Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 55 (since 2010-05-22 14:53:17)

Tony Greenstein

Tony Greenstein is a longstanding Jewish anti-Zionist and an anti-fascist activist from Brighton. In 1982 he was a co-founder of Britain’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Tony was suspended from the Labour Party a year ago as a result of the Anti-Semitism witch-hunt. Tony is the author of The Fight Against Fascism in Brighton and the South Coast. He has written extensively on Palestine and Zionism for, amongst others, the Guardian’s Comment is Free, the Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies, Tribune and the Weekly Worker. Tony was the child of an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and when young a member of the religious Zionist Bnei Akiva, now part of the Greater Israel movement.

Website: http://www.azvsas.blogspot.com

Showing comments 55 - 1
Page:

  • Gerald Kaufman – From Labour Zionist to Israel's bitterest critic
    • Like everyone of us Gerald had personality flaws but weighed in the balance his good points far outweighed his bad points. He was almost alone in standing up to the vicious attacks on the Palestinians and offering them real support. That is what we must remember him for, not whether he was offhand, standoffish or even hurtful to friends. Even I am not perfect!

  • The 'New York Times' is dead set on marginalizing Jewish anti-Zionism
    • CitizenC's arguments remind me of the well known anti-Semitic Jazzman, Gilad Atzmon.

      His phrase 'It will be news when it stops being a “Jewish debate” and the Jewish critics start acting as secular citizens.' Is a give away. I don't know whether he is Atzmon or just a false flag.

      The term 'Judaic' is another give away.

      Jewish anti-Zionism is very much a secular current. That is the point. It is not the Neturei karta religious opposition to Zionism. I respect NK though they are politically stupid (Tehran conference on Holocaust, demonstration in support of Jobbik in London) but of course they are not secular.

      As a Jew I oppose Zionism on political not religious grounds. How, I hear asked, can I define myself as a Jew if I'm not religious? Probably the same way as the Jewish workers of the East End who invaded a synagogue in protest at the attacks on their strike by a Rabbi did. Being Jewish has never meant just the religion. The religion reflected what Jews did, it didn't, despite the religious myths, define the Jews. So the Bund were vehemently secular and anti-fascist and socialist but they weren't religious.

      Today many Jews, especially the young, define their Jewish identity in opposition to Zionism whilst try to live out the anti-racist traditions of diaspora Judaism.

      Citizen C, who is an anti-Semite i.e. an anti-Jewish racist, will understand none of this because his paradigm is attacking Jews not supporting Palestinians.

  • On Jewishness and criticism of Israel
    • As regards different Zionisms. It reminds me of when Ben Gurion asked the binationalist Zionist Martin Buber whether he had immigrated to Palestine with the support of or against the wishes of the indigenous Arabs.

      The fact is that even the most enlightened Zionist has settled the country against the wishes of the indigenous population.

  • US media fail to report video of soldiers shooting desperate Palestinian girl holding knife overhead
  • An apologia for Ken Livingstone (What would Buber say?)
    • It is an interesting article but nonetheless superficial in parts. It never asks the obvious question, why now? Why the anti-Semitism row at this particular time? Whose interests does it serve? Why did up 2 year old tweets?

      If you are a socialist you might ask these questions and also come up with some answers. 'Anti-Semitism' has been weaponised as a means of attacking the left leadership of Corbyn. Trivial, humorous, idealistic and fantastic comments about moving Israel to the USA, based on a Jewish virtual library cartoon, are evidence of atavistic anti-Semitism? Give us a break.

      Buber is an interesting character but he subscribed to Volkish Zionism. he was a blut and bloden Zionist who recoiled from the consequences. The most interesting anecdote about him was when he met Ben Gurion and Ben Gurion asked him whether he had moved to Israel with the permission or against the wishes of the Palestinians.

      There is also no mention of the fact that Zionism historically had utter contempt for the Jewish diaspora and accepted all the anti-Semitic characterisations of them. That is the context for today's discussions on anti-Semitism

      As for LIvingstone. The holocaust is also instrumentalised, a weapon against those who deny Israel's right to exist as a racist state. It is quite understandable, even if he got some things wrong, to point out the collaboration between the Zionist movement and the Nazi government.

  • Note to Ken Livingstone: The British Labour party has supported Zionism much more than the Nazis ever did
    • This is an objectionable and poisonous little article. Livingstone has always been in the forefront of condemning British imperialism and the British Labour Party's role in Palestine and the creation of Israel. How do I know? Because in the 1980's I was Chairperson of the Labour Committee on Palestine and the Labour Movement Campaign on Palestine. Livingstone was one of our earliest sponsors.

      There is a very good reason to raise this issue and we should be indebted to Ken for so doing. The Zionists continually thrust the holocaust in peoples faces to justify their settler colonial state. it is therefore right to point out a few truths including the fact that their movement was a quisling collaboration movement.

      The statement that 'the only truth Zionists have (or most likely, appropriated) is that some in the anti-Zionist movement are nothing but anti-Semites. A truth Ken Livingstone has provided credence to over the last week.'

      This is a nasty dirty lie. Nobody that I know of in the anti-Zionist movement is anti-Semitic. Anti-zionism and anti-Semitism are diametrically opposed.

      The fact that About Nu'man Abd al-Wahid has sought to give credence to the false allegations of anti-Semitism directed at ken and all the other people demonstrates how worthless his 'academic' credentials are when it comes to talking about Zionism.

  • No Escaping the 'Cohen': Nick Cohen is becoming a Jew (again)
  • Zionism is finally in the news, as officials seek to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism
    • Yes anti-Zionism is a heresy to the practitioners of Judaism (or most of them) today. Baruch Spinoza was also accused of heresy. Who even remembers his detractors today?

      hophmi believes that
      'There’s one main reason people equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, even though the two can technically be distinguished intellectually.'

      Yes that's true, albeit not for the reasons s/he thinks. When you can't defend the indefensible you have to cast aspersions on the motives of the accuser. It's very difficult to defend a state whose PM says that it is going to build wall around it to keep out the 'wild beasts' nor is it easy to defend Apartheid Israel in so many other aspects.

      Far easier to put it all down to anti-Semitism.

      The only problem is that t he most convinced and devoted of anti-Semites support a Jewish state - from the BNP in the UK to Breivik in Norway! Twas ever thus.

  • Sanders's outreach to Arab Americans on Islamophobia helped deliver Michigan surprise
    • The fact is that Sanders did oppose the Iraq war. He has also criticised what he has termed the excessive force used by the Israeli military and Netanyahu himself.

      Is he an anti-Zionist or a strong supporter of the Palestinians? No. Is he better than Clinton? Yes.

      He has succeeded in making the word socialism respectable again in the US. He has galvanised a radical constituency which will go beyond Sanders. He has challenged the US corporations and Walll Street who are the real determinants of foreign policy, inc. support 4 Israel.

      I don't think Sanders is responsible for Yemen etc. I'd put that down to Saudi Arabia and Israel of course secretly.

  • 'We wasted 40 years talking about nothing, doing nothing' -- Pappe demolishes peace process
    • I don't accept that Ilan Pappe is 'witless' because he doesn't accept the religious or holocaust narrative as an explanation for the US's support for Israel.

      On the contrary Israel is the one stable, pro-Western state in the Middle East. It has cemented alliances with the neighbouring state of Jordan and Egypt and wider afield with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, to say nothing of Turkey.

      Instability in the Middle East wasn't caused by Israel, except in Lebanon arguably but by the US itself. There is a belief, espoused by Philip Weiss that support for Israel goes against the US's interests. Why? In the words of Alexander Haig Israel is an unsinkable aircraft carrier and cheap at the price.

      The holocaust is a good ideological justification as is opposition to 'anti-Semitism' but they are not the reason. Imperialism has historically fastened on 'good causes' to support its depradations. Look at the British in India and their opposition to Suthi, the burning of Indian widows on the pyres of their husbands.

      In short Pappe is entirely right to employ a Marxist analysis rather than Philip Weiss's left democratic liberal version!

  • 'Barbarism by an educated and cultured people' -- Dawayima massacre was worse than Deir Yassin
    • Morris does indeed have some academic integrity even though he in the end justifies what was done in the name of creating a 'Jewish' State. Worse still he says that the job should have been finished and that no Arabs should have been left.

      However Morris still asserts that there was no overall plan to expel the Palestinians. It just happened and gathered its own momentum. Plan D did not envisage expulsion etc. In this he differes from Ilan Pappe and in this he is allowing his politics to contradict his academic research.

  • Saudi court overturns death sentence for Ashraf Fayadh; new sentence is 8 years and 800 lashes
    • One question I would ask about the barbaric treatment of Ashraf is why hasn't the President of the so-called Palestinian state spoken up about this travesty of justice? Why has Mahmoud Abbas kept his mouth shut? Just as he aids and helps the Israeli occupation so he helps and aids the Arab states when they oppress Palestinians.

      Whilst it is welcome that, for the moment, the death sentence has been removed, a sentence of 8 years and 800 lashes is barbaric in itself.

  • Another Netanyahu lie exposed: Hamas is not ISIS
    • No, don't be unkind to Max Narr. Just because he is unable to articulate what he said, doesn't mean that what he said isn't true.

      Max Narr is correct, FROM HIS PERSPECTIVE.

      We can take it that the said Narr is a Zionist and from a Zionist perspective ISIS is a far lovelier and nicer organisation. It after all fits in perfectly with the main theme of hasbara, that Muslims are savage blood thirsty barbarians. They are much easier to deal with and are extremely helpful to Israeli in perpetuating the idea that Israel is a bulwark against such savagery.

      Hamas, despite its Islamist politics, insists on defending its own people and running a semi-sane statelet. Despite its own incinations it hasn't forced adherence to Islamic ideology down all Gazans throats. Other factions like the leftist PFLP are able to operate. Can anyone imagine any form of socialist grouping operating in Raqah? Isis are fascist in their attitude to anything secular or left-wing. Any such group would be butchered.

      In other words Hamas doesn't play the role Israel sets for it, hence the need to continually step up the hasbara campaign.

      Yes Isis is far more preferable to Hamas. They play the part perfectly.

  • Why are American pro-Palestinian voices silent about the brutal war on Yemen?
    • No it doesn't distract from the priority of confronting Israel. It is part of that fight. Saudi Arabia is in a close military alliance with Israel. It might not be declared but it is there and should be obvious to anyone aware of the politics of the region.

    • I understand Steve's response but it is wrong. And for this reason. The liberation of Palestine will never happen in isolation. Because of the massive support for Israel from the Western ruling classes and because of demographic parity between Israeli Jews and Palestinians, the overthrow of Zionism and the Israeli state can only come from revolution in the Arab East and the overthrow of the existing ruling classes. Prime amongst these are those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

      There should be no difficulty in deciding who to support in Yemen. The Saudis are everywhere enemies of freedom, both within Saudi society (e.g. the recent 47 executions) and without. Their bombing of Yemen's population and its blockade of Yemen are outrageous war crimes. The Yemenis have a right to determined their own future and government. The Saudis also act to uphold repressive governments throughout the Gulf, e.g. the use of their military to uphold the dicatorship in Bahrain in 2011.

    • What a strange formulation:

      'Many pro-Palestinian Americans are busy, and working tirelessly to reveal the head of the oppressive, imperialist, Zionist dragon hiding within the American rulling class, before calling for everyone to work together in slaying it.'

      Zionism doesn't hide within the US ruling class, it is an integral part of it. Support for Zionism is part and parcel of the maintenance of US interests in the Middle East. That is why US ruling class opinon swung decisively in favour of Zionism throughout the 1950's and 1960's. To suggest it is a cancer that can be cut out of the otherwise healthy flesh of the US ruling class is to misunderstand how that class has maintained itself politically and militarily.

      I suggest that you read up on what happened in Vietnam. Not many Israelis there but there was genocide and the use of chemical weapons.

    • Most conversations have to have one idiot troll.

      Why has the Palestine solidarity movement not condemned what is happening in Yemen? Probably because it is concentrated on what is happening in Palestine. Unfortunately solidarity campaigns tend to narrowly focus on their main area of interest. This is a mistake because overthrowing Zionism and dismantling the Israeli state will not take place without the overthrow of the Arab regimes and friends of US imperialism too.

      Israel, contrary to idiot's views, does overtly support Saudia Arabia and it does this militarily too by all accounts. So yes there are Zionists (don't read Jews) involved in Yemen.

  • How Zionism helped create the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
    • ' don’t see Zionism as Zionism having anything to do with helping create Saudi Arabia, rather British ambitions in the region, only part of which was support for Zionist plans. British colonialism also worked its wonders in the Arab world where there was no Zionist plans, Iraq, Egypt, etc.

      Zionism or not, I believe the British would have backed the Saudis anyway.'

      This is the wrong way to look at it. Zionism was an instrument of the British. An instrument primarilyh to protect the route to India i.e. the Suez Canal. The creation of Saudi Arabia was clearly part and parcel of that project as was the colonisation of Iraq. Of course there were other interests not least the possibility of oil being discovered and exploitation of the resources of Egypt, cotton, etc. But Empire also has its own momentum.

      Transjordan was severed off from the Palestine Mandate in 1922 because it was thought useful to have a separate state between Arabia and Palestine, since there had been no Zionist colonisation there anywhere, despite the latter day protests of the Revisionists.

      But the main thesis of Numanal Wahid is quite compatible with this.

    • Iran is many things, not least a corrupt and oppressive theocracy. But if Iran were fascist then Israel would have no interest in taking it down.

  • New Jersey teenager threatened with legal action by high school over pro-Palestine activism (Update)
    • Your name is well chosen. Double standards is indeed your motif. The land of the free jumps down the throat of a 16 year old girl for having the audacity not to repeat the normal newspeak that pours forth from the corporate media.

  • Suddenly, comparing Jewish state to ISIS is OK
    • But that is the whole point. Most Muslims say the same about ISIS, that it doesn't represent Muslim theology. The truth is of course that it does represent a certain part of Muslim theology, namely the western sponsored Wahabism of Saudi Arabia.

      Likewise what the 'hilltop youth' and the Kahanists represent is a particular brand of Judaism, albeit a much more important segment than that Isis claims to represent. Support for the settlements and support for Israel as the Jewish Apartheid State is widespread amongst Jews and in particular the religious orthodox today. It is not a marginal phenomenon. When Kahane said that Israel could be a democratic state or a Jewish state but not both, he was expressing the truth that Zionism refused to acknowledge. Today it is clear to all but the blind that a Jewish state is a Jewish supremacist state. Jewish theology changes and has changed - for the worse.

  • Novel featuring Palestinian-Jewish romance threatens 'Jewish identity,' Israeli gov't rules
    • Well the Zionists may fear assimilation most in the 'Jewish' state but the place where it happens most is of course the diaspora. In Europe and the USA it is probably over 50% indeed in the USA it is well over 50% but only the bigoted and Orthodox (much the same) and Zionists object. In Israel it is 'national treason' etc.

      I just wonder what law the book was banned under? I wasn't aware that the Knesset had formally adopted the Nuremburg Laws of 1935 but I stand to be corrected!

  • Israeli ambassador flings Nazi label at Israeli leaders, after latest authoritarian step
    • I disagree. When you convert to Judaism you can certainly change your race. Why?

      Because race, like religion, is invented. Indeed I'd go further. There is no such thing, scientifically as race. It is a political and social construct. At least religious practice, which was effectively the Nazi definition of 'race' was grounded in fact. The racial biological definition as to who was Jewish or Aryan was based on religious practice in the end. Because it was impossible to define being Jewish in relation to an actual blood or genetic difference. Hence all those ludicrous attempts by the Nazis to find a 'scientific' basis to race by measuring the cranium and brain size etc. I say the Nazis but I should include Arthur Ruppin, the father of racial sciences and sociology and much else in Palestine.

  • A forgotten critic of Israeli society: The work of the social psychologist Georges R. Tamarin
  • Leading anthropologists group overwhelmingly passes BDS resolution at Denver conference
    • The difference is that the Rosenbergs were innocent and were framed by the McCarthyists and anti-Semites. They were principled communists.

      Pollard is traitorous scum who did his best to confirm the anti-Semitic canard of Jewish 'dual loyalty'. He should have been kept inside and allowed to rot.

    • It's not that the 'left' is in the Centre - the Israeli 'left' was always on the right - but that the right - Yesh Atid is considered 'left'.

      In reality 'left' and 'right' in Israel are meaningless terms except for the Joint List and anti-Zionists. The Zionist 'left' and 'right' both agree on the fundamentals i.e. a Jewish state and the need to keep the Arabs to a minimum. Every piece of repressive legislation from Netanyahu, the latest being to bar BDS supporters from Israel, but all the other stuff such as making Boycott a civil offence, Access to Communities Act etc. is supported by the Israeli Labour Party. Only Meretz has a muffled voice in opposition.

  • Theocratic Israel
    • You should change the headline introduction which says 'A rabbinical court in Jerusalem allows a woman who had intercourse with a non-Jew to marry non-Jews. The power of these religious courts over private life would be unimaginable in the U.S.' It should say '..... to marry Jews.' not non-Jews.

  • Rightwing Israelis celebrate murder of a Jewish activist (and NYT won't tell you so)
    • Yes of course Lakin was an Arab lover, just as many Germans were accused of being 'Jew lovers' (& anti-fascist Germans of being 'self haters') and as anti-racist Whites in the US were 'nigger lovers'. It comes from the same mentality that if you oppose the oppression of a particular group of people or nationality, you must 'love' them all.

      Palikari is just one more example of the stupidity of even the more 'liberal' Zionists - after all he doesn't identify himself as a right-wing Zionist. However I doubt if he is aware of the seminal debate between a genuine Jewish thinker & political theorist and philosopher, Hannah Arendt and Gershom Scholem, the Professor of Jewish mysticism at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

      Arendt had written her famous book Eichmann in Jerusalem - the Banality of Evil and Scholem, suitably angered had written to her accusing her of a lack of Ahabath Israel 'love of the Jewish people'. Arendt responded asking for the biblical source of this concept before explaining that she belonged to the Jewish people, that was a matter of fact, but that she had no love for a collectivity. She loved her friends and family. This idea of love of a whole people is a thoroughly racist one that belongs to the Europe of the 1930's.

      However I don't think we should concentrate on the obvious contradictions in Lakin himself. Between being a settler on the one hand and being an advocate of peaceful relations with the Palestinians. many people, including Palestinians, hold contradictory ideas in their heads at one and the same time. In Marxist terms it is false consciousness.

      What is noteworthy is that those who profess their love of the Jewish people can then engage in the most degenerate, racist and vile insults on someone who has just been killed through no fault of his own. Indeed his only fault in their eyes was that he was an 'Arab lover' and a 'leftist'.

      I've done a post on this particular incident.

  • (Update) This year for Halloween your child too can help defend the Israeli occupation
    • As the advert says, this is an essential part of the Jewish heritage, indeed the only part it would seem.

      Useful additions to this ensemble might be a whip and a leather coat and a German Shepherd Dog or Alsatian. Then we could have the perfect symbiosis of an SS officer and an IDF soldier. That would reallly be part of the Jewish heritage that Zionism claims for its own.

  • Did the BBC cover up the anti-Semitism of Gaza's children?
    • The Jewish Chronicle under its tabloid editor Stephen Pollard (he was editor of the Daily Express owned by Britain's biggest pornographer, Richard Desmond) has become little more than a Zionist propaganda sheet. Hence none stories like these.

      If someone comes to your house, kills your relatives, demolishes the house and does it all in the name of 'the Jewish people' then it is expecting a lot of a child to distinguish between Zionist and being Jewish when his/her elders often fail to.

      The fact is that Zionism goes out of its way to conflate being Jewish with being a Zionist. Most adults are taken in. Why should children living in the middle of the appalling catastrophe that is Gaza be expected to be politically sophisticated? As far as they are concerned it was 'the Jews' who did the evil. But notice that Max Blumenthall, who was based in Gaza, like Amira Hass, was not harassed or attacked because he was Jewish, unlike Arabs in the Jewish state.

  • Theodor Herzl wasn't Jewish, according to Israeli minister
    • Herzl was an archetypal assimilated Jew. His own son, Hans, was not even circumcised (the Zionist movement took care of that after his death). His original solution to the Jewish Question was the mass conversion of Jews to Catholicism. But that wouldn't have helped because anti-Semitism had changed from a religious to a racial antagonism, which met its ultimate obscenity in the phenomenon of Christian Jews under the Nazis - Christian by religion and Jewish by race.

      Zionism was therefore the solution, as someone has said, of collective assimilation. The Jews became like all others and being Jewish was transformed from a religious to a racial/national definition. The problem was that in order to define who was Jewish in the first place you had to go back to the Rabbis. They held the key to the treasury and it was they who were allocated by Ben Gurion with the responsibility for personal affairs - birth, deaths and marriage - in Israel. So Reform Jews are not Jewish and in Israel there is and will continue to be a third race - neither Jewish nor non-Jewish, just as in Nazi Germany there was the mixed race Mischlinge - who had one or two Jewish grandparents.

      In fact Israel has two definitions of being Jewish. One the orthodox definition for purposes of birth, marriage and death and the definition under the Law of Return as amended in 1970. This has caused immense problems because it casts the net even wider than the Nazi definition [you were Jewish if you had 3 or more Jewish grandparents in 1870]. Under the Law of Return as amended, you are Jewish if you are a child or grandchild of a Jew, a spouse of a Jew, or a child or grandparent of a Jew. So it has made Jews of the Russian Jews, many of whom are anything but Jews! It is about creating a definition of who is and who is not a settler and therefore privileged.

      It is therefore irrelevant whether Herzl or Ben Gurion were themselves secular atheists. What they proposed and implemented depended on the stamp of approval of the rabbis. They made a faustian pact.

  • California students resist authorities’ attempt to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism
    • Of course the Zionists, who realise they don't have a case any more (not that they ever did!) and find it increasingly difficult to convince anyone except fellow Republican and Conservative bigots, are desperate to restrict the free speech of supporters of Palestinians.

      They choose to use that old time-worn tactic of crying 'anti-semitism.' There are 2 points that need to be made.
      i. Like the boy who cried wolf, what they do in the process is legitimise real anti-Semitism because people become confused between fake anti-Semitism i.e. support of the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism and the genuine article. That is how people like Gilad Atzmon have gained a hearing. However the Zionist movement does't care about this because:

      ii. Zionism is and always has been a Jewish version of anti-Semitism. Whereas most people rejected the idea that Jews did not belong in the countries where they lived, were citizens of and were born, Zionism held that they were strangers who should go 'home' to their 'real home'. Hence the Law of Return in Israel allows me, as a Jewish person, to emigrate when I want to Israel and claim citizenship but denies the same right to Palestinians who were born there and expelled.

      Zionism historically adopted the same anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews, in the words of Jacob Klatzkin, Jews in the diaspora were hideous and deformed. Or as Pinhas Rosenbluth, Israel's first Justice Minister remarked, Palestine is an institute for fumigating Jewish vermin. [Studies in Israel 4, Journal of Israeli History 8]

      Alone of Jewish groups in Nazi Germany, the Zionists welcomed the Nuremberg Laws. In the words of Joachim Prinz, the Chairman of the German Zionist Federation 'it was everything we dreamed about'.

      Those interested in reading on Zionism's record on these matters can consult the free, on the web, book of Shabtai beit Zvi, Post-'Ugandan Zionism on Trial' or Ben Hecht's book Perfidy. Both are right-wing Zionists.

  • Israeli lawmaker wants to force foreign-funded NGO officials to wear stigmatizing i.d.'s
  • Jewish community must 'welcome' anti-Zionist, pro-BDS Jews, Beinart says-- but Shavit says, Excommunicate them
    • This is all very interesting but I wonder how relevant it all is? I barely know who Ari Shavit is. Maybe that's because I am in the UK.

      I became an anti-Zionist over 40 years ago, having been born into an Orthodox Jewish family (dad was a rabbi). Why? Because I became a socialist and my first political activity was the campaign to stop the South African rugby team, the Springboks, from touring Britain. I found socialism and universalism couldn't be reconciled with Zionism, which always asked how Jews benefited. I'm pleased to hear that Hannah Arendt, despite flirting with Zionism, was detested by people like Gershom Scholem because of her universalism. Zionism is narrow, parochial, self-centred. It failed to rescue anyone from the holocaust, prioritising building the state. 3-4 million survived because Jews had established links with non-Jews that were stronger than the Nazis' anti-Semitism.

      Historically there have been many Jewish identities - the identity of the trader, the money lender, the revolutionary and working class activist and now Zionist. I suspect that Zionism is the last Jewish identity. There is no longer a material basis for a separate Jewish existence and today you are Jewish, either because you identify with Israel or conversely because you don't identify with Israel. This is why the idea of the Jewish community welcolming in the BDS Jewish supporters isn't going to happen. Zionism has colonised the Jewish communities. It may be less effective today than 30 years ago, but Jewish identity today is not based on any material differences but on a political identity of extreme and narrow nationalism.

      We are the Jews of conscience whereas Zionism has no conscience. It tricks asylum seekers in Israel in to leaving the State and they are termed 'infiltrators' who are a threat to the racist Jewish nature of the State. Israel today is the logical outcome of a State that defines itself on ethnic/volkish lines rather than on the territorial principle. It is no surprise that Israel's friends in the region are Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, not forgetting al-Nusra and Isis.

      Israel will not last forever and when it has gone I suspect much of what is termed Jewish identity will have gone too.

  • 'You have dual citizenship with Israel' -- NPR host hits Sanders with internet canard
    • Yes dual-loyalty is a classic anti-semitic trope or characterisation of Jews. Unfortunately, like a number of other such tropes. Zionism does its best to legitimate that use. Eg Zionism believes that Jews are strangers in any land outside Israel, so do the anti-Semites. Hence why the Nazis followed a policy of favouring Zionist organisations from 1933-41 in Germany & Austria above 'assimilationist' groups who ran counter to their idea that Jews were apart from Aryans.

      Israel lays claim to all Jews. It is the State of the Jewish People and as Netanyahu recently said, the 'real home' of Jews is in Israel. Zionism has never resiled from one of the founding themes of the movement, the Negation of the Diaspora (I'll leave u to look that one up).

    • If dual citizenship and dual loyalty are a canard in respect to American or British Jews, then the fault lies with the Israeli State and Zionism.

      Israel defines itself not as a state of its own citizens but as a state of the Jewish people, wherever they may live or be found. And that includes Sanders. So does Bernie Sanders reject this claim by Israel which is integral to the reason why there is no Israeli nationality.

  • Goldberg predicts 'civil war' between American and Israeli Jews as Israel is 'defined as an apartheid state'
    • Goldberg may see US policy in relation to Israel as a product of Obama's philo-Semitism or whatever, but Obama represents the interests of the US Corporate class, the Military/Industrial complex that Eisenhower referred to. Of course he may represent a different wing to that of Bush and Cheney, he may prefer cooption rather than confrontation, but he serves the same master, which is why he tends to the same solutions in the end.

      More interesting is the way that US policy is collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions in Iraq. You can't be best friends with the Saudis and then oppose their bastard offspring ISIS whilst at the same time confronting the only power that is capable of confronting them, Iran and not knowing who you are allied with in Syria.

    • I'm not sure what you are saying. Arlossorof was assasinated in June 1933 He was up to his eyes in negotiations for Havarah, the Nazi-Zionist trade agreement that would destroy the International Boycott of Nazi Germany, which was the main hope of those who sought to remove Hitler from power while he was weak. So no tears for him.

  • Netanyahu eulogizes settler movement founder convicted of manslaughter
    • Zionism feels less and less need to pretend that it stands for peace, equality etc. as the logic of what a Jewish state and a colonial occupation come to the fore.

      Of course if Levinger had been an Arab then we would have heard he had 'blood on his hands' was an Arab Haman etc.

      Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first drive mad.

  • The U.S. is at last facing the neocon captivity
    • I have severe doubts with this.

      For a start Ariel Sharon and the Israeli government was none too keen on the Iraq war. Iran was their main enemy not Saddam.

      Secondly this article mistakes rhetoric for reality. Wolfowitz et al may have justified the attack on Iraq in terms of defence of Israel, but that isn't necessarily true. It could be and I believe it is a good camouflage.

      The key explanation is indeed energy policy and oil. It was outlined in the Bush Task Force Report 'Strategic Energy Policy - Challenges for the 21st Century' which led to the Future of Iraq Project and the report of its Oil and Energy Working Group, which details the restructuring of the Iraqi oil company and the insertion of the international oil companies into that industry.

      I refer to a show by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC 'Why We Did It' for more details but the case is pretty convincing.

      Those arguing for Israel being the cause make a major mistake, w hich Walt and Mersheimer also do. Israel is an alibi, Israel is a good talking point, the Israeli lobby is a convenient explanation BUT it's not the real reason that the US acts as it does, including the invasion of Iraq.

      The US supports Israel because it is in its, the US's interest, not because of out of some altruistic desire to help Israel. If supporting Israel was against US interests then the US would begin to dissociate itself from Israel, it would raise - as Reagan did over the AWACs sale to Saudi Arabia - the issue of a dual loyalty. People need a little imagination. Don't mistake the effusive expressions of concern for Israel with the genuine article.

      Israel is loved as long as it is in the US's interests to love it. But US imperialism is a fickle creature.

  • In Israel, racism is standard procedure
    • The problem with referring to Israeli Arabs as Palestinians is that it reinforces those who say that if they are part of a different nation then they should go and be part of that nation's state in the event of a 2 state solution. That was what Tsipi Livni argued at the 'peace negotiations' to hive of Umm al Fahum and The Triangle into a fledgling Palestinian state.

      Of course Zionism isn't going to agree to such as state but we should be arguing that Israel constitutes one Israeli/Palestinian nation.

  • Netanyahu deputy charged with administering Palestinians says they are 'beasts, not human'
    • Clearly he did believe Jews were less than human. Jews were regularly described as 'human cattle' a 'bacillus' 'vermin' etc. I doubt Eli Ben-Dahan is any worse than Hitler in what he says and so far hasn't been able to emulate his hero either.

  • Rudoren covers up Shaked's genocidal statements in 'NYT'
    • This is a good example of how Zionism makes people into anti-Semites. It says all Jews are Zionists (except for a small group of 'self haters') and therefore the assumption is that a journalist or whoever is pro-Israeli.

      In fact the responsibility for placing supporters of Zionism in the Jerusalem bureau of the NYT is that of non-Jews as much as Jews. Indeed their religion is irrelevant. They are there because of their politics.

      If Max Blumenthall or myself were in that position then the NYT's Jerusalem bureau chief would not be apologising for genocidal murderers. It would have nothing to do with our being Jewish but our politics, which are anti-Zionist.

  • Netanyahu appoints Ayelet Shaked—who called for genocide of Palestinians—as Justice Minister in new government
    • Re this nonsense that someone called JeffB apparently said, viz. '“The Holocaust justifies the Nabka completely. Had Zionism been successful a decade earlier a huge chunk if not all of the six million who died would have lived.” - I don't know where it apparently appears but it is something that Zionists do often say.

      The truth is the exact opposite. If Zionism had not existed, then at least half a million to a million Jews who died in the Holocaust would have survived. They were indirectly responsible for Hungary's half a million Jews remaining in ignorance about the destination of the deportations, through having sat on the Vrba-Wetzler Report. As Counsel for Rudolf Kasztner, Chaim Cohen argued in the Appeal Hearing in Israel, it is our Zionist tradition to select the few out of the many. In this case 1684 of the Zionist and Bourgeois Jewish elite.

      Couple this with the Zionist movement lobbying the Nazi government between 1933-39 not to allow Jewish emigration to any other place but Palestine, the sabotage of any other destination but Palestine (San Domingo, Sweden, Freiland, Guyana and England) and one can see what a disaster Zionism was for the Jews. The 'logic' of the Zionists was that if other places bar Palestine could take Europe's Jews, the Zionist project would be a white elephant. What they termed 'refugeeism' (saving Jews whatever the destination) had to be fought.

  • Is there room for liberal Zionists in an anti-Zionist movement?
    • There is of course an easy answer to the question whether there's room in an anti-Zionist movement for liberal Zionists. And that is 'no'. By definition liberal Zionists are not anti-Zionists. Of course there's room for them to cross over, we should be happy to debate them but their illusion, that it is possible to have a democratic and a Jewish state is a dangerous one which in practice has led to a reinforcement of a very undemocratic Jewish state.

      Of course in Israel it is different and there may be co-operation between anti-Zionists and Meretz. But even the Joint List, with Hadash in a minority, refused to have a vote sharing agreement which might have saved Meretz if it had fallen short of the 3.2% threshold for getting into the Knesset.

      But I've found on British campuses that it was the liberal Zionists who were most effective in whitewashing Israel and its war crimes.

  • Dead End
    • If Israel wants to observe Holocaust Remembrance Day then there is no better way than to lift the Holocaust survivors out of poverty. But of course HRD has nothing to do with those who survived, or indeed those who perished, in the Holocaust.

      As yesterday's article in Ha'aretz makes clear, holocaust survivors are still being deprived of the reparations Israel stole on their behalf.
      Thousands of Israeli Holocaust survivors still living in poverty, fighting for recognition
      http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/holocaust-remembrance-day/.premium-1.651572
      Seventy years after the end of WWII, some 20,000 aging Holocaust survivors receive little or no support from Israel, and 45,000 live under poverty line.

      And during the Holocaust the record of the Zionist movement was abysmal. From denying, repeatedly that there was a holocaust (citing articles in the Nazi press as proof) to blocking information about the holocaust to collaboration with the Nazis as in the Kasztner affair.

      HRD is about creating the moral basis for Israeli racism and aggrandisement, for underpinning further genocide and racism. That is why non-Jews play no part in it, despite 3 million Poles having been exterminated and a like number of Russian soldiers, to say nothing of the murder of thousands of German and other socialists, trade unionists etc.

      Ayman Odeh takes the path of least resistance rather than challenge the Zionists' misuse of the Holocaust. It is a product of his and his party's Stalinist politics.

      As for Yariv Oppenheimer doing his 'guard duty' in the West Bank, this is despicable. Peace doesn't come from serving as a soldier in the occupation. That is why Peace Now is dead in the water in Israel, totally and utterly irrelevant as was the 'left' Zionism that gave birth to it.

  • Separating anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism
    • The racists and the Right always take our slogans and misuse/distort them. So it is with 'Never Again'. In Britian this is the slogan of anti-fascists and applies to fascism. Never again will we tolerate what has happened. Zionism and its propagandists have perverted it - for Netanyahu and his ilk, 'never again' means never again will anything horrible happen to Jews.

      And how will he achieve his state of 'never again'? By standing up to that tiny minority of anti-Semites who hate Jews? No by running away from them to the 'real home' of Jews. Behind the Zionist 'never again' is a concession to anti-Semitism.

      Of course they are not talking about anti-Semitism but anti-Zionism for 99% of the time. Attacks like that in Paris or Denmark are manna from heaven. For them anti-Zionism i.e. opposition to one of the most militarised/right-wing states in the world is 'anti-Semitic' is in itself anti-Semitic.

      But this doesn't convince people who have their own brains and means of understanding. We are living through a golden period of tolerance for Jews. It is sickening to compare the Vel d'Hiv in Paris, wheren over 12,000 Jews, including 1,000 children, were rounded up for Drancy and then Auschwitz. The pinprick attacks of disenfranchised young Muslims, the leftovers of the 'war against terror' are simply no subsistitute.

      We need to be bolder

  • Diaspora Jews are not in 'exile,' they are at home
    • What Netanyahu and Labour Zionist politicians have done before him is to try and fulfill the dreams of Adolph Hitler, to make Europe Judenrein. As Isaac Deutscher wrote in the non-Jewish Jew and Other Essays

      'the most fanatical enemies of Zionism were precisely the workers, those who spoke Yiddish... they were the most determined opponents of the idea of an emigration from East Europe to Palestine... in the idea of an evacuation, of an exodus from the countries in which they, had their homes and in which their ancestors had lived for centuries, the anti-Zionists saw an abdication of their rights, a surrender to anti-Semitism. To them anti-Semitism seemed to triumph in Zionism, which recognised the legitimacy and the validity of the old cry ‘Jews get out!' The Zionists were agreeing to get out.'

      See Completing Hitler’s Goal – Netanyahu Seeks to Make Europe Judenrein http://www.azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/completing-hitlers-goal-netanyahu-seeks.html

  • 'With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France': Death threats follow publication of cartoon in Israeli newspaper
    • I'm not sure that the reference to Jewish tribal unity is at all helpful. Im Tirzu's attack on Ha'aretz journalists owes more to McCarthyism than Jewish solidarity. Shoval's defence of racism and Zionist colonisation will, of necessity, involve an attack on Jewish dissenters. It was the same in South Africa, Algeria and any settler colonial outpost.

      Western capitalist elites and their satellites in the developing world will always try to stifle free speech but that is different from the millions who marched in France, who were indeed opposed to attacks on basic democratic rights. We saw this divergence with the presence of leaders from Egypt, Turkey and of course Israel, all of whom lock up and murder journalists.

      The other clear distinction that needs to be made is between the right to criticise religion, the fundamental right of any secular society and criticism of the adherents of a religion, which is racism not free speech. Portrayal of an innane rabbi, a stupid mullah or a backward fundamentalilst preacher has nothing to do with racism and is indeed about free speech. Criticism of a particular religion as backward and the imputation of backwardness to the followers of that religion is racist.

      Fascist or racist ‘free speech’ is intended to incite hatred and hurt its targets. It has nothing to do with free speech. Printing cartoons of Allah seems to me to be the quintessential example of free speech.

  • John Judis's Truman book is a landmark in anti-Zionism
    • Not having read the book it may indeed be impressive, but that doesn't mean it has got it right.

      What the review is endorsing is the idea that the Zionist lobby is responsible for US support for a Jewish state as opposed to..... It may well have played a part in that decision but as one amongst a number of factors. I don't buy the idea that it was down to a $100,000 donation. If the decision to support the UN partition plan had been against US interests then no matter how big the bribe it would have been turned down.

      The issue of a religious state in the Middle East is simply wrong. Saudia Arabia was already a religious state in the region. Iran has joined it since and other countries, e.g. Sudan have sharia law. This is where the weakness of not having a Marxist or materialist analysis comes into play.

      Israel is not a religious state. It is a settler colonial state. A state in which the settlers oust the indigenous population, excluding them from the economy and the land. Their ideological justification is religion and because of that the rabbis have occupied a central part in the state in terms of the definition of personal status i.e. the racial definition of the privileged. But it is not a theocracy although it has trappings of such a state.

      Saudi Arabia and Iran are religious states but they are not settler colonial states and in those states religion serves a different function. Not to justify the oppression of another group or people but to justify the repression of their own citizens and in the Saudi case, foreign workers. Once you adopt this analysis much more fits into place.

      Truman was an unprincipled self-serving mass murderer. His decision to murder over 200,000 people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to say nothing of those horrifically burnt and injured was a huge war crime. That is how his decisions should be treated. No doubt he was also corrupt and venal but his primary interest would always have been US imperial interests in the Middle East and if that meant war and conflict in the long term, well in the long term we are all dead anyway.

      Likewise Walt and Mersheimer were equally wrong. The Iran treaty shows the limits of their power when they come up against what is perceived as US interests, despite a large faction of the US ruling circles opposing the treaty.

      As for Stephen Wise and Abba Silver they both followed the Zionist policy of opposing the saving of Jewish refugees from the Nazis if they didn't go to Palestine. Wise in particular waged a war against anyone who did want to save Jews, in particular Peter Bergson and the Emergency Committee to Save the Jews of Europe which was responsible in January 1944 for the setting up of the War Refugee Board.

      The review says that the book 'forces one to consider how much violence stems from the west’s decision to establish a religious state'. But the West has always been in favour of much violence if it is necessary to secure its interests. Syria today is a good ex ample of that and Iraq is too. That is no concern to the masters of war in Washington.

  • 'Nobody knew where I was, nobody… I was simply disappeared': An Italian tourist's Ben Gurion nightmare
    • No doubt they would be astounded at Andrea Pesce's treatment. This is always the way with repressive states. People visited South Africa and Nazi Germany and came away convinced that Blacks were fine and the stories about Jews being attacked were 'atrocity propaganda.'

      A good example is Lord Rothermere, owner of the British Daily Mail writing on 4th September 1933.
      '‘They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call 'Nazi atrocities,' which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for him self, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence.’ Rothermere saw what he wanted to see, just like our four tourists.

  • 'Hath not a Palestinian eyes?': Protesters disrupt Habima performance at Globe
    • I think enough attention has been paid to Fredbloggs. No doubt his hasbara trainer will be explaining to him where he went wrong.

      Of course the King David Hotel bombing was an act of terrorism, but of course even it was as nothing compared to Tantura, Lod, Duweimah, Deir Yassin and many other acts of butchery that were committed during 1948-9.

      Being Jewish I make no apology for being consistent in my opposition to racism. I began political campaigning against the Springbok Rugby Tour when the Fredblogss of that era said sport and politics didn't mix. Well we proved them wrong then and we will do so again.

      Equally performing a play written some 500 years ago is not an act of free speech and if it is then interjecting with comments as to the context is equally an act of free speech. Freddie may not like it but that's how it is.

      Free speech in Israel can get you administrative detention - on security grounds of course - and part of that freedom is not even knowing or seeing the evidence.

      As someone who has now participated in 4 such demonstrations against the Jerusalem Quartet (twice), Habima and the IPO is this. Would it have been right to disrupt the performances of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra and its conductor Wilhelm Furtwangler in the 1930's. They were technically brilliant performers (Habima were pretty mediocre in fact) but they represented the normalisation of Nazism. People did indeed support the boycott of Nazi Germany (the Zionists didn't but that's another story) or would it have been affront to Freddie's morals?

      And would he unreservedly condemn similar demonstrations against Soviet culture, including the Bolshoi Ballet in the 1970's and 1980's over Soviety Jewry? I can't remember many Zionist denunciations at the time.

      It is irrelevant whether the US has free speech. With the latest adornment to the Patriot Act this is a very arguable proposition since the military now has the power to detain civilians indefinitely and habeus corpus and free speech are inextricably linked.

      Of course Fred reaches for the last weapon in the arsenal. Why not China etc. Leave aside that BDS is most effective against settler colonial states where there is a whole society of settlers complicit in the oppression of another people, so where the state is merely repressive against its own BDS is rarely called for because it is ineffective, the fact is that Israel maintains sanctions and siege against Gaza and of course Iran is a prime object of such.

      By entertaining the settlers of Ariel and signing a contract to represent Israel culturally as its ambassadors Habima has established itself as Israel's cultural propaganda arm. I am proud to have taken part in the demonstration and have nothing to regret.

      I just hope I would have done so in the 1930's against another racist regime (a time when extermination was not talked about or considered likely). No doubt may apologists for Nazi culture would have salivated at the protesters being tasered if they had developed such enlightened methods of control at that time.

  • BDS interview fallout: Finkelstein 'showed his own fear of the paradigm shift in discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict'
    • Thank you for your kind comments. However you believe I've been too categorical in my criticism of Norman Finkelstein. Let me explain why I disagree.

      Firstly we need to identify what the problem is in Israel/Palestine. According to the most dishonest Labour Zionists, best represented by the Union of Jewish Students and Peace Now, the problem is a psycho-personal one. Jews and Arabs just don't get on hence why they must separate. And two states provides the answer.

      The right-wing Zionists were always more honest. A Jewish state means expelling the Arabs or confining them beyond the Iron Wall. That this logic is now suffusing through the mainstream of Zionism is exemplified by this posting on the Jewish Chronicle blog today.

      http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/63837/a-demographic-time-bomb-jewish-state-cannot-afford-ignore

      The two state solution, a solution that only imperialism can create, in reality a state and a reservation policy, because no one imagines a Palestinian state will be independent in anything but name, will provide the ideal opportunity for people like Clive Wolman to implement another 'transfer' - this time of the bulk of Israel's 1.5 million Arab citizens. And sooner or later there will be another 'transfer' - this time across the Jordan when circumstances and a war permit.

      Partition in Ireland, also seen as a practical solution at the time by Republican leaders like Michael Collins, in retrospect paved the way for a coercive confessional state in the South and a police statelet in the North for 50 years and a war for nearly 30 years after 'the troubles' in 1969. And in Ireland, the Unionists power had already started to wane. Not because of a demographic time bomb as Wolman states, but because of the diminishing importance of the Loyalists of the North of Ireland to Britain's geo-strategic and economic interests.

      By way of contrast the Palestinians are weak and Israel is strong, hence why a 2 State solution is unattainable, except in the most abstract of forms. Yet now is the time that NF devotes his lecture tours to arguing the case for 2 States, using maps that are ludicrous as his stage props, simply ignoring that the settlers control 60% of the West Bank and are not going to be dislodged. And as part of this act, NF belabours and attacks the movement for BDS - much to the delight of last week's Jewish Chronicle amongst others.

      Ireland and Palestine have followed a very similar path. The first Military Governor of Jerusalem, Sir Ronald Storrs, in his auto-biography 'Orientations' called Jewish Palestine 'a little loyal Ulster amidst a sea of hostile pan Arabism.' Churchill was the Colonial Secretary who presided over Partition and the rise of the Mandate.

      If a United Ireland is a precondition for peace in Ireland, as opposed to the sticking plaster of the Good Friday Agreement, then that is doubly true in Palestine. Without dealing with the cause, the ethno-Jewish nature of the Israeli state, with all the consequences of apartheid, discrimination etc. which follow, then all 'solutions' are mere palliatives.

      Indeed I would go further. 2 States is not on the horizon nor will it be. But even if it were I would be opposed. It would create a yet more racist Zionist state on one side and an even more repressive Palestinian statelet than the current junta in Ramallah presides over. There would no justice for any Palestinian beyond the current business mafia. Torture would continue to be the norm in the jails of the PA. There would certainly be no liberation. That was the false dawn of Oslo and it should not be repeated because that led to the Palestinians policing themselves at israel's behest, which is exactly what I predicted nearly 20 years ago now.

      NF may be a brilliant scholar but he disregards the importance of Zionism, as the founding ideology of the Israeli state. Whereas the nationalism of the 19th century at its most progressive was integrative - to the Jews as individuals everything, to the Jews as a nation, nothing (Conte de Clermont-Tonnerre), nationalist political movements, Volkish and racist, grew up whose goals were an ethnic-nationalism. Just as Edouard Drumont conflated Catholicism with French nationalism, so others saw 'race' and nation as indistinguishable. Zionism was of this ilk and today Jews are defined by the rabbis as a race with the consequent privileges.

      To NF, none of this matters. Pragmatism is all. But the price for NF's pragmatism will be paid by the Palestinians as NF makes it clear that he is growing old and weary and impatient.

  • Israel isn't good for the Jews anymore
    • A very good and interesting article. A few comments. Zionism is a political system and ideology. It serves a purpose. Herzl wrote words to the effect that it would be a European outpost on the ramparts of Asiatic barbarism.

      Israel is the guard dog and protector of western interests in an area that is vital strategically. It is a stable settler-colonial state and the $3 billion it receives is cheap at the price. And it has fractured Arab politics, both directly against Nasserism and indirectly in support of the most reactionary forces in the Arab world whose anti-Israeli rhetoric covered their own collaboration.

      When the British established their Empire they didn't say, we are coming to destroy the handlooms of India in order that we can create a cotton industry in England and turn the Indians into supplies of raw materials. They talked about 'civilisation' 'education' - it was the rhetoric of MacCaulay and Bentinck who railed against Sutthi, the burning of widows on the pyres of their husbands. Barbaric to be sure, but insignificant compared to the starving to death of 2.5 million in Bengal alone as the price of free market economics.

      Likewise the US ruling elites use the holocaust and 'anti-semitism' as the cover for their interests, just as the war in Iraq was fought for 'democracy'. So it is good to know that some US Jews and hopefully more as time goes by are distancing themselves from Israel and Zionism. But we are not living in the separate communities of feudalism behind ghetto walls. Today there is no material basis for the separate existence of Jewish communities. It is a fact that Jewish communities nearly everywhere bar Germany (ironically) are declining as half their Jews 'marry out'. This is a process of free choice not compulsion but Zionist and Orthodox leaders have compared the 'lost' souls of those who marry non-Jews to the victims of Hitler.

      But those with a sense of history will recall that Zionism was first and foremost a Christian Evangelical cause. It was the Lords Shaftesbury and Palmerstone, Disraeli and Ernest Laharanne (Napoleon III Secretary) and an assorted group of anti-Semites who were most in favour of Zionism. When Herzl wrote his 'Judenstaat' he took his pamphlet round to Eduard Drumont, editor of the anti-Semitic paper 'La Libre Parole' and an MP for Algiers. Drumont was the foremost anti-Semite and anti-Dreyfusard which gives the lie to the fairy story that Herzl was motivated by the injustice to Capt. Dreyfuss.

      Yes Israeli Jews are destined to part company with the rest of world Jewry. Their interests are different, especially American Jews. But they cannot form a nation of their own as the only reason for so doing would be to separate from Palestinian Arabs. Their fate is that of white South Africans which is to form one nation with those they have oppressed. True there will be 2 languages and culture and it is also the case, as with South Africa, that Israeli Jews will be more prosperous. And unlike South Africa there is already rough demographic parity between Israeli Jews and Palestinians. But the only solution which won't entrench existing racist privilege is a single nation on the common territory of Palestine between the Mediterranean and the Jordan river.

  • Pappe on why Palestinian Israelis are 'second-rate citizens'
    • I think the title should be changed to -second CLASS' citizens. Second-rate implies that Palestinians are not as good citizens as Israeli Jews.

      Richard Witty suggests 'the rights are conferred parallel to the US GI bill following WW2'. Not so. Every right and privilege depends on this, but even so Druze and Circassians do not get equality e.g. they are still excluded from 93% of the land as the JNF/ILA do not accept them.

      I'm not sure Tree is right re it depends on eligibility rather than actual service. The reason I say this is that under the discharged soldiers amendment act 1968 Haredi ultra orthodox do not serve and are therefore not eligible for welfare benefits at a higher level BUT to ally this, since they have the largest no. of children, a special grant has always been made to the Ministry of Religion to cover the cost of paying the child benefit in question.

      Israel is the only state in the world to deliberately use what we would term indirect discrimination (where a neutral provision, criteria or practice applies to all equally, but affects one group more than another). The UK state, despite its racism, has attempted to eliminate racism in society via Race Relations/Equality Acts. Israel perpetrates racism and increases it.

Showing comments 55 - 1
Page: