Bearing witness: a review of Alice Rothchild’s book ‘Condition Critical’

Middle East
on 72 Comments

“And a witness of her household bore witness ”from the Quran

In her book, “Condition Critical: Life and Death in Israel/Palestine” (Just World Books, 2017) Dr. Alice Rothchild emotes courage and sincerity to a degree that begs analysis: Who is she addressing and to what end? The book’s title answers the latter of the two interrelated questions: All those who are genuinely concerned with Israel/Palestine should better rush to resuscitate their critically ill charge before it is too late because “the Israeli government is on a suicide mission.” All through her book Dr. Rothchild bears witness to how critical and unjust the condition is.

In her preface the author answers my first question as well. This is an American Jewish book: author, subject matter and intended audience:

“I found I had to re-examine the meaning of my own Jewishness in light of the uncomfortable consequences of Zionism, and I started to grapple with my own personal responsibility as a Jew and a US citizen in a world rife with contradiction, fear, and conflict.”

Ultimately, that is her target readership to which she addresses herself. As she goes on she stands her moral ground courageously. In the epilogue she even dares justify and defend the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel:

“As a Jewish person, I find this history shameful, immoral, and profoundly unrelated to what I learned as ‘Jewish values’ and the legacy of Jews in a variety of progressive and intellectual movements. … I suspect, in the tradition stretching from the Quaker-led fight against slavery to the anti-apartheid struggles in South Africa, this nonviolent resistance movement may be the most promising and productive international effort to date.”

Such courage and uprightness are particularly striking in light of the media and political power of the author’s chosen audience. Yet in one sense she seems to make a critical concession to their sensitivities, as I shall attempt to clarify at the end of this laudatory review.

The book is a chronologically ordered series of blogs that Rothchild had penned onsite, in the process of leading several fact-finding missions of concerned Americans, many of them no doubt Jewish, to Israel/Palestine between June 2013 and April 2015. The successive blogs she writes are basically a mix of two categories of reporting: The first is her straightforward account of what she sees, hears and experiences as she leads her American companions through the gruesome reality of life in Israel/Palestine and the occasional peek into Palestinian intact homes and their guest-receiving tradition. And the second is her interspersed intellectual and moral analysis of the background to that reality. It is in this vicarious discourse and exposure to Israel’s and America’s aggression against the Palestinian natives that Alice shows her exceptional daring. Not only does she sympathize with the dehumanized Palestinian underdog but she also insists on acknowledging the wrong done them by “her people”.

All along Rothchild gushes with acclaim for her Palestinian hosts and colleagues. Her narrative, like that of all those who are received by Palestinians in their homes and are subjected to their hospitality, is rife with heart-warming praise for their genuine generosity. What is especially noticeable is how fully the author manages to humanize her Palestinian contacts, whether professional colleagues or run-of-the-mill children, mothers, fathers and grandparents contrary to the prevailing view in her home community of such creatures as subhuman vermin and terrorists.

On her last visit to Gaza Rothchild tries to portray the mayhem, the loss of hope and the total insanity that dominates life in the hellhole that Israel has been experimenting with creating there, whether with the physical and mental control mechanisms it employs or with the weaponry it tests periodically on the captive population for daring to breath. A simple indicator of the level of despair it has created is that “50 percent of mothers suffer from depression, and that the [Quality Of Life Index] of preschoolers in Gaza was worse than it was for kids in the United States with cancer or renal failure.” The author bemoans the fact that here “the Star of David [is] now a symbol of racism.” In fact one gets the impression that the author was on the verge of “losing it” as well:

“In fact, it is a country that claims to speak in my name, funded by my tax dollars, that has destroyed their families and their lives. My sense of utter inadequacy clings to my tongue as I look at their tear-stained faces, … It is almost more than I can bear.”

Author Dr. Alice Rothchild. (AliceRothchild.com)

By the end of her tour Rothchild is so outraged and distraught by what she has witnessed and by the airport security treatment that she seems ready to trash the whole world. Nothing has the needed dose of hope and humanity. I know that after those trips she suffers from insomnia, malaise and a post-travel kind of PTSD before readjusting to her regular life.

“I listen to all of this in my post-travel exhaustion and think once again I have arrived in a land of official insanity! Then I remember the Jewish state’s overarching goal: to force Palestinians, one way or the other, to leave their historic and ancestral homes.”

After all, that is the effect of the occupation and the zionist style settler colonialism on everyone involved. True, in rebelling against “the tribe” she is committed to speaking truth to zionist power. But at some level she is also reaching out and speaking to the world at large.

As we saw above Rothchild does not shy away from promoting BDS, something that may get her in legal trouble in several American states and in some European countries. While doing this and in all of her superbly frank and ethically framed arguments, she repeatedly reverts to anchoring her views in her Jewish tradition. As one reads those lines of discourse one is struck by the ferocity of her intellectual honesty and moral outrage. And yet she never ceases to declare her sense of belonging to her American Jewish community, a seeming contradiction that had alienated some from their ethnic and religious roots and earned them such titles, even if devalued by overuse, as an “anti-Semite” and a “self-hating Jew.”

The American Jewish community and a wider following in America and in the West and around the globe, are the author’s audiences of choice. Her daunting self-assigned mission is to rescue her terminally afflicted subject, the potentially viable and promising dream of a single, democratic and secular state in historical Palestine. Despite, or perhaps because of their nakba, the Palestinians are known to be the best-educated and most successful entrepreneurs in the Arab world. Imagine the potential of such a partner granting Israel the full legitimacy it will never gain from continuing to oppress and dehumanize them through the power of arms. Such partnership can thrive through justice and equality between two willing partners. That, in a nutshell, is Rothchild’s and my dream. I am thrilled to report that among the intellectual free thinkers on the Palestinian side our dream is gradually gaining acceptance even if in the minds of many Israelis and Americans it is still tinged with criminality.

Throughout Rothchild’s repeated incursions into Israel/Palestine, she is met, welcomed and guided by many prominent Palestinian caregivers, activists and public figures and by the occasional Israeli as well. Yet no Palestinian is featured among the three enthused experts who are quoted on the cover of her book testifying to her courage and insight and to the book’s authenticity and worth. Could Alice and her publisher have made their choice of blurbs, not only with the clear prominence and high expertise of the opinion leaders who penned them but also with the intended audience in mind? Could they have consciously wished not to offend or alienate their target audience? I am discomforted by such possible concession and make a mental note of it from the start. As I read on, I gradually feel confirmed in my suspicion that the decision could not have been incidental. The choice of top experts praising her book was made with the current thinking and sensitivities of such readership in mind.

Here is the place to repeat again: clearly, the American Jewish community is Rothchild’s “tribe,” her default home-crowd and chosen audience for what she has to say. She holds the group responsible for making Israel what it is today. And indeed, the pariah state that Israel under Netanyahu is fast becoming is the responsibility of America and its Jewish Community. The most fanatic settlers uprooting the Palestinians and their olives arrived via America, not to mention America’s massive military, financial and political support, promoted and guaranteed by AIPAC, Christian-Zionists and the lucrative American military industrial complex. Ultimately, this community bears the responsibility of reining in the bully it has unleashed against the Palestinians.

And there is the rub. The one-state solution is upon us whether we like it or not. The struggle for equal rights for all citizens of Israel/Palestine has already begun.  Even Reuven Rivlin, the President of Israel, speaks of his state encompassing the entire area west of the Jordan River with citizenship for all the Palestinians within its borders. He defaults on the issue of such a state’s secularity and on full equality for all of its citizens. His acceptance of presiding over present-day Israel with over fifty laws discriminating against Israel’s current Palestinian citizens attests to his lack of commitment to full democracy and equality. Donald Trump, the American President, doesn’t mind such a vision, though he also may default on the secularity and equality parts. Sanity dictates an ultimate outcome in line with Alice’s and my vision regardless of politics and politicians. And it is to this end that the author dedicates her efforts.

With the impending struggle for equality, the thread of similarity of such a task to that of her predecessors in the American Civil Rights movement is not lost on the author. “I am beginning to feel like a white civil rights activist working in the Deep South in the 1960s. The parallels are striking and the historical connection revives me. Time to take this conversation home,” she declares. And she approvingly quotes Omar Barghouti, a leader of the Palestinian BDS campaign, declaring:

“I understand having Palestinian voices up front, but this is a universal issue. I do not believe in identity politics. The anti-apartheid movement was my movement. I was doing something right as a human; I own this as my own struggle.”

Indeed, the American Civil Rights Movement involved many committed whites, especially Jewish activists. Yet they joined and supported black leaders in their struggle. Whites could have gone on arguing for equal rights for the African American community for centuries to come. Little would have been achieved beyond lip service. Only when the likes of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. addressed themselves directly to white centers of power in America, when blacks marched on Washington, that racial discrimination and white supremacy finally started to really end.

I cannot salute Alice Rothchild enough for daring to speak her (and my) truth so boldly and unambiguously to her American Jewish audience. She does it at the risk of excommunication from the tribe. One is reminded of the degree of pressure brought to bear on the South African Judge Richard Goldstone for daring to speak his legal mind against Israel for its human rights crimes in the 2008-9 war on Gaza. Yet the coming phase is even more demanding of courage and moral fortitude. And it needs greater diplomacy, cooperation and collective efforts, the kind of campaign being promulgated by JVP: It is time for the author and her influential supporters at home to invite and accompany her Palestinian activist counterparts to the halls of Jewish power in the U.S. The likes of Ayman Odeh, Hanan Ashrawi and Omar Barghouti are dying for the chance. It is when they will stand at the podiums in the synagogues of Boston, New York and Miami and in Hillel clubs on campuses around the U.S. that their voices will be heard in Israel.

About Hatim Kanaaneh

Dr. Hatim Kanaaneh is a Palestinian doctor who has worked for over 35 years to bring medical care to Palestinians in Galilee, against a culture of anti-Arab discrimination. He is the author of the book A Doctor in Galilee: The Life and Struggle of a Palestinian in Israel. His collection of short stories entitled Chief Complaint was released by Just World Books in the spring of 2015.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

72 Responses

  1. just
    March 24, 2017, 5:55 pm

    A most welcome discussion and overdue honest and soul- searching discussion should have been held long ago.

    It’s too late for too many Palestinian victims of the State of Israel, but never too late for those living given the care and concern of Dr. Alice Rothchild, Dr. Hatim Kanaaneh, and the many other numbers of Jews, Palestinians, and those other very present people committed to justice and human rights for the violently oppressed and Occupied Palestinian people~ those in Gaza, Jerusalem, the West Bank, in the refugee camps of other nations, and those in the diaspora. Some who know and see the truth have yet to find their voice and to bear witness.

    (A big hurrah for the incomparable and indefatigable Jewish Israelis, Gideon Levy and Amira Hass. They’ve been bearing witness and telling us all the truth for a long time… May many more join them in the not too distant future. May their voices ring out, their actions gain traction, and may the Palestinians of Palestine be free to be… themselves.)

  2. JeffB
    March 25, 2017, 7:07 am

    @Hatim

    There are no “halls of Jewish power in the USA”. There are powerful Jews and Jewish organizations. Ayman Odeh has spoken in Jewish organizations he was an invited speaker to JStreet just a month ago. Hanan Ashrawi has been on USA media and addressed pro-Israel interest groups multiple times, though mostly in the 1990s. Omar Barghouti, as the founder of BDS, his views are well known.

    So let’s assume this dialogue occurred? What would they say? Fundamentally American Jews believe that all Jews are people of equal worth, and as such have all the rights of any other people including the right to form governments that represent their interests. The Palestinian movement disagrees with that position. How do you think a dialogue will change their minds? How do you think that the 3 people you listed convince American Jews that Jews shouldn’t enjoy the privileges of full standing that the French, Japanese or Chinese have? American can do disagree with various Israeli policies but BDS isn’t about specific policies. BDS is a wholesale attack on Jews as a people arguing that Jews aren’t a legitimate people and shouldn’t enjoy sovereignty in their home country, where most of them live. American Jews aren’t unaware of BDS, they disagree with it. Alice Rothchild’s problem is not that her people are ignorant of her facts but that they disagree with her analysis.

    Next they aren’t going to agree with you that the American Jewish community is responsible for Israel. The Yishuv existed and was growing stronger when Jews were still a disempowered minority with little influence. American Jews have had some influence in pushing the Arabist position weakening in USA politics and thus supporting Israel. Certainly American Jews help to balance out anti-Israeli voices mostly the Arab position, and more recently the American left. However, some support is not the same as control. As evidence of this note that USA Jews from right to left, from religious to secular hate the office of Chief Rabbi and the conversion standards in Israel. Yet those policies haven’t changed. And unlike the Palestinian issue, Jews in America have a far better moral claim on what should be Jewish conversion standards since that issue direct affects them and to some extent requires American Jewish cooperation.

    So with that in mind, you want a dialogue about equal rights the dialogue is with Israel. The Palestinians need to stop talking at the Israelis and start talking to them. Ayman Odeh, Hanan Ashrawi and Omar Barghouti have to start addressing the question of how do Palestinians get incorporated into the Israel nation (nation not just state). That dialogue has to happen with Benjamin Netanyahu, Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid …. not synagogues in Boston. BDS problem with that approach is that BDS doesn’t believe in dialogue or negotiation considering such things “normalization”. The whole point of war usually is to negotiate the peace on more favorable terms. BDS evidently doesn’t want a negotiated peace of any kind.

    • YoniFalic
      March 25, 2017, 10:05 am

      BTW, anyone claiming that Jews were disempowered in the USA pre-World War II is either grossly ignorant or lying.

      Mondoweiss recently put up an article addressing the subject.

      The immaculate conception of Louis Brandeis

      As the eminent historian Jonathan Sarna has pointed out, concerns of the American Jewish community were already routinely considered by American presidents at least as early as Lincoln.

      • JeffB
        March 25, 2017, 11:55 am

        @Yoni

        As the eminent historian Jonathan Sarna has pointed out, concerns of the American Jewish community were already routinely considered by American presidents at least as early as Lincoln.

        So what? Considered and rejected is pretty common among American disempowered groups. Native American concerns were considered all the way back to colonial times.

        The Brandies article mainly proves the point. The Eastern European wave of Jews were a viable force that didn’t vote much. They voted overwhelming for Wilson as contrasted with Cox and Davis because Wilson reached out Wilson was able to get a surge of Jewish votes. Al Smith is when Jews moved to a being players in the Democratic party. Carter 1980 being the only presidential election since then that Jews were deeply divided.

      • yonah fredman
        March 25, 2017, 12:14 pm

        American jews as a group before wwII had American interests and Jewish interests. Mexican americans are concerned about immigration issues in a different sense than other Americans. If this is so, then American jews in 1920 also had different interests, thoughts, regarding the severe interruption to open immigration that was put into effect after world War I. The American jews had no power on this issue.

    • eljay
      March 25, 2017, 1:10 pm

      || JeffB: … Fundamentally American Jews believe that all Jews are people of equal worth, and as such have all the rights of any other people including the right to form governments that represent their interests. … ||

      Neither equal worth nor the religion-based identity of Jewish comprises a right to a supremacist state of any kind.

      || … BDS is a wholesale attack on Jews as a people arguing that Jews aren’t a legitimate people and shouldn’t enjoy sovereignty in their home country … ||

      As far as I can tell, BDS rightly exists in opposition to Israeli colonialism and (war) crimes. It only becomes an attack on people who choose to be/come Jewish when Zionists like you anti-Semitically conflate Israel with all Jews and all Jews with Israel. Why do you Zionists insist on hating Jews so much?!

      • JeffB
        March 25, 2017, 5:56 pm

        @Eljay —

        Neither equal worth nor the religion-based identity of Jewish comprises a right to a supremacist state of any kind.

        “Supremacist” doesn’t mean anything, its a word you use to avoid being specific. What you are really objecting to is that Israel is a democracy that represents the nation. All nation states represent the nations that reside under their rule. That tie between the state and the nation is the key distinction between a nation-state an empire. I get that you on paper prefer the doctrines of empires where the state is indifferent to who resides in its territory, in essence indifferent to its population. I suspect when confronted with the reality of empire usually looks like: an aristocracy often completely disinterested to the interests of the majority of the population, the extensive use of systematic violence to achieve financial aims you would likely be less fond of what empire looks like in reality….

        Jews established a Jewish (or if you want a Hebrew / Israeli) state for the same reason the French established a French state and the Chinese a Chinese state.

        when Zionists like you anti-Semitically conflate Israel with all Jews and all Jews with Israel. Why do you Zionists insist on hating Jews so much?!

        I ain’t the one who put, ““And to Jerusalem your city may you return….Blessed are you, builder of Jerusalem.” “May our eyes behold your return to Zion…Blessed are you, who restors his presence to Zion.”” in the daily prayer. Or ““Have mercy Lord, our God…on Jerusalem Your city, on Zion the resting place of Your glory…” and “Rebuild Jerusalem, the holy city, soon in our days. Blessed are you God who rebuilds Jerusalem in His mercy, Amen.” after we eat bread. Or the Pesach call for “next year in Jerusalem”. I ain’t the one who wrote the prayers for Zion in the middle ages. Your problem when it comes to Israel is with Judaism not Zionism.

        I get that you like most BDSers have no problem with Jews practicing whatever religion they want as groveling slaves. But the reality is that religion held out the promise that someone like Ben Gurion would come and restore their freedom, lift them from bondage and they would one day live again in their country. Zionism is the practical realization of what Judaism always preached.

      • talknic
        March 25, 2017, 8:23 pm

        ” I get that you like most BDSers have no problem with Jews practicing whatever religion they want as groveling slaves. “

        Quote, verbatim an example… thx

        “But the reality is that religion held out the promise that someone like Ben Gurion would come and restore their freedom, lift them from bondage and they would one day live again in their country. “

        Quote the passage/s thx

        “Zionism is the practical realization of what Judaism always preached.”

        It’s the exact opposite to the basic tenets of Judaism

        Zionism covets other folks property. It lies, falsely accuses and murders to get it

      • eljay
        March 25, 2017, 11:15 pm

        || JeffB: … “Supremacist” doesn’t mean anything, its a word you use to avoid being specific. What you are really objecting to is that Israel is a democracy that represents the nation. … ||

        I’ve been very specific about what “supremacist” entails. What I object to is Israel:
        – not being the secular and democratic state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally; and, instead,
        – being a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

        Well, that and the fact that Israel is also a blatantly and unapologetically belligerent, intransigent, colonialist and (war) criminal state.

        || … Jews established a Jewish (or if you want a Hebrew / Israeli) state for the same reason the French established a French state and the Chinese a Chinese state. … ||

        The French established France as a French state.
        The Chinese established China as a Chinese state.
        Zionists established Israel as an Israeli state a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

        But please do wake me up when Jewish becomes the bureaucratic nationality of all citizens, immigrants, refugees and people up to n-generations removed from “Jewish State”, equally.

        || … Your problem when it comes to Israel is with Judaism not Zionism. … ||

        My problem when it comes to Israel is colonialism, (war) criminality and supremacism – all of which are part and parcel of Zionism, not Judaism. But it sure is nice of you to try to pin the evils of Zionism on Judaism. Why do you Zionists hate Jews so much?!

        || … I get that you like most BDSers have no problem with Jews practicing whatever religion they want as groveling slaves. … ||

        People who wish to be Jewish should be free to be Jewish. People who do not wish to be Jewish should be free not to be Jewish. Either way, no slavery should be involved. And neither Jewish nor not-Jewish comprises a right to supremacism.

        As for “Jews practicing whatever religion they want”, I have no idea what that means. What religion other than Judaism do you think Jews should be practising?

      • RoHa
        March 26, 2017, 3:41 am

        And here we get the French and the Chinese again. I’ve gone over it before, but I’ll repeat it for the sake of newcomers. I don’t expect you to pay any attention.

        You have the idea that there is a French “people” and a Chinese “people” (by which you seem to mean an n-nation) and that Jews are a separate “people” of the same sort.

        But Jews are not a separate group of the same sort. French Jews are part of the French n-nation. They too drink nasty red wine, smoke smelly cigarettes, and talk pretentious bollocks which they claim is serious philosophy.

        You also seem to think that the French/Chinese “people” decided to set up a French/Chinese state.

        But it is the other way round. It is the state that created the French n-nation out of the mix of Gauls, Romans, Cornishmen, Goths, Franks, Vikings and sundry others. Kings and dukes bashed people over the heads with incredibly heavy swords until they agreed to be a single p-nation, and to speak a single language. (They chose the wrong one.) From this the French n-nation emerged.

        In spite of the efforts of the various Emperors since the Qin, the people of China are still a bunch of differing groups under a common government. They still don’t speak a single language. The Common Speech (普通话) is not common to all, even as a second language.

        More importantly, you seem to think that an n-nation has a right to form an independent p-nation.

        But, as we have argued ad nauseum, such a right cannot include the right to take over the territory of people who are not part of that n-nation, nor the right to expel such people, not the right to deny such people equal status in any state established on that territory.

        Claiming such rights is tantamount to claiming that the rights of one group of people outweigh the rights of another group. What basis can there be for that?

        You might want to say “The Americans and Australians got away with it. Why can’t Israel?” And the answer is, “Maybe Israel can, but it is still wrong.”

      • RoHa
        March 26, 2017, 3:47 am

        “But the reality is that religion held out the promise that someone like Ben Gurion would come and restore their freedom, lift them from bondage and they would one day live again in their country. Zionism is the practical realization of what Judaism always preached.”

        If you are right about this (and plenty of people seem to think you aren’t), then this is a condemnation of Judaism, not a justification for Zionism.

      • MHughes976
        March 26, 2017, 9:18 am

        I wish I could think with eljay that Zionism is a paradoxical expression of Jewish self-hatred because then you would expect it to be abandoned progressively by the very people for whom it makes such excessive claims, Jewish people having the power of reason and the sentiment of self-love as much as anyone else. But really it seems to be an expression of the ‘supremacism’ which is a trait of human nature, always desiring to belong to a group whose members’ interests and wishes have a right, at least when other things are equal, to prevail systematically over those of outsiders. I wouldn’t agree with talknic if he means that the 10th commandment can or should be interpreted, at least as to its original and intended meaning, so that the conquest of Canaan is a violation of it. The land did not belong to the Canaanites, just as the idea of its belonging to the Palestinians is treated as unthinkably absurd – by many Christians too. That is because of the idea of divine donation, which is always there half a millimetre beneath the surface of all the other, sometimes purportedly atheist, justifications of Zionism and is so dramatic and powerful.
        What is meant by nations in this phase of the argument? Can you belong to none or more than one?

      • eljay
        March 26, 2017, 12:49 pm

        || MHughes976: I wish I could think with eljay that Zionism is a paradoxical expression of Jewish self-hatred … really it seems to be an expression of the ‘supremacism’ … ||

        I don’t believe that Zionists – many (most?) of whom aren’t even Jewish – hate themselves, so I don’t think of Zionism as “Jewish self-hatred”.

        But Zionism does strike me as a form of “Jew hatred” because Zionists seem to view and deliberately use both Zionist* and non-Zionist** Jews as cannon-fodder for their oppressive, colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” project.

        (*E.g., Israel’s deliberate placement of Jewish Israelis in non-Israeli territory.)
        (**E.g., JeffB’s anti-Semitic assertion that all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews.)

      • Mooser
        March 26, 2017, 1:32 pm

        “Zionism is the practical realization of what Judaism always preached.”

        That’s right “JeffB”, that is what Judaism is about, ripping off and betraying the countries we live in for Zionism, which is what Jews are all about.
        All that stuff about us being equal citizens is bullshit, but we sure put it over on the goyim, didn’t we?
        Besides, Jews aren’t subject to the same national and legal (and social!) limitations which bind other groups. Jews sui generis!

        “JeffyB”, I don’t know what insane fantasy of revenge on the Jews you are working out in your comments, but you are not going to make us all hostages for, or hostages to Zionism. Not to a place you won’t even go live. Rather “grovel” to non-Jews in the USA?

      • Mooser
        March 26, 2017, 1:42 pm

        “What religion other than Judaism do you think Jews should be practising?”

        He wants us all to practise “Jeffyism”.

        I wasn’t kidding when I said there are no followers any more in Judaism. Leaders, every one of us.

      • talknic
        March 27, 2017, 12:09 am

        RoHa March 26, 2017, 3:41 am

        “And here we get the French and the Chinese again. I’ve gone over it before, but I’ll repeat it for the sake of newcomers. I don’t expect you to pay any attention.”

        It’s a good exercise, helps one hone one’s argument. Of course no matter how well honed, factual et al an argument, Zionist propagandists like poor JeffB et al aren’t here to listen or learn. It’s not their job. It seems they’re here to make complete idiots of themselves

        “You might want to say “The Americans and Australians got away with it. Why can’t Israel?” And the answer is, “Maybe Israel can, but it is still wrong.””

        Two or more wrongs don’t make a right. While Israel is still at it, the US and Australia stopped colonizing long ago and in fact were instrument in part for the prohibition of acquiring territory by any coercive measure including war.

      • jd65
        March 27, 2017, 10:57 am

        @ RoHa:

        French Jews are part of the French n-nation. They too drink nasty red wine, smoke smelly cigarettes, and talk pretentious bollocks which they claim is serious philosophy.

        There is no justification for your trying to hijack this thread w/ unnecessary comments about Bernard-Henri Lévy. Please desist.

        Nice post by the way :)

      • RoHa
        March 28, 2017, 2:18 am

        “unnecessary comments about Bernard-Henri Lévy.”

        Would you believe that I was thinking about Derrida when I wrote that?

        But BHL certainly fits.

    • Mooser
      March 25, 2017, 2:53 pm

      “at least as early as Lincoln”

      Lincoln? Try the old tree-chopper hisself, Washington

      considered and rejected” “JeffB”

      Yeah, “JeffyB” nobody knows the trouble we Jews have seen in the Goldenah Medina!

      • Boomer
        March 25, 2017, 6:14 pm

        Thanks for the link to Washington’s correspondence, Mooser. I’d read it before, but it’s good to be reminded.

      • MHughes976
        March 26, 2017, 11:29 am

        At least Washington was not being pressed to support any particular demand from Jewish sources. Wouldn’t be surprised to find that there were half a dozen keen proto-Zionists in Newport 1790, all from my Protestant gang.

      • DaBakr
        March 26, 2017, 5:16 pm

        Aren’t Americans taught about Haim Solomon any more?

        At least MHgs gets the rhode island connection

      • Mooser
        March 27, 2017, 4:09 pm

        “Aren’t Americans taught about Haim Solomon any more?”

        That’s right, DaBakr”! We paid good hard cash for our place in America!
        And thus the US was forced to acknowledge Jews as citizens!

        George Washington doesn’t mention it, but that is really what the letter is all about.

    • talknic
      March 25, 2017, 8:08 pm

      @ JeffB

      “So with that in mind … yadda yadda yadda ..”

      Uh huh. Speculate, then base an argument on it. What extremely clever and overbose ( © ) nonsense.

      “BDS evidently doesn’t want a negotiated peace of any kind. “

      You’ve not actually bothered to read their aims. So clever

      Keep up th’ good work

      • ErsatzYisrael
        March 28, 2017, 11:11 pm

        @talknic

        “It was a civil war, in Palestine, against non-Palestinian colonizers.”

        It wasn’t “a civil war”, if it was in Palestine and against non-Palestinian [i.e., foreign] colonizers.

      • talknic
        March 29, 2017, 6:13 am

        @ ErsatzYisrael March 28, 2017, 11:11 pm

        “It wasn’t “a civil war”, if it was in Palestine and against non-Palestinian [i.e., foreign] colonizers”

        If the colonizers had achieved citizenship in Palestine and there were those who did, it was a civil war.

  3. Annie Robbins
    March 26, 2017, 12:13 am

    On her last visit to Gaza Rothchild tries to portray the mayhem, the loss of hope and the total insanity that dominates life in the hellhole that Israel has been experimenting with creating there, whether with the physical and mental control mechanisms it employs or with the weaponry it tests periodically on the captive population for daring to breath.

    i’ll be back. just wanted to mention how rare it is, as an editor, to encounter writers who can pack so much, so clearly and competently, into one sentence.

    • Hatim Kanaaneh
      March 26, 2017, 3:14 am

      Thanks Annie Robbins for this. Perhaps it is a direct result of Dr. Rothchild’s fact packed report in the first place. For readers who plan to attend the coming JVP General Membership Meeting in Chicago you can hear her speak at the panel that she chairs there on “The impact of occupation and siege on health and human rights in the OPT.” She also is a fellow member of the recently formed Health Advisory Council (HAC) of JVP.

  4. Ossinev
    March 26, 2017, 8:55 am

    @JeffB
    “Jews established a Jewish (or if you want a Hebrew / Israeli) state for the same reason the French established a French state and the Chinese a Chinese state.”

    Well you do live and learn. I never knew that there was a French or a Chinese religion and that the followers of the French and Chinese religions came from all parts presumably including Brooklyn to kick out the locals and establish their French and Chinese states.

    I really must get out a lot more.

    • JeffB
      March 26, 2017, 1:24 pm

      @Ossinev

      Well you do live and learn. I never knew that there was a French [] religion

      Yes its called Catholicism (Latin Rite, Western Catholicism). And from Roman times with interruptions until Charlemagne and then until Napoleon it was the sole official religion of France.

      came from all parts presumably including Brooklyn to kick out the locals and establish their French [] state

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period#/media/File:Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png

      So you do live and learn.

      • talknic
        March 27, 2017, 12:15 am

        Some folk just keep digging their cathole

        @ JeffB March 26, 2017, 1:24 pm

        // I never knew that there was a French [] religion //

        “Yes its called Catholicism (Latin Rite, Western Catholicism). And from Roman times with interruptions until Charlemagne and then until Napoleon it was the sole official religion of France.”

        Seems, according to your pitiful attempt to prove an argument, it came from Rome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period#/media/File:Invasions_of_the_Roman_Empire_1.png

        “So you do live and learn”

        You ought to try it sometime

  5. JeffB
    March 26, 2017, 12:40 pm

    @RoHa

    But it is the other way round. It is the state that created the French n-nation out of the mix of Gauls, Romans, Cornishmen, Goths, Franks, Vikings and sundry others. Kings and dukes bashed people over the heads with incredibly heavy swords until they agreed to be a single p-nation, and to speak a single language. (They chose the wrong one.) From this the French n-nation emerged.

    We don’t disagree here entirely. I’d describe the process as more natural and I think you are mixing up events centuries apart from one another. Roman culture integrates into the various Gaulic tribes, they unify politically under the Franks (though not fully culturally). There are other cultural groups (like the Normans). That splits into various nations states: Normandy, Flanders or Languedoc… then this reunifies.

    I’d disagree a bit on shading that the French state created the French. I think its a symbiotic process. Running a state unifies the population, the more unified the population the more the state can represent a common set of interests. That incidentally is exactly the same process that is playing out with the Jews. Global Jews had very little in common a century ago while Israelis are vastly more unified today. A few centuries from now Judaism won’t be discussable at all outside of an Israeli framework.

    The difference with Israel is that it is still early in that process. Only recently has Israel crossed over to a population without a substantial number of immigrants, i.e. more than 90% of the Hebrews are native born.

    French Jews are part of the French n-nation. They too drink nasty red wine, smoke smelly cigarettes, and talk pretentious bollocks which they claim is serious philosophy.

    That’s true. They are also alienated from Catholic culture and the French secular reaction against it. They don’t have the same strong cultural ties to France’s rural towns. This cosmopolitanism, alienation… tends to create a somewhat distinct political identity through French history and also a somewhat distinct history. It also leads to ofter distinct economic behaviors. Algerian Jews (a huge part of the population) are even more alienated and don’t fit your description at all. French Jews are French, but a sort of 80% French not 100% French. Which is why Napoleonic assimilation only 1/2 worked. Were they fully French, Vichy would have never happened. I’m not going to deny your average French Jew is far closer culturally to your average French Catholic than your average Israeli, but you can’t ignore the underlying problem that there is and has been for centuries a Jewish question in France.

    I’d also agree with you that China is earlier in the process. So we agree more than you anticipated.

    But, as we have argued ad nauseum, such a right cannot include the right to take over the territory of people who are not part of that n-nation

    How did France handle the people who are not part of the n-nation and wouldn’t become part of the p-nation (to use your terms)?

    nor the right to expel such people

    How do p-nations handle people who will not obey its laws and live under its rules?

    not the right to deny such people equal status in any state established on that territory.

    I agree with you. A state needs to establish equality before the law as far as it can for all residents. That’s why I strongly disagree with the idea of creating a long term guest worker program in the USA as per George W Bush’s (and Jeb’s) proposals.

    Claiming such rights is tantamount to claiming that the rights of one group of people outweigh the rights of another group. What basis can there be for that?

    That’s not an uncommon situation. Rights conflict with each other. Politics is often balancing out between competing rights and trying to find acceptable compromises. In the case of I/P while these negotiations aren’t going super well, the nations are slowly working out what the compromises will look like. This process often takes centuries though. To use France as an example Burgundian absorption took about 5 centuries and still wasn’t entirely success which is why for example French Switzerland is distinct from France.

    If you are right about this (and plenty of people seem to think you aren’t), then this is a condemnation of Judaism, not a justification for Zionism.

    That’s fine. One can disagree with lots in Judaism. I would expect a Christian to disagree with Judaism. Liberal Protestantism is far more universal than Liberal Judaism can ever be much as it tries. There are no henotheistic themes in Christianity, while Jewish prayer still often refers to its God as the God of Israel and the God of your (tribal fathers). Jesus’ message is one of universal salvation. Moses’ message is one of tribal salvation. If the question is “is Judaism ultimately computable with Christianity” the answer is no it isn’t: Heb 8:5 The place where they serve is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, just as Moses was warned by God as he was about to complete the tabernacle. For he says, “See that you make everything according to the design shown to you on the mountain.” 8:6 But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises.

    • RoHa
      March 27, 2017, 2:47 am

      It looks as though you agree that it is not the case that the French people created the French state. The French state was created by kings throwing their weight about and treating people very nastily indeed.

      French Jews may not have shared all the common characteristics of the French n-nation, but that does not make them members of any other n-nation. It simply makes them an odd variant of Frenchness, just as the few teetotal Frenchmen are variants, not members of another n-nation.

      “Rights conflict with each other.”

      But it is not a case of competing rights. There is no right to Zionism. There is no right to establish or maintain a Jewish State in Palestine. The right to establish or maintain a state on a territory is the right of all the inhabitants of that territory, not the right of any subgroup.

      • JeffB
        March 27, 2017, 10:56 am

        @RoHa

        French Jews may not have shared all the common characteristics of the French n-nation, but that does not make them members of any other n-nation. It simply makes them an odd variant of Frenchness, just as the few teetotal Frenchmen are variants, not members of another n-nation.

        How do you distinguish between variants within a single n-nation and distinct n-nations? For example French Belgium descendants of the Franks and France would likely be in the same n-nation except for the fact that they have different p-nations.

        I’d say the way you distinguish between n-nations is if they don’t see themselves as sharing enough common interests to form a successful political union. French Belgiums consider themselves to be Belgian not French. That is groups that form distinct p-nations have stopped seeing themselves as part of the same n-nation. The USA is a terrific case here since the North East and the South East have very different cultures and might very well be different n-nations except they share a language, and a p-nation. While English Canada could easily blend in with the cultures of the states to its south except for the existence of distinct p-nations.

        In the case of French Jews the French Catholics have been iffy as to whether they are part of the same n-nation or not. French Jews, mostly in response but somewhat intrinsically, as well have been iffy. Again if I were to pick a n-nation for French Jews they are closer to n-nation of French Catholics. But there is a history of multiple failures to form a seamless bond for many centuries you can’t just blithely ignore in claiming they are part of the same n-nation.

        But it is not a case of competing rights. There is no right to Zionism. There is no right to establish or maintain a Jewish State in Palestine. The right to establish or maintain a state on a territory is the right of all the inhabitants of that territory, not the right of any subgroup.

        Then what right is there to maintain the Catholic political culture of France or the Baptist political culture of America?

      • RoHa
        March 28, 2017, 2:02 am

        “How do you distinguish between variants within a single n-nation and distinct n-nations?”

        Probably with extreme difficulty, if I bothered. But I don’t care enough about n-nations to make the effort. N-nations have no moral importance. Neither rights nor duties apply to n-nations.

        “Then what right is there to maintain the Catholic political culture of France or the Baptist political culture of America?”

        Probably no right at all. But then, as far as I can tell, the French p-nation gave up the Catholic part of its political culture long ago, and I don’t recall the Deists who ran the American Revolution putting anything about Baptists when they wrote that Constitution thingy they are so proud of.

  6. JeffB
    March 26, 2017, 12:56 pm

    @Eljay

    The French established France as a French state. The Chinese established China as a Chinese state. Zionists established Israel as an Israeli state a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

    Part of that French state in the early years was it being Catholic. Part of that Chinese state was a hatred of foreign religions. Which is why Latin rite Bishops fully approved by the Vatican (i.e. outside the state controlled CPA) disappear. Tibetan Buddhism is simply a crime. The CTA controls Taoism and non-state controlled Taoism is often persecuted. Muslims have been ethnically cleansed. Fulan Gung (which is native) gets you in a labor / reeducation camp.

    Again you tend not to know much about other countries.

    But please do wake me up when Jewish becomes the bureaucratic nationality of all citizens, immigrants, refugees and people up to n-generations removed from “Jewish State”, equally.

    Its happening before your eyes. Israel now has 4 million Sabra adults. Judaism as a global religion outside English speaking countries is mostly non-existant. Given the demographics by the end of this century 1/2 the Jews in the English speaking world will have close ties to Israel (be citizens, descendants of Israelis, married to an Israeli, have lived in Israel for an extended period of time…) What you are asking for is happening.

    As for “Jews practicing whatever religion they want”, I have no idea what that means. What religion other than Judaism do you think Jews should be practising?

    Reread the sentence from the original. I think you split the conditional clause at the wrong place and got confused.

    • eljay
      March 26, 2017, 4:10 pm

      || JeffB: … Again you tend not to know much about other countries. … ||

      You haven’t told me anything I don’t already know:
      – Injustices have existed in the past and continue to exist today.
      – Zionists use past and on-going injustices to justify their preferred brand of evil.

      || … What you are asking for is happening. … ||

      Except that it isn’t. And Zionists have no intention of making or letting it happen.

      || … Reread the sentence from the original. I think you split the conditional clause at the wrong place and got confused. ||

      JeffB: “I get that you like most BDSers have no problem with Jews practicing whatever religion they want as groveling slaves.”

      OK, I get it now. I was thrown off by the bullshit in that sentence. Yes, I think Jewish people should be free to practise whatever religion they want – or none at all if that’s what they prefer. I don’t believe that Jewish people – or anyone else – should live as “grovelling slaves”. It’s your fevered Zionist mind that transforms equality into slavery. You should have that looked at.

      • JeffB
        March 26, 2017, 8:48 pm

        @Eljay

        Except that it isn’t. And Zionists have no intention of making or letting it happen.

        I gave you a paragraph with several points contradicting this. The facts are the facts. The transition away from Judaism as a global religion has already happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jewish_population_comparisons#Comparisons

      • Mooser
        March 26, 2017, 9:53 pm

        “The transition away from Judaism as a global religion has already happened.”

        Oh, so soon Judaism will be restricted almost entirely to Israel, and fade away in Europe and the US?

        Well, that should really work out to Israel’s advantage, huh?

      • eljay
        March 27, 2017, 7:39 am

        || JeffB: … I gave you a paragraph with several points contradicting this. The facts are the facts. The transition away from Judaism as a global religion has already happened. ||

        Neither your paragraph from Wiki nor your link to Wiki states that Jewish is now the bureaucratic nationality of all Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis (citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees).

      • JeffB
        March 27, 2017, 10:59 am

        @Eljay

        . I don’t believe that Jewish people – or anyone else – should live as “grovelling slaves”. It’s your fevered Zionist mind that transforms equality into slavery. You should have that looked at.

        No it isn’t my fevered mind it is historical reality. Your idea of equality without cultural connection have been repeatedly tried and repeatedly failed. When implemented they result in an aristocratic government that doesn’t provide much freedom for anyone. What you keep arguing for, doesn’t exist. The countries you admire are able to implement the policies you admire t because of their history of engaging in the acts you despise.

      • eljay
        March 27, 2017, 12:12 pm

        || JeffB: … No it isn’t my fevered mind it is historical reality. … ||

        The historical reality is that equality = slavery? Your fever is spiking.

        || … What you keep arguing for, doesn’t exist. The countries you admire are able to implement the policies you admire … ||

        So…it doesn’t exist except in countries where it does exist. Interesting.

      • RoHa
        March 28, 2017, 2:09 am

        “Yes, I think Jewish people should be free to practise whatever religion they want”

        If “Zionism is the practical realization of what Judaism always preached”, then I am not sure anyone should be free to practice Judaism. Perhaps let them believe it, as long as they don’t actually try doing it.

    • Mooser
      March 26, 2017, 8:18 pm

      Hey, “JeffB”, maybe you would be interested in a gross or two of these “Jews sui generis” buttons and stickers I’ve got, to give out with your comments?

  7. JeffB
    March 26, 2017, 1:17 pm

    @MHughes

    At least Washington was not being pressed to support any particular demand from Jewish sources. Wouldn’t be surprised to find that there were half a dozen keen proto-Zionists in Newport 1790, all from my Protestant gang

    Sort of. Whitefield had recently brought theologies like John Gill’s to America at that time:

    And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it,…. That the Jews upon their conversion in the latter day will return to the land of Judea again, and possess it, is the sense of many passages of Scripture

    So you are staring to see the seeds of Christian Zionism. But you’ll notice the conversion comes first. It is not until Darby that you have the idea of a religiously Jewish restoration of Israel, i.e. an abandonment of replacement theology entirely. Darby still isn’t born during Washington’s time in office. Napolean’s declaration, ““Bonaparte has published a proclamation in which he invites all the Jews of Asia and Africa to gather under his flag in order to re-establish the ancient Jerusalem. He has already given arms to a great number, and their battalions threaten Aleppo.” is still 2 years off when Washington leaves office.

    6 is a small number so who knows? But at least there isn’t much of a literary trail of a belief in Jewish political restoration existing yet in Christian circles.

    • Mooser
      March 26, 2017, 8:02 pm

      Wow, “Jeffy”, man, I gotta say it, be churlish not to, credit where it’s due.

      Dude, you can type!

      • Mooser
        March 27, 2017, 1:57 pm

        “Dude, you can type!”

        Oh, no wonder. “JeffB” started in Jan. 2013, and kept going (and going, and going) til October 15, 2015:

        “I’m not planning on returning to posting here because of the censorship ..” http://mondoweiss.net/profile/jeffb/20/#sthash.Ch2qOUrn.dpuf

        He took a break, Ziocaine Amnesia did it’s merciful work, and starting on February 18 2017, he began to repeat the entire archive. Pretty much word-for-word, too.
        No wonder he can type so much, so fast.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        March 28, 2017, 10:34 pm

        “Wow, “Jeffy”, man, I gotta say it, be churlish not to, credit where it’s due.

        Dude, you toss a great zio word salad!”

        [FIFY]

    • MHughes976
      March 27, 2017, 9:42 am

      I’d accept your ‘sort of’, Jeff. The Jewish Virtual Library mentions a letter from John Adams in 1818 which it regards as an early example of call for political restoration of the Jews ‘without prrconditions’ as we might say. Adams thinks that conversion will then occur eventually and gradually but his view of conversion is really that Jews and Christians will converge on Unitarianism or deism. Perhaps that wasn’t so absurd given the trends he was observing in New England. The comparison with Napoleon, so different in background, would certainly be interesting. A tide was starting to run.

      • JeffB
        March 27, 2017, 2:19 pm

        @MHughes

        I am embarrassed I didn’t know about Adams until this exchange. But I note the quote is nationalistic not religious (and frankly IMHO is more like political pandering than a genuine care one ), “ “I could find it in my heart to wish that you had been at the head of a hundred thousand Israelite’s indeed as well disciplined as a French army – & marching with them into Judea & making a conquest of that country & restoring your nation to the dominion of it, For I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.” John Adams, March 1819 to Mordecai M. Noah, a leading member of the American-Jewish community and an early Zionist.

        What is interesting about Adams though, that perhaps makes it more than this was that he is one of the first Christian leaders in the world willing to sign a peace with Muslims governments on equal terms, accepting the legitimacy of Muslim self determination and governance. If one can accept the legitimacy of a Muslim government I see no reason he might not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish one. In which case Adams really was a thought leader in forming America’s core concepts in foreign policy more so than he is given credit for.

      • Mooser
        March 27, 2017, 2:38 pm

        Yes, wasn’t it John Adams who said: “The Jews Who Will It Will Have Their State”?

      • eljay
        March 27, 2017, 3:05 pm

        || JeffB: … What is interesting about Adams though, that perhaps makes it more than this was that he is one of the first Christian leaders in the world willing to sign a peace with Muslims governments on equal terms, accepting the legitimacy of Muslim self determination and governance. If one can accept the legitimacy of a Muslim government I see no reason he might not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish one. In which case Adams really was a thought leader in forming America’s core concepts in foreign policy more so than he is given credit for. ||

        It isn’t every day you see a Zionist applauding the validation of dhimmitude. Wonders never cease…

      • YoniFalic
        March 28, 2017, 5:27 am

        The Ottoman Venetian Peace Treaty was signed in 1419.

        There is a huge difference between signing a treaty with a state most of whose inhabitants are Muslims and giving Eastern European Slavo-Turks, whose ancestors converted to Rabbinic Judaism:

        (1) license to invade the Levant,

        (2) steal a country, and

        (3) commit genocide against the natives in an orgy of white racist genocidal European settler invader colonialism.

  8. Ossinev
    March 27, 2017, 6:37 am

    @JeffB
    “Yes its called Catholicism (Latin Rite, Western Catholicism). And from Roman times with interruptions until Charlemagne and then until Napoleon it was the sole official religion of France. ”
    Well I never. Would you Adam and Eve it ? I’ve apparently been guilty of anti – Frenchitism and all those anciens Parisians and Lyonais who were were forced out by marauding Easterners thousands of years ago can apparently waltz back in at anytime to their ancestral whatsname and kick out the faux native locals just by saying I practice Frenchism et vous n’avez pas le droit d’etre ici c’est ma terre. .Its like as if there were making allez.

    Veuillez continuer c’est fascinant a decouvrir une histoire de la religion Francaise inconnues meme aux Francais eux memes.

    Gardez la religion!

    (Veulliez excuser le Franglais)

  9. MHughes976
    March 27, 2017, 9:52 am

    Alice R is to be congratulated for putting her finger on the point that it is the overarching goal of Zionism to cause the non-Jewish population to leave their ancestral homes – until, I think, there are sufficiently few of them for there to be no problem in giving them, with dramatic flourish, all manner of equal rights. I think we shall soon hear more of ‘pay them to leave’, perhaps under Trump’s patronage. A heavily ironical version of the 1ss.

    • JeffB
      March 27, 2017, 2:30 pm

      @MHughes976

      I don’t think it is accurate to say that Zionism has a goal of expulsion. Zionism was willing to use expulsion when other means failed. To take the most important example expulsion became a serious option for Zionist political leadership in in 1942 after the 1936-9 war. It was clearly discussed as a response to the damage the war had caused. Had the colonialism (1927-36) been successful in establishing peaceful relationships (at least long enough for the Yishuv economy to be dependent on Palestinian labor) I see no reason to believe that the Yishuv wouldn’t have moved away from Jewish labor theology. A Palestinian people that for 90 years had been integrated into the economy would likely be now be culturally assimilated. A civil rights movement under those conditions if it hadn’t happened already would stand a much better chance of success.

      I think a fair description is that Zionism seeks Jewish self determination. Zionism is willing to reluctantly employ expulsion when Jewish self determination is threatened and other means fail.

      • Mooser
        March 27, 2017, 4:03 pm

        “I think a fair description is that Zionism seeks Jewish self determination. Zionism is willing to reluctantly employ expulsion when Jewish self determination is threatened and other means fail. “

        ‘By the rivers of Logorrhea
        Where we sat down,
        And yea, we wept,
        and used the”Shoot and cry” wheeze.’

      • MHughes976
        March 27, 2017, 4:22 pm

        These are deep matters, Jeff. Let me get back to you in couple of days. Off to London tomorrow, actually to meet a very old friend whose views are much closer to yours than to mine.

      • talknic
        March 27, 2017, 6:08 pm

        This shows just how twisted the diseased Zionist mind becomes

        JeffB March 27, 2017, 2:30 pm

        “I don’t think it is accurate to say that Zionism has a goal of expulsion. Zionism was willing to use expulsion when other means failed.”

        As has been quoted on MW many time Zionists in their own words contradict your pathetic attempts to justify the unjustifiable

        ” To take the most important example expulsion became a serious option for Zionist political leadership in in 1942 after the 1936-9 war. It was clearly discussed as a response to the damage the war had caused”

        It was a civil war, in Palestine, against non-Palestinian colonizers. You speak as though the colonizers owned and ruled the territory. They didn’t and at best owned only a tiny amount of real estate

        “Had the colonialism (1927-36) been successful in establishing peaceful relationships (at least long enough for the Yishuv economy to be dependent on Palestinian labor) I see no reason to believe that the Yishuv wouldn’t have moved away from Jewish labor theology”

        Sick dude. You really are really very very sick. WTF makes you think ANYONE is going to simply allow their territory and themselves be taken over and be used by an arrogant foreign colonizing enterprise?

        ” A Palestinian people that for 90 years had been integrated into the economy would likely be now be culturally assimilated”

        You’re out of your tiny ZioAddled mind. 90 years where it was Palestine being invaded, the majority were not Jews or Zionists. The majority must be assimilated? I believe the expression is (‘scuse me folks) ‘Go f*ck yourself Jeff’

        “I think a fair description is that Zionism seeks Jewish self determination. “

        A) at the expense of those already living in Zionist coveted land

        B) Zionism is contrary to Judaism’s basic common sense tenets

        C) Not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists.

        D) The Zionist Federation on were ALL rich enough to travel to and stay Basel for their founding conferences. Rich enough to invest in a bank in order for it to make money by loaning specifically poor Jews money specifically at interest, to specifically put themselves on the front lines in Palestine where Jews and Zionists especially were a tiny minority

        BTW Jewish self determination via the self appointed Zionist Movement was achieved at 00:01 May 15th 1948 when Israel’s independence within the borders of UNGA res 181 was proclaimed effective. Nothing outside of those borders was or has since been legally acquired by the State of Israel through any legal agreement

        “Zionism is willing to reluctantly employ expulsion when Jewish self determination is threatened and other means fail. “

        The Zionists own words tell us you are as Zionism requires, you’ll say anything, no matter how stupid it makes you look. Contradicting what the Zionists themselves voiced as their aims is truly cringe worthy JeffB

        Congratulations, keep up the good work

      • RoHa
        March 28, 2017, 2:23 am

        “I think a fair description is that Zionism seeks Jewish self determination”
        When “self determination” means “setting up a state”, there is no right to Jewish self determination. The right to set up a state is a right of all the inhabitants of a territory, not the right of any ethnic, religious, or hobby group.

      • MHughes976
        March 29, 2017, 1:34 pm

        I see the question of expulsion – perhaps better ‘exclusion’ – like this. I take Zionism to be the claim that Jewish people, and they only, have an inherent right, now commonly called a birthright, to a share of sovereignty over the Holy Land, all of it, others receiving a share only by grace and generosity, though one may expect this generosity to be exercised quite a lot. Everything that has happened has been, in effect, to put into effect a claim of this nature.
        Could one substitute the idea that there are two absolutely equal kinds of birthright a) from being Jewish b) from being born in Palestine, so that Jewish Zionists in the Holy Land would say of Palestinians ‘they have as much right to be here as we do’. I think not. The idea of equal and identical right precludes the
        idea of a right on the part of either group, acting in its own interests, to make many members of the other group ‘not be here’, because that is to act from a superior, not an equal right. Yet Israel exists in current
        fashion – and otherwise could not have ‘existed as a Jewish state’ – because of the exclusions of 48, which I think it is impossible
        for Zionists to regard as morally wrong. So the ‘two kinds of birthright’ idea is not a form of Zionism.
        But if the only birthright is Jewish then the Palestinians are really in the wrong place unless they are few enough to cause no trouble and be proper objects of pure generosity, which clearly they are not yet.
        So the only right thing and ‘overarching goal’, if Zionism is valid, is to arrange things so that they move to a place where it is right for them to be, which is anywhere whose citizen body can be prevailed upon to accept or include them: the heartfelt good wishes for their new life, not to mention significant financial assistance, of all true Zionists and indeed of all people of good will would go with them. This would also let the Zionist venture, which is God’s will or some secular equivalent, proceed with greater alacrity and triumph to help all humanity in all manner of ways, scientific and moral. I don’t believe that I’m mocking or misrepresenting: this is what Zionism implies.

      • Mooser
        March 29, 2017, 2:26 pm

        “So the only right thing and ‘overarching goal’, if Zionism is valid, is to arrange things so that they move to a place where it is right for them to be…the heartfelt good wishes for their new life, not to mention significant financial assistance, of all true Zionists and indeed of all people of good will would go with them

        “MHughes976” ,are you trying to evade or obfuscate the failure of the non-Jewish (mostly Christian, unfortunately, in this case) nations to do their part to make Zionism work?

        Zionism, for all of its uncertainties, illegalities, constant violence etc, was supposed to be better than a second or third-class existence in non-Jewish societies.
        It didn’t have to be “right”,didn’t have to be perfect, it just had to be better than the terrible conditions of European antisemitism.
        A nice low bar to shoot for!

        But somebody (cough, cough, goyim) didn’t keep up their end of the bargain, did they? Pretty much dropped the ball in the US and later Britain and finally France and after WW2 in Europe.

        We should’ve known we couldn’t depend on you over the long term. Don’t try to put it back on us.

      • MHughes976
        March 30, 2017, 4:12 am

        Yes indeed, Mooser, some nations are sadly disappointing. You shine a light unto them and they just roll over and go back to their moral slumbers.

  10. Liz
    March 28, 2017, 9:07 am

    Yes, Rothchild is doing great work. Let’s also remember that she’s not the first to be talking about the goals of Zionism. Indeed, Palestinians long before her have been saying the same things. It’s great that Rothchild is using her privilege to be a voice for those who are not been heard, but it gives me a bit of pause when her privilege lifts her voice above others. It might behoove Rothchild to acknowledge this as she weaves in and out of Gaza helping others.

  11. JeffB
    March 28, 2017, 9:58 am

    @RoHa

    The right to set up a state is a right of all the inhabitants of a territory, not the right of any ethnic, religious, or hobby group.

    It is worth noting this contradicts your n-nation / p-nation concept from the previous thread. If the right belongs to arbitrary inhabitants individually then there is no notion of “national boundaries”. States themselves no longer have any tie to self determination for any particular people, because there are no peoples just atomic individuals. Borders and the alignment of ground with a territory and thus with any particular state simply become artificial and arbitrary constructs. Which means that there is no particular reason to object to states acquiring territory by force.

    • Mooser
      March 28, 2017, 12:53 pm

      “Which means that there is no particular reason to object to states acquiring territory by force.”

      Nor could their be any particular reason to object to their co-religionists (I use the term loosely) in other countries helping them in this. Not if those people are Jews.

    • ErsatzYisrael
      March 28, 2017, 10:27 pm

      @JeffB

      You want some ketchup to go with your word salad?

      • Mooser
        March 29, 2017, 12:05 pm

        “You want some ketchup to go with your word salad?”

        And one of these lovely “Jew sui generis buttons.

    • RoHa
      March 29, 2017, 12:02 am

      You’ll have to spell out your argument in more detail. I don’t see it. I see two reasons to object to states acquiring territory by force.

      First, if the people who live in the territory of Oblivia have the right to establish a state (the p-nation of Oblivia) in that territory, then it seems that they would also have the right to maintain that state. Thus, when the King of Mixambigua proposes that the territory of the p-nation of Oblivia becomes part of the p-nation of Mixambigua, it seems that the people of Oblivia have a prima facie right to say, “No thanks. We prefer to remain Oblivious.”

      Now, if there are no strong moral reasons that outweigh that prima facie right, and the King of Mixambigua nonetheless sends his army in and annexes Oblivia by force, he violates the rights of the Oblivians.

      Second, the way acquiring territory by force is usually done involves a fair amount of killing, injury, destruction of property, molestation of sheep, and so forth. This, too, is a violation of rights.

      • JeffB
        March 29, 2017, 5:18 am

        @RoHa

        Territory of Oblivia, territory of Mixambigua

        You are arguing in what seems a logical circle here. Without n-nations there are no fixed territories. How do decide of Oblivia is a territory that gets a fully independent p-state or a part of Greater Mixambigua? Since setting up a government requires the consent of consensus in a territory and the people of Oblivia did not have a consensus from the people living in Greater Mixambigua…

      • Mooser
        March 29, 2017, 12:03 pm

        “You’ll have to spell out your argument in more detail.”

        Very funny “RoHa”. But you do realize he is going to take you seriously, right?

      • RoHa
        March 30, 2017, 2:15 am

        “Without n-nations there are no fixed territories.”

        History and geography help to define territories, but history also shows that the borders between p-nations change radically and frequently, regardless of n-nations.

        “How do decide of Oblivia is a territory that gets a fully independent p-state or a part of Greater Mixambigua?”

        That would depend on a lot of factors. The approved method for deciding borders is negotiation and agreement between p-nations. (“Approved” is not the same as “usual”.) The people of Oblivia may well claim, in the negotiation, that the linguistic boundary between Oblivion speakers and Mixambiguan speakers would be a convenient border. The Mixambiguans might claim that middle of the mighty Opoloo river would be a better border, since it would give both countries access to the sea. This would leave some Oblivion speakers on the Mixambiguan side, but there is no reason why those people could not be Mixambiguan citizens.

        ” Since setting up a government requires the consent of consensus in a territory and the people of Oblivia did not have a consensus from the people living in Greater Mixambigua… ”

        If, for example, Oblivia has been province of Greater Mixambigua for a few centuries, then it is likely that the Oblivians do not have a prima facie right to set up an independent p-nation in the first place. If they wanted to do so, they would have to make a very good moral case for it*, and an even better case for declaring independence without the agreement of the other Mixambiguans.

        If Mixambigua and Oblivia were each founded separately, and neither was ever part of the other, then neither needs the agreement of the other.

        (*Here’s a moral case. I will let you judge its worth for yourself.

        https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript )

Leave a Reply