Samuel Freedman extols Jewish ‘love affair’ with Jewish state– while decrying ‘dogma of white supremacy’

US Politics
on 52 Comments

Last month author Samuel G. Freedman wrote a long piece in the Forward saying that Netanyahu is “abandoning American Jews.” A liberal Zionist lament, the article celebrated the American Jewish “love affair” with Israel, now threatened by the affinity between a right-wing Israeli administration and a rightwing American one; celebrated too Israel’s victory in the 1967 war, the unification of Jerusalem, and the strength of the Israel lobby; and called Israel “the Jewish state we have wanted to love and support.”

You will see that Palestinian political conditions and history are completely absent from the article. No Nakba, no expulsions, no second-class citizenship. Freedman mentions Palestinians only from a Jewish point of view– “the Palestinian terror war of the second intifada.”

Two days back Freedman wrote an op-ed in the New York Times praising the resistance of football players to U.S. segregation. Titled “Politics Has Always Had a Place in Football,” the piece slammed an ideology of white supremacy, twice referenced the “Jim Crow” South and sang the worthy praises of the civil rights movement:

In the pros, and even more at the college level, football was not incidental to the doctrine of segregation and the ideology of white supremacy. It was one of the pillars on which they rested. At the football powerhouses in the American South, the sport resisted integration nearly a decade longer than lunch counters, bus systems, hotels and other strongholds of Jim Crow….

Why, one might ask, would the White House care enough to intervene? Because with the civil rights movement marching at home and a battle underway against the Soviet Union for hearts and minds in the nonwhite “developing world,” having an all-white team in the nation’s capital was a liability.

The battle for equal rights in pro football continued with the efforts of black quarterbacks to break the color line at that position. The resistance to a black quarterback, which ran through every single pro team, was built upon the dogma of white supremacy.

Freedman’s two positions are incompatible. The occupation is permanent; liberal Zionism has enabled that permanence by failing to prevent meaningful criticism of the occupation in the United States; and now that apartheid exists, liberal Zionists refuse to bear witness to it. They’re too busy laying out America’s own awful record on civil rights. And people see that blindness.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

52 Responses

  1. JosephA
    September 26, 2017, 11:03 am

    Samuel Freedman’s hypocrisy is glaring. How one can compartmentalize this in their mind is beyond my understanding.

    • Emory Riddle
      September 27, 2017, 8:28 am

      All Zionists do it.

    • Citizen
      September 27, 2017, 9:38 am

      Easy, Jews have been victims throughout history, cumulating in the Shoah, Americans have not. Jews need their own Jewish state where they are the majority–insurance policy.

  2. Donald Johnson
    September 26, 2017, 11:42 am

    ” liberal Zionism has enabled that permanence by failing to prevent meaningful criticism of the occupation in the United States; ”

    I think that’s a typo. I’m pretty sure you mean liberal Zionism prevented meaningful criticism. They were successful in that respect.

    Or maybe you meant they failed to present meaningful criticism of the occupation.

  3. amigo
    September 26, 2017, 12:31 pm

    The folks who fund or manage the “Lobby” are aware that Dick and Jane , could care less about Zionist Supremacy ,(most don,t even know what a zionist is) and are unlikely to make the intellectual investment to educate themselves on the subject.Too busy trying to make ends meet.

    This and the tens of millions of dollars in funding ,is what makes the Lobby so impervious to outside scrutiny and allows hypocrites like Freedman to publish what can only be described as rank hypocracy.

    Throw in the almost total control of the MSM and bingo , you can get away with War Crimes and Ethnic cleansing , not to mention all the other crimes committed by the rogue entity , on a daily basis.

    • amigo
      September 26, 2017, 1:28 pm

      Apologies for my gross omission.I should have included the total control of the Congress , without which, the State of Israel would have vanished into the pages of History a long time ago.

  4. yonah fredman
    September 26, 2017, 12:52 pm

    Freedman’s piece in the forward was not quite as vacuous as Phil Weiss depicts it. Freedman mentions the book by Chabon and Waldman. This is not advocacy as Weiss would prefer, rather reportage, but it alludes to attitudes that are not empty regarding the Palestinians.

  5. Keith
    September 26, 2017, 5:48 pm

    PHIL- “Freedman’s two positions are incompatible.”

    They are hypocritical but not incompatible. A beleaguered Israel at war with Arab hordes is an essential component of the Zionist ideology which unifies organized Jews into kinship solidarity. Kinship solidarity is an important component in the multicultural US. Israel needs American Diaspora Jewish support to achieve its Middle East objectives and American Diaspora Jews benefit from seeking power to provide support for Israel. Two additional comments. The so-called Jewish love affair with Israel didn’t begin in earnest until after the 1967 war. The other is that if American Jews were the overwhelming majority in the US, then the lofty, multicultural, liberal rhetoric would likely disappear. Fast. The rhetoric adapts to the situation.

    • Nathan
      September 27, 2017, 10:30 am

      Keith – “A beleaguered Israel at war with Arab hordes” is not “an essential component of the Zionist ideology”. Zionist ideology is concerned with the Hebrew language, the return to the Land of Israel, and the fulfillment of ancient aspirations (“next year in Jerusalem”). The kinship of Jews throughout the world is understood as part of the tradition of the Jews who have always seen themselves as an ancient people dispersed from their land in antiquity (i.e. Jewish kinship has not come into this world as an “important component in the multicultural US”). I don’t know why it’s so difficult for all the anti-Zionists to present someone else’s view in the way that that someone else would present it.

      • Mooser
        September 27, 2017, 12:52 pm

        “Zionist ideology is…present it”

        “Nathan”, do you actually know any Jewish people?

      • Talkback
        September 27, 2017, 2:05 pm

        Narthan: “Zionist ideology is concerned with the Hebrew language, the return to the Land of Israel, and the fulfillment of ancient aspirations (“next year in Jerusalem”). The kinship of Jews throughout the world is understood as part of the tradition of the Jews who have always seen themselves as an ancient people dispersed from their land in antiquity (i.e. Jewish kinship has not come into this world as an “important component in the multicultural US”).”

        Well Nathan, the “kinship of Jews throughout the world” needs to finally grow up and accept that Jews were not “dispersed from their land in antiquity” (except Jerusalem) and that nobody knows which Jew or Nonjew today is a descendant of an ancient Hebrew who lived there. I think that it is very likely that the Palestinians are, since only 5% of them descent from Arabians.

        Btw. Does anyone who converts to Judaism automatically acquires a right to expell Nonjews or revoke their residential status, too? I’m sure there are many sociopaths who would think about it and like the idea of enjoying state protection while committing their crimes: Or even become heroes as “medics”.

      • Misterioso
        September 27, 2017, 3:32 pm

        @Nathan

        The ugly truth about Zionism and Israel:

        https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.814266

        “Israel Refuses to Stop Arms Sales to Myanmar, Despite Its Campaign of Rape, Torture and Massacres Against the Rohingya”

        By Chaim Levinson – Haaretz, Sep 26, 2017

        EXCERPTS:
        “The state’s lawyer tells the High Court that it shouldn’t interfere in Israel’s foreign relations”

        “The state has not said that it will stop selling weapons to the military junta in Myanmar, despite recent reports and United Nations data on massacres the country’s military has perpetrated against the Rohingya minority, as well as systematic rape and expulsions.

        “Responding on Monday to a petition in the High Court of Justice from human-rights activists demanding an end to the arms sales, Shosh Shmueli, representing the state, said the court should not interfere in Israel’s foreign relations. That was a repetition of the preliminary response issued in March by the Defense Ministry, according to which the court had no standing in the ‘purely diplomatic’ matter.”

      • Keith
        September 27, 2017, 3:56 pm

        NATHAN- ” Zionist ideology is concerned with the Hebrew language, the return to the Land of Israel, and the fulfillment of ancient aspirations (“next year in Jerusalem”).”

        A lot of pilpul in this one sentence. Let us begin by noting that during the period of Classical Judaism, the return to Jerusalem was a “return” to a metaphysical Jerusalem which existed in Judaic mythology. This “return” was to occur AFTER the coming of the Jewish Messiah who would establish global Jewish suzerainty. The physical conquest of historic Palestine by Jewish Zionist (mostly) atheists is a perversion of Classical Judaic theology. These atheists realized that providing a distorted biblical justification would be a powerful tool in the Judeo-Christian world of Western imperialism. The vast majority of the world’s Jews at the time had no such “ancient aspirations,” preferring life in the Western democracies to life in Palestine. Even after the Holocaust, most of the Jews in the DP camps preferred the US and Britain to Palestine and had to be literally coerced into going to Palestine.

        Zionism was a retrograde response to modernity. The specialized role of Jews in a medieval society was at an end. What to do? There were basically two choices. Either assimilate into the surounding Gentile society or create a ficticious homeland for the Jews consistent with the prevailing “Blood and Soil” nationalism which existed in Eastern Europe at the time. The Zionists chose blood and soil which continues to permeate Zionism to this very day. Jews as a people, not a religion. To make a point, I quote Yuri Slezkine.

        “The emancipation of the serfs, the demise of the manorial economy, and the expansion of the economic role of the state rendered the role of the traditional Mercurian mediator between the countryside and the town economically irrelevant, legally precarious, and increasingly dangerous.” (p115, “The Jewish Century,” Yuri Slezkine)

        No, biblical aspirations did not motivate these atheist Jews. A desire to PREVENT assimilation motivated these Jews. A desire to reunite the various strands of Jews created by the enlightenment motivated these Jews. Zionism was a movement supported by the Jewish elites, not the majority of Jews. Had it not been for the Holocaust and massive imperial support, Israel would likely have not come into existence as a Jewish state. Zionism is a form of secular religion where the Holocaust has been removed from its historical context and elevated to that of the sacred and unknowable, not comparable to other historical events.

        Well, that was then. Zionism has changed over time. Nowadays, the main beneficiaries of Zionism are American Jewish fat-cats who utilize Israel and Zionism as a means of maintaining Jewish kinship and the de facto nepotism and commonality of purpose which has been so useful to the accumulation of power of the Zionist elites. A diffuse and amorphous multicultural society lends itself to the power accumulation of those who maintain ethnic solidarity. Multiculturalism for the Gentiles, peoplehood and solidarity for the Jews. And a pursuit of power camouflaged as a defense against anti-Semitism.

        Finally, yes, A beleaguered Israel at war with Arab hordes is an essential component of the Zionist mythology. How else to stoke the ideology of victimhood and never ending persecution? Perceived anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism.

      • MHughes976
        September 27, 2017, 4:53 pm

        My definition of Z is ‘the belief that people who are Jewish, and they only, have an inherent right (now commonly called a birthright) to a share of sovereignty over the Holy Land, others only by the grace and generosity of the true heirs’. I disagree with that proposition.
        I’m happy to work with other definitions if they are put forward.

      • Mooser
        September 27, 2017, 8:24 pm

        ” I don’t know why it’s so difficult for all the anti-Zionists to present someone else’s view in the way that that someone else would present it.”

        Whoa, take me all the way back to my childhood Bennet Cerf jokebooks!

        He: “This photograph doesn’t do me justice!”
        She: “It’s mercy you want, not justice”

      • eljay
        September 28, 2017, 8:14 am

        || Nathan: … Zionist ideology is concerned with the Hebrew language, the return to the Land of Israel, and the fulfillment of ancient aspirations (“next year in Jerusalem”). … ||

        Strip away the romanticism and you have: Zionism is concerned with Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine. It’s no wonder Zionists prefer to sugar-coat it.

        || … I don’t know why it’s so difficult for all the anti-Zionists to present someone else’s view in the way that that someone else would present it. ||

        I don’t why anyone would expect opponents of pedophilia, female genital mutilation (FGM) or rape to present someone else’s view of pedophilia, FGM or rape in the way that someone else would present it.

    • Nathan
      September 27, 2017, 8:20 pm

      Actually, Talkback, it’s time to understand that identity is a tricky issue. The Jews perceive themselves to be a people dispersed in antiquity from their homeland. And that’s it. Now they live in Israel, seeing themselves as having RETURNED to their land and as having RENEWED their sovereignty.

      However, now that you have raised the issue of the descent of today’s Jews from the ancient Hebrew, you bring to mind an interesting question. Many anti-Israel people claim that today’s Jews are not the descendants of the ancient Hebrew. This seems to be “proof” of the absurdity of Zionism. However, if it were to be proved that indeed the Jews are (by and large) the descendants of the Hebrews – would you then accept the legitimacy of Zionism and the founding of modern Israel? Well, I’d be happy to hear your answer, but allow me to guess that it wouldn’t make any difference. You would still be anti-Israel. Therefore, one can only wonder why, then, any anti-Zionist cares about the DNA of today’s Jews. Apparently, the claim of the Jews (that they are an exiled people from ancient Israel) is such an integral part of western civilization that the anti-Zionists just can’t ignore it. (If you can read Arabic, you can see how busy they are “proving” that there was no Temple in ancient Jerusalem. Apparently for them , the historicity of the Temple is just too much to ignore as well).

      • Talkback
        September 28, 2017, 11:43 pm

        Nathan: “The Jews perceive themselves to be a people dispersed in antiquity from their homeland. And that’s it. Now they live in Israel, seeing themselves as having RETURNED to their land and as having RENEWED their sovereignty.”

        I know. It’s pathetic right? They even think that Israel is democrazy allthough they keep people expelled and denationalized to rig the election results.

        Nathan: “Many anti-Israel people claim that today’s Jews are not the descendants of the ancient Hebrew. This seems to be “proof” of the absurdity of Zionism. However, if it were to be proved that indeed the Jews are (by and large) the descendants of the Hebrews – would you then accept the legitimacy of Zionism and the founding of modern Israel? ”

        Nope, because it’s not legally relevant if someone is a descendant of ancient Hebrews or not. Do Areamans have the right to take over their “ancient homeland” and expell its majority to become one?

        Nathan: “Therefore, one can only wonder why, then, any anti-Zionist cares about the DNA of today’s Jews.”

        To point out that the Zionist’s ludicrous claims is based on ludicrous premises.

        You didn’t answer my question. Does anyone who converts to Judaism automatically acquires a right to expell Nonjews or revoke their residential status, too?

  6. just
    September 26, 2017, 6:24 pm

    How can he reconcile this reality with his ” ‘love affair with Jewish State’ “?

    “Beitar Jerusalem fans: ‘Here we are, the most racist football team in the country’ – video”

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/video/2015/nov/24/beitar-jerusalem-most-racist-football-team-israel-video

    So is Freedman a Beitar fan?

  7. Nathan
    September 27, 2017, 9:52 am

    “You will see that Palestinian political conditions and history are completely absent from the article… Freedman mentions Palestinians only from a Jewish point of view…”

    It sounds as if it’s self-evident in the world of Mondoweiss that both sides of an issue should always be presented. Indeed, who could imagine an article in the Mondowisee website that would absolutely ignore the Jewish point of view while presenting only the Palestinian point of view? It’s unheard of. Whenever we are told that “Zionism is a form of colonialism” (the Palestinian point of view), there is always a mention of the fact that “the return of Jews to the Land of Israel is an expression of an ancient aspiration at the very heart of the Jewish tradition” (the Jewish point of view). Right?

    So, indeed, it is scandalous that Mr Freedman would celebrate Israel’s victory without mentioning the Nakba. Who could imagine such one-sided journalism?

    • Talkback
      September 27, 2017, 3:02 pm

      Nathan: “Whenever we are told that “Zionism is a form of colonialism” (the Palestinian point of view), there is always a mention of the fact that “the return of Jews to the Land of Israel is an expression of an ancient aspiration at the very heart of the Jewish tradition” (the Jewish point of view). Right?”

      Whenever we are told that the mandatory violated the mandate, there is always the mention of the fact that the mandatory violated the right to self determination and perverted the mandate system which should have acknowledged what is in the very heart the country’s native people, right?

      And no, it’s not a “Palestinian view”. Herzl himself defined Zionism as a colonial project. And what else than settler colonialism could it be when an immigration of foreigners who want to settle in a land is enforced upon the natives by another country that de facto or de jure occupies it?!

      • Nathan
        September 27, 2017, 7:26 pm

        Talkback – I didn’t think that my little satire would be so complicated. I’ll repeat my little message in straight-forward English. It was absolutely absurd that an article in Mondoweiss would criticize someone for presenting only one side of the issue. Mondoweiss, itself, only presents one side of the issue. It presents the Palestinian position (as it is understood by outsiders). Obviously, it is perfectly legitimate to present the one side of an issue that you identify with – but it is legitimate also for others.

        Yes, it is the Palestinian position that Zionism is colonialism. It is NOT the position of the Jews (Zionists). For the Jews, the Land of Israel is their ancient homeland. Even though you don’t agree, nevertheless it should be possible to look at the world in the eyes of others.

        It’s true that you could find a quote from Herzl in which he uses the term “colonist”. However, you have to make the effort and see the world in the eyes of others. Herzl believed that Palestine (the Land of Israel) is the ancient homeland of the Jews. The name of the movement – Zionism – was taken from the name of the hilltop where the ancient Temple stood (Mt Zion). The meaning was obvious: He was calling for a return (in today’s terminology, he would have used the Hebrew term “oleh”). He was not speaking in terms of colonialism such as the Mayflower dropping off Englishmen in a totally foreign land. The Palestinians speak of colonialism in that sense (i.e. there is no connection between Jews and Palestine). The Jews have a different view. It should be possible to understand such things even if you don’t agree.

      • Talkback
        September 28, 2017, 11:26 pm

        Nathan: “Yes, it is the Palestinian position that Zionism is colonialism. It is NOT the position of the Jews (Zionists).”

        Again, it was even Herzl’s position that Zionism is colonialism. Other Jewish Zionist are just in denial. Therefore their obsession with the myth that they “returned” allthough there’s no proof that they were ever exiled beyond Jerusalem.

        Nathan: “Even though you don’t agree, nevertheless it should be possible to look at the world in the eyes of others.”

        I never disagreed that Jewish Zionist think that ” the Land of Israel is their ancient homeland”. I point out how ludicrous this claim is, because nobody can prove that that he or she is a descendant of ancient Hebrews or a Nonjew isn’t.

        Nathan: “Herzl believed that Palestine (the Land of Israel) is the ancient homeland of the Jews.”

        He still saw Zionism as a “colonial project”, because the he wanted Jews to immigrate to Palsestine to take over the country.

  8. Ossinev
    September 27, 2017, 11:08 am

    @Nathan

    “Whenever we are told that “Zionism is a form of colonialism” (the Palestinian point of view), there is always a mention of the fact that “the return of Jews to the Land of Israel is an expression of an ancient aspiration at the very heart of the Jewish tradition” (the Jewish point of view). Right?”

    Last bit is obviously attempted tongue in cheek. Right?. To the point and for clarification. “Zionism is a form of colonialism” is quite rightly the point of view of the Palestinians ie the victims of the colonialism. It is also the view of yours truly and millions of non – Palestinian decent thinking individuals throughout the world including a sizeable number of your co – religionists.As for all your fellow aspirers in the membership of the religious cult which is Judaism can you confirm the eligibility for membership and thus “aspirer” status. For example if I was to convert tomorrow does that give me the right to aspire to “return” to my “ancient homeland with which I had f… all connection up to then.

    • MHughes976
      September 27, 2017, 5:09 pm

      Colonialism (if = placement of a population from elsewhere) may in some of its examples be considered without contradiction as the fulfilment of long-held aspiration of the group that does the colonising. Which of these aspects of the activity is more significant morally is another matter.

    • Nathan
      September 27, 2017, 7:46 pm

      Yes, Ossinev, it is the view of many people that Zionism is colonialism. However, there are many people who don’t agree with your view. You can find people who think that the Jews have returned to their ancient homeland. It’s amazing that there is a difference of opinions, but that’s life here on planet Earth.

      Yes, I was speaking “tongue in cheek” (actually, it was satire). I was knocked off my feet that a Mondoweiss article complained that “Freedman mentions Palestinians only from a Jewish point of view…” Mondoweiss is an anti-Israel website, so it doesn’t generally present both sides of the debate either.

      • RoHa
        September 27, 2017, 10:53 pm

        “However, there are many people who don’t agree with your view. You can find people who think that the Jews have returned to their ancient homeland. ”

        You keep saying this, but so what? Why is it important?

  9. Misterioso
    September 27, 2017, 6:51 pm

    https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/2017/09/26/ireland-deportations-and-harassment-of-irish-group-traveling-to-west-bank/

    September 26, 2017
    Deportations and Harassment of Irish Group Traveling to West Bank
    By Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin,

    EXCERPT:
    “A trip to Palestine resulted in deportations and harassment by security as the Israel authorities step up attempts to intimidate or frighten future travelers to the area. During our trip we experienced CS gas, checkpoints, apartheid in action and military harassment of Palestinians. Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin relates his experiences as a member of the group.”

  10. Ossinev
    September 28, 2017, 7:13 am

    @Nathan
    “You can find people who think that the Jews have returned to their ancient homeland2

    Still haven`t addressed the aspirer status questions. I will refresh and repeat. I convert to Judaism. Does that make Palestine my “ancient homeland ” and even though my forebears are from the Isle of Skye or Murmansk or wherever does that give me the aspirational ” right of return ” to a land with which I have SFA connection.

    • Nathan
      September 28, 2017, 11:03 am

      Ossinev – Identity is an abstract concept. It’s not a function of DNA. One’s identity is shaped by education, personal experiences, community, etc. In the collective Jewish identity, the ancient Land of Israel is the place of origin. A DNA examination might prove that in reality the Jews originated in the southern hemisphere of Mars – but it really doesn’t matter. The collective awareness of the Jews – their identity – has been established by other factors.

      Outsiders can join the collective identity of another group – and the perceived history of the collective becomes the perceived history of the newcomer. It happens all the time. Amongst the Jews, conversion is the tool for joining the group. So, indeed, throughout history, people joined the Jewish community, and they adopted the legacy of the Jews: An exiled nation yearning to return to its lost homeland. So, yes, Palestine might have become the “ancient homeland” of a person whose forebears once lived in Kamchatka.

      Here on this forum, there are quite a few comments that claim that the Jews of today are descendants of converts, and hence they are not the descendants of the ancient Hebrews. The message is often explicit that the Israelis should, therefore, just go away. It’s a strange wishful-thinking that if the Jewish narrative could be challenged, then Zionism will be defeated. Ironically, if it would be proven that, indeed, the Jews are (by and large) descendants of the ancient Hebrews, the anti-Zionists would still be opposed to the founding of modern Israel (the Arabs have no doubt that the Jews of today are the descendants of the Jews cursed in the Quran). So, why is it an issue if the Jews are converts or not? Why do you take an interest in this issue?

      • eljay
        September 28, 2017, 12:34 pm

        || Nathan: … In the collective Jewish identity, the ancient Land of Israel is the place of origin. A DNA examination might prove that in reality the Jews originated in the southern hemisphere of Mars …

        … Outsiders can join the collective identity of another group … Amongst the Jews, conversion is the tool for joining the group. … ||

        Thank you for your clear and straightforward confirmation that:
        – Jewish is a religion-based identity; and
        – the geographic region of Palestine is not the actual homeland of every person in the world who chooses to be/come Jewish.

      • Talkback
        September 28, 2017, 8:46 pm

        Nathan: “Here on this forum, there are quite a few comments that claim that the Jews of today are descendants of converts, and hence they are not the descendants of the ancient Hebrews.”

        I don’t think that anyone claims that all Jews are not descendants of ancient Hebrews. That would be as stupid as claiming that there are no Nonjews that are descendants of ancient Hebrews.

        Nathan: “So, why is it an issue if the Jews are converts or not? Why do you take an interest in this issue?”

        Exactly. The only thing that matters is who was a righful citizen of Palestine in 1948. Only they had the right to self determination and majority ruling and not some foreigners whose immigration and settling is enforced under a de de jure or de facto occupation like the protecatorate that was selled as a mandate and perverting the whole mandate system and the right to self determination.

        But why do Hasbara trolls bring up any other criteria which is legally irrelevant? Whether it’s the fake conceopt of a nation or an “identity”? Or that it matter that ancient Hebrews ruled of this land during a short time. Or “historical ties”, etc.

      • Mooser
        September 29, 2017, 1:17 pm

        “But why do Hasbara trolls bring up any…/… “historical ties”, etc.”

        “Talkback” it took me a while to figure that out, and I am very sure I am correct. They do it because they have never discussed Zionism with anybody other than Zionists before!.

        They are using the same arguments Zionist use on each other, and can’t imagine why (except for AS) these arguments aren’t instantly accepted.
        After all, they work so well on other Zionists.

    • Mooser
      September 28, 2017, 6:14 pm

      ” Does that make Palestine my “ancient homeland ” and even though my forebears…”

      “Ossinev”, all you have to do is remember the words of Rabbi Jagger:

      “You can’t always get what you want.
      No, you can’t always get what you want,
      But if you try sometime, you might find,
      You might find, you get what you need.”

      If you have something to offer Israel (like a warm body) you can obtain your “Jewish, resident of Israel” with no problem.
      And next week, the Chief Rabbis in Israel will announce that all US Army Special Forces and Navy Seals have Jewish ancestry, along with the complete Forbes 500 List.

  11. Ossinev
    September 28, 2017, 12:03 pm

    @ Nathan
    Wow you jumped through quite a few conceptual hoops there. It all collapses into a muddied heap though when it comes to the central issue and the reality which you refuse to address viz Judaism is a religion NOT a nationality or a race. I am not fixated on the conversion history of Judaism. For what it is worth I do believe that the vast majority of today`s Jews are modern or historic converts to the religion and your reluctance to claim that this is not the case or provide scientific evidence to undermine it suggests to me that you actually accept that you would be in a no win scenario if you tried to challenge it. I am however intrigued by the specific issue of conversion to Judaism and how otherwise (I assume ) clear thinking common sense human beings can seriously believe the frankly ludicrous construct that this gifts the convert with the “aspiring to return to his or her Ancient Homeland ” status. Please please listen to what you are saying and reflect on the 100% illogicality of it. A cynic would call this a straightforward licence to print ancient Jews.

    As for the DNA scenario yes I would still be opposed to it and still am opposed to it. Land theft , ethnic cleansing , abuse of Human Rights , defiance of UN resolutions are still criminal and abhorrent and illegal.

    “So, yes, Palestine might have become the “ancient homeland” of a person whose forebears once lived in Kamchatka” Thanks for preemptively resting my case. What a corker !!!

    • Mooser
      September 28, 2017, 6:21 pm

      “Jewish” in the last estimation, is an administrative identity entitling the bearer to privileges in the Zionist colony of Israel.
      It is a designation the Zionist government may give to anyone it deems necessary.

    • Nathan
      September 28, 2017, 7:48 pm

      Ossinev – One hears all the time the claim that “Judaism is a religion, not a nationality…” Anti-Zionists say it all the time, thinking that they are revealing some big truth. Yes, Judaism is a religion, period. Notice that the word ends in “-ism”. In many European languages, “-ism” is an indication that we are dealing with an abstract concept. Indeed, a religion is an abstract concept. The Jews, on the other hand, are not an abstract concept. They are human beings. The Jews are an ancient people (a nation, an ethnicity). Judaism is the religion created by the Jews.

      Your expectation that I should have provided scientific evidence to undermind the claim that the Jews are converts is quite silly. I have read articles here and there claiming that the Jews are descendants of ancient Israel, and I’ve read articles that claim that they are Khazarians. To be quite honest, I don’t understand the terminology of these articles – and I’m rather certain that you don’t either.

      More importantly, DNA is not an issue in political discussions. Identities are born, identities disappear – and it’s not an issue of laboratory findings.

      Jewish identity is a very old and stubborn story. There are people in this planet who define themselves as Jews, and they see themselves as a people whose geographic point of reference is the Land of Israel. There is no debate here, because indeed this is their identity – and they are not in need of outside approval, nor do they have to pass a blood test to confirm their perceived identity.

      The Jews have succeeded in establishing themselves in Israel. Their state has come into existence, and it is now a fact of life. It really doesn’t make any difference if it makes sense to you or to others. And it certainly is irrelevant if the founding narrative of Israel can be proved scientifically.

      The real reason that the issue of converts is mentioned in this forum is the obsessive need to prove and re-prove, to repeat and to rehash, and then to prove and re-prove yet again that Israel is bad / illegitimate / shouldn’t have been born / should be dismantled. It’s quite good fun debating about Israel, so we can all be glad that this unique pasttime will continue indefinitely into the coming centuries.

      • eljay
        September 29, 2017, 12:12 pm

        || Nathan: … In many European languages, “-ism” is an indication that we are dealing with an abstract concept. Indeed, a religion is an abstract concept. The Jews, on the other hand, are not an abstract concept. They are human beings. … ||

        Jews* are the human beings in and from countries all over the world who have chosen to acquire / hold the religion-based identity of Jewish.

        Palestinians are the human beings in and from the geographic region of Palestine.

        The reality of Palestinian ties to the geographic region of Palestine trumps the abstract, religion-based “ties” of many (most?) Jewish people to that region.

        —————————
        (*According to Zionists, the collective term “the Jews” is anti-Semitic.)

      • Mooser
        September 29, 2017, 12:59 pm

        “Jewish identity is a very old and stubborn story.”

        Sure is “Nathan”, as you will learn to Zionism’s sorrow. Why I have heard that some people will even cling to Judaism and Jewish identity when there is nothing to be gained from it, or even a sacrifice to be made.

        Oh, BTW, “Nathan”, Jewish identity is two stories. One is the identity imposed on Jews by non-Jews, the other is the identity imposed by Jews on themselves. Don’t mix them up.

  12. Nathan
    September 28, 2017, 9:41 pm

    “The only thing that matters is who was a rightful citizen of Palestine in 1948”.

    Talkback – You have an interesting method of debate. What you are saying is that “all that matters is that Israel should not have come into existence”. Or, in other words, you are telling me: “Okay. Let’s reach a reasonable understanding on this issue. Let’s see things my way”.

    The State of Israel came into existence. Its successful birth is the only thing that matters. Amazingly, even though it’s so obvious to you that it simply should not have happened, nevertheless the new state became a member of the UN, and scores of foreign countries sent ambassadors to her. It turns out the successful birth of statehood is the only criterion of legitimacy.

    Now, in front of our eyes, Kurdistan is seeking independence. Is it legitimate? I’d be curious to hear your opinion. The Americans say that it’s illegitimate, because the territorial integrity of Iraq must be preserved. Obviously, Iraq will go to war against the new state, and so will Turkey. But there is only one test of the legitimacy of independent Kurdistan: Her survival. If Kurdistan succeeds in establishing its independence, it will be a legitimate member of the family of nations, period.

    It’s fun wasting time debating about the legitimacy of Israel. I really am enjoying myself, and I hope that you too (and all the Mondoweiss readers) are having a good time. If, however, you have a secret belief that Israel can be wished out of existence by a convincing legalistic argument, I’m afraid that you might be frustrated. Israel was born, she withstood the test of battle and 70 years later she has turned out to be quite a success story. And she’s as legitimate as every other state that has succeeded in coming into existence. That’s the way of the world.

    • Talkback
      September 28, 2017, 10:50 pm

      Nathan: “You have an interesting method of debate. What you are saying is that “all that matters is that Israel should not have come into existence”. ”

      That is not what I said, but it’s the only logical conclusion. And Israel didn’t “come into existence”. This Apartheid Junta was established through terrorism and expulsion and was declared in clear violation of Security Council Resolution 46.

      Nathan: “Its successful birth is the only thing that matters.”

      It’s not a birth, it’s raping a child. And I can understand that this is the only thing that matters to you. Other people matter for other atrocities.

      Nathan: “Amazingly, even though it’s so obvious to you that it simply should not have happened, nevertheless the new state became a member of the UN, and scores of foreign countries sent ambassadors to her. It turns out the successful birth of statehood is the only criterion of legitimacy.”

      You mistake recognition for legitimacy. And don’t forget that Israel lied to the UN regarding its acceptance of 181 and 194.

      Nathan: “Now, in front of our eyes, Kurdistan is seeking independence. Is it legitimate? I’d be curious to hear your opinion.”

      A case could be made for remedial secession since their fundamental rights are violated by Turkey. More importantly is the question, if the people in the envisioned borders of a Kurdish country were asked and if anyone habitually residing in this territory will become a Kurdish citizen., despite heritage or faith. Compare this to the so called “Jewish state”. No referendum means not internal legitimation. Only a few Nonjewish residents who were not expelled acquired the new citizenship which is not even “Jewish”. The whole case is rotten and therefore was never transfered to the International Court of Justice despite multiple proposals.

      Nathan: “The Americans say that it’s illegitimate, because the territorial integrity of Iraq must be preserved.”

      This is acatually a UN principle and it can be said in general that the defensive right to self determination of the majority outweighs the offensive right to self determination of the minority that wants their own country. But it shows the US’ hypocricy who didn’t bring up the same argument when it came to the partition of Palestine.

      Nathan: “But there is only one test of the legitimacy of independent Kurdistan: Her survival. If Kurdistan succeeds in establishing its independence, it will be a legitimate member of the family of nations, period.”

      Nope. You mistake survival for legitimacy. Not every newly created state is legitimate or at least recognized. See Nothern Cyprus or former Rhodesia.

      Nathan: “It’s fun wasting time debating about the legitimacy of Israel. ”

      It’s even more fun watching you failing and the like of you to make a legitimate case for Israel.

      Nathan: “I really am enjoying myself, and I hope that you too (and all the Mondoweiss readers) are having a good time.”

      I assure you that they tmost of them have fun seeing people like you fail.

      Nathan: “Israel was born, she withstood the test of battle and 70 years later she has turned out to be quite a success story.”

      Again, Israel was not “born”. Nobody is “born” by committing war and expulsion. And if you think that being an racist state that violates international law and human rights; that has no enshrined constitution or explicite right to equality and which differenatiates between nationals and citizens to maintain a supremacist national character is a “succes story”, I don’t want to hear your opinion about Nazism.

      Nathan: “If, however, you have a secret belief that Israel can be wished out of existence by a convincing legalistic argument, I’m afraid that you might be frustrated. ”

      It’s illegitimacy will be the basis for its demise as it was for other illegtimate entities. Your pseudo legal arguments are just a version of might is right. At the end the question will not be about how it was created, but how and it needs to exist to maintain its Apartheid. And its obvious that it’s heading into what Leibowitz called Judeonazism.

      • Nathan
        September 29, 2017, 5:11 am

        “And Israel didn’t ‘come into existence’….. Again, Israel was not ‘born’.”

        Well, Talkback, this is certainly a new angle in our pleasant exchange of ideas. Until now, almost everyone in this forum repeats again and again the same slogans. If it’s eljay for example, you know it’s going to be a comment about religious supremacy, and if it’s Yoni the historian, you know that it’s going to be a comment about Slavo-Turks who must leave the Middle East. However, a claim that Israel never came into existence and was never born – that certainly is a new mantra. Actually, I liked it very much. It’s quite interesting debating with people whose vision of Israel is based on some alternative perception of historic reality. But it is even now more gripping to debate about a political entity that is merely the figment of our imagination.

        Speaking of political entities that have not come into existence, you didn’t quite say “yes” or “no” regarding the legitimacy of the Kurdish intention to become an independent state. You seem to think that this is secession from Turkey, but actually it is about secession from Iraq.

        I remember from elementary school that we would ask our teacher about the injustice and the violence that befell the American Indians. The teacher didn’t like such questions that seemed to blemish the heroic story of the greatest nation on earth and other such bla-bla-bla. But she had an answer ready for us: “Well, kiddies, that was a very long time ago…” (i.e. it’s not going to be undone, and I’m sorry that your world is so imperfect).

        I suddenly remembered that day in school when you described the circumstances surrounding the non-birth and the non-coming into existence of our topic of debate. At what point in history, would you say that this non-birth or this non-coming into existence will be regarded as “a very long time ago”?

      • eljay
        September 29, 2017, 9:31 am

        || Nathan: … almost everyone in this forum repeats again and again the same slogans. … ||

        Ain’t that the truth! Every Zionist in this forum repeats again and again the same slogans advocating, justifying and/or defending Jewish supremacism, colonialism and (war) crimes.

      • eljay
        September 29, 2017, 11:40 am

        || Nathan: … Now, in front of our eyes, Kurdistan is seeking independence. Is it legitimate? … ||

        IMO:
        1. If the people of the region in question decide democratically to form a secular and democratic nation of and for – and with equal rights for – all people living in the region and up to n-generations removed from it, such a state would be legitimate.

        2. If an ethnic / cultural / tribal subset of the people of the region in question decide to establish a state…
        – primarily of and for people living in the region and people elsewhere in the world, regardless of their actual ties to the region, who share that ethnic / cultural / tribal identity; and
        – at the expense of people living in the region and people elsewhere in the world, but with actual ties to the region (i.e., n-generations or less removed from it), who do not share that ethnic / cultural / tribal identity,
        …such a state would be as illegitimate as the religion-supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel.

      • eljay
        September 29, 2017, 11:55 am

        || eljay: … such a state would be as illegitimate as the religion-supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel. ||

        Clarification: This assumes that the establishment of a supremacist “Kurdish State” would require a similar degree of mass immigration, ethnic cleansing, colonialism and (war) crimes. It’s possible that a supremacist “Kurdish State” would be less illegitimate than the “Jewish State”.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 29, 2017, 12:31 pm

        for anyone considering the viability of a kurdish state i recommend this excellent pepe escobar article — there’s that little problem of relations with baghdad, damascus, tehran, ankara, and moscow.

        http://www.atimes.com/article/unravelling-riddle-kurds-iraqi-pipedream//

        and don’t miss:

        By The Grace Of Israel – The Barzani Clan And Kurdish “Independence”
        http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/09/by-the-grace-of-israel-the-barzani-clan-and-kurdish-independence.html

        here is a must read horrific thread https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/913176931880853505

    • Talkback
      September 29, 2017, 1:46 pm

      Nathan: “However, a claim that Israel never came into existence and was never born – that certainly is a new mantra. Actually, I liked it very much. It’s quite interesting debating with people whose vision of Israel is based on some alternative perception of historic reality. But it is even now more gripping to debate about a political entity that is merely the figment of our imagination.”

      Well, Nathan. It seems to be to complicated for you to understand that I didn’t deny the estblishment of your beloved Apartheid Junta, but that I critized your Hasbara attempt to compare this crime with the pasive act of the “birth” of an innocent child who “comes into existence”. I understand how much you need to distract from this historic reality.

      Nathan: ” … you didn’t quite say “yes” or “no” regarding the legitimacy of the Kurdish intention to become an independent state.”

      I didn’t. There are a lot of factors which have to be considered:
      1.) Did the majority of the Kurdish citizens within the territory for the envisaged state vote for independence? (Illegal immigrants or refugees do not count)
      2.) Are all people who are habitually residing in the territory going to become by law and ipso facto citizens of the newly created state?
      3.) Is the national identity of this people going to be the citizenship for all people? Will all citizens become “Kurdish”?
      4.) Will the right to equality be constitutionally enshrined?

      You know, just to rule out that its is going to be an Apartheid state.

  13. gamal
    September 28, 2017, 11:55 pm

    “It’s fun wasting time debating about the legitimacy of Israel. I really am enjoying myself, and I hope that you too (and all the Mondoweiss readers) are having a good time”

    oh, oh well puerile smug archness not withstanding, for those of you interested in speed reading a bit of Kurdish politics, here is something, have you been watching the transformation of the weird occultated Ocalan, like Napoleon on Elba,

    “Öcalan, who has been kept in solitary confinement since 1999, can have developed only a limited knowledge of these developments ( Kurdish success among Turks in the elections). Yet, he continued to dominate the Kurdish movement not only politically but also ideologically. Thus, PKK supporters in Turkey and elsewhere have reproduced his critique of nationalism as an outdated, bourgeois, statist and/or ‘Jacobin’ doctrine, targeting not only Turkish nationalist elites, but also Kurdish rivals, in particular Iraqi Kurdish leader Massud Barzani and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), who have increasingly come to be seen as the PKK’s main rival in the Pan-Kurdish arena.

    The PKK’s actions are guided by the writings of its leader to a far greater extent than those of rivaling parties. But, as I will argue below, despite this relatively close link between ideology and practice, there is a strange tension between the current PKK discourse of democracy, autonomy and bottom-up grass-roots self-organization and the consistently hierarchical, centralistic and top-down organization that the PKK has maintained in practice.”

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14683857.2016.1246529?src=recsys&

    “Öcalan’s post-1999 writings also display a significant shift to a particular kind of longue-durée civilizational history of the Middle East. This shift, too may be due in part to Boockhin’s influence”

    I guess those of you not playing the idiot like Nathan might guess what an ominous development this represents, incidentally the Kurdish parties did very well among non-Kurdish Turks, that seems to set off alarms in various capitals. The above piece is not overly academic and you know its the American way learn about a people as you go to war for them, against them, or whatever its always war nowadays, United in joy, historical vindication and genetic fitness let us sally forth.

    Kurds are not Arabs you know, in a good way, Iranians are not either but in a bad way, Kurds speak a Persian variant, it could all get very confusing and bloody, time to speed read about Kurds, freedom is coming and it looks pissed, or you could join Nathan in the perverts playground.

    Kurds should we save them or destroy them you decide. Who is Murray Bookchin?

  14. Ossinev
    September 29, 2017, 8:28 am

    @Nathan
    “The Jews, on the other hand, are not an abstract concept. They are human beings. The Jews are an ancient people (a nation, an ethnicity)”

    Oh dearie dearie me Nathan. Still ddding on this one (desperately ducking and diving).

    I repeat . If I convert to Judaism at 1500 hrs this afternoon do I become an eligible fully fledged member of this “ancient people ” and a new member of a separate specific nation and a separate ethnicity. No ddding please . Yes or No ?. If yes then please please explain the logic of this in a non abstract fashion. If no please explain in a non abstract fashion the various stages which I would have to go through in order to fully qualify as a member of this “ancient people”.

    BTW my background is Celtic ( don`t know whether my forebears converted to Celticism or not) but they do say that a change is as good as etc.

    Reminds me I must watch Life of Brian again.

    • MHughes976
      September 29, 2017, 11:51 am

      Real people and things are never abstract concepts – they are observed and experienced. Abstraction is the process of observing characteristics present in several real things – green, round etc. – and ‘pulling them out’ in one’s thoughts or concepts, at which level they exist by themselves to be thought about – ‘green is a pleasant colour’ – without special reference to any particular instance of a green thing. Jews certainly have the characteristic of humanity and therefore all human rights. ‘Human’ and ‘Jewish’ are both abstract terms. If we define them we can begin to discuss what rights are implied by having that term applied. With humanity the traditional ‘rational animal’ seems like quite a good definition.

Leave a Reply