Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 55 (since 2015-04-22 13:25:32)

Showing comments 55 - 1
Page:

  • Why I am leaving Israel
    • She is speaking of a stress that causes physical exhaustion. The mind experiences the depression, but the body exhibits the debilitating symptom.

  • At town hall, Sen. Warren says Israel Anti-Boycott Act 'violates our basic constitution'
  • Rabbi Sacks endorses religious crimes in video against BDS
  • 'NYT' runs Israeli's op-ed recommending that Palestinians 'emigrate voluntarily'
  • Miko Peled's viral video
  • Mainstream media frames Israeli attacks on Gaza civilians as 'retaliatory'
    • Has anyone seen a good timeline of the sequence of events. As I understand it, but I am still not sure based upon shoddy reporting, Israel entered Gazan territory first before any firing began. They did this just before Netanyahu visited the border.

      We would like to cover this in detail at Palestine 365, so your help would be appreciated.

      https://www.facebook.com/Palestine-365-480125265507980/

  • It is time to stop celebrating Jewish dissent in the Palestine solidarity movement
    • Sorry, but this writer gets it backwards. She writes:

      “Yet there is an inevitable risk associated with the ongoing privileging of Jewish voices denouncing Israel. This is because by privileging their voices, we are implicitly accepting the Zionist narrative of Israel representing all Jews, with very few exceptions.”

      It is not privilege. It is responsibility. So many Jews support the state of Israel without knowing its truly heinous history of ethnic cleansing and oppression, severe, murderous and thieving oppression.

      It is not with privilege that so many Jews speak out against Israel. It is with shame since so many other Jews support Israel’s atrocities.

      https://www.facebook.com/SpiritOfJBulworth/photos/a.494329413929325.133572.494320497263550/1164417746920485/

  • Clinton will hold fundraiser in Tel Aviv
    • Messrs. Spielberg and Katzenberg,

      When you put another country's interest before your own, there is a single word to describe you - traitor.

  • Bernie Sanders' record on Palestine
    • If you are an advocate for Palestine, consider that Sanders has come light years farther than any American candidate for President, including the current crop of hawkish sociopaths.

      Given his character and positions, which hasn't changed through his entire career, he is far and away the best hope in the White House the Palestinians have seen. Until he reaches that position, he can only say or do so much before he gets into a position to actually make a real effect.

      So tear him down in the typical purist way liberals do. Good luck with Clinton, Trump or Cruz.

      I'd rather have a man of principle in the White House that can we can reach.

  • A 'longtime activist for social justice,' Booker worries his anti-BDS stance will 'rankle' and 'upset' people
  • Milbank sponsored pro-Israel events and 'CIA torture' event-- but only raised objection to 'Palestine' event
    • "You required acknowledgement of support for such activities, but object when Palestinian issues are discussed. All else is BS, so STFU."

      Short enough for you?

  • YouTube becomes Israel's new battleground against Palestinians
  • Explaining to an Israeli Zionist why Palestinians are upset
  • Video: Israeli forces open fire on Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza killing seven
    • Exactly DiaspOra.

      Harry Law, the Palestinians watched international laws passed at the time of the 1948 Ethnic Cleansing and for 19 years go unenforced. Then Israel completed its conquest of Palestine. The occupation not extended to every piece of Palestinian land. With their supporters defeated and lacking the resources to fight their own battle, the Palestinians turned to terrorism, as General Matti Peled of the IDF Chiefs of Staff predicted.

      The point in response to your comments is that at some point, people reach a limit and will do whatever they can to resist.

  • Whose violence?
  • Video: Undercover Israeli soldiers infiltrate Palestinian demonstration, beat protesters and shoot detainee in leg
    • @Jackdraw

      You're very first comment was that you "have no problem with undercover cops provoking protesters"

      That is in itself incitement. You cannot assume they will throw rocks. If they were going to anyway, then let them. They would not have needed incitement. What this shows is your bias, not legal analysis.

      Further, firing any high velocity projectile within inches of any body part will do irreparable damage, if not cause a fatal loss of blood. Israel has a policy of shooting to create lasting limb damage so as to avoid headlines for killing Palestinians. Not that they only do that when necessary. They shoot as a matter of policy, even peaceful protests, but the policy is to shoot regardless of self-defense. So no, it is not appropriate when 5 or more men surround one. You’re just apologizing for excessive violence the side you favor utilizes.

      Further, you miss the big picture here. This is a response to the Occupation. An Occupation which controls every facet of their life. An Occupation that steals their land, their resources, takes political prisoners, conducts night raids for intimidation, tortures children, restricts commerce, supplies, travel and by virtue of all three medical care, and uses both lethal and non-lethal force indiscriminately against one side while protecting the crimes of the others (the Settlers).

      End the Occupation, there will be an end to the rock throwing at soldiers with helmets, body armor and semi-automatic weapons with no restraint on use. In the meantime, Israelis should stop complaining given the 67 year provocation that is Zionism.

    • Aharon Zisling, the Minister of Agriculture, to the Israeli Cabinet, Nov. 17, 1948 (after the Ethnic Cleansing campaign):

      “Now Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken.”

    • It is not worse. It is in-line with Nazi policies excluding the final solution.

      For example, the international law forbidding collective punishment arose from the extensive use by the Nazi regime.

      So Israel is what Nazi Germany's reign would have looked like without a final solution and lasting for 67 years. A Warsaw Ghetto in one area and a self-policed, marginalized population in another, with the latter looking at the former as their ultimate status in Bantustans too.

      https://www.facebook.com/SpiritOfJBulworth/photos/a.494329413929325.133572.494320497263550/912056532156609/

    • @Jackdaw, if I understand you correctly, you are okay with undercover agents in this case instigating the very actions that provoke a violent response from the IOF to capture a ringleader.

      That raises a number of questions. If the undercover agent is instigating the actions, doesn't that make him the ringleader?

      Further, isn't that the classic case of entrapment?

      Last, unless I missed it, you are silent on the infliction of a gunshot wound at point blank range of a detained and defenseless suspect.

      Not that this is exactly my narrative, but it appears to be yours. How do you address these issues arising from your narrative?

    • "Who's going to enforce the Geneva Conventions against us?"

      - The Israeli Occupation Force High Command
      .
      .
      Since a military and international law approach have not and will not work, there is only one solution available - BDS

    • "But Israel only wants peace"

      I am not a Self-Hating Jew. I am Ashamed Other Jews Defend This

      https://www.facebook.com/SpiritOfJBulworth/photos/a.494329413929325.133572.494320497263550/1164417746920485/

  • Howard Stern says no one lived in Palestine before Jews got there, but Roger Waters wants them to go 'back to concentration camp'
  • 'NYT' gives new life to old propaganda -- Terror Tunnels from Gaza
    • Excellent article. I have quoted it below my repost of the true use of the tunnels:

      Quoting Glenn Greenwald's interview of Max Blumenthal

      [After Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli settler killed 29 worshippers and wounded 125 more in a mosque in Hebron, the Al Qassam brigades, the military wing of Hamas turned to attacking civilians. This lasted until a new leader changed policies. In 2005] "Al-Qassam dropped the tactic of suicide bombing and attacking soft Israeli targets, and decided to fight the Israeli military directly. This required the establishment of a sophisticated tunnel network underneath the Gaza Strip to mount ambushes and to stage infiltration into Israeli territory.

      Now this is important. Many people have seen the attack on the Nahal Oz Israeli military base by an al-Qassam ambush team that had infiltrated into Israeli territory across to Nahal Oz, where there is a kibbutz of Israeli civilians and an Israeli military base which is used to attack Gaza.

      This team of Qassam commandos was wearing Israeli uniforms, I think, with Go Pro cameras attached to their helmets. They chose not to attack the civilians in the kibbutz. They could have killed dozens of civilians, but that’s not where the orders were. The orders were to attack soldiers.

      They burst into the military base, killed every soldier they confronted, losing only one man, and then ran back into the tunnel, back to the Gaza Strip, and this operation, the video of it, was deeply inspiring to young Palestinians who had only seen, throughout their lives, video of Palestinians being humiliated by Israeli soldiers.

      That was the psychological importance of this operation. And beyond that, it showed that the Gaza Strip’s armed factions were capable of confronting one of the most powerful militaries in the world and humiliating it. In the battle of Shuja’iyya nearly 30 Israeli soldiers were killed, and 100 wounded. The reason that Shuja’iyya was destroyed was because the Israeli military had to retreat in terror and then blanket the entire area with artillery shells.

      So, the development of the al-Qassam brigades is one of the untold stories of this war. If we look at the casualty total of Israeli citizens, we see that about 72 Israeli citizens died. Sixty-seven of them were combat soldiers, which is evidence that soldiers and not civilians were targeted."

      https://theintercept.com/2015/07/08/transcript-max-blumenthal-gaza/

    • They did cross into Israel, but the question is whether they were used for completely permissible military attacks or the war crime of civilian attacks as the Israelis and the NYT portrayed them.

      Quoting Glenn Greenwald's interview of Max Blumenthal

      [After Baruch Goldstein, an Israeli settler killed 29 worshippers and wounded 125 more in a mosque in Hebron, the Al Qassam brigades, the military wing of Hamas turned to attacking civilians. This lasted until a new leader changed policies. In 2005] "Al-Qassam dropped the tactic of suicide bombing and attacking soft Israeli targets, and decided to fight the Israeli military directly. This required the establishment of a sophisticated tunnel network underneath the Gaza Strip to mount ambushes and to stage infiltration into Israeli territory.

      Now this is important. Many people have seen the attack on the Nahal Oz Israeli military base by an al-Qassam ambush team that had infiltrated into Israeli territory across to Nahal Oz, where there is a kibbutz of Israeli civilians and an Israeli military base which is used to attack Gaza.

      This team of Qassam commandos was wearing Israeli uniforms, I think, with Go Pro cameras attached to their helmets. They chose not to attack the civilians in the kibbutz. They could have killed dozens of civilians, but that’s not where the orders were. The orders were to attack soldiers.

      They burst into the military base, killed every soldier they confronted, losing only one man, and then ran back into the tunnel, back to the Gaza Strip, and this operation, the video of it, was deeply inspiring to young Palestinians who had only seen, throughout their lives, video of Palestinians being humiliated by Israeli soldiers.

      That was the psychological importance of this operation. And beyond that, it showed that the Gaza Strip’s armed factions were capable of confronting one of the most powerful militaries in the world and humiliating it. In the battle of Shuja’iyya nearly 30 Israeli soldiers were killed, and 100 wounded. The reason that Shuja’iyya was destroyed was because the Israeli military had to retreat in terror and then blanket the entire area with artillery shells.

      So, the development of the al-Qassam brigades is one of the untold stories of this war. If we look at the casualty total of Israeli citizens, we see that about 72 Israeli citizens died. Sixty-seven of them were combat soldiers, which is evidence that soldiers and not civilians were targeted."

      https://theintercept.com/2015/07/08/transcript-max-blumenthal-gaza/

  • Ideology behind Jewish terrorism is 'official business' of Israeli government -- Avishai and Blumenthal
    • Business as usual.

      Zionists want the land and they want the people who lived there until 1948 out of the way. Since 1967, they have wanted what they did not take in 1948. And so they commit incremental genocide as Ilan Pappé calls it, taking more and more of East Jerusalem and West Bank land and resources, while tightening the oppression of Palestinians. These Palestinians in the West Bank have lived there for 2 millennia, unless they are the ones who have lived there for only 67 years, ever since they became refugees from the beginning of the Ethnic Cleansing in 1948.

      Israel is not a nation that only wants peace. Taking 78% of Palestine in 1948 and driving out 800,000+ people was not enough. Israel wants all of historic Palestine for itself. And it is willing to commit horrible atrocities to accomplish that.

      This firebombing is just a logical extension of that dark history that Zionists and their supporters refuse to talk about.

      Zionism is a dark stain upon Judaism.

  • Et tu, Michael Oren?
    • In the case of Israel actions, it was not a reprisal. It was an opportunity to deal a death blow to the unity government of Fatah and Hamas. As discussed below (and copied from above), the murder of the three boys were not part of organized resistance. It was a case of murder by members of clan operating independent of Hamas orders and the Israelis knew that.

      So while the Nazis were conducting an act of reprisal, Israel took the opportunity to crush Hamas and Palestinian civilians. Using the Israeli military vernacular, they were mowing the lawn. (The functional links can be found above.)

      First, the Israelis conducted operation Brother’s Keeper in the West Bank while “looking” for the three teens they already knew were dead, but lied to the Israeli public and the world.

      “The initial evidence was the recording of victim Gilad Shaer’s desperate cellphone call to Moked 100, Israel’s 911. When the tape reached the security services the next morning — neglected for hours by Moked 100 staff — the teen was heard whispering “They’ve kidnapped me” (“hatfu oti”) followed by shouts of “Heads down,” then gunfire, two groans, more shots, then singing in Arabic. That evening searchers found the kidnappers’ abandoned, torched Hyundai, with eight bullet holes and the boys’ DNA. There was no doubt.

      Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately placed a gag order on the deaths. Journalists who heard rumors were told the Shin Bet wanted the gag order to aid the search. For public consumption, the official word was that Israel was “acting on the assumption that they’re alive.” It was, simply put, a lie.”

      link to forward.com

      The Israelis also knew the clan behind the killing was not responsive to Hamas leadership.

      link to dailydot.com and

      link to nymag.com

      And then the Israelis attacked Gaza first.

      Analyzing the timeline of events (as reported by Israeli think-tank Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center) in early July 2014 that precipitated Israel’s launch of “Operation Protective Edge,” the National Lawyers’ Guild report shows that Israel’s air and ground attacks on occupied Palestinian territories preceded any rocket fire from Hamas.

      “The Hamas rocket fire was neither actually occurring nor imminent when Israeli forces launched a non-judicial execution in Gaza, killing a Hamas member and severely wounding three civilians on 11 June,” the report states. ”Nor when Israeli forces launched their massive assault on the West Bank on 13 June 2014. The Israeli attacks were not necessary to stop rockets because rockets were not being fired at the time by Hamas and non-Hamas groups. Nor was rocket fire imminently threatened at the time.”

      From: ICC receives report debunking Israel’s “self-defense” claims for Gaza attack, 2/2/15
      link to electronicintifada.net

      We all know how much death and destruction was used against Gaza thereafter. So if there are such things as Nazi ghosts, those who worked in occupation forces must be looking on and saying, “geez, even we never went that far for so little.”

    • eGuard, don't split hairs. Comparable in the literary sense of not on the same scale.

      Further, by discussing the differences between the two chains of events, I am showing it is helpful to discuss. I just didn't use that language. Was it necessary?

    • Kris, Yonah is right. Lidice is not comparable. The Israeli attack on the West Bank and Gaza was far worse and based upon far less of an incident. Essentially, Israel attacked all of occupied Palestine on the basis of three murders, not an act of any Palestinian organization.

      After the assassination of Heydrich, who was not just "the highest-ranking Nazi official in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia," but also a possible successor to Hitler, the Nazis did destroy all of Lidice. Yet that was in response to the death of an incredibly high ranking official and was conducted over a relatively small area of response in light of the entire theatre of war. I am not suggesting this was just, but it was relatively light compared to the Israeli’s reaction to the murder of three teens.

      First, the Israelis conducted operation Brother's Keeper in the West Bank while "looking" for the three teens they already knew were dead, but lied to the Israeli public and the world.

      "The initial evidence was the recording of victim Gilad Shaer’s desperate cellphone call to Moked 100, Israel’s 911. When the tape reached the security services the next morning — neglected for hours by Moked 100 staff — the teen was heard whispering “They’ve kidnapped me” (“hatfu oti”) followed by shouts of “Heads down,” then gunfire, two groans, more shots, then singing in Arabic. That evening searchers found the kidnappers’ abandoned, torched Hyundai, with eight bullet holes and the boys’ DNA. There was no doubt.

      Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately placed a gag order on the deaths. Journalists who heard rumors were told the Shin Bet wanted the gag order to aid the search. For public consumption, the official word was that Israel was “acting on the assumption that they’re alive.” It was, simply put, a lie."

      http://forward.com/articles/201764/how-politics-and-lies-triggered-an-unintended-war/?p=all#ixzz3QHbQ1nLT

      The Israelis also knew the clan behind the killing was not responsive to Hamas leadership.

      http://www.dailydot.com/politics/israel-gaza-kidnap-false-inaccurate/ and

      http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/hamas-didnt-kidnap-the-israeli-teens-after-all.html

      And then the Israelis attacked Gaza first.

      Analyzing the timeline of events (as reported by Israeli think-tank Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center) in early July 2014 that precipitated Israel’s launch of “Operation Protective Edge,” the National Lawyers’ Guild report shows that Israel’s air and ground attacks on occupied Palestinian territories preceded any rocket fire from Hamas.

      “The Hamas rocket fire was neither actually occurring nor imminent when Israeli forces launched a non-judicial execution in Gaza, killing a Hamas member and severely wounding three civilians on 11 June,” the report states. ”Nor when Israeli forces launched their massive assault on the West Bank on 13 June 2014. The Israeli attacks were not necessary to stop rockets because rockets were not being fired at the time by Hamas and non-Hamas groups. Nor was rocket fire imminently threatened at the time.”

      From: ICC receives report debunking Israel’s “self-defense” claims for Gaza attack, 2/2/15
      https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/icc-receives-report-debunking-israels-self-defense-claims-gaza-attack

      We all know how much death and destruction was used against Gaza thereafter. So if there are such things as Nazi ghosts, those who worked in occupation forces must be looking on and saying, “geez, even we never went that far for so little.”

  • Episcopal Church rejects BDS resolutions citing fears divestment would hamper church in Jerusalem
  • Jewish community must 'welcome' anti-Zionist, pro-BDS Jews, Beinart says-- but Shavit says, Excommunicate them
    • jd65, I still don't see an explanation in your comment under Hostage's thread.

      Does a non-Zionist not support Israel, but does not advocate change? Leave the country as it is? Or do they call for changes in Israel's or the US policies? If the latter, how is that different from an anti-Zionist? If the former, how is that not a de facto pro-Zionist despite what they call themselves?

    • Some of my best friends are nuts.

      Ending the Zionist project would allow Judaism to flourish as the religion is one of understanding and tolerance and a philosophy of how to live together. Maintaining a Zionist Israel is diametrically opposed to all of that.

      I care because what the Zionists do with the Star of David on their banner reflects upon me, whether I want it to or not. I cannot stand idly by while these horrors are committed in my name and with my tax dollars. No one should suffer for a nationalism conducted with my religion.

      Being anti-Zionist is not anti-Semitic, it is pro-Semitic. It will allow Judaism to again live in moral harmony.

    • Just asking you to define or describe the difference since you raised the issue. I tried to in my own mind, but there doesn't seem to be much so I am curious what you think.

    • How does a non-Zionist differ from an anti-Zionist? Especially since the context revolves around BDS which would be hard not to define as anti-Zionist?

    • Thank you for an excellent article Philip. Articulate and elucidating as always.

      Time and again I find the comments very enlightening too. The results of the 2013 Pew Poll are incredibly revealing.

      Remembering the Holocaust 73 76 60

      Leading an ethical and moral life 69 73 55

      Working for justice/equality 56 60 46

      Being intellectually curious 49 51 42

      Caring about Israel 43 49 23

      Having good sense of humor 42 43 40

      Being part of a Jewish community 28 33 10

      Observing Jewish law 19 23 7

      (1st # is all Jews, 2nd is Religious Jews & 3rd is Non-Religious Jews)
      http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/10/jewish-american-full-report-for-web.pdf

      These results tell us that religious Jews find their sense of persecution the most common factor in their faith.

      An ethical and moral life is second, but who are the 27% that do not believe that is part of being Jewish. Those are my crazies, Philip.

      Observing Jewish Laws is all the way at the bottom. Now I guess people interpret that as observing traditions, but I would argue is about observing Jewish morality.

      So what the results tell me is that for most people, being Jewish is an identity, wrapped in persecution, with some credence to the morality of the religion, but a vague understanding of what that morality is and how it should apply.

      No wonder American Jews are so supportive of Israel while ignoring the crimes against humanity from 1948 through today. They want to wear the Star of David as a team logo while failing to understand their own religion.

  • 'Jerusalem Day' and the sacralization of propaganda
    • You might want to add Hopmi, that the Zionist leadership cut a deal with the Jordanians giving them East Jerusalem and the West Bank, thereby reducing the military threat. So while Jordan "ethnically cleansed" the Jews from Jerusalem, the Zionists proceeded to conquer and Ethnically Cleansed 800,000+in the rest of Palestine.

      So I'm sorry, I forgot, what was your point?

      The Expulsion of the Palestinians Re-Examined - Le Monde Diplomatique
      http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine

  • Two videos to challenge my liberal Zionist friends
    • The key points that Liberal Zionists do not appreciate or refuse to acknowledge.

      1. Israel was created on the land of a whole other nation. A land that they took by conducting ethnic cleansing during a colonial war and thereafter, they refused to allow its inhabitants to rightfully return.

      2. Even if we were to ignore that the land was taken by the gun, the Israelis never lived up to the terms of the documents and decrees that “justify” its "legal" creation.

      ---------------------

      First, I would like to thank Hophmi for waging the battle. Without him, we would have no discourse.

      Second, while I find all the detail fascinating, it reminds me of learning to speak a language fluently. You have to learn 5 to 10,000 words so that you are most comfortable with the 5-600 most commonly used words.

      So let’s bring this back to history and morality on the larger scale.

      About two decades before Israel’s Declaration of Independence, Jews were a small minority of the population in Palestine. Yet they had already decided they would build a state for Jews on that land. By this time, it was well known that a decade earlier European Jews had cut a deal with Palestine’s European Ruler to take this land for Jews (the celebrated Balfour Declaration we will return to later). So Jews did not immigrate to Palestine with neighborly intentions. They did not come to build a great country side by side with those already there. They came to take the land for themselves. This was long before the Holocaust mind you.

      So who amongst the so called liberal Zionists would say if they were Palestinian, they would accept this? Does it really matter that Palestinians governed themselves or were ruled by foreigners with the military power to suppress them? This is where they lived. For millennia. Can anyone honestly say that today they would give up their homeland to new colonialists determined to set up an exclusionary government by definition? Of course not. So to expect Palestinians to not react to the Zionist cause is simply a complete lack of empathy and an understanding of the human condition.

      Then, as the members of the newly formed UN try to lessen the shame of a world in which the Holocaust happened, a relatively small number of countries in the world, 33, voted in favor of a resolution to forward to the Security Council the idea of a partition of Palestine, giving 55% of the land to 1/3 of the population, most of whom arrived in the last 20 years. We should also note that not only was it a bad idea to give away someone else’s land, but that the Security Council never acted upon the resolution, meaning it had no legal effect, and there was nothing in the UN Charter that allows for giving away or partitioning of land. The resolution that Israel points to for legitimacy has no legal effect.

      So the Zionists accepted something with no legal effect. As one would expect, the Arabs rejected it. Would any American accept such a granting of 55% of Canada to a third population by the vote of an international body? Would any American accept that of their own home?

      Then came the battles in Palestine between a people with no formal military and the Zionist Haganah and paramilitary forces with far greater manpower and military hardware. The Israelis quickly routed the Palestinian resistance. Surrounding Arab forces did not join the conflict immediately as Zionist propaganda would have you believe. Only after at least 200,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed did the Arab armies enter. Still, their militaries were only half the size and had inferior military hardware, leading to the Zionist victory.

      So Israel was created not by legal resolution, but by the gun. And during the battle for Palestine, Israel ethnically cleansed at least 750,000 Palestinians, destroyed 500 villages, towns and cities and took 78% of the land. They did not give or leave anything to the Palestinian population. The remaining 22% was promised to Jordan to keep them out of the war.

      http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine

      Of course liberal Zionists won’t admit this because they refuse to look at the work of Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Ari Shavit and others. Yet the conclusion is no longer controversial among historians of Israel and Palestine, especially among Israeli historians. So their so called liberal stance is based upon an ostrich strategy of refusing to examine history. A history that is inconvenient to their position of Zionist support which is far more important than their liberal values.

      Those same liberal values would also endorse the right of return for Palestinians, a human right under international law, agreed to by Israel, but always thwarted, because it would create a “demographic problem.” Yes it would. A problem that people would return to their homes or the places where their towns once existed and want to live with a government that treated them as equal human beings. Something the Zionist colonialists could not accept. And so we have 67 years of dispossession and counting. Enforced by the rule of the gun.

      Still, the liberal Zionists say, yes, but, BUT, the British promised us a country of our own with the Balfour Declaration. Yes Great Britain’s Lord Balfour issued a declaration, which was approved by the Cabinet, but was not an act of Parliament, principally stating:

      “His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object”

      yet the heart of the declaration did not stop there, although liberal Zionists pretend it does. The Declaration continues:

      “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

      Similarly, the UN Resolution Israel so readily accepted stated that there would be no transfer of populations regardless of which side of the partition upon which they live.

      Therefore, even if these were legitimate legal foundations for the creation of Israel, what liberal Zionist can say Israel has lived up to any deal that grants it legitimacy?

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • Did Sherman make the comment just before or just after the last shipment of the minimum $2.1 billion of US made military supplies sent to Israel each year? (70% requirement of $3 billion plus aid each year.)

      Just, I assume you know better than to believe any US government rhetoric

    • You can see the link without being a member. Guess if the page or profile is open to the public, you can do so. Good to know.

      Thanks Annie

    • A couple of quick thoughts. I will admit that phrasing the conclusion of the point about Israeli state terrorism was worded as an attack and should have read "Hopmi, face up to what to you support, a state that regularly conducts terrorism against its own inhabitants."

      Yet again, Hopmi takes the most minor point and focuses on it to divert attention from the larger issues. What Israel does is a multiple of crimes against humanity and/or against international law that essentially terrorize the Palestinian population. So while I may have offended your delicate sensibilities with name calling, you still don't address what you support.

      As another example, I used the word "nation" to describe the Palestinians in a commonly acceptable form. Yet Hopmi would rather focus on that word than address what was done to that group no matter how you refer to it. Hostage has made some incredibly well researched arguments to counter Hopmi's challenge, all well worth reading, but the point is Israel has terrorized the Palestinian people since 1948.

      And Hopmi does not address that at all.

      Last, before I forget, thanks for the support Annie and a big thanks for an excellent article in the first place, David.

      For those of you who can see Facebook, here is a point to consider about racial supremacy which someone else raised before. For me, it just makes me shake my head and say, how do you "never forget" the Holocaust and support what is done to Palestinians?

      (Sorry Just, but you really should set up an account just to see a wealth of sources, information and ideas, even if you don't post.)

      https://www.facebook.com/SpiritOfJBulworth/photos/a.494329413929325.133572.494320497263550/1086903568005237/?type=1&theater

    • I wrote "Every day of military occupation is terrorism. Every piece of land taken is terrorism. Every military condemnation of land is terrorism. Every tree burned by a settler is terrorism. Every demolished building . . . . . . "

      To which Hopmi replied "And Ian Berman resorts to name calling."

      How is that name calling? Identifying the acts of the Israeli State or its citizens is a description of criminal acts.

      Calling Hopmi a moron for making such a stupid comment is name calling.

    • Every day of military occupation is terrorism. Every piece of land taken is terrorism. Every military condemnation of land is terrorism. Every tree burned by a settler is terrorism. Every demolished building, over 28,000 as of 2012, is terrorism. Every "administrative detention" is terrorism. Every lie about search for what the government knew was dead boys is terrorism. Every incident breaking a cease fire with Hamas is terrorism.

      Ethnic cleansing is terrorism.

      So go lick your wounds from the act of the desperate and spend a moment thinking from the point of view of displaced Palestinians, you state sponsored terrorist supporter.

    • The difference being that Israel was supposedly seeking peace since before its creation. So the problem with your justification is history.

      So Netanyahu's statement reflecting over 67 years of history. Yeah, I think that is more credible than a campaign promise. Especially since Israel has taken Palestinian land the entire time.

    • 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.

    • Hopmi, it doesn't really matter what your are doing. What is telling is that you are willing to argue when the plan of ethnic cleansing was conceived, but you don't concede this crime against humanity as morally troubling.

      It tells us a lot about your bias in that you view Israel of incapable of doing any wrong. I am (admittedly) guessing this is because such an admission would lead to the conclusion that there is no excuse to deny Palestinians a right of return.

      Just a guess though and in the scope of the discussion, rather meaningless. No one here will ever convince you to change your position. Yet you provide useful insight to the pro-Zionist position and how it fails.

    • I think you're being sarcastic Mooser, but I'm not sure.

      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.

      Typically, I ignore anyone who calls me name or challenges my reasons for my posts. I let my critical analysis stand as the basis for discussion.

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

      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?

      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.

      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.

    • Hopmi, the first thing I wrote was to thank you for the participation in the comments because we learn so much more from discourse.

      Your last post included this though:

      "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."

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

      So participate, but please don't insult our intelligence.

    • 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)

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

      Doubting the number is hardly dispositive. Look it up.

      3. The persecution argument.

      “And don’t act like Zionism would have been ok for you if Zionists went to some uninhabited Island. Most people here hate the idea because they can’t forgive those Jews who decided that universalism was not a complete answer to the Jewish question”

      I don't want to blow my own horn, but I'm quite well read and never heard of universalism. The term and its implication in the discussion may be relevant, but certainly not in the context of "most people."

      More importantly, you are playing the persecution card with this argument. 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. The issue is ethnic cleansing of 1948, the refusal of the right of return and military occupation of Palestinian territory ever since the creation of Israel through this day. (Yes, internationally recognized Israel was militarily occupied from the Palestinian point of view since 1948. That occupation turned towards the West Bank and Gaza in 1967.)

      In essence, what you are saying is Israel's crimes are justified because "look, we're being persecuted by global anti-Semites." No you're just alleging persecution to change the subject.

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

    • Thank you Annie. If anyone is interested, I typically write on Facebook under Ian Berman, New York, New York

      https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004204367067&fref=ts

    • Thank you Just

    • Hophmi, the most telling thing about your comment is that you focus on the least important issues and when you finally make a point on one of the greater points, your response is a dismissive "You’re being silly"

      One of those key points is that Zionism was the product of seven decades of work to create a secure homeland for Jews. As Ilan Pappe says, a noble idea.

      Yet the problem was and continues to be that the Zionists chose an inhabited land. It was a conscious effort for most of those seven decades to take this land, by lobbying and deal making in Europe and by force (for which preparations began with sending troops to the first World War). So even if we ignore the conscious taking of the land by force, which was conducted with decades of planning and the inclusion of acts of terrorism, the legal efforts that "granted" Palestine to Israel all, ALL, required that the human rights of Palestinians not be affected.

      Yet we all know from the work of Israelis Morris, Pappe, Shevit & others that not only did the Zionists deny these human rights, they ethnically cleansed Palestine. This is the second worst crime after genocide.

      http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine

      So just three years after the world learned the horrors of the Nazi genocide of Jews, Zionists implement the horrors of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians. They implemented plans that had been in conception before the Holocaust. So even if one were to grant a legitimacy to Israel by virtue of the documents, something it wasn't as shown in the analysis above, the Zionists had planned and executed the second worst crime against humanity from a plan they had conceived before the Holocaust even happened.

      One other point on the Holocaust and Israel's creation. If it was so directly connected, how come only 10% of Holocaust survivors moved to Israel, of which many left afterwards? Further, why did Ben Gurion despise these "weak" people who could help his cause?

      Last as I won't address every one of your minor points, a nation is not only a country.

      na·tion ˈnāSH(ə)n/ noun

      a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

      E.g., the Cherokee nation. A nation does not have to have internationally recognized statehood.

    • Thanks for the compliment David. First, I have to admit, I posted on the wrong article comments. Accordingly, I have reposted the comment on the correct one "Two videos to challenge my liberal Zionist friends"

      http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/challenge-zionist-friends

      That being said, your response is quite correct. The point was not to deny Israel's statehood. That fact is true, and like you, I hope that the state will become a valued member of the community of international democracies with equal treatment for all citizens, including those it now has dominion over, but does not recognize.

      My point is what most Zionist supporters do not appreciate or refuse to acknowledge.

      1. Israel was created on the land of a whole other nation. A land that they took by conducting ethnic cleansing during a colonial war and thereafter, they refused to allow its inhabitants to rightfully return.

      2. Even if we were to ignore that the land was taken by the gun, the Israelis never lived up to the terms of the documents and decrees that “justify” its "legal" creation.

    • First, I would like to thank Hophmi for waging the battle. Without him, we would have no discourse.

      Second, while I find all the detail fascinating, it reminds me of learning to speak a language fluently. You have to learn 5 to 10,000 words so that you are most comfortable with the 5-600 most commonly used words.

      So let’s bring this back to history and morality on the larger scale.

      About two decades before Israel’s Declaration of Independence, Jews were a small minority of the population in Palestine. Yet they had already decided they would build a state for Jews on that land. By this time, it was well known that a decade earlier European Jews had cut a deal with Palestine’s European Ruler to take this land for Jews (the celebrated Balfour Declaration we will return to later). So Jews did not immigrate to Palestine with neighborly intentions. They did not come to build a great country side by side with those already there. They came to take the land for themselves. This was long before the Holocaust mind you.

      So who amongst the so called liberal Zionists would say if they were Palestinian, they would accept this? Does it really matter that Palestinians governed themselves or were ruled by foreigners with the military power to suppress them? This is where they lived. For millennia. Can anyone honestly say that today they would give up their homeland to new colonialists determined to set up an exclusionary government by definition? Of course not. So to expect Palestinians to not react to the Zionist cause is simply a complete lack of empathy and an understanding of the human condition.

      Then, as the members of the newly formed UN try to lessen the shame of a world in which the Holocaust happened, a relatively small number of countries in the world, 33, voted in favor of a resolution to forward to the Security Council the idea of a partition of Palestine, giving 55% of the land to 1/3 of the population, most of whom arrived in the last 20 years. We should also note that not only was it a bad idea to give away someone else’s land, but that the Security Council never acted upon the resolution, meaning it had no legal effect, and there was nothing in the UN Charter that allows for giving away or partitioning of land. The resolution that Israel points to for legitimacy has no legal effect.

      So the Zionists accepted something with no legal effect. As one would expect, the Arabs rejected it. Would any American accept such a granting of 55% of Canada to a third population by the vote of an international body? Would any American accept that of their own home?

      Then came the battles in Palestine between a people with no formal military and the Zionist Haganah and paramilitary forces with far greater manpower and military hardware. The Israelis quickly routed the Palestinian resistance. Surrounding Arab forces did not join the conflict immediately as Zionist propaganda would have you believe. Only after at least 200,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed did the Arab armies enter. Still, their militaries were only half the size and had inferior military hardware, leading to the Zionist victory.

      So Israel was created not by legal resolution, but by the gun. And during the battle for Palestine, Israel ethnically cleansed at least 750,000 Palestinians, destroyed 500 villages, towns and cities and took 78% of the land. They did not give or leave anything to the Palestinian population. The remaining 22% was promised to Jordan to keep them out of the war.

      http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine

      Of course liberal Zionists won’t admit this because they refuse to look at the work of Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Ari Shavit and others. Yet the conclusion is no longer controversial among historians of Israel and Palestine, especially among Israeli historians. So their so called liberal stance is based upon an ostrich strategy of refusing to examine history. A history that is inconvenient to their position of Zionist support which is far more important than their liberal values.

      Those same liberal values would also endorse the right of return for Palestinians, a human right under international law, agreed to by Israel, but always thwarted, because it would create a “demographic problem.” Yes it would. A problem that people would return to their homes or the places where their towns once existed and want to live with a government that treated them as equal human beings. Something the Zionist colonialists could not accept. And so we have 67 years of dispossession and counting. Enforced by the rule of the gun.

      Still, the liberal Zionists say, yes, but, BUT, the British promised us a country of our own with the Balfour Declaration. Yes Great Britain’s Lord Balfour issued a declaration, which was approved by the Cabinet, but was not an act of Parliament, principally stating:

      “His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object”

      yet the heart of the declaration did not stop there, although liberal Zionists pretend it does. The Declaration continues:

      “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

      Similarly, the UN Resolution Israel so readily accepted stated that there would be no transfer of populations regardless of which side of the partition upon which they live.

      Therefore, even if these were legitimate legal foundations for the creation of Israel, what liberal Zionist can say Israel has lived up to any deal that grants it legitimacy?

  • Russell Tribunal finds evidence of incitement to genocide, crimes against humanity in Gaza

Showing comments 55 - 1
Page: