Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3056 (since 2011-08-30 20:10:31)


I quit my Jewish membership. It was easy and without costs.

Showing comments 3056 - 3001

  • Do not turn the Balfour Declaration into a holy Jewish text
    • What JeffB is trying to say is that the violation of the Palestinian's right to self determination was good, because it was good for the Jews and still is.

  • An Atheist in the Yeshiva: The education of Yossi Zvi Gurvitz
    • JeffB: "The rhetoric around BDS is genocidal not reformist ..."

      Of course. To call for the implementation of international and human rights law and the right to equality for everyone who has the right to live in historical Palestine whether he or she is Jewish or not would be "genocidal" to every Apartheid regime. Allthough genocide means something else. But being a Hasbara troll you even confuse the deportation of illegal immigrants/settlers as genocide. Maybe you have genocidal fantasies when it comes to Jews.

      JeffB: "... clearing multiple [...] cities and towns of their entire population ... and flooding its civilization with an alien hostile population ..."

      You are confusing BDS with Zionists, JeffB. You always do.

    • JeffB: "And I don’t think the majority of the world wants the end of Zionism if they understood what it meant."

      The see what it means, despite your futile attempts to spin what they should understand.

  • 'Where there is a wall there are holes': Issa Amro's non-violence and Israel's injustice
  • A Jewish atonement for Zionism
    • JeffB: "First off before a state forms they are both territories."

      Despite the fact that Palestine was allready a state under mandate people still don't have a right to move into other countries without the consent of the country’s population.

      JeffB: "I do believe that ethnic Mexicans born in the United States to illegals are just as American as I am. I don’t approve of racial criteria here I see no reason to apply it to Palestine."

      This is not the same situation. These Mexicans didn't illegaly enter the United states to take over the country and create a state with a national character that discriminates against Non-Mexicans. It is not a case of large scale colonization. And it's not the case of illegaly settling under occupation. The reason why you support this your minority opinion is that you want Jews to be naturalized and Palestinians to be denaturalized in historic Palesine. This is your racial critiria which you apply to historic Palestine. And it's pathetic that you try do play being humane and nonracial. Especially with all the Nazi crimes you support when Jews commit them against Palestinians.

      JeffB: "Israeli housing discrimination is bad. That needs to be fixed. I’m not going to destroy the country over it. But that’s exactly the kinds of reasonable reform I would support."

      You can't reform Zionism. And South Africa wasn't "destroyed" either. But you identify the sate with its Zionist regime in such a totalitarian way that you are not even able to differentitate between the two.

      JeffB: "They were slaughtering Jews both before and after 1925 and not just Zionists. Consider Hebron 1929."

      Not the "Palestinians" who included Jews and Nonjews.

      I'm considering Hebron, but you are not considering that Arab families rescued more than 400 Jews. And you are not considering that before this massacre hundreds of Jews marched to the Western Wall shouting slogans such as "The Wall is Ours" and raised the Zionist flag. Now I don't want to defend this injustifiable action, but the two communities in Hebron peacyfully co-existend before the atrocity called Zionism which was a crime against any Nonjewish citizen and even the native Jewish citizens of Palestine.

      And how dishonest from you to quote me out of context and ommit the rest where I was talking about your accusation of "ethnic bigotry" and wrote:

      "It is the Zionist Jews who choose the path of extreme ethnic bigotry and created an extreme and obsecene ethnocracy called “Jewish” state through extreme ethnic means like war and expulsion of Nonjews and establishing a nazi-like differentiation between nationals (only Jews) and citizens."

      I guess you don't have anything to say against this.

      JeffB: "You are now making stuff up. As the example of Magnes proves."

      LMAO. When it comes to Zionism and its intentions your best example to prove that it had others is a reforn Rabbi who strongly disapproved of nationalistic aspects within Judaism and was against a Jewish state and partitioning Palestine. That's like mentioning Neturei Karta to prove that Zionism is actually antizionist.

    • JeffB: "The way you define colonization which is simply migrating freely and living in whatever house you can, yes they do."

      Stop lying JeffB. "simply migrating freely and living in whatever house you can" is not my definition of colonization, which happens without consent of the native population. But if you just wanted to describe what crimes the Zionist committed under the protection of a criminal mandatory you are spot on.

      JeffB: "You start with the basic idea that people of different ethnicities have no right to move into new neighborhoods. Yet all over the planet new ethnicities arrive in neighborhoods they never lived in and get along peacefully with their neighbors."

      Ok, stop confusing countrys with "neighborhoods". And no, people have no right to move into other countries without the consent of the country's population. And within Israel Nonjews don't even have a RIGHT to move into Jewish "neighborhoods".

      JeffB: "The Palestinians choose the path of extreme ethnic bigotry."

      ROFL. Another of your upside down perversions. Palestinians have been a constitutive people since 1925, including Jews and Nonjews. It is the Zionist Jews who choose the path of extreme ethnic bigotry and created an extreme and obsecene ethnocracy called "Jewish" state through extreme ethnic means like war and expulsion of Nonjews and establishing a nazi-like differentiation between nationals (only Jews) and citizens.

      JeffB: "I don’t think someone is crazy to believe that race war was a choice and could have been avoided."

      No, the Zionist intentions were clear from the get go.

    • And I'm thankful for

    • mccohen."unfortunately some are blind to the role israel plays in keeping these 2 powerful forces from attacking each other.the past battles for jerusalem are a good example of what can happen."

      ROFL. Unfortunately nobody is stupid enough to believe in the stupidity that this is Israel's role and it was necessary after 1948.

    • JeffB: "There are ethnically mixed neighborhoods all over the planet that are peaceful."

      Yes, because one doesn't want to colonize the other neighbourhood and expell its population.

  • Three megadonors (who just happen to love Israel) are pushing Trump against Iran deal
    • JeffB: "As far as I can tell from the politics, people in Jericho mostly want full Israeli governance back. "

      And as far I can tell from the history of your comments, you have nothing to back up your wet dreams.

      Are you one of the 95% Israeli gamblers who went there, because building casinos is illegal in Israel? That's the reason why Martin Schlomo Mordechai Joschua Schlaff build it after all. And Israel hit it with a rocket.

  • A plea to Israel: Don't start the third Lebanon War
    • JeffB: "As for international law, there are a lot of exaggerated claims about international law on MW."

      In the last 14 days almost all of them were yours.

    • JeffB: "We weren’t talking about the Palestinians we were talking about Lebanon. If Lebanon chooses to back the “right” of Palestinian to attack Israel from Lebanon then it is Lebanon attacking Israel. If they choose to say support the attacks that had happened earlier from Jordan then that may be state sponsorship but it is not war."

      Lebanon didn't attack Israel and according to your argument Palestinians have the right to invade Israel.

    • DaBakr: "I know plenty of Israelis who understand our conflict as very complex nuanced and difficult."

      Sure, it get's very complicated when you try to legitimize settler colonialism.

    • JeffB: "An army operating on Lebanese soil was attacking Israel. That’s an act of war ... The right to invade attacking nations."

      What is it now, JeffB? Do the Palestinians who were not only attacked in 1967by Israel have the right to "invade" Israel or not? Oh, the plank in your eye ...

      JeffB: "Lebanon choose to engage Israel."

      Maybe in the Kahane continuum. In this universe Israel chose to "engange" Lebanon.

      JeffB: "The government of Israel says otherwise. As far as I’m concerned government has right to determine title."

      Sure, why wouldn't you support just another Nazi view that an occupier would have the right to determine the title of the territory under its occupation. Is there any Nazi policy you actually don't support?

      JeffB: "Israel has agreed to go 51st in correcting mass deportations from generations ago. Just get 50 other countries involved to put it right and Israel will go next. Let’s start with the USA returning the country to the natives."

      What a dishonest proposal. Even if the other 50 countries would do such thing Israel wouldn't go next and you know it very well. But how many of these countries commited their crimes against the natives in the post-Nazi and post colonial era? They embody your sense of Justice, JeffB, don't they? Always try to find someone who may be even worse than Israel to negate its crimes against humanity.

    • Well sorry, JeffB.

      I hoped that you would understand that I was talking about post-Nazi international and humanitarian law when I mentioned how backwarded your support for Nazi policies is.

    • JeffB: "So one can always hope that the forces at play in the Arab world change the dynamic to make peace possible."

      Yes, there's always that hope that they succed in what the occupiers doesn't want, because of its settler colonialism.

    • JeffB: "Relative to its neighbors Israel is vastly stronger today."

      Yes JeffB. I'm sure that in 20 years Israel's state sponsored terrorists will finally stop mass murdering civilians and their destruction campagne and that they will be able to beat at least a singe Hisbollah brigade.

    • JeffB: "I don’t like the term “terrorism”. I think the 2 most mainstream meanings conflict. Al Jazeera has a cute video and while I’d quibble with the details sums up my feelings:"

      I know that you need to suggest that there's some symmetry between Zionist and Palestinians, but there isn't. And using violence against civilians to teach them or those who rule them a lesson is terrorism and what you actually explicitly support against the Gazans.

      JeffB: "That being said. Yes. Israel’s policy in general is escalation."

      In short: War crimes and crimes against humanity.

      JeffB: "It is for example how the United States terrorized Mexico and Canada into the peaceful borders we enjoy today."

      That was before international and humanitarian law existed, JeffB. But I'm not suprised that you support this Nazi policy, too, when it comes to "pacifying" others. That's how backwarded you and Israel actually are.

    • JeffB: "It is Lebanon that has a crazy doctrine."

      Nope, it's Israel which follow its "crazy" or should I say pathological Dahiya doctrine which is basically large scale state terrorism based up "disproportionate force and the causing of great damage and destruction to civilian property and infrastructure, and suffering to civilian populations".

      The Israelis are the real terrorists, JeffB.

    • In JeffB's real life Members of Fatah are a "Lebanese special forces unit". ROFL.

      In November 1977 Israel bombed South Lebanon and killed 70 people, mainly Lebanese.

    • Nassam Nisr was born in Lebanon and abandoned Israeli citizenship while imprisoned. From my understanding he still had Lebanese citizensip.

      Derfner: "And Israel has started plenty of wars."

      How about its crossborder-raids under Plan Daleth before its declaration of statehood within partition borders? Does this count as starting the war, too?

    • Derfner: "Keith, at the time the only Lebanese prisoner Israel held was Samir Kuntar ..."

      At least Nassam Nisr was held by Israel, too, and released in 2008.

      Derfner: "... but I do say that Hezbollah started that war."

      And I say that Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 and still holds the Sheeba farms occupied in clear violation of Sec Res 425. But if you call this cross border raid starting a "war" I would like to know how many times Israel has started a "war".

  • Zohra Drif's memoir of Algeria's fight for freedom is stunning
    • The remark by Jackdaw sounds like a violation of comment rule #1.

      In fact, it sounds very anti-Semitic, because he implies that Jews as such follow the "course of logic employed by our resident Zionists."

    • JeffB: "@Talkback

      No question the Arab version of the story involves a massacre. The question is whether these witnesses are lying or not. The two questions I started with need to be addressed to believe the Arab version of events. The Irgun witnesses are more consistent with the evidence we have."

      Sure, If the "witnesses" are Jewish and perpetrators (Deir Yassin or King David Hotel) than it's not the question if they are lying are not. Only if they are Arabs and possible victims. (Holocaust deniers claim that Jewish victims are lying about the Holocaust. You are just their equivalent.)

      I anticipated your racism. That's why I quote two Jews:

      Dr. Alfred Engel was a doctor of Magen David Adom.
      Meir Pail became a colonel in the Israel Defense Forces, an Israeli politician, and military historian.

      Now here's Jacques de Reynier, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Palestine talking about the terrorists:

      "The gang [the Irgun detachment] was wearing country uniforms with helmets. ... This was the "cleaning up" team, that was obviously performing its task very conscientiously.

      I tried to go into a house. A dozen soldiers surrounded me, their machine-guns aimed at my body, and their officer forbade me to move ... I then flew into one of the most towering rages of my life, telling these criminals what I thought of their conduct, threatening them with everything I could think of, and then pushed them aside and went into the house

      ...I found some bodies, cold. Here the "cleaning up" had been done with machine-guns, then hand grenades. It had been finished off with knives, anyone could see that ... as I was about to leave, I heard something like a sigh. I looked everywhere, turned over all the bodies, and eventually found a little foot, still warm. It was a little girl of ten, mutilated by a hand grenade, but still alive

      But you need to defend the terrorist's point view. Whether Deir Yassin or King David Hotel, right? Your doing it also with the largest, well-equipped terror wing in the world called IDF.

      Let's remind us of the word's of one of Israel's Prime Terrorists Menachem Begin regarding Deir Yassiin:
      "God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest."

    • Annie: "I find this less than convincing"

      Maybe she had to say it, because she admits: "I was a soldier, I have no regrets. I did my duty."

    • @Jon66

      Excactly. There is no CREDIBLE evidence that any warning reached the BRITISH AUTHORITIES.

      More importantly let us remind the words of the future first president of Israel after this terrorist attack: "I can't help feeling proud of our boys."

    • Jackdaw: "Because they are two completely different struggles."

      Of course they were. Algeria's war was an ANTI-colonial struggle. The Zionist war and still is the opposite.

      Jackdaw: "The bombers phoned in a warning to evacuate, which went unheeded."

      Israel celebrates Irgun hotel bombers
      "There is no credible evidence that any warning reached the British authorities."

    • JeffB: "I condemn any and all terrorist attacks on innocent civilians, ..."

      Then you actually condemn what led to the creation of Israel and the expulsion of its natives.

    • Mooser: "Anyway, I’m surprised, “Jackdaw”. Why don’t you see the indigenous Algerian expulsion of the French in the same light as the indigenous Zionists expulsion of the British colonial masters from Palestine?"

      Since when are Zionist terrorists as such indigenous?

      Btw. Do you think that he's going to answer your question or mine (Jackdaw, which Zionist terrorist or Zioinst terrorist act do you condemn?)?

    • Jackdaw: "The issue here, is the hypocritical double standards of James North and Mondoweiss when they glorify a child murdering terrorist while flouting their own comments rules."

      Jackdaw, which Zionist terrorist or Zioinst terrorist act do you condemn? Let's see, if you will answer this question.

    • JeffB: "The Irgun took a village that was harboring enemy forces, located in a key strategic location at the minimum possible loss of life given the relative strengths (and experience) of the combatants. "

      Dr. Engel: "It was clear that they (the attackers) had gone from house to house and shot the people at close range."

      Meir Pail: "I saw groups of Etzel and Lehi people going from house to house and shooting with Tommy (guns) everyone they found in them. During the operation I did not sense any difference between the behavior of Etzel and Lehi people. I saw almost no men (Arabs) – I assume mose of them ran away at the beginning of the battle – but mostly women, old people and children. They were murdered in groups; they crowded them into corners of rooms and shot off rounds at them."

  • UN takes first concrete step to hold Israel accountable for violating Palestinian human rights
    • jon s: "Some rabbis are bigots and racists and some are quite the opposite. Both sides can produce quotes from traditional Jewish sources to make their case."

      But he quotes from the Kenesset HaGedolah which is an imporant halachic source of one of the essential figures in Jewish scholarship. This is not a loony fringe position.

  • Balfour Declaration, now 100, was 'gun pointed at heads' of Palestinians -- Khalidi
    • Naftush: "The really interesting question is “why”."

      To maintain his leadership of the actual rebels in Palestine.

      Naftush: "You asked me if the Jews would accept the proposals if they were Palestinians."

      Yes, and you didn't answer the question. Are you going to answer it?

      Naftush: "Well, obviously, if one is a Palestinian, one is under the impact of their culture – therefore, compromise is out of the question."

      Well, if you need to be racist than I have to change the question Would Jews Jews would accept Israel to be put under a trusteeship that allows unlimited immigration and settling against their consent? Would they allow Israel to be partitioned? And what does your answer say about their culture and if "compromise" is possible?

      Naftush: "In the 1920’s, the British High Commissioner in Palestine (Sir Herbert Samuel) raised the suggestion of founding a kind of parliament to represent the residents of the country. ... But why was the idea of a parliament dropped? The Arabs adamantly rejected the idea! "

      Was this a parliament based on majority ruling and which would have led to the country's independence and that they could freely choose how many foreigners they allo to immigrate and settle in their Country? When Churchil proposed a representative government for all the people of Palestine, Weizmann opposed him because Jews were a minority.

      You see, Zionist Jews have a problem with democratic principles when they are not a majority. That's the reason why the expelled Nonjews to become one. Now this obviously can't be called "democracy" right? The correct legal term is Apartheid as defined in international law.

      "... and the British High Commissioner ruled the country by himself."

      Yes. The first Jewish King of Palestine after thousands of years. Now its Bibi. No wait, he's King of the Jews all over the world.

    • Naftush: "The Palestinians do not recognize Israel in any border (May 15 is also a day of mourning). The entire land is regarded to be occupied."

      In which borders did the state of Israel in 1948 and the State of Palestine in 1988 declare its borders? And which states currently defines the borders of its states to be outside the partition plan borders and what are these borders?

      I dare you to answer these questions.

    • JeffB: "Let’s rewrite that to
      Like accepting the United Nation’s perversion of international law — No."

      Oh, it's the UN, 192 of its members and the International Court of Justice that pervert international law and not you. ROFL. Seriously, your delusions are pathological.

      JeffB: "and human rights — yes"

      JeffB, your delusions are incoherent. You should write: "Like accepting the United Nation’s perversion of human rights — No"

      And regarding human rights. When did Israel allow the refugees to return?

      JeffB: "I’m rejecting that “settler colonialism” is properly named.

      At least you finally agree that Zionism is settler colonialism. And it has labor exploiting elements and steals natural resources.

    • @ Naftush

      Your whole comment is debunked by the Palestine Papers. It's Israel that constantly shifts the paramenters whenever Palestinians agree.

      Naftush: "Moreover, Palestinian agreements are only about the past. In other words, they recognized Israel (past tense) in the framework of Oslo – but they do not recognize Israel (present tense). They accepted the 1947 Partition Plan, but they don’t accept the Partition Plan. They agreed to negotiate the refugee issue, but they don’t agree to negotiate the refugee issue. I can go on and on, but I hope that you understand that it’s a very different political culture."

      ROFL. Moreover, Israeli agreements are only about the past. In other words, they recognized the framework of Oslo – but they do not recognize it (present tense) and never recognized Palestine. They accepted the 1947 Partition Plan, but they don’t accept the Partition Plan. They agreed to negotiate the refugee issue, but they don’t agree to negotiate the refugee issue. I can go on and on, but I hope that you understand that it’s a very different political culture.

    • JeffB: "Like any religious reformation it needed to build their consent over time."

      Yes, "reforming" Islam into Islamofascism by religious extremists, too.

    • JeffB: "Now of course one can redefine colonialism so broadly starting with the term “settler colonialism” so as to have a “colonialism” that acts and behaves nothing like colonialism and thus make the term colonialism meaningless. But ultimately the “triple bind” is the fact that Jewish migration to Palestine are not motivated by either a desire to cease natural resources nor a desire to exploit indigenous labor."

      Another epic fail JeffB.

      "The LAND is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural and human resources are the main motivation behind OTHER forms of colonialism."

    • Naftush: "One thing, however, is missing in all of them: the Palestinians. In those years and later as well, the collectivity that *today* self-identifies as nationally Palestinian was seen, and saw itself, as an Arab population of vague identity: maybe Syrian, maybe local."

      Still a nation as citizenship unlike Jews.

    • JeffB: "Bull. Bahrain, Morocco, and Oman made overtures that were accepted. Qatar (1996–2009) wanted friendlier relations and got them. Egypt and Jordan of course have relations. And just recently Saudi Arabia and Egypt have invited Israel into a military alliance. Israel has a proven track record of accepting peace overtures with Arab states. "

      Yes, all the countries it doesn't occupy in whole or in parts or illegaly annexed some of it. Does it have to do with Israel's "old age dream" what land it wants to "redeem" by "struggle" according to its declaration that it doesn't want peace and instead prefers violations of international law and human rights?

      JeffB: "That doesn’t mean it accepts every possible offer under all conditions."

      Like accepting international law and human rights?

    • Nathan: "In May 1939, the British decided to accept the Arab (Palestinian) position."

      Nope.In May 1939 the British decided that the first task of their mandate (establishing a national home for Jews) has been achieved - which was a violation of the right to self determination - and that they should enact the second part which is establishing self governing institutions to release Palestine into independence and to allow the majority to decide immigration policy - which is in accordance with the right to self determination. See art. 2 of the mandate.

      Nathan: "It was a clear political victory of the Palestinians, and a total defeat of the Jews."

      Nope, it was not a political victory but part ot the mandate. And your differentation between Palestinians and Jews is misleading. Every citizen of Palestine was Palestinians, Jews and Nonjews. The only wants who were defeated were the Zionists. And then they started their decade long terrorism campagne.

      Nathan: "The British claimed that they had kept their promise in accordance to the Balfour Declaration, but it was clear that the White Paper was the exact opposite of honoring the declaration".

      Clear for whom and why? The Nathan just claims clearity, but has no arguments.

      Nathan: "Strangely, they rejected the White Paper (they didn’t take “yes” for an answer)."

      Not strange at all:
      "In May the HNC delegation announced its rejection of the White Paper, with Amin Husseini imposing the decision on the majority of delegates who were in favour of accepting."

      "Those who supported Zionism in the international community were of the opinion that the Jews were returning to their ancient homeland (to their native soil)."

      Source? Or is that "clear", too?

      Nathan: "The Palestinians’ answer was always “no”, and there was never any proposal on their part for finding a reasonable solution."

      ROFL. Actually they proposed an independent democratic Palestine with minority rights and the Zionist Jews always said "no" to this reasonable solution. Instead the Jewish terrorist and latter went to a full scale war while rejecting truce propolsals to establish their Apartheid Junta and expell the Nonjews to become a majority. That's your "reasonable solution".

      Nathan: "And, today as well, there is no proposal that the Palestinians can accept – not even a proposal that they themselves would put into writing (because in the end, as we have seen, they won’t take “yes” for an answer)."

      ROFL. The Palestine Papers show how far they are willing to go, but everytime they swallowed a proposal from their usurper the usurper gave them something bigger to swallow. But let me ask you something. Would Jews accept their own proposals if they were Palestinians? To live in less than 20% of Palestine, etc? Everything that Israel can offer is nothing that it legally owns. And everything they demand from Palestinians is to give up their rights under international law and human rights. And let's be honest. The facts on the ground clearly show that Israel is not interested in peace, but in as much land with as less Nonjews. Their 1948 aggression has not ended, yet.

  • Samuel Freedman extols Jewish 'love affair' with Jewish state-- while decrying 'dogma of white supremacy'
    • After further consideration I'm against Kurdish independence, because they are starting to act like Zionists and want to create an ethnocracy, too:

      10,000 Arabs driven out by Kurdish ethnic cleansing in Syria

      Christians in Iraqi Kurdistan complain about land seizure

      No suprise that Israel supports Kurdish independence as it supported Apartheid South Africa.

      EDIT: They are really doing Zionism 101:
      Kurds taking over Assyrian lands with English subtitles

    • Nathan: "However, a claim that Israel never came into existence and was never born – that certainly is a new mantra. Actually, I liked it very much. It’s quite interesting debating with people whose vision of Israel is based on some alternative perception of historic reality. But it is even now more gripping to debate about a political entity that is merely the figment of our imagination."

      Well, Nathan. It seems to be to complicated for you to understand that I didn't deny the estblishment of your beloved Apartheid Junta, but that I critized your Hasbara attempt to compare this crime with the pasive act of the "birth" of an innocent child who "comes into existence". I understand how much you need to distract from this historic reality.

      Nathan: " ... you didn’t quite say “yes” or “no” regarding the legitimacy of the Kurdish intention to become an independent state."

      I didn't. There are a lot of factors which have to be considered:
      1.) Did the majority of the Kurdish citizens within the territory for the envisaged state vote for independence? (Illegal immigrants or refugees do not count)
      2.) Are all people who are habitually residing in the territory going to become by law and ipso facto citizens of the newly created state?
      3.) Is the national identity of this people going to be the citizenship for all people? Will all citizens become "Kurdish"?
      4.) Will the right to equality be constitutionally enshrined?

      You know, just to rule out that its is going to be an Apartheid state.

    • Nathan: "The Jews perceive themselves to be a people dispersed in antiquity from their homeland. And that’s it. Now they live in Israel, seeing themselves as having RETURNED to their land and as having RENEWED their sovereignty."

      I know. It's pathetic right? They even think that Israel is democrazy allthough they keep people expelled and denationalized to rig the election results.

      Nathan: "Many anti-Israel people claim that today’s Jews are not the descendants of the ancient Hebrew. This seems to be “proof” of the absurdity of Zionism. However, if it were to be proved that indeed the Jews are (by and large) the descendants of the Hebrews – would you then accept the legitimacy of Zionism and the founding of modern Israel? "

      Nope, because it's not legally relevant if someone is a descendant of ancient Hebrews or not. Do Areamans have the right to take over their "ancient homeland" and expell its majority to become one?

      Nathan: "Therefore, one can only wonder why, then, any anti-Zionist cares about the DNA of today’s Jews."

      To point out that the Zionist's ludicrous claims is based on ludicrous premises.

      You didn't answer my question. Does anyone who converts to Judaism automatically acquires a right to expell Nonjews or revoke their residential status, too?

    • Nathan: "Yes, it is the Palestinian position that Zionism is colonialism. It is NOT the position of the Jews (Zionists)."

      Again, it was even Herzl's position that Zionism is colonialism. Other Jewish Zionist are just in denial. Therefore their obsession with the myth that they "returned" allthough there's no proof that they were ever exiled beyond Jerusalem.

      Nathan: "Even though you don’t agree, nevertheless it should be possible to look at the world in the eyes of others."

      I never disagreed that Jewish Zionist think that " the Land of Israel is their ancient homeland". I point out how ludicrous this claim is, because nobody can prove that that he or she is a descendant of ancient Hebrews or a Nonjew isn't.

      Nathan: "Herzl believed that Palestine (the Land of Israel) is the ancient homeland of the Jews."

      He still saw Zionism as a "colonial project", because the he wanted Jews to immigrate to Palsestine to take over the country.

    • Nathan: "You have an interesting method of debate. What you are saying is that “all that matters is that Israel should not have come into existence”. "

      That is not what I said, but it's the only logical conclusion. And Israel didn't "come into existence". This Apartheid Junta was established through terrorism and expulsion and was declared in clear violation of Security Council Resolution 46.

      Nathan: "Its successful birth is the only thing that matters."

      It's not a birth, it's raping a child. And I can understand that this is the only thing that matters to you. Other people matter for other atrocities.

      Nathan: "Amazingly, even though it’s so obvious to you that it simply should not have happened, nevertheless the new state became a member of the UN, and scores of foreign countries sent ambassadors to her. It turns out the successful birth of statehood is the only criterion of legitimacy."

      You mistake recognition for legitimacy. And don't forget that Israel lied to the UN regarding its acceptance of 181 and 194.

      Nathan: "Now, in front of our eyes, Kurdistan is seeking independence. Is it legitimate? I’d be curious to hear your opinion."

      A case could be made for remedial secession since their fundamental rights are violated by Turkey. More importantly is the question, if the people in the envisioned borders of a Kurdish country were asked and if anyone habitually residing in this territory will become a Kurdish citizen., despite heritage or faith. Compare this to the so called "Jewish state". No referendum means not internal legitimation. Only a few Nonjewish residents who were not expelled acquired the new citizenship which is not even "Jewish". The whole case is rotten and therefore was never transfered to the International Court of Justice despite multiple proposals.

      Nathan: "The Americans say that it’s illegitimate, because the territorial integrity of Iraq must be preserved."

      This is acatually a UN principle and it can be said in general that the defensive right to self determination of the majority outweighs the offensive right to self determination of the minority that wants their own country. But it shows the US' hypocricy who didn't bring up the same argument when it came to the partition of Palestine.

      Nathan: "But there is only one test of the legitimacy of independent Kurdistan: Her survival. If Kurdistan succeeds in establishing its independence, it will be a legitimate member of the family of nations, period."

      Nope. You mistake survival for legitimacy. Not every newly created state is legitimate or at least recognized. See Nothern Cyprus or former Rhodesia.

      Nathan: "It’s fun wasting time debating about the legitimacy of Israel. "

      It's even more fun watching you failing and the like of you to make a legitimate case for Israel.

      Nathan: "I really am enjoying myself, and I hope that you too (and all the Mondoweiss readers) are having a good time."

      I assure you that they tmost of them have fun seeing people like you fail.

      Nathan: "Israel was born, she withstood the test of battle and 70 years later she has turned out to be quite a success story."

      Again, Israel was not "born". Nobody is "born" by committing war and expulsion. And if you think that being an racist state that violates international law and human rights; that has no enshrined constitution or explicite right to equality and which differenatiates between nationals and citizens to maintain a supremacist national character is a "succes story", I don't want to hear your opinion about Nazism.

      Nathan: "If, however, you have a secret belief that Israel can be wished out of existence by a convincing legalistic argument, I’m afraid that you might be frustrated. "

      It's illegitimacy will be the basis for its demise as it was for other illegtimate entities. Your pseudo legal arguments are just a version of might is right. At the end the question will not be about how it was created, but how and it needs to exist to maintain its Apartheid. And its obvious that it's heading into what Leibowitz called Judeonazism.

    • Nathan: "Here on this forum, there are quite a few comments that claim that the Jews of today are descendants of converts, and hence they are not the descendants of the ancient Hebrews."

      I don't think that anyone claims that all Jews are not descendants of ancient Hebrews. That would be as stupid as claiming that there are no Nonjews that are descendants of ancient Hebrews.

      Nathan: "So, why is it an issue if the Jews are converts or not? Why do you take an interest in this issue?"

      Exactly. The only thing that matters is who was a righful citizen of Palestine in 1948. Only they had the right to self determination and majority ruling and not some foreigners whose immigration and settling is enforced under a de de jure or de facto occupation like the protecatorate that was selled as a mandate and perverting the whole mandate system and the right to self determination.

      But why do Hasbara trolls bring up any other criteria which is legally irrelevant? Whether it's the fake conceopt of a nation or an "identity"? Or that it matter that ancient Hebrews ruled of this land during a short time. Or "historical ties", etc.

    • Nathan: "Whenever we are told that “Zionism is a form of colonialism” (the Palestinian point of view), there is always a mention of the fact that “the return of Jews to the Land of Israel is an expression of an ancient aspiration at the very heart of the Jewish tradition” (the Jewish point of view). Right?"

      Whenever we are told that the mandatory violated the mandate, there is always the mention of the fact that the mandatory violated the right to self determination and perverted the mandate system which should have acknowledged what is in the very heart the country's native people, right?

      And no, it's not a "Palestinian view". Herzl himself defined Zionism as a colonial project. And what else than settler colonialism could it be when an immigration of foreigners who want to settle in a land is enforced upon the natives by another country that de facto or de jure occupies it?!

    • Narthan: "Zionist ideology is concerned with the Hebrew language, the return to the Land of Israel, and the fulfillment of ancient aspirations (“next year in Jerusalem”). The kinship of Jews throughout the world is understood as part of the tradition of the Jews who have always seen themselves as an ancient people dispersed from their land in antiquity (i.e. Jewish kinship has not come into this world as an “important component in the multicultural US”)."

      Well Nathan, the "kinship of Jews throughout the world" needs to finally grow up and accept that Jews were not "dispersed from their land in antiquity" (except Jerusalem) and that nobody knows which Jew or Nonjew today is a descendant of an ancient Hebrew who lived there. I think that it is very likely that the Palestinians are, since only 5% of them descent from Arabians.

      Btw. Does anyone who converts to Judaism automatically acquires a right to expell Nonjews or revoke their residential status, too? I'm sure there are many sociopaths who would think about it and like the idea of enjoying state protection while committing their crimes: Or even become heroes as "medics".

  • Between our life and our mother Algeria, we chose our mother: Excerpt from 'Inside the Battle of Algiers: Memoir of a Woman Freedom Fighter'
    • JeffB: "The 2nd intifada was an attempt at an Algeria type war."


      More Than a Million Bullets
      "Maj. Gen. Malka states that the policy of use of military force caused a flare-up of the fire. In other words, the IDF contributed to the escalation. The Palestinians did not expect such a harsh response by Israel. They hoped that the "model" of the 1996 Western Wall tunnel riots would repeat itself. In other words, a brief outbreak of violence, followed by negotiations, in which they would win another few concessions by Israel. Yet it seems that the IDF actions thwarted the possibility of the violence ending quickly, since the events spun out of the Palestinian leadership's control.""
      read more:

    • Jeckdaw: "Zohra Drif, Fouad Ajami, and Helena Cobban, for that matter, will all be dead and buried, and forgotten in time, and all they had done, or aspired to do, will have amounted to nothing.

      This isn’t Jackie’s opinion, this is an immutable fact."

      Sure. As dead, buried and forgotten in time as those Jews who condemned racism and called for equality. Maybe this was opportunism and nepotism from the get go. Who knows.

  • Ten days of awe: standing with whom?
    • jon s: "I repeat: the mainstream Zionist leaders such as Herzl, Ben Gurion, and even Jabotinsky, all envisaged living in peace with the non-Jewish population, not expelling or replacing them.

      ROFL. Benny Morris:
      "Zionist historians, meanwhile, had charged that I had accorded the subject too much significance and that the pre-1948 Zionist leadership had never supported transfer. The newly available material shows that the Israeli critics were wrong: the Zionist leadership in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, from David Ben-Gurion, Israel's founding prime minister, through Chaim Weizmann, the liberal president of the World Zionist Organisation, and Menahem Ussishkin and Zeev Jabotinsky, had supported the idea."

    • Boris: "Contemporary Egyptians are not the same nation that lived in ancient Egypt."

      ROFL. Please elaborate your nonsense.

    • Boris: "If you realize that it is the Jews who are indigenous to the Land of Israel, then the whole argument of this article falls on its face."

      Sure. And if you "realize" that all Jews who live today are descendants of Jews who legally lived in Palestine in 1925 and therefore have at least matrilineal ancestors who were citizens of mandated Palestine you have to realize how stupid your realizations are.

Showing comments 3056 - 3001