Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 40 (since 2015-05-25 17:05:47)

Showing comments 40 - 1

  • The view from Gaza: 'The Turkish government has sold us out and wants us to be grateful'
    • It's all guff. Israel isn't a light unto the nations, it is an ordinary state that kills its enemies (the primary point of states).

    • Look matey, if you want Israel to do that, they can do it. There is nothing stopping them from doing that. The Arabs can always leave. I am sure that Hamas could negotiate for all of the Arabs in Gaza to be resettled in Syria, or even to stay where they are as long as they stop attacking.

      However, as long as they are determined to "liberate Palestine", they will be contained, and maybe if a really good Israeli PM comes to power, forced to surrender unconditionally by use of harsher methods.

    • eljay they already are. Israel's enemies aren't holding back because of scruples. They are holding back because they can't win right now.

    • Eh? I got Yarmulkes, 50 cents. Also answers and truth and all that good stuff.

    • Nah that's all silly guff. War is war, not a fun walk in the park with marshmallows and bubble gum. I just think Israel should do what it needs to win outright, and if that means a proper siege (of which, as you see above, they are already accused), they might as well do it. Could you imagine how many times dead all the ppl in Gaza would be if Israel did all the things people say they do?

    • Mooser, that is the definition of a medieval-style siege, not an instruction manual. What do you want from me?

    • Aye. To crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

      Anyway, I am just saying that it may be emotive to call Gaza a medieval-style siege, it's like saying that a steak with no cheese on it is a philly-style cheese steak. It doesn't make sense.

    • If it were a hermetic medieval siege, the people of Gaza would be forced into starvation/thirst and eventual surrender. In order to execute such a siege, Israel would have to push into Gaza and circumvallate the city itself, burning or otherwise capturing the rural parts. Electricity, communications, and water access would be curtailed.

      What Israel does to Gaza is more of an economic and military blockade than a medieval siege, and it does nobody any good to tell emotive lies, since Israel could impose a medieval siege on Gaza if it wanted to.

  • Israel should be deeply disturbed by the Brexit vote
    • Who cares about the excuse? Excuses don't matter when you have an empire.

    • It's the beginning of movement in a new-old historical direction. Also, Corbyn self-destructed without us even helping it along. The far left (both Europeanist and Socialist) is now seeing the result of its overreach all over the world. Plus the anti-Muslim movements are growing all around the world, without even our involvement. Puahahahahaha.

    • All of my British friends (in the Royal Commonwealth Society) voted to leave because they agreed that being part of the EU was preventing Britain from restoring her great Empire. Israel has nothing to worry about =].

      "When you return to your homes, when you return to your counties and your cities, you must tell to all those whom you can influence that the time is at hand, that, at least, it cannot be far distant, when England will have to decide between national and cosmopolitan principles. The issue is not a mean one. It is whether you will be content to be a comfortable England, modelled and moulded upon continental principles and meeting in due course an inevitable fate, or whether you will be a great country, - an imperial country - a country where your sons, when they rise, rise to paramount positions, and obtain not merely the esteem of their countrymen, but command the respect of the world." - Benjamin Disraeli in 1872

  • 'Her absurd generals, her military junk' -- Daniel Berrigan's prophetic speech on Israel in '73
    • It's no surprise that a Jesuit would be a.) subversive or b.) anti-Jewish. That was the whole point of the organization in England during the 16th and 17th centuries and a reason why Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange worked so hard to stamp them out. They were Catholic imperialists working to establish or reestablish Papist imperium over the whole of Europe. The Jesuits are one of the oldest imperialist tentacles of the presumptuous "universal Church".

      Why else do you think the Romish church is so adamant about expanding the so-called " European Union"?

  • Defending Israel, PEN says it can't support 'cultural boycotts of any kind' -- but it does!
    • I am a Jew, a Zionist, and a Disraelian imperialist on behalf of her majesty the Queen. The world was a more decent place under the British Empire, and America's main problem is that after dismantling the British Empire, she didn't replace it with an American one (imperialism is most of all a consideration of administration and expansion, and doing it well means spending money.

      "But self-government, in my opinion, when it was conceded, ought to have been conceded as a part of a great policy of imperial consolidation. It ought to have been accompanied by an imperial tariff, by securities for the people of England for the enjoyment of unappropriated lands which belonged to the sovereign as their trustee, and by a military code which should have precisely defined the means and the responsibilities by which the colonies should be defended, and by which, if necessary, this country should call for aid from the colonies themselves. It ought, further, to have been accompanied by the institution of some representative council in the metropolis, which would have brought the colonies into constant and continuous relations with the home government. All this, however, was omitted because those who advised that policy - and I believe their convictions were sincere - looked upon the colonies of England, looked upon our connection with India, as a burden upon this country, viewing everything in a financial aspect, and totally passing by those moral and political considerations which make nations great, and by the influence of which alone men are distinguished from animals.


      When you return to your homes, when you return to your counties and your cities, you must tell to all those whom you can influence that the time is at hand, that, at least, it cannot be far distant, when England will have to decide between national and cosmopolitan principles. The issue is not a mean one. It is whether you will be content to be a comfortable England, modelled and moulded upon continental principles and meeting in due course an inevitable fate, or whether you will be a great country, - an imperial country - a country where your sons, when they rise, rise to paramount positions, and obtain not merely the esteem of their countrymen, but command the respect of the world..."

      extracted from Disraeli's speech at the Crystal Palace

  • Israel detains and deports American Jews because they are Black
    • The whole premise of the original BHI cult involves a crazy conspiracy that the Jews stole Black People's birthright, and that the Jews are absolute evil, the oppressors of black people for all of history (actually though the people who enslaved the most African blacks were Muslim...)

      There is nothing stopping them from pursuing orthodox conversions and joining the community, but that would entail that they stop hating Jews, which may eventually happen now that they serve in the Army.

    • The title is wrong and should actually be: "Israel does not recognize non-orthodox conversions, so a conservative-convert to Judaism who had previously been a member of the antisemitic Black Hebrew Israelite cult was deported for her former affiliation with the group".

      But then you wouldn't be able to gin it up.

      If she had had an orthodox conversion, her former affiliation with the BHI cult would be irrelevant.

      The whole point of you posting the article with this ridiculous title is to try to get Black Americans to hate Israel. It's transparent.

  • 'This land is ours. All of it is ours': Meet the Netanyahu cabinet members focused on fighting BDS & annexing the West Bank
    • pjdude, take it up with Benny Morris who documents sniper attacks on Jewish communities on Nov 30 1947.

      Unless you have evidence of Jewish attacks on Arab communities before that date and after 1944, you are wrong.

    • I already explained in the other thread that I don't think the Arabs _deserve_ any land for the same reason the "Sudeten Germans" don't deserve any land in Czechia, they started a war, lost, and then perpetuated it for 70 years by means of guerilla attacks on civilians.

      That doesn't mean they won't get any land, but whatever they get will be an Israeli concession relative to what I think is a just solution (the Czech solution to the question of "Sudeten German" terrorism and aggression, in which the Sudetens got squat).

      Does that sound harsh? Well, war is harsh, and those who resort to military aggression should be aware of the consequences should they lose.

    • lysias, obviously the assumption here is that each side is trying to maximize the cloth he gets, since in this case, both have an equally good claim to it. The assumption on my part for Israel is that it wants to maximize the land area it can get from any negotiation. Those are implicit. If that is the case, it can't concede land before negotiations start (the conclusion of the above argument).

    • Uh, the point of the argument (which is essentially formal logic) is sound regardless of the source. If you think that geometric arguments don't carry weight because they are made by Rabbis, then yes, you may be antisemitic.

    • I already conceded that you deny Israel's claim to the land for whatever your reasons are. They are immaterial to the case that I am making (not least because you believe that Israel has no legitimate claim to any part of the land). The point is that Israel is negotiating strategically. You are trying to dismiss them as religious fanatics, but Jabotinsky's parable from the Talmud explains the logic behind the negotiating tactic. If you keep trying to take a "reasonable" position in a negotiation, it will draw the ultimate resolution inexorably toward your opponent's initial position.

      This is not "Zio-anything" logic. It is just logic plain and simple, although I do admire your cute attempt to reintroduce the notion of "Jewish physics" and "Jewish logic".

      Thanks for the vitriol though. I'll keep it in a flask for another time.

    • You guys don't understand anything. I will give you the logic (via Jabotinsky):

      Our ancestors knew that very well. And the Talmud quotes a very instructive legal action – which has a direct bearing on this matter.

      Two people walking along the road find a piece of cloth. One of them says: " I found it. It is mine:" But the other says: " No: that is not true: I found the cloth, and it is mine: " The judge to whom they appeal cuts the cloth in two, and each of these obstinate folk gets half. But there is another version of this action. It is only one of the two claimants who is obstinate: the other, on the contrary, has determined to make the world wonder at this magnanimity.

      So he says: "We both found the cloth, and therefore I ask only a half of it, because the second belongs to B. But B. insists that he found it, and that he alone is entitled to it." In this case, the Talmud recommends a wise Judgment, that is, how very disappointing to our magnanimous gentleman. The judge says: "There is agreement about one half of the cloth. A. admits that it belongs to B. So it is only the second half that is in dispute. We shall, therefore divide this into two halves" and the obstinate claimant gets three-quarters of the cloth, while the ”gentleman" has only one quarter, and serve him right. It is a very fine thing to be a gentleman, but it is no reason for being an idiot. Our ancestors knew that. But we have forgotten it. We should bear it in mind.

      If Israel does not assert its claim on all the land, as the Palestinian Arabs never fail to do, then Israel leaves itself in the shoes of the "gentleman" with regard to the judgment of world opinion.

      From the perspective of a negotiation, Israel has been highly foolish to make a case based on security and willingness for peace rather than a case based on rights. Now I know that Mondoweiss doesn't agree with that case, but it is crucial for Israel to assert it loud and clear if it does not want to be taken for a ride in negotiations. This is exactly Tzipi Hotovely's point: Nobody will ever agree with any peace agreement leaving Israel in possession of any land in Judea and Samaria, and they will always see Palestinian "concessions" of land in 1949 Israel to be a concession of land that they believe is theirs. So the theory goes that if Israel makes its case that it too would be making concessions of land by giving the Palestinians land at all, it can reach a deal more to its liking. Right now, many around the world see Israel withdrawing from all the land as necessary because they only see one side making the case that the land is theirs.

  • Corey Robin revisits Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem
    • Actually, it doesn't. It demonstrates that it took years of Arab attacks on Jewish communities before the Irgun undertook a policy of reprisals with attacks on Arab communities.

      Mooser, ya didn't read the article or the timeline, and it's ironic also that you call the Jewish fighters Nazis while the Arab fighters of the time were Actually Receiving Weapons from the Nazis and Italian fascists (1936-1939). Let's not do the whole namecalling thing.

    • Mooser you do such incredible acrobatics trying to understand (justify) Hamas's suicide bombings of civilian targets. Shouldn't you at least have the courtesy to touch your toes and see what Irgun did and why it did it?

    • Also, Keith, if you want, here's a journal article explaining an example of how Shahak operated: Modern Blood Libel&hyperlink=jakobovits1%2Ehtml&type=Document&category=Jews and Gentiles: “Other” in Modern Orthodox Thought&authortitle=Rabbi&firstname=Immanuel&lastname=Jakobavits&pubsource=Tradition%2C 8:2 1966&authorid=433

    • Keith, you know that Israel Shahak is accused of being an antisemite too, not for reasons related to Zionism at all, but because he libels Judaism as a religion. Anyway, thanks for allowing me to conclude now that you are indeed just an antisemite and that your quarrel with the Jews has nothing to do with Israel.

      You let the mask slip, and Israel Shahak is not going to save you.

    • Both Arabism and Islamism are also political ideologues. My analogy works just fine. You also left out the assertion that Keith made that posits an isomorphism between Zionism and "classical Judaism". You ignore these things because you will never accept that anything written on your side of the argument smells fishy and resembles other kinds of writing.

      That is your problem. You seem to think that whenever anyone asserts that something sounds like it was ripped out of a turn-of-the-century antisemitic pamphlet, he is trying to maneuver in order to evade criticism of Israel or Zionism.

      That is false. If you can't recognize the form (if not the content) of antisemitic conspiracy theory so long as it is targeted at Zionism, then you have a huge blind spot.

      Again try the substitution in there with Arabism and Arabs and you get something outrageous and lurid about a different group of people. It depends on applying Jewish stereotypes to "Zionists".

      I once saw a comment on this site saying that even if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are fabricated, the Zionists are using it as a playbook in Israel. Are you kidding me? Where, realistically, do you think that comment leads? You're either blind, don't care, or, I am reluctant to say this, a bigot yourself.

      But anyway, it is quite interesting that you chose only to respond to this thread of comments but to none of the ones in which I provided facts.

    • Annie, I am making a comment on the style of the writing, that is, the tune and not the words. I am not saying that Zionism and Judaism are identical, but that the paranoid style that he uses to describe Zionism sounds almost exactly like the paranoid style used by antisemites in the past. You are introducing a red herring.

      Imagine if I came here sounding off on the adherents of Arabism or Islamism using exactly the words used by Keith. I would be hounded out as a deranged conspiracy theorist or a racist.

      Because you apparently didn't read Keith's original post, you missed the part that I had to elide in order to avoid it sounding silly:

      "Zionism is the modern, secular equivalent of Classical Judaism."

      It is Keith himself who is making these statements of, if not identity, at least isomorphism.

      I don't understand why my pointing this out is a slur. I am giving Keith the benefit of the doubt here by saying that he writes like an anti-semite, not calling him one per se.

      I'm willing to leave the door open for him to agree that maybe he's speaking too emotively or that he made a mistake and got carried away, but instead of addressing it, you accuse me of identifying Zionism with Judaism. No, I am not. That was clearly not the point of what I wrote.

    • You write like an anti-semite. I don't mean that as a slur or even to address your argument (to the extent that it exists). If you replace the word "Zionist" with "Jew", it sounds like the various antisemitic excrescences of the far right and left from before WW2.

      Perceived anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Judaism. It is the ideological glue which defines, unites and motivates Jewish tribalism, keeping Jews psychologically separate from the surrounding Gentile communities. It is this Jewish kinship which is a key component of organized Jewish power-seeking and Jewish material success. [...] Apparently Deborah Lipstadt feels that this tribal unity is essential to Jewish well-being (power) and that the lack of tribal feelings of kinship due to lack of fear of anti-Semitism would result in Jews simply becoming part of the surrounding Gentile community instead of psychologically remaining a people that chooses to regard Gentiles as irrational Jew-haters would constitute “a dire and existential threat to Jewish well-being.” She is probably correct.

      See, it's like something right out of Droumont or Proudhon...

      I don't understand why people use the term "Zionist" when they are not referring to Israel at all. It can only mean "Jew" in this context.

    • It's actually now been confirmed in the book "Eichmann before Jerusalem" that he was consciously lying to give that impression, so he wasn't even in a fantasy world. He was conscious of what he was doing and proud of it. It was only after he was captured that he began to sing a different tune.

    • You are aware that more of the Sassen interview tapes were recently found and written about, and there is no question that Arendt was incorrect in her statements.

      Here is an interview with the scholar who uncovered the "new" information in the Archives:

    • Zionism didn't flourish in secret. It openly called for the mass migration of Jews. Here's an extract from Jabotinsky's testimony to the peel commission:

      I do not know whether it is a question of re-housing one-third of the Jewish race, half of the Jewish race, or a quarter of the Jewish race; I do not know; but it is a question of millions. Certainly the way out is to evacuate those portions of the Diaspora which have become no good, which hold no promise of any possibility of a livelihood, and to concentrate all those refugees in some place which should not be Diaspora, not a repetition of the position where the Jews are an unabsorbed minority within a foreign social, or economic, or political organism. Naturally, if that process of evacuation is allowed to develop, as it ought to be allowed to develop, there will very soon be reached a moment when the Jews will become a majority in Palestine. I am going to make a "terrible" confession. Our demand for a Jewish majority is not our maximum — it is our minimum: it is just an inevitable stage if only we are allowed to go on salvaging our people. The point when the Jews will reach a majority in that country will not be the point of saturation yet—because with 1,000,000 more Jews in Palestine to-day you could already have a Jewish majority, but there are certainly 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 in the East who are virtually knocking at the door asking for admission, i.e., for salvation.

    • Also, Señor tree, I'd like to know your opinion on this list, which includes attacks by Arabs, Jews, British, and even the French:

      This happens to support my contention regarding Arab initiation of violence, though the Jews certainly did not shy away from using violence once they resolved to pursue a policy of reprisal.

      This is Irgun's crappy official webpage explaining the history of the havlagah policy and precisely when and why it was lifted with the consent and endorsement of Rosh Betar and Commander-in-Chief of the Irgun Ze'ev Jabotinsky:

      I know you will shout "Zionist propaganda" etc., but I think it might be interesting, even for a partisan like yourself, to look at the Irgun's deliberations, policy, and reasoning for when and why they did what they did they did 1938-1939.

    • Mr. Echidnasaurus, no, they were not under any obligation not to fight against partition (although sniping unarmed Jewish civilians at the edges of towns and on buses was a pretty bad way to start doing that). However, by attempting to take the land allocated to the Jews by force, they placed their own fate in the hands of their enemies. Moreover, by beginning the war with attacks on civilian targets, they made it legitimate for their enemies to do so as well.

      Hitler used area bombing on London, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Exeter, Bristol, Bath, Cardiff, Birmingham, Coventry, Nottingham, Norwich, Ipswich, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool, Hull, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, and Newcastle, which legitimized the much more effective firebombings of Hambourg, Schweinfourt, Dresden, and Berlin.

      These are wars of survival, not wars over a city or province or two. If you initiate such a war, then you must accept the outcome if you lose and not complain about how mean and evil the other side was for doing what was necessary to survive.

      You never explain what the Jews should have done in 1947 when their communities came under attack.

    • Uhhh no. Dachau was originally for political prisoners in Germany. Anybody familiar with the history knows this...

      Also, it's in the south, near Bavaria, while Berlin is in Brandenbourg, the region coterminous with the old margraviate of Brandenburg.

    • Absolutely, I agree. Sherman was too merciful, as was Ben-Gurion. Where are you condemnations of Edvard Benes and the Czechoslovak state?

    • Oh goodness, Tree, you left out the sniper attacks by Arab irregular forces on Jewish communities and buses.

      I don't dispute that Raziel's Irgun was involved in attacks on Arab targets _in the late 1930s_ starting with reprisals during the Arab revolt. However, keep in mind also that after Begin became leader, the Irgun's exclusive target 1944 til the partition vote was British forces and auxiliaries.

      You left out Amin al Husseini's declaration of war against partition as well.

      Here: "According to Benny Morris, much of the fighting in the first months of the war took place in and on the edges of the main towns, and was initiated by the Arabs. It included Arab snipers firing at Jewish houses, pedestrians, and traffic, as well as planting bombs and mines along urban and rural paths and roads.[23]"–48_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine

    • Donald, I will have you note that NY is east of Alabama and that Czechoslovakia was east of Germany. I'm not defending an "Indian removal act" but rather a "Nazi removal act", though in this case, Nazis indigenous to the Czech-German border region.

    • The "Zionist massacres" before Husseini returned? Non, ma chérie. It would not be at all difficult for you to pull up the events in chronological order and to realize that you are mistaken. Attacks on Jews began (again) immediately following the UN vote for partition and were not preceded by Jewish attacks on Arab communities. The Irgun and LEHI were fighting the British at that time.

      Benny Morris states that the Arabs were initially even winning during the first few months and that the Jews were rather demoralized.

      Usually your side does not dispute these facts and instead attempts to justify them on the grounds that the Arabs had a right to defend their land from UN partition or something, which is crap imo but at least historically defensible...

      Regardless, I don't see how one side's war aims or plans discounts the act of aggression on the other side unless you are seriously arguing that the Arab attacks were in self-defense against an imminent Zionist military onslaught (aka bullshit).

      During WW1, France's initial War Plan, Plan 17, would have had the French crossing the rhine within a week of the outbreak of hostilities, but can you sit here and tell me with a straight face that Germany's attack on France through Belgium did not amount to aggression?

    • Mais non, you have me all wrong, chief. I agree with Ben-Gurion, Benes, and Sherman. If you reread what Sherman was saying, it was that the people of the south encouraged and perpetuated a war that it could not win, and that in doing so, they exposed themselves to all the punishments that would be meted out by the victor. If you read the full text of the letter, you can see that he holds out hope for the southerners, who he still considers his, albeit misguided, countrymen, and therefore that if they lay down their arms, he is happy to have mercy on them.

      He is not saying that he would like to force people from their homes and alienate their property, but that the south should be aware of the consequences should the Union's patience and mercy run out, that is, in the case that the south tried to take up guerilla tactics.

      In the Czech case, Henlein's Sudeten Nazi party, in accord with the Nazi party policy of "Heim ins Reich" connived with the German Nazis (and with overwhelming support among the ethnic German population of the Sudetenland) to dismember the Czechoslovak state by waging a guerilla war using terrorist groups called Freikorps in order to provoke a government response that served as Hitler's pretext to invade.

      Again, the group that started the war lost the war and paid the price by losing their homes, property, and their rights to live in the Czechoslovak state as enforced by the Potsdam agreement and the Benes decrees.

      For Israel, the Palestinian Arabs initiated hostilities upon news that the partition proposal had been endorsed by the UN general assembly, and moreover, they invited with open arms fighters from Egypt, Syria, Bosnia, Iraq and elsewhere in the form of several thousand irregulars.

      Again, they lost the war, and instead of surrendering like the Germans and the Confederates, they preached a doctrine of 'war forever' with the Jewish state, and the Jewish state still restrained itself from expelling the remaining Arab nationals still within its borders at the end of the war, something that the Czechs didn't do even with a formal German surrender.

      I understand and frankly agree with both the Czech policy and the Israeli policy, and I have even more sympathy with the Israeli policy by merit of the fact that the exodus of the aggressor population was generally only gone when either fleeing by themselves or being removed as a consequence of direct military considerations.

      The Czech expulsion was retributive and preventive, to deprive Germany of ever again having a pretext to invade, while the Israeli policy was dictated in the course of ongoing hostilities, often as militarily necessary or at least expedient measures.

      The real interesting comparison regards the treatment of those attempting to return. In both cases, those who became refugees were denied any right to return and explicitly or implicitly divested of their property with no compensation, though Isael has proposed to provide monetary compensation in exchange for renunciation of a claim to return.

      The Czechs aren't nearly so nice.

    • Interesting how you left out the Sassen interviews, the tapes of which still survive. In them, Eichmann brags that he was not simply taking orders but actually that he was a "thinking" member who helped to plan the extermination, claiming he was an idealist.

      It's also interesting how you equate decisions that had at least direct and significant strategic (denying an enemy sanctuary by displacing and demolishing villages of enemy sympathizers) and tactical (clearing villages in Operation Nachshon (including Deir Yassin) to halt enemy raids against vital convoys traveling along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem coastal road) impact on the conduct and success of the Jews in the Palestine civil war (where hostilities were begun by the Arab side under Abdel Qadr al Husseini, a man with the dubious honor of being recognized for his mutilation of his enemies) with the deliberate, gratuitous, unprovoked, and militarily counterproductive expulsion and later mass-murder of the Jews in and around territory occupied or annexed by Germany.

      At worst, you could compare it instead with the clearly worse behavior of Czechoslovakia in 1945 regarding the disposition of the Sudeten German population as well as the Benes decrees declaring the seized property of those expelled as reparations for a war brought on by that population. But then, I don't expect Mondoweiss or her commenters to have the integrity or consistency to condemn the Czechs with anything resembling the force or frequency of her condemnation of Israel.

      I happen to be bothered by neither case.

      I think it is apposite to quote Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman's letter to his subordinate during the Vicksburg campaign:

      "If they want eternal war, well and good; we accept the issue, and will dispossess them and put our friends in their place. I know thousands and millions of good people who at simple notice would come to North Alabama and accept the elegant houses and plantations there. If the people of Huntsville think different, let them persist in war three years longer, and then they will not be consulted. Three years ago by a little reflection and patience they could have had a hundred years of peace and prosperity, but they preferred war; very well. Last year they could have saved their slaves, but now it is too late.
      All the powers of earth cannot restore to them their slaves, any more than their dead grandfathers. Next year their lands will be taken, for in war we can take them, and rightfully, too, and in another year they may beg in vain for their lives. "

      But that is war.

Showing comments 40 - 1