Trending Topics:

Condi Rice was ‘shocked’ by ‘ethnic purity’ claims for Jewish state

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 147 Comments
condi
Condi Rice

Why doesn’t the mainstream press pick up the important stuff? Yes, and why does our website exist? Norman Finkelstein has been reading former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s White House memoir: No Higher Honor. He turned to page 282, and a passage involving Rice’s meeting with then Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Livni said that Israel could not honor UN Resolution 194, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, under a peace deal because that would threaten the Jewishness of the country. Rice writes:

“I must admit that though I understood the argument intellectually, it struck me as a harsh defense of the ethnic purity of the Israeli state when Tzipi said it. It was one of those conversations that shocked my sensibilities as an American. After all, the very concept of ‘American’ rejects ethnic or religious definitions of citizenship. Moreover, there were Arab citizens of Israel. Where did they fit in?

Beautiful.

Alas, Rice writes, “I took a deep breath and tried to understand, and slowly I came to see what she meant.” While Americans look on Israel in the context of the Holocaust and the Jewish annihilation in Europe, Rice says, Jews regard the Jewish state as the “fulfillment of a long historical and religious journey.” And so Rice put language into White House position papers saying the refugees must return to the Palestinian state.

“That would allow the democratic state of Israel to be ‘Jewish.'”

I like Rice’s little kick there. Bear in mind that Livni is on the left side of Israeli politics– and that Rice, an African-American, grew up in Alabama as our country was wrestling with hateful Jim Crow.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

147 Responses

  1. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    November 17, 2011, 12:19 pm

    “no higher honor”
    “Mushroom Cloud” has no honor.

    • Justice Please
      Justice Please
      November 17, 2011, 1:12 pm

      “‘Mushroom Cloud’ has no honor.”

      Never forget (Condis lies, that is).

      Whatever else she did, above all she helped lying her countrymen into an immoral and illegal war of aggression. If she’s lucky, that’s only a life sentence.

      • November 17, 2011, 3:09 pm

        Who is gonna give her a “Life sentence”??
        She may be sooner awarded with the Noble Peace Prize, than a life sentence.
        What a world.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        November 18, 2011, 9:58 am

        Unless an Iraqi Simon Wiesenthal emerges out of the Iraqi people demanding that those who manipulated WMD intelligence (Niger Documents) endlessly lied to the American people and promoted and implemented that unnecessary and bloody war. Who knows “Mushroom Cloud”, Wolfowitz, Feith, Cheney, etc might have to walk around watching their backs.

    • Taxi
      Taxi
      November 17, 2011, 4:32 pm

      Shroomy Rice.

  2. Avi_G.
    Avi_G.
    November 17, 2011, 12:20 pm

    Tzipi Livni is indeed on the left in Israeli politics. She was the Foreign Minister who defended the murder of 325 Palestinian children in Gaza in early 2009.

    It was the same left to which she belongs that destroyed entire neighborhoods in south Beirut in the summer of 2006.

    With such left, who needs right wingers?

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      November 17, 2011, 5:46 pm

      “Left wing” in Israel = white phosphorous

    • Theo
      Theo
      November 18, 2011, 8:35 am

      Left, right or anything between are just hollow words, it does not say if that person is morally right or wrong, honest or dishonest!

      Stalin and his gang was as left as you can go, however this did not stop them from killing millions of their own countrymen, among them their own comrades, regardless if they were left, right or right between.
      So did Mao and all other communist dictators.

      Being “left” means not that you are an honorable person and “right” doesn´t mean you are a villain. Those designations come from how they were seated in the parlament, left of the aisle or right of it.

      As far as Rice goes, public hanging is what she deserves.

  3. American
    American
    November 17, 2011, 12:25 pm

    You can’t have a Jewish and Democtatic state at the same time.
    I’m so tired of that spinozaplooza.
    That this keeps being touted just goes to show how ‘Orewllian’ the zionist have made US government.
    You could give a six year the definition of a Jewish state and definition of a Democratic state and he could tell you the difference between them.

    • DBG
      DBG
      November 17, 2011, 1:41 pm

      A democratic state w/ a 20% Arab minority.

      • American
        American
        November 17, 2011, 3:43 pm

        Let me know when the Arab minoirty has the same rights and privilages as Jews, gets the same treatment in court and all that….until then…

      • Charon
        Charon
        November 17, 2011, 4:53 pm

        DBG, this is the impression I’ve gotten over the years. Correct me if I’m wrong

        Zionists believe that Israel is the state of the Jewish people. Meaning the ‘nationality’ of Israel is Jewish. Which also means that all diaspora Jews are “Israeli” as much as they are Jewish (but not necessarily citizens of Israel unless they apply to be). Did I get that right?

        Zionists claim it is the same as Italy being the state of the Italian people, Spain the Spanish, Germany the Germans, and the nationality thing applies the same way. Right?

        Nobody besides the Zionist agree with you on this, especially that 20% Arab minority. It doesn’t make sense. There are too many variables, the most important variable being what it means to be Jewish in the first place (so you can’t compare it to a “Muslim State” and even then it’s no excuse because most rational people would agree that nations should not be governed by religion). The idea of a “Jewish Democratic State” is the same as a “White Democratic State”

        You can’t have a Jewish and democratic state because the two cancel each other out. In only the past 63 years, Israel has received a Jewish influence from its colonial inhabitants. This is comparable to China Town in SF which received a Chinese influence. The Arabs are the indigenous people whether you want to believe it or not. Zionist Jews from Europe cannot be called indigenous after thousands of years of assimilation. Arabs are treated as second-class citizens in their home land. Some politicians still talk about expelling them in swaps.

        Apartheid isn’t democratic. Israel has no official borders but if you asked the average Zionist they would include the entire WB. Then you have the recent draconian laws.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 17, 2011, 5:00 pm

        Amira Hass in Winnipeg

        “The nature of Jewish privilege in the Jewish entity threatens its very existence”

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 17, 2011, 7:18 pm

        A 20% Arab minority created through ethnic cleansing and colonialism (ONGOING).

        A 20% Arab minority that is regularly discriminated against and has token political representation (and no meaningful weight).

        A 20% Arab minority that lived under martial law until 1966.

        A 20% Arab minority that Israeli Jewish politicians publicly express a desire to get rid of.

  4. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    November 17, 2011, 12:47 pm

    Rice would like us to understand that her “shocked sensibilities” regarding Livni’s defense of Jewish ethnic purity are proof that her American values are intact. A real patriot.

  5. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    November 17, 2011, 12:54 pm

    Alas, Rice writes, “I took a deep breath and tried to understand, and slowly I came to see what she meant.” While Americans look on Israel in the context of the Holocaust and the Jewish annihilation in Europe, Rice says, Jews regard the Jewish state as the “fulfillment of a long historical and religious journey.”

    And George Wallace and Bull Coonnor are kicking themselves in their graves for not thinking of the “fulfillment of a long historical and religious journey” bullshit as excusing THEIR racism.

    • richb
      richb
      November 17, 2011, 1:23 pm

      Actually George Wallace did think of that. He saw that what would be later identified as Christian Identity groups advanced his political career but gave himself enough deniability by refusing to be their “spokesman”. See Dan Carter’s book:

      http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Rage-Conservatism-Transformation-American/dp/0807125970/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        November 17, 2011, 2:20 pm

        Well, there you go. Learn something new every day. Thanks, richb

      • Dan Crowther
        Dan Crowther
        November 17, 2011, 3:42 pm

        Time to break out good ole Lee Atwater:

        Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

        “fulfillment of a long and religious journey” sounds pretty abstract compared to “get the A-rabs outta here” huh?

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 17, 2011, 4:35 pm

        The minister in Egypt (Kirk) to the Secretary of State, Cairo, March 4 1944

        His Majesty disapproves everything that causes trouble to the rightful owners of Palestine- Moslems, Christians and native Jews and although he condemns every cruelty to which Jews in Europe are subjected he does not consider that it justifies the oppression of the Arabs of Palestine in their own abode”

        The ambassador at Beirut Feb 28 1944

        ..such measures would be directly opposed to democratic ideals because disinheriting a whole people and reducing it to servitude”

        This was never a religious journey. It is about the abuse of power.
        And the abuse of religion.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 18, 2011, 5:22 am

        that is quality, Dan

    • lysias
      lysias
      November 17, 2011, 2:12 pm

      And a similar phrase could no doubt have been used by defenders of apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 17, 2011, 4:51 pm

        And they were, by both historic regimes. The Germans were very good at administrative euphemisms, abstract legalese, etc–they were recognized as the pinnacle of Western Civilization prior to cheap English/American propaganda in WW1 (both Hitler and Churchill were well aware of this and both discussed it in their written personal works.)

    • thetumta
      thetumta
      November 17, 2011, 9:45 pm

      Osama had similar thoughts and he was far less dangerous.

    • dahoit
      dahoit
      November 18, 2011, 12:43 pm

      The bribes must have been offered very slowly,it must have started with Prada boots,and worked its way up to a concerto in Jerusalem,and a publisher for the book.

  6. November 17, 2011, 1:07 pm

    Rice pretends like she’s never heard about the, so called, Nazis, who regarded Jews as a direct threat to their Germaness/Aryaness.
    She, probably, would defend their actions too, by saying:
    ” This would allow the “democratic” state of Germany to be truly German/Aryan.”

    • john h
      john h
      November 17, 2011, 4:36 pm

      We are such good learners of the lessons of history.

      We think we solve a problem…“Americans look on Israel in the context of the Holocaust and the Jewish annihilation in Europe”…by creating that same problem elsewhere for another people.

      And we do it through accepting that the “never again” of the victim is their justification for becoming the victimizer because it is their means to“the fulfillment of a long historical and religious journey.”

      Well then, since we are such masters at repeating rather than learning from history, why not go ahead and repeat how we dealt with Nazi Germany?

      Same problem, same solution, huh?

      • john h
        john h
        November 17, 2011, 6:33 pm

        Slow aren’t I, my logic must have gone on strike.

        We are supposed to repeat the mistakes of history rather than learning from them – duh!

        Dealing with the Nazis the way we did was a success, so we mustn’t repeat that. Nah, we must repeat the earlier mistakes we made regarding Nazism.

        So what should we do? Put in place the kind of mistakes that made it inevitable, the reasons that gave it a seemingly credible justification. And then watch as it grows and do little about it until too late to stop it being the monster it had concealed.

        The role model is Chamberlainism, with its slogan “peace in our time” and its vain imagining that the cry for lebensraum would end.

        Haven’t we done such a good job of fulfilling our destiny.

        “Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it.”

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 18, 2011, 8:53 am

        Americans look on Israel in the context of the Holocaust and the Jewish annihilation in Europe AND the fact they didn’t want anything more than a handful of Jews as immigrants after the war.

        Israel’s foundation is testament to European and American hatred of Jews. Easier to shunt the problem on to the Arabs than deal with it at source.

      • john h
        john h
        November 18, 2011, 10:40 pm

        That’s why they’ve felt guilt about it ever since, seafoid. It’s one of several reasons why Israel still has impunity from accountability and gets to keep and add to its ill-gotten gains.

        It’s all about passing the buck, and about complicity and collusion.

        Too many skeletons in the cupboard, too great a price to pay, too many heads might roll. Hence no morality, or justice for Palestinians.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      November 17, 2011, 4:57 pm

      It surprises me less and less that Candy or Obama’s Rice, or the Black Caucus, just don’t connect the dots like they do so well with anything involving black Americans. They have the same failing, it seems, that so many American Jews have regarding Israel. Are the Gentile whites the only folks in the world that will ever be put to the test inherent in the adage, “The test of virtue is power”? Sure seems so to me. Seeking replies.

  7. eljay
    eljay
    November 17, 2011, 1:11 pm

    >> “It was one of those conversations that shocked my sensibilities as an American. … Moreover, there were Arab citizens of Israel. Where did they fit in?”
    >> And so Rice put language into White House position papers saying the refugees must return to the Palestinian state.
    >> “That would allow the democratic state of Israel to be ‘Jewish.'”

    Wow, she was so shocked that she chose to support an oppressive, colonialist and religion-supremacist state instead of justice, morality and accountability. What a surprise.

  8. Justice Please
    Justice Please
    November 17, 2011, 1:16 pm

    “”I took a deep breath and tried to understand, and slowly I came to see what she meant.” While Americans look on Israel in the context of the Holocaust and the Jewish annihilation in Europe, Rice says, Jews regard the Jewish state as the “fulfillment of a long historical and religious journey.” And so Rice put language into White House position papers saying the refugees must return to the Palestinian state.”

    Bwahaha, and they called this tool “one of the most intelligent members of the administration”? If she were as smart as her freaking degree in whatever pretends, she would have clearly understood that the religious journey would not end in an exclusively Jewish state, but in a spiritual homeland within truly democratic Palestine.

    • Elisabeth
      Elisabeth
      November 17, 2011, 2:37 pm

      “If she were as smart as her freaking degree in whatever pretends, she would have clearly understood that the religious journey would not end in an exclusively Jewish state, but in a spiritual homeland within truly democratic Palestine.”

      Thanks, that was terrific. I may hare to borrow that sometimes when talking to people who are so easily bowled over by those historical and religious claims.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        November 17, 2011, 5:17 pm

        I am concluding more and more that gentiles, white or black, or latino, who are ambitious enough to land in any key government slot, are woefully uninformed in both economics and world history; it seems any of these individuals getting a slot in state or security or defense or homeland security slot high up must first pass a litmus test that guarantees they are ignorant. Bush Jr and Obama are just recent key examples re finance and foreign policy. “The cream rises to the bottom” should be the motto of contemporary American government in so many ways it makes me want to puke. Our best-rated universities make this possible, along with cash; the ultimate connection between government and higher education, and between domestic and foreign US policy.

      • TomAmitaiUSA
        TomAmitaiUSA
        November 17, 2011, 8:19 pm

        While you might be right about Shrub’s intelligence affecting his policies, I don’t believe Obama has that excuse. He’s just a good-old-fashioned politician, doing and saying whatever he needs to to stay in power for as long as possible. If we want America’s financial industry regulated to benefit the majority instead of the elite, and America’s foreign policy to favor just governments over authoritarians, we must strive to make those the more electable positions.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        November 17, 2011, 10:13 pm

        Citizen, as Nikita Kruschev put it, (according to “East Side Story” in MAD magazine) on meeting John F Kennedy: ” We have old Russian proverb: Whether the water is salt or fresh, s–t floats!”

      • Justice Please
        Justice Please
        November 17, 2011, 5:54 pm

        @Elisabeth:

        Go ahead :-)

        And if you haven’t already heard of it, check out Shlomo Sands “The Invention of the Jewish People”. He dissects the various “claims” systematically.

    • john h
      john h
      November 17, 2011, 5:27 pm

      Agreed.

      It puts in a nutshell what true Torah Jews have always said and wanted. And before Hitler came to power they were the majority in Judaism.

      Rice’s IQ effectively disappeared; it reverted to puberty when faced with this. This is what literally happens. Her conclusions are those a teenager would make.

      See MRW’s posts on this on the thread “Saul Bellow didn’t like WASPS”, especially his November 12, 8.30am one. Here is an excerpt:

      They asked him to compute difficult equations, and explain complex theories, etc. The MRI showed his prefrontal cortex fully firing. They videoed this.

      Then they asked him about his girlfriend, and how he got along with his friends. Prefrontal cortex off. Zero. Zip reaction. His amygdala took over. He was “acting like a typical 16-year-old,” said the scientists. What shocked the scientists was how the PFC shut down. Nothing fired from it. You could see it on the monitor.

      And as the neuroscientists in the video said, they were completely surprised because they always thought—it was common scientific belief in the 20th C, they said—that at least a portion of the PFC acted when someone thought emotionally. Apparently not. You could see it on the monitor. It was dramatic. They said it was solving an issue they had deciding where the IQ is created and maintained, and it is exclusively in the PFC.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        November 17, 2011, 10:17 pm

        Scoff all you want, but I will be proved right: There is a chemical change in the brains of Zionists when they think about Zionism. And their brain or body releases chemical messengers which effect their thoughts and action.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        November 17, 2011, 10:18 pm

        Hmmm, I wonder if it passes the placental barrier? Or is present in mother’s milk?

  9. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    November 17, 2011, 1:17 pm
  10. eGuard
    eGuard
    November 17, 2011, 1:25 pm

    Why doesn’t the mainstream press pick up the important stuff? […] Rise’s little kick there.

    Well, I wouldn’t pick up that one too. A “kick” with a little toe, now four years late, and at the time Rice did not act at all when she saw racism in the face.

    • November 17, 2011, 1:40 pm

      It not even a “Kick”. Her consciousness pinched her behind for a moment.
      But then, she quickly found a “perfect” rationalization for this tiny “Pinch”.

  11. Richard Witty
    Richard Witty
    November 17, 2011, 1:42 pm

    Olmert and Abbas stated differently.

    Per Bernard Avishai, they articulated a limited right of return to Israel, and only for those that could directly trace residence to Israel (not to general Palestine).

    Livni nor Olmert are on the left. They are dead in the center.

    Lets see a proposal.

    Both the Zionist and the Palestinian historical proposals support preferences for their own ethnicity.

    The single-state proposal is a loaded preference as well.

    We are choosing from imperfect options, ALL of them. To criticize them for inconsistency with a particular ideal, is really to say little.

    • thetumta
      thetumta
      November 17, 2011, 9:58 pm

      Meds, Witty you’re garbled, babbling. “those that could directly trace residence to Israel (not to general Palestine).” Well, that would leave about a 5% Jewish population? Are you sure this is your proposal? If so, less meds.
      Hej!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        November 17, 2011, 10:21 pm

        “those that could directly trace residence to Israel “

        This is only one of the many times there was more truth in Witty’s fingers than in his mind. He has more conscience in his little finger than he has in his soul.

    • Charon
      Charon
      November 18, 2011, 3:12 am

      “Both the Zionist and the Palestinian historical proposals support preferences for their own ethnicity”

      True to an extent, but at least in Palestine’s case Arafat believed that Palestinian Jews were Palestinians. I’m sure the notion of “Palestinian Jew” really eats you up in the inside and therefore you reject it, but that’s a fact dude

  12. iamuglow
    iamuglow
    November 17, 2011, 1:48 pm

    Those are some precious quotes…I’m glad Condi shared them.

    Now I know that defining a state based on “ethnic purity” is wrong…Except!!! …… in cases where its the ‘fulfillment of a long historical and religious journey.’

    Yeah, that makes total [email protected]#$ing sense now. I don’t know how missed that.

  13. November 17, 2011, 2:09 pm

    “Rice says, ‘Jews regard the Jewish state as the “fulfillment of a long historical and religious journey'”.
    It’s kind of like Machiavelli’s statement: ” The end (result, goal) justifies the means”.
    The main goal was to obtain the “Jewish state”, the means are not important.
    ALL are allowed.

    Another famous Machivalli’s quote :. “the presence of sound military forces ,indicates the presence of sound laws.”
    It looks like Israel has been applying this “quote” fo the fullest.
    The presence of “their” military forces, guarantees/indicates the presence of “their” laws.
    And of course, “they” call it “democracy”.

  14. HarryLaw
    HarryLaw
    November 17, 2011, 2:23 pm

    This exchange between Livni and Rice is only the half of it, Livni wants to expel all of the Palestinians from Israel, she said at a press conference “The Palestinian State to be established will not be a solution just for the Palestinians who live in the West Bank, it is designed to provide a comprehensive national solution for those living in the West Bank, and the refugee camps, and even for the (Arab) citizens of Israel”. (True Torah Jews against zionism).

  15. November 17, 2011, 3:02 pm

    ,Rice writes, “I took a deep breath and tried to understand, and slowly I came to.. ” my senses.
    Do I want to follow Truth and Decency, or do I want to follow where Money and Power is?
    The answer is “blowing in the wind” ,of history.
    Already.

  16. ahhiyawa
    ahhiyawa
    November 17, 2011, 3:04 pm

    “…it struck me as a harsh defense of the ethnic purity of the Israeli state when Tzipi said it. It was one of those conversations that shocked my sensibilities as an American…”

    Condi’s misgivings proves that even from the wings of the far right in US politics, there are many hooks from which a Palestinian narrative can hang its hat.

    “…I took a deep breath and tried to understand, and slowly I came to see what she meant…”

    Nor can Condi be faulted here, because its the virtual absence of an ethnic, US constituency vigorously pushing that narrative, which leaves Condi subject to no other realpolitik but the Zionist.

    • thetumta
      thetumta
      November 18, 2011, 7:25 pm

      “because its the virtual absence of an ethnic, US constituency vigorously pushing that narrative”. We have many ethnic, constituencies trying to drag us down the worm hole! Our strength(if we have any left) will be to resist the impulse, not that we’ve been particularly good at it, but we have tried. The Zionists appear to be the Master Chess players when it comes to playing the Ethno/Religious cards against the other, any other, but they had to play their our people first, ala the Wittys. Technically competent and lost. It’s a dangerous weakness in the human soul, hopefully it can be cured before it takes us all where we don’t want to go.
      Condi is a Valley girl, “what there’s evil in my world”. Who let that dog in?
      Hej!

  17. upsidedownism
    upsidedownism
    November 17, 2011, 3:04 pm

    Livni is just as much dedicated to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian as Netanyahu, Lieberman or any other Israeli Minister. Condy Rice was just as dedicated to playing a useful role managing this ethnic cleansing as Susan Rice or Obama or any other member or the current US government.

    We are witnessing the slow extinction of the Palestinian nation. The Israelis may be the perpetrating this managed extinction. But the US and other western countries are the managers, trying to anaesthize the world and their electorates by making the whole horrible affair seem as benign as possible.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      November 18, 2011, 9:08 am

      “Livni is just as much dedicated to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian as Netanyahu, Lieberman or any other Israeli Minister. ”

      Yes.

      “We are witnessing the slow extinction of the Palestinian nation”.

      No. We are witnessing the slow death of Zionism . Once the fascists take over the
      decline will become much more obvious.

      • upsidedownism
        upsidedownism
        November 18, 2011, 1:07 pm

        hope your right

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        November 18, 2011, 6:05 pm

        Zionism takes up too many evenings
        The hasbara is too much effort.

      • thetumta
        thetumta
        November 18, 2011, 7:38 pm

        Watch for mushroom clouds? I fear your right about the decline!

  18. kapok
    kapok
    November 17, 2011, 3:09 pm

    Their Journey? So, no one else is permitted to have “journies”. Try to imagine the people of the world spreading in all directions, save the Jews, who are on a “special journey.”

  19. Shmuel
    Shmuel
    November 17, 2011, 3:34 pm

    “I took a deep breath and tried to understand, and slowly I came to see what she meant.” While Americans look on Israel in the context of the Holocaust and the Jewish annihilation in Europe, Rice says, Jews regard the Jewish state as the “fulfillment of a long historical and religious journey.”

    Oh, well that explains everything. It was all a silly misunderstanding. So now we understand how Americans see Israel, and how Jews see Israel. Too bad Prof. Rice didn’t bother to ask herself how Palestinians see Israel.

    • Chaos4700
      Chaos4700
      November 18, 2011, 1:16 pm

      Don’t be silly, Shmuel! That would have required her to associate with “colored people.”

  20. mudder
    mudder
    November 17, 2011, 4:40 pm

    Condi wanted to resettle the Palestinian refugees in South America. I kid you not. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/condoleezza-rice-palestinian-refugees-south-america

    • mudder
      mudder
      November 17, 2011, 7:54 pm

      Chile and Argentina? Let’s hope this is not where the “historical and religious journey” ends for the descendants of the caretakers, torn from their homes and land by war, of millennial-old churches and mosques in the Holy Land.

    • braciole
      braciole
      November 17, 2011, 10:21 pm

      Well, she couldn’t allow the Israelis to resettle all the Palestinian is Jordan which is the real Zionist objective as that would upset America’s lickspittles among the Arab despots of the Gulf too much.

  21. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    November 17, 2011, 6:40 pm

    It’s part of an imperialist mindset to think that populations can be moved around the international chessboard – Uganda, Palestine, Patagonia, whatever it takes – in pursuit of the rational plan which the empire, having the broad view that lesser organisations lack, is alone able to develop. Balfour was of rather similar opinion.
    Prof. Rice seems to think that in certain circumstances – ie when you can claim to be engaged in a long historical journey – you can also claim the right to ethnic purity. Why exactly does this ‘journeying’ status make such a difference? How is it recognised? Aren’t all groups, Americans included, on a journey of some kind?

  22. November 17, 2011, 7:37 pm

    If she didn’t see it before Livni had to tell her than she was a one dumb secretary ,….

    • November 18, 2011, 12:51 pm

      A fact that Livni throwed that statement in Rice’s face showes her Jewish arrogance and a sense of superiority over Blacks if not over Goyim in general ,…

  23. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail
    November 17, 2011, 9:41 pm

    I don’t know, I find it quite an interesting exchange. It seems to me Condi’s instinctive reaction is the true one – she is repulsed by the racist, exceptionalist nature of what she is being told, her knowledge of the civil rights campaigns and her own position in government. But here’s the rub, and it’s true of nearly all US officials and reps : she suppresses what she knows is right, she determines that she must find agreement with this apartheid drivel, and swallow her better judgement, for the sake of her political career. So she caves, tries to rationalise it, and in doing so betrays every ideal of her background and family history, not to mention US founding principles, the country she supposedly represents, to accomodate a belligerent little bully. It is self-censorship, self-denial, and who knows, probably some self-hatred too, if she’s got any honesty left. Power corrupts.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      November 18, 2011, 9:11 am

      Condi Rice was caught in the Victoria Nuland bind

      QUESTION: And then in terms of the impact on related organizations, several high-tech and pharmaceutical firms are said to be meeting here at State this afternoon to discuss how the lack of financial support from the U.S. might have an impact on their ability to work in the countries where UNESCO and the WIPO have their work being conducted. What more can you tell us about this meeting? How does this affect the Apples, the Googles, the pharmas of the world, when they’re looking at potentially being shut out of potentially lucrative markets?
      MS. NULAND: Well, Ros, I think you’re referring to the meeting that Assistant Secretary for International Organizations Esther Brimmer is having today with representatives from some of the U.S. majors around the world to explain what the implications of this vote might be for U.S. business abroad. But my understanding is Assistant Secretary Brimmer is particularly going to call their attention to the potential that the Palestinians may now gain admission to the World Intellectual Property Organization. So – and that might have some implications for our ability to work in that organization. And of course, that’s a very important organization for companies, like the high-tech list that you cited.
      QUESTION: And then —
      QUESTION: — quick follow-up?
      QUESTION: Well, then, what do you do – then what is the U.S. Government then telling these companies, which have been extremely concerned about intellectual piracy, dummy drugs, dummy consumer products? Does – is U.S. business being unfairly impacted because of this legislative restriction, and how can the U.S. Government try to resolve it? Or rather, the Executive Branch, how can it resolve it so that the business community isn’t unduly upset by all this?
      MS. NULAND: Well, obviously, she wants to make sure that these companies understand the implications of what has already happened, but also with regard to the intellectual property organization, WIPO, she wants to make sure that companies understand that Palestinian membership in WIPO could trigger – would trigger similar funding restrictions and could diminish U.S. influence in an organization that’s very important to these companies. So we need to make sure that our companies understand the implications of what’s happened and begin that conversation with them.
      QUESTION: Would it be fair to suggest that perhaps, with this meeting, the State Department is hoping to induce these companies to lobby for a change, an easing of these restrictions on UNESCO funding?
      MS. NULAND: I think the stage that we are at is to make sure that our companies understand what may or may not be happening in this circumstance so that we can open a conversation about how we protect their interests going forward.

  24. November 17, 2011, 10:09 pm

    “Rice says, Jews regard the Jewish state as the “fulfillment of a long historical and religious journey”.
    I ain’t expert on Judaism, but from a little what I’ve read, it looks that:
    “All the great rabbis who in accordance with Jewish Law opposed Zionism at its inception did not do so merely due to consideration of the secular lifestyles of the then Zionist leaders, or even for their opposition to Torah heritage and rejection of its values and practices, but DUE TO THE FACT, that the entire concept of A JEWISH STATE IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH a number of Judaism’s fundamentals.

    Condemnation of and segregation from anything connected to or affiliated with the so-called modern day “State of Israel” is based on the Talmud, the key fundamental doctrine of the Oral Tradition handed down by G-d to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
    The Talmud in Tractate Kesubos (p. 111a), teaches that Jews SHALL NOT USE HUMAN FORCE to bring about the establishment of a Jewish state before the coming of the universally accepted Moshiach (Messiah from the House of David). Furthermore it states that WE ARE FORBIDDEN TO REBEL AGAINST the nations ,and that we should remain LOYAL CITIZENS, and we shall NOT ATTEMPT to leave the exile which G-d sent us into, ahead of time.”
    http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/index.cfm

    Maybe Condi Rice should take Lesson 101 on Judaism, ( instead of indulging on Zio-Brandy, 100% proof). If one sips too much Zio-Brandy, one’s mind very quickly goes numb and dumb.

    • john h
      john h
      November 18, 2011, 12:25 am

      Your posts are truth as it must be seen and told, justicewillprevail and dumvitaespesest.

      Zionism is in direct conflict with its own religious and cultural heritage, and Rice is in direct conflict with her own inner knowledge; what she knows is right and her better judgment..

      Thus Zionism betrays Judaism, and its state becomes an idol to be worshiped and sacrificed to, and Rice betrays every ideal of her background and family history, not to mention US founding principles.

      And all for the pot of gold mirage at the end of the rainbow. Both are classic examples of the end being used to justify the means.

      • November 18, 2011, 8:15 am

        Very nice summary. We figured Condi out:).
        The sad part is that she says says all of it, so matter-of-factly.
        She readily twists her logic and inner knowledge/gut feeling/aha moment to rationalize something that can’t be rationalized according to the standards of Truth, Justice and Decency.

    • thetumta
      thetumta
      November 18, 2011, 7:43 pm

      So what? Right and wrong isn’t that hard. Stop trying assign reason to madness! We shouldn’t be involved.
      Hej!

  25. Ariram
    Ariram
    November 18, 2011, 8:15 am

    Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people. Contrary to Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, which refer to persons who follow a certain religion the term “Jewish” refers also to a person who belongs to the Jewish people. The UN voted in 1947 for resolution 181, which called for the partition of Mandatory Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. As there is no Arab religion it is obvious that the resolution refers to peoples, not religions.
    Zionism was founded by secular Jews, motivated by nationalism not religion. In 1947, the Palestinain Jews accepted the UN partiiotn paln even though the Jewish state would have had a very large Arab minority, some 45%. They were sure that, as soon as the state is proclaimed, millions will immigrate and assure a substantial Jewish majority. Which is exactly what happened. Had the Arabs accepted the partition and had not started a war, there would have been no refugees and their state would have been 63 y old today.
    Livni was right, that the refugees will not return to Israel proper, just like not one of the more than 35 million refugees in the 20th century was not allowed to return. And the term “right of retrun” does not appear in resolution 194. Because that resolution required the recognition of Israel by the Arab states, it was rejected by the Arabs. Only much later, when it became clear that the they can not destroy Israel by military means, they started asking for the return of millions of refugees, knowing full well that this will mean the end of the nation-state of the Jewish people. That is also the reason why people like Weiss support it.
    It is not a question of “ethnic purity” but of national existence. Of course those who deny the right of the Jewish people to political self-determination and statehood will never understand that. Their racism simply blinds them to facts.

    • justicewillprevail
      justicewillprevail
      November 18, 2011, 8:50 am

      Thankyou for your fairytale. As well as giving yourself a right to return to somewhere you have never lived, apparently you also give yourself a right to rewrite history to justify it. I suppose one needs the other.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 18, 2011, 9:22 am

        @justicewillprevail says “you also give yourself a right to return to somewhere you have never lived”.
        It might help your powers of reasoning to know that Jews lived there for over twelve hundred years before they were exiled by the Romans in the 1st century AD.
        Where did the palestinians come from and when?

      • November 18, 2011, 10:11 am

        Do you want go back to the borders that existed 2000 years ago??
        Hm… tough task. I can not even imagine that.
        All those riots all over the globe.

      • November 18, 2011, 10:38 am

        To be honest ,native Americans would have more rights to do it, to the current people, ( from all over ) living on their , God -given land.
        Their plight started just a few hundred ( not 2000 ) years ago.
        Imagine how America would react if the Native Indians said : “Ok ,my unfriendly friends, pack all your belongins, all of you, no exceptions, and go back to those boats/ships that you came in.
        You destroyed our way of living, our people, our traditions, but still , we do not want you here.”
        Do you think anybody,except them, would take it seriously??
        Would give them the power to do so??

      • iamuglow
        iamuglow
        November 18, 2011, 10:40 am

        “Jews lived there… before they were exiled by the Romans in the 1st century AD.”
        Can you honestly not see how silly this is?

        Thinking you can pick up where someone left off 2K years ago just because you identify with them? Thinking that you can resurrect the rights of people who have been dead for thousands of years in order to strip the people living today of their rights? Do you not see how absurdity?

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        November 18, 2011, 12:47 pm

        So insane. Is there any other example of this kind of absurdity?

      • dahoit
        dahoit
        November 18, 2011, 1:01 pm

        Lets hear it for Celtism.The historical racial movement for the restitution of their ancient kingdom of Europe.

      • Theo
        Theo
        November 18, 2011, 1:18 pm

        If you read the Bible you see that when Joshua invaded the land he destroyed a bunch of city-states, such as Jericho, to name one.
        Those people lived there probably for centuries before the jews came.
        The Bible also says the philisters were the opponents of the jews and the decendents of those nations are the todays palestinians.
        If you believe in the Bible, and Israel bases its whole history on that fairytale book, then those people have a first come claim on that land.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        November 18, 2011, 3:31 pm

        Where did the Jews come from Mayhem? Did they emerge from primordial ooze, walking upright over time spontaneously in what is now Israel-Palestine?

        You could not create a Jewish State without mass ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population.

        While there was a continuous Jewish presence on the land, it did not compare to the presence of NON-Jews. Arabs.

        Jews had citizenship and residency all over the world and still do. Being JEWISH is not a nationality. It is an ethno-religious identifier. There are American Jews with American citizenship and no Israeli citizenship.

      • thetumta
        thetumta
        November 18, 2011, 7:44 pm

        Too many!

      • irena
        irena
        November 19, 2011, 1:54 pm

        Palestinians lived there for a millenia AT LEAST, who gave you the right to discard that blatant fact? Do you also think Hitler was right to conquer Slavic territories because he believed it was the right of his people?

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 19, 2011, 7:33 pm

        @Theo, Bible also says the philisters were the opponents of the jews and the decendents of those nations are the todays palestinians
        There is no historical basis for making such a claim. The Philistines are extinct and claims to alleged links with them are utterly false.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 19, 2011, 9:18 pm

        So the Philistines are like a species now? Anyway, it’s not relevant. Palestinians are the natives, European and Russian Jews are colonists.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 20, 2011, 6:36 am

        North America was colonized, Latin America was colonized, South America was colonized, Africa was colonized, Australia was colonized, but Palestine cannot be colonized. How hypocritical is that!

    • dahoit
      dahoit
      November 18, 2011, 12:57 pm

      More fantasy from the clinically insane.Masada beckons like Ahab on the whale,follow me,follow me, into insanity.
      When you write this stuff,do you cross your fingers and toes to ward off Yahwehs anger?

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 18, 2011, 5:33 pm

        To the mobsters here who keep on denying the facts:
        Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Jews never lost their connection to the Land of Israel (Palestine). The land, in fact, was never claimed to be the unique home of another nation, instead was a province of other empires.
        Ever since the Jewish people have never stopped exercising their claim to the land.
        We recognise the fundamental rights and entitlements of the indigenous inhabitants in Australia, Canada, US etc so why should Israel be any different?
        And in all this denigration of what is plainly obvious from history not a justifying whimper about the so-called Palestinians, who they are exactly and what special overriding entitlements they supposedly possess.

      • john h
        john h
        November 18, 2011, 9:35 pm

        To the mobsters here who keep on denying the facts:

        Good application of Zionist morality, Mayhem:

        When all else fails, apply these rules:
        1) resort to name-calling, especially one that reflects what we associate with.
        2) accuse our opponent of doing what we do.

        And in all this denigration of what is plainly obvious from history, not a justifying whimper about the so-called Palestinians, who they are exactly and what special overriding entitlements they supposedly possess.

        Apply rule 3): Expect our victim to justify why he possessed what we took from him.

        It is because we see what is plainly obvious from history that we denigrate the Zionist narrative fairytale that is full of manipulated half-truths or outright lies.

        But we never say “the so-called Jews”, or Israelis, or Zionists, because we know they are human beings that exist there just as Palestinians do.

        We have no need to justify who Arab Palestinians are or what they are entitled to, any more than anyone needs to justify why the French are living in France or the Syrian Arabs living in Syria.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 19, 2011, 1:08 am

        “Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Jews never lost their connection to the Land of Israel (Palestine).”

        Since the vast majority weren’t born there, (and many generations of their ancestors weren’t born there either), didn’t live there, didn’t travel there, and had no legal or financial connection, that must have been a pretty tenuous sort of connection. Why does that connection give any moral rights?

        “The land, in fact, was never claimed to be the unique home of another nation”

        So what? The people who were living there had greater right to keep living there than any “nation” of immigrants.

        “Ever since the Jewish people have never stopped exercising their claim to the land.”

        And exactly how and when have “the Jewish people” exercised this claim? As far as I can tell, most of them seem to have ignored the land.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 19, 2011, 7:04 pm

        The closing words of the Haggadah–“Next year in Jerusalem”–evoke the Jewish People’s perpetual longing to return to Zion. With the establishment of the State of Israel, traditional Jewish aspirations blended with modern Zionism.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 19, 2011, 7:13 pm

        There are obviously competing claims here; that is why it is necessary to consider the legitimacy of both sides. Any stance that denies the rights, genuine concerns and expressed views of either side is biased and ultimately not advancing a workable solution. To stay open-minded is too difficult for too many.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 19, 2011, 9:23 pm

        “The closing words of the Haggadah–”Next year in Jerusalem”–evoke the Jewish People’s perpetual longing to return to Zion. ”

        A line in a relgious ritual counts as a claim to the land?

        All it means is that the people saying the line want to go to Jerusalem.
        Not “return”, since most of them had never been there.
        Not much longing, since very few of them even made the effort to visit the place.
        Nothing in that about claiming the land for “the Jewish people”.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 20, 2011, 4:05 pm

        Refer http://www.aish.com/h/9av/j/Jerusalem_Jewish_and_Muslim_Claims_to_the_Holy_City.html to see how deep within the Jewish psyche is the desire to RETURN to Jerusalem.
        Mohammed never made it to Jerusalem, and the word “Jerusalem” appears nowhere in the Koran.
        Jews comprised the largest population group in Jerusalem by 1840, the absolute majority maybe even as early as 1854, clearly by 1870.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 20, 2011, 5:17 pm

        the word “Jerusalem” appears nowhere in the Koran.

        MW old-timers know that I have been waging a – dare I say – “crusade” for the recognition of Christian primacy in Jerusalem, based on the fact that there is no other religion that mentions the name Jerusalem as many times in its holy scriptures (814 times in KJV, 891 in NJB and a whopping 1035 times in the NLT). Glad to have you on board, Mayhem.

        ¡Viva Su Católica Majestad Juan Carlos I, Rey de Jérusalen!

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        November 20, 2011, 6:33 pm

        “to see how deep within the Jewish psyche is the desire to RETURN to Jerusalem.”

        Yet, as I said, most Jews never even tried to go there. And you can’t return to somewhere you have never been.

        “Mohammed never made it to Jerusalem, and the word “Jerusalem” appears nowhere in the Koran.”

        ????? So what?

        “Jews comprised the largest population group in Jerusalem by 1840, the absolute majority maybe even as early as 1854, clearly by 1870.”

        So what? I’m not denying that those Arab Jews had a right to be there. I’m denying that their presence gives any rights to European Jews.

      • American
        American
        November 20, 2011, 7:41 pm

        Oh my, this deep aching desire of the Jews to return to where they were a minority and had a kingdom for only 70 years and then hightailed outta there to the four corners of the earth.

        Let’s look at Jerusalem and Palestine from day one. According to World Master History. No jewish virtual library funny bunny history allowed, we have to use actual real history here.

        Starting with the first of the first, (after the neanderthals of course) and going in exact order to 1948:..

        Canaanite
        (Canaanite culture developed in situ from the Circum-Arabian Nomadic Pastoral Complex, which in turn developed from a fusion of Harifian hunter gatherers with Pre-Pottery Neolithic B farming cultures, practicing animal domestication, during the 6,200 BC climatic crisis.
        The is the area where the spheres of interest of the Egyptian and Hittite Empires converged.)
        Egyptian
        Jebusite
        Israel Judah<<<….this is the Jews, you were a very short blip on the screen. Neo Assyrian
        Neo Babylonia
        Persian
        Mecedonia
        Hasmonean
        Roman and under Roman:
        Byzantine
        Persian
        Rashidun
        Umayyad
        Abbasid
        Fatimid
        Selijuq
        Christian Crusaders Kingdom of Jerusalem and under:
        Ayyubid
        Manluk
        Otterman Empire
        British Mandate

        Historians say now that the Palestines 'as a people' were primilary Arab who intermingled and descended from mixtures of all the tribes and various conquering peoples listed above that inhabited the area now known as Palestine from the day it was first inhabited, thru all the conquest up to today. So instead of the Palestines not being a "People" as the Jews claim, they are actually ALL OF and the ONLY the people who ever lived there continulously from the beginning of recorded time..
        What this means is THEY STAYED thruout ALL these centuries.
        The Jews DIDN'T. 90% of them LEFT. Hit the interstate. Took off.
        I think that simple fact settles the bullshit about the achy breaky Jewish heart and it's place in Palestine.
        The zios just saw a peice of land with some minor past connection they could claim to incite their religious zealots support and that would be easy to steal from people who no ready way to defend themselves.
        The Jews were a MINOR presence EVERYWHERE IN THE ME and always will be.
        People might have more respect for you if you didn't lie about everything so much.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 20, 2011, 8:07 pm

        @Shmuel, It is not a matter of the number of times but the fact that in Islam scripture the number of times = 0.

      • American
        American
        November 20, 2011, 8:34 pm

        “Shmuel says:
        November 20, 2011 at 5:17 pm
        the word “Jerusalem” appears nowhere in the Koran.
        MW old-timers know that I have been waging a – dare I say – “crusade” for the recognition of Christian primacy in Jerusalem, based on the fact that there is no other religion that mentions the name Jerusalem as many times in its holy scriptures (814 times in KJV, 891 in NJB and a whopping 1035 times in the NLT).”

        Please lord deliver me from the stupidity of religious primacy crusaders!
        When I saw this comment it remind me of how Daniel Pipes offered a million dollar reward for anyone who could find the word “Jerusalem” in the Koran. What an idiot…he thinks people are.
        Dear stupids, the Koran was written in Arabic, not Hebrew.
        Jerusalem is the Hebrew name, the Arabic name for that Muslim holy site and surrounding area is “al Quds”

        Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎‎
        Arabic: القُدس al-Quds [al-Sharif]

        Examples:
        Al Quran surah .
        Prophet Muhammad in Al-Quds
        The first Temple of Allah in Al-Quds
        The second Temple of Allah in Al-Quds
        The third Temple of Allah in Al-Quds
        The third Temple of Allah in Al-Quds is the Muslim al-Aqsa Mosque.
        The miracle night journey from the Kabah in Mecca (Makkah), Arabia to the Temple Mount in Al-Quds, Palestine by Prophet Muhammad

        And remember google translator is your friend. So Shmuel, if I call you stupid 1035 times does that mean I get to claim you. Do you do yard work?

      • James North
        James North
        November 20, 2011, 10:03 pm

        Mayhem: So you justify Israel killing Palestinians today and stealing their land today by what was written or not written 1300 years ago? And you wonder why Israel is losing support, and why people like you have to spend hours at Mondoweiss to protect its image?

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 21, 2011, 12:45 am

        @North, I have not justified any killing or stealing – that is just your propaganda speak. I guess that for you nothing matters besides your own ossified agenda.
        The historical, legal, moral and religious entitlements to the land of Palestine all come into the equation if you are going to give the I/P conflict open-minded consideration.

      • annie
        annie
        November 21, 2011, 1:10 am

        The historical, legal, moral and religious entitlements to the land of Palestine all come into the equation if you are going to give the I/P conflict open-minded consideration

        translate? what does this mean?

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 21, 2011, 1:14 am

        Mayhem doesn’t justify it, he just Holocaust-denies it away.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 21, 2011, 2:04 am

        It was a joke, American. One I use every time someone brings up this ridiculous argument.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 21, 2011, 2:14 am

        It is not a matter of the number of times but the fact that in Islam scripture the number of times = 0.

        The entire argument has 0 relevance to legal or moral claims to sovereignty (not to mention racist domination) over Jerusalem. That is to say that it would have no relevance were it actually a correct assertion (see American’s examples below, and add the name Bayt al-Maqdis – although I’m sure you’ll just turn that into another ridiculous argument over “who was here first”).

      • American
        American
        November 21, 2011, 3:02 am

        Shmuel says:
        November 21, 2011 at 2:04 am
        It was a joke, American. One I use every time someone brings up this ridiculous argument.”

        Well thank Gawd!… I thought you’d gone rouge.
        Don’t scare me like that. LOL

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 21, 2011, 3:30 am

        Well thank Gawd!… I thought you’d gone rouge.
        Don’t scare me like that. LOL

        Just goes to show that no argument is too absurd to be taken seriously when it comes to I/P. For future reference, should I ever decide to go rogue (I’m already pretty “rouge”), it will definitely not be as a fundie. Been there, done that. There are far better ways to go ;-)

        To answer your earlier question, yes, I do yard work.

      • American
        American
        November 21, 2011, 4:13 am

        “To answer your earlier question, yes, I do yard work.”

        My big mouth.
        I suffer from PTZO…….Post Traumatic Zionist Overload.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        November 21, 2011, 4:20 am

        I suffer from PTZO…….Post Traumatic Zionist Overload.

        No worries. There seems to be a lot of that going around.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 21, 2011, 5:22 pm

        @American, so the Palestinians were some kind of hot-potch population that hung around the area of Palestinian since time immemorial. Hmm.
        At the turn of the 19th century the land of Palestine was virtually desolate. Remember what Mark Twain had to say about the place. People started arriving in numbers towards the end of the 19th century and they were immigrants from the surrounding lands and of course some Zionists.
        Some references to substantiate your little saga would be appreciated – I suspect they might be rather hard to find.
        And by the way the Hasmoneans were Jewish.

      • powzon
        powzon
        November 21, 2011, 6:28 pm

        @Mayhem – “At the turn of the 19th century the land of Palestine was virtually desolate.”

        Have you bothered to investigate whether that is true? If not, why not? Is it too much work? Here,

        What is meant by the term, “Palestine”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine. Be sure to follow and study all the links. By the way, “Palestine Mandate” does not equal the lands of ancient Israel or of ancient Palestine.

        The citations here are useful for Mark Twain fixations,
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#Travelers.27_impressions_of_19th_century_Palestine

        As for Arab immigration into Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th C because of the Zionist economic miracle, learn to use this site, http://www.populstat.info/. You’ll see that the populations of all Arab areas around Palestine, including their capital cities increased by roughly 50 percent in the first half of the 20th C. So where did the extra Arabs come from?

        If anyone turns you on to refutations of this such as Fred Gottheil’s “The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931”, notice preserving a semblance of academic forces him to shoot himself in the foot in his conclusion,

        “…there is every reason to believe that consequential immigration of Arabs into and within Palestine occurred during the Ottoman and British mandatory periods…

        “The precise magnitude of Arab immigration into and within Palestine is, as Bachi noted, unknown. Lack of completeness in Ottoman registration lists and British Mandatory censuses, and the immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected immigration during both periods make any estimate a bold venture into creative analysis. In most cases, those venturing into the realm of Palestinian demography—or other demographic analyses based on very crude data—acknowledge its limitations and the tentativeness of the conclusions that may be drawn.”

        That is something can’t be “unknown”, limited, tentative and “undetected”, but also very, very big, as he implies with the use of “immeasurable illegal, unreported, and undetected”. What a joker.

      • Donald
        Donald
        November 21, 2011, 7:13 pm

        “The citations here are useful for Mark Twain fixations,”

        It would do him good to read it. Mayhem goes back and forth between two categories of posts–

        1. Vague claims that both sides have legitimate claims.
        2. Specific and often discredited accusations or claims against the Palestinian side. The Mark Twain citation, for instance.

        Mayhem, if you are really interested in understanding both sides, go off somewhere and read some books by liberal/left Israelis (I assume Palestinian authors would just be too much.) Try Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, Shlomo Ben Ami for starters. I’m not giving my personal endorsement to all their claims–Shlomo Ben Ami, for instance, was a participant in the Camp David talks he discusses, so he’s got an ax to grind there. I don’t see the point in coming to a pro-Palestinian blog and spouting all the standard hasbara talking points if you really are interested in hearing both sides. Clearly you’re on the Israeli side and you’re just here to fight, but if some part of you really is openminded then this isn’t the place for someone like you because everything and everyone here just triggers your Zionist reflexes. Start off with people closer to your viewpoint, like Ben Ami, who is a liberal Zionist.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 21, 2011, 10:27 pm

        Mark Twain said it was desolate “”A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We reached Tabor safely. We never saw a human being on the whole route”.
        The stats from the powzon’s wikipedia link indicate there was 275,000 people there at the turn of the 19th century (there had been 10 times that figure during the first half 1st century CE when Jews were in the majority). The population had barely increased 50% in over 300 years.
        So I can’t see that powzon has disproved anything I said about the population in Palestine in the 19th century.

      • Mayhem
        Mayhem
        November 21, 2011, 10:29 pm

        I prefer to read the likes of Benny Morris who woke up one day to realize the truth.

      • Donald
        Donald
        November 21, 2011, 11:03 pm

        “The stats from the powzon’s wikipedia link indicate there was 275,000 people there at the turn of the 19th century (there had been 10 times that figure during the first half 1st century CE when Jews were in the majority). ”

        This is weird. You really think that population statistics in the 1st Century AD have something to do with whether Palestinians had the right to stay in their own land 2000 years later?

        As for Morris, one of his “truths” was that the Israelis had the right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, just as the white settlers in the US had the right to ethnically cleanse the Native Americans.

        I didn’t think you were really interested in the rights of both sides but one never knows. But you’ve clarified things. Actually, this blog is pretty rough on liberal Zionists who try to be honest about the sins of the Israelis and so what happens is that (with rare exceptions) most of the Zionists who do end up commenting here are hostile to Palestinians. You fit the mold.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 21, 2011, 11:35 pm

        Translation: Benny Morris traded academic integrity for the chance to kiss ass.

      • American
        American
        November 22, 2011, 2:26 am

        Mayhem – “At the turn of the 19th century the land of Palestine was virtually desolate.”

        Your trying to use your fellow traveler Joan Peters story that Arabs immigrated into Palestine at the same time Jews started immigrating into Palestine. Her use of zionist agencies for her population claims is one reason, among others, her book got laughed out of town by real historians and scholars because they wildly differed from all accepted figures. Besides a few Arab records at the British National archives no one is ever going to find any thing but estimates on any ME area before the 1800’s and back then they only counted children as 1/2 people and were done for taxing and conscripting into the armies and natives tended to not cooperate with their surveyors. From everything I have ever found most scholars start with the Ottoman census and that isn’t even totally accurate.

        But anyway.

        The Ottoman counts of early to late 1880’s, which is explained at this link shows 381,954 Palestines, not counting the Beduins. The Ottoman Census showed about 2% Jews, including 10,000 FOREIGN BORN JEWS…meaning outside of Palestine. They could have been from some other ME country however, it’s not specified.

        http://www.jstor.org/pss/163415

        The zios keeps trying to make the case there was always significant numbers of Jews in Palestine and the Arabs were the emigres. Anyone can look at the Ottoman census— then the first modern census by the British in 1922 –then the one in 1933 and see exactly how minuscule the Jewish population was and exactly where the uptick in Jews started, approx about the time zionism started to take hold in Europe.

        “The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.
        The reported population was 757,182,( including the military and persons of foreign nationality–the British forces there). The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze. Even with Jewish immigration they were still less than a fifth of the population.

        Then go the next British census of 1931 to see the first jump in Jews in Palestine
        The 1931 census of Palestine was the second census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine. It was carried out on 18 November 1931 under the direction of Major E. Mills. The first census had been conducted in 1922. Following the 1931 census, no further census was conducted in Palestine by the British administration.
        The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces[2]) – an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.
        The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 “no religion”.
        If I remember correctly the UN documents also give figures for Palestines and Jews and was somewhat lower than 1933 for Arabs, around 650,00 some I think which could be accounted by fleeing of some Palestines in the Jewish- Palestine clashes that went on even before 1948.

        The point being mayhem, the Jewish presence in Palestine was insignificant before the wave of European Jewish immigrants as everyone knows and anyone can find out. You’re just blahing, blahing hot air nonsense like the typical zio . That’s why you have such a reputation as liars.

      • powzon
        powzon
        November 22, 2011, 12:36 pm

        @Mayhem – “I can’t see that powzon has disproved anything I said about the population in Palestine in the 19th century.”

        The exhortation to study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine, included the admonition, “Be sure to follow and study all the links”. You didn’t take that seriously, did you? Here’s the link for you, then,

        Demographics of Palestine – Travelers’ impressions of 19th century Palestine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine#Travelers.27_impressions_of_19th_century_Palestine

        Have fun with it.

        Starting around chapter 49 of “The Innocents Abroad”, you can read about the verdant valley of “Nablous/Shechem”, and some chapters later about the oranges of Jaffa. If you’d read it critically, you’d realize that Twain calls almost everything “barren” from Italy to Palestine. Hes writes that almost nothing grows almost everywhere except when he realizes what he first thinks is a weed is really a grape vine, and when he mentions, forgetting that he’s called some or all of a country “barren” and/or “full of weeds”, what’s actually cultivated there. (In some cases, he’s actually eaten it, naturally.) Twain wrote to entertain, offering smart cracks for every ethnic group he encounters, starting with the very first foreigners he comes across in the Azores. He passed through Palestine in the summer, so of course everything was hot and dry. His route, except for Jericho, took him mostly through the center of the country, which, then as now, was stony hills partly terraced. The abandoned structures he saw were actually permanent shelters used part time, for sleeping in the fields during harvest seasons.

        Now, in that wikipedia about 19th C impressions of Palestine, there’s a reference to mid-century de-cultivation in some areas, which could only mean, Mayhem, that it had been cultivated, and, as testified to by the notable men below, would very soon be cultivated again, by Arabs, that is. You must have come across these famous doozies,

        “We abroad are used to believe the Eretz Yisrael is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sowed ….. But in truth that is not the case. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sowed. Only sand dunes and stony mountains …. are not cultivated.” Ahad ha’Am (Asher Ginzburg) writing in 1891-2 after a few months in Palestine, quoted in “Righteous Victims” by Benny Morris, p. 42.

        “We have not come to an empty country. We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture…Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about the mutual misunderstanding? between us and the Arabs, about common interests [and] about the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples…[But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes… for if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise.” — Moshe Sharret, 2nd Prime Minister of Israel, from his personal diary of 1914

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        November 18, 2011, 6:52 pm

        The right to participate in the politics of a place, be a citizen, a voter etc. derive from living peacefully in that place. By what right or reason could someone dwelling peacefully and contributing constructively be denied that right? Peaceful existence is not the same as maintaining by continuous exercise of force, which is a negation of peace, something that was created by force in the first place. Rights plainly do not arise from violence, though they can arise from agreements made to end a period of violence, which is what all social contracts are.

    • Chaos4700
      Chaos4700
      November 18, 2011, 1:18 pm

      motivated by nationalism not religion.

      Fancy that, so is Aryanism.

      • john h
        john h
        November 19, 2011, 12:31 am

        you also give yourself a right to rewrite history to justify it.

        Of course. Zionist morality, you know.

        Where did the Jews come from, Mayhem? Did they emerge from primordial ooze, walking upright over time spontaneously in what is now Israel-Palestine?

        They came from one man, Abram, who was from Ur of the Chaldeans, which is now in Iraq.

        There is only one reason he left there and went to live in Canaan, what is today’s Palestine/Israel. The written story is that when he was 75 he heard a voice telling him to do just that. That was the origin of the religion of Judaism, and it was at the same time the origin of a people who came to be known as Jews.

        That is why they cannot be separated, and why being Jewish is not a race, and

        Being JEWISH is not a nationality. It is an ethno-religious identifier.

        A Jew who rejects Judaism remains a Jew, he or she cannot change their heritage any more than a non-Jew can.

        When you write this stuff, do you cross your fingers and toes to ward off Yahwehs anger?

        Zionism is a renunciation of that one known as Yahweh, who is the very reason there is a Jewish people. It is a renunciation of his word in the Tanakh about how to live and who to worship, a word that often talks of his anger at what Jews and Israel are doing, and of how it was expressed. There is a day coming, and it’s getting closer.

        motivated by nationalism, not religion. Fancy that, so is Aryanism.

        It is the motivation to be “like other nations”, the same as that described in 1 Samuel 8, where it is called idolatry and linked to the golden calf episode. It has resulted in the worship of the State of Israel and sacrifice to it.

        So insane. Is there any other example of this kind of absurdity?

        There is no other people with the heritage of the Jews, so their particular absurdity and how it is expressed in Zionism is unique.

      • American
        American
        November 20, 2011, 9:20 pm

        “The written story is that when he was 75 he heard a voice telling him to do just that. That was the origin of the religion of Judaism, and it was at the same time the origin of a people who came to be known as Jews. ”

        Maybe that’s why I’m not bible religious…people who “hear voices”..who think God talks to them are seriously distrubed.
        Next thing you know Roberson and Hagee will say God spoke to them and told them to form their own country.
        That’s actually not a bad idea…where can we get them to move to?

      • ahhiyawa
        ahhiyawa
        November 22, 2011, 9:43 am

        Abraham is a fictitious, eponymous hero invented many times over from a pagan milieu, to explain the origins of an originally pagan cult, clan or tribe who some speculate may originally have been the Habiru of ancient correspondence in the 14th & 13th centuries BC.

        A further complication is the bible as we know it was revised countless times by the Judahites from the southern Kingdom of Judah before and after the Babylonian expulsions. Though there is no complete bible to prove the date of its final form, the basic structure of the Torah was probably imagined no earlier than 538 BC by the returning Judahites, as a means to unify the fractured communities of what ultimately became known as the Jews.

        Abraham never existed and the name in Hebrew as understood by the biblical narrative means “the father of a multitude.” But even this is hotly disputed by linguists, some suggesting an Akkadian origin, not a Hebrew.

      • mig
        mig
        November 19, 2011, 2:11 am

        Did someone claim that zionists are only evil in the world ?

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 21, 2011, 1:17 am

        I wish the moderators here would make up their minds. Why was DBG’s comment basically copping to the fact that Zionism is evil stricken? I was intending to utilize that later.

        Either give me as much freedom as you give him, or restrict his comments at the outset the way you restrict mine. This half and half crap is getting tiresome.

      • Donald
        Donald
        November 21, 2011, 7:15 pm

        “Why was DBG’s comment basically copping to the fact that Zionism is evil stricken? I was intending to utilize that later.”

        That would have been interesting to see.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        November 21, 2011, 11:36 pm

        It was. I was so going to throw it in his face at every opportunity too.

  26. November 18, 2011, 8:41 am

    Ariram
    You obviously don’t know the definition of rasism and rasist ,so here are a few.
    Read them, study them, and think deeply ,who really is the rasist here.
    Personally, I doubt it if you understand anything.
    It seems like you wash your brain daily in the propaganda laundromat.

    rac·ism   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/
    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is SUPERIOR and HAS THE RIGHT to RULE others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., BASED UPON or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. HATRED or intolerance of ANOTHER RACE or other races
    Racism involves the belief in racial differences, which acts as a JUSTIFICATION FOR NON-EQUAL TREATMENT (which some regard as “discrimination”) of members of that race.
    [2] The term is commonly used negatively and is usually associated with race-based PREDJUICE, VIOLENCE, dislike, DISVRIMINATION, or OPRESSION.

    The UN does not define “racism”, however it does define “racial discrimination”: According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,

    the term “racial discrimination” shall mean ANY DOSTINCTION, EXLUSION, RESTRICTION, or PREFERENCE BASED ON race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an EQUAL footing, of HUMAN RIGHTS and FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      November 18, 2011, 9:13 am

      but he told me he doesn’t believe me because “Jews wouldn’t do that.” “

  27. RobertB
    RobertB
    November 18, 2011, 9:47 am

    Where was Condi… when Israel & its IDF killers slaughtered 1400 Palestinians in Gaza (2008/2009) and many of them were women & children? For 23 days Israel’s used its massive American made weapons against a mostly unarmed civilian population. Israel’s IDF even gunned down terrified Palestinian civilians holding white flags.

    Did Condi ever condemn Israel’s atrocities? Did she ever dare to speak out or was she too scared from AIPAC & the rest of the zionist/Israeli organizations?

    They found her a secure lofty job/position & now she has a book to make more $$$… AIPAC usually takes care of its servants, especially the ones in high positions for the cause of Israel.

  28. upsidedownism
    upsidedownism
    November 18, 2011, 1:24 pm

    Rice admitted on television that on 9/11, after the first tower was struck, she assumed it was an accident. As national security advisor at the time, she should have been the first person in the world to consider it might be a deliberate attack.

    I don’t think she thought this way because she was stupid or lazy. Like her observations of Livni’s statement, politics forces officials like Rice not only to view the world through a narrow, ideologically constricted box, but to act accordingly as well. The Republicans were focused on Saddam Hussein throughout the Clinton Presidency and consistently denigrated the priority the Democrats gave to fighting Osama Bin Laden, purely for political reasons. Focusing on the terror threat from Al Queda didn’t fit their political agenda to such an extent that it made America less safe. Anybody Rice who told George Bush that he should forget about Iraq and focus on Al Queda would never have been hired or would have been fired. Rice should be ashamed of letting down her country just as she should be for acquiescing silently to Livni’s repugnant views.

  29. November 18, 2011, 1:26 pm

    Here is a very intersting , recent interview with Prof. Finkelstein.
    Quite personal.
    Condi Rice ,as well as Prof Finkelstein ,are both well educated, intelligent , outspoken people. The difference???
    He is loyal, faithful to Truth,Justice, Honesty, Decency.
    He follows the moral guidelines in his professional and personal life.
    She sold the values, she’s been taught, for a minute of fame, and a bowl of golden, shiny mush.
    http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/interview-in-conversation-with-norman-finkelstein/

  30. john h
    john h
    November 18, 2011, 2:46 pm

    Welcome to Mondoweiss, Ariram and Mayhem.

    You have come here to cross swords with us, and we are cool with that. We know our swords cut far deeper than your plastic fantastics ever could.

    One of you has said there are Zionists and there are Zionists as if that somehow made a difference. It doesn’t, because this fight is not about Zionists but about Zionism. And it is not about the Jewish people or their history or nationalism.

    Those are just some of the issues, they are not the real reason for this conflict.

    The real reason is clearly stated by Jabotinsky in his The Iron Wall. This is what he said:

    ZIONISM MORAL AND JUST

    Two brief remarks:

    In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true: either Zionism is moral and just, or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative.

    We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.

    There is no other morality.

    Thus were the battle lines drawn by an honest and very plain speaking and clear Zionist. They have not changed, they will not change, and they cannot change.

    Morality and justice is what we fight for. In this we are either with the Jew Jabotinsky or with the Jew Finkelstein. It is that simple.

    • yourstruly
      yourstruly
      November 20, 2011, 9:37 pm

      morality and justice is what the zionist fights for?

      isn’t that what hitler insisted that naziism was all about?

      nazi morality & justice?

      likewise stalin’s russia?

      communist morality & justice?

      come to think of it, has there ever been a tyranny that said it was fighting for anything other than its own brand of morality & justice?

      • john h
        john h
        November 20, 2011, 11:10 pm

        has there ever been a tyranny that said it was fighting for anything other than its own brand of morality & justice?

        No, and that is exactly the point.
        ]
        Their own brand puts above everything else its inhumane way of doing things and the preservation of its tyranny at the cost of human life and dignity.

        True morality and justice puts above everything else the most humane way of doing things and the preservation of human life in freedom and equity.

        The battle lines are drawn accordingly.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      November 22, 2011, 1:25 pm

      “We hold that Zionism is moral and just.”

      Is there any more moral and just idea than that the killers of the Saviour, Jesus Christ, should be punished by man and God through all eternity? Lot’s of nice people think so.

      • john h
        john h
        November 24, 2011, 3:04 am

        Are you one of them, Mooser? Just curious.

  31. thetumta
    thetumta
    November 18, 2011, 7:49 pm

    Oh you’re in trouble. It’s just not that difficult, but it can be a very hard road. Hopefully, they lose.
    Hej!

  32. ahhiyawa
    ahhiyawa
    November 22, 2011, 10:19 am

    Zionism is an ideological construct derived from the merging of ‘Romanticism’ of heroic individualism and ‘national socialism’ in the latter half of the 19th century. Judaism was merely a framework upon which Zionists overlaid their doctrines and ideals, a practice Leninist’s, Stalinist’s and Nazis for various motives and purposes peculiar to them did too. So cultism and racism is not a surprising feature of Zionism.

    • powzon
      powzon
      November 22, 2011, 4:26 pm

      @ahhiyawa — That’s it? Is there anything more to Zionism than that? A response to antisemitism, for instance? Feel free to develop a comprehensive assessment. Try to avoid using “construct” and “merely”.

  33. Mooser
    Mooser
    November 22, 2011, 1:22 pm

    Okay let’s cut to the facts, okay? Anybody with even the most rudimentary knowledge of psychology, easily picked up on any street corner, knows that the Jewish desire to “return to Jerusalem” is simply a displaced birth panic. That is, it is a desire to return to the womb, before that bearded, alchohol-smelling guy with the knife got at you! Everybody knows that, and yuou only embarass yourself by pretending it’s anything different. Hell, I feel that way myself. Plus, it’s cold out here, and these shoes hurt my feet.

  34. moonkoon
    moonkoon
    November 25, 2011, 9:19 am

    … Rice says, Jews regard the Jewish state as the “fulfillment of a long historical and religious journey.” …

    Not all Jews go along with that proposition.
    … At the time of the destruction of the Holy Temple and the exile of the Jewish People, the great Biblical prophet Jeremiah proclaimed G-d’s message to all Jews: “Seek out the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you, and pray for it to G-d, for through its welfare will you have welfare.” (Jeremiah 29:7) For millennia, this has been a cornerstone of Jewish conduct. …
    http://www.truetorahjews.org/postmay2010

    Yes I know, these are crazy “fringe” Jews :-), but nevertheless they do demonstrate that not all Jews have been sucked into espousing the jingoistic claptrap that has been foisted on many of their brethren by zionist propagandists.
    I’m with the crazies (and Jeremiah) on this one. :-)
    Remember, it’s “Next year in Jerusalem”, … not this year. All in all a much more viable idea, …in the long term.

    • eljay
      eljay
      November 25, 2011, 9:22 am

      >> Yes I know, these are crazy “fringe” Jews :-), but nevertheless they do demonstrate that not all Jews have been sucked into the the jingoistic claptrap that has been foisted on many of their brethren by zionist propagandists.

      Those Jews who have not been “sucked into the jingoistic claptrap” of Zionism are not real Jews. It’s “common sense”. Just ask eee, he’ll tell ya. :-)

Leave a Reply