Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 4342 (since 2009-07-30 20:36:23)


Showing comments 4342 - 4301

  • Just like the Nazis, Iran 'plans to exterminate six million Jews' -- Netanyahu
    • 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

      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

  • 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

      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.

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      link to

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

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

      Costly pro-Israel PR campaign fails to stop UCLA divestment

      link to

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

      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

  • 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
    • 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

      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

      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.

  • Jewish groups that blindly support Israel make US and European Jews potential victims of violence -- Avnery
    • Why do you continue to give JeffBeee a free pass on anti-Semitism?

      I've noticed the same selective judgment from hophmi and yonah (and occasionally TokyoBK) in the past. There was a poster named "eee" who used to constantly insist that the only real Jews were those who supported Israel 100%, and he tried to personally excommunicate several other Jews here, including Phil, Shmuel, Hostage, and a few others who criticized Israeli actions. Never a peep from either one of the "liberal Zionists" here arguing that not all Jews felt the same way, but of course if an anti-Zionist, or even a non-Zionist or a non-Jew, said the same thing, oh my God, the invective would flow, and the A-word would fly high and mightily.

      The only way I can understand the phenomenon is to suppose that hophmi really doesn't mind gross over generalizations about Jews as long as its couched in approving terms by a Jew who claims to care deeply about "the Jews". (As opposed to caring about individual Jews or even groups of Jews, whom they would quickly wish under the bus if those people don't follow the Zionist group think). Which is why, despite their stated desire to "dialogue", they really don't feel any need to disagree with Zionist Jews to the right of them, despite the prevalence of anti-semitic tropes coming from the mouths of more right-wing ZIonist posters here.

  • Leaked e-mails show that Israeli consulate, StandWithUs tried to thwart Northwestern divestment (Updated)
    • Well if you want examples there are multiple ones where representatives from the Territory of Utah addressed congress over the objections of Democratic Presidents.


      Philadelphialawyer asks for an instance of the heads of State of Japan or South Korea addressing the Congress over the objection of the US President, and JeffB comes up with the (US) Territory of Utah as an example. Gotta love the inanity of Jeff's arguments!

    • Page: 43
  • One-state 'fantasy is very dangerous' because it cannot tell us what the military looks like -- Manekin
    • Mooser, you are a goddamn fucking idiot, and you should get run over by a bus.

      As yes, the cry for civility and reasoned debate followed by the personal attack, including a wish for bodily harm! You haven't responded recently to numerous commenters engaging you in debate, but you do respond with a particularly nasty comment yourself. My suspicions that you complained about civility merely as a device to avoid debate are confirmed. Mooser's humor can be biting, but it appears he has you pegged.

    • Larry, I sincerely do not think your problem with one state is that you can't imagine what the army would look like. Its that you can not imagine what equality in Israel regardless of religion or ethnicity would look like. Perhaps you think it is impossible. You seem to think that Arab and Jew must forever and always be mutually exclusive when in fact a large portion, if not the majority, of Jewish Israelis are in fact Arab. Granted the powers that be over the decades, the Israeli Ashkenazim, have for the most part successfully pounded that Arab identity out of the Mizrahim, but that does not mean that it is never going to resurface and in a truly integrated Israel or whatever it certainly will resurface.

      Also you seem to believe that Arabs would never fight other Arabs from other countries, as if they are all part of a monolith, when current reality certainly proves otherwise. Its as counter-factual as saying that Europeans would never fight other Europeans.

      I find it revealing that Manekin thinks first about what the army would look like, as if the army is the most important part of Israeli society. Israel as an army with a country, rather than the other way around.

    • Yes, Kris. Thanks for reiterating old geezer's and my point. JeffB is making a false correlation between the anti-German sentiment in WWI and the loyalty of German Americans, when the reality is that the anti-German sentiment was not the result of, or reaction to, disloyalty among German American but was instead caused by the all too prevalent human and societal tendency to demonize the "enemy", whomever that might be at a given moment and to stigmatize and overgeneralize about the nationals or descendants of the nationals of the enemy state.


      Some people actually know their history and don’t actually have to link to some website to explain what is usually considered common knowledge.

      And some people have to link to websites because other people's "common knowledge" in some cases is incorrect. In this case it was JeffB's "common knowledge' that disloyalty among German-Americans was a major problem in WWI, when it wasn't, or that disloyalty among Japanese Americans during WWII was a major problem. The prejudice against both groups was a major problem, not the disloyalty.

      I suspect that JeffB doesn't really understand history; he simply collects historical tidbits that he feels he can marshal to support his prejudices, even if it means distorting their meaning in order to do so.

      He used that bit of history to imply that German Americans as a group were disloyal to the US in WWI, when in fact that was not the case. Kris's post actually was counter to the point JeffB was attempting to imply.

    • Larry,

      tree, I imagine a key reason why German- and Japanese-Americans volunteered in WWII was that the Germans and Japanese were so obviously the aggressors, and America was so obviously on the right side of that war; it’s hard to see Arabs in this country taking such a view of a war between Arab countries and this one, even in the future.

      An interesting juxtaposition on your part, and one I don't think you realized when posting it. I don't agree with your supposition that Japanese-Americans only joined the American war effort because they thought Japan was "so obviously the aggressors and America was obviously on the right side" particularly since the US was interning Japanese Americans simply because of their ethnicity during the war. But lets take your first point as true and then compare it to your second point- that "it’s hard to see Arabs in this country taking such a view of a war between Arab countries and this one, even in the future."

      In light of your first statement its obvious that you believe that any wars that a combined Israel-Palestine would enter into would be one in which it would be "obviously the aggressor", rather than its enemy being the aggressor. Otherwise why would Israel (or whatever) be the aggressor against neighboring states that have promised to enter into normal relationships with it once it ends the oppression of the Palestinians?I suspect that your essential problem is that you can't envision an Israel (or whatever name it went by) that treats Jews and non-Jews equality. If you could you wouldn't have any problem see how its citizens, of any ethnicity or religion, could support it when it was attacked.

      And when you say the U.S. is safe from a war w/Mexico because it isn’t grabbing Mexican land, you’re either being disingenuous about American history, or it’s you who doesn’t know it. And how do you think America lives with Mexico without violent disputes after stealing half its land – by peaceful vision?

      I am talking about today when I reference Mexico and Canada, not nearly 200 years ago. We also were at war with Britain and Spain at one point in our past, both of those wars resulting in our grabbing more territory, but that doesn't mean that our past behavior has to be repeated today, or even "emulated" by other countries. Mexico isn't holding a grudge against us and neither is Canada or Britain or Spain, and likewise we are not threatening them today. Futures are not pre-ordained to always emulate the past.

      The ironic thing is that Israel is using America as a model, but now how you suggest – it took the land from the Palestinians like America took it from the Indians and from Mexico, and it plans to hang on to it by force, just like America has.

      Again your history is faulty and incomplete. Israel is not using America as a model. Its simply another bit of hasbara to excuse Israeli crimes. The US is far from a perfect country and has engaged in many heinous acts over its history, but if Israel was truly just emulating the US after the Mexican American war, then it wouldn't have ethnically cleansed the Palestinians but would have instead made them citizens of Israel, as the US did with all the Mexican inhabitants of the newly made American territory. While, shamefully, the US did ethnically cleanse many Native Americans, it did eventually give all Native Americans full citizenship in the early 1930's and gave those Native Americans who relinquished their tribal identities US citizenship 50 years earlier than that. The US has succumbed to ethnocentrism and chauvinism and jingoism but it never as an entity envisioned any type of pure religious/ethnocentric system as Israel has. And that's why Vietnamese immigrants have come here and become enthusiastic and loyal US citizens despite the wanton destruction we caused to their country in the more immediate past.

      I suspect that the real problem for those who can't envision an integrated military is that they can't even envision Israel as a country that treats all its citizens/subjects as equals. A "two-state" solution is never going to happen. It will be one apartheid state, as it is now. So why continue to act as if you are arguing about the viability of a one state "solution" that already exists at present, and instead think about what kind of one state Israel should be? Why is inequality a given forever and anon? Why not really model Israel after the US and work toward legal equality of all its ethnicities/religions? It sure beats the immoral pickle that Israel is in now.

    • Larry,

      Do you think you could draft Americans of Irish background to fight Ireland, or Mexican-Americans to fight Mexico, or Palestinian-Americans to fight Palestine? It’s wrong to expect that of any minority ...

      You obviously don't know American history. In World War II, even while the US was sending many Japanese Americans to internment camps, Japanese Americans were volunteering to serve as soldiers in the war against Germany and Japan, and many of them served valiantly and with great honor.

      Likewise in WWI and II, many German-Americans served nobly in the US armed services. It isn't all that odd or out of bounds for this to happen. Besides, all of the violence between Israel and its neighbors so far has come because of Israel's efforts to ethnically cleanse Arabs from land that it covets. If there was equality between Jews and non-Jewish Arabs in one state, then all those efforts would cease, and Israel/Palestine would most likely live peacefully with its neighbors.

      In the US, we don't expect to be at war with either Mexico or Canada because we aren't seriously coveting or grabbing their land, and neither are they grabbing ours. That you can't imagine living in the Middle East without having violent disputes with your neighbors only illustrates your lack of vision rather than a given.

  • Netanyahu calls on Jews to leave Europe en masse in wake of Copenhagen synagogue attack
    • Its not even as simple as that, CigarGod.

      The Zionists in Palestine had a selective admission policy, including medical and political criteria for admission. The British would set a quota, based on their judgment of Zionist economic carrying capacity, but they gave the Jewish Agency total control over which Jews were allowed in. Which meant that older or very young Jews, or those who couldn't support themselves, were turned down in favor of young strong adults who could add to the productive capacity of the new Yishuv, or committed Zionists, or those with money. Even Jews who got seriously injured in Palestine were forced to leave as they were then a burden rather than an asset to the Zionist agencies.

      The Zionists wanted Jews, but only a certain type. The rest were, in their own words, "human dust" and not "good human material". During that time, the Jewish Agency, and Ben-Gurion in particular, worked to discourage any emigration from Germany to any other place than Palestine. They also insisted that money collected for help and rescue of Jews from Europe was taking money away from building their community in Palestine, which was of course much more important in their minds than helping European Jews who might need it.

      As you mentioned, all the early interest in German Nazi circles was for the emigration, voluntary or forced, of Jews, not for their killing. That changed with the change in fortunes of the German expansionist war effort.

      Over half a million Jews left greater Nazi Germany by 1940- nearly two thirds of all German Jews. Only 10 percent of them went to Palestine. The other 90% of those who left went to other countries, all of which were suffering economically under the worldwide Great Depression, but none of which specifically closed their doors to Jews as Jews. Attempts to paint the pre-state Zionists in some exalted humanitarian light with respect to helping European Jews are simply a part of the false narrative used to excuse their utter disregard for the rights of the indigenous Palestinians.

  • The left needs to stop hounding Elizabeth Warren on Palestine, says Warren supporter
    • Maybe if we heard a little about what this “Israeli refusenik” has ever actually said and done on the subject of zionism, we’d be in a position to know whether to take him seriously or not.

      I am assuming that Charles Lenchner has posted here as "clenchner" a while back and now posts as "Newclench", simply because of the similarity of the name to the the nom de plume, as well as the fact that clenchner/newclench has a habit of talking about "big tents", which usually comes down to a plea to moderate and tone down arguments and actions that might make those closer to the status quo uncomfortable. This sounds like what Charles Lenchner is saying about the evening.

      The poster here also mentioned being a refusenik.

      I could be wrong of course. It could just be coincidence of names.

      Newclench comment archive here:

      link to

    • It doesn't sound like Warren was there. From the description it was an event sponsored by supporters of her candidacy, with speeches by them, not her.

  • My fellow Muslim-Americans, in the wake of Chapel Hill we can’t stop speaking out - even if our voices shake
    • Walid, I think you are way off base here. They aren't "counting to ten" they are addressing the problem now instead of "counting to ten" as you proposed. You are the one offering advice that Farhana Khera is not following:

      Khera, the director of Muslim Advocates, was in attendance. While ground rules forbade her from discussing what Obama said, she told the Guardian that she called on Obama to address “an uptick in ferocity of anti-Muslim vitriol from everyday Americans”, including “public officials who should know better”, like a state representative in Oklahoma, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran, who called Islam a “cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out”,


      The killing of Deah Barakat, 23, his wife Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21, and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, “really underscores how dangerous it is for the US government, including the White House, to focus its countering violent extremism initiatives primarily on American Muslims”, said Farhana Khera, the executive director of civil rights law firm Muslim Advocates.

      “We’ve long said to the administration, to those in government, that directing the bulk of CVE resources to US Muslims undermines the safety of all of us and endangers US Muslims, because it sends the message our community is to be viewed with fear, suspicion and even hate.”

      Khera is bringing up Islamophobia and the US government's involvement in nurturing it as it relates to the killings. There is no temporary silence on her part, as you counciled. She's more in line with Krauss and Giles than she is with your viewpoint.

  • Let's honor Kayla Mueller-- and other women leaders during the war on terror
    • And tree just cos the yanks messed up iraq doesn’t mean a putrid regime can’t be deposed violently and replaced with something better, Japan went through that process.It needs better people than blair and Cheney.

      Ah, yes, If only the Iraq war had been run by "the best and the brightest", like the Vietnam War, it would have turned out so much better. Oh wait....

      As philadelphialawyer pointed out, the circumstances way back in WWII Japan were totally different from what you are comparing it to. US military and political violence in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Iran in the 1950's, etc. did not improve lives in any of those countries.

      And the Iraq war wasn't "messed up". It accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish: the destruction of Iraq. You really think that the intent was to provide ponies for every Iraqi? "Iraqi Freedom" was never about freedom for Iraqis. It was about selling the war in the US where unfortunately too many of us buy the idea that the US only attacks other countries because we love them so much and want to make them better, even if it means we have to bomb the bejeesus out of them. To paraphrase the Vietnam war saying, "We have to destroy (insert "village", "country" "continent" as needed) in order to save it" is just another piece of heinous propaganda.

    • just

      philadelphialawyer~ perhaps you should go back and review what seafoid actually wrote.

      just a thought.

      Just, respectfully, seafoid's first sentence up above was this:

      They should bomb Saudi.

      I think philadelphialawyer's post was on point with regard to that sentence, and for the most part I agree with his comment. You can't bomb anyone to "freedom" or "democracy". Not Iraq, not Syria, not Saudi Arabia, not Israel.

  • Settler shoots Palestinian teenager in East Jerusalem
    • Bornajoo,

      You might be interested in this video interview of Israeli author and activist Akiva Orr about "the conflict between the Jewish religion and secular Jews in the state of Israel."

      link to

      Of course any interview with Orr is fascinating, and I love his sense of humor. His bit about Golda Meir's speech in the Knesset is a classic of his sense of the absurd. The story starts about 15 minutes into this continuation of the above interview, and Meir's absurd statement is recounted at around 18 minutes in. "She's already given up on so much, why can't she give up on her conscience as well?" (describing a non-Jewish woman who married an Israeli Jew and didn't convert to Judaism). He was a great storyteller as well as a great human being.

      link to

      Its been posted here before in the past but its definitely worth a repost.

  • The New England Patriots and Israel
    • onepersonsopinion,

      Reread your own comment. You negate everything you said in your first paragraph by your accusations in your second paragraph.

      And you make an accusation like’ traitor’ with such venom. Must be horrible to have such hate in your heart.

      You've assumed the worst motivations on amigo's part in the next breath after pontificating on how "... there is no excuse to not understand that no one knows a person’s motivations ."

      I won't comment on your motivations for this obvious double standard of yours- your "do as I say, not as I do" routine - but I would suggest strongly that you think about what you just wrote and ponder what your real motivation was in contradicting yourself so adamantly and quickly.

  • 'NYT' perpetuates myth Israel was 'fighting for its very survival' during 1967 war
    • Are you referring to Gulf War I or Gulf War II.

      Try reading for comprehension, yonah. You might even be able to answer your own question if you did.

      I quote from my comment: "... the US’s attack on Iraq in 2003." Think you can figure out which war I was talking about? Yes I was talking about the 2003 Iraq War, not the 1990 Gulf War. Hussein was responsible for the Gulf War because he attacked and occupied Kuwait for no legitimate or justifiable reason. Just as the US was responsible for the 2003 Iraq War because it attacked and invaded Iraq for no truthful, legitimate or justifiable reason . And just as Israel was responsible for the 1967 War because it attacked Egypt for no legitimate or justifiable reason. To justify a physical attack on another country, the bar must be set very high, and in those three instances the bar was not reached,nor was it even close to being reached. Its not a popularity contest, and the standards don't change just because you or anyone else thinks its OK if the "good guys" did it. If you attack another country without an overwhelming just reason, then, ipso facto, you are not the "good guys" in that instance, and no matter whether the leader of the attacked country is a nice guy or an ogre, the fault lies with the attacker, unless there are very strong moral reasons to excuse and explain such an attack.

      Any analogy between the peace treaty signed by Hussein in Cairo on May 30, 1967 and the treaty between Poland and England in August of 1939 was guided by some bias other than truth.

      Your opinion, which frankly carries no weight with me sans any compelling fact or reason, which you have not provided. If you have some logic or facts to to back up your opinion then state them. Otherwise your statement is worth nothing, and is merely a pronouncement of your own bias. The fact is that Israel had already attacked Jordan and had attacked and threatened to invade Syria. It was entirely logical ( and moral) for King Hussein to seek a defense pact with a stronger country like Egypt to attempt to protect Jordan from Israel. Likewise for Syria. Your bias doesn't allow the surrounding Arab states to band together to protect themselves from attack from the militarily stronger and more aggressive Israel, but you have no qualms about the stronger military party, Israel, getting assistance from the even stronger US, despite its aggressive behavior towards its neighbors. You don't judge things on the facts but rather on your loyalties and your prejudices.

      To ignore the effect of Nasser’s assertions and indeed of Cairo’s radio broadcasts on the Israeli public ... to pretend that Nasser’s moves did not have an effect is quite clearly untrue.) The pressure placed on the Israeli public by Nasser was quite real.

      Again, you exhibit a double standard. Israeli officials threatened a invasion of Syria of "great size and strength" on radio broadcasts and in newspaper reports, PRIOR to Nasser's radio speeches and yet you only mention Nasser's speeches and not the earlier ones made by Israeli officials, including Rabin and Eshkol. And you fail to mention what even Michael Walzer admits: namely that Nasser repeatedly made clear in his speeches that he had no intention of attacking Israel first, and his threats were addressed to what he claimed Egypt would do IF Israel attacked Syria or Egypt or Jordan. In other words, his threats were intended, without success, to discourage any attack, not to start one. Even Israeli officials admit that they knew that Egypt was not planning to attack Israel. And yet all you allude to is Nasser's threats and the Israeli public's fear. No thought on your part about Israeli threats and Arab public fear, and no thought on your part to the attempts at a diplomatic solution agreed to by Nasser, but opposed by Israel.

      If the Israeli public was really listening to what Nasser was saying, they should have feared Israel attacking Egypt more than Egypt attacking Israel. Its entirely likely however that Israeli officials and Israeli media distorted or mistranslated Nasser's speeches in order to drum up fear and support for what Israel had already planned to do well before Nasser's speech. Just as the US public was plied with false threats of Iraqi WMD's and all the rest by the Bush Administration and complicit US media in order to drum up support for our own invasion (and yes, I mean in 2003.)

    • Yonah, I'm not sure where this will land but it is a response to your comments addressed to me of Jan 30 and 31 :

      "to pretend that merely referring to Israel's post 67 sins is sufficient to exculpate the Soviets and Nasser indicates a type of bias."

      Yonah, for you to pretend yourself that I was "merely referring to Israel's post 67 sins' is either the height of lazy and incompetent reading on your part, or more likely an obvious bias of your own which you refuse to see and instead project onto others.

      The first points I mentioned were specifically about Israel's military actions against Jordan and Syria in the months and weeks BEFORE Israel attacked Egypt in 1967. Did you not read my first response to you that mentioned Israel's attack on Es Samu, Jordan in November 1966 and Israel's provocation in the DMZ and their violation of Syrian airspace in shooting down 2 Syrian MiGs over Syrian territory in April 1967? Or were you too busy getting offended at imagined flecks of spittle to actually read the words I wrote?

      As to what I wrote about Israel's actions after the war, and specifically after the June 19 Israeli resolution BUT prior to the Khartoum resolution, this was specifically in response to your false assumption that Israel didn't found any Jewish settlements in the occupied Golan prior to the Khartoum resolution. I responded that the Israeli cabinet ministers were second guessing their un-communicated resolution to give back part of the Sinai and Golan Heights within a matter of weeks and gave proof there was at least one Jewish settlement founded in the Golan Heights less than 4 weeks after June 19th and a full 7 weeks before Khartoum. In case you forgot it, here was your statement, to which I responded:

      You infer that settlements were built in the Golan before Khartoum. I doubt that Israel’s turnaround occurred before Khartoum and I doubt that settlements were begun in the Golan before Khartoum.

      So its the height of dishonesty on your part to pretend that my factual response to your false assumption was "merely" intended to "exculpate" Nasser, when it was clearly offered to refute your false assumption, which was itself a product of your own bias.

      In an earlier comment in response to Hophmi, I responded on the actual contents of the secret June 19th Israeli cabinet resolution since he falsely stated that it was conveyed to the Arab States when it wasn't, and falsely implied that the resolution called for giving back the West Bank and Gaza as well as all of the Sinai and Golan Heights, which it most certainly did not.

      The cause for that bias on your part is known by you. of course i infer that the bias is related to your favoritism towards Vidal and Lindbergh. But i do not know that for a fact.

      Good Lord, you are obsessed with two dead people, and two dead people that have no relevance to the Israeli oppression of Palestinians. You haven't a clue what I'm saying but you keep implying some wacky ulterior motive which only makes you sound like a nutcase.
      You want to know my bias? I'm am biased against lying, against double standards, against making false accusations, against bigotry and injustice. One of the things that flat out hit me in the face when I started researching the history of Palestine/Israel is how much Israel lies - about nearly every historical fact. I blame it on the sociopathic Ben-Gurion and the fact that his lies were so successful that it became the standard for Israeli governments ever after and so much so that they started to believe their own shit.

      but your refusal to condemn nasser, nor even to say a negative word about him, indicates a bias, an anti historical bias.

      Yonah, your whole premise was that Nasser, or the Soviets, or both, were most responsible for the 1967 war. I disagree and I have numerous logical reasons for my disagreement, most of which seem to have either been ignored by you, or gone over your head.. I have no particular "favoritism" or love for Nasser, I just don't think that he was responsible for the 1967 war, just as I have no "favoritism" towards Saddam Hussein. But the fact that both of them were dictators (and from what I have read Hussein was many degrees worse than Nasser, who was no saint himself ) does not negate the fact that Nasser was no more responsible for Israel's attack on it in 1967 than Hussein was responsible for the US's attack on Iraq in 2003. I've tried to explain this concept to you numerous times that defending someone against what I believe to be a unfair or false accusation is in no way an endorsement on my part of everything they have ever done, nor is it an indication of some undying "love" or "favoritism" on my part. I suspect you are entirely incapable of understanding this point because this kind of thinking is totally at odds with yours. Your sense of identity leads you to double standards when it comes to Israel and Jews, which is a product of your own favoritism,so you assume that everyone thinks the way you do.

      Case in point is your "defense" of your belief that Nasser, not Israel, was primarily to blame for the war.

      You list only 3 things that Nasser did, nothing that Israel or any other party did, and then presuppose that an overwhelming majority of hypothetical strategists would agree with you. That's called stacking the deck. (Or cherry-picking if you prefer.) Here are most of the relevant points I consider in assigning responsibility for starting the war

      1- Israel attacked Es Samu in Jordan, destroying most of the village, and killing 15 Jordanian soldiers and 4 civilians. This happened in November, 1966. Jordan did not respond militarily, most likely because of a military weakness compared to Israel. Egypt was criticized for not coming to Jordan's aid.

      2- The IDF provoked an incident that resulted in Israel both violating the DMZ with Syria and then violating Syrian airspace itself, shooting down 2 Syrian MiG jets, one over Damascus, over 50 miles into Syrian territorial airspace.This happened in April 1967.

      3 -Syria threatened a response, which was met by even stronger statements from Israeli officials in mid-May threatening a full-scale invasion. Israeli tank formations were temporaily relocated near the Syrian border. The Soviets may or may not have overstated their numbers when reporting this to Egypt.

      4. Nasser asked UNEF forces to leave Egyptian territory and closed the Straits of Tiran. U Thant offered to place UNEF on the Israeli side. Israel refused.

      5. Egypt agreed to adjudicate whether it had the right to close the Straits as its territorial water (its less than 7 nautical miles wide) in an emergency hearing at the World Court. Israel refused.

      6.- Nasser tentatively agreed to a proposal to temporarily cease implementation of the blockade if Israel would agree to temporarily cease sending its ships through it while the case was adjudicated.(Other non-Israeli ships carrying "strategic cargo" to Israel would not be stopped by Egypt.) Even though Israel had not sent an Israeli ship through the Straits in over two years prior to the closure, it again refused the compromise.

      7-Nasser agreed to a reconstitution of EIMAC to patrol the border (Egypt Israel Mixed Armistice Commision) at the suggestion of the UN. Israel refused.

      7-Jordan and Egypt signed a self-defense pact in late May..

      8-The Egyptian Vice-President agreed to meet with US negotiators in Washington D.C. to defuse the crisis. Israel was aware of this scheduled meeting.

      9. Israel attacked Egypt, destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground in a surprise attaclk.

      Given all those elements, as well as the fact that Israel made no attempts to return the West Bank and Gaza, and in fact by resolution on June 19th explicitly refused to do so, I don't see why any strategist worth his or her salt wouldn't agree with me that Israel was intent on attacking regardless of what Nasser did or didn't do. Thus logically Israel was to blame for the 1967 war just as it was responsible for the early attacks. That you keep insisting on placing primary blame for the war on Nasser despite the continual aggressive actions by Israel and the conciliatory ones by Nasser just further illustrates your double standards with respect to Israel.

      As for the Jordan-Egyptian self-defense treaty, it was just that - a treaty that promised that one would aid the other if either of them was attacked. Given that both countries had been attacked by Israel at earlier points in their history, a self-defense pact seems entirely within bounds, and most needed exactly when there is a crisis, as a possible deterrent against an attack. Or do you also blame Britain for Nazi Germany's attack on Poland, when it signed a defense pact with Poland? If only Britain hadn't agreed to come to Poland's aid, World War II wouldn't have started? It was all Britain's fault?

      signing of treaties in the midst of a crisis is not something that can be treated with a "why not?" attitude unless you are ignorant of history (which is not the case) or a biased person (that's the case.)

      I strongly suspect that Britain signed a treaty with Poland during a crisis because it believed that such a treaty might deter Nazi Germany from attacking Poland, thus possibly averting WWII. It obviously didn't succeed, but again, why should they have not tried it anyway? In other words "why not?" and why are you insisting that asking that question is an indication of bias, when it clearly is not?

      Again, this is a double standard on your part. If the situation were reversed and Jordan had attacked Israel twice without any military response by Israel, would you say the US was primarily at fault if it signed a mutual defense pact with Israel when Jordan then attacked Israel again? No, of course not. You would place the blame squarely on the aggressor, Jordan, in this hypothetical case. You can't see logic past your own biases.

      Unfortunately, even Egypt, Syria and and Jordan together could not mount a serious deterrent to the determined attack by Israel.

    • yonah, as usual the spit's all in your head. You're angry because I mentioned violent acts on Israel's part that led to the War that you omitted while ranting about other people's "blindness". And so you project that anger of yours onto others and heap scorn upon them. C'est la vie. Yonah without his insults and his anger just wouldn't be yonah, would he?

      So let me get your viewpoint straight. Israel attacked Egypt, and Syria and Jordan, twice over, stole their territory, refused to return it, ethnically cleansed over two hundred thousand Palestinians, issued shoot to kill orders for those Palestinians trying to return to the West Bank (just as it had done to Palestinians after 1948), and immediately started moving Jewish settlers into the territories it stole, but none of this is Israel's fault. It all gets blamed on Nasser, who "made them do it"? Israel has no agency of its own and cannot be held responsible for its own actions? What exactly is the purpose of that "self-determination" shtick if Israel is incapable of acting of its own volition?

      Do you deny that the Soviets lied about the Israeli troops?

      I don't think they lied. David Hirst in "The Gun and the Olive Branch", using Moshe Menuhin's book as the source, states that, 5 years after the fact, "General Ezer Weizmann, one of Israel's bluntest soldiers, conceded: 'Don't forget that we did move tanks to the north after the downing of the aircraft.' " Likely Israel did so because they expected some sort of retaliation against its violation of Syria airspace and the shooting down of the Syrian Migs over Damascus in April, but it was a threatening move on their part nevertheless.

      I also know from reading both Morris and Shlaim that in early May 1967 Israel did also issue a verbal threat of invasion against Syria.

      Do you deny that the western powers assured Israel of free passage through the straits of tiran before israel agreed to withdraw in 57?

      The tacit diplomatic agreement was that Egypt retained the right to consider the Straits of Tiran as their own territory and as such to restrict its passage, but that as a practical matter it would refrain from doing so under peaceful conditions. And Israel was only given that concession because it was so insistent on remaining in the Egyptian Sinai in 1956 and refused to budge. The UN was adamant that Israel should not be given an assured legal right of passage as the result of its offensive war against Egypt in 1956. Thus Egypt was within its rights to declare the Straits off limits in May of 1967. And as Finkelstein pointed out, only one Israeli ship had actually bothered to pass through the Straits within the last year, and Egypt never even enforced the blockade after it was announced.

      And your thing about Jordan signing a treaty with Egypt, as if that had nothing to do with the war, how many historians agree with that piece of crap?

      Jordan and Egypt and Syria signed a self-defense pact. Considering the fact that Israel had attacked Egypt in 1956, Jordan in 1953 (Qibya) and 1966 (Es Samu) and Syria in April of 1967 (shooting down two Migs over Damascus), what exactly was so terrible about them signing a self-defense pact? Care to explain? Israel gets to rely on the world's superpower for its weapons and protection, but its out of bounds for 3 Arab States who have been previously attacked to agree to a self-defense treaty?

      Actually quite a few historians agree that Israel was attempting to provoke a war by its actions, and finally just decided to start one instead. It attacked Egyptian planes on the ground in Cairo while the Egyptian ambassador was in Washington, D.C., negotiating with the Americans to end the dispute over the Straits. It ain't "crap" just because you wish it to be.

      Nasser wanted… actually I have no idea what Nasser wanted to do

      I rest my case. Even you admit your mind-reading is just a crock of shit. You want to blame someone other than Israel so Nasser is your chosen target and "he had it coming" no matter that the facts don't support you.

    • Did you notice this little hidden hasbara gem in hophmi's reply, talknic?

      ...they were created in strategic areas where fighting had been heavy to protect against further incursions

      Further??! The only incursions made during the 1967 war were made by Israel. Jewish settlements wouldn't stop further Israeli incursions. They would only encourage them, which is why they were created in the first place.

    • To further clarify , for those who didn't read the linked article, here is the exact wording of the June 19th Israeli cabinet resolution:

      Cabinet resolution 563 of June 19,1967, obtained under the Freedom of Information Law from Israel Cabinet Secretariat, Jerusalem (ICS):

      The decisions of the Ministerial Committee appointed as per Cabinet Resolution No.561 of 11 of Sivan 727(19.6.67) – approved by the Cabinet in Resolution No. 563 of the aforementioned date.

      1. Israel’s Position Regarding the Territories Held by the IDF [Israel Defence Forces]


      A. Egypt:
      Israel proposes to sign a peace treaty with Egypt based on the international border and the security needs of Israel. According to the international border, the Gaza Strip is located within the territory of the State of Israel.

      The peace treaty will require:

      (1) Guaranteed freedom of navigation in the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Solomon [Aqaba];

      (2) Guaranteed freedom of navigation in the Suez Canal:

      (3) Guaranteed freedom of flight over the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Solomon[Aqaba];

      (4) Demilitarization of the Sinai Peninsula.

      Until a peace treaty with Egypt is signed, Israel will continue to keep the territories it currently holds.

      Israel proposes to sign a peace treaty with Syria based on the international border and the security needs of Israel.

      The peace treaty will require:

      (1) Demilitarization of the Syrian Plateau [Golan Heights] now held by IDF troops;

      (2) An absolute guarantee of non-interference with the flow of water from the sources of the River Jordan to Israel.

      Until a peace treaty with Syria is signed, Israel will continue to keep the territories it currently holds.

      C. To defer the discussion of the position regarding Jordan.

      D. Refugees:

      (1) Establishing peace in the Middle East with the concomitant regional cooperation will open opportunities for an international and regional settlement of the refugee problem;

      (2) To defer the discussion of ways to settle the refugee problem.

      That's it folks. Not very generous at all. And its clause about "the security needs of Israel" was obviously meant as a loophole that would allow Israel to keep portions of the SInai and Golan Heights. And of course, it insisted that both become demilitarized if they were to be returned to their respective countries. Its also clear from the resolution that Israel had no intention of relinquishing either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank.

      And here is the exact wording of the Khartoum Resolution, which was NOT as response to the Israeli Cabinet Resolution, which was never conveyed to the Arab Summit, or to either Egypt or Syria. It was a response to the outcome of the 6 Day War and its aftermath, which resulted in the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, as well as hundreds of Syrians and Egyptians from Golan and the Sinai. Its aftermath also included the establishment of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan (and later in the Sinai), the physical destruction of several villages in the West Bank, and the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian refugees from the war who were met with "shoot to kill" orders when they tried to return to their homes in the West Bank.

      Khartoum Resolution:

      1. The conference has affirmed the unity of Arab ranks, the unity of joint action and the need for coordination and for the elimination of all differences. The Kings, Presidents and representatives of the other Arab Heads of State at the conference have affirmed their countries' stand by and implementation of the Arab Solidarity Charter which was signed at the third Arab summit conference in Casablanca.

      2. The conference has agreed on the need to consolidate all efforts to eliminate the effects of the aggression on the basis that the occupied lands are Arab lands and that the burden of regaining these lands falls on all the Arab States.

      3. The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.

      4. The conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil recommended that suspension of oil pumping be used as a weapon in the battle. However, after thoroughly studying the matter, the summit conference has come to the conclusion that the oil pumping can itself be used as a positive weapon, since oil is an Arab resource which can be used to strengthen the economy of the Arab States directly affected by the aggression, so that these States will be able to stand firm in the battle. The conference has, therefore, decided to resume the pumping of oil, since oil is a positive Arab resource that can be used in the service of Arab goals. It can contribute to the efforts to enable those Arab States which were exposed to the aggression and thereby lost economic resources to stand firm and eliminate the effects of the aggression. The oil-producing States have, in fact, participated in the efforts to enable the States affected by the aggression to stand firm in the face of any economic pressure.

      5. The participants in the conference have approved the plan proposed by Kuwait to set up an Arab Economic and Social Development Fund on the basis of the recommendation of the Baghdad conference of Arab Ministers of Finance, Economy and Oil.

      6. The participants have agreed on the need to adopt the necessary measures to strengthen military preparation to face all eventualities.

      7. The conference has decided to expedite the elimination of foreign bases in the Arab States.


      A quote from the Wikipedia entry on the resolution:

      "Avi Shlaim has argued that Arab spokesmen interpreted the Khartoum declarations to mean "no formal peace treaty, but not a rejection of peace; no direct negotiations, but not a refusal to talk through third parties; and no de jure recognition of Israel, but acceptance of its existence as a state" (emphasis in original). Shlaim states that the conference marked a turning point in Arab-Israeli relations, noting that Nasser urged Hussein to seek a "comprehensive settlement" with Israel. Shlaim acknowledges that none of this was known in Israel at the time, whose leaders took the "three no's" at face value.[11]

      In the event, indirect negotiations between Israel, Jordan and Egypt eventually opened through the auspices of the Jarring Mission (1967-1973), and secret direct talks also took place between Israel and Jordan, but neither avenue succeeded in achieving a meaningful settlement, setting the stage for a new round of conflict."

      The secret talks between Jordan and Israel began in July 1967. The indirect talks through the Jarring Mission began in November of 1967, so Shlaim's interpretation of the resolution seems to be the correct one.

    • For yonah:

      From Avi Shlaim's "The Iron Wall":

      The cabinet decision of 19 June remained a closely guarded secret in Israel. Even the chief of staff was not told about it. Rabin only learned about the proposal from his American colleagues after he had taken off his uniform and become ambassador to Washington. Moreover, the ministers who made the decision soon had second thoughts... Both in private and in public, ministers began to talk about the necessity for retaining some of the land, especially in the Golan Heights. Military leaders led by General Elazar made the case on security grounds for keeping a substantial part of the Golan Heights. The views of the military influenced the politicians. As early as mid-July the politicians started approving plans for the building of Jewish settlements on the Golan Heights. In doing so, they reversed their own policy and embarked on the road to creeping annexation. The decision of 19 June became a dead letter even before its formal cancellation in October."

      page 254

      Kibbutz Golan, later Merom Golan, was founded in the Golan Heights on July 14, 1967, less than 6 weeks after the end of the 6 Day War, and more than 7 weeks BEFORE the Arab Summit's Khartoum Resolution on September 2, 1967.

      link to

    • Yep, Mooser, whenever I think of Menachem Begin, I immediately think of the Irgun's "noble self-defense" at Deir Yassin.

      ( And of course, also at the King David Hotel, and various and sundry Arab fruit stands and cafes and other public places which were the recipients of Begin's "noble self-defense", i.e. terrorist bombs, in the 1930's and 40's.)

    • So, yonah ,are you blind to the violent Israeli attack on Jordanian sovereignty at Es Samu in October of 1966, or the Israeli provocation in the Syrian DMZ that culminated in the IAF violating Syrian airspace and shooting down a Syrian MiG over Damascus?Are you blind to the fact that Nasser only asked the UNEF forces to leave from the Sharm al Sheikh area which had no border with Israel. Do you know thatU Thant decided to remove all of them from Egypt entirely and at the same time offered to re-position them the Israeli side of the border but Israel refused, as they had refused since 1956 to allow UNEF on its soil?

      Are you blind to the fact that the self-defense pact between Egypt, Syria, and Jordan was a direct result of Israel's earlier attacks against both Jordan and Syria?

      Are you aware that Egypt considered the Straits part of its own territory, that this was accepted at the time in international law, and thus was entirely within its rights as a sovereign nation? Do you know that Egypt offered to have its rights in this case adjudicated in international courts, but Israel refused?

      Or do all the "causes" you can see point toward any other nation but Israel, the one that attacked and committed war crimes, murder and ethnic cleansing. Are you selectively blind?

      Nasser was playing chicken, and he got what he asked for.

      Nasser wasn't asking for war. And your statement is pretty hateful considering how many people lost their lives and their freedom because of Israel's decision to go to war and conquer more territory. You seem to ooze hatred at everyone these days. Is that easier for you than admitting that your precious Jewish State has been a nightmare for everyone?

    • Israel offered to return the land in exchange for peace almost immediately, and was met with the Arab League’s three no’s at Khartoum: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.

      Your statement is just another bit of hasbara, not a true rendering of history.

      From Avi Raz, former Israeli journalist, now history professor at Oxford University:

      "The Generous Peace Offer that was Never Offered: The Israeli Cabinet Resolution of June 19, 1967

      Historically, and to a considerable extent currently, Israel’s official line has been that despite persistent attempts to make peace with its Arab neighbors there was no one to talk to on the other side. In public and academic discourse, the cabinet resolution of June 19, 1967, which was adopted a bare nine days after the guns of the Six Day War had fallen silent, has frequently been put forward as proof of Israel’s desiref or reconciliation: its government, the argument goes, offered Egypt and Syria the territories they had lost in the war in return for contractual peace,but the magnanimous initiative met with an immediate rebuff from the belligerent Arabs. The story of the rejected “generous peace offer” makes a very strong case for a peace-seeking Israel and for Arab animosity toward the Jewish state. But an investigation into the matter reveals that the “generous peace offer” was never offered, and that the Israeli cabinet passed the June 19 resolution mainly as a diplomatic maneuver. Its principal objective was to win the United States’ support against an uncompromising Soviet drive for a United Nations resolution demanding Israel immediately and unconditionally withdraw from the territories occupied in the war.

      The purpose of this essay is twofold. One is to show that the story of the“generous peace offer” of June 19, 1967 is unfounded. The second is to examine how the myth of the “generous peace offer” came into being. The article first explores the aim of the Israeli cabinet resolution; then it inquires whether Israel asked the Americans to transmit the resolution to Egypt and Syria; and finally it investigates whether the resolution reached Cairo and Damascus and whether it was rejected by them. In tracing the creation of the myth, it will emerge that the key figure was Abba Eban, Israel’s foreign minister between
      1966 and 1974. His words at the time, as recorded in recently declassified official papers, are at odds with his retrospective versions that gave birth to the myth of the “generous peace offer.” But as the author of the tale Eban had many followers, particularly among scholars. By repeating and recycling the story unchallenged, these writers have turned it into accepted wisdom."

      Much more fascinating reading at link:

      link to

      And a big hat tip to Zofia for posting this link in an earlier thread.

      It should also be noted that Israel's "offer", never actually transmitted to either Egypt or Syria, was only to return the Egyptian Sinai and the Syrian Golan Heights. There was never an Israeli offer to return either the West Bank or Gaza Strip, and they were specifically excluded in the offer that the Israelis made to the US.

      An apt analogy of this "generosity" would be if I had forced your neighbor out of his house and you continued to protest and refused to make peace with my theft. Then I attack you and take over your garage and parts of your house. Then I "generously" offer to return the parts of your house I have taken, if you will accept the fact that your garage is now mine as is your neighbor's house. Real generous, eh? What lover of piece wouldn't accept such a felonious offer?

  • Shit dead rabbis say about gentiles
    • Another case of hophmi attempting to kill the messenger.
      The quote, even if indeed taken out of the original context, was not Phil's but the ad on the Israeli government subsidized Egged bus. So, hophmi, you should probably amend your statement to say that the Israeli Egged bus company "joins a long line of mostly neo-Nazis...".

      I hope, for your sake, that no one uses this particular post as justification for violent attacks on Jews.

      Phil's reporting on a true quote plastered on an Israeli bus. He didn't plaster it there. He's only reporting on the truth. I hope that no one uses that quote as a justification for violent attacks on Jews. I likewise hope that no one uses that quote as a justification for violent attacks on non-Jews, something that is much more liable to happen in Israel, where this dreck is quoted favorably, not that you give a rat's ass about that kind of violence.

    • Taken literally, wouldn’t the English translation mean that non-Jews are always contented with their lot in life and only wish to make Jewish people happy?To me that is not so much insulting as ridiculous in an odd sort of way...

      Its a two-fer. Ridiculous AND insulting. If you can't fathom the insulting part, imagine a white slaveholder saying the same thing about blacks. "They don't want anything. They wait to be told what the white person wants." I'm quite sure that many a white slaveholder thought that and some even said it. And it was highly bigoted and insulting.

  • Finkelstein on Joan Peters's legacy (and Dershowitz's legal troubles)
    • Oops. So sorry, ADAM. Oh well, live by the nit, die by the nit. (But your "nitpick" was probably more important than mine, David. Thanks.)

    • Great report, Alex. Giving way to my inner Roha, let me point out three proof-reading nit-picks: 1) Its Maxime RoDinson, not RoBinson, 2) "break-taking" should be "breath-taking" , and
      3) you left out the word "did" in "No what Dershowitz is different".

      Also, I agree with David Samel that the 80% number sounds too high. The myth is too comforting and appeals to feelings of moral and intellectual superiority, and thus is still embraced by many despite the illegitimacy of it.

  • Former Obama aide's thinktank calls for 1/4 of French Jews to move to Israel
    • Tree, one of the issues here is not Jews in general but Jews from Hitler’s Germany and the 1938 FDR conference that united 32 nations at Evian to discuss swapping Jews for the cash that Hitler wanted.

      Walid, most of my comment above was addressing Jews from Nazi Germany, not Jews in general. As I mentioned, during the 1930's German Jews were the only ones believed to be threatened by Nazi Germany. No one seriously predicted at that time that Germany would control most of Europe in the then near future.

      German Jews (as well as Jews in general) were NOT barred from entering the US in the 1940s, as Pablemont asserted. This is the falsity, repeated by many well-meaning people, that I was seeking to correct.

      And the Evian Conference was not about swapping refugees for cash to Hitler. it was about finding ways for the international community to take in more German Jewish refugees. While the formal conference itself was a failure, it was immediately after the conference that FDR managed to increase the number of German Jewish refugees allowed into the US. Prior to that time the number of immigrants from Germany allowed in was less than the US yearly German quota of 25,000 (out of total US immigration quota of only 150,000), due to the strict enforcement of Hoover era restrictions on the immigration of any individual who presented a risk of becoming a public charge ( i.e., needing support from US or state coffers during the Depression).

      After the Conference in July 1938, and even more so after Kristallnacht in November of that year, the US greatly eased restrictions on refugees, mostly German Jews, so much so that nearly twice the number of German Jews were allowed into the US in fiscal 1939 as the 1924 enacted German quota allowed, and over half of the total immigrants of all varieties and countries allowed into the US were Jews. Other countries also loosened their restrictions on immigrants in the late 1930's in order to help German Jewish refugees during that time, particularly in South America, with US encouragement.

      Again, the US could have done more, but it did not do "nothing" and it did not refuse to allow Jewish refugees into the US during this time, despite what "common knowledge" assumes. And as Keith reminded us, the US did literally nothing to provide refuge for Ukrainians suffering the Holodomor , the Poles suffering under the Soviet Great Terror or Manchurians suffering under the cruel reign of the Japanese during this exact same decade.

    • Or ever-friendly USA — is the USA accepting Jews now (as we didn’t in 1940s)?

      I really wish that this misinformation would stop being spread around.
      The US never barred foreign Jews from entering the country on the basis of their religion.

      It did erect quotas in the 1920's which severely limited immigration from Southern and Eastern European countries, enacted during a post WWI era of WASP nativism and anti-communist hysteria. It was just as much of a blow to Catholic immigrants as it was to Jewish ones in the 1920's. German immigration was limited as well, but not as much as Southern and Eastern European immigration. Asian immigrants were barred completely and earlier Chinese immigrants to the US were barred from ever obtaining US citizenship. Its totally Judeocentric to describe the US immigration policy at the time as particularly biased against Jews. It wasn't.

      And as I have mentioned before, despite the quotas and restrictions, here and elsewhere during the Great Depression, between 1933 and 1940 432,000 German Jews, nearly two thirds of the Jews in Greater Germany (Germany and Austria with over 700,000 Jews) were able to immigrate to other countries in Europe, North and South America, Africa and Asia. It should be noted that up until late 1939, the only Jews who were believed to be in danger were the ones in Nazi Germany. Few if any thought that Nazi Germany would soon control much of Europe outside of its own borders.

      The US alone took in at least 126,000 German Jews during this time. Some 90,000 were admitted from 1934-1939, with nearly half of those coming in 1939 (with numbers in excess of the US quota for German immigrants) and with an additional 36,000 in 1940. In fiscal year 1939, Jewish immigration to the US totaled 44,000 out of a total of ALL US immigrants from any country or religion, of 83,000. In other words, more than 1 out of every two immigrants to the US in 1939 were Jewish. In fiscal year 1940, US allowed in a sum total of 71,000 immigrants, and 36,000 of them were Jews.

      Data found here:

      link to

      link to

      Please, this idea that the US didn't allow in Jews is false. The US certainly could have done more, but it didn't do "nothing", and it did more for Jewish refugees prior to and during WWII than it did for any other of the millions of refugees of the time. Jews were not the only ones suffering during this time.

  • Tell your congressperson: Don't attend Netanyahu's speech
    • I also liked “who do you love more charlie lindberg or gore vidal?” I don’t know what it means, but it sounds funny, and that is the important thing.

      Keith, it was an attempted dig at me. Sometime in the past I defended Lindbergh against the ludicrous accusation that had he become President of the US he would have rounded up American Jews and put them in camps like the Nazis did in Europe. I also defended Gore Vidal against an accusation that he was an anti-semite because he wrote an opinion piece bashing Marty Peretz.

      In Yonah's neo-Manichean mind, one cannot defend someone against a spurious allegation unless you love them. Thus, in another classic case of yonah projecting his own feelings onto others, he's accused me numerous times of loving both Lindbergh and Vidal. In the final analysis its his way of calling me an anti-semite without out-and-out saying it.

      So now he admits he hates Iran's nuclear bomb, although it doesn't even exist. Even so much so as to agree with Netanyahu urging more crippling sanctions on Iran and in effect urging on another war which will, in the end, hurt his "flesh and blood' in Israel and here in the US much more than the non-existent Iranian bomb, or even one that actually existed, as such a bomb would probably have a serious deterrent effect on Israeli war-mongering. Of course that's not to mention the atrocity it would unleash on Iran, but yonah doesn't care about that because he has no flesh and blood there. I'm sure I will now be guilty in his mind of "loving" Khamenei and Rouhani, and probably even Ahmedinejad, even though he is no longer President.

    • I moved this comment to down below where it belongs.

    • Your mind reading sucks as usual. I mentioned revenge and lascivious because they were previous examples of your improper usage of words. YOU used those words, not Salaita or Deger. I guess you couldn't stop yourself from beating the same dead horse, as if your comments on Salaita make more sense if you repeat them ad infinitum. They don't.

      I see up above that you admitted, indirectly of course, that you meant "over the top" and not "cheap" in your latest foray into mean-spirited critiques. Your editorial skills are atrocious, yonah, which is why your comments about Phil get panned here. Glass house, eh?

      And you totally bypassed the chance to comment on the topic at hand, Netanyahu's planned speech urging more crippling sanctions against Iran. Instead you posit a little menage a trois between me and Lindbergh and Vidal. I love neither of them any more than I love you, yonah. This jealousy of yours is unbecoming, especially since they are both dead.

    • i believe that there is a real journalist on staff- James North. Let him comment on the word atrocity. He won’t. He knows it’s over the top.

      Well, there's a great little piece of nut-job agitprop right there. Backward insult at Phil by mentioning the "real Journalist" North. Then insist, with those mad mind reading skills of yours, that North "knows it's over the top". (Thanks for admitting, without admitting openly, that you used the word "cheap" when you really meant "over the top", yonah .) You know North's mind now, but of course you also know that North will never "admit" that he agrees with you, thus you get to make a bogus claim that can never be disproved. Bravo on the cheap shots, yonah! True to form, as always.

      in fact usage of the word “atrocious” and “atrocity” is quite different.

      No .... its not, except that atrocious is the adjective and atrocity is a noun. Otherwise, atrocity is defined as "the state or quality of being atrocious."

      If a teacher would say, your handwriting is atrocious, this is acceptable. if a teacher says, your handwriting is an atrocity, he is using rhetoric.

      Your statement is itself a piece of rhetoric, by which I mean:

      language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable

      It is certainly NOT rhetoric in the other meaning of the word, i.e.:

      the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people

      So far you've shown you aren't up to the task you have assigned yourself. Why not comment on the gist of the piece rather than trying to isolate words to criticize when you clearly don't understand their proper usage?

    • ...we might as well take lessons on appeal from ebenezer scrooge!

      LOL. You win the Best Analogy of the Day Award, annie!

    • Here[s the rub, yonah. You've already proven that you don't know the difference between the words "blowback" and "revenge", nor the difference between "lascivious" and "blood-thirsty". So for Phil to get editing critiques from you is rather like a strong swimmer getting pointers from someone who's barely mastered the dog paddle. And we all know that you think it your self-appointed job to criticize everything that Phil writes, despite your limitations and your inability to see things from other peoples' points of view (i.e., your faulty mind-reading). So annie's criticism is valid, whether or not you acknowledge it.

      And now you've done it again. I' m willing to bet that in Phil's writing above your objection was not because you thought the use of the word "atrocity" was "cheap" but rather because you thought it was an exaggeration or overstatement of the vileness of Netanyahu speaking to Congress. In other words, you thought the word was way too strong a description, rather than being too "cheap".

      So, given my understanding of what you were really trying to say, here's my addition to the discussion: If you take the one sentence out of its context and look at it alone, yes, it might appear that using the word "atrocity" to describe Netanyahu speaking to Congress is to hyperbolize the danger of the act. But it's clear from the context that Phil sees the danger of the speech being in the possibility of Netanyahu's action giving rise to war with Iran, rather than reaching a negotiated agreement. In that context-- war with Iran, which would surely result in a monumental atrocity-- Phil's use of the word "atrocity" seems entirely reasonable and apt in this case.

  • 'NYT' and Matthews warn that Netanyahu speech to Congress could lead US to war
    • The price, the White House solemnly announced today, would be one nickel and one dime, payable when Mr. Netanyahu, affectionately known as “Bibi” sees fit to do so.

      Upon announcement of the fine, Congress immediately passed legislation increasing aid to Israel by $1 billion to help defray the cost of the fine.

  • How a culture remembers its crimes is important: A review of 'American Sniper'
    • I’m sure PTSD is real, but, for the life of me, I can’t help but object when US GI PTSD is the main focus, as if it were the worst consequence of the Iraq war, and not the millions of dead, wounded, orphaned, homeless, imprisoned, and oppressed Iraqis.

      Exactly. Sad to say but for too many Americans some people's lives (i.e. American soldiers) are considered so much more important than others (Iraqis, Afghanis, Vietnamese, etc.)

      And then to compound the moral vacuity, we justify killing those others by celebrating their murders as something heroic, ala "American Sniper". Every last one of those killed must have been a "bad person" and therefore deserving of death.

      Or else their death was the fault of others of their kind, even though it was our soldiers' actions that were the proximate cause of their deaths. Much like jons and others who won't accept that the IDF was and is responsible for thousands of Palestinians' deaths. It must be the fault of Hamas, or Fatah, or anyone else but the army that actually killed them.

  • Fifth child dies from exposure to freezing temperatures in war-torn Gaza
  • Gaza war blowback? Palestinian stabs 13 on Tel Aviv bus.
  • #JeSuisUnJuifBritannique
    • I agree totally.

    • Roha, I think you misunderstood my point, probably because of poor wording on my part. My point was that all 13 statements that the respondents are asked to agree or disagree with are of a negative variety, assuming a level of anti-semitism that does not match reality, rather than the statements being neutral in tone, or being a mix of positive and negative statements. Its a push poll of sorts, used for crass political purposes to gin up fear rather than a real research poll.

    • Thanks for the link, jwp.

      The Guardian link you posted also links to an evaluation of the polls from the (British) Institute for Jewish Policy Research, which noted:

      unfortunately, the organisation’s survey about antisemitism is littered with flaws, and in the context of a clear need for accurate data on this topic, its work may even be rather irresponsible.

      link to

      My take on the survey is that both parts have their flaws, but the survey of British Jewish attitudes is certainly the more flagrantly biased. Besides the unreliability of it due to its self-selected nature, I'd call it an obvious push poll. It consists of a series of 13 statements, to which the respondent is asked to either "strongly agree,
      agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree or strongly disagree">

      Here are the 13 statements:

      1. I am concerned that Jews may not have a long-term future in Britain.
      2. I am concerned that Jews may not have a long-term future in Europe.
      3. My family and I are threatened by Islamic extremism in Britain.
      4. Boycotts of businesses selling Israeli products constitute intimidation.
      5. Media bias against Israel fuels persecution of Jews in Britain.
      6. I have witnessed antisemitism that was disguised as a political comment about Israel.
      7. I try not to show visible signs of my Judaism when I go out, like a Magen David or a kippah.
      8. I often avoid mentioning that I'm Jewish when I'm with new people.
      9. In the past two years I have witnessed or experienced more antisemitism than in previous years.
      10. In the past two years I have considered leaving Britain due to antisemitism.
      11. The authorities let too much antisemitism go unpunished.
      12. The Jewish community has to protect itself because the state doesn't protect it enough.
      13. The recent rise in antisemitism in Britain has some echoes of the 1930s.

      All of the statements support the idea that there is a great deal of anti-semitism in Great Britain. Not one of them is a positive or neutral statement . And three of them conflate criticism or boycott of Israel with anti-semitism. And the 1930's statement is just off the wall, even if its only talking about 1930's in Great Britain, of which any British Jew under the age of 90 would have no memory. Add the stacking of the deck with these statements to the self-selected responses and the survey is truly and utterly useless, except as a campaign booster for the CAA, mostly likely its primary intent.

      The YouGov questions are not much more helpful in that all they do is measure people's stereotypes about Jews, which are not the same as anti-semitism. Without looking into both positive and negative stereotypes its hard to say how much anti-semitism there is.

      Believing that "Jews have too much power in the media" does not necessarily imply that all Jews have this power. Also, even if one stereotypes ALL Jews as having "too much power in the media", that does not of itself indicate anti-semitism, which I would define as "hatred of Jews merely because they are Jews". Frankly I think that old white men have too much power in the media as well, but this does not mean that I hate old white men or wish them ill (I have several old white men as friends and relatives whom I love dearly). It just means that I think our media should be more diverse and representative of society as a whole. Without follow up questions, an agreement with the statement can not logically be used as a indicator of anti-semitism.

    • The July 13, 2014 incident was discussed here at length and it was concluded that it had been the French arm of the JDL that had started the rumble with the Palestine marchers in Paris, but the ADL above make it appear that the pro-Palestinian marchers had attacked the synagogues for no reason.

      Not only did video show that the JDL thugs attacked the marchers first, but the Rabbi of the Paris Synagogue flatly denied that the synagogue itself was attacked.

      link to

    • Many will simply answer “I am that family member”

      But yet the question remains. Only 10% of non-Jews in Britain answered that they would be unhappy. Are the numbers for Jews who would be unhappy with a relative marrying a non-Jew similarly 10% or so? We certainly know that there are some Jews who believe wholeheartedly in endogamy and Phil himself has gotten flak here from Jews about his marriage to a Quaker. So is the Jewish sentiment the same among the 10% or whatever the number may be, or is being unhappy if your non-Jewish relative marries a Jew somehow worse than being unhappy if your Jewish relative marries a non-Jew? And if so, why?

      And why don't any of these surveys ask the same question of Jews that they ask of non-Jews. It might be a bit more enlightening if they did.

  • There is no pride for Jews in the state of Israel
    • All those other people, Africans, Mexicans, Latin Americans, Asians, being given every advantage, culturally and economically cossetted and coddled, and given the jobs, comfort acceptance and security that Jews should have had!

      Hey, don't forget women too!

      I'd say that all of those people would have considered quotas that merely limited their numbers in colleges and jobs to their demographic percentage of the population to have been a great improvement over their restricted condition during the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, etc.. Its hard to elicit much sympathy about Jewish quotas in comparison to the much harsher discrimination that other minorities (and women) faced in the job market.

      And guess what? All those other minorities had another country that they could pretend was their "homeland". Didn't help them a lick, and at certain times being perceived by the population at large as having such a "homeland" just got them in trouble. Witness German-Americans during WWI and II and Japanese-Americans during WWII.

  • The legacy of Joan Peters and 'From Time Immemorial'
    • btw, Porath identifies politically as a centrist. Why do you call him a leftist?

      David, haven't you heard? Anyone who isn't to the right of Netanyahu is now a "leftist" in Israel. Bibi's the new center.

      BTW, this article is another great contribution from you, as usual. I will disagree somewhat with one of your statements, though.

      Peters’s thesis is not only dead wrong, it does not serve her intended purpose as a mathematical QED that justifies the status quo.

      I disagree that it was intended purely as a mathematical QED. Its greatest strength was in its appeal to racism and a sense of superiority. Yes, it has no moral argument to make for anyone with a sense of justice and equality, but by attributing an influx of Arabs to the Zionist Jews, who "made the desert bloom", yada, yada it sought to invoke the sense that Jews were (of course) more deserving of the land because they were smarter and more industrious, unlike the savage uncultured Arabs. It clicked in to a sense of Jewish superiority, and also a sense of victimhood, because, well, what ingrates the Arabs were for not appreciating what the Jews were doing for them. Of course it only works on those who are carrying bigotted beliefs but there are sorely too many of those around of all stripes and flavors.

      Its the same sense of intellectual, cultural, and/or moral superiority that lets too many Americans justify US actions that kill people in foreign countries for the sake of "freedom". And those foreigners are just so damned ungrateful for all our "help" and interest in their well-being, so they really deserve to be killed. Its a perverse argument but it seems to carry a lot of weight these days, much to humanity's detriment.

  • Why do Muslims object to depictions of their prophet?
    • ...who draws offensive, racialized cartoons depicting Jewish college students as white

      Oh the humanity! How terribly offensive to depict white Jewish students as white! How insulting and insensitive.

    • Sabbath-observant Jews do not walk into Gentile homes on the Sabbath and scream at them about turning on lights and watching TV. -

      There are "modesty patrols" in haredi neighborhoods in Israel that have attacked women in public whom they consider to be dressed inappropriately. Those attacks have included spitting, pelting with stones, punching, kicking and even throwing acid on the innocent women. They've also attacked women who seek the right to pray at the Western Wall.

      link to

      link to

      And in 2008, Jewish youths surrounded the car of a Palestinian Israeli who was visiting his relatives in a predominantly Jewish section of Acre and threatened him and attacked his car for the offense of driving during the Yom Kippur holiday. The man and his son were lucky to survive, but ethnic rioting ensued and several Arab homes were destroyed by fire during the riots.

      The original victim of the mob violence, Tawfiq Jamal, was arrested for "harming religious sensitivities", after being forced to apologize before a Knesset committee for exercising his civil right.

      link to

      And numerous Jewish attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank, including fatal ones, have a religious nature to them. Baruch Goldstein was a religious extremist who killed 29 praying Muslims in the Ibrahimi Mosque during the Jewish holiday of Purim. Extremist religious settlers have perpetrated similar violent attacks on Palestinians, their property and their animals, all in the name of their brand of Judaism.

      So, yes, we have no record of Sabbath-observing Jews coming into a gentile's home and yelling at them for turning the lights on, but we do have ample records of Jewish religious extremists acting quite violently, similarly to the Islamic extremists who murdered people in France.

  • Netanyahu crashes Paris unity march, French gov't fumes
    • Saying sell out Israel to preserve the good will towards the diaspora religion of Judaism is not a sensible position. That’s like telling Christians to sell out Christ to preserve Easter.

      Well, there you have it. And you heard it first from JeffB. Judaism is dead and Israel worship has replaced it. God has left the building. All hail the golden calf!

  • 'With God’s help, the journalists at Haaretz will be murdered just like in France': Death threats follow publication of cartoon in Israeli newspaper
    • For anyone wanting to read more on the Leo Frank case, I'd highly recommend Scott Aaron's site here:

      link to

      My thoughts after reading more about the case is that Frank was most probably guilty, and was lynched because, in the paternalistic South of the early nineteen hundreds, it was an accepted belief by many that a man who molested and killed a (white) child, even if he was a white man, deserved to die. Frank's sentence was commuted to life by the the outgoing governor of Georgia, and it was widely feared that Frank would "get away with it". Thus the brutal lynching was not an unexpected possibility, and anti-semitism was not a necessary factor to explain it.

  • Why I am not Charlie
  • A tale of two tests
    • Yup, we get it, hop. Dead Palestinians are not a tragedy. You think its moral to equate 500 children with "terrorists who perpetrate rocket attacks". But of course only if they are Palestinians.

      If they are Jewish Israeli children then you would never equate them with IDF soldiers who killed over 500 times the number of civilians as were killed by Palestinian rocket attacks during the 2014 Gaza invasion. In your warped brain all Palestinians are responsible for rocket attacks, but no Israeli Jews bear any responsibility for the thousands of innocent Palestinians that Israel kills.

      Some numbers are more equal than others, and Hophmi doesn't want us to ever forget it.

  • Don't let's go to the war of civilizations again
    • So your first reaction is a meaningless cheap shot with no substance.

      And what's even more pathetic is that he's been waiting impatiently for three days to be able to level that cheap shot, after making this one on the 8th:

      phil has to wait until omar barghouti tells him what to write. has to get it lined up with the party line first.

      link to

      Yonah's honing his part as the stereotypical grumpy old man, yelling at Phil (and pretty much everyone else who disagrees with him) to get off his lawn.

  • Jo Roberts on Jewish trauma, the Nakba, and the olive tree
    • Gosh, “light2014″ they let them back into their own country to work? Now, that’s magnanimous.

      But not "magnanimous" enough to let them stay over night. Israel has its own "sundown laws", preventing West Bank Palestinians from staying overnight in Israel. And of course, West Bank Palestinians were not allowed to create their own industries in the West Bank so that their workers could find jobs locally. The West Bank under Israeli occupation is both a captive market for Israeli goods and a captive source for cheap labor in Israel.

      The closing down of the Israeli market for Palestinian workers, beginning in 1991, preceded by a decade the "wave of suicide bombings" in the later part of the Second Intifada, and in fact it also preceded Oslo, but continued during the early Oslo years as well.

    • Left out of that description of the Israeli olive oil industry is the fact that over 95 percent of Israeli's olive orchards in the 1950's had been Palestinian owned in 1948, prior to the Nakba and the Israeli confiscation of Palestinian property. That accounts for the fact that over 70 percent of the olive trees in Israel today are older than 50 years of age.

      In fact, according to the British Survey of Palestine, written in 1945, 600.000 dunams were in olive production in Palestine, with all but 1% of them Palestinian Arab owned. Ten dunams equals one hectare. Comparing 60.000 hectares in production in 1945 with the 16,500 hectares in production today with trees greater than 50 years old, its glaringly apparent that
      the number of older olive trees in production in Israel decreased by over 70 percent, despite the fact that olive trees do not reach full productivity until they are at least 35 years of age.

      This again supports the historical fact that Israel destroyed many Palestinian olive groves over the years and continues to do so today in the West Bank.

  • Israeli settlers attack US consulate convoy in the West Bank (Updated)
    • To be entirely accurate, the JPost didn't report that the security staff drew their weapons. They reported that an anonymous settler from Adei Adi claimed to have heard from other settlers that two of the US security detail drew their weapons, but the same anonymous "resident" refused to answer if the settlers threw rocks, and admitted that he was not a witness to the incident. I think we can take Mr. Anonymous' words with a ginormous grain of salt.

  • Dershowitz named in lawsuit alleging abuse of underage sex slave
    • Mr. Cassell has so far refused to discuss what evidence he found to back the allegations or what actions he took to verify them.

      Which is exactly the opposite of "dragging someone through the mud". Cassell is doing all his commenting on this case through the court system. His client's allegation was made in a court document. He is not discussing the case in public. First an allegation of wrongdoing is made through the court, then the court hears evidence from both sides and renders a decision. Cassell and Edwards are following the law.

      Dershowitz is the one trying to drag this out into a public dispute by publicly defaming the Jane Doe's and their lawyers.

    • I guess I am not normal but this is truly disturbing if true and I do not believe it based on the “normal males” that I know.

      According to Ray Blanchard, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, it isn't true, and his reasoning makes sense to me.

      Blanchard said that there is a "frantic argument" over the normalisation of hebephilia, with some turning to research that shows normal men – teleiophiles – in laboratory conditions, will become very slightly sexually aroused when shown naked images of children in comparison to pictures of rocks and trees.

      link to

      Kind of a ridiculous lab experiment, but at least they managed to rule out sedimentaphilia and shrubophilia as a normal condition for the majority of men. Whew!

      More from Blanchard:

      One of his biggest critics, Karen Franklin, claimed hebephilia is normal for men because in terms of evolution and reproduction, it is beneficial to be attracted to a girl when she becomes fertile: "She claims hebephilia is adaptive," Blanchard said.

      "There are two responses to that. One is that from what empirical evidence there is suggests that if anything hebephilia is not adaptive (part of evolution). I did a direct study comparing paedophiles, hebephiles and teleiophiles and found hebephiles had fewer biological offspring than teleiophiles who are attracted to physically mature partners.

      "There is no objective evidence that hebephilia is adaptive, which is to say it resulted in more offspring being left behind by the hebephilic individual compared with the teleiophilic individual."

      Sounds pretty logical. If a man is a hebephiliac then he prefers pubescent girls over all others. There would be no reason for him to develop a relationship with any woman because she would always get older and leave the preferred age group within a matter of years. Within the time it took to gestate and give birth, the hebephile's interest would probably wane, leaving an offspring at greater risk of death, if any offspring were created in the first place.

      And that's not to mention the increased risk to both mother and child when the mother is under age 19.

      Adolescents age 15 through 19 are twice as likely to die during pregnancy or child birth as those over age 20; girls under age 15 are five times more likely to die.

      Infants of adolescents are at increased risk for death. In fact, the infants of adolescent mothers are more likely to die before their first birthday than are the infants of older mothers.

    • annie,

      he helped him get off

      Just returning Epstein's favor, no doubt.

      Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, say no more, know what I mean ?

    • Yet you keep making sure you keep coming here and adding your two cents worth, despite finding us crazy eh?

      As Mooser would say, hophmi always likes to complain that the food is terrible and the portions are so small. What would he fill his day with if he couldn't accuse everyone here of anti-semitism? He'd go completely and hopelessly verklempt.

    • Of course, there is no reason to believe he is entirely innocent anyway. He is not entitled to the presumption of innocence among the general population; that is only a right he deserves if he is ever a criminal defendant. Each of us is free to draw our own conclusion and engage in our own speculation.

      Bears repeating. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal axiom that is confined to a court of law.

  • The 'bait & switch' politics of liberal Zionism
    • You’re denying an atrocity, and as usual, blaming the Jews for the sins of the Arabs.

      Nobody's blaming "the Jews". They are blaming Israeli leaders. Israeli leaders are not the same as "the Jews" and its quite anti-semitic of you to imply that they are.

      From Israeli journalist and historian Tom Segev:

      The propaganda methods employed by these[Mossad] agents combined scare tactics with inducements. The warned the Jews that if they did not leave at once they would not be allowed to leave later. They told them that the Mossad's help in arranging their passage, and the aid given by the the Zionist movement would only remain available for a short while, and then no one would be left to help them. Efraim Shilo explained," Its true that we encouraged the Jews to leave. Its true that we urged them. We believed that if they did not leave at once it would be too late. We really believed it. Some of us had been at this work since the Holocaust, so it's obvious why we urged them to leave. And the State needed them." At times they were promised eternal happiness in Israel. "People were simply cheated," stated Jewish Agency Executive Giora Yoseftal.

      To keep them from hearing about the difficulties of settling in Israel, it was proposed by Itzhak Refael that immigrants' letters back to their families should be censored. This was, in fact, done. "They lied to me," wrote an immigrant from South Africa to his mother. "I want to return at once. If I don't leave in a week I shall starve. Please, dear, beg, borrow, steal, pawn whatever you have , only send me the money, or I shall not hold out another week ... This is a Godless country. " The mother never received this letter. It was confiscated and put away by the Mossad, where it remained in its files, bearing the stamp, "Detained by Censorship."


      ...It appears that this Israeli diplomat did not feel that Israel had a human, Jewish Zionist duty to save Jews in distress irrespective of their final destination, but only insofar as the operation promoted the interests of Israel and served its purposes. At the same time, there were some who thought that steps should be taken to worsen the situation of Jews in their various countries. Itzhak Ben-Menahem, nicknamed "Gulliver,"in years to come, a hero of various military operations inside Arab states wrote:

      Mass immigration will pour in only as a result of distress. This is a bitter truth, whether we like it or not. We must consider the possibility of initiating the distresss, of bringing it about in the Diaspora....For Jews have to be made to leave their places of residence. As the poet said, He will not waken unless roused by the whip, he will not rise unless forced by plunder.

      Such ideas were not alien to the people entrusted with the immigration. Itzhak Refael reported: "Conditions in Libya today are not bad. There is a danger that this source of immigration will ome to an end." The Chairman of the Zionist Executive at one of its meeting:"Even Jews who don't wish to leave (their homes) must be forced to come....."

      Segev, 1949:The First Israelis"

      Here is an excerpt from Hanna Braun, who emigrated to Palestine in 1937, and left Israel, disillusioned, in 1958.

      Upon my return to Jerusalem, I was assigned to a regiment commanded by Moshe Dayan (later General Dayan, Chief of Staff, later still, prime minister). He had "liberated" Qalkilya, among other towns,and villages and used to boast freely of his fear-striking tactics: he had ordered his troops to release a veritable deluge of shrieking sirens, careering searchlights, massive explosions of shells, grenades and other ammunition, prior to mounting an attack on these places. By that time, most of the inhabitants had fled in sheer terror. Dayan was rather proud of his successes gained by this method; I believe he used it often. The fact that the Qalkilians, like all Palestinians who had fled or who had simply been away from home during the "Independence War", had lost any right ever to return was left unmentioned. Indeed, for a long time- far too long - I realise with hindsight, it was so much easier to believe the propaganda we were bombarded with: the bulk of the Arab population had fled despite Israel's efforts to reassure them and to persuade them to stay put. Moreover, Jews from a variety of Middle Eastern countries were suffering persecution and peril and had to emigrate, or so we were led to believe, so it was a fair exchange. It was not until the early nineteen fifties, when I encountered some of these "persecuted" immigrants, that a very different picture began to emerge.

      In early 1950 all female teachers and nurses were released from the army and shortly after that I started my first teaching job in At-Tireh, formerly a prosperous Palestinian village which we had often glimpsed from the main Haifa - Tel-Aviv road. I was astonished to see the fine, modern school building erected and then abandoned by the villagers: the general perception by the majority of Israeli Jews was that Arab village dwellers, with very few exceptions, were illiterate.

      The village was now peopled by new immigrants, the bulk of them from Bulgaria and Turkey. Initially, we had no means of communication, but in time it became clear that many of our pupils' parents were less than happy in their new homes. All the Bulgarians had come from Sofia and were used to big-city life; the Turks also felt that the wonderful promises of life in the Jewish homeland had failed to materialise. All of them felt unneeded and even unwelcome; they had been dumped in abandoned villages - if they were lucky - and were usually unemployed or overqualified for the jobs they were doing. The young men, of course, had immediately been drafted into the army.

      My opportunity to meet some of these young soldiers came when I was called up to go on reservist duty: in February 1952 I was sent to Eilat for a month. At that time, it was nothing but a military camp on the shores of the Red Sea. I was assigned to a class of new immigrant soldiers who spoke no Hebrew. The hostility of the 25 or so young men I encountered on the first morning shocked me: they wanted to learn no Hebrew! One young Yemeni who spoke a little Hebrew explained that all of these men from various Arab countries, had left settled and contented lives in their former homes. They had been persuaded by the constant urgings of Zionist propaganda to come to the aid of the new Israeli state, which was in danger being destroyed by the surrounding Arab states, as indeed were their own communities. They had been made to feel needed, perhaps essential; what they had not been told was that their main role was to act as cannon- fodder. On arrival, they were sprayed with DDT at the airport and then crammed into extremely primitive reception camps. Within a week or two they were drafted into the army for a three-year term and sent to their bases, often without knowledge of where their families had been placed or how they would survive economically. They were far from unaware of the very different treatment accorded to European immigrants whose camps were far superior, who received help in finding suitable accommodation and who were quickly given jobs. Vast numbers of Eastern immigrants now wished to return to their countries of origin as soon as possible - the Indians even held a sit-down strike in central Tel Aviv demanding their fares back - very few had this wish granted. One difficulty was the very high level of taxes levied at the time on Israelis travelling abroad. This was compounded by the fact that, at that time, all Jewish immigrants, on arrival in Israel, had been automatically made Israeli citizens without being informed properly, let alone consulted or asked for consent. As a result, most had lost their original citizenship. On a recent visit to Palestine and Israel I met an Iraqi who had been part of this influx; he told me that he still felt bitter about what had happened to him, to his community and to all the other non-European immigrants.

      The Eilat experience opened my eyes to the reality of life for the new, mainly non-European immigrants. Later on I saw some of the purpose built, shoddy villages, literally in the middle of nowhere, in which many of them were dumped; quite often these were later abandoned and the disillusioned inhabitants were housed in - inferior - ex-Palestinian accommodation; the better type of such accommodation, particularly in the cities, had gone to European immigrants. The increasingly blatant inequality of treatment that existed between the Jewish and the remaining Arab citizens of Israel began to worry and to raise doubts and even anger in the minds of progressive Israelis, sadly not many of them. This was explained away by "security" needs: dangers had to be faced up to, especially those posed by the "fedayeen" (armed intruders, many of them farmers desperate to get back to their lands). However, everyone knew that these were few and far between and only affected the southernmost and northernmost borders, not any centres of population. It made no sense not to allow Arab-Israeli citizens to travel freely, not to give them access to health, education and other services in any comparable measure and to restrict their entry into a whole range of studies and professions, not to mention into trade unions.

      link to

  • 'Spiral,' 'threat,' 'polarization,' or 'full-scale popular campaign for Palestinian freedom' -- reactions to the ICC move
    • De nada, ritzl. Happy New Year to you and to all fellow Mondoweissians!

    • Ritzl

      does anyone know how to search for user id’s

      Of course there is always clicking on a commenter's name to get access to all their comments in the archive, but if you don't see any current comment that you can click on, you can search for their archives by entering something like this in the internet address window:

      which will get you to Ellen's comment archive that you can then search by key word.

      A couple of rules apply. Don't use capital letters, even if the user id contains capitals. Every letter should be lower case when searching for the comment archives. If the user name includes spaces between words, replace them with dashes instead, for example type:

      "" to search a blah chick 's archive

      and "" to search Stephen Shenfield's archives

      and "" to search Mooser's archives

      and "" to search for CloakAndDagger's archive
      (He doesn't use any spaces in his user id so don't use dashes).

      for four examples of the rules that apply to letter case and spaces.

      There are a few oddball ones as well. To search for yonah fredman's archive you must enter


      since that was his original user name here

      and Annie Robbins must be searched under

      since that was her first user name here. There may be a few other oddball ones as well that don't come to mind right away.

      Hope that helps.

  • Dissecting 'The Jewish Voices on Campus': a predictable but necessary endeavor
    • Further research on the video. I think I found where it was shot and when. Marina's Bar and Grill is a restaurant within Holiday Inn-Port of Miami located at the same address on Biscayne Blvd. I did a quick search of "Demonstration outside of Holiday Inn" and came up empty. However, I played a hunch and looked up the address of the Israeli Consulate in Miami. It is located at 100 Biscayne Blvd. I then looked up "Israeli consulate miami demonstration" and got this hit:

      posted by a pro-Israeli person.

      If you look in the background (clearest at :17) you can see the "Holiday Inn" sign across the street with 2nd floor awning of red. If you look carefully below at street level you can see the green awnings visible at 2:25 in the Jewish Voices on Campus video.

      The protest occurred on July 20, 2014 near the Israeli Consulate in Miami, in response to Israel's bombardment and invasion of Gaza. It did not occur on campus, and other than shouting insults and slogans back and forth across the street there was no violence between the protesters and counter-protesters.

    • A Google search located “Marina’s Bar and Grill” (seen in the background, 2:25) in Miami, although I have no confirmation that this is where this footage was shot.

      David, I did a Google Map search of 340 Biscayne Blvd, Miami (the address of Marina's Bar and Grill in Miami). The street view matches the video, complete with green awning with "Marina's Bar and Grill" printed on it in the same type. I think that confirms it was filmed in Miami, and NOT in Santa Cruz, as implied by the video.

  • Caroline Glick says there were no Palestinian refugees
    • jon,

      Just to be even more clear on Article 22 of the Charter, it begins thus:

      "Article Twenty-Two: The Powers which Support the Enemy

      The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream..."

      link to

      Note that Article 22 never once uses the term "Jews" but instead refers to "the enemies" and "Zionist interests". While greatly over broad in its explanation of the origins of the problem, it is in fact, as Zofia said, "in some part true". Zionist Jews bear responsibility for the Balfour Declaration, and usurpation of Palestine and the dispossession and impoverishment of its non-Jewish citizens. Some wealthy Zionist Jews, both in Israel and the US, are using their wealth and influence to continue the oppression of the Palestinians. Which was exactly Zofia's point. Just because something is a stereotype doesn't mean that certain individuals don't match the stereotype. Some blondes are dumb, some Scots are stingy. (And of course some brunettes are dumb and stingy people come in all flavors.) Denying that Zionist Jews worked successfully to alter events in order to achieve their goals is not only false but is replacing one false stereotype with another equally false stereotype - that no Jew or group of Jews would ever attempt or be successful at using power for their own benefit to the detriment of others. The success of Zionism proves that alternate stereotype of yours to be false.

      As Article 31 makes clear, the Charter is not condemning all Jews, but only those who are oppressing or fighting others. Taken in that context its clear that when the Charter does use the term "Jews" in other Articles, it is clearly referring to Zionist Jews who dispossess(ed) and oppress(ed) Palestinians.

      (As a side note, I find it interesting that your source for the translation of the Charter omits "B'nai Brith" from its list of organizations mentioned in Article 22. I don't think I would use a source that purposely omitted this one organization from their translation. It doesn't speak well to their accuracy. )

    • So much of Zionist "reasoning" is simply special pleading. Not only does Glick think that foreign Jews have a right to "return" to "their land" in Palestine/Israel because she believes they've had a sense of nationhood centered on Israel for x number of millenia, but she also believes that the indigenous Palestinians have no right to live in the land, since they are comparative johnny-come-latelys. So their expulsion can be morally defended and they are not refugees.

      Now, if one was to believe that steaming pile of brain poop, and apply it to the situation in Europe over the same x millenia, then European Jews were the johnny come lately's, who (according to Glick) had a sense of nationhood different from the one in which they lived, so therefore their expulsion from European countries at various times could be morally justified in exactly the same warped way that Glick justifies the expulsion of the Palestinians. And therefore there were NO European Jewish refugees, according to Glick's logic.

      But then, I'm sure she'd insist that different rules apply in Palestine/Israel that exist no where else. Special pleading to a tee. (And she doesn't even have a clue how many anti-semitic tropes she's embraced with her thinking.)

    • As was Ian and David Gilmour's review in the London Review of Books. readable in part without registration here:

      link to

  • Sony email chain on behalf of Israel joined Russell Simmons and Michael Lynton with rightwing Zionists
    • I've heard the 12 million figure dying in the concentration camps myself, tracing it back, as I recall, to William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, written in the 60's, which I read in the seventies. Since its now accepted history that less than half the Jews who were killed in WWII died in the concentration camps, if the 12 million figure is correct then that would mean that at least 9 million non-Jews died in the concentration camps. I'm not sure that is correct, and can't find any exact figures for total concentration camp deaths in a quick search.

      In any case, the estimated civilian death toll in WWII is on the order of anywhere from 38 million to 55 million people, so the 12 million figure really makes no sense in the context of the email, unless you totally ignore those deaths as if they didn't count. I've come to the realization that separating out the Holocaust from the rest of WWII, of which it was a part, is wrong and in fact dangerous, especially since the Holocaust is usually invoked in support of war and has resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths, rather than preventing deaths.

  • On eve of University of California honor, Bill Maher defends anti-Muslim hate speech in Vanity Fair interview
    • Maher's a misogynist so his deep concern about the treatment of women is laughable. And then there was this tweet of his during the latest Gaza invasion, where he managed, in the words of one respondent, to "combine encouragement for genocide with an affirmation of domestic assault in that joke. "

      Maher Tweet: "Dealing w/ Hamas is like dealing w/ a crazy woman who's trying to kill u - u can only hold her wrists so long before you have to slap her"

      link to

    • Yes, to consider the statements of Maher and Harris as enlightening on the "battle of ideas regarding Islam" is as stupid as believing that Father Coughlin was prescient on the "battle of ideas regarding Judaism" in the 1930's. They were all spewing prejudice; -heat, not light, and criticism of their prejudice is far from stupid.

    • So I think that Maher is indeed keeping the company where Armstrong places him.

      I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. Maher and Harris are blaming the vast majority of Muslims for the actions of a few, and taking the actions of the few out of the larger political context. This was in fact exactly what the anti-semitism of the 1930's did with regards to Jews. Hitler himself blamed all Jews for the excesses of Bolshevism (and anarchism) and also accused all Jews of adherence to Zionist beliefs that posited that Jews were foreigners in Europe and owed their principle allegiance to other Jews and not to the country in which they were born.

      Glenn Greenwald had a very good piece, as usual for him, on Sam Harris' anti-Muslim bias over a year ago.

      link to


      "The key point is that Harris does far, far more than voice criticisms of Islam as part of a general critique of religion. He has repeatedly made clear that he thinks Islam is uniquely threatening: "While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization." He has insisted that there are unique dangers from Muslims possessing nuclear weapons, as opposed to nice western Christians (the only ones to ever use them) or those kind Israeli Jews: "It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence." In his 2005 "End of Faith", he claimed that "Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death."

      This is not a critique of religion generally; it is a relentless effort to depict Islam as the supreme threat. Based on that view, Harris, while depicting the Iraq war as a humanitarian endeavor, has proclaimed that "we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam." He has also decreed that "this is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda." "We" - the civilized peoples of the west - are at war with "millions" of Muslims, he says. Indeed, he repeatedly posits a dichotomy between "civilized" people and Muslims: "All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth."


      Most important of all - to me - is the fact that Harris has used his views about Islam to justify a wide range of vile policies aimed primarily if not exclusively at Muslims, from torture ("there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like 'water-boarding' may not only be ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary"); to steadfast support for Israel, which he considers morally superior to its Muslim adversaries ("In their analyses of US and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. . . . there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah"); to anti-Muslim profiling ("We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it"); to state violence ("On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right. This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that 'liberals are soft on terrorism.' It is, and they are").

      Revealingly, Harris sided with the worst Muslim-hating elements in American society by opposing the building of a Muslim community center near Ground Zero, milking the Us v. Them militaristic framework to justify his position:

      "The erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory — and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice."

      Harris made the case against that innocuous community center by claiming - yet again - that Islam is a unique threat: "At this point in human history, Islam simply is different from other faiths."

      In sum, he sprinkles intellectual atheism on top of the standard neocon, right-wing worldview of Muslims. As this superb review of Harris' writings on Israel, the Middle East and US militarism put it, "any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics": because his atheism invariably serves - explicitly so - as the justifying ground for a wide array of policies that attack, kill and otherwise suppress Muslims. That's why his praise for European fascists as being the only ones saying "sensible" things about Islam is significant: not because it means he's a European fascist, but because it's unsurprising that the bile spewed at Muslims from that faction would be appealing to Harris because he shares those sentiments both in his rhetoric and his advocated policies, albeit with a more intellectualized expression."

      Much more at link.

  • 'NYT' writer takes Salaita's side, saying U of Illinois violated 'intellectual and academic freedom'
    • Well, yonah, you've come up with three excuses for your hypocrisy. But none of them hold water. First we have this:

      no one has heard of hartman or cares about hartman ...hartman is not famous. salaita seeks fame and this tweet should be cited as part of his offensive pearls of wisdom.

      Which is total bullshit. Rabbi Hartman was famous, especially in Israel, but also in the US, as a founder of the Shalom Hartman Institute. His obituary was featured in the NYTimes and columnist James Carroll of the Boston Globe eulogized him as "one of the great figures of contemporary Jewish life. The founder of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem and a prophet of religious tolerance, the self-described Jewish kid from Brooklyn had a huge impact on his generation, both in Israel, where he lived since 1971, and in the broader Jewish world." link to

      He WAS famous, and even more appalling given his eliminationist speech, he was revered as an icon of religious tolerance, which he betrayed with that very statement in 2002, which he never retracted.

      So one lie is told to defend your double standard when it comes to Jews uttering "offensive pearls of wisdom". Hartman, when he was alive was more famous than Salaita, but you prefer we not mention what Hartman said. You think its unfair, but when Salaita says something far less offensive, this must always and forever be mentioned in the same breath as his name.

      And Salaita's current fame is the byproduct of the successful attempt by wealthy donors to have him fired. I'm pretty sure that Salaita did not seek this kind of fame, and would much prefer to have his job rather than this fame by smear.

      Plus, one is hard pressed to explain why its somehow more acceptable for a non famous person to make eliminationist statements like Hartman did. You don't explain it. You can't.

      Then there is this excuse: The comment of mine was in defending a man a few days after his death. i cover up the sins of the recent dead.

      Another phony excuse. Hartman had died almost exactly a year before you made your comment in February this year. He was not "recently dead". In contrast, you went on at length in the comments section here about the sins of Gore Vidal, as you saw them, less than a full year after Vidal's death. You don't cover up the sins of the recent dead. You cover up the sins of those you like, or those of your "millieu" (read: Jewish Zionist), and exaggerate the sins of those you don't like, or are not of your "millieu".

      And finally you come up with this oddity: I am sorry that my role here as adversary does not give me sufficient opportunity to comment on the suffering of the Palestinians.

      But, as Teapot said, we are all just here to comment on those things we wish to comment on. No one has a "role" here unless it is a self-assigned one. You have plenty of opportunity to comment on whatever you wish to comment on. And obviously Palestinian suffering is not something you chose to comment much on. Your choice, no one is preventing you or limiting you comments about Palestinian suffering. Your comment above is a cop out. And your obsession with Salaita's tweeted wish that the Israeli settlers "go missing" from the West Bank shows you don't really relate to the suffering at all. As does your statement made back in February, in response to a question from me:

      I understand that my perspective is one sided for the most part (that I understand Hartman’s reaction and would not accept a similar reaction from a Palestinian).

      A perfect example of your purposeful failure to empathize with Palestinian suffering. To you the second intifada was all about Jewish Israeli suffering, even though it paled in comparison to the Palestinian suffering during that time period. This is why you forgave Hartman for urging Sharon to "wipe out" the Palestinians but can not accept Salaita's desire that Israeli settlers were not living in the West Bank, even though Hartman's statement was the genocidal one and Salaita's was not.

    • Quote:“Let’s really let them understand what the implication of their actions is. . . . Very simply, wipe them out. Level them.” March 2, 2002 Rabbi David Hartman

      Quote in response to Hartman's eliminationist speech:" Those who had no emotions involved at that moment are hardly in the spot to criticize those whose emotions found expression in speech." Yonah Fredman, February 14, 2014 link to

      Yonah, in harping on Salaita's tweet, is simply pointing out, yet again, his own hypocrisy and bigotry. An Israeli Jew issues truly eliminationist speech about Palestinians and Yonah bends over backwards to excuse it and explain it. But when Salaita sends a tweet wishing that there were no more Israeli settlers in the West Bank, Yonah has no sympathy or understanding, just phony moral indignation. He's a bigot, and his anger at Salaita is the anger of a bigot, not a man with a consistent sense of morality. Otherwise he would not have excused the far worse speech of Hartman.

  • A point by point response to Alan Dershowitz’s 'Ten Reasons Why The BDS Movement Is Immoral'
    • And of course, If Dersh really believed in "the worst first" principle he wouldn't be saying a word about BDS. ... Or anti-semitism in Europe or American campuses either, for that matter.

      There are so many things in the world that are much, much, much worse than BDS, but he can't shut up about it. I guess that makes him profoundly immoral. But then we knew that already.

      He makes up a 'rule' that he never ever follows and demands that the people who disagree with him must follow his made up rule and then impugns their morality if they don't. That's his strategy... and his 'morality'.

  • Mamdani's 'holistic' challenge: Anti-Zionists must persuade Jews they can only be safe by dismantling the Jewish state
    • jon s,

      Well, Europe was where 90% of the Jewish people were.

      Wrong. According to the AJC (American Jewish Committee), in 1939:

      Of the total number of 15,748,091 Jews in the world,
      8,939,608 reside in Europe, 598,339 in Africa, 839,809 in
      Asia, 27,016 in Australasia, and 5,343,319 in America.
      Thus, 56.77% live in Europe, 33.93% in America, 5.33%
      in Asia, 3.80% in Africa, and 0.17% in Australasia.

      link to

      page 593

      And by the way, no one was particularly "safe" in Europe in WWII. Nazi Germany had plans to destroy Poland and Eastern Europe and genocide hundreds of millions of Slavs and Russians. They didn't achieve their goals, but not because those people "had a country", or several countries, but because it was a plan on too large a scale for Germany to carry out. Still, they killed tens of millions of non-Jews.

      Having a country didn't save the Poles, from either the Germans or the Soviet Russians. Having a country didn't save Iraqis, or Syrians, or Congolese, or Cambodians. Nor did it save those Japanese killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nor the farmers (kulaks) in Soviet Russia, or the peasants in El Salvador.

      Israel has what "safety" it has because it is supported by the US. Without that support it could not do what it does, which it falsely claims is "self-defense' when it is really just pure bullying and oppressing non-Jews in the territory it covets. It won't bring safety to Israel. It will destroy it in the end, and at that point it will be hard for anyone to have much sympathy since it will be its own fault, and no one else's. You don't "liberate" yourself by oppressing other people. This is a lesson that Israel seems incapable of learning. And you are part of the problem.

    • They should unite and form a Jewish State here, then pass laws privileging them and giving them dominance over all the non-Jews. That would make them much safer, no doubt.

      Its rather amazing how difficult a concept this is for Zionist Jews to comprehend, isn't it. If you treat people like shit and claim that you have a right to do this simply because you are Jewish, those people you shit on will hate you and begin to believe that your Jewishness is the problem, since you keep insisting that it is, in your own clueless way.

      So far I would say that, given the example of Israel, Zionist Jews don't have the faintest idea how to run a state and probably shouldn't do so until they grow up and understand cause and effect.

    • There are a lot of things in life that aren’t understandable without God.

      And there are even more things in life that aren't understandable with God. The only difference is that belief in God (or Gods, for that matter) allows one to cease trying to understand. 'God does it all and I don't need to understand, just believe.'

  • It's always been a holy war
    • I doubt there is anything holy about any "holy war". It's an oxymoron.

      Holy wars are opportunities to succumb to negative passions and stereotypes , the ultimate us versus them replete with senseless violence. And in this case I think that Moor has a valid point that its always been a holy war, with Zionism as an ersatz religion on a crusader's quest to "reclaim" the "Holy Land" from the "infidels" to give it to the true believers.

  • 'I observe that you are a fascist' -- Zahalka to Feiglin
    • There she calls the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine “Arabs”, not “Palestinians”, but I think that was the normal usage in English at the time.

      In 1946, when she wrote that piece, Palestine existed so all its citizens were Palestinians. Using the word "Arabs" was the only way to differentiate between the newcomer Jewish Zionists and the indigenous population.

    • Complete disregard for the speaker has been the long standing norm in the Knesset from its very beginning. As are personal insults, and Zahalka's was rather mild in comparison to quite a few other insults that have been thrown around regularly in the Knesset.

    • What did he expected when he called the chairman a fascist? You can’t insult another MKs.

      I hate to be the one to break this to you, but insulting other MKs is a long tradition in the Knesset. This is from a news article published over 15 years ago, in 1998:

      The 120 Israeli lawmakers hurl insults across the chamber, calling each other "fascist," "racist," "parasite" and worse. Speeches are interrupted, fingers are waggled in faces, and members often stomp out, interrupting debate.

      One well-respected religious party member, frustrated by the defeat of a bill last week that would have benefited his ultra-Orthodox constituency, angrily accused opponents of being "anti-Semites" and "trash." Another lawmaker, shocked by those remarks of Rabbi Avraham Ravitz of the United Torah Judaism party, asked plaintively, "Am I an anti-Semite too?"

      Ravitz, chairman of the Budget Committee, shouted back at Emanuel Zissman: "They are anti-Semites. You are a little anti-Semite!" He later apologized; it was the retraction, not the language, that was rare.

      In another recent incident, Rehavam Zeevi, a member of the far-right Moledet party, added his own fillip to debate on whether Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat should have been invited to visit the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum on his recent Washington trip. Zeevi, who opposed the invitation, was heckled by Israeli Arab lawmakers who supported it. "You're not even neo-Nazis," he yelled at them. "You're Nazis!"

      link to

      It looks like you are the one who needs "education lessons" about what the norms are in the Knesset.

      Feiglin didn't kick him out because MK Zahalka called him a "fascist"; he did it because Zahalka insulted him while being Arab.And then Feiglin proved what a fascist he is by removing Zahalka from the chambers.

  • Lieberman unveils racist peace plan: Pay Palestinians to leave Israel
    • Your snark assumes otherwise.

      Elliott (and Daniel), I didn't read Horizontal's comment that way. I assumed he was just applying the same criterion that Lieberman does, in order to point out its bigoted nature and its natural response, by applying it to his hypothetical Jewish neighbor. Lieberman wants to pay "Arabs" to leave Israel based solely on their ethnicity, not on their politics or ideology. Horizontal would have been changing the criterion by offering to pay someone to leave based on their Zionism rather than their Jewishness.

      He still did get one element wrong, though. He should have moved into his hypothetical Jew's neighborhood and then offered to pay him to leave. That more accurately describes Lieberman's situation.

  • #JusticeForMikeBrown: NFL star Reggie Bush connects Ferguson to Palestine
    • Leo Frank was convicted murder only. There hadn’t been a rape. He was convicted based on perjured testimony.

      Decades after Frank’s lynching, a man admitted that he was an eyewitness and that the building’s janitor had murdered the young woman.

      It's true that Frank was not convicted of rape, although the circumstances of the murder implied an attempted rape, statutory or forced, of the 14 year old girl.

      The man who "admitted" being an eyewitness only claimed that he saw Jim Conley, the black man who admitted to being Frank's accomplish in hiding the body, carrying Phagan's dead body. His decades later story makes little sense since he was a white boy who claimed he didn't come forward during the trial because he was threatened by Conley, who had been in jail from shortly after the crime was committed. Hard to believe that a white boy would have been too afraid to speak out against a black man who was already in jail. Also, he was in serious financial shape due to health problems when he came forward decades later and was apparently "discovered" by an author who had a strong bias toward believing that Frank was the innocent victim of anti-semitism.

      I likewise read the documents and its apparent that there was considerable evidence that Frank was indeed the murderer. There indeed was been some measure of anti-semitism in Georgia during the time, but it does not appear from the record to have been a major factor in the trial itself, despite what northern papers of the time tried to imply.

      As for the lynching, I'm not convinced that anti-semitism was a factor in that either. Most lynching victims in the South at the time were of course black but there were quite a few white men who were lynched during that period as well. Given the South's paternalism of the time, many of the white lynching victims were men who were believed to have raped or murdered young white girls, which exactly matches Frank's crime.

      When Frank's death sentence was commuted to life by the outgoing Georgia governor, Georgia citizens from Marietta, Mary Phagan's hometown, some of them quite prominent, took the law into their own hands and lynched him.

      For anyone with a curiosity about the case I would recommend looking here:

      link to

      Important note: There are other sites with similar names which have an anti-semitic bent to them. The one does not and it includes the most primary sources for information on the trial and its atmosphere.

  • Debunking Netanyahu's propaganda on Jerusalem
    • "ono citizens" was meant to read "non-citizens"

      Also, residency status was always a fickle thing as implemented by the Israeli government, easily revoked. This has to do with Israel's avowed desire that demographically Jerusalem be at least 70% Jewish. This was easily "corrected" by revoking resident status for transparent and/or flimsy reasons to achieve the desired results. My opinion would be that the Israeli government would have done that, one way or the other, regardless of whether the Jerusalemites had protested or not, or frankly whether they had citizenship or not.

    • Walid,

      Palestinian Jerusalemites who are not citizens of Israel (i.e. were residents of East Jerusalem prior to 1967, or resident descendants of such earlier residents) are prohibited by Israel from voting in national elections. They are allowed to vote in Jerusalem MUNICIPAL elections but most of them refuse to do so as a form of protest. Most important Israeli decisions regarding Jerusalem and the Palestinian residents there are made at the national level, not the municipal level. This is true throughout Israel, in terms of the national decision making and financial allocations trumping anything done on a municipal level.

      The Palestinian resident ono-citizens of Jerusalem are allowed to APPLY for Israeli citizenship, with no firm guarantee that their application will be approved by Israel. However, they first have to renounce any other citizenship or potential citizenship, either of Jordan or of the increasingly evident pie-in-the-sky Palestinian State as part of the application process. Giving that up can negatively impact their ability to enter other areas of the West Bank.

      For those reasons, and for reasons of protest, most Palestinian Jerusalemites have refused to apply for citizenship over the decades since 1967. I have heard that more recently some number of Palestinians have been quietly applying, sensing that a Palestinian State will never happen, and that citizenship may be their only path to protection of their status and homes. Given the Israeli government's current inflammatory position towards its own Palestinian citizens, citizenship may not help the Jerusalem residents as much as they might hope.

  • 'What is your religion?' question surprises two American visitors to the occupation
    • It’s not like they add anything real to the discussions besides talking-point misdirection and occasional comedy relief.

      Well it does give us a chance to point out his lies and his hypocrisy. A two-fer. From the religious courts in Jordan to the religious courts in Israel, not much difference:

      "It was probably something about the way I drew the strand of hair away from my face. The judge gave me a strange look and I knew that I was marked." That’s what an attorney appeared in court in Petah Tikva told me. And this is how she describes a conversation conducted in the rabbinical court:

      "Is madam married?" asked the rabbinic judge.

      "Yes" I replied.

      "Madam knows that according to the regulations she must appear with a head covering?"

      "Yes. But so far I've appeared without head covering. No one ever asked me to cover my hair."

      The bailiff held a rag in his hand and said: "Here. Put this on you’re head".
      "I'd rather not."

      "Don’t worry," the bailiff told me as he pulled out another, "Take this one".

      I demurred.

      "It's required," announced the judge.

      Since she did not want to hurt the interests of her client, the mortified attorney had no choice but to cover her head. She remembered that she had a bandanna in her car. So the parties reached a compromise: the lawyer went to get the bandana, the judges waited till she returned. Only then did they continue the hearing.

      link to

  • 'Palestine is an anxiety' for Americans-- Salaita in New York
    • and a statement, i wish they’d all go missing is in fact lascivious talk. licking his lips.

      Utterly ridiculous. "In fact" the meaning of lascivious is

      inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd:
      a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
      arousing sexual desire:
      lascivious photographs.
      indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness:
      a lascivious gesture.

      Your statement is idiotic in the extreme and not "a fact". There was nothing "lewd" about his tweet.

      He wishes that the illegal West Bank settlers would be gone from the West Bank. Considering that those settlers live on land stolen from Palestinians and live under civil Israeli rules while the Palestinians live under a brutal occupation and are often harassed and attacked by some of those settlers with no chance for redress of their grievances, the desire that they be gone is totally understandable, and requires no "licking of lips".

      As usual, you show you have little to no empathy for, or understanding of, Palestinians who wish their ethnic compatriots to have basic human rights. At the same time you have excused real eliminationist talk from Israeli Jews, so your ability to even recognize a "fact" is seriously impaired. "Lascivious"? Really? You have to put a fantasized sexual spin on his tweet in order to project sinister motives to his tweet? Every time I think you've hit bottom in your equivocation and projection you manage to mine even greater depths.

      Try reversing the situation if you can't manage to drum up any sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. If the settlers were Muslim and the indigenous were Jewish, under similar conditions you would say the same thing about wanting the settlers gone.

  • Netanyahu's 'battle for Jerusalem' can't end well for any of us
    • Jon

      You said: It’s an historical fact that the Jewish-Zionist side overwhelmingly supported the UNSCOP partition plan and actively lobbied for it at the UN.

      Actually, the UN records prove that is NOT a historical fact. As Hostage has pointed out several times, the representative of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Abba Silver, in a statement to the Ad-Hoc Committee made on October 2, 1947 made clear that "if it would make possible the immediate re-establishment of the Jewish State with sovereign control of its own immigration, then the Jewish Agency was prepared to recommend the acceptance of the partition solution, subject to further discussion of constitutional and territorial provisions." .link to

      In other words, the Jewish Agency, the governing Zionist body, had only agreed to the creation of a Jewish state with complete control over immigration. It particularly and overtly reserved acceptance of the provisions of the Plan that guaranteed full civil rights for all in the Jewish state regardless of ethnicity or religion and also reserved acceptance of the Plan's territorial limits on the Jewish State. One does not need to postulate a "what if" to recognize that those two elements of the Plan were clearly neither accepted nor implemented by the State of Israel, so to say that the Zionists "overwhelmingly supported" the Partition Plan is to engage in sophistry. They merely accepted the idea of a Jewish State, and never accepted any of the guarantees that were essential elements of the Partition Plan itself. Being as how the creation of a Jewish State was the raison d'etre of Zionism, its downright laughable to insist that the Zionist governing bodies were making any tangible sacrifice in "agreeing" to the very thing they had planned to take from the beginning.

      On the other side, the Palestinian leadership (with the exception of the Communists) and all the Arab states were absolutely dead-set against partition, actively lobbied against the plan, and voted “no” in the GA.

      Again, thanks to Hostage for this correction:


      the documentary record shows that the Jews were planning the military conquest of Palestine ever since the mid-1930s, beginning with the Avnir Plan. It also shows that the neighboring Arab states accepted the principle of partition, but not the ethnic cleansing or massacres that occurred after the UN proposed the plan of partition.

      *In “Pan-Arabism Before Nasser” (page 98), Michael Doran reported that Eliyahu Sasson made at least two trips in late 1946 to lobby Egyptian officials regarding the partition of Palestine. Sasson reported that he had been warmly welcomed by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Secretary General of the Arab League. Doran says that King Faruq and other palace advisers received reports on the partition talks and did nothing to scuttle them.

      *Joseph Heller, “The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics”, University Press of Florida, 2000, says that in the Spring of 1946 Sasson was dispatched to Egypt and that he reported that, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, there was a virtually unanimous consensus on partition among the members of the Arab League.
      *Before the Deir Yassin massacre, the US Minister in Saudi Arabia told Secretary Marshall that the Saudi’s and Abdullah of Transjordan had warned the other members of the Arab League (in March of 1948) that the partition was a civil matter and that the Arab states shouldn’t take any action that the Security Council might interpret as aggression.

      Prof. Shlomo Ben-Ami, PhD, is an Oxford University trained historian. He served as Israeli Foreign Minister and Minister of Internal Security and as the head of the School of History at Tel Aviv University. Ben-Ami relates that after the UNSCOP was formed in May of 1947, Ben Gurion explained that his acceptance of the principle of partition was an attempt to gain time until the Jews were strong enough to fight the Arab majority. He pledged to Mapai’s Central Committee that the borders of Jewish independence as defined by the UN Plan were by no means final and Yigal Allon said …”the borders of partition cannot be for us the final borders … the partition plan is a compromise plan that is unjust to the Jews. … We are entitled to decide our borders according to our defence needs.”

      Ben Gurion who upon his appointment as ‘defence minister’ in 1946 made it clear that the time had now arrived for a ‘showdown of force, a Jewish military showdown’, had been meticulously preparing for a war he was convinced, ever since the Arab revolt, was inevitable. See page 34 of Scars of War Wounds of Peace. link to

      link to

      (See Hostage's comment in full to access his embedded links.)

      As for Jamal al-Husseini, the leader of the Arab Higher Committee, he opposed partition but argued on September 29th, 1947 before the same Ad-Hoc Committee, that

      " once Palestine was found to be entitled to independence, the United Nations was not legally competent to decide or impose Palestine's constitutional organization, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee outlined the following principles as the basis for the future constitutional organization of the Holy Land:

      1. That an Arab State in the whole of Palestine be established on democratic lines.

      2. That the Arab State of Palestine would respect human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law.

      3. That the Arab State of Palestine would protect the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities.

      4. That freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places would be guaranteed to all.

      He added that the following steps would have to be taken to give effect to the above mentioned four principles:

      (a) A Constituent Assembly should be elected at the earliest possible time. All genuine and law abiding nationals of Palestine would be entitled to participate in the elections of the Constituent Assembly.

      (b) The Constituent Assembly should, within a fixed time, formulate and enact a Constitution for the Arab State of Palestine, which should be of a democratic nature and should embody the above-mentioned four principles.

      (c) A government should be formed within a fixed time, in accordance with the terms of the Constitution, to take over the administration of Palestine from the Mandatory Power.

      (same UN source as for Abba Silver's remarks above)

      This Palestinian recommendation was entirely reasonable and just, so to pretend that rejection of partition somehow reflects negatively on the Palestinians and justifies the subsequent and continuing gross mistreatment of Palestinians by the "Jewish State" is to turn reality on its head. Given the previous half century history of the Zionist movement's discriminatory actions against the indigenous Palestinians, the rejection of a "Jewish State" carved out of Palestine and run by these very same Zionists was entirely understandable, and subsequent history has proven their rejection to have been correct. I'd suggest you read Shira Robinson's, Citizen Strangers. The 150,000 Palestinians who managed to remain, or were able to return without detection, and who posed no "demographic threat" to Israel's artificial and violently created Jewish majority, were treated appallingly by the State of Israel. This is the kind of state that the Zionists had worked for since the beginning of their movement-one that oppressed the Palestinian minority and privileged the Jewish "majority".

      I get that you probably have been raised on these convenient and, for you, reassuring lies and equivocations that you repeat, but you're a grown adult now. Isn't it time to think for yourself and stop mindlessly repeating falsities?

    • To Zofia,

      Thanks for including that well research info on Jerusalem. I hope you will continue to comment here and do it more often. Your comments are always so informative. What with Hostage being gone from these pages lately, info like yours is especially helpful these days.

      BTW, I'm hoping that Hostage is just taking a short vacation from the comments section, and will rejoin the fray just as Mooser did after an absence of several months.

  • Videos: Jerusalem Skunk
  • Yad Vashem
    • Andrew,

      I'm glad you brought that up again. Not only did the Zionist agencies insist that unhealthy or seriously injured European Jews in Palestine had to return to Europe so as not to be a burden on the Zionist governing bodies, but throughout their history from the early 1900's up until the Law of Return was passed by the Knesset in 1950, the Zionist agencies engaged in screening activities, both medical and and political, that weeded out the sick, the old, the very young and those without the approved political bent. (The very people most vulnerable and in need of refuge.) These were not the actions of an ideology that was interested in providing refuge. It was interested in political power and conquest and realized that it needed young adult Jews in good health and who could be more easily molded to the ideology in order to achieve that conquest.

      And as you say, a group interested in providing a refuge for Jews would not engage in the antagonistic actions that the early Zionists deployed against the indigenous population. Nor would it discourage the collection of money to help European Jews who wished to go elsewhere than Palestine. Ben-Gurion and others made clear that they considered funds that did not go to Palestine, but instead to directly help European Jews, were a direct threat to the Zionist enterprise. And of course they also fought any international efforts to relocate endangered Jews anywhere else than Palestine. After the war, they threatened Jews in the DP camps with violence and a cutoff of aid and jobs if they refuse to "volunteer" to fight in Israel. They used those Jews mercilessly for their own power interests.

      The hasbara about the need for Palestine as a "refuge" irks me for those very reasons above, and for the clueless parochial view that the only ethnicity that was suffering in Europe was a Jewish one. The view overly generalizes about Jewish suffering which was by no means universal within Europe, or even in Eastern Europe, and act as if no one else was suffering during this time, which is equivalent to a purposeful denial of European history.

  • Why I confronted Gregor Gysi
    • Of course, outside of Europe, Frazier Glenn Miller cited Max’s work frequently before he went and shot up the Jewish Community Center in Overland Park, Kansas.

      What a despicable lie in an even more desperate and despicable attempt to blame Blumenthal for the act of a bigot and right wing fanatic with a decades long history of violence! There you go citing unreliable right wing sources again as if they are credible. It's a very disturbing trend on your part.

      As Alex Kane and Phan Nguyen pointed out right here at Mondoweiss back in April, VNN, the right wing forum that Miller sometimes posted to, mentioned Max approximately 45 times, mostly in a negative vein, and mostly with reference to Max's work exposing the attitudes of right wing and extremist Republicans. Miller himself did not cite "Max's work frequently" but only linked to it ONCE.

      The idea is to tie Blumenthal to the Kansas shootings, by way of the alleged perpetrator Frazier Glenn Cross. Yet for all their attempts to create a connection, the single tie is this:

      Cross is believed to have been a frequent contributor to the VNN Forum. Out of 12,683 forum posts attributed to Cross, one single post was found to have mentioned “Jew journalist Max Blumenthal.” That single post contains a broken link to a page that once linked to a YouTube clip of a brief interview with Blumenthal. In that interview, Blumenthal explained how neoconservative supporters of Netanyahu in DC were hoping to sway the 2012 presidential election in their favor.

      link to

      (note: Cross is the real name of the man known as Frazier Glenn Miller)

      But then you know all this, hophmi, because you are a regular here and surely must have read that article. And still you repeated the bogus smear. If you have any integrity left at all, hophmi, you will retract your statement and admit it was a bald-faced lie.

  • In and out of love with Israel: Tzvia Thier's story
    • I think the blankets became weapons of extermination however they started.

      Smallpox came to the Americas in the 1500's with the Spanish explorers. It had already decimated native American populations well before the later substantial influx of Europeans. The native populations had no previous experience with the disease and had no immunity to it.

      The first known attempt to infect with blankets came from the British in 1763 during the siege of Fort Pitt, but it is not known if it was effective because there were reports that the disease was already spreading among native populations prior to the "gift" of the blankets.
      link to

      There is also circumstantial evidence that the British attempted to use smallpox against American forces during the Revolutionary War, not be blankets, but by sending infected persons across American lines.

      link to

      There was an outbreak of smallpox in 1837 which decimated many tribes. Ward Churchill claimed that it was deliberately spread by infected blankets but his claim has been seriously disputed by other historians, who trace the disease to infected individuals traveling up the Missouri River by steamboat.

      link to

  • The hidden documents that reveal the true borders of Israel and Palestine (Updated)
    • jon,

      Who were “the Arabs” who made the proposal?

      I'll quote at length from Hostage on this:

      On September 29, 1947, the representative of the Arab Higher Committee, Jamal Husseini, appeared before the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee hearing on Palestine. He said:

      "The future constitutional organization of Palestine should be based on the following principles: first, establishment on democratic lines of an Arab State comprising all Palestine; secondly, observance by the said Arab State of Palestine of human rights, fundamental freedoms and equality of all persons before the law; thirdly, protection by the Arab State of the legitimate rights and interests of all minorities; fourthly, guarantee to all of freedom of worship and access to the Holy Places."

      There were minority proposals from the Second Subcommittee of the UNSCOP, the Second Subcommittee of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee, and from the Arab States during the 2nd Special Session of the General Assembly based upon Jewish and Arab cantons in a bi-national state.

      The report of the 2nd Subcommittee of the Ad Hoc Committee is here:
      link to

      Mr Malik of Lebanon offered the proposal for establishing a single federal union with separate Jewish and Arab states, based upon the model of the US Constitution during the 2nd Special Session:

      “Principle number five: The Constituent Assembly, in defining the powers of the federal state of Palestine, as well as the powers of the judicial and legislative organs, in defining the functions of the cantonal governments, and in defining the relationships between the cantonal governments and the federal state, will be guided by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as the constitutions of the individual states of the United States of America. — Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48

      Original 2012 comment from Hostage complete with his links here:

      link to

  • Widening the Frame: SJP national conference highlights Palestine in global context
    • Nice of them, wasn’t it?

      Ivri'd probably even go so far as to say it was "mighty white" of them.

      His whole screed is one long denigration of MLK and the brave black Americans who fought for their civil rights. We all know how expensive it was to actually march in a demonstration, right? Or commit an act of civil disobedience? Or stand up for one's rights. According to ivri, none of that was possible without Jewish money and influence, which I'm sure in other instances he would deny exists. Why is it that ZIonists make the most anti-semitic statements and never get called on them?

Showing comments 4342 - 4301