-
-
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 10
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West … 23
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 25
- Exile and the prophetic: The Jewish Identity Network 7
- Trauma begins at home 8
- CNN’s Tapper lends himself to claustrophobic discussion of unicorn– Israel’s … 10
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges … 23
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel 20
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 782
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 314
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 205
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 120
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 104
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
-
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 149
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 89
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 72
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 68
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the … 62
-
- RT @MhamdG: Two friends (@WalaaGh & @MahaIghbaria ) meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem http://t.co/226bwrY48g via @Mondoweiss, 10 hours ago
- Story behind a photo - Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem http://t.co/0UZkQMevP1, 10 hours ago
- Exile and the prophetic: The Jewish Identity Network http://t.co/UPuEQQgkjI, 14 hours ago
- Trauma begins at home http://t.co/on36d4DzxP, 14 hours ago
- CNN’s Tapper lends himself to claustrophobic discussion of unicorn– Israel’s survival as ‘a Jewish democracy’ http://t.co/GAK5ZiP9jt, 14 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem (10)
- DICKERSON3870: RE: “I can not fathom living like this. The lifestyle being imposed on Palestinians is a human...
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel (20)
- Talkback: “The Guatemalan regime had many supporters–the Reagan Administration, the Christian Right, and...
- Video: Soldiers aim guns at fallen boy’s head outside West Bank settlement (23)
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara (91)
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ forum on Nakba (25)
- Shmuel: Susan believes that the word “Israeli” is synonymous with “Jewish Zionist Nakba denier”… What about...
- Ecru: OK – ETHNIC Germans.
- Justpassingby: Sad but not surprising, Qatar and Israel are allied. Besides doesnt Haim Saban a pro-israel...
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani (60)
- miriam6: ****************************** ***********************Mondo folks, this here is a small taste of what the...
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem (10)
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
I'm finding it difficult to decide whether I want the Turkish Navy to accompany the civilian ships or not. (And of course, my decision on this is vitally important. The Turkish Government never makes a move without consulting me first.)
If a civilian-only fleet goes in, and Israel stops it, then the publicity for Israel will stink yet again., and the relations between Turkey and Israel will get worse. But the Israelis will turn up the volume of propaganda, and the Gazans will get no help.
If a civilian-only fleet goes in, and Israel doesn't stop it , the Turks get some good publicity, and the Israelis turn up the volume of propaganda. Most importantly, the Gazans get help. But past Israeli form suggests that this outcome is very unlikely.
If a large chunk of the Turkish Navy accompanies the fleet (and from the little I know of international law there is nothing illegal about it, as long as the ships stay either in international waters or Gaza waters) then the Israelis are much less likely to try to stop them. The Gazans get help.
The Israelis will turn up the volume of propaganda, of course.
If the Israelis try to use force to stop the Turkish Navy, then there will be real trouble. (And even more if the Turks invoke their membership of NATO and demand that the alliance help them to defend themselves against Israel.)
But even though this is very risky, I think, for the sake of the Gazans, that having the Turkish Navy alongside would be the best option. It gives them the maximum chance of aid.
Did you get that, Mr. Erdogan?
"There are lots of sources. "
That's exactly why I asked.
Anyone got the full source for this?
“Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.”
— John Sheehan, S.J.
"I’m glad that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is promoting the country through food. Maybe if people saw we have this type of culture their hostility towards us would be diminished,"
At last! They have got down to the core issue.
Israel is hated because people think the food is crap.
I t doesn't matter what ordinary Democrats think. The Democrat politicians know the deal.
Support Israel, and the cash keeps flowing in.
Fail to support Israel, and the photographs will appear in the tabloids.
(Just how old was that girl/boy/sheep, anyway?)
Mediaeval Jewsih philosophy, from the Karaites onwards, is generally regarded as inspired by Mu'tazilah and the Kalam schools.
Anti-tomatism!
That's what we hear all the time.
You lot seem to think everyone is an anti-tomatist.
I don't even have to criticize tomatoes. I just suggested that they were not so special, and I get branded and anti-tomatist.
Thanks for the brochure, though.
Technically speaking, lots of vegetables are fruits. Just think of pumpkins, cucumbers, eggplants, and peppers. But we call them "vegetables", and no-one cares. No-one says a word. Not even the vegetables.
But as soon as I call tomatoes "vegetables", people scream at me. Now, I've got nothing against most tomatoes. (Cherry tomatoes excepted, of course.) In fact, I quite like a lot of tomatoes and tomato products. But I really do not see why this one group should be treated as if it were so much more important than all the others. What makes tomatoes so special?
But the debauchery is guaranted, isn't it?
I really will meet teenage Italian girls like those in the brochure you sent me, right?
Scroll down past the maps for pictures of oranges here.
link to whatreallyhappened.com
Historical note here.
link to practicallyedible.com
I was born in Cheshire. The county seat is Chester, which used to be a Roman fort (the name comes from"castra") so probably my ancestry includes a legionary on a bit of R and R.
And I learnt Latin at school.
Will that doas Italian ancestry? I like pizza and lasagna, as well.
(And yes, I did see that I spelled "tomatoes" incorrectly in my previous post. This was just a typo and not a calculated slur against a noble and decent group of vegetables that has suffered so much in the past.)
Just the cherry. Nasty tough skin. And I am not going to go to Italy for a brainwashing tour of the cherry tomato sites that have been built on the ruins of fields that were once full of decent Roma tomatos.
Not unless I get paid to go, of course.
Rather disappointed to find Israel didn't invent the cherry tomato. For me, it would have been another reason to condemn the country.
Incidentally, Israel claims to have invented the Jaffa Orange, as well.
Hey! I was born in 1946 too, and I resent the implication that I am somehow no part of the younger generation.
(If that is your implication. The writing on this site is so damn small I need my other glasses to read it.)
"partying, drinking and debauchery "
So there is something positive to "Birthright" after all.
Just remember, Iran is Evil.
Evil, I tell you.
EVIL!
Evilevilevilevilevilevilevilevilevilevilevilevilevil!
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllll!
Evil.
And now to deal with the Spanish speakers in the U.S.A.
First, the concept of “one’s own language”. The concept usually turns up in such cases as “Its no use giving them instructions in Welsh. You’ll have to translate the instructions into their own language.” Then it simply means “the language they usually use among themselves”. We can extend the idea to mean “one’s first language, learned from earliest childhood, and with which one is most comfortable”.
My son has two such languages. I nearly always speak to him in English. His mother nearly always speaks to him in Japanese. (Except when she makes pointed remarks that are clearly intended for my ears.) For him, then we would have to speak of “his own languages”.
But when he was born, he had no languages. There was no language which could be called “his own”.
It is perfectly acceptable for parents to bring up a child as a speaker of the parents’ languages. Often this happens automatically. The parents use their own languages to the child simply as a matter of comfort. And it is good for the for the child to know more than one language.
What is not good is to teach those languages as a way of maintaining separation, or binding the child to a sub-group in society, or insisting that the child learn the language of his/her ancestors simply because that was the language of the ancestors. Why should any of those give an obligation to teach or learn a language?
If the Spanish speaking people try to keep the children speaking Spanish for those sort of reasons, then they have the wrong motives, and the wrong attitude towards the country they live in.
(And if the children do not learn the ancestral languages, it is silly to say “they don’t know their own language”. How can it be “their own language” if they don’t know it? Their own languages are the ones they know and use.)
If Spanish is not the languages of the society and country in which the children live it is essential that the child learn the national languages as well.
Thus, there are areas in the USA where Spanish is the language used most often, but the children must learn English, so that they can be full members of and contributors to American society as a whole.
The context of the previous posts suggested that this wasn’t just a parent wanting his child to speak in the parent’s first language, but a rejection of the language - and thus the society - in which he lived.
And that is simply wrong.
People living in Australia depend on Australian society. They eat food grown by Australian farmers. They are protected by Australian law. The towns and cities they live in are run by Australians. And so on. It would be wrong for a group which received all this support to reject Australian society, to refuse to be a part of it, to hold itself separate, and to refuse the mutual support society depends on.
Australian society is not perfect, and not everything is run well. At least some of the Aborigines may well reject Australian society on the grounds that they receive no support. But for those who do gain the benefits, their duty is to support Australian society and to try to correct its problems and right its wrongs.
"In virtually all locales in Europe and many in North Africa and Asia, Jews at some point were discrimminated against and in most forcibly expelled at some point"
Phrase it like that and it looks like "Lots of different neighbours over two thousand years, and couldn't get on with any of them. And it's all the neighbours' fault."
Are you sure that's what you want to say?
I need help from marc b. as well.
"So ‘ghetto’ is the correct term for a forceably segregated Jewish neighborhood in a city"
I thought the ghettos were set up by Jews to protect themselves from "contamination" by contact with Gentiles. Is this so, marc?
And "contamination" is a heavily loaded term, so please replace it with whatever the concept really is.
"when she spoke to her father in Polish he refused to answer her and he would only answer her when she spoke in Yiddish."
Live in Poland.
Reject the Polish language.
Complain when Poles get fed up.
"I’d rather talk about a process of reconciliation "
Me too, but there is no sign that the majority of Israelis have any interest in that, and they are the ones who will have to start.
"that might lead to a state where everyone lives together in peace"
Seems a long way off right now, but people can change if they try.
Israel cannot confirm its legitimacy because it hasn't got any.
And as for reforms, in 1897 the Zionists said "We are the only ones who matter. The desires and interests of the Muslims, Christians, and Jews who live in Palestine count for nothing."
The Zionists tell other people that they are of no importance, that they have no value.
How is Israel going to reform that away?
At this stage, surely it would be simpler just to say who *isn't* an anti-Semite.
Dammit, all the quotes got cut out. Here it is again.
"Jews were fleeing genocide, and you think the Palestinians did right to close their borders to them?"
Jews were pouring into Palestine long before the Nazis started their genocide. The Palestinians knew that the aim of the Jews was to take over the country. But Palestine was controlled by the British, so the Palestinians could not close the borders.
Zionists worked hard at trying to get the USA, Britain, and other countries to close their borders to Jews.
" come, bring your survivors here to live with us.”
The Palestinians knew that the Jews had no intention of living with them. The Jews intended to take over, and either expel or subjugate the Palestinians. That’s what “Jewish State” means.
"rejecting every peace offer"
What peace offers?
Surely the whole point of Zionism was that you do not have any humanity to recognize. Only Zionist Jews count as human.
Still, I can't blame you for feeling annoyed that you get more sympathy when you portray yourselves as non-human aliens.
Jews were pouring into Palestine long before the Nazis started their genocide. The Palestinians knew that the aim of the Jews was to take over the country. But Palestine was controlled by the British, so the Palestinians could not close the borders.
Zionists worked hard at trying to get the USA, Britain, and other countries to close their borders to Jews.
The Palestinians knew that the Jews had no intention of living with them. The Jews intended to take over, and either expel or subjugate the Palestinians. That's what "Jewish State" means.
What peace offers?
Good post, but (excuse me while I put on my nit-picking logician's hat) the rule in English is that the negative goes before that which it negates.
According to this rule , "All Jews are not Zionists" means the same as " no Jews are Zionists".
I suspect that what you meant was "not all Jews are Zionists".
And I'm sure you wanted to know that.
" The failure of the Chilcot crew to ask the natural series of follow-up questions that would flow from Blair’s murky response"
C'mon. These are Establishment insiders, representatives of the Great and the Good. They know what can be said and what can't be said.
"You’re on fire today, Mooser"
I'm fairly new here, so I have to ask whether s/he is ever not. Every nail gets it smack on the head. Never a mis-hit up to now.
"what matters is what you choose to make of yourself"
Hold on!
When you say that, aren't you denying people their precious "identity" or their "heritage" or something?
Can anyone say what "a people" and "a nation" mean in this context?
What are the defining features?
" The influence of Judaism on Islam is obvious"
And vice-versa. Saadia's Jewish philosophical theology, and that of many of his successors, was inspired by the Kalam movement in Islamic theology.
So if I want to cross the road I will have to show a passport?
The situation of the Tamils is actually a bit (but not a lot) more like that of the Zionists than that of the Palestinians. (So, of course, blowing Tamil children to shreds and burning their parents to crisps is perfectly justified.)
The Sinhalese were the natives.
The Tamils started out as immigrants (brought in as coolies by the British) but eventually established themselves.
The Tamils maintained themselves as a separate group instead of assimilating with the Sinhalese. (Does anyone know whether the Sinhalese discouraged assimilation?)
Some of the Tamils tried to carve off a bit of Sri Lanka as a separate state.
Not the best formula for old-style hippie Peace and Love.
This will be no surprise to those who have read Sniegoski, either here
link to thornwalker.com
or in "Neoconned".
(That book, and "Neoconned again" should be compulsory reading for everyone.)
So no brown envelope full of Swiss Francs or embarrassing negatives changed hands after all.
No. Israel was never prepared to agree to a Paestinian state of any size, anywhere, at any time.
And what would be wrong with Israel becoming an Arab state?
"his report on the Israeli offensive in Gaza was ‘a crime against the Jewish people.’"
Is it still a crime if the report is accurate?
"In fact Cajuns are proud of their culture and wish to perpetuate it as well"
Irrelevant. The question is "Would it be bad if they gave it up?"
"If you were truly asking why Jewish people might choose to continue the Jewish people,"
I am not asking that. I am asking "Would it be bad if they chose not to, and if so, why would it be bad?"
From all your evasions it seems as if you have no answer.
"I think Zionists want Palestinians to do the same though"
Ben Gurion had that idea. "The old will die, and the young will forget".
If the Palestinians were do it freely, voluntarily, and happily, then I would not mind.
If they give up simply as a way of getting away from Israeli oppression, then it would be another sad victory for cruelty and injustice.
But how many generations have to carry the load of misery that was dumped on the earlier generation?
I was a bit brusque in my previous post. Here is a slightly more detailed response.
The cry of “anti-Semitism” has become so overused as to be meaningless. I intend to ignore it.
Now for the substance of the question.
The issue of the continuance of the Jewish people was raised. I asked why it was necessary for the Jewish people to continue.
Consider this.
There is, in Louisiana in the U.S.A., a group of people called “Cajuns”. The comic books (perhaps an unreliable source) inform me that they speak French, practice witchcraft to summon up Swamp Things, and eat a substance called “gumbo”.
Now suppose all these people voluntarily gave up all those practices, and scattered abroad to live in Norway, Chile, and New Zealand. They forget about their ancestors, and become indistinguishable from the rest of the population. They assimilate. Their lives as Norwegians, Chileans, and New Zealanders will be no worse than the lives they had as Americans. They are no longer Cajuns. I such a case, the Cajun people would have ceased to exist.
Would that be a bad thing? I can’t for the life of me see why it would be. I can’t see that the world would have become a worse place.
So if anyone starts prating about the importance of the continued existence of the Cajun people, I ask “why is it important that there be continue to be Cajuns?”
"This is anti-semitism."
Too bad.
"Did you stop for one nanosecond to think that many or most “ordinary people” also identify themselves as Christian ...."
Yes, but they seldom go around talking of "the Christian people" or "the Democrat people".
". But you single out Jewishness as something that should be given up."
No, I asked why it would be a bad thing if it were given up. And so far, I haven't had a halfway useful answer.
“Secondly you presuppose that everyone else in the world are ordinary people and only the Jews are not ordinary people.”
No, that, it seems, is what Jews suppose. Many seem to have the sense of being superior, special, and different. That is certainly the impression they give.
“People are allowed to have Christmas or Ramadan, but not Passover?”
You seem to have reading difficulties. I am not saying Passover should be forbidden. I am simply asking why it would be bad if it were given up. Lots of religious ceremonies have been given up. No-one now keeps the Ludi Apollinares, and it doesn’t matter.
“On a nationalistic level,”
Jews are no more a nation than Parsees or stamp collectors.
“Why would you demand”
I am not demanding anything.
“ of the Jews to give up their identity,”
What is this “identity” stuff? Why is it so important?
“ but not of other people?”
If I knew what this “identity” thing was, I would probably be quite happy for other people to give it up as well.
“But there is a rich culture and a rich history and to give it up for ordinariness, which in many cases just means sitting in front of the t.v. or following the latest fad,”
And there we see that sense of superiority and specialness again.
Buy “being ordinary” I mean giving up that idea of being special and different.
The history books will not go away, but they will not be regarded as more important than any others. But the ordinary man will be able to take full part in the culture of the world.
The Zionists thought that Jewishness brought with it a life of an incomplete or abnormal human being.
link to gilad.co.uk
If Atzmon is correct, the Coen Brothers seem to think that is still the case.
link to gilad.co.uk
Would it not be worth losing the little Jewsih culture to be free from all that?
So try again, and tell me why it would be a bad thing for Jews to stop being Jews.
"There is no demographic or practical existence for the Jewish people without a Jewish state. "
This leads me to ask "Why should the Jewish people continue to exist? Why should there be Jews?"
I'm sure some people here will be shocked by the question, and accuse me of wanting to kill all Jews. That is not what I am suggesting.
I am asking why it would be a bad thing if the people who are now Jews were to give it up and just be ordinary people.
"I think it’s pretty clear that Syria was behind the assassination of Rafik Hariri. I have not studied the evidence"
Not clear at all. The whole business seems very murky. As soon as it happened, the usual suspects were screaming "Syria dunnit" (how did they know?) but the investigations seem to have failed to support this.
I would love to be able to blame Israel, but I have insufficient evidence to do more than suspect.
link to counterpunch.org
link to globalresearch.ca
link to facts-are-facts.com
"I saw the act of Hezbollah killing (capturing) Israeli soldiers on Israel’s side of the border "
It is not clear to me that that is what happened. There are reports that the Israeli soldiers were, in fact, captured in Lebanon.
link to whatreallyhappened.com
"Since Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon"
But kept sending raiding parties into Lebanon.
link to csmonitor.com
It is this past form which makes me suspect that the claims made above are true.
" I feel minimal compassion towards Lebanon if they start another war. "
But it is Israel which is going to start the next war.
Hezbollah will fight against Israel if Israel attacks Lebanon again. (Israel seems to be warming up for this.)
The priority of Hezbollah was originally getting israel out of Lebanon, and now it seems to be that of keeping Israel out of Lebanon.
Would it help if the Palestinians claimed they were homosexuals?
(Fossilised "should" in previous post.)
Would it help if the Palestinians should claimed they were homosexuals?
Take a sputter pause, then carry on.
The world needs more righteous indigantion.
"I’m saying most Jews see Goldstone as a traitor. "
I desperately hope that is not true. It would imply that most Jews are so morally corrupt that they think that "support" for Jews is more important than truth, human decency, or any other value.
I am glad that most of the contributors here act as evidence that it is not true.
But if you let Palestinians speak, they might say the wrong things.
But to be fair to Israel, I'm sure those unarmed people were giving the Israeli soldiers some really dirty looks.
It is time to stop being sensitive about the Holocaust, and face the brutal truths. We don't want to hear about it any more. We are told not to forget it, but what good has remembering it done?
All this constant wittering about the Holocaust has not stopped mass murders, wars, genocides, or racism. Millions of people have been slaughtered both before and after the Holocaust, as well as the millions who died during it.
According to some, it has not even stopped ani-Semitism. (Probably the perceived anti-Semitism is the result of people getting fed up with the constant whining about the Holocaust.)
What it has done is send comfortable, safe, American Jews into paroxysms of manufactured grief for people whom, in many cases, they never knew, and who were dead before they were born.
It has inflicted dozens of dreary, boring movies and fraudulent "memoirs" upon the world.
Others here have pointed out that the wittering about the Holocaust has been used as moral blackmail for extortion of funds, and a justification for ethnic cleansing.
Has any good ever come out of the Holocaust industry?
I am sorry for those died in the Holocaust, but no more sorry for them than for the dead of the killing fields of Cambodia, or the thousands of Australians who died in WW2, or for the victims of the fire-bombing of Dresden.
They were all killed.
They are all dead.
If we cannot remember them all equally, then it is better to forget them.
Not only do you get all the goodies listed, but you will also get nightly visits from lucious young female hasbara agents right there in your hotel room.
Don't worry about the cameras in the AC grill. They are just security to protect you from Arab terrorists.
So "loyalty to Jews" should come before concern for truth, justice, or common decency?
"Following the Arab revolt of 36-39"
That was a reaction to the Zionists pouring into Palestine with the clear intention of setting up a state that would exclude the Arabs.
The 1947 "civil war" was the result of the same movement.
If the Zionists had not wanted to set up the state, neither of these events would have happened.
And the holocaust was over by the time the state was set up.
" justice and Jews in the same breath…
…is a logical uncertainty"
Now if *I* said that...
But *human* rights are for humans, and everyone knows that Arabs aren't humans.
I know that in the U.S. the NYT is often called "the Times". But websites are international.
The headline is misleading. The story appears in the New York Times, not The Times.
I know that people often call their local newspapers "the Times", but a website like this is not local.
"The left is usually wrong and very stupid."
True.
And the right is usually evil as well as wrong and equally stupid.
Depressing.
" If you start tearing down the Jewish Nation over the Palestinians, it will only be that much easier to take them to the next step of racial self-hatred"
You mean they might come to their senses, stop being Jews, and regard themselves as just ordinary people like the rest of us?
"Fatah has a death penalty to any Arab who sellls land to the Jews"
And so they should.
Selling land to European Jews was a factor in the growth of the Zionist community. Experience shows it should be counted as treason.
"Aren’t those legitimate American opinions? When do some of those folks get to cover this story? "
When they own the newspapers, the TV stations, the big media companies.
How wicked and cruel those Arabs are!
They blatantly get in the way of the honourable IDF soldiers, and interfere with the IDF/Israeli Social Services's attempts to ensure the health and well-being of the people of Gaza.
And yet people here are blaming the Israelis!
Exactly. Once all the Gazans are dead, the gas fields on the coast will be up for grabs. And we know who will be grabbing.
So if I suggest that "Jewishness", or at least the variety that keeps asking "is it good for the Jews?", is fundamentally immoral, no-one is going to scream "anti-Semite" at me?
"Good for the Jews."
So is it just self-interest that is important?
Not moral principle?
Not universal human concern?
Osama is probably dead, and the tape is probably a fake.
"It killed Bobby Kennedy"
Someone behind him fired the shots that killed him. Sirhan Sirhan was in front of him.
There is no such thing as Jewish racism, and anyone who says there is such a thing is, ipso facto, an anti-Semite or a self-hater.
Or both.
And don't argue. If you do, it proves that you are an anti-Semite or a self hater.
You probably are, anyway.
"Nobody on either side of the political spectrum seems to know what’s going on in this country"
Which country? Israel? South Africa? Iran?
I have never understood why Americans, born and brought up in America, want to pretend they are Irish just because their ancestors came from Ireland.
The experience of Palestine suggests that when Arabs allow European Jews to buy land in Arab countries, the Arabs end up losing the country.
There is nothing unusual about a death penalty for treason.
"The Arab world has over 99.5% of the region, yet they complain it is not enough
No they don't. They complain that driving people out of their homes, destroying their villages, and repopulating the area with immigrants is wrong.
I once borrowed a copy from a public library in England.
What does that imply?
Israel as a vampire state?
I will rephrase (b) as "why do you think it is important for Jews to regard themselves as a nation?"
"In all cases it does not matter whether Jews or any other community thinks of themselves as a nation or not. What is important is the relationship vis-a-vis other communities or nations. "
If a community thinks of itself as a nation, then the political implications of the modern concept become relevant.
We start raising the dual-loyalty questions. If Australian Jews belong to another nation, should we allow them to hold sensitive positions in the Australian Government?
Consider this clause of the Australian Constitution.
"44. Any person who
(i.) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power: shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. "
Note the phrasing used in this discussion of the law: “The court has said, in effect, that one must do more than take up Australian nationality, which includes renouncing other allegiances: one must go through the process of renunciation according to the laws of the nation or nations to which former allegiance has been given.”
link to anzacatt.org.au
If Jews think of themselves as a nation, does this apply to Australian Jews?
Australia allows dual citizenship in general, but Japan doesn't. Can a Jew become a Japanese citizen and remain a Jew?
So I think it does matter whether a group thinks of itself as a "nation", and what sort of thing that "nation" is supposed to be.
It seems to me that Wondering Jew is lost in a maze of vague, inadequately defined, concepts.
I suspect he thinks that your "identity" is some sort of unchangeable Aristotelian essence (that which makes something what it is) which is somehow genetically inherited, and not only that the story you tell yourself about yourself (" what you think of yourself") should be a true description of that essence, but also that you should take on a bundle of obligations that he conventionally attaches to that essence. (Though I may be giving his concept a precision it does not possess.)
Now I have a certain sympathy with that idea that the story I tell myself should be true. Certainly, if I tell myself that I am descended from Zulu or Khmer royalty I am just kidding myself. As far as I can tell, my ancestors were just boring English workers.
But I do not have to tell myself any story about my ancestors at all. They are not important. The story is to be about me, not them.
Identity is not an unchanging essence. If I change, that change becomes part of the story.
Perhaps I can phrase my questions this way.
(a) What are the defining features of a nation in the sense that you are using it?
(b) Why does it matter whether the Jews are that sort of nation or not?
Joshua Stern is an imaginary Jew. You can use the name of a real Jew if you want to. My point is that he is still Joshua Stern, and still thinks he is Joshua Stern, even if he denies that there is a Jewish nation.
"The Jewish religion calls the Children of Israel and later the Jewish people “am” which is translated as nation. If you have an alternate definition of “am” let me hear it."
What does "nation" mean when you use it as a translation for "am"?
It seems you do not mean what I mean when I say or write "nation".
I'll expand on my question a bit.
"Jews deny who they are by saying there is no Jewish nation or people."
What do you mean by saying that they deny who they are? Joshua Stern does not deny he is Joshua Stern if he says there is no Jewish nation.
What do you mean by " nation"? When I say "nation" I mean a political entity of the same type as China, the USA, Australia, Bolivia, Sweden, India, and all the members of the United Nations. Now it is clear that Israel is a nation which calls itself Jewish. No-one denies that Israel exists.
And there are clearly people who class themselves as Jews, so who are those who deny that Jewish people exist?
When you say "Jewish nation", what do you mean by "nation"?
Indeed. The rights of the Aboriginals were ignored by the settlers. The consequences of this are still a major problem in Australia.
"deny the right of Jews to self-determination."
If "self -determination" means the right to set up a state, then there is no such right for Jews.
Setting up a state requires territory. The right to set up a state in the territory belongs to the people who live in that territory. (The inhabitants are, after all, the persons who will be most affected by the exercise of the right. )
Since Jews are spread over the world in a variety of territories, they have no right as Jews. Their rights are those of inhabitants of the territory, by virtue of being inhabitants of the territory.
Australian Jews have the same rights of self-determination as other Australians. They have these rights because they are Australians resident in Australia. And they have no additional rights of self-determination that are not shared by all other Australians.
The main problem with this article is the term "delegimation". It implies that there was some legitimacy in the first place.
The first decision is obviouslya moral imperative.
As far as Jews losing their homeland is concerned, I am not sure what you mean by that, but my interpretation is this.
If a Jew is born and brought up in Australia, Australia is his homeland, just as it is the homeland of any other Australian. For the Jew to lose that homeland would mean that he is denied citizenship or residence rights.
Now as I understand it, this is what happened to Jews under the Nazis, and if the message of the Holocaust memorial is that Jews should never lose their homelands in that sense, I would agree with that message.
But I do not see that there is any tension between that message and the message "we should never do to others what we have suffered under the holocaust".
Surely the principle "never deny people citizenship or residence rights in their homeland" applies to all people, not just Jews.
I have no idea. But then, I have no idea who Colbert and O'Reilly are, either.
Better and better.
But just in case anyone thinks you are being serious, I should point out that the Palestinians didn't need any relocation to realize self-government. They just needed the British to stop getting in their way. The Zionists did need the relocation to create their ethnically-based state.
"You want to be a terrorist?"
If terrorism means "disbanding the state of Israel", then I'm in favour of it. Israel was evil in conception and evil in creation, and it is evil in conduct. There is no excuse for its continued existence.
Beautifully phrased. I congratulate you.
I bet you could make a fortune in PR until your clients realised you were taking the piss.
"The facts are that most Jews find the one state solution anathema"
So what? Should the world be run on the basis of what "most Jews" want, or should it be run on the basis of justice?
And what of the citizen who doesn't want to be classed with any of those four groups? (Perhaps Arab Christians or Baha'is who are converts from Judaism, etc.)
It is precisely those sort of ethnic/religious divisions that need to be overcome, not strengthened by institutionalising them.
"These communities would have jurisdiction over education, culture, family law, civil law among community members, and some social services"
All citizens should have equal treatment in respect of all these matters. They will not get equal treatment if some are subjected to Jewish family law, and others to Muslim family law.
"It’s not enough to tell other Palestinians that they will never see their ethnically pure Palestinian state,"
I didn't know they wanted an "ethnically pure" state. I thought they just wanted a state in which everyone would be equal regardless of ethnicity.
"the Jews deserve a homeland,"
Australian Jews already have a homeland. It is called Australia.
"as does any group that wants to band together in a country"
So if a bunch of photographers want to band to gether into a country, they can claim a chunk of land as their "homeland", call it Daguerrotypia, and live there regarldess of the wishes of the people who already live there?
The group of people called RoHa hereby give notice that they will set up RoHania soon. Still not sure exactly where the country will be, but it is going to be a big one.
"deserve a homeland, as does any group that wants to band together in a country—including the Palestinians."
The Palestinians have a "homeland". As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong, Aref) what they all want is to be equal citizens in that land, and, for some of them, to be allowed to go home.
"So asking me “Hope for what?”, this coming from someone who is capable of such moral clarity,"
Thank you.
" has such an immoral, snarky twang to it that I don’t think I need to dignify with a answer. I think you know for what I hope."
I'm sorry you see it as snarky. Perhaps if I phrase it as "What is it that you hope for?" it will sound like the genuine question I intend. For I really do not know what it is you hope for.
"Do you have issues with Poland, or only Israel?"
I have never been a fan of Poland (although I am a great admirer of Polish logicians, in spite of their unpronounceable names) and see no particular reason why it should exist. However, as far as I can tell, Poland gave up the ethnic cleansing, oppression of minorities, and aggressive wars some time ago.
Israel is, of course, still carrying out such activities.
"Why WOULD you want to un-do Israel?"
I would want to un-do it because it is evil.
Israel was evil in conception.
The idea was an ethnically based state, run for the benefit of a single ethnicity. This was wrong. It is always wrong for a state to privilege one ethnicity over others. The White Australia Policy was wrong when it staarted, and stayed wrong. The same is true of Zionism.
Israel was evil in creation.
Israel was created through abominable acts of mass murder, ethnic cleansing, destruction, and lies.
Israel is evil in conduct.
Israel has not ceased its ethnic cleansing, its persecution, its destructive wars, and its lies.
"Is America the Jews’ best long-term hope, and how do you know?"
Hope for what?
"If you simply don’t like my face"
It's nothing personal, Walker. Everyone loves me, and yet I had one that waited nearly a week to be moderated! Right now have several that have been waiting at least two days.
I know it is frustrating to see a comment remain in limbo until everyone has forgotten about the topic you were commenting on (and doubly frustrating when your comments are as brilliant and incisive as mine) but there just don't seem to be enough moderators to get through them all.
Perhaps Phil and Adam could get some funding from AIPAC to hire more moderators. If not, the only recourse is patience.
Builds character.