Total number of comments: 3085 (since 2009-08-12 22:27:08)
yonah fredman
"i am a zionist who believes in a two state solution." This was my profile sentence for the last three years. Here is my update: The two state solution is striking in its simplicity and its legal basis on the 1947 partition resolution and UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967. A US president should certainly pursue this direction. But unelected to the US presidency, I am not so limited. Recent calls from various parts of the Israeli political spectrum to grant the right to vote (in Israeli elections) to West Bank Palestinians appeals to me. The trick is to turn this idea into a policy of the state. Granted this would not solve Gaza or the refugees, but it would be a giant step, if not a leap. Another addendum: Shlomo Sand is the last person I thought would "buck me up" in my Zionism, but he has. The attempt to dismantle Israel in the one state plans offered will not result in a solution, and I think that at some point the situation will clarify itself into forcing israel to turn itself into a nation of its citizens and to get Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. As Sand says things don't look good from here.
Who reads the Jewish Press? Right wing Jews and those who like to mock right wing Jews.
Annie- This is a Peace Now rally. Peace Now is dissed in MW all the time.
Shingo - Shouldn't your comments include the update that Bulgaria has accused Hezbollah of responsibility for the bombing of a tourist bus last summer. Do you discount that accusation or is that some other Hezbollah than the one you are referring to?
I never heard of Kanafani until reading this post. My understanding is that the PFLP was the group that facilitated the Red Guards' massacre at Lod Airport and thus Kanafani was not merely a supporter of the Red Guards attack that day but one of the key thinkers of the group that sent the Red Guards to the airport that day.
If one supports nonviolence as a rule (rather than as an occasional convenience), Annie, one would avoid referring to the act of that day as freedom fighting. I accept that those who oppose Israel and its violence choose their own responses. But the attack at Lod Airport was about as basic an act of terrorism- targeting civilians qua civilians, as there ever has been. And please show me based upon the ignorance of that event, how that murder really helped all oppressed people that day.
Israel assassinated Kanafani in Beirut less than two months after the Lod Massacre in which members of the Japanese Red Guard opened fire at Lod airport killing 26. Kanafani, a member of the upper echelons of PFLP was pictured in the newspaper soon after the massacre standing next to one of the Japanese "terrorists".
The article you cited gives Kanafani's death year as 1973 and cites the Munich Olympic episode as the cause for the Israeli assassination. The article may have some value, but not for information on Kanafani's death, unless his death date was other than July 8, 1972.
Phil writes: "I would argue that at this point the only political path that will marginalize both the Palestinian religious extremists and the Jewish ones is democracy. It is obvious that the two societies are incapable of doing so on their own. Israel just gets more and more extreme. But if the secular portions of both societies work together and vote together, they can marginalize the religious. As we struggle to do in our society."
I accept that rooting for Palestinian freedom means limiting criticism of Hamas to once a month articles on marathons. And I accept that rooting for Palestinian freedom means not worrying about what will happen to the Jews living in I/P. But please spare us this nonsense. the only hope is for the secularists from both sides to join together. In your dreams. Give me a break. Spare us the nonsense and stick to your cause, "freedom" (under Hamas rule) for the Palestinians.
Personally, between 1968 and 1971, I had never heard of Jerusalem Day, whereas when I landed in yeshiva in Gush Etzion, Jerusalem Day was on the par with, if not superior to Independence Day as a focus of prayer. (On Independence Day we praised the Lord, by singing the Hallel, but without a blessing, but on Jerusalem Day we sang the Hallel with a blessing.) But back in the USA after three Jerusalem Days in Gush Etzion (including one after the Yom Kippur War), I discovered that Jerusalem Day was still the focus of little attention in the USA.
Years later, my attitude towards the conquests of the 6 Day War are no longer as sanguine or blithe as they were when I was still a teen, and thus now, I concede Jerusalem Day to the right wing nationalists. An appropriate celebration would mix happiness and concern for the future, but such a type of celebration would require a special type of organizer. At the current rate I will not live to see a resolution of the conflict. But if somehow I luck into seeing a resolution, I hope that Jerusalem Day and Independence Day will reflect both the happiness of the Jews to leave the pain of exclusion from Jerusalem and the tragedies that exile entailed behind, and an eye forward for peaceful coexistence in Jerusalem and in the land with the Palestinians in the future.
Ramzi- Palestinian opposition to Jewish immigration was based upon other factors besides the Jewish will to obtain sovereignty. Palestinians got along well with the self deprecating Jews of Meah Shearim, but when the Jews arrived and said we want to move here in large numbers, even if their intention had been "honorable" (non sovereignty oriented) , the effect of a mass immigration would have changed Palestinian nonJewish lives. So to say, we were at peace with the Jews when they were 3% of the population and dependent on charity from overseas and presented no economic or political challenge, is really a weak statement when in fact, a Jewish population of 30% that would present an economic and political challenge was opposed by the Palestinian people. (Just like Arizona opposed immigration, Palestinians have a right to oppose immigration. But let us not pretend that coexistence with an impoverished group of 3% is the same thing as coexisting with a powerful group of 30% or 50%.)
Woody- You're entitled to your opinion, but what you're saying is that crying wolf and being a wolf are equally bad. (no offense meant to the wolf)
Shmuel- I'd bet you fifty shekels that Emily Post or whoever is in charge of etiquette these days in the Western world will tell you that it is more inappropriate to accept an invitation and make a big thing out of cancelling it, than it is to reject an invitation and at the last minute change your mind and accept it. Unless Hawkings planned this all from the beginning, which makes it a dastardly clever move, it is appropriate for me to find it gauche for him to not do the appropriate research before accepting the invitation. Gauche is a better word than idiot.
Actually Shmuel, he's a genius and also an idiot. A man with common sense would have scoped out the issue before hand, not been surprised by his Palestinian colleagues. But he's limited by his condition, so we make excuses for him.
Stephen Hawking has an obvious excuse, but nothing has changed over the last two months and he is an idiot for agreeing to come and then pulling out. (This is dismissing the possibility that he was planning to pull out from the start and his original agreement to come was disingenuous.)
Upon reflection my acceptance of Morgenthau's instinct as "not wrong" reflected my anger at Germans who were alive on May 1, 1945 and particularly those who were over 18 in 1933.
But those who think the West knew how to handle Germany and it was because of forethought that no wars were fought between WWII and the breakup of Serbia on the European land mass, are just plain wrong. The path forward was not clear and various factors, including Soviet tanks and US troops and the invention of nukes were involved in the balancing act that led to the peaceful interim that lasted from 1945 until 1990. That Morgenthau saw drastic measures to be taken against the Germans as the path forward, seen from today seems like a desire for vengeance, (a desire that I understand though I realize it is regressive and I caution those whose grandparents all died in beds to pause before they cast the first stone.)
Citizen (and Hostage)- Judaism's closed attitude towards converts is unfortunate and it might take a few hundred years to undo tradition and trauma which are at the base of that attitude. If not for the fact that current prejudices against converting others to Judaism were part of my upbringing, my preferred attitude towards nonJews, whether in America or anywhere else where Jews live, would be marry our daughters and marry our sons, but first take on the laws and the Sabbath and the kosher rules and men, get a minor operation on your genitals, and men and women take a dip in a baptism pool (called a mikva) and then "sully the purity of our tribe" all you want. Judaism is a 52 Shabbos a year, a 365 day a year kosher, kind of thing and to imagine that Judaism can survive merely with being good, but without rituals, is a suspension of reality. What the Reform did was to imagine that Messiah had already come. That is, in my imagination of the days of Messiah, the laws will be suspended (or eased) because knowledge of God will surround us like waters. (Habakuk 2:14) And when that's the case, the laws of Sabbath and Kosher are not so key, because we will have graduated to a less rule oriented time. But though Reform announced the end of the law, (reminds me of the Pauline conception of Rabbi Yehoshua's undoing the law) when you declare the end of law, you declare the end of Judaism.
I realize that in fact because Judaism is not as porous as it was before Judaism suffered the trauma of Constantine's Christian sword, the maintenance of the congregation of Sabbath keepers has the effect of shunning the nonJew. But Judaism can survive on the fumes of the past, but it cannot survive long without the Sabbath. Reform and the Pittsburgh platform turned the Sabbath into something that Reform rabbis keep (sometimes), but the reform laity don't keep and without the sabbath, Judaism withers. (There is great wisdom to be gathered from the writings of reform or Reform Jewish thinkers, but the practices that they initiated have failed to keep Judaism alive, if they are still around it is because of the echoes of the Sabbath and holidays and wisdom of the past, and not because of the wisdom of the content of the Pittsburgh platform.)
Hostage- Most American Jews have rejected Judaism since the Pittsburgh platform. The Pittsburgh platform was a road map to assimilation. Not a road to Judaism, but a road map away from Judaism.
lysias- It was fortunate that the plan to impoverish Germany was not necessary to stop Germany from starting any more wars. But Morgenthau's instinct was not wrong and I do not hold his plan as infamous, but unfortunate. As Judt proves in Postwar- the fact that Europe survived the post war without again engaging in more wars was partially a matter of luck. We were lucky and Morgenthau did not wish to depend on luck.
Hindsight is 20 -20.
Where I come from (modern Orthodox) the attitude towards those who replace the Torah with Zionism is that Zionism without Torah cannot last, it's an empty shell like a zombie, a body without a soul. (This modern Orthodoxy also represents the greatest mistake of Zionism- the settler movement. But leaving that aspect aside for a moment.) Thus one would say that Phil's critique of mainstream Judaism, replacing Torah with Zionism is spot on.
The problem is, that Phil really rebelled and rebels against all things Jewish except that which meets his approval, those things that can be adapted and useful to the assimilationist. Phil really doesn't care about Torah, Judaism or Jewishness. He cares about his vision of America and his vision of justice. America and justice (not in that order, necessarily) are great objects to idealize. But to pretend that his concern is Judaism is really false.
Shmuel- I went to yeshiva with Hagi ben Artzi, back in the year of their lord 1973, and although he expresses himself in an extreme way (I myself do not care who's on the currency, as long as it ain't charles lindberg), I understand the impulse in opposition to intermarriage. Certainly if one believes in God and Torah like Hagi ben Artzi does, intermarriage is a catastrophe, in that belief in one God and Torah has diminished chance of growing in a house that has both a christmas tree and a menorah (although there are many Jewish homes without intermarriage that have a christmas tree just the same, see Wallace Shawn). When translating this religious impulse into nationalist Zionist terms, the religious is bound to sound racist, even though as most of the DNA experts here at Mondoweiss will tell you, Jews are not a race.
Slowly as i have emerged from the shadows of my religious upbringing I have come to attempt to accept the inevitability of intermarriage, though i must tell you one fact. a good friend of mine, who has since died, was the son of a Jewish father and a nonJewish mother, and married a nonJew and I was very close with him and once I was on the bus with his daughter as the bus passed a church and she crossed herself, and though I was aware that she was raised Catholic, this obvious act of observance made me think: It would kill me to have a daughter or a granddaughter who would cross themselves.
Keith wrote: I don't believe that US Zionist Jews initially advocated for a militarized Israel, but that changed after the 67 war.
I'm not so sure. I am aware of the evidence presented by the fact of Commentary magazine really not giving much of a damn about Israel before 1967 and so it may be true of the elite and the intelligentsia of the American Jewish community. It also depends on what you mean by a militarized Israel. What did the average Jew think when he saw the picture of Nasser? (He was the only Arab leader to make it into the consciousness of most American Jews or most Americans for that matter at the time.) I would approximate that the average Jew felt that Nasser was a threat to Israel.
But let's go to the movie Exodus, or first the book, which was published in 1958. Did that book depict a militarized Israel? Well, not in the sense of keeping the occupied territory and not in the sense of heating up the desire for a reunited Jerusalem. But other than that Ari Ben Canaan represents an Israel that has a standing army and it is not Judah Magnes's Israel, but much more Ben Gurion's Israel and thus it is a militarized Israel. How many Jews read the book in 1958? How many reacted against its false depiction of the nakba? How many reacted and said, the path of Judah Magnes is superior to this path? Very few.
Of course it may not have been read by most American Jews or most Americans, that's why: now: Let's look at the movie, with Paul Newman personifying the Hagana, personifying the new Israel. Who saw that movie and rejected the militarization personified by Paul Newman. True, as depicted Paul Newman/Ari Ben Canaan wanted to share the land with his Arab (pre "Palestinian" semantic problem) friend and it was only his uncle played by Opatoshu who represented the extremist Irgun type Akiva ben Canaan, whose extreme positions Paul Newman rejected and maybe Paul's Newman's Hagana is not considered militarized and Opatoshu's is considered militarized, but that is the difference between militarized Labor party Zionism and militarized Likud party Zionism, a difference, but still militarized.
But my point: what percentage of American Jews was not stirred by the theme song to Exodus? Sure most Jews did not think about it that much, but when presented with a movie and a hit song, they were forced to think about it and what percentage rejected it. (Sure Allen Ginsburg was more focused on being a beatnik and the average Jew was focused on getting ahead, so I'm not saying that Israel became the focus of the life of all American Jews. But what I am saying is:) Even though Podhoretz and crew did not really discover Israel until after 67, American Jews discovered Israel before 67 and that Israel which they felt a stirring for was in fact a militarized Israel.
Shmuel- I think the story of Obama's: There must be a settlement freeze and then his backing down from it, which ostensibly occurred as a result of threats of loss of financial contributions from Zionist democrats is a major story. This part about Mike Froman belonged to BBYO as anodyne (I know I know, Zionism can never be called anodyne) a Zionist organization as ever was, 33 years ago at the age of 18, is relevant in a very broad context, but other than that is more a symptom of Phil's obsession against Zionist Jews of America..
To me it seems that phil dreams of the day when Jews will be asked in front of congressional committees, (if not in front of citizen committees a la citoyen committees circa 1793 as some of the folks in this comments section salivate over) and asked, "are you now or have you ever been a zionist?" (this was a shortlived headline here at mw, for about 20 minutes, until phil changed the headline to something more anodyne). It is not clear if this is Phil's dream come true or nightmare, but he certainly dreams of it.
Phil writes: BBYO is a Zionist organization complete with link. Well, yes and no. True the BBYO proclaims its ties to Israel right in its mission statement. But Bnai Brith preceded Zionism by some 50 or so years and its Zionism is a result of the natural Zionism of identifying Jews.
Natural Zionism as in natural to support fellow Jews elsewhere in the world, something that Bnai Brith pursued without a Zionist bent after the Kishinev pogrom. Maybe when Jews lobbied Teddy Roosevelt to protest to the Czar that allowing pogroms is a no-no, those Jews including Bnai Brith were involved in proto Zionism, a type of dual loyalty as well. But I think not, that concern for Jews elsewhere on the globe, particularly in 1905 with the recentness of the immigration and the natural ties to the lands that were subject to the Czar's winks vis a vis the pogroms, that this was merely a human response and not particularly ideological. Zionism does not flow as naturally as the lobbying in 1905. But it flows nonetheless. And it is obeying that flow of identity with Israel that BBYO is involved in rather than anything nefarious or political per se. The question of Jewish Zionism is one that could be raised, but labeling someone's background as Zionist based on association with BBYO seems to be perverse. Associating with any Jewish organization other than United Neturie Karta or Jews for Palestine would thus be forbidden on any Jew's resume, according to Phil's standards.
Finally American has clarified for us the implications of naming himself American. He gets to decide who is American and who is not American. He does not propose legislation for the future, but merely threatens with nonspecific historical consequences: "they will learn the hard way that Jews as minorities will be among the first victims to get tossed from the ‘salad’ as schism antagonisms grow and there is no collective or common interest left to protect them."
But it is not only regarding the future that American rules: he has the right to revoke citizenships of the past. Brandeis was no American, he informs us, he was a Zionist. How about Lindberg? Was he a German because he cozied up to Herr Hitler? Or maybe Lindberg thought an American Germany alliance would be good for America and therefore his statements in favor of Hitler were American whereas Brandeis was merely playing colonial lord by suggesting Zionism and therefore Brandeis's hobby makes him unAmerican whereas Lindberg's pro American pro Nazi stance does not lead him to lose his designation as an American. We will await "American's" judgment. Because he gives out citizenship both past and future.
Regarding the situation in Syria- I don't think Assad will survive until 2020, unless he leaves the country or unless there is a negotiation that creates a mini Alawite state. I think the weakening of the Hezbollah, Assad, Iran axis is to Israel's advantage, but chaos or a type of Hamas in Syria is not to Israel's advantage.
Kathleen, white phosphorus is a dubious weapon especially when used near civilians. But if some expert categorizes it as a chemical weapon, please link. Categories of thought are useful as thought experiments, but chemical weapons have a definition, I believe and white phosphorus does not fit the definition, I believe, unless clarified otherwise.
annie robbins- this credulity vis a vis Assad and "new" elections, (as in when were there "old" elections in a totalitarian country?), ruins your credibility regarding any realistic assessment of Palestine, Israel, Syria, Lebanon or Egypt. If you buy Assad's goods, you have no eye for false goods and your analysis is below mediocre.
Taxi- Until now I did not believe even supporters of Assad took his offer of a functioning democracy as real. But now, here you are, telling me that it was a real offer. BTW can you tell me the date this offer was made or a link to this offer.
Lil Miss annie robbins playing cheerleader, again.
Let's be clear, Taxi. When you or your ilk are in charge, you will implement the policy of shipping all Jews out of Palestine. You will make some exceptions, but you won't tell us which exceptions you will make except to draw general rules. You will not be the bureaucrat in charge, but you will be on the Commission drawing up the rules that the bureaucrats will execute and there's no use in getting specific at this time.
Taxi- I understand the geostrategic reasons for backing Syria, because it is against Israel. But democratically, isn't an Allawite government, absolutely anti democratic? Isn't part of the claim against Israel is that it is not democratic? Unless democracy is not part of your shtick.
Taxi- Define Palestinian Jew. According to the PLO charter, the caduc charter, but the original charter, Jews who can demonstrate their roots previous to the Mandate were considered Palestinian Jews. But now it seems according to you, that if they are Ashkenazi Jews then even if their roots are pre 1917 or 1920, then they will have to move when your rules are enforced. Please clarify, Miss Taxi.
Actually land swaps is not just an idea, it was included in Abbas's counter offer to Olmert. As far as fertile territory compared to desert territory I accept the complaint, but certainly if there is to be a two state solution at this time, one would expect Abbas's offer to be the starting point (as Olmert's would be the starting point for the Israeli stance). Anything else would be starting from scratch. Little will come of this because Netanyahu does not accept Olmert's position as his starting position. And Hamas does not accept Abbas's position as valid. Marc Ellis has come out in favor of Netanyahu and Hamas and against Abbas and Olmert.
Ellis seems to be opposed to a two state solution, so land swaps are in the category of kal v'chomer. If one is opposed to a two state solution, so much more so, if it requires land swaps to accomplish the solution.
(On the worthlessness of land swaps in question: The land to be given for the connecting road between Gaza and the West Bank is not worthless. Its value is not fertility but the fact that it would connect Gaza and the West Bank.)
Taxi- Let me see if I get this right? Non ashkenazi Jews are hereby recognized as Palestinian Jews, and all Ashkenazi Jews are hereby declared colonialists? Is this your definition?
Phil writes re: Caroline Glick, she's popular over there. Not. Caroline Glick is not popular in Israel. She writes in English. Her newspaper column is carried by Jerusalem Post which has a minor circulation. Is she translated into Hebrew and carried by any other newspapers? Only Makor Rishon, another minor paper. So, she is not popular over there. Her point of view is too popular over there: as evidenced by Naftali Bennett's party's 12 seats. But Caroline Glick herself? Not. The average Israeli never heard of her.
The meeting of the minds between Mondoweiss and the Jewish Press does not exist, they are two lines in 3D space that do not intersect. It is relevant to underline all bigoted thinking of anyone Jewish regarding the Israel Palestine conflict, yet again, when the thrust of this web site is 1. Jewish continuity is a form of racism, acceptable only because marriage is difficult and therefore sometimes it's easiest for Jews to fall in love with Jews. and 2. Certain aspects of Jewish tradition are great: the seder when shared with nonJews, but for the most part: the talmud is bullshit and Christian or Islamic universalism is superior to Jewish particularism. The Jewish press (aside from its Zionism) is gung ho on continuity and in marriage, gung ho on the Talmud and Jewish particularism and favors the seder on Passover, especially when not shared with nonJews. There is no way that these two lines: Mondoweiss and the Jewish Press can ever intersect.
Because of opposition from Abbas and Hamas (and of course Israel and the United States) it will take years before this step will be taken, but it seems to be the next logical step.
Warning: this is a technical critique and does not change Sam Bahour's major argument.
He wrote: All they need to do to claim it is to visit Israel and request it.
Meaning: All that nonIsraeli Jews need to do to claim citizenship is to visit Israel and request it.
No, it's not quite that simple.
I did not experience the specific case that Sam Bahour refers to, as in someone who arrives in Israel as a tourist and then wishes to apply for citizenship. I decided to make aliya before I got on the airplane, I went to the Israel consulate's aliya office in NYC filled out forms, answered questions regarding my fluency in Hebrew and regarding relatives living in Israel and regarding plans for supporting myself once I settle in Israel. I also had to prove that I was Jewish by getting a letter from a rabbi testifying to his knowledge regarding that fact. Then when I arrived in Israel I was immediately (within a few weeks) given a t.z. teudat zehut, (aka hawiye) identity card, but my application for citizenship was still provisional and I was not able to get an Israeli passport until I had lived in Israel for a year and a half and during my first half year in Israel I was not allowed to leave the country without special permission or else it would have disrupted the consecutive residency requirement.
The requirements are rather lax, but not quite "all I had to do is visit and request it."
I see no reason why Jews from abroad (the Diaspora seems to be a term that isn't acceptable to the crew here, so since it is a recent word I will use the more ancient term- Golus, or exile) should automatically be granted citizenship and not have to wait say five years of residency and be able to pass a test regarding citizenship (the test would emphasize democracy, according to my druthers).
These would not change Sam Bahour's major point which is not in regards to the ease with which I can claim citizenship, but with his extreme difficulty (with limit approaching impossibility) in claiming citizenship. This along with the nakba has to do with the demographic question, where Israel wishes to maintain a Jewish majority and minimize the size of the Palestinian/Arab minority. Given the fact that the surrounding countries which have started the journey down the path to a democratic society have yet to show that they will respect the rights of minorities, let alone other democratic values circa 2013, is in fact a valid question. The path to democracy should not involve a suspension of disbelief or closing one's eyes to reality and the current reality is that Islamism is ascendant, the Muslim Brotherhood is the center and Salafi Islam is the second strongest power in Egypt and to assume that the votes in a Palestine with an Islamic majority would not vote in Hamas (or someone worse) is based upon naivete. And thus the demographic question is a real question.
When it gets down to the bottom line the question is: what army will control Lydda airport? And there is no way that anyone who cares about the safety of the Jews of israel who would stay in Israel would consider Hamas controlling Lydda airport as anything but a tragedy. (this statement is overly generalized, but 97.1% true).
Regarding setting policy regarding who is allowed into the West Bank and in and out of the West Bank, there certainly is justice in giving the Palestinians the right to determine who enters and exits rather than Israel, because the West Bank should be held in guardianship for the Palestinians rather than as a half annexed territory (annexed as far as allowing Israelis to move there, but not annexed regarding giving rights to the Palestinians.) I personally would accept a large number of refugees into Israel (if I were Prime Minister and controlled the Knesset and the minds of Israeli Jews) and grant them citizenship and I would hope that work towards assimilation into an Israeli identity which was not Jewish could be achieved over a few generations, so that it would be sufficient to say that an Israeli army controlled Lydda airport rather than stating that a Jewish army must control Lydda airport. Admittedly Israel is not moving in this positive direction and I accept that given the facts on the ground Sam Bahour's point will fall on receptive ears of those who already opposed Israel before they heard Sam Bahour's argument.
The equation: collaborating with the Zionists is the same as collaborating with the Nazis involves the direction of the thought equating Zionism and Nazism and I rebel against that.
The Nazi collaborators were policemen in uniforms putting Nazi rules into effect. The Zionist collaborators are/were spies. Every person will react to a spy in a particular fashion. But policemen putting Nazi rules into effect is in a different category.
I think the settler enterprise was a bad idea strategically (for Israel) geostrategically (for the United States) and morally (for the cause of human democracy and fairness). But I think that when one says, on the one side you have someone who writes for mondoweiss and on the other side you have someone who engages in violence as specified by the link, is in fact misinterpreting what the people at the dinner were discussing. The theoretical person referred to by the diners was someone who was involved in the settler enterprise but not personally involved with violence and adam horowitz's citing a link to actual acts of violence is yet another case of rhetorical excess.
There seems to be an assumption that the probability that a right wing settler engages in violence (other than the illegal nature of his presence, but actual violence) is more than .5, and I believe this is not true.
Here is the quote that seems to be based upon this assumption- "Putting aside the outrageous premise of comparing writing for this site with this," and "this" is linked to settler violence.
tree- I never called Barghouti a stalinist. I called SJP's attitude towards free speech Stalinist.
I was/am a student at Brooklyn college spring 2013. There was a line of people who were not on any advanced assured seat list and I was at the front of that line and I was selected out of that line and approximately 15 people behind me on that line were allowed in. I repeatedly asked Mister Guzman, why I was selected out of that line, he refused to answer. When I thought that Mister Guzman was a brooklyn college student I thought his behavior was Stalinist, (by which I meant someone who winnows out dissenters before an event), now that i realize that he was not a student, his behavior is a tad worse than what I thought before. Stalinist plus. The fact that brooklyn college allowed a nonstudent to be in charge made brooklyn college's behavior bozo like. SJP's behavior towards the four students who were found to be nondisruptive, but were only potentially disruptive and their behavior appointing a non Brooklyn College student, a non CUNY college student, to be in charge of winnowing out potential disrupters without any evidence, certainly places them in the category of people who pick and choose when it comes to free speech. There are groups other than Stalinists who have selective attitudes towards free speech. But for me "Stalinist" captured the essence of the attitude of SJP on the night of February 7th 2013 at Brooklyn College.
Just a quick perusal of the beginning of the report reveals that Carlos Guzman who was in charge of security was not a student at Brooklyn College, indeed not even a current student at Hunter College at the time of the event. Thus the person in charge of kicking out people and allowing access on the day of the event was someone who was not a student. Thus it was not a student who the Brooklyn College security people were listening to when commanded, but some apparatchik of the SJP. Is this any way to run a college event? I think not. Congratulations for a less than mediocre job CUNY. Congratulations for finding in favor of allowing some apparatchik to be in charge of your security people for a media event. Great job, bozos!
Does the average Berlin museum goer spend ten minutes a year talking to a Jewish individual about what Jewish identity means to that individual? My guess is no. Would the average Berlin museum goer benefit from speaking ten to twenty minutes a year to a Jew about what Jewish identity means to that individual? Well, according to the commentators of mondoweiss, no. any discussion with individuals about Jewish identity are probable to produce stupid, supremacist, ethnocentric, "chosen people" attitudes and it would be better that this Berlin museum goer would instead read "Esau's tears" or a book by Gilad Atzmon if they want enlightenment instead of hasbara. My opinion: i think it would be useful for the average berlin museum goer to experience hearing individual Jewish opinions about Jewish identity for 16.2 minutes every year, although this should not be legislated.
But the Jew in the box format is obviously over the board and artificial and thus less than ideal.
Marc Ellis- As if there are not enough laws in the law books, Shulchan Aruch, along comes the new Moses, Marc Ellis with a new set of commandments.
And now, a joke: (Many Jewish synagogues raise funds by selling tickets, charging for seats on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.)
A man comes to the door of the synagogue and tells the usher, that he has no ticket, but he has to give a message to his father. The usher insists that no one is allowed in without a ticket. The man insists he is not there to pray, merely to give a message to his father. Finally the usher relents and allows the man inside, "but don't let me catch you praying."
According to your laws Marc Ellis, a person is allowed to go to the Wall to take photographs or to see it, but to pray there, that is forbidden.
i'm sure that if someone of nonmilitary thinking had been in charge of the Israeli army in the days after the 6 day war, some different result at the Wall would have been the result. I particularly am concerned with reports of loss of life in the previous neighborhood when the neighborhood was destroyed.
But how is it that the Yehudim (or as some here insist, the so called Yehudim) must concede the Temple Mount to others, but have nowhere but an alleyway to gather ourselves?
I am conscious of the occupation and lack of peace and the presence of soldiers when I am in the old city and at the wall. These elements are near the essence of my prayers.
There is no other place set aside for the purpose of prayer where I have a tendency to pray other than the Kotel. Yet Moses (Marc Ellis) has descended from Mount Sinai with his new tablets which proclaim, thou must not pray here.
tree- Many true and valid points that you raise and I began to look at the situation mathematically, geometrically, inside a circle, with the origin or center of the circle analogous to perfect democracy. (Democracy has its ups and its downs, like life it is a struggle rather than a static state of achievement. In America, leaving out gerrymandering, low voter turnout particular in nonpresidential election years, the electoral college, campaign finance influence, there is the rising gap between rich and poor, between uneducated and educated.)
Israel was established with a specific ethnicity in mind in a territory where the "opposite" ethnicity was predominant a century or less before. Israel was established with a forced exile of a large population of the opposite ethnicity. Israel is surrounded by the opposite ethnicity. Israel tends to view the opposite ethnicity within its borders as a demographic threat and the opposite ethnicity beyond its borders as a military threat.
Ultimately my point of view is that Israel should morph into a state of all its citizens. Immigration policy could be dealt with, but the history of the exile of the Palestinians (nakba) and the continuing demographic threat would complicate this idea. Of course instead of moving in this direction Israel is moving away from this idea. (Here's where the analogy to the center of the circle as democratic perfection and Israel moving away from the center rather than towards the center came to mind.)
The struggles of the peoples of Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad and the current state of their journey towards self rule involves struggles between majority and minority groups that are not yet resolved nor is their resolution period predictable. It is particularly this aspect of democracy (tolerance for minority) that has yet to be proved. Certainly the predominance of Islamic parties is not encouraging to those who view issues of personal freedom to be aspects of democracy as well.
The Jewish experience with independence has certainly involved militarization and inability to "get along with others". Although there are differences between the history of Zionism and colonialism there are commonalities as well and a democratic attitude towards the indigenous has certainly not been present in the mainstream of Zionism nor in the history of Israel.
Phil stated that the debate is over. And in the USA the idea of a state devoted to an ethnic group is contrary to democracy and as long as Israel fears the idea of a state of all of its citizens then it fears democracy. But ideas without reality is only half the debate. Reality should enter into the argument as well and the opposite of Zionist rule is not a state of all its citizens and a group dedicated to a state of all its citizens, but an Islamic state. And the sectarian clashes of Baghdad, the civil war in Damascus and the sad state of affairs of Cairo, let alone the rule of Hamas in Gaza all do not bode well for those who idealize democracy and wish for immediate results. These facts must be included in the debate lest our debate be purely academic in nature, which it should not be. Reality must be factored in, both the reality of the rejection of the most Israelis of a state of all of its citizens and the reality that the democracy in the neighborhood is still in its early stages in regards to sectarian cooperation.
Annie Robbins- J. J. Goldberg dismissed Cohen as over his head as a result of his column about Iranian Jews plus his other columns about Iran: link to forward.com
MRW- Yes, I remember. That was when Roger Cohen was taken around by someone employed by the Iranian government and took everyone's word for how good things were going. Roger Cohen's credibility took a blow with that column and your citing it is no surprise.
harry law the Jewish community are thriving in Iran and are very happy. Nonsense. Go ask the emigre community of Iranian Jews living in the US if this is true. It is not.
Danna- Meretz has 6 seats in the Knesset. That's 5% of the Knesset. Surely not an encouraging number, but there are Israelis who support the sissy position of American Jews.
of course Israel is not heading in the direction of Selma alabama 2013, so when it flees baghdad, cairo and damascus and heads away from USA 2013 it alienates all those who value USA 2013, so the debate is over in terms of the long term that if Israel continues in its current direction, it cannot maintain support from those who value USA 2013, no matter what the basis of Israel's movement away from those values.
The present moment of history in places like Cairo and Damascus and Baghdad are more relevant than 1965 Selma Alabama. The Muslim Arab culture can, I believe, reach democracy, but it is in its infancy and to pretend that Israel's resistance to democracy has more to do with rejection of democracy a la the USA rather than rejection of the lack of democracy in Syria, Egypt and Iraq, is to consider the debate over. And the debate is not over. The facts in a 500 mile radius from Tel Aviv are relevant and they say, democracy is not here yet and to pretend that Zionism is the only thing standing in the way of democracy is to hear a debate in the West Village and to think you can snap your fingers and pretend that Cairo, Damascus and Baghdad do not exist.
MRW- This is a bold assertion. Care to back it up with quotes of some sort?
pabelmont- How many Jewish Palestinians were killed in fighting between Dec. 47 and March 48? If Palestinians had zero power, then how did they enforce a siege of Jerusalem and how did they kill a few hundred Jews? Ultimately the Palestinians did not have sufficient power to defeat the Zionists, who were soon in May 48 to become Israelis, but to state that they had no power is a false statement (aka rhetorical excess). They had insufficient power, but power they had to kill and to attempt to starve the Jews of Jerusalem.
(Warning: more mountain from molehill): Let me add that in the comments by the 14 or 15 year old kid on the bus that the Arabs are terrorists, is an imprecise translation, what the kid says is that they "do piguim". they do terrorist acts (acts of damage to be more literal.) (My comment: blowing up buses is effective in order to get Israel to leave the Gaza strip or in order to cause real pain to Jewish Israelis, (see "the gatekeepers") but it also has some side effects, like a 13 year old kid remembers being afraid to get on buses when he was 5 and this adds some elements of reality to his racism.
Also in referring to the menorah, the translation refers to the menorah as an emblem of the Jewish state, but the menorah is the emblem of Beitar and this rather than the emblem of the Jewish state is the reason why a fan of Beitar would wish to exclude nonJews from the team.
I suppose they pay translators very little and certainly not enough to avoid mistakes of this sort.
James Canning- a superficial surf of the net revealed a headline by richard silverstein- Mk danon proposes outlawing sex between Arabs and young Jewish girls (as in pre 18), which though not 100% is still not the content of the Nuremberg laws.
Reading the text of Silverstein's article reveals this:
Danon called for offering greater authority to government officials to deal with the problem, while another witness called for official legislation outlawing “seducing” or having sex with a minor.
which is in turn quite different from the headline.
This then is the sloppiness of the new internet journalism , from the content of silverstein's article to the headline to the content of the words spoken by Abu Rass, to its inclusion in an article on Mondoweiss, without comment by the editors and now of course, to the comments of the other Mondoweiss denizens that I am making a mountain out of a molehill.
Danna-- Thanks for your honest answer.
Danaa- Out of curiosity. Have you ever studied Talmud? (I realize now 8 months later that my labeling the use of the word "pilpul" as antiyehudi or antisemitic, was moogzam, an exaggeration. But really, have you studied enough Talmud to really qualify to label its arguments as convoluted attempts to throw up dust?)
It's much easier for Bush Sr. to believe that Jews who favor Israel did him in than look in the mirror and see the idiot who chose Dan Quayle to be his running mate. Bush won in 88 because he was Reagan's veep. He lost in 92 because America was ready for something different.
Citizen- Phil will not countenance anyone saying anything against intermarriage, because he is quite happy in his marriage. Okay, fine.
This column by stanley fish was a reaction to a book written by a young person, Naomi Schaefer Riley. She writes about the difficulty of intermarriage. This difficulty is not a product of her imagination, nor even a projection of her own difficulties of her own intermarriage, it is backed up by statistics. More intermarriages end in divorce than non mixed religion marriages. NSR set out, based upon the basic divorce statistic to interview people who would explain the difficulty and she wrote a book on the subject and based upon the way she started out: divorce statistics prove that these marriages are difficult, let me research this, it was obvious that those who are intermarried and see it as the best thing that happened in their lives, are going to object to the slant of such a book.
But Phil does not attack NSR, but the messenger, Fish and on the basis of a generational clash asserts that Fish is a lecturer and an old scold.
"Well marriage is hard work; and he is lecturing my generation about something that many of us are working through in ways that he cannot imagine."
He is turning this into a generational thing. Fish is an old fart and his imagination is stunted. But in fact Naomi Schaefer Riley is quite young based upon her publicity photos and Fish is merely echoing the lecture from Schaefer Riley, so to turn it into a generational clash is silly.
This is Phil's blog and if he wants to cite the minority case of exceptions to the rule and say, My wife and I are charting new territory and we will build a brave new world. Fine. Good for him. But for his suggestion that it is Fish's age that makes the advice that Schaefer Riley gives a lecture from one generation to another, this is just silly.
Stanley Fish's column was an endorsement of a book: Naomi Schaefer Riley's "'Til Faith do us Part: How interfaith marriage is transforming america". Phil's anecdote from his own marriage apparently is sufficient to declare Naomi Riley's research and 248 pages obsolete, because it was endorsed by someone old.
Not to beatify Christopher Hitchens. Of course his rhetoric towards his opponents was over the top, when was his rhetoric not over the top? But to accuse him of careerism for supporting the war, is really off target. He became a believer in the need to destroy the enemy of the Kurds and he became a believer in opposing those who conceded higher motives to Osama Bin Laden. If he was mistaken it was a mistake he never conceded, and certainly not one he made out of careerism.
At times, Phil Weiss has expressed the opinion that liberal Zionists may/could/should play an important part in opening the door to the weakening of the pro Likud lobby.
This is not the direction of my thinking and it could be that a gathering such as this web site personifies, should be dismissive towards liberal Zionists.
I do not find the attitudes of the early Zionists relevant to my thinking beyond a point. the first real sin of the zionists in my book is the nakba, and that the refusal to allow the refugees back rather than the kicking out in the first place. Obviously actions have precedents in thoughts and the thought to kick them out occurred before the fact of the refusal to allow them to return. the simplification of life accomplished by the refusal to allow them to return is so manifest that it defies common sense to expect anything else. i come from people who watched the 1881 to 1948 saga largely on the sidelines vis a vis zionism but on the front lines vis a vis YKW (you know what) the khurban. I also come from the bourgeois thinkers/rabbis rather than from the working class preachers or the gangster doers. the gangsters created a fait accomplis, well not just the gangsters, but the nations of europe plus the gangsters presented the rabbi/thinkers with a fait accomplis.
hanna arendt, detached from the jewish people before during and after the khurban saw things rather clearly. she ain't no rabbi and she wasn't reflecting from the point of view of the loyalist clerics, but the swing of history and she got that right and the tendency of israel is dependence on super power, on military power plus a few other prophecies she got right.
it would have required real philosophical purity (yeshaya leibowitz comes to mind) to really see and speak about the danger of the occupation and the settlement enterprise.
i was on the ground a mere five years after the occupation began and witnessed men of stature who made a serious error regarding the range of possibilities of the century ahead, but only considered the immediate emotional/religious satisfaction of playing with the ideas of god and history.
by range of possibilities i mean that beyond peace and war (the only two possibilities the rabbis of the yeshiva in gush etzion considered) there is a third possibility and that is occupation and let me clarify that a military occupation is "kosher" in my book. it makes no sense today to give control over turf to people who will elect a morsi or worse to lead them. and if israel had had the foresight to nip the settlement enterprise in the bud, then there would have been israel where (the nakba goes unrequited) but arabs and jews vote and rule as citizens and a west bank where a jewish army fills the vacuum of power. but instead because of the settlements (besides the points of friction increasing manifold) the existence of citizen next door to those who have no vote creates an intolerable situation from the point of view of democracy and thus the settlement enterprise is a royal mess up.
I accept the history of 1948. it contains too much pain inflicted on the palestinians, but i feel i must accept it. i accept the history of 1967 as well, including the kotel and the jewish quarter in the old city. I do not accept the history of the settlement enterprise.
my lack of action vis a vis my rejection of the settlement enterprise makes me an observer rather than an activist and observers are vulnerable to the slings and arrows of activists.
TGIA- West Jerusalem is not "occupied" in my analysis and that's where the matzo bakeries are located and where the Jewish guns will be located. The holy basin, the old city will have to be under international protection and the jews living in the jewish quarter will be allowed to stay. I think the building of jewish neighborhoods over the 67 line was a mistake and that this territory should have been kept ready for the Palestinians to rule when the situation would ripen, but hindsight is 20-20. The idea that matzos baked in Jerusalem (pre 67 Jerusalem) are against international law due to the construction of a precept by the United Nations, is approximately humorous. The presence of Jews with guns is symptomatic of the entire situation and cannot be viewed in isolation regarding territory over the 47 borders. I think the partition plan of 47 is relevant certainly in revealing people's ideological essences, but I don't think bakeries in west jerusalem and Jewish soldiers ruling west jerusalem is an occupation.
Matzos will be baked in Jerusalem. the international laws of sovereignty and the presence of soldiers and the right to vote are real questions that must be dealt with and that too many pretend need never be faced. but matzos will be baked by Jews in Jerusalem and they will be for the foreseeable future. And also for the foreseeable future there will be Jews with guns ensuring that no one kicks out the Jews who wish to bake matzos in Jerusalem.
And I agree that a two state solution without a Palestine with its capitol in Jerusalem will not be possible and I agree that human beings created in god's image who were exiled from the country in 1948 must be given dignity and I realize that the animus that exists is not a one way anti Jewish affair, but again I wish to assert that Jews will be baking matzos in Jerusalem for the foreseeable future and because of the facts on the ground (which are reflected in many of the attitudes here) there will be Jewish soldiers with guns protecting the Jews who wish to bake matzos in Jerusalem.
I only read the Fein quotes here once, but they seemed difficult to understand. I think that is because Fein cannot promise cause and effect, "with your support we will change the direction of Israel and bring peace". He cannot promise anything of the sort, so he is offering his readers something confused= a lost cause and that is confused and confusing. wieseltier is much more clear in the nature of the lost cause, because he is not soliciting funds, but fein soliciting funds sounds confused: leon wieseltier's piece from december in tnr:link to newrepublic.com
Texts come to mind. the first text is the book of Exodus (the one written by unknown author/s rather than the one by Leon Uris). Many questions raised about the hardening of Pharoah's heart. Many questions raised about the cruelty of the suffering of the Egyptians. Someone even was upset about the fact that the Israelites took some gold for their 210 years of servitude, and called it Jews exploiting the gentiles.
Obama picked Exodus to point out its role in the consciousness of African Americans in the civil rights era (and in the civil war era as well, I would add.)
Then there is the text of the Hagada: the four questions, the many actions that are performed for the specific purpose of inciting the curiosity and questions of the young, the plagues and the token of wine (insufficiently) recognizing the suffering of the Egyptians, the four sons: wise, wicked, simple and so simple that he doesn't even know what to ask. the litany of the dayenu and of course that problematic: next year in jerusalem.
when describing the progressive seder i attended years ago to someone at a seder i attended this year: "they didn't mention the jewish people until the end of the third paragraph."
politics doesn't take a vacation obviously. proud of the jewish matzo and bitter herbs, proud of the four questions and tickled by the hillel sandwich, love to imagine what the matza looked like at the seder of the 12 apostles and their rebbe rabbi yehoshua, proud of the urge for freedom, nay, even proud of confusion: plagues, peace? freedom, wrath, continuity to the extent of in your face continuity (set the wicked son's teeth on edge) proud of bob hope (or as they call it in my house "passover") and woody allen (martin landau's memory in crimes and misdemeanors) proud of the jew in the past, worried and wary of the jew of the present and the future.
The odds against a negotiated settlement in the next four years are long. Jeremy Ben Ami's organization was created with Obama in mind, so one must allow him to speak for the administration and by its very nature any administration must consider diplomacy as its best option. Obama's speeches reflected both short range and long range, short range hope for negotiation, long range strategies for change: nonviolent protests.
"American"'s statement was not particularly against the Jews, but against Obama. Obama, american tells us, does not like america, he does not like wasps and therefore he does not like america. he does like Jews and therefore he likes israel.
This statement is just pure nonsense and anti Obama nonsense more than it is anti Jewish nonsense.
Tell me Abierno, this 70% approval rating of Assad by the Syrian people, where does this statistic come from? And tell me what veracity you attribute to polls taken in totalitarian countries.
They have some semblance of democracy- How would you rate that semblance of democracy? How do international human rights bodies rate the semblance of democracy of Syria?
Let's say the odds against an Israel Palestine peace treaty before January 20, 2017 were 100 to 1 against and let's say the odds against just improved to 99 to 1 against as a result of improved communication between Obama and the Israeli electorate.
Granted that the peace plan that might result would not be acceptable to most of the commenters here at Mondoweiss, so therefore the improved odds are certainly not something you would cheer. But should Obama allow the absence of a visit to Israel to create a block against improved atmospherics down the line to the peace plan that he has in mind?
It was a mistake for Obama to consider a visit to Buchenwald sufficient to balance the Cairo speech, he should have visited Israel at that time. It is good that he visited Israel now.
German Lefty- My understanding (correct me if i'm wrong) is that german reparations paid to individual Jews and to corporate Jewish groups were for the moneys taken from those by the Third Reich "legally", as in those who lived in Germany and the two other annexed countries Czechoslovakia and Austria. Germany has never paid for the millions it killed in the Soviet Union or Poland or Hungary or am I wrong?
Citizen- I was too absolute in my "all writers have publishers in mind". but Vivian Gornick writes nonfiction in order to live off of the proceeds. I bet you on her tax form she lists writer as her occupation.
"literary suicide" what could Vivian Gornick mean? 1. Everyone who writes a book writes it for a publisher or publishers in mind. Publishers want to sell books. Do travel books where the person was consistently negative about the land one traveled in sell a lot of books? One would guess not. Why would one want to write about Israel in the first place, because Jews buy a lot of books (30 years ago especially, someone can update me on the statistics post kindle and internet, but I used to hear 30% hardcover purchasers were Jews, 10% paperback were Jews.) Would such a negative book sell a lot of books? Not. She didn't go to Israel to do an expose which sells a lot in 2013, she went to Israel to write a book that would sell well on the Upper West Side, and she found she couldn't write a book that would sell well, so she realized it was stupid to write the book that she could write, for it wouldn't sell. Nothing nefarious about all this as implied by Phil Weiss.
Jeff Klein- I don't belong to communities that invite or demand others to participate in their seders. Most of the seders that I have attended have been Jewish only and the only seders that involved nonJews were group seders that my friends hosted where their close nonJewish friends were invited to participate and there didn't seem anything coerced about their feasting and drinking, so maybe I am unfamiliar with the type of community seders that demand the participation of people in drinking wine and eating lots of food and putting up with a bit of "education" or "propaganda" in order to get to drink wine and eat food.
On the other hand I always thought that all Christians (those who believe rather than those who don't) should all have the opportunity to experience a seder, for after all that was what the Last Supper assumedly was, a seder. And to participate in an actual seder would be a way to gain insight into the seder that Jesus participated in. Is this a demand? It seems like a logical gap in the knowledge of most Christians that can easily be filled if there is someone Jewish in the neighborhood who has an opened door on Passover.
"replete with Arabophobic art" the tnr article:
Unless you are referring to the print magazine, which I have not seen, the only art is that of an Arab wearing a kafiyeh, opposite a Jew wearing tallit and tefillin. How is this Arabophobic?
Peter Beinart aside for a moment, once this site comes out in favor of a one state solution and then mocks those who fear it as if their fear is as silly as the fear of Jim Crow opponents of school desegregation, this web site has a duty to cover the regressive, anti freedom attitudes which dominate Palestinian society or at least the attitudes of those who will likely govern Palestinian society (and to a lesser extent the nearby government and society of Egypt). To ignore the type of society that Hamas is building and advocates and then the next day to indulge in silly analogies, is a symptom not of a war of ideas, but a war of slogans of those not willing to show the true face of reality, which is thus propaganda and not ideas.
Chuck Schumer chose to be a loyal Democrat rather than the leader of the opposition. I had expected a bit of hesitancy on Schumer's part, maybe even a type of abstention, but Obama clarified to Schumer that nothing less than full fledged support was necessary. Thus the battle was fought and won.
It will be interesting to see what will happen with Iran. I cannot imagine Obama attacking Iran. I don't follow the negotiations closely enough to see what the US (Obama) might offer Iran as a face saving measure that will allow for a compromise.
w. jones- How is Israel to blame for the situation in Syria? I understand that israel can be blamed for all the US support to the Mubarak regime, but Syria?!
Since everyone here (exaggeration) feels that the United States should be sufficient for the needs of Jewish survival, all Jews in Israel should be given automatic American citizenship and then incentives to move to America. A reduced Jewish population in Israel will further the delegitimization. If Feiglin is willing to pay Palestinian families half a million to move out of Israel, wouldn't an offer from some group here offering half a million per Jewish Israeli (or settler) family to move to America promote a wave of emigration and wouldn't that help the cause. I suppose all those who write letters to the Washington Post opposing the groveling of Biden are the poor leftists who cannot afford such monies for such a cause.
There are approximately five million Jews living in Israel. The chronology according to you people (exaggeration) is first replace Netanyahu with Meshal and then have the Israelis clamoring at the doors of America, so that you can get a good laugh and then you'll decide what to do. Why not offer all Israelis american citizenship, so that the path for the Palestinian Morsi is prepared in advance?
I think Biden's father was referring to the Jews as a group that live in many countries rather than the Jews who live in America. America is a trustworthy guardian of its citizens and I do not think Biden's father was denying that aspect of America, but as far as Jews being a world wide presence, they could not and should not trust America to protect them around the world. (Certainly such a statement in 1948 would have been appropriate.)
Sorry for my glibness on this issue.
Apartheid exists in the West Bank even if it does not exist on the buses. Moving a civilian Israeli population into a military occupation was a sure recipe for apartheid and it exists, whether Egged does not make official rules (my bet) or whether it does. If one neighbor gets to vote in real elections and the other neighbor does not and the only discernible difference is ethnic group, then this is apartheid. If the police (soldiers) are all Jewish, so in a fender bender or in a court appearance the odds are stacked against the Palestinians and for the Jews, then this is apartheid. If Palestinians are seen as a security risk (perfectly reasonable given the situation 10 years ago, which is not that long a period of time) then it may not be motivated by ethnic reasons, but the effect is the same- apartheid.
I accept Israeli reluctance to grant Palestinian independence in the West Bank. Experience states that such a move would be folly. But the movement of civilians into the West Bank created a situation that is apartheid (or at best only looks like apartheid because of security rather than hatred motivations).
My motivations are not pro Palestinian. I am pro survival of a state of Israel within the 67 borders, a state that could/would be defined as a state of all its citizens and a state that could/would prefer immigration of Jews rather than immigration of Palestinians.
That state will cease to exist within the next century as a result of the occupation of the West Bank with its civilian element. It will probably be American policy which will lead to the end of Israel, forcing Israel to grant the vote to the Palestinians living in the West Bank. That policy would be hurried by a Palestinian leadership that gives up on a two state solution and urges its people to vote in Israeli elections, the first step of which would be the encouragement of Palestinians who hold blue i.d. cards in Jerusalem to vote in municipal elections and to apply for citizenship. This step will not be taken by the Palestinian leadership in the next while (from 10 to 25 years is my approximation). But as long as there is a mixed population in the West Bank, the pressure for a one state solution will grow and grow and the word apartheid will be one of the keys for that pressure.
Egged will not make it official policy and certainly not the Knesset regarding the bus system on the west bank, but that is merely a note in history and not the gist of the story.
It's in the planning stages, (which is bad, but not as bad as if it would be put into effect, obviously.) I'm betting that "the Palestinians will be told not to ride on the Jewish routes" will not come to fruition in the next two years. Anyone willing to bet me?
(Definition of "told", that they won't be allowed on the buses. They will be encouraged not to get on the buses but they won't be barred from the buses. Bets must be specific.)
tree- There is little question in my mind that the primary impetus for the law of return was the situation which existed in 972 land during the 30's when Jews considered the gates of the world closed to them (even though you deny this fact). thus: hey, now we have a state that has opened its gates to the Jews.
It is difficult for me to determine what role the UN declaration of human rights played in the israel decision or wording, but I assume it was minimal. I think the currency of the phrase right of return is much greater today than it was any time in my childhood- say starting from 67 until 82 I don't recall the phrase taking up so much space in the Israel versus Palestine discourse. Since the war in lebanon of 82 and the intifada of 87 it has been much more part of the common discourse. To take the currency of the phrase today and to infer that Israel flipped it, is to infer that it was a common current phrase at the time of 1950, which I assume it was not.
If Israel referred to the declaration of human rights for propaganda purposes and crafted its law with that declaration in mind, it is still anachronistic to refer to a phrase that exists in a document, whereas today it is a phrase that is part of the discourse.
eljay- bizarro is a word that implies the opposite, as in : you're a bizarro genius, to not understand that by bizarro fan, i meant someone who throws spitballs at me whenever I pass.
Anne- I was not saying that the Israeli law of return is great or good or justified. I was merely stating that it was enacted in 1950 and to attach your hasbara "flip" explanation to it is highly unlikely and unbecoming to this blog to theorize flippantly without the basis of truth or facts.
and to my bizarro fan club of cliff and eljay, hey fans.