Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1978 (since 2013-01-23 13:17:29)

Showing comments 1978 - 1901
Page:

  • AIPAC underwrote Islamophobia in the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party too
    • @Inbound39

      -- Bush declared War on terror thus placing America on a War footing after the Twin Towers were dropped.

      What does that have to do with Pollard? Pollard predates the war on terror.

      As far as the facts. Congress declares war. What congress did was create an authorization for the use of force not declare war. Bush's "war on terror" as more than a metaphor was rejected by congress, primarily by Trent Lott who was concerned about the insurance implications.

      -- .It could be argued quite succesfully that Israel militarily attacked the USS Liberty

      It could be. That idea has been rejected 5 times by study committees but it could be. What association is there between AIPAC and the LIberty though? There is no claim to the best of my knowledge of any connection. AIPAC neither knew about the Liberty's position in advance, provided resources for the attack nor provided troops.

      -- as far as recruiting troops to war on the United States one need only look at how Israel has destabilized the American Government by using its employees at AIPAC

      Really? What coup attempt were they involved in? What revolutionary movements that have occurred on our soil they were involved in? How have they destabilized the American government? They have participated in it, and you may not like the policies but that is not remotely the same thing as destabilizing.

      -- AIPAC engages in subterfuge….an accepted method of warfare.

      I don't know that AIPAC does engage in subterfuge. They seem mostly rather honest though quite biased. But let's assume they did...
      You have a non sequitur there. Many human activities involve subterfuge, including warfare. Subterfuge does not indicate war, otherwise the entire advertising industry would be at war with the United States.

    • @Jwalters

      I defined the term above 3 times. None of those remotely qualify. That's just a list of stuff you don't like not intermediation. Lobbies are political intermediaties AIPAC is just a lobby. There is nothing specific about Israel in that claim.

    • @Ossinev

      Pollard was a spy not a traitor. He committed espionage not treason.

    • @MHughes976

      -- Equivalent to taking control of Trump’s twitter account?

      It is tough hearing insults like this about our country and being like, "yeah that's fair". :)

      http://www.tickcounter.com/countdown/13922/time-until-trump-leaves-office

      -- Likewise I might think of a foreign agent as someone who expects personal gain from foreign success

      Way way too broad. Would apply to many businesses for example. America is a very open society as far as trade, culture, politics....

    • @Eva

      JeffB“A foreign agent is someone paid by a foreign government to act on their behalf .”

      Because money have to exchange hands?

      Yes.

      You are deliberately trying to narrow the definition of ” foreign agent”
      to prevent Israel Lobby to be recognised as having rather more than less of attributes of such agent.

      That's not me, that's the federal government. The form to register clearly requires the foreign principles one is employed / compensated by: https://www.fara.gov/forms/2014/OMB_1124_0001.pdf

      I would argue that all traitors are foreign agents, but not all foreign agents are traitors. It really depends where your loyalty lies and who you do not hesitate to exploit.

      To be a traitor requires a declaration of war. We haven't had one of those since 1945. We've never had one regarding Israel. Treason does not require money to change hands, being a foreign agent does. Max Haupt (2nd to last American convicted of treason) never received a nickel from the Nazis. You either have to act directly against the United States (militarily) or recruit troops to war on the United States. AIPAC does neither.

    • @Keith

      JEFFB- “That’s a bunch of Americans expressing their view and effectively lobbying for their views to become policy.”

      The notion that AIPAC represents citizen empowerment is laughable. AIPAC represents money power. Take away their big bucks and they would be a disempowered lobby.

      I don't believe that's true at all. We just saw a recent example of this with Obama and Netanyahu over the Iran squabble. When Obama was rude to Netanyahu, his approval rating among Jews dropped 13%. A drop that terrified Democratic politicians. That's not money that's money representing voters.

      Now clearly Jewish voters are disproportionately active in both activism and donation as well as merely voting. That further enhances their power. AIPAC can funnel donations the way a corporate lobby can, and can move voters the way many popular lobbies can. But none of that is abnormal, that's what lobbying is.

      As an aside its been decades but Jewish lobbies were an effective lobby (though much less so than today) before the big bucks.

      JEFFB- “I can think of lots.”

      This is your idea of empowering the 99%?

      Well first off I don't agree with your whole 99%/1% dichotomy. But your criteria originally was, "decreasing the power of the 1%". And yes those things all decreased the power of the 1%. They were all negatives for them and opposed by the wealthy in America.

      One point does stand out. “Weakened the intelligence agencies, both by attacking them and putting Flynn in as the NSC post.” Jeez, didn’t that work out! Weakened the CIA? How about totally capitulated? I believe that he just gave the CIA more authority to conduct drone strikes.

      Trump ran on drone strikes. That wasn't an issue in the campaign. Both candidates supported Obama's policy of having extraterritorial assassination be a primary means of achieving foreign policy objectives in a dozen plus countries.

      Not unless you intend to deal with reality and show us anything substantive Trump has done to reduce militarism and drain the swamp.

      That's not the question. The question was about the 99/1% issue. Trump ran on increasing militarism. As for draining the swamp. The transfer of power regarding lobbyists whose in and whose out has been momentous under Trump. Just read Politico which almost daily has such stories. The chaos of this administration, as well as appointing non politician billionaires and ideologues has been very damaging to lobbyists.

    • @Keith

      Why the location jump on your response to me? I was lucky I even saw this.

      This board only goes a few levels deep. 25 years later internet discussion still isn't as good technically as it was on Usenet.

      Which means that AIPAC and other major Jewish organizations exert a strong influence on US Middle East foreign policy. You disagree?

      I agree with that. But that's not the deep state. That's a bunch of Americans expressing their view and effectively lobbying for their views to become policy. That's not anti-democratic rather it is what you would want in a democratic system.

      , I don’t see anything that Trump is doing which in any way decreases the power of the 1% and improves the position of the 99%

      I can think of lots.

      1) Attacked mainstream (advertising supported media) further legitimizing fringe media which requires far less finances to operate.

      2) Diminished justice department independence i.e. diminished the rule of law. He also fired almost all federal prosecutors without having replacements in hand. Had the government directly intervene on several corporate decisions weakening property rights for corporations

      3) Increased effectiveness of border control

      4) Increased international tension with friendly trading partners

      5) Falsified government statistics and reports

      6) Threatened to implement an imperial oil policy with respect to Iraq (attacks on property)

      7) Pushed the drafting of executive orders out of the hands of high white house staffers (i.e. people easier to lobby) and towards fringe figures especially associated with Breitbart.

      8) Weakened the intelligence agencies, both by attacking them and putting Flynn in as the NSC post.

      10) Undermined the State Department. Undermined NATO

      11) Violated norms regarding nepotism in government

      12) Appointed a radical on corporate restructuring (Icahn) to head committee on regulatory reform.

      13) Weakened the one china policy

      Should I keep going?

      This is why there is considerable continuity from administration to administration, particularly in foreign policy which remains militaristic and imperialistic.

      The reason America is militarily aggressive is because the population is. American interventions abroad are relatively popular especially when they start. A militarism which is openly policy is not a deep state. American militarism is discussed openly. We get into lots of wars and have a big defense department because these are some of the most popular government programs.

      I think you are confusing policies you don't like with policies that are non-democratic. Your problem is with the American people's politics, not the American secret government.

    • @Mooser

      Intermediation mechanism are 3rd party agents who matches parties together to allow for mutual benefit.
      Examples:

      Banks are an intermediation mechanism matching people who are willing to defer spending (lenders) with people who have immediate needs for spending above their current assets (borrowers).

      The cloud computing industry evolved originally as an intermediation mechanism that matches people who are willing to overpay to use hardware in short bursts with people who have surplus hardware most of the time.

      Lobbies are intermediation mechanisms to match politically active individuals who would like to influence policy with politicians who are able to be influenced on those policies.

      As for the rest you are going to have to be more specific as to the question.

    • @inbound39

      A foreign agent is someone paid by a foreign government to act on their behalf. A domestic foreign policy lobby is a group of Americans who petition the USA to adopt particular policies. For example "Kids saving the rainforest" is a lobby and about South America especially Brazil. That doesn't make it a foreign agency.

      There are about 1700 people in the USA who get a paycheck from foreign governments for the purpose of lobbying. AIPAC is strictly funded by Americans. Those may be Americans whose policy opinions you disagree with, but that doesn't make them foreigners.

    • @Keith --

      Get real. The Deep State refers to those elite institutions and individuals which effectively control our society. The 99% sure as hell doesn’t.

      I'd say our recent presidential election proves otherwise. You have a guy detested by the 1% and broadly supported by the 99% who won the primaries and then the presidency. Almost none of the 1% have high school or less education. Very few are disadvantaged by trade, much the opposite. None are concerned about rising health insurance premiums effects on their family's welfare. Etc....

      And AIPAC along with the rest of the major American Jewish organizations is an integral part of the Deep State.

      Which means what? Translate this from conspiratorial speak into something that makes sense. What are you claiming in plain english? What is AIPAC doing that economic elites support and middle class Jewish Republicans oppose?

    • @Phil

      Thought of a better answer. Again I don't think deep state really applies to the USA, but if it did....

      In the case of AIPAC would be part of the open government system being manipulated by the deep state. The deep state in this analogy would be the large body of people who support AIPAC's position. Essentially Jewish Republicans plus a few others.

      I'm not sure where to go from there. Jewish Republicans are happy to talk about their positions quite openly. And that points to the problem with using deep state language for the USA. AIPAC isn't being manipulated into some end it isn't designed for, rather it is doing exactly what it is intended to do. It is faithfully representing the open interests of its supporters.

    • @Mooser

      So Tila Tequila and co keeping you up at night?

      America is a diverse country. Anyone who believes in AIPAC as anything other than just another lobby has already bought in to recycled Soviet Zionology. Everyone outside the hard left very rarely comes in contact with and even more rarely believes Soviet propaganda. No one cares about AIPAC.

      Jews might get thrown out of the left. They aren't going to be thrown out of America at least if / until dispensationalism becomes unfashionable. The seeds for antisemitism come from Matthew, both Johns and Paul not AIPAC. Jews care about what Jews do. Christians, Buddhists, Hindus... mostly don't and won't unless they believe we are backed by supernatural forces of evil.

      When is the last time you saw lots of people upset about the existence of the Taiwan lobby or the China lobby? You talk to Asians and you would hear the same sorts of conspiracies about those lobbies you hear about AIPAC.

      Relax. Tila is just mentally ill and asking for help she ain't getting.

    • @Phil

      I would essentially consider CAP to be a leadership home / part of the Democratic party.
      Founded by John Podesta
      Chaired by Tom Daschle
      Run by Neera Tanden

      I'm not sure how to distinguish between a think tank and a political party as far as their constitutional role. My point was that intermediaries are supposed to confer with one another. Obviously these people went off to go run the Clinton campaign, quite openly, once the time came. They aren't operating in the shadows.

      The deep state is not a sinister conspiracy of a few but a component of society that has the consent of powerful people

      Once you start talking: politically powerful, financially powerful, culturally powerful... (the way say Chomsky does). That isn't someone manipulating society. That is society. What it means to be economically powerful is to be someone who can influence heavily or deploy labor and materials as they see fit. What is means to be politically powerful is you can influence or make policy. What is means to be socially powerful is that you can influence popular opinion. etc...

      Humans traded a good neck for a lousy neck prone to chocking on food in exchange for being good at coordinating. Coordination is one of the defining characteristics of all human society. Of course the powerful negotiate with each other about how to govern the society.

      inasmuch as it will never talk about the Israel lobby honestly.

      What non public information do you want the media to say? What is unique about the Israel lobby that's not true of say the Agricultural lobby or the Energy Lobby? The press covers lobbies: http://www.politico.com/pro/about

      Major lobbies have their own press: ex http://www.eenews.net (energy)
      http://www.fiercetelecom.com (telecommunications)

      Other lobbies report on themselves to attract money http://www.phrma.org (pharma lobby)

      If anything AIPAC gets way more mainstream coverage than say a bottom of the top 20 lobby would warrant.

      I agree with you that young leftist activists don't understand lobbying. But they generally don't understand much about politics. They are passionate but ineffectual. As they get older they get less passionate and more effectual. There aren't many advantages of age but there are some :)

      What big secret do you think isn't being told?

    • @Phil

      I don't think Lobbies qualify as part of the deep state. The constitution specifically grants the people the right to lobby congress for redress. Laws openly call for meetings and hearings with constituencies likely to be impacted by legislation. AIPAC is openly a group, the primary group, of Americans interested in Israeli affairs. As a society we have created intermediation mechanisms to translate broad uniformed and often contradictory public opinion into actionable pressure so that legislation and executive action can result. Political parties, interest groups and lobbies are those intermediation mechanisms.

      The deep state is the group of people involved in secret manipulation of government policy. AIPAC only manipulates government policy in line with how our democracy works. American democracy has lots of problems but those problems in many ways result because these intermediation mechanisms are breaking down as mistrust for elites, the establishment, is growing. I don't think there is a deep state in the USA but even if there were lobbies would not be part of it.

      What you are citing in this article are mostly examples of lobbies coordinating among themselves on policy. Lobbies that have conflicting policy would want to influence one another and thus form a consensus of opinion so that unified government action can occur. Lobbies in their intermediation role are expected to come to consensus on matters on policy. If the lobbies just conflict with one another they are only slightly better than public opinion on creating actionable pressure. You would expect what you are citing to occur in a democracy.
      That isn't a bug its a feature.

  • No space for Zionism
    • @Annie

      Here is the Shire article Dylan was talking about: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/opinion/does-feminism-have-room-for-zionists.html?_r=0

      The analogy in Dylan's article is:
      Just as Shire wants to break the connection between feminism and anti-Zionism Jews are asking blacks to break the connection between black liberation and anti-Zionism.

      As for your other question about warning about what, a warning that Jews can flip on racial issues in America and do when their interests are threatened. Ask Mooser he understood the reference fine. Brownsville (his example) was a working-middle class neighborhood in NYC that in the late 1960s was moving from Jewish to black. Jews had essentially turned it from really dangerous housing (no indoor plumbing, glue fumes...) into the working class neighborhood the blacks were inheriting. Jews were fine with leaving but still had hooks in the system. They had teachers but more importantly they still wanted the administrative jobs (including the ability to give contracts to connected business). Blacks wanted local control immediately rather than waiting a generation unlike the Jews had: the Jews had always known to make room at the trough for Tammany as they developed the neighborhood .

      The blacks sort of won but the white backlash sent that neighborhood into an economic tailspin. 50 years later it still hasn't bounced back. It is literally the most crime ridden neighborhood in the New York, the place where stop and frisk was started. Highest infant mortality, loads of boarded up stores, high levels of lead poisoning...

      There is nothing special about Brownsville. If asked I would have picked a different example But it is one of the many examples that when the civil rights movement threatened the interests of other whites Jews were supportive. When the civil rights movement threatened Jewish interests, suddenly Jews allied with racist whites. I wanted to Dylan to get whatever story his grandparents or parents would tell him like that, and there are plenty. In short, don't mistake a hobby for something more.

      Jewish left relations are complex and will stay complex until there is a break and Jews just become another group of Republican whites over the next 2 generations. The Irish understood they dynamics (heck they arguably taught us). Blacks have a different dynamic themselves so not so much.

    • @Devyn

      I figure I’ll give you a response from one of those Democrats who broke with BLM over the genocide quotes. Now let me start off by saying I wasn’t in some sort of full solidarity with you beforehand. I thought the BLM movement was excessive and dishonest even before the anti-Zionist plank. That being said, I supported and continue to support one of the BLM’s key demands that prosecutions for police involved shooting not originated from county DA office but rather from another agency that lacks close ties to local police departments. I think black activists did prove the case there was a structural problem of police violence. What changed for me is where before I saw political support for BLM as merely pandering after the anti-Zionist plank it became a genuine negative that I would weigh negatively in primaries and possibly general elections with respect to donations.

      Now I’ll respond to a couple points.

      Not only is this statement rooted in notions of anti-Blackness which assume Black organizers lack historical substance and context on the subject of the Palestinian-Israeli … and recognize Zionism as antithetical to our own liberation

      Which I think demonstrates the ignorance you are attempting to refute. Zionism makes no claim on you either positively or negatively. No more than Hadi / Houthi dispute makes a claim on you. Zionism is completely, totally and utterly indifferent to whether white Christians do or do not enact various laws regarding black Christians in America. It neither oppresses you nor seeks to liberate you.

      The 2nd half of your response talks about how you choose the Palestinians as an ally. Of course as a political group you are free to choose you allies. There may be good reasons for American blacks to choose international allies, that strategy worked well with Johnson to get the civil rights act passed. But remember, when you choose allies you frequently end up choosing your ally’s enemies as your own. And while American Jews are not as supportive of the black struggle as they think they are, they have for many decades been a group of whites unusually supportive of black concerns, even if overly proud of the limited support. That doesn’t have to be the case, and won’t be the case when black interests and Jewish interests conflict. I suggest you ask you parents or grandparents about what Jewish opposition felt like in the early 1970s. “Black liberation” is not a Jewish vital interest its a hobby for Jews that happens to land mostly on your side. Israel conversely is a Jewish vital interest. Understand what tying the two issues together means in both directions. The firestorm regarding the BLM platform is a warning shot.

      Surely, one can see Israel’s racial profiling of Arabs as inherently racist, and their contempt for Palestinian lives based on the violently militarized occupation zones as extreme materialism and militarism intertwined.

      Well no at this one can’t see it. Extreme materialism and the occupation? Enhancing Palestinian civil rights so as to increase their economic participation would depress wages and expand the economy. A materialist would push for a much more benign policy. And that’s not unusual militarism is usually a semi-anti-materialist policy. You are simply writing superficial gibberish filled with leftish cliche.

      an interestingly oxymoronic statement which ignores the reality that Zionism is directly antithetical to feminism. If we are to have an international feminist movement, one that is inclusive of intersectional politics that fully reject white supremacy

      First off Devyn excellent analogy. Emily Shire is making much the same point. She wants a feminism that is totally indifferent to non-feminist concerns, and focus exclusively on issues of gender and sex. Dr. Shire isn’t unaware of intersectional politics she rejects them.

      We must take into account that if we are to build a Movement for Black Lives which is anti-imperialist, anti-settler colonialist, anti-racist, and pro-feminist, we have to eliminate the very concept of Zionism from our spaces.

      Probably true. Though in a pro-imperialist country, where many people are only a generation or two away from settlement, which venerates its colonial founders and has mixed feelings regarding feminism why would you want to be build that sort of movement? Look there probably is a majority for moderate structural reforms regarding Blacks which address many of the abuses. Why alienate the many voters like me who likely would support moderate change that would make a difference and would also aggressively oppose a black alliance with the global hard left? How does that advance your cause?

      Finally
      Just as we say ‘never again” to the fascism that produced the Holocaust

      Fascism didn’t produce the holocaust. Take Argentina. Argentina in the 1930s was extremely generous with regards to Jewish immigration. The Peronist government recognized Israel early. It was the anti-fascists (mainly Catholic nationalists) in Argentina who kicked out tens of thousands of Jews during the 1950s. Salazar in 1937 aggressively rejected the Nuremberg laws. There were Jewish officials in his government. He allowed Portugal to become a central hub of Jewish rescue moving over a hundred thousand Jews annually out of harms way all during the pre-war and war. Fascists were divided on Jewish repression and extermination with many opposed.

      What produced the holocaust was a deep seated hatred of Jews built out of wild conspiracy theories very similar to the idea that Zionism has anything to do with black lives in America.

  • Finders Keepers in the Holy Land: So who was there first?
    • @Eljay

      I agree I'm an individual. America is a collective to which I belong, The trillions of dollars lost to the Iraqi occupation impacted me personally. I was collectively held responsible even though I individually opposed it.

      As for Jews and Israelis. Jews have chosen to identify with Israel. Zionism is Judaism greatest achievement recently (biblical poetry, and a ideal of justice that transcends the material may its overall greatest achievements). As I've said before there is nothing Antisemetic in holding Jews responsible for what Jews collective do, in the same way it is not anti-American to hold Americans responsible for what Americans collectively do. All Jews can vote in the Word Zionist Organization every 5 years. Where they agree with Israel and support Israel they can be held responsible. Where they disagree (for example status of Reform Judaism in Israel) not so much.

      It is Antisemetic to hold Jews responsible for things they don't do. It is Antisemetic to hold Jews to a standard not applied to others (something I think you are often guilty of, though of late you are getting better on that score). But no it is not Antisemetic to hold diaspora Jews responsible for things they actively support and encourage collectively even though some individuals disagree.

      I stand by the quote.

    • @Eljay

      You are conflating two very different things.

      1) Holding a group collectively responsible for the actions of its collective agents, for example holding a nation responsible for the actions of the state it controls.

      2) Holding individuals in a group collectively responsible for the actions of their ancestors.

      Those aren't the same things. For example as an American I was individually opposed to the Iraqi occupation. I was in a 26% minority when the occupation started. America did occupy Iraq and collectively I'm responsible for that regardless of my individual opinion on that matter. I'm not individually responsible for it but I am collectively responsible for it.

      On the other hand I almost invariably have many ancestors who fought in the Rus'–Byzantine War of 941. I'm not individually or collectively responsible for it.

    • @MHughes976

      Since you are asking my opinion. I don't really like the language of "rights" in an abstract sense they get used here. I think rights are derived from a legal framework. My rights in the sense they are used here derive from law. Law is derived from a government. A government is an entitle capable of exercising an effective monopoly of force on a territory. So I'd assert all rights derive from might. Without the power of enforcement there are no rights. Which incidentally is why I don't consider the UN's legal rulings to be legitimate, they lack enforcement capability and thus aren't a government at all. Now that's usually a sticking point on right-left dialogue (even worse for Israel-Palestine) So I tend to compromise there to some extent bite my tongue and just use "right" to mean essentially a moral claim as a subset of "the good". But if you are asking my opinion then I'd really say the heart of the debate is about the definition of law, right and government.

      I think the idea of creating ethnic classes of people to whom one can or worse still should commit horrific acts against because you don't like their ancestors is a very bad thing. That sounds very much children of Ham defense of slavery from my country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham#European.2FAmerican_slavery.2C_seventeenth_and_eighteenth_centuries ) . Given the horrors of all of an ancestors going back billions of years I don't think anyone can claim an ethical ancestry. Everyone who exists today does so because of millions of generations of slaughter and rape intermixed with their trillion generations of ancestors. Call it an atheist version of original sin.

      To what extent can I punish Fathi because I don’t like the Arab conquest? My answer would be not at all he is not responsible for it even though he descends from the people who did it. Or to pick a more recent example from the USA my family (grandparents) lost property in the in 1960s race riots that would have directly benefited me. To what extent does that give me license to steal property from blacks in those same areas? Again my answer would be it doesn’t. The descendants of the rioters aren’t responsible for my loss and I don’t gain license to punish them from some sort of historical right.

      So I tend to reject any claim of racial or ethnic ownership of land. The people who have moral title to the land are the people who now live on the land and make improvements to it (yes the Locke definition whom I know you are a fan of). This allows for a simple theory of international relations which is very utilitarian. What is the best solution to the problem now, forgetting at all about how we got here?

      So in short when it comes to civil rights (especially citizenship) all babies should be born with the same status regardless of who their parents are. In the USA we have a 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The children of illegal immigrants are Americans the same as I am. The children of criminals have the same rights I do. I consider that Amendment a moral triumph arising from a country that had a deep historical understand of what the alternative was. The people who passed the 14th Amendment had seen what happens when a class of people are delegitimized. I fully support the 14th not just for the USA but as a general principle that should be applied everywhere throughout the world. That’s the reason I think Fathi has the right (in the moral sense) to be Israeli while you don’t.

      Contra-positively all moral claims to territory last one generation. If a group (including a nation) hasn’t been able to realize them during a lifetime they are forever forfeit for their descendants.

      In short all punishments one wants to dole out for marauding need to be done to the actual marauders not their progeny. So yes the marauders can pass rights to a territory on to their children.

    • @talknic

      Israelis aren’t ‘migrating’ to territories in the West Bank. They’re illegally settling

      That was exactly the position of the Khmer Rouge regarding the Vietnamese.

      Strange I’ve never advocated genocide on anyone. I do advocate that Israel to resettle its illegal settlers back in Israel.

      As did the Khmer Rouge. They didn't kill Vietnamese who agreed to resettle back in Vietnam. They only killed those Vietnamese who wouldn't resettle.

      Care to give an example of where I’ve advocated genocide on anyone … thx I’ll wait

      See above. You advocated their positions in the same post you were arguing you weren't agreeing with them.

      I believe the 1830’s was more than a century BEFORE 1945 - See more at:

      And 1992 was after 1945. The Cambodians are still at it.

      _______

      @Annie

      israel’s supreme court doesn’t agree with you. they do not recognize an israeli nationality,

      I agree they don't recognize an Israeli nationality. I'd also assert that nationalities are a matter of reality not law. Trump's declaration that it was sunny for his inauguration as a matter of law changed the weather, it didn't change it as a matter of fact. There doesn't exist a Jewish nationality. I don't speak Hebrew (though I can chant it). I didn't go to an Israeli school, serve in the IDF, lose immediate family to terrorism... Etc.... I'm not part of the Israeli nation. I am merely part of ethnic / religious minority that the Israeli nation arose out of, the remnants of the Judean nation. Israel is the restoration of Judaea but that doesn't mean that all Judean descendants are Israeli rather merely than they are invited to be. That case was wrongly decided.

      Your point about civil rights vs. human rights is a good one. Using the language from that article I'd assert that everyone should enjoy civil rights where they are born.

      ___

      @MHughes976

      Everyone is the descendent of axe wielding marauders (in the metaphorical sense you were using it). If you don't want human rights for the descendants of conquers you don't want human rights for anyone.

    • @lyn117

      When a government such as Israel exercises eminent domain in order to confiscate property from the people of one ethnicity and use it to benefit their favored ethnicity, that’s apartheid

      OK I guess I am going to do this.

      I don't agree with you that this in and of itself would be apartheid. But I would agree with you it would be a horrific discrimination. If that was what were happening in Israel I'd object.

      What I see is a policy very similar to one that was thankfully ending in lots of communities when I was a child: gang violence to stop the natural sale of land between people of different ethnicities. I certainly remember times when neighborhood discrimination was ferocious and if someone sold a house to a black the family was treated quite badly and the house not uncommonly burned down. My grandparents could tell similar stories about Protestant / Catholic violence like that.

      In that case the government frequently stepped in and changed demographics of neighborhoods to break up claims of racial exclusivity. The government frequently had to force sales or otherwise act legally on the real estate markets to accomplish these situations. In the West Bank today you have a culture where selling land to Jews is often punished by death to the sellers via. vigilantism. A government can and should intervene to block that sort of thing. I didn't object when the USA did it, and I don't object when Israel is doing it.

      I should also mention you do have housing discrimination in the other direction which certainly doesn't help and is a policy I'd like to see overturned as well. Inside Israel proper there needs to be far more mixed housing than there is. But in one situation you have vigilante violence similar to what ethnic organized crime or the klan did and in the other you have small agricultural and religious communities acting like bigots. Neither is appropriate and I support the state when its acts against both.

    • @talknic

      I'm dropping out of this conversation. But I think you lost the thread of the argument entirely based on your response. Eljay was talking about occupation as some sort of intrinsic injustice. I was giving examples of occupations I fully approved of. Your point that those occupations don't involve settlement would if true simply emphasize the point that occupation and population migration are mostly distinct phenomena.

      As an aside you are wrong about Vietnam and Cambodia. Cambodia had experienced substantial Vietnamese migration since the 1830s. The Cambodians considered the Vietnamese to be illegal settlers and thus didn't grant them citizenship after gaining independence from Japan. The Khmer Rouge shared your politics regarding illegal settlers and genocided the community: about 80% were ethnically cleansed to Vietnam with the remainder mostly killed off. Vietnam responded quite reasonably by invading Cambodia and establishing a occupation government. They put an end to all the Khmer Rouge genocidal policies which at that point had killed off somewhere around 25% of the Cambodian population the religious Cambodians plus those people they considered the descendants of illegal settlers (Vietnamese, Chinese, Buddhists, Chan Muslims...)

      During the occupation the Vietnamese encouraged descendants of those displaced plus other Vietnamese to migrate back. When Vietnam was forced to retreat (by the USA and China via. the UN) Cambodian politics reasserted itself and the Vietnamese in Cambodia are mostly considered "a disease infecting Cambodia" rather than citizens.

      Far from not being a good analogy The Khmer Rouge are a terrific example of what your sort of anti-settlement philosophy looks like in victory. The Vietnamese response is what sane and healthy people do when confronted by your politics. Its a true pity for humanity that the Vietnamese occupation didn't continue until they could reorient Cambodia politically. The UN's response to this whole situation imposing heavy sanctions on the Vietnamese essentially to facilitate another round of the genocide proves yet another example of why the UN is a truly evil organization.

    • @talknic

      Most of what you list is just the UN disagrees with Israel. Well yes it does.

      But this is new. I guess I'll try responding.

      JeffB: “I do support a belief in the necessity of states to occupy territory though I think this happens far too often.”

      talknic: Start naming those since 1945 when the UN codified International Law regarding the illegality of acquiring territory by any coercive measure

      My point above is that once territory is acquired it isn't occupied. Which is one of the reasons I think the UN's position is nonsensical. However some occupations I agree with:

      1) USA occupation of the Dominican Republic to stop a civil war and ensure elections in 1965.
      2) Israeli occupation of the Sinai regarding Egypt's aggression 1967
      3) South African occupation of parts of Angola to defend against attack 1975
      4) Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia to stop a genocide 1979
      5) USA occupation of Grenada to liberate communist conquered territory 1983
      6) NATO occupation of Kosovo to stop a genocide 1999
      7) Russian occupation of Crimea to advance self determination, 2014

      The UN has mostly been opposed to most of these most shockingly the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. So they aren't only wrong in the case of Israel.

    • @diaspora

      Thank you for responding directly to my points.

      I believe you completely misunderstood my points.

      That's quite possible. I was in what I thought was enthusiastic agreement with an anti-Zionist. That agreement deriving from a misunderstanding is unfortunately likely. But let's make sure.

      I’ll hit this out of order:

      Also what are ethnic Palestinians?

      People whose ancestors came from the territory of Palestine primarily that still identify as Palestinian.

      No my line refers to the argument used to deny Palestinian rights because supposedly they haven’t been in Palestine for long enough.

      I agree it was meant to apply there. But what I don't follow isn't why wouldn't that line also apply to ethnic Palestinians born in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq... That is a generalized belief that everyone should have citizenship where they are born as a human right. And then also why wouldn't this apply to Israeli settlers?

      It is impossible to solve the conflict without the colonizer/colonized framework, because this is reality. We want to get beyond this reality. I want equality in an egalitarian state not based on outmoded ethnic nationalism for any group.

      First off I agree with your end goal I think. But I think we may be disagreeing a bit on the definition of ethnicity. So I'm going to get a bit more specific here on the racial / ethnic / national framework. What I would say is there should be (and I believe there is, though I understand you wouldn’t agree) an inclusive ethnic nationalism. I think you are asserting using colonial language that:
      a) There is racial difference between Israelis and Palestinians
      b) Israel discriminates on the basis of that racial difference.
      I would assert that racially Palestinians are the same as Mizrahi Jews. So here we do disagree. Israel can’t be discriminating based on a distinction that doesn’t exist.

      Ethnicity includes however a larger cultural component. A person's ethnicity can change. through national identification their race cannot change regardless of their own culture of belief (though race is partially a social construct and thus racial classification can change based on other's beliefs). You given an excellent example in the article of "Arab" as an ethnic identity and not simply a racial identity. During the period of "Arabization" (to use your term) Arab was an inclusive identity, though today it is more exclusive (i.e. it excludes Israelis, Kurds...)

      I think of "Israeli" as an ethnic identity in the same way. Clearly there is no race of Jews. Genetically Jews a hundred years ago are more similar to the populations in which they lived than they were to each other. However Zionism created an inclusive ethnic identity for all them and then built a common culture in Israel from which they share. So today Jews have an Israeli ethnicity (a Jewish ethnicity), regardless of whether they are Israeli. That is while there was an Ashkenazi ethnicity a 100 years ago there was no such thing as a Jewish ethnicity, today there is. And thus within Israel itself there is a even a deeper cultural ties and thus an Israeli national identity. The Israeli national identity can be extended to ethnic Palestinians and thus assimilate them into the nation which of course also assimilates them ethnically as well.

      I think the designation "Israeli-Arab" was a step in this direction. The Israeli-Arab's choice to identify as Palestinian rather than Israeli in the early 1980s hindered the progress in this direction, but the door remains open as demonstrated by the slow progress that is occurring. And that I think overtime an assimilation process similar to what is happening to the Israeli-Arabs is how the goal of an inclusive egalitarian state is accomplished for the West Bank.

      Then it is an Apartheid state. I have 0 rights in Israel.

      See above. I think the situational is transitional regarding having a military dictatorship in the West Bank and a Democracy in '48 Israel. I think the democracy is going to be spread to East Jerusalem, Area C and Golan in the very near future with citizenship and a model of almost full equality before the law (I won’t disagree there is discrimination in Israel) over almost all the territory. That does for the short term leave behind Area A as a self governing autonomy zone for people who live there and don’t want to be part of Israel. Because no Jews live there and it has autonomy I don’t think that quite qualifies as apartheid. Were the residents of Area A to ask to fully join the Israeli state / nation and if they were rebuffed on racial ground I do think that would be apartheid but that hasn’t happened. Nor do I think it is likely to happen. You have 0 rights in Israel [assuming the bio above is correct and you live in Ramallah] now because collectively you claim to be citizens of an imaginary state called “Palestine” not citizens of Israel. Were the people of Ramallah willing to be Israeli it is my belief they would soon find themselves being Israeli legally.

    • I don't want to get into arguments here, too one sided. But I've never been in favor of "theft". I don't consider a government regulating propertywithin its domain including exercising eminent domain (at an above market price) to be theft though. I'd love NJ to eminent domain my property pocket the equity some state excess profits while avoiding all the costs of sale.

      As for colonize she's saying the opposite. She's getting away from the whole colonizer / colonized framework and instead asking about rights for all people living in a country on an equal basis. I've always fully supported equal rights. Where we disagree is:
      a) You don't tolerate state churches
      b) You want to extend citizenship to massive numbers of people born in other states, Her line about 1 yr applies to ethnic Palestinians born in and living in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan...

      I do support a belief in the necessity of states to occupy territory though I think this happens far too often. As far as Israel as you know I don't consider Israel to be an occupying power. In Gaza it is not exercising enough control to qualify, I'd consider Israel to be a warring power against the quasi-state of Gaza. While in the West Bank and Golan it is clearly making permanent claim and thus is the governing power not an occupying power.

    • Finally an anti-zionist who is talking real history! Good post, especially, "Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years."

  • Open Letter to Progressive Jews: The ADL and AJC are not our allies
    • I don't post here much anymore but this one is about a mainstream group. The AJC is partnering with Muslim groups on the issues of:
      a) Hate crimes
      b) Immigration law
      c) Workplace discrimination

      That's the extent of the offered partnership. They aren't claiming to offer a partnership on a broader agenda of anti-Islamiaphobia and certainly not on anti-Palestinian policy. The AJC is a valuable ally on those 3 issues above to American Muslims. Of course for Muslim groups to partner with the AJC means legitimizing the AJC in areas where they disagree (particularly Israel/Palestine). So the authors aren't wrong on the political impact of the partnership. Its a trade regarding priorities. Moreover it is a trade that American Muslims have to decide on not Jews way to the left of the AJC. The AJC isn't offering a partnership to Rabbi Rosen and Anna Baltzer.

  • Hectored by Zionist wannabe archaeologists, 'NYT' recasts article on Jewish temples
    • I'm not planning on returning to posting here because of the censorship ... but this conversation I figured I'd weigh in on. I'm a Zionist, a Jew, and an atheist. I don't think there was a first temple in Jerusalem though a proto-Jewish shrine on Mount Gerizim dating back before the 6th century BCE is likely. The second temple however one doesn't need to believe in any historical religious books to understand what was there. You can quite literally see construction from the Hasmonean dynasty and Herodian Dynasty on the mount where the Al-Aqsa Mosque sits. This is not a question of religion nor one of history it is basic obviously observed archeology. Grouping denial of the location of the 2nd temple in with holocaust denial is quite inaccurate but in the other direction it is more like denying the existence of Australia or Zebras.

      As for Keith's comments about the animal sacrifice... yep that's right it is nothing like Reform Judaism. Zionism is a rejection of diaspora Judaism's weakness. The soil of Judaea returns Jews to their roots. Of course blood sacrifice is "barbaric" that's the point, blood shocks the senses. All animals have evolved to emotionally react to that copper scent and the thick red flow. Blood rites are associated with ecstatic rituals. The temple is Jerusalem's were in ancient times impressive to observers even those used to Ptolemaic and Roman temple standards. Reform Judaism is associated with boring, tedious prayers in Hebrew followed by boring tedious sermons that Mr. Rogers might give before going to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe. There are good political reasons not to rebuild the Temple and if I were king of Israel I'd go for the old location and leave Al-Aqsa alone. But I and many other Zionists want to see a new Jewish temple even though I don't believe in the god it is dedicated to.

  • The U.S. is at last facing the neocon captivity
    • @Atlantaiconoclast

      You conveniently left out the part about the framing, largely by Jewish neocons, of the Muslim world

      I simply talked about opinion. This is part of MW nonsense that polled opinion shouldn't count because of "propaganda". We live in a democracy. Everyone gets to frame their opinions and the undergo a competition. Public opinion and the winner of that competition are the same thing. At the time of there were sources like The Nation, Mother Jones the bulk of the European press which made a strongly anti-war case. Americans were exposed to the anti-war movement and anti-war congressmen. They were aware that such a case existed and rejected it.

      Talking about political opinion in the absence of the other side expressing their views is like talking about how you should have won the football game if only the other side was never given possession of the ball and thus not allowed to score touchdowns.

      Now having expressed all that. The dislike of the Muslim world does not come from Jews. It comes from the oil crisis, it comes from terrorism, it comes from a century of war, and it comes from the fact they are non-Christian. Jews are not the ones who made Nasser lead an anti-American movement during the cold war and cost Americans a fortune in extra taxes. Jews are not the ones who made Algerians engage in a mass cleansing their French population after achieving independence. Jews are not the ones who made Iranians take and torture American hostages and humiliate the United States for a year. Jews are not the ones who decided that the Arab powers should jack American oil prices. Jews are not the ones who decided that Palestinians should become synonymous with airplane hijackings and acts of violence all over Europe as a way to gain attention. And Jews are not the ones who decided to blow up the twin towers. Islam has a bad reputation in the United States because of Muslim behavior, they worked hard to keep their bad reputation. The neocons had a fertile ground. Moreover I don't see any distinction between the attitudes of "Jewish neocons" and the Christian neocons.

      _____

      As for the anthrax attacks, the FBI conducted multiple investigations and there was some degree of House of Representatives oversight and review. The likely culprit was Bruce Ivins, a religious Roman Catholic. His motive was he was upset about pro-choice Catholic senators which is why he picked Daschle and Leahy to get the anthrax. He also appears to have wanted to frame the women at the Princeton Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority, a sorority he had been hostile to since at least 1992, which was why he choose anthrax and mailed it from the postbox outside their sorority.

      No one in this story is Jewish. Nothing about the story is Jewish or remotely tied to Israel. I think you should take a moment to reflect on the fact that given a story you knew nothing about your first inclination was to suspect the Jews did it.

      And those of you on MW who like to argue time and time again that BDS is anti-Semitic it is just anti-Zionist, and you really do have respect for the truth. This was coming from your side. Why was I the one who corrected this? Why didn't you all jump in?

    • @Walker

      You muster just three examples from among the many scores of anti-American governments that have been around over the years

      First off it is time for you to present some evidence if you are going to be critical of the evidence presented. You are just spouting off.

      Second the very first graph was diplomacy vs. military asked in general about the the importance of force vs. diplomacy.

      Third the case of Iran proves the opposite of your claim. Iran is a government where the USA government has had a non-military / sanctions policy. Yet the American public still favors war. That's not he public being sold on a war that's the public wanting a war despite policy (propaganda) in opposition. And as far as trumped up, I think the Americans are generally not aware of the extent to which Iran was funding anti-USA forces that killed Americans in Iraq. Had thy been I suspect the support for war with Iraq would be in the 80+% range.

      Finally on Afghanistan. The government refused to do what America told it to and thus was deposed. That was wildly popular.

      Now my claim was that Americans don't like anti-USA governments. You argued that was a fabrication. So now present some examples of governments hostile to the USA that are popular among Americans.

    • @Walker

      Please post evidence that Americans “generally favor military action to get rid of (anti-American governments)”

      Here are your base numbers for diplomacy over military for the population when they are asked general questions about dealing with hostiles: http://www.people-press.org/files/2012/06/6-4-12-V-85.png

      As you can see the government starts with a slight majority out of the gate. Once diplomacy fails or falters the numbers skyrocket quickly, except in unusual circumstances.

      Afganistan: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1631387/thumbs/o-AFGHANISTAN-570.jpg?6
      Iraq: http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/publications/770-1.gif
      Iran: http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2012/05/5-18-2012-12-11-11-PM.png

      etc...

      This is characteristic of the quality of your argumentation. You simply made this up.

      Now you can apologize for being an asshole rather than phrasing that request politely.

    • @Hostage

      Republican hawks, the oil industry, the military industrial sector. You are citing huge chunks of the government. Your theory is not a conspiracy that's the system doing what it is supposed to do balance out interest groups and organize them into common policy.

      The conspiracy would involve a smaller group.

      As for an illegal propaganda campaign... I live in America. People are entitled to express their positions. If "our government" broadly was running a propaganda campaign that's them doing their job, organizing the population and trying to achieve policy consensus. If some tiny faction were able to create policy without agreement that's a conspiracy. If some large faction were able to get broad public agreement for policy, that's democracy.

    • @Phil

      National interest is easy. Assume Cheney's plan worked and fracking hadn't turned out to be such a godsend. Today we control the flow of Iraqi oil. We have a bases agreement allowing us to station unlimited troops in Iraq. We have a huge force in Afghanistan so Iran is menaced on both sides with at best only semi hostile force to the North (that is unless Iran has already been flipped). The USA through Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and possibly Iran has control of the flow of middle eastern oil.

      One can disagree with Cheney's vision. Fracking turned out to make oil much less important. But it is hard to see how that isn't in the US's national interest.

    • @Phil

      deas have consequences. It takes a vision to make policy. Neoconservatives had a vision.

      That I agree with. But the point is that the neoconservatives had influence even earlier than Bush. They were already pushing the USA towards war with Iraq. That was our policy pre-Bush. You want to have a timeline you have to account for 1998.

      In terms of ideas I think there are two visions at play here:

      There is a broader vision shared by about a quarter of the American population Wilsonian idealism . This is a belief that the USA should work to spread democracy and capitalism. I'd actually say you are in that camp as much as they are (though possibly not as much the capitalism part). I'm not saying you agree on means, but you do like an active American foreign policy and spreading American ideals.

      In both administrations you had people who disliked Iraq and hate Ba'athism. The question was were they willing to tolerate the consequences of chaos in the Middle East? For conservative Zionists chaos in the middle east is a huge net plus. But that enthusiasm among Zionists would have been equally present among congressional Republicans in the Clinton administration.

      Here is the change IMHO. The foreign policy realists had been concerned that the destruction of Ba'athism would leave a vacuum and that a weakened Ba'athism was better for the USA than revolution. Which is an important dispute which the foreign policy realists lost inside the Republican party? I'm going to say a more likely cause is the inadvertent effect of social issues.
      Foreign policy realists came from northeastern and midwest. That is Republicans who were losing elections to Democrats as those states went Blue while Southern Republicans (mainly Jacksonian) were winning elections. Jacksonians were unusually hawkish after 9/11 and George Bush was able to form a Wilsonian-Jacksonian alliance on Iraq. Saddam Hussein thumbing his nose at the USA for years insulted their honor. Yes a stupid reason to go to war but Jacksonians are all into the whole honor thing.

      Now I think that's because secular Jews, like any other secular who are attracted to the Republican party are almost never attracted over social issues. They are either economic conservatives (and few Jews are really into the neo-Confiderate economics that the current Republican party champions) or foreign policy hawks. But Jewish Republican foreign policy haws are a few tenths of a percent of the population.

      So I agree ideas are the core, but they are Andrew Jackson's ideas about America's foreign policy not Netanyahu's. And in terms of root causes, collateral damage from the reactions against Roe vs Wade and the Civil Right Act's change to America's political demography.

      If Jewish Republican Zionists had enough pull to easily get us into wars, Netanyahu really would be the Republican Senator from Israel.

    • @Phil

      There is a problem with your order of events. Regime change was USA policy prior to the Bush Administration: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act_of_1998
      The act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives and by unanimous consent in the Senate and of course Clinton signed it. So your conspiracy theory has to involve more or less the entire national elected American government. Moreover it can't be associated with the Bush administration since they weren't in power yet.

      Iraq's unfavorables were over well over 90% from 1990 on. The people who didn't like Iraq were the American people. Generally over 60% of Americans favored military action against Iraq to end Saddam Hussein's rule throughout the 1990s. Bush's (who let's not forget is Christian) propaganda pushed that to the mid 70s prior to the vote. The American people don't like anti-American governments and generally favor military action to get rid of them. No great conspiracy.

      Where Jews might have had any impact, was in the peace movement. That's where you see a big shift in opinion. Normally when there is a buildup to war there is an active peace movement in the United States. But.

      a) Saddam Hussein had funded suicide bombings
      b) The peace movement for the 2nd Iraq war was expressly anti-Zionist.

      So Jews who form about 50% of the USA's peace activists sat this one out. They didn't take part in the pre-war peace movement and Democratic politicians faced a situation where liberals instead of being united against the war were divided. We can see that because the after war peace camp because exclusively focused on Iraq and Democrats went back to being more hesitant about the war. So while I don't think Iraq had anything to do with Zionism I'd say anti-Zionism dividing liberals was far more crucial to the Iraq war effort than Zionism.

      In 1991 the vote was
      House: 250 to 183
      Senate: 52 to 47

      In 2002 the vote was:
      House: 297-133
      Senate: 77-23

      George Bush ran for re-election in 2004 on the Iraq war and won. The blame for Iraq goes to he American people. There was no conspiracy.

  • Hundreds of academics call on State Dept to revise its definition of anti-Semitism, respect criticism of Israel as protected speech
    • @Walker

      You are conflating:
      a) whether you agree with Israel's supporter's reject of international law
      b) whether Israel's supporters reject international law

      It makes no difference in terms of something being a double standard whether it is a net good or net bad. If someone loves to kill small animals for fun, they aren't applying a double standard when they kill kittens and not not just mice.

      ____

      As far as America's recent move away from international law. International law has always been unpopular in the USA. Remember the USA didn't join the League of Nations. The UN was in NY to help tie the USA to it. We had problems with UN scope from the beginning for example UN ambassador Lodge's, "The primary, the fundamental, the essential purpose of the United Nations is to keep peace. Everything it does which helps prevent World War III is good. Everything which does not further that goal, either directly or indirectly, is at best superfluous.". Or a few decades later Richard Nixon, "I'd just say to hell with the UN. What is it anyway? It's a damned debating society. What good does it do?" Your own link shows that support is low among the oldest not the youngest Americans. There is no change in policy. The USA has generally been hostile though specific administrations have been more or less enthusiastic about international coalitions.

      As for your point about no legal validity you are completely wrong.
      If I sign a contract to purchase the sun from my friend James that's a contract with no legal validity. If I sign a contract for James to murder Ms. X that's an illegal contract. They are not the same thing at all.

      Finally on Hamas and hostages. Hamas has a policy of trying to capture Israeli civilian hostages. Taking civilian hostages is one of the 4 grave breaches. Human shields is not.

    • @Donald

      Getting back to the point. I've pretty clearly shown with my comments about HRW that not all criticism of Israel fails to meet the 3D's test. The State department definition doesn't preclude criticism it does characterize lying.

      I don’t care what pro-government groups would say–there are always people willing to support whatever a government does, if they support that government,

      That's not the case with either Jane's or Stratfor. They tend to be quite critical. But I understand your point they aren't anti-government enough for your taste. Which is fine in the context of say HRW where I can click on any country's government on the planet and get a whole bunch of bad stuff. It isn't fine in the context of mass educating people on a college campus by SJP where people are being told that Israel is somehow uniquely evil. That's a lack of balance. Its dishonest.

      You wouldn't have any problem condemning someone who went to a campus and made a list of all the rapes being committed by black students without mentioning white or asian ones as clearly being designed to be hate speech. SJP is doing precisely the same thing. That's why they are being targeted for double-standards.

      The rules of war are to some degree written to favor governments in the first place, and you will find people on the left who say this actually makes the human rights groups (including AI) too easy on countries like Israel.

      Well most of the left has a huge problem with war in general. And while I think they are wrong that "in general" disagreement should be contextualized away from the disagreements specific to Israel.

      I’ve not noticed any significant difference between human rights groups and what they say about Israel.

      That's because you don't look at the details of the allegations carefully. You just put Israel in the "bad countries" category. But if you do read corresponding reports carefully AI often goes further than the evidence warrants while HRW is cautious. AI casually dismisses counter evidence while HRW tries to consider all the evidence. They aren't the same.

      I agree that the pro-Zionist side is less nuanced than they should be in their counter narratives. When 95% of the criticism is unfair it can emotionally difficult to respond appropriately to the 5% that is based in fact. FWIW human rights groups have been subjected to false accusations from my side. The difference though is important. HRW investigates claims where they were manipulated or acted on bias and issues retractions. when the facts contradict their earlier statements. AI lets the lies stand. (SJP's total lack of honesty is well beyond either of those two).

      Right now for example Judith Miller has reintroduced a discussion about regarding whether Cheney et al were biased in their presentation of intelligence information. To what extent were they mistaken, to what extent did they have faulty analysis and to what extent were they simply lying. Your side should not be held to any lower standard than you demand of the right. SJP is vastly more biased than anything Cheney said. AI is probably on par with Cheney. HRW is perhaps more like Rice or Powell.

      And before you say that analogy is unfair because they have more power, I'll grant that. But there are counterpoints in other directions too. A policy of destabilizations and regime change (again I don't think BDS could ever pull that off) in Israel has a real risk of thermonuclear war. Even if Iraq had had a nuclear weapons program they likely didn't have a weapon and no one to the best of my knowledge ever asserted that Iraq has thermonuclear weapons. The risks of the policy you are advocating (since you do believe it is possible) is more on par with say war with France not war with Iraq.

    • @Donald

      Human Rights Watch does all that and ends up accusing Israel of war crimes.

      I agree. I may not disagree with some of HRW's analysis, but I disagree with HRW's analysis on many topics. They are not unfair to Israel in a way they aren't to other countries. I think they can be guilty of excessive focus and singling out. But I don't have a huge problem with citing HRW as a positive example of a strong critique that meets most criteria for fairness.

      So I'm not saying I agree with HRW. I particularly disagree with their analysis. But I don't think they are anti-Semites.

      Amnesty International does that

      No they don't. Now Amnesty does deliberately lie and falsify about Israel. First of all they should be dealing with political prisoners not broader objectives. Their most common problems are deliberately misrepresenting International law particularly in their definition of: collective punishment, occupying power and disproportionate. They don't present proper counter cases and they most certainly don't hold Israel to the same standards as other. They have deliberately willingly and knowingly hired deeply partisan anti-Israeli activists in violation of their neutrality standards so as to pass off lies as truth. Moreover when caught in lies they have refused to retract. They are an example of precisely the opposite of what I'm talking about.

      B’Tselem I don't read enough on issues on which I already know the facts from other sources to have an opinion.

      Now onto you. I also find your list a bit odd. Your choice of groups fall under the failure of balanced. If you want to look at those sorts of analysis it should also include for balance groups like Stratfor and Jane's that are more likely to see the world from a government's perspective and not just a civilian's perspective. That's balance.

    • @RobertHenryEller

      “Try and present facts both pro and con.” Because this is something Zionists do?
      “Be charitable and fair in your interpretation of the evidence.” Because this is something Zionists do?

      Well first off the "the Zionist do it" claim is pretty questionable. If you want to argue that gross immorality is perfectly acceptable in acts of revenge i.e. you are entitled to do anything the other side does then that's fine. But then let's hear no more of things like your morality being guided by international law or objective standards.

      Second. Yes I think in general, though there are exceptions Zionists do try and present both fair, charitable and accurate presentations of the facts. Certainly there are exceptions where the Zionist side has failed to do so. I think the best way to test this is to look at the respective propaganda from the 1950s. If you look at say Exodus very little in that is refuted today. You have the interplay of the Haganah and Zionist terrorists organizations openly acknowledged. You have Jewish labor and what that means Palestinians being worse than what exists within the Green line today. You have the ties between the Palestinian nationalists and the Nazis being perhaps exaggerated but and the ties between Palestinian nationalism and Syria downplayed, so you could perhaps fault it there.

      Conversely if you look at anti-Zionist Soviet propaganda, which is present in BDS as well is that the natural and objective assimilation process of Jews is growing around the world. The reality is that in most countries Jews lived in there were being expelled. That wasn't acknowledged. And frankly BDSers still to this day don't acknowledge or even address the failure of Jewish assimilation in most countries that their whole moral critique hinges on. A second aspect was that of the 4 main goals of Zionism anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism were two of them. I think most anti-Zionists would say that Zionism objectively acted as an apologetic for communism showing a good example of democratic communism for decades. And that anti-Sovietism was clearly a reaction to Soviet hostility.

      Now like any people Zionists tend to see themselves reacting to a situation while their opponents showing their true nature. So no, I think the dishonestly is mostly coming from your side. In point of fact just count how often the MWers fill their posts with hate and vitriol rather than trying to engage on matters of fact and practical discussions in any thread. Reality annoys them.

    • @Walker

      Applying a double standard would be flip out when other countries violate the UN security council and being unconcerned when Israel does it. It is not a double standard to be semi-indifferent or somewhat hostile to the UN across the board, which is what the vast majority of Israel's supporters are.

      You are confusing double standard with you disagreeing with people who reject in full or in part the grandiose claims common on MW regarding the UN. Of course where you do see a double standard is this UN absolutism doesn't apply to say war with Iran over their violations.

      . What other nation has been allowed to go so long in blatant defiance of UN Security Council resolutions?

      India and Pakistan. UN Resolution 38 called on them to stop messing with Kashmir. Also North Korea. I'm sure I could come up with more examples if I go down the list.

      Also if we are going I'm not sure if the very earliest UN resolutions prohibiting the UK from having troops in Greece were repealed in which case they have been in violation pretty much the entire history of the UN.

      Israel’s settlement of occupied territories (including Jerusalem) is illegal.

      That's BDS not the UN Security Council. The UN Security council for example in 476 and 478 said that actions taken by Israel have no legal validity which is a substantially weaker claim then the acts being illegal. If you are going to be a sticker for the UN Security council then at least quote the council and not BDS fabrications.

      Now if you are going to take the Geneva Convention seriously then one of the 4 grave breaches of the Geneva convention is taking civilian hostages. A matter of policy for Hamas. I don't see the MW crowd caring. That BTW is an example of a double standard.

    • Funny that BDSers are pretty much willing to admit that without “demonizing,” “delegitimizing,” and “applying a double-standard to the state of Israel,” they can't say anything against Israel. It is easy to avoid those points:

      a) Hold Israel only to those law you would apply equally to all
      b) Avoid being deliberately misleading. Try and present facts both pro and con.
      c) Be charitable and fair in your interpretation of the evidence

      And that's it. That's not a high bar for normal people.

  • Congress and state legislatures are on the warpath against BDS
    • @eljay

      I can’t speak to what “bigots, Israel-haters and many anti-semites” feel, but it seems incredibly hypocritical to promote sanction and boycott of a non-colonialist, non-expansionist and nuclear weapons-free Iran

      There we go. A perfect example of where you didn't use the perm "Persian supremacist" when mentioning Iran. Which by your own standards of that should have been included. Proving yet again it ain't the supremacist but the Jewish in Jewish supremacist that is what bothers you.

      As for colonialist you are also factually wrong, though I suspect ignorance not hypocrisy. Iran at the same time that Israel was cleaning out the Palestinians was cleaning out non Persian peoples from territory they coveted.

    • @Shmuel

      Boycott is a legitimate form of political expression.

      Boycott is a form of political action not speech. And it is regulated in America in many areas. In particular the issue of secondary boycotts are discouraged. For example 8(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act. Under the act, no labor union may threaten, coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce in order to force that person to cease doing business with any other person (29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(B)). Secondary boycotts may be enjoined, or stopped, by order of a federal court, and an aggrieved business may file suit in court against the party initiating the secondary boycott to recover any monetary damages that resulted. If the federal act somehow does not cover the actions of a labor union in a particular case, an aggrieved business may seek relief under state laws. Tertiary boycotts are even more restricted.

      If a BDSer is opposed to just the settlement project a primary boycott would be not living in one. and encouraging others not to live in on. That's legal and protected. A secondary boycott is refusal to buy goods produced in a settlement. That's regulated. A tertiary boycott would be refusal to do business with divisions of companies that are also active in the settlements.

      As for the government's right to regulate hate speech that is a threat to public order that was solved in the Grant administration. You can Google the court cases involving the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act. I suspect a lot of Libertarians would agree that those acts allowing the government to be non-neutral and go after "conspiracies" are a threat to liberty. And if you want to make that case you'll have company. Just understand what other branches are on that tree you are attacking.

  • Netanyahu: Jerusalem was always the capital 'of the Jewish people alone'
    • @Zaid

      I'm going to move this out to a new thread.

      You are an annoying person,what is wrong with you!!!do you know how to have a coherent conversation!!!why do you keep changing your points and contradicting yourself!!!

      I think what’s wrong from my perspective is you are getting confused regarding terminology. I think you are actually agreeing with my factual points and seeing a disagreement where there isn’t one. More on that below.

      You wanted to prove that Palestinians are not indigenous to Palestine

      I wanted to prove that Palestinians are not descended from Canaanites. My argument is they are mostly descended from a broader group of Levant people that freely circulated throughout the Levant. I also think that there was a mass migration to the Levant (and thus to Palestine) during the 7th and 8th century which completely transformed the culture.

      then ended up not only proving that Palestinians are indigenous to Palestine but actually all Arabs were originally from there

      Ah no. The Arab population is mainly from the eastern Arabian peninsula.

      and they have more legitimate claim to the land than modern Jews (ashkenazi) who as we see from genetic research that i cited have nothing to do with ancient Hebrews, and in reality are Europeans.

      You are using an inconsistent definition of “from Palestine”. But the Jewish thing is going to come down to the diaspora. You deny the Roman-Jewish wars and there is no connection for European Jews.

      “I said Arabic came from the east not Aramaic. Your own graph has Aramaic (the language spoken in Palestine in the 1st century) being a Northwest semitic language. link to en.wikipedia.org . Your chart has Arabic not evolving from Aramaic.”

      I never claimed that Arabic evolved from Aramaic……..YOU DID!!!!!!

      Actually I said the opposite. My key point that you are agreeing with is that Arabic did not evolve from Aramaic. That’s critical because I’m asserting that Aramaic was the language spoken in Palestine in the 1st century. Arabic is the language of the Palestinians. If there was a language change that did not result from evolution, then you are very likely looking at either a population replacement or a mass immigration of another group.

      here is your words:
      “Palestinians speak a language that evolved from an eastern Arabian peninsula dialect of Aramaic not one of the western ones”.

      That is correct I did say that.

      Arabic evolved from western Semitic languages

      And here is where you are getting confused. You are mixing up a geographical classification of where things are on the Arabian peninsula with a linguistic one of where things are relative to the entire family of languages the semites spoke. Armenia is in West Asia, it is also east of most places in Europe.

      Let’s try this without east or west references. You tell me where you disagree.

      1) There was a family of Syro-Palestinian languages which included Aramaic.
      2) Modern Standard Arabic evolved from Quranic Arabic which evolved from “Ancient North Arabian”
      3) Ancient North Arabian was spoken in what is today Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia. It was not spoken in Palestine. Ancient North Arabian did not evolve from Aramaic nor did Aramaic evolve from it.
      4) Modern day Palestinians speak a dialect of Modern Standard Arabic

      ergo you had a language flip in Palestine at least once between the Aramaic speaking culture and the Arabic speaking culture.

      Palestinians spoke several languages in the1st century and not only Aramaic.

      I would agree there was also quite a bit of Greek. But I assume you meant something else. So your floor.

      Continuous what!!!! who cares!!!

      That’s the entire debate you joined. Ask Abuadam why he cares so much.

      Palestinians adopted Arabic after the emergence of Islam (after the establishment of the caliphate),like a lot of nations including Egyptians,Algerians,Syrians,Mauritanians and even Somalians…etc

      OK now in your theory was there a population migration from the east? If not how did this happen and why?

      having said all the Above , i have to remind you that modern Palestinians are not descendant of Arabs (of Arabia) who came to the Levant during the Islamic conquest

      That’s the point in question. We are disagreeing on this. I’m arguing that the language flip is one of the key pieces of evidence proving the mass migration. If you want to argue a mass migration didn’t happen then you need to explain the language flip. And for that matter the conversion to Islam.

      and they changed their religion and language several times.

      And how did that happen?

      We Palestinians doesn’t need to prove our link to the land just like Chinese people don’t need t prove their link to china, because 1- we live here. 2- we look Semite

      You are the one who jumped into a debate where that was the point in question. You don’t want to prove that’s fine. But I’m not going to accept it given all the evidence to the contrary.

      and even the Arabs who mixed with us upon the emergence of Islam have a link to the land since they themselves are originally western Semitics.

      They do not have a link to Palestine. If you are going to disqualify the Jews for interbreeding with Europeans than the same logic applies to the Palestinians. Either you make a claim for racial purity or you don’t.

      Jews were never exiled from palestine and the only exile that happened to jews is the one that the palestinians endured in 1948.

      I gave you a bunch of questions regarding your theory in the last post you didn’t answer. If there is no exile you have a lot of history to explain away.

      I am actually a little bit embarrassed to be talking about this origin thing since no nation on earth still do that

      I agree it is embarrassing. I think anti-colonialism is disgusting racist. We don’t disagree on this point.

      and it is as i said irrelevant who was who thousands of years ago and the talk about genetics borders on racism but unfortunately the Zionist propaganda army forces us to go down this stupid road.

      No it doesn’t. One could just accept something like the USA definition. That anyone born is America is legitimately American. Then essentially all the Israelis, Jews and Palestinians, born in Israel are legitimate Israeli and this racist crap goes away. But as long as you want to talk about “indigenous” vs. Zionist then you go right into the racist muck. That’s not my doing.

      We Palestinian want to be treated justly in our land because we belong to it and we are humans and we deserve that and that is it.

      I agree with you on being treated justly. No argument there. I believe that everyone born in Israel deserves to be treated justly and that Israel should be an inclusive identity. I’d love it if (and when because I think the Israeli-Arabs are doing this) Palestinians sought to become Israeli and join the society fully as equals. I’d love if 150 years from now most Israelis are descendants of both Palestinians and Jews. You aren’t contradicting Zionism in asking for equality you are embracing it.

      You want to talk about negotiating sane sensible win-win joint solutions I agree with you. You may want to talk about living together in peace and justice, I agree with you. But that’s not BDS. BDS is about the quest for “justice” for past wrongs and not living in a peaceful just society of mutual benefit. BDS is about destroying Israel not making it a good society for both people. And when you get down to it, the whole point of the thread you jumped in on was a BDS apologetic about how the untermensch (Jews) and their weisse jude allies (Christian Zionists) need to be defeated to avoid the rassenschande that Zionism aims to create in Palestine. The very concept of BDS is Jud Süß that by engaging in trade on equal terms with Jews (whom they call Zionists) the pure peoples of the rest of the world get morally polluted…

      You are obviously offended by racism. You believe it is a good thing when disparate groups interbreed and form one joined people, what the BDSers think of but wouldn’t directly call rassenschande. You are taking pride in interbreeding / rassenschande when it comes to Palestinian history, rejecting their whole thinking (even if we are disagreeing a bit on that history). Then drop the vestiges of racism which require you to deny obvious history and instead embrace the multiple cultures that formed Palestine.

      Islam gives race as much importance as it give to the dust on our feet.

      Agreed Islam rejects race. Islam has a terrific track record on issues of racial equality. Better than any other major religion. But Pan-Arabism, Ba’athism and liberal anti-colonialism makes race central to the identity. And because of this BDS makes race central to its thinking. That’s your side not ours.

      You seem like a better person than your philosophy.

      ___

      Anyway hopefully this makes clear the point on Aramaic and Arabic.

    • @Annie

      You are right those positions you created contradict. I think you are missing the argument I made though which is a bit more nuanced so I'll clarify by adding some language.

      1) A people can only be genetically descended from an ancient people if they severely limit breeding with external groups. For example the population of Iceland over the last 1000 years meets this criteria. Weak genetic continuity would be a population with almost any input from an original ancient people.

      2) A people can culturally descended from an ancient people if they maintain cultural continuity at each generation. That is while there can be evolution there are no sudden breaks. So for example I'll culturally descended from revolutionary Americans even though 0% of my genetics came from them.

      3) The Palestinians claim to be genetically descended from the Canaanites (and also the Judeans). I claim (3) is impossible because we know the population of Palestine underwent massive shifts. They may have weak genetic continuity however.

      4) The Palestinians claim to be culturally descended from the inhabitants of Judaea. I claim (4) is impossible because their culture shows signs of hard breaks, particularly in the area of language.

      5) Zionists claim that modern Jews are culturally descended from Judaea. I agree with this claim. I think the documentary evidence is unambiguous on this point.

      5') Zaid in particular was offering an alternative theory that there was no cultural or genetic continuity. That Jews with no cultural connection to Judaea created a myth around Judaea. In particular that there was no diaspora at all it never happened. I'm arguing that this version of events is far too oversimplified and falls apart due to the literary continuity.

      6) Some Zionists claim genetic continuity. I only believe in weak genetic continuity.

      6') I believe however that if one were to measure a degree of genetic continuity with the population from Judaea, modern Jews, including Ashkenazi Jews, would score higher than modern Palestinians. Though again both would score poorly this is simply a relative comparison.

      So that's the thesis. I'm not presenting evidence in this post. I do think the Palestinian case is easily torn apart from the archeological evidence of non continuity. But I'm not doing this with you since you don't seem to care much about ancient history nor is this one of your beefs with the Jews.

      As for BDS embrace I learned it was fashionable from Mondoweiss. I didn't come here thinking you all were into Ernest Renan's Republican Racism, or that it was part of BDS mythos. That was a discovery when I got here. I don't know the source if I had to guess I think it leaked over from Arab propaganda ex: “Israelis have no history in the Land because they are Khazars, who are not connected to the land…” – Al Hayat Al Jadida, June 16, 2003. And they picked it up from Soviet anti-Zionism who got it from the Nazis. Salaita, to pick someone you are familiar with, loves to talk about how Jews are disconnected from Palestine unlike the Palestinians...

      If you here discussion of Khazars. Lots of references to Shlomo Sand or Arthur Koestler then Renan's theory about Jews is what you are dealing with. You don't want it to be part of BDS, you run a prominent site do something about it. I'll point it out to you on other threads as it comes up. It is a regular theme here.

    • @Eljay (and Annie)

      Wikipedia is oversimplifying. They are also missing news, which is unusual for them. The 1995 included a provision allowing the president to issue a 6 month waiver if they felt it was in the USA's interests. Every president has issued a waiver every 6 months. Which clearly was not Congressional intent.

      There have also been several bills to repeal the president's authority to issue 6 month waivers.
      this term: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/114/text
      last term: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2846
      etc...
      These have failed before and this one might fail again, hard to tell.

      There is a test case is before the Supreme Court to determine whether the President's waivers do anything other than waive moving the embassy:
      http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/zivotofsky-v-kerry/
      wikipedia provides a so-so summary of the status: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zivotofsky_v._Clinton
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zivotofsky_v._Kerry

      Here is a legal brief covering the broader issues: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1500&context=ilj

      In summary. The MW position is that the president has sole authority (I love how the MW liberals are taking positions to the right of Dick Cheney on these separation issues) In Zivotofsky v. Clinton (2012) the Supreme Court held that to be false. The Court finds this is a legal and not merely a political question.

      This is a nasty case for the courts. I think most people including the court don't want the court being the decider here. Ultimately if they decide for the President they massively expand executive power at a time when it runs amok. The convert the President from a mere agent of Congress, though one who by necessity been given a great deal of discretion to a sovereign. If they decide for Congress they potentially trigger a foreign policy crisis over some 12 year old's passport. As Kerry's lawyer put it, "“It won’t be one branch of the United States government saying that this should happen. It will be two branches of the United States Government saying it should happen.Foreign governments, foreign peoples will not be able to have complete confidence that the position that the president announces on behalf of the United States is, in fact, the position of the United States.” Which FWIW I think it absolutely true. The President's position become untenable.

      They could decide the case narrowly. Kennedy seems to have a weird compromise in mind: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2014/11/supreme_court_zivitofsky_v_kerry_case_can_a_u_s_passport_call_jerusalem.single.html

      Anyway you can go back to the character attacks and other such nonsense that characterizes BDS. But the fact is at the very least the Secretary of State's attorney in his argument indicated he believes that Congress recognizes Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.

    • You mean other than the USA? Under USA law "Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel." http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act_of_1995

    • @Zaid

      I said Arabic came from the east not Aramaic. Your own graph has Aramaic (the language spoken in Palestine in the 1st century) being a Northwest semitic language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Semitic_languages . Your chart has Arabic not evolving from Aramaic.

      That's the point. The languages are not continuous with one another there is a linguistic break. Now you chart doesn't show this but Arabic evolved out of Ancient Northern Arabian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Arabian spoken in what is today Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

      The Arabic the Palestinians spoke did not evolve from Aramaic. And your own graph shows this. What perhaps is confusing you is the labels. So I linked above to articles defining those terms on your graph.

      I never claimed that Palestinians are pure Canaanites and it is clear in my comment. I believe that Palestinians have mixed racial background ...

      The claim is they are original to the region and were there for 3000 years. That's the thesis that your side is defending. That there is a continuous pure ethnic group directly descended from the inhabitants 2000+ years ago with little or no external breeding. If you willing to concede that no continuous ethnic group was there for 3000 years than you disagree with the BDS claim of them being indigenous in some long term historical sense. The strong claim is that Palestinians are the real Jews and the people who claim to be Jews have 0 tie to the region. Once neither one has perfect descent from the Judaeans and they are both just mixed then we can move past the whole "indigenous people" nonsense.

      As for Shlomo Sand he is full of crap. The Roman histories are loaded with references to exile as our the Jewish as are the Christian. His theory makes no sense. If Jerusalem were still standing how did the Romans come to believe they were rebuilding a new city where the ruins were in the 120s? If Jews were still living there (Aelia Capitolina) why did the Romans, Jews and Christians all agree Jews were subject to pain of death for being there? How did that belief emerge? Why do the lists of citizens have Greek names? When they are constructing the monuments to pagan gods we can still find today in Israel, how are the Romans not noticing themselves being attacked by Jews living in the area? Or pick Masada. If the Romans didn't conquer Masada than how did the Babylonian monks establish a church there without the Jewish zealots noticing?

      People do not hallucinate wars. Can I believe that a bunch of Herodian subjects living in Palestine with no particular ties to Judaism may or may not have remained after the Jewish civilization was pushed out. Sure that's possible. But then you still have the Jewish civilization of Palestine going into exile. What Sand is doing is using a cheap equivocation between populations and cultures where he is defining the term "Jew" to mean different things in different places.

      despite attempts to link modern Jews to ancient ones

      OK so in your theory where the ancient Jews converted off to Christianity what year exactly did another group of pagans (or where they Christians or Muslims) decide to resurrect this dead religion and join it? Where did this happen? How did they create literary continuity? How did this group of fake Jews spread Judaism all over the world?

      Good that we agree that genetics is irrelevant but unfortunately these genetic/historical myths

      I think genetics is irrelevant. History / culture is a different story. I do think people's live on land and cultures live on land. I think there is a difference between today's France and today's Germany. That being said, I think all people should be invited to participate in the society whose territory they born into. The BDS movement stands firmly with the anti-colonialism and embraces permanent racism as policy. So if you are disagreeing with the division of people into natives / legitimate residents (i.e those born of the right ethnic group) and invaders / occupiers (those born to the wrong group) then you are disagreeing with BDS not agreeing with it.

      I don't know which point of yours I skipped. Just reference it here.

      As far as the cause of Palestinian suffering. There are many. Some are Israel's fault. But the primary one is the Palestinian delusions which you are feeding. Today the country that exists on Palestinian territory is Israel. For likely centuries to come the country that exists on Palestinian territory will be Israel. If they want to live there they need to become Israeli. These myths that they are a 3000 year old people that has always lived on the land makes them fail to understand the history of Palestine is civilizations being destroyed and replaced not continuity. They don't help because they create a sense of false hope that is likely to lead to disaster.

      Take it from the Jews who also believed that God would rescue them from the superior forces of the Romans.

    • @Mooser

      That's a lie and quite offensive to boot. Cut it out.

    • @Marnie

      I couldn’t respond anywhere else. I have to interject something that is probably a truth for a lot of converts.

      So after all the huffing and puffing I was right about the Christian education. Moving on.

      So much of what was taught to us in classes was not torah but so-called traditions and customs and a lot of crap from the talmud,

      Yep that's right. The Talmud is the central religious text for Judaism. The Pentateuch (I'll use the Christian term for the clarity) is the original source text for the Mishnah which then gets further built upon. All that stuff that Luther taught you about layers of tradition and sola scriptura is even more true of Judaism than Catholicism.

      The religion you are preaching is Karaitism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism

      which I don’t accept nor do I have to.

      You do if you want to call your religion Judaism. And more importantly that's the sort of distinction an Israeli would be aware of because lots of Karaites live in Israel.

      With people like yourself, an atheist snob who sits in judgment of me because I don’t sound Jewish – what is that, exactly?

      The religion you took an oath to join, which included an oath of loyalty. You want to quit have at it. Jesus is forgiving and welcomes his sheep back. Just stop claiming to be what you aren't. You want to be the resident Israeli you need to know Israel. You want to claim to be a Jew you need to know Judaism. You want to be another Christian on here who hates Israel and Jews there are plenty of those.

      ____

      FWIW I am a big fan of liberal conversion policy. But one of the things Christians are much better at than Jews with their converts is helping them come to terms with the theological concepts that are no longer part of their faith when they switch over. For you that should have included sola scriptura. You can rightfully blame the Jews for the fact that didn't happen. But the fact that it didn't happen doesn't mean that your interpretation is worth squat compared to the Jewish scholars who spent a lifetime studying. There is no holy spirit guiding you to the essentials of the faith in this religion.

      I'll let you get the last word in.

    • @Zaid

      Look at your own graph. Where is the tree for Aramaic. Where is the branch for Arabic. Your graph agrees with me.

      As for genetics and Ashkenazi Jews I agree with you. Though a shockingly large percentage of your side disagrees. Jews obviously interbred with the European populations so that they now look European. And I don't care about genetics. That doesn't however mean they aren't descendants of ancient Jews. Consider a population X that is 1% of given population. Allow X's females to interbreed with the broader population 30% of the time randomly and intrabreeds 70%. Virtually none of their genetics is going to remain but they are still descended from the original population. X generation 1 fathers X generation 2... That's the situation in America. Most Americans are descended from Americans and that was true in every generation yet little of the American DNA is from the Pilgrims.

      As for the Palestinians being the original population:
      either they are the original population or they are a mixed group formed from different waves of peoples. They can't be both. You are contradicting yourself.

      Finally in terms of it not mattering. I'm fine with it not mattering. I agree 100% with you on this! I hate this racist anti-colonialist crap about tracing back origins. Stop calling Israel "Palestinian land" and agree that land belongs to whomever lives on it now. The neighborhoods my grandparents lived in became black and now are hispanic. I don't call those parts of the city "Jewish land". So please go there.

      But as long as BDS insists on using a racial definition of land and denies the equality of all people, then we have to get into the mud of racism to debate it.

    • @Walid

      Timeline-wise, it’s obvious that the Arab/Moslems are the ones that held on to Jerusalem the longest

      I'm going to nitpick a bit but I agree with you that the Muslims have a real claim that needs to be honored.

      OK now onto to details. In terms of max time I'd give it to the Pagans. :) But unless they throw their hat in the ring I'll grant you more time than the Jews. But I'm rare that way since I don't think there was a 1st temple and most Jews do. Most Jews are going to say about 1400 years and then Jews narrowly win.

      traditional view:
      Jews: 1300 BCE - 69 CE + 1967-2015 = 1417 (for me it is about 717)
      Pagans: 3000 BCE - 1300 BCE + 69 CE - 313 CE = 1944 years(I'd put it at around 2000 BCE - 600 BCE +... ) so 1644)
      Christians 313 CE - 638 CE + 1099-1244 (some breaks) +1914-1948 = 504
      Muslims: 639 - 1099 + 1244-1914 + 1948-1967 = 1149 years

      Regardless the Muslims and Christians have a legitimate claim. IMHO the Jews seems like a nice neutral 3rd party between Christian and Muslims so even if I weren't Jewish I think the Jews make sense from a geo-political standpoint. A Christian / Muslim religious war is far more dangerous to the world that almost any other potential conflict. And the Christians are getting refocused on the temple and the 2nd coming again.

      Religiously though, the Moslem claim is just as authentic as the Judaic one.

      It is. The issue is that for Muslims Jerusalem is a secondary site it was never of anywhere near the level of importance it was for Jews. Jerusalem for Judaism is arguably more important than Mecca for Islam. I think you all are more on par with conventional Christians, though for Christian Zionists it is far and away #1.

      Me personally if I were dictator of Israel and we have to have a temple I'd go for the Samaritan solution say the temple goes on Mount Gerizim and grant the Muslim's sovereign authority over Al-Aqsa (including right to issue visas...). I'm willing to fight a war for Jerusalem. I'm not willing to fight a war for Al-Aqsa. Moreover I have a tough time believing Jews actually want to go back to mass religious animal sacrifices. So I kinda like the Al-Aqsa being there, it gives us a religiously acceptable out. I would fire the Waqf Ministry though and put someone who less of an ass in charge. Al-Aqsa needs to be a site in Israel, and that means the Israeli government needs to be able to work with them on issues like: security, transportation, safety...

    • @Mooser

      OK I'm going to try responding let's see if you can maintain civility.

      “JeffyB” if you are an atheist, as there is no God (Do I need to link, JeffyB, it’s all there, in your archive) what the hell difference does anything it says in the Bible make?

      What difference does it make to what?
      Andrew: All flowers are blue
      Ben: Andrew said that all flowers are blue.

      If I were to say that Harry Potter went to Durmstrang in the series and not Hogwarts I'd be wrong despite the fact that Hogwarts, Durmstang and Harry Potter are all fictional. When we talk about the world of reality I don't think the 1st exile happened. I don't think Judaism existed yet. My opinion on the validity of the biblical narrative doesn't change what the biblical narrative says. I'm not a narcissistic leftist who thinks the most important aspect of reality is how I feel about it.

      I don't think Marnie is Israeli because she is simply too ignorant of Israeli culture. Judaism is part of Israeli culture. Whether HaShem exists or not is irrelevant to that point. Marnie's religious education is Christian. Where would an Israeli have gotten a Christian religious education? Even if it was, how did she not pick up more Judaism?

      The Jewish people in Israel decided to move away from the communal atheist identity to become a neo-liberal religious society. In the abstract I would have voted the other way. But as a Jew I think integrating the Mizrahi successfully was vastly more important than getting over hangups about what you can carry in areas with different sorts of telephone wires on shabbat. So n on apostates I'll repeat what I've said. I think joining an American peace movement to oppose the war in Iraq is very different than joining Al-Qaeda in Iraq. One is critique from within one is quitting being an American. I'm willing to tolerate Satmar's as being Jewish even though they are in theory anti-Zionists because the rest of their life strengthens the Jewish people. JVPers who don't do anything for Judaism, don't have the offset. I have no problem with BDS being treated as the modern equivalent of accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. That also has nothing to do with HaShem it has to do with what it means to pledge fidelity.

      I think it is high time these "Jews" in JVP if they want Jewish credibility prove it. Stop asking them basic questions like whether they had a Bar-Mitzvah (which they still fail at). Ask harder things like why do some Jews light Shabbat candles 18 minutes before sunset and others 40 minutes? How close to shabbat can you relight the candle before shabbat. Whether they know that stuff or not determines whether they get to use the term "Jewish Voice for Peace" or "Non-religious self righteous anti-semitic Israel haters for Peace".

    • @Marine

      What evidence do you have to the contrary [of a population continuously inhabiting Palestine for 2500 years

      1) Palestinians speak a language that evolved from an eastern Arabian peninsula dialect of Aramaic not one of the western ones. So at some point either the people were replaced or we had a major cultural invasion which transformed the people. They also worship an eastern Arabian peninsula God and other aspects that are fully consistent with them being descended from the Muslim invaders of the 6th and 7th century rather than a local population.

      When you look at their culture you see almost nothing that would have evolved had they been the earlier Bzantine and Jewish culture

      2) The Palestinians have no knowledge of the events that took place earlier in Palestine's history. They quite literally lived next to treasures that remained buried until the Jews showed up again in the 19th century. If they were descended from the earlier inhabitants we would expect to see signs of them being aware of this. I'd suggest you look at MHughes976's comment about the Vikings. That sort of passionate view of the history is precisely what you do see in a people that has continuously occupied a territory for 1500 years.

      3) We have secular recorded history supported by an archeological of several complete change overs of the society via mass expulsions and extermination. A counter theory is going to need to explain the archeology.

      4) Jewish history records multiple unsuccessful attempts at reestablishing themselves in Palestine. The early ones should have noted the continuity.

      As for the ancient book and getting kicked out... Marnie this is the kind of comment that makes me doubt you are an Israeli, you aren't even familiar with Israel's national culture. First off that sort of "good book" style of speaking is Christian, your identity is showing. Second the Tanakh ends with the restoration of Jews to Israel. They get kicked out and are back. So if you "go by the book" the are restored not exiled. The diaspora happens well after "the book" ends. Third God's claim in "the book" is one of might. That is how he justifies himself as opposed to the other God's. "The book" mostly preaches henotheism not monotheism which is even more obvious in the Hebrew that if you were an Israeli you would have read.

    • @Kay24

      The Juan Cole article misses huge important chunks of Jerusalem's history like Aelia Capitolina. It is far from factual. FWIW Jews don't claim to be the original inhabitants of Jerusalem. This is the semi-official timeline: http://www.tod.org.il/en/exhibition/permanent-exhibition/ .

    • @Abuadam

      What evidence do you have that any population continuously inhabited Palestine for 2500 years? What ties do you have between today's Palestinians and the Canaanites?

  • 'Jerusalem Day' and the sacralization of propaganda
    • @Scandipope

      Israel has done little to restrict access to Jerusalem, and for the most part left control of religious places up to their worshippers.

      You are getting accused of lying below by @just. Lots of vitriol but no facts. But you are in point of fact quite correct. The Mosques are under muslim control, the Bahai gardens under Ba'hai control, the churches under Christian control the Druze control of their sites like Jethro's tomb... Israel has not only allowed development but often helped facilitate it. My daughter in her American history class used Israel as a example of a society with freedom of religion but not separation of church and state.

      The MW crowd adores Iran. The Bahá'í in Iran are subject to mass imprisonment, torture, hundreds of executions, state organized religious pogroms, demolishing their holy sites. Both genocide watch and the society for genocide prevention have expressed concerns with the drift of Iranian policy moving from merely heavy harassment to a genuine desire to obliterate the Bahá'í faith. So here we have two societies with an ethnic identification for citizenship. The BDSers hate Israel that while not perfect has an excellent track record or religious freedom. And at the same time the BDSers adore Iran that is openly willing to engage in state persecution of religion drifting towards religious genocide.

      That's why BDSers don't engage on a factual discussion of religious freedom. They just don't like Jews, it has nothing to do with the facts.

  • What if the Times had sent Rudoren to Selma in 1965?
    • @Andrew r

      Got a newsflash for you JeffB: There’s a Jewish state in Palestine today because some people who didn’t live in the region couldn’t mind their own beeswax. You don’t get a hair up your ass about the British issuing the Balfour Decl. Ha ha different standard.

      First off the British were the government of Palestine. Of course they don't mind their beeswax, it was, at least in part, their country. As for it existing because of the British you are delusional. The British turned against Jewish immigration pretty quickly and became moderately hostile to it. The people responsible for Israel are the Jews. And while they didn't live in the region then they do by a majority now.

    • @catalan

      Hope we can get the kids together at the next Israeli information ministry family day. My daughter enjoyed the Jenga and the row boating. :)

    • @bryan

      On rite vs. right you are correct.

      . Perhaps though you could actually cite examples from recent history where the dominant group actually and permanently overcame sheer force of numbers

      The process takes centuries. Either it happened mostly long ago and is wrapping up in the last century or so (though by recent you might even mean less time) or there is no way to know who permanently overcame whom. Israel is a bit faster.

      The obvious example on a micro scale are the cities of America. You can see wave after wave of population displacing one another things like Welsh to English to German to Irish to Jewish to Black to Puerto Rican are common.

      Another example around 1948-9 but even larger was the expulsion of 14m ethnic Germans carried out by the allies. That's still in effect.

      Another obvious comparative examples would be the 19th century war of Turkey agains the Christian Armenians. The Armenians used to hold a tremendous amount of territory that slowly contacted from Ottoman and Russian pressure. Turkey in the 1880s and then again in the 1910s wanted to change the demography of their eastern border scattering Armenians all over the planet and thus forcing the Russia / Soviet Armenians into a most restricted territory. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/ArmenianDiaspora.png

      Another example is the forcible repatriation of Soviet people's after World War II. The allied armies drove millions of peoples that had settled outside of Soviet territory that were of Soviet ethnicities back into the Soviet Union.

      As for your examples those are classic colonialism. That's a ruling elite not a remapping of the nation.

      Though if you go back Vietnam is another example in the opposite direction. Between 4000 BCE and 2500 BCE there was a mass migration south of the Kinh who became the dominant ethnic group and mostly replaced the territory of the still existing earlier indigenous ones. Vietnam in an earlier era is exactly what's happening today, a mass migration followed by a new nation taking over. So that if you were going to apply this no colonialism standard to everyone that's yet another country where the bulk of the population needs to be forcibly migrated north back to parts of what's China today and then other ethnic groups need to have their property restored and...

      South African is all colonialism. Most of the black tribes are only slight less recent immigrants than the whites.

      What is Rhodesia an example of? The Whites were never the dominant society there at all.

      As for Algeria I think that demonstrates you aren't really grasping the difference. . The Pied-Nors aren't really dominant. An 500k Pied-nors army takes 90k casualties from the 300k FLNers. The FLNers have a far better ability to replace losses (8::1 population ratio) and lose 150k. The kill ratio is under 1::2 with just 13% of the population even with almost twice as many forces. I think the problem was that the Pied-Nors wanted a colonial existence in Algeria they didn't want to become Algeria. Or they just sucked at war.

      If the kill ratio had been something more reasonable for a European army against a colonist army like 1:100-1::300 I suspect the result is quite different. And the high end is what you would see Israel vs. Palestine if such a thing were ever going to happen which it won't because Israel is not Rhodesia and Jews are not 3% of the population. But about Algeria it is a good lesson about surrender. Jews know there is no France to retreat to at the end of the war. Jewish children learn well the alternative to Zionism is Auschwitz. .So they should understand what happens if they lose.

    • @bintbiba

      Didn't know you were Palestinian. Thought you were just a self righteous American liberal looking to prove their radical-chic bonafides by insulting the imperialist Jewish empire. Sorry I was too flippant with you. You got a legitimate complaint, they don't.

      I can walk you through what I meant or if this is too sensitive I can pass and let you get in the last word. Your call.

    • @Atlantaiconoclast

      as a native Southern American, I don’t have the privilege of being able to explain away the sins of my forefathers, or the even bigger sins committed by Southern elites

      I gotta tell you something. Everybody's forefathers committed horrific sins. All of them. You should look at the history of Africa 500-1500. The forefathers of the slaves, while not as bad as the forefathers of the slavers, were pretty awful. Winning the DNA race to make it to 2015 means having been involved in competition and cooperation.

      As a Jew, you have privilege, and don’t have to hear your people demonized at every turn. The vast majority of Southern racists were not in the Klan, did not support the Klan, and certainly did not advocate for violence or genocide against Blacks. Yet, despite this, its my people who continue to be demonized, while you enjoy the privilege of not having to see the members of your people who actually are acting like demons and real racists/supremacists, demonized.

      Surely you are kidding? You really don't want to compare what gets said about American Southerners to what gets said about Jews. The lies told about you all aren't even close. You get no sympathy for having your society destroyed in the 19th century. We get blamed for being the cosmic force of evil secretly manipulating the world towards every tragedy.

      In all seriousness though... I'm not sure what you are driving at. Are you classifying yourself with the Southern Racists and saying you don't deserve the associations with the Klan. Or are you saying you don't deserve to be thought of as genocidal. Or what? I'm not sure if I get the complaint.

      . I can assure you that even politicians like George Wallace NEVER advocated for genocide against Black people

      Agreed. You can argue the clearing of Kentucky or Tennessee was genocidal the rest of the black experience in America was clearly not genocidal. Southerns didn't hate blacks, they always were part of their society. The American south was dependent on black labor they wanted discrimination. One of the reasons the analogy is poor between Israel and America is that:

      a) The Israelis have repeatedly walked away from the economic of Palestinians labor.
      b) Blacks in America have always insisted on an American identity not an African one. Things like Liberia were failures because Blacks sought to live as Americans.

      Potentially if the West Bank were still Jordanian and Gaza still Egyptian the Israeli Arabs might have evolved into a minority subgroup providing vital labor and identifying fully as Israeli. There might have been a civil rights struggle and a liberal Israel which was secularizing would have gone more in that direction and today there wouldn't be any legal or even much social discrimination. But instead we got a dozen wars, a huge influx of Palestinians from the newly conquered territory and the Israeli Arabs are in a much more politically complex situation than American Blacks were.

      If you want me to say I think the American South and Israel are bad analogies I'd agree completely. It is the rest of your MW compatriots who make this stupid analogy. The West Bank 1967-1987 could have been a lot like the Northeast of the 1960s. That's probably the closest you can get where the two systems crossed over.

      Ultimately the Israelis really want the Palestinians to leave. Ultimately the southerns wanted the blacks to work for cheap. Totally different objectives.

    • @bintbiba

      I've myself used examples much further back than his. My favorite is the plants displacing the anaerobic bacteria. I respond to Palestinian claims with "get rid of the oxygen atmosphere the anaerobic bacteria want their planet back from the colonists" regularly. As I've said before every person living does so because of 10,000 rounds of murder and displacement. Donald is just repeating my point, and claiming that his repetition refutes it.

      Societies live and die. We can morn for dead societies but we can't resurrect them. The person who died yesterday can no more be resurrected than the one who died 1000 years ago. The BDS Palestine is a particularly bad candidate for resurrection because that society never existed at all, it is like trying to resurrect Albus Dumbledore.

    • @Shingo

      You racist Zionists hasbarats keep making that claim without ever citing one example fo any of it BDSers ever making such an argument

      You are one. Your goal quite clearly stated is the deliberately premeditated mass death of the vast majority of the Jewish population due to an economic collapse caused by a Nato blockade. Which somehow is not collective punishment.

      Bryan on this tread whom I responded to 2 seconds ago advocated for the destruction of the Jewish society in Israel. The whole point of discussing historical Zionism to to rally people towards the deliberate destruction society. If the goal were merely civil rights then the discussion would be about civil rights not how Israel is a racist colonialist... There was someone arguing with Donald just yesterday that Donald wasn't entitled to promise on behalf of the Palestinians that any Jews should be allowed to remain in Palestine or have any rights if they did. That's much stronger than just a denial of self determination.

      But I'll be happy to point out where your compatriots call for something less than a right of self determination as we go. The whole BDS movement is based on a denial that Jews are a people entitled to the same rights as other people.

      Withdrawing to the 1967 borders would not replace Israel with an Arab Muslim state.

      Of course it wouldn't. But BDS's demand isn't merely a 2SS. 2SSers like the European mainstream may be wrong but they aren't racist advocates for genocide. Or in American terms the 2SS is J-Street's while BDS ranges from the PLO charter position to the Hamas charter. A simple 2SS position has nothing to do with BDS or BDS advocates. They shouldn't be conflated. For J-Street Israel is a normal country doing bad stuff and should stop doing the bad stuff. For BDS Israel is an intrinsic evil and needs to be destroyed.

      That's not to say I don't have disagreements with J-Street as well, but with J-Street there is a shared framework that Jews are fully human and Israel is having the same kinds of problems other states have. You don't share that position.

    • @Bryan

      Well first off I said dominant society not numerically superior. Long term numerical superiority is vital, the distinction between a nation and a ruling elite. Modern democratic societies are very good at pushing their culture. But at the time of a mass migration it is quite common that the dominant society is not numerically superior. They frequently take over the country and create a new culture.

      To pick an obvious example and one Shingo and I were discussing at the time of the revolutionary war the Native American society probably outnumbered the white's 2::1. Throw in the few hundred thousands slaves and you still don't drastically alter the numbers. But the Whites were unquestionably at that point the dominant society. The Whites had been winning the Indian wars when they had 1/20th of their current population.

      The example MHughes976 gives below of the Viking invasion of England is a good example in the other direction where a society establishes military dominance but is never able to establish cultural dominance. The Vikings are able to conquer and govern parts of England (primarily the South West http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/England_878.svg/988px-England_878.svg.png ) but they never conquered it all much less severed the cultural connection between England and the West. The English still 1600 years later still call themselves Britannia. You would have to imagine an alternative earth where the Viking expansion continues and Viking culture comes to replace Christian culture to have a comparable situation.

      As for the solutions you outline they would require that Israel be conquered by a superior force not merely outnumbered (if they are even outnumbered). And I'd agree. If the Jews were no longer the dominant society it is quite likely that the Jews would be absorbed into the conquering Muslim Arab society or killed off. Most likely killed off. When the Jews decided to stop being a walking corpse for Judaea and rejoin the world of the living as a normal country they accepted mortality as part of the price. Israel will live, likely for centuries, then die to join the many thousands of dead countries and thus Jews join the other dead societies that inhabited them.

      Everything that lives dies.

    • @Bryan

      occurred at a time when the civilized world was unanimous that the acquisition of territory by conquest was illegitimate.

      Well first off Israel's claim to the territory is self determination not rite of force. Up until WWII International law recognizes the right of people living in a territory to govern themselves. The UN in total opposition to the direction of international law that had been evolving for centuries reversed this and instead took strong conflicting position when it embraced the anti-colonial movement with its concept of permanent racial claims.

      You as a BDSer are arguing that Jews should never have had the right to a government of their own choosing that represents their interests. BDS is about eliminating self determination for Jews because the Zionist project was illegitimate and replacing Israel with an Arab Muslim state.

      Now I should mention you history is also wrong. The civilized world has over the centuries almost always held that position including during the time Frankish conquest. Then it was the the vestiges or the Roman traditions, the inheritors from the Roman system who continued to play their role even after Rome was sacked. Then it became the Pope who granted legitimacy to kings. There are cycles as war gets more or less fashionable. Not surprisingly incredibly destructive wars lead to a determination to use peaceful means, while successful wars lead to greater advocacy for war to solve complex problems.

      There is of course the issue for 2SS people of the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force. Under that frame, Israel has borders, it is entitled to govern within those borders but that the West Bank and Gaza are outside those borders. One can argue about that case but that has nothing to do with MW or BDS.

    • @andrew r

      That's yet another standard. The its OK as long as it isn't a current threat. The "its not rocket science" I think is contradicted that every single time we look at this example your side comes up with an entirely different standard distinguishing the cases. We've had the "it was long enough ago", "it is irreversible", the human rights based one (i.e. any society is fine), and now the living person grievance.

      I guarantee you if Visigoth descendants had a plausible shot of getting rich from claims against the Frank's descendants and there was a global movement to make sure the grievances were cultivated with mass marches, a friendly media... then they would have grievances. Historical grievances are created by societies. So you aren't really answering the question saying that people choose to have a historical grievance. A good example was the Slavs grievances against the Kosovaars. Those were real historical grievances among living people and we didn't honor those.

      Now I'll address your other claim or a contemporary threat. If the threat were just that Israel agree to civil rights for Palestinians under the control, in particular no more ethnic cleansing we would have a much less complex I/P debate. That's a reasonable position that Israel is a contemporary threat to Palestinians and if it going to govern territory with Palestinians in it it needs to treat them as Israelis.

      But that is not the BDS position. BDS's position is not that Israel needs better civil rights law but that the Israeli nation should be destroyed and replaced with an Arab Muslim nation. The 1st demand of BDS is ethnic cleansing, "Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall". You can take a human rights position or you can be part of a group that fully endorses racism as long as it is directed against groups it doesn't like. You can't without contradiction do both.

      Moreover arguing the BDS position is based on a fear of ethnic cleansing is ridiculous. There is probably nothing more likely to result in increased chance of ethnic cleansing or genocide than increasing external pressure on Israeli Jews. They are most likely to lash out at a minority population aggressively when they feel vulnerable and want to diminish the number of enemy fronts. The thing that would most diminish the chances of ethnic cleansing would be economic integration. A movement designed to try and decrease the chances of ethnic cleansing would be a pro-normalization movement focusing on creating economic integration between Israelis and Palestinians. Soda Stream and Ahava would be the heroes of such a movement.

      So while this is a nice argument it is precisely the opposite of what the reality of the strategy indicates. Fear of ethnic cleansing and opposition to ethnic cleansing is not what BDS comes from.

    • @JWalters

      Again, the BIG difference between your two cases is that the Franks attacked the Visigoths 1500 years ago, while the Zionists attacked the residents of Palestine within living memory

      I've agreed that one could potentially make a claim that these rights exist for a time period and then expire. The question is when do they expire. How long till they expire in your thinking? 20 years, 50 years, 100 years? For example if we say 100 years then the Palestinians are still fully liable and owe reparations for the ethnic cleansing of Hebron. The cost of developing Tel Aviv after the Jaffa riots would be on their account. If we say 50 years than the Nabka is out.

      So what exactly is the statute of limitations.

      As for the Nazis your claim was "Today there are Jews trying to recover art taken by the Nazis. Thus, Jews have claimed that possessions taken within this time window should be legally recoverable" And I've pretty clearly shown that is not the case. The Jewish collective body, the World Zionist Congress and the Israeli Knesset both reject your claim about how reparations should work and that all claims are paid.

      The USA government, which is not under the control of Jews, is the one pushing this issue. It is Baptists not Jews who are making the claim. Now of course individual Jews when given the opportunity to get stuff sometimes take it. But I see no reason to claim that Jews are asserting

      There are Palestinians living today with keys and deeds to homes and lands from which they were expelled.

      Now they don't, at least not in any meaningful numbers. A 30 year old in 1949 would be 96 today. People who live in squalid refugee camps don't make it to 96 with very few exceptions. What you have are people who have stories passed down to them generation after generation after generation of homes that no longer exist in villages that no longer exist. Among the most elderly you have children that have some real but mostly constructed memories of their village from a child's perspective.

      I have such deeds too. I have claims to property in Tzarist Russia and Ukraine. Want to see if any of those would be honored. In the USA I have inherited deeds to men's clothing stores that no longer exist on properties that were burned out in the 1960s too. Those deeds are worthless.

      The people who were expelled are dead. The people who expelled them are dead. This is a discussion between the great grandchildren of refugees and the great grandchildren of their expellers. What you really have in the refugee community though is legend about an imaginary Palestine that never existed.

      If we were talking about a real country and real facts for things like the citrus boom we would be looking at GDP numbers or exports. But you see the constant hyper emotional nonsense that anyone who denies the Palestinian narrative is a racist, colonialist, liar...

      Despite all my facts and logic being clearly aimed at applying the same standards of justice to Jews and non-Jews

      Your facts fell apart on initial examination. You are simply making stuff about holocaust reparations and saying Israel should be held to the same standard as what happens in your imaginary world. If we were to put a value of say 250k per person, for intentional murder the debt of Germany would have been $1.5t just for the murders. Another trillion or so in property destruction interest adjusted. Nothing like that ever happened. There was a settlement with Israel which the Jews accepted and then the USA pushed for some other stuff on specific properties lost by the ancestors of USA Jews.

      You want to talk about facts. Talk about facts. That means stuff that actually happened not stuff you wished happened or think happened that didn't. You aren't applying facts you are ignoring them.

      Let's take some examples:
      Bulgarian expulsion of their Turks in the 1980s
      Mauritania expelling the Fula, Toucouleur, Wolof, Soninke and Bambara
      Bhutan ethnic cleansing of the Lhotshampa
      etc... we don't see hundreds of UN resolutions. Rather the world simply accommodates the new situation, resettles the refugees and moves on. That's how it is handled. Today. By events at least 1 1/2 generations newer than the I/P.

      It is because you are ignoring facts that you now have to speculate about how my attachment to the Jewish state derails rationality. If I were being irrational and you rational, you would be showing me dates, tables, lists....

    • @Shingo

      There was no boost to the economy until the Europeans started arriving and what’s more, the Palestinians were not given any piece of the actions because the immigrant Zionists imposed a policy of Hafrada – meaning segregartion.

      The economic segregation in the Kibbutz collapsed during the citrus boom. And I should mention the boycott came in reaction to the Palestinian ethnic cleansing of the early 1920s. It didn't last long. The need for labor outstripped the Jewish population's ability to provide it and there started to be economic cooperation. That is in 1927-1936 Israel was evolving in the direction of either a neo-liberal economic or classic colonialism (as opposed to settler colonialism). In 1937 Israelis switched back to dumping Palestinian labor.

      This BTW is one of the big problem BDS case. BDS oversimplifies. It doesn't talk about "when" and thereby has things happening simultaneously that never did. The entire narrative of evil Zionists intent on stealing the land falls apart the moment you stay to a particular year.

      Nor was Palestine empty before the Zionists arrived. In fact, in 1905, the Zionist founders pointed out that every inch of arable land was being used and cultivated – so much for your racist claim that it was being neglected.

      I don't see how there is a contradiction there. My claim was that huge chunks of potentially arable land were not available in 1905 because of 500-1000 of neglect. And that the land that was still being farmed wasn't providing enough food. Your claim is that every inch of what remained of the arable land was being farmed. There is no contradiction there.

      That is demonstrably false given that the population did not migrate at all. Walter Lacquer pointed out that the problem the Zionists had was that the natural rate of growth of the Palestinian population was as great as the rate of Zionist immigration from Europe.

      The debate over migration vs. natural increase is going to require a when. Anything that broad is going to be false.

      JeffB: Your problem is that you need borders that were far stronger than the ones history shows because you are trying to defend the notion that there was some country called Palestine.

      I don’t need to defend it at all. There would never have been a Mandate for Palestine has the country of Palestine not already existed.

      There was no country of Palestine! It didn't exist. That's not even a question for debate. The administrative unites under the Ottomans didn't even contain a single unit called "Palestine": http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Ottoman_Syria_1918.png

    • @Shingo

      I'm going to comment that you slipping back into your rather rude style of conversation where the ratio or insults to responses rises dramatically. There are places where it is possible to talk to you. There are places where you like to throw puss at the screen and hear from your amen corner how wonderful your puss is. The amen corner prefers the puss. But I see no reason to respond to it. You want to talk then you are going to have to try to exercising some basic manners.

      JeffB: They stared fixing it immediately starting from the 1880s and were doing huge work on it during the early 1920s.

      Rubbish. There were barely 8,000 Jews in Palestine at the time

      That is false. For most of the 1920s there were over 100k Jews. There was no point in the 1880s where there were 8k Jews. Jews were consistently 8% of the population increasing to almost 1/4 by the end of the land clearings. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html

      and only a tiny percentage of them were even immigrants, so there was no work being done until well after the 1940s.

      The citrus boom was over by the 1940s (though of course it remained a part of Israel's infrastructure) as your compatriots below clearly show. Your times are off.

      Furthermore, Palestine was not a Turkish colony and there were no Turkish settlements. Your map shows no Turkish colonies.

      What do you think the Ottoman empire was? It was Turkey. The same way that the Roman Empire was Roman or the British Empire was England.

      JeffB I’m not sure if he is consistent on that point. He has raised it. [those who are not responsible for the crimes of their predecessors should not have to pay the price.] 684Certainly BDS in 2 of the 3 demands takes the opposite position.

      Absolutel rubbish. You can’t even be bothered to list which of the BDS demands take the opposite position because of the egg that you would have on your face.

      Let's disprove that one.

      1 -- Return of refugees as understood by BDS makes a claim of racial inheritance. People who are born in Syria, Lebanon... are to get benefits from people not even alive in 1949. The people who were expelled and the people who expelled them are dead.

      2 -- The expulsion of Jews from the settlements past 1967. Most of those settlements have been present for a full generation now. The people living there moved there because that's where their parent's (in a collective sense) lived. BDS is quite clear they deserve collective punishment for that. You for example were quite joyful abut "complete economic collapse" which is far more than Israel has done to Gaza.

      I don’t know what you mean attacking nations as an “artificial construct”. All of human society including law is mostly an artificial construct.

      False again. Human society is based on the recognition that humans need to organise and exist in communities to survive.

      That is not the reason there are separate nations. In what way does it assist humans to organize or survive that the French and the German language both exist? In what way does it assist humans or organize and survive that Christianity and Islam both exist?

      JeffB: In any case if you want to make an argument about human rights and not national rights than don’t talk about how the Palestinians were wronged and have a natural right to rule.

      Stop with the phoney arguments and straw men. No one said anyone has a natural right to rule. The question is whether one population has the right to displace another and rule over them.

      No it isn't. The Jews have expressed no particular interest in ruling over the Palestinians consistently. Nor is BDS for equality.

      What do you mean that’s it? If they become a majority, or if they were not expelled and were a majority and voted according to those demographics, would they not have the right to hold government?

      They have the right to hold government (this is in Israel proper) now. Under Shaked even more of them would have the right to vote and hold government.

      Or if in the future, the arab parties managed to form a majority coalition, would they not have the right to form a government?

      They have that right today.

      JeffB: Of course they were! The Indian wars ended when the Native Americans agreed to recognise the authority of the USA government.

      Shingo No, the wars ended when the populatio of the Native Americans was devasteated and they could no longer resist occupation.

      That is how it happened. Your claim was it didn't happen. You are contradicting yourself.

      JeffB: They now work within the American society as part of it. Similarly the Canadian indigenous. I don’t know the details of Australia but I suspect the Australians also wouldn’t tolerate their indigenous acting fully sovereign.

      Shingo: In all the cases you listed, the indigenous population are recognised as the original owners of the land and given full citizenship. There is no distinctions between any race, religion or sop called peoplehood or nationhood. In fact, in all cases, the natives are granted additional privileges not available to those of European descent.

      That is correct. They are given citizenship and allowed to participate in the new society after they acknowledged the victory of the new society over the old. Most Native Americans got their citizenship in 1924. 1924 was generations after their family had lost the Indian wars and they were mostly culturally assimilated. Your claim before was that they were allowed to continue to exist as full sovereign nations within America, Australia and Canada The United States does not recognize the indigenous rights to govern the land. As a matter of gift they grant them some tracks of self government and allow them to participate in USA society. Which if what Israel is doing.

      So your claim that Israel is somehow worse than the Indian wars is disproven. You are failing to understand what happened in the Indian wars.

    • @JWalters

      I'm going to outdent because this is another good argument.

      Your reasoning is:
      1. Israel’s injustices were in the past, like the Franks and Visigoths.
      2. Other countries have injustices in their pasts, and people today don’t try to correct those.
      3. So people should stop complaining about Israel’s injustices as they have stopped complaining about those others.

      Claiming the injustices are in the past in the same way as injustices toward the Visigoths by the Franks is incorrect in two relevant ways.

      I'll grant the summary.

      First, there is a pattern of major Israeli crimes ongoing today. Today’s crimes are not in the past in any meaningful sense. Today’s pattern of crimes is an extension and part of the pattern begun with Israel’s “founding” crimes.

      Your use of crime here is begging the question regarding those past events. We don't consider the descendant's of the Frank's hold on France to be a "crime" we consider it to be history. In the case of Jews we consider it to be a crime. That is precisely the problem. You are trying to assert a principle that French people have rights that Jews do not. That is naked anti-semitism.

      As for a pattern established in the past. Same as other countries the Franks and then the French have a long pattern of defending French borders, the borders stolen from the Visigoths. WWI and WWII were them continuing the pattern of crime if we are going to apply the same language.

      You claim the “founding” crimes should be consigned to an irrelevant past, like the case of the Franks and Visigoths. This brings us to the second error. Today there are Jews trying to recover art taken by the Nazis. Thus, Jews have claimed that possessions taken within this time window should be legally recoverable. Their loss to the Nazis occurred BEFORE the residents of Palestine had their land taken by the Zionists. So their time window includes the Palestinians’ loss of land. Therefore the Palestinians should have the same right of recovery as the Jews working to recover their lost art. These Jews are not saying, “My art was stolen in the past, so I’ll just drop the case.” And neither should the Palestinians have to. Jewish legal actions have established that the statute of limitations does not yet apply to crimes within that time window.

      I would agree with you that were Israel to institutionally agree with those claims against the Germans that would be a contradiction. I don't know that Israel has had that position. To the best of my knowledge that's a USA position not an Israeli one. As far as I know Israel's position s that the West Germany paid Israel a sum of 3 billion marks plus 450 million marks paid to the World Jewish Congress was German's repartitions for slave labor and Jewish property that was stolen by the Nazis.

      So here we have a simple dispute on fact. I'm not agreeing with you that Israel makes such claims. Certainly individual Jews do and the USA has backed them but I don't believe Israel has.

      On a related point, if the injustices to the Visigoths by the Franks should be dropped due to time passage, then the injustices to the Jews by the Romans should certainly also be dropped, since it was much farther in the past.

      Absolutely. They go together. One can assert a racial right for Palestinian refugees but that creates one for Jews. One can deny such a racial right for Palestinians and thus also it denies one for Jews. I don't personally believe in racial rights but they get asserted quite often.

      More generally, the argument that “other people have gotten away with the same crime in the past” is not a legitimate defense in a court of law.

      That's not quite the analogy. The analogy would be situations where the DA refused to prosecute or courts refused to pass strict sentences. And that a defense. The 8th Amendment is frequently used when a person is held to a standard much higher than others. For example we saw that just recently when William MacDonald was being prosecuted for Oral Sodomy the courts held that the State of Virginia's unwillingness to regularly prosecute crimes against nature made them unable to prosecute in this specific case.

      Finally, you addressed none of the points in my previous post regarding your claim about the “worthiness” factor.

      I don't know what claim I didn't address. Possibly it was the Jewish worthiness has nothing to do with state formation... In which case I'm going cite again history. The world is filled with nations waring about their borders. The return of China to a single country and the end of the three kingdoms is possibly the most violent episode in world history (WWII is the other major candidate). Again it is history no one says we should reverse the wars of the 3 Kingdoms and redivide China because the violence was "unjustified".

      BDSers are not engaging in an abstract morality discussion in history class. Their policy is that the governments of the world should gang up against the state of Israel so as to annihilate the Jewish nation and replace the Jewish state with a Muslim Arab state. BDS aims for something on par with what America did to Iraq, except some of them believe that a it will all be peaceful.

      I don't have political arguments about the "justification" for the Iranian Revolution. In 2015 my choices are either to accept the consequences of that Revolution and look to make policy adjustments and thereby legitimize the revolution; or to totally reject it and aim for regime change with possible border adjustments.

      My response is that the entire structure of your argument about regarding worthiness is holding Jews to a unique standard.

    • @Donald

      It is, of course, disingenuous and inaccurate to claim that all of Palestine was a hellhole until the Zionists came

      I didn't say hellhole. I pointed to the signs of under development. Palestine was a pretty retched place. That's why a small group of Eastern European fanatics led by Western European weirdos was able to setup a mini state. Its lack of political development, was why when the Ottoman empire fell it wasn't freed like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt... And of course it was far less developed in 1880 than in 1920.

      if we redid history without Western imperialism there would still be railroads built and technological advances and trade in all the places where people of European descent came

      If we redo history without imperialism all sorts of things change. You have no idea what happens and neither do I. The European West was formed by resisting the imperialism of the Muslims to the South, the Vikings to the North and the tribes to the east. Imperialism is not a Western invention.

      to imagine that Zionist improvements made it okay to expel the Palestinians is nonsense.

      I wasn't the one who said that. You have the criteria of reversibility. If you consider your own criteria nonsense then that shows how you are contradicting yourself. The "Sophomore games" are pointing out that your morality conflicts with itself. You aren't remotely consistent in your views. You arguments are convincing only to someone who already agrees to ignore consistency of approach.

      You are better than most MWers. But that's a low bar. Far better is a totally consistent morality, what you original aimed for, a universal morality that applies to all people in all situations equally. And that comes from embracing the 19th century view of self determination. That all nations should aim to either merge with other nations until they have the the ability to stand alone and once that ability is achieved that ability grants them the right (and now in a meaningful enforceable sense) to form a state that governs in that nation's interest. Human rights is then layered on top of that, how the nation-state treats individuals within it.

      A genuine universal morality and one that worked for centuries until Liberals in embracing anti-colonialism ended up absorbing 3rd world racism back into western Liberalism.

    • @Shingo

      Not all of Palestine had problems with malaria, but suffice to say, malaria was common in many parts of the world at the time and the Zionists did not fix the problem for another decade.

      Another decade from when. They stared fixing it immediately starting from the 1880s and were doing huge work on it during the early 1920s. Their agricultural work is what led to the citrus boom.

      Furthermore, Palestine was not a Turkish colony and there were no Turkish settlements.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/OttomanEmpireIn1683.png/1920px-OttomanEmpireIn1683.png

      How so Jeff? Donald’s morality is perfectly consistent with the notion that those who are not responsible for the crimes of their predecessors should not have to pay the price.

      I'm not sure if he is consistent on that point. He has raised it. Certainly BDS in 2 of the 3 demands takes the opposite position.

      It seem you don’t understand the difference between justice and collective punishment, which is not surprise given you are such a rabid Zionist

      I agree with you. I don't see a difference other than
      justice = stuff speaker agrees with
      collective punishment = stuff the speaker doesn't agree with

      So what? The notion of nationhood is largely an artificial and tribal construct. International recognition of human rights is not contingent on people identifying with any nationhood.

      I don't know what you mean attacking nations as an "artificial construct". All of human society including law is mostly an artificial construct. The only natural constructs are those arising from geography in the most material sense.

      In any case if you want to make an argument about human rights and not national rights than don't talk about how the Palestinians were wronged and have a natural right to rule. They might have a right to greater civil rights within Israel but that's it. This entire argument by your BDS compatriots is about about blood guilt and racial claims to land.

      What an asinine and irrelevant line of argument!! Why don’t we ask how you can make your mother unfeel the pain she went through during childbirth?

      Childbirth would be another irreversible process. Donald's original claim was reversibility was key. Citing another reversible process doesn't prove anything.

      None of the indigenous populations in the US, Canada or Australia were ever required to: 1. come to terms with the existence of a new society on top of their old one.

      Of course they were! The Indian wars ended when the Native Americans agreed to recognize the authority of the USA government. With a few exceptions which often led to other much smaller scale massacred, they agreed to petition the government of the USA for redress of grievances rather than war against the USA. They now work within the American society as part of it. Similarly the Canadian indigenous. I don't know the details of Australia but I suspect the Australians also wouldn't tolerate their indigenous acting fully sovereign.

      Similarly as far as reducing their demands and merging. That is what they had to do.

      Your 3 points you are flat out wrong on.

    • @Bornajoo

      I'm not sure what's in that is racist. The Mizrahi Jews are the same race. Pro-Western perhaps.

      @Shingo

      There is no contradiction... The Levant people that exist were native to the Levant. There was migration within the Levant when the Jews started boosting the economy. Same as the car economy caused migration to Detroit, though Detroit wasn't empty before and the relative decrease in American car manufacturing in Detroit has caused migration away from Detroit. People move where the jobs are within their society. The Levant was the Palestinians society for many of them (especially those not the south). More broadly, the entire Ottoman Empire and the places that had formerly been Ottoman was where migrants came from.

      Your problem is that you need borders that were far stronger than the ones history shows because you are trying to defend the notion that there was some country called Palestine.

    • @oldgeezer

      Except he didn’t say that Jeff. He clearly said
      “Their govt. can subsidize their exit from the occupied territory – See more at: link to mondoweiss.net”

      I don’t think your intellectual dishonesty is a sign of anything other than a complete lack of intellect and character.

      I addressed a line away from the part you quoted. Which means you saw it and pretended not to. If you want to see intellectual dishonesty look in the mirror.

    • @Shingo

      She also supports the ethnic cleansing of areas to make those areas larger and persevere a Jewish majority.

      The areas are already fixed and the number of Palestinians in them don't threaten the Jewish majority.

      Rubbish. She supports the occupation, which means that those areas are also subject to Israeli laws exclusively aimed at non Jews. So like you, she supports apartheid.

      No she does not support the continuation of military rule. You are simply making stuff up.

Showing comments 1978 - 1901
Page: