-
-
- Netanyahu govt to impose fines on mayors of cities that … 0
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians … 1
- UN Committee: Israeli system ‘tantamount to apartheid’ 0
- Slater on Beinart 9
- And we live on… 1
- US official — we went to Israel first 3
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 23
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 130
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 113
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Slater on Beinart (9)
- radii: the train has left the station and a few like Beinart have noticed but think they can still run and catch it...
- Citizen: This is all tempest in a Jewish identity teapot because Congress just gave Israel $4 Billion dollars for...
- Krauss: Have you all noticed how the real liberal Zionists, even with warts and all, keep getting more and more...
- Resume builders: Be a broken record on Iran, cheer authoritarians in Gulf (1)
- Annie Robbins: Having recognized its weakness, the US knows that it will be the UN that takes the lead in Syria and...
- Did Israeli Eurovision contestant watch too much Juliano Mer Khamis? (54)
- Annie Robbins: GL, urban dictionary has PEP, just no explanation of progressive except for palestine....
- German Lefty: Annie, it looks like you got infected with the Eurovision virus. Great. The more fans, the better. The...
- US official — we went to Israel first (3)
- traintosiberia: OMG! Why I don”t have that Stockholm Syndrome yet! How long do I have to feign that I have it.
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- And we live on… (1)
- Talkback: They should make Gaza the most beautiful place just to p*** compulsory expellers off. Enviromental...
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (23)
- piotr: How many Jews who made aliya were actual refugees from Roman persecution? Thus the “Jew who taunted...
- Slater on Beinart (9)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
You have to admit they've got us this time, Syd. Then again, how can Jews live in Jerusalem, or indeed calls themselves Jews, when there is no soft-g sound in Hebrew? That ghimel with a "tchuptchik" isn't fooling anyone, and Yoos and Yerusalem sound just as silly as Balestine.
Israeli citizens whose personal security has been compromised by the lawlessness and violence of some migrants
South Tel Aviv was indeed a paradise before these excessively-melanined individuals showed up: no theft, no rape, no murder, no drugs; heaven on earth. That must be the reason why these migrants and asylum seekers chose Hatikva and Shapira of all the neighbourhoods on the face of the earth. Where else could they enjoy both personal safety and a complete lack of criminal competition?
One would expect "the nation's premier civil rights/human relations agency", which claims that it "fights ... all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all" to know that individuals are responsible only for their own actions, and not for the actions of those who happen to share a similar skin-colour, nationality, or religion. They did say "some", but in the same breath also recognised the "complexity" of such racist, xenophobic outbursts, and expressed "sympathy" with the demagoguery used to justify them.
Off topic, but another interesting statistic published by Haaretz today is that of the 322 completed appeals by administrative detainees to the High Court of Justice over the past decade, the number of cases in which the Court ruled in the appellant's favour was 0 (zero, nought).
One of the most frequent defences of administrative detention is that detainees have the right to appeal. No wonder 55% of appeals are withdrawn before the court reaches a decision.
link to haaretz.co.il
(Hebrew - couldn't find it in the English edition)
What you call “international law” I call “changing the rules of the game just to screw the Jews”... But as soon as Jews get some land, suddenly and retroactively its “international law says no”.
An anti-Semite might have said that international law is really a Jewish plot to control the world (UN, one-world government, etc.), but the logic is the same: everything is always about "the Jews".
Welcome back, MRW. It's good to see you :-)
Do you hear them making a sober case against illegal immigration? I hear them projecting scummy racist fantasies onto a woman brave enough to call them out.
Classic rationalisation by the guys behind the guys with the torches and the pitchforks - whether in Shapira or in Yitzhar.
Again most of them are migrants and not asylum seekers. Same laws apply to them as in EU ( deportation centers throughout the union) and US ( ICE anyone?).
I called them migrants. It's not exactly true that the same laws apply, because the laws concerning work visas, temporary and permanent residency, and eventual naturalisation are quite different, but you will not hear one good word out of me regarding EU treatment of migrants.
The rhetoric is similar, the violence is similar, and the justifications offered by "moderates" are similar. I have complete sympathy and solidarity with the real difficulties (and fears) of both migrants and local poor - whether in Europe or in Israel - but xenophobia, scapegoating and the incitement to racism by leaders and politicians must be condemned.
This is one area where I don’t mind Jews being held to an unfairly higher standard.
What higher standard? The same standard works for me. The same standard applied to neo-Nazi and anti-immigrant groups in Europe. Just translate dimadok or giladg into Italian, German or French and see how they sound.
For some insight into the real causes of poverty and oppression in Israel, see Max Ajl's interview with Matan Kaminer: link to mondoweiss.net
What are the causes of poverty, unemployment and unaffordable housing in Israel? What are the causes of the flux of migrants from Africa? What role has Israel played in contributing to this human tragedy? Does the free movement of capital and some "categories" of humans have anything to do with the need to move as well as the restrictions on movement for other "categories" of humans? What are Israel's obligations to asylum seekers under international law and what are the reasons for such laws? Which Israeli policies contribute to the level of crime among the poorest in general and immigrants in particular (the chief of police had a few things to say about this sort of crime)?
The "wars of the poor" are inevitably ugly and inevitably fail to address the real causes of poverty. Hint: A demonstration at Akirov Towers would have been far more to the point. Scapegoating the Other is much easier, and always has the blessing of the real oppressors and exploiters.
You're right, Hostage. The point I was trying to make was that even the illegal and immoral excuse that giladg offered lacks any factual basis. The demolitions that Rabbi Walt was referring to (the ones that Rabbis for Human Rights and the ICAHD are witness to and active against) have not even the most remote connection to "acts of terror" or "holding accountable those responsible". They are simply a matter of making Palestinian life unbearable and stealing Palestinian land tout court. Rabbi Walt's conclusions from having witnessed such a demolition are thus intellectually sound and coherent, and not merely an emotional response devoid of context, as giladg suggested.
you perpetrated acts of terror and war and people have died as a result, then a price needs to paid and those responsible need to be held accountable
What does this have to do with the home demolitions witnessed by Rabbi Walt? People often confuse Israel's policy of home demolitions for the purposes of ethnic cleansing (refusing permits and then demolishing homes necessarily built without them) with the long-discontinued (illegal and ineffective) practice of demolishing the family homes of suicide bombers. The families whose homes are demolished are only "responsible" for wanting to live on their land, and the "price" they pay is the price of Israeli greed.
The drama of witnessing a home being destroyed is significant for any human being.
Have you ever witnessed such a demolition?
I think Israel is the major Jewish issue of the day. Do you disagree?
No, I do not disagree, nor does Rabbi Walt. It is the major Jewish issue of the day because it has become a tenet of Jewish identity. I don't believe in collective guilt, but it has become almost impossible to take part in Jewish life or even identify as a Jew without taking a position on Israel. I know Jews who resent this, and I sympathise with them but, as you say, it is the major Jewish issue of the day, and it is therefore reasonable to expect them to have an opinion and to act upon it.
That this fact becomes translated in blind support or unthinking support for very wrong policies and a somewhat wrong essence, is a serious problem, but I don’t think that Israel being uppermost on the minds of Jews is wrong.
Israel is certainly uppermost in my mind, and if I ever forget it, any attempt to take part in Jewish life in my local community is always sure to remind me.
There was a public service message on Israeli TV years ago, to promote safe sex. The script was: "When you sleep with your boyfriend you're also sleeping with his ex-girlfriend and the boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend and the girlfriend of the boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend and so on and so on." When you take a position on something like this, you will inevitably find yourself in bed with some unsavoury friends of your friends or friends of the friends of your friends. You don't like the bedfellows of the non-Zionist left, but you don't like the bedfellows of the liberal-Zionist left either. You choose the association that most suits you, regardless of its bedfellows. What is it about associating yourself with someone like Brian Walt that bugs you in ways that liberal Zionists don't?
In the past, you have referred to Jewish commitment and continuity, and your discomfort at the 'un-Jewishness' of the non- or anti-Zionist Jewish left. Rabbi Walt is a Jew's Jew. He offers a way to be both a committed Jew and a non/anti-Zionist. What specifically is wrong with the path he proposes? If you have questions for him (beyond editing notes) please ask them.
We use olives, and have written an explanation of its significance (like the explanations of the other symbolic foods).
As for Jerusalem, Psalm 122 offers some possibilities:
Verse 3 ("Jerusalem that is built as a city connected"), that has been so abused in the context of modern conquest, annexation and ethnic cleansing (e.g. as the hackneyed slogan of "Jerusalem Day") is also worth reclaiming. In the Talmud, the verse is explained as a reference to the bond between the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem - emphasising the spirituality of the city, rather than its (violent) physical or political possession.
You are nitpicking, WJ. What do you think of the substance? This, for example:
Or this:
Or this:
I am not sure that “tacked on” is the right phrase. It fits very well in context.
I assure you, I meant "tacked on" in the nicest possible way :-)
Seriously, I just meant it wasn't part of the original piyyut (which wasn't written for the Seder anyway).
It probably originally meant referencing the hope of making a brief pilgrimage to the holy city.
The phrase "Next year in Jerusalem" appears twice in Ashkenazi Jewish liturgy: in the Passover Haggadah, and in the closing prayer on Yom Kippur.
The context on Passover (at least in traditional Haggadot) is clearly the hope for messianic redemption and the restoration of the sacrifices in the Temple - specifically the sacrifice of the paschal lamb (which can only be performed in Jerusalem). The line was tacked on to a liturgical poem to that effect (Hassal siddur pesah), composed in 11th-century France.
The context on Yom Kippur is the final blowing of the shofar after the "Ne'ilah" prayer - in memory of the proclamation of the Jubilee at the Temple in Jerusalem after Yom Kippur in ancient times, and is thus again, the expression of the desire for the messianic age in which all of the Temple rituals will be restored.
Both on Passover and on Yom Kippur, the line is recited at a point of completion and release, and the meaning associated with it over the generations has undoubtedly been a function of time and place, as well as individual circumstances and beliefs.
Needless to say, the German Reformers (and their American successors) removed all such references to Zion as well as the Temple cult.
Great minds :-)
I will propose "l’shanah haba’ah birushalayim fil mish mish" to the other member of our family ritual committee. I like the irreverence :-)
In Jewish tradition there is a certain amount of tension between the obligation to believe in the coming of the Messiah (at any moment!) and healthy scepticism (as well as irreverence). I've never heard "Next year in Jerusalem" used in the sense of "bukra fil mishmish", but that is exactly the meaning of the phrase "when Moshiach comes".
The word "הבנויה" is a relatively recent addition (based on a disjointed phrase from Psalms 122). The original prayer (recited on Passover and Yom Kippur, according to some traditions) was simply "Next year in Jerusalem". Apart from the fact that the wish/request expresses the desire for redemption and not a holiday itinerary, no mention is made of political sovereignty or military control. Jerusalem is both a metaphor and a physical place - both of which have been violated by Zionism.
When I was a child (raised in an Orthodox Zionist home), it was explained to me that the prayer "Next year in Jerusalem" was recited even in Jerusalem, because this is not the Jerusalem we pray for - which is the righteous Jerusalem of God's Kingdom.
At our Passover Seder, we no longer say "Next year in Jerusalem" because of the ways in which the prayer and the concept behind it have been abused, but perhaps we should reclaim it.
שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים, Rabbi Walt. Thank you.
do you know anywhere one could see a list of all the Beitar chants and what they mean in English ?
As you might have guessed, I'm not that into Beitar ;-)
A quick search brought up a couple of lists (Hebrew - well, kind of):
link to fxp.co.il
link to fxp.co.il
As for what they mean in English, the chant "Death to the Arabs!" sums it up pretty well.
My God that is a brave woman.
That she is, Saleema. She's a well-known activist in Jerusalem, and the racist thugs have tried to intimidate her, spray-painting nasty things on the wall outside her house. Needless to say, she doesn't scare easily :-)
I don’t understand the “Mohammad is dead” chant. Of course he is.
It's part of a very racist song, sung by Beitar Jerusalem fans. The cowards just sing the refrain and have a good laugh ("What did we say? We're just notifying the family.")
Thanks, Sahar. Israel's very own Orange Walk (Blue Walk?).
Samuel T,
Are you really accusing me of anti-Semitism? LOL
If someone forces their way into your flat, takes up residence in your living room and refuses to leave, their presence is an act of violence.
Jews have no rights to a country of their own in I/P
Correct. Although coloniser and colonised are not equal, both Israeli Jews and Palestinians have national rights in I/P to be achieved and reconciled preferably through negotiation. Neither Palestinians nor Israeli Jews have the right to establish (or maintain, in Israel's case) an ethnocratic or otherwise discriminatory regime.
I have never claimed not to have "picked a side", merely that I constantly do so on the basis of universal criteria rather than ethnicity or personal preference.
Oleg,
You may feel more comfortable with a discussion of national rights, but the incident at Yitzhar pertains first and foremost to individual rights. Yitzhar sits on stolen private land, and constantly aspires to steal more. The settlers of Yitzhar also regularly use violence to protect what they have stolen and terrorise their Palestinian neighbours (what they call "deterrence"). They do so with impunity and the active collaboration of the IDF. Even the incorrect assertion that Jews have the legal "right" to settle in occupied territory, does not give them the right to steal private land and impose a reign of terror.
Concerning your digression, I believe the Zionist movement to be a fundamentally colonialist movement, with no national rights anywhere in Israel/Palestine. Israeli Jews have the right to coexist with Palestinians in I/P as equals, not colonial masters.
There is nothing wrong about picking a side
That depends on the criteria on which your choice is based.
but you should be honest about it
When you condemn "violence" or cite "rights", you give the impression of universality, when you really mean "Palestinian violence" and "Jewish rights". That is dishonest.
In fact you have no common ground for discussion with anyone who does not share your moral relativism (in the sense of 'whatever's good for my relatives is moral'), yet you pretend to engage in dialogue here - to the point of falsely asserting that there would indeed be common ground, if only others would condemn violence (against your side). I don't think you are deluding yourself; I think you are trying to delude others.
What stems from that is an attempt to round the square (Our rights against their rights) which you have given up upon and chose their side
and i haven’t.
On the contrary. I try to apply universal standards when it comes to rights (and ethics). It is you who have chosen a side.
I refuse to look at the settlement of Jews in their historic homeland as an immoral/illegal/violent act and this is axiomatic for me.
So you reject Israel's obligations under the Geneva Convention. No surprise there. Presumably, you also accept all of Pliah Albeck's tricks regarding "State" and "Survey" land, and the use of such land exclusively for the benefit of Jews. That would not come as a surprise either. But what about the 35% of Yitzhar that sits on private Palestinian land even according to Israeli records? Is that also part of "the settlement of Jews in their historic homeland" that you refuse to see as "immoral/illegal/violent"?
Furthermore, the reality is that the settlers steal from and attack Palestinians with impunity (and Yitzhar is a particularly egregious case). At some point (assuming you are sincere about your respect for Palestinian life, limb and property), you have to question the enterprise itself, that recognises only Jewish rights (as you see them, of course). If the Yitzharites cannot exercise their own "rights" without violating the rights of Palestinians, maybe they should not be able to exercise those rights (the old "your right to swing your fist" argument, if you will). You say "they should be prosecuted" but you know that they are not. Nor is "the negotiating table" any more than a fig leaf when it comes to theft and violence against individual Palestinians. The failure of the negotiations (wherever you may believe blame lies) can hardly excuse current "unlawful" actions.
You may want this to be about "the right of Jews to settle in Eretz Yisrael", but this goes way beyond that - unless, like the Yitzhar settlers, you think that right trumps all Palestinian rights.
Because when violence is on the table i will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex.
Violence is always on the table - the violence perpetrated by the settlers of Yitzhar (the religious ideology of dehumanisation is central) and by the government of Israel and the IDF on their behalf. Palestinians have no recourse against this ongoing violence - theft, vandalism, intimidation and physical harm. Yet you "will side with Itzhar as matter of pure reflex"? How do you reconcile this approach with your pretty closing statement? "Palestinian life is not and shouldn’t be worthless but neither is a Jewish life."
We can argue which way the wind was blowing until the cows come home, but the context is clearly one of overwhelming and unrelenting violence against the Palestinian villagers - despite some acts of justified and unjustified violence on the part of some Palestinians (note: contrary to the settlers, the villagers presence, in and of itself, is not an act of violence).
Do Jews have the right to settle in Eretz Israel or don’t they ?
An answer to that question gives rationalization to everything else.
The real question, when it comes to the ideology and actions of the settlers of Yitzhar, is whether non-Jews have the right to live in Eretz Yisrael. For answers to that question see e.g. Torat ha-Melekh by Yitzhar's very own Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, or the following exposition (Hebrew), by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed of the neighbouring settlement of Har Bracha, on the religious obligation to expel all of the Arabs from Eretz Yisrael: link to yeshiva.org.il
Do Jews have the right to settle in Eretz Israel or don’t they ?
An answer to that question gives rationalization to everything else.
Do they have a right according to Israeli law to settle on private Palestinian land? No. Do they have a right according to Israeli law to establish unauthorised "outposts"? No. Do they have a right according to international law to settle in the occupied West Bank? No.
You are right however that the answer to that question gives rationalisation to everything else. If the answer is yes - even when doing so violates international and even Israeli law - then there is no such thing as Palestinian private property and Palestinian life is worthless.
As Yossi Gurvitz points out (see Annie's link), the only legal justification for Israel's presence in the OT is as an occupation force and, as an occupation force, its primary obligation is to protect the occupied population, not the Israeli citizens it has illegally settled there. In this incident and just about every other incident in the past 45 years, it has failed miserably (well, not exactly failed, because it has never tried to live up to its obligations).
Gurvitz is good as always.
Another point worth mentioning, is that settler ideology makes no difference between defence and offence - it is all defence. This point is crucial to understanding the settlers' attitude to the Sabbath injunctions (and injunctions against violence in general). The criminal rabbis of Yesha and the rabbis of Yitzhar in particular have ruled that it is permitted to violate the Sabbath for the sake of "deterrence". That includes "price tag" operations and presumably invented Palestinian "provocations" as well.
That does not mean that people who tried to set it on fire
and gotten hurt in the process should be portrayed as innocent victims
as we see in this publication.
What it means is that the very presence of the settlers there is an ongoing act of violence, perpetrated with the support and protection of the Israeli government and the IDF. What it means is that Palestinian life and property are forfeit in Yeshaland. What it means is that an Israeli settler can shoot a Palestinian with impunity. What it means is that the distinction between criminals and victims here is clear, whether you choose to recognise it or not.
wow, and right in front of the “soldiers” — this is unreal
An Israeli friend who sent me the video this morning, added the following comment:
“this is the third Saturday in a row that Arabs have been setting fires in an attempt to damage Itzhar’s western neighborhood.”
Just so we all know what we are talking about, what the settlers refer to as "Itzhar’s western neighborhood" is in fact the outpost of Shalhevet - illegal even according to Israeli law, but actively supported and protected by successive Israeli governments. Of course Yitzhar itself (or at least the 35% of it that sits on privately-owned Palestinian land, according to Israel's own, warped definitions) is also illegal according to Israeli law.
link to peacenow.org.il
link to peacenow.org.il
Martin Buber also came from a family of Ostjuden, spent a good part of his childhood in Galicia, and grew up speaking both German and Yiddish. He never stopped writing or speaking German.
The entire distinction that Oleg is trying to make is a little strange. The Osjuden didn't consider themselves Ostjuden. For the most part, they considered themselves German. It was their snobbish co-religionists, the self-designated echte Yekkes, who cast aspersions on their "Germanness". To some extent, I would expect Ostjuden to cling to their Deutschtum with even greater tenacity than those who were to the manor born. On the other hand, a mother tongue is a mother tongue (as Hannah Arendt explains), and it doesn't really matter how many generations your family had been speaking it before you came along.
Anton Shammas writes in Hebrew
As do many other Palestinian scholars and writers (including the very popular Sayed Kashua). Sami Michael switched from Arabic to Hebrew for practical reasons, but came to love the Hebrew language (which he learned informally, as an adult).
I am reminded of Simone Daud's first post at Mondoweiss:
I like the idea of "colonising the coloniser".
As I wrote, I think Appelfeld's attitude is the exception - even among German-speaking "Ostjuden". I had a couple of great-aunts, from Galicia - the other Austro-Hungarian enclave in the Ukraine (sorry, piotr) - who identified with German language and culture, and did not stop as a result of the Holocaust. Both escaped in time (one by the skin of her teeth - she refused to leave her beloved Vienna), but lost most of their relatives and the entire society in which they had been raised. One ended up living among Yiddish-speakers in Canada, and the other among German-speakers in Palestine.
As for the movie, I may see it, but something tells me you and I don't exactly share the same tastes.
Did you see this movie
No, but I haven't read any Appelfeld either.
I've met many German-speaking Jews, and Appelfeld's attitude to the German language is certainly the exception (and, as Eleanor points out, motivated by nationalism as well as trauma). Many of the professors at my department at HU were German-speaking, and my professor of German language (a German Jew from Hamburg) very obviously loved his mother tongue. Someone mentioned that German was also the language of German Jews. Our final exam was a text by Martin Buber.
no groups was more proud of their country of origin than German Jews
And some others even showed them deference. When I lived in Jerusalem, an elderly German-speaking couple lived in my building. When I met the woman for the first time (and got invited to tea), she introduced herself, saying "I am from Czernowitz, but my husband is from Berlin".
As my dad said, “if the guy has a gun throw a stone at him”. No, wait, he said “just hand over your wallet, it’s not worth dying over”.
Not a bad analogy, Fred.
Thanks, TGIA. The clip is embedded at the Haaretz site (Hebrew edition only) - link to haaretz.co.il
- and can also be watched here, without signing in to Youtube: link to youtube.com
Note how the settlers and the soldiers advance together.
Nitrates shmitrates, Phil. One bite and they'll have you singing Hatikva. Or maybe you're afraid you might run into David Nesenoff. I hear Helen Thomas has completely sworn off deli.
David Nesenoff informs me by email that the two delis are in Long Island: Ben's Deli in Woodbury, NY, and Zan's Deli, in Lake Grove, NY.
He also says that my belief that the interviewees are cherrypicked is wrong:
Cherrypicked? Of course, not. A kosher deli in Long Island is exactly where I'd go, if I wanted to know what real Jews think about B. Hussein O. The real question is why do you hate pastrami so much, Phil?
What’s your opinion Shmuel?
I've read reviews and seen excerpts from Shoshan’s Atlas of the Conflict, which impressed me a lot - enough to be intrigued by an exhibit conceived by Shoshan and described as "an extension of the book". The exhibit could be good - or not. I'd have to see it for myself.
A priori disdain for conceptual art is also a kind of פוזה, wouldn't you say?
How post-post-postmodern of you, Oleg.
It's the "now it's our turn" argument. I once heard an Israeli Likud politician use it about corruption: Ben-Gurion's Mapai party was thoroughly corrupt, and all of a sudden, now that we're in power, kickbacks and embezzlement are no longer OK? NOT FAIR!
Just had a look at Haaretz - 3 BDS-related stories (South Africa, Denmark and UK Coop) at the top of the page. An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman called the SA decision "racist". LOL
But they have a tower and an IBM facility: link to mondoweiss.net
Thanks, Iman. What a terrible tragedy. May your struggle for justice spare other other families the pain you have suffered.
i doubt that a lot did cross their minds at the time besides פיגוע פיגוע
Which means they were operating on the assumption that Jilani was a Palestinian (just to get your ID comment out of the way).
I have little doubt that up until the moment he was killed, Vinogradov and his commander were convinced that Jilani had hit the policemen intentionally - or פיגוע פיגוע, as you say.
The real question is why he was shot dead after he was already on the ground: fear of a perceived threat or summary execution? Despite some indications that the latter may (notice the conditional) indeed have been the case, I do not believe any serious investigation has been carried out.
The headline is "Killing with Impunity". I think that is an accurate description of the case. If a policeman kills a suspect and is not seriously investigated, then he has killed (although not necessarily murdered) without consequence, and that is very grave indeed.
All the had to do to know his ethnicity was look at his license plate
As a Jerusalem resident, Jilani would have had ordinary, Israeli plates (yellow), but considering the location and the circumstances (as well as many other clues a Kyrgyz immigrant may or may not have gotten, but his Druze commander certainly would have), I find it highly unlikely that there was any doubt that Jilani was a Palestinian.
There are a few serious problems with the entire case, including:
First of all, the practice of "confirming a kill" has been documented and criticised in Israel before - especially in the Border Police.
Second, the conflicting and modified testimonies (before and after the exhumation was ordered), including the idea that Vinogradov was concerned with the safety of Palestinian bystanders and/or was afraid that Jilani was wearing a bomb, so he got really close to him and shot him at point blank range.
And third (and this is a procedure that has been criticised by the right as well as the left), the investigation was carried out by the Justice Ministry's Department for Investigation of Police (made up of police officers "on loan" to the ministry, who then return to the force), which almost never indicts and generally closes cases "for lack of evidence".
the Golden Gate, through which Jews have always believed the Jewish Messiah will pass through. To try and block this, Muslims started burying their dead in front of this gate believing the Jewish Messiah will not pass over the dead bodies. These are the facts on the ground
More like Judeocentric (and anti-Muslim) legends. Suleiman obviously had far more pressing reasons to close the Golden Gate, and it is highly doubtful that a cemetery was placed there intentionally - based on partial knowledge of Jewish legend regarding future, supernatural (but easily thwarted!) events.
Your reasoning regarding the importance of the Temple Mount to Jews is not too bad, although your dismissal of Muslim needs and concerns is emblematic of the entire Zionist approach to the peace process.
You also forgot to mention how many times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Tanakh: link to mondoweiss.net
What are you smoking Shmuel?
Why the tantalising fumes from the Great Reconciliation Brai, of course! Smell those kebabs. They are just to die for.
Aw shucks, bintbiba :-)
I just had a great idea, gilad, in the spirit of that other South Africa you've invented. Why not have a giant reconciliation brai? The Palestinians could pay for, cook and serve the food, and when they've finished doing the dishes, they can have the leftovers! Come one come all!*
*Except refugees, prisoners and anyone who can't get through the checkpoints.
we want the reconciliation to start now
An interesting notion, reconciliation before (read: rather than) ending apartheid. Now why didn't De Klerk think of that? He could have had his koek and eaten it too! Mmmm, lekker.
gilad,
Reconciliation came after the abolition of apartheid and is an ongoing process.
As another Barghouti (Omar) said:
Your point about "for you were gerim" is a good one. I would add that the broader category of "ger, orphan and widow" indicates that the category is simply one of social vulnerability, with no further requirements.
The development of the category of "ger toshav" stemmed both from the need to "rationalize ... recent developments" and to reconcile these commandments and the values they represented with other, apparently contradictory precepts (e.g. Deuteronomy 7 - abused to this day by the religious right).
The idea represented by the biblical commandments regarding the treatment of the ger is an admirable one (without reading too many modern sensibilities into it), but a little off the mark when it comes to relations with Palestinians, who are not "strangers in your midst", but the indigenous population of the land colonised by Zionism. As biblical rhetoric goes, B'tselem's emphasis on fundamental human dignity and equality (Gen. 1:27) is far more to the point.
Piotr,
Not all of the Eighteen Articles are "radically restrictive" (only a few actually deal with relations with non-Jews), and the story of Shammaite violence only appears in the Palestinian Talmud (redacted late 4th cent.), based on the rather laconic accounts provided in the Mishnah and the Tosefta (redacted early 3rd cent.), of events that supposedly occurred in the late 1st cent. BCE - early 1st cent. CE.
That the day on which the Shammaites attained a majority was considered a "day of misfortune" ("like the day on which the golden calf was made") is recorded in the Tosefta, and taken up both by the Babylonian (particularly fond of its favourite son Hillel) and the Palestinian Talmud. Even Rashi (foremost Talmudic commentator, France, 11th cent.), who was undoubtedly familiar with the story of violence recounted in the Palestinian Talmud, explains the misfortune as stemming from the fact that Hillel was Nasi and a great and beloved man (compared to Moses in Midrashic tradition, and considered a far greater authority than Shammai). The entire episode is used to illustrate that the law is determined by the majority - even a chance majority - of an assembly of sages, and cannot be changed except by an assembly "greater in wisdom and number".
I would expect nothing less of the author of The Life and Times of Michael K. Has someone come up with a "washing" term for this yet? What colour is freedom?
For years, the Israeli right has been throwing Sheikh Muwannis (or "Sheikh Munes", as they pronounce it) in the face of left-wing protesters against the settlements in the OPT - the idea being that there is no difference between '48 dispossession and '67 dispossession, and that even that bastion of Israeli liberalism, Tel Aviv University, sits on formerly-Arab land. What is more, they say, Sheikh Muwannis was actually inhabited (as opposed to agricultural or grazing land), contrary to most of the land on which the post-67 settlements are built.
They are absolutely right of course, but here you have a group of Israelis (Palestinians and Jews) who agree that dispossession is dispossession, whether it occurred in 1948, 1967 or 2012 - and they're still not happy. There really is no pleasing some people.
If the Palestinians want to learn from the Blacks in South Africa, and they can learn a lot, then lookup the words “Reconciliation” and “Recognition”.
Recognition? Of what? Of the Orange Free State as a "white and democratic state" or the "nation-state of the white Afrikaner people"?
I am not asking what human rights groups write about it
i am interested in your opinion of it.
I haven't studied the subject; Amnesty has. I tend to trust their assessments.
And again, your point?
Shmuel what do you think of an American prison system?
In comparison.
US prison systems are frequently criticised by human rights groups such as Amnesty International; see e.g. link to amnesty.org
Your point?
On Israeli attitudes to the hunger strikers and Palestinian prisoners in general, see Amira Hass: link to haaretz.com
From Hass' article:
I think RoHa should not be ridiculed for having made a mistake.
Well, it's not as if RoHa ever points out other people's mistakes or anything. We should really cut him some slack. Nobody's prefect and mitsakes will happen, especially in a nedium such as tis.