Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4356 (since 2009-07-30 20:36:23)

tree

Showing comments 4356 - 4301
Page:

  • Sheesh: A conservative response to the special relationship
    • As usual, Israel and its own military-industrial complex will benefit from the arrangement, to the detriment of US firms.

      Israel's defense industry could reap major contracts under a reported agreement by the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin to install Israeli-made electronic warfare systems in the F-35I, the designation of the Israeli versions of the JSF.

      Sources familiar with the negotiations say the program is worth $450 million to Israeli defense contractors for the first batch of F-35s.

      Israel has been pressing the Pentagon and Lockheed to allow them to install Israeli electronic equipment, including electronic countermeasures, command systems, radios and datalinks, to integrate Israeli-made weapons systems into the F-35s it buys.

      The Israelis usually insist on that and got their way with their fleets of F-15Is and F-16Is but on this project, with various versions of the F-35 due to equip the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, the Americans have been more reluctant than usual to give Israel access to the F-35's software code that's required to integrate non-U.S. systems.

      "Based on the order options it has committed to, Israel is expecting to share about $1 billion worth of buyback related to the F-35 program," Defense Update magazine reported.

      "The system integration deal ... will allow an increased participation by Israeli industries in the JSF program."

      Among the companies likely to benefit are state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries which will build wings for the aircraft. Another is Elrisa, a subsidiary of the leading electronic equipment manufacturer Elbit Systems, the air force's main electronic warfare systems supplier.

      link to upi.com

  • 'NYT' obit turns the murderous settler rabbi into a 'contentious firebrand'
    • Is Yigal Arens his son?

      No. Yigal is the son of Moshe Arens. I met him as a member of a group I belonged to several years ago and remember him being asked how it came to be that his views were so different from his famous father's views. He said he was deeply affected by his uncle while growing up, who also thought as he (Yigal) did. I didn't know the name or background of his uncle until he was mentioned here. Thanks Pabelmont.

  • Netanyahu: Jerusalem was always the capital 'of the Jewish people alone'
    • To expand on Shmuel's comment about Levinger:

      In 1988, Levinger was indicted on two separate criminal charges involving events in Hebron. On September 30, 1988, Levinger, who had been hit a week before by a rock, was attacked by stoners who smashed his windshield, injuring his son. He reached an Israeli checkpoint. Levinger pulled out his pistol, turned round and went back down the streets shooting at shop windows, killing Palestinian store owner Hassan Abdul Azis Salah.[9] A customer was also wounded. Levinger claimed he had been surrounded by Palestinians who threatened his life,[9] and only to have shot into the air to defend himself against stone throwers. In a press conference following the shooting, Levinger said, "Regarding the actual deed, I will respond when the time comes. I have already said that as far as the substance of the case goes, the State Attorney's Office knows that I am innocent and that I did not have the privilege of killing that Arab. Not that I may not have wanted to kill him or that he did not deserve to die, but I did not have the privilege of killing that Arab."[10] He was charged with "manslaughter, causing bodily harm in aggravated circumstances and intentionally damaging property".[11] His trial began in August 1989, despite protests by 13 right-wing Knesset members and hundreds of supporters.[12] Levinger pleaded not guilty to the charges but accepted a plea-bargain to the lesser charge of negligent homicide.[13] He was sentenced to 5 months imprisonment and 7 months suspended, of which he served 92 days.[14] During his imprisonment, he was given leave to attend a public event in Hebron.[15] On his release in August 1990, he told Israel Radio, "If I'm in a situation of danger again, I'll again open fire. I hope that next time, I will be more careful and I won't miss the target."[16]

      In another case, which related to an event five months before the first, he was alleged to have assaulted a Palestinian woman and her two children after other Arab children had "made fun of" his daughter. At his trial in May 1989, the magistrate dismissed the evidence of the Arab witnesses on the grounds that they were interested parties and wanted to see Levinger in prison for ideological reasons, and also dismissed the evidence of two IDF soldiers who testified to the assault.[17] Six weeks after Levinger's release from prison on his separate negligent homicide conviction (see above), the Jerusalem District Court overturned his acquittal on the earlier assault charges.[18] He was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment, plus an additional 10 days for an outburst in court.[19] He served about two months. On his release in March 1991, he said "Over the years, I've carried out dozens of actions and all of them were against the law. It was worthwhile to violate the law, as all these actions advanced the whole Land of Israel."[20]

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      And that's just a portion of his criminality. A thoroughly hateful man who was coddled by the Israeli government because he was Jewish and his violence and criminality furthered racist Israeli policies.

  • What if the Times had sent Rudoren to Selma in 1965?
    • For anyone interested in an informed view on the condition of the Palestinian economy right before and during the beginning of the first Zionist immigration to Palestine, rather than listening to Jeffb's racist blather, I would suggest reading from the Israeli book, "Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period", particularly the chapter written by Gad Gilbar, head of Haifa University's Middle Eastern History Department, entitled," The Growing Economic Involvement of Palestine with the West, 1865-1914".

      link to books.google.com

      Quote:The late 1860s mark the beginning of a new period in the economic and social development of Ottoman Palestine. During the 45-50 years prior to World War I Palestine's economy underwent a process of modernization and growth surpassing both in force and scope anything it had experienced during the first seven decades of the 19th century and perhaps ever since the Ottoman conquest of the country. Nor did Palestine lag behind other economies in the Middle East, such as those of Syria, Anatolian and Iran, in the thrust of the economic changes that it underwent during the period under discussion.

      The modernization and growth that resulted from the increase in inputs of the factors of production, including technological changes, were not only expressed in an increase in the national product, but in important structural changes as well in the sectors of agriculture, manufacture and services, in the patterns of consumption and savings, and in the distribution of capital and incomes. These economic processes helped to generate a number of important social changes, the most outstanding of which was the emergence of a new layer among the elite of the Palestinian Arab society.

      At the root of these economic and social developments was a factor that was exogenous to the economy and society of Palestine. It was not Ottoman reforms, nor Templar settlement, nor the first Jewish waves of immigration, nor even foreign activity in Palestine in general that had caused them, but the fact that at the time Palestine's economy became increasingly linked to the world economic system, and particularly to the economies of Europe (see Tables 1 and 2). The connection exposed Palestine's economy to the influence of the changes taking place in the economies of Europe, and generated new forces and processes within it. However though the moving factor was external, the bearers of this growth were primarily local Arab-speaking Muslims and Christians. End quote

      The chapter goes on to detail the exponential growth in the citrus, olive and sesame export markets starting in the later 1800s. Of the three, only the citrus market had any appreciable Jewish ownership, and the vast majority of that came after the local Arab Palestinian citrus industry had shown itself capable of producing significant profits, thus creating a considerable Zionist interest in purchasing land capable of supporting citrus growth.Significant Jewish ownership of orange groves didn't occur until the early 1900s. By 1929 Zionist Jews owned half of the citrus groves in Palestine, and yet just prior to Israel's confiscation of Palestinian property in 1948-50, Palestinian Arabs still produced over half of the orange crop in the country. Certainly this indicates that Jewish groves were not significantly more productive than non-Jewish ones.

      As Mark Levine points out in "Overthrowing Geography:Jaffa, Tel Aviv, and the Struggle for Palestine":

      QuoteAn extensive 1902 study of the Jaffa orange trade by two Zionist officials pays tribute to the growth of the industry, the various Arab owners, and the wide reach of its markets (with England, followed by Turkey and Egypt grouped as one unit, and, well below them, Austria-Hungary as the primary markets).

      Even as the study complains about the "primitive" state of Palestinian Arab cultivation (Arabische Kulturmethode), the discussion of the costs involved for Arab versus European proprietors bears out the praise of Arab cultivation methods as much more cost-efficient than the supposedly more modern Zionist-European ones made two decades later by the founder of Zionist agronomy, Yitzhak Elezari-Valkani. End quote

      Lest one be still tempted to equate the burgeoning economic changes in late Ottoman Palestine with the arrival of the first Zionist settlers, you might want to read Yossi Ben-Artzi on "Changes in the agricultural sector of the moshavot, 1882-1914". Besides delving into the alternate farming methods of the Arab Palestinians and the German Templer settlements and their positive influence on the Jewish farming methods, Ben-Artzi makes it clear that the early (first aliyah-1885-1903) settlements were primarily failures at farming, due mostly to their ignorance of farming methods, the local climate and soil conditions; a not surprising revelation due to the ideological rather than economic bent of the settlements. The limited success of the early settlements was in the production of wine grapes, which were tried after the German Templers had proved that wine grape growing could be profitable. However even this was later widely abandoned as unsuitable and unreliable. Regardless, the early settlements were almost entirely dependent on the financial hand-outs from Baron Rothschild, and had the motivation for the settlements been economic rather than ideological they would have been abandoned entirely within a few years for being economically unsustainable.

      See here

      :link to books.google.com

      As for the draining of swamps, that had been done on a small scale prior to the arrival of the Zionists, by both Palestinian Arabs and German Templer settlers. As for the large scale draining of the Hula Valley by Israel in the 1950's, that was later realized as an ecological disaster, and was partially undone in the 1990's.
      "Israel Restoring Drained Wetland, Reversing Pioneers' Feat"

      link to nytimes.com

      Quote:The drying of the Hula lake and marsh in the 1950's freed some 15,000 acres of land for cultivation. But it also left behind a tangle of ecological problems so serious that planners are now preparing to reflood this area at the center of the drained basin. Now Unfit for Farming
      Dried peat soil from the bottom of the marsh has decomposed, burned and released pollutants that once were filtered by the swamp, leaving a wasteland unfit for farming.

      Draining the Hula, north of the Sea of Galilee, was a powerfully symbolic national enterprise, celebrated with patriotic fervor much as the space program was in the United States. It was expected to reclaim expanses of peat soil under the marsh that were considered to be both highly fertile and a source of fuel.

      Millions of gallons of swamp water previously lost through evaporation were to be channeled in canals to the Sea of Galilee, the national reservoir. And eliminating the marsh, officials said, would destroy a breeding ground of malaria-carrying mosquitoes.

      Between 1951 and 1958, a network of canals was dug to drain the lake and swamp. According to press reports at the time, Agriculture Minister Kadish Luz declared, "Land had been redeemed from hostile nature, and water that had been a menace to health turned into a blessing."
      Peat Was a Problem

      Although thousands of acres were brought under cultivation by neighboring settlements, problems emerged in large tracts of land with high concentrations of peat soil.

      The dry peat disintegrated, sank and burned in underground fires caused by spontaneous combustion. The fertility of the soil declined sharply, and it released nitrate pollutants that were washed by rains into the Sea of Galilee. As farmers stopped cultivating large areas, the land was overrun by mice and weeds, and peat dust whipped up by winds covered the region.
      The desolation contrasted sharply with the teeming animal and plant life that had filled the Hula marsh, situated at a meeting point of tropical and temperate climate zones. Several species unique to the swamp became extinct when it was drained, and even though a 750-acre nature reserve was set aside to recreate the lost wetlands, their rich diversity largely vanished.
      When the draining project began, destruction of this everglade environment was not deemed too high a price. There was little ecological awareness in the 1950's, and those experts who warned of problems were overruled by the planners.

      Need for Land and Jobs
      Also, with waves of new immigrants arriving in Israel's early years, the Hula project filled a pressing need for jobs and for agricultural land that could support farming settlements.

      "It was clear that agriculture and settlement were top priority, and it was considered obvious that swamps should be drained," said Amotz Zahavi, an Israeli conservationist who had lobbied for preservation of some of the marsh. "No one imagined that you could say no to drying the Hula."
      Azaria Alon, another conservationist, recalled: "The draining was deeply troubling to nature advocates, but it was difficult to talk about it, because anyone who spoke out was considered anti-Zionist. This was seen as a tremendous achievement, celebrated in writing and song."

      "But it wasn't thought through, and the result was ecological destruction," Mr. Alon said. "I'm against such policies that enthusiastically promote all kinds of big projects that change the face of the land without a comprehensive assessment of their environmental impact."End quote.

      It should be noted that during the time frame of the draining of the Hula, Israel was almost entirely financially dependent on reparations from Germany and the confiscated property of the ethnically cleansed Palestinians.

      So as usual, JeffB just pulls hasbara out of his butt and hopes you will swallow it whole just like he did.

  • 'NYT' plays shameless propagandist for Israel's threats to kill Lebanese civilians
    • The only thing missing is the motive for the attack.

      To nitpick a bit, the motive is the same as it has always been. What the propaganda is trying to provide is the pretense, since the real motive has never been honorable or defensible.

  • 'Israel should extend the right of return to all Palestinian refugees' -- Jebreal in 'The Nation'
    • lysias: All those kindly folk appointed by Hillary Clinton?

      No, lysias is wrong. Rice and Power were foreign policy advisers to Obama (not Clinton) during his 2008 election campaign, and Power even had to resign the campaign (officially, but still was an advisor) after she called Clinton a "monster" during the 2008 primary campaign. Neither were appointed by Clinton. Both were appointed by Obama. And Nuland was appointed to her current position by Obama after Clinton resigned as Secretary of State. They are all Obama appointments, not Clinton ones. Seems that too many people want to absolve Obama of his neo-con choices simply because he is black, and they think he couldn't possibly have neo-con attitudes despite his actions which indicate otherwise.

  • Gaza rules: Kill 2 Palestinian women on cellphones in an orchard so Israeli soldiers face zero risk
    • Will jon s respond to this? He insisted that every Gazan killed was the fault of Hamas and that Israel was only bombing military targets. Will he just ignore what even IDF soldiers have said about what was done to the people of Gaza?

  • Spanish Jews resisted oppression in tunnels and, exiled, clutched their keys
    • They came there with the intent of conquest and it was right that the colonizers were expelled.

      So are you likewise advocating that European Americans should be expelled from the US, and that Israeli Jews should be expelled from Israel?

      Seven hundred years after the fact its OK to expel people based on their ancient heritage or their religious preference?

  • 'BirthWrong' in the Cradle of Jewish Culture: Jews gather in southern Spain for tour that aims to repudiate Zionism
    • jon s,

      I thought you were a teacher.

      Zigazag is just slightly to the southwest of Beersheva (by 45 arc minutes, or three quarters of a degree). If you insist on exactitude, then Port Said is directly due west of Beersheva (very same latitude) and 237 kilometers to the west, and Alexandria is 461 kilometers to the west and 3 arc minutes to the south. 300 kilometers exactly due west of Beersheva is firmly on land in Egypt, not in the Mediterranean. If your only comment is to nitpick at least get it right, otherwise you just sound like a pompous and ignorant *ss.

  • In defense of Cornel West's prophetic voice
    • He had said loud and clear that he was against the invasion.

      No, actually he didn't. He gave ONE pretty namby-pamby speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago pretty much just saying that we could better spend the money elsewhere when he was a a safe Illinois State Senator and the speech was deemed by his handlers to be advantageous to his then fortunes. He did clearly say that he wasn't sure what he would have done if he had been a US Senator when the Iraq war authorization vote came up. He defended John Kerry's (and Joe Biden's) vote for the war. ( BTW, everyone seems to forget their votes. Why is that?) He wouldn't have voted any differently than Clinton had he been in the US Senate in 2002. Some of us could see that early on.

      Others bought into his hope-y-change-y shtick. He was also the least socially progressive of the three Democratic candidates in 2008. What a surprise-NOT- that he turned out the way he did as President. I didn't vote for him specifically because I didn't think he was very progressive at all, but I really did hope that I was wrong about him. Time has proven I wasn't.

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • This is tiresome. You stated that Jews were imprisoned in “the thousands.”

      It's only "tiresome" to you, hophmi because you got caught lying. You said

      "By 1939, hundreds of thousands of German Jews had already been killed or imprisoned. "

      I linked to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum which correctly stated that by early 1939 the number of German Jewish prisoners was in fact in the thousands, NOT the "hundreds of thousands" as you claimed and that over half of the German Jews had managed to escape Nazi Germany and the great majority of the rest were suffering, but alive, in Nazi Germany in 1939, which proved your exaggeration of the 1933-1939 death toll to be wrong. Why not just admit that you erred instead of, as pjdude mentioned, digging a deeper hole?

      . Jews were systematically deprived of their rights between 1933 and 1939.

      No one here is disputing that. Too bad that you can't likewise acknowledge that the state of Israel has systematically deprived Palestinians of their rights since 1948 up through this very moment.

      And you repeat this abomination about Jews being unable to fulfill their quotas under the White Paper, which they were unable to do because Jews were unable to emigrate, not because they didn’t want to.

      So now you have totally contradicted yourself. Why are you complaining about the quotas that weren't even filled if you acknowledge that many German Jews were unable to emigrate? You insisted that the White Paper was a "death sentence for tens of thousands of Jews" but now admit that German Jews couldn't emigrate regardless of how many unfilled quotas there were, thus the White Paper was not relevant to their suffering and deaths. You are being completely dishonest with yourself as well as the rest of us if you can't see the contradiction in the two statements you made.

      About 100,000 of the Jews from Germany emigrated to countries that Germany would eventually occupy, and most of them were killed, like Anne Frank. Nobody was in the dark about what was going to happen.

      Most people in early 1939 had no idea that Nazi Germany would control the fate of almost all of Western Europe by 1941. And the only reason that the Jews in Palestine were spared was because they lived in a country administered by Great Britain. If Sykes had relegated Palestine to Picot (or if Great Britain had fallen in WWII like France did), then the fate of Palestinian Jews would have been no different then the fate of Jews in other Nazi occupied countries. And if you seriously think that "nobody was in the dark" as to what was going to happen, how do you explain the Stern Gang's offer to collaborate with Nazi Germany in 1941?

      I understand you are emotional on this issue but its no excuse for lying, and certainly no excuse for issuing apologetics for Zionist leaders who showed little concern for European Jews other than as a source of demographics and financing for the benefit of their State.

      BTW, approximately 24,000 Jews immigrated to Palestine from 1939 through 1941. For the same time span, approximately 124,000 Jews immigrated to the US.

      link to ajcarchives.org

    • You’re just wrong. 30000 people were sent to concentration camps after Kristallnacht alone. Just stop it.

      30,000 is not "hundreds of thousands"(your quote), hophmi. There were barely "hundreds of thousands' of German Jews left in Germany in May of 1939 (when the British White Paper was signed) because the majority of them had managed to escape to other countries.

      I quoted from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website. If you got a beef with what I said then take it up with them.

      As to the 30,000 German Jewish prisoners arrested in the aftermath of Kristallnacht, again, according to USHMM:

      As the pogrom spread, units of the SS and Gestapo (Secret State Police), following Heydrich's instructions, arrested up to 30,000 Jewish males, and transferred most of them from local prisons to Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, and other concentration camps. Significantly, Kristallnacht marks the first instance in which the Nazi regime incarcerated Jews on a massive scale simply on the basis of their ethnicity. Hundreds died in the camps as a result of the brutal treatment they endured; most obtained release over the next three months on the condition that they begin the process of emigration from Germany. Indeed, the effects of Kristallnacht would serve as a spur to the emigration of Jews from Germany in the months to come.

      link to ushmm.org

      And requoting a portion of the link I posted above:

      By early 1939, only about 16 percent of Jewish breadwinners had steady employment of any kind. Thousands of Jews remained interned in concentration camps following the mass arrests in the aftermath of Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass) in November 1938.

      "Thousands", not thirty thousand, were still incarcerated in early 1939.

      Nothing I said was incorrect. You were exaggerating.

    • By 1939, hundreds of thousands of German Jews had already been killed or imprisoned. The White Paper cut off one of their main avenues of exit.

      No, that is false. By 1939 over half of all German Jews had emigrated to other countries (and only 20 percent of them had gone to Palestine). Of the two hundred thousand left, the ones imprisoned were in the thousands, not "hundreds of thousands". And the one's killed were barely one thousand by the time of the White Paper.

      In January 1933, some 522,000 Jews by religious definition lived in Germany. Over half of these individuals, approximately 304,000 Jews, emigrated during the first six years of the Nazi dictatorship, leaving only approximately 214,000 Jews in Germany proper (1937 borders) on the eve of World War II.

      In the years between 1933 and 1939, the Nazi regime had brought radical and daunting social, economic, and communal change to the German Jewish community. Six years of Nazi-sponsored legislation had marginalized and disenfranchised Germany's Jewish citizenry and had expelled Jews from the professions and from commercial life. By early 1939, only about 16 percent of Jewish breadwinners had steady employment of any kind. Thousands of Jews remained interned in concentration camps following the mass arrests in the aftermath of Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass) in November 1938.

      World War II

      Yet the most drastic changes for the German Jewish community came with World War II in Europe. In the early war years, the newly transformed Reich Association of Jews in Germany (Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland), led by prominent Jewish theologian Leo Baeck but subject to the demands of Nazi German authorities, worked to organize further Jewish emigration, to support Jewish schools and self-help organizations, and to help the German Jewish community contend with an ever-growing mass of discriminatory legislation.

      Following the outbreak of war on September 1, 1939, the government imposed new restrictions on Jews remaining in Germany. One of the first wartime ordinances imposed a strict curfew on Jewish individuals and prohibited Jews from entering designated areas in many German cities. Once a general food rationing began, Jews received reduced rations; further decrees limited the time periods in which Jews could purchase food and other supplies and restricted access to certain stores, with the result that Jewish households often faced shortages of the most basic essentials.

      link to ushmm.org

      Many of those still stuck in Germany were elderly or with health or diability issues. The Zionist project had a selection process that disqualified those Jews who were not able-bodied. They weren't interested in saving those folks unless there was some advantage to the Zionists in doing so. As it was, they didn't even fill the quotas they were allowed by the White Paper during WWII.

  • Just like the Nazis, Iran 'plans to exterminate six million Jews' -- Netanyahu
    • Sorry, jon. I'm super busy right now and most of my books are packed away at the moment, but my recollection would tend to look for Segev as the source. Perhaps Shabti said something similar. The anger that the new Iraqi immigrants had towards both the Iraqi government and Israel has been mentioned in numerous sources. When I get access to my books again, I'll hunt down the exact source.

      In the meantime here's a quote from Yehuda Shenhav in "Arab Jews" that's accessible on the web:

      In January 1952, about a half a year after the official conclusion of the operation that brought Iraq's Jews to Israel, two Zionist activists, Yosef Basri and Shalom Salah, were hanged in Baghdad. They had been charged with possession of explosive materials and throwing bombs in the city center. According to the account of Shlomo Hillel, a former Israeli cabinet minister and Zionist activist in Iraq, their last words as they stood on the gallows were "Long live the state of Israel" (Hillel 1984:342). It would have only been natural for Iraqi Jews in Israel to have reacted with outrage to news of the hangings. But on the contrary, the mourning assemblies organized by leaders of the community in various Israeli cities failed to arouse widespread solidarity with the two Iraqi Zionists. Just the opposite; a classified communication from Moshe Sasson of the Foreign Ministry's Middle East Division to the then Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett said that many Iraqi immigrants, residents of the transit camps had greeted the hanging with the attitude: "That is God's revenge on the movement that brought us to such depths". 6 This bitter reaction attests to an acute degree of discontent among the newly arrived Iraqi Jews. It suggest that a good number of them did not view their immigration as the joyous return to Zion depicted by the community's Zionist activists. Rather, in addition to blaming the Iraqi government, they blamed the ZIonist movement for bringing them to Israel for reasons that did not include the best interests of the immigrants themselves. 7

      Shenhav, page 113

      link to books.google.com

    • Your "historical facts", jon s, include some truth but there are also falsehoods in what you say. I can't go into a long post here because I'm just about out the door, but for the moment I will say that Iraq originally did not want its Jews to leave and tried to prohibit it. It was only under intense foreign pressure that it set up an orderly legal way for Iraqi Jews to emigrate to Israel. The volunteer lists were set up and run by Zionist emissaries,not by Iraqi officials, and it wasn't until after the 3rd and fatal bomb went off othat the number of volunteers became substantial. The deadline was for volunteering to emigrate under the plan; those who chose not to were allowed to stay in Iraq peacefully.

      Iraqi Jews were forced out of the civil service but were not prohibited from going to schools or hospitals, nor were their bank accounts frozen until late in the emigration period, and then only the accounts of those who were voluntarily giving up their citizenship. It wasn't morally justified but it was relatively mild compared to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the internment of Japanese citizens in the US during the same general time period.

      When I have more time and access to my sources I will expand if asked. My sources include Abbas Shiblak's "The Lure of Zion", Orit Bashkin's "The new Babylonians: A History of Jews in Modern Iraq",
      Nissim Rejwan's "The Last Jews in Baghdad" and others.

      In any case, Israel didn't treat its new emigrants from Iraq very well either. Rejwan reports that, despite the difficulties in corresponding between the new Iraqi emigres in Israel and their friends and families in Iraq (Israel censored letters and Iraq outlawed any communication) new emigres tried to warn other Iraqi Jews not to go to Israel. He mentions one letter writer urging the family to wait until after their daughters wedding to make "aliyah", with the unwritten acknowledgement that their daughter was only 2 years old.

      Israel bears a least as much responsibility of the plight of the Iraqi Jews as anyone else, including Iraq. They simply wanted more Jews in Israel to change the demographics and they didn't mind f*cking over Jews to do it. Its been mentioned by several Israeli writers that Iraqi Jews in Israel celebrated when two Zionist Jews were executed in Iraq for the Synagogue bombing.

  • 'United States of Israel' has compromised U.S. 'sovereignty' on Iran policy -- Gideon Levy in D.C.
    • Point number one:

      Phil, if you know, how many non-Zionist Israelis have been killed or seriously injured because their political views? Yitzhak Rabin was one; he was assassinated by an extremist. Ze’ev Sternhall was physically attacked.But that’s about it.

      Wow, hophmi's totally clueless! First off, as pointed out by others, Rabin was NOT a "non-ZIonist". He was a Zionist. For that matter, so is Sternhell.

      And of course that's NOT "about it." It highlights hophmi's bigotry that he thinks it is. When Hophmi says non-ZIonist Israeli he shows that the phrase only means Jewish Israelis to him. Non-Jewish Israelis don't count, since just between the major Israeli government sanctioned killings in Kafr Kassem, on Land Day in 1976 and the killings of Israeli Palestinians in October 2000, the numbers are around 66 killed, and many more injured. But those are only the major events, without counting the numerous individual non-Jewish Israelis who have been killed throughout Israel's history. But none of those register any importance to hophmi. Wrong ethnicity to elicit any sympathy from him. He couldn't care less about them.

      And of course, some anti-Zionist Jews have been injured or assaulted during peaceful protests in solidarity with Palestinians, such as Yonatan Pollack and Yonatan Shapiro, as well as Ezra Nawi.

      And even Zionists have been attacked and killed by other Zionists in Israel because of their political views. Emil Gruenzweig, an organizer of Peace Now, was killed by a grenade lobbed into a protest march against Ariel Sharon in 1983, in the aftermath of Sabra and Shatila. Other protesters were injured in the attack and some of them were even beaten on their way to the hospital after the attack.

      Point number two:

      It’s a little childish to write as Levy writes and then to complain that he receives nasty letters as a result, as if this were in any way limited to Israel... Nu, who’s coming after him? Only people in the West seem to actually buy this guy’s persecution complex, because it doesn’t seem like anyone in Israel really does.

      Speaking of persecution complexes, has everyone noticed the obvious and silly double standard hophmi is evincing here the past couple of days?

      He's carping on how he's being "bullied" here and how terribly he's being treated simply because Mooser has been posting amusing ripostes to his comments. At the very same time Hophmi's accusing Gideon Levy of being a crybaby and a wuss for mentioning that he's had death threats against him. Thank the stars that Levy never had to face the horror of Mooser's bon mots like Hophmi has! Oh, the Horror!

      Levy's had several death threats, and one incident where the car he was in was showered with bullets, but big deal. Such small potatoes compared to Hophmi having to put up with humorous comebacks to his idiotic comments! Brave, brave Hophmi!

      And remember Hophmi's response here to Levy's death threats the next time he tells us we should be more concerned with some Zionist Jew's hurt feelings when Israel is criticized that we should care about Palestinians' real suffering.

  • Israel could reduce anti-Semitic violence by not calling itself the Jewish state, Finkelstein says
    • Jons,

      Yes, that’s what I was referring to, of course. “Mooser” has written around 20 comments to that one of mine, including calling me a “mother-fucking anti-semite”, which the moderators allowed. -

      I just did a word search through Mooser's comment archive. "mother-fucking anti-semite" doesn't exist there. If I word search just for "anti-semite' I don't see any comment from him calling you such. Most of his use of the term are humorous riffs on the fallacy that any criticism of Israel or its supporters is anti-semitic. I don't see any of them directed at you.

      Can you please link to the comment you are talking about?

      And isn't complaining to Hophmi about Mooser calling you an anti-semite sort of like complaining to Don Rickles about verbal abuse?

      Oops. My apologies, jons. I just found the comment below. It hadn't yet hit the archives.

      However, his comment in response to you is in a similar vein to his use of the term elsewhere. He's making a point that such a comment as you made, when made by a non-Jew is often used as an excuse to call that person anti-semitic. He's lampooning the overuse and mis-use of the term. He uses humor to make some very cogent and on-topic points. I'm sorry you have difficulty seeing that.

    • The premise was that Anti-Semitism had something to do with what Jews actually did.

      And that was one of the premises of the early Zionist movement. Its part and parcel of the Negation of the Diaspora.

    • One of the best plumbers I know is Jewish. Ezra Nawi.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      I don't usually have conversations with plumbers about their religion so I have no idea if I know any other Jewish plumbers. Frankly I don't know many plumbers at all, and that's a good thing since it means I haven't had many plumbing issues.

  • Faithwashing: the Muslim Leadership Institute and the academic boycott
    • You are thinking of the MSI as being primarily driven to dialogue with American Jews about I/P. That’s not the aim.

      Then why take them to Israel if the aim is not to dialogue about Israel? You are pulling arguments out your ass again. You really need to stop that. It can lead to a very bad case of hemorrhoids.

      And Darrell Issa is not a Muslim. His father was Eastern Orthodox Christian and his mother was a Mormon. So much for your stereotyping of all Arabs as Muslim. Hint: The majority of Arabs in the US are Christian. Maybe if you "dialogued" with a few of them you'd get that, instead of having to make up sh*t.

    • You took the words out of my mouth, Donald.

      Besides its hard to get behind an organization founded by a man who called for genocide against the Palestinians. Not exactly what I would call promoting "pluralism , tolerance and democratic values".

      link to mondoweiss.net

  • Iran is 'congenital cheating' 'Islamic power bent on world domination' -- Netanyahu tells US media
    • Funny how Netanyahu thinks they are geeky enough to build a nuclear weapon (and that's pretty darn geeky!) as well as geeky enough to aim for "world domination", but now you think they have no "human capital" worth mentioning. Your argument is negating everything that Netanyahu is saying. Which one of you should we believe? And if Iran's such a backward country why is Netanyahu so afraid of them?

  • When occupation becomes apartheid
    • if only your refusal to see that speech from the standpoint of American Jews it paints you as someone who refuses to see things from the vantage point of the Jews.

      Yonah, the question was about Lindbergh's motives, not about anyone else's reaction to it. I'm sorry if you felt threatened by the speech but that does not mean that Lindbergh intended to threaten. Just as Iran's intentions are not the same thing as your average Israeli Jew's reaction to Iran. I don't believe that Iran intends to use a nuclear weapon, or even build one for deterrence purposes. Iran's intent should not be judged by whether Israel feels threatened or not. If in fact Iran does not intend to attack Israel then Israel's reaction is wrong, not Iran's intent. The "vantage point of the Jews" in this case is irrelevant to Iran's intentions.

      Same goes for LIndbergh's speech. If his intent was not to threaten Jews, then the speech can't be used as an example of "Jew hatred". If his intent was not to threaten, then the fact that some Jews felt threatened can be explained as either an insensitivity to certain Jews feelings on his part, or his belief that preventing the US from entering WWII was more important than hurting some peoples' feelings. ( BTW, isn't your using the term "the Jews" in the quote above a bit anti-semitic in assuming that "the Jews" are a monolith?)

      My guess about your background is that you are in your 80's and were an American child in the early 1940's, had a crush on Lindbergh yourself, and were devastated by what you thought was a threat against Jews like yourself from someone you had thought of as an idol. That would explain your obsession with Lindbergh's speech and your refusal to view it from any other vantage point than the one you had as a child. Otherwise your obsession with an arcane bit of history makes little to no sense, unless you are just looking for ways to hate people and justify your own hate.

      I asked you what people you belonged to in an attempt to fathom the variety of Jew hatred that lies at the basis of your opposition to the Jews.

      First off, what's with the term "the Jews" again? You have to know that Jews are not a monolith, and my opposition is to Zionism, which I view as a racist and supremacist movement, not to Jews per se, just as my opposition to white supremacism is not an opposition to whites per se. Zionism may perhaps be the viewpoint of the majority of Jews today, but likewise white racism was the viewpoint of the majority of whites for a long time. Opposition to either ideology is not opposition to either ethnicity. You asked "what people I belong to" because you accept the idea of an exclusivist "my people" and you sought to claim some personal victimhood on the basis of other people's pain that you think that you have a right to claim but I do not. It was a particularly bigoted reaction on your part. Apparently, you think that you are allowed to judge people based solely on their ethnicity and not be called on it, while pretending that people who oppose Zionism are anti-Jewish when they are clearly not. Another example of projection on your part. You judge people according to their ethnicity and then project that onto others.

      There are 31 varieties of ice cream at Baskin Robbins and there are many varieties of Jew hatred, some attached to ethnic origin and I was curious if you learnt your Jew hatred from the newspapers or from your grandparents or from Toynbee or Voltaire or the New Testament or from your concept of the better world where the past can be dismissed as so much flotsam.

      So why not ask me directly where my non-existent "Jew hatred" comes from instead of assuming that my ethnicity or religion must be at fault. If you wanted to know where my opposition to Zionism comes from I would have told you. I'll tell you now. If you know anything about Unitarianism you know that it is very non-dogmatic. I spent the few years I went to Sunday school (at my parents doing) mostly learning about other world religions, including Judaism, Christianity (Unitarians are not Christians), Islam and Eastern religions. My mother and father chose that religion as adults, but encouraged their children to make up their own minds. As my sister approached adulthood she became interested in Judaism. Although it wasn't our path the rest of the family approved of her seeking her own religious path (while my mother became Buddhist and I chose atheism). Many years later, in the early 1990's she chose to go live in Israel. I was a bit uneasy about that, knowing a very limited amount about the Occupation, but wished her well personally. It was after all the start of the Oslo period and things were generally assumed to be getting better, especially for those of us who knew very little at the time. We were sporadically in touch by email but not regularly. Then in late 2000, when the second intifada was ongoing and I began to follow the news a bit, and discuss things on a chat board, I got an email from my sister, out of the blue, filled with some of the most racist garbage about Palestinians I had ever seen. I was shocked. My sister didn't grow up a racist, why was she one now? That email, and the contradictory arguments that I heard from defenders of Israel led to my delving into the history and the more I delved the more I realized how incredibly bigoted and destructive the ideology is.

      As far as "[my] concept of the better world where the past can be dismissed as so much flotsam" I think that history, rather than flotsam, is important to learn from, but only if you have an accurate view of history. I've pointed out to you many instances where Zionism was destructive to Jews as well as others and you are the one who ignores that, probably because you are too wrapped up in your perceived identity as a Zionist and your belief that Zionist Jews would never hurt other Jews. I know from your personal belief system that you care much less for the much greater harm Zionism has done to non-Jews. One day people will look back and recognize the "healthy cruelty" that the early Zionists practiced even among themselves, the Zionist's mistreatment of the early Yemeni Jewish immigrants as well as the Israeli mistreatment of the latter Yemeni immigrants, the mistreatment of the DP camp Jews who refused to volunteer to fight for Israel in 1948, and many other instances where the interests of individual Jews were sacrificed to the interests of the ideology, and realize that Zionism was not "good for the Jews". Whether you will hold on to your sanitized view of Zionist history or not, I do not know. I hope you let it go as well. It would make you a much happier person.

      In the good old days when i used to haunt the pro Palestinians on east 14th street on saturdays in manhattan, I was able to meet the haters face to face and i got all kinds of input to add to the words they spoke. the nature of written communication is different

      You sound exactly like a hater yourself. A hater and a baiter. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe people just hate YOU and your attitude? Maybe its not all about your Jewishness to them just because it is to you? You come off rude and aggressive here. God knows how you come off in person, what with all the added input you give off in a face to face. I can't imagine your demeanor being anything but aggressive in such an instance, especially since your admitted purpose in going there was to find "haters" to confront. You need people to hate you to justify your hatred of them. It's self-destructive. You don't have to be an angry old man.

    • just,

      I appreciate your insights.

      Thanks. And I yours.

      whine mode on:
      I can't believe how far up I had to scroll to reply to your comment. I love this place but I so miss the old version and especially the green highlights on unread comments. I end up missing too many comments and conversations are much more disjointed these days. Hard to tell who's replying to whom some times.
      whine mode off.

    • yonah,

      To get upset at the Jews of Eastern Europe of 1945 or 1946 for taking vengeance on innocent German children, well it’s great to be a universalist, is all I can say. my use of comeuppance rather than vengeance and your picking on that and your swift: gaze your eyes on this despicable Jew, well, I reacted to that.

      You don't do dialogue well, yonah, and the primary reason for that is you don't listen-instead you project. I never said I was "upset at the Jews of Eastern Europe" or at any other European who succumbed to acts of vengeance after WWII. And I made it clear that such acts were not limited to Jews. I also made clear that vengeance is the product of universal human traits, or failings, so when you say that I was upset at Jews for seeking vengeance you are projecting. You are falsely interpreting my statements as hate so that you can hate in return. You seem to need to create instances of hate from others in order to justify your own in return.

      You claimed that the ethnic cleansing of Germans after the war was in no way related to the collective punishment of ethnic Germans for the horrors of Nazi Germany, and that vengeance and hatred had no part of it. I corrected you. The reality was sad and ugly, as was WWII even more, but it stems from human failings and including Jews in with the rest of humanity as having human failings is not an expression of Jew hatred. Its an acknowledgement that they are like the rest of humanity.

      If this will make you feel better, here's an example from Denmark about Danish doctors after WWII, that I read about recently:

      Denmark 's Myths Shattered: A Legacy of Dead German Children

      link to spiegel.de

      I'm sorry if you disapproved of my example of Salomon Morel, but I have heard too many times from defenders of Israel that Jews don't commit atrocities. I find the attitude most distressing Precisely because it is usually expressed, quite ironically, in order to excuse the mass killing of Palestinians or other Arabs by Israel. Mentioning Morel was a quick way of countering the false idea that somehow no Jew, apart from the rest of humanity, ever seeks vengeance or commits violence unless it is forced upon him. Again, I'm talking humanity, not singling out Jews. You were the one who implied that Jews never did such a thing, and that victims of collective punishment are just getting their "comeuppance".

      No America Firster from 1941 ever is criticized by you and no Jew is ever praised by you unless they work against Zionism.

      I simply defended Lindbergh against your claim that he was a Jew hater and threatened Jews. I mentioned some of his failings, in fact more than you did, but again you don't listen - you project. You hate Lindbergh so Lindbergh must have hated Jews. I defended the great Jew hater in your mind, so I must be a Jew hater too.

      So I am curious about the source of your attitude.

      Does that explain why you asked me who "my people" were? So you could stereotype me on the basis of my ethnicity? Doesn't that seem a bit bigoted on your part??? Think about it.

      you are good and I am evil. as simple as that.

      Projecting again. I never said that and don't believe it. You do seem to have a boatload of unresolved anger, though, which can't be good for you, or anyone else you interact with.

      And BTW, bantustan is an accurate description. "Sux" on the other hand is cant, which means next to nothing in describing the conditions under which Gazans live. Homework "sux", Monday "sux", McDonalds "sux". Gazans live in a Bantustan. It is way beyond the amorphous "sux".

      But I will apologize for the use of the word "simply", not because I misused it. I didn't. But because I tend to overuse some words and "simply" is one of those words. One of the reasons I comment here is to try to improve my writing. I don't think that I'm making much progress on that score.

      PS to Roha and just: Thanks for the kind comments. I appreciate both of your comments here.

    • Yonah,

      Your questions bespeak of a seriously twisted mindset and perhaps I should just ignore them but in the interest of dialogue I will answer them, mistake or not.

      tree- tell me again. from the perspective of 2015 are you in favor of US involvement in World war II?

      Yes, but I can respect those who felt otherwise at the time and don't feel the need to accuse them of Jew-hatred, especially since there was so much more to the war than the Jews, and war always creates much suffering, even with good motives and intent.

      how many relatives suffered in world war II for you, tree? any?

      Sounds like another particularly twisted question to me. No one suffered "for me" since I was not born until well after WWII. My father fought and was injured, one or two other more distant relatives were killed that I know about but obviously did not know personally.

      And a great grandfather was killed in WWI, and a grandmother was orphaned because of it. WWI- you know the World War that doesn't count when tallying up victim points. And certainly casualties of any other of the myriad regional wars since WWII don't count either. All the really important suffering started in 1939 and ended in 1945, right?

      So why do you even ask this question? Because I called you on your false implication that Jews don't do revenge, as opposed to every other ethnicity/religion that does?

      and if you consider yourself american, what was the most traumatic event of your people since the civil war?
      and if you consider yourself some other ethnicity, what was the most traumatic event of your people?

      Now this is the most bizarre question. I am a US citizen. I don't just "consider" myself one, I actually am one according to the US government. Its not an ethnicity, its a nationality, one I share with every other US citizen regardless of whatever their and my ethnicity or religion happens to be.

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

      Ethnically speaking, I guess I would say that the roots that I am aware of are European, mostly Western European, with some Central and Eastern European roots thrown in. Religiously speaking, my ancestors have been of multiple religions -including Judaism. I consider myself an atheist, who grew up as a Unitarian. This does not mean that I consider either atheists or Unitarians as "my people", any more than I consider Europeans or Americans as "my people". I don't see the need to do so, and find it deleterious to do so if it is done to give me a illusory mantel of suffering, or accomplishment, that I didn't personally experience. Its seems the height of selfishness and narcissism to me.

      I am well aware of the fact that I have been quite lucky in my life. My personal sufferings have been minor compared to so many other people all over the world. The only discrimination I've faced has been gender oriented, and its much less than it was when I was growing up and so much less then what my Mom faced. I don't support gender equality just because I personally faced some discrimination, but because it is the right thing to do, and I believe in equality for all.

      So why is this so important to you? I usually answer all your questions, and you seldom answer mine in return. So can you answer this one in the interest of the dialogue you claim to want? Why do you think it important to know what "my" non-existent people have suffered throughout history? If I haven't personally suffered it, why is it so important for me to point out what people who share my ethnic heritage had to suffer? Do I get points for other people sufferings? And if so, then, for Dog's sake why? Why is the suffering of dead people who might have had a ancestral relationship to me more important that the suffering of people, both living and dead, who have no direct genetic relationship to me? Please explain, because it seem to me that this kind of thinking only leads to the creation of more suffering and more suffering for anyone is NOT a good thing.

    • Yonah, for someone who nit-picks every word that Phil uses, you have an obvious problem with your own choice of words, ala this:

      as comeuppance for supporting the nazi invader.

      Maybe you are just profoundly ignorant of the ethnic Germans who were the victims of this post-WWII revenge, but a large number of them were children, who were punished, not for "supporting the nazi invader", as they were too young to do so, but because they were of the same ethnicity as the Nazi invaders. It's called collective punishment, not "comeuppance" which means that they had it coming.

      "come·up·pance
      ˌkəmˈəpəns/
      nouninformal
      a punishment or fate that someone deserves."

      If you really think that "comeuppance" is the proper term, then I suppose you wouldn't object to it being applied to Israelis who support or advocate the killing of Palestinians, as Rabbi Hartmann did. Oops, I forgot, he was Jewish and so subject to more lenient rules in your book.

      It had nothing to do with the death of Jews, except as an excuse.,

      Oh please. It had everything to do with the death of Jews, and the death of Slavs and other Eastern Europeans, and the innumerable hardships and violence perpetrated by the Nazis on other nations. It led to the all too human, but horrendous, desire to seek revenge by attacking other Germans who may have well had absolutely nothing to do with the Nazi violence, but merely shared their ethnicity. Some Jews were just as morally culpable for these attitudes and actions as those of other ethnicities. Salomon Morel for one very egregious example.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      If you really think that no Jew ever sought revenge for the death of other Jews then you are truly lying to yourself as well as others.

    • If I use the plain Zionist frame, it includes not just Labor Zionism but also the more progressive forms (long dead) that were advocating for a cooperative, bi-national approach with the Palestinians.

      The proper term used is cultural Zionism, not political Zionism. All political Zionism is based on ethnic nationalism, sometimes referred to as "romantic nationalism". Judah Magnes, for one, was a cultural Zionist, but not a political Zionist. He did not believe in a Jewish state, nor in the negation of the diaspora, nor did he believe in partition or separation between Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      Politically speaking, he was profoundly anti-Zionist, rather than a "progressive version" of a Zionist.

      But of course you are free to use whatever terms you find effective, whether or not I disagree with them.

      BTW, one of the more sane and rational Israeli Zionist politicians today is a member of Likud - Reuven Rivlin, the current President of Israel.

      As for the joke, not to worry. No apologies needed. You are confusing me with some other commenter, which is why I din't understand the reference at first, but now I understand. I never made a comment about chartering a jet. I tend to be pretty much a home body, rather than an avid traveller. No doubt my loss, but I'm well aware of my limitations, and long distance flights are one of them.

    • Irishmoses,

      I don’t like saying Zionist because it seems a little too much like saying Jews. It’s overly inclusive and smacks a bit of the antisemitic meme.

      Zionism has always been about Jewish supremacism, regardless of which wing you talk about, and at its very beginnings it was opposed by the majority of Jews worldwide. If I say Nazism, its not like I'm saying German, and likewise with ZIonism and Jews. While many if not most Jews today may approve of it to one extent or the other, it is not an existential part of being Jewish. Frankly speaking the vast majority of white people were white supremacists to one extent or the other for centuries, if not millenia, but it isn't an existential part of being white. Its an attitude. Its a circumstance of environment and thought and can be changed without changing one's racial, ethnic or religious identity, and therefore it is not anti-semitic to refer to Zionism anymore than it is racist to refer to white supremacism.

      As to the overriding ideology of the early years of Zionism (prior even to "Jabotinskyism"), I'd suggest reading Ilan Pappe's "The Idea of Israel"(book) as well as Etan Bloom's doctoral dissertation on Arthur Ruppin, the father of early Jewish settlement in Palestine. (available on the internet) And, as Avi Shlaim has pointed out, Jabotinsky might have fleshed out the doctrine of the Iron Wall, but Ben Gurion and the Labor Zionists lived by it.

      As to the dishonesty of Ben Gurion et al, let me use this incident from 1947 as an illustration. In late December, 1947 , Irgun terrorists threw a bomb at Palestinian day laborers waiting outside the Haifa Oil Refinery, killing 6 of them and injuring 40 or so. This violence immediately sparked a riot by Palestinian workers at the refinery (where, BTW, the Jewish Agency had been constantly pressuring the British to hire more Jews and less Palestinians, and pay the Jews more than they paid the Palestinians). Some 39 or so Jewish workers at the refinery were killed and some number were injured.

      The Jewish Agency, under control of Ben-Gurion, immediately came out with a statement condemning the Irgun attack and blaming Irgun for the resultant riot against Jewish workers at the plant. Sounds like quite a reasonable statement, except that, at the same time, Ben Gurion decided to issue a "reprisal" raid on the village of Balad al-Shaykh for the murderous riot at the refinery. The raid by the Haganah lasted three hours, killing over 60 Palestinians and destroying parts of the village. At the same time the Haganah went into one of the poorer neighborhoods of Haifa, Wadi Rushmiyya, expelled its people and blew up its houses. All of this was under Ben Gurion's direction. Pappe considers this act as the "official beginning of the ethnic cleansing operation in urban Palestine".

      So here you have Ben Gurion sounding all understanding and reasonable for public and international consumption while privately instigating acts of terrorism and ethnic cleansing. Thus his dishonesty helped to disguise the true purpose and intent of "Labor Zionism". Irgun was at least honest about what they did and why they did it. Ben Gurion was not. He was therefore the much more dangerous brand of Zionism. He was also the one who made up the story that the Palestinians fled at the exhortations of Arab leaders, rather than from fear or expulsion by Israeli forces. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with his lies.

      To my mind, using the term "Likud Zionism" leads to the inference that "Labor ZIonism" or "Liberal ZIonism" are not the problem, only the Likud version is. But clearly Zionism itself is the problem, no matter what "wing"; just as white supremacism was the problem in the US South, not just the right-wing variety. My two-cents. YMMV.

      And, sorry but I didn't get your Airbnb reference.

    • JeffB:What evidence do you have for that?

      and yonah:How many East Jerusalem Palestinians have applied for citizenship and how many have been approved?

      I am using the very sources that JeffB has linked here twice. Apparently he doesn't really read his own links, or else he thinks he can be dishonest and imply some sourcing for his claims that doesn't actually exist.

      Leading the horse to water, here it is on page 22 of the International Crisis Group Report, second paragraph and footnote 205:

      "Assessing the extent to which applications for Israeli citizenship among East Jerusalemites have trended upward during the last decade is difficult because the government has released contradictory figures. About 13,000 Palestinians in Jerusalem (roughly 5 per cent of the Arab population) are reported to have citizenship,203 though it seems likely a significant proportion are members of Israel’s Palestinian minority who have moved to Jerusalem for work or family reasons.204 In terms of applications,the interior ministry said that almost 7,000
      individuals applied for citizenship between 2001 and2010 205 – a relatively small number – yet two thirds of these applications were made from 2008 2010.206 "

      Footnote 205:"Roughly one third were approved, one third were denied and one third were deferred. Central Bureau of Statistics response to Crisis Group question.

      link to crisisgroup.org

      The report is summarized in Haaretz here: (which JeffB linked on an earlier occassion, again as if it supported his point, which it does not)

      link to haaretz.com

      A deferral in this case is equivalent to a denial at the time of the request. So, according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, roughly two-thirds of the applicants during this period were denied- one half of those denials being permanent and one half of them being at least temporary, which could later become permanent.

      I won't even bother to respond to the idiocy of Jeff's argument that Jewish Israelis not having Palestinian citizenship is equal to East Jerusalem Palestinians not having Israeli citizenship. Its beyond ridiculous, but totally predictable.

      And yonah, the meaning of a bantustan does not require being landlocked, only that the territory has limited self-government subject to the whims of the apartheid government, and that same apartheid government controls the bantustan's borders, which Israel does directly, as well as through its blockade, and through its treaty with Egypt which allows it ultimate control over the border between Gaza and Egypt. Gaza is a bantustan.

      link to aljazeera.com

      link to electronicintifada.net

      Note to JeffB: If you have an actually source to back up your statements on the number of applicants approved for citizenship, please provide it. The numbers from the International Crisis Group that you linked are in direct contradiction to the numbers you posted. I think it highly dishonest of you to imply that that your link supported your statement when it clearly did not. Please link to SUPPORTING sources next time, not ones that disagree with your point.

      Note to all readers: If the Haaretz article leads to a shortened version and a paywall, simply enter the first sentence exactly as written into Google or Yahoo search engines. A link to the article should appear that when clicked on will reveal the full article, not just the first paragraph.

    • Let me add my congratulations on the article, Gil. Great work.

      But I don't get why you are talking about the "Likud-Zionist project". There was really no significant difference in how Labor Zionists treated the Palestinians compared to Likud, and Labor was in complete control of Israel for the first few decades. Labor was just better at lying about what they were doing. And Ben-Gurion was a master prevaricator.

      Weingarten calls herself a Liberal Zionist and is bemoaning Netanyahu winning the election. And yet she still supports Israeli apartheid. Why not drop the "Likud" part? Its unnecessary.

    • Notes to JeffB:

      Poland was NOT our ally AFTER WWII.

      And Palestinians from East Jerusalem are NOT full citizens of Israel. They are allowed to APPLY for citizenship, but the majority of those that did apply have been turned down by Israel, and those that do apply risk losing their rights to Jordanian or Palestinian citizenship, as well as their rights to enter neighboring communities in the West Bank. Even those East Jerusalemites who manage to become Israeli citizens do not have full rights in Israel because they are not Jewish, and are barred from living in many Israeli Jewish communities.

      Gaza is not a separate country. And its borders, airspace, territorial sea, and even its population registry and monetary market, taxes and custom duties are controlled by Israel. It is simply a bantustan, ultimately controlled by Israel.

  • Philosophy prof who likened Palestinians to 'rabid pit bull' ignites protest on CT campus
    • An important point to be made about Foxman's statement: the exact quote is

      "The piece is particularly troubling because it evokes memories of the “No Jews or Dogs Allowed" signs from our own early history in this country."

      One must logically assume that Foxman is talking about the US, since that is where he is speaking and where he is a citizen. Jews have been in the US since its very beginnings in the late 1700's and some were here before that time. I doubt Foxman has a memory of that time, and even if he did, I seriously doubt that such signs in the US were prevalent or even existent. He isn't talking about thousands of years ago in the whole world. He's talking about the US over a few hundred years and he's making shit up. Totally unsurprising. It may not be long before we hear about the shackles of slavery that poor persecuted Jews in the US had to suffer. And the camps! Don't forget the camps they were forced to live in! I'm sure Mooser (or at least Allan Sherman) could elaborate on those.

  • Joint List to lead mass march on Jerusalem, as Netanyahu forms a gov't
    • And because their villages (which existed before the creation of Israel) are not "recognized" by Israel, every home in the villages is under the threat of demolition because they are not permitted. And they are not permitted because the "unrecognized"( by the Israeli government) village cannot set up a master urban plan recognized by that same Israeli government. And Israel will not allow building permits to be issued for the villages unless there is a master plan. Its a particularly heartless and sick catch-22 and is so much more than voter suppression.

  • A response to Michael Douglas
    • I agree. Doesn’t it seem strange that this apparently isolated instance of a movie star’s privileged son being upset over verbal insults results in an op-ed in the LA Times decrying anti-Semitism?

      Especially since the incident was alleged to have happened sometime last summer, not just recently.

  • Who can save Israel now?
    • 50 years later they still do stuff like have black water tanks to indicate their solidarity with West Bank Palestinians shows that they don’t want citizenship.

      I don't often read JeffB's comments because they are too long winded and contain too much bullshit for me to ingest, but I have to say that this statement of his is incredibly stupid and racist. Not that it differentiates itself from most of his other comments; it doesn't. But apparently my conservative and Israel-loving (mostly out of preferred ignorance) ex-husband is showing his solidarity with West Bank Palestinians by having a black plastic water tank to store his well water according to Jeff! Who knew?

      I'm sure most the commenters here know what a crock of shit that statement of JeffB's is, but in case anyone wants a little background on black plastic water tanks, here it is:

      Black plastic is preferred over white plastic because it tends to be more UV stabilized which helps it avoid getting brittle and developing micro-cracks which leak. And its opacity prevents light from getting to the water, which would encourage the growth of algae and light-sensitive microbes, neither of which are good for drinking water. Rooftop tanks are used to help increase water pressure , since water pressure is directly related to the height from which water falls. And they also provide running water when the municipal water is shut off, which happens a lot in Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, in comparison to what happens in Jewish neighborhoods. An example here:

      link to 972mag.com

      There are fewer individual water tanks in Jewish neighborhoods, since they don't have to rely on them for their water. And the few that I have seen, while painted white, tend to be metal (most likely stainless steel) so they are likewise protected from UV rays and light. But metal tanks are much more expensive than plastic so for the most part are out of the question for the poorer Palestinian neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Why do the Palestinians have to buy new expensive white stainless steel water tanks to "assimilate" when the old black plastic ones work just as well ?To state that the logical and least expensive solution of utilizing a black plastic water tank is a reason to deny someone citizenship makes as much sense as stating that eating Ramen noodles instead of steak is grounds for treason.

      There is a huge difference between someone being offered a slice of pizza and refusing, and not being offered a slice because of their race. Conflating the two is lying.

      Yes, and you did just that. You lied.

  • 'NYT' reports 'surge of hostile sentiment against Jews' nationwide -- on what basis?
    • They weren't just "3 Jewish students", annie. They self-identified as representatives of the Hillel Student Board, who were incensed that Hillel was categorized as a political group and part of a "community that’s very invested in USAC and very specific outcomes", despite the fact that UCLA Hillel was intimately involved in the financial scandal of outside funding from an Islamophobe for the USAC candidates of Bruins United. UCLA Hillel IS a political group that seeks to wrap itself in a cloak of a religious fraternal organization in order to pre-empt any criticism of its political activities with the bogus charge of anti-semitism.

    • Donald,
      Tree and others–If I had an exact transcript of the conversation I might or might not tone down my criticism of the student who asked the question. I skimmed eljay’s link to a transcript and it seemed more of a paraphrase.

      I believe eljay's link was to the official minutes of the meeting. The video recording of the entire meeting was taken down from You-Tube, for reasons I'll expand on later, but there is a short snippet of the meeting in a very inaccurate news report from the local CBS affiliate here which includes the question Beyda was asked . There are several words which are unintelligible, but it is quoted on the related article on the KCBS site as follows:

      “Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community … given that recently … [inaudible] has been surrounding cases of conflict of interest, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view … [inaudible]?”

      link to losangeles.cbslocal.com

      Again, given the background and nature of some of the conflicts at the UCLA campus recently, including the fact that the UCLA Hillel organization was implicated in money-laundering political contributions from Adam Milstein to UCLA student candidates from Bruins United (a right of center pro-Israel student organization,of which Avinoam Baral, the current student President is a member) as well as the fact that organizations affiliated with Hillel paid for trips to Israel for other student body officials in the recent past, and that Hillel has hired a PR firm to discredit student BDS activity, the question about a possible conflict of interest and how she would handle it seems entirely within bounds to ask of someone who is being considered for a student judicial board.

      As to why the you-Tube video of the meeting was removed, I discovered this from the Daily Bruin, the student newspaper:

      The undergraduate student government recently took down a YouTube video of a controversial council meeting after several council members received death threats and hate mail accusing them of being anti-Semitic.

      ....Haq said the hate mail she received in response to her questioning at the meeting was so severe that she did not feel safe walking around campus.

      Some of the people who sent messages to her identified themselves as donors who would cease donating to UCLA until she and other councilmembers resigned, she said. Most of the hate mail she received did not come with identification, and Haq said she would not be surprised if many of the messages were from UCLA students.

      Sadeghi-Movahed said she also received death threats and rape threats in emails and that she has reported these threats to university police.

      Other messages were sent to her email, Facebook and Twitter account. Some of these criticisms used hateful language, including expletives and pejoratives.

      Most of the hate mail was from people outside the UCLA community, and she said she thinks they have come from all over the country.

      “It’s to the point where this story has been so exaggerated that I’ve been dehumanized in a way that most people don’t think our apology was genuine,” Sadeghi-Movahed said. “I was okay with (the video) staying up to be quite honest, but it becomes an infringement on our safety when other outlets take it and manipulate it into a different narrative.”

      Haq said she thinks that she and other councilmembers have been misrepresented by news outlets who did not reach out to them before publishing their names, and by Chancellor Gene Block, who issued a campuswide email calling councilmembers unfair without reaching out to them for explanations beforehand.

      Singh said he also received death threats following the meeting. He said he has received hate mail using racist language in the past, but he had never been threatened before. He did not report the threats to UCPD.

      Roth said she has also been threatened, but she could not disclose the nature or severity of all the threats because she has not read all of them. This is the first time she has received hate mail, she added.

      Haq said this is also the first time she has received hate mail and that it has only gotten worse since the video was taken down. She did not address the USAC Live! video when reporting concerns for her safety and did not ask for it to be taken down, she added.

      “It’s a lose-lose situation, really,” Haq said. “If you don’t take down the video, it’s just going to grow more and more. If you do take it down, people get angry.”

      link to dailybruin.com

      I have to say after reading the DB article that Phil missed a big part of the story in this case. Student council members were defamed as anti-semites for asking a question about possible conflict of interest for a prospective judicial board candidate and then faced death and rape threats and hateful derogatory racist comments about their ethnicity and yet that part of the story remains uncovered. I would have hoped that Phil could have dug this part out, or given it to Alex Kane whose covered the UCLA controversies in the past to dig into.

      Frankly, the whole issue seems contrived in order to create a false controversy and defame the student council members. After all, Rachel Beyda was appointed to the judicial board unanimously on the second vote after additional discussion at the very same meeting so seriously, where was the great harm in asking the question since she is affiliated with campus organizations that have been involved in cases alleging conflict of interest? Why was it morphed into a story of anti-semitism without hearing from the alleged perpetrators? Why does the racism and vicious hatred directed at the student council members go unmemtioned?

      I think Avinoam Baral bears some of the responsibility for the one-sided reporting of this incident, and the unsafe condition it created for his fellow student council members.

      According to EI,

      student body president Avinoam Baral, whose scandal-plagued election campaign was financed by Islamophobic anti-Palestinian property tycoon and convicted tax evader Adam Milstein, declared that the divestment resolution was “anti-Semitic.”

      link to electronicintifada.net

      so one can hardly claim that he understands the difference between anti-semitism and anti-Israel viewpoints.

      I did find this juxtaposition between Baral's statement in the NY Times report and his statements made in emails to Milstein amusingly revealing.

      From the NY Times article:

      The president of the student council, Avinoam Baral, who had nominated Ms. Beyda, appeared stunned at the turn the questioning took at the session and sought at first to rule Ms. Roth’s question out of order. “I don’t feel that’s an appropriate question,” he said.

      In an interview, Mr. Baral, who is Jewish, said he “related personally to what Rachel was going through.”

      “It’s very problematic to me that students would feel that it was appropriate to ask that kind of questions, especially given the long cultural history of Jews,” he said. “We’ve been questioned all of our history: Are Jews loyal citizens? Don’t they have divided loyalties? All of these anti-Semitic tropes.”

      Versus his emails to Milstein:

      In an email thanking Milstein for his efforts, the candidates wrote that “[We] and the rest of the Bruins United slate are prepared to make sure that UCLA will maintains [sic] its allegiance to Israel.” More specifically, Oved and Baral pledged to ensure that their party would take a firm stance in support of the university’s continued investment in companies supplying Israel with arms. In the same email, the candidates express their excitement at representing “the ideologies of Israel.”

      link to electronicintifada.net

      So personally Baral admits, at least privately, that he has loyalty to apartheid Israel but wants us to disbelieve that any Jew might agree with him and have a similar loyalty, despite the fact that numerous American Jews have admitted as much with respect to their own feelings and some American Jews have even had the chutzpah to insist that most or all Jews have the same loyalty, if they are not 'self-hating'.

      Further information about Baral, in regards to Milstein's covert financing of Bruins United, concerns leaked Hillel emails regarding the scandal.

      One email includes an explicit request by Avinoam Baral, now president of the student government, the Undergraduate Student Association Council, for a Milstein employee to help conceal evidence of their relationship.

      see EI link above

      Sounds like Baral has his own ethics problem.

    • annie

      i really don’t get how this is hate speech at all, much less “obvious” hate speech.

      Just remember that the hophmi working definition of hate speech is any speech that hophmi hates, and then you'll understand.

      There was nothing "hateful" about the question, but it did give hophmi a chance to vent his own spleen in a hateful way, so therefore it qualifies as hate speech. His logic is warped but its consistent in this regard.

    • Alex Kane covered the ethics case before the UCLA Judicial Board last year in this article:

      Documents open window into how Israel lobby courts student government members - See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

      Any news article that excludes this background to the questions and vote of the UCLA student council isn't doing its job of covering the news.

    • They had a conversation about whether this student could be fair because she was a Jew. They might have been thinking about BDS and Hillel and support for Israel’s crimes or who knows what, but they made it about her Jewishness.

      From reading the wording of the initial question, the written minutes and the long discussion on conflict of interest prior to the second confirming vote, I have to strongly disagree with your interpretation. The point brought up was concern about conflict of interest due to her Presidency of a Jewish Sorority at UCLA and her membership in Hillel, which has an obvious and stated political bent in favor of Israel, rather than simply being a support group for all Jews on campus, as has been amply illustrated by its recent actions.

      Donald, if the President of a Christian sorority at UCLA was questioned about her ability to put aside her bias, or recuse herself from judicial decisions in which she might have a conflict of interest, would you have considered such a question an example of religious bias against Christian students? Seriously? You believe that membership in a group that is religiously or ethnically exclusive should not come up for questioning when nomination to a judicial position is discussed? Or are you just accepting the framing as alleged by those with political agendas?

      As to her association with Hillel, it seems like another reasonable point on which to question her. After all, Hillel has chosen to take a clear political stand on Israel, rather than accept with open arms all Jews on campus regardless of what their political views are with respect to Israel. As such it functions as a political group which has a clear platform of opposition to BDS . See here for some background with specific regards to Hillel at UCLA:

      UCLA Hillel partners with PR firm to fight BDS movement - See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

      Funds to UCLA student political party came from outside sources, leaked emails show
      link to dailycal.org

      Costly pro-Israel PR campaign fails to stop UCLA divestment

      link to electronicintifada.net

      And a lot of the concern at the meeting seemed to be related to the UCLA Judicial board's decision last year that two UCLA Student government leaders did not commit ethical violations by receiving free trips to Israel sponsored by pro-Israel groups and then refusing to recuse themselves from last April's vote against divestment.

      SJP Judicial Board Case Study
      link to sjpbruins.com

      It seems to me that what we have here is a case of certain Jewish groups taking political positions in regards to Israel and then crying anti-semitism when their politics are questioned, thus trying to imply that their religion rather than their politics is the issue when it isn't.

  • Netanyahu's speech and the American Jewish condition
    • Kathleen.

      I never meant to imply that hophmi had made any progress in dropping his bigoted attitudes since he made that statement in 2013. He foaming at the mouth here over Phil's post proves he hasn't. As does nearly every one of his comment s he makes here. His bigotry may reach its zenith when he's talking about Palestinians or lying about how wonderful Israel is, but his bigotry is more encompassing than that. He resents everyone who doesn't kowtow to the Apartheid State, Jew or non-Jew, but reserves most of his bile for no-Jews, whom he considers lesser, more venal beings, everyone of whom is collectively responsible for any bad thing that happened to Jews at the hand of non-Jews. (But of course, he'd condemn as anti-semitic the same view in reverse.) Those poor "outreached Muslims" need better than a Jewish bigot on the Board of Directors.

    • annie

      but bigotry is not inherent it is a learned or passed on trait.

      I agree. I never said that bigotry was inherent in anyone. But trauma is not a necessary ingredient for bigotry to occur. The African Slave Trade was not the result of white European or American trauma, neither was the death of millions of Congolese under King Leopold the result of Belgian trauma. Both were the end result of learned bigotry and a handed down sense of superiority and entitlement, and a sense of fear of the "savages" they were oppressing. The whites in this case were not victims of trauma, although the bigotry itself may have cased some fear. If you think that others are your inferiors morally and intellectually then you would naturally fear them and fear giving them any power over their own condition.

      Everything that is happening today in Israel/Palestine was foreshadowed by what happened when the Zionists first launched their conquest of Palestine. It did not change abruptly because of something that happened nearly 50 years later. The bigotry, the sense of superiority over the native Palestinians, the fear of the native "robbers and murderers", as the Arab Palestinians were often called by the newly arrived Zionist pioneers, the sense that Palestine belonged only to the Jews and that they had a right to take it back by force --all of that existed well before the Holocaust. And the Zionist attitude towards the European Jews was largely indifferent unless they had Zionist beliefs and could become productive members of the New Yishuv.

      Nothing seriously changed in the last 115 plus years in regards to the bigotry of Zionist Jews in Israel/Palestine. It was passed down through the generations well before the 1940's. Calling it Holocaust trauma is a cop out that simply condones and excuses the learned and enforced bigotry. The majority of Israeli Jews are not victims of anything but their own hatreds.

    • Still not buying it, seafoid. There are numerous countries and hundreds of millions of people who have gone through horrendous wartime trauma. There is nothing special about Jewish trauma. And Jewish trauma does not need to, nor does it in all cases (or even necessarily in most cases), manifest itself in attitudes and acts of bigotry and violence. Its a cop-out.

    • Hophmi's the Jewish equivalent of a white nationalist, decrying Phil as a "race traitor" for criticizing immoral behavior when it is committed or condoned by other Jews. Apparently Hophmi thinks that Jews don't have any self-identity outside of being Jewish. In other words, he's the anti-semite, not Phil.

    • Good points, Elliott.

      I don't think its trauma. Trauma is merely the excuse for pre-existing bigotry. "I can't be a bigot because I'm a victim" even if he or she has only ever grown up in Israel as the legally dominant ethno-religious group, or in the US, where the discrimination against Jews was much less than the discrimination against any other non-Anglo-Saxon ethnic group, or against women. It's a method of tribal adhesion through a culture of victimhood. Those who disagree are threatened with ostracism from the group.

      And, in any case, all ethnic and religious groups can likewise have members who are victims and members who are victimizers. And even bigots can be victims . They are not mutually exclusive despite widespread belief that they are.

    • So why all the upset about Phil's article and the fact that Vdare or Stormfront might quote it? Is the article itself unfair? If so, then why worry? Is the truth to be denied because someone might distort it? Isn't it better to share the truth rather than insist that ethnic solidarity demands that Jews must all agree with the likes of hophmi that Israel is the most wonderful place and Jewish individuals or groups have never sought power for their own selfish concerns or falsely claimed an intellectual or moral superiority or ever indulged in bigoted thought and word? Resentment is more likely to come when an ethnic or religious group refuses to acknowledge their own prejudices and failings. Resentment towards whites in general was no doubt much much higher when the majority of them refused to admit their own prejudices and how they negatively affected non-whites and refused to deal with the inequities. Why does a similar lesson not apply to Jews?

      Frankly Hophmi's racist screeds here, particularly under this post, sound just as hateful as the average screed from the likes of white nationalists. How do you react to Hophmi's attempts to shame Phil for being, in white nationalist parlance, a "race traitor"? Is it just a "shtick" of hophmi's, like Shmully Hecht's "shtick", whereas when Vdare flips the scenario around its a dangerous situation? Refusal to see that racism or bigotry of any variety, including Jewish racism, exists and should be called out doesn't solve the problem. You accept Jewish racism as a quirk or a "shticK" that you can dialogue with rather than something you should expose as wrong, lest hate groups learn that Jews aren't a monolith.

      People that grouse about it are often frustrated with their own or their groups lack of power, not power itself.

      Sometimes, but in the case of Israel, the "grousing" has more to do with the abuse of power, and the refusal on the part of numerous powerful Jewish groups to even admit that they have power and are wielding it to commit immoral acts based on bigotry. I'm sure if Phil thought that Jewish power was a strong net positive in the world he would be trumpeting it rather than criticizing it. Unfortunately, at this moment in time, it is a strong net negative, and so deserves his criticism.

    • Hophmi must be a veritable wizard at interfaith out-reach.

      Yes he is. Here's a gem from the past.

      I could care less that Christian killed Christians in endless intraChristian wars. It only goes to show that the religious hatred they showed for the Jews was similar to how they treated one another. - See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

      He doesn't care a wit about Palestinians killed by Israeli Jews, either. Except to excuse it and blame the victims. A veritable saint of a Jewish bigot. That's our hophmi.

  • Leading NY institutions discuss the Nakba -- and there is not a Palestinian in sight
    • About those long quotations ‘tree’ hauls out..
      ...They pertain to tactics discussed or adopted in 1936 and later. This does not tell us much about the central thrust of Zionist thinking prior to that time.

      Most of my comment concerned 1937 because it was in response to jon's feigned ingenuousness regarding Ben Gurion's intent in the 1937 and 1938 quotes that amigo posted.

      Many commenters here have made intelligent and moral arguments to refute your claims that the Zionists were "provoked", but I would like to add a few particulars regarding earlier ZIonist actions that prove that its "tactics" in 1937 were no different from its basic tenets in decades earlier.

      Besides the quote from Herzl supporting the transfer of the indigenous people living in his proposed Jewish State , which was made in the late 1800's, at a time and place where no Arab "provocation' was made or even imagined, I also included the forced displacement of Palestinian tenant farmers on JNF acquired land, which began in the early 1900's.

      The restrictive covenants of the JNF, which was founded in 1901, stated that no non-Jew would be allowed to own or work on JNF lands, nor could that land ever be subsequently sold to non-Jews. The Zionists for the most part were able to enforce that covenant despite the fact that tenant farmers had rights to work the land they had inhabited under Ottoman law. Negotiations were entered into to "encourage" the indigenous tenant farmers to abandon their rights. Ilan Pappe describes the attitudes of these early Zionists from their letters and diaries:

      Cleansing of the land of its farmers and tenants was done at first through meeting in the Zionist madafa [my note: guest tents set upfor negotiations] and then by force of eviction in Mandatory times. The "good" Palestinians were those who came to the madafa and allowed themselves to be evicted. Those who refused were branded robbers and murderers. Even Palestinians with whom the settlers sometimes shared ownership of horses or long hours of guard duty were transformed into villains once they refused eviction.

      "The Idea of Israel", Ilan Pappe, page 31

      With the coming of the Second Aliyah (1904-1914) the concepts of "Conquest of Labor" took hold along with the earlier "Conquest of the Land", which cemented the idea of refusing to allow Arab workers or produce into the New Yishuv . I've quoted David Hacohen many times before but its worth a repeat here to show just how early the Zionist attempt to displace the indigenous population began, well before any real "provocation" against the Zionists occurred.

      "I remember being one of the first of our comrades to go to London after the First World War … There I became a socialist … When I joined the socialist students – English, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Indian, African – we found that we were all under English domination or rule. And even here, in these intimate surroundings, I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they not buy at Arab stores; to defend the fact that we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there. … To pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies the Kereen Kayemet [Jewish Fund] that sent Hanlon to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendi [landlords] and to throw the fellahin[peasants] off the land – to buy dozens of dunams 12 from an Arab is permitted, but to sell, God forbid, one Jewish dunam to an Arab is prohibited; to take Rothschild, the incarnation of capitalism, as a socialist and to name him the “benefactor” – to do all that was not easy. And despite the fact that we did it – maybe we had no choice – I wasn’t happy about it "13.

      link to mondoweiss.net

      These should disabuse any serious intellect from believing that Zionist interest in marginalizing and dispossessing the native Palestinians was merely a reaction to Palestinian "provocation" or just a "tactic" rather tnan a basic policy that predated any interaction with actual Palestinians. However, if you'd like more examples of this attitude, Neil, just ask and I can provide many more examples of the centrality of the concept of the dispossession of the native population in favor of foreign Jews embedded within the founding ideology of Zionism.

    • jon,

      Intentionally clueless? The exact word isn't there but the intent is obvious to anyone who isn't purposely trying to be obtuse.

      You want more info to make it clear what BG was saying? In 1937 the British Peel Commission proposed a partition of Mandate Palestine and transfer of populations.

      The idea of population transfer was briefly placed on the Mandate's political agenda in 1937 by the Peel Commission. The commission recommended that Britain should withdraw from Palestine and that the land be partitioned between Jews and Arabs. It called for a "transfer of land and an exchange of population", including the removal of 250,000 Palestinian Arabs from what would become the Jewish state,[75] along the lines of the mutual population exchange between the Turkish and Greek populations after the Greco-Turkish War of 1922. According to the plan "in the last resort" the transfer of Arabs from the Jewish part would be compulsory.[76] The transfer would be voluntary in as far as Arab leaders were required to agree with it, but after that it would be almost inevitable that it would have to be forced upon the population.[77]

      According to Nur Masalha, heavy Zionist lobbying had been necessary for the Peel commission to propose this "in the last resort" compulsory transfer. Shertok, Weizmann and Ben-Gurion had travelled to London to talk it over, not only with members of the commission, but also with numerous politicians and officials whom the commission would be likely to consult.[78] This solution was embraced by Zionist leaders.[79] Masalha also says that Ben-Gurion saw partition only as an intermediate stage in the establishment of Israel, before the Jewish state could expand to all of Palestine using force.[80]

      According to Morris, Arab leaders, such as Emir Abdullah of Transjordan and Nuri as-Said of Iraq, supported the idea of a population transfer.[81] However, while Ben-Gurion was in favor of the Peel plan, he and other Zionist leaders considered it important that it be publicized as a British plan and not a Zionist plan. To this end, Morris quotes Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, who said (during a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive on 7 May 1944) to consider the British Labour Party Executive's resolution supporting transfer: "Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance.... What will happen once the Jewish state is established—it is very possible that the result will be the transfer of Arabs."[82]

      All of the other members of the JAE present, including Yitzhak Gruenbaum (later Israel's first interior minister), Eliyahu Dobkin (director of the immigration department), Eliezer Kaplan (Israel's first finance minister), Dov Yosef (later Israel's justice minister) and Werner David Senator (a Hebrew University executive) spoke favorably of the transfer principle.[83] Morris summarises the attitude of the Jewish Agency Executive on 12 June 1938 as: "all preferred a 'voluntary' transfer; but most were also agreeable to a compulsory transfer."[84]

      At the twentieth Zionist Congress, held in Zurich in August 1937, the Peel Commission's plan was discussed and rejected on the ground that a larger part of Palestine should be assigned to them. According to Masalha, compulsory transfer was accepted as morally just by a majority although many doubted its feasibility.[85] Partition, however, was not acceptable for Ussishkin, head of the Jewish National Fund, who said, "The Arab people have immense areas of land at their disposal; our people have nothing except a grave's plot. We demand that our inheritance, Palestine, be returned to us, and if there is no room for Arabs, they have the opportunity of going to Iraq."[86]

      The immediately succeeding Woodhead Commission, called to "examine the Peel Commission plan in detail and to recommend an actual partition plan" effectively removed the idea of transfer from the options under consideration by the British, and the 1939 White Paper proposed a complete end to immigration.

      According to Masalha "the defeat of the partition plan in no way diminished the determination of the Ben-Gurion camp ... to continue working for the removal of the native population."[87] In November 1937 a Population Transfer Committee was appointed to investigate the practicalities of transfer. It discussed details of the costs, specific places for relocation of the Palestinians, and the order in which they should be transferred. In view of the need for land it concluded that the rural population should be transferred before the townspeople, and that a village by village manner would be best.[88] In June 1938 Ben-Gurion summed up the mood in the JAE: "I support compulsory transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it." Regarding the unwillingness of the British to implement it, land expropriation was seen as a major mechanism to precipitate a Palestinian exodus. Also the remaining Palestinians should not be left with substantial landholdings.[89]

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      More on the Jewish Agency's 1937 Population Transfer Committee:

      On the heel of the Peel Committee recommendations, the Jewish Agency created the Population Transfer Committee with an impressive list of executive members, one of whom was Dr Kurt Mendelson from Holland considered to be ‘the expert on the question of population transfer’. He would divide the Palestinian Arabs into 3 categories to be cleared in the first stage of the Transfer Plan:

      1. Tenant farmers.
      2. Landless villagers working as agricultural labourers.
      3. Farmers who owned less than 3 dunums per capita.

      To resettle these people, the Transfer Committee calculated that 1.15 million dunums would have to be purchased in Transjordan and that it would take nearly 10 years to complete the transfer.

      Ben-Gurion opted instead for a total evacuation of Arabs from the proposed Jewish state. He said that he looked at the Jewish part only as a provisional solution “on the basis that after we build a strong force following the establishment of the state, we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel”.

      One executive member of the Jewish Agency concurred: “...we will not achieve this by preaching sermons on the mount, but by machine-guns which we will need”. Some Committee members even opposed the idea of partition itself and argued for a single state for the Jewish people: “We cannot begin the Jewish state with a population of which Arabs constitute almost half of the population…Such a state cannot survive even for half an hour”.

      Fearing moral backlash from world opinion against forced expulsion of the Palestinian population, the debate considered ways of how to contain such a possible backlash. But this did not deter one Committee member to volunteer: “If you ask me whether it is moral to remove 60,000 families from their place of residence…I will say to you that it is moral. I am ready to come and defend the moral side of it before the Almighty and the League of Nations”.

      Ben-Gurion closed the debate: “I support compulsory transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it.

      link to 1948.org.uk

      And of course from its very beginnings the Zionist movement sought to remove Palestinian tenant farmers from their land, to deny employment to non-Jewish Palestinians, and to "spirit the penniless population across the border".

      Please don't try to pretend that the expulsion of the native non-Jewish population was not one of the basic tenets of the Zionist movement. It's a form of Nakba denial.

  • Netanyahu speech is 'destructive' of 'bipartisan, immutable relationship' between US and Israel, Rice says
  • Israel turns off power to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the dead of winter
    • And have a debt of over $ 500 million, which is threatening to the stability of the Israel Electric Corporation

      LOL. If you really are an Israeli then you are completely in the dark, pun intended, about the circumstances surrounding the Israeli government owned Israel Electric Company.

      It is currently in the red by over 73 billion NIS (73 billion NIS as of August of 2014 and continuing to grow).

      The debt owed by the PA is less than 2% of IEC's total debt. The IEC's stability is not being caused by that 2%, which has now been paid out of Palestinian tax revenues. It is threatened by the other 98% of its debt, which has nothing to do with the Palestinians.

      Here's an article from 2012 on the IEC's problems.

      link to haaretz.com

      Things haven't improved since then.Here's the JPost from August 2014 on the small portion of the IEC debt owed by the PA.

      link to jpost.com

  • Israel's new Asian allies
    • Look who popped in just to make a fool of himself.

      He popped in to illustrate my point that he, among others, readily ignores the anti-semitism that comes out of the mouths of right wing Zionists like JeffB. JeffB went on at great length about how all Jews bear responsibility for the actions of Israel, etc, etc, but TBK never thought twice about that. Zionists are allowed to make such statements in his world. But just let TBK think he detects a whiff of anti-semitism from a non-Zionist non-Jew and out comes the invective and the comparisons to Stormfront.

      Frankly, I've rarely if ever seen the usual "liberal" Zionists here personally disagree in the comments section with any of the more right wing Zionist commenters. One might logically conclude that liberal ZIonists would consider the right wing commenters more of a threat to the continuation of their genteel ethnocentrism, but apparently their sense of tribal unity overshadows logic in these instances. Or perhaps it has more to do with their own unacknowledged bigotry towards non-Jews. More often than not Hophmi, Yonah and TBK prove to be on a hair trigger against any perceived sense of anti-semitism coming from someone who is not Jewish and/or not Zionist, but willing to overlook and excuse any anti-semitism or bigotry against non-Jews no matter how obvious or heinous if it comes from the mouths or actions of Zionist Jews.

  • Netanyahu flips off Harry Truman
    • Israel..got no weapons from the United States during its War of Independence.

      According to JeffB (and granted you have to take a lot of what he says with a large grain of salt) Zionists did get weapons from the US.

      Quoted from JeffB on another thread:

      In the mid 1940s the USA policy was to support the arms boycott. My great uncle abused his ties with the army to help get weapons to Palestine. This wasn't something he kept secret after the war but is the highpoint of his life in terms of heroism. It is what he is remembered for by neighbors and nephews like me. Jews weren't powerful enough to do anything about the holocaust. But we were powerful enough to make sure the refugees who survived the camps didn't die in Palestine and thus help prevent round 2. - See more at: link to mondoweiss.net

      Of course, as is often the case, JeffB included a lie in his above statement. Zionists who were in control of the American DP camps threatened the Jewish refugees in those camps with loss of livelihood and food rations, and in some cases physical violence if those who were of draft quality didn't "volunteer" to go to Palestine to fight in 1948-9.

      Those Jews not of draft age or health were considered unqualified to go to Palestine at that time by the Jewish Agency and its organization in the DP camps. See Grodzinsky's"In the Shadow of the Holocaust:The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II".

      Israel didn't institute the "Right of Return" for all Jews until 1950. And as Shira Robinson points out in "Citizen Strangers", that law was enacted mainly to give automatic citizenship to the Jews who already resided in Israel while purposely delaying any law provided citizenship to non-Jews, so as to minimize as much as possible the number of Palestinian non-Jews in Israel and to severely limit their rights in the new state.

      Most of the Jews in the DP camps chose to go elsewhere than to Israel and did so, no thanks to Zionists who preyed on them in the DP camps and abused them in Israel.

      As for Israeli treatment of the DP camp refugees in 1948, here's Ilan Pappe:

      "The leadership felt that indeed immigrants, in order to become part of the community, have to take part in the military effort, whether they were able to do so or not didn't interest anyone. What was interesting, what was important for them is to show this is the highest level of commitment. I remember one sentence of David Ben Gurion who said, "There is a problem with the holocaust survivor. They haven't yet sacrificed anyone in the defense of the homeland." He wanted them to have martyrs, people who died defending the homeland. He thought this would put them on par, on an equal level with the veteran Sabras, the heroic soldiers of the Haganah. "

      link to olinfilms.com

      So much for Jeff's crap about making sure "the refugees who survived the camps didn't die in Palestine."

      My recollection is that officially the US observed the arms boycott against both sides of the conflict in 1948, but unofficially people like Jeff's uncle were able to skirt the boycott. The Palestinians were at a distinct disadvantage because of the failure of the Great Revolt a decade before, which Britain crushed by pretty violent means and left the Palestinians with few weapons to defend themselves. The neighboring Arab states had small armies and did not even allocate all of their troops to the war. They also suffered from the arms boycott. The Zionists were able to procure weapons from Europe despite the arms boycott and had superior numbers in their army, thus putting them at a a significant military advantage in the war.

      In case you forgot, 33 countries voted for partition, including the Soviet Union.

      And many of those countries were coerced by the US into voting for partition. In any case, the UN Partition Plan specifically set out the rights of the residents of each partitioned state and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was in gross violation of the Plan. And Israel claimed more land than was allotted to it under the plan. The US did little to nothing to actually enforce the particulars of the UN Plan, and by doing so enabled what was in essence a Zionist putsch and an enormous violation of the human rights of the indigenous Palestinians.

Showing comments 4356 - 4301
Page: