Trending Topics:

‘Price-tag’ attacks on Palestinians are as Israeli and common as matkot on a Tel Aviv beach

Israel/Palestine
on 53 Comments

 

Early Wednesday morning Ha’aretz reported (Hebrew, see also English report here) a so-called “price tag” attack against Palestinian citizens in the neighborhood of Sharafat in the village of Beit Safafa.  (See video above.)  The vandals punctured tires on 30 automobiles and spraypainted the words “Arabs = Thieves” and “No Coexistence” on a wall.  The Palestinians who witnessed the crime stood helplessly by. Their only recourse was shooting video footage of the masked perpetrators.

This type of vandalism is as Jewish Israeli as matkot (beach paddle ball) and is becoming increasingly as common.

Israeli game Matkot, photo by Hadar/Flickr

Israeli game Matkot, photo by Hadar/Flickr

According to a webpage announcing a forum on the subject, a price tag attack is:

… the name for acts of vandalism aimed at the Palestinian population, often against Christian and Muslim places of worship, and also against leftist Jewish institutions and Israeli security forces, perpetrated by fundamentalist Israeli settler youths attempting to exact a price for actions perceived to be against their settlement enterprise.

The attacks are actually overwhelmingly against Palestinian targets, but it is true that occasionally these acts of violence and vandalism are directed against Jews.

Dr. Gadi Gvaryahu, a Jewish Israeli, is chairman of something called the Price Tag Forum. He led a September 16th public panel discussion on that subject. Gvaryahu told Ha’aretz addressing the Sharafat vandalism:

‘Price tag’ crimes continue to cause massive damage to Arab property in Jerusalem and its surrounding area – they go unchallenged.  The security and property of the Arabs of Abu Gosh, Sheikh Jarrah, Beit Hanina, Abu Tor, Beit Safafa, and Sharafat are not protected by the Israeli government.   Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually has lost control of the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

page_pricetag192143_w437_h328
‘No co-existence.’ Photo credit: Channel 2

It is very comforting, I am sure, for Gvaryahu to suggest that the Israeli authorities want to control these young super-Zionist settlers.  However, the price tag hooligans’ message is an all-Israeli message addressed to the minority Arab population, which is supported by the great majority of Jewish officials, members of the Parliament and the general population.   That message is —“Arabs, you are not wanted here on land that belongs to us – the Jews.”  It is the same message the Israeli government has sent to its Palestinian citizens ever since the founding of the Jewish state.

Larry Derfner wrote a good piece on +972, on settler violence a month ago.  He said that everybody in Israel but the most radical fringe will denounce it, yet no one will do anything to stop settler violence. And “[the] world doesn’t penalize or even threaten to penalize Israel for it.”

Derfner stated,

If a decades-long reign of terror on unarmed Palestinians by Jewish gangs backed by an army of occupation is tolerable, not only to Israel but to the United Nations, European Union, United States and the rest of the world, then everything Israel does to the Palestinians is tolerable. Then the occupation as a whole is tolerable.

The price tag crimes are just another reason for activists to support the BDS movement.  Any government that even tacitly supports this Jewish reign of terror against its own citizens is not likely to come around to supporting even a castrated two-state solution because of reason and goodwill alone.

Ira Glunts
About Ira Glunts

Ira Glunts is a retired college librarian who lives in Madison, NY. His twitter handle is @abushalom

Other posts by .


Posted In:

53 Responses

  1. just
    just
    February 23, 2014, 9:49 am

    Netanyahu, the AG , the cabinet and the IOF are all complicit and responsible for this terrorism that goes unchecked.

    “Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein let the cabinet choose to define the perpetrators of so-called price tag attacks on Arab and Palestinian targets as part of “forbidden organizations” rather than terror groups in June 2013.

    Last summer, as a result of political pressure from the right, the cabinet voted to settle for the less severe definition, which is also applied to charities linked to Hamas or Islamic Jihad.

    The difference between the two terms is significant. While conviction of membership in a terror organization carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, and the property of any organization defined as such can be confiscated by the police and the Shin Bet security service, the only punishment faced by a forbidden organization is the possible confiscation of its property by the state.

    Meretz chairwoman MK Zahava Gal-On sent a letter to Weinstein, asking him to instruct the cabinet to void its decision and to define the perpetrators of price tag attacks as part of terror organizations.

    “Against the recommendation of the attorney general, the cabinet waves a white flag for political reasons, and instead of calling a spade a spade and declaring ‘price tags’ as a terror organization, allows the thugs from the hilltop youth to evade criminal prosecution through the use of administrative orders,” Gal-On said Saturday.

    In her letter to Weinstein, Gal-On wrote, “There is no doubt that in light of the escalation in price tag activities,” they must be defined as acts of terror, and forceful action must be taken against their perpetrators.

    In a written response to Gal-On, Deputy Attorney General Raz Nezri confirmed that Weinstein allowed the cabinet to choose between the two possible definitions. But he also noted that, from the perspective of the police and the Shin Bet, there is no difference between the two terms, as in either case the means of enforcement available to the agencies are identical.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.574423

  2. benedict
    benedict
    February 23, 2014, 10:10 am

    Ira,
    Your claim that tag mechir vandalism is supported by the majority of Israeli public is baseless defamation. In fact all sectors of Israeli society including rabbis and right wing politicians protested these actions. The government gave no tacit support to these actions either. In fact police have a special force fighting tag mechir and several suspects where served restraining orders.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_tag_policy
    http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Rabbis-deliver-apologies-new-Korans-to-vandalized-mosque

    also, you present a picture claiming to be jewish Israelis playing matkot, implying that arabs cannot be playing on the tel aviv beach. How do you know they are not non-jews?

    • just
      just
      February 23, 2014, 10:33 am

      “The one-two punch of settler “price tag” attacks carried out under the watch of the army and with the encouragement of state-funded religious nationalist rabbis is common all over the West Bank. Most Jewish Israelis view the army with reverence, and are reluctant to criticize its conduct under any circumstance. And though settler violence is considered a matter of controversy in Israeli society, a new poll shows that a staggering number of Israelis support the pogroms meted out by fanatical settlers against defenseless Palestinians.

      A new Ynet-Gesher survey of 504 Jewish Israeli adults revealed that 46 percent of Israelis support settler “price tag” terror. Only 33 percent of those polled believed that price tag attacks were “never justified.” A sectoral breakdown shows that a wide majority of religious nationalist and ultra-Orthodox respondents support the attacks: 56 percent of “traditional” types, 70 percent of those identifying as Orthodox, and 71 percent of the religious nationalists declared price tag violence to be justified. The most remarkable finding, in my opinion, is that 36 percent of secular respondents support settler terror. Even though 56 percent are against the practice, this is a remarkably high number for a population segment that lives primarily inside the Green Line. (The poll results and Ynet article detailing its contents are only in Hebrew at the moment).”

      http://maxblumenthal.com/2011/03/48-of-jewish-israelis-support-settler-price-tag-terror-congress-blames-palestinians-for-incitement/

      Yes, it’s from 2011. But it rings unbearably true.

    • amigo
      amigo
      February 23, 2014, 10:56 am

      “The government gave no tacit support to these actions either.” benedict

      The hell you say.So what is this then???.

      “Responding to damage claim, the state claims ‘price tag’ victims at fault for failing to duly protect their land.” haaretz.

      Inhttp://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.565488

      Should the Palestinians sell their cars and walk.Will they then be safe from these Jewish terrorist thugs that you seem satisfied they were served restraining orders.

      You know what a Palestinians would get —right benedict.A bullet in the head.

      You apologists are so full of it.

    • Ira Glunts
      Ira Glunts
      February 23, 2014, 12:47 pm

      Benedict, Your claim that I engaged in “baseless defamation” is baseless since you incorrectly quote my post. I did not state that the majority of Israelis support price tag attacks, but rather that a majority of Israelis support the message which is sent by those attacks. To reiterate, that message is:

      Arabs, you are not wanted here on land that belongs to us – the Jews.

      Secondly, as to my statement that the picture depicts Jewish Israelis playing matkot. If your name were Moshe, I would ignore this comment. But it is not, so I will tell you that Tel Aviv as Israel as a whole is a segregated society. Sometimes the segregation is de jure and other times de facto. I can assure you that the matkot players pictured are Jewish and if one is not, it is the exception that proves the rule.

      As to the degree that Israelis actually support “price tag violence” and the seriousness of the government’s efforts to stop it, I will leave it to commenters like “Just” to give you a bit of insight into those topics.

      • benedict
        benedict
        February 24, 2014, 4:48 pm

        Ira,
        So now you are into mind reading? The fact remains that Israeli politicians and rabbis from all over the political spectrum denounced tag mechir action.

        As for the survey lined by ‘just’ – it was taken the week following the horrific murder of the fogel family. I am sure a survey of Americans in the week following 9/11 would have found pretty extreme opinions to.

        I frequent the tel aviv beach and often see here Arabs.

    • W.Jones
      W.Jones
      February 23, 2014, 12:52 pm

      Hello Benedict.

      Did most southerners support lynch mobs? I suppose not. Most southern whites did not participate in lynch mobs and if asked, I assume they would say they prefer lawful trials. But then if probed further, many might say they support it “if necessary”. So already as you can see there is an unfortunate and very unpleasant grey line for what nationalists “support”.

      • Kris
        Kris
        February 23, 2014, 5:31 pm

        I think most southern whites at the time, at least in Texas, where I lived, would have said that they opposed lynching, and did not participate in lynch mobs. At the same time, however, they held racist views (blacks were dangerous because they lusted after white women, were dirty, violent, sneaky, had lower IQs than whites, etc.), and they consistently elected candidates who supported segregation and a racist “justice” system which privileged whites.

        There is overwhelming evidence that the majority of Israelis have the same kind of racist attitudes towards the Palestinians, and that the Israeli “justice” system privileges Jews over everyone else.

  3. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 23, 2014, 11:04 am

    “Price-tag’ attacks on Palestinians are as Israeli and common as matkot on a Tel Aviv beach”

    Gotta love Israeli culture. The return to Zion, so mystical, so religious, something so many people had prayed for over such a long time. And now it’s this. Wow. How did that happen ? G-d must have been just playing with people all this time . Or maybe they just weren’t ready for it, like in the Old Testament ?

  4. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    February 23, 2014, 11:16 am

    “In fact all sectors of Israeli society including rabbis and right wing politicians protested these actions.”

    Talk is cheap. How about these rabbis and politicians volunteer to guard an Arab neighborhood from these hoodlums. Better yet how about the police protect them, or is protecting Arabs not in their mission statement?

    “In fact police have a special force fighting tag mechir and several suspects where served restraining orders.”

    Restraining orders! Well, now you’re talking. Nothing intimidates the criminal mind better than a stiffly worded retraining order.

    • benedict
      benedict
      February 24, 2014, 4:52 pm

      As adequately documented in the links I provided the police ARE making an effort to end tag mechir activity.
      Restraining orders are useful in cases when there are insufficient grounds for a formal conviction. What’s the problem?

  5. February 23, 2014, 12:07 pm

    A lot of thuggish immigrants to Israel, a lot of nutty irrational Zionists, a lot of greedy Israelis who don’t think about the others, a lot of Jews who have been reared to think that the Arabs hate them and should be eliminated like rabid dogs, and the result is that you have the situation in Israel today – a solid dose of BDS is the only hope. Indeed, the composite image of Israel has no manners, no ethics/morality and no Gandi-like figures with justice on their minds. The outlook for Israel is very poor. The only thing we can be sure about is that the internet age will describe the situation on the ground in Israel for all to see. Max Blumental’s Goliath is just the start of this Cinéma Réalité. The US media cover-up is on its last legs. When the old Jews like Alelson pass on, the Chinese will take over and AIPAC will be a historical artifact. Just an aside, I bought 4 copies of Max’s book. Y’all please follow my example. This book is an amazing landmark in honest reporting. Thanks to Max and The Nation – despite the ghastly Alterman.

    • puppies
      puppies
      February 23, 2014, 2:17 pm

      @unverified – “a solid dose of BDS is the only hope”
      I hope that you don’t mean it literally. I don’t say it disparagingly; every little bit helps. Right now, the “liberal” Zionist dominance in the BDS movement that hopes to extend the life of the Abomination by boycotting the post-1967 settlements and perhaps a slight EU slap on the wrist is all the immediate horizon. If Max’ book didn’t convince you that this is a collectively delirious, suicidal society with almost no logical actors, nothing will. Right now, the chances of Zionists reacting like former South African Whites instead of like Nazi Germany look slim.

  6. Blownaway
    Blownaway
    February 23, 2014, 12:17 pm

    Rot starts at the top
    Israel should have zero sympathy for the national aspirations of Israeli Arabs, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi) said on Sunday. The minister added that Judaization of the Galilee and Negev are entirely in line with Israel’s values.

    Bennett was speaking at a conference of the the Kohelet Policy Forum, which aims to secure the future of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish People….

  7. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    February 23, 2014, 12:47 pm

    The vandals punctured tires on 30 automobiles…
    Another day in Swaziland. It’s so mundane.

    • just
      just
      February 23, 2014, 3:21 pm

      Totally unfair to Swaziland.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        February 23, 2014, 11:01 pm

        What is the nearest regional or geographic equivalent to Gaza or the West bank in terms of S.Africa?

  8. annie
    annie
    February 23, 2014, 12:52 pm

    are there any palestinian hooligans?

    • MahaneYehude1
      MahaneYehude1
      February 23, 2014, 4:16 pm

      Hey, Annie, I didn’t see you yesterday.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 24, 2014, 9:44 am

        MahaneYehude1 “Hey, Annie, I didn’t see you yesterday”

        Maybe Annie is Jewish and was observing the Sabbath. SF bay is in the US. The International date line puts the Sabbath in the USA a day out of sync with the Sabbath for illegal Israeli settlers in Palestine

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        February 24, 2014, 9:49 am

        @talknic:

        Thanks for the information. I mean the information about Annie (which is not accurate), not the information about Palestine.

      • talknic
        talknic
        February 26, 2014, 4:10 am

        Odd, I didn’t give any inaccurate information about Annie.

        Seems illegal settlers really are quite intent on showing their stupidity

  9. David Doppler
    David Doppler
    February 23, 2014, 12:56 pm

    Why am I reminded of this photo from the Civil Rights era?http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/price&bowers.htm

    I guess it is the KKK model of mostly anonymous brutality against the hated underclass, leaving polite society free to express its disapproval, without doing anything about it. These deputy sheriffs are grinning in court because they are in on the joke: they get to dole out the brutality, then come in afterwards to investigate the crimes, secure in backing of the judicial system. It’s a double whammy: the pariahs get brutalized, then their cries for justice get mocked.

    I suspect there is an evolved somatic state into which prison guards, torturers, slaveowners, KKKers, and price-taggers are apt to slip, in which prisoner, suspect, slave, Black underclass and Palestinian become objects of both cruelty and derision. See, Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil, about the Stanford Prison experiment. [High school bullies overturning someone’s books in the hallway, then howling with derisive laughter at the victim’s helplessness is an even more common example.]

  10. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    February 23, 2014, 9:44 pm

    RE: “Early Wednesday morning Ha’aretz reported a so-called ‘price tag’ attack against Palestinian citizens in the neighborhood of Sharafat in the village of Beit Safafa. The vandals punctured tires on 30 automobiles and spraypainted the words ‘Arabs = Thieves’ and ‘No Coexistence’ on a wall.” ~ Ira Glunts

    MY COMMENT: The more extremist of the Jewish settlers essentially serve as Israel’s quasi-official equivalent of Mussolini’s Blackshirts and operate under the protection of the Israeli army, police and much of Israel’s Likudnik government! And Israel’s “Blackshirts” don’t just attack Palestinians. Read below about a scatological attack (with the complicity of the IDF) on a Jew visiting the West Bank from her adopted country of England/U.K.! It is truly like something out of the Dark Ages.

    AN EXAMPLE FROM SEVERAL YEARS AGO OF THE ISRAELI ARMY’S COMPLICITY IN SETTLER ATTACKS:
    “Jews protect Palestinians in harvest of hate” ~ By Donald Macintyre in Awarta, West Bank, The Independent (U.K.), 10/10/08
    Israelis cross religious divide to shelter olive farmers from settlers’ attacks

    [EXCERPTS] . . . Born in Tel Aviv, Ms Siew served in the army, took a university degree, then a teacher’s diploma. Thirty-six years ago, she took the tough decision to emigrate to London, telling her parents: “I won’t come back until there’s peace.” Ms Siew, who is now 64, remains an Israeli citizen but now lives with her British husband in Hebden Bridge. She has kept to her word, except that each autumn she comes back to stay in her hometown with her relatives and spends each day of the two-month harvest season picking olives on Palestinian farmland in the West Bank.
    And Ms Siew does that for a purpose. Up on the ridge above us, you can see the red roofs of Itamar, a notably hard-line Jewish settlement, and she is here to help protect the Palestinian farmers from the threat of settler violence which has so often scarred the olive harvests.
    . . . Last year, she was in a group in the South Hebron Hills confronted by settlers who fired shots from a pistol and an M16 assault rifle, despite the presence of the army and police. “Then one of the soldiers said, ‘Look, one of them is coming down with a jug of water for you’. The settler emptied the jug over me. It was full of human shit.” . . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jews-protect-palestinians-in-harvest-of-hate-956706.html

  11. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    February 23, 2014, 9:53 pm

    RE: “The security and property of the Arabs of Abu Gosh, Sheikh Jarrah, Beit Hanina, Abu Tor, Beit Safafa, and Sharafat are not protected by the Israeli government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually has lost control of the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem.” ~ Gvaryahu

    BRANDEIS – Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis elaborated in Olmstead v. United States (1928):

    “In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”

    SOURCE – http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZD.html

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      February 23, 2014, 10:07 pm

      P.S. RE: “Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” ~ Brandeis

      AS TO THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT BEING A “LAWBREAKER”, SEE: “Fighting Settlers’ Impunity and Immunity”, by Pierre Klochendler, Inter Press Service, 12/16/11

      [EXCERPT] . . . The Israeli occupation, particularly the future of wildcat settlements built by settlers without formal government approval has been a simmering issue ever since their creation during the 1990s.
      In 2005, former head of the State Prosecution Criminal Department Talia Sasson published a landmark report on the question. Commissioned by then prime minister Ariel Sharon, the report found the Israeli government guilty of “institutional lawbreaking” and of the theft of private Palestinian land to covertly establish over a hundred “illegal outposts”.
      The damning irony is that the “outposts” were a 1997 initiative by none but Sharon himself, then foreign Minister under Netanyahu, who’d urged settlers to seize hilltops in order to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
      The report recommended criminal investigation against those allegedly involved in the scheme, but it was shelved. Repeated injunctions have since pressed successive governments to address the issue. . .

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://original.antiwar.com/klochendler/2011/12/15/fighting-settlers-impunity-and-immunity/

  12. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 24, 2014, 8:40 am

    Speaking as a Jew (Dersh often says this) (If I were a Jew, which I am not ), I would be disgusted to see the holy language, Hebrew, used in graffiti like “Death to Arabs” .
    I never hear Jews raising this issue. Why is this ?

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      February 24, 2014, 8:48 am

      seafoid- Get real. Every language is as holy or as unholy as the words spoken. Try to resist saying silly stuff. I guess the comedians’ handbook says, keep spouting, eventually they’ll laugh. So as a comedian you’re fine.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 24, 2014, 9:23 am

        @Friedman – I’ll agree that “Modern Hebrew”, being a constructed, not a natural, language, is a mongrel offensive to eye and ear, that thanks to a century of being associated with crimes against humanity and use by total barbarians can only evoke nausea.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 24, 2014, 9:29 am

        pupa- you’ve already told us that you are ignorant in ancient Hebrew and modern Hebrew.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 24, 2014, 7:12 pm

        @Friedman- Absolutely correct. It doesn’t go further than “introductory” in any Semitic language. The beauty of science is, however, that while no one can specialize in everything, we have a plethora of detailed, highly competent analyses by learned and gifted colleagues –not least the young Chomsky of yore in this particular case. I base my opinion on their specialized work, and reciprocally for each one’s domain. Open to hear any argument that may invalidate the conlang / chimeric status.

      • Shmuel
        Shmuel
        February 24, 2014, 9:37 am

        Reminds me of Naftali Bennett’s remark on Martin Schulz’ speech before the Knesset: “and in German”.

        In a blog post the other day (hosted by Haaretz), Avrum Burg addressed the ugly and the beautiful things that can and have been expressed in German (his parents’ native language) and in Hebrew (his own native language), concluding that the problem lies not with the language (German or Hebrew), but with some of its speakers.

        Just curious, how fluent are you in Modern Hebrew that you are able to judge it “offensive to eye and ear”? As for “mongrel” languages, you probably speak a couple yourself — not least that wonderful bastard’s bastard, English.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 24, 2014, 10:02 am

        @Shmuel – The “offensive” characterization is entirely associated to its “century of being associated with crimes against humanity and use by total barbarians”. Some people have no objection to constructed languages, some do. I would say that this one is not like, say, Esperanto, constructed in the vain but beautiful illusion of world peace (and a mother tongue to some like Soros). This one was intentionally constructed to kill some natural culture languages, principally Yiddish, consciously calculating a social engineering experiment for the invasion and rape of Palestine. If that isn’t enough hateful associations, what is?

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 25, 2014, 1:00 am

        @RoHa – Soros père was one of the highest high priests of the Esperanto scene; I have been told that the young George, waiting for his financial genius to be discovered, first spoke Esperanto and then natural languages. Somehow, he was the progressive response to the Perelman-Ben Yehuda kid.

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 24, 2014, 9:43 am

        >> … I’ll agree that “Modern Hebrew”, being a constructed, not a natural, language, is a mongrel offensive to eye and ear …

        All languages are constructed, not natural. A language’s offensiveness is a very subjective thing – just ask RoHa what he thinks about some of the “modern English” he witnesses on this site! :-)

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 24, 2014, 10:46 am

        eljay:

        All languages are constructed, not natural

        Okay. But there is a huge difference between a language such as Esperanto and languages such as English, Japanese, Arabic etc.

        If constructedness isn’t the crucial differentiating factor, what is?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        February 24, 2014, 8:29 pm

        “A language’s offensiveness is a very subjective thing – just ask RoHa what he thinks about some of the “modern English” he witnesses on this site! :-)”

        Offensiveness is certainly subjective. The bad grammar that offends me is objective, in that it does not conform to the Platonic Form of English grammar. This Form exists in the Intelligible Realm of Being, and is accessible to anyone who is prepared to make a little effort.

        George Soros’ first language is Hungarian, not Esperanto.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 24, 2014, 9:57 am

        Egypt’s Christians have Coptic as their holy language.
        And I doubt they’d turn it to torture.

        Hebrew used to be a holy language.
        It isn’t any more.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 24, 2014, 10:06 am

        seafoid- Holier than thou. What a righteous all seeing person.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 24, 2014, 10:23 am

        Yeah, Yonah. Torture is kosher, is it? Which rabbi? Can I eat it with dairy products?
        Does the mizvah for torture get you extra points?

        You make me laugh. Holier than thou vs international law- I’ll take international law every time

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 24, 2014, 10:28 am

        seafoid- I made a comedian laugh. I copt to that.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 24, 2014, 10:38 am

        Keep it up Yonah

        Defending the indefensible. Turns out the holiest of holies was a set of fingernail removers.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 24, 2014, 10:42 am

        seafoid- street corner arguing. throw a kitchen sink. torture is one topic. language, holy or otherwise is another. but you aren’t about topics. you’re about throwing as many punches as possible. how many comments in the last two weeks, a thousand? do you learn more by speaking more? Is that what your mentor taught you?

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        February 24, 2014, 11:18 am

        Yonah

        What they did to Hebrew is pretty much what they have done to Judaism, you know.
        It used to be a decent religion.
        I’d love to know how ordinary Jews like you became comfortable with the brutality needed to keep Israel going.

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 24, 2014, 11:35 am

        >> But there is a huge difference between a language such as Esperanto and languages such as English, Japanese, Arabic etc.

        What is the “huge difference”? I see a couple of obvious differences:
        – Esperanto was constructed more recently than English, Japanese and Arabic; and
        – it wasn’t adopted to the extent that the other three languages were.

        >> If constructedness isn’t the crucial differentiating factor, what is?

        Not sure what you mean by “constructedness”, but I’d say the “crucial differentiating factor” is, not surprisingly, how they are constructed (i.e., their constructions).

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        February 24, 2014, 11:57 am

        eljay:

        I see a couple of obvious differences:
        – Esperanto was constructed more recently than English, Japanese and Arabic; and
        – it wasn’t adopted to the extent that the other three languages were.

        >> If constructedness isn’t the crucial differentiating factor, what is?

        Not sure what you mean by “constructedness”, but I’d say the “crucial differentiating factor” is, not surprisingly, how they are constructed (i.e., their constructions).

        I’d say there is a difference in how they were constructed.

        Esperanto and other “conlangs” have been planned and constructed consciously and deliberately , by a small number of intellectuals who had an ideological goal governing the construction process . That’s quite different from how ordinary languages such as English, Arabic, Japanese etc. were constructed.

        A planned or constructed language (short: conlang) is a language whose phonology, grammar, and/or vocabulary has been consciously devised for human/human-like communication, instead of having developed naturally. It is also referred to as an artificial or invented language.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructed_language

        In the philosophy of language, a natural language (or ordinary language) is any language which arises in an unpremeditated fashion as the result of the innate facility for language possessed by the human intellect.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        February 24, 2014, 9:26 pm

        @ Sibiriak responding to your question and the comment by walktallhangloose here: What were Palestinian nationalists doing at that moment to demand that a Palestinian (Arab) state be admitted next to the Jewish state?

        And were there any Arab states –or any states—demanding that?

        Yes, of course. Transjordan/Jordan had an application for membership in the UN pending from 1946 until 1955. In May 1949, when Israel was admitted, “Jordan” included Arab Palestine. We’ve discussed on several occasions that the Jericho Congress held in December of 1948 named Abdullah “King of Arab Palestine” and called for the establishment of a joint Kingdom with Transjordan. The Transjordanian Parliament and Council of Ministers approved the measure on their own behalf in January 1949 and the Hashemite Kingdom was officially redesignated as “Jordan” in that same month. Israel subsequently signed an armistice agreement with the new entity, Jordan, in April – shortly before its own membership in the UN was confirmed in May of 1949. Jordan’s application continued to be denied until 1955, despite the fact that it had been the subject of a landmark ICJ case which was decided in May of 1948. See Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter).
        http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=2e&case=3&code=asun&p3=4

        During the period, Jordan was undeniably led by officials that can be considered Palestinian nationalists. For example, Husayn Fakhri al-Khalidi was born in Jerusalem and had been Mayor of Jerusalem, and a member of the Arab Higher Committee and the All-Palestine Government in Gaza, before he became Prime Minister of Jordan. All of the members of Jordanian Parliament ratified the union between the two banks, and stipulated it was without prejudice to Arab rights in Palestine and the final settlement of the Palestine question. They also declared their intention to defend those rights by every legal means.

        The Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution in 1932 on the procedures for terminating a mandate regime that prohibited the emancipation of a portion of the territory subject to a mandate, without simultaneously emancipating all of it. Initially, Transjordan’s application for UN membership had been denied, in part, because of objections that “Palestine as a whole” had not yet been emancipated. In fact, Egypt abstained from voting in favor of the last resolution adopted by the Assembly of the League of Nations, because the resolution endorsed plans for Transjordan’s independence, but did not provide for the independence of all the territory subject to the Mandate for Palestine.

        So it was patently wrong for the UN to partition Palestine into two states, while refusing to recognize the Arab state or to pretend on the one hand that Transjordan was an integral part of the Mandate, while at others pretending it was not. See:
        * The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2189582
        *John Quigley, The Statehood of Palestine, page 86.
        * Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52) http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.57

  13. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    February 24, 2014, 9:28 am

    pupa- see above.

    • eljay
      eljay
      February 24, 2014, 12:13 pm

      >> Esperanto and other “conlangs” have been planned and constructed … quite different from how ordinary languages such as English, Arabic, Japanese etc. were constructed.

      The point of my original comment was that all languages are (or were) constructed. I see that you concur.

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 25, 2014, 5:35 pm

        @eljay – Fiercely OT by now, but more precision is needed. “Constructed” language, in the language trade, means a language system consciously designed at a desk by one or more people as a piece of social engineering (see Esperanto, intended to further the friendship among peoples, or Modern Hebrew, intended to oppose the same and promote Zionism) as opposed to “natural language”, i.e. the fruit of tens of thousands of years of evolution, developing by infinitesimal, mainly unconscious contributions from each speaker. The Wikipedia article referenced by Sibiriak is a good place to start.

      • eljay
        eljay
        February 25, 2014, 8:57 pm

        >> “Constructed” language … means a language system consciously designed at a desk by one or more people as a piece of social engineering … as opposed to “natural language”, i.e. the fruit of tens of thousands of years of evolution, developing by infinitesimal, mainly unconscious contributions from each speaker.

        All languages were initially constructed at some point by some group of people. The only difference between English / French / German and Esperanto / Hebrew is the amount of time elapsed since construction and the scope of acceptance. Given enough time and widespread use, either of the latter two can be just as “natural” as the former three.

        >> The Wikipedia article referenced by Sibiriak is a good place to start.

        I skimmed through the article. Very interesting:

        … some philosophers have argued that all human languages are conventional or artificial. François Rabelais, for instance, stated: “C’est abus de dire que nous avons une langue naturelle; les langues sont par institution arbitraires et conventions des peuples.” (It’s misuse to say that we have a natural language; languages are by institution arbitrary and conventions of peoples.)

      • puppies
        puppies
        February 26, 2014, 1:36 am

        @eljay – You are confusing the arbitrary character of signs with the fact of pulling a given language system out of one’s ass, at the end. What you say about what happens after such a language acquires native speakers is absolutely true, of course –when it happens under our eyes, though, its political implications may for some justify invective.

  14. eljay
    eljay
    February 26, 2014, 8:49 am

    >> What you say about what happens after such a language acquires native speakers is absolutely true, of course –when it happens under our eyes, though, its political implications may for some justify invective.

    For some. For others, its their native tongue. To my ears, Modern Hebrew is no more or less “offensive to eye and ear” than Arabic or Chinese.

Leave a Reply