-
-
- Video: Medea Benjamin interrupts Obama speech on US drone … 6
- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the … 4
- Church of Scotland accepts controversial report on Israel/Palestine 1
- Half of Israel’s eligible youth don’t enlist– and ranks of … 4
- Chelsea Clinton’s multifaith initiative 7
- More on the ‘creepy’ al-Dura report 7
- Exile and the Prophetic: Does John Kerry have the keys … 6
- Wolf Blitzer looks for a religious state 7
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 2240
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 1716
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1699
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1359
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 952
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 809
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 442
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 438
-
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 93
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 93
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 87
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- Dershowitz should stop lying about Tutu’s record 56
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 48
-
- RT @alexbkane: Obama says expanded surveillance raises "difficult questions" , but his Justice Dept. has stalled on an inquiry into NYPD sp…, 1 hour ago
- RT @samknight1: Flashback: Israel helped train Guatemalan dictator Rios Montt, recently convicted of genocide. https://t.co/oYsxDokunE, 2 hours ago
- RT @samknight1: Israel to train Chiapas police? Well. Say goodnight to the Zapatistas and probably a whole lot of indigenous groups http://…, 2 hours ago
- RT @RodrigoEBR: Medea Benjamin also told Obama "I love my country. I love the rule of law. Abide by the rule of law. You're a constitutiona…, 2 hours ago
- RT @allisonkilkenny: I've never seen this level of outrage from journos levelled at the president for, say, droning people in secret. But f…, 2 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (4)
- yourstruly: while perpetrators of recent terrorist attacks have said that what motivated them was the violence of...
- Annie Robbins: my pleasure MRW. btw, i enjoyed your ‘The History of Israel Blog‘ idea. ;) cheers.
- MRW: Thanks, annie.
- ‘Al Jazeera’ reposts Massad piece, after censoring it (8)
- lysias: Glenn Greenwald posted a piece on this two days ago: Al Jazeera deletes its own controversial Op-Ed, then...
- Video: Medea Benjamin interrupts Obama speech on US drone policy (6)
- Taxi: Massive courage, Medea, wow what naked conviction! The strangled voice of truth in the house of lies –...
- Philip Munger: Medea rocks! Indefatigable.
- Wolf Blitzer looks for a religious state (7)
- Krauss: Touché.
- Chelsea Clinton’s multifaith initiative (7)
- Stephen Shenfield: Any room for atheists in the “multifaith dialogue”?
- Talkback: “When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you...
- Kerry goes for the Hail Mary, but Obama is punting (23)
- MHughes976: The bolded words seem to make an interesting, slightly idiosyncratic maybe, comment on the fate of...
- Glenn Greenwald on the Woolwich attack and blowback from the ‘war on terror’ (4)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Today in Palestine
- Annie Robbins
- Alex Kane
- Alice Rothchild
- Kate
- Ahmed Moor
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
A few years ago, someone I was talking to said she was from New York, and then called it "Jew Town" (she was Jewish). When put like that it sounded like a pejorative, a little defensive. Of course it shouldn't but sad to say, there is a pejorative hint in the word "Jew" particularly if used as an adjective. Not so with "Christian." So for these instances, I don't think so much should be made of avoiding the religious label in one case and not in the other, in one case the NPR person is avoiding what could be considered a pejorative to some and in the other generally not. Of course both men seem like cads (that's putting it nicely) and for all I know Do Wan Chang is exploiting the Christian label to sell more goods.
"Zionist," that's a real pejorative.
@jon - what kind of a liberation movement urges "purification" and executes a campaign of mass murder and terror to cleanse the land of the native people, as Israel's zionist founders did?
The Btselem statistics which say 4000 (more like 4000) Palestinians died in the intifada are automatically biased, because they count as "taking part in hostilities" pretty much anyone on the Palestinian side who carries a gun. They don't count Israeli armed settlers as "taking part in hostilities," if they're armed guards operating in the occupied territories, for example, they're listed as civilians and never investigate whether or not they're reservists in the Israeli military. I'm sorry, I used to trust Btselem.
I think the interview with Emad Burnat raises TMZ hugely, rather than TMZ diminishing this incident it touched. I probably still won't watch it.
I honestly think probably someone in the Israeli government put his name on a list of people to question.
Of course, the Israeli state department is claiming the film is an "Israeli" film, despite almost none of it was filmed in Israel or by Israelis. I guess it goes with Israel claiming Palestine is part of Israel, hummus and cherry tomatoes are Israeli inventions.
Alterman bolsters his argument that the goal of BDS is to destroy Israel by quoting Omar Barghouti as saying if Jews became a minority in Israel, they might vote to rename the country.
Right, the destruction of Israel accomplished by renaming it. What fear this must engender among Israel's supporters.
James, what about the problem of Israel forcibly removing Palestinians from territory it claims? If Palestine is forced to accept Israelis that were illegally brought into its territory, shouldn't Israel be forced to accept Palestinians it illegally removed from its territory?
Expanding borders has always been one of the reasons Israel installed the settlers.
I don't quite grasp why focusing on full UN recognition with the pre-1967 borders will help the situation, it seems more of a deflection. As I know, Israel has full recognition. Could you explain how it isn't recognized?
All the settlers are also committing a war crime. They should all be tried & convicted. I don't actually favor jail time, but a hefty yearly fine. To be collected by any other nation they travel to. Also, any soldier who has served in the occupied territories protecting settlers.
Settler leaders, Israelis who participate in authorizing them to be there or anyone above the lowest rank in the armed forces should get jail time.
There are close to 5 million Palestinians whose place of origin is inside Israel, who lost their citizenship in their country of origin because Israel drove them or their immediate forebears from lands Israel claims. I'm sure some of them reside in Ramallah, in any case, millions in the occupied territories.
ADL is known in some circles as the Arab Defamation League
"There is only 1 Jewish country."
And what a country it is. An apartheid state, founded on ethnic cleansing and with the idea of religious supremacy for one religion and continued expansion by wars of conquest. It has routinely employed torture, imprisonment and forced exile to squelch political activity and speech by the non-Jewish people of land it claims, at times making it illegal to so much as display the Palestinian colors. It bans most of the native people of its land from life there.
This, giladg, is the state you claim represents Jews?
@Sean,
Not that I have any quarrel with your list of ideals, but I doubt everything on your list is actually a libertarian value. For example, anti radical wealth inequality, pro-environmentalism. In general, wealth equalization and environmental safeguards are accomplished by government policies, which libertarians are very much against. And on the other side of the coin, foreign policy realism and entrepreneurism aren't so much progressive ideals. Maybe you're saying you aren't a libertarian?
Anyway, I personally doubt that any ethnic nationalism has a real potential as a humanist movement, Zionism especially. Many ethnic nationalisms arise from people who are native to a particular place, if they're the only ethnicity inhabiting it all well and good, but if not they seem to turn on minorities or "foreigners" for mass murder or expulsion. Zionists didn't even have the excuse of being native to the land they targeted for their state. Zionism isn't just Jewish ethnic nationalism, it's a settler-colonialist movement predominantly. From the get-go, mainstream Zionists were considering how to clear the land of the native people.
OK, so "Jewish lobby" is in fact intimidating a lot of people on capital hill, thereby proving Hagel right.
@giladg, exactly how many rockets were lobbed from Israel (or Israeli warcraft) into Gaza in the period since the settlements were uprooted, and how many Israeli soldiers have made incursions into Gaza, and how many Gazan children were killed? Please research this, and explain why
I take it your definition of violence is something like, "rockets, except those lobbed by Israel" and "killing people or taking property at gunpoint, unless if done by Israeli soldiers" and above all "throwing rocks in protest at soldiers who are involved in the taking of property at gunpoint, beating and killing innocent civilians and general ethnic cleansing"
Lacking the observation powers to notice that the Israeli soldiers against whom stones are thrown are in occupied territory, or the brains to deduce that if they don't want stones thrown at them, all they have to do is retreat behind the lines that most of the world accepts as the border of Israel, i.e., the greenline, giladg must believe that ransacking a NGO office is just one of the ways Israelis demonstrate their peaceful attitude towards the indigenous inhabitants of the land they occupy. Hasn't he said so many times, Israelis just want to live in peace with Palestinians? That's why they ransack those offices and also use them for live target practice.
Yeah, the zionists invaded their land, mass murdered left and right in a premeditated campaign of ethnic cleansing, stole land, resources and wealth of the people, imposed a decades long brutal occupation during half of which they forbade Palestinians so much as to display the Palestinian flag and would shoot or beat people to death for protesting, or simply for living on their own land. And then claim they just want to live in peace with them, and complain of the "malevolence" of the Palestinians
@Hopmi, do you grasp that the white slaveowners just wanted to live in peace with their slaves too? Or that the white slaveowner's fear of what slaves would do in a rebellion was as valid as the Israelis'?
As far as the Palestinians views on equal rights, they were asking for equal rights regardless of creed at least as far back as 1933. Zionist leadership did not then and haven't since.
Wieseltier keeps putting forth the premise that Palestinians have been offered "compromises" and missed the "grandeur" of accepting them, citing the 1937 Peel commission and the 1947 UN partition. Both of these were offers by outside parties to take territory and/or property away from Palestinians and give it to Zionist Jews - I don't know how that could be a compromise. All so-called compromises offered by Israel since was to keep what didn't belong to them or else they'd take more. Wieseltier offers the "liberal" Zionist view and it's as dishonest as it is inaccurate. Wieseltier is discouraged that Palestinians didn't agree to give up their rights, and allow zionist Jews to keep what they took from them because if they didn't Israel would keep them stateless forever? That's not compromise, it's giving in to extortion.
I think Friedman may know better, but he's still happy to repeat the standard zionist view. That makes him a perpetrator of evil. I don't know if Wieseltier actually believes what he writes either, if he's really so "discouraged" by the Palestinians' lack of "compromise". If so, I suppose he's been indoctrinated beyond hope. Anyway, I see no way to make him see the light. I wish I did.
Also, if we apply the rules the IDF applied in its justification for killing journalists in Gaza, surely large numbers of the the American Jewish community, namely, those who wrote the letters to try to get the WP to publish a (non-existent) picture of a grieving Israeli, are legitimate targets in the "war".
I think Pexton was perfectly fair to identify the religion of the letter-writers and organizations. It isn't a generalization, if the vast majority were Jewish. Stating facts doesn't promote anti-semitism. Those (in the Jewish community, and others) who think it was an appropriate picture don't write to ombudsmen to complain of bias, so this isn't a case where they'll be heard from. It's great to hear from them in the editorial pages, letters and opinion pieces, of course. There's still a great deal of work in getting rid of bias in the actual news reporting, regardless of who does it.
@Denis, I'm having trouble grasping how you think shooting anyone in the head from across the border fence is not a "hostility"
@asherpat, so you think that because it's an armed conflict and because Palestinian civilians have been targeted by Israeli direct fire, it's also OK to target Israeli civilians who approach the boarder fence?
Phil, you sound ready to forgive her. I might find her courageous if she made her base in Gaza instead of Jerusalem.
It seems to me calling the Nakba a "Myth of Origin" borders on Nakba denial, in as most people take "myth" to mean false belief. Also, saying it's a "Myth of Origin" might imply that Palestinians originated with the Nakba. That's more a Zionist myth than a Palestinian one.
I totally agree, there's nothing exclusionary about the Holocaust and Nakba "narratives." The exclusionary myths are the many (false) myths of Israel's origin, that Israel, that mass murders and terror aimed at the removal of Palestinians was necessary or good or accidental or didn't happen or they came from somewhere else.
Anyway, I find the dueling "narratives" meme of some "liberal" Zionists have problematic, because "narrative" can mean fiction or non-fiction, the implication being that one is free to deny there's any truth to the stories of the Nakba.
@hopmi, I take it you favor building roads in New York which people who live in projects are banned from driving on. While you're at it, why not deny people who live in projects citizenship, permit other New Yorkers to take their property to build upscale homes, deny them adequate water, access to jobs, hospitals and churches in the upscale areas, and allow any other New Yorker to shoot project people with impunity or burn down their apartments?
I don't know how you come up with Romney being more America firstish than Obama. He has Swiss bank accounts and tax havens in the Caymans set up by him specifically for Bain Capital of which he's one of the main beneficiaries. Romney is Romney firstish, far more than Obama is Obama firstish.
How do you know he said this in Israel? The only location given is Jerusalem. East Jerusalem certainly isn't in Israel, and legally, neither is West Jerusalem as it is outside the only internationally accepted borders of Israel, those of the U.N. 181 partition.
I hate to rain on your parade, but as far as I know Chomsky is an atheist. Not a Jew by religion. Perhaps he considers himself a Jew by culture or genetics, and perhaps he'd be complimented to be called a prophet, but "Jewish prophetic presence?" Did you ask him if he considers himself an example of the "flowering of Jewishness"? Why do you think he's not understandably outside his Jewishness anyway?
I totally agree with Romney if he believes, as the Chicago Jewish Star's states, that there is significant enervating potential in the private sector.
"With his [Romney's] executive experience, belief in the enervating potential of the private sector, ..."
Whether Romney believes in it is a question, it's pretty clear that he's acted to enervate.
This is the cautionary note: it's human to want to believe the worst of one's "enemies." So when someone comes up with an outrageous charge against zionists, some anti-zionists believe it wholesale and others are quite willing to discuss and investigate it rather than dismiss it out of hand. Thus even anti-semitic charges like the one Greta Berlin tweeted aren't immediately dismissed and aren't even adequately challenged. Even if zionists from Ben-Gurion on have claimed Israel to be a model of moral behavior and have been known to spew a long series of lies and misinformation regarding Israel's history, it doesn't mean they've done every evil in the world.
As for the above post, a careful reading of the responses to Roger G. Salisbury shows that his anti-semitism was challenged. Maybe not adequately. And Greta Berlin says "The Holocaust has been trivialized and bastardized to such a degree, it has lost its power to appall people, and that is a huge tragedy." I don't think that's the statement of an antisemite.
Maybe it's anti-semitic to let such a conversation continue. Certainly it leads to accusations of antisemitism.
I've heard it said many times that Africans of the 18th & 19th century participated in the slave trade, selling other Africans to slave traders. Also, I've heard that slavery was a feature of the economic system in West Africa at the time. I personally think these are quite likely true, although I'm no historian. Not only that, some slaves had the position of "overseer" and kept the other slaves in line with as much brutality as any slave owner.
Well that's a lot different than "being responsible for slavery." Nevertheless, the charge offends African Americans.
"Since the prophetic is the indigenous of the people Israel, ..." ??
From the dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com/indigenous):
in·dig·e·nous ( n-d j -n s). adj. 1. Originating and living or occurring naturally in an
area or environment. See Synonyms at native. 2. Intrinsic; innate."
Are you trying to say "the people Israel" is an area or environment? This makes no sense. Neither "prophetic" nor "indigenous" are nouns.
Your intro does seem to sort of imply that no other people than "the people Israel" can have prophets as innate to them (well that's the connotation), at which I'm sorry to be offended. The proposed start of your unfinished presentation is fine so far. I frankly found Body Worlds very weird in a fascinating way. Because folklore abounds about artists actually killing people to make realistic statues, as horrifying as nazi science experiments on live people, and as realistically preserved as they are we can only trust that the people were truly dead before their preservation for display. Nor were these bodies treated with any of the usual rites with which most Westerners honor the dead: burial with stones and flowers, or cremation with the ashes to be spread over the earth or sea. Most of your talk is about connections the self has to living bodies, not one's dead body.
The Jpost article contends that Gaza isn't free because it's ruled by Hamas. I think that's more or less the equivalent of saying Zionists ran the concentration camps.
Thank you for explaining why the twitter was antisemitic. My instinct said it was, logic said it wasn't. Logic says it isn't antisemitic to accuse one group of Jews (zionists) with assisting in mass murder of millions, however false the charge. It isn't, after all, anti-Palestinian to say that Palestinians are running Gaza or the West Bank bantustans (internally at least). It isn't anti-Palestinian to say that some of them collaborate with Israel. But, as you explained, in this case "zionist" is a stand-in for "Jew". I'm glad to have my instinct validated.
However, when you accuse the board or former board of Free Gaza of antisemitic feelings I have to draw the line. Some of those you accuse are Jews, like Adam Shapiro. They may or may not have entertained ideas such as in the tweet, that is, that zionists directly helped murder millions of Jews. The charge of antisemitism is so often leveled at supporters of Palestine that all of us have to figure out what is and what isn't antisemitism (I guess you don't have to determine who's antisemitic, you've already decided). That this particular charge was put forth by a known antisemitic and conspiracy theorist who provides no other evidence than rambling innuendo makes it easy to figure out it really is antisemitic. If the charge had been put forth by an unbiased historian (if there is such a thing) with solid evidence to back it up (and I won't even claim historical "evidence" is always that), would you still regard it as antisemitic? How do you regard the charge that zionists collaborated with the nazis in expelling the Jews from Germany earlier in the nazi rule, or that some attempted alliances with Hitler in the 1940's, of which I've heard there's at least some evidence?
I don't think Greta Berlin is antisemitic, and what she tweeted was entirely valid subject for discussion among supporters of Palestine, and privately, because we might have a different take on them than supporters of Israel. Supporting Palestine undoubtedly makes one more open to to harboring the idea that zionists worked against Jews or collaborated with the world's worst criminal. All the more important to go examine those ideas for their antisemitic content, the better to eschew antisemitism in oneself and one's movement.
As for the "Jews represent the prophetic in its various forms ..." business, I frankly find that a bit of self-absorbed and exclusivist naval contemplation. The word "prophet" originates from the Greek. Sorry to be so harsh.
Jerusalem was a pagan town for a lot longer than it was "Jewish," and Islamic for a lot longer as well. The fact is, the settlers are only interested in the "Jewish" archeology. They are using archeology to prove a biblical myth. They have no desire to use archeological finds to determine what the human world was like back in the day, but to demonstrate it was "Jewish." Or possibly, to help expel the present-day Palestinians, and make it Jewish. Their "archeology" isn't a scientific endeavor any more than creationist "science."
The "second temple" period, Jerusalem was ruled by Persians (Zoroastrian), Greeks (pagan), Hasmoneans (purportedly Jewish, also known for forced conversion of pagans), and Romans (pagan). An honest archeologist would question whether all the worshippers at the "temple" were Jewish.
@giladg, why are you so eager to support a pseudo-archeology that's being used only to expel the native people of "your" land, establish the land as being Jewish and cover up any evidence of non-Jewish existence?
One of Greta Berlin's ex's was Jewish, I don't know if he's still alive. Plus, I'm sure she's quite cognizant of the anti-semitic charge so often laid against supporters of Palestine. I really think in her heart of hearts she isn't anti-semitic, and even if she harbored some anti-semitic thought, she would not have openly posted it. I really believe her explanation, the link was meant as a topic for a small discussion group.
That being said, knowledge of zionist deception and taking the side of the Palestinians does tend to make one far more receptive to charges against zionists, and Jews as well. In this case, charges that wildly exaggerate the zionist collaboration with the nazis, to the point that the charge is just a plain lie. Although, logically speaking, I'm not sure saying that one group of Jews participated in the mass murder of half the Eastern European Jews is anti-semitic. I guess it is. Blaming the victim in some way.
@Gilidg, I take this to mean you will keep murdering and beating up the Palestinians until they agree that there is a "Jewish history and heritage" by which I suppose you mean all of Palestine is the "heritage" of the Jews, and furthermore Jews have the "right" expel non-Jews from their homes and take their property if they so choose?
I'm sure no one will disagree that there is a "Jewish history." I don't speak for Palestinians, but some letters written by them prior to the onslaught by zionists speak with a certain pride of the Jewish history in Palestine. By saying there's a "Jewish heritage," are you saying that because God gave it to them or there was a Jewish kingdom in Palestine some 2000 years ago, it now belongs to the Jews? Even though almost all the people who God would have given it to, and inhabitants of that "Jewish" kingdom of 2000 years ago, later became Christians of Muslims whose descendants are today's Palestinians?
Why do you think because you have such a large religious attachment to a particular territory, it gives you the "right" to murder or expel the people who'd been living there for so many 1000s of years to claim your "heritage"?
Of course Israel would miss a drone from the north. It's busy hunting the Mediterranean for all those peace & justice activists in the free gaza boats
@yrn, you're claiming that:
a) Gaza is a city
b) Because it was transferred to the PNA, it's no longer occupied?
Do you realize that the PNA's seat is in Ramallah, which is in the occupied West Bank? How does transferring administrative duties for some territory to an organization existing under occupation by Israel and ultimately answerable to the Israeli military authorities make that territory not under occupation?
Dozens of so-called biblical sites were actually inventions of Empress Helena (Saint Helena) of Constantinople. She traveled around Palestine with bible in hand designating sites as being a certain place that was mentioned in it, without much regard for actual geographic clues or other evidence. When Christianity became the religion of the rulers in Constantinople, most of the people of Palestine were pagans. To enforce Christianity the church authorities would take pre-existing pagan sites where people would bring offerings to gods, raze them and build a church. Or just turn the pagan building into a church.
Of course there's a whole school of Zionist archeologists who will, for example, take a piece of pottery that's found in the strata they believe is the same time as say, King Solomon, and therefore call it first temple pottery. Then they'll turn around and say that since they found first temple pottery, it's evidence that King Solomon and the first temple really existed.
@GHStanton, are you deliberately ignoring all the statements by rabbinical leaders among Gush Emunim & ilk likening Palestinians to the Amalekites, whom the bible commands to exterminate, and the official Israeli state support for them?
@GHStanton
How is locking up all the Palestinians in Gaza, and in their tiny enclaves in the West Bank, not a preparation for genocide, again? How is putting in place bureaucratic impediments to getting sufficient water and killing people who attempt to break out of their jail (say to fish) or people who try to bring moral and medical support (e.g. the Mavi Marmara) not a preparation for genocide? How is the constant labeling of Palestinians as "terrorists," rabbis declaring on the authority of religion that Palestinians are not human, and that their children may be killed because they may grow up to be enemies not an encitement? How is it that the Israeli concern that allowing too many Palestinians to be born, or any to return to their place of origin (the place of origin of most inhabitants of Gaza is actually Israel - they're refugees) presents a threat to the Jewish nature of the state of Israel, is not an encitement?
Ahmadinejad held a holocaust denier's conference, it's true. Perhaps you didn't notice that he held it not long after the big controversy over the Danish magazine's contest for best cartoon of Muhammed. We (the west) tweaked Islam's most sacred icon in the most outrageous manner, he tweaked one of ours in return. And he later said that if the holocaust happened it was the most horrible event, putting him in the class of holocaust doubters, not deniers. I don't really want to defend the regime, I think it's horrible and Ahmadinejad is an ass. If you'd made a case regarding what Iran's doing to the Baha'i you'd have one, but you completely ignored them to make a case for war on Iran. Iran isn't separating out Jews the way Israel is separating out Palestinians, it's not denying them water or means to live, it's not attempting to limit their demographic growth.
You, however, seem to be at stage 8, denial, when it comes to Israel's genocidal intent. Ahmadinejad is right about one thing, Israel is a cancer, a little colonial project driving out or killing the native people of it's land.
All the sites where "a-movie-about-muhammad-an-idea-whose-time-has-come.html" were hosted seem to be being taken down. Pamela Geller's site which hosted the solicitation for funds for an anti-islam movie is currently down. Evidence of guilt, perhaps?
Funny how the 1982 massacre at Hama number keeps growing over time. Fisk cited "we put it at as many as 10,000, with some figures putting it as high as 20,000" (quote not exact) in "Pity the Nation" which was written in 2002 based on notes he took while a journalist observing the events.
Israel killed about 17,800 Lebanese in a few weeks in June 1982 in their invasion, not including the 800 to 3500 civilians at Sabra and Chatilla or other Palestinian civilians.
Joe Klein is not an Israel-firster
Doesn't mean he's not a zionist of some stripe, of course. I have no idea where he stands on that.
I have been guilty of calling one or 2 democrats I-firsters, though. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman. Henry Waxman, too. Generally decent on domestic issues, but in politics to support Israel as much as anything. I guess making me an anti-semite.
I, off the top of my head, know of any other nation created since WWII was created by deliberate destruction and removal of the pre-existing, indigenous society within its claimed territory. It's absolutely true that other nations have done worse in terms of sheer killing people, and some have also committed ethnocide, e.g., the Chinese against Tibetans. The Syrian regime may be more brutal (at least presently, compared to 1948 it's far less brutal), but the Syrian people are essentially the same people, indigenous to that state. As far as I'm concerned, that makes Israel (the state) uniquely illegitimate. The Syrian regime is illegitimate, the state is legitimate, ditto for many regimes. Israel could acquire legitimacy only by allowing the return of all the refugees, with full equality and restitution as much as possible for their destroyed society and confiscated property.
On top of the fact that my country (the U.S.) supports Israel's crimes.
It seems that Netanyahoo is throwing his hat in Romney's corner of the ring, and is actively stumping for him. Given, as one MSM commenter said, that both parties aren't that far apart on Iran, I'm not sure what it will gain Israel in the long run. Of course, the whole claim that Iran is a threat to Israel is bogus anyway, Israel's military is twice the size of Iran's and regardless of whether Iran got a nuclear weapon, it would not use it to attack Israel. The whole point of destroying Iran is to allow Israel to easily invade and dominate Lebanon, maybe more of Syria too, or just make them more pliable.
Shades of Emmet Till
The Israeli soldiers should stop pretending to be civilians or disguising themselves as civilians as they take militant actions.
Or,
IN A WAR BY "CIVILIZED" SETTLERS ON NATIVE PEOPLE, SUPPORT THE NATIVE PEOPLE
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR PALESTINIANS AND ALL PEOPLE
DEFEAT ISRAELI APARTHEID
If the Mexicans promoted immigration with the express purpose of creating a Catholic state (or state of any specific religion) in California or the U.S., and denying equal rights to persons of other religious/ethnic groups, I too would be anti-Mexican immigration. No Mexican or Mexican organization is promoting such a cause that I'm aware of, almost all of them come to the U.S. for work in order to help their relatives back home, or to become good U.S. citizens. The children of Mexican immigrants are happy to socialize with or marry people of other ethnic groups and religions.
So no, the right-wing opposition to immigration is not really the same as Palestinian opposition to immigration, which was mostly based on the expressed intent of the zionists to take over.
@dimmy, Military administration isn't sovereignty.
The "barrier" didn't prevent 90% of attacks, which were committed by Israel. In fact, using settlers to achieve military aims, conquest of territory by war being one of those aims, means that Israel is using its "civilians" for military purpose. Deliberately employing them as military tools. So if any of the Israelis who were attacked on the road were settlers, they were legitimate military targets.
If Israel is the sovereign, then all the inhabitants are citizens who should be accorded equal rights. That Israel denies some of the citizens the right to vote for representatives in the government that rules them means it is a racist, apartheid country.
I doubt most Jews are as pro-war as the leadership. I think they're smarter than that (of course I shouldn't speak for them). Sadly, if things go wrong (which is highly likely), it may become politically expedient to blame "the Jews." I hope Obama is canny enough to outflank (politically) Netanyahoo on this.
I doubt his record is much worse regarding Israel than Obama's or most democrats in the house and senate. Well then I sort of regard the Palestine position as a good litmus test for political honesty.
@Merk, I did not say no Arabs immigrated to Palestine, in fact, I said "except for some small minority" in reference to those Arabs who did immigrate to Palestine. That's just a typical propaganda trick, to create a "straw man" to attack.
Prior to 1948, it's absolutely true that the the majority of Jews in Palestine were immigrants from Europe. Subsequent to Israel's establishment as far as I know that is not the case. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Israel's Jews are immigrants or their immediate descendants.
Yes, the Palestinians were always "just there." Ever since it was called Palestine, at least some 2500 years ago. Before that, they were "just there," but called something else. It isn't as if the area hasn't known immigration and invasion from other places, like almost any region in the world, but the core of the people were "just there."
Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers are preventing Palestinian farmers from accessing much what land they have left after Israel turned a lot of it into "nature reserves."
link to youtube.com
Zell proudly proclaims Jews "allow" Arabs to live in Israel, only after driving out most of them out, and at the same time as more are being driven out? And proudly proclaims that they brought 2-story buildings to the neighboring Arab village of Tuqu, as they deny its farmers access to their land? And this is an example of "Jewish morality?"
I take it back, you should read some of the descriptions of zionist take-overs of Palestinian villages to this man, if this is what he claims is "Jewish morality"
Tho I didn't listen to the end of the interview, I sort of understand the wish for a journalist to establish some rapport with the interviewee. Zionists like him, when confronted, just fall back on their standard repertoire of mythology. Lies, in other words. Confronting such a person with truth won't change his mind.
Yeah, zionists improved the lives of Palestinians by expropriating large amounts of their wealth, forcing them out of their land of origin, destroying many of their homes or confiscating them, and forcing them into refugee camps?
"how is it different than saying Israelis are all European settlers who arrived in 1948?"
What Zell says is a lie. Saying that most Israeli (Jews) are settlers, recent immigrants or their immediate descendants, is the truth. That's what's different.
Palestinians are not recent immigrants to Palestine, they've lived there for 1000s of years, except some small minority. They were largely there 1000s of years before the zionists.
Well, I can't be charmed by anyone who spews such standard zionist hogwash. Claiming that most Palestinian Arabs immigrated to Palestine because they were attracted to the economic boom zionists were creating there? Honestly, I don't know why I'm disgusted by inveterate liars like Zell, but I am.
Gaza, I guess, brings new meaning to the term "captive market" for Israeli goods.
Explain why it's unfair to compare the Israeli economy to the Palestinian economy? They're both under Israel's control.
According to google, a dunam is 1000 square meters. 8,000 meters squared would be 64,000,000 square meters. 1000 dunams would be 1,000,000 square meters, I guess that's what they mean.
Either way, outrageous
Miri land wasn't precisely "leased government owned land". Under the Ottomans, cultivators of miri land acquired rights to pass it on to their heirs, it only reverted to the government if the person died without heirs, or the cultivation ceased for three years. So it's fully accurate to call miri land used by Palestinians as Palestinian land. Similarly, the Ottomans recognized collective rights, e.g. rights to "public" land to be used by a village for communal grazing. So it's also quite fair to call such land used collectively by Palestinians as Palestinian.
If you're talking about land actually used by roads and government buildings, while actual ownership might have been "the government" prior to 1948, they were the heritage of the Palestinian people. That would have included Jewish citizens of Palestine at that time. There's no better description of them than "Palestinian" as they were in Palestine and used by all its people. After 1948, the vast majority could not be used by the native people of land taken over by Israel. They were lost to almost all Palestinians, except for the very small amount that Israel permitted some Palestinians still residing in its borders to keep.
The Ottomans began a process of privatizing the land, granting it to the cultivators though its likely it would fall into the hands of whoever had the best connections with the Ottoman government. The British, who were capitalists and firm believers in private property, continued this process of privatization. Once again sometimes allowing land to be sold out from under villagers who had been using it. The privatization process was far from complete by 1948.
The state of Israel applies the Ottoman laws in a very different way then the Ottomans did, cynically grabbing the land as government land and then allowing only Jews to use it (it's a Jewish state after all). See link to btselem.org. On top of preventing Palestinians from cultivating or otherwise using their land thus forcing the 3-year rule to come into place.
@Fredblogs, so you object to people vandalizing a sign, what do you think of Israel's deliberate destruction of 400+ villages and mass murder of many of their inhabitants?
Almost all the Syrian opposition fighters I've seen in pictures have been dressed in civilian clothes. And they're driving around in towns and villages. I'd like to know where all the chorus is, accusing them of "hiding behind civilians" and "using civilian areas for military bases" or "using civilians as shields". Poor Assad, I guess he's forced to kill civilians just like those poor Israelis.
The zionists moved into someone else's neighborhood unasked, propose to take it over and get rid of the local people by one means or another. They institute policies denying non-Jews work in Jewish-owned land or businesses. They help the foreign rulers (the British) brutally and violently suppress protest, opposition (both armed and peaceful), and (as influential citizens of western powers) block efforts by the local Palestinian Arabs to form a country based on equal rights regardless of creed (well they could not allow equal rights because Jews were a minority at the time). Culminating this by a campaign of mass murder and terror in order to get rid the land of the indigenous non-Jewish population and "cleanse" (word used by Israeli founding father Ben-Gurion) it for a Jewish state.
Having murdered many of the people who would have been a majority ethnic group and driven most of the rest from their homes, they forever after brag about how they survived in a "tough" neighborhood and how everyone hates them for being Jews.
@terrylevine, just why are you proud of this?
"The earliest looks at property owned by individual Jews, ..."
No, quit making up lies. The first map looks at property owned by zionists, including zionist organizations such as the JNF which put racist covenants on it forbidding its use by non-Jews (land owned by Palestinian Arabs generally didn't have such covenants). Public land at the time included land owned by Palestinian villages, it's fair to call that Palestinian land. It also included land held by the Islamic trusts as well as "state" land, however, much of which was nevertheless used by the indigenous population, e.g. by Bedouins for nomadic grazing or seasonal farming. Such Bedouin tribes generally recognized tribal boundaries although they didn't have recorded deeds, it's also fair to call those lands Palestinian.
Besides which, as someone said, the legend explains what is meant by each color in each map, and its perfectly accurate
Only the Jews who are responsible should be blamed for the evils Israel has done. Well a lot of Jews, & many leftists of earlier years, I guess were unknowingly responsible & can only be blamed to a much lesser extent. Today anyone cognizant and supportive of Israel should be blamed, like "good Germans" they can only support Israel's policies by deliberate refusal to see. I know a lot of Jews who are in fact taking responsibility, not as Jews but as human beings, for ending the evil - but that's the anti-zionist crowd & their like.
Just to clarify, taking responsibility vs taking blame
Eitan, could you please explain how if Palestine was "reserved" for the Jewish People by the British Mandate treaty, what does this clause of it mean:
"it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, ..."
Please address, specifically, the expulsion of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine by the "Jewish People" who settled there, and the banning of non-Jewish communities from access to water or voting in their place of origin.
In general I try to avoid commenting on other religious beliefs/cultures, regardless of what I think privately. Oh well. Here goes.
A good education really can improve thinking and intelligence, and I've observed, education is a Jewish cultural value. Anyway, I doubt there's anything innate about the "Jewish mind," it's a cultural pro-education trait.
Unluckily, the dominant pop culture is anti-elite, anti-intellectual. At one of my friend's grade schools, for example, you would get beat up if people thought you were "smart," showing off in class or something. Right-wing radio and republican politicians especially are always playing to people's inferiority complexes about their intelligence, remember Spiro Agnew and his effete intellectual comment? Well that's just my observation. Maybe it's less true today then when I was in grade school.
On top of that, anyone with an "I'm better than you" attitude is sure to cause offense (unless it's clear they aren't).
So, if Jews think of themselves as elite, then it's understandable they don't want the general population to think they think they're elite, because people are offended by the elitist attitude and because intellectuals are the target of populism. Certain other elites, e.g. movie stars and royalty, spend considerable time meeting the public and presenting themselves as "one of the people." I.e., their elite status is usually unaccompanied by an (apparent) elite attitude.
In fact, elites such as royalty are members of the same society, sharing the religion and so forth, while historically, Jews were outsiders. Calling themselves exclusive elites in this case, is continuing that division. In times of shortages, famine or economic stress, any elite and any outsider is more likely to come under attack. This is just what happens, groups form (or are already formed) and fight over resources. Any fear of being thought of as an elite or outside group is well founded. Luckily we are currently living in a time of plenty.
Well, anyway, more than struggled with, I think the elite attitudes should be confronted as well as the anti-elite (read anti-intellectual) attitudes. Meaning, they should be understood first. Why do certain Jews think the "Jewish mind" is superior? Why are populist radio hosts able to play to anti-intellectualism?
Anyway, as the pro-Israel hasbarists have discovered, a little humility framed as "Yes, Israel has some flaws..." works better at promoting Israel's image than proclaiming Israel's superiority. Which is why I never take anything coming out of the pro-Israel crowd as anything other than calculated, whenever it's not straight out misinformation.
Hey Evelyn, your kids are so cute, and they look smart, too. I hope you win. I hope to address you next as "Honorable Representative Garcia" or whatever is appropriate.
I don't think you should have backtracked on your statements regarding Palestinians though (I don't think you should have resigned either). And as far as Israel sending it's team to Haiti after the earthquake, while I'm sure the doctors involved were well-meaning and the help was needed, it was also a publicity stunt. My money goes to Doctors Without Borders, they give medical help without stamping a flag on it or otherwise seeking some profit for some illegitimate nation.
"However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."
We accuse Israel of being similar to apartheid South Africa all the time
It isn't that they don't "understand" the history of Israel and Palestine, it's that they understand it wrong
Someone who knows nothing about it would be better, and I hope that would be more than 1% of psychiatrists. I agree, this one was unprofessional
The missionary sounds worse than the psychiatrist
Israel is the state that bans the indigenous people of its land from living in it, Palestine has not. No major Palestinian political entity has ever demanded "Jew free zones." Come back with less hasbara b.s. when Israel recognizes Palestinian rights to live in their land of origin or even to a Palestinian state.
P.S. As far as Ahava, what percent of their management are Palestinians from the occupied territories, or refugee camps? I just want to know if they're an equal-opportunity employer, or like so many Israeli companies, a racist one
"If this were the 1940s, I have little doubt that whole blog would have a big fan of Yitzhak Shamir and Lehi..."
Well, certain leftists of that period, namely Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, clearly called Shamir's organization fascist.
As for the JNF planting a forest named after him, that's a totally cynical of the JNF, to plant trees covering up Palestinian villages and stipulate that only Jews can use the land they acquired from "absentee owners" when Bernadotte himself advocated the return of refugees.
PS I can't find this forest named after Bernadotte using google. I wonder if it exists at all.
"What got the Jews their state was preparation and planning, not killing civilians. "
Ignoring Deir Yassein and the threats made by Jewish terrorists to mass murder civilians all over Palestine, aren't you? Without which, there wouldn't have been a Jewish majority in "greenline" Israel.
Update:
The Washington Post obit briefly mentioned the attempted alliance with nazi Germany, but not the massacre at Deir Yassein. All in all, a better summary of his life than the the NY Times obit an the LA Times obit. That's not saying much.
I don't suppose the obits will mention the Stern gang's attempt to form an alliance with nazi Germany in WWII, or their receipt of arms from fascist Italy, which Shamir was apparently a party to, either.
I think Shmuel has a point, the Palestinian demonstrators asking to be shot at is surreal enough to be satire of the Israeli army's position. That Lea can "feel" nothing except the Palestinian boy's spit from grazing her hand has some literary meaning, also, that in the last paragraph she imagines that she, Tomer and the boy they're arresting could be seen as a "family". Although it's pretty perverse as satire or familial relation.
I actually boycott Chinese goods too, if there's a decent alternative. Unfortunately, it's much harder than boycotting Israeli goods.
Will Israel respect the self-determination of the native people of the land it rules, that being the Palestinians?
What "democratic, liberal Israel?" I mean, a country that was founded on the premise of ethnic cleansing and continues to practice it can hardly be called liberal. On top of that Israel legalized torture (only of non-Jews), regularly permits murder with impunity (against non-Jews only), forced exile of non-Jews, imprisonment without trial and regularly confiscates property of non-Jews for use by Jews only, and has instituted a system of apartheid. Calling it "liberal" is just spouting fake Israeli hasbara.
Nor can a country that for most of its existence denied close to 1/2 of the people under its rule any vote or say in its government be called democratic.
Bravo for Moriel Rothman - a real antidote for any criticism of Judaism itself as a religion/ideology that is fundamental to zionism (ala Shahak school).
I've heard other zionists use the "love the stranger" commandment to say that Israelis should welcome those Palestinians who live in Israel, implying that "stranger" is synonymous with foreigner. Well, I don't interpret Rothman's use of the word "stranger" to in any way make that implication. The fact is, the Palestinians are the native people and most Israelis are the "strangers" in that sense, I would not be surprised at all if Rothman agreed with me. Interestingly, from what I hear of Palestinian culture, its generous and hospitable towards "strangers" far more so than Israeli culture, much more living the commandment.
Well, there goes my planned donation to Amnesty. I'll give it to Doctors without borders.
Yes, and there's no way Iran would start a war with Israel, nuclear or other. Israel's military is twice as large as Iran's as well as more advanced, not even considering that the U.S. would probably join such a war on Israel's side. Religiously speaking, I doubt Iran would want to cause Jerusalem or surrounding holy sites radiation damage. The sole reason Iran might want a nuclear arsenal is deterrence. The argument most often put forth for preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, that that such a weapon is a threat to Israel, is purely bogus. Israel is the main threat peace, it would like to see rival powers smashed to so it can achieve a more perfect regional hegemony. It would like both economic and military hegemony, any country with widespread internal disorder or external war cannot compete economically, neither do countries in civil war compete militarily against external threats. As far as it supports Israel in making war in Iran, the U.S. is also a threat to stability in the region.
Fredblogs: "There is no reason not to talk about 1948. The Arabs tried to destroy Israel, they lost, ..."
LOL. If this is what Israel studies produces, it proves beyond doubt what crock Israel studies is.
@Rosenberg, I too have a fear that Jews in general will be blamed for what rich Jews and zionists do. I hope not.
That being said, there never has been a time when Israel didn't have horrific policies towards the Palestinians. Israel was founded by deliberate mass murder and terror against the native people of its land, in order to get rid of non-Jews so they could create a Jewish state. I don't quite grasp how you can support Israel and not support horrific policies against the Palestinians.
In claiming that Israel took a "right turn" due to the suicide bombings that Israeli North is ignoring that founding fathers Begin and Shamir were clearly fascist. Shamir collaborated with the Italian fascists in WWII, and Jabotinsky even wore a fascist uniform. And Israel has always claimed a unique mission in the world as a "light unto nations" and demonized its enemies. I mean, what kind of a statements were Golda Meir's comments "We will have peace with the Arabs when they
love their children more than they hate us” or "When peace comes, we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons." These are the worst kind of demonization
IMHO Israel would love to have a friendly regime in Syria, but the best it could achieve would be a regime friendly to the U.S. So any arming of the rebels we're doing is indirectly to support Israel.
Syria would never have made it on the U.S. enemies list if it weren't hostile to Israel. The U.S. has supported brutal dictators the world round, in this case we pretty much pushed them into Iran's arms.
Short of a friendly regime in Syria, Israel welcomes any weakening of the Syrian state by civil war and mayhem, the calculation being that the rebels won't actually win, as I doubt that the rebels are more friendly to Israel than Assad and quite possibly less, being as the Muslim Brotherhood is such a large faction. I don't know if Israel's actually helping anyone with weaponry, directly or indirectly, but they have no interest in a free, democratic Syrian people.
I'm sorry the U.N. may be suspending operations, if they had sufficient observers they might have achieved some sort of real truce. I blame Assad and his cohorts for most of the brutal violence. Not only by his regime, but the violent suppression of peaceful protest meant that the opposition also turned to violence, and once it devolves into anything resembling a civil war, you can be sure all sides will commit atrocities. Just as in Lebanon.
Darn, just I was beginning to think zionists were capable of telling the truth
I don't know about not talking to zionists, a lot of them are just ignorant & really believe all that hasbara
If you were fired for standing up for your Palestinian heritage ...
I don't know the particulars of your case, but firing people for their ethnic background would seem like a case of illegal termination. Sadly, I'm not sure the courts would be less biased.
This is typical Israeli thinking
Israel is building a wall to confiscate someone else's land without their permission, then zionists call it "self defense" to prevent those people from "access to the wall"
And in fact, Israeli soldiers (and settlers) have massacred the Palestinian woman's people and destroyed many of their villages, however, as most Palestinian villages were not made of burnable material, more by explosive and bulldozers. Much if not most on areas outside Israel's recognized borders, like the incident at the wall. This is what Israel calls "self defense".
Saying that Jews of circa 2000 years ago who left Palestine did so as refugees is highly dubious. A few might have left Palestine because of Roman suppression of rebellions, but in fact Jews of the period were sending out missionaries to convert people to Judaism, and as citizens of the Roman empire were also able to conduct trade throughout it. At one time a large proportion of the Roman empire had converted to Judaism. Nor do we know if those ancestors of Jews who emigrated from Palestine for whatever reason were even Jews when they left, the Phoenician/Canaanite sea trade empire lasted a good 1000 years and preceded the advent of Judaism. They also had colonies around the Mediterranean.
If the quote from David Ben-Gurion is accurate "the old will die and the young will forget," it was part of the Israeli plans from early on to escape the consequences of their crime by waiting for the original victims to die.
Certainly before a lot of the refugees had been expelled, the zionists had stated plans to start a propaganda campaign to get them resettled elsewhere, as well as preventing cultivation by Arabs and destroying villages.
"changing the rules of the game just to screw the Jews”
Right, next you'll be arguing that genocide is OK because it was practiced for 1000s of years, but now the rules are being changed retroactively just to screw the Jews because they aren't allowed to practice genocide.
... suddenly and retroactively its “international law says no”
What, are you saying the UN was formed after Israel? Or how do you figure the rules saying no to conquest of territory by force (which are in the UN charter) are being applied retroactively?
Nor was most of Israel formed on "Jewish" land, the vast majority of what became known as green-line Israel either legally belonged to Palestinian Arabs or was used in a traditional manner by them (e.g. nomadic grazing). At most about 6% of Palestine could legally be considered "Jewish" land prior to 1948 (or after), and that because the JNF put racist covenants on land they bought stating that it could be used or sold only to Jews.
The Arabs fought a defensive war in 1948. Most Arab armed forces never entered that part of Palestine recommended by the UN as part of the Jewish state, most of the fighting (as well as most of the major massacres by Zionist forces) were outside of the proposed Jewish state.
"A Jew from anywhere in the world is welcome to attend services in my synagogue."
Being welcome in a house of worship is what makes it a common religion, not a common nationality or culture. For example, any Catholic can take communion at any Catholic church throughout the world (assuming they can enter the particular country), without regard to nationality or culture.
@ykohen,
I don't know how the winds usually blow in the occupied West Bank (which isn't, by the way, Israel)
However, in the videos, the smoke is drifting towards the left, which would be more or less north, the opposite direction from which the settlers originally came. I.e. more towards Asira al-Qibliya. It would therefore seem that the settlers claim that Arabs were trying to destroy some settlement neighborhood is as bogus your claim to be logical.
Nonreligious is somewhat ambiguous when a lot of people state they are atheist Jews and some atheist Christians or Muslims. On the other hand, it seems perfectly correct summary when describing oneself as a member of a congregation of a religion to which you don't belong. I hope the community continues to welcome you. More, I hope they welcome your ideas on equal rights. You don't come right out and say you advocate the right of return, well, perhaps it would be too much for the Beth Shalomers.
Unconverted seems to say the idea of converting has some attraction. Just imagine, you wouldn't just be becoming a Jew, you'd be converting to an anti-semitic Jew! Well, better that than the rage-filled zionists I occasionally encounter who've called me unmentionable names and seemed ready to physically attack me.
USC is not UCLA. But of course its easy to check whether Pezzati is a professor at either university, since they publicly list their professors and at least USC has a search engine for them.
It's beyond belief why zios, especially right-wing ones, are such congenital liars.
@fredblogs, you're the one assuming Blake is referring to some race when he says "Even their intellectuals are madman." I don't know how you know who he's referring to, it may very well be zionists. I find your assumption presumptive, and probably racist.
If Israel's so concerned about violence from people approaching the fence it could establish a buffer zone on its side. Not that most Palestinians in Gaza don't have every right to go over the fence and rebuild their homes in Israel under the terms of UN resolution 194. Israel has no right to shoot people inside Gaza, simply for approaching the fence.
Lets not forget that the justification Israel used to establish the settlements was that they served security needs. In other words, every settler is acting to further the military conquest of the territories and to pacify the local population. Many of the settlers are armed.
Most settlers, however, most don't regularly wear uniforms even though they are acting as part Israel's military. It isn't just that they're civilian aides or something. Quote from affidavit of the Israeli government: "... In times of calm these settlements serve the purpose of presence and control of vital areas, maintaining observation, and the like. The importance of these settlements is enhanced in particular time of war when the regular army forces are shifted, in the main, from their bases for purposes of operational activity and the said settlements constitute the principal component of presence and security control in the areas in which they are located."
So, the Israeli government purposefully used its civilian population to further its military aim, though a lot of them were glad to do so. It isn't as if the settlers are a bunch of civilians who don't have any army do wear a uniform of, acting in defense of their land and rights, they're part and parcel of Israel's military invasion. So why aren't they wearing uniforms?
I seem to recall that Germany was admired for its technical expertise, pre-WWII. Not to make comparisons, but perhaps the admirers of "start-up nations" should be reminded.
@giladg, "Anyone supporting the right of return of Palestinians ... is saying that Israel, the single Jewish country on this planet, will no longer exist. "
Israel achieved its Jewish majority and hence existence as a "Jewish state" by expelling them, so it seems to me what you are saying is Jewish countries should be allowed to commit mass murder, terror, ethnic cleansing and religious discrimination. I don't see you claiming this so-called right for any other kind of country, do you think Aryan nations had that right? Why do you think Jews have the "right" to mass murder and ethnic cleansing?
@Oleg, as someone said spare us the usual propaganda
The main motive for the suicide bombings was vengeance for people that the Israelis had killed. If Israel was really interested in "security" for its people, it wouldn't have used live ammunition to quell protests against its land grabs, stirring up those acts of vengeance. Or it would have instituted a system of justice which all people have access on basis of equal rights under the law. It did not, instead, it put in place a system where Israel and its settlers can grab Palestinian land at will for Jewish-only use, and allows its settlers and soldiers to kill innocent Palestinians virtually with impunity. Where there's a fair system, there's a legitimate alternative to vengeance and retribution.
Snide remarks about "bad bad occupation" don't make it any less a fact that Israel was the primary instigator and contributor of violence, the one most likely to restart it after things had calmed down, and the Palestinians were primarily reacting to Israeli violence. The Israeli public was a victim of Israeli policy as well.
Please also spare me the comments about the wonderful "Supreme Court" changing the line of the fence if it inflicts "disproportional damage to the Palestinian population." Disproportional to what? It hasn't save single Palestinian life or helped a single Palestinian living under occupation which would be the only legitimate reason an occupying power might have for building it. You can claim it saves lives if your only concern is solely Israeli lives - that's racist in my book, especially when Israel is killing mostly innocent people while the Palestinians (however random their aim) still managed to kill more guilty people than innocent, and far fewer in total. All of the bad effects are on the only people who legally inhabit the territory that most of it is built on, and no bad effects on the settlers whose presence in that territory is illegal.
"You may agree with the reasons why Palestinians rejected partition but reject they did and war was fought with the intention to cleanse on both sides."
It's clear from the writing of dominant zionists from Herzl on that they wanted to get rid of the Palestinian Arabs from the start of the zionist project. Palestinian leadership, on the other hand, supported equal rights regardless of creed. Rejected by zionists because they wanted to dominate. Its true Palestinians attempted to limit Jewish immigration prior to 1947, but there's no indication that to cleanse was the dominant intent on the part of Palestinian leadership. Some may have wanted it, others supported partition. As Ilan Pappe reports, the war in 1948 was for the most part instigated and kept alive by the zionists. The Palestinians were largely unarmed, and unwilling to fight having suffered immensely during the 1936 uprising. Zionists had every opportunity to approach Palestinian Arab leadership and come to an agreement. Who knows, perhaps Palestinian Arabs would have been moved as much as anyone by the story of the holocaust, had they not been under attack by people who acted in the name of Jews? Too late for that now, of course.
I believe your view of history is colored by your support for a Jewish state. I too see nothing theoretically wrong with a Jewish state, but everything wrong with the one that exists. Whatever one has to say about forced or coerced religious conversion which of course, was done by Christians, Jews and Muslims, and by communists as well if you count the forced conversion to communism under communist rule, most of the Muslim states became that way by conversion, not by ethnic cleansing.
Congratulations on throwing yourself into the den of lions, so to speak, and coming out alive (I venture God didn't have anything to do with coming out alive).
As for the Chabad folks, whoever said their religious beliefs are racist nailed it. I have to admit, I take a little offense that they think I'm not fully human.
Facts don't matter if racist religious beliefs work for them, and their racism (along with the cutesy singing rabbis and telethons) work for them. Yes it blinds them to inconvenient facts and logical universal thinking too. Which wins in an argument, facts or religion? Logic or religion? Please don't feel guilty about eating the food, you paid for it. Be glad they didn't make you drink poison, like Socrates. Think instead about making their racism not work for them. I'd like to know how your wife would have broached the subject with them.
Funny, the only "vast wave" of terror attacks originating in the West Bank occurred well after Israel had instituted hundreds of checkpoints, preventing people from accessing jobs, schools and houses of worship, as well as employed "security measures" such as torture, beatings, imprisonment without trial and sniper fire to quell demonstrations against Israeli takeover of territory.
Sorry, Fredblogs, people on this blog are mostly too smart and knowledgeable to fall for stupid zionist thinking, in this case making up some imaginary and improbable but frightening scenario of what would happen if Israel actually withdrew from the occupied territories, to use as an excuse not to make any genuine effort at peace.
Its actually quite hard to buy non-kosher food, unless you're buying bacon or something. Practically everything in the the grocery store is kosher. I'd be surprised if you couldn't get kosher food at many public schools, but anyway you can always bring your own lunch. I'd be surprised if today any camp didn't offer kosher food, tho maybe not the strictest kosher food. Certainly when I was going to summer camp the Jews could go off to the weekly worship service separately from the other kids, and that was well over 30 years ago.
BTW I know a fair number of Jews who love bacon.
Now here's something I don't understand - why is it worse for a despot to murder "thousands of his own people" than for some Israeli generals to murder 10s of thousands of people they considers less than fully human, in the process of ridding territory his state claims of those people they considers undesirable?
@Winnica, I have no idea what "narrative" you're talking about, or which blemishes are misconstrued. Are you speaking about the deliberate ethnic cleansing carried out by Israel's founders, including a number of incidents where zionists ordered villagers to line up and then gunned them down in mass, or threatened them with mass murder if they didn't leave the land Israel claimed?
If not, please be more specific.
And like the talks with Iraq, I guess, when it was fudging the gullible West about its WMDs - oh wait, we were fudging our own gullible selves. Well, I guess some people aren't content with being fooled once, and also look forward to the repeat of a major disaster, in all likelihood, a much bigger one.
"For Israel to use the analogy is an admission to genocide."
Pro-Israel hasbarists very commonly use the analogy, I don't know how often I've been asked by bloggers if I'd give my house back to the Native Americans. As far as it being an admission to genocide, I agree. Zionists had/have serious intent of committing genocide against Palestinians.
As far as not holding Indians were terrorists for defending themselves, "terrorist" wasn't a word in the common vernacular during the Indian wars. People used more common pejoratives like "savage" and I'm sure if the wars were going on today the Native Americans would be called "terrorists"
The U.S. recognized many native tribes as independent nations, until what, 1920 or so, that's why they could make treaties with them. Israel still doesn't recognize Palestine.
It has been reported that Zionists did use biological warfare in 1948.
I tend to agree. However, I'm not convinced that the US flag-waving, "America first" part of her message shows no political common sense, it shows a different sense that may in fact be much more attractive to the broader American public than the message by the more moral and dedicated leftist support for Palestinian equal rights, which often has a more flag-burning aspect.
Anti-semites really are often attracted to the pro-Palestinian movement. I don't count Alison Weir as a true anti-semite, at least, not consciously. I'll bet she would disavow any anti-semitic or racist view of the John Birch society. The closest she might come is to espousing their views is to say that sometimes those racists dig up interesting facts and should be listened to. I sometimes wonder if its because she's white and has blond hair, and on top of it more on the flag-waving American right politically than most advocates of human rights, she fits the stereotype of an anti-semite? However, she is pretty careful about using the best evidence available to back any of her claims. So no, I don't think she's a racist and certainly not racial supremacist, at least not consciously, I just think she's too blinded by her anti-Israel stance & the usual charge that Israel is covering up the truth to have any sense of smell or judgment herself about the real racists like Clayton & Co.
@giladg, someone "stole" the land and Jerusalem from the Jews, is that the best answer you can come up with?
Note that a) the vast majority of Jews who lived in "the land and Jerusalem" had adopted Christianity by 400 CE, b) the descendants of the Jews of Roman times mostly continued to live in "the land and Jerusalem" as citizens of whatever governmental body ruled from then until they were evicted by the zionists, c) ancient "ownership" of the land by "Jews" (meaning, I guess, King Herod and his army) only lasted maybe 200 years out of its 7000 year history d) according to biblical record the "Jews" stolen the land from its earlier owners anyway, e) most Jews of Roman times (the period following independent "Jewish rule) who emigrated from "the land and Jerusalem" did so entirely voluntarily, and f) most people, both Jewish and non-Jewish who come from around the Mediterranian basin have some ancestry from the same place you claim Jews came from, meaning that all people in Southern France and Sicily could make as legitimate a claim of coming from "ancient Israel" as any European Jew.
Considering the above, please provide some evidence that any modern Jewish person could claim legal title based on provable deeded inheritance from someone whose land was "stolen" 2000 years ago when the land was considered belonging to "Jews" because Judaism was the dominant religion. Provide evidence that the legal owner of that land you claim was "stolen" did not, in fact, convert to another religion and continue to hold his land, or abandon it voluntarily for opportunity somewhere else.
Actually Juan Cole explains this history much better than me - if you follow Shingo's link
@fredblog,
"if such a man is your enemy"
You left out the part of the story that gives the reason the man is your enemy. The reason he's your enemy is that you stole his property, destroyed his home and killed, abused or tortured him or his relatives. You should turn yourself in to the police and make every attempt at honest restitution. What you are claiming is that criminals (such as many zionists) should kill off victims who don't agree to remain victims, because those victims might come after you to get their property and rights back.
And in fact, if you made an honest attempt at restitution, there is a significant possibility that he would forgive you. While I don't doubt some individuals or obscure groups have said it, I've heard no Palestinian say, "no peace until you are dead." The major parties, including Hamas, have welcomed Jews who come in the spirit of justice, including avowed zionists.
@fredblogs,
Israel has set a precedent, that it's OK to kill innocent and expel people who don't happen to follow your faith, in order to acquire their property and establish a solid majority for the people of your faith in your state, to "purify" the land ("purify" being term used by Zionists do describe operations to get rid of "Arabs"). Please explain to me, if it's OK to kill and expel people because they happen to be of a faith you don't want (which you've just asserted), why it's wrong to kill or expel people because they happen to be Jewish?
@Fredblogs, aren't you confusing statehood with personhood? States do not have minds or points of view. A state that ceases to exist is not considered dead. As far as I'm concerned, a state that does not grant any rights to the native people of the land it occupies, in Israel's case the Palestinian people, should change to grant full rights, or else cease to exist.
@giladg, why do you think your "special connection" gives you the right take the property of the native people and to expel them, or discriminate against them?
How about if I start claiming a "special connection" to some billions of dollars in the local bank, and go and take it? Would you recognize it? How about if I start claiming a "special connection" to all of your worldly goods, and took them. Would you recognize it?
Wasn't it mostly Muslim blood that the Christians spilled in the Crusades? Although, I understand that the Crusaders didn't care, when they were slaughtering native people of the "Holy" land, whether they were Muslim, Christians or Jews.
It seems to me that the "Holy" land was probably more "Holy" to the Crusaders than to modern Zionists, but I have no idea whether the Zionists slaughtered more people in conquering it.
Not fair to who?
It will be a revolution if Mr. President calls for Israel to give up violence as a means of achieving territorial expansion or ethnic cleansing. Or for that matter for the U.S. to give up violence as a means of achieving control over world resources.
@giladg,
Yeah, tell it to the judge. This is a famous zionist excuse for murder (let me paraphrase): Honest, I was pointing that gun at that "naive romantic activist" and pulled the trigger, but it was just a mistake that he was severely injured - and after all he deserved it for just "pretending" to care, and "pretending" to care about Israel's victims at that. Honest, we didn't mean to get rid of the majority of non-Jews from Palestine in 1948, sure, we conducted a few massacres and ordered people out of their homes at gunpoint and threatened mass murder, but really, it was all an accident, totally unintentional.
Zionists claim allowing equal rights for the native people of the land Israel controls would be equivalent to the destruction of Israel. In that sense, I support the destruction of Israel.
PZ, according to your ajr link, 12 incidents, 8/12 and almost certainly 9/12 the perpetrators of violence against journalists were Israeli soldiers, some of them lethal. 2/12 by Palestinians, one clearly violence by Palestinians, another, the Palestinians confiscated some news footage. 1/12 was violence by unknown perpetrators.
Your link clearly shows who perpetrates most of the violence against journalists in the West Bank. It's the Israelis.
PZ777, suspecting Shadid of being a "terrorist" might be a defense if it weren't that people like you (I mean many zionists) believe that unborn Palestinians children are terrorists, and justify killing pregnant women on that basis.
Shooting Palestinian civilians is Israeli policy. Don't just lay the blame on ill-disciplined IDF troops.
"Thankfully a vast majority of the civilized people were and stil are shocked and disgusted by that bare handed murder."
Its not like they were shooting children for sport, like Israeli soldiers are known to have done. I have to wonder at all the "civilized" people who are shocked and disgusted by the killing of two soldiers by a mob, but not by bulldozing innocent people alive in their homes, like Israelis do. I guess if you civilized Israelis (or Americans) people regard other people as savages or otherwise subhuman, its reasonable to kill or exterminate them at will.
What ever would give you the idea that this law (which appears from statements about it to apply only to Palestinians) is intended to prevent marriages in order to gain citizenship in a country? Do you really think persons of other origins would never want citizenship in Israel, e.g., "economic refugees" from say, former Soviet block countries, but to which this law doesn't apparently apply?
Besides which, considering that all Palestinians should have citizenship in Israel particularly refugees, why exclude marriage as a means of gaining rights which should be theirs in the first place? And why do you personally exclude marriages where love is not a precondition, e.g., arranged marriages, from the category of "real marriages?" BTW it's not that I'm in favor of arranged marriages, on the other hand, I have to classify them as "real" marriages, and as far as love goes, people all over the world marry in order to gain status or wealth, rather than for love, and not by having their marriages "arranged" but with full intent.
A local congressman, Brad Sherman, regularly holds "town hall" meetings with the Israeli deputy consulate at a synagogue in his district on the subject of foreign affairs - he's a ranking member of the congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs.
As far as I know, he advertises that he'll have them only in the local Jewish Journal. I don't know if he sends out notices about them ahead of time on his regular email list, since I haven't signed up for that. Unlike his other town hall meetings, these particular town hall meetings aren't published on his web site.
I've called Brad Sherman an "Israel firster" in part because of events like this and the amount of effort he spends as a congressman supporting Israel, but I'm not sure it's an accurate description. Israel firster or not, it seems a little underhanded to sort of reserve a town hall meeting for a specific part of his constituency, a segment that he himself is a member of, and exclude from the invitation his general constituency. I think that they'd all have an opinion on the wars on Iraq (which Sherman voted to authorize) and Iran (which he apparently supports), if nothing else. Conversely, I'm sure Sherman's Jewish constituents have an interest in more than just foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel. Maybe it's just his "glaring" lack of publicity on the foreign policy town halls that makes it seem underhanded.
Anyone else want to weigh in? Should Brad Sherman get the "Israel firster" label?
"I am saying that not all of the refugees were expelled; many fled fighting that was taking place in the their towns and villages, which is perfectly understandable. .... But I do believe that the war resulted from the Arabs’ (I don’t want to say the Palestinians because they never had a say in the matter) rejection of the partition and the refugee crisis resulted from the war."
Robert, this seems to me you're blaming the victims for their expulsion, which is no better than saying the Jews were to blame for the holocaust. Indeed, I'm sure the Jews were leaders in rejection of German rule over every country the Germans invaded in WWII.
The fact is the Zionists were the ones who lobbied the UN for the partition, Palestinians mostly did reject the division of their land and giving over the majority of it to what could be considered invaders. The war was the result of the partition, not the Arabs rejecting of it. Nor does it matter whether the Zionists had a plan or a policy of expelling the Arabs, the fact is, they had a goal of expelling or finding a way of "cleansing" the land of non-Jews, some Zionists had this goal pretty much since the beginning of the Zionist movement.
A real anti-semite might say the holocaust happened, and was a good thing. Those who deny it are in a perverse way agreeing it was a horrible crime. Ok, I see no reason to allow any holocaust denying on your blog. I haven't seen much of it anyway, though I have seen the infamous excuses (blaming the victims) which might be worse.
I don't suppose there's a policy against saying the Nakba was a good thing, or necessary (I count these descriptions more or less the same in this context) which is what our favorite commentator RW does all the time.
Note I am making this comment before reading everyone else's 251 comments. Please excuse me if this ground has been covered.
The U.S.'s foreign policy
1. The U.S. should support a complete end to all occupied territories and the formation of a Palestinian state in those territories,
2. The complete and full right of return to what's now Israel of all of its indigenous people, that is, the Palestinian Arabs
3. Equal rights for all people regardless of creed in all territories formerly know as Palestine
4. Israel should give up its nukes
Towards implementing this, the U.S. should give up ties and sanction Israel until it complies
Do you suppose he's an "Israel-firster?"
I hope I'm not being anti-semitic