Trending Topics:

‘A Painful Price’: The escalating war on Palestine solidarity at U of Michigan and beyond

ActivismIsrael/PalestineUS Politics
on 266 Comments
A sign at a student sit-in calling for the University of Michigan to divest from corporations that work with the Israeli military. (Photo: Students Allied for Freedom and Equality/Facebook)

A sign at a student sit-in calling for the University of Michigan to divest from corporations that work with the Israeli military. (Photo: Students Allied for Freedom and Equality/Facebook)

Following a week-long sit-in by the University of Michigan Students Allied For Equality (SAFE), an obstinate Central Student Government (CSG) council agreed to bring the group’s resolution on divesting from corporations involved in human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories to a vote. I appeared as SAFE’s guest speaker for the March 25 debate, addressing as many as 600 students packed into an auditorium while hundreds more waited outside. In an electric atmosphere, SAFE members and supporters rose to defend the resolution against a parade of pro-Israel students and professors rattling off well-worn talking points.

From Suha Najjar’s blistering indictment of institutional anti-Palestinian racism to Angela Folasade’s impassioned repudiation of cynical pro-Israel attempts to co-opt African-American narratives [at 4:30] to Andrew Dallack’s impromptu clinic on international law [at 3:30], SAFE orchestrated one of the most powerful displays of student activism I have witnessed on any American campus. Their work should be a model for all future divestment initiatives.

While in Ann Arbor, I was also able to witness the escalating tactics of pro-Israel forces engaged in a desperate but determined fighting retreat. Under the influence of a zealous cast of communal elders and with a powerful, astroturfed political apparatus at their disposal, pro-Israel forces on campus initiated a campaign of subterfuge and manufactured persecution designed to intimidate and silence students inclined toward Palestine solidarity activism. It was a disturbing spectacle to behold, especially at such an intimate distance.

During SAFE’s week-long sit-in, a close-knit group of pro-Israel students filed a series of incendiary accusations against SAFE members, accusing them in formal reports to university administrators of delivering anti-Semitic tirades laced with antiquated terms like “kike” and “dirty Jew.” At the same time, Facebook profiles belonging to SAFE members were invaded by a mysterious account named “ZPC Viper Matrix.” Personal information of SAFE members, their families, and Palestine rights supporters across the country including American Studies Association President-elect Lisa Duggan have appeared on the Viper Matrix Facebook page, often in distorted form alongside derogatory comments, prompting several students to cancel their accounts.

Among those who told me their profile photos and personal information were uploaded at the Viper Matrix page was Sharifah Abdallah, a Palestinian member of Loyola University’s Student Government Association who has actively supported Loyola SJP’s divestment campaign. “People are scared in my community,” Abdallah remarked to me. “Unlike other Palestinians from the diaspora, we return frequently to our land. So these tactics are designed to silence us by making us afraid that we won’t be allowed back in to Palestine.”

Anti-Arab and Islamophobic incitement directed at SAFE grew so intense its members felt compelled to catalog the unsolicited messages on a Tumblr site called #UMDivest Fan Mail.

“Z Zidan,” a U of Michigan SAFE member who claims to have been targeted with baseless allegations of anti-Semitism, and who would not allow me to identify them by their real name, told me that the intimidation campaign represents a new phase of anti-Palestinian repression. “We know that we will be questioned, deeply scrutinized, and dismissed for the work we do on campus. But this slander, these completely fabricated allegations, are intimidating tactics on a whole different level,” Zidan said. “They are meant to scare us into silence, to serve as a reminder or warning to those who dare think of getting involved in divestment work, that this will be your fate, that this is what’s on the line.”

Pineapples of hate

In one of the most bizarre pro-Israel shaming attempts in recent memory, Adam Kredo of the neoconservative Washington Free Beacon produced an article accusing SAFE divestment chair Yazan Kherallah of posting an “overtly threatening photo” to Facebook. The photo featured Kherallah clad in a kuffiyeh and slicing a pineapple. “The emergence of the photo comes just days after Palestinian activists on the University of Michigan’s campus leveled death threats and racial epithets at pro-Israel students who opposed a resolution to divest from Israel,” wrote Kredo.

As Alex Kane reported here at Mondoweiss, Kredo turned to Kenneth Marcus, the founder of the right-wing Brandeis Center driving the campaign to defund Middle East Studies departments across the country, to link the slicing of a pineapple to neo-Nazism. According to Marcus, the anti-Semitic French comedian Dieudonne “had associated the pineapple with Zionists and Holocaust denial.” Marcus went on to speculate that “the pineapple may be the closest one can get in a Michigan grocery store to a Sabra,” a fruit historically associated with early Israeli settler-colonists.

In reality, Kherallah intended the photo as a humorous jibe at Arab friends who had named their rival intramural basketball team after their favorite sandwich shop, Ananas, which also means “pineapples” in Arabic. Since Kherallah never shared the photo outside his private circles, it can be safely assumed that the photo was mined by ZPC Viper Matrix or someone else scouring Kherallah’s Facebook page for ammunition.

Unwilling to let facts obstruct a good smear campaign, pro-Israel operatives from former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block to the Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick pointed to Kherallah as a symbol of the violent intentions of “campus Brownshirts.” None of them bothered to contact him, however.

The day after the divestment vote, I met with Kherallah and UM’s SAFE chapter. Not one of the students in the room had ever heard of the French comedian Dieudonne, nor could any of them fathom how a pineapple could be linked to Zionism or Holocaust denial. They reacted with complete befuddlement when I attempted to explain Marcus’ twisted logic, then erupted in laughter when I asked Kherallah why he hated the Hawaiian people.

Unfortunately, the charges that had been fabricated against Kherallah and other SAFE activists could not be dismissed as a tasteless joke. As Kherallah explained in a response to Kredo’s article:

My Twitter account has been flooded with hateful and racist messages. There are photoshopped images of me in which I am called a “Jihadist” and “Infidel slayer.” The emotional shock I have been through is immeasurable. This is something that will negatively affect me for the rest of my life, every time I have to go through an airport (as if I didn’t have to worry about airports already as an Arab male), when I apply for grad school, and every time I interview for a job. It does not matter how inaccurate and libelous Kredo’s article is, the fact is that my reputation has been unfairly tarnished and simple Google searches will always lead to the original false allegation.

Behind the smears, a rising AIPAC acolyte

At the center of the pro-Israel intimidation campaign at the University of Michigan is Bobby Dishell, the Vice President of the Central Student Government and one of the most influential students on campus. Dishell is currently running for the CSG presidency under the “Make Michigan” ticket, however, his ambitions extend well beyond the grassy lawns of Ann Arbor. He was a summer intern at AIPAC who addressed the lobbying organization’s annual policy conference (he recently made the video of his speech private). At U of M, Dishell is the director of expansion for Tamid, an investment group founded by pro-Israel students in 2007 to battle divestment resolutions.

Any expressions of outrage were muted when Dishell campaigned for CSG Vice President on a widely viewed minstrel show-style YouTube video. In the video, a white student comedian portraying a black stereotype known as “Da’Quan” shucked and jived around campus urging random students to vote for Dishell and his running mate, Mike Proppe. The final scene of the campaign ad — which was formally approved by Dishell and Proppe — featured an African-American homeless man proclaiming at the prompting of “Da’Quan,” “Vote for Mike and Bobby!”

During the CSG debate on March 25, Dishell delivered a prepared statement against the divestment resolution, calling the proposal part of a series of “attacks on my identity. He went on to claim that he had been targeted with “threats of violence” and anti-Semitic invective: “Disgusting, filthy, shameful, dirty Jew, kike — these derogatory terms harken back to the 1930’s and 40’s in a time when the Jewish people were targeted for extermination, which was largely successful,” Dishell declared.

Dishell’s allegations trace back to a bias report he filed against the student who identified themselves to me as “Z Zidan.” Dishell accused the student of harassing him in class, claiming they called him a “dirty Jew.” Zidan insisted to me that Dishell’s charge was completely fabricated — the student said such a term was completely foreign to them. In my conversations with SAFE members, who are among the most sophisticated student activists I have ever met, none was familiar with the term “kike,” which, as Dishell explained, was a relic of the 1930’s and 40’s. (In fact, the term was mainly a feature of Jewish-American life, and was most common in New York City, where more assimilated Jews employed it to denigrate the poorer, Yiddish-speaking immigrants of the Lower East Side).

After I delivered my comments during the March 25 debate over the divestment resolution, I was followed into the bathroom by a U of Michigan student named Ben Meisel. Meisel cornered me by a sink and launched into a rant about having been called a “kike” and “dirty Jew” by various students affiliated with SAFE. When I asked him which students were responsible, he would not say. Like nearly everyone else leveling claims of anti-Semitic abuse against SAFE, Meisel was a Dishell underling — he was running on the Make Michigan ticket and serves on the board of his school’s College Republicans chapter.

According to several SAFE members, a member of Tamid who serves as Dishell’s campaign strategy director, Gurdit Singh, also accused SAFE of threatening him with violence during their sit-in.

How many students had been targeted with anti-Semitic abuse and threats? Which ones had been called “dirty Jew” and “kike,” who was responsible, and why couldn’t the alleged victims get their stories straight? Was it really possible, as an anonymous “senior pro-Israel leader” in Washington DC told the Free Beacon’s Kredo, that “the University of Michigan has allowed known pro-Hamas activists to openly organize riots on their campus”?

Or could the torrent of increasingly outrageous claims have been largely the invention of a small group of extremely ambitious, exceptionally malleable pro-Israel students eager for the approval of powerful communal elders exploiting them as pawns in a sectarian zero-sum game?

After a meeting with SAFE, Vice President for Student Life at U of Michigan E. Royster Harper remarked that she was “a little surprised that people have been talking about this as a violent movement; it’s just not the case. It has been just what you would expect from smart U of M students that are passionate about an important issue.”

Although the administration has not validated any of the allegations of abuse filed against SAFE, the damage has been done.

As Zidan told me, “I do not want my name associated with these false allegations at all, especially in print or beyond campus circles. I fear prospective graduate schools or employees looking at this information and dismissing me — even if it isn’t true — because at the end of the day, I am the one responding to and countering Dishell’s abuse. He holds more power in this situation by virtue of who he is and because he started this nasty slanderous campaign. I am left merely reacting to his false accusations. I also worried that there would be backlash because of the powerful networks he’s part of that would come after me or target me, especially since this would affect his election campaign.”

More calls for repression

The suppression campaign against the students leading the divestment resolution at U of Michigan is part of the escalating war on Palestine solidarity activism on campus.

Following sustained pressure from outside pro-Israel organizations, Northeastern University’s SJP chapter was suspended, and two of its members now face expulsion for the crime of leafleting on campus. Its members have since been tarred as “terrorist groupies” and falsely accused of training with military-grade weaponry in the West Bank.

Last week, after Loyola University’s Student Government Association passed a resolution calling for the divestment from companies involved in human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories, the Islamophobic blogger and activist Pamela Geller accused the university of “serv[ing] themselves up as a willing sacrifice to Islamic supremacism.” Days later, the resolution was vetoed by SGA President Pedro Guerrero after intense pressure from outside pro-Israel groups and a closed-door meeting between Guerrero and Jewish Federations representatives.

As divestment resolutions are introduced at new campuses each month, pro-Israel partisans appear determined to introduce more counter-measures. In a recent editorial for the Jerusalem Post, former advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Caroline Glick demanded that universities that allow Palestine solidarity activism on campus “pay a painful price.”

“Only the threat of civil lawsuits, federal investigations of civil rights violations, and alumni threats to withhold gifts will force university administrations to take action against the anti-Semitic thugs that are instituting a reign of terror at university after university,” Glick wrote.

Declaring Northeastern’s suspension of its SJP chapter to be “minimal,” she called for the mass firing of campus police officers who enforce university rules around Palestine-related events. Finally, Glick demanded that Students for Justice in Palestine be “permanently barred from operating on campus.”

Though they are far from realizing their draconian goals, Glick and her allies are setting a clear precedent at Northeastern, Michigan, and beyond.

maxblumenthal
About Max Blumenthal

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and bestselling author.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

266 Responses

  1. upsidedownism
    upsidedownism
    April 3, 2014, 9:29 am

    Thanks Max
    An article as riveting as it is depressing, and one is prompted to react along the lines of ‘Where’s my country, dude?!’

    Zionists are destroying American intellectual life.

  2. justicewillprevail
    justicewillprevail
    April 3, 2014, 9:43 am

    This kind of hatred, threats of physical violence, intimidation and character assassination is so beyond any kind of student politics or debate that it seems only possible to call it what it is – fascism. Israel has always had an undercurrent of the European-style ethno-nationalism which erupted in fascist movements in various countries. Now it appears to be spreading from the far right to the mainstream, orchestrated by networks of well-funded and organised zealots and barbarians. Clearly they think they can do what they like, since US authorities fold most of the time in the face of their ugly, violent activities. It’s about time these pusillanimous authorities protected their students from this kind of criminal attack, stealing of personal data, and intimidation. It seems no institution is exempt from these neo-fascist attacks.

    • Daniel Rich
      Daniel Rich
      April 3, 2014, 10:26 pm

      Q: …well-funded…

      R: When one faces a well-funded, well-oiled Propaganda machine, one that manages to turn the question ‘Why does the IDF shoot Palestinians children?’ into ‘Why are their parents so irresponsible?’, one should not look away and be aware of machine’s very a-symmetrical approach of dealing with this sort of ‘dissent’.

      Unless the BDS movement is equally bestowed with bundles of greenbacks, it’s going to be a prolonged and very bitter fight.

    • master8thelotus
      master8thelotus
      April 5, 2014, 6:40 am

      Um, did you just say that fascism has ‘moved from the far right?’ Either you don’t understand what fascism is, or you don’t understand politics because fascist policies have always originated from Leftist thinking. The Left always assumes that when an army of jerks comes marching down the street demanding that everyone think the same, it must be a right wing movement. In reality, the jack booted thugs that silence, intimidate, and destroy the people that think differently from them are always coming from the Left.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 5, 2014, 10:27 am

        “Um, did you just say that fascism has ‘moved from the far right?’ Either you don’t understand what fascism is, or you don’t understand politics because fascist policies have always originated from Leftist thinking. ”

        You signed up just to spout this ignorant nonsense??? Wow. I’m surprised you didn’t point out that “Nazi” stood for “National SOCIALIST!!!!!”

        So, fascism, like all nationalist movements, was a right-wing movement. Like Nazism, it was also a revolutionary movement, and because there have been more left-wing revolutionary movements (and there are real obvious reasons for that), you are making the rather foolish mistake of conflating the two.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 1:33 pm

        Communist movement in Vietnam was a nationalist movement.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 7, 2014, 1:05 pm

        James; fair enough. My absolute statement went too far as far as that went, but in terms of the fascists, their nationalism was one of the keys to their being a right-wing movement.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 7, 2014, 2:07 pm

        Thanks, Woody. And yes, fascist movements are inevitably “nationalist”. Hi Chi Minh went with communism simply as a practical matter, especially given the rejection by the US of his wish to cooperate with America in ending French colonial presence in Indo-China.

  3. Krauss
    Krauss
    April 3, 2014, 9:46 am

    Great, great independent reporting. The story behind the story.

    The bravery of the students is what I am most impressed by. Today a Google search can ruin your career(at least until the tide shifts, because in 10 years, these same students will be seen as pioneers in human rights work, their Google results will be seen as an asset), and the fact is that the only thing these SJP students have is grassroots activism. They are facing the full frontal assault of the large network of hard-right funded Zionist organizations.

    This conflict has clear markings of a class conflict, not only an ideological conflict. The wealthy and powerful versus the poor grassroots.

    It should be obvious which side you should choose if you have any heart.
    I’m helping setting up an SJP at my university, too, but it is a fact of life that as a white Jew, I have a lot more privilege than a brown Arab. I wouldn’t be target of these Islamophobic campaigns, I would be shielded by my ethnicity.

    Many of these students do not have that luxuriy, which makes their sacrifice all that more amazing. Their bravery is inspiring in the face of such semi-fascistic forces.

  4. eljay
    eljay
    April 3, 2014, 9:59 am

    “Only the threat of civil lawsuits, federal investigations of civil rights violations, and alumni threats to withhold gifts will force university administrations to take action against the anti-Semitic thugs that are instituting a reign of terror at university after university,” Glick wrote.

    With a staggering lack of self-awareness, yet another Zio-supremacist advocates for a reign of terror in support of injustice, immorality and (Jewish) supremacism.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      April 3, 2014, 3:16 pm

      The fast, loose and totally inaccurate way “anti semitic” has been thrown around over the decades sure makes me wonder about how it has potentially been used inaccurately in the past.

      Justice will prevail on this issue. Not if but when.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 3, 2014, 10:29 pm

        @ Kathleen,

        AS is like bringing a big, bloated corpse to the pool.

        Yes you can float, but where are you heading?

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 3, 2014, 10:37 pm

        Kathleen- This sounds like. They called Hitler an antisemite, maybe it was inaccurate. They call Torquemada an antisemite, maybe it was inaccurate. Makes me wonder about you. Scratch that. It makes it clear that you are speculating about history rather than studying it or talking about it. I’m sure lots of the choir here approves.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 4, 2014, 12:44 am

        @ yonah fredman,

        Think we can have one [1] discussion without reference/references to Germany, Chancellor A Hitler, the holocaust or nut-sis?

        Antisemitism, in its current context, is an Apartheid Word, for it embraces only a select few, whilst, simultaneously, excludes all others. Anti-Jewish, anti-Israel/i/ies, for sure, AS…, a big no-no [fro now].

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 4, 2014, 1:14 am

        Kathleen said something very stupid. But Daniel Rich to the defense.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 4, 2014, 1:55 am

        Daniel Rich- The way to defeat a misreading of history or a misapplication of history is by coming up with a better reading of history. But this Apartheid Word is a denial of history. Won’t work. Unless you’re preaching to the choir. Then almost anything works, cuz they’re your choir.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 4, 2014, 2:18 am

        @ yonah fredman,

        Q: The way to defeat a misreading of history…

        R: I want to stop the abuse of it…

      • eljay
        eljay
        April 4, 2014, 7:30 am

        >> y.f.: Kathleen- This sounds like. They called Hitler an antisemite, maybe it was inaccurate. They call Torquemada an antisemite, maybe it was inaccurate. Makes me wonder about you.

        Oh, c’mon, just call her an anti-Semite. You know you want to.

        And if she gets upset, you can always accuse her of having a defective sense of humour (like you did with Freddy P here).

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 4, 2014, 1:45 pm

        “Kathleen- This sounds like. They called Hitler an antisemite, maybe it was inaccurate. They call Torquemada an antisemite, maybe it was inaccurate.”

        What a load of crap, yonah. There’s more to history than Hitler and Torquemada. Grow up already.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        April 4, 2014, 3:35 pm

        Yonah “this sounds like” You are way out in left field. I have never felt, thought or said anything like that in my life. In your head

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 4, 2014, 4:38 pm

        Kathleen- You said something stupid. I was just pointing out how stupid it was. I have no reason to believe that you meant to exonerate Hitler and Torquemada. But if you cannot see how stupid your original statement was, then i can’t help you.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 4, 2014, 4:52 pm

        “You said something stupid.”

        No, she didn’t. You did. Your entire reaction was you losing your mind for no good reason. Because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that while antisemitism is a real thing, and does exist, that the charge has been tossed around so much, in so many situations which were absolutely not antisemitic, that the fact that the accusation is made tells you nothing and is as likely or more to indicate that the accuser is looking for a cheap weapon as it is an indication that someone actually was antisemitic.

        Frankly, in this day and age, here in America, the only appropriate reaction when someone is called an antisemite — especially by professional pro-Israeliers — is to sigh, roll the eyes, grumble, “not this shit again,” and then confirm that, except in the very rare occassion, the supposed “antisemitism” was nothing of the sort.

      • American
        American
        April 4, 2014, 3:47 pm

        @ yonah

        oh stuff it…..maybe Carter was called a anti semite *inaccurately*…maybe Tutu was called an anti semite *inaccurately…maybe W&M were called anti semites *inaccurately…..

        God only knows how many people have been *inaccurately* called anti semites.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        April 4, 2014, 4:54 pm

        Whether the term was used inaccurately depends on what it means. I am absolutely sure that the term has been used inaccurately from my point of view to apply to all anti-Zionists. I consider this usage inaccurate because I use the term to refer to a form of prejudice and I consider anti-Zionism reasonable, not dependent on any form of prejudice. Of course if you make the term include anti-Z ‘by definition’, that’s up to you. Used in that way the word leaves open the possibility that something accurately called ‘anti-Semitism’ can take reasonable forms: unless, that is, anti-Z is shown on other grounds to be unreasonable. Kathleen of course is no more in my book an anti-Semite or tempted by anti-Semitism than she is a flat earther.

      • lyn117
        lyn117
        April 4, 2014, 6:50 pm

        It would accurate to call Hitler an anti-semite, but it would be highly inaccurate to call Hitler an anti-Zionist.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        April 4, 2014, 2:07 am

        Kathleen,

        “Antisemitic”or “Semites” was a term coined by a mid 19th century anti Jewish bigot to describe European Jews.

        Ironically Zionists adopted this bizarre language for self description.

        In my mind it is like adopted the world “Ni&&&er” to refer to black Americans. I will never do that.

        Black or African Americans are dearly not the whatever….so why do Zionists (Christian and non Christian) adopt this language for Jews?

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 4, 2014, 2:35 am

        Ellen- Semites is certainly not the equivalent of the n word. Tell me precisely what would be different about the situation if they called themselves Yehudim and referred to their opponents (enemies) as Yehudim haters. You seem to enjoy playing semantic games. It is not flattering on you.

        The term antisemitism was not adopted by Zionists, it was adopted by all Jews who spoke the language of the street. Semantic game player liar you are.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 4, 2014, 3:20 am

        @ yonah fredham,

        Wow. You don’t seem to like independent thinking women [both Kathleen and Ellen] that much, do you? Disagreeing is one thing, but name-calling? Not that mature, bro.

        Semite [sem-ahyt or, esp. British, see-mahyt] – noun

        1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.

        If, as is the case with the word ‘antisemitism’, one singular group claims that said word ‘only relates to them’ I say it is an Apartheid Word.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 4, 2014, 3:44 am

        Yonah, I think exactly as Ellen about the misuse of the term by the Jews. It was a derogatory term used by Jew-haters to describe Jews as it was the fashion of the day to be so and it was less racist-sounding to be anti-semitic than to be anti-Jewish. The Jews picked up that ugly expression and started using it themselves against Jew-haters. Jews should be abhoring the term “anti-semitic” for its historic ugly connotation and should use the more explicit “anti-Jewish” for what it is. “anti-semitic” has become a stupid, senseless and overused word bandied about by Jews and by non-Jewish Westerners wishing to appease the Jews.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 4, 2014, 4:28 am

        @Friedman – Zionists and other tribal exceptionalists show their true colors by protesting “Antisemitism” by any name. Only a racist protests accident-of-birth-related discrimination directed at himself as something separate from racism period. Or, even worse, protest “Antisemitism” while at the same upholding, excusing or practicing racism against others. Like Palestinians who, by accident of birth, are relegated to second-class citizen status, which automatically makes any Zionist protesting against “Antisemitism” a puke-inducing racist hypocrite.

      • goldmarx
        goldmarx
        April 4, 2014, 12:30 pm

        Ellen: Wilhelm Marr, in his “The Domination of Judaism Over Christianity”, coined the term “Anti-Semitism” to describe his own bias against Jews, and recommended it to like-minded Christians.

        Virtually all Jews adopted this term to describe this bias, not just Zionists.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 4, 2014, 4:53 pm

        Walid- Study the history of the word antisemitism. My memory of the history is as follows: The word was coined as a result of the spirit of atheism that pervaded Europe. Thus to oppose Jews because of their religion made no sense. So to be antiJewish made no sense. Instead a theory of race was called into play. This foreign people was an enemy to the real European race. (Semites versus Aryans) That was the reason for the development of the term antisemitism by Marr.

        The term was widespread, is widespread and will be widespread. I have no attachment to the term and if I can remember to capitalize Palestinians and make sure not to refer to them as Arabs without including the word Palestinians beforehand I can surely use the term antiJewish rather than antisemitic. Judeophobic is a tad too complicated a term to use.

        By the way I don’t really like the word Jew. The turning of the Y of Yehudi into a J is to be expected. (I don’t mind saying Jerusalem rather than Yerushalayim.) But the disappearance of the D is highly suspicious and leads me to think that the word probably came from the French juif and I suspect that the term juif dropping the d of the German jude was a slur. Quite clearly the fact that the Germans did not drop the d, did not stop them from the genocide, so words might matter, but not that much. In russian the term Zhid, which maintains the d, is considered a slur and the use of yid, which maintains the d, can be considered inappropriate as well.

        To infer that the use of the word antisemitism is a particular self debasing act is stupid. It is to use the word in usage. Semite merely means belonging to the family of Shem son of Noah. There is nothing insulting about it.

        To state that this is what Zionists do is to lie. Zionists, rather than nonZionist Jews are no more likely to use the term. (Some people call all Jews Zionists, as in the riots of the late 60’s in America in the inner cities were acts against the Zionists when the speaker clearly means the word Jew and is using Zionists like the Commies used the word Zionist against Slansky.)

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 4, 2014, 5:06 pm

        Daniel Rich- You’re an idiot. Now I am still immature, but your gender is unrelated to my name calling.

        It is fair to object to the use of the world antisemitic when one really wishes to refer to antiJewish sentiments. But the term was coined to attack Jews and to refer to it as antiJewish rather than anti Akkadian is merely to reflect the history of usage rather than anything ideological.

        I sense that you are deeply ideological rather than sensible.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 4, 2014, 5:13 pm

        @yonah
        “But the disappearance of the D is highly suspicious and leads me to think that the word probably came from the French juif and I suspect that the term juif dropping the d of the German jude was a slur. ”

        And why do you suspect that, yonah?? (And it didn’t come into English through French from the German, but through Old French through Midievel Latin, at which point the “d” was elided.) Elision is an extremely common aspect of language and language formation. You’re gonna hafta ‘splain how it’s “suspicious.”

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 5, 2014, 8:15 pm

        Ellen,
        It is news to me that some Zionists called themselves Semites. Since most of the original Zionist ideologues did not like calling themselves Jews and preferred Hebrews and the fact that there were even some who began a movement called after Canaan, it is no surprise that some called themselves Semites. But it is inaccurate to tar the entire movement with the use of the term Semites to describe themselves and it is further an anachronism to imply that this is a common line of thought (linguistic or ideological) in Israel or Zionist circles today.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 4, 2014, 7:02 am

        Ellen, Semite wasn’t coined by “antisemites”, but “antisemitism”, as a political self-description was coined in 18/19th century Germany to single out the Jews as “Semites”, or people who spoke a near-Eastern language. Hebrew. See Wikipedia.

        That’s why strictly when yonah classifies Torquemada as “antisemite”, it is slightly unhistorical. He brought up that topic.

        The political antisemites of the late 19th century choose that term to describe “the other” language wise in the context of a “late nation” (united 1871 into the German Empire), suggesting there were people that did not belong and in doing so described them via “their language”: Hebrew, as “the other”. Using the the Orientalist coinage to describe the language family into which Hebrew belonged: the Semitic languages.

        I can recommend the scholar Gil Anidjar. He published a slim book on the topic Semites: Race, Religion Literature . Of course Horowitz reliably lists him as one of the professors who “preaches hate”. I suppose since Gil Anidjar suggests that “semite” or the initial self-description (I am an:) “antisemite” for that matter, in other words “I am against the Jews”, could just as easily describe animosity against Arabs. If the term “Semite” was still used today. ;)

        Someone from the extreme neo-right over here, with whom I had a short correspondence decades ago told me: I am not an antisemite, I have nothing against Arabs, as long as they stay where they belong.

      • libra
        libra
        April 4, 2014, 5:56 pm

        jonah fredman: But the disappearance of the D is highly suspicious and leads me to think that the word probably came from the French juif and I suspect that the term juif dropping the d of the German jude was a slur.

        We really must get to the bottom of this etymological crime and identify the guilty party. And just how did the Swedes get a D added from the earlier Sweon? Could it have been pillaged by a Viking raid on France? Is it still too late to claim it back?

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        April 4, 2014, 10:07 pm

        Dear LeaNder,,

        Thanks for your thoughtful response. I am aware of first use of the term in the Marr pamphlets. A time in Europe where ideas of “race” and nation were emerging full throttle. And I will check out the references you cite.

        Use of “Semite” to mean one of the Jewish faith was at the same time that Polish nobility pandered about the ideas of Samartism – that the Polish Nobles were really Persians who brought civilization and culture into Eastern Europe.

        Also at this time, Christian peasants were asking how did all these Jews come to be among us? Why are they not like us, not Christians? As Judaism enjoyed a brief period of proselytism, Judaism was adopted very early by Central and Eastern European peasant societies (everyone was a peasant) from the Rhein to the Volga. (I remember finding 2nd century Jewish graves on the fringes of Mainz, right below Gonzenheim…hope to show them to you sometime.)

        Jews of Central and Eastern Europe spoke Yiddish – an old medieval German Dialect, but as some Jewish prayers were still recited in Hebrew, Marr gave the answer- They must of the Semitic people!
        They do not belong to us.

        So as Zionism was also emerging along with other race-nation blut und boden ideologies of the time, the early Zionist adopted Marr’s deluded expression, “Semites” to mean Jews.

        Just as the Poles were deluded into thinking themselves as Samartists, European Jews were deluded into thinking themselves Semites of the Middle East for the race thing- (Today, calling someone a Samartist in Poland is the same as calling someone a phony with airs.)

        But in today’s world Zionists cling to this because just as our resident Zio defender, JeffB, states, *Zionists use this term because the analogy with Israel is so incredibly obvious.”

        Semite = European Jew is to make claim. A claim just as phony as if a bunch of “Samaritian” Poles started claiming parts of Iran.

        That is why Zionist will fight this term, “Semite” to mean Jews to the end. But in the end….it will be as ridiculous as Poles calling themselves Samartians.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 5, 2014, 2:45 am

        @ yonah freshman,

        Q: I sense that you are deeply ideological rather than sensible.

        R: When I put up that sign 2 weeks ago, ‘Wanted, Clairvoyant’ you never rang.

        If you can’t remain civil, I’m done talking to you. Sayo-ff-ing-nara.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 4, 2014, 7:28 am

        Ellen, one more thing:

        “Antisemitic”or “Semites” was a term coined by a mid 19th century anti Jewish bigot to describe European Jews.

        Actually and it is really easy to see, if you understand the word and its usage, it was a self-description. Oh, yes I tried to add that too. ;)

        That is these guys used it to describe themselves: I am an “Antisemite”, and thus I have specific political demands. I object to Jews, “the Semites”, “the other”, having the same rights as me. I am against “the Jew”. The singular is quite sufficient, since I also assume, they are all the same.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 8:41 am

        “Antisemitic”or “Semites” was a term coined by a mid 19th century anti Jewish bigot to describe European Jews.

        Ironically Zionists adopted this bizarre language for self description.

        This is just factually wrong. Antisemitic was introduced when trying to determine what should be the national rights of German and French citizens who had converted to Christianity but were of Jewish ethnicity. The anti-Semities used it as a term of self description for their position that Judaism was a genetic disease that baptism couldn’t wash off. They wanted racial bigotry towards Jews not just religious bigotry and wanted to distinguish their position from the previous anti-Judaic position that while Judaism was a noxious religion there was no reason to discriminate against people who were ethnically Jewish once that had accepted Jesus as their savior and joined Christian society.

        Zionists use this term because the analogy with Israel is so incredibly obvious. The equivalent of the anti-Judaics are those who believed that Jews were a noxious people because they weren’t part of their host societies but would have no objection to them forming a society of their own ( see for example the frequent claims against the Jewish lobby here for example). The anti-Semities would then be analogous to those who reject the legitimacy of a Jewish state under any circumstances. Judaism being a sin that even forming Israel (analogous to baptism) can’t wash off.

      • eljay
        eljay
        April 4, 2014, 9:28 am

        >> The anti-Semities would then be analogous to those who reject the legitimacy of a Jewish state under any circumstances. Judaism being a sin that even forming Israel (analogous to baptism) can’t wash off.

        Oh, the melodrama! :-(

        There is one way a “Jewish State” can be legitimate: Make Jewish a bureaucratic nationality and grant it to all citizens of, immigrants to, and ex-pats and refugees from the geographic region comprising Jewish State – the secular and democratic state of and for all Jewish people, equally.

        Anything else is just religion-based supremacism defended by hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists wielding accusations of anti-Semitism.

      • mikeo
        mikeo
        April 4, 2014, 10:36 am

        Well at least you’re consistent JeffB.

        Consistently factually incorrect about almost every topic you choose to pontificate on…

        Wilhelm Marr is commonly acknowledged as the originator of the term anti-semitism.

        Britannica

        Jewish Virtual Library: Wilhelm Marr

        Known as the father of modern antisemitism, Wilhelm Marr led the fight to overturn Jewish emancipation in Germany.

        Born in 1819, Marr entered politics as a democratic revolutionary who favored the emancipation of all oppressed groups, including Jews. However, when he became embittered about the failure of the 1848-49 German Revolution to democratize Germany, and about his own rapidly declining political fortunes, he turned his venom against the Jews. His essay “Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum von nicht confessionellen Standpunkt” (“The Victory of Judaism over Germandom: From a Non-Denominational Point of View”) reached its 12th edition in 1879.

        Marr’s conception of antisemitism focused on the supposed racial, as opposed to religious, characteristics of the Jews. His organization, the League of Antisemites, introduced the word “antisemite” into the political lexicon and established the first popular political movement based entirely on anti-Jewish beliefs.

        Marr’s often-reprinted political tract, “The Victory of Judaism over Germandom,” warned that “the Jewish spirit and Jewish consciousness have overpowered the world.” He called for resistance against “this foreign power” before it was too late. Marr thought that before long “there will be absolutely no public office, even the highest one, which the Jews will not have usurped.” For Marr, it was a badge of honor to be called an antisemite.

        Marr and others employed the word antisemitism in the largely secular anti-Jewish political campaigns that became widespread in Europe around the turn of the century. The word derived from an 18th-century analysis of languages that differentiated between those with so-called “Aryan” roots and those with so-called “Semitic” ones. This distinction led, in turn, to the assumption–a false one–that there were corresponding racial groups. Within this framework, Jews became “Semites,” and that designation paved the way for Marr’s new vocabulary. He could have used the conventional German term Judenhass to refer to his hatred of Jews, but that way of speaking carried religious connotations that Marr wanted to de-emphasize in favor of racial ones. Apparently more “scientific,” Marr’s Antisemitismus caught on. Eventually, it became a way of speaking about all the forms of hostility toward Jews throughout history.Known as the father of modern antisemitism, Wilhelm Marr led the fight to overturn Jewish emancipation in Germany.

        Born in 1819, Marr entered politics as a democratic revolutionary who favored the emancipation of all oppressed groups, including Jews. However, when he became embittered about the failure of the 1848-49 German Revolution to democratize Germany, and about his own rapidly declining political fortunes, he turned his venom against the Jews. His essay “Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum von nicht confessionellen Standpunkt” (“The Victory of Judaism over Germandom: From a Non-Denominational Point of View”) reached its 12th edition in 1879.

        Marr’s conception of antisemitism focused on the supposed racial, as opposed to religious, characteristics of the Jews. His organization, the League of Antisemites, introduced the word “antisemite” into the political lexicon and established the first popular political movement based entirely on anti-Jewish beliefs.

        Marr’s often-reprinted political tract, “The Victory of Judaism over Germandom,” warned that “the Jewish spirit and Jewish consciousness have overpowered the world.” He called for resistance against “this foreign power” before it was too late. Marr thought that before long “there will be absolutely no public office, even the highest one, which the Jews will not have usurped.” For Marr, it was a badge of honor to be called an antisemite.

        Marr and others employed the word antisemitism in the largely secular anti-Jewish political campaigns that became widespread in Europe around the turn of the century. The word derived from an 18th-century analysis of languages that differentiated between those with so-called “Aryan” roots and those with so-called “Semitic” ones. This distinction led, in turn, to the assumption–a false one–that there were corresponding racial groups. Within this framework, Jews became “Semites,” and that designation paved the way for Marr’s new vocabulary. He could have used the conventional German term Judenhass to refer to his hatred of Jews, but that way of speaking carried religious connotations that Marr wanted to de-emphasize in favor of racial ones. Apparently more “scientific,” Marr’s Antisemitismus caught on. Eventually, it became a way of speaking about all the forms of hostility toward Jews throughout history.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 4, 2014, 6:18 pm

        Yes, Mikeo, that’s it, but there is one irritating passage:

        The word derived from an 18th-century analysis of languages that differentiated between those with so-called “Aryan” roots and those with so-called “Semitic” ones.

        I am neither interested in nor an expert in historical linguistics. But basically it is a bit odd to juxtapose the “Aryan” language family with the “Semitic” one in the Marr context. No idea why they do. Since in historical linguistics “Aryan” actually stands for the languages of the continent India. Here is a late 19th century book on Archive.org: Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan languages of India

        Here is one map of what used to be called over here in Germany: Indo-Germanic [Indogermanisch] languages with “Indo” standing for the languages on the Indian continent. We use Indo-European languages (map) now too now. Although not always. This society founded in the 50s kept the old term: Indogermanisch.

        Here is another map: The Early distribution of the Indo-European languages.

        And this is the page where I found the map. The Indo-Europeans and historical linguistics

        I will not go into Himmler’s obsession and sponsorship of anthropological excursion to India in search for traces of the early Germanic conquerors of the continent. I am joking, of course. Since I don’t think that is what they have in mind. But who knows?

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        April 4, 2014, 3:37 pm

        Think about how Charles Freeman, Carter, Archbishop Tutu my dear friend Art Gish etc have been labeled “anti semitic”

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        April 4, 2014, 4:18 pm

        Things were quite confused in nineteenth century Europe. Marr did popularise ‘anti-Semitism’, the word becoming widely used from around 1880. He seems to have recanted later. Meanwhile Otto Weininger around the turn of the century became the most influential ‘self-hating Jew’, proving his self-hatred by committing suicide.
        There were many good and creative currents at the same time and not long after. Weimar would have been one of the great creative periods but for the madness caused by the Depression coming too soon after the traumatic war.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 5, 2014, 3:14 am

        Kathleen- If your reference was to people who were called antisemites in the course of discussions of Israel, then you are right. The terms is used with abandon and is often misused and abused.

        Since Jimmy Carter is the subject of another post currently, I will react to him here.

        Jimmy Carter was not merely viewed as antagonistic towards Israel, but his cultural roots combined with wearing his religion on his sleeve, marked him as someone foreign to most Jews. Can you name another president who wore his religion on his sleeve like Carter? The only one I can think of is Bush II and Bush II’s relationship with the Jewish vote is a different story in its entirety. But there was a combination of reaction to Carter’s religion and the middle east issue that made Jews more uneasy had it only been the middle east.

        By the way, these days I wish (purely based on the Israel Palestine issue) that Carter had been reelected. (I voted for Carter in 80, but it was after the exit polls had declared Reagan victor, so I didn’t really need to fear.) Just read Aaron David Miller’s book and the defeat of Carter in 80 and Bush Pere in 92 were both setbacks to the prospects of peace.

        But I recall the primary in New York in the spring of 80 where carter ran ads: “Blessed are the peacemakers for they are the children of God.” “Vote for Jimmy Carter peacemaker.” Superimposed under a photo of the threesome handshake between Carter Begin and Sadat. And my reaction was “Jimmy Carter, son of God.” Whoever came up with those ads was stupid. I cannot believe they won any Jewish votes. They came off arrogant, religious and foreign. (I suppose Jewish votes in new york are the foreigners, but still, those were the votes he was trying to garner, he needed to relate and he didn’t.)

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 2:50 pm

        Carter was punished for having forced Israel out of the Sinai. Carter was suspected, correctly, of intending to get Israel out of the other occupied territories.

        I heard Carter was in a bookstore in Seattle, Washington State early this week, signing new book But no mention in the newspaper, apparently.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 4, 2014, 7:18 am

        I actually wanted to close the tags but maybe noticed too late and booom I was catapulted out of the editing process.

        Maybe I spent too much time adding this: Here is a trace of how language science or linguistics mutated into racism: Wikipedia.

        Much can be said against the usage of the word, also against the way jonah uses it suggesting a direct line quite possibly from Egypt to Hitler. But I can see that this may be exactly why the term is considered useful. ;)

      • bilal a
        bilal a
        April 4, 2014, 9:32 am

        I think its a misnomer to describe the set of ideas that came to fruition in the decadence of Wiemar as ‘Semitic’ or ‘Jewish”, the majority of its adherents have always been Gentile apostates, or as ‘The American Conservative’ put it:

        “the displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values.”
        Vladimir Putin, Christian Crusader?
        By Patrick J. Buchanan • April 4, 2014
        http://www.theamericanconservative.com/vladimir-putin-christian-crusader/

        or as St. Paul put it, the party of pagan Rome and of the Christopaths:

        “[They] have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (I Thess 1:15).”

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 4, 2014, 10:50 am

        bilal, I would object to the “decadence of Weimar”. But I am a) no conservative and b) I am not in the mood to lecture you. If you would substitute “problems” for “decadence”, I would have much less problems. And yes there were a series of problems not just one.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 6:51 pm

        Important objection (so-called “decadence” ofWeimar).

      • bilal a
        bilal a
        April 5, 2014, 8:42 am

        @LeaNder,@James Canning Re:: Wiemar decadence: human trafficking of children .

        “The pathetic situation of the German mark ensured tourists a real deal on the little boy or girl who’d caught their eye..
        A snapshot of Berlin between the world wars includes nudist magazines devoted entirely to children; glittering cabaret shows parading acres of sweaty, perfumed female flesh; and an endless supply of cafes, bars and private clubs catering to gay men, transvestites, lesbians and sadomasochists.

        Inflation is so rampant that the local paper currency is good only for toilet paper. Cocaine, morphine and opium are peddled on every street corner. And more than 120,000 desperate women and girls of every age and stripe sell their bodies for a pittance, including mother-daughter prostitution teams and brazen streetwalkers well into the third trimester of pregnancy. ”
        http://www.salon.com/2000/11/22/weimar/

        Hollywood values are not new.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 1:31 pm

        I am well aware of the suffering, exploitation etc etc in Germany in the wake of the catastrophic First World War, and civil war in Germany after that war.

  5. Sycamores
    Sycamores
    April 3, 2014, 10:25 am

    Thanks for the inside story.

    pro-israel students played the only card they had to manufactured persecution designed to intimidate and silence students inclined toward Palestine solidarity activism.

    they can’t counter the Palestinian narrative without sounding like sympathisers for israeli occupation so they resort to dirty tactics.

    these tactics can only last for so long until they are expose, like the Jewish girl who got busted for drawing swastikas on her door.

    i found that Da’Quan video offensive and by the look of most of the people he pester they did too.

    BTW what is it with pro-israelis and bathrooms? is it because no cameras are allow?

  6. Citizen
    Citizen
    April 3, 2014, 10:32 am

    Thanks, Max.
    I’m still reading Goliath. How’s it going there?

  7. Ellen
    Ellen
    April 3, 2014, 10:41 am

    Excellent reporting. And frightening.

    I would think that IF there are allegations that SJP students are a threat to other students and student leader Dishell has been targeted with “threats of violence” the University administration must call for a complete investigation to such charges. With this the truth will come out.

    And Dishell would be exposed for intended liable. So with ugly charges against them, why does the SJP not call for an independent and outside investigation? (If the charges really were true, why didn’t Dishell report them to the FBI or state police?)

    This could get much uglier. The likes of a Dishell and others are not beyond creating a “false flag” attack upon the university or other students. The tactic is to push the SJP into a corner where they are thrashing in defense before the crushing. This is how it works.

    These were the same tactics against the civil rights movement of the 60s. And it was only after the tactics and violence against civil rights supporters and black Americans became to horrific and in your face that citizenry could no longer turn away.

    If anyone is truly threatened, it is the SJP.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      April 3, 2014, 12:00 pm

      @Ellen

      (If the charges really were true, why didn’t Dishell report them to the FBI or state police?) I would think that IF there are allegations that SJP students are a threat to other students and student leader Dishell has been targeted with “threats of violence” the University administration must call for a complete investigation to such charges. With this the truth will come out.

      That’s what happened at Northeastern, the Jewish students did file multiple formal police reports. That was why the administration freaked out. You got your formal investigation and the results while unknown publicly evidently were not that the charges were entirely baseless.

      Look at all the cursing and denigration you see constantly at MW towards Zionists. If that kind of behavior is happening in person it sure sounds like intimidation to me. What other purpose does the rudeness serve?

      UMich Jewish students constantly complained that they found the behavior of the anti-Zionist organizers personally threatening. The appropriate thing for the anti-Zionists organizers to have done would have been to have met with them and come up with “term of engagement” / civility codes that kept this a political debate about UMich investment portfolio which is what the motion was supposedly about. But BDSers have constantly refused to engage politely. The “I have a righteous cause so therefore I can act like an asshole” attitude is rather key to BDS.

      If you all agree that an atmosphere of intimidation is a bad thing on campus then why not work to fix it? 20 year olds may lack some experience in how to engage others politely. Why encourage them? Do you want do deescalate or to escalate? Ultimately that’s a choice that the BDS movement is going to have to deal with. BDS wants to argue it doesn’t lead to ethnic tension. Well look at what’s happening a UMich that’s ethnic tension. Where do you think it came from?

      ______

      Finally I can’t help but commenting on Zidan being upset about having to constantly be put on the defensive by waves of attackers throwing baseless false accusations… in Max’s piece. You know like what Israel has to deal with from books like Goliath. I thought what they were doing to Israel is no big deal?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 3, 2014, 1:42 pm

        Except nothing in Max’s book is “baseless”, dumbass. But there you go again, slandering your better.

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 4, 2014, 12:55 am

        Not true, Woody. Here’s one example of an error in Goliath (and certainly not the only one):
        Max claims that no laws were broken in a case in which the Arab Israeli defendant was ordered to pay damages, reporting only that the judge’s rationale for his ruling was that the defendant had increased tensions in Haifa:
        http://books.google.com/books?id=MP5i8c0XaSoC&pg=PT126&lpg=PT126#v=onepage&q&f=false
        Except that is clearly not the case as you can see from the decision:
        http://www.lawdata.co.il/UpLoad/PsakDin/796228.rtf

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 4, 2014, 11:48 am

        (Since the decision is written in Hebrew, a minor, tribal language, is there any chance that you have a copy of it written in a language that more than a small number of poeple in the world understand? Perhaps in a major important language like English or Arabic?)

        Anyway, reading through the on-line translation of the opinion, it appears that Max is absolutely right. The law in question did not say anything about refusing service because someone is wearing a uniform and is armed. To judge from the translation, this fact was simply ignored and the judge decided that because there was this reaction, that that somehow supports the notion that there was discrimination. (Of course, absent a clear translation of the opinion, I can only make that assertion tentitively and would reevaluate it in the event a translation were available.)

        Now, you’re free to disagree with Max’s evalutation of the opinion, the law and the situation, but that does not make Max’s evaluation and discussion of the case an “error,” it merely demonstrates a disagreement.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 4, 2014, 3:42 pm

        Except that is clearly not the case as you can see from the decision

        No it isn’t clear, since the owner offered to serve the same individual, if he would obey the rules and come back without his weapon and uniform. The judgment cites an anti-discrimination statute that isn’t “clearly” applicable.

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 5, 2014, 4:09 am

        I do not understand how anyone can read that court decision and conclude that Max’s passage is an accurate account. Judge Shimon Sher found that the defendant had violated the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law 5761-2000 and compared it to refusing entry to a Muslim woman wearing a veil (רעלה).

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 5, 2014, 10:03 am

        “I do not understand how anyone can read that court decision and conclude that Max’s passage is an accurate account.”

        Because one is permitted to find that the judge’s legal conclusions were not supported by the facts.

        “Judge Shimon Sher found that the defendant had violated the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law 5761-2000 and compared it to refusing entry to a Muslim woman wearing a veil (רעלה).”

        Yes, and it was that rationale that was frank nonsense, as Max correctly concluded. No where did Max say that this Judge didn’t find otherwise. He simply made the statement that these people had broken no laws. Neither Max nor anyone else is required to agree with this judge’s frankly nonsensical reasoning and absurd conclusion.

        And the part you discuss is a perfect example of the grossly bad “reasoning” in this opinion. Nowhere does that law make any mention of uniforms, and that uniform is worn by Druze and Bedouin and non-Jews as well as Jews so it is not a stand in for “Jew” the way that the veil is for “Muslim woman” so it is wholly irrational to find that discriminating on the basis of the uniform is akin to discriminating against Jews. (Especially when all agree that the owner would have welcomed the militant gunman had he come back without the terror force outfit.)

        Which raises the other point of what motivated this judge’s reasoning. Clearly, given the absolute horrific level of anti-Arab racism in Israel, both officially and unofficially, it seems that the government could have used this time and expense to better use to solve that problem, rather than bothering with whether a Jew had to change clothes before being served. But this judge had to know that this poorly reasoned and frankly disgusting decision would destroy the defendant’s life, one must conclude that this decision was motivated by nothing other than the judge’s desire to destroy the life of a Palestinian who dared to fail to bow and scrape at the foot of an I”D”F terrorist but, instead, stood up for himself.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 3:15 pm

        I do not understand how anyone can read that court decision and conclude that Max’s passage is an accurate account. Judge Shimon Sher found that the defendant had violated the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law 5761-2000 and compared it to refusing entry to a Muslim woman wearing a veil (רעלה).

        Well nobody was ever shot and killed because a Muslim veil accidentally discharged. It appears the law was amended so that common sense can no longer be exercised to keep GIs from carrying weapons into places of public entertainment or getting drunk in uniform:

        Israel: Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services, and Entry into Public Places

        (Apr 11, 2011) On March 30, 2011, the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) passed a second amendment to the Prohibition of Discrimination in Products, Services, and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law, 5761-2000. The Law prohibits discrimination in supplying products and public services and giving entry based on the following grounds: race, religion, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, views, political affiliation, personal status, and paternity. The March 2011 amendment extends the list of grounds for discrimination to also include “the introduction of conditions that are irrelevant.”

        According to explanatory notes for the bill, different treatment that derives from the character or the nature of the place or service in question, or that is made by a non- profit organization in promoting the special needs of a specific group, and the provision of separate arrangements for men and women in a way that does not contradict promoting equality have been recognized by Israeli courts as not constituting discrimination. According to these explanatory notes, the inclusion of “irrelevant conditions” among those grounds that may qualify as discriminatory was intended to address the problem of circumventing the Law by preventing or delaying entry and service based on “irrelevant reasons.”

        The Law establishes a presumption based on which the burden of proof in proceedings under the Law’s provisions shifts to the defendant when the plaintiff has proven that the defendant had refused to supply products or provide entry or services in public places, after either inquiring about or making a decision based on the above discriminatory grounds.

        The March amendment adds another situation in which the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove his innocence. This will occur in circumstances where the plaintiff has proven that the defendant had delayed supplying a product, the provision of a public service, or the entry into or the provision of a service in a public place, to persons who belong to a group that is identified by any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination and not to persons who do not belong to such a group. (Prohibition on Discrimination in Products, Services, and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law, 5761-2000 [in Hebrew], SEFER HAHUKIM [Book of Laws, the official gazette], No. 1765, p. 58, as amended; Prohibition on Discrimination in Products, Services, and Entry into Places of Entertainment and Public Places Law (Amendment No. 2), 5771-2011 & bill[both in Hebrew], the Knesset website (both last visited Mar. 8, 2011).)

        Author: Ruth Levush More by this author
        http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205402622_text

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 6, 2014, 2:52 am

        Maybe I missed it, but I saw no mention of weapons in both the judge’s decisions and news reports; it was about the soldier’s uniform, not whether or not he was armed (as far as I can tell). Let’s assume that you two are correct and that the judge’s decision was incorrect. If that were the case, the proper way to report that would be “The judge found that the defendant had violated the law, but ACRI disputes this finding b/c…” Max suggested that the judge awarded the plaintiff damages merely b/c the defendant had increased tensions in Haifa despite that the defendant had not violated the law. Again, I see no way that one can conclude that Max’s passage is an accurate account.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 6, 2014, 8:25 am

        Maybe I missed it, . . . Again, I see no way that one can conclude that Max’s passage is an accurate account.

        I don’t see how you can reach an intelligent conclusion, based upon an appeal to your own ignorance or lack of information. That line of argumentation is pretty underwhelming, especially since the law was only amended in 2011 to make the situation described in Max’s article a “condition that is irrelevant”. Prior to that it was perfectly legal to deny service to everyone wearing any kind of uniform or carrying a weapon, just so long as you did not discriminate based upon race, religion, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, views, political affiliation, personal status, and paternity:

        In February 2010, an army sergeant named Raviv Roth stomped into the café in his uniform with a gun slung over his shoulder and demanded service. “I told him we have a policy against uniforms, so if he comes back in civilian clothes I will be happy to serve him and I’ll give him the best service he’s ever had,” Fidaa recalled. Instead of returning without his olive drab, the young man called his father, a well-connected local politician, who promptly called the police, demanding they shut down the café. But when the police arrived, they told the angry young man there was nothing they could do: Azad had the right to refuse service to customers just as other private businesses in Israel did.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 7, 2014, 1:20 pm

        “If that were the case, the proper way to report that would be ‘The judge found that the defendant had violated the law, but ACRI disputes this finding b/c…'”

        Why would you lead with the holding of this biased judge of this kangaroo court? If you were going to do both sides, then it would be more proper to say, “The proprietor did not violate the law. The judge sided with his fellow national, despite the fact that the law nowhere made ‘wearing a uniform’ an improper condition in the law, blaming the shopowner for increasing tensions in Haifa by standing up for his rights.”

        But ultimately all that this shows is that you disagree with how Max chose to report it, not that his statements on the case are “baseless” which was the original lie by you and JeffB. Which seems par for the course with you people: if someone doesn’t spin things to favor the oppressor or if someone tell the truth about the horrors you all inflict on the Palestinians and they dare show the truth of the oppression, you call it “baseless.” You people trade in nothing but lies.

        “Max suggested that the judge awarded the plaintiff damages merely b/c the defendant had increased tensions in Haifa despite that the defendant had not violated the law.”

        No, he said they had broken no laws. And that is true. The law did not make discrimination based on wearing the I”D”F terror uniform in any way against the law. He also said that the judge blamed the victim for the increase in tension (which was euphamism for the frenzied, racist reaction to a Palestinians having the gall to stand up for himself.)

        You made up the “merely b/c” part out of whole cloth. At most, Max suggested that that was the judge’s real reason for the finding. I think that’s probably true, although I don’t believe Max gave enough credit to the idea that this judge is probably simply a irredeemable racist and found as he did because the defendant was a Palestinian.

        “Again, I see no way that one can conclude that Max’s passage is an accurate account.”

        Because you conflate the opinion of this disgrace of a judge with the fact of whether this Palestinian violated the law. Again, just because some two-bit zio absused his office in order to ruin the life of a Palestinian doesn’t mean that there is any truth in that decision.

      • eljay
        eljay
        April 3, 2014, 3:45 pm

        >> The “I have a righteous cause so therefore I can act like an asshole” attitude is rather key to BDS.

        At least they’re acting like assholes for a righteous cause. Zio-supremacists have been doing it for over 60 years for the hateful and immoral cause of Jewish supremacism in Palestine.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 3, 2014, 5:47 pm

        Look at all the cursing and denigration you see constantly at MW towards Zionists.

        Look at the lies and smears you Zios lead with and then complain when you are called on your lies.

        No one is cursed or denigrated for being a Zionist. They are called out as such when like you, they lie, post racist and supremacist garbage.

      • Kay24
        Kay24
        April 4, 2014, 9:17 am

        Good response, and very clear. :))

      • libra
        libra
        April 3, 2014, 6:04 pm

        JeffB: The “I have a righteous cause so therefore I can act like an asshole” attitude is rather key to BDS.

        Jeff, why not get yourself a decent lawyer like hophmi and sue for plagiarism?

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 3, 2014, 10:33 pm
      • Citizen
        Citizen
        April 5, 2014, 2:14 am

        @ Daniel Rich
        So, a jewish college freshman girl complains about swastika graffiti in her dorm, but a hidden camera discovers she herself drew it there. No charges will be made against her, no hate crime stuff there, eh? No (attempted) manipulation of college cultural and political dynamics, free speech issue , etc. She was told to get some shrink help. Moved on, nothing to be seen there.

        A poet might see more, might see a simile or the personification of Zionist propaganda-as-implemented since “time immemorial.”

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 5, 2014, 9:14 am

        @Daniel —

        This was an isolated incident years ago. What does this have to do with anything?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 9:25 am

        @ JeffB, Tell me about Jewish students on campus…

        See: Settler sprays ‘slaughter Jews’ on own car: Young Jewish man admits to police he staged ‘Arab price tag’ act to ‘raise awareness’
        http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4404163,00.html

        When Zionists can’t find enough real anti-semitism to fuel their movement, they simply invent some.

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 6, 2014, 3:14 am

        I’m not sure what your point is, Hostage. Such hoaxes are not unique to Jews/Zionists:
        http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-04-27/news/0504270153_1_president-greg-waybright-alicia-hardin-american-college-personnel-association

        It’s inappropriate to generalize about a group based on the actions of a few members of said group, and frankly, I find it absurd that other Mondoweiss commenters have insinuated that I’m lying about my statement that I was called a k*ke.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 6, 2014, 7:48 am

        It’s inappropriate to generalize about a group based on the actions of a few members of said group

        I have no problem generalizing about the dishonest schemes, racketeering, and terrorism that have always been endemic among Zionists. Herzl was a despot who wanted to found a global empire and assume the role of the head of new royal family.
        * http://www.oldsite.momentmag.net/moment/issues/2008/06/200805-Herzl.html
        * http://books.google.com/books?id=z99L5XBsbdkC&lpg=PA244&pg=PA244#v=onepage&q&f=false

        Ben Gurion worked as a union organizer in Plosnk, with other young revolutionaries. They extorted money for Palestine from wealthy Jews at gunpoint. http://books.google.com/books?id=UEQggnBIUUgC&lpg=PA340&ots=tIPwVKVYFM&pg=PA198#v=onepage&q&f=false

        When he and his comrades finally went to Palestine, they helped found a trade union there that operated as “a state within the state” with its own illegal militias and industries that were involved in corruption, protection rackets, assassinations, bombings, and other acts of terror. The only thing that distinguishes him from gangsters like Jimmy Hoffa is that he acquired a degree of sovereignty through his life of crime, conquest, and ethnic cleansing, before he destroyed his own political career as a result of the scandal surrounding the Lavon Affair.

        If you check the comment archives, you’ll find we’ve discussed the fact that Zionists leaders have blown up ships full of Jewish refugees for propaganda purposes, and buildings full of civilians, airports, nuclear reactors – you name it – in places like Palestine, the neighboring states, Tunisia, Iraq, and Iran – all the while denying or covering-up their actual roles for decades and allowing others to take the blame. Zionists have dispatched terrorists who have assassinated friendly government officials and civilians, almost from the moment the movement was established, e.g. Jacob Israël de Haan, Walter Guinness, Manuel Allende Salazar, Folke Bernadotte, Ahmed Bouchiki. & etc. Zionists have also promoted a hateful anti-Gentile doctrine from the moment Pinsker and Herzl picked-up their pens and began to write embarrassing racist claptrap like Judeophobia and Der Judenstaat that rivals anything ever written by Wilhelm Marr.

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 6, 2014, 10:55 pm

        Hostage, I’m not appealing to my ignorance or my lack of information but rather being careful not to make assertions that might be incorrect, as I don’t claim to have read all news reports on the case. That the law was amended in 2011 does not necessarily mean that prior to 2011, it was “perfectly legal to deny service to everyone wearing any kind of uniform,” as you claim. Judge Sher’s decision stated that based on legal precedent, the list of “protected classes” in the relevant law was not meant to be exhaustive and that “any incident where equals receive different treatment is defined as illegal discrimination.”

        Many of the claims you make about Zionist/Israeli leaders could just as well apply to Palestinian nationalists/Palestinian leaders, and surely analogous generalizations about Palestinian nationalists would be regarded as bigoted.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 8, 2014, 4:27 am

        Judge Sher’s decision stated that based on legal precedent, the list of “protected classes” in the relevant law was not meant to be exhaustive and that “any incident where equals receive different treatment is defined as illegal discrimination.”

        That’s an example of a Judge-made law issued for the occasion from the bench. In the past, I’ve cited the Israel Yearbook on Human Rights (edited by Yoram Dinstein), the CERD reports, and the Religious and secular MKs participating in a meeting of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee who have all explained that equality is not entrenched in any Israeli Basic Laws or statutes and that Israel systematically discriminates against its non-Jewish citizens on the basis of their “nationality”.

        Many of the claims you make about Zionist/Israeli leaders could just as well apply to Palestinian nationalists/Palestinian leaders, and surely analogous generalizations about Palestinian nationalists would be regarded as bigoted.

        That’s something I’ve pointed out myself if you’d care to check the archives. I’ve noted that the core fundamental human rights are not subject to any derogation and that even an anti-semite is still unconditionally entitled to them. But you haven’t cited a corresponding case where a Palestinian judge has discriminated against an Israeli owner over public accommodations.

      • American
        American
        April 6, 2014, 11:15 am

        jeffb says….

        ”If you all agree that an atmosphere of intimidation is a bad thing on campus then why not work to fix it? 20 year olds may lack some experience in how to engage others politely. Why encourage them? Do you want do deescalate or to escalate?>>>>

        We want to escalate. ….this is a war after all……Zionist vr Americans for will own America.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 6, 2014, 2:00 pm

        @American

        We want to escalate. ….this is a war after all……Zionist vr Americans for will own America.

        That’s different than most BDSers who claim to be primarily interested in Palestine. Your battle is more traditional for the last 3 centuries trying to prevent the Jewish secret infiltration of the government and/or the secret government. Obviously you would and should expect Jews to oppose that sort of movement.

  8. seafoid
    seafoid
    April 3, 2014, 10:52 am

    Many people have suffered under Zionism, Cliff and the bots are following standard operating procedure with these kids. Thinks of all the families with a father, a brother or a son in prison. The Zionists are losing the bigger war, however.

  9. LeaNder
    LeaNder
    April 3, 2014, 11:06 am

    Thanks Max, great reporting. I will have to take a much much closer look at this and listen to all the pro-divestment speeches.

    Hmm photoshopping facebook photos again. That’s a familiar tool. Interesting what you can make people belief as long as the basic imagery is firmly established in their mind. Palestinians = terrorists. These tactics sure need a lot of daylight.

    What this reminds me of is a hysterical letter by a Jewish Canadian student, who wrote about the Holocaust and how she understood the first time the horrible threat against Jews when she tried to listen to a speech by, if I remember correctly, an Israeli on campus and was confronted with pro-Palestine activists, and how she feared for her life. And how grateful she was that Israel was there for her after all.

    It also reminds me of a really great portrait of another early Campus republican, or more precisely the wonderful portrait by Nicholas Lemann of Carl Rove: The Controller.

  10. American
    American
    April 3, 2014, 11:20 am

    @ Cliff

    No don’t ban the zios….let people see what they are by what they say.
    Could cut down on the trolls though who monopolize entire threads with un sourced and unverified nonsense.

  11. amigo
    amigo
    April 3, 2014, 11:21 am

    Read the myopic ramblings of someone who produces these hateful supporters of Apartheid/Ethnic Cleansing child torture and war crimes.Only one end for these desperados.

    Note the hypocrisy in this racists mumblings.

    “The rabbis in Avot taught us: “Jealousy of others, hatred of others and uncontrollable desires (such as greed) remove a person from this world.” By this they meant that these evil instincts if left unchecked simply destroy human life and society.

    Governed by greed, desire, hatred and jealousy, the person caught in such a trap of one’s own making values human life cheaply. All means, violent and murderous as they may be, are fair game for use by such a person.

    Society must learn to protect itself from these vicious values. The current worldwide economic downturn may yet contribute to a reordering of priorities in today’s society. Thus Greed may yet become more tempered, though it is difficult to fathom a solution for unmitigated hatred.

    All pacifist philosophies throughout the ages have run aground on the shoals of irrational hatreds. It is the tragedy of human history that hatred destroys all human values, certainly the one of any sort of reverence for human life or the right of the “other” to also live unharmed. “Rabbi Wein

    http://www.rabbiwein.com/blog/greed-hatred-death-320.html

  12. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    April 3, 2014, 11:22 am

    Frightening indeed. And just as the USA’s Supreme Court (USA’s highest and virtually unanswerable legislative body) has nearly confirmed the oligarchy’s triumph over democracy. The concrete is almost dry on the feet of democracy. And similarly on college campuses which have already showed a dismal tendency to listen to Zio-$$$ when deciding whether free speech and academic freedom have any future on campus.

  13. James North
    James North
    April 3, 2014, 11:48 am

    My favorite part is the exchange between Max Blumenthal and Ben Meisel, who contended that the pro-BDSers had called him “a kike.” Meisel obviously got the word from his grandfather or even great-grandfather. The word died out in the 1960s, just as classic anti-Semitism was disappearing in the United States. Meisel had to stick an extinct word into the mouths of his debate opponents precisely because there is no need today to describe something that no longer exists.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      April 3, 2014, 12:18 pm

      @James

      My 14 year old knows the word. She considers it way old fashioned like wop, gook, mic, polack… (her examples) from the era of neighborhoods. So she would never use those words but she knows them. Those sorts of ethnic neighborhoods were still often vibrant right through the 1980s in the NorthEast, and I suspect in more rural areas exist today. I’ve certainly heard the word used though and I didn’t speak yet during the 60s. Futher it isn’t like Arab or Black students couldn’t google, “What’s the Jewish equivalent of nigger”. As for no new word existing this generation is the one that invented “539s”.

      BDS is creating ethnic tension. Ethnic tension is creating a need for ethnic slurs. The preferred term to replace kike, “zionist”, doesn’t work so well because Jews are proud of “zionist” it comes from after the time of fear that kike represents. So it doesn’t do the job.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        April 3, 2014, 1:23 pm

        the first time my 20-something-year-old hear the word, was from a Jewish friend referring to himself. It really is not in the modern goy vernacular.

        The civil rights movement created “ethnic” tension. Tension creates change and moves us forward.

      • Betsy
        Betsy
        April 3, 2014, 1:42 pm

        @JeffB

        Jews are proud of “zionist”

        do you really mean to say this? “All Jews” are proud of this word? I’m curious as to how you got the right & the ability to speak for all Jews? You say that “Zionist” comes *after* the time of fear. Does that mean that Jews do not need to fear now? Hmm. I wonder why that is? Could it perhaps come from the democratic principle that citizenship is based on universal human rights, not ethnic identity in the US. If we are past the time of fear & in a time of pride in the US for people of Jewish background, doesn’t that lessen your argument that Jewish students at U of Mich face an intimidating environment.

        Finally, why on earth do you single out Arab & Black youth, with your image of people googling specifically to find nasty words to call Jewish people? Your very language betrays a kind of racism I believe. Even as it shows that anti-Jewish language has largely disappeared from our common oral culture as Americans.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 3, 2014, 9:46 pm

        @Betsy

        do you really mean to say this? “All Jews” are proud of this word? I’m curious as to how you got the right & the ability to speak for all Jews?

        I’m not speaking for all Jews. I’m speaking for Jews in the aggregate. There are exceptions to any group but when we talk of groups acting an overwhelming majority is fine. So for example “Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan” doesn’t mean all Americans did just that Americans did overwhelmingly.

        You say that “Zionist” comes *after* the time of fear. Does that mean that Jews do not need to fear now? Hmm. I wonder why that is? Could it perhaps come from the democratic principle that citizenship is based on universal human rights, not ethnic identity in the US.

        Nope the reason is Israel that there is today a Jewish army. Certainly the USA has been wonderful for Jews and they have thrived here. There is a variety of reasons for that I think more to do with the fact that American racists had targets they liked more than Jews and thus Jews were always a secondary target here. But regardless that certainly helped 1/3rd of them. Another 1/3rd are dead from the holocaust since then and thus have nothing more to fear. The other 1/3rd are in Israel now and can defend themselves.

        If we are past the time of fear & in a time of pride in the US for people of Jewish background, doesn’t that lessen your argument that Jewish students at U of Mich face an intimidating environment.

        Yes and no. Objectively the if the Arab and Black kids turn this into a battle they will lose. The sort of institutional pressure that Jews are able to deploy against BDS is very different than say what they faced with Father Coughlin from the time when “kike” was a common word. No question. On the other hand I’d rather the kids of UMich today didn’t have to face to employ institutional pressure in the first place because they weren’t being attacked.

        I’d love a world where no one think to question Jewish legitimacy, where Israel for Israelis is as non controversial as Sweden for Swedes; 80% of UMich students couldn’t find Israel on a map and almost all 0 interests in some obscure tribe called Jews and their Jewish religion. That world doesn’t exist yet. And that disproportionate amount of attention is clear evidence of the underlying anti-Semitisim. I don’t see any reason Jewish kids should have to put up with this nonsense but they do. Hopefully in 100 years they won’t have to.

        Finally, why on earth do you single out Arab & Black youth, with your image of people googling specifically to find nasty words to call Jewish people? Your very language betrays a kind of racism I believe.

        Wow you really are into this Zionism = racism stuff! If anything I was saying something nice about the black and arab kid’s parents, that I was pretty sure the kids wouldn’t have picked up the word at home from mom and dad. In my experience only people from the older ethnic neighborhoods know those sorts of terms and 50-100 years ago there were no arab neighborhoods mostly. Blacks under 60 consider Jews to be white people and so wouldn’t use a racial term for Jews.

        Now that the racism issue is put aside… the reason I said Arab and Black is because the overwhelming majority of BDSers at UMich that aren’t Jewish are arab and black. This whole BDSers vs. Jewish thing has racial aspects, ethnic aspects, class aspects, immigrant vs. native… just a load of all sorts of issues college administrators are going to love.

        Even as it shows that anti-Jewish language has largely disappeared from our common oral culture as Americans.

        Well it was until recently. BDS is the first major upsurge in anti-Semitism in a while. Which ironically enough is probably really good for Israel, incidents like UMich are what’s going to get the donors for the AIPAC of 2040. As I said above your side originally tried to make “zionist” a new proxy that wouldn’t be in any truly meaningful sense different than “kike”, “christ killer”/crikey “goldbergs”…? It didn’t work out because the target liked the term, but its the thought that counts. I have yet to be able to come with a single anti-Semetic caricature that that isn’t regularly used here with minor adjustments. And this website is run by Jews, I hesitate to think what the meetings are like when Jews aren’t in the room.

        So yes it is has mostly disappeared and those kids are fighting the battle so that it stays mostly disappeared.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 4, 2014, 3:56 am

        “I’d love a world where no one think to question Jewish legitimacy, where Israel for Israelis is as non controversial as Sweden for Swedes; ”

        Sweden for citizens of Sweden isn’t controversial. Israel for citizens of Israel would be a lot more acceptable than Israel is now. But Israel for Jews is controversial.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        April 4, 2014, 4:07 am

        JeffB:

        I’d love a world where no one think to question Jewish legitimacy, where Israel for Israelis is as non controversial as Sweden for Swedes;

        “Israel for Israelis” IS utterly non-controversial. “Israel is the state for the Jewish People, not its citizens” —much less so.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 4, 2014, 12:18 pm

        @Sibiriak – ‘Israel for Israelis” IS utterly non-controversial.’
        What horse manure! This is part of Palestine and belongs to all Palestinians! It might become “for” the local-born offspring of the illegal invader only if the Palestinians autonomously and without a gun to their head agree to it. It might even accept to citizenship illegally imported alien invaders themselves only under the same conditions.
        Meanwhile, Azrael for Azraelis expresses nothing but deadly aggression.

      • Light
        Light
        April 4, 2014, 5:49 pm

        I’m speaking for Jews in the aggregate

        Really JeffB? When were you elected to be the speaker for Jews? Your opinion only represents yourself.

      • libra
        libra
        April 4, 2014, 6:02 pm

        JeffB: I’m speaking for Jews in the aggregate.

        Surely no group “in aggregate” is as stupid as Jeff?

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 4, 2014, 10:57 pm

        @Light – You can test what Jeff says by looking at any poll that’s believable to you. The results are nothing you want to write home about.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 4, 2014, 12:32 pm

        @Jeff – “I’m not speaking for all Jews. I’m speaking for Jews in the aggregate. There are exceptions to any group but when we talk of groups acting an overwhelming majority is fine.”

        You got that one absolutely right!
        Whoever keeps his tribal ties with a bunch of, in its overwhelming majority, supporters of invasion, dispossession, mass murder and war of aggression, can and should be taken to task!
        It’s perfectly OK to point out that statistics don’t determine individual behavior and no one may automatically assume one’s individual position from collective categories.
        But the fact of not breaking with a group that is criminal in its overwhelming majority signals you as part of it.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 8:53 pm

        @Light

        Really JeffB? When were you elected to be the speaker for Jews? Your opinion only represents yourself.

        Absolutely true my opinion does only represent myself. The polls and collective action taken over multiple situations however do represent the aggregate.

      • BillM
        BillM
        April 3, 2014, 2:15 pm

        Ha!

        Futher it isn’t like Arab or Black students couldn’t google, “What’s the Jewish equivalent of nigger”.

        The idea of racists doing research on the best way to be crudely insulting made me spit up my coffee. I wish Dave Chappelle could do the skit.

        “Internet research suggests ‘kike is adequately offensive for shouting in hallways, but we may need something ruder for the flyers.”
        “Great, thanks. Now for a report from the crude caricature committee.”
        “Our focus group indicates that the noses need to be 20% larger, and unfortunately they found that oversized ears were just confusing.”
        “Keep working at it. Now, does the weak-joke-equating-jews-and-money team have anything to report this week?”

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        April 3, 2014, 2:51 pm

        @ JeffB
        Re: “BDS is creating ethnic tension. Ethnic tension is creating a need for ethnic slurs.”

        As usual, you got it tukas-backwards. Zionist conduct and its enablement by the US Government via AIPAC lobbies, at the expense of Palestinians and US and humanitarian best interests, are creating ethnic tension. Ethnic tension is creating a need for false accusations of anti-semitism and “self-hating jew.”

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 3, 2014, 5:04 pm

        BDS is creating ethnic tension.

        Zioni has been creating ethnic tension for a century. What you are objecting to is that you Zios aren’t having it your own way and that the momentum is turning the other way.

      • April 3, 2014, 8:46 pm

        JeffB. Why would your 14 year old daughter know all those ugly terms?

        My daughters are in their 20s and I asked them about these terms and they had no idea what they meant.

        What kind of upbringing are you giving her? R U passing on your paranoid, racist, supremacist worldview?

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 3, 2014, 11:15 pm

        @Giles

        You are calling me a racist, supremacist paranoid and then are worried about people learning bad terms? Seems to me you might want to consider that you apparently not only know ugly terms but use them quite freely.

      • tree
        tree
        April 5, 2014, 4:19 pm

        Seems to me you might want to consider that you apparently not only know ugly terms but use them quite freely.

        So now you are comparing calling someone racist because of their views with using a slur based on someone’s ethnicity or religion? Stupid argument, Jeff. You might want to try for something a bit more intelligent than the childish, “I’m rubber, your glue” argument.

    • Tobias
      Tobias
      April 3, 2014, 2:07 pm

      Surely there is some computer whiz kid that can figure out who is behind, ZPC Viper Matrix. It sounds like a type of trojan that allowed it to get SAFE peoples details. Would have to think that this behavior – and that of its creator
      is criminal.

    • Nurit Baytch
      Nurit Baytch
      April 3, 2014, 3:00 pm

      I’ve been called a k*ke online within the last few years (and not by a Jew).

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 3, 2014, 5:07 pm

        How do you know it wasn’t a Jew?

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 4, 2014, 12:32 am
      • puppies
        puppies
        April 4, 2014, 12:36 pm

        @Baytch – You seriously expect to be believed on your say-so, on this site? Some cheek.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        April 3, 2014, 9:10 pm

        Evidence?

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 3, 2014, 10:40 pm

        @ Nurit Baytch,

        A girl on a rave Party walked up to me, her pupils heavily diluted by XTC and whispered, “You’re Jesus, aren’t you…?”

        I said, “Oh, god, no…”

        Happens only when you hate yourself.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 4, 2014, 7:59 am

        Mr. Eban (Israel): I can give an unqualified affirmative answer to the second question as to whether we shall cooperate with the organs of the United Nations with all the means at our disposal in the fulfilment of the part of the resolution concerning refugees. — Response to questions about resolution 194(III), 47th session, Ad Hoc Committee hearings on Israel’s application for membership in the United Nations, page 5 of 29 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/AC.24/SR.47

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 4, 2014, 3:31 pm

        P.S. In the Chapter on the Evian Conference, Vladimir Jabotinsky, “The War And The Jew (1942),” the author described Roosevelt’s plans for “preventative evacuation” of Jews, in addition to other relief efforts for “those who were actually expelled or fled”. Here is ab extract from page 136:

        The Evian Conference (July 1938), convened to deal with the question of “refugees from Germany and Austria” and attended by delegates of some thirty governments, was due to President Roosevelt’s initiative. His original intention was comprehensive: he wanted the civilized governments to provide an adequate solution not only for the plight of the actual refugees, but for the whole phenomenon which, by then, already promised to become a fixed feature of the European situation. The scope of his intentions embraced “all” refugees, present and future, those from Germany and Austria and those who were being daily squeezed out of other parts of East-Central Europe. There are some indications that Mr. Roosevelt’s initial plan went even farther: relief was to be provided not only for those who were actually expelled or had fled, but also for those left behind in their agony; in other words, there was to be not only refugee relief but also preventive evacuation.

        https://archive.org/details/warandthejew009960mbp

        So is Jabotinsky’s work a rebuttal to the Holocaust Museum narrative about “Refugees” which describes both the Evian Conference and the Zionist’s Haavara Agreement? http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005139

        It seems that the Arab leaders weren’t the only ones who encouraged civilians to leave while there was still time, but nonetheless considered the affected persons war victims and refugees whether or not they were expelled, fled, or were preventatively evacuated. The bottom line is that after Israel declared martial law and started killing so called “infiltrators”, anyone who had been refused permission to return to their country of origin and registered with the UNRWA was legally a persecuted refugee.

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 5, 2014, 4:56 am

        Hostage, thank you for posting the Abba Eban quote and the link! However, I’m afraid that the context does not support the claim that Israel agreed to abide by UNGA Resolution 194 when it was admitted to the UN. As you can see from the next sentence, Eban then qualifies his “unqualified affirmative answer.” In fact, later on in the same session (p. 282), the representative from Denmark states that based on Eban’s remarks, he presumes that Israel will not accept paragraph 11 of Res 194 regarding repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. Eban then gives an evasive answer and concludes by saying he will address these issues after further study/consulting legal experts. Then, on the next day, Eban returns to answer the question:
        http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL4/900/14/PDF/NL490014.pdf?OpenElement
        He basically says Israel is seeking a negotiated settlement of the refugee problem with Arab states in the context of a peace agreement. It is clear that Israel is implicitly rejecting article 11 of Res 194. In fact, the representative from Lebanon stated that he would not vote for Res 273 precisely b/c of this: “On two important questions, namely, the return of the Arab refugees and the internationalization of Jerusalem, the Lebanese delegation could draw no satisfactory conclusions from the statements made by the representatives and leaders of Israel. It could not conclude that the refugees would be permitted to return to their homes…”
        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/0B3AB8D2A7C0273D8525694B00726D1B

        regarding your 2nd comment, I have never denied that the Palestinians who fled or were expelled during the Nakba are refugees.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 2:32 pm

        I’m afraid that the context does not support the claim that Israel agreed to abide by UNGA Resolution 194 when it was admitted to the UN. As you can see from the next sentence, Eban then qualifies his “unqualified affirmative answer.”

        Well you ought to be afraid because that argument is immaterial, even if Eban intended to be clever and evasive or to obscure Israel’s intentions. He was only invited to explain Israel’s position on resolutions 181(II) and 194(III). The 207th Plenary session of the General Assembly was advised by the Committee that his declarations on that subject were contained in the Report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, A/AC.24/72. It was up to the Committee as a whole to decide and report back whether or not his declarations and undertakings were legally binding. The General Assembly resolution on the membership application noted that Israel had agreed to help implement the resolutions.

        In the other thread I pointed out that the ICJ advised that it does not exercise judicial review of legal decisions taken by UN organs within their own area of competence and that the expert panel report of the General Assembly’s Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People stated that Israel is under a binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967, based upon its “unreserved agreement” to honor its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).
        http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/12090

        The international courts have ruled, time and again, that a state remains bound by the terms of its own acceptance of a resolution. In this case Eban explicitly affirmed that it was unqualified and promised to cooperate with the organs of the United Nations with all the means at its disposal in the fulfilment of the part of the resolution concerning refugees. The fact that he went on to quibble over Israel’s limited resources & etc. doesn’t change that fact. In any event, Israel has never used any of the considerable means at its disposal in the fulfilment of that obligation.

        In fact, later on in the same session (p. 282), the representative from Denmark states that based on Eban’s remarks, he presumes that Israel will not accept paragraph 11 of Res 194 regarding repatriation of the Palestinian refugees. Eban then gives an evasive answer

        So what? Israel worked with the Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine that helped produce the draft of resolution 181(II) and its representatives said at the time that they “accepted” it. Then they turned around and made comments that appeared to indicate that they did not. That’s why Eban was invited to testify in the first place. The representative of Cuba followed up Eban’s reply to the representative of Denmark by demanding to know if Israel had supplied the required declaration on minority rights which would guarantee: equal treatment under the law, citizenship, right of transit, freedom of movement, prohibited expropriation of Arab property for private use of Jewish refugees, and required compensation in advance, prior to expropriation for public use.

        Jews and Arabs alike had the right to return to their homes after the armed conflict, based upon the right of transit and freedom of movement. Resolution 194(III) simply reaffirmed those rights that were already contained in 181(II), the mandate, and the Treaty of Berlin. See paragraph 129 of the ICJ advisory opinion with regard to the longstanding international guarantees for the indigenous population to right of transit and freedom of movement within Palestine, and the Chapter of the partition plan on minorities which safeguarded those existing rights. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

        I pointed out two other cases where one of the parties accepted a resolution with the intent of evading the obligation or opting to change its position later on. The Court advised that in such cases states are bound to abide by the terms of their original acceptance. See:
        * Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne (Frontier between Turkey and Iraq). http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1925.11.21_lausanne.htm
        * Railway Traffic between Lithuania and Poland (Railway Sector Landwarów-Kaisiadorys) http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1931.10.15_railway_traffic.htm

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 2:48 pm

        He basically says Israel is seeking a negotiated settlement of the refugee problem with Arab states in the context of a peace agreement. It is clear that Israel is implicitly rejecting article 11 of Res 194.

        I know it busts your bubble, but once he affirmed an unqualified acceptance and agreed to cooperate with UN organs in fulfillment of the portion of the resolution on refugees, Israel was “on the hook”, and this and his other declarations constitute agreements that must be kept. This is not the only instance where Eban affirmed Israel’s unqualified acceptance during the hearings.

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 6, 2014, 2:40 am

        Hostage, you are correct that Abba Eban affirmed an unqualified acceptance of UNGA Res 194, but he subsequently implicitly retracted that unqualified acceptance prior to Israel’s admission to the UN (had he retracted it after, then those court cases you cited might be relevant). What is relevant is under what terms Israel was admitted to the UN, and from reading the summary of the meeting in which Israel was admitted, I see multiple states expressing doubts about Israel’s “strict fulfillment” of Res 194. However, to obtain greater clarity, I think we would need to see the United Nations report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee (A/855), and I wasn’t able to find its text. Do you happen to know? The report is described in the summary of the meeting in which Israel was admitted to the UN as follows:
        “The Committee’s report contained certain declarations relating to the future implementation of the provisions of General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) and 194 (III), adopted respectively on 29 November 1947 and II December 1948, relating to the internationalization of Jerusalem and to the necessity for finding a humane solution of the problem of the Arab refugees.”
        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/0B3AB8D2A7C0273D8525694B00726D1B
        I suspect that the language about “finding a humane solution of the problem of the Arab refugees” lends credence to my claim – this is similar to UNSC Res 242, which avoids language about repatriation or right of return and instead calls for a “just settlement of the refugee problem.”

        A few other points:
        1. I put no stock in the report published by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, as it contends on p. 17 that right of return was unanimously recognized by the UNSC in resolution 237, a claim easily proven false by perusing its text.
        2. Where else did Eban affirm Israel’s unqualified acceptance of Res 194 during the hearings?
        3. The only treaties that predate the creation of the refugee situation discussed by the ICJ (in its advisory opinion regarding the separation barrier) are about access to holy places, not right of return, and non-retroactivity is a fundamental principle in international law.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 6, 2014, 9:09 am

        Hostage, you are correct that Abba Eban affirmed an unqualified acceptance of UNGA Res 194, but he subsequently implicitly retracted that unqualified acceptance prior to Israel’s admission to the UN (had he retracted it after, then those court cases you cited might be relevant).

        Turkey was not a member of the League of Nations in 1925 when the Treaty of Lausanne case was decided, based upon its agreement to accept a decision contained in a non-binding resolution of the Council of the League of Nations. That fact that it had changed its mind before it became a member (in 1932) made no difference. It remained bound by the terms of its acceptance.

        Likewise, whether or not Israel was a member of the UN when it accepted the minority protection treaty in resolution 181(II) does not alter the legal consequences. The rights remained under UN guarantee, even after Israel joined the organization, i.e.

        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.

        — Resolution 181(II) C. DECLARATION. Chapter 4: Miscellaneous Provisions http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

        Once again, please read paragraph 129 of the ICJ advisory opinion regarding those international guarantees to right of transit and freedom of movement and the Chapter on minority rights in the partition plan.

        The refugees citizenship, right of transit and freedom of movement to and from their homes, and right to compensation for expropriated property were all subject to the provisions of a minority rights treaty agreement regarding equal protection and non-discrimination under law, which Israel was not empowered to alter without the consent of the General Assembly. While you claim that Eban implicitly retracted, every potential alternative that he suggested was ultimately subject to approval by the Palestine Conciliation Committee and the General Assembly. But it was under no obligation to accept any derogation of fundamental rights.

      • annie
        annie
        April 6, 2014, 9:42 am

        nurit, “multiple states expressing doubts” Israel would fulfill Res 194 has no bearing on israel’s obligation by which they were admitted to the UN.

        you stated “It is clear that Israel is implicitly rejecting article 11 of Res 194”

        this sounds like wordsmithing. i was just wondering if you were familiar with the definition of implicit?

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/implicit

        im·plic·it adjective \im-ˈpli-sət\
        : understood though not clearly or directly stated

        so you’re admitting ‘It is clear that Israel did not clearly, nor directly, ever state they rejected article 11 of Res 194’ …..but they were admitted into the UN with that clear understanding?

        an understanding it was ok with members of the UN who voted for israel’s admission, that israel had no intention of fulfilling their obligations?

        this sounds really far fetched. if israel was clearly rejecting res 194 why do you think eban resorted to rejecting the resolution merely by implication? it’s a rather crucial point don’t you think?

        are you suggesting he was intentionally hoodwinking the UN?

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        April 5, 2014, 11:03 am

        Nurit evidence should be easy to supply. You could even share name and contact info for the individual. We could verify your claim.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 6, 2014, 8:30 am

        Nurit you are avoiding this part of Hostage’s argument, or is there a time difference between your responses which possibly influences the chronology, I wonder:

        Hostage: Well you ought to be afraid because that argument is immaterial, even if Eban intended to be clever and evasive or to obscure Israel’s intentions. He was only invited to explain Israel’s position on resolutions 181(II) and 194(III). The 207th Plenary session of the General Assembly was advised by the Committee that his declarations on that subject were contained in the Report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, A/AC.24/72. It was up to the Committee as a whole to decide and report back whether or not his declarations and undertakings were legally binding. The General Assembly resolution on the membership application noted that Israel had agreed to help implement the resolutions.

        I haven’t read it yet, but will. Maybe this does help to start with: Seems to be the: pdf: Report of the Ad-Hoc Political Committee (A/855)

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 6, 2014, 11:36 pm

        LeaNder, UN GA Res 273 states:

        “Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations”,

        Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,”

        It does not state that Israel has agreed to implement the resolutions but rather takes note of the declarations Abba Eban made regarding Israel’s implementation of Res 181 and 194 (declarations which were equivocal, as one can see by reading said declarations). Note the contrast with the language in the previous paragraph which states that Israel unreservedly accepts the obligations of the UN Charter and will honor them.

        It would be helpful to see the Ad Hoc Political Committee report but the link you gave is just the pdf version of the html link I gave earlier (as far as I can tell).

        Hostage, you are harping on an irrelevant point: all that matters are the conditions under which Israel was admitted to the UN, and I claim that UNGA Res 273 does not require Israel to implement Res 194 (nor would Res 181 mandate Palestinian right of return), as Eban made equivocal declarations to the UN regarding that matter prior to Israel’s admission. If the last statement he made to the UN prior to the vote was that Israel will unreservedly accept the obligations of Res 194, then your argument might be valid, but in fact, he made it clear that Israel sought a resolution of the refugee problem in the context of a negotiated peace settlement. Annie, you can interpret this how ever you like, but I’m not interested in engaging in an argument about semantics.

        Also, here is a statement Eban submitted in writing to the UN prior to the vote:
        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/348D66C50E65608985256D75006D3709
        “the Government of Israel contends that resettlement [of Palestinian refugees] in neighbouring areas be considered as the main principle of solution.”
        He adds: “The Government of Israel has already announced its acceptance of an obligation to make compensation for lands abandoned.” [i.e. addressing the requirements of Res 181, which you claim mandate repatriation, despite that Res 181 merely mandates compensation for expropriation of Arab land]

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 7, 2014, 12:36 am

        I forgot to add that there’s disagreement about how to properly interpret article 11 of Res 194. The Israeli position often emphasizes the fact that the resolution says: “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date…” (emphasis mine) In response to the inquiry from the Danish UN rep who interpreted Eban’s previous remarks to mean that Israel has refused to accept article 11 of Res 194 (reminder: this was after his “unqualified acceptance” of Res 194 that Hostage noted), Eban replied:
        “The statement of Mr. Ben-Gurion to the Conciliation Commission makes it quite clear that he rejected no principle laid down by the General Assembly, but that the question of return hinged upon two factors: first, the restoration of peace, after which the Arabs would return to their homes in such conditions as would enable them to live at peace with their neighbours; in other words, not a truce or an armistice, but real peace between Arabs and Jews; and, secondly, there is the question of the extent to which the return of the refugees is practicable. This aspect of the problem is acknowledged by the resolution of the General Assembly itself.”

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 8, 2014, 1:56 am

        Hostage, you are correct that Abba Eban affirmed an unqualified acceptance of UNGA Res 194 . . . It does not state that Israel has agreed to implement the resolutions

        No, Israel’s representative affirmed Israel’s unqualified acceptance for the official record and you are trying to create a loophole, where none are allowed in the first place.

        The resolution cites the verbatim minutes of the 45th meeting where:
        1) Mr Malik of Lebanon explicitly cited the violations of the minority protection plan in resolution 181(II);

        2) the minutes of the 47th meeting where Eban affirmed Israel’s unqualified acceptance of the portion of 194(II) regarding refugees;

        3) the follow-up questions to the exchange between Eban and the representative of Denmark during the 48th and 51st meeting where the representative of Cuba demanded proof that Israel had submitted the required declaration indicating Israeli’s acceptance and implementation of the fundamental and constitutional minority rights contained in resolution 181(II). On both of those occasions Eban answered in the affirmative.

        All you’ve done is advance a theory that Israel was being dishonest and intended to avoid its obligations all along. That would have to be decided by the ICJ based upon the facts and the applicable law. The fact that Israel rejected the UNSCOP recommendations and subsequently helped draft the terms of the Ad Hoc Committee majority plan that Vaad Leumi and the Jewish Agency publicly accepted, had already created an unfulfilled legal obligation for its implementation on the part of the Jewish authorities from the day it was adopted by the General Assembly and the transition period officially began. Other countries took note of the applicability of those resolution 181(II) assurances and protections to the refugees, e.g.:

        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

        You haven’t said a thing which alters the fact, that those rights are still under an explicit UN guarantee and that Israel has treaty obligations under both the Charter and the minority plan to give the organization every assistance in their fulfillment.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 8, 2014, 3:19 am

        I forgot to add that there’s disagreement about how to properly interpret article 11 of Res 194. . . . and, secondly, there is the question of the extent to which the return of the refugees is practicable. This aspect of the problem is acknowledged by the resolution of the General Assembly itself.”

        The UN General Assembly cannot adopt resolutions that sanction crimes against humanity or circumvent the legally binding protections of family honor and rights contained in the Hague Convention of 1907.

        Ben Gurion’s remarks can only be interpreted to mean that Israel could not restore the actual homes or villages that had been destroyed during the intervening war, not that the individuals could be permanently stripped of the remaining contents and lands included in their family estates or have their nationality revoked and be exiled.

        There was nothing Ben Gurion could have said to the PCC that would have altered the terms of resolution 181(II):

        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 Member of the United Nations shall have the right to bring to the attention of the General Assembly any infraction or danger of infraction of any of these stipulations, and the General Assembly may thereupon make such recommendations as it may deem proper in the circumstances.

        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 it doesn’t matter how many different ways you’d like to interpret it, only the ICJ has possessed the general jurisdiction to settle the matter, since the moment during the 51st hearings when Eban affirmed Israel’s acceptance of the minority protection plan in resolution 181(II) and cited the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, signed by the People’s Council, and promulgated as the fundamental law of the State in the official gazette.

        The notion that the ICJ can endorse an interpretation of article 11 of Resolution 194(III) that sanctions serious crimes against humanity is doubtful in the extreme, unless that can also be reconciled with Eban’s statement that “I can give an unqualified affirmative answer to the second question as to whether we shall cooperate with the organs of the United Nations with all the means at our disposal in the fulfilment of the part of the resolution concerning refugees. The organs of the United Nations are certainly not keeping the refugees from returning to their country of origin or visiting their holy sites.

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 8, 2014, 3:28 am

        @ Nurit Baytch ” .. there’s disagreement about how to properly interpret article 11 of Res 194″

        Disagreement by one party only, a tiny minority. Predictably, you reflect the utter brain dead stupidity of their nonsense argument.

        ” The Israeli position often emphasizes the fact that the resolution says: “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date…””

        RoR is an individual right and in returning to Israel they’d be Israeli subjects!

        ” the question of return hinged upon two factors: first, the restoration of peace, after which the Arabs would return to their homes in such conditions as would enable them to live at peace with their neighbours; in other words, not a truce or an armistice, but real peace between Arabs and Jews”

        People returning to Israel would be Israeli citizens. A peace treaty would be between their state, the State of Israel and states where they do not hold citizenship!

        The Israeli apologist rhetoric is moronic at best

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 8, 2014, 5:23 am

        talknic, the comment of mine to which you’re referring contains little original content from me (most of it was a quote from Eban), and I explicitly stated that I was [merely] describing the Israeli position (I’m not sure I find it compelling myself). The point I was making was that maybe Eban regarded unqualified acceptance of Res 194 to be synonymous with his later clarifications that Israel sought a resolution of the refugee problem in the context of a negotiated peace settlement with neighboring Arab states. I dunno. Believe it or not, I’m not a spokesperson for the Israeli govt.

        Hostage, I feel like we’re both just repeating the same points over and over again. I already said that even if Res 181 were binding on Israel, that doesn’t necessarily imply it mandates right of return, as Res 181 only requires compensation for expropriating Arab land. And regarding the Hague conventions, please see p. 181+ here:
        https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/1949-kent34upajintll1492012pdf

        I’ve read a few peer-reviewed articles arguing that right of return is mandated by international law, but I don’t recall seeing anything about the Res 181 minority protection plan or Eban’s “unqualified acceptance” of Res 194 during the hearings regarding Israel’s membership in the UN. Do you know of any that discuss this? I may try contacting a couple legal scholars to see what they think about this.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 8, 2014, 10:09 am

        I already said that even if Res 181 were binding on Israel, that doesn’t necessarily imply it mandates right of return, as Res 181 only requires compensation for expropriating Arab land.

        I feel like you are repeating nonsense. Of course the minority treaty is a legal instrument that Eban explicitly accepted. It was included in the 1950 report of the Secretary General on minority legal instruments concluded after WW-II. The ICJ included a reference in its advisory opinion about the chapter from the partition plan among the international guarantees of freedom of movement that safeguarded “existing rights” of the Palestinian people in line with Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin. So it was definitely not limited to the subject of compensation.

        The Penn State Article is pretty unconvincing. The author is trying to make the lame arguement that the Hague rules did not apply to Israel in 1948, because Israel wasn’t a party to the convention. But the author admits the United Nations rejected that defense in the Case of the Major War Criminals, in which the Nuremberg tribunal held that by 1939 the rules laid down in the Hague Convention were recognized by all civilized nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war.” Having achieved customary status, they were held to be binding on all states irrespective of whether they were parties to the Convention. The author’s attempt to question that precedent, despite the fact that every subsequent international criminal tribunal has upheld it – including the Supreme Court of the State of Israel in its rulings on the 1962 Eichmann case – are simply risible. So are his assertions that the subject matter of the rules are inapplicable.

        An occupying power is prohibited from changing any laws in effect regarding the application of the principles of jus soli and/or jus sanguinis as the relate to family rights. Many countries, including the United States and Mandate Palestine, had laws that were based upon both principles. For example, persons born in Palestine and those born to a Palestinian father traveling or living abroad were automatically considered citizens of Palestine by operation of law. The laws that were in effect during the Mandate were specifically retained by both the governments of Israel and Jordan. That means the Palestinian citizenship of Jewish or Arab refugees was only revoked “retroactively”. Neither of the new states occupied all of the territory of the former mandated state of Palestine, so in theory, neither could make a determination that rendered a person “stateless”, pending a final territorial settlement.
        In 1832, the US Supreme Court cited the law of nations and addressed the question of whether or not a change in sovereignty alters 1) the legal relationships between the people (e.g. a guardian, an heir, or an assignee; or 2) the ownership of their private property:

        The modern usage of nations, which has become law, would be violated; that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged if private property should be generally confiscated and private rights annulled on a change in the sovereignty of the country. The people change their allegiance, their relation to their ancient sovereign is dissolved, but their relations to each other and their rights of property remain undisturbed.

        – United States v. Percheman – 32 U.S. 51 (1832) link to supreme.justia.com
        The 1914 US Army commentary on the Rules of Land Warfare cited Article 46 of the Hague Convention and a British legal expert who had hailed it as the Magna Carta of international law when it was first adopted (para 314 on pdf page 111). link to loc.gov
        That expert said it would eventually put an end to ethnic cleansing, while maintaining the personal property and residency rights of individuals and the legal relationship of their family members to one another and to their property in the event of a change of sovereignty or belligerent occupation:

        The Article XLVI secures for the citizen of an occupied territory immunity from material or moral damage at the hands of the
        enemy. It is the bond which war law gives him for the security of his person, property, and religious belief. Perhaps some day in the dim future it will be quoted by those who uninterested in the constitutional law of nations as lovingly and proudly as we quote Magna Charta, with its ringing promise “We will not go against any man, we will not send against any man, save by legal judgment of his peers and the law of the land.” To-day, indeed, the Article is “dead from the waist down.” So was Magna Charta at first; it was many a weary year before princes and their councillors could be forced to perform what they had promised therein. So, to-day, the provisions of Article XLVI are rather an ideal, a theoretical standard of conduct, than an actual living rule to which the practice of war conforms. Reading the Article, and remembering what does actually happen in war, one is inclined to doubt the utility of a provision which seems to have such little practical effect. Yet, most assuredly, it is a valuable provision. It is valuable to-day and it will be more valuable still in the hands of those who “have got to keep the ferment of the future astir,” to use Ibsen’s striking phrase. There is yeast in it, as there was in Magna Charta. One is disheartened when one thinks of requisitions, of contributions, of fines, of reprisals, of houses levelled as a measure of tactics, of a whole town emptied as a military precaution (as Sherman emptied Atlanta and Burrows’ brigade emptied Kandahar in 1880), of wide provinces cleared of their habitations and crops, of a thousand instances in which the provisions of Article XLVI have conspicuously not been adhered to, in later-day wars.

        — See J.M. Spaight, “War Rights on Land”, MacMillan, 1911, page 374
        link to archive.org
        As noted above, the Nuremberg tribunal and the Israeli Supreme Court held that the Hague rules were a deliberate codification of customary laws that were binding on non-signatories – and that all civilized nations had accepted them as such by no later than 1939.

        Furthermore, the Jewish Agency, and the Peoples Council had helped draft resolution 181(II) which stipulated that the Jewish and Arab states could not use threats or force against the territorial integrity of any state and that:

        Any dispute about the applicability and continued validity of international conventions or treaties signed or adhered to by the mandatory Power on behalf of Palestine shall be referred to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

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

        The explicit terms of the boundary treaties of 1920, 1923, and 1926 preserved the existing rights of the inhabitants of Syria Lebanon, and Palestine to continue engaging in fishing, navigation, commerce, and grazing on their ancestral lands on both sides of the new frontiers and the waters of Lakes Huleh, Tiberias and River Jordan. All of that entailed right of transit, freedom of movement, respect for family rights and honor, and property rights. See for example:
        *Exchange Of Notes Constituting An Agreement Between The British And French Governments Respecting The Boundary Line Between Syria And Palestine From The Mediterranean To El Hammé. Paris March 7, 1923, pdf page 7; and
        *Agreement between His Majesty’s Government and the French Government respecting the Boundary Line between Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean to El Hámmé, Treaty Series No. 13 (1923), Cmd. 1910″ link to web.archive.org

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 8, 2014, 11:57 am

        I’ve read a few peer-reviewed articles arguing that right of return is mandated by international law, but I don’t recall seeing anything about the Res 181 minority protection plan or Eban’s “unqualified acceptance” of Res 194 during the hearings regarding Israel’s membership in the UN. Do you know of any that discuss this? I may try contacting a couple legal scholars to see what they think about this.

        Surely, Prof W. Tom Mallison, of GWU Law School and the US Naval War College co-authored “An International Law Analysis Of The Major United Nations Resolutions Concerning The Palestine Question”, with his wife Sallie, a Research Associate, of the International and Comparative Law Program, George Washington University. It has a chapter devoted to “The Plan of Partition with Economic Union”, containing a subsection on the Human Rights Provisions which states:

        The legal significance of the human rights provisions is that they do not concede the Zionist claims to establish an exclusivist State.

        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/885FC39E9DE93EC585256DC20067EAB6

        Prof. Mallison also testified about Israel’s failure to fulfill its constitutional obligations under the minority protection plan in his testimony to the US Senate:

        The problem stems from the refusal of the state of Israel to comply with its obligations under the minority rights agreement to guarantee equal rights and protection under the law in the areas under its jurisdiction. Among these legal obligations, section 10(d) of part IB is particularly important and provides that each of the states to be set up in Palestine shall have a constitution which includes provisions:
        Guaranteeing to all persons equal and nondiscriminatory rights in civil, political, economic, and religious matters and the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion, language, speech and publication, education, assembly, and association. In most civilized legal systems it is recognized that legal rights may only be exercised conditioned upon compliance with legal duties. The refusal of the State of Israel to comply with the nondiscriminatory requirements of the Palestine partition resolution – its main claim to title – puts in serious jeopardy its claim to legal title to the limited territory allocated to it by the resolution.

        — See Mallison’s testimony during the Senate hearings on “The Colonization Of The West Bank Territories By Israel”, page 50 link to loc.gov

        The principle of equality of peoples and self-determination, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion outlined in Article 1 of the UN Charter does not permit one ethnic group to exclude another indigenous group from the territory in order to establish an ethnically homogeneous State. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art1

        The representative of China explained that during the 48th session on Israel’s membership application:

        The attitude of the Israeli Government on the repatriation of Arab refugees was far more disturbing. The theory of national homogeneity could not be supported by the United Nations. One of the basic objectives of the United Nations was to create harmony among peoples of different races and cultures so that they could live together in peace.

        – page 9 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/AC.24/SR.48

        I’ve already cited and quoted a dozen other references, including an ASIL journal article about the LoN criteria for terminating a mandate regime and the report of a UN expert panel with a legal mandate to make determinations about both the sources and the content of the “inalienable rights of the Palestinian people”. All of those sources explain that the international community required new states created by the Concert of Europe, the Versailles Peace Conference, the League of Nations, or the UN to accept a minority treaty which dictated the terms of cessions of territory, internal governance, and recognition of statehood. If you had read the verbatim record of the Ad Hoc Political Committee you already heard from a number of legal experts who cited the fact that the minority protection plan did not allow for Israel to drive its Arab inhabitants into exile.

        There isn’t a shadow of a doubt that Israel’s nationality laws and the uncompensated expropriations of homes for the private use of European Jews violated the explicit terms of the declaration regarding non-discrimination and equal protection under the law.

        For example, during the very first session mention in the footnote of General Assembly resolution 273(III), Mr. Malik spoke first. He cited the fact that the Palestinians had been driven into exile in violation of the guarantees contained in the minority protection plan contained in resolution 181(II) :

        The United Nations had certainly not intended that the Jewish State should rid itself of its Arab citizens. On the contrary, section C of part I of the Assembly’s 1947 resolution had explicitly provided guarantees of minority rights in each of the two States. For example, it had prohibited the expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State except for public purposes, and then only upon payment of full compensation. Yet the fact was that 90 per cent of the Arab population of Israel had been driven outside its boundaries by military operations, had been forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Arab territories, had been reduced to misery and destitution, and had been prevented by Israel from returning to their homes. Their homes and property had been seized and were being used by thousands of European Jewish immigrants.

        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1DB943E43C280A26052565FA004D8174

        When the representatives of the Jewish Agency said that they “accepted” resolution 181(II), what do you think they understood the sections on “citizenship”; the section on regional economic integration and “right of transit”; the section on “equal rights under the law” for religious groups and minorities; or the sections on succession to existing treaties on boundaries open to grazing, fishing, cultivation, and navigation by members of other ethnic groups to mean?

    • Balfour
      Balfour
      April 3, 2014, 5:52 pm

      I agree, the accusatory smear words date back to another time and era and sound archaic to the modern ear.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      April 3, 2014, 10:42 pm

      James- Surely you aren’t suggesting that antisemitism no longer exists in America. And if you are, where do you come off with that nonsense? You can say that it no longer exists as a large movement or an accepted movement but to deny the existence of antiSemitism in America is absurd and stupid.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        April 3, 2014, 11:50 pm

        yonah, there are anti “red-heads”, anti “red-necks” anti Catholics, anti Whites, anti Blacks, anti Jews, Anti Muslims, Anti Asians, Anti Arabs, on and on. The ignorant with fears of the “other ” will always be among us, everywhere. There is nothing special about anti Judaism or anti Jews.

        So what! Move on like the rest of the world. Do not wear that coat of victimology. If you take that mantle on, you give the ignorance and fearful power over you. You let the antis, the ignorant define you.

        Is that what Zionism is about?

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 3, 2014, 11:58 pm

        Ellen, some other time I will discuss how one should react to today’s current antisemitism in america. But not now. Now, James North pretends to be a journalist and then writes something like this?! Your questions may be valid, but still what happened to James North? Did he give up on the accurate use of the English language because he’s too busy pursuing a cause?

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        April 4, 2014, 1:53 am

        yonah, if you cannot engage….delay and divert onto another subject.

        You started with an inane and superficial blah blah about language and so-called “antisemitism-.” I responded to that.

        Now you start attacking an individual to change the subject. A very old tactic.

        I also read about that method in the Hasbara 101 handbook.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 4, 2014, 2:48 am

        ellen- I was talking to James North. Is there a law against that. Is there a rule in the comments section against that. You asked me a question and I did not feel like answering it. Is there a law against that?

        The issue of Jew hatred past present and future is a weighty one. Obviously you know all the answers to the issue of hatred of peoples and therefore all those people who have written books and read books should just refer to your wisdom to clarify the issue.

        If only the world read the comments section of MW and happened upon your pearls of wisdom the world would know all the answers.

      • James North
        James North
        April 4, 2014, 8:50 am

        I am not suggesting, but stating, that anti-Semitism is no longer a factor in American life — and one proof is that the insulting words have disappeared from the language. Of course here and there elderly cranks may live on, but they have long since lost the power to affect the lives of Jewish-Americans in any way.
        What certainly does exist in America is Islamophobia. Just a few years ago, Muslim-Americans who wanted to open a community center that included a prayer room near the World Trade Center were greeted with vicious demonstrations, supported by some prominent people, all of whom had apparently forgotten our Constitution.
        Find me somewhere in the U.S. where community groups openly told Jewish-Americans they could not open a synagogue and I will agree that anti-Semitism is still with us in a significant way.

      • biorabbi
        biorabbi
        April 4, 2014, 3:35 pm

        Elderly cranks as anti-semites? How about anti-semitism on the progressive side of the spectrum. Mr. North’s very description conflating anti-semitism with Islamophobia is like comparing a melanoma with heart disease? The fact you can break ground on a synagogue and open it does not prove there is anti-semitism or disprove it. The fact that there were protests when Muslim Americans wished to build a prayer room near WTC neither proves or dis-proves Islamophobia, just bad taste in pray room location.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 4, 2014, 4:35 pm

        “The fact that there were protests when Muslim Americans wished to build a prayer room near WTC neither proves or dis-proves Islamophobia, just bad taste in pray room location.”

        …and your statement neatly discloses your bigotry.

      • libra
        libra
        April 4, 2014, 6:16 pm

        biorabbi: is like comparing a melanoma with heart disease?

        Well that’s a tricky diagnosis isn’t it, Dr biorabbi? A red face, for instance. It could be a symptom of advanced melanoma, chronic heart disease or terminal anti-semitism.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 4, 2014, 6:51 pm

        How about anti-semitism on the progressive side of the spectrum.

        Doesn’t exist, apart from PEPs. Progressives are the modest ardent opponents of racism which is why Zionists have such contempt for them.

        The fact that there were protests when Muslim Americans wished to build a prayer room near WTC neither proves or dis-proves Islamophobia, just bad taste in pray room location.

        Don’t be stupid. The Islamic centre existed before 911. The plan was to upgrade it.

      • Nurit Baytch
        Nurit Baytch
        April 5, 2014, 4:19 am

        Shingo, you claim that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist among progressives apart from PEPs. Who defines anti-Semitism? Do you accept how the majority of Jews define anti-Semitism?

    • American
      American
      April 4, 2014, 4:01 pm

      ”’Ben Meisel, who contended that the pro-BDSers had called him “a kike.” >>>>>>>>>

      What this reminds me of is little kids who are losing a fight or not getting their way on the play ground in something yelling…”I’m gonna tell my daddy on you!”
      That’s about what their slur slinging amounts to.

  14. Chu
    Chu
    April 3, 2014, 11:53 am

    Pro-Israeli brown-shirt organizations are a strong force to reckon with on any campus. Employing deception, dirty tricks and slander is something that is difficult to fight as campuses aren’t used to major intn’l political debates on US campuses. Campus administration instincts are to protect anyone from danger, no matter how scurrilous the charge may be.

    And surely the pro Israel groups use to their advantage the preconceived notion of Jews being historically victimized (Picture the Jewish parents and organizations telephone-bombing the university president with threats from endowment withdrawals to law suits).

    Eventually the tactics of brown-shirt Pro-Israel groups will start to emit a foul odor even while their playbook tactics are becoming more obvious to campuses nationwide. And Pro-Israel organizations, want to be seen as a victim, but yet are some of the dirtiest players of this game (Ask any US congress member).

    US citizens are going to see the disconnect one day en-masse, and the mob mentality will have a new look. Just look at the comments in any newspaper regarding Israel and AIPAC.

  15. jimby
    jimby
    April 3, 2014, 12:45 pm

    Seems to me that these “zealots” are not aware of the potential blowback for their tantrums. These sort of actions paint Zionism in a hideous light. If and when any antisemitism happens they can look to themselves as linchpins. Stupid hysterical racist nerds.

  16. kma
    kma
    April 3, 2014, 1:00 pm

    wow. Dishell’s campaign ad is really offensive.
    honestly, the keffiyeh joke is insensitive, too (toward Palestinians).
    is this what passes as normal at UMich in the 21st century? good to know.
    a proper response from the school would be an effort to educate students about making fun of racial stereotypes.
    the students involved in slandering Kherallah are obviously inventing something that isn’t there to incite islamophobia. if the school doesn’t want liability for defamation, they need to denounce it at LEAST. that behavior is not simply offensive – it is against the law.

    by the way, who eats pineapple without slicing it? I want to see that…

  17. dbroncos
    dbroncos
    April 3, 2014, 1:05 pm

    Being cowed into silence will be viewed as an admission of guilt and shame. SJP and other groups need to turn up the volume to show that they have nothing to be ashamed of and that they’re not afraid – come what may. Palestinian rights speak for themselves and more and more Americans are coming around to the point of view that Israel is in the wrong. Z Zidan and others like him may be surprised to learn that he has allies among those who are in a position to offer him employment or a spot at grad school and who can see through the smear campaign against him. The Zionists are resorting to these desperate measures because they understand that sympathies in the wider world of educated people are on the side of Palestinians.

  18. ivri
    ivri
    April 3, 2014, 1:46 pm

    The BDS is seen, correctly, as an act of war only adapted to today`s times (Banks not Tanks). What it does is to extend the conflict in the region to elsewhere, indeed everywhere. The Israeli – Arab conflict has grown gradually international after bloody warring in the Mid-East; It is already in Europe for a long time; It will be coming to the UN soon; and right now it has reached the US campuses. It will be there as all conflicts everywhere: aggressive and nasty.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      April 4, 2014, 2:46 am

      “It will be there as all conflicts everywhere: aggressive and nasty”.

      The only places your side have the numbers are Israel and Congress. Zionism is a nightflower. It doesn’t function in daylight in the presence of detergents.

      • ivri
        ivri
        April 4, 2014, 8:14 am

        “The only places your side have the numbers…..”
        These are the ones that matter pal – Israel is what is at stake and the US congress runs the world (or at least this side of it). The Europeans have too much of a historical baggage (and current issues with minorities there) to play a real role (despite much talk to the contrary) and the rest of the world (like China, Japan and the rest), believe me, could not care less about all that – their focus, history, problems and emotions are elsewhere.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 9:06 am

        @ivri

        Well said. And of course our side has numbers all throughout the USA population which breaks about 60/10/30 pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian/neutral

        Europe BTW isn’t even that bad incidentally. Left 2/1 against while the moderates and right are 50/50.

      • James North
        James North
        April 4, 2014, 9:22 am

        JeffB: But support for your “side” is soft and getting softer. Why else would you have turned commenting on Mondoweiss into a full-time job?

      • mikeo
        mikeo
        April 4, 2014, 10:26 am

        And of course our side has numbers all throughout the USA population which breaks about 60/10/30 pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian/neutral

        Europe BTW isn’t even that bad incidentally. Left 2/1 against while the moderates and right are 50/50.

        Have you read the NYT or WP comments sections recently?

        Are you aware of how people around the world view Israel.

        BBC Annual Country Ratings Poll

        More than 26,000 people were surveyed internationally for the poll.

        It was conducted for the BBC by GlobeScan and PIPA, who conducted face-to-face and telephone interviews with randomly selected people in 25 countries.

        Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran came out worst in terms of how they are viewed globally.

        To be honest you sound like you are trying to convince yourself…

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 4, 2014, 11:45 am

        ivri “Israel is what is at stake”

        Israel is not at stake. The non-Israeli territories the Jewish state has illegally acquired by war since 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and the non-Israeli territories the Jewish state wants to acquire are what’s at stake. None of which are legally Israeli.

        The other thing at stake is the world waking up to the scam of poor defenseless Israel only trying to protect itself, which is total bullsh*t!

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 4, 2014, 1:51 pm

        “– Israel is what is at stake ”

        Nope. what is at stake is the political and civil rights of those who that state oppresses. If it stopped its racist oppression, no one would give two shits a out another two bit country.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 6:44 pm

        Surely you do not expect many Jews around the world, not to continue to take a considerable interest in Israel?

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 5, 2014, 10:11 am

        “Surely you do not expect many Jews around the world, not to continue to take a considerable interest in Israel?”

        Frankly, since many of these same Jews around the world have shown that they don’t give a damn whether justice is done to the Palestinians, and most are happy to aid and abet the injustice done to them, I can’t manage to give a damn what they think anymore. If someone isn’t for liberty, equality, equal rights and full political, legal and human rights for everyone in the region, without regard for ethnicity, religion, race, nationality, then they are for oppression, injustice and death and, as such, are my enemy.

        If the Jews were being oppressed in the way the Palestinians are, I would be (and was) as adamant in agitating for justice to be done to them as I am for the Palestinians. The fact that many of these same Jews won’t reciprocate when it is Jews doing the oppressing is, to me, one of the most pitiful facts of this whole matter and one of the most infuriating.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 1:28 pm

        @Woody – – I assumed you would not give a fig for the opinion of many rich, powerful Jews in various countries around the world, who have a deep concern for Israel. However, leaders of many countries do give a fig. Or more.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 7, 2014, 12:55 pm

        “I assumed you would not give a fig for the opinion of many rich, powerful Jews in various countries around the world, who have a deep concern for Israel. However, leaders of many countries do give a fig. Or more.”

        James, yes, I know. So long as Israel practices brutal policies, they are the problem.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 7, 2014, 6:16 pm

        I agree Israel’s actions to some extent are given approval and encouragement, by rich and powerful Jews in other countries. Making the problem worse.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 7, 2014, 7:39 pm

        @Canning – “I agree Israel’s actions to some extent are given approval and encouragement, by rich and powerful Jews in other countries.”
        To some extent, eh? Really? Knock me over with a feather, I believe you have a point there, Sherlock! Who would of thunk it?
        Come to think of it, I remember reading something a little bit like that some 100 years ago, lemme look what the name was… yes I have it. Here, they called it Zionism! What a strange name…

        “Making the problem worse”… Yeah, continue the revelations, please.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 8, 2014, 2:19 pm

        @Puppies – – Woody claimed that “no one” on the planet would give a sh*t about Israel, if the US ended its support. This contention obviously is not true. But you seem to object to my rebuttal. Why?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 4, 2014, 6:14 pm

        Well said. And of course our side has numbers all throughout the USA population which breaks about 60/10/30 pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian/neutral

        Don’t conflate support for Israel with support for the illegal settlements, price tag terror attacks, abuse of children in IDF custody, Cast Lead, attacks on aid flotillas, & attacks on demonstrators. Israel and its sycophants, like yourself, are doing a bang-up job of delegitimizing Zionism.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 11:05 pm

        @Hostage

        Don’t conflate support for Israel with support for the illegal settlements, price tag terror attacks, abuse of children in IDF custody, Cast Lead, attacks on aid flotillas, & attacks on demonstrators. Israel and its sycophants, like yourself, are doing a bang-up job of delegitimizing Zionism.

        The polling doesn’t show any evidence of that delegitimizing going on. Israel is about as popular on the left and right as it has been for decades while moderates have gone from “eh” to loving Israel. The people who care about that stuff are on the left and I don’t see a change in numbers.

        As for conflating support… I don’t. When you poll Americans in general they likely don’t know much about Israel. What it reflects is a “with us or against us” attitude. I think 9/11 put moderates back into the cold war frame of “he may be an SOB but he’s our SOB” when it comes to Israel. What they know is that the people who hate Israel the most are generally the same people who hate America. And the Israelis fight back.

        My guess is that most political moderates don’t like the fact that Israel is mean to their indigenous population but ultimately will be friends with them regardless.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 1:55 pm

        I think the primary issue is Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, within Palestine. Rather than unfairness to Muslims (and Christians) in Israel proper.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 11:29 am

        The polling doesn’t show any evidence of that delegitimizing going on.
        LOL! You can’t even keep your stories straight. The polls show that young Jews are turned-off completely by Israel because of those factors. The Reut Institute and government of Israel have been shreying gevault about delegitimization on college campuses for years and have been using paid agents and hired internet talkback artists to counter the problem. This illustrates just how long Israeli bureaucrats have been employed as shills for that purpose:

        Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 31, 1970, “Jewish Youth Challenged to Combat Anti-israel Propaganda on Campus”
        An Israeli official challenged American Jewish College youth today to combat anti-Israel propagandas on the campus, “much of it old anti-Semitism in new dress.” Moshe Yegar, Consul General of Israel in Philadelphia, said that such propaganda was being disseminated at colleges and universities across the country “by pro-Arab and certain radical groups.” Mr. Yegar addressed 225 students at the B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundation’s annual summer institute at Camp B’nai B’rith here. He claimed that anti-Israel propaganda had grown in vehemence and scope since the 1967 Six-Day War and that it “constitutes a danger to both the interests of Israel and those of the Jewish people.”

        A week-long Hillel workshop at Camp B’nai B’rith on Israel and American Jewry has been formulating programs to counter anti-Israel propaganda when the students return to their campuses next month.

        link to jta.org
        The funding and staffing for agitprop comes straight from the government of Israel in many cases. See for example “58 Jewish Agency Israel Fellows to Hillel serve 67 North American campuses”. It claims that “Hillel’s goal is to inspire every Jewish college student to develop a meaningful and enduring relationship to Israeli culture and society.” link to hillel.org
        Hillel’s Ellen Goldstein was quoted in an article here which said that she is not concerned about potential objections to pro-Israel programming on campuses in the United States being funded directly by the Israeli government. link to mondoweiss.net

        Stop spamming the threads until you get some clue.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 10:50 pm

        I think the primary issue is Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, within Palestine. Rather than unfairness to Muslims (and Christians) in Israel proper.

        Not if you are a Bedouin facing eviction and resettlement in a cramped enclave reserved for certain persons on the grounds of their non-Jewish ethnicity. A Bantustan is still a Bantustan, and prima facie evidence of apartheid, even in Israel proper.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 7, 2014, 7:42 pm

        But Muslim citizens of Israel are not being stripped of their voting rights, are they? Some are being walled off, clearly.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 8, 2014, 5:31 am

        But Muslim citizens of Israel are not being stripped of their voting rights, are they? Some are being walled off, clearly.

        Of course. Israel annexed East Jerusalem, but does not give the inhabitants there the right to vote. Half the Jewish population holds dual citizenship, and Lieberman admits he’s aware that the same thing could theoretically apply to Arabs too, if they’ll just turn off the lights when they leave and take their demographic bomb and go live in Palestine.

        Meanwhile any political party that denies the territorial integrity and Jewish nature of the State of Israel is illegal. Syrians and Palestinians annexed to Israel can’t vote for lists of candidates, unless the Central Election Commission permits them to. The little money that Arab towns and villages do receive is used as blackmail or political patronage.

        The CERD reports provide an excellent overview of the separate Jewish and Arab public sectors and funding, right down to the hundreds of separate rural communal settlements for Jews and non-Jewish minorities. Concluding observations about Article 3 are based upon evidence of apartheid or prohibited forms of racial discrimination and segregation. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERD.C.ISR.CO.14-16.pdf

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 7:28 pm

        The EU indeed should be more involved, in forcing a deal through on Israel/Palestine.

  19. John Douglas
    John Douglas
    April 3, 2014, 1:56 pm

    Great reporting! Max Blumenthal uses the word “war” in describing the Zionist campaign to close off truthful criticism of Israeli actions and legitimate civil rights protests against them. I wish this war could be catalogued, pulled together and described as a historian would. Reporters and historians have different jobs to do, though many, like Max B. can do both. A history would provide in one place the hundreds of interconnected and financed fronts on which the war is being prosecuted: university group suppressing, education policy manipulating, news media contracting, politician purchasing, cyber infiltrating, child indoctrinating, “leadership” grooming, art exhibit suppressing, foreign policy slanting, entertainment hasbaring (Keifer Sutherland all alone against the Muslim menace), anti-Semitism charging, to name just a few. Something like Judis’ recent book about Truman. What’s happening now, as Zionism loses its grip, is of great historical significance.

  20. spokelse
    spokelse
    April 3, 2014, 2:44 pm

    it’s just a matter of time folks, same happened for South Africa, if the settler colonial policies of Israel don’t change, the BDS movement will, inexorably, strengthen, the zionist efforts are rear guard actions. Thanks Max for your reporting here.

    • JeffB
      JeffB
      April 3, 2014, 7:25 pm

      @spokelse

      it’s just a matter of time folks, same happened for South Africa

      I was in college then in a very liberal college. Nothing like UMich happened with South Africa. There were 2 sides but it never got personal. I can’t ever remember anyone ever being threatened. The anti-Apartheid students never demonized the constructive engagement students. They understood they had many legitimate concerns. Just to pick an example from Sun City:
      Our government tells us we’re doing all we can
      Constructive Engagement is Ronald Reagan’s plan
      Meanwhile people are dying and giving up hope
      This quiet diplomacy ain’t nothing but a joke

      I ain’t gonna play Sun City

      Notice there is no accusation that Reagan is a black hating racist and secretly supports apartheid. There was nothing like that.

      Conversely the constructive engagement students may have considered the anti-apartheid students naive but they never considered them evil. Anti-apartheid activists while supporting the ANC had no problem unequivocally denouncing ANC extremism on topics like necklacing. They stood for western liberal values not in full solidarity. The entire debate was civil. Anti-apartheid activists were looking to move the anti-apartheid coalition from 40 to 60 to 80 percent. They weren’t looking to prove that they were on the cutting edge of being radicals.

      The BDS movement on campuses is playing out much more like the abortion debate than like the South Africa debate. In the abortion debate the two sides do accuse each other being downright evil people. But no nothing like that happened in the SA debate.

      • April 3, 2014, 8:50 pm

        JeffB you are living in the Zionist fantasy world where the Zionists are the victims and groups like the SJP are the oppressors.

        There is just no hope for a guy like JeffB. The next generation of Jews must escape from this racist, paranoid, always the victim worldview.

      • Donald
        Donald
        April 3, 2014, 11:24 pm

        “But no nothing like that happened in the SA debate.”

        Not the way I remember the 80’s. It was understood on the left that the Reagan Administration supported death squads and terrorists in Central America, Savimbi’s thugs in Angola, and the support for South Africa was part of this pattern. With Reagan himself the opinion was that he was a man who lived in a fantasy world and refused to face facts about the sorts of people he supported.

        I don’t know what “civil debate” means in this context, unless you simply mean that people didn’t use violence. But there’s no way to be polite about, say, the coverup of the massacre at El Mozote (El Salvador) or the genocide in Guatemala (Israel, btw, is implicated there) or the atrocities of Savimbi’s men or the cruelty of apartheid.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 6:51 am

        @Donald

        It was understood on the left that the Reagan Administration supported death squads and terrorists in Central America, Savimbi’s thugs in Angola, and the support for South Africa was part of this pattern.

        In this analogy we aren’t talking about the Reagan administration we are talking about other students who are Republican. Attacking the Reagan administration would be like attacking Netanyahu. The analogy here would be attacking groups that traditionally vote Republican i.e. running an anti WASP group.

        I don’t know what “civil debate” means in this context, unless you simply mean that people didn’t use violence.

        What I mean is that there was acknowledgement that there were 2 sides each with legitimate concerns and as this was a policy debate the goal was to convince the other side that your policy was workable. The anti-apartheid folks convinced the constructive engagement folks that:

        a) With Gorbachev / the end of the cold war America could take a less aggressive stance in Africa.

        b) That our mineral needs could be met elsewhere.

        c) That the ANC was not genocidal. And that Mandela could make a good leader

        etc… In other words it was treated like a policy debate.

      • Philip Munger
        Philip Munger
        April 3, 2014, 11:56 pm

        There are many ways that Israeli apartheid differs from what was practiced in South Africa. There are also many ways BDS movements against South Africa differed from what is now happening regarding Palestine and Israel.

        1. Did P.W. Botha appear before a joint session of the IU.S. Congress and receive a record number of standing ovations, even surpassing the sitting president’s for his State of the Union message?

        2. Did P.W. Botha make campaign ads for a challenger to a sitting American president?

        3. Did Ronald Reagan ever have to complain to the President of France that he had to listen to P.W. Botha rant or lecture on the phone every fucking day?

        4. Did a bevy of GOP wannabe prez candidates parade themselves in front of some white South African casino mogul, trying to outdo each other in their support of South African government policies?

        … and so on. I could make a list like this of differences that would be 100 items long. 300 items.

        The point is that even though the differences are many, apartheid is apartheid.

        There weren’t scores of thousands of South African students, black, white or Asian, on U.S. campuses in the late 70s through the early 90s. But that is the case with Jewish students on our campuses now, which is great. And there are scores of thousands of Arab American and Muslim students on our campuses, which is also great. Although a fair percentage of the American or Israeli Jewish students now studying at our universities identify closely with Israel and Zionism, and a fair number of Muslim or Christian Arab students identify closely with Palestinian rights, most aren’t as passionate about these issues as are the activists whose conflicts Blumenthal describes above.

        But for those students deeply engaged in this debate, this is deeper, more visceral than was the one over South African apartheid. The South African struggle was not seen to have a major religious component. This one involves rights, land and water use issues in a physical space regarded as uniquely holy by the three Abrahamic faiths.

        You should be surprised the campus struggles aren’t more vehement, coarse or violent, rather than obfuscating with your comments to Mr. Blumenthal’s essay.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 4, 2014, 4:34 am

        @ Philip Munger,

        Q: The point is that even though the differences are many, apartheid is apartheid.

        R: Well said, sir.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 7:01 am

        @Philip Munger

        I don’t disagree with you that the two aren’t analogous, Omar Barghouti was wrong. None of those things happened. No one liked the National Party in the USA. No one liked apartheid. In America you have two huge Zionist movements, with South Africa the only coalition that was passionate was the Congressional Black Caucus. Israel absolutely gets treated like a very close foreign country and arguably Netanyahu is getting the kind of casual access to American policy makers that a governor would get. Israel issues are for Zionist voters treated like domestic issues and play on the polls like domestic issues.

        Frankly on top of that I think Israel is an entirely different country psychologically than South Africa. South Africa had lost several military conflicts before the BDS movement against them started….

        Which means the anti-Apartheid analogy is a terrible one. You are preaching to the choir. I’ve always been of the opinion that Omar Barghouti’s theory is ridiculous about how this is going to play out.

        And your stuff about it being a religious issue… are also true. Frankly you are defending my point not disagreeing with me.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 4, 2014, 7:04 pm

        Which means the anti-Apartheid analogy is a terrible one.

        No, it’s an excellent one. You are conflating the dynamics of domestic politics and current events with opposition to an ideology. South Africa tried to defend apartheid as apathetic. Israel tries to hide apartheid behind sentimental BS and the perennial threat of another Holocaust.

        Omar Barghouti’s prediction is playing out just as he predicted. Israel now enjoys pariah status with it’s approval languishing alongside that of North Korea. And it’s only going to get worse.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 4, 2014, 7:25 pm

        Crucial fact in the context of South Africa: blacks outnumbered whites by a wide margin that grew wider day by day.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 4, 2014, 7:00 pm

        here were 2 sides but it never got personal. I can’t ever remember anyone ever being threatened.

        The pro apartheid faction were not as powerful as the Zionist lobby, so they didn’t have the means to issue threats. Also, unlike Israel, no one was trying to deny apartheid existed, they were simply defending it’s virtues – analogous to defending the need for Israel to be a Jewish state with a Jewish majority.

        The anti-Apartheid students never demonized the constructive engagement students.

        Neither as the anti Israel students . The problem is that the pro Israeli stundents are arguing that any engagement is a threat to them. And what’s more, the few defending apartheid (and there were VERY VERY few) were rarely affiliated with South Africa anyway.

        Anti-apartheid activists while supporting the ANC had no problem unequivocally denouncing ANC extremism on topics like necklacing.

        Anti-Israel activists while supporting Palestinians have no problem unequivocally denouncing Islamic extremism on topics like suicide attacks.

        The BDS movement on campuses is playing out much more like the abortion debate than like the South Africa debate.

        Cut the dishonest BS. No one is blowing up buildings. The only inflammatory rhetoric we are seeing is coming from you.

        Not all debates follow your prescription. The debates about the Vietnam war were not always civil either. Are you going to argue that the critics fo eh Vietnam war were being divisive?

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 11:27 pm

        @Shingo

        Not all debates follow your prescription. The debates about the Vietnam war were not always civil either. Are you going to argue that the critics fo eh Vietnam war were being divisive?

        Heck yes. The aftereffects of those debates are still being felt. That and the civil rights act shattered the alliance between the white working class and the Democratic party. Prior to 2008 crisis America still had the political distribution we’d had since 1936 which means the natural parties should be:

        A socially conservative economically liberal party (old fashioned Democrats)
        A socially moderate economically moderate party (old fashioned Republicans)

        We don’t have that because of the instability generated by those protests. Yes those protests were divisive and destructive.

        The problem is that the pro Israeli stundents are arguing that any engagement is a threat to them.

        No they aren’t. Jewish students are fine with cooperative engagement that doesn’t involve demonization. What existed for the last 4 decades on campuses.

        And what’s more, the few defending apartheid (and there were VERY VERY few) were rarely affiliated with South Africa anyway.

        There were tons who supported the president on constructive engagement and disagreed with the congressional black caucus. American campus opinion didn’t become one sided until after congress was and even then even in 1989 there were still quite a few constructive engagement supporters.

        Anti-Israel activists while supporting Palestinians have no problem unequivocally denouncing Islamic extremism on topics like suicide attacks.

        I don’t remember that from when they were happening. I certainly don’t see that today regarding say rockets in Gaza. Which BTW I don’t think is analogous to necklacing. The analogy would be Hamas’ and the PA’s brutality towards its own people and how these are both wretched governments.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 10:53 am

        No they aren’t. Jewish students are fine with cooperative engagement that doesn’t involve demonization. What existed for the last 4 decades on campuses.

        The federal courts have tossed the campus climate lawsuits, so they better get used to the 1st Amendment or skip the intellectual rigors of university life and stay in Hebrew school.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 5, 2014, 12:32 pm

        which means the natural parties should be:

        A socially conservative economically liberal party (old fashioned Democrats)
        A socially moderate economically moderate party (old fashioned Republicans)

        Could you elaborate for a nitwit foreigner.

        How do I have to read “natural” in this context?

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 11:19 pm

        @James

        Crucial fact in the context of South Africa: blacks outnumbered whites by a wide margin that grew wider day by day.

        Agreed. More importantly South Africa’s economy was mostly driven by Black labor while Palestinians labor plays little role in Israel’s. Also this ration means things like setting up a democracy with supermajority requirements for deep change can work in Israel even with “one man-one vote” while it couldn’t in South Africa.

        It is a bad analogy.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 11:03 am

        It is a bad analogy.

        Correction: It’s the apartheid analogy, not the labor or economy analogy. None of the constituent acts of apartheid depended upon which side is in the majority. The hasbara talking point about Israel not depending on Palestinian labor is irrelevant. It certainly does rely on Palestinian labor in its illegal industrial zones and it simply practices apartheid domestically against the foreign workers it uses in lieu of the Palestinians. It keeps them neutered like house pets, violating their most fundamental human rights to any family life, and deports them if they dare to have children.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 1:41 pm

        The key fact re: South Africa remains simply that there were far too many blacks, and far too few whites, for the whites to keep control of the country. When a way out of the dilemma appeared, that way out was taken.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 7, 2014, 7:52 pm

        @JeffG – What planet were you on for college? Venus? Or did you make it up (and aged yourself some) on the spur of the moment? Doesn’t sound like anyone who’s been through it.

  21. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    April 3, 2014, 3:27 pm

    Max thanks so much for your front row reporting. Your ambitious and honorable work along with brave students across the country dedicated to justice and truth on this issue will prevail. These walls of silence that have been well constructed and maintained on campuses across the country are tumbling down.

    “During SAFE’s week-long sit-in, a close-knit group of pro-Israel students filed a series of incendiary accusations against SAFE members, accusing them in formal reports to university administrators of delivering anti-Semitic tirades laced with antiquated terms like “kike” and “dirty Jew.”

    Max have you been able to access any of these so called “formal reports”

    Has the law school on that campus been involved with any of these activities, documentation etc?

    Has the Southern poverty law center been involved with any of these campus events or documentation of claims of racism, intimidation by students etc? If I were part of SAFE that is who I would contact for legal advice. We would get to see how dedicated SPLC is to standing up to all types of racism, intimidation, repression etc

  22. April 3, 2014, 5:52 pm

    Max Blumenthal: According to Marcus, the anti-Semitic French comedian Dieudonne …
    Accusations against Yazan Kherallah are treated as a tactic, unfair and injust, without substance.
    Accusations against Dieudonne are delivered as fait accompli, accurate and firmly established.
    Without the slightest trace of possibility that he himself may be falsely accused, by the same people for the same reasons. Why?

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      April 3, 2014, 10:45 pm

      A voice comes to the defense of Dieudonne. Just what this comments section was missing. Max has established his street creds in opposition to antisemitism by speaking out against Gilad Atzmon, along comes unverified and wishes to exonerate Dieudonne on Max’s dime.

      • Walid
        Walid
        April 4, 2014, 4:45 am

        Yonah, there is no doubt about Dieudonné being anti-Zionist. It’s regrettable that his hate overflowed and touched on Jews in general, but innocent he’s not. His silly salute being Hitlerian is pure horseshit, but his song Shoa Annanas (Holocaust hot chicks) with a play on words Shoa that sounds like chaud (hot) and ananas with the “a” taken from shoa and the word “nanas” for hot chicks making it sound like ananas or pineapples is most definitely anti Jewish. Dieudonné pretending to imitate an old Annie Cordy song “Chaud cacao” or hot chocolate is also pure horseshit. The guy’s a loose cannon.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        April 4, 2014, 7:30 am

        He represents a lot of non white people in France who are sick of that sense of entitlement, crying, shooting etc, Walid.

        It is a real mess.

      • Daniel Rich
        Daniel Rich
        April 4, 2014, 4:47 am

        @ yonah fredman,

        Q: A voice comes to the defense of Dieudonne. Just what this comments section was missing.

        R:Don’t turn into another hasbara tool, please.

        “Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala was born in a Paris suburb nearly 48 years ago. His mother was white, from Brittany, his father was African, from Cameroun. This should make him a poster child for the “multiculturalism” the ideologically dominant left claims to promote. And during the first part of his career, teaming up with his Jewish friend, Elie Simoun, he was just that: campaigning against racism, focusing his criticism on the National Front and even running for office against an NF candidate in the dormitory town of Dreux, some sixty miles West of Paris, where he lives. Like the best humorists, Dieudonné always targeted current events, with a warmth and dignity unusual in the profession. His career flourished, he played in movies, was a guest on television, branched out on his own. A great observer, he excels at relatively subtle imitations of various personality types and ethnic groups from Africans to Chinese.”

        As per Annie’s wish, the rest here at The Move to Muzzle Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala – The Bête Noire of the French Establishment.

      • James North
        James North
        April 4, 2014, 9:26 am

        Dieudonne’s early career notwithstanding, today he is an anti-Semite.

      • American
        American
        April 4, 2014, 10:34 am

        James North says:

        April 4, 2014 at 9:26 am

        Dieudonne’s early career notwithstanding, today he is an anti-Semite.
        >>>>>>>

        I don’t see that. I haven’t read everything Dieudonne has ever said but going by the article Rich linked–which seems accurate as far as I know and in line with most of reporting on him that wasn’t strictly about the Jewish angle—-his target is the corrupt and elite which Zionism is part of—-and especially visible in France as a politically ‘favored’ and ‘protected elite’….and for a ‘foreign cause’ at that. ..while France’s own problems and protest about go ignored by the French government.
        Unless you can point to where he blames and condemns all Jews for the Zionist rule and infiltration of French government then I cant agree he’s a an actual anti semite. If you can point that out where he has said that then I will agree.
        Let me point out from a non semite pov what it does when you label people as anti semites without actual proof they are inspired by Jew hatred or Jew hatred is ‘part of’ their agenda—-instead of defending The Jews and warding off blame of the Jews you make them look ” complicit” in defending the Zionist . You defeat your purpose.

        The way Dieudonne ‘esculated’ his attacks in response to the Zionist attacks on him is similar to what is happening everywhere now between the pro and anti Zionism/Israel. As Phil remarked earlier this fight is now entering the ‘warrior’ phase. One side brings a knife to the fight the other side bring a gun and both sides get their tender spots attacked..

        From the article:
        ”Ten years ago, on December 1, 2003, as guest on a TV show appropriately called “You Can’t Please Everybody”, dedicated to current events, Dieudonné came on stage roughly disguised as “a convert to Zionist extremism” advising others to get ahead by “joining the American-Israeli Axis of Good”. This was in the first year of the US assault on Iraq, which France’s refusal to join had led Washington to rechristen what it calls “French fries” (Belgian, actually) as “Freedom fries”. A relatively mild attack on George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” seemed totally in the mood of the times. The sketch ended with a brief salute, “Isra-heil”. This was far from being vintage Dieudonné, but nevertheless, the popular humorist was at the time enthusiastically embraced by other performers while the studio audience gave him a standing ovation.

        Then the protests started coming in, especially concerning the final gesture seen as likening Israel to Nazi Germany.

        “Anti-Semitism!” was the cry, although the target was Israel (and the United States as allies in the Middle East). Calls multiplied to ban his shows, to sue him, to destroy his career. Dieudonné attempted to justify his sketch as not targeting Jews as such, but, unlike others before him, would not apologize for an offense he did not believe he had committed. Why no protests from Africans he had made fun of? Or Muslims? Or Chinese? Why should a single community react with such fury?

        Thus began a decade of escalation. LICRA began a long series of lawsuits against him (“incitement to racial hatred”), at first losing, but keeping up the pressure. Instead of backing down, Dieudonné went farther in his criticism of “Zionism” after each attack. Meanwhile, Dieudonné was gradually excluded from television appearances and treated as a pariah by mainstream media. It is only the recent internet profusion of images showing young people making the quenelle sign that has moved the establishment to conclude that a direct attack would be more effective than trying to ignore him.

        The Ideological Background

        To begin to understand the meaning of the Dieudonné affair, it is necessary to grasp the ideological context. For reasons too complex to review here, the French left – the left that once was primarily concerned with the welfare of the working class, with social equality, opposition to aggressive war, freedom of speech – has virtually collapsed. The right has won the decisive economic battle, with the triumph of policies favoring monetary stability and the interests of international investment capital (“neo-liberalism”). As a consolation prize, the left enjoys a certain ideological dominance, based on anti-racism, anti-nationalism and devotion to the European Union – even to the hypothetical “social Europe” that daily recedes into the cemetery of lost dreams. In fact, this ideology fits perfectly with a globalization geared to the requirements of international finance capital.

        In the absence of any serious socio-economic left, France has sunk into a sort of “Identity Politics”, which both praises multiculturalism and reacts vehemently against “communitarianism”, that is, the assertion of any unwelcome ethnic particularisms. But some ethnic particularisms are less welcome than others. The Muslim veil was first banned in schools, and demands to ban it in adult society grow. The naqib and burka, while rare, have been legally banned. Disputes erupt over Halal foods in cafeterias, prayers in the street, while cartoons regularly lampoon Islam. Whatever one may think of this, the fight against communitarianism can be seen by some as directed against one particular community. Meanwhile, French leaders have been leading the cry for wars in Muslim countries from Libya to Syria, while insisting on devotion to Israel.

        Meanwhile, another community is the object of constant solicitude. In the last twenty years, while religious faith and political commitment have declined drastically, the Holocaust, called the Shoah in France, has gradually become a sort of State Religion. Schools commemorate the Shoah annually, it increasingly dominates historical consciousness, which in other areas is declining along with many humanistic studies. In particular, of all the events in France’s long history, the only one protected by law is the Shoah. The so-called Gayssot Law bans any questioning of the history of the Shoah, an altogether unprecedented interference with freedom of speech. Moreover, certain organizations, such as LICRA, have been granted the privilege of suing individuals on the basis of “incitement to racial hatred” (very broadly and unevenly interpreted) with the possibility of collecting damages on behalf of the “injured community”. In practice, these laws are used primarily to prosecute alleged “anti-Semitism” or “negationism” concerning the Shoah. Even though they frequently are thrown out of court, such lawsuits constitute harassment and intimidation. France is the rare country where the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement against Israeli settlement practices can also be attacked as “incitement to racial hatred”.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        April 4, 2014, 4:35 pm

        How do you understand this term? I use it to mean ‘prejudice against at least some things characteristically Jewish’, taking prejudice as something always irrational.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 4, 2014, 11:09 pm

        @North – When you’ll come with proof that he is discriminating against “Jews” because of their being born so, we can talk.
        Hostility to religion, or to a particular religion, or to a particular cultural superstructure, or to any fake-nationalist “identity” does not qualify. Those are conscious choices; they are open to criticism by anyone.
        Gallows humor on the marketing of the WW2 genocide of the Jews is not “antisemitism”. If anything, that marketing is. Attacking rascally laws against free speech that only criminalize criticism of this commercialization, in a country that otherwise had unlimited free speech, is not “antisemitism”.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 5, 2014, 8:51 pm

        MHughes – ” I use it to mean ‘prejudice against at least some things characteristically Jewish’, taking prejudice as something always irrational.”
        Sorry for repeating: those “some things” must necessarily be inborn. Everything else, i.e. acquired later and kept consciously, is open to rational criticism. Or may be made up to be so. Essentially, the fact of being born “biologically Jewish” (as this is the connection) even though there is no such race or blood bond.
        I wish our numerous muckslingers, including Krauss, J. North, et al., would just once come forward both with an acceptable definition and a clear documentation of their cases instead of nonsensical parroting of Zionist “opinion”.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        April 5, 2014, 10:07 pm

        puppies:

        those “some things” must necessarily be inborn. Everything else, i.e. acquired later and kept consciously, is open to rational criticism.

        As a point of logic, why would “some thing” necessarily be exempt from rational criticism just because it was “inborn”? And why can’t “unconscious choices” be open to criticism?

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 5, 2014, 10:45 pm

        @Sibiriak – The “some things” phrase was from Hughes, to designate traits objected to by the so-called “antisemites”. The point of logic is not exemption from criticism of an inborn trait the but impossibility of its correction; that there is no such exemption in the facts is proven by the existence of racism.

        If “antisemitism” is meant as racism directed at “Jewish” persons as a group, it may be better to just have it called racism, as this may keep the accuser from showing racism against others in the same breath.

        If by “antisemitism” some people mean disapproval or dislike of any acquired and discussible things like religion, irreligion, cultural superstructure, politics etc., then they deserve a quenelle.

    • RudyM
      RudyM
      April 4, 2014, 10:18 pm

      I don’t understand French and have had limited exposure to his work in translated form, but I’m very sympathetic to Dieudonné, particularly given what he’s up against in France. Things are obviously completely out of hand there, politically.

      I think Diana Johnstone’s “Blasphemy in Secular France” is worth a read.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        April 5, 2014, 5:21 am

        This line from Diana Johnstone’s article in Counterpunch hit home for me: When Dieudonné sings lightly of the Shoah, he is believed by some to be denying the Holocaust and calling for its repetition (a contradictory proposition, upon reflection).

        A contradictory proposition upon reflection. Please, Johnstone, get lost and go barking in somebody else’s back yard.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 5, 2014, 7:53 am

        yonah, she asks a lot of good questions. The only thing she gets wrong is this. I am bit wondering, why she did not spend a second of reflection on that claim:

        Unique in French history, the so-called Gayssot law provides that any statement denying or minimizing the Shoah can be prosecuted and even lead to prison.

        Wikipedia – Laws against Holocaust denial Hardly “uniquely” French. Follow the link to see for yourself.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        April 5, 2014, 9:51 am

        LeaNder:

        Hardly “uniquely” French

        “Unique in French history” does not mean “unique to French history”.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 6, 2014, 4:59 pm

        thanks Sibiriak, puppies, yes I may have misread.

        Fact is in none of the laws I know “unique” makes sense. Maybe from the perspective of freedom of speech as freedom to incite hatred against minorities.

        Here is the German law, §130 StGB, which means paragraph 130 penal code. I changed the translation of the name of the law from the online translation

        Section 130 incitement of ethnic, xenophobic or antisemitic hatred (Volksverhetzung)

        (1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

        1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or

        2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

        shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

        (2) Whoever:

        1. with respect to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), which incite hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterized by its folk customs, which call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group:

        a) disseminates them;

        b) publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;

        c) offers, gives or makes accessible to a person under eighteen years; or

        (d) produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of numbers a through c or facilitate such use by another; or

        2. disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in number 1 by radio,

        shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

        (3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

        (4) Subsection (2) shall also apply to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) with content such as is indicated in subsection (3).

        (5) In cases under subsection (2), also in conjunction with subsection (4), and in cases of subsection (3), Section 86 subsection (3), shall apply correspondingly.

        *****************************

        See, it’s not uniquely denial of the holocaust but the denial of any genocide.

        Section 220a Genocide

        (1) Whoever, with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial or religious group or one characterized by its folk customs by:

        1. killing members of the group;

        2. inflicting serious physical or emotional harm, especially of the type indicated in Section 226 on members of the group;

        3. placing the group in living conditions capable of leading, in whole or in part, to their physical destruction;

        4. imposing measures which are intended to prevent births within the group;

        5. forcibly transferring children of the group into another group,

        shall be punished with imprisonment for life.

        (2) In less serious cases under subsection (1), numbers 2 to 5, the punishment shall be imprisonment for not less than five years.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 7, 2014, 12:57 am

        Maybe from the perspective of freedom of speech as freedom to incite hatred against minorities.

        You are correct. The EU Framework on Racism and Xenophobia is not limited in scope to the Jewish genocide. It applies to all of the ethnic groups that were affected then and prospectively to any future instance of incitement.

        The United States has cited the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution in reservations to human rights treaties regarding absolute prohibitions against propaganda. But even the USA has denied that it protects a right to incite hatred against minorities. In its periodic reports to the UN CERD treaty monitoring body, it has cited criminal restrictions on speech in cases, like Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), when the speech is intended to intimidate (true threats) or intended to cause imminent violence (see page 58 of 124). http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/83517.pdf

        Likewise, the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal is a treaty Stat. 1544. 1547. 82 U.N.T.S. 279 which declared “persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds” constitutes crimes against humanity. In the Streicher case the Nuremberg prosecution argued that years of propaganda had served as steady incitement to and justification of murder and that it amounted to the crime of persecution against a number of minority groups. The US Third Circuit Court of Appeals cited the Streicher case in its decision on the “denaturalization” of a newspaper editor, Ferenc Koreh, who had published similar propaganda. http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/95a1097p.txt

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        April 7, 2014, 9:17 am

        Thanks, Hostage. You may have realized that my translation was guided by the larger EU frame, which obviously also forms the basis of the respective national European laws. Via the UN too?

        If I had known the Koreh case, a couple of years ago, it would have helped me to challenge the people lured into cobwebs woven by rabble rousers. One of those on the American scene consider guys like Ernst Zündel martyrs for free speech. Apparently he also went to Germany to witness the trials of Zündel, if he did not only rely on German extreme right networks. I vaguely remember he mainly concentrated on these networks present at trial and the lawyers and spread their views anyway. I almost forgot him but he surfaced here not too long ago in a link. Don’t remember his name now. It is not worth remembering strictly, but it seems he deleted the articles concerning “Zündel the martyr” on his updated website. At least on a fast check.

        In his brief, Koreh suggests that the mere publication
        of anti-Semitic articles in a private newspaper cannot constitute
        “assistance in persecution.” In particular, Koreh states that he
        “challenge[s] the premise that propaganda assists persecution
        merely by creating ‘a climate of opinion.'” Appellant’s Brief at
        47. He contends that the district court’s conclusion that the
        publication of such propaganda necessarily assisted persecution
        of Hungarian Jews is based upon a theory of causation
        questionable under both tort and criminal law.

        Well prepared case. No doubt. I’ll leave out all my associative meanderings. ;)

        But the periodic report. which obviously I only perused by now, has a link to a v video which may serve to show this is not about “unique is not the correct way to look on this”.

        Thanks Hostage.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 7, 2014, 11:44 pm

        You may have realized that my translation was guided by the larger EU frame, which obviously also forms the basis of the respective national European laws. Via the UN too?

        Yep, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination:

        Article 4

        States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:

        (a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

        (b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;

        (c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.

        http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx

        Well prepared case. No doubt. I’ll leave out all my associative meanderings. ;)

        Okay, I’ll take a shot. The Supreme Court has long since upheld the definition of “political propaganda” contained in the Foreign Agents Registration Act, as “any communication intended to influence the United States’ foreign policies”. See Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465 (1987) Diplomats that present their credentials to the US government do not have to register, but that does not entitle them to use appropriated funds or alter the fact that their communications can be considered political propaganda.

        The prohibitions in the ICERD and Omnibus Budget Act against the use of appropriated funds for public propaganda should prevent States from providing public forums or turning over the floor during a state public meeting to a person, like Michael Oren, who has written Op-Eds that advocate or reserve Israel’s right to commit war crimes against Palestinians. I frankly got sick and tired of hearing him pontificate during the event at Irvine in front of Palestinian students and others about the historical duty of Christians to assist Zionist Jews redeem the Holy Land (from you know who).

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 5, 2014, 10:28 pm

        @Leander – Not uniquely French; unique in French history. Big difference. Factual as far as I know since 1848.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        April 8, 2014, 11:23 am

        ” I frankly got sick and tired of hearing him pontificate during the event at Irvine in front of Palestinian students and others about the historical duty of Christians to assist Zionist Jews redeem the Holy Land (from you know who).”

        You got sick and tired because you disagree with him, and like many people who disagree viscerally with a speaker, you’d like to prohibit his speech.

        The Keene court upheld the definition of political propaganda because it reasoned that Keene could simply explain to his audience that the Canadian films he wanted to show were accurate, even if they were distributed by the National Film Board of Canada.

        “By compelling some disclosure of information and permitting more, the Act’s approach recognizes that the best remedy for misleading or inaccurate speech contained within materials subject to the Act is fair, truthful, and accurate speech. See generally Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 274 U. S. 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence”).”

        You’re not interested in more speech. You’re simply interested in banning the speech you don’t like.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 8, 2014, 12:43 pm

        You got sick and tired because you disagree with him, and like many people who disagree viscerally with a speaker, you’d like to prohibit his speech.

        No that’s Oren’s tactic: Michael Oren to Congress: Boycott the boycotters
        In op-ed in Washington political magazine, former ambassador suggests US lawmakers could help ‘fight back’ against BDS movement

        Former ambassador to the United States Michael Oren has asked the US Congress to consider withholding government funding for academic institutions that participate in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. http://www.timesofisrael.com/michael-oren-to-congress-boycott-the-boycotters/

        You are fairly stupid troll who likes to misstate the comments made by others here. I could care less if Oren wants to speak in a private venue. I only object to state officials who give him a federally subsidized forum to promulgate racist political propaganda for another country in violation US federal budget laws and UN treaty obligations. Make no mistake, Oren has spilled oceans of ink on propaganda that denies, condones, and trivializes war crimes committed by Zionists against the Palestinian people. He can defend eviction by armed attack and occupation, and policies of apartheid and colonization on his own damn dime.

        There have been countless Supreme Court cases which say that aliens do not have a 1st amendment right to participate in our American polity in order to influence our government’s policies, e.g. Bluman v FEC http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/bluman.shtml So using a state public meeting law to shield him from critics – while silencing them – was, and is preposterous.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 8, 2014, 1:13 pm

        The Keene court upheld the definition of political propaganda because it reasoned that Keene could simply explain to his audience that the Canadian films he wanted to show were accurate, even if they were distributed by the National Film Board of Canada.

        You seem to be having trouble making your argument (whatever it is). I have no heartburn with Oren speaking in public or in private, so long as his remarks aimed at influencing our government’s policies or muzzling critics of Israel are clearly labeled as political propaganda – and his hate speech is not subsidized or shielded from criticism by the state itself, in flagrant violation of our laws and human rights treaty obligations.

  23. Les
    Les
    April 3, 2014, 6:43 pm

    One of the successes of BDS is the increasing decoupling of Judaism from zionism.

  24. April 3, 2014, 6:57 pm

    Great article Max as usual. Max uses the words “campaign of subterfuge and manufactured persecution designed to intimidate and silence”. This is what the Zionists have used at every turn. It is very disturbing and I have been watching it for 50 years. What really bothers me however is that everyone puts equal emphasis, responsibility and blame for the problem on the Palestinians as well as the Israelis. The bottom line however is that the Israelis have sent 600,000 people over to live on the Palestinian land and they refuse to leave. The Israeli obfuscation is all about stealing this Palestinian land permanently.

  25. James Canning
    James Canning
    April 3, 2014, 7:05 pm

    Very interesting reeport, and a bit disturbing. How much effort is going into campaign to “de-fund” Middle East studies programmes?

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      April 3, 2014, 9:12 pm

      “de-funding” Middle East Studies programs would include Jewish studies programs. Discriminatory. Can not imagine that this will work.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 9:35 am

        RoHa says:

        Sweden for citizens of Sweden isn’t controversial. Israel for citizens of Israel would be a lot more acceptable than Israel is now. But Israel for Jews is controversial.

        Sibiriak says:

        “Israel for Israelis” IS utterly non-controversial. “Israel is the state for the Jewish People, not its citizens” —much less so.

        I wish that were the case. Then we would be having a conversation about how best to handle a civil rights issue not how best to destroy a country and nation.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        April 4, 2014, 10:31 am

        Most of us are not discussing how to destroy a country/nation. We are discussing reformation of the country so that is a nation for all its citizens.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 11:47 am

        @RoHa

        Most of us are not discussing how to destroy a country/nation. We are discussing reformation of the country so that is a nation for all its citizens.

        I don’t agree. A civil rights struggle doesn’t require the sort of rhetoric one hears here. Israel is a democracy. There is no reason not to just engage in normal everyday lobbying if there were just a desire for reform. For example The Israeli-Arabis have their own parties and thus are fully entitled to establish a Knesset lobby fully registered with the Knesset Secretary General… The Knesset rules allow for lobbies to establish official meetings between MPs and foreigners as part of Knesset structure. BDS could be engaging within the system rather than demonizing it.

        Palestinians certainly have tons of access at the highest levels to the Israeli government. If they agreed to something like a civil rights approach to resolving the conflict were acceptable.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        April 4, 2014, 1:56 pm

        “A civil rights struggle doesn’t require the sort of rhetoric one hears here. Israel is a democracy. ”

        Not for the 4.5 million people (all non-Jews) who’ve been subject to its government for two generation but have no say in that government.

      • eljay
        eljay
        April 4, 2014, 2:35 pm

        >> Israel is a democracy.

        Israel is an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” that:
        – refuses to halt its 60+ years, on-going and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder;
        – refuses to be held accountable for past and on-going (war) crimes;
        – refuses to honour its obligations under international law;
        – refuses to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace; and
        – refuses to be a secular and democratic Israeli state – a state of and for all of its Israeli citizens (and immigrants, refugees and ex-pats), equally.

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 4, 2014, 8:04 pm

        @ JeffB “Israel is a democracy”

        Nothing about democracy in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. In fact, Israel has never had a legally elected Government, under a constitution

        “The Israeli-Arabis… “ … outnumbered by Jewish Arab Israelis http://wp.me/pDB7k-19Y

        “BDS could be engaging within the system rather than demonizing it”

        Prohibited under Israeli law http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/12/israel-ban-boycott-legal-challenge

        “Palestinians certainly have tons of access at the highest levels to the Israeli government”

        Israelis do. Palestinians have no access what so ever.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 4, 2014, 11:11 pm

        A civil rights struggle doesn’t require the sort of rhetoric one hears here. Israel is a democracy.

        Hannah Arendt pointed out the parallels between Nazi era laws and the laws of Israel that govern the distinct and unequal legal status of Jews and non-Jews. She noted that Israeli officials would rather not have a written Constitution in which those embarrassing details would have to be spelled out. Even Zionist legal experts, like Ruth Gavison, admitted a long time ago that the Jewish part of the “Jewish and democratic” formula trumps the democratic part. She notes that people across the political spectrum claim the two are incompatible and that lawmakers had decided against dealing with the constitutional status of Arabs in the Jewish state as Jobotinsky’s son had insisted during the 1st Knesset. That’s a very serious situation, since the UN had already dictated the minimum acceptable terms in a minority agreement that Israel accepted in order to obtaine consent for the termination of the mandate and establishment of a state with a Jewish majority inside of its borders. Gavison admits that Israel can only be described as “democratic” if everyone else agrees to redefine the term and make a special exception for Israel.
        *Gavison, Ruth E., Can Israel Be Both Jewish and Democratic? (January 1, 2011). ISRAEL AS A JEWISH AND DEMOCRATIC STATE, p. 115, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1862904

        She is currently tasked by the Justice Minister of Israel to write the official draft of the Basic Law: The National Home and hasn’t been able to produce a written proposal after several months on the job.

        Israel’s laws, have stripped the bulk of the indigenous Palestinians of any rights and herded them into a portion of their own territory and denied them statehood or a nationality. That’s called apartheid by the way, and isn’t really that much different from the laws, policies, and practices that the Third Reich employed to squeeze out minorities and conduct its own “democratic” elections in 1933, 1936, and 1938.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 4, 2014, 7:06 pm

        Then we would be having a conversation about how best to handle a civil rights issue not how best to destroy a country and nation.

        Cut the crap JeffB. There is nothing about BDS that aims to destroy any nation.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        April 4, 2014, 7:13 pm

        A civil rights struggle doesn’t require the sort of rhetoric one hears here.

        Based on what evidence? The civil rights struggle in the US was extremely bloody and included VERY heated rhetoric. We even saw the FBI get involved in very nasty and macabre tactics to discredit the civil rights movement, and target even MLK himself.

        Israel is a democracy.

        Only for jews – apartheid for non Jews.

        There is no reason not to just engage in normal everyday lobbying if there were just a desire for reform.

        That has been tried for 30 years and failed.

        For example The Israeli-Arabis have their own parties and thus are fully entitled to establish a Knesset lobby fully registered with the Knesset Secretary General…

        …and fully constrained by the law to regognize Israel and Zionism.

        BDS could be engaging within the system rather than demonizing it.

        That’s a bit like saying the allies could have engaged Nazism without demonizing it. Apartheid was demonized. Apartheid South Africa was democratic for white people.

        Palestinians certainly have tons of access at the highest levels to the Israeli government.

        No they do no, and even if they did, what good is access to Avigdor Liberman or Bennet going to do? John Kerry has the highest access there is to the Israeli government and he is insulted and decried as anti Semitic and messianic, even as he kisses the butts.

        The simple fact Jeff is that like J Street, you don’t want peace, you want to defend the status quo.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 5, 2014, 7:52 am

        @Shingo

        Based on what evidence? The civil rights struggle in the US was extremely bloody and included VERY heated rhetoric.

        That’s not the issue. The civil rights struggle in the Israel might be too. The question outside the effected areas. The policy disputes in the North about how to handle the South were not bloody and did not included very heated rhetoric. The North acted as a calming influence.

        JeffB: There is no reason not to just engage in normal everyday lobbying if there were just a desire for reform.

        Shingo: That has been tried for 30 years and failed.

        Not really. The policy has been 2 states not civil rights. Those are opposite policies.

        That’s a bit like saying the allies could have engaged Nazism without demonizing it. Apartheid was demonized. Apartheid South Africa was democratic for white people.

        They could of and probably would have if the Nazis hadn’t been aggressive expansionistic as well. We don’t know how that turns out that’s an alternative history. I certainly think there is no reason to believe South Africa couldn’t have been engaged. As for South Africa, apartheid was demonized and South Africa was too. I get that. And that strategy looks like it was probably successful and resulted in a good outcome. Other demonizations haven’t worked out so well for example the Ba’ath party of of Iraq was demonized and yet starvation and war were still required.

        The issue here isn’t whether demonization has ever worked but whether it is the only possibility.

        No they do no, and even if they did, what good is access to Avigdor Liberman or Bennet going to do?

        That’s who they have to make peace with. The Israelis don’t like the Palestinian leadership either.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 4, 2014, 7:22 pm

        I wish that were the case. Then we would be having a conversation about how best to handle a civil rights issue not how best to destroy a country and nation.

        I doubt that, since Eisenhower and Kennedy thought it best to handle the civil rights issues in Arkansas and Alabama through the deployment and use of a military force, rather than have a drawn-out conversation with racist state officials.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 4, 2014, 11:44 pm

        @Hostage

        I doubt that, since Eisenhower and Kennedy thought it best to handle the civil rights issues in Arkansas and Alabama through the deployment and use of a military force, rather than have a drawn-out conversation with racist state officials.

        There were decades of drawn-out discussions with racist state officials. The use of force was extremely infrequent and was used very late in the process only when meeting total resistance. The process from the 1830s till today is long and drawn out.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 10:48 am

        There were decades of drawn-out discussions with racist state officials. The use of force was extremely infrequent and was used very late in the process only when meeting total resistance.

        You have a constipation of thoughts and a diarrhea of words. The rest of the world is certainly entitled to use UN Chapter VII enforcement powers against the racist regime in Jerusalem after 65 years of blatant criminality and impunity.

      • Kathleen
        Kathleen
        April 6, 2014, 11:49 am

        One state, one person, one vote. Becoming a real democracy means Israel as an apartheid state would not be recognized as legitimate. Justice.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 6, 2014, 2:11 pm

        @Kathleen —

        One state, one person, one vote. Becoming a real democracy means Israel as an apartheid state would not be recognized as legitimate. Justice.

        That’s a fine position. One I don’t object to, and one totally contrary to the UN’s position “international law” that gets brought up constantly. Of course there are a lot of details about how to achieve this given the actual situation on the ground so that’s not a complete answer but it certainly could lead to a reasonable discussion.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 6, 2014, 2:25 pm

        China is “legitimate” but no bother there with “one man, one vote”.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 6, 2014, 9:10 pm

        That’s a fine position. One I don’t object to, and one totally contrary to the UN’s position “international law” that gets brought up constantly.

        If there is a principle of international law mentioned in a UN resolution that the Zionists haven’t always been willing to violate on a moment’s notice, I’ve never heard anything about it.

        When the UN invited the PLO, ANC, and SWAPO to become UN observers, that privilege was 1) reserved for states and 2) the PLO Charter claimed all of Palestine for Palestinian Muslims, Christians, and Jews. At the time, more UN member states recognized the PLO than the state of Israel. That situation remained true even after the PLO accepted resolution 181(II) and a formula for a two state solution. So it appears that the UN will accept any solution endorsed by the PLO or the Palestinian people.

        Abbas has adopted an all or nothing strategy. It will inexorably result in the defunding and destruction of the Palestinian government and hand the problem back to Israel, as the occupying power, if his gambits in the ICC and ICJ do not succeed. So it may already be too late for Zionists to stop the demand for one person, one state, and one vote from happening.

        Zionists are so accustomed to lying to themselves and everyone else, that they cannot recognize a “moment of truth” when they are confronted with one.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 6, 2014, 9:42 pm

        @Hostage – It’s a fact that the demand for one state, one person, one vote is out and very likely to already have majority support outside the Zionists (and as always the US.) Only, any connection to a (very reluctant) ICJ or ICC stirrings, pardon, talk, and the even more unlikely enforcement is not a necessary, automatic consequence. That, and Chapter VII action, presuppose a far-reaching, even catastrophic change in the US. Which bring us back to the starting point. All change begins here in DC.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 5, 2014, 3:54 pm

        Some rich Arabs are providing finance for Middle Eastern studies, in Britain and the US. This might help protect such studies.

      • libra
        libra
        April 6, 2014, 3:07 pm

        JeffB: That’s a fine position. One I don’t object to…

        Jeff, not objecting to something is not the same as supporting it. What is it you really want to see as the future for the region of ‘Israel/Palestine’ and its people? Let’s see if there is in fact a basis for reasonable and, perhaps even, productive discussion.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 6, 2014, 6:51 pm

        @libra —

        Jeff, not objecting to something is not the same as supporting it. What is it you really want to see as the future for the region of ‘Israel/Palestine’ and its people? Let’s see if there is in fact a basis for reasonable and, perhaps even, productive discussion.

        What I’d really like to see is the Palestinians enthusiastically embracing becoming Israeli and with a few generations there being one Israeli people whose ancestors came from both peoples.

  26. Sumud
    Sumud
    April 3, 2014, 8:48 pm

    “Z Zidan” and any other falsely accused students should be suing Dishell for libel and claiming significant financial damages.

    An indirect benefit – it would likely change a few minds on campus from undecided or anti- to pro-BDS when they see the slimy tactics zionists are resorting to to slander those in support of BDS. As usual the ziobots are their own worst enemy, and we need only tell the truth, relentlessly.

    I thought at the time that all these accusations of anti-semitism didn’t add up.

  27. ThePolemicist
    ThePolemicist
    April 4, 2014, 3:15 am

    Another fine piece my Max Blumenthal. “Fighting retreat” is a perfect phrase. At Max’s NYU talk, one Jewish kid got up and said, something to the effect that: “As a progressive on campus now, I just assume that I have to be pro-Palestinian. I guess that’s a big change from five or ten years ago.” And the crowd in the big lecture hall murmured assent at what he said. Zionists are increasingly in the minority now among progressive students, and on the defensive. PEP is completely discredited. Of course, the opposite in national political and media culture and the Zionists have tremendous power to hurt a lot of people in order to slow the momentum. It’s particularly disturbing to see what Max recounts about how vulnerable Palestinian students, who have to go back home, are. All the more reason for American students and faculty to fight back and fight on.

  28. Pixel
    Pixel
    April 4, 2014, 7:55 am

    Pro-Israel students are merely taking a page from the Israeli playbook:

    Accuse others of exactly what you’re doing to them.

  29. brenda
    brenda
    April 4, 2014, 1:52 pm

    great writing, Max. It seems like an overwhelmingly grim, threatening, oppressive scene on campus. The resonant image that floated up for me was the early anti-war protests in the 1960’s, and the early civil rights demonstrations. It takes a lot of courage to stand up against that.

  30. JeffB
    JeffB
    April 4, 2014, 11:39 pm

    @mikeo

    Marr was not the other one who used the term and your overly long quote gets to the main point of moving a religious bigotry to a racial one. You aren’t really disagreeing with what I said other than claiming you are and throwing out cheap insults.

  31. JeffB
    JeffB
    April 4, 2014, 11:49 pm

    @Talknic

    Nothing about democracy in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. In fact, Israel has never had a legally elected Government, under a constitution

    Israel has a structure of basic laws which act as a constitution. The UK doesn’t have a constitution either that doesn’t mean it isn’t a democracy.

    JeffB: “BDS could be engaging within the system rather than demonizing it”

    talknic: Prohibited under Israeli law link to theguardian.com

    You are taking that out of context. I was discussing how to engage with the Israeli system for civil right not how to get foreign countries to act against the interests of the Israeli state so as to attempt to beat the people of Israel into submission. Go to the Pollard discussion about why that’s wrong.

    jeffB:“Palestinians certainly have tons of access at the highest levels to the Israeli government”

    talknic: Israelis do. Palestinians have no access what so ever.

    Abbas meets with Netanyahu rather regularly. That’s access.

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      April 5, 2014, 8:36 am

      Sorta like when the kapo leader meets with the camp chief?

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      April 5, 2014, 9:43 am

      Israel has a structure of basic laws which act as a constitution. The UK doesn’t have a constitution either that doesn’t mean it isn’t a democracy.

      Israel and the UK are just about the only two countries without a written constitution and neither are models of democracy, what with the Queen’s Privy Council empowered to act as a Star Chamber that can overturn Supreme Court decisions and exile lesser peoples, like the poor Chagos Islanders, from their homes. http://web.archive.org/web/20090514075405/http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6245154.ece

      BBC Radio 4’s Quentin Letts program ‘What is the Point of the Privy Council?’, took a thought-provoking look at the institution. He described the Royal Prerogative as ‘discretionary powers in hands of the crown but exercised by ministers which create laws which do not have to pass through Parliament or comply with human rights legislation.’ — http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00k8frh

      Patrick O’Connnor QC described it as a route entirely to evade debate and scrutiny in Parliament whilst making ‘real laws that affect people’s lives in fundamental ways…. Exclusion of the Chagos Islanders from their homeland was one of the worse political scandals of the second half of the last century.’ David Snoxell, UK’s High Commissioner to Mauritius at that time said ‘In June 2004 the Foreign Office decided to get rid of the problem altogether and used the device of Orders in Council – in effect they overturned a court order and bypassed Parliament. It’s inconceivable that it could have gone through Parliament because Parliament would never have accepted the permanent exile of the people from their homeland.’ http://www.chagossupport.org.uk/the-privy-council-whats-it-for-798

      Israel’s basic laws are riddled with so many ifs, ands, but fors, and maybes that they provide no constitutional protection of equality for non-Jews, women, and etc. See for example the almost useless Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (1994) http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic4_eng.htm

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 9:51 am

        Try to imagine if the US Constitution had loopholes like these:

        2. The purpose of this Basic Law if to protect freedom of occupation, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

        4. There shall be no violation of freedom of occupation except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required, or by regulation enacted by virtue of express autorisation in such law.

        8. A provision of a law that violates freedom of occupation shall be of effect, even though not in accordance with section 4, if it has been included in a law passed by a majority of the members of the Knesset, which expressly states that it shall be of effect, notwithstanding the provisions of this Basic Law; such law shall expire four years from its commencement unless a shorter duration has been stated therein.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 5, 2014, 10:00 am

        @Hostage

        I mentioned this before you are conflating two issues:

        a) Does Israel have effectively a constitution?
        b) Does the Israeli de-facto constitution have all the provisions you would like?

        (a) can be yes while (b) is still no. They are independent questions. The US constitution would still be a constitution even if the Bill of Rights have never passed.

        I’m not following your 3 loopholes. What does “freedom of occupation” even mean? But my main response is the above. As far as the application to Israeli Arabs as I’ve mentioned I’d like to see the process of assimilation resume until they are no longer a distinguished people at all but just Israelis.

        As far as the people under occupation. They wouldn’t have constitutional rights regardless of the constitution. Iraqis got no constitution rights during the USA occupation.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 9:28 pm

        b) Does the Israeli de-facto constitution have all the provisions you would like?

        I’ve pointed out time and again that one of the conditions for permitting the termination of the international mandate was acceptance of a treaty on minorities. Israel was required to adopt a number of fundamental constitutional guarantees, including equality under the law, as a condition for UN agreement to establish boundaries for a state with a Jewish majority. Israel’s violation of those obligations calls into question its “right to exist” as it is presently constituted.

        The fact that you don’t grasp that principle and keep repeatedly missing the point, speaks volumes about your lack of character and intelligence.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 6, 2014, 2:29 pm

        @Hostage

        I’ve pointed out time and again that one of the conditions for permitting the termination of the international mandate was acceptance of a treaty on minorities…The fact that you don’t grasp that principle and keep repeatedly missing the point, speaks volumes about your lack of character and intelligence.

        I grasp the point fine. I just think it is irrelevant. Israel has a de-facto constitution. It doesn’t have provisions you like but it is a constitution. The fact that the UN also doesn’t like it doesn’t change anything. It is still a de-facto constitution.

        The UN disagrees with lots of terms in the USA constitution like the 2nd amendment and that treaties are subject to congress and not them. That doesn’t mean the USA doesn’t have a constitution either.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 6, 2014, 9:30 pm

        I grasp the point fine. I just think it is irrelevant. Israel has a de-facto constitution. It doesn’t have provisions you like but it is a constitution.

        No it isn’t a constitution, despite the attempts by the former Chief Justice to style it “as if” it were one. David Kretzmer, Yoram Dinstein, and a host of other legal scholars have explained that Israel has a system of parliamentary supremacy where the decisions of the Supreme Court on constitutional matters can be nullified or overturned by an ordinary statute. BTW, the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (1994) explicitly provides the mechanism for that to happen.

  32. JeffB
    JeffB
    April 5, 2014, 6:52 am

    @Hostage

    [apartheid example]

    I don’t agree with you on Israel being apartheid for reasons we’ve discussed before. One could simply state the fact you did that Israel has used land policy in its own country to squeeze the Israeli Arabs into small territory. Full stop. Of course most governments during the same period of time have done the same thing and encouraged a migration from farms to cities thereby increasing the population concentration that the overwhelming majority of their population live in. We can then present data about what Israel’s motivation were in concentrating the Israeli Arabs, what should the policy be…. The purpose of the word “apartheid” is to simple avoid that conversation.

    But that’s not the rhetoric I was talking about. Because the real rhetoric is that the people who support apartheid must be racists. That stops being rhetoric about Israel and becomes rhetoric about American Jews. And that’s where there is trouble.

    American Jews might very well support industrialization and a move away from the farm / labor ideology of the 1920s without supporting racism. By making everything about the Palestinians, by demonizing Israel, effectively very negative things get said about American Jews.

    And then of course beyond that having concluded that those people are racist. Then there is additional rudeness on top. (You yourself don’t do this BTW). And yeah I don’t see any reason Universities should want to encourage that kind of behavior.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      April 5, 2014, 11:00 am

      “encouraged ” or enticed is a long way from having your home and land stolen and being forced under gun point into a much smaller area.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 5, 2014, 11:23 am

        @Kathleen

        “encouraged ” or enticed is a long way from having your home and land stolen and being forced under gun point into a much smaller area.

        I agree. There isn’t much “under gunpoint” among the Israeli Arabs either. After the violence of the 49 war it was mainly economic encouragement.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        April 5, 2014, 9:42 pm

        I agree. There isn’t much “under gunpoint” among the Israeli Arabs either. After the violence of the 49 war it was mainly economic encouragement.

        In fact the Brill and other law journals have been filled with articles for decades that explained how Israel used martial law and emergency regulations to internally displace the Arab populations in order to declare them “present but absent” and expropriate their land for the personal use of European Jews. They likewise used lethal force to prevent the refugees in neighboring states from returning to their homes after the armed conflict ended by adopting laws that falsely branded them as infiltrators.

        There have also been entire volumes devoted to the subject, like Shira Robinson’s, “Citizen Strangers: Palestinians and the Birth of Israel’s Settler State”. Do you even try to read and comprehend the articles here before you start trolling and spamming the threads? It doesn’t look like it.

    • LeaNder
      LeaNder
      April 5, 2014, 11:44 am

      American Jews might very well support industrialization and a move away from the farm

      Hmm, I didn’t know the US dispossessed farmers too. What exactly happened with their land and/or:

      encouraged a migration from farms to cities thereby increasing the population concentration that the overwhelming majority of their population live in.

      I always thought the trend towards cities has much to do with education or jobs, and not some type of deliberate government policy. But what do I know.

      Knesset extends 65-year-long national state of emergency

      Not easy to special entry in Wikipedia concerning: State of Emergency: Only this in the second paragraph on top. But only Israel has no separate additional entry with country specifics:

      Some countries do not have an embedded Constitution such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Israel. Legislation covers a state of emergency in these countries. Under the protocol of the ICCPR, rights and freedoms may be suspended during a state of emergency, for example, a government can detain citizens and hold them without trial. All rights that can be derogated from are listed in the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. Some sources argue that non-derogable rights cannot be suspended.[1] However this theory is contested. Emergency law does and can override non-derogatory rights during a state of emergency.[2]

      Compare the US. The most interesting passage are towards the end. converging shared values?

      This is what some of us fear.

      • JeffB
        JeffB
        April 6, 2014, 2:27 pm

        @LeaNder

        Hmm, I didn’t know the US dispossessed farmers too. What exactly happened with their land and/or:

        Most of it is dead. It isn’t cultivated at all. http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/media/life1101.jpg

        That process of reducing land in use (labor was the focus in previous decades) is still ongoing so for example: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/nrcs142p2_033992.gif

        I always thought the trend towards cities has much to do with education or jobs, and not some type of deliberate government policy. But what do I know.

        It is kinda the same thing. The government can choose to tax or subsidize activities to make them more or less appealing. Individuals do what they want but government policy choices drive individual choice.

      • Ellen
        Ellen
        April 6, 2014, 10:30 pm

        JeffB a bit off topic, but much of the land in the US that was previously farmed is not even suitable for agriculture. Think the dust bowl — millions of acres abandoned, land that never should have been farmed in the first place. This process of abandoning marginal crop land to other uses continues.

        Reality is, over the last 150 years or more, the western world has been leaving “peasant ” society.

    • Hostage
      Hostage
      April 5, 2014, 12:18 pm

      @Hostage [apartheid example] I don’t agree with you on Israel being apartheid for reasons we’ve discussed before. One could simply state the fact you did that Israel has used land policy in its own country to squeeze the Israeli Arabs into small territory. Full stop. Of course most governments during the same period of time have done the same thing and encouraged a migration from farms to cities thereby increasing the population concentration that the overwhelming majority of their population live in

      Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. State officials are guilty of apartheid, regardless of the motive involved, anytime their laws, policies, and practices include the constituent acts and necessary elements of the crime. The fact is that the US and the other former colonial powers use the lurid “picking on Israel” and “anti-semitism” alibi prophylactically to avoid the Durban Conferences because they don’t want to discuss their own liability for compensating the victims of their past injustices. The ICERD observations regarding many countries today still contain article 3 concerns about apartheid and illegal forms of racial discrimination and segregation. The only difference is that the UN didn’t create those other states or have the authority to place minority rights in any of them under UN guarantee.

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      April 5, 2014, 1:51 pm

      There are places within Israel (that is, within 1966 borders), where separation barriers have been put up to keep Jews and Muslims separate.

      • puppies
        puppies
        April 6, 2014, 3:37 pm

        @Canning – “separation barriers have been put up to keep Jews and Muslims separate.”
        A lie.
        They are keeping Zionists separate from Palestinians.
        Mind your mouth.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 6, 2014, 4:24 pm

        The walls built in some towns etc are intended to keep Jews on one side, and Muslims on the other. (Maybe some Christians would also be on the Muslim side.)
        In Israel.

      • gamal
        gamal
        April 7, 2014, 7:54 pm

        “Maybe some Christians would also be on the Muslim side” making it the Arab or Palestinian “side”, Christianity is not recessive, as far as I know.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        April 8, 2014, 1:36 pm

        I assume some Christians with origins in Palestine before creation of Israel, would be kept on same side of the wall as Muslims with same origins. And, of course, some Palestinians do not regard themselves as Arabs.

Leave a Reply