Trending Topics:

What Irish hero Michael Davitt tells us about Jewish history

Israel/Palestine
on 117 Comments
Michael Davitt

Michael Davitt

Two weeks ago the scholar Steven Zipperstein gave an excellent talk at the Yivo Institute in New York called “Rethinking Kishinev, How a Riot Changed 20th Century Jewish History.” Zipperstein’s theme was that this pogrom, which killed some 50 Jews over two days in the fifth largest city in Russia, was seized on by Zionists and socialists and anti-Semites too to promote their programs, in ways that previous anti-Jewish violence had not been deployed. Ideologues created new “engines” of public opinion, using the western press, that made Kishinev a world event, and cemented the American-Jewish idea of Jewish history as a skein of persecution.

I’ll have a fuller report in days to come, but I wanted to light on one fascinating angle of Zipperstein’s talk. Kishinev was seized on by a heroic liberationist writer of the 20th century, someone I’d never heard of before: Michael Davitt of Ireland. Davitt was an Irish Republican and populist who inspired Gandhi. He’d spent years in prison, he believed in non-violence. He went as a journalist to Kishinev to report on the pogrom, and then wrote a book about it called Within the pale: The True Story of Anti-Semitic Persecutions in Russia. Zipperstein said that Davitt took the word “pale” from the English area of control in Ireland and applied it to Russia; and thus changed Jewish vocabulary. (And in fact it was in Davitt’s archived papers in Ireland that Zipperstein was able to find copies of the leading anti-Semitic newspaper of Kishinev.)

I bring this up for one reason. A hundred years ago, enlightened world opinion was on the Jews’ side against terrible forces: the rise of rightwing radical anti-Semitism. Even Tolstoy wrote against Kishinev, Zipperstein said. On the other side, anti-Semites had support inside the Russian government.

And a leading Irish republican writer took up the oppressed Jews’ cause.

Today there is simply no question whose side a Davitt would be on: the Palestinians against the Israelis. This is obvious because of the rich connection that today exists between the Palestinian solidarity movement and Irish republican activists; the Irish say that the colonized Palestinian condition reminds them of their own.

There were a couple hundred people at Yivo the other night, most of them Jewish. I’d urge all Jews to reflect on where Zionism has swept the American Jewish community in its political values– how alienated we are today from our champions of a century before.

P.S. Noam Chomsky brought up Kishinev on Amy Goodman’s show last week, apropos of Ariel Sharon’s role in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, which he termed “a horrifying massacre, actually one that should resonate with people who are familiar with Jewish history. It was almost a replica of the Kishinev massacre in pre-First World War Russia, one of the worst atrocities in Israeli memory, [and] led to a famous nationalist poem by the main Israeli poet, Chaim Nahman Bialik, ‘City of Killing.'”

 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

117 Responses

  1. MahaneYehude1
    MahaneYehude1
    January 20, 2014, 11:51 am

    “In the City of Slaughter” – Haim Nahman Bialik

    ARISE and go now to the city of slaughter;
    Into its courtyard wind thy way;
    There with thine own hand touch, and with the eyes of
    thine head,
    Behold on tree, on stone, on fence, on mural clay,
    The spattered blood and dried brains of the dead.
    Proceed thence to the ruins, the split walls reach,
    Where wider grows the hollow, and greater grows the
    breach;
    Pass over the shattered hearth, attain the broken wall
    Whose burnt and barren brick, whose charred stones reveal
    The open mouths of such wounds, that no mending
    Shall ever mend, nor healing ever heal.
    There will thy feet in feathers sink, and stumble
    On wreckage doubly wrecked, scroll heaped on manuscript,
    Fragments again fragmented—
    Pause not upon this havoc; go thy way.
    The perfumes will be wafted from the acacia bud
    And half its blossoms will be feathers,
    Whose smell is the smell of blood!
    And, spiting thee, strange incense they will bring—
    Banish thy loathing—all the beauty of the spring,
    The thousand golden arrows of the sun,
    Will flash upon thy malison;
    The seven fold rays of broken glass
    Over thy sorrow joyously will pass,
    For God called up the slaughter and the spring together,—
    The slayer slew, the blossom burst, and it was sunny
    weather!
    Then wilt thou flee to a yard, observe its mound.
    Upon the mound lie two, and both are headless—
    A Jew and his hound.
    The self-same axe struck both, and both were flung
    Unto the self-same heap where swine seek dung;
    Tomorrow the rain will wash their mingled blood
    Into the runners, and it will be lost
    In rubbish heap, in stagnant pool, in mud.
    Its cry will not be heard.
    It will descend into the deep, or water the cockle-burr.
    And all things will be as they ever were.

    http://faculty.history.umd.edu/BCooperman/NewCity/Slaughter.html

    • Pamela Olson
      Pamela Olson
      January 20, 2014, 2:18 pm

      A beautiful and haunting poem, thanks for sharing.

      The best poems have universal significance, and this one could be read over many massacres, from Wounded Knee to the Armenian genocide to Deir Yassin and Sabra and Chatila.

      May we find in our hearts empathy for all, as equal sojourners on this world, animated by the same spirit.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        January 20, 2014, 2:49 pm

        @Pamela:

        May we find in our hearts empathy for all, as equal sojourners on this world, animated by the same spirit.

        Amen!!!

      • gamal
        gamal
        January 22, 2014, 10:04 am

        As “emapthy for all” seems a singularly inappropriate way to respond to a reading of Bialik might i offer,
        Sami Shalom Chetrit, “A Radical Mizrahi Reading Of the Jewish National Poet”

        http://complit.dukejournals.org/content/62/1/1.full.pdf+html

  2. Donald
    Donald
    January 20, 2014, 12:23 pm

    I first heard of Kishinev when I read Chomsky’s “The Fateful Triangle”–it begins the chapter on Sabra and Shatila.

  3. David Doppler
    David Doppler
    January 20, 2014, 12:41 pm

    Great multi-cultural perspective, although, since I didn’t know much about Kishinev, I had to look it up to learn that it occurred in 1903.

    On reflection, I’m reminded that an English translation of Solzhenitzen’s book, Two Hundred Years Together, has never been published. It would be interesting to see how he reported, if at all, on Kishinev, from his Russian perspective. Always valuable to see things from different perspectives, rather than relying on “engines” of public opinion.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      January 20, 2014, 8:37 pm

      @ David Doppler

      If there’s anything testament to Jewish censorship of US media, and arts, its’s the fact that the great literary figure, Solzhenitzen’s book, Two Hundred Years Together has never been published in English translation in the USA. The reason is simple. It shows a pattern never shown by Jewish historians, that is, the role of Jews as middleman between the royal goy rulers and the exploited goy peasants.

      • lysias
        lysias
        January 24, 2014, 12:55 pm

        Not only never published in English translation in the USA, but also never published in English translation anywhere. Not the UK, not Canada, not Australia, not New Zealand, not Ireland, not South Africa, not India (!)

        How do they manage to do that? Translations into German and French were published pretty promptly after the original publication in Russian. (Russian text still available from Amazon in the U.S., oddly. I guess they assume not many people will read the Russian.) I got the German translation from amazon.de shortly after it was published, but I regret to say I have still not gotten around to reading it, and, as it’s at the bottom of my pile of books still to be read, it would be hard for me even to consult it.

  4. dimadok
    dimadok
    January 20, 2014, 1:04 pm

    What a nonsense!!! Why stop short on Kishinev pogroms, comparing them to Sabra and Shatila, why not compare all the atrocities against Jews to actions by Israel in it’s wars?
    That’s a stupid and insensitive equivalence- typical of self-appointed righteous anti-Zionist. Another thing, that I’m actually glad that this event came up here- it takes out the whole argument of post-Holocaust “Zionist invaders” and gives a more historical context for Zionist immigrants and creation of Israel.

    • Donald
      Donald
      January 20, 2014, 2:34 pm

      “Why stop short on Kishinev pogroms, comparing them to Sabra and Shatila, why not compare all the atrocities against Jews to actions by Israel in it’s wars?
      That’s a stupid and insensitive equivalence-”

      You could write an essay on this reaction. First there’s the narcissism–it is “stupid and insensitive equivalence” to compare a massacre of Jews to a massacre of Palestinians. Rather than feel sorrow about all massacres, we’re supposed to elevate some over others. (The same dynamic is at work with the people who think you can’t criticize the atrocities of both sides in Syria.)

      Then there’s the accidental claim that Sabra and Shatila are like Israel’s other actions in its wars –not far from the truth and it shows that as if by reflex, the whole notion of “purity of arms” goes right out the window.

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        January 20, 2014, 3:20 pm

        @Donald.
        For a person who first heard of Kishinev from Chomsky diatribes you seem to have a very profound analytical skills about me.
        Sabra and Shatila happened on Israel watch, but never was done by IDF. So perhaps you could argue for other atrocities committed during civil war, upon the negligence of foreign powers ( Yugoslavia anyone?). No- I guess it is Israel again.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        January 21, 2014, 4:04 am

        @dim duck

        Sabra and Shatilla happened on Israel’s watch and WITH Israel’s strategic support.

        Israel was responsible as much as the actual murderers. Without Israel, the refugees might have been able to escape.

        But you’re right about the inappropriateness of the Kishinev comparison – but for the wrong reasons.

        Many more people were butchered at Sabra and Shatilla. So considering you prize Jewish suffering (how do you know yourself without thinking of yourself as a perpetual victim) – I would shut the hell up. It doesn’t help your script.

      • lysias
        lysias
        January 24, 2014, 1:05 pm

        I believe the first killings of Jews in the German invasion of the Soviet Union were committed by local groups in the Baltic States, Belarus, and Ukraine, although they certainly occurred on Germany’s watch and with the support of German troops. If not absolutely the first, certainly many of the early killings happened that way.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      January 20, 2014, 2:40 pm

      Why stop short on Kishinev pogroms, comparing them to Sabra and Shatila, why not compare all the atrocities against Jews to actions by Israel in it’s wars?

      A very good question. Let’s start with the expulsion and denationalization of Jews and what Israel did in its wars.

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        January 20, 2014, 3:22 pm

        @Talkback. Which part of European or Arab history you would like me to start with? Maybe from the Arab conquest of Jerusalem, or maybe from the formation of State of Palestine ( I can do sci-fi also you know).

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        January 21, 2014, 3:58 am

        dim duck said:

        Maybe from the Arab conquest of Jerusalem, or maybe from the formation of State of Palestine ( I can do sci-fi also you know).

        In this conflict, it’s Zionist Jews doing the vast majority of the murdering and massacring and raping and ethnic cleansing.

        So go ahead and list all you want. It won’t compare.

        Just like suicide bombing is a blip – Israel killed more Palestinians in 2.5 weeks than all suicide attacks in 30+ years.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 21, 2014, 8:11 am

        @Talkback. Which part of European or Arab history you would like me to start with?

        Start how international law changed in 1945 because of the Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity. Including: Colonialization (“Germanization”) of occupied territories, expulsion and denationalization, collective punishment, etc. And then continue with what Israel did after 1947.

        Maybe from the Arab conquest of Jerusalem, …

        Or maybe from the Israelites conquest of Urusalim thousands of year ago or the second conquest of their wannabee descendents in modern times. The difference is, that in the post Nazi era it is inadmissable to acquire territory by war.

        … or maybe from the formation of State of Palestine ( I can do sci-fi also you know).

        Sure Space Zionists like you can. In the Kahane continuum there wasn’t a recognized state of Palestine under mandate before 1948 and there’s isn’t a recognized state of Palestine under occupation nowadays. Who knows, maybe you live before 1945. It would make a lot of sense.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 21, 2014, 8:27 am

        The Nuremberg Trials & Tokyo War Crimes Trials transpired 1944-47 and yes, the Zionists were already breaking the new set of international laws at the time. And they’ve never stopped since donning the trappings of a state, despite the Geneva supplemental laws. The US has prevented any Israelii accountability under the new international law, for which many GIs died in WW2. The irony is the state of Israel dishonors the international legal principles put into effect, as such a huge cost (to every people involved as rescuers or victims, including the Holocaust). And so does the USA.

    • eljay
      eljay
      January 20, 2014, 2:55 pm

      >> Another thing, that I’m actually glad that this event came up here- it takes out the whole argument of post-Holocaust “Zionist invaders” and gives a more historical context for Zionist immigrants and creation of Israel.

      Ah, I see: Rather than advocate for justice and accountability in their own homelands, Zio-supremacist Jews decided that the right thing to do was to:
      – encourage mass migration of Jews to Palestine;
      – engage in terrorism and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population;
      – set up an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State”; and
      – undertake an 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destuction, torture and murder.

      Hmmm…I don’t see how this new context is any different from the old context.

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        January 20, 2014, 9:25 pm

        @eljay. if you delve into the history Jews were actually very proactive in social liberation movements in their homelands in Europe. Too bad that they went up in smoke during the Holocaust, happily assisted by their neighbors who they sought to liberate. Lesson learned well enough. Same goes for Russian revolution.

      • eljay
        eljay
        January 21, 2014, 7:08 pm

        >> Lesson learned well enough.

        You’ve done an excellent job of confirming the comment I made in my previous post. Thank you.

    • puppies
      puppies
      January 20, 2014, 5:28 pm

      @dim adok – “why not compare all the atrocities against Jews to actions by Israel in it’s wars?”
      But it is done.
      It shows that Zionists are equaling and surpassing most of the notorious persecutors in history.
      It also demonstrates that Zionists don’t care about Jews: they claim Jews are collectively complicit in crimes against humanity.
      As for historical context, are you claiming that the Cossacks, the Bessarabians and the Tsar were Palestinian?

  5. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    January 20, 2014, 1:09 pm

    Four possible differences between Shatila and Kishinev:
    1. Were the governments of each directly involved?
    2. Did any primary religious figures in the dominant religion of each country speak out?
    3. Is there a body count comparison?
    4. Did the West see the victims in both cases as white?

    A similarity perhaps:
    On the other side, anti-Semites had support inside the Russian government.
    That’s true. Did anti-Palestinians have support inside the Israeli government?

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      January 20, 2014, 1:55 pm

      Zipperstein says No the Russian gov’t was not involved. But I will get to that soon!!

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        January 20, 2014, 6:12 pm

        Phil,

        Fr. John of Kronstadt (considered a saint) condemned the pogrom in Kishinev…
        Russian Intellectual Antisemitism in the Post-Communist Era
        By Vadim Joseph Rossman

        Metropolitan Khrapovitsky was another primary Russian church figure who spoke strongly against the Kishinev pogrom, in a printed sermon. After the Revolution he became the leader of the conservative monarchist, but very large, “Russian Church Abroad”.

        Are there noteworthy instances of leading Israel rabbis strongly speaking about analogous cases?

  6. Sibiriak
    Sibiriak
    January 20, 2014, 1:17 pm

    Jabotinsky, one of the men behind the establishment of the Jewish Legion, was a well-known Zionist journalist from Russia, a writer, translator, and orator. While still in Russia he had organized a kind of militia to defend the Jews of Odessa. In 1903 Jabotinsky went to Kishinev to cover the aftermath of the infamous pogrom, and among the people he met there was the Hebrew poet Chaim Nachman Bialik. He would later translate into Russian Bialik’s great Hebrew poem on the pogrom, “City of Slaughter.”*

    *Jabotinsky did not meet Chaim Weizmann in Kishinev. This is worthy of note because Weizmann liked to claim that when he heard of the pogrom he rushed to Kishinev and organized a group of Jews, armed with pistols, “to defend the women and girls.” Jehuda Reinharz, his biographer, discovered that the story was baseless. Weizmann lied to history, or perhaps fantasized this act of heroism. 21

    Tom Segev, “One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate” (pp. 65-66)

    • Mikhael
      Mikhael
      January 22, 2014, 6:10 pm

      Sibiriak says:
      January 22, 2014 at 12:31 pm

      Mikhael:

      My justification is that Israel is is the national homeland of the Jewish people and we have an inherent right to political self-determination in our own historic homeland.

      A few basic questions so I can make sense of this:

      What do you mean by “historic homeland’?

      What were the boundaries of this supposed “historic homeland”?

      Eretz Yisrael is the ancestral and historic homeland of the Jewish People. Most of historic Eretz Yisrael is not currently under Israeli-Jewish sovereignty, and nowhere did I suggest that all of historic Eretz Yisrael must revert to Jewish control . It is enough that Jews have a roight to political self-determination in part of our own historic and ancestral home land.

      How do we know that this supposed “historic homeland” was actually the “historic homeland” of all Jews everywhere in the world –i.e. one and the same “historic homeland” for Russian Jews, Polish Jews, French Jews, German Jews, Spanish Jews, North African Jews, Iraqi Jews, Yemenite Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, Chinese Jews ETC.?
      Why should Palestine (Eretz Israel) be considered the “historic homeland” of those Jews who were not born there, were not exiled from there, and are, for the most part, not descendent of Jews who were exiled from there, but rather descended in large part from converts to Judaism?

      We know that all of the above groups share a common Jewish national culture, a history of identification and longing to return to Eretz Yisrael and shared ancestral connections with each other. (With the possible connection of Ethiopian Jews, who it would appear are mostly descended from a sectarian offshoot of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church that rejected that doctrine and moved closer to a version of Judaism and came to identify as Jews and be identified by other Ethiopians as such. Other Jewish groups to varying extents have different degrees of admixture with non-Jewish populations, but they nearly all demonstrably share ancestry from ancient Israel/Judea.) All of the other groups you mentioned, including China’s historic Jewish community (which is today nearly non-existent) are in large part descended from people exiled from ancient Judea mixed with various elements of their host population who converted and were absorbed into the community. Poland’s Jews were not Poles of the Jewish faith, Iraq’s Jews were not Iraqi Arabs of the Jewish persuasion, They were separate and distinct ethnic populations within those countries that had more affinity to each other than to the non-Jews residing in those countries.

      Do Jews from anywhere in the world have a right to reside anywhere in those boundaries of their supposed “historic homeland”, and a collective right of self-determination anywhere in that supposed “historic homeland”?

      Jews from anywhere have the right to within the boundaries of the State of Israel, which is entirely located within areas that are part of the historic homeland of the Jewish People. Other parts of the historic homeland of the Jewish People are under non-Jewish control (the Palestinian Authority, much of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, etc.) . Since the Jews already have a nation-state on their own in much of historic Eretz Yisrael, there is no reason to demand it in other parts. I am not an irredentist.

      Does any individual have a right to return and live in his/her “historic homeland”?

      That is subject to the laws of the government that controls that country. Many other countries, just like Israel, have an analogous “Law of Return” that enables people belonging to the majority ethnicity of those countries to seek citizenship in their ancestral historic homelands. Ethnic Pontic Greeks living in the former USSR (descendants of ancient Greek colonists in the Crimea), who speak an entirely different dialect of Greek than that which is currently spoken in Greece and many of whom don’t speak Greek at all, are entitled to seek Greek citizenship entirely based on their ethnic Greek ancestry. They are automatically regarded under Greek law as fellow Hellenes, while ethnic Slavic Macedonians living in Greece are not. Ethnic Armenians living in Syria can move to independent Armenia and get automatic citizenship there. Ethnic Germans can seek German citizenship in the Bunderepublik, etc. etc.

      Does any group of people have a right to create an independent sovereign state, if they choose, in the territory they believe to be their “historic homeland”?

      If a significant enough number of them live there and don’t wish to live under foreign rule, then yes, they do. That’s why the Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza want and deserve a nation-state of their own.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 23, 2014, 2:26 am

        What about Christians, don’t they have a claim to an ancient homeland in Palestine, or even Muslims? All three religions had a significant presence in the Holy Land at different times. If every Jew in the world can claim the Holy Land as his own, why can’t every Christian and every Muslim? For that matter, why can’t Egyptians make the same claim as they controlled that area far earlier than the Jews. Why is it that the Holy Land is seen by Jews as exclusively their ancient homeland?

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 23, 2014, 9:49 am

        @ irishmoses
        Good questions. Wonder if they will get a response?

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 23, 2014, 3:53 pm

        No, because that would reveal that Mikhael is just another Jewish racist who thinks that immigrating Jews and their descendants have more right to “self determination” in this area while resident or expelled Gentiles an their descendants have not.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 24, 2014, 2:45 am

        Seems like the Christian Palestinians do have a claim to an ancient homeland in Palestine. Check out this info: http://www.al-bushra.org/latpatra/anthony.htm

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 23, 2014, 5:17 pm

        “Many other countries, just like Israel, have an analogous “Law of Return” that enables people belonging to the majority ethnicity of those countries to seek citizenship in their ancestral historic homelands”
        What does that mean, “just like Isreal”? No, contrary to “Israel”, countries like Greece, Turkey, Germany give citizenship to people of their majority ethnicity in their own land, not on someone else’s land in order to pack the place against the owners of the land, while massacring and expelling the local population. Big difference.
        While Spain gives citizenship to people of (documented) Sephardi heritage 520 years after their expulsion, the Shitty State doesn’t let someone born in the place, still holding the key to his house to come back. Should we let such a state survive?

  7. OlegR
    OlegR
    January 20, 2014, 1:42 pm

    / A hundred years ago, enlightened world opinion was on the Jews’ side against terrible forces: the rise of rightwing radical anti-Semitism. Even Tolstoy wrote against Kishinev, Zipperstein said./

    A lot of good that did to us Jews,
    Moihel toives i prefer to be a free citizen in my own country armed to the teeth
    instead of relying on your “enlightened world opinion” for protection.

    • puppies
      puppies
      January 20, 2014, 2:23 pm

      “i prefer to be a free citizen in my own country'”
      Finally! When are you going back to Russia?

    • amigo
      amigo
      January 20, 2014, 2:36 pm

      “Moihel toives i prefer to be a free citizen in my own country armed to the teeth
      instead of relying on your “enlightened world opinion” for protection.”oleg

      But are you in your own country, squatter.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        January 20, 2014, 5:09 pm

        Try to budge me and you will find out .

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        January 21, 2014, 4:02 am

        Dear Oleg,

        A 1ss is coming because of Zionist Jews’ greed and immorality. Your greed will destroy the Jewish majority because there is already a de facto 1ss: apartheid, where Jews lord over non-Jews.

        But technically, no one will budge you at present. Not because they can’t (you’d get your ass kicked by any 1st-world power) but because the Israel Lobby/Jewish Establishment still provides enough diplomatic cover and diversion necessary for Jewish nationalism and apartheid to continue.

        Don’t kid yourself anyway – Zionist Jews have only ever been talented at murdering Palestinian children slinging rocks at tanks.

        You have never had a single impressive victory. All your opponents have been either ill-equipped or disorganized. You’ve always had someone helping you and you’ve always killed tons of civilians.

        Your entire country (the majority of the Jewish population anyway) is a terrorist nation.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        January 22, 2014, 6:20 am

        Dear Cliff ,
        You are mistaken.

      • amigo
        amigo
        January 21, 2014, 10:08 am

        “Try to budge me and you will find out .” oleg.

        Ooooh, I am so scared.

        I don,t have to move you squatter.BDS will budge you, right back to wherever you crawled from.Then you will just be a bad memory in the minds of those who budged you off their lands and all peace lovers and honest law abiding people.

        Bye bye ruskie.

      • just
        just
        January 21, 2014, 10:45 am

        Threats while you squat and steal?

        Typical.

      • talknic
        talknic
        January 21, 2014, 12:28 pm

        @ OlegR “Try to budge me and you will find out”

        No need to budge if you’re actually in Israel? If not, there’s no need either. You could become a Palestinian Jew, like the generations of Jews actually from the region who actually had a tie to the land over the centuries.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        January 22, 2014, 6:22 am

        I suggest you go and become some minority in an Arab country and get back to me and tell me how it feels.

      • talknic
        talknic
        January 23, 2014, 3:23 am

        OlegR “I suggest you go and become some minority in an Arab country and get back to me and tell me how it feels

        So go live in Israel. That’s what it’s for. What remained of Palestine after Israel was declared is for the Palestinians to decide.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        January 23, 2014, 4:25 pm

        @OlegR- “I suggest you go and become some minority in an Arab country and get back to me and tell me how it feels.”

        Hey, here’s a thought. You are literally a stone’s throw/bike ride away from doing just that. Why don’t you go to the WB and test out your little theory? If you don’t start and/or end every conversation with, “Why are you [still] on my land, Mr. Arab?”; “Terrorist!?”; “Get a job!”; or somesuch accusatory or denigrating nonsense, I bet you get welcomed and treated respectfully if not warmly.

        Yes. Please do that and let us know how it “feels.”

      • American
        American
        January 23, 2014, 4:44 pm

        @OlegR- “I suggest you go and become some minority in an Arab country and get back to me and tell me how it feels.”

        Go ask the Jewish minority in Iran—-must not be too bad for them since despite Israel offering them money and trying to entice and frighten them into moving to Israel they havent budged out of Iran.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 20, 2014, 5:30 pm

        No, I believe he is not.

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael
        January 20, 2014, 11:59 pm

        puppies says:
        January 20, 2014 at 5:30 pm

        No, I believe he is not.

        What you believe about other people really isn’t relevant. If the man is a Jewish citizen of Israel, by definition he is in his own country.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 22, 2014, 2:31 am

        @Michael – The owners of the land still have to confirm it by the mouth of a future sovereign and representative body. He was not born there as far as we know, so he was smuggled into Palestine.

      • talknic
        talknic
        January 23, 2014, 3:25 am

        Mikhael If the man is a Jewish citizen of Israel, by definition he is in his own country

        If he’s in the West Bank or other territories that have never legally annexed to Israel, he quite simply ISN’T in his own country, you silly silly person.

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael
        January 22, 2014, 5:52 pm

        puppies says:
        January 22, 2014 at 2:31 am

        @Michael – The owners of the land still have to confirm it by the mouth of a future sovereign and representative body. He was not born there as far as we know, so he was smuggled into Palestine.

        I doubt he was smuggled into “Palestine” as the last time such a geopolitical entity with that name existed was back in 1948. When and if there ever comes to exist another such entity, it is highly dubious that many Israeli citizens (Jewish or not, native-born or not) will seek citizenship there. (Recent protests by many Arab citizens of Israel where they announced their reluctance to accept Palestinian citizenship highlight this.)
        Israeli citizens, even if they had the misfortune to be born in the former USSR, are in their own country.

        Your use of phrases like “owners of the land” demonstrates your championing of ethnic supremacy.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 23, 2014, 5:25 pm

        No shit. Now we are defending the specific war crime of bringing civilian settlement into militarily occupied areas. No real difference between inside or outside the green line, as the Partition Proposal was rejected by both parties and never realized.
        Also, there won’t be any “Israel” when things get sorted out anyway. The Zionist leadership is too idiotically ideological for that.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 24, 2014, 11:48 am

        @Michael – “Your use of phrases like “owners of the land” demonstrates your championing of ethnic supremacy.”

        Nonsense yet again. Tho owners of the land, i.e. the Palestinian people, are not an ethnic group. They also included close to 10% Jewish Palestinians (to whom you say you belong) at the time of the Zionist invasion.

      • Djinn
        Djinn
        January 23, 2014, 7:14 am

        “I suggest you go and become some minority in an Arab country and get back to me and tell me how it feels.”

        Oleg, I asked my partner and he said “mostly it felt crowded and hot” he didn’t seem to have a nervous twitch when he said it so I’m pretty sure he wasn’t suppressing some terrible memories of persecution and oppression. I myself never lived in an Arab country but have spent a lot of time in them and generally I felt full, people constantly feed me. I suppose they could be luring me into a false sense of security before opening a can of jihad on my ass but I’m willing to take the risk as it tastes so damn good.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        January 23, 2014, 7:48 am

        I suggest you go and become some minority in an Arab country and get back to me and tell me how it feels.

        It feels just fine, Oleg. Really bad driving habits, but otherwise no problem and safe. Friendly, gracious and welcoming. Try it, you might like it.

        Meanwhile, take a look, your fearful ignorance and bigotry is seeping out.

    • irishmoses
      irishmoses
      January 20, 2014, 6:52 pm

      OlegR said:

      “…i prefer to be a free citizen in my own country armed to the teeth
      instead of relying on your “enlightened world opinion” for protection.”

      Your comment offends me as an American:

      1 Jews were granted the same civil rights as all US citizens when this country was founded. While they suffered some discrimination not uncommon to other of our immigrant groups, they fared far better than black, Hispanic and Asian Americans, and by any measure are certainly the most successful and integrated of any of the groups that immigrated to this country.

      2. The US welcomed millions of Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe, protecting them from the scourges of pogroms including the epic pogrom of the Nazis. Much the same can be said of other western Democracies such as Great Britain, Canada, Australia, not to mention Argentina and others.

      3. America and its allies fought a desperate and costly war that defeated Nazis, ended the Holocaust, and freed all the Jews that survived.

      4. America and its allies have provided immense economic, diplomatic, and military support for Israel both pre and post independence.

      To suggest that Jews remain so at risk that only an ephemeral “enlightened world opinion” protects them from an American, Canadian, or British version of the Holocaust when we have a more than 200 year track record of treating Jews fairly and welcoming them to our shores demonstrates profound ingratitude, disrespect, and contempt for those from whom Jews benefited the most.

      I would also suggest that Jews are far less at risk of some future Holocaust in western democracies, including my own country, than they will even be in Israel where even there the risk is mostly self-inflicted.

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        January 20, 2014, 9:30 pm

        @irishmoses- you still don’t get it do you? It’s the whole notion of Jews being protected by their non-Jewish countries and governments that is offensive. There is no need to seek protection once Israel has been established, there is no need for favors or taking up our chances within the Western democracies. Lesson is well learned and one of the reason that Jews are protected, being a much scrutinized minority everywhere is the Israel existence. Other minorities rely on common religion of their new states, but rarely disconnect from their old countries. With Jewish community it is a reverse process but it is happening.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 21, 2014, 3:58 pm

        “Other minorities rely on common religion of their new states, but rarely disconnect from their old countries. With Jewish community it is a reverse process but it is happening.”

        Irish Americans died by the tens of thousands in the American Civil War. Many in the North forces went straight from the immigrant boat into the conscripted Union ranks. Prejudice and discrimination was rampant against them in both the north and south, right up until JFK became president. Please plug those facts into your claim that, ” Other minorities rely on common religion of their new states, but rarely disconnect from their old countries. With Jewish community it is a reverse process but it is happening.”

        What do you get, given that Irish Americans are now the second most assimilated group in the USA beyond German-Americans?

      • dimadok
        dimadok
        January 21, 2014, 4:46 pm

        @Citizen- I get absolutely nothing, except that I do not wish to assimilate and I do wish to live in my nation state. Simple as that.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        January 21, 2014, 8:05 pm

        “Other minorities rely on common religion of their new states, but rarely disconnect from their old countries. With Jewish community it is a reverse process but it is happening.”

        So American Jews are reconnecting with their old countries of Poland, Russia, and Ukraine?

      • talknic
        talknic
        January 22, 2014, 1:37 pm

        @dimadok “There is no need to seek protection once Israel has been established,”

        BRAVO! Israel was established May 15th 1948 at precisely 00:01 “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” according to the Israeli Government at the time http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        And you still don’t get it! Get the f&*% out of what remained of Palestine!

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael
        January 20, 2014, 11:54 pm

        irishmoses says:
        January 20, 2014 at 6:52 pm

        OlegR said:

        “…i prefer to be a free citizen in my own country armed to the teeth
        instead of relying on your “enlightened world opinion” for protection.”

        Your comment offends me as an American

        Your comment offends me as an American and an Israeli. There is no question that the US has long guaranteed civil rights to its Jewish minority, but in the past, other countries served as temporary havens to Jews, only to later persecute them. Germany was seen as a country of safety and opportunity by Jews fleeing from the Russian Empire in the late 19th/early 2oth century. There is no guarantee that the freedoms that Jews enjoy in the US and other Western democracies will always continue to exist. Nevertheless, as an Israeli who was born, raised and educated in the US, I can say with confidence that I have never felt discriminated in the US but I have also never been more at home than in Israel. The US welcomed other groups to its shores, some of whom were persecuted ethnic minorities who eventually gained independence in their own homelands–just as Jews have regained their independence in their own historic homeland. Nobody suggests that due to the fact that Greek- and Irish-Americans prosper in the US, that Greeks and Irish had no right to seek self-determination in those countries. We will be keeping our independence in our homeland this time, for at least as long as the nation-state continues to exist.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 21, 2014, 3:46 pm

        @ Mikhael

        You were born, bred, raised, and educated in America, which is 98% Gentile.
        You chose to leave that safe haven and immigrate to Israel, where you live on stolen land, and under laws that privilege your own religion-ethnic group, Jews, at the expense of the native, Palestinians, who have lived there at least as long as the USA has existed. Your justification its that in places like the USA, someday the majority populace will turn against the Jews in their midst. Your decision was that you chose to actually oppress and deprive non-Jews of their property and natural rights in the NOW, in the hope that this will protect you and yours from imagined oppression in the future in a place like USA with its centuries old tradition of giving you full rights and property protection. Whatta guy! I’d say that’s pretty convenient thinking. How much did the State of Israel subsidize your life in Israel? More than the USA subsidized your life in America? Do you live in an illegal settlement?

      • Mikhael
        Mikhael
        January 22, 2014, 3:38 am

        Citizen says:
        January 21, 2014 at 3:46 pm

        @ Mikhael

        You were born, bred, raised, and educated in America, which is 98% Gentile.
        You chose to leave that safe haven and immigrate to Israel,

        Seriously, how do you make such idiotic assumptions about people? Do you think a dual citizen of the US and Israel can only mean an American Jew who immigrates to Israel? And do you think that if someone was born in the US and is an Israeli, can that only mean he “immigrated” to Israel under the Law of Return? Hint, dummy: Someone born to Israelis living in the US is an American-born Israeli. (My fellow American-born Israelis include Palestinian Solidarity activist Huwaida Arraf, born to Arab-Israeli citizen parents in Detroit.) I was born in the US, but my father can count 17 generations of ancestors in Galilee and Jerusalem. I never “immigrated” to Israel. As the American-born child of Israeli citizens (not American Jews) who were living in the USA as grad students and who later acquired permanent residency, I was an automatically an Israeli and a US citizen at birth, according to the laws of both countries.

        Your justification its that in places like the USA, someday the majority populace will turn against the Jews in their midst.

        My justification is that Israel is is the national homeland of the Jewish people and we have an inherent right to political self-determination in our own historic homeland.

        where you live on stolen land, and under laws that privilege your own religion-ethnic group, Jews, at the expense of the native, Palestinians

        Technically, I’m not a “native” (as I was born in Boston and spent some of my childhood in ridiculous places like Nebraska, before living in NY, which at least is a normal city) but my roots are certainly no less native than any Arab who calls himself a “Palestinian”. My father’s earliest documented male ancestor in the Land of Israel lived in Safed in Galilee in the 1500s. Like most Mizrahi and Sefaradi Jews with roots in the Old Yishuv, his family wholeheartedly fought for Jewish independence in Eretz Yisrael in the 20th century. Of course, a Jew who moved to Israel from Russia like Oleg belong in Israel just as much as any Jew like me with long and unbroken ancestral ties in the country.

        How much did the State of Israel subsidize your life in Israel?

        How much does your mummy and daddy subsidize you to give you so much free time to write all the rubbish you scribble?
        Technically, when I first moved back to Israel as a young adult in the 1990s (after having spent several years of my childhood there as well) I was eligible for some “Immigrant” benefits as a returning citizen (like importing a fridge duty free), but I never filed for them. As my father post-divorce had moved back and I had a sister also living there at the time, I was, however, ineligible for any “lone-soldier” benefits during my army service that new immigrants with no immediate family in Israel who serve in the IDF can receive (double the paltry recruit’s pay) which amounted to about $60 USD when I served.

        More than the USA subsidized your life in America?

        My life is hardly subsidized in America, or Israel. More than 20 years after graduating from uni and law school, I still have outstanding student loans for having made the stupid choice to continue my higher education in the US and only then return to Israel in my late 20s to fulfill my army duty as a responsible Israeli citizen, rather than move back immediately after high school, do my IDF duty and go to university there and enjoy the cheaper tuition.

        I have three daughters on 2 continents that I subsidize, necessitating constant commuting back and forth between Israel and NYC to work on doc review assignments, bottom feeder attorney work.

        But if you want to hear about ethnic cleansing, my elderly aunts and uncles could have told you about being forced out at gunpoint from their homes in the Old City’s Jewish Quarter by the Arab Legion.

        Your decision was that you chose to actually oppress and deprive non-Jews of their property and natural rights in the NOW,

        My decision was to move back to my parents’ country, a place where I had spent the best years of my childhood, from ages 7-10, and nearly every summer vacation when my family lived in the US, and where generations of my ancestors and most of my close family members have always lived.

        in the hope that this will protect you and yours from imagined oppression in the future in a place like USA with its centuries old tradition of giving you full rights and property protection.

        I don’t imagine there ever will be widespread persecution against Jews in the US. The far more likely scenario is that they will marry out and forget their roots, and that is exactly what is happening. Whether there is anti-Semitic persecution against Jews or not, in the US or anywhere else has nothing to do with the innate right that Jews have to political self-determination in a state framework of their own in their own historic homeland. We have this right just as Greeks have this right in Greece, as Armenians have that right in Armenia, and yes, just as Palestinian Arabs have a right to seek that in a country of their own. Just like American Jews, all these ethnic groups also live in the US as Greek-Americans, as Armenian-Americans, and as Palestinian-Americans and enjoy rights, it doesn;t negate their right to national self-determination in their own historic homeland.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 22, 2014, 12:31 pm

        Mikhael:

        My justification is that Israel is is the national homeland of the Jewish people and we have an inherent right to political self-determination in our own historic homeland.

        A few basic questions so I can make sense of this:

        What do you mean by “historic homeland’?

        What were the boundaries of this supposed “historic homeland”?

        How do we know that this supposed “historic homeland” was actually the “historic homeland” of all Jews everywhere in the world –i.e. one and the same “historic homeland” for Russian Jews, Polish Jews, French Jews, German Jews, Spanish Jews, North African Jews, Iraqi Jews, Yemenite Jews, Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, Chinese Jews ETC.?

        Why should Palestine (Eretz Israel) be considered the “historic homeland” of those Jews who were not born there, were not exiled from there, and are, for the most part, not descendent of Jews who were exiled from there, but rather descended in large part from converts to Judaism?

        Do Jews from anywhere in the world have a right to reside anywhere in those boundaries of their supposed “historic homeland”, and a collective right of self-determination anywhere in that supposed “historic homeland”?

        Does any individual have a right to return and live in his/her “historic homeland”?

        Does any group of people have a right to create an independent sovereign state, if they choose, in the territory they believe to be their “historic homeland”?

      • talknic
        talknic
        January 22, 2014, 1:30 pm

        Mikhael “My justification is that Israel is is the national homeland of the Jewish people and we have an inherent right to political self-determination in our own historic homeland”

        The historic homeland was relegated to history at precisely 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) when the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel came into effect.

        the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        Israel has never legally acquired any territory since.

        And no, the victor in a war cannot keep the territory they have conquered

        ARTICLE 11

        The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 21, 2014, 4:46 pm

        Mikhael,
        I didn’t say Greeks, Jews, Irish, etc. don’t have a right to return to their countries of origin to pursue self-determination, that’s your straw man and a diversion from my point which is that there is no reasonable basis for OlegR to imply that there is no safe homeland in the world for Jews other than Israel.

        Rather than projecting hypothetical future threats to Jews you might want to examine the far more realistic threat posed by Israel’s continuing deprivation of the Palestinian’s right to freedom, a small portion of their land returned, and the same self-determination you claim to cherish. I’m happy you feel more at home in Israel than in the US but at least recognize that you are doing so (under your current government) at the price of Palestinian self-determination.

      • eljay
        eljay
        January 22, 2014, 1:00 pm

        >> My justification is that Israel is is the national homeland of the Jewish people and we have an inherent right to political self-determination in our own historic homeland.

        No, it’s not; and no, you don’t. At most, Israel can be the homeland of the Israeli people – that is, people who…
        – were born in or are immigrants to,
        – are refugees or ex-pats from,
        – are up to n generations removed from,
        …the geographic region that is currently known as Israel. Those people have the right to political self-determination in their historic homeland.

        Now, if you’re talking about “Jewish State”, that requires a bureaucratic nationality of “Jewish”, which would still belong to all the same categories of people listed above.

        But this won’t happen – and Zio-supremacists like you wouldn’t accept it – because “Jewish State” is a supremacist state both in concept and in execution. And y’all sure do like your Jewish supremacism.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        January 21, 2014, 8:12 pm

        “Nobody suggests that due to the fact that Greek- and Irish-Americans prosper in the US, that Greeks and Irish had no right to seek self-determination in those countries.”

        Another dud analogy.

        Greek- and Irish-Americans are not Greeks and Irish. They are Americans living in their own country.

        Greeks/Irish live in Greece/Ireland, and have done for centuries. They are not a bunch of recent invaders, and they have not driven out the native populations.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        January 21, 2014, 8:15 am

        But irishmoses, Jews in your country never had the right to expell and denationalize Gentiles or to commit crimes against humanity against them or violate their human rights. Can’t you understand, why OlegR feels free in his country?

      • American
        American
        January 21, 2014, 9:17 am

        ‘instead of relying on your enlightened world”…Oleg

        Had it not been for the ‘enlightened world’ the Jews would have been left on their own after WWII and there would be no Israel.
        Now the world is getting the ‘enlightenment” that a Zionist state was a mistake.
        I dont say this to degrade you, but Israel exist at the pleasure and tolorance of the world, your nukes, your IDF doesnt protect you or guarentee your survival—its nothing compared to the powers of the world…thats just reality. Israel could be turned into Iraq or Lybia tomorrow if the or any world power(s) so chose. But even there you delude yourselves that would never happen–that the holocaust protects Israel from being punished or called to account.
        “pride and hubris goeth before the fall”….you should think about that.

      • OlegR
        OlegR
        January 22, 2014, 6:27 am

        I never claimed that independence guarantees safety American.
        I said that i prefer to rely on it instead on the favorable opinion of the enlightened world that always always came to little to late for those that could not fend for themselves.
        Obviously non of you get it.

    • eljay
      eljay
      January 21, 2014, 8:19 am

      >> i prefer to be a free citizen in my own country armed to the teeth instead of relying on your “enlightened world opinion” for protection.

      Yeah, why settle for being equal when you can enjoy – really enjoy – being a shit-kicking supremacist?

    • talknic
      talknic
      January 21, 2014, 8:40 am

      @OlegR “i prefer to be a free citizen in my own country armed to the teeth”

      So get out of Palestine! Go live in Israel. May 15, 1948 “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

      Israel has yet to legally acquire any further territory.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 21, 2014, 8:54 am

        @ talknic
        No matter how many times it’s brought up here on MW that Israel declared its boundaries as you describe, we still get endless zionists bots here who ignore this obvious fact. In a way, I can’t blame them, because the US government also ignores it, and has funded Israel’s land-grabbing since Israel declared itself a state. It’s totally absurd that the new state of Israel’s own declaration of statehood and that’s state’s frontiers of May 15, 1948 is not the starting line for any peace efforts by any honest broker.
        IMO, the US should tell Israel that’s the only way to define Israel’s legal borders because Israel itself declared them when it became a state, and that’s the state and borders acknowledged by Truman and the UN.

      • talknic
        talknic
        January 22, 2014, 2:24 am

        @Citizen The ziobots don’t care. They’re not here to learn. They do however afford the opportunity to give factual material for those who seek it

  8. irishmoses
    irishmoses
    January 20, 2014, 1:56 pm

    As bad as Kishinev was, I don’t see how Chomsky (who I really respect) can compare it to Sabra/Shatilla where the death toll was 40 to 60 times greater (2000-3000 dead) and involved the direct complicity of the Israeli Army. Nor can I see how he can describe Kishinev as “one of the worst atrocities in Israeli memory”. There were far more deadly pogroms in Russia after Kishinev, and the killing of 6 million Jews by the Nazis would seem to far eclipse Kishinev in the lamentable list of atrocities against the Jews. I think Kishinev has become the symbol for the pogroms but it was neither the first nor by far the worst.

    The Michael Davitt relationship to the Kishinev pogrom is fascinating. I wasn’t aware that the term “pale” came out of Ireland. I wonder if his book Within the Pale is available on line perhaps in excerpts.

    I see a lot of similarity between the Irish and the Jews, particularly in America where both had strong connections to the labor movement and a certain revolutionary zeal brought with them from the old country. This is certainly seen in the strong presence of Jews in our Civil Rights movement although by then Irish-American activism had largely been diffused by assimilation.

    Irish-American assimilation has pretty much eliminated any significant cultural ties with our “ancient homeland”. I felt no close affinity when I briefly traveled there a few years back. Not so with the Jews who if anything have enhanced their connection to Israel in my long lifetime. Ironically, that connection is indirect at best as most Jews came to the US from Europe. Their unwillingness to identify closely with their “old country” is not surprising.

    Interesting thread.

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      January 20, 2014, 2:40 pm

      Thanks Irishmoses, I agree re numbers. And I was hoping I could direct your attention to the Davitt story…

    • Antidote
      Antidote
      January 21, 2014, 10:10 pm

      “I wonder if his book Within the Pale is available on line perhaps in excerpts.”

      you can download the entire book here:

      http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uva.x000492467

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 22, 2014, 2:19 pm

        Thank you so much for your beyond the pale assistance.

        You are a refreshing antidote to both ignorance and illiteracy.

        I really appreciate your finding and sharing this link.

      • Antidote
        Antidote
        January 22, 2014, 5:15 pm

        You are very welcome, irishmoses. I’ve been reading the book today. Very interesting so far. More later.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 22, 2014, 5:52 pm

        I was able to download a full PDF version of the book (326 pages) and I think it was available in an epub version as well and all at no cost!

  9. American
    American
    January 20, 2014, 3:46 pm

    ”Noam Chomsky brought up Kishinev on Amy Goodman’s show last week, apropos of Ariel Sharon’s role in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, which he termed “a horrifying massacre, actually one that should resonate with people who are familiar with Jewish history. It was almost a replica of the Kishinev massacre “”

    Actually Sabra and Shatilla werent like Kishinev at all according to historians, including some Jewish ones, and the reports from the UK embassy in Odessa.
    I checked a dozen sources on this that are credible.
    This kind of comparsion Chomsky makes is where jewish victimhood makes people roll their eyes in disgust because Sabra and Shatilla were 100 times worse than Kishinev and even more bloodthirsty. Kishinev was indeed a “spontanous” violent populace riot where Jews were killed but it in no way compares to the ‘ordered ‘ outright ‘massacre’ of Sabra.

    Kishinev
    According to reports 45 Jews were killed and 3 Christians. There had been a history of resentment between the Jews and local Russians for some time due to large numbers of Jews moving to the Kishinev area who the locals accused of creating ghettos and throwing locals out of work or business.
    There was also a local newspaper editor who was anti Jewish for religious and commerical reasons and did editorals that were critical of Jews.
    But what kicked off the actual riot was a child being killed and it was blamed on the Jews. It turned out later that some relative of the boy had actually killed him.
    The riot started out as mainly youth groups breaking windows, then looting Jewish stores. But after the first day when no gov force showed up to stop it it became a fully violent mob and killings resulted.

    This book and its section on Kishinev jives with most other accounts.
    http://books.google.com/books?id=_mQhzI-nfHsC&pg=PA154&lpg=PA154&dq=His+Majesty's+consul-general+at+Odessa,+forwarding+a+report+on+the+riots+at+Kishiniev/+London:&source=bl&ots=hB1HPfaJEX&sig=VQ9zmGlT2CnSx_2yc4tmz6-22QI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7XvdUr_FEY6vsQSp1IGQAQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Kishiniev&f=false

  10. irishmoses
    irishmoses
    January 20, 2014, 6:11 pm

    Thanks Phil although sometimes I feel a bit of an imposter (“Irish Moses”) as I’m neither Irish nor a descendent of Moses.

    Yesterday, on another MW thread (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/01/kleimans-against-sanctions.html) I described you, with tongue in cheek, as “an extreme liberal Zionist”, then, with sincerity, as a “righteous Zionist”. No offense intended if you prefer the label “anti-Zionist” (or no label at all).

    In my view, there was a moral road that Zionism could have taken, the path suggested by Ahad Ha’am, Buber, and others (b-inationalism or non-transfer equal rights separatism). The immoral road taken by Zionism has turned many of us into so-called anti-Zionists, a term I don’t like as it implies we seek the removal of Jews from Israel and/or see no legal basis for a Zionist Jewish presence in Palestine.

    Per my comment in the other thread, I see a limited legal basis for Zionism, via the ratification of Balfour by the League of Nations, and the UN. I think those that feel Zionism took the wrong moral path can still be called Zionists, just moral ones.

    The term “anti-Zionist” provides grist for the Hasbara Central mill to grind us all into anti-Semite and/or Jew-Hater glutenated flour. We need a more accurate term. I chose “righteous Zionist”.

    • puppies
      puppies
      January 20, 2014, 10:08 pm

      Oh, so Balfour had received Palestine as a personal gift. Who from? Of course, the inhabitants were of no account. Same for the f*&%% League of the f*&^% Nations.
      Zionism necessarily means theft of land and subjugation of someone else. Except, of course, if you manage to have the South Pole area assigned by the LoN or the UN. Anti-Zionism may or may not stand for advocating expulsion, or integration on a same-right basis, of the invaders –a decision that freely deciding Palestinians will have to make in the future.

      Zionism did not take the “wrong moral path”. It is the twin sister of Nazism, from the same Prussian-romantic root. You are thereby completely destroying Philip Weiss’ reputation. He already had some trouble getting accepted in certain quarters as an Anti-Zionist. No need for ridiculous priestly terms like “righteous Zionist” (reminds one right away of slime like Wiesel); if ultra-religious Jews like Neturei Karta can be proud of the title of Anti-Zionist, so can we, the common people.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 21, 2014, 4:13 pm

        Puppies,
        You need to read my full response in the link to the other thread. Obviously Balfour was extremely unfair and without any legal authority. That you need to talk up with the Brits who still haven’t responsibility for the mess they created.

        However, in my opinion, once the League of Nations appointed the Brits as the mandate power over Mandate Palestine and then ratified the wording of Balfour (both the part that favored the Zionists, and the part that protected the non-Jews of Palestine), it became legal in a limited way. This was a stupid and even immoral decision by the LofN, but still legal. Much the same can be said about the UN’s machinations that resulted in a Jewish but not the planned Arab state of Palestine and its subsequent recognition of the State of Israel (but within its Partition Plan borders). Grossly unfair but unfortunately legal.

        The “wrong moral path” taken by the Zionists was in not following the requirements of Balfour, the LofN, and the UN’s treaties and the requirements and conditions that they agreed to follow. There were moral Zionists who advocated for fairness for the Palestinians, and for a bi-national state clear up into the late 1940s. I think modern day anti-Zionists (both Jewish and non) are really the ancestors of the moral Zionists unless they feel Zionist Jews have no legal right to be in Palestine.

        As I do believe Zionist Jews have a limited legal right to be in Palestine, so long as they are not taking and inhabiting land not granted them by the UN, and so long as they are not interfering with the rights of non-Jews to be treated equally with Jews, I think I qualify as a bare bones Zionist. However,I cannot support and do not want my country to support the current Zionist state of Israel which I see as profoundly immoral in its actions and treatment of the Palestians and of non-Jews in general.

        Righteous Zionist may not be the right term but it is better than anti-Zionist to the extent that anti-Zionist suggests Zionist Jews must be expelled from Palestine/Israel.

        So Puppies, define the term. Tell us where you stand.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 21, 2014, 4:28 pm

        Waiting with baited breath for the reply.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 22, 2014, 2:14 pm

        Citizen,

        I hope you are using a powerful mouthwash.

        It’s “bated breath” as in abated.

        RoHa is no doubt about to pounce on you so I thought I would preempt him.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 22, 2014, 2:03 am

        Obvious: the Balfour promise is entirely worthless, and the Partition Proposal was rendered invalid by the preventive Zionist invasion rejecting the proposal even though it would not be considered as mush as toilet paper in the era of decolonization. In both cases, a higher principle and more primordial laws had been screwed regarding colonialism and autodetermination.

        “anti-Zionist suggests Zionist Jews must be expelled from Palestine/Israel.”
        That is pure, vile, Zionist fear propaganda. So, being anti-Apartheid in old South Africa meant expelling all Whites? The “Jewish state” principle cannot be abolished without getting rid of Jews? If that were your position, you’d be way more than an a “bare bones Zionist”.
        Anti-Zionist obviously suggests doing away with any Zionist state structures and giving all people in a given country entirely equal rights. Nothing more.

        As for expulsions etc., the Palestinian people never had a representative body, except a puppet municipal administration.
        When their independent representative sovereign body emerges, the Palestinians will have to decide if to base citizenship, for all the illegally immigrated aliens since 1947, on blood/origin, or place of birth and/or length of residency. I cannot presume to speak on anyone’s behalf. I would logically expect them to opt for place of birth.

        Considering the Zionist pseudo-victim phobias, the extreme violence that will likely have to occur to reach any solution in Palestine, and the ease with which Israelis obtain multiple passports and US/Euro immigration support etc., I would expect an Algeria-like self-propelled exodus and/or some “Samson option”.

        As a Zionist, albeit a “bare-bones Zionist”, you cannot expect to remain unexposed here. I will remind you that we are in a particularly destructive, cruel war, started by the Zionists 67 years ago and going full blast. People are being murdered and spoliated every day. No Zionist can expect to have his daily little drops of venom go unchallenged.
        As a reminder: “Zionist” here is the enemy, so don’t expect it to generate touchy-feeliness.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 22, 2014, 2:01 pm

        Puppies,
        You seem to be picking and choosing bits of my various posts on this topic while ignoring or deflecting the gist of the points I’m trying make.. You also throw in a lot of emotional language and loaded terms like “touchy-feeliness” which don’t contribute to the discussion. I appreciate the emotion you feel about this topic, and, if you review my comment history, you’ll see I share those same emotions, including outrage.

        Some points:

        1. In your first paragraph you rage on about Balfour and colonialism. While much of what you are saying is accurate, you don’t address the legality issue. Do you or do you not agree that Zionist Jews gained a limited and conditional legal right to be in Palestine via LofN ratified Balfour and UN recognition of Partition Plan Israel? If you don’t agree, give us your reasoning. Merely saying that the process was grossly unfair to the Palestinians (as it truly was) doesn’t address the legal argument.

        2. I think your definition of the term “anti-Zionist” probably reflects the view of most of us. My point was not that the term included or implied exclusion of Zionist Jews from Palestine/Israel, but that it was being used that way by Hasbara Central. I’m looking for a better, more descriptive term.

        3. Your third paragraph on “expulsions” seems directed at someone else. I agree that Palestinians should have the right to decide their own rules on immigration and citizenship so as long all citizens are treated equally and afforded basic civil rights protections (I see the irony in that statement). If you are alluding to the 700,000 illegal Israeli Jewish settlers in the various illegally occupied and illegally annexed “territories”, I don’t see why they would have any legal rights to remain or become citizens of a new Palestinian state. These are not refugees of long standing. They are there as part of an Israeli government sponsored takeover of Palestinian land.

        4. Your prediction of an Algerian style outcome may well prove true. I fully share your pessimism. As to the Samson option, I can’t picture it coming to that (although I do have a version of the Samson option in my novel about this conflict, so maybe, deep down, I fear it may well happen).

        5. As to me being an “exposed Zionist”, I think a more careful review of what I actually said would show that I am trying to clarify the overall discussion about Zionism with two propositions:

        First, that there was an historic good and moral form of Zionism that was cast aside by the current immoral version, and that the modern-day moral version advocates would support a binational democratic solution or a just division that would allow for two democratic states.

        Second, that Zionist Jews, despite the gross unfairness to the Palestinians, including the deliberate denial by the British of their right to self-determination in the Greater Palestine of the mandate, did gain a legal right to be in Palestine. But, this right is not “historic”. It is limited and conditioned on the terms of the League of Nations ratification of Balfour, and UN recognition of Partition Plan Israel.

        I think these two proposition are critical to the discussion of Zionism and to distinguishing between its moral and immoral form.

        6. Finally, you do not have to remind me that:

        that we are in a particularly destructive, cruel war, started by the Zionists 67 years ago and going full blast. People are being murdered and spoliated every day. No Zionist can expect to have his daily little drops of venom go unchallenged.

        I share every bit of your outrage and I have written extensively about these ghastly events and my contempt for the Zionist perpetrators, both on MW, on my blog, and in my novel. I really resent your lumping me in with generic Zionism (the immoral version I am referring to). To suggest that I am contributing daily little drops of Zionist venom is a bit beyond the pale, as even a cursory review of my MW comments would demonstrate.

        7. Having said that, I noticed you said “…we are in a particularly destructive, cruel war…”. The “we” suggests you may be a Palestinian victim of all this outrage, either in the Middle East or in the wider diaspora. If that’s the case, you owe me no apology. Your outrage and anguish is justifiable even when it may target those who proport to be on your side. Your frustration with gamesmanship on MW, in the midst of all the horror that is going on there, is also understandable if you indeed are a victim. If you are, it is me that owes the apology.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        January 22, 2014, 3:23 am

        Irishmoses and puppies, a thought provoking exchange. Yes, “anti-Zionist” is a troubling, and limiting expression. Troubling because for many the labels, Zionist and Jewish, mean the same. (what that tells us about the state of modern Judaism is another topic.) So to pin a label “anti Zionist” is received in the mind of many as anti Jewish. So let’s do away with that loathsome expression.

        Righteous Zionist is also problematic for those Jews and non-Jews who reject etho-nationalist philosophies and related movements.

        So how about the honest and anodyne expression, “Non-Zionist?” Phil Weiss, the non-Zionist writer….the non-Zionist Christian group……

      • eljay
        eljay
        January 22, 2014, 8:19 am

        >> So how about the honest and anodyne expression, “Non-Zionist?”

        I can’t speak for Mr. Weiss, but I don’t want to be “non-Zionist” any more than I want to be “non-war” or “non-torture”.

        Zionism is supremacism. I am against supremacism. I am anti-Zionist (and anti-war and anti-torture).

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 22, 2014, 12:42 pm

        So how about the honest and anodyne expression, “Non-Zionist?” Phil Weiss, the non-Zionist writer….the non-Zionist Christian group……

        Ellen, the only problem I have with that term is that it excludes an inclusive or democratic form of Zionism that has historic roots. i.e. a Zionism that advocates or advocated a binational democratic state. Plus, it seems to me that anyone who feels Zionist Jews do have a limited, conditioned, legal right to be in Palestine/Israel (only via the League of Nations ratification of Balfour and UN recognition of Partition Plan Israel) is a Zionist to that extent.

        What I’m searching for is term that encompasses both of the above that also distinguishes between a good or moral Zionism and the largely immoral present version which has extended its reach far beyond the agreed terms of ratified Balfour and UN recognition, and has done so at expense of an entire people.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 23, 2014, 2:04 pm

        @irishmoses (no Reply button…) – It seems so natural for you to assume a “good” Zionism that, while you effectively question anything else, it remains as a basis for judging things. There is no question in my mind that only the idea of a “Jewish nation” with a lingering for a state is enough to contain all the evil we are seeing today, the world we live in being what it is. So the ” historic good and moral form of Zionism that was cast aside by the current immoral version” looks not only as a myth, but a particularly potent weapon for Z propaganda.

        The grant of land and sovereignty by GB/UN, not theirs to give, does have very limited legality indeed: while the colonists pounced on it, it was not recognized by the owners of the land. One-sided “legality” in its own caricature, definition of frivolous claims and unenforceable contracts. That’s precisely why the Z jumped the gun, invading over the line, thereby in effect cancelling the proposal. As long as Palestinians do not accept it through an independent and sovereign body, I can’t for the life of me see why I should recognize any such “right”. In addition (rather replacement in most cases) to the largely defunct democratic and secular resistance organizations, we have now the religious ones generated by “Israel”, and that means a re-examination of citizenship rights also of the local-born –just to further simplify an already simple, easy-going situation.

        Lots more to discuss in your thoughtful post, but I’ll limit it: no, I am no Palestinian and the “we” is just a turn of speech but I still owe you no apology insofar as you defend either a “moral Z” or a right for aliens to be on any Palestinian territory without the express consent of those who lived and worked on that land at the colonists’ arrival.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 24, 2014, 10:58 pm

        @irishmoses – I only now saw that:
        “Your third paragraph on “expulsions” seems directed at someone else.”
        At something else, in fact. I only think of total rejection of Zionism, while your mind seems to follow “self-evident” Zionist assumptions. I was talking about all the invaders that were smuggled in by the Zionists without the consent of the owners of the place (whose being there seems natural to you), and without tracing artificial lines since 1900 or so. Not about the Nakba victims (whose return is of course evidently a must for all of us.)

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 22, 2014, 7:00 am

        The “wrong moral path” taken by the Zionists was in not following the requirements of Balfour, the LofN, and the UN’s treaties and the requirements and conditions that they agreed to follow.

        Imo, Zionism’s “wrong moral path” was in insisting on Palestine as the location to construct a new Jewish nation-state when it was well known that Palestine was already densely inhabited by Arabs. But once having set the goal of the creation of a Jewish nation-state, Zionism really had no other option, since even if there had been available uninhabited territories, the religio-mythic appeal of Eretz Israel was needed to motivate Jewish masses and unify them around the Zionist nationalist ideal.

        So really it’s not so much that Zionism took a wrong turn, but rather that Zionism was itself a wrong turn–a misguided adoption of ethno-nationalism and the concomitant invention of an entire nationalist mythology in order to deal with the twin threats to Jewish life: antisemitism and assimilation.

        Consider Jabotinsky’s moral argument for Zionism:

        … if colonisation is invasion and robbery, the greatest crime of all would be to rob helpless children. Consequently, colonisation in Uganda is also immoral, and colonisation in any other place in the world, whatever it may be called, is immoral. There are no more uninhabited islands in the world. In every oasis there is a native population settled from times immemorial, who will not tolerate an immigrant majority or an invasion of outsiders. So that if there is any landless people in the world, even its dream of a national home must be an immoral dream. Those who are landless must remain landless to all eternity. The whole earth has been allocated. Basta: Morality has said so: From the Jewish point of view, morality has a particularly interesting appearance.

        It is said that we Jews number 15 million people scattered throughout the world. Half of them are now literally homeless, poor, hunted wretches. The number of Arabs totals 8 million. They inhabit Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, Tripoli, Egypt, Syria, Arabia and Iraq – an area that apart from desert equals the size of half Europe. There are in this vast area 16 Arabs to the square mile.

        It is instructive to recall by way of comparison that Sicily has 352 and England 669 inhabitants to the square mile. It is still more instructive to recall that Palestine constitutes about one two hundredth part of this area. Yet if homeless Jewry demands Palestine for itself it is “immoral” because it does not suit the native population. Such morality may be accepted among cannibals, but not in a civilised world.

        The soil does not belong to those who possess land in excess but to those who do not possess any. It is an act of simple justice to alienate part of their land from those nations who are numbered among the great landowners of the world, in order to provide a place of refuge for a homeless, wandering people.

        And if such a big landowning nation resists which is perfectly natural – it must be made to comply by compulsion. Justice that is enforced does not cease to be justice. This is the only Arab policy that we shall find possible. As for an agreement, we shall have time to discuss that later.

        All sorts of catchwords are used against Zionism; people invoke Democracy, majority rule national self-determination. Which means, that the Arabs being at present the majority in Palestine, have the right of self-determination, and may therefore insist that Palestine must remain an Arab country. Democracy and self-determination are sacred principles, but sacred principles like the Name of the Lord must not be used in vain –to bolster up a swindle, to conceal injustice. The principle of self-determination does not mean that if someone has seized a stretch of land it must remain in his possession for all time, and that he who was forcibly ejected from his land must always remain homeless.

        Self-determination means revision – such a revision of the distribution of the earth among the nations that those nations who have too much should have to give up some of it to those nations who have not enough or who have none, so that all should have some place on which to exercise their right of self-determination.

        And now when the whole of the civilised world has recognised that Jews have a right to return to Palestine, which means that the Jews are, in principle, also “citizens” and “inhabitants” of Palestine, only they were driven out, and their return must be a lengthy process, it is wrong to contend that meanwhile the local population has the right to refuse to allow them to come back and to that “Democracy”.

        The Democracy of Palestine consists of two national groups, the local group and these who were driven out, and the second group is the larger.

        This specious argument is built upon two fallacious concepts: that of an “Arab nation” and a “Jewish nation”. (Additionally, there is the classic European colonialist appeal to the “civilized world” and all it implies.)

        The idea that the Arab inhabitants of Palestine were merely parts of a larger Arab nation that was like a big landowner with plenty of excess land– is both false in reality (though an Arab Nation may have been an ideal for many) and incompatible with modern conceptions of both individual and collective rights (self-determination of peoples).

        Likewise, the notion of a unitary ethnos, “the Jewish People” ,that was forcibly exiled from Eretz Israel, wandered for centuries, longed to return for centuries, and finally did so by force (British at first) –that conception is also an ideological invention.

        [irishmoses:] There were moral Zionists who advocated for fairness for the Palestinians, and for a bi-national state clear up into the late 1940s

        The vast majority of Zionists favored the creation of a state in Palestine with a strong Jewish majority to be created by immigration. But Arab Palestinians were entirely unwilling to become a minority in their own homeland–thus, conflict was inevitable.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 23, 2014, 2:15 am

        Great post Sibriak.
        The Jabotinsky quote is priceless. However, Jabo was ultimately more of a cheer leader for Zionist extremes. Weizmann was in control for many decades and even considered binationalism when Zionism was at its nadir in the late 20s. Still, you are correct, the end goal for most, from Herzl on, was a Zionist majority state and preferably an exclusive version. Nonetheless, there was always a minority cautioning against it and arguing for cooperation with the Arabs and for a binational solution. Epstein, Ahad Ha’am, Buber much later. Even Herzl pushed hard for the Uganda plan perhaps realizing that Palestine was unrealistic. So I think there was a moral version of Zionism that unfortunately didn’t prevail.

        On the immoral side, forced transfer was the goal from the beginning, Herzl on. Large scale Jewish immigration was a major goal to achieve a Jewish majority, but transfer was always part of the plan for Weizmann and later Ben-Gurion.

        The Arab Palestinians were divided. Some, the Nashibibis (sp?) were more realistic and favored accommodation. Even in 47 and 48 many if not most Palestinian villages were forming non-aggression pacts with their local Jewish settlements. Many, if not most, refused to cooperate with the Arab insurgent bands fearing reprisal. The strength of the 1936-39 Arab revolt peaked in 36 and by 39 was a total disaster with massive defeats and infighting among tribal factions. A Jewish victory in 48 was a fait accompli and they well knew it as did the surrounding Arab nations as well as various intelligence organizations including the Brits and later the CIA. Did they want to be forced to share Palestine with the Zionist Jews? No, of course not. But when faced with overwhelming Zionist power they ultimately knew they had to.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 23, 2014, 4:33 am

        irishmoses:

        The Jabotinsky quote is priceless.

        Btw, it should read “[t]he number of Arabs totals 38 million,” not “8 million”.

        The complete text is here:
        http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_181762.pdf

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 23, 2014, 12:33 am

        irishmoses:

        Righteous Zionist may not be the right term but it is better than anti-Zionist.

        I think the existing terms “liberal Zionism” and “post-Zionism” are good enough. And “anti-Zionist” is fine for those who are are opposed to the basic tenets of mainstream political Zionism.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 25, 2014, 6:07 am

        @irishmoses (still no buttons) – ” Nonetheless, there was always a minority cautioning against it and arguing for cooperation with the Arabs and for a binational solution. Epstein, Ahad Ha’am, Buber much later. Even Herzl pushed hard for the Uganda plan perhaps realizing that Palestine was unrealistic. So I think there was a moral version of Zionism that unfortunately didn’t prevail.”

        So the binational state idea is what makes earlier Zionist action acceptable?
        Aren’t you forgetting one thing? These guys were not invited, they just bought a gun and went there. Your “good guys”, to attract the socialists, human rights minded people and otherwise conscience-ridden crowd, were pretending that they naturally must be accepted as the “bi” of a binational state that the local population, already under Ottoman and later under (even worse) British fiduciary administration needed exactly as much as a hole in the head. The other wing of the Jabos were clear about their aims and means.
        For all of them colonial aggression was the natural default; none of them, not one, considered the normal, lawful behavior for a refugee, i.e. that of adapting to the life and demands of the local population (as in the example of most Jewish Palestinians), as individuals not a separate and invading crowd.
        As for action, the action of all factions without exception has been Jabotinskian even before Jabotinsky, no matter their theoretical blatter.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        January 22, 2014, 5:01 am

        puppies:

        [Zionism] is the twin sister of Nazism, from the same Prussian-romantic root.

        From an analytical standpoint: I think that formulation is misleading and reductionist. Zionism shared characteristics with other forms of nationalism and ethnocentrism, including Nazism, but also had roots in Enlightenment values, liberalism, socialism, Eurocentrism and other ideological currents.

        From a polemical standpoint: a general Nazi-Zionist equation provokes widespread rejection and ridicule and is therefore extremely counterproductive. (That’s not to say that some limited, specific analogies with Nazism are not appropriate.)

        I realize my position on this is not shared by a lot of folks in this forum, though.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 23, 2014, 12:58 pm

        I agree with you Sibiriak. If the goal is to replace the false Zionist narrative pablum that Americans and American Jews have been spoon-fed for all these years, the new, accurate narrative needs to be presented factually with as little polemic as possible. That’s hard to do when your anger level increases, but I think it’s essential to making progress. Snide comments, name calling, and over-the-top comparisons to Hitler or the Nazis are counterproductive and put us on the same level as the hasbarites. I too have been guilty of this but am trying to lower my polemic level and remove most of the snide and snark from my postings. It’s a constant battle.

      • puppies
        puppies
        January 23, 2014, 2:38 pm

        @Sibiriak – The characterization is reductive but not misleading. Philosophic and historical roots are clear. Enlightenment and Socialism and Unionism etc. only got tagged on later, when looking for the appropriate fig leaves on one’s brutal barbarian nationalism. The idea is extremely simple: “Jews”, whoever that is, are a “nation”, period. No need there for the fixins.
        Also, it was a specified, limited association as to the 19th century Fichtean roots. No mention of later, even more appropriate analogies.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      January 21, 2014, 4:25 am

      Legal? Balfour merely promised the Jews a “homeland” within the then British Mandate Palestine, not a state, and that promise was on condition the rights of the Arabs there would not in any way be violated. That condition was never honored. The UN granted the self-declared state recognition within borders then defined and accepted by the UN. These borders have not been honored by Israel. In short, none of the conditions legalizing Israel under international law have been met by Israel.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 21, 2014, 4:52 pm

        Agreed Citizen. My point is that there is a limited legal basis for Zionist Jewish presence in Palestine/Israel, within the very terms you point out, terms that I agree have been violated. The solution isn’t to evict the Zionist Jews, it’s to make them comply with the treaties and conditions they agreed to.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 23, 2014, 10:00 am

        @ irishmoses
        Why don’t Britain and USA condition any aid and diplomatic cover for Israel on Israel fulling those promises which form conditions to its legality in the first place? It’s been a long time since Balfour of 1917 and Israel of 1948… Why is this not shocking?

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 23, 2014, 12:45 pm

        Why? I think it’s because the Zionists were so good at manipulating and controlling the narrative. That’s why I think it is so important to create a simple but accurate narrative and work hard toward getting it out there as an alternative to the pablum Americans and American Jews have been spoon fed for so long.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 23, 2014, 1:08 pm

        I think it’s because US elected politicians are totally dependent on the US campaign finance system, which makes them give Israel whatever it wants via AIPAC et al, even if it’s not in US best interest, or even Israel’s in the long term. The US mainstream media, a handful of corporations controlled by Zionists, is complicit. Money talks, everything else walks into oblivion.

    • libra
      libra
      January 21, 2014, 5:31 pm

      irishmoses: I chose “righteous Zionist”.

      Oh dear, I’m afraid that’s a little too close to “self-righteous Zionist” for my liking.

      • irishmoses
        irishmoses
        January 22, 2014, 12:47 pm

        Libra,

        I think of Phil Weiss as a righteous Jew which I think is why I made the leap to “righteous Zionist”. Unfortunate as my term may be, I still think there is a need to distinguish between good or moral Zionism (and its historic roots), and the immoral version of Zionism that transpired.

    • American
      American
      January 22, 2014, 3:03 pm

      ”I chose “righteous Zionist”….irish

      No such thing as a righteous zionist….I think the description you are searching for is ‘misguided’ zionist…or a righteous Jew ‘misguided’ by zionism.

  11. bilal a
    bilal a
    January 20, 2014, 9:02 pm

    MEMOIRS OF A RUSSIAN GOVERNOR

    During one of my reception hours there came to me an English-man who spoke fairly good French, but who, of course, did not utter a single Russian word. He presented himself as a tourist who had come to Odessa, and handed me a letter of recommenda­tion from the British Consul in that city. Notwithstanding his reservations and his guarded manner of speech, it soon became apparent that he had a burning desire thoroughly to acquaint himself with the conditions of the Jews in Kishinev. He also wanted to know, especially, the results of the preliminary in­vestigations into the late disorders. I directed the Englishman to our District Attorney, and gave him the addresses of some Kishinev Jews. I also promised to notify the Chief of Police that no obstacles be put in the way of the stranger should he desire to visit the Jewish quarters for information. But the Englishman seemed particularly delighted with my suggestion that he accompany me at once to the prison which I had to visit that day. At first he was surprised that the rioters were put into prison (about three hundred of them were there) ; also, he couldn’t apparently believe that a formal investigation of the April affair was to be instituted. These doubts were removed on the following day by the District Attorney, and finally he was delighted with the thought of seeing the rioters in prison, of talking to them, and even of having an opportunity to visit a Russian prison. We drove over to the prison and began to make the rounds of the cells. I addressed a large group of prisoners, and told them how famous they had become through their heroic deeds; that the Englishmen had sent over their official to behold them! My companion began to question the prisoners through me. He asked them a number of questions about the causes which called forth the pogrom: what led them to massacre the Jews; what harm the Jews had done to them, etc. The Englishman seemed astonished at the replies of the prisoners, which I interpreted for him. In the first place, they manifested such good-nature and joviality, exchanged playful jokes, and admitted naively that they had sinned a little, but of murder—”God forbid!”–they were innocent of that! They assured him that the Jews are a nice people; that they lived with them in peace; that everything may happen; that sometimes a Greek Orthodox Russian is worse than a Jew. They added, however, that the Jews were much affronted by the pogrom, and are now vexing them by false evidence, attributing to many of them crimes which they had not committed. I went to the window to talk with the warden of the prison. When I finished my con­versation with him I was astonished. My companion, closely approaching the prisoners, examined them animatedly in Rus­sian, shook his head, and almost choked himself in his eagerness to satisfy his curiosity. I went still farther away, giving the Englishman a chance to talk freely with the prisoners. He over-took me as I reached the second ward.
    Two days later the Englishman came to take leave of me; he was delighted with the prisoners, with the District Attorney, with myself, with the Jews, and, in general, with everything he had seen. He told me that in England they have a wrong idea about matters in Bessarabia; that he had convinced himself of the correct administration of justice in Russia; of the loyalty of the officials ; of the impartiality and high standard of the pro-curator’s office; that the civil order in the city appeared to be model; and that all the rumors of the destruction of the town, and of the stagnation and decay into which commerce had fallen, were false. He spoke of many other things which I do not now recall.
    Two months later I received from the British Consul in Odessa a pamphlet—a report of the condition of the city of Kishinev after the pogrom—presented by the British Foreign Secretary to both Houses of Parliament by his Majesty’s order. The report ended with the assurance that all is well in Kishinev.
    ….
    I devoted the entire day following to the study of the four-volume report of the Police Bureau concerning the Kishinev riots, and gained from it the impression that the riots had their beginning in a quarrel between a Jewess, who owned a carrousel, and a working-man, who wanted a ride free of charge. The lo-cal authorities and the police lost their heads and did nothing..
    n the few days of my sojourn in St. Petersburg, I succeeded in acquainting myself superficially with the laws concerning the Jews, with the Temporary Regulations of 1882 concerning their residence in rural districts, and with the current views in rela­tion to the recent events at Kishinev. The papers of the day reflected two opposite opinions. One threw the responsibility for the riots entirely on the Government and on the anti-Jewish agitation, at once ignorant and criminal, fomented by certain individuals; the other saw in the pogroms the uncontrollable out-burst of the native population to exact revenge for their ex­ploitation by a people regarded in Russia as strangers and en­emies, who were endeavoring to place the country under the yoke of economic slavery. One even had to read in certain pub­lications, like that of the notorious Krushevan, that the Jews themselves started the pogrom for their own advantage….
    It was asserted with much pleasure, even in Government cir­cles, that the Jews themselves were to blame for the riots–they had been the attacking party, and, meeting the resistance of the people, suffered defeat because of Russian bravery and their own cowardice. However, I had read the actual facts in the case, and realized that this was an exaggerated interpretation.
    http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/urussov/u_mrg000.shtml

  12. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    January 21, 2014, 12:25 am

    “Rooting for the underdog”, which I suppose is the same thing as “support for the oppressed” describes the dynamics of an Irish Republican support for the Jews of Kishinev and current Irish Catholic support for the Palestinians. I don’t find it particularly surprising or illuminating. We need a map or a plan or a sustaining world view that will take the situation from here to there. This map or plan or world view will never forget the suffering of the status quo, but will adhere to realism so that the path will lead to something better rather than to something worse.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      January 21, 2014, 12:36 pm

      @ yonah fredman
      What do you mean to suggest by saying “rooting for the underdog” is not an effective or illuminating factor in getting a map “from here to there”? Surely you recall what Truman said about what happens when Jews go from underdog to overdog? Please explain your POV more clearly. Thanks.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        January 21, 2014, 5:16 pm

        Citizen- If we know what our goal is then we need a way to get there. Rooting for the underdog helps us determine where we want to get. How does it help us to get there? You seem to be saying that we can only get there if we can spread the desire to reach the goal among populations (specifically Jewish Israeli, but also Jewish American) who need to change their consciousness away from bad thoughts or reflexively fearful thoughts and towards thoughts that reflect empathy for the other. I would agree that a revolution in thinking would be a good start in the right direction. But i hardly think that the conversation on MW is the text that will bring about that revolution in thinking in a population that would feel enmity and fear in their spines in reaction to reading the general tenor of many of the comments and more than a handful of the posts on this site. This site and Phil’s insight into the Irish Catholic sympathies will not bring about the revolution in thought implied by what you just wrote.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        January 23, 2014, 9:56 am

        @ yonah fredman
        The whites in the former apartheid South Africa were full of fear too. That regime did not cave in from inside, but from the outside. That’s why BDS is so important, and why simply getting out the facts on the history and current I-P conflict to Americans is so important.

  13. eljay
    eljay
    January 21, 2014, 7:36 am

    >> This map or plan or world view will never forget the suffering of the status quo, but will adhere to realism so that the path will lead to something better rather than to something worse.

    Valuable advice for Zio-supremacists, past and present.

  14. marezee
    marezee
    August 20, 2015, 11:00 pm

    This paragraph written by Mr Weiss couldn’t be farther from the truth:

    Today there is simply no question whose side a Davitt would be on: the Palestinians against the Israelis. This is obvious because of the rich connection that today exists between the Palestinian solidarity movement and Irish republican activists; the Irish say that the colonized Palestinian condition reminds them of their own.

    ***

    I say this because I am a direct descendant of Michael Davitt; he is my great, great uncle.
    Knowing the Irish side of my family, none would support the Palestinian cause – at all.
    Ironically, it was the ‘Land League’ that my G-G uncle formed – he would not have supported the Palestinians. Learning of Hadrian’s Curse would only add emphasis.

    You can read much more of the Davitt Family on the Ireland weblink; Castlebar.

Leave a Reply