Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1949 (since 2013-01-23 13:17:29)

Showing comments 1949 - 1901

  • 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:

      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.



      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:
      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 . 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:
      last term:
      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:
      wikipedia provides a so-so summary of the status:

      Here is a legal brief covering the broader issues:

      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:

      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."

    • @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. . 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 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.

      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: .

    • @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.

      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 ) 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":

    • @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.

      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.

      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.


      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”

      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.

    • Page: 19
    • @Donald

      I'm going to outdent this one since it is an often repeated point of mine and you are actually addressing it. I’m also going to respond out of order. You make a point at the beginning which is factually false, and the discussion of it is complicated but I don’t know that we need to go down that side track.

      There are no serious moral claims regarding events that occurred that long ago because the world has changes so much in the intervening millennia… There are moral claims regarding events that happened within a few generations, especially if the original conditions still prevail

      Well first off before you were proposing universal morality. A morality that applies regardless of state to situations. What you are now proposing is not a universal morality but rather a situational morality based on a policy of non-reversibility. You don’t spell it your principle but seem to be meaning something like: if a situation cannot be reversed it should be allowed to stand but that evils should be reversed as long as they are possible to reverse.

      The problem with introducing that in addition to it undermining your claim to universality is that under that criteria Israel doesn't qualify. Before the Zionists got to Palestine it was a malaria ridden dirt poor Turkish colony with a migrant serf farming population from the Levant. Neither the Jewish people who evolved into Israeli nor the Levant people who evolved into Palestinians existed as nations in the proper sense prior to Zionism. There were no Palestinians then. There were no Israelis then. Hebrew was not a social language. The Christian Palestinian minority was thriving and about to become even more socially empowered because of the Germans and Russians... How do you return to that?

      Or get even more specific, take something basic like farming and the population. The Eastern European Zionists in the Kibbutzes in the 1920s engage in a massive operation of clearing swampland and redirecting the flow of water. They raising the carrying capacity of the land by something like 400-500 undoing 1000 years of neglect and mismanagement in a decade. The population explodes in that generation as Palestine moves from having a starvation problem to being a large food exporter. What does putting things back mean, try and regrow the swamps? That means dropping the carrying capacity of the land by something 90%, what do you do with the population that lives their now once you reverse the food production system?

      Your answer is going to be we let the Palestinians keep it. Well then if we are reversing the changes, how do we unkill the many Jews who gave their lives to malaria or damaging their their bodies forever so that future generations of Jews live in what is today an agriculturally rich environment? How do we change the culture of the Jews of Israel that evolved in the 1940s from their collective sense of togetherness and ownership that comes from having watched their parents and their parent’s friends giving their lives for this land? How do you reverse that? Those children of the 1940s, the ones who grew up on those farms literally paid for by their parents blood and livers, were the Nabka generation, the founders of the state of Israel. They are the ones who don’t want to hear from al-Husseini how because his followers came out of the right vagina their parents died for nothing; which is your reverse policy. They passed that attitude (which amounts to a rejection of BDS’s claims against them) along to the millions of Jews who came from all over the world. That rejection and assertion that Israel is Israeli became core to Israeli culture, part of the public myth. How do you reverse that to make those Jews today understand that should’t own the carrying capacity they created in favor of the descendants of the people who neglected the land and created the poverty in the first place?

      In what sense does anything like the original conditions still prevail? If your entire claim hangs on reversibility, being able to prove reversibility is not a small issue you can waive off. It is pretty obvious that the change is irreversible (at reasonable cost, everything can be done at some cost). All BDS proposes to do is destroy one existing nation to help another imaginary one it wants to create over it. That's not reversing an evil (even if I were to grant that Zionism were an evil) that's just revenge.

      You can complain about how I’m “twisting morality” but I’m doing is just pointing out how flimsy your claims to morality are. Last post it was universal, now it is a situational morality. You are not going to convince me with error laden self contradictory moral claims like this, and you shouldn’t be able to convince me with such claims. Once you take BDS out of your little cultist circle the case is going to be examined. And anyone who examines the case fairly is going to see that Israel is just another country which doesn’t get along well with an indigenous minority. Nothing unusual at all. The issue is going to resolve the way these things normally resolve:
      1) The indigenous minority comes to terms with the existence of a new society on top of their old one, reduces their demands to a level the dominant society can accept and then merges with the dominant society to become part of the new nation over a period of generations.
      2) The indigenous minorities leave and merge with another nation becoming part of that nation over a period of generations.

      Seeds grow into seedlings grow into saplings grow into adults who die to become snags and decompose into debris. There is nothing immoral about that at any phase.

      Without claiming that the Nakba is on the same level as the Holocaust, nobody thinks the Holocaust is remote history and that we should no longer care about justice or reparations to the extent that reparations can be paid.

      For the reparations you are talking about. I do for one. I don’t care about some dead German's family give some life insurance policy to some dead Jew's family. Or if some dead German’s family returns a piece of art or not. I find the whole idea disgusting of trying to buy off 6m murders with a few art pieces. That’s not justice or reperations. We aren’t talking 3 deaths. We are talking the equivalent of 3 deaths per hour every hour 24x7x365 from the 1940s till the year 2200. No you don’t get to pay a small sum and call that “reperations”.

      The reparations that were on par with the crime was giving us Judaea back — Israel is the reperations. Claim is settled by Israel not by art or some life insurance. The Christian proved themselves unable to handle a Jewish minority and they paid reparations in the late 40s. Germany in particular in the 1950s helped Israel absorb the Mizrahi Jews, and get off the ground economically which was a huge benefit. Today mainly all the Christian world needs to do is not welch on the deal.

      This is bull and you know it. But let me have some fun with it. Go back 20 generations and theoretically, ignoring inbreeding, I have one million ancestors. Go back 30 and it would be a billion, which is probably more people than were alive 30 generations back. So inevitably there is inbreeding as generations pass, but obviously if you go back 100 generations, if you have any ancestors from a given region you are probably related to virtually everyone in that region back then.

      Now the nitpick. Not to the same degree. Family wealth, really matters long term in terms of genetic reproduction Having lots of grandchildren of standing compounds generation after generation The wealthy in times past had more children who lived and those wee wealthier and thus a higher percent chance of their children living to reproduce. Some people as you go back really are vastly more successful at the DNA game than others. So for example Charlemagne may have had 100k as many 10 generation descendants as a typical peasant. After that it probably evens out, but he starts 100k ahead. Thus you are vastly more descended from him than anyone else alive at this time especially the bulk of the "everybody in the region".

      So your relatives who were the oppressors probably are disproportionately represented.

      As for Israelis, I agree that Israelis born in Israel have the right to be there. It’s the only home they’ve got. What their parents or grandparents might have done isn’t their fault. But if they continue to oppress Palestinians, claim the right to move into the WB and not allow Palestinians to move into Israel, and continue to profit by this, then they aren’t innocent.

      I’d agree. Israel has to be humane where they can and more equal. Obviously if Israel is going to have huge chunks of their population live in the West Bank then it is best should annex it. But that’s of course going against International Law. Yet another example of how the UN’s positions undermine the ability to crete humane solutions. Israel is doing poorly in some respects and deserving of some criticism on human rights. I have no problem with moves to reform Israel, they are human and fallible. There is always room for improvement. But a desire to improve Israel has nothing to do with the nihilism and race hatred that is BDS.

    • @Donald

      A non-sequitur. You can be well-educated and a racist

      Let me quote the key point from your line line: American liberals to criticize and even mock white southerners and Boers as stupid racists Your point was that the same characterization was not being used against Jews. My point was the stupid would be a problem against someone more educated. Same argument as I would have made about your "uncouth" characterization if they were going after business class Republicans who are socio-economically well ahead of liberals.

      They can't use the uncouth, stupid... line of attack because they are outgunned educationally. (On stupid. On uncouth it is a tossup. The average non-Jewish American Liberal probably has a better pedigree than the Average American Jew but there is a also a socio-economic aspect to uncouth).

    • @JWalters

      “I find the BDS position that Jews are unworthy of a country racist.” – JeffB

      Let’s stipulate that Jews are as “worthy” in every respect as any other ethnic group, that they are no worse than the rest of humanity. It does not follow that Jews can force massive injustice on innocent people in order to have a Jewish country.

      You are doing precisely what I was complaining about. Applying a standard uniquely to Jews. The injustice already happened, though I'm not willing to grant the "innocent" part. If we are talking about the past here then why should the Franks have been able to force a massive injustice on the Visigoths to have a French country? No one talks like that. Destroying the Jews for failing to meet a standard that virtually every other country fails to meet is not applying universal morality it is ignoring universality.

      The original inhabitants of this planet are anaerobic bacteria. Everyone else got here through 10,000 waves of murderous settlement. Either we give the anaerobic bacteria their planet back or we accept that we don't reverse of murderous settlements. Humans are a migratory species. The migrate in mass as conditions dictate and those mass migrations change the cultures of pieces of land. Happens all over the planet, every country is a result of it. Moreover, well over 1/2 the countries that that exists today will likely be destroyed over the next 1000 years as a result of mass migrations. I see no reason to treat the Jewish mass migration any different than the rest.

      There is simply no logic there. Specifically in this instance, Jews’ “worthiness” level is not a valid justification for the massive crimes committed in establishing Israel.

      OK. And what was the justification that the Palestinians used when they took territory from the Byzantine nation that existed there previously. What about those "crimes"?

      Further, most people objecting to Israel do not claim Jews are “unworthy” in any way. So your premise is also false.

      Of course they do. They refuse to treat Jews just like any other people. You did it in this very post repeatedly.

      Your rationality is probably being derailed by your emotions, the usual cause of derailed rationality. Perhaps you grew up subjected to the standard Zionist campaign of deception and emotional manipulation.

      Yeah that's probably it. You got me. It is definitely my lack of rationality that causes me not to buy into your contradictions and historical lies.

    • @Donald

      The Jewish claim going back to the Romans is idiotic, JeffB. Nobody keeps track of where all their ancestors were living 2000 years ago.

      You are the one who wanted universal values. If they standards are going to be applied under universal values they need to be applied equally to all. If settlement is illegitimate it was illegitimate 5000 years ago. If there is some obligation to reverse settlement that passes through generations then those 1 generation removed and those 100 generations removed are equal.

      Secondly, the question is not ancestors the question is nation. The Palestinians are making a national claim not an individual claim. Individually the Palestinian claim is terrible since huge numbers of them migrated 1880s-1930s. The Nabka involved very few people all of whose great grandparents were from Palestine. We know where the Jewish nation lived 2200 years ago.

      Me personally I'd like to dismiss national claims to land for groups since I think they are racist crap. Instead I'd just go by individual rights: that everybody should live in freedom where they were born. That to me is universal values. It also goes completely against the whole Palestinian narrative that their race owns Palestine. If you don't like national claims you disagree with the heart of their case. If you do like national claims then what is applied to the Jews of Israel can easily be applied to the Palestinians.

    • @Donald

      The biggest difference is that the analogy between SA and the Jim Crow South was seen as a close one and it was easy for American liberals to criticize and even mock white southerners and Boers as stupid racists, but there has been a type of political correctness which stops many liberals in their tracks when it comes to pointing out racism in Israel and its American supporters. That’s a misguided liberal reaction to anti-semitism. I’ve seen people gladly bash the Christian Zionists, because they are in their comfort zone, ridiculing conservative white gentile Americans (often white southerners) who seem really reluctant to take the next step and criticize Israel’s Jewish supporters. I’ve even seen idiots feel sorry for Israel because they have the Christian Zionists in their corner, as though poor little Israel must feel deeply embarrassed at having such uncouth supporters.

      Let me start with a quick comment. Of all the political demographics in America social liberal who are economic liberal; the ones who are most likely to identity as "liberal" are by far the most educated. Liberals are especially well educated relative to income. But their demographics in terms of education pales in comparison: 58% of Jews are college graduates, including 28% who say they have earned a post-graduate degree. By comparison, 29% of U.S. adults say they graduated from college, including 10% who have a post-graduate degree. And given that Jews skew older and education levels have been increasing I suspect the numbers are even more striking age adjusted. Liberals incidentally skew younger. It is going to be hard to play the stupid ignorant racist card against Jews, the average liberal is well outgunned by the average Jew especially their own age.

      I also think Jews care about Israel too much. You see the same kind of caution among moderate and conservative Democrats on the gun issue. The gun nuts oppose the position of 90+% of Americans, but they gun nuts are willing to shift from Democrats to Republicans over the gun issue (example Colorado 2014) while the anti-gun Republican women aren't generally willing to vote Democratic on the gun issue at current levels of gun violence and thus compensate.

      Jews will walk away from the Liberal coalition over Israel and I think most Liberals (though not the anti-Zionists) know that.

    • @Andrew r

      'Its not genocide because those are bad people who deserve it' is being an apologist for genocide not an opponent of genocide. If you are in favor of genocide for people you don't like, you are in favor of genocide as a policy tool. No one ever favors genocide for people they do like.

    • @Donald

      If she opposes a 2SS then she should support 1 man, 1 vote for Palestinians in a 1SS.

      Well she doesn't want either a 1SS or a 2SS based on the 1967 maps But she supports 1 man, 1 vote for Golan, Area-C and Jerusalem. She wants 1 man, 1 vote in any area subject to Israeli law. In areas not subject to Israeli law, the inhabitants get to decide amongst themselves with essentially no interference by Israel how they choose to decide on what laws they want. That can be an Arab dictatorship, a Muslim dictatorship, a democracy... whatever they want.

      but settlers who were part of Israel’s illegal settlement project

      There you go trying to sneak racism in. The UN is anti-colonial. "Illegal" in this context is endorsing racism not opposing it.

      In most countries the government is considered eligible to determine what is "legal" or "illegal" not some uninvolved 3rd party. Part of granting Jews equality is granting them the same status as any other governing community. So for example when Utah was an independent self governing territory the fact that the USA didn't agree with their laws didn't make the Mormons illegal. They were following the law of the place they lived. When Utah wanted to became part of the United States then and only did the USA's opinion matter. And that was resolved by the territory of Utah and the government of the USA.

      If there is a 2SS the settlers are inhabitants. If the Palestinians wants to pursue property claims which predate the existence of the Palestinian state then the Jews likewise can and all of Palestine is Jewish taken "illegally" by the Romans.

      I gather there are a few interesting people on the Israeli right who seem to favor annexing “Judea and Samaria” and giving the Palestinians citizenship and equal rights. Is she one?

      Yes she is one of those right-wingers. She's on record again and again and again in detail. You get an incredibly distorted perception of Israel from MW.

    • @DaBakr

      The real problem is how bad their analogies are. The whole BDS movement is based on a few similarities that most fall apart under inspection between South Africa and Israel. But when one tries to look at the case of South Africa and notice how truly dissimilar the two cases are then suddenly out come the curse words and insults and analogies don't matter. I've tried again and again to walk through the actual history of the anti-Apartheid movement and show how the dissimilarities between the South African and Israeli case were in areas absolutely crucial to the "success" of the anti-Apartheid struggle.

      The civil rights movement is even a worse analogy. American blacks argued forcefully to be allowed to become fully American and join American culture. If the Palestinians would do what the blacks did there would't be an I/P conflict. The analogy would be if American blacks insisted because their ancestors had gotten to North American before most of the immigrants they should be entitled to special black laws and have full equality under all the other law and the right to import all of Africa into America and the right to chop off huge chunks of America to create a black only country.

    • @Donald

      You may think you are defending the NYT and Israel, but your post is, if anything, a harsher assessment than North’s.

      2 points on that one! I was making the point she was mainstream. You are quite correct that you can turn that around and make a far harsher critique of Israel off the fact that she is mainstream.

      I really wasn't trying to make much of a moral point on Shaked just a point as to where the median voter and median NYTimes reader was.

      But I will address morality in my response. I don't consider her a racist. Like most Zionists, Israeli is the Jewish state in the same way France is a French state and she is unapologetic about that the same way that a Frenchmen would be unapologetic that France is French. It is IMHO racist to deny Jews equality not assert that they should be equal. She applies this notion of equality to Palestinians. So for example, while she opposes a two state solution she's assert that if there is going to be a two state solution that Jews in Palestine should be have the same status as Arabs who live in Israel.

      I'd consider that anti-racist not racist. I think she is a universalist in an Israeli context. This is the commercial from her first campaign for American-Israelis (English speaking)
      and you can see the obvious message of inclusion and universality. Her lines, "it doesn't matter how you dress or where you live" clearly pointing away from the ethnic and class parties that characterized the last generation of Israeli politics and that's trying to move away from. That's not the sort of campaign a racist would run on. They wouldn't be trying to remove ethnic differences. Since that campaign she's been strong supporter of outreach to rightwing Mizrahi who are after all the same race as Palestinians.

      I find the BDS position that Jews are unworthy of a country racist. I find the BDS position that Jews can never enjoy full equality racist. I think rejecting that is rejecting racism not siding with it. The core of your problem is that the "universal rights" to which you claim to believe conflict with the racism of anti-colonialism. You can believe in universality or you can support in anti-colonialism but not both.

    • @James

      Ayelet Shaked is a sophomore. She ran in the Jewish Home primary against seated members of the cabinet and kicked their asses. She's a very talented politician and well liked. Jewish Home is well liked by the NYTimes readership. The NYTimes reflects the position of its readership and its readership is well to the right of you. The American population is even more to the right of you on this issue than the NYTimes readership.

      Your "Imaginary Selma Rudoren" is to right of where the American people were in 1965, especially in the NorthEast. Legal equality had a substantial majority support in the North a century before Selma. Most of the northern states never even had anti-miscegenation laws. If you want an analogy you want to pick a southern newspaper on civil rights or an issue in which the NYTimes would have been in favor of the discrimination. Say something like their coverage of the animal rights movement or abortion where they do believe in discrimination. And you will find them being quite comfortable with pro-choice or anti-animal rights politicians. Or go further back and pick an 1765 paper in the North on the Indian wars: that's a far better analogy because there you have an indigenous ethnic group refusing to assimilate into the now dominant society. The vast majority of northern papers are going to be extremely hostile to England's attempts to hold back the colonists from western expansion.

      The NYTmes accurately described her positions: That translates, in policy terms, into promoting Israeli annexation of most of the occupied West Bank and ousting African asylum-seekers. It means curtailing the power of the Supreme Court, giving politicians more sway over judicial appointments and prohibiting foreign funding of advocacy groups — which could put the main internal critics of Israeli actions out of business. And it entails a “nationality bill” that many see as disenfranchising Israel’s Arab minority, about 20 percent of the population. They didn't harp in a negative way and try and demonize her, because don't hate Israelis and Jews. They want to cover her like they would a popular politician from a rightwing party because they consider Israeli a country like any other and Jews a people like any other. You don't and so...

      Finally on genocide. They even mentioned the post you are focusing on. But politicians are allowed to retract. People speak hastily. Isn't that your whole point about Steven Salaita that his teaching shouldn't be judged by his equally genocidal tweets, which he incidentally did not retract? She made statements in the heat of war, they either were misunderstood or she thought better of them, and then retracted them. She's stated her well thought carefully considered positions many times and those are the positions of her party.

  • 'Forward' reports what 'NYT' covers up: Jews for BDS
    • @Kris

      Wrote a long reply to your question. Reply got censored. Your question deserves an answer but I guess you won't be getting one.

      In the meanwhile ask yourself why people wants to live in their country. What is the connection between the French people and France or the Chinese people and China?

    • @RobertHenryEller

      The purpose of the American civil rights movement was to get African Americans full legal equality, enforcement of that legal equality and effective social mobility. That is to incorporate African Americans into Americans the same way other minorities had merged in.

      The purpose of the BDS movement is the destruction of Israel. A complete overthrow of the government, slashing huge chunks of Israeli territory and giving it to hostile foreign entities and the replacement of the population of Israel by a hostile alien population. And that's their admitted goals, not the likely outcome of their policies. That's in American terms is far worse than what the Nazis, the Soviets or Al Qaeda would want to do. It would be like siding with a Mexican Nationalist Front / Nazi alliance in World War II (pretending they existed at the same time) to take over the SouthWest and the rest of the USA respectively.
      Absolutely an American who was doing that would be a traitor.

    • @Kris

      So you think that a “tribal identity” and “a cultural preservation movement” justify the Zionist project of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and stealing everything that they own,

      There is 3 things here.

      1) What was the goal of the Zionist project
      2) Given Palestinian resistance what did the Zionist project need to do if they were going to accomplish this goal.
      3) Specific claims like "stole everything they owned"

      I'd disagree that the Zionist project steals everything they own. Palestine was a devastatingly poor country with in the mid 19th century. If you look at the comparatives like Jordan, Egypt, Syria it is pretty likely that almost all of Israeli GDP owes itself to the Zionist project. Even with the massive economic discrimination and the violence I'd say that Zionism is likely a net financial benefit to the Palestinians. This is an argument that's going to have to get into the numbers though to make. If you want to go there it is going to be data.

      Now onto (1). Contrary to BDS claims I don't think the Zionist project in the mid 19th century believed in ethnic cleansing. Certainly the idea of transfer was around but it was always a minority view. I don't believe, based on the very detailed history we have today, that there was any substantial moves towards even possible implementation of a transfer program until 1942. I don't believe the political positions that backed up putting transfer on the table happened until 1936. So what I would say is was not the Zionist project but the situations that arose between 1936 and 1948 that moved transfer from a distant minority position to a policy the Zionist proto-state was carrying out. I think it is dishonest (and I'm not blaming you for this, I'm blaming the BDS movement's educational materials more broadly) to handle "ethnic cleansing" as something intrinsic to the Zionist program and not a situational approach which arose from a particular historical circumstance.

      The potential of transfer you can blame Zionism for. The reality of transfer I'd blame Palestinian political and military incompetence for. During that 13 year periods and in others both before and after they have had a political position incompatible with their military means. Now we can still say that the Zionist project is responsible for shaking up the basket, putting the Palestinians where political mistakes become potentially irreversible national tragedies that's fair. Blaming Zionism as a concept entirely for how the 1930s and 40s turn out is not.

      The Palestinians have gotten themselves into one destructive conflict after another. There is a tendency among liberals not to hold brown people to the same standards that white governments are held to as far as competence and blame everything on white government. I'm not a racist, I consider competence part of the criteria for being worthy of self government. The Palestinians have consistently not effectively evaluated the situation on the ground and responded in a way to maximize their national advantage. I'm going to start from a perspective when we discuss transfer. And that might be more left-right (even though I'm a moderate Democrat I'm still way to the right of MWers) than Zionist / anti-Zionist.

      What difference can it make WHERE you perform your cultural activity of worshipping a God you don’t believe in?

      Let me flip that around to see what your accept. Assume 500 years from now the Palestinians end up in a small territory in Africa that was importing labor. What difference does it make to their culture where they live and exist?

      Judaism because it evolved in Judaea has strong ties to Judaea and can't properly function in other locations. If you are going to pick a spot to make Jews a nation, the place to pick unless there is very good reason to pick some other spot is Palestine. There were suggestions in the late 19th century and early 20th for other spots. They lost ( ) No one is going to reverse that now and move the Jews. They live, they die they do so in Palestine.

      And why should anyone not in your group care?

      They shouldn't. I'd be thrilled if Christians like yourself would stop obsessing over Jews and stop caring about them at all. Jews are just another small tribe. The idea that Jewish actions are of cosmic importance and thus Israel is worthy of all this attention is anti-Semitic. I can't wait until a century or so from now there is a news item and the announcer feels it necessary to tell the audience where Israel is and what a Jew is.

      Jews are the size of the Volga Tatars, Bulgarians, Balochis, Hui. Please start treating us like that and not like some major country worth all this attention.

    • @Kris

      I don't know when I've been unclear. You asked me a question about Hillel and I gave you a long and detailed answer. This question is much easier.

      Judea is a geographical region which encompasses chunks of Palestine.

      Judaea was a country formed by the residents of Persion Yehud Medinata when they got their independence. That country is in the Judea geographical region.

      Judaeans are the ethnicity of the people of Judaea. Jews are a modern group of people who identify themselves as the descendants of the people of Judaea. A tribal identity.

      After the Roman destruction of Judaea the culture of Judaea including its religion was formalized and preserved in a new religion Rabbinic Judaism, which calls itself "Judaism" today because there are no other forms widely practiced. Judaism being a cultural preservation movement is a religion of practice not belief.

      Apostasy from the religion is considered to be renouncing citizenship in the tribe. Apostasy is a more serious act than not practicing. Netanyahu isn't religious that doesn't mean he isn't Jewish. You BTW have the same concept in mainline paedobaptist Christianity. There is a distinction your church would make between someone who is not active on the rolls of any particular church and someone who has been actively excommunicated by your denomination.

      Finally on Tony. You'll notice in that quote I accused Tony of being an apostate not just accused him of being non-religious. I'm the former, I was accusing Tony of being the Jewish equivalent of the latter. Practicing the religion does matter in evaluating whether someone has renounced their membership in the tribe. Satmar Jews are traitors in a theoretical political sense. But in the religious sense they strongly uphold Judaism and in a practical political sense they are generally Zionists they have strong ties to Israel and frequently travel to or live in Israel.


      The reason you are confused Kris is you are buying into BDS propaganda. In their view Judaism is a religion with no particular association to a place. Jews are to them just a bunch of people who practice the religion of Judaism. In the 19th century that was the way Judaism was heading, Hitler altered the course of Jewish evolution. But that was not prior to Zionism the dominant form of Judaism. Under the BDS theory virtually none of the people who founded Israel were Jews. Jews don't accept that limited definition and never have. The name of the place is embedded in the name of the religion. It is also embedded in the word Jew as well: as French developed from Latin: Iudea -> Gyu -> Giu -> Iuu -> Iuw -> Iew -> Jew

      The reality is that Judaism the religion has always pointed to Zion:
      By the rivers of Babylon
      we sit down and weep
      when we remember Zion.
      On the poplars in her midst
      we hang our harps,
      for there our captors ask us to compose songs;
      those who mock us demand that we be happy, saying:
      “Sing for us a song about Zion!”
      How can we sing a song to the Lord
      in a foreign land?
      If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
      may my right hand be crippled!
      May my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth,
      if I do not remember you,
      and do not give Jerusalem priority
      over whatever gives me the most joy.

  • 'NYT' and 'MSNBC' leave Marco Rubio backer's Israel agenda out of the story
    • @Phil

      Let me help you out.

      Till our press even addresses the issue of the Israel lobby, people are going to form dark and conspiratorial views of the extent of its influence.

      Pro-Israel views poll around 70%. The Israeli lobby isn't needed for shaping popular opinion. The Israeli lobby's job is to counter Arabist oil interests so that Jews don't experience what they did before the 2nd World War and during Eisenhower where the policy of Britain and the USA was functionally anti-Zionist. The human rights lobby is just a loud annoyance and a tool of the oil lobby. With Saudi Arabia apparently having turned against the Palestinians and the USA moving to becoming an oil exporter and thus less concerned about Middle East stability all-together it is likely that this fight is won.

      So in short the extent of the Israeli lobby is to counter the oil lobby where possible but the situation on the ground is getting better and that may improve this decade.

      Especially from Jewish writers, who understand the role of Zionism inside Jewish life.

      Zionism is the center of Jewish life both communally and often individually. About 1/2 the Jews on the planet live in Israel. Of the remaining 1/2 80% are American. Those American Jews are often biologically 1/2 Jewish and mostly only lightly affiliated with Jewish ritual. Zionism is a cheap and effective way of showing their religious identity.

      The Orthodox are migrating to Israel and from Israel. So for them more and more they or their relatives are living in Israel, and not only do their relatives life their but most of them have been to Israel multiple times. For the Orthodox American Jewish community they are probably about 2 generations from functioning like an Israeli immigrant community that flows back and forth similar to Mexican Americans in the Southwest or Canadian Americans in New England.

      The political newspapers cover this. Jews are Zionists. Jews vote the Israel issue. Jews are secular and educated and thus by and large Democrats. They are also well off and white (since the 1950s) and thus the richest among them lean Republican. Jews mostly consider anti-Zionism to be full on Jew baiting anti-Semitism they don't distinguish between
      a) X hates Israel
      b) X hates American Jews

      And like any other voting group "does politician Y care about my me" rates higher than "do I agree with Y on the issues". Which means they react very aggressively to anti-Israeli politicians and their support plunges. Same as other groups in a similar situation. Ask Mitt Romney how many Hispanics who thought he was an anti-Hispanic bigot but agreed with him over Obama on the social issues voted for him. The situation with Obama over Israel and Iran a few months back shows how this works. Secular Democratic fundraisers and pollsters freaked out when Obama's Jewish approval dropped 8 points over what was an inside the beltway squabble.

      Right now calling Netanyahu "the Republican Senator from Israel" is a joke. But that sort of attitude is how Jews avoid dual loyalty issues. Israel as a USA vassal solves their problem of dual loyalty.

      No great conspiracy. Just the system working like it should.

  • Front-page attack in New York Times says BDS movement is driven by minorities' 'hostility toward Jews'
    • @Bryan --

      These World Bank economists and Israeli immigration staff must be very clever – how can they possibly tell whether a visiting Senator or Presidential candidate has visited Israel simply because they will be immensely-well compensated in political funding in return for holding their noses and ignoring their consciences by visiting you lovely home from home.

      1) There aren't many politicians.
      2) Donations to their campaign aren't compensation.

      You don't like the law regarding how campaigns are run, change it. But that has nothing to do with Israel.

    • @Keith

      In other words, you are much more concerned with BDS than with actual neo-nazis.

      Well yes. Neo-Nazis are marginal figures with no political influence pretty much anywhere. Anti-Zionism, is the dominant ideology towards Jews on the planet. Both of them in practice if successful would implement the final solution. Neither of them claims that's their goal.

      The same reason that as an American I'm more concerned with Al-Qaeda affiliates than I am with many other similar but far weaker groups

      JeffB- “That is besides the fact I have trouble calling a government neo-Nazi that is welcoming to Jews.”

      Interesting perspective. If it is good for the Zionist Jews, then it is good by definition.

      How is my statement even remotely similar to your characterization of it? I questioned your fact and you proceded to just fabricate out of thin air a moral principle. Why make up stuff like that?

      The problem with Hitler was death of the 6 million Jews, the death of 55 million Gentiles of little concern.

      And when did I say that or anything like it?

      As for being “welcoming to Jews,” surely you realize that the welcome wagon extends only so far as Jewish oligarchs and imperial neocons, such as Victoria Nuland.

      Finally addressing the actual point I made. And no I don't recognize that. The government of Ukraine went from mildly anti-Semitic to moderately philo-semitic in the revolution and that applies across the board. The .2% of the Ukrainian population that is Jewish seems happy with the change. Groups like the ADL, Human Right Watch and Amnesty report no uptick in anti-Semitic acts. No there is no problem in Ukraine.

      As for the non-Zionist Jews who may find themselves at the mercy of these thugs, they might have a different opinion.

      First off I didn't say anything about Zionist vs. non-Zionist Jews. I'm not even sure what Zionism has to do with how the Ukrainian Jews are treated.

      Second, there are no large pockets of non-Zionist Jews except in BDS imagination. They don't exist. Ukrainian Jews like Jews everywhere else are almost all Zionists and growing increasingly Zionist overtime.

      “This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the “Moscow-Jewish mafia” and “other scum”, including gays, feminists and those on the political left.”

      You don't identify the source of the quote. First off there was no $5b for a coup. Second the president was voted out by the parliament. He wasn't the elected government anymore. Third the "shock troops" were the Ukrainian people. There are some anti-Semites in both the Democratic and Republican parties, yet they don't hold power in either. Same as Ukraine.

      Morever in an anti-Russian war a call against Moscow-Jewish mafia is not necessarily anti-Semtitic it could be anti-Russian.

      Etc... If the new government is virulently anti-Jewish how come the Jews of Ukrainian haven't noticed? Yes I think it is a bit weird to have a philo-semitic party use German symbols popular in Nazi times like the Wolfsangel. Absolutely using symbols like that is ground for suspicion. But they are now the governing party and mostly they seem to be using them to indicate a Western looking foreign policy: "we love Germany and the EU" not "we hate our local Jews".

      I don't see how you can possible be with BDS and consider Hamas not anti-Semitic when a political party with lots of Jewish members and tons of Jewish support that to be the best of my knowledge has never done anything but respect the Ukrainian Jewish population as both Ukrainian and Jewish is "neo-Nazi".

      The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading “neo-con” luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century,

      New American Century was mainstream during the Bush administration. The which exists today is represented on TV all the time. There is nothing "extreme right" about it. They are mainstream Republican hawks.

      Ah, the new anti-Semitism! Jew hatred is out, opposing political Zionism and Israeli actions are in! At least you are honest about Zionist power-seeking.

      As I pointed out, anti-Zionists are perfectly OK with slaughtering Jews in social settings and destroying Jewish religious and cultural properties. It is the same thing. Which group of pro-Zionists does all the anti-Jewish hate crimes? It is BDS BS to try and pretend there is a difference.

    • @Keith

      The NYT coverage of events and its editorials reflect the perceived consensus view of the dominant organizations which shape policy.

      Which is Chomsky's definition. Once you start talking about the consensus among dominant organizations you are talking about a consensus among America's managerial class. Yes the NYTimes reflects those opinions but that's not an elite that's just the informed population.

      Since the Executive Branch of the government usually articulates this policy consensus, the NYT coverage and its editorials will reflect this.

      True but that doesn't mean anything. The test cases would be when the executive branch holds positions that the managerial class strongly disagrees with. For example on Net-Neutrality the FCC used to be strongly on the side of the telcos and against the software companies and media organizations. As the managerial public was swayed by because the internet media organizations were not shocking better at presenting their case the NYTimes reflected that opinion not the executive branch's position. Eventually of course Obama got on board the Net-Neutrality train and killed this issue because of the consensus that emerged. During that period before Obama's intervention to sway the FCC you would have expected, if the NYTimes reflected Executive Branch opinion over broader public opinion for them to have sided with the telcos and against liberals, Google, media organizations.... That is not what happened.

      This is why there is so much Putin bashing in the NYT, and why they support all of these odious trade agreements. Also, military spending and intervention.

      The public is broadly anti Russia, supports trade, supports military spending and intervention. I get that the NYTimes disagrees with you on stuff but your claim was that it represented some sort of elite. You are the one in the minority on those issues.

      Since you seem to be claiming that the NYT is the peoples paper,

      I don't think I said that. I think I was pretty clear top 20%. There are distinctions between managerial opinion and popular opinion and on those issues the NYTimes tends to side with managerial opinion. For example on evolution, sexual morality issues and abortion they clearly side against popular opinion. Or to use your example trade during the 1990s was one where the economic classes had distinctly different opinions.

      If the NYT consistently opposed the elite agenda, they wouldn’t be in business. You do understand that the US is a capitalist country, don’t you?

      There are places where the truly wealthy diverge from the upper middle and lower upper class politically. For example support for further wealth concentration. And on that issues the NYTimes has quite often presented both sides. The NYTimes's position is in favor of the government generating more demand in the economy even at the expense of corporate profits and wealth concentration.

      In general though I don't think "elite" the way you are using it means anything. It is a secular version of mystical demons for leftists. There is no elite. The policies of the American government, with some few exceptions, reflect the policies of the American people partially weighted by intensity of those positions. The problem with our politics are rooted in the electorate not some conspiracy of the elite blocking the electorate from doing what they want.

    • @Eljay

      You ducked the question about how many and what happens to them focusing on the execution part. It is not me who established that war criminals are often executed that was Nuremberg. You don't like the executions don't use the term.

      So getting back to the point and not your transparent nonsense attacks on me to distract. Who gets convicted is a question not of some neutral system but policy. How many are being targeted. And that's what you didn't answer. If the answer is you have no idea what-so-ever that all this talk of "accountability" is simply meaningless sloganeering then just admit to yourself. You don't have a vision for after, because in reality of course BDS's positions are entirely unworkable.

      The amount to:
      Society agrees to boycott, divestment. Then governments agree to sanctions. This cycle plays out. The Jews don't like it and capitulate to demands that no country would ever accept without losing multiple wars (BTW including South Africa that did lose multiple wars). Then something magic happens with the Jews and Palestinians work together on their common society, even though they don't have a common society today. So unlike the 1920s and 30s where the British were trying exactly what you all aim for, and from a position of strength, suddenly it works. The result of power-sharing in Palestine is not Iraq/Syria with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and everybody is happy living in their undifferentiated secular democratic state.

      That of course doesn't include the BDSers who really hate the Jews and don't want that happy ending. Who by "accountability" really mean something like the "accountability" that happened to white Africa. They also like to be vague.

    • I'm just going to comment this is a lie. There was a typo. But the context in the post was clear in that it had nothing to do with me personally and was about future intermarriages between Palestinians and Israelis.

      by intermarriage is what was obviously implied not my intermarriage.

      I'm not sure what Mooser is going on about since as he pointed out already I'm married to a Jew I'm not in an intermarriage.

    • @Keith

      So who is in this elite that the NYTimes speaks so? It could be Chomsky's top 20%, America's managerial class. I have trouble calling that an elite.

      But if certainly isn't the political elite. You can see that from the coverage. The NYTimes covers politics from an outsider perspective. If you read magazines like The Hill, you can see what an insider perspective looks like: lots of focus on which committees, which chairs and which lobbyists are on the different sides of the issue. The focus is on how a politician or staffer shoudl position themselves relative to an issue there is V=very little focus on the underlying position i.e. how a voter should consider the issue.

      It certainly isn't the economic elite. The articles don't assume much knowledge of business or economics beyond what a typical supervisor or bottom level manager has. Things like the banking system are treated from an outsider perspective, there is very little trade press conversation about economics.

      It certainly isn't the military elite. there is no assumption about knowledge of weapons systems or military tactics.

      And so on....

      So what elite is the NYTimes pitching to IYO?

    • @Eljay

      Nope, it concerns me for every country. My lack of hypocrisy really bothers you. :-(

      We shall see. I want you to talk about how immoral all those other's country's populations are each and every-time you mention them. And how the state is immoral. So far in this post you mentioned Iran multiple times without discussing Persian supremacy or Shia supremacy. I'm having a hard time seeing an even standard being applied.

    • @Annie

      The ADL has about a dozen long reports on Venezuela going back years. Far and away the best source:

      Since I know you all don't like the ADL, Foreign Policy magazine did a piece on government anti-Semtism: .

      A short article about multiple police being involved in a synagogue attack proving this is government and violent:

      Tablet magazine:

      A short article in the NYTimes about a 2007 government attack on a synagogue:
      (you'll see the context in the ADL stuff)

      You can Google for this. There are thousands of links.

      Article from the Huffington post:

    • @Eljay

      OK assume Israel agreed tomorrow to accountability. What would it look like? How many Israelis need to die or be imprisoned? A dozen, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands? Be specific?

      For example in the 2008-9 Gaza war about 20k Israelis participated. Most of them are still alive. How many do you kill? In 2012 it was closer to 75k and only some overlap with those 20k. Then there is Lebanon. Then there are the 650k people living in the settlements most of whom are children.

      So what does "accountability" and "justice" look like? Be specific. Who dies, who lives, and who goes to prison for how long?

      As for the comments about 70 years... are you
      a) Arguing for racial collective guilt. So that for example nations today can be punished for things their ancestors did (so for example the Israelis could claim to be punishing for the Palestinians for the invasion of Western Arabian peninsula).

      b) Planning to dig up the dirt from where the dead bodies (remember these are Jews so no embalming which means their corpses are in much worse conditions) and do something to them.

      If not (a) or (b) who cares about what happened 70 years ago? The people who did it are dead. The people that they did it to are dead. Why harp on it?

    • @blah

      The beloved (and beloved to BDSers) President of Venezuela in 2012 argued his opponent (Henrique Capriles Radonski) in the election was unfit to govern. Not because he was Jewish he's a solid Catholic, but because some of his grandparents were Jewish. Judaism is for the Venezuelan left a racial disease inherited just like for the Nazis. And the western far left is perfectly cool with that.

      So don't tell me the government is not deliberately driving the Jews out. That is precisely what they are doing. Whipping up hated and discrimination against the Jewish population, and including in that anyone associated with Judaism so as to maximize social dislocation.

      And of course that means the Jews of Venezuela were fleeing the economy. That was all they had to do, make life bad and the Jews leave. Had the Jews had no where else to go, Chavez et al would have had to up the hatred.


      In Iran there isn't need for incitement. Jews are simply ineligible for most positions including all judgeships. They suffer constant attack and discrimination. Nothing like what the Bahai suffer (and Eljay since you also responded let's call this example of Iran vs. the Bahai and you not calling Iran a "Persian Shia supremacist" every single time you mention them reason 1200 that your claims to having any interest in universal norms is a lie) which you Iranian apologists don't care about either.


      South Africa there has been tremendous private crime and violence with no state intervention. That ethnic cleaning works very similar to the price tag attacks in Israel. No it hasn't risen to the level of Central American death squads because it hasn't had to, the Jews are just leaving.

      As for France we are too early to see where it goes.

      So don't tell me what these countries aren't doing. You don't know what you are talking about.

      Finally Eljay if the people of these countries want to drive their Jewish population away I think that shows pretty clearly that Iran, South Africa and Venezuela were not their homelands. They were not part of the national body. Your idea of a bureaucratic citizenship was rejected by the people of those countries and their leadership in favor or a strong national identity. But someone it only concerns you for one country.

    • @truth2power

      Criticising and trying to change behaviour is not the same as hating the doer of the deeds, is it?

      No of course not. But that's not what BDS is about. Were Israel to stop doing the deed that would be a BDS failure not a success.

      Take for example Gaza. The Israelis in the 1950s through the 1970s had to war against the Arab states and terrorize the Palestinians community in those states into not attacking Israeli territory and peoples (including abroad). Israel was successful and as a result the Arab states that host refugees have in practice (though often not on paper) rejected the right of the Palestinian's in their territory to resist occupation. Several generations have passed, those Palestinians have in many cases interbred or moved and there simply isn't the concentrations there used to be either. That's a successful end to the border violence regarding Israel.

      It is entirely possible in a decade or so, the Gazans will similar accept the border with Israel and no longer believe in practice (though likely not in theory) that they have a right to shoot missiles into Israel because Jews are occupiers .... There won't be violence across that border.

      BDS would consider that peace to disaster. That would be failure of BDS not success. Peace without the fall of Zionism is unacceptable to BDS. It is not about hating what Israel does it is about hating Israel's existence.

      lazy and dishonest to keep saying: “everyone who criticises Israel is an anti-semite/jew-hater

      It is lazy and dishonest to pretend that Zionist say that. No one argues that everyone who criticizes Israel is a Jew hater. Zionists themselves, including rightwing Zionist criticize Israel. What they do say is that anyone who holds Israel / Jews to a standard totally unlike the standard they hold other nations to is a Jew hater. You want to argue, argue with the actual claim not the straw man.

      Address the possibility many of them are trying as much to save Israel from itself -

      OK I'll address it: it is a ridiculous possibility, the chance is close to 0. A bunch of screaming hateful delegitimizes are not interested in Israel's or Jew's best interests. Anymore than your typical Klansmen is interested in saving the blacks from the evils of their sinful lifestyle.

      Israel is not a danger to itself. Left to its own devices without outside interference Israel would quickly negotiate with the Palestinian minority solutions that make sense for the region and the people involved and not those designed to appeal to European leftists. Most of what the Palestinian non-rejectionists Israel could grant in exchange for peace. The rejectionists faction of Palestinians would be pushed out suppressed and discredited and there would be peace.

      Israel does not need saving from itself. . What Israel needs is to be treated like other minor countries so that when there is news about Israel the host needs to explain what a Jew is and where Israel is. What Israel needs is the rest of the world to ignore them and them govern their country like anywhere else. They don't need to be saved from anything. They are fine and thriving.

      Why are the boycotters doing this? Because they want this injustice to stop and in the main, they care about both sides!

      If they cared about both sides they wouldn't be:

      a) Liars about history
      b) Liars about policy
      c) Hateful and rude to Jews, rather they would be trying to convince them of things since after all it is the Jews who run Israel and have to agree to implement the plans that the boycotters supposedly want implemented.
      d) Would be in favor of normalization not in favor of denormalization since trade and interaction tends to lead to peace while hostility tends to bread hostility.
      e) Would be declaring their joint solidarity rather than advocating an oppressor / oppressed good / evil dichotomy.


    • @John

      I would wish that Ms. Charney and other supporters of Israel would have as a goal the fair and decent treatment of Palestinians, actions in accordance with international law, and desisting from war crimes.

      We do support fair and decent treatment. In fact I'd go further. I want the full incorporation of Palestinians into the Israeli nation including my intermarriage so that their descendants are fully Israeli. I want the descendants of today's Jewish population and the descendants of the Palestinians to be the same people and to be the governing population of Israel. It is BDS not Zionism that is opposed to fair and decent treatment of the population. Concepts like "occupied territory" presuppose a permanent racial definition of land that precludes peaceful interchanges. That's your side not ours.

      As for desisting from war crimes Zionists aim for no war. They aim to eliminate the war crimes by eliminating the war. They've been successful with some subgroups of Palestinians and mostly the " war crimes" have declined since the 1950s. So Zionists both claim and have a track record of success. Not a perfect record however.

      Now international law is a different matter. Neither BDS nor Zionism supports international law. International law is firmly a 2SS. BDS is a one state movement despite their protests to the contrary. BDS as much as Zionism ignores UN resolutions and policies they disagree with. So when BDSers talk about International Law they don't mean the law as it exists between nations but some sort of theoretical law.

      I would wish that it would be possible to talk with Ms. Charney and the other people interviewed for this article and get them to think reasonably

      They are capable of thinking reasonably. But they are going to insist on full equality of Jews. That means that if you take any argument you would make against Israel and apply it analogy to say France it had better be a standard that holds up. Most anti-Israeli positions implicitly assume that Jews are an illegitimate people and thus Israel and illegitimate nation. That's not something they going to agree to. That's not thinking "reasonably" that's supporting anti-Jewish racism which lies at the heart of BDS.

    • @Kris --

      I'm not sure whether you believe what you are writing above. First off in the real world Israel is going about 3m tourists this year, which is up from 2.1m 5 years ago. That BTW is tourist under the World Bank definition: no compensation for the trip, less than 12 months duration, not more than once in any year. Which makes tourism an industry growing just slightly faster than the Israeli economy. That would be in population equivalent terms over 100m annual tourists There is no problem with Israeli tourism though likely it could be much larger.

      I’m a nice grandma, and I do dress “modestly,” but I should cover everything but my face, neck and hands to avoid getting attacked by Jewish religious nutjobs in a U.S. client state?

      If you are in their neighborhood and they ask you to, yes.

      In Israel you can have a topless beach 5 blocks from a Hasidic neighborhood. You dress the way you should for the neighborhood you are in. Christian liberals mostly have no reason to go to Hasidic neighborhoods, you aren't going to hit them accidentally though if you are one of these newagey Christian liberals then you would have reason to go, there are some exciting places for newagers in very religious Jewish neighborhoods. Otherwise if you are doing your Christian stuff dress in Hasidic parts are not going to be a problem. Though I should mention you'll see similar standards of dress in many of the religious Christian and Muslim neighborhoods in Israel and neighboring countries. All the religious in the region dislike brazen hussies running around with naked clavicles or married women feeling free to display intimate body parts like hair. If that freaks you out, you just haven't traveled. So you will get the same treatment in the places you do want to go to.

      What I keep trying to tell you BDSers is, Israel is a foreign country, with a foreign culture and foreign values. Israel is not America. Think a bit, prep a bit. Israelis will tell you if you are acting inappropriately and as long as you aren't a jerk about it, everything is fine.

      “Las Vegas with Franciscan monks and machine guns”????? No, thanks.

      Bethlehem is missable. It takes a few hours at most you see a nice church and you leave. Tourism in the West Bank it is is depressingly underdeveloped. It is kinda caught in a bind. There is no way for the Palestinian tourist economy to flourish without extensive coordination and cooperation with Israel, which is normalization.

      Conversely the Christian stuff in "occupied" Jerusalem is quite good and Israel is helping develop those areas. It is still somewhat old fashioned and underdeveloped which IMHO is a plus, you get to experience what religious tourists in the 1950s would see in most places not the way sites are designed today. The museum displays in Israel are excellent and there is almost always full English. I often find them better than their American equivalents.

      You are boycotting Israel, so you are never going. I met a lot of Christians who were having a great time there. You just have to accept you aren't seeing the Basilica in Minneapolis.

    • @Blah

      That's not a response. I gave you 4 countries look up their flow of Jewish population. If you choose to remain ignorant deliberately and continue to say bad stuff about Jewish response to anti-Zionism you are now knowingly lying.

      In fact show me one country that treats its Jews as badly as Israel treats its Palestinians.

      There aren't any. That's what Israel has done for us. It prevents anti-Semitism from getting out of hand, when it does the Jews leave. Now if you mean historically, virtually all of them that had Jews treated them far worse than Israel treats Palestinians.

    • @Irishmoses

      What if someone doesn’t approve of specific Zionist behavior, like ethnic cleansing, illegally occupying and colonizing someone else’s land, etc., and criticizes that behavior?

      They aren't merely criticizing behavior. "Occupying and colonizing someone else's land" is a claim of state. That other human being have lands that are theirs (generally through slaughter and conquest) but Jews can't have lands. That's a claim that Jews are permanently illegitimate. That is anti-Semitism. Whatever standards are applied to Jews need to be the same standards applied equally to all.

      If the land is Palestinian in an individual sense then one has a right to live somewhere if they migrate or they are born there, in which case Jews qualify. If the land is Palestinian in a national sense, then a nation has the right to live on land it conquers since that's how the Palestinians moved there.

      So yes that's anti-Semitism because you are trying to apply novel standards to Jews.

      That is unless you just mean 2SS and some sort of UN absolutism where the good is whatever the UN says it is. But under that scenario the occupation isn't illegal. Using the term "illegal"is simply telling negative lies about Jews. The settlements would be illegal but the occupation would be perfectly legal.

      So nope. Your description is still well over the line.

      Since that criticism is directed at a specific subset of Jews (including some non-Jews) and not all Jews, why is that person ipso facto an antisemite?

      Because anti-Semitism isn't defined as a hatred of all Jews. Lots of historic anti-Semites had no problems with Jews who converted to Christianity especially 2nd generation converts. Their problem were just those Jews who actively renounced Christ through their obstinacy. Lots of anti-Semites only hated their local Jews and had no problems with global Jews or liked some Jews in particular but hated them in general.

      One of BDS's techniques is to define anti-Semitism so strictly that nothing qualifies. Anti-Semitism is a racial, ethnic or religious hated of Jews whether it be some Jews or all Jews.

      If I can recall what I’ve learned about basic rules of logic from the learned Roha, you have said, “All antisemities are anti-Zionists. Jose is an anti-Zionist. Ergo, Jose must also be an antisemite.

      I most certainly did not say that nor anything like it.

    • @Keith

      Speaking of neo-Nazis, how come Zionists such as Victoria Nuland and Bernard-Henri levy are such staunch and enthusiastic supporters of those murderous Ukrainian neo-Nazis?

      Because the Christian President and his Christian Secretary of State decided to intervene in the Russia / Ukrainian crisis on Ukraine's side and the "neo-Nazis" are the government that represents Western Ukraine. That is besides the fact I have trouble calling a government neo-Nazi that is welcoming to Jews. It is also pretty weird one to blame on Zionists since AFAIK Zionists are on both sides. Right off the bat, most Israelis support Putin, most American Zionists support the Ukrainians.

      As far as I can tell even among Christians this is ethnic not religious. Russians Jewish or Christian think Ukraine is not a legitimate nation while Western Europeans Jewish or Christian are more concerned about Nato and territorial integrity and ...

      Its funny in a post where you complaining about being considered along with anti-Semitic crackpots you raise an anti-Semitic crackpot theory about how the Jews are the ones secretly behind the Ukrainian / Russian war.

      You are being your usual scurrilous, dishonest self. I am unaware that BDS says any “mean stuff” about Jews per se,

      Of course they do, they just use the word "Zionist". That doesn't change things. Anymore than if someone were to go on a racist rant using the word "blacks" or "negros" or "colored" or "niggers" would be talking about the same people. Even if the person were to later clarify, as many racists do, that niggers are a special classification of blacks and "good negros" aren't niggers and thus the rant doesn't apply to them it would still be just as racist.

      When you start accusing Zionists of stuff that having nothing to with anti-Semitism I'll buy there is a difference. Attack Zionists for being buffonish, not showering, sexually indiscriminate and lazy and then I'd buy it isn't anti-Semitism. Attack Zionists for a secret evil conspiracy where they seduce good Christians into working against common morality and humanity and I ain't buying it. Whether you use "Zionist" as a euphemism for Jew or not.

    • @Blah

      Anti-Zionism also has a long history of successfully ethnically cleansing most of the countries on the planet that had a Jewish population of that Jewish population. Venezuela, South Africa, France and Iran being the latest 4 examples at various stages of being cleansed of their Jewish population.

      Jews in America have every reason not to want to see a return to 1930s style Jew baiting.

      Whether BDS would be effective against Israel is mostly irrelevant to their concerns.

    • This was in the final version a little bit vague. By "BDSer lynching" I meant lynching by an anti-Zionist of a Jew not the reverse. Sort of like what happened with Christian Identity as they got more popular on rural campuses in the 1980s and early 1990s. Sorry about the lack of clarity.

    • @Donald

      Well if you want a breakdown:

      The group marked "Solid Liberals" represent the leftmost 15% of the population and because they are disproportionately politically active the leftmost 21% of the electorate. The "Next Generation Left", "Hard-Pressed Skeptics" and "Young Outsiders" represent the groups Democrats have to appeal to win general elections.

      You can see their views on a range of issues. Obama is pretty leftwing relative to the population, the left of the median Democrat. I'm to the left of the electorate, though way to the right of you all, so I'm also depressed by the reality.

      But the problem with America is not that our policies don't represent our population on most issues (there are some exceptions), but rather that our policies do seem to be a fairly good compromise between the positions held by our population and those suck.

    • @Ritzl

      You have two options neither of which you'll like:

      1) Be concerned about how Jews feel.

      2) Be completely unconcerned about how Jews feel. Allow BDS to be classified as an anti-Jewish hate group and get treated the way hate groups are treated. BDS gets 1st amendment protections but nothing more. Then BDS can comfortably say whatever mean stuff they want about Jews along with the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Christian Identity...

      The problem with the BDS movement is that it doesn't want the social restrictions put upon groups in category (2) while not meeting the criteria of category (1). But hey, however unfair you think it is now wait until the 1st BDSer lynching in the USA (they've already done a bunch in other countries). So far the only laws BDSers have institutionally broken are trespassing and vandalism.

    • @Krauss

      The NYT is not The Nation. There hasn't been a shift. The NYT sees itself as a mainstream paper representing mainstream American views. It is Liberal in the sense that 20% of the American people are liberal: they support more environmental regulation than we have now, they support more debt for social programs and they are firmly pro-choice. That's about it. They equally represent views to the right and left of mainstream liberalism: so a New York Republican is going to get treated about the same as a New York radical. The Liberal bias is noting that BDS gets treated about the same way they treat the Tea Party. The Tea Party represents about 19% of Americans, BDS doesn't represent 1.9%.

      Your problem is you don't want to deal with how far to the right of you the mainstream left is.

  • Netanyahu deputy charged with administering Palestinians says they are 'beasts, not human'
    • Question to American Zionists. Do you believe in the separation of church and state in the United States? Then why not in Israel and Palestine too?

      Well I'll answer. Your assumption is of. I do believe in separation of church and state in the USA and I also would prefer it for Israel. I don't think Israel is well served by the degree of religious coercion that is part of the political culture.

      However, I think church-state seperation is less important for Israel than for the USA. FChristian believers in a regenerate church (including credobaptists) have trouble with state churches. If they try and mix the two (like they did in the Massachusetts colony for example) you quickly run into the problem of what do you do with the children of non-believers? This dilemma is what led colonial America to the Half-Way Covenant ( and from that eventually towards the full on belief in non-establishment and separation of church-state. Judaism is much closer to Catholicism, in that the church (religion) is defined by all and people (paedobaptist to use Christian language) and those people can be members at different levels. That's much much more compatible with a state church. A Baptist country (like the USA) is going to have a Baptist culture and that Baptist culture is going to be far more harmed than helped by a state church. Judaism like Islam is more of a mixed bag where there strong plusses and minuses.

      Ultimately though Israelis by large margins support a state church. And I believe in Israeli democracy more than I believe in church-state separation. The people of Israel are entitled to choose to govern themselves as they see fit. I can ethically suggest greater separation but I wouldn't use or support coercion to achieve it.


      OTOH the question doesn't fit the rest of the article. I kind of suspect you mean something else than just separation of church and state.

  • Senator Cardin's double standard on nukes in the Middle East
    • @Amigo

      You can find the same articles in most countries. Who is this "regime" that controls the government outside of the elected government? The regime in that article is the elected government, the government that represents the broad opinion of the Israeli population. The author just doesn't like the broad opinion and so makes a bunch of assertions about what a "real democracy" would look like. These amount to opinions that are far less popular than the ones represented by the fake democracy... His primary particular complaint seems to be union democracies, I think he should take a look at America that while still a democracy has no democratic representation in the workplace almost anywhere.

      In most countries given either the influence of money or the unelected control from Brussels you can make a far better case that the democracy is a farce. In Israel because of the low population you get the wonderful effect that you see in many cities where almost all the citizens are only two steps removed from a Knesset member: a cousin of a friend for example. The Israeli population is polled on their opinions often with or without party identification. People's political identity lines up pretty closely to their party and the percentages that vote for various parties. From there a negotiation happens and policy emerges quite openly and publicly.

      As for the choice of representatives: anyone can run and the parties have open primaries. The people who show up to primary elections choose the representatives not some secret elite group of rulers.

    • @Just

      The argument isn't over cruel or even warcrimes. The claim was merciless. Much higher bar.

      As for "unveiling" I think you might need to get a grip.

    • Acceptance of Israel’s denial over the past 30 years of its nuclear arsenal

      This is just false. Israel has not denied have nuclear weapons since the early 1960s. It has had a policy of strategic ambiguity where it neither confirms or denies them. A good sample article:

      As for the rest like:
      merciless in Gaza -- well of course they were merciful. A relatively small number of people died even while the Gazans shot rockets for months. A merciless attack would have looked entirely different.

      Israel is not a democracy -- Israel selects its policies by leaders who are elected. That's representative democracy. That's the criteria. Area-A and Area-B are a military dictatorship. If you are willing to say that's Israel i.e. there is no occupation, then certainly there is territory within Israel not democratically governed. But you say exactly the opposite with your cite of 242, you assert that Area-A and Area-B are in some country called Palestine.

  • Rudoren covers up Shaked's genocidal statements in 'NYT'
    • @Kris

      JeffB, are you saying that believing in Judaism is what makes someone “Jewish”?

      No. But active the concept of apostasy exist same as in Christianity. Being an active enemy of the Jewish people, that is one who seeks to destroy the Jewish people, loses you your status (poshea Yisrael -- transgressor of Israel). People like Juan de Valladolid, Astruc Remoch who were born of a Jewish mother and then turned against their people are considered apostates and have been for centuries. You tend to like the quote the bible abid elohim acher those who lead people to serve other gods than those of Israel are explicitly out of the tribe (Deut 13:6-11). Same as the argument that Obama uses for executing American citizens that are working for Al Qaeda.

      Does that exclude you, since you support Israel’s cruel oppression of the Palestinans and the theft of their land?

      Nope. We discussed this. Just like Christians get to decide what's Christian, Jews get to say what is Judaism and your theology even if you can find quotes out of context to support it, is not Judaism. Same argument you would have with a Mormon who quoted verses from the New Testament arguing for eternal progression, the verses exist and out of context they may seem to imply eternal progression but Christian doctrine still maintains a distinction between creator and created.

      Or maybe what makes someone “Jewish” is observing some rituals, however the person behaves towards other people? Wouldn’t such a person be like a whited sepulchre?

      Kris, I hate to tell you this. But Jews rejected Matthew 23:27. Judaism as it existed today evolved from the Pharisees. Jews don't believe in salvation in the Christian sense at all. But as close as the concept can map they unequivocally reject sola fide. Judaism is a religion of works. Those works include good deeds towards others, and those works include ritual observation. But treason against Israel is not a good work.

      One can argue that Israel is not being kind enough and not being moral enough and still be fully Jewish. J-Street is in keeping with Jewish tradition and Jewish norms. But you need to work within the system. Same as an American can join the peace movement and that's fine but joining Al-Qaeda is not.

      Are the many Jewish Israelis who don’t believe in God “Jewish” anyway, as far as you’re concerned?

      Of course they live in Israel. The vow for even a convert is: For wherever you go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried. Thus and more may the Lord do to me if anything but death parts me from you. Israelis meet that vow (excluding someone like Ben Zygier).

      I don’t mean in Israel’s sense, since there, “Jewish” is just a racial tag for the privileged people, and has nothing to do with Judaism.

      There is no Jewish race. There is no distinction racially between Palestinians Jews and Palestinian Muslims. Heck Israeli Arabs usually think I'm Christian even though Americans tell easily I'm Jewish. What racial characteristics do all Jews share?

      I am constantly trying to figure out how “Judaism” has anything to do with Israel’s crimes against humanity, so am looking forward to your response.

      I gave you a long response on your Hillel thread. Jew is just an evolution of the term Judaean, which is an ancient nationality. Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people which evolved from the religion of Judaea. Israel is Jewish state. Jews today are slowly migrating back to Judaism and Judaism is thus transforming from a diaspora religion to the state church of Israel. In a century of so to be Jewish will just mean to believe in the religion of Israel, the same way Shinto is the religion of Japan.

      Greek culture (Hellenism) merged with Judaism to form Hellenized Judaism. Hasmonean Judaism was sort of a fundamentalist revolt against Hellenized Judaism. It led to two main movements which you are familiar with from the New Testament: the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Hellenized Judaism continued to evolve outside of Judaea (particularly in Egypt but also in places like Asia Minor) into Hellenistic Judaism. Hellenistic Judaism merged with a bunch of obscure Jewish cults which had spun off from Sadducean Judaism to form proto-Chistianity. In short Christianity evolved from a form of Judaism that didn't survive within Judaism. Christians because of the New Testament have this screwy concept of Judaism. While a good deal of the New Testament is Jewish (some is not) almost none of it is mainstream Jewish, and even what is often gets reinterpreted by Christians into theology that is alien to Judaism. Judaism is not Christianity with different names for stuff, it really is a different religion.

      I can hear you thinking about Paul and Jesus when you discuss Judaism. That is just going to mislead you in terms of understanding mainstream Judaism. Wikipedia's article on Pirkei Avot is a pretty good intro to Jewish ethics:
      Something like:
      is going to give you a far better handle on Jewish ethics than Matthew.

      Your concepts are grounded in the concept that Jews are permanently illegitimate. Judaism rejects the racism of the anti-colonialism movement that holds that some people are entitled to live as citizens and others only as foreigners. They reject it for Romany people, they reject it for the Kurds (and are actively helping them fight it), they reject it for the Sikhs, for the Shan and they reject it for themselves. Your problem with Jewish ethics is you keep trying to twist Jewish ethics, which don't really have the concept of race, into supporting your anti-colonialism racism. Anti-colonial racism is foreign to Judaism, you won't be able to get it to fit.

    • @Tony

      You don't keep shabbat, you don't keep kosher, you don't pray after meals and wear tefillin. You are a major anti-Jewish politician. What other than your name is Jewish about you? You tell me how are you a Jew and not an apostate?

      Back before racial anti-Semitism there used to be anti-Judaics who would say stuff like they don't hate Jews they just Judaism and how Judaism turns Jews into money grubbing, filthy, noxious ... That a generation or two after converting they were sure the descendants of Jews could become proper Christians in both demeanor and religion. All one had to do was stamp out their noxious faith. Today we group that anti-Judaism with anti-Semitism even though it isn't racial.

      People who hate Zionism are anti-Semites in the same sense. Why should Jews care whether whether someone wants to destroy 100% of the Jews or only the 99% who don't meet their criteria?

  • Netanyahu appoints Ayelet Shaked—who called for genocide of Palestinians—as Justice Minister in new government
    • @RoHa

      ” I don’t know whether you are repenting of your “enemy of humanity” type language ”

      Heavens, no. Saying that some person or group has made himself/itself an enemy of humanity is not attributing hate to that person or group.

      Well yes it isn't attributing hate to them, it is a call for a universal hate to be directed at them. It arguably attributing hatred to all humanity towards that group.

      Your comments are so odd on this I'm starting to think this may be a translation issue.

    • @RoHa

      I can understand that it might get him classified as an incompetent historian, but why as an anti-Semite

      Normally if a BDSer quoted this stuff it would just be ignorance. Tony however is knowledgeable. he's even done some of his own research, and some of it is quite good. That raises the bar as far as intent, a lot. Tony does understand how relative weak pre-WWII Zionist organizations were, how strong Nazi Germany was, the degree of influence... Moreover the fact that he was picking something this specific means he was aware of how little contact there was between Zionism and Nazis.

      Which means he was taking an isolated example, imposing a false historical narrative and then describing that false narrative using terminology which deliberately distorted it even further. What would be the motive for that?

      Far too many accusations of hate being thrown around from all directions

      I would agree. I'd love it if in general I/P were just treated like any other political issue of moderate importance. I don't know whether you are repenting of your "enemy of humanity" type language but if you are that's a good thing.

      I think a better tone would help immensely. Even better would be both sides charitably describing the conflict from the other's perspective.

    • @tony

      . If Zionism had not existed, then at least half a million to a million Jews who died in the Holocaust would have survived. - See more at: were indirectly responsible for Hungary’s half a million Jews remaining in ignorance about the destination of the deportations, through having sat on the Vrba-Wetzler Report.

      This is the sort of crap that gets you classified as an anti-Semite. The deportation of Hungary's Jews was mainly during March 1944. By mid May they were up to 12k deportations per day. The Vrba-Wetzler goes to the Slovak Jewish Council which was not a Zionist organ and it does so in late April 1944 after the process has started. It isn't widely decimated until June and not in other languages until as late as November.

      The Zionists during this time period, saved about 4k by illegal deportations. When the report had been distributed the Arrow Cross Party still was able to deport hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews. So them knowing they were going to their deaths didn't matter in 1944.

      Couple this with the Zionist movement lobbying the Nazi government between 1933-39 not to allow Jewish emigration to any other place but Palestine,

      There is some evidence for the Stern gang doing something like that. I see no evidence that this was the position of the Zionist movement more broadly. And we can see counter evidence that where the Zionists were able to rescue Jews and get them out of Axis countries they did so.

      For example:
      Yehuda Bauer (1981). American Jewry and the Holocaust: The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, 1939-1945. Wayne State University Press. p. 354. ISBN 0-8143-1672-7. Another major activity, which was financed chiefly by Palestinian funds but which also received some support from JDC, was the smuggling into Rumania of Hungarian Jews when the deportations to Auschwitz began in that country in May, 1944. It is not quite clear just how many Hungarian Jews managed to get across, but the number was in the neighborhood of 4,000.. Most of them came by a route organized by the youth movements, though some paid individual smugglers on the border. In Istanbul, Alexander Cretianu, the Rumanian minister, agreed that these Jews should be let into his country. Filderman and Zissu obtained similar assurances in Bucharest, despite heavy German pressure.”

      The people who killed the millions of Jews were the Nazis not the Zionists. Your fantasies of Zionists complicity are frankly disgusting. It is amazing to me how much hate can warp a person. The Zionists along with every major group while weak did what they could which wasn't much. After the war they did what they could. And what they could do was make sure most of the remainder of European Jewry didn't freeze to death in postwar concentration camps or die in the Palestinian civil war.

    • @MRW

      Judicial activism has to do with the relationship between civil and common law. Parliamentary system vs. Presidential system has to do with the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. Your screed misses the point.

      As for limitations on judiciary power in the USA we saw a terrific example under George W Bush when the court ruled against him on his classification of prisoners and he ignored it. There wasn't an uproar, though there was some limited protest. We are seeing something similar in Obama in pulling extra-judicial assassination out from the judiciary and creating a system entirely within the executive.

      I think you may want to learn a bit about how our system works. You are misusing words like "republican government". France, England, Israel ... are as much of a republic as the USA and that has nothing to do with parliamentary vs. presidential for the executive.

    • @Annie

      furthermore, your allegation “Netanyahu likes a balanced coalition with Likud in the center this is not his doing. ” is absurd. this is very much “his doing”. yes he is in a corner but you act like he has no choice. he has a choice. hertzog said he would form a coalition w/likud ( link to ), netanyahu shot that down w/the words “radically left and anti-Zionist list”. if netanyahu had any interest in a ‘balanced’ coalition w/likud in the ‘center’, he could have had one.

      Neither of us has access to the coalition negotiations. We know that Herzog was under pressure about 2 weeks ago from within Labor to accept the deal that Netanyahu was offering so he evidently did offer a pretty good deal. ZU had run on not being part of a coalition. Further Netanyahu is clearly holding open Foreign Minister to pick up another partner. From what I've heard Herzog is demanding a full 1/2 and 1/2 rotation. Sure there exist some price at which he could have had a unity government but in general, no I think the left is more responsible for this government. Netanyahu's political philosophy which centers on him maintaining flexibility is well known and well documented over his more than 2 decades in public life. We know as much about his thinking as any political figure.

      Here is a recent link of Herzog yet again refusing:

      As for Eli Ben-Dahan he's one of Uri Ariel's guys and I don't know their thing. I don't know if he just intends to quietly build like Ariel tends to do or if he is going to play bad cop to Bennett's good cop with regard to Area-C (i.e. accept citizenship or live under Ben-Dahan's law). We'll see. Clearly he's not winning humanitarian of the year but OTOH Ariel has mostly avoided

      I support the Bennett plan because it is sensible, reasonable, humane and has the potential for the support of Israelis and the Palestinians. I'm happy to see people in office who are likely to implement the Bennett plan. The situation in the West Bank needs to be resolved. Palestinians need to see progress and hope. 50 years from now I'd hope that every Palestinian has a democratic say in their government and none of them live under a military dictatorship. I think he's going to help achieve that. But I don't own a crystal ball. I'd rather see people who are slightly less anti-Palestinian in their views implement the change in government. I think it needs a light touch and respect for West Bank Palestinians concerns and I don't think Ben-Dahan seems like the right guy for that light touch. But who knows?

    • @Annie

      Likud had been loath to give Jewish Home the Justice Ministry, fearing it would use the position to push through controversial reforms weakening the Supreme Court and changing the makeup of the panel that chooses new justices.

      Likud officials told Haaretz that there were two problems with giving the Justice Ministry to Jewish Home.

      “The first is that the justice minister will soon have to decide on who the next attorney general will be,” one official said. “It’s a very sensitive position, and Netanyahu has no desire to entrust that task to Bennett or Shaked. The second problem is that Shaked is spearheading the battle to change the face of the Supreme Court. Netanyahu has so far avoided going head to head with the court, and he may well not want this headache.” (


      Mostly though consider the obvious. Her proposals to restrict the court in 2013 and 2014 weren't backed by Netanyahu while being attacked on the floor of the knesset by Likud ministers.

    • @Annie

      do you have a source for this or are you making it up?

      Bayit Yehudi faction chairwoman Ayelet Shaked called for a change in the way justices are chosen, so that they do not select their successors and there is a balance between judicial activists and the other members in the 11-member court (

      Should I keep going?

      Now you owe me a retraction. I suspect it will not be forthcoming. Anyway too much censorship on this thread so I'm done.

    • @Ben

      I'm writing this at 9:55 am EST. It will be dated probably as soon as I write it.

      First off this is not a done deal.
      Netanyahu is proposing that Shaked not have authority over judges.
      Religious court: Likud and Shas appoints
      Secular court: Likud

      Bennett (Shaked's boss) is OK with no authority over the religious court since Shaked isn't religious. But her whole point in justice is to rebuild the judiciary to reduce the scope of judicial authority... similar to the American right's anger about judicial activism. Netanyahu while desperately wanting the coalition doesn't want someone in the cabinet who is coming in promising to fight a war against the supreme court.
      Also there is a second issue whether she sits on Ministerial Committee for Legislation (i.e. the group that gets to decide what bills go the Knesset for debate sort of like the office of the Speaker in the USA House of Representatives.

      Netanyahu may lose, he may win but AFAIK it is still not decided.


      Also your characterization is a bit bizarre. Shaked has given dozens of speeches. Her views are well known. She not shockingly supports her party's platform which calls for Gaza's independence, full citizenship in Golan, Jerusalem and Area-C and self rule (a Palestinian homeland inside Israel) for Palestinians in areas A and B. That's not genocide.

      The other stuff about the coalition being right wing... well yeah the left parties and the center parties ruled out being in the coalition. Netanyahu likes a balanced coalition with Likud in the center this is not his doing.

  • A response to the 'Washington Post' blogger who calls me an anti-Semite
    • @oldgeezer (& also indirectly @kris)

      But if there were a group of people who wanted to end Palestinian rights to have self rule in their state shop off huge sections of Palestine and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from those sections, to give to import a hostile foreign population to rule over the Palestinians… I wouldn’t favor that either.

      Yes you would. You clearly support European and North American Jews doing just that.

      I'm not sure where you get that I support that. If this debate had been in 1915 and not 2015 I might very well have huge problems with the morality of Zionism. The destruction of a society is a horrific act and something that should only be done for the best reasons. I don't believe Texans are a nation, just as I don't believe Palestinians in 1915 were a nation. But that doesn't mean the society in Texas should be destroyed without very good reason. In 1915 it is entirely possible, were I not a partisan that I wouldn't have seen what Jews were facing as a good enough reason to destroy the Levant society in Palestine. Zionism was a tiny minority view even among Jews in 1915, there is no reason to believe if I lived then I would have been a Zionist. And if I were a Zionist in 1915 I likely wouldn't have seen that colonialism was about to collapse, (though I would have understood that the Ottoman Empire was done for). The idea that we were a generation away from the entire world going through what Europe went through in the 16th century wouldn't have occurred to me and I might very well have supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine and not a Jewish state.

      Now I would have been wrong in my moral qualms The Holocaust justifies the Nabka completely. Had Zionism been successful a decade earlier a huge chunk if not all of the six million who died would have lived. Jews who believed in liberal humanism ended up killing millions of their fellows. We know that both Hitler and Eichmann supported the Madagascar Plan, had Palestine been available they would have supported Herzl in his bleak assessment of the Jewish future was proven right, the vast majority of Jews who believed that the middle ages anti-Semitism was a thing of the past proven wrong. So in 1915 knowing the future, yes I would have supported Zionism. The first rule of life is survival.

      But in 2015 that's not the relevant question. In 1915 the relevant question is not whether to bring back the Christian society that existed in Palestine prior to the Egyptian / Mamluk Byzantine conquest, but whether to replace the existing Levant society with a new Jewish society. Similarly in 2015 the question whether to destroy the Jewish society that exists in Palestine and replace it with an Arab Muslim society. The Levant society of the 19th century is gone forever, just like the pre-Mamluk Christian society is gone forever.

      All humans act in time. We can't change the past. We cannot decide what happened in the past. We can only act in the present so as to shape the future. You all are the advocates for destroying
      the existing society in Palestine. The argument that this is justified by how they got there is nonsense because the Palestinians themselves got there through the same process. Not wanting to see societies destroyed and not wanting to see the peoples genocided is consistent with opposing BDS not supporting it.

    • @justicewillprevail

      The point is, however much you write screeds of excuses and diversions, the zionist lobby is not like any other lobby, and certainly doesn’t behave like any other. Perhaps you could tell us which others act like vigilantes over every single senator, write legislation for them and dragoon them into their nasty political ideology of war and segregation.

      Well you wrote that with a lot of insulting words that I wouldn't agree with. But strip them away into more natural language and what you are describing is the norm. All lobbies check how representatives and senators vote on their interests that's why they exist. Most lobbies write legislation, how do you think legislation that gets passed (especially when bills used to pass regularly) gets written? They also write most federal regulations. Lobbies also form the bulk of advisory panels.

      Politicians aren't experts, they don't have the kinds of deep staffing, policy is written by lobbyists. And that's even getting specialized. The lobbyists themselves are more and more unqualified and pull in groups like American Legislative Exchange Council which help lobbies draft legislation so that they can give it to politicians.

      Pretending that when Jews do the same stuff ofter Americans it is some how uniquely bad is precisely why MW gets accused of anti-Semitism. What you are describing is lobbies doing their job. You should do some investigating and learn how the system works. You want to change things the mechanism for doing it is a lobby. You want to complain and wax paranoia you get applauded here.

    • @CigarGod

      Texans aren't their own nation. But if there were a group of people who wanted to end Texans rights to have self rule in their state shop off huge sections of Texas and ethnically cleanse the Texans from those sections, to give to import a hostile foreign population to rule over the Texans... I wouldn't favor that either. But such a group doesn't exist.

      BDS's proposals are ridiculous the moment you say them about any other place. Which just proves how ridiculous they are about Israel.

    • @pabelmont

      He says, does he?, that AIPAC is just like the rest of American political corruption, no different and no worse? If Big-Oil can attempt to bring on the end-of-the-world by opposing action on climate change, where’s the harm in a much less-severe-in-outcome attempt by AIPAC to subject America to pro-Zionism, with the attendant discomforture of (merely) millions of Palestinians, especially when that discomforture has the benefit of bringing on feelings of euphoria among (not merely !) (one does not say “merely” of Jews!) millions of Zionist Jews ? Are not all lobbies severely blinkered single-purpose eyes-on-the-prize me-first damn-the-torpedoes-aimed-at-others organizations?

      Yes, where is the harm? so quit qvetching (if you are Jewish) and otherwise quit complaining, Mr. Weiss!

      Let me just say that while you are mocking,, yes that was the point: the Zionist lobby is just a lobby. I think it is anti-Semitic to pretend that the Jews are doing something unique when they are doing the same thing as other groups that are approaching the government for a redress of grievances and to protect their interests. There is no reason to treat something that is openly a key component of the American political system as if it were some nefarious secret and if Americans knew they would object to. Americans are well aware that the establishment sides of political parties represents constellations of lobbies while the populist side of those parties represents constellations of voters. Lobbies are intermediaries, the mechanism by which the vague non-actionable wants of the voters coalesce into actionable proposals. We have a representative democracy, people's opinions influence their choice of representation they don't act directly on legislation. Lobbies are not a corruption of the system, they are a key component of the system as it is designed.

      Stuff you like emerged from lobbies. You mentioned environmentalism. The sort of vague nature loving of the Conservation Movement of the post civil war era, in and of itself wouldn't have done anything. But once that energy was harassed into the Sierra Club you had important legislation passed. The Forest Reserve Act, the first major piece of federal environmental legislation exists because of lobbies. Without the Sierra Club you would have people writing poetry and painting pictures of nature and wishing that someone would do something to preserve America's natural beauty.

      Corruption is when a person acts against the interests he is supposed to be backing so as to support himself. So for example when Minerals Management Service under Bush was listening to energy extraction companies complaints and offering suggestions they were doing they job, the Bush administration had run on a friendly policy towards energy extraction. When the MMS was trading poor enforcement to energy companies for cocaine and sex that's corruption.

      Obviously most Democrats, myself included, are getting concerned that the balance of power between supports and constituents is getting skewed. Though think billionaires are far less corrupting than millionaires so see the rise of mega donors via. superpacs as potentially net helpful, even while far from ideal. And one can have a conversation about that. One could even use AIPAC as an example. But the context would then be how AIPAC is like dozens of other groups not a unique threat.

    • @oldgeezer

      OK fine then I'll happy compare Israel to Western countries when they were the same age.

      France: Israel is far more humane than the Merovingian kingdom.
      Spain: Israel is far more humane than the Federate Kingdom of the Visigoths and Vandals

      etc... What is ridiculous is to compare Israel at 65 to mature countries that had already cleared their territory of enemy nations centuries ago. A 3 year old can be quite bright and talented compared to other 3 year olds and still rather slow when compared to 20 years olds.

      As for the rest. Israel is a terrific democracy with a thriving advanced economy that doesn't get along well with a belligerent minority. They handle them rather humanely on balance, though there is room for improvement. Nothing shocking.

      Israel has far more than a semblance of democracy, it has a very successful democracy among the majority group. And not only that it has been able to extend somewhat to the minority groups. The fact that you wouldn't see that as a even a semblance is what I'm talking about regarding a complete lack of proportion.

    • @traintosiberia

      I think it has more to do with defense ties and fighting a common enemy. Israel has always wanted a friendship with India. India had a pro-Arab anti-Israel position. But as Arab-nationalism got replaced with Islamism; Israel's enemies hate India as well. Al-Shabaab has announced plans to go after Israeli and Jewish interests in Africa; they do quite aggressively go after Bollywood. So now well over a majority (and if you only include Hindus almost a supermajority) of Indians are pro-Israel.

      I don't see a conspiracy. Israel is becoming a normal country and thus countries who share common interests are willing to be friends.

    • @johneill

      , but I fail to see why such focus is antisemitic

      The focus in and of itself isn't anti-semitic. A site that focused on Japan wouldn't be anti-Japanese. A site that relentless attacked Japan for things that other countries did and took flaws in Japan completely out of proportion would be anti-Japanese. For example Japan has very high rates of teen prostitution. If that was all one talked about and tried to characterize Japanese society as having no properties other than teen prostitution that's not focus on Japan that's just blatant anti-Japanese bigotry. Normally if one were genuinely concerned with teen prostitution one might respond to that by looking at underlying causes or perhaps proposing reasonable solutions. Normally would look at other countries that also have high rates like Liberia and Burma and try and see if there are similarities. If someone was unable to do that but instead pretended that prostitution was a uniquely Japanese evil, then yes that's anti-Japanese bigotry not merely focus.

      to expose the sway a foreign country holds over US foreign policy

      What sway does Israel hold over US foreign policy? US foreign policy on Israel reflects the opinions of Americans. Your issue is not with a foreign country holding sway but domestic constituencies you don't like holding sway. The anti-Zionist crowd want the USA to reflect the UN and the anti-colonial movement, movements that mostly the USA has been hostile to. Ask South America or South Eastern Asia how found America is of leftist anti-colonialism. That has nothing to do with Israel.

      merely that Israel is afforded ‘different standards’ (for a number of reasons) in mainstream American discourse

      And that is anti-Semitic. Israel should be treated like any other middle eastern country.

      , there is a real difference between calling the only Jewish country to account for its numerous crimes against humanity, and calling an entire religion violent and backwards.

      What is the difference other than in one case you use the term "crimes against humanity" for relatively minor violations while on the other she is just calling the religion violent and backwards even though the death toll is far far higher?

      How is boycotting occupation by a foreign country a form of incitement against Jewish students on campus?

      Martians don't live and run Israel Jews do. Israel is a Jewish thing. Demonizing Israel is demonizing Judaism is demonizing Jews.

      It’s your conflation of Israel with Judaism that’s dangerous

      The Jews have collectively decided to embrace Zionism and Zionist claims. You may not like that Jews worldwide have decided to stop being just a religion and migrate towards being a nation, and that the majority of them are already a nation.. but that's the status and the direction is even clearly. Judaism and Israel are conflated. Israel is the Jewish state. Judaism is moving towards just being the Israeli religion in the same way that Shinto is just the Japanese religion.

      Also “Muslims are vastly vastly more powerful on a global scale than Jews”? are you kidding? In the middle east maybe, but definitely not globally, let alone Europe and the US

      Besides the middle east there is central Asia, Africa, Indonesia... 53 countries. As for Europe. there are 44.1m muslims in Europe and about 1.1m Jews. The fact you would consider them remotely comparable is part of the problem, a disproportionate attention paid to Jews. Jews are not that important.

      I'll hold on that one because I think the Europe example is so striking in making my point. But IMHO in the USA while the domestic population of Jews is likely more powerful than domestic Muslims; foreign muslims have strong ties to the energy industry which is one of the more powerful industries and and strong ties on about 50 countries worth of influence. Saudi Arabia alone seems to have much more influence over USA foreign policy than Israel. If American were really backing Israel the way critics claim it does (and arguably the way it does Saudi Arabia): America would support expulsion of the Palestinians, be on ISIS side and opposed fully to Iran and support all sorts of minority ethnicities like the Kurds and the Copts.

    • @Phil

      It is a good piece. You are a good writer.

      But you are not going to be able to write one of the most anti-Jewish sites on the web and not be thought of as an anti-Semite. Just to pick the recent example. You don't like Pamela Geller. Pamela Geller in her most racist diatribe doesn't advocate doing to Muslim countries what you want to do the Jewish ons. You believe that Pamela Geller is being racist when she incites Muslims and yet you work hard to make sure Jews are incited against on college campuses. I don't understand how you can quite literally have posts next to each other about Islamaphobia while inciting against Jews. Muslims are vastly vastly more powerful on a global scale than Jews, so it ain't a power thing. You get grouped with her. You don't want to get grouped with her stop running an anti-Jewish site.

      The issue with anti-semitism is not that you talk about the Zionist lobby or that you want to talk about how Jews handle power or you want to critique Israeli minority policy or... It is that you consistently hold Jews to entirely different standards than those you apply to other groups. Your argument is that the Zionist lobby is uniquely powerful. People like me would put it at the bottom of the top 20 nowhere near the pharmaceutical lobby or the agribusiness lobby. A good deal of what you write about the Zionist lobby is true of most lobbies. You don't indicate in your writing.
      a) You have objections to lobbying as a major component of how America is governed
      b) You have specific objections to the Zionist lobby.

      Conflating (a), writing about the Zionist lobby with charges that apply to all lobbies is anti-Semitic. It is just like the people who attack blacks for being on public assistance even though far more whites are on public assistance.

      Similarly on Israeli "crimes". Your site is completely biased exclusively focusing on bad stuff about Israel, among bad things presenting the most hostile sources and then further drawing conclusions as if there was no conflicting information. From that bias you are argue for policies that deny Jews any self determination and forever enslave them (at best) to Palestinians. Most Jews have a sense of proportion and balance. They understand that Israel is a young country dealing with the problems of a young nation and they should be rightfully compared to young countries not mature countries: Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Zaire... And in that comparison they come out quite well.

      When Pamela Geller says the most negative stuff possible about Muslims cast in the most negative light she gets classified differently than people who write balanced stuff. And that's irrespective of whether they think she has a good cause or not.

      Finally, certainly there are reasonable questions about having a dialogue on how the Jews handle power. This is a conversation the left has wanted to have with Jews since the 1940s, where Jews still think of themselves as a weak minority and no one else in the USA does. That being said, I suspect when they stop thinking of themselves that way America Jews are just going to be another group of white Republicans. Jewish support for the left is nothing like it was 2 generations ago., it is becoming more of a hobby than a point of self image. I think most Jews are liberal because they secular and educated. The dialogue is ultimately going to be for American Jews, "your interests are better aligned with the powerful's desire to maintain than the powerless' desire to adjust". Are you sure you really want what you are asking for?

  • Two videos to challenge my liberal Zionist friends
    • @Bumblebye

      The question is one of date ". Surrounding Arab forces did not join the conflict immediately." Why BDSers think their constant stream of hate is anymore valuable than farting in public is beyond me. You claim to be concerned about morality. Demonstrate some. Your comments about my factual skills without checking really do say a lot about your character.

      That being said you are also wrong. The Battle of Mishmar HaEmek one of the 4 I specifically mentioned above, started with an Arab attack on the kibbutz at Mishmar HaEmek. Mishmar HaEmek was wiithin the territory the UN allocated to Israel. A clear example of where the Palestinians / Arabs were ethnically cleansing Jews in territory within the UN partition plan for the Jewish state.

      Most of the immigrant Jews 20 years before the establishment of Israel were there because of Zionism

      That wasn't the point in question. The point in question was Jewish homeland vs. Jewish state both of which were at the time Zionist positions.

      Regardless however it is still false. In 1928 the majority of Jews were still primarily the children of religious immigrants, though by that point they were often at least semi-Zionist because of the anti-Jewish attacks of the 1920s.

      That’s how you counter what you call “factual errors”?!!

      If someone is going to claim knowledge of Israeli history, then not understand the major waves of immigration disproves that claim.

      About 8k Jews migrate for Zionism in the 19th century. 30,000 Jews were added between 1905 and 1914 in the 2nd wave from Russia and Poland. Lots of Jews from that wave die and some leave during WW1. In the 1922 census there are 89k Jews in Palestine. So how are the majority Zionist immigrants? This data comes from the Peel Report in (1937), which is the standard source.

      Where is your evidence for large scale migrations into Palestine

      For starters the tracked migration after the British take control. They are importing cheap labor to help the exploding citrus boom, quite openly.

    • @RoHa

      Would you seriously claim that neither of these unjustifiable events were the result of (in the sense of being mob reactions to) German and Japanese actions?

      You aren't addressing the issue. The American anti-German attacks in WWI were a reaction to German American's support for Germany in first world war and a desire that America remain neutral. It wasn't a response to the German government but rather terrorism by the American government directed at Germans in preparation for the American governmental response. Now certainly in some sense the American response was being driven by German government actions. So if we were going to use the analogy:

      The Palestinians were planning to attack Zionism.
      Terrorism against the larger broader Jewish population was an attempt to terrorize that population into submission and not supporting Zionism.

      Then of course the analogy breaks down because unlike the German case the Palestinians were unsuccessful and the Jews responded by becoming more Zionist. And that's where the problem with that theory that you halfway present is, the types of terrorism the Palestinians were employing inconsistent with the types of terrorism you would use if the goal was to cause a break with the Zionists. If they had wanted to cause a break then they would have terrified the most vulnerable who had moderate ties with Zionism but avoided those with lose or no ties. They didn't do that. If your theory is true you need to explain why they choose to focus most attacks on the mostly religious civilians with weakest Zionist ties and nor for example the financial colonial Jews in the citrus industry who had moderate ties. You need to work your analogy through in some detail so that Palestinian actions make sense.

      As for the Japanese Americans here you had a situation where white racism had created a situation of an unassimilated minority which could be effectively a 3rd column. The navy began planning for internment in the mid 1930s. So again for your theory to hold you would have to have the consequent of Japanese civilian isolation and thus the military threat they posed predating a cause of the navy utilizing internment to neutralize the threat.

    • @Ian --

      I find it remarkable in an article talking about what Liberal Zionists refuse to accept how many factual errors you have. Let's start with this one:

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

      Well first off the surrounding arab forces did enter immediately. The Arab Liberation Army was a mercenary, terrorist army funded primarily by Egypt and Syria though with troops from Lebanon, Transjordan and scattered irregulars. The formal actual armies didn't come in after the ethnic cleansing they came in because in 1947 the Mandate was still under British control. To have invaded then would be to declare war on Britain. Operation Hiram, the Battle for Jerusalem, the Battle of Mishmar HaEmek and the Battle of Ramat Yohanan all happened between the Haganah and foreign fighters prior to your claim of when the Arabs attacked.

      Maybe you should consider that Liberal Zionists don't believe the BDS version of history because you all cite facts like this that are just blatantly false.

      Let's pick the next example:

      About two decades before Israel’s Declaration of Independence, Jews were a small minority of the population in Palestine. Yet they had already decided they would build a state for Jews on that land.

      That's also not true. There quite a lot of Jews who supported a Jewish homeland not a Jewish state in 1928. There certainly were elements of Zionism that wanted a Jewish state and not merely a homeland but to pretend there was uniformity in 1928 or even a solid majority is simply to read the present into the past. In 1928 I suspect the most popular views were either:

      a) That Israel should be a Jewish homeland within the single worldwide Communist state that would soon form from proletarian internationalism.

      b) A colonial model similar to what was still growing in white Africa.

      These 1920s Jews don't know that within one generation Eastern European Judaism will mostly cease to exist and the empire system that had existed for centuries was permanently destroyed by World War I. Thus they have an entirely different ideas than the Zionist leadership twenty years later or today. I'm not sure you would have found 2% that supported a democratic neo-liberal capitalist state with institutional theocratic elements.

      This is where they [the Palestinians] lived. For millennia.

      This of course is also not true. We have histories of multiple large scale migrations during the last two millennia with regard to Palestine where the population or at least large chunks of it was replaced. If you wanted to make that case with respect to the Levant you perhaps could but again that's the sort of historical facts that confuse your narrative.

      I could well over a dozen of these types of factual errors in your post. So what I'd say is you are a good example of the pot calling the kettle black. If you are going to accuse someone of not accepting facts and sticking their head in the sand to avoid uncomfortable facts it is probably best not to do the same thing and oversimplify when it confuses your simple narrative.

    • @RoHa

      The riots of the 20s and 30s were protests against bunch of foreigners coming into the country with the aim of taking it over. Didn’t matter whether those foreigners were Jews or not.

      That's a nice theory. There are two problems.

      The vast majority of Jews in Palestine in the early 1920 had moved their during Ottoman times for religious reasons and weren't Zionists. The riots made them Zionists. Had the desire been to reduce Zionism the Palestinians would have employed the opposite of gang mass violence against Jews. The riots unified the Jews of Palestine behind Zionism. Again causes before consequents.

      Second, where the violence often happened were religious centers not centers of Zionism. The religious centers were Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron. Those areas shouldn't have seen rioting if the goal was to attack the nationalist. Yet things like the 1925 and 1929 Palestine riot were against Jewish religious symbols like the Western Wall not Zionist activities. You would have seen the places for the riots be Zionist symbols. So things like the Jaffa riot are consistent with your theory but the Hebron and Jerusalem are not.

      Its a nice theory for liberals since it lets Palestinians off the hook and creates an easy bad guy. The problem is the evidence is inconsistent with it. The Palestinians of the 1920s and 30s were religious bigots attacking a religious minority. They certainly paid lip service to anti-colonialism but the fundamentally were against Judaism not Zionism. Had they been solely against Zionism they would have chosen different strategies.

    • @Kris

      The number of Palestinians who died in Gaza in 2014 was roughly the number of Jews who died in a single shower in Auschwitz. The number of Palestinians who have been killed in the entire conflict is about the number that would have died in just one of the death camps in one day. Comparing what Israel is doing to the Palestinians to the Holocaust is a grotesque lack of proportion.

      If Israel were invade Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq... In those countries install a police force that systematically and methodical tracked and then aggregated the Palestinian population to facilitate deportation to Israel so that they could be sent to death camps where they were raped, humiliated, starved prior to being exterminated in death factories churning out hundreds of dead per hour, 24x7x365 for years, then we would be talking about something comparable to the holocaust. Israel is not doing anything remotely like that.

      You aim to be polite so I don't think you are meaning to be as offensive as that comparison sounds. Jews were ethnically cleansed and forced to move from countries in Europe and Arabia dozens of times. A fair comparison in Jewish history of the Nabka is the First Jewish-Roman war (–Roman_War) which is when the Jews were expelled from Palestine. And Jews most certainly do still remember that, and prayed for their returned for 1900 years. We have a holiday Tisha B'Av where we mourn the loss of our country.

      So I agree with your main point about remembering while still objecting to the analogy.

      As for your even more key point about the persecution of Christians and Jews with the USA and Israel being responsible no. You are seeing the same kind of persecution regarding other minorities. The middle east is undergoing national consolidations where the vague and overlapping ethnic and cultural identities that existed during the Ottoman period are firming up into strong national identities. The nation-state system requires the dispossession and sometimes destruction of minorities. So for example in Adib Bin Hassan Al-Shishakli (head of Syria in the early 1950s) his focus was on persecuting Druze, declaring any kind of non-Syrian identity to be treasonous. There is no external country whipping up hatred against the Druze. And the consolidation of the Alawites came partially from earlier persecutions like the Turkish expelling them from İskenderun.

      As the people of the middle east form viable states capable of being meaningfully democratic they will do through by hatred and violence. National formation is messy business.

    • @Donald

      I think you miss Hophmi point. Causes always precede consequents in time. The anti-Jewish massacres the 1920s and 30s could not have been caused by the ethnic cleansing in 1948-9. The hostility towards Jews can't be a result of ethnic cleansing because the hostility existed prior to the ethnic cleansing.

      Hophmi can’t bring himself to admit that Israel exists as a Jewish state because the Palestinians were forced out.

      Lots of states exist with minority populations in control.
      Sunni Muslims in Bahrain
      Muhajirs (Urdu-speakers) in Pakistan
      and up until recently and possibly still the Alawites in Syria

      The Yishuv existed as a Jewish proto-state when the Palestinians were still resident. While there was so overlap a partition plan in the 1930s was viable because the Palestinians lived in interior areas that weren't inhabited by Jews. Most of the areas in Israel (pre-1967) where Palestinians used to live are still empty or close to empty. There are many states where an urban population dominates a rural population politically and economically, the United States being a good example.

      Israel as a Jewish is not a product of the ethnic cleansing. Serious moves towards transfer started happening in 1942 as a result of the war in 1936-9. The plan was implemented as a result of the 1947-9 war. The Jewish community in 1948-9 was able to carry transfer while being harassed by 6 foreign armies which shows the disparity in power that already existed in the 1947. The disparity in power, that is the Jewish dominance of Israel, is not a consequent of the Nabka but a pre-requisite for it.

      Causes always precede consequents in time.

  • Non-Jewish Israelis remain faceless, nameless, voiceless in 'New York Times' coverage
    • @James

      Does public transport shut down on Sunday in the West? I’ll repeat: “public” transport.

      Either shutdown or reduce change schedule absolutely. Take your pick of public transportation systems and start looking at their weekend schedules.

    • @James

      b), how do they feel to have one day of their week shut down for another religion’s observance?

      I suspect a lot like the Jews in the west do having their weekend be Saturday and Sunday. Same thing. Funny that this one doesn't bother you as much.

  • Herzog lost Israeli election because he didn't have blood on his hands -- Shalev
    • @Blah

      Pretty much here is the problem. Bibi managed to scare lots of rightwing voters who normally would have voted with his coalition partners into voting Likud so as to avoid Labor beating Likud (just party to party) and Herzog being invited to form a coalition. Which means that while he has a tremendously strong Likud , he has created a situation in which the settler party, religious party for Mizrahi Jews (moderate right), Russian party wouldn't mind another round of elections. They certainly don't have an incentive to help Likud / Netanyahu form a government that will easily hold together for 4 years. Which means those parties want a lot of policy concessions or positions to form a coalition with Netanyahu.

      At the same time the centrist parties ran on a platform of economic reform. They want major policy concessions and moderate cabinet positions. They themselves would likely prefer to sit under Herzog though their voters would prefer Netanyahu so they can be as demanding as they want. That combination means for Netanyahu to easily form a coalition he'd have to give away both lots of policy and lots of positions to other parties even though his party won a huge percentage of the vote (25% outright).

      Take for example Jewish home. Jewish home has 12 seats in the last knesset. At their high point they were polling as high as 19. They had deep infighting that knocked them down from 16-19 to 11-13, that infighting wasn't Netanyahu's fault. But then Netanyahu stabbed them in the back and broke his agreement not to campaign against one another and they ended up only getting 8. Were the election held tomorrow where their voters aren't scared of a Labor led government and the anger over the internal issues can be resolves they are at 13+. They'll sit in coalition with Likud but they want either massive policy concessions, the defense ministry or the foreign ministry.

      Remember the Defense Ministry runs the government in the West Bank. So giving Jewish Home (the settler party) Defense is giving the settlers complete control to set law however they want. Foreign Ministry means official adopting the Bennett plan; Netanyahu moving away from supporting 2 states in some vague future along 1967 lines and instead having a policy that he should at least defacto annex 60% of the West Bank. He could do it, but its a major change in exchange for 8 seats.

      You can see his problem. A unity government is looking more and more like the best alternative where he just gives Labor all the small stuff (policy concessions and lower level cabinet) their voters and bureaucracy really cares about and then he can bring in the centrist parties.

  • If Not Now, When?: Jewish anti-occupation activism and accountability to Palestinians
    • @Giles

      Americans for Peace Now which was a huge anti-occupation group was founded in 1981. Tandi which was its predecessor existed from the early 1960s. The Jewish-American peace camp has always existed.

      So no your conspiracy theory is just bunk.

  • Terrorism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: An argument
    • @Philemon

      JeffB, let’s be clear. Are you defending ethnic cleansing, slavery and genocide because it was practiced in some places and at some times? Or perhaps, maybe, you hold these practices everywhere and always to be wrong. Where do you stand?

      Where I stand primarily is utilitarian: the greatest long term good for the greatest number. Most policies have negatives, most policies have positives. You evaluate by net negatives vs. net positives. If an ethnic cleansing accomplishes far greater goods than I'd be in favor. For example you anti-Zionists conducted a mass ethnic cleansing in Egypt from 1957-62 of about 200k Europeans. Mostly you all don't hang your head in shame and say that discredits anti-Zionism. You accept that was part of Egypt's evolution towards self government.

      What I can say though is I am firmly against the magical and narcissistic view that where I stand is of any importance on what-is questions and that lying about what-is is somehow morally superior to being truthful because of what-should-be type concerns.

      Now, as to my point on ethnic cleansing, I was merely pointing out that to displace large populations, a modern transport network is necessary.

      You didn't merely do that. You were also insulting and rude and built upon that to attack me personally. But more importantly the Athenian example disproves that. If no displacement of a large population happened then no large migration of Athenians could have happened and since the large migration did happen... Another ancient example is the destruction of the Jie people.

      The Cimbri migrated from Juteland (their entire population) to Rome in 7 years without modern transportation and were forced out just as quickly. Etc...

      As such, ethnic cleansing, in the modern sense, was not possible in a pre-industrial economy.

      Prove it.

    • @Philmon

      Your claim was that were no genocides or ethnic cleansings till after the invention of railroads. You are now agreeing that we have archeological records of genocides which predate railroads but they were accidents.

      But more importantly on the very first case we name you can't give a plausible explanation for where the houses came from the Athenians moved into. You were very clear. "The resident population remained and had to be appeased". Under that scenario what would Thucydides be upset about, the Athenians moving in and appeasing the people of Melos? Why would Thucydides have fabricated that from whole cloth? Did he also fabricate general Lysander resettling the refugees from Melos after Athens defeat. If there was no ethnic cleansing where did those refugees from from? Or did Thucydides make up that detail too.

      Melos is 75 miles from mainland Greece. If Thucydides is fabricating an ethnic cleansing, a refugee population that never existed and two post war migrations just years earlier than the book how do the people of mainland Greece not know of his fabrications?

      Your theory is ridiculous. And this BTW is on the first case. We aren't going to get into a moral argument about what's being justified or not. Honesty is a part of morality. Politeness is part of morality. In so far as you are capable of acting with or without morality on an internet form you have chosen not to. You have made rude statements about my mental deficiencies and lack of knowledge. When confronted with the fact that you were in the wrong you choose to make other rude statements to divert rather than do the ethical thing and apologize. You sir are demonstrating such a lack of moral judgement in the area of honesty and that we are not going to engage on the more complex topic of ethics.

      I certainly can't stop you from being rude and a liar. You are a BDS supporter and that's what your cause is about. What I can say is that it is now demonstrated.

    • @RoHa

      And why are you banging on about anti-colonialism and racial claims to land to me? I am not the one saying “Jews have a right to Judea.”

      No you are saying Palestinians have the right to Judea. You have claimed unequivocally that by migrating to Judea and trying to live there the Jews became the enemies of humanity (a claim that is so out of proportion it is hard to even think about). Your entire position that Palestinians have rights to a state and Jews did not is based on racial entitlement. Once you start granting that everyone who lives in a territory is entitled to equality and that all people not people of the right ethnicity should be part of their government then the whole BDS narrative of a Jewish invasion of Palestine falls apart. In America when neighborhoods went from being Welsh to being Irish we didn't talk about how the Welsh but not the Irish had the right to establish the town's government, rather the town's government should reflect the current residents of the town regardless of ethnicity. Looked at that way, the Jews become migrants, the Palestinian attacks on the Jews in the 1920s and 1930s become acts of ethnic hatred which can be legitimately defended against.... The entire BDS narrative is based on the racial denial of the equality of all people that is at the core of the anti-colonial movement.

      As far as I am concerned, the Algerian colons, the white South Africans, and the Israelis have the right to keep on living in the respective lands.

      Then what does all the enemy of humanity and only the natives have the right to live in their country mean?

      And there is no moral principle that “nations” are entitled to states. (If you think there is, argue for it.)

      That is the Peace of Westphalia. When you talk about "democratic principles" one of the things they rest on is the idea that states should represent the interests of the population residing in the territory. There are alternative systems for example the belief that Kings are appointed by Jesus and rule territories for the interests of God, which with updated language is the UN's position. Or that all people regardless of their desires should be unified in a single global superstate with more or less one set of laws. But if you want to talk about "democratic principles" one of the key ones is to deny such ideas and assert clearly that when you have to have governments over territory represent the interests of the people of that territory.

      Next if you have democratic principles you don't have empires. That is the people who make up the state must as much as possible have similar ideas about the nature of the good, otherwise they can't evaluate whether policies are working or not. The state must also be military viable. So you end up with tension: big enough to be able to defend itself, small enough to be governable. That is the unit of humanity for which states exist, what is called a nation.

      One can deny that peoples have the right to construct a government that represents their interests, but if you don't deny that right then states should represent nations.

      And so? Those who lived in Palestine were ipso facto Palestinians, and thus had the right to establish a state in that territory.

      This is exactly why I accuse you of supporting racism and anti-colonialism.

      Achmed moves from territory in Syria to Palestine in 1880. He has a son there named Cassem.
      Ishmael moves from France to Palestine in 1880. He has a son names Samuel.

      Your language about Palestinians and not Jews being legitimate is that Cassem is entitled to self determination and the right to a government that represents his interests while Samuel should be denied that same right. You can either believe in non-racial democratic principles and believe that both are equally entitled, or you can believe in racist anti-colonialism but they certainly contradict. When you say stuff like, "The establishment of Israel was a violation of the rights of the non-Jewish part of the population" you are clearly arguing that when Samuel aims to govern himself that's a violation of Cassem's rights but when Cassem does the same that's fine, because Cassem is of the right ethnicity. It certainly isn't because either one is native they are both migrants.


      France was not formed by a “French nation having national aspirations”. It was formed by Kings taking over neighboring countries and telling the people “You are now part of France. Learn to speak properly.”

      That is completely false. The Frankish people existed long before the French state. The Roman King of Gallia (what corresponds to French territory) ruled over the people who ended up in Hispania (Spain). The Kings of territories within Gallia (regions of France) who emerged after Attila already had a solid majority nation in their territory.
      The Franks unified them, but they didn't have to force French on them the people's of the territory evolved the French language naturally.

      Similarly with the other examples. Your history of how countries formed is just way off.

    • @Kris

      many thanks for your thoughtful reply to my comment.

      You are welcome. Thank you for being polite a welcome change around here.

      You didn’t explain how Jews who believe in Judaism are able to condone the horrors that Israeli Jews inflict on the Palestinians,

      Look at virtually any of the battles of World War I and compare the horrors of those to the entire Israeli / Palestinian conflict. People don't ask the question "how did people who believe in Christianity commit the horrors of the first World War". My answer is going to be very similar to what you would get if you were to ask that question.

      One of the areas where Judaism disagrees with Christianity (especially Catholicism) is on the doctrine of doing vs. allowing harm or doctrines of double effect. Generally in traditional Christian morality one is not allowed to do an evil act even if the consequence of that evil act is net positive. That is in traditional Christian morality you shouldn't lie to someone about to murder about where his potential victim is hiding because the lie is an active evil while the murder is merely a passive evil. Now cooperating with evil is not required so traditional Christian morality prohibits the Christian from telling the murder where the victim is hiding.

      Judaism takes a utilitarian position, an act is good if it produces net good effects an act is evil in so far as it produces net bad effects. So in Judaism it is moral to do act X even if X has bad effects as long as
      1) The good effects G substantially outweigh the bad
      2) There is no action Y with less bad effects that also accomplishes G.

      In short it is perfectly moral in Judaism to do an evil thing to help a good cause providing the good substantially outweighs the bad. This has substantial impact on the doctrine of war. Christian theology on war prohibits any active evil. One can't ever kill a civilian even if killing that civilian saves many additional lives. Jewish theology of war allows for committing evil acts, like killing a civilian, providing that much larger good emerges. If the only way to stop a plague that would kill millions is to kill hundreds then it is moral to kill those hundreds.

      So the only way in Judaism cruelty towards the Palestinians would be permitted is if that cruelty avoided much greater horrors. I understand you don't agree but most Jews believe the alternative to Israel is Auschwitz (or at least a return to slow death of slavery). So if you grant that premise abandoning the Jewish state, the failure of Zionism, is to simply engage in the premeditated murder of millions. It would require a situation where Israel would have to kill millions for defending Zionism to no longer be a moral cause. In such a situation the moral calculus with regard to the Palestinians is to achieve the objective with the minimum amount of evil.

      Now on top of that I don't agree with you on the facts. I don't agree that Israel has engaged in "chilling and unhuman cruelty" as a matter of policy. I think on the whole Israel has tried to achieve their objectives with minimum loss of life against an enemy that has proven itself highly determined. The hope is that Israel is as just as is possible in achieving Zionism. On the whole I think they have been successful. That's not to say there aren't areas of Israeli policy that I disagree with, nor that I agree with every act historically. Rather it is to say that rational, thoughtful, moral people carefully weighed the options and made a rational thoughtful moral determination about the course of action and carried it out. This was done by humans. There were errors. There were places where individual soldiers lost their temper or gave into sadistic impulses. But those have not been policy and overwhelmingly those have not been the norm.

      As for Schweber one of the central ideas in Liberal theology is that progress through history leads to increases in humane values whatever those are. So for example an early 19th century liberal would point to history and talk about how the progress of humanity had led towards the stacking of races into a natural hierarchy of mutual benefit. Another liberal 100 years later would point to history and talk about how the progress of humanity had led towards the breakdown or racial and tribal barriers.

      The conflation of "stuff I like" with "the flow of history" is what Schweber is doing. Israelis are becoming less morally torn regarding acts of violence. They are also becoming more technologically sophisticated, more not less socially equal, they have a much greater degree of respect of individual rights... They are becoming less torn towards acts of violence for a few reasons:

      1) The Israelis see less alternative to them. In the 1980s Israelis were generally unsure if what they were doing was the least violent way to handle the Palestinians. Today they have a situation where negotiation and peace gesturers have failed while violence has been successful. So Israelis in 2015 are more like Israelis in 1955 than those of 1990. Again I understand you don't agree but the Palestinians have proven to the Israelis that the only way they can be convinced to live in peace is through sustained state terror. Israelis believe Palestinians respond violently to concessions once violence has started.

      2) Israelis in 1987 colonial relationship with the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza for two decades. Moreover socially there was normalization. Every Israeli had peaceful to those areas and had had personally good experiences with Palestinians. Today because of the collapse of colonial rule into occupation / violent annexation in the West Bank, the independence of Gaza and a policy of denormalization socially most of the younger Israelis have never had a positive interaction with a Gazan and few if any with West Bank Palestinians. More and more the two sides simply don't empathize with one another or discuss issues. They simply demonize one another and incite their respective populations towards hatred. Denormalization is breeding hatred.

      3) The Soviet Union and their allies have collapsed. With that collapse Soviet anti-Zionism (which is what BDS is a rehash of) has moved from a mainstream position broadly supported by many governments to a fringe position that while popular with huge chunks of the world's muslim peoples has no major governmental sponsor outside Iran. Palestinian rejection of Zionism is now seen by Israelis as more rooted in anti-Semiticism and their own sense of historical injustice and not part of a broader 3rd world liberation struggle.

      Not as sexy as some theory that Israelis are regressing but more accurate. People respond to situations, change the situation you change the response.

    • @Philmon

      or how, before the 20th century and widespread railroads, ethnic cleansing wasn’t really an option. The resident population remained and had to be appeased.

      Let's take one of the first recorded genocides the destruction of Melos. The Athenians claimed they killed the men and sold the women and children into slavery. They took the houses and resettled there. The Spartans claimed that the survivors were those who fled before or early in the fighting and got off the island.

      If the people of Melos all survived where did these houses come from that the Athenians moved into?

      As for your argument. Human beings extincted other species for at least 100k years. If they can exterminate a species they can clear a small area of its human inhabitants.

    • @Philemon

      Well, duh, Israel didn’t exist, but the legal entity, which did exist, was called the “Palestinian Mandate” after the people who lived there… in Palestine

      The Palestinian Mandate didn't exist in the 19th century either, which is the period we are talking about. As for naming it after the people who lived there that is total BS. Palestine is named after the Peleset people who died out in the 12th century BCE. The Assyrians when they resettled the region (which at this point and for 1000 years longer included huge chunks of Syria) called it "Pilistu".

      I think you might want to consider being a bit more circumspect after that.

    • @Kris

      Wrote another reply but I don't see it here. Gist of the comment was

      1) When Hillel was alive Judaism was for him the state religion of Judaea. Hillel was forming many of the ideas of what would become Rabbinic Judaism, but he was doing it in a context very much unlike what would exist later. He was inclusive for him Judaism would have meant to varying degrees

      i) People living in Judaea who identified with the nationality
      ii) Descendents of those people living in much of the rest of the empire who still considered themselves ethnically Judaean and worshipped the Judaean God.
      iii) Partial descendants and others who were tied to the religion partially (God Fearers). So for example a 1/2 Jew who sacrificed to both Jupiter and HaShem but identified them with each

      Seeing him in the context of Judaism as a religion in a purely denationalized sense, i.e. something like how 1950s American Jews viewed their religion is reading the present into the past

      2) Hillel's concept of neighbor is universal. He means this in a fully inclusive sense. He was a strong advocate for universal morality. He was a huge advocate for universalism and his school (much more than him personally) continued to advocate for them for the next 2 generations or so.

      Finally Judaism (and this is pretty much across the board, regardless of strain) is not a religion of belief, it is a religion of practice. It isn't like Christianity where saying believing stuff matters much. It is a question of doing stuff. So for example worshipping other Gods is idolatry in Judaism. Whether in your heart you are a monotheist, henotheist or atheist doesn't matter nearly as much. A guy who believes in Jewish stuff but isn't circumcised isn't Jewish, while a guy who is properly circumcised is Jewish.

      The best Christian analogy would be discussion in about how sacraments are ex opere operato; particularly the argument for how paedobaptism can be effectual. Again its a lose analogy because the religions are really far apart but maybe that will help.

    • @Eljay

      Canadians [New France] are not expat French citizens.
      Americans [French Florida] are not expat French citizens.

      They are the descendants of people who used to live in France. An expat is someone who leaves the country of their citizenship. The "Palestinians refugees" are not expat Israelis they were never citizens of Israel. Moreover their ancestors weren't even citizens of Israel since Israel didn't exist when their ancestors lived their.

      You need to think through your analogy a bit.

    • @Eljay

      France is not looking to be a nation of its expats. The people of New France (today chunks of Canada) can't vote in French elections. The people of French Florida can't vote in French elections and vote in American elections. Amapá vote in Brazilian elections. Etc... Infinite claims on "expats" are precisely the kinds of based on race that France rejects.

      Now unlike normally you did mention "n-generations" if n=1 then you have the sorts of parentage laws that most countries have. But that's rejecting not accepting the BDS claim with regard to refugees.

      As for you claim that Israel doesn't aim to have its nationals and its citizens unify I'd say the history disproves that pretty clearly. In the 1970s this claim wasn't made with respect to Jews but instead "European Jews" because they Mizrahi population hadn't been fully absorbed yet. Now you have to say "Jew". If you want a non-Jewish example you can see with with Russian Christians. The Israeli Arabs were being successfully absorbed until the early 1980s and even since then there has been a lot of progress.

      You just have weird criteria for a state. Mostly the criteria isn't true of any other state. And that it should be applied equally to all, except only to the Jewish state. I've pointed this out to you again and again and again in cases like Japan.

      France has always been culturally Catholic. To be fully French is to have a culture in line with the culture of Catholic Europe. The degree to which a minority can refuse to accommodate itself to French culture and not suffer legal and financial penalties is pretty low. In the one case you applaud it in the other it becomes some immoral supremacist doctrine.

    • @RoHa

      “Everybody acquired territory by force”

      Maybe so. That doesn’t mean (a) it wasn’t wrong, and (b) we should sit back and let it happen.

      OK. We are probably less than a century from having the technology if we so choose to extinct all the plants and shift the atmosphere back to carbon-nitrogen so as to undo the first major conquest from the anaerobic bacteria. I know of 0 people who advocate that position. So obviously people are OK with conquest. You have a problem with your point (a) and (b). It isn't always wrong and quite often we not only should but do sit back and let it happen.

      Once we accept that essentially all countries are a product of conquest that ceases to be a reason to single Israel out. If one is going to be opposed to people's living on land gained by conquest, in a consistently held moral position then they are going to need to be opposed to all people living anywhere. Heck the Palestinians gained Palestine in the 7th and 8th century through conquest, one could view the Jews justifiable reversing their unjust gains if we were going to apply your system. It works equally well in both directions.

      So what? The right to establish a state does not depend on “national aspirations” or being a “distinct group”. The right is simply that of all the people within a specific territory

      You are 100% wrong here. The way we device territories is based on their national features not their geographic features. That's why France and Germany are two territories and not one, and Russia which in the Ural mountains has the largest geographical divide in all Europe is one territory. Having national aspirations and being a distinct group is precisely the criteria for being a nation entitled to a state under the nation-state system.

      Now as for the rest:

      I am not denying that Israelis born in the territory have the right to live there

      Israelis today were almost all born in Israel. Palestinian refugees today were almost all born in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan... Believing that people have the right to live in the territory to which they were born completely contradicts BDS. It also contradicts anti-colonialism. Anti-colonialism makes strong racial claims to land. The destruction of white Africa was based on the idea that people do not have the right to live where they were born. You have to decide if you are an anti-colonialist and thus firmly a political racist, or if you support equal rights for all people everywhere.

      Yes, every Jew is a human being and deserving of equality with every other human being. Claiming that Jews have a right to take over a chunk of country from someone else is not claiming equality but superiority

      Superiority to whom? That's how all people live. Under your system why do the French / Franks have the right to take over a chunk of Visigoth territory? If you want to claim a moral principle it needs to be applied in an equal fashion to all peoples and all situations.

      The people of Palestine lived in Palestine, not a wider region.

      That is false at the time we are talking about. The Levant people lived in the levant: Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and large chunks of Jordan. That most certainly is a wider region. We know there was heavy migration throughout the Levant during the 19th and early 20th century.

      You have done a wonderful job in ignoring our repeated arguments that being French means being a citizen of France.

      I'm not ignoring. That's an entirely different argument than the anti-colonial argument. Anti-colonialism asserted that Christians and Jews were not Algerians, the opposite of what you are arguing for in this paragraph. You are trying to have multiple completely contradictory theories of politics.

      If you want to argue France as a model that's fine. There is a French nation, there is a territory of France and there is a French state. The French state exists to serve the French nation. The territory of France is governed by the French state. The people who live in French territory are almost all part of the French nation to greater and lesser degrees and are almost all assimilating towards greater membership in the French nation. That's exactly what should be true of Israel and what Israel is aiming for. Arguing for the French model i.e. the nation state is not contradicting Zionism, it is agreeing with it.

    • @Talknic

      You aren't reading the replies. For example I said quite specifically

      “I would need to see some evidence that were the Gazans to agree to live in Gaza in peace with Israel that Israel would reject that offer.”

      And you respond: The offer was made in front of the world at the UN , Israel ignored it and continued to build illegal settlements. With a link that includes mostly territory other than Gaza.

      The point in question is not whether the Palestinians in the West Bank are willing or not willing to live in peace but whether the Gazans are. The Gazans have not indicated that they are. The rest of your argument boils down to begging the question. You assume that the West Bank is not part of Israel and then make assertions based on that.

      Certainly it isn't circular for a UN absolutist to assert that the West Bank isn't Israel, but most of the others here make a moral claim that the UN had no right to draw borders where it wants. And that does contradict UN absolutism. If the UN has the right to expel the Jews from Ariel, Betar Illit, Maale Adumim, Modi'in Illit it has the right to expel Palestinians. I don't agree with you on UN absolutism but that's the point of disagreement. I'm not asserting that UN absolutism and the 2SS based on it is self contradictory (though I do think your claim about the 1948 border and not the 1967 border contradicts UN absolutism since the UN has accepted the 1967 border numerous times). But for those who argue that borders should be based on criteria like consent, self determination, popular will... and not UN absolutism they do contradict your position.

    • @RoHa

      Your assertions about who have what rights are merely assertions. I can easily assert X has a right to do Y for anything, that doesn' t prove much. Mr. Slater is trying to convince Jews. A moral system, like the anti-colonial system, which argues that change of ownership is inherently immoral and thus Jews must be permanently denied the rights shared by other nations because they lost a war in the 1st century, is unlikely to be convincing to Jews. In the end either you agree Jews are humans and deserving of equality or you don't and you agree with Hitler that they are parasites on humanity and not deserving of anything. I get that you think that Jews should have endured centuries more of their destruction so as not to displace some vague claim to Palestine by a group of people who lived in a much wider region including Palestine.

      But Jews are not going to find an argument for their permanent slavery convincing. They are not going to agree to their own inequality. Jews believe that Jews have the same right to Judea, as Chinese do to China and French do to France. There are Jews who are perfectly comfortable with Jews living in permanent subordination, but they are rare. I get that you fully support the destruction of Zionism / Israel / the Jews. But the fact you find that a good program doesn't mean Jews will. If you want to be convincing on a moral argument for Jews it is going to have to come from a place that includes the full equality of Jews.

      Everybody acquired territory by force. Everybody. If the argument is that no one has the right to live where their ancestors conquered then no one has the right to live anywhere. Get rid of oxygen and give the planet back to the anaerobic bacteria because they are the only original inhabitants anywhere. Everyone else stands thousands of generations of conquest. The Palestinians if one wants to assert their heritage were the agents of many iterations of brutality and slaughter.

      As an aside. Your comment about rights is also historical wrong. In the mid 1800s when Zionism started, there was no distinct group of Palestinians. The people whose descendants would identify as Palestinians didn't have an independent national aspirations. They likely would have wanted greater autonomy or a more fair and just system of government. The pan Arabism that saw Palestinian Druze, Christians, Muslims... as one people didn't exist yet. The Levant people's lived in an empire, and had a political ideology mostly in sync with those that exist in empires (which incidentally is far closer to what most Mondoweissers actually want than anti-colonialism's strong national identity): weak national identity, porous borders, free movement of people and goods, rapid cultural exchange, frequent intermarriage between nations... Asserting that the Palestinians had the right to construct a nation-state based on strict geographic criteria is like asserting that they had the right to construct a satellite telescope.

    • A few comments. On the definition of terrorism there are really 2 core definitions that are in use:

      1) The use of violence short of war against a population to change political opinion.
      2) Violent actions by militias not in control of specific territory (i.e. not a government or guerrilla organization) as a way of exerting political pressure.

      Now mostly these tend to be related. But they are not the same. For example state terror meets criteria (1) but not criteria (2), while something like the French resistance meets criteria (2) but not criteria (1).

      The reason that (2) is often used is because of thinking of terrorism as a Crome. Government is the unique entity empowered by the nation to use violence in the collective interest, in particular to shape opinion. In America the government has used imprisonment (i.e. forcibly grabbing people and throwing people in cages for long stretches of time) to change attitudes towards actions that they would otherwise like to engage in: drugs, prostitution, underage drinking... Coca-Cola has to convince me to engage with them, government by definition can initiate an engagement. The degree of force the government uses in shaping public opinion then comes down to the degree to which the broad public disagrees with the government's policy and the degree to which the leadership considers the disagreed with policy essential.

      The USA for example was willing to threaten violence against the South during the civil rights era to enforce federal court rulings. The ability to have law is ultimately the ability to effectuate violence on parts of the civilian population. They are the same thing. The entity that controls the army and the police is the government.

      Which is why we tend to distinguish between violence committed by governments and violence committed by individuals the later only being a "crime".


      I also think your argument is not going to be all that persuasive to Jews. For example you have a long section where you talk about how illegitimate the initial Zionist goal of establishing a state was. While with the Palestinians Israeli actions are: , so have their essential purpose, which is to maintain the occupation and prevent the Palestinians from reaching their just goal of an independent state. That is precisely the same kind of argument that Governor Ross Barnett could have made. He could have said that the white people of Mississippi are legitimate citizens who founded the state and thus have a just cause to rule while the black people are illegitimate products of the war of northern aggression and thus should not be permitted to rule. Either you believe in equality of all people or you don't. If you are going to argue for a permanent racial inequality where Jews do not have legitimacy and others do, I'm not sure why you would expect Jews to find that argument convincing.

      Moreover I should comment that your goal is just wrong. The goal of Israeli actions so far in the West Bank is to inhabit and live there. They aren't merely occupying they are migrating to it building homes and infrastructure. The same way Americans have migrated West over the last few generations. Obviously Israel does not agree that the Palestinians have a just right to an independent state in the West Bank given that they have formally annexed chunks of it, and de jure annexed a majority of it.

      As for Gaza I see no evidence that Israel doesn't want Gaza to be independent. It is the Gazans that has mostly attacked and harassed Israel since the 2005 withdraw. I would need to see some evidence that were the Gazans to agree to live in Gaza in peace with Israel that Israel would reject that offer. As you are willing to admit, Hamas has been quite inconsistent in their rhetoric and even on those who are consistent they have been consistent on 1967 lines not Gaza as the Palestinians state. I should mention though it is clear that Israel is willing to negotiate with Hamas at least on day to day matters.

  • Video: Pressure mounts on Robbie Williams to choose between Tel Aviv and UNICEF
    • @Maximus

      If Israel’s economy is so strong, why the massive inequality

      Up to a certain point inequality helps economic growth. Poorer people tend to spend their money richer people tend to invest it. Wealth concentration is one way of shifting the balance of economic activity away from spending and towards investment. The USA may be beyond that point as tremendous disinvestment is starting to occur here, but that's not the problem Israel faces where the signs of investment are present and obvious.

      ? And, most importantly, why does this ‘strong economy’ get $3 billion – and counting — of US taxpayers’ money, every single year?

      They don't get economic aide. They get a token amount of military aide as part of weapons contracts that amount to about 8% of their military budget and under 1% of their total GDP. Many weapons deals are of the form:

      Country A gives country B "military aide"
      Country B overpays for weapons from country A
      thus allowing A to pass subsidies to their weapons industries indirectly.

  • Faithwashing: the Muslim Leadership Institute and the academic boycott
    • @Annie

      The Jews have a 1900 year history of successfully using dialogue in those situations. So yes not only would they promote it, they did promote and did make use of it. In virtually every society including the USA, that dialogue was effective. And often the "oppression" didn't last just decades but centuries.

      do you think hillel is making a mistake by not engaging w/jpv

      Hillel does engage with JVP. What they won't do is pretend that JVP is an actual Jewish group, rather than an anti-Jewish group. The same way your church may be willing to dialogue with Catholics who deny the incarnation (like the Sobrino movement in El Salvador) while at the same time considering them outside the church.

      Religions have to draw lines between minority positions and outright excommunicatable offenses (or in Judaism offenses worth of Chērem).

    • Annie

      what’s, specifically, is the more important issue when dialoguing about I/P than the occupation, the decades long oppression of the palestinian people, and how to facilitate their equal rights?

      American Muslims aren't discussing that with American Jews. hey are on opposite sides of the issue and neither side has the authority to negotiate on behalf of the Israelis or Palestinians. What they are discussing would be how to avoid that issue influencing other issues. For example in a college group preventing I/P disagreements from turning into campus ethnic tension with all the downsides for both groups. In a primary school context how to handle minority religion issues like the Christmas pageant or the teacher frequently making statements the parents would consider outright idolatrous. In a local government context how to work together on issues like discriminatory zoning.

      The goal is not to resolve the I/P issue anymore than the goal is to fix the hurricane on Jupiter's surface. The goal is the thousands of other issues on which American Muslims and American Jews have no intrinsic disagreements and can work together.

    • @Annie

      S o, according to you, i/p keeps coming up and is an elephant in the room, MSI is not “primarily driven to dialogue with American Jews about I/P”, but to “understand” israel. so they are trained to understand israel but not to dialogue about i/p.

      Almost. They are trained about how to dialogue about I/P in a way that I/P doesn't derail the more important issue.

    • @RoHa

      What is wrong with crossing red lines?

      The problem with USA Muslims crossing USA Jewish redlines is that USA Muslims have dozens of issues other than I/P most of which USA Jews would either be normally supportive of or normally indifferent to that they are willing to shift on if they see themselves as being threatened. ADL for example has frequently supported Muslim minority rights, for the same reason in generations past they partnered with Catholics and Mormons for their religious minority rights. However in recent decades that support has narrowed as Islamic religious institutions "cross red lines" and become explicitly anti-Semitic (as American Jews see it).

      A good chunk of Mondoweiss is taken up by by the effects of the spillover from I/P to the broader USA Muslim / Jewish relationship. SJP freely crosses redlines and donors demand the administration act against them. MSA doesn't and they don't draw the same kind of heat.

    • @tree

      Then why take them to Israel if the aim is not to dialogue about Israel?

      Because I/P is the point of tension between American Muslims and American Jews. It is what is undermining the ability to talk about hosts of other issues on which their might be more common ground and creating bad feelings on both sides. The goal is understanding regarding Israel. Being anti-Zionist without crossing over into anti-Semitism (as mainstream Jews see it) is walking a minefield. Learning where the clusters of mines are helps.

      Read the various posts by the MSI participants they talk quite openly about how without training I/P becomes the huge elephant in the room that neither side can talk about but that keeps naturally coming up.

      And Darrell Issa is not a Muslim.

      Didn't know that. The context here was backing Hezbollah, an explicitly muslim organization. He still did it artfully, though obviously I should have picked a Muslim politician.

    • @Donald & RoHa

      I think you are both making the same error in your response. You are thinking of the MSI as being primarily driven to dialogue with American Jews about I/P. That's not the aim. There is an understanding that American Jews and American Muslims are likely to be on the opposite sides of the I/P issue. The question is not trying to decide what to do about I/P. The question they are addressing is in light of the fact that American Jews and American Muslims are on opposite sides of this issue how do we prevent it from spilling over into the many other issues on which American Jews and American Muslims would normally have been on the same side?

      So RoHa even if I were to grant that American Jews are implacable enemies of the Gazans (I don't happen to think that BTW) that doesn't mean they need to be implacable enemies of American Muslims. And Donald, the goal of the dialogue is just one of understanding so that Muslims who are already opposed to Israel and in favor or pressuring Israel don't cross Jewish red lines, and American Jews don't cross American Muslim redlines.

      Let's pick a specific example. Darrell Issa (himself an Arab) has pushed for a more tolerant position on Hezbollah arguing that USA rejection makes the USA unable to have an effectual relationship with Lebanon's government. Now he's been able to do that while retaining the support of the Jewish community because even while strongly affirming Hezbollah's role in Lebanon and Hezbollah's as a Lebanese resistance for against Israel he's taken strong pro-Zionist positions like support for the Jerusalem Embassy and Recognition Act. So for Issa the Lebanese people have the right to self-determination including Hezbollah as a political party, in the same way the Jewish people have right to self-determination and Israeli political parties. He's been able to oppose AIPAC for 15 years, as a Muslim because he's been highly sensitive to Jewish concerns, which requires Issa to understand Jewish concerns.

    • @Donald

      I’m not sure why anyone needs to go to Israel in association with a group that supported the bombing of Gaza.

      Because the Muslims who participated in MSI are trying to dialogue with Jewish groups in the Jewish mainstream. The Jewish mainstream both in the USA and Israel supported the bombing of Gaza.

      The USA can talk to Iranian dissidents all they want. But when the USA wants to influence Iranian policy they need to negotiate with people who supported Iranian backed terrorism against American troops, support the embassy takeover and support the Islamic revolution. To pick an even more extreme example when the USA was negotiating with North Korea they were negotiating with people who supported the central planning that led to the deaths of 3m people from famine.

      Negotiations are conducted with people who disagree with you about stuff. It is very easy to talk to dissidents. Negotiating with actual opponents means granting the obvious like recognition of them as the opposing power. USA Jews have mixed feelings about the Muslim bating of far right Christian Republicans. 30 years ago they didn't mixed feelings but rather strongly backed minority rights for Muslims. Successful USA Muslim politicians are going to have to figure out how to represent their community's opinions on Israel / Palestine without turning Jews into implacable enemies. To do that they need to dialogue with mainstream Jews.

  • Yarmouk camp reaches out to the international community for help against IS invasion
    • @ckg

      Both ISIS and Nusrah have strident sectarian/religious profiles. Can anyone enlighten us about the sectarian/religious mix of the camp residents?

      In short:

      Palestinian leadership in Syria = pro-Assad
      Palestinian population in Syria = officially neutral but effectively mildly pro rebellion which makes them today mildly pro al-Nusra
      Attitude of Assad's forces towards Yarmouk = a bunch of ungrateful traitors
      Attitude of Syrian Palestinian leadership towards Yarmouk = a bunch of ungrateful traitors
      Attitude of al-Nusera towards Yarmouk = can be easily terrorized into allowing us to operate freely and has great location
      Attitude of ISIS towards Yarmouk = great location, unclear what they think of the population

      Yarmouk are Palestinians so mostly Sunni Muslim. This isn't religious though. Yarmouk in the early days of the war was troublesome for Assad mostly trying to stay neutral and be uncooperative. Other Palestinian groups, particularly the PFPL-GC were furious feeling that Assad's / Alawites had backed the Palestinian cause to the hilt. There were some limited skirmishes between Yarmouk and PFPL-GC forces. There are definitely some supporters of al-Nusra in the camps who have cooperated with them but I'd say on balance most of the Palestinians just want to escape having to fight for either side.

      Today they are being attacked because they are neutral. They aren't firmly under Assad's control while at the same time Yarmouk is very close to Damascus (essentially a suburb). Strategically it makes sense for al-Nusra to hold it, and it makes sense for Assad's forces not to allow the people of Yarmouk to give al-Nusra a base of operations. I'd assume ISIS is going to take the camp for its geography. What they are going to do with the civilians likely depends on if they show any resistance or cooperate.

  • When occupation becomes apartheid
    • @Irish

      I'm going to start another subthread for this

      A straw man. I never said Jews should not lobby, nor that they should be excluded from lobbying.

      No actually that's what you did say. You felt that American Jews who engaged in lobbying would bring upon American Jews a widespread and deserved persecution. That is that Jews unlike other groups shouldn't have the right to lobby. Holding AIPAC to a different standard than other religious subgroups who represented their interest, like say the Irish lobbies (which were very powerful in municipalities often effectively the government), is anti-Semitic. It is asserting that Jews are not worthy of equal treatment under American law.

      My comment was specifically addressed at lobbying by a subset of American Jews who are promoting the extremes of Zionism and trying to influence American foreign policy to promote the interests of another country. I am critical of their lobbying efforts to the extent that they are damaging US interests and encouraging the continuing oppression of the Palestinians.

      They don't exist. There are 0 Jews who are promoting the interests of another country. There are Jews who disagree with you regarding what's in America. That's another example where with other groups you merely disagree, but when Jews have an opinion you disagree with it is some sort of secret plot tied to the dark ephemeral powers.

      My criticism may be misguided or based on faulty analysis but that doesn’t make my motive antisemitic.

      I never said your motive was anti-Semitic I said you statements were.

      Being critical of Israel’s leaders or policies, or of American Jewish organizations that support or enable those policies is not antisemitic any more than being critical of China’s policies towards Tibet or the Uighurs is anti-Asian.

      That is correct.

      Despite my detailed response (which you didn’t respond to), you now repeat the allegation misrepresenting and mischaracterizing what I said while again failing to quote the words that you allege are antisemitic.

      I suspect I did respond. About 1/3 of what I write gets censored. The constant censorship to break up conservations is another piece of evidence of how weak the BDS case is.

      As for HUAC, that was a congressional investigative committee with multiple members. The claims against them were not that their conclusions were unwarranted but that they abused the investigative process to often induce punishment without trial. The McCarthy stuff came after. This is long topic, but I'll stand by their figures on the Bund.

    • @Tree

      Deferral is not denial. Deferral is fairly standard in government processing. The process is complex as the person needs to prove that Jerusalem is the center of their life so landline phone bills, electricity bills, and proof of payment of municipal property tax bills ... need to be provided. Your claim was, "but the majority of those that did apply have been turned down by Israel" which is obviously not true. Of the people who reach resolution half get it and the 1/3rd deferred are likely going to get it, that's the whole point of asking for additional information. That's pretty standard in other countries, for example m wife was deferred for about 19 months while getting USA citizenship, she's a citizen today and has been for many years.

      Moreover, the entire section you are quoting from is about how the number of Jerusalemites who are Israeli citizens and on the voter rolls is exploding and how the Palestinian civil authorities are discouraging this practice because it legitimizes the annexation. There is no discussion at all about how applications are being denied in mass numbers or anything of the type. You were making it up.

    • @Gil

      First off I said then was what you were saying which was that Jewish American should fear an outbreak of anti-Semitism if they fully participate in American civil life was was anti-Semitic. And I stand by that. You've said a lot more since then that's pretty insulting this response full of pointless insults being one of them. If you want me to agree that maybe you are simply rude, ignorant while virulently anti-Israel and American Jews but not quite anti-Semitic sure that's possible.

      I think you should decide if you want to have a thin skin or throw around insults you can't do both. "Have you no shame..." is unneeded you can elevate tone by practicing politeness.

      1) Your claim implied that the allies didn't deport civilians when in reality they deported millions. What you said was at the very least highly least misleading and either deliberately or accidentally so. You cannot write as if Israel committed a unique evil while admitting there is nothing unique about it.

      2) the expection at the end of the 1948 war was that the Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to their homes and lands UNWRA was formed Dec 1949. By then Israel had made their position clear as had most Arab nations. The Arab and Palestinian position was that the Israeli implant would be crushed and the Israelis were quite definite the Palestinians would not be returning since they did not intend to live in peace in Israel. UNWRA was formed because it was well understood they couldn't easily return. So again this is just false.

      3) Would you include Israel on your list of bad faith countries? . I'd say uncooperative. Israel hasn't wanted to take them. Sure that's a fair statement. OTOH Israel has over the last 7 decades taken in something like 7x its population in refugees from other countries. So I'd say are likely in first place for housing refugees. They just don't want one particular group of them.

      4) I don't know what you are responding to here.

      5) Yes is a Gaza separate country. It is not physically connected to the West Bank. It has a distinct population. It has a distinct government. It it is rapidly experiencing a different culture. It is subject to different economics. I don't know what you mean by "fooling". But Gaza is out. As for keeping it under the thumb of Israel that's simply nonsense. If Israel wanted control they would annex Gaza.

    • @tree

      and those that do apply risk losing their rights to Jordanian or Palestinian citizenship, as well as their rights to enter neighboring communities in the West Bank

      That's called equality. Few Jewish Israelis have Jordanian or Palestinian citizenship. And Jewish Israelis are often prohibited from entering Areas A and B. What you are complaining about is them being treated equally.

      , but the majority of those that did apply have been turned down by Israel

      What evidence do you have for that? I know the 2006-10 numbers were 3000 applicants 2300 accepted. With the strongest number being 2010 (690). 2013 I know that 13k applied and the refusals percentage wasn't looking high but I don't have final figures. So where is the data you are using?

      Here is a good (and pro-Palestinian) source of data that's a few years old but has the standard figures:

      Gaza is not a separate country.

      Israel has renounced claim on it. There is an independent government. That government refused to live in peace but that's no different from the status of other states that war on their neighbors.

    • The US conducted one of the most difficult military occupations in history at the end of World War II..., it didn’t deport civilian

      Well the allies most certainly did:
      About 3m Sudeten
      About 600k Germans from Poland...
      and about another dozen giving another 1m or so.–50)

      Of course these people were resettled by UNHCR rather than kept in camps by UNRWA so it hasn't been a red hot flashpoint creating multiple wars and that's why you didn't know about it. Refugee problems are can be handled by countries acting in good faith.

      it’s become impossible to call Israel’s near-half century military occupation of the Palestinian people on Palestinian lands in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza anything but apartheid.

      The people of East Jerusalem are full citizens of Israel with full voting and civil rights if they so choose. The people of Gaza live in a separate country not under Israeli rule. So it is easy not to say that.

  • Philosophy prof who likened Palestinians to 'rabid pit bull' ignites protest on CT campus
    • @Annie

      jeff, wishing someone would just disappear is not incitement for their slaughter no matter how you’d like to spin it. after all, how many times have we heard israel wants the land but not the people on it. i’m sure there are many many people, both israeli and palestinian who’d wish the other would just disappear but it simply doesn’t mean they’d wish to slaughter them or are calling other to do just that.

      The context here remember was following the deliberate murder of some Jewish kids. Yes he was calling for that. And in his later posts he most himself contextualized this within the anti-colonial movement. So absolutely Salaita was a call for genocide in some vague sense. Moreover his books elaborate on this theme.

      Rwandan calls for genocide were often against individuals XYZ is a a bad patriot who deserves to die followed by the village they were associated with being wiped out.



      Approving for genocide on people preceded by some reason you don't like them doesn't change anything. Every people that was genocided had some group that had a beef with them and others who agreed.

    • @pjdude

      Salaita wasn’t trafficking in hate. most of the jewish orgs you support however do. what Salaita was trafficking is accountability some you yourself as a zionist wouldn’t understand.

      He was trafficking in inciting towards the slaughter of hundreds of thousands to millions just like Pessin. In every genocide between X and Y, Y did things that X doesn't like. If genocide is acceptable towards groups that have ever done a wrong than that's an argument for making it acceptable towards all groups. The reason you don't see the difference is because you agree with Salaita's genocidal rants.

      Let's not forget the Palestinian blockade you all, and Salaita in particular, object to was a sanctions regime imposed with broad agreement for Gazans selecting Hamas, a terrorist organization. Even if there weren't rocket fire but some other way to break it, it would be accountability.

      you think speaking out against Israel’s crimes is bad but calling for genocide of your victims is ok in your book

      No I don't. I said nothing of the kind in the above. You are simply lying.

    • @The Hasbara Buster

      Maybe he needs to be shown the videos of Israeli skunk trucks sadistically spraying putrid liquid on houses and schools while not being under any destruction attempt at all from the people living and studying in those buildings.

      No he doesn't because that isn't happening in Gaza.

    • @scott9854958

      Bull. Salaita attacked Israeli society and Israelis. [....] You may be too refined to say it, but I'm not: I wish all the fucking West Bank settlers would go missing.

      If it's "antisemitic" to deplore colonization, land theft, and child murder, then what choice does any person of conscience have? That's against the IDF that's against Israelis generally. Calling their developments "land theft" is a call for the reversal of this theft.

      if you're defending #Israel right now, then "hopelessly brainwashed" is your best prognosis. An attack on essentially the entire Jewish population and their supporters.

      The cases are very comparable except for the fact that in one case you had one facebook post in the other a a multiyear career of trafficking in hate.

Showing comments 1949 - 1901