‘We wasted 40 years talking about nothing, doing nothing’ — Pappe demolishes peace process

Middle East
on 116 Comments

Last night Ilan Pappe gave a brilliant speech about the cruel illusion of the peace process to a hall at New York University packed with 200 people of all ages. This afternoon he speaks at Columbia, and if you are in the neighborhood you should go. I cannot think of a more cogent explanation of the political outlines of the conflict in this moment. One can differ with portions of Pappe’s thesis, but his analysis of the service of the peace process to rapacious colonization is inarguable. And his argument was lit by empathy toward Israelis; so it is not a program of violence but of peaceful transformation.

What did the Anglo-Israeli professor say?

For decades, intellectuals tried and failed to explain the root of the conflict as a settler-colonial project. Now at last that paradigm has come into fashion in academia; and it is acute and powerful, and helps explain the relevance of Palestine to the Middle East and the world at large.

The settler colonial understanding replaces a discourse of Israel and Palestine as a hegemonic conflict between two national movements, a “business” problem more than a “human” one. In that understanding negotiators could manage the conflict and presume to offer a fair split of the real estate, tilted to one side because it was the stronger one; but the result of that failed model is what we see in the shrinking Palestine maps: less and less land, now mere crumbs for the indigenous people.

The settler colonial model is accurate because it captures the spirit of Zionism from 1882 to the present: a project to settle the land and deal with the indigenous people by a process of “elimination and dehumanization.”

Like the settlers of North America, the Zionist settlers were often escaping discrimination in Europe. “They left because they were persecuted, because they felt unsafe– in fact they were under existential threat, and they were looking for safe havens,” Pappe said. “They left the continent with a one way ticket and the notion that they are not going back.”

The founders had no illusions about what they were up to. Pappe said that plans for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine originated in the early 1940s, as Zionist officials compiled lists of the Palestinian villages and their populations.

The marvel of the Zionist project was that World War 2 was understood to mark the end of colonialism; but in Palestine the colonialism got a pass. U.S. officials on the ground urged the return of the refugees in 1948 and later (as we have reported), but the White House folded. State Department and CIA officials and emissaries of Harry Truman said it didn’t matter how the refugees had left (here Pappe credited Irene Gendzier); they had a right to return, but the White House adopted the Israeli discourse. And a policy of guaranteeing refugees their right to return, a right routinely honored in Europe, was nullified in Israel and Palestine.

When the message from not only the United States– when the message from the international communities was that although settler colonialism elsewhere is something of the past, the genociding of people, eliminating of people, taking over by force someone else’s homeland, is something that belongs to the period before the second world war and not after the 2nd world war– this is the period of decolonization, this is the period that, at least ethically, this is not part of the normative discourse — despite that, the message to Israel is you’re not included in this conversation. And a lot of great philosophers of morality at that time in Europe, in the 50s and the 60s, could do the impossible, as today others are doing… You can adopt universal principles about every place in the world, except Israel. Nobody explains this exceptionalism. Nobody builds any logical infrastructure for this exceptionalism. This exceptionalism is taken for granted.

And the exceptionalism served Israel well. The ethnic cleansing of some 500 villages in 1948 was followed by the ethnic cleansing of 36 Palestinian villages inside Israel between ‘48 and ‘56 and the creation of the Gaza Strip as a refugee camp for expelled Palestinians. From the early ’60s on an Israeli “lobby” of generals and politicians demanded that Israel also colonize the West Bank. David Ben-Gurion stood in the way but in 1964 he was expelled from the government and the lobby gained power. In ’67 they took over the West Bank.

And virtually from 1967 Israel began a discourse of peace that bamboozled the world. This was the most disturbing element of Pappe’s talk. You could say you were in the peace camp and leaders even won Nobel Prizes for a plan to “contain the indigenous population within enclaves that have no bearing on” the larger society. People participate in the peace process to feel that they are doing good but they are only prolonging a disaster for Palestinians. They lose more land by the day. Gaza is a place of “inhumanity, barbarism and starvation.” American Jews who over the years have seen the West Bank five times get to feel that they are doing something to alleviate the awful conditions.

Because if a logic of dehumanization and of elimination of the Palestinian people is implemented in the name of peace, in the name of reconciliation, in the name of coexistence, it has immunity; and that immunity is won not just because the discourse is so clever, but because it also convinces the Palestinians to join in, it also convinces conscientious people around the world to join in– the moment it is about peace.

Israel also sought legitimacy for its settler colonial actions by “amazing projects of humanity.” But in fact the two are not mutually exclusive. During the first phase of Zionism, “it was the building of the infastructure of the state from almost nothing, the creation of a new culture, the integration of 100s of different immigrant societies and molding them into one society. High tech and so on.” In the second and third phase, “communities emerge with modern art, modern literature, quite a lot of freedom for the individual, as the city of Tel Aviv manifests.”

All these achievements can be tolerated within a settler colonialist project. Namely, you can continue to dehumanize, you can continue to eliminate the native population, and yet excel in other aspects of life for the benefit of the settler colonial society.

Israel’s international legitimacy lent an imprimatur to the brutality and carnage of the leaders of Israel’s neighbors. Yemen, Syria and Iraq were oppressive societies in some measure because of the anachronistic influence of Zionism. Though no; not all the blame is on Israel. (This dovetails with the view that Egypt was cemented as a dictatorship for 80 million people for 30 years– because of the blessed peace process.)

Good people were manipulated by the peace process, to believe Israel’s dispossessions were temporary.

People buy into it because people need to solve their cognitive dissonances. But of course 50 years show you that maybe Israel before ’67 was temporary, at 19 years, but Israel with the West Bank is definitely not temporary. This is it. This is the state of Israel, from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean. There is only one state and there always only be one state. It is called the state of Israel…

So we had a lot of energy– diplomatic energy, academic energy, good will energy if you will, invested in supposedly a genuine peace process based on the most sophisticated version of Zionist settler colonialism, which led nowhere… Time was not wasted on Israel’s side. But we wasted time if we were genuine seekers of peace and reconciliation. We really wasted time, we are still wasting time.

It is like the old joke of looking for a lost key where there is a street lamp on the street, though that is not where the key was lost.

The key was not lost in the two state solution, in the idea of partition, not lost in the paradigm of the conflict in Palestine as a war of two national movements. The key is lost in the darkness of the settler colonialist reality.

We have come to a critical moment in the conflict. We need to forsake the historical paradigms that deny that it is settler colonialism. It is important for westerners to insist that it is a settler colonialist project so that a new understanding arises in the mainstream of how to fix the problem, ending Zionism. Great pressure needs to be brought to bear on Israeli society so that radical anti-Zionists emerge. Western professors and students and journalists and activists have great roles to play here. Support Boycott Divestment and sanctions, Pappe said. Talk about apartheid and genocide. When he held a conference at his school, the University of Exeter in the U.K., on settler colonialism, the Israeli embassy and the board of deputies of the Jewish community and even the prime minister’s office all called the university within twelve hours to say they would not allow the “anti-semitic and pro-Nazi” event to take place. The school held firm. (This anecdote struck me as an exaggeration.)

Settler colonialism ended in genocide in eras past. Recent decolonization models are mixed. Northern Ireland took a very long time but the situation today is much improved over what existed there before. The same with South Africa though there is economic apartheid today. Zimbabwe is not an answer and neither is Algeria, Pappe said. Too violent and intolerant. And we must be mindful of the chaos that resulted in Syria and Egypt with the downfall of traditional authority. That is not a reason to preserve Israeli oppression. People learn from mistakes. But he urged care. The Palestinians ought to change their model from that of the FLN (Algeria) to that of the ANC (South Africa), though it is not his place to urge this. And westerners should not legitimize the Palestinian Authority.

The challenge: “Can we help from the outside, can we build from the inside a framework for a relationship between the third generation of the settlers and the indigenous people.” Yes.

For most Israelis such a conversation would be a conversation that comes from Mars. But it does not matter. We have to insist, because we wasted 40 years talking about nothing, doing nothing, injecting millions into the West Bank that did nothing, creating Palestinian institutions that don’t mean anything…. So we lost time, we lost energy. And I’m not going to do it, I’m too old. There’s a younger generation that understands these issues both in Israel and Palestine. And I think they are beginning to build a new discourse.

The end of Pappe’s speech was hopeful. The triumph of Zionism was to fragment the Palestinian people. To separate refugees and indigenous, occupied from exiled, and prevent their communication. Facebook has changed all that. Zionism didn’t anticipate the internet, which is building bridges between all these groups, and giving them power.

And if at this university, you insist on teaching the history of Israel and Palestine as settler colonialism, on teaching about apartheid and genocide, and continue to support movements like BDS–

“and you will have a modicum of conscience in you, then you will not support the policies for Palestinians, and history will judge you as people who have contributed to a better future in Israel and Palestine.”

Three comments seem important to me to add. First, the room was packed. The sense of excitement at seeing this intellectual leader was palpable. People have read Pappe’s book on ethnic cleansing and his recent book with Chomsky. They see him as an expert, they were rapt with attention. There was a lot going on at NYU last night, and yet this is a big deal. People know about Palestine and young people won’t be silent about it. The movement we have long been charting is vital and strong. There was great diversity in the room, as well as listeners who looked to be professors.

Second, a short documentary was shown at the start called “Abu Arab” by Mona Dohar, at the behest of Zochrot. I cannot say enough about this movie. It shows a young woman, Muna Thaher, accompanying her grandfather Abu-‘Arab back to his erased village near Nazareth. Every moment is delicate and unscripted. The old man tells stories of his childhood in the village before his family was forced to leave, and his sister killed, and his mother’s sanity dislodged. He tells his grand-daughter that return is inevitable, if not in this generation then in a later one. The simple human terms of the film touch parts of the mind no analysis can reach. The girl in the movie was thoughtful and sweet, an Everywoman figure who stands in for anyone with open eyes. The documentary leaves the impression: No one can dispute her claim to making a future on her land.

Third, one element of Pappe’s talk struck me as witless. He spoke often of the “lobby” inside Israel to colonize the West Bank but he never mentioned the lobby in America. I imagine he is a Marxist by training who doesn’t go in for a religious treatment of the conflict. But how else do you explain the anomalous exceptionalism of Israeli settler colonialism in the 20th century without speaking about Jewish history? The anomalous protection of Zionism by the west is a product of Holocaust guilt on the part of western powers, yes; but it is not an imperial strategy, it is against the American interest to have the Middle East as chaotic as it is today, an unrest that was perfectly predicted by State Department experts 70 years ago. So why would US presidents overturn the US interest? Because they are dependent on the Israel lobby, on rightwing Jewish donors. Sadly it’s just that simple; it is why Milbank Tweed backs events on CIA torture but pulls its gift to Harvard over a Palestinian event, it is why a Zionist responds to a Palestinian event at Vassar by calling for a”Jewish donor strike,” it’s why Truman violated a deeply-held principle, the separation of church and state, so as to keep donors on his side in a tight election. We must address empowered American Jewish Zionists who regard it as their duty to support a Jewish state. This discussion and decolonization must happen inside the United States if progress is to be made.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

116 Responses

  1. Annie Robbins
    March 4, 2016, 2:00 pm

    what an incredible article. what a must read. and your final note at the end phil, thank you. this speaks to the chasm inside the movement, of those who refuse to recognize the power of the lobby and how it has driven our foreign policy wrt all things israel vs those who keep claiming it’s been in america’s interest all along. because it hasn’t. not at all.

    • Krauss
      March 4, 2016, 2:38 pm

      I’ve been saying for years now that Phil has an important voice in this conversation. I’ve been calling for a book, and I still hold out hope that we’ll see one before too long.

      The issue of Jewish sociology, of the Jewish establishment and its role in unconditional support for Zionism in America, is almost never broached because so many people, including supposed radicals like Pappé or Chomsky, are either scared of it or are blinded by their Marxist training.

      Not everything can be explained through material frameworks. Attachments, cultural and ethnic attachments, can often be just as strong(or even stronger).

  2. hophmi
    March 4, 2016, 2:08 pm

    “First, the room was packed. ”

    Donald Trump can also pack a room.

    “The sense of excitement at seeing this intellectual leader was palpable.”

    Like most demagogic movements, SJP whips up a lot of excitement.

    “He tells his grand-daughter that return is inevitable, if not in this generation then in a later one. The simple human terms of the film touch parts of the mind no analysis can reach. The girl in the movie was thoughtful and sweet, an Everywoman figure who stands in for anyone with open eyes. The documentary leaves the impression: No one can dispute her claim to making a future on her land.”

    Will return entail the ethnic cleansing of the people now living there?

    “But how else do you explain the anomalous exceptionalism of Israeli settler colonialism in the 20th century without speaking about Jewish history? The anomalous protection of Zionism by the west is a product of Holocaust guilt on the part of western powers, yes; but it is not an imperial strategy, it is against the American interest to have the Middle East as chaotic as it is today, an unrest that was perfectly predicted by State Department experts 70 years ago.”

    LOL. The only place in the Middle East that is not chaotic is Israel. The rest of the chaos in the Middle East has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with tribalism in the Arab world. The notion that it does have something to do with Israel is nothing but tired antisemitic conspiracy theorizing that places Jews at the center of every problem, no matter how remote.

    • Mooser
      March 4, 2016, 2:28 pm

      “LOL. The only place in the Middle East that is not chaotic is Israel.”

      LOL ‘They made a desert go boom, and they call it peace!’ LOL

    • Mooser
      March 4, 2016, 2:29 pm

      “Will return entail the ethnic cleansing of the people now living there?”

      Well, it’s not any kind of a “return”, that’s Zionist bullshit, you know that, but yes, every indication is that Zionism does ” entail the ethnic cleansing of the people now living there”.

      Why, were you talking about something else?

      • Philip Weiss
        March 4, 2016, 2:34 pm

        Also Mooser, it was very clear from that film that Abu-‘Arab wanted to live alongside the Jews who are living on his village, not displace them.

      • Mooser
        March 4, 2016, 2:54 pm

        “wanted to live alongside the Jews who are living on his village, not displace them.”

        Exactly. I think something in the Zionist ‘philosophy’ precludes accepting such generosity and reconciliation from Palestinians. But then again, maybe the Zionists know something I don’t about why that can’t be. It’d be “depending on the kindness of strangers”, or something. Might lead to “a failure to communicate”.

    • Mooser
      March 4, 2016, 2:44 pm

      “The notion that it” (Israel?) “ does have something to do with Israel is nothing but tired antisemitic conspiracy theorizing that places Jews at the center of every problem, no matter how remote. “

      Remote from Israel?

      I mean wow, people are still conflating Zionism and Israel and Judaism and even, (how low can you go?) throwing Jews into the mix? Don’t they know Zionism is run by the… (I was going to say “Mennonites” or something, but I just can’t do it, fearing it might be perceived as gratuitous insult.)

      • MHughes976
        March 4, 2016, 4:12 pm

        I find it hard to think of the area under Israeli sovereign power as a place of good order, rather as a place of extraordinary anomalies and considerable suffering, chaos of a sort. Is that questioned? There are certainly serious divisions within the Arab world but how can it be doubted that the problem of how to respond to Israel has exacerbated them?

      • jackal
        March 4, 2016, 10:37 pm

        @ Mooser — Very much an insult to Mennonites. :) But Mennonites, unlike most other religious-ethnic groups are noted for turning the other cheek.
        As probably the only atheist of Mennonite extraction reading this blog site, I can say without a doubt that you have obviously confused whoever you were thinking about with the Mennonite ethnicity.
        I’ve been spending a lot of time in the last ten years reading Israeli/Palestinian history. Ilan Pappe’s book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, along with Shlomo Sand’s book, The Invention of the Land of Israel, Peled’s book, The General’s Son, and Jonathan Cook’s Disappearing Palestine, should form the basis of good reading on the topic. Sacher’s two-volume History of Israel, is of interest, but too one-sided and needs to be taken with a large dose of salt.

      • Mooser
        March 5, 2016, 10:28 am

        Yes, thanks, “jackal”. As I hope I said, I couldn’t bring myself to say it, even as a joke.

    • diasp0ra
      March 4, 2016, 4:45 pm

      @hophmi

      “Will return entail the ethnic cleansing of the people now living there?”

      Pay attention, they aren’t Zionists.

    • chocopie
      March 4, 2016, 8:19 pm

      “Will return entail the ethnic cleansing of the people now living there?”

      I wonder what ever gave you that idea? So illuminating to watch Zionists of all people argue against return.

      “The only place in the Middle East that is not chaotic is Israel.”

      Because a culture of home demolitions is so calming. Families living in tents contribute to a bucolic atmosphere.

    • Talkback
      March 5, 2016, 1:34 am

      Mayhem: “Will return entail the ethnic cleansing of the people now living there?”

      If you will it, it is not dream, Mayhem.

    • eljay
      March 6, 2016, 3:57 pm

      || hophmi: … LOL. The only place in the Middle East that is not chaotic is Israel. ||

      You’re right, that is funny!  :-)

    • rosross
      March 8, 2016, 1:11 am

      You are kidding. Israel not chaotic? Ask the nearly 25% of non-Jewish Israelis about the chaos and trauma in their lives from bigoted injustice.

      Ask Palestinians living under the Israeli military boot, particularly those in the Gaza concentration camp about chaos.

      Ask Israelis living in poverty, failed by their education system, discriminated against because they are of the wrong ethnic group about the chaos which is Israel.

  3. Krauss
    March 4, 2016, 2:48 pm

    Given the neocons’ total backing of Hillary over Trump, and the surefire fact that any democratic candidate is now inevitable in the WH due to demographics, I wonder how the liberal base will respond in 2017 as the first rumblings of another round of “peace process” will be announced.

    It would be curious to see the reaction of the establishment as it sees that nobody believes them anymore. And this, I think, would be empowering to a lot of liberals who are guilty of the conspiracy of silence in the case of Jewish Apartheid, including Jewish liberals who, perhaps, may finally come out and truly embrace universalism as a principle and not just out of convenient expediency due to their minority status in the West. Beinart, I’m looking at you. (Although probably in vain).

    Because I expect a Clinton term to at once solidify support for Israel in the short-term but also break the dam on support for a one state framework. (Yes, most of us who follow these things very closely already know that it’s ALREADY a one state, but mentally lots of folks are still in denial).

    We’ve reached the end of the line on the 2SS illusion and while I expect Clinton to be absolutely abysmal on I/P(even worse than Obama), I also expect semi-revolutionary movement within the not just radical left but also the moderate left as the endless expansion of Jewish Apartheid simply never stops and the Iran distraction is taken off the table.

    I re-iterate: we won’t see real political progress on this issue until after 2024 and perhaps even later than that. Clinton will have to complete her two terms(the GOP demographic deficit will only grow).

  4. Les
    March 4, 2016, 2:53 pm

    We should emulate the Zionists who have always know this to be a “piece pocess.”

  5. Steve Grover
    March 4, 2016, 3:19 pm

    Weiss sez,
    “We must address empowered American Jewish Zionists who regard it as their duty to support a Jewish state.”
    I am one of the vast majority of American Jews that proudly supports the Jewish State of Israel. And you will never be able to do a damned thing about it.

    • Mooser
      March 4, 2016, 4:38 pm

      “I am one of the vast majority of American Jews that proudly supports the Jewish State of Israel. And you will never be able to do a damned thing about it.”

      That’s really nice, “Steve”! You are always make the extra personal effort to point out exactly why Zionism is failing, and will fail even more disastrously.

      Thanks for the confidence booster! OH, BTW, “Steve, I’ll return the favor: Whatever you do, don’t go thinking about what “the vast majority of American Jews” means in terms of actual numbers, and just what that “vast majority” is willing to do for Israel or is capable of doing.

    • talknic
      March 4, 2016, 4:59 pm

      @ Steve Grover

      ” And you will never be able to do a damned thing about it”

      You’ve already done more than enough to discredit yourself Steve

      • Steve Grover
        March 4, 2016, 5:13 pm

        Have I?

      • Mooser
        March 4, 2016, 7:42 pm

        “Have I?”

        Of course not, “Steve”! If you were not expressing well reasoned thoughts, and expressing them in a way creditable to both you and Zionism, the Mods wouldn’t pass your posts.

    • Peter in SF
      March 6, 2016, 4:07 pm

      I am one of the vast majority of American Jews that proudly supports the Jewish State of Israel.

      I find it surprising that you say that you are an American Jew, because just the day before, you had written: “ I will vote for Hilary only if she vows to put Max Blumenthal in Gitmo on her first day in office.” Isn’t that the kind of statement that sends chills down the spines of American Jews and would make them want to have nothing to do with you?

      • DaBakr
        March 13, 2016, 9:46 pm

        @psf

        mx blmthl will never merit anything other then a blip or an irritant on the periphery of the political structure surrounding the issue of israel as a u.s. economic,military and strategic asset . if it wasn’t for his ‘big daddy’ connection to inside the beltway he would not even rate as a blip-much like mx.b’s. partner in crime- d.sheen who is definitely less then a blip on the scale of i/p activism. israel-hater, zionist-hater and palestinian hasbarist is a much more accurate term to describe them both.

        the only consequential thing i can think of in regards to mx.b is that by the looks and sounds of d.trumps campaign- max’s incendiary, anti-intellectual , one-sided and hyperbolic style would do well under a trump presidency.

      • talknic
        March 14, 2016, 12:47 am

        @ DaBakr March 13, 2016, 9:46 pm

        Whatever nonsense you need to spout to keep your bile flowing pal

      • talknic
        March 14, 2016, 10:09 am

        @ DaBakr March 13, 2016, 9:46 pm

        mx blmthl will never merit anything other then a blip or an irritant …”

        Oh OK. Bye. No point in you being here

  6. yonah fredman
    March 4, 2016, 3:47 pm

    “Israel’s international legitimacy lent an imprimatur to the brutality and carnage of the leaders of Israel’s neighbors. Yemen, Syria and Iraq were oppressive societies in some measure because of the anachronistic influence of Zionism. Though no; not all the blame is on Israel. (This dovetails with the view that Egypt was cemented as a dictatorship for 80 million people for 30 years– because of the blessed peace process.)” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/we-wasted-40-years-talking-about-nothing-doing-nothing-pappe-demolishes-the-peace-process/#comment-162942

    oh thanks to god. not all the blame is on israel. why resort to analysis when you can resort to scapegoatism. why study books when you can read headlines and reach conclusions?

  7. MHughes976
    March 4, 2016, 4:30 pm

    Colonialism suggests a metropolis, but the Israelis do not have one. A colony is normally intended to interact with and perhaps exploit the existing population, whereas the intention of Zionism has been, on the whole, to replace it.

    • lysias
      March 4, 2016, 4:41 pm

      I don’t think apartheid South Africa had a metropolis. I don’t think the United States had one after we became independent.

      Why doesn’t Pappe consider the Republic of Ireland as a model?

      • MHughes976
        March 4, 2016, 4:51 pm

        A colony can indeed become independent – you know what happened when Corcyra did that to Corinth! – but that does presuppose a period of colonial dependency. South Africa was for a long time a Dutch colony.

    • YoniFalic
      March 6, 2016, 1:15 pm

      I think you mean metropole and not metropolis.

      19th century European genocidal settler colonialism predicated the expulsion or destruction of the native population and its replacement by white European settlers. Some favored non-Europeans were usually meant to serve as native collaborators.

      Nordau, who was the most important Zionist ideologist after Herzl, fully supported such colonialism and advocated it for Palestine.

      http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.676420

      The State of Israel fully corresponds to models of both metropole exploitative white racist European colonialist imperialism and metropole genocidal white racist European settler colonialist imperialism.

      In an age of decolonialization and anti-genocide, the State of Israel cannot be permitted to exist and the criminal genocidal settler-invader population must be removed.

      Zionism has introduced a novelty in the metropole aspect of the various sorts of imperialism.

      The imperial center or metropole of Zionism is the hyperwealthy international elite that is found in the USA and the UK and that is descended mostly from Central and E. European communities. In the history of Zionism this elite subcontracted out most of the military and funding aspects of Zionist imperialism first to the UK and then to the USA.

      Thus Zionist imperialism does not have a metropole associated with a European state but instead has a metropole associated with a network of wealth. (The most lucrative segments of the Israeli economy belong almost entirely to hyperwealthy international Zionist plutocrats and not to resident settler-invaders.)

      We can perhaps refer to the virtual metropole of Zionist imperialism.

      Such usage is more consistent with modern theories of imperialism, metropole, and periphery as developed John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson since the 1950s.

      Asserting that Zionism is not a form of imperialist colonialism because it has no metropole is at best old-fashioned and is more properly called denial or propaganda.

  8. Stephen Shenfield
    March 4, 2016, 5:13 pm

    There are two major paradigms for describing and trying to improve interethnic relations. Each has its own “industry” of researchers in think-tanks and academia, political campaigns, etc. One is the “conflict resolution” paradigm, the other is the “human rights” paradigm. The target of Ilan Pappe’s critique is the predominance of the conflict-resolution paradigm in approaching Israel/Palestine. Conflict resolution pays little if any attention to power asymmetry between the conflicting groups; it does not ask who is oppressing whom. It demands equal “concessions” from each side in order to achieve a “realistic compromise solution” — even if that “solution” means hell on earth for the weaker side. The only thing that matters is “peace” in the narrow sense of the absence of overt violence. So long as there is no violent resistance even genocide is logically compatible with conflict resolution. The great advantage of “one-state solutions” is that they break the framework of “conflict resolution” and create space for concern for people and their rights.

  9. Stephen Shenfield
    March 4, 2016, 5:17 pm

    Phil: I wonder why you think Pappe’s “anecdote” is exaggerated? I believe him.

  10. yonah fredman
    March 5, 2016, 4:53 am

    “So why would US presidents overturn the US interest? Because they are dependent on the Israel lobby, on rightwing Jewish donors. Sadly it’s just that simple; it is why Milbank Tweed backs events on CIA torture but pulls its gift to Harvard over a Palestinian event, it is why a Zionist responds to a Palestinian event at Vassar by calling for a”Jewish donor strike,” it’s why Truman violated a deeply-held principle, the separation of church and state, so as to keep donors on his side in a tight election. We must address empowered American Jewish Zionists who regard it as their duty to support a Jewish state. This discussion and decolonization must happen inside the United States if progress is to be made.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/we-wasted-40-years-talking-about-nothing-doing-nothing-pappe-demolishes-the-peace-process/#sthash.jeBsEfh3.dpuf

    So why should US presidents overturn US interest? Truman’s actions fit into this category, but not Nixon for example. Nixon’s support for Israel certainly fit into Nixon’s concept of US interest.
    The blanket statement by Weiss is a sweep of history, a false sweep of history.

    But let me focus on this sentence:,
    We must address empowered American Jewish Zionists who regard it as their duty to support a Jewish state.

    This may or may not be qualified by his previous emphasis on right wing Jewish Zionists donors.

    Is Weiss emphasizing empowered or over- empowered, as in rich donors or the 35% of American Jews who consider Israel an important part of their Jewish identity.

    I would assume that there are some 120 Jewish donors or possibly 12,000 Jewish donors who have convinced the Congress to support Israel by donating to Congressional and Presidential races. Thus the question is: Is Weiss talking about these 12,000 donors or is he talking about that 35% of American Jews? If he is talking about the donors, how can he/we fix the support these donors “feel a duty” to extend to Israel without fixing the congressional political campaign laws. And since the change of those laws is nowhere on the horizon, how does Weiss propose to address this problem?

    then there’s this turn of phrase: This discussion and decolonization must happen inside the United States if progress is to be made. no problem with the discussion as the subject of this sentence, but what does Weiss mean by decolonization in this context? Sounds quite akin to ZOG to me. Maybe I’m wrong. It sounds academic and sophisticated but when you get down to it, it is just Harvard speak for ZOG. (Zionist occupied government)

    • Mooser
      March 5, 2016, 9:51 am

      “The blanket statement by Weiss…”
      “is Weiss emphasizing…”
      “Is Weiss talking about…”
      “what does Weiss mean”

      “Yonah, don’t you, mean “Mr. Weiss”? You know, the guy who provides this web space for you?

      • Philip Weiss
        March 5, 2016, 10:19 am

        Yonah while precision is important I’d refer you to such articles as the Hill saying that Obama’s Middle East policy was potentially alienating a “pillar” of Democratic support, “big Jewish donors.” (link below) And to that neocon in my piece saying “Jewish donor strike.” Dennis Ross calls it the “Jewish lobby” in his latest book, surely in an effort to bar the doors against dissent and immunize the Israel lobby from criticism.
        The way to decolonize this influence is for American Jews to turn against Zionism. That is happening. As Ross knows, inasmuch as Zionism is The Cognate for Jewish, in the American political landscape, no one will touch this question. Now that the Jewish body is openly fracturing over this mistaken dangerous anachronistic ideology, it is far easier for the media to address Zionist influence in the process.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/11/alienate-democrats-jewish/

      • yonah fredman
        March 5, 2016, 10:33 pm

        Phil, precision is important.

        American Jewish support for Israel is weakening. But even if the percentage of American Jews who consider Israel very important to their Jewishness plummets in half from the Pew poll’s 35% to 17%, there will still be sufficient donors to push the Democratic party in a direction that you are opposed to.

        Zionism was born at a certain moment. It was born in Eastern Europe with a central European patron (Herzl). It was not mistaken at the moment of its birth. Herzl and Pinsker and Jabotinsky saw real danger and reacted with a real plan of unified action. What other unified Jewish action can you point to?

        So it was not mistaken at that moment. The realities of Israel highlight the difficulty of creating a national movement in a spot where another nation already (or also) lives.

        America 2016 is not Minsk 1905, nor is it Warsaw 1943 and so therefore from the perspective of Hudson Valley New York 2016, Zionism can be labeled as mistaken by you.

        The fact is that Israel 2016 is dependent on US support and that support is based upon Congressional support and mainstream media support that can be attributed to rich Jewish donors. That donor base is not going to disappear any time soon.

        While the Jewish zeitgeist is less supportive of Israel than ever, American attitudes towards Israel’s enemies are as thorny as ever, thanks to the chaos of the Arab world.

        As far as swaying Jewish opinion: I would advise you to avoid the term decolonization. If you are only trying to preach to your choir of Israel hating fans, go ahead and appeal to that fraction with that ZOG like term. Otherwise it might turn off people on the fence. Fracturing is occurring. I would think you might try appealing to a broader swath of the nonZionist Jewish public. Meanwhile it looks like you are preaching to the choir and telling the other Jews that they are the enemy. It is the “if you are not with us you are against us” line of thought, rather than the “if you are not against us you are with us” line of thought.

      • Sibiriak
        March 6, 2016, 12:31 am

        yonah fredman: So it was not mistaken at that moment
        ————-

        Putting aside any questions about the moral validity of ethno-nationalism, it was clearly mistaken the moment Palestine became the target territory for a new Jewish State (and there was no realistic territorial alternative, certainly not one that had any mass Jewish appeal.)

        A Jewish State in Palestine required ethnic cleansing and a complete denial of the indigenous population’s right to self-determination (and that ethnic cleansing/denial of rights began long before 1947.)

        That was known from the beginning. It was wrong from the beginning,

        Well-intentioned desires to escape anti-Semitism and/or promote a Jewish national revival do not change that reality.

      • yonah fredman
        March 6, 2016, 1:34 am

        Sibiriak- Zionism saved the lives of one branch of my family. From this vantage of history you want me to tell that branch of the family to accept death rather than life. To tell them to choose life over death is my mistake. I do not call it a mistake.

      • talknic
        March 6, 2016, 5:45 am

        @ yonah fredman
        “Zionism was born at a certain moment. It was born in Eastern Europe with a central European patron (Herzl). It was not mistaken at the moment of its birth. Herzl and Pinsker and Jabotinsky saw real danger and reacted with a real plan of unified action. What other unified Jewish action can you point to?”

        Herzl and Pinsker didn’t see enough danger to flee to Palestine…

      • Sibiriak
        March 6, 2016, 7:05 am

        Talknic: Herzl and Pinsker didn’t see enough danger to flee to Palestine…
        ——————

        You seem to repeat that fact as often as you can, but I’m not sure what you think it proves.

        1) So far you haven’t replied to Dan’s trenchant response to a similar remark of yours:

        Guess [Herzl] made a mistake then, since his daughter, Margarethe (Trude) was killed by the Nazis.

        But since he died in 1904; had argued against Jews moving to Palestine (or elsewhere) in a disorganized way, before the movement had the support of the European powers and/or the Ottomans; was interested in a solution (as he saw it) for all Jews, not just himself; felt that his talents were best employed in Europe, organizing the movement and working the halls of power to gain support for a state; had no particular attachment to Palestine, and would have been content with a Jewish state elsewhere, you really can’t blame him.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/02/in-every-important-way-israel-has-failed-leading-american-zionist-says-no-mas/#comment-827405

        —————————

        2)For many Zionists, particularly American liberals, moving to Palestine was never seen as a duty or necessity for ALL Jews.

        Louis D. Brandeis, for example, the most important American Zionist in the decades prior to WWII, crystallized the basic ideas of American liberal Zionism in a famous 1915 speech: :

        […]Let no American imagine that Zionism is inconsistent with Patriotism. Multiple loyalties are objectionable only if they are inconsistent. A man is a better citizen of the United States for being also a loyal citizen of his state, and of his city; for being loyal to his family, and to his profession or trade; for being loyal to his college or his lodge. Every Irish American who contributed toward advancing home rule was a better man and a better American for the sacrifice he made.

        Every American Jew who aids in advancing the Jewish settlement in Palestine, though he feels that neither he nor his descendants will ever live there , will likewise be a better man and a better American for doing so.

        *****

        […]There is no inconsistency between loyalty to America and loyalty to Jewry. The Jewish spirit, the product of our religion and experiences, is essentially modem and essentially American. Not since the destruction of the Temple have the Jews in spirit and in ideals been so fully in harmony with the noblest aspirations of the country in which they lived.

        America’s fundamental law seeks to make real the brotherhood of man. That brotherhood became the Jewish fundamental law more than twenty-five hundred years ago. America’s insistent demand in the twentieth century is for social justice. That also has been the Jews’ striving for ages. Their affliction, as well as their religion, has prepared the Jews for effective democracy. Persecution broadened their sympathies. […]

        *****

        Since the Jewish problem is single and universal, the Jews of every country should strive for its solution. But the duty resting upon us of America is especially insistent. We number about 3,000,000, which is more than one-fifth of all the Jews in the world, a number larger than that comprised within any other country except the Russian Empire.

        We are representative of all the Jews in the world; for we are composed of immigrants, or descendants of immigrants, coming from every other country, or district. We include persons from every section of society, and of every shade of religious belief. We are ourselves free from civil or political disabilities, and are relatively prosperous.

        Our fellow Americans are infused with a high and generous spirit, which insures approval of our struggle to ennoble, liberate, and otherwise improve the condition of an important part of the human race; and their innate manliness makes them sympathize particularly with our efforts at self-help.

        America’s detachment from the old world problem relieves us from suspicions and embarrassments frequently attending the activities of Jews of rival European countries. And a conflict between American interests or ambitions and Jewish aims is not conceivable. Our loyalty to America can never be questioned.

        (Hertzberg, ” The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader ” emphasis added)

        Brandeis got things terribly wrong. He demonstrated how a beguiling combination of good intentions and ignorance, idealism and prejudice, a deep-seated faith in the superiority Western civilization and an underlying anti-Arab racism , could lead to an utterly illusory vision of what Zionism was really about on the ground in Palestine. But even has a committed Zionist, he had no illusion that Jews in the U.S. were under any kind of existential threat.

        ————————–

        3) Are you claiming there WAS NO growing danger to European Jews? Herzl was wrong on that point?

      • eljay
        March 6, 2016, 8:57 am

        || yonah fredman: Phil, precision is important. … Zionism was born at a certain moment. … It was not mistaken at the moment of its birth. … The realities of Israel highlight the difficulty of creating a national movement in a spot where another nation already (or also) lives. … ||

        That is an excellent reason why Zionism was mistaken at the moment of its birth. Precision is important.

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2016, 12:47 pm

        “American Jewish support for Israel is weakening. But even if the percentage of American Jews who consider Israel very important to their Jewishness plummets in half from the Pew poll’s 35% to 17%, there will still be sufficient donors to push the Democratic party in a direction that you are opposed to. “

        Good job, “Yonah”!! You’ve cut the 35% almost in half!

        “Yonah”, why can’t you get it through your head that “Phil” misunderstands the basis of Zionism completely. “Phil” refuses to see the swaqlient fact about Zionism today: the fewer people support it, the more powerful it gets! And of course, that goes double if the non-supporters are Jews.
        I will explain it for the perplexed. There is never any diminution of Zionist power and ability to “push the Democratic party” just because there is fewer supporters or more in opposition. That’s other movements, which actually stand or fall on the number of people supporting, and affected by the power of the opposition. Some movements ‘grow by what they feed on’ but Zionism is the only movement which grows by ideological bulimia, and projection vomiting of support.
        Zionist power is a constant, and always at it’s highest point. When anybody (and Jews count double!) ceases to support or opposes Zionism, all of their share in the affluence and influence of Zionism is simply distributed to the remaining Zionists.
        The last Zionist standing will be the most powerful and richest single individual in the world! Je suis Generis will be his motto.

        “Yonah” I have faith in you! I think you can get it down to 5-10%, allowing those couple of hundred thousand Zionists left in America to run the entire country. And leaving a lot bigger shares of Zionist power to the remaining Zionists.

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2016, 1:04 pm

        “The fact is that Israel 2016 is dependent on US support and that support is based upon Congressional support and mainstream media support that can be attributed to rich Jewish donors. That donor base is not going to disappear any time soon.” “Yonah”

        Whew! At least I won’t have to type my little split hooves to the bone explaining why that is!
        That is certainly the one thing everybody knows about us.

      • Sibiriak
        March 6, 2016, 3:23 pm

        yonah fredman: Zionism saved the lives of one branch of my family. […]I do not call it a mistake.
        ————–

        To judge something, you must judge it in its entirety, weighing the good against the bad; and you must judge it against the alternatives. You have not done that. You refuse to do that.

        How were your relatives saved? Why did it require the ethnic cleansing, massacres, and endless humiliations and oppressions of Zionism? Again, when I said Zionism was a mistake, I mean the whole of Zionism, all that it entailed and continues to be entailed. The long chain of consequences that is nowhere near its end. Have you weighed the totality; the future as well as the past, the whole past?

        How simple is it for you to latch on to the positive and ignore the negative. Count the benefits, but not the costs. Grasp a moment, but ignore the expanse. Value some lives; discount others.

      • Keith
        March 6, 2016, 4:31 pm

        YONAH FREDMAN- “The fact is that Israel 2016 is dependent on US support and that support is based upon Congressional support and mainstream media support that can be attributed to rich Jewish donors. That donor base is not going to disappear any time soon.”

        I agree. In capitalism, money is power. As such, as the wealth of these Jewish fat-cats has increased, support for Israel can be said to have increased even as support for Israel among the majority of Jews has decreased. Until the oligarchs change their mind about support for Israel, that support will continue. I have yet to see any indication of any anti-Zionist billionaires whatsoever, although billionaire support FOR Israel is well known.

      • talknic
        March 6, 2016, 6:17 pm

        @ Sibiriak

        I’ve now replied to Dan. His comments reinforce the fact that in his lifetime Herzl didn’t see it necessary to flee to Palestine.

        .. Are you claiming there WAS NO growing danger to European Jews? Herzl was wrong on that point?

        What I’ve written in response to Yonah’s post is still there. The Nazi party wasn’t around when Herzl was

      • Sibiriak
        March 6, 2016, 11:08 pm

        talknic: Herzl didn’t see it necessary to flee to Palestine.
        —————

        And this is evidence of what? Just curious…

      • yonah fredman
        March 6, 2016, 11:53 pm

        Sibiriak- How easy it is for you to tell me that i should consider the survival of my cousins to be a mistake. They lived in Poland in the 30’s and received visas to Palestine due to the Zionist movement. You want to call the whole movement a mistake in its totality because of the harm that it’s done to the world, that’s your right. I want to latch on to real people I’ve seen with my own two eyes who are alive only because of Zionism. Yes, I will latch on to the reality I’ve seen with my own two eyes and value the lives of my family. Yes, I will.

      • Sibiriak
        March 7, 2016, 10:54 am

        yonah fredman: How easy it is for you to tell me that i should consider the survival of my cousins to be a mistake.
        ———————-

        I said Zionism was a mistake, not the survival of your cousins. It was a colossal intellectual and moral error to think the rights and well-being of millions of Palestinians–an entire people– could be trampled on with impunity.

        ———————-

        they lived in Poland in the 30’s and received visas to Palestine due to the Zionist movement.

        If they received visas in the 1930’s, they did so in accordance with British immigration policy. Those visas did not obligate a life-long effort to create and expand a Jewish supremacist, Jewish super-majority state. Those visas did not obligate support for Zionism’s unavoidable ethnic-cleansing and denial of Palestinian self-determination.

        Perhaps, your cousins recognized the Zionist moral disaster and worked against it. Doubtful, but I mention the possibility. Or perhaps they emigrated from Palestine as soon as they could,. Again, doubtful.

        If they DID support the ongoing Zionist state project, with all the gross, undeniable immorality it entailed, then they were doing so not simply to save their lives–they were participating in a huge moral error and human catastrophe.

        —————————
        You want to call the whole movement a mistake in its totality because of the harm that it’s done to the world, that’s your right.

        Yes of course you must consider the totality of consequences when judging a movement or ideology.

        —————————-
        I want to latch on to real people I’ve seen with my own two eyes….

        Palestinians are not real people? You cannot see them?

      • eljay
        March 7, 2016, 11:01 am

        || yonah fredman: … I want to latch on to real people I’ve seen with my own two eyes who are alive only because of Zionism. … ||

        It’s a shame that you insist on closing your eyes to real people who are dead – and to real people who continue to die – only because of Zionism.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2016, 11:42 am

        “I want to latch on to real people I’ve seen with my own two eyes who are alive only because of Zionism. Yes, I will latch on to the reality I’ve seen with my own two eyes and value the lives of my family. Yes, I will.”

        “Yonah” this is fabulous! I’ve already got the music written for those words, and if you can give me another verse and a bridge I think we’ve got the next monster hora rap hit on our hands! It’ll be the greatest hit in Greater Israel, it’ll wipe “Have a Negila” and “But I Haven’t Got a Hatikvah” off the charts. BTW Is there a dance step you do with this?

        Got it! Call it the “Antidayenu”- the chorus is “it’ll never be enough’ repeated ad neaseum

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2016, 11:59 am

        “I have yet to see any indication of any anti-Zionist billionaires whatsoever, although billionaire support FOR Israel is well known.”

        Which it just shows you, doesn’t it, that God works in mysterious ways His wonders to perform, y’know what I mean?

      • YoniFalic
        March 7, 2016, 12:32 pm

        From the beginning of the 20th century through the 1930s, perceptive Jewish anti-Communists like רשכבהג* Elchanan Wasserman, who was also anti-Zionist, wrote exactly as I do below. Yuri Slezkine quotes at least one other in The Jewish Century.

        By every demographic study of the time period hostility toward Jewish communities throughout Europe and the Czarist Empire was on the decline from the 1885 through 1904 (Herzl’s Zionist period) even though a significant Czarist Jewish element was waging a campaign of sabotage and assassination against the Czarist government.

        In 1905 that statistic begins to change thanks to the very public manipulation of international finance by Jacob Schiff and colleagues to force the Czarist government effectively to concede defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. This outcome was obviously against the interests of the Czarist Empire. It was also less obviously but certainly also against the interests of the USA.

        From this point onward significant elements of the Czarist Empire and also beyond the Czarist Empire began to perceive a (mostly nonexistent) alliance of Jewish capital and radicalism against the Czarist government and against gentiles in general. With the overthrow of the Czarist government and the consolidation of the Soviet Union — something that would have been impossible without the efforts of a disproportionate number of Jews, hatred and fear of Jews in Central and Eastern Europe increased tremendously — especially because of the wholly disproportionate role of Jews in the planning and execution of Soviet atrocities, mass murder, and genocide.

        Such participation and planning of murder and atrocities is the root cause of the blow back that was directed against Jews and whose most well known example is the Holocaust.

        While the innocent Jewish victims of the Holocaust deserve sympathy, denying Jewish agency in the creation of the circumstances that brought about the Holocaust is a combination of bigotry, denial, and propaganda.

        When racist genocidal “Jews” demand support

        1) for Zionism in the Mandatory period because of increasing hatred toward Jews or

        2) for the State of Israel today because of the Holocaust,

        they MUST BE EQUATED with the man who is convicted of murdering his parents and who asks for leniency because he is an orphan.

        There is no doubt in my mind as a former Israeli, a very ashamed former IDF soldier, and former Jew that the State of Israel is something wholly criminal, that it must be dismantled, and that the criminal invader population must be removed while the Israeli and international Zionist leadership is sent to the ICC to be tried and to be convicted for genocide.

        Palestinians deserve all the sympathy of the international community while Israeli “Jews” deserve absolutely none.

        ———————————-

        * רשכבהג – רבן של כל בני הגולה

    • Mooser
      March 5, 2016, 11:27 am

      “or the 35% of American Jews who consider Israel an important part of their Jewish identity.”

      What’s going on? Just yesterday maybe day before, “Dabakr” insisted it’s running ’85 to 95%’ unconditional, hope-to-die support. “Yonah” brought it down to 35% all by himself?

      I sense a downward trend. But hey, there’s our motto: “Zionism, support it for the 35%! They’re depending on your kindness, stranger!”

      • jon s
        March 7, 2016, 4:05 pm

        YoniFalic:
        “Such participation and planning of murder and atrocities is the root cause of the blow back that was directed against Jews and whose most well known example is the Holocaust.

        While the innocent Jewish victims of the Holocaust deserve sympathy, denying Jewish agency in the creation of the circumstances that brought about the Holocaust is a combination of bigotry, denial, and propaganda.”

        So, ultimately, the Jews were to blame for the Holocaust. The Holocaust was nothing but “blow back”. YoniFalic’s bizarre crackpot theories, genocidal intentions and Anti-Semitic propaganda reach a new low. His post is an insult to the survivors and to the memory of the victims.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2016, 5:23 pm

        “So, ultimately, the Jews were to blame for the Holocaust. The Holocaust was nothing but “blow back”. YoniFalic’s bizarre crackpot theories, genocidal intentions and Anti-Semitic propaganda reach a new low. “

        “Jon s” Being born in Israel (you, “jon s” are an American citizen firmly anchored)
        growing up there and serving in the IDF (did you do that “Jon s”? Or have to?)
        ought to inform a person pretty well about things like this, about his own (til he left) country. I think “Yoni Falic” knows what he is talking about.

        Why, “Jon s”? Do you have some proof that your version of things, almost anything to do with Israel, isn’t just a self-serving Jewish fantasy vacation? After all, to say anything else wouldn’t be very ‘tribal unity’, know what I mean? Nobody likes a moser. That’s been made clear, by Zionism. You got a way around it? Try “replying” to “Yoni Falic” instead of me. For a start. But he scares the crap out of you, doesn’t he, Mr. Medford, Conn

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2016, 5:34 pm

        “So, ultimately, the Jews were to blame for the Holocaust.”

        “Jon s”, the present changes the past. And not always in ways we might like. And without denying or decreasing a single number. Why, did you think we have some kind of a “lock” on the Holocaust?

      • oldgeezer
        March 7, 2016, 7:21 pm

        @jon s

        I don’t think that yoni said Jews were responsible for the holocaust. Not in the collective sense of the word. To whatever extent he did indeed say that I would agree with you that it’s wrong to say Jews were responsible for it.

        It is an insult to the innocent victims just as the Israeli narrative is an insult to the millions of victims of both Israel and zionism.

        The holocaust does not provide moral cover for the crimes against humanity that have been perpetrated.

        To the extent that there may have been some Jewish agency involved this merely mirrors the whinging zionist excuse that blaming Israel denies Palestinian agency.

        I see the victims as victims whether it’s the Holocaust or Nakba. I have zero tolerance for the perps. Pure scum.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2016, 8:12 pm

        What about the maps, “Jon s”? How are they “false” and “misleading”.

        And why might ex-Israelis say very bitter things about Israel or even Jews and Judaism? You wouldn’t know, would you, “Jon s”?
        Just as you wouldn’t know that your manner of commenting says more than the comments themselves.

  11. Mooser
    March 5, 2016, 10:43 am

    Oy Gevalt! Phil may have put a comma after a subject clause (Jewish, in the) and “Yonah” keeps on telling us there’s no sanity clause.

    • RoHa
      March 5, 2016, 12:53 pm

      No, the comma is not followed by a verb, so it cannot be a comma-after-subject-clause error. But it is certainly an odd sentence. There are too many commas for easy comprehension. Does Phil mean:

      “No-one will touch this question because Zionism is The Cognate for Jewish in the American political landscape.”

      or

      “No-one in the American political landscape will touch this question because Zionism is The Cognate for Jewish.”

      or perhaps both.

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2016, 1:08 pm

        “Precision is important”. That is true. With your help, “RoHa” I may master the use of my commastomy bag. Thanks.

    • jon s
      March 8, 2016, 4:11 pm

      oldgeezer,
      I don’t know what you mean by “…some Jewish agency involved…”. The victims of the Holocaust were totally innocent people, murdered for the “crime ” of being Jews.
      I’ve personally never used the Holocaust to justify anything Israel has done. I dislike any such exploitation.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2016, 4:36 pm

        “I’ve personally never used…”

        A) So what? You always try this trick. You claim you’re not guilty of some trifling transgression, and that excuses Zionism.
        B) “I’ve never personally used” You’ve got an archive, don’t try that

        Why do you think you can prevaricate with such impunity? Do you think it adds to your credibility? Do you actually know any real people, or talk to them?

        BTW, ever think about finding the “reply” button, and not standing on your god-given right to settle anywhere in Greater Mondoweiss?

      • oldgeezer
        March 8, 2016, 4:45 pm

        @jon s

        Why the partial out of context quote Jon ? Typical bs.

  12. rugal_b
    March 5, 2016, 11:39 am

    40 years is not that bad, white liberals have been trying to convince themselves and others that they are not racist, settler colonialists for over 400 years.

    • Mooser
      March 6, 2016, 6:09 pm

      “40 years is not that bad, white liberals have been trying to convince themselves and others that they are not racist, settler colonialists for over 400 years.”

      That’s a long time. You gotta give those quadracentenarian “white liberals” one thing; they’re persistent!

    • jon s
      March 8, 2016, 4:56 pm

      oldgeezer,
      I said that I don’t know what you mean. Feel free to explain.

      • oldgeezer
        March 8, 2016, 5:36 pm

        @jon s

        And I don’t believe you. You are either being obtuse or disingenuous. My post stands for itself.

        Your lack of honesty and integrity is not only evidenced by your continued posting out of threads in order to hide replies but also by your recent post against these maps mixing the concepts of individual property owner ship with state territory. You know better but have no honest argument to make. Pure crap and disinformation.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2016, 7:41 pm

        “Pure crap and disinformation.”

        Ah, but to some poor shmegegie( or shmegegiette) in “Jon s” classroom, it’s “Israeli history”.

      • oldgeezer
        March 8, 2016, 8:10 pm

        @Mooser

        Jon fits the role of a “smeg head” perfectly.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2016, 8:27 pm

        “Jon fits the role of a “smeg head” perfectly.”

        Real Israelis, like “Yoni Falic” and “Marnie”, and “Schmuel” scare him to death. Ever notice that? He’ll skip all over the territory, and establish a hundred illegal outpostings rather than confront a real Israeli.
        “Jon s” is worse than a “nose-holder” as part of the “Israeli Left” he trades on his criticism of Israel and the IDF to bolster his own ‘liberal’ cred, while gutlessly and guiltlessly enjoying the fruits the spoils, of their crimes.
        And has the gall to disrespect an IDF veteran.

  13. Dan Walsh
    March 5, 2016, 4:49 pm

    The effort on the part of Jewish-Americans to publicly uncouple the terms “Jewish” and “Zionist” goes back some years. Here is a poster from the Jewish Alliance Against Zionism from 1978:

    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/being-jewish-is-not-the-same-as-being-zionist

    Q: Can a purely intra-Jewish discourse be “antisemitic”?

    Can Jewish publishers print posters by Jewish artists and distribute them in Jewish communities as a way to engage Jewish voices on matters of keen interests to Jewish individuals…be, in any way, “antisemitic”?

    If no, why not? If yes, how?

    Q: Assuming-for-the-sake-of-problematization that the answer to the above question is “yes” then how, exactly would Zionism’s gatekeepers have the subject discussed so as not to qualify for the charge of “antisemitism”?

    Specifics, please.

    • Keith
      March 6, 2016, 5:31 pm

      DAN WALSH- “…how, exactly would Zionism’s gatekeepers have the subject discussed so as not to qualify for the charge of “antisemitism”?

      The time honored method is to hold the discussion behind closed doors where non-Jews are not privy to the discussion. The traditional definition of anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews because they are Jews. The operational definition of anti-Semitism is basically anything which interferes with organized Jewish (now overwhelmingly Zionist) power seeking. Once the label is attached, Jew hatred is inferred. Keeping the discussion within the kinship community causes no problems, however, washing dirty laundry in front of the Goyim is strictly taboo.

    • jon s
      March 9, 2016, 12:43 pm

      oldgeezer,
      I always reply on the first reply button below the comment I want to reply to .
      Why in the world would I go to the trouble of posting a comment and “hiding “it?

      Ok, so you don’t want to explain your comment. It will, indeed, stand for itself.

      • eljay
        March 9, 2016, 12:45 pm

        || jon s: oldgeezer, I always reply on the first reply button below the comment I want to reply to . … ||

        In other words, like a true Zio-supremacist you consistently and intentionally do the wrong thing. ;-)

      • Annie Robbins
        March 9, 2016, 1:00 pm

        jon, if the comment you wish to respond to does not have a reply feature, scroll up (not down) to the nearest reply feature. iow, if you want to respond to eljay’s 12:45 pm comment (or this comment), scroll up and use the reply feature on your comment beginning with oldgeezer, I always reply on the first reply button below the comment I want to reply to.

        furthermore, every comment in the subthread below this one:

        jon s March 8, 2016, 4:56 pm
        oldgeezer,
        I said that I don’t know what you mean. Feel free to explain.

        Reply

        one should use the reply feature on this comment >> http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/we-wasted-40-years-talking-about-nothing-doing-nothing-pappe-demolishes-the-peace-process/#comment-828979 . scroll up to it, not down.

        i hope that’s helpful.

      • eljay
        March 9, 2016, 1:25 pm

        || Annie Robbins: jon, if the comment you wish to respond to does not have a reply feature, scroll up (not down) to the nearest reply feature. … ||

        Annie, he’s well aware of what the right thing is to do, as it’s been brought to his attention before. The thing is, he intentionally and adamantly refuses to do it.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 9, 2016, 1:34 pm

        just trying to make it abundantly clear so there’s no excuse next time!

      • eljay
        March 9, 2016, 2:26 pm

        || Annie Robbins: just trying to make it abundantly clear so there’s no excuse next time! ||

        Got it. :-)

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2016, 2:31 pm

        “The thing is, he intentionally and adamantly refuses to do it.”

        The Bible, (or something sorta like it, I’m not sure,) says he has the God-given right to settle anywhere in Greater Mondoweiss!
        He intends to make this his hysterical homeland.

        And best of all, “Jon s” doesn’t see why it should even be an issue, or remarked on. He is so precious.

      • jon s
        March 9, 2016, 2:34 pm

        OK, Annie, thanks. Though your tip is counter-intuitive.
        It would be helpful to have a reply button under every comment.

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2016, 2:35 pm

        “I always reply on the first reply button below”

        Oh fer Gawds sake, “Jon s”! If the “reply” button is not located immediately below a comment, you scroll UP the thread to find the reply button. UP! Got it now, genius?

        No wonder you can’t read a map. Instructive isn’t it, only when “Jon s” got the feeling he might be kicked for doing it, he took the trouble to find out how it works.

      • oldgeezer
        March 9, 2016, 3:38 pm

        @jon s

        Well in your case it will stand for nothing as you claim you don’t understand it. Unless you’re lying of course.

        I’d love to have a nickel for every time it has been explained to you how to respond.

      • talknic
        March 9, 2016, 5:31 pm

        @ jon s March 9, 2016, 2:34 pm

        “It would be helpful to have a reply button under every comment

        An
        d
        en
        d
        up
        ha
        vi
        ng
        co
        mm
        en
        ts
        lo
        ok
        in
        g l
        ik
        e
        th
        is
        .

        Wo
        nd
        er
        fu
        l

        id
        ea
        !

        Br
        il
        li
        an
        t!

      • talknic
        March 9, 2016, 6:24 pm

        @ jon s March 9, 2016, 12:43 pm

        “I always reply on the first reply button below the comment I want to reply to “

        BULLSH*T pal!
        A) You have an archive and it shows that you’ve only recently (and deliberately no doubt) started this disruptive tactic. Zionuisances will do anything to f*ck up the conversation, it’s in their brief

        B) lately the first reply buttons haven’t been below the comments you’ve been replying to because there hasn’t been a reply button below the comments you’ve been replying to

        C) You’re a teacher? FFS spare the children

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2016, 7:10 pm

        “A) You have an archive and it shows that you’ve only recently (and deliberately no doubt) started this disruptive tactic.”

        “Jon s” is terrified of Israelis. Or should I say, real Israelis. That’s what the jumping around is about.

      • Keith
        March 10, 2016, 10:09 am

        TALKNIC- “An
        d
        en
        d
        up, etc”

        Only if the program kept indenting the follow-up comments. One would hope that it would be possible to locate a follow-up comment below the ‘replied to’ comment without continuing the indentation beyond where it terminates now.

      • talknic
        March 10, 2016, 5:54 pm

        Keith “Only if the program kept indenting the follow-up comments. One would hope that it would be possible to locate a follow-up comment below the ‘replied to’ comment without continuing the indentation beyond where it terminates now”

        Thus far there are no programs that do as you describe because what you’re describing simply doesn’t work

      • Keith
        March 11, 2016, 6:21 pm

        TALKNIC- “Thus far there are no programs that do as you describe because what you’re describing simply doesn’t work”

        How about reducing the number of spaces in the indent? Currently, there are 14, how about 7?

      • talknic
        March 11, 2016, 7:59 pm

        @ Keith “How about reducing the number of spaces in the indent? “

        Good thinking. That way they could add a few more replybuttons/indents

  14. tony greenstein
    March 5, 2016, 5:42 pm

    I don’t accept that Ilan Pappe is ‘witless’ because he doesn’t accept the religious or holocaust narrative as an explanation for the US’s support for Israel.

    On the contrary Israel is the one stable, pro-Western state in the Middle East. It has cemented alliances with the neighbouring state of Jordan and Egypt and wider afield with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, to say nothing of Turkey.

    Instability in the Middle East wasn’t caused by Israel, except in Lebanon arguably but by the US itself. There is a belief, espoused by Philip Weiss that support for Israel goes against the US’s interests. Why? In the words of Alexander Haig Israel is an unsinkable aircraft carrier and cheap at the price.

    The holocaust is a good ideological justification as is opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’ but they are not the reason. Imperialism has historically fastened on ‘good causes’ to support its depradations. Look at the British in India and their opposition to Suthi, the burning of Indian widows on the pyres of their husbands.

    In short Pappe is entirely right to employ a Marxist analysis rather than Philip Weiss’s left democratic liberal version!

  15. Ossinev
    March 6, 2016, 11:22 am

    Have not had the opportunity to see “At the request of Dochrot” but hope to in the very near future. It struck me when reading the article and the associated comments that perhaps a lot more could be done to bring to the world,s attention the sheer scale and sheer monstrosity of the exile of the Palestinian people. The BDS movement is doing a great job in highlighting the internal oppression and dehumanisation of the native remaining native Palestinians by the most moral etc but IMHO a lot more should be said and done to highlight the original and ongoing Palestinian exile. After all the Zionist dialogue,narrative and “defence case” is structured around the idea of exile and of return. If every time they throw this Biblical saga into a discourse they are asked to justify the modern day fact based visible Palestinian exile no it won’t alter their brainwashed thinking but it will continue the education and enlightenment of the thinking Westerners,particularly the young thinking Westerners who can do their own fast track research on the issue via the wonders of the Internet.

    As has been pointed out many times on this site. Zionists have access to undreamt of wads of money , qualitative edge conventional weapons and touchy feely nukes. They use to have a decent propaganda operation but it has been irrevocably screwed by the advent of the Internet and smart phones – and they must be so so pissed off about not being able to control(suppress) the Internet.

    So lets get the ball rolling.

    Questions for Hophmi.

    Where did all the Palestinian refugees in camps in Lebanon come from. ? Why did they end up there? Why do they claim their right of return to what they call Palestine and what you call Israel.

    Please do your research ( feel free to use the Internet )and quote independent ie non Zionist sources for your responses.

  16. jon s
    March 7, 2016, 4:16 pm

    As to “precision” – those “shrinking Palestine” maps are anything but precise. In fact they are false and misleading.

    • Mooser
      March 7, 2016, 5:10 pm

      “As to “precision” – those “shrinking Palestine” maps are anything but precise. In fact they are false and misleading.”

      You say that, Mr. “Israeli history teacher” and don’t supply a single link, fact, suggestion why that might be so, just “Jon s” says.
      And just so it’s all so precious, you don’t have the slightest idea why this should in any way impinge on your credibility.
      I mean, after all, “jon s” you are, quite proudly Jewish, quite proudly Zionist, and an ashamed American. That makes you a disinterested, objective judge of all things I-P, right? We should all know that, right?

    • talknic
      March 7, 2016, 6:53 pm

      @ jon s ” – those “shrinking Palestine” maps are anything but precise. In fact they are false and misleading”

      A) Small drawing of a map of an area of that size is of course bound to be imprecise

      B) An accusation such as yours isn’t evidence. You forgot to tell us why, supported with evidence, they’re ‘false and misleading’

      B) Can you provide a map that isn’t ‘false and misleading’ supported by evidence as to why it isn’t ‘false and misleading’?

      For example, here is a map supported with irrefutable evidence of the borders Israel officially proclaimed in its official plea for recognition https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestinian_territories_under_military_control_of_Israel_Egypt_and_Jordan_1949.jpg
      by which Israel was officially recognized first by the US 11 minutes after making that plea http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad169.asp
      by which Israel was accepted into the UN and;
      before Israel made its failed 31 August 1949 claim https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/C96E0252E7710BCE85256D95006BC157 to territories the
      Israeli Government officially stated on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

    • Kay24
      March 7, 2016, 9:08 pm

      I wonder if Jon’s students are taught this unrealistic claim. That explains why they think the Palestinians are violently resisting for nothing. Perhaps the zionists already have fake maps showing Israel only within the 1967 borders, and the rest is the imagination of the rest of the world including the US. These guys are masters at pretending that the truth is merely fiction.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2016, 10:25 pm

        Would it be too much of a stretch, or somehow unfair, to assume that whatever unrealistic claims and fake maps “Jon s” espouses here are the same ones he uses with his students? He does style himself a “Israeli history teacher” I don’t see why he would dissemble about that. Poor kids. Kids need decent role models. All that ‘nod-nod, wink-wink, they’ll go, they’ll go’, isn’t good for them.

        Or maybe he’s not in the Israeli educational system.

      • Kay24
        March 8, 2016, 1:16 am

        Or maybe he teaches at a zionist Madrassa. :))

        His claims are way, way off, and totally contrary to the real facts.

        The apologists keep selling a dud product and they don’t mind changing the facts to fool the buyers. Only the naive will buy it.

  17. rosross
    March 8, 2016, 1:08 am

    This is an excellent article. Well done.

    • jon s
      March 8, 2016, 4:52 pm

      What’s wrong with the maps?
      Taking them chronologically (from left to right):
      In the first map, the impression is that the white is Jewish-owned land and the green Palestinian-owned. However there was a third category, state land. Land controlled by the government (the Turks, then the British and so forth), ostensibly to be used for the benefit of the entire population, from all communities. Conveniently, it’s included in the green, in order to convey the impression that the Palestinians lost it.
      The second map accurately depicts the UN partition plan.The problem is just that : it shows a PLAN , a recommendation, that was never implemented as planned, since the Arab side rejected it.
      The third map (“1949-1967”) ignores the reality of those years, when Gaza and the West Bank were under Egyptian and Jordanian rule, respectively. It creates the misleading impression that there was a Palestinian state which was subsequently erased.
      The fourth map, supposedly depicting the present, shows zero Palestinian land-ownership inside Israel, an obvious falsehood. Once again, like in the first map, state land is ignored, or, rather, shown this time as non-Palestinian, to emphasize the loss. Also, according to this map , the Palestinian (green) areas of the West Bank are not occupied.

      I must say that these maps are a superb propaganda gimmick . They catch the eye, convey the message, but they’re still wrong.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2016, 7:50 pm

        “I must say that these maps are a superb propaganda gimmick . They catch the eye, convey the message, but they’re still wrong.”

        “Jon s” if you somehow got the idea that Israel, Zionism, gets to decide which “propaganda gimmick” will be used against it, and which will not, you are mistaken.

        The only criteria considered will be how effective it is. Why, did you think Israel deserves some special consideration in these matters? You wanted to be a normal nation. You got your wish.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2016, 8:09 pm

        “In the first map…”

        You go right ahead “Jon s”! There isn’t anyone here who thinks you have the slightest reason to prevaricate. Strict impartiality, that’s our Mr. “Israeli History” All opinions rendered with no taint of self-interest.
        And remember folks, there’s a word for people who think Jews are just like other people And it’s not a nice one!

        And I think there’s a word for people like you, “Jon s”. They’re called boers.

      • YoniFalic
        March 9, 2016, 3:52 am

        @Jon s engages in the usual dishonest and misleading Zionist propaganda that can easily be refuted with a little research.

        Genocide-advocating or supporting racist Zionists invariably depict land that belonged to religious endowments or that was communally owned as state or public properties. In point of fact, there was very little property in Ottoman or Mandatory Palestine that could be considered state or public land in the Western legal sense.

        @Jon s has probably never looked at the record of the UN proceedings in 1947-8. The Palestinian representatives were unable to put together an immediate response to the Nov 1947 Partition Proposal because the chief Palestinian political leaders were either imprisoned or for the most part not easily accessible in exile. In any case, the representatives correctly considered the Nov 1947 proposal manifestly and obviously unfair. They expected that they would be able to negotiate a more reasonable solution over the next few months.

        As I remember there was no response to the Partition Plan until late January or early February when the “Jewish” Zionists were already in the full swing of mass murder and expulsions comparable to what “Jewish” Bolsheviks had perpetrated in the first two decades of the Soviet Union.

        It is hard to glean exactly what the Palestinian leadership was willing to accept — in part because most Palestinian leaders were reluctant to be honest about their willingness to compromise after the racist invaders had put their plans for genocide into effect and in part because a lot of the materials have simply been lost in the confusion of the expulsions and the mass murders.

        Here is what I think the Palestinian leaders seem to have been willing to accept in October of 1947:

        a growth in the Jewish population to 45% of the total population in a single civil or voluntary national state (none of this binational crap).

        If all of the “Jews” in European DP camps emigrated to Palestine, the population ratio would have been 43% “Jewish” settlers and 57% natives while Jewish N. Africans, S. Arabians, and Mesopotamians probably never would have been emigrated to Palestine.

        Because the racist Zionist leadership feared such an outcome, it put the genocide plan into operation as quickly as possible under the cover of the November 1947 Partition Plan while it mendaciously blamed the failure of partition on the “intransigence” of the natives.

      • jon s
        March 10, 2016, 8:07 am

        In response to what yonifalic thinks the Palestinian leadership may have been “willing to accept”, see here:

        http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=104

      • eljay
        March 10, 2016, 8:19 am

        || jon s: … I must say that these maps are a superb propaganda gimmick . … ||

        But they’ve got nothing on Zio-supremacism’s very successful use of Jews, Judaism, the Holocaust and defamatory accusations of anti-Semitism as gimmicks to justify:
        – the establishment and on-going expansion of a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine; and
        – the past and on-going (war) crimes committed by Zio-supremacists and their “Jewish State”.

      • YoniFalic
        March 10, 2016, 12:39 pm

        Note that @Jon s continues his despicable propaganda by pointing to Moshe Maoz’ propaganda and by setting up a straw man.

        In response to what yonifalic thinks the Palestinian leadership may have been “willing to accept”, see here:

        http://www.pij.org/details.php?id=104

        Maoz’ article is a piece of propaganda crap because he starts from the Zionist position that the partition is the only reasonable start of discussion.

        From a decolonialist standpoint removing the racist genocidal E. European invaders then and now is the only reasonable framework.

        The natives including Husseini were willing to accept less:

        sharing a unitary voluntary or civil national democratic state.

        Only the racist genocidal E. European invaders then and now constitute the truly intransigent population.

        Right-wing likudist scholar Rafael Medoff unlike the pseudo-scholar propagandist Moshe Maoz actually discusses the Palestinian position in Baksheesh Diplomacy.

      • echinococcus
        April 10, 2016, 10:08 am

        However there was a third category, state land. Land controlled by the government (the Turks, then the British and so forth), ostensibly to be used for the benefit of the entire population, from all communities. Conveniently, it’s included in the green, in order to convey the impression that the Palestinians lost it.

        Of course the Palestinians (i.e. all citizen/residents as of the start of illegal Zionist immigration with hostile intent, i.e. 1897), including 5-6% of Jewish Palestinians, did own it, as owners of the sovereignty over the entire Palestinian territory, and they lost it. Public land sovereignty belongs to them and no other; colonial overlordship, Ottoman or British, usurps sovereignty. Certainly an obvious tenet of law, internationally, since worldwide decolonization.

  18. jackal
    March 8, 2016, 3:35 am

    Sorry to be making a comment so late in the game. I came to a conclusion, also late in life, that there are many people who take themselves far too seriously. Some of the early comments (I admit to skimming a lot of them which seemed quite repetitive), dwelled on how important their family was to them, and how glad they were to have survived, etc. It is my humble belief that we place far too much emphasis on ourselves, our families and, in your case, your Jewishness, because I am not one, your families, and your religion (I don’t have one). Think of yourself as a mass of atoms, of dust, if you will, because that is all we all are. There are very few of us who are important in the big picture, least of all are those who think they are. It really wouldn’t have made an iota of difference if you, or I, had not been born — EXCEPT — if during your life you made it miserable for someone else; if you had caused the death of someone else, even if it was because you donated money to a cause, just for example, Zionism, that caused injury or death to a Palestinian man, woman, or child. You and I are nothing, and despite anything you may think to the contrary, that is exactly how we will end our time on earth. IMHO

  19. hophmi
    March 9, 2016, 12:23 pm

    For the record, the event at Vassar wasn’t a Palestinian event. Puar lectured at the invitation of the American Studies program.

  20. Jane Porter
    March 12, 2016, 4:30 pm

    I remember having received a mail from Uri Avnery, where he was asking: which country invaded a foreign country displacing most of the population, to install its own people on the conquered land ? Prussia in the 17th century! Exactly the same way as Israël.
    In another letter he told about the meetings and understanding between Th.Hertzl and the German Kaizer at the beginning of the 20th century. The Kaizer was very interested in the Zionist project in Palestina and supported it warmly. He even came to Jerusalem , had his tent pitch outside of the city, where he received Hertzl to discuss it further. In this time the Ottoman Empire was crumbling and all European powers were eager to get a piece of the spoils. But later his support of the Turks against the British and the end of ww1 put Germany out of the game. When the British empire won the game…. we know the rest, the Balfour declaration and so on… Like the Keyzer the British needed a European agent there along with their Arab puppets and at the same time to be rid of a powerful jewish elite as well of the intellectuals and the working-class jews mostly promoting socialism and even communism, so to kill 2 birds with one stone. Then the US after the end of the British Empire used the same pawns on their chessboard….to sow disorder and chaos there but on a more absurd and cruel way
    Now the West has always got rid of their pawn when they don’t need them anymore, but Israël has the Bomb thanks to the French, and and Saoudi-Arabia declared to have it too thanks to Pakistan.
    So these two rogue countries who are allies…are now able to get rid of the West who is arming these killers like mad.
    What a mess! And all the peaceful intelligent ideas we can have to resolve the horrible situation in which so many civilians live in the ME are completely useless

  21. Ghazi28
    June 23, 2016, 5:10 am

    It’s been obvious for a long time that the so-called ‘Peace Process’ was never anthing other than a smoke-screen behind which the ethnic supremacists could steal more land, whilst presenting a phony image of ‘compromise’ to the world.
    Henry Siegman summed up this charade in his 2007 article for the LRB entitled ‘The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam’. It’s an article that everybody should read.

Leave a Reply