From Greta Gerwig to NYU, Israel has deep reservoir of cultural support in U.S.

US Politics
on 95 Comments

Anyone who is fighting for the recognition of Palestinian human rights must concede that Israel enjoys a deep reservoir of cultural support in the United States. It’s really in the water, especially in cultural centers.

For instance, this morning on WNYC, my public radio station, Brian Lehrer, a progressive host, interviewed the neoconservative Elliott Abrams about Middle East policy. You would think that progressives would have had enough of neoconservatives at this point, given their track record of tearing up societies in the Middle East; it ought to be like hosting Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association on gun rights or Steve Bannon on immigration policy. But no, Lehrer greeted Abrams warmly and didn’t even mention “your support for regime change and the Iraq war.” Because both Lehrer and Abrams are Israel supporters; Lehrer never hosts Jewish anti-Zionists.

Here are two sad examples in the news of the extent of Israel’s immaculate reputation in places that matter.

Later this week, The Siege, a play dramatizing the Israeli siege of a Bethlehem church during the Second Intifada, will start a run at the Skirball Center at NYU. The production is special because it is by the Jenin Freedom Theatre and presents a Palestinian point of view in U.S. mainstream culture. About violent resistance, yes. (And when American lands were occupied, Americans were violent too, and we have holidays for those people).

Pro-Israel groups are alarmed that this point of view is getting such a stage (with the help of the EU and the British Council). Recall that the board of the Public Theater in New York rebelled when The Siege was scheduled for that venue a year ago; and the Public Theater cancelled the production!

Pro-Israel groups are already painting the forthcoming production as anti-Israel; and in Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli newspaper, an official of the Skirball Center responds, defensively, that the play doesn’t represent the position of the center. Plus Skirball is going to balance the play:

[Jay] Wegman said that the center also plans to host an event organized by the Taub Center for Israel Studies with Lior Lotan, the Israeli negotiator during the events in question.

Here’s the listing for Lotan. Right at the beginning of the run: an event titled, “The Other Side of the Siege”.

Colonel Lior Lotan, chief Israeli negotiator in the Siege of the Church of the Nativity, will speak on his experiences immediately following the screening [of a PBS documentary on the siege].

Lotan was till recently a spokesman for the Israeli army. He has argued that Israeli forces should kidnap 200 Palestinian militants for every Israeli soldier captured, so that Israel can have a “full hand” during negotiations for release of prisoners.

So, just to be clear: NYU can’t stage the Palestinian point of view without needing to counter it with an Israeli military official. Art is answered with propaganda!

BTW, Zohra Drif is a former Algerian freedom fighter who blew up a colonial target in Algiers 60 years ago– killing three French youths and injuring many others. She spoke at NYU recently without being balanced by a counter-speaker on The Other Side of the Revolution! I’m sure the treatment of the Siege is about pro-Israel board members and other officials, donors, etc.

Greta Gerwig, from Wikipedia.

Here’s the second sad example. Last summer the actress/director Greta Gerwig, who came to stardom out of experimental theater, signed a letter to Lincoln Center  along with 80 other artists asking the institution to cancel a production of a play based on David Grossman’s book, To the End of the Land, because it was sponsored by the Israeli government in its “Brand Israel” campaign aimed at changing the country’s image.

Here’s some of that superb, straightforward letter:

We are not raising concerns about any artists’ content, or their nationality, but rather about institutions’ structural complicity with a repressive state agenda that repeatedly violates international law…  But by hosting the Ha’bima and Cameri theaters, and partnering with the Israeli government in doing so, Lincoln Center too is actively supporting Israel’s decades of denial of Palestinian rights.  It is now 50 years since Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been subject to a regime of military occupation and colonization, and 69 years that they have lived inside Israel as unequal citizens now subject to over 50 discriminatory laws, or as refugees in diaspora, denied the right to return to their homeland as guaranteed by international law.

These are our reasons for urging Lincoln Center to respect the Palestinian civil society call for a boycott of those Israeli cultural institutions that are complicit in the denial of Palestinian rights.  This call is modeled on the global boycott movement that helped to bring an end to apartheid in South Africa.

But Gerwig now has a film out that is in Oscar contention: Lady Bird. So she has withdrawn her name from the letter, saying that a friend hoodwinked her into signing it, she really doesn’t know that much about the situation. When have you ever heard of anyone taking their name off a letter? And Gerwig studied philosophy at Barnard, per Wikipedia!

Deadline Hollywood last week reported Gerwig’s letter to Page 6 of the NY Post, retracting her name.

“This past summer, a close friend asked me to lend my name to a letter. I am generally careful about the causes I support, but in this case I was not. I was unfamiliar with the complexities of the letter and I did not take the time to study them. Instead, because the letter had already been signed by many other friends and collaborators I know to be thoughtful and honorable people, I agreed to add my name. While I respect the passion and integrity of others who signed this letter, for me to put my name to something outside of my personal realm of knowledge or experience was a mistake — my mistake — and I am sorry for any confusion or hurt I may have caused.”

The context, from Deadline Hollywood:

Page Six earlier had reported that an anonymous source had snarked… “There is an Oscar campaign afoot for Gerwig, and her team doesn’t want her controversial anti-Israel opinions hurting her chances.”

CAA co-head of television Adam Berkowitz, WME head of TV Rick Rosen and Propagate Content co-CEO Ben Silverman are among the Hollywood brass who have signed a letter supporting Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts’ rejection of a request to cancel upcoming performances by a troupe underwritten by an agency of the Israeli government.

Israel is in the wallpaper. On Saturday Night Live. At Bloomberg News. Why is there such cultural support for Israel? It is reductive to say that It’s Jews. Philip Giraldi argued that recently and lost a job for doing so. His mistake was eliding all the big Jewish organizations and rightwing Zionist Jews into Jewry as such (something people do every day when it’s evangelical Christian political actors, and no one points out that there’s a failure to differentiate among millions of people).

And I think it goes beyond the lobby (a loose coalition, famously) and the Jewish presence in cultural industries in the U.S. to a broader cultural consensus: other establishment leaders and influencers have signed off on the Israel bargain. Because of the Holocaust, because of Jewish achievement/contributions/capital, because of a long history of anti-Semitism. Whatever the reasons, that’s the landscape.

So any slight to Israel must be countered; but anti-Palestinian bigotry is acceptable. We can change that.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

95 Responses

  1. Keith
    October 9, 2017, 4:56 pm

    PHIL- “Why is there such cultural support for Israel? It is reductive to say that It’s Jews.”

    It is primarily because of Zionist Jews. If it was possible to divide Jews into groups of Zionist versus non-Zionist and to compile demographic statistics, I think that you would find that the majority of the Jewish elite were Zionists. And that Zionism and Israel was the basis for the kinship solidarity which gave an added boost to their careers and fortunes. And since it is the elites which determine the cultural support, this cultural support for Israel and Zionism has powerful support within the system. Support which is unlikely to change anytime soon.

    • Eric
      October 10, 2017, 4:14 pm

      Keith: unfortunately, if you include liberal Zionists and stealth Zionists who don’t like to publicize it, the proportion of American Jews who are Zionists is overwhelmingly high — notwithstanding the smattering of Jewish anti-Zionists who frequent this site. The tribal pull is strong, and until that’s significantly loosened, I’d say the outlook for Palestinians to advance their legitimate equality agenda will remain weak.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 10, 2017, 4:50 pm

        notwithstanding the smattering of Jewish anti-Zionists who frequent this site.

        uh huh. we’ve heard this before. so why is it the zionist machine is spending so much trying to fight this scourge of anti zionism infecting their youth? just throwing millions at their unnecessary unwarranted fretting?

      • DaBakr
        October 10, 2017, 10:26 pm

        @annie
        . Tell me a time you can remember or in the past when zionists in America did NOT PARTNER with Israelis and spent relatively big money on pushing the Israeli narrative of our history. I also can not remember a time in the past fifty years when even the most vocal conservative zionists outright denied that Palestinians were: forced out, pressured out, coaxed out and ‘tricked’ out by both arab neighbors as well as the fledgling Israel government

        The only major difference I can see is that Palestinians have mastered the art of their own hasbara with expensive (sometimes Jewish) PR firms in Europe and the US . There is no denying they have become very efficient at pushing their own line and pretending it’s all done tiny little grass roots organizing even of the Palestinians (or their leaders) are the single most wealthy and well funded refugees on earth

      • Annie Robbins
        October 11, 2017, 12:08 am

        not understanding your point dbakr. i didn’t say or imply zionists in America didn’t partner with Israelis and spend relatively big money on pushing the Israeli narrative at any time in the past. israel’s always operated a smooth consistent hasbara machine. but they didn’t make a new ministry to counter bds til recently. i also don’t recall all this fretting about the youth that’s escalated since beinart wrote his 2012 Crisis of Zionism – something MW had been calling out for years. my pt, in case you missed it, is that the jewish anti zionist phenomena, especially in youth culture where it counts the most because it threatens the sustained US support for israel , is not limited to some smattering of people who read mondoweiss. in fact i think most of our readership is middle aged/older although i could be wrong.

        what does your (worthless) allegation “Palestinians (or their leaders) are the single most wealthy and well funded refugees on earth” or your earlier question, or anything in your comment, relate with what i wrote to elicit your response? i’m sort of at a loss here.

      • JeffB
        October 11, 2017, 6:11 am

        @Annie Robbins

        uh huh. we’ve heard this before. so why is it the zionist machine is spending so much trying to fight this scourge of anti zionism infecting their youth?

        There isn’t a scourge of anti-zionism infecting Jewish youth there never was. Anti-Zionism is still rather rare among Jews, mainly part of the hard left. There is a lot of non-Zionism which in practice is turning into a next generation of Liberal Zionism. Anti-Zionism starts with an anti-colonialist ( basis and Zionology (for lurkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Anti-Zionism ) repurposing of Nazi propaganda was simply not something that even most hardcore leftist Jews could support. Most Americans even on the hard left are anti-racists they don’t favor racism against oppressive races and thus reject anti-colonialism. Most Americans even on the hard left oppose antisemitism and thus don’t want to engage in materials that are fundamentally based on the belief that Jews are an intrinsic evil. If they are anti-nationalist they are anti-nationalist for both Jews and Palestinians. If they favor non-racism not reverse racism. Also remember as the communities intermarry increasingly your group are talking about exterminating or at least politically oppressing forever their biological relatives. Liberal young American Jews have nuanced feelings and as anti-Zionist are being replaced with a shared humanity framework. They want a world where both Palestinians and Israelis live a better life in Israel. Liberal Zionism is finally getting its footing in a world where the 2 state solution along 1967 borders is becoming increasingly impractical.

        What is the case though since ANSWER is that many leftwing groups leftist Jews would like to affiliate with have adopted an explicit anti-zionist platform. You yourself wrote a good article about this last year. By creating a situation where their leftwing friends attack them and Zionist groups defend them the idea was to create positive feelings of loyalty. The problem is the most unapologetic attackers of anti-Zionism mostly disagreed with these leftwing groups for too many other reasons. Jewish Republican critiques of the Black Lives Matter platform of LGBT antisemitism doesn’t help leftish Jews.

        While defending Israel can be a fun type of activism for Jewish Republicans it may have worked to increase not decrease leftwing Jewish alienation. Donald Trump though is helping a lot. The Republican defense establishment and neoconservatives were principled attackers against Trump even during the election, also before and after. Donald Trump’s unfitness is an areas where rightwing and leftwing Jews genuinely are in agreement. Ultimately the goal is to make these kids into Zionists not Republicans. People like Sheldon Adelson are realizing that.

        Finally there is Hillel. Hillel is more important for secular Jews than for religious Jews because it creates a space for Judaism that doesn’t revolve around religious rituals. Anti-Zionist attacks on Hillel went over terribly in the USA even with left leaning Jews. I can’t believe the anti-Zionists in the USA made exactly the same mistake as they did in Canada 12 years ago.

        Nuance is back in fashion, hate is less in fashion. Take for example Jacqueline Rose (a BDSer) who opposed academic cooperation with Israeli citizens not just the institutional academic boycott that the BDS movement called for. She did a televised interview with Shlomo Sand which focused on things like reforming Israel’s marriage laws. She wasn’t advocating for reform not eliminating the marriage laws by eliminating Israel. During that interview she was asked why she was boycotting a professor at Tel Aviv University and responded by explicitly called for a place for nuance in the I/P dialogue.
        Listen to her tone in the video you all posted yesterday: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/10/judaism-history-declaration/ She’s expressing a shared humanity and equality viewpoint. That’s not the same woman from 2006 who was an unapologetic defender of a policy of a total ban of Israeli graduate students attending any British university.

        Leftwing Jews agree with Tzipi Hotovely that Jews must have access to the Tomb of the Patriarchs and the Kotel. Which means they don’t support the Green Line and the 2SS.
        They don’t agree with classic Liberal Zionism, that’s what’s keeping them out of JStreetU. JStreetU is being given more freedom from the parent organization to focus on human rights and not borders. INN has a similar focus. So there is an emerging consensus that Palestinians should be under a Israeli military dictatorship. And at the same time an insistence that the solution to that problem cannot be Jews living under a Hamas dictatorship. There is no scourge of anti-Zionism among young Jews.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 11, 2017, 3:36 pm

        Leftwing Jews … don’t support the Green Line and the 2SS … there is an emerging consensus that Palestinians should be under a Israeli military dictatorship.

        uh huh. that sounds, like, so left wing.

        Also remember as the communities intermarry increasingly your group are talking about exterminating or at least politically oppressing forever their biological relatives.

        my group? oh, how could anyone forget!

        Most Americans … don’t want to engage in materials that are fundamentally based on the belief that Jews are an intrinsic evil.

        trolls littering the threads.

      • Mooser
        October 11, 2017, 11:42 am

        .” There is no scourge of anti-Zionism among young Jews.”

        And you can say this authoritatively because you are, in fact, the Jewish people.

      • jon s
        October 12, 2017, 12:50 am

        The Left is committed to ENDING the military dictatorship, ENDING the occupation. By and large, the Left is committed to achieving peace through the two state solution, based on the green line.

        And a happy Simhat Torah holiday to all those celebrating!

      • JeffB
        October 12, 2017, 10:10 am

        @JonS snd Annie

        JonS os exactly correct. There was a typo (my fault) but from context the intent was obvious. The sentence should have read, “So there is an emerging consensus that Palestinians should not be under a Israeli military dictatorship“.

    • Maghlawatan
      October 11, 2017, 2:26 am

      It isn’t deep. The Zionists get about 100 pieces of legislation through Congress every year. They rule by fear. When it falls apart people will see how deep it is. Zionism is like Rupert Murdoch. Hugely influential but no popular base.
      Where are the Zionist cultural centers in Dakota and Arkansas?

      • JeffB
        October 12, 2017, 10:12 am

        @Maghlawatan

        Where are the Zionist cultural centers in Dakota and Arkansas?

        1) All the places Republicans gather who rather like Israel
        2) Dispensationalist churches

        Quick question for you theory. If Zionists rule by fear how is that Zionist manage to scare 70% of Americans into strongly supporting Israel?

      • Maghlawatan
        October 12, 2017, 11:49 am

        Jeff
        Zionism is Tammany Hall 2.0. What do Americans get in return for supporting Israel? SFA.

      • Mooser
        October 12, 2017, 6:08 pm

        ” What do Americans get in return for supporting Israel?”

        This is where “Jeff b” tells us that support for Israel is so essential to America, why, if Israel wasn’t there, the US would have to invent it!

        In fact, he will go further, and asseverate unequivocally that not supporting Israel will doom the US to defeat and irrelevance!

        Take it away, “Jeff b”:

  2. DaBakr
    October 9, 2017, 5:10 pm

    @k

    For a smart guy you can really be a dope sometimes. Not only will you find most very wealthy Jews in the US are zionist but get this…. You will also find that upper middle class, middle class and working class Jews are vast majority pro Zionist. You will find the vast majority of these Jews kids will also be vastly pro Zionist (although in the past few years out had not been as fashionable to be an ‘out’ Zionist on college campuses and the anti Zionist far left has had some success in this demographic but overall, not much, or not much that isn’t fleeting.
    You will also find the vast majority of poor Jews (mostly orthodox Jews who live in tight communities where personal wealth takes less precedent over communal wealth and religious practice) are also pro Zionist. That only a few scattered sects of orthodox hold views that ‘g-d’ has not truly brought’his’ peeps back to Zion and therefore it’s an abomination exist is just a testament to judaisms diversity as tolerance(there have been no violent attacks on netura kartei, e.g. just lots of yelling)

    . So, you should lighten up. Besides the Jewish support for Israel, the Christian support, the support of other assorted groups Phil might as well say that support for the combustion engine attached to a drive train and four wheels is built into American culture. And it probably is. Along with mom and Apple pie. As a trusted lawyer always says to calm hot heads down: “it is what it is”

    • Keith
      October 9, 2017, 6:51 pm

      DABAKR- “For a smart guy you can really be a dope sometimes.”

      Really? You have data to suggest that there is no income and wealth difference between Zionist Jews and Non-Zionist Jews? I would love to see it. How about a list of anti-Zionist Jewish billionaires? Zionist websites love to tout all of the Zionist Jewish billionaires. If I am wrong, I will admit it when I see the evidence. Zionist claims are worthless. Show me the data!

      Oh, and what do you mean “sometimes?”

    • Mooser
      October 10, 2017, 11:32 am

      .” Not only will you find most very wealthy Jews in the US are zionist but get this….”

      “Don’t be schtupid! Be a smarty! Come and join the Zionist Party!”

      • DaBakr
        October 10, 2017, 10:30 pm

        @Msr

        . Are you trying to sound like the character on that old American comedy Laugh In? He wrote a Helmut if I remember correctly? Your humour, as always is quite elusive unless it’s in secret de-coder anti-zionist dialect.!

      • Mooser
        October 11, 2017, 11:28 am

        “Dabakr”, everybody gets the reference, it couldn’t lose,half the audience were Jews!

  3. Kay24
    October 9, 2017, 5:33 pm

    It is a man made reservoir created by AIPAC and other Israeli lobbies, who have the Congress and the media in their deep pockets, and the zionists control America and we know it.

    • DaBakr
      October 10, 2017, 10:32 pm

      @k

      I thought it was the gun lobby? ( and Americans like goofing around with military weapons a hell of a lot more then Israelis do. I guess mandatory service helps quelch that societal issue. Same with Swiss, they all have guns stashed deep in their closets but rarely obsess about them)

      Or, the oil lobby? The big pharma lobby? Insurance lobby? Lawyers lobby? Military/industrial arms lobby (almost ALL of which are not controlled by Jews, btw)

      So nice you can simplify things so easily in your true believing mind.

    • Kathleen
      October 12, 2017, 10:24 pm

      How many media host repeat “the U.S. has a very special relationship with Israel, An eternal bond”

  4. Bandolero
    October 9, 2017, 6:05 pm

    What I find interesting that there just happens to be a case out there where the progressive bigotry of the “cultural elite” is in full display. Here is a quote from the Hollywood reporter, 2015:

    … “We’re gonna have to get as organized as the mafia,” the mogul told the audience at the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s national tribute dinner, where he was introduced by friend and competitor Jeffrey Katzenberg as “a really nice Jewish boy.”

    … Weinstein, 63, then went off-script to speak about his father, who was a sergeant stationed in Cairo during World War II. The elder Weinstein aided the Haganah (the precursor to the IDF before Israel was a state) and later taught his sons about anti-Semitism. Weinstein emphasized his concern about anti-Semitism around the world, which Wiesenthal Center studies indicate is at its highest levels since the end of World War II.

    … “I’m upset when I read The Atlantic Monthly’s headline that says, ‘Should the Jews leave Europe?’ — a resounding ‘no’ on my end — and [New York Times columnist] David Brooks today talking about how to combat anti-Semitism,” Weinstein said. “It’s like, here we go again, we’re right back where we were [before the Holocaust]. And the lessons of the past are we better stand up and kick these guys in the ass.”

    … Earlier in the evening, Weinstein was described as “a larger-than-life personality” but also “a really nice Jewish boy” by Katzenberg. The emcee pointed out that Weinstein and his brother, Bob, named their first company, Miramax, after their parents, Miriam and Max, asking — to laughter and applause — “In all the thousands of years and annals of dutiful, nice Jewish boys, how many of them named their company after their parents? C’mon, this is like the ultimate mitzvah!” He also described Weinstein as having “an outsized personality” and “an outsized heart,” and also being “an extraordinary and dedicated philanthropist.”

    … Tuesday’s gala featured the surprise announcement that an additional $50 million has been raised toward construction of a sprawling Museum of Tolerance complex in Jerusalem. Katzenberg announced the new donation, which he said had come together “over the last few months” and gives the center 87 percent of the new campus’ projected cost. …

    And now compare that to a quote from the The Gurdian, 2017:

    “We’re all fucking complicit, and it has to stop,” said Best, who said the accusations against Weinstein were an “open secret” in Hollywood. “The industry at large,” she alleged, “provided shelter for his bad behavior directly and indirectly” by staying silent.

    Will this high-profile case of Zionist bigotry in the cultural sphere make any difference? And, if not, what then? As far as I remember, even the case of Roman Polanski made no difference. Lot’s of people seem to prefer to continue living in a dream world until reality knocks at the door and there’s no way the door can stay closed anymore.

    • marc b.
      October 11, 2017, 12:42 pm

      to be fair to weinstein (who, i presume, shame will drive to commit seppuku) this whole affair smells like the donald sterling controlled demolition. hundreds have known about weinstein the serial rapist for years, but only now have the collective knives come out to dethrone him and leave brother ‘bob’ fully in charge. (now they must publicly piss on the corpse of harvey as an act of fealty to the new creep, who no doubt has been destroying the careers of those who weren’t sufficiently deferential) the hypocrites in the media have turned this into another teaching moment about ‘rape culture’. yeah, sure.

  5. Betty
    October 9, 2017, 7:42 pm

    Zionism is the very successful national liberation movement of the Jewish people, who are indigenous to the Land of Israel. Zion, or Jerusalem, is connected to the liturgy and religious obligation. If you try to categorize and stereotype the Jewish people, you are a fool. People in the US are pro-Israel because they are fair, mostly not anti-Semites, and because it is the right thing to do. There are over 24 failed and undemocratic Arab/Moslem countries, and only one Israel. Get used to it. One million Jews escaped from Arab and African countries, so there was an exchange of populations.
    Stop the lies and propaganda. Israel is forever.

    • Donald Johnson
      October 9, 2017, 11:11 pm

      “One million Jews escaped from Arab and African countries, so there was an exchange of populations.”

      Implicit Nakba denial.

      • yonah fredman
        October 10, 2017, 10:20 am

        Donald- Why is this implicit Nakba denial? I assume that you think that since the expulsion of Palestinians was much more explicitly violent than the departure of Jews from Arab countries that to equate the two is to deny the level of violence involved in the Nakba. But you should be explicit in your reasoning.

      • JeffB
        October 10, 2017, 11:18 am

        @Donald

        How is that Nabka denial even remotely? She’s agreeing it occurred just putting in a frame / context you don’t agree with.

      • Mooser
        October 10, 2017, 12:15 pm

        ” She’s agreeing it occurred just putting in a frame / context you don’t agree with.”

        ‘The question is,’ said “Jeff b Dumpty,” ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

        I wonder if “Jeff b” gave “exchange” a bonus for extra work?

      • Donald Johnson
        October 10, 2017, 7:20 pm

        Yonah—

        I am not going to comment much on what happened to Jews in the various Muslim countries because I don’t know enough. But “ exchange of populations” is a mealy mouthed Orwellian euphemism for a process that involved force and at least 20 massacres of varying sizes if I remember my Benny Morris. I didn’t like it too much in this post when Phil originally spoke of “ colonial targets” without specifying the nature of the target. The one thing that stuck with me when I read most of Orwell’s essays is that these vague fuzzy abstractions are what make atrocities more acceptable.

        Betty is talking about a mass atrocity and making it seem like a rational process where this group moved here and that group moved there. I will leave it to others to talk about the extent to which what happened to Jews in Muslim countries is comparable. In some cases it was voluntary but in others, I have heard, it was like the Nakba. If that is true, two wrongs don’t make a right. No group should be forcibly expelled from their homeland.

    • JosephA
      October 9, 2017, 11:15 pm

      Oh Betty Berenson, where to begin…

      You might want to start by reading a book. Try “Ben Gurion’s Scandals” by Naeim Giladi. I am half way through the book and I can tell you that you have no basis in fact, you are spouting meaningless hasbara.

      P.S. The correct spelling is Muslim.

      P.S. A diamond is forever, Israel not so much.

    • RoHa
      October 9, 2017, 11:31 pm

      “Stop the lies …”

      Could you list those lies, please, so that I can stop telling them?

      ” Israel is forever.”

      Forever? Eternity? You know what the Devil said about that. Nothing lasts that long.

      • JeffB
        October 10, 2017, 11:29 am

        @RoHa

        Sure I can do a list of lies:

        1) That there is anything particularly unusual about how Israel was created. In particular that Europeans didn’t go through the same process centuries ago.

        2) That the definition of state and church that most of Christiandom and the Islamic world utilized until recently is somehow unheard of. In particular that policies that were in effect in many countries up until the 1960s never happened.

        3) That Israel isn’t being singled out and that the fact that people even hear about this tribal in any depth isn’t based on an unhealthy obsession with Jews.

        4) That Israel isn’t being held to an impossible standard not applied to other tribal conflicts.

        5) That there is any meaningful distinction between the population of “Jewish Zionists” and “Jews” in 2017.

        6) The the BDS movement isn’t aimed at intimidating Jews domestically but is somehow aimed at foreign ones who have on involvement.

        7) That Israel does not have a long and successful track record of integrating minorities into its society fully who are willing to be integrated. And moreover is engaging in those activities today.

        8) Lies about the policies of Arab governments during the decades right before and after Israel’s creation.

        9) Lies about the context of Israel’s actions.

        10) Lies about the history of Muslim / Jewish relations n the centuries prior to the creation of Israel.

        11) Lies about the relative military strength of Israel and its choice of tactics.

        Should I keep going?

      • John O
        October 10, 2017, 1:39 pm

        @JeffB

        “@RoHa Sure I can do a list of lies”

        You can do a list, but can you supply examples of these “lies”, as you style them?

      • Mooser
        October 10, 2017, 2:07 pm

        “You can do a list, but can you supply examples of these “lies”, as you style them?”

        He doesn’t have to. As far as “Jeff b” is concerned, they are true because he believes them.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 10, 2017, 4:39 pm

        but can you supply examples of these “lies”, as you style them?

        why bother? half the battle is won if one accepts his framing. the list, as it reads, is slanted. ie: referencing colonization as “tribal conflict” and other bs like that.

        as an aside, when ofcom dismissed all charges against al jazeerah lobby spying investigation: https://theintercept.com/2017/10/09/an-al-jazeera-reporter-went-undercover-with-the-pro-israel-lobby-in-washington/

        It dismissed all charges, which included anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing, and the infringement of privacy.

        It ruled that as per the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s guidance: “It did not consider that such a critical analysis of the actions of a foreign state constituted anti-Semitism, particularly as the overall focus of the programme was to examine whether the State of Israel was acting in a manner that would be expected of other democratic nations.

        i guess the UK wouldn’t like any democratic nations placing undercover spies in the embassy infiltrating student groups to take down british politicians — and it has nothing to do with an “obsession with Jews.” as some people would no doubt have us believe.

      • Mooser
        October 10, 2017, 6:10 pm

        “Sure I can do a list of lies:”

        You forgot ’12) That this isn’t the best of all possible worlds for Zionism!’

      • DaBakr
        October 10, 2017, 10:43 pm

        @jo

        You’ve seen the evidence of lists and the facts that back them up. You simply choose to go with the ‘ facts’ that back up your own preferred version of the narrative you support. MW is already chock full of comments with thirty pages of notations (most which link back to mondoweiss or EI interpretations in the first place and in the second- discredited accounts that were either complete fabrications, distortions or taken out of context.
        . That said, I am not saying I do not believe much of the information that has been published that’s countered a completely pro-israeli Zionist perspective. But then, in Israel, we allow our professors and press shills(g.levy) to print what they want.

        I accept there were atrocities committed by both sides but in general, MW commenters only seem to accept everything ever written, said or done by Israel is a complete fabrication, covert plan , or brainwashing.

      • Mooser
        October 11, 2017, 11:50 am

        “I accept there were atrocities committed by both sides but in general, MW commenters only seem to accept everything ever written, said or done by Israel is a complete fabrication, covert plan , or brainwashing.”

        Yes, I remember that same process happening with Apartheid South Africa. Even with all their gold and diamonds, nobody had a good word to say about them. Israel might want to take warning by that.

      • eljay
        October 11, 2017, 1:01 pm

        || Mooser: … Yes, I remember that same process happening with Apartheid South Africa. Even with all their gold and diamonds, nobody had a good word to say about them. Israel might want to take warning by that. ||

        The way Zionists tell it, Israel has nothing to worry about for the sooner of:
        – another ~930 years; or
        forever minus ~70 years.

    • eljay
      October 10, 2017, 9:08 am

      || Betty: Zionism is the very successful national liberation movement of the Jewish people, who are indigenous to the Land of Israel. … ||

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

      Zionism is not “liberation”. And there is no “Land of Israel”.

      || … Stop the lies and propaganda. … ||

      Yes, please stop.

      || … Israel is forever. ||

      I thought it was a Thousand Years. Either way, that’s a mighty long time.

      • JeffB
        October 11, 2017, 8:18 am

        @Eljay

        And there is no “Land of Israel”.

        What does that even mean? Well over 2/3rds of the regular posters on this board either pro or anti have been there.

      • eljay
        October 11, 2017, 8:41 am

        || JeffB: @Eljay

        And there is no “Land of Israel”.

        What does that even mean? … ||

        You’re funny.  :-)

        || … Well over 2/3rds of the regular posters on this board either pro or anti have been there. ||

        To Israel? Sure. I never said Israel didn’t exist.

      • Mooser
        October 11, 2017, 11:18 am

        ” Well over 2/3rds of the regular posters on this board either pro or anti have been there.” “Jeff b”

        To Israel? We’ll see about this.

        Liar! I checked, and using the same exact travel records you did, and get a total no higher than 57.5%. (2/3 is about 66%)

        Or is calculating percentages your problem?

    • Misterioso
      October 10, 2017, 10:37 am

      @Betty

      To be brief:
      When Polish born David Ben-Gurion (nee, David Gruen) et al. declared the “Jewish State” of Israel effective 15 May 1948, Jewish forces had already dispossessed and expelled 400,000 Palestinians through overwhelming armed might, several massacres, mass rape and intimidation – e.g., 30,000 from West Jerusalem in March (and a further 30,000 in May), 60,000 from Haifa in April, 75,000 from Jaffa in late April and early May.)  As  result, the UNGA was in the process of shelving the Partition Plan in favor of a UN Trusteeship.

      When war erupted due to necessary intervention by reluctant outnumbered/outgunned Arab state armies to stem the accelerating expulsion of Palestinians, a US proposed cease-fire was accepted by the Arab League but rejected by Israel.

      During the war Israel’s forces seized 78% of Palestine (22% more than the Partition Plan recommended, including large portions of the proposed Palestinian state, e.g., Jaffa), expelled 400,000 more Palestinians for a total of about 800,000 and went on to destroy over 500 of their towns and villages, including churches, mosques and cemeteries. 

      BTW: To quote John H. Davis, who served as Commission General of UNRWA at the time: “An exhaustive examination of the minutes, resolutions, and press releases of the Arab League, of the files of leading Arabic newspapers, of day-to-day monitoring of broadcasts from Arab capitals and secret Arab radio stations, failed to reveal a single reference, direct or indirect, to an order given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave. All the evidence is to the contrary; that the Arab authorities continuously exhorted the Palestinian Arabs not to leave the country…. Panic and bewilderment played decisive parts in the flight. But the extent to which the refugees were savagely driven out by the Israelis as part of a deliberate master-plan has been insufficiently recognized.” (John H. Davis, The Evasive Peace, London: Murray, 1968) 

      It was only the beginning of the Zionist’s conquest of Palestine and the expulsion of its indigenous Arab inhabitants.  Just prior to and during Israel’s first invasion of Egypt in 1956 in collusion with Britain and France, about 25,000 Palestinians were driven out as were  a further 250,000 during and after the war Israel launched on 5 June 1967.

      To quote Yehouda Shenhav, of Iraqi Jewish heritage and professor of sociology and anthropology at Tel Aviv University: “Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi [Arab] Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine….Those who left did not do so of their own volition.  In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations.” (Ha’aretz, 8 October 2004.)

      Also:
      Historian, Avi Shlaim, born into an affluent and influential family in Baghdad: “We are not refugees, nobody expelled us from Iraq, nobody told us that we were unwanted.  But we are the victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict.” (Ha’aretz, August 11, 2005) 

      Yisrael Yeshayahu, speaker of the Knesset: “We are not refugees…. We had messianic aspirations.”

      Shlomo Hillel, former minister and speaker of the Knesset: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

      During a Knesset hearing into the matter, Ran Cohen, member of the Knesset: “I am not a refugee….I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.”
      (Ha’aretz, October 8, 2004)

      It should not be forgotten that after being rejected twice, Israel signed the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference Protocol and also declared before the UN General Assembly that it would comply with UN Resolution 194 (which calls for the repatriation of and/or compensation for the then near 800,000 Palestinian refugees dispossessed and expelled before and during the 1948 war) as a precondition for gaining UN admittance (see UNGA Resolution 273, 11 May 1949.) Israel is the only country admitted to the UN subject to a precondition.  It has since refused to comply with its pledge.

      The bottom line is that while well over one million Palestinians were brutally expelled from their homeland by Jewish militias and the IDF, they played no role whatsoever in the emigration of or any ill treatment and or loss of assets that Jews of Arab origin may have experienced in their former homelands.  In short, apples and oranges.

      • JeffB
        October 10, 2017, 11:41 am

        @Misterioso and Betty

        OK let’s go through the issues with this.

        1) If the Arab armies are vastly inferior why are the casualty numbers so similar? When grossly mismatched armies meet you often seen casualty discrepancies in the range of 20::1 – 300::1. Similarly why did the Arab armies claim they were going to be easily victorious?

        2) The first 350k Palestinians were not forcibly expelled. They simply fled a war that everyone knew was going to happen. There were forcible expulsions prior to the Arab intervention.

        3) The context was a brutal ethnic war the Palestinians had started. We know this because there was 100% ethnic cleansing of Jews in areas under Arab control. You all like to forget to mention that part.

        4) Your assymetric quote makes no sense. Jews in Arab lands didn’t want to leave either. We’ve now had about 40 countries emptied of their Jewish population. When there is not a surge in antisemitism Jews remain. The Jews were forced or at least pushed out by their state. However there it does become asymmetric. There were mostly treated well by Israel and are now integrated. Many Palestinians were not resettled as a matter of policy. That’s not Israel’s doing.

        5) Resolution 194 requires the refugees to be willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Something the Palestinians even in 2017 have been unwilling structurally to do. More importantly during the 1940s the policy of Arab governments was not recognition of Israel and peaceful resettlements of Palestinians but rather conquest, depopulating the Jews and replacement by Palestinians. Essentially the BDS program. The Palestinians were in a state of active hostilities towards the country they wished to move back into.

      • John O
        October 10, 2017, 1:44 pm

        @JeffB

        “The first 350k Palestinians were not forcibly expelled. They simply fled a war that everyone knew was going to happen.”

        Clearly, in your view, the *threat* of deadly force doesn’t count. If the Palestinians wanted to have a cast-iron case against Israel, they should have waited until the bullets and bombs flew. Perhaps they just loved their children too much to have them massacred by the various terrorist gangs that formed what is now euphemistically known as the IDF.

      • Citizen
        October 10, 2017, 2:12 pm

        From Wikipedia:
        Iraqi-born Ran Cohen, a former member of the Knesset, said: “I have this to say: I am not a refugee. I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.” Yemeni-born Yisrael Yeshayahu, former Knesset speaker, Labor Party, stated: “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.” And Iraqi-born Shlomo Hillel, also a former speaker of the Knesset, Labor Party, claimed: “I do not regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

        Historian Tom Segev stated: “Deciding to emigrate to Israel was often a very personal decision. It was based on the particular circumstances of the individual’s life. They were not all poor, or ‘dwellers in dark caves and smoking pits’. Nor were they always subject to persecution, repression or discrimination in their native lands. They emigrated for a variety of reasons, depending on the country, the time, the community, and the person.”

        Iraqi-born Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, speaking of the wave of Iraqi Jewish migration to Israel, concludes that, even though Iraqi Jews were “victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict”, Iraqi Jews aren’t refugees, saying “nobody expelled us from Iraq, nobody told us that we were unwanted.” He restated that case in a review of Martin Gilbert’s book, In Ishmael’s House.

        Yehuda Shenhav has criticized the analogy between Jewish emigration from Arab countries and the Palestinian exodus. He also says “The unfounded, immoral analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi immigrants needlessly embroils members of these two groups in a dispute, degrades the dignity of many Mizrahi Jews, and harms prospects for genuine Jewish-Arab reconciliation.” He has stated that “the campaign’s proponents hope their efforts will prevent conferral of what is called a ‘right of return’ on Palestinians, and reduce the size of the compensation Israel is liable to be asked to pay in exchange for Palestinian property appropriated by the state guardian of ‘lost’ assets.”

        Israeli historian Yehoshua Porath has rejected the comparison, arguing that while there is a superficial similarity, the ideological and historical significance of the two population movements are entirely different. Porath points out that the immigration of Jews from Arab countries to Israel, expelled or not, was the “fulfilment of a national dream”. He also argues that the achievement of this Zionist goal was only made possible through the endeavors of the Jewish Agency’s agents, teachers, and instructors working in various Arab countries since the 1930s. Porath contrasts this with the Palestinian Arabs’ flight of 1948 as completely different. He describes the outcome of the Palestinian’s flight as an “unwanted national calamity” that was accompanied by “unending personal tragedies”. The result was “the collapse of the Palestinian community, the fragmentation of a people, and the loss of a country that had in the past been mostly Arabic-speaking and Islamic. ”
        (Source footnotes excluded)

      • Misterioso
        October 10, 2017, 2:43 pm

        @JeffB

        To be brief:
        By late March 1948, the superiority of Israeli forces and the territorial objectives of the Jewish Agency were known to British and American officials. “Harold Beeley, a British representative at the United Nations (specializing in Palestinian affairs), reported to Loy Henderson, the State Department official responsible for the Middle East, that the Israeli forces were markedly superior and that it was their plan to exploit that advantage in an effort to expand beyond the territory allotted to them in the [Partition Plan].” (George and Douglas Ball, The Passionate Attachment, p. 24)

        George Marshall, the United States Secretary of State and author of the Marshall Plan for Europe, assessed the Arab states’ degree of military preparedness.  (As a former United States Army Chief of Staff he was certainly qualified to do so.)  On May 12, he stated that “internal weaknesses in various Arab countries make it difficult for them to act. [Iraq can] send only a handful of troops; [Egypt has] insufficient equipment [which in any case is needed] for police duty at home.”  He described Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia as militarily unimportant and pointed out that “jealousies between Saudi Arabia and the Syrians, on one hand, and… Transjordan and Iraq, on the other, prevent the Arabs from making best use of existing forces.”  (Foreign Relations of the United States  Documents  1948, vol. 5,part 2, p. 1158)

        General John Bagot Glubb (Glubb Pasha), the British commander of Transjordan’s Legion, calculated that the total number of troops committed by the Arabs on 15 May 1948 was 21,500 and those of the Jews numbered 65,000 (i.e. Haganah plus others).  (Simah Flapan, The Birth of Israel….p. 195-96)

        Just how unprepared for war the Arab regular armies were (other than Jordan’s experienced, but poorly armed small Arab Legion), is well revealed by the comments of Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, Egypt’s foremost journalist and political commentator: “[On May 15] I went to Gaza….There I found that the Egyptian army had entered Palestine.  But no one seemed to realize that they were entering a war, nor were there enough maps of Palestine for the troops.  Worse, the troops were transported in old and broken tourist cars provided by a travel agency.  They did not know the directions, so they were forced to follow the railroad track.  The Egyptian army entered the war without really knowing what it was facing.” (“Interview with Mohamed Hassanein Heikal: Reflections on a Nation in Crisis, 1948;” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XVlll, Autumn, 1988, p. 117)     

        On May 15, a total of just under 14,000 soldiers from Egypt (2800), Syria (1876), Jordan (4500), Iraq (4000) and Lebanon (700) along with a token contingent from Saudi Arabia under Egyptian command entered Palestine to join forces with poorly armed ALA volunteers and nearly 2500 Palestinian irregulars, bringing the total number of Arab troops in the country to slightly more than 20,000. 

        Waiting for the Arab forces were at least 27,000 well armed first-line Haganah troops (including 8000 in the Palmach). The Jewish Agency also had under its command an additional 90,000 fighters made up of some 55,000 second-line reserves in the Settlement Police, Youth Battalions and Garrisons along with about 35,000 in the Home Guard, the Irgun and the Stern Gang.

        Except for a minor defensive bridgehead established and held by Syrian forces in the upper Jordan valley, the Arab state armies never managed to successfully carry the battle into the Partition Plan’s designated Jewish state throughout the entire war.  (Jon and David Kimche, Both Sides of the Hill; London Secker & Warburg, 1960, pp. 172-73;  Balls, The Passionate Attachment, p. 318)  

        On 5 December 1947, Ben-Gurion, leader of the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine), ordered “immediate action to expand Jewish settlement in three areas assigned to the Arab state: the South West (Negev), the South-East (Etzion bloc) and Western Galilee.” (Political and Diplomatic Documents of the Jewish Agency, 1947- 48, no. 12).  Thus, Ben-Gurion revealed that the Jewish Agency had no intention of abiding by the terms of the Partition Plan and was preparing for the conquest of Palestine.

        In his 13 December 1947 dispatch to London, Sir Alan Cunningham, the British High Commissioner to Palestine blamed the Yishuv for the deteriorating situation, including loss of life: “The initial Arab outbreaks were spontaneous and unorganized and were more demonstrations of displeasures at the UN decision than determined attacks on Jews. The weapons initially employed [by Palestinians] were sticks and stones and had it not been for Jewish resource to firearms, it is not impossible that the excitement would have subsided and little loss of life caused…. [T]here is reliable evidence that the Arab Higher Committee as a whole and the Mufti in particular, were not in favour of serious outbreaks.” (MEC: Cunningham Papers, box 2, file 3)

        Ben-Gurion agreed with Cunningham. In a letter dated 15 December 1947 to Moshe Sharett, head of the political department of the Jewish Agency, he stated: “The [Palestinian] peasant masses are not taking part in the riots.” Three months later [i.e. March, 1948], in a letter to Sharett and Golda Meir he observed: “The [Palestinian] Arabs in their great majority are not seeking war with us.”

        In December 1947, shortly after Britain’s announcement that it intended to withdraw from Palestine beginning 15 May 1948, Ben-Gurion directed the Irgunists, Sternists and Palmach to increase the ferocity of their strikes against Palestinian Arabs.  He ordered that “in each attack, a decisive blow should be struck, resulting in the destruction of homes and the expulsion of the population.” (Ben-Gurion’s Diary-in Hebrew, vol. 1, 19 December 1947) The Zionists were implementing what they called Plans A, B and C or Tochnit May (Plan May), more commonly known as Plan Gimmel.  Its objectives were to buy time for the mobilization of Jewish forces by seizing strategic points the British vacated and to terrorize the Palestinian population into submission. (Harvard Professor Walid Khalidi, Haven to Conquest, p.lxxix)

        Haifa, April, 1948: Aware of the atrocities Jewish forces had committed elsewhere, Haifa’s Arabs feared massacre and rape if they fell into the hands of the invaders. Thus, panic stricken and screaming “Deir Yassin” (as Irgun leader, Menachem Begin proudly recalled in his memoirs), thousands of men, women, and children in “whatever transport they could find, many of them on foot – men, women, and children – moved in a mass exodus toward the port area….” (John Quigley, Palestine and Israel…, p. 60)

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

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

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

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

        By the first week of May, between 175,000 and 200,000 Palestinians had fled from Zionist forces into the West Bank or other Arab countries (Professor Walid Khalidi, Harvard, Before Their Diaspora, p. 319)

        April: With Jaffa (part of UNGA Res. 181’s proposed Palestinian state) cut off from the rest of Palestine by advancing Jewish forces who controlled the Jerusalem highway, civilians could only escape the relentless mortar barrage by sea. Shell-shocked and panic stricken, thousands of them jammed the port looking for any type of craft (even row boats) that could take them to Gaza or Lebanon and while they waited, many were cold-bloodedly murdered by Irgun snipers. 

        While Jaffa was under attack Zionist forces were also assaulting other cities and driving out the Arab populations.  At the end of April, Haganah and Irgun troops began a siege of the ancient Crusader fortified city of Acre (which along with western Galilee was to be within the Partition Plan’s proposed Palestinian state).  As well as its normal population of about 16,000 (including 3,000 Jews), Acre was packed with thousands of refugees from Haifa and elsewhere, bringing the total number in the city to over 40,000. 

        According to Lieutenant Petite, a United Nations observer who visited Acre some time later, the Israeli army engaged in wanton looting of Arab homes which was part of “a Jewish plan to prevent the return of refugees.”  (Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe, p.119).  He also reported that at least 100 of the Arabs remaining in Acre were murdered by Israeli soldiers because they refused to voluntarily move out of their homes into what would become an Arab ghetto in the old part of the city. (ibid)  

        By the first week of May, between 175,000 and 200,000 Palestinians had fled from Zionist forces into the West Bank or other Arab countries. (Professor Walid Khalidi, Harvard, Before Their Diaspora, p. 319)  

        It was Jewish forces in Palestine who expelled the native Palestinians.  Palestinian Arabs had no role whatsoever in the departure, for whatever reasons, of Arab Jews from their countries to Israel and elsewhere. For you to in essence, rationalize the dispossession and expulsion by Jewish armed forces of what would be well over one million Palestinians by 1967 by comparing it to the departure of Arab Jews from their countries of birth is absurd. To repeat, apples and oranges.

        Yes, Palestinian refugees who would have returned to Israel per Res. 194 would have had to agree to live in peace.  However, this outcome was utterly thwarted by Israel’s refusal to live up to its commitment to comply with the precondition for gaining UN admittance, i.e., adherence to Res. 194. To state the obvious, Israel should have long since had its UN membership suspended. 

      • Keith
        October 10, 2017, 4:37 pm

        MISTERIOSO- re: comment @ 10:37am and comment @ 2:43pm

        Two very impressive comments! Actual history with references, something the Zionists never provide.

      • Keith
        October 10, 2017, 4:55 pm

        JEFFB- ” If the Arab armies are vastly inferior why are the casualty numbers so similar?”

        Are they? As usual, you provide no references. The US being what it is and the Internet being what it is, most of the information provided will be highly prejudicial in favor of Israel. And I have little confidence in the Jewish Virtual Library on this issue. Besides, most of the Arab casualties involved civilians and Arab volunteers, the actual “Arab armies” playing it safe. The ethnic cleansing and murder started well before the pathetic intervention of the Arab armies. I doubt that the future Israeli Jews were overly concerned with providing an accurate body count of dead Arabs, except for Deir Yassin which may have been exaggerated to promote terror.

      • Mooser
        October 10, 2017, 5:16 pm

        “Two very impressive comments!”

        I wish “Jeff b” would take a few tips from “Misterioso” on writing longer comments which hold together, support a point, and most of all, make sense.

      • JeffB
        October 11, 2017, 4:46 am

        @Keith

        JEFFB- ” If the Arab armies are vastly inferior why are the casualty numbers so similar?”

        Are they? As usual, you provide no references.

        Not a hard number to get. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War
        From the point the Arab armies enter 6,373 die. The Arabs lose somewhere between 3700-7000. The Palestinians don’t have uniforms but lose about 6500 plus or minus a few thousand in terms of fighters. Which means the kill ratio is about 2::1 not what you would see from a vastly superior army or anything close to it.

        The US being what it is and the Internet being what it is, most of the information provided will be highly prejudicial in favor of Israel.

        I think that’s paranoia. But if it were true it would work in the opposite direction. The myth is about a divinely ordained victory over 6 armies. Making the ratio as large as possible is consistent with the myth.

        And I have little confidence in the Jewish Virtual Library on this issue. Besides, most of the Arab casualties involved civilians and Arab volunteers, the actual “Arab armies” playing it safe.

        Not according to the figures.

        The ethnic cleansing and murder started well before the pathetic intervention of the Arab armies.

        What happened prior isn’t relevant to whether the kill ratio is close to 1::1. The claim Misterioso keeps making is that the 1 day old Israeli army is so vastly superior to 6 Arab armies one should barely consider it a victory at all.

      • JeffB
        October 11, 2017, 8:21 am

        @John

        JeffB: “The first 350k Palestinians were not forcibly expelled. They simply fled a war that everyone knew was going to happen.”

        JohnO: Clearly, in your view, the *threat* of deadly force doesn’t count.

        The claim was they were forced out by Israelis. The truth is that first 350k left prior to the war starting and/or when there was just sporadic terrorism. A war incidentally the Palestinians thought they would win. People leaving a territory to avoid a war were not forced out by one side. So no, it doesn’t count.

      • John O
        October 11, 2017, 11:40 am

        JeffB:

        “The claim was they were forced out by Israelis. The truth is that first 350k left prior to the war starting and/or when there was just sporadic terrorism. A war incidentally the Palestinians thought they would win. People leaving a territory to avoid a war were not forced out by one side. So no, it doesn’t count.”

        Someone forced the first 350k to leave. If you read Tom Suarez’s book, you will see that what you describe as “sporadic terrorism” was a years long campaign of almost daily bombings, shootings, arson and intimidation – including against Jewish Palestinians who refused to co-operate with the Zionists (and never forget, the highest death toll of any of these acts of terrorism was when the SS Patria was bombed at Haifa in 1940, killing 267 Jewish refugees from Europe).

        Let us assume that the total number of Palestinians who left their homes in that period was 750k. What of the 400k who didn’t leave before the war?

        As for your argument that people leaving a territory before a war were not forced out by one side, would you not agree that they were forced to flee by those who were threatening that territory, whether or not the bullets and bombs had started to fly?

      • JeffB
        October 11, 2017, 1:24 pm

        @John O

        As for your argument that people leaving a territory before a war were not forced out by one side, would you not agree that they were forced to flee by those who were threatening that territory, whether or not the bullets and bombs had started to fly?

        Now we get to a perfect example of the double standard as per my list to RoHa. Because you just made a mistake and we are going to watch the standard suddenly change. In 1947 and early 1948 the Jews were not “threatening the territory”. They were part of a diplomatic process that while not entirely meeting their needs they were willing to accept. The group threatening war were the Palestinians and the Arab league. It was the Arab side asserting that partition was a great injustice they were going to violent resist.

        So we know if had been the Jews under your standard they are responsible for the ethnic cleansing. Go check all the facts and you’ll see that the Palestinians and the Arab league are responsible by the standard you just cited.

        JeffB: “The claim was they were forced out by Israelis. The truth is that first 350k left prior to the war starting and/or when there was just sporadic terrorism. A war incidentally the Palestinians thought they would win. People leaving a territory to avoid a war were not forced out by one side. So no, it doesn’t count.”

        John O: Someone forced the first 350k to leave.

        No one forced the 350k to leave. They made a quite reasonable decision that being in the country for what was shaping up to be an all out nasty ethnic war was probably a dumb idea and got out. Completely sensible choice. But they weren’t forced out by either side IMHO. OTOH by your standard they were forced out by the belligerent party which was the Arab league and the Palestinians.

        If you read Tom Suarez’s book, you will see that what you describe as “sporadic terrorism” was a years long campaign of almost daily bombings, shootings, arson and intimidation –

        I’m not sure I know what you are talking about. There is a 1 month period where there is Jewish on Arab terrorism between Nov 30 1947 through early Jan 1948. That’s it. It mostly Arab rioting and reprisals. Feb 22, 1948 you have troops engaging each other so that’s not terrorism anymore. For example one of the largest areas of flight was Jerusalem. That was under blockade by al-Husayni. In March the Haganah tries to take the city and fails (another example of how the Jewish forces were not vastly superior) losing most of their semi-armored vehicles. If the Yishuv army can’t get into the city how could they be the ones responsible for the flight from Jerusalem?

        including against Jewish Palestinians who refused to co-operate with the Zionists (and never forget, the highest death toll of any of these acts of terrorism was when the SS Patria was bombed at Haifa in 1940, killing 267 Jewish refugees from Europe).

        What does a bombing in 1940 protesting British immigration policy have to do with 1947-8? And that the Haganah had done it was not known until 1957. This point doesn’t make sense.

        Let us assume that the total number of Palestinians who left their homes in that period was 750k. What of the 400k who didn’t leave before the war?

        Mixture of things. Single biggest reason was ethnic cleansing. Both sides at that point had a policy of cleansing territory they took control of. And the Yishuv had prepared detailed maps starting in 1942. Also remember that as Czechoslovakia armed the Yishuv/Israel and the Arab armies entered the war the intensity was quite a bit higher than the civilians had probably imagined it would be a year early. They had banked on militia against militia and this was army against army. Neither side was being too careful to make sure Palestinians didn’t get killed. I can understand why they fled.

        Again though this isn’ t the group being talked about. It is the first 350k that I was objecting to characterizing as ethnic cleansing not the 2nd 400k.

      • Keith
        October 11, 2017, 6:34 pm

        JEFFB- “Not a hard number to get.”

        Ah, a Wikipedia scholar! Your questionable source indicates 6373 Jewish Zionists killed versus a total of 6700 – 20,000 Arabs killed. The huge variation in deaths suggests that the estimate is at best dubious. Yet, you hang your hat on it. To what purpose? Misterioso has provided numerous documented quotes that indicate that the future Israelis could be confident of success in their ethnic cleansing operation. So much so that even after the “Arab armies” entered Palestine to protect their fellow Arabs from massacres and ethnic cleansing, the Zionists were still able to continue their planned cleansing of Palestine, utilizing only a part of their forces to check the ineffectual Arab armies. How many battles did the Arabs win? Did they drive the Jews back? What does that suggest? The Zionist military forces essentially achieved their objectives due to their superiority over the Arabs. A quote for you:

        “In other words, during the early stages of the ethnic cleansing (until May 1948), a few thousand irregular Palestinians and Arabs were facing tens of thousands of well-trained Jewish troops. As the next stages evolved, a Jewish force of almost double the number of Arab armies combined had little trouble completing the job.” (p45, “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” Ilan Pappe)

        JEFFB- ” The myth is about a divinely ordained victory over 6 armies. Making the ratio as large as possible is consistent with the myth.”

        Actually, the myth is that Israel faces an existential threat from hordes of Arabs who want to throw the Jews into the sea. Downplaying the number of Arabs slaughtered during the Nakba is consistent with the myth of little Israel fighting for survival.

      • John O
        October 12, 2017, 8:50 am

        @JeffB

        “What does a bombing in 1940 protesting British immigration policy have to do with 1947-8? And that the Haganah had done it was not known until 1957. This point doesn’t make sense.”

        My point was that your claim that before 1947-8 there was only “sporadic terrorism” is wrong. Zionist conducted a campaign of constant, serious and indiscriminate terrorism for almost as long as they had been immigrating into Palestine. That they would target a ship carrying Jews to safety from Hitler’s Europe almost beggars belief. Yet, Haganah did it; the fact that this was not confirmed until the perpetrator admitted it in 1957 is irrelevant.

      • JeffB
        October 12, 2017, 10:36 am

        @John

        JeffB: “What does a bombing in 1940 protesting British immigration policy have to do with 1947-8? And that the Haganah had done it was not known until 1957. This point doesn’t make sense.”

        John O: My point was that your claim that before 1947-8 there was only “sporadic terrorism” is wrong.

        That was in the context of the migration. There was no migration in 1940. There was pretty serious violence 1937-9.

        Zionist conducted a campaign of constant, serious and indiscriminate terrorism for almost as long as they had been immigrating into Palestine.

        Let’s start with the weakest point, indiscriminate. I’d argue the Zionist terrorism was highly focused and purposeful achieving major territorial objectives with a low loss of life. I’d like you to make a case for indiscriminate.

        That they would target a ship carrying Jews to safety from Hitler’s Europe almost beggars belief.

        The ship was being turned away and the refugees sent back. By disabling the ship they got the refugees sent to Palestine. 81% were alive and legally in Palestine by August 1945. Moreover since the refugees were blamed it increased British belief in Jewish fanaticism about Palestine. It increased the belief of some British that there could not be a peaceful solution without Jewish emigration that this would become an unsolvable problem unless immigration were opened.

        But more importantly the incident hit global news, especially American news, that the Britain was sending people back to concentration camps. America in 1940 was still trying to decide whether to be on the side of the Allies, strictly neutral, or neutral biased towards the axis. One of the strongest cases Britain had was their moral superiority. That Hitler was a unique evil (an argument they won but hadn’t won in 1940). By demonstrating British complicity in Hitler (what was evolving towards and would quickly become the extermination program) the Zionist put tremendous pressure on Britain. They would have to stop talking out of both sides of their mouth on the issue of Jewish resettlement. They would likely have to stop supporting rescue in theory, while opposing it in practice.

        Publicity stunts to raise awareness is exactly the sort of thing activists do all the time. Pressuring enemies is exactly the sort of thing guerillas and governments do all the time. I’m hard pressed to see how that is remotely indiscriminate. It was extremely effective.

        Stepping aside and making a moral case. Governments have to make choices about whether to lose their own people to achieve strategic objectives for the nation. That is one of the primary purposes of government. The British government had done that for the British people in deciding to fight World War 2. As the government of the Jews the Haganah was entitled to endanger specific Jews to achieve collective interests. But even if that were not the case, by 1940 the policy that a Jew in Palestine was under Haganah discipline was well established policy. When the refugees boarded that ship they accepted Haganah rule.

      • John O
        October 12, 2017, 2:04 pm

        @JeffB

        “Indiscriminate”

        In the narrowest dictionary definition of “indiscriminate” – lacking in judgement or purpose – you are correct: the Zionist terrorists had a goal and their actions were in pursuit of that goal. In the context of conflict, however, “indiscriminate” has a wider, pejorative, meaning – a failure to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants – as I am sure you must be aware.
        “[A]chieving major territorial objectives with a low loss of life”. Did the terrorists consider achieving their objectives with no loss of life? Did they consider the morality of having major territorial objectives in a land where many of them were recent immigrants?

        “The ship was being turned away and the refugees sent back.”

        Untrue. Its destination was Mauritius, in the Indian Ocean.

        “… since the refugees were blamed it increased British belief in Jewish fanaticism about Palestine.”

        And you’re OK that the end justifies the means?

        “By demonstrating British complicity in Hitler (what was evolving towards and would quickly become the extermination program) the Zionist put tremendous pressure on Britain.”

        In November 1940, Britain (and its empire) stood alone against Nazism and was suffering grievously for it: with the exception of the Battle of Britain and some naval actions in the Mediterranean, Britain was being regularly defeated. The Zionist pressure on Britain was not helpful to the defeat of Nazism, but, hey, I guess the end justifies the means.

        “Publicity stunts” – quite a novel redefinition of murder.

        “… by 1940 the policy that a Jew in Palestine was under Haganah discipline was well established policy. When the refugees boarded that ship they accepted Haganah rule.”

        Have you asked them?

      • Keith
        October 12, 2017, 4:48 pm

        JEFFB- ” I’d argue the Zionist terrorism was highly focused and purposeful achieving major territorial objectives with a low loss of life.”

        I agree with the highly focused and purposeful, but low loss of life? You need to provide some support for your contention that the intentional commission of numerous massacres resulted in a “low loss of Life.”

      • JeffB
        October 12, 2017, 4:50 pm

        @JohnO

        “Indiscriminate” In the narrowest dictionary definition of “indiscriminate” – lacking in judgement or purpose – you are correct: the Zionist terrorists had a goal and their actions were in pursuit of that goal.

        OK good that’s progress. Now let’s move onto “constant”. I’ll assert that Jewish terror is highly non constant and situational. That the levels of Jewish terror have huge non-random swings year to year. Precisely the opposite of constant. Most of the time there is little if any. There is a big spike in 1937 against the Palestinians and a big spike after WW2 against the British. There is a spike for a month or so in 1947 but that turns into full on armed conflict quickly.

        In the context of conflict, however, “indiscriminate” has a wider, pejorative, meaning – a failure to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants – as I am sure you must be aware.

        That’s true for a military. The goal of the Irgun and the Lehi was not defeat British Army militarily. They couldn’t win that war. The goal was to drive up the cost of the occupation both political and financial. I’d argue they were doing that.

        “[A]chieving major territorial objectives with a low loss of life”. Did the terrorists consider achieving their objectives with no loss of life?

        Yes. It most certainly was considered by Jews (obviously not by terrorists). Up until the 1920s when the British started restricted immigration and were rather indifferent towards Palestinian slaughters of Jewish immigrants. Then the policy changed. Zionists have consistently proven willing to pursue peaceful when they are effective. They have proven willing to utilize violent means when peaceful means prove ineffective.

        Did they consider the morality of having major territorial objectives in a land where many of them were recent immigrants?

        Of course. Considered and agreed to.

        “… since the refugees were blamed it increased British belief in Jewish fanaticism about Palestine.”

        And you’re OK that the end justifies the means?

        Yes I’m OK with that. Yes I support what the Zionists did. They freed the Jews from 1900 years of horror. I see a record of very ethical people making reasonable choices given a bad situation. That’s not to say all choices were perfect, but I’m very hard pressed when I look at Yishuv or Israeli history to see widespread violence that is beyond what is probably required to achieve the objective. I see a tremendously ethical record.

        One can look at the Roma which are another group of Europeans that are similarly hated. The Nazis wiped out 1/2 the Roma. And yet they still live in fear and suffering in Europe. Like 19th century Jews they do well in the USA but there is no hope of the USA absorbing the entire population.

        “By demonstrating British complicity in Hitler (what was evolving towards and would quickly become the extermination program) the Zionist put tremendous pressure on Britain.”

        In November 1940, Britain (and its empire) stood alone against Nazism and was suffering grievously for it: with the exception of the Battle of Britain and some naval actions in the Mediterranean, Britain was being regularly defeated. The Zionist pressure on Britain was not helpful to the defeat of Nazism,

        The Zionists did not consider defeating Nazism the primary goal they were trying to save Jews. Britain locking Jews into Holocaust countries so as to maintain the Arab alliance resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews while simultaneously making Britain more able to defeat the Nazis. There is a conflict of interests there in terms of priorities. Both sides wanted Britain to defeat the Nazis, both sides were opposed to the mass extermination. But in the end Britain eliminated alternatives to mass extermination, in their goal of defeating the Nazis.

        The Zionists were right to be on the British side, but don’t confuse that with 100% agreement over tactics and ends. And BTW there is a good example of where your country did what you are so upset about regarding dozens of people to millions.

        “… by 1940 the policy that a Jew in Palestine was under Haganah discipline was well established policy. When the refugees boarded that ship they accepted Haganah rule.”

        Have you asked them?

        Yes. There is no shortage of books and memoirs from that generation. That generation was the height of Israeli patriotism. They understood without a moment’s doubt what the alternative to Israel is.

      • Keith
        October 12, 2017, 8:11 pm

        JEFFB- “The Zionists did not consider defeating Nazism the primary goal they were trying to save Jews.”

        The Zionists were primarily concerned with what they euphemistically describe as the national redemption of the Jewish people, that is, reestablishing Jewish tribalism on a secular blood and soil basis. Zionism was NOT about refugeeism and saving individual Jews. Palestine was totally inadequate to handle the large number of refugees that would have entailed. That is one reason why, in spite of immigration restrictions, more Jews went to the US and Britain and other countries than to Palestine. A lot more. We have been over this before, yet you doggedly stick to the same BS. When are you going to grow an honest bone in your body?

      • JeffB
        October 13, 2017, 6:10 am

        @Keith

        The Zionists were primarily concerned with what they euphemistically describe as the national redemption of the Jewish people, that is, reestablishing Jewish tribalism on a secular blood and soil basis. Zionism was NOT about refugeeism and saving individual Jews.

        Refugees were Jews, the Zionists wanted Jews. I’d agree the focus is not on individuals but if you save large groups those groups are composed of individuals. I’m not even sure what the distinction would be.

        Palestine was totally inadequate to handle the large number of refugees that would have entailed.

        We know that’s not true because from 1945 on Palestine does handle large number of refugees who are far poorer than the refugees from the late 1930s would have been. I don’t see evidence that this couldn’t have been done.

        I’m not being dishonest, I just disagree with you.

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2017, 12:54 pm

        ” When are you going to grow an honest bone in your body?”

        I’d like to see him develop at least a rudimentary self-consciousness.

        It never occurs to “Jeff b” the reaction to his “I am the Jews” schtik might be any less than adulatory.

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2017, 2:00 pm

        “Ah, a Wikipedia scholar!”

        He’s assisted by Artificial Intelligence!

      • John O
        October 13, 2017, 2:57 pm

        @JeffB

        ‘“… by 1940 the policy that a Jew in Palestine was under Haganah discipline was well established policy. When the refugees boarded that ship they accepted Haganah rule.”

        ‘Have you asked them?

        ‘Yes. There is no shortage of books and memoirs from that generation. That generation was the height of Israeli patriotism. They understood without a moment’s doubt what the alternative to Israel is.’

        I, of course, was talking about the refugees on board the SS Patria, not the entire generation of Jewish immigrants to Palestine. But, you knew that, didn’t you? European Jews, desperate to escape from the Nazis, arrive in Haifa , only to find themselves treated as cannon fodder in the Zionists campaign to drive the British out of Palestine so that they could take over the land. And they willingly let themselves be sacrificed for that end. How likely is that?

      • Keith
        October 13, 2017, 4:00 pm

        JEFFB- “I’m not being dishonest….”

        Sure you are. You may not think you are, but you are engaging in pilpul where truth is what works. This will become obvious as I discuss your dishonest comment.

        JEFFB- “We know that’s not true because from 1945 on Palestine does handle large number of refugees who are far poorer than the refugees from the late 1930s would have been.”

        Israel only begins to handle “large numbers” of immigrants after 1948 when all of those Palestinian homes had been emptied of their occupants, farms seized, etc. During the 1930s, there is no way that the Jewish controlled infrastructure in Palestine could have held massive numbers of Jewish refugees. Only an effort at saving refugees and relocating them (at least temporarily) in the Western countries could have saved significant numbers of Jews. It would also have doomed Zionism which is why the Zionists basically opposed rescue efforts. “Yitzhak Gruenbaum, the chairperson of the committee set up by the Zionists, nominally to investigate the condition of European Jews, said:

        “When they come to us with two plans–the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land–I vote, without a second thought, for the redemption of the land. The more said about the slaughter of our people, the greater the minimization of our efforts to strengthen and promote the Hebraisation of the land.” (p51, “The Hidden History of Zionism,” Ralph Schoenman)

        “Berel Katznelson, editor of the Labor Zionist “Davar,” described the “cruel criteria of Zionism:” German Jews were too old to bear children in Palestine, lacked trades for building a Zionist colony, didn’t speak Hebrew and weren’t Zionists. In place of these Jews facing extermination the WZO brought to Palestine 6,000 trained young Zionists from the United States, Britain and other safe countries….

        As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to “study” the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.

        This is the same Rabbi Wise who, in 1938, in his capacity as leader of the American Jewish Jewish Congress, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in U.S. immigration laws which would enable Jews to find a refuge. He stated:

        “It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference. … It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws.” p50, 51, “The Hidden History of Zionism,” Ralph Schoenman)

        JEFFB- “I’m not even sure what the distinction would be.”

        You don’t know the difference between saving Jewish lives from the Holocaust versus opposing refugeeism in order to advance the Zionist project for a Jewish state? And those Jews who did find refuge in Palestine need to be weighed against the vastly greater number who perished because of the Zionist focus on creating a Jewish state. A perfect example of this is Dr. Rudolph Kastner who “rescued” about 1700 Zionist Jews from Hungary by working with Adolph Eichmann to facilitate the transfer of 800,000 Hungarian Jews to the death camps. According to Ben Hecht (Perfidy), the Hungarian camp was lightly guarded and close to the border of a neutral country. He wonders why the Jewish leadership didn’t overpower the guards and walk to freedom. So, are you going to claim that Zionist Kastner “saved” 1700 Jews?

        Enough of this. As usual you don’t substantiate anything you say, relying instead on pilpul. Your claim of Palestine being able to absorb significant Jewish refugees prior to the WWII is simply false, and obviously so. And your claim that the Zionists primary goal was trying to save Jews is also obviously false. The Zionists knowingly sacrificed Jewish lives to achieve their goal of a Jewish state.

      • yonah fredman
        October 13, 2017, 7:50 pm

        Keith- talk about disingenuous!

        ” It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws.”

        You imply that it was Zionism which held back the Jewish organizations. Whereas it was obviously the futility of offering legislation that didn’t stand a chance, which held them back!

      • Keith
        October 14, 2017, 10:12 am

        YONAH FREDMAN- “Keith- talk about disingenuous!”

        You, like JeffB, are an apologist for Zionism and Israel. If you had even minimal unbiased knowledge on this topic, you would know that what I said was accurate. The evidence for this is massive and overwhelming. Simple common sense should tell you that in a world where the vast majority of Jews were either non-Zionists or anti-Zionists, and where the Zionist had great difficulty in recruiting Jews to make Aliyah, that the Zionists would want to restrict Jewish immigration to anywhere but Israel. I will now repeat part of a comment I made on 10/6 on this topic.

        Morris Ernst was recruited by Roosevelt to enlist support for this planned increase in Jewish DP relocation efforts. “It did not work out,” Ernst writes in his memoirs. The sticking point was not, as anticipated. the gentile nativists and their antisemitism, however, but the Jewish leadership. “I was amazed and even felt insulted when active Jewish leaders decried, sneered and then attacked me as if I were a traitor. At one dinner party I was openly accused of furthering the plan for freer immigration in order to undermine political Zionism.” (p79, “Overcoming Zionism,” Joel Kovel)

  6. JLewisDickerson
    October 9, 2017, 10:06 pm

    RE: “So any slight to Israel must be countered; but anti-Palestinian bigotry is acceptable. ~ Weiss

    PUT ANOTHER WAY (h/t to American Express): “Membership has its privileges.”

    I get all teary listening to this ad and thinking about the (national) childhood we (50 & older) had together thanks to “Morning in America”. It almost makes me want to crawl back into the national womb! I would remember that part of my life as an incredibly warm and fuzzy (i.e., cozy) time (i.e., a bonus childhood, of sorts), had I not had the misfortune of hearing about all the blood that was spilled back during that time by us and our proxies down in Central America. Oh well, I guess it was fun while it lasted.

  7. Donald Johnson
    October 9, 2017, 11:35 pm

    “Zohra Drif is a former Algerian freedom fighter who blew up a colonial target in Algiers 60 years ago”

    She blew up children, actually. Colonial children, no doubt. One five year old eating ice cream had her little colonial leg blown off.

    • gamal
      October 10, 2017, 11:03 pm

      “She blew up children, actually. Colonial children, no doubt. One five year old eating ice cream had her little colonial leg blown off”

      if only she’d droned them,

      . “I’m afraid too much emphasis will be placed on 55,000 Americans, important as they are, and not enough on 1.5 million dead Vietnamese,” says James North. My wife says she already knows the story. (Her first husband was a C.O. in Vietnam and his exposure to Agent Orange surely shortened his life.)

      I don’t care.

      When I flipped the station to PBS in recent days, I found myself rooted to the spot for the next 90 minutes, screaming at the television, at Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara and Nixon and Kissinger. I was completely caught up in the everyman human dramas that Burns and co-director Lynn Novick established: What journey is Carol Crocker, from Saratoga Springs, setting out on after her beloved brother, Denton “Mogie” Crocker, is killed at 19?

      How will Bill Earhart come to terms with the fact that he traded C Rations for sex with a Vietnamese woman along with two buddies in Hue in 1968?

      (that is worth repeating:)” How will Bill Earhart come to terms with the fact that he traded C Rations for sex with a Vietnamese woman along with two buddies in Hue in 1968?”

      (free trade is an American principle)

      I am aware that Burns is an extremely conventional narrator, most interested in white men;

      I don’t care”

      In the 25 years prior to Guernica, the French and Spanish states bombed the Arabs of North Africa from the air, the first people to be so blessed, slaughtered them on vast scale, it was soon discovered that while this technique was of limited use against military formations it was very effective in obliterating villages (with civilians in them, but not necessarily with access to ice cream), this may have precipitated a crisis amongst Algerians, its quite possible,

      the Algerians were denied any means to restrain the murderous and larcenous French state,

      the French organized the black and red hand gangs to kill and terrorise any Algerians, Tunisians resisting the settler colonisation of their homes , bombing campaigns in Germany and murder across Europe and of course in Algeria ( a war waged by an army with all the appurtenances of the state against a defenceless civilian population, to either exterminate them or subjugate them and take the resources upon which they depend for life).

      “I don’t care”

      “Thanks Donald, I changed post to reflect your criticism, Phil”

      whats up Donald bored with Syrias “innocent civilians”, found another Arab to condemn, cool balance is important

      which one of you is the straight guy? you really don’t see the total inadequacy of your approach,

      I wonder how many rations it would cost to fuck Zohra Drif, what do you think a fair price would be?

      Vietnam not a syndrome but a tradition, inherited appropriately enough from France.

      • Donald Johnson
        October 11, 2017, 7:20 am

        Gamal, I don’t think you have anything even remotely resembling an adequate approach to the subject or you would have written it by now. Nobody has an adequate approach justifying deliberate attacks on children. The best anyone does is to base it on notions of one group being collectively innocent because of oppression so members of that group can do whatever they want and nobody is allowed to mention it. This is how Israel defenders try to justify everything Israel does. The result is a lot of dishonest abstractions about what people actually do. And incidentally people who target civilians and take no responsibility for their actions usually don’t stop acting this way. They are sometimes willing to use the same reasoning to justify attacks on their own people.

        The French were utter barbarians, guilty of apartheid and massive war crimes. It doesn’t justify everything the FLN did. They were better at killing other Algerians than French anyway. They had an ongoing civil war with another rebel group throughout the war.

        The drone reference is your usual straw man, relevant if I defended it or the American support for Islamist rebels in Syria or other war crimes. I don’t.

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2017, 12:56 pm

        “Nobody has an adequate approach justifying deliberate attacks on children.”

        But until one can be devised, shouldn’t we restrict colonial exploitation and development, by law, to those over 21?

  8. Philip Weiss
    October 10, 2017, 11:29 am

    Thanks Donald, I changed post to reflect your criticism, Phil

  9. Jackdaw
    October 10, 2017, 4:41 pm

    ” Lehrer….didn’t even mention “your support for regime change and the Iraq war ”

    Maybe Lehrer doesn’t give a crap about what happened fifteen years ago. Maybe he’s moved on and prefers to dwell in the present. Maybe Lehrer doesn’t have a compulsive/obsessive need to rip out a pound of flesh.

    • Annie Robbins
      October 10, 2017, 4:55 pm

      Maybe he’s moved on and prefers to dwell in the present.

      hey what’s another million iraqi dead (give or take a mil) and the rise of isis! so yesterday, unlike the holocaust which is always as fresh and a baby’s bum.

    • Mooser
      October 10, 2017, 6:00 pm

      ” Maybe Lehrer doesn’t have a compulsive/obsessive need to rip out a pound of flesh.”

      Pssst, “Jackdaw”, try and get your anti-semitic tropes and accusations of anti-semitism a little less tangled up in each other, m’okay?

    • miriam6
      October 11, 2017, 3:23 am

      Shakespeare based ‘Merchant of Venice’ on a real occurrence.

      Except in the original story Shakespeare adapted for his own use it was a Christian who demanded a pound of flesh from a Jew ..

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2017, 12:59 pm

        “Except in the original story Shakespeare adapted for his own use it was a Christian who demanded a pound of flesh from a Jew “

        Of course it was! How could it be otherwise?

      • MHughes976
        October 13, 2017, 3:10 pm

        That is an interesting claim, m6, and would affect interpretation of the play. It is not supported by the Royal Shakespeare Company notes on the play’s origins. Most credit is given to a work of fiction, Il Pecorone of 1558 by Giovanni Fiorentino, where the Jew is the bad guy.

    • Maghlawatan
      October 11, 2017, 4:19 am

      If what happened 15 years ago is history, Jackdaw ,so is WW2 . So is the Jewish Ottoman history. Make your mind up.

      https://youtu.be/h4-lKMGII_k

      • Jackdaw
        October 11, 2017, 10:49 am

        @Maghlaw

        Yes. It is all history, but neither Abrams nor Lehrer are historians, are they.

      • Donald Johnson
        October 12, 2017, 12:14 pm

        The Iraq War isn’t history. We are still bombing Iraq, most recently Mosul. The Syrian civil war was an outgrowth of Iraq, as was the rise of Isis. Millions of people are dead, wounded or refugees because of the Iraq War. Only an American would think that something that happened just 15 years ago and is still continuing is some remote bit of history irrelevant to current day concerns.

  10. JosephA
    October 11, 2017, 12:43 am

    Misterioso’s comments are either the product of serious scholarship, an excellent understanding of history, or both.

    JeffB and Betty are more like the ilk of Donald Trump: all opinion, no fact, and nearly unintelligible. I wish they would consider reading books, please, do yourselves a favor!

    • JeffB
      October 12, 2017, 4:51 pm

      @JosephA

      Misterioso writes long well researched documented lists that don’t respond to the point in question.

      • Mooser
        October 12, 2017, 6:49 pm

        “Misterioso writes long well researched documented lists that don’t respond to the point in question.” “Jeff b”

        And your Mommy told you over and over you were the smartest little boy she ever had.

      • Jackdaw
        October 13, 2017, 12:31 pm

        “And your Mommy told you over and over you were the smartest little boy she ever had. ”

        Better that than a Daddy who tells you over and over that your worthless, and triggering an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2017, 2:10 pm

        “Better that than a Daddy who tells you over and over that your worthless, and triggering an Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.”

        You don’t know the half of it. You shoulda’ seen the fit my Dad had when I couldn’t get “your” and “you’re” correctly delineated. Or used “and” excessively.

        Oddly enough, he never minded me beginning a sentence with a conjunction.

      • echinococcus
        October 13, 2017, 7:26 pm

        Jackdaw,

        Looks as if even your Dad had seen through you.

  11. Maghlawatan
    October 11, 2017, 3:52 am

    It is not deep. It is intense. Zionism is not a popular movement. It is an elite play. A money play. Progressives destroyed elite corruption such as Tammany Hall. It will happen again.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/video/2011/jul/07/news-of-the-world-phone-hacking-nick-davies-rupert-murdoch-video

    • JeffB
      October 12, 2017, 5:01 pm

      @Maghlawatan

      Progressives destroyed elite corruption such as Tammany Hall.

      Tammany Hall was corruption coming out of ethnic ghettos. It was poor people’s corruption. It was anti-elitist not elite corruption. It was the end of widespread immigration and thus the lack of need for ethnic ghettos that undermined Tammany. Things like non discrimination in housing. And if one were going to attribute the fight against Tammany to any political party I’d say moderate pro business Republicans and moderate Democrats had far more to do with it. Ed Koch, Nelson Rockefeller, Fiorello H. La Guardia, Thomas Dewey,… that crew is what killed off the last of the Tammany machine.

  12. Kathleen
    October 12, 2017, 5:12 pm

    It was noticeable after Carter’s book ‘Palestine Peace: Not Apartheid’ then Walt and Mearsheimers ‘The Israel Lobby’, the BDS movement growth there were more libraries, Art Institue’s etc etc that were pushing Israel and the I lobbies agenda in the U.S., via art shows films, speakers, The heat went up.

    Although when you listen to Washington Journal which I do just to listen to phone calls and any other public media outlet that allows (Talk of the Nation, Diane Rehm gone less opportunity for the public to get their views out on NPR ) public input light bulbs are being turned on in people’s heads.

    On the other hand Andrea Mitchell, Lawrence O’Donnell, Joy Reid repeatedly have many of the characters (Max Boot, Bill Kristol, David Frum) who pushed the invasion of Iraq on MSNBC pushing in far more subtle ways Israel’s agenda to destroy the Iran deal.

Leave a Reply