Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 29 (since 2012-02-20 15:09:48)

Showing comments 29 - 1

  • Half the story: What @IDFSpokesperson leaves out about Gaza
    • "we coded data on Palestinian projectile launches from Gaza on a daily basis"

      "In 2011, for example, we recorded approximately 465 launches which produced 743 projectiles (some launches involve firing more than one projectile). "

      Do the times of the launches you recorded tally with the times given by the IDF?

  • New book explores the history of 'New Jewish Agenda'
    • "If another country treated their minorities in the manner Israeli treats the Palestinians, the comparisons to Nazi Germany would follow."

      The problem for you is Israel treats its minorities (I’m excluding the territories for clarity before you conflate them again) in a way that isn't comparable to the Nazis, the working definition takes this into account, and takes the actions of other states into account comparatively with Israel. Suddenly taking the caveat only as true because conceivably another country could be compared to the Nazis and it is your opinion that Israel is currently comparable to the Nazis simply means that your opinion is at odds with the working definition (and the facts about Israel it takes into account) and violating the working definition principle of drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

      It’s not a caveat that states if another country can be compared to the Nazis then it’s ok to do it for Israel, just because you think it is comparable. You can’t suddenly rely on the caveat to invalidate the principle based on you say so.

      This is how absurd it is, you think that criticism of Israel cannot be regarded as antisemitic if it is similar to that levelled against another country, so that can include criticisms that draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of, well let’s say that country with similar criticisms levelled against it is, Nazi Germany. The caveat you speak of doesn’t violate the first point because the definition takes into account the fact that Israel is not comparable. This is one reason you think it is a political document.

      I know you think they are comparable and I’m not saying you hate Jews, but this working definition isn't there to just identify anti-Semitic people who hate Jews, it’s there to also identify bigoted instances that are anti-Semitic regardless of whatever motivation or misapprehensions are behind the statements or acts.

    • "Surely you must be aware of the extent to which the Nuremburg laws are a precedent for Israeli anti-Arab laws? "

      I’m aware of the EU working definintion of antisemitism that lists drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

    • I've read that blog infrequently.

    • “We’re talking about justice for Palestinians.”

      No I said legal equality, if you want to expand that to justice that’s a different thing.

      “Given the grotesque bigotry in that so-called society, I can see why you would say that.”

      You’re wrong about that.

      “I, foolishly I guess, actually pay attention to how the Palestinians are treated compared to the Jews. Maybe I should just buy the spin, like you do.”

      Yes you do that through the spin of websites like this alone though don’t you?

      “Thus, my throw-away joke was simply that if this state was one in which the Palestinians were equal....”

      Legally equal is what I said, being legally equal isn’t broken down by demographics because then it isn’t equal. The only way for your ‘joke’ to make sense is if you change the context to constitutional, and of course nobody thinks Israel is constitutionally one fifth Palestinian. You’re Tanaka, not Allen so I can’t actually refer to this as a joke though. It’s more like a nonsensical aside along the lines of Dada or something. More of an odd thing to say rather than the cutting riposte you thought you had got from whatever clothed chimp must be writing your material.

      “Because there aren’t these things. Palestinians are not given the same benefits of the state as Jews are. You can deny that reality, but you would just be exposing yourself as a hack, willing to say anything.”

      I do deny it, I’ve been there. You’ll need to see my other posts for qualification of my opinion of the status of Arabs in Israel.

      “It’s like there should be a drinking game, whereby whenever one of you hasbara-spewing trolls raise the oh-so-spooky and oh-so-blatantly-false anti-Semitism card, we all should get to drink.”

      Denying justice to Jews is anti-Semitism, I wasn’t accusing you of it though, I was telling you that is what you would be doing when you start throwing Platonic ideals around that have to be applied to all instead of sticking to the legal context and specifics I was talking about. And should you be mixing drink with your medication?

      “Because, yeah. That’s exactly it. Poor flowers. Poor forever victims.”

      Who? Jews or Palestinians?

      “I’ve spoken with Arabs in Israel about this,…”

      No doubt everyone of them was named “Werdine”

      No, one was called Aseed (?) (apologies for spelling mate if you’re unlucky enough to have stumbled onto Mondoweiss!) He worked for a Jewish friend as their cleaner and janitor in the apartment. And before your outrage kicks in turn on your irony shield Woody, he was doing this for money while studying at IDC Hertzliya.

      “And I’ve spoken with many (in West Bank, Occupied Palestine, Gaza) who said that they would rather live in other ME Arab nations than live under the colonial boot of the Israelis.”

      I can well believe they don’t want to live under occupation....

      “So my unsupported anecdote cancels your unsupported anecdote…”
      ....although this doesn’t make me believe you have actually spoken to these people.

      “And those that would like to stay would like to stay because 1) it is their home and has been their families home for thousands of years and have no interest in having it stolen by a bunch of European aliens and their offspring, and 2) because it is a country which has some economic success and they would like to provide for their families.”

      Yep, number 2 for sure came up a lot, number 1 also was a factor although it was never said in the militant way you present it or indeed in a ‘resigned to the fact’ way, on the whole. Plus the reasons I mentioned before.

      “Why do you have such trouble simply saying that everyone, regardless of ethno-religious background, everywhere from the Med. to the Jordan, should have absolute equality, all human, social and political freedoms and all should have an equal say in the government that controls their lives???”

      I don’t.

      “And if the Palestinians in Palestine were given rights....”

      I already covered this.

    • And to return the favour Donald,

      Lets see what moderation that receives

    • "Seriously? Are you one of those people who think that Israel declared its independence in May 1948, only to be met by a coalition of Arab countries with a vastly greater population that tried to strangle the newborn nation? That’s how the story line goes, isn’t it?"

      No, I have a degree in history and am aware that things are never clear cut like that. By the same token do you seriously think the arabs determinedly stepped in as nation states on a war footing because of concern for Palestinian refugees? If they did that concern certainly dried up pretty quickly afterwards didn't it?

      They didn't want jews in what they thought of as Arab lands, this is why there is conflict then and now ,and as you rightly say crimes on both sides. If you want to see Plan Dalet as another of many actions that comprise the unprovoked Jewish invasion of weapons bearing immigrants intent on stealing land then I imagine people like Pappe is high on your reading list.

    • Thanks Donald. I'm aware of the blog, I'll read the article you linked to.

    • I'll probably just wait for Woody to respond if this is all you have.

    • nope, wrong again.

    • Stop trying to wriggle out the context. Turning legal into constitutional and then into justice only means you have to expand the discussion to include the more abstract concept of justice for Jews (and the attendant specific injustices against them over thousands of years) I'm afraid. Unless justice isn't for Jews specifically?

      You're on stronger ground highlighting the differences in reality opposed to the official legal position of equality. Although your incorrect summation of the condition of the Palestinians in Israel (within the '67 lines 'where they [the Israelis] belong' to use your words) kind of negates that statement as far as my experiences in Israel go and the knowledge I've gained on the subject.

      "Wow. Dense. The issue isn’t equality “between 2 entities.”"

      I didn't say the issue was, I said the fact is equality between 2 things is equal to one half on each side, not a fifth or one out of seven. I hardly think I'm the dense one here, I actually know what a half is.

      "is a spit in the face and heinous insult to those citizens of the state who are not Jews."

      Why if there is equality, democracy, freedom of speech, opportunity, law and order etc is that an insult? The insult would be if these circumstances didn't exist at all (like you claim, and I claim to the contrary) or as is the case in reality, are not entirely equal as I've posted previously (although closer to equal than anywhere in the ME and in good standing with most liberal democracies). That would be the insult I think, unless there is a specific hatred of Jews and jewishness (and this has the name antisemitism Woody) which facilitated the hatred of "Jewish statedness" alongside Jewish anything.

      I've spoken with Arabs in Israel about this, none have said they would rather live in any other ME Arab nation. That’s not to say they wouldn't prefer Israel as an Arab state, but they would want it to be an Arab state unlike any of the neighbouring countries (as it appears many of the populations of these countries presently don't in the Arab spring), they want to keep the social conditions they currently have (or an improvement thereof) living in Israel. I'm not saying that makes a consensus of Arab opinion in Israel, but I'll take my experiences and knowledge over your armchair anti Israel hysteria and errors any time.

      I live in a Christian country with significant minorities of other faiths. I don't feel insulted as an atheist that these social conditions exist. I only feel insulted if my equality or right to vote or freedom of speech as a citizen is compromised by or in favour of another group. There are inequalities towards minorities in my country just like in Israel, it’s these inequalities that rightly cause resentment not the fact that there is a Christian majority or it is a "Christian" country per se.

    • That's a national constitutional issue, which although related, is not the same thing as legal.

      And equality would mean every 2nd day (or arithmetical equivalent to one half) not every fifth day or every Tuesday if we are talking about equality between 2 entities.

    • And what has thousands of years of antisemitism before Israel got to do with the situation? Why the need for people here to so vehemently undermine this?

      Some would think this points to thousands of years of antisemitism as being a good argument for a Jewish state judging by the anger this established historical fact arouses.

    • Nobody with sense needs to hyperbolise thousands of years of Jewish persecution, "official" or not, that you seem to think didn't happen for 1000 years before the Nazis.

    • "Get the Israeli back behind the 1967 lines where they belong"

      Somewhat heartening that you believe the Israeli do have a right to exist in their own state "where they belong". I would disagree that this is necessarily the '67 lines though but would welcome those borders with a negotiated Palestinian state that isn't run along the same lines as Hamas run Gaza at the moment.

      "They’re occupied because the Jews who control the Israeli state want to inflict their racist ideology"

      They are occupied because of war. As to good faith, that's a 2 way street.

      I don't buy into anybody's propaganda about Israel, I firstly rely on my experience of the country and people there, both arab and jews. Thankfully most of the people I have met there (both arab and jews) are of a very different mindset to some of the people outwith Israel who have taken up the cause of the Palestinians by baselessly demonising the Israelis. It is the former who will see to it that there is peace and a 2 state solution, not the latter.

    • "In other words, a bunch of Palestinians living in their own homes had no right to continue to live there because there were other Arabs living in nearby lands, some Palestinians were bought out, and anyway, Jewish culture is superior."

      Sorry but I certainly didn't say that like you claim I did.

      I would be interested in how you think the 48 war wasn't started by the Arabs and how claiming they did is twisting history to make myself an anti-arab racist atoneing for thousands of years of goy anti-semitism.

    • Thats right, I only had to go back 3 years to highlight an official anti-semitic example that he or she somehow overlooked.

      Millennial? You don't think there is official anti-semitism in Europe in the 1000 years previous to that either? I think there was, perhaps using the internet you can find some examples.

    • Why does it have to be only official persecution?

      In a purely hypothetical way and by following your argument

      the official legal status of Palestinians in Israel is equal to the Jewish population. So I suppose you must agree that Israel's 20% Palestinian population isn't oppressed or persecuted.

      And if your unfamiliar with the era and its official persecution of Jews, perhaps you should read a book on the subject.

    • "Oppressed? Who? Except for the years 1938 to 1945"

      Nuremburg Laws, 1935?

    • "To be fair, at one point centuries in the past, Islam too was used as a foundation for colonialistic ambitions."

      It is, post Ottoman empire, now being used as an Imperial veneer.

    • No these are the occupied territories not the State of Israel. Get the residents to negotiate (c'mon tha Hamas peacemakers!) and they will then be Palestine.

      Or do you really want to keep them occupied like the refugees in Lebanon are kept refugees as a political tool to attack Israel?

      And how is a fifth of the population a token??

    • "In other words, a bunch of Palestinians living in their own homes had no right to continue to live there because there were other Arabs living in nearby lands, some Palestinians were bought out, and anyway, Jewish culture is superior."

      No you misunderstand. How, in a purely cultural context are Palestinians tied to the land in the same way that the Jews are? I can quote anybody out of context too and make them appear to say something different. Well done, well crafted, we are all out of medals though :-)

    • "Some Zionists may have said that, but the whole notion of a Jewish state implies a state run by and for the benefit of a single ethnic group, with the corresponding implication that any persons who are resident in the state but who are not members of the ethnic group will be second-class citizens if they are not expelled."

      While the arabs living in Israel suffer from the same types of disadvantage as minorities in other Western liberal democracies their standing is far in advance of a majority of those in neighbouring Arab states. Out of all the countries in the Middle East it is Zionism that has provided the best chance of a superior life for the arabs within their state.

      Hopefully Israel will raise its game even more and lead the world in providing the highest (hopefully equal to it's Jewish population's) standard of living for its minority population. It already leads the Middle East, unless you want to include the oil rich ruling elite minority arab populations of places like Saudi Arabia which I'm sure you don't.

      Unfortunately there is inequality in the world, shouldn't this inequality be far greater in Israel if Zionism is so racist and evil. Israeli inequality should be worse than anywhere judging by how Zionism is on a par with aparthied South Africa...right?


    • I didn't say the Jews had an absolute and unconditional right to return to Israel either. Try again to read what I wrote instead of saying what you believe I think.

    • “Libster – i like that you are so upfront with your racism, its good to get it out in the open…”

      Dani Boy, thanks for being so blinkered, it means I don’t really have to bother thinking too hard to respond…

      “jews as a “culture” have more claim to palestine. hmm, interesting – not religion, but culture. Sure. So, a jewish guy from Europe arriving in palestine in 1905 has a better “cultural” claim than does someone who descends from people who have lived there continuously for centuries. WOW.”

      “As for there not being a Palestine before 40 years ago- first let me say, Jews should be the very last people on the planet discussing the authenticity of others existence as a people. Your part of the group that invented themselves, not the Palestinians. It was Palestine long before your exclusionary lot showed up there. And Palestine is written about by everyone from Kafka to Marx to Twain and thats only in the recent pre-zionist times.”

      Well I didn’t mention Jews discussing the authenticity of others existence as a people, and personally, as a non-Jew, I would disagree with anyone who regards the Palestinians (as defined today since the 60s) as a non-authentic people. And as an aside, why are you claiming that I’m part of the group that invented themselves? Presuming I’m a Jew just because I don’t subscribe to your anti-Israel ranting points to you being the prejudiced one. Instead of calling me a racist (and no, I don’t know what race you think I’ve impugned) try figuring out why you’ve stuck the label of Jew onto me, someone you disagree strongly with, someone you don’t like perhaps, obviously a racist if he doesn’t wear my blinkers?.....

      And I also know it was called Palestine (and the probable reason the Romans renamed it thus) long before Zionism. But where were the Palestinians (as you would define them today or recognise them as such ancestrally then) and the Palestinian culture that in any way comes close to the ancient Jewish culture, civilisation, society, legal system and memes found then in Israel?
      I’m not saying that a cultural claim is a reason to dispossess someone else from their home, rather I’m saying that in cultural terms (and I’m afraid that does indeed include their religion and Diaspora history in Europe or whatever country they ended up in), the Jews have a far greater connection and indeed claim to Israel as their rightful home. The Arabs were given the choice to share, the choice of a state, some stayed, some took money for land and left, some left bidden by other Arab nations and some were indeed forced from their land in the troubles between the peoples including the war started by the Arabs in 48. But where in all this was there a Palestinian entity in any way different from the surrounding Arab peoples that ensures a Palestinian state takes precedence over a Jewish one?

      “No, this is not what I am saying. What I am saying is, if your are under the impression that you belong to a jewish continuum that goes back to ancient times,”

      As I said, I’m not Jewish (take off your blinkers), but Jews indeed are a part of a continuum that goes back to ancient times. The Jews didn’t invent themselves in response to the unfortunate events that had befallen them, these events happened because they were Jewish. And this, more than any cultural or historic ties to Israel is what gives the right of the Jews to a state, Zionism enabled that right to become real and enabled it in the land that they are indeed tied to through Jewish culture for thousands of years. Contrary to you it wasn’t at the expense of “the Palestinians” or a rich and developed “Palestinian culture” or “Palestinian society”. The Palestinians can of course have all these things, and I look forward to seeing such things develop, but they will need a state to live in to do so.

      “if this rationale was universalized, every human would be able to move back to Africa and take the land of the Africans living there”

      I agree, if this rationale were universalized then every Palestinian would be able to move back to Israel. What have Palestinians absent for generations (and generations to come), living in Jordan or camps in Lebanon got to do with the modern, democratic liberal Israel, situated on the Jewish ancient homeland, home to a people still a part of that cultural continuum going back thousands of years and will still be thousands of years from today?

      To paraphrase yourself…

      …“the idea that “the Palestinians” (however they choose to identify themselves) have a “right” to Israel is absurd.”

      The Palestinians, as they have rightly come to be known have indeed suffered (and not least because of their leader’s choices) and must have a country of their own. Israel is already taken by the Israelis (of which 20% are also Palestinian) however.

      “Im not interested in this any longer. You and your lot are destined to be hated the world over, you probably actually prefer it that way – your the biggest anti-semite (even though that term is very misleading) there is.”

      No, I’m a pro Jewish and pro Palestinian liberal. It’s a shame your narrow vision cannot accommodate that.

    • No, why does it follow that the claims of the absolute, unconditional right of all of the Palestinians to return to the homes they left or were made to leave during the 1948 war started by the Arabs are valid?

      And I didn't say that would unconditionally be the case in regards to the situation of the Jews before Zionism either. I do take issue with what was said by MHughes976 as to what does and doesn't constitute a claim to a specific location dependent upon the specific circumstances he or she erroneously laid out though.

      The introduction of the process of Zionism (and attendent events like the Balfour Declaration, Holocaust, decisions of the League of Nations etc) changed circumstances to increasingly validate the claims of the Jews return to their homeland. As was said over and over again by the Zionists, this didn't necessarily have to be at the expense of the Arabs living there. This point being illustrated by the 20% Arab population still residing in Israel with equal legal status as the Jewish population.

      I would unconditionally say that everybody needs a homeland or state.

    • "The right of return lapses once you have made a commitment to full and normal citizenship elsewhere – if it didn’t your commitment to the other sovereign could not be full."

      "Next year in Jerusalem" has been said by Jews since the Diaspora began. Being as integrated into the societies that they ended up in didn't stop them from desiring a return to their homeland. That had a lot to do with these societies never accepting the Jews to the oh so privileged position of "full and normal citizenship" in Europe or wherever they were forced to live in until inevitably (in most cases) once again being expelled.

      And what exactly were they supposed to do generation after generation after being expelled to retain their status of genuinely dispossessed? Sit around in camps bemoaning how hard done by they had been, garnering sympathy and handouts from the world community? Is that what they should have done to keep their rights to somewhere to live (and that somewhere to live being their indiginous and ancient homeland) morally integral?! This moral right doesn't disappear once you try to provide a good life for yourself and your children by trying to integrate after being forced out of your country.

  • Comments Policy
    • "Now you really made me curious what you consider an effective counter argument.
      Do you have a context and example?"

      Supply me with an email address then, because that entire point is.........

      ........I can't give you an example here because it gets modded away.

    • "I joined mondoweiss recently after looking around for an open forum to discuss Middle East issues. After reading some of the posts and comments I have sensed a certain bias which is not borne out in the site’s comments policy. If anti-Zionism and opposition to principles like democracy are tenets of mondoweiss, why hasn’t your politburo been honest and officially enshrined them in the comments policy guidelines on this page. so we know where we stand? Or is honesty another mondoweiss taboo?"

      I found this too, I'm not a troll, I'm not a racist, I'm sympathetic to Palestinian suffering, I'm not an idiot.

      I even emailed Philip Wiess for a little clarification about moderators.

      Disagreeing with the majority view of people here seems to be allowed only a certain amount of the time however. Usually not when supplying an effective counter argument it seems.

      It's fine to have a site for a certain point of view but don't disguise it up as a discussion forum. If you do it will make people wonder what is it about the common themes espoused here that need such protection? Are they lacking in argumental integrity or just outright dogmatism?

Showing comments 29 - 1