Trending Topics:

‘Realism’ Israeli-style: A kinder, gentler occupation

FeaturesMiddle East
on 28 Comments

CATCH-67
The Left, the Right, and the Legacy of the Six-Day War
by Micah Goodman, Translated by Eylon Levy
264 pp. Yale University Press $26

Israeli Jews aren’t communicating. They’re not listening to each other. They’re blaming each other. The problem isn’t “ideological polarization;” ideology has imploded. “Israel’s political discourse is degenerating not because Israelis have moved apart from one another but precisely because they have drawn closer to one another.” The conflict isn’t any longer about “ideas,” it’s about “tribe against tribe,” a battle of “identities.” One tribe, “the left,” having long since abandoned its belief in socialism and more recently seen its vision of “peace” shaken by the Second Intifada, now focuses on the demographic “threat” posed by the 1967 occupation. The other tribe, “the right” “no longer argues that settling the territories will bring redemption” but instead insists “that withdrawing from them will bring disaster.”

The irony? Both “left” and “right” are correct! “The right is correct that a withdrawal from Judea and Samaria would endanger Israel. The left is correct that a continued presence in the territories would endanger Israel.” It’s a “double-bind.” A “catch-22” (or, rather, a “catch-67,” in reference to the territory occupied in the  June ’67 war). “It turns out that everyone is right, and since everyone is right- all are trapped.” Discourse is frozen.

Or so argues Micah Goodman, a researcher at the Hartman Institute in Jerusalem (previously best known for his work on Maimonides) and a resident of the Jewish West Bank settlement of Kfar Adumim. (“I would rather not be called a settler,” says Goodman. “it’s where I live, not who I am”).

Goodman’s book, Catch-67: The Left, the Right, and the Legacy of the Six-Day War (recently available in an English translation) topped the Israeli nonfiction best seller list for weeks after its original Hebrew publication in March 2017. According to The Times of Israel, it was

read in Israel’s halls of power – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was seen carrying it in the Knesset’s corridors with a bookmark peeking from its pages – and by many top officials involved in administering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. IDF Central Command chief Maj. Gen. Roni Numa bought copies for his top officers.

In June 2017, MK Ayelet Nahmias-Verbin, a member of the Zionist Camp and “an ardent supporter of the two-state solution” joined with right-wing MK Yehuda Glick, an American-born rabbi well-known “for his forceful advocacy of Jews’ right to worship on the Temple Mount,” to invite Goodman to talk about his book in the Knesset, a gesture which moved a writer for The Jewish Review of Books to opine that, “Only as brave and impressive an attempt as Goodman’s to address all the arguments for and against withdrawal in a deep and serious manner, anchoring them in Jewish history and philosophy, could evoke such an unusual and bipartisan response.”

Cover of Catch-67: The Left, the Right, and the Legacy of the Six-Day War by Micah Goodman

So, what is this “brave and impressive attempt?” Well, first and foremost, writes Goodman, it’s about “trying to heal a fractured conversation” (a fractured Jewish Israeli conversation) and about paving “a path toward new ideas.” To accomplish this, he believes,  the Israeli “left” must definitively “abandon dreams of a comprehensive peace agreement that will finally end the conflict and provide Israel with internationally recognized borders;” and the Israeli “right” must reconcile itself to “the fact that the drive to settle Judea and Samaria must come to an end.”  Israeli Jews must “painfully [let] go of [their] dreams,” scale down their expectations and simply work “to transform a catastrophic problem into a merely chronic one, one that [Israelis] can learn to live with.” Instead of “managing the conflict” and perpetuating the status quo (a la Netanyahu); and instead of seeking to once-and-for-all resolve issues like final borders, the future of Jerusalem, the plight of the refugees, and the relations between the West Bank and Gaza; the object should simply be to “minimize the occupation” and thereby “restructure” the conflict by “converting it from an existential to a containable” one.

To achieve this “modest” and “reasonable” objective (the book is awash with reminders of the author’s “centrism,” “realism,” “pragmatism” and Zionist empathy for the entire Jewish-Israel political spectrum) Goodman offers a number of specific proposals. The steps he outlines in Catch-67 (and others added after receiving “a lot of new ideas from military officers”) amount to a grab-bag of unilateral Israeli moves intended to ease the burden of Israeli rule over the Palestinians “without endangering the security of Israel at the same time.” Steps include:

  • transferring sections of Area C in the West Bank (but not the Jordan Valley) to the “administrative control” of the Palestinian Authority;
  • constructing  a network of bridges, tunnels and roads by-passing the settlements, not necessarily “to give the PA territorial contiguity but [to create] a sovereign system of transportational contiguity;”
  • ceasing the expansion of settlements “outside the [already existing] large settlement blocs;”
  • easing “restrictions on business and trade,” reducing the number of checkpoints and promoting “more freedom of movement. “
  • transferring to the Palestinian Authority Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, not including “historic Jerusalem – the Temple Mount, City of David, etc;” the rest of Jordanian East Jerusalem; and (one infers) Jewish settlements constructed elsewhere in the unprecedently gargantuan “Jerusalem”  created by Israel in 1967.

Goodman is quick to acknowledge that these initiatives (which would create what he refers to as a  Palestinian “almost state”) stand zero chance of satisfying the Palestinians themselves.  No matter. They should be undertaken, he believes, without a quid pro quo and with little worry about endangering Israeli security (“because the Israel Defense Forces would retain a presence on the ground and the work of the Shin Bet security service would remain unaffected.”) The hope would be to “achieve forty years [in which] Palestinians almost don’t experience occupation and Jews almost don’t experience terrorism,” a condition which would mollify the Palestinians, assuage the ongoing and increasingly acrimonious Jewish debate in Israel.  And – as an added bonus – “contribute to healing the relations between Israelis and many young Jews across the diaspora.”  A win-win all around.

Goodman is interested in actual Palestinians only insofar as they threaten Israeli Jewish security and demographic hegemony and, beyond that, only insofar as their very presence threatens to rend the Jewish body politic and undermine Jewish solidarity. His ‘pragmatic’ unilateralism does not extend to Gaza (about which he is entirely silent); he proposes no amelioration of Israeli policies of administrative detention and collective responsibility: and he has nothing to say about the theft of water, the house demolitions, the ‘price-tag’ attacks or the long-standing discrimination against Palestinian citizens of Israel. Nor, for that matter, does he address (or even acknowledge!) the increasingly incendiary Israeli Jewish racist discourse or the rapid erosion of Israeli civil liberties, including the civil liberties of dissident Israeli Jews.

Either Goodman is unconcerned about these matters or he believes that the measures he recommends will somehow ‘minimize’ their importance.

To my mind, however, the most striking thing about Goodman’s argument is the utterly conventional and largely unexamined set of historical and moral assumptions on which it is founded. A recent interviewer suggested that Goodman is seeking “to create an MRI of the Israeli brain, a map of the historical and philosophical circuits that structure public perceptions and shape current policies.” But the collective brain Goodman is excavating, not to mention his own particular brain, is firmly in thrall to the hoariest Zionist myths and relentlessly exculpatory of Israeli misdeeds.

Two-thirds of the way through Catch-67 Goodman wonders, “Can the Jewish-Palestinian conversation be healed?” The answer he gives is: No.

On the Jewish-Israeli side his reasons are the familiar ones. Israeli Jews are afraid. They fear Palestinian terrorism (to which they’ve been exposed for “at least three generations”). They fear the fact that “Israel is “encircled by enemies” and “surrounded by anti-Semitic forces.” And, most profoundly, they fear because “the history of the Jews is the history of persecution.”

In presenting these “reasons,” Goodman rather consistently blurs the line between what Jewish Israelis believe to be the case and what has been and currently is the actual reality. Is it true, for example,  that Israel is “encircled by enemies?” (Are Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia enemies, let alone ‘anti-Semitic’ ones?) Is the lachrymose version of the Jewish diaspora experience (“the history of the Jews is the history of persecution”) an adequate one?

For Goodman such questions don’t ultimately matter. Buried in one of his footnotes he writes that, “The impression among Jews that Jewish history is a never-ending tale of pogroms and persecution represents a partial reflection of historical truth. But perceptions of the past shape the present more than the past itself does.” While this may be true, it is also true that “perceptions of the past” are not immutable. They can be transformed and replaced by more truthful narratives. Yet Goodman evinces absolutely no interest in encouraging Israeli Jews to rethink their habitual understandings and jettison their shopworn myths.

Even more disturbing than Goodman’s explanation of why Israeli Jews are currently incapable of conducting a “healing conversation” with Palestinians is the manner in which he frames the issue on the Arab side. Palestinians, he suggests, “cannot forgo the right of return without changing the essence of their national identity.” Why? Because they’re suffering from a species of arrested development and are incapable of relinquishing their phantasmagorical memory of an idealized past.  To support this claim Goodman quotes Fouad Ajami (once characterized aptly as an archetypal “Native Informant”). According to Ajami,  “[Palestinian] memory [has] stood in the way of accommodation. An apparition, the Old Palestine [has] rebuked [a] practical peace. Memory [has] sanctified all that had been there before, the loss and the defeat.”

And that’s not the biggest problem. Behind the “apparition” of “the Old Palestine” (which presumably is distinct from the actual Palestine to which 750,000 of its inhabitants were prevented from returning after 1948) lies an even more fundamental and calcified “memory.” The Palestinians’ “sense of humiliation,” writes Goodman, “has a Muslim history.”

The success of Zionism is a painful and living reminder to Muslims of their ongoing humiliation at the hands of Western civilization. . . .  The rise of the West and the decline of Islam have seared a sense of humiliation into the Muslim mind. National resistance to Western imperialism . . . constitutes a refusal . . . to accept the physical presence and cultural influence of anything Western on Muslim lands.  [It] is a struggle whose value is independent of its results; merely to persevere is to refuse to surrender to foreign humiliation. It is a struggle whose importance is in its existence- a struggle for the sake of struggle. . . .

By a not-so-subtle sleight of hand, Goodman thus transforms a nationalist conflict and a battle for human rights into a centuries old ‘clash of civilizations’ in which Palestinians are submerged in a vast agglomeration of embittered, humiliated, and unforgiving “Muslims,” crippled by their inability to relinquish their “memory” of a once-upon-a-time Islamic Golden Age. No wonder there can be no conversation or reconciliation! The conflict is primordial and transhistorical. “Ancient Jewish feelings are colliding with ancient Muslim feelings. . . . The whole of both Jewish and Muslim histories are . . . fated to collide with each other.”

Having thus described the ultimate source of the conflict, it comes as no surprise that Goodman goes on to blithely recycle a veritable hit-parade of half-truths and untruths. To wit:

  • The Palestinians could have had their own independent state in 1937. And again in 1947. And at Camp David in 2000. They were even offered one by Olmert in 2008. Yet each time they perversely refused. Abba Eban was right. Not only have the benighted Palestinians “never miss[ed] an opportunity to miss an opportunity” but they remain just like the “child who, after killing his parents, pleads for mercy as an orphan.”
  • In June 1967, Israel “was willing to return most of the territory captured in the war to the neighboring Arab states.” But the “Arabs first united in rejection of Israel’s peace overtures, and a few years later united again in an embrace of war.”
  • The Lebanon invasion of 1982 “began as a limited campaign to push terrorists away from Israel’s northern borders. . . . But as time went on, the war continued to expand.”
  • The Second Intifada was “the Palestinians’ final response” to Barak’s” generous offer” of 2000.

To distinguish truth from truthiness in each of these crude assertions would require a book in itself. Suffice it to say that Goodman, for all his claim to be looking at the Israeli-Palestinian impasse with new eyes, hasn’t the slightest interest in questioning, let alone critiquing, Israel’s Official Narrative. On the contrary, his entire discourse takes this narrative for granted.

While fealty to conventional understandings is hardly surprising given Goodman’s desire to speak for a putative Israeli “center,” his argument turns particularly odious when it explicitly confronts the “Moral Dilemma” posed by the 1967 occupation. Deceptively, Goodman creates an initial impression that his ethical compass is in fine working order. “Occupation,” he writes, is

a type of dictatorship. . . .The primary problem is not that the occupation begets corruption, but that the occupation is itself corrupt. The essence of the occupation is that one nation deprives another nation of its liberty. . . . The occupation does not lead to a loss of morality- the occupation is itself immoral.

Strong, forthright stuff, right? But wait . . . there’s more. Though occupation is a “type of dictatorship,” the West Bank isn’t in fact “occupied!” Regurgitating the long-standing Israeli position, Goodman avers that, “Judea and Samaria. . . constitute territory that the Jordanians conquered in an act of unjustified aggression [in 1948] and also lost through an act of unjustified aggression [in 1967[ . . .[which was then] compounded by a unilateral act of Arab rejectionism.” Far from being “occupied,” therefore, “[t]he most appropriate definition for these territories is that they are disputed.”

Having again drowned the Palestinians in a sea of undifferentiated “Arabs,” Goodman then promptly resuscitates them. Sort of. The territories aren’t occupied, says Goodman, but the human beings living in them are! “The people in the territories live under occupation, even though the land on which they live is not itself occupied.” Got it?  Because West Bank Palestinians happen to remain earth-bound creatures, living and breathing in actual geographic space, they pose a “problem” that the Israeli government has a “moral obligation” to reckon with. Though Goodman doesn’t say so, of course, it’s hard not to detect a dollop of regret on his part that these all-too-present Palestinian bodies haven’t migrated and joined up with their fellow . . . Arabs? Muslims? . . . elsewhere in the cosmos. But, alas, they haven’t.

And so “pragmatists” like Goodman have no choice but to help Jewish Israelis come to terms with the painful reality. Looking ahead, it is incumbent on them to swallow hard, abandon their noble dreams and unilaterally construct a kinder, gentler, more compassionate occupation. True, Hebron, Bethlehem and Shiloh “are an inseparable part of the Jewish people” and “to cede a part of the Jewish homeland is to cede a part of Jewish identity.” But in order to “heal Israel’s national conversation,” and keep the Villa in the Jungle looking attractive to young diaspora Jews, painful concessions must be made.

Thus speaks the current voice of Israeli “realism.”

Sources

Barak, Ehud. “What the Israeli Right Gets Wrong About Security and the Occupation, According to Ehud Barak.” Haaretz. May 13, 2017.

Goodman, Micah. Catch-67: The Left, the Right, and the Legacy of the Six-Day War.

New Haven: Yale University Press. 2018.

_____________. “How Israel Can Shrink the Occupation Without Shrinking its Security.” Haaretz. February 18, 2018.
_____________. “Why Ehud Barak’s ‘Responsible Left’ Argument Won’t Convince

Israelis.’ Haaretz. May 19, 2017.

Gur, Haviv Rettig. “The Peace Process Hasn’t Brought Peace. The Case for Moving

On.” The Times of Israel. June 27, 2017.

Horowitz, Mark. “The Escape Artist.” The Tablet. October 10, 2018.

Kershner, Isabel. “A Best-Selling Israeli Philosopher Examines His Country’s Inner

Conflict.” New York Times. June 9, 2017.

Levy, Gideon. “Ehud Barak’s New Left Isn’t Left At All.’ Haaretz. May 15, 2017.

Shatz, Adam. “The Native Informant.” The Nation. April 28, 2003.

Shilon, Avi. “What if Everyone is Right?” Jewish Review of Books. Fall, 2017.

Joel Doerfler
About Joel Doerfler

Joel Doerfler is a long-time independent school teacher of history. He lives in New York.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

28 Responses

  1. bcg
    bcg
    November 5, 2018, 4:47 pm

    Trying to make lemonaid from lemons: does all this mean that people in the Israeli government are slowly, kinda, sorta becoming conscious of the human rights violations inherent in the occupation, and the occupation in its present form isn’t sustainable?

    I guess that’s progress of a sort…

    • pgtl10
      pgtl10
      November 5, 2018, 6:28 pm

      No, it’s just Israel’s longstanding pursuit of being as racist as possible without the West noticing they are racist. The whole book by Goodman is an exercise in justifying his racism by blaming others.

      • Marnie
        Marnie
        November 5, 2018, 11:59 pm

        ‘Two-thirds of the way through Catch-67 Goodman wonders, “Can the Jewish-Palestinian conversation be healed?” The answer he gives is: No.’

        So a ‘conversation’ can’t even be had? So much for progress.

        ‘Goodman offers a number of specific proposals. The steps he outlines in Catch-67 (and others added after receiving “a lot of new ideas from military officers”) amount to a grab-bag of unilateral Israeli moves intended to ease the burden of Israeli rule over the Palestinians “without endangering the security of Israel at the same time.”’

        Incredible chutzpah – ‘ease the burden of israeli rule….’ Oh yeah, I feel your pain. Nobody ever said being a racist supremacist religious bigot was going to be an easy job. Especially in the age of instagram!

        ‘a resident of the Jewish West Bank settlement of Kfar Adumim. (“I would rather not be called a settler,” says Goodman. “it’s where I live, not who I am”).’

        You’ve made your bed in a settlement, settler Goodman. You, you’re children, friends and neighbors are all settlers. You profit from it, but the optics of it really suck, huh? What a burden that must be. Always, always, always the zionist pigs squeal that they are the victims – of what? You run every fucking thing, how in the hell can you continue to complain?

    • Misterioso
      Misterioso
      November 6, 2018, 10:02 am

      @beg, etal

      I grow ever so weary of Zionist bull crap:

      “The Palestinians could have had their own independent state in 1937. And again in 1947. And at Camp David in 2000. They were even offered one by Olmert in 2008. Yet each time they perversely refused.”

      Reality:
      The 1937 Peel Report: In 1936, Britain commissioned the Peel Commission to analyze and recommend a formula to end the violence in Palestine. In 1937, the Commission submitted its report and its major recommendation was to propose partition as a solution. The Report was rejected by Britain’s government as it was in violation of the League of Nations Class A Mandate (which, prohibited a Jewish state in Palestine or any form of partition.) It was also rejected during a meeting a month later in Zurich by the Zionist Congress (they wanted even more land than they would receive) and for obvious reasons, by the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine.

      As proposed by the Peel Report, what would have most certainly been an unviable Arab state, was to be made part of what was then Transjordan while Britain was to retain control of specific areas of Palestine, including East (the Old City) and West Jerusalem along with Bethlehem, and also control access to the Mediterranean Sea through the port of Jaffa. This outrageous scheme would have given Jews (about 90% of foreign origin comprising about thirty per cent of the population and owning just 5.6 per cent of the land) about one third of Palestine including its most fertile regions, such as the wholly Arab owned Galilee, the Plains of Esdraelon south of Nazareth, as well as the equally Arab and Jewish owned lush coastal plain from the Lebanese border to a point south of Jaffa, which itself would remain Arab.

      Apparently, of the view that Palestinians had no rights whatsoever, the Peel Report also recommended that 225,000 Arabs in the proposed Jewish state should be exchanged for what were a mere 1,250 Jews in the envisaged Arab state. While they were deliberately ambiguous as to whether Arabs in the Galilee should be forcibly removed, the commissioners did advocate that as “a last resort,” the transfer of Palestinians inhabiting the bountiful Esdraelon and coastal plains “should be compulsory.” Obviously, Britain had no option other than to reject the Peel Report.

      For the record: On 7 August 1937, following publication of the Peel Commission Report, Ben-Gurion stated the following before the Twentieth Zionist Congress meeting in Zurich: “In many parts of the country new Jewish settlement will not be possible unless there is a transfer of the Arab fellahs [i.e., farmers]. The [Peel] Commission dealt with this matter seriously, and it is important that this plan [i.e., the commission’s proposal that 225,000 Arabs be transferred out of the prospective Jewish state] came from them and not from us….”

      Re the 1947 Partition Plan, UNGA Res. 181:
      The indigenous Palestinian Arabs, who then made up 69% of the population, rejected the recommendatory only Partition Plan (UNGA Res. 181, Nov. 29/47) for entirely justified reasons based on international law. While Jews made up just 31% of the population (90% were of foreign origin, thousands were illegal immigrants) and privately owned only between 6% and 7% of the land, the Partition Plan (recommendatory only, no legal foundation, contrary to the British Class A Mandate and the 1941 Atlantic Charter, never adopted by the UNSC) outrageously recommended they receive 56% of Palestine (including its most fertile areas) in which Palestinians made up 45% of the population. (10% of Palestine’s Jewish population consisted of native Palestinian/Arab Jews who were vehemently anti-Zionist.)

      In 1947, 48% of the total land area of Palestine was privately owned (‘mulk khaas’) by Palestinian Arabs. (As noted above, total Jewish privately owned land was only between 6% and 7%.) About 45% of the total land area was state owned, i.e. by citizens of Palestine and it was comprised of Communal Property (‘mashaa’), Endowment Property, (‘waqf’), and Government Property, (‘miri’.) Importantly, only 30% of the Jewish immigrants had taken out citizenship. (The British Mandate kept an extensive land registry and the UN used the registry during its early deliberations. It has in its archives 453,000 records of individual Palestinian owners defined by name, location & area.)

      As for the much touted 2000 Camp David Summit, working in tandem, Barak and Clinton tried to shove a very bad deal down Arafat’s throat. It could only be rejected. Suffice to quote Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s foreign minister and lead negotiator at Camp David: “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.” (National Public Radio, 14 February 2006.)

      The “offer” made in 2008 by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert was never seen as serious because it lacked cabinet approval, he was under indictment with only a few weeks left in office, had a 6% favorable rating, and, therefore, couldn’t have closed the deal, even if the Palestinians had accepted it. (Olmert was imprisoned.)

      • Jon66
        Jon66
        November 6, 2018, 1:14 pm

        Mist,
        Are you saying that the Palestinians could not have had their own state or that they were justified in refusing the state offered them?

      • helen4yemen
        helen4yemen
        November 6, 2018, 2:38 pm

        1. This outrageous scheme would have given Jews (about 90% of foreign origin comprising about thirty per cent of the population and owning just 5.6 per cent of the land)

        Please tell me who the other 10% were?  Were they Arabic speaking native Jews of Palestine? 

        2. as well as the equally Arab and Jewish owned lush coastal plain from the Lebanese border to a point south of Jaffa, which itself would remain Arab.

        Where were those Jews from and how long had they been residing in Palestine? 

        3. While Jews made up just 31% of the population (90% were of foreign origin, thousands were illegal immigrants) 

        Again, I am not aware that there have been native Arabic-speaking Jews on that land going back many centuries.  Where are those 10% (native Jews) of the 650,000 total Jews (65,000) in Palestine in 1947 today?  What is your source?

        4. (10% of Palestine’s Jewish population consisted of native Palestinian/Arab Jews who were vehemently anti-Zionist.)

        Do you have any source that 10% of the Jews in Palestine were indigenous Arab-Jews? Did they speak Arabic as a mother tongue? What is your source? Got reliable links, please?

  2. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    November 6, 2018, 3:18 am

    I would like to see the ‘dispute’ over territory defined. Is it ‘the Palestinians have no right to be here’ vs. ‘The Palestinians have at least some right to be here’? If it comes down to something like that then a final and undeniable end to settlement expansion – not that that is easy even to imagine – would be a step forward even if the rhetoric around it were highly complacent and insulting. It would really amount to withdrawal from the ‘no right to be here’ proposition and cause a crack in Zionist ideology which would be hard to reverse. That’s why it hasn’t happened, I think.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      November 6, 2018, 11:29 am

      “I would like to see the ‘dispute’ over territory defined. Is it ‘the Palestinians have no right to be here’ vs. ‘The Palestinians have at least some right to be here’?”

      No. The word is chosen because unlike the correct term – occupied – it implies that this is just a little disagreement between two equal parties, rather than what it is, a military occupation illegal under international law.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        November 6, 2018, 12:41 pm

        I still would like to hear those who talk of this dispute to say what proposition they think is being disputed. I would also like to know why the existence of a dispute over the status of the territory minimises the outrage – I quite agree that it’s used to do that – over militarised and humiliating forms of government and widespread disfranchisement. If someone claims to be the rightful sovereign and finds the claim disputed the correct response is to behave as a rightful sovereign, not as a tyrant or oppressor, would.

  3. eljay
    eljay
    November 6, 2018, 8:02 am

    Like all Zionists, Goodman believes that the religion-based identity of Jewish grants to those who choose to hold it the right:
    – to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine; and
    – to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality (a.k.a. “necessary evil”) they would not have others do unto them.

    Like all Zionists, Goodman is a hateful and immoral supremacist and hypocrite.

  4. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    Maximus Decimus Meridius
    November 6, 2018, 11:21 am

    It all sounds very ‘soul of Israel’. The worst thing about violence against Palestinians isn’t the death and destruction, but the impact on Israeli self-image.

    “Lebanon invasion of 1982 “began as a limited campaign to push terrorists away from Israel’s northern borders. . . . But as time went on, the war continued to expand.”

    That’s just simply false though, isn’t it? Sharon boasted that he would be in Beirut within days? The aim was always to destroy the Palestinian presense in Lebanon, but as has happened since, the IDF were too cowardly to actually fight man to man, and so the best they could achieve was the exile of the PLO. And the deaths of maybe 19000 Arabs, the huge majority civilians.

    • Maghlawatan
      Maghlawatan
      November 6, 2018, 12:38 pm

      Zionists see the Palestinians as vermin. That is where shooting and crying came from. Read Jon S on Gaza or Khamas. Khamas is the SS for most Israeli Jews. Israel is addicted to violence even though it does not work. Israel has to live with the Palestinians.
      Americans have a chance today to reject fear, hatred and bullshit. Israelis have never been given a choice.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        Maximus Decimus Meridius
        November 6, 2018, 1:05 pm

        Israelis have a choice, but when asked to choose between justice and supremacism, they prefer the latter. Every time. Even the ‘liberals’.

      • Maghlawatan
        Maghlawatan
        November 6, 2018, 1:51 pm

        No Israeli Jewish party or Government ever recognized the Palestinians as equal. This is hard coded into their makey uppy identity, Zionism.
        Israelis who see this is bollocks live abroad.

  5. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    Maximus Decimus Meridius
    November 6, 2018, 11:22 am

    BTW off topic but I can’t find a better place to put it, but is anyone watching the BBC production of Le Carre’s “The Little Drummer Girl”? I am told that the novel is actually quite ‘balanced’ (whatever that means) but, 2 episodes in, the TV adaptation certainly is not. The Palestianians are personality-free child-killers, while the Israelis are righteous avengers. But what does one really expect from the BBC and AMC?

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      November 6, 2018, 4:18 pm

      I don’t do tv & haven’t read the book, but I can refer you to a very brave bbcR4 prog that was just on tonight (repeat on Sun at 5pm), about the way the ultra-orthodox community illegally scams the benefit system.

      • Eva Smagacz
        Eva Smagacz
        November 8, 2018, 4:13 am

        Hi Bumblebye,

        I found this program and it is clearly saying what was not allowed to be spoken out.

        I do wonder if the Sunday broadcast will take place. But, for anybody who wants an inside into Hasidic mindset about outside, gentile, world, it is depressing, if unsurprising.

        The benefit fraud is taking place in England, but is eerily similar to the fraud that was uncovered to happen in Ocean County few years ago.

        Producers, predictably, have been accused of Anti-Semitism, even though all the material has been sourced from the Hasidic community itself.

        Listen now:

        The Unorthodox Life of Miriam
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000113m

        162/177

  6. just
    just
    November 6, 2018, 11:23 am

    How very predictable that this dreck made it to the bestseller list for “nonfiction” in Israel. Yale University Press must be so proud…

    It’s just the opposite, of course~ fiction, hasbara, ziopoop.

    “(“I would rather not be called a settler,” says Goodman. “it’s where I live, not who I am”).”

    Goodman~ you’re a settler, a squatter, and a thief. Where you live is in an illegal settlement, on stolen Palestinian land.

    Born in the USA …

    (P.S. Moderators~ is “kindler” in the title accurate?) Thank you, Joel.

    • annie
      annie
      November 6, 2018, 12:42 pm

      thanks for the heads up just

      • just
        just
        November 6, 2018, 12:59 pm

        ;-)

        To be honest Annie, I dithered about mentioning it because of this:

        “Kindler Name Meaning

        German: from an agent derivative of the obsolete verb kindeln ‘to beget children’, hence a nickname for someone who had a lot of children. Jewish (Ashkenazic): from German Kind ‘child’ + the agent suffix -ler, most likely an occupational name for a schoolteacher.

        Source: Dictionary of American Family Names ©2013, Oxford University Press”

        ~and this~ :

        “Synonyms and Antonyms of kindler
        a person who stirs up public feelings especially of discontent …

        Synonyms of kindler
        agitator, demagogue (also demagog), exciter, firebrand, fomenter, incendiary, inciter, instigator, provocateur, rabble-rouser”

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/kindler

        There’s a bit more @ Urban Dictionary that I won’t bother with. I do know another word for Scrabble now!!

      • annie
        annie
        November 6, 2018, 5:44 pm

        i checked out the definition too. but this big clue was in the text in the body of the article:

        And so “pragmatists” like Goodman have no choice but to help Jewish Israelis come to terms with the painful reality. Looking ahead, it is incumbent on them to swallow hard, abandon their noble dreams and unilaterally construct a kinder, gentler, more compassionate occupation.

        ;)

    • Maghlawatan
      Maghlawatan
      November 6, 2018, 2:12 pm

      He’ll still be a settler in 400 years, should Zionism make it. Settlers insist on their identity but won’t accept those of the locals. This is how it has been since 1610 in Northern Ireland

      @alan_macleod
      ·

      That historical context is one of completely changed relations within these islands and they brought a large measure of peace. There were those, like the DUP, who opposed that agreement, demanding certainties that ignored the interests and identities of others.

  7. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    November 6, 2018, 12:21 pm

    @MDM
    Yes recorded the series and watched the first episode hoping for “balance”. As you say from the start the Israelis are portrayed as clever,determined ,righteous , ingenious etc etc whilst the Palestinians are portrayed as ruthless,murderous and duplicitous.

    All of course as per the set Zioscript. After the first episode I simply hadn`t the stomach to watch the rest. Deleted series recording.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      November 6, 2018, 1:11 pm

      I think the opening scene pretty much said it all. An entirely fictitious – and thoroughly implausible – scenario with the suitcase bomb of course missing the target – who was portrayed as a decent, ordinary bloke – and killed his cute little son instead. And note how the Israeli attache was wearing a kippah – which would have been highly unlikely for an Israeli diplomat in the 1970s – the obvious implication being that this was an antisemitic attack.

      Not to mention the constant references to Munich, as though that were the start of everything and Israel had never lifted a finger against a Palestinian before or since, except of course in righteous revenge.

      Oh well I guess the BBC didn’t want THAT phone call from the embassy. And at least in episode two the Palestinian actually got to speak – for about two sentences.

  8. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    November 6, 2018, 1:23 pm

    ” Through philosophical critique and political analysis, Goodman builds a creative, compelling case for pragmatism in a dispute where a comprehensive solution seems impossible2
    https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300236743/catch-67

    His “pragmatism” appears ultimately to be literally a “bespoke” Apartheid infrastructure in the Occupied Territories with tunnels bypasses etc but with the thieves retaining the real quality tailored bits like principal water resources and best agricultural land.So more of the same but with bells and other nice decorations to appease the International Community and what little there remains of the so called Israeli conscience.

    Listen to and watch him at:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pUU-HzPd1Y

    He looks and sounds like an animated and seriously confused 10 year trying to convince his parents that there is no need for him to do his homework. He keeps tripping over his 22`s and his 67`s.

    Speaking of parentage . His parents emigrated to Israel (their “ancient historical homeland”) from the US in 1973 and he was born there in 1974. Worth noting that his mother converted from Catholicism to Judaism so that technically makes her non – Jewish and in turn him non – Jewish ? Then again perhaps having been a Catholic she has a sort of second claim to immigration fall back status since that is where her ancient Christian forebears sprang from you know the ones who were also persecuted by those nasty Romans.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/world/middleeast/a-best-selling-israeli-philosopher-examines-his-countrys-inner-conflict.html

    Watching the footage I had the sense that Micah with his constant twisting and turning desperately needed to go to the bathroom throughout but managed to hold it in. Mind you he did spew a fair amount of you know what. He also appears to have missed out on kippah retention theory and training as his version was constantly slipping from his dome.

  9. annie
    annie
    November 6, 2018, 1:29 pm

    like an old beater it sounds like the old hasbara just got a new makeover, a shiny paint job and an engine overhaul. a little spit and polish and it’s running like new. maybe something israelis can cling onto, but i don’t think this is going to fly.

    not much “new” i can detect. even the idea israel should unilaterally cement the idea of palestinians accepting permanent occupation is not new. that there is no occupation is not new. these are all feel good things israelis want to hear to assuage their guilt and greed. it’s not surprising it’s popular in israel. it’s the same ol junker they’ve loved for so long.

    thanks for the review joel!

Leave a Reply