Jews have religious commandment to support Israel and fight BDS — American Jewish Committee

US Politics
on 148 Comments

Yesterday I received a fundraising letter from the head of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) saying that the sound of the ram’s horn in synagogue tonight, marking the new year, is a “wake-up call” for Jews to support Israel and fight BDS, the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign.

The letter completely conflates Judaism and Zionism, religion and state:

This New Year, let the shofar’s sound serve as a wake-up call—a reminder of our responsibility as Jews and a chance to reaffirm our commitment to the Jewish homeland.

Today, nearly 70 years after Israel declared independence, her right to exist still comes under assault. But every day, AJC is countering the campaign to delegitimize Israel.

You can read David Harris’s letter in full below. But it is evidence of the complete capture of the Jewish establishment by Zionism, and the ways in which leading organizations have turned the Jewish religion into Zionism– and made the conflict in Israel and Palestine a religious conflict. When anyone starts complaining about Muslim imams preaching jihad or Christian evangelicals shutting down abortion clinics, this is the Jewish version of religious interference in public life.

The Jewish organizations completed this conversion 30 and 40 years ago. They had the assistance of scholars like the political philosopher Michael Walzer, who traces Zionism to the bible itself. And maybe these people are right about religion. Religion is a human endeavor, and like so many other such endeavors has an ethnic component; it can be used to justify a people’s claim to self-determination. Many religious figures sanctify political violence (just look at the role of preachers in the American revolution).

But what the AJC is saying is very dangerous. The American Jewish Committee is saying that the Jewish religion commands Jews to support the occupation of Palestinian lands and persecution of Palestinians, and oppose equal rights for Palestinians (ideas embedded in BDS). These policies foster hatred of Jews; and the AJC fosters that process by saying these are Jewish commitments.

As I say here often, young Jews reject these ideas. Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow — they define Jewishness in non-nationalist ways in the era of Trump. Look at this campaign from IfNotNow targeting Jewish leaders. “You Never Told Me” about the occupation in Jewish spaces. They’re angry about that.

Though the AJC isn’t interested in young Jews. It’s raising money, from older Zionist Jews. “No other country has experienced as much international demonization as Israel.” Really? What about North Korea, Syria and Iran?

David Harris of the American Jewish Committee

Here’s the letter from David Harris.

This New Year, let the shofar’s sound serve as a wake-up call—a reminder of our responsibility as Jews and a chance to reaffirm our commitment to the Jewish homeland.

Today, nearly 70 years after Israel declared independence, her right to exist still comes under assault. But every day, AJC is countering the campaign to delegitimize Israel.

Here are just a few ways your support brings tangible results.

  • At the United Nations, AJC Is Changing Opinions about IsraelTo help dismantle the UN’s systemic discrimination against Israel, our Project Interchange seminars bring UN and UNESCO ambassadors—along with other world leaders—to Israel to experience the reality first-hand.

    We’ve affected UN voting patterns on several occasions. And AJC’s campaign to make Israel eligible to vie for a UN Security Council seat, after 50 years of ineligibility, succeeded: Israel is seeking a seat for the 2019-20 term.

  • In Fighting BDS, AJC Is Helping Safeguard IsraelAJC has worked tirelessly to secure passage of anti-BDS legislation in many states. We continue to work for federal legislation. And in a huge blow to those calling for a boycott of Israel, AJC’s Governors United Against BDS campaign is now backed by all 50 U.S. governors.
  • On College Campuses, AJC Is Standing Up for IsraelThe American campus is the latest arena for those looking to vilify Israel. To counter this, AJC launched Leaders for Tomorrow (LFT), an innovative, acclaimed program that prepares high school students to advocate for the Jewish people when they get to campus.

    And most recently, we organized a statement signed by 100+ life science and healthcare academics in the Boston area slamming anti-Israel boycotts for their threat to “the free flow of ideas and information.”

  • When Addressing the Diplomatic Community, AJC Is Advocating for IsraelOver the past year, AJC has held meetings with government officials of more than 100 of the 193 UN member states. We urge these leaders to forge stronger ties with Israel, reject unfair boycotts, and confront anti-Semitism masked as criticism of the Jewish state.

No other country has experienced as much international demonization as Israel. And no other organization is better positioned than AJC to combat it. With more than 60 offices and partner groups worldwide, and access to the decision-makers who matter, AJC is there.

But AJC can only be there if you are with us. Your support is what makes AJC’s advocacy possible.

Join us as we work to make this New Year a more peaceful and promising one for Israel, the Jewish people, and all humanity.

Wishing you and yours a happy and healthy 5778,

David Harris
Chief Executive Officer

Thanks to Annie Robbins and Scott Roth.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

148 Responses

  1. JeffB
    September 20, 2017, 10:49 am

    @Phil

    Agree with your primary point that the American Jewish community has decided to make Zionism part of Judaism and Judaism part of Zionism. I would quibble a bit with this line though:

    The American Jewish Committee is saying that the Jewish religion commands Jews to support the occupation of Palestinian lands and persecution of Palestinians, and oppose equal rights for Palestinians (ideas embedded in BDS). These policies foster hatred of Jews; and the AJC fosters that process by saying these are Jewish commitments.

    The AJC isn’t saying that, you are saying that. The AJC is saying they oppose BDS. BDS is a confrontational leftist groups. There are all sorts of confrontational leftist groups people oppose even if they do support the underlying demands. I was opposed to the Iraqi occupation and oppossed to A.N.S.W.E.R. I agree with Black Lives Matter that independent DAs and not County DAs should be prosecuting police involved shootings, while still opposing the group. I agree with a lot of Al Qaeda’s critique about American policy. I think the Sunni Resistance and later ISIS have legitimate grievances.

    Saying you oppose a group is not the same as saying you oppose the demands when phrased in the most inclusive way possible. All 3 of BDS’s demands in isolation are reasonable. There are broad coalitions including a majority of the AJC that would support weakened forms of any one of them.

    • Annie Robbins
      September 20, 2017, 12:29 pm

      The AJC isn’t saying that, you are saying that

      nah, under other circumstancing a commitment to support israel might not necessarily be support for the occupation of Palestinian lands and persecution of Palestinians. but we are not living in another time. we’re living now, at a time of perpetual consistent palestinian oppression. being committed to the status quo is, effectively, support for the occupation and the persecution of palestinians.

      don’t confuse figures of speech with what those policies actually entail.

      • JeffB
        September 20, 2017, 5:15 pm

        @Annie

        You do have a good point there. Though of course that add a lot of qualifiers about it being a duty under present circumstances for a period of time… I’d also be a little more nuanced than you are being about saying the AJC “supports the status quo”. I’m not sure they care one way or the other about status quo. I think a more accurate description is they want any solution that the Israeli and Diaspora community can agree on and would be willing to jointly publicly defend. They care deeply about the level of agreement. I don’t think they are deeply concerned (at least institutionally) about the level of violence or lack there of towards the Palestinians in implementing a solution once agreed upon. The status quo because it causes tension is far from ideal for them, though other solutions might cause more tension and thus be further from ideal.

        So on reflection perhaps a better way to say why I didn’t like Phil’s characterization is that it shifts the emphasis of their statement from what the AJC cares about (building a unified Jewish opinion) to what Phil cares about (the Palestinians). I get your argument that in practice it means support for oppression, but he’s claiming they said that when they didn’t and moreover wouldn’t. They are coming from a mainstream not a leftist frame. They just don’t have the same categories of classifying policy as the far left does. Ironically they are more postmodern and constructivist than the far left.

        Anyway if you are going to talk about in practice standards. In practice the AJC has to Republican Jews defended mainstream peace organizations. For example multiple times the AJC has effectually defended JStreet’s legitimacy: winning the battle before the Jewish Congress for them to retain membership and backing the Knesset off an inquiry into JStreet. In the reverse direction AJC is in dialogue with INN for much the same reason trying to get them to not inflame tensions between Liberal Jews and Conservative Jews in the USA via INN’s “Jewish resistance to Trump” theme.

        So in short I agree with your point about in practice while still disagreeing with Phil’s phrasing. Its just too strong a critique.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 21, 2017, 10:23 pm

        I’m not sure they care one way or the other about status quo. I think a more accurate description is they want any solution that the Israeli and Diaspora community can agree on and would be willing to jointly publicly defend.

        sta·tus quo
        ˌstādəs ˈkwō/Submit
        noun
        the existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues.

        so, you’re not so sure the ajc cares about the status quo? could you tell me just one thing (just one)the “Israeli and Diaspora community” (whatever that is) agree on and are willing to “jointly publicly defend” that is not the status quo?

        i didn’t read the rest of your hasbara, which is why i am not responding to it. i only have so much time in my day for empty false rhetoric which is what i’ve come to expect from you. so, i skipped it.

      • JeffB
        September 23, 2017, 11:13 am

        @Annie

        could you tell me just one thing (just one)the “Israeli and Diaspora community” (whatever that is) agree on and are willing to “jointly publicly defend” that is not the status quo?

        Sure Israeli conversion standards should be loosened. Joint Israeli / American committees should exist that cross Jewish denominations with legal validity in Israel and religious validity in all major Jewish communities. Essentially replace this power with something like the Denver program.

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 1:01 pm

        “Sure Israeli conversion standards should be loosened”

        Don’t be ridiculous, “Jeff b”. Do you think a kid should join the Cub Scouts, and be made an Eagle Scout automatically at the next meeting. Or you help out a polling station so they make you President?
        We cannot sacrifice or religious and ethnic purity for the sake of numbers! Only a very desperate Zionism would do that. We must maintain the distinctions which make Judaism what it is.

        Of course, it is a religious decision. so we can always change our minds and have the Chief Rabbis throw them out again when we no longer need them.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 23, 2017, 2:23 pm

        i stated a commitment to support israel was a committed to the status quo (existing state of affairs, especially regarding social or political issues) — effectively, support for the occupation and the persecution of palestinians. to which jeff claims he’s not sure the AJC cares one way or the other about status quo — and they want “any solution that the Israeli and Diaspora community can agree on and would be willing to jointly publicly defend”.

        ok, so lets suspend all rational thought and pretend we are not discussing the status quo of what “a commitment to support israel” effectively means. and along with that pretend when jeff uses the term “solution” in this conversation he’s not talking about palestine/israel! and when he says what the “Israeli and Diaspora community can agree on and would be willing to jointly publicly defend” — that we’re not talking about that status quo. we could be referencing the status quo hamantaschen or matzo soup!

        in this scenario, where we completely divorce/disconnect and divert ourselves from the conversation about the status quo regarding israel/palestine and what the ajc will or will not “jointly publicly defend”, let’s everyone pretend jewish religious conversion falls under the rubric of existing state of affairs in israel/palestine, especially regarding social or political issues!!!

        so sorry everyone for wasting your time. i should have said ‘you’re not so sure the ajc cares about the status quo of israel/palestine? could you tell me just one thing (just one)the “Israeli and Diaspora community” (whatever that is) agree on and are willing to “jointly publicly defend” that is not the status quo on israel/palestine?

        another round of applause for jeff and the dumbing down of discourse on mondoweiss.

        btw, this reminds me of the senate panel on 9/11. everything and anything all panel participants did not agree on was left out of the investigation. that’s one way to find out what everyone will “jointly publicly defend” —

      • RoHa
        September 23, 2017, 8:17 pm

        “Or you help out a polling station so they make you President?”

        Probably get better results than the current method.

  2. eljay
    September 20, 2017, 11:25 am

    … Here’s the letter from David Harris

    This New Year, let the shofar’s sound serve as a wake-up call—a reminder of our responsibility as Jews and a chance to reaffirm our commitment to the Jewish homeland.

    1. What “responsibility” do Jews have “as Jews”?

    2. Why does Mr. Harris hate Jews so much that he expects all Jews – even those who have not committed to it – to “reaffirm” their commitment to a colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” construct that is unjust, immoral and hypocritical?

    3. To what lengths does Mr. Harris expect Jews to go in order to “reaffirm” their commitment to a “Jewish State”? Is it enough for Jews to provide vocal support? Monetary support? Military support? Should Jews engage in blackmail, terrorism and/or murder in order to “reaffirm” their commitment to the “Jewish State”?

    4. What does Mr. Harris think of Jews who choose not “reaffirm” their commitment to a “Jewish State” because it is an unjust, immoral and hypocritical construct?

    • Mooser
      September 20, 2017, 1:36 pm

      “3. To what lengths does Mr. Harris expect Jews to go in order to “reaffirm” their commitment to a “Jewish State”?”

      To what lengths can Mr. Harris go to compel us to do these things?

      • eljay
        September 20, 2017, 6:57 pm

        || Mooser: … “3. To what lengths does Mr. Harris expect Jews to go in order to “reaffirm” their commitment to a “Jewish State”?”

        To what lengths can Mr. Harris go to compel us to do these things? ||

        I suppose it depends on the strength of his commitment to the “Jewish State”.

  3. Boris
    September 20, 2017, 12:06 pm

    Zionism is a secular movement and has nothing to do with Judaism.

    Zionism is not based on religion, but on the historic fact that Jews, as a nation, are indigenous to the area of what is known today as Palestine, that they were forcefully expelled from it, suffered all kinds of persecution, and that it is in Jewish national interest to have a nation state in Jewish ancestral land.

    Yes, there are Religious Zionists, who believe in “miracles”, Divine Providence, etc. Mainstream Zionism has nothing to do with it.

    Mondoweiss screams that Jews “stole” land from Palestinians, and supporters of Israel, AJC included, feel that you can’t steal what is rightfully yours.

    I think anybody who knows a bit of history would understand where the truth is.

    • eljay
      September 20, 2017, 12:27 pm

      || Boris: … anybody who knows a bit of history would understand where the truth is. ||

      The truth:
      – Jewish is a religion-based identity, acquired by undergoing a religious conversion to Judaism or being descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

      – The religion-based identity of Jewish does not comprise a right to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in geographic Palestine (or anywhere else in the world).

      – Geographic Palestine is not the ancestral land of all people in the world – of citizens of homelands all over the world – who choose to be/come Jewish.

      – Geographic Palestine is the ancestral land of its indigenous Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc. Palestinian population and people up to n-generations removed from it (incl. refugees).

      • Boris
        September 20, 2017, 2:05 pm

        @eljay

        There are plenty of atheists who call themselves Jews. So much for your first argument.

        As for the rest – they are not even worth a comment.

      • echinococcus
        September 20, 2017, 4:17 pm

        “Plenty of atheists who call themselves ‘Jews’ ”
        Yes. They are either emotional cripples unable to use reason except for their atheism, or deliberate criminal racists, period.

        You’re right that Eljay is all wet,, following the Zionist entity system for assigning religion.

      • eljay
        September 20, 2017, 6:54 pm

        || Boris: @eljay

        There are plenty of atheists who call themselves Jews. So much for your first argument. … ||

        An atheist can call himself whatever he wants. If he calls himself Jewish, it’s for one of two reasons:
        – he underwent a religious conversion to Judaism; or
        – he is descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

        So much for your first rebuttal.

        || … As for the rest – they are not even worth a comment. ||

        And yet you commented. So much for the rest of your rebuttal.

    • Mooser
      September 20, 2017, 3:13 pm

      ” Jews, as a nation,”

      The Jewish nation” can’t draft me, can’t tax me’ can’t compel me to follow its ‘laws’, or, in fact, make any demands on me. Some nation.

      • Boris
        September 20, 2017, 4:10 pm

        Ok, so you don’t have “it”. Not a big loss. You are not the first moser, nor the last.

        Jews are stubborn people. Only the most stubborn remain Jewish and feel belonging to the Jewish nation regardless of all the adversity.

        BTW, before someone goes through the giur, s/he is being continuously talked out of it. Only the most stubborn are accepted, as this is the only qualification. After all, only stiff-necked people could have survived centuries of persecution.

      • Mooser
        September 20, 2017, 5:48 pm

        You tell ’em “Boris”. A “nation” which can only impose its will on its subject nationality by persuasion?
        Not much of a nation.

      • Boris
        September 20, 2017, 6:41 pm

        Wrong again, Mu-Mu

        It is typically non-Jews who will tell you that you are Jewish, whether you like it or not.

      • eljay
        September 20, 2017, 7:17 pm

        || Boris: … It is typically non-Jews who will tell you that you are Jewish, whether you like it or not. ||

        But it’s typically Zionist Jews who will measure a Jew’s Jewishness, whether he likes it or not.

        I don’t understand why Zionists hate Jews so much.

      • Mooser
        September 20, 2017, 7:38 pm

        “It is typically non-Jews who will tell you that you are Jewish, whether you like it or not.”

        As opposed of course, to Jewish practice, which is to tell us that we can all be cut off, excommunicated, for a host of malfeasances and offenses, from anti-Zionism to violating kashruth, to inter-marriage. So I won’t let those non-Jews make me feel too comfortable.

      • Boris
        September 20, 2017, 11:48 pm

        Well, Mooser, it is one thing not to eat kosher, marry a shiksa so you kids won’t be Jewish, and/or in whatever ways disconnect from the Jewish community.

        It is, however, totally different ballgame to scream on every corner that you are indeed a Jew and you oppose the only Jewish state. That’s what earns you condemnation from fellow Jews.

      • RoHa
        September 21, 2017, 10:12 am

        And if that earns you condemnation from fellow Jews, it shows that those “fellow Jews” are a contemptible bunch, and the less you have to do with them, the better.

      • Mooser
        September 21, 2017, 4:21 pm

        “It is, however, totally different ballgame to scream on every corner that you are indeed a Jew and you oppose the only Jewish state.”

        Another thing the “Jewish nation” is entirely unable to prevent. Singly, or in groups. Some nation.

    • Keith
      September 20, 2017, 6:13 pm

      BORIS- “Zionism is a secular movement and has nothing to do with Judaism.”

      Nonsense, and rather obviously so. Not only is Zionism supported by the majority of the Rabbinate, but Zionism is essentially a secular version of the political economy of Classical Judaism which opposes assimilation and views Gentiles as the evil other. You focus on Jewish adversity as opposed to current Jewish power and privilege even though the two are to a significant degree incompatible.

      • yonah fredman
        September 20, 2017, 6:24 pm

        Gentiles are not the evil other, but Keith is. Keith is classically anti Jewish, with a twist of marx, karl.

      • Mooser
        September 20, 2017, 7:30 pm

        “Gentiles are not the evil other, but Keith is.”

        “Yonah” , is Zionism “supported by the majority of the Rabbinate” or not? Hardly seems like an explosive charge to me.

      • RoHa
        September 20, 2017, 7:43 pm

        Congratulations, Keith!

        You made it! Denunciation by Yonah.

      • Keith
        September 21, 2017, 10:22 am

        YONAH FREDMAN- “Gentiles are not the evil other, but Keith is.”

        Ah, recognition! Now take off your clown costume.

      • Keith
        September 21, 2017, 10:28 am

        MOOSER- “Hardly seems like an explosive charge to me.”

        You mean to tell me THAT is what upset Yonah? Jeez, I just assumed that he was understandably jealous of my good looks. Go figure.

      • Keith
        September 21, 2017, 10:36 am

        ROHA- “You made it! Denunciation by Yonah.”

        Lordy, Lordy, if that is the criteria, then I had it made long ago. Yonah has a thing for me. Envy is such an unattractive emotion. Yet, in his case, understandable.

      • Mooser
        September 21, 2017, 4:06 pm

        . Go figure.”

        I see the problem, “Keith”. You have the same first name as that Ellison guy. “Yonah” gets you mixed up.

      • Mooser
        September 21, 2017, 4:48 pm

        “You mean to tell me THAT is what upset Yonah?”

        I can’t see why. It wouldn’t be hard to get a pretty good estimate of what the Rabbinate of, at the very least, the three major denominations of Judaism have to say about Zionism from their web-sites. They’re not shy about it.

      • Mooser
        September 21, 2017, 7:16 pm

        “You made it! Denunciation by Yonah.” “RoHa”

        But “Keith” needs about another 74 denunciations to catch up to you. (And some of those are double-denunciations, they include both of you.)

      • RoHa
        September 21, 2017, 10:08 pm

        Oh, Mooser!

        If I may indulge in a little modest simpering, I will point out that not all those comments are denunciations.

        But Yonah and I have been sparring since he was Wondering Jew, so there are bound to be quite a few denunciations there. I hope to collect a few more.

      • Mooser
        September 22, 2017, 11:50 am

        ” I will point out that not all those comments are denunciations.”

        True, there are a few violet-scented billet-doux in there, too.

    • JeffB
      September 21, 2017, 7:48 am

      @Eljay

      In your theory of Jewish being a purely religious based identity with no geographical component tied to Palestine “as anyone who knows a bit of history would understand” I’d be curious to know…

      What was the mechanism by which the Zionist propagandists manage to get Emperor Domitian to construct a large monument celebrating the victory over Judaea in the Via Sacra? Did Hertzl own a time machine, or was it Ben Gurion? How did they pull off this propaganda triumph? And how did they manage to convince a bunch of people to run around using the name of this I imagine fictional country as the name they applied to themselves for 19 centuries?

      • eljay
        September 21, 2017, 8:48 am

        || JeffB: @Eljay

        In your theory of Jewish being a purely religious based identity with no geographical component tied to Palestine … ||

        Correct. Jewish is a religion-based identity acquired by:
        – undergoing a religious conversion to Judaism; or
        – being descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

        No ties to the geographical region of Palestine are required.

      • JeffB
        September 21, 2017, 10:21 am

        @Eljay

        And I noticed you didn’t answer the question about how the Zionists tricked Emperor Domitian into not understand that Judaea never existed and everyone converted to Judaism originally.

      • eljay
        September 21, 2017, 12:02 pm

        || JeffB: @Eljay

        And I noticed you didn’t answer the question about how the Zionists tricked Emperor Domitian into not understand that Judaea never existed and everyone converted to Judaism originally. ||

        Being Jewish doesn’t mean you’re Judaean. Being from Judaea doesn’t mean you’re Jewish. What the Zionists did or did not do to Domitian has no bearing on the fact that Jewish is a religion-based identity that does not require any ties to geographic Palestine.

    • Misterioso
      September 21, 2017, 10:48 am

      @Boris

      Patent nonsense.

      Foreign Jews had the same right to Palestine as Irish Catholics and Mexican atheists, i.e., none whatsoever. Therein lies the root of the conflict.

      Furthermore, for the record:

      http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full
      Front. Genet., 21 June 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087

      The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish

      Recent genetic samples from bones found in Palestine dating to the Epipaleolithic
      (20000-10500 BCE) showed remarkable resemblance to modern day Palestinians.

      EXCERPTS:
      “The non-Levantine origin of AJs [Ashkenazi Jews] is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004). In a principle component analysis (PCA), the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins and marginally overlapped with Arabian Jews, whereas AJs clustered away from Levantine individuals and adjacent to Neolithic Anatolians and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans.”

      “Overall, the combined results are in a strong agreement with the predictions of the Irano-Turko-Slavic hypothesis (Table 1) and rule out an ancient Levantine origin for AJs, which is predominant among modern-day Levantine populations (e.g., Bedouins and Palestinians). This is not surprising since Jews differed in cultural practices and norms (Sand, 2011) and tended to adopt local customs (Falk, 2006). Very little Palestinian Jewish culture survived outside of Palestine (Sand, 2009). For example, the folklore and folkways of the Jews in northern Europe is distinctly pre-Christian German (Patai, 1983) and Slavic in origin, which disappeared among the latter (Wexler, 1993, 2012).”

      • Boris
        September 21, 2017, 12:15 pm

        Elhaik’s work has been long debunked.

        Time to change links…

  4. Kay24
    September 20, 2017, 5:10 pm

    This must be what they call a guilt trip. Make all Jews feel that to support BDS, and criticize the endless crimes by Israel, which goes against international laws, and considered human rights abuses, is to go against their religion, and is disloyal to good ole Israel. I hope there are rational thinking American Jews, who can see the difference.

    • JeffB
      September 21, 2017, 7:58 am

      @Kay24

      No Kay in meaningful numbers there aren’t. There are lots of American Jews that are concerned about Israel committing human rights abuses and would be willing to dialogue over addressing those. But there are almost none who consider the UN’s position, what you are calling “International law” to be just and fair. There are almost none that are disloyal to Israel. And there are almost none that would ever support the incredibly harsh terms of BDS even at its least destructive.

      It may or may not be the case that the most pro-peace elements of the Israeli / Jewish community and the most pro-peace elements of the Palestinian community can find enough overlap to make a deal. It will never be the case that the aggressive maximalist demands of the Palestinians as reflected in BDS will ever find anything but hard opposition from American Jews.

      Jews love their homeland and do not want to see her destroyed. If your goal is the destruction of Israel you are going to face strong American Jewish opposition not cooperation forever unavoidably.

      • Talkback
        September 21, 2017, 9:37 am

        JeffB: “But there are almost none who consider the UN’s position, what you are calling “International law” to be just and fair. There are almost none that are disloyal to Israel.”

        Yep, they have turned into supporters of violation of humaniatarian law and human rights. Real existing Zionism has basically turned thems into he Jewish equivalent of an Islamofascist and which is genuinely inhumane and only loyal to Jewish supremacism.

        JeffB: “t will never be the case that the aggressive maximalist demands of the Palestinians as reflected in BDS will ever find anything but hard opposition from American Jews.”

        This is a good example of what Leibowitz would call Judeonazism, too. The call for equality and human rights is considered to be an “aggressive maximalist demand” instead of what Zionists did in Palestine in 1948 and still are doing. That’s the ultimate upside-down perversion of human values. And that is exactly your game here on MW.

      • Misterioso
        September 21, 2017, 10:58 am

        JeffB

        Whatever the position of American Jews is, there is no special provision in international law that enables Israel to violate it with impunity.

        As a UN member, Israel is bound to obey the UN Charter, the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Rome Statue, etc.

        (A) Security Council Resolution 446 (22 March 1979) “[Affirms] once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem,
        “1. Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;..”

        (B) Security Council Resolution 465 (1 March 1980) “determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories OCCUPIED [my emphasis] since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity…”

        (C) Israel’s 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem was unanimously rejected by the UN Security Council in Resolution 476 (June 30, 1980): “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the OCCUPYING [my emphasis] Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

        (D) On 17 December 1981, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 497, which declared Israel’s 14 December 1981 annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights “null and void.”

        (E) In accordance with the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel, and further underscoring the illegality of the settlements, Part 2, Article 8, section B, paragraph viii of the Rome Statute of the International Court (1998) defines “the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it OCCUPIES [my emphasis]” as a War Crime, indictable by the International Criminal Court.

        (F) On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report entitled Israel and the OCCUPIED [my emphasis] Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: “Israel OCCUPIED [my emphasis] the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War…. The international community does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over any part of the OCCUPIED [my emphasis] territories.”

        (G) In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations.

        (H) In the summer of 1967, “[t]he legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked [by then Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol] whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked ‘Top Secret,’ Meron wrote unequivocally: ‘My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.’” (New York Times, 10 March 2006)

        (I) US Secretary of State, John Kerry: “The US views all of the settlements as illegitimate.” (13 August 2013, Reuters Video)

        (J) British Foreign Secretary William Hague regarding Jewish settlements in the West Bank (5 April 2011): “This is not disputed territory. It is OCCUPIED [my emphasis] Palestinian territory and ongoing settlement expansion is illegal under international law…”

        (K) UN Security Council Resolution 2334, December 23, 2016: “Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
        “Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,
        “Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,….”
        “1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
        “2. Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;
        “3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;..”

      • JeffB
        September 21, 2017, 12:08 pm

        @Misterioso

        Whatever the position of American Jews is, there is no special provision in international law that enables Israel to violate it with impunity.

        I would rethink this line since it has two critical errors. The first is conflating international law with the declarations s of the UN. International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations. The UN claims to make international law. Were that true then we would generally see states and nations bend to the UN on a host of issues on which they have ruled that those states and nations are in disagreement with. That doesn’t happen in many cases Israel being just one, ergo the UN does not make international law. For there to be law by definition there needs to be an entity capable of enforcement, the UN has proven itself in many areas not to be an entity capable of enforcement of its declarations. So what comes out of the UN is opinion about international law not international law.

        The second claim I’d dispute is that Israel has agreed to be bound. There are video and written statements where they have said the opposite. I was at the UN this year when the Israeli ambassador to the UN Danny Danon unequivocally and unapologetically rejected the concept that the UN General Assembly was a legitimate governing body. I should mention other countries, like the United States, Russia and China have made similar claims. And for that particular comment I saw live, you can’t see it in the video, but Ambassador Haley was there and nodded her head in agreement. She has turned out on many issues to be one of the very few bright spots of the Trump administration.

        The role the UN has played is a good place for countries to discuss and debate things. It has successfully avoided misunderstandings due to non-communication that have in previous times caused wars. On many issues it has facilitated negotiation and compromise. It provides some effective humanitarian services. It does have quite a few positives. But that does not make it the ultimate body of authority in the world. No one agrees to that quite self evidently.
        Moreover as an American one of the basic concepts we have is that governments need to have the consent of the governed. The UN does not have the consent of the American people nor the Israeli people to play the role you claim for it.

        So your claim basically boils down to Israel disagrees with an entity that has a loud and important voice with respect to the conflict. And I agree with you there, Israel does disagree with the UN. I think the UN’s opinions are asine so FWIW I happen to agree with Israel in mostly ignoring what the UN has to say on the issue.

        For example the definition of an occupation requires that the military in control of a territory make no permanent claim. A formal annexation is the strongest possible permanent claim. Agreeing that Israel Annexed East Jerusalem and still calling it an occupying power is IMHO simply stupid. It literally sort of statement made by people who don’t understand what the words mean.

        The AJC does have pretty strong ties to the UN. It is not uncommon for AJC, American UN, and Israeli UN staff to shuffle seats depending on changes from USA elections. We could, since this is an AJC thread, have a more interesting conversation than the usual “Israeli is a poopy head / is not” type conversation. I’d love to talk about and debate the AJC’s role in the UN and how they have worked over the decades to try and facilitate peace and understanding in an effectual way. Since most BDSers are activists AJC provides a good example of what effectual activism that really does change policy looks like.

  5. Boris
    September 20, 2017, 5:11 pm

    nah, there are no palestinian land and “occupation” is a loaded word.

    • Mooser
      September 20, 2017, 5:49 pm

      “occupation” is a loaded word.”

      That’s why it keeps on going off in your face, “Boris”.

    • yonah fredman
      September 20, 2017, 6:33 pm

      If one ignores the un descriptor “occupation”, one is playing tennis without a net.

    • Boris
      September 20, 2017, 6:44 pm

      nah, just showing that I dig your game.

    • JosephA
      September 20, 2017, 6:47 pm

      Hi Boris,

      Were you born in Israel?

    • Mooser
      September 20, 2017, 7:48 pm

      ” one is playing tennis without a net.”

      “Playing tennis without a net”! Of course. I see exactly what you mean.

  6. Citizen
    September 20, 2017, 5:38 pm

    Yeah, AJC, tell it to any Palestinian kid or old person,eh?

  7. yonah fredman
    September 20, 2017, 6:22 pm

    To the contributors to the ajc the primary Jewish issue of the day is Israel. To Phil Weiss the primary Jewish issue of the day is Israel. Not a headline.

  8. yourstruly
    September 20, 2017, 9:30 pm

    Jews have a religious commandment to support Israel and fight BDS?

    Contrariwise, together with the rest of humanity Jews have a moral obligation to oppose Israel and support BDS,

    A moral obligation by dint of Zionist Israel’s occupation of Palestine, the homeland of the Palestinian people,

    since the occupation of another people’s land is a form of enslavement, the Palestinian thereby has been reduced to the status of slave, the Israeli occupier now the slaveholder.

    One is either on the side of the slave or the slaveholder.

    once again a question of morality

    not a commandment

    • JeffB
      September 21, 2017, 8:07 am

      @yourstruly

      No no you fail to understand the moral obligation. Palestine was the homeland of the Christian Byzantine society that existed prior to the Muslim conquest that led to the migration of today’s Palestinians. The first wave of Israelis are acting on their moral obligation to restore them and end their occupation. But as soon as they did that another group of Israelis realized that those Byzantines were occupying a Jewish provence and that needed to be restored. And since there is a moral obligation to restore land to its original inhabitants that’s what we have today.

      They don’t disagree with your morality one bit. They are rather effectually carrying it out.

      • John O
        September 21, 2017, 9:08 am

        Ethnic cleansing is a moral obligation. Discuss, and illustrate with maps and diagrams.

      • Talkback
        September 21, 2017, 9:28 am

        JeffB: “Palestine was the homeland of the Christian Byzantine society that existed prior to the Muslim conquest that led to the migration of today’s Palestinians.”

        There was not migration. There was an Arabization and Muslimization of the native of Palestine. Only 5% of today’s Palestinians are considered to be descendants of Arabians.

        JeffB: “The first wave of Israelis are acting on their moral obligation to restore them and end their occupation.”

        Nope, they are Jewish foreigners who colonize Palestine. First under British de facto occupation and nowadays under Israel’s de facto and de jure occupation. It has been settler colonialism from the get go. You will never prove that any Jew of today is a biological descedant of an ancient Hebrew as you will never prove that any Nonjew or Palestinian of today is not. Racists like you only fake a “biological” continuity of a priarily religious group in a futile attempt to legitimize the criminal expulsion, denationalization, dispossession and the denial of self determination of the constitutive people of the former mandated State of Palestine.

      • MHughes976
        September 21, 2017, 9:51 am

        There is no obligation to restore land to – i.e. attribute exclusive political rights to – people on the ground that they are descended, either genetically or culturally, from former or even (if identifiable) original occupants. Political rights in any place or at any time depend, with minor exceptions, on being an inhabitant willing to live in peace, obey the law and pay taxes, where ‘willing to live in peace’ means not owing your presence to an act of violence that has not been set right by an agreement and actively maintaining the violent act’s results. Agreement includes tacit agreement – the time has come when no one concerned really objects, which is the situation with the First and Second American Nations. Former inhabitants who are forced out have a right of return unless and until they accept citizenship elsewhere, since a refugee who becomes (say) a British citizen must have the same rights and duties as me and I have no right of return to any other place. If you do exercise a right of return you do not have a right to any particular personal property unless something can be identified as particularly connected to you rather than any other individual. The basic ideas were explained, if explanation is needed, on the whole conclusively, I think, in Locke’s Second Treatise.
        I would like ask the Moderators about accepting Nakba justification when I presume they would not accept someone saying ‘The Holocaust was morally right’ and when Holocaust and Nakba have a.certain equivalence in our rules.

      • JeffB
        September 21, 2017, 10:09 am

        @John O

        Take it up with yourstruely. He is the one who made that argument about the moral necessity to undo migrations, not I. I was just pointing out that his argument doesn’t show what he thinks it does.

        I am a Zionist. I get to deal with the reality that humans are a migratory species and welcome immigrants. I get to support a consistent morality that allows for a broad and inclusive national definition as demonstrated by Israeli’s excellent track record on integrating people from all over the world into a single national collective. I get to oppose racist constructs about land claims based on DNA consistently. I can unapologetically support human rights for all, races not just favored ethnicities. I can critique Israel’s failures on human rights without having to call for genocidal level violations in response.

        I’m not even sure how a map could prove what you wanted. Palestinians are a people speaking an Eastern Arabian Peninsula dialect of Arabic and worshipping an Eastern Arabian Peninsula God. They show no connection or knowledge of the Roman culture that existed prior to their migration, as demonstrated by the fact that they can possibly believe their own propaganda about the history of their country. They have no continuity. That doesn’t mean they have to be expelled but their claims to being the descendants of the people who lived there then is rather dubious.

      • Misterioso
        September 21, 2017, 11:04 am

        JeffB

        Pure bull crap!! Unworthy of further comment.

      • John O
        September 21, 2017, 11:05 am

        @JeffB

        I was afraid the “maps and diagrams” would go over your head. I lifted it from a classic of English humour, “1066 and All That”, which – appositely – is all about getting your history lessons all wrong and muddled.

      • JeffB
        September 21, 2017, 11:05 am

        @MHughes976

        Political rights in any place or at any time depend, with minor exceptions, on being an inhabitant willing to live in peace, obey the law and pay taxes, where ‘willing to live in peace’ means not owing your presence to an act of violence that has not been set right by an agreement and actively maintaining the violent act’s results.

        I could agree with everything you wrote except for that. You run into the same problem. The Palestinians owe their presence to acts of violence and never set it right with the Byzantines.

        As for Holocaust justification we see on this board daily and regularly calls for a new holocaust. I’d say you might want to talk to your fellow BDSers about that. I’d love to see the BDS movement move away from your rhetoric that calls Israeli “axe wielding marauders” so as to justify your imagined future genocide.

      • gamal
        September 21, 2017, 11:47 am

        ” “1066 and All That”, which – appositely – is all about getting your history lessons all wrong and muddled.”

        well you say that John but it is exceptionally accurate and quite prophetic, “that there should be a great many more countries: this was A Bad Thing as it was the cause of increased geography”,

        and its grim conclusion long before Fukiyama, who may not have got the joke,

        Chapter LXII

        A Bad Thing

        America was thus clearly top nation, and History came to a .

      • JeffB
        September 21, 2017, 12:19 pm

        John O

        I was afraid the “maps and diagrams” would go over your head. I lifted it from a classic of English humour, “1066 and All That”, which – appositely – is all about getting your history lessons all wrong and muddled.

        Fair enough. Know some English history. Know pretty much 0 of your popular media. Took a look at the book, and it is readily and cheaply available here seems like a riot so bought it. Thanks for the recommendation.

      • Talkback
        September 21, 2017, 1:36 pm

        JeffB: “I get to support a consistent morality that allows for a broad and inclusive national definition as demonstrated by Israeli’s excellent track record on integrating people from all over the world into a single national collective. ”

        You only get to support permanent ethnic cleansing and dispossesion. And Nonjews in Israel are not regarded as being part of its “national collective”. That’s reserved for Jews only. Again, you just lying and turning everything upside down.

        JeffB: “I get to oppose racist constructs about land claims based on DNA consistently.”

        ROFL. The Palestinians claim to Palestine is based on being citizens of the mandated State of Palestine and their descendants. Your claim to Palestine is consistently based on the claim that ONLY the Jews of today and as such are the DNA descendants of ancient Hebrews and therefore have a title to this land. Again, you just lying and turning everything upside down.

        JeffB: “I can unapologetically support human rights for all, races not just favored ethnicities.”

        Nope. You don’t support the human rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. Again, you are just lying.

        JeffB: “Palestinians are a people speaking an Eastern Arabian Peninsula dialect of Arabic and worshipping an Eastern Arabian Peninsula God.”

        Of course. They were arabized after the Arabian conquest.

        JeffB: “They have no continuity.”

        Neither do Israelites or Israelis. Relevant is that Palestinians are a constitutive people since 1925 and Jews will never be.

        JeffB: “That doesn’t mean they have to be expelled but their claims to being the descendants of the people who lived there then is rather dubious.”

        Only because you fail to understand that the Arabians didn’t colonize Palestine. They only conquered it. Their descendants make only up to 5% of today’s Palestinians. But again. It is irrelevant. The relevant question is who had the right to determine Palestine’s future in 1947/48. The obvious answer is: Only the citizens of Palestine. That rules out at more than half of the Jews who were present in Palestine.

        JeffB: “The Palestinians owe their presence to acts of violence and never set it right with the Byzantines.”

        Again, you mistake Palestinians for Arabians. But please enligthen us how Jews came to into the posession of the Land of Canaan and how long they ruled it.

        JeffB: “As for Holocaust justification we see on this board daily and regularly calls for a new holocaust.”

        What we actually see is that you are suffering from Holocaust psychosis and compulsive lying. But please prove me wrong and quote someone who calls for a “new holocaust”. And then we are going to have a look if Israel allready has been doing it to Palestinians.

      • JeffB
        September 21, 2017, 2:58 pm

        @Talkback

        You only get to support permanent ethnic cleansing and dispossesion. And Nonjews in Israel are not regarded as being part of its “national collective”.

        Bull. The most clear cut example of that are the Russian Christians married to Jews. They serve in the IDF, obey the laws of the state and have 0 housing or job discrimination. The population and most politicians overwhelmingly supports further increasing their civil rights protections with the religious establishment being the major blockade. Another example are the Sons of the New Testament Party which are Palestinians who seek full integration and the Likud party this term is creating laws to facilitate that integration.

        Israel has a proven track record of integrating people that are willing to live under Israeli law as Israels into the national collective. The same way they expanded the definition of the state from Ashkenazi to include Mizrahi Jews early on. The definition of “Jewish” is a social construction, can expand and has expanded several times.

        ROFL. The Palestinians claim to Palestine is based on being citizens of the mandated State of Palestine and their descendants.

        So where does one find this list of Palestinian citizens? Who was the issuing authority? Where was their headquarters located?

        Your claim to Palestine is consistently based on the claim that ONLY the Jews of today and as such are the DNA descendants of ancient Hebrews

        When have I made that claim? I’ve tended to find that whole claim a racist load of crap.

        Nope. You don’t support the human rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. Again, you are just lying.

        You asked this question two days ago and I said that I do. I’m not sure how you would know if I were lying about my opinions that claims sounds bizarre on its face. I support Palestinians refugees right to return. I don’t support expanding this definition to foreign born descendants.

        “Palestinians are a people speaking an Eastern Arabian Peninsula dialect of Arabic and worshipping an Eastern Arabian Peninsula God.”

        Of course. They were arabized after the Arabian conquest.

        Which means they aren’t the original people anymore. They lost their culture.

        Neither do Israelites or Israelis. Relevant is that Palestinians are a constitutive people since 1925 and Jews will never be.

        Israeli Jews most certainly are.

        Only because you fail to understand that the Arabians didn’t colonize Palestine. They only conquered it. Their descendants make only up to 5% of today’s Palestinians. But again. It is irrelevant. The relevant question is who had the right to determine Palestine’s future in 1947/48. The obvious answer is: Only the citizens of Palestine.

        No the obvious answer is the government of that territory if it is capable of still governing. In 1947 the British government could or would no longer provide a monopoly on force and thus there was no single government for Palestine. The power falls back to the constituent nations. The government that replaced the British came out of the militias of the Yishuv, the Israeli government.

        Again, you mistake Palestinians for Arabians. But please enligthen us how Jews came to into the posession of the Land of Canaan and how long they ruled it.

        No one knows. We start seeing strong signs of a Jewish civilization during the Babylonian conquest and something like a semi-independent Jewish civilization around the 6-7th century BCE. Most likely this civilization arose from a hybrid of Babylonian elites and indigenous natives. Our civilization continues to evolve, is conquered by the Greeks and then takes on Hellenistic elements. The religion expands independently of the nationality, even before the Roman conquest as people worship the God of Judaea. Our civilization in Palestine is badly damaged in the first Roman-Jewish war 69-73 CE and finished off completely by 134 CE. So over a period of over 700 years we were the dominant culture and ruled most aspects. We ruled entirely independently for a bit more than a century.

        But please prove me wrong and quote someone who calls for a “new holocaust”. And then we are going to have a look if Israel allready has been doing it to Palestinians.

        I’ve already pointed to you doing it. You feel that mass murder is justified because settlers aren’t people and somehow you are supporting international law.

        Your delegitimizing rhetoric in the above about Israelis is also genocidal. Normal people who want political reform not genocide don’t talk in absolutist terms about ethnic conflicts. The people who do talk that way are the genocide advocates.

      • Talkback
        September 21, 2017, 6:19 pm

        JeffB: “Bull. Bull. The most clear cut example of that ….”

        Israel considers only the Jewish collective to be THE collective of Israel. A Nonjewish is not considered to be a national in Israel or part of its national collective.

        JeffB: “Israel has a proven track record of integrating people that are willing to live under Israeli law as Israels into the national collective.”

        You are blatanly lying. Israel prevents Nonjewish refugees from returning since 1948. And again, Nonjews are not part of the “national collective” of Israel. There is no Israeli nation according to Israel’s Supreme Court of Supremacist Justice.

        JeffB: “The definition of “Jewish” is a social construction, can expand and has expanded several time.”

        Well inot in Israel. There the Chief Rabbinate has allreday un-Jews thousands of Jews, because they don’t fulfill the definition.
        http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.812610

        JeffB: “So where does one find this list of Palestinian citizens? Who was the issuing authority?”

        The mandatory Goverment of Palestine issued ID-Cards. Jewish natives of Palestine know this. Settler infiltrators and their descendants usually don’t.

        JeffB: “When have I made that claim? I’ve tended to find that whole claim a racist load of crap.”

        Every time you suggest that todays Jews have a claim to Palestine, because ancient Hebrews lived there.

        JeffB: “You asked this question two days ago and I said that I do. I’m not sure how you would know if I were lying about my opinions that claims sounds bizarre on its face. I support Palestinians refugees right to return. I don’t support expanding this definition to foreign born descendants.”

        Exactly. You are lying when you say that you “can unapologetically support human rights for all, races not just favored ethnicities.”, because these descendants have refugee status and the right to return, too. Which is understandable, because not only their parents have the right under international law to be citizens of the state that incorporated the part of the country in which they were habitually resident. But we all know that the racist state of Israel stripped them of their right to Israel’s nationality by introducing a nationality law which his an inhumane perversion of customary nationality laws and based on racist demographic concerns. And that’s the reason for your support. The same racism, not humane rights or values.

        JeffB: “Which means they aren’t the original people anymore. They lost their culture.”

        When it comes to the right to self determination it is not culture that defines a people, but being legally and habitually resident in one country. That is what constitutes a nation, a constitutive people. The right to self determination is a civic right, not some pseudo legal right of foreign settlers based on a fake concept of being a “nation”.

        JeffB: “Israeli Jews most certainly are.”

        No. Israeli Jews are not a constitutive people. Nobody can become Israeli Jewish by acquiring the citizenship of any country like someone can become American by acquiring American citizenship, etc. “Israelis” should be a constitutive people. But the Israel’s Supreme Court of Supremacist Justice has ruled out that they are a nation. This Nazlike perversion of the concept of citizenship enables Israel to artifically differentiate between nationals (only Jews) and citizens. In reality only Israel’s “nationals” (only Jews) are real citizens and the rest is only called “citizen” with lesse rights than citizens normally do. That’s why this racist state is a self declared “Jewish” and not “Israeli” state. It’s like when Nazi Germany was calling itself “Aryan” while Jews were only considered to be “citizens”.

        JeffB: “No the obvious answer is the government of that territory if it is capable of still governing.
        JeffB: “In 1947 the British government could or would no longer provide a monopoly on force and thus there was no single government for Palestine.”

        You are confused, JeffB. Goverments can’t have a right to self determination. This right is an individiual right of the country’s citizens who determine how they want to be governed (or even not.). Only the citizens of Palestine had this right.

        JeffB: “The power falls back to the constituent nations. The government that replaced the British came out of the militias of the Yishuv, the Israeli government.

        No it doesn’t. The power always resides in the citizens of a country. They are the souvereign of the country even if no goverments exist for whatever reasons. The fact is that the Jewish Junta took the power through war and expulsion in total violation of the right of self determination of the citizens of Palestine. There wasn’t even a referendum. Israel has not even an internal legitimation.

        JeffB: “No one knows.”

        Do you rule out that Jews conquered the land of Canaan? And maybe commited some genocides against its natives?

        JeffB: “I’ve already pointed to you doing it. You feel that mass murder is justified because settlers aren’t people and somehow you are supporting international law.”

        I allready told you that you are lying. I never said that “mass murder” is justified but spoke of deportation. And I never said that settler’s aren’t people, but that they are illegal immigrants living in illegaly build structures who ought to be dismantled under international law. So you are actually lyng, too, when you claim that someone is calling for a “new holocaust”. (Which isn’t only a mass murder, but genocide.)

        JeffB: “Your delegitimizing rhetoric in the above about Israelis is also genocidal. Normal people who want political reform not genocide don’t talk in absolutist terms about ethnic conflicts. The people who do talk that way are the genocide advocates.”

        Well, you are just lying again. And to give you another chance to lie you can explain what you understand by “delegitimizing rhetoric in the above about Israelis” and how this could be “genocidal”. (Especially since you even confuse deportation with genocide which is blatantly stupid.) And then we will compare your allegations with your statements about Palestinians and check how delegitimizing /genocidal they are. And we will not only checke your responses to my comments. OK?

      • RoHa
        September 21, 2017, 7:34 pm

        @MHughes.

        Nicely done. Neat summary. Those long winter evenings spent reading the Second Treatise have not been wasted.

      • RoHa
        September 21, 2017, 7:42 pm

        @gamal

        It’s more than fifty years since I last read Sellar and Yeatman’s classic (egad, what a thought!) so I had quite forgotten that final sentence. The style and terminology still remain. I used “Top Nation” recently, and I think I once recommended the book to Annie so that she could understand why capital letters are a Good Thing.

      • JeffB
        September 22, 2017, 10:37 am

        @Talkback

        Israel considers only the Jewish collective to be THE collective of Israel. A Nonjewish is not considered to be a national in Israel or part of its national collective.

        Not true and I’ve given several counter examples like Russian Christians in the part you cut.

        JeffB: “Israel has a proven track record of integrating people that are willing to live under Israeli law as Israels into the national collective.”

        You are blatanly lying. Israel prevents Nonjewish refugees from returning since 1948. And again, Nonjews are not part of the “national collective” of Israel. There is no Israeli nation according to Israel’s Supreme Court of Supremacist Justice.

        How does what the supreme court decide in one case have anything to do one way or another with whether Israel does or does not have a track record? Your argument doesn’t even make sense.

        JeffB: “The definition of “Jewish” is a social construction, can expand and has expanded several time.”

        Well inot in Israel. There the Chief Rabbinate has allreday un-Jews thousands of Jews, because they don’t fulfill the definition.

        As I pointed out, this has happened. You are also correct that recently the Chief Rabbi is doing precisely the opposite and making things worse. That’s a bad policy that needs to be changed. But claiming it hasn’t happened is simply false. Moreover, one of the nice things about Bennett is his desire to take this over from the Hasidic community and tie the definition more closely to national goals which are integrationists.

        JeffB: “So where does one find this list of Palestinian citizens? Who was the issuing authority?”

        The mandatory Goverment of Palestine issued ID-Cards. Jewish natives of Palestine know this. Settler infiltrators and their descendants usually don’t.

        So here the final authority on citizenship is the British?

        JeffB: “When have I made that claim? I’ve tended to find that whole claim a racist load of crap.”

        Every time you suggest that todays Jews have a claim to Palestine, because ancient Hebrews lived there.

        I haven’t said that. I said that today’s Jews have a claim to Palestine because they live there and were born there. They have a claim on it the same reason that most posters on this board have claim to their home countries, by birth. I have disputed the false history of the anti-Zionist movement that claims there are no ties between Jews and Palestine, but that’s not what I base my claim on.

        JeffB: “You asked this question two days ago and I said that I do. I’m not sure how you would know if I were lying about my opinions that claims sounds bizarre on its face. I support Palestinians refugees right to return. I don’t support expanding this definition to foreign born descendants.”

        Exactly. You are lying when you say that you “can unapologetically support human rights for all, races not just favored ethnicities.”, because these descendants have refugee status and the right to return, too.

        That’s where we disagree. I don’t agree with UNRWA’s claim that they are refugees. They should be citizens of the place of their birth.

        JeffB: “Which means they aren’t the original people anymore. They lost their culture.”

        When it comes to the right to self determination it is not culture that defines a people, but being legally and habitually resident in one country. That is what constitutes a nation, a constitutive people.

        What defines a nation is the culture… The claim the nation was present is a claim about culture not biological descent. Lose the culture and its a new nation. Culture is learned. The people who lived in the territories conquered during the formation of France became French by changing their culture not biology. I’m American because my culture changed from what it would have been in Ukraine not my biology.

        The right to self determination is a civic right, not some pseudo legal right of foreign settlers based on a fake concept of being a “nation”.

        The right of self determination is a right for nations not individuals. So no you are totally wrong on this one.

        JeffB: “Israeli Jews most certainly are.”

        No. Israeli Jews are not a constitutive people. Nobody can become Israeli Jewish by acquiring the citizenship of any country like someone can become American by acquiring American citizenship,

        Of course they can. Tens of thousands of people do it every year.

        JeffB: “No the obvious answer is the government of that territory if it is capable of still governing.
        JeffB: “In 1947 the British government could or would no longer provide a monopoly on force and thus there was no single government for Palestine.”

        You are confused, JeffB. Goverments can’t have a right to self determination.

        That wasn’t the question. The question was who had the right to determine the policy for the territory. That’s a right of the state. Self determination is the right of a nation to have a state that represents their interests. Citizenship is a means of a state declaring who it represents and makes claims of authority over. You are making categorical errors. When there is no longer a functioning state there are no citizens any longer just residents. Those residents can belong to one or more nations and those nations attempt to form new states to govern the territory. That state then declares citizenship.

        That’s precisely what happened in Palestine.

        There wasn’t even a referendum. Israel has not even an internal legitimation.

        I’m hard pressed to think of more than about 3 countries in the world that had referendum. Where are you getting this criteria from?

        Do you rule out that Jews conquered the land of Canaan? And maybe commited some genocides against its natives?

        Yes. If you mean a Jewish civilization that existed prior to Babylon’s rule I see no evidence for its existence. The bible story as presented has some many date discrepancies that events could not have occurred in anything approaching what is outlined. I don’t believe there is anything one could call Judaism in the 8th century BCE or before.

        JeffB: “I’ve already pointed to you doing it. You feel that mass murder is justified because settlers aren’t people and somehow you are supporting international law.”

        I allready told you that you are lying. I never said that “mass murder” is justified but spoke of deportation.

        You spoke of forcible deportation. As I’ve said. You should look at the Khmer Rouge. You want to claim you don’t share their ideology then point out specifically where you disagree with what they did and how they handled the situation.

        JeffB: “Your delegitimizing rhetoric in the above about Israelis is also genocidal. Normal people who want political reform not genocide don’t talk in absolutist terms about ethnic conflicts. The people who do talk that way are the genocide advocates.”

        Well, you are just lying again. And to give you another chance to lie you can explain what you understand by “delegitimizing rhetoric in the above about Israelis”

        When one wants to solve an ethnic conflict in a territory rather than exacerbate it you talk about shared humanity. If the goal is eventually to live under a joint government you emphasize their common interests so as to facilitate their ability to work and live together. If your goal is to increase ethnic conflict in a territory or further them you engage in demonization of the other. You emphasize historical grievances and conflicts of respective community interests.

        So Talkback which do you do?

      • Talkback
        September 23, 2017, 9:05 am

        JeffB: “Not true and I’ve given several counter examples like Russian Christians in the part you cut. ”

        Russian Christian are not ISRAELI JEWISH. Again, Israel makes a Nazi like distinction between nationality and citizenship. Only Jews are considered to be “nationals” and THE NATION of Israel allthough they are only ONE “nation” WITHIN citizensip. Nonjews are not considered to be part of ISRAEL JEWISH “national collective”.

        JeffB: “How does what the supreme court decide in one case have anything to do one way or another with whether Israel does or does not have a track record? Your argument doesn’t even make sense.”

        Oh, I see. When you said that Israel has a track record of integrating people into its “national collective” it means that you are only refering to Jews, because the Supreme Court decided that “Israeli” isn’t the state’s “national collective”.

        JeffB: “But claiming it hasn’t happened is simply false.”

        I claimed that the definition of “Jewish” is not a “social construction” in Israel. It’s defined by its Chief Rabbinate. The state avoids defining “Jewish” and to create a constitution for the self declared “Jewish” state.

        JeffB: “So here the final authority on citizenship is the British?”

        Nope. Neither by the British Goverment nor by Great Britain. The Goverment of Palestine issued these id cards before 1948 on behalf of the Palestinian people.

        JeffB: “I said that today’s Jews have a claim to Palestine because they live there and were born there.”

        Yes, it’s obvious that you support the result of Jewish settler colonialism in Palestine why you deny native Palestinans their basic rights to the right to self determination, the right to citizenship and the right to return. With your “citizen by birth” approach you want to support children’s of citizens to stay in illegal settlements allthough they are not citizens of Palestine while denying the children of Palestinian refugees to have the same right to Israeli citizenship based on the principle of “citizen by descent”, because you don’t want the racism of Israel’s fake democracy to be challenged.

        JeffB: ” I have disputed the false history of the anti-Zionist movement that claims there are no ties between Jews and Palestine, but that’s not what I base my claim on.”

        I don’t care about this claim or its denial, because historical “ties” are legaly irrelevant. The Romans and Greeks have “ties” to every place they had conquered and they many created cities (London or the many “Alexandrias”, etc.), too

        JeffB: “That’s where we disagree. I don’t agree with UNRWA’s claim that they are refugees. They should be citizens of the place of their birth.”

        ROFL. Unlike UNRWA the UNCHR not only allows descendants of refugees to have refugee status but even their ascendants and based on the principle of family (re-) unification. Children’s of refugees don’t loose their nationality only because they are victims of a racist Apartheid Junta that needs to make its ethnic cleansing permanent, because it wouldn’t survive being a real democracy. What you support is permanent ethnic cleansing. Your argument that only first generation of Palestian refugees should be Isareli is completely dishonest, because you know that no parent would exercise this right to give up their family. What you actually support is as despicable as seperating Holocaust survivors from their children if the latter were born in Auschwitz.

        JeffB: “What defines a nation is the culture… The claim the nation was present is a claim about culture not biological descent. Lose the culture and its a new nation. Culture is learned. The people who lived in the territories conquered during the formation of France became French by changing their culture not biology. I’m American because my culture changed from what it would have been in Ukraine not my biology.”

        You are only talking about nations WITHIN citizenship. Again, when it comes to the right to self determination it is not culture (or biology) that defines a people, but being legally and habitually resident in one country. That is what constitutes a nation as a constitutive people and their right to self determination.

        JeffB: “The right of self determination is a right for nations not individuals. So no you are totally wrong on this one.”

        Nope, it is actually an individual right of the people of a country. That’s the reason why a referendum or an election can decide how this right is going to be exercised. You don’t know that, because the Jewish Agency never asked anyone. That’s the reason why Israel had to be created through war and expulsion of those who disagreed. That’s the definition of a violation of the right to self determination.

        JeffB: “Of course they can. Tens of thousands of people do it every year. ”

        Again, nobody can become “ISRAELI JEWISH” by acquiring a citizenship of any country. The Nonjews of Israel are neither “ISRAELI JEWISH”. That’s why “ISRAELI JEWISH” is not a constitutiive people and not a NATION OF the country, but the most a “nation” WITHIN this country.

        JeffB: “The question was who had the right to determine the policy for the territory. That’s a right of the state. Self determination is the right of a nation to have a state that represents their interests. Citizenship is a means of a state declaring who it represents and makes claims of authority over. You are making categorical errors. When there is no longer a functioning state there are no citizens any longer just residents. Those residents can belong to one or more nations and those nations attempt to form new states to govern the territory. That state then declares citizenship. That’s precisely what happened in Palestine. I’m hard pressed to think of more than about 3 countries in the world that had referendum. Where are you getting this criteria from?”

        You are terribly confused, JeffB. It is called the right to self determination of people. Not of goverments or states. It’s the right of people to choose their sovereignty and international political status (either a state or something else). This right to choose is exercised by referendum in post colonial times not by your criterias to support settler colonialism. And citizens or residents don’t loose their citizenship or resident status only because their goverments dissolve. If refugees weren’t considered to be citizens/residents of a country they wouldn’t count as REFUGEES at all.

        And what happened in Palestine was completely different. Jewish terrorists and paramilitary seperatists used the power vacuum left by the mandatory goverment due to the pressure of a decade of succesful Jewish terrorism for a coup d’etat to create a state through war and expulsion. They did not hold any referendum (not even amongst Jews) and they certainly did not transfer the nationality of their newly created state to those it keeps ethinically cleansed until today. All of this iin clear violation of the right to self determination, the right to citienship and the right to return. And you dare to talk about ‘Israel’s legitimacy’. It’s the fake legitimacy of an Apartheid Junta. All of historic Palestine is ruled by a Jewish minority, including martiall law and former mandatory emergency regulations which are so inhumane that when Jews were its victims a Jewish attorney( who would later become the first minister of justice of Israel) said that even Nazis wouldn’t have such regulations.

        JeffB: “I don’t believe there is anything one could call Judaism in the 8th century BCE or before.”

        Do you want to rule out that their ascendants conquered the land of Canaan and maybe commited some genocides against its natives?

        JeffB: “You spoke of forcible deportation.”

        Deportation is always forcable and is still neither a mass murder nor a genocide. Or do you want to call the Jewish ethnic cleansing of Paletinians genocide?

        JeffB: “You should look at the Khmer Rouge. You want to claim you don’t share their ideology then point out specifically where you disagree with what they did and how they handled the situation.”

        Are you educationally impaired? I still only claim that citizens of an occupyng power that illegaly settle in occupied territories should be deported and their settlements dismantled. That’s not my “ideology” but according to humanitarian law and Security Council resolutions. It is pretty much custom to deport illegal immigrants. Maybe you should look at the Nazis and point out specifically where you disagree with their colonialization of occupied land, with their herrenrasse policy of differentiating between nationals and citizens or their war crime to collectively punish people to “teach” them a lesson and certainly of their policy to ethnically cleanse people and their descendants because of their faith or heritage to achieve and maintain a certain national character.

        JeffB: “When one wants to solve an ethnic conflict in a territory rather than exacerbate it you talk about shared humanity. If the goal is eventually to live under a joint government you emphasize their common interests so as to facilitate their ability to work and live together. If your goal is to increase ethnic conflict in a territory or further them you engage in demonization of the other. You emphasize historical grievances and conflicts of respective community interests.

        So Talkback which do you do?”

        Because of the priniciples of shared humanity, to live under a joint goverment and to emphasize their common interests so as to facilitate their ability to work and live together I support a one state solution in historic Palestine, the right to return for all refugees and majority ruling.

        Any other solution based on the differation between Jews and Nonjews, nationals and citizens, the rights for ascendants and descandants, different states for different people and emphasizing historical grieviances and claims is only based on racism or even worse supremacism.

        Your turn, JeffB.

  9. Ossinev
    September 21, 2017, 10:01 am

    @jeffB
    ” Palestine was the homeland of the Christian Byzantine society that existed prior to the Muslim conquest that led to the migration of today’s Palestinians. The first wave of Israelis are acting on their moral obligation to restore them and end their occupation. But as soon as they did that another group of Israelis realized that those Byzantines were occupying a Jewish provence and that needed to be restored”

    Palestine was is and will continue to be the homeland of those native to Palestine ie the Palestinians be they Palestinian Moslems , Palestinian Jews , Palestinian Christians or Palestinian Atheists. I can`t begin to fathom what you are saying/ imagining about this alleged “first group of Jews and the timeline and location of what they allegedly did. As for the second group I can only suppose that you are referring to the Zionism movement. As for these Zionists all of a sudden surprise shock horror discovering that these”Byzantines” in the seventh century were occupying a Jewish provence(sic) and that need to be restored 1400 years after the event with suitable stock from Brooklyn and North Finchley – well there you really are starting to dribble at a rate of knots.

    • JeffB
      September 21, 2017, 10:56 am

      @Ossinev

      As I said, take it up with yourstruely he’s the one who made that claim not I. As for history, you don’t know English history like the Tudor dynasty. Why would you expect to know anything about Israeli history? Now I will tell you and then you will come back with some sort of snark.

      After Judaea was destroyed by the Romans there emerged a Roman civilization in Palestine. As the Eastern and Western empire split because of geography it ended up in the Eastern side, Byzantine. However it was in the part of the Byzantine territory that fell to the Muslims was invaded and destroyed during the Muslim conquest. The Byzantine civilization that existed was mostly annihilated and replaced with an Arab / Muslim civilization. A combination of war, state terror and assimilation playing out over a few centuries. That civilization has been conquered multiple times, the government has been replaced, but the people you call the Palestinians do have continuity. with the civilization of the Islamic Arab invaders. They do not have continuity with the Roman / Byzantine civilization that existed prior.

      An argument that all human migrations are illegitimate and there is some moral obligation to restore all previous civilizations that existed in a place then quite ironically it not only applies both to the Palestinians as the victims of invasion but it also equally applies to them as invaders. In the same way it also apples to the Jews both as “invaders” and the victims of the Roman invasion.

      Finally the Jews who migrated did so from Eastern Europe and Arab countries where they faced extermination not from Brooklyn. You are should really rethink the ethics of making light of the horrific human suffering, your people played a decent role in that led to the creation of Israel.

      • Talkback
        September 21, 2017, 1:48 pm

        JeffB: “The Byzantine civilization that existed was mostly annihilated and replaced with an Arab / Muslim civilization.”

        Nope. The natives were arabized and forced to convert.

        “… but the people you call the Palestinians do have continuity. with the civilization of the Islamic Arab invaders. They do not have continuity with the Roman / Byzantine civilization that existed prior.”

        Nope. See above.

        “An argument that all human migrations are illegitimate …”

        ???

        JeffB: “… and there is some moral obligation to restore all previous civilizations that existed in a place …”

        Let’s restore the previous State of Palestine within its borders under mandate.

        JeffB: “… then quite ironically it not only applies both to the Palestinians as the victims of invasion but it also equally applies to them as invaders.”

        Again, the Palestinians as such never invaded Palestine. They were conquered and then arabized.

      • Mooser
        September 21, 2017, 7:24 pm

        @ “Jeff b”- If you find any of the posters here consistently violating the commenting rules, remember, the best thing to do is to e-mail the Mondo Editors directly.

      • MHughes976
        September 22, 2017, 3:12 pm

        Jeff or at least one part of the Jeff persona said (surprising me a bit) that he and I agree on important points of political theory, so perhaps we could build on that. We evidently disagree on how these apply to the Palestinis. My view is that there were long centuries during which no one suggested that the actual inhabitants of Palestine were intruders or had no right to be there. The Romans of Byz were not, that I know, pressing that claim for the last period of their existence. This universal, hitherto tacit ‘goes without saying’, agreement is implicit (though mixed with a strong element of traditional British hypocrisy) in the Balfour Declaration and the documents descending from it. The population may have churned around a bit over time with some coming and some going but there was no significant objection from the kings and potentates – no one became an intruder or invader in the process.
        This is, a I mentioned, a site for those who don’t deny the Holocaust or the Nakba or (surely) justify those events and for those who do not advocate discrimination in any form, issuing in violence or otherwise, against anyone on grounds of race.

      • echinococcus
        September 22, 2017, 7:27 pm

        Hughes,

        The Jeffbot doesn’t really care what he writes as long as he can, and he effectively did! almost totally monopolize any discourse on this site. If I were the guy managing the propaganda stipends, I would only pay Jeff and dispense with the rest of the insects.

        I also start to surmise that the site owners are cool with that the Zlogorrhea –it avoids discussion of things that count, i.e. uncomfortable topics. Unnecessary responses to Zionist hecklers cannot upset anyone.

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 11:57 am

        “almost totally monopolize any discourse on this site”

        There’s more of “Jeff b” on Mondo than there is of Phil W!

        And everybody gets a look at the reasoning of the (cough) Zionist day-school and Yeshiva Law school mind. Where they teach you everything but how to count.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 23, 2017, 1:03 pm

        There’s more of “Jeff b” on Mondo than there is of Phil W!

        sad

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 1:22 pm

        sad”

        “Jeff B” said on Oct. 15 2015:

        “I’m not planning on returning to posting here because of the censorship ..”

        Meaning he was in some respect moderated (length, Nakba denial, racism, irrelevance, stable cleaning bills, number of posts?) and he couldn’t deal with it. His next post was February of 2017.

        Or maybe that was when they let him out again.

      • echinococcus
        September 23, 2017, 2:56 pm

        Mooser,

        As the other guy said, everything can be good or useful –in moderation.

      • echinococcus
        September 23, 2017, 3:01 pm

        the (cough) Zionist day-school and Yeshiva Law school mind. Where they teach you everything but how to count

        I am perplexed. If you go to Zionist schools you’re somebody who counts, by definition.

      • Mooser
        September 24, 2017, 1:43 pm

        .“I also start to surmise that the site owners are cool with that the Zlogorrhea .”

        Have a little faith in Mondo readers. They can see “Jeff b” for exactly what he is. I’m pretty sure of that.

        “The Jeffbot doesn’t really care what he writes…”

        He doesn’t “write”, he just types.

    • Misterioso
      September 21, 2017, 11:19 am

      @Ossinev

      Well said!!

      BTW, my great grandfather was dispossessed and driven out of Ireland by the British during the 19th century. Do I have the right to go to Ireland and kick out the present occupants of what was my great grandfather’s land and take it over? Certainly not!! It would never enter my mind or that of any sane person. The Zionist argument that today’s Jews are descendants of the ancient Hebrews (long since disproven) and thereby had the right to dispossess and expel well over one million indigenous Palestinian Arabs between late 1947 and 1967 and create an expansionist, racist, apartheid, occupier “Jewish state” argument is utterly ludicrous and racist to the core.

      • Boris
        September 21, 2017, 12:24 pm

        I believe Ireland has the right of return.

        BTW, not every Jew chooses to live in Israel.

        And it is the Jews who are indigenous to the Land of Israel AKA Palestine.

      • eljay
        September 21, 2017, 2:28 pm

        || Boris: … And it is the Jews who are indigenous to the Land of Israel AKA Palestine. ||

        Jewish is a religion-based identity. There is no “Land of Israel”. Palestinians – non-Jews and Jews alike – are the indigenous people of Palestine.

      • Misterioso
        September 21, 2017, 3:10 pm

        @Boris

        “I believe Ireland has the right of return.”

        If one is of Irish descent, it helps him/her to become a citizen of Ireland.

        However, unlike those foreign Jews who poured into Palestine before and during the British Class A Mandate and thereafter, those seeking or granted Irish citizenship are not permitted to kill, dispossess, brutalize, oppress, imprison without charge, torture and expel the native Irish or seize their homes and other properties and destroy their towns and villages. In short, your response is utterly inane.

        I am fully aware that “…not every Jew chooses to live in Israel.” Indeed, more and more of them are abandoning Zionism and Israel and becoming dedicated supporters of the Palestinian people.

        As for your ridiculous and long since debunked assertion that “…it is the Jews who are indigenous to the Land of Israel AKA Palestine,” I again refer you to among many other genetic studies:

        http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full
        Front. Genet., 21 June 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087
        The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish
        Recent genetic samples from bones found in Palestine dating to the Epipaleolithic (20000-10500 BCE) showed remarkable resemblance to modern day Palestinians.

        BTW, The Jebusite/Canaanites, ancestors of today’s Palestinians, founded Jerusalem around 3000 BCE. Originally known as Jebus, the first recorded reference to it as “Rushalimum” (or “Urussalim”) appears in Egyptian Execration Texts of the nineteenth century BCE, nearly 800 years before it is alleged King David was born. (Thus far, no archaeological evidence, or more importantly, writings of contemporaneous civilizations, have been found that prove Solomon or David actually existed. Nor has any evidence been discovered to confirm that the Jewish exodus from Egypt ever occurred.) To quote the renowned Jewish Israeli writer/columnist, Uri Avnery: “[David and Solomon’s] existence is disproved, inter alia, by their total absence from the voluminous correspondence of Egyptian rulers and spies in the Land of Canaan.” (“A Curious National Home,” by Uri Avnery, May 13/17 –
        http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1494589093/)

        Enough said. You live in a Zionist fantasy world.

      • amigo
        September 21, 2017, 3:48 pm

        “I believe Ireland has the right of return.”.Boris.

        Wrong again Boris.

        A right of return refers to those who are citizens of the Irish Republic , that is to say they left Ireland for Foreign shores for whatever reason and can return at anytime they choose.Their children and Grandchildren have the right to receive on application an Irish Passport.They , having never been in Ireland are not exercising a “right of return.They are exercising a right to go to Ireland and live there as does any other Irish citizen.

        Ireland , as a normal functioning democracy which affords equal rights to all it,s citizens does not need to bring in fake Irish people to combat a demographic problem , such as the rogue entity does.

        So I will thank you not to put us in the same bracket as your tin pot racist , so called democracy.

      • John O
        September 21, 2017, 4:20 pm

        @Boris

        “I believe Ireland has the right of return.”

        Wrong.

        If you have an Irish grandparent, you can get an Irish passport, provided you can prove the fact with the necessary certificates.

        Ireland is a member of the European Union, so EU citizens are free to work and live in Ireland, and many have already done so.

        Neither constitutes a “right of return” along the lines of the “right of return” of all Jews to immigrate to Israel.

      • Talkback
        September 21, 2017, 6:27 pm

        Boris: “And it is the Jews who are indigenous to the Land of Israel.”

        Nope. It was the ancient Hebews who were “indigenous to the Land of Israel”. The Palestinians even consider post-Ottoman Jews in Palestine to be “indigenous”. But foreign Jewish settlers are not. That’s why they had to immigrate. Duh. And don’t repeat the nonsense that Jews as such are the descendants of the ancient Hebrews. Nobody can prove which modern Jew is and which modern Nonjew isn’t.

        In any case. This is no racist Nazi blood and soil matter, this is civic matter. Who was a citizen of Palestine in 1948? Only these had the right to determine Palestine’s future and by referendum.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 21, 2017, 6:44 pm

        John O and Amigo:

        About “right to return”:

        I don’t know how it is in Ireland, but at least in Finland, just anyone who has had a permit to stay and work/study in Finland, can after 5 years apply for Finnish citizenship (refugees after four years) and it is usually always given. No “Finnish ancestors” are needed and the religion or your former nationality won’t matter. I guess it does not work that way in the “Zionist democracy of Israel”?

      • echinococcus
        September 21, 2017, 11:24 pm

        Talkback,

        his is no racist Nazi blood and soil matter

        Oh, it’s not? B-b-but that’s all it has been, nothing else ever, from the start to now.

        By the way, the start is the hostile takeover statement of the 1897 Congress. Not 1948.

      • Talkback
        September 23, 2017, 10:22 am

        echi: “Oh, it’s not? B-b-but that’s all it has been, nothing else ever, from the start to now.

        By the way, the start is the hostile takeover statement of the 1897 Congress. Not 1948.”

        I claim that the right to self determination is not a blood and soil matter, but a civic right. Citizens or habitual residents of a country have the right to self determination not only people who were born there. Whether Jewish immigration and naturalization under British gun was legitimate or not (I say it wasn’t) is a different question, but one has to acknowledge that they weren’t even born there (which is an important issue for JeffB). In any case Jews can’t claim national rights by claiming that it was “their” homeland thousand years ago and that they are as Jews (and only Jews) biological descendants of ancient Hebrews.

      • echinococcus
        September 24, 2017, 1:01 pm

        Talkback,

        I claim that the right to self determination is not a blood and soil matter, but a civic right. Citizens or habitual residents of a country have the right to self determination not only people who were born there.

        Agreed. “Citizens or habitual residents” are people immigrating with the assent of the owners of the country, obeying the same laws and conforming to their customs. Not a horde of armed, hostile invaders forcing their way in with the declared intent of subverting sovereignty and replacing the population. Or the offspring thereof, still under the protection of colonial powers, who intend to perpetuate the invaders’ sovereignty over the owners.

        The US “solved” the problem the way the Zionists intend to –by successful genocide. The Algerians offered Algerian citizenship to the invader offspring. They correctly refused to recognize an equal voice to colonizers –as in South Africa, they didn’t have to enforce this separately from independence, given the colonizers’ small numbers.

  10. xOssinev
    September 21, 2017, 2:38 pm

    @jeffB
    1) I directly quoted what YOU said not yours truly. Now you are saying that these words are somehow in retrospect not YOUR words. Not interested in your explanation – see below.
    2) I have an Honours Degree in Ancient and Modern History from a respected UK University. WTF gives you the right to claim that I don`t know anything about Tudor History / “Israeli” History/Byzantine History/the Western Eastern split in the Roman Empire Gauls / Goths /Visigoths/Vandals /Crusaders/ Mongols etc etc etc. Fascinated by the concept of this alleged “First of wave of Israelis” but not interested in an explanation -see below. Your timeline / logic indicates that it was just after the Arab conquest of Palestine and that these “people” identified themselves somehow as “Israelis”. Even more bizarrely you are stating that their role/avowed intent call it what you like was to restore the Palestinian population to Palestine. FFS !!! Interesting point nevertheless as you would appear to be conceding that the native Palestinians have been in Palestine (part of which with deliberately undeclared borders is now called Israel) and have been native to the land for around 1400 years. A significant but spurious and dishonest argument amongst your fellow Zionist travellers is that the native Palestinians are somehow interlopers/infiltrators who arrived at the turn of the 19th century and have no genuine long standing historical connection to Palestine.
    3) You are stating that “a second group of Israelis ” whatever / whenever that was in your mindset discovered by sheer coincidence don`t you know that the “Byzantines” were occupying a “Jewish provence (sic)” and they saw it as a”moral obligation” to leapfrog over the 1400 years of Palestinian residence in the land and using the Zionist timeline go back 2000 years and “restore” the land to the modern practitioners of a religious cult started up by a small group of Semitic people who appear to have arrived from somewhere in South West Asia kicked out the original inhabitants and set up their own little mini Kingdom and were put in their place when they decided to refuse to accept Provincial status from Imperial Rome.All of the latter over 2000 years ago.
    3) “Finally the Jews who migrated did so from Eastern Europe and Arab countries where they faced extermination not from Brooklyn. You are should really rethink the ethics of making light of the horrific human suffering, your people played a decent role in that led to the creation of Israel”
    No mention of the role of the Nakba. No mention of the fact that your Zionist Israel encouraged and welcomed these migrations to create a viable “Jewish” demographic in the State of Israel.
    No one other than extreme right wing nutters here in the UK “makes light of the horrific human suffering” of the Jews in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. However it is understandable that people tend to become more than a little bit cynical when the “Holocaust” has been used time and time again by Zionist Jews to justify their colonisation of another peoples land and their ongoing barbaric crimes against the native Palestinians. Plus reluctantly resorting to the whataboutery that you Zionists are so enamoured of there have been other horrific sufferings inflicted on various peoples/races/members of religious cults throughout modern history. Probably the worst examples in recent centuries have been the horrors of the Western slave trade and Belgian colonialism in West Africa ( yes and I do know that the Arabs were the original leading actors in the slave trade ).

    As for Brooklyn during my time in Palestine I was amazed by the number of Israeli Jews in uniform who I mistook for New Yorkers and also a significant if fewer number who spoke pure BBC received English. If you care to watch/listen to interviews of Israeli Jews in Israel it is is really creepy just how many of these speak Brooklyn or Sandhurst.

    Your final comment is simply gross and ends my dialogue with you as you appear in your efforts to justify the totally unjustifiable to be spiralling out of any sort of the control you may have had when you joined this forum.My “people ” resisted and fought the Nazis and died in their hundreds of thousands during the Blitz and the war because of that. To casually throw in a comment that “they played a decent role in the Holocaust” is nauseating and sums up your twisted intellectual capacity when it comes to defending Zionism and your beloved Israel.

    • MHughes976
      September 22, 2017, 1:46 pm

      Yes, it took me a moment to find the words in question but I must say that ‘Jeff’ is disowning what appear to me to be his very words. I’m sorry if I’m reading carelessly but I think ‘he’ does indeed owe us an explanation. Perhaps ‘he’ is really ‘they’.

      • JeffB
        September 23, 2017, 4:27 pm

        @MHughes976

        Pretty simple really. There was a claim X implies Y. I showed that X also implies not Y. Ergo X is false. The premises of the original argument:

        1) Who owns what homeland is permanent and has nothing to do with inhabitation
        2) Given an occupation of another’s homeland creates a situation of slavery.
        3) This cannot be rectified through policy
        4) Everyone is morally obligated to fight slavery.

        Which is not too different from your opinion. My response is my standard. Every society is based on the violent replacement of other societies. Every animal alive today is the product 10,000 or more genocides. Every society is the product of displacement and genocide. Either we agree to reasonable statutes of limitations on this nonsense or everyone can be justifiably displaced. You are smart enough to know how their came to be an English people, and it wasn’t a nice process.

        As far as your specific comments regarding the Byzantines making claim most certainly did object at the time and continued to do so. They had bigger problems with the Muslims closer to their shores and were getting pushed back so they couldn’t do much about, but the record is pretty clear on the 7th century. Once the Muslim invasion of other parts of Christiandom contained in the West a crusade was launched to retake Palestine and it was called that. They funded an operation for two centuries that would have been indefinite but was defeated. You saw similar rhetoric during Napoleon’s invasion.

        So yes there was a continuity of claim. And of course the Jews always maintained it was their country, as demonstrated by the fact they choose the name of the country for the name of their people and religion. They also embedded that claim in a daily religious ritual. The Christian term “salvation” comes from the hope of reestablishing rightful rule to Judaea. And you guys certainly ran with it in your own direction.

        So nope they don’t get off the hook that there was no continuity of claim. Both of the previous two tenants claimed they had been wrongfully displaced.

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 8:59 pm

        “Which is not too different from your opinion. My response is my standard. Every society is based on the violent replacement of other societies. Every animal alive today is the product 10,000 or more genocides. Every society is the product of displacement and genocide.”

        The eternal sophomore is here.

      • Talkback
        September 24, 2017, 6:33 am

        JeffB: “1) Who owns what homeland is permanent and has nothing to do with inhabitation.”

        Maybe in the Kahane Continuum, but not in our universe. The legal habitual residents of a country are its owners. Not foreign settlers.

        JeffB: 2) Given an occupation of another’s homeland creates a situation of slavery.
        3) This cannot be rectified through policy
        4) Everyone is morally obligated to fight slavery.”

        Exactly. Everyone is morally obligated to fight Zionism and its occupation of historic Palestine.

      • Talkback
        September 24, 2017, 7:27 am

        JeffB: “Every society is the product of displacement and genocide.”

        And which one is the product of displacement or genocide after this was finally condemned in the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis? And do you support Palestinians to displace Jews or commit genocide against them to create the society they like? Or is your real attempt to whitewash displacement and genocide?

      • Sibiriak
        September 24, 2017, 8:29 am

        Talkback: And which one is the product of displacement or genocide after this was finally condemned in the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis?
        —————————————–

        Displacement or genocide were legitimate before the Nuremberg trials?

      • Sibiriak
        September 25, 2017, 11:31 pm

        @ Talkback Are you arguing that displacement or genocide were legitimate before the Nuremberg trials?

      • Talkback
        September 26, 2017, 1:29 pm

        Sibiriak: “@ Talkback Are you arguing that displacement or genocide were legitimate before the Nuremberg trials.”

        Nope. But I don’t think that these crimes were internationally prohibited before before the Nuremberg trials.

      • MHughes976
        September 27, 2017, 5:20 pm

        We still do not have an explanation, despite reasonable and polite request, of the disowned words to which Ossinev draws attention. I think that Jeff is a persona, not a person but a team or a committee. This, like the Nakba justification which characterises ‘his’ output, seems to me contrary to our rules.

      • MHughes976
        September 27, 2017, 5:32 pm

        As to the Whiteness of Jewish people – it was not always claimed. Isaiah Berlin said that Lewis Namier (Ludwik Bersztajn vel Niemirow), on their first meeting replied to a German Nazi visitor to Oxford, who spoke of the reasonableness of German claims, with the words ‘Wir Juden und die andere Forbiger denken anders’. He then stalked out.

  11. andrew r
    September 21, 2017, 9:09 pm

    I support Palestinians refugees right to return. I don’t support expanding this definition to foreign born descendants.

    Now Jeff, this is where you show yourself up as a charlatan. 30-50 years ago, this would be effectively calling for the end of Israel as a “Jewish” state. Most supporters of Israel and certainly all its leading politicians would not view it as such without an overwhelming demographic balance in favor of those considered Jewish under Israeli law (or being the immediate family of a Jewish person, which since 1970 is effectively the same for the purpose of the “Law of Return”) . And from that metric allowing the original 1948 refugees from the Palestine War to return would have been self-defeating in as much most of them were still living.

    So it’s rather clear from this one position your worldview is conveniently retro-fitted to get Zionism off the hook as a belligerent ideology. The Zionist movement sought a demographic majority in the hypothetical “Jewish” state and those people you now advocate citizenship for were an obstacle so long as they remained in place. Of course now that the State of Israel has outlasted any chance of them being a demographic threat, you can stand on this completely redundant moral highground. It’s nothing but snake oil.

    • Annie Robbins
      September 21, 2017, 10:10 pm

      I support Palestinians refugees right to return. I don’t support expanding this definition to foreign born descendants.

      the chance jeff supports palestinian refugees who were born at a refugee camp in the west bank or gaza returning to their family home in jerusalem, haifa, yaffa, lydda and ramle? please. watch him now claim the west bank is a “foreign land”. cough. he thinks he sounds all reasonable now supporting refugees returning sans their descendants knowing full well it’s been 70 years and old people without their children will die off so his oh so not generous support amounts to nothing.

      • Talkback
        September 21, 2017, 10:38 pm

        Well Annie, JeffB supports the right of Holcoaust survivors to return to Germany, but not their children if they were born in a concentration camp in Poland. He’s such a mensh.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 22, 2017, 8:22 am

        no smiggins of mensh, an ethnic cleanser:

        “Today they are few and old. They no longer present a threat. They can safely return.”

      • JeffB
        September 22, 2017, 9:36 am

        @Talkback

        Maybe you should ask what I my opinion is rather than just guessing. Your guesses tend to be rather lousy. I wasn’t alive then so I didn’t support anything. But at least ex-post facto I don’t support their right to return to Germany at all. I supported the policy that eventually emerged, their permanent resettlement in Palestine. That was a far better option.

        After World War 2 and some of the post war crisis over 11.3m people had to be permanently resettled and they were. The problem was handled and it is barely remembered. The Arab league and Palestinians uniquely decided not to use the UN agencies that handle refugee resettlement than and since quite effectively (UNHCR and its predecessors like the IRO) and instead create a permanent refugee crisis with UNRWA. Israel is responsible for the refugee crisis of the early 1950s. The refugee crisis since then is UNRWA’s doing.

        UNHCR’s policy is exactly the correct one.
        1) Return to their homes if viable if not
        2) Return to their home country in another location if viable if not
        3) Permanent resettlement in a 3rd country under best possible conditions, where reintegration is most likely

        That policy has been a proven success through countless displacements. (3) worked well for the Jews. It also worked well for many millions of Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, Estonians, Lithuanians and Latvians, Croats, Serbs and Slovenes, Germans and anti-Communists.

        I support permanent resettlement for Jews and permanent resettlement for Palestinians. I’m willing to tolerate some level of return because of UNRWA’s terrible handling of the situation and trying to break the deadlock that’s caused so much human suffering.

      • Talkback
        September 23, 2017, 9:46 am

        JeffB: “Maybe you should ask what I my opinion is rather than just guessing. Your guesses tend to be rather lousy. I wasn’t alive then so I didn’t support anything. But at least ex-post facto I don’t support their right to return to Germany at all.”

        Sorry JeffB. How could I possibly know that you could even sink that low to not support Holocaust survivors AND their children to return to their home/property. But at the end of your comment it becomes clear why you need to do this to create a fake equivalency.

        JeffB: “I supported the policy that eventually emerged, their permanent resettlement in Palestine. That was a far better option.”

        Sure JeffB, that’s what the Nazis supported, too, with their Haavara agreement. Disenfranchisement, Dispossession and ethnic cleansing. Why should you be different?

        JeffB: “The refugee crisis since then is UNRWA’s doing.

        UNHCR’s policy is exactly the correct one.
        1) Return to their homes if viable if not
        2) Return to their home country in another location if viable if not
        3) Permanent resettlement in a 3rd country under best possible conditions, where reintegration is most likely.”

        The refugee crisis since then is because Israel prevents what UNCHR considers to be the best option which is repatriation. And because of your racism when it comes to Jews you support what you call the far better option, but when it comes to Palestinians you support the worse option.

        JeffB: “I support permanent resettlement for Jews and permanent resettlement for Palestinians.”

        Of course you do. At first glance that sounds like an equal nonracist and humane approach that seems to be the far better option. But we both know that because of your racism you actually support Jews to settle wherever they want in Palestine – even it they don’t have this right – while you don’t support Palestinians or their refugees to do the same – even if it is their right. And we also know that you don’t support the “ressettlement” of illegal Jewish settlers, allthough Israel is obligated to do so under internatiional humanitarian law.

        That’s your game, JeffB. Always hide your Zionist racism within a support for something that initially sound non-racistand equal, but is ultimately pro Zionist and violating humanitarian law and human rights. Just try to prove me wrong.

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 11:25 am

        Shorter “Jeff b”:

        ‘Jews are white now, and we’re not going back!’

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 12:37 pm

        “Always hide your Zionist racism within a support for something that initially sound non-racistand equal, but is ultimately pro Zionist and violating humanitarian law and human rights.”

        And always propose breathtaking and disgusting violations, so the shock at the idea of it can obfuscate the fact that Israel is impotent to carry them out, and unable to stand the consequences of the act.

    • JeffB
      September 21, 2017, 10:51 pm

      @andrew r

      I think you are confusing two things. Support for a Jewish state and the need for a Jewish majority. It is entirely possible to construct a Jewish state without a Jewish majority. America is a state has strong property protections, the majority don’t own a lot of property but support these protections. A Jewish state at a minimum requires the majority to be at least cooperative with this goal. Also the definition of “Jewish” is expansive. Judaism like any human culture is learned. People can be born into it, they can be assimilated into it.

      The Palestinians after the 1936-9 war refused to accept their defeat. They tried again to retake the country in 47-9. They were expelled. They were not willing to return to live in peace to help build the new Jewish state. They wanted an Arab state. So they couldn’t return. Today they are few and old. They no longer present a threat. They can safely return.

      I support a Jewish state. I support humanitarian measures that don’t damage a Jewish state. I’ve never claimed to support humanitarian measures that would destroy the Jewish state. I’ve been very open I’d support all sorts of horrific measures to protect the state. The less threatening the Palestinians are the more humanitarian measures can be taken towards them.
      The more threatening they are the fewer that can be taken and the more inhumane that will need to be taken. I’ve had that position for years here on this forum.

      To use the expression I used years ago: As humane as possible, as brutal as necessary. Both are important. I don’t Israel to become ISIS or Tibet.

      Your claim was the intent was always violent expulsion. I’d dispute that. Same as today. I would love to be able to make all the West Bank Palestinians citizens of Israel as quickly as possible. I’d love to allow those Palestinians in their diaspora to be able to return to Israel and join with us in building up our state. My position is no different than Hertzl’s was 100 years ago. There was no need for a majority under certain circumstances.

      If a less violent means can be found it should and most likely will be employed. But if horrific violence proves necessary it will and should be employed. Jews know far to well what statelessness means to ever under any circumstances regardless of the cost to others or ourselves go back to that. And yes I meant that to sound as chilling as it does. That’s something BDSers simply fail to understand about their opponents. Your goals of Jews agreeing to anything like what you envision are so completely unrealistic. You cannot achieve them at a cost you are going to be willing to accept.

      I don’t think there is anything I’ve said here that your average French, Chinese or Nigerian person wouldn’t say about defending France, China or Nigeria. It is your unwillingness to accept that Jews are a real people, that Israel is a real country and those people and that country have the same needs as any other people that creates the dissonance. None of them are ultimately going to apologize for the violence that formed their countries and were needed to defend their countries anymore than Jews will. There has been tremendous violence for all sorts of recently new countries like East Timor and Eritrea. That doesn’t mean those people have any intention of relinquishing their sovereignty either.

      The Kurds are facing much the same resistance the Jews faced a century ago in Palestine and as someone who relates to their struggle I wish them success. I wish I new how to donate to their cause. And they analogous the Jews may have to expel Persians, Syrians or Turkmen if those people are unwilling to live in peace to help build the new Kurdish state.

      • echinococcus
        September 22, 2017, 9:20 am

        The Jeff bot, again shooting himself fully in the foot, explains once and for all why expecting peaceful compliance with international law by the Zionist crazies is pointless:

        Jews know far to well what statelessness means to ever under any circumstances regardless of the cost to others or ourselves go back to that. And yes I meant that to sound as chilling as it does

        OK, they want their Masada at any cost. Any invaders still staying in Palestine only have themselves to blame for the inevitable, extreme violence that will follow.

      • Mooser
        September 22, 2017, 11:26 am

        Er drayt sich arum vie a fortz in russell

      • Eva Smagacz
        September 23, 2017, 5:48 pm

        JeffB, you say:

        But if horrific violence proves necessary it will and should be employed. Jews know far to well what statelessness means to ever under any circumstances regardless of the cost to others or ourselves go back to that. And yes I meant that to sound as chilling as it does.

        So lets be clear: To prevent JEWISH statelessness, means that horrific violence will be employed, if necessary, regardless to the cost to others (NON-JEWS), and it is meant to be chilling.

        We already know, that to alleviate JEWISH statelessness, it was necessary to make PALESTINIANS stateless. Tell me, what other, chilling horrific violence can reminding Palestinians expect in hands of State for Jews? What horrific scenarios did you envisaged when you employed this phrase?
        30/35

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 7:56 pm

        ” Jews know far to well what statelessness means to ever under any circumstances regardless of the cost to others or ourselves go back to that. And yes I meant that to sound as chilling as it does.”

        ROTFLMSJAO!! And remember, we intend to have this Jewish State no matter how many Jews there are! Or aren’t. It doesn’t matter.

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 8:09 pm

        “But if horrific violence proves necessary it will and should be employed”

        Well, in that case, countries all over the world can hold their Jews hostage for Israel’s good behavior.

        Of course, when it comes to “horrific violence”, that’s a game Jews never lose. You can’t beat overwhelming numbers, and the fanatic discipline of Jewish religious and social volunteerism.

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 8:52 pm

        “And yes I meant that to sound as chilling as it does”

        “Jeff b” every goddam one of you chicken-soup hawks thinks they command the IDF and Mossad.
        Kiss my ass. You want Jewish violence, you go make it.

      • Talkback
        September 24, 2017, 7:17 am

        JeffB: “They were not willing to return to live in peace to help build the new Jewish state. They wanted an Arab state. So they couldn’t return. ”

        What an utter lie. They tried to return, but where greated with Jewish violence. You know very well, that all that Israel cared about was a significant Jewish majority. And its nationality law in 1952 even stripped these refugees of their right to Israeli citizenship. And Palestinians didn’t want an “Arab” state. They just wanted the sttate under mandate to be released into independece like all other Class-A-Mandates.

        JeffB: “I’ve never claimed to support humanitarian measures that would destroy the Jewish state.”

        Of course not. Like a true fascist you put a state over humans.

        JeffB: ” The less threatening the […] are the more humanitarian measures can be taken towards them. The more threatening they are the fewer that can be taken and the more inhumane that will need to be taken. …”

        Nazi war crimes propaganda template.

        JeffB: “As humane as possible, as brutal as necessary.”

        Yep, the Nazis called that “military necessety” when they commited their war crimes.

        JeffB: “I don’t Israel to become […] Tibet.”

        No, you want Israel to be “China”.

        JeffB: “Your claim was the intent was always violent expulsion. I’d dispute that.”

        Of course you do and whithout any argument. It was as unintentional as the destruction of more than 400 villages and the violent prevention to allow them to return, right? Cause Jews didn’t need to become a siginificnt majority in the territory they took through war and expulsion, right?

        JeffB: “I’d love to allow those Palestinians in their diaspora to be able to return to Israel and join with us in building up our state.”

        Lying JeffB just said two days ago (September 22, 2017, 9:36 am) about Palestinian refugees: “I support permanent resettlement for […] for Paletinians.”. And he wasn’t talking about a return.
        http://mondoweiss.net/2017/09/religious-commandment-committee/#comment-179132

        JeffB: “There was no need for a majority under certain circumstances. ”

        Yep. It’s called Apartheid. The same that happens today where Jews in historic Palestine are a minority allthough they keep all refugees expelled.

        JeffB: “But if horrific violence proves necessary it will and should be employed.”

        Spoken like a Nazi. You see, if you remind me one or two times of Nazis I would concider it to be a coincidence. But you continuosly support Nazi policies which makes me wonder if you are really a supporter of Israel or a crypto-Nazi who wants to get rid of Jews. You even said that the permanent resettlement of Jews to Palestine would be the far better option than to allow them to return.

        JeffB: “It is your unwillingness to accept that Jews are a real people …”

        It doesn’t matter if they are. They don”t acquire national rights if they are not of the people of a country. Until today there is not a single country in which anyone becomes Jewish by acquiring its citizenship. If you need to call Jews a people it’s not the same “people” as the French, Chinese or Nigerian you mention. The latter are a nation., Jews are not.

        JeffB: “There has been tremendous violence for all sorts of recently new countries like East Timor and Eritrea.”

        The typical Zionist position that crimes are ok if not only Jews commit it. But which of your examples were the violence of settler colonialism?

        JeffB: “The Kurds are facing much the same resistance the Jews faced a century ago in Palestine …”

        The Kurds are not settlers. They are facing the same problem as Palestinians. A brutal supression of their self determination. In the Palestinian case for a century. You should be proud of the racist and inhumane values you support.

      • JeffB
        September 24, 2017, 8:04 am

        @Eva Smagacz

        What I was picturing was not Palestine but the regular idea of a coalition of countries forcing Israeli into accepting permanent re-enslavement. There should be clear understanding that Israelis have no more intention of losing their freedom than any other country. That means war, and not necessarily limited war. I don’t think anything like your scenarios are likely to play out. But one of the reasons it is not likely to play out is there only a narrow band of acceptable costs for this policy for Israel’s opponents. Israel can break out of the band in either direction through concession or military options.

        @Mooser, I don’t think I command the IDF. The IDF and Israeli leadership do quite well. As for holding Jews hostage that’s been tried since Israel’s creation. It failed in the Arab world, it failed in Russia, it failed in Iran. And all for the same reason, Jews have a place to go. Jewish persecution could be so severe over the centuries because Jews didn’t have a place to go. Israel changed that. And while Israel will help Jews make aliyah it will not be held hostage to them being comfortable where they are. Attacking the domestic Jewish population assists on the ingathering of the exiles. Finally there just aren’t many countries left with large numbers of Jews left. A century of Nazism, Zionism and anti-Zionism has cleared most of the planet of meaningful numbers of Jews. The Jewish question is mostly solved.

      • eljay
        September 24, 2017, 1:37 pm

        || JeffB: … There should be clear understanding that Israelis have no more intention of losing their freedom than any other country. … ||

        Like all Zionists, JeffB spends a lot of time saying Israelis and Israel when he really means Jews and (religion-supremacist) “Jewish State”.

        || … Attacking the domestic Jewish population assists on the ingathering of the exiles. … ||

        Jewish citizens of foreign countries – people who have chosen to acquire and/or hold the religion-based identity of Jewish, living in their respective homelands all over the world – are not exiles from Israel, they are foreign nationals. “Ingathering” these foreign nationals into Israel is nothing more than preferential immigration granted by a religion-supremacist state to those who share the religion-based identity.

        There are no Israeli exiles to “ingather”. There are, however, many non-Jewish Israeli refugees to repatriate. But these Israelis represent a “demographic threat” to the religion-supremacist “Jewish State”, so Israel and Zionists have no use for them.

      • Mooser
        September 24, 2017, 2:03 pm

        “@Mooser,”

        Don’t waste my time, “Jeff”. Grew up with this crap. Chicken-soup hawks make me sick.

    • andrew r
      September 22, 2017, 11:11 pm

      Support for a Jewish state and the need for a Jewish majority. It is entirely possible to construct a Jewish state without a Jewish majority. America is a state has strong property protections, the majority don’t own a lot of property but support these protections. A Jewish state at a minimum requires the majority to be at least cooperative with this goal.

      Jeff, you’re definitely confusing your personal positions with an intelligent evaluation of the early Zionist movement based on the actual positions taken by its historical figures. Let’s start with the “Jewish” majority: Ruppin, Weizmann, DBG, Moshe Sharett and Jabotinsky all explicitly expressed desire for just that in the hypothetical “Jewish” state – I can supply citations if you really need them but I’m pressed for time right now. For his part, Nahum Sokolow (who basically sounded out the French on the idea of a Jewish “national home” and was later WZO president) wanted Jews to be the “predominant people in Palestine” (Schneer, “The Balfour Declaration,” 149). That this was a normative aim of the Zionist movement across its political spectrum is a foregone conclusion.

      And it’s also an adversarial aim since the presence of any non-Jewish person was an obstacle to its achievement. So to address the remark, “Your claim was the intent was always violent expulsion,” that’s not my claim per se, but that it wasn’t possible to achieve their normative aims without some form of persecution against non-Jewish persons. Even if in their heart-of-hearts they wanted to achieve everything without such, they were still 100% morally responsible for setting themselves on a violent course of action. And they were lucky enough to have the British knock out much of the dirty work.

      Now, to save space, here’s a comment I wrote on Disqus detailing the policy of the WZO Palestine Office vis-a-vis the earliest Jewish Yemeni migrants to the New Yishuv (most of it citing from Land, Labor by Gershon Shafir). In short, they were completely barred from the new settlements built by the WZO and even had to sleep in barracks built away from the First Aliyah settlements they worked at.
      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/od-ourkingdom/tackling_antisemitism_doesn039t_mean_clamping_down_on_criticism_of_israel/#comment-3073395039

      Your comments about the Arab Palestinians assimilating into the New Yishuv are completely and utterly risible in view of this information. Yes, Judaism is an inclusive religion, but not the Yishuv built by Ruppin, Weizmann and their fellow travelers. No Arab Palestinian could have joined Degania by converting to Judaism – Mideastern Jews weren’t accepted there (in fact Jewish Yemenis were expelled from Kinneret). Had numerous Muslim Palestinians learned Hebrew and expressed desire to convert to Judaism so they could join the Yishuv, they almost certainly would have exposed Zionism as the wannabe white supremacist movement it actually was.

      • Mooser
        September 23, 2017, 11:29 am

        ” Zionism as the wannabe white supremacist movement it actually was.”

        Hey, don’t count me out. I’m always ready to declare Jewish supremacy, as soon as we have just a few objective signs of it. I don’t think dwindling is one. Nor is division, and inability to exert control over Jews.

  12. Eva Smagacz
    September 23, 2017, 5:57 pm

    JeffB, you said:
    The less threatening the Palestinians are the more humanitarian measures can be taken towards them.

    This may be your (ever so humane /sarcasm) position, but it is not a position of the State of Israel as is very persuasively discussed here:

    “Everything you think you know about Israeli-Palestinian peace is wrong”:

    https://972mag.com/nathan-thrall-the-only-language-they-understand-book-review/129830/

    31/36

    • oldgeezer
      September 24, 2017, 12:24 am

      @jeffb/eva

      Under both zionist and bush doctrine the world is now justified in using extreme and horrific levels of violence against Israrl. Jeffb will stand up and call it fair play. Of course he won’t and of course it isn’t but that is where his immoral train of thought and logic lead us.

      Luckily jeff is a total fraud (and i dare add traitor to his home country by his own words) amd does not represent anything but a lunatic fringe. Said lunatic fringe sadly governs the criminal zionists of Israel.

    • JeffB
      September 24, 2017, 8:25 am

      @Eva

      That article is about mild to semi-mild pressure helping to advance the peace negotiations. That is a more limited context. There are examples of more severe pressure having the opposite effect. Moreover I wasn’t talking about peace negotiations but living together. Success for the two state solution for both sides often comes from the “I want nothing to do with the other side them and I’m willing to make concessions to never have to deal with them again” which is the opposite of coexistence. I don’t agree with Noam’s analysis here. It’s like a couple with young kids. It’s not possible to have a divorce where they never have to talk to one another again and that’s why the separation type arrangements don’t work.

      There were two golden age of Palestinians-Jewish relations in the Zionist age and both were driven by economics.

      1927-1936: both people were working on a joint project because of the citrus boom. They both willing put aside their competitive national goals to grow the common economy.

      1966-1987: A period of rapid economic integration where Israelis extended civil freedoms and Palestinians put aside their national goals.

      Both periods ended when factions within Palestinians society won the internal debate and Palestinians started using the economic integration to push for national aims rather than furthering peaceful coexistence. In both cases what they discovered is Israelis care about Zionism more than economics. Colonizers make the opposite choice. The problem for the Palestinians is they believe their own propaganda and so keep expecting Israelis to act like a colonial government when faced with techniques from colonial resistance.

      This is Netanyahu’s argument and I think he is right. Peace comes from tighter economic integration being offered by Jews combined with a Palestinian leadership that desires peaceful coexistence and higher living standards for the population over resistance.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 24, 2017, 10:23 am

        That article is about mild to semi-mild pressure helping to advance the peace negotiations.

        eva, jeff is diverting, ignoring your point (regarding his stupid diversionary claim that “less threatening the Palestinians are the more humanitarian measures can be taken towards them.” the article demonstrates how, even in “less threatening” times (relative calm), israel will not advance peace, ever, quite the opposite, they create more obstacles to peace:

        Instead, the exact opposite happened: Israel’s interest in the peace process completely died out. Prime Minister Netanyahu, who thee years earlier agreed under the duress of American threats to the idea of a Palestinian state, began laying more and more obstacles in its path.

        but jeff doesn’t want to talk about that.

        Moreover I wasn’t talking about peace negotiations but living together.

        eva, no where was jeff discussing “living together” — as you pointed out earlier he was justifying “horrific violence proves necessary it will and should be employed”. and when you confronted him about

        So lets be clear: To prevent JEWISH statelessness, means that horrific violence will be employed, if necessary, regardless to the cost to others (NON-JEWS), and it is meant to be chilling.

        he ducks and swerves What I was picturing was not Palestine but jewish enslavement?

        it’s impossible to have a coherent conversation with someone who just keeps evading his own hypocrisy. now he wants to discuss “coexistence”. when will this snake start devouring his own tail, that’s what i want to know. godspeed.

      • Talkback
        September 24, 2017, 6:51 pm

        JeffB: “Moreover I wasn’t talking about peace negotiations but living together.”

        One of JeffB’s lies since he supports the “ressetlement” of Palestinian refugees instead of their repatriation.

        JeffB: “1927-1936: both people were working on a joint project because of the citrus boom. They both willing put aside their competitive national goals to grow the common economy. ”

        JeffB wants to distract from the fact that Zionist Jews established a union called “Histradut” in 1920 which ensured to reserve Jobs only for Jews. The first General ttorney of Palestine Norman Bentwich called it “economic Apartheid”.

        JeffB: “1966-1987: A period of rapid economic integration where Israelis extended civil freedoms and Palestinians put aside their national goals.”

        JeffB lies about “extending civil freedoms”. Israel put Palestinians under martial law and used outmist brutality in crushing Palestinan national goals and their bones which led to the first Intifada.

        JeffB: “The problem for the Palestinians is they believe their own propaganda and so keep expecting Israelis to act like a colonial government when faced with techniques from colonial resistance.

        The problem of JeffB is that he believes his own propaganda and expects anybody to believe that not Zionist settler colonialism was first, but the resistance to it.

        Again JeffB has no problem to pervert the truth and put it upside down. And he uses exactly the same propaganda South Africa under Apartheid used.

      • JeffB
        September 25, 2017, 10:16 pm

        @Annie

        My hypocrisy? Your whole movement is based on refusing to treat everyone equally and continually applying standards to Israel you hold no other state or people to. Most of my time on Mondoweiss is pointing out that the arguments against Israel apply to just about every other country on the planet when they were at a similar point in their development. Which gets met with waves of personal insults so typical of the left.

        My hypocrisy you spend your time claiming to be a anti-racist movement. Yet some of the most atrocious racism. far in excess of what i hear on alt-right sites or by explicit white supremacists gets spewed here everyday. There are people who don’t like blacks moving into their neighborhood. But they never say that a neighborhood that’s been black for 80 years should be turned back to Polish (or whatever people owned it before it was black) because of some aboriginal claim. The worst racists in the USA aren’t as racist as you all.

        You claim to be a human rights movement. But oppose the most basic principle of human rights that you try and avoid destroying civilian civilizations. Something you favor.

        And let’s not forget the worst case after 5 years of how the UN was a saintly organization whose word was the very definition of truth. Suddenly on Iran when they disagreed with you all International law no longer mattered.

        My hypocrisy? What planet do you live on?

        And finally I didn’t particularly support the 2 state solution as orchestrated by Clinton in the 1990s. I did support it for 1 month when the Saudi’s made their original offer before the Arab League weakened it. I was quite happy when Arafat turned down Camp David and then Taba. The fact I was happy about it doesn’t mean that Arafat wasn’t an idiot to turn it down or Abbas to turn down Olmart’s even better offer. The whole reason for picking Israel rather than somewhere in Africa or part of Argentina is Judaea and Judaea is mostly in the West Bank. That being said I could have lived with it.

      • Sibiriak
        September 25, 2017, 11:24 pm

        JeffB: Your whole movement is based on refusing to treat everyone equally and continually applying standards to Israel you hold no other state or people to. Most of my time on Mondoweiss is pointing out that the arguments against Israel apply to just about every other country on the planet when they were at a similar point in their development.
        —————————————–

        Not following you. If one holds that negating other peoples’ self-determination, ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism, genocide, religious/ethnic supremacism etc. were wrong in all instances in the past, and wrong now regarding Israel, where is the hypocrisy/ double standard?

      • Mooser
        September 26, 2017, 12:28 pm

        ” Your whole movement is based on refusing to treat everyone equally and continually applying standards to Israel you hold no other state or people to. “

        Awwww, that’s too bad, “Jeffy”. Unfair, and just awful. Anything you can do about it?

        Maybe your opinions about Zionism are based on an absurd over-estimation of its power and resources.

      • Talkback
        September 26, 2017, 1:36 pm

        Sibiriak: “Not following you. If one holds that negating other peoples’ self-determination, ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism, genocide, religious/ethnic supremacism etc. were wrong in all instances in the past, and wrong now regarding Israel, where is the hypocrisy/ double standard?”

        JeffB doesn’t understand the concept of universal values. And he thinks that one can’t condemn the crimes of Zionism if others commited the same.

      • Mooser
        September 26, 2017, 5:18 pm

        “And finally I didn’t particularly support the 2 state solution as orchestrated by Clinton in the 1990s. I did support it for 1 month when the Saudi’s made their original offer”

        And now we know what Ramadan is all about.

  13. Ossinev
    September 24, 2017, 12:35 pm

    On the subject of BDS just heard read that the organisers of the GiroD`Italia ( along with the Tour de France and the Spanish Vuelta one of the three “Grand Tours” in world cycling ) are planning to hold the first three stages of the 2018 event in Israel:
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/sep/24/israel-giro-ditalia-race-conflict-2018-start-cycling.
    One of the financial backers of the project is an ex Canadian “billionaire” businessman by the name of Sylvan Adams who emigrated to Israel in 2016 ( being Jewish he could remember).
    Quote:
    “‘Normal Israel’ is the phrase that I’ve coined; it’s the regular daily life which somehow is not an interesting enough story to be told to the rest of the world. All they want to do is talk about conflict and terrorism but that’s a very, very small part of life in Israel,” he says.

    As a keen cyclist I am to put it mildly disappointed by the prospect. The article indicates that the organisers will “soften” the impact by taking” the race well within internationally recognised borders, steering clear of the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem’s Old City.”

    Fairly obvious that this is as the article says “sports washing” at its finest. Don`t want those cameras particularly the helicopter cameras seeing what the real “normal ” Israel is with for example all those Untermenschen control checkpoints and Jewish cyclists only roads.

    If it does go ahead and a lot can happen between now and the scheduled date in May I hope that the BDS movement will focus heavily on it and perhaps start a campaign aimed at getting the support for a boycott of the event by national cycling federations, Team organisations and not least the many millions of cyclists out there worldwide who love the freedom of just being able to get on their bike and out onto the open road – a freedom denied to Palestinians by the Israeli regime.

  14. Bumblebye
    September 24, 2017, 9:08 pm

    Email landed 20th Sep – they’re on it.

    bdsmovement.net/giro

  15. Bumblebye
    September 24, 2017, 9:13 pm

    Sod it, edit didn’t work!

    https://bdsmovement.net/giro

  16. Ossinev
    September 25, 2017, 7:00 am

    @Bumbleye
    Great news. Thanks for the link.

  17. JeffB
    September 25, 2017, 9:13 am

    @Eljay

    || … Attacking the domestic Jewish population assists on the ingathering of the exiles. … ||

    Jewish citizens of foreign countries – people who have chosen to acquire and/or hold the religion-based identity of Jewish, living in their respective homelands all over the world – are not exiles from Israel, they are foreign nationals. “Ingathering” these foreign nationals into Israel is nothing more than preferential immigration granted by a religion-supremacist state to those who share the religion-based identity.

    Your argument is that Zionism is false therefore Zionism is false. That’s a small circle.

    I would say you are now disputing Kibbutz Galuyot directly by name. Take it up with God.

    Deut 30:4 Even if your exiles are in the most distant land, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. 30:5 Then he will bring you to the land your ancestors possessed and you also will possess it; he will do better for you and multiply you more than he did your ancestors.

    Mere asserting that God’s wrong and you are right is a rather flimsy argument.

    • Mooser
      September 25, 2017, 12:10 pm

      “Mere asserting that God’s wrong and you are right is a rather flimsy argument.” “Jeff b”

      ROTFLMSJAO! So shall we look forward to God registering at Mondo and defending His arguments, or will He be content to have you speak for Him?

    • eljay
      September 25, 2017, 5:06 pm

      || JeffB: @Eljay … Your argument is that Zionism is false therefore Zionism is false. That’s a small circle. … ||

      The size of the circle has no bearing on the fact that foreign nationals are not exiles to be “ingathered”.

      || … Mere asserting that God’s wrong and you are right is a rather flimsy argument. ||

      Unlike you, I’m not basing my argument on the words the early adopters of the religion-based identity of Jewish conveniently put into the mouth of their “god”.

  18. JeffB
    September 25, 2017, 9:18 am

    @Talkback

    JeffB: “1966-1987: A period of rapid economic integration where Israelis extended civil freedoms and Palestinians put aside their national goals.”

    JeffB lies about “extending civil freedoms”. Israel put Palestinians under martial law and used outmist brutality in crushing Palestinan national goals and their bones which led to the first Intifada.

    Check your facts here. I was rather explicit in starting this period in 1966. Martial law for Israeli-Arabs ended in 1966 which is of course why anyone would use that date. There also were no riots and no violence prior to 1987.

    The rest is similar but this was the most clear cut since the two things you named where exactly why the date range was chosen.

    • Mooser
      September 25, 2017, 12:12 pm

      “Jeff b” this is a sad display. Don’t you have anywhere else to talk to yourself?

Leave a Reply