Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3578 (since 2011-08-30 20:10:31)


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

Showing comments 3000 - 2901

  • Ten days of awe: standing with whom?
    • Boris: "I don’t think it is a “little bubble”. This sounds more like a sort of psychiatric deviation."

      Says Boris of all people.

    • According to Boris' personal logic the Nazis could have only used DNA tests to distinguish Jews from Nonjews. And we all know that Boris is not a moron.

    • Emet: "Talkback, an episode of “Game of Thrones” sounds more likely to have happened compared to the fiction you have just described."

      Contrary to you Israeli historian don't live in denial.

      Emet: "If only they would have done half the stuff you describe then there would not a Palestinian problem today."

      Embracing your inner Nazi, Emet?

      Emet: "Your cousins ..."

      Suffering from compulsive lying, Sheqer?

      Emet: "... would have returned to Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, to name a few."

      ROFL. Says the supporter of settler colonialism. The only question is if they have legally acquired the citizenship of Palestine before 1948. More than half of the Jews had not.

      Emet: "Are you serious, “They felt they would become Israelis”?"

      Do you actually know how many tried to return and were driven away over and over again? They just´wanted to return to their property and continue with their life.

      Emet: "Last time I checked I see they declared war on the Jewish State, with the intention of wiping it off the map, and they still work for this to happen. "

      They? The refugees? Are you drunk? Is that Zionist kindgarden history for the educationally impaired? The Palestinians were nearly completely demilitarized after the revolt in the 30s. Nobody "declared war" on a state that only existed as a mere declaration which violated Security Council resolution 46 of 17 April 1948. The Palestinians tried to prevent Zionist terrorist from tearing up their state after a decade of Jewish terrorism. Thirdly the Arabs agreed to an US truce proposal end of April while the Jewish Agency didn't because they realized that they could set up atheir Jewish Apartheid Junta through war and expulsion. And what has been really happining since 1948 is that this Junta is wiping Palestine of the map. Politically and physically.

      Emet: "Wake up man".

      Don't swallow your binkie.

      Get some basic education.

    • Boris: "Name one nation whose claim to what is know today as Palestine is older than that of Jews."

      The land was ruled by the Egyptian Empire. But I have to admit that the Egyptians are not imbeciles who still claim that it is theirs, because they ruled over it thousands of years ago.

    • Emet, that reminds me of Palestinians who regarded the partition of Palestine as a fait accompli were so cocky and sure that they were accepted by Jews. They felt that they would become Israelis and were promptly terroized, massacred, expelled and dispossessed while their villages and properties were destroyed or looted. Some where even raped. I hope you never get to learn the lesson that they learn’t but you follow in their footsteps.

    • Golda Meir: "And I thank God every night that the bridegroom was so weak, and the bride could be taken away from him."

      The illegitimacy of Israel in a nutshell.

  • High holidays? Meh
    • Aloeste: "an intermarried anti-zionist. who needs you? just do us a favor–don’t call yourself a jew."

      Yes, Aloeste. That's not only rassenschande but also resisting gleichschaltung! Release the shepherd dogs.

  • Why the split inside the Democratic Party over BDS needs to happen
    • Thank you JeffB for reminding us that people under Class-A-Mandates did not only have the right to self determination, but where even provisionally recognized as independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

      And thank you for also reminding us that the mandate for Palestine was a perversion of this mandate system and that the wishes of the Palestinians were never considered who prefered the US over GB.

      Please continue making a fool of yourself.

    • Very good, Nathan. Now to the second part. Ask your grandmother and yourself:

      How can we end Zionism and repatriate the Palestinians so as to facilitate a good relationship and rebuild the Palestininians trust in Jews?

    • JeffB: "No. A withdraw from Gaza if this was about land should have pulled the Gazans out of the fight."

      This is not only about land. This is about ending a brutal occupation/siege and the daily state terrorism of Israel against the Palestinians.

      JeffB: "The West Bankers could have continued fighting but the Gazans lost that right when Israel made huge unilateral concessions. Even if those concession on Gaza were based on not wanting to make other concessions in the West Bank."

      ROFL, Gaza is an integral part of Palestine which is under Israeli occupation. People have a right to resist against occupation. And what "huge unilateral concessions" are you talking about? What did or does Israel legally own to even make "concessions"?

      JeffB: "A Gazan government ... "

      There is not "Gazan goverment". The goverment of Palestine is the goverment of Palestine. No matter how much you would like to tear up the country.

      JeffB: "... interested in peace would have been enforcing the border themselves on their own side in cooperation with the Israelis as part of showing good faith."

      ROFL. With Israel that violates Gazas air space and coastal waters on a daily basis, illegal settles in the Westbank, builds a wall beyond its borders and illegally annexed Jerusalem? So much for crossing borders and being interested in peace.

      JeffB: "Similarly the Gazans should be resolving the killings issue ..."

      The Hamas has offered Israel multiple times to stop killing civilians. Israel rejected this which is quite understandable. How can someone maintain a belligerent occupation that violates humanitarian law without resorting to violence. What has Israel down to resolve the "killing issue"? It established the Dahiya doctrince that is blatantly state terrorism based on mass murdering and want on destruction.

      JeffB: "So I don’t agree with your analysis of the killing but don’t feel with revisiting this issue in depth"

      ROFL. Of course not. You don't agree with, because you don't like the truth.

      JeffB: "But that starts with the premise of holding Hamas to the standards of a government and that’s where we are going to disagree."

      Hamas is not a goverment. But let's allow Hamas to act like Israel in EVERY way. For example like Isarel acted in its last wars against the defenseless people of Gaza. Agreed?

      JeffB: "You are unwilling to hold the Palestinians to any standards and blame the Israelis exclusively for everything. "

      You mistake me for yourself, JeffB. I condemn every violation of international and especially humanitarian law and human rights law that everyone commits. No only collective punishment and illegaly settling in occupied territories which you support. Or war crimes of Israel you have to deny or dispute.

      JeffB: "If the Palestinians reserve the right to attack Israel ..."

      You are confused, JeffB. The Palestinians are under occupation of the aggressor called Israel. They have the right to defend themselves and resist this occupation. Calling this an attack is just one of your countless perversions of international law.

      JeffB: "The Gazans have proven at least prior to 2014 they were not willing to live in peace."

      ROFL. Sure, the Gazans whose majority are made up of Palestinians and their descendants Israel keeps ethnically cleansed and are suffering under half of century under Jewish occupation/siege are not willing to live in piece. That's at least three years less than Israeli Jews are not willing.

      JeffB: "That’s called war not collective punishment."

      JeffB and his distractions. First of all you called for "punitive strikes". That's a Nazi war crime. And if you target a whole civilinn population to "teach them a lesson" that's another Nazi war crime called "collective punishment. You just can't hide your true mentality, JeffB.

      JeffB: "Finally the request for an end of the conflict would be something like this, “We apologize for our actions since 2005. What changes in Hamas policy can we enact so as to facilitate a good relationship and rebuild your trust in us to allow you to end the blockade?”

      Sure, right out of the Hasbara propaganda handbook. How about Jews apologing for Zionism since 1919 and all the crimes against humanity they commited since then? Starting with illegal immigration and settling of Palestine while driving Palestinians of the land they cultivated? Or preventing the independence of Palestine and majority ruling while establishing a state through war and expulsion while putting Nonjews under martial law? Or conquering the rest of Palestine through more war and more expulsion and putting the occupied under martial law? Or illegally settling in occupied territories and illegaly stealing its resources? Or torturing children and keeping them under prolonged adminstrative detention without charge or trial? Or collective punishment while counting calories? Or house and well demolitions? Or killing multiple ten times more civilians than Palestinians do?

      The list of Zionist crimes is endless. But keep counting Palestinian rockets. What Palestinians do to Isarelis is nothing compared to Israels crimes. And you know it.

    • JeffB: "You missed the part about “stand alone” in the right of self determination. "

      Why shouldn't one miss a part you just made up? There is nothing in the definition of the right to self determination that requires that a people can "stand alone". If they want they can exercise this right by choosing to put themselves under a goverment of a different country and merge both territories. Especially people that can't stand own their own can be put under a mandate and today under UN trusteeship. And if a people is occupied they obviously can't stand own their own.

      Stop making up international law, JeffB. The state of Palestine was recognize within the UN in 2012.

      JeffB: Cool so when are you going to start denouncing this incessant talk about how Jews got to Israel ..."

      What??? They are not natives?

      JeffB: "... and how that delegitimize their presence since they are certainly people in the territory now and thus are entitled to self determination?"

      Immigrants who enter a territory without the consent of the country's population have no right to exercise their right to self determination in this country. The country has the right to deport them.

    • JeffB: "This is starting to get too repetitive."

      It's not my fault you are educionally impaired. You can't even put my quotes in quotation marks.

      JeffB: Self determination: the right of nations powerful enough to stand alone to form a sovereign government that represents their interests. The proper meaning of self determination."

      The proper meaning of self determination of PEOPLE is that a country's PEOPLE (its real nation) have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status. They don't even need to form a goverment if they don't like want to or if they are not "powerful" enough to stand alone and therefore want to merge their country with another state.

      JeffB: "Nation means a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. That’s the criteria. That’s the only criteria.

      You still mistake nations within citizenship (an identity based on common descent, history, culture, or language, etc.) with nations as citizenship which is ALL people OF a country, its citizens or habitual residents. The latter is what defines the right to self determination. It doesn't matter what their "descent, history, culture, or language", etc. is. The citizens of Palestine aka the nation/people of Palestine in 1948 had this right no matter if they were Jewish or not.

      JeffB: "That also means that “settler colonialism” which I would call mass migration is not a disqualifying factor."

      Now you mistake settler colonialism (immigration WITHOUT consent) with "mass migration". Settler colonialism as practiced before 1948 by Jewish foreigners under British Gun and since 1967 under Israeli gun can only happen, because the right to self determination of the mandated or occupied people is violated. They can not freely choose that they dan't want these settlers in their country. It is a disqualifying factor since the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis,.

      JeffB. "People migrate to new territories and having done so do not lose their right to self determination. More importantly their descendents do not lose that right."

      You are confused, JeffB. First of all its in post colonial times the people of a country exercise this right by defining who they are going to allow to immigrate or not. Secondly if they allow someone to immigrate this person acquires the same right within this country. If not neither does their descendant in more than 160 countries in the world, including Israel.

      JeffB: "Everyone born in a territory regardless of how their parents got there is an equally legitimate resident of that territory."

      Nonsense. Jus soli is granted by only 30 countries in the world and rare outside the Americas. Jus sanguinis prevails which you simply don't prefer, because you need to argue that children born in illegal settlements have the right to citizenship of Palestine and descendants of the first generation of Palestinian refugees don't have the right to citizenship in Israel.

      JeffB: "I think your system is disgusting racist and inhumane you think my system is a crime against international law."

      It's your personal "system" that bases the right to self determination on national identities (Jews) instead of citizens despite their heritage/faith (Palestinians, Jews and Nonjews). It is your personal "system" that supports settler colonialism (of Jews) which violates the right of self determination of the native people (Palestinians, Jews and Nonjews) of a country, which happens without consent and can only be established through violence against and dispossesion of the natives. It is your personal "system" that claims that birthright citizenship is a given while citizenship by descent is not and only to support the descendants of illegal Jewish settlers while rejecting the patriation of the descedants of Palestinian refugee as if illegal settling is more humane than repatriation.

      And you of all people call my system which is based on international and humanitarian law and human rights "disgusting racist and inhumane" and not your personal system which is based on Zionist racism? It couldn't be more dishonest, JeffB. You are perveting every humane principle to support an agenda that is based on supremacism and settler colonialism and a policy which is considered a crime since the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis. So much for your disgusting and racist "system".

    • JeffB: "Now to answer the question I’d say punitive strikes to punish the Hamas government and the population more broadly for refusing to act like a good neighbor."

      Exactly. Collective punishment. Are serious war crime since the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis. Do you support the same treatment against Israel for refusing to act like "a good neighbor"?

      JeffB: "The Israeli people were repeatedly promised that this conflict was about land and if they relinquished land they would have peace. After 100% withdraw from Gaza they want Gaza to be cooperative and constructive. They were lied to. Gaza is not peaceful."

      Yes, well, the "Israeli people" believe the most stupid lies from its goverment. First of all the principle of "land for peace" simply means that Israel ends occupying land that it doesn't own. Its basic principle is conquering land and then extorting a solution it accepts. Secondly even this dishonest policy always applied to the whole occupied territory, not only to parts of it while the rest remains occupied. But Israel's unilateral "disengagement" from a peace of occupied Palestine was planned to avoid peace arrangements according to Dov Weinglass.

      And Israel didn't "relinquish land", it only modified its occupation, put its soldiers at the edge of this territory and emptied it from Jewish civilians to be able to punish the Gazans collectively with mass murdering them and putting them under siege. After the election of Hamas it restrained rocket fire until Israel slaughtered a family on the beach. Alone in 2006 Israel shot more than 14.000 artillery shells into Gaza which killed more civilians than Palestinian rockets have killed Israelis (including soldiers) since then. In 2008 when a ceasefire was brokered Israel killed 6 Hamas fighters to end it. This is by design. This is not without intention. Whenever there's a mull Israel starts killing people to provoke reacotions so it can point to Gaza as an excuse to keep occupying the Westbank, too.

      JeffB: "So now when Gaza gets violent they hit back hard enough to teach the Gazans at the minimal loss of life that Israel is not going to tolerate a hot border and will use whatever level of violence is required to keep that border calm."

      First of all it's not Gaza getting violent. The ongoing occupation/siege of Gaza and the Westbank are an ongoing violation and based on state terrorism. I won't list all of Israel's incursions into Gaza or its crimes commited in the Westbank by Israel's soldiers or settler scum. But to paint Israel as a defender who tries to keeps its borders calm allthough it breaches them on a daily base and even illegaly settles beyond them is as despicable as your support of "teaching" the Gazans. Again, this is considered a war crime since the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis. Is there any Nazi policy you actually DON'T support?

      JeffB: "And before all the humanitarian stuff starts the rational solution to end the violence is for the Gazans is to ask Netanyahu for terms of surrender what a responsible country does in an unwinnable war."

      Surrender to what condiition? The prolonging of Israel's siege and occupation and its violation of humanitarian law? If you think that a conflict an only be won militarily than you clearly missed what happened to Apartheid South Africa.

    • JeffB: "BDS focus its rhetoric on attacks against the legitimacy of Israel."

      What is this "legitimacy" based upon, again?

      JeffB: "But in general I support self determination for all peoples.".

      Yes, as long as their right to self determination is not violated by Jews, right? Because then you support settler colonialism and the creation of an Apartheid Junta by seperatists whose majority were not even citizens of Palestine and without any referendum but through war and expulsion. That's what you call "legitimacy" in the post-Nazi era.

  • Jews have religious commandment to support Israel and fight BDS -- American Jewish Committee
    • Sibiriak: "Not following you. If one holds that negating other peoples’ self-determination, ethnic cleansing, settler colonialism, genocide, religious/ethnic supremacism etc. were wrong in all instances in the past, and wrong now regarding Israel, where is the hypocrisy/ double standard?"

      JeffB doesn't understand the concept of universal values. And he thinks that one can't condemn the crimes of Zionism if others commited the same.

    • Sibiriak: "@ Talkback Are you arguing that displacement or genocide were legitimate before the Nuremberg trials."

      Nope. But I don't think that these crimes were internationally prohibited before before the Nuremberg trials.

    • JeffB: "Moreover I wasn’t talking about peace negotiations but living together."

      One of JeffB's lies since he supports the "ressetlement" of Palestinian refugees instead of their repatriation.

      JeffB: "1927-1936: both people were working on a joint project because of the citrus boom. They both willing put aside their competitive national goals to grow the common economy. "

      JeffB wants to distract from the fact that Zionist Jews established a union called "Histradut" in 1920 which ensured to reserve Jobs only for Jews. The first General ttorney of Palestine Norman Bentwich called it "economic Apartheid".

      JeffB: "1966-1987: A period of rapid economic integration where Israelis extended civil freedoms and Palestinians put aside their national goals."

      JeffB lies about "extending civil freedoms". Israel put Palestinians under martial law and used outmist brutality in crushing Palestinan national goals and their bones which led to the first Intifada.

      JeffB: "The problem for the Palestinians is they believe their own propaganda and so keep expecting Israelis to act like a colonial government when faced with techniques from colonial resistance.

      The problem of JeffB is that he believes his own propaganda and expects anybody to believe that not Zionist settler colonialism was first, but the resistance to it.

      Again JeffB has no problem to pervert the truth and put it upside down. And he uses exactly the same propaganda South Africa under Apartheid used.

    • JeffB: "Every society is the product of displacement and genocide."

      And which one is the product of displacement or genocide after this was finally condemned in the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis? And do you support Palestinians to displace Jews or commit genocide against them to create the society they like? Or is your real attempt to whitewash displacement and genocide?

    • JeffB: "They were not willing to return to live in peace to help build the new Jewish state. They wanted an Arab state. So they couldn’t return. "

      What an utter lie. They tried to return, but where greated with Jewish violence. You know very well, that all that Israel cared about was a significant Jewish majority. And its nationality law in 1952 even stripped these refugees of their right to Israeli citizenship. And Palestinians didn't want an "Arab" state. They just wanted the sttate under mandate to be released into independece like all other Class-A-Mandates.

      JeffB: "I’ve never claimed to support humanitarian measures that would destroy the Jewish state."

      Of course not. Like a true fascist you put a state over humans.

      JeffB: " The less threatening the [...] are the more humanitarian measures can be taken towards them. The more threatening they are the fewer that can be taken and the more inhumane that will need to be taken. ..."

      Nazi war crimes propaganda template.

      JeffB: "As humane as possible, as brutal as necessary."

      Yep, the Nazis called that "military necessety" when they commited their war crimes.

      JeffB: "I don’t Israel to become [...] Tibet."

      No, you want Israel to be "China".

      JeffB: "Your claim was the intent was always violent expulsion. I’d dispute that."

      Of course you do and whithout any argument. It was as unintentional as the destruction of more than 400 villages and the violent prevention to allow them to return, right? Cause Jews didn't need to become a siginificnt majority in the territory they took through war and expulsion, right?

      JeffB: "I’d love to allow those Palestinians in their diaspora to be able to return to Israel and join with us in building up our state."

      Lying JeffB just said two days ago (September 22, 2017, 9:36 am) about Palestinian refugees: "I support permanent resettlement for [...] for Paletinians.". And he wasn't talking about a return.

      JeffB: "There was no need for a majority under certain circumstances. "

      Yep. It's called Apartheid. The same that happens today where Jews in historic Palestine are a minority allthough they keep all refugees expelled.

      JeffB: "But if horrific violence proves necessary it will and should be employed."

      Spoken like a Nazi. You see, if you remind me one or two times of Nazis I would concider it to be a coincidence. But you continuosly support Nazi policies which makes me wonder if you are really a supporter of Israel or a crypto-Nazi who wants to get rid of Jews. You even said that the permanent resettlement of Jews to Palestine would be the far better option than to allow them to return.

      JeffB: "It is your unwillingness to accept that Jews are a real people ..."

      It doesn't matter if they are. They don''t acquire national rights if they are not of the people of a country. Until today there is not a single country in which anyone becomes Jewish by acquiring its citizenship. If you need to call Jews a people it's not the same "people" as the French, Chinese or Nigerian you mention. The latter are a nation., Jews are not.

      JeffB: "There has been tremendous violence for all sorts of recently new countries like East Timor and Eritrea."

      The typical Zionist position that crimes are ok if not only Jews commit it. But which of your examples were the violence of settler colonialism?

      JeffB: "The Kurds are facing much the same resistance the Jews faced a century ago in Palestine ..."

      The Kurds are not settlers. They are facing the same problem as Palestinians. A brutal supression of their self determination. In the Palestinian case for a century. You should be proud of the racist and inhumane values you support.

    • JeffB: "1) Who owns what homeland is permanent and has nothing to do with inhabitation."

      Maybe in the Kahane Continuum, but not in our universe. The legal habitual residents of a country are its owners. Not foreign settlers.

      JeffB: 2) Given an occupation of another’s homeland creates a situation of slavery.
      3) This cannot be rectified through policy
      4) Everyone is morally obligated to fight slavery."

      Exactly. Everyone is morally obligated to fight Zionism and its occupation of historic Palestine.

    • echi: "Oh, it’s not? B-b-but that’s all it has been, nothing else ever, from the start to now.

      By the way, the start is the hostile takeover statement of the 1897 Congress. Not 1948."

      I claim that the right to self determination is not a blood and soil matter, but a civic right. Citizens or habitual residents of a country have the right to self determination not only people who were born there. Whether Jewish immigration and naturalization under British gun was legitimate or not (I say it wasn't) is a different question, but one has to acknowledge that they weren't even born there (which is an important issue for JeffB). In any case Jews can't claim national rights by claiming that it was "their" homeland thousand years ago and that they are as Jews (and only Jews) biological descendants of ancient Hebrews.

    • JeffB: "Maybe you should ask what I my opinion is rather than just guessing. Your guesses tend to be rather lousy. I wasn’t alive then so I didn’t support anything. But at least ex-post facto I don’t support their right to return to Germany at all."

      Sorry JeffB. How could I possibly know that you could even sink that low to not support Holocaust survivors AND their children to return to their home/property. But at the end of your comment it becomes clear why you need to do this to create a fake equivalency.

      JeffB: "I supported the policy that eventually emerged, their permanent resettlement in Palestine. That was a far better option."

      Sure JeffB, that's what the Nazis supported, too, with their Haavara agreement. Disenfranchisement, Dispossession and ethnic cleansing. Why should you be different?

      JeffB: "The refugee crisis since then is UNRWA’s doing.

      UNHCR’s policy is exactly the correct one.
      1) Return to their homes if viable if not
      2) Return to their home country in another location if viable if not
      3) Permanent resettlement in a 3rd country under best possible conditions, where reintegration is most likely."

      The refugee crisis since then is because Israel prevents what UNCHR considers to be the best option which is repatriation. And because of your racism when it comes to Jews you support what you call the far better option, but when it comes to Palestinians you support the worse option.

      JeffB: "I support permanent resettlement for Jews and permanent resettlement for Palestinians."

      Of course you do. At first glance that sounds like an equal nonracist and humane approach that seems to be the far better option. But we both know that because of your racism you actually support Jews to settle wherever they want in Palestine - even it they don't have this right - while you don't support Palestinians or their refugees to do the same - even if it is their right. And we also know that you don't support the "ressettlement" of illegal Jewish settlers, allthough Israel is obligated to do so under internatiional humanitarian law.

      That's your game, JeffB. Always hide your Zionist racism within a support for something that initially sound non-racistand equal, but is ultimately pro Zionist and violating humanitarian law and human rights. Just try to prove me wrong.

    • JeffB: "Not true and I’ve given several counter examples like Russian Christians in the part you cut. "

      Russian Christian are not ISRAELI JEWISH. Again, Israel makes a Nazi like distinction between nationality and citizenship. Only Jews are considered to be "nationals" and THE NATION of Israel allthough they are only ONE "nation" WITHIN citizensip. Nonjews are not considered to be part of ISRAEL JEWISH "national collective".

      JeffB: "How does what the supreme court decide in one case have anything to do one way or another with whether Israel does or does not have a track record? Your argument doesn’t even make sense."

      Oh, I see. When you said that Israel has a track record of integrating people into its "national collective" it means that you are only refering to Jews, because the Supreme Court decided that "Israeli" isn't the state's "national collective".

      JeffB: "But claiming it hasn’t happened is simply false."

      I claimed that the definition of "Jewish" is not a "social construction" in Israel. It's defined by its Chief Rabbinate. The state avoids defining "Jewish" and to create a constitution for the self declared "Jewish" state.

      JeffB: "So here the final authority on citizenship is the British?"

      Nope. Neither by the British Goverment nor by Great Britain. The Goverment of Palestine issued these id cards before 1948 on behalf of the Palestinian people.

      JeffB: "I said that today’s Jews have a claim to Palestine because they live there and were born there."

      Yes, it's obvious that you support the result of Jewish settler colonialism in Palestine why you deny native Palestinans their basic rights to the right to self determination, the right to citizenship and the right to return. With your "citizen by birth" approach you want to support children's of citizens to stay in illegal settlements allthough they are not citizens of Palestine while denying the children of Palestinian refugees to have the same right to Israeli citizenship based on the principle of "citizen by descent", because you don't want the racism of Israel's fake democracy to be challenged.

      JeffB: " I have disputed the false history of the anti-Zionist movement that claims there are no ties between Jews and Palestine, but that’s not what I base my claim on."

      I don't care about this claim or its denial, because historical "ties" are legaly irrelevant. The Romans and Greeks have "ties" to every place they had conquered and they many created cities (London or the many "Alexandrias", etc.), too

      JeffB: "That’s where we disagree. I don’t agree with UNRWA’s claim that they are refugees. They should be citizens of the place of their birth."

      ROFL. Unlike UNRWA the UNCHR not only allows descendants of refugees to have refugee status but even their ascendants and based on the principle of family (re-) unification. Children's of refugees don't loose their nationality only because they are victims of a racist Apartheid Junta that needs to make its ethnic cleansing permanent, because it wouldn't survive being a real democracy. What you support is permanent ethnic cleansing. Your argument that only first generation of Palestian refugees should be Isareli is completely dishonest, because you know that no parent would exercise this right to give up their family. What you actually support is as despicable as seperating Holocaust survivors from their children if the latter were born in Auschwitz.

      JeffB: "What defines a nation is the culture… The claim the nation was present is a claim about culture not biological descent. Lose the culture and its a new nation. Culture is learned. The people who lived in the territories conquered during the formation of France became French by changing their culture not biology. I’m American because my culture changed from what it would have been in Ukraine not my biology."

      You are only talking about nations WITHIN citizenship. Again, when it comes to the right to self determination it is not culture (or biology) that defines a people, but being legally and habitually resident in one country. That is what constitutes a nation as a constitutive people and their right to self determination.

      JeffB: "The right of self determination is a right for nations not individuals. So no you are totally wrong on this one."

      Nope, it is actually an individual right of the people of a country. That's the reason why a referendum or an election can decide how this right is going to be exercised. You don't know that, because the Jewish Agency never asked anyone. That's the reason why Israel had to be created through war and expulsion of those who disagreed. That's the definition of a violation of the right to self determination.

      JeffB: "Of course they can. Tens of thousands of people do it every year. "

      Again, nobody can become "ISRAELI JEWISH" by acquiring a citizenship of any country. The Nonjews of Israel are neither "ISRAELI JEWISH". That's why "ISRAELI JEWISH" is not a constitutiive people and not a NATION OF the country, but the most a "nation" WITHIN this country.

      JeffB: "The question was who had the right to determine the policy for the territory. That’s a right of the state. Self determination is the right of a nation to have a state that represents their interests. Citizenship is a means of a state declaring who it represents and makes claims of authority over. You are making categorical errors. When there is no longer a functioning state there are no citizens any longer just residents. Those residents can belong to one or more nations and those nations attempt to form new states to govern the territory. That state then declares citizenship. That’s precisely what happened in Palestine. I’m hard pressed to think of more than about 3 countries in the world that had referendum. Where are you getting this criteria from?"

      You are terribly confused, JeffB. It is called the right to self determination of people. Not of goverments or states. It's the right of people to choose their sovereignty and international political status (either a state or something else). This right to choose is exercised by referendum in post colonial times not by your criterias to support settler colonialism. And citizens or residents don't loose their citizenship or resident status only because their goverments dissolve. If refugees weren't considered to be citizens/residents of a country they wouldn't count as REFUGEES at all.

      And what happened in Palestine was completely different. Jewish terrorists and paramilitary seperatists used the power vacuum left by the mandatory goverment due to the pressure of a decade of succesful Jewish terrorism for a coup d'etat to create a state through war and expulsion. They did not hold any referendum (not even amongst Jews) and they certainly did not transfer the nationality of their newly created state to those it keeps ethinically cleansed until today. All of this iin clear violation of the right to self determination, the right to citienship and the right to return. And you dare to talk about 'Israel's legitimacy'. It's the fake legitimacy of an Apartheid Junta. All of historic Palestine is ruled by a Jewish minority, including martiall law and former mandatory emergency regulations which are so inhumane that when Jews were its victims a Jewish attorney( who would later become the first minister of justice of Israel) said that even Nazis wouldn't have such regulations.

      JeffB: "I don’t believe there is anything one could call Judaism in the 8th century BCE or before."

      Do you want to rule out that their ascendants conquered the land of Canaan and maybe commited some genocides against its natives?

      JeffB: "You spoke of forcible deportation."

      Deportation is always forcable and is still neither a mass murder nor a genocide. Or do you want to call the Jewish ethnic cleansing of Paletinians genocide?

      JeffB: "You should look at the Khmer Rouge. You want to claim you don’t share their ideology then point out specifically where you disagree with what they did and how they handled the situation."

      Are you educationally impaired? I still only claim that citizens of an occupyng power that illegaly settle in occupied territories should be deported and their settlements dismantled. That's not my "ideology" but according to humanitarian law and Security Council resolutions. It is pretty much custom to deport illegal immigrants. Maybe you should look at the Nazis and point out specifically where you disagree with their colonialization of occupied land, with their herrenrasse policy of differentiating between nationals and citizens or their war crime to collectively punish people to "teach" them a lesson and certainly of their policy to ethnically cleanse people and their descendants because of their faith or heritage to achieve and maintain a certain national character.

      JeffB: "When one wants to solve an ethnic conflict in a territory rather than exacerbate it you talk about shared humanity. If the goal is eventually to live under a joint government you emphasize their common interests so as to facilitate their ability to work and live together. If your goal is to increase ethnic conflict in a territory or further them you engage in demonization of the other. You emphasize historical grievances and conflicts of respective community interests.

      So Talkback which do you do?"

      Because of the priniciples of shared humanity, to live under a joint goverment and to emphasize their common interests so as to facilitate their ability to work and live together I support a one state solution in historic Palestine, the right to return for all refugees and majority ruling.

      Any other solution based on the differation between Jews and Nonjews, nationals and citizens, the rights for ascendants and descandants, different states for different people and emphasizing historical grieviances and claims is only based on racism or even worse supremacism.

      Your turn, JeffB.

    • Well Annie, JeffB supports the right of Holcoaust survivors to return to Germany, but not their children if they were born in a concentration camp in Poland. He's such a mensh.

    • Boris: "And it is the Jews who are indigenous to the Land of Israel."

      Nope. It was the ancient Hebews who were "indigenous to the Land of Israel". The Palestinians even consider post-Ottoman Jews in Palestine to be "indigenous". But foreign Jewish settlers are not. That's why they had to immigrate. Duh. And don't repeat the nonsense that Jews as such are the descendants of the ancient Hebrews. Nobody can prove which modern Jew is and which modern Nonjew isn't.

      In any case. This is no racist Nazi blood and soil matter, this is civic matter. Who was a citizen of Palestine in 1948? Only these had the right to determine Palestine's future and by referendum.

    • JeffB: "Bull. Bull. The most clear cut example of that ...."

      Israel considers only the Jewish collective to be THE collective of Israel. A Nonjewish is not considered to be a national in Israel or part of its national collective.

      JeffB: "Israel has a proven track record of integrating people that are willing to live under Israeli law as Israels into the national collective."

      You are blatanly lying. Israel prevents Nonjewish refugees from returning since 1948. And again, Nonjews are not part of the "national collective" of Israel. There is no Israeli nation according to Israel's Supreme Court of Supremacist Justice.

      JeffB: "The definition of “Jewish” is a social construction, can expand and has expanded several time."

      Well inot in Israel. There the Chief Rabbinate has allreday un-Jews thousands of Jews, because they don't fulfill the definition.

      JeffB: "So where does one find this list of Palestinian citizens? Who was the issuing authority?"

      The mandatory Goverment of Palestine issued ID-Cards. Jewish natives of Palestine know this. Settler infiltrators and their descendants usually don't.

      JeffB: "When have I made that claim? I’ve tended to find that whole claim a racist load of crap."

      Every time you suggest that todays Jews have a claim to Palestine, because ancient Hebrews lived there.

      JeffB: "You asked this question two days ago and I said that I do. I’m not sure how you would know if I were lying about my opinions that claims sounds bizarre on its face. I support Palestinians refugees right to return. I don’t support expanding this definition to foreign born descendants."

      Exactly. You are lying when you say that you "can unapologetically support human rights for all, races not just favored ethnicities.", because these descendants have refugee status and the right to return, too. Which is understandable, because not only their parents have the right under international law to be citizens of the state that incorporated the part of the country in which they were habitually resident. But we all know that the racist state of Israel stripped them of their right to Israel's nationality by introducing a nationality law which his an inhumane perversion of customary nationality laws and based on racist demographic concerns. And that's the reason for your support. The same racism, not humane rights or values.

      JeffB: "Which means they aren’t the original people anymore. They lost their culture."

      When it comes to the right to self determination it is not culture that defines a people, but being legally and habitually resident in one country. That is what constitutes a nation, a constitutive people. The right to self determination is a civic right, not some pseudo legal right of foreign settlers based on a fake concept of being a "nation".

      JeffB: "Israeli Jews most certainly are."

      No. Israeli Jews are not a constitutive people. Nobody can become Israeli Jewish by acquiring the citizenship of any country like someone can become American by acquiring American citizenship, etc. "Israelis" should be a constitutive people. But the Israel's Supreme Court of Supremacist Justice has ruled out that they are a nation. This Nazlike perversion of the concept of citizenship enables Israel to artifically differentiate between nationals (only Jews) and citizens. In reality only Israel's "nationals" (only Jews) are real citizens and the rest is only called "citizen" with lesse rights than citizens normally do. That's why this racist state is a self declared "Jewish" and not "Israeli" state. It's like when Nazi Germany was calling itself "Aryan" while Jews were only considered to be "citizens".

      JeffB: "No the obvious answer is the government of that territory if it is capable of still governing.
      JeffB: "In 1947 the British government could or would no longer provide a monopoly on force and thus there was no single government for Palestine."

      You are confused, JeffB. Goverments can't have a right to self determination. This right is an individiual right of the country's citizens who determine how they want to be governed (or even not.). Only the citizens of Palestine had this right.

      JeffB: "The power falls back to the constituent nations. The government that replaced the British came out of the militias of the Yishuv, the Israeli government.

      No it doesn't. The power always resides in the citizens of a country. They are the souvereign of the country even if no goverments exist for whatever reasons. The fact is that the Jewish Junta took the power through war and expulsion in total violation of the right of self determination of the citizens of Palestine. There wasn't even a referendum. Israel has not even an internal legitimation.

      JeffB: "No one knows."

      Do you rule out that Jews conquered the land of Canaan? And maybe commited some genocides against its natives?

      JeffB: "I've already pointed to you doing it. You feel that mass murder is justified because settlers aren’t people and somehow you are supporting international law."

      I allready told you that you are lying. I never said that "mass murder" is justified but spoke of deportation. And I never said that settler's aren't people, but that they are illegal immigrants living in illegaly build structures who ought to be dismantled under international law. So you are actually lyng, too, when you claim that someone is calling for a "new holocaust". (Which isn't only a mass murder, but genocide.)

      JeffB: "Your delegitimizing rhetoric in the above about Israelis is also genocidal. Normal people who want political reform not genocide don’t talk in absolutist terms about ethnic conflicts. The people who do talk that way are the genocide advocates."

      Well, you are just lying again. And to give you another chance to lie you can explain what you understand by "delegitimizing rhetoric in the above about Israelis" and how this could be "genocidal". (Especially since you even confuse deportation with genocide which is blatantly stupid.) And then we will compare your allegations with your statements about Palestinians and check how delegitimizing /genocidal they are. And we will not only checke your responses to my comments. OK?

    • JeffB: "The Byzantine civilization that existed was mostly annihilated and replaced with an Arab / Muslim civilization."

      Nope. The natives were arabized and forced to convert.

      "... but the people you call the Palestinians do have continuity. with the civilization of the Islamic Arab invaders. They do not have continuity with the Roman / Byzantine civilization that existed prior."

      Nope. See above.

      "An argument that all human migrations are illegitimate ..."


      JeffB: "... and there is some moral obligation to restore all previous civilizations that existed in a place ..."

      Let's restore the previous State of Palestine within its borders under mandate.

      JeffB: "... then quite ironically it not only applies both to the Palestinians as the victims of invasion but it also equally applies to them as invaders."

      Again, the Palestinians as such never invaded Palestine. They were conquered and then arabized.

    • JeffB: "I get to support a consistent morality that allows for a broad and inclusive national definition as demonstrated by Israeli’s excellent track record on integrating people from all over the world into a single national collective. "

      You only get to support permanent ethnic cleansing and dispossesion. And Nonjews in Israel are not regarded as being part of its "national collective". That's reserved for Jews only. Again, you just lying and turning everything upside down.

      JeffB: "I get to oppose racist constructs about land claims based on DNA consistently."

      ROFL. The Palestinians claim to Palestine is based on being citizens of the mandated State of Palestine and their descendants. Your claim to Palestine is consistently based on the claim that ONLY the Jews of today and as such are the DNA descendants of ancient Hebrews and therefore have a title to this land. Again, you just lying and turning everything upside down.

      JeffB: "I can unapologetically support human rights for all, races not just favored ethnicities."

      Nope. You don't support the human rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. Again, you are just lying.

      JeffB: "Palestinians are a people speaking an Eastern Arabian Peninsula dialect of Arabic and worshipping an Eastern Arabian Peninsula God."

      Of course. They were arabized after the Arabian conquest.

      JeffB: "They have no continuity."

      Neither do Israelites or Israelis. Relevant is that Palestinians are a constitutive people since 1925 and Jews will never be.

      JeffB: "That doesn’t mean they have to be expelled but their claims to being the descendants of the people who lived there then is rather dubious."

      Only because you fail to understand that the Arabians didn't colonize Palestine. They only conquered it. Their descendants make only up to 5% of today's Palestinians. But again. It is irrelevant. The relevant question is who had the right to determine Palestine's future in 1947/48. The obvious answer is: Only the citizens of Palestine. That rules out at more than half of the Jews who were present in Palestine.

      JeffB: "The Palestinians owe their presence to acts of violence and never set it right with the Byzantines."

      Again, you mistake Palestinians for Arabians. But please enligthen us how Jews came to into the posession of the Land of Canaan and how long they ruled it.

      JeffB: "As for Holocaust justification we see on this board daily and regularly calls for a new holocaust."

      What we actually see is that you are suffering from Holocaust psychosis and compulsive lying. But please prove me wrong and quote someone who calls for a "new holocaust". And then we are going to have a look if Israel allready has been doing it to Palestinians.

    • JeffB: "But there are almost none who consider the UN’s position, what you are calling “International law” to be just and fair. There are almost none that are disloyal to Israel."

      Yep, they have turned into supporters of violation of humaniatarian law and human rights. Real existing Zionism has basically turned thems into he Jewish equivalent of an Islamofascist and which is genuinely inhumane and only loyal to Jewish supremacism.

      JeffB: "t will never be the case that the aggressive maximalist demands of the Palestinians as reflected in BDS will ever find anything but hard opposition from American Jews."

      This is a good example of what Leibowitz would call Judeonazism, too. The call for equality and human rights is considered to be an "aggressive maximalist demand" instead of what Zionists did in Palestine in 1948 and still are doing. That's the ultimate upside-down perversion of human values. And that is exactly your game here on MW.

    • JeffB: "Palestine was the homeland of the Christian Byzantine society that existed prior to the Muslim conquest that led to the migration of today’s Palestinians."

      There was not migration. There was an Arabization and Muslimization of the native of Palestine. Only 5% of today's Palestinians are considered to be descendants of Arabians.

      JeffB: "The first wave of Israelis are acting on their moral obligation to restore them and end their occupation."

      Nope, they are Jewish foreigners who colonize Palestine. First under British de facto occupation and nowadays under Israel's de facto and de jure occupation. It has been settler colonialism from the get go. You will never prove that any Jew of today is a biological descedant of an ancient Hebrew as you will never prove that any Nonjew or Palestinian of today is not. Racists like you only fake a "biological" continuity of a priarily religious group in a futile attempt to legitimize the criminal expulsion, denationalization, dispossession and the denial of self determination of the constitutive people of the former mandated State of Palestine.

  • How Netanyahu's son became the poster boy for white supremacists
    • JeffB: "They have roughly the same amount of cultural, political and economic power. "

      Giraldi - former CIA and counter terrorism specialit says that American Jews are driving American wars.

      JeffB: "Finally my definition for “new anti-semitism” is leftist taking traditionally antisemitic / anti-judaic beliefs and modifying them slightly to fit a leftist orientation and updating a bit."

      Your examples are missing the core element of antisemitism. The targeted Jews are targeted for what they do and not because THEY ARE JEWS albeit innocent. With your perverted definition of "new-anti-antisemitism" you only want to slander any accusation against Jewish individuals or interest group as being "antisemitic" only to cover up their atrocities and only because THEY ARE JEWS allthough they are not innocent at all. It's your accusation of "new-anti-antisemitism" that is based on racism.

  • 'Regime instability' in Iran is aim of leading Israel advocate's memo to White House
  • Jewish state of Israel has become Jewish 'city-state' of Tel Aviv -- Rahm Emanuel
    • Nathan: "It’s hard to follow the logic of this article. Rahm Emanuel made a statement that Israel has gone from a “nation-state to a city-state”, and therefore the conclusion of the article is “to abandon Zionism”. Should I assume that if it’s not true (that Israel has become a city-state), the conclusion of Mondoweiss should therefore be that one should not abandom Zionism?"

      Only if that would be the ONLY reason to abandon Zionism.

  • Israeli government to celebrate 50 years of 'return to Judea and Samaria for eternity' at a settlement
    • Nathan: "Busying oneself in proving that the State of Israel shouldn’t have been founded, or that the settlements should be removed, or the occupation is illegal, or the refugees must be returned, etc, etc is just a total waste of time. "

      Well, how can someone accept a criminal's atrocities if you don't 'busy yourself' with the atrocitities he wants to be acknowledged as legitimate? Btw. you can reduce Zionism's atrocities to a century of settler colonialism and denial of self determination of the natives of Palestine. We don't need to busy ourself with the actual crimes against humanity it needs to commit to maintain this.

    • Nathan: "Today, however, it is quite irrelevant."

      Not at all. It it is the legal basis for this conflict. Israel's "peace proposals" are nothing else than the acceptance of its violations of international law and human rights.Israel has nothing to offer what it legally owns.

  • New York TV stations smear Roger Waters-- who praises BDS as 'one of most admirable pieces of resistance world has seen'
    • Me: "You don’t have a problem, with “long term ethnic populations of non-citizens” when they are Non Palestinian Jewish settlers which illegaly immigrated and settled in occupied Palestine, right?"

      JeffB: "There are no non-Palestinian Jewish settlers outside of annexed territory and Area-C."

      There are non-Palestinian Jewish settlers within occupied or illegaly annexed territories of Palesetine. And you don't have a problem with "long term ethnic populations of non-citizens" within occupied Palestine as long as they are Jewish.

      JeffB: "So your claim such a situation is happening is as we’ve discussed before, while quite popular is a tortured abuse of language."

      You can't hide your racist driven hipocrisy with your perversion of the situation, JeffB.

      JeffB: "As for Area-C I support resolving this through annexation of Area-C and the granting of full Israeli citizenship to all residents of Area-C normalizing the situation."

      Of course you support the illegal annexation of more land while Isarel tries to get rid of its natives by demolishing their homes and preventing all Palestinians to access the natural resources of their land which Israel enabling an illegal access for Jews that vioolates international law. It#s like you said before: "And if you want to call that Nazi policy I’ll happily stand with the Nazis on that issue."

    • Jeff B: "Nope not at all like that. Anti-Nazism wanted regime change in Germany not the total destruction of Germany as a people, as a nation and as a culture. "

      Anti-Zionism wants regime change, too, and not the total destruction of Israel. Anti-zionists are not like Zionists who nearly destroyed all of Palestine as a CONSTITUIVE people, as a real nation.

      JeffB: "But anti-Nazims never asserted that German territory should be swamped with foreigners, who would then forever govern the Germans permanently depriving them of any self determination. And that would only be if any survived at all. "

      Good point, JeffB! Anti-Zionists never asserted that Palestinian territory should be swamped with Jewish foreigners, who would then forever govern the Palestinians permanently depriving them of any self determination. And that would only be if any survived at all.

      JeffB: "The anti-Apartheid movement rejected not supported your contention that where people could legally live in South Africa should be determined by their ethnicity."

      I knew that it wouldn't take long for you to lie. It's not even MY contention but international law that CITIZENS OF AN OCCUPYNG POWER are not allowed to settle in OCCUPIED territories. It doesn't have anything to do with their ethnicity. Are you to stupid, dishonest or both that you have to constantly ignore this and distort my position?

      Your are only concern ed with rights that illegal settlers should have as long as they are Jewish, but not with the rights of the occupied Nonjews that these settlers and their settler state constantly violate to maintain illegal settlements and the illegal transformation or confiscation of Palestinian land into only-for-Jews state land. Why don't you make a case for Nazis, too?

      And the fundamental difference between South Africa's Apartheid and Israel's Apartheid is that Afrikaners where not interested in conquering land only for themselves WHILE EXPELLING its natives. Afrikaners wanted to keep the natives segregated WHILE EXPLOITING them. It comes with no surprise that it is easier not to reject the presense of illegal settlers if INEQUALITY is the main issue and not EXPULSION, DENATIONALIZATION and ILLEGAL ANNEXATION. That's why Israel's Apartheid is worse than South African ever was.

      JeffB: "Your movement preaches nothing but hatred and darkness."

      ROFL. Says the Zionist JeffB of all people whose movement preaches permanent ethnic cleansing, illegal annexation, illegal settlements, dispossession, confiscation, denationalization or revoking residency, disenfrenchisment and permanent inequality expressed as Jewish supremacism. Or to keep it short a "Jewish democracy".

      Btw. I'm not an "anti-Zionist". I'm and individual who is pro universal human rights and pro international law. Just the opposite of a mindless Zionist sheep like you who needs to accuse others of "hatred and darkness" because the expanding plank in your eye has started to penetrate your brain.

    • Ms Reality: "hyperbole much? i guess you tried to top my by posting your own infantile and stupid comment."

      Nope. I succesfully made fun of your infantile and stupid comment and its underlying ludicrous logic that if someone is wrong about something that has nothing to do with Israel than he must be wrong about Israel, too.

      Ms Reality: "To review ..."

      Why don't you counter Waters' ARGUMENTS regarding Israel with verifiable facts instead of resorting to "insults and aggressive hyperbole"? In return I would abstain from calling you being "arrogant and wrong" and a "narcissist with poor judgment."

      (All quotes are your own words)

    • Ms Reality: "If he’s wrong about his own band, why would he be right about Israel?"

      That has to be the most stupid and infantile question I have ever read on Mondoweiss. So if someone is wrong about something which has nothing to do with Isarel he must be wrong about Israel, too. It doesn't get more stupid, does it? ROFL.

    • Ms. Reality: "Jordan makes up 3/4 of historic Palestine. Jordan’s population is over 50% Palestinian. The Hashemite kingdom’s claim to Jordan is less than 100 years old. Why doesn’t Roger insist that Jordan should be Palestinian?"

      Good point!

      Israel makes up about 3/4 of historic Palestine. Israel's real population is over 50% Palestinian if one includes Palestinian refugees. The State of Israel's claim to Palestine is less than 100 years old.

      We have to insist, too, that Israel becomes Palestinian again. Thank you for you reasonable contribution.

    • JeffB: "Every refugee in the United States must by law start the LPR process after being here for one year so as to normalize their status and prevent the creation of long term ethnic populations of non-citizens."

      You don't have a problem, with "long term ethnic populations of non-citizens" when they are Non Palestinian Jewish settlers which illegaly immigrated and settled in occupied Palestine, right?

    • JeffB: "Anti-Zionism wants to kill Israel."

      Like Anti-Nazism wanted to "kill" Nazi Germany. And Anti-Apartheid wanted to kill South Africa under Apartheid. What's wrong with that? Regime change is a humane obligation when it comes to supremacist states that treat its citizens different because of their heritage or faith.

    • JeffB: "Oh I wish it were just that he hated Jews."

      No, you wish that he hates Jews, so you don't need a brain to deal with his arguments.

      JeffB: "The problem with Waters is that he is a political simpleton who completely fails to understand root causes of conflict."

      To the contrary. Like him every inteligent person knows that the root cause of this conflict is Zionism and its belligerent settler colonialism. And you know it.

  • Israeli rightist Smotrich lays out the vision for apartheid
    • Nathan: "In the anti-Israel world, the Israelis have no interests and no aspirations. "

      Well, that's obviosly not true. Just have a long at the endless list of atrocities against Nonjews in historic Palestine and the ones they keep expelled to maintain their Apartheid Junta.

      Nathan: "So, for you, it is obvious that the Jewish state must be dismantled."

      South Africa wasn't dismantled.

      Nathan: "As I pointed out to you, the Israelis think that the Jewish state is a wonderful phenomenon."

      Yes. All 730% of them.

      Nathan: "If you propose to them that they give up their state, you should at least explain why this is their best interest"

      Impossible! Where else can Jews treat Nonjews like this with impunity? Or let rabbis freely express how supremacist, fascist and violent Judaism should be interpreted? Israel is really a safe haven. Especially for supremacist sociopaths. Let them stay there, please!!!

      Nathan: "If you propose to them that they give up their state, you should at least explain why this is their best interest ..."

      If they don't know they are allready lost.

      Nathan: "(2) they should be treated as criminals."

      How about taking some of them to the Hague and let the ICC decide, if they are criminals or not? I'm sure that you support this.

      Nathan: "... and that they are good people."

      You sound like a criminal's mother.

      Nathan: "I would imagine that after hearing your brilliant plan, the answer would probably be: ” No, thanks, we prefer the status quo.”

      Well, who wouldn't prefer Apartheid and occupation? Someone who is psychologically healthy?

      Nathan: "Actually, what you really mean is that Israel has to be utterly defeated, and then your solution could be forced upon the Israelis."

      Please Nathan, this has been the only method of Zionist supremacist sociopaths since 1948 to establish, ethnically cleanse, expand and maintain their Apartheid Junta. What's wrong with that? Don't be a hypocrite!

    • Nathan: "... so, if the Jews will be allowed to stay as equal citizens in your proposal, what then prevents peace in your outlook?"

      Well just have a look what happened since mandate time: The unwillingness of Zionist Jews to accept majority ruling and their willingness to commit crimes against humanity to achieve and maintain a Jewish majority.

      Nathan: "Whatever the issue is, you should define it AND include its solution in your proposal."

      Good question. How can someone teach Zionist Jews to become democrats and stop being supremacist? There must be some dezionification process. Like the denazification process in post Nazi Germany.

    • Mooser: "“Talkback” (and of course, many others), I don’t know where you find the patience. But thanks."

      Thank you for your kind words. But is has nothing to do with patience. I'm just highly allergic to Zionist BS and their upside-down perversion of human values.

    • JeffB: "I understand your position. You have been clear. These people need to be removed and their cities destroyed."

      I understand that you need to lie and suggest that it is only my position Again, international law and the UN's Security Council's and all UN member's position including the US but except JSIL's position is that illegal settlements have to be dismantled. When are you going to stop lying to yourself that it is not their position but only mine?

      JeffB: "Later in the post you are going to contradict yourself. "

      Where JeffB? ROFL.

      JeffB: "See one line up."

      Still no support of genocide from my side (or the UN's). Just the support of deportation of illegal settlers and the destruction of their illegaly build settlements. These settlers are not people who only moved to a territory outside their state, because they were refugees or poor people. They illegaly settle there, illegaly confiscate the land and steal its resources within the framework of a racist colonizing policy who disenfranchises and dispossess the native population and destroys their property because they are of different faith or heritage. That's the crime, not stopping and reversing it.

      JeffB: "The racism of believing that citizenship is determined by ethnicity and not place of birth."

      So you were lying again, JeffB. I never claimed that citizenship is determined by ethnicity. It is your racist state that determines only Jews to be nationals of Israel. And Jewish Israeli illegal settlers and their descendants have not legally acquired he citizenship of the State of Palestine. And it is your racist state that keeps Palestinians who were born in Israel expelled and denationalized. Btw. the place of birth does not "determine" citizenship. These children are still allowed to acquire the citizenship that their parents have in states that respect the principle of family reunification.

      JeffB: "The racism that asserts that there is some biological inherited status called “illegal settler” that determines whether someone should or should not be granted human rights and equality under the law. "

      Another lie, JeffB. Again: What determines illegal settlers is that they are citizens of an occupying power who illegaly settle in occupied territories. It has NOTHING do with their faith or heritage or "biological inherited status". You constantly fail to acknowledge this.

      Citizens of an occupying power have NO rights to settle in occupied territories under international law, because their colonization of occupied territories is considered to be a crime against the native population since the ruling of the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis. You are calling for "human rights and equality" under fist law of an occupying power, not international law, humanitarian law and certainly not human rights. You are perverting law to support a crime. And you only support this violation of humanitarian law, because the criminals are Jewish. That's the real racism.

      JeffB: "If a state of Palestine were to be created including those Jewish cities absolutely the people living in them should be allowed to remain as Palestinians."

      The state of Palestine allready exists and was recognized within the UN in 2012. Since then not a single settler tried to acquire Palestinian citizenship. Their presence remains illegal. And any state has the right to deport illegal immigrants like Israel does. Do you want to deny the Palestinans this right, because the illegal immigrants are Jewish?

      JeffB: "Their descendants should be citizens where they were born. Syria, Lebanon, Jordan…"

      But they have refugee status, too. Even under UNHCR they would have acquired refugee status within the framework of familiy reunification. According to human rights law and customary internatinal law they should be Israelis like their parents. Do you support tearing up refugee families who should be citizens of the state from which they were expelled?

      And should Jews who were not born in Israel only be citizens of the states in which they were born, too? And do you support tearing up their families when their children are born in Israel and prevent the latter from acquiring the original citizenship of their parents?

      JeffB: "Colonizing territory means it isn’t occupied it is being colonized. By definition a territory is only occupied when the occupying power makes no permanent claim to it. Colonizing is making a permanent claim."

      Nope. That's not exclusive. Settling in occupied territories means colonizing them while they are occupied. And Israel is obviously NOT claiming that its settlements are not a permanent claim on the territory which is colonized under its occupation. You are just making up your own definitions.

      JeffB: "So to use your Nazi analogy, in the Polish region of Oder–Neisse the Nazis were not the occupying power they were the governing power. "

      Only withing the the 1937 German boundaries. But In the Westbank region of Palestine the Isarel has been the occupying power since 1967 and outside its declared or illegaly annexed boundaries.

      JeffB: "I cited 3 specific cases of civilians and civilian communities in each one the UN has disagreed with your assessment that total destruction is the appropriate course of action."

      You haven't cited anything. You have claimed that in these 3 cases "International law and the UN decided in precisely the opposite fashion with respect to other civilians left behind from other occupations" when it comes to the deportation of illegal settlers and the dismantlement of their settlements. And you failed to cite any resolution or advisory opinion so far.

      JeffB: "And in the case of the Khmer Rouge who did agree with you on a policy of total destruction the UN was condemning."

      Please prove that the UN condemned a Khmer's Rouge destruction of illegal settlements citizens from an occupying power.

      JeffB: "On the more limited case of Cyprus and Western Sahara the UN decided in favor of human rights for settlers. "

      Please prove that the UN decided that illegal settlements of citizens of Turkey and Morocco in Cyprus respectively the Western Sahara DON'T have to be dismantled.

      JeffB: "Saying I’m lying when the evidence shows exactly what I claim is bizarre. "

      Saying that you are providing evidence for what you claim is a bizarre lie. There's still not a single quote from or reference to any UN resolution or advisory opinion from its judicial organ (the ICJ) to support any of your made up claims.

      JeffB: "The Israeli Supreme court has defended the annexations which you disagree with. They decided that Elon Moreh was occupied in 1979. Let’s try and not overstate the case law."

      You are cofused, JeffB. The Israeli Supreme Court bases all of its rulings in the Westbank within the legal framework that the Westbank is under belligerent occupation by Israel. Regarding Elon Moreh it only ruled that the illegal seizure of land for its illegal settlements was legal because it claimed that the settlements performed key defense and military functions. "Military necessity" was also the key pseudo argument of the Nazis in the Nuremberg Trials. I know, if I call this Nazi policy you will happily stand with the Nazis on that issue, right?

    • eljay: "Or when you say “Israeli public” do you mean “Jews” because they’re the only “Israeli public” that matters?"

      Nathan has allready exterminated Nonjews in his mind.

    • Nathan: "I’d be curious to know how you have arrived at the conclusion that Hebrew is Slavic."

      The linguist Paul Wexler (an American born Israeli belonging to the Slavo-Turk nation) claims that "Modern Hebrew is not a direct continuation of monolingual Semitic Hebrew- Modern Hebrew was created when Yiddish speaker re-lexified their language to Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew- Yiddish is a Slavic language, derived from Sorbian and thus, Modern Hebrew is a Slavic Language."

    • JeffB: "And I wish that occupation had continued."

      I know JeffB. It's like you said before: "And if want to call that Nazi policy I’ll happily stand with the Nazis on that issue."

    • JeffB: "I fully support ..."

      Illegal settlers have no right to reside in occupied territories. Period. If you need to support war crimes I woldn't be surprised at all.

      JeffB: "And in general… I do not support genocide against people regardless of how their ancestors arrived somewhere."

      Neither do I. Do you need to change the point of issue again?

      JeffB: "I do not support the racism you preach at all, in part of in full."

      What racism, JeffB? Are you lying again to distract from your own racism?

      JeffB: "I think everyone should be a citizen where they are born without exception."

      That would mean that children of illegal settlers are Palestinians Do you really want that?

      Btw. Israel deports children, because they are not Jewish:

      And talking about racism, JeffB. Do you think that Palestinian refugees should be a citizen of the country where they were born, too? And what about their descendants. Answer both questions with yes, if you are not a racist hypocrite accusing others of racism.

      JeffB: "And if want to call that Nazi policy ..."

      Twisting my words again, JeffB? I clearly said that colonizing occupied territory was a Nazi policy, and that Israel is commiting the same war crime.

      JeffB: "As to your other questions I don’t know the opinion ..."

      So you lied again when you claimed that "International law and the UN decided in precisely the opposite fashion with respect to other civilians left behind from other occupations." And at the same times and because it suits the criminal Zionist agenda of Israel you need to claim that international law and the UN are mistaken when it comes to Jewish settlements. You even need to deny that the Westbank is occupied allthough every UN member except Israel, the International court of Justice and even Israel's Supreme Court holds this position and Israel in 1967 has in fact occupied territories beyond its declared borders.

      So much for your dishonesty and racism.

    • Nathan: "JeffB – In America, “nation” is a synonym of “country” (an independent state), and “nationality” is a synonym of “citizenship”. In other places in the world, “nation” refers to ethnicity (people who share a common descent)."

      Nonsense. Both definitions exist simultaneously.

      Nathan: "In other words, he equates nationality and citizenship as if this is the only way of seeing things ..."

      Again nonsense. It's not my "equation", it's an official definition and the one that is legally relevant.

      Narthan: "... (and he demonstrates that he’s not aware of the social reality of other societies)."

      Why are you lying, Nathan? I constantly argue that there are two definitions of "nations". Nation AS citizenship and nation WITHIN citizenship. The latter is the definition your argument is based upon.

      Nathan: "In Israel, too, there are Jews and Palestinians (Israeli Arabs). "Both groups are citizens of Israel, but they are not the same national group. There is a Jewish national group (Hebrew-speakers), and there is a Palestinian national group (Arabic-speakers)."

      But Israel claims that ONLY Jews are THE nation of Israel and not Israelis. That's apartheid, Nathan and you know it. Again, Israel's differentiation between "nationals" (only Jews) and "citizens" (all Israelis) is based on a similar Nazi concept which differentiated between Reichsbuerger (only volkish Germans) and "citizens" (the rest inclunding Jews). This fake concept of "citizen" tries to obscure that only "nationals" have all rights that citizens do have in a country which is not based on institutionalized racism.

    • Nathan: "Anyway, the Jews as a whole were not expelled from Palestine by the Turks (although some were). Eventually, they even succeeded in establishing a state of their own."

      Through war, massacres, mass expulsion and mass dispossessions. You should be proud of them. Settler colonialism, Supremacism and Apartheid at its best. Role models for humanity.

    • JeffB: "What does forcibly mean? Be specific."

      Like Israel forcibly deports illegal immigrants.

      JeffB: "Do you burn homes, rape women, shoot kids? "

      Nope, I'm not a Zionist.

      JeffB: "SR-353, 1974 involving Turkish Cypriots. Opposed violence by all sides against respective civilians. "

      The point of issue was which international document decided that illegal settlers of an occupying country can stay.

      JeffB: "With regard to Cambodia the UN setup a standing body the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) which tried and convicted people who shared your views on “illegal settlers” and the need for their forcible removal. The actual UN considers your policies when not being applied to Jews but rather to Vietnamese a crime against humanity not an upholding of international law. "

      This court is an national court and independent of the UN. Please quote a decision by the UN and its organs that they decided that the citizens of the occupying state were allowed to settle in occupied territories. And If you can (I highly doubt it) stop lying that this is my view which is actually the view of every UN member except your Apartheid Junta.

      And by the way. Do you have any sense of justice? Do you think that what Turkey did was right?

      JeffB: "Finally Western Sahara. "

      Again, quote from a UN document that it decided that the Moroccan settlers are allowed to stay.

      And by the way. Do you have any sense of justice? Do you think that what Morocco did was right?

      JeffB: "Yes. That’s not remotely what I said."

      You implied that the UN was mistaken about Israel occupying the West Bank.
      You said that the "International law and the UN decided in precisely the opposite fashion with respect to other civilians left behind from other occupations". Which is again not the point of issue, because the occupation has not ended. But so far you have provided no evidence.
      You said that the UN would do so, because these illegal settlers are Jewish.

      Where is the difference to my understanding that you believe that international law is mistaken if these illegal settlers are Jewish?

      JeffB @MHughes976 "Supporting some ethnic cleansing makes you an ethnic cleansing advocate?"

      It's you who supports the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians who aren't Jewish.

      JeffB: "People who advocate for the removal of settlements aren’t advocating the removal of a military they are advocating for the destruction of a civilian cities, towns and villages."

      It's not "people". It's the Security Council calling for the dismantlement of illegal settlements. Again, you are trying to distract from the fact that this is in accordance with international law which prohibits colonization of occupied territories since the Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis. It's you who is actually advocating a Nazi policy.

    • echinococcus: "Starting 1897, every single Zionist-imported alien in Palestine is illegally there ..."

      Nope. The Ottoman Empire allowed their immigration.

    • JeffB: "OK. And that’s it. Israeli society solely moves their own people."

      As long as it holds Palestine under occupation it is its responsible to deport them on behalf of the Palestinians and dismantle the settlements as required by the Security Council and dismantle the wall on Palestine's territory as required by the International Court of Justice.

      JeffB: "Because as you know the Israeli government and the Israeli populus have indicated repeatedly they have no intention of ever withdrawing to the green line. For example the road to Hebrew University they have made clear they will never relinquish and this is a broad non starter."

      I know that the " Israeli populus" is criminal. It has been criminal from the get go. Israel is genuinly a criminal state who has no intention to abide by international law.

      JeffB: "So does your policy really comes down to waiting for a society to do something it has no intention of ever doing under any circumstances?"

      Nope. I'm not waiting for Israel to stop being a criminal state. It can't change its inature and institutionalized racism.

      JeffB: "Not at all. I believe the UN is simple incorrect in its understanding of international law."

      Yep. All nations except one have an incorrect understanding of international law. And so does the International Court of Justice including the two Jewish judges. ROFL.

      JeffB: "Even if one assumes the West Bank is occupied ..."

      Yep. Even Israel's military and its Supreme Court "assume" that Israel occupies the Westbank. They are wrong, too. ROFL.

      JeffB: "... the Geneva Convention prohibits moving civilians into occupied territory."

      To be more precise. The Geneva Convention prohibits colonizing occupied territories by citizens of the occupying state.

      JeffB: Nothing in international law requires once civilian settlement has occurred those civilians need be destroyed."

      I wrote that international law as reflected in Security Council resolution 465 requires the settlements to be dismantled not that civilians have to be destroyed. Ilegal settlers have to leave. Forcefully if necessary.

      JeffB: International law and the UN decided in precisely the opposite fashion with respect to other civilians left behind from other occupations."

      Name one Security Council resolution or advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which "decided precisely the opposite way" after the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis who were charged with the crime of Germanization of occupied territories.

      JeffB: "That difference in treatment I do believe is because these civilians are Jewish ..."

      Like I said. I understand you believe that International Law is mistaken if these illegal settlers are Jewish. Do you still want to deny this?

    • JeffB: "This is one of the craziest arguments on Mondoweiss that Israeli Jews are not a nation in every sense of the definition."

      It is crazy from you to suggest that there is only one definition of nation and that the definition you rely upon has any legal relevance when it comes to national self determination.

      Jews are NOT a NATION like US Americans, French, Palestinians, etc. Otherwise all citizens would be Jewish simply by being citizens of Israel.

      JeffB: "The debate should be starting from a place of acknowledging that Israeli Jews are a nation and then arguing whether:
      a) American, British, Canadian, French… Jews are part of that nation
      b) Whether Israeli-Arabs are part of that nation"

      Now you even confuse both definitions of "nation". American, British, Canadian, French are NATIONS in the sense of citizenship/nationality/constitutive people whether their citizens are Jewish or not. Israeli Jews are not a NATION in the same sense. And Nonjews, whether they are American, British, Canadian, French or Palestinian are not part of the Jewish "people". For Israel to claim that only the Jewish people are the NATION of Israel reveals that it considers only Jews to be fully citizens who enjoy all national rights that normaly comes with citizenship in other NATIONS. That, too, means that Israel is a full-bore Apartheid state and therefore a crime against humanity.

      JeffB: "The Israeli Supreme Court has the right to rule on matters of law not on matters of fact."

      Exactly. It is not only a fact that Israel like Nazi Germany differentiates between nationals and citizens. Its racism is institutionalized.

    • JeffB: "OK you both took a clear cut stand. I’ll leave aside my revulsion."

      Settler colonialism and llegaly settling in occupied territories is revulsive. Both violate the right to self determination.

      JeffB: "You have 650k human beings, mostly children that live in places they consider to be their homes."

      You are making a case for Palestinian refugees who had their LEGAL homes in Palestine and were illegaly expelled and denationalized by the Jewish supremacist Apartheid Junta.

      JeffB: "I understand you believe they are mistaken."

      Nope. International law rules that the settling citizens of the occupying power in occupied territory is illegal and that the settlements have to be dismantled. Security Council Resolution 465:

      I understand you believe that International Law is mistaken if these illegal settlers are Jewish.

      JeffB: "That the place where they eat, sleep, make love, feed their children, educate their children, recover from disease, die from disease … are not homes at all but something else."

      So you do recognize Bedouin villages and condemn Israel's racist crime towards its Nonjewish citizens, too.

      I know that you don't have a heart for those that Israel keeps under occupation and colonialization for more than half a century, because you are a blatant racist. But how about recognizing that it was Israel that made those Jewish settlers illegal aliens who build illegal settlements and quite often on illegaly confiscated private land? You use the euphemism "home" to cover up a war crime.

      JeffB: "What is the mechanism you propose for getting these people living in these settlements ... to abandon them ..."

      The same that Israel does with any illegal immigrant. Or did with its illegal settlers in Gaza.

    • JeffB: "The dictionary definition you are citing is properly handling usage. But that’s the definition of a state not a nation."

      Two definition. 1.) Nation as nationality/constitutive people/citizenship: US American, French, German, Russian, Palestinian, etc. That's the people who are the sovereign of a country.

      2.) Nation WITHIN a nation. Ethnic minorities or majorities, etc.

      I don't care how Jews need to define themselves to make a claim for national rights or a right to national self determination. But since they are NOT a nation according to 1.) a "Jewish state" is a racist state, because "Jewish" is NOT the nationality that was transfered to all of the citizens of Israel. To the contrary. The majority of Nonjews and their descendants are kept expelled and denationalized until today.

      JeffB: "As for there not being an Israeli nationality."

      And more importiantly no Jewish nationality.

      JeffB: The proposal would change that. There would be an Israeli nationality and the Palestinians would be part of it."

      But not the Palestinians, Israel keeps expelled and denationalized for racist reasons.

    • Another 2500 Nonjews the Jewish fake democracy has denationalized because of their faith/heritage:
      Is Israel turning its Bedouin citizens into a stateless people?

      Where is their right to suffrage and citizenship, DaBakr?

    • Annie: "there are no palestinian national rights* currently because they are an occupied people. even recognition of a state of palestine would not afford national rights if their rights are controlled by an occupation authority. of course gaza is part of palestine.

      *i am speculating here for i don’t really know. they have rights as refugees and things like that. but until they have their own constitution and their own courts that recognize and have means to exercise their rights i am not clear how they would implement them, as palestinians."

      Annie, you are mistaking "national rights" aka the right to national self determination with sovereignity. The Palestinians have national rights and are the souvereign of their country which has its own constitution. But their sovereignty is exercised by the occupying Zionist Apartheid regime.

    • DaBakr: "It’s not a black and white question wether any particular group is a nation. the argument about jews predates modern Israel by millennia."

      It's a black and white question if a particular group is a constitutive people. Only they have national rights. Palestinians are a constitutive people. Jews are not. And Israelis are neither according to Israel. That's why a "Jewish" state of Israel is a racist entity.

    • Yonah Fredman: "It is only the [...] urge to self protection that can justify measuring the harm done to to the [...] ..."

      Nazi propaganda template.

    • DaBakr: "Exactly how should Israel have sued for peace in light of khartoum ..."

      Abide by international law? Oh wait, that would be only a solution for peace loving states.

      DaBakr"... and the general state of hostile belligerency on every one of Israel’s borders?"

      Aka the general state of hostile belligerency that came with the establishment of the Zionist Apartheid Junta through war and expulsion and its cold annexation of territories beyond partition borders.

    • DaBakr: "you may not like the nation, maybe you don’t like our laws or maybe you just don’t like us period."

      Are you kidding? Who doesn't love an Apartheid state as long as it is Jewish? Only antisemites, right?

      DaBalr: "it does not negate that we absolutely are the nation here that has suffrage for ALL Israeli citizens, jews, arabs Christians, druze, Bedouin, Muslim, ba’hai and completely blind to any notion of skin colour. "

      You are negating the Nonjews which can't vote, because Israel keep them expelled and denationalized only because of their faith and heritage. That's not democracy but Apartheid. They should have been citizens of Israel according to the partition plan which you only refer to if it suits your ridiculous claims.

      Like Nazi Germany Israel differentiates between nationals (Jews only) and citizens. It perverts the concept of "citizens". Only Israel's nationals (Jews only) are actually citizens in its true meaning and scope. That's why its called a "Jewish democracy", because it is a fake democracy. The explicite right to equality was even removed from its fake constitution. The "Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty" is not even enshrined and can be voted out of existence by a simply majority.

    • DaBakr: "the Golan? While originally part of the Jewish partition it was given to Syria."

      ROFL. That's some Zionist understanding. First of all. The UN cannot "give" any territory. The only party that accquired territory was the Zionist Junta in Palestine through war and expulsion. The Golan Heights have been part of the Syrian Arab Republic since 1946 and were NOT recommended in the partition plan for PALESTINE. The Zionist Junta took the Golan Heights - again through war and expulsion - in 1967.

      DaBajr: "And why is it Israel took and annexed the Golan?"

      At the Nuremberg trials the Nazi's excuse for some of its war crimes was "military necessity". What's yours? Oh, I see. It's the same. What a surprise.

    • JeffB: "Forcing people to abandon their homes is ethnic cleansing regardless of whether you like or dislike the group."

      Oh vey, you are even more confused then I thought. It is only "ethnic cleansing" if their presence and the build of their home was legal, but they were forcefully removed only because of their ethnicity. That is what Jewish terrorist and their leading fascist racists are doing to Palestinians since the establishment of their Apartheid Junta in Palestine.

      It is not ethnic cleansing, if people are removed, because their presence is illegal and they live in illegaly build homes. That is when citizens of an occupying power settle in settlements in occupied territories. Their entry was illegal, their presence is illegal and so are their "homes". It has nothing to do with their faith or heritage. It has only to do with them being citizens of an occupying power settling in occupied territories. Th

      JeffB: "All you are saying is that it is an ethnic cleansing you would approve of not that it isn’t one."

      Are you stupid, dishonest or both?

      JeffB: "There are no such thing as “illegal people”.

      And there is no such statement in my comment.

      JeffB: "Then it shouldn’t be hard to refute in a logically consistent way."

      ROFL. You really expect someone to refute that the DENIAL of settler colonialism (which is based on colonial oppression) is colonial oppression itself? That the DENIAL of a certain crime is this certain crime? Are you sure that you even understand the fundamental basics of logic? Or honesty?

      JeffB: "Now the Irish do have Irish national rights in Ireland. The Jews have Jewish national rights in Israel. The Palestinians currently have Palestinian national rights in Gaza and may one day enjoy Palestinian national rights in Jordan."

      Perfect examples for your logical inconsistency. It should read: The Irish have Irish national rights in Ireland. The Israelis have national rights in the state of Israel. The Palestinians have national right in Palestine.

      Jews are still not a nationality/citizenship and a "nation" in the same sense and they will never be. Because nobody can become Jewish by acquiring the citizenship of a state.

    • JeffB: "I’m sorry but looking at this two alternatives how is that any different than what 1967 border proponents who don’t support outright ethnic cleansing say should happen to the “settlers” living in the future Palestinian state?"

      Deporting illegal settlers is not "ethnic cleansing". It's actually Israel's racism that these illegal settlers are Jews only.

      JeffB: "If living without national rights is a big deal then the Jews everywhere on the planet had good reason to flee to Palestine and your attempts to once again deny them their national rights are colonial oppression."

      ROFL. Neither refugees nor settlers have national or political rights in any country of which they are not citizens. And to claim that denying settler colonialism amounts to colonial oppression has to be one of the top most imbecile argument on MW.

  • Ayelet Shaked and the fascist ideology
    • JeffB: "Economically Palestine was dead before the Jewish immigration. Culturally Palestine was dead."

      JeffB has found a new ridiculous and ahistoric way of claiming that Palestine was a desert without a people. In the infantile mind of Zionists history only begins when Jews enter the stage, right?

    • JeffB: "Let me just comment the reason you weren’t aware that Finland is a “supremacist” Evangelical Lutheran State is because the process has fully played out."

      Should Israel be allowed to play out Judeonazism?

    • JeffB: "When the Zionists destroyed Palestinian society it was in the context of an ethnic civil war ..."

      Nope. That was in the context of Zionists taking over Palestine through war and expulsion.

      JeffB: "... where the Palestinians had brought in multiple foreign armies to invade their country so as to advantage their side in the civil war."

      Nope. That was to prevent Zionism to take over all of Palestine through war and expulsion. But what do you mean by "invasion their country"? Whose country was invaded by whom?

      JeffB: "It was also decades of failed attempts at reasonable compromise."

      Nope. That was after decades of Zionists not accepting majority ruling in Palestine, because of their goal to take over Palestine.

  • 'Voice of boycott' was heard in Montgomery and South Africa, why not Israel? Roger Waters writes in 'NYT'
    • Emet: "I tried to post links showing different points of view."

      Nope, you are only trying to post 'testimonials' that refer to South Africa's PETTY Apartheid to deny Israel's GRAND Apartheid and its Crime of Apartheid as defined in international law. You are playing this game for weeks now while ingnoring any legal or acadamic explanation why Israel practices Apartheid, because then you have to ARGUE, which you can't.

      Continue to make a Zionist fool of yourself. I will strongly support you. As does Kenneth Meshoe in your video, the founder of "Defend Embrace Invest & Support Israel" who strongly believes in Genesis 12,3. ROFL.

    • Emet: "Can someone please explain to me why the likes of Rodgers, Weiss and others are so willing to simply ignore the violent reality of the Arab world?"

      ROFL. 10 years of Jewish terrorism before 1948. A full scale war to set up a state through war and expulsion. Using violence to preventing Palestinians from returning. Disposessing them and Nonjewish Israelis and keeping the latter under martial law until 1966. Then one year later in 1867 another full scale war by Israel. More expulsions. Putting Palestinians in the Westbank and Gaza under martial law. More dispossessions. Illegal annexations, illegal settlements. More than half a century of occupying a whole people, collective punishment and many other war crimes and crimes against humanity.

      And you are talking about the extreme violence of the "Arab" world? Who's ignoring whose extreme violence, Sheqer?

    • hophmi: "Now he thinks supporters of Israel should be executed."

      hophmi thinks than Nonjews should be raped and murdered.

  • Senator Cantwell, are you listening?
    • Nathan: "Despite the opposition of Great Britain, expressed in the White Paper of 1939, (and despite the opposition of the Arab world), the Jews of Palestine succeeded in founding Israel."

      Yep. A decade of Jewish terrorism was too much for Great Britain. And then the terror was nationalized and exists until today. Real existing Zionism is nothing else than the institutionalized terror of an Apartheid junta.

  • Rightwing campaign against Jewish exec who called for exposing Nakba seems likely to fail
    • Nathan: "One could “prove” that it’s all a fable, and it makes no difference whatsoever."

      Again, it's the other way around. There is no proof that it happened. Not even by a single Israeli historian. And if Jews need to tell themselves faibles to create some pseudo legitimacy for their Apartheid state its not longer my problem.

    • Nathan: "I’ll bring to your attention that the “injustice” is the very creation of Israel (and the Partition Plan, and the immigration of “European foreigners” to Palestine, and the Balfour Declaration) – and, therefore, “justice” is understood as the undoing of the “injustice”. What seems to be “criticism” of Israel throughout the website is in reality a tool for convincing the public of Israel’s illegitimacy."

      You are confusing two questions. The first one is if the Zionist Apartheid Junta in Palestine is legitimate.You mentioned a few key points why its establishment and the injustices that led to it wasn't. The second one is if its actions are legitimate. "Criticism of Israel" deals with the second question not with the first one.

      Only in the case if it commits inhumane actions to maintain a regime in which one 'ethnic' group dominates another than it deals with the first question. For example by preventing Palestininians to return. Because that amounts to the Crime of Apartheid as definied in international law.

    • Nathan: "Sand is busy with “disproving” the narrative of an exiled people."

      ROFL. There's nothing to disprove, because there's not a single historian who can prove "the narrative on an exiled people".

  • Lessons from Finkelstein: a response to Seth Anderson
    • Nathan: "Mark Twain wrote a wonderful book about his visit in the 1850’s (you’d enjoy reading it)."

      Joan Peters, Mark Twain ... it's getting more and more ridiculous.

      But please quote your most favourite part from Twain's book. I like the one about Greece where he "saw no ploughed fields, very few villages, no trees or grass or vegetation of any kind, scarcely, and hardly ever an isolated house. Greece is a bleak, unsmiling desert, without agriculture, manufactures, or commerce, apparently". That's gotta be even more objective than the bible.

    • Nathan: "She expresses her surprise that for the Palestinians the definition of refugee includes also those who were living in Palestine for only two years."

      Yes, even if they were Jews! But Joan Peter was not a hypocrite. She was even more surprised that the League of Nations sanctioned the Mandate for Palestine and allowed enforced immigration of Jewish settlers. Or that the UN recommended partition allthough it violated its principle of territorial integrity. Or that the UN accepted Israel into the UN despite its annexations beyond partition borders and refusal to allow the refugees to return. Right?

  • Anonymous anti-BDS group publishes 'blacklist' of boycott supporters in New York
  • Democratic candidate for Illinois gov'r fires his running mate over BDS
    • April 7, 1933 Jews are identified and removed from Goverment posts.

    • Betty: "The Jews are the indigenous, native people of the Land of Israel, not the nomadic tribes that declared themselves to be Palestinian in 1963."

      Actually the people who became citizens of Palestine in and after 1925 are the native people of what you call "Land of Israel". And you will never be able to prove which Jew today is a real ancestors of ancient Hebrews and which Nonjew today isn't.

      Betty: "There is no return for the generations after the 600 who were told to leave; ..."

      So you are not only a denier of crimes against humanity, but also a supporter of ethnic cleansing. Are you Zionist by any chance?

  • 'Nazi stuff': The Israeli government takes on African refugees
    • Contrary to JSIL and it's Nazi like differentiation between nationals and citizens China considers all Tibetans to be Chinese nationals, doesn't it?

  • Young Palestinian photographer in Gaza shines a light on fishermen's struggle
    • Arafatbastard; "Cause and effect: they are limited because so many have been caught smuggling weapons for Hamas and other terrorist groups."

      You are absolutely correct, Arafatbastard, that's collective punishment and considered a war crime since the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis.

      Arafatbastard: "You write of poverty, but the Hamas organisation has been named as the richeste terrorist group in the world, after Daesh."

      Brilliant logic! Because "Forbes Israel" (go figure) claims that Hamas is second in place there's no poverty in the Gaza at all,. Given the budget and US Support of the nationalized terrorist group IDF Israelis must be super rich.

  • Going veg
    • Arafatbastard, do you think that everybody should love what violent racist Jews did and still do to Palestinians and that the most stupid amongst them accuse others of Jews-hatred?

  • Gideon Levy calls out Israel's fundamental, racist religion: Zionism
    • catalan: "Actually, people have a way of responding poorly to insults."

      And to pathetic accusations like yours.

    • DaBakr: "And on top of that Levy is particularly hated by lot of Israelis that are not on the far left and just center left, center right and right."

      That's not surprising. What you call "center left, center right and right" is in reality shades of right extremism in other countries and the only thing they value is racism/supremacism.

      DaBakr: "that is a given."

      Like your pseudo intellectual halitosis?

  • Are you an auto-anti-Semite? Take this simple test
  • Changing the narrative, from BDS to antifa
    • Nathan: "People running away from anti-Semitism (and in need of self-defence) would not have chosen a corner of the Ottoman Empire as their destination ..."

      Why not? Even the dhimmi status was abandoned in the Ottoman Empire before the first Zionist settlement. Or are you talking about Palestine during WW2? Well, that's a different story. Have an educated guess who lobbied to make any other destination than Palestine impossible for Jewish refugees.

  • Teenage girls in Gaza lament a 'double siege'
    • Jack Green: "Israel has NOT moved or transferred Israelis to the West Bank.
      Israelis moved to the West Bank of their own accord."

      In this case it's not about the crime that an occuping power moves/expells/deports its own citizens to an occupied territory, but about the crime of colonizing territories under occupation by citizens of the occupying power with its support and under its protection.

      Do you understand why this is considered to be a war crime since the Nuremberg trials ("Germanization of occupied territories")?

  • Netanyahu declares West Bank is Israel 'forever,' as liberal Zionists cry out for 'make-believe peace process'
    • Nathan: "I would add that the Arab rejection of the Partition Plan was in absolute good faith. They really rejected it, and this fact is surely beyond debate."

      Of course. No people want the territorial integrity of their country violated, because of settler colonialism."

      Nathan: "It should be mentioned that the Partition Plan was just a suggestion, a proposal that was meant to avoid a war through compromise. "

      War by whom, Nathan? The Palestinians didn't need to start a war to acquire territory for a state. They just wanted their state under mandate to be released into independence like any other state under Class-A-mandate. That's also the reason why ir wasn't them who started a terrorist campagne after the mandatory anounced in 1939 to release Palestine into independence within 10 years.

      Nathan: "It might have been interesting to have added what is the position of Ramallah regarding partition as well. Anyway, here it is: The Palestinians have absolutely no intention of reaching an agreement with Israel in which the conflict would be resolved through partition."

      You are joking, right? Who recognized the other state? And who declared their state within 1967 borders? The PLO. Israel did nothing so far. Instead it illegaly annexed territories beyond partition borders, including Jerusalem.

      Nathan: "The rejection of the plan by the Arabs – whether justified or not, and whether wise or not – meant that the plan would not be implemented. It meant that matters would be settled by war."

      Nope. It meant that the Zionists sseperatists and their terrorists gangs would settle the matter through war, because it was them who needed territory for a state. And that's the reason why it was them who did not accept a truce proposed by the US two weeks before the declaration of Israel.

      "“Ten days before Britain’s exit from Palestine, U.S. officials there faced the Jewish Agency’s rejection of a truce as well as a trusteeship arrangement to replace what the State Department and the White House conceded to be the failure of the partition plan. In evaluating the situation, Robert McClintock, a special assistant to Dean Rusk, then director of the Office of UN Affairs, deliberated over the implications of these developments. It may well be, he speculated, that Washington would soon be confronted with a situation created by Jewish military forces, including the Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun, in which it would have to determine whether a “Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.”15 Washington would face what McClintock called an “anomalous situation,” in which “the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership.”"

    • Jon66: "Hamas has a schizoid appr"

      Yup, like Zionists 'accepting' partition plan while declaring that they are going to redeem "Eretz Israel."

  • Prominent Israeli rabbi preaches rape in war time
    • Jack Green: "Name even one country in Israel’s situation of existential threat from the day it was reborn with a better human rights record."

      Name one country that was created through war and expulsion after the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis. And name one country that also differentiated between "nationals" and "citizens" besides Nazi Germany.

      And since you use the term "reborn" you may also explain what was 'natural' about the creation of Israel. There are some Zionists who claim that Israel is a child born as a result of rape when in reality Zionists have been raping the children of Palestine for a century.

    • @Jack Green

      Is there any hope that you are finally going to understand the difference between petty and grand Apartheid and also the Crime of Apartheid as defined by international law which doesn't even rely on any comparison with South Africa? Or will you continue to be/play stupid and quote people that only refer to South Africa's petty Apartheid?

      In the meantime you can deal with these self haters:

      Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak:

      As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state. (2010)

      Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert:

      If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished. (2007)

      Israeli human rights group B’Tselem:

      Israel has created in the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality. This regime … is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past such as the Apartheid regime in South Africa. (2002)

      Former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa Alon Liel:

      In the situation that exists today, until a Palestinian state is created, we are actually one state. This joint state — in the hope that the status quo is temporary — is an apartheid state. (2013)

      Israeli newspaper Haaretz editorial:

      The de facto separation is today more similar to political apartheid than an occupation regime because of its constancy. One side - determined by national, not geographic association - includes people who have the right to choose and the freedom to move, and a growing economy. On the other side are people closed behind the walls surrounding their community, who have no right to vote, lack freedom of movement, and have no chance to plan their future. (2007)

      Former Israeli admiral and Knesset member Ami Ayalon:

      Israel must decide quickly what sort of environment it wants to live in because the current model, which has some apartheid characteristics, is not compatible with Jewish principles. (2000)

      Former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair:

      [In 1967] We enthusiastically chose to become a colonial society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the occupied territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities. Passionately desiring to keep the occupied territories, we developed two judicial systems: one – progressive, liberal – in Israel; and the other – cruel, injurious – in the occupied territories. In effect, we established an apartheid regime in the occupied territories immediately following their capture. That oppressive regime exists to this day. (2002)

      Former Israeli Minister of Education Yossi Sarid:

      What acts like apartheid, is run like apartheid and harasses like apartheid, is not a duck - it is apartheid… What should frighten us, however, is not the description of reality, but reality itself… The Palestinians are unfortunate because they have not produced a Nelson Mandela; the Israelis are unfortunate because they have not produced an F.W. de Klerk. (2008)

      Former Israeli Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni:

      Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted among ourselves to such an extent that we fail to see what’s right in front of our eyes. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practices its own, quite violent, form of Apartheid with the native Palestinian population. (2007)

      David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of Israel, (cited):

      Israel, he said, better rid itself of the territories and their Arab population as soon as possible. If it did not Israel would soon become an Apartheid State. (1967 - cited in Hirsh Goodman, 2005)

    • JosephA: "I still maintain that the only way Palestinians will receive freedom in their historic homeland (absent a miracle or international action) is by mass conversion to Judaism."

      IIRC there is even a law against it. Anyway it would never be recognized by Israeli rabbis.

    • Yes Jack, we can't expect them to be more spiritual than Nazis, can we?

Showing comments 3000 - 2901