Roger Cohen and Jeremy Ben-Ami go on the road for the two-state solution

US Politics
on 126 Comments

There seems to be a crisis emerging in the American discourse over the two-state paradigm. University of Maryland researchers presented a study indicating that American attitudes on the Israel/Palestinian conflict fall into three broad categories:  (1) 35 percent support a two state solution to the conflict, (2) 31 percent support a one state solution—defined as “a single democratic state in which both Jews and Arabs are full and equal citizens, covering all of what is now Israel and the Palestinian Territories”—and (3) 27 percent favor some version of the status quo. John Kerry has recently warned that “an untenable one state reality” is taking hold.

Two liberal Zionists, Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street and Roger Cohen of the New York Times, are on a five-city speaking-tour attempting to revive some urgency for a two-state solution. They argue that the status quo is not acceptable but…nevertheless… a two-state solution remains the only viable solution for securing both a secure Jewish state in Israel/Palestine, and peace for Jews and Palestinians.

Recognizing that a two-state-solution is not in the political cards at this time, J Street is launching a Maps Initiative, to bring maps that recognize the Green Line (the putative border of a future Palestinian state) back into Jewish institutions and consciousness. J Street notes that Israel has made a concerted effort to erase the Green Line, and with it the idea of two states living side-by side in peace. It’s the Green Line as life-support for an idea until such time as the political will can be found to end the occupation and to create a separate Palestinian state.

I heard Ben-Ami and Cohen on Monday night at Reform Temple Beth Am in Los Altos, California. There was a very large turnout. The crowd of ~450 was Jewish, skewed older (50-90), and was very receptive to what the two speakers had to say. County supervisor Joe Semiti was in attendance. There was periodic polite applause. The first question to Roger Cohen was whether the New York Times will be covering the support from U.S. non-profits for West Bank settlements? He begged off, saying he is on the editorial side of the paper, where he doesn’t have to “hide what I think,” but has no input on news content. Asked whether he would support Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions to apply pressure, Cohen said he supports labeling and BDS of West Bank products; he is afraid of the broader BDS movement and its call for the right of return of 4 million Palestinians to Israel proper.

Ben-Ami affirmed his hope for an Israel that is Jewish, but also something to be proud of:

This is a difficult, trying moment, … and to find a pathway out is part of the mission of J-Street. … Zionism is a movement that says “we can build a nation for our people that is grounded in the values on which we were raised…and that can and should be …something that reflects well on us as a people, and that provides safety and security, but also a sense of purpose and something better.….”

Many will bridle at the notion that there is anything Jewish left to be proud of in Israel/Palestine in light of the systematic discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel, the violence against individuals inherent in the occupation, and the mass violence against Palestinians demonstrated by the last three Gaza wars, and the decades of collective punishment illustrated by blockades and house demolitions. Ben-Ami and Cohen are carrying the message that, despite all, “Yes” the original vision of secular liberal Zionism can be revived.

To the extent that the answer is “No, it’s too late,” or “the Zionist project was doomed from the start” the question is “What is possible now?” That’s the question I had as I listened. The vision of a two-state solution that Jews can be proud of may be a mirage; is one democratic state with equal rights for all also a mirage? The urgency for a change in the status quo, no doubt, is real.

Roger Cohen was asked to assess the chances for a two-state-solution at this time. I have transcribed the heart of his speech below at some length. Whether you are in support of a two-state solution, a one-state solution, or happy with the status quo, if you are interested in peace for Israel/Palestine, Cohen’s speech is worth taking note of:

In researching my memoir, “The Girl from Human Street,” I was cemented in my convictions as a Zionist because I realized that at every stage of this [family] odyssey, be it in Lithuania, in South Africa—the tenuous existence of the whites—and the knowledge that this unjust system was persecuting the invisible blacks at the horizon in ways that for Jews could only be reminiscent to the ways Jews had been treated in Europe, most especially between 1933 to 1945. Onward to Britain where, at least when I was growing up, it was fine to be a Jew, but preferably to be a Jew in a whisper….. Everywhere one went there was this slight unease. And Herzl was right: half acceptance into Christian Europe was more dangerous than non-acceptance. …. So Jews need a homeland; they need the modern state of Israel. 

The question, of course, is which Israel? ….

We are gathering at a very difficult moment…. We have yet to put the future over the past. Narrative is all very well. We can disagree on narratives; we’ll never agree—we Jews and Palestinians—on what happened in 1948. For Jews it’s their day of Independence, the day when the state of Israel was created; for the Palestinians it was the Nakba, it was the catastrophe, it was the moment that 700,000 Palestinians were driven out in a war … and we will never agree about this.  But we don’t have to agree about history; we don’t have to agree about history if we can agree that the future is more important; that to put the food on the table for our children—be they Arab children, or Jewish children—is more important than deciding exactly what happened in some particular village in what was then mandate Palestine 68 years ago.  And what Mandela and De Klerk did (in South Africa) was precisely that: all the violence that had preceded their coming together was less important than their trying to get over it….

In a situation as bad as the current one is in Israel, what possible reason is there to believe that things can get better. Well, there is no doubt that the situation is dire. And why is it dire? Because we have what Secretary of State John Kerry very recently described as a one state reality. And if a one state reality persists, that means that Israel cannot remain what I think we all want it to remain, that is a Jewish and democratic state. And it cannot remain that for the simple reason that in the not too distant future there will be more Arabs in the land between the Jordan River and the sea than Jews, and so the choice for Jews will be to either oppress these Palestinian people, several million of them, in a system that may come to resemble what I observed in South Africa during my childhood, or give up on its Jewish nature. And that I think is not an option that any of us want. And the only way to get out of that, the only way, still, is to have a two state outcome: Israel and Palestine, living beside each other in peace and security.

Right now, the signs are not good. Why are they not good, because in essence I think the secular Zionism that we saw at the foundation of Israel … [with political and social equality for all inhabitants…has been abandoned] But unfortunately we have drifted from that secular Zionism that wanted to find a place for that Arab minority within Israel, to the messianic Zionism that says “all the land is ours between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.” Why is it ours? “Because God said so; because it was deeded to us millennia ago in the scriptures; and that land is ours forever.” And that is very problematic when there are millions of other people living on that very territory.

For me, the foundation of the state of Israel has to lie in legality. And east of the 1967 line there is no legality. What is the legal foundation of the State of Israel. It is Resolution 181 of 1947 at the United Nations, calling for two states, one Jewish and one Arab in the Holy Land, with international supervision of Jerusalem, and an economic union between those two states. It’s worth reading, that document. 

Rivers of blood have of course flown since that time, since 1948 and the 68 years since. And many would say that is the demonstration that this idea, that in the place of British Mandate Palestine you can have two states, one Jewish and one Arab with international supervision of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem—that was a terrible idea. But I say “No,” what that bloodshed demonstrates is that there is no alternative to what was stipulated there, that if you try to build one state, if you try for some other solution, it will only result in disaster.

And for me the idea that the State of Israel could be based ad infinitum on the statelessness of another people; the Jews who for so long were strangers in a strange land will continue to live exercising dominion over another people; and anybody who has visited the West Bank knows exactly what that dominion looks like, and how humiliating it is to the Palestinian people living under it; the idea that the Jews, an ethical people, who came up with the idea of a formless, faceless God, with whom we had a covenant, and it was that covenant that we took around the world with us over millennia, in our dispersal, in our diaspora; and what was that covenant? It was a covenant of ethics. And what is the core of those ethics. …It’s the notion that “that which is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man.” That is the whole Torah. And the idea, to me, that this could only be applicable when Jews were powerless, but not applicable when Jews have reached a position of power as in the State of Israel, I think that would be a very sad outcome.

Well, you say to me…. What about the Palestinians? We need an interlocutor. These Palestinians who “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” who are divided; Fatah in the West Bank; Hamas bent on the destruction of Israel in Gaza; unserious about peace because of insistent incitement they show toward the Jewish people; how can you work with these people; how can you try to forge a peace with a Palestinian leadership that is that weak and that divided? And, of course, Prime Minister Netanyahu always says: “there is no one to talk to.” Well, yes, it is difficult. Very difficult. Is it impossible? I would be prepared to say it’s impossible if I believed that the current Israeli leadership had ever tried in good faith, in good faith stopping building settlements in the West Bank, engaging in good faith trying to achieve a two state peace. If that had been tried and failed, then I’d be prepared to say that it’s hopeless. But I do not believe that under Prime Minister Netanyahu that there has been such a good faith effort. I do not believe so. We are dealing with a Prime Minister in Israel who recently declared, before retracting it, that Hitler did not have the idea for the Holocaust before the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem suggested it to him. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have reached this point; this is really a new low. We are dealing with a Prime Minister who 20 years ago compared Yithzak Rabin to Chamberlain, and who compared the Oslo accords to Munich; we are dealing with a Prime Minister who when Salam Fayyad, who—then the Palestinian Prime Minister—did try, in a serious way, to build up a state in the West Bank that was uncorrupt, that had a functioning administration, did all he could to undermine Fayyad by saying he was a radical unilateralist; which he wasn’t. The problem with Fayyad was that he spoke good English, he looked presentable, he’d been educated in the United States, and he was serious about two states for two peoples living side-by-side with each other in peace and security. But for the Israeli government, this right of center Israeli government, this was the Palestinian from hell. Yes, Fayyad was also being undermined by Fatah, by the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank, and that opportunity was lost.

The Israeli political scene has drifted slowly to the right. Prime Minister Netanyahu is of the center right and he is held hostage by people who are even further right. He only has a one-seat majority in the Knesset and those further right want to annex part of the West Bank, want to drive out the Palestinians from the West Bank. It is extremely problematic, the situation, and one of the issues, I think we all have to deal with, is the lack of a viable political alternative right now.

Perhaps you all saw the advertisement in the New York Times, this week, from three Israeli retired Generals who said “we cannot go on like this.” We cannot have a fourth Gaza war. …Israel’s security, which must always be front and center, does not pass through more fighting, it does not pass through more war. It passes only through arriving at a two-state outcome. And their words are very similar to the words that I’m sure you saw in that powerful movie, the Gatekeepers, about five heads of Israeli security who all concluded, one and all, having made every attempt over their entire lifetimes to secure Israel’s well being and security with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza…concluded that it was just not tenable. It was just not sustainable; it cannot go on.

What is the status quo; what is the one-state reality? The status quo might suggest stasis, it might even suggest calm; but no, I think the status quo has violence built into it. The three Gaza wars over the last six years, and I was in Gaza a year ago and I saw the rubble there, and the condition of children who have seen three wars in six wars. You don’t need to teach them anything about Israel. That is the generation that is coming along. The status quo is that; and it is also these unconscionable stabbings, the violence that you see in the streets of Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel right now, because people want to be free. They want to run their own lives. I have been a foreign correspondence for many years in many different places and I think that it is a fundamental human instinct, a fundamental human trait. It does not matter if you’re born Black in South Africa, or if you’re Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza; if you’re an oppressed peoples anywhere you want to be free. And I think you can hit people over the head, once, twice, three times, four times, five times, six times, there will come a time … the seventh time, when they will rise up, and you will see acts, individual acts it seems recently, such as we’ve recently seen from Palestinians.

So if we want to change the status quo, there is no change possible, in my view, no viable alternative to two states. More and more people talk about one state, they might be writers in Israel, they might be BDS movement, who under the cloak of boycott and divestment also call in that platform for the return of all the 4 million plus refugees to Israel. Well that is code, actually rather flimsy code, for the end of the Jewish homeland of Israel, and that’s the reason I oppose the BDS movement. But if we want to avoid that one state reality, if we want to get beyond it, if we want to defeat the people on both sides who want one state for their different reasons, we have to work very, very hard to try to revive the possibility of two states. There is no alternative. You can’t have one state with some of the people in it marking a day of independence in it on one day, and some of the other people in that state regarding that day as their Nakba, or catastrophe. And if you look at Syria or Iraq, or Turkey now, where violence has flared again between the Turkish state and the Kurds, the examples of multi-denominational, or multi-religious states in the region is not good.

In fact, Israel proper, legal Israel, Israel west of the 1967 lines—for all the problems of the 20 percent minority Arabs—is doing a pretty remarkable job of affording to that minority lives where at least they can vote, they can be represented in the Knesset, be on the Supreme Court, occupy some of the highest position in medicine and some of the other professions. And I’m not saying it’s a perfect situation. But it’s a lot better than what surrounds it.

What can be done, and I’ll come to an end here….  As Jeremy said, Secretary Kerry made a huge effort and we got the third Gaza war. It’s pathetic. We all know the broad outlines of a peace settlement. It will be hard, it will be tough; that’s what diplomacy is about. The whole Iran negotiation demonstrated that. It’s about “what do I want; what do you want.” And what, grinning our teeth, hating it, can we agree that we both want. And for there to be a two state peace settlement, most of the settlements in the West Bank, most of the settlers… not all of them… not those in areas contiguous with Jerusalem, and of course there will be negotiations, but most of them will have to pull back. Palestinians will have to give up on the so-called right of return. There is no way that 4 million plus Palestinians are going back to Israel. They can be compensated, but they are not going back. These are painful and difficult decisions for both sides.

And then, once you get through that, you have Jerusalem. And what do you do about Jerusalem. Well, I think you go back to 1947, and the UN Resolution. You need guaranteed access to the holy sites for all peoples. And for that you probably need some international supervision, and you need for the Palestinians to be able to say that some cut of Jerusalem can be had for their capitol. These are very, very difficult issues. We shouldn’t disguise that. But we all know what the parameters of a peace deal could be.

I don’t think we’re going to see such a deal in the last year of the Obama Presidency. …The United States and its allies is not going to afford to Prime Minister Netanyahu, or Mahmoud Abbas, the fig leaf of a process that is not really a process. …

It’s also important, I think, for the United States to continue to make clear that expansion of settlements is inimical, is incompatible (with peace).  If you’re a Palestinian, and you’re sitting in the West Bank, and you see these garrisons on hills growing, and you see the progressive occupation of more and more territory by Israel, how seriously… are you going to take discussions about a putative Palestinian state on that very territory. ….

[W]e need to see a change of leadership in Israel. Both those in the opposition and in the primeministership. When that will come we don’t know. But things do move. Some of the biggest events, significant events in my lifetime were foreseen by nobody: the Arab awakening, the fall of the Berlin wall.

I was a correspondent in Berlin for three years, and I would drive into Poland, and I could not see a border. And I had to pinch myself that only six decades earlier, not hundreds of thousands of people as in the Middle East, but millions, and millions, and millions of people had to die to cross that very border on that very land, and now I couldn’t even see where the border was just then 65 years on. … It is not impossible to change situations, as that situation shows, as South Africa shows.

About Roland Nikles

Roland Nikles is a Bay Area writer and attorney. He blogs here: rolandnikles.blogspot.com. And you can follow him on twitter @RolandNikles

Other posts by .


Posted In:

126 Responses

  1. MHughes976
    December 12, 2015, 12:55 pm

    My reaction is rather divided. There is plain acknowledgement that Isrsel,is an oppressor and the argument that resources for continuing oppression are running low in the face of the legitimate Palestinian demand for freedom. The idea that oppression ‘cannot’ continue indefinitely is only half a moral idea: if Netanyahu (or someone) were to reply ‘Don’t worry, we’ve got the guns, the money and the international support for completely indefinite operations” and could make a good case in purely military and political terms Cohen has no moral argument on which to fall back. His primary moral imperative in this matter is demand for a Zionist Jewish refuge.
    However, if someone could build pressure on Israel to declare its terms for a 2ss that would indeed clarify the situation immensely.

  2. pabelmont
    December 12, 2015, 1:05 pm

    I don’t think Israel will ever (willingly) relinquish Greater Jerusalem or large swathes of the West Bank. And I see no signs that the Great Power (you know who) is likely to make Israel do so unwillingly. What to do? GP should offer Israel or Palestine Westchester County, NY, as a replacement national home and let the other have all of I/P.

    This is obviously fair and more than fair to all concerned, especially to the residents of Westchester County, NY, who would have the honor (honor being more valuable than all other considerations!) of giving up their homes and lands to a people without a land! And perhaps international donors could gin up some money to help the Westchesterians resettle elsewhere.

    If Israel goes to NY, then Palestinians get their land back and the M/E returns to its normal complacency (apart from numerous wars, global warming, etc.) If Palestine goes to NY (which I’d prefer since I really, really like Palestinians and would like them as near neighbors), then Israel can have all of I/P and be welcomed to the neighborhood by all of its Muslim neighbors, ever charming folks who — however — might have a problem with Israel as undisputed owner of Al Aqsa Mosque.

    Well, it was an idea. Got it from Lord Balfour himself, a genius of territorial reorganization.

    • Kris
      December 12, 2015, 1:20 pm

      Great idea, pabelmont.

      From Cohen’s speech: “And Herzl was right: half acceptance into Christian Europe was more dangerous than non-acceptance. …. So Jews need a homeland; they need the modern state of Israel.”

      Actually, Jews need the modern state of Israel like they need a hole in the head. Jews like Cohen still haven’t managed to find a seat on the clue train.

      • zaid
        December 12, 2015, 3:58 pm

        His logic is pure racism:

        We have to give them a state or we will have to live with them.

      • Mooser
        December 12, 2015, 6:42 pm

        “Jews like Cohen still haven’t managed to find a seat on the clue train.”

        But the ride is so much smoother on the gravy train.

      • hophmi
        December 13, 2015, 12:29 pm

        Not at all what he said. You’re projecting. It’s the Palestinians who are uninterested in living with the Jews, not the other way around. No matter what state of affairs occurs, Israel will continue to be at least 20% Palestinian, and Palestine will continue to be virtually 0% Jewish.

      • diasp0ra
        December 13, 2015, 12:56 pm

        @Hophmi

        Yeah cos you ethnically cleansed the rest.

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 1:13 pm

        “Israel will continue to be at least 20% Palestinian, and Palestine will continue to be virtually 0% Jewish.”

        Huh? What about all those settlers? Coupla hundred thousand, aren’t there? Aren’t they Jews in Palestine?

        Oh, I get it, wherever there are Jews, that is Israel?

      • Kris
        December 13, 2015, 1:50 pm

        @hophmi: “It’s the Palestinians who are uninterested in living with the Jews, not the other way around.”

        The Jews are not just “uninterested” in living with the Palestinians, they are violently opposed to it. Try googling “racist attitudes Israelis against Palestinians.” Here’s one of the many articles: http://972mag.com/poll-israelis-support-discrimination-against-arabs-embrace-the-term-apartheid/58258/

        There are 50+ laws in Israel privileging Jews over Palestinian Israeli citizens, http://mondoweiss.net/2015/06/database-discriminatory-israel . Is this because Israeli Jews are respecting the wishes of the Palestinian Israelis to be second-class citizens?

        We read news reports every single day about Israeli Jewish “settlers” brutalizing their Palestinian neighbors. Is this because the Jews want to live with the Palestinians? What they want is the land that belongs to the Palestinans, without the Palestinians themselves.

        In order to be able to think of themselves as decent people, the Israeli Jews have convinced themselves that the Palestinians are subhuman, disgusting beings, “dogs,” and “roaches.” http://mondoweiss.net/2009/01/the-palestinians-in-israeli-officials-own-words This is how it was in the Jim Crow south of my youth.

        In fact, back in the Jim Crow day, whites in my town were convinced that blacks were “uninterested” in integration, were just being stirred up by “Yankee” agitators, and would soon ease back into our old gracious “way of life.”

        Israeli Jews are deluded, too.

      • oldgeezer
        December 13, 2015, 2:06 pm

        @hophmi

        Oh please hophmi. You are so full of it.

        Some Israelis can’t even live with some Israelis as they break off into their own little like minded settlements. Nowhere else do we see such a high level of segregation by choice.

        As if wanting the Jewish state didn’t speak loudly enough to begin with.

      • Bumblebye
        December 13, 2015, 2:52 pm

        @ hophmi

        given the number of “Israelis” in Palestine the country is at least 25% Jewish. Trouble is *they* have no desire to live with or be Palestinian and live in ethnically cleansed enclaves on stolen land. You are the projectionist of fantasy.

        (Btw, congratulations!)

      • hophmi
        December 13, 2015, 7:33 pm

        Kris: what state do you live in?

      • Kris
        December 13, 2015, 8:04 pm

        @hophmi: “Kris: what state do you live in?”

        Why do you ask?

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 8:56 pm

        “Why do you ask?”

        “Kris”, I’m sure you know why he asks that. You say what state, and “Hophmi” says it was taken from the Native American’s. And if you don’t give the state back, there’s no reason why Israel should let the Palestinians have anything back. So it’s all your fault, “Kris”, if it wasn’t for you taking your state from the Native Americans, the Zionists wouldn’t have to do any of this stuff.

      • zaid
        December 13, 2015, 10:16 pm

        Hophmi

        30% of Palestinians accept the 1 SS while for Israel is more like 1%

      • Boo
        December 14, 2015, 9:02 am

        Ask me, Hophmi, what state I live in. The answer would be “Hawaii”, and I’m a native Hawaiian. So tell me, who took our indigenous lands from us? Why, that would be the 1%, the white mercantilists and plantation owners who staged a capitalist coup in 1898 and overthrew our monarchy because they were afraid of losing the upper hand.

        We are halfway around the world from Palestine, but oppressed people the world around are of course in solidarity. We have few Palestinians in our islands but their struggle is our struggle, their grief is our grief, their outrage is our outrage.

        Ask me again, Hophmi, what state I live in. We, and the Palestinians, live in a state of suspended animation. Don’t expect that we will allow it to be suspended for much longer.

      • Kris
        December 14, 2015, 12:15 pm

        @Mooser: “You say what state, and “Hophmi” says it was taken from the Native American’s. And if you don’t give the state back, there’s no reason why Israel should let the Palestinians have anything back.”

        But at least I haven’t also stolen a “back-up” state, doesn’t that count for anything?

      • bryan
        December 16, 2015, 12:25 pm

        I think you have misinterpreted Hophmi again – if you had said you live in the USA and then given him a chance to reply he would have further elaborated that you violently rebelled against British colonial rule, just as the small minority who had recently entered Palestine rebelled against British colonial rule. He would then have gone on to assert than any oppressed people have a natural right to rebel against their colonial oppressors – and he would have offered additional examples of the Vietnamese, the Indians, the South Africans, the Kenyans and the Palestinians.

    • lysias
      December 12, 2015, 3:31 pm

      That would mean that there would be lots of Palestinians voting in New York and U.S. elections. Israel would never permit it.

  3. Kris
    December 12, 2015, 1:45 pm

    Shorter Cohen:

    History shows us that Jews must have a back-up country.

    Jews are the good guys, despite all the suffering they have inflicted, and continue to inflict, on the Palestinians, but with better leadership, Israel can give up some of the “settlements,” and the Palestinians can give up their right of return and much of their land.

    That is to say, Palestinians can give up what belongs to them, and Israelis can give up some of what they have stolen. As Jews we say, “that which is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man.” That is the whole Torah.” Another way we understand this teaching is, “Heads I win, tails you lose.”

    • hophmi
      December 13, 2015, 12:39 pm

      Nonsense. History shows us that Jews as a minority eventually end up persecuted.

      What of the Muslim argument that Muslim need not one, but 57 backup countries? It doesn’t appear here because Muslims and Christians are accorded dozens of times what Jews aren’t given once. That’s called ignorant bigotry.

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 1:15 pm

        “History shows us that Jews as a minority eventually end up persecuted.”

        Yes, look at the way the US forbids us Jews to have an independent existence as a nation within the US. Holding us back, I tell you.

        Oh, about that “minority eventually end up persecuted” thing? Do I really have to tell you, at your age, what to do about that? And when other people try to help us, you call it “out-marriage” and kvetch about it.

      • Kris
        December 13, 2015, 1:18 pm

        @hophmi: “History shows us that Jews as a minority eventually end up persecuted.”

        History shows us that minorities, even if not Jewish, are persecuted. So is every minority entitled to steal someone else’s land in order to establish a nation?

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 1:31 pm

        “It doesn’t appear here because Muslims and Christians are accorded dozens of times what Jews aren’t given once.”

        Somebody didn’t get a Hanukkah present, did he? I’m sorry “Hoph”

      • Eva Smagacz
        December 13, 2015, 6:33 pm

        Hopmi, Are you for real?:

        “What of the Muslim argument that Muslim need not one, but 57 backup countries”

        Is this your way of arguing that Israelis can take over any European Country (Poland for example, you were living there not quite 2000 years ago) , because Polish people, greedy pigs, have many other european countries?

        Or can Israelis help themselves to Argentina, as it is a Catholic country, and Catholics have dozens of other Catholic countries to go to.

        Finally, can Israelis ethnically cleanse New Zealand (such a pleasant land….) and tell new zealanders to stop kvetching, as they have huge amount of capitalist countries to go to?

      • diasp0ra
        December 13, 2015, 6:40 pm

        @Hophmi

        “What of the Muslim argument that Muslim need not one, but 57 backup countries?”

        Are you drunk?

        There is no “Muslim argument” that says such, as SURPRISE SURPRISE, Muslims aren’t an interchangeable big brown monolith. Why the hell would someone from Morocco have Pakistan as a “backup” nation? What even is a “backup” nation, other than the context of what we have seen from a lot of Zionists outside of Israel?

        I can’t even begin to comprehend how you argue that Zionists can take over a land because Palestinians can go to another land. Why should we?

        Would you allow me to take over your house because you can go stay with your parents? I’m homeless you see, it would be ignorant bigotry for you not to let me keep it.

        Can I steal a car from someone who owns 3 cars because they can just use one of their other ones, while I have no car at all?

      • RoHa
        December 13, 2015, 6:44 pm

        “Muslims and Christians are accorded dozens of times what Jews aren’t given once. ”

        Right. Any Christian who feels persecuted can just hop on a plane to any Christian country and he will be given instant citizenship as soon as he gets there.

      • hophmi
        December 13, 2015, 7:35 pm

        Spoken like a person from a country where more than 9 out every 10 Jews died between 1939 and 1945.

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 7:57 pm

        “Spoken like a person from a country where more than 9 out every 10 Jews died between 1939 and 1945.”

        What on earth is that supposed to mean? Have you lost your mind?

      • eljay
        December 13, 2015, 9:06 pm

        || hophmi: … What of the Muslim argument that Muslim need not one, but 57 backup countries? It doesn’t appear here because Muslims and Christians are accorded dozens of times what Jews aren’t given once. … ||

        Muslims and Christians:
        – are citizens of countries around the world;
        – do not have “backup countries”;
        – are not entitled to any “backup countries”;
        – are not entitled to any supremacist states; and
        – are not entitled to commit (war) criminal acts of injustice and immorality.

        The same applies to Jews. Jews are no different and no more special than Muslims and Christians.

        || … That’s called ignorant bigotry. ||

        Funny stuff, coming from a unapologetically hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist.

      • tree
        December 13, 2015, 9:44 pm

        History shows us that Jews as a minority eventually end up persecuted.

        Jews aren’t persecuted in the US, where they are clearly a small minority.

        Modern history has shown us that Jews as a majority end up persecuting Palestinians. Perhaps they aren’t ready for the responsibilities of majority status. Israeli Jews still want to be considered a minority that must be catered to by other countries, while acting the part of majority bullies in Israel.

      • tree
        December 13, 2015, 10:14 pm

        Spoken like a person from a country where more than 9 out every 10 Jews died between 1939 and 1945.

        Spoken like a heartless jerk defending a country that ethnically cleansed 8 to 9 out of every 10 Palestinian non-Jews in 1948.

        You really could learn something from Poland. Poles had their own country. It didn’t stop Germany and the Soviet Union from both invading it in 1939, nor did it stop Poland from having 3 million of its resident Poles murdered. Note: I am excluding the Polish Jews for this number, since you claim that Polish Jews didn’t have a country of their own.

        Nor did having its own country mean Poland wasn’t under the sway of the stronger Soviet Union for 40 years after that. “Having your own country” isn’t all its cracked up to be. Ask the Iraqis, … or even the Japanese. When Japan declared war on the US, US citizens of Japanese ancestry didn’t get to “return” to Japan. They got interned in the US. If Israel ever did something particularly heinous towards the US, its not going to be a preferred destination for anyone wishing to avoid the blowback. “Having a country” is not always considered a positive, especially if that country does despicable things. Individuals often get unfairly blamed for what “their country” did.

      • tree
        December 13, 2015, 10:28 pm

        Right. Any Christian who feels persecuted can just hop on a plane to any Christian country and he will be given instant citizenship as soon as he gets there. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/cohen-jeremy-solution#comment-815060

        Yep, Hophmi just managed to prove that Jews are given something that neither Christians nor Muslims are ever given. To quote the man himself, “That’s called ignorant bigotry.”

      • MHughes976
        December 14, 2015, 3:28 pm

        Is it predicted that it’s only a matter of time before a persecution of Jewish people starts in each country, the United States included? Or does Israel, by merely existing, prevent the persecutions from arising elsewhere?

    • Shingo
      December 13, 2015, 1:39 pm

      That is to say, Palestinians can give up what belongs to them, and Israelis can give up some of what they have stolen.

      This is what Cohen describes as both sides making painful concessions

    • santasa
      January 19, 2016, 2:19 pm

      That’s exactly how I perceived his representation of “Jewish ethics” – it’s hard to recognise rational person (mind) behind such bewildering claims and ideas.

  4. eljay
    December 12, 2015, 2:51 pm

    Liberal Zio-supremacists don’t care about the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality. (If they did, they wouldn’t be Zio-supremacists.)

    Like their hardier co-collectivists – the ones who do the dirty work while the liberal Zio-supremacists “hold their noses” – they advocate, justify, defend and support the existence of a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

    They just happen to want a “kinder, gentler” version of it.

  5. zaid
    December 12, 2015, 3:30 pm

    “It is not impossible to change situations, as that situation shows, as South Africa shows.”

    ” and now I couldn’t even see where the border was just then 65 years on”

    ” and now I couldn’t even see where the border was just then 65 years on”

    These examples points towards a 1SS and not the 2SS that the speaker is promoting.

    • hophmi
      December 13, 2015, 12:40 pm

      Please give me the examples of successful multiethnic States in the Middle East, besides Israel, of course. Here’s a complete list:

      1.

      • just
        December 13, 2015, 12:59 pm

        bwahahahaha.

      • diasp0ra
        December 13, 2015, 1:00 pm

        @Hophmi

        What are your criteria exactly?

        Because a state built on ethnic cleansing, dealing with a war every couple of years and a large scale uprising every decade, in addition to daily and weekly clashes with its military doesn’t sound too stable to me.

        Do you mean successful as in not collapsing? Because that’s not really a high bar.

      • Shingo
        December 13, 2015, 1:43 pm

        If Israel is a successful multi ethnic state then so was apartheid South Africa

      • yonah fredman
        December 13, 2015, 3:03 pm

        you’ll notice that all the answers regard Israel and no examples of other (or any) multi ethnic successes in the middle east are offered.

      • diasp0ra
        December 13, 2015, 6:43 pm

        @Yonah

        Do you care to give a criteria for what success means?

        Also, how is that even a defense? White South Africans talked all the time how they were the only stable country in sub-saharan Africa, how Africans living there lived better than in any other black ruled country. Big whoop. What is your point?

        Again, I ask you: How do you define success?

      • hophmi
        December 13, 2015, 7:37 pm

        There aren’t any. Multiethnic countries are things European colonialists from countries that are 9/10ths Christian like to prattle on about, even as they lapse into civil wars where millions of people die.

      • eljay
        December 13, 2015, 8:11 pm

        || hophmi: Please give me the examples of successful multiethnic States in the Middle East, besides Israel, of course. … ||

        So, this time your argument is that if a mono-ethnic group rapes a woman, that’s bad; but if a multi-ethnic group rapes a woman, that’s good. Interesting.

        Israel is not absolved of its past and on-going (war) crimes or its obligations under international law because it is “multiethnic” or “the only ‘Jewish State’ in the world” or a “Western-style democracy or a “moral beacon” or because of the Holocaust or Iran or “terrrrrrr”.

      • zaid
        December 13, 2015, 10:23 pm

        All Arab Mk in Israel are anti Zionists, and they are the ones to judge the success of Israel and not the privileged Jews.

      • RoHa
        December 13, 2015, 11:27 pm

        Pssst, diaspOra.

        “Do you care to give a criteria for what success means?”

        A criterion.

      • yonah fredman
        December 14, 2015, 5:10 pm

        diaspora- the following are some criteria: 1. Democracy 2. constitutional tolerance for minorities 3. actual on the ground tolerance for minorities.

        (My knowledge is superficial, but it seems to me that the country that is currently the most democratic and diverse in the Arab world is Lebanon. It is not a basket case, per se, but one cannot point to it and call it a success story. Too much violence and the persistence of ethnic militias, for whatever reasons, disqualify it from being termed a success story. Let us move to Egypt: where democracy was defeated by al Sisi’s coup d’état and the Muslim Brotherhood did not seem very successful in reassuring the Copts of tolerance (before their rule was overthrown by al Sisi). Iraq of course was invaded by the United States and its ethnic tensions are at the basis of the birth of ISIS. Syria is ruled by Alawites, supported by the Shiites of Iran and at war with Sunnis.)

        (Since I am not letting my superficiality stop me, I might as well, continue. I think the Arab world has been in decline since 1290 and the Mongol invasion. Turkey (the Ottoman Empire’s) dominance was tolerated because Turkey adopted Islam after conquering the Islamic world (they had no religion or culture of major substance to begin with, merely conquered a more cultured people and adopted Islam). But in fact this subservience to Turkey did not serve the Arab world well. Being occupied and dominated by others for 400 years- 1500 to 1918, did not give the Arab world the cultural essentials to establish themselves when the west kicked the Turks out of the middle east and drew lines in the sand and created new countries. The countries are ruled by dictators and are lagging behind the west. Before the fall of Baghdad in 1290 it was a primary destination for those who wished to learn the latest science and the latest culture. But 700 years after that conquest, the Arab world still has not regained its footing.)

      • Annie Robbins
        December 14, 2015, 6:10 pm

        My knowledge is superficial…I am not letting my superficiality stop me, I might as well, continue.

        is this code for ‘i have no idea what i’m talking about’ but i’ll say it anyway?

        Iraq of course was invaded by the United States and its ethnic tensions are at the basis of the birth of ISIS.

        oh please yonah. it was the US invasion that brought along the death squads https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Steele_(US_Colonel) (based on ethnicity). dividing up baghdad, previously a secular city, into walled ethnic neighborhoods. why even bother mentioning the invasion at all if you’re going to evade connecting it to the development of isis. everyone knows the spawning of islamic state of iraq was the result of our invasion.

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link

        The long-term impact of [the US] funding and arming this paramilitary force was to unleash a deadly sectarian militia that terrorised the Sunni community and helped germinate a civil war that claimed tens of thousands of lives. At the height of that sectarian conflict, 3,000 bodies a month were strewn on the streets of Iraq.

      • diasp0ra
        December 14, 2015, 6:47 pm

        @Yonah

        So if you say Lebanon can’t be a success story because there is too much violence, what makes you say Israel is one? Like it or not, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are ruled by Israel, even if we have no representation. We are administered by the PA, but the PA has no sovereignty and requires Israeli approval for everything. Similar to the Bantustans that insisted that they were independent.

        Second of all, what on the ground tolerance for minorities in Israel? The one where over half the population thinks Arabs shouldn’t be part of any government? Where around 40% don’t want to live in the same building as an Arab? Where citizenship and nationality are not the same and mean different things according to your religion, thus determining your rights?

        When Israel has a written constitution then we can talk about it based in the constitution.

      • Mooser
        December 14, 2015, 7:05 pm

        (My knowledge is superficial…/…at war with Sunnis.)
        (Since I am not letting my superficiality stop me…/… regained its footing.)

        A comment which consists entirely of two long parenthetical paragraphs, with parentheses inside of them, too! Haven’t seen that before.
        Might be a sign of pilpul overdose.

      • yonah fredman
        December 15, 2015, 6:37 pm

        diaspora- you have again proved hophmi’s point: you focus only on Israel and provide not one example of a success story in the Arab middle east. I did not label Israel as a success story, but still that does not absolve you of citing even one example of something that YOU consider a success story.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 15, 2015, 8:38 pm

        does not absolve him? he is not required to claim there are any successful democracies in the ME. and don’t give us this crap you didn’t claim israel was a success story when you wrote all the answers regard Israel and no examples of other (or any) multi ethnic successes in the middle east are offered.

        “of other” implies israel is a multi ethnic success. which is farcical.

        besides, the idea of “success” is relative. the US isn’t even a successful democracy, so it’s a loaded question. israel is definitely not a democracy so that’s out of the question. what difference does it make? this is a diversion.

        zaid wrote

        “It is not impossible to change situations, as that situation shows, as South Africa shows.”

        ” and now I couldn’t even see where the border was just then 65 years on”

        “These examples points towards a 1SS and not the 2SS that the speaker is promoting.”

        and hop’s rejoinder was to ask him a loaded off topic question. it’s a successful spam job that you’re promoting. good bye.

  6. John Douglas
    December 12, 2015, 5:10 pm

    Roger Cohen: “Onward to Britain where, at least when I was growing up, it was fine to be a Jew, but preferably to be a Jew in a whisper….. Everywhere one went there was this slight unease. And Herzl was right: half acceptance into Christian Europe was more dangerous than non-acceptance. …. So Jews need a homeland; they need the modern state of Israel.

    Is he really saying that Jews can live a very good life where Jews are a minority (e.g., England – where just about everyone seems to be a minority), except for that “slight unease” and, because of that “slight unease” there must be a Jewish controlled State, it must be in the Middle East, so there must be a permanent Palestinian diaspora, so the AD 1948 (and before) expulsions by Jews must hold but the (likely mythica) AD 70 expulsions by the Romans must be undone?
    Roger that?

    • Annie Robbins
      December 12, 2015, 6:32 pm

      yep, he’s really saying it.

    • JWalters
      December 12, 2015, 7:01 pm

      “Herzl was right”

      Herzl was wrong. The Jewish community needs to divest themselves of their predatory financiers and they will be fine. Those financiers used the extremist, anti-assimilationist / segregationist Jews like Herzl as pawns.

      • Mooser
        December 12, 2015, 7:33 pm

        “anti-assimilationist / segregationist Jews like Herzl”

        Herzl? Really? Wasn’t he a tre’er?

      • hophmi
        December 13, 2015, 12:41 pm

        “The Jewish community needs to divest themselves of their predatory financiers and they will be fine.”

        More garden variety antisemitism here at Mondoweiss.

      • Kris
        December 13, 2015, 1:29 pm

        @hophmi: “More garden variety antisemitism here at Mondoweiss.”

        Are there no “predatory financiers” in the Jewish community?

        If there are “predatory financiers” in the Jewish community, is it “anti-semitic” to say so?

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 1:37 pm

        “More garden variety antisemitism here at Mondoweiss.”

        And gee, how does your garden grow, “Hophmi”? With “Muslim theories” and “57 countries” all in a row?

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 2:05 pm

        Muslim theories”

        Sorry, “Hophmi” I misquoted you. Should be “Muslim arguments”
        Not ‘theories’.

        And if Herzl was alive to day, he would appreciate how far Christmas lights have come. Had a Christmas tree himself, didn’t he?
        A lot of the new lights are low-volt DC, not that 60 Herzls-per-second house current, too.

      • irishmoses
        December 13, 2015, 6:21 pm

        JW: : “Predatory financiers”?

        Could we have a link or two that might enlighten us all on the existence and nature of this group and why and how Jewish predatory financiers differ from your normal non-Jewish predatory financiers?

        Without further clarification, this comment seems borderline at best.

      • Eva Smagacz
        December 13, 2015, 6:44 pm

        “The Jewish community needs to divest themselves of their predatory financiers and they will be fine”

        Which bit is anti-semitic?

        The Jewish community needs to divest themselves of their predatory financiers and they will be fine.

        The Jewish community needs to divest themselves of their predatory financiers and they will be fine.

        The Jewish community needs to divest themselves of their predatory financiers and they will be fine.

        The Jewish community needs to divest themselves of their predatory financiers and they will be fine.

        Which part of that statement is racist, exactly?

      • JWalters
        December 13, 2015, 6:44 pm

        “why and how Jewish predatory financiers differ from your normal non-Jewish predatory financiers”

        They’re essentially all the same. (Their swindling opportunities may differ somewhat due to somewhat different social networks.)

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 6:47 pm

        “Without further clarification, this comment seems borderline at best.”

        Yeah, I felt the same way when you mentioned the “72 virgins”

      • JWalters
        December 13, 2015, 8:24 pm

        “Are there no ‘predatory financiers’ in the Jewish community?”

        For example there was Bernie Madoff, a prominent Wall Street financier, who was Jewish, who swindled a Holocaust memorial fund, showing he didn’t really give a sh*t about the whole “Jewish” thing. So this proves such specimens do exist.

      • irishmoses
        December 13, 2015, 11:40 pm

        Why do I think the comment was borderline without further explanation and evidence of the existence and negative influence of these Jewish predatory financiers? I guess because it seems to single out Jews as having a powerful, controlling group that wields undue inflluence over the rest of the “pawns”. Couldn’t the same be said of American , society? If so, why single out Jewish predatory financiers? It seems to suggest that there is a nefarious subset of Jews who are predatory and wield too much influence over the weaker majority.

        Perhaps there is evidence of such a group. If so, the statement should have at least provided a link to such evidence. Now resuming there is such an identifiable group, “predatory financiers”, why should just Jews need to divest themselves of this group? Are all financiers predatory, or just Jewish ones? If they all are, then perhaps we need to rid society of the finance function and just do everything on a cash basis to avoid the predation of money lending, of charging interest for the use of money?

        Historically, Jews were the money lenders of Europe because they could charge interest while Christians could not. The meme or image of the greedy, predatory, money lending Jew arose from that function and the resentment borrowers felt. So, any statement about predatory Jewish financiers feeds into that meme and, in my view is borderline without further explanation and evidence.

        The Bernie Madoff example doesn’t really work because he was a thief, not a financier, predatory or otherwise.

      • JWalters
        December 14, 2015, 1:17 am

        irishmoses, I respect your question and your point.

        As I noted in a post above, I don’t see Jewish financial predators as inherently different from any other cultural group’s financial predators. Some Christian preachers would qualify in my mind.

        The reason for focusing on the Jewish financiers in this case is because they are heavily involved in financing the “informing” of the Jewish community regarding Israel, including the reasons why the Jewish community should support Israel, including the fear and the Islamophobia.

        I would strongly favor reining in the financial sector as a whole, and getting all big money out of politics. Those steps, it seems to me, would solve all these problems.

        P.S. Wikipedia describes Bernie Madoff as “an American fraudster and a former stockbroker, investment advisor, and financier. He is the former non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock market, and the admitted operator of a Ponzi scheme that is considered to be the largest financial fraud in U.S. history.”.

      • echinococcus
        December 14, 2015, 6:07 am

        Hophmi and his “antisemitism”. Again.
        So there are no predatory financiers among the “Jewish community”. Perish the thought!
        All others have predatory financiers (and are pulled by them by the ring they have through their nostrils),only Jews not. How dare anyone think any such beast can even pretend to be Jewish?
        I imagine in Hophmi’s mind the nationalist reject of humanity calling himself Herzl was not in any way or wise led by big money –by the Goldman and Sachses of his time, let’s say. Or the Madoffs (pace Irish Moses, the only difference between Mr Madoff, and Messrs Goldman and Sachs is not even that some were not caught –the former just happened to get sentenced for swindling the too-powerful.)

      • irishmoses
        December 14, 2015, 12:18 pm

        JW: “irishmoses, I respect your question and your point.

        Thanks, JW. I take your points and I agree about the nefarious affects of unrestrained big money in politics in gereral.

        I think “financiers” is probably the wrong term to use since it generally means someone who loans money. Here we’re talking about people who give money for political favors.

        When you combine financiers with predatory I think you are triggering an A/S meme but being a gentile, I’d rather hear opinions on this from Jews.

      • Keith
        December 14, 2015, 4:58 pm

        IRISHMOSES- “When you combine financiers with predatory I think you are triggering an A/S meme….”

        One of the great victories of Zionism is to create an intellectual environment where any mention of Jewish financial chicanery is considered anti-Semitic. To say that Jews are over-represented in the financial sphere is an understatement. This is even more so in the investment side of the business, particularly in questionable hedge funds and currency arbitrage. Benjamin Ginsberg notes that “It apparently did not go unnoticed in executive suites across the country that virtually all the takeover specialists and their financial backers were Jews.” (p197, “The Fatal Embrace,” Benjamin Ginsberg) Of course, being a Jew he can say that. The deleterious effects of currency speculators like George Soros are well known, along with his destabilization campaigns. Then, of course, there is the efforts of Jewish vulture fund capitalist Paul Singer to profit off Argentina’s debt restructuring process, throwing a spanner into the whole works. Interestingly, Ginsberg defends these activities as financial innovations. Yes, the financialization of the global economy does provide benefits for some at the expense of the vast majority. And make no mistake, Jewish financiers have provided much of the impetus for this whole process which has resulted in our current casino economy.

      • Mooser
        December 14, 2015, 6:09 pm

        “I think you are triggering an A/S meme but being a gentile, I’d rather hear opinions on this from Jews.”

        Sure! I am a bona fide Jew. (Show me the man who dares deny that!) and I can tell you that anybody who says a goddam thing I don’t like, is anti-Semitic! Probably, they came from a country where 9 out of 10 Jewish dentists chew gum.
        On the other hand, anybody who makes generalizations about Jews that I do (smarter, better, faster, harder, faster, oh god, oh god…oh, sorry) like, is a regular Righteous Gentile and my best pal!
        And I an not a “predatory fiancer”. I’m strictly monogamous.

      • irishmoses
        December 14, 2015, 7:06 pm

        This reply is for several responders who have no reply button:
        – Keith: I ordered Fatal Embrace. It seems a bit dated (1993!) but interesting and from a credible source.
        – Bryan: Thanks for the links.
        – Mooser: For your predatory humor.

        At least now I can see some evidentiary basis for the claim and do my own research to see if I agree.

      • Mooser
        December 14, 2015, 7:34 pm

        “irishmoses” I think this is an easy one to set limits on. Nobody should be able to say anything(or generalize or essentialize) here about Jews that is any worse than the things people say (or generalize or essentialize) here about Muslims. Or Christians, for that matter. That seems fair to me.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 14, 2015, 8:31 pm

        The reason for focusing on the Jewish financiers in this case is because they are heavily involved in financing the “informing” of the Jewish community regarding Israel, including the reasons why the Jewish community should support Israel, including the fear and the Islamophobia.

        that’s true, but you described Jewish financiers, many of whom are heavily involved in financing the “informing” of the Jewish community regarding Israel, including the reasons why the Jewish community should support Israel, including the fear and the Islamophobia, as predators.

        i think it’s safe to say financial predators, regardless of ethnicity, threaten the societies we live in. but there are financiers whose intention is not to prey on people.

        your statement that jewish predatory financiers used Jews like Herzl as pawns implies jewish financiers were all of like mind trying to prey off jews as opposed to financiers, then and now, who act out of a belief that what they are doing is good or for the benefit of jewish society. whether i agree with what they are doing is not my point (obviously i am not a fan of the zionist project nor do i believe the zionist project could exist as non predatory because it required ethnically cleansing palestinians and stealing palestinian land). i wouldn’t find the need to mention this if it wasn’t a statement you’d made once or twice, it’s a theme that runs thru many of your comments. one that wasn’t necessarily germane to the context. for example:

        Onward to Britain where, at least when I was growing up, it was fine to be a Jew, but preferably to be a Jew in a whisper….. Everywhere one went there was this slight unease. And Herzl was right: half acceptance into Christian Europe was more dangerous than non-acceptance. …. So Jews need a homeland; they need the modern state of Israel.

        and from this we get (from you) Herzl was wrong and the Jewish community needs to divest themselves of their predatory financiers and they will be fine. and i’m not so sure i believe that (because i happen to think there’s a hella lot more wrong with israel than those financing it). and sometimes the conversation comes at the expense of other conversations, for example — the one you tagged onto:

        Is he really saying that Jews can live a very good life where Jews are a minority (e.g., England – where just about everyone seems to be a minority), except for that “slight unease” and, because of that “slight unease” there must be a Jewish controlled State, it must be in the Middle East, so there must be a permanent Palestinian diaspora, so the AD 1948 (and before) expulsions by Jews must hold but the (likely mythica) AD 70 expulsions by the Romans must be undone? Roger that?

        it’s not always about the money. and inserting the money and financial predators into everything can be inflammatory and it can make the followup conversation more challenging to moderate.

      • Mooser
        December 15, 2015, 12:36 am

        “Historically, Jews were the money lenders of Europe because they could charge interest while Christians could not.”

        Nope, nada no-no nine! and no-goodski! Absolutely, Christian could never charge interest!! They weren’t supposed to. But there is no law of God or man which says you couldn’t accept a flat fee, to ah, cover the book-keeping, stamps, SASE’s payment forms, and stuff.
        Besides, to compute interest you have to know how to figure compound percentages.
        On the other hand, it was simple being a Christian moneylender, no arduous calculations.

      • Mooser
        December 15, 2015, 1:05 am

        Oh no, the implication just hit me, and it was like the proverbial “kick in the glutens“.
        So Christian moneylenders couldn’t charge interest.
        But Jews could. And now, everybody does!

        And we started it. That’s gonna be one hell of a thing to answer for.

      • JWalters
        December 15, 2015, 3:07 am

        This is a test. (Previous attempt at post swallowed up.)
        […]

      • Annie Robbins
        December 15, 2015, 2:34 pm

        hi jwalters, posts don’t get swallowed up around here they get trashed because some mod thinks they deserve to be trashed. advertising a previous identical post got trashed will generally automatically get the current one trashed again because moderators stand by other moderators.

        i’m not sure who trashed it originally but i got your message.

      • irishmoses
        December 15, 2015, 12:36 pm

        Re: Keith: “One of the great victories of Zionism is to create an intellectual environment where any mention of Jewish financial chicanery is considered anti-Semitic.’

        Re: JWalters: Jewish “predatory financiers”.

        There seems to be two steps in the logic of this argument. Step one is to define a subset of capitalism using a derogatory term (predatory, chicanery). Step two is to associate Jews with that conduct. Now while it is true that some forms of capitalistic behavior (making profit off the sale of goods or labor) might be illegal (e.g. Madoff), other forms, such as making “excessive” profits are not. Hedge funds, credit default swaps, etc. have a valid purpose.

        While it is probably true that Jews make up a larger percentage of those in the world of finance than their percentage of the overall population, their representation in other professional fields, like medicine and law, is also likely disproportionate. But that disproportionality is achievement-based, not religious-based.

        So, to simplify an argument that should be laid out in many pages and cites, an argument about the flaws of international finance or capitalism should be made on its merits not on or related to the high percentage of a particular religious or racial group in its membership. High percentages of people who smoke also drive cars, but, absent strong evidence to the contrary, that doesn’t justify the conclusion that driving cars is the cause of cancer. Correlation does not equal causation.

        If you see chicanery in finance or feel some or all financiers are predatory, tell us why and give us your evidence in support of your conclusions. Keep the Jews out of the discussion unless you are willing and able to present strong evidence in support of some conclusion you make attributing Jewishness as the cause of the chicanery or predatory behavior you see.

        Finally, some here seem to think that any defamatory claim (including antisemitism) must be direct to be defamatory. This ignores the role of innuendo in defamation. An indirect false claim, made by innuendo, is still defamatory. That’s a whole different discussion but I think it is relevant to a few of the comments made.

      • Mooser
        December 15, 2015, 1:04 pm

        “While it is probably true that Jews make up a larger percentage of those in the world of finance than their percentage of the overall population, their representation in other professional fields, like medicine and law, is also likely disproportionate. But that disproportionality is achievement-based,”

        Dude, Thanks! “Achievement based” You know it, “irishmoses”. That’s what we tell everybody, and you’ve swallowed it whole. Good for you! An attitude like that’ll stand you in good stead, get you in with the balebatim

        Of course, “achievement based”. Why to say anything else would be to consider us, well, ‘ordinary’. Other people trade on their associations, but not us, we are “achievement based”

        Except for me of course, I’m “failure based”. But one balegoola ‘doesn’t spoil the whole bunch, girl. I don’t care what they say, don’t you give up on Jews!’ “Keep the Jews out of the discussion unless you are willing and able to present strong evidence in support of some conclusion you make attributing Jewishness”– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/12/cohen-jeremy-solution/comment-page-1#comment-815246

        And, I might remind you: “This ignores the role of innuendo in defamation. An indirect false claim, made by innuendo, is still defamatory.” Even when it masquerades as something else.

      • JWalters
        December 15, 2015, 3:05 pm

        Annie, I completely agree that wealth can be used for good. And I appreciate those who do that. My objection, like most people, is to the corrupt use of wealth.

        The corrupt use of wealth is a theme that runs through many articles at Mondoweiss. Mondoweiss has repeatedly documented the corrupt use of wealth in the suppression of facts. The great series of articles on the suppression of facts by the NYT and other media outlets are notable. The articles documenting the use of wealth to suppress facts in politics, such as those dealing with Adelson and Saban, also stand out. The role of wealthy donors in suppressing the free expression of many rabbis was also an important report.

        I don’t believe Jews as a population are any more corrupt than any other group. But I also don’t believe they are any more innocent or holy than any other group. I have hammered corrupt Christians just as hard, usually in other contexts. But this context is about the Zionist project. So naturally the focus will be mainly on Jewish corruption.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 15, 2015, 5:24 pm

        The corrupt use of wealth is a theme that runs through many articles at Mondoweiss.

        sometimes it does. but it’s also a theme that can be inserted into almost any conversation if that’s ones primary focus. for example:

        Two liberal Zionists, Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street and Roger Cohen of the New York Times, are on a five-city speaking-tour attempting to revive some urgency for a two-state solution. They argue that the status quo is not acceptable but…nevertheless… a two-state solution remains the only viable solution for securing both a secure Jewish state in Israel/Palestine, and peace for Jews and Palestinians.

        Recognizing that a two-state-solution is not in the political cards at this time, J Street is launching a Maps Initiative, to bring maps that recognize the Green Line (the putative border of a future Palestinian state) back into Jewish institutions and consciousness. J Street notes that Israel has made a concerted effort to erase the Green Line, and with it the idea of two states living side-by side in peace. It’s the Green Line as life-support for an idea until such time as the political will can be found to end the occupation and to create a separate Palestinian state.

        i bolded what i considered the theme running thru this segment. frankly, i don’t think “the corrupt use of wealth” is a theme that runs through this article — nor do i see this as the writer’s (phil’s) theme. but, if the corrupt use of wealth is all one sees, then it will run thru everything you read and see. here is what you saw:

        “Not in the political cards” means the big money of financiers and war profiteers is too strong for democracy or common sense to overcome. Until Ben-Ami and Cohen can financially coerce as many rabbis and control as many news outlets as these war profiteers they haven’t got a chance. Especially since continuing injustice for Palestinians remains on their agenda.

        “Not in the political cards” can mean other things besides big money of financiers and war profiteers. but that’s not really my point. i totally get your objection is to the corrupt use of wealth, you hardly have to remind everyone here of that. however, i would beg to differ that you object to it “like most people”. go read cohen’s speech. i’m not asking you to agree with it (i certainly don’t) but there really are people who feel that way. and they are banging their head against the wall at the outcome of the knesset — all those rightwingers. they voted them all into office. the country is very racist and that is not solely the result of war profiteers and the corrupt use of wealth. it’s an intense belief in an ideology.

        people will always invest in what matters to them. some people might even argue it’s the [zionist]ideology more than the money supporting it at the crutch of the problem. for some it’s religious, for some nationalistic, it’s not all primarily about someone’s financial gain.

      • JWalters
        December 15, 2015, 3:23 pm

        Annie,

        When I say a post was “swallowed up” I mean it never even appeared as waiting to be moderated. It instantly disappeared when I hit the Post button. This happens very late at night, around 2:30 Eastern time. It looks a lot like an automatic system response.

        I have also been blocked at login, with messages that say my IP address is a security risk. But the IP address in the message does not match the actual IP address. Further, the same message with the same “risky” IP address appeared at THREE DIFFERENT actual IP addresses.

        This combination of odd events makes me wonder these are just glitches, or if the Mondoweiss posting system has been hacked. Does the instantly disappearing post late at night seem plausibly due to a moderator given your knowledge of the system? Why would the post not appear with the usual message saying it is awaiting moderation?

        As I’ve said before, I respect the Mondoweiss editors’ right to maintain the discussion however they wish. But the site is targeted, and other poster described being personally harassed after posting here, so I’ve wondered if my account could also be targeted.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 15, 2015, 4:39 pm

        a few days ago we had some serious issues with people being unable to comment for many hours. we got a lot of emails about it. your last comment referenced wasn’t swallowed. i checked the trash and there was an identical one that had been trashed by someone. things don’t land in trash unless someone puts it there. if you have any more problems posting contact adam and [email protected]. he is in regular contact w/our internet provider. i don’t know anything else to say that would be helpful in that regard and am very low tech myself, sorry!

      • Mooser
        December 15, 2015, 4:17 pm

        “And make no mistake, Jewish financiers have provided much of the impetus for this whole process which has resulted in our current casino economy.”

        “Keith”, I knew I was right to be upset. There is going to be hell to pay for introducing interest to the financial systems of Christian West, which was previously operated on an ‘interest free’ basis.

        Let us (if you’ll forgive this little swindle) look in on the Western Christian Finance and Loan counting-house, and see how righteous finance was conducted in those halcyon days before usury corrupted mankind as the Loan Manager comes back from a three-mead lunch and checks with the book-keeping Scribe:

        ‘Loan Manager (to Scribe): “Well there, Bartleby” (the guy thinks he’s funny), “how’s our loan portfolio doing? I’ve got a First Crusade coming up. How’re we fixed for pelf?”
        Scribe: “Almost everybody paid, and only a few loans went bad.”
        Loan Manager: “Well that happens, to be expected in this biz, but what about, well, you know…?”
        Scribe: “Nada boss. Nobody paid anything extra! No (shudders) interest!”
        Loan Manager: “Praise God, that means we will go bankrupt.”
        Scribe: “And I didn’t have to do all those hard percentages!”
        Loan Manager: “Well, guess I might as well go shoot myself. Or commit ‘suicide-by-Knight'”
        Scribe: (as l Loan Manager goes off to invent firearms*) “You’ll go straight to Heaven when they see the books. We lost money every month!”‘

        (*unless, for God’s sake, you want to indict us for that, too!)

      • Keith
        December 15, 2015, 4:31 pm

        IRISHMOSES- “Step two is to associate Jews with that conduct.”

        To identify a particular miscreant or group of miscreants as being Jewish is to associate Jews with that conduct? To identify particular Italians with the Mafia is to associate all Italians with the Mafia? Do we try to hide the fact that much of the Mafia was/is Italian? Should we? Should we hide the fact that there was/is a very powerful Jewish mafia? Well, we have haven’t we? Are Jews simply individuals who happen to be Jewish, or is there a certain group solidarity and kinship factor that may be significant? In “The Jewish Century,” Yuri Slezkine labels Jews as service nomads whom he calls Mercurians. A quote:

        “Perhaps the most popular explanation for successful Mercurianism is ‘corporate kinship,’ which is said to promote internal trust and obedience while limiting the number of potential beneficiaries. Nepotism may be good for capitalism, in other words- as long as the duties and entitlements of one’s nephews are understood clearly and followed religiously.” (p34)

        The bottom line to all of this is that you appear to wish to imply that merely discussing Jewish power and influence is inherently anti-Semitic unless we can prove that it is somehow qualitatively different than Gentile behavior under similar circumstances. Of course, it is okay for Yuri Slezkine to do this because he is Jewish, but Gentiles should not discuss such things? It is okay if Phil does it, but I had better shut up?

        IRISHMOSES- “But that disproportionality is achievement-based, not religious-based.”

        Ah, meritocracy! No other factors involved? I guess that is as good an explanation as any as to why we white folks are more successful than non-whites.

        IRISHMOSES- “Keep the Jews out of the discussion unless you are willing and able to present strong evidence in support of some conclusion you make attributing Jewishness as the cause of the chicanery or predatory behavior you see.”

        Who is attributing Jewishness to the cause of the chicanery? You are the one misrepresenting what I said. Have you ever criticized a Jew about boasting of Jewish accomplishment without demonstrating that Jewishness per se is a significant factor?

        IRISHMOSES- “Hedge funds, credit default swaps, etc. have a valid purpose.”

        The financialization of the economy is an absolute disaster that will get much worse very soon. It is also an intrinsic part of neoliberalism, an extraordinarily destructive ideology underpinning a vicious class war. Also, you are curiously sanguine about the $1,500 TRILLION market in derivatives which Warren Buffet described thusly: “I view derivatives as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system.” http://www.fintools.com/docs/Warren%20Buffet%20on%20Derivatives.pdf

        My parting comment is that it would be nice if we could simply discuss the political economy without insinuations of anti-Semitism being bandied about. Bad enough from Hophmi, but when others join the amen chorus, we will never be able to discuss the relevant issues due to self-censorship.

      • irishmoses
        December 17, 2015, 3:59 pm

        [THIS REPLY IS TO KEITH’S SECOND RESPONSE TO ME IN THIS THREAD.]

        Keith,
        You made five general points. I’ll respond to each:

        1. “To identify a particular miscreant or group of miscreants as being Jewish is to associate Jews with that conduct?”
        No, I said don’t attach Jewishness to an alleged societal harm unless you provide evidence linking the harm to the Jews you allege are a major cause of the harm.

        2. “But that disproportionality is achievement-based, not religious-based.” Ah, meritocracy! No other factors involved? I guess that is as good an explanation as any as to why we white folks are more successful than non-whites.”

        I think achievement or merit is the best explanation but not the only one. I wasn’t discussing white achievement. You seem to feel that high Jewish percentages in finance reflect a Jewish predilection to engage in anti-social behavior, “chicanery”. You are certainly entitled to hold that view but for it to be credible, it needs to be supported by logic and evidence not conjecture.

        3. “Who is attributing Jewishness to the cause of the chicanery?”

        Read your first post which starts with “…Jewish financial chicanery…”, continues with a laundry list of alleged Jewish miscreants, and ends with, “And make no mistake, Jewish financiers have provided much of the impetus for this whole process which has resulted in our current casino economy.” The implication is that Jews are largely the cause of all this harmful behavior. Again, you’re entitled to your view and it’s worthy of discussion but only if it is framed in a logical, evidence-based fashion.

        4. “The financialization of the economy is an absolute disaster that will get much worse very soon.”

        I have no problem with discussing this issue, but you framed it with your largely unsupported allegation that Jewish chicanery was a major impetus and cause of the impending disaster you see.

        5. “…it would be nice if we could simply discuss the political economy without insinuations of anti-Semitism being bandied about. Bad enough from Hophmi, but when others join the amen chorus, we will never be able to discuss the relevant issues due to self-censorship.”

        First, you didn’t frame the discussion as involving “the political economy”, you framed it as a discussion of the harmful effects of “Jewish financial chicanery” on the political economy.

        Second, accusing me as being part of an “amen chorus” alleging anti-Semitism is a thinly-disguised ad hominem attack that is normally beneath you.

        Third, the relevant issues in the discussion were chosen by your and JWalters framing: “Jewish financial chicanery”, and Jewish “predatory financiers”. You can’t expect to enter into an argument you framed and have the responders limit their criticism to only certain parts of your argument.

        Fourth, no one is trying to censor you, self or otherwise, we’re (I’m) merely expecting you to support your argument and conclusions with logic and evidence.

      • Keith
        December 17, 2015, 7:39 pm

        IRISHMOSES- “Second, accusing me as being part of an “amen chorus” alleging anti-Semitism is a thinly-disguised ad hominem attack that is normally beneath you.”

        My, what a curious twist of logic when a critique of your behavior is interpreted as an ad hominen attack. An ad hominen argument seeks to divert the discussion from the topic at hand onto the qualifications of the presenter. The only reason I even commented was that I took exception to your comment suggesting that JWalters had crossed the line to your definition of anti-Semitism. I thought that I had made myself clear when I stated that “One of the great victories of Zionism is to create an intellectual environment where any mention of Jewish financial chicanery is considered anti-Semitic.” You chose to misinterpret this as saying, in effect, “… attributing Jewishness as the cause of the chicanery….” What an outrageous distortion of my comment! Would it have made a difference if I said “financial chicanery involving Jews?” Do I have to be super careful how I phrase things to avoid being tarred with the implication of anti-Semitism? And when I point out your misrepresentation of what I said, you simply repeat the charge as if you know what I meant better than me.

        One of my big concerns is the use of the charge of anti-Semitism, or other such labeling as “trope” or “meme” to shut down discussion. The classical definition of anti-Semtism is hatred of Jews because they are Jews. A rather serious charge. The current operational definition of anti-Semitism is captured by Norman Finkelstein (who thinks that real anti-Semtism is negligible in the US): “Thus ADL head Nathan Perlmutter maintained that the ‘real anti-Semitism’ in America consisted of policy initiatives ‘corrosive of Jewish interests,’ such as affirmative action, cuts in the defense budget, and neo-isolationism, as well as opposition to nuclear power and even Electoral College reform.” (p37, “The Holocaust Industry,” Norman Finkelstein). In other words, at a time when real anti-Semitism is negligible, charges of anti-Semitism or other such labeling is utilized by Zionist Jews to silence criticism of Jews and to squelch discussion of Jewish power and power-seeking. And make no mistake, Zionism is a remarkably successful power-seeking ideology.

        IRISHMOSES- “Fourth, no one is trying to censor you, self or otherwise, we’re (I’m) merely expecting you to support your argument and conclusions with logic and evidence.”

        No? Then why did you even raise the issue of anti-Semitism if not to intimidate? Not only have you consistently misrepresented what I said to make it consistent with your anti-Semitic meme, you have gone so far as to warn me that what I am saying may be defamatory. Doesn’t have to be direct either if you think you detect some nefarious “innuendo” which I may have slipped by the moderators but which you are most qualified to detect. That is all I need. First you mangle what I actually say, then you ignore all of my explanations and arguments, and now you intimate that you can detect impure thoughts by innuendo!

        Okay, I’m done. Fully responding to all you have said would take too long. Gil, I would like to think that this was simply one big misunderstanding. Unfortunately, your comments do not support that conclusion. This is my final comment on this thread.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 17, 2015, 10:43 pm

        irish “No, I said don’t attach Jewishness to an alleged societal harm unless you provide evidence linking the harm to the Jews you allege are a major cause of the harm. ”

        i just thought i’d point out that it was my impression you were the one who attached “jewishness” to predatory financing when you used the term “Jewish predatory financiers” for the first time in the thread when you asked

        why and how Jewish predatory financiers differ from your normal non-Jewish predatory financiers?

        there was just nothing referencing a difference between Jewish predatory financiers vs non-Jewish predatory financiers in the original comment (“The Jewish community needs to divest themselves of their predatory financiers and they will be fine “)

        Why do I think the comment was borderline without further explanation and evidence of the existence and negative influence of these Jewish predatory financiers? I guess because it seems to single out Jews as having a powerful, controlling group that wields undue inflluence over the rest of the “pawns”.

        the original comment didn’t “single out” jews. the very topic of discussion (scroll to article above), as so many topics on mondoweiss, was jewish centric. therefore commentary about the topic will naturally focus on and single out…the topic (jewish community). predatory financiers, by definition, are harmful to their respective communities (whether those communities, or the predators, are jewish or not).

        upthread eva asked, referencing the original comment, “Which bit is anti-semitic?”

        you should try answering that question. because as far as i can tell it did not “attach Jewishness to an alleged societal harm “. unless one could make the argument there are ethnic groups with no predatory financiers (good luck w/that!) it’s not racist or singling out to mention predatory financiers in the jewish community, or any community for that matter.

        keith An ad hominen argument seeks to divert the discussion from the topic at hand onto the qualifications of the presenter.

        an ad hominen argument attacks the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument rather than attacking the argument directly.

        it’s not always a diversion tactic, it generally represents a replacement for having no logical or evidence based claim against the argument itself.

      • irishmoses
        December 17, 2015, 11:08 pm

        Keith,

        I agree we’re talking past each other and there’s nothing to be gained by continuing.

        I actually agree with you on several points:

        1. The use of the antisemitism charge as a sword to prevent criticism of Israel is one. I’ve been the victim of that more than a few times on MW. It is a scurrilous device.

        2. Borderline, at least my use of it, is not a charge of antisemitism on my part. I’m just saying it is approaching that territory in my opinion. I’ve been guilty of borderline comments on MW a couple of times and have been called out on it. The last time was by Mooser, as I recall. In both cases, I ended up agreeing that I had attributed some characteristic to Jews that wasn’t a characteristic that was limited to Jews, hence borderline even though inadvertent and poorly framed. I think both you and JWalter could have avoided the current kerfluffle by more carefully framing your arguments, particularly since the arguments were controversial. I make no accusation of antisemitism on either of your parts.

        3. Ironically, you are among my favorite MW participants. You bring a unique, economic view to many of the threads.

        I just received my copy of “The Fatal Embrace”, per your recommendation. I’m looking forward to reading it and discussing it with you in calmer times.

      • irishmoses
        December 17, 2015, 11:37 pm

        Annie,

        Per Eva’s word-by-word analysis. If I were to say, “Jews are morally responsible for the murder of our lord Jesus,” it would arguably be an antisemitic statement, yet, none of the words in isolation is antisemitic. I think the same word-by-word analysis could be applied to any antisemitic statement to deny its antisemitic character which is the flaw in Eva’s analytic method.

        As to the rest of your points, my various long responses adequately covered my reasons for feeling the original comment was borderline absent further explanation and clarification. I think this topic has been exhausted, at least I know I am.

        Thanks for your patience in monitoring.

      • Mooser
        December 18, 2015, 11:55 am

        “The last time was by Mooser, as I recall. In both cases, I ended up agreeing that I had attributed some characteristic to Jews that wasn’t a characteristic that was limited to Jews”

        No, I obnjected to this, in your comment @ “gamal”:

        “Although, the idea of multiple wives might have attracted me to the faith of my conquerers (sort of a version of the 72 promised virgins).”

        I figure those poor girls could use a rest.
        And as far as I’m concerned, philosemitism is just another form of antisemitism. (Bear in mind, as I said, I am failure-based, not “success-based”) I must admit, it’s the only form of antisemitism I like, or will pay for, but you can make up your own mind about what it’s worth to you.

        Now, tell me more about my achievements and successes! Louder!

  7. JWalters
    December 12, 2015, 6:52 pm

    “a two-state-solution is not in the political cards at this time”

    “Not in the political cards” means the big money of financiers and war profiteers is too strong for democracy or common sense to overcome. Until Ben-Ami and Cohen can financially coerce as many rabbis and control as many news outlets as these war profiteers they haven’t got a chance. Especially since continuing injustice for Palestinians remains on their agenda.

  8. lyn117
    December 12, 2015, 8:19 pm

    The “Maps Initiative” states that The Palestinians sided with the Nazis in WWII. I believe that is 99.9% false. It also says Palestinians agree with that statement.

    • diasp0ra
      December 12, 2015, 8:31 pm

      Who were the Palestinians exactly?

      There were Palestinians who fought with the British (Palestine regiment) but there were also Palestinians that kept on fighting the British. I’d hardly call that siding with the Nazis. There were also Zionist militias that fought the British, nobody says they sided with the Nazis.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 12, 2015, 9:42 pm

        it is strange. in the “TIMELINE – JOINT PERSPECTIVE” it says:

        1939-1945: World War II, the Palestinians side with the Nazis and the Jews are persecuted by the Nazis in the
        Holocaust. Six million Jews are killed. Following WWII, many refugees seek to to immigrate to Palestine.

        i hardly think a definition of “1939-1945: World War II” should begin with ” the Palestinians side with the Nazis “. i’d wager the majority historians would firmly agree with me. “the Palestinians side with the Nazis and the Jews are persecuted by the Nazis in the
        Holocaust” sounds like the palestinians persecuted the jews in the holocaust. it is inflammatory and misleading.

        in the “TIMELINE – PALESTINE ONLY PERSPECTIVE” it reads

        1939-1945: World War II, The Palestinian Arabs align themselves with the Nazis against the British.

        i really wonder if that is a “PALESTINE ONLY PERSPECTIVE”, especially since i’ve heard this narrative is replicated in the holocaust museum in israel whereas i have never heard a palestinian say this.

        only where it says “ISRAEL ONLY PERSPECTIVE” does it (miraculously) NOT mention palestinians:

        1941-1945: The Holocaust, the state-sponsored and systematic genocide of six million European Jews, carried out by Nazi Germany and led by Adolf Hitler.

        how generous of this project to leave out the palestinians in this israeli perspective, not reflective of the joint perspective tho.

      • lyn117
        December 12, 2015, 9:45 pm

        Shamir and his terrorist organization attempted an alliance with the Nazis. All the google sites that make the claim that the Palestinians sided with the Nazis are Zionist sites. 100%. Pretty much the only site I found which claims Palestinians agree that the Palestinians sided with the Nazis is this one: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175316. I can’t translate what the person said, I doubt he speaks for Palestinians if he made such a statement.

        The French, The Romanians and people in a lot of other countries supported the Nazis a lot more than the The Palestinians. It’s just propaganda.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 12, 2015, 9:48 pm

        i agree lynn. why are they teaching this fake history to children.

      • RoHa
        December 12, 2015, 9:51 pm

        “The Palestinians side with the Nazis …”

        Sure they did.

        http://www.countercurrents.org/fisk171103.htm

        “Six million Jews are killed. Following WWII, many refugees seek to immigrate to Palestine.”

        What a good idea! Flee ex-Nazi Europe and go to live in a country full of people who sided with the Nazis.

      • RoHa
        December 12, 2015, 9:58 pm

        “There were also Zionist militias that fought the British, nobody says they sided with the Nazis. ”

        I do.

      • hophmi
        December 13, 2015, 12:45 pm

        Better than the BDS movement, which leaves the Holocaust out of its historical timeline completely.

      • Kris
        December 13, 2015, 1:05 pm

        @hophmi: “Better than the BDS movement, which leaves the Holocaust out of its historical timeline completely.”

        Please link to the official BDS movement “historical timeline,” thanks.

        If there is a BDS “historical timeline,” probably it focuses on the plight of the Palestinians, not on the justifications used by Zionist Jews to steal Palestinian land.

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 9:06 pm

        “Better than the BDS movement, which leaves the Holocaust out of its historical timeline completely.”

        Probably they don’t want to interfere with the Jewish boycott of Germany

      • tree
        December 13, 2015, 9:53 pm

        Better than the BDS movement, which leaves the Holocaust out of its historical timeline completely.

        So you seriously think that lying about the Palestinians in the “Maps” timeline is better than not mentioning the Holocaust in a non-existent BDS timeline? Lying is better. Got it. Sums up Zionism in one sentence.

        Or are you just paid to mention BDS in a derogatory way at least once in every thread?

  9. JLewisDickerson
    December 12, 2015, 8:29 pm

    RE: [U]nfortunately we have drifted from that secular Zionism that wanted to find a place for that Arab minority within Israel, to the messianic Zionism that says “all the land is ours between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.” Why is it ours? “Because God said so; because it was deeded to us millennia ago in the scriptures; and that land is ours forever.” ~ Roger Cohen

    SEE: “Israel’s Moral Erosion” | By Alon Ben-Meir | ConsortiumNews.com | Dec 10, 2015
    • Amid global anger over militants citing the Koran as a defense for terrorism, less attention gets paid to Israel citing God’s will as expressed in the Bible as the moral justification for stealing Palestinian land, an ethical crisis that is eroding Israel’s world standing, writes Alon Ben-Meir.

    [EXCERPTS] I have long maintained that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel’s national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds.

    Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unraveling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.

    There are four ethical theories — Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based and religious — that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end. . .

    . . . Finally, we need to consider the moral theory which says morality is acting in accordance with what divinity commands from us. There are two basic theories, both of which can be traced back to Plato’s Euthyphro where Socrates raises the question: “whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.”

    The first is the divine command theory, which states that what makes an action moral or right is the fact that God commands it and nothing else. The second theory, defended by Socrates, is that God commands us to do what is right because it is the right thing to do. In other words, morality precedes God’s will and is irreducible to divine command.

    In the context of this ancient debate, the usurpation and annexation of Palestinian land may appear to be defensible on the basis of the divine command theory because if God requires us to perform any set of actions, then by definition it would be the moral thing to do.

    Many orthodox Jews hold to the divine command theory, as they interpret the concept of “mitzvah” (good deed) first and foremost as “command,” the goodness of which cannot even be contemplated apart from the fact that this is what God has commanded us to do.

    As such, those who take the Bible as the revelation of God’s commands use it to justify the concept of Greater Israel. As a result, they view the Palestinian presence as an impediment God placed before them to test their resolve. Therefore, their harsh treatment of the Palestinians becomes morally permissible because it is consistent with divine decree.

    By adopting the command theory, they are ascribing to a position which has and continues to be used to justify acts which are blatantly immoral. The defender of this theory may counter that because God is good, he does not command anything which is immoral.

    However, this argument is hollow because if morality is simply what God approves of, to say that God is good is merely to assert that he approves of himself and his own will. In this case, there is still no safeguard against the extremists who use the command theory to justify even the most heinous crimes.

    Furthermore, if the command in question satisfies a deep seated psychological need — say, for a God-given Jewish homeland — then what humans ascribe to God eventually becomes “the will of God.”

    Another problem with the divine command theory is that, as the philosopher Gottfried Leibniz observed, it turns God into a kind of Tyrant unworthy of our love and devotion: “For why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy for doing just the opposite?”

    Turning to the theory that God commands us to do the good because it is good, what becomes clear is that any action must derive its moral worth independently of God’s will. In that case, the Israeli policy toward the occupation will have to be morally justifiable without reference to some divine mandate.

    We have already examined, however briefly, Israel’s policy in light of deontology, utilitarianism and virtue ethics, and found that it comes up short and fails to meet the basic requirement of these theories. Therefore, it lacks independent moral justification on which God’s commands could possibly be based on.

    Israel’s occupation cannot be defended on moral grounds or in terms of national security. Israel can defend itself and prevail over any of its enemies now and in the foreseeable future, but it is drowning in moral corruption that the continued occupation only deepens. It is that — the enemy from within — that poses the greatest danger Israel faces.

    ENTIRE COMMENTARY – https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/10/israels-moral-erosion/

    • JLewisDickerson
      January 4, 2016, 6:35 pm

      P.S. ALSO SEE: “How Zionism Corrupts Judaism” | By Daniel C. Maguire | ConsortiumNews.com | July 2, 2015

      Judaism is a religion based on humanistic principles offering powerful arguments for social justice, but it has been hijacked by Zionists who have twisted it into an excuse for ethnic cleansing and mass murder, as Professor of Moral Theology Daniel C. Maguire describes.

      LINK – https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/02/how-zionism-corrupts-judaism/

  10. Patrick
    December 13, 2015, 12:33 am

    Roger Cohen presents a strong case for a two-state solution. But he is only the latest to present this case, and others before him have made very similar arguments. He says that the only viable outcome is a two-state solution whose contours are already well understood by all.

    Where he falls very short (like others before) is on how to achieve this goal. Does he have any program to propose on how to get to a 2SS? Apparently not. He knows that the Israeli government does not negotiate in good faith, and he states that a whole new leadership is needed in Israel. But there’s nothing of the sort on the horizon. It’s a forlorn hope given the long term rightward shift in Israeli society, which he acknowledges.

    In terms of international action all that Cohen mentions is for the “United States to continue to make clear that expansion of settlements is inimical, is incompatible (with peace).” The U.S. has been saying this for years to no effect. This is just not a serious proposal.

  11. JLewisDickerson
    December 13, 2015, 3:38 am

    RE: “Well, you say to me…. What about the Palestinians? We need an interlocutor. These Palestinians who ‘never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity’, who are divided; Fatah in the West Bank; Hamas bent on the destruction of Israel in Gaza; unserious about peace because of insistent incitement they show toward the Jewish people . . .” ~ Roger Cohen

    SEE: “How Israel Helped to Spawn Hamas”, By Andrew Higgins, The Wall Street Journal, 01/24/09

    [EXCERPT] Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor’s bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile’s trajectory back to an “enormous, stupid mistake” made 30 years ago.
    “Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel’s destruction.
    Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. . .
    . . . When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and ’80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank.
    “When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake,” says David Hacham, who worked in Gaza in the late 1980s and early ’90s as an Arab-affairs expert in the Israeli military. “But at the time nobody thought about the possible results.” . . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275572295011847.html

  12. Ossinev
    December 13, 2015, 7:03 am

    Always interesting to read the words of these “liberal Zionists” particularly in relation to the “two state solution”. Cohen as with many of his fellow “Liberal Zionist “travellers these days comes across as very weary and dispirited which is understandable because I think if pressed he would would hold up his hands and admit that he is urinating into the hurricane.

    But throughout his speech we have the same old same old Zionist illusions/delusions viz
    “And Herzl was right: half acceptance into Christian Europe was more dangerous than non-acceptance. …. So Jews need a homeland; they need the modern state of Israel.”

    The modern state of Florida is no where near sufficient or acceptable then.

    The following comment basically sums up this desperate self delusion:

    “But unfortunately we have drifted from that secular Zionism that wanted to find a place for that Arab minority within Israel, to the messianic Zionism that says “all the land is ours between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.” Why is it ours? “Because God said so; because it was deeded to us millennia ago in the scriptures; and that land is ours forever.” And that is very problematic when there are millions of other people living on that very territory.”

    He says “that is very problematic” as opposed “that is a load of bollocks” – and that is the give away. Bottom line is that he hasn`t got the sense or more likely hasn`t got the courage to admit to the fairy tale foundations of Zionism and Israel.

  13. amigo
    December 13, 2015, 10:10 am
  14. just
    December 13, 2015, 10:34 am

    “Haaretz Editor Calls on Progressive Voices in America to ‘Save Israel From Its Own Extremism’

    ‘Don’t leave us alone,’ Aluf Benn writes in Daily Beast op-ed, published ahead of HaaretzQ conference with the New Israel Fund in New York on December 13.

    Haaretz’s Editor-in-chief Aluf Benn urged progressive voices in America not to remain silent in the face of what he terms “Netanyahu’s revolution” and the nationalist tide threatening Israel in an opinion piece on the Daily Beast website on Friday.  …

    … In the op-ed, titled “Can Americans Save Israel from Its Own Extremism?” Benn explains that the conference was motivated by the need for progressives in Israel to reach out to like-minded people abroad, particularly in the U.S., “who worry about the direction of Israel in Netanyahu’s fourth term.”

    “That’s why Haaretz has made the decision to expand its presence in the United States, where progressive values are welcomed, rather than dismissed as ‘aiding the enemy,’ which is often the case with Netanyahu and his media choir,” Benn writes.

    Benn goes on to analyze Netanyahu’s re-election, arguing that Israel’s prime minister has “reincarnated as a radical nationalist with unprecedented power.”

    “He viewed the election as an opportunity to fulfill his old dream of ‘elite change,’ doing away with the dominance of the Oslo-era-speak of peace and compromise with the Palestinians, replacing it with opposition to any territorial change in West Bank,” Benn writes. “While paying occasional lip service to the two-state solution, the Prime Minister declared that Israel ‘must control the entire territory in the foreseeable future.'”

    In a sharp indictment, the editor-in-chief accuses Israel’s mainstream media of parroting Netanyahu’s narrative, casting the Palestinians as “present-day Nazis” and instilling the constant threat of annihilation and distrust of the “anti-Semitic” West.

    In addition, right-wing politicians have become more explicit than ever before, Benn writes. “Breaking long rabbinical and political taboos, they advocate Jewish worship on the Temple Mount (Haram al Sharif) in Jerusalem, fueling the current wave of Palestinian violence. They call for annexing the West Bank into Israel and promote bills and regulations to silence human rights NGOs and other critics of the occupation.”

    Furthermore, he says, “moderate voices like State President Reuven Rivlin, a former right-winger, are targets of virulent attacks on social networks.”

    Israel’s liberals, Benn writes, are following these developments with growing concern for the country’s democracy, moral principles and international stance.

    “Netanyahu is getting away with his reborn nationalism,” says Benn. With the West’s preoccupation with ISIS, “as long as Netanyahu avoids too much controversial settlement building and oppresses the Palestinian ‘limited uprising,’ to use the IDF term, with relatively little force — the world simply doesn’t care,” he writes.

    Benn warns that with the current international indifference, Netanyahu may avoid taking the necessary steps to save the Palestinian Authority from collapsing under the multiple strains it is facing. “This will be the culmination of Netanyahu’s revolution,” Benn writes. 

    “That is why we are reaching outside of our borders to check Netanyahu’s revolution and turn back this dangerous nationalist movement, which threatens Israel’s future,” writes Benn. “And we begin by turning to our American friends whose voices have been drowned out for too long. Now is our opportunity to make a change.””

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/haaretzq/1.691353?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    I guess he’s been listening to the sane voices of Amira Hass and Gideon Levy. Unfortunately, there is a majority in Israel that like their lying messianic leader and are more than willing to follow him and his coterie of gruesome and racist fascists. No way to change them, they are growing in numbers and have been given carte blanche to carry out murder and mayhem against Palestinians. They are VERY well- funded by gov’ts and by “private” enablers of the Occupation who support the theft of Palestinian land and resources.

  15. oldgeezer
    December 13, 2015, 11:21 am

    It woukd be interesting to know what Palestinian input was given in the preparation of this or is it another case of zionists determining the Palestinian position for them.

    Perhaps I am jaded but this feels like something that says let’s talk some more while I continue to eat the pizza.

    • just
      December 13, 2015, 11:32 am

      Anchovies, spinach, mushrooms and thinly sliced onions with fresh basil? yummy.

      With regard to the Haaretz conference today that I referenced above, here’s a link to updates:

      http://www.haaretz.com/haaretzq/1.691538

      Too bad that CSPAN is not carrying it. Guess that they have to check to make sure that it makes it through Hasbara Central first…

  16. Ossinev
    December 13, 2015, 1:15 pm

    @[email protected]
    Just looked at the Haaretz front page reports on this conference. To me the most illuminating contribution was from Mr.Saeb (we will give back the keys) Erekat viz:

    “Erekat tells of his 37-year-old nephrew killed last week at the Hizme checkpoint in the West Bank. “I don’t dare talk about peace, I want to congratulate Netanyahu for destroying the culture of peace and negotiation,” adding that Netanyahu is “destroying the two-state solution and trying to build an apartheid system.”
    Erekat adds that “a two-state solution is the most cardinal interest of the Palestinian people,” saying that “there is no such thing as a one-state solution.” Erekat says that “Israel will never be party to a one-state solution, they don’t want solution on 1967 lines. So what’s the alternative?”
    Erekat says “we might not be able to achieve a two-state solution tomorrow, but Israelis and Palestinians have no other option.” Erekat welcomes the EU decision to label settlement products, and says Israel should recognize the state of Palestine before any other state. He acknowledges that mistake are made, saying that “sometimes it’s hard to differentiate between freedom of speech and incitement.” He adds that the Palestinian leadership is “trying to fix it.”
    Erekat vows that “Israel has a partner on the basis of a Palestinian state with the ’67 borders and East Jerusalem as its capital.” He says Palestine will accept limitations on arms and military, but won’t accept limitations on dignity. Erekat says the era of U.S.-brokered bilateral negotiations is over, adding that Obama and Kerry have done everything possible.
    Erekat criticizes ISIS, saying they are criminals and thugs who have nothing to do with Islam. He predicts the Arab world will need “30 to 50 years” to restabilize from the current chaos, while calling for democracy in the Arab world and Israeli-Palestinian peace to defeat ISIS. Erekat adds there is no difference between ISIS and the Jewish terrorists who burned the Dawabshe family in Duma.”

    Basically these are the usual weasel sycophantic words to bolster not the Palestinian people but himself / Abbas and the rest of the PA power elite.They are the ones who really want to continue to talk some more around the world in their 5 Star hotel conference bases while observing Zion continuing to eat the pizza. And they are the real problem in all this – Nitay and his right wing Fascist cronies are at least unhinged. Erekat and his cronies know that they are betraying the Palestinian people by holding on desperately to the keys as the farce unfolds.

    • Abuadam
      December 14, 2015, 11:29 pm

      Ossinev, I could not have said it any better, I do not know who is worse, Abbas/Erekat or the Nutyahoo!

  17. ckg
    December 13, 2015, 2:39 pm

    Liberal Zionists propping up the two state solution, which they helped kill, is not unlike Norman Bates propping up his dead mother, whom he killed. Liberal Zionists are psycho.

    • yonah fredman
      December 13, 2015, 3:15 pm

      Among those institutions, organizations or countries that support a two state solution:
      1. UN
      2. Fatah
      3. US
      4. Russia
      5. China

      • Mooser
        December 13, 2015, 5:42 pm

        “Among those institutions, organizations or countries that support a two state solution…”

        The one that doersn’t:

        1,2,3, and ad infinitum: ISRAEL

        Why don’t you deal with that?

        Or are all those nations and “organizations” supposed to fight Israel to save Israel from itself?

      • ckg
        December 13, 2015, 6:20 pm

        Yonah, As I have said here before I support neither 1S1P1V nor 2SS. That’s for the occupied Palestinians alone to decide. I am merely commenting on my personal perception of what is possible.

  18. rensanceman
    December 13, 2015, 8:15 pm

    Cohen’s blindness to his hypocritical and indefensible assertion that Palestinians will not have the right to return illustrates his true stance on this issue: all decisions regarding Israel’s future must ensure a Jewish majority because Yahweh gave the land to them regardless of the expulsion of 800,000 Palestines to achieve this ratio. The transparent unfairness of this proposal is easily recognized by sentient humans. Liberal thought except for Palestine. How long until the heavy fabric of Israel’s rottenness becomes so egregious before a change is forced upon this pariah in the community of nations.?

  19. Abuadam
    December 14, 2015, 11:36 pm

    I have always wanted to ask R Cohen and the rest of the Zion nuts, why they get to return after 3000 years and not have to forget but I have no return and have to forget after only 67 years.
    I won’t get in to the fact my DNA matches the ancient Israelites more than his.

  20. Ossinev
    December 15, 2015, 1:19 pm

    @IrishMoses
    “While it is probably true that Jews make up a larger percentage of those in the world of finance than their percentage of the overall population, their representation in other professional fields, like medicine and law, is also likely disproportionate. But that disproportionality is achievement-based, not religious-based”

    Looking at the current state of the Land of Creation and its pseudo Zionist outlying state in the US I think your proportionality theory also certainly applies to the number of extreme right wing Fascists in the population.

    Now I wonder how they achieved that ?

Leave a Reply