Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ dismisses Wieseltier attack on Judis as tempest-in-a-teapot

Israel/Palestine
on 99 Comments

The New York Times has now covered the attack by Leon Wieseltier on John Judis for writing a book that is highly critical of Zionism. The piece by Jennifer Schuessler is called “A Bastion for Israel, Seething Inside“– the bastion being The New Republic, where both Judis and Wieseltier are employed– and revels in the foodfight element of the spat.

No doubt that’s a juicy story. The characters are compelling, from the disciplined but turbulent author (Judis) to the lurking impetuous saloniste (Wieseltier, pictured in the Times with Louis Quatorze mane, below), to the unreadable new owner of the magazine, Chris Hughes out of North Carolina, Facebook, and marriage equality.

Leon Wieseltier portrait used by the Times, shot by AP's Dan Balilty

Leon Wieseltier portrait used by the Times, shot by AP’s Dan Balilty

But as Wieseltier and Judis would surely agree, this is not about personalities in the end, it is a substantive battle over an ideology inside the US establishment; and there is scarcely a word of substance in the Times account. Wieseltier says Judis wrote a “profoundly anti-Zionist book.” I agree with him. You’d think this idea might have been discussed. Nope.

I’ll get to Schuessler’s grittier revelations in a moment. For the time being, here is an excellent cheat-sheet on the story from a friend:

1. Cites only negative reviews of Judis, not one positive one, such as Globe and Mail and Boston Globe.

2. Fails to identify “historian Ronald Radosh” as an ex-Left renegade neoconservative (subspecies: fanatic).

3. Fails to describe how Wieseltier used Radosh as go-between to get out his letter attacking Judis to a far right website. Doesn’t even cite Radosh’s email containing Wieseltier’s greenlight to publish his email [which Mondo published].

4. Doesn’t describe Judis’s book thesis– that Truman went against his own convictions, for a binational state (because he believed in separation of church and state), and supported the establishment of a Jewish state because of pressure from the Zionist lobby.

5. Doesn’t report that Judis spoke recently at the Truman Library and was received enthusiastically.

6. Doesn’t quote any historian who supports his thesis.

Now here is the grittier part of Schuessler’s story:

“Judis interjects a point of view into the debate that has probably never been expressed by a New Republic writer,” Jack Shafer, a media and politics columnist at Reuters, said in an interview. “That’s what’s fascinating. I don’t think you’ve ever heard a New Republic employee arrive at the conclusions he seems to have arrived at.”

In the pre-publication galleys of “Genesis,” Mr. Judis praised Mr. Hughes for an openness to views on Israel that would not have been “tolerated” under its longtime former owner, Martin Peretz, who sold the magazine to Mr. Hughes.

“I suppose that having to be associated with a publication whose views on the subject I often disagree with led to a buildup of repressed indignation that fueled the years I spent on this book,” he wrote in the acknowledgments.

Mr. Judis, in an interview, said that he had dropped that passage from the finished book after complaints from Mr. Wieseltier, but stood by the basic point. “I always felt I couldn’t write about Israel, and the few times I did there was an enormous fluff,” he said. When Mr. Hughes took over, he added, “I think his attitude was, there’s no correct line. There would be a diversity of views.”…

“What’s insulting to the magazine isn’t Leon’s email, it’s that they excerpted the book,” Mr. Radosh said in an interview, adding, “Obviously Chris Hughes doesn’t know anything about Israel.”

In a statement, Mr. Foer rejected the notion that the magazine had a new editorial line on Israel, or any line at all.

I wonder how long the Times is going to treat the Israel conversation as a badminton dispute that ended up ruining the party, and actually discuss the extent to which Zionism depended/depends upon empire to dispossess Palestinians– “the darker side of Zionism… the attempt to impose a Jewish state on a people who had lived in Palestine for 1300 years,” as Judis writes.

(A year ago I wrote that it’s time for the media to tell their readers what Zionism is. Judis’s book presents just that opportunity.)

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

99 Responses

  1. John Douglas
    John Douglas
    March 1, 2014, 1:24 pm

    I am unconditionally opposed to judging ideas based upon features of the person who argues for them, and that’s that! Then again, how can I take seriously any ideas that emanate from what’s underneath Wieseltier’s coiffure? No, delete that. I didn’t write it.

    • lysias
      lysias
      March 1, 2014, 3:56 pm

      Times story features a photo of Hughes (with Wieseltier). Besides being very handsome, Hughes looks very gay (as I understand he is). I wonder if the reason he chose to buy The New Republic was that Andrew Sullivan, as editor of that magazine, was the first to make a big issue of gay marriage.

      • bilal a
        bilal a
        March 1, 2014, 6:57 pm

        Something creepy – Wildean about the Hughes Foer GQ-NYT photo’s contrast with the background template of Peretz and Wieseltier, ie Portrait of Dorien Gray.

        http://www.doriangray.net/resources/doriangray.jpg?timestamp=1259699531997

      • Stogumber
        Stogumber
        March 3, 2014, 4:57 am

        Sullivan is, for a lot of us gays, extremely attractive – so couldn’t we leave the ideological point (“gay marriage”) aside and make our explanation for Hughes buying TNR much more simple?

  2. Krauss
    Krauss
    March 1, 2014, 5:45 pm

    And Phil, did you see this?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/middleeast/a-counterstrike-against-israel-boycotts-with-a-glamorous-face.html?hp&_r=0

    The tone is interesting. No Nazi-esque comments like Rodoren, but still attempts to downplay BDS, questioning its influence etc.

    • Kris
      Kris
      March 1, 2014, 8:48 pm

      The NYT story, “Countering Israeli Boycotts, with Glamour,” linked to by Krauss, is about Scarlett Johannson. The story, in short:

      By “refusing to give up an endorsement deal with SodaStream, an Israeli company that has a factory in a Jewish settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, Ms. Johansson has become a hero to pro-Israel activists — a living, breathing, deeply glamorous repudiation of the movement to boycott Israel.”

      Not one single word in the whole story about Oxfam, and why Johannson had to choose to leave Oxfam if she wanted to keep her deal with SodaStream!

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 1, 2014, 11:45 pm

        Not one single word in the whole story about Oxfam, and why Johannson had to choose to leave Oxfam if she wanted to keep her deal with SodaStream!

        All of these stories fail to address the fact that Johannson is being paid with part of the proceeds from the crime of pillage in exchange for her role in aiding and abetting a war crime. That’s not so glamorous.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 3, 2014, 7:43 am

        Standing up for torture and leaving people to die by the side of the road because they are not Jewish is not glamorous.
        Israel is as glamorous as a prawn sandwich left behind a couch for 3 months.

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.577368#
        Abu Jariban, 35, who was in Israel illegally, had crashed in a car he had stolen on Highway 6, been hospitalized and subsequently handed over to the Rehovot police. When the police tried to turn the injured detainee over to the Israel Prison Service, they were turned down due to what the prison service said was a lack of space in their medical facility.
        Yakutieli, together with a policewoman, Libat Kawi, and a volunteer policeman, left Abu Jariban at the side of Highway 443, near the Ofer army base and the Atarot crossing point, where he was subsequently found dead. In 2012, Yakutieli and Peretz were sentenced by the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court to 30 months in prison for negligent homicide.
        In shortening the petitioners’ sentence, which they are to begin serving after Passover, the three judges, Yoram Noam, Carmi Mossek and Moshe Bar-Am, delivered a 42-page verdict, which was technical and contained no moral statement or comment on the broader implications of the affair.

      • lysias
        lysias
        March 2, 2014, 2:22 pm

        Notice how that story quotes some Zionist big shot saying that BDS does not threaten Israel, but does threaten the peace process. Why would he play down the threat to Israel? Methinks it’s to stop people failing to invest in Israel because they think it is a hazardous investment. I.e., BDS is already working.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 3, 2014, 10:05 am

        @lysias

        Consider another possibility. Maybe he’s not playing down the threat because there is no threat. I know it is hard to believe that someone who disagrees could possibly be telling the truth. But it might be worth considering the possibility.

      • lysias
        lysias
        March 3, 2014, 12:40 pm

        But the Zionists always play up any threat to Israel. Why the sudden shift in tactics?

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 3, 2014, 1:17 pm

        @lysias

        But the Zionists always play up any threat to Israel. Why the sudden shift in tactics?

        The same way Americans go nuts about various safety issues that are statistically unimportant while ignoring much more serious health problems Israelis and Jewish American can do a bad job of threat assessment in their popular culture. There aren’t some club meetings where everyone gets a propaganda sheet. Zionism is a broad based movement with lots of people who share loose common goals and they don’t all agree on all the specifics.

      • lysias
        lysias
        March 4, 2014, 3:02 pm

        I think my explanation is more likely to be correct: BDS is already affecting investment in Israel.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      March 1, 2014, 9:09 pm

      No Nazi-esque comments like Rodoren

      No but it uses the same tone deaf sound bite I’ve seen in the Israeli press:

      Mr. Kerry came under fierce fire from Israeli officials for his remarks. One said that Israel would never negotiate “with a gun at its head.”

      Zionists have always used terror, illegal militias, and the IDF to ensure that Palestine has to negotiate “with a gun at its head”. Kerry should be aware of the fact that situation violates the Law of Treaties and renders any resulting agreement with Israel null and void.

  3. Nevada Ned
    Nevada Ned
    March 1, 2014, 8:38 pm

    The story quotes the New York Times as saying that “Mr. Foer” maintained that The New Republic had not changed its position about Israel. Mr. Foer is not identified in that excerpt.

    It’s Franklin Foer, who was an attack dog for Marty Peretz in 2003, when Peretz owned TNR.
    Foer attempted (without success) to smear Alexander Cockburn as an Anti-Semite.

    You can find Cockburn’s account at this link. Cockburn concludes with these words.

    So you should know that these days it’s clear evidence of anti-Semitism to have written an item that pisses off someone at The New Republic, with which I have had combative relations for the past 30 years, as would anyone with a moral fiber in his body. Could anyone sink lower than Foer? Yes! Eric Alterman adduced as a proof of my anti-Semitism the fact that I had been rude, more than once, about Irving Howe. Puts me up there with the Cossacks, doesn’t it?

  4. JeffB
    JeffB
    March 2, 2014, 1:42 am

    @Phil

    I wonder how long the Times is going to treat the Israel conversation as a badminton dispute that ended up ruining the party, and actually discuss the extent to which Zionism depended/depends upon empire to dispossess Palestinians

    It doesn’t. Israel is a powerful country. It would be perfectly capable of dispossessing the Palestinians on its own with ease. What empire does is create USA interest which conflict with the Palestinians being brutalized and thus encourage America to bribe Israel with weapons and trade not to dispossess the Palestinians. If anything empire is dragging this whole thing out and making it more humane.

    Which is one of the reasons the people pushing for a cutoff in USA aide might want to be careful what they wish for. They don’t like Israel shackled, Israel as a free agent pursuing its own interests without being tightly tied to the USA I suspect they like far less.

    • March 2, 2014, 9:54 am

      In what was has Israel receiving billions of dollars from the US taxpayer “shackled” their behavior? Unbelievable

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 2, 2014, 12:02 pm

        @Giles —

        In what was has Israel receiving billions of dollars from the US taxpayer “shackled” their behavior?

        1) The level of violence that Israel has employed against the Palestinians

        2) Most likely by now Israel would have implemented the Jordanian option and overthrown the Hashemite Kingdom.

        3) Not disrupting or destabilizing the flow of oil, in particular by not working with anti-House of Saud groups in Saudi Arabia.

        4) Contained to a moderate degree Israel’s support for Kurdish separatists to gain leverage on Iraq (formally), Iran, Syria and possibly now Turkey. Left to its own devices Israel would be arming them much more heavily and likely directly supporting them.

        5) Not splitting Lebanon into two countries along religious lines

        etc…

      • Donald
        Donald
        March 2, 2014, 11:18 pm

        Setting aside what you’re saying about Israeli morality (they had to be bribed by US money to avoid committing even more crimes), I seriously doubt Israel could have gotten involved in that many military adventures and not paid a very heavy price. They couldn’t even work their will in Lebanon, though of course they did kill tens of thousands of people while trying.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 3, 2014, 7:39 am

        @Donald —

        They had problems in Lebanon because they couldn’t go into Syria. Very similar to how North Korea made use of China in the Korean conflict. We’ll never know how it turns out if it became the Israeli / Syrian war but Lebanon as it plays out is not entirely a good test case. I think they easily could have split Lebanon and shifted populations if they had a freer hand.

        In any case lots of additional wars would have cost a lot, wars are expensive. But say for example they implemented the Jordanian option with the Palestinians. That saves them the cost of decades of occupation.

        But regardless, the point was that Israel is highly constrained by the USA relationship. They are unable to act on their natural interests.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      March 2, 2014, 11:55 am

      It doesn’t. Israel is a powerful country. It would be perfectly capable of dispossessing the Palestinians on its own with ease.

      I don’t know what universe you live in, but the UN Security Council decided to enforce the terms of “The Agreed Minutes Between the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Iraq Regarding the Restoration of Friendly Relations, Recognition and Related Matters, 4 October 1963”. See E. Lauterpacht, et al “The Kuwait Crisis: Basic Documents” link to books.google.com

      The Security Council could have long since recruited a coalition of the willing to enforce the 1949 armistice agreements, if not for the guaranteed veto from the USA.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 2, 2014, 12:09 pm

        @Hostage

        The Security Council could have long since recruited a coalition of the willing to enforce the 1949 armistice agreements, if not for the guaranteed veto from the USA.

        I don’t believe the UN is magic. A UN resolution is a worthless piece of paper. What made the Kuwait resolution powerful was George HW Bush’s willingness to put a 1/2m troops on the ground along with say another dozen countries that threw in some meaningfully useful support each.

        Who is in this coalition of the willing? What country has expressed a desire to go to war against Israel since the mid 1970s? Belgium let the Rwandan genocide happen when they lost 15 troops. Against the IDF, even as part of a NATO coalition they could 15-thousand in the first hour of fighting. When have they ever given any indication at all they are nearly that much about the Palestinians and enforcing the ’49 armistice agreement? If they were willing to take those kinds of losses they wouldn’t care whether there was a UN resolution or not.

        The veto does nothing but prevent the UN security council from further discrediting itself on an issue that the council dislikes but doesn’t care enough to stop.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 2, 2014, 11:09 pm

        I don’t believe the UN is magic. A UN resolution is a worthless piece of paper. What made the Kuwait resolution powerful was George HW Bush’s willingness to put a 1/2m troops on the ground along with say another dozen countries that threw in some meaningfully useful support each.

        You’re very stupid then, because the UN is very likely to impose sanctions on Israel of it fails to end the occupation. I don’t believe Israel is magic or that the US will continue to squander its dwindling political capital to try and block those measures. In the international courts and treaty bodies it simply can’t, because it doesn’t have a veto.

        Sadaam Hussein was willing to condition withdrawal from Kuwait on IDF withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories and Bush senior narrowly avoided a breakup of the coalition by pledging to solve the problem after the war. The Oslo process saw nothing but deliberate Israeli intransigence and conspicuous Israeli colonization. The EU, Abbas, and the Saudis clearly gave Obama a deadline for reaching a settlement and Netanyahu has run out the clock:

        The European Union’s chief foreign and security policy official, Javier Solana, made a remarkable proposal in a speech in London on July 11. He suggested that, if Israeli-Palestinian negotiations continue to fail, even with the benefit of “real mediation” and a “fixed deadline”, the United Nations Security Council should “proclaim the adoption of the two-state solution. . . . accept the Palestinian state as a full member of the UN and set a calendar for implementation.” There would follow international monitoring and guarantees, with the Arab states immediately establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel.

        * A sign of the times http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl200709ed28.html#isr1
        * Failed favoritism toward Israel, By Turki al-Faisal http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/palestinian-rights-wont-be-denied-by-the-united-states-and-israel/2011/06/07/AGmnK2OH_story.html
        * The Long Overdue Palestinian State
        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/17/opinion/17abbas.html?_r=0

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 3, 2014, 7:34 am

        @Hostage

        You’re very stupid then, because the UN is very likely to impose sanctions on Israel of it fails to end the occupation.

        What year are you proven wrong. When date does your theory fall apart. When can we say the Hostage UN theory didn’t pan out. Jan 1 2017, Jan 1 2018? When?

        I doubt this nonsense. I have yet to hear a single serious proposal for sanctions from anyone. BDSers have even begun to think through the mechanism for sanctions. They have no idea how to impose sanctions. I’ve been following this nonsense for 19 years and Israel is always just about to get it any day now. No one needs the UN’s permission to sanction Israel, if they wanted to sanction Israel they could do it today. If the ICC issues a “Israel has cooties” ruling, that doesn’t change anything. Everyone knows what Israel is doing.

        Show me a credible player that’s willing to say “I’m willing to go to war for the Palestinians” or there is nothing to talk about. We are about to start another round of Russia reclaiming territory. I saw how effectual the UN was with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

      • Bing Bong
        Bing Bong
        March 3, 2014, 11:16 am

        “…the UN is very likely to impose sanctions on Israel of it fails to end the occupation.”

        “I’ve been following this nonsense for 19 years and Israel is always just about to get it any day now.”

        Yep, this is the problem with MW and Hostage. As long as there is the notion of a definite end to Israel just around the corner the hatred of Israel can continue safe in the knowledge that the hatred is for the cause of quickly ending Palestinian suffering.

        Hostage relies on this always being just about to happen in the near future because; all Israel has to do is run out the clock maintaining the status quo. If her disintegration doesn’t happen and Israel is still the Jewish state in 200 years, by echoing the anti-Zionist arguments here, won’t those living in Israel be regarded as the indigenous people? Nobody identifying themselves as Palestinian living in Brooklyn in 200 years time will have any kind of claim of returning to their ‘homeland’ which has been the recognised sovereign state of Israel for nearly 300 years.

        All Israel has to do is wait, whereas Hostage has to wait for change. And without the ‘certainty’ of this change, sitting around watching the eggtimer only prolongs the current situation and the suffering of the people you claim to care about. And because you have this ‘certainty’ your options are limited to anti-Israel in the first instance as a means to a pro-Palestinian end rather than pro-Palestinian in the first instance.

        You are betting it all on no Israel, I won’t wish you luck with that. Sounds reckless and is indicative of the depth of hatred you have for an entire country. It doesn’t say much for your claims of supporting Palestinians either.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 3, 2014, 12:20 pm

        They had problems in Lebanon because they couldn’t go into Syria.

        If the IDF couldn’t even handle the insurgents and interdiction in a country of 4 million people, it’s not a good idea to invade another one with 20 million more. The IDF wouldn’t have faired any better than Kissinger and Nixon did when they decided to widen the war in Vietnam to Cambodia and Laos. Let’s face it, Barak got elected Prime Minister because he promised to withdraw from Lebanon, not because he had plans to go into Syria. See RETREAT FROM LEBANON: THE ISRAELIS; Barak Declares End to ‘Tragedy’ as Last Troops Leave Lebanon http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/24/world/retreat-lebanon-israelis-barak-declares-end-tragedy-last-troops-leave-lebanon.html

        What year are you proven wrong. . . . I doubt this nonsense. I have yet to hear a single serious proposal for sanctions from anyone.

        Hey stupid, the EU just got tired of waiting on the UN to act and adopted it’s own initial round of economic sanctions against Israeli organizations and institutions with ties to the illegal settlements. A number of large investors and pension funds have already started to blacklist Israeli Banks and to pull out their capital. If you haven’t read about the seriousness of that situation and the Israeli Cabinet meetings devoted to the subject, you’re not very well informed.

        Obama just complained to Goldberg about how clueless the Zionists are behaving by thinking they can maintain the status quo and that the US will be able to head off international sanctions if the current round of talks fail:

        Obama also said he has yet to hear a convincing vision of how Israel can remain a Jewish and democratic state without a peace agreement with the Palestinians: “Nobody has presented me a credible scenario.”

        “The only thing that I’ve heard is, ‘We’ll just keep on doing what we’re doing, and deal with problems as they arise. And we’ll build settlements where we can. And where there are problems in the West Bank, we will deal with them forcefully. We’ll cooperate or co-opt the Palestinian Authority.” And yet, at no point do you ever see an actual resolution to the problem.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.577485

        “If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited,” Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg on Thursday in an hour-long Oval Office meeting.
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4494355,00.html

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 3, 2014, 12:36 pm

        Show me a credible player that’s willing to say “I’m willing to go to war for the Palestinians” or there is nothing to talk about.

        Well I clearly remember Israel complaining about the performance of UNIFIL, until a draft resolution was tabled in the Security Council to give it a Chapter VII mandate to enforce Israeli compliance with resolution 1701, instead of the existing Chapter VI peacekeeping mission. Once the Israelis realized they had let their mouth overload their ass, they backed down and opposed the idea of UNIFIL having any enforcement mission. Even then, the French commander of the UN force, General Alain Pellegrini, asked that the rules of engagement be changed to allow him to use force to stop Israeli air violations of Lebanese air space. So yes, there are countries willing to use force against Israel in heart beat.

        There have been a number of proposals for NATO forces to protect a demilitarized state of Palestine. You can assume that those forces would have rules of engagement that keep the IDF in Israel.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 3, 2014, 2:31 pm

        “I’ve been following this nonsense for 19 years and Israel is always just about to get it any day now.”

        Yep, this is the problem with MW and Hostage.

        19 years ago, there was no such thing as the International Criminal Court or the Observer State of Palestine at the UN. Things change.

        This is the problem with Bing Bong. He his head buried in the sand and doesn’t understand that there can be a first time for everything and that the UNESCO and General Assembly votes on the status of Palestine were the last major hurdle that stood in the way of getting courts and treaty bodies to adopt sanctions against Israel.

        Quite a few EU countries that voted to recognize the State of Palestine managed to convince the others that those UN votes have legal consequences that justify the adoption of sanctions against Israeli organizations in the occupied Palestinian territories.

        Obama just advised Israel that its days as a Jewish state will be numbered if Kerry’s peace talks fail.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        March 2, 2014, 11:40 pm

        @ JeffB

        Against the IDF, even as part of a NATO coalition they could [lose?] 15-thousand in the first hour of fighting.

        Where did you get this figure from?

      • Bing Bong
        Bing Bong
        March 3, 2014, 12:22 pm
      • eljay
        eljay
        March 3, 2014, 12:52 pm

        >> Show me a credible player that’s willing to say “I’m willing to go to war for the Palestinians” or there is nothing to talk about.

        Depending on what suits their needs at a particular time, Zio-supremacists will either:
        – scream about how Hezbollah, Iran, “the Hamas” and the entire “Arab/Muslim World” are perpetually on the verge of unleashing the Second Holocaust by wiping Israel off the map and pushing it into the sea; or
        – boast that Israel is a safe and secure country.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 3, 2014, 1:20 pm

        @Hostage

        Well I clearly remember Israel complaining about the performance of UNIFIL, until a draft resolution was tabled in the Security Council to give it a Chapter VII mandate to enforce Israeli compliance with resolution 1701, instead of the existing Chapter VI peacekeeping mission. Once the Israelis realized they had let their mouth overload their ass, they backed down and opposed the idea of UNIFIL having any enforcement mission. Even then, the French commander of the UN force, General Alain Pellegrini, asked that the rules of engagement be changed to allow him to use force to stop Israeli air violations of Lebanese air space. So yes, there are countries willing to use force against Israel in heart beat.

        BS. The French wouldn’t support their troops in Lebanon engaging with the IDF. The general had no support from the French government. If France wanted to stop Israeli incursions into Lebanon they know how to do it. They would put French troops on the ground, without the blue helmets and start arming Hezbollah with effective anti-aircraft batteries.

        There have been a number of proposals for NATO forces to protect a demilitarized state of Palestine. You can assume that those forces would have rules of engagement that keep the IDF in Israel.

      • James North
        James North
        March 3, 2014, 2:45 pm

        JeffB: Israel nearly lost the Yom Kippur War, and would have without the massive American emergency airlift of military supplies. In 2006, Israel did not do so well in the fight with Hezbollah. Facts you might want to keep in mind.

      • Bing Bong
        Bing Bong
        March 3, 2014, 3:27 pm

        So they didn’t lose the Yom Kippur war and it doesn’t follow that HB are in a position to go to war with Israel to liberate Palestine.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        March 3, 2014, 4:27 pm

        @ Bing who’s apparently been toking a little too hard on the Bong

        Seriously? Nuclear weapons? And what do you think would be the effect Israel detonating nukes in its own vicinity? And let’s not limit it to Israel. What do you think would happen to the Jews of the Diaspora if the “Jewish State” tried to destroy the planet? Since you’re presently rather obviously taking a vacation from reality I’ll give you the answer should I, and it comes from an old British advertising slogan

        “Cooking with Gas!”

        Judaism may have gotten rid of human sacrifice but it seems Zionists just can’t get enough of it – even to the point of extinction. Loons that they are.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 3, 2014, 4:44 pm

        @james

        Israel won the critical battle with Syria before the airlift equipment got there. So no they wouldn’t have lost the war. As for 2006 and Hezbollah look at the statistics like kill ratios and relative damage and look at the after effects politically in Lebanon. They Finlandized Lebanon off of 2006. They did fine. The Israelis are hysterics and everything didn’t go perfectly Also there isn’t much advantage in them just admitting to their huge strategic advantages but the MW idea that the IDF is not a tremendous fighting force is frankly contradicted by comparing them.

        France would not do better than 1::1 and likely far worse against the IDF.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 3, 2014, 6:19 pm

        So they didn’t lose the Yom Kippur war

        No, but the IDF got humiliated so badly that the government lost faith in them and subsequently pulled out of the Sinai, Southern Lebanon, and Gaza anyway.

    • Ecru
      Ecru
      March 2, 2014, 11:37 pm

      @ JeffB

      They don’t like Israel shackled, Israel as a free agent pursuing its own interests without being tightly tied to the USA I suspect they like far less.

      So basically what you’re saying is that, like Nazi Germany before it – another ethno-nationalistic, supremacist, expansionist power – Israel’s being appeased by the West? A tactic that’s proving as effective as it was last time then…..

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 3, 2014, 7:25 am

        @Ecru

        There are lots of entho-nationalist countries. Your’s for example has some ties to an Irish ethnicity. But regardless most of foreign policy is about creating carrots and sticks. Carrots are cheaper and in Israel’s case they work well for the USA. If you look at that list above all those things haven’t happened.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 3, 2014, 3:06 pm

        The people living in Israel today were born there.

        Correction: Some of the people living in Israel were born there. But in many cases they are olim, whose ancestors never lived in Palestine at all or who had ceased to be refugees 80 generations ago when they settled in Europe. Don’t try to reconcile that situation with the claim that Palestinians who are merely 3 generations removed aren’t entitled to the same rights and privileges. Your racism is showing.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 10:17 am

        @Hostage

        : Some of the people living in Israel were born there.

        Among the breeding population, very few.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 2:25 pm

        Among the breeding population, very few.

        Citation please. More than a quarter of the population were foreign born persons in 2012 and that included an enormous number of Russian-born immigrants. See Latest Population Statistics for Israel (Updated January 2014) under the heading Immigration & Naturalization http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/newpop.html

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 5, 2014, 8:08 am

        @eljay

        Correction, it’s the Law of Return and it was passed by an Israeli government that wasn’t democratically elected. In fact Israel has never had a legally elected Government, under a constitution.

        It has been upheld by democratically elected governments. There is plenty of law that the USA inherited from non-democratic England or even the Roman empire. Besides you can’t complain about lack of democracy and then uphold the UN which is never elected.

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

        @Light

        Really Jeff? What excellent records are you referring to? In fact, your claim is disputed by the Israeli historian, Shlomo Sands.

        Shlomo Sands is an expert in film history not ancient history. Wow do you people even bother to check your facts.

        Jeffb: I put the Palestinians to a migration in the 7th and 8th centuries.
        Light: Based on what? Because you want it to be true.

        No based on the written historical record of people living there and nearby both before and after showing population shifts due to a massive invasion, that’s consistent with the archeological record. You know, real history.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      March 3, 2014, 12:32 pm

      @Bing Bing

      Up a level

      Yep, this is the problem with MW and Hostage. As long as there is the notion of a definite end to Israel just around the corner the hatred of Israel can continue safe in the knowledge that the hatred is for the cause of quickly ending Palestinian suffering.

      Hostage relies on this always being just about to happen in the near future because; all Israel has to do is run out the clock maintaining the status quo. If her disintegration doesn’t happen and Israel is still the Jewish state in 200 years, by echoing the anti-Zionist arguments here, won’t those living in Israel be regarded as the indigenous people? Nobody identifying themselves as Palestinian living in Brooklyn in 200 years time will have any kind of claim of returning to their ‘homeland’ which has been the recognised sovereign state of Israel for nearly 300 years.

      All Israel has to do is wait, whereas Hostage has to wait for change. And without the ‘certainty’ of this change, sitting around watching the eggtimer only prolongs the current situation and the suffering of the people you claim to care about.

      Honestly that’s already happened. The people living in Israel today were born there. The Palestinians living in the refugee camps are in the main 3 generations removed from the people expelled in ’48. I’m 3 generations removed from Ukraine. The idea that I should enjoy a right-of-return to Odessa is ridiculous. The moment that RoR starts getting discussed in particular what it would look like in practice:
      expelling a family from a home they’ve lived in for 19 years children from the home they’ve grown up in to make room for some Syrian whose 3/8th Palestinian and whose great grandfather lived on that property prior sometime in the 1920s ..

      It would be a pure evil. No one would have any doubts in their mind why the Israelis would oppose it with every fiber of their being. Even if we were to imagine a total defeat, such a policy would create an immediate uprising from pure hatred. Take away every Israeli gun and bomb and let the UN invade. That policy would still cause ever Jew to fight the blue hats (or whatever they called the UN occupation force in the BDS fantasy) for years or decades to drive them out of their country then drive out the the carpetbaggers (or whatever they called the new Arab migrants and their business connections)…. then take such revenge on those scalawags (or whatever the Israeli left would get called)….

      I couldn’t agree with you more about the prolonging off the suffering. The Palestinians have this belief that: the Arabs, the UN, the US, Europe…. is going to rescue them. This belief in a deus ex machina is a sort of collective insanity that’s allowing them not to have the difficult situations about how to best of a bad situation. What their real objectives are given their limited options. And this failure to do so results in decade after decade them taking their bad situation and making it continuously worse. Things that were easily available to them 2 or 3 decades ago would be beyond conception today. Whatever Kerry offers is going to be much worse than Camp David certainly worse than the Clinton parameters and it is going to be turned down. What BDS claims to want, a binational state based on full legal equality was what on the table prior in 1935. That’s impossible now.

      Anyway good talking to the sane.

      • MRW
        MRW
        March 4, 2014, 3:07 pm

        I’m 3 generations removed from Ukraine. The idea that I should enjoy a right-of-return to Odessa is ridiculous.

        So is claiming that God gave Israel to the Jews 3,000 years ago.

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

        @MRW

        So is claiming that God gave Israel to the Jews 3,000 years ago.

        I agree. And if this were 1890 I’d think Zionism were dingy. But the dingybats managed to recruit fanatics who managed to recruit mainstream support who got the right circumstances and now Israel is a thriving country. So who cares about 3000 years ago?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 7:23 pm

        So is claiming that God gave Israel to the Jews 3,000 years ago.

        I agree. And if this were 1890 I’d think Zionism were dingy. But the dingybats managed to recruit fanatics who managed to recruit mainstream support who got the right circumstances and now Israel is a thriving country.

        There’s the fly in the ointment. Remember all of those actions Israel has taken to annex parts of the occupied territory or alter it’s demographic balance and the UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions that declared all of the Israeli laws on the subject null and void, and said that member states have an obligation not to recognize or assist Israel in maintaining those illegal situations? That conventional and customary obligation is reflected in our own laws:

        SUBCHAPTER A. RECOGNITION OR
        ACCEPTANCE OF STATES AND GOVERNMENTS
        § 202. Recognition or Acceptance of States
        (1)A state is not required to accord formal recognition to any other state but is required to treat as a state an entity meeting the requirements of § 201, except as provided in Subsection (2).
        (2) A state has an obligation not to recognize or treat as a state an entity that has attained the qualifications for statehood as a result of a threat or use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter.

        § 203. Recognition or Acceptance of Governments
        (1) A state is not required to accord formal recognition to the government of another state, but is required to treat as the government of another state a regime that is in effective control of that state, except as set forth in Subsection (2).
        (2) A state has an obligation not to recognize or treat a regime as the government of another state if its control has been effected by the threat or use of armed force in violation of the United Nations Charter.
        (3) A state is not obligated to maintain diplomatic relations with any other state.

        See pages 77 & 84 of “The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States”, American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380.

      • lysias
        lysias
        March 4, 2014, 3:19 pm

        The idea that I should enjoy a right-of-return to Odessa is ridiculous.

        Perhaps debatable, but hardly ridiculous. Anyone at least one of whose parents or grandparents was born in Ireland (either Northern or the Republic) has the right to Irish citizenship. (Since all my parents and grandparents were born there, I do in fact have Irish citizenship, in addition to American.) And I believe much the same is true of all countries that use jus sanguinis to determine citizenship.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 4:29 pm

        @lysias

        There are 5m Irish in Ireland and about 8x that number in America. If Ireland really considered ethnic Irish to be enough Ireland wouldn’t be a democracy anymore at all but a colony controlled out of the North East of the United States.

        A strong alliance between the USA Irish population and the Ireland Irish population is a good thing for Ireland and the Irish. It certainly helped break Ireland free from England. But no one really means those policies in anything but symbolic terms.

      • lysias
        lysias
        March 4, 2014, 7:00 pm

        Not many Irish-Americans go to live in Ireland (economic reasons), but some do. And all those who qualify for Irish citizenship and an Irish passport have the right to.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 4, 2014, 3:24 pm

        >> The Palestinians living in the refugee camps are in the main 3 generations removed from the people expelled in ’48. I’m 3 generations removed from Ukraine. The idea that I should enjoy a right-of-return to Odessa is ridiculous.

        1. You’re not a refugee.
        2. The idea that refugees should be permitted to return to their homes and lands is considerably less ridiculous than the idea that any person who happens to be Jewish has a right to “return” to Israel.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 4:26 pm

        @eljay

        OK I’m a refuge now I want to go back to Odessa and demand my “right of return”. Of course I’m not a refugee I was born in America and still live here. Similarly ethnically Palestinian Syrians are not refugees either, they are Syrians.

        the idea that any person who happens to be Jewish has a right to “return” to Israel.

        The right of return to Israel is just the state of Israel determining their immigration policy. The right is granted from that state.

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 4, 2014, 6:07 pm

        >> OK I’m a refuge now I want to go back to Odessa and demand my “right of return”. Of course I’m not a refugee…

        OK, you’re not a refugee.

        >> … I was born in America and still live here.

        That’s because you’re not a refugee.

        >> Similarly ethnically Palestinian Syrians are not refugees either, they are Syrians.

        Unless they’re refugees.

        >> The right of return to Israel is just the state of Israel determining their immigration policy. The right is granted from that state.

        A supremacist right for a supremacist state. Makes perfect sense.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 5, 2014, 4:29 am

        The right of return to Israel is just the state of Israel determining their immigration policy. The right is granted from that state.

        You just claimed that Israel has full legal equality for minorities.
        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/collapse-americans-democracy.html/comment-page-1#comment-646345

        Now you are proving that it doesn’t. Here’s what that means in actual practice. In the USA it’s illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional for any official to deny a citizen equal rights, privileges, or immunities under color of law or government regulation. If an official tries to do that, there is a right of private action to bring a lawsuit against that person in federal court under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 5, 2014, 5:49 am

        JeffB “The right of return to Israel is just the state of Israel determining their immigration policy.”

        Correction, it’s the Law of Return and it was passed by an Israeli government that wasn’t democratically elected. In fact Israel has never had a legally elected Government, under a constitution.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2014, 3:33 pm

        ” I’m 3 generations removed from Ukraine. The idea that I should enjoy a right-of-return to Odessa is ridiculous. ”

        Imagine how more ridiculous to say that the Jews of the world have a right to live in Palestine, from whence their ancestors (if they ever lived there), last set foot two thousand or more years ago and you’ll understand the pure evil and insanity of zionism.

        “The moment that RoR starts getting discussed in particular what it would look like in practice:
        expelling a family from a home they’ve lived in for 19 years children from the home they’ve grown up in to make room for some Syrian whose 3/8th Palestinian and whose great grandfather lived on that property prior sometime in the 1920s .. ”

        So, in other words, it would look like what the Jews inflicted on the Arabs, but replace “19 years” with “thousands of years.”

        “It would be a pure evil.”

        Yes, it was. Because zionism is pure evil.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        March 4, 2014, 4:00 pm

        A right of return continues to exist, I think, down the generations unless and until the refugee accepts citizenship elsewhere and, in order to be equal with new fellow-citizens, lays down former rights. If the right of return is extinguished by mere time then might becomes right if given enough time. But avoidance of the idea that might is right is one of the principal objectives of ethics.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 4:23 pm

        @MHughes976

        A right of return continues to exist, I think, down the generations unless and until the refugee accepts citizenship elsewhere and, in order to be equal with new fellow-citizens, lays down former rights.

        Nice try but no. The right of return in most circumstances lasts for 5-10 years and is then extinguished. There have been cases where it has been extended to the lifetime of refugees or people born within 5 years of the expulsion.

        The idea of a system which continues generation after generation with no possibility of every being resolved through time is what the UN opposes. It is that sort of claim that justifies bin Ladin blowing up Spanish subways since the inhabitants of southern Spain weren’t there in the 13th century and thus are the product of the Muslim expulsions.

        The idea is not that we try and roll back every injustice to the beginning of the universe but rather that we try and make the world a better place with the distribution of peoples that we have. In other words we accept that every human society is the product of violence and the best we can do is reduce violence going forward.

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

        Nice try but no. The right of return in most circumstances lasts for 5-10 years and is then extinguished. There have been cases where it has been extended to the lifetime of refugees or people born within 5 years of the expulsion.

        That’s utterly false. International law requires that displaced persons and refugees not be subjected to adverse distinctions. If the applicable law allows other persons to pass their nationality on to their descendants and for those family members to inherit estates and movable property, then those laws are supposed to be applied to refugees and displaced persons in exactly the same way. Your comment simply demonstrates that you don;t know what you are talking about. Chris Gunness, the UNRWA’s spokesman, reponded to that myth in one of your largest Israeli news services:

        All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. Refugees in Kenya administered by UNHCR are a good example. In this regard, the accusation that UNRWA uniquely perpetuates the Palestine refugee problem is ignorant of international refugee law and practice.

        link to ynetnews.com
        FYI, there have been second and third generation refugees in the other UNHCR programs and those operated under the terms of the 1951 Refugee Convention. See for example the reports on camps in Thailand here and here

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 5, 2014, 4:20 am

        JeffB “The right of return in most circumstances lasts for 5-10 years and is then extinguished. There have been cases where it has been extended to the lifetime of refugees or people born within 5 years of the expulsion”

        Source please JeffB … I’ll wait … http://wp.me/aDB7k-188

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

        @Woody

        Imagine how more ridiculous to say that the Jews of the world have a right to live in Palestine, from whence their ancestors (if they ever lived there)

        Of course they lived there. The Jewish people came out of Judea mainly during the Hasmonean dynasty and others during the Roman-Jewish wars. We have excellent records. This isn’t a point of doubt.

        So, in other words, it would look like what the Jews inflicted on the Arabs, but replace “19 years” with “thousands of years.”

        Hundreds. I put the Palestinians to a migration in the 7th and 8th centuries. But other than that, yes.

        zionism is pure evil.

        You do realize you are completely unhinged?

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

        Of course they lived there. The Jewish people came out of Judea mainly during the Hasmonean dynasty and others during the Roman-Jewish wars. We have excellent records. This isn’t a point of doubt.

        That’s actually incorrect. The majority of exiled Jews never bothered to return from Babylonia. There were millions of converts living throughout the Roman and Parthian Empires during the Second Commonwealth era who never stepped foot in Judea. The largest Jewish communities in the ancient world were located in places like Alexandria and Babylon, not in Jerusalem or Judea.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        March 4, 2014, 6:42 pm

        “Of course they lived there.”

        Yeah, all those Jews that look like Eastern European got that way through osmosis.

        “Hundreds. I put the Palestinians to a migration in the 7th and 8th centuries.”

        Yes, because in your defense, you are obviously a moron.

        “You do realize you are completely unhinged?”

        LOL. As you’re someone who would claim giving someone their land back would be “pure evil” and supports an ethno-religious Apartheid state, your opinions are rather less than worthless.

      • Light
        Light
        March 4, 2014, 7:23 pm

        The Jewish people came out of Judea mainly during the Hasmonean dynasty and others during the Roman-Jewish wars. We have excellent records. This isn’t a point of doubt.

        Really Jeff? What excellent records are you referring to? In fact, your claim is disputed by the Israeli historian, Shlomo Sands.

        I put the Palestinians to a migration in the 7th and 8th centuries.

        Based on what? Because you want it to be true.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 4, 2014, 10:30 pm

        “The idea is not that we try and roll back every injustice … the best we can do is reduce violence going forward”

        We can do better than that.
        First, we can acknowledge and apologise for the injustice.
        Second, we can try to make some recompense for the injustice.

        The Palestinians know that they will not be able to live in the houses stolen from them by Israelis. But accepting the Right of Return at least to the extent of allowing Palestinians to enter and settle in Israel would be an public acknowledgement of the injustice, and a step towards recompense. It would demonstrate a willingness to live at peace with the Palestinians.

        But Israel does nothing to reduce violence going forward. On the contrary, it commits more and more violence to create more and more injustice. The Nakba did not end in 1948.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 5, 2014, 5:34 am

        JeffB “Of course they lived there. The Jewish people came out of Judea mainly during the Hasmonean dynasty and others during the Roman-Jewish wars. We have excellent records. This isn’t a point of doubt”

        Uh huh … Chinese Jews? Japanese Jews? Australian Aboriginal Jews? Inuit Jews?

        In fact the far longest period of Jewish history in the region was as Palestinian Jews. From at least the Roman era til 1948. Longer than the Kingdom of David or any other era

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 8:11 pm

        @lysias

        Not many Irish-Americans go to live in Ireland (economic reasons), but some do. And all those who qualify for Irish citizenship and an Irish passport have the right to.

        Which is different than granting them citizenship it is granting them right of immigration. I have the right to immigrate to Israel, I’m not a citizen.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 8:15 pm

        @Hostage

        That’s actually incorrect. The majority of exiled Jews never bothered to return from Babylonia. There were millions of converts living throughout the Roman and Parthian Empires during the Second Commonwealth era who never stepped foot in Judea. The largest Jewish communities in the ancient world were located in places like Alexandria and Babylon, not in Jerusalem or Judea.

        Alexandria was part of the Roman empire and before that Syrian/Greek. Jews migrated there escaping the Hasmonean rule. Babylon is a minor city by the time of the Romans.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 8:35 pm

        @eljay —

        >> OK I’m a refuge now I want to go back to Odessa and demand my “right of return”. Of course I’m not a refugee…

        OK, you’re not a refugee.

        I say I am. I get refuge status generation after generation after generation. Heck I’m a refuge from East Africa if I go back far enough. I’m demanding my right of return to Ethiopia.

        >> Similarly ethnically Palestinian Syrians are not refugees either, they are Syrians.

        Unless they’re refugees.

        They aren’t refugees anymore than I am. They are Syrians.

  5. Bing Bong
    Bing Bong
    March 3, 2014, 3:39 pm

    “He his head buried in the sand and doesn’t understand that there can be a first time for everything”

    I do understand that, but my position doesn’t rely on BDS/sanctions and my position doesn’t have the consequence of prolonging Palestinian suffering while claiming to be against such a state of affairs. You should answer Jeff’s question and say a date when your outcome of a Palestinians state (or ROR?) will happen because of sanctions/BDS or whatever.

    It’s always just around the corner isn’t it? If it isn’t then I would suggest a different strategy from people like you is in order if you give 2 flying figs about Palestine more than you enjoy endlessly displaying your hatred for Israel.

    When’s it happening Hostage? And when it does will our suffering your counter productive hostile yip yap end too?

    I’ll take any personal insults on my character as an admission of your ignorance and inherently flawed position.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      March 3, 2014, 6:09 pm

      I do understand that, but my position doesn’t rely on BDS/sanctions

      No it doesn’t. It simply ignores the fact that there are national and international criminal prosecutors in Europe trying two dozen cases of individual and corporate pillaging right at this moment and that foreign capitalists who live in those jurisdictions have finally figured out that Palestine’s next move will expose them to the same unacceptable risks and possible forfeiture of any profits they might derive from investments in the occupied territories or Israeli financial institutions tied-in to the illegal settlement enterprise.

      • Bing Bong
        Bing Bong
        March 4, 2014, 4:12 am

        But when is it happening? Some ballpark figure for the major events resulting from BDS or whatever’s actions and the result for Israel. Just anything other than it’s ‘just round the corner’ or Israel cannot stand much longer or Zionism cannot take much more in world opinion. When?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 5:59 am

        But when is it happening?

        I pointed out that it has already started to happen and that the Israeli Cabinet has held meetings to come up with a response. See for example:
        * Massive Norwegian state fund to divest from Israeli company: Ethics board finds Shikun and Binui ‘in breach of international humanitarian law in East-Jerusalem’ http://www.timesofisrael.com/massive-norwegian-state-fund-to-divest-from-israeli-company/
        * Jordan Valley settlements hurt by boycott campaign: Farmers in contested fertile valley suffering steep losses from Western European boycott and divestment movement
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4475446,00.html
        * Israel boycott fears prompt foreign bidders to abandon ports tender
        http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.574821

        It’s not hard to find evidence of these things if you just pull your head out of the sand.

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 4, 2014, 9:15 pm

      @King Kong – Does anyone believe that BDS by itself will bring down Zionism? Many don’t. This is just a means to isolate and batter into the Z heads that they are pariahs. Get the smart and logical Master-race subjects out. Make it hard for the bosses to travel for fear of arrest. Oblige them to use their other passport. Otherwise feel them treated as trash, waiting a year for a visa. Move out their high-tech labs. That kind of stuff. But let nobody remain in the illusion that Zionists are logical actors; they wouldn’t be Zionists otherwise. The necessary solvent is a large dose of violence. We don’t know how it will be applied. But it will, given the continuous brinkmanship of the Zionist entity. Total extermination of the Palestinians is in your plans, but it needs much longer for the necessary conditions.
      Now, who the fuck are you to bully and push people asking for an exact date? You know what? It will come as a surprise anyway.

    • MahaneYehude1
      MahaneYehude1
      March 5, 2014, 12:00 am

      @Light:

      Really Jeff? What excellent records are you referring to? In fact, your claim is disputed by the Israeli historian, Shlomo Sands.

      Light, if Shlomo Sand is your best source, I just want to let you know that Sand thinks that also the Palestinian people is a modern invention.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 5, 2014, 4:51 am

        “I just want to let you know that Sand thinks that also the Palestinian people is a modern invention.”

        So what if they are? Their rights do not depend on them being “a people”, but on them being human beings.

      • MahaneYehude1
        MahaneYehude1
        March 5, 2014, 9:37 am

        @RoHa;

        I very glad you wrote this comment. In the future, please, send this comment to all those who say we are invented people and have no rights in the land of Israel. In addition, send this comment to all those who cite Shlomo Sand and tell them “So what if they are? Their rights do not depend on them being “a people”, but on them being human beings”, but this time the “them” would be the Jewish people, invented or not invented. Thanks

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 5, 2014, 3:47 pm

        @RoHa

        So what if they are? Their rights do not depend on them being “a people”, but on them being human beings.

        A core argument against Israel is that Israelis aren’t the people of Israel. If it is just about being human beings, a pure human rights argument then we shouldn’t be talking about things like an occupation and disbanding the Israeli state but rather some sorts of moderate reforms.

  6. Bing Bong
    Bing Bong
    March 4, 2014, 3:37 am

    “the IDF got humiliated so badly that the government lost faith in them and subsequently pulled out of the Sinai, Southern Lebanon, and Gaza anyway.”

    Obviously something like Yom Kippur can have long term political and cultural effects like the abrupt end to the feeling of invincibility the 67 war gave Israel when it defeated a number of enemy states in short shrift, but Sinai withdrawal was for lasting peace with Egypt, they went into S.Lebanon years after YK and withdrew in 2000 and Gaza withdrawal was in 2005.

    You are clumsily trying to set forth the idea of a course of thwarted Israeli expansionism within the context of the YK war for your own dogmatic reasons.

    You’re not even wrong, as they say.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      March 4, 2014, 4:50 am

      You are clumsily trying to set forth the idea of a course of thwarted Israeli expansionism within the context of the YK war for your own dogmatic reasons.

      You’re not even wrong, as they say.

      Of course I’m not wrong. JeffB and others like you, keep talking as if the IDF and Israel’s nuclear capabilities dispose of any and all questions. But the IDF has been a miserable failure in the long term as an instrument of Israeli national policy when it comes to occupying and retaining territory.

      Israel has former Generals running on political platforms based on the explicit premise that the IDF must withdraw from these territories to end a long national tragedy and secure peace with the neighbors. The notion that a different principle applies to the West Bank and East Jerusalem is only wishful thinking.

      • Bing Bong
        Bing Bong
        March 4, 2014, 5:28 am

        You’re wrong to say that the humiliation of not winning YK as definitively as they’d have liked caused returning Sinai, leaving S.Leb (after entering it years after YK!) and leaving Gaza in…2005!

        That’s not the same issue as Israel’s debateable expansionism or ability to expand into the above territories using force or any other factors (such as peace for the Sinai) regarding their withdrawals from the above.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 6:05 am

        You’re wrong to say that the humiliation of not winning YK as definitively as they’d have liked caused returning Sinai, leaving S.Leb (after entering it years after YK!) and leaving Gaza in…2005!

        You don’t have to convince me, you have to convince the officials and experts who say that the IDF was unable to maintain Israel’s strategic deterrence in the face of YK, and resistence in Lebanon and Gaza. You could start by reading the reports of the Israeli Commissions that studied the problem in the aftermath of the wars.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 8:39 am

        @Hostage

        You don’t have to convince me, you have to convince the officials and experts who say that the IDF was unable to maintain Israel’s strategic deterrence in the face of YK, and resistence in Lebanon and Gaza. You could start by reading the reports of the Israeli Commissions that studied the problem in the aftermath of the wars.

        The Commission was wrong as proven by subsequent events. Lebanon restructured to avoid future incidents. That’s the very definition of deterrence.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 12:08 pm

        The Commission was wrong as proven by subsequent events. Lebanon restructured to avoid future incidents. That’s the very definition of deterrence.

        No Hezbollah simply modified and adapted its strategy and continues to build its arsenal. It poses the same threats and interdiction problems for Israel that it did before. See for example: Barak Ravid, Jan. 3, 2014, Hezbollah moved advanced anti-ship missile systems into Lebanon, U.S. officials say Iran-backed organization smuggling powerful guided-missile systems piece by piece from Syria, Wall Street Journal reports. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.566890

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        March 4, 2014, 8:37 am

        @Hostage

        Of course I’m not wrong. JeffB and others like you, keep talking as if the IDF and Israel’s nuclear capabilities dispose of any and all questions. But the IDF has been a miserable failure in the long term as an instrument of Israeli national policy when it comes to occupying and retaining territory.

        Where do you think the ’67 territory came from? How was Sinai retained during the 4 wars of attrition? How was the territory retained in ’73? Who stopped the Palestinian army in Jordan? If you mean lately. Lately Israel has mainly faced guerrilla and terrorist operations. The 2nd intifada being the best example and that was a huge success.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 4, 2014, 12:02 pm

        Where do you think the ’67 territory came from?

        It came from the same place as the other territory Israel subsequently acquired and lost. The government of Israel got rid of the Sinai like a hot potato after the 73 war. They found out the IDF wasn’t so hot at defending the Bar Lev line or fighting an army with an adequate anti-aircraft missile umbrella.

        According to eye-witness accounts from the meeting in the Pit, the 1967 war of aggression was launched because the General staff was worried about the IDF loosing its long term value as a strategic deterrent – and that’s exactly what Israel’s commissions said had happened in 73 and in 2006. See Israel’s Decision To Go To War, June 2, 1967, by Col. Ami Gluska link to meria.idc.ac.il

        Accounts published by the Israeli decision makers, Israeli historians, and Israeli political scientists agree that the decision to go to war was made on the basis of the IDF’s ”Doctrine of Deterrence”, not because they seriously thought that they were ”preempting” an impending Arab attack.

        *Greg Cashman said that in late May 1967, Egypt had complained that the false Soviet report caused them to send troops into the Sinai. see An Introduction to the Causes of War: Patterns of Interstate Conflict from World War I to Iraq, page 185

        *The Egyptians had already provided categorical assurances to Israel through the US Secretary of State and the UN Secretary General that they did not intend to initiate hostilities, and that they were willing to make concessions to avoid a war. see Cashman; Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, document 132; and paragragh 9 of the report to the Security Council from the Secretary General of the United Nations, S/7906, 26 May 1967.

        *Christopher Gelpi says that the government of Egypt had let it be known that their tough statements were “mere words designed for public consumption.” see The power of legitimacy: assessing the role of norms in crisis bargaining, page 141

        *David Rodman said that since the early days of the State, Israeli military doctrine placed a premium on offensive, rather than defensive warfare. Military leaders felt that there was a better prospect of deterring the outbreak of hostilities if the IDF transferred fighting to enemy territory as soon as possible. That strategy also compensated for limited finances and the absence of alliance partners. see Between war and peace, editor Efraim Karsh, page 153

        *Dan Kurzman said Rabin was not concerned with the Sinai build-up. see Soldier of peace, page 202

        *Rabin said the IDF GHQ Intelligence assessment was that Israel was facing a repetition of Operation Rotem (see the discussion above), and that Egypt would eventually withdraw. He characterized the Sinai troop build-up and the closure of the Straits as “humiliating pinpricks” that would render the IDF’s long term ”deterrent capacity” worthless. During the meeting in “the Pit”, he and the other military leaders said they were afraid that it would appear that the government had lost confidence in the IDF, and that the significance of the closure of the Straits lay in the effect on Israel’s ”deterrent” capability. see The Rabin Memoirs, page 80-81; Israel in the Middle East: Documents and Readings on Society, Politics, and Foreign Relations, Pre-1948 to the Present, edited by Itamar Rabinovich, Jehuda Reinharz, pages 212-213; and Israel’s Decision To Go To War, June 2, 1967, by Col. Ami Gluska

        *Avner Yaniv said that IDF doctrine was based on the assumption of the inherent disability of Israel to win a decisive strategic battle and impose peace on the Arabs. The leadership felt that Israel could not subdue the Arabs. It could defend itself, cause the Arabs pain, and destroy their armies for a while, but they felt that solving the problem once and for all was beyond Israel’s capacity. The IDF relied on a strategy of active conventional ”deterrence” that emphasized punitive and demonstrative use of force and the accumulation of dissuasive power not through one military victory, but through a succession of quick decisive blows to Arab military power. see National security and democracy in Israel, page 90.

        *Avi Shlaim said there is general agreement among commentators that Nasser neither wanted nor planned to go to war with Israel. He said the Israeli economy would survive the closure of the Straits, but ”the deterrent image of the IDF” could not. see The Iron Wall, pages 236-237.

        *Yagil Levy says that the tendency to use force and generate escalation in order to bring about counter-reaction by the Arabs, ruled out possible options to settle the crisis other than by war. Israel’s doctrine of ”deterrence” called for “flexible retaliation” designed to deter the Syrians or provoke them so that Israel could launch a full scale response. He said that Israel became trapped in its own formula of ”deterrence”. see Trial and error: Israel’s route from war to de-escalation, page 107

        *Re’uven Pedatzur said that any erosion of Israeli deterrent power is an impediment to peace in the region. He said that Israeli deterrence is greatly dependent on the IDF’s capability to inflict great and painful damage to the enemy — “deterrence through punishment.” and that in the absence of comprehensive peace in the Middle East, deterrence will remain the chief component in Israel’s national defense doctrine. see Limits of Deterrence, Ha’aretz, 28 March 1995 p B1

        *Uzi Benziman described Israel’s doctrine of strategic deterrence and Ariel Sharon’s role in launching cross-border attacks into Jordan or Egypt where his forces would strike targets and disappear. see for example Sharon: An Israeli Caesar, pages 42-44

        I hope that answers your question.

      • Bing Bong
        Bing Bong
        March 4, 2014, 1:38 pm

        “The government of Israel got rid of the Sinai like a hot potato after the 73 war.”

        Long after deciding to exchange land for peace after 67 and before the 3 noes.

        There you go, OCR and Google translate these.

        http://www.archives.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/461D9DED-654D-4667-83FF-4A6CFCBEB2B3/0/YeshivatMemshala03.pdf

        http://www.archives.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/EF8DEC24-E84A-449F-A65D-CEBBBB220569/0/YeshivatMemshala05.pdf

  7. Hostage
    Hostage
    March 4, 2014, 3:29 pm

    Long after deciding to exchange land for peace after 67 and before the 3 noes.

    Michael Oren’s Six Days of War establishes that the Cabinet and Generals were already discussing the need to consolidate the territorial gains before the war ever started. Full stop.

    We also know from the FRUS, the Meron Memo, and Accidental Empire that the Cabinet had already met to discuss “work camps” in the occupied territories on 27 August and approved working the land and taking over existing orchards from Arab cultivators at that same time. Ministers Dayan, Allon, and Gvati met with General Rabin on 1 September and officially authorized the first “settlement outpost”. So the resolution adopted by the Arabs during the Khartoum Conference was a moot question.

    When Dean Rusk, the American Secretary of State, reminded Eban later in 1967 about Israel’s pledge that it had no territorial ambitions, Eban shrugged his shoulders and said: “We’ve changed our minds.” “Israel’s keeping territory,” Rusk presciently warned his American senior foreign policy staff as they debated what position the United States should take, “would create a revanchism for the rest of the twentieth century.” See Following UN settlement report, the path forward for Palestinian leadership is clear — take Israel to the International Criminal Court
    Michael Lynk http://mondoweiss.net/2013/02/settlement-palestinian-international.html

    There you go, OCR and Google translate these.

    You’re still just as unintelligent as ever. CAMERA asked JPS to “issue a correction stating that the quote attributed to Ben-Gurion does not appear in the references cited” in JPS and its website “to prevent further erroneous uses of this quote.”

    The JPS had cited Ben Gurion’s own manuscript obtained from the Ben Gurion Archives. I simply illustrated that anyone could prove CAMERA was incorrect. I:
    a) downloaded the Hebrew original that the Institute for Palestine Studies obtained from the Ben Gurion Archives: link to palestine-studies.org
    b) I OCR’d it with ABBYY FineReader Online: link to finereader.abbyyonline.com
    c) Then I pasted this text from page 3 into Google Translate, which rendered:
    אנו צריכים לגרש ערבים ולקחת מקומם.
    as:
    “We must expel Arabs and take their place.”

    You’ve blathered on endlessly, despite the fact that the rest of the letter announces Ben Gurion’s plan to use armed force to illegally colonize the areas allocated to the Arab state and Transjordan once Palestine had been partitioned. We also know from the FRUS that Foreign Minister Shertok explicitly reserved the right to permanently displace the Arab population because their space was needed for Jewish immigrants. He also reserved the right to replace Palestinian Arabs with Jews from Arab countries who had expressed an interest in coming to Palestine. So we don’t need Ben Gurion’s letter at all to establish that those were official Zionist state policies. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1295

    • Bing Bong
      Bing Bong
      March 5, 2014, 5:36 am

      The 2 links I gave you have nothing to do with the Ben Gurion letter. They refer to the Israeli decision to offer land for peace immediately after the 67 war.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 5, 2014, 7:35 am

        The 2 links I gave you have nothing to do with the Ben Gurion letter. They refer to the Israeli decision to offer land for peace immediately after the 67 war.

        I was commenting on your continued use of contrived references to my use of OCR and Google translate to prove that CAMERA was being dishonest about the manuscripts prepared by Ben Gurion that the JPS had cited.

        Moving on, the links and information that I supplied illustrated that the Israeli government was being dishonest when it said it “had changed its mind” and would be keeping the territory. Even your own Zionist historians, like Oren, admit that the Cabinet and Generals discussed the need to consolidate territorial gains as one of their goals before launching the 1967 War and need to enlist US support to hold on to it:

        Still, on the chance that Washington might yet authorize the convoy or at least give Israel its “ green light,” Eshkol would argue for time. “We will still need Johnson’s help and support,” he lectured the generals. “I hope we won’t need it during the fighting, but we shall certainly need it if we are victorious, in order to protect our gains.

        – Michael Oren, Six Days of War, link to books.google.com

        That’s the formulation of the Zionist policy concerning the role of the USA alright, but it didn’t have anything to do with “land for peace”.

      • Bing Bong
        Bing Bong
        March 5, 2014, 8:42 am

        So despite voting for land for peace immediately after the 67 war it took winning the 73 war less decisively, for them to drop the Sinai like a hot potato as you put it. Albeit a potato somehow still hot when Sadat concurred on the same course of land for peace years after being defeated in 73.

        Perhaps you can give us your translation of the Hebrew documents I linked to since your abilities are so advanced you are able to translate an unseen handwritten original document from an incorrect typed transcription.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 5, 2014, 4:22 pm

        you are able to translate an unseen handwritten original document from an incorrect typed transcription.

        You have a short memory. I actually supplied you and the readers with a link to a copy of the handwritten letter in Dr Rabbi Chaim Simons literature on the subject of Zionist plans for the transfer of the Arab population. See page 9 of 12 (yet again) http://chaimsimons.net/transferdoc01.pdf

        FYI, he reads Hebrew and has no doubt, at all, that Ben Gurion actually meant to say that he supported expelling the Arabs and taking their place on this and scores of other very well-documented occasions. See Ben-Gurion’s Transfer Proposals http://chaimsimons.net/transfer04.html

      • Bing Bong
        Bing Bong
        March 5, 2014, 6:01 pm

        “FYI, he reads Hebrew and has no doubt, at all, that Ben Gurion actually meant to say that he supported expelling the Arabs and taking their place”

        No he says this “In conclusion, one must therefore say that this particular quote on transfer by Ben-Gurion is problematic! “

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 5, 2014, 9:53 pm

        No he says this “In conclusion, one must therefore say that this particular quote on transfer by Ben-Gurion is problematic! “

        But he provides 60 citations to support its use in his narrative here without expressing any such qualms, where there can be no doubt that Ben Gurion was an outspoken advocate of involuntary transfer. http://chaimsimons.net/transfer04.html

        FYI, it is telling that there is no other citation provided from Ben Gurion’s copious writings and speeches that supports the idea that he objected in any way to the displacement of Arabs to permit Jewish settlement. Simons shows that he spoke about the desirability of doing exactly that on many occasions.

        You’ve still never acknowledged that the FRUS says the official government policy laid out by Foreign Minister Shertok was that the Palestinian refugees space was needed for Jewish immigrants and that it reserved the right to replace them with Jews from Arab countries who had expressed and interest in coming to Palestine:

        With reference refugees Bernadotte said condition 300,000 to 400,000 Arab refugees without food, clothing and shelter was appalling. He hoped various welfare organizations could be induced take interest but basic problem was their eventual return to their home. In this connection Bernadotte said PGI was “showing signs of swelled-head”. Shertok to whom he had put this most pressing and urgent problem had indicated politically PGI could not admit Arab refugees as they would constitute fifth column. Economically PGI had no room for Arabs since their space was needed for Jewish immigrants. Shertok when pressed had replied nothing could be done until peace was made. In any event government reserved right to replace them with Jews from Arab countries who had expressed desire to come to Palestine. Bernadotte commented that it seemed anomaly for Jews to base demand for Jewish state on need to find home Jewish refugees and that they should demand migration to Palestine of Jewish DP’s when they refused to recognize problem of Arab refugees which they had created.

        In regard to property Arab refugees he said apparently most had been seized for use by Jews. He had seen Haganah organizing and supervising removal contents Arab houses in Ramle which he understood was being distributed among newly arrived Jewish immigrants.

        http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1295

        The US government noted that it was ludicrous to suggest that the elderly, women, and children were a security threat and that the government of Israel had caused the refugee problem despite promises to protect minorities in areas under its control:

        A very large percentage of these refugees consists of children, women and aged who under no stretch of the imaginaltion could be regarded as a security threat, against Israel. As set forth in the memo to the President, the condition of the Arab refugees is appalling. They exist in terms of utmost destitution and if iadequate relief is not forthcoming or they are not returned to their homes a large proportion will die before the end of winter.

        http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1332

        In response to Zionist hasbara, US officials also noted that the refugee problem existed before the Arab-Israeli conflict began as a result of Zionist failure to fulfil their promises to the international community regarding the treatment of minorities in areas under Jewish control:

        Arab refugee problem is one which, as you quote PGI [Provisional Government of Israel] as saying, did develop from recent war in Palestine but which also began before outbreak of Arab-Israeli hostilities. A significant portion of Arab refugees fled from their homes owing to Jewish occupation of Haifa on April 21-22 and to Jewish armed attack against Jaffa April 25. You will recall statements made by Jewish authorities in Palestine promising safeguards for Arab minority in areas under Jewish control.

        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

    • jon s
      jon s
      March 5, 2014, 5:14 pm

      In fact Ben Gurion apparently wrote the opposite in the hand-written original. “We don’t have to expel the Arabs…”.See here:
      http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=2219

  8. Hostage
    Hostage
    March 5, 2014, 12:44 pm

    So despite voting for land for peace immediately after the 67 war

    Your narrative is detached from reality. I’ve already pointed out that Israel planned on enlisting the USA to hold on to its territorial gains before the war even started. It refused to discuss land for peace after the symbolic vote you cited, when the Security Council convened the 5th Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly on 17-18 June 1967 to discuss the measures already taken by the government of Israel to change the legal status of the Arab territories, including the City of Jerusalem.

    So Israel planned a war of conquest, and firmly said “NO” to demands of lands for peace, months before the Khartoum Conference in September. In fact, we know it had already decided to establish settlements in the captured territories a month before the Khartoum Conference began.

    • adele
      adele
      March 5, 2014, 6:19 pm

      Hostage,
      after reading this exchange (my compliments on your mastery and analysis of the documentation), for some reason I recalled the often-cited quote from Abba Eban wrt to the Palestinians: “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” (The quote is attributed to Abba Eban after the Geneva Peace Conference with Arab countries, 21 December 1973).

      It struck me that the Palestinians were never actually given the chance to “miss an opportunity” given that Israel’s publicly stated policies were just a ruse and smoke screen to obfuscate their actual intentions. This quote is therefore even more cynical, harmful and horrible in light of the actual intentions that you addressed.

      The only certainty in this context with regards to “opportunity” is that Israel has never missed one to further demonize and dispossess the Palestinians.

    • Bing Bong
      Bing Bong
      March 6, 2014, 4:51 am

      The vote was on the 19th. And it and the attendant discussions of the unity government weren’t symbolic.

      I’ve only ever addressed the “we must not…” quote in any detail, one of the most famous and prolifically used quotes that supports the idea of BG supporting transfer. I haven’t disputed any other claims of BG supporting transfer.

Leave a Reply