Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 3287 (since 2009-07-30 20:36:23)

tree

Showing comments 300 - 201
Page:

  • Tom Friedman seems to threaten cutting off Israel's aid
    • tree November 8, 2009 at 6:47 pm

      "If Arab and Muslim posters responded to them, should they also be called out for “ethnic defensiveness”? "

      Mooser hasn't been called on his defensiveness merely because he claims to be Jewish. He's been called on it because he's been defensive and bigoted in his own way. He's claimed that he can't understand Americans because he doesn't understand "racist chicken-hawkery", he's made numerous negative over-generalizations about non-Jews, and attacked various posters here because according to his fondly held stereotypes they must have voted for Bush or agreed with the Iraq war just because they disagree with him. He also finds anti-semitism everywhere when anyone talks about Jewish culture (which he insists doesn't exist) or religion(which has no relation to Zionism in his head, whereas Christianity has some relationship to anti-semitism and racism). If he thinks that some non-Jewish poster dares to hold any Jew, or group of Jews, (even Zionists themselves) responsible for Zionism then he insists that poster must be falling for anti-semitic tropes, which then of course leads him to make further negative assumptions along stereotypical lines. In other words, he's got ethnic defensiveness issues. Some people have them. No individual is immune to that merely because of their religion or ethnic heritage.

      If you stick around longer you'll understand his shtick. He has and can make good points but he has his own blindspots and prejudices. And really, "goon" is a pretty nasty word to be throwing around. Check your own prejudices.

  • Wolman: Wright mucks up Gaza
    • tree November 8, 2009 at 3:54 pm

      Rihard, if I make more than two links my posts get held up as spam.

      Try this, from Google news. It lists all my sources for the above quotes.

      link to news.google.com

      Mainly I'm saying that you misquoted. Also, the Haaretz reporter may have misinterpreted what was said, but not misquoted.

    • tree November 8, 2009 at 3:45 pm

      Hear, hear. Well-spoken and amen.

    • tree November 8, 2009 at 3:22 pm

      But “we have NO intention of recognizing Israel, period.” is not what they are quoted as saying. I've read several different sources on the Hamas reaction to Mofaz's statement (all of them Israeli, unfortunately, as it would be better to have a direct Palestinian report for the accuracy of the statement) and none of the sources quote Hamas the way you do.

      Here's a Hamas spokesman reported in Ynet.

      Hamas legislator Mushir al-Masri told Ynet in response to Mofaz's plan, "This is a very important step, but we are interested in its translation from talk into action."

      "Obviously, such comments carry a lot of weight when they come from someone of Mofaz's stature – a man who went to war against Hamas and the resistance and is familiar with the issue's political and security-related aspects," said al-Masri.

      The senior Hamas figure said he would not dismiss any offer "if it is based on the recognition of the basic rights of the Palestinian people and its right to be rid of occupation.

      "The Israelis realize that we (Hamas) are a key player in the political arena. It would be a mistake to ignore Hamas and deal solely with (Palestinian President Mahmoud) Abbas," he said.

      And here's the Jerusalem Post:

      Hamas rejected an alternate peace plan presented by Kadima No. 2 Shaul Mofaz on Sunday, saying the group would not negotiate with Israel, Army Radio reported.

      "Hamas will not negotiate with Israel," said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum. "We do not believe in engaging with the occupation, or in talks that would beautify its face in the eyes of the world."

      Here's ArutzSheva:

      Hamas, meanwhile, praised the plan. Calling it an "important step," a Hamas spokesperson said that "even if the Israeli government has come to this understanding late, that Hamas must be dealt with, Mofaz's plan is important."

      And here is Haaretz:

      In its official response, Hamas called Mofaz's offer "Zionist vulgarity" and said it would never recognize Israel or give legitimacy to the occupation.

      "Any negotiation with the Zionist enemy regarding rights and legitimate recognition would only give it further excuse to commit crimes," said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.

      Note that the the first paragraph is not a quote and the second paragraph does not say what the first one implies it says. And neither of them say what you claim they do.

      In fact none of the Israeli sources claim what you are claiming.

    • tree November 8, 2009 at 2:41 pm

      OK, I get it. I can't seem to make a link or create a quote today without f**king it up. Best I retire for the day.

      "Sounds like Tomlinson was a Zionist too.
      And here’s another one from MediaMatters:"
      and "Sounds like Zionism had something to do with it. "
      were my comments and not part of the quote. Sigh...

    • tree November 8, 2009 at 2:36 pm

      Mooser,

      Googling also gets you this, the successor to Tomlinson:
      <a href="link to wrmea.com;
      "Israel-Firster Cheryl Halpern Named Head Of Corporation for Public Broadcasting"

      CHERYL F. Halpern, a major Republican fundraiser, has been elected the new chairwoman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The private, nonprofit corporation, created by Congress in 1967, describes itself as “the largest single source of funding for public television and radio programming.”

      Halpern has served on the CPB board since 2002, and has criticized National Public Radio’s Middle East coverage, calling it biased against Israel. She has overseen such U.S. government-funded media projects as Voice of America, Radio Marti in Cuba and Radio Free Iraq. Formerly chairwoman for the Republican Jewish Coalition, Halpern currently sits on the board of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a spinoff of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Israel’s Washington, DC lobby. In 2001 she used her own personal funds to commission a review of anti-Semitism in Syrian textbooks.

      Halpern was a delegate from the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations to the 4th United Nations World Conference on Women’s Rights in 1995 in Beijing, and from 1998 to 2002 chaired the United Nations Advisory Council of B’nai B’rith International. Halpern’s selection as CPB chair, warned the citizens’ group Common Cause, may “mean more politicizing for public broadcasting.”

      Perhaps not surprisingly, Halpern’s family has business interests in Israel. She is married to Fredrick Michael Halpern, a real estate developer born in Bayreuth, Bavaria, who is a member of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith as well as of AIPAC. The couple has three children.

      Also from the article:

      A spokeswoman for National Public Radio, Andi Sporkin, criticized the corporation under the chairmanship of <bKenneth Y. Tomlinson, Halpern’s predecessor, who conceived, but did not implement, a plan to monitor NPR for anti-Israel bias: The Sept. 27 Los Angeles Times quoted Sporkin as saying, “The events at CPB over the last six months have been disappointing for public radio as we’ve watched an organization that has supported public broadcasting for four decades, and through all administrations, become an instrument of ideology and agenda. Our hope is that the new leadership acknowledges the value Congress and millions of Americans have placed on public broadcasting’s service and integrity, restores the vital fire wall, and rights the course of CPB.”

      Sounds like Tomlinson was a Zionist too.

      And here's another one from MediaMatters:

      But while also citing Halpern's 2003 Senate Commerce Committee testimony, the Times failed to identify remarks Halpern made in that testimony and elsewhere that suggest that she may be as divisive as Tomlinson. As other media outlets have noted, Halpern 1) has, like Tomlinson, accused National Public Radio (NPR) of airing news reports that are biased against Israel;...

      link to mediamatters.org

      Sounds like Zionism had something to do with it.

    • tree November 8, 2009 at 11:31 am

      Chaos,

      "Which Israel are Palestinians supposed to accept? "

      Well, according to Mofaz, its Israel with 40% of the West Bank, as he's "generously" offered the Palestinians 60% of their occupied territory. I'm guessing that the 60% will not be contiguous, let alone viable, in any sense of the word.

    • tree November 8, 2009 at 10:43 am

      Richard,

      Jeffrey gave you a link to the story in the Guardian that proves that Israel deliberately broke the ceasefire. You've been given other links to various articles in Haaretz and others about the same thing, numerous times. Still you protest otherwise and act as though everyone who mentions this is making it up. The only one projecting here is you.

      You won't accept information that doesn't mesh with your fantasy Israel and create scenarios that mesh with your fantasy Hamas and fantasy Palestinians. Thus you insist that Hamas must have allowed rocket fire "in anger" when you have no information whatsoever about the decision making that went into Hamas' choice not to extend the ceasefire. You don't know what you are talking about and yet you are "in fact exaggerating, projecting". If you consider yourself so enlightened maybe you should heal yourself before proscribing for others.

  • Bernard Avishai has publicly rejected 'the demographic threat' argument
    • tree November 8, 2009 at 7:05 pm

      Good point, Robin.

    • tree November 8, 2009 at 11:07 am

      Cr*p. Failed to proofread again. The last sentence, "A country that puts an ugly racist “academic” like this in “influential circles” and considers him a man with “expertise” on Palestinians has very serious and basic flaws in its national culture. "
      was mine, not a quote from elsewhere.

    • tree November 8, 2009 at 11:04 am

      Speaking of great lumps of ugly, see this from Richard Silverstein's blog , on Dr. Dan Schueftan.

      It was a perplexing scene. In the last class in the Master’s program in Diplomacy and Security for senior managers at Tel Aviv University one of the students read out selected utterances of the lecturer, Dr. Dan Schueftan. “The Arabs are the biggest failure in the history of the human race,” quoted the student. “While Israel sends while sends a sophisticated satellite into space, the Arabs come up with a new kind of hummus.” “There is nothing more fucked up under the sun than the Palestinians.” And in conclusion: “If you want to be a hero in the Arab world you have to get fucked. I am prepared to make a personal contribution.” Some of the students burst out laughing and applauded. Schueftan joined in the fun, laughed out loud with his students and announced that he was prepared to proofread the quotes.

      Dr. Schueftan, the head of the center for National Security Studies Centre at the University of Haifa, lectures there on subjects in his field of expertise: Israel and the Middle East, Jewish-Arab relations, radicalism and the Palestinian people. Schueftan also gives the course as a guest lecturer at Tel Aviv University. Many high-level members of the military and political establishments have taken his course. Schueftan is one of the most influential academics in their circles.

      “A senior official told me that he does not call me for consultation because I sit in his head and every time, before he makes a decision, he hears me telling him: ‘You idiot, what are you doing?’ And then he answers me and decides,” relates Schueftan. “Many people in the military and political establishments have taken my courses. My level of contact with that group is very high. A large proportion of Israel’s decision makers were students of mine or have listened to my lectures. I gave a lecture to all the division and brigade commanders of the ground forces and some of them invited me afterwards to talk to their units. Sometimes they contact me afterwards to consult with me. Nearly all the political-military establishment has some kind of relationship with me. I would not want them to be alienated from the important people who are outside the establishment. Access to decision-makers here is among the easiest in the world. It is easy to talk with senior officials and they exhibit a great deal of curiosity about what you have to say.”

      A country that puts an ugly racist "academic" like this in "influential circles" and considers him a man with "expertise" on Palestinians has very serious and basic flaws in its national culture.

  • Liberals and racism
    • tree November 8, 2009 at 1:30 pm

      I see you ignored my question to you, as usual.

      "The parallel between European nationalism and Zionism is an accurate one. "

      Only in terms of "romantic" or "ethnic nationalism", as practiced, for one, in Nazi Germany. Hence the common parallels between Nazi Germany and present day Israel.

      "The usage of the term “nation” is that the Jews were/are a people (self-identifying as Jews, and often also as Germans, or French, or Polish)..."

      Self-identifying as a Jew, or as a Christian, or a Hindu or a Buddhist, does not constitute nationhood, nor does it give one the right to expel other people from land you covet, put them under occupation, nor does it give one the right to "self-govern" at the expense of the rights of those not belonging to your favored identity group. That is not democracy and is not compatible with democracy. I self-identify as a woman. Does that give me the right to come take your home and treat you as a second-class citizen with the excuse that I am doing so as my right to 'self-govern" as a woman?

      Again, Jewish and democratic are soluble, if Israelis and others accept that identity. Otherwise, Israel goes to war, with war mentality (now becoming permanent). The war mentality motivating the far less democratic sentiments, and features.

      Palestinian nationalism whether two or one-state, of any flavor, do not offer Jews/Israelis anywhere near the degree of safety and identity that is needed (not just desired).

      Again, a perfect example of your hypocrisy. "Jewish nationalism", in your view, is OK and will protect the non-Jewish minority even though it has epically failed at that protection for over one hundred years. "Palestinian nationalism", which has yet to be tried, is already judged by you to be incapable of that protection, even though "Palestinian" does not necessarily preclude "Jewish" as a part of the nation, whereas "Jewish" precludes anyone non-Jewish from being part of the nation. And further, you only mention concerns about safety and identity for Jews, when it is the Palestinians who face daily threats to their safety and identity in and from Jewish Israel.

    • tree November 8, 2009 at 12:15 pm

      "The dual nature of nationality and democracy are not oil and water."

      Again, Richard. "Jewish" is not a nationality. The nationality is Israeli. "Jewish" is a religious or ethnic descriptor. Just as either "Christian" (religious) or "white" (ethnic) would be. Do you understand that if the US legally described itself as the nation of all whites that it would cease to be a democracy and instead be an ethnocracy?

    • tree November 8, 2009 at 11:48 am

      Richard, again, "Israel is Jewish as France is French," is an incorrect analogy. The proper comparison would be "Israel is Israeli as France is French". You are comparing a nationality with a religion or ethnicity. Any citizen of France is French, regardless of religion or ethnicity. A large minority of citizens of Israel are NOT Jewish, and thus are left wanting in a country that defines itself by the ethnicity or religion of its majority. And in fact, Israel, which covets the occupied territories, denies citizenship of those who were ethnically cleansed within the green line and of those whom Israel rules over in the West Bank and Gaza, based solely on their ethnicity and religion. That is not democracy, it is ethnocracy.

    • tree November 6, 2009 at 5:37 am

      Carnas, first off, its rather cavalier of you to claim that Kathleen can't have a relative who faced persecution just because she's not Jewish. She's Irish, Polish, French, Russian with a family background as a Catholic. Are you really that ignorant of European history to claim that only Jews faced persecution, religious or otherwise? Do you have any clue as to why separation of church and state was so important to the founders of our nation? Do you have any inkling of violent history of Europe, or are you a subscriber to the lachrymose theory of Jewishness, where no one else suffers, only Jews?

      And what you have claimed in your snarky reply is that your Jewishness is based on victimhood. I suspect that you think that victimhood in and of itself confers some moral superiority on you as Jew. But it doesn't and never will. Morality is an individual attribute and must be earned by your own deeds, not by being victimized by the deeds of others. Jews as a group have proven, through Israel, that there is no inherent moral superiority of Jews, just as there is no inherent moral superiority of any religious or ethnic group. Given power over the other, Jews as a group in Israel have proven that they are just as capable of persecuting others as any other group has been. I suspect that one of the reasons that some Jews continue to defend and excuse wretched behavior by Israel is because they cannot face the truth about the absence of any real inherent Jewish moral superiority. Their self-illusions trump their own morality.

  • A student responds to the J Street conference
    • tree November 4, 2009 at 3:46 pm

      Geez, Mooser, you're getting as bad as Witty. Every thread must be made to be all about you. Give it up, will ya? Or maybe you and Witty can get a room and bask in your mutual narcissism.

    • tree November 4, 2009 at 11:52 am

      And is the continued "unpleasantness" going to save childrens' lives? The question that Elizabeth and David Samel are discussing is not how to avoid ever having unpleasant conversations. The easy answer to that is to never have a conversation about Israel's defects. But that's not what they are doing, nor is it what they are comfortable with. No, what they are struggling with is how to have those conversations and get their friends and community to listen (and change) instead of shutting down dissent.

    • tree November 4, 2009 at 11:46 am

      Its already the unspoken slogan for Zionist propagandists.

    • tree November 4, 2009 at 11:44 am

      You know, sometimes your mind-reading skills really suck, Mooser. And you can be bitingly cruel to someone who seems to have more courage than you do. Does it bother you that she admits a problem that you wish to ignore?

    • tree November 4, 2009 at 11:23 am

      NO, I think it was meant as derogatory. "Better off dead than (well-)read", to twist a phrase.

    • tree November 4, 2009 at 11:19 am

      Actually, you're both grossly underestimating Elizabeth and overestimating Witty if you think they belong together.

      Mooser, I think you owe Elizabeth an apology. She is questioning what she sees as attempts by the Jewish community she knows to stifle debate on Israel/Palestine, and enforce conformity of opinion. Witty never questions that. And Witty would never write, nor even read for that matter, a senior thesis on the water crisis and the conflicts.

  • Jewish extremist is suspected of 2 murders a sanctimonious Mort Zuckerman pinned to Palestinians
    • tree November 4, 2009 at 7:40 pm with 1 replies

      You're not the first one to make this mistake, and you won't be the last, but you are wrong in your assumption. In Israel they use the European form to denote dates. Thus the Haaretz update of 4/11/2009 means the 4th of November, not the 11th of April. So the Zuckerman report preceded the Haaretz article by nearly 7 months, instead of following it by 2 days.

  • Sullivan again
    • tree November 4, 2009 at 11:38 am

      But, as he says,

      "The point is not who says what, but what they’re saying. Does it make sense or not? Does it add up or not? Can it survive scrutiny?"

      Just because Sullivan says something, there is certainly no reason to give it extra weight, but if he's right, he's right, and in this instance he is. It really doesn't matter if he's been dreadfully wrong before. Truth is truth, even if a scumbag is uttering it.

    • tree November 4, 2009 at 11:33 am with 4 replies

      More important than Steinglass or Sullivan are the two pieces that precipitated these exchanges.

      Gideon Levy. America, stop sucking up to Israel

      Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?

      But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one video, more embarrassing praise in another.

      Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don't change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways.

      Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different approach. If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer Rains in 2006 - which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement - then Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched.

      more at link...

      And Glenn Greenwald's column here:

      The latest Haaretz column by the outstanding and courageous Israeli columnist, Gideon Levy, is entitled "America, Stop Sucking Up to Israel," and it highlights one of the most bizarre political facts: criticism of Israeli actions is far more tolerated and permitted in Israeli political discourse than it is in America's. It's simply inconceivable that any establishment journalist or national politician would ever echo Levy's scathing indictments of Israel's conduct and his calls for the U.S. to apply serious pressure and even threats to coerce changes in Israeli behavior.

      link to salon.com

    • tree November 4, 2009 at 11:12 am

      Actually, it IS ethnic. Palestinians, both those who are citizens of Israel, and those who are non-citizen subjects of Israel in the occupied territories are , as a group, much more informed about the oppressiveness of Israel, but they are not included in the calculus, being neither Israeli Jews nor IDF reserve members. Its as if black opinion about segregation is not important or valid, instead we must only consider the opinions and feelings of whites when we discuss racial inequality in the US past and present.

      Witty, you've either misread or are purposely twisting Sullivan's 5 sentences. Here's the last three again., to make it easier or you to get it.

      The point is not who says what, but what they're saying. Does it make sense or not? Does it add up or not? Can it survive scrutiny?

      Sullivan is not omitting the perspectives of Israelis or anyone else. He's talking about the importance of the validity of what's being said, no matter who says it. Steinglass, on the other hand, with your acquiescence, is denigrating the perspectives of anyone who isn't an Israeli Jew. Take it up with Steinglass, not Sullivan, or is it OK with you to denigrate the perspective of non-Jews?

  • A Jewish focus won't end a more-than-Jewish problem
    • tree October 30, 2009 at 3:40 pm

      Richard, you are mind-reading Ahmed and doing your usual poor job of it. There is no reason to assume that he hasn't already found "his identity": his essay here expresses it, and affirms it. He is writing from a secure, confident and thoughtful place. Its you that need the emotional development. You are more than twice Ahmed's age and live in comparative ease, and yet you are the one who is constantly "reacting". You need to practice what you preach, Richard.

    • tree October 30, 2009 at 2:27 pm

      You're in a puckish mood today, marc, and I like it! I nearly snorted coffee up my nose at this one.

    • tree October 30, 2009 at 1:44 pm

      Witty's also speaking out in favor of black-white segregation in the US as well, which oppressed less the magical 20% number which Witty finds acceptable, being as how only 14% of the US population is black.

    • tree October 30, 2009 at 1:36 pm

      Don't listen to Witty, Ahmed. Your post was wonderful and to the point, and your goals and your beliefs shone through for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

      There is a book ... I read it, and don’t actually remember the content, but...

      That's Witty in a nutshell.

    • tree October 30, 2009 at 1:24 pm

      Italy would have to claim to speak for all CATHOLICS everywhere to be the equivalent to Israel which claims not to speak for all Israelis but for all Jews everywhere.

  • Memo to Michael Oren: There's a water crisis in the West Bank
    • tree October 30, 2009 at 3:48 pm

      He also constantly puts the lie to his own contention that he is "well-read" on the situation in Israel/Palestine. Here he admits, or perhaps feigns, profound ignorance on the water issue, which is a significant one.

  • did Harvard invite Orval Faubus and Bull Connor to speak in '60s?
    • tree October 30, 2009 at 3:22 pm with 1 replies

      Eitam is worse than Faubus and Connor. He is not just in favor of segregation and greater rights for Jews than non-Jews, he advocates ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from both Israel within the green line and the occupied territories.

      "We will have to expel the great majority of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria," Eitam said. "It's impossible with all those Arabs, and it's impossible to give up the territory. We've already seen what they're doing there," he said.

      It was the first time that Eitam, who heads the Religious Zionism faction within the National Union, has publicly supported deportation of Palestinians.

      Turning to the subject of Israeli Arabs, Eitam said, "We will have to take another decision, and that is to sweep the Israeli Arabs from the political system. Here, too, it's clear and simple. We've raised a fifth column, a league of traitors of the first rank. Therefore, we cannot continue to enable so large and so hostile a presence within the political system of Israel."

      From Haaretz, reporting on statements Eitam made in September of 2006.

  • Squaring the circle and erasing the margins
    • tree October 28, 2009 at 2:27 pm

      Oops. Screwed up my html tags. The two sentences above were from Sidney Levy.

    • tree October 28, 2009 at 2:25 pm with 1 replies

      Great articulation of the point, and I would say that this summed it up succinctly:

      I am talking about understanding fully and completely that you cannot save Israel’s democracy one bit when you celebrate the fact that 20% of its citizens has an increasingly lower birth rate (yeay!) so that their proportion in the population will not grow (double yeay!). If this is what you believe, don’t waste your time on avoiding the threat; you’ve lost the democratic values a long time ago..

      (italics mine)

    • tree October 28, 2009 at 2:17 pm with 1 replies

      Yes, this proscription for only criticizing Israel from a "place of love" is really a demand for Jews to all be "loyal" to Israel, lest they not be taken seriously, or worse yet, be considered "self-haters" or "anti-semitic". It is an attempt to enforce conformity on American Jews, by major American Jewish leaders. and Israel, with a major negative stereotype about Jews. Its as if some the most significant anti-semites are the Jewish enforcers of "love of Israel". When Zionism has past the pages of time, it will be looked back on as one of the major purveyors of anti-semitism.

  • Israel, we have a democracy problem
    • tree October 27, 2009 at 5:09 pm

      Obviously you haven't read the book, Julian. Sands discussion of the genetic evidence is too long to list here, but suffice it to say that his point is that the original "evidence" that your article alludes to was revised a year later with adjustments made ( partially because the science is too new and the desire for a particular outcome too great) that put the origins farther north in the Fertile Crescent and found instead of the Jewish DNA being closely related to Palestinian and Lebanese DNA, it was closer to Armenian, Kurdish and Turkish DNA. And here is additional later research from a 2003 report on Levites (as opposed to Cohanim) that posits a European ancestry.

      Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites

      And here's a more lay oriented paper from 2005, A Mosaic of People: The Jewish Story and A Reassessment of the DNA Evidence

      I can't really do his whole argument justice here, but Sands' position on all of this can probably best be summed up by these concluding paragraphs of his:

      Once again, the public's veneration of the "hard sciences" paid off. Laymen have no reason to doubt the truth of information derived from what is perceived to be a precise science. Like the field of physical anthropology in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which released dubious scientific discoveries to the race-hungry public, the science of molecular genetics at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first century feed fragmentary findings and half-truths to the identity-seeking media. Yet so far, no research had found unique and unifying charateristics of Jewish heredity based on a random sampling of genetic material whose ethnic origin is not known in advance. By and large, what little is known about the methods of selecting test subjects seems very questionable. Moreover, the hasty findings are all too often constructed and supported by historical rhetoric unconnected to the research laboratories The bottom line is that, after all the costly "scientific" endeavors, a Jewish individual cannot be defined by any biological criteria whatsoever.

      This is not to prelude the potential contribution of genetic anthropology in uncovering important aspects of human history, and importantly in the fight
      against disease. Most probably, the investigation of DNA, a relatively young science, has a brilliant future. But in a state in which the law prevents marriage between a "Jew" and a "non-Jew", we should be very wary about research that seeks genetic markers common to the "chosen people". Like similar investigations carried out by Macedonian racists, Lebanese Phalangists, Lapps in northern Scandinavia, and so on, sch Jewish-Israeli research cannot be entirely free from crude and dangerous racism.

      Before making facile comments based on one outdated piece of research from 10 years ago, I would suggest that you actually read what Sand's point really is. Otherwise, claiming to have debunked an argument that you don't even understand comes off as rather ignorant rather than triumphant.

    • tree October 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm

      You've got it backwards, Mooser.

  • Off to J Street
    • tree October 27, 2009 at 12:43 pm

      Per Shmuel's comment, here is Uri Avnery, from Gush Shalom, on Barghouti,
      The Palestinian Mandela.

    • tree October 27, 2009 at 3:33 am

      Wikipedia actually has a decent bio on Barghouti here:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • tree October 26, 2009 at 1:46 pm

      If I make an argument about "whites" and racism, does that mean I am making a conclusion that only non-whites can do anything about racism, that racism is so bad, it has exempted "whites" from humanity? I sincerely doubt it, and doubt that anyone else who accepted my statement would think so, outside of a few fringees.
      Why do you insist that the rules are different with regards to "Jews"? They really aren't. I suspect you have your own biases and stereotypes with respect to gentiles which is clouding your judgment. We get your point that Jews come in all different types and flavors. It would be nice if you could see the same thing with respect to gentiles.

    • tree October 26, 2009 at 1:32 pm

      You're mind-reading here again, Mooser, using your own stereotypes as your guide.

      ...how much joy that particular powder keg exploding will give you is obvious.

    • tree October 26, 2009 at 1:26 pm

      It just seems to me that this has much more to do with controlling discourse than actually preventing people from harm

      I agree, and appreciate the whole of your argument. After all, Mooser himself has used broad overgeneralizaions, i.e. when he stated that he couldn't understand Americans because he didn't understand racist chickenhawkery. (And in the process of doing so, sought to put himself outside of the realm of "American".) Its a human foible to make such overbroad generalizations and stereotypes, and Jews are no more immune to the failing than anyone else.

      Mooser, from my perspective you tend to put words in people's mouth's and assume that you understand them (i.e., they're all just hateful bigots) rather than listen to what's being said and then choosing to disagree or agree. You took a statement by Citizen about the absence of normal angl0-american judicial standards during the Nuremburg trials (something demonstrably true) and insisted it was a hateful anti-semitic jibe against Brandeis and Frankfurter . You do similar things in many of your posts, taking a statement and twisting it in your own post into what you assume you "know" was really meant. It sounds to me like an attempt to limit the discourse, as are your frequent suggestions to take up JSF's moderating policy.

      So why lend credence to that M.O. by assuming malevolent intent on the part of people who generalize (as all humans do) when talking about human phenomena? Why not just point to counter-examples, if you have them, and leave it at that?

    • tree October 26, 2009 at 12:59 pm

      Did you notice, Mooser, that you are the one who turned "Jews" into "the Jews"?

      Are you really going to argue that Jews were not involved in Zionism and do not bear responsibility for it? Or did you just go off half-cocked and assumed that "Jews" is equivalent to "the Jews"?

    • tree October 26, 2009 at 11:15 am

      The comments at JSF rarely exceed 20 per post and Phil posts considerably m0re opinion pieces and articles than JSF does. Sometimes the commentary is very good there, and even the comments can be worthwhile, but for the most part the discussion is much richer here, and some of that is due to the wide variance in opinion here. Even Nomi, who was only cutting and pasting from the usual hasbara sites, helped to elicit some great comments and discussions.

      I would strongly urge against using the JSF model here. It would be way too time-consuming and would only truncate the discussion.

  • Is equality a 'nightmare' for liberal Zionists?
    • tree October 26, 2009 at 3:32 pm

      And here's a summary of another instance:

      link to geocities.com

    • tree October 26, 2009 at 3:27 pm

      And here's a detailed discussion of another instance:

      link to geocities.com

      link to geocities.com

      link to miftah.org

    • tree October 26, 2009 at 11:45 am

      Also, the comparison to black separatists is inapt. The Zionists acted like white supremacists, or perhaps more aptly, like European supremacists, which is what the majority of them were. They looked down on both the native non-Jews and the native Jews, not because they thought them docile, but because they thought of them as dirty and backwards and primitive people. This is why the new Yishuv treated the old Yishuv with the same distain they had for the other Palestinians.

    • tree October 26, 2009 at 11:37 am

      And your depiction of pre-Zionist Palestinian Jews is just as much a stereotype as any other. Hopefully you are aware of that.

      No one here is suggesting that Jews in Israel/Palestine should be treated as lesser beings. All we are demanding is that Palestinian non-Jews not be treated as lesser beings either. Jewish rule in Israel/Palestine has proven to be a moral disaster. Much better should be that the government act as the agent of ALL its citizens/inhabitants.

    • tree October 26, 2009 at 1:25 am

      Yes, Danaa, its a great exposition, and I think you have added some important points about the need for BDS. It may cheer you to know that v's quoted exposition comes from Palestinian-American Ali Abunimah, who is a supporter of the one state solution and has written One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse

    • tree October 26, 2009 at 12:33 am

      No, WJ, the Mosque of Omar is opposite the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Al-Aqsa Mosque is part of the Noble Sanctuary, but the Mosque of Omar is not.
      And the Western, or Wailing Wall, was considered part of the Noble Sanctuary, which was administered for centuries as a a Muslim waqf.

      My understanding from reading both Segev and Sheean on the incidents that lead up to the rioting is that they were mostly political in nature, the clash of Zionists and Palestinians with competing political desires, and the religious aspect of it was merely provided a flashpoint for the mounting anger. According to Segev, the Zionists made political speeches at the rally as well as waving the flag. It was not merely a religious observance. And the riots that followed within the week were not really religious in nature but were more a result of political tensions caused by the friction between the interests of the native Palestinians and the Zionist project inserted into their midst. It was not a simple case of religious persecution of Jews, which is what the Zionist narrative attempts to make it out to be.

    • tree October 25, 2009 at 11:35 pm

      wj

      If your case is so strong why do you stoop to innuendo?

      Isn't that a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of statement by you after mentioning rumors of AIDS?

    • tree October 25, 2009 at 4:22 pm

      It's based on some American values, but not the ones that anyone should be proud of.

    • tree October 25, 2009 at 4:18 pm

      Shmuel pretty much sums it up. Chamish is also known for taking the Ringworm story, which is a legitimate story of Israeli experimenting with Xrays in the treatment of ringworm with Mizrahi children in the 1950's, and turning it into a wild Mengele-type conspiracy story complete with payments from American machine manufacturers or some such. Again, his endorsement doesn't mean that the book lacks credibility, but his endorsement certainly doesn't add any credibility either and would be taken as a negative by some.

    • tree October 25, 2009 at 12:47 pm

      This bears repeating.

      As I have explained in previous discussions here, I don’t believe either solution is realistic, but aspiring to a one-state solution establishes the principle of complete equality and democracy as a basic approach to the entire situation, affording immediate benefits, whether or not a comprehensive solution is ever achieved.

      Personally, whenever I see or hear of Israeli Jews joining with Palestinians to protect Palestinian rights I have hope that eventually the majority in Israel can reach that same state of understanding and mutual respect. Call me a dreamer.

    • tree October 25, 2009 at 12:32 pm

      Gotta agree with Shmuel here. The book may have some validity, but a recommendation from Mister Conspiracy Theory, Barry Chamish, really doesn't help.

    • tree October 25, 2009 at 12:22 pm

      WJ,

      You claim that your quote disproves what Bradley says, but I don't see where it does. Frankly. with the coordinated attempts to blame the Mufti, and thereby the Palestinians for everything Hitler, the quote itself has to be taken with a grain of salt. As does the rest of the entry. But even if all of it is true it merely points out that the Mufti was interested in an agreement with Germany that would guarantee an independent Palestine, free from British or Zionist control. Really not much different from the Stern Gang's proposal of support in return for an independent Zionist state. Both Husseini and Stern were seeking independent power free from British control. I don't find either case to be particularly shocking, nor were either very important to the scheme of things. Husseini was already a side-lined figure, and the Nazis simply ignored the Zionist offer as far as I know.

      Besides, you seem to take a grain of salt whenever someone disagrees with your position. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but its really rather disingenuous to claim that its a special case with Bradley when its not. I wouldn't say that Bradley's single statement "demonstrated {his} devotion to the whitewashing of the mufti’s career." I think that statement of yours was over the line and an attempt to smear all of Bradley's posts here. You have made incorrect statements here yourself. Does that mean that you have demonstrated your devotion to whitewashing Zionism? Does that mean that all your statements should be viewed as whitewashing and taken with a grain of salt?

    • tree October 25, 2009 at 12:06 am

      You have to admit its one of the crazier hasbara points. One the one hand, Hitler was a madman who clearly intended to kill all the Jews, and anyone who didn't recognize that well before WWII is just an anti-semite, but, on the other hand, Hitler was going to go all soft and gooey and needed the Mufti to convince him to kill Jews. Or was it that Hitler only got the idea to kill all the Jews from the Mufti? But then how could Hitler have been so obviously intent on killing all the Jews if he needed the Mufti? Its really a dangerous hasbara play, because it asks one to question the official sacrosanct Holocaust narrative in order to smear the Palestinians. Hey, if the narrative can be tossed on its head so easily just to make a racist point, maybe the narrative isn't really as sacrosanct as we think?

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 11:39 pm

      Your incident cited from Wikipedia (with Segev's "One Palestine Complete" as source) is the same as the incident I referred to, although I used Vincent Sheean's "Personal History" as a source. Sheean was an eyewitness to what happened during that fateful August. He was a reporter who was originally contracted by the Zionists to report on their efforts in Palestine and was very sympathetic to their cause, but, around the time of the tension, became disillusioned with the Zionists.

      My error was in using his description of the Mosque of Omar, which was, especially in the past, often used to describe the Dome of the Rock, but is an incorrect term, as the Mosque of Omar is at a different location, opposite the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

      Myself, I find Wikipedia entries somewhat spotty. Some are pure hasbara, some are very accurate to the history I have heard, some are in between. I'd rate that particular entry as fairly accurate, but just slightly biased towards the Zionist version of events.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 10:46 pm

      More Ben-Gurion quotes:

      "Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves .. politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. ... Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice."
      (David Ben-Gurion, 1938)

      "If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: We have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but 2,000 years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country."
      (David Ben-Gurion, 1956)

      "A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning ... We shall bring into the state all the Jews it is possible to bring ... We shall establish a multi-faceted Jewish economy - agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize a modern defense force, a select army ... and then I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or by some other means. Our ability to penetrate the country will increase if there is a state."
      (David Ben-Gurion, 1937)

      "If Jews will have to choose between the refugees, saving Jews from concentration camps, and assisting a national museum in Palestine, mercy will have the upper hand and the whole energy of the people will be channelled into saving Jews from various countries. Zionism will be struck off the agenda not only in world public opinion, in Britain and the United States, but elsewhere in Jewish public opinion. If we allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Palestinian problem, we are risking the existence of Zionism."
      (David Ben-Gurion, 17 December 1938)

      "What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place, and casualties. If we know the family, we must strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action, there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent."
      (David Ben-Gurion, 1 January 1948)

      "To maintain the status quo will not do. We have to set up a dynamic state bent upon expansion."
      (David Ben-Gurion, 1954)

      "We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return!"
      (David Ben-Gurion, 18 July 1948)

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 10:27 pm

      And I respect yours. And I am also aware that the Samaritans in the West Bank were never forced to leave their homes there.

      As most of the Samaritans in Kiriyat Luza hold Palestinian citizenship, some even tend to call them "Palestinian Jews." "Speaking of our nationality, we are Palestinians, but regarding our religion, we believe in the Samaritan Torah, which is similar to the Jewish Torah, but has up to 7,000 differences between the two holy books," said Kohen.

      link to wwrn.org

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 9:58 pm

      Actually, WJ, the provocative incident was the raising of the Zionist flag at the Mosque of Omar. (The incident you are referring to happened nearly a year before the riots, in September 1928. )

      Also, the number of dead in the Jerusalem rioting was roughly equally distributed between Arabs and Jews, yet it is continually referred to by Zionists as if it was merely an incident of Arabs rioting and Jews being the perennial victims.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 9:09 pm

      Nomi, We've gone over this before. The St Louis passengers ended up being taken in by four European countries, England, Belgium, France and the Netherlands. While the ship eventually returned to Germany, there were no passengers on it when it returned.

      US officials worked with England and European nations to find refuge for the travelers in Europe.[8] The ship returned to Europe docking at Antwerp, Belgium. The United Kingdom agreed to take 288 of the passengers who disembarked and traveled to the UK by other steamers. After much negotiation by Schröder, the remaining 619 passengers were allowed to disembark at Antwerp; 224 were accepted by France, 214 by Belgium, and 181 by the Netherlands.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      Of the 900 German refugees, estimates of those who eventually died during WWII range from 227 to 365, meaning that the majority of the passengers survived the war. You've got this wrong. Perhaps you should consider questioning your sources as they are lying to you.

      And, BTW, according to Tom Segev, Israeli historian/journalist, the Jewish Agency refused a request from the Joint Distribution Committee to allow the St Louis passengers to be given certificates of immigration into Palestine.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 8:55 pm

      So, let me ask you a question, Nomi. Why is it that you choose to believe the "history" that you do? Do you even acknowledge that there is another history which is totally at odds with the one that you have embraced without question? Have you ever read anything that didn't come from an opinion piece at Arutz Sheva, where you seem to be lifting much of your material. Do you really think an opinion piece at a rabidly partisan site is a good source of historical information?
      Do you think that we should agree with you just because you cite such partisan rhetoric?

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 8:45 pm

      You don't understand the meaning of apartheid, do you? It is having two sets of rules that the populations have to live by, determined solely by ethnicity. There are 5 million Palestinians living under Israeli control. The majority of them are denied their basic human rights by Israel. Some of them are merely treated as third class citizens. All of them are treated the way they are by Israel because they are not Jewish. Israel for the most part treats its Jews fine, but most Palestinians live under different and much more oppressive rules than your average Israeli Jew. This is apartheid.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 8:32 pm

      James Bradley, Chaos4700 and amyro89 you seriously need a history lesson.

      Actually, almost everyone here has heard all of your "history" and also knows as well what the real history is. That's your problem and why you are not making any headway here. We've heard all your cr@p ad nauseum and we know enough to know that it is selective truth at best and downright racist lies at worst. And why is it, do you suppose, that I can take a random line you've "written" without attribution and find the exact same words written from some hasbara site? Can't you at least be honest enough to cite who you are quoting if you can't be trusted to use your own words?

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 8:00 pm

      Shingo,

      Richard's got a point here. As best as I can figure the numbers, somewhere between 2500 and 12,000 Jews left the area that came under Jordanian control after the 1948 war. There were about 2000 or so Jews who lived in East Jerusalem at the time. Most Jews lived in West Jerusalem at the time of the war. There were also an unknown (by me) number that lived in other parts of what became known as the West Bank. Since the census report that accompanied the Partition Plan mentioned that there were only 10,000 Jews total living in the area that was to become the Arab State, and that Israel took some of that land in the war, its highly doubtful that the numbers are any higher than 12,000 and are probably much lower. And of course, this is in comparison to 750,000 or so Palestinians who were expelled or forced to flee. But Richard is technically right on this point. Jews who were forced to leave their homes were enabled to return in 1967. Palestinians still have not been allowed to return.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 7:45 pm

      Donald,

      The conversation was mutually confusing, because I didn’t realize at first how little she knew–she was presenting herself as well-read, but it must have been all of the standard pro-Israeli stuff that people used to accept without question.

      Yes, this is a problem I have noticed too. Where does one start, when there is so little real knowledge and a lot of misinformation. I know where my journey started and where it lead but how does one lead others there without overwhelming them with information, or without leaving out a step and losing them along the way?

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 7:33 pm

      Cr@p. Only the paragraph before the link was intended to be in italics as it is a quote from AS. The rest is me.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 7:31 pm with 1 replies

      Perhaps you ought to mention this to the Israel Land Fund, who, according to Arutz Sheva, is planning on buying land in Jordan with the help of European Jews.

      The plan is in its early stages, and no properties in Jordan have been bought to date. Purchasing would likely take place with the help of Jews in Europe, King said, as Israelis are prohibited from buying land in Jordan under Jordanian law.

      link to israelnationalnews.com

      Or perhaps even better, you should realize that you've been lied to by other hasbarists who claim that Jews can't purchase land in Jordan. Maybe you should wonder if they haven't lied to you about other things as well.

      And as a further note, Jordanian law prohibits sale to any foreigner from a country that prohibits sale of its lands to any Jordanian citizen. Guess which Middle East country prohibits sale of its lands to any foreigner who is not a Jew? Hint: Its not Iraq or Iran.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 7:17 pm

      Please tell me which country was going to give refuge to Jews during WW2.
      Answer ZERO.

      I'll ignore the bad phrasing for the moment, but your statement is a bald-faced lie. Over 400,000 German Jews were able to escape Nazi Germany before the War. Only 50,000 of those went to Palestine, despite the fact that the Nazis allowed the Zionists to recruit and train young Jews in Germany before leaving for Palestine. Most German Jews went elsewhere, including the US, other European countries, Latin America, and the non-Palestinian Middle East.

      And the Jewish Agency in Palestine often times turned down German applicants if they didn't fit the needs of the Yishuv, or if they weren't considered "good human material", in their words. Read Segev's "The Seventh Million" and Grodzinsky's "In the Shadow of the Holocaust" , both Israeli authors.

      And if you want a really admirable example of what to do when populations are threatened , read about Denmark and Sweden and the Jewish boat rescue. So, really, its the height of ignorance to claim that Jews had nowhere else to go. Many of them did have someplace to go, and most of them chose not to go to Zionist Palestine.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 7:00 pm

      Jews are NOT barred from living in Jordan. You aren't listening and aren't reading.

      link to thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 6:38 pm

      Sorry, missed the second stanza:

      Those Who Pass Between Fleeting Words

      O those who pass between fleeting words

      Carry your names, and be gone

      Rid our time of your hours, and be gone

      Steal what you will from the blueness of the sea and the sand of memory

      Take what pictures you will, so that you understand

      That which you never will:

      How a stone from our land builds the ceiling of our sky.

      O those who pass between fleeting words

      From you the sword - from us the blood, From you steel and fire .. from us

      our flesh From you yet another tank -- from us stones,

      From you tear gas .. from us rain

      Above us, as above you, are sky and air

      So take your share of our blood -- and be gone

      Go to a dancing party -- and be gone

      As for us, we have to water the martyrs› flowers

      As for us, we have to live as we will.

      O those who pass between fleeting words

      Pile your illusions in a deserted pit, and be gone

      Return the hand of time to the law of the golden calf

      Or to the time of the revolver›s music!

      For we have that which does not please you here, so be gone

      And we have what you lack: a bleeding homeland of a bleeding people

      A homeland fit for oblivion or memory

      O those who pass between fleeting words

      It is time for you to be gone

      Live wherever you like, but do not live among us

      It is time for you to be gone

      Die wherever you like, but do not die among us

      For we have work to do in our land

      We have the past here, we have the first cry of life

      We have the present, the present and the future

      We have this world here, and the hereafter

      So leave our country, our land, our sea, our wheat, our salt, our wounds

      Everything, and leave the memories of memory

      O those who pass between fleeting words!

      Mahmoud Darwish, 1988

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 6:31 pm

      And here is a remembrance of Darwish written by an Israeli Jewish poet, Haim Gouri.

      link to haaretz.com

      And an interview with Darwish in Haaretz in 2007:

      link to haaretz.com

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 6:16 pm

      THOSE WHO PASS FLEETING WORDS

      0 those who pass between fleeting words carry your names, and be gone
      Rid our time of yours, and be gone
      Steal what you will from the blueness of the sea and the sand of memory
      Take what pictures you will, so that you understand That which you never will:
      How a stone from our land builds the ceiling of our sky.

      0 those who pass between fleeting words
      From you the sword--from us the blood
      From you steel and fire--from us our flesh
      From you Yet another tank--from us atones
      From you tear gas--from us rain
      above us, as above you, are sky and air
      So take your share of our blood--and be gone
      GO to a dancing party--and be gone
      As for us, we have to water the martyrs' flowers
      As for us, we have to live as we see fit.

      So leave our country
      Our land, our sea
      Our wheat, our salt, our wounds
      Everything, and leave
      The memories of memory
      those who pass between fleeting words!

      --Mahmood Darwish, written in March 1988, during the first intifada

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 6:03 pm

      contempt for the rights of peoples’ to self-define and self-govern

      Its not contempt for "self-government", its contempt for denial of self-government. I don't get to treat you like a second-class citizen or worse by claiming I'm "self-governing". Any nation should be the nation of all its citizens and treat all its inhabitants with basic human rights. Anything else is NOT "self-government", its bigotry.

      And why is it OK for 20% to be dominated and treated as second class Would you accept the same kind of treatment in the US? Can we all "self-govern" as non-Jews and treat you the way that Palestinians are treated within the green line, or in the occupied territories? Can I demolish your house and build some nice gentile-only condos there? Really? Is that what you want?

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 5:52 pm

      I'm not an expert on Jordanian citizenship law, but having read Dershowitz's claim and the "evidence" he uses to support it, I believe his claim is false. The only "evidence" Dersh cites is the 1950's era law that gave citizenship to any Palestinian, not Jewish, who had lived in what was once Palestine. Since these were the ones who had become stateless because of Israel's ethnic cleansing, and no Jews were stateless, having Israel as their State, this law makes perfect sense in that context. However, to Dersh, this indicates a horrible anti-semitic plot on the part of Jordan. But that's all the "evidence" he has. If he had something stronger than that he would have laid it on the table. He's a lawyer and he knows how to make the strongest case, but this is all he has.

      As for Nomi's broader contention that no Jews can live in Jordan, that is categorically wrong. I remember reading a few years back about a Jewish woman who had set up a company there employing local Jordanian women in textile production.

      Update: The Hasbara Buster has done a good job refuting Dershowitz's claim here:
      link to thehasbarabuster.blogspot.com

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 5:30 pm with 5 replies

      Actually, that's what's being said in the Israeli media. Check the source of your link. Its an Israeli media propaganda group that is known for erroneous translations. Is that what's happened here? I don't know. But the source is very suspect.

      I bet if we looked in the Israeli media we'd also find other instances where Israeli Jews are saying similar hateful things. Does that mean that all Israeli Jews are hateful people that cannot be treated like other human beings, or does your racist condemnation of all Palestinians because of the alleged statements of some become a hypocritical pass on your part when it comes to Jews. After all, if you are going to condemn a whole religious, cultural, or ethnic group because of the hatefulness of individuals, then why not admit that you are no different from the people you quote (or misquote) and condemn.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 5:09 pm

      There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required, or by regulation enacted by virtue of express authorization in such law

      This paragraph in fact limits not the making of laws in contravention of this Basic Law, but the application of the Basic Law itself. Its a giant hole in legal protection when that legal protection goes against the "values of the (Jewish) State of Israel", thus it provides scant protection for its minorities as long as their rights run counter to the interests of the Jewish state. There's nothing particularly noble or grand about this law. If it was in the US Constitution it would have been laughed out two centuries ago as meaningless blather. And this Basic Law wasn't enacted until 1992.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 4:43 pm

      Adam,

      Your close parenthesis got included in your link so clicking on it doesn't work. Try this for Adam's link:

      link to adalah.org

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 4:39 pm

      Once again, Witty, you show your ignorance and your belief in fantasy Israel.

      Adam's right. They are not called "primary laws", they are "basic laws" and they don't do what you profess they do, otherwise there would not be legal inequality in Israel.

      I posted these yesterday. Here they are again. From the official source, the Knesset.

      Israel's Basic Laws

  • Israel—casting out its own children
    • tree October 25, 2009 at 2:31 pm

      I think the sarcasm of Shmuel's post went over a few people's heads here.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 2:25 pm with 4 replies

      Ha! Good catch. I'm sure that's an indication of how truly diverse and open Israeli politics is! ;-)

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 1:10 pm

      Of course, if we limit the discussion to the ADL, which is one of the quoted groups from AF, its readily apparent that they (the ADL) do have a "tribal double standard". This is not an instance of one self-designated Jewish group promoting one thing and another self-designated Jewish group promoting the opposite, but an instance of the same self-designated Jewish group promoting one thing in the US and a diametrically opposite thing in Israel. And furthermore, ADL calls anyone who promotes similar immigration policies in Israel, such as the right of return for Palestinian refugees, anti-semites. They have a huge double standard problem, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing that out.

      The ADL has a glaring double standard. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. To imply that, therefore, every Jew has the same double standard is to greatly overgeneralize. However, there are a large number of Amerian Jews who do have an unthinking, or otherwise, double standard when it comes to judging Israel.

      In regard to HIAS, I do not know enough about what they do in Israel to be sure of the extent, if any, of their double standard. However, the little I have read about them leads me to believe that they do have at least a small amount of a "tribal double standard" problem.

  • Moyers plays devil's advocate with Goldstone
    • tree October 25, 2009 at 11:21 pm

      No, you're wrong. If you are looking to see if irregularities ( in this case, war crimes) exist and you only have time and capacity to look at a certain number of incidences, and in fact you find irregularities (war crimes), then you can certainly make a statement that irregularities (war crimes) were committed. Just because you haven't been able to study all incidents doesn't negate the ones that you have. Its not a balance sheet, Witty, with some imagined good stuff possibly negating the bad stuff. If a war crime is committed, it isn't erased by another incident where someone saved a puppy from a burning building. You have a minimum base number of incidents where war crimes have occurred, and nothing can be said about whether or not more incidents involving war crimes existed, but the minimum base number is enough to call out war crimes.

      Perhaps thats one of your problems with understanding this. You think that everything has to zero out in the end. In the case of war crimes, they never do.

    • tree October 25, 2009 at 7:38 pm

      Actually, the extent of the investigation was too limited because Witty hasn't read the report and therefore, as a good auditor, he knows its best to comment on something from a complete lack of knowledge of what was in the report. Its OK, because he saw the interview so he is now an expert on the report he hasn't read.

    • tree October 25, 2009 at 7:31 pm

      50. The Mission investigated several incidents involving the destruction of industrial
      infrastructure, food production, water installations, sewage treatment and housing (Chapter
      XIII). Already at the beginning of the military operations, the Al Bader flour mill was the only
      flour mill in the Gaza Strip still operating. The flour mill was hit by a series of air strikes on 9
      January 2009 after several false warnings had been issued on previous days. The Mission finds
      that its destruction had no military justification. The nature of the strikes, in particular the precise
      targeting of crucial machinery, suggests that the intention was to disable the factory in terms of
      its productive capacity. From the facts it ascertained, the Mission finds that there has been a
      violation of the grave breaches provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Unlawful and
      wanton destruction which is not justified by military necessity amounts to a war crime. The
      Mission also finds that the destruction of the mill was carried out for the purposes of denying
      sustenance to the civilian population, which is a violation of customary international law and
      A/HRC/12/48
      page 18
      may constitute a war crime. The strike on the flour mill further constitutes a violation of human
      rights provisions regarding the right to adequate food and means of subsistence.
      51. The chicken farms of Mr. Sameh Sawafeary in the Zeitoun neighbourhood south of Gaza
      City reportedly supplied over 10 per cent of the Gaza egg market. Armoured bulldozers of the
      Israeli forces systematically flattened the chicken coops, killing all 31,000 chickens inside, and
      destroyed the plant and material necessary for the business. The Mission concludes that this was
      a deliberate act of wanton destruction not justified by any military necessity and draws the same
      legal conclusions as in the case of the destruction of the flour mill.
      52. Israeli forces also carried out a strike against a wall of one of the raw sewage lagoons of the
      Gaza Waste Water Treatment Plant, which caused the outflow of more than 200,000 cubic
      metres of raw sewage into neighbouring farmland. The circumstances of the strike on the lagoon
      suggest that it was deliberate and premeditated. The Namar Wells complex in Jabalya consisted
      of two water wells, pumping machines, a generator, fuel storage, a reservoir chlorination unit,
      buildings and related equipment. All were destroyed by multiple air strikes on the first day of the
      Israeli aerial attack. The Mission considers it unlikely that a target the size of the Namar Wells
      could have been hit by multiple strikes in error. It found no grounds to suggest that there was any
      military advantage to be had by hitting the wells and noted that there was no suggestion that
      Palestinian armed groups had used the wells for any purpose. Considering that the right to
      drinking water is part of the right to adequate food, the Mission makes the same legal findings as
      in the case of the Al Bader flour mill.

      Nope, no targeting of Gaza's food supply there. The only flour mill destroyed, the largest producer of eggs totally flattened, and the sewage treatment plant attacked, ruining acres of adjacent farmland, but that's no reason to claim that Israel was targeting Gaza's food supply. Geez, what a pathetic piece of apologia, Richard. Have you no shame?

    • tree October 25, 2009 at 7:23 pm with 5 replies

      A (good) auditor would not make assumptions about what could and could not be concluded when that auditor is merely sitting on the sidelines thousands of miles away, rather than conducting the investigation himself. And a good auditor wouldn't let his biases interfere with his seeing the truth, or reading a report because it might hurt his fantasies.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 8:09 pm

      “Yeah, those crazy Hamas rockets had to be stopped by military force–the Israelis had no choice but to respond militarily to these terrorists. But they obviously went too far.”

      I hope you are advocating for that conclusion.

      Says Mr. Liberal Non-Violence Advocate, proving his hypocrisy once again.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 4:05 pm

      You are called HYPOCRITE routinely here, not because you assume that Israel has a "right/obligation" to "respond" but because you assume and aver that same "right/obligation" does not apply to the Palestinians or to Hamas. If Goldstone repeated some of your morally vacuous statements, I'm sure he'd be properly called a hypocrite too.

  • What planet? department: AJC comes out for permanent war
    • tree October 25, 2009 at 6:18 pm

      Richard, you mention reading about the 1949 armistice in the vaguest of terms and then tell us you had never heard of this before, even though you, for some unknown reason, think of yourself as well-read. Really? You've never heard of the concept of Palestinians being cut off from their land? You've just pointed out your own ignorance in that post, and further pointed out your ignorance by asking me to explain it to you.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 2:07 pm

      And demonstrating your own instead, Richard. Not surprising.

    • tree October 24, 2009 at 2:01 pm

      You should be more committed to non-violence, than just to adopt a punitive approach.

      Unless, of course, you are Israel, in which case any resort to military violence will be excused as a necessary "response" and "self-defense", while a blockade of Gaza, much more punitive that BDS, and, as we have seen, more violent as well, will be likewise excused. Witty never takes his own advice. If he did, he'd be taken more seriously here. Instead he's the poster boy for Hypocrisy.

    • tree October 23, 2009 at 11:51 pm

      The "Dahiya Doctrine" is simply the latest name for a strategy that Israel has used since 1948, and Zionists used since the 1930's and before. And then they wonder why people hate them.

      It must be because they are Jews. Because its simple human nature that if some big bully beats the crap out of you, you will have a great and abiding respect, and perhaps even a love, for him. Unless of course, he is Jewish. Then it is necessary for him to continue to beat the crap out of you and all your relatives and neighbors, until you forget that he is Jewish, and then you will finally respect him. Of course, its also necessary for him to continually remind you that you only hate him because he is Jewish, and thus he makes his own mission that much harder to accomplish. But, on the upside, that means he gets to continually beat the crap out of everyone without ever questioning his own moral superiority. Permanent war. "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

  • Mohammed Othman's Kafkaesque imprisonment
    • tree October 23, 2009 at 11:34 pm

      The Israeli army stated that administrative arrests target terror suspects. But in the Othman case, that is highly doubtful.

      It all makes perfect sense, if you think like the IDF. Palestinian=terror suspect. The only Palestinians who aren't terror suspects are those who are collaborators with the IDF, and most of those started out as terror suspects until they could be sufficiently threatened and cajoled into becoming collaborators.

      That's why Israel was "defending itself" in Gaza. There are 1.5 million terror suspects in Gaza. (I'm reminded of Ariel Sharon's statement, right before the Israeli supervised massacre, that there were 2000 terrorists left in Sabra and Shatila.)

  • J Street leader compares Walt and Mearsheimer to 'Protocols'
    • tree October 23, 2009 at 11:10 pm

      I didn't accuse you of anything, Richard. I asked if you had finally read the book. Please don't try to pretend that you didn't claim when it came out that you had not and would not read it, just as you claimed with the Goldstone Report. We all know you better than that.

      The book and article was in ways an aberration from their current thesis, which is moderate, not fanatic (not even dangerously subject to even incremental exageration).

      Either you didn't comprehend what you read, or don't understand the meaning of the word "aberration". (Or maybe you just lied and you didn't really read the book.) Their "current thesis" is no different from their thesis as written in their book and article. Since you claim to have read the book, then you should back up your claim of "aberration", lest we conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. (As if we haven't already concluded that about most of your pontifications here .)

    • tree October 23, 2009 at 3:43 pm

      A while back you claimed you never read the book, and wouldn't. Have you changed your mind, or are you speaking, yet again, without having read the book?

  • Trying to rationalize Israel's bar on intermarriage. No can do
    • tree October 22, 2009 at 12:51 pm

      Perhaps you’re conveniently ignoring the facts that contradict your image of Israel?

      That's our Richard. No one may disturb his fantasy with facts. For everyone else, here's the full texts of Israel's Basic Laws, so that all can understand that equal rights for all is not really the basis, nor is it in the text, of these laws, except in a very limited way, with large truck-size holes allowing violation of these limited rights "by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required."

      Note that Richard thinks he is offering some new proposal, as if the Israelis have been too stupid to challenge the ban on civil marriages without this bold idea of Richards to test it in court. (Its been tried numerous times before, Richard. And failed. ) Richard's knowledge of Israel is quite limited. His chutzpah is not.

  • Israeli refusers follow South African footsteps in the struggle against apartheid
    • tree October 21, 2009 at 2:53 pm

      I'll add my agreement with Shmuel's point. Zionists, including those in the US, actively fought against the immigration of any Jews to places other than Palestine, so it is truly a self-serving lie to claim that Palestine was the only Jewish refuge.

      I strongly recommend reading "In the Shadow of the Holocaust" by Yosef Grodzinsky (an Israeli professor). Subtitled "The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II", it details "(t)he story of Jews in Displaced Persons Camps and their forced role in the founding of Israel". Despite the continual pressure and advocacy of Zionists, who were largely in command of the Jewish DP camps, most DPs wanted to go elsewhere than Palestine, and in fact 60% of them did go elsewhere. Some of the DPs in the camps were forcibly intimidated and beaten for failing to adequately support the Zionist cause. Funny isn't it, how many Jews went to places other than "the only safe haven" for them?

      And Shmuel is also right in that efforts were made in the US to liberalize immigration quotas, opposed by US Zionists, and finally enacted into law in 1948 and further liberalized and amended in 1950. One can look up Lessing Rosenwald and the Citizens Committee on Displaced Persons, which lobbied hard and eventually secured the admittance of greater numbers of DPs into the US. They were actively opposed by the leading US Zionists, including Rabbi Steven Wise, during this time, because Jewish immigration to the US would have undermined the rationale for a Jewish state in Palestine.

  • Latest tactic against 'J Street'-- anti-Arab racism
    • tree October 20, 2009 at 12:49 pm with 5 replies

      Somewhere around 15 to 20 years ago, AIPAC became more and more an outlet of Likud, rather than Labor, in terms of serving the "interests" of Israel. With that shift it became more right-wing, less interested in speaking in terms of "peace" as a "process" and more interested in US and Israeli military aggression as a solution to Israel's problems.

      I see J-Street as an attempt to get back to that Israeli Labor Party mode of operation, and little more. It won't solve Israel's problems, and it won't address the core issue of Zionism's injustice and inequality, nor will it clearly deal with the issue of a US political group putting the needs or wants of a foreign country ahead of the US's interest. Its AIPAC-lite--attempting to move AIPAC more in line with liberal double-talk. (And I say that as a self-identified, but disillusioned, liberal. Liberal double-talk is no better than conservative double-talk, and does more damage to liberalism. )

Showing comments 300 - 201
Page:

Comments are closed.