Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 6241 (since 2009-08-04 05:43:29)

Shmuel

Showing comments 5500 - 5401
Page:

  • US Embassy to American in trouble in Israel: 'You're not Jewish? Then we can't do anything to help you'
    • Shmuel June 3, 2012 at 1:27 pm

      they adopted names with imagery of beauty or strength from the German language

      Tell that to my former classmates Ellbogen and Schimmel.

    • Shmuel June 2, 2012 at 7:10 am

      Let’s deport some Palestinian refugees back to their home country.

      As Stephen Colbert said in his interview with Michael Oren: "The Palestinians should go back where they came from" :-)

    • Shmuel June 2, 2012 at 6:17 am

      Tamari doesn’t sound like an Arabic name to me.

      There's Salim Tamari (family from Jaffa) of the Institute of Palestine Studies. As Inanna points out, there are many names common to Middle Eastern Muslims, Jews and Christians. Another one that comes to mind is Safadi.

  • 'War should be the last resort' --Donald Rumsfeld
  • AP investigates the 'Made in Israel' label
    • Shmuel June 1, 2012 at 10:45 am

      "My point is not the sovereignty over the West Bank, but who is the authority that has supervised the product," Palmor told The Associated Press. "Since the products of the settlements are made under Israeli regulations and standards, they are 'made in Israel.'"

      Reminds me of Beinart's exemption of East Jerusalem (and the Golan) from boycott, because resident Palestinians (and Syrians) have the theoretical possibility of obtaining Israeli citizenship. The difference is that Palmor is an Israeli government spokesman, whose job it is to make up pseudo-rational explanations for illegal Israeli policies.

  • Why was political adviser Axelrod present when Obama and security aides picked 'kill list'?
    • Shmuel May 31, 2012 at 2:59 pm

      Because if the single word means what Shmuel implies, then it fits what Phil observed on Morning Joe.

      In Israeli Hebrew, "gassut" just means rudeness/crudeness, as does even the expression "gassut ru'ah" (lit. coarseness of the spirit). In classical/Rabbinic Hebrew, especially in an ethical context, the spiritual aspect I mentioned would be foremost. In Israeli Hebrew, that would be "gassut ha-lev" (coarseness of the heart), which has a kind of archaic, religious feeling to it.

  • 'We're not waiting for consensus' -- Rebecca Vilkomerson
  • Beinart's spiritual errors
    • Shmuel June 1, 2012 at 10:31 am

      I bow to your superior, ungulate wisdom, Mooser. Must be all that ruminating.

    • Shmuel May 31, 2012 at 4:53 pm

      Mooser,

      I never said that Judaism was about obedience or hierarchy or groupthink, just that it has a strong (I believe essential) component of collective identity and identification. I don't see a contradiction. Think of "If I am not for myself who is for me, and when I am for myself what am I?"

    • Shmuel May 31, 2012 at 4:42 pm

      MRW,

      The dental motive works for me :-)

      The pronunciation would be ga-soot (the final syllable rhyming with boot). As I explained on the Axelrod thread, there are differences in usage between Rabbinic and Modern Hebrew, but the following could work in both: The soldier's heart was gass (adj.) to death and human suffering.

    • Shmuel May 31, 2012 at 2:48 pm

      Welcome back, MRW. Good to see you.

      The primary meaning of "gassut" is physical (thick, coarse, gross), but the psychological/spiritual sense is very frequent in Jewish ethical philosophy (from the Talmud, through the ethicists of mediaeval Spain to the 19th-20th century Musar movement).

    • Shmuel May 31, 2012 at 2:12 pm with 13 replies

      Well said, Danaa. Avigail Abarbanel has written about the mass psychology of Zionism. I think we can also talk about mass spirituality. The concept of "gassut" - coarseness or coarsening (of mind, heart and spirit) comes to mind. It is a state in which ordinary ethical judgement becomes clouded by force of compromise, acceptance and habit. Repentance and the accompanying restoration of a healthy sense of right and wrong become so difficult at that point that it is said to require divine grace - after man has taken the first step of remorse.

      The people who looked the other way as 300 children were incinerated, when Iraq was destroyed, it’s people torn apart, would they not look away when another million Palestinian are herded off the land?

      How else can we explain this but by a coarsening of individual and collective mind, heart and spirit?

    • Shmuel May 31, 2012 at 1:55 pm with 1 replies

      Once again, Beinart's frame of reference is out of sync with his own age and generation. Beinart was born in 1971. His "parents" left him with both the reality and the mindset of the occupation on which he has chosen to focus all of his angst. In the context of his personal biography, what he seems to long for more than anything is a lost sense of innocence and self-satisfaction completely detached from reality. The evils of occupation (the bad one) did not suddenly appear when Peter Beinart happened to notice them. They were there when we were growing up (he is slightly younger than I am), but our parents told us all was well and good.

  • Switzerland's largest supermarket chain to label products from Israeli settlements
    • Shmuel May 31, 2012 at 2:18 am with 10 replies

      I wonder where they will get their information. Fresh produce from Israel and the settlements is generally marketed together without distinction, and the producers of manufactured goods like to play games - listing an address (even a POB) within the Green Line, confusing different plants, etc. Will they use Whoprofits or other Israeli groups (now liable to prosecution)? Will they refuse to sell products they can't trace? I presume that the recent decisions about labelling in South Africa, Denmark and elsewhere will only push true source information even further underground, and the Israeli government can be counted on to help such efforts to hide sources.

      Bottom line: Migros' decision is a step in the right direction (and provides BDS with a little media attention) but, for the most part, will probably remain a dead letter unless the company is willing to actively investigate, challenge and pressure suppliers to tell the truth, and reject all products that cannot be accurately traced. Something tells me Migros won't bother, and it will be even harder to protest now that they've shown they're willing to take some steps.

  • Palestinians evicted from homes in Jerusalem to make way for settlers' biblical theme park
    • Shmuel May 31, 2012 at 3:06 am

      Of course Ir David is a theme park - part of the larger, Jerusalem theme park: a toxic mixture of crass commercialism, kitsch, propaganda, technology, religion, racism and belligerent nationalism. Mamilla, the Bible Lands Museum, the Cardo, the Kotel Tunnel, Ir David, the Midrehov - it's all a playground for Birthrighters, Jewish kids on a one-year programme (the kind Max Blumenthal spotlighted in his "Feeling the Hate" video), Jewish and Christian Zionist tourists, class trippers, soldiers on indoctrination duty, etc. It is a caricature that has about as much to do with "the history of the Jewish people and their connection to the Temple Mount" as a "Museum of Tolerance" built on Muslim graves has to do with tolerance.

      Welcome to Magic Mountain, or Holy Hill or 3Millennia Park or David Town or whatever the Ministry of Propaganda and the Diaspora chooses to call their ethnic cleansing fun park.

  • 'Hath not a Palestinian eyes?': Protesters disrupt Habima performance at Globe
    • Shmuel May 30, 2012 at 8:00 am with 1 replies

      I wonder what Juliano Mer-Khamis would have thought about this protest?

      No need to wonder. He was a strong supporter of the cultural boycott of Israel. From an appeal he signed:

      We, the undersigned Palestinian filmmakers and artists, appeal to all artists and filmmakers of good conscience around the world to cancel all exhibitions and other cultural events that are scheduled to occur in Israel, to mobilize immediately and not allow the continuation of the Israeli offensive to breed complacency. Like the boycott of South African art institutions during apartheid, cultural workers must speak out against the current Israeli war crimes and atrocities. We call upon the International community to join us in the boycott of Israeli film festivals, Israeli public venues, and Israeli institutions supported by the government, and to end all cooperation with these cultural and artistic institutions that to date have refused to take a stand against the Occupation, the root cause for this colonial conflict.

      link to pacbi.org

    • Shmuel May 30, 2012 at 5:55 am

      But from the words immature, pointless and most ridiculously classless I get the impression that you have absolutely no idea about the plight of the Palestinian people, or are willfully ignorant and more concerned about a bunch of theatre goers having their evenings disrupted.

      Exactly. It also smacks of the condescension of power (see e.g. Golda's famous quip about the Black Panthers not being "nice", or any number of remarks by British colonial officers - the "white man's burden" and all that). The natives and the lower classes really have no sense of propriety and decorum. Interrupting Shakespeare! How uncivilised. Harumph.

    • Shmuel May 30, 2012 at 4:27 am

      Flip the equation, make it a Palestinian theatre production

      If you really want to "flip the equation" - i.e. transfer the protest to circumstances that evoke other sensibilities - how about Bolshoi 1974 or Springbok 1981?

      The bottom line in most of these arguments is usually whether you accept the rationale behind the protest or not. If the crimes being protested against are perceived as serious enough, all arguments of form and class and maturity and legitimacy tend to disappear.

      Is it an effective strategy? That's for those who actually support the goals of the protest to discuss.

    • Shmuel May 30, 2012 at 2:44 am with 1 replies

      A brilliant scene: link to youtube.com
      The Egyptian soldier is played by Palestinian actor Salim Dau.

  • Alterman says BDS shares Ahmadinejad's agenda, and Hezbollah's too
    • Shmuel May 29, 2012 at 10:45 am

      And again you chose to ignore my remark on your apparent support of the Palestinian narrative over the Zionist one.

      That's your paradigm, not mine.

    • Shmuel May 29, 2012 at 1:30 am

      I didn't expect you to get it, Oleg. I was not mocking, but pointing out the truly Fascist spirit of your comment (including the citation of a nationalist poem from the '30s, written very much in Fascist style). I don't expect you to understand that it's not about "narratives" or "sides" either.

      Is "¡No Pasarán!" your attempt to mock anti-fascism, or create an analogy between fascism and anti-fascism? I hope not, although it would not surprise me.

      And finally, good ol' Godwin. My comment was about Fascism not Nazism, and it was a valid one. Is there a law about someone inevitably bringing up Godwin whenever any aspect of Fascism is mentioned, regardless of its relevance?

    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 5:53 pm

      The perfidious enemy, no apologies or show of weakness, heroic bombast (often beginning with the words “A people”), mytho-history, victimism. Sounds like Italy - about 75 years ago (I'm sure Alterman - Nathan, not Eric - was familiar with D'Annunzio). You can still see the faded slogans on some of the buildings. Credere, obbedire, combattere.

    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm

      You're right, Dan. The Israeli position on labelling is completely untenable by any reasonable standard, but they're bluffing their indignant way through (including an outrageous dressing down of the South African ambassador) just the same.

    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 12:41 pm

      Shmuel you are now arguing that the Palestinians use RoR as a pressure
      point on Israel because Israel is to blame for the failure past negotiation

      No, I am arguing that Israel cannot dictate Palestinian interests and concerns, and that the argument that Israel should not be pressured to live up to its obligations under international law because the violations of Palestinian rights will be resolved through negotiation might have had a little more credibility had Israel ever seriously engaged in such negotiations. See e.g the preamble to the Palestinian Unified Call for BDS.

      It is ironic that you feel that the Israeli left, which actually bothers to ask Palestinians what they want, knows less about the subject than the Israeli right and centre that oscillate between declarations of "no partner" and affirmations of Palestinian "pragmatism". Of course it is not up to Israelis of any political stripe to decide what Palestinians want or what is good for Palestinians. This is an essential component of the Palestinian-led BDS movement.

      Palestinian claims regarding ROR have always been on the Palestinian agenda, precisely because it is a core Palestinian concern that (from the Palestinian perspective) lies at the heart of the conflict. I believe that Arafat largely ignored this concern (except as occasional rhetoric), with disastrous results.

    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 11:30 am with 37 replies

      The fact that it is a core concern means that it must be addressed seriously with the sincere intention of finding a "just solution". If Israel is only interested in addressing its own concerns or matters of little consequence to its ruling elite (such as some of the territories occupied since 1967), it should honestly declare that it is willing to negotiate the terms of Palestinian surrender, but is not interested in finding a mutually acceptable resolution.

      Since Israel has shown that it has no interest in such a mutually acceptable resolution any time in the foreseeable future, the Palestinians have been left with no choice but to pursue a rights-based agenda (including ROR). If Israel wishes to negotiate seriously it is free to do so at any time.

    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 11:10 am with 40 replies

      Maybe this is what Phil means by "conservative", but it's not just that Alterman approaches the entire issue from the perspective of power; he expects Barghouti and Palestinians in general, to do the same. While demanding greater Palestinian sensitivity to Israeli and Jewish identity and history, Alterman shows complete (and necessarily wilful) ignorance of Palestinian history and experience. Lots of nerve, no sense of irony.

      Were Barghouti to ask American Jews to join him in pressuring Israel to come to its senses and negotiate a secure settlement based on the 1967 lines, with necessary adjustments on both sides and some sort symbolic (and perhaps financial) redress for Palestinians without the “right of return,” he might stand a chance of attracting significant support even among American Jews and within the Israeli peace camp.

      The "Israeli peace camp" already supports that agenda. As for American Jews, or at least their institutions and leaders, even Beinart flesh-of-their-flesh, speaker-of-hard-truths-wrapped-in-soothing-reassurances is fighting an uphill battle to get that very message across. What chance could Barghouti (who does not love Israel, and is not a member of any known Zionist organisation) possibly have - and to what end, if such a campaign fails to address core Palestinian concerns in any meaningful way? I have little doubt that Alterman could successfully negotiate a peace deal with Jeremy Ben-Ami, but what would be the point?

  • Fear, the African refugees and the cost of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state
    • Shmuel May 29, 2012 at 10:19 am

      No, not an American story, but the world's a village (as the expression goes). There's more than enough fear to go around.

    • Shmuel May 29, 2012 at 7:07 am with 3 replies

      Thanks, Neta. A short story by Ilvo Diamanti, entitled "The Insecure Life of a Secure Man" (La vita insicura di un uomo sicuro) appeared in today's Repubblica. Ilan Tsion reminds me a little of "Max".

      link to repubblica.it (Italian)

      Here's an excerpt:

      I hardly know my neighbours, nor do I see them. I don't say hello when I bump into them either. Why should I? I don't know them. And I hardly see them. I leave the house directly by car. The only person I see relatively often is the neighbourhood "rep". He lives two streets away. I don't remember the name of the street (or his last name, to tell you the truth). All of the streets in the neighbourhood are named after musicians. It's very confusing. The "rep" takes care of all of the problems - big and small - in the neighbourhood, including security. Actually, security above all. I don't deny that I'm a little afraid. After all, I'm almost always alone. And we hear so much on TV and in the local papers. Sometimes, a neighbour, outside the garage door, stops me for a minute, to tell me about some attempted robbery in the area. Fortunately, I'm safe. Yes, safe. With the house and the fence protected by the alarm system and the cameras at every entrance and exit, the two rottweilers in the garden, the floodlights that go on automatically as soon as it starts to get dark. All I'm missing is a moat with alligators (but I'm thinking about it). And the streets around, pounded by the private (and armed) guards. How could I possibly not feel secure? And guarded? I'm in my own house, but it's almost like living in Alcatraz.

  • Slater on Beinart
    • Shmuel May 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm

      Jerome Slater has an excellent piece up on his site about Peter Beinart's book and its critics.

      I agree.

      Beinart is aware of the problem, admits that there is “a fundamental tension between Zionism and liberal democracy,” but thinks it can be resolved “to some extent” by granting equal citizenship to the Israeli Arabs as well as an independent state to the Palestinians. My own view is that this is exactly right.

      More than aware of the problem, I think that it is the essence of Beinart's own "crisis", that led him to take the positions that he has. Beinart's current optimism that the "fundamental tension" is resolvable "to some extent" would seem to correspond to his optimism with regard to Jewish education. I don't believe that he is not aware of the failings of Jewish education and the ways in which these failings relate to the failings of Zionism. He chooses however, to promote Jewish education today (as he promotes Israel and Zionism today), in light of what he sees as its potential. I'm sure he would agree (as I do, but from a different perspective) with Jerry Slater's closing sentence: "Yet, somehow, even if we believe the struggle is hopeless, we must act as if it isn’t."

  • Israel lobby's favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions
    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm

      I didn’t say that the self-identification of the Palestinians had anything to do with the “right” of return. You just assumed that.

      I didn't assume anything. I was just trying to get back on topic (the post is about Palestinian refugees).

      As to the right of return. Never going to happen. They can get over it, or keep fighting, but it isn’t going to happen.

      As I said, Israel should be honest and say that it is willing to discuss the terms of Palestinian surrender, but not a peaceful solution to the conflict. Maybe BDS will help put an end to Israel's ongoing violations of Palestinian human rights. Negotiations certainly won't.

    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 12:08 pm

      Yes, but at the time that was just a description for convenience

      Well, that settles that then. I count 21 such "descriptions for convenience" in the relatively short document.

      Your entire understanding of Palestinian national (pre-67) identity and Pan-Arabism strikes me as a description for (Zionist) convenience. There is no contradiction between the concept of Arab nationhood and Palestinian (or Egyptian or Syrian) peoplehood - as the charter itself explains.

      I agree that a distinct Palestinian national identity is a modern invention, precipitated (like Zionism and in direct relation to Zionism) by modern conceptions of peoplehood and nationhood promulgated in the 19th and early-20th centuries. To suggest that no such identity existed prior to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, is self-serving nonsense. Coupled with the assertion that Jews have had such a national identity for 3,500 years, it is simply nonsense.

      To return to the topic at hand, the ROR is an individual right, not a national one, so that Palestinians could have become a people yesterday or never, and Jews can be direct descendants of exiled Judeans or Khazari Johnny-come-latelies or the product of Heinrich Graetz' fevered imagination. It doesn't really matter in this context.

    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 5:38 am

      All Peoples are invented.

      That's a truism. The real questions are what does the term mean in a given context and what are its ramifications. The words people, nation, am, goy, umah, gens, ethnos, etc. have meant different things at different times.

      the Palestinian People were invented after the 6 day war.

      The concept of a Palestinian people in the modern sense is, of course, a modern invention (as are the corresponding concepts of Jewish, Israeli, French, German, Italian, Iraqi, Libyan, American, etc. peoples). Zionist propaganda likes to use the Six Day War as a cut-off point for Palestinians, but the Palestinian National Charter, ratified in 1964, repeatedly uses the terms "Palestinian Arab people", "Palestinian people" and "people of Palestine".

    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 4:47 am

      Speaking of "invented peoples", there's an interesting interview with Shlomo Sand in this weekend's Haaretz: link to haaretz.com

    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 4:29 am

      In any case, my point in quoting the source was to make clear that the Pyramid builders were not slaves and were not Hebrews. I didn’t mean to step on any toes. However one wants to define Jews, they weren’t pyramid builders.

      My toes are fine :-) I just thought it was a shame that someone (not you) trying to establish historical facts begins by misinforming and mystifying, while claiming to set the record straight.

      English today tends to distinguish between the three terms (Hebrew, Israelite, Jew), roughly corresponding to different historical periods. It was not always so in English or in other European languages (some of which continue to use equivalents of Israelite or Hebrew to refer to Jews), and it was/is certainly not the case in Hebrew.

      The bottom line however, that the pyramids were not built by "Hebrew slaves", is absolutely correct. Much of Samuel T's comment is based on religious mythology, rather than history, but this particular assertion is not even a part of Jewish religious mythology, and would seem to derive from Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments and certain American Haggadah illustrations (not to mention an offhand remark by Menachem Begin).

    • Shmuel May 28, 2012 at 3:57 am

      A Jew is someone who practices the Jewish religion. A Hebrew is someone who speaks the Hebrew language. An Israelite is a citizen of Israel.

      Of course the idea that the pyramids were built by Hebrew slaves is nonsense, but so is the above statement.

      A citizen of Israel is an Israeli. Israelite is used in the Bible to refer to the descendants of Jacob (also called Israel), and in Rabbinic literature as a synonym for Jew. Hebrew is used in the Bible to refer to descendants of Abraham ("the Hebrew"; more specifically through Jacob). Both Hebrew and Israelite have been used in modern times as synonyms for Jew. As for who/what is a Jew - let's not get into that again.

  • Saving Illinois from Senator Kirk
    • Shmuel May 25, 2012 at 2:22 pm

      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.

  • American Zionist responses to Tel Aviv riots-- largely indifferent, but some outrage
    • Shmuel May 25, 2012 at 1:43 pm with 1 replies

      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.

    • Shmuel May 25, 2012 at 1:24 pm with 2 replies

      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)

  • US to differentiate between 'personally displaced' Palestinian refugees and their descendants
    • Shmuel May 30, 2012 at 5:09 am

      The assertion that Sand has somehow been "debunked" by genetic research is rather silly. Sand does not argue that Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of Khazars, but questions the "traditional" account of the origins of Eastern European Jews, and points out that certain theories have been promoted while others have been suppressed, for political and ideological reasons. He also offers a summary of existing research concerning the possible Khazar origins of Eastern European Jews. Whether the Khazar theory is correct or not is completely irrelevant to the main theses of Sand's book.

    • Shmuel May 27, 2012 at 2:42 am

      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".

  • Aaron Sorkin's anachronism
  • Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from the country (and anyone who disagrees deserves to be raped)
    • Shmuel May 24, 2012 at 9:47 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 24, 2012 at 7:18 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 24, 2012 at 6:17 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 24, 2012 at 5:21 am

      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

    • Shmuel May 24, 2012 at 4:37 am with 6 replies

      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.

  • Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism
    • Shmuel May 27, 2012 at 7:27 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 27, 2012 at 3:08 am

      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?

    • Shmuel May 25, 2012 at 2:49 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 24, 2012 at 2:30 am

      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:

      Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; may they prosper that love thee. Peace be within thy walls, and prosperity within thy palaces. For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will now say: 'Peace be within thee.'

      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.

    • Shmuel May 24, 2012 at 2:17 am with 4 replies

      You are nitpicking, WJ. What do you think of the substance? This, for example:

      I finally had to admit to myself what I had known for a long time but was too scared to acknowledge: political Zionism, at its core, is a discriminatory ethno-nationalism that privileges the rights of Jews over non-Jews. As such political Zionism violates everything I believe about Judaism.

      Or this:

      In the past I believed that the discrimination I saw: the demolished homes, the uprooted trees, the stolen land were an aberration of the Zionist vision. I came to understand that all of these were not mistakes nor a blemishes on a dream, they were all the logical outcome of Zionism.

      As a Jew I believe in the inherent dignity of every human being. As a Jew I believe that justice is the core commandment of our tradition. As a Jew I believe that we are commanded to be advocates for the poor, the oppressed the marginalized. Zionism and the daily reality in Israel violated each of these core values. And, I could no longer be a Zionist.

      Or this:

      Tragically, Zionism has become the primary religious commitment for most liberal Jews, more important than any other commandment or ethical concern.

    • Shmuel May 24, 2012 at 1:59 am

      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).

    • Shmuel May 23, 2012 at 5:31 pm with 3 replies

      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.

    • Shmuel May 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm

      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".

    • Shmuel May 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm with 12 replies

      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.

    • Shmuel May 23, 2012 at 1:36 pm with 3 replies

      שפתים ישק משיב דברים נכוחים, Rabbi Walt. Thank you.

  • March of the Flags
    • Shmuel May 23, 2012 at 6:56 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 3:50 pm with 5 replies

      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.")

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 10:19 am

      Thanks, Sahar. Israel's very own Orange Walk (Blue Walk?).

  • The Messiah's Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the Israeli military watches
    • Shmuel May 23, 2012 at 3:22 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 12:06 pm

      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.

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 10:45 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 9:40 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 7:53 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 7:05 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 6:08 am

      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).

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 5:09 am

      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

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 3:54 am

      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).

    • Shmuel May 22, 2012 at 2:16 am with 2 replies

      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.

    • Shmuel May 21, 2012 at 5:23 pm

      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.

    • Shmuel May 21, 2012 at 12:44 pm

      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:

      You can see a settler shooting a Palestinian in order to kill him (fortunately only managed to injure) and the soldiers right next to him are not doing anything.

      From my own experience this is everyday reality in the occupied territories. It reflects in a very precise way the relations between the state and the army, and the settlers

    • Shmuel May 21, 2012 at 12:21 pm with 86 replies

      “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

  • Aharon Appelfeld's rage at the German language (and Arendt's need for it)
    • Shmuel May 21, 2012 at 11:41 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 21, 2012 at 10:11 am

      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 grew up and came of age in a small tobacco smoke filled apartment on the edge of the Wadi aN-Nisnas neighborhood of Haifa, where the remaining Arabs of Haifa who managed to avoid exile were herded in 1948. I slept sleepless nights on a carpet between the kitchen and a small living room. My life was not an ordinary life of an Arab child in Haifa. The house was always full.

      At night the kitchen saw an ensemble of insomniac old German Jewish professors, lawyers, and writers who had agglomerated around my parents. Always in dark uncolored suites and hats. Each night quietly lamenting, often wailing, for things that have passed. But what of the future? Nothing of the future that I can remember; except once in the ever so European synagog of Weizmann Institute, one of these professors insisted that I should study Mathematics at university; I was six years old and can't remember the language that was used but remember the sentence.

      In the afternoons our living room was heavily laden with young Arab poets and emerging intellectuals. The greatest Arab poet of our time, Mahmoud Darwish, passed through that room and converted packets of the Israeli brand TIME cigarettes into the poetry of our generation. These intellectuals spoke of the future and never of the past. These Arabs were aspiring, as it were, to appropriate for themselves Jewish humanist traditions. Plotting their own colonial enterprise. The colonisation of the coloniser.

      I like the idea of "colonising the coloniser".

    • Shmuel May 21, 2012 at 9:49 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 21, 2012 at 1:59 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 20, 2012 at 4:33 pm with 10 replies

      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".

  • Feeling the hate in Long Island
    • Shmuel May 21, 2012 at 11:52 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 21, 2012 at 2:19 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 20, 2012 at 1:08 pm

      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.

    • Shmuel May 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm with 11 replies

      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?

  • Monumental Dutch exhibit: Zionism built 'a house, a cage, a UN shelter... a zoo'
    • Shmuel May 20, 2012 at 12:05 pm

      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?

    • Shmuel May 20, 2012 at 11:25 am with 8 replies

      How post-post-postmodern of you, Oleg.

  • What forestry teaches us about ethnic cleansing
    • Shmuel May 19, 2012 at 10:58 am

      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!

  • Danish right-wing: ‘Made in settlement’ labels preempt Israel’s expanding borders
    • Shmuel May 19, 2012 at 5:03 pm

      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

  • U. of Haifa stops Nakba commemoration, as prof writes hate post calling for 'Many Nakbas'
  • Killing Without Consequence: New campaign challenges Israeli impunity
    • Shmuel May 20, 2012 at 2:57 am

      Thanks, Iman. What a terrible tragedy. May your struggle for justice spare other other families the pain you have suffered.

    • Shmuel May 19, 2012 at 5:48 pm

      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.

    • Shmuel May 19, 2012 at 4:01 pm

      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".

  • International attention must be paid to the Palestinian nonviolent movement
    • Shmuel May 19, 2012 at 2:56 pm

      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

    • Shmuel May 19, 2012 at 3:11 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 18, 2012 at 12:01 pm

      Aw shucks, bintbiba :-)

    • Shmuel May 18, 2012 at 11:31 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 18, 2012 at 10:15 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 18, 2012 at 9:32 am with 38 replies

      gilad,

      Reconciliation came after the abolition of apartheid and is an ongoing process.

      As another Barghouti (Omar) said:

      “When a master hugs a slave, it is not love, but rape. First the master-slave relationship must be ended, then we will be able to tolerate one another and eventually, who knows, maybe even come to love one another.”

  • Walzer says Jews were on the left because the left supported Jews
    • Shmuel May 20, 2012 at 3:32 am

      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.

    • Shmuel May 19, 2012 at 2:18 pm with 3 replies

      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".

  • Nobel Prize laureate J. M. Coetzee appears to boycott International Writers Festival in Jerusalem
    • Shmuel May 15, 2012 at 5:15 pm

      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?

  • 'The Nakba is BS': Right-wing Israelis protest student-run Nakba commemoration at Tel Aviv U
    • Shmuel May 15, 2012 at 9:46 am

      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.

  • West Virginia newspaper: 'Apartheid imposed on Palestinians'
    • Shmuel May 16, 2012 at 2:19 am

      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"?

Showing comments 5500 - 5401
Page:

Comments are closed.