Trending Topics:

Hasbara PennBDS wrap-up: Pro-Israel students are ignorant

ActivismIsrael/Palestine
on 275 Comments

PennBDS

Post-PennBDS conference, Hasbara groups and journalists described pro-Israel students as “ignorant,” and unable to defend their stance against statements such as “Israel took Arab land.” From “Lessons Learned from the Frontline,”  Lisa Hostein, executive editor of the Jewish Exponent, laments:

the pervasive ignorance of young Jews and too many adults who can’t begin to counter simple questions about Israel’s legitimacy let alone respond to the more sophisticated sophistry from those like BDS keynoter Ali Abunimah.

Bryan Schwartzman, also from the Jewish Exponent confirms this inability to counter with an anti-BDS narratives. The writer asks:

[D]id BDS speakers like Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah reveal how much pro-Israel students need to learn in order to counter arguments that are steeped in the language of universal justice and human rights?

His answer — yes. Schwatzman continues with Hasbara failures by detailing Abunimah’s keynote speech, where he de facto throws Abunimah a moral endorsement over Alan Dershowitz. Referencing the Palestinian activist/author as recently catching  the pro-Israel professor in a lie, during his February 2nd speech. Schwartzman writes:

During a question-and-answer session there, a female student asked Dershowitz, ‘If an Arab student comes up to me and says, ‘You took my land,’ and I respond, ‘Yeah, but we support gay rights,’ how does that add up?’

Dershowitz said the answer is that the Jews didn’t steal the land.

In addition to articulating Hasbara faults, both journalists managed to highlight what they viewed as the one victory: consensus. The Exponent found though Pro-Israel students and Zionist organizations failed to provide any meaningful challenge to BDS, they were successful in sending a unified message that they are all against BDS. Therefore, while pro-Israel students may be ignorant, at least they are successful at sticking together.

Hat tip to Nima Shirazi for catching this**
 

Allison Deger
About Allison Deger

Allison Deger is the Assistant Editor of Mondoweiss.net. Follow her on twitter at @allissoncd.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

275 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    February 10, 2012, 2:32 pm

    Odd that any supporter of Israel would complain that the kids don’t know how to respond (and that The Dersh seems to be caught out in a lie) WITHOUT giving some sort of (to the supporter of Israel) satisfactory bone-crunching reply-than-which-there-is-no-whicher.

    Why not say, “Of course Israel never took Arab land because it was never Arab land; the Arabs just lived there temporarily; it was always Jewish land; because G-D (blessed be H-, etc., etc.) gave it to us as it is written — give references here –.

    But they gave no such absolute clincher arguments, leaving their own readers to suppose that the end is nigh (as MondoWeiss readers may also wish to believe).

    My take? Lomg live BDS, because its gonna be a long war.

    And, by the way, the BDS folks don’t fight fair, no way!, having resorted to abominable “arguments that are steeped in the language of universal justice and human rights?”

  2. Hostage
    Hostage
    February 10, 2012, 3:03 pm

    Pro-Israel students are ignorant . . . Dershowitz said the answer is that the Jews didn’t steal the land.

    Ignorance just means you don’t know yet, stupidity means Dershowitz never will.

  3. Talkback
    Talkback
    February 10, 2012, 4:10 pm

    They’re not pervasive ignorant, they know the truth and are honest. Something I wouldn’t say about Hostein or Dershowitz.

  4. tree
    tree
    February 10, 2012, 4:23 pm

    Grammar nit-pick. This:

    Bryan Schwartzman, also from the Jewish Exponent confirms this inability to counter anti-BDS narratives.

    should say “…counter BDS narratives” not “counter anti-BDS narratives”, unless I totally and profoundly misunderstood what you are saying, and Schwartzman was saying.

  5. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 10, 2012, 4:45 pm

    Dershowitz said the answer is that the Jews didn’t steal the land.
    – He says there was nobody in the house at the time

    If American Jews start understanding that their Israeli cousins stole the land it won’t be long until the end.

    • February 10, 2012, 6:33 pm

      “If American Jews start understanding that their Israeli cousins stole the land it won’t be long until the end.”

      Baby step #1: Jeremy Ben Ami, July 2011,
      Ben Ami spoke to a friendly audience in Washington, DC about his new book. ~52 min., Ben Ami fielded this question:

      Q: How should teachers in Jewish day schools go about teaching a nuanced view about Israel . . .

      Ben Ami: Since you’re going to be one of my kids’ teachers at day school, I better come up with a good answer. um, I think you have to tell the truth. You know, that is one of the things that I found in my own personal development that I resented, was never being given the whole story. And the mythology is wonderful, but when you find out it’s mythology, the reaction against it is far harsher and more extreme than the difficulties that you encounter when you hear the truth from the beginning. And so I advocate that we be open and honest. My kids know there IS a people called the Palestinians, and they were there too. They think it’s their land, we think it’s our land. I mean, everybody has a narrative and we’re never going to agree; you don’t have to agree on this narrative; you can accept that you each have your own narratives.
      There’s one land and two people and just like anything else that kids deal with, they’re going to have to deal with it together and share it.”

      imo Ben Ami started down the right track then took a wrong turn. Jewish claims are mythology, a “narrative;” Palestinian claims are fact, evidence, history, and reality. There is no getting around it.

      Joseph Campbell introduces his book, “Myths to Live By” with this anecdote:

      A woman and her two sons, one about 12, the other slightly younger, were at a lunch counter. After placing their orders, the 12 year old said, “Jimmy wrote a paper today on the evolution of man and Teacher said he was wrong, that Adam and Eve were our first parents.
      Mother said, “Well, Teacher was right. Our first parents were Adam and Eve.” . . .
      The youngster responded, “Yes, I know, but this was a scientific paper. . . .
      The mother, however, came back with another. “Oh, those scientists!” she said angrily. “Those are only theories.”
      And he was up to that one too. “Yes, I know,” was his cool and calm reply; but they have been factualized: they found the bones.”
      The milk and the sandwiches came, and that was that.”

      For all his assertions about truthtelling, Ben Ami is still wedded to a myth. Palestinians have the bones; they are shaped like keys.
      _____

      Mondoweiss offered up Baby step #2 last December when he posted this video of Peter Beinart on a panel speaking to young Jews on college campuses. Phil focused on Beinart’s declaration that “Israel must give citizenship to Palestinians under occupation.”

      I was intrigued, however, by what was said by Dana, an Israeli native who went to high school there but now attends University of Maryland. Dana said, “We were lied to,” in school in Israel. Her voice trembling, she explained that maps in Israeli textbooks do not display Palestinian land; the maps have no borders.” Dana elaborated and panel members sympathized with her confusion and resentment.

      Even more intriguing was the brief interview of Dana at the end of the panel discussion. The interviewer encouraged her to tell her story and once again sympathized with her confusion. THEN, he masterfully coached her to recite the “Confiteor” of zionist doctrine: Yes, the land belongs to Jews, etc.

      Ben Ami: Teach them the truth, but insist that they live a myth.
      Dana: Acknowledge that she was lied to, but insist that she learn to live the lie.

      baby steps

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 8:19 am

        Jewish claims are mythology, a “narrative;” Palestinian claims are fact, evidence, history, and reality. There is no getting around it.

        You really see no problem with making such a widespread, generalized statement such as this? You are ignoring the existence of dozens of narratives that exist on either side. Palestinian claims include narratives such as that Jews have no historical tie to the land whatsoever, that the Western Wall is unconnected to Judaism, that no massacres of indigenous Jews by Arabs took place in Palestine and other absurdities.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 9:16 am

        Palestinian claims include narratives such as that Jews have no historical tie to the land whatsoever, that the Western Wall is unconnected to Judaism, that no massacres of indigenous Jews by Arabs took place in Palestine and other absurdities.

        So, what? There are still Jewish and Christian archeologists and scholars who dispute the connection of the so-called Western Wall to the sites of the ancient Jewish Temples, e.g. http://www.templemount.org/theories.html

        I can assure you that if 700,000 Palestinians actually wanted to massacre the 80,000 Jewish inhabitants of early mandate era Palestine, the small British garrison there in 1918-21 couldn’t possibly have prevented it from happening. Most of the Palestinians have just never been that into killing the Jews.

        The claim that Jews and their descendants can live in other countries for thousands of years and still return and assert a superior claim to Palestine, based upon religious superstitions and sentimental bullsh*t is the absurdity in this case.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 12, 2012, 9:44 am

        The claim that Jews and their descendants can live in other countries for thousands of years and still return and assert a superior claim to Palestine, based upon religious superstitions and sentimental bullsh*t is the absurdity in this case.

        That is the crux of the matter. Whether your ancestors came from Jebus or Betelgeuse, or how many times it says “that place that I will show you” in scripture or liturgy is really beside the point.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 10:06 am

        Most of the Palestinians have just never been that into killing the Jews.

        The same can be said of Israelis to Arabs. And yet massacres did still occur on both sides. To ignore the riots and pogroms committed against the indigenous Jews on the basis that most of the Palestinians didn’t participate makes as much sense as discounting the effects of Deir Yassin because the Haganah did not participate in the massacre. Nevertheless my point was that sweeping generalizations that Palestinian narratives are inherently correct while Jewish ones are false is itself an untrue generalization.

        The claim that Jews and their descendants can live in other countries for thousands of years and still return and assert a superior claim to Palestine, based upon religious superstitions and sentimental bullsh*t is the absurdity in this case.

        But that was never the cause nor justification for Zionism aside from the ideology of fringe movements. Nor do the vast majority of Zionists believe in an inherently “superior claim” to the whole of Palestine. Rather, most recognize Palestine as a shared homeland with intertwined histories between the two groups. Sharing is the only conceivable solution.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 12, 2012, 10:34 am

        Nor do the vast majority of Zionists believe in an inherently “superior claim” to the whole of Palestine.

        Straw man. Hostage did not say “the whole of Palestine”. A superior claim to any part of Palestine on the basis of ancient history (or mythology – it doesn’t really matter) is preposterous.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 10:59 am

        Shmuel,

        I wasn’t aware that any claim was based on mythology or was considered superior. Zionism’s claim to the land is based on a continuous historical, cultural, religious and physical connection maintained over 2 millennium. Denying Jewish people self-determination in Palestine because their population in any single area was never dense enough is to use historic oppression to justify future discrimination. This in no way serves to deny the connection of any other indigenous people. It just does not recognize an Arab claim to the whole of Palestine as inherent merely because they have also inhabited parts of it.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 11:09 am

        To ignore the riots and pogroms committed against the indigenous Jews on the basis that most of the Palestinians didn’t participate makes as much sense as discounting the effects of Deir Yassin because the Haganah did not participate in the massacre.

        Who do you think you are kidding? Israel has carried out a full-blown multi-pronged pogrom against the Palestinian people ever since the day the State was established.

        You can be banned here at MW for comments that deny the Nakba. According to the account published by the ‘Maarachot’ the Israel Defense Army Press Tel Aviv 1986, the Irgun and Lehi force that attacked Deir Yassin had significant assistance and written clearance to do so from the Haganah district commander David Shaltiel – this despite the fact the village had signed a non-aggression pact and honored the terms of the agreement.

        The Revisionist force was accompanied by Meir Pail, who was in Jerusalem at that time on an intelligence mission for the Palmach. The Haganah were directed to participate in the operation by giving aid in time of retreat and medical assistance. However, the Haganah forces decided to help their Revisionist brethren during the morning to aid with additional fire power. The aid consisted of two operations: A) Preventing the approach of Arab reinforcements from the direction of Malcha and Ein-Kerem; B) rear-attacks on the Arabs who had dug in on the west ridge of the village. These were carried out from the positions in Sharfa (Mt. Herzl). The reports claimed the Arabs were surprised by the fire and suffered significant casualties, as they were forced to expose themselves either to Haganah fire or that of the Revisionists attackers. http://middle-east.yu-hu.com/peacewatch/dy/levitza.htm

      • annie
        annie
        February 12, 2012, 11:53 am

        Zionism’s claim to the land is based on a continuous historical, cultural, religious and physical connection maintained over 2 millennium.

        no it’s not. the fact there were always some jews there throughout history does not establish a ‘claim’. property rights don’t work like that. zionism is and always was a political construct and nothing about it was intrinsically bound to take place in palestine. these are fabricated after the fact claims based on the desires and aspirations of certain early zionists melding biblical claims with colonization to create facts on the ground as a way of justifying the ethnic cleansing of palestine.

      • annie
        annie
        February 12, 2012, 11:55 am

        hostage, this poster has engaged in nakba denial here in the past. i don’t know why he still gets to post.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 12, 2012, 12:03 pm

        I wasn’t aware that any claim was based on mythology or was considered superior. Zionism’s claim to the land is based on a continuous historical, cultural, religious and physical connection maintained over 2 millennium.

        From Israel’s Declaration of Indepence:

        ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) – the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

        After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

        Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland.

        The first two paragraphs summarise the Zionist version of Jewish history (at least some of which can arguably be described as mythology). I don’t know whether to characterise the third paragraph as mythology or simlpe falsehood. So far so good. The logical leap of faith comes in translating this history/mythology/falsehood into the right of foreign-born Jews to create a Jewish homeland (superior claim) in any part of “Eretz Yisrael”, which would necessarily compromise the rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine – as well as the rights of at least some of its Jewish inhabitants.

        Denying Jewish people self-determination in Palestine because their population in any single area was never dense enough is to use historic oppression to justify future discrimination.

        This looks like an exercise in doublespeak. You are arguing that the fact that Jews were a tiny minority in Palestine and that the vast majority of Jews had lived elsewhere for millennia should not be held against them. In other words, the fact that they had no right to self-determination in Palestine should not affect their ability to exercise that right.

        Your statement that “historic oppression” should not be used “to justify future discrimination” is simply laughable in light of the artificially-created and maintained Jewish majority in parts of Palestine – consistently used to justify past, present and future discrimination against Palestinians.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        February 12, 2012, 12:23 pm

        Hostage,

        According to

        I am really awestruck, fascinated by your contributions here. Once, in a while we have to say this for others watching.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 12, 2012, 12:25 pm

        The templemount link you give, Hostage, seems to have been last updated in 02.
        In the last few months coins have been discovered under the Wall (there was a cistern – or a hole where a cistern had been – into which they had fallen) which date from 16/17 CE. This casts serious doubt upon – I’m inclined to say disproves – the idea that the wall was part of Herod’s Temple, the last monument of Judaism in the area, since Josephus is so emphatic that this design, including the outer buildings, was completed on time and under budget ‘within 8 years’ by Herod. There’s more to the discussion than that, as you know, but the proposition that the Wall is not a Jewish monument is not at all absurd.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 12:47 pm

        Hostage,

        A full blown multi pronged pogrom against the Palestinians? For the past 65 years? If that’s the case then they’re doing a really terrible job. Killing 13 or 14,000 people over that many decades makes for a pretty pathetic “full blown multi pronged pogrom.”

        You can be banned here at MW for comments that deny the Nakba.

        Okay. Why are you so fixated on trying to accuse me of denying the Nakba? Everything I said was accurate. The Haganah fdid NOT participate in the massacre at Deir Yassin. Your link supports this. What about any of that is the equivalent of denying the Nakba?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 12:51 pm

        Denying Jewish people self-determination in Palestine because their population in any single area was never dense enough is to use historic oppression to justify future discrimination.

        Not at all. There was never any time in the past when the Jews alone inhabited Palestine. Self-determination became a modern international law norm and treaty obligation under the terms of the UN Charter. Israel claims that it is anti-Semitic to deny the Jewish people the right of self-determination, but refuses to grant non-Jews living within its own frontiers equal human rights in violation of the UN Charter. I’ve noted elsewhere that a “people” cannot be defined in terms of ethnic identity alone, because if it were, participation in the political process would then be determined solely on the basis of ethnic characteristics. That’s contrary to Article 1(3) of the UN Charter and customary minority rights to equality under international law. A new state or people in the modern era will always include all of the indigenous groups inhabiting a territory. See Thomas D. Musgrave, Self-determination and National Minorities, Oxford Monographs in International Law, 1997, page XV.

        Think about it. Nation-states are always spatial entities with a government, a permanent population, and well defined frontiers. They aren’t extraterritorial entities. So, Jews scattered around the globe can’t somehow assert a vicarious national right superior to the indigenous Palestinians to the right of self-determination in the territory of Palestine.

        States do not have an inherent right to exist. One of the things that the International Law Commission decided during its very first session was that there is an essential difference between recognition of the existence of a State, which is a question of fact, and the attribution to any State of “the right of existence” which is a legal matter. A conditional right to exist does not imply that a state is entitled to commit, or is justified in committing unjust acts towards others. So, a State’s right of existence might end because it was established on the territory of another group without the consent of that population (e.g. Union of South Africa, Namibia & the crime of apartheid).

        Starting with Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, and the Treaty of Berlin 1878, treaty-based protection of minority and religious groups became an integral part of public international law. Recognition of new states and grants of territory were conditioned upon acceptance of minority rights obligations.
        The Paris Peace Conference continued that practice when it created new states through a “The Committee on New States and for The Protection of Minorities”. All of the new states in Eastern Europe were required to accept minority treaties which placed the rights of Jews and other minorities under League of Nations guarantee. The report on “Minority Rights in Albania”, by the Albanian Helsinki Committee, September 1999 contains an small overview on the establishment of that system under the League of Nations. French Prime Minister Clemenceau noted in an aide-memoire attached to the Polish treaty that the minority protections were consistent with existing diplomatic precedent:

        This treaty does not constitute any fresh departure. It has for long been the established procedure of the public law of Europe that when a State is created, or when large accessions of territory are made to an established State, the joint and formal recognition of the Great Powers should be accompanied by the requirement that such States should, in the form of a binding International convention undertake to comply with certain principles of Government. In this regard I must recall for your consideration the fact that it is to the endeavors and sacrifices of the Powers in whose name I am addressing you that the Polish nation owes the recovery of its independence. It is by their decision that Polish sovereignty is being restored over the territories in question, and that the inhabitants of these territories are being incorporated into the Polish nation…. …There rests, therefore, upon these Powers an obligation, which they cannot evade, to secure in the most permanent and solemn form guarantees for certain essential rights which will afford to the inhabitants the necessary protection, whatever changes may take place in the internal constitution of the Polish State.

        When Poland joined the EU it had to accept the acquis communautaire and the equal human rights of ethnic minority groups. Tony Judt noted that Israel is an anachronism and that the days of ethnic nation states are long gone.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 12:56 pm

        What nakba denial? Is discussing the historically factual instances of violence and ethnic cleansing directed toward the native Jewish population of Palestine somehow a denial of the nakba?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 12, 2012, 1:08 pm

        Re: “The claim that Jews and their descendants can live in other countries for thousands of years and still return and assert a superior claim to Palestine, based upon religious superstitions and sentimental bullsh*t is the absurdity in this case.”

        Absurd is the right adjective for said claim. Imagine if every ethnic group in the world made this claim, and had the economic power and lack of mental, ethical, moral integrity to pursue it? Kant.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 12, 2012, 1:15 pm

        Re: “But that was never the cause nor justification for Zionism aside from the ideology of fringe movements.”

        Everyday I hear America’s leading politicians make this claim (without reference to Zionism of course). It is often coupled with rhetoric about persecution of Jews through the ages, especially the Holocaust. This combo is in fact the going mantra narrative in America.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 3:48 pm

        What nakba denial? Is discussing the historically factual instances of violence and ethnic cleansing directed toward the native Jewish population of Palestine somehow a denial of the nakba?

        You were falsely claiming that the Haganah did not take part in the attack on Deir Yassin. Publicly condoning, denying, or trivializing war crimes, crimes against humanity, acts of genocide is Nakba denial. The IDF publication that I cited explains that the Haganah commander authorized the unprovoked attack on the village, and that the Haganah murdered many of the Arab defenders by providing cross fire support.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 3:59 pm

        This casts serious doubt upon – I’m inclined to say disproves – the idea that the wall was part of Herod’s Temple, the last monument of Judaism in the area, since Josephus is so emphatic that this design, including the outer buildings, was completed on time and under budget ‘within 8 years’ by Herod. There’s more to the discussion than that, as you know, but the proposition that the Wall is not a Jewish monument is not at all absurd.

        Josephus wrote that only the western wall of the city was left standing, not the Western Wall of the Temple Mount. The Madaba Map doesn’t even include the Wailing Wall, so the idea that it was finished by the Romans or Byzantines is not completely out of the question. http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mad/index.html

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 4:29 pm

        Shaktimaan you keep trivializing a serious crime against humanity, ethnic cleansing and the government of Israel’s continuing role in the original joint criminal enterprise.

        Israel has used its domestic legislation to strip Palestinian citizenship rights, personal property rights, and prevent the repatriation of displaced persons in violation of international law. It legally discriminates against various classes of Palestinians regardless of where they live, and it has done that ever since the day it was established.

        The Haganah fdid NOT participate in the massacre at Deir Yassin. Your link supports this. What about any of that is the equivalent of denying the Nakba?

        The link I provided says that the district commander of the Haganah knowingly authorized an unprovoked attack on a civilian objective (a war crime) and that elements of the Haganah were ordered to assist the Revisionists in time of retreat and medical assistance. The article also explains in great detail that the Haganah assisted with fire power and inflicted heavy casualties on the Arab defenders who had dug in on the western ridge of the village and it describes the use of a murderous crossfire. So the Haganah authorized and participated in the joint criminal enterprise that caused “the murder of falachim and innocent citizens, faithful allies of the western sector, who kept faith despite pressure from the gangs, even during the conquest of Sharfa, {Mt Herzl}”
        http://middle-east.yu-hu.com/peacewatch/dy/levitza.htm

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 12, 2012, 5:25 pm

        Denying Jewish people self-determination in Palestine because their population in any single area was never dense enough is to use historic oppression to justify future discrimination.

        Ironically, that is precisely the principal that Israel wsas founded on – that crating a Jewish majority would enable Jews to justify future discrimination. To this day, the argument used time and time again is that risking the Jewish majority woudl be commiting suicide.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 5:28 pm

        You were falsely claiming that the Haganah did not take part in the attack on Deir Yassin.

        I did no such thing. I said that the Haganah did not participate in the massacre that occurred at Deir Yassin which is accurate.

        and that the Haganah murdered many of the Arab defenders by providing cross fire support.

        Murdered? Seriously dude?
        The Haganah KILLED many of the Arab defenders who were fighting back and also killed many of the Israelis. It was a battle. Which is distinct from the killing of unarmed civilians, as in a massacre. Since when do we describe armed soldiers who are killed in combat as having been “murdered?”

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 12, 2012, 5:29 pm

        You are ignoring the existence of dozens of narratives that exist on either side.

        They should be ignored entirely, because narratives are by their very nature, unreliable.

      • Robert Werdine
        Robert Werdine
        February 12, 2012, 7:27 pm

        It’s becoming perfectly clear that this effort to snuff out “Nakba denial” is coming along pretty much as I thought it would. It is both a weapon and a catchall to smear anyone who fails to toe the party line here on just about anything to do with 1948. “Nakba denier” is about as definitionally adaptable as “Communist.” A good case in point is Annie’s smear of Shaktimaan’s statement here:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/the-mondo-crew-hosts-wbais-beyond-the-pale-to-discuss-ron-paul-dennis-ross-and-the-myth-of-obamas-jewish-problem.html#comment-421803

        And Hostage’s smear of Shakt here in answer to this statement:

        “The same can be said of Israelis to Arabs. And yet massacres did still occur on both sides. To ignore the riots and pogroms committed against the indigenous Jews on the basis that most of the Palestinians didn’t participate makes as much sense as discounting the effects of Deir Yassin because the Haganah did not participate in the massacre. Nevertheless my point was that sweeping generalizations that Palestinian narratives are inherently correct while Jewish ones are false is itself an untrue generalization.”

        To which Hostage replied,

        “Who do you think you are kidding? Israel has carried out a full-blown multi-pronged pogrom against the Palestinian people ever since the day the State was established. You can be banned here at MW for comments that deny the Nakba.”

        Any reasonable person reading both statements of Shakt might see an open minded attempt to acknowledge tolerance for different interpretations of history and points of view—once a customary staple of civil discourse. But no, the heretic must now be fingered and tarred and feathered for his heresy for all to see. This unfortunate turn of conversation is beginning to take on strains of the old odium theologicum which poisoned religious disputes about the Trinity in the 6th and 7th centuries, and the Eucharist in the 16th—i.e., the brutal refusal to countenance disagreement and to equate dissent on this or that issue with a kind of heresy, or worse.

        How any fair minded person could read both of Shakt’s statements and conclude that anything is being denied, much less that the denial of anything is even being attempted, is simply beyond me. What, for example, does the statement that the Haganah did not participate in the Deir Yassin massacre, have to do with “Nakba denial?” Is Hostage kidding with this?

        For the record, the initial purpose of the operation that led to the massacre was for the Stern/Irgun to secure Deir Yassin for the Haganah to occupy. Haganah machine gunners outside the village provided covering fire for the Stern and Irgun troopers only when they met strong resistance from the village’s defenders, and a platoon of Palmahniks arrived on the scene to provide cover fire to help evacuate the wounded (of the 120 Stern/Irgun attackers, some forty were wounded and four killed in the fighting). But the Palmahniks did not participate in the subsequent massacre of villagers and prisoners—that was done by the Stern/Irgun after the Palmahniks left the village.

        The Stern/Irgun troops then moved about from house to house grenading and machine-gunning both civilians and militiamen indiscriminately, and they led a contingent of Arab prisoners out to a nearby quarry to be shot. Three days after the massacre, Yitzhak Levy, the town’s Haganah Intelligence Service (HIS) commander, commented in a report,

        “The conquest of the village was carried out with great cruelty. Whole families—women, old people, children—were killed. Some of the prisoners moved to places of detention, including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors.”

        Shakt was thus right. The Haganah did not participate in the massacre—they participated only in the initial attack on the village, and even then only to give covering fire from outside the village when the Stern/Irgun troops were encountering heavy resistance . It was the Stern/Irgun inside Deir Yassin who conducted the massacre. With the exception of the Palmahniks inside the village evacuating wounded, the Haganah had no military presence inside Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948. As Benny Morris has said, “Ironically it was not a Haganah, but a joint IZL/LHI operation, undertaken with the reluctant, qualified consent of the Haganah commander in Jerusalem.” (“The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem,” 1987, p. 113).

        Nobody is thus denying that an atrocity was committed here. Who would?! The only real denial here is Hostage’s cynical and dishonest attempt, albeit by omission, to conflate the initial attack and the subsequent massacre as being one and the same thing, as if the massacre of the entire village was planned and carried out by the Haganah in cahoots with the Stern/Irgun troopers who did the killing of prisoners and civilians. They did not, and nothing in Hostage’s link says that they did.

        Thus Hostage not only made a false assertion but then went on to accuse Shakt of engaging in “Nakba denial” for making an assertion that is not even contradicted by the very source that Hostage cites to prove his point. The notion that Shakt engaged in “Nakba denial” here is baseless. Nothing is being denied here.

        This episode well illustrates how someone can supposedly be seen to engage in Nakba denial without even knowing that they are doing so. In the same way that people ignorant of witchcraft or Communism could be seen to be guilty of being either a witch or a Communist through the eyes of their accusers, Nakba denial seems almost as malleable. It is clear that Nakba denial can be whatever Hostage or Annie say it is.

        And how does a person deny the charge without further incriminating themselves of the offense in the eyes of the Nakba police? How are they to know if they make a wrong statement? Shakt further said that both sides committed massacres in the war. Is this also Nakba denial? That, for example, 129 Jewish prisoners at Kfar Etzion were murdered? This has nothing to do with whether refugees fled or were expelled. Does it count?

        This is thus not a debate on a level playing field. It enables Hostage to not only smear Shakt as a Nakba denier, but also to make a statement like “Israel has carried out a full-blown multi-pronged pogrom against the Palestinian people ever since the day the State was established” and yet forbids anyone from rebutting this assertion lest they break the rules. This is Phil’s and Adam’s blog and they get to set the rules, but it is difficult to know how substantive dialogue on the origins of the I/P conflict can take place here when Annie and Hostage can play the Nakba denial card against whoever incurs their displeasure or has the temerity to disagree with them.

        In any event, it is undeniable that the recording and writing of history is a peculiar and contentious craft in which debate, disagreement and denial are all inextricably linked . The greatest of all historians—in my view—is Thucydides, and his history of the Peloponesian War, the greatest ever written. It is one of my greatest regrets that I cannot read this history in the original Greek. Thucydides hoped his history “would be judged useful by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the interpretation of the future,” as opposed to Herodotus, who, in his history, sought only “to preserve the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians from losing their due meed of glory”—i.e., history as p.r. and propaganda. The Roman historian Livy, similarly spins like a press agent for the Augustan Age of the Roman Empire—“the establishment of which is now, in power, next only to the immortal Gods”—a shining city on a hill. The Rome described by Tacitus, in contrast, is a filthy brothel of debauchery and degeneration, and he spares no lurid, disgusting detail in order to, as he once said, “let no unworthy action go uncommemorated, and to hold out the reprobation of posterity as a terror to evil words and deeds.”

        History is thus a battle between the spinners and the truth seekers. On the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1948, I see historians like Benny Morris in the Thucydides/Tacitus mold, and see ideologues like Ilan Pappe, Chomsky and others like them carrying on in the spirit of Herodotus and Livy; others here obviously feel differently. History, in my view, must be about history as it happened and not about how politics and ideology view it and attempt to reconfigure it retrospectively. That is a corruption of truth and facts, whether it is antisemites employing their hatred of Jews to deny the Holocaust, or anything else.

      • February 12, 2012, 8:14 pm
      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 11:51 pm

        Murdered? Seriously dude? . . . The Haganah KILLED many of the Arab defenders who were fighting back and also killed many of the Israelis.

        Yes, once again, the Haganah district commander authorized an unprovoked and premeditated attack against a civilian population center. That written authorization of the plan was a war crime and crime against humanity under the existing terms of the Nuremberg code:

        Article 6 (c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

        Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.
        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art6

        So let’s be clear, the Haganah commander and his forces were accomplices to a crime against humanity. Under the EU Framework Decision on Racism it can be considered an act of criminal incitement to publicly condon, deny or grossly trivialize crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal or Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the the Statute of the International Criminal Court. That would definitely include the Holocaust or Nakba denial mentioned in Mondo’s comments policy.
        http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/combating_discrimination/l33178_en.htm

        BTW, the Haganah and IDF became famous for launching unprovoked “preventative attacks” against civilian population centers and then ethnically cleansing them if the inhabitants exercised the customary and inherent right of self defense, e.g. here is an extract from Plan Dalet which authorized the use of that tactic:

        This plan is based on three previous plans:

        1. Plan B, September 1945.

        2. The May 1946 Plan. (This is Plan Gimmel or Plan C.)
        3. Yehoshua Plan, 1948. . . .
        (b) Consolidation of Defense Systems and Fortifications
        . . . 4. Mounting operations against enemy population centers located inside or near our defensive system in order to prevent them from being used as bases by an active armed force. These operations can be divided into the following categories:

        Destruction of villages (setting fire to, blowing up, and planting mines in the debris), especially those population centers which are difficult to control continuously.

        Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.

        The villages which are emptied in the manner described above must be included in the fixed defensive system and must be fortified as necessary.

        In the absence of resistance, garrison troops will enter the village and take up positions in it or in locations which enable complete tactical control. The officer in command of the unit will confiscate all weapons, wireless devices, and motor vehicles in the village. In addition, he will detain all politically suspect individuals. After consultation with the [Jewish] political authorities, bodies will be appointed consisting of people from the village to administer the internal affairs of the village. In every region, a [Jewish] person will be appointed to be responsible for arranging the political and administrative affairs of all [Arab] villages and population centers which are occupied within that region.
        http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html

        General Jodl was tried, convicted, and hanged at Nuremberg for authorizing the destruction of the homes in a district of Norway and then removing the population to prevent them from being used to assist the enemy.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        February 13, 2012, 12:50 am

        cept israel has zero intention of sharing

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        February 13, 2012, 12:52 am

        there is no right to jewish self determination not in palastine nor anywhere. religions don’t have that right period.

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        February 13, 2012, 12:58 am

        and i suppose there are no getaway drivers in prison oh wait there are. if you do things that help something happen guess what you participated.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 13, 2012, 2:44 am

        Is discussing the historically factual instances of violence and ethnic cleansing directed toward the native Jewish population of Palestine somehow a denial of the nakba?

        Put in those terms, yes. It is meant to “contextualise” and mitigate the Nakba, by blaming the war (between two “native” populations) and suggesting that the atrocities were at worst mutual, at best a matter of legitimate self-defence. Similar assertions about the Holocaust would get you banned faster than you can say Ernst Zundel.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 4:07 am

        Shakt was thus right. The Haganah did not participate in the massacre

        Robert I’ve already explained that the members of the Haganah were legal accomplices to the massacre under the terms of the existing laws and customs of land warfare: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/hasbara-pennbds-wrap-up-pro-israel-students-are-ignorant.html/comment-page-1#comment-424458

        And how does a person deny the charge without further incriminating themselves of the offense in the eyes of the Nakba police?

        I don’t know Werdine, but you and your tag team partner are giving it one hell of a try. I’ve supplied you and him with the relevant extracts from official Israeli publications, Plan Dalet and an the IDF Journal, together with extracts from the Nuremberg Charter and the EU Framework on Racism. They amply illustrate a joint criminal enterprise undertaken by the officials of the nascent state of Israel to commit acts against civil population centers that were, by definition, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is hardly the first time you’ve publicly condoned, denied, or trivialized these events, so I assume that the new comment policy on Nakba denial is either devoid of any meaning whatsoever or that Phil and Adam should finally ban you.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 13, 2012, 5:28 am

        Werdine,

        I was wondering when you were going to join the fray. For a while there, I was beginning to wonder if Shakt was you posting under another name.

        Any reasonable person reading both statements of Shakt might see an open minded attempt to acknowledge tolerance for different interpretations of history and points of view—once a customary staple of civil discourse.

        On the contgrary Robert, anyone who wasn’t born yesterday could see a fraud like Shakt comming from a mile way. That’s why I thought his comments were yours under a new guide. Both fo you are liars, posding as someone you are not. Shakt even claimed he was pro Palestinian, then prooceeded to reel of the Likud talking points.

        Like yourself, Shakt has been caught out repeatign dozens of lies and either feigned ignroance or stupidity when confronted with irrefutable evidence to the contary.

        How any fair minded person could read both of Shakt’s statements and conclude that anything is being denied, much less that the denial of anything is even being attempted, is simply beyond me.

        It’s not beyind you Werdine. Shakt has been using the same techniques of conflation that you have demonstrated, by mixing lies in with facts in order to try protray himself as reasonable with a legitmate difference of opinion. But like you, he has stuck to his hasbra even after having been shown evidecence to the contrary. Thus, like you, he is not here to debate but to push a narrative.

        For the record, the initial purpose of the operation that led to the massacre was for the Stern/Irgun to secure Deir Yassin for the Haganah to occupy.

        Hiostage has presented evidence which comprehensively debunks this claim, aloing with the BS that the Haganah only provided covering fire for the Stern and Irgun troopers only when they met strong resistance from the village’s defenders. Of course, it makes no difference in the end, because the only outcome that was to be tolerated was that the residence of Deir Yassin were to lay down and die. Even if you are to accept that the Hanagnah gun men were positioned to provide cover, they fully participated in the attack.

        Shakt’s claims bhave been completely debunked by Hostage.

        Furthermore, you and Shakt are deliberately ignoring the fact that the Stern and Irgun troopers were by that stage, fully incprportated into the Hanganh – forming the commando units of the Haganah. The Haganah thus had a clear military presence inside Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948

        The only real denial here is Hostage’s cynical and dishonest attempt, albeit by omission, to conflate the initial attack and the subsequent massacre as being one and the same thing

        Rubbish. You’re simply refusing to read the links Hostage has produced.

        This episode well illustrates how someone can supposedly be seen to engage in Nakba denial without even knowing that they are doing so.

        The same could be said of those who even dare to discuss the Holocaust. I once was accused of Holocasut denial for merely asking why the total number of 6 million deaths had remained the same in spite of the fact that those attributed to have been killed at Auschwitz was revized down from 4 million to 1.5 million. So how does a person deny the charge without further incriminating themselves of the offense in the eyes of the Holocasut police? How are they to know if they make a wrong statement?

        History is thus a battle between the spinners and the truth seekers.

        History is also written by the victors. With reagrd to 194, we have a situation whhere even tose who cmapion the Palestinian cause dare not cite a Palestinian source or historian, becasue the Israeli narrative has so succesfully detgermined that Palestinians cannto be trusted. Thus we are forced to settle for a right wing manian like Benny Morris. To suggest Morris, who criticized Ben Gurion for not finioshing the job, is not an ideologue beggars belief.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 6:49 am

        For the record, the initial purpose of the operation that led to the massacre was for the Stern/Irgun to secure Deir Yassin for the Haganah to occupy.

        Robert is constantly making gigabytes of unsourced comments for the record. In this case he is contradicting the official IDF account that was published for the record at the link that I supplied above.

        Deir Yassin was located beyond the borders of the proposed Jewish State – in the Corpus Separatum. A Haganah-Irgun/Lehi plan to violate the non-aggression pact and the UN transition plan, evict the population, and place a portion of the Corpus Separatum under Jewish military occupation would have constituted a crime against peace in violation of a formal international agreement and an attempt to alter the UN plan of partition by force.

        Werdine & Co. pretend that they can’t grasp the simple concept of being an accessory or accomplice to a crime that deliberately targeted a civilian population outside the jurisdiction of the proposed Jewish State. I’m not interested in debating this or continuing to fund a website that provides Werdine and his partners a platform to whitewash Haganah’s role in deliberately erasing 400+ villages, including Deir Yassin.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 13, 2012, 7:37 am

        The link, which you probably didn’t read, shows a scholarly dispute about the precise location of the ancient Temple on the Temple Mount. The link does not dispute the connection of the Western Wall (a retaining wall actually) to the Jewish Temple.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 13, 2012, 8:20 am

        Jews had been making ‘aliyah’ to Eretz Yisroel since at least the 13th century and the Arabs there consistently treated these ‘religious Zionists’ badly.
        Still. They came.

        http://www.azure.org.il/download/magazine/1435az_12__morgenstern.pdf

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 8:35 am

        The link, which you probably didn’t read, shows a scholarly dispute about the precise location of the ancient Temple on the Temple Mount. The link does not dispute the connection of the Western Wall (a retaining wall actually) to the Jewish Temple.

        No I’ve actually read it. The link that I provided was just one example. That’s what the “e.g.” (vs. “i.e.”) always indicates. Here is another response to an earlier discussion here at MW in which I cited several examples of Temples and theories regarding the location, including one from a scholar who claimed the Temple must have been located in Silwan, not inside the area retained by the Wailing Wall:

        … Q:that the wall is part of a Roman fort Should this be true, than Christianity and Islam are both rendered pagan cults and have no credibility.

        A: Amillennialist Christians are underwhelmed by the whole thing. I doubt there would be any theological impact if the so-called Temple Mount really was Fort Antonia and Silwan turned out to the site of the Temples, e.g. See Ernest L. Martin, The Temples That Jerusalem Forgot, ASK, 1994. Even the Temple Mount organization maintains a webpage on various theories or conjectures, i.e. the “Northern Conjecture” and the “Southern Conjecture”.
        There were Jewish Temples all over the place anyway. The prophet Samuel was raised in a Temple at Shiloh. An Israelite Temple at Arad has been excavated. It included one of the largest collections of ostraca discovered to date. There were references to the the priestly families Pashur and Meremoth which are mentioned in the books of Jeremiah and Ezra.

        Ingrid Hjelm advised that“The duration of the Samaritan temple, which was dedicated to ‘Yahweh-el-‘Eljon’ (Magen 2000: 108, 113) was not the 200 years stated by Josephus (Ant. 13.256), but rather closer to the 343 years, he ascribes to the existence of the temple in Heliopolis / Leontopolis (War 7.436), stories of which, Josephus mingles with stories about Gerizim (Hjelm, in SJOT 13/2, 1999; Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism, 2000: 227-232).” 480 inscriptions were discovered. According to Ephraim Stern this is the largest collection of building inscriptions, some of which are quite large, ever found in Israel.
        A Jerusalem High Priest named Johanan built the Jewish Temple at Leontopolis in Egypt (cf Isaiah 19:19). So, there were several other Jewish Temples in operation during the Persian, Greek, and Roman periods including Leontopolis, Elephantine Island, Arad, and Mt. Gerizim. During the Second Commonwealth most Jews chose to live outside Judea and many of them may have had their own altars and Temples. Finding a Temple in Jerusalem would not vindicate the principles that it stood for, if they happened to be false in the first place.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/the-erasure-of-history-israels-gives-go-ahead-to-desecration-of-mamilla-cemetery.html#comment-339706

        FYI, the same scholar argued that unequivocal references to the current “Wailing Wall” (as part of the Temple) are missing from the Jewish literature until the middle ages, e.g. http://askelm.com/temple/t000701.htm

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 13, 2012, 8:51 am

        Who cares, anyway? Archaeology doesn’t justify ethnic cleansing and apartheid governments.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 13, 2012, 12:21 pm

        Quoting from the Haaretz article about the coins and the Western Wall:

        “These new assessments still support the theory that Herod renovated the Temple and built other structures on the Temple Mount, and may well have built parts of the other walls that surround the Mount. ”

        http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/coins-may-prove-that-herod-didn-t-complete-kotel-1.397359

        Try again Hughes.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 13, 2012, 12:50 pm

        Right. Before the rubble was removed and the Western Wall ‘rediscovered’, Jews would pray for divine mercy at the Sha’ar Harachamim, aka Jerusalem’s ‘Golden Gate’.

        Though this is the only gate that was not rebuilt by Suleiman the Magnificent, he did seal it off in the year 1541. What prompted Suleiman to close off the gate is the concern, that there is validity to the Jewish traditional belief that the Messiah will enter Jerusalem through Sha’ar Harachamim. In addition, Arabs built a cemetery right in front of the gate, also intending to block the Jewish Messiah or his precursor the Prophet Elijah from entering the city, as they were both Kohanim and according to Jewish law a Kohen (high priest) can not enter a cemetery.

        PZ

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 13, 2012, 2:53 pm

        “Who cares, anyway? Archaeology doesn’t justify ethnic cleansing and apartheid governments.” – Chaos.

        Exactly. Just banal waffle. Nothing can justify or condone what they are doing there at the expense of the natives.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 13, 2012, 5:02 pm

        There’s no doubt that Herod renovated the Temple and that the renovation, according to his design, was complete within his lifetime. So what did not exist within his lifetime was not part of his design.
        You know as well as I do that you can’t discuss these things on the sole basis of newspaper articles, particularly not one that chooses words so misleadingly – ‘may well have built other walls’ is merely changing the subject. Herod did have the inner temple built by priests and added buildings other than those – but that is not a very imp0rtant point.
        I’d be glad to exchange ideas with you but I think you should read Josephus first. Perhaps you have – I’ve no right or wish to patronise you.
        Antiquities XX has, I think, been copied/edited rather too lovingly by Christians.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 13, 2012, 5:12 pm

        I’m in two minds about this. You’re quite right that human rights do not spring from ancient history. They spring at any time from how things are at that time.
        On the other hand so much propaganda based on ancient history is around that, being interested in the subject, I think it can be constructive to prick the propaganda balloon here and there. I keep wanting to say that the non-Jewish link to Palestine is as historic and as valid as the Jewish one and that archaeology is seriously abused, at least rashly over-interpreted, for political purposes. If you say that all that is a distraction from the real subject I think you may have a point.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 9:14 pm

        Is discussing the historically factual instances of violence and ethnic cleansing directed toward the native Jewish population of Palestine somehow a denial of the nakba?

        I’m happy to discuss attacks on Jews in Palestine, but not the spurious legends that 7 Arab States invaded the territory of Israel, or that there was a conspiracy on the part of the Arab leadership to ethnically cleanse Palestine.

        *The Mufti did not enjoy much popular support and all his efforts to organize a popular resistance to the Partition Resolution were unsuccessful. According to Ian Bickerton, Carla Klausner, “A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict”, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2004, few Palestinians joined the Arab Liberation Army and many Palestinians favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state (page 88).

        *Ben-Gurion rebuffed the various efforts of more pragmatic Palestinian Arabs to reach a modus vivendi since it was his “belief … that Zionist expansionism would be better served by leaving the leadership of the Palestinians in the hands of the extremist Mufti than in the hands of a ‘moderate’ opposition. ‘Rely on the Mufti’ became his motto.” Blocked by Zionist policy from officially expressing their opposition to war, the Palestinian Arabs arranged “non-aggression” pacts with their Jewish neighbors. The relatively few who did take up arms did so primarily to defend themselves against feared attacks by the Jews. See the review of Simha Flapan’s The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities

        Ezra Danin worked in various capacities in the Jewish Agency and the Arab department, “Sherut Yediot”, the “Information Service” of the Haganah. In January of 1948, Danin wrote “I believe the majority of the Palestinian masses accept the partition as a fiat accompli and do not believe it possible to overcome or reject it.” See Document 90, page 128 “Political and Diplomatic Documents Central Zionist Archives/Israel State Archives, December 1947- May 1948, Jerusalem, 1979.

        In the final analysis, the Arab leaders who advocated negotiations and co-existence with the Jews from the very beginning ended up governing the overwhelming majority of the territory of the former Palestine mandate in the East and West banks.

      • kapok
        kapok
        February 13, 2012, 10:44 pm

        The Lizard Party’s literary tranche likes to trot out Ol’ Thucydides to showcase the loftiness of their supposed culture. However, the lesson Thucydides imparts, that Imperial Powers who abuse their own allies ultimately come to grief, is lost on them.

      • Robert Werdine
        Robert Werdine
        February 14, 2012, 11:51 am

        Hostage,

        Said you:

        “The Mufti did not enjoy much popular support and all his efforts to organize a popular resistance to the Partition Resolution were unsuccessful. According to Ian Bickerton, Carla Klausner, “A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict”, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2004, few Palestinians joined the Arab Liberation Army and many Palestinians favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state (page 88).”

        For once, I agree with you.

        On February 16, 1948, the United Nations Palestine Commission reported to the Security Council:

        “Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.

        The main facts controlling the security situation in Palestine today are the following:

        a. Organized effect by strong Arab elements inside and outside Palestine to prevent the implementation of the Assembly’s plan of partition and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory.

        b. Certain elements of the Jewish community in Palestine continue to commit irresponsible acts of violence which worsen the security situation, although that Community is generally in support of the recommendations of the Assembly.”

        The report also recounts, in detail, on the activities and attacks of the various Arab militias and the Arab Liberation Army that had been infiltrating from neighboring countries.

        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/FDF734EB76C39D6385256C4C004CDBA7

        Shingo, in his reply to a previous post of mine,

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/new-additions-to-the-mondoweiss-comments-policy.html#comment-419926

        has pointed out that the UN Palestine Commission did not mention the Palestinians here, and that it referenced only the activities of the Mufti and the Arab High Committee and the Arab Liberation Army, and that I have “provided no evidence that the Palestinian people rejected the principle of partition, much less that they supported or were represented by the Arab League and the Mufti.”

        Shingo was right. I have not, and the reason is because I cannot. This is because I draw a distinction between the activities of the Mufti and those of the Arab League and their proxy armies on the one hand, and that of the Palestinian people on the other.

        The Mufti was widely hated and feared among the Palestinians, and, indeed, it should be pointed out that the victims of the Mufti since the 1920’s were overwhelmingly Arab, not Jewish. In the late 20’s and the early 30’s the Mufti set about murdering and intimidating opponents in order to consolidate his influence and power throughout Palestine (the same methods, essentially, that Al Capone was using to tighten his grip on Chicago’s underworld at that very time). The Mufti’s campaign of murder and intimidation focused most heavily on Arab moderates who engaged in or sought friendly co-existence with the Jews. By 1947 the Husaynis’ anti-opposition terrorism against the Nashashibis and others in the previous years had largely eliminated rivals for their power by this time. Though the Mufti left Palestine during the Revolt in the late 30’s, and he never had anything that could be called a constituency there, he always had agents and supporters all over Palestine that were directly answerable to him and his brother. For the British Mandatory government, the Mufti and his brother were the ones with whom Atlee and Cunningham dealt.

        But the truth was that in late 1947, Arab Palestine was largely leaderless. It is true that the AHC was, ostensibly, the recognized leadership, such as it was, of Arab Palestine, but the truth is that the other Arab leaders simply overrode and marginalized the Mufti when it suited them, and this was often. There were thus many strings pulling and leveraging for power in Palestine from the outside, and by all accounts many Palestinians deeply resented the activities of the outside powers and their militias for dragging them into the conflict, and this intensified as the Arab forces began to lose the war.

        This is reflected in a New York Times story dated May 2nd, 1948 titled

        “Despair is Voiced by Arab Refugees: Evacuees from Palestine say Jews Crash Through Weak Resistance by Volunteers”:

        “Talk of Arab governments rescuing Palestine sounds like another case of too little too late…The Arab Liberation Army of Yarmuk was described by the refugees as a hodgepodge collection of adventurers, ne’er-do-wells, and soap box orators who had never numbered more than 3000, and who had relied on Palestinian villagers for cannon fodder.

        The reported agreement by five Arab states to wipe out the Zionist state meets with skepticism from the refugees. With an air of disillusionment, they point out that the so-called Arab War Council of five states that met last week in Amman, the capital of Trans-Jordan, had included no Palestinian Arab.”

        http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/29280

        From the very beginning, they were never allowed any say in the activities of the Mufti’s militias or the ALA, which disrupted their lives and destroyed their livelihoods, and whatever objections were voiced by them would have carried little weight with either the Mufti or the members of the Arab League, both of whom simply rode roughshod over them. The states who never had the slightest intention of allowing an independent Palestine, and later annexed the West Bank, occupied Gaza, and sometimes violently suppressed any hint of independent Palestinian national aspirations, were unlikely to indulge such considerations.

        I honestly do not know what percentage of the Palestinian people rejected the partition and/or peaceful co-existence with the Jews, but I believe the number did not exceed those who did not. As I point out below, the representative of the Jewish Agency told the UN Security Council on March 19 that “if left alone, considerable sections of Palestinian Arabs would be willing to cooperate or acquiesce (in the partition), but that armed intervention by neighboring (Arab) States completely changed that situation.”

        The war effort was thus not being waged by a unified Palestinian people, but by outside interests who took not the slightest heed of their interests or desires, and who in fact openly coveted control of Palestine for themselves. This was reflected in the intense rivalry between the Mufti and the nations of the Arab League, who often sidelined and overrode the Mufti as often as they both did to the Palestinians. Each hated and distrusted the other, and both had their own designs on Palestine.

        After the passing of the partition vote, there were contentious disputes between the Mufti and the Arab League about who would lead the Arab war effort. The Husaynis fought hard but failed to prevent the Arab Liberation Army from being commanded by one of the Mufti’s most bitter rivals, Fawzi al-Qawuqji. The Mufti accused Qawuqji of “spying for Britian, drinking wine, and running after women.” The Mufti further complained, correctly, that the ALA would deprive his forces of much needed arms and supplies, though he did manage to secure appointments of two of his protégés, Abd al-Qader al-Husayni, commander of the Jerusalem Front (and cousin of the Mufti), and Hasan Salame, commander of the Lydda Front into the Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas (“Army of the Holy War”). The Husaynis regarded the ALA (and its commander, Fawzi al-Qawuqji) as a rival to their own efforts, and the feeling was mutual: the Arab league had set up the ALA precisely to counter the designs and influence of the Mufti. ‘Abdullah of Jordan set up his own force (the Arab Legion) to thwart those of both the Mufti and the ALA, and Farouk of Egypt set himself against the Mufti, ‘Abdullah, and the ALA, saying: “The Arabs ought to get rid of all three of them: the Mufti, Abdullah, and Qawuqji.”

        These conflicting egos and ambitions, which often had the Mufti and the nations of the League working at cross purposes, and did much to hamper the Arab war effort, made for a priceless gift to the Yishuv as the war went on.

        What cannot be denied, in any event, is that the war effort being waged inside Palestine against the Yishuv, whatever its source, was considerable, and, up until early April 1948, was largely successful.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 14, 2012, 7:15 pm

        But the truth was that in late 1947, Arab Palestine was largely leaderless.

        Of course it was. The British had smashed the leadership a decade ealier.

        It is true that the AHC was, ostensibly, the recognized leadership

        On the contrary. As Hostage pointed out a while bacjk, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) and the Mufti were not the formal or elected representatives of the people of Palestine after WWII. Avi Shlaim noted that when the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was reestablished in 1946 after a nine-year hiatus, it was not by the various Palestinian political parties themselves, as had been the case when it was founded in 1936, but by a decision of the Arab League of States.
        [See page 1 of Avi Shlaim, The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza, Journal of Palestine Studies. 20: 37–53. (2001)]

        In February of 1948 the Council of the Arab League decided not to recognize the AHC or the Mufti as the representatives of the Palestinian people. Thereafter, all of the Leagues’ affairs were handled through its own Palestine Council, not through the Mufti or the AHC. See Politics in Palestine: Arab factionalism and social disintegration, 1939-1948, By Issa Khalaf, University of New York Press, 1991, ISBN 0-7914-0708-X, page 290.

        The reported agreement by five Arab states to wipe out the Zionist state meets with skepticism from the refugees.

        What a load of rubbish. There was no reported agreement to wipe out the Zionist state. The British had concluded a deal with the Zionists that there would be no confrontation between the Jordanian Arab army and the Jewish forces. This is why Glubb later called the ’48 war, the phony war.

        Glubb imposed on the Arabs the partition plan. In a meeting between Ernest Bevine, the Labor Govt’s foreign secretary, and Tafig Abul-Huda, the Jordanian PM and Glubb, Bevine asked Abul-Huda what he planned to do. Abul-Huda explained that the plan was to send the Arab Legion to protect and keep the Arab part of Palestine. Bevin said that seemed the sensible thing to do, but not to invade the Jewish part.

        I honestly do not know what percentage of the Palestinian people rejected the partition and/or peaceful co-existence with the Jews, but I believe the number did not exceed those who did not.

        You believe according to what statistic? Your hasbaraometer? You have never provided any evidence that the Palestinian people rejected the principle of partition, much less that they supported or were represented by the Arab League and the Mufti.

        1. Morris, Shlaim, Rogan, Flapan, and others report that Abdullah and the Jewish Agency negotiated an agreement to peacefully partition Palestine in November of 1947.
        2. Ezra Danin worked in various capacities in the Jewish Agency and the Arab department, “Sherut Yediot”, the “Information Service” of the Haganah. In January of 1948, Danin wrote “I believe the majority of the Palestinian masses accept the partition as a fiat accompli and do not believe it possible to overcome or reject it.” See Document 90, page 128 “Political and Diplomatic Documents Central Zionist Archives/Israel State Archives, December 1947- May 1948, Jerusalem, 1979
        3. David Ben-Gurion advised Sharett about the public sentiment of the Palestinians: “They, the decisive majority of them do not want to fight us.” See Ben Gurion to Sharett, March 14, 1948, Document 274, on page 460 of “Political and Diplomatic Documents Central Zionist Archives/Israel State Archives, December 1947- May 1948, Jerusalem, 1979.
        4. In the UNSCOP and General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine hearings, the representatives of the Jewish Agency testified that their proposed plan for partition could be peacefully implemented because the majority of Palestinians accepted the inevitability of partition and either supported the plan or would acquiesce to it. On March 19th, 1948 the representative of the Jewish Agency changed his story and told the Security Council that on the question of implementation by peaceful means, that if left alone considerable sections of Palestinian Arabs would be willing to cooperate or acquiesce, but that armed intervention by neighboring States completely changed that situation. See page 9 of 19 in the verbatim minutes of the 271st meeting of the Security Council.
        http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.271

        What cannot be denied, in any event, is that the war effort being waged inside Palestine against the Yishuv, whatever its source, was considerable, and, up until early April 1948, was largely successful.

        Of couse it can be denied becasue it’s simply rubbish. Not only was there no war of any consequence being waged inside Palestine against the Yishuv, but the Zionist militias initiated the war and were vastly more poewr and better armed.

      • Robert Werdine
        Robert Werdine
        February 15, 2012, 2:30 pm

        Shingo,

        “It is true that the AHC was, ostensibly, the recognized leadership”

        Said you:

        “On the contrary. As Hostage pointed out a while back, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) and the Mufti were not the formal or elected representatives of the people of Palestine after WWII.”

        I don’t disagree with this. I meant “recognized leadership” among Arab leaders, not the Palestinians. Not unlike Lebanon in some ways in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the problem for the Palestinians in the late 1940’s was not that they had no leadership, but that they had too much of it. Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, and Egyptians all had their own designs on the area, clashed often with the Mufti as well as with one another, and all attempted to emphasize and parlay their own influence there. Everyone wanted to be top dog in Palestine. The conflicting strategies, loyalties, and agendas would ultimately doom the Arab war effort.

        “The reported agreement by five Arab states to wipe out the Zionist state meets with skepticism from the refugees.”

        “This is rubbish.”

        In the first place, I was merely quoting from a statement quoted by the NY Times article concerning the refugees’ anger and disillusionment with the actions of the surrounding Arab states and their militias. The entire thrust of my post, which you obviously missed, was to emphasize my agreement with Hostage’s assertion that the Palestinians themselves were not responsible for the outbreak of the war, and that they had no part in directing it. Your statement that the surrounding Arab states were not planning to invade Palestine after the Mandate ended is incorrect, though you are correct that the Jordanians decided at the last moment to confine their attacks to Arab apportioned areas. I have addressed this more substantively here:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/11/48-is-beginning-to-replace-67-in-discourse-even-at-uva.html#comment-387242

        “I honestly do not know what percentage of the Palestinian people rejected the partition and/or peaceful co-existence with the Jews, but I believe the number did not exceed those who did not.”

        “You believe according to what statistic? Your hasbaraometer? You have never provided any evidence that the Palestinian people rejected the principle of partition, much less that they supported or were represented by the Arab League and the Mufti.”

        What are you talking about? Can you read? I said here that I believe that the number of Palestinians who accepted the partition and peaceful co-existence with the Jews outnumbered those who did not. You have a problem with this? I also said that you were right when you said

        “You have never provided any evidence that the Palestinian people rejected the principle of partition, much less that they supported or were represented by the Arab League and the Mufti.”

        Did you miss that too? You also missed where I quoted the Jewish Agency rep at the March 19 session at the UN Security Council where he said: “if left alone, considerable sections of Palestinian Arabs would be willing to cooperate or acquiesce (in the partition), but that armed intervention by neighboring (Arab) States completely changed that situation.”

        You just wasted four paragraphs of Hostage-sourced material for nothing.

        Said you:

        “Not only was there no war of any consequence being waged inside Palestine against the Yishuv, but the Zionist militias initiated the war and were vastly more power and better armed.”

        I have already addressed/refuted that here,

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/a-despairing-conversation-with-an-arab-friend-at-the-four-seasons.html#comment-337624

        Here,

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/a-despairing-conversation-with-an-arab-friend-at-the-four-seasons.html#comment-339140

        Here,

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/a-despairing-conversation-with-an-arab-friend-at-the-four-seasons.html#comment-341319

        And here,

        http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/nakba-denial-nyt-removes-the-word-expulsion-from-article-describing-palestinian-refugees.html#comment-398288

        A NY Times article of January 29, 1948 noted,

        “(N.Y, Times, Jan, 29) describes Jerusalem as virtually isolated behind a curtain of fear. The dangers of travel are cutting the city off from its normal markets: supplies are short, prices are fantastically high, and many shops, both Jewish and Arab, are closed. Within the walls of the Old City, the plight of 400 Jewish families, surrounded by Arabs, is becoming more desperate each day.”

        An AP report on the same day noted,

        “Cairo. Jan, 29 – According to an A.P. report quoted by the N.Y. Times, ‘Assad Dagher, chief of the Arab League’s press section, said today that Palestine may have an Arab government by the time the British leave. He said that an Arab regime might ask for the help of regular armies of the seven near-by Arab states to prevent creation of a Jewish nation. His statement modified a previous assertion that the Arab states would occupy all of Palestine with regular armies after British troops leave.”

        http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21P4.pdf

        A January 17 editorial in the British New Statesman excoriates the United States for not lending a stronger hand toward implementing the partition with the taunt that the Mufti and the Arab High Committee were confident that “they have got the Americans where they want them, talking Zionism at home, and practicing in Palestine a non-intervention that works against the Jews.”

        Here is a Manchester Guardian editorial of Jan. 31, 1948 excoriating the Atlee government for failing to support the Jews under assault, and which would make its present anti-Israel editors cringe:

        “At present we are still treating Jews and Arabs on the same footing, though the Jews are fighting to defend a decision of the UN, and the Arabs are fighting to defeat it.”

        A February 2 1948 London Times editorial excoriating the Atlee Government for its Palestine policy and urging on the activity of the UN Palestine Commission to implement the partition, noted that,

        “the members of the UN responsible for the decision on partition have exposed the Jews in Palestine to difficulties and dangers and they cannot leave them in the lurch.”

        http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21P21.pdf

        A March 17 NY Times article notes Arab military activity in the Nablus-Tulkharm-Jenin triangle, saying that “the army’s strength was reported to have reached close to 8000 men, with more arriving daily.”

        It also records Abd al-Qader al-Husayni, the Mufti-appointed commander of the Jerusalem front of the Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas (“Army of the Holy War”) as saying he was “not willing to consider a truce under any circumstances.”

        http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21P33.pdf

        Fawzi al-Qawuqji, commander of the Arab Liberation Army (ALA), told Al-Ahram on March 9, 1948 that the ALA was fighting for “the defeat of the partition and the annihilation of the Zionists.” (Benny Morris, “1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War,” 2008, p. 491)

        The Mufti told the Jaffa daily Al Sarih on March 10, 1948 that preventing partition was not enough, and that they “would continue fighting until the Zionists were annihilated and the whole of Palestine became a purely Arab state.” (“1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War,” 2008, p. 409)

        A March 28 NY Herald Tribune report has Hussein Khalidi, Secretary of the Arab Higher Executive Committee for Palestine pouring scorn on “what he termed ‘sudden Jewish efforts’ to obtain an international force to protect the Holy Land’s Shrines,” and that this was “due to a realization by the Jews that they could not protect their 100,000 people in Jerusalem.”

        http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21P37.pdf

        The sentiments expressed above by al-Qawuqji on March 9, the Mufti on March 10, by Abd al-Qader al-Husayni on March 17, and Hussein Khalidi on March 29 all gave voice to the well founded confidence among the Arabs that they were winning the war against the Yishuv at this stage. As is indicated above, this was also the consensus view in the international community at the time; the editorials of the London Times, the Guardian, and the New Statesman, all pleaded with the Atlee government (and the U.S.) to intervene more decisively in the conflict to rescue the Yishuv from their desperate plight. A British report in late March similarly commented:

        “The intensification of Arab attacks on communications and particularly the failure of the Kfar Etzion convoy (March 27-28), probably the Yishuv’s strongest transport unit, to force a return passage has brought home the precarious position of Jewish communities both great and small which depend on supply lines running through Arab controlled country. In particular, it is now realized that the position of Jewish Jerusalem, where a food scarcity already exists, is likely to be desperate after 16 May.”

        Another British report in early April read:

        “It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Yishuv and its leaders are deeply worried about the future. The 100,000 Jews of Jerusalem have been held to ransom and it is doubtful that the Arab economic blockade of the city can be broken by Jewish forces alone. If the Jewish leaders are not prepared to sacrifice the 100,000 Jews of Jerusalem, then they must concede, however unwillingly, that the Arabs have won the second round of the struggle which began with a Jewish victory in the first round on the 29th of November.”

        This then was the dire situation facing the Yishuv in early April of 1948. After the successful ambush of the latest Jewish convoy to Jerusalem on March 31, it was precarious to say the least. The sabotage of the convoys was increasing, the strangulation of the roadways and all arteries of communication between the scattered communities of the Yishuv were sharpening, the attendant shortages of basic commodities and weapons inside Jerusalem were growing, and the siege around the city was tightening.

        It would seem that either the consensus of international opinion expressed here at the time is wrong, or you are right.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 16, 2012, 1:41 am

        Well, in honesty, NO group has such a right guaranteed to them if it interferes with existing sovereignty of an existing nation. The Kurds still don’t have it for instance.

        That said, Judaism is not merely a religion. The religion is a prominent aspect of the group and is responsible for aiding in its survival during the diaspora, but they aren’t the same thing. Jews are a nation of people with shared aspects that run a gamut from ethnicity, history, language, culture, to more esoteric perceived commonalities.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 16, 2012, 2:26 am

        Jews are a nation of people with shared aspects that run a gamut from ethnicity, history, language, culture, to more esoteric perceived commonalities.

        You keep harping on about this, but it’s BS. In fact, it seems Jews have a hard time defining what it means to be Jewish.

        Ashkenzi Jews had absolutely nothign in common with the Sehardim and Mizrachim. Ben Gurion ridiculed the Arab Jews for not speaking Hebrew, havign no culture and not even knowing how to pray. He saw no commonalities, esoteric or otherwise.

      • Pixel
        Pixel
        February 16, 2012, 9:59 pm

        “Is discussing the historically factual instances of violence and ethnic cleansing directed toward the native Jewish population of Palestine somehow a denial of the nakba?

        Discussing facts is not denial. Discussing facts is discussing facts.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 17, 2012, 10:12 pm

        This is untrue. My comment was not unsourced and your source does not contradict my assertion in the least.

        Robert I’ve already explained twice now that the leaders and members of the Haganah were legal accomplices to the massacre under the terms of the existing laws and customs of land warfare: link to mondoweiss.net

        You denied that. Now you are quoting a portion of a letter from the Haganah District Commander which establishes beyond any doubt that he was planning an unprovoked attack and occupation of a civilian population located beyond the borders of the proposed Jewish state in the Corpus Separatum. The IDF article says that he was consciously violating a non-aggression pact by authorizing that action.

        That makes him responsible for the crimes that subsequently occurred in the village under the customary terms outlined in the Nuremberg Charter, i.e. planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; and being an accessory to the crimes against the civilian population committed by the Irgun/Stern/Haganah forces that took part in the attack:

        Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp#art6

        Phil and Adam need to explain why the moderators here don’t consider whitewashing and justifying the Haganah role in this series of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity as a blatant example of Nakba denial. I’m beginning to agree with the others here about moving on to my regular haunts and letting you have the place all to yourself.

  6. Citizen
    Citizen
    February 10, 2012, 4:48 pm

    I don’t understand how anyone can say the land in question belongs to, say, somebody born and bred in Brooklyn, NY, USA, yesterday, or in Poland or Russia a century, or half-century ago, but not to somebody born in that land, with their ancestors living there for many centuries, indeed going back to when the land was called Canaana(sic?), and the dwellers there, called Canaanites, until the Romans called the land Palestine (after the Philistines?).

    Meanwhile, Ms Pamela Olson, a young American woman we all know as one who has long labored to strip away the hasbara bots’ work, has had a death in the family–she wrote something about this on her blog, which I think you may like to read–it beats reading some Brooklyn Israeli’s settler rant:

    http://fasttimesinpalestine.wordpress.com/2012/02/08/grampa-red/#comment-1136even .

  7. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    February 10, 2012, 5:02 pm

    I have found pro Israel students and pro Israel individuals generally uninformed and unable to support their stances with facts. They generally start personally attacking when they have been politely challenged. Although on the Univ of College campus Boulder several years ago did get into a constructive conversation with a group of Jewish students who seemed geuinely open to factual information

  8. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail
    February 10, 2012, 5:39 pm

    They cannot answer because there is no answer. That is the uncomfortable truth the frauds like Dersh live with and are in complete denial of. When it is simply framed and asked they have no answer except patent lies, myths and smears. They are losers when people want the truth. And they know it.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      February 11, 2012, 4:12 pm

      Israel wasn’t a nation when it was founded. There is no medieval poetry that describes the Israeli condition. There is no shared cultural memory that goes back more than 60 years. They had to invent one. So they have an ideology instead of a history. And the sort of stuff that you could get away with in an ideology 60 years ago is very dated now. Imagine the US run on the racial thinking of the 1940s. That’s Israel. They are really in a bad way. Even if everyone in Israel swears blind loyalty to the cult it’s very obvious to outsiders how nuts the whole project is.

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 12, 2012, 9:42 am

        Seafoid: You have a way with words that makes me green with envy.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 10:36 am

        Of course the modern state of Israel was not an existing nation 100 years ago. Hence it is “The Jewish State.” The nation it represents if that of the Jewish people, which I can assure you certainly existed prior to Israel’s independence. Israel as a modern entity exists as an expression of Jewish self-determination, but is inclusive of its non-Jewish citizens as well.

        There is no shared cultural memory that goes back more than 60 years. I’m not quite sure what you mean by this or how it is intended to be a criticism of Israel’s legitimacy. Was there a shared cultural memory of hodgepodge nations like Iraq or Lebanon, who featured unwise mixtures of different people with seeming randomly installed monarchies?

        Imagine the US run on the racial thinking of the 1940s.

        I disagree. Imagine how the US would look if it had been in a state of conflict since the 40s, if the lines were drawn down primarily ethnic divisions. Would it feature the relative equality that Israel has? I doubt it. During WWII we actually rounded up all of our Japanese citizens and put them in camps. That, without even fighting any war on our home soil.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 12, 2012, 11:13 am

        If you reject the notion that multiple religions and ethnicities can co-exist on equal footing in the same state, you are using the same logic that was used to expel your ancestors from Germany and Poland.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 11:55 am

        Of course the modern state of Israel was not an existing nation 100 years ago. Hence it is “The Jewish State.”

        Thankfully, the League of Nations Mandate contained a safeguarding clause which protected the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country from the mess they created in Palestine. So the use of the definite article in describing a Jewish state is inappropriate in this case – particularly in view of the 1950 “entente” between Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion and AJC president Jacob Blaustein. American Jews aren’t members of some overarching nation of Israel.

      • patm
        patm
        February 12, 2012, 12:39 pm

        …, but is inclusive of its non-Jewish citizens as well.

        This is a bald-faced lie. You’ve let slip that you are an American hasbara troll. You would do well to get over to Israel and see just what a bigoted and racist government you are shilling for.

      • john h
        john h
        February 12, 2012, 1:03 pm

        During WWII we actually rounded up all of our Japanese citizens and put them in camps. That, without even fighting any war on our home soil.

        I think Hawaii is home soil, don’t you?

        The Japanese were rounded up and put in camps, but the Palestinians were expelled or fled in fear or to avoid the war, and ended up in camps outside their homeland.

        Talking about camps, the Japanese ones were on US soil and ceased many decades ago. Palestinian camps continue to this day but not on Israeli soil. That is because the people in them are forbidden by Israel to re-enter it and return to their legal place in their own homeland.

        This was to meet the Jewish need for self-determination.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 1:18 pm

        Are you serious? No one is suggesting such a thing. But in light of the realities of global anti-semitism, Jewish self-determination has shown itself to be a necessity. Acknowledging the reality of a long conflict and seeking to remedy it is not the same thing as supporting genocide or ethnic cleansing. Please note that the most diverse state in the region by far is Israel.

        Chaos, I recall that you were unaware of the violence directed towards the Jewish communities in Arab states this past century. You mentioned that you thought they were a protected minority. I suggest you look up the historical reality that makes Israel such a crucial item for Jewish survival.

        There is a reason that almost all Jews live in only two countries today.

      • annie
        annie
        February 12, 2012, 1:50 pm

        Please note that the most diverse state in the region by far is Israel.

        SA was diverse during apartheid too as was the south during jim crow.

        message fail shak.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 2:27 pm

        But in light of the realities of global anti-semitism, Jewish self-determination has shown itself to be a necessity.

        Yeah Herzl was right. Jews are incapable of peacefully co-existing with Gentiles in America or any of the other civilized countries of the Western world (not).

      • patm
        patm
        February 12, 2012, 3:30 pm

        I disagree. Imagine how the US would look if it had been in a state of conflict since the 40s, if the lines were drawn down primarily ethnic divisions. Would it feature the relative equality that Israel has? I doubt it. During WWII we actually rounded up all of our Japanese citizens and put them in camps. That, without even fighting any war on our home soil.

        Someone on another thread suggested humorously that Shakti is an East Indian. I stated categorically here on this thread that he is an American, based on his remark about the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII.

        I have reconsidered my categorical statement. I’ve re-read the paragraph I quote here, gagging again on his ludicrous “relative equality” guff.

        The phrasing of his paragraph now makes me think he is Canadian. We too interned Japanese citizens during WWII, and we have lots of rabid Zionists in Canada, I’m sorry to say.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 3:36 pm

        Is it a fail? You’ll notice a distinct lack of Jewish citizens remaining in the Arab world while fully 20% of Israel is non-Jewish. Is that a comparison that is so lacking in meaning that we should overlook it?

        SA was diverse during apartheid too as was the south during jim crow.

        What is your point? Israel does not resemble either of those systems. Your resorting to hyperbole does not invalidate my argument.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 3:38 pm

        Are you being facetious? I can’t imagine how Hertzl could have possibly been proven more right than by the events of the 20th century.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 3:40 pm

        path,

        Thanks, but I’ve been there a few times already.
        Have you?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 3:43 pm

        Thankfully, the League of Nations Mandate contained a safeguarding clause which protected the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country from the mess they created in Palestine.

        Yes, thankfully! Can you imagine what might have happened if it wasn’t for that awesome clause?

        Whew!!!

        No, really… Are you making a weird joke or something?

      • annie
        annie
        February 12, 2012, 4:00 pm

        my point is that diverse in and of itself is not a plus factor in an apartheid state.

        Israel does not resemble either of those systems.

        israel perfectly resembles the crime of apartheid , same crime different countries.

      • patm
        patm
        February 12, 2012, 4:47 pm

        Thanks, but I’ve been there a few times already. Have you?

        Spend my tourist dollars in Apartheid Israel? Not a chance, troll. I believe you know what the B in BDS means.

        One of Canada’s JDL thugs asked me the same question outside Toronto’s Ryerson University a while back when I was going into a Palestinian event. Was that you?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 4:54 pm

        You’ll notice a distinct lack of Jewish citizens remaining in the Arab world

        There are actually thousands of them who don’t want to live in Israel. There are also thousands in Israel who came forward in the 1970s and claimed they were Zionists during the mandate era and had made Aliya just like their European brethren. See the link to the book on the Egyptian diaspora I provided you earlier. I don’t argue that there weren’t Jewish refugees from the Arab states, but they ceased to be refugees when they voluntarily accepted Israeli citizenship. Israel contributed to the exodus in some cases, i.e. Mossad black flag operations like the Lavon Affair.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 5:16 pm

        No, really… Are you making a weird joke or something?

        No Anti-Zionist Jews demanded the inclusion of that stipulation. See for example the War Cabinet Memorandum on the subject:
        Former Reference: GT 2263
        Title: Zionism.
        Author: E S Montagu
        Date 09 October 1917
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/28
        http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?queryType=1&resultcount=1&Edoc_Id=7956351

        The 1950 “entente” between Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and AJC President Jacob Blaustein was very serious too. In an April 20, 1964 letter to Rabbi Elmer Berger of the American Council for Judaism from Assistant Secretary Phillips Talbot, the State Department confirmed that it “does not recognize a legal-political relationship based upon religious identification of American citizens. It does not in any way discriminate among American citizens upon the basis of religion or ethnicity. Accordingly, it should be clear that the Department of State does not regard the “Jewish people” concept as a concept of international law.” See Whiteman’s Digest of International Law, Volume 8, U.S. Dept. of State, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1967, page 35

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 12, 2012, 5:35 pm

        “Was there a shared cultural memory of hodgepodge nations like Iraq or Lebanon, who featured unwise mixtures of different people with seeming randomly installed monarchies”

        That is pathetic.

        They lived together for millenia, dude. Everyone in Lebanon speaks the same language and has for 1300 years. They didn’t have some grandfather making up a lingua franca in the 1890s like Israel did. What childrens songs did the Jews of Lvov and Rabat share? What festivals did they meet at? Which days of the week would they interact at the market ?

        Israel is artificial par excellence . It is to authenticity what Mc Donalds is to haute cuisine.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 12, 2012, 5:37 pm

        You’ll notice a distinct lack of Jewish citizens remaining in the Arab world while fully 20% of Israel is non-Jewish.

        All that proves is that Jews left the Arab world.

        What is your point? Israel does not resemble either of those systems. Your resorting to hyperbole does not invalidate my argument..

        Of course it does. The architect of South African apartheid, Hendrik Verwoerd, regonized the resemblance in 1961.

        “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.”

        (Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961) Jacobus Johannes Fouché, South African Minister of Defence during the apartheid era, compared the two states and said that Israel also practiced apartheid. Gideon Shimoni (1980). Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910-1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp. 310–336. ISBN 0195701798.

        Note that Verwoerd’s comment was not a criticism, but that he spoke of admiration for the Israeli apartheid state.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 12, 2012, 5:50 pm

        But in light of the realities of global anti-semitism, Jewish self-determination has shown itself to be a necessity.

        If Jewish self-determination was such a necessity, we wouldn’t have a world in which more than half the world’s Jews refuse to excercise that self-determinatio.

        Chaos, I recall that you were unaware of the violence directed towards the Jewish communities in Arab states this past century.

        Was that before or after Israel expelled 800,000 Palestinians and set off bombs in Baghdad and Egypt?

        You mentioned that you thought they were a protected minority.

        Yes, hence the status they enjoy in Turkey and Iran as protected people.

        The fact is that Israel has played no part whatsoever is ensuring Jewish survival. If anything, Israel has emperiled Jews, not protected them. The biggest irony of all is that Gemrnay has become a more decirable destination for Jews than even Israel.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 12, 2012, 5:58 pm

        Of course the modern state of Israel was not an existing nation 100 years ago. Hence it is “The Jewish State.”

        How does the fact that it id not exist as a state 100 years ago mean it’s “The Jewish State”? As you have pointed out, 20% fo it’s population is not Jewish, therefore it can’t be the Jewish State.

        Imagine how the US would look if it had been in a state of conflict since the 40s, if the lines were drawn down primarily ethnic divisions. Would it feature the relative equality that Israel has? I doubt it.

        There is no relative equality in Israel, and since WWII, the US hs indeed beein in a state of conflict one way or another.

        During WWII we actually rounded up all of our Japanese citizens and put them in camps. That, without even fighting any war on our home soil.

        Israel did that too, and witout fighting any war on it’s home soil.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 6:08 pm

        patm,

        Oh, so you haven’t actually been to Israel, west or east Jerusalem, any of the occupied territories, areas under fire like Sderot, mixed cities like Haifa, seen any of the various protest movements or spent significant time discussing these issues with Israeli Jews or Arabs or non-citizen Arab residents? Because you did suggest that I do that, and I actually have done those things. Point being, you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about tricky things such as motives and ideology that you impart a lot of value to considering your limited experience.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 6:19 pm

        seafoid, I’m not sure what your criticism is. Lebanese society is severely fractured which has led to extreme violence and conflict even by Middle eastern standards. Iraq has several different nations of people set into boundaries drawn for someone else’s convenience. They split the Kurds into a few different countries, put Faisal in charge as a consolation prize after greater Syria was taken away from him, nothing about it is organic in any way.

        Israel is primarily a nation of refugees and immigrants. Of course it looks different than a country like Iran that’s been around for God knows how long. But why is this in any way a negative thing? Israel was at least created around an ideal and serves a purpose, and has done it well. Countries like Iraq were thrown together without any concern for anyone aside from the map-creators and deal-makers. And they don’t all speak the same language either.

        If you really think that Israeli culture is somehow thin or contrived I suggest you visit a kibbutz. Ideally one from the more serious of the movements like Hatzor.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 8:18 pm

        If Jewish self-determination was such a necessity, we wouldn’t have a world in which more than half the world’s Jews refuse to excercise that self-determination.

        Care to explain this reasoning? It seems to make zero sense.

        Was that before or after Israel expelled 800,000 Palestinians and set off bombs in Baghdad and Egypt?

        Does it matter?

        Yes, hence the status they enjoy in Turkey and Iran as protected people.

        Ah, so the Jews in Iran are “protected” huh? From what, freedom and equality? Not being oppressed? I give up, what are they protected from? Isn’t the guy who insists on this “protection” the same guy who insisted that there are no gay people in all of Iran? It is. He sounds like a guy you should listen to.

        The fact is that Israel has played no part whatsoever is ensuring Jewish survival.

        You do know that I personally know people whose lives were saved as a result of Israel’s existence, right? Besides that, logic dictates that your statement is not possible to even know. Do you have some superpower that enables you to see into alternate universes or something? I mean, do you ACTUALLY believe that you think you know that?

      • patm
        patm
        February 12, 2012, 8:29 pm

        Nice try, troll. I don’t have to go to the north pole to know it’s cold up there.

        You’re fading here. Mondo’s knowledgeable old hands are making mincemeat of you. You are not going to enjoy the ride.

      • piotr
        piotr
        February 12, 2012, 9:58 pm

        “Israel as a modern entity exists as an expression of Jewish self-determination, but is inclusive of its non-Jewish citizens as well.”

        I would not call it a lie, but an oversight that is lamented daily (“demographic threat”) and the government works hard to correct. A nice example of hard work in that direction is a pair of legislative efforts: to expel all Beduins (citizens and not citizens) from their “illegal” villages, and to legalize “illegal” settlements of Jews. And every day brings a small achievement in this direction. For example, there is a parking lot in Old City Jerusalem where several years ago had some spots rented by Armenians. City finally assured that this will happen NEVER AGAIN.

        Which brings an interesting question: why Israeli hate Armenians?

      • pjdude
        pjdude
        February 13, 2012, 1:01 am

        shak Israel isn’t the expression of jewish self determination. that phrase is an oxymoron. self determination involves being in the territory. a state created for and by people moutside of the territory by DEFINITION cannot be self determination so please quit repeating that tired and racist lie. if you can’t use con cepts according to their definitions please don’t talk about them. the only ISrael is and can be is a denial of the right of self determinition.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 13, 2012, 2:24 am

        Israel was at least created around an ideal and serves a purpose, and has done it well.

        On the contrary, it has done it appalingly, and it too is becomming increasingly fractured, evenwithin the Jewish population. Israel was in fact thrown together without any concern for anyone aside from the deal-makers.

        If you really think that Israeli culture is somehow thin or contrived I suggest you visit a kibbutz.

        How funny you shuold mention the kibbutzim, which is welldocumented for comming an end, which is in many ways, a reflection of what is happening to the state.

        The Zionist project is a failure.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 13, 2012, 2:28 am

        I can’t imagine how Hertzl could have possibly been proven more right than by the events of the 20th century.

        Indeed, it was Hertzl’s greatest prediction that anti Semtisim would be a poweerful tool in facilitating the creation of the Jewish state. Sol what Hertzl prodicted was that anti Semtisim would be exploited by Zionist to realize their agenda.

        He was indeed a visionary in many ways.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 3:21 am

        If Jewish self-determination was such a necessity, we wouldn’t have a world in which more than half the world’s Jews refuse to excercise that self-determination.

        But they actually have. Most Jewish communities in the West have opted for incorporation in other existing states, and that is one of the valid methods of exercising the right of self-determination according to the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the safeguarding clauses contained in the Palestine Mandate.

        Even in Israel the structure of the Rabbinate reflects the existence of more than one Jewish community, e.g. there are two Chief Rabbis. In Greco-Bulgarian Communities (Opinion No. 17) and Minority Schools in Albania (Opinion A/B 64) the Permanent Court of International Justice provided a standard legal definition of a “community” that applied to Jewish and other national minority communities of the day. It is:

        ” …. a group of persons living in a given country or locality, having a race, religion, language and traditions of their own and united by this identity of race, religion, language and traditions in a sentiment of solidarity, with a view to preserving their traditions, maintaining their form of worship, ensuring the instruction and upbringing of their children in accordance with the spirit and traditions of their race and rendering mutual assistance to each other.”

        That’s why the safeguarding clauses in the Mandate and the Entente between PM Ben Gurion and the heads of major Jewish organizations in this country were such big deals. We’ve opted NOT to form a single Jewish community (and certain whackos won’t take no for an answer).

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 13, 2012, 7:59 am

        Hostage says: ‘Mossad black flag operations like the Lavon Affair’.

        More drivel. The Lavon Affair was a rogue Mossad operation that sought to disrupt a growing entente between Egypt and the United States. It had nothing to do with immigration.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 13, 2012, 8:49 am

        So you’re saying that the Lavon Affair was actually an attack on US interests by Israel? And that making a fifth column in the Egyptian Jewish community was only icing on the cake?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 9:31 am

        Hostage says: ‘Mossad black flag operations like the Lavon Affair’. . . . More drivel. The Lavon Affair was a rogue Mossad operation that sought to disrupt a growing entente between Egypt and the United States. It had nothing to do with immigration.

        Correction Lamezionist777, I never said the Lavon Affair was about immigration. I said that the botched black flag operations like the Lavon Affair had contributed to the exodus from Arab countries in some cases. See for example Naeim Giladi, Ben Gurion’s Scandals, Glilit, 1995 & 2003 http://www.archive.org/details/Ben-gurionScandals–HowTheHagannahAndTheMossadEliminatedJews

      • annie
        annie
        February 13, 2012, 10:35 am

        thanks hostage, i didn’t realize the entire book was available online.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 13, 2012, 2:07 pm

        Naiem Giladi spent most of the money he got from his sale of his land in Israel to self-publish his book, which has been banned in the USA in the sense that nobody would publish it without reserving the right to edit it before publishing it–that’s one of the ways you ban books under the 1st Amendment in America. Or, you may eventually be able to get your book published by getting your seminar article published in another country first, as W & M did with The Israel Lobby. Giladi says from his personal experience Zionists have a record of racism and dealing ruthlessly with not only Gentiles, but also Jews, like himself, a native-born Iraqi Jew, who expose the truth about Zionism as it has actually been practiced in the ME:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naeim_Giladi

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 13, 2012, 5:31 pm

        “but is inclusive of its non-Jewish citizens as well.”

        You mean the second-class citizens that were under martial law up to a few years ago? Some “inclusiveness”

        “Would it feature the relative equality that Israel has?

        Yeah, the “relative” equality… The Jews and their relatives get everything, and the native Palestininans and their relatives get squat… and get a maled fist in the teeth if they event think about demanding their due.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 13, 2012, 7:26 pm

        Hostage. I’m still waiting for your comment on the Arie Morgenstern article I linked.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 14, 2012, 5:26 am

        Hostage. I’m still waiting for your comment on the Arie Morgenstern article I linked.

        Your earlier comment wasn’t addressed to me. You linked to 62 pages of drek from a Zionist historiographer and that takes a few minutes to digest.

        Morgenstern was actually bemoaning the fact that upstart Jewish historians with PhDs have recently started to publish dissertations and journal articles debunking the accuracy of the artificially constructed Zionist historical narrative about the longing for Zion and colonial urges. He didn’t really mention a damn thing about Arabs consistently treating Jewish pilgrims badly by the way. So you wasted a great deal of my time. Nothing that he said changed the fact that Nahum Sokolow’s History of Zionism, 1600-1918, Volume 1 was stretching the point quite a bit and that the very first Zionist Congress in 1897 narrowly missed being a 20th century event.

        You claimed that Jews had been making ‘aliyah’ to Eretz Yisroel since at least the 13th century and the Arabs there consistently treated these ‘religious Zionists’ badly. Morgenstern buries all mention of Sabbatai Zevi in a few footnotes. He never mentions that the ancient Jewish Kingdoms had conquered or persecuted other peoples; that the Maccabees had forced the Idumeans to mutilate their genitals and observe Jewish laws; that Jews have holidays which celebrate violence against Gentiles; or admit that “messianic fervor” included plans to initiate another Crusade, appoint Jewish Princes, and restore the Kingdom by subduing Palestine under the leadership of literal Messiahs like Bar Kochba or Sabbatai Zevi, et al.

        The first reference to an “Arab of Tiberias” appears 37 pages into the 62 page article, and only then as the source of a report that Rabbi Abulafia “told the Jews who lived there that the Messiah would soon come.”

        The only documented case of Arab violence that the author cites is a lone, cherry-picked, version of a report from Rabbi Shmuel Heller regarding an Arab attack on Safed during the 1834 revolt against the rule of Muhammed Ali of Egypt. Martin Sicker’s account of the sack of Safed in “Reshaping Palestine: from Muhammad Ali to the British Mandate, 1831-1922 is also based upon Rabbi Heller’s account. Unlike Arie Morgenstern, Sicker relates that the Jews fled and were saved by the friendly Arabs in the neighboring village of Ein Zietim. Neither of these historians provided any statistics on the purported number of casualties. Rabbi Shmuel Heller gained notoriety on account of his miraculous sightings of the Ari (Rabbi Yitzhak Luria), sitting in 19th century Safed – long after Luria had died in 1573.

        The actual reports of medieval Jewish pilgrims, like Petahiya of Regensburg, have been rejected by modern historians as fanciful, fantastic, legendary and folkloristic. The pilgrims who made aliyah to Palestine usually left due to disappointment, poverty, plague, or natural disasters, not persecution. While his article has the ambitious title “Dispersion and the Longing for Zion, 1240-1840”, Morgenstern doesn’t actually cite any medieval Jewish sources at all. He is complaining about these authors and works:
        *Jacob Barnai, Historiography and Nationalism: Trends in the Research of
        Palestine and Its Jewish Population, 634-1881 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995),
        *Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, The Nationalist Portrayal of the Exile, Zionist
        Historiography, and Medieval Jewry, doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University,1996
        *Elhanan Reiner, Pilgrims and Pilgrimage to the Land of Israel, 1099-1517,
        doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988

        I’ve discussed similar works here in the past. See Israel Jacob Yuval, “The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship”, Common Knowledge – Volume 12, Issue 1, Winter 2006, pp. 16-33 link to muse.jhu.edu

        BTW, Hannah Arendt addressed the subject of the post hoc, invented, nature of Jewish nationalist history very succinctly in the Preface to the 1968 Edition of Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, starting on page xii. She cited several earlier works, so Arie Morgenstern’s must be pretty high if he thinks this is something that only became increasingly popular in recent years.

        Here is an excerpt. Arendt’s quotes are taken from Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and tolerance: studies in Jewish-Gentile relations in medieval and modern times, Behrman House, Inc, 1961:

        The history of antisemitism, like the history of Jew-hatred, is part and parcel of the long and intricate story of Jewish-Gentile relations under the conditions of Jewish dispersion. Interest in this history was practically nonexistent prior to the middle of the nineteenth century, when it coincided with the rise of antisemitism and its furious reaction to emancipated and assimilated Jewry—obviously the worst possible constellation for establishing reliable historical records.

        Since then, it has been the common fallacy of Jewish and non-Jewish historiography—though mostly for opposite reasons—to isolate the hostile elements in Christian and Jewish sources and to stress the series of catastrophes, expulsions, and massacres that have punctuated Jewish history just as armed and unarmed conflicts, war, famine, and pestilence have punctuated the history of Europe. Needless to add, it was Jewish historiography, with its strong polemical and apologetical bias, that undertook to trace the record of Jew-hatred in Christian history, while it was left to the antisemites to trace an intellectually not too dissimilar record from ancient Jewish authorities. When this Jewish tradition of an often violent antagonism to Christians and Gentiles came to light, “the general Jewish public was not only outraged but genuinely astonished,” so well had its spokesmen succeeded in convincing themselves and everybody else of the non-fact that Jewish separateness was due exclusively to Gentile hostility and lack of enlightenment. Judaism, it was now maintained chiefly by Jewish historians, had always been superior to other religions in that it believed in human equality and tolerance. That this self-deceiving theory, accompanied by the belief that the Jewish people had always been the passive, suffering object of Christian persecutions, actually amounted to a prolongation and modernization of the old myth of chosenness and was bound to end in new and often very complicated practices of separation, destined to uphold the ancient dichotomy, is perhaps one of those ironies which seem to be in store for those who, for whatever reasons, try to embellish and manipulate political facts and historical records.

        I could go on, but you probably get the point. Arie Morgenstern was a Zionist apparatchik for the teaching of history in the Israeli Ministry of Education. I’ve commented elsewhere that there is a struggle going on over the inclusion of declassified material in the history textbooks that tends to debunk Zionist myths. That’s what Morgenstern is really shreying about. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/jewish-substitution-and-the-white-gaze.html#comment-423560

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 14, 2012, 6:42 am

        Great comment (February 14, 2012 at 5:26 am), Hostage.

      • annie
        annie
        February 14, 2012, 1:19 pm

        wow, knock em dead hostage. another out of the ballpark comment.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 14, 2012, 1:50 pm

        Hostage.

        Your best efforts to obfuscate matters have failed. Besides ad hominem attacks on Professor Morgenstern, you go off on longwinded tangents bringing Petahiya of Regensberg and Hannah Arendt and biblical genital mutilation and Jewish holidays into the discussion but not addressing the singular subject of Morgenstern’s article which is this:

        Several waves of emigration to Eretz Yisroel, over a period of 600 years, were made by thousands of religiously inspired Jews.

        That these emigrants were mistreated by the locals is incidental.
        Be that as it may, you said, “The only documented case of Arab violence that the author cites is a lone, cherry-picked, version of a report from Rabbi Shmuel Heller..”
        Unlike you, I read page 100 from Morgenstern’s article where he said:

        “In 1625, Jerusalem came under the control of the Ibn Farukh family. The family, which had purchased control over the city from the Ottoman government, saw themselves as free to oppress the city’s inhabitants and embitter the lives of anyone too poor
        to pay a sufficient levy. Most of all they targeted the city’s Jews, who were
        politically powerless and could be exploited by taking the financial support
        they received from the diaspora. Within a two-year period, from
        1625 to the end of 1627, the position of the Jewish community in Jerusalem
        was completely undermined. The governor, Muhammed ibn Farukh,
        persecuted the Jews of the whole country, issued various edicts against The governor, Muhammed ibn Farukh, persecuted the Jews of the whole country, issued various edicts against money. When they were unable to pay their debts, they were summarily jailed and tortured. The new regime destroyed the Jews’ sacred objects; placed their synagogues in lien against debts and shut them down; interrupted their prayer services; desecrated their Tora scrolls, tearing and stealing them to make them, restricted their numbers arbitrarily, and extorted enormous sums of clothing and bags; closed their religious courts and dispersed the judges; and shut down Jewish schools and sent the children away. Many Jews starved.”

        It’s beside the point that Morgenstern didn’t inform his readers that in 1720, Arab creditors broke into the Jerusalem Ashkenazi synagogue, set it on fire, and took over the area. The Turkish authorities blamed all Ashkenazi Jews for the mess, held the Jews collectively responsible for the debts, and banned all Ashkenazim from the area.
        Nor did Morgenstern full examine the Druze porgroms of 1834 and 1838 against helpless Jews. According to an account that appeared in Haaretz Newspaper of May 22, 1934, The Great Plunder of Safed by Eliezer Rivlin:

        …The rebellion in Safed was declared on 8 of Sivan (June 15, 1834). From all the nearby towns and villages Arabs and Bedouins came to the city drunk from revolt and began delivering havoc on the Jews. With large and small shields, lances and rifles, the first thing they did was to attack the Jews. They stripped the clothing from men and women, tore pillows and featherbeds, and spread the feathers around, tore Bible books, raped a man and a woman, destroyed houses and synagogues, and murdered many people from Israel.

        But Morgenstern does go into greater detail in his book, Hastening Redemption: Messianism and the Resettlement of the Land of Israel by Arie Morgenstern, at page 72 and page 55 where he does detail Arab and Turkish mistreatment of the Jewish Olim.

        http://www.amazon.com/Hastening-Redemption-Messianism-Resettlement-Israel/dp/0195305787#reader_0195305787

        Hostage.
        In spite of your best efforts to make them invisible, these waves of religious Jewish emigrants to Eretz Yisroel, and to Jerusalem in particular, created the foundation on which political Zionism could build theirr national homeland beginning in the late 1800’s.

        PZ

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 14, 2012, 3:18 pm

        proudzionist777, Re: “Several waves of emigration to Eretz Yisroel, over a period of 600 years, were made by thousands of religiously inspired Jews…. these waves of religious Jewish emigrants to Eretz Yisroel, and to Jerusalem in particular, created the foundation on which political Zionism could build their national homeland beginning in the late 1800’s.”

        What waves of Ashkenazi Jewish emigrants are you talking about, and what are their numbers other than the three groups of Vilna Gaon’s disciples and their families, numbering about 500, who made aliyah to the Land of Israel between 1808 and 1812? (Their arrival is said to have revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardi.)

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 14, 2012, 3:38 pm

        Hostage. . . . Your best efforts to obfuscate matters have failed the singular subject of Morgenstern’s article which is this . . . Several waves of emigration to Eretz Yisroel, over a period of 600 years, were made by thousands of religiously inspired Jews.

        I didn’t obfuscate at all. The 1996 9th grade history textbooks, with material from the New Historians, came out after Morgenstern had left the Ministry of Education. They were withdrawn shortly after his 2002 article as a result of complaints from the far right. There was no such thing as Jewish nationalist history in the medieval era. It was invented by Jewish political hacks starting in the 19th century. I noted that Morgenstern didn’t cite any actual medieval historical records. The primary source of his analysis and historical material was a work published in 1975 :
        *Benzion Dinur, “The Messianic Fermentation and Immigration to the
        Land of Israel from the Crusades until the Black Death, and Their Ideological
        Roots,” in Benzion Dinur, Historical Writings (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1975),
        vol. ii, p. 238.

        Unlike you, I read page 100 from Morgenstern’s article where he said:
        “In 1625, Jerusalem came under the control of the Ibn Farukh family.

        If there’s anything I like less than a bigot, it’s an ignorant bigot. I read that too, but I happened to know that the Ibn Farukh family were actually Circassians from Eurasia, not Arabs. See for example, The Farrukhs in Dror Zeʼevi, An Ottoman century: the district of Jerusalem in the 1600s, State University of New York Press, 1996, (mid page) 43 http://books.google.com/books?id=EN-Pd-JLybUC&lpg=PA43&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false

        FYI, the Egyptian ruler mentioned by Morgenstern, named Muhammed Ali, was actually an Albanian mercenary. He was neither an Egyptian nor an Arab. When you get finished making a total ass out of yourself, please take your blinders off and apologize to the nice Arab readers. More often than not, their ancestors saved your ancestor’s asses when the chips were down. Truth be told, the Muslims were no worse than the Christians or Jews. During this same 600-year time period the Jewish Perushim and Hassidim delighted in persecuting one another on account of their religious differences, while Hus and Tyndale were tortured and killed by their own Christian brethren.

        Here is a little more from Arendt on the modern development of:

        ANTISEMITISM, a secular nineteenth-century ideology—which in name, though not in argument, was unknown before the 1870’s—and religious Jew-hatred, inspired by the mutually hostile antagonism of two conflicting creeds, are obviously not the same; and even the extent to which the former derives its arguments and emotional appeal from the latter is open to question. The notion of an unbroken continuity of persecutions, expulsions, and massacres from the end of the Roman Empire to the Middle Ages, the modern era, and down to our own time, frequently embellished by the idea that modern antisemitism is no more than a secularized version of popular medieval superstitions, is no less fallacious (though of course less mischievous) than the corresponding antisemitic notion of a Jewish secret society that has ruled, or aspired to rule, the world since antiquity. Historically, the hiatus between the late Middle Ages and the modern age with respect to Jewish affairs is even more marked than the rift between Roman antiquity and the Middle Ages, or the gulf—frequently considered to be the most important turning-point of Jewish history in the Diaspora—that separated the catastrophes of the First Crusades from earlier medieval centuries. For this hiatus lasted through nearly two centuries, from the fifteenth to the end of the sixteenth, during which Jewish-Gentile relations were at an all-time low, Jewish “indifference to conditions and events in the outside world” was at an all-time high, and Judaism became “more than ever a closed system of thought.” It was at this time that Jews, without any outside interference, began to think “that the difference between Jewry and the nations was fundamentally not one of creed and faith, but one of inner nature” and that the ancient dichotomy between Jews and Gentiles was “more likely to be racial in origin rather than a matter of doctrinal dissension.” This shift in evaluating the alien character of the Jewish people, which became common among non-Jews only much later in the Age of Enlightenment, is clearly the condition sine qua non for the birth of antisemitism, and it is of some importance to note that it occurred in Jewish self-interpretation first and at about the time when European Christendom split up into those ethnic groups which then came politically into their own in the system of modern nation-states.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 14, 2012, 7:40 pm

        First order of business, I apologize for assuming that ibn Farruk was an Arab.

        Next.
        You say, “More often than not, their ancestors saved your ancestor’s asses when the chips were down.:

        Actually, my ancestors emigrated to Jerusalem in 1811 and my great, great, great, great grandmother was murdered there by an Arab.
        In fairness to the Arabs, my great, great, great grandfather from Jerusalem had the shit kicked out of him by a Turkish officer (for which there was no legal remedy). Their Lithuanian Perushim community suffered other abuses.

        You said: “Truth be told, the Muslims were no worse than the Christians or Jews.”

        Maybe.

        But a contemporary eyewitness Ermete Pierotti, an Italian engineer who lived eight years in Jerusalem until 1864, ‘All the native population unfortunately hold the opinion that to injure a Jew is a work well pleasing in the sight of God. On going to my house in Jerusalem, I saw a very respectable Jew running at full speed, pursued by some Arabs. The Jews of the East , as I have had proof over and over again, seek not to destroy the life of others but to preserve their own, enduring with meekness, constancy and patience the insults and injuries they receive from Christans and Mohammedans alike’. –Jerusalem, Martin Gilbert, p 108.

        -and-

        “Men in Palestine call their fellows ‘Jew’, as the lowest of all possible words of abuse”.
        –The Rob Roy on the Jordan, Nile, Red sea, & Gennesareth, page 243, published in 1870 by John MacGregor.

        And you’re calling me a bigot! You wish I was. It would make you job a lot easier.

        Now can we please get back to the real issue at hand. That is, that several waves of emigration to Eretz Yisroel, over a period of 600 years, were made by thousands of religiously inspired Jews…. these waves of religious Jewish emigrants to Eretz Yisroel, and to Jerusalem in particular, created the foundation on which political Zionism could build their national homeland beginning in the late 1800’s.”

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 14, 2012, 8:01 pm

        Now can we please get back to the real issue at hand. That is, that several waves of emigration to Eretz Yisroel, over a period of 600 years, were made by thousands of religiously inspired Jews…. these waves of religious Jewish emigrants to Eretz Yisroel, and to Jerusalem in particular, created the foundation on which political Zionism could build their national homeland beginning in the late 1800’s.

        You still haven’t produced any evidence to suport this claim. And furthermore, these these waves of religious Jewish emigrants to Eretz Yisroel could not possibly have created the foundation on which political Zionism, becasue the majority of them rejected Zionism or the creation of a Jewish state.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 14, 2012, 8:37 pm

        Citizen.

        Read the linked Arie Morgenstern article.

        There were many more emigrants preceeding the Vilna Gaon’s disciples ( from whence my family came).

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 14, 2012, 9:06 pm

        My Perushim ancestors did more than pray and live off of charity. They took trades and strived for self-sufficiency. They built synagogues and yeshivot and moved onto the land outside the Old City walls. They even built the windmill in Jerusalem.

        By the time the first Aliyah had arrived in the 1880’s, Jerusalem had a Jewish majority and there is ‘strength in numbers’.
        Most important of all, the Perushim learned to ‘work the system’, by petitioning the Ottomans, paying bribes and wrangling foreign citizenship from Russia, England, Holland, etc., and using than using their newly acquired European citizenship to extract ‘foreign concessions’ from the Ottomans.

        Here is Morgenstern’s insights:

        “Of course, there were major, substantive differences between the
        messianic aliyot and the Zionist awakening which followed. The nationalist
        ideology which revived the Jewish people in the late-nineteenth and
        twentieth centuries was indeed modern in many ways, not the least of
        which was its rejection of the traditionalist worldview that had characterized
        the messianic movements. Nevertheless, the deep longing for their
        ancestral homeland and the profound faith in the possibility of national
        redemption, which ultimately drove the waves of Jewish immigration to
        Palestine in the sixth millennium, were also at the heart of the Zionist
        return. The widespread belief in the Jewish right to the land of Israel, the
        Zionist vision of the spiritual and physical redemption of the land, and
        the immense efforts of so many Jews to turn the dream into reality, could
        never have taken root without these prior beliefs. In this sense at least, one
        may see the period of messianic immigration to the land of Israel and the
        Zionist revolution as milestones on the same historical path, different
        chapters in an ongoing national story.”

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 14, 2012, 11:22 pm

        “Men in Palestine call their fellows ‘Jew’, as the lowest of all possible words of abuse”.

        This is from the 20th & 21st Century:I was present at the Qana massacre by Israeli gunners in 1996 – “Arabushim” (the equivalent of the abusive term “Ayrab” in English), one of the gunners called the 106 dead civilians, more than half of them children, in the Israeli press. Then the Israeli government of Nobel laureate Shimon Peres said there were terrorists among the dead civilians – totally untrue, but who cares? – and then came the second Qana massacre in 2006 and then the 2008-09 Gaza slaughter of 1,300 Palestinians, most of them children, and then… Robert Fisk, http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-the-truth-behind-the-israeli-propaganda-1991803.html

        But a contemporary eyewitness Ermete Pierotti, an Italian engineer who lived eight years in Jerusalem until 1864, ‘All the native population unfortunately hold the opinion that to injure a Jew is a work well pleasing in the sight of God.

        But there’s no evidence that was religious hatred as opposed to antisemitism or that the Jews of the Old Yishuv even considered themselves members of a Jewish nation. In fact they continued to self-identify as Romaniot, Ashknazim, Sephardim, and in most cases remained isolated in their own communities. The western powers had long-since immunized their Jewish subjects and so-called proteges from Ottoman lawsuits, military service, taxation, & etc. They placed them under the jurisdiction of their own extraterritorial consular courts.

        That was the main reason that Ashkenazi Jews immigrated to Safed instead of Jerusalem. The Pascha Farrukh had banned them from the district of Jerusalem altogether, while allowing Jews who were Ottoman subjects to remain. Many of the Askenazim had refused to pay their debts and could only be sued in the foreign consular courts under the terms of the Ottoman regime of capitulations. See for example:
        *Dovid Rossoff, Safed: the mystical city http://books.google.com/books?id=RjFoPWto6VYC&lpg=PA133&dq=&pg=PA139#v=onepage&q&f=false
        *Leland J. Gordon, The Turkish American Controversy over Nationality http://www.jstor.org/stable/2189916

        Ruth Kark wrote in “American consuls in the Holy Land, 1832-1914” that the available statistics indicate that by the year 1872, about 770 citizens and 2473 proteges were registered in the foreign consulates. A census in 1839 showed 150 families of about 1500 Jews living in Safed. http://books.google.com/books?id=LkAvPDl5yfgC&lpg=PA200&dq=&pg=PA200#v=onepage&q&f=false

        Now can we please get back to the real issue at hand. That is, that several waves of emigration to Eretz Yisroel, over a period of 600 years, were made by thousands of religiously inspired Jews….

        Perhaps, but most of them were long gone before the 18th Century. There were only 30,000 Jews in all of Syria and Palestine by then, mostly in the vicinity of Damascus. The few who remained formed semi-autonomous “communities”. They retained their own languages, separate nationalities, synagogues, and courts. Entire volumes have been written on the subject, e.g. Avigdor Levy, “Jews, Turks, Ottomans: A Shared History, Fifteenth Through the Twentieth Century”, Syracuse University Press, 2002

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 14, 2012, 11:40 pm

        So let me get this straight: You had ooooone diiiiiistant relative (who came from Lithuania!) who was murdered by “an Arab” and that’s why five hundred Arab villages needed to be wiped off the face of the earth?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 15, 2012, 6:07 am

        Most important of all, the Perushim learned to ‘work the system’, by petitioning the Ottomans, paying bribes and wrangling foreign citizenship from Russia, England, Holland, etc., and using than using their newly acquired European citizenship to extract ‘foreign concessions’ from the Ottomans.

        Exactly. Foreigners invaded the place with the intent of operating outside the Ottoman laws. They obtained immunity from consular officials of other nations, not a Jewish nation. That behavior incited antisemitic resentment, not religious hatred. The Socialists and anarchists didn’t even pretend to have any religion, but went along with the same scam anyway. There was nothing messianic about the motives of their members. Stop kidding yourself.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 16, 2012, 1:48 am

        pjdude.

        You’re saying that because so many Jewish Israelis were immigrants, that the term self-determination can not be held to apply to Zionism?

        That makes no sense whatsoever.

        Oh, and now it is racist too? That figures. I guarantee you that the definition does not require that the word only applies to people who have refrained from getting on an airplane just before asserting self-determination.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 16, 2012, 2:13 am

        I guarantee you that the definition does not require that the word only applies to people who have refrained from getting on an airplane just before asserting self-determination.

        All that proves is that ISrael does not therefore play any central role in Jewish self determination.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 16, 2012, 8:48 pm

        Better half a pie than none.

        BTW, when was the last time you saw a pogrom?
        Probably not since 1949.
        Am I wrong?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 18, 2012, 4:49 am

        Nice try, troll. I don’t have to go to the north pole to know it’s cold up there.

        Just like how old, white, male, Christians are suitable representatives to decide any legislation concerning birth control, abortion, and so on. They don’t need to be women themselves to make critical decisions on widespread women’s issues nor even consult a woman.

        Now it’s fine if you choose to avoid seeing any of Israel, the territories, any surrounding Arab states, etc. But when you try and tell me what the Israelis think about any given topic you end up sounding like one of those ancient, white legislators who is certain he knows what’s best for women. All you have are assumptions while I have experiences. How can you justify this belief you have that your ideas about a land you’ve never been remotely near are somehow more valid than someone who has spent significant time there?

        It’s like someone lecturing to a black person about the kind of food that’s popular in the black community based on having read a Julia Child pamphlet.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 12, 2012, 1:10 pm

        Also, there’s no recorded Jewish history for centuries either by any world-accepted historians, such as Josephus (sic?).

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 12, 2012, 2:28 pm

        Yes indeed. Courtesy of a Gilad Atzmon article:

        “It is an established fact that there is not a single Jewish historical text written between 1st ce (Josephus Flavius) & early 19th ce (Isaak Markus Jost). “

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 12, 2012, 2:44 pm

        Courtesy of a Gilad Atzmon article

        It’s actually based on a line from Shlomo Sand, qualified by a footnote citing Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi. Presented as “an established fact”, without context or qualification, it just looks like so much nonsense.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 12, 2012, 5:40 pm

        Hardly as nonsensical as Zionist history, Shmuel.
        There was loads happening to AD 70. Then everything stopped and the world began again in the 1880s.

        If you do have any details of the proto Israeli nation at at any time through the Dark and Middle and early modern ages do feel free to post them.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 12, 2012, 6:02 pm

        seafoid,

        It is simply not true (let alone “an established fact”) that “there is not a single Jewish historical text written between 1st ce …& early 19th ce”. Sand (based on Yerushalmi), made a different assertion – that there was no true Jewish historiographical writing (as opposed to “historical writings”) during that period, with the exception of a few isolated works written in the 16th century. Yerushalmi’s thesis is that Jewish concepts of history and memory precluded the writing of “chronicles”. Citizen’s comment was more nuanced, and more accurate.

        I’m not sure what that has to do with Zionist history (or popularised Zionist history, as Sand explains), or “the proto Israeli nation”.

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 13, 2012, 1:55 pm

        Noted but he actually did supply links to the Flavius/Jost works he was referring to as well, not that it would makes any difference to the plight the Palestinians find themselves in.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 13, 2012, 8:36 am

        The Great Powers ‘invented’ Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan. The Great Powers also invented Israel.

        So what’s your problem now?

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 13, 2012, 2:58 pm

        Proudzionist: First of all, Jordan, of all of the Levantine states (note Levantine), is the most invented by far. It was essentially a country created by the British to placate the Hashemites, to whom it had promised the entire Middle East and then reneged on its promise. There was never an entity known as “Jordan”, unlike Palestine – it was always a part of Greater Syria.

        Lebanon was only made into a state by the French, and Palestinians never identified as Lebanese. Historic (not modern) Lebanon is the area around Mount Lebanon, a completely separate geographic entity to Palestine mostly inhabited by Druze and Christians.

        The 2 most important & developed parts of Greater Syria were always Palestine & Syria. Most of people from Levant, or Greater Syria, identified as “Shami” (Syrian) first, & then by their specific region (Palestine, Lebanon, etc.) or their cities/villages. The correct statement would not be that Palestinians are an invented people. They are not, & this is an extremely misleading as sertion. They self-identified themselves as Palestinians for centuries, & name Palestine has existed for millenia.

        ALL native people to the region

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 13, 2012, 7:28 pm

        Blake wrote:
        “They self-identified themselves as Palestinians for centuries, & name Palestine has existed for millenia.”

        Cites please.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 9:58 pm

        During the golden era of the Arab Caliphate Jund Filastin was an official military district with its own capital. The seat of government was initially located in Lod, was moved to Ramla, and finally ended up in Jerusalem. Wikipedia has an article about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jund_Filastin

        The United States has posted Consuls to the country of Palestine ever since the early 19th century and treated it as a formal jurisdiction. For example, the US Government addressed the Ottoman Pasha as “his excellency Raouf Pasha Governor of Jerusalem and Palestine”. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Annual reports on Trade and Commerce of the country of Palestine were submitted to the US Bureau of Foreign Commerce from the Consuls in “Jerusalem, Palestine”. See for example the report for 1884.

        The 19th century Jews certainly knew where Palestine was located. The documentary record proves that they repeatedly asked the US Consuls in Palestine and Constantinople for help in immigrating to Palestine. For example, The Ottoman Sultan had issued a firman permitting Jewish settlement in Syria that prevented Oriental and European Jews from settling in Palestine. Palestine was marked on most of the maps of the era. The first Jewish Aliya was carried-out in violation of that prohibition on mass Jewish immigration. In 1882, the American Consul summed up an immigration request from a group of Romanian Jews living in the Ottoman Empire this way:

        In conclusion, there is nothing to prevent all the Israelites on the earth from settling in Asiatic Turkey. They shall not settle in Palestine-’that is the only prohibition.

        The actual text of Basle Program of the First Zionist Congress did NOT use the term Eretz Israel, it used the term Palistina. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/The_%27Basel_Program%27.jpg

        It’s amazing to most of us that you modern-day Zionists need finding aids and citations to locate Palestine. It’s fairly obvious that your ancestors knew about it, managed to find the place, and even corresponded with the government officials there without too much difficulty.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 14, 2012, 9:55 am

        So the ‘country of Palestine’ was a subdistrict of Syria for less than three hundred years and ceased to exist in any form until Bonaparte’s French Savants conquering the Levant in 1790 renamed the area ‘Palestine’?

        And during her 300 years the ‘country of Palestine’ was mainly populated by native Christians and Moslem invaders?

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 14, 2012, 11:41 pm

        I guess you’re right proudzionist, I guess Palestine really does belong to Lithuanians like you.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 16, 2012, 1:20 pm

        For the time being, indeed we do.

      • Antidote
        Antidote
        February 13, 2012, 5:56 pm

        “Israel wasn’t a nation when it was founded. There is no medieval poetry that describes the Israeli condition.”

        neither was the US, or, more recently, the Soviet Union. There’s no “shared memory that goes back more than 60 yrs in Danzig and the German territories annexed by Poland either. The Poles call the expulsion “resettlement”, and prefer to speak of the “recovered territories”. It’s the same BS as “Judea and Samaria”. Why should the Poles get away with it, and not the Israelis? Do I detect anti-Semitism here? It would be an easy charge to make anyway. It’s not like there are centuries that passed between the expulsion of Germans over several yrs, starting in 45, and the Nakba. But feel free to subscribe to the cult that the Germans deserved it, and the Poles acted in self-defense. Why fall for one kind of hasbara, and not the other?

  9. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 10, 2012, 5:58 pm

    This about China but it really reminded me of Israel

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jan/13/china-famine-oslo/?page=2

    “Even our own most personal emotional memories are soaked in an all-encompassing, all-pervading ideological culture…. Within a few decades, they took from us our ability to express suffering and sorrow. They took our ability to express love. What they gave us instead were fraudulent stand-ins…. Even today we do not have an authentic, untainted cultural vehicle with which to record our lives…. Other countries have it. Even the poorest and most backward countries have it.”

  10. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    February 10, 2012, 7:14 pm

    RE: “while pro-Israel students may be ignorant, at least they are successful at sticking together” ~ Deger article

    MY COMMENT: Ignorance breeds a herd mentality! Always has. Always will.

  11. The Hasbara Buster
    The Hasbara Buster
    February 10, 2012, 7:43 pm

    Dershowitz said the answer is that the Jews didn’t steal the land.

    This is why I suggested the other day that we should start compiling a list of Dershowitz’ lies.

    In his speech, Dershowitz said that the land had been bought from landowners who lived in Syria and Lebanon. But that was about 1,800 sq km out of a total area of around 22,000 sq km. The rest of the privately-owned land was, in an overwhelming proportion, confiscated through the Absentee Property Law of 1950.

    • Shaktimaan
      Shaktimaan
      February 12, 2012, 8:29 am

      This is true, but the majority of the land in question was not privately owned. You could say that Israel took that land sans compensation but to imply that all or even most of Israel was built on stolen land is a misdirection. Land was taken by Israelis from Palestinians, but land was taken by Palestinians from Jews as well. Consider the indigenous Jewish inhabitants of east jerusalem or Hebron for example. In the Arab world alone the amount of land lost by Jewish refugees far exceeds any land appropriated by Israel. Such is added reasoning for any solution to be a regional one, not one that merely involves the Israelis and Palestinians.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 12, 2012, 12:25 pm

        Re: “In the Arab world alone the amount of land lost by Jewish refugees far exceeds any land appropriated by Israel.”

        Was the ethnic cleansing of 17 million ethnic Germans (two million died, fifteen million were displaced, driven from their ancestral homes) due to their being in the wrong place at the wrong time– a just measure? It’s arguable how many Jewish refugees from “the Arab world” were volunteers, but there’s no argument at all for saying those ethnic Germans volunteered for their Exodus from Eastern Europe during and in the immediate aftermath of WW2.

        What other state besides Israel claims to represent and act always in behalf of the entire world population of all members of a single ethnic group, no matter how long said group has lived elsewhere, or ever will?

        Do all Arabs think and act like any single state represents and acts in behalf every one of them?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 5:06 pm

        Citizen,

        Nope, what happened to those Germans was not fair. What is the argument you draw from that?

        Since when does Israel claim to represent all Jews? I don’t recall ever hearing that.

        Do all Arabs think and act like any single state represents and acts in behalf every one of them?

        Nope. Are you saying we should have more than one Jewish state?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 12:33 am

        Since when does Israel claim to represent all Jews? I don’t recall ever hearing that.

        They do it every time they use the definite article and claim to be “The National Homeland of the Jewish People” and “The Jewish State.”

        Repeat after Supreme Court President Shimon Agranat:

        “the wish of a handful of Jews to break away from the nation and create a new concept of an Israeli nation was not a legitimate aspiration. . . . There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people. . . . The Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewries.”– HCJ 630/70 Tamarin v. State of Israel [1970] IsrSC 26(1) 197

        In the words of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Elon:

        The principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people is Israel’s foundation and mission [yessoda vi-yeuda], and the principle of the equality of rights and obligations of all citizens of the State of Israel is of the State’s essence and character [mahuta ve-ofya]. The latter principle comes only to add to the former, not to modify it; there is nothing in the principle of the equality of civil rights and obligations to modify the principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people.(Ben-Shalom v. CEC 1988, 272)

        That sort of mind numbing crapfest is what led to the showdown and entente between Israeli PM David Ben-Gurion and AJC President Jacob Blaustein.

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 12, 2012, 12:54 pm

        Shaakitmaan: No that is not true.

        85% of the land was in the possession of the Palestinians (Gentiles), just over 9% in public & other, just under 6% was in the hands of the Jews.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 5:00 pm

        Blake,

        Where did you get that figure? Just think about it for a minute… roughly half of Israel is taken up by the Negev. The Bedouin claim the entire Negev as their own but it is not like it was ever purchased or settled in any conventional way. But for your figures to be right almost the entire Negev would have to be owned by some Arabs. Who would buy the desert? And where did they go?

        Land accounting is pretty complex, but there’s no way that your numbers are anywhere near right. Check it out.

        http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Land_question_in_Palestine.htm

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 12, 2012, 5:56 pm

        Ok I was actually one step ahead of you I knew you would make that claim and I was prepared. You hasbara rats are ultra transparent. :-)

        Figures from Israeli historians like Benny Morris “Righteous Victims”:
        “In 1948,the Jewish population only owned approximately 5.6% of the land.”

        UN:
        UN document dated 3 September 1947: “164. The Arab population, despite the strenuous efforts of Jews to acquire land in Palestine, at present remains in possession of approximately 85 per cent of the land. The provisions of the land transfer regulations of 1940, which gave effect to the 1939 White Paper policy, have SEVERELY RESTRICTED the Jewish efforts to ACQUIRE new land.”
        http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument

        There are many other sources including archive material and district by district ownership but I will not bore you with that.

        With regards to the Negev:
        The British Mandate records affirm that 12,600,000 Dunums of Negev land belonged to the Bedouins. (Mandate records 1937. See Penny Maddrell, The Beduin of the Negev, Minority Rights Group, Report no.81 (1990) p.5)

        According to this U.N. document, paragraph 15: http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/e11790721615c5aa052565f600543580?OpenDocument the link shows that although only around 2 million dunums of the Negev was considered fit for cultivation, the other unfit for cultivation 10 million dunums was owned by arabs.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 8:31 pm

        I’m transparent for pointing out the obvious flaws in your reasoning? OK, then you’ll see this one coming as well.

        “Possession” and “ownership” are two entirely different things.

        And your document states that the Bedouins own 100% of the Negev. That sounds legit. Would you like to buy a bridge? In fact, these documents with random misspellings look so legitimate I’m sure that you’ll be able to find confirmation without any trouble. Good luck.

      • tree
        tree
        February 12, 2012, 11:04 pm

        Shaktimaan,

        I provided additional confirmation of the amount of land owned privately by Palestinian Arabs in another thread, where you repeated the same falsehood.

        To repeat;

        From the official British “Survey of Palestine”, written in 1945, Palestinian Arabs owned 24,670,455 dunams. of land, while Palestinian Jews held 1,514,247 dunams. Check out Table 2, here:

        http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/A-Survey-of-Palestine/Story7011.html

        And as I pointed out elsewhere, even the Jewish National Fund acknowledged that the majority of land was privately held by Palestinian Arabs.

        The Jewish National Fund made a study of Jewish villages in Israel in 1949 and stated:(9)

        Of the entire area of the State of Israel only about 300,000- 400,000 dunams – apart from the desolate rocky area of the southern Negev, at present quite unfit for cultivation – are State Domain which the Israel Government took over from the Mandatory regime. The J.N.F. and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunams. Almost all the rest belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country. The fate of these Arabs will be settled when the terms of the peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbours are finally drawn up. The J.N.F., however, cannot wait until then to obtain the land it requires for its pressing needs. It is, therefore, acquiring part of the land abandoned by the Arab owners, through the Government of Israel, the sovereign authority in Israel.

        http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter03.htm

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 1:33 am

        The Bedouin claim the entire Negev as their own but it is not like it was ever purchased or settled in any conventional way.

        Same ol’ hasbara bullsh*t different day. The Darb el Hajj or “Pilgrim’s Road”, from Africa through Egypt to Mecca, passed out of Sinai from the west at Umm Al-Rashrash (modern-day Eilat). The Bedouins comprised 98 percent of the permanent population of the Negev and they had converted a great deal of the waste land to private property by cultivating it for the required number of years in accordance with the Ottoman land code. They also enjoyed grazing rights under the mandate era boundary agreements. The War Cabinet plans for the settlement of the Ottoman Empire and Palestine recognized the rights of the Bedouin inhabitants and their farm lands as a possible source of revenue:

        This raises the question of the future frontier between Palestine and Egypt. On the one hand, it seems desirable that all cultivated or cultivable land on the southern borders of Palestine, in the neighbourhood of Gaza, Rafa, and Beersheba, should go to Palestine. But, on the other hand, it would be preferable, for the reasons suggested above, that the Palestinian State should not have jurisdiction over Bedouin tribes. The tribes south of the Rafa-Beersheba line and west of the Wady Arabah go naturally with those of the Sinai Peninsula, and the pre-war frontier between Turkey and Egypt, which separated them, was a quite arbitrary line.

        It might be desirable, therefore, to attach this triangle of formerly Turkish territory to Egypt. But the consent of the inhabitants would have first to be manifested in some clear form, in order to preclude any possibility of misinterpretation. For, since Egypt is a British Protectorate, the attachment of these tribes to Egypt might otherwise be represented as an annexation of free Arabs to the British Empire.

        See pdf page 16 of 24:
        Former Reference: GT 6506
        Title: The Settlement of Turkey and the Arablan Peninsula.
        Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
        Date 21 November 1918
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        FYI, in 1947 the British mandatory administration took great exception to the majority UNSCOP committee’s careless use of statistics regarding so-called “nomads”. The UNSCOP members had deliberately chosen to exclude the impact of the entire Bedouin population and their assets on the plan of partition. The Beduins were responsible for the cultivation of over two million dunams of land devoted to cereal grain production. At the time, the entire Jewish community only owned about 4.9 million dunams themselves and were demanding their own state. The government had the RAF conduct an aerial photographic survey that is still useful today in establishing the pre-state existence of Beduoin communities. On 1 November 1947 the British representative turned over the results to the UNSCOP committees. The resident Bedouin population data was revised upwards to 127,000. The RAF counted 3,389 houses and 8,722 tents. The British report explained that Bedouins had been settled on the land for generations and that they were known as Beersheba Bedouins, no matter where they lived, due to the land rights they held in that district. The report said that 105, 000 Bedouins should be added to the number of Arabs who normally resided in the area of the proposed Jewish state. When that was done, the UNSCOP committees reported that

        “It will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.”

        See paragraphs 62-64 on pdf file pages 40-42 of A/AC.14/32, 11 November 1947 @ link to un.org

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 13, 2012, 2:01 pm

        Where was it flawed? Transparent because I knew you would come with that typical hasbara point. Whatever your hair splitting argument is you have no legal, moral or ethical right to be in Palestine at the expense of the native Palestinians.

  12. Memphis
    Memphis
    February 11, 2012, 12:01 am

    Pro-Israel anyone is ignorant, willfully ignorant or just stupid

    • FreddyV
      FreddyV
      February 11, 2012, 5:49 am

      @Memphis:

      Your first definition: Ignorant people can be educated.

      Pro Israel is pseudo religious obscurantist, which encompasses your second and third definitions.

      I don’t know any informed pro Israel person who isn’t Jewish or Christian fundamentalist.

      If you ask anyone taking such a stance as to why they hold the position, they invariably start with ‘I believe….’.

      There’s the problem.

    • Shaktimaan
      Shaktimaan
      February 12, 2012, 8:40 am

      Memphis,

      You should ask yourself if it is possible to support any long-term peace without supporting the rights of both nations. Beyond that, broad condemnations such as you offer here themselves represent ignorance and bigotry. Do you really consider yourself so expert on this complex subject as to condemn every aspect of an entire country? Are the myriad of historians, intellectuals and politicians who have studied and/or lived through the relevant history and also support Israel really just “stupid” as compared to yourself?

      Honestly, how can you really just proclaim someone like Schlomo Ben Ami either ignorant or stupid with any degree of seriousness?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 9:29 am

        Honestly, how can you really just proclaim someone like Schlomo Ben Ami either ignorant or stupid with any degree of seriousness?

        He’s from Morocco and immigrated to Israel in 1955. Even Mitchell Bard, a notable hasbarist, admits at present Morocco has one of the most tolerant environments for Jews in the Arab world. Moroccan Jewish emigres, even those with Israeli citizenship, freely visit friends and relatives in Morocco. Moroccan Jews have held leading positions in the business community and government. The major Jewish organization representing the community is the Conseil des Communautes Israelites in Casablanca. Its functions include external relations, general communal affairs, communal heritage, finance, maintenance of holy places, youth activities, and cultural and religious life.

        So why does Schlomo Ben Ami need a homeland in Palestiine?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 10:22 am

        So why does Schlomo Ben Ami need a homeland in Palestiine?

        Well, it’s a bit besides the point of my post, but generally speaking, I would say that arguing against the need for Jewish self-determination by pointing out a recent, selective period of general tolerance of a Jewish community somewhere does not offer much to refute Zionism’s historic role in giving Jewish refugees a safe haven from persecution. Morocco is among the most enlightened Arab nations wrt its Jewish community but its history has its share of massacres and generalized oppression.

        But using this same argument, we may just as easily ask why Arafat needed a homeland in Palestine.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 12, 2012, 11:11 am

        Why do you insist that “Jewish self-determination” must come at the expense of Palestinian rights, security and property? If this were about self-determination, ethnic cleansing would have never been necessary. But the fact is, Israel is about Jewish supremacy — it’s about eradicating Palestine where it once existed to make way for a manufactured state for mostly European and Russian migrants.

        Would you argue that Jews lack self-determination in the United States? How about the UK?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 11:39 am

        So why does Schlomo Ben Ami need a homeland in Palestiine? . . . Well, it’s a bit besides the point of my post . . . But using this same argument, we may just as easily ask why Arafat needed a homeland in Palestine.

        Your posts are almost pointless, there weren’t 1.3 million Arab tourists visiting Palestine in 1948 when Israel declared its independence. They were lawful inhabitants living in their homeland.

        You brought-up Ben Ami, who was definitely an immigrant to Israel from Morocco. FYI, Arafat personally disputed the stories about his birth in Cairo. He claimed that he had been born in Jerusalem before the family’s move to Egypt. In any event, both of his parents were well-known Palestinians and that alone determined his nationality according to the Egyptian laws of 1929. He wasn’t naturalized when he returned to Palestine at age 7, because he was already a Palestinian. In 1926, the Mixed Courts of Egypt recognized Palestinian nationality and ruled that the former Ottoman territories placed under Mandate had the character of regular States, and that their inhabitants possessed the nationality of those States in accordance with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. See Case No. 34 Mandated States (Saikaly v. Saikaly) reported in John Fischer Williams and Hersh Lauterpacht (editors), “International Law Reports”, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, under the heading States as International Persons
        *link to books.google.com
        *http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/890161.stm

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 12, 2012, 12:45 pm

        Similarly, by pointing out selective periods and places where historically–going back as far as biblical times to the beginning of modern times, that the Jewish community was not only tolerated by the PTB at the time, but given special privileges not afforded the vast majority of the local populace in a myriad of places, offers much to refute the traditional Jewish version of their historic role as always the victim, and never the beneficiary of power politics. World history is not the same as Jewish History. Neither religion nor ideology makes for the most accurate rendition of world history.

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 12, 2012, 1:07 pm

        Hear! Hear! chaos

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 12, 2012, 1:09 pm

        If there is a right to form social contracts, and it is the basis of most western political philosophy that there is such a right, then there can be no right of self-determination for individuals or groups. The social contract involves all who live in a territory – that’s the whole idea. All contracts are nonsense if those involved – any individual, any collective – can tear them up for their own sole good.
        Self-determination by a group, ie withdrawal by them from a social contract, necessarily removes rights which the contract had given to others outside the group. If it’s an ethnic matter and there are strong feelings then self-determination must (I take a different view from Chaos here) produce ethnic cleansing.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 12, 2012, 1:19 pm

        Shaktimaan, the need for (collective, I guess) “Jewish self-determination” ends where the need for the other’s self-determination begins. Otherwise, what was the point of, say, the Nuremberg and Toyko trials? Otherwise, what was the point of dissing Jim Crow, or even the slave South? Or apartheid S Africa? Or the Battle of Algeria?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 1:30 pm

        Chaos,

        I never insisted that Jewish self determination come at the expense of Palestinian rights. The issue is not about that, it is about the specifics of a peace arrangement.

        It IS about self-determination, you can read the existing literature produced by Zionists during the time we are discussing. There is no question that it is not about Jewish supremacism and with that notion you are actually drifting into anti-Semitic ideology. Please note that I am not accusing you of anti-semitism but of grossly misunderstanding key elements of Zionism.

        Zionism did not seek the eradication of Palestine where it once stood. Palestine as a state has not yet ever existed, and the idea of a nationality of Palestinians is relatively new. This does not mean Palestinians are any less deserving of their own state. It is just acknowledging that one did not exist beforehand.

        All states are manufactured. In the middle east especially. Israel is in fact mostly populated by people of Arab or mixed Arab descent.

        Jews are a very small minority in the US. Note that during WWII the US closed its borders to Jewish refugees along with all other states. My ex-girlfriend’s grandfather was among those who piloted ships full of refugees from europe to Palestine against British law. There were very few other options. Since then the US has been very good for the Jews, but they do not have self-determination there. Nor do they in the UK, which has a minuscule Jewish population anyway.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 1:35 pm

        If my posts are pointless then perhaps you can try answering the questions. I did not ask for validation of Arafat’s right to declare himself a Palestinian. I asked why Arafat needed a homeland in Palestine. The same question you asked about Ben Ami.

      • annie
        annie
        February 12, 2012, 1:55 pm

        Palestine as a state has not yet ever existed, and the idea of a nationality of Palestinians is relatively new.

        but you acknowledge an overwhelming indigenous palestinian population do you not. irrespective of identifying them a ‘nationality’ (which is a historically recent construct anyway).

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 2:00 pm

        In response to your comment about ethnic cleansing, there are certainly other reasons, (far better ones), for the ethnic cleansing that occurred than merely chalking it up to racism. Primarily there was the issue of violence. As it culminated in the Great Arab Uprising of 36-39, and subsequent terrorism by both sides, it was the conclusion of every panel that studied the situation that the Jews and Arabs be split into two independent states. Secondly was the issue of self-determination. If Israel hoped to fulfill its mission of being a state that could offer safe-haven to all Jews it needed to ensure that it maintained a majority Jewish population.

        Note that both of these are practical matters. I have no doubt that you’ll easily find fault with them, they are far from ideal. But the situation was one requiring choosing out of many imperfect options. I would suggest that along with any critique you offer reasonable alternatives, bearing in mind the global situation at the time.

      • annie
        annie
        February 12, 2012, 2:00 pm

        I asked why Arafat needed a homeland in Palestine.

        no, this is a pointless question. you might as well ask me why i need the dirt under my feet.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 2:03 pm

        You mean do I acknowledge that Palestine was inhabited by existing people? Of course. There was a pretty generous mix of different ethnicities, with the vast majority being Arab and one of the smallest being Jewish.

      • annie
        annie
        February 12, 2012, 2:03 pm

        who are you addressing skat? do you acknowledge an overwhelming indigenous palestinian population or do you not?

        obviously the zionist plan was not merely to divide the land, otherwise they wouldn’t have immediately ethnically cleansed huge portions of the future arab state from the get go.

        In response to your comment about ethnic cleansing, there are certainly other reasons..for the ethnic cleansing that occurred than merely chalking it up to racism…If Israel hoped to fulfill its mission of being a state that could offer safe-haven to all Jews it needed to ensure that it maintained a majority Jewish population.

        and what about “offer safe-haven to all Jews” at the expense of the people who already lived there is not about racism? if you’re determining who lives there by ethnicity and expelling those who are not the desired ethnicity i’m not sure how anyone can divorce racism from this equation.

        wrt this violence are you implying had there been none zionists wouldn’t have expelled the palestinians?

        maybe you are forgetting the decisions and agenda of the zionists congress that proceeded the outbreaks in violence.

      • Blake
        Blake
        February 12, 2012, 2:08 pm

        Annie: It’s called splitting hairs. These shysters will split hairs until hell freezes over. Its tres annoying.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 2:11 pm

        Is it? Why is it different than asking why an Egyptian Jew needed to have a homeland in Israel? Actually, there is a very legitimate reason for that… Jews in Egypt faced death by pogroms. But there were many ethnicities in Palestine. Do the Arab get the right to rule because they are the majority? Thus allowing Arafat the right to immigrate but outlawing his Egyptian Jewish neighbor from doing so?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 2:24 pm

        do you acknowledge an overwhelming indigenous palestinian population or do you not?

        I thought I already did. Of course there was an overwhelming existing Arab population.

        f you’re determining who lives there by ethnicity and expelling those who are not the desired ethnicity i’m not sure how anyone can divorce racism from this equation.

        Simple. The war was split down ethnic lines. That is how it was decided, not actually by race. Look at the Druze for example. After switching sides they were not forced out of anywhere.

        obviously the zionist plan was not merely to divide the land, otherwise they wouldn’t have immediately ethnically cleansed huge portions of the future arab state from the get go.

        What are you talking about? There was no immediate ethnic cleansing of Palestine.There were four waves that the nakba occurred in. The vast majority left because they just wanted to escape the fighting and feared what would happen. The ethnic cleansing of these Palestinians occurred by the Israelis refusal to allow them to return.

        wrt this violence are you implying had there been none zionists wouldn’t have expelled the palestinians?

        That’s an interesting question, but is ultimately academic. I have no idea what would have happened, the conflict between Jew and Arab sort of drove the events we are discussing. Postulating what the Yishuv would have done without any violence isn’t really possible. It is not like a single overarching plan existed from the get go.

        maybe you are forgetting the decisions and agenda of the zionists congress that proceeded the outbreaks in violence.

        OK, maybe I am. Remind me. The initial violence was in 1920, 1921 and 1929 directed against the native Jews of Palestine. The Uprising was in 1936-9. And the civil war was in 47, beginning in November after the UN voted in the Partition and it was accepted by the Yishuv and rejected by the Arabs. What were the Zionist congress decisions that preceded them?

      • annie
        annie
        February 12, 2012, 2:24 pm

        Jews in Egypt faced death by pogroms

        is that why the lavon affair was carried out?

        Thus allowing Arafat the right to immigrate

        don’t you mean emigrate. what does that mean ‘allowing the right to leave’?

        But there were many ethnicities in Palestine. Do the Arab get the right to rule because they are the majority?

        palestine was 94% arab palestinian in the 1800 pre zionism . so yeah, i would say that’s a majority all right. is that your idea of a ‘generous mix of ethnicities’ or are you going to evade acknowledging an overwhelming indigenous palestinian population?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 2:32 pm

        The “traditional Jewish version of their historic role as always the victim?” Are you seriously, actually, REALLY going to make a statement THAT profoundly bigoted and stand by it? What the hell makes you think that there exists some kind of special “Jewish” history that seeks to paint the Jews as perpetual victims anyway?

        Here’s a secret. It’s the same history. There is no “special” fake propaganda protocols of zion history that we are trying to indoctrinate anyone with. Yes, the Jewish community cycled through various times of privilige and ostracism. I fail to see how it is somehow a great benefit knowing that my people were not ALWAYS the subject of violence and hatred.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 2:39 pm

        Palestine as a state has not yet ever existed, and the idea of a nationality of Palestinians is relatively new.

        We’ve been over this many times before. The citizens of the State of Palestine were required to begin paying-off their share of the Ottoman public debt to the foreign bondholders in March of 1920 under the terms of the treaty of Lausanne. That treaty required the signatories to recognize Palestinian nationality of Jews and Arabs alike. The Executive branch of the US government formally recognized the State of Palestine in its treaties of commerce in 1932. Israel was created by its own act of secession, not by the UN partition. The overwhelming majority of UN member states have recognized the occupied state of Palestine within the 67 borders.

        *http://mondoweiss.net/2011/06/are-palestinians-standing-up-for-an-inclusive-national-identity.html#comment-325396
        *http://mondoweiss.net/2011/06/portlands-new-seasons-markets-are-socially-conscious-to-a-point.html#comment-329934

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 2:54 pm

        If my posts are pointless then perhaps you can try answering the questions.

        I did. Under the terms of the Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council (1925) Arafat was a citizen of Palestine by operation of law, not by his own declaration. The Egyptian case that I cited established that Palestinians were citizens of a separate foreign state, Palestine. They did not have an automatic right to take up permanent residence in Egypt. Ben Ami had to be naturalized in order to live in either Israel or Palestine, because he was Moroccan.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 12, 2012, 3:16 pm

        Shaktimaan,
        Re: “I never insisted that Jewish self determination come at the expense of Palestinian rights. The issue is not about that, it is about the specifics of a peace arrangement.”

        The “specifics of a peace arrangement” have everything to do with ironing out the conflicting notions the adversaries at the peace table have regarding what they each will accept as fulfilling their respective right to self-determination.

        RE: “Zionism did not seek the eradication of Palestine where it once stood. Palestine as a state has not yet ever existed, and the idea of a nationality of Palestinians is relatively new. This does not mean Palestinians are any less deserving of their own state. It is just acknowledging that one did not exist beforehand.”

        Zionism form its inception sought a “homeland” and/or “state” anywhere it could get it, at one time Africa, finally Palestine. It never thought about, nor tried to get that homeland or state in, say Antartica, which to this day is virtually not populated and is not claimed by any existing state or people. The early Zionists wanted a homeland/state someplace where they could count on non-Jewish support, that is British support— because at the time Britain was a major colonial superpower and not essentially an isolation’s state, as America was, arguably, and for sure, comparatively, at the time. America was enlisted to the Zionist cause too–most significantly, by arch Zionist Brandaise (sic, the member of SCOTUS) thru his relationship with Wilson. A major support there were the folks who had invested in the Brits so much in WW1 and wanted a return on their investment–at the time Germany was winning the war, which was fought elsewhere than in Germany itself.

        The Palestinians did not seek the eradication of the Jews where they stood at the time. Israel as a state has not yet ever existed, and the idea of a nationality of Israeli was unknown, or brand new. This did not mean Jews were any less deserving of their own state than any other ethnic group at the time, or indeed, now . It is just acknowledging that one did not exist beforehand.

        RE: “All states are manufactured. In the middle east especially. Israel is in fact mostly populated by people of Arab or mixed Arab descent.”

        True. However, the Nuremberg and Toyko Trials, the end result of WW1 and its leading to WW2, now provide a curb by the principles laid down at those trials, and by the international law following in their wake, on how any people could, or can, with World consent, manufacture a state, or enlarge one already existing. In short, nobody can point to the American war on the natives way back when to excuse or justify colonialism after 1945.

        RE: “… the US has been very good for the Jews, but they do not have self-determination there. Nor do they in the UK…”

        Please explain, Shaktimaan, how the Jews are deprived of self-determination in the USA and UK. Also, what ethnic group in USA does have the proper amount of self-determination you are using as your model/ideal? We are all looking forward to your clarification. Thanks!

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 3:22 pm

        it was the conclusion of every panel that studied the situation that the Jews and Arabs be split into two independent states.

        Of course that was NOT the conclusion of the Anglo-American Inquiry of 1946 or the recommendation of the two signatories of the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate Convention (1925) in their joint Grady-Morrison plan of 1946. It offered practical alternative.
        *http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/angtoc.asp

        If Israel hoped to fulfill its mission of being a state that could offer safe-haven to all Jews it needed to ensure that it maintained a majority Jewish population.

        Nonsense, the UNSCOP majority report rejected the notion that Palestine could be used to answer the problems of World Jewry and offered a practical alternative. The British mandatory administration also submitted revised population estimates concerning the Beersheba district Beduoin to the General assembly which revealed that there would be an Arab majority in the proposed Jewish state from the very outset. FYI, that was when it was only proposed that Israel be allocated 56% of the land. The Jewish Agency conquered an additional 22 percent making a Jewish majority with the existing inhabitants an impossibility.

        The UNSCOP report stated

        VII. Jewish immigration into Palestine . . .
        4. While the problem of Jewish immigration is thus closely related to the solution of the Palestine question, it cannot be contemplated that Palestine is to be considered in any sense as a means of solving the problem of world Jewry. In direct and effective opposition to any such suggestion are the twin factors of limited area and resources and vigorous and persistent opposition of the Arab people, who constitute the majority population of the country.

        *http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/07175DE9FA2DE563852568D3006E10F3

        The Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly reported that

        “It will thus be seen that the proposed Jewish State will contain a total population of 1,008,800, consisting of 509,780 Arabs and 499,020 Jews. In other words, at the outset, the Arabs will have a majority in the proposed Jewish State.

        *See paragraphs 62-64 on pdf file pages 40-42 of A/AC.14/32, 11 November 1947 @ link to un.org

      • john h
        john h
        February 12, 2012, 3:28 pm

        What a mindset you show. Shaktimaan, you couch what you say in “nice” language but what it contains is the view of every Zionist.

        Blake is right, it is splitting hairs, but you do it in a seemingly logical, reasonable, and moral way, at least in your eyes.

        It is the same as what was written by Jabotinsky in 1923. As you read it, see if you can genuinely put yourself in the shoes of every Palestinian and opponent of Zionism.

        This is just some of what he said:

        Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population.

        My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.

        There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future.

        Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators.

        To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion.

        There is no justification for such a belief. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.

        Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab.

        Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed.

        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.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 12, 2012, 3:40 pm

        Is it? Why is it different than asking why an Egyptian Jew needed to have a homeland in Israel?

        According to many of them, they didn’t need a homeland in Palestine. http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft2290045n;brand=eschol

        Conversely there’s no evidence that Egyptian Kibbutzniks were in less danger in Palestine during the various revolts and uprisings. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that Oriental Jews were disproportionately represented in the terrorist wings of the Jews underground. http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/new-additions-to-the-mondoweiss-comments-policy.html/comment-page-1#comment-420497

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 4:07 pm

        Please explain, Shaktimaan, how the Jews are deprived of self-determination in the USA and UK. Also, what ethnic group in USA does have the proper amount of self-determination you are using as your model/ideal?

        Self-determination is the right of a nation to sovereignty. Jews are a tiny minority in the US and UK. They are free citizens, but are ultimately held to the decisions made by a greater majority. No single ethnic group has self-determination in the US, the nation as a whole possesses it. That is different than every ethnicity having self-determination.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 4:33 pm

        Why are you just quoting one of the most extreme Zionists of his time period? Jabotinsky was not the voice of a majority movement. Why choose him?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 4:44 pm

        The nationality was strictly provisional as per the Versailles Treaty and fell under the purvue of the British mandate. It was never a real nation. England had the right under type A mandate rules to pretty much rule as it saw fit until it determined otherwise.

      • patm
        patm
        February 12, 2012, 5:13 pm

        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.

        Jabotinsky was quite a piece of work, john h. I expect such ruthless honesty is more than a little embarrassing to today’s Zionist apologists. Let’s see what Shakti makes of it.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 12, 2012, 5:45 pm

        ” Israel is in fact mostly populated by people of Arab or mixed Arab descent. ”

        That is the great weakness of Israel. They didn’t have enough first world Jews who wanted to live in their Altneuland. So they took whatever they could . Quality diluted and the implications are playing out now before us. 1977 was the turning point. The year the Sephardim took over. And look what they have done to Jewish democracy and the rule of law.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 5:46 pm

        is that why the lavon affair was carried out?

        What did the Lavon affair have to do with the poor treatment of Egyptian Jews? Are you refuting the anti-Jewish bombings, arrests, murders, confiscations and expulsions that occurred?

        By mix of ethnicities I meant Druze, Samaritan, Jewish, Arab, Bedouin, Armenians, Christians, etc. But what does the demographics from 150 years before Israel’s establishment have to do with anything? It shows that the demographics changed. Was there something about 1800 that made the percentages of Arabs to Jews “official” or “correct” as opposed to any other time?

      • patm
        patm
        February 12, 2012, 7:15 pm

        Why choose [Jabotinsky]?

        Too honest for you, troll? Embarrassing isn’t he?

        btw, do you happen to work for that paragon of unbiased journalism, “Honest Reporting Canada? http://www.honestreporting.ca/

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 7:36 pm

        That is the great weakness of Israel. They didn’t have enough first world Jews who wanted to live in their Altneuland. So they took whatever they could . Quality diluted and the implications are playing out now before us. 1977 was the turning point. The year the Sephardim took over. And look what they have done to Jewish democracy and the rule of law.

        This comment is so racist words fail me.

      • kapok
        kapok
        February 12, 2012, 8:39 pm

        But what does the demographics from 150 years before Israel’s establishment have to do with anything?

        So much for “From time immemorial.”

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 8:48 pm

        patm,

        Too honest for you, troll? Embarrassing isn’t he?

        Not really. He just represents an extreme viewpoint. His views are hardly a secret if you know even the most basic history of the region.

        But can you answer my question? You se, if you wanted to quote something representational of a significant demographic then you would want to choose someone other than the most extreme figure. All you are really doing is showing us what the extreme right believes. It doesn’t really do much to support your argument.

        Would you like me to show you what the most extreme Palestinians believe? I guarantee you it is far worse than anything Jabotinsky ever even dreamed of saying. Mahmoud Abbas himself called the Holocaust a lie. And he’s a moderate.

      • piotr
        piotr
        February 12, 2012, 10:29 pm

        I agree HERE with Shakhtiman. Moreover, “Sephardim” espousing ideology of Ashkenazi Zhabotinsky took over, but somehow all leaders were from Poland and Lithuania (PM Netanyahu is from Milejkowski family which is a Polish rendering of a Lithuanian last name).

        There was a change of political orientation, but very few top politicians seem to be Mizrahi. One could also ponder what is the difference in “quality” between Slonim and Baghdad. Or Brooklyn and Casablanca.

      • tree
        tree
        February 12, 2012, 10:44 pm

        You se, if you wanted to quote something representational of a significant demographic then you would want to choose someone other than the most extreme figure.

        Jabotinsky was not “the most extreme” figure. His Revisionist Zionism was the precursor to the Likud party. You know, the party that Netanyahu heads, that controls the ruling coalition in Israel at the moment. Are you really that ill-informed or are you being disingenuous? You’ve already spread lies on other threads here.

        Revisionist Zionism is a nationalist faction within the Zionist movement. It is the founding ideology of the non-religious right in Israel, and was the chief ideological competitor to the dominant socialist Labor Zionism. Revisionism is the precursor of the Likud Party.[1]

        The ideology was developed originally by Ze’ev Jabotinsky who advocated a “revision” of the “practical Zionism” of David Ben Gurion and Chaim Weizmann, which was focused on independent settlement of Eretz Yisrael.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_Zionism

      • john h
        john h
        February 12, 2012, 11:05 pm

        Because what he said is what actually happened, and is still happening.

        He is honest and that is the embarrassment. You and others like you want to be seen as “liberal Zionists”, as if that makes a difference. It doesn’t, any more than someone being a liberal apartheid South African or a liberal communist or anti-Semite.

      • American
        American
        February 12, 2012, 11:23 pm

        “Self-determination is the right of a nation to sovereignty. Jews are a tiny minority in the US and UK. They are free citizens, but are ultimately held to the decisions made by a greater majority.”

        Well Shakti, should every ethnic have a nation for self determination like the Jews or zionist do?
        How would it work if the US sent all Jews to Israel, all Blacks back to Africa, all Asians back to Asia and so on, and just kept white Europeans so white Europeans had their own self determination not affected by laws for minorities and such.
        Surely if you think it is necessary for Jews to have nation in order to be able to practice self determination then you think others have that right and need also.
        Exactly what have Jews in Israel self determined?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 11:38 pm

        Tree,

        Why would I lie? I’ve certainly not made any untrue statements. Now, I don’t know about you, but I consider Jabotinsky to be on the extreme right among the nation’s founding Zionist leaders. His basic beliefs stand to the right of most of Israel’s operational principles. He fiercely opposed Socialism for one key example.

        Likud is currently in power, how does that mean Jabotinsky was not an extremist? Do you consider him a moderate? I certainly don’t. The Likud no longer occupies the rightmost position, which probably goes to Shas or something similar. And his initial drafts for the government relied on equality between Arab and Jewish citizens. But for 40+ years Israel was solidly voting Labor. He’s not in any way representative of the mainstream Zionist leadership of his time.

      • john h
        john h
        February 12, 2012, 11:49 pm

        So Jabotinsky is the most extreme figure?

        Tell us, then, what is false in what I quoted, what don’t you agree with? And I’m not talking about the words chosen, but their clear intended meaning.

      • annie
        annie
        February 13, 2012, 12:31 am

        Was there something about 1800 that made the percentages of Arabs to Jews “official” or “correct” as opposed to any other time?

        wrt pre zionism? no, it was the same (94%) or more for centuries before zionsim (1890’s aprox).

        By mix of ethnicities I meant Druze, Samaritan, Jewish, Arab, Bedouin, Armenians, Christians, etc.

        i ask you if you acknowledge an overwhelming indigenous palestinian population

        you said this: But there were many ethnicities in Palestine. Do the Arab get the right to rule because they are the majority?

        palestinians do not regard such distinctions as ‘other than’ palestinian, arab or indigenous wrt ethnicity. for example from wikis demographics of the palestinian territories:

        Ethnic groups
        Palestinians 99.9

        Religions
        Muslim 98.7% (predominantly Sunni), Christian 0.7%

        so, in the context of our conversation, my question and your answer wrt ‘the majority’ the 94% figure still stands. just like in the US we do not divide ourselves demographically (for the most part) into religions wrt rights, representation or nationality because we’re not an ethnic nationalist state wrt who is part of the american nation. this is a fundamental difference in terms of our values and demonstrates how fundamentally we do not share the same values as israel, a place that only recognizes jews as nationals. whereas even in pre zionist palestine arab jews were considered palestinian and shared the same ethnicity regardless of religion.

        jews migrated to a land with an overwhelming (94%) native population who had been there for thousands of years, and ethnically cleansed them. so, to answer your question i would reiterate that YES, ‘arabs’ had the right to rule simply because they were the majority, the overwhelming majority as a matter of fact.

      • annie
        annie
        February 13, 2012, 2:02 am

        How would it work if the US sent all Jews to Israel, all Blacks back to Africa, all Asians back to Asia and so on, and just kept white Europeans so white Europeans had their own self determination not affected by laws for minorities and such.

        this reminds me of the poor ol gop moaning and groaning as the US becomes more colorful every year. the power of the white man is shrinking. minorities together are beoming the majority and there’s nothing they can do about it. heh!

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 2:03 am

        The nationality was strictly provisional as per the Versailles Treaty and fell under the purvue of the British mandate. It was never a real nation.

        The new states were only “provisionally” recognized from January 1920 until March of 1920 when the treaty provisions regarding recognition of the new frontiers and payments of shares in the Ottoman public debt to foreign bondholders on that basis came into force. Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany was required to recognize the dispositions made concerning the territories of the former Ottoman Empire, “and to recognize the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.” The other Central powers and the treaty articles that required them to recognize the new states were:
        *Bulgaria Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly;
        *Hungary Article 74 (2) of The Treaty of Trianon
        *Austria Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye

        People were stripped of their US citizenship for becoming naturalized citizens of the very real state of Palestine. Let’s all read the decision of the US District Court for the District of Colombia in the 1953 case of Kletter v Dulles:

        The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.

        When the Congress speaks of a ‘foreign State,’ it means a country which is not the United States, or its possession or colony- an alien country- other than our own, bearing in mind that the average American, when he speaks of a ‘foreigner,’ means an alien, non- American. Uyeno v. Acheson, D.C., 96 F.Supp. 510.

        Furthermore, it is not for the judiciary, but for the political branches of the Government to determine that Palestine at that time was a foreign state. This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932 with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce.

        The decision notes that the petitioner had also been arrested and deported from Great Britain after he unsuccessfully claimed to be a British subject (R v. Ketter). http://dc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%2FFDCT%2FDDC%2F1953%2F19530417_0000023.DDC.htm/qx

        The Treaty of Lausanne required that disputes about the legal status of the new states be submitted to a Court of Arbitration and that its judgment was to be final. In 1925 a Court of Arbitration setup by the Council of League of Nations ruled that the joint Palestine mandate contained two distinct states, Palestine and Transjordan. See Volume I of the Reports of International Arbitral Awards (United Nations, 1948), “Affaire de la Dette publique ottomane. Bulgarie, Irak, Palestine, Transjordanie, Grèce, Italie et Turquie. Genève, 18 avril 1925″, pages 529-614

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 13, 2012, 2:10 am

        THE most extreme, no. But certainly to the far right of most of his compatriots. What do you mean by “what is false?” It is an opinion, there is no true or false. Jabotinsky believed in the forced colonization of both banks of the Jordan, if you are asking if I support that, I do not. Otherwise I’m not sure what you mean.

      • annie
        annie
        February 13, 2012, 2:16 am

        I consider Jabotinsky to be on the extreme right among the nation’s founding Zionist leaders. His basic beliefs stand to the right of most of Israel’s operational principles…..Likud is currently in power, how does that mean Jabotinsky was not an extremist? Do you consider him a moderate?

        i hate to break it to you shak but i got some bad bad news.

        http://www.thefreedictionary.com/extreme
        ex·treme
        1. Most remote in any direction; outermost or farthest: the extreme edge of the field.
        2. Being in or attaining the greatest or highest degree; very intense: extreme pleasure; extreme pain.
        3. Extending far beyond the norm

        Jabotinsky is not far beyond the norm in current day israel politics. this is the new ‘normal’ in israel. perhaps you have not been following the trajectory of legislation in israel, or the politics. it’s moving to the right. by definition one is not extreme if one represents a majority or even a medium range of opinion. by global standards he may be extreme, but by israeli standards he isn’t. last i heard israel wasn’t very socialist anymore. you sound like you’re from another decade.

        apartheid may be extreme by international standards but it’s so normal in israel people deny it exists. it blends, if you know what i mean.(you probably don’t because you’re too indoctrinated)

      • annie
        annie
        February 13, 2012, 2:20 am

        But certainly to the far right of most of his compatriots.

        they are all dead. let’s talk current day. he’s not to the far right of the eretz israel crowd in the settlements. and that crowd has lots of clout in the knesset right now.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 13, 2012, 2:26 am

        You are equating communism with anti-semitism? That doesn’t make much sense. Zionism is merely Israeli nationalism. To say that supporting Israel’s existence is the equivalent of racism or apartheid is just reactionary rhetoric.

        I don’t know why you refer to Jabotinsky specifically as honest as though the rest of the Zionist movement was somehow less so. Was Chaim Weismann or Ben Gurion somehow less honest than Jabotinsky? Their ideas were certainly embraced to a larger degree than his.

        And you’re wrong, obviously it matters a great deal what kind of ideology one supports within the large spectrum that Zionism encompasses. For example, do you think that the continued building of settlements are of zero importance? Do you think that pursuing peace options is in any way important? You might as well be saying that if you are American it doesn’t matter if you’re in the KKK or the Sierra Club.

        Your ideology is exactly the kind of rhetoric that the Israeli right sermonizes about… that the world doesn’t care if you’re a right wing or left wing Israeli. They think all Israelis are the same, thus attempting to negotiate is a fool’s errand. Why make concessions if you get no credit for them and it makes you weaker?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 13, 2012, 2:28 am

        Unfortunately the small religious parties always have a lot of influence since their support is necessary to gain enough seats to govern. That said there has been a recent rightward shift in Israeli politics in general along with a disillusionment with the leftist peace movements over the past few years.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 2:33 am

        Why are you just quoting one of the most extreme Zionists of his time period? Jabotinsky was not the voice of a majority movement. Why choose him?

        ROTFLMAO! Here is some relevant info for you from the Isaac Landman (editor), The Universal Jewish encyclopedia, 1942, page 3:

        Jabotinsky, now universally acclaimed as a Jewish hero, was elected a member of the Zionist Executive (1921) and given charge of the departments of propaganda and Palestine Foundation Fund (Keren Hayesod).

        Jabotinsky first used the phrase “The Iron Wall” during a meeting of the Zionist Executive Council in 1921 and it was the central motif of the organization’s propaganda during his term of office. See Jacob Shavit, Jabotinsky and the revisionist movement, 1925-1948, Psychology Press, 1988, page 253: http://books.google.com/books?id=ki3EQsjClWcC&lpg=PA253&ots=c3w8_Cvknv&pg=PA253#v=onepage&q&f=false

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 2:47 am

        Self-determination is the right of a nation to sovereignty.

        It is actually the right of legally recognized communities, acting together as a people, to determine their own political status in accordance with Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

        According to the UN General Assembly, Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970:

        The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

        But there is a major caveat:

        Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.

        http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3dda1f104.html

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 13, 2012, 3:02 am

        Hostage,

        Great. But do you think Israel in any way violated that caveat? I don’t see how. It basically says that the self determination of any one group is not authorized to break up any existing state where everyone is treated equally.

        It is actually the right of legally recognized communities, acting together as a people, to determine their own political status in accordance with Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

        Is that significantly different from what I said?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 3:42 am

        Great. But do you think Israel in any way violated that caveat? I don’t see how.

        Yes. The State of Israel continues to violate its obligations under the terms of the minority protection plan contained in UN General Assembly resolution 181(II) and it remains bound by the terms of its acceptance of that treaty obligation. See the discussion and references provided here:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/beinart-and-the-crisis-of-liberal-zionism.html/comment-page-1#comment-414181

      • tree
        tree
        February 13, 2012, 3:55 am

        I’ve certainly not made any untrue statements.

        You’ve made multiple untrue statements which you continue to recite despite having been shone sources that prove you wrong. You are either willfully ignorant or telling lies to suit your arguments.

        Now, I don’t know about you, but I consider Jabotinsky to be on the extreme right among the nation’s founding Zionist leaders. His basic beliefs stand to the right of most of Israel’s operational principles. He fiercely opposed Socialism for one key example.

        So you are admitting that Jabotinsky was one of the nation’s founding Zionist leaders. While on the right of the political spectrum, he was not all that different in ideology than the Ben-Gurion. Shlaim makes a sound argument that while Jabotinsky enunciated the Iron Wall doctrine, Ben-Gurion in essence carried it out. And Mapai didn’t really operate as a Socialist party, although they claimed to be one. Likud is considered quite mainstream now, not at all on the fringes in Israeli society or government. Shas has no connection to Jabotinsky, and is a religious right party. Likud is a non-religious right party, and does have a direct connection to Jabotinsky.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 13, 2012, 5:00 am

        To say that supporting Israel’s existence is the equivalent of racism or apartheid is just reactionary rhetoric.

        No it just happens to be a fact. Israel is a racist apartheid state, thus supporting Israel is suporting racism and apartheid.

        Was Chaim Weismann or Ben Gurion somehow less honest than Jabotinsky? Their ideas were certainly embraced to a larger degree than his.

        As has been explained to you, Weismann and Ben Gurion embraced Jabotinsky’s ideas in the end anyway.

        Your ideology is exactly the kind of rhetoric that the Israeli right sermonizes about… that the world doesn’t care if you’re a right wing or left wing Israeli.

        That’s becasue by and large, Liberal Zionists (which I assume you call yourself) and not liberal at all. You’r progrsseive except for Palestine. Similarly, left wing Israelis largely reserve their leftist ideololgy for their own tribe.

        Why make concessions if you get no credit for them and it makes you weaker?

        all the concessions Israel has claimed to make have either:

        a) not been concessions or
        b) been ultimately violate by Israel anyway

        Needless to say, returnign stolen property is not a ceponcession.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 5:02 am

        He’s not in any way representative of the mainstream Zionist leadership of his time.

        Don’t be silly, he was elected to the Executive Council of the Zionist Organization. So of course he was representative of the leadership. The fact is that Prime Minister Menachem Begin cited the policies of Ben Gurion’s governments to support his own policies and the invasion of Lebanon. He claimed that the only difference was that Ben Gurion had resorted to subtrfuge. See Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel Myths and Realities, pages 5-6.

        In his latter years Ben Gurion abandoned the effort to disguise his policies and started publishing selections from his own diaries and mandate era correspondence. That, and the publication of Shertok’s diaries, supported Begin’s claims .

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 5:26 am

        Jabotinsky believed in the forced colonization of both banks of the Jordan, if you are asking if I support that, I do not. Otherwise I’m not sure what you mean.

        So did Ben Gurion, he simply tried to conceal his long term ambition to redeem 100% of the territory of the Palestine Mandate and settle Jews on both sides of the Jordan. Here is how one Zionist historian summed it up:

        As a historian of Zionism, Gideon, you must know Ben-Gurion’s words in the 20th Zionist Congress in 1937 (this time in Zurich not in Basel): ‘If I had been faced with the question: a Jewish state in the west of the land of Israel (note the emphasis of the ‘west of the land of Israel’ meaning there is also a ‘east of the land of Israel’) in return to giving up on our historical right to the entire land of Israel I would have postponed the (establishment) of the state’. And he added (as far as I know, to applause from many of the delegates): ‘No Jew is entitled to give up the right of the Jewish nation to the land. It is not in the authority of any Jew or of any Jewish body; it is not even in the authority of the entire nation alive today to give up any part of the land’. This sentence has won great attention also in the St. James committee. He concluded by stating the view of the majority (then) in the Zionist movement: ‘this is a standing right under all conditions. Even if, at any point, the Jews choose to decline it, they have no right to deprive future generations of it. Our right to the entire land exists and stands for ever’. In view of the things that are being said today, it is hard to avoid the gloomy realisation that, sixty years after Ben-Gurion announced Israeli independence, the current Israeli president, Prime Minister and not a small coalition of Knesset Members seem willing to relinquish this historic claim. If nothing else, they have no right to do so because this land belongs to those who have left us, and those who are yet to come. Without them, it is impossible to make a decision.

        http://www.jewishquarterly.org/issuearchive/article0831.html?articleid=332

        In 1946 the Jewish Agency under Ben Gurion’s leadership, claimed that the mandate was indivisible and that the Jewish people still had a secured legal interest in the territory of Transjordan and that the provisions of the mandate with regard to the Jewish national home had only been “temporarily waived”. The Agency claimed that the plans for Transjordan’s independence violated Article 80 of the UN Charter. See the Palestine Post, April 9th, 1946, page 3 http://www.jpress.org.il/Default/Skins/TAUEn/Client.asp?Skin=TAUEn&Enter=True&Ref=UExTLzE5NDYvMDQvMDkjQXIwMDMwMA%3D%3D&Mode=Gif&Locale=english-skin-custom&AW=1329128636375&AppName=2

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 13, 2012, 11:08 am

        Shaktimaan, you are confusing or intentionally conflating ethnicity with modern statehood via your usage of the noun “nation.” To my knowledge, there is no single ethnic group that has been authorized by international law, especially since 1945, to have its own nation-state that can not be held to account for its actions by the international community through all its organs, simply because that ethnic group exists and has a state recognized by the international community via all its organs. In other words, no modern or post-modern state is “sovereign” or purely self-governing, in the eyes of contemporary world civilization. Otherwise, the human rights principles and civilized principles of the governance of states established at Nuremberg and Tokyo, and clarified further by Geneva, mean nothing–mean that Goering was correct in maintaining that “might makes right,” and the rest is BS, even in democratic states.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        February 13, 2012, 1:31 pm

        I’m not sure that the sovereignty of individual states and the related idea of non-intervention have been abolished. If they have been, there are either no governments any longer – and surely there are – or else there is a world government, which I don’t see functioning or existing.
        I don’t believe that there is a right of national self-determination. No such idea (nor even the idea of nation) has ever been defined, at least not with any coherence and plausibility.

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 13, 2012, 7:37 pm

        No Annie.

        The Lavon Affair was in the early 1950’s.

        Egyptian pogroms against her Jews occurred in the 1940’s.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 13, 2012, 8:52 pm

        Correction proudzionist777,

        There were no Egyptian pogroms against her Jews, but the isolated incidents fo violence took place after Israel expelled 800,000 Palestinians.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 13, 2012, 8:55 pm

        The Lavon Affair was in the early 1950′s. . . . Egyptian pogroms against her Jews occurred in the 1940′s.

        Historian Shlomo Ben-Ami explains that, after the Arab revolt, a new military offspring of the Haganah, the Poum, led almost routine reprisals and collective punishments against Arab villages in Palestine. Do you thinkthat was a big secret in Egypt?
        link to books.google.com

        The Jewish Agency had permanent offices in the major cities of Egypt, including Cairo and Alexandria. During the mandate era, members of the Egyptian Jewish communities participated in the Kibbutz movement, the Jewish underground, helped facilitate illegal immigration to Israel after the 1939 White Paper Policy was adopted, participated in all of the Zionist-affilated sports and youth movements, and were represented in the Zionist Congresses. I’ve discussed elsewhere that the attitude of Zionist spokesmen was openly hostile to the Arabs, e.g. In 1943 the US Consul at Cairo cabled the State Department:

        “I have noted in discussions with Zionist spokesmen visiting Cairo recently a marked hardening in their attitude (possibly owing in part to increased confidence resulting from alleged large-scale clandestine arming by Jews in Palestine) which in several cases has taken the form of frankly admitting that it is idle to continue to talk of “negotiations” with Arabs, in balance obvious that any solution satisfactory to Zionists would have to be “imposed” on Arabs by threat or use of force and this latter the only realistic line of action to adopt.

        — Kirk link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Zionist spokesmen and pundits openly lobbied leaders in Arab countries to support various schemes for forced exchanges of populations. After the Arab League was established, Eliyahu Sasson made regular visits to lobby for support of the partition of Palestine. The public in Egypt knew perfectly well that the Zionists planned to attack and dispossess their Arab brethren in Palestine. For example, on the day after the partition plan was adopted, the Palestine Post ran a front page article saying that the influential Cairo newspaper, Al Mokkatam, had published an editorial supporting the partition of Palestine. The editorial explained:

        “We stand for Partition because we believe it is the best final solution for Palestine. If rejection of Partition would have solved the problem we would have welcomed it, but in fact it will lead to further complications that will give the Zionists another space of time to complete their plans of defense and attack.

        See page 1 of the Palestine Post, 30 November 1947 link to jpress.org.il

        For more background see Michael Doran, Pan-Arabism Before Nasser, Joseph Heller, “The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics”, Joel Beinin, The Dispersion of Egyptian Jewry, and the Foreign Relations of the United States series on the Middle East.

      • annie
        annie
        February 13, 2012, 9:25 pm

        Zionist spokesmen and pundits openly lobbied leaders in Arab countries to support various schemes for forced exchanges of populations.

        this was the zionist dream, now they want to get paid for it.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 16, 2012, 12:14 am

        UN General Assembly resolution 181

        Wow, are you serious? There was no treaty, haha. The UNGA can offer possible concepts that are considered suggestions lacking the power to serve as binding legal documents. But beyond that, the resolution was rejected by all of the parties but one anyway. It was never considered a valid agreement… those have to be AGREED TO by the affected parties! The UNGA does not have the power to impose peace agreements on unsuspecting states all by itself.

        But the idea that Israel should be responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the resolution despite the fact that it retained none of the benefits or protections is a really interesting reading. It ignores the idea that an agreement must hold all parties responsible to fulfill their obligations… here, signing just means committing oneself regardless of whatever anyone else does.

        Don’t you think that the cease fire agreements signed later by EVERYONE might take precedence over 181 anyway?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 16, 2012, 1:01 am

        Don’t be silly, he was elected to the Executive Council of the Zionist Organization. So of course he was representative of the leadership.

        The differences between his ideology and mainstream zionist thought were vast. He left the ZO after two years when they wouldn’t implement any of his ideas. He founded his own movement, his own paramilitary group leading to the Irgun which was actively hunted by members of the Yishuv eventually culminating in the IDF blowing up one of their supply ships to deny them weapons. Really, if you read about the relationship that Jabotinshy had with Ben Gurion and Weissman it’s so plain to see. It was a huge ideological rift that itself shaped the history of the movement.

        He was influential, sure. He had plenty of his own followers, sure. But you are trying to present his voice as representative of the movement as a whole and that is a gross exaggeration and flat out untrue. He represents the revisionist movement within Zionism, sure… but not the key ideologies that represented mainstream zionist thought at that time.

        Do you know schlomo ben ami? I like his writings about this time period a lot. Here, look at page 17 or 18 – 19.

        http://books.google.com/books?id=O-uMJuYdDxwC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=poum&f=false

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 16, 2012, 2:01 am

        The UNGA can offer possible concepts that are considered suggestions lacking the power to serve as binding legal documents. But beyond that, the resolution was rejected by all of the parties but one anyway. It was never considered a valid agreement… those have to be AGREED TO by the affected parties! The UNGA does not have the power to impose peace agreements on unsuspecting states all by itself.

        You really do love to make this stuff us as you go alone don’t yhou Shak?

        On June 20, 1962 the UN General Assembly adopted a decision to accept a UN commission’s proposal to partition Ruanda-Urundi into two independent states, Rwanda and Burundi. No one has ever suggested that decision was non-binding or can be revisited.

        FYI, the General Assembly acknowledged that both Israel and Palestine had made declarations in-line with their acceptance of resolution 181. See sections C and F of resolution 181 and resolutions 273/3; 43/177; and the discussion about the resolution 181(II) guarantees in Chapter “III The United Nations Charter and the treaties concluded after the war”, starting on page 22, in E/CN.4/367

        http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=E/CN.4/367

        The declarations and explanations regarding Israel’s acceptance were provided by the representative of Israel during the 48th and 51st meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on membership. They were noted in the text and footnote 5 of UN General Assembly resolution 273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf A/AC.24/SR.48 and page 7 of the .pdf A/AC.24/SR.51

        http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/AC.24/SR.51

        The UN Charter does not mention resolutions or say that decisions on important questions or trusteeship, like those regarding the establishment of the Corpus Separatum, are non-binding after they have been adopted by a vote of 2/3rds of the General Assembly. In fact, the International Court of Justice ruled in the Namibia case that:

        the General Assembly declared that the Mandate having been terminated “South Africa has no other right to administer the Territory”. This is not a finding on facts, but the formulation of a legal situation [i.e. laying down the law]. For it would not be correct to assume that, because the General Assembly is in principle vested with recommendatory powers, it is debarred from adopting, in specific cases within the framework of its competence, resolutions which make determinations or have operative design.

        In any event, both the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of International Justice have ruled that parties remain bound by the terms of their own acceptance in the case of what otherwise might be considered non-binding resolutions. The representative of the Jewish Agency, Mr. Shertok who subsequently served as Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister of Israel, referred to the “binding force” of resolution 181 on April 27, 1948:

        “With regard to the status of Assembly resolutions in international law, it was admitted that any which touched the national sovereignty of the Members of the United Nations were mere recommendations and not binding. However, the Palestine resolution was essentially different for it concerned the future of a territory subject to an international trust. Only the United Nations as a whole was competent to determine the future of the territory, and its decision, therefore, had a binding force. –U.N. Doc. A/C. 1/SR. 127, P. 7 (27 April 1948) cited in An International Law Analysis Of The Major United Nations Resolutions Concerning The Palestine Question

        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/885FC39E9DE93EC585256DC20067EAB6

        The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People reported to the Security Council that:

        19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

        http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/12090

        But the idea that Israel should be responsible for fulfilling the obligations of the resolution despite the fact that it retained none of the benefits or protections is a really interesting reading.

        Seeing as Israel was the first to violate those protections, I hardly think you have a case.

        It ignores the idea that an agreement must hold all parties responsible to fulfill their obligations… here, signing just means committing oneself regardless of whatever anyone else does.

        The 1988 Algiers Declaration of the PLO explicitly noted the fact that UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947) partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish – and that this Resolution still provides the conditions of international legitimacy.

        Israel reacted by unilaterally declaring the resolution null and void, but the General Assembly and ICJ cited it as a “relevant resolution” in the 2003-2004 Wall case. UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/48/158D, 20 December 1993. para. 5(c) stipulated that the permanent status negotiations guarantee ‘arrangements for peace and security of all States in the region, including those named in resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, within secure and internationally recognized boundaries’.

        Israel doesn’t want to touch resolution 181(II) or its minority rights provisions with a barge pole, but that is likely to be the only recognition of a “Jewish state” that it will ever obtain.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 16, 2012, 2:12 am

        The differences between his ideology and mainstream zionist thought were vast.

        No they weren’t, or he would not have been elected to the Executive Council of the Zionist Organization. His ideology was ultimately adopted by Ben Gurion anyway.

        He founded his own movement, his own paramilitary group leading to the Irgun which was actively hunted by members of the Yishuv eventually culminating in the IDF blowing up one of their supply ships to deny them weapons.

        Absolute rubbish. The Irgun were not hnuntred at all, but assimilated into the Haganah, to form the commando unit, at Weissman ‘s insistence. The Haganah became an army of 35,000, plus 10,000 more in commando units (ie Palmach, Irgun and Stern Gangs).

        Really, if you read about the relationship that Jabotinshy had with Ben Gurion and Weissman it’s so plain to see.

        If you read about Ben Gurion’s transformation, it’s plain tio see that be embraced the iron wall doctrine.

        But you are trying to present his voice as representative of the movement as a whole and that is a gross exaggeration and flat out untrue. He represents the revisionist movement within Zionism, sure… but not the key ideologies that represented mainstream zionist thought at that time.

        Do you know schlomo ben ami? I like his writings about this time period a lot. Here, look at page 17 or 18 – 19.

        Yes, we know all about Ben-Ami. He wrote that Ben Gurion’s apparent acceptance of partition was only a tactical maneuver. He categorically rejected a Jewish state in anything less than all of Eretz Israel or the finality of the borders of partition both before and after the adoption of the UN resolution. A few days after the UN had adopted the resolution, Yigal Allon said the borders of partition cannot be for us the final borders. The partition plan is a compromise plan that is unjust to the Jews. We are entitled to decide our borders according to our defense needs.

        So as you can see, there was no real daylight betwwen Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky in the end and such, was indeed representative of the Zionist leadership, both in word and in deed.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 16, 2012, 3:32 am

        Wow, are you serious? There was no treaty, haha.

        Yes. 90 percent of the post WWII international treaties are contained in UN resolutions. That practice continued the tradition which began with the League of Nations Mandates. With the notable exception of Iraq, had of the mandate instruments were simply resolutions of the League of Nations. The Minority Protection Plan in resolution 181(II) and the defunct League of Nations agreements were cataloged in 1950 as part of a survey of legal instruments containing minority protection treaties.

        *The UN considers the instruments and accessions that it concluded after WWII to be agreements in force. E/CN.4/367, Date: 7 April 1950 (see Chapter III The United Nations Charter And The Treaties Concluded After The War, resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, “The Future Government of Palestine”, pages 22-23)

        *The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People reported to the Security Council that:

        19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

        Mr Eban accepted that agreement on behalf of Israel and you can read more about that in this comment: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/beinart-and-the-crisis-of-liberal-zionism.html/comment-page-1#comment-414181

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 16, 2012, 3:55 am

        The differences between his ideology and mainstream zionist thought were vast.

        Nonsense Jabotinsky was placed in charge of the Zionist Organization’s entire Propaganda Department in 1921 and that’s when he first mentioned the Iron Wall in meetings of the Zionist Executive. He published the idea in 1923. His differences with the Labor Socialists weren’t over the need to carry-on colonization against the will of the Palestinians under the protection of an armed force. As far as mainstream Zionists and the IDF are concerned today its practically a mitzvah.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 16, 2012, 5:17 am

        Wow, ha.

        Here’s a post about the hunting season.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunting_Season

        …and the altalena
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altalena_Affair

        Let me know what parts you still think are rubbish. It’s gotta be hard to discuss this stuff when most of the facts were selectively abridged out of your “history.” No wonder you are so consistently surprised!

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 16, 2012, 5:30 am

        Just look it up dude. UNGA = non-binding.

        ‘Most experts[1] consider most General Assembly resolutions to be non-binding. Articles 10 and 14 of the UN Charter refer to General Assembly as “recommendations”; the recommendatory nature of General Assembly resolutions has repeatedly been stressed by the International Court of Justice.[2]

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_resolution

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 16, 2012, 9:51 am

        …and the altalena
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Let me know what parts you still think are rubbish.

        The only thing that’s notable about the Altalena affair is that the Provisional Government didn’t convene a tribunal and prosecute Begin for insubordination. All of the European ex-pats took it as an article of faith that the state had to establish a monopoly on the use of force within its jurisdiction. In many other countries, Begin would have been sitting in jail instead of the first Knesset.

        The Wikipedia article notes that the provisional government had already absorbed the Irgun within its borders and had refused to make the cargo available for its exclusive use, because they were not viewed as “an Army within the Army”.

        The story also illustrates that Israel was violating the UN truce and arms embargo.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 16, 2012, 7:45 pm

        Just look it up dude. UNGA = non-binding.

        I have looked it up dude. The term “non-binding” does not appear in the text of Chapter IV of the UN Charter on the General Assembly. http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml

        Article 18(2) & (3) of the UN Charter explicitly state that the General Assembly can adopt decisions on any question:

        2. Decisions of the General Assembly on important questions shall be made by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting. These questions shall include: recommendations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security, the election of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, the election of the members of the Economic and Social Council, the election of members of the Trusteeship Council in accordance with paragraph 1 (c) of Article 86, the admission of new Members to the United Nations, the suspension of the rights and privileges of membership, the expulsion of Members, questions relating to the operation of the trusteeship system, and budgetary questions.

        3. Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

        ICJ President Taslim Olawale Elias wrote about the legal effects of General Assembly resolutions. He said it seems clear that, as far as General Assembly recommendations in respect of the nine specifically enumerated matters in Article 18(2) are concerned, its “decisions” in the form of “recommendations” are binding upon all once a draft resolution is adopted by a two thirds majority and that a decision on any other important question can be adopted by a simple majority. I hope you don’t think that when the General Assembly adopted resolutions which expelled Taiwan from the UN or refused to accept Rhodesia’s credentials, those decisions were non-binding or subject to an appeal.

        The representative of the Jewish Agency, Mr. Shertok, who subsequently served as Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister of Israel, stated his opinion regarding the “binding force” of resolution 181 on April 27, 1948:

        “With regard to the status of Assembly resolutions in international law, it was admitted that any which touched the national sovereignty of the Members of the United Nations were mere recommendations and not binding. However, the Palestine resolution was essentially different for it concerned the future of a territory subject to an international trust. Only the United Nations as a whole was competent to determine the future of the territory, and its decision, therefore, had a binding force. –U.N. Doc. A/C. 1/SR. 127, P. 7 (27 April 1948) cited in An International Law Analysis Of The Major United Nations Resolutions Concerning The Palestine Question

        There have been a number of international court decisions which settled the question. In the “Certain Expenses” case the ICJ said that it was a mistaken view to assert that, just because the General Assembly had the power to make a recommendation, that its powers were limited to making hortatory statements. The Court affirmed the fact that the General Assembly can adopt legally binding decisions that have operative effects in the real world and that its authorization of the deployment of the UNEF forces in the Sinai and allocation of funding and assessments for that purpose did not exceed its authority and were within its explicit powers and functions under the Charter.

        In other cases, like the South West Africa/Namibia cases, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that the absence or lack of consent from one of the permanent members of the Security Council could not prevent one of the other responsible organs from acting validly in cases like the Korean War and the General Assembly’s “Uniting for Peace” resolution. It also ruled that the General Assembly can adopt binding decisions to terminate mandates or in connection with non-self-governing peoples and territories. See ICJ Reports 1971, p. 16, at para. 22 . In the Wall case (para 49) the Court noted that the United Nation’s permanent responsibility toward to the Question of Palestine was based upon the Covenant of the League of Nations and 181(II) and other relevant resolutions of the General Assembly, including e.g. General Assembly resolution 57/107 of 3 December 2002.

        In Jan Klabbers, “An introduction to international institutional law”, Cambridge University Press, 2002, the author explains that the Covenant of the League of Nations was silent on the topic of the legal force of resolutions. In the absence of an express provision they are generally held to have been non-binding. In the 1931 Railway Traffic Case, the Court used the mundane contract law theory of acceptance and held that, since the parties had participated in adopting the resolution, they were bound by the terms of their acceptance. http://books.google.com/books?id=SunAMA3fPKMC&lpg=PA203&pg=PA203#v=onepage&q&f=false

        In the earlier Treaty of Lausanne case, the PCIJ employed the same logic. It said that powers of the Council, in regard to the settlement of disputes, are dealt with in Article 15 of the Covenant, and that, under that article, the Council can only make recommendations, but that the parties were bound by the terms of their own acceptance. So, by virtue of their previous consent in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Council had the power in this instance to compulsorily settle their dispute. See printed page 27 of Series B Advisory Opinion No. 12 http://www.icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_B/B_12/01_Article_3_du_traite_de_Lausanne_Avis_consultatif.pdf

        The General Assembly subsequently recognized declarations supplied by Israel and Palestine as being in line with the requirements contained in resolution 181(II). See resolutions 273/3; 43/177;

      • proudzionist777
        proudzionist777
        February 16, 2012, 8:56 pm

        The Altalena was blown up because Ben Gurion and his Labor Party believed the Begin’s Irgun might carry out a coup d’etat. There belief was based on top secret French intelligence. See the series of articles by Professor Meir Zamir including the link below.

        http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/a-burning-ship-on-jerusalem-beach-1.278569

        Also. See Zamir’s article. ;Bid for Altalena, if it is still available on the internet.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 17, 2012, 9:36 pm

        I’m just going to write what you said earlier, then I’m going to recite the reality as it was mentioned in the basic links I provided.

        Absolute rubbish. The Irgun were not hnuntred at all, but assimilated into the Haganah, to form the commando unit, at Weissman ‘s insistence. The Haganah became an army of 35,000, plus 10,000 more in commando units (ie Palmach, Irgun and Stern Gangs).

        OK, Irgun and stern were not commando units in the Haganah. During the hunting season the Irgun that were captured were turned over to the British. The people in these groups were ultimately absorbed into the Haganah after they disbanded, effectively ending their existence as paramil orgs.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 17, 2012, 10:18 pm

        Article 18(2) & (3) of the UN Charter explicitly state that the General Assembly can adopt decisions on any question:

        Noooo, not ANY question. Just questions of the kind outlined in article 18(2) like you posted. With respect to your argument here, allow me to refine my overly broad statement. The UNGA can only make binding decisions regarding very limited criteria, namely things that happen within the purview of the UN, basically.

        Look, people have certainly made the argument that the UNGA has the right to codify binding law wrt Palestine, it just isn’t accepted thinking. It is way outside of the mainstream to make such an argument. Even the example you gave are offered with extreme conditions attached that you seem to be ignoring for some reason. Had the UN’s partition plan actually been considered binding at any time then it did an extremely poor job of fulfilling its responsibilities in allowing Jordan to occupy east Jerusalem, the Palestinians blockading it, the Arab states invading it, etc.

        The resolution itself only recommends that certain actions be taken. It never mandates anything, look at the language. Without everyone’s agreement it couldn’t be considered binding in any way. It merely asks for cooperation with their plan.

      • annie
        annie
        February 17, 2012, 10:29 pm

        ‘hunting’ and ‘hunting season’. what a joke.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 17, 2012, 10:36 pm

        The story also illustrates that Israel was violating the UN truce and arms embargo.

        Of course it was. Both sides were. That’s hardly a revelation, Israel would have been foolish to do otherwise.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 17, 2012, 10:47 pm

        OK, Irgun and stern were not commando units in the Haganah.

        Of course they were, along with the Palmach. As I explained to you already, Chaim Weisman came up with the idea that they were to form the commando units of the Haganah in 1948.

        During the hunting season the Irgun that were captured were turned over to the British.

        Yes, turned over and then promptly released.

        The people in these groups were ultimately absorbed into the Haganah after they disbanded, effectively ending their existence as paramil orgs.

        They were only disbanded once they had achieved their objectives. The Haganah simply gave them a veneer of credibility by absorbing them, though the Haganah was a terror group in it’s own right.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 17, 2012, 11:43 pm

        The people in these groups were ultimately absorbed into the Haganah after they disbanded, effectively ending their existence as paramil orgs.

        Nope the units themselves were absorbed into the Haganah. One of the disputes that erupted into the Altalena Affair was that Begin wanted the arms earmarked for the end use of the Irgun units in the Haganah. The IDF leadership objected to the maintenance of an “Army within the Army”. See the Wikipedia link that you supplied.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 18, 2012, 12:12 am

        Israel’s founders would have been foolish to not become international terrorists and arms smugglers? Well, considering Plan Dalet and the impending genocide you guys had in mind to slaughter enough Palestinians and make enough arabrein land for the judenreich you wanted to found, I guess I can understand your warped logic.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 18, 2012, 12:22 am

        Noooo, not ANY question. Just questions of the kind outlined in article 18(2) like you posted.

        In that case Article 18(3) would be superfluous. It contains no such limitation on the scope of the other questions that may be decided:

        3. Decisions on other questions, including the determination of additional categories of questions to be decided by a two-thirds majority, shall be made by a majority of the members present and voting.

        Look, people have certainly made the argument that the UNGA has the right to codify binding law wrt Palestine

        That is certainly true, but irrelevant. I’m discussing the explicit declarations and undertakings of the representatives of the government of Israel in which they unconditionally accepted the terms of the resolution, including the chapter containing the minority protection plan. That plan was cataloged in the 1950 study done by the Secretariat on treaties concluded after WWII. The Treaty of Berlin, Article 13 of the Mandate, and the chapter on minority rights in 181(II) were cited in paragraph 129 of the ICJ Advisory Opinion as instruments that contained safeguarding clauses regarding the “existing rights” of the Palestinian people.

        Even the example you gave are offered with extreme conditions attached that you seem to be ignoring for some reason. Had the UN’s partition plan actually been considered binding at any time then it did an extremely poor job of fulfilling its responsibilities in allowing Jordan to occupy east Jerusalem, the Palestinians blockading it, the Arab states invading it, etc.

        In his statement to the 51st session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Membership, Mr. Eban declared that Israel had supplied the necessary declaration on minority rights. He also acknowledged that the undertaking was an obligation that was capable of acceptance by Israel alone, and was not at all affected by the attempt by the Arab States to alter the resolution by force. See page 7 of the pdf file containing the verbatim UN record of his remarks, A/AC.24/SR.51 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/AC.24/SR.51

        The report to the Security Council from the panel of experts serving in one of the UN’s own subsidiary organs described that as “unreserved agreement by Israel” to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III). — — link to un.org

  13. Shaktimaan
    Shaktimaan
    February 12, 2012, 4:00 pm

    That alternative seems realistic to you? That more Jews will just be sent to Europe, where they were actively still being killed when the report was created, and the inhabitants of Palestine will get along from now on because they suggested it?

    The entire point of Jewish self-determination was so that the community would no longer have to rely on the solutions of committees like that anymore, who had no true interest in the outcome.

    Besides, the report was wrong. Palestine did solve the problems facing world Jewry. Are you really arguing that the predictions in a report from 1946 have greater validity than the actual historical events that have taken place since then?

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      February 13, 2012, 2:56 am

      Besides, the report was wrong. Palestine did solve the problems facing world Jewry. Are you really arguing that the predictions in a report from 1946 have greater validity than the actual historical events that have taken place since then?

      The report was quite correct. It noted that the limited area and resources of Palestine could not be used to solve the problems of World Jewry without violating the rights of the Arab majority. That is exactly what has been happening ever since. BTW, the majority of the world’s Jews have opted to live elsewhere, including a large number of Israeli ex-pats.

  14. patm
    patm
    February 12, 2012, 5:19 pm

    What a mindset you show. Shaktimaan, you couch what you say in “nice” language but what it contains is the view of every Zionist.

    ‘”nice” language you say, john h. Another reason why I think Shaktimaan is a Canadian troll. Canadians are famous for being polite. :)

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090518152759AAg53Av

    • Shaktimaan
      Shaktimaan
      February 12, 2012, 5:48 pm

      Patm,

      You know you could just ask if you are that curious.

      • patm
        patm
        February 12, 2012, 8:34 pm

        You could just tell us, troll.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 12, 2012, 11:41 pm

        If you’d like to know I’ll tell you. Just as soon as you ask politely.

      • annie
        annie
        February 13, 2012, 12:45 am

        shak, this is an online forum. people make up fake identities all the time on online forums. plus, zionists invest millions of dollars every year guaranteeing their presence is represented on online forums such as this and not once have i ever heard of one of them identifying themselves as of the paid professional variety. until i do, myself and others will presume there are professional infiltrators amongst us fabricating fake online personas. just saying.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 13, 2012, 8:53 am

        Why are we even arguing this? You know to me, all these twits sound the same. They all justify terrorism and slaughter and ethnic supremacy states.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 13, 2012, 4:25 pm

        They are all the same. I have been reading the same crap from them for a decade and there is zero humanity.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 16, 2012, 1:08 am

        such fascinating criticisms.

        We ALL justify terrorism and slaughter and ethnic supremacy states?

        We are all the same…there is ZERO humanity! Wow.

        Now I’m just curious, but are you guys aware of just how bigoted those statements are? Because they are just really off the charts. It’s a classic example of clumping a group together, stereotyping them, denying their humanity, setting them all apart from what YOU are, as the “others.”

        It’s textbook. Real creepy btw.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 16, 2012, 1:10 am

        zionists invest millions of dollars every year guaranteeing their presence is represented on online forums such as this

        Really? Are you sure about that?
        Because that just doesn’t sound very real to me at all. That sounds like a paranoid rumor. And a weird one at that.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 16, 2012, 2:21 am

        Because that just doesn’t sound very real to me at all. That sounds like a paranoid rumor. And a weird one at that.

        The only thing that is weird is that you are unaware of it or in denial about it.

        The Foreign Ministry unveiled a new plan this week: Paying talkbackers to post pro-Israel responses on websites worldwide. A total of NIS 600,000 (roughly $150,000) will be earmarked to the establishment of an “Internet warfare” squad.
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3744516,00.html

        Israel is paying internet workers to manipulate online content

        Rona Kuperboim slams Foreign Ministry’s plan to hire pro-Israel talkbackers
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3744516,00.html

        The Foreign Ministry unveiled a new plan this week: Paying talkbackers to post pro-Israel responses on websites worldwide. A total of NIS 600,000 (roughly $150,000) will be earmarked to the establishment of an “Internet warfare” squad.
        http://www.eutimes.net/2009/12/israel-paying-agents-to-post-pro-israel-propaganda-on-internet-forums-blogs/

        After the Lebanese invasion Israel’s government announced that it was hiring bloggers to go to popular forums “to put forward” Israel’s point of view. Press releases were issued to that extent back then but not recently.
        http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=13438&p=206463

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 16, 2012, 2:28 am

        Now I’m just curious, but are you guys aware of just how bigoted those statements are?

        I’m just curious to know if you have any idea now bigoted your statements are?

        It’s a classic example of clumping a group together, stereotyping them, denying their humanity, setting them all apart from what YOU are, as the “others.”

        Sounds exactly like Zionism to me. Say, you’re a Zionist too right…creepy too IMO.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 16, 2012, 4:59 am

        Ah, so I was basically right then. No one is “investing millions of dollars every year guaranteeing their presence is represented on online forums such as this.”

        The IFM put up 150K a few years back to try the idea out. But it doesn’t appear that anything much happened with it. Or maybe we just don’t know about it, right?

        Anyways, I wouldn’t be as worried about it as you all seem to be.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 16, 2012, 5:04 am

        I’m just curious to know if you have any idea now bigoted your statements are?

        I do. They are not bigoted at all.

        Sounds exactly like Zionism to me.

        Sounds like Zionism to someone who has a very weak understanding of what real Zionism looks like. As an ideology there’s nothing racist inherent to the overall movement.

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 16, 2012, 5:19 am

        I didn’t argue that you weren’t human, Shank. The need to follow the “herd” is a very human failing and it’s pretty clear that in the capacity to stampede, you are one of the most human souls I have met.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 16, 2012, 7:36 am

        Ah, so I was basically right then.

        No, you were completely wrong. You suggested the idea that the Israeli government was paying peopel to maikntain a presence on on line forums sounded “like a paranoid rumor.”

        The IFM put up 150K a few years back to try the idea out. But it doesn’t appear that anything much happened with it.

        What do you mean “t doesn’t appear that anything much happened with it”? There are hasbrats like yourself infesting these forums all over the place. Some, like Werdine, are even pretending to be Arabs.

        That 150K figure was proposed years ago, and seeing as the program has not been ended, the figure is likely to be in the millions.

        Anyways, I wouldn’t be as worried about it as you all seem to be.

        Of course not. Nothing to see here…move right along.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 16, 2012, 7:39 am

        I do. They are not bigoted at all.

        That’s what bigots often think about their own comments.

        Sounds like Zionism to someone who has a very weak understanding of what real Zionism looks like.

        Real Zionism looks like ethnic cleansing, apartheid, mass murder, and ethnocentric racist supremacy. As Jobotinsky said, coloizations lies at te core fo Zionism. Bennuy Morris said ethnci cleasing was thever core of Zionism.

        What more proof does one need that Zionism is racism?

        The best definition of fascism I’ve read (in ‘the Nature of Fascism’) is the belief in an organic community which must achieve a certain state of being it previously held. Doesn’t sound like Zionism at all!

        The fundamental ideological components shared by Zionism and German Nazism are: politicized ethnic fundamentalism, extremist organic nationalism, social Darwinism, biological determinism, essentialism, primordialism, perverted eugenic theory, opposition to race mixing for causing ethnic degeneration, and the corresponding belief in national revival through racial purity.

        Come to think of it, Zionism is much worse than simple racism.

      • annie
        annie
        February 16, 2012, 7:44 am

        As an ideology there’s nothing racist inherent to the overall movement.

        yes, if it were only an ideology with no physical manifestation, especially no manifestation in palestine that could be feasible. but we know zionism is not only an ideology is it? if you want to get your friends together and practice an ideology of the mind go for it. it’s only acting on those beliefs that make it racist.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 16, 2012, 8:01 am

        it’s only acting on those beliefs that make it racist.

        Indeed, as they say, you deal with the zionism you have, not the one you would like everyone to think it shuold be.

      • annie
        annie
        February 16, 2012, 8:11 am

        That sounds like a paranoid rumor. And a weird one at that.

        nope, they’re always hiring.
        http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.2607243/k.678B/Employment_Opportunities.htm

        http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.2607243/k.678B/Employment_Opportunities.htm#research

        KEY RESPONSIBILITIES:

        Research – conducts research and obtains materials with specific emphasis on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

        Content – provides written and multimedia materials for posting to TIP’s website and/or distribution to journalists/media/diplomatic community outlets via TIP’s online database system including, but not limited to:

        Press releases

        Backgrounders

        Fact Sheets, timelines

        Press kits, etc.

        New Media – develops TIP’s presence on the Internet through existing and future avenues including social media sites. To liaise with Multimedia and Web Associate – TIP Israel. To liaise with DC new media staff, particularly Web Advocacy Specialist; and Internet, Graphics and Social Media Assistant.

        Identifies/Trains/Provides subject-matter experts to Israel-based foreign media on a proactive/reactive basis consistent with the current news cycle.

        Maintains subject-matter expert list in online database system and by updating expert source book for use throughout TIP.

        Posts content materials, e.g. press releases, backgrounders, fact sheets, still photos, videos, etc. to TIP’s online database system; Edits and compiles photos, short video clips and statistics for slideshows and videos (e.g. youtube); posts visual/audio content to website and beyond

        Distributes content materials to appropriate journalists/media outlets via email, utilizing TIP’s online database system

        Works in the field to interview and gather first-hand comment from Israeli residents and officials (e.g. personal pieces) for website and dissemination.

        Any other similar duties as may be appropriate for a Writer/New Media Associate.

        SKILLS AND ABILITIES:

        Fully conversant with and a regular user of latest new media sites and technologies

        High level of proficiency in writing for Internet

        Ability to create multimedia presentations including photos, audio, video, slideshows etc.

        Expertise in Photoshop, Adobe Premiere, audio-editing software, PowerPoint. Experience utilizing multi-media software for posting images and videos to content management systems

        Language skills – academic level English required; high level of fluency in Hebrew preferred

        Passion for Israel advocacy; excellent knowledge of Israel and the Middle East

        Experience conducting detailed research on the Middle East

        Experience creating content/writing materials on the Middle East

        High level of proficiency with content management systems (Kintera), research systems, e.g. Google, LexisNexis, Cision, Microsoft Office Suites (Word, Excel and Outlook);

        Ability to work in a fast-paced, deadline-driven environment

        Must be able to work quickly, efficiently and under short deadlines with minimum supervision

        Willingness to work off-hours; when necessary, in a 24/7/365 news environment

        sounds like a troll to me

      • patm
        patm
        February 16, 2012, 9:19 am

        nope, they’re always hiring.

        Yep, annie. The Zionists’ PR war has been ramping up for a couple of years. I’m sure young Shak knows all about it.

        *****

        P & A must decide and state clearly who they are: liberal zionists or anti-zionists. We all (trolls included) should know what to expect from mondo’s comment policies.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 16, 2012, 9:23 am

        Shaktimaan, re your “Sounds like Zionism to someone who has a very weak understanding of what real Zionism looks like. As an ideology there’s nothing racist inherent to the overall movement.”

        So what does Zionism look like once it leaves the philosophers’ table?

        I urge everyone to read the below-linked article, so you can see just how wrong Shaktimaan’s bald state is–the article is almost a decade old, but the facts on which it is based have merely increased on the ground, where any ideology becomes logical deductive reality as practiced, a reality justified by the basic ideological premises and goals of, in this case, Zionism:

        http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/11/05/zionism-as-racist-ideology/

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 17, 2012, 9:41 pm

        …the need to follow the her?

        Hm. But aren’t you the one following the herd here Chaos? My posts repudiate what 99% of the others here are saying. Not only that, but because I am not “following the herd” there is a vocal movement amongst some people here to ban my posting privileges altogether, effectively punishing me for my refusal to conform.

        If following the herd was really something that was important to me then I would probably not even be posting here, don’t you think?

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 17, 2012, 9:55 pm

        The best definition of fascism I’ve read (in ‘the Nature of Fascism’) is the belief in an organic community which must achieve a certain state of being it previously held.

        That’s the best definition of fascism you’ve ever read? Really? REALLY? Give me a break, that definition barely makes sense, let alone suffices as a definition of fascism. And it doesn’t even sound like Zionism either. Zionism isn’t about seeking the re-establishment of the Kingdom of David or anything.

        Let’s see, I would LOVE to hear some examples of how Zionist theory supports concepts like: a national revival through racial purity, an opposition to race mixing, social Darwinism, eugenics, etc.

        What more proof does one need that Zionism is racism?

        You didn’t offer any proof. You offered a single quote about colonization and something I didn’t understand about Benny Morris, whose view is essentially that ethnic cleansing was an acceptable alternative to genocide.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 17, 2012, 10:40 pm

        No, you were completely wrong. You suggested the idea that the Israeli government was paying people to maintain a presence on on line forums sounded “like a paranoid rumor.”

        I said that the idea that Israel was spending millions a year to do something like that sounded like a paranoid rumor and I still think that. You’ve offered nothing to suggest that Israel actually does such a thing aside from the existence of a MUCH smaller program that existed years ago. You say the program hasn’t been ended. How in the world could you know such a thing? If millions are in fact being spent in such a way then why isn’t anyone reporting on it like SO MANY did with the original, tiny program? Those articles’ existence actually serves as evidence against your hypothesis.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 17, 2012, 10:53 pm

        You’ve offered nothing to suggest that Israel actually does such a thing aside from the existence of a MUCH smaller program that existed years ago.

        What do you mean “existed”? Do you have any evidence the program has been scrapped?

        It is no secret that ISrael spends millions on PR, countering it’s repugant reputation, and on line presence/hasbra is obviously an important component of this.

        “We need to be spending $US100 million [$125 million] a year on information campaigns abroad – primarily in Arab countries and then in Europe, where there is a complete lack of knowledge of what Israel is and what Israel does,”

        http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-draws-up-strategy-for-pr-offensive-20090703-d7rv.html

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 17, 2012, 11:23 pm

        Zionism isn’t about seeking the re-establishment of the Kingdom of David or anything.

        Oh really? Obviously you haven;t heard of the City of David Project, which like all Zionist endeavours, includes a gratuitouos helping of ethnic cleansing.

        What do you mean “existed”? Do you have any evidence the program has been scrapped?

        Let’s see, I would LOVE to hear some examples of how Zionist theory supports concepts like

        Again Shak, you have to deal with teh Zinism you have, not the Ziinism you want it to be. The founding fathers of Zionism deliberately co-opted Judaism and exploited its myths for propaganda purposes to invent a “New Jew” and obtain a global empire, not just some barren little patch of land. Zionism was a typical ethnic nationalist movement like Naziism or Fascism. Even the founders admitted all of this at the time and after the fact in their own memoirs. You are simply regurgitating their propaganda. Here is a description:

        Herzl’s major goal was to create a “New Jewish Man” through various Zionist cultural and educational programs, and to disseminate these ideas in the print and visual media. For example, Herzl’s statement after the First Zionist Congress (held in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897) that he had “created the Jewish state” must be seen in the context of generating excitement for the new movement. Herzl himself was presented as the archetype of the “New Jew” that Zionism sought to create through art and literature.

        — Nicholas John Cull, David Holbrook Culbert, David Welch, “Propaganda and mass persuasion: a historical encyclopedia, 1500 to the present”, Political Science, 2003, page 165. http://books.google.com/books?id=Byzv7rf6gL8C&lpg=PA165&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false

        You offered a single quote about colonization and something I didn’t understand about Benny Morris, whose view is essentially that ethnic cleansing was an acceptable alternative to genocide.

        Ben Gurion believed in the forced colonization of both banks of the Jordan. Zionist colonization proceeded under three basic slogans:

        “The Zionist colonization proceeded under three basic slogans. The first of these is Kibush Hakarka (Conquest of the Land). This means that the holy soil of Palestine is to be made the patrimony of the Jewish people. Jews must work the land, and Jews alone are entitled to do so. During the mandate period, mis slogan justified the Zionist land purchases and the forcible removal of the Palestinian peasants; since the formation of the state, it continues to justify the violent expropriation of Palestinians without any pretense of contractual agreement

        The second slogan is Kibush Ha’avoda (Conquest of Labor). In practice, this means that, as far as possible, Jewish enterprises must hire only Jewish workers. It meant that the Histadrut, which virtually excluded Arabs from membership until the mid-igsos, had as its main function before the establishment of the state in 1948 the enforcement of an Arab labor boycott

        The third of these slogans is Tozteret Ha’aretz (Produce of the Land). In practice, this slogan meant the maintenance of a strict boycott of Arab-produced goods. Jews were to buy only from Jewish-run farms and stores.

        Today, either from tactical considerations or from stirrings of guilty consciences, Zionist spokesmen try to cover up this past – and present. To demonstrate that these slogans in fact represented day-to-day practice of the Zionist colonization, it suffices to quote David Hacohen, a leader of the Mapai Labor Party, which ruled and still rules in Israel Hacohen was a member of the Knesset for many years and chairman of its most important committee, Defense and Foreign Affairs. In a speech to the secretariat of the Mapai in November 1969, Hacohen stated:

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

        Hacohen’s revelation of his feelings is surely sufficient evidence that these slogans constituted day-to-day practice and that Zionism was in fact a colonization of displacement.”

        http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?p=other

        Jabostinsky stated that:

        “All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population.”

        You didn’t offer any proof.

        You need proof that Zionism is racism?

        Jabotinsky was describing the very same Jewish identity problem – the Zionist security psychosis – in the Iron Wall. He noted there really was no meaningful difference of opinion between the left and right wings on the subject of colonization and the Arabs:

        This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.
        . . .
        All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste’ but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall.

        The throngs of white-shirted kids singing “butcher the Arabs… death to Arabs… May your village burn… & etc” during the recent celebration of the ’67 reunion of Jerusalem should have been enough to open everyone’s eyes to the fact that it is not just a minority or fringe point of view. Zionism, as practiced in Israel, truly is racism.

      • annie
        annie
        February 18, 2012, 12:19 am

        the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets

        he’s referencing the population ‘trade’ israel tried to make with the quisling gov of iraq (prior to israel’s ‘independence’ as i recall). that was shot down by iraq but the zionists eventually facilitated iraqi jews moving to israel, they just couldn’t swing it the way they wanted in the end. now they want to get paid for what iraq wouldn’t take off their hands.

        Herzl’s major goal was to create a “New Jewish Man” through various Zionist cultural and educational programs

        imo, some of this was ‘new man’ thing was a result of the sci-political trends of the late 1800 that started w/the study of eugenics in the early part of the century. after darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species the scientific community went on a mind bend, see Social interpretations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Social_interpretations

        this was the scientific social climate zionism and “New Jewish Man” was born out of. it makes sense when you place it in context of that time period. except the world moved on and zionism is sort of the residue that didn’t. a whole mythology was then developed around propping up this ‘nation’, which was, originally kind of an extension of, and belief in eugenics. i could be wrong but i doubt it. it seems logical after darwin’s book scientists would jump on how evolution impacted people, societies, and the opportunity to create a utophian nation. from the link:

        Darwin was intrigued by his half-cousin Francis Galton’s argument, introduced in 1865, that statistical analysis of heredity showed that moral and mental human traits could be inherited, and principles of animal breeding could apply to humans. In The Descent of Man Darwin noted that aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural selection, but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy, “the noblest part of our nature”, and factors such as education could be more important. When Galton suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a “caste” of “those who are naturally gifted”, Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it “the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race”, preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals.[160]

        all this stuff was very much in vogue during that era.

        cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy

        interesting.

      • annie
        annie
        February 18, 2012, 12:25 am

        oh, shingo. just realized you addressed eugenics up thread. i should have been paying attention ;)

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 18, 2012, 12:41 am

        Zionism isn’t about seeking the re-establishment of the Kingdom of David or anything.

        On the day he introduced the Law of Return and the Nationality Laws, during the 160th Sitting of the First Knesset, David Ben Gurion said that Israel was the revival of the ancient Jewish State. He quoted the Jewish historian Josephus and also said: “These two laws determine the special character and destiny of Israel as bearer of the vision of the redemption of the Jewish Nation. . . . On 14 May 1948 the Jewish State was established not as something completely new but as the restoration of our ancient glory, 1813 years after our independence had been destroyed, supposedly forever, at the time of Bar Kochba and Rabbi Akiva. . . . Neither can the revival of the Jewish State be understood without knowing the history of the Jewish people during the period of the First and Second Temples, the history of Jewish prophecy, spirit and vision, the history of the Jewish diaspora and the concept of messianism, and its various manifestations, the incessant attempts of the wandering nation throughout the generations to return to its land and the history of the eternal culture which was forged in this land and its influence on the Jews and the rest of the world.” The motives for unconditional immigration to Israel that he cited were “yearning for redemption, ancient memories, religious sentiments and love of the homeland”. He said “The Law of Return is one of the State of Israel’s Basic Laws. It encompasses one of the central missions of our country, the in-gathering of the exiles.” See Lorch, Netanel (ed), Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 2, JCPA/University Press of America, 1993, pp 611 – 613.

        So, he invoked the First and Second Temples, the prophets, messianism, redemption, The Antiquities of The Jews by Josephus (aka the Bible), the in-gathering of purported exiles, and the revival of the Jewish State.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 18, 2012, 3:24 am

        That’s all well and good. But I questioned a specific assertion… millions spent on having people defend Israel in forums. I obviously can’t prove any program does NOT exist because proving a negative is often not possible. Your argument is that we should all assume that Israel is doing something you dreamed up unless it can be definitively proven otherwise… it is failing to move me in a profound way.

        My point is that if such a program which so many people would find creepy at best existed on such a large scale then it would not be hard to dig up some evidence of it. And no, Annie, a random job description for a job in pro-Israel PR is not what we are discussing. That’s a real PR job.

        Look, if it’s happening then just find some articles about it. I’m happy to admit I’m wrong when I am. And in Israel the press would eat up a story like this. So if it is true then it’s being written about. Try ha’aretz maybe.

        But if nothing exists then spare me the excuses or the insincere goalpost moving and just admit that it doesn’t seem to be happening.

      • Shaktimaan
        Shaktimaan
        February 18, 2012, 3:47 am

        I gotta say, I am learning SO much about what you guys think.

        it makes sense when you place it in context of that time period. except the world moved on and zionism is sort of the residue that didn’t. a whole mythology was then developed around propping up this ‘nation’, which was, originally kind of an extension of, and belief in eugenics.

        So you think that Zionism is structured around (and was in fact directly born out of), eugenics theory!

        Now, you casually say the world moved on but eugenics was a pretty big concept that lots of prominent people embraced and developed into national programs that extended for many decades into the 20th century. Large scale programs existed in the US, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, China, Sweden, Canada and so on. Some up until the 70s were still doing forced sterilization.

        You know what nation never had anything like that though? I’ll let you guess. (Hint: It’s the only Jewish state and you don’t seem to like it much.)

        Oh! And by the way… the “New Jew” concept that you are basing this theory on was an endeavor to change the “image” that european Jews portrayed and internalized though art, literature and education. It was a plan to remake the stereotypical studious weakling into a well-read, well-muscled, farming sabra who could defend himself and build his state. Eugenics played no role in it whatsoever.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 18, 2012, 5:57 am

        Are you intentionally being dense, Shank?

        There are plenty of news articles that document Israel’s PR program.

        You can also factor in the TIP dictionary, the World Union of Jewish Students hasbara handbook, and the latest talking points guidebook from the david project.

        Zionism requires a lot of ‘explanation’ apparently. Most of it is dishonest framing and tactical rather than sincere truth.

        Stop being lazy and look it up yourself. You are trolling by constantly making ‘non-comment’ comments.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 18, 2012, 6:04 am

        I obviously can’t prove any program does NOT exist because proving a negative is often not possible.

        I haven’t asked you to prove any program doesn’t exist, I’ve asked you to prove that it has been discontinued. If as you say, everything the Israeli government is so newsworthy, then surely the termination of a program that attracted so much attentin when it was launched would also be reported once it was ended.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 18, 2012, 6:19 am

        I gotta say, I am learning SO much about what you guys think.

        That’s good to hear, becasue when you first appeared on thsi forum, you demomnstrated a surprising amoutn fo ingorance and lack of knowledge.

        So you think that Zionism is structured around (and was in fact directly born out of), eugenics theory!

        And who said that Shak? Please quote the passage that suggests Zionism is structured around eugenics theory.

        Large scale programs existed in the US, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, China, Sweden, Canada and so on. Some up until the 70s were still doing forced sterilization.

        Which ones were carried out for the purpose of maintaining a demographic majority of one ethnicity over another? China’s one child policy can hardly be described as such.

        You know what nation never had anything like that though? I’ll let you guess.

        Oh really?

        http://ayannanahmias.com/2010/04/29/israel-accused-of-sterilizing-ethiopian-jews/

        Besides that, Israel has had a 64 year program of ethnic cleasing, land theft, and mass murder, so that’s a fail!!

        Oh! And by the way… the “New Jew” concept that you are basing this theory on was an endeavor to change the “image” that european Jews portrayed and internalized though art, literature and education. It was a plan to remake the stereotypical studious weakling into a well-read, well-muscled, farming sabra who could defend himself and build his state. Eugenics played no role in it whatsoever.

        Sorry, but not only is this BS, but it is contradictory. Jabotinsky, Weizmann, Herzl, Ruppin, and Ben Gurion ridiculed ordinary Jews in the Diaspora and used derogatory terms to describe them, like Yid, eunuchs, Orientals, & etc. These were “Zionist people” who claimed they were inventing a “new Jew” and they did make attempts to employ eugenics in pursuit of their goals. So it is hardly ludicrous to give them credit for inventing a new people. See for example Etan Blooms dissertation on Arthur Ruppin, the Father of Jewish Settlement in Palestine.

        http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut/tezot/bloom/EtanBloom-PhD-ArthurRuppin.pdf

        Chaim Weizmann thought that the majority of the exiles in Europe were little more than human dust with no future ahead of them. He had no intention of bringing them to Palestine.
        http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1940v03&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=837

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 18, 2012, 7:26 am

        Nazi & Zionist Eugenics: http://azvsas.blogspot.com/2009/05/nazi-zionist-eugenics.html

        Reclaiming the Physical Jew: The Contribution of Political Zionism: http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Eye+on+Israel/Sport+in+Israel/Reclaiming+the+Physical+Jew.htm

        Arthur Ruppin”s “New Jew”: http://iran-thru-open-eyes.blogspot.com/2011/03/ruppins-new-jew-and-israel-as.html

        “One of the most prominent eugenicists of the Mandatory period was Dr. Joseph Meir, a well-known doctor who acquired his education in Vienna, served for about 30 years as the head of the Kupat Holim Clalit health maintenance organization, and after whom the Meir Hospital in Kfar Sava is named. “From his position at the very heart of the Zionist medical establishment in the land of Israel in the mid-1930s, he brought young mothers the gospel of eugenics, warned them about degeneracy and transmitted the message to them about their obligation and responsibility for bearing only healthy children,” says Stoler-Liss.” http://www.haaretz.com/do-not-have-children-if-they-won-t-be-healthy-1.124913

  15. patm
    patm
    February 13, 2012, 8:39 am

    Adam and Phil,

    I think you both should take note of what Hostage says here:

    Werdine & Co. pretend that they can’t grasp the simple concept of being an accessory or accomplice to a crime that deliberately targeted a civilian population outside the jurisdiction of the proposed Jewish State. I’m not interested in debating this or continuing to fund a website that provides Werdine and his partners a platform to whitewash Haganah’s role in deliberately erasing 400+ villages, including Deir Yassin.

    Hostage is one of your most valuable contributors to the comment section. He is expressing a view I’m sure others share. You have disappointed many including myself by wrongly banning Jeffrey Blankfort, and now you are giving the likes of Werdine and Shaktimaan a free run to spread their hasbara lies.

    These invaluable ‘old hands’ as I call them have only so much time, energy, money, and goodwill to spend helping you with this site.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      February 13, 2012, 10:32 am

      Adam & Phil, I agree with patm here. For the reasons patm expressed. The great value of Hostage’s contributions to this web site (for which Hostage so generously spends so much time in the interest of keeping the historical record and applicable law straight), are to be decided de facto by your allowing the constantly misleading likes of Werdine and Shaktimaan to comment here, while officially rejecting Blankfort?

      • Chaos4700
        Chaos4700
        February 18, 2012, 12:08 am

        And now Mayhem is being given free reign to spread Nakba denial on Mondoweiss as well. So much for “enforcing credibility” here.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 18, 2012, 1:45 am

        Yes, they bank Blankfort but welcome Mayhem.

        Wow!

Leave a Reply