Israeli rightist Smotrich lays out the vision for apartheid

Israel/Palestine
on 219 Comments

On Tuesday, Bezalel Smotrich, a member of the Israeli Knesset from the Jewish Home party, delivered his ‘baby’ at a right wing conference. The baby has an official name: The ‘Decision Plan’. But its real name is Apartheid. It lays out a way for Israel to annex Palestinian territory, officially so, and to coerce the population to either live under Apartheid, explicitly relinquishing “national aspirations”, or be expelled.

Here are the officially stated two options:

“1. Anyone who is willing and able to relinquish the fulfillment of his national aspirations will be able to stay here and live as an individual in the Jewish state.

2. Anyone who is unwilling or unable to relinquish his national aspirations will receive assistance from us to emigrate to one of the Arab countries.”

This is a kind of “surrender-or-transfer ultimatum” to the Palestinians, as Haaretz correspondent Yotam Berger phrased it yesterday.

The plan, which Smotrich presented to a political faction called the National Union, which includes Members of Knesset from his party, also contains a “third option” concerning those Palestinians who resist its provisions:

“Anyone who insists on choosing the third ‘option’ – to continue to resort to violence against the Israel Defense Forces, the State of Israel and the Jewish population will be determinedly handled by the security forces with greater force than at present and under more comfortable conditions for us.”

Although the ‘third option’ leaves a lot open to the imagination, the de-facto Israeli policy of extra-judicial executions against Palestinians, even if they are merely wielding a screwdriver, means one needs little fantasy to imagine its deadly meaning.

Smotrich has been working on this ‘plan’ for many months, and he laid his ideas down for the Israeli Knesset in May, as Samah Salaime reported in +972 Magazine, titled “The Right’s plan to beat Palestinians into submssion”, noting  “it’s as racist as you think”.

But this is not Smotrich’s first Apartheid baby. 

Following reports that there exists a de facto policy of racial segregation in Israeli maternity wards, Smotrich tweeted 

“It’s natural that my wife wouldn’t want to lie down [in a bed] next to a woman who just gave birth to a baby who might want to murder her baby twenty years from now.”

His wife, Revital, supported his view. She told Channel 10 she had “kicked an Arab obstetrician out of the [delivery] room. I want Jewish hands to touch my baby, and I wasn’t comfortable lying in the same room with an Arab woman. I refuse to have an Arab midwife, because for me giving birth is a Jewish and pure moment,” she said.  

It’s important to notice the bigger paradigm here, so that we do not get drawn into thinking Smotrich is a loose aberration, representing nothing but a fringe lunacy. The maternity ward comments were set against the background of an actual reported policy of segregation (enacted upon request). In other words, Smotrich and his ilk are not advocating a new racism – they are simply exposing and supporting its existence, unabashedly so.

This vein of unapologetic racism has gained popularity amongst the Israeli right, and appears to be the hallmark of the younger cadre of right-wing Israeli lawmakers. Prominent examples besides Smotrich include:

–        Israel’s top diplomat, Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely (Likud), who said in her inaugurating speech in May 2015: “This land is ours. All of it is ours. We did not come here to apologize for that”.    

 –        Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home), who stated less than two weeks ago “Zionism should not continue, and I say here, it will not continue to bow down to the system of individual rights interpreted in a universal way.”

 –        Minister of Education Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home), who beyond his comparisons of Palestinians to “shrapnel in the butt” and his boastings of having killed “many Arabs”, declared upon Donald Trump’s election in November “the era of the Palestinian state is over.” He has recently also coined the term “auto-anti-Semitism”, referring to Jewish leftists.   

 –        MK Oren Hazan (Likud), who in July advocated a revenge-terrorist attack in response to the Palestinian terror attack killing a family at the Halamish settlement: “I want to be honest without sounding too extreme, God forbid, but if it was up to me I would’ve gone to the terrorist’s house yesterday, grabbed him and his whole family and executed them all together.”   

While Hazan is more loosely populist with no ministerial power, the other three are far more powerful politicians.

This is where we need to return to the conference at which Smotrich spoke, the National Union conference. The whole point of it is about how to solve the Israeli conundrum, which is a typical Zionist one: wanting the land, but not the people. The whole point of it is to get rid of whatever is left of Palestine, by annexing it. The only problem is, what to do with the Palestinian population.

Since 1967, Israel has generally maintained a status of “belligerent occupation” in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, which allowed it to control a non-Jewish population under military rule without offering them civil rights. Israel has already annexed what land it could following the 1967 war, territory in which the ‘demographic threat’ of too many Palestinians seemed ‘tolerable’. In the Syrian Golan Israel enhanced this ‘tolerability’ by ethnically cleansing nearly all of the roughly 130,000 Syrians along with their 200 villages, and in East Jerusalem Israel managed the annexation by offering the East Jerusalemite Palestinians residence status rather than citizenship. Although theoretically speaking, Palestinian East-Jerusalemites can apply for citizenship, and even vote in municipal elections, not national ones, Israel has in fact nearly halted approval of any citizenship applications in recent years.    

So now we are left with the big deal – the rest of the West Bank.

Rightist leaders have been speaking far more openly about annexation recently, as for example when Bennett said in January that Israel should impose Israeli law on “all of area C as soon as possible” (Area C is over 60% of the West Bank and encircles Palestinian enclaves).

Yesterday, head of B’tselem Hagai El-Ad wrote in an email that Israel was contemplating war crimes in those territories: 

“According to Haaretz, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman told journalists in late August that plans for the implementation of a measure virtually unheard of since 1967 were months away from completion. These are plans for the eviction: Eviction and demolition of two whole West Bank Palestinian villages. Together, the two villages, Susiya, in the South Hebron Hills, and Khan al-Ahmar, east of Jerusalem, are home to hundreds of people, about half of them minors.

Demolishing these communities would constitute the forcible transfer of protected persons, a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention. A forcible transfer occurs whenever residents do not leave of their own free will – for instance, when the authorities make living conditions impossible. This is exactly what Israel has been doing to these and to many other Palestinian communities throughout the West Bank for years – forcing residents to live without connections to electricity or running water and under the constant threat of demolition. Still, demolishing an entire community would be an extreme escalation of this already abusive policy.”

In other words, El-Ad is noting how Israel is becoming far more brazen and less apologetic in its enactment of ethnic cleansing, particularly in Area C. If and when Area C is consolidated as ‘Israeli territory’, all that will be left is holes in one big slice of cheese – the Palestinian Bantustans. As the late Israeli minister and Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan would say, “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.”  

But this is really not new. Israel has been working at this plan incessantly. In fact, the Bantustanization of the West Bank has roots in the ‘Allon Plan’, named after leftist leader Yigal Allon (who was also foreign minister under the first Rabin government in 1970’s). The Oslo accords of 1990’s, also enacted by a left-Israeli government, cemented this notion albeit under a supposed ‘temporary agreement’. Rabin had nonetheless assured that whatever would eventually come out of it would be “less than a [Palestinian] state” as he addressed the Israeli Knesset in 1995, shortly before he was assassinated.

So now the question becomes, How to consolidate all that? It’s clear that Israel – from left to right – wanted the territory to start with (where 1948 was simply an ‘unfinished job’). But the world has allowed Israel to get away with its 1948 conquests and ethnic cleansing more readily than it has allowed it to get away with annexing Palestinian territories in 1967. The world still considers the 1967 occupied territories “occupied”, and that also includes Gaza. ”Occupied” suggests ”temporary”, but after half a century, the rightists are getting more impatient with this game. If “this land is ours”, if “all of it is ours” as Tzipi Hotovely says, then the rest is just political correctness.

Indeed, as Smotrich said at the National Union conference:

“After a hundred years of managing the conflict, the time has come for a decision… The principles [of the left] have within a few years become accepted by growing parts of the Israeli leadership. First on the left, and later, unfortunately, also on the right, which to a great extent has lost its belief in the justice of our path and has been dragged toward the two-state solution.”

Smotrich noted that, “The vision of the decision plan is not new”, and that “These are the foundations on which Zionism was erected. We do not assume that there are two narratives here that are equal. There’s one side that’s correct, and another that is undermining the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.”

What did I tell you? Unabashed. These guys are not here to apologize.

It’s really like Gideon Levy wrote, about Ayelet Shaked’s mentioned words on Zionism versus “individual rights interpreted in a universal manner”:

Thank you, Ayelet Shaked, for telling the truth. Thank you for speaking honestly. The justice minister has proved once again that Israel’s extreme right is better than the deceivers of the center-left: It speaks honestly.”  

This is the what gives power to people like Smotrich – he says what others hide.

But Smotrich realizes he has one huge hurdle to get over: how do you manage such unabashed Apartheid, and still call it a “democracy”?

“The big challenge in this context will be the democratic challenge”, Smotrich says. “The need to persuade the world that among all the different alternatives, the alternative of democratic rights without the right to vote for the Knesset is the least bad alternative. It is indeed a challenge, but we can meet it.”

 Now, finally, what does Israel’s supreme leader, Prime Minister Netanyahu, have to say about all this?

He sent the conference a video message:

“I was happy to hear that you are devoting the discussions at the conference to the subject of the future of the Land of Israel. Up until not so many years ago, this country was deserted and abandoned, but since we returned to Zion, after generations of exile, the Land of Israel is flourishing.”

Netanyahu said, regurgitating the Zionist hoax of “empty land”. He then continued:

“Within less than 70 years, we have succeeded in building a prosperous country, a world leader in economics, technology, security, agriculture, cybersecurity, health and many other fields. We are building the country and settling it in the mountains, the valleys, the Galilee, the Negev and in Judea and Samaria too, because this is our country. We have been given the privilege of living in the land, and we have an obligation to guard it carefully.” 

The “privilege of living in the land” is obviously alluding to the messianic “promised land” notion, but it requires no Messiah, simply brute force. The rest God will manage. And Smotrich will help too.

About Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

219 Responses

  1. eljay
    September 14, 2017, 11:21 am

    Subjugate, cleanse or kill: That’s the Zionist way.

  2. amigo
    September 14, 2017, 1:32 pm

    Haaretz—-Opinion Ben-Gurion Invented the Israeli Right

    It’s becoming ever clearer that the founder of the state laid down a very dangerous foundation through his desire to return Israeli Jews to former glories

    “Anyone who watched “Ben-Gurion, Epilogue” on Channel 10 this week, featuring a previously unseen interview with former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion from April 1968, heard the man who founded the state repeatedly tell them they are meant, in his view, to be a model nation – and even though they aren’t one yet, he believes in their ability to become one and demonstrate “moral superiority” to the world. This was arrant nonsense when it was first uttered, and even more so nowadays when it completely contradicts our lived experience.

    In general, from a historical perspective – and Ben-Gurion was a diligent student of history – it’s becoming ever clearer that he laid down a very dangerous foundation, and sowed the seeds of calamity, through his desire to return Israeli Jews to their former greatness and glory: That of the biblical era when God appointed them a Chosen People.

    This burning yearning for past glories was also common to Mussolini’s Italy, which felt a strong desire to seize a place of honor among the nations, which would restore its ancient glories and recreate the days of the Roman Empire.

    This is a path that leads with absolute certainty to extreme nationalism, by creating a kind of refusal to make do with non-imperial normalcy, to be a nation like all others. Pretensions to greatness, to the heights of “moral superiority,” drive a nation to grant itself excess privileges.”

    read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.812312

    • yonah fredman
      September 14, 2017, 10:58 pm

      Ben Gurion was as responsible as any single human for the birth of Israel and as such, his will and devotion were quite extraordinary. From the Jewish point of view it was a historic act of gigantic proportions. Certainly far less than perfect in his personality and philosophy, he had a single cause and he pursued it with all his heart and might. Any expressions of “chosen people” and harkening back to ancient times and ancient contracts of real and folklore-ish types, it’s all acceptable. We had no state and now we have a state.

      of course to the palestinians he was an enemy and they saw him as such. that is natural. i’m not saying that jewish statehood or even a return to zion was natural, inevitable, predictably the outcome of modernity. no. there is nothing automatic about any of it. certainly british wishes to assert power were involved in their adoption of the mandate handed down by the league of nations which included language quite similar to that in the balfour declaration. and it is doubtful that balfour would have happened if not for Herzl. herzl made a movement of a few thousand people into a front page story. again, i accept the opposition of the Palestinian people to be natural.

      Smotrich is some 70 years after the birth. He is not the epitome of ben gurion. He may be the natural offspring of 50 years of occupation, but he is not the epitome of ben gurion. ben gurion was plenty bad, but 1948 and 1967 elicited varying reactions by the world powers and so 1967 is a rebellion against the countries of the world.

      Rabin might have set the country on a different path.

      Now 22 years after Rabin was murdered, here is Smotrich. Without hope from the left then there is this “hope” from the right.

      But Rogel Alphel is anachronistic regarding Ben Gurion. Of course BG’s politics was aggressive and violent. That was what was needed to establish the state. But once the state was established Israel should have sued for peace. The inability of Israel to pivot away from the state of war is the essential failing, not the desire for a state. And Ben Gurion and his single-mindedness were key factors in the establishment of the state. A wonder to the Jewish people and a bane to the Palestinians. but now 70 years later, unable to pivot towards “reconciliation” instead we have Smotrich as the extreme and Shaked and Regev as the mainstream and Bibi- not quite a lame duck.

      • RoHa
        September 15, 2017, 9:43 am

        “We had no state and now we have a state.”

        Who are “we”? Not British Jews. They had a state. Not American Jews. They had a state. Not Australian Jews. They had a state.

      • RoHa
        September 15, 2017, 9:53 am

        “The inability of Israel to pivot away from the state of war is the essential failing, not the desire for a state. ”

        The desire for a state when it was obvious that the creation of the state would be an injustice was an essential failing.

        The creation of the state was an essential failing.

        The idea that there can be any justification or excuse for the creation of Israel is an essential failing.

      • CigarGod
        September 15, 2017, 10:12 am

        “…its all acceptable.”

        Yep, the old – the end justifies the means – excuse.
        Anyone keeping a list of the holy Jewish patriots who had to turn into beasts to effect – the end – and then somehow turned back into saints once achieved?

        Me neither.
        Newton’s First Law of Motion comes to mind.

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 12:09 pm

        ““We had no state and now we have a state.”

        Just what every religion needed, a few centuries ago.

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 12:23 pm

        I’ve always loved the way Zionists say “state” as if that makes Israel one of the superpowers. As if the word “state” frees Israel of all natural, political or demographic consequences.

      • eljay
        September 15, 2017, 12:27 pm

        || yonah fredman: Ben Gurion was as responsible as any single human for the birth of Israel and as such, his will and devotion were quite extraordinary. … ||

        As were his colonialism and supremacism.

        || … We had no state and now we have a state. … ||

        The religion-based identity of Jewish didn’t and doesn’t comprise a right to a state. Jewish citizens of states all over the world already had and have their respective states.

      • eljay
        September 15, 2017, 12:40 pm

        || Mooser: I’ve always loved the way Zionists say “state” as if that makes Israel one of the superpowers. As if the word “state” frees Israel of all natural, political or demographic consequences. ||

        “State” may not make Israel all-powerful, but “Jewish State” apparently does.

        Just look at how Israel is able to cripple the international community by transforming legitimate criticism of its oppressive, colonialist, (war) criminal and supremacist actions into “anti-Semitism”.

      • amigo
        September 15, 2017, 1:31 pm

        Shorter Yonah.

        We got our state and don.t care who we robbed.oppressed.colonised.abused.ethnically cleanised .etc.etc.

        We are Jews so it.s all acceptable.

        Grow up Yonah.

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 1:38 pm

        ““State” may not make Israel all-powerful, but “Jewish State” apparently does..”

        You bet! “Jewish State” just adds all the reverence and respect for Judaism to the protections of statehood.

      • yonah fredman
        September 15, 2017, 3:15 pm

        I am not herein trying to justify the harm done to the Palestinians. They were harmed and assert their refusal to accept that harm. It is only the Jewish urge to self protection that can justify measuring the harm done to to the Palestinians compared to the salvation (by circumstance) to the hundreds of thousands saved by zionism, and to choose self protection as worthwhile. This self protection was at the root of herzl and pinsker’s political philosophies. It was not at the core of Ben gurion’s efforts. He believed in the rebirth of the Jewish people. Defying assimilation, he asserted, the jews will assimilate or continue to decay in non-Jewish majority communities. Yes, jews in america can consider themselves part of the American state and other states open to immigration will be the states of the jews who live there ( which excludes most Jews alive in 1912 who resided in nonwelcoming states), but such a welcome will only lead to the disappearance of the jews, and such a disappearance (spiritual rather than physical) was not acceptable to Ben Gurion, he chose rejuvenation instead.

        The clash between this rejuvenation and damage done to the Palestinians was inevitable, and my attempt to posit the rejuvenation of the jews as something separate from the harm done to the Palestinians is logically weak, as in: positing cutting off a chicken’s head without killing it. But I do not assert the validity of such a rejuvenation at the cost to the palestinians. I assert it as an independent good, as if its only harm was philosophical rather than oppressive to the palestinians. As such, I find the philosophical damage as acceptable. But given the damage to the Palestinians, the only justification was the saving of physical Jewish lives, which in fact it was. But I was trying to assert the validity of Jewish rejuvenation independent of its harm to the Palestinians, which was indeed not the way it took place as a historical event rather than as an idea.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 15, 2017, 5:39 pm

        It is only the Jewish urge to self protection that can justify measuring the harm done to to the Palestinians compared to the salvation (by circumstance) to the hundreds of thousands saved by zionism

        no, your ‘urge to self protect’ does not justify another’s ethnic cleansing — ever. that’s brain washing.

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 6:00 pm

        It is only the Jewish urge of self-protection”

        Because anybody who says “I’m doing it for the Jews, to protect the Jews”, must be both right, and honest.
        G-d would not permit anything else to happen to happen with something so important.

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 6:02 pm

        Shorter “yonah”: ‘Jews are more important than other people. That’s why we so vastly outnumber everybody else’

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 6:05 pm

        “and such a disappearance (spiritual rather than physical) was not acceptable to Ben Gurion, he chose rejuvenation instead.”

        “Rejuvenation” (No pun intended, I assume)? No, “yonah” what you are seeing is spontaneous combustion.

      • DaBakr
        September 15, 2017, 6:30 pm

        Yf
        It’s hard to believe you (let alone anyone except the far fringe hysterical attention craving left) take rogel alphel seriously. Not only has he been consistently hysterical but he’s been wrong so much that only chemi s. @hrttz makes h him sound a little like a journalist.

        . I understand why harettz is the almost solitary Israeli news outlet referenced here for confirmation of Israeli evil but it doesn’t seem to bother anybody here. it’s similar to another singularly quoted source on hatred in the USA. (I’m not inferring that this fat has anything to do with mw. only that mw ascribes to the singular source Louie every body else in the US and EU msm) how has the SPLC become the only source the msm quotes when referencing statistics” hatred and hate groups in the US? It’s no secret their politics are far to the left but so be it. it’s splc and hrttz all the way.

        exactly how should Israel have sued for peace in light of khartoum and the general state of hostile belligerency on every one of Israel’s borders? shoulda, woulda, coulda.

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 6:59 pm

        “no, your ‘urge to self protect’ does not justify another’s ethnic cleansing — ever. that’s brain washing.”

        But the thought that Israel has the power to commit ethnic cleansing, war crimes or even genocide, and shrug off the consequences is priceless, so gratifying to “yonah”. That’s his ‘precious’, right there.
        And the more appalled we are at what “yonah” (or “JeffNathanGreen” etc) says is necessary for Zionism (destroying the Palestinian polity, at least) the more we concede (at least implicitly) Israel’s ability to do these things and handle, internally and externally, the consequences, the more it gratifies them.
        Man, that’s a sad way to be.

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 7:06 pm

        “Rabin might have set the country on a different path!”

        Shhhh, go back to sleep, “yonah”. You’ve had a nightmare, and woke yourself shouting.
        Stop worrying, Rabin’s long gone.

      • Talkback
        September 16, 2017, 4:27 am

        DaBakr: “Exactly how should Israel have sued for peace in light of khartoum …”

        Abide by international law? Oh wait, that would be only a solution for peace loving states.

        DaBakr”… and the general state of hostile belligerency on every one of Israel’s borders?”

        Aka the general state of hostile belligerency that came with the establishment of the Zionist Apartheid Junta through war and expulsion and its cold annexation of territories beyond partition borders.

      • Talkback
        September 16, 2017, 4:39 am

        Yonah Fredman: “It is only the […] urge to self protection that can justify measuring the harm done to to the […] …”

        Nazi propaganda template.

      • Mooser
        September 16, 2017, 7:22 pm

        Shorter “Yonah”: ‘Zionism is the Jewish people’s search for the small pond they could be the biggest fish in.’

      • MHughes976
        September 18, 2017, 12:14 pm

        When I’m offered a definition that contains several defining terms, such as culture, history, residence in an area I ask whether the def is disjunctive (only one of the terms needs to apply) or conjunctive (all of them need to apply). If this is not clear it becomes difficult, perhaps seriously difficult, to assign objects (people in some cases) to the category defined. This difficulty may lead to the invocation of an authority using its discretion to determine cases, but then questions arise about how this discretion, which inevitably promotes uncertainty, is to be justified.
        Still, I’d be interested to know more about how nationalists understand nationalism.
        On the face of it many definitions of Nation permit some individuals to belong to no nation or to many. That’s a point that needs clearing up a bit. Then we can get on to why membership of a nation implies rights or duty.

  3. amigo
    September 14, 2017, 1:45 pm

    “There is something refreshing in his lack of pathos, his casual manner, his patently unemotional succinctness. And his atheism. The interviewer asked whether, like the prophets, Ben-Gurion also asked God to strengthen him. The founder of the state was amused: the idea of speaking to God made him laugh. “Does God live in some place where you can contact him?” he asked. “Did the prophets go to see God? They wrote down his address and went to see him?”

    We have a ben guruion at MW .One jack green who does not believe in God but claims that Zionists are entitled to all of the land –includes the Occupied West Bank /Gaza and occupied Syrian Heights , because this non existent God gave it to them.

    Btw , jacko , do you recall me asking you for details on this real estate guru in the sky, ie , his Dna, address,e.mail, hobbies –excluding dabbling in real estate , favorite movies , etc , etc. Sounds as if BG thinks you are an idiot .

    read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.812312

  4. Annie Robbins
    September 14, 2017, 3:53 pm

    jonathan, thank you for this excellent horrifying report. the addition of the alarming email from B’tselem’s executive director Hagai El-Ad is frightening. they are already planning how to do it ad the world will stand by and watch.

    • just
      September 14, 2017, 5:31 pm

      Yes, many thanks for writing this here, Jonathan. As I wrote yesterday, this is “zionist~ styled ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and genocide”. I really shudder to think that “world will stand by and watch” this, Annie. What will the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back be and when will it happen? It’s been forever, hasn’t it?

      “After a hundred years of managing the conflict, the time has come for a decision… ”

      Agreed. “The world” certainly must make a change and a decision to finally end their complicity with and enabling of this horror. There is no other path to justice. Think how many countries have suffered the wrath of the US et al with sanctions, yet Israel gets a free pass and mucho dinero from millions of taxpayers. The US Congress is trying to pass anti- BDS legislation that would criminalize free speech of folks in the US~ the very same ones that pay the taxes! It is unconscionable in the extreme.

      But, today:

      “U.S. Sanctions 11 People and Companies for Iranian Activities”

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-14/u-s-sanctions-11-people-and-companies-for-iranian-activities

      The hypocrisy is revolting.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 14, 2017, 6:04 pm

        just, also from the email b’tselem sent out:

        Crimes are usually committed far from the public view, and effort is put into covering them up. Seasoned politicians do not usually declare their criminal intentions, especially in on-the-record conversation with journalists. The fact that Minister Lieberman did so attests to his confidence that the planned evictions will receive the full backing similar actions – albeit less extreme – have always been given here, including the disgraceful support of the High Court. This is an official policy and is not seen as a crime.

        For that reason, last week we sent a letter to the prime minister, the defense minister, the justice minister, the chief of staff and the head of the Civil Administration cautioning that demolishing an entire community would constitute a war crime for which they would bear personal liability. This was an unusual step for B’Tselem to take: we do not use the term lightly and it rarely appears in our publications. Yet the extreme circumstances demand it.

        so, if lieberman said last month that plans were “months away from completion” i suppose we can expect this all to take place fairly soon. the trump factor. and this is probably one reason the iran hysteria is cranked up, to deflect from their intended actions.

      • just
        September 14, 2017, 6:15 pm

        Horrible news, Annie!

        This is timely, from this very day:

        “Part 1: Pink Floyd Founder Roger Waters: BDS is One of “Most Admirable” Displays of Resistance in the World

        Part 2: “The Occupation of the American Mind”: Documentary Looks at Israel’s PR War in the United States

        Part 3: Roger Waters Criticizes Senate Bill Criminalizing BDS & Radiohead’s Recent Concert in Tel Aviv”

        https://www.democracynow.org/

        The entire program is well worth a visit and more, but this video should go viral imho:

        https://www.democracynow.org/2017/9/14/the_occupation_of_the_american_mind

        Perhaps the sleeping masses and/or the wilfully ignorant can open their eyes, hearts, and minds…

      • just
        September 14, 2017, 6:57 pm

        Ali Abunimah writes this at EI:

        “EU refuses to condemn Israeli genocide plan

        … Genocide
        The plan adopted by the conference very likely meets the international legal definition of genocide.

        It states that its objective is “to dismantle the Palestinian national collective.”

        The international convention on preventing genocide defines genocide as any of a number of acts carried out “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.”

        Although in the popular understanding genocide is equated with physical extermination of a group of human beings, its legal definition includes a broader number of acts. The key issue in defining an act as genocidal is the intention of its perpetrator.

        Proponents of the plan explicitly state that existence of the Palestinians as a people is an obstacle to fulfilling Jewish ethnic-religious domination, and that they intend to target Palestinians because they are members of a particular national group.

        “We do not assume that there are two narratives here that are equal,” Smotrich explained. “There’s one side that’s correct, and another that is undermining the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.”

        Values of the German SS
        Daniel Blatman, a professor of Holocaust studies at Hebrew University, wrote in May that Smotrich takes inspiration for his plan from the biblical Book of Joshua, which describes the wholesale slaughter of a people by the “children of Israel.”

        Blatman called Smotrich, a deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament the Knesset, “the most senior government figure to date to say unabashedly that the option of genocide is on the table if the Palestinians don’t agree to our terms.”

        “Smotrich’s admiration for the biblical genocidaire Joshua bin Nun leads him to adopt values that resemble those of the German SS,” Blatman, a fellow of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, added.

        There is a long history of human rights scholarship and legal analysis that supports the assertion Israel is already committing genocide.

        Israeli politicians have long promoted the forcible transfer of the Palestinians, and the idea has enjoyed broad and consistent public support.

        EU silence
        Last month, Vera Jourova, the European Union’s justice commissioner, recalled her visit to Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial.

        “We need to be the ones taking the message against racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism for future generations,” she wrote on Twitter.

        “This is the EU,” Jourova added, raising the moral responsibility to speak out to a defining European value.

        In keeping with this spirit, The Electronic Intifada asked the office of European foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini if it would offer a clear, unambiguous and specific condemnation of the transfer plan and of its endorsement by Israeli government ministers, including, implicitly, by Netanyahu.

        But the EU refused to do so. Instead, a spokesperson provided a robotic, general statement that the “European Union supports a two-state solution and has consistently expressed that compliance with international law, including international human rights law, is a cornerstone for peace and security in the region.”

        So much for moral leadership. …”

        More @ https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/eu-refuses-condemn-israeli-genocide-plan

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 14, 2017, 8:05 pm

        just:

        “EU refuses to condemn Israeli genocide plan..”

        That is disgusting to hear!! But that is also why we have to (and are) working on a national level here. At the moment EU is still led mostly by the older generations and many of them have been brainwashed for all of their lives. But on a national level we have more possibilities, so in youth we trust!!

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2017, 9:12 pm

        I heard the “Democracy Now” segment on “The Occupation of the American Mind” this morning. It was very good.

  5. Annie Robbins
    September 14, 2017, 5:48 pm

    one of the villages b’tselem says is slated for demolition and ethnic cleansing is Khan al-Ahmar in EI which will further cut off east jerusalem from the WB.

    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/demolition-palestinian-settlement/
    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/02/received-demolition-destroy/

    so frustrating / heartbreaking. all of it. so horrific it is hard to contemplate.

  6. JosephA
    September 14, 2017, 7:37 pm

    The only democracy in the Middle East.

    • DaBakr
      September 15, 2017, 6:40 pm

      @ja

      correct. Netanyahu could have been voted out numerous times over the past decade as were countless other pm’s and knesset members. if anybody cites Lebanon as an example of democratic vote I will have to drop dread from laughter. Lebanon is a factional/tribal nation that is controlled by hezbollag who used to take direction from assad and the tyrant ayatollah but may now have amassed enough power to give direction to the Lebanese, Syrians and the IRG, and it’s mullahs.
      . you may not like the nation, maybe you don’t like our laws or maybe you just don’t like us period. it does not negate that we absolutely are the nation here that has suffrage for ALL Israeli citizens, jews, arabs Christians, druze, Bedouin, Muslim, ba’hai and completely blind to any notion of skin colour. one would have to walk a great distance top get to the next Democratic state. I don’t even think turkey counts any longer considering erdogans actions.

      • Talkback
        September 16, 2017, 4:15 am

        DaBakr: “you may not like the nation, maybe you don’t like our laws or maybe you just don’t like us period.”

        Are you kidding? Who doesn’t love an Apartheid state as long as it is Jewish? Only antisemites, right?

        DaBalr: “it does not negate that we absolutely are the nation here that has suffrage for ALL Israeli citizens, jews, arabs Christians, druze, Bedouin, Muslim, ba’hai and completely blind to any notion of skin colour. ”

        You are negating the Nonjews which can’t vote, because Israel keep them expelled and denationalized only because of their faith and heritage. That’s not democracy but Apartheid. They should have been citizens of Israel according to the partition plan which you only refer to if it suits your ridiculous claims.

        Like Nazi Germany Israel differentiates between nationals (Jews only) and citizens. It perverts the concept of “citizens”. Only Israel’s nationals (Jews only) are actually citizens in its true meaning and scope. That’s why its called a “Jewish democracy”, because it is a fake democracy. The explicite right to equality was even removed from its fake constitution. The “Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty” is not even enshrined and can be voted out of existence by a simply majority.

      • Talkback
        September 16, 2017, 1:00 pm

        Another 2500 Nonjews the Jewish fake democracy has denationalized because of their faith/heritage:
        Is Israel turning its Bedouin citizens into a stateless people?
        https://972mag.com/is-israel-turning-its-bedouin-citizens-into-a-stateless-people/129775/

        Where is their right to suffrage and citizenship, DaBakr?

      • Marnie
        September 16, 2017, 11:54 pm

        “I was happy to hear that you are devoting the discussions at the conference to the subject of the future of the Land of Israel. Up until not so many years ago, this country was deserted and abandoned, but since we returned to Zion, after generations of exile, the Land of Israel is flourishing.”

        This trope is so old and worn out, like booboos daddy.

        DaBarke – please get yourself some rugged boots and start walking to the next democratic state. I will drop dread from laughter.

        Of course you won’t do it but I like the idea. Your zionist pals will get there’s someday. But I’m sure the rest of us will too, because the zionazis aren’t going to stop until millions upon millions of lives are lost in the process. When there are no palestinians in the holey land left to kill, the zionazis will quickly turn on each other. They eat their young.

      • DaBakr
        September 22, 2017, 2:17 am

        @tb

        Non Jews can vote in Israel. claiming otherwise is simply a lie or, in your case, more likely a twisted lying pretzel of logic you honed to spout Palestinian. hasbara to explain your position. I do get it tbck

  7. oldgeezer
    September 14, 2017, 7:53 pm

    Depraved is the only word which applies. How sick does a society have to be that one can openly promulgate genocide with a nod and wink from the PM no less. Visit the family of a slain terrorist and there is an uproar in the press and attempts to remove Knesset rights. Genocide and no one blinks.

    Utterly depraved. As zionists would say, a cancer which needs to be removed.

  8. just
    September 14, 2017, 8:14 pm

    Interesting:

    “South Africa’s ANC: Israel was established ‘on basis of apartheid

    Ruling party in Pretoria says Israel was established ‘on basis of apartheid.’
    South Africa’s ruling party condemned Israel as a nation founded on the basis of apartheid, and branded the establishment of the state a crime against humanity.
    The allegation was made in a statement issued over the weekend, as South Africa’s anti-Israel lobby planned to protest a conference Sunday held by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) in Johannesburg.

    “As the Alliance we are now heightening our campaign aimed at boycotting and isolating Israel as a state founded on the basis of apartheid, which according to international law and several UN conventions is a crime against humanity,” read the statement, which was co-signed by African National Congress secretary-general Gwede Mantashe.

    The members of the Alliance — the ANC, the Communist Party, the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African National Civics Organization — pledged “ongoing solidarity with the people of Palestine” and endorsed the movement calling for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. …”

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/south-africas-anc-israel-established-basis-apartheid/

    • DaBakr
      September 22, 2017, 2:19 am

      There are prominent South Africans who, after visiting Israel, find the comparison not only untrue but insulting to their own struggle to break the bonds of apartheid

      • Annie Robbins
        September 22, 2017, 8:35 am

        find the comparison not only untrue but insulting to their own struggle to break the bonds of apartheid

        dabk, this reminds of an old video i saw once and posted here. it was a seminar in south africa on hasbara by this famous hasbara guy (i don’t recall his name but it came up in the context of an article here).. anyway, after the lecture there was a question answer period and one of the students asked how they counter the argument that israel was an apartheid state. and the guy answers just as you claim. ha! i don’t care if some fool claims it insults the south african struggle. you sound just like emit http://mondoweiss.net/2017/09/boycott-montgomery-africa/#comment-891393 don’t you know this is the go-to hasbara response to the charge of apartheid? and no one believes it.

  9. JLewisDickerson
    September 14, 2017, 8:20 pm

    RE: “I refuse to have an Arab midwife, because for me giving birth is a Jewish and pure moment” ~ Revital Smotrich

    MY COMMENT: This sounds worse than the Jim Crow South!

    P.S. I wonder if Revital Smotrich looks as Aryan as her husband.

    • JLewisDickerson
      September 14, 2017, 8:56 pm

      P.P.S.  Lebensborn
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      [EXCERPT] Lebensborn e.V. (literally: “Fount of Life”) was an SS-initiated, state-supported, registered association in Nazi Germany with the goal of raising the birth rate of “Aryan” children of persons classified as “racially pure and healthy” based on Nazi racial hygiene and health ideology. Lebensborn provided welfare to its mostly unmarried mothers, encouraged anonymous births by unmarried women at their maternity homes, and mediated adoption of these children by likewise “racially pure and healthy” parents, particularly SS members and their families. The Cross of Honour of the German Mother was given to the women who bore the most Aryan children. Abortion was illegal at this time.

      Initially set up in Germany in 1935, Lebensborn expanded into several occupied European countries with Germanic populations during the Second World War. It included the selection of “racially worthy” orphans for adoption and care for children born from Aryan women who had been in relationships with SS members. It originally excluded children born from unions between common soldiers and foreign women, because there was no proof of racial purity on both sides. During the war, many children were kidnapped from their parents and judged by “aryan” criteria for their suitability to be raised in Lebensborn homes, and fostering by German families. . .

    • JLewisDickerson
      September 14, 2017, 9:08 pm

      P.P.P.S.
      PHOTO: Jewish Home MK Bezalel Smotrich at a Knesset committee hearing

  10. JLewisDickerson
    September 14, 2017, 8:33 pm

    RE: “This vein of unapologetic racism has gained popularity amongst the Israeli right, and appears to be the hallmark of the younger cadre of right-wing Israeli lawmakers.” ~ Ofir

    SEE:    ‘It’s okay to be racist in Israel’
    An Israeli conscientious objector speaks out about racism and subjugation as the occupation enters its 51st year.
    LINK – http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/israel-education-system-ensures-terrified-170110120105356.html

  11. JLewisDickerson
    September 14, 2017, 9:28 pm

    RE: “I want to be honest without sounding too extreme, God forbid, but if it was up to me I would’ve gone to the terrorist’s house yesterday, grabbed him and his whole family and executed them all together.” ~ MK Oren Hazan (Likud)

    MY COMMENT: How is this not a clear cut case of the “incitement” the Israelis complain so vociferously about?
    Compare it to prosecution of Dareen Tatour !

  12. JLewisDickerson
    September 14, 2017, 9:41 pm

    RE: But Smotrich realizes he has one huge hurdle to get over: how do you manage such unabashed Apartheid, and still call it a “democracy”? ~ Ofir

    SHELDON ADELSDON’S RESPONSE:

    “I don’t think the Bible says anything about democracy,” Adelson said. “[God] didn’t talk about Israel remaining as a democratic state… Israel isn’t going to be a democratic state — so what?”

    SOURCE – http://forward.com/news/209072/sheldon-adelsons-dismissal-of-israeli-democracy-dr/

    • Citizen
      September 15, 2017, 11:41 am

      Mr. Adelson lives in Nevada; ask him how he feels if Nevada would not be a democratic state, and/or the US Republic. So, then, what?

      • JLewisDickerson
        September 20, 2017, 6:21 pm

        I don’t think he would have a problem with it, as long as he was the reigning oligarch! (And he pretty much already is in Las Vegas.)

  13. JLewisDickerson
    September 14, 2017, 9:48 pm

    RE: The Oslo accords of 1990’s, also enacted by a left-Israeli government, cemented this notion albeit under a supposed ‘temporary agreement’. Rabin had nonetheless assured that whatever would eventually come out of it would be “less than a [Palestinian] state” as he addressed the Israeli Knesset in 1995, shortly before he was assassinated. ~ Ofir

    MY COMMENT: Uri Avnery believes it is possible that Rabin would have eventually come around to supporting a Palestinian state. We’ll never know.

  14. JeffB
    September 15, 2017, 10:32 am

    I’m sorry but looking at this two alternatives how is that any different than what 1967 border proponents who don’t support outright ethnic cleansing say should happen to the “settlers” living in the future Palestinian state? How are those two conditions not precisely what the most humane BDS argue should happen to all Jewish Israelis?

    You can’t have it both ways. If living without national rights is no big deal then the solution is quite reasonable. If living without national rights is a big deal then the Jews everywhere on the planet had good reason to flee to Palestine and your attempts to once again deny them their national rights are colonial oppression.

    • Citizen
      September 15, 2017, 11:57 am

      Are you implying Jews in the US, for example, or UK, or Canada, or EU, or Australia have no national rights now?

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 12:15 pm

        “Are you implying Jews in the US, for example, or UK, or Canada, or EU, or Australia have no national rights now?”

        “Jeff B” will now explain that whatever national rights Jews have in those countries, they are only conceded to us because of the power of Israel.

      • Sibiriak
        September 15, 2017, 12:55 pm

        Citizen: Are you implying Jews in the US, for example, or UK, or Canada, or EU, or Australia have no national rights now?
        ———————

        What national rights do Jews have in the U.S.? They only have individual rights, like everyone else (apart from Native American nations, which have special forms of national sovereignty.)

      • JeffB
        September 15, 2017, 1:41 pm

        @Citizen

        Jews in the UK, Canada, EU and Australia have individual rights they don’t have national rights. That is option (1) in the above two options. Sibiriak is correct in his answer.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 15, 2017, 2:25 pm

        Jews in the UK, Canada, EU and Australia have individual rights they don’t have national rights.

        sure they do. unless you don’t accept the UK, Canada, EU and Australia are nations (or in the case of the EU a group of nations). they have the same national rights as everyone else in those countries. but the difference here is that UK, Canada, EU and Australia practice civic nationalism vs israel which is a ethnic national state. you just have to appreciate in civic national states jews have the same rights as everyone else. tough pill to swallow for some people i guess — if you’re seeking special status as a jewish national you’ll have to go elsewhere.

      • JeffB
        September 15, 2017, 2:36 pm

        @Annie

        I’m not entirely sure Americans & Canadians are nations. They are somewhat borderline cases somewhere between a nation and a federation in the case of Canada and somewhere between a nation and an empire in the case of America. The EU most certainly is not borderline there is no European nation. There are member nations like France in the EU. Australia is clear cut.

        But putting that aside…. and pretending that America was a nation unambiguously…

        Irish Americans do not have Irish national rights in America. They do have American national rights. American Jews do not have Jewish national rights. They do have American national rights.

        The proposal you are objecting to so strongly is to say that
        Ethnic Palestinians will have Israeli national rights. They will not have Palestinian national rights in Israel.

        Precisely the situation in the UK, Canada, EU or Australia with respect to Jews.

        Now the Irish do have Irish national rights in Ireland. The Jews have Jewish national rights in Israel. The Palestinians currently have Palestinian national rights in Gaza and may one day enjoy Palestinian national rights in Jordan.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 15, 2017, 6:21 pm

        The proposal you are objecting to so strongly is to say that Ethnic Palestinians will have Israeli national rights.

        i have no problem with palestinians having israeli national rights, but according to the israeli high court there are no israeli national rights.

        “Supreme Court rejects ‘Israeli’ nationality status”

        Residents cannot identify themselves as Israelis in the national registry because the move could have far-reaching consequences for the country’s Jewish character, the Israeli Supreme Court wrote in documents obtained Thursday.

        The ruling was a response to a demand by 21 Israelis, most of whom are officially registered as Jews, that the court decide whether they can be listed as Israeli in the registry. The group had argued that without a secular Israeli identity, Israeli policies will favor Jews and discriminate against minorities.

        In its 26-page ruling, the court explained that doing so would have “weighty implications” on the State of Israel and could pose a danger to Israel’s founding principle: to be a Jewish state for the Jewish people.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 15, 2017, 6:32 pm

        I’m not entirely sure Americans & Canadians are nations.

        for your edification:
        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation

        Definition of nation for English Language Learners

        : a large area of land that is controlled by its own government

        the nation : the people who live in a nation

        Nation : a tribe of Native Americans or a group of Native American tribes that share the same history, traditions, or language

        NATION Defined for Kids:

        Definition of nation for Students

        1 :country 1. China is a nation I’d like to visit.

        2 :a community of people made up of one or more nationalities usually with its own territory and government

        … here is a race that the whole nation is clamoring for … —Walter Farley, The Black Stallion

        an american is not a nation. americans make up the nation, we are the nation. All US citizens are US nationals. same with canadians. a french person is not a nation. the french are a nation. an israeli is not a nation, the israelis are a nation — oh, except they aren’t!! not according to the israeli high court who is simply ignoring the common definition of what a nation consists of for the purpose of exclusion, for the purpose of privileging certain citizens over other citizens which is spelled out in the racist israeli nationality law.

      • John O
        September 15, 2017, 4:08 pm

        @JeffB

        “Jews in the UK […] have individual rights they don’t have national rights.”

        What on earth are you talking about? All British subjects/citizens have exactly the same rights, whatever their religion, gender or ethnicity. It has doubtless also escaped your notice that British subjects/citizens have equal rights with the nationals of the other 27 states of the European Union. Many of us are pretty pissed off right now that the British government, having decided to treat the result of the advisory referendum on membership of the EU as it it were Holy Writ, are trying to take away some of those rights.

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 5:32 pm

        “— if you’re seeking special status as a jewish national you’ll have to go elsewhere.”

        Your best bet, “Jeffy b” would be Israel, where you don’t even have to be Jewish to be Jewish.

      • DaBakr
        September 15, 2017, 6:53 pm

        One can dicker around all day when it comes to jews defining themselves as a nation.

        Is there a nation of Lakota? Yes

        Is there a nation of Americans? Yes (while this is still an ambiguous statement)

        Is there a nation of Hawaiians? Depends who you ask. Hawaiians will say yes

        Is there an arab nation? The term is used all the time. Yes there is but is there also

        An Egyptian nation?

        A Jordanian nation?

        A hashemite nation, or is it tribe?

        KSA-. tribes or nation?

        Lebanon, tribes and factions

        Syria, at one time and for eons before Assad.

        Are Iranians nationals or Persian?

        Kurds?

        what’s china? Not even sure.

        are North Koreans a separate nation from South Koreans? their passports say they are.

        Jews- a nation, a people, a religion, a race(according to many of israeli jews enemies) or as one persistent member here states over and over: a choice.

        It’s not a black and white question wether any particular group is a nation. the argument about jews predates modern Israel by millennia.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 15, 2017, 8:23 pm

        It’s not a black and white question wether any particular group is a nation.

        i posted the webster definition. it seems you are willfully choosing not to recognize there is more than one definition of nation because israel only recognizes one definition, or perhaps hebrew has only one word which doesn’t apply to the most commonly used application, one of a county. but your willful disregard for the common usage definition doesn’t change the reality that it exists. they are not interchangeable, the definitions. one means one thing, and the other means something else.

      • eljay
        September 15, 2017, 7:08 pm

        || JeffB: … Irish Americans do not have Irish national rights in America. They do have American national rights. … ||

        And rightly so, because they’re American.

        || … American Jews do not have Jewish national rights. They do have American national rights. … ||

        And rightly so, because they’re American.

        || … Ethnic Palestinians will have Israeli national rights. They will not have Palestinian national rights in Israel. … ||

        I agree that ethnic Palestinians who are Israeli citizens should have Israeli national rights.

        || … The Jews have Jewish national rights in Israel. … ||

        Like Palestinians, Jews in Israel should have Israeli national rights. A “Jewish State” of Israel – a state which grants Jewish national rights to its Jewish citizens and to non-citizen Jews but not to its non-Jewish citizens – is a religion-supremacist construct that has no right to exist.

        || … The Palestinians currently have Palestinian national rights in Gaza and may one day enjoy Palestinian national rights in Jordan. … ||

        Palestinians are entitled to Palestinian national rights in Gaza if Gaza is part of a state of Palestine. They would only be entitled to Palestinian national rights in Jordan if Jordan were to become part of the state of Palestine.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 15, 2017, 8:17 pm

        Palestinians are entitled to Palestinian national rights in Gaza if Gaza is part of a state of Palestine.

        there are no palestinian national rights* currently because they are an occupied people. even recognition of a state of palestine would not afford national rights if their rights are controlled by an occupation authority. of course gaza is part of palestine.

        *i am speculating here for i don’t really know. they have rights as refugees and things like that. but until they have their own constitution and their own courts that recognize and have means to exercise their rights i am not clear how they would implement them, as palestinians.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 15, 2017, 7:12 pm

        Jeff:

        “The Jews have Jewish national rights in Israel..”

        One of the most known Finnish Jews at the time is called Ben Zyskowicz, a member of our Parliament since 1979*. Since 1982 he has been married to a Finnish Muslim woman and they have two children together. I have never asked him what kind of national rights he would have in Israel, he did not have in Finland, but the question of course rises, what kind of rights would his wife and his children have in this Jewish State of yours??

        *His Polish (Jewish) father survived from Sachsenhausen and Majdanek, came as refugee to Sweden where he met a Finnish Jewish women with whom he moved to Finland, got married and got a daughter and a son, Ben. (Just that you would not wonder about Ben’s background..)

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 7:12 pm

        “I’m not entirely sure Americans & Canadians are nations.” “Jeff B”

        ROTFLMSJAO!! Well, I mean, compared to Israel, who is?

      • oldgeezer
        September 15, 2017, 7:52 pm

        @Annie

        Just as Kaifeng Jews and Tunisian Jews are not a nation nor are they part of the same nation. It’s like calling the removal of the illegal settlers “ethinic cleansing”. Zionists bastardize the meaning of words to suit their criminal and racist agenda.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 15, 2017, 9:10 pm

        thanks oldgeezer. i think it’s accurate to say some jews recognize all jews as part of a nation of jews (as they define it) and some do not. iow, i don’t think there’s consensus even among jews that they are a nation or a people. but i will leave that up to them as it has no meaning for me. by using the same argument one could say catholics are a nation and who am i to tell them they are not. but that doesn’t mean i don’t have an opinion regarding the issue.

      • oldgeezer
        September 15, 2017, 9:29 pm

        @Annie

        I agree with you. And, like you, I don’t really care either. Self identify away and enjoy it. I do care when that identification is used as a basis for denying the rights of other people. If we are going back to days when any group of people who wish to self identify are entitled to do so and to claim a national homeland through violence then we are in for a very bloody future. I don’t want that for anyone.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 15, 2017, 9:55 pm

        Annie:

        “by using the same argument one could say catholics are a nation..”

        You know, often when I read/write comments here, I think how weird conversations I end up having with some of the commentators. At least until now, religions have been a private matter in Finland, so we have all been Finns and I might have gone in a same class with someone for 9 years, without knowing about his/her religion or him/her having no religion at all (there are lot of families who do not have any religion).

        Also when I lived in Israel, I did not realize there were some people thinking about Jews as people and a nation.. Like the Finnish Jews were Finns to me and the Israelian Jews Israelis. And ofcourse Israel was “Holy” to those religious Finnish Jews (as it was for religious Christians too), but not because it would be an ancient homeland, but because of the Holy Sites they could visit in f.ex. Jerusalem. It was only later I found out about these “birth right” things and such.. And they still confuse me..

        Anyway, it would really sound weird, if someone would claim that all the Lutherans were a nation.. Eh.. no.. It still is only a religion and at least for me, does not define me the same way as being Finnish does.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 15, 2017, 10:10 pm

        Annie:

        And I must add, that f.ex. one of my friends is married to a British Catholic man, they have three children who I guess then are half Catholic, half Lutheran, half English, half Finnish.. So what are they then?? It always ends the same way: People. All these definitions, but in the end the same: People. So it is only up to us, how difficult we want to make it.

      • echinococcus
        September 16, 2017, 12:45 am

        Annie

        i will leave that up to them as it has no meaning for me… who am i to tell them they are not. but that doesn’t mean i don’t have an opinion regarding the issue

        Well formulated, as almost always. But. This is chiefly about language, and language being the most basic social phenomenon, always affects everyone without exception. Intentional bastardizing of language kills logic and distorts public thinking. Especially in the extremely sensitive case of “nation”, which is the poor li’l word that has probably claimed more victims to date than “freedom” or “money”.

        This is not, in the general consensus (outside Zionists, Turanic Pan-Turkists, and a smattering of others) , a matter of whim but of definable criteria, none of which checks in this case. Yes, we are getting used to, better said we even have been trained to accept as a basic fact of life that Zionists are more heinous falsifiers of language than even journalists –that is not reason enough to let them get away with it.

      • echinococcus
        September 16, 2017, 1:48 am

        Kaisa

        It still is only a religion and at least for me, does not define me the same way as being Finnish does.

        You know, we should listen when some of the hard-nosed Zionists writing here tell us that the definitions current in the Zionist Theocracy in the Levant (and the other Stone Age kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic State in the same Levant) are not the same as in today’s civilized nations.

      • RoHa
        September 16, 2017, 4:36 am

        It would help to begin with the brilliant RoHa terminology of p-nation, n-nation, and c-nation. No doubt further refinements, corrections, and adjustments could be made, but at least it would provide a good starting point.

      • RoHa
        September 16, 2017, 9:12 am

        “Intentional bastardizing of language kills logic and distorts public thinking. ”

        Unintentional bastardizing of language doesn’t do us any good, either.

      • JeffB
        September 16, 2017, 11:03 am

        @Annie

        That’s obviously not the definition being talked about in that use of “nation”. The technically correct definition is:

        Nation — a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

        The dictionary definition you are citing is properly handling usage. But that’s the definition of a state not a nation.

        As for there not being an Israeli nationality. The proposal would change that. There would be an Israeli nationality and the Palestinians would be part of it.

      • Mooser
        September 16, 2017, 12:15 pm

        Could somebody tell “Jeff B” and “yonah” that declaring a state is not like yelling “base!” or “Ollie-ollie-oxen-free” in a child’s game?

      • Talkback
        September 16, 2017, 12:17 pm

        Annie: “there are no palestinian national rights* currently because they are an occupied people. even recognition of a state of palestine would not afford national rights if their rights are controlled by an occupation authority. of course gaza is part of palestine.

        *i am speculating here for i don’t really know. they have rights as refugees and things like that. but until they have their own constitution and their own courts that recognize and have means to exercise their rights i am not clear how they would implement them, as palestinians.”

        Annie, you are mistaking “national rights” aka the right to national self determination with sovereignity. The Palestinians have national rights and are the souvereign of their country which has its own constitution. But their sovereignty is exercised by the occupying Zionist Apartheid regime.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 16, 2017, 2:37 pm

        mistaking “national rights” aka the right to national self determination with sovereignity

        thanks talkback.. i think what i meant is that although they have them, effectively, they are being prevented from exercising them due to the occupation.

      • echinococcus
        September 16, 2017, 12:18 pm

        RoHa,

        The qualifier “intentional” was intentionally there because the mechanism is not exactly the same with the unintentional introduction of deviations. We could expand that to a discussion of considerable length and that would be wildly off-topic here.

        [For an almost-caricature of a simile, compare to the obstruction of an artery: if it happens at once and centrally, it causes a very major disruption downstream, an infarction. If it happens timidly, like distortions by private persons due to ignorance or misunderstanding, it may progress but will do so gradually, allowing all kinds of compensatory mechanisms to create collateral blood channels, thus avoiding brutal, major injury.]

      • Mooser
        September 16, 2017, 1:14 pm

        “Jews- a nation, a people, a religion, a race”

        And, lest we forget, “a people, a religion, a race” comprising .25 of a percent of earth’s human inhabitants.
        A quarter of one percent, and that’s generous.

      • echinococcus
        September 16, 2017, 9:19 pm

        The Jeff, shooting himself in the foot yet again:

        Nation — a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

        We’ll take that, thanks!

        1. There is zilch common descent among “Jews”, a totally disparate collection of converts from Slavo-Hunnic, Turkic, Berber, Celtiberian, Arab, etc. descent, plus probably some minimal groups originating in Palestine (pre-Titus.)

        2. There is zilch common culture, except for part of the liturgical and religious concepts among the religious, strictly limited to religion.
        Otherwise not a single non-religious element in the different cultures, from food to language to the way they wear their hat or sip their tea –nothing at all can be shown to be in common. Nada.

        3. There is and there has been no common language; Hebrew being a liturgical language, no one’s mother tongue, and the Zionists killed the mother tongues developed by a few communities that had lived in some degree of isolation. The only Hebrew in these mother tongues is simple non-structural borrowings, all of them liturgical or adopted through the liturgy.

        4. Zilch particular country or territory at all. “Jews” have been all over the place, from Kamchatka to Mars. There was a little group in Palestine, too, but they were part of the Palestinian people as a minority.

        Jeff’s checklist definitely establishes that there can be no such thing as a “Jewish people”.

      • RoHa
        September 17, 2017, 12:04 am

        “from food to language to the way they wear their hat or sip their tea”

        The Zionists have taken away the languages. How are they doing on the hat and the tea?

      • RoHa
        September 17, 2017, 12:20 am

        Echinococcus, the intentional is designed to have damaging results, and so is always deplorable. But the unintentional can also lead to equivocation and amphiboly. That is why grammar, logic, and rhetoric should be at the foundation of our education.

        (I recently noticed that in some of my comments I have said “amphiboly” where I should have said “equivocation”. Very embarrassing. I’m sure MHughes noticed, but was too polite to correct me.)

      • echinococcus
        September 17, 2017, 1:09 am

        RoHa,

        Zionists? I refuse to believe she would have sung for Zionists even if she did. So there.

      • gamal
        September 17, 2017, 1:19 am

        “Otherwise not a single non-religious element in the different cultures, from food to language to the way they wear their hat or sip their tea”

        or the way they smoke a nargile, see for your self Jews standing out against a Palestinian backdrop, just keep calm and carry on smoking that hookah…

        https://youtu.be/H-k37Kbnov0

      • Talkback
        September 17, 2017, 6:27 am

        JeffB: “The dictionary definition you are citing is properly handling usage. But that’s the definition of a state not a nation.”

        Two definition. 1.) Nation as nationality/constitutive people/citizenship: US American, French, German, Russian, Palestinian, etc. That’s the people who are the sovereign of a country.

        2.) Nation WITHIN a nation. Ethnic minorities or majorities, etc.

        I don’t care how Jews need to define themselves to make a claim for national rights or a right to national self determination. But since they are NOT a nation according to 1.) a “Jewish state” is a racist state, because “Jewish” is NOT the nationality that was transfered to all of the citizens of Israel. To the contrary. The majority of Nonjews and their descendants are kept expelled and denationalized until today.

        JeffB: “As for there not being an Israeli nationality.”

        And more importiantly no Jewish nationality.

        JeffB: The proposal would change that. There would be an Israeli nationality and the Palestinians would be part of it.”

        But not the Palestinians, Israel keeps expelled and denationalized for racist reasons.

      • echinococcus
        September 17, 2017, 11:50 am

        Thanks for that link, Gamal. Enjoying it a lot. It’s obviously the same culture as that of fiddling on Lithuanian roofs, eh?

      • echinococcus
        September 17, 2017, 11:58 am

        RoHa,

        Continuing the offroads –amen to the “foundation” trivium anyway. Still, when change is operated by the natural history of speech, i.e. slowly, solid compensatory mechanisms are in place, keeping equivocation to a minimum by flagging the reefs of amphiboly. We keep some means to communicate and think effectively (if one wishes to, that is.) Not so with intentional subversion of terminology.

      • Mooser
        September 17, 2017, 12:22 pm

        “from food to language to the way they wear their hat or sip their tea”

        They can’t take that away from me. No, they can’t take that away from me.

    • eljay
      September 15, 2017, 12:23 pm

      || JeffB: … If living without national rights is a big deal then the Jews everywhere on the planet had good reason to flee to Palestine and your attempts to once again deny them their national rights are colonial oppression. ||

      Jewish is a religion-based identity. The religion-based identity of Jewish does not grant to those who choose to hold it a right:
      – to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine or anywhere else; or
      – to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 12:54 pm

        ” If living without national rights is a big deal then the Jews everywhere on the planet had good reason to flee to Palestine”

        Where nobody could find them.

      • JeffB
        September 15, 2017, 1:44 pm

        @Eljay

        That has nothing to do with the question. You don’t meaningfully support any national rights, I’m not even sure if you acknowledge that nations even exist apart from states. The question then is under your philosophy what’s so horrible about option (1) in the above?

      • Annie Robbins
        September 15, 2017, 2:18 pm

        That has nothing to do with the question.

        jeff, when you ask a question and then answer it in the same comment you run the risk of someone addressing your (lame) argument instead of addressing the question directly. and since you’re not in any sort of position to delegate or assign what people address, your options are ignoring them or responding to what they do say.

      • eljay
        September 15, 2017, 4:20 pm

        || JeffB: @Eljay

        That has nothing to do with the question. … ||

        I quoted a statement you made – not a question you asked – and commented on it.

        || … You don’t meaningfully support any national rights, I’m not even sure if you acknowledge that nations even exist apart from states. The question then is under your philosophy what’s so horrible about option (1) in the above? ||

        IMO: Unlike tribal / religious / ethnic / cultural groupings (sometimes referred to as nations or peoples), nationalities arise from states. States arise from the self-determination of the people living within (and perhaps also up to n-generations removed from) a geographic region. Jewish is therefore neither a nationality nor a state. People who choose to be Jewish hold the nationalities of the states to which they belong.

      • JeffB
        September 16, 2017, 11:11 am

        @Eljay

        nationalities arise from states. States arise from the self-determination of the people living within (and perhaps also up to n-generations removed from) a geographic region.

        That’s a circular definition. It doesn’t even make sense. Let’s work through an example.

        Under that definition did France exist during the Vichy era? Where was the French nation? What was the relationship between the French and German nations?

      • eljay
        September 16, 2017, 9:29 pm

        || JeffB: @Eljay … That’s a circular definition. It doesn’t even make sense. … ||

        Makes perfect sense.

        || … Let’s work through an example. … ||

        Sure: The indigenous population of the geographic region of Palestine decides that it wishes to self-determine as an autonomous state of and for all of its citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally. The resulting state is Palestine, the nationality is Palestinian and all citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees hold Palestinian national rights.

        The “Jewish State” of Israel fails on all counts.

      • JeffB
        September 17, 2017, 6:04 am

        @Eljay

        I’ll take your change of subject as “yes I agree that simple example does prove my definition for nation doesn’t work at all”.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 17, 2017, 10:12 am

        I’ll take your change of subject as “yes I agree [w/you]..”

        that’s rich coming from the king of diversion.. i’ll be remembering this comeback.

        btw, eljay did not change the subject.

      • eljay
        September 17, 2017, 7:07 pm

        || JeffB: @Eljay

        I’ll take your change of subject as “yes I agree that simple example does prove my definition for nation doesn’t work at all”. ||

        You can take my worked-through example for exactly what it is: A demonstration of how I believe nationality should work and why a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel fails on all counts.

    • Talkback
      September 15, 2017, 2:07 pm

      JeffB: “I’m sorry but looking at this two alternatives how is that any different than what 1967 border proponents who don’t support outright ethnic cleansing say should happen to the “settlers” living in the future Palestinian state?”

      Deporting illegal settlers is not “ethnic cleansing”. It’s actually Israel’s racism that these illegal settlers are Jews only.

      JeffB: “If living without national rights is a big deal then the Jews everywhere on the planet had good reason to flee to Palestine and your attempts to once again deny them their national rights are colonial oppression.”

      ROFL. Neither refugees nor settlers have national or political rights in any country of which they are not citizens. And to claim that denying settler colonialism amounts to colonial oppression has to be one of the top most imbecile argument on MW.

      • echinococcus
        September 15, 2017, 2:33 pm

        Deporting illegal settlers is not “ethnic cleansing”

        Let’s PS that. ANY Zionist-imported settler anywhere on the territory of Palestine, all of Palestine, is an illegal settler.

      • JeffB
        September 15, 2017, 2:41 pm

        @Talkback

        Deporting illegal settlers is not “ethnic cleansing”.

        Forcing people to abandon their homes is ethnic cleansing regardless of whether you like or dislike the group. All you are saying is that it is an ethnic cleansing you would approve of not that it isn’t one. There are no such thing as “illegal people”.

        And to claim that denying settler colonialism amounts to colonial oppression has to be one of the top most imbecile argument on MW.

        Then it shouldn’t be hard to refute in a logically consistent way.

      • Mooser
        September 15, 2017, 5:50 pm

        “Forcing people to abandon their homes is ethnic cleansing regardless of whether you like or dislike the group.”

        Their “homes” “Jeffy B”, their h-o-m-e-s. Not their illegal settlements and outposts. That’s different. Sorry.

        And if the Zionists wanted to make Palestine “home” for Jews needing refuge they had plenty of chances to do it.

      • Talkback
        September 16, 2017, 3:30 am

        JeffB: “Forcing people to abandon their homes is ethnic cleansing regardless of whether you like or dislike the group.”

        Oh vey, you are even more confused then I thought. It is only “ethnic cleansing” if their presence and the build of their home was legal, but they were forcefully removed only because of their ethnicity. That is what Jewish terrorist and their leading fascist racists are doing to Palestinians since the establishment of their Apartheid Junta in Palestine.

        It is not ethnic cleansing, if people are removed, because their presence is illegal and they live in illegaly build homes. That is when citizens of an occupying power settle in settlements in occupied territories. Their entry was illegal, their presence is illegal and so are their “homes”. It has nothing to do with their faith or heritage. It has only to do with them being citizens of an occupying power settling in occupied territories. Th

        JeffB: “All you are saying is that it is an ethnic cleansing you would approve of not that it isn’t one.”

        Are you stupid, dishonest or both?

        JeffB: “There are no such thing as “illegal people”.

        And there is no such statement in my comment.

        JeffB: “Then it shouldn’t be hard to refute in a logically consistent way.”

        ROFL. You really expect someone to refute that the DENIAL of settler colonialism (which is based on colonial oppression) is colonial oppression itself? That the DENIAL of a certain crime is this certain crime? Are you sure that you even understand the fundamental basics of logic? Or honesty?

        JeffB: “Now the Irish do have Irish national rights in Ireland. The Jews have Jewish national rights in Israel. The Palestinians currently have Palestinian national rights in Gaza and may one day enjoy Palestinian national rights in Jordan.”

        Perfect examples for your logical inconsistency. It should read: The Irish have Irish national rights in Ireland. The Israelis have national rights in the state of Israel. The Palestinians have national right in Palestine.

        Jews are still not a nationality/citizenship and a “nation” in the same sense and they will never be. Because nobody can become Jewish by acquiring the citizenship of a state.

      • MHughes976
        September 16, 2017, 4:29 am

        In normal usage ‘ethnic cleansing’ is something done predominantly because of the ethnicity of those involved. Action taken mainly because people are invaders and marauders doesn’t qualify, therefore. At that rate the planting of the settlements was e-c, their removal would not be. Of course you can change the definition, so that (say) the capture of the Hindenburg Line becomes ethnic cleansing of Germans from part of Belgium. But under definitions of that scope it would not be clear that e-c was always wrong.

      • JeffB
        September 16, 2017, 11:27 am

        @MHughes976

        In normal usage ‘ethnic cleansing’ is something done predominantly because of the ethnicity of those involved. Action taken mainly because people are invaders and marauders doesn’t qualify, therefore.

        I’m not sure that I see the difference you are making. Almost everyone who does ethnic cleansing claims the civilians being ethnically cleansed are invaders, and not without factual merit. The Khmer Rouge rightfully argued the Vietnamese civilians they were slaughtering had immigrated without permission. The Serbs correctly identified Muslims with prior invasions. The Rohingya did in fact migrate from India to Burma.

        The right to ethnically cleanse invaders and marauders is the right to ethnically cleanse anyone.

        X goes into N# villages and starts raping women, burning homes and shooting children till the villagers all flee. All N villages are composed of some ethnic identification different from the one that supports X. X claims they are invaders.

        That’s ethnic cleansing. It is also how one gets rid of marauders and invaders. The only difference is a linguistic one, whether you are using approving or disapproving language.

        But under definitions of that scope it would not be clear that e-c was always wrong.

        That’s the question you need to answer for yourself. Do you support ethnic cleansing as a means of achieving policy objectives. Supporting some ethnic cleansing makes you an ethnic cleansing advocate? To be a genuine opponent you need to oppose all of them.

        Of course you can change the definition, so that (say) the capture of the Hindenburg Line becomes ethnic cleansing of Germans from part of Belgium.

        There weren’t civilians in Belgium. People who advocate for the removal of settlements aren’t advocating the removal of a military they are advocating for the destruction of a civilian cities, towns and villages.

      • Mooser
        September 16, 2017, 12:30 pm

        “Are you stupid, dishonest or both?”

        “Talkback”, indulge me for a moment and do a little thought experiment. Thanks.
        Imagine you had a pro-Zionist blog or website.
        Now, would you let “Jeff b” or “Dabakr” post as explainers and defenders of Zionism?
        Nope, neither will anybody else, so here they are.

      • Mooser
        September 16, 2017, 12:52 pm

        “Because nobody can become Jewish by acquiring the citizenship of a state.”

        That is a problem but but Israel is working on it. All lost tribes welcome to apply.

      • JeffB
        September 16, 2017, 7:23 pm

        @Mooser and Talkback

        OK you both took a clear cut stand. I’ll leave aside my revulsion. You have 650k human beings, mostly children that live in places they consider to be their homes. I understand you believe they are mistaken. That the place where they eat, sleep, make love, feed their children, educate their children, recover from disease, die from disease … are not homes at all but something else.

        What is the mechanism you propose for getting these people living in these settlements that they mistake for homes to abandon them and surrender them to your favored group?

      • andrew r
        September 17, 2017, 7:01 am

        You have 650k human beings, mostly children that live in places they consider to be their homes.

        JeffB, I don’t know how old you are, but did you raise any objections at all while this was going on? (Ilan Peleg, “Human Rights in the West Bank and Gaza: Legacy and Politics,” 2002)

        The Ottoman system and those which followed it, the British and the Jordanian, acknowledged that the land surrounding the village belong to the villagers “as common pastures or for the future development of the village.” Miri was land over which the sultan continued to have ultimate ownership but “whose use he has granted to the public under certain conditions.” In 1953 the Jordanians removed all restrictions on the possessors of miri land. Similarly, they declared all miri lands within the municipal areas to be legally held by their owners. The Likud policy broke with this long tradition, declaring mawat, miri, and matruke (land for public purposes) to be “state land.”

        Boy oh boy, I’ll just bet you were biting your nails at thought of several hundred thousand human beings losing their farming and grazing lands and being made destitute.

      • Talkback
        September 17, 2017, 7:11 am

        JeffB: “OK you both took a clear cut stand. I’ll leave aside my revulsion.”

        Settler colonialism and llegaly settling in occupied territories is revulsive. Both violate the right to self determination.

        JeffB: “You have 650k human beings, mostly children that live in places they consider to be their homes.”

        You are making a case for Palestinian refugees who had their LEGAL homes in Palestine and were illegaly expelled and denationalized by the Jewish supremacist Apartheid Junta.

        JeffB: “I understand you believe they are mistaken.”

        Nope. International law rules that the settling citizens of the occupying power in occupied territory is illegal and that the settlements have to be dismantled. Security Council Resolution 465:
        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/5AA254A1C8F8B1CB852560E50075D7D5

        I understand you believe that International Law is mistaken if these illegal settlers are Jewish.

        JeffB: “That the place where they eat, sleep, make love, feed their children, educate their children, recover from disease, die from disease … are not homes at all but something else.”

        So you do recognize Bedouin villages and condemn Israel’s racist crime towards its Nonjewish citizens, too.

        I know that you don’t have a heart for those that Israel keeps under occupation and colonialization for more than half a century, because you are a blatant racist. But how about recognizing that it was Israel that made those Jewish settlers illegal aliens who build illegal settlements and quite often on illegaly confiscated private land? You use the euphemism “home” to cover up a war crime.

        JeffB: “What is the mechanism you propose for getting these people living in these settlements … to abandon them …”

        The same that Israel does with any illegal immigrant. Or did with its illegal settlers in Gaza.

      • JeffB
        September 17, 2017, 11:35 am

        @Talkback

        The same that Israel does with any illegal immigrant. Or did with its illegal settlers in Gaza.

        OK. And that’s it. Israeli society solely moves their own people. Because as you know the Israeli government and the Israeli populus have indicated repeatedly they have no intention of ever withdrawing to the green line. For example the road to Hebrew University they have made clear they will never relinquish and this is a broad non starter.

        So does your policy really comes down to waiting for a society to do something it has no intention of ever doing under any circumstances?

        I understand you believe that International Law is mistaken if these illegal settlers are Jewish.

        Not at all. I believe the UN is simple incorrect in its understanding of international law. Even if one assumes the West Bank is occupied the Geneva Convention prohibits moving civilians into occupied territory. Nothing in international law requires once civilian settlement has occurred those civilians need be destroyed. International law and the UN decided in precisely the opposite fashion with respect to other civilians left behind from other occupations. That difference in treatment I do believe is because these civilians are Jewish so the UN is quite cavalier in advocating their extermination or at the very least forcible displacement.

      • Mooser
        September 17, 2017, 12:16 pm

        “OK you both took a clear cut stand. I’ll leave aside my revulsion.”

        You can put your “revulsion” where the sun don’t shine.

        ” What is the mechanism you propose for getting these people living in these settlements that they mistake for homes to abandon them”

        They will need lots of cardboard boxes, and I’m sure we can find people with pick-up trucks to help them move.

      • JeffB
        September 17, 2017, 12:23 pm

        @andrew r

        I was not alive in 1953. But my position is pretty clear cut. The State of Israel is the governing state over all property and deeds in Israel. Every home and every square inch of land in Israel is ultimately the government’s property. Individual ownership exists in so far as the government permits to exist, exists to advance the long term common good. A deed is only valid if it has the stamp of the government of Israel. All deeds should be updated so that prior government’s deeds no longer need to have force of law. The Israeli government is free to reallocate any property in much the same way as we have eminent domain laws in the United States.

        Continuing with my opinion Israel by and large has been too hesitant to unabashed and unequivocally state that they and they alone control all deeds as the governing authority. Israel should make it clear that while they may have inherited some law from the British and the Jordanians, those laws remain in effect only so long as the Israelis wish them to remain in effect. Jordan is not sovereign in any sense, over any part of Israel, including the West Bank.
        Israel is.

        As far as expelling farmers my position is that the government of Israel could and should put an end to discrimination in housing and neighborhoods widely practiced by the Palestinians and the Israeli Jews. They should put Palestinian farms under the governance of the civilian Agriculture ministry and make them subject to the same laws and penalties for non-compliance with those laws as Israeli-Jewish farms after a suitable transition period with assistance to help those Palestinians willing to comply with the law learn how to obey the law.

        The maximum possible level of non-discrimination while at the same time no more tolerance for this revolutionary anti-governmental activity including not recognizing the government or participating in civic duties.

      • Mooser
        September 17, 2017, 1:04 pm

        Here you go “Jeffy b”. It’ll look just like this.

        Oh shit, now I’m crying into my keyboard. Hope it doesn’t short out.

      • Mooser
        September 17, 2017, 1:28 pm

        “That the place where they eat, sleep, make love…”

        But let’s be accurate. They don’t spend more than nearly half the time making love.

      • Talkback
        September 17, 2017, 5:48 pm

        JeffB: “OK. And that’s it. Israeli society solely moves their own people.”

        As long as it holds Palestine under occupation it is its responsible to deport them on behalf of the Palestinians and dismantle the settlements as required by the Security Council and dismantle the wall on Palestine’s territory as required by the International Court of Justice.

        JeffB: “Because as you know the Israeli government and the Israeli populus have indicated repeatedly they have no intention of ever withdrawing to the green line. For example the road to Hebrew University they have made clear they will never relinquish and this is a broad non starter.”

        I know that the ” Israeli populus” is criminal. It has been criminal from the get go. Israel is genuinly a criminal state who has no intention to abide by international law.

        JeffB: “So does your policy really comes down to waiting for a society to do something it has no intention of ever doing under any circumstances?”

        Nope. I’m not waiting for Israel to stop being a criminal state. It can’t change its inature and institutionalized racism.

        JeffB: “Not at all. I believe the UN is simple incorrect in its understanding of international law.”

        Yep. All nations except one have an incorrect understanding of international law. And so does the International Court of Justice including the two Jewish judges. ROFL.

        JeffB: “Even if one assumes the West Bank is occupied …”

        Yep. Even Israel’s military and its Supreme Court “assume” that Israel occupies the Westbank. They are wrong, too. ROFL.

        JeffB: “… the Geneva Convention prohibits moving civilians into occupied territory.”

        To be more precise. The Geneva Convention prohibits colonizing occupied territories by citizens of the occupying state.

        JeffB: Nothing in international law requires once civilian settlement has occurred those civilians need be destroyed.”

        I wrote that international law as reflected in Security Council resolution 465 requires the settlements to be dismantled not that civilians have to be destroyed. Ilegal settlers have to leave. Forcefully if necessary.

        JeffB: International law and the UN decided in precisely the opposite fashion with respect to other civilians left behind from other occupations.”

        Name one Security Council resolution or advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which “decided precisely the opposite way” after the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis who were charged with the crime of Germanization of occupied territories.

        JeffB: “That difference in treatment I do believe is because these civilians are Jewish …”

        Like I said. I understand you believe that International Law is mistaken if these illegal settlers are Jewish. Do you still want to deny this?

      • JeffB
        September 17, 2017, 10:08 pm

        @Mooser

        They will need lots of cardboard boxes, and I’m sure we can find people with pick-up trucks to help them move.

        That’s not a mechanism for getting them to move.

        @Talkback

        I wrote that international law as reflected in Security Council resolution 465 requires the settlements to be dismantled not that civilians have to be destroyed. Ilegal settlers have to leave. Forcefully if necessary.

        What does forcibly mean? Be specific. They aren’t leaving. Do you burn homes, rape women, shoot kids? Or do you just use heavy weapons against civilians and say take out the settlements with poison gas or artillery? How is this done? Who does it?

        Name one Security Council resolution or advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which “decided precisely the opposite way” after the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis who were charged with the crime of Germanization of occupied territories.

        SR-353, 1974 involving Turkish Cypriots. Opposed violence by all sides against respective civilians.

        With regard to Cambodia the UN setup a standing body the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) which tried and convicted people who shared your views on “illegal settlers” and the need for their forcible removal. The actual UN considers your policies when not being applied to Jews but rather to Vietnamese a crime against humanity not an upholding of international law.

        Finally Western Sahara.

        Like I said. I understand you believe that International Law is mistaken if these illegal settlers are Jewish. Do you still want to deny this?

        Yes. That’s not remotely what I said.

      • Talkback
        September 18, 2017, 11:20 am

        JeffB: “What does forcibly mean? Be specific.”

        Like Israel forcibly deports illegal immigrants.

        JeffB: “Do you burn homes, rape women, shoot kids? ”

        Nope, I’m not a Zionist.

        JeffB: “SR-353, 1974 involving Turkish Cypriots. Opposed violence by all sides against respective civilians. ”

        The point of issue was which international document decided that illegal settlers of an occupying country can stay.

        JeffB: “With regard to Cambodia the UN setup a standing body the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) which tried and convicted people who shared your views on “illegal settlers” and the need for their forcible removal. The actual UN considers your policies when not being applied to Jews but rather to Vietnamese a crime against humanity not an upholding of international law. ”

        This court is an national court and independent of the UN. Please quote a decision by the UN and its organs that they decided that the citizens of the occupying state were allowed to settle in occupied territories. And If you can (I highly doubt it) stop lying that this is my view which is actually the view of every UN member except your Apartheid Junta.

        And by the way. Do you have any sense of justice? Do you think that what Turkey did was right?

        JeffB: “Finally Western Sahara. ”

        Again, quote from a UN document that it decided that the Moroccan settlers are allowed to stay.

        And by the way. Do you have any sense of justice? Do you think that what Morocco did was right?

        JeffB: “Yes. That’s not remotely what I said.”

        You implied that the UN was mistaken about Israel occupying the West Bank.
        You said that the “International law and the UN decided in precisely the opposite fashion with respect to other civilians left behind from other occupations”. Which is again not the point of issue, because the occupation has not ended. But so far you have provided no evidence.
        You said that the UN would do so, because these illegal settlers are Jewish.

        Where is the difference to my understanding that you believe that international law is mistaken if these illegal settlers are Jewish?

        JeffB @MHughes976 “Supporting some ethnic cleansing makes you an ethnic cleansing advocate?”

        It’s you who supports the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians who aren’t Jewish.

        JeffB: “People who advocate for the removal of settlements aren’t advocating the removal of a military they are advocating for the destruction of a civilian cities, towns and villages.”

        It’s not “people”. It’s the Security Council calling for the dismantlement of illegal settlements. Again, you are trying to distract from the fact that this is in accordance with international law which prohibits colonization of occupied territories since the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis. It’s you who is actually advocating a Nazi policy.

      • JeffB
        September 18, 2017, 3:16 pm

        @Talkback

        I’ll handle your 3 questions. Unambiguously.

        I fully support the rights of ethnic Turks living in Cyprus to continue to live in Cyprus
        I fully support the rights of ethnic Vietnamese living in Cambodia to continue to live in Cambodia
        I fully support the rights of ethnic Moroccans living in Western Sahara to continue to live their

        And in general… I do not support genocide against people regardless of how their ancestors arrived somewhere. I do not support the racism you preach at all, in part of in full. I totally unequivocally reject it. I think everyone should be a citizen where they are born without exception.

        Clear enough? And if want to call that Nazi policy I’ll happily stand with the Nazis on that issue. I’d prefer to call it a consistent anti-racism.

        As to your other questions I don’t know the opinion on Turkey/Cyprus or the Western Sahara to have moral opinions on those issues. On Vietnam I think their actions were terrific the Cambodians were morally disgusting and the USA position on Vietnam was atrocious. The Vietnamese saved many hundreds of thousands of lives by their actions. And I include among those actions resettlement of their natives during an occupation. What they did was a tribute to humanity. Hats off to them for that. I wish I had appreciated the ethics of what they were doing at the time. And I wish that occupation had continued.

      • Talkback
        September 18, 2017, 7:02 pm

        JeffB: “I fully support …”

        Illegal settlers have no right to reside in occupied territories. Period. If you need to support war crimes I woldn’t be surprised at all.

        JeffB: “And in general… I do not support genocide against people regardless of how their ancestors arrived somewhere.”

        Neither do I. Do you need to change the point of issue again?

        JeffB: “I do not support the racism you preach at all, in part of in full.”

        What racism, JeffB? Are you lying again to distract from your own racism?

        JeffB: “I think everyone should be a citizen where they are born without exception.”

        That would mean that children of illegal settlers are Palestinians Do you really want that?

        Btw. Israel deports children, because they are not Jewish:
        http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Rattling-the-Cage-Israel-is-deporting-kids-now

        And talking about racism, JeffB. Do you think that Palestinian refugees should be a citizen of the country where they were born, too? And what about their descendants. Answer both questions with yes, if you are not a racist hypocrite accusing others of racism.

        JeffB: “And if want to call that Nazi policy …”

        Twisting my words again, JeffB? I clearly said that colonizing occupied territory was a Nazi policy, and that Israel is commiting the same war crime.

        JeffB: “As to your other questions I don’t know the opinion …”

        So you lied again when you claimed that “International law and the UN decided in precisely the opposite fashion with respect to other civilians left behind from other occupations.” And at the same times and because it suits the criminal Zionist agenda of Israel you need to claim that international law and the UN are mistaken when it comes to Jewish settlements. You even need to deny that the Westbank is occupied allthough every UN member except Israel, the International court of Justice and even Israel’s Supreme Court holds this position and Israel in 1967 has in fact occupied territories beyond its declared borders.

        So much for your dishonesty and racism.

      • Talkback
        September 18, 2017, 7:17 pm

        JeffB: “And I wish that occupation had continued.”

        I know JeffB. It’s like you said before: “And if want to call that Nazi policy I’ll happily stand with the Nazis on that issue.”

      • JeffB
        September 19, 2017, 9:20 am

        @Talkback

        Illegal settlers have no right to reside in occupied territories. Period. If you need to support war crimes I woldn’t be surprised at all.

        I understand your position. You have been clear. These people need to be removed and their cities destroyed. Later in the post you are going to contradict yourself.

        JeffB: “And in general… I do not support genocide against people regardless of how their ancestors arrived somewhere.”

        Neither do I. Do you need to change the point of issue again?

        See one line up..

        JeffB: “I do not support the racism you preach at all, in part of in full.”

        What racism, JeffB? Are you lying again to distract from your own racism?

        The racism of believing that citizenship is determined by ethnicity and not place of birth. The racism that asserts that there is some biological inherited status called “illegal settler” that determines whether someone should or should not be granted human rights and equality under the law.

        JeffB: “I think everyone should be a citizen where they are born without exception.”

        That would mean that children of illegal settlers are Palestinians Do you really want that?

        If a state of Palestine were to be created including those Jewish cities absolutely the people living in them should be allowed to remain as Palestinians.

        Btw. Israel deports children, because they are not Jewish:

        Agree that is atrocious behavior. I’m not going to defend Israel’s actions towards African refugees.

        And talking about racism, JeffB. Do you think that Palestinian refugees should be a citizen of the country where they were born, too?

        Yes.

        And what about their descendants

        No. Their descendants should be citizens where they were born. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan… As we have discussed before I don’t believe myself entitled to Ukrainian citizenship.

        JeffB: “And if want to call that Nazi policy …”

        Twisting my words again, JeffB? I clearly said that colonizing occupied territory was a Nazi policy, and that Israel is commiting the same war crime.

        Colonizing territory means it isn’t occupied it is being colonized. By definition a territory is only occupied when the occupying power makes no permanent claim to it. Colonizing is making a permanent claim. By doing so the government becomes the governing power not the occupying power. So to use your Nazi analogy, in the Polish region of Oder–Neisse the Nazis were not the occupying power they were the governing power.

        So you lied again when you claimed that “International law and the UN decided in precisely the opposite fashion with respect to other civilians left behind from other occupations.”

        I cited 3 specific cases of civilians and civilian communities in each one the UN has disagreed with your assessment that total destruction is the appropriate course of action. And in the case of the Khmer Rouge who did agree with you on a policy of total destruction the UN was condemning. On the more limited case of Cyprus and Western Sahara the UN decided in favor of human rights for settlers.

        Saying I’m lying when the evidence shows exactly what I claim is bizarre.

        Israel’s Supreme Court holds this position and Israel in 1967 has in fact occupied territories beyond its declared borders.

        The Israeli Supreme court has defended the annexations which you disagree with. They decided that Elon Moreh was occupied in 1979. Let’s try and not overstate the case law.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2017, 1:33 pm

        “And if want to call that Nazi policy I’ll happily stand with the Nazis on that issue.” “Jeff B”

        Of course you will, “Jeff”! After all, what did the Nazis have that Israel doesn’t have?
        Anything Nazi Germany can accomplish (and gee, it didn’t accomplish) with about 90 million people and a lot of other resources, Israel can do with a couple million people from a country not much bigger than an aircraft-carrier.

      • Talkback
        September 20, 2017, 12:26 pm

        JeffB: “I understand your position. You have been clear. These people need to be removed and their cities destroyed.”

        I understand that you need to lie and suggest that it is only my position Again, international law and the UN’s Security Council’s and all UN member’s position including the US but except JSIL’s position is that illegal settlements have to be dismantled. When are you going to stop lying to yourself that it is not their position but only mine?

        JeffB: “Later in the post you are going to contradict yourself. ”

        Where JeffB? ROFL.

        JeffB: “See one line up.”

        Still no support of genocide from my side (or the UN’s). Just the support of deportation of illegal settlers and the destruction of their illegaly build settlements. These settlers are not people who only moved to a territory outside their state, because they were refugees or poor people. They illegaly settle there, illegaly confiscate the land and steal its resources within the framework of a racist colonizing policy who disenfranchises and dispossess the native population and destroys their property because they are of different faith or heritage. That’s the crime, not stopping and reversing it.

        JeffB: “The racism of believing that citizenship is determined by ethnicity and not place of birth.”

        So you were lying again, JeffB. I never claimed that citizenship is determined by ethnicity. It is your racist state that determines only Jews to be nationals of Israel. And Jewish Israeli illegal settlers and their descendants have not legally acquired he citizenship of the State of Palestine. And it is your racist state that keeps Palestinians who were born in Israel expelled and denationalized. Btw. the place of birth does not “determine” citizenship. These children are still allowed to acquire the citizenship that their parents have in states that respect the principle of family reunification.

        JeffB: “The racism that asserts that there is some biological inherited status called “illegal settler” that determines whether someone should or should not be granted human rights and equality under the law. ”

        Another lie, JeffB. Again: What determines illegal settlers is that they are citizens of an occupying power who illegaly settle in occupied territories. It has NOTHING do with their faith or heritage or “biological inherited status”. You constantly fail to acknowledge this.

        Citizens of an occupying power have NO rights to settle in occupied territories under international law, because their colonization of occupied territories is considered to be a crime against the native population since the ruling of the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis. You are calling for “human rights and equality” under fist law of an occupying power, not international law, humanitarian law and certainly not human rights. You are perverting law to support a crime. And you only support this violation of humanitarian law, because the criminals are Jewish. That’s the real racism.

        JeffB: “If a state of Palestine were to be created including those Jewish cities absolutely the people living in them should be allowed to remain as Palestinians.”

        The state of Palestine allready exists and was recognized within the UN in 2012. Since then not a single settler tried to acquire Palestinian citizenship. Their presence remains illegal. And any state has the right to deport illegal immigrants like Israel does. Do you want to deny the Palestinans this right, because the illegal immigrants are Jewish?

        JeffB: “Their descendants should be citizens where they were born. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan…”

        But they have refugee status, too. Even under UNHCR they would have acquired refugee status within the framework of familiy reunification. According to human rights law and customary internatinal law they should be Israelis like their parents. Do you support tearing up refugee families who should be citizens of the state from which they were expelled?

        And should Jews who were not born in Israel only be citizens of the states in which they were born, too? And do you support tearing up their families when their children are born in Israel and prevent the latter from acquiring the original citizenship of their parents?

        JeffB: “Colonizing territory means it isn’t occupied it is being colonized. By definition a territory is only occupied when the occupying power makes no permanent claim to it. Colonizing is making a permanent claim.”

        Nope. That’s not exclusive. Settling in occupied territories means colonizing them while they are occupied. And Israel is obviously NOT claiming that its settlements are not a permanent claim on the territory which is colonized under its occupation. You are just making up your own definitions.

        JeffB: “So to use your Nazi analogy, in the Polish region of Oder–Neisse the Nazis were not the occupying power they were the governing power. ”

        Only withing the the 1937 German boundaries. But In the Westbank region of Palestine the Isarel has been the occupying power since 1967 and outside its declared or illegaly annexed boundaries.

        JeffB: “I cited 3 specific cases of civilians and civilian communities in each one the UN has disagreed with your assessment that total destruction is the appropriate course of action.”

        You haven’t cited anything. You have claimed that in these 3 cases “International law and the UN decided in precisely the opposite fashion with respect to other civilians left behind from other occupations” when it comes to the deportation of illegal settlers and the dismantlement of their settlements. And you failed to cite any resolution or advisory opinion so far.

        JeffB: “And in the case of the Khmer Rouge who did agree with you on a policy of total destruction the UN was condemning.”

        Please prove that the UN condemned a Khmer’s Rouge destruction of illegal settlements citizens from an occupying power.

        JeffB: “On the more limited case of Cyprus and Western Sahara the UN decided in favor of human rights for settlers. ”

        Please prove that the UN decided that illegal settlements of citizens of Turkey and Morocco in Cyprus respectively the Western Sahara DON’T have to be dismantled.

        JeffB: “Saying I’m lying when the evidence shows exactly what I claim is bizarre. ”

        Saying that you are providing evidence for what you claim is a bizarre lie. There’s still not a single quote from or reference to any UN resolution or advisory opinion from its judicial organ (the ICJ) to support any of your made up claims.

        JeffB: “The Israeli Supreme court has defended the annexations which you disagree with. They decided that Elon Moreh was occupied in 1979. Let’s try and not overstate the case law.”

        You are cofused, JeffB. The Israeli Supreme Court bases all of its rulings in the Westbank within the legal framework that the Westbank is under belligerent occupation by Israel. Regarding Elon Moreh it only ruled that the illegal seizure of land for its illegal settlements was legal because it claimed that the settlements performed key defense and military functions. “Military necessity” was also the key pseudo argument of the Nazis in the Nuremberg Trials. I know, if I call this Nazi policy you will happily stand with the Nazis on that issue, right?

      • Mooser
        September 20, 2017, 3:36 pm

        “Talkback” (and of course, many others), I don’t know where you find the patience. But thanks.

      • Talkback
        September 21, 2017, 9:46 am

        Mooser: ““Talkback” (and of course, many others), I don’t know where you find the patience. But thanks.”

        Thank you for your kind words. But is has nothing to do with patience. I’m just highly allergic to Zionist BS and their upside-down perversion of human values.

    • Talkback
      September 16, 2017, 4:45 am

      DaBakr: “It’s not a black and white question wether any particular group is a nation. the argument about jews predates modern Israel by millennia.”

      It’s a black and white question if a particular group is a constitutive people. Only they have national rights. Palestinians are a constitutive people. Jews are not. And Israelis are neither according to Israel. That’s why a “Jewish” state of Israel is a racist entity.

  15. MHughes976
    September 15, 2017, 3:53 pm

    I’m not all that dustressed by Mr. S, who is at least right to say that his ideas are not new. They do not amount to a plan.
    Are non-Jewish residents (including current Israeli citizens?) to be asked to sign an acceptance of inferior status, with all democratic rights except the vote, and all subsequently born to do the same? This will presumably have an ‘I promise not to protest about my disfranchisement and not to protest about not being able to protest and not to protest about…’. However many clauses you attach to this promise there will always be one too few. This will not eliminate the Palestinian collective but give it a clear identity and a clear grievance. ‘All rights except the vote’ is not a really consistent combination.
    ‘Assistance to relocate’, the other clause of the plan, is all very well but not even Israel could dump large numbers of people, whenever they want, against the will of the receiving countries wth whom they propose to have normal relations. Relocation would involve paying off the receiving countries for their consent and this consent, plus the necessity of avoiding too obvious Nazi analogies, would require the ‘assistance’ offered to the emigres to contain an element of compensation which could be presented internationally as generous. Even if it was in reality quite mean it would still require mountains of money which Israel does not have and never has had.
    Relocation requires a massive, American-supported commitment, of which there is no sign yet, though it may be what Kushner will come up with, I suppose. For now it’s all talk and really an indication of the niggling weakness of Zionism in the long term.
    Mr. Smotech calls for a battle of ideas in the Western arena. I think that this is a battle where our one big advantage, that we’re right, should stand us on good stead.

  16. DaBakr
    September 15, 2017, 7:34 pm

    There may be some instances of but there is no “de facto” segregation in Israel maternity wards. there may very well be pregnant mothers, both arab or Jews who have hostility towards each other and possibly vocalize this but there would be no different response from the staff wether the hostile complainer was a jew or an arab. in fact, there are Israel hospitals where arab israelis are chief of staff, or directors, nurses and obstetricians. They might as well just have home births if that’s the attitude. No(or very very few hospitals) would put up with that crap. They are far too busy and cranky from under pay. And, is there any evidence that intolerant pregnant jews refuse to be treated at hospitals where Israeli Arab doctors are in charge,?

    What hotovely said is no different then a 100 other politicians might say in any given speech. would any American official giving a speech not say that the usa is “ours” and that there would be no apologies for the millions of acres taken, appropriated or won in wars. so hotolevy and shaked are as ‘fascist’ as the next state, not exceptional in any way, just hard core nationalists. It’s mondoweissers fantasy that they are dangerous facists.

    There are some good points I agree with the author” but I’m not paid to agree. I won’t get paid my weekly shekles otherwise and might even get docked so….

    . the Golan? While originally part of the Jewish partition it was given to Syria. And why is it Israel took and annexed the Golan? because of some nefarious plan existing before 48? It’s so patently absurd to not acknowledge the dire strategic advantage that Syria was exploiting from the heights weekly. Had the heights been quiet they would have been met with quiet. And THAT, as the author well knows has been the consistent and pragmatic policy of Israel since at least 67 and probably 48. annexing Golan it was a complete necessity (even if it was also an economic boon) and no other military scholars have seriously claimed otherwise. As in: any nation able to defend itself would have done the exact same as Israel in the Golan. The proof is in the fifty years of relative quiet. ( Oh, daddy Assad murdered between 10-20,000 palestinians but nobody really cares about that)

    As far as Israel “wanting” Jerusalem? . I wouldn’t expect the author to even mention that the armistice line gave Jordan sovereignty over the old city. The hashemite king occupied ever inch of East Jerusalem and kicked the Jews living there since b.c.e. And then obnoxiously renaming (in a brilliant and to this day effective propaganda win) this old Jewish quarter “Arab East” Jerusalem. He also kicked out thousands of Palestinian Christians also there for centuries. He destroyed dozens of synagogues and churches and forbade the Jews and Christians entrance to pray at what temples were left. It’s an old story. Why the hell wouldn’t Israel want to gain control of the old Jewish quarter, the western wall, the churches and synagogues which they promptly opened to all(or most) to pray freely. Muslim, Christian and Jew(unless of course author is so brainwashed as to not believe the on site reporters from around the world reporting on these events first hand. Unless author, along with the hard core fringe left thinks it was all a big covert ‘plan’ and nobody but the super intelligent mondowrissers figured out.

    Oy gevalt. But yes, in the end smotrichs ‘plan’ may make some pragmatic sense to th he hard right nuts but any of us with a brain know the Palestinian people better then any body else in the world(including the bleeding heart mondoweissers). I would predict that the vast majority of Palestinians would pick his ‘option3’ which translates to “we haven’t given up for 50 years what makes you think we would give up now? What makes you think the threat of increased enforcement would scare us into option 1 or 2?

    . In other words, it’s a ridiculous plan even if the author spouts off his equally ridiculous slanders he’s right to point this out as absurd.

    • Talkback
      September 16, 2017, 3:52 am

      DaBakr: “the Golan? While originally part of the Jewish partition it was given to Syria.”

      ROFL. That’s some Zionist understanding. First of all. The UN cannot “give” any territory. The only party that accquired territory was the Zionist Junta in Palestine through war and expulsion. The Golan Heights have been part of the Syrian Arab Republic since 1946 and were NOT recommended in the partition plan for PALESTINE. The Zionist Junta took the Golan Heights – again through war and expulsion – in 1967.

      DaBajr: “And why is it Israel took and annexed the Golan?”

      At the Nuremberg trials the Nazi’s excuse for some of its war crimes was “military necessity”. What’s yours? Oh, I see. It’s the same. What a surprise.

    • Mooser
      September 16, 2017, 12:19 pm

      “Dabakr”, how do the traditional rules concerning Shabbos regard “tweeking”? Is it considered work?

  17. Ossinev
    September 16, 2017, 9:46 am

    @dabakr
    ” any nation able to defend itself would have done the exact same as Israel in the Golan”
    I think you and Donald should meet up soon.Tell him to forget about the wall and just annex Mexico. Great minds etc

  18. Nathan
    September 17, 2017, 3:29 am

    echinococcus – Just to bring you up to date about the Jews, for about one hundred years or so there are Jews who speak Hebrew as their mother-tongue. Today, the number of native Hebrew speakers is in the millions. Of course, there is a claim that Hebrew wasn’t revived, so perhaps the Israeli Jews speak a new language that was born in the 20th century. Whatever. They still share that common language. Let’s call it “Ben-Yehuda”. By your definition of “nation”, the Jews of Israel are a nation. They also share a common history. The story of the founding of Israel (and the story of the revival of Hebrew) is common history. They also share a common land on the western coast of Asia. They also share a common descent. Even if we were to accept your view that the Jews are descendants of converts, the descendants of converts share a common descent. Since any one of these definitions is enough to define “nation”, the Jews of Israel must be a nation (a Jewish nation in your book).

    • echinococcus
      September 17, 2017, 11:18 am

      The “Nathan” now to the help of his alter ego –also publishing his asinine comeback where it might escape notice so it wouldn’t get slammed.

      Of course there is that huge criminal enterprise called Zionism, of course there’s that assemblage of bloodthirsty invaders intent on continuing to steal and continuing a genocide.
      That they are there is not a reason to let them continue their crime.

      We’re counting from 1897, when the Zionists openly announced their intent to invade Palestine and start a racial supremacist genocidal regime on other people’s land. They also announced that there was no such thing as a “Jewish” people and that they were inventing it so the Ostjuden would get a lot of gullible cannon fodder.

      Starting 1897, every single Zionist-imported alien in Palestine is illegally there and participating in a crime against humanity. That they claim being a new nation is irrelevant. They are on other people’s land.

      You Zionists must really experience serious head damage during infancy, growing inside that Z-only cocoon. In the regular world, the fact that a crime is profitable is not an argument for continuing. This one must be stopped.

      • Talkback
        September 17, 2017, 5:50 pm

        echinococcus: “Starting 1897, every single Zionist-imported alien in Palestine is illegally there …”

        Nope. The Ottoman Empire allowed their immigration.

      • Nathan
        September 17, 2017, 6:52 pm

        Actually, echinococcus, I was quite confident that you would see my comment. You claimed that no one speaks Hebrew as a native language (after arguing that language defines a nation) – and I helped bring you back to reality by telling you that millions of Jews speak Hebrew as their native tongue. The Hebrew-speakers (the Israeli Jews) are, therefore, a nation (by YOUR definition). You could have said “thanks for the update”, but you chose instead to give an hysteric answer which repeats the mantra of “invasion” and “genocide”. Since you were unaware of the fact that Hebrew is the native language of quite a large population, I would tend to doubt if you know what you are talking about at all.

        The Jews don’t claim to be a new nation. They take pride in being an ancient nation, and everyone knows it. In the heat of the anti-Israel or anti-Zionist presentation, it is convenient to pretend that the Jews are just a religious community. The anti-Zionists think that such an argument will make Israel just go away. I thought it was ironic to read your definition of “nation” in which you defined the Jews of Israel as a nation (they have their own language, their own history, their own geography). And it was charming to see you go ballistic about it.

      • echinococcus
        September 17, 2017, 6:53 pm

        Talkback,

        Considering the initial Zionist immigration (also 1897-1914) as an authorized collective Zionist immigration would be seriously misinterpreting the Turks.
        Acquiescence to immigration was never given to moving with the intention of a hostile takeover. The Sultan’s direct sovereignty could not be challenged and a plan to create “a national home” was not accepted by the Turks at any time, no matter the huge bribes offered. The Sublime Gate always pretended to be unaware of the hostile takeover plan (even if it had been publicized to death), as they could not countenance anything except individual immigration by “normal” immigrants, ie law-abiding new subjects. Additionally, considering Ottoman law, the Head Chacham’s authority over the nominal Jewish “nationality” of the Empire was also being challenged by such a scheme. That’s why the Herzl gang stopped its efforts in Constantinople and put all its weight into securing British support.

      • YoniFalic
        September 17, 2017, 7:32 pm

        Technically the vast majority of Zio infiltrators (מסתננים) during the Ottoman period were not immigrants but had a status more like legal or illegal resident aliens.

        Mandel discusses the issue in more detail.

        http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Readings/Mandel,%20Neville%20J.%20Ottoman%20Policy.pdf

        If the Central European powers had won WWI (the best possible outcome — Wilson was stupidly Anglophilic), the Zio infiltrators would almost certainly have been deported by the Ottoman Empire.

        http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/books/.premium-1.608235

      • echinococcus
        September 17, 2017, 10:14 pm

        Falic,
        Both statements absolutely correct, thanks.
        Add that the status of most was that of personnel/dependents of the owner ( e.g. Rotshschild, Montefiore, etc.) whose name was on the shingle as employer in the Framework of Ottoman “Capitulations” and other special privileges to citizens of Western powers.

      • Mooser
        September 18, 2017, 1:09 am

        “The Jews don’t claim to be a new nation. They take pride in being an ancient nation, and everyone knows it.”

        Yeah, an ancient nation! That makes us an aristocracy among mankind.
        Bow down to us, in our overwhelming numbers, and possession of a large fraction of the world’s land area and resources!

      • echinococcus
        September 18, 2017, 2:31 am

        The Nathan doubles down:

        First, Hebrew was no one’s mother tongue until the Zionist pirates cobbled together a mainly Slavic-based conlang with words from the dead language Hebrew, launched with the purpose of killing Yiddisch.

        Second, no one is interested in the Zionist pirates’ and murderers’ new nation, as it is on other people’s land and must be evacuated ASAP.

        Third, there is no such thing as a Jewish “nation” in any case. There may be a Zionist nation –as already said, of thieves and murderers.

      • Mooser
        September 18, 2017, 4:19 pm

        “Third, there is no such thing as a Jewish “nation” in any case. “

        A “nation” I supposedly belong to, but it can’t tax me, can’t draft me, can’t prosecute me for breaking its laws, and can’t order me to move to Israel. Not much of a “nation”.

      • echinococcus
        September 18, 2017, 6:01 pm

        A “nation” I supposedly belong to, but it can’t tax me, can’t draft me, can’t prosecute me for breaking its laws, and can’t order me to move to Israel. Not much of a “nation”.

        I see nobody told Mooser what the Z can do in the US.

      • RoHa
        September 18, 2017, 9:06 pm

        Nathan, here are two points you will not like, but which you should face up to.

        Jews in general may well regard themselves as some sort of nation. They may also regard themselves as a flock of some sort of penguins. But what they regard themselves as is not the same as what they really are. Jews are, at best, some sort of c-nation. They are not any sort of penguin.

        The sub-group of Israeli Jews may be a sort of n-nation.

        2. This point is much more important.

        It doesn’t matter what sort of nation, if any, the Jews are.
        What the Zionists did was wrong.

        The Palestinians were legitimate residents in the country. Their human rights were violated. Their political rights were denied. If there are such things as national rights (and I very much doubt it), their national rights were denied.

        This was wrong.

        Wrong regardless of whether done by a nation, quasi-nation, or temporary acting assistant sub-under-nation.

        It would have been wrong had it been done by the Frimly Women’s Institute, or by the Yamaguchi Gumi yakuza, or the cast of Salad Days, or the assembled defrocked bishops and vicars of the Church of England, or Sendero Luminoso, or the much-loved West Brisbane Gentlemen’s Cheescake Photography Club.

        It was wrong when done by Zionist Jews.

        And there is no excuse.

        None.

        Understand that point, and then we can discuss what can be done as some sort of restitution

      • Nathan
        September 18, 2017, 9:48 pm

        echinicoccus – We started our little discussion after you claimed that Hebrew is “no one’s native language”. Now you tell me that “Hebrew was no one’s mother tongue until the Zionist pirates cobbled together a mainly Slavic-based conlang…” You seem to have a very special way of admitting that you were wrong, but it’s still nice to hear that you are aware that Hebrew is a native language today.

        I understand that you must be a trained linguist since you have defined modern Hebrew as a “Slavic-based” language. I’d be curious to know how you have arrived at the conclusion that Hebrew is Slavic. On the other hand, I’m not a trained linguist, but I do speak some Russian and some Polish and some Czech (Slavic languages) AND my Hebrew and Arabic are quite excellent. By my unprofessional observation, I would have guessed that Hebrew and Arabic are closely related languages (both in structure and in vocabulary); i.e. Hebrew is more likely a Semitic language. Can you even utter a sentence in Russian or in Hebrew? It would be just fine if it turned out that Hebrew is a member of the Slavic language family, but I have a feeling that you don’t really know what you’re talking about (but at least you eventually admit that you are quite a confused person – which is, nevertheless, a virtue).

      • yonah fredman
        September 18, 2017, 10:42 pm

        RoHa- Can I trouble you to explain your theory of c-nations and n-nations.

      • Sibiriak
        September 18, 2017, 10:59 pm

        RoHa: 2. This point is much more important. It doesn’t matter what sort of nation, if any, the Jews are. What the Zionists did was wrong.
        ——————————–

        Bingo!!

        The debate about whether some or all Jews constitute a “nation” or “people” is a major distraction, imo, and it favors the Zionists since it puts a heavy burden on anti-Zionists to prove that Jews are not a nation/people. That is not any easy task given the slippery definitions of the terms and the long history of Jews being perceived as such by themselves and others. (“People” is actually the key term in international law regarding the right of self-determination, not “nation”, and the meaning of that term has been deliberately left undefined, but nevertheless loosely established via precedent and legal tradition.)

        It’s a completely unnecessary burden to take on because Jews’ status as a people/nation, valid or not, in no way gave/gives Zionists the right to displace the indigenous Palestinian population nor the right to deny the Palestinian people their right to self-determination in their own territory, a right fully backed by international law and institutions.

      • yonah fredman
        September 18, 2017, 11:02 pm

        I don’t follow Yeshayahu Leibowitz on all scores, but in a discussion on some TV show he posited the possibility that the unity of the Jewish people or the nationhood of the Jewish people is something in flux. And it is a worthwhile thought to ponder. Is the Jewish people the same as what it was in 1881 or 1939 or 1945? Definitely not. So as to regards the condition of the diaspora passing through the combination of Hitler and Stalinism to become a remnant in Europe, a small but important presence in the sole world power, the US, highly acculturated and rapidly diminishing or diffusing or finding new directions that are primarily nonethnic in their self interpretation, that diaspora presence is quite different in 2017.

        Israel is on a different trajectory and the venom here in mw comments towards its existence is somewhat understandable, but still strikes me as continuous with previous hatreds of the Jews. This is not true of everyone, but certainly it is rather striking in its continuities.

        i know that when i read about yizhar (?) writing about the exile of the Palestinians (to be found in the David Myers controversy) that an act of violence was done against the Palestinians and whereas a path of imperfect peace might yet fix the damage, the current trajectory is one of stubbornness and the opposite of reconciliation.

        it’s a bit abrupt to stop right there, but i will.

      • RoHa
        September 18, 2017, 11:14 pm

        I explained the distinction several times. You will find it educational to go to my profile and put “c-nation” into the search box.

        But here are the main expositions.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/understanding-jewish-national/#comment-766727

        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/putting-israels-humanitarian/#comment-769433

        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/putting-israels-humanitarian/#comment-770132

        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/putting-israels-humanitarian/#comment-770732

        If you find faults with those distinctions, go ahead and point them out. That way we may produce a better set of distinctions.

      • echinococcus
        September 19, 2017, 9:27 am

        The Propagandathan shows his training.
        It’s the modern constructed language that’s become a mother tongue for Zionists. Obviously.
        And no, my personal field of interest is far away from this. I defer to formal analyses of the constructed language by even Zionist linguists who conclude to a Hebrew lexical apparatus on the Germano-Slavic structure of Yiddish. Even the most rabid Zionists acknowledge this (but choose words like “revival” instead of engineering and conlang, “Semito-European hybrid” instead of Germano-Slavic structure with Hebrew vocabulary. “Google is your friend”, so look up conlang and the latest discussions around Ghil’ad Zuckermann’s thesis Hybridity versus Revivability and follow the discussion.

        The point that Propagandathon is trying to drown is still unrelated to his sniping: no one among the Zionist pirates, not even himself, contests that the current Zionist language was constructed artificially on Yiddish and Slavic structures as a social engineering operation, to inflame fake nationalism and kill mother tongues.

      • Talkback
        September 19, 2017, 10:13 am

        Nathan: “I’d be curious to know how you have arrived at the conclusion that Hebrew is Slavic.”

        The linguist Paul Wexler (an American born Israeli belonging to the Slavo-Turk nation) claims that “Modern Hebrew is not a direct continuation of monolingual Semitic Hebrew- Modern Hebrew was created when Yiddish speaker re-lexified their language to Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew- Yiddish is a Slavic language, derived from Sorbian and thus, Modern Hebrew is a Slavic Language.”
        https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Schizoid_Nature_of_Modern_Hebrew.html?id=q_ebGe7FhVEC&redir_esc=y

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2017, 12:33 pm

        “The debate about whether some or all Jews constitute a “nation” or “people” is a major distraction, imo,”

        The “nation” shibboleth seems absolutely essential to Zionism. For some reason I don’t understand, if Zionists tell some Jews they are a “nation”, they immediately become the equal of the US, Russia, China, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, etc, etc.
        Anything they can do, we can do better, and anything they can get away with, so can we. Objective conditions need not apply, once you’ve got a “nation”, apparently.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2017, 12:40 pm

        “I see nobody told Mooser what the Z can do in the US.”

        So you figure the Zionists will deal direct with the US government and demand that America deport all of its Jewish nationals back to Israel?

        Zionism has no coercive power over Jews outside of Israel. That’s not a nation.

    • JeffB
      September 17, 2017, 12:11 pm

      @Nathan —

      Glad to see this post. This is one of the craziest arguments on Mondoweiss that Israeli Jews are not a nation in every sense of the definition. Part of this confusion comes from misunderstanding the ideological claims of Zionism that all Jews form a nation with what should be the simple factual claim that Israeli Jews form a nation. The debate should be starting from a place of acknowledging that Israeli Jews are a nation and then arguing whether:
      a) American, British, Canadian, French… Jews are part of that nation
      b) Whether Israeli-Arabs are part of that nation

      Both (a) and (b) are more complex cases and people of good faith should have nuanced opinions on those issues. That Israeli Jews form a nation there is no good faith reason for dismissing.

      (And Annie since you love to bring this up to head it off. The Israeli Supreme Court has the right to rule on matters of law not on matters of fact. The Supreme Court simply is stating as a matter of law in Israel (a) holds and (b) does not).

      • Mooser
        September 17, 2017, 2:25 pm

        “a nation in every sense of the definition”

        You bet, “Jeff B”. There’s no reason to pick us out except to pick us up.

      • Talkback
        September 17, 2017, 4:56 pm

        JeffB: “This is one of the craziest arguments on Mondoweiss that Israeli Jews are not a nation in every sense of the definition.”

        It is crazy from you to suggest that there is only one definition of nation and that the definition you rely upon has any legal relevance when it comes to national self determination.

        Jews are NOT a NATION like US Americans, French, Palestinians, etc. Otherwise all citizens would be Jewish simply by being citizens of Israel.

        JeffB: “The debate should be starting from a place of acknowledging that Israeli Jews are a nation and then arguing whether:
        a) American, British, Canadian, French… Jews are part of that nation
        b) Whether Israeli-Arabs are part of that nation”

        Now you even confuse both definitions of “nation”. American, British, Canadian, French are NATIONS in the sense of citizenship/nationality/constitutive people whether their citizens are Jewish or not. Israeli Jews are not a NATION in the same sense. And Nonjews, whether they are American, British, Canadian, French or Palestinian are not part of the Jewish “people”. For Israel to claim that only the Jewish people are the NATION of Israel reveals that it considers only Jews to be fully citizens who enjoy all national rights that normaly comes with citizenship in other NATIONS. That, too, means that Israel is a full-bore Apartheid state and therefore a crime against humanity.

        JeffB: “The Israeli Supreme Court has the right to rule on matters of law not on matters of fact.”

        Exactly. It is not only a fact that Israel like Nazi Germany differentiates between nationals and citizens. Its racism is institutionalized.

      • echinococcus
        September 17, 2017, 5:25 pm

        That Israeli Jews form a nation there is no good faith reason for dismissing.

        Who said anything about “dismissing”? There is an excellent reason, called justice, for sending the “nation” of thieves and murderers (no matter what religion they are) back wherever it came from. It has no business in Palestine. As an added reward to banditism, the US already guaranteed to take up those who don’t like their home countries (which unfortunately will make the air in the US unbreathable.)

      • JeffB
        September 17, 2017, 9:36 pm

        @Talkback

        It is crazy from you to suggest that there is only one definition of nation and that the definition you rely upon has any legal relevance when it comes to national self determination.

        The definition of self determination used the definition of nation that is standard and correct.

        Jews are NOT a NATION like US Americans, French, Palestinians, etc. Otherwise all citizens would be Jewish simply by being citizens of Israel.

        Citizenship is a property of state not nation. There are nation-states which tie their citizenship to a nationality. But there can also be states which represent a subset of a nation or states that represent multiple nations. A state can cease to exist without the underlying nation ceasing to exist.

        The rest of your response continues to confuse properties of states with properties of nations. Citizenship has little to do with nations.

      • Nathan
        September 17, 2017, 9:37 pm

        JeffB – In America, “nation” is a synonym of “country” (an independent state), and “nationality” is a synonym of “citizenship”. In other places in the world, “nation” refers to ethnicity (people who share a common descent). So, it’s worthwhile defining what you mean by “Jewish nation”. Talkback argues against you that “the Jews are not a nation”, claiming that “otherwise all citizens would be Jewish simply by being citizens of Israel”. In other words, he equates nationality and citizenship as if this is the only way of seeing things (and he demonstrates that he’s not aware of the social reality of other societies).

        There are many states/kingdoms in the world in which there are more than one national group therein. In Sweden, for example, there is a Finnish minority. Everyone is a Swedish citizen, but not everyone is a Swede. In the Netherlands, there is a Frisian minority group. They are Dutch citizens, but they are not Dutch (they have their own language). Before the Holocaust, the Jews of Poland were regarded to be a national minority group. They were citizens of Poland, but they were not Poles (not in their own eyes, nor in the eyes of the Poles). All the Jews saw themselves as a Jewish nation (including the anti-Zionists who were the majority then), because they spoke their own language, Yiddish. Actually, even in the official realm, the political settlement in Europe after the First World War defined the Jews as a national minority within the new Polish state.

        In Israel, too, there are Jews and Palestinians (Israeli Arabs). Both groups are citizens of Israel, but they are not the same national group. There is a Jewish national group (Hebrew-speakers), and there is a Palestinian national group (Arabic-speakers).

      • JeffB
        September 18, 2017, 9:57 am

        @Nathan

        JeffB – In America, “nation” is a synonym of “country” (an independent state), and “nationality” is a synonym of “citizenship”. In other places in the world, “nation” refers to ethnicity (people who share a common descent). So, it’s worthwhile defining what you mean by “Jewish nation”.

        I mean the correct definition. Don’t get me wrong I think the 14th Amendment is a moral triumph and a benefit to humanity. I take great pride in our success in building at reasonably functional society without a shared mythical ancestry. I love the fact that Americans perceive their history as shared on the basis of citizenship not ethnicity. And I think many of the ethnic claims that underly nations are simply more polite forms of blatant racism.

        All that being said… Americans are simply wrong in their use of the term. I may love that fact that American society makes it possible to be ignorant of these concepts, that doesn’t change the fact it is ignorance. In Eastern Europe nationality plays a strong role to the extent that even the churches end up acting as extension of the state. On an I/P board where we are dealing with a country that derived its ideas of citizenship from Eastern European concepts, and whose alternative governing traditions (both Palestinian and Mizrahi Jew) were Ottoman to talk about the American usage unqualified is to be simply wrong in the usage.

        Talkback argues against you that “the Jews are not a nation”, claiming that “otherwise all citizens would be Jewish simply by being citizens of Israel”. In other words, he equates nationality and citizenship as if this is the only way of seeing things (and he demonstrates that he’s not aware of the social reality of other societies).

        I think it likely in a few centuries, and quite possibly much sooner, that it will be the case that one is Jewish simply by being a citizen of Israel. You can’t maintain a viable state church without this sort of unification. The conversion process in Israel being as strict as it is with a state church is simply not a viable situation. It is one of the areas in which Israeli policy is defective. Where Talkback is primarily wrong is failing to understand enough history about how state churches evolved.

        There are many states/kingdoms in the world in which there are more than one national group therein. In Sweden, for example, there is a Finnish minority. Everyone is a Swedish citizen, but not everyone is a Swede. In the Netherlands, there is a Frisian minority group. They are Dutch citizens, but they are not Dutch (they have their own language). Before the Holocaust, the Jews of Poland were regarded to be a national minority group. They were citizens of Poland, but they were not Poles (not in their own eyes, nor in the eyes of the Poles). All the Jews saw themselves as a Jewish nation (including the anti-Zionists who were the majority then), because they spoke their own language, Yiddish. Actually, even in the official realm, the political settlement in Europe after the First World War defined the Jews as a national minority within the new Polish state.

        Agree with all. It bears repeating so I quoted.

        In Israel, too, there are Jews and Palestinians (Israeli Arabs). Both groups are citizens of Israel, but they are not the same national group. There is a Jewish national group (Hebrew-speakers), and there is a Palestinian national group (Arabic-speakers).

        Agree with you on the point of facts. In terms of opinion, that’s not going to work out as a model in a peaceful way. Israelis want too cohesive of a society. The Palestinians are a large minority and Palestinian culture is simply at this point too hostile to Israeli culture. The model would be under tremendous strain even if the West Bank, Gaza and the people UNRWA claims are refugees didn’t exist. A better analogy would be things like traditional Muslim minorities in southern Europe or Christian minorities in many Asian and Middle Eastern countries over the last 150 years.

        That’s why I so strongly favor a process of assimilation because the alternatives are ethically dreadful.

      • Talkback
        September 18, 2017, 11:45 am

        Nathan: “JeffB – In America, “nation” is a synonym of “country” (an independent state), and “nationality” is a synonym of “citizenship”. In other places in the world, “nation” refers to ethnicity (people who share a common descent).”

        Nonsense. Both definitions exist simultaneously.

        Nathan: “In other words, he equates nationality and citizenship as if this is the only way of seeing things …”

        Again nonsense. It’s not my “equation”, it’s an official definition and the one that is legally relevant.

        Narthan: “… (and he demonstrates that he’s not aware of the social reality of other societies).”

        Why are you lying, Nathan? I constantly argue that there are two definitions of “nations”. Nation AS citizenship and nation WITHIN citizenship. The latter is the definition your argument is based upon.

        Nathan: “In Israel, too, there are Jews and Palestinians (Israeli Arabs). “Both groups are citizens of Israel, but they are not the same national group. There is a Jewish national group (Hebrew-speakers), and there is a Palestinian national group (Arabic-speakers).”

        But Israel claims that ONLY Jews are THE nation of Israel and not Israelis. That’s apartheid, Nathan and you know it. Again, Israel’s differentiation between “nationals” (only Jews) and “citizens” (all Israelis) is based on a similar Nazi concept which differentiated between Reichsbuerger (only volkish Germans) and “citizens” (the rest inclunding Jews). This fake concept of “citizen” tries to obscure that only “nationals” have all rights that citizens do have in a country which is not based on institutionalized racism.

      • Mooser
        September 18, 2017, 1:32 pm

        “Jeff b” @ “Nathan”
        “That’s why I so strongly favor a process of assimilation because the alternatives are ethically dreadful.”

        Finally! “Jeff b” has found another Zionist to talk to. That’s why he came here. Isn’t it great that “Mondo” facilitates informative Zionist-Zionist communications?

        a process of assimilation” Yeah, ROTFLMSJAO! And conversion, too!

      • echinococcus
        September 18, 2017, 6:09 pm

        Mooser,

        Isn’t it great that “Mondo” facilitates informative Zionist-Zionist communications?

        Keep your fingers crossed and hope it doesn’t soon become the site’s main mission.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2017, 1:14 pm

        “Keep your fingers crossed and hope it doesn’t soon become the site’s main mission.”

        More than likely the articles will remain the site’s main mission. I hope so.

      • echinococcus
        September 19, 2017, 10:17 pm

        Mooser,

        More than likely the articles will remain the site’s main mission.

        Of course they will, that’s not the question.

    • echinococcus
      September 19, 2017, 10:27 pm

      Mooser,

      So you figure the Zionists…

      Am I repeating myself? In the old Soviet joke, the pessimist kept saying that things couldn’t get worse and the optimist assured him that they can, and how.

      • Mooser
        September 20, 2017, 12:59 pm

        “Am I repeating myself?”

        Never! Fresh, original content, every time.

  19. Nathan
    September 17, 2017, 10:02 pm

    As an historian, Yoni, you should know that there is no way of knowing what might have happened” if the Central European powers had won WWI…” What might have been (if an alternative scenario would have happened) is not the business of an historian. Anyway, the Jews as a whole were not expelled from Palestine by the Turks (although some were). Eventually, they even succeeded in establishing a state of their own. That’s how things turned out, and an historian is busy only with the question of why things turned out as they did. You called the Jewish immigrants of the Ottoman era “infiltrators”. I would imagine that five generations or so later you could probably assume that (1) there are no more infiltrators, and (2) the great-great grandchildren of the “infiltrators” are just plain-old local people.

  20. Marnie
    September 18, 2017, 12:26 am

    “JeffB” will argue any point, period. Just for the sake of arguing. Except he’s not arguing at all, he’s only saying you’re wrong, it’s this way because I say so. It’s like talking to someone whose only purpose is to insist everyone is wrong, because he is the authority of everything and he has a magical wah-wah wand. Like a bratty child, who has always had his way because his parents didn’t care enough about him or the rest of the world to bother to teach him to share, to respect others, to have empathy, to be charitable, to listen to reason and to respect other’s boundaries. These are lessons that start in the home. I think “JeffB”, like the contemptible Michael Oren, must have routinely had the shit kicked out of him, but if not, should have.

    • Talkback
      September 18, 2017, 11:27 am

      Nathan: “Anyway, the Jews as a whole were not expelled from Palestine by the Turks (although some were). Eventually, they even succeeded in establishing a state of their own.”

      Through war, massacres, mass expulsion and mass dispossessions. You should be proud of them. Settler colonialism, Supremacism and Apartheid at its best. Role models for humanity.

      • Marnie
        September 19, 2017, 12:28 am

        “Nathan: “Anyway, the Jews as a whole were not expelled from Palestine by the Turks (although some were). Eventually, they even succeeded in establishing a state of their own.”

        More magical thinking in florid display.

    • Mooser
      September 18, 2017, 1:02 pm

      ““JeffB” will argue any point, period. Just for the sake of arguing.”

      The lines which limn “Jeff b” begin another article here:

      “First time away from home. First time away from your synagogue community. Or perhaps you’ve had a year out after school and have been in Israel soaking up your Jewish heritage. Maybe you’ve been on a Jewish leadership trip…”

      It is pretty clear “Jeff b” has never talked about Zionism with anybody but Zionists. And when they won’t talk to him anymore, for obvious reasons, he comes here and thinks, for some reason (like not knowing much else) he’s in a late night Yeshiva dorm-room bullshit session.

      • Marnie
        September 19, 2017, 12:32 am

        “And when they won’t talk to him anymore, for obvious reasons, he comes here and thinks, for some reason (like not knowing much else) he’s in a late night Yeshiva dorm-room bullshit session.” Bravo Mooser. Shlogn di nogl aoyf di kop.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2017, 1:03 pm

        “Marnie” if you had any kind of an English-language web-page, blog or site which was concerned about showing Zionism in any kind of a positive manner, how long would you let “Jeff B” “Nathan” and “Yonah” etc, post there? Now you know why they are here. At Mondo, there’s no obligation to put a bottom on the Zionist rhetorical barrel.
        They seem to be the embodiment (or stand as an indictment of) of the five sentences after “Congratulations! Mazel Tov!” But not a word after that.

    • echinococcus
      September 18, 2017, 5:58 pm

      Like a bratty child, who has always had his way because his parents didn’t care enough about him or the rest of the world to bother to teach him to share, to respect others, to have empathy, to be charitable, to listen to reason and to respect other’s boundaries. These are lessons that start in the home

      Not in the Zionist home. They teach theft and murder.

    • gamal
      September 19, 2017, 6:34 am

      “Just for the sake of arguing”

      This style is very familiar to some of us, serendipitously Nathan J Robinson editor of Current Affairs has piece up reviewing a recent book by Bruce Gilley, you will find it familiar territory

      A QUICK REMINDER OF WHY COLONIALISM WAS BAD

      “I suppose to those unfamiliar with the history, Gilley’s argument could appear superficially persuasive. But a moment’s examination of the record reveals why the case he makes is abhorrent.
      Gilley says he is simply asking for an unbiased assessment of the facts, that he just wants us to take off our ideological blinders and examine colonialism from an empirical perspective. But this is not what he has done. Instead, in his presentation of colonialism’s record,

      Gilley has deliberately excluded mention of every single atrocity committed by a colonial power. Instead of evaluating the colonial record empirically, he has distorted that record, concealing evidence of gross crimes against humanity. The result is not only unscholarly, but is morally tantamount to Holocaust denial.”

      and of course

      “Gilley must intend to provoke people to rage: postcolonial countries should be like Britain, which “embraced and celebrated its colonisers”; anticolonial thought was about “advocacy” rather than “accuracy”; colonialism was not just legitimate but “highly legitimate”; and we should “build new Western colonies from scratch” and “colonial states should be paid for their services” by the colonized.

      I expect Gilley wants the following to happen: people will be outraged. They will call for the article to be retracted. Then, Gilley will complain of censorship, and argue that lefties don’t care about the facts, and that his points have been proved by the fact that they’d rather try to have his article purged than have to refute its claims.
      This is a dynamic that has occurred many, many times. It’s what Milo Yiannopoulos did: he would say things that were truly upsetting and outrageous (including bullying and mocking individual students), then when people got upset and outraged and tried to shut him down, he would complain that “SJWs” were trying to censor him because they can’t deal with facts and arguments.
      The same thing happened when conservative law professors recently published an op-ed blaming the “rap culture of inner-city blacks” for cultural decline, with one of them lauding the “superiority” of white European culture. People got upset, for obvious reasons, and students objected to having to be taught by a white supremacist. But when one of the professors went on FOX News, he declared that “there were no allegations that anything we said was incorrect.” (There were plenty of such allegations.)”

      https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/09/a-quick-reminder-of-why-colonialism-was-bad

      Do you recognise this dismal m.o.

      and I have to say it Nathan himself claims that his article has the most disturbing photograph he has ever seen, his case is certainly arguable.

  21. Ossinev
    September 18, 2017, 6:53 am

    @Nathan
    “The Jews don’t claim to be a new nation. They take pride in being an ancient nation, and everyone knows it. In the heat of the anti-Israel or anti-Zionist presentation, it is convenient to pretend that the Jews are just a religious community”

    Catholic nation,Baptist nation, Seventh Day Adventist nation , Eighth Day Adventist nation , Presbyterian nation , Scientology nation , Star Trekkers nation , Atheist nation , Pagan nation , Ad Nauseates nation.

    There must be a great marketing opportunity in this somewhere. A good place to start might be Brooklyn.

    • JeffB
      September 18, 2017, 10:04 am

      @Ossinev

      Read the thread. Stop deliberately making silly analogies.

      And then learn some history. There most certainly were failed attempts to form Presbyterian nations like Colonial Massachusetts and Geneva. Catholicism’s claim that all of Christendom is unified in a single nation under the leadership of Jesus Christ and his appointed vicar on Earth was not a failed attempt. Its success and eventual dissolution drives a good chunk of the history of the western world.

      You maybe should pause for a second regarding not knowing this and take enough stock that you really haven’t considered these concepts at all and should.

      • Mooser
        September 18, 2017, 1:05 pm

        “Catholicism’s claim that all of Christendom is unified in a single nation under the leadership of Jesus Christ and his appointed vicar on Earth “

        Which gives Catholicism a much better shot at political power compared to a tiny religion composed of mutually antagonistic denominations, wouldn’t you say?

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 18, 2017, 3:33 pm

        Mooser:

        “Catholicism’s claim that all of Christendom is unified in a single nation..”

        Well, I have never heard about that.. Ask Jeff to give his proven sources before EVER believing a thing he writes!!

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 18, 2017, 3:39 pm

      • Mooser
        September 18, 2017, 4:06 pm

        ” Ask Jeff to give his proven sources”

        “Kaisa”, everything “Jeff b” says has one source. And he needs to keep it, to get his facts out of.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 18, 2017, 5:38 pm

        Mooser:

        ” everything “Jeff b” says has one source..”

        The Zionist History of the Mankind??

      • JeffB
        September 19, 2017, 9:44 am

        @Kaisa of Finland

        “Catholicism’s claim that all of Christendom is unified in a single nation..”

        Well, I have never heard about that.. Ask Jeff to give his proven sources before EVER believing a thing he writes!!

        The Swedish empire emerged out of the battle against this! Getting involved in this is how Gustavus Adolphus made you. “I’ve never heard of it!” for someone from Finland?! Kaisa you can continue to take pot shots in a friendly forum like this and get applause. But you need to seriously learn your own history.

        http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14250c.htm
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_supremacy

      • Marnie
        September 19, 2017, 11:06 am

        You maybe should pause for a second before you BIOYA.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2017, 12:09 pm

        ” everything “Jeff b” says has one source..”

        Gets them all from his pilpul bottle.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 19, 2017, 2:43 pm

        Jeff:

        If you were talking about the Roman Catholic Inquisition, I just did not get your point?? How do you connect it with I/P 2017?? Persecutions and forced coversions to Catholism? Is it that what you were talking about??

      • Kaisa of Finland
        September 19, 2017, 4:33 pm

        Moose:

        Should I have written forced convertions?? When someone is converted against his/her own will??

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2017, 4:41 pm

        “Should I have written forced convertions??”

        No. “Conversions” (with an “s”) is correct.

      • JeffB
        September 20, 2017, 5:38 pm

        @Kaisa

        If you were talking about the Roman Catholic Inquisition, I just did not get your point??

        No I was talking about exactly what I linked to the Catholic theology of the just state and the proper relationship between church and state in Catholic theology. The Inquisition was a particular example of the implementation of that doctrine where (according to Catholic theology) the state facilitated and assisted the church in rooting about apostasy and heresy within the population so as to maintain the validity of regeneration and the ongoing grace of God. That’s an example of application of theory, not the theory itself. Your people had no relationship to the inquisition.

    • Mooser
      September 18, 2017, 1:16 pm

      “There must be a great marketing opportunity in this somewhere”

      We could sell a “Make Your Own Nation” kit which contains everything you need, from a persecuted history, to flag-making program for your computer.

      And any number can play! No minimum! Don’t even need your own country, if you can get a mandate.

    • MHughes976
      September 18, 2017, 6:31 pm

      I’m part of the Protestant Nation. We have all the qualifications – lots of shared history and culture, quite a lot of common ancestry, traditional majority status in many territories. However, I don’t think that those characteristics give us the right to exclude or disfranchise Jesuits and Confucians.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2017, 1:20 pm

        “I’m part of the Protestant Nation. We have all the qualifications”

        And, taken in its totality, the best music. That always helps.

  22. Ossinev
    September 18, 2017, 11:14 am

    @jeffb
    It`s 2017 Jeff. Next year it will be 2018. Please do try to drag yourself back to the present day. I am interested in the past but not stuck in it / on it like you. You are predictably insulting and dismissive in your tone.” My analogies are not silly. They are analytical as in Judaism is a religion /religious cult not a race , nationality/state – same applies to all other religions or cults or science fiction followers groups. As a brainwashed Zionist it is an absolute imperative that your blind devotion to the concept ( to use your expression ) that Judaism is different,that Jews are a race , requires you to delve into the history books to find pathetic ludicrous comparisons to “prove” your so called “point”.

    “Learn some history”. Again insulting. I believe that the priority is to “learn from history” and by that I don`t mean inventing,twisting,distorting history or creating facts from historical fairytales all of which is the staple methodology of delusional Zionists to justify their disgusting crimes.

    Please do try to get out more and discover the joys of experiencing a non – Zionist world. You will in time I`m sure enjoy and profit from the experience.

  23. Nathan
    September 18, 2017, 10:00 pm

    RoHa – I’d be very happy to hear your ideas concerning “restitution”. What, indeed, should be done in order to rectify all the grievances that are on the agenda?

    • RoHa
      September 18, 2017, 11:21 pm

      I’ll repeat myself. (Fortunately, nearly everything I say bears repeating.)

      1. Israeli government makes the following declaration.
      “O.K. The “Jewish State” idea was a crock. From now on, everything from the southern tip of Gaza to the border of Lebanon, and from the Jordan River to the sea (but not the Golan, because that is Syria) will be a single, unified, state, and everyone in it will be equal citizens with equal rights, regardless of sex, religion, ancestry, first language, or shoe size. We’ll figure out a name later*. But we would like to keep a version of the Law of Return just in case thing get a bit sticky for foreign Jews.”

      2. Israeli government makes the following declaration.
      ” The Zionist idea of taking over the land and driving out the natives was wrong. Sorry about that. You can all come back.”

      3. Israeli government makes the following declaration.
      “From now on, we’ll all work together to put the fanatics back in their boxes and work for a decent life for everyone here.”

      That would be a good start.

      I’m pretty sure that these would meet with an enthusiastic response from the Palestinians.

      *I would like “The Socialist and Democratic People’s Republic of the Holy Land”.

      • Mooser
        September 19, 2017, 12:48 pm

        “I’ll repeat myself. (Fortunately, nearly everything I say bears repeating.)”

        And, fortunately, there is plenty of room for it.

      • Nathan
        September 19, 2017, 8:17 pm

        RoHa – You are “pretty sure” that your plan “would meet with an enthusiastic response from the Palestinians”. Surely, the Palestinians would accept your plan since it’s much better than the present status quo from their perspective – but they still would not agree that the conflict is over and that there are no futher grievances. There are many more grievances, and the conflict would therefore continue within your one-state plan. And, not too surprisingly, you did not state that your plan would establish peace (you only promised Palestinian enthusiasm).

        It would be rather difficult to convince the Israeli public to give up on the Jewish state AND to live in conflict. What would be the point of it all from their point of view?

        It just occurred to me that perhaps you are not even aware of the cause of conflict from the Palestinian point of view.

      • YoniFalic
        September 19, 2017, 10:43 pm

        Nathan needs to be more explicit than “Israelis”. He means racist genocidal fake “Jewish” colonial settler invaders like my family, who certainly don’t belong anywhere in the ME. No one should be sympathetic to such bigoted murderers, interlopers, and thieves. No one should think twice about removing of such fake “Jews” and the eventual disappearance of the fake “Israeli” identity. Who even thinks about Algerian pieds noirs except historians like me?

      • RoHa
        September 19, 2017, 10:52 pm

        “they still would not agree that the conflict is over and that there are no further grievances.”

        Which is why I said it would be a good start. And resolving those grievances would come under “From now on, we’ll all work together to put the fanatics back in their boxes and work for a decent life for everyone here.”

      • eljay
        September 20, 2017, 8:18 am

        || Nathan: … It would be rather difficult to convince the Israeli public to give up on the Jewish state … ||

        1. Would it really be “rather difficult” to convince non-Jewish Israelis – 20% of the Israeli public – to give up on a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” construct that defines them and treats them as second-class citizens? Or when you say “Israeli public” do you mean “Jews” because they’re the only “Israeli public” that matters?

        2. Israelis shouldn’t have to give up on religion-supremacist “Jewish State” because Israel shouldn’t exist as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in the first place. No state should exist as a supremacist construct of any kind.

      • Talkback
        September 20, 2017, 9:08 am

        eljay: “Or when you say “Israeli public” do you mean “Jews” because they’re the only “Israeli public” that matters?”

        Nathan has allready exterminated Nonjews in his mind.

      • Nathan
        September 25, 2017, 6:37 am

        RoHa – Generally, in the discussion about the conflict, people use the term “one-state solution”. The word “solution” suggests that the conflict is solved, obviously. In your proposal, the one-state arrangement is just a “good start”. In other words, you are admitting that the conflict will not be solved with the establishment of the one-state (and the ending of the Jewish state). So, my question remains: Why would the Israelis agree to end the existence of the Jewish state AND to continue living in a conflict situation?

        I understand that in the anti-Israel world, the Jews of Israel have no legitimate concerns or interests. However, in your proposal, you are dealing with people who are not anti-Israel. They think that the founding of a Jewish state was good, and they couldn’t imagine giving it up – and they’re willing to bear the consequences of Jewish statehood (i.e living in conflict). You, on the other hand, are of the opinion that they should give it up. For the sake of the theoretical or intellectual game, you should be able to conjure up an idea that might convince the Israelis that it is in their best interest to give up their state. If your proposal is that “giving up the Jewish state + continuing living in conflict” is much better than “keeping the Jewish state + continuing living in conflict”, you shouldn’t be too surprised if no one is too keen on the idea. At the very least, you should be promising that “the conflict is over” (and not “that would be a good start”).

        Now, that we both agree that your one-state proposal is not the end of conflict, the question then becomes: “What is this conflict all about?” Obviously, the conflict is not about the founding of a Jewish state (because you cancel that state in your proposal). Moreover, the conflict is not about refugees either (because you return them to their homes in your proposal). So, what is the outstanding issue that prevents the advent of peace in your proposal? If you read Yoni’s comment, he insists that the Jews be removed from the Middle East altogether. You, apparently, don’t agree with him – so, if the Jews will be allowed to stay as equal citizens in your proposal, what then prevents peace in your outlook? Whatever the issue is, you should define it AND include its solution in your proposal.

      • Talkback
        September 25, 2017, 9:51 am

        Nathan: “… so, if the Jews will be allowed to stay as equal citizens in your proposal, what then prevents peace in your outlook?”

        Well just have a look what happened since mandate time: The unwillingness of Zionist Jews to accept majority ruling and their willingness to commit crimes against humanity to achieve and maintain a Jewish majority.

        Nathan: “Whatever the issue is, you should define it AND include its solution in your proposal.”

        Good question. How can someone teach Zionist Jews to become democrats and stop being supremacist? There must be some dezionification process. Like the denazification process in post Nazi Germany.

      • Mooser
        September 25, 2017, 12:06 pm

        “There must be some dezionification process.”

        There is. Loss of outside support for a colonial project which can’t maintain itself. They will re-think Zionism in a hurry.

      • Nathan
        September 25, 2017, 1:41 pm

        Perhaps, RoHa, you didn’t understand my comment. In the anti-Israel world, the Israelis have no interests and no aspirations. So, for you, it is obvious that the Jewish state must be dismantled (and you assume that it’s obvious to everyone). As I pointed out to you, the Israelis think that the Jewish state is a wonderful phenomenon. They don’t think that it should be dismantled. If you propose to them that they give up their state, you should at least explain why this is their best interest – but you don’t. All you propose to them is that they accept your anti-Israel outlook: (1) their state should cease to exist and (2) they should be treated as criminals. I know that this is a tough one for an anti-Israel person, but somehow you will have to figure out that the Israelis think that the state is absolutely wonderful, and that they are good people. In short, there is no way that your one-state proposal will arouse much enthusiasm. I would imagine that after hearing your brilliant plan, the answer would probably be: ” No, thanks, we prefer the status quo.”

        Actually, what you really mean is that Israel has to be utterly defeated, and then your solution could be forced upon the Israelis. It is called in the Palestinian lexicon “الكفـاح المسلـح” (al-kifah al-musallah – the armed struggle). Your vision of “restitution” is, in reality, “war to the bitter end”. You have no vision of “end of conflict” or “peace”, and indeed such terms don’t appear in your proposal.

      • Mooser
        September 25, 2017, 2:15 pm

        .” In the anti-Israel world, the Israelis have no interests and no aspirations.” “Nathan”

        That’s good, very good. So Israel will be returning our US money (or at least refuse to take any more) and furthermore, will disinterest itself in US politics entirely.
        And when Israelis remove themselves from this anti-Israel world, they open the door to God to help them.

        And just think, “Nathan”, if Israel can end US entanglement in it’s “interests and aspirations”, they could wallop the Palestinians good!

      • Mooser
        September 25, 2017, 6:58 pm

        ” No, thanks, we prefer the status quo.”

        And nothing will ever lessen the power needed to maintain an intransigent status quo. And won’t Jews all over the world be enthusiastic about supporting and being a hostage for this status quo for another couple of decades.
        I just don’t see what could go wrong. To destroy the Palestinians will be the fulfillment of our Jewish destiny. The 19th century would have been very impressed.

      • Talkback
        September 25, 2017, 8:37 pm

        Nathan: “In the anti-Israel world, the Israelis have no interests and no aspirations. ”

        Well, that’s obviosly not true. Just have a long at the endless list of atrocities against Nonjews in historic Palestine and the ones they keep expelled to maintain their Apartheid Junta.

        Nathan: “So, for you, it is obvious that the Jewish state must be dismantled.”

        South Africa wasn’t dismantled.

        Nathan: “As I pointed out to you, the Israelis think that the Jewish state is a wonderful phenomenon.”

        Yes. All 730% of them.

        Nathan: “If you propose to them that they give up their state, you should at least explain why this is their best interest”

        Impossible! Where else can Jews treat Nonjews like this with impunity? Or let rabbis freely express how supremacist, fascist and violent Judaism should be interpreted? Israel is really a safe haven. Especially for supremacist sociopaths. Let them stay there, please!!!

        Nathan: “If you propose to them that they give up their state, you should at least explain why this is their best interest …”

        If they don’t know they are allready lost.

        Nathan: “(2) they should be treated as criminals.”

        How about taking some of them to the Hague and let the ICC decide, if they are criminals or not? I’m sure that you support this.

        Nathan: “… and that they are good people.”

        You sound like a criminal’s mother.

        Nathan: “I would imagine that after hearing your brilliant plan, the answer would probably be: ” No, thanks, we prefer the status quo.”

        Well, who wouldn’t prefer Apartheid and occupation? Someone who is psychologically healthy?

        Nathan: “Actually, what you really mean is that Israel has to be utterly defeated, and then your solution could be forced upon the Israelis.”

        Please Nathan, this has been the only method of Zionist supremacist sociopaths since 1948 to establish, ethnically cleanse, expand and maintain their Apartheid Junta. What’s wrong with that? Don’t be a hypocrite!

      • RoHa
        September 25, 2017, 10:18 pm

        Nathan, it seems that you think a good start is a place to stop.

        If the Israelis want to keep their Jewish supremacy state more than they want to end the conflict (and their response to other peace plans suggests that they do) they won’t even start.

        I am not sure whether my proposal would end the conflict or not. But if the Israelis decide they would like an end to the conflict, they will have to get used to the idea that they have to change a few things about Israel. This does not mean treating them like criminals.

        Now, if you want a complete and detailed plan for a resolution of the conflict, you will have to pay me. A lot. I will need to set up a think-tank and do a lot of consultation. (Also, I will need a lot of very young female research assistants and a very large entertainment budget.)

        Or you could try working out something for yourself.

      • Mooser
        September 26, 2017, 5:22 pm

        Also, I will need a lot of very young female research assistants…”

        Well, be careful, lest you end up with your infrastructure dismantled.

    • Mooser
      September 19, 2017, 1:38 pm

      ” I’d be very happy to hear your ideas concerning “restitution”. What, indeed, should be done in order to rectify all the grievances that are on the agenda?” “nathan”

      “Nathan”, you don’t want to ask that question. Do you think Israel can declare national bankruptcy and get away with it?

Leave a Reply