Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1432 (since 2012-06-23 07:13:37)

Showing comments 1432 - 1401

  • Pro-Israel wealthy Jews feature in 'Forward,' Christie roast, and U of Michigan censorship
    • Kris: "These people live in an alternate universe."


      No, they are just playing hardball.

  • Netanyahu appoints Ayelet Shaked—who called for genocide of Palestinians—as Justice Minister in new government
    • "Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people."


      And thus some 20% of the Israeli population are full-fledged enemies of the state. What should be done with this fifth column? Abrogation of civil rights, total surveillance, internment, expulsion? 20% of the population *at war* with the nation--hard to see how that can be tolerated.

  • Israeli army can't stop patting itself on the back for helping Nepal victims
    • "Carter, who cancelled a planned visit to Gaza on this trip, said Saturday he “deplored” criminal acts by members of Hamas, but said he was looking to support moderate members of the group, which he said wasn’t a terrorist organization.

      “I don’t believe that he’s a terrorist. He’s strongly in favor of the peace process,” Carter said of Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal. "

      link to

  • Forgiving the anti-Semites
    • hophmi: "The Jews are supporting characters in Schindler’s List. The movie is principally about Schindler."


      Yes, actually that's correct. It's not about Jews really, it's about a German businessman saving the lives of over a thousand Jews.


      "Ideas for a film about the Schindlerjuden (Schindler Jews) were proposed as early as 1963. Poldek Pfefferberg, one of the Schindlerjuden, made it his life's mission to tell the story of Schindler. Spielberg became interested in the story when executive Sid Sheinberg sent him a book review of Schindler's Ark. Universal Studios bought the rights to the novel, but Spielberg, unsure if he was ready to make a film about the Holocaust, tried to pass the project to several other directors before finally deciding to direct the film himself." (Wikipedia)

    • DaBakr: "....the Zionists ‘plan’ to rule the earth."

      Hmmm.... what I read at Mondoweiss is that the Zionist plan is to pursue Zionist interests.

    • hophmi: "You hypothesize, based on no evidence, that these films were made because of Jews in power, rather than more mundane reasons, which is that the Holocaust is a major event in human history..."


      Good point. And I'm quite sure that if Arab-Americans dominated Hollywood, we would have gotten pretty much the same number of Holocaust and Nakba films that we've gotten from our Jewish-dominated Hollywood, and pretty much the same kind of Jewish and Arab character typing.

      After all, Hollywood isn't about ideology, subtly supporting US imperialism or Zionism, or any other political agenda--it's about making money. So Jew or Arab in charge, there would be no difference. Money has no ethnicity.

    • RoHa: “All I know is that if I were a Jew living in 1937 Germany or 1939 Europe, I would have gone anywhere that would take me and prayed that Hitler wouldn’t overrun it. ”

      And when you arrived in that country, would you then have joined a “Jewish national liberation movement” to take that country from its native inhabitants?


      RoHa --consistently --cuts to the very heart of the matter.

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • RoHa: Yes, an older meaning [ of "nation" and "nationality" which is not standard any more. If that is what hophmi means, he should say so.

      Again, I must disagree. The definition is older but it is not "non-standard." I've read quite a few books on European history by contemporary writers who have used the term "nation" with that standard older meaning.

      Benedict Anderson, referenced above, is one of the most influential modern writers on nationalism; many of his ideas are widespread, if not dominant. His concept of a nation as an “imagined community” of extended and shared connections is perfectly applicable to Jewish people who have such an "imagined" shared identity ("imagined" meaning its basis is ultimately subjective, not that it is false.)

      So, the meaning Hophmi is invoking is a fully standard, widely recognized one (especially in academic writing), although secondary in contemporary usage.

      RoHa: " The quotations prove only that Jews have claimed Jewishness is a nationality in some sense or another."

      No. The widespread categorizing of Jews and many other "imagined" (self-identified) ethnic-communites as "nations" is in no way simply a "Jewish claim"---its standard historiography, historical sociology etc.

      More importantly, I don't see the political-rhetorical effectiveness of trying to prove what will for many seem be a quite problematic proposition-- that Jews do NOT constitute a nation (or people).

      I humbly suggest that you would be better off not trying to invalidate centuries of standard historiographic, political and cultural usage of the term "nation" in regards to Jews and other groups, and instead relentlessly pose the clear, simple and entirely unanswerable question: how the hell does the fact that Jews might be a "nation" with "imagined" roots in ancient Palestine give them any moral or legal right to take over modern Palestine and cleanse that land of its non-Jewish residents, or subject them to an evil apartheid regime?

    • RoHa: “We Jews say we constitute a nation, and we have said it for a long time. ”

      There are two standard meanings for “nation”. Since neither of those meanings apply to Jews, either (a) they are mistaken, or (b) they are using a non-standard meaning for “nation”.

      I disagree. For centuries Jews have been considered a "nation" under an older standard understanding of the term.


      link to

      "11. The meaning which is given nowadays to the word “nation” in many countries is far removed from the original meaning.

      12. Historically, it would seem that use of the word dates back to the Middle Ages; it comes from the Latin natio, a substantive derived from the verb nascere (to be born), and denotes origin, membership of a community, a relationship to an entity within which one was born. "


      link to

      "Nation has various meanings, and the meaning has changed over time.[1] The concept of "nation" is related to "ethnic community" or ethnie. An ethnic community often has a myth of origins... and descent, a common history, elements of distinctive culture, a common territorial association, and sense of group solidarity. A nation is, by comparison, much more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its coherence, unity, and particular interests.[2]

      The nation has been described by Benedict Anderson as an "imagined community"[3] and by Paul James as an "abstract community".[4] It is an imagined community in the sense that the material conditions exist for imagining extended and shared connections."

      link to

      "Jewish ethnicity, nationality and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[33][34][35] Converts to Judaism typically have a status within the Jewish ethnos equal to those born into it."

      " Brandeis, Louis (April 25, 1915). [...] 'Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member'"

      " Einstein, Albert (June 21, 1921). [...] 'The Jewish nation is a living fact'"

  • Just like the Nazis, Iran 'plans to exterminate six million Jews' -- Netanyahu
    • hophmi: " Iran...threatened to annihilate the Jewish state repeatedly? "


      "Iran is a totalitarian state ruled by a cleric."


      "It funds terrorist groups and terrorist attacks around the world."


      " Why is that reality absent, completely, from your analysis?"

      Because your "reality" is a string of falsehoods. And you made no attempt to substantiate them.

  • My personal journey of transformation
    • Kris: "@Sibirak: “It is certainly possible to conceive of a Jewish- majority state with full civil rights for minority groups. That, however, is not the reality in Israel. But it could be a goal.”

      Why could a majority of any ethnic or religious group be an acceptable goal?"

      1) Israel within "1967" borders already has a Jewish super-majority. So the goal would be full civil rights for all non-Jewish Israelis (along with social and economic equality and other goals.)

      2) The desire of a people (ethnos) to be a political majority may not be the most enlightened of desires imaginable, but if such a goal does not entail the violation of the civil and individual rights of other groups (but it often does), it's certainly not the worst of political goals. In Russia for example, where I live as a foreigner, the Russian people see Russian majority-status in Russia as a non-negotiable given--they would certainly never accept minority status.. That kind of attitude is quite prevalent globally.

      All over the world there are movements for peoples, nations, indigenous groups etc. to create or maintain political entities in which those groups are majorities--call if self-determination of peoples, a "cardinal principle in modern international law"-- and in many states the majority status of a particular people/nation/ethnos is simply taken for granted.

      " How would that be achieved, other than by getting rid of people who adversely affected the demographic goal?"

      It could only be achieved --morally-- in a territory where a group was already a majority. That was/is the great evil in Zionism-- a "Jewish homeland" in Palestine *required* ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. And ethnic-cleansing continues to this day.


      "A goal of a “Jewish majority” nation sounds about as acceptable as a goal of an Aryan majority nation. What am I missing here?"

      Simply this: A Jewish majority already exists (built on innumerable past crimes) in "pre-1967 Israel" , i.e. Israel excluding the Occupied Territories. Those territories could become the sovereign lands of a Palestinian state, and Israel could be transformed from an ethno-theocratic militarist state into a liberal-democratic state with a Jewish-majority. "Could" meaning those could be acceptable goals, not that they are realistic ones. But then again, a single state comprising Israel, the West Bank and Gaza isn't so realistic either at this point.

    • Kris : "@DoubleStandard: “You don’t understand — none of the people at this website do. The entire of idea of Israel was a Jewish-majority country.”

      Aw, DoubleStandard, I DO understand! Israel is so much like the Confederate States of America, aka the Confederacy! I absolutely get it! The entire idea of the CSA was to continue their benign (and biblical!) tradition of black slavery."


      Strictly speaking, an ethnic-majority state need not be an ethnic-supremacist state that oppresses minorities.

      It is certainly possible to conceive of a Jewish- majority state with full civil rights for minority groups. That, however, is not the reality in Israel. But it could be a goal.

  • Israel could reduce anti-Semitic violence by not calling itself the Jewish state, Finkelstein says
    • yonah fredman: " it would be ideal to separate between Jew haters and haters of Zionism. But there is no practical means of doing so at this time."


      If you cannot distinguish hating *individual human beings* (simply for their membership in a group) from hating a pernicious *ideology*, then you are either intellectually feeble or intellectually dishonest.

    • yonah fredman: "The Sanhedrin, even if the gospel reports are accurate about their culpability, were nonetheless status quo politicians backing Herod and the rule of Rome. These were quislings, not representatives of the people. "


      Good point . I find it almost always inappropriate to use the expression "the Jews", unless quoting another source.

    • Kris: "We say “the U.S,” not “U.S. citizens,” even though there are U.S. citizens who do not support U.S. policies. "


      Yes, and it's a huge, obfuscating error when "we" do. Routinely, actions by a concrete power elite are demagogically conflated with the actions of a fictive organic national entity.

  • When occupation becomes apartheid
    • tree: "I don’t have “my people”. All people have worth and meaning and I don’t see any need to claim some restricted group in preference to all others. You ought to try it sometime. Its quite liberating and clarifying. It releases one from the idea that one must support or excuse evil actions just because they committed by “your people”. If everyone, and no one, is “your people” then you can focus on the actions without having to preface your judgment on who is doing it before deciding whether the action is right or wrong. And you can account for and understand the frailty and imperfections of all human beings, not just some limited group."


      Eloquent remarks--and many others in the exchange with Yonah. Thanks.

      (One of my problems is, many of "my people", if I have a "people", aren't people.)

  • American Jews are taking back their power from Israel
    • "It is too late for the two state solution; any real effort to establish a viable Palestinian state would start a civil war in Israel."


      And any real effort to create a single democratic state (Israel +Gaza + West Bank) would face far, far greater--near unanimous--opposition in Israel. So if a two-state solution is impossible due to Jewish Israeli opposition, then, a fortiori, a single-state solution is impossible as well.

  • Netanyahu won. Now what?
    • Avigail Abarbanel: "... the founders of the Zionist movement, however they defined themselves politically, were people motivated by fear and arrogance. They were ruthless enough to think that it would be OK to remove the indigenous population of Palestine to create an exclusively Jewish safe-haven. "

      Well, after all, they were Europeans.

    • Avigail Abarbanel: "The logical conclusion will mean an end to an exclusively Jewish state and the creation of a one state for all. "


      Another logical conclusion might be: we should support the creation of a separate Palestinian state, so that Israel can continue to exist with a Jewish super-majority.

    • On guilt, cf. Eric Hoffer, "The True Believer":

      "The most effective way to silence our guilty conscience is to convince ourselves and others that those we have sinned against are indeed depraved creatures, deserving every punishment, even extermination. We cannot pity those we have wronged, nor can we be indifferent toward them. We must hate and persecute them or else leave the door open to self-contempt."

  • Netanyahu's consciousness-raising
    • eljay: "When Jews fail to protect the Palestinians, they are not doing their best to protect the world, which means they are not doing their best to protect themselves "


      No. You got the logic wrong. It should be:

      When Jews fail to protect Palestinians, they are protecting themselves.

      When Jews protect themselves, they are protecting the world.

      Therefore: When Jews fail to protect Palestinians, they are protecting the world.

  • Netanyahu's speech and the American Jewish condition
    • hophmi: "So Annie, you believe Jews have too much power and you resent it."


      It's not about too much power-- it's about abuse of power.

  • One-state 'fantasy is very dangerous' because it cannot tell us what the military looks like -- Manekin
    • Kris: What makes it possible for Israeli Jews to look at the history of Israel and the 70+ decades (and counting!) of the lethal misery they have inflicted on the Palestinians and imagine that they have done anything worth praising “for justice in this place?”

      "Israeli Jews" are individuals. None is personally responsible for the entire "history of Israel". Each can only be judged by their own actions in their own lives. Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy et al. have led exemplary moral lives--their actions speak for themselves.

    • JeffB: They didn’t have a state yet but they had a proto-state

      That's accurate. Rashid Khalidi elaborates on that point in his book "The Iron Cage." He uses the expression "para-state":

      In order to protect the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine against the opposition of the majority of the population, the British were obliged to keep the reins of central state power in the mandatory administration entirely in their hands, even as they allowed the yishuv virtually total internal autonomy.

      This autonomy included full-fledged representative institutions, internationally recognized diplomatic representation abroad via the Jewish Agency, and control of most of the other apparatuses of internal self-government, amounting to a para-state within, dependent upon, but separate from, the mandatory state.


      Nor did the Palestinians even have a para-state structure like the Jewish Agency, since the British would only recognize an Arab Agency, as Passfield suggested they might in 1930, on condition that they accepted the terms of the Mandate. We have seen that the Palestinians considered the Mandate to constitute the negation of their national existence as a sovereign people in all of their country. An earlier British proposal, made in 1923, for an Arab Agency to be appointed by the high commissioner (rather than elected as in the Jewish case) was, in the words of Ann Mosely Lesch, “a pale reflection of the Jewish Agency,” without most of its power and functions, without sanction in the Mandate, without independence, and without international standing.

      This latter point is extremely important, for by the terms of the League of Nations Mandate, the Jewish Agency was “recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine.” The resulting recognized international standing of the Jewish Agency meant that the Zionist movement was entitled to diplomatic representation in Geneva before the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission, in London, and elsewhere.

      By contrast, the Palestinians had no international standing whatsoever, and indeed were often dependent on the hostile and unsympathetic British for such unsatisfactory diplomatic representation as they could obtain in Geneva and elsewhere.


      The significance of the quasi-official diplomatic status accorded to the Jewish Agency by Britain and the League of Nations through the Mandate thus cannot be overemphasized. It gave the Zionist movement an international legitimacy and guaranteed it invaluable access in world capitals, besides providing the framework within which the Zionist para-state that ultimately became Israel could be constructed without hindrance, and indeed with ample British and international support.

      Rashid Khalidi, "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood"

  • Menendez bags on Iran sanctions, and congressman says AIPAC demands deference to Israel over US
    • lysias: A nation that has experienced the world’s worst genocide just 70 years ago has not just a right but an obligation to take seriously any existential threats that loom against it.

      Israel experienced a genocide?


      "A nation"= "the Jewish nation" = "the Jewish people"

      See the Israeli supreme court definition of nationality.

  • Why I am not Charlie
    • Annie Robbins: it’s been a long day for me.

      Thanks for all the hard work. Your sharp intelligence and moral passion is greatly appreciated.

    • RoHa, in another thread you wrote:

      "I am always eager to lecture about grammatical issues, so I will support the first part of your correction. In “let’s go” the “let” is not permission but exhortation. The correct negation is “let’s not”

      The Oxford Modern English Grammar, however, seems to take a different view:

      A special type of imperative is the let imperative, exemplified in (30) and (31). In these cases the speaker is included in the directive. Thus we can interpret (30) as ‘Let’s you and I have a look at the list’.

      The negated versions of let imperatives are formed with the negated dummy auxiliary verb DO.

      30 Let’s have a look at the list.

      31 Don’t let’s tell the police.

      Aarts, Bas (2011-02-10). Oxford Modern English Grammar (p.171).

      Perhaps that is a British variant. I wouldn't use that construction myself.

    • Regarding "The perpetrators are not even called terrorists, just a “militant group "

      This may or may not be relevant:

      "As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore.

      (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism.

      If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."[3]

      For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc "

      link to

  • Don't let's go to the war of civilizations again
    • RoHa: "Depressing to see even Oxford publications contributing to the debasement of the language. "

      Not just Oxford, but Cambridge as well!

      There are two negative forms of let’s: let’s not and don’t let’s. Let’s not is more common:

      Let’s not argue about money. We can share the costs.

      Don’t let’s throw away the good books with the damaged ones. We can sell them.

      We can use the full forms let us, let us not and do not let us in very formal situations such as political documents and speeches, and religious and other ceremonies:

      Let us remember all those who have died in this terrible conflict.

      We must forgive, but let us not forget, what happened on that day ten years ago.

      Do not let us deceive ourselves that our economic problems can be easily solved.

      link to


      When it is used with the negative there are two alternative versions to choose from: don't let's or let's not. Both are very common.

      Let's not get too involved in their argument. It's better if they sort it out themselves.

      Don't let's go to Sheila's party tonight. Let's just have a quiet evening at home.

      link to


      Evidently, "don't let's" is standard English of longstanding usage, not a recent "debasement".

    • DoubleStandard: " So why does only Islam produce this? You could say it’s political circumstances in the Muslim world "

      Yes, you could. That wouldn't be the entire explanation, but it would be a central part of it.

      "but why doesn’t this lead to popular uprising against Western hegemony in the form of a secular-populist movement? "

      It did. The rise of political Islam came in the wake of the failure/repression of Arab secular nationalism.

      "You are at a loss to explain this."

      No, you are at a loss to explain why violent political Islam (and in fact militant religious fundamentalism in general) has become so salient today, when it was not so not very long ago.

    • [double post originally submitted to wrong thread]

      RoHa: “I am always eager to lecture about grammatical issues, so I will support the first part of your correction. In “let’s go” the “let” is not permission but exhortation. The correct negation is “let’s not”

      The Oxford Modern English Grammar, however, seems to take a different view:

      A special type of imperative is the let imperative, exemplified in (30) and (31). In these cases the speaker is included in the directive. Thus we can interpret (30) as ‘Let’s you and I have a look at the list’.

      The negated versions of let imperatives are formed with the negated dummy auxiliary verb DO.

      30 Let’s have a look at the list.

      31 Don’t let’s tell the police.

      Aarts, Bas (2011-02-10). Oxford Modern English Grammar (p.171).

      (I wouldn’t use that construction myself.)

  • Anti-Semitism at Fordham?
    • piotr: "There is a widespread confusion between two phenomena: anti-Semitism and New anti-Semitism."

      Anti-Islamism is the new anti-Semitism.

    • Page: 14
  • Dershowitz story is also an Israel story
    • lysias: [McClatchy] Witnesses inside the magazine’s offices told the French newspaper Humanité that both attackers spoke perfect French and claimed to be members of al Qaida.


      Another, unnamed witness from an office across the corridor said [...] there were two men running with guns, speaking in bad French …

      link to

    • "Told of the lawsuit on Tuesday, Mr. Dershowitz told Law Blog that he was “thrilled” by the development, “This gives me a chance to litigate the case. I can expose their corruption,” he said. “I can show how fraudulent the allegations are. This makes my day.”

      Mr. Dershowitz said the lawsuit will allow his lawyers — among other things — to depose Messrs. Cassell and Edwards and their client..."

      link to

  • Against self-determination
    • seafoid: "the Arab Peace Initiative has been gathering dust in Tel Aviv since 2003. Israel is not interested in peace. Those near million Jews were put in situ for a reason- to kill the notion that would ever be a Palestinian state. "

      True. That was the intention of the Israeli leadership.

      On the other hand, the Arab Peace Initiative (like the Geneva accords etc.) includes the possibility of land swaps which would allow large settlement blocs to be incorporated into Israel. That may be rightly viewed as unjust, but the fact remains that the vast majority of settlers would not have to be uprooted in order for the Palestinian state to become a concrete reality.

  • Dershowitz named in lawsuit alleging abuse of underage sex slave
    • "Dear Mr. Dershowitz: Statements attributed to you in the public media express a willingness, indeed a strong desire, to submit to questioning under oath regarding your alleged knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s extensive abuse of underage females as well as your alleged personal participation in those activities "

      Would it even be legal for Dershowitz to answer questions about Epstein given their lawyer-client relationship? In the interview I listened to, Dershowitz specifically mentioned that restriction, and he offered only to answer questions about his own personal life and conduct.

      Exactly where are these supposed statements by Dershowitz expressing a willingness to submit to questioning about Epstein?

    • Dershowitz was asked why he was assisting Assange. He replied:

      "At the beginning of the 1970s, I was involved in the legal fight to defend the New York Times’ decision to publish the "Pentagon Papers,” which revealed previously undisclosed background information on the Vietnam War. Back then, we won a fight for the freedom of the print press. Now, the fight is for the Internet and digital information. Then, we were right. Now, we are right. Wikileaks has the right to publish the information it obtained.

      [...] What is the fight about? It is about freedom of speech in the United States in the 21st century. Digital media have to be recognized as much as the traditional media. If Assange were convicted, the US government would be able to control information online, which would violate the First and the Fourth amendments [of the US Constitution]. It would be the legitimization of a judicial double standard: freedom of speech for the print press, but not for the online press."

      link to

      Regarding the Polanski case:

      " The filing charged prosecutors with providing false information to support a recent attempt to have Mr. Polanski extradited from Poland. It also demanded a hearing aimed at closing his case, based partly on fresh testimony that a Superior Court judge, in 2009, had unethically prejudged issues related to Mr. Polanski’s prosecution, and had a secret plan to jail him at least briefly, even while limiting his actual sentence to time served.

      [...]In his new legal effort, Mr. Dershowitz and Bart Dalton, who has been part of Mr. Polanski’s legal team in recent years, challenge the behavior of Judge Peter Espinoza, who oversaw Mr. Polanski’s case during a legal fight that erupted in late 2008. The dispute followed the release of a documentary film, “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” which described unorthodox and perhaps illegal procedures in the earlier conduct of the case."

      link to

    • link to

      "Rothstein devoted equal attention to female companionship in addition to his second wife, Kim, including spending $50,000 – $60,000 per month on prostitutes and throwing cash at a seemingly endless supply of women. This included putting women up in apartments, sending them to law school, financing international trips, and even housing a stripper at the Ft. Lauderdale Ritz Carlton. Rothstein also used his penchant for always having women at his disposal (aided by the fact that he represented several local escort companies) to entice potential investors through rumored sex parties at various condos he kept throughout Ft. Lauderdale. "

      And Rothstein’s firm represented some of Epstein’s accusers?!

    • CigarGod: " Complying with the deposition process...".

      For what its worth, Dershowitz says it is "totally false" that he was ever asked to be deposed. He has challenged Edwards and Cassell to depose him; he has challenged Jane Doe #3 to make her accusations outside of the courtroom, so that he can sue for defamation; he has challenged them to provide details so he can refute them point by point and prove he was not at the places/times alleged; and he has challenged them to file criminal charges against him so he can prove the charges are false (he says he is willing to waive statute of limitation applicability).

      Mr. Cassell has so far refused to discuss what evidence he found to back the allegations or what actions he took to verify them.

    • CigarGod: "Sibiriak, you seem to have an incorrect understanding of the legal process. Complying with the deposition process…is not being dragged thru the mud."


      With all due respect, I made no reference to the legal process at all, including the deposition process--I was referenced the "dragging through the mud" process alluded to in David Samel's post and subsequent replies.

    • David Samel: "He is not entitled to the presumption of innocence among the general population; that is only a right he deserves if he is ever a criminal defendant. Each of us is free to draw our own conclusion and engage in our own speculation. "

      True. But there is nothing admirable about rushing to judgment before allegations have been investigated and before evidence has emerged to support them.

    • Qualtrough: "I totally agree with David Samel’s comment here. Guilty or not, nobody deserves to have their name dragged through the mud more than Dershowitz."

      Whether he deserves it or not, it's not good for society that people, guilty or not, can have their names dragged through the mud before guilt has been established.

    • NoMoreIsrael": "All they need is ONE other eyewitness that places him with the girl and he’s toast. "

      Well, yeah, they needs to be some evidence to back up the allegations. So far: NONE. Where's the evidence? If there is some, please correct me.

    • NoMoreIsrael: "If you can listen to this interview and still entertain doubts that Filthowitz is lying, I scarcely know what to say. "

      I listened to it. I found Dershowitz's arguments strong, clear and logical. Whether he's telling the truth, I have no idea.

  • The 'bait & switch' politics of liberal Zionism
    • Oldgeezer: “Israel is gerrymandering on steroids. Gerrymandering is considered a violation of democratic principles and our courts hold it to be so. That defines a democracy for you. Too risible. I’m not going to even bother. There is nothing democratic about Israel.

      That the Israeli state/society has fundamental ethnocratic and theocratic features does not mean that it has no democratic aspects whatsoever.

      According to Adalah, the legal center for Arab minority rights in Israel:

      There are more than 50 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel in all areas of life, including their rights to political participation, access to land, education, state budget resources, and criminal procedures.

      link to

      A democratic vision for Israel would include the elimination of all those discriminatory laws and all ethno-theocratic features, while strengthening the existing democratic aspects of Israeli society.

    • Annie Robbins: “looking at the reality right now, as i see it, there is already one state and it’s been like that for decades. there is one government in control of all the land and every indication they will do everything in their power to continue the status quo of controlling all the land and pushing palestinians off of it. "

      That’s a logical view completely in accordance with the facts. There is, however, another way of characterizing the same reality (Israeli control).

      As Uri Avnery puts it:

      “There are those who say: It already exists. Israel already rules one state from the sea to the river, you only need to change the regime. So, first of all: there is no such thing. There is an occupying state and an occupied territory.”

      There is Israel and Israeli-occupied Palestine, comprising the West Bank and Gaza. (Gaza is ruled by Hamas, however it is blockaded and occupied by Israel via control of borders, airspace etc.) Israeli occupation and control does not mean that Palestine ceases to exist as a state. As Hostage has forcefully argued:

      “Propaganda aside, statehood is simply a legal status conferred on one country by another. The Palestinians already have a state that 138 UN member countries recognize, despite the Israeli occupation and illegal colonization.

      Hungary and the Baltic states didn't cease to exist, as states, simply because they were invaded or occupied. There have always been armies and militias without states; states without armies or militias; and a long list of occupied states with their own armies.”
      “The United States refused to recognize the unilateral annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union for 60 years.”

      On the one hand, the world is increasingly recognizing that Palestine exists as an occupied state alongside the state of Israel, while on the other, that occupation and colonization seems impossible to end, therefore there is growing support for a single democratic state.

      Ultimately, it’s a reflection of one’s political vision whether one views Gaza and the West Bank as occupied Palestine or views them as territory in an already-existing single state.

    • Interested Bystander: " I think you realize that “equal rights for all” is agreed on by all here"

      But given the global system of sovereign states, a individual cannot have full civil rights without having citizenship in some state. For many rights, state citizenship is a prerequisite. Palestinians cannot have full and equal rights as long as they are stateless. Therefore, if you want to talk about Palestinian rights, you really cannot avoid talking about what state they are going to be realized in.

    • Interested Bystander: " [...]So what work comes next? Citizenship for Palestinians and figuring out some kind of confederated arrangement, I would think. But noone is taking about that as I can see. Not the PA and not the Israeli government, and forget about Hamas.

      So while we wait for them all to get around to it, assisted by BDS, isolation, ICC rulings perhaps, etc., "

      None of the key political actors are interested in a single secular-democratic state vision, yet you think BDS, isolation and ICC rulings could force them into it?

      That doesn't make sense to me.

      I think you rule out a two-state vision too peremptorily (but that's par for the course here at MW).

    • Interested Bystander: "[...] it certainly doesn’t look like they are heading towards two states. If one state, then the border is at the Jordan river. "

      If it's one state, then it must include Gaza. And just how do you see (Hamas-ruled) Gaza being incorporated into Israel/Palestine? It certainly doesn't look like they are heading toward that.

    • Interested Bystander: "I’m saying, there legitimately are two visions and there’s nothing deceptive or mythical about fighting for the vision of Israel as a democratic nation state–even if there is lots of work to be done. I’m not sure what you are saying".


      He seems to be saying that the number of Jewish Israelis truly espousing the "democratic nation-state vision" is negligible: "most people want the country to remain an ethnocracy that privileges “Jews” (by some definition) over all others in many aspects of life."

  • Updated Security Council resolution calls for East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital, Israel says UN creating 'second Hamastan'
    • ritzl: "" With all due respect, “In any event” is a disconnect/de-link, not a hedge. "

      ?? I made no reference to the phrase "in any event."

      "the inevitability of one state is completely separate from these current two state gyrations..."

      I referred to the supposed inevitability of 1S1P1V. Following your logic, Israel will "never allow" 1S1P1V in a single state comprising Israel, Gaza the and the West Bank, so that eventuality is far from inevitable "at this point."

    • ritzl: "In any event, 1S1P1V is the inevitable outcome at this point."


      "At this point"? That hedging phrase defeats the meaning of "inevitable".

      In any case, I'm surprised so many people think that some possibility deep into the future, with no clear steps to realization, is "inevitable."

    • Shingo: " Whatever war crimes Hamas might have committed pale into insignificance."

      Absolutely true.

      But Israeli legal actions at the ICC could certainly muddy the waters. From a legal standpoint, each case stands or falls on its own merits, not in comparison to other crimes. In the end, years later, the court could end up convicting some Israelis and some Palestinians. Then what?

    • ritzl: " If the PA delays going to the ICC this time, yeah, it’s over for the PA. "


      I'm curious: how do you see the PA/ICC option playing out ideally? What cases would be brought? Which would be accepted? How long would they take? What individuals would be convicted? What would be the results of those convictions for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict?

  • Israel's upcoming elections and the false nostalgia of Liberal Zionism
    • Ramzi Jaber: "Waiting TWO days would have forced the us to veto and show its true colors."


      The U.S. voted against the resolution; it's true colors have been and continue to be fully visible.

  • Caroline Glick says there were no Palestinian refugees
    • ivri: "... the Palestinians most likely are unable to give up on the right of return claim"

      In fact, Palestinian leaders have already given up on any fully effective "right of return", agreeing on multiple occasions to a largely symbolic "right of return" w/compensation etc. which would allow very few Palestinians to return to Israel proper.

  • 'Israel is becoming an isolated ghetto,' says Amos Oz
    • Walid: "Shingo, the guy was always down there, he just used more polite language. I’d throw in the same kettle Avnery and Grossman and all those other ones that pretend to care about justice for the Palestinians ..."

      I have seen no evidence that Avnery is not sincere in his beliefs, whatever you may think of them.

      In any case, Avnery clearly rejects the central notion of liberal Zionism: that Israel is and should be the nation-state of the Jewish people.

      Here, for example, he rips apart Zionist Shlomo Avineri's defense of that notion:

      "In his article, Avineri argued passionately that Israel is a Jewish state “as Poland is a Polish state and Greece is a Greek state”. He was responding to a Palestinian citizen of Israel, Salman Masalha, who had asserted that there cannot be a “Jewish state”, much as - he says - there cannot be a “Muslim state” or a “Catholic state”.

      How can one compare, Avineri cried out. After all, the Jews are a people! Israel belongs to the Jewish people, whose religion is Judaism.

      Logical, isn’t it?

      BY NO means. The analogy does not fit.

      If Poland belongs to the Poles and Greece to the Greeks, Israel belongs to the Israelis. But the Israeli government does not recognize the existence of an Israeli nation. (The courts have not yet decided upon the petition by some of us to be recognized as belonging to the Israeli nation.)

      If Avineri had demanded the recognition that Israel belongs to the Israelis as Poland belongs to the Poles, I would have applauded. But he argues that Israel belongs to the Jews. This immediately raises some basic questions.

      For example: Which Jews? Those who are Israeli citizens? Clearly, this is not what he means. He means the “Jewish people” dispersed all over the world, a people whose members belong to the American, French, Argentine nations – and, yes, also to the Polish and Greek nations.

      How does a person become an American? By acquiring American citizenship. How does a person become French? By becoming a citizen of the French republic. How does a person become a Jew?

      Ah, there’s the rub. According to the law of the State of Israel, a Jew is somebody whose mother is Jewish, or who has converted to the Jewish religion and not adopted any other religion. Ergo: the definition is purely religious, like that of a Muslim or a Catholic. Not at all like that of a Pole or a Greek. "

      link to

  • On eve of University of California honor, Bill Maher defends anti-Muslim hate speech in Vanity Fair interview
  • Yes, Virginia, there is a liberal Zionist
    • RoHa: " I cannot forbear from pointing out that you seem to be the one obsessed with hate. [ETC.]"


      Really great, thoughtful, incisive post!

    • Mooser: " If there is an inherent fault in the Jewish religion (and a religion is made of people, isn’t it?) "


      No, a religion is not "made of people"; it's made of myths, beliefs, ideology, ritual, organizational structure etc.

      It seems this category error leads you to believe that criticism of Jewish religion= criticism of Jewish people. Given that belief, your qualms are entirely understandable.

    • Mooser: " Problem is, very little of it is true, unless you are a right-wing mouth-breather."

      Sean wrote: “the treatment by white police of blacks is a major problem in American society"

      True. And he wrote:

      " ...the Michael Brown case was a poor symbol on which to try to build a civil rights crusade"

      Debatable, sure. But I agree. And I'm not right wing.

      "his strong arm robbery and physical bullying of storekeeper much smaller than him, and his attempt to wrestle a gun from a cop after punching him..."

      You could quibble, but that's basically what the facts establish.

      "undermined the moral clarity of this incident for most of the American public"

      Again, debatable. But reasonable and verifiable via opinion polls.

    • seanmcbride: "Sibiriak, Would you agree that the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is the main pillar of the Israel lobby?

      I haven't made a complete anatomy of the Israel Lobby, so I wouldn't want to commit myself to that proposition, but I'm willing to assume that for the sake of argument.

      As you know, I'm quite sympathetic to your points and think most of them are valid. I was only wondering (not arguing) whether focusing on the ideological roots of Zionism in (Classical) Judaism (ala Shahak for example), however insightful, might be counterproductive in a *practical* sense--because its too touchy.

      In any case, at the moment I spending a lot time on other issues---Ukraine, the conflict of "the West" with Russia, geo-economics etc.-- so my posts here have not been as fully thought out as I would like them to be.

    • Mooser: " you old son-of-Irgun"


      Lol. Good one.

    • seanmcbride: "...the Michael Brown case was a poor symbol on which to try to build a civil rights crusade."


      Perhaps the notion Zionism is rooted in Judaism (which slips easily into Zionism=Judaism), however valid, is a poor ideological formulation with which to try to strengthen the anti-Zionist crusade.

    • seanmcbride: "Wrt to Ferguson: my point of view is that the treatment by white police of blacks is a major problem in American society, but that the Michael Brown case was a poor symbol on which to try to build a civil rights crusade — his strong arm robbery and physical bullying of storekeeper much smaller than him, and his attempt to wrestle a gun from a cop after punching him, undermined the moral clarity of this incident for most of the American public.

      That's a very reasonable position, and very well put.

  • Bypassing Israel: The necessity of recognition in European capitals
    • ritzl, you quote Hostage saying: "accepting the existence of the occupied state of Palestine for the purposes of prosecuting Israel for the crime of apartheid has nothing to do with accepting the viability of the existing territorial entity or the finality of a two state solution."

      But the European nations in question are not simply "accepting the existence of the occupied state of Palestine for the purposes of prosecuting Israel", but moving toward recognition of Palestine as a separate sovereign state next to a sovereign Israel in order to end the conflict once and for all.

      More succinctly, European recognition of Palestine = European backing for a final two-state solution.

  • Why Israel's Jewish nationality bill is a big deal
    • amigo: “there is no doubt that land was set aside for a jewish state by the un”mcc
      </iThere is no doubt that is zionist hogwash. There was no mention of a jewish state

      Actually, UN Resolution 181 called for the partition of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State. There are numerous references to the proposed Jewish State.

      link to

  • Saban confronts Bennett: 'Are you willing to cut commercial ties with Europe?'
    • hopmi: "clearly, the entire passage is about what products Israel makes, and about how those products are important. They’re not a threat to shut anything off ."

      Yes, that's the obvious commonsense interpretation. Bennett's phrasing was awkward and unclear, though.

      Kris: "@hophmi: Here is, again, what Bennett said: “Look, if today you pressed the button, and you stopped using Israeli products, you wouldn’t wake up in the morning because the chip in your cell phone doesn’t work because it’s tmade in Israel.”

      So what is your problem? He said that you wouldn’t wake up because the chip wouldn’t work BECAUSE THE CHIP IS MADE IN ISRAEL"

      Bennett is saying that if you *stopped using Israeli products*, your phone would not work because it uses an Israeli product. The chip that is made in Israel that makes the phone work would not be there if Israel were boycotted, so your phone wouldn't work. That's Bennett's point, however awkwardly expressed.

      Whether that is a realistic assessment is another question.

  • Mamdani's 'holistic' challenge: Anti-Zionists must persuade Jews they can only be safe by dismantling the Jewish state
    • Sibiriak: A somewhat different question: “How could Palestinians convince Israeli Jews that dismantling Israel would make Israeli Jews feel safe?” I don’t see that happening in the foreseeable future.

      pabelmont: Neither did Mamdani


      Well, Mamdani (and Weiss) did assert that such a persuasive effort was in order, which implies that it has a foreseable chance of success.

      pabelmont: " He merely said it was the prerequisite for a fairly-voluntary negotiated peace more or less fair to Palestinians. He did not, I believe, discuss the alternative of a “solution” imposed on Israel (or on all parties) by outside forces."

      He also did not, in the excerpts above, explain how Israeli Jews could NOT be persuaded to dismantle a PORTION of the Zionist-state --a minority of the settlements for a two-state settlement-- but COULD somehow be persuaded to dismantle the ENTIRE Zionist state.

    • " The Zionist message to the Jewish population of Israel is this, Zionism is your only guarantee against another holocaust. "

      For Israeli Jews, the more realistic Zionist message is probably just as compelling: that life in a Jewish-majority state would be greatly preferable to life in an Arab-majority one.

      And its not only a negative message; it has a positive side: "Jewish self-determination."

    • "How can he scare people with the threat of “equal rights?"


      Cf. Michael Mann: "The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing"

      "...democracy has always carried with it the possibility that the majority might tyrannize minorities, and this possibility carries more ominous consequences in certain types of multiethnic environments."

    • DoubleStandard: " How would dismantling Israel make jews safe? "


      A somewhat different question: "How could Palestinians convince Israeli Jews that dismantling Israel would make Israeli Jews feel safe?"

      I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future.

  • Elizabeth Warren visits Netanyahu, even as he undermines US negotiations with Iran
    • Horizontal: "I will not vote for any candidate who places the welfare of a foreign country above our own. "I"


      Unfortunately, they all do. That "foreign country?"-- transnational capital.

  • David Remnick undermines Israel's one-state president
    • " Remnick puts the problem front and center. Israel’s new president advocates for one state with citizenship and equal rights for all. "

      Nonsense! Rivlin does nothing of the sort. He advocates the absorption of the West Bank into Israel, but NOT GAZA (and not any Palestinian refugees/descendants). That leaves TWO states, not one. That leaves a Palestinian minority in an Jewish-supremacist Israeli State.

      Cf. Noam Sheizaf "What is the Israeli Right's one-state vision?"
      link to

      "The right-wing figures and settlers I spoke to have some different nuances among them, but generally, their one-state solution would look like this: gradually and unilaterally, Israel would annex the West Bank (different time frames were given for this process – from five to 25 years); beginning with Area C and then moving to B and A. Barring security clearances (and according to some – loyalty oaths), all Palestinians will end up having blue Israeli identity cards with full rights. The army will return to dealing mostly with national defense, and the police will take over civilian policing duties in the annexed territory.

      Constitutional measures that will define Israel as a Jewish State would take place in advance (some mentioned passing a basic law defining Israel as a Jewish State, something Netanyahu is already promoting). Palestinian refugees will not be allowed back. Gaza will not be annexed, and will turn to a fully independent region, separated from the State of Israel.

      Except for Rivlin, who floated the idea of a dual parliament system (which actually makes his one state closer to a confederative model), none of the others mentioned major changes in the electoral system and they expected Palestinians to vote for the Israeli Knesset (which might have to become slightly bigger, but this is of little importance).

      Separating Gaza from their model is necessary for right-wing one staters in order to maintain a Jewish majority in the unified state. For the same reason, they rely on the demographic calculations of Yoram Etinger, who puts the total number of Palestinians in the West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) at 1.5 million..."

  • Netanyahu's 'battle for Jerusalem' can't end well for any of us
    • NormanF: "The massacre at Har Nof is a game changer for the Jewish State"


      No, the game remains the same. Expand; expel.

  • Recognizing Palestine—and political reality
    • " Partition can take one of two forms: the Kerry proposal, with Israel annexing the major settlement blocs at the expense of Palestinian viability, or the international consensus two-state settlement..."

      Or anything in-between.

  • Shlomo Sand resigns from being Jewish. Totally. Mostly. Almost
    • Keith: "Are you suggesting that Judaism is more than a religion whereas Christianity and Islam are merely religions? "


      I was just elucidating the possible meanings of the word, not advocating any particular definition.

      In addition to the Wikipedia article linked above, see , for example Merriam- Webster's third and fourth definitions of the term "Judaism":

      3: the cultural, social, and religious beliefs and practices of the Jews
      4: the whole body of Jews : the Jewish people

      link to

      So, yes, the word can refer to more than simply a religion.

    • Mooser: "Sands is a self-described atheist. I don’t think he is much concerned for the Jewish religion, Judaism."

      "Judaism" refers not just to "the Jewish religion," but to " the philosophy, and way of life of the Jewish people" as well.

      link to

  • Israeli Supreme Court upholds law allowing housing discrimination against Palestinians
    • DoubleStandard: ut when a population – admittedly not monolithically, but by a sizeable majority – makes clear it doesn’t want to participate in the life of the state, who are they to demand equality? .

      But non-Jewish Israelis DO wish to participate in the life of the state--and they ARE participating in the life of the the state through their very actions to change the Israeli state's undemocratic, discriminatory, ethnic-supremacist and theocratic features. To me, fighting for democracy within a state is the very essence of good citizenship.

    • DoubleStandard: “Israel is the state of the Jewish people"

      Yes, that is the common Zionist contention, but in any case, the "Jewish People" is defined primarily in ethnic/genetic terms, not religious ones (though religion plays a role). One doesn't have to believe in or practice any form of Jewish religion to be a member of the Jewish People. The operative expression is for good reason the "JewishPeople," NOT "Adherents of the Jewish faith" . A "state of the Jewish People" , therefore, inescapably involves discrimination against non-Jews on ethnic as well as religious grounds.

    • DoubleStandard: "Since many Israeli Jews are in fact Arabs, it’s religious discrimination, not racial. "
      I don’t think Israeli Arabs want Jews moving to their towns. I’m currently in a “Jewish” part of Israel and there are plenty of Arabs walking around"


      You first make a distinction between religious and racial identity, then go on to completely ignore that very distinction, talking about "Israeli Arabs" and "Arabs walking around" is if they could not be Jews.

  • Israel's right wing Zionists, Palestine's militant resistance are political winners after Gaza slaughter
    • " Israel’s right wing Zionists, Palestine’s militant resistance are political winners..."


      The one-democratic-state-solution idea is dead.

    • Kay24 : " The biggest favor the Beebs could have done for Hamas. "


      The stronger and more popular Hamas, the stronger and more popular the Israeli right.

  • Our new look
  • Jodi Rudoren loves a winner
    • Keith:

      All movements proclaim high ideals and moral grounding, however, all need to be judged on their actions...

      True, the "actually existing" movements need to be judged on their actions, but their ideals and ideologies need to be judged on their own terms, imo.

  • Democratic Party leader echoes Netanyahu's new theme: Hamas equals ISIS
  • Ceasefire comes to a close -- Mohammed Assaf's 'Raise Your Head High'
    • MHughes976:

      Anyone with friendly, or even objective, attitudes to Palestinians would say, for a start, that they have rights equal to anyone’s and deserve to be fully enfranchised citizens of a fully sovereign state with frontiers determined by a normal procedure.

      Hence the enduring relevance of a two-state solution, despite Israel's relentless expansionism.

  • Liberal Zionism has lost its refuge-- a plausible two-state solution
    • At The National, Joseph Dana writes that the Gaza onslaught has deepened the understanding that the two-state solution is a dead letter because Israel’s militant response to Palestinian unity shows that it has no intention of allowing a viable Palestinian state to emerge...

      If Israeli intentions are the deciding factor, then a one-state solution is even less plausible than a 2 -state solution.

  • How the Israeli discourse on terrorism seeks to justify blatant war crimes
    • Djinn:

      If they then took up arms with any of the armed groups committing the ongoing Nakba, then yes they were terrorists.

      And if they were at all sympathetic to the ongoing Nakba, they were-- "terrorist sympathizers."

  • Jodi Rudoren and Abe Foxman mull over 'the Arabs' owning New York hotel
    • Mooser:

      They will never forget those six years. Six years can be a lifetime when an existential threat takes over your favorite hotel!

      I detect in your remarks a troubling indifference to Jewish post traumatic dynamics.

  • Gaza war gives rise to new Jewish group targeting Jewish institutions that support occupation
    • Dan Crowther:

      I’m happy to have jewish folks start wholly ineffective, sectarian peace groups, I just don’t see why it needs to be congratulated, publicized and so on.

      Publicity is what these groups are all about. If you want them to be effective , then, yes, you should publicize them, promote them, praise them to high heaven.

      And it is critically important that there be such Jewish groups . It sends a clear message: opposition to specific Israeli policies is not "anti-Jewish", "anti-Semitic", or even necessarily "anti-Israeli".

      The problem isn't that such groups are getting too much publicity; it's that they are getting too little.

  • What Jim Fallows and I saw
    • tokyobk:

      But I am going to make a speculation that “the jews problem” for you is not going to go away with Israel.

      How can such speculation, devoid of supporting evidence or argument, be considered anything other than vile character assassination?

    • Philip Weiss:

      Just as Ed Miliband’s outspoken criticism of Israel in UK shows that Jewishness and Zionism are overlapping categories but by no means an identity.

      It's also true that criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism are overlapping categories but by no means an identity.

  • Remnick gets the timeline wrong
    • It’s true, Rivlin is a one state guy, but he’s willing to give everybody citizenship.

      Perhaps not. According to the provided link:

      4. An unabashed proponent of the one state solution, Rivlin advocates giving full Israeli civil and political rights to West Bank Palestinians in a single-state scenario.

      link to

      No mention of GAZA and its 1.6+ million Palestinians. Israeli annexation of the West Bank alone is not a "one-state solution."

  • Video: A beautiful brother went looking for his family in the death zone (Updated)
    • just:

      we have to use the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ right back at them, then.

      Yes! Yes! Yes! "Terrorism" easily trumps "war crimes", "human rights violations" etc. There is no alternative.

  • Israel is in a pickle
    • Bumblebye:

      Interesting Walid. Israel will be unable to claim ‘terroreeesm’ if these Hamas forces haven’t made for civilian homes and massacred them, will they! If Hamas victims are military,...

      Attacks on military targets by various groups are routinely labeled "terrorism" by state propagandists. The U.S. has consistently done this--the 1983 barracks bombing in Lebanon is a classic example, but only one of many. The Kiev regime is labeling attacks on Ukrainian military forces as "terrorist attacks". ETC.

    • American:

      ” if israel can’t stop the rocket fire they are in a pickle, that’s my point. you can have the last word.’….annie

      o.k. my last word.
      If Israel cant stop the rocket fire they will keep on assaulting Gaza with that as their justification.

      I agree. Assaulting Gaza. Rejecting any genuine peace process. Occupying the West Bank. Warehousing Palestinians. Annexing territory. Labeling Palestinians "terrorists". Suppressing domestic dissent ( however little there is). Bolstering a militaristic fortress state-society. ETC. Low-damage rocket fire is in Zionist/militarist interests.

  • Palestinian citizens of Israel protest draft in Tel Aviv as passersby tell them to die or emigrate
    • If the path to the future is towards one state

      "One state"-- including Gaza, or it's not one state. What path do you see toward that?

  • Settler legislators call for annexing West Bank blocs to 'return us to sanity and Zionism'
    • ritzl:

      if Israel does de jure annex “Area C,” what will they do with the 300K Palestinians living there

      Not all of Area C: the bills call for annexing "different settlement blocs, making up most of Area C ; some areas with dense Palestinian populations would likely be excluded. Palestinians ending up in Greater Israeli territory would get full Israeli citizenship.

  • The NYT and the NSA: Abramson and Baquet have different journalistic values
  • 'NYT' publishes unvarnished ADL propaganda: 93% of Palestinians are anti-Semites
    • W.Jones :

      The number 1 problem with the survey is that it asks a stereotypical question format: “Are Jews X?” If you answer Yes OR No, you have made a generalization about all Jews.

      Good point.

  • Israeli teens take celebratory selfie in police custody after attacking Palestinian car
    • Ellen:

      ... Zionism is no different. Like the ADL it desperately needs real or imagined Judeophobia to keep itself going. Without it, Zionism would die.

      Well, the ADL's latest research claims to show that 26% of people worldwide are anti-Semites as are 93% of the people in Gaza and the West Bank.

      link to

  • Abunimah and Blumenthal's freedom ride
    • Hostage:

      The notion that Abbas “led” the peace process is detached from reality.

      Correction: Abbas has led the Palestinians in a fraudulent peace process led by others.

    • irishmoses:

      Abbas has been in charge for 10 years and what do the Palestinians have to show for his nonviolent efforts?

      Abbas has led a fraudulent "peace process," not any kind of massive non-violent intifada.

    • yonah fredman:

      I don’t believe that Gaza is large enough to be considered a sufficient sized state to address the needs of the Palestinians for statehood.

      Ya think?

  • Don't destroy our dream-castle Israel! (Why the Jewish establishment shut out J Street)
    • yonah fredman:

      ... the idea that [Netanyahu] would annex Area C or Area B, is preposterous, given his realpolitik.

      What consequences does he fear?

  • Two-state solution is 'psychological solution' allowing people to take themselves off the moral hook -- Telhami
    • pabelmont:

      But merely proposing a “solution” without proposing a means to achieve it, without a reasonable reality-based hope for it, is self-delusion.

      And what are the means to attain a 1SS, uniting Gaza/West Bank and Israel, which could not just as well and more easily be used to obtain a 2SS?

    • And he predicted that with the end of peace talks, the Obama administration’s only real option is to lay out a specific plan for a solution of the conflict, ala the Clinton Parameters

      And that "solution", involving highly truncated Palestinian mini-state, will set the standard for an internationally acceptable outcome.

  • As Israel 'staggers toward the abyss,' criticizing it is now 'the most fashionable cause' on the left
    • John Kerry:

      A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state...

      link to

  • Bait-and-switch anti-Semitism: NYU SJP accused of targeting Jews, or not
  • Obama and Kerry are spurred by 'vainglory' in pursuing talks -- Finkelstein
    • Citizen:

      Dismantling the PA would mean either conning the UN into taking over the territory directly, an unlikely proposition, or simply handing the keys back to Israel and forcing the Israeli military, the official governor of the occupied territories, to handle basic services in major cities.

      Or: Israel annexes Area C etc. and lets Palestinians keep the keys to the remaining populous areas in the West Bank. The West Bank then becomes like Gaza: nobody is forcing Israel to handle basic services etc. there.

    • Israel constitutes a “strategic asset” of the US

      How about, "Many in the US ruling elite believe Israel constitutes a “strategic asset” of the US."

  • Palestinian youth say the talks with Israel are futile
  • Two desperate anti-Semitism charges, from Foxman and Boteach
    • Krauss:

      The reason why using anti-Semitism in Zionist advocacy is dangerous is precisely because it weakens any attempt to root out real anti-Semites..

      And you, Krauss, are a perfect example of this, with your hysterical, irrational, absolutely baseless charges of anti-Semitism against puppies.

  • Amid 'climate of fear' at Vassar, president comes out against 'action and protest' re Israel
  • The Jewish community must not embrace Ayaan Hirsi Ali
    • LeaNder, it's "to the extent," not "extend ." Sorry to nitpick, but you made the error three times, so I thought it might be helpful to point it out. I very much appreciate your posts here--they always have some mysterious ambiguous element that keeps me thinking, like poetry.

  • Simon Schama's Israel whitewash
    • the program shows a long except from David Ben-Gurion’s speech of May 14, in which he announced that “the Jews have come home from their exile.”

      The notion of a grand "exile of the Jewish People" is mythological, not historical.


      Israel Jacob Yuval, "The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel"

      link to

      (link to

      link to

      Israel Bartal, dean of humanities at the Hebrew University:

      “Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions...

    • seanmcbride:

      In viewing all five episodes of Simon Schama’s The Story of the Jews, I was struck by the relentless main theme: Jews have been in conflict with “the nations” — one national enemy and Pharaoh after another — since the inception of Judaism to the present day, century after century.

      A very important observation. The creation of a grand "story" relentlessly expressing the theme you identified -- this is Zionist myth-history.

  • Ultra-Zionists push back as Jewish establishment tacks toward center
    • Krauss:

      It is striking to me that Bronner, when pushed to the wall, doesn’t consider what is best for the readers. [ETC.]

      Good catch. Excellent points.

  • 'A Painful Price': The escalating war on Palestine solidarity at U of Michigan and beyond
    • puppies:

      those “some things” must necessarily be inborn. Everything else, i.e. acquired later and kept consciously, is open to rational criticism.

      As a point of logic, why would "some thing" necessarily be exempt from rational criticism just because it was "inborn"? And why can't "unconscious choices" be open to criticism?

    • LeaNder:

      Hardly “uniquely” French

      "Unique in French history" does not mean "unique to French history".

    • JeffB:

      I’d love a world where no one think to question Jewish legitimacy, where Israel for Israelis is as non controversial as Sweden for Swedes;

      "Israel for Israelis" IS utterly non-controversial. "Israel is the state for the Jewish People, not its citizens" ---much less so.

  • MJ Rosenberg’s conundrum
    • talknic:


      Absolutely possible. Gaza is under occupation or blockaded. Whatever the terminology---EITHER WAY, it is NOT part of a single de facto state including Israel.

      Neither Gaza or the West Bank have seceded from Palestine.

      Agree. The point stands: IF the WB were to be annexed by Israel, legally or illegally, via referendum or not, Gaza would still remain outside of Israel.

      So, by what conceivable political process could Gaza become part of a single state including Israel? Answer that. And if it does not, there is no 1SS.

Showing comments 1432 - 1401