Trending Topics:

Settlers Supporting Settlers: Towards an explanation of the US/Israel relationship

Israel/Palestine
on 144 Comments

This essay contextualizes U.S. support for Israel as well as the various groups that comprise the U.S. Zionist movement(s) in the context of American settler colonialism by examining the ways in which white settler colonies interact and support each other. It does not offer a single explanation for U.S. support but rather examines one of several interconnected reasons.

Settler colonies’ racializations are made first and foremost during the process of colonization. The settlers racialize the native population – and at the same time, themselves – as part of dispossessing them. But racialization happens both locally and globally and is often inconsistent. This essay examines only the white settler colonies that agree with each other’s racial formations. For example, Chile is a white settler colony yet U.S.-Chilean relations are not included as Chilean settlers are ambiguously racialized as ‘[email protected]’ in the United States, despite being white settlers in Chile. An informal coalition of settler colonies active internationally from the late 1800s through the present does exist. It includes Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand, Rhodesia, South Africa, the U.S. and U.K..

Settler colonialism is first and foremost an organization of power established by settler sovereignty while simultaneously eliminating native sovereignty and, most often, the native population. Reductively put, every five acres of New Zealand is five acres less of Aotearoa. But settler colonialism is not limited to interactions between settler and native. It is an organization of power informing all settler society policies including foreign policy. One such foreign policy articulation is the way white settler colonies form alliances based upon recognizing each other as in a mirror.

Israeli settlers in the West Bank, 2012.

Settlers in the West Bank, 2012.

“Tell me what company you keep and I’ll tell you who you are”

The Myths & Facts website is a project evolved from the Myths and Facts texts AIPAC began publishing in the 1970s. Eli Hertz notes in the “The U.S.-Israel Special Relationship” series that “the affinity between Israel and the United States draws on the fact that both countries are democracies and share a host of other enlightened values, including a similar defining ethos as nations of immigrants,” (After a time, all settler societies call themselves ‘nations of immigrants,’ and not ‘nations of settlers’). Hertz continues, “both nations were built by waves of refugees or persecuted immigrants who sought religious, political, or economic freedom.”

U.S. President Barack Obama made a similar appeal to U.S.-Australian solidarity during a 2011 address in Darwin, Australia. “The bonds between us run deep. In each other’s story we see so much of ourselves. Ancestors who crossed vast oceans – some by choice, some in chains. Settlers who pushed west across sweeping plains. Dreamers who toiled with hearts and hands to lay railroads and to build cities. Generations of immigrants who, with each new arrival, add a new thread to the brilliant tapestry of our nations.”

Former Israeli ambassador Naftali Tamir offered an uglier, more honest version in a 2006 interview with Haaretz calling for closer cooperation between Australia and Israel. Tamir said, “Asia is basically the continent of the Yellow race. Australia and Israel do not belong to it – we basically belong to the White race.” Further, “Israel and Australia are like sisters in Asia. We are located in Asia but without the characteristics of Asians, our skin is not yellow nor are our eyes slanted.” In these examples settlers call for solidarity with other settler societies based on the mere fact of being settlers themselves (Here Barack Obama is positioned solely in his role as President of a settler colony. Black people , whether native or not, are not settlers in white settler colonies that deny their very humanity).

Indigenous removal is the practice that binds the settler colonies but apart from the far right-wing, it is absent from settler discourse. There is a shared narrative of building nations without destroying the nations they encountered, of conquest without any conquered. The conscious alliance building is not around indigenous removal but around the racial and economic formations indigenous removal produced.

Settler discourse points to other settler colonies to determine who will be allowed to join the colony. Harvard University professor George Borjas writes in The Washington Post, “While the United States has proven cautious about addressing [what kind and how many immigrants it wants], several other ‘nations of immigrants’ (including Canada, Australia and New Zealand) have far more proactive approaches to immigration: They have devised systems that are designed to favor people who will contribute economically to the country and who will assimilate quickly.” Borjas’ 2001 article is predated by around a century by the various anti-Asian policies that South Africa, Australia (under the Banner of “White Australia”), the U.S. (especially in California) and Canada (especially in British Columbia) developed to restrict Asian immigration. Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds examine in depth how the various settler colonies’ anti-Asian policies influenced each other in their 2008 volume Drawing the Global Colour Line. Australia, Canada and South Africa during this period reoriented from British towards American imperialism precisely to affirm racist immigration policies that crystalized their respective formations of ‘white’. While the UK half-heartedly defended rights of imperial subjects the U.S. offered unconditional support for white supremacist immigration and colonization policies in the other white settler colonies.

Like all organizations of power settler colonialism is normative, so even critiques of the racist immigration policies like those Borjas advocates can still affirm indigenous removal. Judd Yadid writes in Haaretz about Australian Jewish hostility to South African Jewish immigration. “Those Australian Jews that criticize the influx and eccentricities of their South African brethren should show more empathy, and be mindful of the fact that they themselves are the offspring of immigrants. In fact, the entire non-indigenous population of the great southern land were once newcomers.” Yadid’s examination looks beyond Australian Jewish nativist hostility to South African Jews to critique Australia’s racist immigration policies. Yet in the end he manages to use a critique of xenophobic racism to declare permanent settler colonialism. All mainstream and much left-wing migrant justice discourse in settler colonies does this, again under the banner of ‘nation of immigrants’.

In the U.S. example, African Slavery is as foundational as, and part of, Indian Removal. Both have helped build solidarity between some white settler colonies. It does not have a parallel in every example except at the reductive level of labor exploitation (as in Yemeni Jewish labor in Palestine, convict labor in Australia, etc.). Yet the hegemonic conceptual framework by which ‘white’ emerged as a racialization diametrically opposed to ‘black’ and ‘native’ was produced to a significant degree through the colonization of South Africa by the Dutch and Turtle Island by the British (later U.S.) during successive periods as centers of global empires. The decades long tripartite alliance between South Africa, Israel and the United States where the latter two materially and ideologically supported settler rule in the former is in part due to African Slavery’s afterlife of Jim Crow and Apartheid united under the banner of American imperialism and settler rule. Anti-blackness today informs U.S. Zionists’ support for Israel’s brutal anti-African policies even as those policies were originally developed to keep out purged indigenous Palestinians.

The mutual recognition that ‘they are like us’ amongst White settler colonies breeds frequent solidarity and joint political action. A full accounting of the Settler International in action would narrate a significant part of the 20th century. In numerous United Nations General Assembly votes on the question of Palestine, Israel is nearly alone in voting against the resolutions. Among the very few countries that regularly vote the Israeli side are Australia, Canada and the United States. The United States and Israel were two of the few countries that supported settler rule in South Africa nearly until the end and the three nations built the backbone of “counterterrorism” policies and technologies based upon tactics and philosophies developed to support settler rule in each. The U.S. and Israel supported the South African apartheid regime with arms and trade assistance while Israel also contributed troops for combat fighting. John Collins in his book Global Palestine narrates how the famous 1948-49 Berlin Airlift was carried out by “a who’s who of settler colonialism,” (United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the UK, the latter governing settler rule in Northern Ireland and Southern Rhodesia at the time). The list goes on and on.

Far Apart Settlers Together

San Francisco 49ers mascot.

San Francisco 49ers mascot.

Settler colonies, apart from the far Right-wing, rarely pronounce or conceive of their solidarity in terms of indigenous removal and doing so is unnecessary. Settler colonialism is an organization of power like capitalism, patriarchy or White supremacy. Its power is not just political and geographic, but also discursive producing a settler normativity – what Elizabeth Povinelli described as the “organization of sociality on the basis of the naturalness of a civilizational displacement.” It need not be spoken or even consciously thought in hegemonic discourse. It is basic to settlers’ understanding of the world. A common example in the United States is the popular NFL football team the San Francisco 49ers. The original ‘forty-niners were populist genocidaires. The historical formation of the ‘forty-niner is inextricably tied to genocide and the conquest of California’s indigenous populace. Yet the football team is discursively divorced from the practices of the actual ‘forty-niners. Indigenous removal is so basic to the settler cosmology that its daily celebrations of the genocidaires – on currency, in street, school and team names, on monuments, in holidays, etc. – pass unnoticed (by the settlers). Settler normativity is as much part of foreign policy as it is in American governance.

This is the lens through which we should understand American Zionists – Christian, Jewish or others – supporting Israel or the Israeli vigils in support of South African Apartheid and other such manifestations. They are settlers supporting settlers. Settler normativity informs this support. Without the Israel Lobby the United States would still support Israel for reasons of settler colonialism as foreign policy as it did for South Africa, Rhodesia and elsewhere. In this reading American settler colonialism explains the existence of the Israel Lobby more than the Israel Lobby explains U.S. support for Zionist settler colonialism.

Anti-Zionism as Counternormativity

The strange mix of ferocity and dismissal in U.S., Canadian and Australian support for Israel and rejection of Palestine is too best understood through settler normativity. It is only counternormative discourse that is so heavily attacked in the U.S. Criticism of Israel is rejected with a fury approaching that directed at feminists, anti-racists and anti-capitalists, especially intersections thereof. It is to the extent that sometimes when native organizers and scholars in the U.S. critique Zionism some Palestine-solidarity activists can’t even understand that it is criticism of Zionism because U.S. settler colonialism is being similarly indicted! Noting that Israel is just like the U.S. is seen as a defense of Israel rather than critique of both the U.S. and Israel. The Israel Lobby could only dream of such discursive power. But settler normativity explains it well. When settler rule in Palestine falls, it will (likely) be the first modern example of settler rule falling when the settlers formed a majority of the population in the colony for any amount of time. That should be (Beautifully! Wonderfully! Literally!) unsettling to other settler societies, even those where settlers are the vast majority of the population.

There is much more to U.S. support for Israel, especially the actual role Israel plays in U.S. empire as a weapons promoter and lab, arms conduit, subcontractor and regional heavy. But important too is settler colonialism and the real threat Palestinian liberation poses to settler colonialism elsewhere.

Jimmy Johnson
About Jimmy Johnson

Jimmy Johnson lives in Detroit with his books and bad habits. Get at him @aus3rn4me.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

144 Responses

  1. amigo
    amigo
    May 12, 2015, 2:58 pm

    The Ulster unionists are the descendants of the settlers in Northern Ireland and they overwhelmingly support Israel.

    The following link provides an insight into the clear similarities in the British plantation of Ireland and that of the zionist one in Palestine.

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

    “The Plantation of Ulster (Irish: Plandáil Uladh; Ulster-Scots: Plantin o Ulstèr)[1] was the organised colonisation (plantation) of Ulster – a province of Ireland – by people from Great Britain during the reign of King James I. Most of the colonists came from Scotland and England. Small private plantation by wealthy landowners began in 1606,[2] while the official plantation began in 1609. An estimated half a million acres (2,000 km²) spanning counties Tyrconnell, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Cavan, Coleraine and Armagh,[3] was confiscated from Gaelic chiefs, most of whom had fled Ireland in the 1607 Flight of the Earls. Most of counties Antrim and Down were privately colonised.[2] Colonising Ulster with loyal settlers was seen as a way to prevent further rebellion, as it had been the region most resistant to English control during the preceding century.

    King James wanted the Plantation to be “a civilising enterprise” that would settle Protestants in Ulster,[4] a land that was mainly Gaelic-speaking and of the Catholic faith. The Lord Deputy of Ireland, Arthur Chichester, also saw the Plantation as a scheme to anglicise the Irish.[5][non-primary source needed]Accordingly the colonists (or “British tenants”)[6][7] were required to be English-speaking and Protestant.[8

    • lysias
      lysias
      May 12, 2015, 6:54 pm

      Even before the Reformation, England in the Middle Ages settled in Ireland the English people and Normans who later became the “Old English” and eventually coalesced with the Gaels when they all remained Catholic after the Reformation.

      That, combined with the contemporaneous settlement of English people and Normans in such parts of Wales as Pembrokeshire and Gower, was the earliest settlement policy by the English.

      It can be said that later English colonialism in America and elsewhere is descended from the colonialism practised in Ireland.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        May 14, 2015, 5:59 pm

        The “English” in the original sense of Angles (together with Saxons and Jutes) were settlers not only in Ireland but earlier in Britain too. Before the arrival of the ancient Romans Britain was wholly populated by people speaking Celtic languages. (So was France outside the Basque country.) Successive waves of settlers from the European continent and Scandinavia pushed the surviving Celts out to the hilly northern and western fringes, where they became the Scots, Manx, Welsh, and Cornish. (In NW France the surviving Celts became the Bretons.)

        So shouldn’t we regard Britain as another settler state? (And France too?) That would help explain why the British formed new settler states in North America and Australasia. If we don’t, then when exactly did Britain cease to be a settler state?

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 14, 2015, 8:06 pm

        “So shouldn’t we regard Britain as another settler state?”

        No.
        First, there was a great deal of intermarriage.
        Second, If we take the line you are suggesting, there will be precious few states that cannot be called settler states. That will make the term trivial.
        Third, the thesis seem to suggest that sympathy for Israel stems from the sympathisers seeing themselves as settlers. But the British do not see themselves that way.

        The Bretons are the descendants of a few Gauls who had not been completely Romanised (no doubt with the aid of a magic potion) and a large bunch of Cornish and Welsh invaders from the North. That is why they speak a version of Welsh.

      • lysias
        lysias
        May 15, 2015, 4:15 pm

        Since Breton is a Celtic language of the Brittonic family most closely related to Cornish, more distantly to Welsh, and only quite distantly to Gaulish, the Bretons are probably largely descended from the Britons who crossed the Channel from Britain to Brittany in the early Middle Ages.

        One Celticist thought that one of the dialects of Breton retained some traces of Gaulish, but his was a minority view in his time, and is generally now considered discredited.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 15, 2015, 10:37 pm

        Speakers of Welsh as a first language have told me that, if they listen carefully, they can understand quite a lot of what Bretons are saying.

        Though why they would want to beats me.

      • Walid
        Walid
        May 16, 2015, 12:04 am

        “Though why they would want to beats me.” (Roha)

        Most probably because of the common roots between the people of Great Britain with those of “Little Britain”. Speaking of colonizers, it was a Breton from Saint-Malo, Jacques Cartier that discovered and named Canada in 1534. I’m wondering why our crêpe hasn’t already chimed-in on this subject.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 16, 2015, 1:10 am

        “t was a Breton from Saint-Malo, Jacques Cartier that discovered and named Canada in 1534. ”

        Now I know who to blame.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        May 16, 2015, 2:25 am

        @Walid

        Well Cartier may have named it but the Vikings long beat him to discovering it. And there is evidence the Irish beat them. Just in fun.

      • Walid
        Walid
        May 16, 2015, 2:52 pm

        “Well Cartier may have named it but the Vikings long beat him to discovering it. ” (oldgeezer)

        In between the Vikings and Cartier, Giovanni Caboto, the Genovese (John Cabot) on a commission from Henry VII of England landed at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland in 1497, a full 37 years before Cartier landed in Newfoundland himself before touching down in PEI then at Tadoussac. Cartier’s naming of Canada was his deformation of the Iroquois word for the land “Kanata” that he heard pronounced as ‘Ghanadah”, the longhouse.

    • Jimmy Johnson
      Jimmy Johnson
      May 12, 2015, 7:27 pm

      Thanks for pointing out the connections! I didn’t get into it in the piece but for sure, the Unionists are cut from the same cloth.

  2. Stevemid
    Stevemid
    May 12, 2015, 5:55 pm

    Every once in a while, you read something that tells you something so fundamental about yourself that even after 68 years you say: how did I not know this? I now have the answer to why the US and Australia support Israel so unequivocally.

    • annie
      annie
      May 12, 2015, 7:18 pm

      i agree steve, really good article.

    • Jimmy Johnson
      Jimmy Johnson
      May 12, 2015, 7:24 pm

      Can’t tell you how much this means as a writer. Thank you so much for your kind words!

      • amigo
        amigo
        May 13, 2015, 3:16 am

        “Can’t tell you how much this means as a writer. Thank you so much for your kind words!” Jimmy

        Thanks for your efforts Jimmy.Much appreciated.You do all the hard graft.We just sit here and comment.

  3. annie
    annie
    May 12, 2015, 6:39 pm

    Tamir said, “Asia is basically the continent of the Yellow race. Australia and Israel do not belong to it – we basically belong to the White race.” Further, “Israel and Australia are like sisters in Asia. We are located in Asia but without the characteristics of Asians, our skin is not yellow nor are our eyes slanted.”

    Australia is not in the continent of Asia. it is in Australia/Oceania.

    • Jimmy Johnson
      Jimmy Johnson
      May 12, 2015, 7:22 pm

      From his quote I get the impression that Tamir is wrong about most things!

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        May 13, 2015, 11:15 am

        Actually, viewing the Jewish people as part of the white race by the white race has a relatively short history, a sequel to the concept of race itself, which, if memory serves, started in the USA in the second decade of both Century and was taken up by the Hitlerites thereafter. Western settler colonies rather used the concept of savage v civilized, yes? And religion was a component too. Savages were pagan.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 13, 2015, 1:02 pm

        “Actually, viewing the Jewish people as part of the white race by the white race has a relatively short history”

        Doesn’t it, though? Just shows how quick we are to forgive. Far be it from us to hold a grudge against white people for keeping us out. That’s damned white of us.

      • lysias
        lysias
        May 16, 2015, 5:29 pm

        Actually, viewing the Jewish people as part of the white race by the white race has a relatively short history

        Same goes for the Irish (formerly known as the “wild Irish”). And I imagine the same is true for Italians, Spaniards, etc.

    • DaBakr
      DaBakr
      May 14, 2015, 3:08 pm

      @AR

      well, your correct of course, but the entire comment by Tamir was not only ignorant, it was racist and wrong.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield
      May 14, 2015, 5:45 pm

      Demarcations between continents are arbitrary. Australia is often regarded as a continent in itself. That makes sense insofar as its aborigines have features quite distinct both from those of “Asians” (Tamir clearly has only East Asians in mind) and from Pacific islanders.

      Orwell pointed out that most “whites” are nowhere near white. He preferred the term “pinko-gray.” “We belong to the pinko-gray race” doesn’t have quite the same ring about it though.

  4. straightline
    straightline
    May 12, 2015, 7:01 pm

    Tamir needs to walk around the campuses of Australia’s universities – one gets the impression that at least half of the faces are Asian. Of course many of these are on temporary student visas, but Australia currently has over 180,000 immigrants each year (that’s close to 1% of the current population) and the top two countries providing those immigrants are India and China.

    http://www.immi.gov.au/pub-res/Pages/statistics/country_profiles/country-profiles.aspx

    Australia’s support for Israel really stems from the Zionist control of its MSM – Fairfax, Murdoch, ABC are staunchly pro-Israel in their reporting – and the power of the Zionist lobby.
    Interestingly, Australia quietly joined the China Development Bank against the wishes of the US recently.

    • straightline
      straightline
      May 12, 2015, 7:24 pm

      Incidentally I doubt – but am willing to be corrected – whether the statement by Tamir “Asia is basically the continent of the Yellow race. Australia and Israel do not belong to it – we basically belong to the White race.” received much attention in the Australian media (a sign of the bias). If such a statement had been made by, say, the British High Commissioner with UK substituted for Israel, there would have been a major outcry.

      • Jimmy Johnson
        Jimmy Johnson
        May 13, 2015, 8:00 am

        The Australian media was slower to pick it up because the interview was not originally published in English. After the outcry in the Hebrew press was translated to English the Australian press joined in. The combined outrage was enough to cost Tamir his job right away. The Australian and Israeli presses are of course perfectly fine with racism just not in the way Tamir expressed it.

  5. just
    just
    May 12, 2015, 7:36 pm

    Many thanks for this tremendous article, Jimmy!

    It rings true and clear as a bell, much to my dismay.

    (I always appreciate your contributions to MW)

  6. JLewisDickerson
    JLewisDickerson
    May 12, 2015, 7:44 pm

    RE: “Borjas’ 2001 article is predated by around a century by the various anti-Asian policies that . . . Australia (under the Banner of ‘White Australia’) . . . developed to restrict Asian immigration” ~ Jimmy Johnson

    WHITE AUSTRALIAN MOTTO: “Australia for the Australians”*

    FROM WIKIPEDIA (White Australia Policy):

    [EXCERPT] The term White Australia Policy comprises various historical policies that intentionally favoured immigration to Australia from certain European countries, and especially from Britain. It came to fruition in 1901 soon after the Federation of Australia, and the policies were progressively dismantled between 1949 and 1973.[2] Australia’s official First World War historian Charles Bean defined the early intentions of the policy as “a vehement effort to maintain a high Western standard of economy, society and culture (necessitating at that stage, however it might be camouflaged, the rigid exclusion of Oriental peoples).”[3]
    Competition in the goldfields between British and Chinese miners, and labour union opposition to the importation of Pacific Islanders into the sugar plantations of Queensland, reinforced the demand to eliminate or minimize low wage immigration from Asia and the Pacific Islands. Soon after Australia became a federation it passed the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901. The passage of this bill is considered the commencement of the White Australia Policy as Australian government policy. Subsequent acts further strengthened the policy up to the start of the Second World War.[4] These policies effectively allowed for British migrants to be preferred over all others through the first four decades of the 20th century. During the Second World War, Prime Minister John Curtin reinforced the policy, saying “This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race.”[2]
    The policy was dismantled in stages by successive governments after the conclusion of the Second World War . . .

    CONTINUED AT – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

    * P.S. See this photo from a recent demonstration in Israel where a flag proclaims “The State of Israel for only the Israeli people” (much like the White Australian Policy’s motto of“Australia for the Australians”).

    • JLewisDickerson
      JLewisDickerson
      May 12, 2015, 8:08 pm

      P.P.S. RE: “Settler colonies’ racializations are made first and foremost during the process of colonization. The settlers racialize the native population – and at the same time, themselves – as part of dispossessing them.” ~ Jimmy Johnson

      ALABAMA GOVERNOR GEORGE WALLACE (1963 Inaugural Address ~ January 14, 1963 ~ Montgomery, Alabama):

      [EXCERPTS] . . . Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever. . .
      [snip]
      . . . Let us send this message back to Washington by our representatives who are with us today . . that from this day we are standing up, and the heel of tyranny does not fit the neck of an upright man . . . that we intend to take the offensive and carry our fight for freedom across the nation, wielding the balance of power we know we possess in the Southland . . . . that WE, not the insipid bloc of voters of some sections . . will determine in the next election who shall sit in the White House of these United States . . . That from this day, from this hour . . . from this minute . . . we give the word of a race of honor that we will tolerate their boot in our face no longer . . . . and let those certain judges put that in their opium pipes of power and smoke it for what it is worth.

      Hear me, Southerners! You sons and daughters who have moved north and west throughout this nation [THE SOUTHERN “DIASPORA” – J.L.D.] . . . . we call on you from your native soil to join with us in national support and vote . . and we know . . . wherever you are . . away from the hearths of the Southland . . . that you will respond, for though you may live in the fartherest reaches of this vast country . . . . your heart has never left Dixieland [“NEXT YEAR, DIXIELAND!” – J.L.D.] . . .

      SOURCE – http://www.archives.alabama.gov/govs_list/inauguralspeech.html

      ● Wallace’s 1963 Inaugural Address @ Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace's_1963_Inaugural_Address
      ● George Wallace’s 1963 Inaugural Speech [full speech] – http://www.archives.alabama.gov/govs_list/inauguralspeech.html
      ● George Wallace – Segregation forever.mp4 [VIDEO, 01:06] – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLLDn7MjbF0

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      May 12, 2015, 8:18 pm

      But the White Australia Policy is long gone.

      And a large section of Australian public opinion takes a dim view of Israel.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        May 13, 2015, 11:21 am

        How strong is the Jewish lobby in Australia, New Zealand? Zionists today rely on white racism for the continued prosperity and expansion of the state of israel.

      • JLewisDickerson
        JLewisDickerson
        May 13, 2015, 11:20 pm

        RE: “But the White Australia Policy is long gone.” RoHa

        MY REPLY: Officially (de jure), yes. In practice (de facto), not entirely.

        JIMMY JOHNSON: “Australia, Canada and South Africa during this period reoriented from British towards American imperialism precisely to affirm racist immigration policies that crystalized their respective formations of ‘white’.”

  7. Bornajoo
    Bornajoo
    May 12, 2015, 8:11 pm

    “Among the very few countries that regularly vote the Israeli side are Australia, Canada and the United States.”

    Yep, definitely not a coincidence that they are all white settler States

    Really great article. Explains a lot

    Thanks very much Jimmy Johnson

    • Citizen
      Citizen
      May 13, 2015, 11:23 am

      We are post two world wars, which were fought against racist governments and today, to support Israel’s policy and conduct is to shit on all the allied troops and civilians who died in WW2.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 14, 2015, 12:39 am

        +1

  8. W.Jones
    W.Jones
    May 12, 2015, 10:03 pm

    I am skeptical of the claim that the US – Israeli relationship is based to a major extent on US history of its own settlement. Back in the 1950’s, was settler ideology a major open aspect of Roosevelt’s and Truman’s thinking on supporting the Israelis? It seems rather that it has been based on justifications like domestic politics, the Holocaust, and geopolitics in the Middle East.

    Meanwhile, back in the cold War the USSR also supported the Israelis in 1946-1949, helping to found their country militarily and at the UN, even though the USSR was not a settler colonialist. In both cases the US and the USSR were driven by other factors like geopolitics. The Israelis though chose to be with the more powerful US, and the US more than accepted that relationship. I suppose you could say then that the relationship was chosen because of US power, and note that modern settler states like the US, Canada, and Israelis are often quite powerful, their successful settlement enterprises being a reflection of that power.

    Furthermore, to emphasize shared settler colonialism as a driving force behind the “special relationship” would not explain why the US took a much different position on India’s independence due to the US’ ideological opposition to colonialism, when around WWII

    serious tension erupted over American demands, led by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that India be given independence, a proposition Prime Minister Winston Churchill vehemently rejected. For years Roosevelt had encouraged Britain’s disengagement from India. The American position was based on principled opposition to colonialism, practical concern for the outcome of the war, and the expectation of a large American role in a post-colonial era. However, in 1942 when the Indian National Congress launched a Quit India movement, the British authorities immediately arrested tens of thousands of activists.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Post-independence_.281947-1997.29

    I do think that the way the Israelis present themselves to the US as a western-style, modern “democracy” with European/Western non-Oriental culture goes along with preferences in the US toward other “Western” “modern” societies. However, the fact that the Israelis are colonists doesn’t necessarily mean that they receive greater favor than if they weren’t. I don’t think for example that the French or British would receive greater US sympathy if they were settlers on their own territory.

    Alternately, I don’t think that the Chinese would get greater empathy from America because of any settlement projects in Tibet or Southeast Asia. The fact that the Japanese tried to colonize lots of nations in the Pacific by force actually gave them a more negative view in America.

    So while I think that the Israelis’ self-presentation of being a European-style Western nation (a bit ironic for a settler group whose claims rely on partial Middle Eastern origins) plays a big role in campaigning for US support, I am quite skeptical that whether the Israelis are settlers or not is a factor increasing that support. Instead I would look to both domestic US politics and geopolitical power and strategies.

    • Jimmy Johnson
      Jimmy Johnson
      May 12, 2015, 10:30 pm

      Settler colonialism is a normative ideology so when asking if it was part of Truman or Roosevelt’s ideologies the answer is “yes”. Yet at that time the US was far more interested in Canada, Australia and South Africa than Israel which was peripheral geopolitically. Israel wasn’t an important US ally until the 1960s (coinciding with Ashkenazi assimilation into whiteness in the decades after WWII). The U.S. never had a principled stand against colonialism. Not sure where that is coming from.

      And the article distinguishes at a basic level between white settler colonies and others so comparisons with Japan in Korea and Han colonization of Tibet aren’t part of discussing the Settler International. And the article begins by noting settler colonialism as foreign policy is not the sole reason for US support. Yet it is a fundamental and normative aspect of all US policy as described with examples above.

      • Steve Grover
        Steve Grover
        May 13, 2015, 12:02 am

        @Jimmy Johnson
        Any reason why you didn’t mention quotas and immigrant restrictions aimed at Jews? Or, that the kind hearted Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Husseini did everything in his power that the Jews would go back to or stayed with his buddy Heinrich Himmler?

      • W.Jones
        W.Jones
        May 13, 2015, 12:51 pm

        Hello, Jimmy, thanks for responding.

        The US and the Israelis both were or are settler societies, and since the pro-globalist US isn’t so strongly anti-colonial, Israeli settlerism isn’t a serious issue. I suppose if the US had an overt pro-settler world ideology, the US would not even pretend to object to Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.

        But I think this isn’t my main point, which is that the settler aspect of Israeli society isn’t really what drives US support for it. I think it’s more a matter of domestic politics and global dominance.

        First, it’s true that the US supports Canada and other white settler societies, but I think that it’s because they are seen as “white”, and not because they are settlers. Even if Canada would be considered for some reason to no longer be a settler society, the US would still have an equally intense relationship with Canada because it’s Anglo and “white.”

        Second, as you said: “Israel wasn’t an important US ally until the 1960s (coinciding with Ashkenazi assimilation into whiteness in the decades after WWII).” That leads one to conclude that prior to the 1960’s, the US was not helping the Israelis for being “white”. And in fact US help to the Israelis was a serious phenomenon, because Truman went against his state department over the issue, seriously damaging American interests in the Middle East. If the US wanted to carry out a settler policy in the Middle East in the 1950’s, this was counterproductive because as the State department saw, it damaged US influence in the region. Arguably, it still does, despite all the wars we have had there.

        In any case, thanks for an interesting essay.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 13, 2015, 1:18 pm

        Steve Grover, couldn’t we just say:

        “The Holocaust justifies the Nakba completely” and be done with it?

        Wouldn’t you agree that one declaration, like the ringing notes of Joshua’s trumpet at the walls of Jericho, should crumble all opposition to Zionism? Why should we grovel and beg? Why substitute histrionics and hysteria for history? Why not simply point out the axiom proven by the historical mathematics?
        Will you join the many minions of people who recognize this basic historical equation?

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        May 14, 2015, 3:15 pm

        minions = followers. and usually ‘ underlings’ who follow a powerful and charismatic leader or ideal. who are these “minions”?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 14, 2015, 6:40 pm

        “minions = followers. and usually ‘ underlings’ who follow a powerful and charismatic leader or ideal. who are these “minions”?”

        Is it a veiled insult, or simply an innocuous mis-typing of the word “millions”, which, (follow me closely, here) inadvertently formed a word, “minions” and thus was not detected by Spel-Check and corrected? That’s what I can’t figure out.
        Let me know if you come up with the answer.

      • Steve Grover
        Steve Grover
        May 14, 2015, 7:22 pm

        Mooser Sez “Steve Grover, couldn’t we just say: “The Holocaust justifies the Nakba completely” and be done with it?” No thanks, I prefer to shout as loud as Joshua’s trumpets in Jericho that you mentioned: The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Husseini was a NAZI and should have swung at Spandau with his friends. I also prefer to highlight the subject of Abu Mazen’s doctoral thesis with as much thunder!

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 14, 2015, 8:42 pm

        @ Steve Grover “The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Husseini was a NAZI and should have swung at Spandau with his friends.”

        Odd that he didn’t isn’t it …

        BTW what was your point? al Husseini wasn’t the Grand Mufti off anywhere when he met Hitler. He was relieved of any official Palestinian station in 1937 by the British. Furthermore, Palestinians of the day didn’t elect him, he was appointed to office by the British administrator Herbert Samuel, who was Jewish.

        Simple maths (2015 minus 1941 = 74 yrs) tells us that no one alive today would have even heard of him when he met Hitler.

        ” I also prefer to highlight the subject of Abu Mazen’s doctoral thesis with as much thunder! “

        Quote the offensive parts

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 14, 2015, 10:14 pm

        “Simple maths (2015 minus 1941 = 74 yrs) tells us that no one alive today would have even heard of him when he met Hitler.”

        Uuum,are you suggesting that no-one is older than 74, or that those who are didn’t read the news?

        ‘” I also prefer to highlight the subject of Abu Mazen’s doctoral thesis with as much thunder! “

        Quote the offensive parts’

        Better still, tell us what parts of it are factually incorrect, which parts are badly argued, which parts are plagiarised, which parts show misuse of sources, and why the thesis is totally lacking in originality. Then we can strip him of his degree.

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 15, 2015, 4:52 am

        @ RoHa“are you suggesting that no-one is older than 74, or that those who are didn’t read the news?”

        :-) Thank you for your question. Some folk’ll need it explained I guess, maths and logic don’t seem to be Hasbara strong points

        In 1941 the life expectancy of a Palestinian Arab was only about 42yrs or so. Odds are there aren’t many around now a days and those surviving 74 yrs on would have only been newborn babes in 1941. I very much doubt they had any idea of who al Husseini was.

        In 1937 a Palestinian still alive today would be 78yrs. In 1937when al Husseini was stripped of his station by the British Mandate Administration, they were newborn babes and very likely had no idea of who al Husseini was.

        By 1941 these survivors would have been a 4yr old children and very likely had no idea of who al Husseini was.

        By 1948 they’d have been only 11yrs old and based on those who remained in Israel (about 20%), there’s about an 80% chance those children were amongst the “711,000” refugees from Israel- controlled territory who had fled the war zone and didn’t take part in the war.

        Their parents were probably about 2yrs old or even babies when al Husseini was appointed by Samuels in 1921. They had no say in al Husseini’s appointment by the British Jew Herbert Samuel

        By the time he was stripped of his role as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1937 by the British, the parents were 16-18yrs old no longer represented by Al Husseini.

        They were 20-22yrs when al Husseini, not representing them, met Hitler in 1941.

        The didn’t serve under him in the Balkans and; at 27-29yrs in 1948, they were also very likely amongst the 711,000 or so who had fled the war zone and didn’t take part in the war.

        Now, they’d be a highly unlikely 94-96yrs of age.

        By the time al Husseini returned to the M East, Hitler was dead, any support tied to Hitler’s promises, was non-existent. He was refused entry into Jerusalem by King Abdullah, King Tallal and King Hussein of Jordan. He died in exile in 1974.

        By now it should be apparent that mentioning al Husseini in relationship to the Palestinians and the situation of today is another example of the wholly holey moldy old Hasbara

        Furthermore, like “we made the desert bloom” and the idiotic Hasbara cherry pickings of Mark Twaine, are completely irrelevant to the fact that;

        Israel ” proclaimed” its borders on May 15th 1948 in its plea for recognition.

        Nothing outside of those borders were Israeli and Israel has not since legally acquired any further territory.

        The Jewish state, Israel, has for 67 years been in occupation of, illegally annexing and illegally settling in territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 18, 2015, 3:48 pm

        “Mooser Sez “Steve Grover, couldn’t we just say: “The Holocaust justifies the Nakba completely” and be done with it?” No thanks, I prefer to shout as loud as Joshua’s trumpets in Jericho that you mentioned: The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Husseini was a NAZI and should have swung at Spandau with his friends. I also prefer to highlight the subject of Abu Mazen’s doctoral thesis with as much thunder! “

        Oh, I see, “Grover”. Even if the Holocaust was taken out of the equation, they still owe us a hell of a lot, due and payable on demand, for lots of other stuff they did to the Jews?

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      May 13, 2015, 2:55 am

      I too am a bit sceptical of this thesis, though I don’t think the case of India applies. India was not a settler state. The natives were not replaced by settlers.

      I have doubts about the “who’s who” list. It includes the U.K., but the last significant wave of settlers there were the Normans, and they (like previous settlers) did not replace the settlers. The U.K. is not a settler state.

      It seems questionable to mix up the states supplying the settlers with the states formed by the settlers.

      And if we are going to look at the suppliers, then surely France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, and Italy should also be included.

      So up to now it looks to me like a bit of cod social psychology. Perhaps there is something to the idea, but it will need to be dealt with much more rigorously before I can take it seriously.

      • Jimmy Johnson
        Jimmy Johnson
        May 13, 2015, 8:07 am

        The UK directly governs Northern Ireland, a settler colony, and for most of the 20th century also governed Southern Rhodesia (post UK-rule: Rhodesia), leaving aside the facilitating role it played in Israel and imperial status in Canada and Australia in the early 20th century. Supplying settlers when also governing them means it is policy.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 13, 2015, 8:55 am

        The UK is a state which has set up and ruled settler States, but it is not itself a settler state. I need an argument to explain why such a state would have the same attitudes as a settler state.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 14, 2015, 12:29 am

        I’ll expand on this a little. It seems to me that the thesis turns on the idea of some sort of fellow-feeling between the Anglo settler states and Israel, and this is a fellow-feeling that comes from the experience of being a settler state.

        Now this might apply to Australia, but I can’t see that it would apply to Britain.

        (I should point out that I have done no sociological surveys. I am simply working from the impressions I have gained though growing up and living in Australia, and living for a long time in Britain.)

        Australians (or white Australians of a certain age, at least) see themselves as heir and successors of pioneers who came to a harsh wilderness and, with the aid of of hard work, pie floaters, and beer, created a new, modern, nation.

        The British attitude to their country is quite different. They themselves as heir and successors of people who have always been there, since before the Romans came to Rye, and out to Severn strode. Not as the creators of a new nation, but the continuers of an old one.

        Nor do the British share the Australian view of Australia and Australians. As far as the British are concerned, Australia is an extension of Britain, like the Isle of Wight (but larger and sunnier), and Australians are British people with odd accents.

        The British simply do not have a “pioneering tradition”, so any fellow-feeling the British have towards Israel cannot be based on the pioneering aspect of Israel.

        I will let those who know about them compare French and Quebecois attitudes to Israel.

    • Donald
      Donald
      May 13, 2015, 8:58 am

      I think the article was a good one, but am a little perplexed that the idea seems new to some commenters. Norman Finkelstein spent a chapter or two on it in “image and Reality” and I think Chomsky made the same point. The hasbara claim that the Zionists made the desert bloom is like the American claim that settlers came to an empty continent populated only by animals and ahem, “natives” and forged a nation. Benny Morris notoriously justified the Nakba on the grounds that white settlers in America did the same thing. When I read books about America’s relations with native Americans it always makes me think of the I/P conflict, or rather, when I started reading about Israel in a serious way it reminded me of America. Most of the standard hasbara claims echo the civilized man vs savage storyline that underlies the American hasbara narrative and if you read comments online from American Israel supporters, Jewish and gentile, they sound much the same.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 13, 2015, 9:08 am

        || Donald @ May 13, 2015, 8:58 am ||

        Agreed. Zionism was a Johnny-come-lately to the colonialism game and it really pisses Zio-supremacists off that they haven’t been able to get away with…
        – subjugating, expelling and/or exterminating the indigenous population; and
        – stealing, occupying and colonizing most, if not all, of the land,
        …as easily as they had hoped to.

        Shame on the 21st Century and the social media revolution for hobbling the Zio-supremacist “Jewish State” dream. :-(

      • Donald
        Donald
        May 13, 2015, 9:53 am

        I’d forgotten that point, but it is often observed that Israel got into the settler colonialism game right when it was going out of style. But I think the meme of civilized pioneer vs savage, as Geller puts it, is embedded in the subconscious mind of many Americans even though colonialism is now a bad word. The Lobby wouldn’t make much headway without the culture here backing them up in some ways.

      • just
        just
        May 13, 2015, 10:17 am

        Thanks eljay and Donald.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        May 13, 2015, 11:33 am

        @ Donald
        Zionist Pam Gellar always refers to Muslims as “savages.” She put it on her billboards, and recently repeated it in US tv cable news.

      • Jimmy Johnson
        Jimmy Johnson
        May 13, 2015, 11:36 am

        Yep! All I tried to do was add to ideas that have been around.

  9. Interested Bystander
    Interested Bystander
    May 12, 2015, 10:41 pm

    The fact that White U.S. , Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Israel share a settler/immigrant national narrative, and that this resonates and generates a certain affinity seems right and is an interesting observation.

    The white affinity part only goes so far to explain the love of a bunch of white Christians for the Jewish State. That affinity of “whiteness” didn’t go so far towards love of Jews over the last 2000 years.

    If the suggestion is that the magic formula is that they are all racists to boot, that is not so helpful as a distinguishing factor from the majority of UN states that don’t support Israel because racism is a universal human trait. The U.S., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are not particularly more racist than the norm.

    It seems to me we should not draw too many conclusions here without looking at population migration and displacement generally. Homo Sapiens started in Africa with a small band (dwindled to ~10,000?) 50,000 years ago and groups have been settling and displacing each other ever since. They became “white” only as they moved north, displacing other humanoids.

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer
      May 13, 2015, 12:43 am

      @Interested Bystander

      I dont think you can discount the racism aspect that easily. The face of Israel in western media is white european. What other white european settler states dont support Israel ? I am not asking about european states as they dont seem to have as much affinity for settler states as the settler states have for old country.

      Certainly Jews have been the target of racism over the centuries but that is not to say that there is not a pecking order in the realm of racism. Certainly in tbe western (ignorant) the middle east is all Arabs who are referred to with a huge variety of epithets including sand n*. I dont think that is coincidence.

      Anyway the article is certainly food for thought.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 13, 2015, 1:26 pm

        Racism is very fungible. Racism doesn’t necessarily follow a white-to-black delineation with levels based on hue. Since the ‘races’ and their ‘racial characteristics’ are spurious to begin with, many permutations can be manufactured, once the ideas and practice of racism is established, according to the needs of the moment. And those ‘moments’ in history (ex. the need for slave labor in the New World and ability to take people from Africa) can last, by our individual reckoning forever or even seem a fixed fact of life.

    • DaBakr
      DaBakr
      May 14, 2015, 3:17 pm

      @IB

      good comment. if there were a ‘like’ button -would push.

  10. ckg
    ckg
    May 12, 2015, 11:13 pm

    In 2011 Rick Perry wrote in the WSJ: “Historian T.R. Fehrenbach once observed that my home state of Texas and Israel share the experience of ‘civilized men and women thrown into new and harsh conditions, beset by enemies.” Perry misrepresented the historian, but this commonly held perspective pervades.

  11. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    May 13, 2015, 6:23 am

    I can see that many people believe in a right to maraud, conquer and dispossess and that people who recall a fairly recent exercise of that supposed right by fairly close forebears may believe in it more strongly. If there is a feeling of barely suppressed guilt – which does often accompany firm assertions of right – then it will be assuaged by looking at other apparently successful examples of the same behaviour. Apparent success in conquest is quite important in explaining why some people whose grandparents may have had no love for Jews now cherish an exuberant love for Israel. There is also the sub-theme that Israel has got many Jews out of the hair of the West, just as the suspicious grandparents would have wanted. I hope that I don’t sound as if I’m sneering from a distance at people in Nebraska: I don’t think attitudes are that different elsewhere in the English-speaking world.
    I’m not so sure about the emphasis on the word ‘settler’ – first, what does it mean? Is a settler of a different species from an immigrant? Are the desperate people from sub-Saharan Africa sailing the Mediterranean waters in the hope of finding work in England settlers, or would-be settlers? If there is some suggestion of a duty ‘not to settle’ outside one’s home country I would not agree with that. I think that settling elsewhere is a natural, beneficial and morally permissible activity. It’s violent dispossession that is wrong and the ideologies that support it that should be questioned pressingly.

    • Jimmy Johnson
      Jimmy Johnson
      May 13, 2015, 8:09 am

      Settlers and immigrants are fundamentally different. Immigrants join the sovereignty they encounter upon arrival, settlers displace it. Israelis thus displace both Palestinians *and* Palestine. This doesn’t happen with immigration outside the imaginations of far-right.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        May 13, 2015, 6:24 pm

        Though I would have used the term ‘settler’ for anyone who intended to stay permanently, even if in a peaceful and honest fashion, I’m very happy to accept your definition for the purposes of this discussion. I quite agree with your dismissal of far-right imaginings.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        May 14, 2015, 3:20 pm

        so: a Swedish immigrant who sailed into NYC in the mid 19hC was an ‘immigrant’ and then moved out of dirty city to farm northern plains (after native people displaced) and became settlers. Maybe now this is true but at the time I doubt there was much distinction. I imagine the Swedes did not intend to stay in NY tenements and had plans to ‘settle’ land all along. I get authors distinction but since even Manhattan and other cities were first native lands how can anybody in the US besides 1st nations(and possibly some Vikings on uninhabited NE lands.)

        Seems to me all US citizens are ‘settlers’-even if they did not do the actual ‘dispossessing’.

  12. lysias
    lysias
    May 13, 2015, 9:52 am

    OT (but it is an example of how colonizers treat the colonized): I just finished reading Guantanamo Diary, by Guantanamo inmate Mohamedou Ould Slahi. Slahi recounts how he was tortured until he gave the (false) testimony that his torturers demanded, among other things about 9/11.

    I’ve long thought that the only rational purpose for the U.S.’s torture policy after 9/11 was to get desired false testimony, just the purpose for which Stalin’s NKVD used torture. Now we have testimony to this effect from one of the people who was subjected to the torture.

    Now look at the chapter on the operational details of the 9/11 Commission Report and in particular the endnotes listing the sources. The sources for virtually all the details in that chapter are statements allegedly made by detainees who we know were tortured.

    And that’s just one reason why a new investigation of 9/11 is needed. The report resulting from the previous official investigation is worthless.

  13. Scott
    Scott
    May 13, 2015, 10:11 am

    Is the takeaway from this not only that Zionism is problematic, but that all Anglo societies except perhaps England are bad? If so, I think its political effectiveness will be kind of limited.

    • lysias
      lysias
      May 13, 2015, 10:29 am

      For much of the 20th century, especially the period 1932-80, non-Anglo immigrant groups who did not identify as settlers had significant political power in the U.S., and so during that time the U.S.’s identification with other settler societies was also limited.

      Unfortunately, American Jews were a particularly influential part of that non-Anglo segment, and, because of Israel, they have increasingly identified with settler societies. That has been a significant addition to the power of the Anglo bloc.

      • Interested Bystander
        Interested Bystander
        May 13, 2015, 11:16 am

        “Unfortunately” American Jews were an influential group (for Jewish?) immigration 1932-45?? Really?

      • lysias
        lysias
        May 13, 2015, 11:43 am

        It’s unfortunate because of how big the effects were of their switching sides.

    • catalan
      catalan
      May 13, 2015, 11:05 am

      “but that all Anglo societies except perhaps England are bad” – Scott
      Not at all. You see, once you steal enough land you get to write the laws and make it all perfectly legal. If you steal even more (see the U.S. taking over half of Mexico or Russia stealing Siberia from China) then you can get yourself a seat on the security council and be one of the good guys. Of course, at that point, you don’t need to steal anymore and you can get into the business of moralizing. For instance, you can start a blog about other thieves and feel good about yourself. Then you get into the whole the sins of the fathers are not those of the sons and you are ready to enter the heavenly kingdom.
      Of course, it pays to go after little thieves. When big guys like China decide to demarcate a whole sea as theirs, the best policy is to suspend the moralizing and do some dealing. If Iraq tries to do the same, you go after them.
      Nothing ever changes.

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 13, 2015, 4:19 pm

        @ catalan May 13, 2015, 11:05 am

        ” You see, once you steal enough land you get to write the laws and make it all perfectly legal”

        Strange. The law hasn’t changed since the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States — http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897

        ” If you steal even more (see the U.S. taking over half of Mexico”

        Only a real moron tells people to see something that disproves their ignorant and stupid theories. The US legally annexed Texas etc thru a referendum of the legal inhabitants of those territories. annexation of Texas — http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/texan05.asp

        Likewise Hawaii and even Alaska well after Alaska was bought from Russia, the still Russian citizens of Alaska agreed to become Americans. By adopting the legal custom of self determination, the US was instrumental in the legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law and the UN Charter

        ” or Russia stealing Siberia from China)” Pre the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States

        “then you can get yourself a seat on the security council and be one of the good guys”

        Strange. Israel doesn’t have a seat.

        “When big guys like China decide to demarcate a whole sea as theirs, the best policy is to suspend the moralizing and do some dealing.”

        Is that THIS China? — https://www.google.com.au/search?q=china%20netanyahu

        ” If Iraq tries to do the same, you go after them”

        You’d rather Iraq be allowed otherwise? WOW!!

        “Nothing ever changes”

        It does actually. Although stupid people are still stupid people

      • just
        just
        May 13, 2015, 4:31 pm

        Well done, talknic.

      • catalan
        catalan
        May 13, 2015, 5:31 pm

        Talknic,
        Yes, it was hunky dory taking California from Mexico. That’s why Lincoln and Emerson and so many others were opposed to that war. The most famous essay in American history, Thoreau’s On civil disobedience deals with that exact topic and stipulates why he does not want to pay taxes to a govenrment that wages a war of aggression against Mexico.
        And about Russia stealing Siberia in the 1860’s, according to you it is ok because it happened before some convention. I don’t know how to respond to such an absurdity. Of course those that have stolen the most have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

      • otc
        otc
        May 13, 2015, 7:27 pm

        “If you steal even more (see the U.S. taking over half of Mexico”

        Only a real moron tells people to see something that disproves their ignorant and stupid theories. The US legally annexed Texas etc thru a referendum of the legal inhabitants of those territories. annexation of Texas — link to avalon.law.yale.edu”

        The US also stole the territory that eventually became New Mexico, Arizona and much of Southern California. Did they also have a referendum for those populations?
        If not it is probably because Texas was a special case – it was already an independent republic by that time.

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 13, 2015, 11:00 pm

        @ catalan “Yes, it was hunky dory taking California from Mexico.”

        They didn’t seem to mind “In 1849 California requested permission to enter the Union as a free state … “

        “And about Russia stealing Siberia in the 1860’s, …. it is ok because it happened before some convention.”

        If you say so, I didn’t.

        “I don’t know how to respond to such an absurdity. “

        By digging yourself a deeper hole obviously

        @ Dan May 13, 2015, 7:27 pm

        //The US legally annexed Texas etc thru a referendum of the legal inhabitants of those territories. //

        “The US also stole the territory that eventually became New Mexico, Arizona and much of Southern California. Did they also have a referendum for those populations?”

        A) “also stole” Hey there buddy I just showed they DIDN’T steal Texas, and you come out with ‘also stole’. Cute… Denial your forte is it?

        “.. New Mexico, Arizona and much of Southern California. Did they also have a referendum for those populations?”

        It’s easy enough to check. You ARE on the internet you know! Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 the territory that became the states of California, Nevada, Utah and Arizona were ceded to the US. Know what a treaty is?

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        May 14, 2015, 3:27 pm

        @ct

        the kind of logic you are alluding to is completely lost on MW. they approve of logic pre-Balfour but anything post Balfour is not logical. Its legal according to their own interpretation.

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 14, 2015, 4:16 pm

        @ DaBakr “the kind of logic you are alluding to is completely lost on MW.”

        What logic? catalan’s assertions are shown to be nonsense.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        May 14, 2015, 4:29 pm

        @talknic
        @ DaBakr “the kind of logic you are alluding to is completely lost on MW.”
        What logic? catalan’s assertions are shown to be nonsense.
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/supporting-explanation-relationship#comment-146430

        Why faulty logic of course. Just as there only 3 possible explanations according to dabakr of nyt’s coverage and the perception of it.

      • catalan
        catalan
        May 14, 2015, 4:53 pm

        “What logic? catalan’s assertions are shown to be nonsense. -” Oldgeezer
        In the world of Mondoweiss, and most of the “blogosphere”, there is only “nonsense” and truth. There is nothing in the middle, no possibility that things could be seen differently from different angles. In this discussion, talknic says that the U.S. annexation of Mexico, something that all liberals opposed and generally was supported by the slave owners of the south, is actually perfectly lawful. In this alternate reality of pseudo logic, a fake referendum in Texas is and a treaty imposed on Mexico are cited as the very example of morality and lawfulness. Leaves one speechless, doesn’t it? Anyway, did black people in Texas vote in this referendum? I am sure they couldn’t wait to be slaves.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        May 15, 2015, 2:11 am

        @catalan

        Having been the one who called you out for what you are I would like to be able to pretend I feel guilty in piling on. Unfortunately I can’t.

        Are you in finance or in accounting. I know you claim brilliance although have yet to show any. Assuming you have brilliance you must know accounting and finance are different disciplines. While there are some things in common and there are some positions which may encompass functions of both disciplines they are at at a very low level unless you define supervisor of tax recievables as middle management.

        You are brilliant. You have told us so. How can we doubt you. Are you in finance or accounting. Or is the operation such that the lines are blurred and you would be hard pressed to leverage your brilliance into a management position in the first instance.

        I eargerly await your hasbara response.

      • catalan
        catalan
        May 15, 2015, 8:37 am

        “Are you in finance or in accounting. ” Oldgeezer
        Both. But I don’t want to get into a technical discussion about how these two are different. Brilliant was said tongue in cheek but that always gets missed in the dreadfully serious world of Mondoweiss. Sometimes posters here remind me of heros in the Soviet movies we used to watch all the time…all that earnestness.
        Anyway, if I was brilliant in finance would I be living in Albuquerqie and posting on Mondo? Hm, let me think….

      • lysias
        lysias
        May 15, 2015, 12:38 pm

        Actually, a good case can be made that the annexation of Texas was not legal. Until then, that sort of thing was done through a treaty, which requires a two-thirds vote of ratification in the Senate. However, because Texas was going to be a slave state, its annexation was politically controversial, and a two-thirds vote in the Senate was not politically possible. So the alternative route of an Act of Congress, requiring only a majority vote in both Houses of Congress, was chosen instead, and that was very doubtfully constitutional at the time.

      • Keith
        Keith
        May 15, 2015, 7:57 pm

        CATALAN- “If you steal even more… then you can get yourself a seat on the security council and be one of the good guys.”

        Yes, and how fortunate for Israel that Uncle Sam is on the security council to veto all of those “anti-Semitic” resolutions. Trying to have your cake and eat it too? American Zionist Jews have hardly been in the forefront of opposition to empire. Just the opposite, in fact. Look at what Norman Braman has to say: “We are the only world global power, we’re the only world global military power, we’re still the economic engine that is the standard of the world. If all those three fall, it’s a danger to the state of Israel.” http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/biggest-military-sustain There it is. Uber Zionist Braman supports the empire as essential to Israel. This Zionist support for empire and militarism is standard, hence, I am a little surprised that you are highlighting the ugly reality of Israel’s essential patron. Surprised but pleased. As an anti-imperialist, I welcome all criticism of the ugly reality and hypocrisy of empire, no matter how tainted the motivation. Keep at it Catalan, I’m loving it!

      • catalan
        catalan
        May 15, 2015, 9:28 pm

        “As an anti-imperialist, I welcome all criticism of the ugly reality and hypocrisy of empire”, – Keith
        You don’t. You ignore the “ugly reality” of the Russian empire. Expansion into Central Asia, Poland. Then while the U.S. was manifesting destiny, and Prussia was coveting France, Denmark, and all else, the Russians stole a nice chunk of Eastern Siberia. Indeed the Russians took advantage of the weakening of China to expand there permanently. Then the Soviet Union engaged in its own empire policies, and that’s how I grew up studying Russian and watching Russian movies. Why are you so forgiving towards Russian empirialism? Do you buy the Russian delusions of encirclement? I mean, did we in Bulgaria need to be obligated to learn Russian so that they can feel safe in Moscow, two thousand miles away?

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 15, 2015, 10:51 pm

        @ catalan

        “There is nothing in the middle, no possibility that things could be seen differently from different angles”

        Your angle is illegal under binding International Law and the UN Charter as emphasized and re-affirmed in hundreds of UNSC Chapt VI resolutions affording Israel hundreds of opportunities to comply with the law, all of which have been ignored. In fact no other country in the UN has been afforded so many missed opportunities

        Now our Jewish homeland state is so far indebted to the International Community and Palestine, it cannot afford to adhere to the law and UN charter. It would be sent bankrupt attempting to pay rightful reparations to those it has dispossessed over the years and as it tried to repatriate into Israel proper hundreds of thousands of illegal Israeli settlers who would suddenly wake up to the fact that for 67 years they have been duped by the Israeli Government into believing they had a legal right to settle in non-Israeli territories.

        The resources from Occupied Territories would no longer be available to illegally exploit, investment in illegal settlements and all their infrastructure would no longer be available.

        Therein lies the real problem and the very reason Zionist/Jewish/Israeli lobby groups spend inordinate amounts of time, effort and money maintaining the US UNSC veto vote. It is all that stands between Israel and it becoming a failed state

        ” In this discussion, talknic says that the U.S. annexation of Mexico, something that all liberals opposed and generally was supported by the slave owners of the south, is actually perfectly lawful”

        At the time it was quite legal and as the US adopted that legal custom of having an agreement with the legitimate citizens of those territories to acquire territory, (Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, etc) the US was instrumental in that legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law.

        “In this alternate reality of pseudo logic, a fake referendum in Texas is and a treaty imposed on Mexico are cited as the very example of morality and lawfulness. Leaves one speechless, doesn’t it? “

        A) Neither Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, etc considered their agreements to be fake. Treaties are agreements! B) The record shows I did not use the word or allude to anything being an example of morality. Your need to put words in to the mouths of others is typical of apologists for Israel’s illegal behaviour in non-Israeli territories.

        “Anyway, did black people in Texas vote in this referendum? I am sure they couldn’t wait to be slaves”

        They’re no longer slaves. The US also abolished slavery and was by that act also instrumental in having slavery prohibited.

        —-

        @ lysias “Actually, a good case can be made that the annexation of Texas was not legal … etc … a two-thirds vote in the Senate was not politically possible. So the alternative route of an Act of Congress, requiring only a majority vote in both Houses of Congress, was chosen instead, and that was very doubtfully constitutional at the time”

        That was AFTER the people of Texas agreed to be annexed. Point being the referendums and agreements were exercises in self determination for those peoples, so again the US was instrumental in the legal custom of an agreement with the people’s to be annexed with their territory shaping today’s conventions on self determination.

        —–

        @catalan

        ” .. the “ugly reality” of the Russian empire. Expansion into Central Asia, Poland. Then while the U.S. was manifesting destiny, and Prussia was coveting France, Denmark, and all else, the Russians stole a nice chunk of Eastern Siberia. Indeed the Russians took advantage of the weakening of China to expand there permanently. Then the Soviet Union engaged in its own empire policies …. ?”

        Bravo!! Now about Israel’s illegal acquisition of non-Israeli territories TODAY!

      • Keith
        Keith
        May 16, 2015, 1:42 am

        CATALAN- “Prussia was coveting France”

        WTF has Prussia got to do with anything I have said? Is it because Prussia sounds like Russia that you bring up this red herring? Are you this intellectually debased?

        CATALAN- “Do you buy the Russian delusions of encirclement?”

        What delusions? In spite of assurances to the contrary, NATO has expanded eastward and is encircling Russia. The empire, the American empire, the ONLY empire is attacking Russia for geostrategic reasons, risking nuclear war in the process.

        Needless to say, you have with typical lack of intellectual integrity ignored the fact that Israel is dependent upon the American empire and that Zionists, such as yourself, are shameless supporters of empire. Your attempt to shift the discussion onto past Soviet actions while ignoring current imperial depredations is typical Zionist apologetics. Your criticisms of US history and US society while simultaneously embracing the American empire is hypocrisy on steroids. You have no shame and your moderate tone when you employ it is nothing but a calculated ploy.

        Since you seem willfully ignorant of current reality in the Ukraine, allow me to provide a quote and link to John Pilger:

        “Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear warplanes and missiles as part of its Nato enlargement project. Reneging on a US promise to the Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would not expand “one inch to the east”, Nato has all but taken over eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucasus, Nato’s military build-up is the most extensive since the second world war.

        In February, the US mounted one of its proxy “colour” coups against the elected government of Ukraine; the shock troops were fascists. For the first time since 1945, a pro-Nazi, openly antisemitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital. No western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism on the border of Russia. Some 30 million Russians died in the invasion of their country by Hitler’s Nazis, who were supported by the infamous Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the UPA) which was responsible for numerous Jewish and Polish massacres. The Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, of which the UPA was the military wing, inspires today’s Svoboda party.” (John Pilger)
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/17/nato-ukraine-dr-strangelove-china-us

      • catalan
        catalan
        May 16, 2015, 9:35 am

        Keith,
        Your line of thought that Eastern Europeans are essentially fodder, a cushion, and exist only to make Russians feel safe is offensive. As a Bulgarian, I have lived with Rusian colonialism personally. The one party system, the endless pushing of Russian language and culture were very harmful. Russians invaded Berlin in 53, Budapest in 56. Prague in 67. They caused massive social, economic, and environmental damage, I am not even mentioning the so-called republics of the Soviet Union, where settlers were sent, local languages were suppressed, etc.
        You said NATO is taking over Eastern Europe. Well, Poles, Bulgarians, Hungarians, etc want to be a part of NATO. There is a debate on this topic all the time. It’s not like they love the west, but they have learned not to trust the Russians. Even Bulgaria, which owes its statehood to Russia, and the languages are very close, is mostly shocked at the invasion of Ukraine. It is incredible that the most loyal country to Russia in Eastern Europe has changed its mood.
        Don’t you think that Russians themselves deserve something better? Show trials, abuse of journalists, nationalist propaganda, puppet parliament, sexual intolerance, and a president that’s either the first or second richest man on earth? You are against rich people buying offices, well they say Putin is worth 70 billion.
        Why not ask yourself, how did the Russians manage to be so feared and mistrusted in Europe? Even Bielorussia and Kazakhstan are on edge. I am sorry, but you don’t see any of Russia’s neighbors as human beings.
        I think you misjudge just how deeply Putin’s takeover of Crimea damaged things for them. The whole European project has been built on this idea that land won’t be taken by force anymore. Indeed, by doing this, Putin seems to have reduced the prevalent anti-American mood. I read both French and German newspapers, and these guys are all in accord on that topic. This is a sea change. The topic of annexation unites pretty much the whole political spectrum in Europe.
        There are some German commenters here, maybe they should weigh in on this topic of Crimea and is it forgivable.

      • Keith
        Keith
        May 16, 2015, 11:30 am

        CATALAN- “Your line of thought that Eastern Europeans are essentially fodder, a cushion, and exist only to make Russians feel safe is offensive.”

        You find my criticism of imperial destabilization and warmongering offensive? You defend the Ukrainian coup and neo-nazi terrorists? You defend the use of NATO as an imperial out of area strike force? Has your Russophobia totally overwhelmed your reason and compassion? What is going on is reasonably clear to all except the willfully blind. The empire has set the world on fire in an attempt to secure complete global hegemony through chaos. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, etc., have all been more-or-less destroyed as the empire applies the Oded Yinon plan globally. Divide and destroy. Perpetual war. And you actually defend this madness? A couple of quotes and links from people who have an infinitely better grasp of reality than an imperial apologist like you.

        “Consistently, over the past year, polls conducted by major Western firms have revealed that the people of Crimea by overwhelming numbers prefer being part of Russia over Ukraine, an embarrassing reality that Forbes business magazine has now acknowledged.” (Robert Parry)
        http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimeans-keep-saying-no-to-ukraine/5438563

        “Ukraine has nothing to do with sovereignty, democracy or (alleged) Russian aggression. That’s all propaganda. It’s about power. It’s about imperial expansion. It’s about spheres of influence. It’s about staving off irreversible economic decline. It’s all part of the smash-mouth, scorched earth, take-no-prisoners geopolitical world in which we live, not the fake Disneyworld created by the western media. The US State Department and CIA toppled the elected-government in Ukraine and ordered the new junta regime to launch a desperate war of annihilation against its own people in the East, because, well, because they felt they had no other option. Had Putin’s ambitious plan to create a free trade zone between Lisbon to Vladivostok gone forward, then where would that leave the United States? Out in the cold, that’s where.” (Mike Whitney)
        http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/18/washingtons-war-on-russia/

      • Keith
        Keith
        May 16, 2015, 11:49 am

        CATALAN- “I read both French and German newspapers, and these guys are all in accord on that topic.”

        This little gem almost slipped right by me. So the French and German main stream media support the empire? What a shocker! Ever heard of Manufacturing Consent? And in spite of this massive propaganda, a recent Gallup poll indicated that people worldwide view the US as the greatest threat to peace. So cut the crap and stop apologizing for murder and mayhem!
        http://www.ibtimes.com/gallup-poll-biggest-threat-world-peace-america-1525008

      • catalan
        catalan
        May 16, 2015, 12:27 pm

        Has your Russophobia totally overwhelmed your reason and compassion? – Keith
        Not at all. There are all kinds of things I like about Russia, songs, literature, etc. However, their current government is leading them to disaster. The German empire at the beginning of the century was taking about encirclement too, from France and Russia. Yet it was they that violated Belgian neutrality in August 1914, which set the chain of events that led to the disasters afterwards.
        Likewise, I cannot take seriously Russian claims of encirclement because they already control about one sixth of the world’s landmass. The vast portion of this territory was acquired by force in the last two centuries.
        I think you are looking for good guys in the wrong place. There are only bad guys in the world today. Everyone is driven by greed, destroys the environment, cares little for anyone. Your buddies at counterpunch see Russia through rose glasses. Putin is a modern day Mussolini, very affable, gets along with the Jews, and dreams of a new Rome.

      • Keith
        Keith
        May 16, 2015, 6:54 pm

        CATALAN- “There are all kinds of things I like about Russia….”

        Then your comments are based primarily upon your Zionism and support for American imperialism? Fair enough.

        CATALAN- “The German empire at the beginning of the century was taking about encirclement too….”

        Totally irrelevant, however, lacking facts, switching topics is probably a wise move for a Zionist propagandist lacking in intellectual integrity.

        CATALAN- “Likewise, I cannot take seriously Russian claims of encirclement because they already control about one sixth of the world’s landmass.”

        Are you saying that NATO is not expanding eastward in spite of previous assurances it wouldn’t? Are you saying that the US has not built new bases throughout the region? Are you defending the American empire of bases and astronomical military budget? Most of Russia is thinly populated barren land, your “one sixth of the world’s landmass” comment yet another disingenuous red herring.

        CATALAN- “Putin is a modern day Mussolini, very affable, gets along with the Jews, and dreams of a new Rome.”

        Ah, Putin bashing! What imperial propaganda piece is complete without it? Well this has fallen into your usual pattern hasn’t it? You attempt to counter facts and common sense analysis with ad hominem attacks and spurious conflations. But, like the Energiser Bunny, you refuse to give up, hoping that if you throw enough shit against the wall some may stick or at least confuse the less well informed. So after all of this it is obvious that your criticism of the American people and American history in no way indicates opposition to the American empire which you shamelessly defend. Now that we have cleared that up beyond any doubt, I am done with this thread.

    • Jimmy Johnson
      Jimmy Johnson
      May 13, 2015, 11:40 am

      That all settler societies are premised on ethnic cleansing and that some build alliances based upon that history.

      • eljay
        eljay
        May 13, 2015, 11:58 am

        || Scott: Is the takeaway from this not only that Zionism is problematic, but that all Anglo societies except perhaps England are bad? ||
        || Jimmy Johnson: That all settler societies are premised on ethnic cleansing and that some build alliances based upon that history. ||

        And at the “liberal” settlers’ conference, you’ll hear ’em reminiscing and saying stuff like:

        “I cannot consistently say that ‘ethnic cleansing is never necessary’.”

        ” … I feel that the [expulsion and/or genocide of the indigenous population] was a necessary wrong … ”

        “If I was an adult in [YYYY], I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the [New State], and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.”

        ” … I primarily celebrate … “

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      May 13, 2015, 6:40 pm

      I think that most societies (my own English society not excepted) are marked by some evils in their past and that most people are a bit too ready to excuse evils that are part of ‘their’ history. Some better things too, of course. The important thing is to put things inherited from the past as close to right in the present as is possible. In this, the first step is to accord everyone their basic human rights, including the right to be an enfranchised citizen/subject of a sovereign power.
      I sometimes imagine scenes of horror from the fifth century migrations and conflicts in England and think that it’s likely that I am descended from the participants on both sides, who might all have found the idea of having descendants in common inconceivable. There can be agreements and understandings as well as conflicts. There are some very bad things in the history of the United States but it is also true that the United States has progressed and has more or less eliminated race-based disfranchisement, even set a good example to others in that respect.

  14. hophmi
    hophmi
    May 13, 2015, 10:30 am

    “Black people , whether native or not, are not settlers in white settler colonies that deny their very humanity”

    Neither are Jews.

    “Anti-blackness today informs U.S. Zionists’ support for Israel’s brutal anti-African policies even as those policies were originally developed to keep out purged indigenous Palestinians.”

    That’s nonsense. First of all, many American Zionists, including virtually all liberal Zionists, do not support Israel’s policies on African economic migrants. Second of all, the issue of African migrants are not unique to Israel; Europe is not exactly welcoming African immigrants with open arms either.

    The real question is why, if these other nations are settler societies, Israel is the only so-called settler society that anyone seems to care about. The message activists who obsess over Israel send is that settler societies are better off completing their ethnic cleansing their indigenous populations, because after that, it seems as though the activists lose interest, or, put another way, that activists are only interested in stoking already violent conflicts. It’s interesting how there’s no call here for boycotting the United States, Canada, or Australia.

    • talknic
      talknic
      May 13, 2015, 3:59 pm

      @ hophmi

      “The real question is why, if these other nations are settler societies, Israel is the only so-called settler society that anyone seems to care about. “

      Israel is acting outside of its proclaimed and recognized sovereign extent. Israel is illegally acquiring territory by war. Illegally annexing. Illegally settling, illegally dispossessing

      “It’s interesting how there’s no call here for boycotting the United States, Canada, or Australia”

      They’re not acting outside of their sovereign extent. They’re not Occupying Powers illegally claiming and illegally settling territories outside their borders.

      I have a question for you. Please try to answer honestly. Why do you need to play stupid?

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        May 13, 2015, 4:23 pm

        @talknic & hophmi

        Additionally in the US, Canada and Australia have full citizenship and voting rights in what hophmi might like to consider as their ocuppied territory. Additionally they enjoy other benefits and rights not enjoyed by the remaining population. Attempts at reparations are made in the form of large land grants and cash.

        There ya go hophmi. Implement the 1ss and give Palestinians citizenship and the vote. Pay them for the years of abuse.

        Not going to support that, are you.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        May 13, 2015, 4:55 pm

        LOL. Full voting rights AFTER they expelled or killed their indigenous populations.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        May 13, 2015, 5:04 pm

        Off topic but the original news is an old story now.

        Canada’s Harper government is backtracking on it’s threat to use hate law provisions against those who promote BDS against Israel.

        Someone must have given Stevie a nudge and reminded him that the second largest religious group in the country supports BDS. Oh those whacky christians.

        http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/israel-boycott-and-hate-crime-laws-1.3070367

      • Kris
        Kris
        May 13, 2015, 5:43 pm

        @talknic: “hophmi…Why do you need to play stupid?”

        Weird Al reminds us here that everyone can “Dare to Be Stupid!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMhwddNQSWQ

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 13, 2015, 11:06 pm

        @ hophmi May 13, 2015, 4:55 pm

        “Full voting rights AFTER they expelled or killed their indigenous populations.”

        That’s right hophmi. They eventually came to the conclusion they’d done the wrong thing.

        Will Israel follow suit?

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        May 14, 2015, 12:11 am

        @hophmi

        Can you tell me the number of indigenous people slaughtered and expelled in Canada hops?

        Or do you prefer to talk out of your hat.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        May 14, 2015, 12:24 am

        Actually to respond or ignore that question as you see fit. I will accept an answer of course but withdraw the question.

        While Canada did not slaughter or expel indigenous people for the most part it certainly did it’s fair share of atrocities on them over the years many of which resulted in death. Some of which we are still finding out in the relative present (example church orhpanages on the 50’s).

        I neither condone nor support those actions and I’m glad the courts are making attempts at restitution for the evil done. In many cases that’s not possible as it can’t bring people back to life.

        I’m also glad our courts are awarding the native huge tracts of, considerable sums of money and enforcing their treaty rights.

        What was done was wrong. It should never have happened to any group. Some of us want a better world. Never again means never again.

        I don’t remember if it was here, the guardian or one of the the english version of mainstream Israeli papers but a pro zionist complained that it was unfair that Israel doesn’t get it’s chance to do the same just because it was late starting.

        I’m not buying that. There’s one tribe. Humanity. And just as I support native groups here such as Idle No More I will speak out against injustices and crimes against humanity commited by any country including Israel.

    • Donald
      Donald
      May 13, 2015, 6:27 pm

      Palestinians who are citizens of Israel would be the equivalent of Native Americans who are citizens of the U.S.

      You’re just trying to get Israel off the hook in a particularly dumb fashion, but if you want to push the Native American/Palestinian analogy, go right ahead. Everyone nowadays agrees that white settlers stole the land and Native Americans were the victims, even if some responded with what we’d now call terrorism. A few years ago, starting with Benny Morris, I started noticing the hasbara crowd defending Israel by pointing to America’s sins. Great. Keep it up–it’s an acknowledgment of the huge injustices committed by both countries and an admission that Israel’s behavior has been criminal. And there should be these sorts of connections drawn.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        May 14, 2015, 2:51 pm

        The fact that the darker side of American (and British) history is quite widely discussed in itself shows that people do care about such things. If Israel kept no one who is subject to its sovereign power in disfranchised state things now would be very different – as they would be different if all Native Americans were kept on 19th-century style ‘reservations’ and not allowed full US citizenship.

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 14, 2015, 10:19 pm

        @ Donald “… the hasbara crowd defending Israel by pointing to America’s sins.”

        Beats me what point they’re trying to make. Apart from pointing out to them that American Indians and Australian Aboriginals are citizens of their respective countries, can vote in elections, (in Australia it’s compulsory), maybe they mean that:

        If the Americas and Australia had not been colonized, Israel would not still be colonizing non-Israeli territory today?
        or
        Maybe they mean that if all non-indigenous people’s suddenly left the US and Australia, including Jewish Americans and Jewish Australians, but not including Jewish Indian Americans and Jewish Australian Aboriginals, then Israel would suddenly stop the illegal settlements, return all non-Israeli territories to Syria and Palestine, allow non-Jewish Israeli citizens who fled the violence in 1948 RoR to Israel and allow RoR for Palestinians to Palestine and suddenly start adhering to International Law?

  15. eusebio
    eusebio
    May 13, 2015, 10:36 am

    The right to respect and dignity of vulnerable people in Palestine and Israel

  16. Citizen
    Citizen
    May 13, 2015, 10:39 am

    “In this reading American settler colonialism explains the existence of the Israel Lobby more than the Israel Lobby explains U.S. support for Zionist settler colonialism.”

    We are not in the 19th Century; we have had two world wars, and in 1945, the Nuremberg & Toyko Trials; thereafter Geneva progeny. The influence of the Israel Lobby in US on what happens to Palestinians as they get “settled” daily by Jewish squatters, is directly attributable to AIPAC-orchestrated donor money and the likes of Jewish American Billionaires with a single focus, continued enlistment of USA’s blood & treasure to maintain Israel’s hegemony in the MIddle East.

  17. Citizen
    Citizen
    May 13, 2015, 11:02 am

    “There is much more to U.S. support for Israel, especially the actual role Israel plays in U.S. empire as a weapons promoter and lab, arms conduit, subcontractor and regional heavy. But important too is settler colonialism and the real threat Palestinian liberation poses to settler colonialism elsewhere. ”

    Yes, the military-industrial-security complex Ike warned us about is real and influential: no doubt war is big profitable business in US and the Palestinians serve as lab rats to perfect the product of this complex’s industry. That’s the reason US domestic police and military are trained by Israelis these days

    And NO, the settling discussed except for Israel’s pre-dated WW2.

    Israel’s problem is that Zionism commenced settle activity way late in the 19th Century, before two world wars and the international law that today marks Israel as a rogue state, a regressive state by world consensus that was hard earned by two world wars. The only soldiers that died in WW2 in behalf a state such as Israel is today were German and Japanese.

    • talknic
      talknic
      May 14, 2015, 10:27 pm

      @ Citizen ” The only soldiers that died in WW2 in behalf a state such as Israel is today were German and Japanese”

      The Japanese actually accepted Jewish refugees BTW. I’ve a long time friend who scoffs at the notion of Jewish race, nationality, DNA and ethnicity by describing himself as being a proudly yellow skinned, slanty eyed, yiddish speaking, kosher eating, German Jewish Japanese atheist in a Kippa.

  18. just
    just
    May 13, 2015, 11:13 am

    More settler theft/appropriation:

    “Wednesday, May 13 is International Hummus Day. You weren’t aware? That might be because the holiday is only four years old: It was launched in 2012 by an American-Israeli entrepreneur, Ben Lang, at a hackathon dedicated to promoting Israel around the world.

    Since then, the project has been gaining traction. This may be partly because the media can’t seem to avoid a good story about hummus – the event was picked up almost immediately by blogs and food publications. Facebook is also playing a role: some 38,000 people have confirmed their attendance at the 4th International Hummus Day event. Meanwhile, Israeli hummus manufacturer Strauss and its subsidiary Sabra have jumped on the bandwagon, while famed hummus restaurant Abu Gosh, located in the Arab village of Abu Gosh in the outskirts of Jerusalem, has stated it is offering a free half-liter of hummus to customers who stop by on Wednesday.

    While Lang maintains that he launched the holiday to “bring people together from around the world, in particular the Middle East,” International Hummus Day is not without controversy, much like hummus itself. Last year, a Twitter account named Lebanese Problems wished its 26,000 followers a happy international hummus day, but added, “P.S. Hummus is not Israeli.””…

    So Happy الحمص‎ Day! Don’t buy Strauss, Sabra/Tribe~ make your own!

    http://www.haaretz.com/life/culture/food-wine/.premium-1.656173?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    • lysias
      lysias
      May 13, 2015, 11:42 am

      There are several brands of Lebanese hummus available through Amazon.

    • Kris
      Kris
      May 13, 2015, 12:24 pm

      Hummus is best when you make it yourself, it’s easy, cheap, and takes only a few minutes. Here’s a great recipe from Martha Rose Shulman which makes about two cups of hummus:

      2 garlic cloves, peeled
      2 cups canned chickpeas, rinsed and drained
      salt to taste
      1/2 teaspoons ground cumin
      1/4 cup fresh lemon juice
      2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil
      3 to 4 tablespoons plain yogurt or broth from the beans
      2 to 3 tablespoons sesame tahini

      Turn on the food processor and drop in the garlic. When the garlic is chopped and adhering to the sides of the bowl, stop the food processor and scrape down. Add the chickpeas, salt, and cumin, and turn on the machine for about 30 seconds. Stop the machine, scrape down the sides, and start the machine again. With the machine running, add the lemon juice, olive oil, and 3 tablespoons yogurt or broth; blend until smooth. Add the tahini and blend again. Taste and adjust salt. The hummus requires a fair amount. Thin out with more yogurt if desired. Transfer to a bowl and refrigerate until ready to serve. Keeps for 2 to 3 days in the refrigerator.

      This is delicious!

    • ckg
      ckg
      May 13, 2015, 3:00 pm

      • just
        just
        May 13, 2015, 3:09 pm

        omg! rotflmao! How in the world did I miss that from Remy Munasifi?

        It’s brilliant, ckg!

        I am sending this to everyone that I know, because nobody ever sent it to me…

      • ckg
        ckg
        May 13, 2015, 6:18 pm

        just, I first saw it on Pamela Olson’s FB page.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        May 14, 2015, 3:36 pm

        now I wish he (or somebody) would do one about actual cheese vs. American cheese whiz. *

        ps. don’t blame me for why Sabra hummus is so popular in America.

  19. Misterioso
    Misterioso
    May 13, 2015, 11:36 am

    Good News!!!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/13/vatican-recognizes-state-of-palestine_n_7274096.html

    Vatican Officially Recognizes ‘State Of Palestine’ In New Treaty

    Huffington Post, May 13/15

    VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican has officially recognized the state of Palestine in a new treaty.

    The treaty, which was finalized Wednesday but still has to be signed, makes clear that the Holy See has switched its diplomatic relations from the Palestinian Liberation Organization to the state of Palestine.

    The Vatican had welcomed the decision by the U.N. General Assembly in 2012 to recognize a Palestinian state. But the treaty is the first legal document negotiated between the Holy See and the Palestinian state and constitutes an official recognition.

    Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is due to see Pope Francis on Saturday before the canonization of two new saints from the Holy Land a day later.

    • just
      just
      May 13, 2015, 1:28 pm

      Bravo Pope Francis!

    • just
      just
      May 13, 2015, 1:58 pm

      Check out Israel’s denial:

      “Vatican treaty uses term ‘state of Palestine’ for first time

      Officials say Israel does not view document as recognition of Palestine by the Holy See, but add Jerusalem is ‘disappointed’ and awaits clarifications.

      The Vatican on Wednesday for the first time used the term “the state of Palestine,” as part of a new treaty with the Palestinian Authority centering on the Catholic Church’s activities in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.

      A statement released by the Palestinians and the Vatican said both sides have reached a draft agreement that still needs to be approved in the near future before it is made final.

      The meaning of Vatican’s use of the term “state of Palestine” is not entirely clear. In the early stages of formulating the agreement, several drafts stated that the agreement is between the Vatican and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Now, the final draft says the treaty is between the Vatican and the state of Palestine.

      Senior officials at the Foreign Ministry said that at this point, Israel does not view the treaty as a recognition of Palestine by the Vatican, and is waiting for further clarifications from the Vatican’s Foreign Ministry. On the other hand, Vatican Spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi told reporters on Wednesday that “it’s a recognition that the state [Palestine] exists.”

      Despite its blurred significance, a senior official at the Foreign Ministry criticized the Vatican’s move. “Israel was disappointed to hear about the Holy See’s decision to agree on a final text of an agreement… with the Palestinians, that includes the term ‘the state of Palestine,'” he said. “This move does not advance the peace process and further distances the Palestinian leadership from returning to direct and bilateral negotiations. Israel will examine the agreement and weigh its actions accordingly.””…

      http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.656321?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      PS~ Barak Ravid, you mean that Tel Aviv is ‘disappointed’. Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel! I can guarantee you that the legal folks in Occupied East Jerusalem are not disappointed, with the exception of the illegal and violent Israeli settlers. Next up, watch the Christian Zionists heads explode.

  20. Citizen
    Citizen
    May 13, 2015, 11:41 am

    I don’t know how relevant this article is today, but it seems remote from today’s reality. In US, if you show the famous painting of Custer ‘s last stand to any American kid, they will laugh at it, white, brown, and black alike. The main problem towards justice today is not any western settler past glue, but big Zionist money on the political candidate auction block. This goes for US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and of course we have Germany’s guilt and Churchill’s remark, “the Germans, they’re at your throat or at your feet.” If it were not for Germany & US foreign aid/reparations, Israel would not be robust today, would be a backwater with little to offer without that aid it could no longer afford to use the natives as lab rats to perfect war & security weapons and tactics.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      May 13, 2015, 1:35 pm

      If I’m not mistaken, settlements in the US in the Colonial day were sponsored by powerful or rich people back in England or France. Maybe what AIPAC and JNF do is analogous to that. Sponsor, finance and link with the established powers. Which puts Zionism right in line with earlier settlement efforts. The sponsoring countries got in wars over the colonies, too.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        May 15, 2015, 8:47 am

        Yes, it cost a lot to settle, or even do initial trade, natural resource exploitation ventures–Columbus got financed,

  21. Misterioso
    Misterioso
    May 13, 2015, 12:25 pm

    Steve Grover

    To quote Israeli historian Tom Segev from his article in the New York Times Sunday Book Review, Sept. 27/08
    (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/books/review/Segev-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin):

    “The mufti’s support for Nazi Germany definitely demonstrated the evils of extremist nationalism. However, the Arabs were not the only chauvinists in Palestine looking to make a deal with the Nazis. At the end of 1940 and again at the end of 1941, a small Zionist terrorist organization known as the Stern Gang made contact with Nazi representatives in Beirut, seeking support for its struggle against the British. One of the Sternists, in a British jail at the time, was Yitzhak Shamir, a future Israeli prime minister. ”

    Furthermore:
    After the war, a memorandum dated January 11, 1941, was discovered in Ankara that disclosed how far Stern and his thugs were prepared to go. Prepared by the German Naval Attaché in Turkey, it revealed that Naftali Lubentschik, one of Stern’s representatives, had met with German Nazis, Otto Von Hentig and Rudolph Rosen in Vichy controlled Beirut and proposed that in exchange for military aid and freedom to recruit European Jews for Palestine, the Sternists were prepared “…to take an active part in the war on Germany’s side…and [this cooperation] would also be in line with one [of Hitler’s recent speeches, which] stressed that any alliance would be entered into in order to isolate England and defeat it.” The proposition presented to the Nazis pointed out that “the establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis and bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.” (Quoted by Klaus Polkehn, “The Secret Contacts: Zionist-Nazi Relations, 1933-1941,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. V, Nos. 3 & 4, Spring/Summer 1976; see also Lenny Brenner, Zionism in the Age of Dictators, Westport, Conn., Lawrence Hill & Co., 1983, p. 267 and Yediot Aharnot, February 4/1983). Fortunately, the Nazis considered the Sternist proposal to be sheer lunacy and rejected it out of hand.

  22. hophmi
    hophmi
    May 13, 2015, 7:38 pm

    You can look at it that way if you want. They are different; Jews were in far more desperate straights, and unlike Americans, they had been in the Holy Land continuously for thousands of years.

    Most would simply see it as hypocritical for people in settler societies who take precious little action against their own societies dictate to another, much smaller, much more threatened, perceived settler society. It’s an exercise of privilege.

    • annie
      annie
      May 13, 2015, 7:43 pm

      they had been in the Holy Land continuously for thousands of years.

      no, the overwhelming majority of them and their ancestors had not. sorry, this is not a situation where a minute fraction can represent the whole kitten kaboodle. you can’t compare this to native americans.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        May 14, 2015, 12:53 am

        ” the whole kitten kaboodle.”

        Is there a full grown cat kaboodle? My cat might like to play with one.

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        May 14, 2015, 3:40 pm

        @ar

        I always thought it was the ‘whole kit and caboodle’ not “kitten kaboodle”? lol

        I might have to look that up to see if I’ve been bamboozled all these years. even if it is ‘kit’ its hard to not like your spin on it.

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 14, 2015, 10:37 pm

        @ DaBakr “I might have to look that up to see if I’ve been bamboozled all these years. even if it is ‘kit’ its hard to not like your spin on it.”

        See you can be correct and it doesn’t hurt!

        Now let’s try some other instances like:
        Israel did proclaim its borders http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf
        Israel’s leaders never intended to adhere to its borders http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1999/4/Shelley%20Kleiman%20-%20The%20State%20of%20Israel%20Declares%20Ind

      • DaBakr
        DaBakr
        May 15, 2015, 12:01 am

        @tk

        I’m going to assume it is annie’s youth that is responsible for the “kitten” comment. I doubt many people still use the word caboodle either.

        otherwise-you know we are going to argue about the ‘border’ issue and your interpretation of ‘dalit’. i don’t deny that borders have never been officially negotiated since ’48 and again ’67 war. and it doesn’t “hurt” to say this. you can’t go back in time but can only look forward to the next moment

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        May 18, 2015, 3:33 pm

        ” i don’t deny that borders have never been officially negotiated since ’48 and again ’67 war.”

        So when Israel proclaimed state-hood and described its boundaries they were just kidding? they made a mistake? It’s not a matter of “negotiation” and you know it. Why didn’t Israel try to “negotiate” more land, if they needed it?

    • eljay
      eljay
      May 13, 2015, 8:39 pm

      || hophmi: … Jews … had been in the Holy Land continuously for thousands of years. ||

      Jews living in Palestine for many generations lived in Palestine for many generations, but not “continuously for thousands of years”.

      Jews who never lived in Palestine, who were many generations removed from Palestine and/or who had no tangible ties whatsoever to Palestine most definitely did not live in Palestine “continuously for thousands of years”.

      || Most would simply see it as hypocritical for people in settler societies who take precious little action against their own societies dictate to another, much smaller, much more threatened, perceived settler society. ||

      Poor widdle settler society of Israel! :-(

      Is that seriously your defence? That acts of injustice and immorality are acceptable as long as they’re committed on a smaller scale? Raping hundreds of women is bad, but raping just a couple dozen is okee-dokee?

      Man, you Zio-supremacists really are a hateful and immoral bunch!

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        May 15, 2015, 9:10 am

        You can google the Ottoman census and early Brit census; you will see how many Jews lived in the area during the early years of Zionism. Also, the Nuremberg & Toyko Trials of 1945-1946 & Geneva progeny ended historical justification for wars of aggression, dispossession, “spoils of war,: etc–Israel never got the memo even though Germans in their 90s are being hunted down even as the Nakba is still on-going.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      May 14, 2015, 12:52 am

      The Jews in the Holy Land weren’t in desperate straits. (I do not want to imagine them being in desperate straights.)

      “Most would simply see it as hypocritical for people in settler societies who take precious little action against their own societies dictate to another, much smaller, much more threatened, perceived settler society.”

      Hypocritical or not, the condemnation of Israel is justified.

    • talknic
      talknic
      May 14, 2015, 2:32 am

      hophmi “Jews were in far more desperate straights, and unlike Americans, they had been in the Holy Land continuously for thousands of years”

      Jews in Palestine weren’t in desperate ‘straights’ hophmi. Jews who were NOT from and had NOT been in the Holy Land continuously (or even at all) were, even tho they had a right to return to the countries from which they fled. That right was extinguished by their taking citizenship in a country other than that of return. Even so, today Germany offers RoR to German Jews and ALL their lineal descendants

      Israel meanwhile doesn’t offer RoR to its non-Jewish Israeli citizens and even prevents RoR to Palestinian refugees who have a right to return to non-Israeli territories in Palestine

      “Most would simply see it as hypocritical for people in settler societies who take precious little action against their own societies dictate to another, much smaller, much more threatened, perceived settler society. It’s an exercise of privilege.”

      Lets’ see if you can spot the difference. It’s quite simple.

      A) The US, UK, Australia are no longer conquering territories and settling conquered territories and in fact they have been instrumental in the adoption of laws against illegal settlements and the illegal acquisition of territory by war.

      B) Israel continues to illegally claim territory acquired by war, illegally annexing and illegally settling against a law (GC IV) adopted to protect occupied civilians AND the civilians of the Occupying Power from the expected violent consequences of occupying another people and their territory. What kind of an insane Government purposefully encourages its citizens to illegally settle in areas where they are endangered?

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        May 14, 2015, 3:01 pm

        Jews have lived in Palestine for a long time, though the criteria for being Jewish, whether as applied to themselves or to neighbours by people living in Palestine at different times or as applied by us looking back at earlier times, have changed. A subject of the Jerusalem monarchy in 600 BCE would have been rather different in religion and morality from a Jewish citizen of Jerusalem now. If evolving groups with long histories are to be considered important the non-Jewish presence in the historic homeland of so many non-Jews must be important too.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      May 14, 2015, 10:53 pm

      “They are different; Jews were in far more desperate straights”

      Well, when the Jewish community can’t supply enough Jewish girls for the desperate straights to marry, out-marriage is the inevitable result.
      The word is “straits”, Hophmi, like they got in Gilberta.

      • talknic
        talknic
        May 15, 2015, 5:03 am

        Mooser May 14, 2015, 10:53 pm “The word is “straits”, Hophmi, like they got in Gilberta”

        You typing with your figners crossed hoping you’d get the spelling right?

Leave a Reply