2015, 8:25 am

      Well said, rsmatesic.

      In other news:

      “Iran’s Khamenei: Talks With U.S. on Regional Issues Are Meaningless

      Iran’s supreme leader says blasts foreign intervention in Syria, says only elections can end civil war.

      AP – Iran’s clerical supreme leader said that U.S. objectives in the Middle East were the opposite of Iran’s and that negotiating with Washington on regional issues was meaningless.

      “The Americans are trying to impose their own interests, not resolve issues, 60 or 70 percent through negotiations and the rest through illegal actions. So what is the meaning of negotiating with them?” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in an annual address to the Islamic Republic’s top diplomats.

      Khamenei also said elections should be held in Syria to end the civil war there and criticized foreign powers that arm and fund Syrian opposition fighters, state television reported on Sunday. …”

      read more: http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.683566?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      He’s right.

  34. Kathleen
    November 1, 2015, 9:00 am

    Too bad Randi Weingarten has not really gone to bat for pro family paid maternity leave for teachers. Amazed she has kept her position as long as she has

  35. just
    November 1, 2015, 9:13 am

    Hasbara on steroids!

    Hey US taxpayer, this is what you help fund: Defending the indefensible and ILLEGAL settlements.

    “Israel Training Diplomats to Defend Settlements Is Nothing New

    Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely boasts that she has initiated a new course exposing them to right-wing views and Jewish content. Current and former diplomats say otherwise.

    Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) boasted to the media on Sunday of reforms she claims to have initiated in the training of the ministry’s diplomatic cadets which involve exposing them to lecturers with right-wing opinions, visits to settlements and lessons in Judaism. Conversations with young diplomats who finished their training a few years ago or with veterans who have been in the foreign ministry for over 30 years, however, reveal that in contrast to what Hotovely believes, she was not the first to institute these steps.

    In fact, former Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon enacted similar measures in February 2011, uttering almost identical phrases in the Knesset as she did in interviews to various radio stations and to the Yisrael Hayom daily newspaper on Sunday. Ayalon announced then that cadets and ambassador trainees would visit the Tombs of the Patriarchs in Hebron, receiving instruction from Jewish settlers in Hebron.

    “I view this as part of the education of Israeli representatives around the world, in order, among other reasons, to prevent apologetic stances in describing the situation, clarifying that we’re in Hebron, Judea and Samaria by right, not as a result of force,” Ayalon then told the news website YNET. …

    … In the official blog of the cadet course at the foreign ministry, in which cadets relate their experiences, there is an entry from May 23 2012, in which a cadet tells of the group’s visit to the Temple Mount, providing photos as well. The cadets were guided by the head of the police force stationed there, who let them into the Al-Aqsa Mosque and into the site known as King Solomon’s stables.

    A senior diplomat said that that particular class of cadets met Dani Dayan, then head of the Yesha Council, at a café in the settlement of Barkan. Dayan met other cadets at a winery in the settlement of Psagot. Dayan has lectured in courses held by the foreign ministry for senior diplomats that are about to become ambassadors

    Gil Lainer, who served until recently as the consul for public affairs at the Israeli consulate in New York and who is now the Israel Institute of Technology’s spokesman, wrote on his Facebook page this morning that Hotovely’s claims of enacting a reform in the cadet course content are only spin. “If I remember correctly, the course I attended included lessons in Judaism and even an entire weekend devoted to the topic,” he wrote. “There were tours beyond the Green Line [the pre-1967 borders of Israel], meetings with right-wing people and even – wow – with Israeli Arabs (don’t tell anyone), as well as, obviously, tours of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. This, by the way, was in 1998.” Israel’s former ambassador to Angola Irit Savyon Vidergoren posted in response that her course in 1992 had been the same.

    The internal Facebook group at the foreign ministry had many responses as well. A senior serving diplomat said that her course in 1972 included weekends in the Etzion Bloc, much Jewish content and even, for men, practicing going up to read the Torah at a synagogue…”

    read more and weep

    @ http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.683570

    Just who is the Inciter and how long have they been at it? I’m grateful for the revelation of the obvious.

  36. Kay24
    November 2, 2015, 7:10 am

    Netanyahu is not very popular among his flock, yet they think he is the best for them.
    What a pathetic world these zionists live in. They should be happy at least he is stealing more
    lands for them, and killing more Palestinians!

    “Israelis are very unhappy with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s foreign policy. A new poll from the Israeli think tank Mitvim shows that 60 percent of Israelis disapprove of his government’s performance on foreign policy — nearly double the number who did so in the same poll last year.

    The poll, first reported by the Jerusalem Post’s Lahav Harkov on Thursday, asked 600 Israelis to rank the government’s foreign policy performance on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 is bad, 5 is neutral, and 10 is very good. Sixty percent of Israelis responded with a rating between 1 and 4 — varying degrees of “bad.” Last year, the figure was only 34 percent.”

    http://www.vox.com/2015/11/1/9648048/netanyahu-poll-israel-mitvim

  37. pabelmont
    November 2, 2015, 2:10 pm

    Roger Cohen: “We went from country to country and every place we went…. including the U.S. there was some next door neighbor who was going to call you a dirty Jew.”

    And now, with the establishment of Israel — not precisely as advertised, but in its present ugly reality — so very many Jews have in fact become dirty Jews, that is, Jews who are racist, violent, bullying,never able to say “Dayenu” because they always want more, * * * . (IMO)

  38. Alexanderplatz
    November 2, 2015, 2:39 pm

    One of the people who send their response to mondoweiss wanted to make an honest remark by saying that he admitted not being able to see himself as a universalist. I found that enlightening, because I don’t think that anybody is born with the gift of universalism. Universalism is never something given. It seems to me that being a universalist always means becoming a universalist. It’s the same with freedom. Both states of mind you conscious have to choose for in order to realize them. It is by all means something which we have to strive for because they also never are a permanent state of mind. The alternatives are: you either close off yourself in old anachronistic exclusive social groupthink: family, race or religion or you choose the opposite: the way of supramacism, which means that you feel yourself superior to others.
    We need to be aware also that non of these ‘safe havens’ are actually given by birth. They are learned from the outside by unnatural indoctrinations of extreme patriottism and chauvinism which functions as the main barriers to inner development as such. Before being able to becoming a ‘universalist’ person, people have to free themselves of the burden of these two temptations, that’s a prerequisite. By the way, the same counts for exceptionalism. That’s the other main hurdle to universalism. It’s very interesting to realize that the jews know both sides in the extreme: the inward drive to humanism and equality and the exclusivism which tends to blind and dangerous supramacism.

  39. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    November 3, 2015, 2:33 pm

    | see that ‘Jon’ is still trying to make a case for Zionism based on the words of a man who’s been dead for nearly half a century.

    “Jon” may not be aware of it, but he is unwittingly exposing just why hasbara is a dead loss.

  40. mcohen.
    November 8, 2015, 5:03 am

    i have always been a zionist because it is good for judaism and the jews.every nation has a few skeletons here and there,just read the history books.why should it be any diffetent for israel.the problem is the numbers,we do not have the numbers,yet.so go forth multiply.,may G-d protect it with a pillar of fire and a firm hand.
    let those who doubt be made to believe

    • eljay
      November 8, 2015, 8:37 am

      || mcohen.: i have always been a zionist because it is good for judaism and the jews. … ||

      So…when Zio-supremacist Jews commit acts of terrorism, ethnic cleansing, oppression, torture, murder and sundry (war) crimes, it benefits both:
      – the religion of Judaism; and
      – every person in the world who happens to be Jewish but who does not wish to be associated with or held responsible for the acts of injustice and immorality committed by hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist Jews.

      Interesting. I suppose that, similarly, serial rape is good for justice and for the male population.

    • Mooser
      November 8, 2015, 12:43 pm

      “the problem is the numbers ,we do not have the numbers,yet.” “mcohen”

      Get busy, “mcohen”! Start schtupping! How many you figure we need? Got a sister? Put her to work for the good of Judaism.

      Oh yes, every indication is that the number of Jews is going straight up and vertical! And every one of them ready to fight and die for Israel. Because it’s “good for Judaism” (helps build strong Judaism, 12 ways!)

      But are you sure “mcohen”, that all this going forth and multiplying is within your powers? It looks like your ellipses have caught ED, they’re, uh, truncated. Some of them seem to be inserted into semi-colons.

    • Mooser
      November 8, 2015, 12:56 pm

      “may G-d protect it with a pillar of fire and a firm hand.”

      A pillow and firm hand won’t get it done, “mcohen” we need real women to have children. And not go marrying those you-know-whos!

      Look, I hate to be a wet-blanket, “mcohen” but could you get off this “numbers” kick? We’re supposed to be “a landless people”. Well, you start letting it out that we are a “people-less people” too, and you’ll blow the entire thing.

Leave a Reply