-
-
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says … 15
- Mohammed Assaf, singing sensation out of Gaza refugee camp, torches … 6
- Activists call for a SodaStream boycott at the 2013 Cannes … 1
- Video: Palestinian demonstrators break a hole in the wall during … 3
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 14
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 0
- Exile and the Prophetic: Disappearing Massad, disappearing Palestine 3
- Lapid says ‘Israelis want peace and security and Palestinians want … 5
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 782
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 314
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 120
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 105
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 89
-
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 79
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 72
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 62
- Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the … 62
-
- RT @MhmdGaza: @anniefofani Just read your article at Mondoweiss abt Wala's visit to Jerusalem. same here,I should be in Jerusalem in July :…, 9 hours ago
- Activists call for a SodaStream boycott at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival http://t.co/7Dc8qlw7um, 10 hours ago
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ http://t.co/IiL1P0hW5p, 11 hours ago
- Video: Palestinian demonstrators break a hole in the wall during protest commemorating the Nakba http://t.co/cWsoOsAoFy, 11 hours ago
- Lapid says ‘Israelis want peace and security and Palestinians want peace and justice’ http://t.co/rGAQJVloa8, 11 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ (14)
- Hostage: It is interesting to see how and when this hasbara evolved, but I recall seeing an eyewitness account from...
- straightline: I’m sure you’re aware of another way in which Kennedy pressured Israel in 1963:...
- Birthright guide turned US youths’ eyes away from refugee camps, settlements (5)
- Pamela Olson: Note also the comment section of the piece — disgraceful.
- Israeli report on al-Dura case is vengeful and ‘surreal,’ says Haaretz — but ‘NYT’ treats it as gospel (15)
- Hostage: Here’s a link to the text of the report itself. http://www.scribd.com/doc/1...
- David Samel: David K, I was thinking the same thing – even thinking of writing a post about it
- DICKERSON3870: P.S. RE: “Projection . . . includes severe prejudice, severe jealousy, hypervigilance to...
- Mohammed Assaf, singing sensation out of Gaza refugee camp, torches Arab Idol competition (6)
- Annie Robbins: another 11 minutes! i can’t stop watching these videos, he’s incredible. so tell me two...
- Video: Palestinian demonstrators break a hole in the wall during protest commemorating the Nakba (3)
- Kathleen: that clip of breaking through the illegal wall getting through to the other side and Israeli soldiers...
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack (79)
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ (14)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Kate
- Annie Robbins
- Today in Palestine
- Lizzy Ratner
- Alex Kane
- Eleanor Kilroy
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
“But faith,” [Naomi Schaefer] Riley insists [in this book], “is a tricky thing and it sneaks up on people,” especially at significant moments when the pull of old loyalties supposedly outgrown reasserts itself. “The death of a loved one, the birth of a child, the loss of a job, a move to a new city — all of these things can give people a sense of religious longing, a desire to return to the faith of their childhood.”
To ascribe these sorts of emotional conflicts to intermarriage alone reflects a shallow understanding of both life and relationships that borders on ignorance and intolerance. The reality is that people do change during the course of a marriage and that those changes can cause marital strife. This is natural and the ability to work out such conflicts are a measure of a couple's emotional maturity. If an American Jew marries an Israeli Jew and they move to Israel, is it also possible that “The death of a loved one, the birth of a child, the loss of a job, a move to a new city" could cause the American Jew a similar sense of longing to return to the familiar home of his or her childhood. Might he or she even become angry and resentful toward their partner for having "made them" gave up what they once loved and enjoyed. Might that person also feel "you owe me big time."
Isn't a similar scene played out thousands of times when couples, regardless of their religious beliefs have to relocate for employment purposes or deal with unpleasant in laws?
By extension of Fish's argument one might ask whether Reform, Conservative and Orthodox jews should intermarry since their practices, customs and observances differ. He also fails to note the stress and tensions that rock a marriage when a couple who were of the same faith and whose religious views were in sync when they were first married, become more or less observant during the course of their marriage. I am personally familiar with Jewish couple whose marriage broke up when he started to demand they keep a strict Kosher home and Sabbath observance.
The bottom line is that these types of conflicts in one form or another are part of the human condition. Mature, responsible committed couples work them out and get on with their marriage.
BTW, I wonder he would have to say about the Book of Ruth.
Cohen: "For any liberal Zionist — and I am one — convinced of the need for the two-state outcome envisaged in the United Nations resolution of 1947 establishing the modern state of Israel..."
Roger Cohen also another promotes the falsehood that the UN created Israel. On Nov 29, 1947 the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 181 that only recommended the creation of a Jewish state in part of Palestine. That recommendation was non-binding and never implemented by the Security Council. It called for Palestine to be divided into three sections : Jewish, Palestinian and an internationally administered zone to include the city of Jerusalem as a Corpus Separatum administered by the United Nations. It also called for other conditions to be met prior to partition that never were realized.
Although this resolution is frequently cited, it has had limited actual significance. It was legally dubious whether the General Assembly had the power to impose such a resolution or to convey title of a territory.
On the afternoon of May 14, 1948 the Jewish state unilaterally declared itself into existence. President Truman, against the advice of many of his top advisors, such as Dean Rusk, Dean Acheson, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal and Secretary of State George Marshall, quickly recognized the new state.
The great irony is that today the United States and Israel argue against the Palestine’s bid to be a non voting member of the UN stating that a Palestinian state, (as opposed to a Jewish state), cannot be unilaterally declared but must be achieved through negotiations.
This topic is easily researchable and has been covered on this site.
link to mondoweiss.net
From John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War: "...There has been considerable opinion to the effect that such an effort, even if practicable, might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans."
In today's terms the Germans might extract a "price tag" against their concentration camp inmates.
The Chicago campaign says “End Military Aid to Israel” while the Boston campaign says “End Unconditional Military Aid to Israel ." Why the difference? Isn't the latter slogan a watered down? Aren't there conditions already imposed that are just not enforced? just curious.
I really can't say the poll results surprise me nor can I say say I find them disheartening. Up until a few years ago I was a mindless, unquestioning supporter of all things Israel. I am often surprised how, even in the rather well educated, generally informed circles I move in, the lack of knowledge, not to mention the general apathy, regarding the I/P issue is shocking, especially given that Americans are very much affected by blowblack from our government's policies. How many Americans even know about the recent Security Council vote on settlements? Was it even mentioned on the major network news?
Two things give me hope that somehow in the end justice and righteousness will prevail. First as the study shows "adults aged 18 to 34 are slightly less likely than those 55 and older to sympathize with the Israelis." Younger people have not been as brainwashed as most of my generation. Since they are more likely to get their news on line, they are more likely to come across more more critical reporting. They will be the vanguard for change.
Second, my experienced has shown me that most well intentioned "pro Israel" individuals, those who truly value fairness, basic human rights and human decency, flip very quickly when they start to learn the facts. Once the more of the real story breaks starts breaking through, these numbers will be reversed overnight. International events may make this happen faster than one would think.
"An invidious stereotype. Most Jews I know do not go around thinking they’re smarter than anyone else."
Can't say by any means that my experience is the same. It may not be blantantly expressed as "we're smarter than they" but it is tacitly expressed by the numerous Jews I know who will only go (except under unique circumstances) to a Jewish doctor, lawyer, accountant, etc. because they believe them to be brighter. As a matter of fact this sort of philo semitism was citied as a major reason why a majority of Madoff's victioms were Jews. They believed that Jews were smarter at investing money and, unfortunately, that Jews would not cheat other Jews.
Phil's comment that "We're smarter than other people. (I guess it was true once. No longer..."" does have a factual basis however uncomfortable it may make some of us. According to the 2009 he OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) released this Dec 10, Israel ranked statistically significantly below the OECD averages in both reading and math scores. To add insult to injury Poland and Ireland, two countries which in my Jewish neighbor growing up were considered particularly disadvantanged in terms of intelligence, outperformed srael. Five of the top ten ranked countries were Asian. What does that tell you.
Source: link to pisa.oecd.org
PISA evaluates the quality equity and efficiency of school systems in some 70 countries that, together, make up nine-tenths of
the world economy.
One other interesting point. The 2009 PISA carried this disclaimer: "The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law." Could interpret that a couple ways.
Not quite sure how that may relate to the studies findings.
Aren't there more direct and compelling reasons why that analogy is so ignorant of history and misguided? Namely that the whole thrust of international law in the post WWII era, (the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention of 1949 as well as numerous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions) has been to prevent such injustices as is currently happening to the Palestininas from recurring.
for those who would like to know more about former Senator Jim Abourezk, I refer you to the transcript of a hearing before his Judiciary Sub Committtee on the Colonization Of the West Bank Territories by Israel on October 17 - 18, 1977. I highly doubt that a hearing of this sort could be held today. Worth reading for a better historical understanding of this issue.
see link to loc.gov
From worunsgov.com/The Washington Post:
"While much of what Levey does on a day-to-day basis is not seen or reported, he has participated in some controversial decisions aimed at protecting the country, but that toe the line of privacy laws.... But maybe more crucially, he is credited as the brains behind a stealth war on Iran, masterminding an attempt to get private banks to cut off their dealings with Iranian banks, based on the idea that they're not up to international banking standards. It's been ruthlessly effective. Wright, Robin, "Stuart Levey’s War," The New York Times, Nov. 2, 2008 (3)
source: link to whorunsgov.com
Don:
You obviously missed the point of this thread. It has nothing to do with whether economic theory is or isn't as abstract as theology. That's a red herring. It is about whether the basis for public policies that affect the lives of millions should be grounded in a rational, quantifable process or in religious fantasy and myth. Talk of having special rights to a land because some invisible supernatural being gave it to his "chosen people" in return for their doing certain things such as not eating pork and sniping off the tips of their penises is inherently ridiculous. And that absurdity is what millions literally believe. If it appears to me that an economic theory doesn't make sense when analyzed, I will reject it. However, a believer will cling to a religiously based belief regardless how bizarre or whether it makes sense or can be proven. I would much rather have the former type make policies that affect my life than the latter. You may feel differently.
"Straw man. You are debunking a literalist view of Genesis, not religion."
Good. Now think a little more deeply about what you said and I believe you will ultimately agree with me. Bear in mind, Antidote, that the first and foremost Zionist argument for exclusive Jewish control over Palestine/Israel is the religious or Biblical argument, i.e. God gave this land to the Jews, his chosen people. That their tie to the land is therefore unique and special.
If you don't "literally" believe that you're "the chosen" or that God literally "gave this land to us" than you are knowingly arguing based on mythical beliefs and folktales, (i.e. religion.) If you do believe it literally, than you are in the same realm as those who believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Either way, hardly the best basis for making laws and policies that adversely affect millions. Throw into the mix the utterly absurd beliefs of Christian Zionists who do influence American mid east policy and no wonder the region is in the mess it is.
Again, my point, pure and simple, is unless you can prove to me that the such a god exists and that he did do this, than this argument, whether literal or metaphorical, is not only specious and a waste of time, it should be summarily dismissed by anyone who values reason and enlightened argument as the basis of law and government.
"Would you call the bickering about the correct interpretation and practice of either Communism or Capitalism ’silly and pointless’?"
The obvious difference is that the finer points ofAdam Smith or Karl Marx are quantifiable and can tested and accepted or rejected on their merits. Whether some supernatural being whose existence cannot be proven designated or no longer designates any people as his chosen ones cannot. It's not a question of whether a non believer feels superior or not. It's a simple question of whether argumentnmakes sense and what verifable proof you can offer. I believe that there is a far greater degree of proof that political/economic philosphers such as Karl Marx or Adam Smith existed, were mortal men and thus fallable But more relevant to my point is that neither "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'" nor "The Communist Manifesto" by Marx justify their point of view based on some ill tempered supernatural being who made talking serpents and magical apples. If they did, then I would assure you that I would feel the same about their arguments. If you believe in the concept of a divinely chosen people of any sort, then you must inherently also belive in talking serpernts and magic apple. There all from the same source.
It's amazing how incredibly silly and pointless all this bickering about who is or isn't a "chosen people" seems when you're an atheist.
"Hitchens approvingly cites (and expands) a metaphor coined (I think) by Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for The Atlantic: A man (the Zionist Jew), to save himself, leaps from a burning building (anti-Semitic and Holocaust Europe) and lands on an innocent bystander (a Palestinian), crushing him..."
I wish I had thought of this response yesterday when I first read it and this thread was new but I am not as quick as I would like to be. When it rolled over in my mind the shortcomings of this analogy became so obvious that I am amazed that any educated person would use it as a defense of Israel.
Let me expand upon it to conform with historical facts:
The man who was fallen upon gets ups and says "Perhaps I was being too protective of my rights and maybe I could have been more understanding of your predicament, but be that as it may, the fire is now out so why don't you go back to where you came from and let's both recover and get on with the the rest of our lives."
To which the other man replies: "The hell with you. Not only am I staying but I am taking over the entire sidewalk. Now get the hell out of here and don't ever come back. And most important, don't think for a second if someone else is jumping from a burning building that I am ever going to share it with them."
Potsherd
Your comment assumes that "When all the Palestinians are dead or dispersed to the four winds..." Israel will be content to exist with the borders of historical Palestine. What makes one think they will stop there? I don't believe that one should make that assumption.
Richard:
You write: "Israel does have the equivalent of a constitution entitled its Basic Laws, which include provisions for equal due process under the law. Great Britain doesn’t have a constitution either, or didn’t you know that."
Yes I do know that. But its a distinction with little significance. Israel came into being as a democracy in the post WWII era which places a greater emphasis on the protection of individual rights and liberties. A constitution was required in the UN Partition Plan which Irael cited as the justification for its statehood. Most important, it promised to do in its delcaration of independence by "not later than the 1st October 1948." It did not meet this deadline first due to the war and later due to the oppostion of religious leaders.
As for your comment that: "..the reality is that the local Palestinians and later the Arab League calculated that there was a possibility that they would be able to be free of Jews, if they went to war. They had the option of remaining in the land, and comprising then a majority of residents." My question to you is are you familiar with the Haganah's "Plan Dalet"? That may give you a better understanding of the issue. Regardless whether the Palestinians chose to flee or remain, their continued exile appears to have no legal basis. As Victor Kattan points out, 15,000 Palestinian Jews fled to safer areas but they were allowed to return. Furthermore, UN's Universal Declaration of Human Right proclaimed a "right of return" and reaffirm it annually.
I wonder what role she played in Operation Cast Lead? I am really curious how typical she is of the average IDF soldier? 10%? 20%? 50%? At first I was willing to give her a pass thinking she was some misguided young person corrupted by a corrupt occupation. Now I feel she is a psychopath who should not be anywhere near a weapon. Perhaps it is because of troops such as her that Netanyahu doesn't want IDF troops who participated in th Mavi Marmara interviewed by investigators.
So help me, independently of Tony Judt I came to the same conclusion that Israel is an "anachronism." Emerson was right when he said that in every work of genius we see our own rejected thoughts.
I am severely disappointed that she would be an apologist for Israel. Think of the greater good she could have done highlighting her treatment. If a 69 year old female American whose distinguished background could be easily verified within 10 minutes on Google or a phone call could be subject to an embarassing and humiliating two and a half hour detention, what must younger and less distinguished citizens with an Arab name endure? Is Israel's "security" that fragile to warrant such treatment? I seriously doubt it. Its racism pure and simple.
Perhaps this is why the U.S. State department posts the following travel advisory for Americans visiting Israel, the only "democracy" in the Middle East:
"U.S. citizen visitors have been subjected to prolonged questioning and thorough searches by Israeli authorities upon entry or departure. U.S. citizens whom Israeli authorities suspect of being of Arab, Middle Eastern, or Muslim origin; those who have been involved in missionary or activist activity; and those who ask that Israeli stamps not be entered into their passport may face additional, often time-consuming, and probing questioning by immigration and border authorities, or may even be denied entry into Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza."
link to travel.state.gov
Not quite sure what to make of this post. I don't necessarily think that Knesset Members are somehow immune from introducing stupid, backwards legislation. Jesse Helms was said to have been a master of introducing controversal, right wing legislation that never had any chance of getting passed but played well with his base. The real question is what are the chances of such legislation ever actually being passed and actually becoming law?
"We all know what will this turn into: namely, a big battle over who is more Pro-Israel on the campaign trail, rather than a rational discussion over what U.S. policy should be toward Israel."
For the life of me I can't understand why it wouldn't make more sense to turn it into a big battle over who is more Pro American. Sestak could win that hands down. You're never going to get a serious discussion of a complicated issue like this on the campaign trail. My experience is that most Americans neither care enough or know enough about the IP to have any strong feelings but they would not like putting the interests of another country above their own.
I guess it is reasonable to assume that if when he became the NASA administrator President Obama had instructed him "...to find a way to reach out to Israel and the Jewish people" Krauthammer would have found such comments praiseworthy.
Kagan has publicly stated her fondness and respect for Aharon Barak, chief judge of Israel's High Court of Justice as well as for Israel. What I would be very curious to know is what her opinion of Justice Richard Goldstone and his report on Gaza. As a Jew, is he someone she would admire or vilify. Was she asked this and I missed it?
After reading the Rabbi's posting in full, I find that it really could serve one useful purpose. It is a compendium of all the demonstrably false arguments that have been used to defend Zionist abuses and injustices over the years and to defense the indefensible. If you expect to argue/discuss this topic with pro Israel folks, it would behoove you to familiarize yourself with what the rabbi writes. It is exactly the argument I get from my pro Israel friends, both Jewish and gentile, all good people, who are often horribly misinformed on the subject. In fairness, so was I for most of my life. This is what I use to believe. The only thing not in it is "the only democracy" and "our greatest ally" talking points.
It seems to me that the only book the "learned" rabbi appears to have read on this subject, given his demographic references, is Joan Peter's "From Time Immemorial." As readers of this site know, the book has been thoroughly discredited. When a "teacher" is so misinformed on one of his primary subjects, I can only think he is being willfully ignorant. That's what I find most repugnant. I would implore the good Rabbi to improve his understanding of Israel's history by reading something more recent and credible such as Victor Katten's excellent book "From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict." However, I doubt that he will or even cares.
It seems very simple and straightforward to me. If there were any footage on any of the confiscated videos of the incident taken by passenger, crew or journalists that was favorable to Israel's case they would have made it public by now. The fact that they haven't leads me to believe there in nothing in them that strenthens their position or discredits the accounts by the activists. Most likely any unedited videos would show that Israel used excessive force. I think you can take that to the bank.
I have a very simple, sincere question: If conditions in Gaza are as the Israeli government is saying, then why not let the news media in to see for themselves?
Of course the Israelis would never do anything like this would they?
British anger at terror celebration
'The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine. They have erected a plaque outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack.
link to timesonline.co.uk
And don't forget about Baruch Goldstein, an American-born Jewish Israeli physician who perpetrated the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in the city of Hebron, killing 29 Muslims at prayer there and wounding another 150. His gravesite has become a pilgrimage site for "Israeli extremists"; a plaque near the grave reads "To the holy Baruch Goldstein, who gave his life for the Jewish people, the Torah and the nation of Israel." At least 10,000 people have visited the grave since the massacre.
link to en.wikipedia.org
I don't know if this troll is worth responding to but I don't want him to go unanswered. If he thinks that Israeli Jews possess some innate moral superiority, over the Palestinians perhaps the teachings of a settler Rabbi in a recent book, "The complete guide to killing non-Jews" might open his mind a bit, although I doubt it. The book appears to have received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis.
A sampling:
“In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created."
Or this gem:
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”
"In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed.”
See link to coteret.com
The British woh also insisted that in Palestine "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities." (Balfour Declaration) Or that Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew," (Joint Anglo American Committee)
Compared to the present situation, I would say this line of thinking was rather enlightened.
Correction: That should read the lethal mixture of religion and government.
The quote from Justice Stevens reads:
"Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife and weaken the foundations of our democracy."
I believe that he could easily be describing the cause of many of the problems confronting present day Israel - the lethal mixture of religion and democracy.
I remember reading a observation, I can't remember who and where, that one of the world's great ironies is that throughout the Diaspora, Jews would thrive when they found themselves in a society generally tolerant and accepting of religious, ethnic and cultural diversity. Yet, in their own state, in order to thrive many Jews believe they must be religiously, ethnically, and culturally intolerant.
"Privately, these Democrats say that the administration’s criticism of Netanyahu was excessive and will embolden Israel’s enemies."
Interesting. Could it not also be said that "Netanyahu's defiance of Obama regarding the illegal settlements was excessive and will embolden America's enemies?"
Speaking of pundits spouting the Israeli Hasbara line, don't overlook George Will's comments yesterday on "This Week" which went unchallenged. Enough already about the only democracy in the Middle East, shared values, and reliable ally What I want to know is when did East Jerusalem become a "Jewish section of Jerusalem." Am I missing something? Nothing at all about Israel's occupation being illegal under international law. Any problem is all Obama's fault.
From the transcript:
WILL: U.S.-Israeli relations are worse now than they have been in the 62 years that Israel has existed. It's the only nation in the world with which we have worse relations. What nation is that? It's the only democracy in the Middle East, the only salient of our values in that inhospitable region, the only reliable ally there. And we are treating it as a problem because the Jews in a Jewish section of Jerusalem have decided to builds 1,600 housing units.
It is the law of the land, expressed in the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, that Jerusalem shall be the united capital of the state of Israel, period.
I would propose to that the critical mistake was not the so called Arab rejection of partition but was for the US to reject the unanimous recommendations of the "Joint Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry" on the future of Palestine in 1946.
This was a British and American committee whose main objective was: "To examine political, economic and social conditions in Palestine as they bear upon the problem of Jewish immigration and settlement therein and the well-being of the peoples now living therein."
When read today, the prescience, sophistication and enlightenment of the commission are breathtaking. One can only imagine how much more stable the Mideast would be, and how much additional human suffering would have been avoided, had President Truman not caved in to Zionist pressure and embrace partition.
From the Report:
"In order to dispose, once and for all, of the exclusive claims of Jews and Arabs to Palestine, we regard it as essential that a clear statement of the following principles should be made:
"...That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy Land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish faiths...'
"We, therefore, emphatically declare that Palestine is a Holy Land, sacred-to Christian, to Jew and to Moslem alike; and because it is a Holy Land, Palestine is not, and can never become, a land which any race or religion can justly claim as its very own."
"We further, in the same emphatic way, affirm that the fact that it is the Holy Land, sets Palestine completely apart from other lands, and dedicates it to the precepts and practices of the Brotherhood of Man, not those of narrow nationalism. "
"Yet Palestine is not, and never can be, a purely Jewish land. It lies at the crossroads of the Arab world. Its Arab population, descended from long-time inhabitants of the area, rightly look upon Palestine as their homeland..;
"It is therefore neither just nor practicable that Palestine should become either an Arab State, in which an Arab majority would control the destiny of a Jewish minority, or a Jewish State, in which a Jewish majority would control that of an Arab minority. In neither case would minority guarantees afford adequate protection for the subordinated group."
Now I ask you, if the Arabs rejected partition because that favored this vision of Palestine, can you blame them???
The report can be found at link to avalon.law.yale.edu
Would also recommend you read "President Harry S. Truman and US Support for Israeli Statehood" found at link to mideastweb.org
"Already Monday morning, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee put out an action alert urging senators and representatives to make statements supportive of a strong US-Israel relationship and “the need for the US to work closely and privately” with the Jewish state. "
Interesting, wouldn't it be more in the interests of both the US and Israel and other nations as well to have the international relations based on the idea of "Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at?" I guess this idea died with Woodrow Wilson.
I can't. But I am also having a lapse about the King David Hotel bombing massacre in 1946. 96 people killed if I remember correctly. Can you help me out?
Obviously I did get the article I referenced above through Mondoweiss. Its number 3 in related posts.
I would strongly recommend that you enocourage your nephew to read the PhD. dissertation "Traditional Jewish Attitudes Toward Poles," by Mark Paul, August 2009 found at the link below. Having married into a Polish family and travelled to Poland where my wife satill has relatives I found it very interesting and informative. It explores the attutides of Polish Jews and finds that Jews were as much imbued with negative stereotypes about Poles, as Poles were about Jews. I may have found this through Mondoweiss but can't remember.
link to glaukopis.pl
I have to agree with Citizen. This point was driven home just last night when my 26 year old Jewish daughter, a law student, was visiting. She saw me on the computer reading Mondoweiss and asked me about it. I explained what the site was about and why I read it. In the ensuing discussion I was very chagrined to learn that she was oblivious to the the issues behind the Israel settlement policy, why it was wrong, the influence of the Lobby, the the Gaza blockade, or the basis of Palestianain grievances. Needless to say, she was completely ignorant of the nakba and never heard of the "Goldberg Report." It just was not part f her world. Instead, she had simply absorbed all the hasbara that had been drummed into her head during her many years of attending Hebrew school and didn't think any more about it. She did mention something I had forgotten but now find interesting. How her Rabbi paid her, a "scholarship" he called it, to take Jewish related courses at her university while an undergrad. She took a course in Zionism, taught by, surprise, a Rabbi. I concluded our discussion by explaining to her why I felt so strongly about these issues and giving her a list of recommended readings. (A little bit of Finkelstein will do her good.) The good news is that I think that I opened her eyes a bit and that she will start thinking a little more critically about US - Israel realtions. Still, I find it sad that her ignorance may be very typical not only of her generation, but of most Americans. Things are improving but we still have a long, long way to go before public opinion in the US reaches a tipping point.
Marty Peretz writes: "Hardly a day goes by that the Financial Times doesn't do a hit job on Israel. The otherwise sober pink sheet has such an obsession with the Jewish state that I've come to wonder what its views were on the rescue of Jewish children into England during the Nazi onslaught on them and on their parents."
I don't know what the FT's views on the rescue of Jewish children into England were. But I do know what the views of one prominent Zionist, David Ben-Gurion were in this regard. A month after the Nazi pogrom against Germany's Jews, known as Kristallnacht, Ben-Gurion, he stated:
"If I knew it was possible to save all [Jewish] children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz-Yisrael, I would choose the latter - because we are faced not only with the accounting of these [Jewish] children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People."
For those who might be interested, another thorough and excellent response to Mohse Halbertal's article in the New Republic by Jerome Slater can be found here:
link to pulsemedia.org
Can one of the more knowledgeable people in this group explain to me, (or refer me to a source) Egypt's position re Gaza. Why do they support the blockade? Why would they block the march? I am still learning. That's why I am here. Thanks.
I just read it and hardly found it "great reading" but merely obfuscating lawyer talk. If Congeress Berman had any real interest in the truth he would have had Judge Goldstone appear before a Congressional committee BEFORE voting on the resolution condemning his report and broadcast the hearing on CSPAN so that people could decide for themselves the truth how valid the his allegations may be. At this point in my life, what hurts me more than anything, is that Israel has more to fear from truth than anti semitism. I have yet to find a substantive response to the substantive findings in the report and I have looked. Mostly you get diversionary allegations regarding Goldstone's and the UNHRC objectivity.
Phil's post reminded me how for years we were the only Jewish family in a Christian neighborhood. I remember often feeling awkward and insecure at how naked our undecorated house would look during Christmas season with only the tiny Menorah in the widow. Life goes on and now I find myself divorced, remarried and an atheist in the Sam Harris mode. My wife's views are similar to mine. We put up a Christmas tree but it is bereft of any religious significance what so ever. It's more of a when in Rome sort of thing. Must admit though, it does seem to my my daughter's husband a bit uncomfortable but he is getting use to it. Interesting thing is that many Jews seem to find it enlighted when Christians adopt some of their symbols such as the family I know that that places a Menorah along side their tree, but find it offensive when Jews even have any recognition Christmas in your home. Of course, a place of business is another story.
To DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells and interested others:
An very interesting, academic analysis of Jewish DNA (with an focus on Ashkenazi Jews) can be found at link to jogg.info. It supports the Khazar theory. I have been looking for a critique of this article but have not found one yet. Author's summary paragraphs below:
A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE
Ellen Levy-Coffman
The Jewish community has been the focus of extensive genetic study over the past decade in an attempt to better understand the origins of this group. In particular, those descended from Northwestern and Eastern European Jewish groups, known as “Ashkenazim,” have been the subject of numerous DNA studies examining both the Y chromosome and mitochondrial genetic evidence.
The focus of the present study is to analyze and reassess Ashkenazi results obtained by DNA researchers and synthesize them into a coherent picture of Jewish genetics, interweaving historical evidence in order to obtain a more accurate depiction of the complex genetic history of this group. Many of the DNA studies on Ashkenazim fail to adequately address the complexity of the genetic evidence, in particular, the significant genetic contribution of European and Central Asian peoples in the makeup of the contemporary Ashkenazi population. One important contribution to Ashkenazi DNA appears to have originated with the Khazars, an ancient people of probable Central Asian stock that lived in southern Russia during the 8th-12th centuries CE. Significant inflow of genes from European host populations over the centuries is also supported by the DNA evidence. The present study analyzes not only the Middle Eastern component of Ashkenazi ancestry, but also the genetic contribution from European and Central Asian sources that appear to have had an important impact on Ashkenazi ancestry.
My guess is that Bronner's coverage has less to do with the fact that he " is married to an Israeli" than that he knows what his editors expect of him. How long would he stay employed at the NYT if he wrote the articles with the context that Phil provides? I agree that the NYTs is becoming increasingly irrelevant as a credible source of news on the IP issue. I am just curious about this: Phil, do you forward your remarks to him? I wonder if he ever reads what is written about him here or anything that is written on this site?
Equally as bad was Keith Olbermann on his show last night. He laid into Palin for her response to a question from Barbara Walters about Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, where she stated "I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead." Phil reported this.
Olbermann criticisms focused solely on what he perceived as clear evidence of her belief in the "Rapture" and "End Times." theology. What he never bothered to mention was that this former Vice Presidential candidate was supporting a policy that is in violation of both international law as well as American policy. This was the more important point. Did Palin not know this or did she simply not care? I was disappointed that Olbermann didn't pick up on this but not surprised. After all, has he ever bothered to mention the Goldstone Report?
See it here: link to rawstory.com
"I told the students that the reason for my involvement as an advocate for Palestinian human rights was because I see the issue of the treatment of Palestinians by Israel as the most critical spiritual and moral issue facing Jews in our time. "
I concur. This reminds me of when Dr. Martin Luther King said that his work was to save the bodies of black folks and the souls of white folks.
Agreed. This is the old "Yea, we may be bad but they're bad too" argument you often get when you try to discuss these issues with some. For the life of me I don't understand why any thinking person would believe it helps their cause. It basically admits that they are guilty of the wrong for which they are being accused.
...."then if I recall there was some other Israeli partisan at some NY rally or etc. saying “damned *right* we were disproportionate and that’s a good thing” or words to that effect. "
At July 17,2006 at a rally in New York City, Israel’s UN ambassador Dan Gillerman thundered:
"[T]o those countries who claim that we are using disproportionate force, I have only this to say: You're damn right we are." This comment was made the same day that Israeli warplanes set Beirut’s harbor ablaze, pounded villages, neighborhoods, and highways across Lebanon, and flattened the Palestinian foreign ministry in Gaza City along with surrounding homes.
"His comments drew wild applause," said the Jerusalem Post. Next to him were two prominent Democratic senators, Hillary Clinton of New York and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. Lautenberg said: “It’s up to Israel to design how strong her response ought to be.” Clinton added: “We will support [Israel’s] efforts to send a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians… We will take whatever steps are necessary.”
link to original.antiwar.com
link to theamericancause.org
I would think the the Dahyia Doctrine originated in Ze'ev Jabotinsky's concept of the “Iron Wall” that called for the early Zionists to develop clearly superior military strength and the will to use it. I don’t believe that anyone can understand contemporary Zionism and Israel’s national character without some understanding of Jabotinsky’s influence. Worth studying.
Jabotinsky was a founder and early leader of the militant Zionist underground organization, Irgun. After Herzl's death in 1904 he became the leader of the right-wing Zionists. His legacy is reflected in today’s Likud party. The Jabotinsky Medal is awarded for distinguished service to the State of Israel, and most Israeli cities have streets named after him.
In an article published in Ha'aretz Daily in 1923 he outlined his IRON WALL concept that the Arab population must learn and accept that resistance to Zionism is futile:
".... Settlement can thus develop under the protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ....a voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers….And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against PUSHING THEM OUT, and equality of civil, and national rights." (emphasis added)
Sources:
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to palestineremembered.com
One more quick thing: There were five letters in respone to Nernstein in today's NYT. See link to nytimes.com
The most notable and praiseworthy, one by the current and past chairs of HRW who write:
"As recently as April, the full board of directors heard — and rejected — Mr. Bernstein’s proposal that Human Rights Watch should focus our research and reporting resources on closed societies. After careful consideration, we and other members of our board stressed that democracies, too, commit serious abuses, with the United States’ “war on terrorism” and Israel’s conduct in Gaza just the latest examples. We reaffirmed our conviction that it is essential to hold Israel to the same international human rights standards as other countries. To do otherwise would be a violation of our core principle that human rights are universal."
And then ther's one signed by Elie Wiesel and Alan Dershowitz that says....oh, I don't even have to tell you. You already must know.
I have some time constraints so I can only quickly add this.
I too was shocked by the Bernstein Op Ed when I read it yesterday. I am surprised it hasn’t been picked apart more here since it’s an easy target. I don’t know much about the man but it did call immediately into question, in my view, both his intellectual and moral integrity. No time to do to a point by point refutation on all the invidiously misleading claims and outright mistruths, but let this one example serve as an easy illustration.
Bernstein writes (or someone wrote for him):
“Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah….These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” (Emphasis mine.)
“Murder Jews everywhere?” “Genocide? Can’t get much more inflammatory than that. But could this be true?
If it is the Iranian government’s intention to “murder Jews everywhere,” then why, one might ask, would they not start with some low laying fruit, such as the approximately 25,000 Jews who currently live in Iran? Just last February, here’s what Roger Cohen has to say about Iran’s Jewish population on these same NYT editorial pages:
“Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran — its sophistication and culture — than all the inflammatory rhetoric. That may be because I’m a Jew and have seldom been treated with such consistent warmth as in Iran. Or perhaps I was impressed that the fury over Gaza, trumpeted on posters and Iranian TV, never spilled over into insults or violence toward Jews. Or perhaps it’s because I’m convinced the “Mad Mullah” caricature of Iran and likening of any compromise with it to Munich 1938 — a position popular in some American Jewish circles — is misleading and dangerous.
As is usually typical, with such divergent points of view, the truth may most likely may rest somewhere in the middle. Iran is most certainly not without a degree of anti-Semitism, but so are many other countries. But wide spread, systematic murderous anti-Semitism? Sorry. There is nothing in the record to back that up.
But that probably does not matter to Bernstein, who appears to ascribe a greater allegiance to the cause of Zionism than to truth and human rights.
Apparently something similar happened when Olmert spoke at Tulane University on October 13, See link to zmag.org. Although I am pleased that there were protestors at both locations, I do agree that he should have been permitted to speak. Otherwise we are no better than they are.
Question: Do you think Zuckerman really believes this or is he trying, as they say, to put perfume on a pig?
I simply cannot understand why more world attention is not paid to the inherent dangers of Israel's alledged nuclear arsenal going unchecked and unregulated, especially in light of the increasing political influence of the ultra right settlers and the rise of the Haredim. How safe would the world when nuclear weapons come under the control of these groups? See "The Hostile Takeover of Zionism" in the Sept 25 Globe and Mail for some background. (Sorry, need to work out how to do the direct link.)
Some relevant text:
DEMOCRACY IN QUESTION
Ironically, considering these religious leaders have made such use of the democratic process, they continue to say democracy is not consistent with Halacha.
"In many ways these guys are closer to Islamic fundamentalists than to anything else," Prof. Ben Yehuda said. They also do not shrink from violence.
Prof. Ben Yehuda's research found that violence is the number-one criminal infraction among Haredim. He also found that most of that violence is for political purposes....Violence has become so widespread that there are Haredi communities where the police won't go. ...Even in the Israel Defence Forces, the Haredim are having an effect. An exclusive Haredi battalion has been created, to accommodate a growing number of ultra-Orthodox who want to serve.