Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 7120 (since 2010-04-19 03:21:04)

Showing comments 7120 - 7101

  • The crisis of the American Jewish community
    • As usual, there's a central paradox in your analysis, JVP Jews by and large are just leftists who happen to be Jewish, and they are not the future of the Jewish community. They are radical assimilationists who, as every analysis shows, will by and large not perpetuate Judaism in any meaningful way in the next generation or two. So they don't matter in the long run.

  • Kim Philby's last straw
    • The greatest ideological opposition of our times? C'mon, man. Are you really that obsessed with Israel? It's one country. There are 193 on the Earth. Zionism is the ideology of 1. It is not that important an ideology unless you believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

  • The grotesque injustice of Obama's speech at the Washington synagogue
    • I disagree. Peter Beinart wrote in The Crisis of Zionism that Obama thought like a liberal Zionist and he was right, as he usually is about things like this.

      There's really nothing hypocritical about Obama's speech, except to political extremists who tend to believe Israel is the world's most horrible place, which I can understand if Mondoweiss is your only source of news. In real life, Israel is a democracy, and the US and Israel share many liberal democratic values in common and have a strong alliance that transcends who is in the Oval Office. It is a common enough fallacy to believe that anyone who doesn't see the world your way must be a hypocrite.

    • Not worth my time to have a debate with you about whether the Occidental Observer is an antisemitic website.

    • The Occidental Observer? I see that we're STILL putting through comments from overtly anti Semitic sources.

    • I don't know, James. What do the 25% of Americans who are not Christians do on Christmas and Easter?

    • No, it does not violate the church-state separation principle when a head of state visits a house of worship.

    • Sure, Italian ex-pat, whatever you need to believe. What's the US-Saudi relationship about?

    • LOL. Lots of countries have deep connections with the United States. The US-Israel relationship has nothing to do with money. The China-US relationship is about money. The Japan-US relationship is about money. The US-Israel relationship is about shared values. That's why most people in the anti-Israel community hate both Israel and the United States.

    • Well, Donald, welcome to reality. Israelis and Palestinians are not equal in the United States. The Israelis have deep connections with the United States on every level - political, economic, military. The Palestinians do not. So if you think that these simplistic analogies carry any currency, or that they should, you're being delusional.

  • Obama equates Israel's creation to African-Americans gaining right to vote
    • "why can’t people be honest about the price paid by the Palestinians? I know the answer.”

      They certainly can say it. They just can't solve the problem on the backs of the Jewish refugees who established Israel as a refuge from worldwide bigotry, especially when there is a worldwide rise in antisemitism, and life for Jews in Europe is becoming increasingly untenable.

  • Sheesh: A conservative response to the special relationship
    • Or Israel is doing what every other nation always does - engaging in the practice of diplomacy by trading one thing for another, in this case, criticism of the Iran deal for more strategic support. The only difference is that because Ynet prints an English edition, you heard about it.

      It always amazes me when you adopt the worst tropes of big power politics, but here you've done it again, referring like a good patronizing British colonialist to your client state as a spoiled child and you as indulgent father.

  • The U.S. is at last facing the neocon captivity
    • Shorter Phil: Blame the Jews for a policy supported by the vast majority of the Gentiles in the United States by studiously missing the forest for a small tree.

      We did not go to war in Iraq for Israel's sake. We went because we have national security and oil interests in the Middle East, because we'd fought a war with Saddam before in which he had ethnically cleansed Kurds, and because the President of the United States had a personal vendetta against the guy. To the extent that neocons wished for democracies in the Middle East, it was out of that old belief that people do better when they're not living under authoritarian dictators, although I realize that the radical left has never taken this up, because they've supported many of these same dictators over time.

      Phil's Israel fallacy is a house of cards, and unfortunately, it's tinged with antisemitism.

      "A letter surely regretted by Francis Fukuyama, who later accused the neocons of seeing everything through a pro-Israel lens"

      That is not what Fukuyama said; you're spinning it. Fukuyama said simply that American problems were not the same as Israeli problems, and that the neocons had a habit of viewing them as the same. That is not the same thing as saying that neocons see everything through a pro-Israel lens.

  • International calls rise for FIFA to suspend Israel
    • "They bent the rules so that Israel does not play its World Cup qualifying matches as part of the Middle East, but as part of Europe. Thus, it does not have to play Arab countries with which it is often technically at war"

      You can thank the Arabs for that; they have always sought to use every possible international forum to harass Israel, while using their oil wealth to avoid any opprobrium for themselves. It is not Israel who asked to be part of Europe. The Israelis don't boycott the Arab countries. The Arab countries boycott them.

    • Israel will stay in FIFA. And if it actually is removed, it will only make clear that the activist community is fighting a political battle, tinged with antisemitism, at the behest of human rights violators, not a human rights battle at the behest of the downtrodden.

    • LOL. Yes, please kick Israel out of this corrupt, horrible organization that destroys the economies of its host countries and includes human rights luminaries like the DPRK, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and many others. Another victory for Arab dictators, oops; I mean, "human rights" activists.

  • Netanyahu: Jerusalem was always the capital 'of the Jewish people alone'
    • Assuming the story is true, no, a few broken cameras are not akin to the burning and looting of dozens of synagogues over 2 nights and the murder of nearly 100 German Jews. American police officers have broken people's cameras before, and I don't recall anyone making that comparison.

  • 'Jerusalem Day' and the sacralization of propaganda
    • "So I’m sorry, I forgot, what was your point?"

      My point is that it's wrong to leave out that many Jews were ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem in 1948. I know why you do it; it cuts against your depiction of the Palestinians as innocent victims and your depiction of Israelis as demons.

      Glad to see that you admit that it happened.

    • "I know the Jews who pray there today didn’t ask the Israeli army to destroy people’s houses.

      Do you any of the Jews who were ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem by the Jordanians in 1948? Because there were quite a few.

  • 'NYT' public editor faults paper for failing to quote Jews who support BDS
    • It's a terrible comment. The guy who warns French Jews that they should leave because they are in danger is not the same as the guy who attacks them and makes them feel unsafe. It's like confusing Hitler with someone who sounds the alarm that the Holocaust is about to happen.

      Most of the French Jews who have left are Jewish immigrants from North Africa. They are the ones who have been on the receiving end of most of these attacks, and they are also the ones who are the most active Jews in France, so while the percentage of French Jews emigrating is small, it is actually quite a significant percentage of the North African Jewish population of France.

    • Page: 71
  • 'Forward' ad on all the great ways to be Jewish doesn't mention Israel
  • Settlers Supporting Settlers: Towards an explanation of the US/Israel relationship
    • You can look at it that way if you want. They are different; Jews were in far more desperate straights, and unlike Americans, they had been in the Holy Land continuously for thousands of years.

      Most would simply see it as hypocritical for people in settler societies who take precious little action against their own societies dictate to another, much smaller, much more threatened, perceived settler society. It's an exercise of privilege.

    • LOL. Full voting rights AFTER they expelled or killed their indigenous populations.

    • "Black people , whether native or not, are not settlers in white settler colonies that deny their very humanity"

      Neither are Jews.

      "Anti-blackness today informs U.S. Zionists’ support for Israel’s brutal anti-African policies even as those policies were originally developed to keep out purged indigenous Palestinians."

      That's nonsense. First of all, many American Zionists, including virtually all liberal Zionists, do not support Israel's policies on African economic migrants. Second of all, the issue of African migrants are not unique to Israel; Europe is not exactly welcoming African immigrants with open arms either.

      The real question is why, if these other nations are settler societies, Israel is the only so-called settler society that anyone seems to care about. The message activists who obsess over Israel send is that settler societies are better off completing their ethnic cleansing their indigenous populations, because after that, it seems as though the activists lose interest, or, put another way, that activists are only interested in stoking already violent conflicts. It's interesting how there's no call here for boycotting the United States, Canada, or Australia.

  • 'NYT' and 'MSNBC' leave Marco Rubio backer's Israel agenda out of the story
    • The caption of the first photograph in the piece mentions that they're at a pro-Israel event and that Israel is part of what brought them together.

      So where should we put in the piece that Braman is Jewish, a fact that is super-obvious already to anyone reading the article with an IQ higher than 5? And what is the journalistic reason for doing so? Mr. Braman supports Israel. So do Christians, Jews, atheists, conservatives, liberals, Muslims, Hindus, and most other Americans. Mr. Braman lives in Miami. So do Christians, atheists, conservatives, liberals, Cubans, Mexicans, African-Americans, Chinese people, Hindus and gay people. Mr. Braman works in the auto industry. So do . . .

      Your approach isn't defensible, Phil, and it isn't something the New York Times does for other religious and ethnic groups unless there is some journalistic reason.

  • Front-page attack in New York Times says BDS movement is driven by minorities' 'hostility toward Jews'
    • "Glick has made this allegation in numerous videos "

      So what? Caroline Glick is a far-right op-ed columnist. She's not the sum total of Israel. There are Hamas leaders who have called Jews pigs and monkeys. Are they the sum total of the Palestinians?

      " i think we’re all familiar with the promotion of the idea anti semitism is rampant or growing"

      Why can't you simply acknowledge that antisemitism IS growing? You're big on crying Nakba denial, but you're an antisemitism denier.

      "how someone can deny there’s a demonization campaign going on — well, i find it startling"

      That's because you traffic in antisemitic attitudes, and extremists often find startling things most other people easily understand.

    • "Yes, I don’t know why a member of a Jewish fraternity would feel putting a swastika on their fraternity house would help ward off BDS, but apparently they do. Is it becoming a good-luck symbol for Jewish fraternities?"

      Right. Another "antisemitism is all fake" comment. Every instance of antisemitism is dismissed here with nonsense like this.

    • "As for your lie that “… Saudi Arabia, which has an official policy of prohibiting Jewish tourists,…”"

      It is no lie. Just ask any Jew who has had to go to Saudi on business; let's just say that there are a lot of "Unitarians" travelling to Saudi who are not really Unitarians. At times, the Saudis have publicized this rule, at others not, but it's very much in force, despite what they say. This is also true, from your source: "[P]ublic observance and proselytism of religions other than Islam are forbidden under punishment of death for former muslims."

      I'll simply point out the hypocrisy of people who style themselves as anti-colonialist talking up the "positive Saudi business environment." It's just too rich.

    • FYI, J.J. Goldberg's book is from 1997. You're a bit out of date there.

      "In this regard, it should be noted that both the reclassification of anti-Semitism from Jew hatred to something which includes criticism of Israel and the anticipated blowback from this ongoing demonization of Gentiles is part of the Zionist strategy."

      YAWN. Did someone criticize you, Keith, dear? Is that why you feel, like Fox News, that gentiles are being "demonized" by the Jews?

    • "just: Maybe “international openness” refers to the welcoming committee at BG airport and the frequent humiliate-them-and-then-send-them-back actions."

      Yes, it's about "openness." That's why Saudi Arabia, which has an official policy of prohibiting Jewish tourists, is higher than Israel. The truth is that Saudi and Oman are open gas stations, so they are ranked higher in terms of a more welcoming business environment, and Israel is a place with limited water per capita, so it is ranked lower for environmental sustainability. Things like gas at a few cents a gallon tend to skew indicators like low price competitiveness. The boycott of Israel by Arab dictatorships also plays a role in these rankings, because Israel hasn't signed many bilateral agreements in the region. These things seem not to bother companies like Intel and Apple. It's almost idiotic to even put Saudi Arabia on a list like this. One can't tour Saudi Arabia unless one is a religious tourist.

      In 2013, there were 3.54 million tourists in Israel, a record. In 2014, despite a month-long war, the decrease was all of 1%. So I doubt anyone in Israel is losing sleep over this report.

    • Amazing, Donald, how this movement is simply not capable of any self-reflection. Most people who know anything about what's going on campus will read this piece for it is - a completely accurate piece about BDS and Jews on campus. BDS is largely the province of minority groups on campus - except for Jews, who are excluded from that minority status and painted, falsely, as white for the purpose of racializing the conflict. Several BDS campaigns have included the appearance of swastikas on Jewish fraternity houses.

      If the article misses a nuance, it is that at the same time these minority groups push BDS, which makes many Jews feel less safe on campus, the minority groups themselves work to censor all kinds of viewpoints on the ground that these viewpoints make them feel unsafe on campus, including speakers that criticize speech codes, speakers that are right of center, and really any voice that might "trigger" a negative feeling amongst the members of one of these groups. And this is why, in this atmosphere, pushing BDS is directly linked to censorship on campus, even as its proponents claim, falsely, that they're the ones being censored.

    • " It’s moved to the far-right on I/P."

      You are completely insane. The New York Times has published article after article critical of Israel this year especially, and most of the editorials and op-eds place it firmly on the liberal side of the spectrum with regard to Israel.

  • 'Most reactionary government in Israel's history' -- when will liberal Zionists hit bottom?
    • If the bill becomes law. It's not likely to happen, and even if it did, the law would be unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. We certainly have lots of bills proposed in the Congress that are objectionable that never become law. Bills proposed in the Knesset should be subject to that same standard.

      By the way, although I personally oppose the NGO bill, Israel is not the only country where government minister have sought to target organizations that subsist largely on foreign funding. In India, foreign-funded NGO's have faced a far harsher environment, with far less attention. link to

  • Netanyahu appoints Ayelet Shaked—who called for genocide of Palestinians—as Justice Minister in new government
    • May the day come when a single Arab Prime Minister has to go through the six weeks of democratic coalition building the current Israeli Prime Minister has just gone through.

      The only difference between Ayelet Shaked and Hamas is that Shaked represents a party that won 8 seats out of 120, and Hamas, which certainly views every Israeli man, woman, and child as an enemy combatant, rules Gaza and is popular in the West Bank.

  • Human rights activists thank Lauryn Hill for canceling upcoming concert in Israel
    • "It is very important to me that my presence or message not be misconstrued, or a source of alienation to either my Israeli or my Palestinian fans."

      Guess the BDS movement is going to purposely misconstrue it.

  • 'BirthWrong' in the Cradle of Jewish Culture: Jews gather in southern Spain for tour that aims to repudiate Zionism
  • Two videos to challenge my liberal Zionist friends
    • "What this video says to me is that the root cause of the violence is the dispossession of a people and their humiliation..."

      Oh, come on. It's a propaganda video for the Palestinian cause from 1950. It does not show the Jews murdered by Palestinian fedayeen around that time, nor those murdered by Arab rioters in the 1920's and 1930's, not the Jews expelled from Arab countries (which you continue to cover up), or the Jews who came to Israel as DP's (which you never talk about here). So while you can make the case that "dispossession" is a part of the conflict, it is not the sole root cause or even the most important one; the most important is the failure of the rest of the region to accept a non-Arab, non-Muslim state.

      Again, you greatly understate the work of liberal Zionists who advocate not just for the two-state solution, but for better relationships between Arabs and Jews, which you oppose by arguing that it constitutes "normalization," essentially the same position taken by Hamas. Many of the people involved in J Street are people who have been on the ground for years supporting Jewish-Arab coexistence projects within the Green Line, and working on ending occupation so that people in the West Bank and Gaza can have a better life and national sovereignty.

      Moreover, your vision contains little for the Jews in the Middle East right now; while the two-state solution provides a measure of justice and security for both peoples that is concrete, yours does not come close to explaining how a Jewish (or a Christian) minority would be safe in a region where Christians and Jews are regularly targeted for murder.

  • Obama's role model to journalists -- Dorothy Thompson -- turned against Zionism and was silenced
    • The main reason I provided the book cites was simply to make the point that there were many reasons Thompson's career waned after World War II, but that, first, she hardly faded in obscurity (national syndication and a column in the Ladies Home Journal, one of the country's most widely-read magazines, until she died, are proof of that) , and second, her break with Zionism was not a big part of the reason. Alison Weir has apparently promoted that theory for a while, for obvious reasons, but I don't think it really holds water. Thompson did work for the Post, and the editor of the Post was sympathetic to Begin, and so she lost her job at the Post. But that hardly means that if she had worked, for instance, at the New York Times. Reporters aren't generally remembered well. I was trying to find out who wrote op-ed columns for major New York newspapers in the 1930's and 1940's, to see what they wrote about Zionism, but I can't even find a list anywhere. I did see that Homer Bigart was the New York Herald Tribune's chief war correspondent during World War II. He won a Pulitzer, and went on to cover the Korean War (for which he won a second Pulitzer), Vietnam, and the civil rights movement among other things (by then he was writing for the Times). He's considered one of the greatest reporters of the 20th century. Do you think the general public today has a clue who he is today? There's one book available about him, and it's a compilation of his war correspondence. There are at least three about Thompson's life.

    • What do mean by "bias of the East Coast leadership," Keith? Is this your way of displaying your intellectual integrity?

    • Astonishing that in 1941, as Jews were being murdered en masse in Polish forests, dying en masse in ghettos, and about to subjected to the Final Solution, Thompson wrote that Jews would be Nazis if Hitler let them. That's what really astonishing here.

    • "Why is this anti-Semitic? Is it anti-Semitic to criticize any Jew or Jews regardless of their behavior? Do you think that she is lying about knowing Jews who fit her description? "

      I think if you wrote today that there were Christians in Iraq who would gladly join ISIS if given the chance, you'd be accomplishing roughly the same thing - missing the damn point.

      "You are conflating her with Hitler because of this?"

      Noting that, like Hitler, she used the dual loyalty charge, is not the same thing as saying she's the same as Hitler.

      I won't take lectures from the guy who falsely quoted Albert Einstein on intellectual integrity. You're not a position to do that, sorry.

    • "but to say she was an anti-semite based on this article tells me everything I need to know about hophmi. "

      Oh Donald, stop being lazy. I didn't say that she harbored antisemitic views (that was Weisgal's conclusion, not just mine, and Weisgal was her friend), based solely on this. I do think that it takes an odd person to write in August 1941 that there are Jews who are Nazis and who would yell Heil Hitler if given the chance; whether it's true or not, it's a little like writing in 1858 that there are Blacks who would whip Black slaves and condemn them as subhuman if given the chance. And read the whole, utterly silly piece, where Thompson goes through a room full of people, which includes two Jews, one a rather vicious stereotype of a rich German Jewish industrialist with a "native gift for money and a native love of power."

    • Alison Weir is a "script consultant." OK.

      According to Thompson's friend, Meyer Weisgal, Thompson got caught up in the harsh debates between Labor and Revisionist Zionists at the time. Her hero was Chaim Weizmann, and what got her into trouble was not a break with Zionism, but her criticism of Menachem Begin's terrorism. She was fired from the Post after being criticized for that break, although no one silenced her; after she was fired from the Post, she continued to have a syndicated national column.

      After she was fired, she fell in with the ACJ.

      Apparently, her popularity was already declining before she became an anti-Zionist. link to

      Weisgal devotes a chapter to her in his book, "So Far . . .", where he criticizes the overreaction of Revisionist Zionists to her criticism of Menachem Begin and blames this for her adoption of anti-Zionism, which he says she was abandoning toward the end of her life because she could not stand the anti-Jewish sentiments of her new friends.

      It appears that Thompson harbored at least some antisemitic views. In August 1941, she claimed in Harpers that she knew "lots of Jews who are born Nazis and many others who would heil Hitler tomorrow morning if given a chance."

      link to

      She also accused Jews who supported Israel of dual loyalty, a charge Hitler had used.

      link to

      So the real story appears to be that though Thompson turned against Zionism, and while some accusations against her may have been over the top, it ultimately had little to do with her being forgotten, and indeed, the many articles about her suggest that she has not been forgotten, even if she did not achieve the same notoriety as wartime reporters like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, or Ernie Pyle. I would venture to guess that most newspaper columnists and reporters from the 1930's and 1940's, whether friendly to Israel's cause or not, are not well-known today.

  • Is there room for liberal Zionists in an anti-Zionist movement?
    • "For a long time the shibboleth of the Zionist “left” has been “dialogue.”"

      You know, this is so tendentious. The people deeply involved in J Street do a lot more than participate in dialogue. Many of them have been on the ground working with Palestinian communities in Israel and working on civil rights issues in Israel. It's more than "dialogue." The New Israel Fund doesn't grant money to Adalah or ACRI for dialogue. It does it so that Adalah and ACRI can advocate on behalf of Palestinians for a more inclusive Israel. Encounter sends groups of American and Israeli Jews into the West Bank to learn about what Palestinians are experiencing there. That's a lot more than dialogue.

      "Many of us developed an aversion to their program – ultimately turned off by their pornographer’s zeal and breathless salesmanship. Here were people who stood for nothing and had the resources to get there. "

      Stood for nothing? Wow... You know, you spend I don't know how long bringing Palestinian and Israeli kids together to meet each other to maybe make peace more of a reality on the ground when there were ongoing negotiations, and this "stands for nothing." Just wow. It just sums up everything that's bad about the BDS movement. You're all about making sure people turn against one another so that there's more hate.

  • Forgiving the anti-Semites
    • "Schindler’s list is not about Jews? Odd, I don’t recall any non Jews in the camp."

      The Jews are supporting characters in Schindler's List. The movie is principally about Schindler. Even Ben Kingsley's role was considered a supporting role. So, no, the movie is not really about Jews to me.

      "You are conflating movies based during WWII with Holocaust movies to support your absurd assertion that the Holocaust movies are not all about Jews. After being caught in the lie that there are more Viet Nam War movies than Holocaust movies."

      It's wikipedia's list, not mine. Maybe neo-Nazism has made you really stupid, because if the movies about Nazis and Nazi-hunting on that list are not really about the Holocaust (as I asserted already), it would only strengthen my point that there are more movies about Vietnam than there are about the Holocaust, and that the hand-wringing antisemites like you go through over the few Holocaust features we do have is really just a lot of bigoted stereotyping. Hate makes you blind and stupid.

    • I love how Giles is permitted to send through neo-Nazi post after neo-Nazi post. Oh well, that's what Mondoweiss is, I guess.

      I could care less that Joel Stein wrote a stupid, self-deprecating article in 2008 that was quickly picked up by multiple Holocaust denial websites; it only goes to show that being Jewish is no bar against adopting antisemitic attitudes. Regardless, Stein's article doesn't entitle you to use it for the neo-Nazi purposes you are now using it.

    • "Did you just make up that 20% number Hophmi?"

      You're confusing me with Yonah. Which means you don't pay attention, since there aren't many Zionists here.

      In any case, I don't make the bigoted assumption that people act a certain way because of their religion when they gain positions of power, so this debate doesn't mean that much to me. I really don't have much time for scum who raise old antisemitic canards about Jews and money, or the moderators who help them promote their views.

    • "Nonsense. Just as there were many wealthy people in 1900 who were not WASPs yet the WASPs were still clearly the ruling class at the time, the Jewish elites are the ruling class in America right now. "

      Really. Tell me more.

      "Ownership of the mainstream media, the Hollywood propaganda apparatus, control of the Federal Reserve, dominance on Wall Street, "

      The Jews "control the Federal Reserve." So see, if a Jew get a job, it becomes a Jewish job.

      I mean, it's not antisemitism, it's anti-Zionism, folks!!!

    • "No, the Roma were not victims of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is specifically defined as the genocidal program directed at Jewish victims."

      Actually, many historians use the term to refer to the Jewish and the non-Jewish victims, and so do related institutions, like the USHMM.

      link to

      "Again, this ‘confusion’ over definitions, methods and intent privileges Jewish victims, perverting the history of the war, demeaning the suffering of others."

      Not really. That's in your head.

      "As Anne Appelbaum and others have so ham handedly put it, “The vast majority of Hitler’s victims, Jewish and otherwise, never saw a concentration camp."

      That is somewhat true, although not for Jews alone. The Final Solution was not promulgated until 1942, and construction of the extermination camps started in late 1941. Before that, Einsatzgruppen were shooting people en masse in forest and gassing them in trucks. I think the percentage of Jews murdered in the extermination camps alone was more than 1/3 of the total. Around 1.1 million were murdered at Auschwitz, and about 90% of those were Jews.

      " Yes, Jews and some others. How quaint, as if ‘others’ are the margin of error in a poll, or anomalous data. See also the Jewish Virtual Library which puts it a bit more wordily: The Holocaust is the “destruction of some 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their followers in Europe between the years 1933-1945. Other individuals and groups were persecuted and suffered grievously during this period, but only the Jews were marked for complete and utter annihilation.” Again non-Jewish victims of the genocide are non-descript ‘others’ were ‘persecuted and suffered grievously.’ Having said that, Jewish suffering must be granted the last word, others being subsumed between the Holocaust and the ‘utter annihilation’ of the Jews."

      That's the Jewish Virtual Library. Others include both non-Jewish and Jewish victims under the term "Holocaust."

      And this bit of ass backward, muddied historical analysis:

      The killing of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and the mentally ill in Europe was unique in that it was detached from any political or military considerations. It was racial.</blockquote)

      "No, the killing of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, was not unique, nor was it detached from any political or military considerations. (I was unaware that the Nazis considered the mentally ill a racial category, but I’d be happy to be corrected.) Tens of millions of Slavs, Poles eastward, were also slated for extermination on account of their race and having taken up too much useful space. Contrary to catalan, the Germans exploited racial theory for political purposes."

      Yes, and in the end, 17% of the Poles died, and 91% of the Polish Jews died. Both tragedies, one much more profound than the other. But, please, spout more anitsemitic nonsense about the killing of most of Europe's Jewish population was not unique, and tell us what military and political considerations it encompassed.

    • "You said that there were “far more” American movies about Vietnam than the Holocaust. "

      And that was completely accurate, particularly from the standpoint of feature films, not documentaries that basically no one sees.

      "And as I noted, the Vietnam films never showed the Vietnamese as victims of American aggression whereas Jews are always portrayed as victims in these never ending Holocaust flix,"

      What neverending flix? And why is this relevant? Jews were the victims of the Holocaust.

      "which you disingenuously suggest was due to popular demand not Jewish influence in Hollywood. "

      What disingenuous suggestion? YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIM.

      "And then you have the audacity to misrepresent the numbers I provided showing that there was an explosion of Holocaust movies in the 1990s which continued slightly reduced into the 2000s, for a total of 188 movies in those two decades versus 96 movies in the previous four decades. Please note that “20 or 30 years after the events they cover,” would be the 1960s and 1970s during which there were 41 Holocaust movies. And I’m getting these numbers from your sources!"

      You keep aggregated European films and American films. There were not 41 American movies about the Holocaust in the 1960's and 1970's. There were 11. One was an international collaboration. Another was Jerry Lewis's movie, which was never shown to the public. Another was "The Pawnbroker," which no one would regard as a sympathetic portrait. Another is Exodus, which is about the smuggling of Jews into Palestine, not the Holocaust. Another is Judgment at Nuremberg, which is about the Nuremberg trials, not the Shoah. So your assertions are just sheer nonsense. Most movies touching on the Holocaust were not made in the United States.

      "And then what? You talk about all of the Russian films on WWII as if this was relevant. And how many of these films were shown in the US? Promoted by Hollywood?"

      Here's what you wrote: "How many Holocaust films deal with the horrific losses of the former USSR in stopping and eventually defeating Hitler?"

      And my answer was lots and lots of them, but not many American films, because Americans films don't generally focus on what happened in Russia. Why would Hollywood promote Russian films? The point is that Russian films tell stories about what happened to Russians, and American films generally focus on things that happen to Americans. Your assertion was that there are no films made about the Russian experience during the war. That's nonsense.

      "You top it all off by referencing two films about the Jasenovac death camp, the first a Yugoslavian film short made in 1945. Are you claiming that this film was released in the US? The second a Spielberg film made for the Holocaust film archive, hardly a blockbuster."

      No. It would be highly unusual for an American studio to make a film about a Yugoslav subject. How many American films are there about Yugoslav subjects of any kind? Is this the fault of the Jews?

      You complain that the Spielberg archive is "hardly a blockbuster." Are we talking about blockbusters now? How many films about the Shoah have been "blockbusters?" I can think of maybe two; Sophie's Choice and Schindler's List. The documentaries are certainly not.

      "As for Jewish/Zionist support for the US/NATO Yugoslavia intervention, I am not talking about passivity, I am talking about active complicity. I am talking about the ADL, the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress took out newspaper advertisement and organized demonstrations demonizing the Serbs. "

      OK. You probably supported Milosevic like a lot of radical leftists did. Whatever. The Kosovo War was supported by most Americans, and the Kosovo War didn't happen because a few Jewish organizations wanted it. I can understand, being the antisemite that you are, why you would think that way. What can you do? If organizations like AJC or ADL hadn't supported the Kosovo War, rest assured that people like Phil Weiss would say that it was because the Jewish community hates Muslims. Oh well. Serbia is doing well now, especially since that war criminal Milosevic left. Perhaps, since you're so big on holding people to account, you should apologize for your support of a brutal, hypernationalist dictator like Milosevic, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people, and helped Al-Qaeda get its feet wet. But I won't hold my breath.

      Your invective, Keith, does not move me, and I'd advise you to stop trying (and failing) to promote your pro-Serbian extreme nationalist agenda here.

    • "I merely checked your sources and demonstrated that you misrepresented the data, rather typical for you. "

      No I didn't. I said there were more American films made about Vietnam than about the Holocaust, and I was completely correct. And as I've pointed out, a considerable number of Holocaust films have little to do with Jews, and those that do generally tell stories of Jews who survived, and not Jews who died.

      "I also showed that the Holocaust theme became more popular with the passage of time and the rise in Jewish/Zionist power"

      No you didn't. You showed that most films about the Holocaust were made between the 1960's and 1990's, something that would make sense, since historical films are usually made 20 or 30 years after the events they cover. You hypothesize, based on no evidence, that these films were made because of Jews in power, rather than more mundane reasons, which is that the Holocaust is a major event in human history, that survival and war stories are dramatic, and that Americans fought and died in World War II, and that part of this experience included liberating concentration camps. All are important reasons why movies are made about the Holocaust, its non-Jewish and Jewish victims, and those who played roles in saving victims.

      "however, I believe that the overwhelming majority are. Am I wrong? "

      It depends on your definition. I don't consider a movie like Schindler's List to be "about Jews." The two main characters are Oskar Schindler, who saved a few hundred Jews, and Amon Goeth, who murdered them. The Jews are really supporting characters in that story, with the exception of Ben Kingsley's character. But yes, Keith, it would make sense that most Holocaust movies would be about Jews in some sense. The Jews constituted more than half of those murdered by the Nazis in Europe. Many Holocaust survivors and their families live in the United States. Many US soldiers liberated concentration camps. We have lots of books and testimonies to draw from as source material. Is this because Jews as a community are powerful? I think it's because Jews as a community were the Holocaust's primary victims, an indisputable fact of history.

      "How many Holocaust films deal with the horrific losses of the former USSR in stopping and eventually defeating Hitler?"

      There are literally hundreds of Russian films about the USSR's experience during World War II and the Holocaust. Here's an interesting article about how Soviet films addressed the Holocaust, and how the suffering of Jews in the USSR was universalized.

      link to

      "How many Holocaust films depict the Jasenovac death camp in the former Yugoslavia where primarily Serbs, but also Jews and Roma were murdered?"

      At least two. Here's an article about it from the USHMM's encyclopedia and a film from the Spielberg Archive. link to
      link to

      There was a Croatian documentary made about it from 1945. Here's an article about it.

      link to

      A second documentary was made in 1983, called "The Cruelest Death Camp of All Times."

      An Israeli academic, Raphael Israeli, wrote a book about the death camps in Croatia called "The Death Camps of Croatia: Visions and Revisions 1941-45."

      link to

      One reason Jasenovac isn't well covered is that documentation isn't great, and the Serbs themselves apparently weren't necessarily keen on telling the story. By the way, you'll notice that there really aren't all that many movies made about concentration camps in general. There aren't lots of feature films about Majdanek, or Belsen, or Dachau, or even Auschwitz-Birkenau. Most people can't digest this stuff, and although we have many survivor testimonies, it's really, really hard for people to talk about it. Even in Schindler's List, they didn't have the balls to show an actual gassing; when the women think they're about to die, the showers come on.

      Look at Rwanda; the most famous American movie is Hotel Rwanda, which tells the story of a couple hundred survivors at a hotel, a lot of them white people, and not the story of the 800,000 people who died in the genocide.

      "And why, prior to US/NATOs Yugoslavia intervention, would US Zionist Jews depict the Serbs as the “new Nazis” while supporting the Jew killer Croats and Muslims?"

      Ah, is that it? Are you a Serb, Keith? I know a lot of Serbs are bitter about stuff like that. It goes, we helped the Jews, and the Jews didn't use their great power to stop the war against us. In any event, most Jews who supported the Kosovo War supported it because they thought Slobodan Milosevic was committing a genocide against the Muslims in Kosovo, just a few years after Serb militias had committed a genocide in Bosnia. Incidentally, some prominent Zionists, like Ariel Sharon, opposed the Kosovo War, in part because Serbs were helpful to Jews during World War II. The Kosovo War hardly came about because of what Jews thought, though. Or perhaps what you're upset about is that Jews didn't use this power you think they have to stop Serbia from being bombed.

      "Finally, how many Holocaust films discuss Dr Rudolph Kastner and Israeli Zionists in helping in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Hungarian Jews in order to secure the release of about 600 high value Zionists?"

      At least one documentary, Killing Kastner, although, as you know, most people don't look at Kastner's role in quite the polemical way you do, Keith.

      "In writing about his pre-war meeting with Zionist representative Feivel Polkes in Palestine in 1937, Adolph Eichmann noted that had he been born a Jew he would have become a fanatical Zionist. Birds of a feather?"

      I don't generally live my life based on what Adolf Eichmann said or thought, and I don't think anyone else should either. It is as Finkelstein said; questions like this are like asking if Grandma was a baby carriage, would she have wheels? They're meaningless. All I know is that if I were a Jew living in 1937 Germany or 1939 Europe, I would have gone anywhere that would take me and prayed that Hitler wouldn't overrun it. A Jewish national liberation movement would have given me tremendous hope.

    • Sophie's Choice is about a Christian victim. White Rose and the documentary, Sophie Scholl: The Final Days, are about students at the University of Munich who resisted Hitler. Even Schindler's List is mainly about a gentile, and not about the Jews that he saves; in fact, considering the reality that most European Jews were murdered, a highly disproportionate amount of film time has been spent telling the stories of the people who saved them.

      The Stranger is about a search for a Nazi fugitive. Judgment at Nuremberg is about the trial of Nazis. The Pawnbroker is about a Holocaust survivor, and it's not at all a sympathetic portrait. There are other examples; Apt Pupil is about a teenager who comes under the influence of a fugitive Nazi war criminal, The Reader is about a war criminal, etc. One of the ironies is that though many films have been made about parts of the Holocaust, exceedingly few feature films have truly grappled with the sheer horror of it. One exception may be "The Grey Zone," which is about the Sonderkommando, the Jews in the camps who were responsible for helping shepherd people into the gas chambers and then incinerating the remains, but most are either stories of people being saved, or focus on events that happened after the Holocaust.

    • And you also assume that every Holocaust movie is about the Jews. Another of your ridiculous assumptions that betrays what a paranoid bigot you are.

    • "See what I mean. The uniqueness of Jewish suffering. And, of course, we never hear a word about the gypsies et al in any of these endless array of Holocaust remembrances.

      As if the genocide of Africans and natives of the Americas that lasted for centuries and that have left those groups in very bad shape within our society pale in comparison to the suffering of Jews, who sit unchallenged atop our society in terms of financial standing and political would get muchg more out of life and would stop persecuting everyone who is not part of your sick little cult."

      Yeah, Giles is totally not an antisemite.

      It is patently untrue that one never hears about those groups besides Jews who were targeted during the Holocaust, and untrue that we do not hear about genocides in Africa; are people in the dark about the genocide in Rwanda or Sudan? Was the Nigerian genocide not a major story in the 1960's?

      Don't blame my people for your hangups, Giles. You're more than free to memorialize what happened to the Roma. You are free to read the wikipedia entry on the Porajmos if you want to learn more about the Roma, and learn about some of the reasons why it's not remembered in the same way as the Shoah is. Stop blaming the Jews. It's not our fault.

    • Right you are, Citizen. The Roma suffered terribly during the Holocaust, and were the victims of a genocide, which some call the Porajmos, and others the Samudaripen, and others still the Bersa Bibahtale. The estimates of murdered Roma range from 200,000 to close to a million.

      The Roma remained in Europe. Guess what; the multicultural secular Europeans continue to shamelessly mistreat them, and most of them live in poverty. I can guarantee that if the Roma had a state of their own, that sh*t would not be happening. That's the beauty of self-determination; you no longer have to rely on people who have a bad record of mistreating you for your safety. Why don't you advocate one for them? We can put it right in Europe.

    • Oh Giles, get over it. No one imagined that six million Jews (more tha half the Jews in Europe) were murdered, or that 91% of Jewish Poles were murdered, or that millions of Jews, and many others, died in concentration camps, or that babies were smashed against walls, or that Josef Mengele experimented on Jewish bodies and many others. It happened, and no one is saying that Jews were the exclusive victims. Stop making up this ridiculous fantasy about how Jews who tell the story of what happened to their friends and family are somehow elevating their victimhood above others by daring to tell their own stories. No one has done as much as the Jewish community has to tell the story of the Holocaust, including the stories of others persecuted and massacred by the Nazis, such as Roma and homosexuals, and the disabled.

    • What is this about syossets and poughkeepsies? I wasn't aware that you harbored this apparent hatred for towns named after Native Americans.

    • Eljay (for about the 20th time), asks me whether I agree with JeffB's statement that: "There is nothing anti-Semitic with blaming Jews for stuff that Jews institutionally support. … Not holding the Jews responsible for Jewish policy on the excuse that 'well some Jews didn’t agree' is denying them agency."

      I do not agree with JeffB's sentiment at all. Bigots blame individuals for the acts of their communities, whether they are anti-Muslim bigots, anti-Christian bigots, anti-Jewish bigots, anti-Black bigots, or anti-Hispanic bigots. Any community should be free to pursue what they believe is in their best interest as a community without their individual number being attacked for it.

      Of course, that certainly doesn't stop anyone from saying that there is a Jewish community, represented by Jewish communal institutions, that advocate certain political positions that one may find morally objectionable, just as it wouldn't stop me from saying that there is a Palestinian community, represented by certain institutions, that advocates positions that I may find morally objectionable. The line between saying that, and engaging in a form of bigotry, is where people obsess over the Jewish community in a way that is out of all proportion to its importance and size, and out of all relation to historical context or geopolitical reality, so as to create the appearance that Jews who support Israel are somehow qualitatively worse than other national communities who support their nation-states or national liberation movements. The other line I draw is when Jews are accused of wielding some great power in American society to the disadvantage of other Americans, which is an old antisemitic canard. That accusation is unfortunately common here, and it seems to be the basis of this post.

    • Which question is that?

    • What's the point, eljay? You'll clearly never understand it. What could you understand if you think that the crime of the Holocaust ended for the surviving victims when the killing stopped.

    • Hillel's maxim is an ideal for interpersonal relations. It's not necessarily a geopolitical strategy. The world isn't a perfect place, and just as Christian nations wouldn't survive very long if they "turned the other cheek."

    • A little. Minimalism is not my thing.

    • Alcoholic beverages aren't forbidden on Pesach. They just have to be kosher for Pesach.

    • "And, as Hophmi knows, that description (“the orthodox community, who have means often go away for Passover, particularly if they have a lot of children,”) covers, oh, say 90 to 98.4% of the Jewish community."

      Huh? The orthodox community is around 15-20% of the American Jewish community. Most of those are ultra-orthodox and chassidic, and the vast majority of them do not have the money to do anything like that. We're talking a very small amount of people here. That's why the example is a little silly.

    • "Huh? Who said that Hophmi? Who? Show me the man, let him show his face! And I will tell him, right to his schnozz: “You listen to me buster, Hophmi doesn’t do “PR”! It’s OUTREACH!!!”"

      It's neither. I'm here for the comedy.

    • "I don’t find anything objectionable about Passover, and Weiss wasn’t referring to the celebration of Passover. He was talking about an embarrassing orgy of conspicuous consumption and self-indulgence. It seems he feels uncomfortable about the lox-filled vomitorium the same way I am by what has happened to many Christian holidays."

      Yes, horrible. There's an old Yiddish saying, "Esn zolstu gehakte leber mit tsibeles, shmalts hering, yoykh mit k'neydlekh, karp mit khreyn, ayngedemfts mit tsimes, latkes, tey mit tsitrin, yedn tog—un zolst zikh mit yedn bis dershtikn!

      "May you eat chopped liver with onions, shmaltz herring, chicken soup with dumplings, baked carp with horseradish, braised meat with vegetable stew, latkes, tea with lemon, every day—and may you choke on every bite!"

      There, happy? We condemned rich people in two languages.

      Of the problems we face in the world today, the tiny fraction of Jews who can afford to go away for Passover in any respect, let alone to the Ritz, is an exceedingly tiny one.

    • "The Nazis did those things to Jewish and non-Jewish citizens of countries in Europe. They did not do those things to Israelis."

      I just don't even know what to say when people are this obtuse.

    • "Many apologies, Hophmi. I thought you two knew each other. I mean, considering the insight you have into his fucking soul."

      Insight? What insight do I need? He's laying it out there.

    • "Holey Mole’ (yummmmm) you can catch the self-hatred from reading? Maybe if he wore some kind of safety glasses, or an air-fed hood while he read, it would help. That is one hell of a contagion, this Jewish self-hatred, you can catch it from a book!"

      Mooser, I don't know what makes people crazy, but I know that when they post these pieces ruminating about how some small Jewish businessowner cheated the record company by breaking records, or how Jews cheat in finance or need to "forgive Europe," (as if Israelis hadn't, or as if forgiveness was possible, or as if even this did not echo old antisemitic tropes about Jews being unforgiving, unlike their Christian brethren and their turn-the-other-cheek Jesus [see "The Merchant of Venice"]), it's a form of self-hating psychosis that comes from a legacy of Jews being persecuted. This is vile, vile stuff. Maybe Phil needs to tell it to his therapist, instead of putting it out there for the bigots of the world to pick over.

    • "Israel National News service is in the habit of publishing ‘one off’ opinion pieces?"

      Who the hell knows what they publish? If Hamas publishes a piece in their newspaper calling for Jews to be roasted on a spit, does that mean that all Palestinians believe Jews should be roasted on a spit?

    • "BTW, just from a public relations standpoint, your comments are becoming more and more shrill, even more condescending and repulsive than in the past. "

      Uh-huh. I'm not doing PR here, but as far as shrill, I am a newborn kitten compared to 99% of the people here.

      But your comment doesn't mean much to me, since you apparently judge all Israelis by some nut named Ben-Eliyahu, so right there, we have evidence that your sense of judgment is, how do we say it? Not good.

    • Is Ben-Eliyahu reflective of anyone besides Ben-Eliyahu? I've honestly never heard any Israelis, including from the far-right, advocate bombing Germany as revenge for the Holocaust. So I would say no.

    • I don't know what Phil was subjected to; I think he's read a lot about Jewish persecution, and wondered whether Jews were at fault for some of it.

    • "Interesting. Passover is the equivalent of an open bar, all you can eat weeklong buffet. if you say so."

      Yes, it's an open bar where, instead of drinks, they give you matzah and herring. Superlative.

      Yes, Marc, people, particularly in the orthodox community, who have means often go away for Passover, particularly if they have a lot of children, because changing over the house and cooking is a lot of work. They make a vacation out of it since the kids are off from school. I don't know what you find objectionable about it. And no, they're not generally $7,000 a head.

    • "The Nazis didn’t do anything to the Israelis."

      LOL. It's sad. The Nazis didn't do anything to the Israelis, except kill their parents, brothers, sisters, children, cousins, uncles, aunts, rabbis . . .

    • Ah ha. So because Jews got reparations for the Holocaust (offensive) and some extremist wrote an op-ed for Arutz Sheva (stupid), Israelis haven't forgiven Europe, their largest trading partner. Any other arguments like this? So far we got a stupid argument and an offensive argument. Anyone want to try a fact-based argument?

    • " I thought it had to do with a Jewish understanding of ourselves, as being outside mainstream society. We were excluded so we were justified in taking advantage of The Man."

      And you wonder why I say that you've simply internalized anti-Jewish hatred. You tell this story as if there was something inherently Jewish about businesses cutting corners. Oh, heavens to Betsy, Philip Glass, don't tell me your small business owner dad stole something from the record company! I'm just gonna have to have a lemonade to recover from the shock!

      "And isn’t it possible that that’s the way we tell the story of our history, that lots of people have been expelled from countries, that kind of thing happened a lot, and we just look at the low points, the persecution, and build our narrative around that?"

      No, not at all. Our entire narrative is not about persecution. It's more that you have trouble accepting the persecution part of the narrative because it undermines your triumphal case for perpetual Jewish safety in America.

      And it's delicious that you miss the irony of writing about Herzl's sales pitch to antisemites; aren't you forever missing the forest for the trees here? Herzl's idea was primarily about finding a place for persecuted Jews. It was not about selling the idea to antisemites, much as that may have been necessary politics for him, and to the extent that he had to do that, it only drives home the point that these antisemites were hegemonic in Herzl's time. But you obsessively focus on the negative, which is what you accuse those who focus on the persecution of Jews in Europe of doing.

      "Jews are disproportionately represented in media — the facts bear out such a belief, and ours is not a neutral presence; it helps explain all the Holocaust movies. Finkelstein studied the production. Three times as many Holocaust movies in the last 30 years as movies about slavery and the nuclear bombings in Japan."

      I see no fact bearing out the argument that Jews are the reason that there are many Holocaust movies, and I detest the insinuation. The Holocaust was an event that took place in many different countries. There have been more movies about the Holocaust, far more, made OUTSIDE of the US than inside of it in the last couple of decades. It is a very well-documented event in fairly recent human history. It's natural that many films should be made about it.

      link to

      You know what there are far more American movies about than the Holocaust? Vietnam. Wonder why. It must be the fault of the Jews.

      link to

      "I said that it reflected a contract the American establishment had made with Jews to drive the economy in the 1970s. We were really good at the four horses of the global economy (finance, software, education, and media), and people thought we were smarter, and maybe we were smarter; Yuri Slezkine says we are the magicians and the priests of modernity; and in exchange for that leading role, the government would support Israel."

      You really believe this conspiracist nonsense? I mean, you write things like this and you wonder why people find your views antisemitic. Software? Bill Gates (all WASP) and Steve Jobs (half-WASP, half-Arab) are Jews now? Rupert Murdoch is Jewish?

      "it was straight out of the Patimkin basement in Goodbye, Columbus, and a shonde far di goyim– nothing she would ever want the anti-Semites to see"

      Because Gentiles never spend a lot of money on a vacation, and also because, apparently, you've never had to prepare a house for Passover.

      "But forgive Europe? Maybe that is necessary. It should not be so fresh in our minds, here in the U.S. Maybe that means telling the story differently, understanding our own role. It was never a fair fight. But we always had a kind of power."

      Are you serious? Our own role in what? The persecution of our people? What power are you talking about? You think the Israelis haven't forgiven Europe? Based on what?

      This entire self-absorbed piece has to be one of the most offensive things you've ever written. Oh, but don't worry. Krauss thinks you're brave (hint, hint).

  • 'Celebration of ethnic cleansing is intolerable': Baltimore JVP crashes 'Israeli Independence Day' party
    • I assume these same people will be flyering on July 4 to remind Americans that watching fireworks is the same thing as celebrating the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans.

  • Accusations of anti-Semitism roil Stanford campus as student coalition denies discrimination charges
    • Put through, please.

    • Of course, there is no reason to disbelieve Molly Horwitz, and if 18 Jewish students corroborated her account and 1 SOCC student corroborated the SOCC account, people here would still support the SOCC account.

      And no, it is not appropriate to ask special questions to students based on their religious identity. If this were a state school, it would definitely be against the law, and my sense is that it's against the law for any school that receives federal funding.

    • "I wonder how many people would find it objectionable for a student who is a fundamentalist Christian, to be asked how his or her Christian identity would affect their position on gay marriage rights?"

      I would.

      "Even if they didn’t ask it, they probably should’ve done it."

      Krauss has always been one of the honest antisemites here.

      "What a starling coincidence. One week after the explosion of press generated from the UCLA judicial review — accusations of anti semitism “surge of hostile sentiment against Jews’ nationwide” that made it’s way into the pages of the NYT, Morning Joe, Huff Post — huge shitstorm on UC campuses across the state, allegedly, according to Molly Horwitz, (who’s mother happens to be an ardent supporter of Stand With Us), a panel from SOCC just happens to ask Horowitz the exact same question ???"

      Why are you surprised? Are you asserting that it would be surprising if students asked this question? Isn't that really what you want? To force Zionist Jewish students to be marginalized unless they support BDS?

  • Marking Memorial Day in Tel Aviv with Kahanists and Combatants for Peace
  • In defense of Cornel West's prophetic voice
  • If Not Now, When?: Jewish anti-occupation activism and accountability to Palestinians
    • "Whether the solution is two states or ten states or (as most of us in JVP tend to hope) one democratic and secular state,"

      Nice to see some honesty on that one. Really, everyone knows you're for a one-state solution. You don't have to hide it. If only you were honest enough to admit that calling for such a state is not the same thing as achieving equality or justice.

    • Oh please. You're clueless. J Street is comprised of smaller organizations that have been around for much longer. Get over yourself. Talk about posturing.

  • Dead End
    • You call for a moratorium on Holocaust remembrance (at a time of rising European antisemitism, no less), and Ayman Odeh does the right thing and calls on Palestinians to acknowledge the Holocaust. Seems to me you're no Jew of conscience. You're a Jew of madness.

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • "Well Ben Gurion and Weizmann were just a Pole and a Russian whose historical roots in Palestine were never any deeper than the legs of their chairs."

      And if they had stayed where they were, they would probably be two dead Jews, one almost certainly a victim of the Nazi genocide, the other perhaps a victim of Stalin.

    • "nice try, but he didn’t call you a moron. he gave an example of what name calling is. you’re right about one thing hops, Ian’s comments stand on their own. Israel’s actions amount to state sponsored terrorism. time and again you’ve demonstrated support for that state and those actions. an ad hominem attack “means responding to arguments by attacking a person’s character, rather than to the content of their arguments.”

      Ian has consistently attacked your arguments, even here: link to hence, it’s not by definition ad hominem.

      Ian, your fortitude is stunning."

      LOL. See, Ian, the moderator is on your side, in case there was a question in your mind. Be careful your behind doesn't burn from all of that sunshine.

    • So far, Ian, you've called me a "state-sponsored terrorist supporter" and a "moron." The worst I did was call your argument silly. So Ian, your comments stand on their own. And of course, you're making them in a room full of people that you know already agree with everything you say. I'll leave it up to you whether you want to continue to do what everybody else does here, with moderator support, of course, which is spend most of their time attacking anybody who dissents from their point of view. I suppose, if you're the type who needs sunshine constantly shined up your backside, you'll continue in this vein, since the more ad hominem you post, the more +1s you'll get from people here, and if you're a little more secure than that, you'll change your approach.

    • "1 in 10 illegal settlers is a US citizen and a 28 billion dollar a year Jewish Public Charity Industry is sending most of its money to Israel."

      You see, it's really important to read something other than the headline of an article. First of all, it's more like a $13 or 14 billion apparatus, not a $26 billion apparatus. The article makes clear that the $26 billion number is based on a lot of double counting, i.e, counting a donation a large organization gives to one agency, and the donation that agency gives to a smaller organization twice. Second of all, 38% of what's doled out goes to Israel-related causes, not "most." And that 38% is not 38% of $26 billion dollars. It's 38% of the $3.7 billion the "functional agencies of the communal apparatus" gives out. So, once again, you're either being intentionally misleading here, or you didn't bother to actually read the article. Since you appear to be intelligent, and since again and again I catch you distorting your sources for polemical reasons, I'm going with the former.

      It's also "difficult, if not impossible, to compare the Jewish communal network with networks of charities built by other ethnic and religious groups" because no one keeps tabs on other giving by religious groups, so there is no point of comparison here. What we do know is that Jewish non-profits "make up a tiny fraction of the total not-for-profit sphere", roughly 2% of the contributions recorded on IRS 990 forms. So despite the fact that Forward, a Jewish newspaper, talked about Jewish Charity Industry, and not a "Jewish Public Charity Industry," the "industry" is really not much bigger than the percentage of Jews in the US population. What is that term for people who take something that is routine and unremarkable and put a label on it to make it look like some scary conspiracy? I think the generous one is demagogue.

      "You started the lizard-brained wars of aggression by invading Palestine in the first place and then imposed this onerous “negotiations” regime."

      Israel imposed the negotiations regime? I believe that was the international community, Hostage. Madrid, Oslo, Quartet - that's not Israel. Israel's position has always been that the best thing is for the parties to negotiate bilaterally, not internationally. In any event, the negotiations regime got the Palestinians self-rule in the West Bank and near a settlement several times. Yes, both sides violated the accords repeatedly. But so what? It's routine for these accords to be violated; we're going to sign a deal with Iran that I'm sure they'll violate, and we'll continue working with them, just as we did with North Korea. But it's better than all-out war. You see what happens when we try to move things without an accord; we get Gaza.

      " You just can’t go on dictating the terms of its internal governance, collecting its customs, demanding that it be demilitarized, and allow you permanent bases in the Jordan Valley, put its ports under quarantine forever and call that “negotiations” you dumbass."

      Israel doesn't dictate the terms of internal governance, and customs collection is something that is part of Oslo. You want a militarized Palestinian state? Why? For what? You think giving the Palestinians weapons is going to make for a more peaceful situation? It will just encourage belligerence, which the Israelis will be forced to confront with their superior weapons. Palestinian ports won't be quarantined forever. But they will be monitored if they're repeatedly used to smuggle weapons into Gaza. In any event, yes, that's negotiating. The Palestinians don't have as much leverage as the Israelis have. That's life. If I have a million dollars and you have a billion dollars, you're going to be in a superior negotiating position to me. I can't ask you to give me $500,000,000 of your money just to make us more equal. The Palestinians have endeavored to even the scales by trying to avoid bilateral negotiations and using the international community to bludgeon Israel. So be it; they've been doing some version of this for, oh, 60 or 70 years. We'll see if that approach bears fruit.

    • "Obviously this argument falls apart if he acknowledges that the Palestinians were a nation.

      For my part, I think the first three premises are wrong.

      But hophmi should speak for himself, and actually address this point."

      I've acknowledged several times that the Palestinians are a nation. So are the Jews. That is why we need a two state solution.

    • You need to read carefully, Mr. Fincham. I haven't denied Palestinian nationhood. I've denied that any organic Palestinian nationhood existed before the Zionist era, and I also deny that that nationalism is not ethnically and religiously based; Palestinian nationalism is based on Arab ethnic identity and Islamic religious identity.

      I'll say it a third time: I will concede that there is a Palestinian Arab/Muslim nationalism that developed as a reaction to Zionism in the 20th century, and that is why I support a two state solution, and you should be willing to concede that a Jewish nationalism also exists, rather than denying it or suggesting that it has no legitimacy.

    • And Ian Berman resorts to name calling.

    • "No that’s just your tendentious reading. The three main parties figuring in his book weren’t separate entities, because there were Jews and Palestinian Arabs in the Ottoman Government all along. Plus the whole country had already been combined into one administrative unit in the past. In Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History, Harvard University Press, 2003 the authors wrote that Palestinian nationality was definitely evident during the Egyptian-Ottoman war (1831-1833). Israeli Historian Butros Abu Manneh noted that in 1830, on the eve of Muhammad Ali’s invasion the Sanjaks of Jerusalem and Nablus were transferred to the control of Abdullah Pasha the Governor of Acre and that the move had united the whole of Palestine in one administrative unit. See The Israel/Palestine Question: A Reader (Rewriting Histories), Ilan Pappé (Editor) Routledge (April 2, 1999), page 38. The account in the Foreign Relations of the United States confirms Manneh’s account in its discussion regarding the Convention of July 1840. It offered a grant to Muhammed Ali, during his natural life, of the government of the region described alternately as “Southern Syria”, “Palestine”, or “the Pashalik of Acre”. See Index to the executive documents of the House of Representatives for the second session of the forty-fifth Congress, 1879-’80 -page 1019"

      I don't understand what a decision by the Ottomans to create an administrative district called Palestine has to do with the nationality of the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not gain a nationality by virtue of having been included in an Ottoman administrative district in the 19th century. The two simply are unrelated. Mandel's text is really quite clear; Palestinian nationalism in the 20th century was largely a reaction to Zionism. Again, I'm willing to concede for the purposes of progress that whether the Palestinians base their nationalism on some Ottoman colonial creation or whether it was just a de facto reaction to Zionism, as Mandel clearly says, they have an authentic claim to a state, which is why I favor the two-state solution.

    • "Ian, hops always has a comeback. he’s a swift operative. in hops world 20 years of endless talks that go nowhere except more israeli expansion and demolished homes is a sign israel is willing to make peace. it’s completely absurd but that’s the upshot. you’d be better off to just ignore him. soon he’ll be accusing you of arguing in bad faith."

      And in yours, 20 years of talks where the Palestinians continued to incite against the Israelis and committed dozens of acts of terrorism against them, many at the very height of the negotiations, indicates that it's only the Israelis that deserve blame.

    • "Hopmi, I really appreciate how you deny even the most obvious statements like Netanyahu made just before his re-election. That’s why I can only take this exchange so far."

      Ian, I really appreciate how you deny that politicians can be politicians and say things to get elected. George Bush I got elected President of the United States in 1988 because he promised not to raise taxes. He raised them. And frankly, suggesting that I denied what Netanyahu said when that is not the subject we were addressing - come now, Ian. Argue in good faith.

    • "Today, Germany pays its Jewish Holocaust survivors better benefits than the State of Israel. Germany paid enormous reparations to Israel and the World Jewish Congress for many years."

      Today, Germany is a largest economy in Europe. Spare me the complaining about reparations. The Germans have a huge state that no one challenges. Even Hitler didn't result in the Germans losing their statehood. But people here suggest that Jews should lose the right of self-determination all the time.

      This is all one large red herring on your part.

    • "You yourself are pretending that the right of every Palestinian to return to their homeland under customary international law, is somehow made null and void through your private interpretation of a clause in resolution 194 (III) of the UN General Assembly. "

      The resolution clearly includes a requirement that refugees returning home must be willing to live in peace with their neighbors. Moreover, whatever customary laws non-binding resolutions GA resolutions might suggest, they are surely overridden by Chapter 7 SC resolutions like 242, which calls for the right of each state in the region to live within "secure and recognized boundaries" and calls simply for a "just settlement" of the refugee issue, not an unlimited right of return.

    • "Not worried about Hopmi’s standing. He is articulate while he conveys all the Zionist apologies, so he serves a useful purpose to present the propaganda that must be debunked."

      I'm not serving as an apologist for Zionism. There is really nothing to apologize for. I do defend the effort as a reasonable and pragmatic response to persecution, based on a collective nationalism that has a firm basis in Jewish history. It is not perfect, but neither should it be disparaged any more than any other national liberation movement is.

    • "One look at a map of the settlements, settler controlled lands and the Jewish only roads shows how the absurdity of your assertion."

      I think you're missing my point. There are roads, mostly built after suicide bombing started. But the settlements themselves, in terms of land, have not undergone great expansions in the last 25 years.

      "Besides, what makes you think Israel will give up any land? If they would, why did they start taking it in 1967 and continue ever since?"

      Because they've been negotiating on this basis for more than 20 years, and most Israelis have said, repeatedly, that they would give up land in exchange for peace. The vast majority of the settlers live on land contiguous to Israel, most of which Israel took because of how vulnerable it had been before 1967. Most of the far-flung settlements are ideological, and came later. Israel didn't take land in 1967 just to take it. There was a reason.

      "No matter what you assert and what YOU think should happen, the reality of what Israel has done and is willing to do means it will never give up land. See Bibi first ever honest comments about the peace process when he was in danger of losing his job."

      It really means nothing of the sort. Israelis will give up land if it will bring peace. If it becomes a launching pad, as Gaza and Lebanon did, then they'll be less willing to give it up.

      "Nor has any offer to the Palestinians ever contained sovereignty. Israeli control of water, power, cell phones, military bases, etc. That’s not sovereignty, that’s living under permanent occupation."

      That's why people negotiate. Olmert and Abbas were quite close to an agreement a few years ago. I have no doubt that it's possible we may see an agreement in the next decade or so.

    • "The center of Jewish civilization for many centuries was elsewhere in Ottoman Asia, i.e. Syria and Babylon. Why did these persecuted Europeans refuse to settle in the areas the Sultan offered to give them outside of Palestine? It’s a little known fact that the Sultan adopted a statute which provided for the immediate and free settlement on the best lands available, for groups of Jews between 200 and 250 families, everywhere in Ottoman Asia, except for Palestine. In 1882 the American Consul advised a group of Romanian Jews who had requested settlement in the “Pashlik of Palestine” about the ordinance and summed-up by saying “In conclusion, there is nothing to prevent all the Israelites on the earth from settling in Asiatic Turkey. They shall not settle in Palestine-that is the only prohibition.” The truth is the Zionists would rather have died than settle anywhere else, so spare us the mental gymnastics."

      You win another award for attempting to misuse a footnote of history to make a bogus argument that is completely beside the point. Whatever the truth of the Sultan offering the Jews anything (in this case, "unsettled" areas of Mesopotamia as a gesture to Jews suffering from Russian and Romanian pogroms), Jews weren't particularly safe in the Ottoman Empire in the second half of the 19th century. To begin with, the Ottomans didn't even pass a de jure equality law until 1865; before that, Jews, and other groups, were inferior to Muslims under the law. Here's a short summary of antisemitic attacks Jews faced in the second half of the 19th century in the Ottoman Empire: link to

      The Zionists wanted SOVEREIGNTY and SELF-DETERMINATION because Jews as a minority tended to BE PERSECUTED. Diaspora Jews didn't lack for offers from leaders like the Sultan. They lacked security. It wasn't enough to have the favor of some king or Pope. The end result tended to be the same; when the King or Pope lost interest or the Jews were no longer consider useful, or the leader needed a scapegoat, the Jews were persecuted.

      I can just see it. The Jews take this deal, and today, people like you would be accusing them of colonizing wherever the Sultan allowed them to go.

      "The history is pretty simple. You have to talk about a bunch of secular European Jews, to distract attention away from the dozens of small indigenous communities of Jews in and around the four sacred cities of Palestine. They viewed themselves as completely different ethnic nationalities from one another. They had their own officials, courts, and schools and enjoyed their own local autonomy. Even if all of them had wanted a State of their own and banded together, they still wouldn’t have amounted to anything more than a San Marino, Monaco, Andorra, Liechtenstein, or Malta."

      That's great. These would presumably be the same Jews who lived as inferior Ottoman subjects until 1865. You're making my point for me.

      "None of them were sitting around like Marx, Herzl, or Borochov curning out political manifestos about some sort of state-ism. Pinsker, Herzl, Ruppin, and Jabotinsky wrote racist tracts and pamphlets. They held the same bigoted European views regarding the immiscibility of the races, the mystical connection between blood and soil, hereditary anti-semitism, and the need of us racially inferior Diaspora Jews for genetic improvement through Eugenics programs they intended to carry-out in Palestine to create “the New Jew”, "

      Oh please. You mean, they were born in the 19th Century and had some of the views of the time? BFD. The Founding Fathers of the United States believed in slavery. I guess we need to end America now, because if someone believed in slavery, no good idea could come from them at all. That Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence - I mean, there's just nothing good in it, because the Founding Fathers believed in slavery.

      Nobody in Israel believes in eugenics today. This is a red herring. The Zionists were primarily concerned with finding a way out of the perpetual persecution Jews had faced. The rest is secondary. You are diverting.

      "Herzl was really a despot who wanted to found a global empire and assume the role of the head of new royal family:"

      A despot requires actual power; Herzl was dreamer who had big ideas and died before any of them came to fruition. I'm not aware of anyone who has advocated as a Zionist principle founding a global African empire. So once again, you're misusing an historical footnote to make a bogus argument.

      In this hyperbolic letter, Herzl was evincing his support for the idea of having a homeland in East Africa after he had seem pogrom after pogrom in the Russian Empire, and trying to convince Max Nordau that taking the British offer was the best way to become established. The letter is clearly hyperbole. In any event, whatever Herzl had in mind, he died in 1904, and no one seems to have taken up the idea of a Zionistic colonial empire in Africa.

      That you glorify the meek life Jews in Palestine had as inferior subjects of the Ottoman Empire before the Zionists came shows just how much you miss the point.

    • "You’re spouting bullsh*t. Palestine nationality law was passed in 1925, under which Jews could get Palestinian Nationality, buy land and settle anywhere in the Jewish People’s Historic Homeland in Palestine as Palestinians"

      You mean the Palestinian Citizenship Order of 1925 which declared those residing in Palestine as of August 1924 to be Turkish subjects that was passed because the Mandate required it? Seems like your assertion is somewhat contradicted by Hostage's citation of a summons promising punishment to any Muslim who sold land to a Jew.

      "Jewish COLONIAL Trust 1897 ring a bell? Long before the Holocaust."

      You're evading the point here. No one denies that there was a Colonial trust. But to describe the Zionists as colonists without noting the history of persecution that led to Zionism in the first place is to greatly simplify history.

      "A) The Zionist Federation of 1897 were not
      B) Some Israelis were victims of Nazi Germany. European countries were also victim to Nazi Germany
      C) Now Israel is in breach of Laws adopted in large part because of the treatment of our fellow Jews under the Nazis."

      You're comparing the experience of "European countries" at the hands of Nazi Germany to the experience of Jews at the hands of Nazi Germany? In any event, the Laws of War that you allege Israel is in breach of were not all created in response to WWII, and they were certainly not created for use by the international community to bother a small country of refugees defending itself while ignoring real violations of human rights elsewhere.

      In 1897, Jews were still experiencing persecution in Europe.

      "There were no Israelis prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) according to the Israeli Government"

      You're arguing semantics. Victims of persecution did not become otherwise once Israel became a state.

      "Right. I understand your need, because they did it, you should be allowed to do it too. In that way two wrongs make …. two wrongs."

      No. Their doing it has consequences for everybody else, and it is more than curious that they spend far more time focusing on Israel than on their own legacies of hatred of murder.

      "Well, let’s just take the declaration of statehood. Is there a constitution? NO! Has there been a Government legally elected under that constitution? NO! Is there religious freedom? NO! Were non-Jews asked to stay in the Declaration but already cleansed by Israel, welcome to stay? NO! Is it open to all Jews? NO!"

      Other states do not have Constitutions. Israel certainly has had legally elected governments. There is certainly religious freedom in Israel today, far more than any country in the Middle East. Israel certainly has many non-Jewish citizens who vote and hold office. And it is open to all Jews.

    • "Neville J. Mandel said that throughout the 19th century the Ottoman Government employed the term “Arz-i Filistin” (the “Land of Palestine” ) in official correspondence, and that it meant, for all intents and purposes, the area to the west of the River Jordan which became “Palestine” under the British in 1922."

      Do you ever quote anything accurately and honestly? The rest of the paragraph makes clear that the Ottomans were simply using the term as a geographic designation:

      "Despite these administrative divisions and changes (referring to the division by the Ottomans of the area west of the Jordan into three administrative Sancaks) the concept of a geographic area called 'Palestine' was used by the three main parties figuring in this book: the Ottoman Government, the Arabs, and the Jews. The Ottoman Government employed the term 'Arz-i Filistin' (the 'Land of Palestine' ) in official correspondence meaning for all intents and purposes the area to the west of the River Jordan which became 'Palestine' under the British in 1922. The Arabs used the term 'Filastin' to designate an area whose limits had varied at different historical periods, and thus their notion of its precise dimensions was necessarily vague, especially in the decades before World War I, given the recent administrative changes that had taken place. The Jews' use of 'Palestine' was equally imprecise, because for them it was a translation of ' Erez Yisra'el (the 'Land of Israel'), the dimensions of which had also varied at different stages of Jewish history. Nonetheless, the Zionist Movement's programme, adopted in 1897, spoke (in German) of a home 'in Palestine' for the Jewish people, and the first Zionist institution established in the country was the 'Anglo-Palestine Company.' . . .

      "Nationalism in the European sense was almost unknown among the Arabs at the end of the nineteenth century. Personal loyalties were therefore to family and religion, and, on another level, either to the Ottoman Empire (probably a somewhat abstract concept for most) or to the much more concrete framework of town or village. In the years before 1914 a discrete Palestinian 'patriotism' (rather than a full nationalism) emerged, in large part as a reaction to Zionism (bold emphasis mine)."

      So there is nothing in this excerpt to support the idea that a national group existed in Palestine before the Zionists came. It is exactly the opposite. Nationalism was unknown in Palestine before the 20th century, and what nationalism there was in the 20th century was a reaction to the Zionists. The Ottoman designation of the area west of the Jordan as Palestine had nothing whatsoever to do with nationalism.

      "Mandel also pointed out that one of the pre-war newspapers, the Filastin, frequently carried articles that spoke about Palestine as a distinct national entity. He also noted that in 1914, a circular entitled “General Summons to Palestinians – Beware Zionist Danger” was distributed and published in the press. It warned that “Zionists want to settle in our country and expel us from it” and it was signed anonymously by “a Palestinian”. He quotes extracts and provides analysis of its contents, which leaves no doubt that it reflects well established Palestinian nationalist views."

      Again, the book support nothing like Hostage's claim. The patriotism Hostage speaks of here is the same discrete patriotism Mandel references in the introduction to his book, a reaction to Zionism, and not any organic Palestinian nationalism. Moreover, Hostage conveniently leaves out the excerpts Mandel includes, which makes clear that despite vague references to countrymen, the letter/article was largely a sectarian appeal to Muslims living in Palestine, not to any national group; the "summons" called for Muslims in Palestine to hold "with their teeth" land conquered by Umar ibn al-Khattab and Salah al-Din in the 7th and 12th centuries, and claimed that if you were not Muslim, "God, His Messenger and Angels, and all men will be obliged to punish you." The summons was a threat to those who wanted to sell land to the Zionists, and it claimed that the Zionists had already purchased most of Palestine.

      "So it should come as no surprise that the delegation of leaders that went to London in 1922 said that they represented “the Palestinian Arab people”. See The Correspondence from The Palestine Arab Delegation to the Secretary of State for the Colonies demanding a stop to all alien immigration and the grant to the People of Palestine – who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country – Executive and Legislative powers:"

      It requested an end to the flood of "alien Jew immigration," in point of fact, and makes a craven antisemitic claim that most of the Jews immigrating are Bolsheviks. The letter speaks of a Palestinian people. It appears to define that as everyone who is not an "alien Jew." Once again, the Palestinian nationalism is not nationalism in any real sense; it's simply a reaction to Zionism nationalism, and it's defined largely in sectarian religious terms.

      As far as Jabotinsky, nothing Jabotinsky wrote in "The Iron Wall" suggests that Palestinians constituted any kind of national grouping before Zionism. All Jabontinsky says is that people living in a country naturally regard it as their home and will be patriotic about it, and that the Arabs are no different in that regard, and on that basis, they constitute a nation. So for Jabotinsky, the provenience of Palestinian nationalism is irrelevant, a view with which I largely agree, which is one reason why I support a two state solution, rather than some utopian one-state solution; Palestinian want a state, Jews want a state, and both want to be a majority in control of their state, and that is not possible in a one-state context.

    • "The entirety of that paragraph is false. So outrageously false, I won’t waste my time disproving it."

      That's because you can't, and your feigned offense is not fooling anybody. When people talk about settlement growth, they're primarily talking about population, not land. Most of the settlements that are not contiguous are isolated outposts of at most 1200 people. But no, land-wise, settlements have not grown very much in a while, and no, the settlements as currently constituted do not make a two-state solution impossible.

    • "Neither Jews nor Judaism are a nation in any conventional sense. What do you mean by “nation”, and why is it important for Judaism to have that status? How does it give European Jews any right to take over Palestine?"

      I really don't care what your personal view is on whether Jews constitute a nation. We Jews say we constitute a nation, and we have said it for a long time. Our status as a nation would be less important if our historical experience in the Diaspora was better. But it is generally bad, and 50 or 75 years of relative success and calm in the United States does not wipe out centuries of persecution and societal antisemitism.

      "And what is wrong with that?"

      As I said, nothing. Jews did this exclusively until the 20th century. But it cannot be the only strategy. When it's the only strategy, Jews become a vulnerable minority.

      "There is no moral necessity or duty for Jews to “survive as a people”. If the activities necessary for “survival as a people” are immoral, then it is wrong for Jews to “survive as a people”. This applies to other groups as well."

      You're from Australia, right? Are you indigenous? If not, your view on morality as it pertains to nationhood is meaningless.

      "But this did not give European Jews any right to take over Palestine."

      You can repeat this ad nauseum, but whether you agree that Jews had a right to take over Palestine or not (and I would argue that they did for historical reasons and moral reasons), they are there now, and it would be immoral to remove them, and it is worse than immoral for people in actual settler societies like the United States and Australia to lecture a refugee society like Israel about the proper way to start and maintain a country.

    • "1. Plans before the Holocaust to take the whole of Palestine

      In 1938, Ben Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote:

      “[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete, p. 403)"

      Sorry Ian, but an oft-repeated quote from a controversial letter Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937 is not proof that the Zionists collectively planned to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians before the Holocaust; this quote is not even proof Ben-Gurion favored such an outcome, and certainly is not proof that the Zionists "conceived a plan" to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in 1938.

      "2. Where does the 10% of Holocaust survivors come from?

      Doubting the number is hardly dispositive. Look it up."

      I did. That's why I asked your source. I can't find the reference.

      "I don’t want to blow my own horn, but I’m quite well read and never heard of universalism."

      Really? Then I doubt you're as well-read as you say. This site discusses it fairly frequently. In any event, those who criticize Zionism from the left usually pillorize its instinct toward tribalism, and suggest that Jews would be better off promoting a more universalist vision of Judaism shorn of its status as a nation. That's a generous reading of Phil Weiss, and also of Marc Ellis. Jews are successful, Jews have a lot to contribute, and instead of focusing on themselves and Israel, they should apply themselves to the societies in which they live. I would argue that universalism and tribalism are not mutually exclusive, and that both are necessary for the survival of a people and a multicultural civilization, but that's the debate in a nutshell.

      "More importantly, you are playing the persecution card with this argument."

      LOL. Yeah, I'm playing the persecution card. Actually, I'm playing the history card. The history is that in most places, Jews have either been periodically persecuted or otherwise have been made to live as second-class citizens, and the Enlightenment didn't prove to be an antidote to the barbarous instincts of the civilized Europeans. So the Jews diversified their options, and stopped depending on Gentiles for safety and security.

      "Most people who do care about this issue wouldn’t think twice if Israel had formed on an uninhabited island or some uninhabited desert or tundra or forest"

      This is a meaningless hypothetical argument. People did not oppose Zionism in the 1930's and 1940's principally because there were other people in the Mandate. They opposed it in the West because they wanted to protect their relationship with Arab dictators, and the Arabs themselves opposed it because they opposed the idea of Jews holding political power in the Middle East. The Arabs themselves have shown no inclination in the last half-century to treat minorities well or to stop ethnic cleansing in their own countries. Neither have people in West shown much interest in the issue of ethnic cleansing outside of the Israeli context. So I simply disagree with the assumption that it's the ethnic cleansing most people really care about. There are too many other examples around the world.

      "Most critics, especially knowledgeable, vocal and articulate ones are ANTI-ZIONIST, not anti-Semitic."

      Actually, I think the most knowledgeable and articulate critics are liberal Zionists, because unlike the anti-Zionists, they make an effort to understand both Palestinians and Israelis. Anti-Zionists are just partisans for the Palestinian cause, and they take that cause on with all of its mythology and propaganda.

    • "denial denial NAKBA denial."

      Oh please. It is not Nakba denial to suggest that the Nakba was planned during the 1948 War period, rather than before the Holocaust.

      "that’s bs hops. ian specifically referenced “key points” that you avoid…like “the problem was and continues to be that the Zionists chose an inhabited land.”"

      I didn't avoid Ian's point. I just don't agree with the premise. Americans chose an inhabited land as well. You live in it.

      "so you counter that by claiming selective application for political purposes by referencing events that happened hundreds of years ago?"

      I love how you pull my statements apart. The Holocaust did not happen hundreds of years ago.

      "israel is currently expanding and preventing any resolution to the fact there are millions of people w/no rights being represented by a gov they have no say in. and you’re just diverting by claiming victimhood, poor lil isrsel is picked on and we have historical guilt."

      Israel is not greatly expanding. The "settlement growth" you all like to go on about is mostly about population growth in settlement blocs; there have been very few new settlements in the last 20 years. In any event, right now, despite your naysaying, a two state solution with a contiguous Palestinian state is certainly still possible.

      "it’s a transparently stupid diversionary argument...take the last word, i’m not interested in debating you."

      Really, Annie, namecalling is not going hurt me. It only highlights your inability to engage with anyone who doesn't already share your perspective. You don't want to debate because your mind is closed.

    • "shorter hops: laws don’t matter if israel doesn’t follow them."

      No Annie. Laws don't matter if you're going to selectively apply them for political purposes. That's what's happening here. You want to apply one UN resolution, but ignore another. You want to apply one part of a law (and UN resolutions are not "laws" to begin with), and ignore the other part that doesn't serve your political purpose. And you want to apply it to a small state that faces a real threat from the privileged position of a large state that has killed far more people in response to a smaller threat, and faces no real consequence for it.

Showing comments 7120 - 7101