Trending Topics:

What’s the difference between South Africa and Israel?

Israel/Palestine

The Forward has posted a podcast about the big decision by a Wall Street firm to delist Caterpillar from its socially-responsible index of companies. Gal Beckerman says:

It’s been a number of years since the BDS movement kind of — 2005 was the initial call. South Africa, yes, there was a slow build to it. But there was a feeling of unanimity, at some point. One domino fell; all the dominos fell. And I don’t quite see that happening here. 
 
And it’s not, I don’t think, a comment on the moral — y’know, on whether the cause of Apartheid is more or less moral than the cause of Palestinians. I think it’s just there are countervailing forces here in a way that there were absolutely not during the South Africa situation.
Beckerman’s “countervailing forces” comment is in line with a statement by Sasha Polakow-Suransky in the great new film Roadmap to Apartheid. Polakow-Suransky wrote the book The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa. In the film he says:
 

[In the 80s] the South Africans actually seek out advice from the Israelis on how to sell themselves In the west and how to improve their image. The South Africans looked to Israel as a sort of beacon, and they didn’t understand why Israel had managed to withstand criticism for decades and survive, and why South Africa was failing. 
 

The countervailing force that Beckerman and Polakow-Suransky are talking about is the Israel lobby. In the Israel case, there is a large bloc inside American political culture that ardently supports the existence of a Jewish state and will go to great measures to back its every policy. F.W. De Klerk, the former South African prime minister who did as much as anyone to end apartheid, has said that the two-state solution, which remains an article of faith inside American political life, is in essence what the white South Africans were trying to get with apartheid and Bantustans, separation. 

One measure of this countervailing force is the discourse in our leading newspapers. Polakow-Suransky is now an editor at the New York Times op-ed page. His book of 2010 said that if Israel fails to dismantle West Bank settlements and create a viable Palestinian state, the apartheid label will be appropriate. Charney Bromberg, David Shulman, and Stephen Robert have all said or suggested in the last year or so that apartheid is a correct description of the West Bank. But can we expect this argument to make it into Polakow-Suransky’s newspaper?  So far the newspaper’s op-ed page has called the apartheid charge a “slander.”

Alex Kane dissents on this one:

The discussion at the Forward is intelligent and interesting. But I think Beckerman is wrong on the South Africa comparison. The movement to divest from South African apartheid began in the 1960s, and it took till the 1980s for it to to have real impact, at least according to this Wikipedia history.

I also think it’s newsworthy what the Forward’s Nathan Guttman said: That this time, the divestment resolutions at the Presbyterian assembly are “serious,” and “pro-Israel activists seem to me at least to be kind of pessimistic. They think the Israel resolutions do have a chance to pass.”

There seems to be real divestment momentum coming off the TIAA-CREF/MSCI decision. 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

102 Responses

  1. yourstruly
    yourstruly
    June 30, 2012, 10:21 am

    the difference will prove to be in the timing, with the collapse of south african apartheid occurring in the last decade of the 20th century & the dissolution of apartheid israel about a quarter of a century later.

  2. Les
    Les
    June 30, 2012, 10:59 am

    Then and now.

  3. Stephen Shenfield
    Stephen Shenfield
    June 30, 2012, 12:17 pm

    I am concerned with another aspect of the question of differences between the two cases. Do Jewish Israelis differ from white South Africans in their political psychology in a way that makes them less likely to respond realistically to boycotts and other outside pressure? I suspect that they do, though I would like to hear the views of people more intimately familiar with Israeli Jewish society.

    I was prompted to reflect on this by a stream of e-mails from an Israeli that I received following the appearance of my article “How I discovered the nakba.” This man, who identified himself as the son of Auschwitz survivors and a former IDF combatant, started sending me the e-mails after Mondoweiss refused to publish his messages. I have now blocked the e-mails because I felt disturbed by the unrestrained expression of visceral hatred (e.g., how he would like to see me killed).

    The hatred was rooted in a worldview dominated by the Holocaust. The Israelis are fighting an enemy who aims to impose a new Holocaust on them and I am a “kapo” collaborating with that enemy. White South Africans, however they might fear black people, could not have such a worldview because they had no historical experience of genocide. Therefore their view of reality was less distorted and (except for a tiny minority of holdouts) they were ultimately brought to their senses by outside pressure. But with the Israelis I get the impression we are dealing with deep psychic disturbance. Perhaps outside pressure will make them even more dangerous.

    At the same time, I recognize that something needs to be done to get through to them. But how? Unless we can come to grips with this phenomenon, how can we devise an effective policy?

    • tokyobk
      tokyobk
      June 30, 2012, 2:08 pm

      No question many Israelis and Jews hear the train whistles to the death camps in attacks on Israel.

      But White SA’s, particularly the Boers, did have experience with massacres and held a deeply believed narrative of going from “Egypt” to a “Promised Land” under constant threat of annihilation.

      • kapok
        kapok
        July 1, 2012, 2:36 pm

        Strange. Others, when they hear whistles, think, “incoming artillery!” I guess they just don’t have your imagination.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 2, 2012, 2:45 pm

        “No question many Israelis and Jews hear the train whistles to the death camps in attacks on Israel.”

        They should try to think of something more cheerful. They got their goddammed promised land, didn’t they. So what the hell are they bitching about? Screw what they hear. As if it would ever be possible to take those fears seriously from people who have not the slightest compunctions about inflicting them on others.
        They can taker their “death camp train whistles” and shove ’em where the sun don’t shine.
        I don’t think my relatives died in the death camps to give them free stolen land.

      • MRW
        MRW
        July 2, 2012, 5:19 pm

        What a great response, Mooser…at July 2, 2012 at 2:45 pm.

    • yourstruly
      yourstruly
      June 30, 2012, 2:25 pm

      an effective policy = bds + exposing israel firsters for the traitors they are, so as to sour the public on the u.s. government’s unconditional support for israel.

    • YoungMassJew
      YoungMassJew
      June 30, 2012, 2:30 pm

      Sir you are a brave man with more courage than I. This is the reason why I choose to remain anonymous, but this probably won’t last especially when you see me on TV one day probably chaining myself to an Israeli embassy if Israel starts another war.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 1, 2012, 4:03 am

        The nasty part is that Israel won’t start the war.

        She’ll get us to start it. Much better (for Israel).

    • W.Jones
      W.Jones
      June 30, 2012, 2:59 pm

      Another issue is the religious difference. Unlike Boers, there is a religious idea of segregation. Admittedly, the same community in America was perhaps one of the strongest forces for integration in American society in general.

      There is a similarity, though not the same, to America and South Africa: the American pioneers and settlers were were afraid of the Indians, depicting them as savages. Plus, the Boers and pilgrims had an experience themselves of living under colonial and religious oppression, respectively. I assume there was also fear by some whites in South Africa about what would happen with integration.

      Another thing: the immigrants to America after the Holocaust did not have strong antagonism to other Americans. There was an understanding even that we had fought Nazism together. Before WWII, immigrants to Palestine lived together with Palestinians for centuries. In fact, I believe they could have continued to live side by side the same way. But unlike in America, there was the introduction of a concept of building a strong ethnic state in Palestine, and Palestinians were in the way of this idea.

      So in conclusion, the difference between living side by side in America and pre-WWII Palestine and afterwards doesn’t appear to be the previous oppression, since in America the survivors developed a sense of integration. Instead, the antagonism and fears seems to have developed out of creating a single-ethnic state. When you aren’t living together with other people and believe in very strong nationalism, perhaps this can contribute more to fears than if you have an experience living together with people.

    • Les
      Les
      June 30, 2012, 3:40 pm

      Sad to say but Jewish South Africans were major supporters of apartheid to the bitter end. Some may have been conscious that Israel too was an apartheid state.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      June 30, 2012, 5:33 pm

      “I am concerned with another aspect of the question of differences between the two cases. Do Jewish Israelis differ from white South Africans in their political psychology in a way that makes them less likely to respond realistically to boycotts and other outside pressure? I suspect that they do”

      So do I.

      What unites both is a dreaded fear of the Other. Both view their enemies are primitive and simply inferior human beings compared to themselves, the civilized and the advanced. Those who, unfortunately, have been given such barbaric neighbours and must spend a vast amount of their time descending to levels that they are simply forced to master ‘in order to survive’.

      The rhetoric from both regimes is nearly identical. Still, Aparthied South Africa existed in one way or another for almost 400 years.
      Jews have been in the holy land for thousands, but on the other hand, were largely absent for the vast majority of that time. And only came to Palestine in larger numbers in the century before the founding of the state(and perhaps lesser than that).

      But makes it all a gamechanger is the Holocaust. It’s not a rational argument, it’s an emotional argument. A poll in Israel recently asked the question what was the major reason for the existance of Israel, and 98 % said the Holocaust(and the lessons of it).

      When Obama mentioned the Holocaust as a reason for Israel’s creation, the entire lobby pounced and screamed. But they know deep down that the Israelis themselves see their own state mostly through the prism of the Holocaust.

      And yes, white-rule South Africa didn’t have a powerful lobby. But the decision by that pension fund is big. And remember that major Co-Op from Britain, it was in their top 5 or top 6 of major retailers.

      So things are moving, as a matter of a fact, things are moving very fast. I don’t think we’ll have to wait another 15 years. I think by the end of this decade, unless something extreme happens, the entire moral argument will be won.

      The only way to lose it is via the opponent demonizing you, a.k.a racist islamophobia, you know muslims trying to take over the west via the birth canal/immigration(most reliable demographic estimates, e.g. via Pew show that muslims will make around 6 % of Europe in the year 2030 and maybe 3 % in the US, hardly a ‘takeover army).
      Or maybe secret muslim brotherhood plans(a.k.a the Islamic version of McCarthyism).

      Expect Hollywood to be playing a leading role if it comes to that kind of desperation.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 1, 2012, 4:10 am

        “…So things are moving, as a matter of a fact, things are moving very fast. I don’t think we’ll have to wait another 15 years. I think by the end of this decade, unless something extreme happens, the entire moral argument will be won…”

        Two things are necessary for that. First, Israel has to continue to behave as oafishly as she has since 2000. If Israel started to become ‘reasonable,’ this could be dragged out a long time.

        Second, there can’t be any major terrorist attacks on the United States. Moral judgements aside, that would be disastrous for the Palestinians. Somebody blows a US airliner out of the sky, and you can tack a decade onto that figure you just gave. Indeed, if Israel gets desperate enough, somebody might just do that.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        July 2, 2012, 3:59 pm

        “The only way to lose it is via the opponent demonizing you, a.k.a racist islamophobia, you know muslims trying to take over the west via the birth canal/immigration”

        I think that whole Muslim barbarian schtick got flogged to death in Iraq and post 911 and now that the OECD countries are mired in debt and the only source of plausible future growth for many companies is outside the OECD we’ll see much more respect shown to the consumers whose future spending is vital to the solvency of the West. Facebook has how many Muslim subscribers? 43 million or something from the Middle East. And how many Ziobots? 3 million.

        Game on.

        Israel is probably at the peak of its power coming into this presidential election.

    • jonah
      jonah
      June 30, 2012, 7:20 pm

      At the same time, I recognize that something needs to be done to get through to them. But how? Unless we can come to grips with this phenomenon, how can we devise an effective policy?

      This is easier than you think. You have discovered the Naqba, but your discovery has been superficial, in the same way your anti-Zionism, uncritically inherited from the parents, appears to be a quite gross distortion of the reality that has bhrought you to see the reality upside down. If you want to get to know the Israeli psyche, you need first to recognize that there is anti-Semitism in the Arab-Muslim world as well as in the anti-Zionist ideology, both directed against the State of Israel, and that you must fight this anti-Semitism the same way as the ancient prophets fought the worst forms of idolatry. Not the Israelis are suffering from psychic disturbance, but the anti-Israel front is, believe me.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 1, 2012, 4:15 am

        “…If you want to get to know the Israeli psyche, you need first to recognize that there is anti-Semitism in the Arab-Muslim world as well as in the anti-Zionist ideology, both directed against the State of Israel, and that you must fight this anti-Semitism the same way as the ancient prophets fought the worst forms of idolatry. Not the Israelis are suffering from psychic disturbance, but the anti-Israel front is, believe me.”

        I’m curious as to how this anti-semitism could be fought.

        I’m reminded of a TV show about a British fighter squadron during the Battle of Britain. One of the pilots is a Pole, who mutters ‘I am happy killing Germans.’

        So as long as Palestine is occupied, how do you propose to fight Arab anti-semitism?

      • Avi_G.
        Avi_G.
        July 1, 2012, 8:13 am

        “Arab anti-Semitism” is another way of saying, “Self-hating Jew.”

        Besides, Arabs are Semitic.

      • Taxi
        Taxi
        July 1, 2012, 9:10 am

        Let’s keep it simple here: for years they told us that antisemeticism is the “irrational hatred” of jews. Therefore it’s wrong to describe hostility towards criminal zionist jews as ‘antisemetic’.

        I reckon there is a seriously small minority in the world that is antisemetic. Anti-israel policy or even anti-israel’s existance on Palestinian land ain’t antisemetic. It’s just simply anti-colinalism/anti-occupation/anti-Apartheid.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        July 2, 2012, 5:33 am

        Taxi- Which dictionary uses the phrase “irrational hatred”? None of course. You are saying that “they” teach that the only possible reason to hate the Jews is irrational. This is poppycock. I’m sure there are very rational reasons for people to hate mixed in with the irrational, the exact proportion is unimportant, but to force the word “irrational” into the definition is to cloud the issue, not to clarify.

      • American
        American
        July 2, 2012, 1:16 pm

        WJ,

        I see anti semitism described as some irrational or ‘natural or inherent condition of gentiles all the time. As if it’s something inborn in non Jews that can’t be eradicated.
        Anti semitism is used as you know incorrectly…and on purpose….as in a negative reaction to anything a Jew does or a group of Jews do is anti semitic simply because the individuals involved in whatever are Jews and cannot be blamed for anything they do…at least that’s been the meme until recently.
        For the whole Israel first and zionist crowd a anti semite is anyone who points out any faults or wrongdoing by any Jew(s)…..meaning anyone who questions or blames Jews or a Jewish individual (or Israel as the Jewish state) for anything at all “hates all Jews”.
        The absurdness of this ‘stretch” of the actual meaning of anti semitism is why the anti semite slur has lost it’s effect for the most part.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 4, 2012, 1:53 am

        ‘…anticolinalism…’

        Obviously, I’m not in a position to be be objective — but I can’t say that I would approve of such a movement.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 2, 2012, 2:50 pm

        “If you want to get to know the Israeli psyche, you need first to recognize that there is anti-Semitism in the Arab-Muslim world as well as in the anti-Zionist ideology, both directed against the State of Israel”

        Jonah, if you are trying to convince us that Jews are stupid, stupid enough to go where they aren’t wanted, to do something nobody wants them to do, and try to do it (the remnant) by force and violence, you can stop running your mouth, Jonah. We get all kinds of anti-Semitic theory here.
        Now, you could convince us that Zionist leaders took advantage, ruthlessly, of the troubles and separatism and separation of the poor Jews. But you would rather be anti-Semitic than indict Zionist leaders.

      • MRW
        MRW
        July 2, 2012, 5:14 pm

        @Jonah and WJ

        Former Knesset Member Shulamit Aloni on Democracy Now!
        “Shulamit Aloni: It’s a trick, we always use it (Antisemitism)”
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNiNbeTLiM8

        She said ‘we use the Holocaust on Europeans and we use anti-semitism on Americans’.

    • Sumud
      Sumud
      June 30, 2012, 10:58 pm

      Hi Stephen. Three resources which you might find relevant:

      1. a radio interview with ex-Israeli psychotherapist Avigail Abarbanel where she analyses Israel as if it were a patient, specifically dealing with trauma aspect:

      http://web.me.com/hzelkahan/Tidings/Podcasts/Entries/2010/5/11_A_psychotherapist_looks_at_Israel.html

      2. Charlie Rose interviewing Avrum Burg on his book The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes”:

      http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10187

      3. Yoav Shamir’s tremendous 2009 documentary ‘Defamation’ which deals with the deliberate traumatising of Israelis by various governmental and cultural bodies within Israel:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOUlJLrQ3sQ

      To a much lesser degree than Palestinians, zionism also terrorises Israeli jews.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        July 2, 2012, 12:36 pm

        Thank you, everyone who has responded and especially Sumud. The URL you give for Avigail Abarbanel appears defunct, but a search on her name yields 3 personal sites with brilliant and moving content. Yoav Shamir’s film has remarkable scenes of how visits to Auschwitz are used to teach Israeli kids “correct” perceptions and feelings.

        I now think that although success in BDS may heighten Israeli paranoia and hatred it will also reduce the resources at Israel’s disposal, and the degree of danger depends on available resources as well as inclinations.

        I have also had further thoughts about the psychology of senders of hate mail. It seems to me that they really have a hard time understanding opposition to Zionism from Jews, especially when such opposition is in the name of Judaism. They try to explain it in terms of pathological individual psychology, but it poses a challenge to their world picture. Their hatred may also reflect inner conflict, a struggle to suppress their own doubts (like homophobia in those struggling to suppress homosexual urges). Although it involves some danger, the only possible way forward is to heighten the inner conflict in the hope of bringing it to resolution.

      • philweiss
        philweiss
        July 2, 2012, 12:38 pm

        agreed, thanks Stephen.
        and yes we all have psychological issues;and that’s why we are for equal rights… another form of character assassination

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        July 2, 2012, 1:48 pm

        Stephen ~ glad you liked them.

        The Hazel Kahan interview is *great*, the link was active a few days ago but was being hosted on Apple’s MobileMe web servers which is a service recently discontinued. I have searched about for another copy but can’t find one.

        Hazel seems to be a bit of a blogging gypsy – I found about half a different platforms she has been on with some interviews here and some there but no one location where they are all located.

        I might see if I can contact her and maybe suggest she upload all her interviews to something a little more permanent like you tube. She’s also done some very interesting other interviews including with Jeff Halper and even one with Phil Weiss after he got back from Gaza in 2009, a bit of a tearjerker.

        Back to Avigail Abarbanel – she’s just edited a new book called ‘Beyond Tribal Loyalties: Personal Stories of Jewish Peace Activists’:

        http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Tribal-Loyalties-Personal-Activists/dp/1443834491

        She’s doing a book tour in Australia at the moment, probably just finished it. Here’s an interview she did a few weeks ago for Radio National in Australia:

        http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/jewish-peace-activists/4066186

        ‘download audio’ link will give you an mp3 file to listen to…

        I was at her Melbourne book launch, she’s a wonderful speaker.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        July 2, 2012, 2:13 pm

        Phil Weiss ~ if you haven’t seen it already please check out Avigail Abaarbanel’s new book that I linked to in my previous comment, and also listen to the radio interview.

        She should be on your radar!

        At her book launch I just kept wondering if she had a book tour lined up for the US. MW should feature the book somehow.*

        *Maybe as the promo book for the next fund drive after this one?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 2, 2012, 2:54 pm

        “Although it involves some danger, the only possible way forward is to heighten the inner conflict in the hope of bringing it to resolution.”

        Thank God it’s inconceivable that we could ever come to the conclusion that they are Judaism, and the Jew’s enemies, and must be fought, and expunged.
        After all if a man says he loves Judaism and the Jews, it’s simply not possible that he is lying.

      • philweiss
        philweiss
        July 2, 2012, 4:31 pm

        we’re all for avigail’s book!

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        July 2, 2012, 10:54 pm

        Splendid :-)

    • Danaa
      Danaa
      July 2, 2012, 1:52 pm

      Stephen, on the “Son of Holocaust Survivors” “former IDF” pretense of your e mail sender. He is, in all likelihood, nothing of the sort. It’s a persona he put on – which is very common to the American (or in general, Anglo) zionist. They pick up credentials as they go along, to better waive them at anyone who seems sensitive to the charge of “anti-semitism”. Chances are the person is another failed “oleh”, ie, an anglo who tried to settle in Israel but found the going too hard and the social environment too cliquish to feel absorbed.

      Another factor – if the letters showed native command of English (as can be inferred from the invectives), it isn’t from any native israeli Hebrew speaker. Relatively few israelis are comfortable enough in English to fling more than one ill-constructed invective.

      Finally, if this has really disturbed you 9and I can see why it would), talk a little to richard Silverstein (who makes mincemeat out of his cyber stalkers). He could give you also many good tips on when to put your foot down (ie, right away, and take no prisoners….even truer if the sender is israeli, which I doubt based on the little you disclosed, cf. the above MO).

      Stay strong!

      • YoungMassJew
        YoungMassJew
        July 2, 2012, 2:24 pm

        I get to be like Tuvia Bielski. I will be forced into my role by the circumstance of my birth. Don’t worry. I’ll help Phil and Adam and their family as well as Avi, Danaa, the Moose and family and all the Mondoweiss Jews and others like them in the Appallachian Mts hiding from the American Nazi Party, which is now offically registered on Capitol Hill . see. http://www.americannaziparty.com/ History has a tendency to repeat itself. I believe in the non-Western cultural belief that history happens in cycles, rather than human civilization progressing to be more civilized as time goes on. I highly admire you guys, even if you do not reciprocate.
        -YMJ

      • YoungMassJew
        YoungMassJew
        July 2, 2012, 3:24 pm

        You guys are truly unreasonable. You’re going to loose a great person here when I start by own blog, at least I should at this point.

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        July 2, 2012, 4:46 pm

        YMJ – who were you addressing BTW? hope it’s not me, the patron saint of reason….or my nemesis, Mooser…..((who has his own reasons, and needes no patron, saintly or otherwise)

      • YoungMassJew
        YoungMassJew
        July 3, 2012, 2:55 pm

        I was being a bit dramatic. But we always got to be on guard. I take my cues from my psychology professor and advisor who happens to be African American and that background informs his outlook. History happens in cycles. Progress doesn’t happen on a straight line. What goes up most come down.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 4, 2012, 1:56 am

        “History happens in cycles.”

        Thinking about it, I can’t come up with much of any evidence at all to support that theory.

      • Eva Smagacz
        Eva Smagacz
        July 4, 2012, 5:22 am

        Looking at the historical cycles, Poland and Lithuenia look safe for like 700 hundred years?

      • Danaa
        Danaa
        July 4, 2012, 1:55 pm

        Eva, that’s the thing with cycles – you never know which cycle exactly is coming to a close, which one is about to restart and which one you are on.

        I think there are cycles in history but not in the conventional sense. It’s more like a corkscrew or a DNA helix, or better yet, a musical theme in a symphony movement. It could be the grand themes that return, but modified, broadened and/or rearranged.

        So, Poland and Lithuania may be safe from say, a unique , slavic theme cycle but not from e.g., a gothic one, or a Hun, or a Russian. And none of us are safe from Sun cycles, that have nothing to do with humans but much to do with flora.

        Come back more often, eh?

      • American
        American
        July 5, 2012, 2:51 pm

        You can if think about historical cycles as a game of musical chairs.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        July 4, 2012, 1:35 pm

        Thank you for your concern. My “disturbance” didn’t last, it soon dissipated. The idea that the man was lying about his credentials, as a number of people have suggested, is persuasive. Especially the point about language. But I think the best strategy is to ignore and delete any message as soon as you see it’s abusive. Responding in any way is a waste of time and may encourage them.

    • American
      American
      July 2, 2012, 2:52 pm

      “I was prompted to reflect on this by a stream of e-mails from an Israeli that I received following the appearance of my article “How I discovered the nakba.” This man, who identified himself as the son of Auschwitz survivors and a former IDF combatant, started sending me the e-mails after Mondoweiss refused to publish his messages. I have now blocked the e-mails because I felt disturbed by the unrestrained expression of visceral hatred (e.g., how he would like to see me killed).”

      Did you try and trace his ISP address to see where he was from?
      A lot of these types are lying about their and or their parents background.
      There were only 50,000 actual Jewish holocaust survivors ..as in Jews liberated from ‘all’ concentration camps by the allies according to all records, even the Jewish org. records.
      I would bet that 99.9% of the time this kind of thing is some zio kid playing tough guy on the internet.
      I once got cyber stalked by some zio Shalom Team bot at Dkos telling me he was gonna come “hand my ass to me” if I didn’t quit criticizing Israel. LOL

      • YoungMassJew
        YoungMassJew
        July 3, 2012, 3:00 pm

        I bet he thought he was going to use his super-Jewish powers to go after you. Probably was some 18 yr old Ivy league a$$-twat who thinks he knows everything about politics and Israel. They stuck out like a sore thumb on birthright Manifest Destiny tour.

      • philweiss
        philweiss
        July 3, 2012, 11:53 pm

        want to send me a post about your birthright tour? keep the namecalling down and tell us what it was like

    • ColinWright
      ColinWright
      July 4, 2012, 2:05 am

      “At the same time, I recognize that something needs to be done to get through to them. But how? Unless we can come to grips with this phenomenon, how can we devise an effective policy?”

      Why do we need to ‘get through’ to them? To be more precise, I don’t think there’s much likelihood of that. Churchill and Roosevelt didn’t waste their time trying to come up with a way to ‘get through’ to the Nazis — and I’m quite happy with my conviction that Zionism and Naziism are very similar ideologies. You’re not going to ‘get through’ to anyone.

      What needs to be done is to render Israel unlivable. It needs to be cut off from all support, boycotted, blockaded if need be. And just make sure they all understand they can leave any time they wish, and they are welcome to emigrate (as individuals) anywhere they like. If we here in the United States get them, so much the better — it’ll be punishment for our sins in having so vociferously supported them for so long.

      That’ll solve the problem. There’s neither any hope nor any need to ‘get through’ to them.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        July 4, 2012, 1:51 pm

        Considering Israel’s nuclear arsenal, we can hardly deal with it the same way we dealt with Nazi Germany. Hitler wanted to take Germany with him when he killed himself but failed. Any Israeli leader with a Masada complex can easily take with him not just Israel but the whole of the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean (at least).

        “Getting through to them” is a forbidding task, but we shouldn’t assume it’s impossible. After all, (ex-)Israeli dissidents like Miko Peled and Avigail Abarbanel started off as keen loyalists. The more Israelis and Zionists undergo such transformations, the shorter and less painful the transition. Perhaps a better metaphor than “breaking through” is assisting them (the rational bit inside them) to “break out.”

      • American
        American
        July 5, 2012, 3:02 pm

        “Any Israeli leader with a Masada complex can easily take with him not just Israel but the whole of the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean (at least).”…..Stephen

        Well, I once created a war on MW by pointing out why it’s highly unlikely Israel would be able to do that.
        So I won’t go into the details again….but the US would know if Israel was about to do that and prevent it…..probably the one scenairo in which the US would blow up Israel if it didn’t heed our warnings before it could blow up the ME oil regions.

  4. mudder
    mudder
    June 30, 2012, 2:11 pm

    “What’s the difference between South Africa and Israel?”

    South Africa had no political lobby in Washington, unless you count Falwell. Falwell, however, could only deliver the votes of Moral Majority members. He couldn’t deliver any money. That last difference was the key difference.

  5. YoungMassJew
    YoungMassJew
    June 30, 2012, 2:34 pm

    Israeli society is blinded by their Judeo-Fascism as it’s been programmed into them from a very early age. I don’t know you de-program this on a large scale without putting your life in jeoporty, especially since a lot of them carry guns.

    • Ellen
      Ellen
      July 4, 2012, 5:06 am

      Well, there was the de-nazification program employed onto all Germans (west Germans, that is) right after the war. That’s a model.

      bTw, some of the films dealing with post war Germany had a really comical treatment of those de-natzification centers. If I could only remember the names……

      • American
        American
        July 5, 2012, 3:07 pm

        Ellen says:
        July 4, 2012 at 5:06 am

        “Well, there was the de-nazification program employed onto all Germans (west Germans, that is) right after the war. That’s a model.”

        Not really, that program only started after we totally destroyed Germany.

  6. seafoid
    seafoid
    June 30, 2012, 3:13 pm

    The other countervailing force is Shoah guilt which the bots have flogged to death but think will work forever. They believe they can drag it up whenever they want and it will immediately neuter whatever the latest atrocity is that Israel is responsible for.

    And it’s like a spell that has been very effective until now but soon will be impotent. Because people like Lieberman are sons of bitches. And they are not ours.

  7. dimadok
    dimadok
    June 30, 2012, 6:03 pm

    Because the moral grounds are different, history is different , amount of wars and blood spilled is different and most importantly the ratios of two nations are almost equal. This and the complete dissilusiment after the Oslo peace process.

  8. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    June 30, 2012, 7:36 pm

    “Perhaps outside pressure will make them even more dangerous.”

    Yes, this has to be part of the closed door conversations in the WH and State Dept. “More dangerous” with nukes and a history of belligerence is a bad omen.

  9. johd
    johd
    June 30, 2012, 11:46 pm

    [White South Africans, however they might fear black people, could not have such a worldview because they had no historical experience of genocide]

    This is not correct on two levels. The Boer underwent the first documented concentration camp genocide of the 20th century during the Anglo/Boer war.

    “Swart Gevaar” or ‘Black threat’ was a pillar of the the separation or “apartheid” policy. That Whites people could not risk living on an equal footing with Black People because Black people would slaughter the Whites and drive them into the sea.

    • ColinWright
      ColinWright
      July 1, 2012, 4:29 am

      “…The Boer underwent the first documented concentration camp genocide of the 20th century during the Anglo/Boer war…”

      Please. You’d be surprised by some of my opinions about the Boers — but can we quit with the abuse of the term ‘genocide’?

      There was neither any intent to commit ‘genocide’ during the Boer War, nor (obviously) was the act committed. There were horribly badly run concentration (not extermination) camps in which something 10% of the occupants died from disease, and the British did go over to a scorched earth policy in the countryside in order to drive the Boers to the conference table — but at no point was there anything resembling ‘genocide’ in either intent or effect.

      A fine read on the subject, incidentally (and I tend to be critical of historians) is Martin Meredith ‘Diamonds, Gold, and War: The British, the Boers, and the Making of South Africa.’ After a run of disappointing books from other authors, it was a very pleasant surprise.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        July 2, 2012, 2:56 pm

        What can you do, Colin? We all know the actions taken against the Boers were “genocide”. BTW, what is the term Zionists use for moving people out of the illegal Israeli settlements?

  10. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned
    July 1, 2012, 12:27 am

    For Stephen Shenfield:
    South African whites had their own memory of the Boer War(s), which pitted the British military against the guerrilla warfare of the white settlers. It is worth while noting that the European left at the time supported the Boers, because they thought of British imperialism as the main enemy. The British put Boer prisoners – whole villages – in concentration camps, which was considered shocking at the time. The British were imprisoning whites (!!) so it can’t be dismissed at white racism. [It would not be considered shocking during the First or Second World War. In the US we imprisoned Japanese-Americans. And Germany’s record is well known.] The South African whites told themselves, the whole world is against us, and against our way of life. (I wouldn’t say I’m a expert on Israeli Jewish society, just my two cents.)
    For Phil Weiss: the BSD debate is a debate that Israel’s supporters are losing. They feel they have to defend Israel, which to them means defending Israel’s racial policy. Even if the Israeli supporter win a divestment vote, that just means the supporters of the Palestinians will come back again the next year and the debate will occur again. And having that debate allows supporters of the oppressed Palestinians to make their case.

    • ColinWright
      ColinWright
      July 1, 2012, 4:32 am

      “The South African whites told themselves, the whole world is against us, and against our way of life. “

      No, that wouldn’t be true. In the run-up to the war, Kaiser Wilhelm II (he had a knack for this sort of thing) was vociferously supporting the Boers, and the Boers were buying rather substantial quantities of arms from the Germans. That’s why they initially did surprisingly well.

    • ColinWright
      ColinWright
      July 1, 2012, 4:34 am

      “For Phil Weiss: the BSD debate is a debate that Israel’s supporters are losing. They feel they have to defend Israel, which to them means defending Israel’s racial policy. Even if the Israeli supporter win a divestment vote, that just means the supporters of the Palestinians will come back again the next year and the debate will occur again. And having that debate allows supporters of the oppressed Palestinians to make their case.”

      Yeah. It’s bit like if I draw you into an argument about whether you are a child molester.

      You can’t win.

  11. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    July 1, 2012, 1:00 am

    There are some distinctions — which cut both ways.

    Tending to weaken the likelihood that Israel will fold as easily as South Africa, we have…

    1. The vigorous and extremely effective Israel lobby in the United States. South Africa never had anything even close to this.

    2. The absence of some of the sentiment that worked against South Africa. By 1970 at the latest, it was wrong to discriminate against Blacks. Ergo, South Africa was ‘bad.’ Since at the moment it’s quite alright and even praiseworthy to hate Muslims, Israel is ahead here. Picture a Pam Geller raving about Blacks, if you don’t agree.

    On the other hand…

    1. South Africa was far less dependent on international public opinion than Israel is. Israel is in many ways almost absurdly concerned with how others perceive her. South Africa wasn’t immune to this effect — I’d even argue it was the psychological isolation that killed her more than anything else — but to a far greater extent than Israel, she was her own country, with a complete moral framework, etc. Mentally, she really could say — and did say, for about twenty years — ‘you may think Blacks should have political equality, but we don’t.’ Many Israelis might well feel the same, but they’ll never be able to bring themselves to adopt anything like as their official dogma.

    2. Materially as well, South Africa was more independent than Israel. South Africa was a large country with ample resources. She had a few needs, but she was never actually crippled by any of the boycotts. They were economically damaging — but if she’d really wanted to, South Africa could have toughed it out.

    Israel is a small, grossly overcrowded country. She is utterly dependent on international trade, and would last slightly longer than Singapore would in the face of a serious boycott.

    • Blake
      Blake
      July 1, 2012, 10:34 am

      Amazing Analysis

    • Sumud
      Sumud
      July 1, 2012, 11:36 am

      ColinWright ~ very good points. To extend your first point about Israel being dependent on public opinion, there is another aspect to this and that is the US consistent use the the Security Council veto to give Israel a high degree of immunity from the workings of the international legal system.

      So Israel has been working hard to make Americans feel that both they and the US are fighting the same battle against masses of islamic terrorists. It was a very effective strategy after 9/11 and if you’re feeling cynical you might even say what a magnificent coincidence for Israel that 9/11 occurred at the height of the second intifada in Israel/Palestine.

      But Palestinians have changed tactics and adopted non-violent tactics. Facebook didn’t exist until 2004 and Twitter until 2006. Mobile phones didn’t have cameras in 2001. Now Israel is facing a massive swing in public opinion and all the zionist media gatekeepers are powerless in the face of the tsunami of personal and social media journalism and blogs. They are losing this battle because hasbara is mostly lies and collapses under the slightest scrutiny.

      It’s only a matter of time until all Americans come to understand that Israel is an apartheid state. Obama has to be crapping himself because it really isn’t a good look for the first African American President to be seen as pro-apartheid. It will haunt him. It’s his achilles heel and wise activists would directly target Obama using this pressure point. Maybe it won’t happen in his term but there will come a point where American public opinion on Israel will get so low that they will have to stop using the US SC veto – then Israel’s behaviour will change.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 2, 2012, 3:08 am

        “…It’s only a matter of time until all Americans come to understand that Israel is an apartheid state. Obama has to be crapping himself because it really isn’t a good look for the first African American President to be seen as pro-apartheid. It will haunt him. It’s his achilles heel and wise activists would directly target Obama using this pressure point. Maybe it won’t happen in his term but there will come a point where American public opinion on Israel will get so low that they will have to stop using the US SC veto – then Israel’s behaviour will change.”

        There’s a grimmer and in my view more likely scenario.

        Right now, the United States holds up Israel more or less unaided. Others might be mildly sympathetic or at least indifferent to our efforts — but they’re hardly going to take up the good work if we find ourselves unable to persevere.

        Our moral and actual domination of the world is fading very rapidly. There will come a day when it won’t matter if we support Israel.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      July 1, 2012, 11:59 am

      SA didn’t fold easily. It took at least 25 years from the start of concerted anti apartheid action outside the country. By the time 1990 came around nobody at university in SA believed in the system.

      Zionism is at the beginning of that process. The state of the opposition to the system within Israel is very weak . Most Jews send their kids to indoctrinating schools and onwards to the army. Dissent is still tightly controlled and dissenters are isolated and shamed.

      The strength of the transmission mechanism of the system across the generations is probably Zionism’s big weakness. Every generation Israel requires

      A an indoctrinated Jewish Israeli populationwho can’t see anzy alternative to the status quo
      B A rabid lobby in the US and enough Americans who couldn’t care less
      C Europeans who trust Israel as a democracy

      C is already weakening and the bots are worried about B
      Give it another 10 years and C will be lost. Dersh and his cohort are unlikely to be replaced and change in A will become visible as the Orthodox take over and drive out the people who provide for all the freeloaders with their taxes. Israel looks impregnable today but change is brewing.

  12. Taxi
    Taxi
    July 1, 2012, 1:42 am

    It’s like asking what’s the difference between the KKK and skinheads.

  13. homingpigeon
    homingpigeon
    July 1, 2012, 10:56 am

    Just read all the thoughtful comments and there is one interesting parallel that has not yet been mentioned. Settlers in North America and South Africa used the divinely ordained mass slaughters described in the Hebrew Scriptures as precedent and theological justification for extermination of the natives.

    The refugees from one place, ancient Egypt, (or Europe), fled to another place, and God required of them and assisted them in mass slaughter and dispossession of the locals in the new place.

    • Blake
      Blake
      July 1, 2012, 12:23 pm

      True but with one major difference, never ethnically cleansed the locals out nor denied who the natives were/are.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 2, 2012, 3:17 am

        This is one element that’s striking. As a rule, in the course of North American settlement, most commentators didn’t deny that it was entirely understandable that the Indians would resist — and certainly no one denied that they were there. The attitude actually tended to be more ‘well I see their point — but our needs are more important than theirs.’ Usually, the Indians were rather callously assigned to the dustbin of history — ‘their day has passed, and they must accept the plow, etc, blah, blah.’

        Pretty ghastly, and as the Cherokee demonstrated, it didn’t really help if they did accept the plow, blah blah — but nothing like the sort of evil nonsense the Zionists try to put over about the Palestinians.

      • homingpigeon
        homingpigeon
        July 3, 2012, 1:23 am

        Perhaps I should have used a different word than “exterminate.” But it wasn’t my point to get into what relative portion of the native populations were killed, displaced, or just subdued. I was addressing the fact that there exists a body of theological literature from the Puritans and other American settler denominations, and from the Reformed Church of South Africa, which draws and the Hebrew scriptures stories of the Exodus and the takeover of the “Promised Land.” The settlers saw themselves as the chosen people who were entitled to take land from natives whose role was that of the pagan Canaanites and Amalakites and who deserved no mercy.

        Modern Christian Zionism continues with the same theme on Palestine.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 4, 2012, 2:24 am

        Yeah. This is certainly so. Jews and Christians can both find ample support in the idea of a ‘chosen people’ to take just about anything they want and do anything they please.

        And indeed, in Christian societies, religious minorities have tended to have a rather rough ride. Spain may have actually had a Muslim majority at one point: that was cleared up. And of course most of the Jews’ history of oppression has been of oppression at the hands of Christians.

        Lately, Jews have had the opportunity to demonstrate they are equally adept at making use of these texts to clear the decks. It’s ironic that they got this opportunity only shortly after Christian societies discovered the virtues of tolerance — and indeed, had the enlightenment and liberalism not unbound the Jews, they never would have gotten the opportunity. So their freedom was promptly put to use to make possible the oppression of others.

        Conversely, Islam has built-in injunctions requiring tolerance –certainly not equality, but tolerance. Not being allowed to ride a horse beats getting burnt alive hands down. Hence the persistence of large Christian and Jewish minorities in Muslim states (at least until the dawning of our current bright new day of nationalism.)

  14. Blake
    Blake
    July 1, 2012, 12:56 pm

    This “Spitting Image” clip should bring a few smiles:
    Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir Dies At 96

  15. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    July 1, 2012, 1:06 pm

    “Settlers in North America and South Africa used the divinely ordained mass slaughters described in the Hebrew Scriptures as precedent and theological justification for extermination of the natives…”

    As far as I know, the settlers in South Africa didn’t exterminate the natives. Here, it happened, but the agent was generally bacilli that the settlers didn’t even know existed.

    This isn’t to try to justify the settlers — but no, at least in South Africa there was no attempt to ‘exterminate’ the natives. Here, the Indians tended to die on their own, and in any case, we often had little use for them, but as a rule, they weren’t really ‘exterminated.’

    • AllenBee
      AllenBee
      July 1, 2012, 4:11 pm

      John Winthrop had zionist-like views of how Native Americans should be treated; it is reasonable to assume he had greater fidelity to Old Testament/Hebrew scriptures.

      Roger Williams differed radically from Winthrop in his view of Native Americans. Williams befriended Natives, was sheltered and protected by them, studied them to learn about their culture. Williams was also extremely well versed in the methods of Francis Bacon, and the intellectual rigor and courage of John Coke, who challenged King James on several significant occasions to enforce universal rights guaranteed to all Englishmen. Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 2, 2012, 3:01 am

        “John Winthrop had zionist-like views of how Native Americans should be treated; it is reasonable to assume he had greater fidelity to Old Testament/Hebrew scriptures.”

        It’s certainly true that many of the European settlers had genocidal views concerning the Indians — and still more certainly weren’t about to let any notion that the Indians might have rights too inconvenience them.

        However, the fact remains that most of the work was done for them, ahead of time, without even their knowledge. For example, the Indians of Massachusetts had already been decimated by Smallpox before the Pilgrims arrived. The Cherokee population had been reduced to a fraction of what it had been long before ‘the Trail of Tears.’

        When my ancestors arrived in California in 1864, there appear to have been only about 50,000 Indians left in the state. It’s interesting to realize that if Palestine had had the same population density in 1948, there would have been only 9000 Palestinians — it would indeed have been to at least some extent ‘a land without a people for a people without a land.’ Say what you will about Israel and the settlement of North America: the Palestinian case would have been a whole lot less compelling if there had been only 9000 Palestinians still around to contest the Zionists’ claim.

  16. ColinWright
    ColinWright
    July 2, 2012, 5:58 am

    In comparing the obliteration of the Indians in the Americas to other situations, it might be best to perceive the settlers as the pneumonia that finally kills you off when you’ve been losing a fight with a devastating cancer or something.

    The pneumonia kills you all right — but only because you’re so weakened (or reduced in numbers and/or disrupted by disease, in the case of Indians). In defense of this, I will note that Cortez benefited from the smallpox that swept the Aztecs concurrently with his arrival, while smallpox got to Peru just ahead of Pizarro and allowed him to walk into what was a very badly disrupted empire. If you look for it, this is a constant theme in interactions between Europeans and Indians. For example, Lewis and Clark encounter the Mandans — agriculturalists along the Missouri. Then or shortly thereafter, small pox hits the Mandans. The few survivors prove incapable of resisting Sioux attacks, and by the time settlers arrive in force, no more Mandans, as far as I know. Just Sioux. The land’s open for farming. There’s increasing evidence that the Amazon was actually densely populated prior to first contact. It’s just that the disease advanced so far in advance of the colonists that there were only remnants of the original population by the time Europeans began entering the region in any numbers.

    Conversely, the various old-world cultures which already had the European colonists inventory of diseases proved ultimately successful in resisting replacement and subjugation. Algeria’s a classic. Europeans may have wanted to colonize it, but the Arabs remained obstinately present, numerous, and uncooperative. South Africa eventually repeated the point. Kenya, Viet Nam, Manchuria and Korea…I can’t think of any attempt at colonization as in settlement that ultimately worked in the Old World.
    There have been various examples of cultural spread in the Old World (Spain and much of what is now Germany come to mind), but these were extremely protracted processes, often involving gradual synthesis, assimilation, and accommodation as much as anything recognizable as colonization. There’s never been anything like the European march of triumph across the New World.

    The military superiority is what people tend to notice. The ‘Indian Wars’ were usually pathetically one-sided. I think Little Big Horn was the most significant reverse we suffered — and that would have qualified as an unsuccessful probe in World War One or Two. However, the same level of superiority wasn’t sufficient in the Old World. If one reads about the French conquest of Morocco, almost all of the engagements are similarly one-sided. Ditto, largely, for British India. The battle of Plassy was an absurdity. The repression of the Sepoy Mutiny consisted of one handy British victory after another. Europeans, from about 1800 on, almost invariably had total military supremacy anywhere they chose to exert it. It wasn’t just the American Indians that were hopelessly outgunned.

    …yet in the end, the French never did successfully colonize Morocco. There continued to be lots of Moroccans. Nor did the British convert India into vacant farmland.

    I think the one clear difference is disease. The North American Indians were successfully eliminated — either physically or culturally — not because of some special ferocity on the part of the settlers, nor because of any unusual backwardness on the part of the American Indians, but primarily because the settler’s diseases were doing much of the heavy lifting for them. Had disease exacted the same toll on indigenous peoples in the Old World as it did in the New, Algerie would indeed be Francais, South Africa would be a white nation, and Manchuria would be inarguably Japanese.

    But disease doesn’t exert this toll in the Old World. The historical record suggests the liberation of Palestine is ultimately simply a matter of time. Palestine will eventually spit out its would-be master race as well.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      July 2, 2012, 8:45 am

      Israel should have sorted out the Palestinian issue years ago.
      the other killer is that they got their calculations badly wrong
      Ha’aretz

      “(Shamir) viewed the West Bank as the hinterland to which millions of Jews from around the world would come to settle. ”

      YESHA is a half finished fantasy . “If you build it they will come” is what Shamir said to Kevin Costner in the film “field of Zionist nightmares”
      and they built. But the people stayed away.

      If Shamir had been right Phil Weiss would be living today in Kiryat Arba.

  17. Fredblogs
    Fredblogs
    July 2, 2012, 5:12 pm

    The main difference is that Israeli citizens can vote regardless of race. Unlike South Africa where only white citizens could vote.

    The real question is “how are they the same”. The answer to that is only in the fact that they both rule populations who don’t get a vote in their elections. However, the South Africans ruled South African citizens who were forbidden to vote based on race, while the Israelis rule non-citizen enemies who are forbidden to vote in Israeli elections on the basis that they aren’t citizens.

    • ColinWright
      ColinWright
      July 3, 2012, 3:00 pm

      “…while the Israelis rule non-citizen enemies who are forbidden to vote in Israeli elections on the basis that they aren’t citizens.”

      And the bulk of the Palestinians under Israeli rule aren’t citizens on the basis of their race.

      A Jew can come from literally anywhere and automatically become a citizen. A Palestinian could have been born across the street and he will never be able to become a citizen.

      Tell me something. Is a Jew born in the settlements regarded as an Israeli citizen? If a Palestinian is born of parents who were driven out in 1948, is he regarded as a citizen? What is the basis for the distinction?

  18. Fredblogs
    Fredblogs
    July 2, 2012, 5:14 pm

    A secondary difference is that the blacks in South Africa weren’t launching thousands of missiles and mortars at white majority cities. Also that they didn’t elect for themselves a government dedicated to exterminating the whites.

    • Blake
      Blake
      July 3, 2012, 1:01 am

      Honestly is there a thread you have not used this lame comment in? ALL of “Israel” is OCCUPIED Palestine lest you forget.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 3, 2012, 2:34 pm

        I don’t forget, I just disagree.

      • Blake
        Blake
        July 3, 2012, 5:43 pm

        So “Israel” just miraculously appeared in 1948 Fred?

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 5, 2012, 1:04 pm

        It is not occupied. It belongs to the Israelis. Spain isn’t “occupied” just because the Spaniards kicked the Muslims out in 1492. America isn’t “occupied” just because the Americans took it from the Native Americans.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        July 5, 2012, 1:40 pm

        “It is not occupied.”

        Yes, it is, Fredo. Occupied Palestine, from the sea to the Jordan.

      • Blake
        Blake
        July 5, 2012, 2:34 pm

        In this scenario you Zionists are the invaders like the Moors all those years ago. Sometimes I do wonder which century (BC) you live in. Palestinian parent tree goes back pre-Israelite invasion anyway.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 5, 2012, 8:55 pm

        @Woodrow
        I know that’s what you think, Woodrow. As I said, we disagree.

      • Blake
        Blake
        July 9, 2012, 5:49 am

        Fred: When “Israel” denies international observers into the west bank or Gaza they say they have the right to deny anyone they like into territories they occupy so when you deny they are occupying Gaza or the west Bank (as you do relentlessly) you are simply lying deviously as a propagandist.

    • ColinWright
      ColinWright
      July 3, 2012, 2:55 pm

      No…one of their few successful ‘actions’ was the murder of a mother taking her son to school.

      They were all sweetness, light, and nobility. That’s why we granted them their freedom.

    • YoungMassJew
      YoungMassJew
      July 3, 2012, 3:04 pm

      When you are living in conditions akin to the Warsaw ghetto yeah you might get a little pissed off at the occupier.

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 4, 2012, 1:44 am

        “When you are living in conditions akin to the Warsaw ghetto yeah you might get a little pissed off at the occupier…”

        I believe this is one of Israel’s perennial frustrations.

        In their attempt to reenact on a national level their own traumatic childhood, they keep trying to force the Palestinians to play the role Jews once did.

        But to the Zionists’ frustration, the Palestinians never play their part. They don’t passively submit. They keep rebelling. That drives the Zionists wild.

        They need to herd the opppressed into ghettos, to grind their boot into the face of the oppressed — and above all, the oppressed need to meekly take it.

        …and they never do. In however uncoordinated and ineffectual fashion, the Palestinians keep fighting back. The Israelis take land from a Palestinian village — and they get the Fogel murders. They kill people in Gaza — and somebody in Gaza fires rockets back.

        The Zionists just can’t get the Palestinians to play their part. It drives ’em nuts.

        People may question this. But if they do, they need to ask themselves — whence comes this need to dominate, to humiliate? After all, the Israelis could perfectly easily render the Palestinians harmless and even derive considerable benefit from exploiting what would be a constantly available pool of cheap labor. The Palestinians are practically begging to be allowed to be kept in a Bantustan and let into Israel when their labor is needed. But the Israelis don’t go that route, and they don’t want to. Why?

      • ColinWright
        ColinWright
        July 4, 2012, 2:35 am

        ‘…kept in a Bantustan and let into Israel when their labor is needed. But the Israelis don’t go that route, and they don’t want to…’

        When one thinks about this, it really is telling. Unlike — say — the French in Algeria, the Jews in Israel aren’t a tiny minority. Moreover, the Palestinian leadership is so buffaloed it would sign just about any deal. And for all the arm-waving, absent deliberate Israeli provocation Palestinian terrorism hasn’t been a serious problem since 1948. When Israel has chosen to permit it — as I recall, in the years after Oslo, for example — things were really perfectly quiet.

        Israel could very easily sign a peace treaty that would create a ‘Palestine’ on about a fifth — and hardly the most desirable fifth — of the land. That Palestine would be essentially a Bantustan, and would willingly supply its labor to Israel. Indeed, that labor would be about its only resource.

        The Israelis could be riding high, wide, and handsome. It could all be structured so that only the marginal left would find fault.

        So why won’t they take the deal? I mean, I’m glad they won’t — I see it as completely unjust — but why won’t they?

        I submit it is because as a nation, Israel is disturbed. Certainly her condition would be regarded as pathological if she were an individual.

      • Fredblogs
        Fredblogs
        July 5, 2012, 2:28 pm

        Not a serious problem? Thousands of Israelis murdered, tens of thousands maimed. The equivalent (adjusted for population size) of a 9/11 attack every month or two during some of those years.

        Israel won’t make a deal because the Palestinians aren’t interested in any deal that doesn’t give them full right of return. That would be the end of Israel and is of course unacceptable to the Israelis. Also, the Palestinians want to control the Jewish holy sites in East Jerusalem and given their history of desecrating Jewish holy sites, that is unacceptable to Israel too.

    • Blake
      Blake
      July 5, 2012, 2:30 pm

      No they did not need to shoot missiles they weren’t in open air prisons suffering under the longest occupation in history. However they did have a resistance which bombed civilian and military targets. Also, “one settler one bullet” and “drive the whites into the sea” were 2 slogans at the time which made the whites very fearful and that was used in their propaganda at the time in the west for their apartheid cause.

      In your comment above this one you stated that Palestinians inside “Israel” have the vote. They have the vote which is a smokescreen because they know to tow the line and never question the “Jewish” state and all it’s institutions/racial laws, etc.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        July 5, 2012, 7:23 pm

        The Palestinian citizens of Israel have not been “towing the line” for quite a few years now. They have been electing MKs who advocate transforming Israel from a Jewish state into a state of its inhabitants regardless of ethnicity. That is one of the reasons Israeli politicians are now thinking about how they can deprive them of citizenship, perhaps by transferring predominantly Palestinian areas of Israel to the PA.

      • Blake
        Blake
        July 6, 2012, 7:00 am

        Thanks Stephen.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        July 6, 2012, 7:33 am

        “The Palestinian citizens of Israel have not been “toeing the line” for quite a few years now.”

  19. talknic
    talknic
    July 2, 2012, 6:43 pm

    The difference? Israel is still an apartheid state.

Leave a Reply