Trending Topics:

Anti-anti-semitism: How did a movement against bigotry lend itself to another form of bigotry?

Israel/Palestine
on 119 Comments
Zionism Unsettled, the booklet prepared by Presbyterian committee

Zionism Unsettled, the booklet prepared by Presbyterian committee

Anti-Semitism has a long history in the West and is deservedly a subject that has been written about in countless books, some scholarly and some not. Here’s a link to an Amazon search. I haven’t delved into the subject beyond what one picks up through casual reading and via osmosis, though I did read James Carroll’s book “Constantine’s Sword” some years back, which is a history of anti-Semitism in the Catholic Church. And of course Catholics aren’t the only ones. Every Protestant knows or should know that Martin Luther started out seemingly sympathetic to Jews, thinking their rejection of Christ understandable given “papist” mistreatment, and ended up ranting against them when they continued to refuse to become Christians, to the point where his admiring biographer Roland Bainton wrote that it would have been better if he had died sooner, before he could write that dreck.

And of course the resurgence of European anti-Semitism is in part what sparked the Zionist movement. After WWII the Western world became belatedly ashamed of its anti-Semitic past. Anti-Semitism was no longer acceptable. There was a movement to stamp it out.

What happened next is interesting. What started as a laudable attempt to make up for past bigotry morphed into an excuse for supporting a new type of bigotry. In order to atone for anti-Semitism, some started to give their unconditional blessing to Zionism. The Presbyterian booklet on Zionism called Zionism Unsettled has a few pages on how this worked out among Christians. With liberal Christians it was guilt over anti-Semitism. With evangelical Christians it was more the influence of dispensationalism–the belief that the rebirth of Israel was a signpost on the road to the Second Coming. With liberals in general, it was guilt.

Palestinians were the scapegoat for Western sins. In order to atone for Western crimes one had to pretend the Palestinians didn’t matter, or didn’t exist, or brought it on themselves (see, as an example, James Michener’s historical novel “The Source”) or at best should be satisfied with whatever scraps the Israelis chose to toss their way. With many, Jews and non-Jews alike, it seems to have become an article of faith that Zionism was an inherently noble idea, and anyone who argued for Palestinian rights had to be an anti-Semite. Palestinians were an embarrassment, so they had to be portrayed as bigots or at best, as Arabs who could be moved into other Arab countries. As if one could displace a million Americans from their homes because there are plenty of other places where people speak English.

That was a short and potted history, but we need more. How did this happen?  How did it become acceptable for liberals to brand the struggle for Palestinian rights a form of Jew hatred?  How did a movement against bigotry become, in some cases, a movement in favor of a different form of bigotry? How did anti-Arab racism manage to masquerade, in instances, as a crusade against bigotry, and then penetrate into popular culture?

I don’t think this is a flimsy topic. To a large degree these attitudes have helped determine US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians, as well as the terms in which it is discussed in the press and by our politicians.

But there is ample scope here for PhD dissertations and scholarly volumes and popular histories. So all you historians of ideas, sociologists, scholars of religion, and political scientists–get to work.

Donald
About Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson is a regular commenter on this site, as "Donald."

Other posts by .


Posted In:

119 Responses

  1. JeffB
    JeffB
    March 4, 2014, 12:30 pm

    As if one could displace a million Americans from their homes because there are plenty of other places where people speak English.

    Where do you live in the United States? The US displaces people from their homes constantly through the use of: incentives, tax policy, development policy and that failing outright eminent domain. There is probably no year in the last 100 where 10k plus people aren’t being eminent domained out of their homes. There is probably no year in the last 100 where 1m plus people aren’t being displaced through softer means.

    Yes you can move Americans to other places. Happens all the time. Look at the bridges, highways, dams, housing development projects in your local neighborhood. Where do you think they came from, the infrastructure fairy?

    How did it become acceptable for liberals to brand the struggle for Palestinian rights a form of Jew hatred?

    Because when Israel was being debated as an actual entity 100 years ago the people who were mostly opposed hated Jews. The strong opposition to early Zionism (not the people who thought it was silly but the people who thought it immoral) mostly were associated Arabist movements or the Arian Christ movement. The Arabist movement in the 1930s was openly anti-Semetic, with strong pro-Axis leanings. The Arian Christ movement was central to the whole ideology of the Axis.

    After Israel was founded most of the people in the west who were pro-Palestinian didn’t care one whit about the Palestinians they wanted better relations with oil producing countries. They understood fully that the fall of Israel was the premeditated murder of millions of Jews and were OK with that since it would lead to less headaches in getting oil contracts for American and British companies.

    Sensible people viewed that as Jew hatred because it was. What you really want to argue is that backing Palestinian support today is not the same as the people who were advocates 60-120 years ago and they genuinely do have a human rights agenda. Their problem is explaining
    1) the disproportionate level of focus
    2) completely unhinged rhetoric associated with the anti-Zionist movement
    3) why the solution they advocate for Israel is totally unlike the solutions they advocate for other historical mass migrations

    Being unable to offer any plausible explanations for 1-3 people still conclude its probably more about Jews than Palestinians.

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      March 4, 2014, 1:04 pm

      “The US displaces people from their homes constantly through the use of: incentives, tax policy, development policy and that failing outright eminent domain.”

      What a dopey statement. The US doesn’t do this on ethno-religious grounds, in order to create an apartheid situation and dual-level citizenship. In fact, to do so is illegal in the US. So stop comparing my country (troubled though it is) with your racist, zionist dung heap.

      “. Their problem is explaining
      1) the disproportionate level of focus
      2) completely unhinged rhetoric associated with the anti-Zionist movement
      3) why the solution they advocate for Israel is totally unlike the solutions they advocate for other historical mass migrations”

      Again, complete horsecrap. 1) What is disproportunate? Show another country that receives such a disproportunate level of support from the US and the West in general and yet continues to hold people in the dispicable and criminal manner as the zios.

      2) the rhetoric is not unhinged, it is commensurate with the evil you people commit. You don’t like the rhetoric, stop being evil.

      3) Because in no other situation is there multi-generational dehumanization and occupation based on a ethno-religious apartheid ideology.

      “Because when Israel was being debated as an actual entity 100 years ago the people who were mostly opposed hated Jews.”

      No, the people who were most opposed were the people who owned and lived on the land which the zionsts were going to invade and steal, because they knew that these same zionists would kill and oppress them. They were right.

      “After Israel was founded most of the people in the west who were pro-Palestinian didn’t care one whit about the Palestinians they wanted better relations with oil producing countries. They understood fully that the fall of Israel was the premeditated murder of millions of Jews and were OK with that since it would lead to less headaches in getting oil contracts for American and British companies.”

      Nonsense. Those are lies you zios tell yourselves in order to dehumanize your victims, to salve your conscience over the attempted and partial genocide you and your wicked forefathers commited.

      “Being unable to offer any plausible explanations for 1-3 people still conclude its probably more about Jews than Palestinians.”

      Well, the zios certainly have convinced themselves and some others that patent evil is okay if it is Jews committing it against non-Jews, at least in Palestine.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        March 4, 2014, 6:21 pm

        A hundred years ago means before the Balfour Declaration. At that time many people, including many Palestinians, were indifferent to Zionism because as it did not yet have the backing of a colonial power they did not take its prospects seriously. My own guess is that at that stage the majority of people who cared sufficiently about Zionism to be either for or against it were Jews, and the great majority of both religious and secular Jews were against it. Many of the non-religious reasons for opposing Zionism remain as valid as ever.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        March 5, 2014, 1:52 pm

        the US displaced millions of first Nations peoples and those, such as presumably you, enjoy the benefits thereof.

        The US also displace over 100,000 Japanese-Americans based on “ethno-..” grounds so maybe its not such a “dopey” statement.

        Also-if peoples that lost out bigtime in the ‘ethno-displacement’ genocidal movements of the last half of the 20thC like the Kurds, Tibetans, Hmong, Hutus, Bosnian Muslims, Greek Cyrpriots and so on and so forth-people that have no connection to the Jewish people, Zionism and its history in both Muslim and Christian lands were discussed as passionately militantly as was the Israeli-Arab conflict there might be less room to haul in the Jew-hating anti-semitism problem. But then that is a discussion that is always deflected as a deflection itself. Anti-Zionists come up with all manner of excuses why it is appropriate to focus entirely and singularly on Israel as an aggressor in a world filled with hypocritical aggressors far worse then the ‘Zionist entity”. But that doesn’t matter. All the arguments against not singling out Israel are circular and tightly woven with no room for any light to escape or get in.

        Lets just leave it with former US justice Potter Stewarts famous quip about “knowing …when he sees it”. The same can be said for many Jews, Blacks, Gays and so on when the bigotry clause is cleverly being shoved up our asses. (like AZ ‘business’ law was not anti-gay. BDS is not anti Jew yet it targets primarily….guess who? )

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      March 4, 2014, 1:33 pm

      I think that these remarks amount to Nakba trivialisation and thus to Nakba denial: they should not be here.
      People displaced these days in the United States to make way for infrastructure projects etc. normally have this experience under a legal system to which they have access as enfranchised citizens and which (less crucially, but significantly) awards compensation as part of the process. Or if they are foreigners they have consented to live under United States law by moving there. They are not asked to move over into Canada and it is not suggested – it really isn’t; there are some claims too outlandish to make, even now – that this move would meet their rights because roughly the same language is spoken and the same religion practised, the idea that Donald considered. Yet this outlandish claim is made in the ME and taken seriously.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 1:48 pm

        @MHughes976

        The claim was made the USA doesn’t move people from their homes. That’s factually false it does it routinely. Don’t advance BS and when it is refuted claim that the refutation is Nabka denial or some nonsense like that. If the author had said that “while most countries routinely move people from their homes, Israel does it for bad reasons” then fine. But he didn’t say that. He said a blatant falsehood about US policy.

        Now as for the rest. Of course the United States doesn’t have to remove the people from the country entirely they respect the laws of the United States and work in coordination with the government and the society to advance these laws and policies. Which is not what the Palestinians do. If the Palestinians were working with the state of Israel rather than being enemies of the state of Israel there wouldn’t be a conflict.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        March 4, 2014, 3:40 pm

        The claim by Donald was that people are not moved from the United States to other countries on the grounds that their rights would be met by residence in any other English-speaking country, not that they are never moved under laws in whose making they have had a chance to influence. His claim is true. The comparison between the two categories is utterly odious.
        As to respect for laws, lack of it is not a valid reason for ‘removal’. People are not expected to respect laws to whose making or continuation they have had no opportunity to contribute or which they have not ‘accepted tacitly’ by immigration.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 4:36 pm

        @MHughes976

        The claim by Donald was that people are not moved from the United States to other countries on the grounds that their rights would be met by residence in any other English-speaking country, not that they are never moved under laws in whose making they have had a chance to influence.

        You are just making stuff up. His words are literally right above your own, ” As if one could displace a million Americans from their homes because there are plenty of other places where people speak English. “. There is nothing there about who got to influence what laws. That is completely 100% coming from your head not the text. I’m not going to deal with hallucinatory text. The actual written text talks about displacing Americans from their homes, period. Nothing else. That and nothing else was the claim by Donald.

        You want to make another claim. That’s the claim by MHughes976 not the claim by Donald.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 5, 2014, 9:11 am

        There is probably no year in the last 100 where 10k plus people aren’t being eminent domained out of their homes. . . . The claim was made the USA doesn’t move people from their homes. That’s factually false it does it routinely.

        JeffB your comments are a crapfest of absurd claims with no references to reliable third party verifiable sources. If it isn’t worth your time to provide some in the first place, at least stop trolling the threads with replies claiming that others have said something “factually false”, until you’ve done your own homework and backed-up your nonsense with published sources.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 5, 2014, 2:08 pm

        @Hostage

        Google:
        Infrastructure Planning Commission
        Infrastructure Planning
        Eminent domain / compulsory purchase / compulsory acquisition / expropriation
        Urban planning
        For a recent example George W Bush’s guidelines: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13406
        etc…

        This isn’t obscure stuff.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 5, 2014, 9:27 am

        >> If the Palestinians were working with the state of Israel rather than being enemies of the state of Israel there wouldn’t be a conflict.

        Zio-supremacists don’t want the Palestinians to “work with the state of Israel”. They want Palestinians to subjugate themselves to Jews; to accept supremacist “Jewish State” and every disadvantage to them and injustice against them – past and on-going – that that entails.

        Zio-supremacists want Palestinians to eat their shit AND like it.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 6, 2014, 3:17 pm

        @eljay

        No they don’t. And the proof of this is the Russian Christians where you have exactly the same religious problem but a group of people who are willing to support the state and work with it. Another proof on the ethnic side are the Mizrahi Jews which again worked with the state and have had all sorts of affirmative action and additional support services to help them assimilate into Israeli culture. Another example was the effort put forward towards assimilation of the Israeli Arabs 1949-1980 that started to falter around 1980.

        Anyone can scream all sorts of unhinged claims about any country if they are willing to be contradicted by facts. And if you want to just make up nonsense have at it. But the facts clearly show that Israel is willing to work with populations to help them assimilate. They aren’t perfect, they make mistakes, but they have made the effort when they can.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2014, 2:34 pm

        “I think that these remarks amount to Nakba trivialisation and thus to Nakba denial: they should not be here.”

        Of course they do, but there’s no chance these zios are going to booted. Frankly, I’m about done with this site, because it permits way too much zionist trash to squat about polluting the comment section.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        March 4, 2014, 3:42 pm

        We would miss you. We all have to persevere. That is the only hope. I do wish that the rule against nakba denial, which usually takes the form either of justification or of trivialisation, were better enforced.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2014, 5:04 pm

        “We would miss you. We all have to persevere. ”

        Thank you, I appreciate that. The issue to me, though, is that slogging through the repetative, sulfurous evil and excuse-making for evil, of the likes of JeffB, potato man, hoppy and the rest of the goosesteppers, in defense of this wicked regime is both tiresome and chips away at my faith in humanity. They are simply horrible people.

        The fact that any thinking, humane person thinks as the zionists do is bad enough. The fact that they are permitted to use this site, which should be a refuge from their lies (which they spread like a disease across the MSM), is in many ways as disheartening as hearing about the latest atrocities being inflicted on the Palestinians in Palestine. I wouldn’t want to have any interaction with Apartheid supporters, Nazis or Klansmen, but I’m forced to deal with their equivalent or worse here as they spew their garbage. Dealing with them is simply disgusting and I grow tired of it.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 5, 2014, 9:14 am

        I do wish that the rule against nakba denial, which usually takes the form either of justification or of trivialisation, were better enforced.

        The problem with JeffB isn’t that he denies the Nakba, he’s damn proud of it and wants everyone to know it.

        The fact is that the government of Israel agreed that it would not be allowed to expropriate private or community property from minorities in exchange for being granted jurisdiction over territory and peoples subject to an international trust, and they violated the terms of that agreement. See C Declaration in resolution 181 (II) http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 6, 2014, 7:31 pm

        >> But the facts clearly show that Israel is willing to work with populations to help them assimilate.

        You’re a funny one, JeffB. Funny like a clown. I’ll let your co-collectivist, yonah, lecture you on the evils of assimilation.

    • justicewillprevail
      justicewillprevail
      March 4, 2014, 3:00 pm

      JeffB’s stuff is so unhinged, not to mention prolix, that it doesn’t merit debate. Trying to compare building infrastructure with ethnic cleansing is utterly risible, and that’s only the start of the loony tunes. Spare us any further cringemaking nonsense, Jeffy, it’s a waste of time.

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        March 4, 2014, 6:52 pm

        Woody, please don’t go! We need you. You are so much more loquacious
        and smart…. More than I can ever be. Please stay with us. Together we are stronger and can weather the calumnies and lies better. Phil and Adam can’t be abandoned. They do heroic work….so do Kate, annie, Hostage, Shmuel, Seafoid, Just, Kathleen.
        As a Palestinian ,it is very painful to read the nasty posts. But I won’t turn away. That would give satisfaction.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 4, 2014, 8:47 pm

        @bintbiba – There is in fact no need to “weather the calumnies and lies”, as there are more than enough other outlets for Zionist propaganda, unnecessary on a discussion board that many of us may intend as a place to discuss what we should do instead of wasting all day to answer these smirking morons. The site owner has been asked repeatedly what he aims at by giving one more tribune to the propaganda crew; he never answered. I tend to agree with Woody, what with this and the ferociously enforced interdiction of any hints that tribal attachments may and should be inquired into, it feels less and less interesting but for the quality of some commenters.

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        March 5, 2014, 4:42 am

        @puppies- It is “but for the quality of some commenters” that keeps me glued to this site.

    • talknic
      talknic
      March 4, 2014, 3:53 pm

      That ol’ ziocaine sure is powerful stuff. Screws the brain completely

      @ JeffB ” The US displaces people from their homes constantly through the use of: incentives, tax policy, development policy and that failing outright eminent domain. “

      Uh huh. Many forced to flee to other countries Jeffy?

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        March 4, 2014, 4:31 pm

        And also doesn’t eminent domain involve the forced purchase of a property not just turning up one day and demolishing houses whether people are still in them or not?

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 6, 2014, 4:43 pm

        Hugo Grotius apparently coined the phrase ’eminent domain’ in 1625

        “The property of subject is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in cases of extreme necessity… but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who found civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.”

        However, a State can only exercise eminent domain over land within its territory.

    • Donald
      Donald
      March 4, 2014, 4:25 pm

      I’m busy today, JeffB, but briefly–

      If you want to compare America to Israel regarding the Nakba, that’s fine, but the appropriate comparison would be to acts of ethnic cleansing committed against various Native American tribes.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 4:43 pm

        @Donald —

        I don’t know if you are the Donald above or not. If so then I wasn’t making a comparison. If so, you made a claim about what the USA doesn’t do which is flatly contradicted by routine legal operations, operations that happen a 1/2 block down from me. There are both Freeholders and people at the township level that want to take my home to expand a development. Some of them I voted for knowing that.

        Now if we want to have a sane conversation about how governments can and should reallocate resources in their society, that’s their role. That if the Palestinians wish to live in Israel the appropriate governing authority is the Israeli government and that should be understood. So if/when they became loyal citizens of the Israeli government what’s the best policy for the Israeli government to determine how best to allocate its resources among its population. That’s a sane conversation. What’s insane is to pretend that houses are sacrosanct against governments. Every building in the state of Israel is ultimately the Israeli government’s building.

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 4, 2014, 8:43 pm

        I don’t think I want to talk to someone who compares the plight of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, or the Nakba, with people who might have their property taken by the government in order to expand a development, build a bridge or something like that. It’s a stupid comparison that could only be made in bad faith.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 9:07 pm

        @donald

        Yeah its totally different when the Jewish government does the same sort of stuff every government does. How dare Jews try and act like any other people and run their state like any other state.

        You don’t want to start with the premise that the Israeli government has the right to do everything that the American, French, Chinese, Russian or Nigerian government should do on its territory there may not be anything for us to talk about. You are absolutely right. There may not be much common ground. I don’t buy it.

        And there was no comparison, your made a simple factual claim that was false.

      • philweiss
        philweiss
        March 5, 2014, 9:03 am

        Thank you Donald, for this excellent post and for this thoughtful comment.

      • just
        just
        March 4, 2014, 8:54 pm

        “loyal citizens of the Israeli government”???????? And this is the much- vaunted democracy?

        what are you? Methinks a Zio-fascist.

        Next up– “give us your loyalty oath, or off with your head!”

        (oh wait…it’s happening in so many ways already!)

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 9:10 pm

        @just

        “loyal citizens of the Israeli government”???????? And this is the much- vaunted democracy?

        Yes. Democracy is just a way of deciding on policy. It doesn’t change the fundamental issue that a state is the way a nation collectively expresses its will. By refusing to join the nation or live under the laws of the state the Palestinians have made themselves unable to part of that state.

        ext up– “give us your loyalty oath, or off with your head!”

        I live in America. Everyday when I was little I had to say the pledge of allegiance. Someone who can’t do that, has serious problems. I don’t feel guilty at all about demanding loyalty towards the state from the citizens of the state.

      • lyn117
        lyn117
        March 5, 2014, 12:03 am

        There are both Freeholders and people at the township level that want to take my home to expand a development. Some of them I voted for knowing that.

        I take it you would not object if, rather than people you voted for, they were recent immigrants (for example, Russians or Iranians or Australians or whoever) who came to your home, pointed a gun at you, said they wanted it for the purpose of settling Russians or Iranians or Australians and forming a Russian or Iranian or Australian or whatever majority state, and ordered you to leave. As what happened and continues to happen to Palestinians.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 5, 2014, 6:42 am

        @lyn117

        , they were recent immigrants (for example, Russians or Iranians or Australians or whoever)

        The people who run my town are recent immigrants, the mayor and most the town officials are of Indian (as in India) decent some are first generation. I’m not a racist so I don’t have a problem with that.

        said they wanted it for the purpose of settling Russians or Iranians or Australians and forming a Russian or Iranian or Australian or whatever majority state

        That’s not what’s happening. The state of Israel already exists. It is formed. You analogy breaks down badly there. What the state of Israel is doing is trying to organize the common resources of the state.

        and ordered you to leave. As what happened and continues to happen to Palestinians.

        The Israeli government would love to work jointly with the Palestinians as citizens in the same way that New Jersey and Mercer county work with me. But that requires them recognizing the Israeli state as their state.

      • lyn117
        lyn117
        March 7, 2014, 1:03 am

        @JeffB

        Recent immigrants to the U.S. come here almost exclusively to become U.S. citizens and adopt themselves to the U.S. Their vision of the U.S. includes you. Would you object if the recent immigrants to the U.S. had the goal of forming a Russian or Italian or Iranian or Australian state in which most people of non-Russian, non-Italian, non Iranian or non-Australian ethnicity were excluded, not allowed to inhabit the land or become citizens?

        The Palestinians are the native people of Israel. The majority of them are prevented from living in their native land, their land of origin, solely because they aren’t Jews. The zionists, except perhaps an inconsequential and tiny minority, never had the intention of coming to Palestine to adopt themselves to the existing society. They came with the intention of excluding the native people from their land and taking their property for the exclusive use of Jews. That continues to this day, both within Israel and in the occupied territories.

        So when you claim Israel is just trying to organize the common resources of the state, it may be true, but it’s trying to organize the common resources of the state to benefit the Jewish citizens as well as in a way to encourage or coerce native Palestinians to leave. That’s what it means by “Jewish State.” And yes, I’m sure it would like to work with Palestinians in accomplishing these goals.

        The Israeli government points guns at Palestinians, non-citizens of Israel in the occupied territories, orders them to leave their homes and vacate their property and give it up for exclusive use by Jewish settlers. As it did (to a much greater extent) and continues to do (to a lesser extent) to non-Jewish citizens of Israel. Yet you think Palestinians should be loyal to a state which denies them citizenship and takes their lives and land and resources?

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 7, 2014, 9:41 am

        @lyn117

        Recent immigrants to the U.S. come here almost exclusively to become U.S. citizens and adopt themselves to the U.S. Their vision of the U.S. includes you. Would you object if the recent immigrants to the U.S. had the goal of forming a Russian or Italian or Iranian or Australian state in which most people of non-Russian, non-Italian, non Iranian or non-Australian ethnicity were excluded, not allowed to inhabit the land or become citizens?

        Of course. But that’s not what happened in Palestine. What happened in Palestine was that a normal mass migration occurred and the Palestinians reacted extremely hostilely to it. We can talk about 1890-1936 when the situation for Palestinian integration in Israel proper collapsed.

        But let’s talk more recent history. Imagine an alternative world for a moment that the PLO never gains influence in the West Bank during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The tension prior to the 1st intifada never happens. The 1st intifada never happens. Instead the development that was occurring in the mid 1970s continues. Israelis have for 40 years been freely going over the green line, to shop and to attend Palestinian cultural events. A huge percentage of the West Bank workforce works in Israeli proper and another huge percentage works in factories and office parks owned by Israeli companies.

        An entire generation of Palestinians rather than being obsessed with “resistance” has chosen a path of peace. The Israeli-Arabs rather than getting caught between their ethnical loyalty and the citizenry in the early 1980s continued their process of assimilation. Because the relationships never broke down they got even friendlier with them than it had been in the 1970s, and so nature takes it course and by now (2014) about 1/3 of the Israeli population is mixed Jewish / Palestinian either 50-50 or 25-75. Almost all the Israeli arabs have close family that is partially Jewish. By this point the Israeli Arabs attend Jewish schools and speak fluent Hebrew. The Islam that exists in greater Israel is thoroughly Judaic with countries like Saudi Arabia looking at it quite askew. With the success of the Israeli Arabs as a bridge population the idea of extending citizenship to the people of the West Bank has support throughout Israel, and the West Bankers are excited to go down the same road their cousins in Israeli proper went down.

        That could have happened had the PLO not won the battle for mindshare. And the fact that alternative place exists without changing anything about Israel I think proves that it wasn’t Israel that forced this situation. And if you want to talk how things broke down the 1st time 1890-1936 we can do that too. On the other hand the years after 1949-1980 show that Israel is capable or responding well when the Palestinians want to be Israelis and stop “resisting”.

        The Palestinians are the native people of Israel.

        Not anymore. They were the native people. Now the Israelis are very much the native people. It isn’t 1930 anymore. The people who live in Israel have been there for generations. Babies born today are 4th generation. Meanwhile those “natives” Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan are only 1/4 or 1/2 Palestinain and have grand-parents that have never been Israel.

        The French not the Spanish are the native inhabitants of modern France even though 1600 years ago the ancestors of the Spanish are whom I’d find in the territory now called France.

        The majority of them are prevented from living in their native land, their land of origin, solely because they aren’t Jews.

        The majority of them still live in that land. And the situation that exists is not solely because they aren’t Jews at all. It is because they are enemies of the state and people of Israel who have proven themselves unwilling to live in peace repeatedly. If there were a group of 1m Jews in Israel who were running around blowing stuff inside Israel and also screaming about any sort of Israeli attempts to construct infrastructure and also allying themselves with countries like Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia… what do you think the Israeli government would do? They wouldn’t be making it comfortable for them even though they were Jews.

        The problem is not that the Palestinians aren’t Jewish it is that they will not recognize the state of Israel as their sovereign. Israel would have to treat them pretty much like they do given their attitude regardless of their religion. Were it not for that attitude, were the Palestinians looking for ways to good citizens of Israel, the religion problem would fade away into nothing.

        But thank you for at least not pretending that this has something to do with race.

        The zionists, except perhaps an inconsequential and tiny minority, never had the intention of coming to Palestine to adopt themselves to the existing society.

        We know that’s not true, because the Zionist society of 1890-1935 except for a some small breaks in the early 1920s was adapted to Palestinian society. When the opportunity existed to adapt to the existing society they did so. What’s different about mass migration over limited immigration is that when the opportunity to adapt wasn’t made available you had full on war and today the previously existing society is a ruin.

        They came with the intention of excluding the native people from their land and taking their property for the exclusive use of Jews.

        That’s simply not true. There were all during the early years joint projects. I’d argue that prior to 1936 the overwhelming majority of land cultivations in terms of acreage were highly joint, not exclusive to Jews at all.

        The Israeli government points guns at Palestinians, non-citizens of Israel in the occupied territories,

        Hold on. This is typical MW BS here. You can have it one of two ways.
        1) The West Bank is part of Israel and the Palestinians are an ethnic group inside Israel and thus the Israeli government owes them something.

        2) The West Bank is part of a hostile country called Palestine the Palestinians living there are part of an ethnic group outside of Israel and thus the Israeli government doesn’t owe them dick.

        3) The West Bank is a territory under a short term occupation in which case the Israelis are the legitimate authority but permanent changes shouldn’t be happing until such time as their is a Palestinian government. But as the occupying authority the Israelis are fully entitled to enforce the law.

        You can’t have it all three ways. If there is still a Palestinians state and Abbas is really the head of it, then it is Abbas job to protect his people not Netanyahu’s. And don’t whip the 4th geneva convention because then the state in question is Jordan, and Jordan (King Abdullah) has repudiated claim. If there is no Palestinian state then the West Bank is Israel and the people there if they want to remain and remain in a state of peace owe their allegiance to the sovereign.

        Yet you think Palestinians should be loyal to a state which denies them citizenship and takes their lives and land and resources?

        No I think Palestinians should become Israelis and as such be loyal to a state which freely grants them citizenship, and uses all lands of resources of Israel for the benefit of the Israelis of which they are a part.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 5, 2014, 9:37 am

        Now if we want to have a sane conversation about how governments can and should reallocate resources in their society, that’s their role.

        When the Jewish Agency and the Government of Israel said that they “accepted” resolution 181(II), they were aware of the fact that it included a minority protection plan that prohibited the very thing you are suggesting. They were required to provide assurances in a declaration to the UN. The text of the UN Partition Plan says:

        The stipulations contained in the Declaration are recognized as fundamental laws of the State and no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.

        No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants on the ground of race, religion, language or sex.

        All persons within the jurisdiction of the State shall be entitled to equal protection of the laws.

        No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession.

        The provisions of chapters 1 and 2 of the declaration shall be under the guarantee of the United Nations, and no modifications shall be made in them without the assent of the General Assembly of the United Nations. . . .
        Any dispute relating to the application or interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

        http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

        So the expropriation of millions of dunams of Palestinian property by the State of Israel and the transfer to Jewish immigrants or to the JNF for the exclusive benefit of persons of Jewish descendancy – all without a penny in compensation – was a gross violation of international law and Israel’s assurances that it would protect the rights of minorities subject to its jurisdiction.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 5, 2014, 12:49 pm

        “Every building in the state of Israel is ultimately the Israeli government’s building.”

        As I repeatedly note, give a zionist long enough and they all eventually justify the Holocaust. This one, however, is a full bore fascist. And not just the “let’s call someone a name” kind, but an honest-to-God fascist.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 6, 2014, 5:20 pm

        @ JeffB Let’s look at where you started Jeffy boy

        JeffB
        March 4, 2014 at 12:30 pm http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/semitism-movement-bigotry.html/comment-page-1#comment-646182

        As if one could displace a million Americans from their homes because there are plenty of other places where people speak English

        Where do you live in the United States? The US displaces people from their homes constantly through the use of: incentives, tax policy, development policy and that failing outright eminent domain. There is probably no year in the last 100 where 10k plus people aren’t being eminent domained out of their homes. There is probably no year in the last 100 where 1m plus people aren’t being displaced through softer means.

        Yes you can move Americans to other places. Happens all the time. Look at the bridges, highways, dams, housing development projects in your local neighborhood. Where do you think they came from, the infrastructure fairy?

        They’re NOT moved from their homes because there are plenty of other places where people speak English

        “.. if we want to have a sane conversation …”

        … we’d be sticking to the goal posts instead of moving them as you’re doing in spectacular and entirely expected zionutter style

        The US only has eminent domain over land legally within US territory and it does not exercise the right to dispossess US citizens from the US to other places that speak English

        “What’s insane is to pretend that houses are sacrosanct against governments. Every building in the state of Israel is ultimately the Israeli government’s building”

        A) Under International Law and Conventions, in territory not belonging to the state of that government, they are.

        B) In the State of Israel being the operative words. Israel has only ever been recognized as it asked to be recognized effective 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time)

        May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “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.”

        Israel has never legally acquired any further territories. A full 33% of the territory Israel claims as its own, “outside the State of Israel” was acquired by war. The acquisition of territory by war has been illegal since at least 1933. Israel’s borders are the same as the day they were proclaimed to the world and recognized.

        What do you think negotiations are for? It’s the only legal way out of the huge illegal quagmire Israel has purposefully created with it’s 65 years of illegal facts on the ground. If Israel were to now adhere to the law, it would be required to withdraw to its Internationally recognized borders, taking all its citizens with it and pay reparations to those it dispossessed. The Jewish state would be sent bankrupt for decades.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 6, 2014, 6:10 pm

        @talknic

        Oh we are back to your favorite conversation:
        Israel only exists in the 1948 boundary lines even though the UN which supposedly the ultimately authority has time and time again recognized the 1949 armistice lines as Israel’s border.

        But let’s ignore that issue.

        f Israel were to now adhere to the law, it would be required to withdraw to its Internationally recognized borders, taking all its citizens with it and pay reparations to those it dispossessed. The Jewish state would be sent bankrupt for decades.

        A state doesn’t go bankrupt for decades, it just goes bankrupt. That’s it. It defaults on the debt and goes through a bankruptcy process and the debts are wiped out. What I think you are talking about is not bankruptcy but something that existed prior to bankruptcy where a state must exist as a servile state paying tribute forever or for a very long time in exchange for some “wrong” it had committed. That would be today called colonization. If it is done to a people it is called enslavement.

        So under your theory Israel would end up as a colony of Palestine with Palestine raping its resources for decades to pay reparations. And what could possibly motivate the Israelis to ever agree to such a situation? Their deep and abiding respect for international law?

        You can have all the masturbatory revenge fantasies you want. The Israelis are not going to accept terms worse than they would get from a war without a war or several wars. If you are willing to lose 100m people to punish the Jews, that’s not a problem. Otherwise you aren’t getting justice.

        Which means if your theory of the law were correct, Israel will not now nor will it ever come it adherence with the law. It must fight to the death against the UN. I, who happen to the think the UN is outright anti-Semitic, don’t believe the UN would be nearly as cruel as to impose on Israel what you are talking about in some weird alternative universe where they had the ability to impose much of anything. But if I’m wrong I promise to personally spend the rest of my life figuring out a way to do a Timothy McVeigh at 1st avenue and 42nd street. And I’m sure the Israelis would do far worse.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 9, 2014, 1:58 am

        JeffB s“… the UN which supposedly the ultimately authority has time and time again recognized the 1949 armistice lines as Israel’s border”

        Uh huh. Your evidence being?

        “What I think you are talking about is not bankruptcy but something that existed prior to bankruptcy where a state must exist as a servile state paying tribute forever or for a very long time in exchange for some “wrong” it had committed. That would be today called colonization. If it is done to a people it is called enslavement”

        The Germans are colonized and enslaved because thy pay reparations to Jewish folk? My you do have some very interesting theories…

        “So under your theory Israel would end up as a colony of Palestine with Palestine raping its resources for decades to pay reparations “

        Uh? You claim I have this theory? WOW!! I wonder why I don’t know. It’s YOUR theory Jeffy, nothing what so ever to do with anything I have ever written.

        “and what could possibly motivate the Israelis to ever agree to such a situation? “

        A sense of right and wrong might do it. Germany has been paying reparations for quite a while now…

        “You can have all the masturbatory revenge fantasies you want.”

        A state adhering to the law would be my revenge? Another of your interesting theories…. You certainly know how to dump … in bulk

        “Which means if your theory of the law were correct, Israel will not now nor will it ever come it adherence with the law.”

        It’s YOUR theory JeffB, nothing to do with me.

        ” It must fight to the death against the UN.”

        Why? It could negotiate a plea bargain with the Palestinians. However, Israel prefers to demand more and more nothing of which has any legal basis.

        ” I, who happen to the think the UN is outright anti-Semitic”

        Odd… The UN through its resolutions has given Israel HUNDREDS of opportunities to adhere to the law. The UN isn’t to fault because Israel’s leaders have been idiots

        ” don’t believe the UN would be nearly as cruel as to impose on Israel what you are talking about”

        It’s cruel for states to adhere to the law? AMAZING!!!

        “But if I’m wrong I promise..”

        Sure Jeffy boy, sure

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 9, 2014, 4:04 am

        @talknic

        ‘“and what could possibly motivate the Israelis to ever agree to such a situation? “
        A sense of right and wrong might do it.’

        But when have the Israelis ever shown that they have such a sense, let alone been motivated by it?

        (And why the devil haven’t the webmasters fixed the reply buttons?)

    • March 4, 2014, 6:51 pm

      1) I love it when Zionists “accuse” others of having a disproportionate level of focus. The irony of that statement;

      2). The label method. Call opponents unhinged (that’s a very popular one) and avoid discussing the issues;

      3) You lose me on that one. I guess that is intended to defend the colonial racist usurper because the same has happened in other places at other times.

      And throw the term “Jew hatred” around a lot.

      It’s very disconcerting. These Israel right or wrong folks are incapable of seeing the most obvious truths. Any factual criticism of Israel causes them to feel as if they and all Jewry are under attack. They have been so well conditioned. Pavlov would be impressed

    • LeaNder
      LeaNder
      March 5, 2014, 9:38 am

      Because when Israel was being debated as an actual entity 100 years ago the people who were mostly opposed hated Jews. The strong opposition to early Zionism (not the people who thought it was silly but the people who thought it immoral) mostly were associated Arabist movements or the Arian Christ movement. The Arabist movement in the 1930s was openly anti-Semetic, with strong pro-Axis leanings. The Arian Christ movement was central to the whole ideology of the Axis.

      In other words the people that opposed Zionism were antisemites objecting to “Jewish success”? Now what I wonder is, whom exactly you have in mind with “people”? What about the Palestinians or Arabs living in the region. They too?

      I have to admit this standard argument is occasionally on my mind too lately. Everyone that wasn’t friendly towards the Zionist project was necessarily an antisemite. But these nationlist antisemites were also needed, since they objected to the presence of “the Jews”?

      What I wonder about is why you put the “Arabists” into this context.

      Your use, which admittedly suggests the neoconservative perspective, in other words “Arab antisemites” do not matter much, only “their supporters” in the West?

      Arabists: The Romance of an American Elite, Robert D. Kaplan:

      A tight-knit group closely linked by intermarriage as well as class and old school ties, the “Arabists” were men and women who spent much of their lives living and working in the Arab world as diplomats, military attaches, intelligence agents, scholar-adventurers, and teachers. As such, the Arabists exerted considerable influence both as career diplomats and as bureaucrats within the State Department from the early 19th century to the present. But over time, as this work shows, the group increasingly lost touch with a rapidly changing American society, growing both more insular and headstrong and showing a marked tendency to assert the Arab point of view. Drawing on interviews, memoirs, and other official and private sources, Kaplan reconstructs the 100-year history of the Arabist elite, demonstrating their profound influence on American attitudes toward the Middle East, and tracing their decline as an influx of ethnic and regional specialists has transformed the State Department and challenged the power of the old elite.

      Sounds almost like an anti-Jewish conspiracy. Don’t you think?

      In this respect I often wonder admittedly, and I know I shouldn’t–as a descendant of a country that created “Arian Christianity” or German Christians, which you may have in mind here–what exactly made quite a few German and European Jews, not only Orientalists/Arabists ask themselves this type of question: Zionism and the Future of Palestine. The Fallacies and Dangers of Political Zionism, 1919. Do you think?

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 5, 2014, 4:00 pm

        @LeaNder

        What about the Palestinians or Arabs living in the region. They too?

        No we were only discussing Europeans. Arabs go through a maturation where they reject co-development and become anti-colonialist in the 20’s. That hits the Palestinians primarily during the 1930s and the violence ’36-7 really solidifies this. From here on, Palestinian history and Arab history starts to diverge. The Palestinians lose the Palestinian uprising of 36-9 badly. So you can’t group the two after that.

        This is a longer topic but mostly trying to apply a classic colonial framework to the mass-migration / settler colonialism of Zionism has been a disaster for Palestinians. I think most Palestinians realize they are up against something entirely unlike classic colonialism though most Arabs still tend to treat Israel as a classic colonial outpost. This creates some tension in negotiations. BDS is often absorbing this nonsense rhetoric (or standing in solidarity) but have trouble being consistent with it, since BDSers aren’t ignorant enough of Israel.

        Anyway the Palestinians and the Arabs were anti-Semetic but their objections to Israel would have existed without the religious bigotry. Being primarily muslim and not Christian they don’t have the theological baggage with Jews to the same extent.

        As for your last paragraph I couldn’t parse it so I can’t answer.

  2. tombishop
    tombishop
    March 4, 2014, 12:40 pm

    Related to this is a discussion with Michael Ratner, President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York and Chair of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin, on The Real News.

    “From a Zionist Youth to Outspoken Critic of a Jewish State”
    http://tinyurl.com/n6jowh3

    • Nevada Ned
      Nevada Ned
      March 5, 2014, 3:15 am

      tombishop, THANK YOU for the great link !

      Mike Ratner is a stalwart progressive Jewish activist. He explains that his entire family was completely convinced by the Zionists, when he was a child. Mike Ratner went to Israel for two months as a Bar Mitzvah celebration. His perspective began to change in the 1960’s movement against the Vietnam war. Even though he intellectually began to reject the Zionist “narrative”, he still felt emotionally connected with Israel. For Ratner, a visit to occupied Hebron (perhaps in the 1980’s) was the absolutely final straw.
      What is striking is what a long and difficult struggle Ratner had to wage in order to understand the situation. And Ratner, a very sharp lawyer, is no dummy.

      Some of the commenters at Mondoweiss act as if it’s “obvious” that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians. It is obvious to Palestinians. But many Jews have a hard time facing up to reality. In the interview, Ratner says that even today, in New York, speaking engagements can get cancelled if you’re too critical of Israel. This is perhaps a reference to the revoked invitation to John Judis, whose new book is mentioned.

      It’s a moving video. Thanks again for the link.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 5, 2014, 10:26 am

        @Nevada Ned – Something being “obvious” and someone “having a hard time facing up to reality” are not opposites. They’re not even in the same category.

  3. American
    American
    March 4, 2014, 12:52 pm

    ”But there is ample scope here for PhD dissertations and scholarly volumes and popular histories. So all you historians of ideas, sociologists, scholars of religion, and political scientists–get to work.”>>>>

    Oh please gawd, no more volumes on this!
    Everyone who is making their living/name/career on religion and anti Semitism please go find a different job.
    The world needs a break from this eternal, never ending, never settled, never to be settled, constantly morphing into evermore theories, revisions and desperate revelations by desperate authors desperate for their next new idea on it all book.
    The subject I promise you is worn out to death. Anything said on it that makes actual sense has been said, if not noticed by the world.
    It can only get crazier from here.

    • Donald
      Donald
      March 4, 2014, 4:32 pm

      “Oh please gawd, no more volumes on this!
      Everyone who is making their living/name/career on religion and anti Semitism please go find a different job.”

      You might have misunderstood–I meant volumes on how in some cases anti-anti-Semitism became a cover for anti-Palestinian racism. That hasn’t been covered–it’s hardly ever mentioned. The Presbyterian booklet is one of the first I’ve ever seen to touch on the subject..

      • American
        American
        March 4, 2014, 8:19 pm

        Donald

        I’m not picking on you and I know what you meant. I’m just venting on all this ancient Jews-Others-anti Semitism yada yada problem.
        Yes, there aren’t any books on how anti -anti- Semitism evolved—but we know already how it evolved—-its part and parcel of the same usual flat out anti Semitism smear…which has been a ‘cover’ and ‘excuse’ for Zionism’s racism all along.

        If you want to write about you need to do it in such a way that smashes in the face those who are so ignorant or such religious freaks or so mentally sick that they cant grasp that their beloved victims in the Holy Land are nothing but psychos victimizing other people.

        Be sure and put in your book, to balance out all the emoting over the poor eternally victimized Jews and the holocaust state, some pictures of the Palestine young men and boys shot in the head, the children in cages in Israeli prisons, the little girl who got 14 bullet rounds pumped into her by a IDF officer, some pictures of the baby burned so bad by white phosphorous that it was still too smoldering to be picked up with anything but a shovel, some dead kids in Lebanon from the million cluster bombs Israel dropped, the dead donkey the Isr settlers broke the neck of to torment the Palestine boy it belonged to, one of woman Israel just killed with a drone in one of their targeted assassinations…….

        All the hair shirt wearing and self flogging addicted to their S&M holocaust, religious, ect. guilt can go cry over having to put down the poor traumatized holocaust state AFTER they have stopped its killing, revenging and destroying.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      March 4, 2014, 10:48 pm

      American- since it has been done to death and apparently you have read all of it (and been bored to death), then you can tell us which category is your category, so that we will not confuse you with another category (of antisemitism that you ascribe to, or that you depend upon for your rhetoric).

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 5, 2014, 1:09 am

        @ yonah fredman … then you can tell us which category is your category, so that we will not confuse you with another category (of antisemitism that you ascribe to, or that you depend upon for your rhetoric)

        Your semi-veiled accusations are predictably ridiculous

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 5, 2014, 2:00 am

        talknic= Have I ever accused you of Jew hatred? I don’t think so. I have accused you of irrationality, but not of Jew hatred.

        American, who represents the America of Father Coughlin and not the America of George McGovern or even Dwight Eisenhower, on the other hand is a well experienced and if you wish a well documented Jew hater and for him to complain about being bored to death about histories of jew hatred is worthy of disdain, since he traffics in that feces. He who has clean hands, which includes you, and complains about history, is one thing. He who carries feces on his shoes at every other opportunity and then complains about the pristine rug that has been fouled by such histories is detestable.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 5, 2014, 2:20 am

        yonah fredman “Have I ever accused you …”

        Your post wasn’t about me..

        “American.. on the other hand is a well experienced and if you wish a well documented Jew hater”

        ‘well documented’ evidence … thx

        “He who carries feces on his shoes at every other opportunity and then complains about the pristine rug that has been fouled by such histories is detestable”

        False and unproven accusations fit that category.

        American’s post is still there. It was aimed specifically at the endless stream of authors “making their living/name/career on religion and anti Semitism “. It neither denied Antisemitism exists or belittled Jews in any manner.

        Your post is typical of the false accusation of idiots for Israel. False accusations are against the basic tenets of Judaism and; in defense of the Jewish state … quite bizarre. I take it you and your fellow false accusers are not Jewish

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 5, 2014, 3:06 am

        talknic- You are good at legal mumbo jumbo. But regarding pure common sense, you are playing with less than 52 cards, maybe as few as 47.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 5, 2014, 4:16 am

        yonah fredman “You are good at legal mumbo jumbo”

        The mumbo jumbo is stuff like G-d gave it to us. The same G-d no doubt who was AWOL during the Holocaust.

        “But regarding pure common sense, you are playing with less than 52 cards, maybe as few as 47”

        Pagliacci resorts to insults … cute

      • American
        American
        March 5, 2014, 11:26 am

        @ yonah

        I could care less what you think.

        But I will take this opportunity to say exactly what I think and feel because I want others to adopt the same common sense view of the Jewish/Israel/US/ Zionist/ Holocaust problem and/ or question.

        Holocaust—-Bad, horrific, shocking to the core of humanity, sympathy for the real victims. No sympathy for those like you who have made themselves ‘vicarious’ victims to gain some special treatment or
        deference.
        Disgusted with the holocaust industry’s political use of it to keep beating the anti Semitism drum for the purpose of the Zionist Jewish State.
        Want the get ‘out of jail free’ holocaust card for Israel canceled.

        Uber Zionist—–evil, sick, driven by personal hubris and revenge in their resentment of past Jewish powerlessness in the warrior arena. A greed and power driven mafia ethnic style group.
        Despise them. Want them destroyed.

        Lib Zionist——hopelessly narcissistic and brainwashed in anti Semitism in still believing that the holocaust and the greater good for the Jews makes necessary and justifies Israel taking Palestine and a Jewish State. Mentally and emotionally incapable of admitting to or examining the original sin of Zionist Israel.
        Exasperated with them but not moved to hate them for this weakness.

        Normal Jews—-non brainwashed, non fanatics who either see things as they are or just aren’t and weren’t that into Israel, therefore not involved, like most Americans.
        No problem.

        Anti Zionist Jews—–those who are doing something about things as they are in both Palestine and the US.
        I’m on their side.

        Professional Jewish whiners——- like you, still hunting dead anti semities, still blaming everyone in the universe for Hitler, still seeing non Jews as anti semties or anti semites in waiting if they don’t kow tow to your views and whines. You come across as someone who demands deference from others on the basis of simply being a Jew, because being a Jew and Jewish persecution is all you’ve ‘personally’ got to hang your hat on for special deference from others.
        You are an irritation, probably only harmful mostly to your own life enjoyment.

        I’ve been perfectly clear about my positions on Israel and the Jewish (and Non Jewish) US Zionist:

        The Palestines are the victims now, not the Jews, get off their land and make reparations for what Israel has done if you want Israel to continue to exist in Palestine.

        I want the Uber Zionist and Israel and all their seditious orgs influence out of my government, out of the taxpayer pocketbook, out of our foreign policy, out of our educational institutions, out of our press. If they wont back off and get out then I’m all for dragging their leadership before some McCarthy like inquisition or Fulbright like ’63 senate hearing and demonizing the hell out of them and reducing them to enemies of democracy and to zero political influence in this country.

        Slurs, the a-s accusations aren’t going to change any of my positions.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 6, 2014, 12:18 am

        american- What galled me was that Donald, for whom I have respect, treated you with respect. I am fine with your participation in Mondoweiss. It is good that people should realize that there is a mixture of level headed people (such as donald) and haters (such as yourself) in the antizionist cause. But it galls me when the level headed people treat the haters with respect. If you need reminding about the stupid hateful comments that you have made I have not bookmarked them all, but I certainly have bookmarked the feces that you said after you started in on defending the newspaper headline of “Judea declares war on Germany.” You are a hater and a liar.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 6, 2014, 12:54 am

        @Friedman – Hater, schmater. Of course we hate you and your ilk! At least I most definitely do; whoever does not is unlikely to achieve anything. See, this is an unending war of aggression started by the Zionists with the declared aim of deporting or exterminating the entire population of Palestine’s owners from Gross-Israel. As long as that war of aggression continues, you guys are part of those to inflict a maximum of damage to.
        Looks like either you are too retarded to understand the word war, or you are a particularly sly specimen who hopes to sow discord here. Both, I think, but it won’t work. Whoever is on the Palestinian side here knows that we all have different directions we are coming from. As for the “liberal Zios”… they are
        part of the enemy. Clear and simple. You know of course what to do with that bookmark of yours.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 6, 2014, 11:36 pm

        sick puppies- Just as the antiZionists prefer the honesty of a Hebron settler, so the ultra Zionists prefer the honesty of a sick hater as yourself. If it is to be a fight to the death, if it is a zero sum game, guess what? Many people will die. And that’s how you want it.

        That is your rhetoric and your message. You, meaning you, sick puppies, want the entire Jewish identity (every memory of it) to disappear from the planet. (Or will you tolerate a museum of the Jewish identity to educate the young on the dangers of Jewish tribalism that your crystal clear rhetoric saved mankind from.)

        You are an enemy. Clear and simple. And those who think the antizionist cause and the Jew hating cause do not overlap, only need to read your comments to realize that Jew haters somehow have not disappeared from this planet.

  4. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    March 4, 2014, 2:00 pm

    Well, maybe everything sensible has been said. My memory of the early years, late 50s and early 60s, is that the Jewish need to stand tall and to be assertive, even to conquer, received a great deal of sympathy in a western world which was comforting itself with the idea that it had, whatever else it had got wrong, conquered the Nazis. Hostage has recently mentioned the idea, attributed to Mandela at one time, that South African liberation would not be complete without Palestinian liberation. The same memories make me think that many in the West thought that our conquest of the Nazis would not be complete until Jewish people – never, ever treated fairly and latterly the Nazis’ principal victims – could share fully in the experience not just of liberation bestowed by others, but of conquest owed to their own strong right arm. It was the time when existentialism was popular and you could say that there is a dark version of existentialism in which only conquerors are free. And this joined up with the dark theology in which the Holocaust (a very theological term) was the sacrifice which God had accepted for the restoration of the Kingdom. Marxism, the other radical and in some senses popular force of the time, had always been linked with the idea of Jewish liberation and was seen by some (including the young Chomsky, maybe) as an essential step towards world socialism: liberation first for Jewish, then for all, people and peoples.

    • American
      American
      March 4, 2014, 2:43 pm

      ”The same memories make me think that many in the West thought that our conquest of the Nazis would not be complete until Jewish people – never, ever treated fairly and latterly the Nazis’ principal victims – could share fully in the experience not just of liberation bestowed by others, but of conquest owed to their own strong right arm. It was the time when existentialism was popular and you could say that there is a dark version of existentialism in which only conquerors are free. And this joined up with the dark theology in which the Holocaust (a very theological term) was the sacrifice which God had accepted for the restoration of the Kingdom. ”..Hughes

      Not to insult but thar “she blows again”….Ahab pinned to the white whale beckoning his crew to follow him into the deep, deep sea.

      . …….victims, liberation, existentialism, conquest, theology, sacrifice, God, Marxism, socialism, restoration, kingdom…

      Whew! … that ought to be good for another 2000 years of discussion.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        March 5, 2014, 12:02 pm

        American, would you tell me why you pin this on Captain Ahab and the white whale.

        For the record, while I disagree with you occasionally, I would never join fredman’s take above. Which does not mean I couldn’t support him with tiny little pieces of evidence for his collection, which I also doubt he really has. according to whatever implicit theory.

        I am curious–meaning I would prefer you to tell me instead of simply assuming to know why–you associate Moby Dick.

      • American
        American
        March 6, 2014, 4:00 pm

        LeaNder says:

        March 5, 2014 at 12:02 pm

        American, would you tell me why you pin this on Captain Ahab and the white whale.

        For the record, while I disagree with you occasionally, I would never join fredman’s take above. Which does not mean I couldn’t support him with tiny little pieces of evidence for his collection, which I also doubt he really has. according to whatever implicit theory.

        I am curious–meaning I would prefer you to tell me instead of simply assuming to know why–you associate Moby Dick.
        >>>>>>>

        Lea…..my reference to Ahab, pinned to the white whale, beckoning to his sailors to follow him into the deep ,deep sea the whale was taking him down into was a comparison to descending into the bottomless pit of endlessly dissecting, arguing over anti Semitism, Jews, holocaust, religion, others, etc. —none of that matters today.
        That’s all. I was expressing my frustration with using I/P as a ‘intellectual hobby’ while in the real world people are dying, being dispossessed.
        I was venting in my ‘fierce urgency’ mood.

        If you have some tidbits of mine you think are questionable feel free to bring them out and I’ll address, explain or own up to them…I don’t mind–but its pointless for me talk to crazy yonah…except to poke him with a stick ocasionally…lol.

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 5, 2014, 10:41 am

      Hughes – “many in the West thought that our conquest of the Nazis would not be complete until Jewish people – never, ever treated fairly and latterly the Nazis’ principal victims – could share fully in the experience not just of liberation bestowed by others, but of conquest owed to their own strong right arm.”
      Many –wouldn’t matter if they were only a few– knew and wrote and trumpeted that this was pure, illogical bullshit, agreed by governments, so the people who went along with the Zionist nonsense don’t have the excuse of not having been warned. As for young Chomsky, are we entirely sure that he finally got rid of an illusion of peoplehood?

  5. Krusty
    Krusty
    March 4, 2014, 2:11 pm

    OK, I’ll be *that guy*.

    “And of course the resurgence of European anti-Semitism is in part what sparked the Zionist movement. After WWII the Western world became belatedly ashamed of its anti-Semitic past. Anti-Semitism was no longer acceptable. There was a movement to stamp it out.”

    “What started as a laudable attempt to make up for past bigotry morphed into an excuse for supporting a new type of bigotry. In order to atone for anti-Semitism, some started to give their unconditional blessing to Zionism. ”

    It is frankly very deeply offensive to read this because there is literally not a single mention of the Holocaust. One oblique reference to the systematic, state-sponsored genocide of a people. Without mentioning the Holocaust, you’re ignoring a fundamental and huge part of the creation of Israel and the ultimate expression of anti-Semitic activity.

    The raison d’être of Zionism, creation of Israel, and the massive population migration there (through the Fifth Aliyah and the post-war displacement) are inexorably tied to the notion that so long as they were stateless, Jews were forever doomed to oppression. That statelessness and the powerless that comes with it is precisely why people (myself included) support the creation of a Palestinian state today.

    I’d like to know why you didn’t mention this.

    • Krusty
      Krusty
      March 4, 2014, 2:32 pm

      I want to make clear that I think that there is absolutely not enough attention paid to the plight of the Palestinians, and their ongoing struggle (particularly int he face of a massive boom in settlement construction.) I come to this struggle with my eyes in 2014, and that is why I support a two state peace process: because I think it will cause the least bloodshed and lead, ultimately, to the best outcome for both Israelis and Palestinians. I came to this site precisely because I disagree with most of what I’ll read, but also because it’s a chance to keep my mind open to that which I might not read elsewhere.

      However, reading this, I couldn’t help but feel like short shrift was given to the one event which had the most to do with the creation of Israel as a state. The Jewish people were forever altered by the Holocaust, and there was a mass migration as a direct result (which led to a mass displacement of native Palestinians.) To this day, the Israeli mind is still affected by those horrible events.

      I actually agree that “anti-semitism” charges are thrown around too loosely, but I was just initially struck by the lack of an explicit mention of the Holocaust considering its centrality to everything that has gone on since. So, while I know that it wasn’t central to your article, I do believe that the events surrounding Israel’s creation deserved at least some more mention.

      • lysias
        lysias
        March 4, 2014, 3:14 pm

        Will the Jewish people ever get over the Holocaust the way (to take my own people) the Irish have gotten over Cromwell and the Potato Famine? If and when they do, what will remain of the justification for a Jewish State? If they never do, will that be right?

        (Mind you, the Protestants in independent Ireland have, on paper at least, equal rights. In fact, one can make a case that in fact they retain a privileged economic position — a fact that a radical nationalist cousin of mine much resented, while he was alive.)

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        March 4, 2014, 3:50 pm

        I think that Donald’s question was not ‘why were those dire events not more regarded?’ as Krusty supposes, but ‘why were they interpreted not to say that there should be no more oppression, but that the formerly oppressed had the right to some oppression of their own’?

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 4, 2014, 4:39 pm

        “why were they interpreted not to say that there should be no more oppression, but that the formerly oppressed had the right to some oppression of their own’?”

        Yes. And anyone who speaks out for basic human rights for the Palestinians is automatically assumed to have anti-semitic motives.

        Okay, gotta go.

      • bilal a
        bilal a
        March 4, 2014, 5:28 pm

        Exclusion of the Other victims of left-wing soviet and national socialism is another form of Nakba denial; we will never see a Hollywood depiction of the secularist murder of priests and nuns:

        ———————
        The Bolsheviks cut out the eyes and pulled out the hair of the beard of another priest in the same uyezd.

        In the village of Rozhdenstvensky, Alexandrovsky uyezd, the Red Army men cut off the arms and legs of the local priest to the trunk, and in this form hanged him by the hair on an acacia tree. Then they shot him and did not allow his body to be taken from the tree for three days.

        In Kherson province, three priests were crucified on crosses.

        http://www.orthodox.net/russiannm/odessa-kherson-and-ekaterinoslav-hieromartyrs-and-martyrs.html
        ——
        Could you quote any figures?

        VICENTE CARCEL ORTI: Albeit incomplete, the figures are impressive: 18 bishops, 4,184 between priests and seminarians, 283 nuns and about 4,000 laymen were killed for helping or hiding priests or nuns.
        http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7999

        “No exception was made for Poland’s higher clergy. Bishop Michael Kozal of Wladislava died in Dachau; Bishop Nowowiejski of Płock and his suffragan Bishop Wetmanski both died in prison in Poland; Bishop Fulman of Lublin and his suffragan Bishop Goral were sent to a concentration camp in Germany. In 1939, 80% of the Catholic clergy and five of the bishops of the Warthegau region had been deported to concentration camps. In Wrocław, 49.2% of the clergy were dead; in Chełmno, 47.8%; in Łódź, 36.8%; in Poznań, 31.1%. In the Warsaw diocese, 212 priests were killed; 92 were murdered in Wilno, 81 in Lwów, 30 in Kraków, 13 in Kielce. Seminarians who were not killed were shipped off to Germany as forced labor. Of 690 priests in the Polish province of West Prussia, at least 460 were arrested. The remaining priests of the region fled their parishes. Of the arrested priests, 214 were executed, including the entire cathedral chapter of Pelplin. The rest were deported to the newly created General Government district in Central Poland. By 1940, only 20 priests were still serving their parishes in West Prussia. Many nuns shared the same fate as priests. Some 400 nuns were imprisoned at Bojanowo concentration camp. Many were later sent to Germany as slave labor. Of the city of Poznań’s 30 churches and 47 chapels, the Nazis left two open to serve some 200,000 souls. Thirteen churches were simply locked and abandoned; six became warehouses; four, including the cathedral, were used as furniture storage centers. In Łódź, only four churches were allowed to remain open to serve 700,000 Catholics.[citation needed]

        The small Evangelical churches of Poland also suffered. All the Protestant clergy of the Cieszyn region of Silesia were arrested and sent to the death camps at Mauthausen, Buchenwald, Dachau and Oranienburg. Among the Protestant martyrs were Karol Kulisz, director of the Evangelical Church’s largest charitable organization, who died in Buchenwald in November 1939; Professor Edmund Bursche, a member of the Evangelical Faculty of Theology at the University of Warsaw, who died in the stone quarries of Mauthausen; and the 79-year-old Bishop of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Poland, Juliusz Bursche, who died in solitary confinement in Berlin.[citation needed]

        The Polish Home Army was conscious of the link between morale and religious practice and the Catholic religion was integral to much Polish resistance, particularly during the Warsaw Uprising of 1944.[31] Despite persecution, Catholic priests preached national spirit and encouraged resistance across Poland, and the Resistance was full of clergy.[3”
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Poland_%281939%E2%80%9345%29#Rule_of_Terror

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 4, 2014, 8:55 pm

        @Bilal – Some of us seem to forget easily that the only thing that unites people here is solidarity with Palestinian people. Even to the point of having the place choke full of Jewish nationalists and even “liberal” Zionists!
        Please try to remember that and keep your own axe to grind firmly in its scabbard, or wherever you keep axes. I’ll be damned if I come back here to have to read nauseating bullshit not only from Zionists but also from caveman-grade anticommunists and fairy tales from DC Neanderthals.
        In summary, either stick to Palestine or shut up. That “Nakba denial” linking bullshit is ridiculous.

      • Krusty
        Krusty
        March 7, 2014, 3:07 pm

        “Yes. And anyone who speaks out for basic human rights for the Palestinians is automatically assumed to have anti-semitic motives.”

        This is what I mean. This simply isn’t factual, unless you think that mainstream Western conversation holds Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George H.W. Bush, et. al. as anti-Semites.

        What cranks on the American and Israeli hard right say is out of the mainstream, and moreover, inapplicable to the idea that “anyone” is tarred.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 4:51 pm

        @lysias

        Will the Jewish people ever get over the Holocaust

        Absolutely! We plan on the year after the Christians get over the crucifixion. So what year was that scheduled for again?

        the way (to take my own people) the Irish have gotten over Cromwell and the Potato Famine

        You do realize I know Irish people right? Got over the Potato Famine? Who are you kidding. They still hate the English for that. When they used to raise money for the IRA what do you think came up every single time?

        If and when they do, what will remain of the justification for a Jewish State?

        The justification is the fact you would ask that question. What’s the justification for the Irish state? What’s the justification for the Chinese state? States exist, their are self justifying. They exist because they meet the 3 criteria:

        a) A people (a nation) living on a territory
        b) A government of that people for that territory
        c) An army loyal to that government in control of that territory.

        Nothing more than that. The justification for the Jewish state is that fact that you deep down really don’t think kikes are human the way French, Italians, Philippine people are and thus they need to justify their existence.

      • lysias
        lysias
        March 4, 2014, 6:41 pm

        You’re wrong. I’m Irish (well, Irish-American), and I know how the Irish feel. Apart from some antediluvian troglodytes.

        And what needs justification is treating people unequally. Ireland treats its citizens equally. (Unlike Israel.) It can no longer be called a sectarian state. The Catholic Church has lost most of the excessive power that it once had.

        If Israel ever starts treating its citizens equally, I will no longer say that it needs justification. But then, it will no longer be a Jewish State.

        And it’s interesting how you react to my call for imitating the forgiveness of the Irish with insults.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 4, 2014, 10:35 pm

        Where do you get those three criteria from?

        All a state needs is a territory with people (not ‘a people’) and a government in effective control over that territory.

        When we ask for the justification for a Jewish state, we ask why it has to be Jewish, and not just a state.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 5, 2014, 10:19 am

        States exist, their are self justifying. They exist because they meet the 3 criteria: . . .

        Conversely, the international community has refused to recognize the legitimacy of many states because their regimes acquired control of government organs or the territory of others in violation of the UN Charter, e,g, Israel, the occupied Arab territories, and East Jerusalem; Indonesia and East Timor; the Soviet Union and the Baltic States; and the apartheid regimes in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, Nambia, Portuguese Angola, and Portuguese Mozambique.

        So, states do not have an unconditional right to exist.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        March 6, 2014, 1:18 am

        @ JeffB

        You do realize I know Irish people right? Got over the Potato Famine? Who are you kidding. They still hate the English for that.

        I seriously doubt you know a single Irish person if you can come out with that bilge. Not to mention your earlier fantasy about Irish attitudes to the Union. What the fuck do you think we are, self pitying Zionists or something? Just for your information – no we don’t hate the English, what on earth for? Any involved in the Famine are long dead and we have the brains to realise the government is not the same as people. Also unlike Zionists we don’t actually believe in genetically inherited guilt.

        The justification for the Jewish state is that fact that you deep down really don’t think kikes are human the way French, Italians, Philippine people are and thus they need to justify their existence.

        Oh boo hoo. Give it a rest B is for Bigot the old anti-semitism charge, like you, is a joke. Questioning the existence of a state – a political polity – is not questioning the existence of a people. And that’s all besides the irony of someone who is basically a Nazi in a kippah moaning about other people’s (projected) bigotry.

      • lysias
        lysias
        March 4, 2014, 5:33 pm

        Just to be clear, I, unlike my late cousin, am proud of the fact that most Irish Catholics have buried the hatchet.

      • Krusty
        Krusty
        March 7, 2014, 3:14 pm

        “Will the Jewish people ever get over the Holocaust the way (to take my own people) the Irish have gotten over Cromwell and the Potato Famine? If and when they do, what will remain of the justification for a Jewish State? If they never do, will that be right?”

        I honestly can’t answer whether Jews will “get over” the Holocaust. Frankly, I don’t think “get over” is the right terminology. What I can say is that it’d be incredibly inappropriate to let that horrible event become forgotten.

        Moreover, the lesson learned from it and from the thousands of years of Jewish persecution preceding it is that there necessarily must be a sovereign Jewish state. Similarly, there is a sovereign Irish state. Moreover, as the Occupation has shown, there must be a sovereign Palestinian state formed on the basis of a durable, lasting peace agreement.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 8, 2014, 1:09 am

        “Similarly, there is a sovereign Irish state.”

        Not similar at all. All citizens of Ireland are Irish. (Being a citizen is what makes them Irish.) And that includes Irish Jews.

        But not all citizens of the Jewish state are Jewish.

        “Moreover, the lesson learned from it and from the thousands of years of Jewish persecution preceding it is that there necessarily must be a sovereign Jewish state.”

        Not necessary at all.

        “Moreover, as the Occupation has shown, there must be a sovereign Palestinian state”

        Again, not necessary at all.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 8, 2014, 1:44 am

        “Similarly, there is a sovereign Irish state.”

        For over 56 years every St Patrick’s day my friends and I have prayed “next year with Cindy Crawford”
        Cindy is going to be the first head of State of Cindyland.
        In county Tipperary.
        We’ll herd the locals into a concentration camp and get the UN to look after them. We want to be the same as every other people racked by passion and identity issues.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 8, 2014, 9:20 am

        >> Moreover, the lesson learned from it and from the thousands of years of Jewish persecution preceding it is that there necessarily must be a sovereign Jewish state.

        The correct response to injustice is justice and accountability, not the creation of a supremacist state.

        Women and homosexuals have also been persecuted for thousands of years. They do not require supremacist states for themselves any more than Jews require a supremacist “Jewish State” for themselves.

        >> Similarly, there is a sovereign Irish state.

        Irish is a bureaucratic nationality. Please let me know when Jewish becomes the bureaucratic nationality of “Jewish State”, applicable to its citizens, refugees (including Palestinians) and ex-pats.

      • just
        just
        March 4, 2014, 6:06 pm

        Krusty–When do you think that the Palestinians should get over the ongoing Nakba? Will the Palestinian “mind” ever not be affected by these and those “horrible events”? Do you even see that by perpetrating horror on the indigenous (innocent of any wrongdoing in the Holocaust) Palestinians, they’ve worn out their welcome in so many hearts and minds by the disgraceful actions of the Israeli state and the entire settlement project? The care and kindness that Jewish people were shown in the aftermath of such inhumanity has been squandered by Israeli cruelty… it’s not a carte blanche anymore. Many remember the Holocaust, and are dumbstruck by the enormity of Israeli crimes against humanity.

        Why has Israel forced them to remain “stateless”?

        Why does Israel continue to “oppress” them?

        In order to save Israel and the whole ‘idea’, Israel has to become honest and change its’ path– soon. I doubt it will happen without serious and deliberate pressure from the outside. I hope for you that it is not too late for Israel to do a 180, since you clearly support that country.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 5, 2014, 7:11 am

        @JUST – “In order to save Israel and the whole ‘idea’, Israel has to become honest and change its’ path”
        Why on earth would anyone think of saving any part of it or its “ideas”?
        What a strange choice for recycling.

      • Krusty
        Krusty
        March 7, 2014, 3:03 pm

        “In order to save Israel and the whole ‘idea’, Israel has to become honest and change its’ path– soon. I doubt it will happen without serious and deliberate pressure from the outside. I hope for you that it is not too late for Israel to do a 180, since you clearly support that country.”

        I agree completely. I don’t know how else to say that. Moreover, as a liberal Zionist, I’m certain that the more right leaning and hardheaded Zionists will disagree with me. I do support Israel, largely because I think history speaks to its necessity, but it’s foolish to support the current direction of the nation so long as there is a deeply unserious contingent in the governing coalition which would bring on further pariah status or would undermine the democratic and Jewish character of the state (Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman are the two worst about this.) It’s certainly true that the longer Israel continues the Occupation and the more new settlements it builds, the less sympathetic it will be as a state.

        And I agree that the incredibly unfortunate circumstances which led to the creation of Israel do not in any way excuse Israeli actions towards the Palestinians in 2014. However, this can serve as explanatory, particularly considering the harsher rhetoric which will emerge from the Gaza. Moreover, this works the other way, too! It’s utterly understandable that Palestinians would have a psychological wound – who wouldn’t? The Nakba is, of course, an unbelievably terrible occurrence, and just as the more reactionary elements of Palestinian civil society clearly use troublesome language, the ongoing construction of settlements (much less the horrid Area C annexation proposed Nafatli Bennett) makes old wounds worse.

        Perhaps we can agree on this?

        However, I suspect that we break on this:

        “Why has Israel forced them to remain “stateless”?

        Why does Israel continue to “oppress” them?”

        While the Netanyahu government has signaled a willingness to go along with some variation of the Kerry Framework (we’ll see if it winds up being a palatable peace deal), there have been prior efforts (most importably Barak and Olmert’s offers) which were rejected that would have created a Palestinian state. Abbas (if he does in fact have the support of Hamas- and I doubt that based on Meshaal’s prior public statements about Zionism) needs to act soon. Occupation is a terrible status, but I suspect that a unilateral withdrawal and border declaration by Israel (the likely alternative) would be, at the very bare minimum, no better and far more likely worse.

        As to oppression, the plain truth is that terror attacks against the Israelis have been reduced very significantly since the creation of the security barriers. The blockade in the Gaza is terrible, but what alternative is there when there are still missiles being smuggled through?

        I don’t at all claim that Israel is blameless in this (and, indeed, my participation at this site is precisely because I think that the current coalition government is doing its nation a disservice in this matter), but rather that I think there is blame to be passed around (and I don’t mean that in a way to sort of… explain it away? but rather, to say that neither party nor its leadership is blameless, though I do think there’s a big difference between modern Israeli center and left leadership like Labour and the conservatives like Likud-YB and Jewish Home.)

      • American
        American
        March 4, 2014, 8:25 pm

        krusty says…

        ”To this day, the Israeli mind is still affected by those horrible events.”
        >>>>>>>>>>

        That makes absolutely no difference. The minds of serial killers have been affected by some type of trauma also.
        The world doesn’t let them run free and keep killing.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        March 9, 2014, 12:19 am

        Ah American I think you’re forgetting the Officer Krupke defence…..

    • Woody Tanaka
      Woody Tanaka
      March 4, 2014, 3:25 pm

      “It is frankly very deeply offensive to read this because there is literally not a single mention of the Holocaust.”

      Oh, Jesus Christ, not this shit again.

    • Donald
      Donald
      March 4, 2014, 4:34 pm

      “It is frankly very deeply offensive to read this because there is literally not a single mention of the Holocaust.”

      I didn’t think I had to spell it out. People in the West became more sensitive to anti-semitism after WWII because of the Holocaust. Common knowledge, isn’t it?

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      March 4, 2014, 6:35 pm

      “The raison d’être of Zionism, creation of Israel, and the massive population migration there (through the Fifth Aliyah and the post-war displacement) are inexorably tied to the notion that so long as they were stateless, Jews were forever doomed to oppression. ”

      They are still doomed to oppression, Krusty- the oppression of the Palestinians. You just walked into that one, buddy

      And the Shoah is well over- why the human rights abuses today ?
      BTW does Phil Weiss know how oppressed he is ?

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 4, 2014, 8:31 pm

      @lysias

      You’re wrong. I’m Irish (well, Irish-American), and I know how the Irish feel. Apart from some antediluvian troglodytes.

      And I lived most all my life in Irish areas. And I certainly remember people raising money for the IRA. That wasn’t because they got over their hatred of the English.

      And what needs justification is treating people unequally. Ireland treats its citizens equally. (Unlike Israel.) It can no longer be called a sectarian state. The Catholic Church has lost most of the excessive power that it once had.

      Was Cromwell right to try and destroy Ireland because he disliked the state church? That’s the BDS proposal. It is not about reform but about starving the people of the state into submission to an ideology they despise. It is precisely what Cromwell and Victoria did to the Irish.

      If Israel ever starts treating its citizens equally, I will no longer say that it needs justification. But then, it will no longer be a Jewish State.

      Hold on. We aren’t talking sectarian. You have no problem with Ireland being Irish. What you are arguing is that Israel has no right to be Israeli. You are arguing for displacing the population that lives there. This has nothing to do with religion. Judaism is just the state religion of Israelis nothing more. People who are loyal to Israel but not Jewish, like the Russian Christians have no problems living there. People who are Jewish and disloyal go to jail like in any other state.

      Palestinians if they were citizens would be traitors. They hate the state of Israel and they want to end it. They can’t be citizens until that changes.

      And it’s interesting how you react to my call for imitating the forgiveness of the Irish with insults.

      You are the one preaching the the destruction of states and annihilation of peoples. The “forgiveness” would be to “forgive” the Jews for existing and just go work on some other problem. But you can’t “forgive” the idea of kikes holding equal rights just gets in your craw. I can hear the, “How dare they claim to be a people like any other”. Why shouldn’t I find that offensive?

      You are preaching open racism, of course it is offensive.

    • Donald
      Donald
      March 4, 2014, 8:55 pm

      “I’d like to know why you didn’t mention this.”

      I’m back. To expand slightly on my previous reply, I referred to the long history of Western anti-semitism, referred to Christian anti-semitism, implicitly agreed that it was good for Christians to examine this sordid aspect of their history, and then said that anti-semitism was finally recognized as something bad that should be stamped out after WWII. I took for granted that, you know, virtually every sentient being on the planet has heard something about what happened in WWII that might have awakened people’s consciences regarding anti-semitism.

      My alleged offense was to give a two paragraph summary of what everyone knows, rather than go into a long discussion of it, but fine, if you want that, I’d recommend Sandy Tolan’s “The Lemon Tree”, who tells the history of the I/P conflict through the eyes of two families, one Israeli and descended from Holocaust survivors, and the other a Palestinian family who used to live in the house now occupied by that same Jewish family. It’s empathic to both sides. But, you know, it’s a freaking book, not a blog entry.

      I then wrote a few paragraphs describing how the laudable attempt to stamp out one form of bigotry (anti-semitism) then morphed, in some cases, into an excuse for justifying another form of bigotry (anti-Palestinian racism). Somehow I suspect that’s my real offense.

      • just
        just
        March 4, 2014, 9:07 pm

        I think that Krusty’s protestations prove your point, Donald.

        You can’t even mention the Nakba, (much less acknowledge it) without paying extra special Homage to the Holocaust. And you must also never ever mention the crimes against the Palestinians, because SOMEBODY, ANYBODY must pay every day for the Holocaust and grant special dispensation to all Israelis, their fans, and for all of Israel’s legendary and ongoing illegalities.

      • Krusty
        Krusty
        March 7, 2014, 2:46 pm

        Sorry for the delayed reply! I have some problems with your response, because while I understand that this was merely a blog, it’s incredibly problematic to gloss over a key event, particularly when writing to an audience which includes responses which indicate exasperation and/or unseriousness on a gravely important topic.

        “I then wrote a few paragraphs describing how the laudable attempt to stamp out one form of bigotry (anti-semitism) then morphed, in some cases, into an excuse for justifying another form of bigotry (anti-Palestinian racism). Somehow I suspect that’s my real offense.”

        …This is precisely what I mean. I wrote this:

        “I want to make clear that I think that there is absolutely not enough attention paid to the plight of the Palestinians, and their ongoing struggle (particularly int he face of a massive boom in settlement construction.)”

        and

        “The Jewish people were forever altered by the Holocaust, and there was a mass migration as a direct result (which led to a mass displacement of native Palestinians.) To this day, the Israeli mind is still affected by those horrible events.

        I actually agree that “anti-semitism” charges are thrown around too loosely, but I was just initially struck by the lack of an explicit mention of the Holocaust considering its centrality to everything that has gone on since. So, while I know that it wasn’t central to your article, I do believe that the events surrounding Israel’s creation deserved at least some more mention.”

        So, speaking frankly, I neither see how your comment is apposite nor your accusation of bad faith is grounded.

        What struck me was the blithe manner in which you glossed over a central event which a) proves a real-world basis for the necessity of the Jewish state and b) led to a surge of philo-semitism and Zionism. The exclusion is problematic precisely because it is massively explanatory.

        It is obvious and terrible that Palestinians were displaced by a displaced people. However, your analysis is needlessly reductionist in its sole blame of Western Zionism, and its false pretense of Palestinian blamelessness.

        You’ve utterly ignored factors which support philo-Zionism such as: Arab and Iranian aggression, Palestinian violence (ex. the first and second intifadas), continuing bad faith play (i.e. the regular rocket strikes emanating from Gaza, particularly towards Sderot), refusal of peace offers (i.e. 2000), lack of unified pro-peace governance post-Arafat, the treatment by the Jordanians, Egyptians, and Syrians of their Palestinian refugees and their refusal to step in as interlocutors, and instead created a straw man. Those are factors which would obviously cast the Israelis in a sympathetic light, no? Once again, to be clear, Israeli actions towards Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are clearly problematic (settlements, displacement, racism, and force are the tip of the iceberg) morally and pragmatically, and there is an obvious acknowledgement of that by the majority who agree with me that this needs to be resolved through a sovereign Palestinian state. However, to act as though Zionism is supported solely for reasons related to Christian anti-Semitism is simply untrue.

        This is massively counterweighted by plain historical truth. Sykes-Picot was misguided and Naftali Bennett is… something else, no? But in the meantime, the West has made significant overtures, particularly since Oslo, towards maneuvering towards a durable two state peace. While the West is obviously friendly to Zionism, there has been no shortage of effort to nation build for the Palestinians through international investment, media and academic coverage (though I know that’s an unpopular opinion on this site), and Fayyadism recently took root for precisely this reason.

        So, I realize it’s just a blog post, but please be more evenhanded in the future?

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 5, 2014, 9:12 pm

      @RoHa

      Where do you get those three criteria from?

      Those are the big 3 for a nation state: a government (army), territory, nation (people). That’s the core of the Westphalia system that’s existed for 400 that people have a right to create governments. Prior to that we had the concept of Christendom where governments came from God as legitimized by the Pope. That’s essentially the UN system that most of the people here favor except with the UN being the new pope.

      When we ask for the justification for a Jewish state, we ask why it has to be Jewish, and not just a state.

      Why does Ireland have to be Irish? Why does France have to be French? Israel is Jewish because it is the state of the Jewish nation residing in that territory called Israelis the same way France is the state of the French people.

  6. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    March 4, 2014, 3:35 pm

    James Carroll’s book “Constantine’s Sword”… is a history of anti-Semitism in the Catholic Church.
    It’s important to recognize intolerance in the past and Carroll’s book does a good job, but he makes criticisms and has biases that are unnecessary for that subject. His exaggeration is reflected in his New York Times article, where he writes: “European critiques of Zionism as mere colonialism, American talk of a “lobby” that carries echoes of “cabal”… suggest that contempt for Jews and the Jewish state can involve more than meets the eye.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/opinion/03iht-edcarroll.html?_r=0

    In other words, for Carroll, if one makes left wing critiques of Israeli nationalism, as colonialism, then it suggests anti-semitism. Or if one portrays interest groups negatively, then it has “echoes” and that makes it racist. Naturally, those are both misportrayals, because liberals are instead motivated by caring about human rights, and the situation in the Holy Land is a major concern. Leftist human rights activists are not motivated by racism.
    If he overestimates liberals as being racist, I would question also whether he portrays Christian religion and its history in too black of terms when it comes to Jewish-Christian relations.

    • Donald
      Donald
      March 4, 2014, 4:37 pm

      Carroll is the sort of person I was thinking of–someone who tries hard to make up for the history of Christian anti-semitism, only to fall into the trap of dismissing crimes committed against the Palestinians. If you bring up the subject in any sort of forceful way, then you’re an anti-semite by his definition.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        March 4, 2014, 5:10 pm

        Good example. I agree, Donald. James Carroll himself can fall into this trap, as he wrote a few articles criticizing the state, eg:
        “Israel must not dismiss outrage over settlements”
        http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/12/10/israel-latest-settlement-expansion-threatens-its-moral-standing/ONx2YSOL81g5qSeUiBzzkK/story.html

        The problem is that he sees through the lens of anti-semitism to an excessive degree. For him, it’s good to be “outraged” at the Israeli government for the settlements because he opposes them. However he accepts Israeli nationalism, so he sees criticism of it through that lens. Even something that is not actually intolerant is seen as having an “echo” of it. It is like the “whiff” or “stinks” test that David Samel mentioned before of labeling something as discriminatory merely because it reminds someone of something else that is.

        To some extent this has crossed into liberal Protestantism, as you mentioned, and from there into the Zionism Unsettled book. For example, in Luke 13:34, Jesus criticizes Jerusalem in a way similar to how Melito of Sardis criticizes the Israelite nation on page 26 of Z. Unsettled. Yet the book portrays Melito as intolerant, while asking us to reinterpret Biblical passages so that they aren’t.

      • just
        just
        March 4, 2014, 5:24 pm

        Many thanks for this thoughtful article, Donald. It’s correct, and it’s necessary to wipe away the cobwebs of the past in order to see the present and move into a better future for the truly oppressed.

        “Palestinians were the scapegoat for Western sins. In order to atone for Western crimes one had to pretend the Palestinians didn’t matter, or didn’t exist, or brought it on themselves (see, as an example, James Michener’s historical novel “The Source”) or at best should be satisfied with whatever scraps the Israelis chose to toss their way. With many, Jews and non-Jews alike, it seems to have become an article of faith that Zionism was an inherently noble idea, and anyone who argued for Palestinian rights had to be an anti-Semite. Palestinians were an embarrassment, so they had to be portrayed as bigots or at best, as Arabs who could be moved into other Arab countries.”

        Don’t forget that Arabs have to be portrayed as “terrorists” , “backward”, “fighting each other forever”, etc.!

        I see our Western sins as the ones we have perpetrated on the Palestinians and other peoples because of many reasons– most of all our stupid “foreign policy” that is so largely WRONG and rife with hypocrisy and violence.

        It’s way past time to dispel the mythology that has kept so many silent for so long. BDS is not anti- semitic. Enabling the persecution of others is WRONG. Standing up to acknowledge and end the myriad of Israeli abuses of the Palestinians is RIGHT.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 4, 2014, 4:54 pm

      No that’s not in other words. What Carrol said in your one sentence quote was, “European critiques of Zionism as mere colonialism”. He’s not objecting to the critique but the reductionism. The critique could still stand without the reductionism. The concern about human rights could still stand without the reductionism. Which means those aren’t the reasons for the reductionism.

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        March 4, 2014, 6:59 pm

        Hi Jeff.

        Carroll claimed that criticizing Israeli nationalism as mere colonialism was anti-Semitic. I disagree, because the critique is not based on a racist motivation.

        One can say that it developed as a nationalist movement among European communities with a goal to achieve a settlement outside of Europe. It occurred during a period of empires and colonies, and had those empires’ approval. In turn, the superpowers expected to benefit strategically because it would be in an area where their influence was historically weaker.

        Additionally, one could disagree with religious claims to land and with the proposition that every religious community or every nationality should have a territory for one community even when other communities are present in comparable numbers.

        The main motivation for someone who interprets it as basically a movement of settlements can be his/her understanding of the 19th century powers. To accuse those critiques of intolerance is to misunderstand that those critics may actually be motivated by beliefs that people are equal and by how the critics give no less consideration to native peoples than to others.

        The other possibility is that Carroll is creating a strawman. That is, he could be portraying dissidents as opposing colonialism without appreciating other land claims, such as religious ones. This however would be a strawman, because of course the dissenters are aware of those claims, but they disagree with them out of egalitarianism, anti-colonialism, and other reasons that are not intolerant.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 5, 2014, 7:20 am

        @W Jones

        First off, thank you for your tone. It is a welcome change from this board in general.

        I disagree, because the critique is not based on a racist motivation.

        I disagree here. The treatment of the Jewish population in Palestine regarding European anti-colonialists is really unlike any other colonialist power. For example in South Africa the argument was that blacks and Afrikaners were one people. There was never any claim that Afrikanerism was illegitimate. There was never any claim that Afrikaners should return to Netherlands. And there it was far more clear cut. The traditional anti-colonialist movement was opposed to racism. The idea of racial entitlements could obviously be applied in places like France or England to colonial peoples so it wasn’t supported.

        There is something unique here. I have no reason to believe there isn’t a racial motivation for that uniqueness. A fundamental belief that Jews are intrinsically evil not meaningfully human and thus a Jewish state is intrinsically evil in a way that a Christian or Muslim state is not. Otherwise there would be a far better explanation on why the solution for Israel should be so unlike the solutions recommended in other places.

        Moreover and more deeply it is the reductionism that is the intolerance. I can disagree with other countries on some aspect without blinding hatred of the country and its peoples. I don’t like the fact that France registers religions (Israel does too btw) but adore French food. I don’t have to hate the French because I disagree with them on a matter of policy. In the case of anti-Israeli activism the hatred comes through loud and clear. The policy disagreements seem mostly secondary, they are vague. BDS people can’t even describe what they would like to see done in any kind of detail. That sounds like intolerance.

        Now I’ll agree that leftist anti-Semitism doesn’t use quite the same language as rightwing anti-semitism. So for example BDSers don’t talk about Jews / Israelis are polluting white skin when they intermarry. If you want to limit intolerance to only those sorts of issues then it becomes definitionally impossible for a left-winger to be intolerant because they mostly don’t care about those issues. But if you allow for some minor substitutions and look for the general pattern of intolerance things like denying humanity or a desire not to relate and understand… then yes it is clearly present.

        Additionally, one could disagree with religious claims to land and with the proposition that every religious community or every nationality should have a territory for one community even when other communities are present in comparable numbers.

        I disagree with religious claims to land. That doesn’t make me an anti-Zionists. The Zionists formed an Israeli nation out of Jewish people. There is a nation there now. There wasn’t one 120 years ago, but so what? Today there is a nation just like there are in other countries.

        To accuse those critiques of intolerance is to misunderstand that those critics may actually be motivated by beliefs that people are equal and by how the critics give no less consideration to native peoples than to others.

        I believe in the equality of peoples. That’s why I want to treat Israel just like France or China. The people who object to Israel want Jews treated unequally not equally. This is the problem you keep facing. Palestinian claims are fundamentally deeply racist. By “showing solidarity” with the Palestinians BDS ends up holding to positions that are fundamentally deeply racist, while trying to find some veneer which badly hides that.

      • piotr
        piotr
        March 5, 2014, 8:18 pm

        Zionists either do not appreciate the deep shift in the (most of) Western viewpoint that happened after Zionism was formed, or bemoan it as an unfortunate development. Five years before Balfour declaration British Parliament made South African Act that let the White South Africans free to enact/maintain Apartheid (many aspects of Apartheid were already present). This was a solid act of legislature, and South Africa was a British possession, not a Mandate to be administered for the benefit of the inhabitants. Legal foundations of Apartheid preceded the favorite legal documents of Zionists by several years (and were much more solid), not accidentally, as this was the European way of thinking 100 years ago: creating colonies and putting natives in their correct place was THE thing to do. It offered profits, a high minded mission and added to national pride. Everybody who was somebody had colonies. Thus as United States and Germany got the feeling that they are “somebody”, or “belong to top nations”, they had to get colonies. Questioning the need would be as bizarre as imagining a gentleman without a top hat, high collar, cane, gloves — and colonies!.

        Consequently, Zionism was respectable precisely because it was colonialist. No “mere colonialism” in those days. Jews could advance from their unglamorous shtetls to being one of the moons circling around the Jupiter that was British Empire. And yea, they had Biblical/historical claims fervently believed by pious agnostics, created a new culture with a new language, but Afrikaners had all that too.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 5, 2014, 9:20 pm

        @piotr —

        I agree. In the 1890s through to pre WWII Zionism often gained supporters from pro-colonial movements. Today it gains supporters from neo-Conservatives who let’s face it, are pro-colonial (without wanting to admit it).

        IMHO grouping:
        a) classic colonialism: which is where a group uses military power to extract resources or labor from a subject / population and territory
        b) mass migration: where a group moves into a territory and takes up residence as the population

        is a bad idea. You can call (b) “settler colonialism” but it confuses things. Zionism benefited from being considered in the early years a variant of (a) and I think it could have become classic colonialism until 1937. I think in 1937 the Jews decided they were cared about the land more than they wanted money from the Palestinians. Fundamentally this has been the problem the Palestinians have faced. They keep trying to treat a movement of type (b) like a type (a). I think a lot of BDSers make the same mistake.

        So I don’t really think Zionism is colonial. But even if I were wrong, I certainly don’t think it was ever only colonial. That’s what I was objecting to above, treating Israel as merely colonial. There are many aspects of any state. I can disagree with some of Iran’s policies without wanting to end the Persian people as a people. This one dimension view I think is rightfully considered anti-Semitic.

  7. American
    American
    March 4, 2014, 5:11 pm

    I don’t know anything about Carroll— was he as obsessed with Christians being involved in black slavery as with Jewish persecution?

  8. March 4, 2014, 5:55 pm

    I am always reminding people of this quote by Kissinger –

    “Israel’s negotiating tactic is to move from the intolerable to the impossible and call it a concession.”

    What a brilliant quote. A wonderful description of distorted, irrational and selfish thinking.

  9. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 4, 2014, 6:36 pm

    I thought this was going to be an article about the ADL – how did the anti defamation league end up defaming the Arabs 24/7. And what’s with the support for torture ?

  10. peter hindrup
    peter hindrup
    March 4, 2014, 8:38 pm

    This really is tiresome.

    The expulsion of the Palestinians and the gifting of Palestine to the Zionists had nothing to do with the holocaust, and everything to do with principally the Brits attitude to colonisation, and from a later date, but still before the holocaust, the US.

    The Palestinians made every effort to reach some sort of accommodation with the Zionists/British, to no avail. Simply put the Zionists were never going to be satisfied with anything less than the whole of Palestine and chunks of the surrounding countries, and the Brits were never going to permit the Palestinians to control anything.

    This despite the fact that approximately 13,000 Palestinians fought on the side of the British. (bloody idiots!!)

  11. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    March 4, 2014, 9:10 pm

    I begin with the idea that Palestinians are people, equal (or should be) at law, etc. When Zionism was first bruited, most “Western” countries were still practicing colonialism and “dark-skinned” people were deemed to be lesser, to have fewer rights or none at all w.r.t. “white” (or European) people. Zionism was happy with this idea.

    Today the old colonial/racist ideas are mostly gone. Perhaps the sole remnant is the Zionist idea which appears either to be [1] that Palestinians have no national rights or rights as against Jews, or [2] that Jews are just superior and make all the rules.

    Guess I’m saying that it appears from the facts (“on the ground”?) that Zionism embodies racism, but (assuming there is a “race” in here somewhere) what else can you say?

    My hopes for BDS lie in the hope that racism and colonialism have been thrown out by the former colonialists and their citizens. And in Europe this seems pretty much to be true. Although guilt for Holocaust (or something like that) does seem to remain.

    Screwing all this racial progress up is the immense impact on everything of capitalism/oligarchy (the power of big money), since for whatever reason much big money seems determined to support Zionism or content not to oppose it.

    American imperialism (including support for Israel) is instigated by capitalism rather than overt racism. But the result is just as bad. I do not expect BDS to do well in the USA, where the MSM is controlled by pro-Zion ideation. But who knows.

    • just
      just
      March 4, 2014, 9:21 pm

      I think the racism here and and in Israel is pretty damned overt.

      I think that assigning capitalism as the instigator for the imperialism sounds more pc, makes everyone feel better, and disguises the reality.

  12. lonely rico
    lonely rico
    March 4, 2014, 10:34 pm

    JeffB
    “The US displaces people from their homes constantly through the use of: incentives, tax policy, development policy and that failing outright eminent domain.”
    And how many US citizens have had their house and everything they own bulldozed before their eyes, tens minutes after being forced out at gunpoint, having failed to obtain the appropriate permit ? 30,000 ? More ? Less ?

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 5, 2014, 6:48 am

      @lonely rico —

      Very very few recently. It happens with groups like MOVE or David Koresh. The United States has only thousands of people what refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the government and cooperate with infrastructure projects. People who object to civil projects instead of ignoring the government (denormalization) attend planning meetings and object through the processes made available to American. In those rare instances where America has to deal with people who remain steadfast in their disobedience, then they often bulldoze the house with the criminals still inside.

      In the case of Israel they have a much larger group of their population which is unwilling to work with the government. That’s more comparable to what America faces in places like Iraq when it attempted infrastructure projects. And there American most certainly did use violence.

  13. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    March 4, 2014, 10:37 pm

    http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=13786
    Horace Kellan ,out of Harvard along with Brandeis expemplified this dilemma of squaring the circle . The concept of America to them was the concept of abstract collection of positive human attributes transcending cultural,religious,ethnic,and demographic differences but was also based on Old Testament per Horace who believed that the Puritan carried the essence of OT . To Horace, Judiasm had be relieved of the religion but the Zionism had to express the eternal desire of Jewish separateness both as tradition and sources of ideas that human could benefit and had benefitted from . This aspect of Jewishness had to be saved by letting Palestine be ready for Jewish immigration . The Israel then could support the survival of Jewishness .
    The inconsistencies and the contradictions border beyond the belief ,but this was the staple intellectual diet of the early secular Zionist . There lay the future unravelling
    of the problem the Zionist is facing today.

    Today ,this is why one can hear that the removal by eminent domain is same as building houses for the Jewish people on the land made empty by demolishing the Beduin or Palestine homes . This is why one hears the logic of building check point and wall for security of the Jewish people sacrificing the safety ,security,preservation of life of the Palestine mirror the removal of Americans from one place to another as were observed during the while building Hoover dam,or transcontinental highways or rail ways.

    This Horacian views that blind people to reason also underpin the racial coloring of the genuine resistance exhibited by Arabs or Palestine as nothing but some kind of antisemitism.

  14. piotr
    piotr
    March 4, 2014, 10:43 pm

    Most of discourse on anti-Semitism by professional (or amateur) anti-anti-Semites suffers from the flawed frame. To me, the correct frame is to view it as a sub-species of intolerance, and thus the desirable opposite is tolerance. But to them, this is a totally separate phenomenon and the desirable opposite is philo-Semitism and more recently, philo-Israelism (support Israel in any conflict and dispute).

    The political discourse is unfortunately build on flawed frames that put disputes in convenient boxes. One has to go out of the box, and sometimes, burn the box. Otherwise we are drawn into disputes if assassins are superior to terrorists, if slaughter with racial or religious motivation is worse that slaughter with political motivations and so on.

    Tolerance is not a natural state for humans. The most sustainable modes of hunter-gathering and early agriculture had to avoid excessive concentrations of humans and constant low-grade warfare was conducive to ecological balance and productivity. Our minds are geared to categorization and that is closely related to the creation of stereotypes. Tolerance requires much effort. It is only natural, but not laudable, that anti-anti-Semitism developed new brands of intolerance, with its own “Protocols of the Elders of Leftist-Islamist Conspiracy”.

    • Donald
      Donald
      March 5, 2014, 12:47 pm

      “Most of discourse on anti-Semitism by professional (or amateur) anti-anti-Semites suffers from the flawed frame. To me, the correct frame is to view it as a sub-species of intolerance, and thus the desirable opposite is tolerance. But to them, this is a totally separate phenomenon and the desirable opposite is philo-Semitism and more recently, philo-Israelism (support Israel in any conflict and dispute).”

      Darn. Wish I’d written that in the original post.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        March 5, 2014, 12:58 pm

        thanks for alerting me to this. Piotr is one of my favorites here. This is my favorite passage:

        Our minds are geared to categorization and that is closely related to the creation of stereotypes. Tolerance requires much effort. It is only natural, but not laudable, that anti-anti-Semitism developed new brands of intolerance, with its own “Protocols of the Elders of Leftist-Islamist Conspiracy”.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 5, 2014, 3:50 pm

      @piotr

      But to them, this is a totally separate phenomenon and the desirable opposite is philo-Semitism and more recently, philo-Israelism (support Israel in any conflict and dispute).

      Not at all true. The desirable outcome is that Jews become a nation like any other. That hopefully 30 years from now, Jews are just another middle eastern tribe like the Alawis or the Copts that most westerners can’t recognize living in a country most people can’t find on a map.

  15. Ecru
    Ecru
    March 6, 2014, 2:05 am

    Just being a tad academic for a moment I’m not sure it’s correct to class Luther as anti-semitic. Ant-Judaic certainly (and pretty unpleasant let’s be honest) but the idea that Jews could convert – the source of his antagonism being that they wouldn’t – stands against the ideas we currently define as anti-semitism – that is being Jewish is a distinct “race.”

    In fact the ideas of Jewish as “race” seem to have begun (in Europe at least) as part of the counter-reformation in Spain with the enacting of legislation in the 16th century banning non-Catholic Spanish people from certain government posts and the formation of an idea of Spanish “blood.” Not purely religious in origin this was all in part with the development of the nation-state and of national identities at around this time. You begin to see similar ideas in France and England at around this time too.

    Prior to this you’re really talking about religious intolerance and this was never limited to Jews. Various “heretical” groups had risen and been destroyed throughout the history of Christendom, the Cathars being one of the more well known examples, and the argument could be made that Jews actually had a privileged position in Christendom simply because unlike other heterodox communities they were never wiped out. Instead whilst their lives where most certainly precarious they were under the (sometimes fickle) protection of the nobility. However this protection was in fact a different more “benign” form of intolerance as its source was care for the Jewish communities ability to raise money than it was about their well being as human beings. To protect this money source the “protecting” noble/royal could even forbid a Jew from converting, making the converted person’s life easier but removing them from the Jewish community. And of course this “protection” could be withdrawn with no warning.

    On the whole though I’d say that the term anti-semitism can only really be applied back around 500 years with that preceded by anti-Judaism in most of Europe for another 500 or so (with the conversion to Christianity). When you get back to the Christian Roman Empire it’s just a general intolerance of non-State, non-Orthodox religion.

    Functionally though, in the day to day life of a given Jewish person all this makes not a whit of difference it’s just terminology.

Leave a Reply