Israel is losing the battle for public opinion thanks to honest journalists, and platforms like Mondoweiss

FeaturesIsrael/PalestineThey Fear The Truth: We Report It
on 162 Comments

Over the last several weeks, Mondoweiss has presented “They Fear The Truth—We Report It,” a series sharing the experiences of journalists and activists working in Palestine who have been attacked by the Israeli government and its defenders. The clampdown proves it: The work Mondoweiss presents daily, from hundreds of brave reporters and photographers, makes a real difference. So throughout this series, we have also asked for your contribution to sustain and expand this essential service.

Today, with an analysis by veteran correspondent Jonathan Cook, we finish the series and the campaign. We are grateful that over 650 generous donors have donated, and a few last gifts today can get us the remaining $1,500 to our $75,000 campaign goal. Thank you for making our work possible, and helping defy the Israeli government’s efforts to control, suppress and silence the truth.

In 2008 Gaza-based reporter Mohammed Omer won the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism and was able to attend the awards ceremony in London only after Dutch officials intervened to get him an exit permit. On his return, crossing into the West Bank on his way to Gaza, he was separated from his Dutch escort by Israeli security personnel. He reported of his next experiences:

“I was stripped naked at gunpoint, interrogated, kicked and beaten for more than four hours. At one point I fainted and then awakened to fingernails gouging at the flesh beneath my eyes. An officer crushed my neck beneath his boot and pressed my chest into the floor. Others took turns kicking and pinching me, laughing all the while. They dragged me by my feet, sweeping my head through my own vomit. I lost consciousness. I was told later that they transferred me to a hospital only when they thought I might die.”

Journalist Mohammed Omer

Israeli officials explained Omer’s extensive injuries by claiming he had “lost his balance” during an interrogation over suspicions he was a smuggler. Yet during his detention, the officers showed they knew who he was by demanding his “English pounds”—a reference to the £2,500 prize money. Omer concluded: “Could it be that despite their tanks, fighter planes and nuclear arsenal, Israel is threatened by our cameras and computers, which give the world access to images and information about their military occupation of Palestinians?”

I told Omer’s story in a 2010 essay about Israel’s increasing efforts to control reporting on its actions. Today, the suppression has intensified – and the danger to Palestinian journalists, in particular, is greater than ever. Mondoweiss’s summary of the situation is accurate: “They fear the truth. We report it.”

As Omer’s treatment demonstrated, those journalists at greatest risk are Palestinian because they witness in person Israel’s actions, which are supposed to be kept out of the public eye. Palestinian reporters can provide Western media with photos, firsthand stories and other evidence of Israel’s aggression, war crimes, and attempts at cover-up. The work of dissident Israeli journalists and human rights groups can be similarly threatening to Israel’s control over public discourse.

It’s as true now as it was seven years ago: Israel wants to justify continuing assaults on Palestinians as well as its refusal to engage in real negotiation. To do so, the state has invested ever more in controlling coverage—especially from Western news organizations, and most of all from the U.S media.

The occupation, and the state of Israel itself, could not survive without U.S. financial, diplomatic and military support. So Israel pressures not only American journalists on the ground, but also the editors in the U.S. who select reporters, approve or reject story ideas, and set the tone of coverage by editing reports from the field.

As I predicted, Israel’s control over the narrative coming from the region has weakened with the rise of new and more democratic forms of media. New platforms like Mondoweiss have led to more accountability in reporting from the region, and in turn have raised the pressure on journalists in traditional media. In response, Israel’s publicity machine has tried to bypass reporters based in Israel/Palestine in favor of polishing its image for editors abroad in hopes they can be more easily swayed.

The passage, and now the enforcement, of laws prohibiting entry for BDS advocates are also part of the effort to silence voices from outside Israel/Palestine. But Israel is fighting a losing battle, due to the persistence of Palestinian journalists, the slow opening of cracks in the mainstream media, and the new opportunities for freelance journalists like myself through electronic media such as Mondoweiss.

The existence of Mondoweiss and other online outlets means that I can report honestly what I learn from witnesses and documents—information that “established” media have been too cowardly to publish.

A watershed moment in my own understanding of self-censorship by Western news media occurred soon after my arrival in the region. In 2002 I investigated the death of Iain Hook, a British United Nations worker, at the hands of an Israeli sniper in Jenin refugee camp.

As the only journalist to go to the U.N. compound in Jenin where Hook died, I was able to speak to Palestinian witnesses and later got access to a suppressed U.N. report on the killing. Israel claimed that the sniper who shot Hook in the back believed he was a Palestinian militant holding a grenade, rather than a mobile phone, and that he was about to throw it at Israeli troops.

But my investigation showed the sniper’s account had to be a lie. From his position overlooking the U.N. compound through telescopic sights, the sniper could not have misidentified either the distinctive red-haired Hook or the phone. In any case, the U.N. compound was surrounded by a high concrete wall and a chainmail fence right up to the metal awning that covered the entire site. Had Hook thrown a grenade, it would have bounced right back at him—as the sniper, who had been there for hours, must have known.

When I offered this story to the Guardian, the foreign editor agreed to publish only a small article looking at the diplomatic fall-out from the killing. It was then that I fully understood the degree to which even a newspaper known for being critical of Israel would not overstep unwritten bounds.

Almost 15 years later, reporting about Israel/Palestine by news media such as the New York Times, the Guardian, BBC and MSNBC has barely improved. The world is waking up nonetheless because the stories are being shared through channels hardly imagined at the turn of this century. Mondoweiss reports the truth, as do other vital news sources that are unafraid of ostracism.

I’m privileged to be one of the many hundreds of contributors who have been able to publish accurate information through Mondoweiss.

Omar Barghouti has said it well: “It is never about giving voice to the oppressed voiceless, I have found out, as we’ve always had our voices and never needed anyone to speak on our behalf or articulate what we really want. It is all about giving media to the oppressed media-less. In this, Mondoweiss and a few other progressive alternative media outlets have excelled.

“We crucially need alternative media that is accurate, professional and timely, like Mondoweiss, particularly due to the Israel-induced censorship against our voices in the mainstream media. I urge you all to generously donate to Mondoweiss to keep censorship at bay and to further grow our progressive media platforms that are making a real difference in the struggle for rights and justice, writ large.”

Donate buttonAs a journalist, I agree wholeheartedly with Barghouti. Please join us in supporting Mondoweiss so that this essential publication will continue to wake up the world.

 

About Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His new website is jonathan-cook.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

162 Responses

  1. ritzl
    July 26, 2017, 6:24 pm

    Not only honest reporting, but Israel’s own actions. At the risk of being repetitive, this Israel anti-BDS legislative wave means that any company not already doing business in Israel will NEVER do business in Israel. The risks are simply not worth the rewards.

    If a company should enter the tiny Israeli market and then pull out for any reason whatsoever, it risks massive criminal and civil penalties for doing so, with the only evidence required being some private email or twitter post acknowledging the justification for BDS by some decision maker. Such assessments of bizarrely abnormal risk propagate quickly throughout the business community.

    Result: Israel as business pariah. By its own overreaching hand.

  2. JosephA
    July 26, 2017, 7:07 pm

    Can you imagine winning an award, traveling internationally to receive it, only then to return and be beaten nearly half to death?

  3. Nathan
    July 26, 2017, 8:26 pm

    Jonathan Cook sings the praises of Mondoweiss as the platform for honest reporting (“The existence of Mondoweiss and other online outlets means that I can report honestly…”). I wonder what is Mr Cook’s definition of “honest reporting”. Mondoweiss is an anti-Israel publication. It’s legitimate to be anti-Israel and to present an argument that the State of Israel should never have come into existence – but let’s be fair and objective about the reporting of the Mondoweiss website. An ideological publication meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel is not committed to honest reporting. Probably what Jonathan Cook wanted to say is that Mondoweiss is one of the platforms for presenting the anti-Israel case, and he’s grateful that the website is at his disposal. However, let’s admit that it has a few prejudices that here and there give a somewhat slanted story.

    • Annie Robbins
      July 26, 2017, 8:35 pm

      nathan, maybe you should try sourcing your ad hominem allegations with links since it’s already been established you fabricate quotes and then run away from confrontation for verification. you can start with the mondoweiss article arguing “that the State of Israel should never have come into existence”. i’m happy to have that discussion, once you link to it.

      An ideological publication meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel is not committed to honest reporting.

      cite a specific article you think is not honest, please. as a hasbrat who fabricates quotes to defend an apartheid state your credibility around here is suspect. at least from my perspective.

      • Nathan
        July 26, 2017, 9:59 pm

        Annie Robbins – Are you arguing that the Mondoweiss website is not committed to convincing the public “that the State of Israel should never have come into existence”? You asked me to provide proof of my insight, but your asking for proof was not accompanied by an outright denial. Of course, it is your position that Zionism is illegitimate, that the State of Israel should never have come into existence, and hence your reporting is always a reflection of that ideological position. I’d like to hear a denial.

        Anyway, since you requested proof, I decided to check your archives, and the very first article that I happened to click was a rather recent article by Tikva Honig-Parnass from May 19th (“Reflection of a Daughter from the ’48 Generation”). There she tells us that “long after I had already, from an ideological and political perspective, learned to view Zionism as a colonialist enterprise…..” I think that you understand the political code expressed in the term “colonial enterprise” (illegitimacy). I’d be thrilled to hear a denial – and to learn that the Zionist colonial enterprise is an expression of political legitimacy and hence the founding of Israel by the Zionist Movement was fine.

        Ironically, in your attack on me, you tell me that the credibility of anyone who supports Israel “is suspect here”. Well, you are admitting the obvious: Your reporting is slanted by definition. How can you claim to honest reporting when by definition a report must be anti-Israel to be credible?

      • Annie Robbins
        July 26, 2017, 11:40 pm

        i didn’t state anyone who supports israel is suspected here. i stated “it’s already been established you fabricate quotes and then run away from confrontation for verification” hence, i called you a hasbrat who defends the apartheid state, which you are. here’s your fabricated quote: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/avishais-prophetic-community/#comment-885553

        don’t ask me what i am arguing when you initiated an ad hominem attack. i wanted a source, a specific article to watch you flounder making your claims. i ask you to cite a specific article you think is not honest

        “long after I had already, from an ideological and political perspective, learned to view Zionism as a colonialist enterprise…..” I think that you understand the political code expressed in the term “colonial enterprise” (illegitimacy). I’d be thrilled to hear a denial

        have you ever heard of the jewish colonial trust? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-colonial-trust

        or the Jewish Colonization Association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Colonization_Association

        or the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Jewish_Colonization_Association

        anyone who doesn’t think israel was/is a colonial enterprise is denying history (and being dishonest — that would be you). if you choose to make the argument mondoweiss is not committed to honest reporting you’re going about it in an odd way. why not just point out factual errors? arguing israel was not a colonial enterprise when there’s massive evidence to the contrary does not an argument make.

        Of course, it is your position that Zionism is illegitimate, that the State of Israel should never have come into existence, and hence your reporting is always a reflection of that ideological position. I’d like to hear a denial.

        of course you would, just like your silly allegation nassar had genocidal intent you’d like to skip over the part where you actually have to back your argument with (legitimate) quotes and sources and pretend that part is all settled and then sit back while i counter. but there’s no need for me to counter unsubstantiated allegations (btw, having an ideological position is not, in itself, dishonest). it’s a waste of my time. just like it’s a waste of my time to argue that because someone thinks israel delegitimizes itself routinely is a basis for claiming that view is inherently dishonest. ad hominem claims are just that, and nothing more.

      • echinococcus
        July 27, 2017, 2:29 am

        This Nathan may be the rare case that is to be more deplored than censured. Let’s not be too harsh.

        think that you understand the political code expressed in the term “colonial enterprise” (illegitimacy). I’d be thrilled to hear a denial – and to learn that the Zionist colonial enterprise is an expression of political legitimacy…

        Such an amount of inbred arrogance cum forced/engineered ignorance is the obvious result of at least a couple generations of purposeful design as well as isolated breeding and brainwashing. Really –I mean, try to find anyone at all left upon this earth who can talk about the “political code” of colonialism. You think the last one went out with Kipling but no, here they are, live! Or anyone who can order all around with such majestic self-sufficiency. Priceless.

        This one is the real typical Zionist. All my modest betting money rides on him. Beats even the self-named Max Narr.

      • Nathan
        July 27, 2017, 7:05 am

        Annie Robbins – Why does it upset you so much to be told that the Mondoweiss website is an ideological publication meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel? It’s simply true. There’s nothing wrong with being an ideological publication, but surely it is obvious to you that a publication dedicated to grinding a particular ax is (by definition) slanted. I have to say that it was quite surprising that you asked for proof. Just say with pride that: “yes, we are an ideological publication dedicated to convincing the public of the illegitimacy of Israel”. However, as with all ideologies (or religious beliefs), you’re not objective at all. You have a monopoly on the truth.

        I don’t why you are incredulous about Nasser’s intentions. This is not some story from the Middle Ages or from Biblical Israel. I heard with my own ears his declaration that he will drive the Jews into the sea. Perhaps, you might want to interpret this statement as a nice promise to give the Jews a pleasant day on the beach, and those silly Zionists totally misunderstood his good intentions. I think that an objective person understands it as a threat of genocide – even if one is anti-Zionist. I understand that in an ideological publication meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel it would be against the rules of honest reporting to admit that such a statement by Nasser was somewhat improper. In the framework of honest reporting, it’s just best not to admit that you know about such things. Thus, you can present the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War in the best objective light of an ideologically slanted publication.

      • YoniFalic
        July 27, 2017, 10:34 pm

        Perhaps Nathan will tell us which of Nasser’s speeches contains the threat of diving the Zionist invaders into the sea. I have access to an archive that is supposed to contain all of Nasser’s broadcasts. My Arabic is highly imperfect, but I would probably understand that Arabic. In addition, I might be able to find a transcription. I am a lot better at reading Arabic than at understanding spoken Arabic.

      • Mayhem
        August 10, 2017, 10:05 am

        Robbins likes to bandy around the statement that Israel is a colonial state but even if Israel has many of the hallmarks of a settler colony there are so many special aspects of the Zionist project that make comparisons to it being an oppressive, apartheid state erroneous; bearing the imprimatur of cynical, political opportunism practised by pro-Palestinian propagandists.

        In addition to the imprimatur of the United Nations , the Zionist project in Palestine/Israel differs from European settler colonialism in the following ways. Take the comparative example most frequently cited by anti-Zionists — South Africa:

        1. Jews lived in the region for millennia, albeit at times as a small minority. There was no white presence in South Africa before the 1700s.
        2. Jewish immigrants from Europe had a strong attachment to the land of Israel based on Biblical sources and tradition. Not the case with whites in South Africa.
        3. European Jews were not safe or secure in their old homes and in many cases were forced out due to escalating anti-Jewish policies and violence. The role of the Holocaust in convincing Jews that a Jewish state was a necessity cannot be underestimated. The Dutch immigrants known as Boers and the later British immigrants faced no such conditions.
        4. Close to half of the Jewish citizens of Israel are from Arab/Muslim lands, not white Europeans. Again, no comparison to South Africa.
        5. The hostility shown by the native Arab population toward Jewish settlers was based, in part, on prejudice against non-Muslims in general and Jews in particular, drawing on their religious and political traditions of treating Jews as an inferior religious minority. Black African hostility toward European whites was based purely on their status as colonizers.
        6. The Jewish colonizers were willing to share the land with the Arab natives up through 1947 and Israel made offers to the Palestinians that went beyond “bantustan” solutions in 2000 and 2008.
        7. Arabs who live within Israel’s borders face discrimination, but are still citizens of the state. The South African apartheid governments forced blacks into semi-autonomous enclaves, i.e. bantustans, and denied them basic citizenship rights.

        Refer Is Israel a Colonial Settler State?

      • eljay
        August 10, 2017, 12:34 pm

        || Mayhem: Robbins likes to bandy around the statement that Israel is a colonial state … ||

        Of course it’s a colonialist state – it’s been stealing, occupying and colonizing territory outside of its / Partition borders since its inception. But it’s also an unapologetically oppressive, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist state. Give the “Jewish State” its due.

      • Mayhem
        August 10, 2017, 7:04 pm

        @eljay, you conveniently forget that marginal, additional territory that Israel might have gained beyond its 1948 border has come about by Israel defending itself against Arab aggression so the holding of extra territory like the Golan Heights and parts of the Judea and Samaria is necessary as a security measure to prevent further attacks.
        Furthermore the disputed territory has not been stolen from the ‘Palestinians’ or any other country because it never belonged to anybody else in the modern era. The aspirations of the ‘Palestinian’ people to have a state ultimately depends on them, not on Israel.

      • Mooser
        August 10, 2017, 8:50 pm

        7 powerful rhetorical blows for Zionism, “Mayhem”! I think anyone who reads your comment will know just how deep and how well-grounded (so to speak) the Zionists attachment to the Land of Israel is. And how much there is to stay for.

      • Mooser
        August 10, 2017, 8:53 pm

        “Are you arguing that the Mondoweiss website is not committed to convincing the public “that the State of Israel should never have come into existence”?

        You just will not read the “about” page, “Nathan”, will you. It is all right there on the “about” page.
        Read the “about” page and you will know what Mondo is all about, instead of making all these stupid accusations.

      • eljay
        August 10, 2017, 10:17 pm

        || Mayhem: @eljay, you conveniently forget that marginal, additional territory that Israel might have gained beyond its 1948 border has come about by Israel defending itself … ||

        Nope, I didn’t forget a thing. A country does not defend its borders by invading, militarily occupying and perpetually colonizing territory outside of its borders.

      • RoHa
        August 11, 2017, 2:40 am

        “1. Jews lived in the region for millennia, albeit at times as a small minority.”
        But they were native Palestinian Jews, not European Jews.
        “5. The hostility shown by the native Arab population toward Jewish settlers was based, in part, on prejudice against non-Muslims in general and Jews in particular,”
        Maybe, but mostly on their status as colonizers. The Zionists were uninvited foreigners. They entered the country with the avowed (loud and often) intent of taking over the country and setting up a state in which they would be top dogs, run for their benefit. They had no intention of becoming part of Palestinian Arabic society.
        By the 1920s they had already set up the basics of their separate society.
        They were insisting on their new language being used along with Arabic.
        They mostly did business only with each other, and, when possible, kept themselves cut off from the Palestinian Arabs.
        They bought up land and drove off the Arab tenant farmers.
        The people of Palestine understood perfectly well that this bunch of European settlers intended to take the land from them, and this intention was there even before the settlers arrived.

        “6. The Jewish colonizers were willing to share the land with the Arab natives up through 1947”
        No they weren’t.
        Before the establishment of Israel, the Palestinians (Muslim, Christian, and Jew) said that they were willing to share the country with the European Jews who had settled, and even to make Hebrew an official language of Palestine.
        But the Zionists wouldn’t share. They set up an alternative society, with institutions for the promotion of Jewish interests and from which locals were excluded. They wanted an exclusively Jewish State, starting in at least part of the land but with the avowed intention of taking the lot.

      • RoHa
        August 11, 2017, 2:41 am

        “Furthermore the disputed territory has not been stolen from the ‘Palestinians’ or any other country because it never belonged to anybody else in the modern era.”

        It belonged to the people who lived there.

      • Mooser
        August 11, 2017, 1:20 pm

        “RoHa” I’m having a problem deciding where this Zionist arrogance comes from. Could it be just the normal brusqueness and expectation-of-command that a world-dominant-for-centuries people rightfully assume, or is it more like the over-compensation, violent fantasies, and inappropriate feelings of power which may accompany a case of PTSD? Hard to tell.

    • Marnie
      July 27, 2017, 2:57 am

      It is a platform for honest reporting. The truth hurts though, right? Don’t kill the messenger because you don’t like the message. There has to be some space where the truth is on display. You can read any number of pro-israel websites to your heart’s content. But to demonize Mondoweiss because it reports the truth about israel is at best weakness and at worse incitement.

      • Nathan
        July 27, 2017, 7:52 am

        “Kill the messenger”, “to demonize Mondoweiss” and “incitement”? Marnie, don’t you think that you’re exaggerating? The Mondoweiss website has an ideology, and that’s just fine. To point out this obvious fact is not an act of violence (“kill the messenger”), it’s not the definition of the devil (“to demonize”), and it certainly not a call to burn your computer (“incitement”). I think that Mondoweiss is run by intelligent people who have finished high school already quite a long time ago. They should be able to handle some criticism without losing it entirely. So, here it is again: The website is not dedicated to objective, balanced or honest reporting. It is dedicated to its ideology.

      • Marnie
        July 27, 2017, 9:49 am

        Simply sick and tired of the zionist narrative obfuscating everything wrt Palestine and Palestinians. And constantly playing the eternal victim , while victimizing the Palestinians and crying like a fucking baby when they fight back. And killing anyone, literally or figuratively, who refuse to allow the lies to continue. Nathan, your just another hasbarat squatting on this site like it was east jerusalem. #sickofziobullshit

    • Paranam Kid
      July 27, 2017, 7:29 am

      Hey Nate, it might do you some good to brush up your knowledge of Palestine’s history (if such knowledge is present at all), because Resolution did NOT authorise the founding of Israel, nor did it authorise the Partition. Res. 181 just made recommendations. The Zionists went ahead to declare independence unilaterally, having instilled deep fear in the Brits, Americans & Palestinians following their incessant violent terror campaigns in British mandated Palestine. Within 1 year of its creation Israel stole 50% of the area designated to the Palestinians in the Partition Plan, and in 1967 stole the rest. UN resolutions calling on Israel to stop with its settlements building & to withdraw from the Stolen Palestinian Territories have thus far been flouted by Israel.

      The 2nd point is that Israel has now formally been described as an Apartheid state by the UN, with Apartheid ranked as the 2nd most serious crime against humanity, after Genocide. A number of South African Blacks & Coloureds who suffered under Apartheid themselves, have described Israel’s form of Apartheid as worse than the inventors of Apartheid.

      The 3rd point: Genocide. Officially Israel is not engaged in genocide, but it fulfills at least 3 of the UN’s 5 criteria set out in its definition of genocide. This is not surprising given the intense hatred the Zionists & the regime have for the Palestinians, which is borne out by various prime ministers, ministers, and even rabbis calling for genocide. A good example is Ayelet Shaked, that monstrous minister of injustice, comments on her Facebook page.

      Even leaving point 3 aside, points 1 & 2 are sufficient evidence that Israel in its current form has absolutely NO LEGITIMACY whatsoever. Even Israel’s claim to democracy is a fallacy: Jewish & democratic is a pure contradiction in terms if ever there was one. A country run by & for the sole benefit of 1 ethnic group over the other ethnicities is NOT a democracy by definition. Israel is an zionist ethnocracy that uses Judaism to hide its butchering, racist face.

      Mondoweiss does an outstanding job in exposing the ugliness of Israel in its full “glory”. Criticism of Israel has NOTHING to do with antisemitism, like criticism of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, or any other state for that matter, has nothing to with racism. Nor does antizionism have anything to with antisemitism, despite the zionists’ utterly spurious conflation of the 2 terms.

      So if you don’t like what Mondoweiss publishes, don’t read it.

      • Nathan
        July 27, 2017, 11:49 am

        Actually, Paranam Kid, I really enjoy reading Mondoweiss, and I recommend it to all my friends. Sometimes, you can read a boring mainstream Jewish newspaper, and it’s quite depressing. There’s no hope. Assimilation will bring about the disappearance of the Jewish people, Israel is alone in the world and she faces the threat of BDS which will bring her to her knees in abject poverty. But, then, I turn to my favorite newspaper which explains to me how it really is. The obsession with Zionism therein is almost as encouraging as reading the Arab press.

        On a serious note, I have only one question in the wake of all your accusations against the legitimacy of Israel. The unilateral declaration of independence is really very puzzling. I would assume from this grievance that generally on planet earth, the independence of states is declared on a bi-lateral or on a multi-lateral basis. However, as you noted, I don’t know anything about history. Nevertheless, I seem to remember having read about the American declaration of independence – and correct me if I’m confused – it was not a declaration of the Americans AND the British crown. It was, how unusual and strange, a declaration only of the one side in conflict. The same is true of the Texans in 1836 who didn’t ask for the participation of the Mexicans in their declaration. It was, how unusual and strange, a unilateral declaration (heaven help us). The same is true of the Palestinian declaration of independence in 1988. Please enlighten me. How did this grievance of unilateral declaration of indendence come into being? It leaves with me the impression that those who raise such a grievance haven’t really thought through the issue. It sounds as if something is very wrong (“unilateral is bad, bad, bad”), but actually it’s the most normal phenomenon in political science.

      • Mooser
        July 27, 2017, 6:18 pm

        “So if you don’t like what Mondoweiss publishes, don’t read it.”

        Don’t worry, he doesn’t.

      • The Hasbara Buster
        July 28, 2017, 9:55 am

        Nathan, your analogy is invalid, since no one is claiming that America or independent Texas were created by the UN or that there was something wrong about the British or the Mexicans fighting back.

        Admitting that the legitimacy of a country is a complex concept involving many aspects, there seems to be a consensus that a country becomes legitimate when the forces denying its right to exist finally accept it. This happened with the US and Britain, but not with Israel and the Palestinians. Israel stole Palestinian land through the Absentee Property Law, the Palestinians didn’t like it and the conflict has continued to this day. This has nothing to do with the conflicts from centuries past that you cite.

      • Talkback
        July 29, 2017, 3:48 am

        Nathan: ” The unilateral declaration of independence is really very puzzling.”

        Especially in the case of Israel. Independent from what? How can a colonial struggle paint itself as “anti-colonial”? And it also violated Security Council 46 of 17 April 1948:

        “1. Calls upon all persons and organizations in Palestine, and especially upon the Arab Higher Committee and the Jewish Agency, to take immediately, without prejudice to their rights, claims, or positions, and as a contribution to the well-being and permanent interests of Palestine, the following measures: …

        (d) Refrain, pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly, from any political activity which might prejudice the rights, claims, or position of either community;”

        Partition had been put on ice in April 1948. The leading proponent US went from supporting partition to supporting an UN trusteeship and others followed. The US tried to broker a truce. The Arabs accepted. The Jews didn’t. The US diplomat Robert Mccklintock noted:
        “The Jewish Agency refusal [of the truce] exposes its aim to set up its separate state by force of arms – the military action after May 15 will be conducted by the Haganah with the help of the terrorist organizations, the Irgun and LEHI, [and] the UN will face a distorted situation. The Jews will be the real aggressors against the Arabs, but will claim they are only defending the borders of the state, decided upon … by the General Assembly.”

        Has anything changed? Well no, see Israel’s declaration:
        “We appeal to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream – the REDEMPTION of Israel.”

        Settler colonialism and conquest in a nut shell.

        Nathan: “Nevertheless, I seem to remember having read about the American declaration …”

        It’s post 1945, Nathan. Settler colonialism is a violation of the right of self determination. Whether Zionists like it or not.

      • Nathan
        July 29, 2017, 4:04 pm

        Talkback – My claim was that any declaration of independence is a unilateral act. Perhaps you would like to answer by saying that you agree. Perhaps, you would like to disagree by citing examples of declarations of independence that weren’t unilateral. Actually, if you have some examples, I would happily admit that I was wrong (and thanks a lot for teaching me something new). However, your answer is just a repeat of your argument that Israel is a colonial project, and the establishment of statehood was illegal. I understand that this is your position, and I don’t even argue about it. The State of Israel exists, and that’s it.

        Hasbara Buster – The State of Israel is a member of the United Nations, so obviously it is a legitimate state. Your claim that there is ” a consensus that a country becomes legitimate when the forces denying its right to exist finally accept it”. Obviously, that is false. The State of Israel was accepted to the United Nations despite the opposition of the Islamic world.

        So there should be no misunderstandings, I might add that there are states that are not members of the UN, and yet they are legitimate states. There are states that are not recognized by other states (or only by a few states), but they are still legitimate states. Whenever there is a government that has effective control over territory with a permanent population, then there is a state – and that state is legitimate. There are no illegitimate states.

        There are so many UN decisions against Israel that it would be impossible to count them. You would imagine that at least in one of them it would be mentioned that “Israel is an illegal political entity”, or that “the founding of Israel negates the UN Charter” or whatever. However, the issue is not on the agenda of the international community, period. Sorry.

    • eljay
      July 27, 2017, 8:59 am

      || Nathan: … let’s be fair and objective about the reporting of the Mondoweiss website. An ideological publication meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel is not committed to honest reporting. … ||

      Yup, you can’t expect anti-rapist publications to be committed to honest reporting. After all, they’re meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of rapists. People like Nathan prefer the more-balanced publications that acknowledge the legitimacy of rapists and report honestly on their activities.

      • Nathan
        July 27, 2017, 10:52 am

        Instead of making comparisons with figments of your very strange imagination, eljay, I would suggest making comparisons with real publications in the service of an ideology. For example, did you ever have a chance to read Pravda during the Soviet era? There were many articles reporting on developments in the USA, but somehow (with all the good intentions of honest reporting) the bottom line was always the happy life in the Soviet Union and the misery of life in the collasping west. Shakespeare would have said that “methinks he doth protest too much”. In other words, there is something suspicious about the endless repetition of all the anti-Zionist slogans in this website. It would be nice to change the subject and to discuss how it might be possible to end the conflict. It really is pointless trying to convince us that Israel shouldn’t have been born, and the Jews should go back to Poland, or whatever is your picture of Never-Never-Land.

      • eljay
        July 27, 2017, 1:52 pm

        || Nathan: … there is something suspicious about the endless repetition of all the anti-Zionist slogans in this website. … ||

        In light of the endless repetition of Zionist slogans on MW, there’s nothing suspicious about the repetition of anti-Zionist slogans on MW.

        || … It would be nice to change the subject and to discuss how it might be possible to end the conflict. … ||

        Perhaps, then, you should have offered suggestions instead of just dumping on MW and its staff. There’s something suspicious about that…

        || .. It really is pointless trying to convince us that Israel shouldn’t have been born, and the Jews should go back to Poland, or whatever is your picture of Never-Never-Land. ||

        See what I mean? You say you want to change the subject, but you just keep on dumping.

      • Keith
        July 27, 2017, 4:36 pm

        NATHAN- ” It would be nice to change the subject and to discuss how it might be possible to end the conflict.”

        “Possible” to end the conflict? Due to the asymmetrical balance of power, Israel could easily end the conflict. Stop killing, harassing and making war on the non-Jews in the occupied territories. Make Israel a state of all of its citizens similar to all of the Western democracies. Begin by ending the blockade of Gaza. The only real problem would be the reaction of Zionist Jews in Israel and the US. Would Israel as a state of all of its citizens be a problem for you?

      • Talkback
        July 29, 2017, 3:53 am

        eljay: “Perhaps, then, you should have offered suggestions instead of just dumping on MW and its staff. There’s something suspicious about that…”

        Oh, you hit the nail on the head, eljay. Whenever Nathan realizes that he discussion is not going as planned he comes up with: Let’s change the issue and discuss how the conflict can be resolved.

    • stanvanhoucke
      July 27, 2017, 10:13 am

      without any proof this accusation is nog based on facts. so give us a fact.
      stan van houcke

    • Talkback
      July 27, 2017, 11:42 am

      Nathan: “An ideological publication meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel is not committed to honest reporting.”

      Remember this moment, Nathan. It is the moment you have finally realized that you, too, have failed to convince the public of the legitimacy of Israel. And this may have to do with the knowledge that others have acquired, because of the honest reporting of Mondoweiss regarding the nature and history of Zionism.

      From now on you will share the fate of other ideological commenters who made the same experience and whose intellectual dishonesty made them resort to MW bashing instead of accepting their failure.

      It will never go up from this point Nathan. You will become bitter and desperate and sooner then later you are going to reach rock bottom and start to endulge in the imbecile accusation of hate. Either hate towards Israel or if you are a very stupid hatred towards Jews. You look at some pathetic Zionist commenters on MW who sometimes crawl out of their holes and have nothing to add but their hateful accusations.

      • Nathan
        July 27, 2017, 12:59 pm

        Talkback – I don’t really know what you are trying to say to me. I don’t try to convince the public of the legitimacy of Israel. It’s not even an issue on my agenda. When a state comes into being, it is legitimate, period. It could be that the birth of the state is challenged by others. An example would be the Confederate States of America. Since it failed the test of war, that political entity ceased to exist. However, theoretically speaking, if the CSA had withstood the challenge of war, it would have become a legitimate political entity, obviously. Israel was founded, and her neighbors challenged her right to be born. However, Israel succeeded, and so she exists. Was it legitimate to have founded the Jewish state? It’s an irrelevant question. The state was born, period. Theoretically, Israel could be invaded and destroyed, and she would ceased to exist. Would that mean that her enemies had a right to do so? It’s an irrelevant question. She would no longer exist, period. A state exists when there is a government in effective control of a particular territory with a permanent population. It’s always legitimate.

        It’s similar to the birth of a child. You can scream all you want that the child is illegitimate, and that he should not have been born. It’s a waste of energy. He was born and that’s it. He doesn’t have to explain to you why he is here. He is here, period – even without your approval. If you want him to disappear, you will have to act against him with violence. However, you must take into account that this child doesn’t agree with you that he shouldn’t exist. He sees things very differently. He will fight for his life.

        All the efforts to convince the world that Israel shouldn’t exist is just a strange hobby. The Jews didn’t have a right to come to Palestine? But they came, and they’re not going back. The Arabs didn’t agree to the founding of a Jewish state in Palestine? But it was founded, and they didn’t succeed in preventing it. It’s not a legitimate state? Well, any state that comes into existence and survives the challenges of statehood is legitimate – and this is true even if Yoni could prove that King Herod wasn’t the king of Judea (or that David is a fictional character). Zionism is a colonial project? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn’t matter one bit.

        Now, perhaps we could discuss some other subject on Mondoweiss. Do you have any suggestions as to how to reach a peaceful end of the conflict?

      • amigo
        July 27, 2017, 2:23 pm

        “A state exists when there is a government in effective control of a particular territory with a permanent population”. Nathan

        Except for the 5 million Palestinians non permanent populace which your so called Jewish and democratic state has spent decades trying to expel.What shall we call them!!!. “Illegitimate” citizens or would “non Jews ” suffice.

        “Now, perhaps we could discuss some other subject on Mondoweiss. ” nathan

        How about discussing the map of Israel (sans frontiere ) with us.Do you have a map ??.

        Or maybe you would rather talk about how Israel the creator of cherry toms and invented the Cell phone and is leading , (saving ) the world through it,s life saving medical technology and reaching it,s hand over the oceans and turning sea water into drinkable H2o.

        Or we could talk about Israel sending it,s medical personnel to remote parts of the world to aid the victims of earthquakes or any number of natural disasters.We dare not mention the fact that they use these disasters to burnish Israel,s image .God knows they need to.

        Do you have any suggestions as to how to reach a peaceful end of the conflict?.Nathan.

        Thanks for saving the easiest question for last.

        Answer ! , Get the hell out of Palestine and take your illegal squatters with you and try finding somewhere else to set up your “Jewish supremacist and Apartheid , illegitimate state .Best of luck with that .

        Tick, Tick ,Tick.

      • eljay
        July 27, 2017, 2:46 pm

        || Nathan: … Now, perhaps we could discuss some other subject on Mondoweiss. Do you have any suggestions as to how to reach a peaceful end of the conflict? ||

        Since you raised the topic, you should be the first person to offer suggestions. So what are your suggestions?

      • eljay
        July 27, 2017, 2:51 pm

        || amigo: … “Now, perhaps we could discuss some other subject on Mondoweiss. ” nathan

        How about discussing the map of Israel (sans frontiere ) with us.Do you have a map ??. ||

        Good point.

        ————————-

        Hi, Nathan. I’d like to discuss the subject of Israel’s borders.

        I’ll go first: I believe that Israel’s borders should be the Partition borders Israel accepted and within which it was recognized as a state.

        Your turn: Please tell me – as precisely as possible – what you believe Israel’s borders should be.

        Thank you for agreeing to discuss this subject here on MW. :-)

      • amigo
        July 27, 2017, 3:35 pm

        “Hi, Nathan. I’d like to discuss the subject of Israel’s borders.” eljay.

        I am off to wet my whistle and will leave the subject matter in your capable hands.

        Btw, expect Echi to intercede. Wanna bet a pint on it.We can discuss payment method later.Paypal is not an option.I believe you are aware of their policies regarding Palestinians.

      • eljay
        July 27, 2017, 4:58 pm

        || amigo: … I am off to wet my whistle and will leave the subject matter in your capable hands. … ||

        Cheers! :-)

        || … Btw, expect Echi to intercede. Wanna bet a pint on it. … ||

        No need: I’m well aware of his disdain for any discussion about Israel that doesn’t involve dismantling the state and driving Jews out of Palestine.

      • Mooser
        July 27, 2017, 6:53 pm

        “It will never go up from this point Nathan.”

        He might adopt the Zionist lorem ipsum mode and drivel constantly.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 27, 2017, 8:07 pm

        Eljay,

        So you coopting the narrative of the Zionists too? Like anybody actually have the time and money, as well as the psychological disturbance to drive Jews out of Palestine?

        Echinoccuss views are in line with the views of flagship activists for Palestinian rights. If Jews want to remain in Palestine they should yield to the laws of the land, not laws of the Zionists. These laws would reflect local customs, traditions, interests of multitudes of stakeholders of varying statuses, history and such. At the end of the day, the land is always Palestine. Whether you are Jew, a Christian or a Muslim, you must yield to the laws of the land that serves to maintance peace and order for everyone living in it.

      • Nathan
        July 27, 2017, 8:27 pm

        eljay – I’d be quite happy to discuss borders. There is an agreement between Israel and the PLO, known as “Oslo 2”. It was signed on Sept 28, 1995. It is really an important document in that both sides have actually signed it (as well as the USA, the UN, the EU, Russia, etc). There both sides committed themselves to negotiating the borders within the framework of the end-of-conflict. Since the commitment is to negotiate borders, it’s obvious that we are not talking about an existing border (the Partition Plan or the Green Line). So, when the two sides agree to end the conflict, this agreement will include a new border. Whatever will be agreed upon, will be fine with me (and the world community that signed the Oslo Agreement). Would that be fine with you?

        Amigo – As sad as it might be for you, in Oslo it was agreed that Israel and the PLO will negotiate an end of conflict. Your plan, as brilliant and as practical that it might be, is not in the cards. There are five topics that must be worked out: Refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, Palestinian statehood, borders. Sorry. The issue of removing Israel is not on the agenda. Actually, the Palestinians claim that they have recognized Israel with the signing of Oslo, so I guess she’ll have to stay. You can handle that.

      • eljay
        July 27, 2017, 8:53 pm

        || Bont Eastlake: Eljay,

        So you coopting the narrative of the Zionists too? … ||

        co-opt: to take into a group (such as a faction, movement, or culture) : absorb, assimilate

        Nope. AFAIK, Zionists do not believe that Partition borders are the borders of the “Jewish State” of (Greater) Israel.

        Now please hush. I’m trying to have a discussion with Nathan and I don’t want you to frighten him off. Thank you.

      • eljay
        July 27, 2017, 9:34 pm

        || Nathan: eljay – I’d be quite happy to discuss borders. … ||

        That’s nice. :-)

        || … There is an agreement between Israel and the PLO, known as “Oslo 2”. … Whatever will be agreed upon, will be fine with me … ||

        Got it. So, for now, you have no notion of what you believe Israel’s borders should be.

        || … Would that be fine with you? ||

        I prefer to see final borders determined by negotiations:
        – conducted in good faith between two secular and democratic states of and for all of their citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally;
        – moderated by a neutral, America-free body; and
        – using Partition borders as a starting point.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 27, 2017, 9:57 pm

        Eljay,

        The narrative I am talking about is we pro-Palestinian activists want to drive Jews into the sea after dismantling the Israeli state.

        Firstly, I along with many activists do believe the Israeli state should and will be dismantled. But not through hostile outside forces, but through ideological and intellectual victory over Zionism. Key tactic to achieve this victory is the BDS campaign.

        Secondly, it is in nobodys interest to round up the Jews and drive them anywhere, let alone into the sea. The goal is to bring Jews into the fold of anti-Zionism and absorb them into the Palestinian national identity which grant them equal rights with the Muslims and Christians. If they were to reject this proposition, they can by their own volition, move elsewhere.

      • echinococcus
        July 27, 2017, 10:52 pm

        Eljay,

        As long as you defend the Zionist colonial settlement, it somehow is a duty to remind you that the Zionist presence is totally illegal since 1897, that the British collaboration with the Zionists is criminal and that justice requires the undoing of the colonial settlement in the absence of a really representative decision by the Palestinian people.

        You have only ever defended a firmly Zionist position and your propaganda finds many followers among the liberaloid who hate questions that may exacerbate conflicts if scratched deep enough –no matter if right or wrong. That is why you must be denounced.

        Your good intentions to act nice are appreciated. You give precedence to your own opinion on democracy, the brotherhood of man, peaceful cohabitation and the like over the bare, imprescribable right of the Palestinian people. But you never even bothered to present argument or proof that any Zionist presence in Palestine is legitimate in any way or wise.

        So let’s hear it: what makes the illegal recognition by the colonialist powers of the Zionist invasion suddenly acceptable? Itemized, please. And we’re saying “right”, not to be read “might” like the Zionist scum do.

      • RoHa
        July 28, 2017, 4:24 am

        The Oslo accords look like a dead letter now.

      • Talkback
        July 28, 2017, 5:44 am

        Nathan: “I don’t really know what you are trying to say to me.”

        Yes, that’s the beauty of it. Hasbarats don’t even understand why they fail and why we are all heaving a laugh.

        Nathan: “I don’t try to convince the public of the legitimacy of Israel. It’s not even an issue on my agenda.”

        ROFL. Yeah, sure. So why again do you accuse MW of being unable to honest reporting if it allegedly convinces others of he illegitimacy of Israel? Oh right, because its alleged legitimacy is not an issue on your agenda.

        Nathan: “When a state comes into being, it is legitimate, period.”

        Yeah, sure. Like Rhodesia or Nothern Cyprus and all the other sates which disprove your baseless simple claim. Your colonial mindset shows your total disrespect for the right to self determination of the indigineous people and citizens of a country.

        Nathan: “Was it legitimate to have founded the Jewish state? It’s an irrelevant question.”

        Outside of the Kahane continuum the legitimacy of the secession of a state is a very relevant question international law, because it deals with the defensive right to self determination of the majority of citizens and their right to the territorial integrity of their country. Of course it’s irrelevant for you, because Israel violated these rights but it as long as Jews are not the victims … right?

        Nathan: “Theoretically, Israel could be invaded and destroyed, and she would ceased to exist. Would that mean that her enemies had a right to do so? It’s an irrelevant question. She would no longer exist, period.”

        What’s next, Nathan? That you claim that the question if the Nazis had the right to invade and destroy countries is also irrelevant. Or only as long as they succeded?

        Nathan: “A state exists when there is a government in effective control of a particular territory with a permanent population. It’s always legitimate.”

        You confuse criterias for statehood with the legitimacy of state creation. And you continue to fail your claim with any legal source.

        Nathan: “It’s similar to the birth of a child. You can scream all you want that the child is illegitimate, and that he should not have been born. It’s a waste of energy. He was born and that’s it. He doesn’t have to explain to you why he is here. He is here, period – even without your approval. If you want him to disappear, you will have to act against him with violence. However, you must take into account that this child doesn’t agree with you that he shouldn’t exist. He sees things very differently. He will fight for his life.”

        Israel is not the child. Historic Palestine is. Zionism is just the rapist.

        Nathan: “The Jews didn’t have a right to come to Palestine?”

        Do Jews have the right to enter any country they wish to? Or do countries have the right to control immigration?

        Nathan: “Well, any state that comes into existence and survives the challenges of statehood is legitimate …”

        Yep, the third time you are making this ridiciulous claim without any legal backup. Keep failing.

        Nathan: “Zionism is a colonial project? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn’t matter one bit.”

        Sure, it doesn’t matter to supremacist Jewish settlers. But it does to civilized people in post colonial times regarding the right to self determination.

        Nathan: “Now, perhaps we could discuss some other subject on Mondoweiss.”

        That’s perfect, Nathan. The main topic is that “Israel is losing the battle for public opinion …” and you demonstrate why. For example by distracting from the subject with your next question:

        Nathan: Do you have any suggestions as to how to reach a peaceful end of the conflict?””

        Yep. Israel should stop violating international law and the fundamental rights of Palestinian Nonjews. Oh wait, from your point of view that’s “irrelevant” and doesn’t “matter one bit”, too, right? Or not, because it would lead to the “destruction” of a state that it’s based on the permanent violation of these laws and rights?

        That’s how you make a case for Israel’s legitimacy so far: By ignoring every legitimate principle. You are so Israeli it hurts. Maybe literally, too.

        Nathan: “So, when the two sides agree to end the conflict, this agreement will include a new border. Whatever will be agreed upon, will be fine with me (and the world community that signed the Oslo Agreement). Would that be fine with you?”

        Yeah, sounds brilliant. And please make sure that Israel always find something that it can’t agree upon to prolong its raping.

      • eljay
        July 28, 2017, 8:53 am

        || Bont Eastlake: Eljay,

        The narrative I am talking about is we pro-Palestinian activists want to drive Jews into the sea after dismantling the Israeli state. … ||

        In which case you are wrong again. (No surprise there.) I haven’t said that anyone wants to “drive Jews into the sea”.

        || … Firstly, I … do believe the Israeli state should and will be dismantled. … Key tactic to achieve this victory is the BDS campaign. … ||

        BDS = destruction of the state of Israel is the Zionist narrative. That’s interesting, Zionist Bont.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 28, 2017, 2:45 pm

        BDS = destruction of the state of Israel is the Zionist narrative. That’s interesting, Zionist Bont.

        remember when gamal wrote Bont was “a perfect rightwing caricature of a “leftist”” (and mooser “what a distinguished lineage our “Bont Eastlake” has!”)?
        http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/palestinian-movement-boycott/

        that was after bont advocated citizen get banned. if he didn’t exist nathan would have to invent him.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 28, 2017, 10:01 am

        Eljay,

        BDS is a means to an end,among many others. I strongly agree with all of its pledged objectives including recognizing Israels right to exist within the pre-67 borders.

        Through the realisation of the objectives set by BDS, we can accelerate the collapse of the Israeli state as a political entity through isolation. This is because, we understand that the border means very little to Israel if a legally recognized Palestinian state exist next to it. It breaks the existential narrative of the Israel, making it internally unstable and politically fragile.

        The Jewish identity will no longer offer tangible privileges as all Israelis will be Jews, leading to breakdown of national identity, of what makes a person Israeli. As religion is no longer a focus point of Israeli politics, other factors will rise up like race, ethnicity, social class, language and foreign policy. It will be like the divide between the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis during the split between Pakistan and East Pakistan.

      • amigo
        July 28, 2017, 2:06 pm

        “Amigo – As sad as it might be for you, in Oslo it was agreed that Israel and the PLO will negotiate an end of conflict.” Nathan.

        Not sad at all .The Oslo accords were a sham, so much so that Netanyahu set about negating them.He even bragged about it.

        Your problem is one of overuse of the tactic of selective application of Laws/agreements/accords.Israel has broken almost, if not every commitment it made “IN OSLO” .So cut the bs about Oslo , unless you are prepared to honour all of it.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-5hUG6Os68

        Now back to my previous request!.

        Where is the map.

        Btw , do you suffer from “linkaphobia”.You should seek help.I am sure the folks at Hasbara Central can be of assistance given the disease is not surprisingly , to be found in copious amounts in the zionosphere and given Israel,s uncontested supremacy in all areas of medical technology , a cure should be only a phone call away.

      • oldgeezer
        July 28, 2017, 2:44 pm

        @nathan

        Area C was to be transferred to PA control by 2009. Now Israel is drooling over settling it and driving Palestinians out of it.

        What’s your excuse? We can be sure you have one.

        Oslo my ass. More israeli lies and cover for criminality.

      • eljay
        July 28, 2017, 4:14 pm

        || Bont Eastlake: Eljay,

        BDS is a means to an end,among many others. I strongly agree with all of its pledged objectives including recognizing Israels right to exist within the pre-67 borders. … ||

        You and echinococcus may be a pair of “pro-Palestinian activists”, but the “he” in your “we” does not recognize Israel’s right to exist within pre-’67 borders. You may want to PM him to get your “pro-Palestinian activist” stories straight.

      • eljay
        July 28, 2017, 4:20 pm

        || echinococcus: Eljay … You have only ever defended a firmly Zionist position … ||

        You and your alter ego, Bont, have a bad habit of getting things entirely wrong.

        The Zionist position is Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

        I have never defended that position.

        But, sure, whatever you say.

      • Mooser
        July 28, 2017, 4:58 pm

        The Jewish identity will no longer offer tangible privileges as all Israelis will be Jews, leading to breakdown of national identity, of what makes a person Israeli”

        So, to make “all Israelis will be Jews” happen, do you envision a mass conversion, conversion by small groups and families, or individual conversions?
        Anyway, “Nathan” or “Boris” would have more ideas about how to make all-Israelis-become-Jews campaign work.

      • echinococcus
        July 28, 2017, 9:55 pm

        Eljay,

        The very basis of Zionism is pretending to a, any, racist right to sovereignty on other people’s land.

        Recognizing a legitimate foothold to the Zionist invaders in Palestine is exactly what you do, in exchange for –sit down– equal rights and fraternity and other nice bosh, **without the express permission of the owners of the place**, who are the Palestinian people as of 1897,or 1917 at the latest.

        If you want to discuss anything, be f**** precise.

        You and your alter ego, Bont, have a bad habit of getting things entirely wrong.

        The Zionist position is Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

        Calling it “religion supremacist” is also diverting and misrepresenting the problem, as you so many times were called on and never ever bothered to even read.

        I have never defended that position.

        Slithery technicalities. Of course you continue defending that there is some “Israel” proper, to which you recognize full legitimacy, and a “Non-Israel” which is the 1967 line, or at least the 1949 line. In fact, you somehow only have that line to sell.

        “You and your alter ego, Bont…

        So that’s about the size of your discriminating powers, eh? I just hope for your own sake that you are pretending.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 28, 2017, 11:15 pm

        Mooser,

        The creation of a Palestinian state outside of the 67 borders effectively mean we have a two state solution but not two equitable states. Palestine will be a secular nationalist state that offers equal rights to all its citizens. Israel will have to choose to remain pro-Jewish otherwise they wont have any reason to exist next to the Palestinian state.

        Non Jews of Israel would choose to be citizens of Palestine as a political act to Israeli apartheid. Jews of Israel will have to deal with material realities in living within a set border and no more illegal expansion to feed their privileged lifestyles.

        Religion is good as long as it pays the bill. But when you have to pay the bills, secular identities will be the driving force of your politics. Mizrahi or Arab Jews will be motivated to side with the ethnically and culturally familar Palestine, than the religiously familiar but Ashkenazi run Israeli state. Ashkenazis on the other hand will develop greater distrust of their brown Jews, so will the black Jews. It will be an unsustainable arrangement that will surely lead to the implosion of the Jewish state.

      • Talkback
        July 29, 2017, 4:07 am

        Eljay: “The Zionist position is Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

        I have never defended that position.”

        That’s a very dishonest answer, because you are shifting the argument. ecchi wrote:

        “But you never even bothered to present argument or proof that any Zionist presence in Palestine is legitimate in any way or wise.

        So let’s hear it: what makes the illegal recognition by the colonialist powers of the Zionist invasion suddenly acceptable?”

        You seem to evade answering the question,eljay.

      • eljay
        July 29, 2017, 11:09 am

        || Talkback: Eljay: “The Zionist position is Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

        I have never defended that position.”

        That’s a very dishonest answer, because you are shifting the argument. … ||

        echinococcus made the following accusation: “You have only ever defended a firmly Zionist position … ”

        My comment was an honest and direct reply to his direct accusation.

        It’s very dishonest of you to accuse me of dishonesty and of shifting the argument.

      • Mooser
        July 29, 2017, 12:09 pm

        “Bont”, you spin so fast that if your left hand was a radial inflow turbine, and your right hand a centrifugal compressor, you could work as a turbocharger.

      • echinococcus
        July 29, 2017, 1:09 pm

        Eljay,

        In case you couldn’t figure it out on your own,

        – Recognizing (and repepatedly, relentlessly affirming) the legitimacy of **any** illegally imported Zionist presence in Palestine (or other already inhabited territory) IS a Zionist argument. Not that compromises cannot be made, but as a statement of principle it remains a Zionist argument.

        – Not responding to this but bringing in unrelated stuff every time you are called on your position IS evading the question.

        – Not responding to the objection that any colonialist setup can be legitimately overturned, including colonialist decisions at the UN in violation of the very UN Charter, IS evading the question

        – Not responding to the objection that Palestinian rights have precedence over utopian requests for equal rights with illegal invaders, regardless of any supremacy talk, IS evading the question.

        I’m done trying to discuss with you –your pigheaded insistence cannot be seen as a simple reasoning problem.

      • eljay
        July 29, 2017, 3:57 pm

        || echinococcus: Eljay, blahblahblah ||

        Sure, whatever you say.

        || … I’m done trying to discuss with you … ||

        I highly doubt it.

      • Talkback
        July 29, 2017, 4:22 pm

        eljay: “echinococcus made the following accusation: “You have only ever defended a firmly Zionist position … ”

        My comment was an honest and direct reply to his direct accusation.

        It’s very dishonest of you to accuse me of dishonesty and of shifting the argument.”

        It is very clear from my quote from echis comment what he considered to be “a” firmly Zionist position. It is also very clear how you shifted this position to your straw man version which has nothing to do with his position and his question. You shifted his argument to a straw man argument.

        Instead of finally answering his question, you chose to evade it for the second time and now you accuse me of being dishonest. Your second response is not only dishonest. but also pathetic.

        Let me guess.Your next response won’t answer his question neither, but will be even more dishonest and pathetic.

      • Mooser
        July 29, 2017, 4:36 pm

        “I’m done trying to discuss with you –your pigheaded insistence cannot be seen as a simple reasoning problem.”

        “Echin” when you go to Palestine to fight the war against the Zionist invader, nobody expects you to bring a regiment of committed fighters with you.

      • eljay
        July 29, 2017, 6:12 pm

        || Talkback: It is very clear from my quote from echis comment what he considered to be “a” firmly Zionist position. It is also very clear how you shifted this position to your straw man version which has nothing to do with his position and his question. You shifted his argument to a straw man argument. … ||

        I addressed his accusation directly. No shifting, no straw-man argument.

        || … Instead of finally answering his question, you chose to evade it for the second time … ||

        I didn’t evade his question, I chose to ignore it.

        || … and now you accuse me of being dishonest. … ||

        I accused you of being dishonest because you were being dishonest.

        || … Your second response is not only dishonest. but also pathetic. … ||

        Pathetic, sure. Horribly, sadly and devastatingly pathetic. But dishonest? No, that’s his thing. Unfortunately, you seem to be making it your thing, too. :-(

        || Let me guess.Your next response won’t answer his question neither, but will be even more dishonest and pathetic. ||

        Good guess: I chose not to answer his question. So now I’m even more horribly, sadly and devastatingly pathetic. But still not dishonest.

      • Talkback
        July 29, 2017, 9:34 pm

        eljay: “I addressed his accusation directly. No shifting, no straw-man argument.”

        No you didn’t. He accused you of defending the “the Zionist colonial settlement” by “recognizing a legitimate foothold to the Zionist invaders in Palestine” while you shift the argument by saying that you don’t defend “Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.” But that was never echis accusation.

        eljay: “I accused you of being dishonest because you were being dishonest.”

        Yes, your accusation is just another pathetic lie, because you even claim yourself that you choose to ‘ignore’ his question which means that you admit that you DON’T address his accusation at all. It’s obvious that you CAN’T answer his question.

        Can anyone even expect more from you than constant repetitions? Something like a debate? An honest debate?

      • Sibiriak
        July 29, 2017, 9:55 pm

        echinococcus: Eljay, As long as you defend the Zionist colonial settlement…
        —————–

        I’ve had my disagreements with Eljay, but it can’t recall a single instance of his defending Zionist colonial settlement or Zionism in any other shape or form.

        Eljay has consistently held the position that Zionism is an immoral form of supremacy that never has and never will have any kind of legitimacy. True, he characterizes Zionist Jewish-supremacism as “fundamentally religious-based”, and there can be reasonable argument on that point. But the fact remains –Eljay has unwaveringly condemned Zionism.

        [echinococcus:] But you [Eljay] never even bothered to present argument or proof that any Zionist presence in Palestine is legitimate in any way or wise.

        Why would he? He has repeated ad infinitum that Zionism is irredeemably and inalterably immoral and that any manifestation of Zionism in Palestine is completely illegitimate. If Jewish supremacism were completely eliminated in Israel/Palestine– as Eljay tirelessly advocates– there would be no effective presence of Zionism remaining. By definition Zionism cannot exist without Jewish supremacism.

      • eljay
        July 29, 2017, 10:31 pm

        || Talkback: eljay: “I addressed his accusation directly. No shifting, no straw-man argument.”

        No you didn’t. … ||

        Yes I did. He said, and I quote(d): “You have only ever defended a firmly Zionist position … ”

        I explained what (IMO) the Zionist position is and I stated correctly that I have never defended that position.

        || … Yes, your accusation is just another pathetic lie, because you even claim yourself that you choose to ‘ignore’ his question which means that you admit that you DON’T address his accusation at all. … ||

        I chose to ignore his question. I directly addressed his accusation. Your dishonesty is getting the better of you.

        || … Can anyone even expect more from you than constant repetitions? Something like a debate? An honest debate? ||

        A debate? An honest debate? Probably not. :-(

        What anyone can expect from me – what I strive to offer – is a consistent opinion:
        – Jewish is a religion-based identity, and the religion-based identity of Jewish does not comprise a right to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine or anywhere else.
        – Israel exists but must reform from a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews into a secular and democratic state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.
        – Israel must end its on-going occupation and colonization of not-Israel and withdraw to within its / Partition borders.
        – Israel must honour its obligations under international law including RoR (or compensation in lieu).
        – Israel must accept responsibility and accountability for its past and on-going (war) crimes.
        – Israel must enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.
        – A secular and democratic Israel should continue to exist next to a secular and democratic not-Israel.
        – If at some point in the future the voting publics of the two secular and democratic states decide to merge their respective states into one, thereby “ending” Israel, that is an acceptable democratic outcome.

        If you don’t like my opinion, feel free to ignore it or to debate, honestly debate it with echinococcus.

      • eljay
        July 29, 2017, 10:41 pm

        || Sibiriak: … I’ve had my disagreements with Eljay … ||

        I disagree. ;-)

        || … but it can’t recall a single instance of his defending Zionist colonial settlement or Zionism in any other shape or form. … ||

        Thanks for the positive comment, Sibiriak. :-)

      • Sibiriak
        July 30, 2017, 12:03 am

        talkback: you DON’T address his accusation at all.
        —————————-

        Echinococcus’ accusation is completely groundless and inane. Eljay has never defended Zionism and has never bestowed any legitimacy on any manifestation of Zionism, ever.

        So let’s hear it: what makes the illegal recognition by the colonialist powers of the Zionist invasion suddenly acceptable?

        Is Eljay on record affirming such acceptability? Quotation please.

        Eljay states:

        Israel exists but must reform from a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews into a secular and democratic state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

        If that were to happen, then Zionism would effectively cease to exist in Israel/Palestine. Calling for the annihilation of Zionism is the exact opposite of accepting the “illegal recognition by the colonialist powers of the Zionist invasion.”

        ———————————–

        [ Echinococcus: ] Recognizing (and repepatedly, relentlessly affirming) the legitimacy of **any** illegally imported Zionist presence in Palestine (or other already inhabited territory) IS a Zionist argument.

        Eljay has consistently argued that any presence of Zionism in Israel/Palestine is immoral, illegitimate and unacceptable. Period.

        Eljay’s calling for the annihilation of Zionism in Israel/Palestine is most certainly not a Zionist argument.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 30, 2017, 2:51 am

        agreed, thanks Sibiriak. i greatly value eljay’s contributions here.

      • echinococcus
        July 30, 2017, 12:36 am

        Sibiriak,

        I somehow expect a lot of people here not to see it. Really: there is this somewhat widespread mania of striving for a solution in terms of final settlement ob jectives –without bothering at all to even get authorization by the owners of the place.

        I just don’t care what happens in Palestine, except that any invader presence at all, no matter if pre-48 or pie-in-the-sky secular-democratic-brotherly-love or whatever, must be duly authorized by a representative plebiscite of all Palestinians excluding the invaders. I don’t give a damn if a Palestinian plebiscite ends up requesting a secular democratic state or a theocracy or a dictatorship of the proletariat or anything else the Palestinians want for their own place, period. That such an authorization is made impossible by the Zionist occupation does not justify deciding in lieu of the owners of the place.

        I also consider any attempt to legitimize any invader presence in Palestine, otherwise than as authorized under the above stated conditions, as providing a justification to Zionists. Equality, secular democracy and all these nice geegaws are not a valid excuse.

        Below are a couple samples out of a total of >190 from Eljay. No authorization from Palestinians is requested anywhere and multiple objections about Palestinian assent (and exclusively Palestinian right to decide) have all been answered with the arrogance of someone who has the key to heavens and decides for the Palestinians what they should be doing in their own country (= all of Palestine.)

        Enough anyway: now the different camps are getting much better delineated.

        ————————————————————–
        “I believe that Israel’s borders should be the Partition borders Israel accepted and within which it was recognized as a state.”

        ” Israel exists but must reform from a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews into a secular and democratic state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.
        – Israel must end its on-going occupation and colonization of not-Israel and withdraw to within its / Partition borders.

        – A secular and democratic Israel should continue to exist next to a secular and democratic not-Israel.”

        “Religion-supremacist and (war) criminal “Jewish State” has no right to exist. It must be torn down and replaced with secular, democratic and law-abiding Israel – a state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally. There’s nothing wrong with such a state having a population comprised of a majority of non-Jewish Israelis and a minority of Jewish Israelis.”

        “Jerusalem – tied or untied – should be a free city and the capital of neither a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israel* nor a secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestine.
        (*Israel, not supremacist “Jewish State”.)”

        “I’d rather see a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israel – a state of and for all Israelis, equally, established within its / Partition borders – survive alongside a secular, democratic and egalitarian Palestinian state – a state of and for all Palestinians, equally.”

        “I have no problem with a secular, democratic and egalitarian Israel – a state of and for all Israelis – regulating its territory for the benefit of all of its Israeli citizens.”

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 30, 2017, 1:02 am

        —“By definition Zionism cannot exist without Jewish supremacism”—

        But definition alone is not enough to accurately characterize the political status of Israel.

        Jewish supremacism itself is so vague and subjective it is worthless for use in crafting political strategy. Nobody in the field of activists would classify Israeli policy and actions as anywhere near Jewish, or inspired by Judaism.

        Netanyahu isnt an Jewish rabbi, he is a secular leader from an European ancestry with strong European affinities. So is Bennett, so is Herzog and Livni. Israeli government is by all measures, a Western European-rooted framework of governance. There is no council of rabbis pulling the strings, as you would expect if it was Jewish supremacist. The Torah plays zero role in policymaking.

        Zionism itself was conceived by a subset of European Jews, who were mostly irreligious or atheists. These people dont represent Jews nor Judaism, they represented only themselves. Considering all of them were motivated to pursue Zionism through non-Jewish European zeitgeist that were based on racial identity, Eurocentrism, Orientalism, capitalism and secularism, it is ridiculous to suggest Zionism cant exist without Jewish supremacism. Jewish identity was an obstacle in Zionism, not a motivator.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 30, 2017, 3:42 am

        “By definition Zionism cannot exist without Jewish supremacism”—

        But definition alone is not enough to accurately characterize the political status of Israel.

        so what? whether or not the definition of zionism (“alone”) accurately characterize the political status of Israel doesn’t refute the argument, that Zionism cannot exist without Jewish supremacism.

        Nobody in the field of activists would classify Israeli policy and actions as anywhere near Jewish, or inspired by Judaism.

        nobody? hmm. i don’t think so. and “Jewish” doesn’t always mean “inspired by Judaism”, the two are not inherently interchangeable — nor did Sibiriak infer they were. so why are you choosing to insert judaism into your response?

        Jewish supremacism itself is so vague and subjective it is worthless for use in crafting political strategy.

        not really. in israel Jewish supremacism is neither vague nor subjective, it’s pervasive.

        it is ridiculous to suggest Zionism cant exist without Jewish supremacism

        it is ridiculous to suggest Zionism has ever been manifest without Jewish supremacism.

        Jewish identity was an obstacle in Zionism, not a motivator.

        was? is? please explain.

      • Talkback
        July 30, 2017, 5:30 am

        eljay: “Yes I did. He said, and I quote(d): “You have only ever defended a firmly Zionist position … ”

        I explained what (IMO) the Zionist position is and I stated correctly that I have never defended that position.”

        So you are even admitting now that you are only adressing what IN YOUR OPINION is “the” Zionist position and timplicitly admit that you don’t adress echis opinion of what is “a” firmly Zionist position he accuses you of defending at all. So much for who is being dishonest.

        He acuses you of defending the Zionist violation of the right to self determination in Palestine while you claim that his accusation is wrong, because you don’t defend the result of this violation. I can’t say that you don’t get it, because you just have to “ignore” your cognitive dissonance.

        eljay: “I chose to ignore his question. I directly addressed his accusation. Your dishonesty is getting the better of you.”

        The position he accused you of defending is reformulated as a question whch you chose to ignore to answer. Your contradiction is even as stupid as your accusation of dishonesty and the fact that you even admit that you chose to address only what the main issue in YOUR opinion is.

        eljay: “What anyone can expect from me – what I strive to offer – is a consistent opinion:”

        You are not even honest enough to quote me when I’m explaining the differences: “He accused you of defending the “the Zionist colonial settlement” by “recognizing a legitimate foothold to the Zionist invaders in Palestine” while you shift the argument by saying that you don’t defend “Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.”

        But that was NEVER echis accusation.

        eljay: “If you don’t like my opinion, feel free to ignore it or to debate, honestly debate it with echinococcus.”

        It’s not about liking your position or not. It is about you evading echis question which deals with a fundamental position of Zionism you don’t want to adress.

        Sibiriak: “… it can’t recall a single instance of his defending Zionist colonial settlement or Zionism in any other shape or form.”

        ROFL Just have a look at his list of “reFORMations” the Zionist colonial national settlement needs to undertake in his eyes. There you have a “form” of Zionist colonial settlements he accepts and implicitly “defends” according to echis accusation.

        Sibiriak: “If Jewish supremacism were completely eliminated in Israel/Palestine– as Eljay tirelessly advocates– there would be no effective presence of Zionism remaining. By definition Zionism cannot exist without Jewish supremacism.”

        That’s your claim. But the thing is that eljay can’t explain why Jewish settler should even have a right to settle in Palestine and create a state. Do you want to claim that it is not “a” firmly Zionist position to have these rights if not “the” firmly Zionist position?

        Sibiriak: “Is Eljay on record affirming such acceptability?”

        ROFL. It’s more like echi accusing eljay of defending the illegal creation of a house and eljay responding that he never made a case for its color and shape which is in his opinion “the” main issue.

        Sibiriak: “Eljay states: “Israel exists but must reform …”

        Excactly. So much for what he considers to be an acceptable form of Zionist settler colonialism after “reFORMation”.

        Sibiriak: “Calling for the annihilation of Zionism is the exact opposite of accepting the “illegal recognition by the colonialist powers of the Zionist invasion.”

        Where is eljay calling for the “annihilation of Zionism”? He’s just calling for reformations of the state that resulted from Zionism and the “illegal recognition by the colonialist powers of the Zionist invasion.”.

        eljay DOESN’T ADRESS echis fundamental criticism and question at all, but simply twists it in a way so that he claim that he doesn’t defend what he considers to be “the” Zionist position and to be able to dishonestly claim that ecchis accusation is wrong. And he accuses me of being dishonest, because I simply pointed out his dishonesty.

        Again, it’s like echi accusing him of liking “fruits” and eljay responding that he never said that he likes worms in fruits and that they have to be removed. And then he accuses me of being dishonest, because I said that this shift of argument just to prove that echis accusation is wrong is dishonest. It’s pathetic.

        annie: “i greatly value eljay’s contributions here.”

        Yeah, some of contributions of others he doesn’t like to adress just need his little reformation.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 30, 2017, 6:02 am

        Annie,

        Israel claim to be a Jewish state, but they do not have any authority to do so considering being Jewish is a ethnoreligious identity that is independant of modern, secular Israeli state. Assuming the Israeli state is a rational actor, claiming itself to be a Jewish state when anyone anywhere can be Jewish without much effort signifies deception.

        Secondly, are Jewish people really privileged in Israel? Im asking this because many Jews against Zionism are banned from entering the country for simply having a political stance contrary to the state ideology. So its not accurate to state Israel is a Jewish supremacist state, when Jews are beholden to yield to state ideology instead of the other way round. A pro-Israeli Arab is more privileged than an anti-Israeli Jew right now.

        Thirdly, its true most Israelis got into Israel through their Jewish identity. But Israel itself was created through significant non-Jewish, secular Western intervention in the region. The ability of the state to realize a Jewish majority was enabled by secular, European geopolitics. Jews of the world did not all agree and collectively form Israel against the wishes of non-Jews. A small segment of wordly Jewry concentrated exclusively in Europe conspired with the great European powers to make Israel a reality. The subsequent population transfer of global Jews transfer is mere politics, its irrelevent in the bigger picture.

        Lastly, the Jewish identity is over 2000 years old. There is little documentation be it historical or religious of this community that proposes the creation of a Jewish majority state in Palestine, before the 20th century. Zionism supercedes Jewish identity and attempts to superimpose itself on it, rather disastrously.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 30, 2017, 12:22 pm

        Israel claim to be a Jewish state, but they do not have any authority to do so

        well i guess that shoots down your theory that Nobody would classify Israeli policy and actions as “anywhere near Jewish”.

        the fact the western intervention facilitated the founding of the state doesn’t debunk the argument israel is a Jewish supremacist state. the fact bds supporting anti zionists jews are (sometimes) not allowed into the country doesn’t dismiss the reality Jewish people are privileged in Israel. and neither of these claims (by you) explain why, as you also claim, “Jewish identity was an obstacle in Zionism, not a motivator” or “it is ridiculous to suggest Zionism cant exist without Jewish supremacism”.

        Zionism supercedes Jewish identity and attempts to superimpose itself on it, rather disastrously.

        while it’s likely truthful, for many jewish people, their zionist identity supersedes their jewish identity, zionism, being a political construct, doesn’t have power or ability in and of itself to “superimpose itself” or “supersede jewish identity”. it derives it’s power solely through people who believe in it — not the other way around. zionism would starve, shrivel up, die and become non existent if there were not jewish supremacists who embodied it. it’s probable that for (many) zionist jews, their jewish identity is so intertwined with their zionist beliefs/identity such that the 2 are inseparable and feed off eachother. but “zionism” has no power to superimpose, these are individual personal choices (whether resulting from upbringing, brainwashing, fear or whatever) and any jewish person has the ability to self identify as jewish sans one iota of zionist identity.

        structurally or otherwise, zionism has never manifested itself as offering equal opportunity or self determination for non jews. while there may be people who believe in a sort of cultural zionism that allows for equal status for non jews, i don’t see where that’s ever evolved out of an ‘idea’ or ‘concept’ phase. zionism has thrived through jewish identity and i would appreciate you explaining how and why you claim that identity (as jewish) has been an obstacle to zionism as none of your words address my query about your allegation.

        self identification is tricky as it is conceived by the individual. so while you may have one concept of what it means to be jewish, you’re not really in a position to say what it means to another person. and it’s all full of contradictions, like self identifying secular jews who believe god gave the holy land to the jewish people. it really doesn’t matter whether this idea came from a jewish identity or a zionist identity, what matters, in the context of this discussion, is that it requires a concept of jewish supremacy to believe in it. it requires a concept that jewish people were singled out by god (not that dissimilar from the idea you can’t get to heaven except through belief in jesus christ, except for practical purposes heaven is not quite the same kind of real estate).

      • eljay
        July 30, 2017, 8:59 am

        || Annie Robbins: agreed, thanks Sibiriak. i greatly value eljay’s contributions here. ||

        Thanks, Annie. :-)

        One thing to note is that this isn’t echinococcus’ first attack (and it won’t be his last). Search my archives for his name and you’ll see that he’s done this a number of times already. His obsession is a distraction and now he’s got Talkback helping him out.

        || echinococcus: … Below are a couple samples … from Eljay. No authorization from Palestinians is requested anywhere and multiple objections about Palestinian assent (and exclusively Palestinian right to decide) have all been answered with the arrogance of someone who has the key to heavens and decides for the Palestinians what they should be doing in their own country (= all of Palestine.) … ||

        My opinion, you fool, is just an opinion. It is not an edict, and I have neither the “key to heavens” nor the power to determine what Palestinians should be doing in their own country. Fool.

      • echinococcus
        July 30, 2017, 9:53 am

        My opinion, you fool, is just an opinion. It is not an edict, and I have neither the “key to heavens” nor the power to determine what Palestinians should be doing in their own country. Fool.

        Right, it’s an opinion. A relentlessly repeated damaging opinion is a thing to be shot down at its every iteration (>190) because it does have real-life consequences. In fact, your framing of the whole thing as “Israel”/”Non-Israel”, legitimate and non areas etc., is not promoted by you alone, and it sounds unquestionable to a majority here. It is not foolish to continue opposing it, because such opinion, maintained without even once addressing reasoned objection, becomes propaganda.

        You are continuing to instill in the reader’s brain the idea that colonial invaders may continue to stay in invaded territory, without permission from the invaded people –provided they conform to your personal ideals, described as some liberaloid paradise of equality and brotherly cohabitation, without bothering about what the decision of the invaded Palestinian people may effectively be. This is no different than any good ole White Man’s Burden à la Kipling. It reinforces Zionist propaganda that has implanted in most Western heads the idea that the initial invader presence is somehow legitimate.

        Your use of a pillpulling technicality to avoid responding to the charge is noted, again: just because in your mind a restructuring of some institutions would end the clearly Zionist character of the established state of “Israel”, you consider that the colonial invaders are miraculously washed and no longer illegal invaders if a pie-in-the-sky secular, democratic version of the “Jewish” Crusader state replaces the current one.

        Wrong. Invaders are goddam invaders and you are advocating for them to stay without permission from the sole owners of sovereignty. And you still have not responded to the justified objections, made not only by me.

        Also, this is not an unimportant point. It is a central one in “liberal-Zionist”propaganda because it shapes the concept of solidarity with Palestinian resistance, viz are we putting our weight behind Western and “Israel” liberals or are we to promote Palestinian resistance (including to US-Zio puppets), warts and all?

      • Sibiriak
        July 30, 2017, 10:35 am

        Talkback: Where is eljay calling for the “annihilation of Zionism”? He’s just calling for reformations of the state that resulted from Zionism and the “illegal recognition by the colonialist powers of the Zionist invasion.”

        ————————–

        This is the crux of it.

        “Reformations of the state that resulted from Zionism” –if they involve the complete dismantling of the structures and institutions of Jewish supremacism — certainly would result in the annihilation of Zionism.

        In Eljay’s opinion:

        Israel exists but must reform from a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews into a secular and democratic state of and for all of its Israeli citizens , immigrants, expats and refugees, equally. [emphasis added]

        Please explain how Israel could be Zionist and at one and the same time be a secular and democratic state for all of it’s citizens.

        How would that be possible??

        A Zionist state could be completely secular and democratic and non-discriminatory?

        Is that your contention?

      • echinococcus
        July 30, 2017, 10:48 am

        Eastlake’s parents may have been bakers –specializing in pretzels.

        So of course Zionists are not necessarily religious, so what?

        Zionism consists of a racist concept of “Jewish” and has nothing to do with religion. A concept shared by most religious Jews, too. Period. No matter repeated attempts at muddying the waters by some people who speak of “religion-based supremacism.” Never had anything to do with religion until suddenly Eastlake makes it so to then discover it doesn’t conform to what it never was.

        So the pretzel gets to “Jewish supremacism itself is so vague and subjective”… what is vague and what is subjective in “born to a Jewish woman”?

      • Sibiriak
        July 30, 2017, 10:51 am

        talkback: the thing is that eljay can’t explain why Jewish settler should even have a right to settle in Palestine and create a state
        —————-

        AFAIK, Eljay has never suggested that Jewish settlers had/have a right to settle in Palestine and create a state.

        But perhaps I am wrong. Can you quote him on that point?

      • Sibiriak
        July 30, 2017, 11:53 am

        echinococcus: . Invaders are goddam invaders and you are advocating for them to stay without permission from the sole owners of sovereignty
        ——————————–

        The invaders can’t be made to leave—that’s the reality you think you are somehow free to ignore.

        Your two proposals — a regional war or reeducation of Trump voters to anti-Zionism– are beyond ludicrous. They are idiotic.

        Of course, you are entitled to your personal views, which are completely unauthorized by any Palestinians. Nevertheless, a relentlessly repeated damaging opinion such as yours is a thing to be shot down at its every iteration.

        It’s extraordinarily damaging because it reinforces a cardinal Zionist talking point– that anti-Zionists aim to empower Palestinians to rid Israel/Palestine of most of its current Jewish population.

        Your constantly reinforcing that Zioinist talking point is not doing the Palestinians one bit of good.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 30, 2017, 12:38 pm

        Your constantly reinforcing that Zioinist talking point is not doing the Palestinians one bit of good.

        i totally agree. there’s no difference between nathan claiming it or eastlake claiming it or echi claiming it. i’d listen to that argument and perhaps take it seriously if it came from omar barghouti or some (any) prominent palestinian activist but it doesn’t. the concept just serves zionist hasbara.

        as a constant repetitive reoccurring theme it’s highjacked countless threads.

      • Sibiriak
        July 30, 2017, 1:10 pm

        @Annie Robbins

        Very clear, insightful, nuanced analysis.

        the fact bds supporting anti zionists jews are (sometimes) not allowed into the country doesn’t dismiss the reality Jewish people are privileged in Israel.

        That’s a critical point, and it’s a very simple one: Jewish people are privileged in Israel. (And, of course, Israel is ever-expanding, practicing apartheid, and engaging in ethnic cleansing, war crimes etc.)

        There can be endless arguments about who is a Jew, whether Jewishness is based on religion, culture, ethnicity, shared history or some combination of objective and subjective elements, or whether or not a Jewish people actually exists and so on and so forth–but none of that debate is directly relevant to the institutionalized discriminatory system in Israel/Palestine.

        All that matters is that the state of Israel has recognized a Jewish people and has legally enshrined it. Jewishness has been explicitly defined in Israeli law and elaborated on by Israeli courts—it’s not a vague or subjective concept at all. And that concept is used to systematically privilege Jews, so defined, over non-Jews.

      • eljay
        July 30, 2017, 3:21 pm

        Sibiriak & Annie, I appreciate you guys chiming in, but you may as well let it go:
        – Despite his incessant babbling to the contrary, echinococcus knows exactly where I stand on I-P so this game of his (and now also of Talkback) is nothing more than distraction.
        – Neither echinococcus nor Talkback will be appeased by anything short of agreement that Palestinians have every right to dismantle Israel and drive out of geographic Palestine approx. 95% of the Jews currently in it.

      • echinococcus
        July 30, 2017, 6:54 pm

        Eljay,

        – Neither echinococcus nor Talkback will be appeased by anything short of agreement that Palestinians have every right to dismantle Israel and drive out of geographic Palestine approx. 95% of the Jews currently in it.

        Very good, Eljay! You almost get it. For my part, you’re almost there, only one must replace one word, i.e. “Jews” by “invaders”, and append one phrase at the end: “if the Palestinians so wish”.

        Now that you seem to understand, I’m still waiting to know why exactly, according to you, this is not justice, and how come this is not exactly what the right of self-determination of peoples require. I’ll keep asking.

        ———-
        As for “incessant babble”, you, not me, are the guy with the 191 iterations of the exact same statement in propaganda of a ‘democratic and secular’ right to permanence for the invaders. I kept silent for the first 150 or so. Every time you restart your shtick without having discussed how come justice is not justice, an urge to call you on it becomes irresistible.

      • echinococcus
        July 30, 2017, 7:12 pm

        Sibiriak,

        Balls. Of course the invaders refuse to leave. Duh.
        In many parts of the world they have been made to leave.
        In others, some compromise has been reached, like in South Africa –with the probable majority consent of the invadees.
        Things keep changing and the only lifeline of the invaders is the highly suicidal US, so we don’t know how things will develop. What the invaders want or accept is not really part of the deal.

        When you look for justice, you can’t limit the long-term program to halfways and compromises –one can do that for daily action, of course, but abandoning definitively the requirements of justice is not really feasible. For one thing, I am still waiting for an example of a (non -annihilated) people who simply got over the major injustice of invasion and enslavement, permanently. Never received an answer.

        So if understood what you are writing, your major objection to justice is that the Zionists don’t like it and use it for propaganda. I can’t consider that a serious objection.

      • RoHa
        July 30, 2017, 8:55 pm

        “self identification is tricky ”

        Not for me. I look in the mirror, and I say “Yes, that’s me.”

        But if I have any doubts I can always check my driving licence and passport.

        Or ask my wife.

      • eljay
        July 30, 2017, 9:01 pm

        || echinococcus: Eljay, blahblahblah ||

        Sure, whatever you say.

      • Talkback
        July 31, 2017, 2:52 pm

        eljay: “– Neither echinococcus nor Talkback will be appeased by anything short of agreement that Palestinians have every right to dismantle Israel …”

        Rofl. Your mask finally slipped, didn’t it?

        Despite the fact that I think that it’s up to the Palestinians to decide how they will exercise their right to self determination it is obvious that you don’t even acknowledge that a native population has the inalienable right to resist alien domination/settler colonialism and restore the territorial integrity of their country by not only dismantling settlements, but also by dismantling any settler state that was created within their country. At least you don’t seem to think that Palestinians have these rights.

        Is your ‘Israel is a fact’-approach just a disguise for ‘don’t challenge Israel’s existence at all’?

        eljay: “… and drive out of geographic Palestine approx. 95% of the Jews currently in it.”

        Your lies were pathetic, now they have become pathological. This one of my statements you can find on Mondoweiss “I consider this [expulsion of Jews] to be as inhumane as not allowing Palestinian refugees to return.”

      • Talkback
        July 31, 2017, 2:54 pm

        Sibiriak: “Please explain how Israel could be Zionist and at one and the same time be a secular and democratic state for all of it’s citizens.”

        ROFL. Please explain the need for a state of Israel in historic Palestine without using Zionist arguments.

      • echinococcus
        July 31, 2017, 5:10 pm

        Talkback,

        I consider this [expulsion of Jews] to be as inhumane as not allowing Palestinian refugees to return

        Perhaps. At any rate, not qua “Jews” but as alien invaders whose citizenship status still has to be settled by decision of the Palestinian people in a fully representative decision. Also considering that practically all have native or origin citizenship or rights thereto, and the US has already guaranteed to take up all of them.

        But even without that, even admitting that it would be inhumane, the decision remains fully in the hands of the Palestinian people, none other.

        All this is moot, of course, because in the case of a solution being offered, there is even smaller probability than in Algeria in ’60 of any colonials taking up the offer to stay as loyal Palestinian citizens.

      • eljay
        July 31, 2017, 5:18 pm

        || Talkback @ July 31, 2017, 2:52 pm ||

        Sure, whatever you say.

      • Mooser
        July 31, 2017, 6:43 pm

        “All this is moot, of course, because in the case of a solution being offered, there is even smaller probability than in Algeria in ’60 of any colonials taking up the offer to stay as loyal Palestinian citizens.” “Echin”

        You know, I think you are right.
        And in that case, there’s not much need to talk about driving the invaders out. Or even to make sure every anti-Zionist is devoted to that end, and none other.

      • Sibiriak
        July 31, 2017, 9:51 pm

        Talkback: Sibiriak: “Please explain how Israel could be Zionist and at one and the same time be a secular and democratic state for all of it’s citizens.”

        ROFL. Please explain the need for a state of Israel in historic Palestine without using Zionist arguments.
        ——————————–

        I never claimed there was a need for a state of Israel in historic Palestine, so I have no more reason to explain that idea than you do.

        Back to my question: If Israel became a secular and democratic state for all of its citizens, and met all other conditions Eljay spelled out, you would agree then that it would no longer be a Zionist state?

        So, Eljay is in fact calling for the end of Zionism in Israel/Palestine, right?

      • echinococcus
        July 31, 2017, 10:07 pm

        Mooser,

        I suppose we don’t follow the same system of logic. My loss, no doubt.
        No, not everyone has to have the same long-term objectives. The reasons the normalizing fraction would be well advised to abstain from repeating and amplifying Zionist propaganda about an initial legitimacy of the Zionist invasion are 1) that the long-term solidarity with Palestinian resistance will then stop as soon as any fake “negotiating” is restarted by the Zionists and 2) the destruction of the Zionist state entity is fully a right of the Palestinian people, within its right to self determination, and opposition to the most basic Palestinian right should be coming from the official enemy, not from so-called solidarity movement.

      • echinococcus
        July 31, 2017, 11:20 pm

        Sibiriak

        So, Eljay is in fact calling for the end of Zionism in Israel/Palestine, right?

        No. He is calling for a reform of the Zionist entity that would not address in any way or wise the self-determination right of the Palestinian people. In fact, this scheme calls for as serious a violation of self-determination rights as the Zionist invasion itself.

        His specifications, expressed as “secular and democratic”, are his own expectations, not necessarily those of a majority of the entire Palestinian people; his “democracy” base includes the illegal colonialist invaders.
        [Incidentally, good luck with half of a population that is rabidly and murderously Zionist. Crazy stuff. Also good luck with the respective financial and political and military clout…]

        Even swallowing the silly fairy tale of overnight switch of Zionists to secular and democratic, the main material damage inflicted by Zionism is the illegal immigration of millions of invaders, no matter their politics or culture or anything else. If they are indesirable to the owners of the country, cleaning out the Zionist damage includes that, too, and how.

        I still see this kind of justification of the invader presence as Zionist support propaganda.

      • Talkback
        August 1, 2017, 10:58 am

        Sibiriak: “I never claimed there was a need for a state of Israel in historic Palestine, …”

        Only Zionists do, that’s the point.

        Sibiriak: Back to my question: If Israel became a secular and democratic state for all of its citizens, and met all other conditions Eljay spelled out, you would agree then that it would no longer be a Zionist state?”

        No. My point is that one cannot seperate the existence of a State of Israel from Zionism. Because there is no need for non-Zionists for such a state or to partition the country.

        Sibiriak: So, Eljay is in fact calling for the end of Zionism in Israel/Palestine, right?

        No he isn’t. The end of Zionism would be the end of Israel on the one hand and the restoration and reunification of Palestine on the other. eljay only plays with anti-Zionist arguments to make a case for Israel. He wants to reform Zionism not end it.

        eljay: “Sure, whatever you say.

        Sure, whatever you can’t deny. All your condemnation of supremacism, colonialization etc. doesn’t touch the supremacism and colonialization that enabled the creation of Israel. That’s Zionist Orwellian double think. You are actually a Zionist who abuses non- or anti-Zionist argumments to make a case for Israel. It takes a keen eye to see that you intentionally use ambiguous condemnation to disguise it.

        Here is one perfect example:
        eljay July 31, 2017, 1:22 pm: “Zionists don’t seem to care that for decades they and their colonialist and (war) criminal “Jewish State” construct have been deliberately undermining international laws and human rights and the protections they are meant to afford all people including their fellow Jews.”

        On the surface it looks very similar to the language that is used in a general condemnation of Zionism, its settler colonialism and that it led to the creation of the settler state. But when I ask you “Are Zionists only “colonialists” outside the state of Israel and does ‘criminal construct’ only refer to the “Jewish” state and not to the state of Israel in general?” this is your evading response:

        eljay July 31, 2017, 5:13 pm: There’s no need “to clarify” because you already know the answers. So, thanks, but I have no interest in continuing to play your and echinococcus’ little game”.

        Yeah, it’s obvious which game you are playing.

      • Talkback
        August 1, 2017, 11:10 am

        echi: “But even without that, even admitting that it would be inhumane, the decision remains fully in the hands of the Palestinian people, none other.”

        An inhumane solution is not an option, but a crime.

      • eljay
        August 1, 2017, 12:27 pm

        || Talkback: … The end of Zionism would be the end of Israel on the one hand and the restoration and reunification of Palestine on the other. eljay only plays with anti-Zionist arguments to make a case for Israel. He wants to reform Zionism not end it. … ||

        It’s nice to know I’m not the only one with a Pathetic/Pathological Liars Club membership. :-)

        Zionism is Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

        I advocate ending Zionism by:
        – reforming Israel from a religion-supremacist state for Jews into a secular and democratic state for all Israelis (incl. refugees); and
        – expecting Israel to end its occupation of not-Israel and withdraw to within its / Partition borders.

        (And I also advocate reparations and accountability for (war) crimes committed.)

        The decision to unify (or not) Israel and not-Israel into a single state would be up to the voting publics of those two secular and democratic states.

        || … An inhumane solution is not an option, but a crime. ||

        I agree. That’s why I advocate a humane solution.

      • echinococcus
        August 1, 2017, 8:39 pm

        Eljay returns…

        – reforming Israel from a religion-supremacist state for Jews into a secular and democratic state for all Israelis (incl. refugees);
        – expecting Israel to end its occupation of not-Israel and withdraw to within its / Partition borders.

        So you’ve been deputized to do that by the full Palestinian population, sole owner of the territory? No. The only alternative is that you are proposing that to save the Zionist intruders’ @$$.

        (And I also advocate reparations and accountability for (war) crimes committed.)

        I’m sure it will be such a consolation for the people who lost their country, their freedom to decide who is authorized to stay in their country…

        The decision to unify (or not) Israel and not-Israel into a single state would be up to the voting publics of those two secular and democratic states.

        I’m sure you will be bemedalled one day for helping the propaganda to allow the muscling in of the genocidal invaders with the same rights as the owners of the country.

        You can scream until you’re blue in the face want that you are not committing Zionist propaganda: all I see is that you are working overtime to anchor in everyone’s mind a notion that the invader b&&&&&&s have as much right to decide Palestine’s future as the Palestinians. Continue.

        That’s why I advocate a humane solution

        You don’t get to decide what is a humane solution. The Palestinian population does. I expect it will show at least as much humanity to the Zionists as was shown to itself.

      • oldgeezer
        August 1, 2017, 9:13 pm

        @Eljay

        And echinococcus returns as a zionists wet dream. The perfect example of Palestinian intransigence and even irrationality. The reason there is no partner for any sort of peace or agreement. The reason there is no way forward.

        Why echi could lead the Palestinians into a dead end far faster than Abbas ever did and could do it with both legs tied behind his back.

        Echi is so in love with the Palestinian cause that he spends the vast majority of his posts and an even greater percentage of his verbiage attacking those who support the Palestinian cause but not the extent he deems necessary in his fictional little world where reality doesn’t play a role.

        All the while largely ignoring pro zionist posts.

        Feel free to reply too echi. I stopped playing your silly game a long time ago. The Palestinians deserve their rights and freedoms. Whether you define yourself as a Palestinian supporter or zionist you are a part of the problem and zero part of the solution.

      • echinococcus
        August 1, 2017, 10:34 pm

        Old Geezer,

        You can’t be so old –in fact, reading your post the first thing that came to mind was to ask you to please be your age. It’s hard to believe that some people are unable to see the difference between long-term programs on the one hand and compromises on the other.

        Also, I wonder how compromises on Zionists’ terms are going to respond to the invadees’ most basic right, that of self-determination.

        Anyway, let’s now see your so precious “realism” department: you may look back 100 years and tell me what kind of concessions anyone ever got from the Zionists, and what kind of compromise one is likely to get from the US-Zionists. Go ahead, give me a realistic estimate for these equality-under-Zionist-invader plans. I’m not saying don’t take offers. The opposite, go for it. Just don’t make me laugh expecting any agreement from US+Zionists before the fall of the house of US.

        As for “largely ignoring pro zionist posts”, I am indeed focusing on Zionist propaganda –even if it is hiding under other names. That of the tribalists and “liberal” Zionists who only want to continue the genocide by making it more presentable to the West, even joining the boycott limitedly to the post-1967 conquest, and that of the next line of Zionist defense, who dangle before our starry eyes an earthly paradise of the brotherhood of invaders and invadee, without the latter’s assent, and under the armed control of the former. To be gained by abandoning forever the inalienable Palestinian right to self-determination.

        —-
        PS Your use, almost verbatim, of Sharon’s and Begin’s and Rabin’s and Netanyahoo’s main argument is a bit strange, isn’t it?
        as in

        Palestinian intransigence and even irrationality. The reason there is no partner for any sort of peace or agreement. The reason there is no way forward.

        So now we know why the Zionists continue to occupy and perform their landgrab and genocidal practices: because the Palestinians are so pig-headed they won’t give up their land and so there is no “partner for peace.”
        My, my. I really can’t believe you’re writing that.

      • eljay
        August 2, 2017, 8:11 am

        || oldgeezer: @Eljay

        And echinococcus returns as a zionists wet dream. … ||

        Yup, Zionists couldn’t ask for more than a “pro-Palestinian activist” (according to his alter ego, Bont) who says that Palestinians should be free to:
        – dismantle the internationally-recognized State of Israel;
        – drive out of geographic Palestine ~95% of the Jews currently in it; and
        – establish an Islamic State in Palestine.

        He further aids the Zionist cause by repeatedly railing madly against my very humble opinion – which Palestinians are entirely free to accept, reject or ignore – that a solution should comprise:
        – the reform of Israel into a secular and democratic state alongside a secular and democratic not-Israel;
        – the return of refugees (or compensation in lieu) and payment of reparations;
        – accountability for (war) crimes committed; and
        – a future for Israel and not-Israel (including the option of unifying into a single state) determined democratically by the voting publics of both countries.

      • echinococcus
        August 2, 2017, 9:33 am

        It would be fun if it weren’t so heartbreaking: in our day and time, the simple mention of the right to self-determination of a colonized people is bringing out a mini-wave of totally unhinged hysteria from the very liberal do-gooders.

        It was enough to ask the question: “did you get permission from the owners of the land before spreading the idea that illegal invaders should continue to decide the future of the invaded land?” And up go the voices sending the questioner to hell.

        Eljay’s post exposes a colonial mindset gone totally crazy. The main objective is affirmed as establishing an “equal” presence of the darling invaders supported by all the might of the West in a land that belongs exclusively to its pre-invasion population. Keeping the invaders in a “democratic” framework this time, the next line of defense of the invaders, is spelled out proudly as an objective, giving the game away.

        The statement that only the local population has the right to decide what goes on in their land is made tantamount to physical massacre, while spreading the idea of normalizing the invaders’ dominance is only a “very humble opinion – which Palestinians are entirely free to accept, reject or ignore”, as if any ideas jumbled around in these discussions to make up our minds weren’t so. And this hysteric reaction uses the pretext that the genocidal Zionist propaganda apparatus, which never relented in 130 years, may use a discussion of the real right to self-determination as a pretext for its propaganda.

        This is extremely depressing; it shows how deep colonialist thinking remains in our day. It exposes the hold of Zionist propaganda on the brain of those with the best intentions.

        Meanwhile, the right to decide about the country remains exclusively with the Palestinian people, not with Western liberals dictating the next line of defense of the invaders under cover of humble opinion (especially if said humble opinion has been repeated, as it has, 196 times by just one of its proponents.)

      • Talkback
        August 2, 2017, 11:14 am

        eljay: It’s nice to know I’m not the only one with a Pathetic/Pathological Liars Club membership. :-)”

        Are you refering to the commenter who desperately tries to reassure everybody that he condems settler colonialism, the creation of the state of Israel with its violation of self determination of the citizens of Palestine, while at the same time making a bizarre case for its declaration based on a bizarre interpretation of the Montevideo conventions and for the borders in which it declared statehood?

        eljay: “Zionism is Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.”

        Yes, that sounds quite antizionist, doesn’t it? But it’s not, because the mere existence of the state of Israel which is the instititutionalized form of Zionist supremacism and colonialism is not challenged at all.

        eljay: “I advocate ending Zionism by:
        – reforming Israel from a religion-supremacist state for Jews into a secular and democratic state for all Israelis (incl. refugees); and
        – expecting Israel to end its occupation of not-Israel and withdraw to within its / Partition borders.”

        The end of Zionism is the end of the state of Israel, because Non-Zionists don’t need such a state in or the partition of Palestine within any borders. Your advocacy is higly misleading and serves only to preserve the nationalized achievement of supremacism and settler colonialism.

        eljay: “The decision to unify (or not) Israel and not-Israel into a single state would be up to the voting publics of those two secular and democratic states.”

        Then why even waste time with a call for the reformation of the settler state within most ! of Palestine and don’t directly make a case for a referendum of Israelis and Palestinians including refugees in all of historic Palestine? The answer is obvious, isn’t it?

      • eljay
        August 2, 2017, 11:27 am

        || Talkback: eljay: It’s nice to know I’m not the only one with a Pathetic/Pathological Liars Club membership. :-)”

        Are you refering to … ||

        …you? I definitely am, P/PLC buddy. Wear your membership proudly. :-)

      • Mooser
        August 2, 2017, 12:16 pm

        “It’s similar to the birth of a child. You can scream all you want that the child is illegitimate, and that he should not have been born.”

        “Nathan” that is a good metaphor, Israel as Judaism’s little mamzer.

    • Misterioso
      July 27, 2017, 12:33 pm

      @Nathan

      Re: “I don’t why you are incredulous about Nasser’s intentions. This is not some story from the Middle Ages or from Biblical Israel. I heard with my own ears his declaration that he will drive the Jews into the sea.”

      This classic example of misrepresentation by omission was a key tactic in what proved to be a successful propaganda campaign by the pro-Israel lobby to convince Americans and much of the western world that Israel’s June 5/67 invasion of Egypt was justified.

      Nasser’s full statement to the Arab world on Egyptian radio during his May 26th address to the General Council of the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions regarding the possibility of war with Israel was as follows:

      “If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian border. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.” (Translated by the Foreign Broadcasting Information Service, a U.S. agency in Washington; Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace?, Middle East Perspective, Inc., New York, 1979, p. 553)

      Clearly, Nasser’s speech confirmed he did not intend to initiate a war against Israel. He left no doubt, however, that if Egypt or its mutual defense pact ally Syria were attacked by Israel, he would respond with total war. (Jordan signed a mutual defense pact with Egypt on May 30.)

      Regrettably, the only portion of Nasser’s speech quoted by leading American television commentators, including Huntley and Brinkley and Walter Cronkite, and in articles published in newspapers such as the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune was the last eight words. As a result, Nasser was falsely portrayed to the American public and the western world as thirsting to start a war of annihilation against Israel. (Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection…, p. 553)

      At 7:45 AM on 5 June 1967, Israel attacked Egypt and thereby, Jordan and Syria who each shared a mutual defense pact with Egypt. The attack took place just hours before Egypt’s VP Zachariah Mohieddine was to fly to Washington for a prearranged June 7th meeting with the Johnson administration to defuse the crisis between Egypt and Israel based on an agreement worked out in Cairo between Nasser and Johnson’s envoy, Robert Anderson. In a cable sent to Johnson on May 30, Israel’s PM Eshkol promised not to attack Egypt until June 11 to give diplomacy a chance to succeed. However, on June 4, when it heard about the June 7th meeting and the distinct possibility that it would rule out war, Israel’s cabinet ordered its armed forces to attack Egypt the next day. In short, the war was another massive land grab by Israel.

      Furthermore:
      Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former Minister without portfolio in PM Levi Eshkol’s cabinet, while addressing Israel’s National Defence College on 8 August 1982: “In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (New York Times, 21 August 1982)

      Meir Amit, chief of Israel’s Mossad: “Egypt was not ready for a war and Nasser did not want a war.” (Dr. Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality)

      Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” (Le Monde, 25 February, 1968)

      Prime Minister Eshkol: “The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military buildup there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up south of Israel.” (Yediot Aharonot, l8 October 1967)

      Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defence: “Three separate intelligence groups had looked carefully into the matter [and] it was our best judgment that a UAR attack was not imminent.” (The Vantage Point, Lyndon Johnson, p. 293)

      An article published in the New York Times (4 June 1967) just hours before Israel attacked notes that Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, Commander of UNEF in the Middle East, “who toured the Egyptian front, confirms that Egyptian troops were not poised for an offensive.” (Dr. Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality…, p. 134)

      On May 26, in reply to Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban’s assertion that according to Israeli intelligence, “an Egyptian and Syrian attack is imminent,” Secretary of State Dean Rusk dismissed the claim and assured Eban that Israel faced no threat of attack from Egypt. On the same day, during a meeting at the Pentagon, Eban was also told by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his aides that “…Egyptian forces were not in an aggressive posture and that Israel was not opening itself to peril by not attacking immediately. The contrary was true, Eban was told.” (Donald Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem, pp. 140-41)

      As the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) Commander, Major General Idar Jit Rikhye, revealed, Nasser was not enforcing the blockade of the Tiran straits: “[The Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation.” (Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality, p. 139)

      According to Patrick Seale, highly regarded historian and journalist, Israel had been meticulously preparing for another war against the Arabs since its 1956 invasion of Egypt: “In the decade since the Suez campaign Israel had built up forces that could move fast and hit hard: mobile armoured units able to cover long distances, mechanized infantry, heliborne and naval paratroopers for use behind enemy lines, and above all an air force of Mirage and Super-Mystere interceptors and Mystere fighter-bombers of unchallenged superiority. The main lesson Israel had learned from the [1956] Suez war was the importance of air dominance not only to neutralize Arab air forces but also for use as flying artillery against infantry and tanks.” (Patrick Seale, Asad…, p. 117)

      Ezer Weizman, former commander of Israel’s Air Force confirmed in his memoirs that Israel spent years meticulously planning the attack against Egypt: “For five years I had been talking of this operation, explaining it, hatching it, dreaming of it, manufacturing it link by link, training men to carry it out.” Recalling how he felt at 7:30 A.M. on 5 June 1967, Weizman wrote: “Now in a quarter of an hour, we would know if it was only a dream or whether it would come true….” (Donald Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem…, p. 202)

      • Nathan
        July 27, 2017, 2:29 pm

        Misterioso – Have you published this exact same comment once before? It seems to me that I have read every single quote in the very same order once before. I believe that I even asked you if you could give me that quote in the original French from Le Monde (but you have never really seen Le Monde, have you). Anyway, I understand that no one here will ever criticize the Arabs (for fear that this may – heaven forbid – be seen as a justification of Israel’s going to war). However, since I’m not a member of the “I-Hate-Israel-Club”, I’ll have be the one who breaks the rules. Here it goes:

        Nasser made some serious mistakes. He regarded Israel to be the enemy. He promised revenge for the defeat in 1948. He moved his army into Sinai, and asked the UN to remove the peace-keeping forces therein. Perhaps, that sounds aggressive, but it’s just the beginning. He announced that the Straits of Tiran are closed to Israeli shipping, even though he understood that this is causus belli for Israel (i.e. he understands that now there will be war – sooner or later). On June 2, the Jordanian army was placed under his command. (I understand that you can’t imagine what Israel makes of all these actions – but give it a try. Let’s put it together: Moving the army into Sinai + closing the straits + public commitment for revenge + two fronts facing Israel + Egypt’s use of poison gas in the recent war in Yemen… What would you make of it?)

        Now, let me add your contribution to this big mess: Nasser is not even ready for war. If so, I think we should be discussing Nasser and the nature of Arab politics. Who on God’s earth goes through the motions of aggressiveness, puts his enemy under pressure, threatens them with the very worst scenario – but is not even ready for war? When I was a little kid in elementary school I knew better than that. I didn’t tease the guy in class who will break my teeth, crying to my mother that I didn’t even mean it.

        The crisis was important to Nasser, and he understood that there would be war. Israel was drafting its army right there in front of his eyes for three weeks. Maybe Nasser was stupid. Maybe he was reckless. Whatever it was – Nasser should be the issue of discussion. I know that this is impossible in an anti-Israel discussion, but it’s obviously so. What was Nasser’s calculation?

        After the peace with Jordan, King Hussein was interviewed in Israel. He was asked about his placing his army under Egyptian command (and the decision to go to war against Israel in 1967). His answer was amazing: “If I didn’t go to war against Israel, my people would have removed me from my throne”. How sad. The decision to go to war was all about his being king – not the interests of his country or the well-being of his subjects.

        Meanwhile, both Egypt and Jordan have make peace with Israel. I wonder if anyone at Mondoweiss feels that the decision to strike a peace deal with Israel was a good move.

    • Misterioso
      July 27, 2017, 3:07 pm

      @Nathan

      Further to your false assertion regarding Nasser:

      In fact it was Palestinians who were driven into the sea by Jewish forces during their assault on Haifa which began at 10:30 AM on April 21/48, i.e. , 24 days before Polish born David Ben-Gurion (nee, David Gruen) et al declared the establishment of Israel.

      Aware of the atrocities Jewish forces had committed elsewhere, Haifa’s Arabs feared massacre and rape if they fell into the hands of the invaders. Thus, panic stricken and screaming “Deir Yassin” (as Irgun leader, Menachem Begin proudly recalled in his memoirs), thousands of men, women, and children in “whatever transport they could find, many of them on foot – men, women, and children – moved in a mass exodus toward the port area….” (John Quigley, Palestine and Israel…, p. 60)

      The Arab defenders were poorly “…armed with British and French rifles, mostly of World War 1 vintage, and chronically short of ammunition. The entire garrison possessed only fifteen sub-machine guns, an essential weapon in urban warfare. In contrast, Haifa was the home and recruiting base of the 2,000 strong Carmeli or Second Brigade … [which had] armoured cars, two-inch and three inch mortars, machine guns, Sten and Thompson sub-machine guns, rifles and grenades – all in plentiful quantities and with virtually unlimited supplies of mortar shells and ammunition.” (Prof. Walid Khalidi, Harvard, “Selected. Documents…” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXVll, No. 3, Spring 1998″)

      As well as Davidka mortars with sixty-pound shells, the Carmeli Brigade used Barrel bombs (nicknamed Barak Bullets) which were “converted oil barrels and spherical sea mines filled with explosives [that were] rolled down onto the Arab quarters from the higher Jewish areas.” (Khalidi, ibid, pp. 87 & 89)

      Tens of thousands of horrified Arabs, choked by the smoke from burning buildings ran to the harbour in order to escape by sea. A British officer, Colonel John Waddy was there at the time and he later recalled that “As the Jewish action against the Haifa Old Town stepped up from acts of terrorism to mortaring, many of the Arabs started to evacuate the town, as indeed the Jews wanted them to do.” (David Palumbo, The Palestine Catastrophe, p. 65)

      British officials who were in Haifa at the time, later testified that as Palestinians fled down the narrow alleys towards the docks the Haganah opened fire on them with “indiscriminate and revolting machine gun fire…on women and children [which] led to considerable congestion [of] hysterical and terrified Arab women and children and old people on whom the Jews opened up mercilessly with fire.” (John Quigley, Palestine and Israel…, p. 60)

      Israeli historian Benny Morris: “The 3-inch mortars ‘opened up on the market square [where there was] a great crowd…a great panic took hold. The multitude burst into the port, pushed aside the policemen, charged the boats and began fleeing the town.’ British observers noted that ‘during the morning they [i.e. the Haganah] were continually shooting down on all Arabs who moved both in Wadi Nisnas and the Old City. This included completely indiscriminate and revolting machinegun fire and sniping on women and children…attempting to get out of Haifa through the gates into the docks…. There was considerable congestion outside the East Gate [of the port] of hysterical and terrified Arab women and children and old people on whom the Jews opened up mercilessly with fire.'” (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Problem, 1947-1949, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 85f.; quoted by Norman Finkelstein in “Debate on the 1948 Exodus: Rejoinder,” J of P S, Volume XXI, Number 2, Winter 1992, p. 63)

      It will never be know how many hundreds or thousands were slain in the streets, but less than 24 hours after the attack began nearly 60,000 of Haifa’s Arabs had been forced to flee for their lives by sea to nearby Acre with many continuing on to Lebanon. The horrific scene at the port as they crowded on every type of vessel to escape was described by an eye-witness: “Men stepped on their friends and women on their own children. The boats in the port were soon filled with living cargo. The overcrowding on them was horrible. Many turned over and sank with all their passengers.” (Professor Walid Khalidi, Harvard, “Selected Documents… JPS Vol. XXVll, No. 3, Spring 1998, p. 89)

      The Jewish assault on Jaffa began on April 25 with the same results that had occurred in Haifa.

      To be brief:
      With Jaffa cut off from the rest of Palestine by advancing Jewish forces who controlled the Jerusalem highway, civilians could only escape the relentless mortar barrage by sea. Shell-shocked and panic stricken, thousands of them jammed the port looking for any type of craft (even row boats) that could take them to Gaza or Lebanon and while they waited, many were cold-bloodedly murdered by Irgun snipers.

      Scores of those who managed to get on the overcrowded boats, yachts, and other vessels, fell overboard and drowned. Iris Shammout, who was then 12 years of age, recalled the scene vividly. “‘…bullets went through the bodies of people standing by the seashore…. Women and children were weeping and screaming’ as they filed into small boats in an effort to reach a Greek steamship that they hoped would take them to safety. Many people were drowned because the tiny fishing vessels could not hold the multitude. Babies fell overboard and mothers were forced to choose which ones to save. The Shammouts were luckier than most since all members of the family were able to get aboard the Greek vessel which eventually reached Beirut. But many of those who attempted to sail to Gaza or Beirut in small boats were lost at sea. Their bodies were washed up along the coast of Palestine.” (Michael Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe, pp. 89-90)

      These terrible events were witnessed by British observers in the harbour. They noted in their reports that as had occurred in Haifa, “[r]efugees [were] fired on by Jewish snipers as they moved off.” (Palumbo, TPC, p. 90)

      When it was over, 75,000 Palestinians were expelled from Jaffa.

    • Misterioso
      July 27, 2017, 4:20 pm

      @Nathan

      “Nasser made some serious mistakes. He regarded Israel to be the enemy. He promised revenge for the defeat in 1948. He moved his army into Sinai, and asked the UN to remove the peace-keeping forces therein. Perhaps, that sounds aggressive, but it’s just the beginning. He announced that the Straits of Tiran are closed to Israeli shipping, even though he understood that this is causus belli for Israel (i.e. he understands that now there will be war – sooner or later). On June 2, the Jordanian army was placed under his command. (I understand that you can’t imagine what Israel makes of all these actions – but give it a try. Let’s put it together: Moving the army into Sinai + closing the straits + public commitment for revenge + two fronts facing Israel + Egypt’s use of poison gas in the recent war in Yemen… What would you make of it?)”

      To be brief and to state the obvious:
      Your response is pure hasbara, i.e., shooting the messenger.
      I have merely provided sourced quotations of what various individuals “in the know,” including Israeli leaders, stated regarding the 1967 war. They disagree with you. Your dispute is with them, not me.

      Enough said.
      Bye, bye

      • Nathan
        July 27, 2017, 7:54 pm

        It would be a nice challenge for you, Misterioso, to find those quotes in the original. Once you tell me that the source is Lillienthal (for example), it’s hard to take seriously your comment that my response is pure “hasbara”. Lillienthal (for example) had a long, long career in anti-Zionist hasbara. Let’s simplify the challenge. Go find the Le Monde newspaper interview with Rabin. I’d like to see how it’s worded (French is not such an esoteric language, is it).

        Nasser initiated a crisis that led to war. And silly Israel took his threats of genocide seriously, if you could imagine such a strange thing. Israel, by the way, is quite a serious country. It plans for all kinds of eventualities. So, the attack on all the Arab air fields during the first three hours of war was indeed planned and practiced. I apologize in the name of Israel that they defeated the three Arab armies amassed on their borders. Now, perhaps you would like to apologize in the name of the late Gamal Abdul Nasser and the late Mr Lillienthal that the Egyptians didn’t make plans for the eventuality of war that they initiated.

    • Paranam Kid
      July 28, 2017, 9:34 am

      Nathan, like many Israel apologists, you are comparing apples with horses. You sophistry is presented those alternative facts in such a way that they either look true, or the that poor Israel is subject to that oh so convenient antisemitism. But let’s stick to the apples for horses comparison.

      Indeed, you knowledge of history is limited, non-existent, or plainly selective. So, as you requested, let me enlighten you a bit: at the time of the American declaration of independence, as with the Texans’ declaration, the UN did not exist, nor any form of predecessor. Indeed, international law was a pretty obscure concept, if it was around at all.

      During the 20th century the world had the League of Nations, which was succeeded by the United Nations, which represents the international community as well as international law.

      As described above, Israel is in breach of that international law pertaining to its theft of Palestinian territory. Now you believe that because the bible says so, or whatever other fairy tale-like document, that Israel’s right extends to the whole of Palestine, even encompassing Lebanon, Jordan and parts of Syria & Iraq, the FACT is that Israel’s internationally recognised territory does not extend beyond its pre-1967 borders, which incorporate 50% of territory envisaged by the Partition Plan.

      The Palestinian declaration did not contravene any laws & was accepted by the UN, in contrast to Israel’s DI, which was fraudulent because following the issuance of the UNSCOP report in 1947, a sub-committee was established in turn that was tasked with examining the legal issues pertaining to the situation in Palestine, and it released the report of its findings on November 11.

      It found, among other things, that “the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce, any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine”, i.e the Jews & the Arabs. The zionists, arrogant & full of their project, ignored that completely & declared independence, which was a fraudulent act.

      So there is nothing normal about the creation of Israel, except by the depraved norms of Israel itself, its surrogates & hasbara trolls.

  4. JosephA
    July 27, 2017, 12:07 am

    Nathan,

    It’s hard to be raised in a certain way and spoon fed beliefs, and then those beliefs get challenged. Yes, certainly the Jews have been kicked from pillar to post in the Christian West (but interestingly, treated incredibly well in the Muslim East), and yes, Christians and those of Trump’s ilk are quite anti-Jewish.

    Did the Jews deserve a homeland after the Holocaust (because how could they feel safe living among European Christians)? Yes, and it should have been established in Europe, not In Palestine.

    • eljay
      July 27, 2017, 7:28 am

      || JosephA: … Did the Jews deserve a homeland after the Holocaust … ? Yes, and it should have been established in Europe, not In Palestine. ||

      I disagree. Jewish people in Europe deserved to see justice done, their tormentors and killers held accountable and their rights upheld. They were not entitled to and did not deserve a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” – a state primarily of and for people who chose to acquire/hold the religion-based identity of Jewish. Such a construct would have been as unjust and immoral in Europe as it was and continues to be in Palestine.

      • JosephA
        July 27, 2017, 9:48 am

        Agreed that supremacy is unjust and immoral. I would liken Jewish rights (that is, the right for Jews to not be harassed and to live in freedom) to gay rights and all of the other minority struggles of the world. Jews were harassed in Europe, and should have received compensation from Europe and in Europe.

        What does Palestine have to do with the Holocaust, other than Zionists trading with Nazi Germany after the rest of the world stopped, and of course the “grand Mufti of Jerusalem” propaganda?

    • Nathan
      July 27, 2017, 7:33 am

      So, JosephA, your point of view is that the Jewish state should have been founded in Europe. That’s interesting. However, Israel was founded in the Middle East. That’s how things turned out. I am surprised to read a comment that justifies the founding of a Jewish homeland at all. You’re a brave person.

      • JosephA
        July 27, 2017, 9:56 am

        Hi Nathan,

        There is a diversity of opinions here. In my opinion, much criticism of Israel (especially from Jews) has more to do with wanting the country to improve and evolve into an actual democracy (not the current diabolical settler-colonialist, racist, violent, right-wing regime) with equal rights for all that live there, including (and especially) the native Palestinians.

        By way of example, I am imagining a South Africa style “truth in reconciliation commission”, a right of return for the Palestinians refugees and their families, followed by an American style set of laws to help disadvantaged peoples (think free college for Native Americans, affirmative action, etc.) as opposed to the sadness/tragedy of Native American reservations and the violence against blacks by police in this country. In other words, Israel, founded on lies and violence, should evolve and improve to become Israel/Palestine. Or, Palestine/Israel. Or, simply Palestine.

      • Talkback
        July 27, 2017, 11:48 am

        Nathan: “However, Israel was founded in the Middle East. That’s how things turned out.”

        In the Zionist world the fondation of a state through war by foreign settlers and through their expulsion, denationalization and dispossession of the native citizens after 1945 is just something that “turns out”, if Jews are not the victims.

      • Talkback
        July 27, 2017, 12:30 pm

        Nathan: ” I am surprised to read a comment that justifies the founding of a Jewish homeland at all.”

        See? With you it’s only about a justfication for Jews, Jews, Jews and Jews to create a state and never about any universal approach under which circumstances the right of self determination can be expressed by founding a state.

        Just answer this question. Do citizens of a country have the right to see their country released into independence and defend its territorial integrity against foreign settlers, illegal immigrants and refugees of whom some want to take the country over through terrorism, war and by creating a majority through expulsion or denial of return? Or do the latter have the right to do this?

        Yes or No, Nathan. Let’s test your honesty and moral compass.

      • Nathan
        July 27, 2017, 3:30 pm

        Talkback – The answer is “yes”. The Palestinians had the right to fight against the aspirations of the Jews to found a state in Palestine. And, again, the answer is “yes”. The Jews had the right to aspire to found their state in Palestine. The issue is so simple that it’s almost silly that I have to explain it. It’s called “conflict”. There is side A and there is side B. Amazingly, side A thinks that it is right while at the very same time side B thinks that it is right. The Palestinian Arabs regarded the Jewish aspirations in the country to be illegitimate. The Jews regarded their aspirations to be legitimate. And, so the conflict was born. In the end there was war, and the Jewish side was victorious. These things can happen. Now it would be a good idea to discuss a solution. If you think that a nice solution would be that the Jews go back to Poland, you might be surprised to find out that they don’t agree. They want to live in Israel. It’s their home, and they like it very much. The weather is also very nice. Maybe you have a suggestion that both sides could agree to.

        JosephA – Yes, criticism of Israel has to do with the improving of the country. However, as you probably noticed, in the discussion here there is generally no criticism of Israel. Let’s not confuse criticism with hostility. If someone says to his neighbor that he smells and he needs a good shower – that would be criticism. The problem has been defined, and a reasonable plan of action has been proposed. However, if someone tells his neighbor that he smells and he should just drop dead – that would be hostility. Although, a problem has been defined, the plan of action is unreasonable.

        Your proposal for “truth in reconciliation commission” is premature. The conflict has not been resolved. Even if we would look at the conflict through the lens of the Mondoweiss website (as if Mondoweiss has defined correctly the conflict), you would notice, for example, that the Jews had no right to come to Palestine or that they should leave the country. Well, that issue would have to be resolved. What’s the point of a reconciliation when one side is expected to leave. There would have to be an end-of-conflict scenario in which the legitimacy of both sides is recognized. Do you have an end-of-conflict scenario that both sides could live with?

      • Annie Robbins
        July 27, 2017, 6:04 pm

        Even if we would look at the conflict through the lens of the Mondoweiss website (as if Mondoweiss has defined correctly the conflict), you would notice, for example, that the Jews had no right to come to Palestine or that they should leave the country.

        for example? could you give an example of an article from mondoweiss supporting your (quite repetitive) allegation please — rather than just alluding to your earlier allegations as if you even once substantiated your claims, which you can’t seem to do. for example, what article on mondoweiss states “Jews should leave the country”?

        just. one. article. otherwise people might think you’re fabricating information to make a point you couldn’t make otherwise.

      • Mooser
        July 27, 2017, 7:09 pm

        “just. one. article.”

        “Nathan” seems to be mixing up what he’s read in the articles, and what he may have seen in the comment section.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 27, 2017, 10:23 pm

        he’s playing a game mooser and it’s all too transparent. boring. i’m done.

      • Nathan
        July 27, 2017, 7:28 pm

        Annie Robbins – It really would be much easier if you would simply express a straight-forward denial. Just say that “it is not the position of Mondoweiss that the Jews had no right to come to the country…” The same advice is valid for our former argument. I claimed that the Mondoweiss website wishes to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel. You could just say very simply that you deny the veracity of my observation.

        Obviously, an article that describes Zionism as a colonial project is meant to state that the founding of Israel was illegitimate. Similarly, an article that describes Zionism as a colonial project is meant to state that the Jews (the Zionist colonists) had no right to come to Palestine. There was no need to send me on another search through the archives.

        When I brought to your attention the article by Tikva Honig Parnass, you pretended that the issue at hand is the accuracy of her claim (that Zionism is a colonial project). That is not the issue that I raised. I claimed that “colonial project” is a code word for the illegitimacy of Israel. There’s no reason to repeat the game this second time around. “Colonial project” also means that that the immigrants (the colonists) had no right to come to Palestine.

        However, it really would be much clearer if you would simply deny it all. Here are two simple questions:
        1. Is it the intention to convince the public that the State of Israel is illegitimate?
        2. Do you think that it was illegitimate for the Jewish immigrants to come and settle in Palestine during the last century?

        I know that you’re not going to answer the questions, even though the answers are obvious. There’s no way that you are going on record as stating that the immigrants had a right to come to Palestine and that it was legitimate to found the State of Israel. And, apparently, you have no intention of confirming anything either. It’s kind of strange. When one is falsely accused of something, one immediately denies the accusation completely. One would never shoot back at his accuser by saying “prove it”. However, when it’s a true accusation, one might try the old ploy of “prove it” instead of admitting that: “yes, you’re right”. Of course it’s the position of Mondoweiss that the Jews should not have come to Palestine, nor should they have founded their state.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 27, 2017, 10:22 pm

        It really would be much easier if you would simply express a straight-forward denial.

        okey dokey, here’s your straight-forward denial. you claim mondoweiss is “not committed to honest reporting”. that’s a straight up lie.

        One would never shoot back at his accuser by saying “prove it”.

        clearly, you’re wrong. thus far, all your worthless ad hominem jabbering and you’ve yet to produce one piece of evidence there has ever been any intent to mislead or misinform our readers. and you want to be taken seriously. all i have to say to you is — prove it. iow, sh*t or get off the pot.

      • Mooser
        July 27, 2017, 8:48 pm

        .” I claimed that the Mondoweiss website wishes to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel.” “Nathan”

        The “About” page says: (among other things) “We do not have a single editorial position on specific issues”

        Are you claiming that Mondoweiss is lying? That Mondowiess has an editorial political agenda it is not revealing to its readers?

      • Mooser
        July 27, 2017, 10:04 pm

        I’m sorry “Nathan” I meant to link the “About ” page in case you couldn’t find it Here it is. There is also a link at the top of the page.

      • Talkback
        July 28, 2017, 4:18 am

        Nathan: “The answer is “yes”. The Palestinians had the right to fight against the aspirations of the Jews to found a state in Palestine. And, again, the answer is “yes”. The Jews had the right to aspire to found their state in Palestine.”

        ROFL. Nathan, you are twisting my words and not answering my question at all.

        My question was if
        1.) citizens of a country have the right to see their country released into independence

        You didn’t answer this, because the foundation of Israel prevented and violated this right.

        2.) and defend its territorial integrity against foreign settlers, illegal immigrants and refugees of whom some want to take the country over through terrorism, war and by creating a majority through expulsion or denial of return?

        You didn’t answer this either, because if someone has a right to defend the territorial integrity of his country than noone else has the right to violate this territorial integrity which exactly happened when Israel was founded.

        That you don’t answer this questions shows me three things. 1.) That you continue to fail to make a legitimate case for the foundation of the State of Israel. 2.) Tat you even have to resort to twisting words to distract from the incoherency of your illegitimate position. 3.) That you still fail to even make an argument without differentiating between Jews and Nonjews, because deep inside you believe that one has to make an exception for Jews.

        Nathan: “If you think that a nice solution would be that the Jews go back to Poland, you might be surprised to find out that they don’t agree. They want to live in Israel. It’s their home, and they like it very much. The weather is also very nice.”

        I understand that you see only what Jews, Jews, Jews and Jews want. But the problem is not that Jews are living there, but that they prevent Nonjews from returning to live there. That’s your interpretation of a final solution, isn’t it?

        Nathan: “Maybe you have a suggestion that both sides could agree to.”

        How about both sides abiding to international and human rights law (including the right to return) and the right to equality (which excludes a protonazi like differentiation between nationals and citizens)? Oh wait, that would destroy the supremacist settler entity, right?

        See Nathan, the problem is that there is no solution for both sides, if one sides solution implies the violation of the fundamental rights of the other. The only solution in this case is to stop this crime. Nonviolently if possible, by force if it’s not.

      • RoHa
        July 28, 2017, 4:27 am

        “The Jews had the right to aspire to found their state in Palestine”

        No, they did not. Zionists have used up boatloads of electrons on MW, but none has successfully made a moral case for Zionism.

        Now that the state exists, there is no moral case for it to continue in its present form.

      • RoHa
        July 28, 2017, 4:36 am

        “Even if we would look at the conflict through the lens of the Mondoweiss website …, you would notice…”

        That should be “Even if we looked at the conflict through the lens of the Mondoweiss website …”

        Your fellow Zionists, the late William Safire, would have told you that if he were still alive.

      • Talkback
        July 28, 2017, 7:12 am

        Nathan: ” I claimed that the Mondoweiss website wishes to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel. … Obviously, an article that describes Zionism as a colonial project is meant to state that the founding of Israel was illegitimate. Similarly, an article that describes Zionism as a colonial project is meant to state that the Jews (the Zionist colonists) had no right to come to Palestine.”

        Don’t forget your claim that Mondweiss is “not committed to honest reporting”, because it allegedly “wishese” to “convince” the public of the llegitimacy of Israel.

        Well, thanks to Mondoweiss honest reporting its readers know that Zionism’s founder Hertzl wrote in his diary that Zionism is a “colonial” project.
        http://mondoweiss.net/2010/09/actually-herzl-was-a-colonialist/
        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/11/resolution-declared-zionism/

        And thats only one example of many. Take Jabotinsky in the Iron Wall: “It is of no importance whether we quote Herzl or Herbert Samuel to justify our activities. Colonization itself has its own explanation, integral and inescapable, and understood by every Arab and every Jew with his wits about him. Colonization can have only one goal.”

        It doesn’t actually make any sense to deny that foreigners came to settle in Palestine under the protection of a mandate wich supported a national ideology that wanted to take over Palestine and change its national character. If that’s not a colonial project, what is?

        So thanks to your own reasoning you proved that MW doesn’t even need to “convince” the public that Israel is illegitimate or that Jews had no right to come to Palestine, because your own reasoning only leads to the conclusion that it it’s not and that they hadn’t.

        Good Job, Nathan!

  5. DaBakr
    July 27, 2017, 1:08 am

    Most people know the difference between honest journalism, biased journalism, citizen-journalist reports vs. professional journalism. Most also know the difference between ideological reporting that may be honest but through omission Can leave half of any given story out. And then there are op-eds and amateur opinion pieces. All part of a robust but decidedly one sided publication. the same can be said for pro-zionist web sites which do approximately the same thing as MW does. however, I have never seen another site with a comment moderator like anni who pops out occasionally to use pretty well honed rhetorical and debating skill to take out a commenter whose comment she finds lacking in some way.

    One example to illustrate the problem is the comparison of the al Dura killing where a French reporter went through similar difficulties the above reporter claims happened with his reporting I jenin. both reporters have claimed to prove absolutely the other side was ,’impossible’ but publishers and editors withheld robust support.

  6. Ossinev
    July 27, 2017, 8:00 am

    Nathan has this cute childish defence system. He makes a claim without surprise surprise giving any evidence to support it and when challenged to provide the evidence to support it he resorts to asking those who challenge him to prove that he is wrong.Na Na Na Na Na Even when he departs from this rather pathetic tactic he is predictably evasive. As above in response to Annie he refers to having “clicked” on an article:

    “Anyway, since you requested proof, I decided to check your archives, and the very first article that I happened to click was a rather recent article by Tikva Honig-Parnass from May 19th (“Reflection of a Daughter from the ’48 Generation”).”

    But then for whatever reason he doesn`t provide the link to the article to allow us to read and judge for ourselves.

    Go on Nathan. Give us the link.

    • Nathan
      July 27, 2017, 10:07 am

      Ossinev – I have to admit that this time I’ve been caught red-handed. I’ve given mention of an article in the Mondoweiss website without the link, knowing that no one would be able to find it by themselves to check it out. Actually, it’s so difficult to find it that I myself am unable to find it again. You might want to try and google “Tikva Honig Parnass” and “Reflections of a Daughter…..” I would imagine that the article might pop up, although admittedly I didn’t test the system.

      I think that my claim that the Mondoweiss website is an ideological publication meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel is not really in need of proof. Annie Robbins asked for proof, so out of politeness I chose a random article. It was interesting to see Annie’s reaction. She answered by saying that Zionism is a colonial project, as if the accuracy of that claim is the issue at hand. No, that wasn’t the issue. The issue was that the presentation of Zionism as a colonial project in the article was meant to define Israel as an illegitimate state. That, indeed, is the intention of the article and the ideological position of Mondoweiss. It’s a mystery why it is so difficult to say simply: “Yes, we at Mondoweiss define Israel as an illegitimate state”. In any case it’s very obvious, and you don’t really need to search for the Parnass article to find out if my reading between-the-line skills are still okay.

      Now, if a website has an ideological ax to grind, is it reasonable to assume that its reporting is slanted (in accordance to that ideology)? Yes, I think that is a reasonable assumption.

      • Mooser
        July 27, 2017, 9:49 pm

        “I think that my claim that the Mondoweiss website is an ideological publication meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel is not really in need of proof”

        No not at all. After all, if that wasn’t true, why would Mondo publish your comments, “Nathan”?

      • Talkback
        July 28, 2017, 4:46 am

        Nathan: “I think that my claim that the Mondoweiss website is an ideological publication meant to convince the public of the illegitimacy of Israel is not really in need of proof.”

        Not at all. MW is occupied by Israel. There’s no need to proof any of your claims and accusations. You can always claim that you can’t show your evidence, because of security reasons. Or just put the staff in endless administrative detention without any charge and prevent them from seeing their lawyer or parents. If they have children, raid their houses in the middle of the night to terrorize them, too. You may also kidnapp their children and accuse them of stow throwing. In nearly all cases they will freely sign a fixed “confession” they don’t undestand because its writen in Hebrew to evade staying even longer in your dungeons confronted with your perverts who beat children or threaten them with the electrocution of their testicles until they would finally get a trial in which the will be found guilty, because you don’t have to – wait for it – proof your accusations. That’s of course legitimate, too, because Israel has legalized its atrocities, war crimes and the abuse of Nonjewish children.

        But maybe your failure to proof or make a plausible case for your claims may explain another reason why “Israel is losing the battle for public opinion”.

      • Mooser
        July 28, 2017, 4:28 pm

        “Not at all. MW is occupied by Israel.”

        Yes, I’ve noticed that, too. All the Zionists assume an absurd and very naive pretension to ownership in the site. I’ve always wondered why.

    • Annie Robbins
      July 27, 2017, 11:13 am

      here’s the link to Tikva Honig-Parnass’s excellent article ossinev: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/05/reflections-daughter-generation/

      it’s an odd choice to build a case mondoweiss is not dedicated to honest reporting — because it is brutally honest.

      dabakr — it’s been months since i was comment moderator .. i’m just commenting in my capacity as an ordinary person with an opinion like everyone else here.

  7. Ossinev
    July 27, 2017, 2:58 pm

    @Annie – thank you for the link to the Parnass article. As Nathan has said I tried the Google models and could not find it. Having said that I am somewhat embarrassed to find that I had read it before and had commented favourably on it but was well worth re-reading as it reflects a rare and encouraging example of an Israeli recognising that her Zionism was based on external and internal brainwashing.

    @Nathan.
    I still fail to see the connect between the article and your claim that Mondoweiss commentators are dedicated to convincing readers of the”illegitimacy” of Israel as a state. Israel is far and away the leader in this area itself and is doing a great job viz ongoing defiance of UN Resolutions , breaches of the Geneva Conventions , multiple ongoing war crimes , Apartheid practices inc religious discrimination etc In other words it openly flaunts its “illegitimacy” for all the world including Mondoweiss readers and commentators to see.

    As for personally recognising its legitimacy – in common I think with a lot of other MW commentators I have no problems with there being an Israeli state so long as it has inbuilt equality for all of its citizens of whatever race and religion and that there is no ongoing aggressive illegal acquisition and occupation of the lands of others peoples which means compliance with International Law. I believe it is highly unlikely that Israel with its current extremist right wing drift will ever do the latter and ergo with each passing day it is reinforcing its “illegitimacy” without the need for MW or any other site to point out the blindingly obvious.

    • Nathan
      July 27, 2017, 3:53 pm

      Ossinev – It’s very nice that you see a theoretical possibility of recognizing Israel’s legitimacy. You mentioned that Israel should stop occupying the land of others. I interpret this statement as meaning that there is some territory that Israel occupies that is not the land of others. Could you tell me which land that is? Is this the Green Line, or perhaps the Partition Plan? I wonder how many people agree with you that there is some territory under Israel’s control which is her legitimate land.

      • echinococcus
        July 27, 2017, 11:00 pm

        You mentioned that Israel should stop occupying the land of others. I interpret this statement as meaning that there is some territory that Israel occupies that is not the land of others. Could you tell me which land that is? Is this the Green Line, or perhaps the Partition Plan? I wonder how many people agree with you that there is some territory under Israel’s control which is her legitimate land.

        Nathan, are you devoid of gray cells to the point of giving away the game and exposing the very people among you enemies who support some legitimacy to the abominable Zionist presence? Without which you can’t even pretend to a fig leaf to cover your shame?

        I’m starting to believe that you aren’t faking your intellectual powers. Please continue.

    • Annie Robbins
      July 27, 2017, 6:08 pm

      Ossinev, i didn’t pop up for me when i just googled it either, so i googled “mondoweiss Reflections of a daughter of the ’48 Generation’”, then it popped right up. i regularly place “mondoweiss” before the topic or title when i search for our articles on google.

  8. Jack Green
    July 27, 2017, 3:45 pm

    Israel is not apartheid. Jewish babies & Muslim babies are born in the same delivery rooms & years later sit next to each other in universities. That is not apartheid.

    • eljay
      July 27, 2017, 4:53 pm

      || Jack Green: Israel is not apartheid. … ||

      Right, it’s religion-based “Jewish State” supremacism.

    • John O
      July 27, 2017, 7:04 pm

      They won’t be if Batzalel Smotrich gets his way. “It’s natural that my wife wouldn’t want to lie next to someone whose baby son might want to murder my son,” he added. He continued: “Arabs are my enemies and that’s why I don’t enjoy being next to them.”

      http://www.newsweek.com/israeli-lawmaker-posts-support-hospital-room-segregation-between-arab-and-444641

    • YoniFalic
      July 27, 2017, 10:59 pm

      When I was an Israeli Zio, I was as racist as any German Nazis, and I come from a proud leftist Zionist family.

    • Talkback
      July 28, 2017, 3:42 am

      Jack Green: “Jewish babies & Muslim babies are born in the same delivery rooms & years later sit next to each other in universities. That is not apartheid.”

      That’s may be not Apartheid South-Africa style. But the Crime of Aparheid as defined by international law is not restricted to the South-African version of Apartheid and you don’t focus on its Grand but only on its specific Petty Apartheid. So let’s think about all the Muslim babies that are not born next to Jewish babies, because Israel keeps their parents expelled and denationalized for demographic reasons or prevents family unification based on heritage/religion. That’s full blown Apartheid.

  9. JosephA
    July 28, 2017, 12:16 am

    JosephA – Yes, criticism of Israel has to do with the improving of the country. However, as you probably noticed, in the discussion here there is generally no criticism of Israel. Let’s not confuse criticism with hostility. If someone says to his neighbor that he smells and he needs a good shower – that would be criticism. The problem has been defined, and a reasonable plan of action has been proposed. However, if someone tells his neighbor that he smells and he should just drop dead – that would be hostility. Although, a problem has been defined, the plan of action is unreasonable.

    **** Israel has over 50 laws on the books that legalize racism against the Palestinians. One example is a recent law that made it retroactively legal for Jewish settlers to take over privately owned Palestinian land. Another example: if a Palestinian commits a certain act of rebellion, the home of that person’s family is demolished by the government. This law and the resulting actions are a war crime and a violation of international law. When the Jewish settlers were recently convicted of some act of terror against Palestinians, their homes were not demolished by the government. I would personally advocate for the racist laws to be rescinded and for equality under the law to be enforced. I have defined the problem, and a reasonable plan of action ****

    Your proposal for “truth in reconciliation commission” is premature. The conflict has not been resolved. Even if we would look at the conflict through the lens of the Mondoweiss website (as if Mondoweiss has defined correctly the conflict), you would notice, for example, that the Jews had no right to come to Palestine or that they should leave the country.

    **** Respectfully disagree. Jews lived in Palestine before the modern state of Israel was created. They would still live there now, had that state not been created. I do not advocate for the Jews to leave. I advocate for true equality under the law. Nothing more, nothing less. Obviously removing the concentration-camp like conditions in Gaza would be a good start ****

    Well, that issue would have to bey resolved. What’s the point of a reconciliation when one side is expected to leave. There would have to be an end-of-conflict scenario in which the legitimacy of both sides is recognized. Do you have an end-of-conflict scenario that both sides could live with?

    **** See above ****

    • Nathan
      July 28, 2017, 11:33 am

      JosephA – You tell me to “see above” your end-of-conflict scenario. However, there is no end-of-conflict scenario to be seen. In order to end a conflict, the very grievance which is the source of conflict has to be identified – and, then, a reasonable solution to that grievance has to be proposed. Apparently, you have decided that the very grievance that has given birth to this conflict is a legal system. You should note that in this conflict there are hundreds and hundreds of grievances, some real and some imaginary. It’s a very long conflict (more than 100 years), so during the course of time new grievances are added on (but old grievances are never removed from the growing list). In the propaganda war, both sides present those grievances which outsiders are likely to identify with. However, the grievance that you have chosen to identify with is not the grievance that has led to the birth of this conflict; therefore, its rectification to your satisfaction will not lead to the end of conflict. This is not a conflict with you. What is the grievance that led to the birth of this conflict (from the point of view of those who are in conflict), and how do you imagine a reasonable solution?

      • Mooser
        July 28, 2017, 6:54 pm

        ” However, there is no end-of-conflict scenario to be seen.”

        Of course there is. The collapse of Zionism, and a change in Palestine.

      • Talkback
        July 29, 2017, 3:05 am

        Nathan: “In order to end a conflict, the very grievance which is the source of conflict has to be identified – …”

        Zionist settler colonialism.

        “… and, then, a reasonable solution to that grievance has to be proposed.”

        Equal rights in historic Palestine.

    • Mooser
      July 28, 2017, 4:19 pm

      ” I do not advocate for the Jews to leave. I advocate for true equality under the law. Nothing more, nothing less.”

      And the right of any Jew who cannot accept those conditions, or even the possibility of such conditions to leave Israel must not be infringed.

  10. Ossinev
    July 28, 2017, 11:19 am

    @Nathan
    ” It’s very nice that you see a theoretical possibility of recognizing Israel’s legitimacy. You mentioned that Israel should stop occupying the land of others. I interpret this statement as meaning that there is some territory that Israel occupies that is not the land of others. Could you tell me which land that is? Is this the Green Line, or perhaps the Partition Plan? I wonder how many people agree with you that there is some territory under Israel’s control which is her legitimate land”

    For good or bad It was recognised as a state by the UN in 1949 thus it de facto ( ie in fact and not in theory) has international legitimacy. It is also the legitimate land/state of the hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinian natives and their descendants who were expelled during the 1947-48 Nakba and who have the right of return. Every day which passes without allowing these legitimate indigenous Palestinians and their descendants to return to their legitimate land de facto undermines the legitimacy of Israel. With regard to the occupied territories the State of Israel has no legitimate control over these and they have never been and never will be a part of the State of Israel in it`s current form and this fact has been acknowledged by the same UN. They may however at some stage become part of a single equal rights for all state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean under whatever given name which would in turn be recognised by the same UN. This latter IMHO will be the inevitable outcome given the ongoing illegitimacy of Israel`s actions and I do not believe that there is realistically any other viable alternative in the future. ERGO I believe in a One State Solution with equal rights for all irrespective of race and religion as per Israel`s Declaration of Independence with no “birthright ” rights for non native American,Welsh,Ukrainian,Chinese etc etc foreign Jews.

    Having said all that I have every right to believe , as Echinococcus has said, that the State of Israel as it has evolved is an abomination given its overt human rights abuses, Apartheid practices and Fascist tendencies.

    BTW you are again using the simplistic childish tactic of asking others to somehow state and clarify what they think you believe but for whatever reason you are reluctant to spell out. Please do give me a synopsis of this in the context of Israel`s claim to legitimacy and its future legitimacy.

    • echinococcus
      July 28, 2017, 1:19 pm

      Ossinev,

      Thanks for the nod. I’ll have to disagree, though.

      Not to what you mention as what you “do not believe that there is realistically any other viable alternative in the future”. I agree that this would have been indeed an excellent compromise proposal to be made in a world of rational actors. It has been made, in fact, and more power to its proponents.

      I must disagree, though, with your

      I have every right to believe , as Echinococcus has said, that the State of Israel as it has evolved is an abomination given its overt human rights abuses, Apartheid practices and Fascist tendencies

      The abomination is in the Zionist entity being based on other people’s land and on another people’s territory, without the owners’ fully representative and voluntary consent. Period.

      How it has “evolved” was already inbuilt in the basic principle of Zionism, i.e. a “Jewish” homeland, and the additional fact that there is no usable no man’s land left on this world. It was immediately predictable (and predicted by clear-thinking), already at the start, that any application of Zionism would necessarily lead to this (and the more violent forms of genocide still to come.)

      As for your

      For good or bad It was recognised as a state by the UN in 1949 thus it de facto ( ie in fact and not in theory) has international legitimacy.

      it sure counts when looking at realistic solutions and tactics, but it is of absolutely no relevance when compromises fail. In fact, I can’t even count any longer all the regime changes, border changes, name changes, etc. in my lifetime. All it takes is pen and paper.

      • mcohen..
        July 30, 2017, 9:16 pm

        Ecchi says “all it takes is pen and paper”

        The pen is mightier than the sword so right there you have a winner.lets face facts though.take the latest temple mount protests.
        Some bright spark (probably) iranian has decided to stir up a few youths in israel for the sake of there strategic interests elsewhere such as the campaign in the qualmoun moutains.
        Kill a few druze policemen,murder a jewish family,shoot a few palestinian youths and scores are settled for the attack in iran last month at the shrine and parliament.

        Luckily some people are not fooled.political islam requires the sacrifice of common man to achieve its goals.
        The problem is that the palestinian people have suffered the most and day will come that whatever victory the masters of war hope to achieve in jerusalem it will be a hollow one.history certainly proved that that is the case.
        The next palestinian generation should forget about al aqsa this and aqsa that and take a lesson from what has happened in egypt since the arab spring.
        It time for the Palestinian younger generation to throw the ramallah puppets out of office and take there destiny in there own hands and build a nation.
        Not a state but a nation.

      • Mooser
        July 30, 2017, 11:21 pm

        Good old “mcohen”! He sees a headline which says: “Israel is losing the battle for public opinion thanks to honest journalists, and platforms like Mondoweiss”, so he steps right up and does his part!

  11. straightline
    July 28, 2017, 9:02 pm

    This is a long discussion and I may have missed I have seen no mention of the significant side-effects of the increasing understanding by the general public that the Western media are at best obfuscating and worse lying about the Palestine/Israel issue. Once the media are distrusted over one issue, their reporting of everything else is subject to suspicion. My own epiphany came many years ago (before 9/11) because of a clearly biased report by NYT on the P/I issue. At that point I realise that one cannot trust that newspaper over anything it writes, except perhaps the recipes. From there it spread to the BBC, Guardian, CNN, Australian ABC, Fairfax Press in Australia, and of course the Murdoch media, because in each case they demonstrably lied over something.

    A reading of the British Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee Report on Libya is enlightening, though it does pull its punches:

    https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmfaff/119/119.pdf

    Once trust is lost it is very difficult to get it back. I do not pay for bad fiction.

Leave a Reply