Israel has more legitimacy than US because the bible mentions Jerusalem, not New York — says David Harris

US Politics
on 144 Comments

Last week David Harris, the CEO of the American Jewish Committee, offered a foot-stompin heart-stoppin sermon on Zionism from the pulpit of Temple Shaaray Tefila, a wealthy Reform congregation in Bedford Corners, N.Y.

The theme of the speech was that Israel has nothing to apologize for, and American Jews need to tell that story better. The Palestinians, Harris said, have turned down the “two-state solution” seven or eight times beginning in 1937 and 1947.

I already posted one excerpt. Here is another excerpt, about fighting back on attempts to question Israel’s legitimacy. Notice the extensive justification of colonialism; Harris seems to accept the criticism of Zionism as a colonialist enterprise.

Take it away, Mr. Harris:

We to this day continue to hear a lot about Israel’s legitimacy. So let’s go back to basics… May I ask, and I do so deliberately, provocatively, What is the legitimacy of the establishment of the United States of America?

Was there a comparable Balfour Declaration, a League of Nations mandate, a UN special committee on the future of America, a resolution 181, an endorsement by the General Assembly? Was there a bible, the most widely read book in the history of the world, that spoke repeatedly about Yerushalayim and Zion–  and in this case about Washington and New York?

What exactly was the basis for the establishment of the legitimacy of the European colonial enterprise in the United States? I might add, or Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand?
Or I might ask, why is that when AJC travels to Latin America, as we do so repeatedly …. and all the political leaders and economic leaders and cultural leaders we meet with are European in origin. Were they the indigenous people of Latin America? I dare say they were not.

Or, to be even more provocative, and closer to home, when the Arab world and the Palestinian Authority in particular demand– demand!— of Britain an apology for the Balfour Declaration, do you hear a word about what [British Prime Minister] David Lloyd George and [French PM] George Clemenceau and Woodrow Wilson did in Paris in the first six months of 1919 in creating other states? Or Sykes Picot, and what they did in the  creation of Lebanon and Syria and Iraq and Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia?

Are we going to go down this road? And are we going to ask, if we do, why is it that in North Africa, where the indigenous people were the Berbers and then the Jews– Arabs came from the Arabian peninsula and occupied and conquered those nations?

Do they really want to go down the road of questioning legitimacy? Yes of course– when it comes to Israel which I would argue by these terms has far more legitimacy than most nations on earth. But of course their goal is to ignore everything that doesn’t concern Israel.

Thanks to Scott Roth and James North.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

144 Responses

  1. amigo
    November 26, 2017, 12:49 pm

    So the bible is the be all and end all to Mister Harris.

    Doesn,t the bible also have a few rules about theft and murder .

    ie,

    Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13)

    You shall not murder.

    Eighth Commandment (Exodus 20:13)

    You shall not steal.

    Tenth Commandment (Exodus 20:14)

    You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, nor his wife, his man-servant, his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.

    Harris is just like every zionist .They love to cherry pick the word of god.They sure know how to fool him/her/it.

    • eljay
      November 27, 2017, 8:18 am

      || amigo: … Doesn,t the bible also have a few rules about theft and murder .

      ie,
      . . . You shall not murder. … You shall not steal. … You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, nor his wife, his man-servant, his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor’s. … ||

      I can’t wait for Jack Green to chime in – jester’s bells a-jinglin’ – and point out that:
      – it’s not coveting if you believe it’s yours;
      – it’s not stealing if you “repossess” it; and
      – it’s not murder if you kill those who object.

      (He likely won’t point out that this “reasoning” applies only when Jews do it to non-Jews.)

  2. Roland Nikles
    November 26, 2017, 2:17 pm

    I think this is a lot less “provocative” than Harris thinks. Nobody is questioning the legitimacy of Israel as a state in a legal sense. What people are questioning is the “legitimacy” of Israel as a “Jewish state” in a moral sense.

    • echinococcus
      November 26, 2017, 5:03 pm

      Nikles

      Nobody is questioning the legitimacy of Israel as a state in a legal sense.

      Talk for yourself, please, and make clear that you are talking for yourself (and perhaps the defense of invaders so they can go on staying in Palestine.)

      A lot of people are not only questioning but absolutely rejecting the legitimacy of the Zionist entity “as a state in a legal sense”. Not only people, but the Treaty of Westphalia, the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Charter of the United Nations and countless international treaties are also absolutely rejecting the legitimacy of such a monstrous birth by the force of imperial British-American arms and the cowardice of their clients. More importantly, the Palestinian people –their various organizations have been crystal clear about the total rejection of any justification to this genocidal colonial enterprise –until the US blackmail and the decapitation of all resistance at Oslo.

      Once again: you can bring all the “facts on the ground” like recognition by all governments on earth, it remains illegitimate and must be uprooted period. In the absence that is, of a proper Palestinian plebiscite, in the absence of duress or occupation anywhere in Palestine and the diaspora, excluding the Zionist invaders as of the start of the declared intent to invade, that authorizes it.

      • Roland Nikles
        November 27, 2017, 2:40 pm

        @echinoccocus Yes, agreed, we speak for ourselves. But you have spoken incompletely here. Try writing down a couple paragraphs on the proposition “the Treaties of Westphalia make the creation of the State of Israel in ’48 illegal as a matter of international law,” and see what that argument looks like. Try writing down a couple paragraphs on the proposition “the covenant of the League of Nations makes the creation of the State of Israel in ’48 illegal as a matter of international law,” and see if you can cite some actual provisions and bring some actual analysis that is sound in the context of international law? Try doing the same for the charter of the UN. And try doing the same for any of the “countless of international treaties” you reference but did not share. Try writing a few paragraphs on the proposition “Israel is illegitimate as a matter of international law absent a Palestinian plebiscite approving creation of the state.” Or perhaps you can point to some authority who has done this analysis? As they say in the writing business, I think you’ll find “showing” is harder than “telling,” and more persuasive.

        As a general matter, taking a moral stand is a strong stand. A narrow legal argument is a difficult argument and the whole field of international law is of dubious authority in such matters. Better to stick to solid ground, than to take a stand on quicksand.

      • Keith
        November 27, 2017, 4:29 pm

        ROLAND NIKLES- “A narrow legal argument is a difficult argument and the whole field of international law is of dubious authority in such matters.”

        I agree. Furthermore, if we reflect upon the creation of international law, it was not the representatives of the Third World people (the global majority) who drafted these laws. It was the Western powers attempting to somewhat discourage great power confrontations and war, not to protect Third World countries and people from Western domination and exploitation. As such, it is mostly an elaborate fraud used to demonize weak Third World countries targeted for intervention, yet ignored when violated by empire. It has evolved into yet another form of imperial soft power utilized to manufacture Western popular consent for Western aggression. That is one of the reasons I never get involved in these legalistic discussion concerning international law. In the real world, these issues are decided by power, international law occasionally providing the veneer of legitimacy.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2017, 12:28 am

        There was a business down the street fro me. It was legitimate. It was legal. It had a right to exist.
        It went broke, tho.
        And it was still legitimate, legal, and had a right to exist. The fact that it went under affected none of that.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2017, 1:24 am

        “Couple paragraphs” my eye and foot. All treaties are of course provided with the small print that allows their shysters to deny or delay. But that is in front of their own instances.
        For peoples, especially aggressed and occupied peoples, it don’t work that way. The takeaway message of the the Treaty of Westphalia is still remembered as aggression verboten. The LoN mandate conditions are simplified as “no giving away to invaders”, and so on. Show me a people’s meeting where lawyers (are you one?) drag it out qualifying acts against the occupier instead of the clear message: “no self-determination without free plebiscite!” There you have your moral stand, and how!

        I wish you a lot of fun trying to justify Ziocolons continuing their occupation in more “creative” ways.

    • Jackdaw
      November 28, 2017, 12:34 am

      Yet no one, especially in Mondoweiss, questions the ligitimacy of a scores of ‘Islamic states’ in a moral sense.
      https://www.oic-oci.org

      Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s only the Joooooooowwwwssss!! The Jooooooooowwwwwsss!!

      *cue wolves howling *

      • eljay
        November 28, 2017, 7:53 am

        || Jackdaw: Yet no one, especially in Mondoweiss, questions the ligitimacy of a scores of ‘Islamic states’ in a moral sense. … ||

        Liar. I’ve questioned it many times. IMO, a religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State” is as unjust and immoral as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”. I condemn both forms of supremacism and their corresponding constructs. You – Zionist hypocrite that you are – condemn the former but advocate, justify, support and defend the latter.

        || … Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s only the Joooooooowwwwssss!! The Jooooooooowwwwwsss!! ||

        What the hell are Jows?!

      • Eva Smagacz
        November 28, 2017, 9:15 am

        Jackdow,

        you said:

        “Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s only the Joooooooowwwwssss!! The Jooooooooowwwwwsss!!”

        Do you realise how your obsession about victimhood of your tribe, with it’s dismissal of the suffering of all humanity, makes you sound narcissistic, and not in a vanity way but in the NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) way?

        It is really off-putting.

      • Marnie
        November 28, 2017, 9:24 am

        The Joooooooowwwwsss? You mean like cows? Who the fuck calls themselves that?

      • Kaisa of Finland
        November 28, 2017, 10:11 am

        “What the hell are Jows..”

        Maybe he meant Yows??

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 28, 2017, 12:33 pm

        Liar. I’ve questioned it many times. IMO, a religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State” is as unjust and immoral as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

        Have you also “questioned many times” how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

        What the hell are Jows?!

        They’re very much like Joooooooooooooooos, but considerably more whiny.

      • Jackdaw
        November 28, 2017, 1:07 pm

        @eljay @Eva @Marnie @ Kaisa, et al

        It’s the Joooooowwwwwwss that brought you to the I/P conflict.
        You don’t give a rats ass about Arabs, or you’d be trying to help them in Syria and Iraq or Yemen, where they really, really need help.

        Take off the white klansmen hood and look at yourselves hard in the mirror. Ugly, right?

        Okay. That’s enough. Put your white hoods back on.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 28, 2017, 1:30 pm

        Ugly, right?

        ah, the tired ol anti semite accusation. with more facelifts than jocelyn wildenstein and hang mioku put together and you still think she’s got more miles in her eh? still hot, good for a few more humps? i don’t know about you jack, but you’re sounding a little desperate there.

      • MHughes976
        November 28, 2017, 1:19 pm

        The question of how many angels to a pinhead is supposed to be one whose answer is either unattainable or totally uninteresting – which may or may not be true. The question of the legitimacy of a state in which one religious group ‘reigns supreme’ is neither of these things. Like eljay, though maybe not via quite the same argument, I think that disfranchisement and discrimination, not to mention exclusion from one’s home or punishment for expression of opinion, on religion-related grounds are all wrong, whoever does them.

      • eljay
        November 28, 2017, 1:29 pm

        || Jackdaw: … It’s the Joooooowwwwwwss that brought you to the I/P conflict. … ||

        No, it was the Zionists. But leave it to a Zionist to anti-Semitically conflate Zionism with all Jews and all Jews with Zionism.

        || … Take off the white klansmen hood … ||

        …says the anti-Semitic Zionist hypocrite. Good one.

      • eljay
        November 28, 2017, 1:36 pm

        || Annie Robbins: … i don’t know about you jack, but you’re sounding a little desperate there. ||

        He does sound more unhinged than usual.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        November 28, 2017, 2:01 pm

        “You don’t give a rats ass about Arabs..”

        Dear Jackdaw,

        We – as Finns – have not got such limitations in giving help. So yes, we are also helping Syrian refugees in the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan, also both Irakis and Kurds, where ever they need help. We have also taken refugees from all of those countries mentioned before and chidren and their right to go to school and live in peace have always been in our special interest. We do not ask their religion nor their nationality. Each child, girl and boy, deserves a life without oppression and violence. You just have to get used to the idea that the Zionists and their interests are not the center of the world.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        November 28, 2017, 2:15 pm

        And before you ask Jackdaw, here is an example..

        http://cmi.fi/

      • Eva Smagacz
        November 28, 2017, 2:32 pm

        Jackdaw

        You said

        “It’s the Joooooowwwwwwss that brought you to the I/P conflict”.

        This is true.
        One Jew. Phil Weiss.

        And the realisation that it was Poles (of Jewish faith), who were so heavily instrumental in colonisation of Palestine, and the obscene injustice that this entailed. I feel responsible for my compatriots actions.

        Just in case you think that this is the only colonisation by Poles that I feel responsible for (which I would expect, considering that you assume your tribe to be the centre of universe), let me disappoint you.
        I feel also responsible for colonisation of Ukraine by Poles, that took place from 16th century.
        51/58

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 28, 2017, 2:58 pm

        The question of how many angels to a pinhead is supposed to be one whose answer is either unattainable or totally uninteresting – which may or may not be true. The question of the legitimacy of a state in which one religious group ‘reigns supreme’ is neither of these things.

        Yeah, and since there isn’t a single zio style ‘religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State”’ in existence, and never has been, surely this makes questioning whether some non-existent ‘religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State”’ is “as unjust and immoral” as the century old Zionist apartheid regime in Palestine almost as fanciful as questioning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, nu?

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 28, 2017, 3:24 pm

        It’s the Joooooowwwwwwss that brought you to the I/P conflict.
        You don’t give a rats ass about Arabs, or you’d be trying to help them in Syria and Iraq or Yemen, where they really, really need help.

        Take off the white klansmen hood and look at yourselves hard in the mirror. Ugly, right?

        Okay. That’s enough. Put your white hoods back on.

        Awwwwwww, poor little Jackie, without his Zionism and his “israel”, he’s just a boring white man with no foreskin.

      • eljay
        November 28, 2017, 3:41 pm

        || ErsatzYisrael: … since there isn’t a single zio style ‘religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State”’ in existence, and never has been, surely this makes questioning whether some non-existent ‘religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State”’ is “as unjust and immoral” as the century old Zionist apartheid regime in Palestine almost as fanciful as questioning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, nu? ||

        Nu. A religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State” doesn’t have to be “zio style” in order for it to be – and to be condemned for being – an unjust and immoral construct.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 28, 2017, 4:41 pm

        Nu. A religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State” doesn’t have to be “zio style” in order for it to be – and to be condemned for being – an unjust and immoral construct.

        Nu, condemning some undefined, abstract “construct” for being “unjust and immoral” is almost as absurd as condemning someone for not caring about the number of dancing angels that can fit on the head of a pin.

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2017, 6:18 pm

        I first heard of the question as one of angels on the point of a pin. (A location without extension. ) I’ve never investigated the original issue, but the way I see it is as a collection of related questions.

        Can a non-physical conscious being be extended in space?
        If so, can more than one such being occupy the same bit of space?
        If not, can such beings have location?
        If located at a point, is there a limit to the number that can be located at the same point?
        If neither extended nor located, they would be non-spatial. What is the difference between being non-spatial and being omnipresent?

        (“You’re everywhere and nowhere, baby …”)

        And I find these questions interesting.

        Not very helpful for the I/P problem, though.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 29, 2017, 3:19 am

        Not very helpful for the I/P problem, though.

        Yeah, about as unhelpful as condemning some non-existent ‘religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State”’ for being ‘unjust and immoral’.

      • eljay
        November 29, 2017, 7:51 am

        || ErsatzYisrael: … condemning some undefined, abstract “construct” for being “unjust and immoral” is almost as absurd as condemning someone for not caring about the number of dancing angels that can fit on the head of a pin. ||

        You seem unduly bothered by the fact that I choose to condemn Islamic/Muslim supremacism as well as Jewish supremacism.

      • eljay
        November 29, 2017, 8:23 am

        || ErsatzYisrael: … Yeah, about as unhelpful as condemning some non-existent ‘religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State”’ for being ‘unjust and immoral’. ||

        I’m sure Jackdaw appreciates the effort you’re putting into defending his point.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 29, 2017, 9:57 am

        You seem unduly bothered by the fact that I choose to condemn Islamic/Muslim supremacism as well as Jewish supremacism.

        You seem duly bothered by the fact that you chose to “construct” and condemn an imaginary, non-existent, ‘religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State”. So much so that you felt the need to dissemble and pretend that we were discussing “Islamic/Muslim supremacism”, whatever the hell that is, rather than your ‘religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State [boldface added]”’ that you felt the need to “construct” out of whole cloth just so you could condemn your imaginary “construct” alongside the very real, decades long racist Zionist apartheid regime currently festering in Palestine.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 29, 2017, 10:30 am

        I’m sure Jackdaw appreciates the effort you’re putting into defending his point.

        I’m sure your boy Jackie appreciates all the effort you’re putting into constructing and condemning whimsical Islamic/Muslim boogeymen, while the very real, decades long racist Zionist apartheid regime continues to fester in Palestine.

      • eljay
        November 29, 2017, 10:46 am

        || ErsatzYisrael: You seem duly bothered by the fact that you chose to “construct” and condemn an imaginary, non-existent, ‘religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State”. So much so that you felt the need to dissemble and pretend that we were discussing “Islamic/Muslim supremacism”, whatever the hell that is, rather than your ‘religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State [boldface added]”’ … ||

        I wrote:

        I condemn both forms of supremacism [Islamic/Muslim and Jewish] and their corresponding constructs.

        I honestly don’t care if you don’t understand it or don’t like it. It’s my opinion and I stand behind it.

        You’re free to support Islamic/Muslim supremacism and its corresponding constructs and Jackdaw is free to thank you for your service.

      • Sibiriak
        November 29, 2017, 12:11 pm

        ErsatzYisrael: Condemning some undefined, abstract “construct” for being “unjust and immoral”…
        ———————————-

        How about condemning concrete manifestations of ” ‘religion-supremacism” in “Islamic/Muslim States”– e.g. in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran etc. ?

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 29, 2017, 12:21 pm

        I wrote:

        I condemn both forms of supremacism [Islamic/Muslim and Jewish] and their corresponding constructs.

        No, you wrote:

        I’ve questioned it many times. IMO, a religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State” is as unjust and immoral as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”. I condemn both forms of supremacism and their corresponding constructs. You – Zionist hypocrite that you are – condemn the former but advocate, justify, support and defend the latter.

        You then proceeded to care very deeply when it was pointed out to you that there isn’t a single Zionist style ‘Islamic religion-supremacist “Islamic/Muslim State”’ in existence (and never has been), then in order to save face, you promptly produced another one of your whimsical “constructs” to impress your buddy Jackie with.

        I honestly don’t care if you don’t understand it or don’t like it. It’s my opinion and I stand behind it.

        Nah, I honestly do get you, and you don’t like it. Your whimsical “constructs” are like your children and you intend to “stand behind” every last one of your whimsical “constructs”, like any proud mother would.

        You’re free to support Islamic/Muslim supremacism and its corresponding constructs and Jackdaw is free to thank you for your service.

        ROFL…yeah, and you’re free to “stand behind” all your whimsical “Constructs”naughty children so you can proudly condemn them in order to appease your Zionist buddy Jackie.

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2017, 3:07 pm

        “Jackdaw” had a Ziocaine Syndrome event (“Joooosss”) which apparently necessitated self-abasement. I sympathize, that’s a sad way to be.
        But I’ll be damned if I catch Ziocaine-Syndrome-by-proxy over it.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 29, 2017, 3:28 pm

        How about condemning concrete manifestations of ” ‘religion-supremacism” in “Islamic/Muslim States”– e.g. in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran etc. ?

        How about not indulging a Jew-baiting, Muslim-hating American Zionist bigot.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 29, 2017, 4:25 pm

        goodness gracious!

  3. Citizen
    November 26, 2017, 2:57 pm

    Mr. Harris ignores the ex pos facto laws laid down at Nuremberg when they hung German Nazi leaders; further he ignores Nuremberg’s progeny Geneva IV, etc. Basically, he’s justifying Israel and all its policies and actions by pointing to Caveman ethics and morality–Goering would agree with him–Goering labeled the Nuremberg Tribunal as a kangaroo court of victors; ergo “might makes right.” Anybody disagree?

  4. lonely rico
    November 26, 2017, 3:04 pm

    The noun “legitimacy” comes from the Latin “legitimus” meaning lawful.

    For decades prior to it’s self-declared founding, at the moment of its bloody birth in 1948, and ever since, Israel has acted with lawless violence against the Palestinians, murderous illegal aggression against its neighbours, and total disdain for international law.

    The legitimacy of Israel is belied daily by its cruel criminality.

    • MHughes976
      November 26, 2017, 6:19 pm

      But who can esteem international law higher than the Bible, whose frequent mentions of Jerusalem cannot be denied?

      • Citizen
        November 27, 2017, 1:38 am

        See amigo’s comment, above.

      • MHughes976
        November 27, 2017, 12:23 pm

        Amigo’s remarks are highly pertinent, of course. One can see that those who composed the text were uneasy even as they were shaping it about the tension between their universal moral law and their particular historical mission. Leviticus 18:25 says/implies that the Israelites has not coveted the land but were to receive it because it had ‘vomited out its inhabitants’ for their sins, a rather academic picture of a campaign by human beings as a beyond control involvement in, as it were, the movement of tectonic plates. Somehow Imagery in this style has proved to be very powerful. I don’t think it’s altogether fanciful to think that the writers of this passage were anticipating pertinent questions as framed here by amigo: you don’t have to cherry-pick when the whole cherry tree is a sign of the supreme value of the Israelite possession, by divine donation of course, of the Land of Israel

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2017, 4:23 pm

        Man does not live by bread alone, but by any word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

  5. Donald Johnson
    November 26, 2017, 4:10 pm

    I don’t care about the Bible reference, but if he wants to defend Israel on the grounds that other countries, including the US, were formed as a result of colonialism, imperialism and conquest, he is shooting himself in the foot.

    He is right about other countries. But the solution to past injustice begins with acknowledging it, admitting it was wrong, and granting the principle of equal rights for everyone. Harris seems to think the solution is for everyone to embrace their inner racist and support apartheid. Or at least, support it in the case of Israel, as I doubt he wants America to be a white Christian nation.

    • gamal
      November 26, 2017, 8:44 pm

      “But the solution to past injustice begins with acknowledging it, admitting it was wrong, and granting the principle of equal rights for everyone”

      yes thats cool, but it’s a bit counter-intuitive are you saying that the solution to past injustice is not present, in the now, justice, you mean a now we have all your shit lets call it quits kind of “rights for everyone”,

      ” everyone”…you don’t think that’s funny, it’s all about you not “everyone”. can you even hear us…I shouldn’t drink wine..but then I shouldn’t have been born into this white mans 57 flavours world.

      you know I mean it, it amazes me but I realise you can’t hear us, I fell in love with Annie, because she listens deeply, it’s a rare talent…i like that kind of stuff and am grateful for it.

      • Donald Johnson
        November 26, 2017, 10:23 pm

        Who is “us”, gamal? Do you speak for everyone in some group which has never done anything to anyone? You act like that, as though there are groups who are collectively innocent and others who aren’t and you of course are in the first group.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 27, 2017, 5:57 pm

        gamal, that is so sweet of you to say.

        righting wrongs is tricky business. i’m somewhat a fan of reparations myself — all in the interest of healing of course. i think people take these ‘solutions’ (to crimes especially) more seriously when there’s some structure of accountability. often there’s sort of a grace period, like – anyone who comes forward in such a such a time is granted some kind of immunity. but the idea of “acknowledging it, admitting it was wrong, and granting the principle of equal rights for everyone” sort of skips an important part. i mean, that approach was not afforded to germany after WW2. i think they are still paying for it aren’t they? the next generation is still paying for it.

        i mean, if someone is living in your house forty years is it really enough that they say “i acknowledge and admit it was wrong to take your house. let’s now start out on equal footing with the same rights? ” but doesn’t offer the house back, does your equality really feel equal?

        after the civil war some blacks got some land, but most of those people were then screwed out of their land. i think, even years later, there should be some sort of reparations for slavery. it’s not as if most of those ill gotten gains didn’t remain with the families who profited.

        sometimes righting injustice requires giving up something. admitting and acknowledging — what cost is there to pay? what payback? our normal system of justice generally requires something of people who commit crimes. penalties and things like that.

        the US, we never acknowledged much less apologized for genociding native americans. but at least certain tribes ended up with some decent chunks of land. but corporations ride roughshod over that whenever they want. we’re still screwing those people over to this very day.

    • Mooser
      November 26, 2017, 10:51 pm

      “But the solution to past injustice…”

      Starts with putting the injustice in the past, or at least trying to.

      • MHughes976
        November 27, 2017, 11:46 am

        That’s a good aphorism, Mooser, even by your high standards in these things.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2017, 1:02 am

        “even by your high standards…”

        Thanks, “MHughes”! Truth is, my keyboard is so clogged, an aphorism at a time is all I can manage. I might as well be using a hammer and chisel.

    • Keith
      November 27, 2017, 1:01 am

      DONALD JOHNSON- “But the solution to past injustice begins with acknowledging it, admitting it was wrong, and granting the principle of equal rights for everyone.”

      I agree completely, with the proviso that some sort of affirmative action take place to compensate for previous discrimination. I am somewhat at a loss to comprehend why Gamal has taken such umbrage at your comment. Unless, of course, he suspects that you intend to not account for past injustice.

      • Donald Johnson
        November 27, 2017, 5:04 pm

        Keith—it is probably the last part, but gamal and I have been arguing about this or that for years. I even think I remember when it started. I had mentioned during the last Gaza slaughter that Hamas rocket attacks were war crimes. Legally they probably were from what little I know, ( though nobody applies the law to us), but nowadays I would just keep my mouth shut on that, given the massive ratio of civilian deaths. The US also kills more civilians “accidentally” in “ collateral damage” in single air strikes than Hamas did in the whole war and if we were living in Gaza being imprisoned and sometimes pounded by the Israelis we’d go berserk. Plus, we are supplying the Israeli weapons, or some of them.

        Anyway, we have a history. In hindsight sometimes I agree with him, though not always.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2017, 2:18 am

        I had mentioned during the last Gaza slaughter that Hamas rocket attacks were war crimes.

        What part of “by all means available” is unclear?

    • eljay
      November 27, 2017, 8:06 am

      || Donald Johnson: … the solution to past injustice begins with acknowledging it, admitting it was wrong, and granting the principle of equal rights for everyone. … ||

      I agree. I would add that the solution includes accountability for the perpetrators of (war) crimes and compensation for their victims.

      || … Harris seems to think the solution is for everyone to embrace their inner racist and support apartheid. Or at least, support it in the case of Israel, as I doubt he wants America to be a white Christian nation. ||

      Harris is of the Zionist opinion that acts of injustice and immorality committed against Jews justify acts of injustice and immorality committed by Jews. Jewish supremacists (Zionists) like Harris don’t seem to care that they are constantly undermining international laws and human rights and the protections they are meant to afford all people including Jews.

      • Donald Johnson
        November 27, 2017, 6:13 pm

        I agree about the compensation principle. It is going to be pretty massive, I would think, if it were fair.

        Harris is weirdly oblivious to the logic of his argument, but I first starting seeing Israel defenders making that style of argument ten or more years ago. It amazed me, because previously only people like Chomsky and Finkelstein compared the Palestinians to the Native Americans. But good, go right ahead and make the comparison.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 27, 2017, 9:48 pm

        yeah, you mentioned earlier “Israeli Jews owe massive reparations to the Palestinians”. i just don’t think it will ever happen because for the most part they feel entitled and find so many ways to justify their crimes, which they do not recognize as crimes.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2017, 12:35 am

        Annie,

        The same has been said for Germany. And then, they moved out of the eastern lands AND paid to get out. You never know.

      • Donald Johnson
        November 28, 2017, 12:28 pm

        “yeah, you mentioned earlier “Israeli Jews owe massive reparations to the Palestinians”. i just don’t think it will ever happen because for the most part they feel entitled and find so many ways to justify their crimes, which they do not recognize as crimes.”

        I am a little puzzled by your comment. The point, I think, of this blog is to help build a movement to put pressure on the Israelis to do the right thing. Obviously if they can keep American support while they continue to steal land and practice apartheid then that is just what they will keep on doing.

        Echino favors expulsion of the Israeli Jews. He hammers on that constantly. Setting aside the morality (which I think is the morality of ethnic cleansing), that has zero chance of winning widespread support in the US and of course it gives the pro-Israel side exactly what they want–Palestinian advocates who favor driving most of the Jews into the sea, no doubt carefully distinguishing between those who have immediate ancestors who lived there pre-Herzl and those who don’t. And if in some really strange twist there was a coalition of nations that actually tried to carry the plan out, what exactly do people imagine Israel would do faced with a genuine existential threat?

        You don’t think the Israelis would willingly compensate the Palestinians? Well, yeah. That is so obvious I didn’t think it needed to be said. I was outlining what would be right in contrast to what Echino thinks. We don’t compensate people either. But that should be the goal. And pressuring the Israelis while stating that the longterm goal is equal rights for everyone gives them not a moral leg to stand on. Alternatively,, we could adopt the Echino platform and proclaim our desire to do something involving the forcible expulsion of Israeli Jews from the country where they were born, something that would require a massive war that might end up going nuclear. Good luck selling that position.

      • Donald Johnson
        November 28, 2017, 12:37 pm

        “The same has been said for Germany. And then, they moved out of the eastern lands AND paid to get out. You never know.”

        Most people don’t point to the massive ethnic cleansings that occurred in Eastern Europe under Stalin as examples to be emulated. I have seen Zionists claim we shouldn’t pay attention to the Nakba considering the other things that happened in Europe or in the formation of India-Pakistan during the same time period.

      • ErsatzYisrael
        November 28, 2017, 1:38 pm

        I would guess millions of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. It is their home.

        You mouth breathing liberal zios are a hoot! Should the Palestinians ever decide to go for “an Algerian style” solution to the Zionist problem, I guess those “millions of Israeli Jews” who “were born in Israel” and who have second passports will be the lucky ones then, and the minority who don’t will become stateless refugees.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2017, 6:18 pm

        Johnson,

        Alternatively,, we could adopt the Echino platform and proclaim our desire to do something involving the forcible expulsion of Israeli Jews from the country where they were born, something that would require a massive war that might end up going nuclear. Good luck selling that position.

        Again, Johnson, these people are there in the quality of invading murderers*, not “Israeli Jews” (just as Palestinians are not there in their quality of “Arabs” but owners of the whole shooting match.)

        So you aren’t buying. I’m not surprised. You also have an extraordinary belief in individual agency: insurrections don’t happen just because you announce them. I am just announcing it; it’s damn obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

        It’s just as obvious as the hard fact that the Zionists won’t make any compromise, anytime, because they are not just racists like the South African Whites. They are ideologically brainwashed. Most sane persons are probably out of the shitty place.

        *”innocent” my foot, by the way.

      • Donald Johnson
        November 28, 2017, 8:49 pm

        “You mouth breathing liberal zios are a hoot! “

        I am not a Zionist. You logic – impaired comment writers are a scream, no matter what orifice you use to take in oxygen. Evidently it is a clogged one.

        That was fun. Anyway, your comment was bloodthirsty. The best arguments against Zionism are made, inadvertently, by Zionists. You see it in some of the comments made here by many of Israel’s defenders. They discredit themselves. The worst advocates for anti Zionism are people who clearly salivate over the prospect of some sort of apocalypse.

    • echinococcus
      November 27, 2017, 11:54 am

      Johnson

      the solution to past injustice begins with acknowledging it, admitting it was wrong, and granting the principle of equal rights for everyone.

      We still haven’t heard what right to “equal rights” the invader riffraff has.
      It’s not as if you guys hadn’t been repeatedly challenged on that point.
      And don’t you come again with the South African compromise. That was a compromise (look up the word) with the White leadership asking for it to save their necks. Do I have to remind you how much that does not in any way or wise apply to Palestine?

      Continue ignoring, Johnson.

      • Donald Johnson
        November 27, 2017, 4:46 pm

        I think the Israeli Jews owe massive reparations to the Palestinians and one man, one vote is the political solution. How massive the reparations need to be I couldn’t begin to say.

        I don’t agree with your notion that the Israeli Jews should be expelled. If they keep heading in the direction they are headed then an Algerian style conflict becomes increasingly likely and all bets are off, but there is no telling who comes out on top. This is the nightmare scenario, not something to aim for, but if it happens it will be Israel’s fault. As for Israelis being invaders, yes, as are most people of European descent living outside Europe. For that matter, the same is true of many Europeans living in Europe. Nobody is morally pure if we have to go back in time and keep track of what our ancestors did and not very distant ancestors either. I would guess millions of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. It is their home. Their sin is in continuing a situation where the original inhabitants were expelled and not let back in. They also practice apartheid. They need to stop practicing apartheid, allow the Palestinians back, pay reparations and accept the principle of equal rights. Alternatively, they can read about the history of the French presence in Algeria.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2017, 12:35 am

        ” If they keep heading in the direction they are headed then an Algerian style conflict becomes increasingly likely and all bets are off, but there is no telling who comes out on top.”

        Gee, a state armed with all the latest weapons and complete air superiority vs. a populace with small arms and some explosives.

        Doesn’t seem to difficult to estimate the odds.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2017, 12:48 am

        Johnson,

        I don’t agree with your notion that the Israeli Jews should be expelled

        We know you don’t agree but I still can’t see any argument from you that anything else can be called justice (by the way, they are not colonizing in their quality of “Israeli Jews” but Zionist invaders.) I also see no formal authorization from the Palestinian people to you (or to their Ziopuppets) to give up its rights.

        If they keep heading in the direction they are headed then an Algerian style conflict becomes increasingly likely and all bets are off, but there is no telling who comes out on top. This is the nightmare scenario, not something to aim for, but if it happens it will be Israel’s fault.

        Well, time to wake up! We’ve been doing Algeria for a long time already. If you are old enough to remember, that one was a more lenient occupation, with a sizable minority, perhaps a majority of the French opposing their colonial presence. All bets have been off, as you say, at least since the Oslo comedy.

        “All bets are off” is no argument, either. This enslaved, stunted people that is being subjected to variable-speed genocide has no bookmaker.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2017, 12:57 am

        I would guess millions of Israeli Jews were born in Israel. It is their home.

        BS, if you’ll excuse my French. Place of birth is not determining citizenship in many countries. It did not in old Palestine and we haven’t heard from a free Palestinian people what their citizenship basis will be.

        A lot of the eastern Germans in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland etc. were born there but had to go to their place of citizenship.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2017, 1:00 am

        As for Israelis being invaders, yes, as are most people of European descent living outside Europe. For that matter, the same is true of many Europeans living in Europe. Nobody is morally pure if we have to go back in time…

        Make me cry, will you? Now that is such a good reason for compounding the iniquity by adding one more on top! Talk about “whataboutism”.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2017, 1:07 am

        They {Zionist invaders] also practice apartheid. They need to stop practicing apartheid, allow the Palestinians back, pay reparations and accept the principle of equal rights. Alternatively, they can read about the history of the French presence in Algeria.

        I just love that “they need to”! Sure, who’s gonna make them do what they need to, with Unc’Sam paying for everything and sending them soldiers, too, and keeping the rest of the world paralyzed? You? Go ahead, show us how you make them do what they need to!

        As for reading, many of the elderly Zioinvaders were in Algeria in the colonial ranks. They don’t need to read to understand that Algeria was a cakewalk for the occupied –all other things being equal, that is..

      • Donald Johnson
        November 28, 2017, 8:52 am

        “I just love that “they need to”! Sure, who’s gonna make them do what they need to, with Unc’Sam paying for everything and sending them soldiers, too, and keeping the rest of the world paralyzed? You? Go ahead, show us how you make them do what they need to!”

        This is called shifting the goalposts. You asked for my position on whether Israeli Jews should be expelled and I gave it. BDS is precisely about pressuring the Israelis.

        Your own solution has nothing to do with reality no matter how often you advocate for expulsion. Mooser’s response to me applies to you. Do you really think the US or anyone else is going to help the Palestinians expel the Israeli Jews? Do you think the Palestinians themselves can do it? What do you imagine would happen if some other power declared an all out war on Israel with the express intent of expelling the Jews?

        One reason I haven’t replied before now is that I don’t see the point in getting into a long discussion about something which won’t happen and if it did happen would be catastrophic for everyone there, and everyone downwind and if the more pessimistic projections of nuclear winter are correct, for everyone everywhere.

      • echinococcus
        November 28, 2017, 6:00 pm

        Johnson,

        I’m not shifting any goalposts, I am discussing different nauseating aspects of your Zionist propaganda. It’s a nice example of what many people mean when they say, correctly, that “liberal” Zionists and a lot of “non-Zionists” and some “anti-Zionists” are working their ass off to ensure an arrangement that will guarantee that the invaders remain in Palestine.

        As for your sob story with the nuclear winter, let the Palestinian people decide. If history is any guide, chances are they don’t have anything to lose. What do you imagine, in your skull? That peoples who rise up and fight invaders are individually engineering things and making fine calculations before they pop their top and get gun or a pitchfork? One has trouble imagining that people like you were alive during most of the big liberation movements.

        Anyway, no need talking to me before you show me your permit, freely given by the entire Palestinian people, to decide “for their own good.”

      • Donald Johnson
        November 28, 2017, 9:09 pm

        Since we are being honest, your notions of collective innocence and guilt are disgusting and basically the mirror image of Zionism. The one point Israel defenders make which is valid without justifying their ideology is when they say nobody is innocent. The world is full of states formed in part by conquest or invasion or ethnic cleansing or various other forms of injustice. The solution is not to dispense “ judgment” on literally millions of people. You can indulge in your bloodthirsty childish fantasies , but put into practice your solution is no solution at all, but a call for the violent expulsion of millions of people who won’t go willingly. By rights you should be saying the same thing about every country where invasions have happened, including the US, but you don’t. This is bad faith on your part. Though to give you “ credit”, you did endorse the massive transfers of populations after WW2 in which hundreds of thousands died.

        The Zionist argument made by Harris doesn’t work because the answer is obvious— equal rights for everyone, a right of return, and reparations. The Israelis won’t do this willingly— it will require pressure. Your “ solution” would also require pressure in the form of some massive military intervention, and consequences nobody can foresee, but at least echino will know that his particular brand of perfect justice will finally come to fruition in one place, for the survivors anyway.

  6. pabelmont
    November 26, 2017, 7:04 pm

    What great questions he asks. Guess we should fold up our tents and steal away in the night. Guess no-one has a right to live in their own land, where they and their ancestors have lived for 500 or 1000 or 2000 years unless they have a special piece of paper in their back pocket signed by someone who has no right to dispose of their land telling them that they do have a right to the land. Or telling someone else that they (the someone else) has the rights.

    Wonderful, these pieces of paper! Actually, that’s why so many Palestinians took their deeds with them into exile; because they thought pieces of paper were magical. Papers with Ottoman or British “chops” on them. And then Israeli courts decided not to honor those pieces of paper and instead to honor the Hebrew Bible. Gosh!

    And now the argument might turn to which piece of paper is more puissant, the Hebrew Bible or a long slew of UNGA and UNSC resolutions and all those pesky conventions (Geneva 1949; Genocide; ICC; etc.)

    • Misterioso
      November 27, 2017, 12:30 pm

      Actually, it appears that today’s Palestinians and their ancestors have been living continuously between the River and the Sea for around 15,000 years whereas it is estimated that the biblical Hebrews did not arrive until circa 1800 BCE.

      http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full

      Front. Genet., 21 June 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087

      The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish
      Recent genetic samples from bones found in Palestine dating to the Epipaleolithic (20000-10500 BCE) showed remarkable resemblance to modern day Palestinians.

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

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

      • Annie Robbins
        November 27, 2017, 1:44 pm

        thanks for the link misterioso.

      • John O
        November 27, 2017, 2:43 pm

        This evidence also implies that conversion to Judaism at one time must have had social advantages, undermining the idea of 2,000 years of unremitting persecution in the diaspora.

      • Keith
        November 27, 2017, 5:01 pm

        JOHN O- “This evidence also implies that conversion to Judaism at one time must have had social advantages, undermining the idea of 2,000 years of unremitting persecution in the diaspora.”

        Indeed, it is yet another piece of data which shows that eternal and irrational anti-Semitism is nothing but Zionist mythology. Of course, Jews, like most groups, had their ups and downs, however, the notion of 2000 years of Jewish victimhood culminating in current power and privilege is profoundly illogical. Clearly in the US in 2017 being Jewish has social advantages, yet the myth of eternal Jewish victimhood and never ending anti-Semitism are too important to Jewish Zionist identity and group cohesion to be abandoned.

      • Eva Smagacz
        November 28, 2017, 10:18 am

        Eran Elhaik’s work is just as explosive as any Iranian nuclear weapons would be, and I sincerely hope that he has a discreet oхрана around Sheffield against those guys who have habit of killing Iranian nuclear scientists.
        48/55

      • Jackdaw
        November 30, 2017, 12:47 am

        ‘The obsession’, continues.

        Do we have to do the mirror trick again?
        * sigh*

      • Mooser
        November 30, 2017, 6:12 pm

        “Do we have to do the mirror trick again?”

        No, that’s all right, we’ve seen enough whataboutery

  7. yonah fredman
    November 26, 2017, 7:53 pm

    Some actually question Israel’s legitimacy independent of their empathy for the Palestinians. Who are these Jews to still persist in existing and not fading away? You can see this sentiment in various flavors here in the comments section. I consider these sentiments negative.

    But those who choose to face the pain of the Palestinians cannot possibly be mollified by the bible or balfour. When i see photos of november 47 and the exaltation of the yehudim in the yishuv, i identify with their exaltation, but it has to be weighed against the harm this enterprise has done and continues to do against the Palestinians. And how can i not put myself into the shoes of a palestinian reading about the first zionist congress of 1897 or the balfour declaration or the partition agreement and not feel their grief at the man made tsunami headed their way.

    the story of the 50’s and 60’s civil rights movement was called “eye on the prize”, and those searching for equality in america are told in the song, to keep their eye on the prize and only thus to achieve their goal.

    Thus people like David Harris (and Ruth Wisse, who i’ve been listening to, she is especially cogent on the Hannah Arendt Eichmann trial controversy.
    https://tikvahfund.org/library/podcast-ruth-wisse-perversity-brilliance/ ) feel that single minded purpose, support for Israel is the way to go, the way to achieve the prize of security is by single minded purpose.

    Uri Avnery is the prototype that refuses to ignore the Palestinians. He sees in 3 dimensions and sees two sides to the conflict and he is trying to keep his eye on a distant prize, but a prize that weighs two sides and values two sides.

    But Israel’s leader and general frame of mind is closer to David Harris and Ruth Wisse than it is to Uri Avnery. So the question of those who idealize Avnery or Yeshayahu Leibowitz are forced to deal with a prize that is not the goal of the majority of the nation, the nation is thinking like David Harris and Bibi, and their goal is not the same prize that Avnery seeks.

    • Mooser
      November 26, 2017, 10:44 pm

      “Some actually question Israel’s legitimacy independent of their empathy for the Palestinians. Who are these Jews to still persist in existing and not fading away?”

      “yonah” I really doubt you can get the UN to proclaim Israel has the right to destroy the Palestinians so Jews can exist as Jews.

      • kev
        November 27, 2017, 11:47 am

        You’re probably right, Mooser. Unfortunately, though, AIPAC probably can get the US Congress to proclaim exactly that.

    • Citizen
      November 27, 2017, 1:58 am

      Hitler had a single-minded purpose too.

    • eljay
      November 27, 2017, 7:39 am

      || yonah fredman: Some actually question Israel’s legitimacy independent of their empathy for the Palestinians. … ||

      There never was any legitimacy to the idea of carving up geographic Palestine in order to create a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel for people all over the world – citizens of homelands all over the world – who chose to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish.

      || … Who are these Jews to still persist in existing and not fading away? … ||

      That’s a truly lame bit of sob story, y.f. A religion-supremacist “Jewish State” was not and is not required for “Jews to still persist in existing”. All it takes is:
      – a religious conversion to Judaism; or
      – descent from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

      • Mooser
        November 27, 2017, 1:12 pm

        ” … Who are these Jews to still persist in existing and not fading away? … “

        “yonah” tells us how it’s gonna be.

      • yonah fredman
        November 28, 2017, 6:02 am

        eljay: israel and zionism were created at a moment of flux of the jewish peoples, primarily regarding ashkenazi jews, particularly regarding eastern european ashkenazi jews under the rule of the czars. the tumult between 1881 and 1945, was stratospheric and to use the term “citizens of homelands all over the world” would only strike those people as mockery, for they were leaving one continent for another during one vital period and leaving this world for the world to come during the second vital period and to talk to them as “citizens of homelands all over the world” (reflecting as it does an ideal condition that did not apply to them and i agree that it’s a good goal, but it did not exist at the time of this birth) is to make a mockery of real history and to replace real conditions with laboratory conditions: that’s not how this history came to be written. and if you wish to unwrite it, you should admit the conditions under which it was written rather than pretend that these words apply to all moments equally.

      • eljay
        November 28, 2017, 7:59 am

        || yonah fredman @ November 28, 2017, 6:02 am ||

        So many words just to say: Acts of injustice and immorality committed against Jews justify acts of injustice and immorality committed by Jews.

        The facts remain:
        – The idea of carving up geographic Palestine in order to create a religion-supremacist state for Jews was illegitimate.
        – A religion-supremacist “Jewish State” was not and is not required for “Jews to still persist in existing”.

      • Mooser
        November 28, 2017, 4:34 pm

        “A religion-supremacist “Jewish State” was not and is not required for “Jews to still persist in existing”.

        A religion-supremacist Jewish State is the greatest single danger to the continued existence of Judaism as a religion.

      • eljay
        November 29, 2017, 10:04 am

        || Mooser: … A religion-supremacist Jewish State is the greatest single danger to the continued existence of Judaism as a religion. ||

        y.f. isn’t worried about Judaism. He knows that as long as Jews have their tribe, culture, ethnicity, people, nation, civilization and “Jewish State”, they don’t need religion in order to “persist in existing and not fad[e] away”.

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2017, 4:06 pm

        ” He knows that as long as Jews have their tribe, culture, ethnicity, people, nation, civilization and “Jewish State”, they don’t need religion”

        If they’ve got all that, they don’t even need any Jews.
        Anybody could fill the role, since its attributes are so well-delineated.

  8. RoHa
    November 27, 2017, 4:57 am

    The problem here is the inadequacy of the Bible. It does not mention London. There is no word about Paris. Tokyo, Beijing, and Lhasa are totally ignored. Moscow, Stockholm, and Budapest aren’t there.

    Not a word about anywhere in Australia. Not even Oodnadatta.

    If we are to decide legitimacy on the basis of a Holy Book, we need one with a more global outlook.

    • eljay
      November 27, 2017, 9:18 am

      || RoHa: The problem here is the inadequacy of the Bible. It does not mention London. There is no word about Paris. Tokyo, Beijing, and Lhasa are totally ignored. Moscow, Stockholm, and Budapest aren’t there. … ||

      Dunno, perhaps it’s evidence of the Bible’s adequacy that it doesn’t mention those other cities. I mean, it’s work enough to have to secure one “eternal and undivided capital” – can you imagine having to secure eight more? And if you’ve got nine “eternal and undivided capitals”, do you have nine “eternal / ancient homelands” or only one and, if so, which one?!

    • Stephen Shenfield
      November 27, 2017, 12:29 pm

      London, Paris, and all those other places are all grouped together as “Gog and Magog”

      • RoHa
        November 27, 2017, 4:42 pm

        Not very precise, that. Which bits are which? Wooloomooloo seems pretty Gogish to me, but I’m not at all sure about Brisbane. Magogish? And London is both. The statues are at the Guildhall.

    • Philip Weiss
      November 28, 2017, 11:21 am

      What about Indooroopilly and New Farm? Maybe it’s time to revise the good book?

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2017, 6:49 pm

        Are you suggesting that we decide Ma/Gogishness by suburb? That will be a tricky business. Indooroopilly is mildly Gogish, but New Farm is very Magogish. We will have to employ some system like the Australian Preferential Voting system.

        Incidentally, which suburbs of Tel Aviv are mentioned in the Bible?

  9. Ossinev
    November 27, 2017, 7:28 am

    And while I am at it Mr. Trump you can take your $4billion a year and stuff it up your rear.

  10. Tuyzentfloot
    November 27, 2017, 8:40 am

    The Bible predictably doesn’t mention that Jeruzalem and all the other biblical places in the area were a desert for 2000 years until the zionists came and made it bloom.

    • MHughes976
      November 27, 2017, 11:50 am

      No clear timescale, I agree, Tuy, but if I were a religious Zionist I would read Isaiah 35, where the desert blossoms like a rose and God exercises jjudgement, with a rosy and blossoming feeling.

      • Tuyzentfloot
        November 27, 2017, 3:38 pm

        I don’t know this Isaiah friend of yours well but a nonreligious Zionist would put the end of those 2000 years around the creation of the state of Israel.

  11. Ossinev
    November 27, 2017, 9:41 am

    “And are we going to ask, if we do, why is it that in North Africa, where the indigenous people were the Berbers and then the Jews– Arabs came from the Arabian peninsula and occupied and conquered those nations?”

    Well would you Adam and Eve it ! I never realised that the “Jews” were the indigenous people of North Africa.

    And I never realised that the Bible was the most widely read work of fiction in the history of the world. I thought that was The Chronicles of Narnia – seems it wasn`t necessarily so.

  12. Misterioso
    November 27, 2017, 10:45 am

    For the much needed edification of David Harris. (Not that he’s interested in the facts.)

    Re: Jerusalem:
    It was the Jebusite/Canaanites, ancestors of today’s Palestinians, who founded Jerusalem around 3000 BCE. Originally known as Jebus, the first recorded reference to it as “Rushalimum” (or “Urussalim”) appears in Egyptian Execration Texts of the nineteenth century BCE, nearly 800 years before it is alleged King David was born.

    BTW, thus far, no archaeological evidence, or more importantly, writings of contemporaneous civilizations, have been found that prove Solomon or David actually existed. To quote the renowned Jewish Israeli writer/columnist, Uri Avnery: “[David and Solomon’s] existence is disproved, inter alia, by their total absence from the voluminous correspondence of Egyptian rulers and spies in the Land of Canaan.” (“A Curious National Home,” by Uri Avnery, May 13/17 – http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1494589093/
    (Nor has any evidence been discovered that confirms the Jewish exodus from Egypt ever occurred.)

    Re: The 1937 Peel Report:
    In 1936, Britain commissioned the Peel Commission to analyze and recommend a formula to end the violence in Palestine. In 1937, the Commission submitted its report and its major recommendation was to propose partition as a solution. The Report was not accepted by Britain’s government as it was in violation of the League of Nations Class A mandate (which, prohibited a Jewish state in Palestine or any form of partition.) It was also rejected during a meeting a month later in Zurich by the Zionist Congress (they wanted even more land than they would receive) and for obvious reasons, by the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine.

    As proposed by the Peel Report, what would have most certainly been an unviable Arab state, was to be made part of what was then Transjordan while Britain was to retain control of specific areas of Palestine, including East (the Old City) and West Jerusalem along with Bethlehem, and also control access to the Mediterranean Sea through the port of Jaffa. This outrageous scheme would have given Jews (about 90% of foreign origin comprising about thirty per cent of the population and owning just 5.6 per cent of the land) about one third of Palestine including its most fertile regions, such as the wholly Arab owned Galilee, the Plains of Esdraelon south of Nazareth, as well as the equally Arab and Jewish owned lush coastal plain from the Lebanese border to a point south of Jaffa, which itself would remain Arab.

    Apparently, of the view that Palestinians had no rights whatsoever, the Peel Report also recommended that 225,000 Arabs in the proposed Jewish state should be exchanged for what were a mere 1,250 Jews in the envisaged Arab state. While they were deliberately ambiguous as to whether Arabs in the Galilee should be forcibly removed, the commissioners did advocate that as “a last resort,” the transfer of Palestinians inhabiting the bountiful Esdraelon and coastal plains “should be compulsory.” Obviously, Britain had no option other than to reject the Peel Report.

    On 7 August 1937, following publication of the Peel Commission Report, Ben-Gurion stated the following before the Twentieth Zionist Congress meeting in Zurich: “In many parts of the country new Jewish settlement will not be possible unless there is a transfer of the Arab fellahs [i.e., farmers]. The [Peel] Commission dealt with this matter seriously, and it is important that this plan [i.e., the commission’s proposal that 225,000 Arabs be transferred out of the prospective Jewish state] came from them and not from us….”

    To settle the matter once and for all, in May 1939, the British government issued the MacDonald White Paper, which in accordance with the Mandate, ruled out any possibility of a Jewish state, and declared Great Britain “could not have intended Palestine should be converted into a Jewish state against the will of the Arab population of the country.” It called for a Palestinian state in which Jews and Arabs would govern jointly based on a constitution to be drafted by their representatives and those of Britain. The constitution would safeguard the “Jewish National Home” in Palestine and if good relations developed between Jews and Arabs, the country would be granted independence in ten years. Land sales to Jews were to be restricted and the annual level of Jewish immigration was to be limited to 15,000 for five years, following which, Palestinian Arab acquiescence would be required.

    ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Re: The Partition Plan
    Palestinians rejected the Partition Plan (UNGA Res. 181, Nov. 29/47) for entirely justified reasons based on international law. While Jews made up just 31% of the population (90% of foreign origin, only 30% had become citizens, thousands were illegal immigrants) and privately owned only between 6% and 7% of the land, the Partition Plan (recommendatory only, no legal foundation, contrary to the British Class A Mandate and the Atlantic Charter, never adopted by the UNSC) outrageously recommended they receive 56% of Palestine (including its most fertile areas) in which Palestinians made up 45% of the population. (10% of Palestine’s Jewish population consisted of native Palestinian/Arab Jews who were anti-Zionist.)

    48% of the total land area of mandated Palestine was privately owned (‘mulk khaas’) by Palestinian Arabs. As noted, total Jewish privately owned land was only between 6% and 7%. About 45% of the total land area was state owned, i.e. by citizens of Palestine, and it was comprised of Communal Property (‘mashaa’), Endowment Property, (‘waqf’), and Government Property, (‘miri’.) (The British Mandate kept an extensive land registry and the UN used the registry during its early deliberations. It has in its archives 453,000 records of individual Palestinian owners defined by name, location & area.)

    Although Palestinian Arab citizens made up at least 69% of the population and to repeat, privately owned 48% of the land, the Partition Plan recommended they receive only 42% as a state. (The 2% of Palestine comprised of Jerusalem and Bethlehem was to be placed under international control, a corpus separatum.)

    • MHughes976
      November 27, 2017, 12:01 pm

      No indeed, Mist, he’s not interested in the facts in the way we might hope. He’s concerned with a text that may not be tediously factual but is inspiringly sacred. The idea of that sacredness is lodged deep in the consciousness of most Western people still, certainly of enough Western people – me included, can’t help it – to make a difference. I like to think that he interprets his text wrongly, but I would have a hard job persuading him.

  13. James Canning
    November 27, 2017, 12:50 pm

    Has David Harris told us what he thinks should be the borders of Palestine?

  14. Greta
    November 27, 2017, 1:16 pm

    Israel has no right to exist. No state does or we would still have Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and a half-dozen African countries that no longer exist. Only people have the right to exist, and Israel has been denying that right to Palestinians for almost 70 years.

    The fact that Israel exists now does NOT mean it has the right to exist. It can disappear in the sands of time just like so many other countries. The people who live there, however, have every right to exist.

    • MHughes976
      November 27, 2017, 1:53 pm

      Their actual non-existence doesn’t prove that they lacked a right to exist, Greta – it may be that their dismantlements were wrongful acts.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 27, 2017, 2:25 pm

        Their actual non-existence doesn’t prove that they lacked a right to exist

        mhughes, there are no actual “rights of existence” (or “right to exist”)for states. if you’d like to prove otherwise simply provide the text of the so called right and what body adopted it and who signed on.

        the only anomaly i can think of that even compares to a state having rights designed for humans is the US supreme court granting personhood rights to corporations, which has been a disaster.

        the actual non-existence of rights for states to exist does prove that states lack a right to exist.

      • MHughes976
        November 28, 2017, 11:39 am

        It is true that ‘the non-existence of rights for states to exist proves that states lack a right to exist’ – that’s because you’ve put ‘right’ on both (implying and implied) sides of the implication or proof. But it’s not true that the actual non-existence of former states (where the ‘implying’ side of the statement does not include the term ‘right’) proves a lack of right even in those individual cases. It proves only that one of two things must be true: either they had no right to exist or their rights were violated. Which of those two things is true – and it’s an important difference – remains in question.
        If we find someone who has suffered homicide we would probably not say ‘This shows that individuals, or at least individuals like him, have no right to life’ – we would regret the violation of that right.
        As to the right to exist, that depends on meaning. I would think that all of us, all individuals, have the right, except perhaps for highly exceptional circumstances recognised in the theory of just war, not to be subject to invasion and the ravaging or seizure of our homes, the very thing that happened in Palestine 48. That’s not the same thing as saying that the borders and constitutions of states are sacred. They should not be changed rashly or without concern for the general good or general consent but that doesn’t mean that they should last for ever.

      • RoHa
        November 28, 2017, 6:39 pm

        I suppose we could argue, on Lockean grounds, that, all things being equal, people in a territory have a prima facie right to establish, by mutual agreement, a state in that territory. From this we could proceed to the idea that, so long as the agreement persists, they have the right to maintain that state in existence. This is a right of the people, not of the state. I would not regard such a right as absolute or inviolable.

        And, of course, where Israel is concerned, things are damned well not equal.

  15. Ossinev
    November 27, 2017, 1:36 pm

    Hot off the press. President Rivlin has invited the soon to be newly- weds Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to honeymoon in Israel ( the world`s one and only borderless Promised Land ).
    Well it has been a bit quiet on the major earthquake sentence recently so no “humanitarian” PR opportunities for those 24/7 response teams and any PR port in a storm as they say .
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/rivlin-invites-prince-harry-and-fiancee-to-honeymoon-in-israel/

    Presumably Prince Harry and Ms Markle if they take up this wonderful heart felt offer will get the full sanitised treatment with all Israeli Arabs and Palestinians under 0000 hrs to 2400 hrs curfew for the duration of the proposed visit and perhaps a huge temporary shroud wrapped around the Dome of the Rock.

  16. Annie Robbins
    November 27, 2017, 2:12 pm

    the whole legitimacy vs delegitimacy conversation is hasbara based, designed and perpetuated. it was developed by ruit and frank lutz pr specialists. it is irrelevant and goes hand in hand with the claim israel is singled out unfairly.

    the argument pretends people have a problem with colonization and ethnic cleansing because the colonizers are jewish — which is stupid. it posits that because historically society has accepted and perpetuated mass colonization/ethnic cleansing that it should be accepted and perpetuated in the present and the future when it’s simply unacceptable in todays world, as it was unacceptable at israels founding. those days are just over. so any conversation about legitimacy vs delegitimacy should be confined to the topic, justifying colonization and forced displacement of people. legitimizing that is a racist fool’s game.

  17. Vera Gottlieb
    November 27, 2017, 3:39 pm

    The Bible was written when??? New York City was founded when??? More Zionist bs…just what we need.

    • Brewer
      November 27, 2017, 5:55 pm

      Actually, that question is very interesting. Russell Gmirkin has a strong case:

      ” he is perhaps best known for his research on the late date and Greek sources of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and its laws. His 2006 book called Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch was one of the first to discuss specific Greek sources used by the biblical authors. His latest book, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible, identifies Plato’s Laws as perhaps the most influential such Greek text, a source for many of the Laws of Moses and for the very notion of an approved national literature (the Bible).

      Some of the key innovations found in Gmirkin’s writings include the identification of the authors of the Pentateuch (Genesis–Deuteronomy) as the same group of Jewish scholars that tradition said translated these books into Greek for the Great Library of Alexandria around 270 BCE”

      https://www.routledge.com/authors/i15023-russell-gmirkin

    • hophmi
      November 28, 2017, 11:30 am

      It’s not like any Arab faction would ever cite a holy text in support of their cause, LOL.

      • eljay
        November 28, 2017, 11:47 am

        || hophmi: It’s not like any Arab faction would ever cite a holy text in support of their cause, LOL. ||

        You can always count on hophmi to chime in with bottom-of-the-barrel whataboutism and apologetics, LOL.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 28, 2017, 12:09 pm

        shorter hops: ‘LOL, arabs engage in religious whataboutery too!’

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2017, 4:09 pm

        ” ‘LOL, arabs engage in religious whataboutery too!’

        “Hophmi” is always quick to point out that Arabs are just as good as us Jews. He’s very liberal that way.

  18. ErsatzYisrael
    November 27, 2017, 4:39 pm

    Israel has more legitimacy than US because the bible mentions Jerusalem, not New York — says David Harris

    Foreign zio-Jews have no legitimate claim to Palestine because the Torah doesn’t mention Jerusalem even once — says ErsatzYisrael

  19. Boomer
    November 28, 2017, 10:44 am

    re: “Last week David Harris, the CEO of the American Jewish Committee, offered a foot-stompin heart-stoppin sermon on Zionism from the pulpit of Temple Shaaray Tefila, a wealthy Reform congregation in Bedford Corners, N.Y.”

    This is, in a sense, inside baseball for someone like myself, a non-Jewish American. Still, it is useful information to help understand U.S. culture, policy, and politics. Back in the 1980s I lived near NYC. Many Friday evenings I would listen to services from a Reform congregation in Manhattan, which were broadcast on a local radio station. The language was elevated, as were the sermons: inspirational, even noble. They were more familiar than one might expect. As someone reared in a Protestant tradition, I was accustomed to hearing the Hebrew scriptures, albeit in a different translation and context. Based on that experience, I would have expected Reform congregations to have less Zionistic perspective on Israel, a more compassionate perspective on Palestinians. I infer that isn’t the case.

  20. hophmi
    November 28, 2017, 11:19 am

    So I’m assuming that you agree with this argument, Phil. The point is that people living in comfort in the West and in the Arab Middle East criticize Israel from a place of privilege and comfort and as a way to avoid criticism of their own societies.

    • Bumblebye
      November 28, 2017, 1:56 pm

      Is there much “comfort and privilege” in “the Arab Middle East” – except perhaps for Israel’s Arab allies? The rest seem to have been rather shattered according to Israel’s wish list, don’t they.

  21. Boris
    November 28, 2017, 5:34 pm

    100 comments – all missing the point, including the article.

    David Harris points to the Bible’s mention of Jerusalem as a proof of ancient Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. This actually shows that Israel is not a colonial enterprise alike many countries, like the Unites States, for example.

    As far as Israel’s right to exist, the right to any property comes from the business end of a gun. Eat it!

    • Donald Johnson
      November 28, 2017, 9:19 pm

      Um, it shows nothing of the kind. By your reasoning, if I can find out where my ancestors were living 2000 years ago, I have the right to go to those places and re establish my long lost homeland no matter what the current residents might say. Or I could convert to some particular religion, find out where it’s adherents were living at some point in the past and claim that location for myself and my co religionists.

      But you are providing more evidence for my theory that the strongest arguments against Zionism are always made inadvertently by Zionists.

      • gamal
        November 28, 2017, 11:12 pm

        “But you are providing more evidence for my theory that the strongest arguments against Zionism are always made inadvertently by Zionists.”

        well they wouldn’t be made by Palestinians would they, are they even part of the conversation…

        Ibram X Kendi, though not white has an interesting American perspective on ingrained racism you may enjoy it, I think he makes some points worth considering in this TO interview excerpted below..I have taken the liberty of isolating two I think very diverting paragraphs and the one starting with “In order to prove it…” is full of liberatory power if you open to it, it’s only a black voice but not without merit..

        “Ibram X. Kendi: I think first and foremost, assimilationist thinking hasn’t been recognized historically as racist ideas because assimilationists themselves have primarily written the history of racist ideas. In writing that history, they have also been at the forefront of defining and popularizing the term “racism” itself. The term itself was really coined by a Columbia anthropologist by the name of Ruth Benedict, from her book Race: Science and Politics in 1940. It’s sort of a late-blooming term.

        Every group of racists has identified their ideas as being outside of racism.

        Ruth Benedict and her colleagues in social science and humanities were recoiling against eugenics in Germany and even in the United States, a eugenics movement that they classified as racism. They, of course, did not think their own ideas of cultural hierarchy or even behavioral hierarchy were racist ideas. That story is indicative of the long history of racist ideas, in which every group of racists has identified their ideas as being outside of racism.

        Segregationists, when they embarked on making the case that we are all created unequal, stated that that’s not prejudice — that’s God’s law, that’s nature’s law, that’s science’s law…. The same thing happened when assimilationists said that we are created equal but that Black people became inferior due to their inferior cultural environment, their climatic environment or even their oppressive environment. They stated that was science — that was based on observation — that was certainly not racism.

        You give a definition of racism in the prologue to Stamped from the Beginning. How has the definition of racism come to be skewed so that so many people are accepting of the idea that it’s okay to say that there are racially inferior cultures, as long as one says that it was caused by some past injustice?

        I think most people who are operating within racial justice spaces, or outside of them, have never really sat down to define a racist idea and thereby apply that definition to their ideas. One of the things that I wanted to do through Stamped from the Beginning was to lay out a very simple definition of a racist idea — any idea that suggests a racial group is superior or inferior to another racial group, in any way — and then apply that definition to ideas over the course of modern history.

        Even before doing that, I had to apply those ideas to myself. I think people are simply unwilling to self-critique and become self-aware of their own racist ideas. That results in even people who are well-meaning, even people who are imagining that they are part of the solution, replicating these ideas. I wanted to show that in the text.

        There is a popular racist idea among well-meaning people that oppression — whether that oppression is slavery, segregation, mass incarceration or even poverty — is not just dehumanizing, but that oppression has literally dehumanized people. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence substantiating that idea, but no one has ever proven it. That’s one of the major things I wanted to show: “Okay, if you’re saying that these people are inferior, then prove it.”

        In order to prove it, people have to employ their cultural subjectivities, social subjectivities or class subjectivities. That’s typically how people have proven it in the past. They have judged these groups, whether free Blacks then or poor Blacks today, from their own social or cultural standards, made the case that they were not living up to them, and then stated that they were not living up to them because of their oppression.

        You say in the preface to the paperback edition that people — even in committed social justice circles — have tended to understand the progression of racist ideas as being that racist ideas have become less overt, more covert. You push back on that, and to many people, that will be counterintuitive. Can you talk about how you see racist ideas as still very overt, even though you also talk in the book about how in the late 20th century in particular, politicians changed their language to avoid what were known prior to that as racially signifying terms?

        When we identify the way in which racist policies have changed, we will then see that they’re actually as overt as ever.
        I think within popular movement, activist and social justice circles, and among people who consider themselves to be progressive, the concept that racism has become more covert, that racist ideas have become more implicit, is pretty much the consensus. I attempt to show in Stamped from the Beginning that the reason why racist policies have become more covert is that we are assessing 21st century racist policies from the spectacles of 20th century racist policies. In other words, the racist policies have changed and become more sophisticated and instead of us seeing those changes and seeing those new racist policies, we are looking for 1950s racist policies.

        We are doing the same thing as it relates to racist ideas. Racist ideas have become ever more sophisticated over time, and instead of looking for the new manifestations of racist ideas, we are trying to understand it from old language or old terms, when those terms and the language of racist ideas has changed.”

        http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/42700-ibram-x-kendi-on-recognizing-21st-century-racist-ideas-and-policies

      • Boris
        November 29, 2017, 7:29 am

        >>> if I can find out where my ancestors were living 2000 years

        That’s a big “IF”, and I bet that if you could you would.

      • Mooser
        November 29, 2017, 2:49 pm

        “That’s a big “IF”, and I bet that if you could you would.”

        Boris, you are so right, and very right to talk down to him, too.
        You put “Donald Johnson” in his place! The lesser peoples of the world, who have been the subject of persecution, expulsion, segregation and genocide don’t have the time or intelligence (or the morals!) to keep strict records of marriages and land possession. (Nor do they, like us, keep themselves racially pure!)

        But when you’ve been an aristocracy on earth for over 2000 years, you have time to keep exact records, and enforce purity.

    • eljay
      November 29, 2017, 8:06 am

      || Boris: 100 comments – all missing the point … ||

      It’s not that the point was missed, it’s that it has no merit.

      || … David Harris points to the Bible’s mention of Jerusalem as a proof of ancient Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. … ||

      An “ancient Jewish presence” in a fabled “Land of Israel” did not in the 20th century and does not in the 21st century grant to people all over the world – citizens of homelands all over the world – who cho(o)se to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish the right to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

      || … This actually shows that Israel is not a colonial enterprise … ||

      It actually doesn’t do that at all.

    • Mooser
      November 29, 2017, 6:18 pm

      “>>> if I can find out where my ancestors were living 2000 years ago”

      “That’s a big “IF”, and I bet that if you could you would.” “Boris”

      “Boris” don’t worry! “Donald Johnson” would likely have to do all kinds of research to find out where his family lived 2000 years ago. Very expensive, accuracy doubtful.

      But all you have to do is open the Bible, and look, there you are!

      • Boris
        November 30, 2017, 11:24 am

        Muser,

        You almost got it with this second response. Ye, still wrong.

        It is not the family history or land deeds. The point is that the Jewish nation state had existed in that area, while Donald’s ancestors lived with their Johnsons in the forest.

      • Mooser
        November 30, 2017, 5:28 pm

        ” The point is that the Jewish nation state had existed in that area, while Donald’s ancestors lived with their Johnsons in the forest.”

        Ha,ha,ha, they ran around with their “Johnsons” in the forest! We Jews knew what to do about that. As soon as we saw it, we knew it needed customizing.

      • Boris
        December 1, 2017, 9:53 am

        I see now – this must be the source of your grievances.

        Luckily for me – I have no problem with my Johnson, nor with it’s customization.

        Why don’t you go to a psychologist? Urologist? Gynecologist?

      • Mooser
        December 1, 2017, 1:52 pm

        “Why don’t you go to a…”

        “Boris”, I’m warning you, any more of this secular harassment, and I will demand an annulment.

      • Boris
        December 1, 2017, 3:24 pm

        Annulment?

        Are you seriously considering to cut it off ???

      • Mooser
        December 1, 2017, 3:36 pm

        “Are you seriously considering to cut it off ???”

        ROTFLMSJAO!! You didn’t click the link, did you?

  22. JLewisDickerson
    November 28, 2017, 8:05 pm

    RE: “We to this day continue to hear a lot about Israel’s legitimacy. So let’s go back to basics… May I ask, and I do so deliberately, provocatively, What is the legitimacy of the establishment of the United States of America? . . . Was there a bible, the most widely read book in the history of the world, that spoke repeatedly about Yerushalayim and Zion– and in this case about Washington and New York?” ~ Harris

    MY COMMENT: Isn’t Gone With the Wind the second most widely read book in the history of the world? I wonder what significance Mr. Harris would see in that.
    Not to mention that at one time Peyton Place was very widely read.
    Ditto for Mein Kampf.

    • Kaisa of Finland
      November 28, 2017, 8:45 pm

      “..the most widely read book in the history of the world..”

      Yes, and ofcourse that makes everything written in it a fact, like:

      “But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

      23 The man said,

      “This is now bone of my bones
      and flesh of my flesh;
      she shall be called ‘woman,’
      for she was taken out of man.”

      (Genesis 2:4-3:24)

      Most likely the only time in the history a man has given birth to a woman and not the opposite, like it usually seems to be.. Truly a reliable sourse for just about everything in the world!

    • RoHa
      November 28, 2017, 9:06 pm

      I thought the most read book was the Qur’an.

      Or one of the Harry Potter books.

    • eljay
      November 29, 2017, 8:34 am

      Depends on how one defines “most widely read”. If it’s defined as…
      sales over the last 50 years; or
      # languages translated or # of printed copies worldwide,
      …the Bible is #1.

      But that doesn’t mean that it actually is the most widely-read book. And it definitely doesn’t mean that it’s the best-written book (that honour goes to “The Lord of the Rings”).

      • RoHa
        November 29, 2017, 4:46 pm

        I put “read” in italics precisely to avoid that definition. “Most translated” does not imply that it has been read by anyone other than the translators, and “best seller” does not imply any actual reading at all.

        Mind you, I’m not sure that a lot of the ritual Qur’an chanting can be counted as reading, either. Perhaps Gamal could comment on that.

        In the meantime, I’m going for Harry Potter.

  23. Mooser
    December 1, 2017, 3:41 pm

    ” “Most translated” does not imply that it has been read by anyone other than the translators”

    I’m sure Rocky Raccoon read quite a few chapters while recuperating.

Leave a Reply