Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 53 (since 2017-06-30 22:03:15)

Nathan

Showing comments 53 - 1
Page:

  • The Spirit of '68 Lives On: Zionism as racism, and the network of lies
    • Yes, Talkback, it's really true. The Hebrew Bible is the foundation of western society. The New Testament is obviously a very important text, however the founders of Christianity understood that the New Testament is absolutely incomprehensible without the Hebrew Bible. This is the reason that the Christian Holy Scriptures include the Hebrew Bible. How could anyone understand who Jesus is without knowing the story of King David?

    • Keith - The greatest contribution of the Jews throughout history is without doubt the writing of the Hebrew Bible. This book is the foundation of western civilization, and it is not a Diaspora phenomenon. The kingdom of David might very well have been a "backwater" kingdom, but the memory of that kingdom was the inspiration for writing the Bible.

      Anyway, even assuming that you are right ("Jews made their greatest contribution to history in the Diaspora"), all this doesn't change the simple fact that today Israel has risen up as the most important Jewish center in the world.

  • Bill making it a federal crime to support BDS sends shockwaves through progressive community
    • Let's put the burden of proof on you, Ossinev. Give me the quote from the BDS website in which it is stated that "with the rectification of the grievances defined in the BDS website, we will conclude that the conflict has been resolved and that Israel has the right to live in peace" (or something of such nature). Actually, it would be interesting to hear your opinion as a private person. With the rectification of the grievances defined in the BDS website, would you say that the conflict with Israel will be resolved, and that Israel will have the right to live in peace? In the anti-Israel (or anti-Zionist) world, there is no end-of-conflict scenario in which Israel's legitimacy is finally recognized. There are always grievances and grievances, but you never hear that with the rectification of these grievances the conflict will be resolved once and for all. I await the quote from the BDS website that defines the end-of-conflict and the acceptance of Israel's permanency.

    • Echinoccus - The use of the term pre-Christian would be just fine. Obviously, it's your way of dating the building correctly without having to say that the building was built in Second Temple times by Herod, king of Judea. Yes, pre-Christian could be understood as 1st century BC (as is the correct date for the structure). You should note that the term Palestina was used by the Roman Empire only after AD 135. In pre-Christian times (i.e during the time of the Second Temple when Herod built the wonderful structure in Hebron in the 1st century BC) the country was still called "Judaea" (the land of the Jews).

      I noticed that you put the 2nd Temple in quotation marks. You didn't say that you deny the existence of the 2nd Temple, but the quotation marks are a hint to something. In the beginning you claimed that the structure in Hebron is medieval, but now you admit that part of it is pre-Christian. Of course, it would be more polite to say that you were wrong, but I understand your intention. Now, I'm curious to know if you are maintaining that the 2nd Temple is myth.

      Talkback - I have never seen any Mandate-era document that uses the term State of Palestine. Anyway, today's citizens of the State of Israel are not refugees or illegal immigrants. I understand that in the anti-Israel world time stands still. However in the real world of here and now, the State of Israel is soon to be 70 years old. A child born today in Tel-Aviv is probably the grandchild or even the great-grandchild of a person who was born in Israel. Maybe you would like to argue that the great-great-grandfather had no right to found the State of Israel. It's really a very interesting point of view, albeit quite irrelevant.

    • HarryLaw - You have expressed support for the two-state solution. This means that you envision an end-of-conflict scenario in which the State of Israel continues to exist. However, for some reason, you have not been attacked by all the commentators who can't bear the idea of Israel's permanency. No one has told you that "all the colonists must leave the country", or that "only the Palestinians are legitimate residents", or that you are a Zio-propagandist, etc. What's the secret of your immunity from all the rude and abusive language?

      Regarding the BDS, you should notice that in its website there is no mention of the end-of-conflict. There is no indication that when its demands are met (end of occupation, dismantling the wall, return of refugees, etc), the BDS movement regards the conflict to be resolved once and for all and accepts Israel's right to live in peace. If, indeed, you have a vision of a two-state solution (one of those states being Israel, of course), then you should note that the BDS movement does not share your vision. The movement, like the commentators on this website, does not envision an end of conflict as long as the Zionist entity continues to exist.

    • You seem to be avoiding the question: "So, since you are full of praise, echinoccus, of Yoni’s historical assessments, should one assume that you also accept his confirmation of the antisemitic stereotype?" It's not a very difficult question. You have sung Yoni's praises as an historian, and lo and behold, he has given another statement as an historian. What do you make of it?

      Do you still stand by your statement that the Ibrahimi Mosque is a medieval structure? It is, of course, a Second Temple era building (1st century BC) built by Herod, king of Judea. When I first mentioned this fact, our illustrious historian gave us a lecture about Herod's roots, the background of the Palestinians, the nature of ancient Judaism and other interesting facts. However, there was just one thing that Yoni couldn't bring himself to say: "Yes, the structure in Hebron was build by Herod, the king of Judea". Why? Well, you don't answer questions, but it's all very obvious. You seem to believe that you can't be a raving anti-Zionist while confirming at the same time any aspect of the Jewish narrative. The world might collapse if someone would dare say that there was a land (and kingdom) called Judea (the Romans called the country "Judaea", the land of the Jews).

    • So, since you are full of praise, echinoccus, of Yoni's historical assessments, should one assume that you also accept his confirmation of the antisemitic stereotype? And why did he connect between his anti-Israel comment and the anti-Semitic stereotype in the first place? Is he hinting that there is a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism?

    • jeff davis - I'd be curious to hear an example of the Jewish behavior that you have described from five thousand years ago (I'd be curious to hear a name of a Jew from five thousand years ago). You should note that in recent history (the Holocaust), the vast majority of those murdered were very, very poor people. They were murdered because of a racial policy of Germany - not because they had political power. You don't have the slightest understanding of Jewish history, neither ancient times nor recent times.

    • Yoni - In the past you claimed "as an historian" that King Herod was not the king of Judea, and that was false. Now, I would be curious to see how you "confirm as an historian" the antisemitic stereotype.

  • 'Irreplaceable bedrock' of U.S. backing for Israel is threatened by -- intermarriage
    • "Israel is a virtual rogue state, were it not for the 'panacea' of U.S. support". In better English, it should have been said that "Israel would have been a ... if it were not for....." Anyway, in very simple terms, we have been told that Israel is not a virtual rogue state because she enjoys US support. I don't really know what a "virtual rogue state" is (nor do I know what a non-virtual rogue state might be), so it was calming to know that the issue is irrelevant.

  • The Palestinian Authority is on the verge of collapse, and collapse it should
    • "...Palestinian Authority allows Israeli designs on Judea and Samaria (in their terminology) to proceed unabated". It's true that "Judea and Samaria" is the common terminology in Israel, however it is interesting to note that this was the common terminology of the British Mandate for Palestine. All the maps published by the British government used such terms as "Galilee", "Sharon", "Judea", "Samaria" and "Negev". It is even more interesting to note that the UN Partition Plan of Nov 1947 uses "their terminology" as well. The Partition Plan gives the details of the territory of the proposed Arab state in "PART 2 - Boundaries - the Arab State": "The boundary of the hill country of SAMARIA and JUDEA starts on the Jordan River at the Wadi Malih south-east of Beisan and runs due west to meet the Beisan-Jericho road...." Anyway, the Palestine Authority is not on the verge of collapse as the title of the article would have us believe. It seems to me to be wishful thinking of the anti-Israel crowd that the PA would disappear. The anti-Israel crowd regards the Oslo Agreement to be a big mistake on the part of the Palestinians, and so they wish it away.

  • Four Palestinians, two Israelis killed, and Israeli forces blockade Al Aqsa mosque
    • How many adjectives are necessary in one short paragraph to explain to people who already are anti-Israel that they should be anti-Israel? Violent (1), illegal (2), foreign (3), occupying (4), colonizing (5) are needed to introduce "force"; and genocidal (1), Zionist (2), apartheid (3) are needed for "regime". When I lived in the USSR, I noticed that Pravda would get by with just one adjective for every noun it detested (imperialistic (1) America, or aggressive (1) Israel). The same was true for the "hate-hour" in school where the class was reminded who the bad guy is this week (greedy (1) capitalists, or counter-revolutionary (1) Zionists).

  • Israel charges UNESCO with 'Fake history'
    • Brewer - The Biblical story of the flood is surely based on the Babylonia legend. Actually, the very idea of a flood could not have been conceived in the Land of Canaan where where there are no floods. However, the Hebrew author has written a story that has a message for his audience (the community of Jews returning from the Babylonian Exile). It's not a copy of the story and the messages of the Babylonian version. The Babylonian story is the framework within which the Hebrew author wishes to establish the principles of Judaism.

    • Yes, Mooser, there is a reason why one shouldn't misquote. First of all, one should be honest. Secondly, one should be respectful of others even in debate (which includes calling a person by his own name). I find it disappointing that you don't share these values of honesty and courtesy. Didn't your mother explain it to you?

      By the way, should I understand from your comment that also all the anti-Israel crowd is "for all practical purposes" just the same (and, therefore, all the names are interchangeable)? It does seem that some of the crowd have this instinct for an exaggerated rudeness. They seem to lose it when someone doesn't share their animosities. Maybe they come from broken homes.

    • Mooser - You might want to try and read my comment. I spoke of literature. The Book of Jonah is also literature, and it's very good literature. The author who wrote the Book of Jonah was a real person, and this person wanted to say something about his time and place. When you figure out what his agenda was, then you catch on to the real history that the Bible tells. BTW, there are parts of the Bible that tell give true accounts of historic events. The exile of the Judeans to Babylonia, for example, is real history - and the Babylonian chronicles corroborate the information. Moreover, the Bible tells us of the decree of King Cyrus that allows for the Jews (the Judeans) to return to Jerusalem. The original decree was discovered and it is now on display in the British Museum.

    • Brewer - So far, the oldest Biblical text that has been found in archeology is from the first century BC (the Dead Sea Scrolls). There are no copies of Isaiah's prophecies from the 8th century BC (when he wrote them). The dating of Biblical texts is done through an analysis of their content, an analysis of the language - and (at times) a text might refer to an event in the Middle East that is known from other sources. The Book of Deuteronomy was written in the 7th century BC in Jerusalem. The other four books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers) were composed in the Babylonian Exile or soon after the return to Judea (5th century BC). They were not composed under the impact of Hellenism, although some later books of the Bible were (Qohelet, Esther, Daniel).

    • Peter Field - It's absolutely true that the stories about Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were written many centuries after they supposedly lived. Also the creation story and the flood story are not historical, obviously. However, the author of Genesis (whoever he might have been) is not fictitious. He was a real person who lived in a particular country, spoke a particular language and belonged to a particular ethnicity. When you read Genesis carefully, you can begin to put together the motivation of the author. Why did he write the book? When was the book written? What were the circumstances in which he lived? What was the impact of his book on his community? The answers shed light on real history and on real events that have importance. The Garden of Eden story is not "fake history". It's literature. And, like all great literature, the brilliant author wants to say something about his times and the world from his perspective. He had some real historical event on his mind, and this event is being presented in the form of literature.

    • Talkback - You have brought a quote that you attribute to me. It's false. I have never made such a statement. You can quote me when the quotes are really mine (and then debate with me about my opinions), and that would be fine. But it's dishonest to attribute to me things that I haven't said (and there's no reason for it).

    • Brewer - There are many Biblical texts that pre-date 270 BC. The Book of Deuteronomy was written in about 620 BC. Obviously, the books of the First Temple era prophets are very old. The first 39 chapters of Isaiah were written in the 8th century BC. Hosea is the only prophet from the northern kingdom (the Kingdom of Israel), so his book was written before the fall of the kingdom (721 BC). Obviously, the books have all been copied and edited throughout the generations, but their basic form came about during the era of the Kingdom of Judah or during the return from the Babylonian Exile (6th-5th centuries BC). Just a handful of books were written after 270 BC. Daniel, for example, was written on the eve of the Hasmonean revolt (164 BC).

  • 'LA Times' calls BDS a 'classic tool of peaceful political expression'
    • Indeed, the choice of words, Sibiriak, is quite revealing. It shows a total misunderstanding of the issue at hand. The conflict was not born in the 1967 Six-Day War. The editorial should have said that "the century old conflict has gone on too long. The time has come to end the conflict once and for all".

  • Church leaders must be willing to pay a price for Palestinian solidarity
    • Again, Talkback, you attribute to me a quote that is not my quote. What is the reason for such dishonesty? I have a comment above. You can quote me and then debate with me. There's no reason for lying (or, at least, I haven't figured out your motivation for false quoting).

    • LHunter - You seem amazed that the Pope doesn't see things as you do. However, that's the world we live in. There are different points of view. It could be argued, for example, that the refugees don't have the right of return. The Arab League peace proposal calls for an agreed and just solution. "Agreement" means that the issue must be negotiated. It also means that justice has to be defined. The Arab League also doesn't see things as you do.

      You should note that "apartheid" and "occupation" are contradictory terms. If it's "apartheid" (two legal systems within one state), then there's no occupation (a state does not occupy its own territory, obviously). If it's an "occupation", then it means that a public is under the rule of a foreign state. Well, that's not apartheid. Look at the solutions to "apartheid" and "occupation". To solve apartheid, there should be one state with a single legal system. This is called "the one-state solution". To solve occupation, there should a withdrawal of forces from the territory in question, and another government takes over. This is called "the two-state solution". To raise a complaint of "apartheid" and "occupation" in one breath means that one envisions a one-state solution and a two-state solution at one and the same time.

  • A Declaration for Palestine
    • I wonder why they would use the US Declaration of Independence as a tool to criticize Israel. The USA was founded on land (a whole continent in the end) taken from the indigenous population (and decimating that indigenous population). Its Declaration of Independence speaks of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" with an enslaved African population. I would suggest to the great people of Vermont to state their criticism without evoking silly comparisons.

      The picture above ("We the People") is the US Constitution. The US Declaration of Independence is underneath the Constitution. It might be a good idea to correct the caption (or change the picture).

  • Israel slams UNESCO World Heritage decision on Hebron as Palestinians celebrate 12-3 vote in favor
    • Talkback - I did not say that a state gets its legitimacy through its proclamation. A state that succeeds in being established is a legitimate state. There is no question that Israel has succeeded in being established.

      Talknic - I would imagine that your out-of-control rudeness is an emotional problem. Did you have a difficult childhood?

    • echinnocus - Why would you conclude that the Zionist entity has no right to exist? Of course it has a right to exist. A state succeeds in being established, so it is legitimate. Welcome to planet Earth. Statehood is an abstract idea. A state exists because people think it exists.

      Talkback - I believe it was you who asked to see the quote from UNGA 181. You could have said "thank you" (that's what good people say even if they don't mean it). You're welcome!

    • Talknic - Read over again the ENTIRE quote that I brought to your attention, and you'll see that according to the Partition Plan a Jew residing in the proposed Arab State can become a citizen in the proposed Jewish state. In other words, a Jew living anywhere in Palestine (whether in the proposed Arab state or in the proposed Jewish state) can be a citizen of the Jewish state. Obviously, the children of this Jewish citizen born in the proposed Arab state will also be citizens of the Jewish state while being residents of the Arab state in which they were born. Why is it that you ignore quotes that you ask to see? What is the ideological problem for you that a Jew living in the Arab state would be a citizen of the Jewish state (or an Arab living in the Jewish state would be a citizen of the Arab state)? It was an interesting idea at the time.

      Another question for you, Talknic: You take the position that only the borders of the Partition Plan are legitimate (on the one hand), but you don't accept the very legitimacy of the Partition Plan (on the other hand). Should one understand your position to be that at first Israel should withdraw to the Partition Plan borders, and then afterwards you propose fighting the legitimacy of the Jewish state even in the borders that you "agree" to? Obviously, it's silly to think that such a ploy would succeed, but that's not the important issue. The important issue is the intellectual sneakiness. Just state your opinion that the Jewish state shouldn't exist. That's your ideology, and there's no need to pretend that it's an issue of international law.

      Finally, why are you such a rude person? It shouldn't be such a difficult task to tell someone that you disagree ("chewing gum") while at the same time maintaining the basic rules of politeness ("walking in a straight line"). Good luck facing the challenge of normal human relations.

    • eljay - You make the claim that the Jews had no right to found a state based on the Jewish religion, just as the Moslems should not found a state based on Islam. Again, I suggest to you to read the Partition Plan of 1947. The proposal is for a JEWISH state and an ARAB state. The two parallel terms are "Jewish" and "Arab". We can assume that "Jewish" refers to religion, and therefore "Arab" also refers to religion - but that would be ridiculous. The better assumption would be that "Arab" refers to an ethnicity, and therefore "Jewish" also refers to an ethnicity. The "Jewish state" means a state set up for a particular peoplehood. Your reference to an "Islamic state" (parallel to the proposed Jewish state) is a misquote of the Partition Plan. I can't imagine that you are not aware of the correct language of the proposal (Jewish state / Arab state), so I would imagine that you know that "Jewish" was a reference to an ethnicity.

      Anyway, none of the above is meant to convince you to accept the validity of the Partition Plan. The logic of the plan was based on the agreement of both sides (thus avoiding war), but there was no such agreement. The two sides have since agreed (28 Sept 1995) to negotiate the final borders between them - so whatever will be agreed upon will be final and valid.

    • Talkback - Here's the quote from UN Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan - 29 Nov 1947) regarding the possibility of being a Jew living in the proposed Arab state while being a citizen of the Jewish state (and vice versa):

      Chapter 3

      "1. Citizenship. Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights. Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State, providing that no Arab residing in the area of the proposed Arab State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Jewish State and no Jew residing in the proposed Jewish State shall have the right to opt for citizenship in the proposed Arab State. The exercise of this right of option will be taken to include the wives and children under eighteen years of age of persons so opting.

      "Arabs residing in the area of the proposed Jewish State and Jews residing in the area of the proposed Arab State who have signed a notice of intention to opt for citizenship of the other State shall be eligible to vote in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of that State, but not in the elections to the Constituent Assembly of the State in which they reside."

      So, it turns out that (as I told eljay) "according to the Partition Plan one could live in the territory of the proposed Arab state and be a citizen of the proposed Jewish state (and vice versa). So, a Jew could be born outside the borders of the Jewish state and still be a citizen thereof. It’s quite boring to read the Partition Plan, but you might want to make the effort."

      Talknic seems to have an impressive acquaintance with documents, so it was surprising that he, too, was not familiar with the content of the Partition Plan.

      I know that politeness on this site is quite rare, so I wonder if Talkback will say "thanks" for my searching for the quote at his request. Well, anyway, you're welcome.

    • eljay - If the Partition Plan sets the standards for you, you should note that according to the Partition Plan one could live in the territory of the proposed Arab state and be a citizen of the proposed Jewish state (and vice versa). So, a Jew could be born outside the borders of the Jewish state and still be a citizen thereof. It's quite boring to read the Partition Plan, but you might want to make the effort.

      It's quite surprising that you do refer to the Partition Plan as the basis of legitimacy. As you know, the Partition Plan proposed the founding of a JEWISH state. You claim that the Jews had / have no right to found a Jewish state. So, it would seem that you reject the Partition Plan and accept it at one and the same time.

      Anyway, the continued existence of the Jewish state is not depended on your approval, as frustrating as that may be for you. There is a very substantial number of Jews who are determined to maintain its existence, and they seem to be quite a capable community.

    • eljay - I don't quite follow your argument. What is the point of debating the right of Jews to have founded a state? It has already happened, and it happened a very long time ago. A child born today in Israel is probably the grandchild or even the great-grandchild of a native born Israeli, so he belongs to "geographic Palestine" (to use your terminology). It would be a wonderful idea to suggest ways in which the conflict might end or ways in which people can learn to live together. But what's the point in explaining that it shouldn't have come into being? It came into being, and it's not going to be undone. You should be able to live with that (well, actually, you do live with it).

      zaid - One doesn't have to pass a genetics test (or an archeology test) in order to be a native of his own country. A person is born, and he doesn't have to explain his having come into being. You can scream that "he's an illegitimate child", but it doesn't make any difference. He has the right to live his life, and he has the right to defend his life. If you find one's DNA to be an issue for discussion, then that should be defined as racism.

    • MHughes976 - Yes, obviously, it should have been mentioned that the building is Herodian. Why, in your opinion, was this very interesting and important fact not included in the UNESCO decision? No one seems to be willing to answer this question. There is one person who is very intense in trying to prove that King Herod wasn't the king of Judea and that he wasn't a Jew, and methinks he doth protest too much (but he won't give an opinion as to why UNESCO wouldn't mention that Herod is the builder of this site). What do you make of it?

      John O - I didn't mention anything about religion or the religious aspects of the world heritage site in Hebron. I mentioned that the building appearing in the above photo was built in the first century BC by King Herod of Judea. I commented that the building is a smaller copy of the Second Temple. In short, I commented on the date in which the building was built, its design and its builder. My question was very simple: Why didn't UNESCO mention that the building was built by King Herod? That's history (world heritage), not religion. What do you think? Was it politics or does someone in UNESCO need to retake the classical course of "archeology for dummies"?

    • John O - Every time I look at the Mondoweiss website, I am told that "They fear the truth. Mondoweiss reports it". Apparently, the above Mondoweiss article fears the truth. Reporting the Ibrahimi Mosque a world heritage site was not done in such a way as to "fully acknowledge" the historic context of this building.

    • John O - There really is no reason to play games. One can utter the word "Judea" and "King Herod" and "the Second Temple era" and still remain anti-Zionist and anti-Israel if that's your ideology. The building in the picture above was built by King Herod of Judea during the era of the Second Temple. Actually, it is a copy of the Second Temple (also built by King Herod), although on a smaller scale. It doesn't make sense that such a monument is declared a world heritage site without telling the public about the origins of the building. The above article mentions only the Mameluk era from the Middle Ages. That's intellectual cowardice.

    • YoniFalic - No one in this article is telling "Zio-lies" about King Herod. He simply isn't mentioned. Why not? You seem quite busy trying to prove that King Herod was not Jewish, that he wasn't the king of Judea, that the rabbinic tradition doesn't like him, that you have Slavic and Turkish descent, and that the Palestinians are of Judean descent. Is this the reason that the article doesn't mention that King Herod built this wonderful edifice?

      John O - The structure is Herodian. It was built in the first century BC. The building shown in the photo above is the original building from antiquity. It is not a medieval structure on the site of some earlier temple. The UNESCO announcement claims that the building is from the first century - although, for some reason, they refrain from mentioning that King Herod of Judea built the building.

      MHughes - The building shown in the photo above is essentially a copy of the Second Temple, so it was obviously built when the Temple was still in plain view (before AD 70). It's origin, therefore, is not a mystery at all. It is a Second Temple era building. It is the only Second Temple era building still intact, which is really quite amazing. You would think that such a fact would deserve to be mentioned when choosing a world heritage site.

    • YoniFalic - The question is the following: Why isn't it mentioned in the article that the building shown in the above photo was built in the first century BC by King Herod of Judea?

      The origins of King Herod, the roots of Palestinian Arabs, your ancestors (or mine) and the invasion of your family are really interesting topics for discussion and debate. However, I was wondering why an article about a world heritage site neglects to mention who built the building and when. Do you have a theory? It certainly is strange. After all, the writer could have just checked google. What is so terrible to say that the building was built in the first century BC by King Herod of Judea?

    • Actually, this article doesn't care much for history. It would have been just fine to have mentioned that the Ibrahimi Mosque (appearing in the photo) is a structure that was built in the first century BC. It was built by King Herod, the king of Judea. Actually, with all due respect to the "the Sufi period in Hebron during the Mamluk rule between 1250-1516 AD", the fact that the building was constructed by King Herod during the first century BC is without doubt the most interesting world heritage issue in Hebron. I'm trying to figure out what might be the reason that this fact was overlooked.

  • US Jews must oppose Palestinian boycott, but boycott Israel and bring it to its knees over prayer at western wall
    • Are you serious, Bont Eastlake? The Israelis serve in the army for three years, and then they serve in the reserves for decades. They go to battle at times, and they must face the reality of life in conflict. Their enemies are also real soldiers, and they too face the reality of life in conflict. However, the brave "resistance" of those commenting on the Mondoweiss website is mere "bla-bla-bla" of people who don't face dangers (but they know exactly what others must do). A little humility is in order. None of the comments here in Mondoweiss is going to change even an iota of reality in the conflict, just as the ultra-orthodox "opposition" in the Rabkin book didn't put a dent in the outcome of events. Our commenting here is a social pasttime, not "resistance".

    • echinococcus - You have a very nice sense humor. Your mentioning of "support for Palestinian resistance" was a good one. Once upon a time, I came across a book by Yakob Rabkin about the ultra-orthodox opposition to Zionism. I was expecting to read nice adventure stories about fearless warriors with side-curls who risked their lives blowing up bridges, raiding military bases or planting mines. Much to my surprise, I learned that "opposition" means that one rabbi wrote a pamphlet while yet another rabbi gave a synagogue sermon. Your "support for Palestinian resistance" is in the same impressive category that surely will merit a full-length movie. We'll get to see those brave fighters clutching their keyboard with one hand and their English tea with the other hand, ever on their guard that the ruthless enemy shouldn't give King Herod credit for building the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron. How exciting it must be to have joined the "Resistance".

    • Could you mention a few of the names of those running the Jewish Establishment? I don't have a clue who these corruptive guys are, but I'd like to find out finally. Where is their HQ?

  • Pro-Israel 'gatekeepers' at California university shut down search for Edward Said scholar, a candidate says
    • An "ultranationalistic ideology" assumes as self-evident that there is some national group that you are referring to. What is this nationality? (It's not the Jews, obviously, because "Jewish is a religion"). All nationalities have some geographic point of reference (i.e. - a homeland). What is the homeland of this nationality?

  • Amazon pulls blank 'History of Palestinian People' -- which aims to dehumanize in order to subjugate
    • In a comment below, you tell the Zios that it is "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt". Is this wisdom true also when one puts one's words in writing? I never would have imagined that you had once been a total idiot when you were discrete about this serious problem; but, now that you have gone on record that "BTW, I was a total idiot....", you have removed all doubt.

    • The Palestinians reject also the concept of a bi-national state, so it is absolutely not true that "the Palestinians would have accepted as a compromise" the alternative plan. "Bi-national" assumes as self-evident that there are two national groups in one land. In the Palestinian perspective, the Jews are not a nation (they are a religious community), and so they have no homeland. Accepting a bi-national plan would have meant that the Palestinians accept the viewpoint of Zionism (i.e. the Jews are a nation whose homeland is in Palestine). If the Palestinians would have been interested in a compromise of any sort, they would have sought negotiations.

    • I think that you could put things in proportion. All the articles in Mondoweiss without exception present a clear anti-Zionist / anti-Israel point of view. The vast majority of comments from the public are also anti-Zionist / anti-Israel. It's hard to imagine why you feel "a danger of drowning".

    • The Zionist entity is a member of the UN. Therefore, you are absolved of the need to find a justification for its existence. Others have done that for you already.

    • The nationality law of 1925 was enacted, obviously, by the British mandatory authorities. Does this mean that you accept the authority of the British? These are, after all, the same British who granted the Balfour Declaration (and the Balfour Declaration is the preamble of the Constitution of Palestine).

    • No one has any need "to justify the settler colonialism of foreign Jews". A state comes into existence, and its citizens are now local people. This simple fact of life is actually your opinion, Talkback. You have defined people "as being denizens/citizens of a country".

  • Israeli victory in '67 was manufactured in western Europe, not by 'Jewish geniuses' -- Guy Laron at Wilson Center
    • It could be true that Nasser had no intention of going to war. However, he embarked on an adventure that deserves to be called "playing with fire". He concentrated his army in Sinai, and asked for the removal of the UN forces. He promised to block the passage of Israeli ships through the Straits of Tiran, He announced his war intentions, declaring that he would "throw the Jews into the sea". The Jordanian army was placed under his command. Nasser certainly understood that Israel was preparing for war in reaction to his moves, but he made no effort to contact the Israelis in order to calm them or to explain the true motivation of his actions (whatever they might have been).

      I understand that you would find it impossible to express criticism of Nasser's behavior, because that might be understood as justification for Israel's war. Allow me to state what you cannot bring yourself to saying: The Arabs are adults, and they are responsible for their own actions. Seeing them as children who bear no responsibility for their actions is a type of racism.

      Yes, Israel prepared for war during the course of years. Every responsible state in conflict makes plans for the various scenarios. Nasser, on the other hand, was a very irresponsible leader. He launched a crisis without giving the matter much thought. He understood that there would probably be war, but he was not at all ready for war. Who does such things? So, he played with fire, and then he was burned.

      Finally, you should note that incitement calling for genocide is a war crime, and one is entitled to go to war in such circumstances. Perhaps, you would like to answer me with some silly statement that the call "to throw the Jews into the sea" is just a myth. In the case of this particular threat, I heard it with my own ears. The same threat was made in 1948. Actually, the whole world heard the threat. You surely understand that threatening even an illegitimate entity with genocide is still a crime.

  • Start 'Birthright' earlier and hire conservative professors-- to stem 'national security issue' of Jewish kids abandoning Israel
    • "I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state...." This prediction of Freud from 1930 that you have brought to our attention turned out to be incorrect. Now I wonder if your observation that "Zionism is in big trouble" is something to be taken seriously. The pariah state (that Freud predicted would not come into being) seems to be thriving, literally bursting at its seams with unprecedented numbers of tourists. You also state that the way things have turned out is "no surprise". It is, therefore, quite puzzling that you bring us the quote from Lessing J. Rosenwald who predicted that the founding of a Jewish state "might well have incalculable consequences". "Incalculable consequences" and "no surprise" are contradictory. Maybe you should consider giving us quotes that corroborate your point of view.

      Anyway, besides trying to understand what you mean by "pariah", there is another concept that I'd like to understand: "illegal occupation". It would seem that if the adjective "illegal" is necessary in order to describe an occupation, then obviously it means that there is also the concept of legal occupation. If all occupations were by definition illegal, then there would be no need to say "illegal occupation" ("occupation" would be enough). However, everyone commenting here says "illegal occupation" (or "illegal occupier"), so obviously there is a parallel phenomenon known as a "legal occupation". So, do you have an example of a legal occupation that we could compare with an illegal one? Since the parameters of Israel's rule of the West Bank were agreed upon in Oslo 2 (Sept 1995), and Arafat himself signed the document, wouldn't that fall into the category of "legal"? Thanks.

  • Packed room on Capitol Hill hears Palestinian student say he thought three IDs and a separation wall was normal for children everywhere
    • "Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;…” In other words, when the Palestinians and the Israelis negotiate borders, then the lines agreed upon will be legitimate and in accordance to international law. It would also mean that any settlements within the agreed lines of Israel would also be legitimate. How nice.

    • When you tell the Israelis that they "are no better than the white man in North America....", I'm not quite sure if you are condemning them or praising them. It's even more confusing when you claim that the Israelis are destroying their hope "of ever being taken seriously as a democracy". Canada and the United States are very impressive and highly respected countries. Moreover, the democracies of all these European settler entities are taken very, very seriously. Therefore, when you say that Israelis are no better than the Australians or the Canadians, it could be understood as a nice compliment (and it is). Everyone thinks that the USA / Australia / New Zealand / Canada are absolutely great, and would love to live in one of these awful places. Where do you live? Anyway, it was really ironic to read a condemnation of Israel based on comparing her with some of the more impressive societies of today's world.

  • Not the only 'proud Palestinian' in the family--Gigi Hadid's father details refugee history in Syria
    • There is only one correct usage of the term "Semitic": There are Semitic languages. It is total nonsense to say that someone looks (or doesn't look) Semite. The coining of the term "antisemitism" in 1879 has everyone confused into believing that there is a Semitic race. It's all nonsense.

  • The Adalah database of 50 discriminatory laws in Israel
    • Anne Robbins - Are your rules of inherited status (of colonizer) universal? In other words, are the Americans or Australians or New Zealanders still European colonists (until they refuse military service and fight for justice)? If they are now just plain old native-born Americans or Australians or New Zealanders living in the land of their birth, at which point in history did that happen?

      The truth is that you are fearful that the passage of time weakens the case for dismantling the State of Israel. So, your idea is to perpetuate the grievances, making for a conflict that is to last forever. I'm certain that it is clear to your that the great-grandchild of an immigrant from Iraq or Yemen or Russia, born last week in Tel-Aviv, is just a child born in his/her native country. There is no test that one has to pass in order to become just a plain-old local guy.

      People who yearn for peace should be searching for a solution to end the conflict. A solution for ending the conflict should be a plan that both sides could accept. It's also called being reasonable.

    • After how many generations does an invader become a local person? In other words, is one born with the inherited trait (and guilt) of an invader, or is one born in his native land? Do the great-grandchildren of bank-robbers inherit the status of bank-robbers as well, or are they regular people?

Showing comments 53 - 1
Page: