Trending Topics:

No one wants to ‘destroy Israel’ (Or why the last Zionist defense rests on lies and misstatements)

Activism
on 92 Comments

As support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) in the world rises, so does the level of hysteria among Zionism supporters, and they have to fall back on lies and misleading statements. Take, for instance, the attempt by Republican lawmakers to cram an anti-BDS bill down the throats of Congress.  Following the line of the government of Israel, BDS is portrayed as a terrible monster whose goal is to destroy, to kill, and cause to perish all Israelis, both young and old, little children and women.

How do you make the public believe that? You deceive the public, knowing full well that no one would have the stamina to cut through the web of lies.

So here’s an attempt at doing just that.

The main claim by supporters of Zionism is that BDS is “interested in destroying the State of Israel as a Jewish State.” We’ll get to the end of that statement soon enough – but few people do. They hear “destroying the state of Israel” and stop there.

Is the goal of the BDS movement “the destruction of the State of Israel”? The answer is negative. The destruction of a state invariably entails a massive bloodshed amongst its residents. The goal of the BDS movement is peaceful regime change: changing the Zionist regime, as it is by definition unjust. The goal is one state, a democratic one, in which all people living under the Zionist regime participate as equal: Israeli Jews, Israeli Palestinians, East Jerusalemite Palestinians, Palestinians of the West Bank and Palestinians living in Gaza. As Israel is already ruling all of Mandatory Palestine, and has been ruling it for over 50 years; and as the Zionist regime is an apartheid regime and by essence must be so, it is a moral duty to bring it down.

No Israeli will have to die, and few will have to move. All they will have to do is extend to Palestinians the rights and privileges they hold, first and foremost the franchise.

That’s what “destroying the State of Israel as a State of the Jewish People” means. Which is precisely why hasbaristas want you to think of the first clause of the sentence, and not the second one.

Wait a second! I can hear the Zionist propagandists cry. You are denying the right of the Jews to a state of their own! This is anti-Semitism!

And, at first glance, they seem to have a point. If you oppose Jewish self-determination, why are singling out Jewish self-determination?

Because, once again, the propagandists are playing fast and loose with terminology. The right to self-determination is for a people living in their homeland.  The Jews never had any. They were always, as far as history reaches, a diaspora people. Even during the period of the Second Temple, most Jews lived outside of Palestine (hell, the Jewish community in Egypt is more ancient than the Jewish community in Jerusalem). No people have the right to self-determination in another people’s homeland. Yet this is precisely what happened in Israel, and this is precisely what Zionists are defending: a country based, and that continues to base itself on, denial of the rights of others.

So, while you may support the ideal right of Jews to a state of their own (and it’s instructive to note the use of the term “state”: not “homeland” or “country,” but “state”: the naked power of government), the problem anti-Zionists have is not with the abstract idea of a Jewish homeland, but with the concrete manifestation, which is necessarily oppressive, of such a state.

Necessarily? Yes, because this state has existed for 70 years, and has always been oppressive. Much as we wouldn’t recognize Boer self-determination in South Africa as long as it was dependent on the subjugation of millions of people, we should reject Jewish self-determination if it has to rely on the subjugation of others. This isn’t anti-Semitism; this is opposition to manifest injustice, the peculiar institution of a “Jewish State” which can rule over millions without giving them basic rights.

One further notes that Israel is a state most Jews don’t want. They have had 70 years to emigrate to it, and unless they were in extremis, they declined to do so. A Jewish state might have been built – perhaps, should have been built – in Eastern Europe or in parts of conquered Germany after the Second World War; but that is alternate history. Actual history is that the Palestinians had to pay, and continue to pay, the price of the Jewish aspiration for sovereignty. This injustice must not be allowed to continue.

Will Palestinians turn to love Israeli Jews, with the change of the Zionist regime into an equal one? Not likely. Do they love them now? Does it even make sense for a conquered people to love its conquerors?

Will the situation be better? Yes, because Palestinians will be able, for the first time, to deal with Israeli Jews as equals.

Are there other options? Yes. The first and most likely is the continuance of the apartheid regime, which will become even stricter. This will likely lead to radicalization. Israelis react nowadays with mass hysteria at any attempt of Palestinian uprising. Every stabbing of an IDF soldier is portrayed as a national catastrophe. Israel does not pay a fair price for the occupation – and it is very sensitive to the idea of any sort of payment. Better, therefore, that it should pay with treasure, not blood. Boycott, after all, is non-violent.

The other option is the shade of the two state solution. This used to be an option, albeit a very problematic one, but for the past decade and more it was a slogan meant to legitimize the creeping annexation of the West Bank.

So we can continue playing the blood games: the fantasy still lurking in the minds of some Palestinians about a heroic armed struggle; the reality of an oppressive regime which, every night, invades the homes of hundreds of people, a regime haunted by its own fantasy about the Palestinians melting away… Or we can try another road.

Are there no anti-Semites among BDS supporters? I am certain there are, and there are brave people exposing them.

But are there no racists among Israeli ministers? Isn’t the official policy of Israel that Palestinians will never enjoy their full rights, including their right to self-determination? On what is this concept based, if not on an idea of Jewish supremacy? Is denying Palestinian rights less racist than denying Jewish rights?

At the end of all these debates, the concept that Jews enjoy more rights than Palestinians – including the right to security, which Israel is violating at any given moment – is based on the idea that Palestinians are lesser human beings.

Which is why BDS is so shocking to Zionists: it raises the radical concept that Palestinians are not mere victims of history, but human beings. Fully human. And it reminds us that these are human beings under 51 years of enduring oppression – and that the oppressors, Golyat der nebechinder (feckless Goliath), see themselves as the victims.

Happily, this concept is losing its grip on the world’s mind. May we see the destruction of the Zionist regime – not the Israeli state, but the Zionist regime – in our living years.

 

 

 

 

Yossi Gurvitz

Yossi Gurvitz is a journalist and a blogger, and has covered the occupation extensively.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

92 Responses

  1. eljay on January 20, 2019, 6:19 pm

    Zionism:

    … the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. …

    IOW: Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

    The religion-based identity of Jewish does not grant to those who choose to hold it the right:
    – to be supremacists;
    – to have a supremacist state; or
    – to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

    Zionists argue that Jews are entitled to all three.

    Zionists – like all supremacists – are truly hateful and immoral people.

    • Mayhem on January 20, 2019, 7:51 pm

      @eljay, so you can say “Zionists – like all supremacists – are truly hateful and immoral people” but there would be yells of Islamophobia if someone says all Muslims hate Jews.
      Once again MW demonstrates wilful double standards.

      • Citizen on January 21, 2019, 4:41 am

        Once again, Mayhem conflates Zionists with all Jews in the world. This intentional abuse of words, a clear substitution of words, is an insult to anyone aware of the facts. It requires a blind ideology, as blind as the ideology that made Greenspan assume those who caused the debacle resulting in the US bailout of 2007-08 would regulate themselves in the best interests of all impacted by their conduct. Only someone ignorant of factual history or intentionally attempting to deceive, would conflate all Germans with Nazism. There was, as mere examples, the White Rose, the attempts on Hitler’s life, and the fact that, although there has been an American Nazi branch, when America went to war against Hitler, the largest ethnic contingent in America’s military were of German extraction, most especially in the volunteer ranks at onset.

      • Eva Smagacz on January 21, 2019, 5:01 am

        Mayhem,

        you said:
        “there would be yells of Islamophobia if someone says all Muslims hate Jews”

        That is a sleight of hand right here.

        You are trying to compare some , and definitely not all, Jews (only zionists who indeed are supremacists) to all Muslims .
        196/212
        From insincere premise you then derive misleading conclusion:

        “MW demonstrates wilful double standards”

      • eljay on January 21, 2019, 7:48 am

        || Mayhem: @eljay, so you can say “Zionists – like all supremacists – are truly hateful and immoral people” but there would be yells of Islamophobia if someone says all Muslims hate Jews.
        Once again MW demonstrates wilful double standards. ||

        No double standards here – just you engaging in typical anti-Semitic conflation of all Jews with Zionism and its supremacist “Jewish State” project.

        Once again Mayhem demonstrates wilful Zionist dishonesty.

    • Misterioso on January 21, 2019, 9:24 am

      @eljay,

      Well said!!

      Zionism: “the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. … ”

      To state the screaming obvious, pure bullcrap!!
      Bottom line: Zionists had the same right to a “homeland” in Palestine as Irish Catholics and Mexican atheists, i.e., none whatsoever.

      Zionism is a hoax; Zionism is theft; Zionism is racism; Zionism is doomed.

      Zionism defined:
      https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-farm-terror-palestinian-vineyard-annihilated-with-chainsaws-1.6115888?utm_term=20180524-18%3A53&utm_campaign=Gideon+Levy&utm_medium=email&writerAlerts=true&utm_source=smartfocus&utm_content=www.haaretz.com%2Fisrael-news%2F1.6115888

      “A Palestinian Vineyard Annihilated With Chainsaws, With a Chilling Message in Hebrew. Vandals slashed hundreds of mature grape plants near Hebron, and the odds that the culprits will be caught are slim.” By Gideon Levy and Alex Levac. May 24/18 – Haaretz.

      EXCERPT:
      “The grapes are shriveled. The vineyard is dead. Reduced to a large, dried-out, yellowing stain in the heart of the verdant region along Highway 60 where the road runs past the town of Halhoul, north of Hebron. The ‘yellow wind’ that David Grossman wrote about 30 years ago is a dying vineyard here. Two plots of land, with hundreds of vines that were slashed, their stems and shoots sawed off – and within a week everything here had withered and died.

      “This is a particularly horrible sight because all the damage was wrought by the hand of man. A wicked, loathsome hand that hates not only Arabs but despises the land itself. In fact, we can assume that it wasn’t just one individual who raided and destroyed this vineyard late Tuesday night last week. To saw off that many plants in such a short time requires a few pairs of nasty hands. And someone also had to smear the threatening words in Hebrew on a rock: ‘We will reach everywhere.’ All before first light illuminated the dark deed.

      “When dawn broke, the owner of the vineyard, Dr. Haitham Jahshan, a hematologist, arrived and couldn’t believe his eyes. His vines had been ravaged. First he saw one sawed trunk, then another and another – a sea of butchered vines, whose grapes were grown to be eaten, not for wine – until the full scale of the calamity hit home.”

  2. Tom Suarez on January 20, 2019, 7:32 pm

    Thank you, Mr. Gurvitz. Two comments…
    1. If we are going to end the Zionist state, IMO we need to stop referring to “51 years of enduring oppression”. Full-fledged Zionist/Israeli oppression began in 1948 (and Zionist oppression, arguably, began decades earlier). Rewinding to 1966 would solve absolutely nothing, and dating the “enduring oppression” to 1967 safeguards the core creation myth of the Israeli state.
    2. You say that the goal of BDS is not “the destruction of the State of Israel”, as “the destruction of a state invariably entails a massive bloodshed amongst its residents.” Really? A nation-state is a political entity. The “destruction of a state” in no way necessitates violence. But if we are not after the “destruction” of this nation-state (the entity, not the people currently under it), then what is the definition of “Israel” the nation-state? Can a non-Zionist, democratic, secular state, in which everyone is an equal citizen, still “be” that failed settler-colonial experiment?

    • RoHa on January 20, 2019, 8:34 pm

      “The “destruction of a state” in no way necessitates violence.”

      Indeed. The destruction of Czechoslovakia in 1993 involved no violence that I noticed. The destruction of East Germany was similarly peaceful.

  3. Bumblebye on January 20, 2019, 7:54 pm

    Israel is presently bombing Damascus again.
    They fly over Lebanon, release their bombs and turn back. And they didn’t give a damn about the passenger jet coming in to land.
    They are trying to get Russia and US up against each other.
    Totally insane.

    • Citizen on January 21, 2019, 4:47 am

      John Bolton lead’s the neocon crusade? There’ s an insane ideology under his walrus mustache–how did he get that way? Of all possibilities, why did Trump pick the most glaring war monger for that position, especially since Trump campaigned promising to end the fraudulent and catastrophic regime-change (PNAC) agenda?

      • Misterioso on January 21, 2019, 9:30 am

        @Citizen

        “,,,why did Trump pick the most glaring war monger for that position…”

        Because his puppet and pay master, Sheldon Adelson, requested Bolton be given the position.

      • echinococcus on January 21, 2019, 12:14 pm

        Misterioso,

        Yes, Sugardaddies rule the “two” Parties of the single party and do as they wish. More importantly, the Trump administration never was what the guy’s voters thought or, for the more destitute of reason among them, they hoped to get. And won’t be.

    • Misterioso on January 21, 2019, 9:52 am

      @bumblebye

      Netanyahu and his gang of murderous, thieving thugs are in panic mode and need to strike out. “Israel’s” worldwide image is in free fall. Americans, especially youth, including Jews, are increasingly seeing “Israel” for the monster it is. Zionism is rotting within. Emigration of Jews is soaring while immigration plummets.

  4. Nathan on January 20, 2019, 8:09 pm

    Mr Gurvitz tells us that “the goal is one state, a democratic one…” However, whenever I read a BDS website, I learn that “the BDS movement does not advocate for a particular solution to the conflict and does not call for either a ‘one state solution’ or a ‘two state solution’.” (See https://bdsmovement.net/faqs#collapse16233 ).

    At first glimpse, it would seem that there is a contradiction between the goals of the movement as understood by Mr Gurvitz and the goals of the movement as presented in the website that I came across. However, at second thought, there isn’t a contradiction at all. Neither Mr Gurvitz nor the BDS website has stated that the issue at hand is a solution to the conflict. Mr Gurvitz doesn’t even use the term “solution” in the entire article; and the BDS website does not call for a one-state or a two-state solution. It doesn’t call for a solution, period. No one promises that meeting the demands of the BDS Movement would mean that the conflict would come to its end (and it would be solved).

    Propaganda is tricky business. The propagandist has to make a statement that is understood by the wider public as being fair and reasonable, but at the same time this statement cannot make a promise that will anger those who are already committed to the ideology. So, by saying that the movement doesn’t call for a one-state solution or a two-state solution, one leaves the impression on the wider public that the issue at hand is some sort of a solution to the conflict (although it’s not yet clear right now which solution it should be). But, in reality, those committed to the struggle understand that no solution is being offered.

    It would be a breath of fresh air to hear that the issue at hand is solving the conflict. Sadly, the anti-Israel crowd doesn’t envision a solution. It aspires to achieve victory, to defeat Israel. Since Israel manages to handle the conflict very well, it seems that those who can’t propose a solution will have to continue to live with the consequences of an unresolved and endless conflict (although, admittedly, their propaganda is brilliant).

    • Jackdaw on January 21, 2019, 3:16 am

      @Nathan

      It’s called a zero-sum game.

      • Mooser on January 21, 2019, 12:06 pm

        “It’s called a zero-sum game.” “Jackdaw”

        Well “Jackdaw” if the sum adds up to zero, try playing the percentages.

    • Tom Suarez on January 21, 2019, 3:46 am

      Hello Nathan, you refer to the “propaganda” of the issue, yet you keep repeating the core word of the propaganda: “conflict”.*
      This is not, and has never been, a conflict, but Israel loves the word, because it creates a cloud of obfuscation to “explain” why it continues. Imagine that I attack you, lock half your family in the closet and subjugate the rest, and then explain to the world that you & I are having a “conflict”, i.e., a disagreement…
      (*OED, “a serious disagreement or argument, typically a protracted one.”)

      • Nathan on January 21, 2019, 9:13 am

        Tom Suarez – Everyone refers to the conflict as a “conflict”, and everyone includes the Jews and the Arabs, the UN and the entire diplomatic world. Actually, your insistence that it is not a conflict – that’s propaganda. Your intention is to free the one side of the conflict from having to negotiate, make proposals and to compromise (and to agree to an end-of-conflict scenario). Actually, if you could read the Arabic-language, you’d see that it’s called al-kifah al-musallah (the armed struggle). They’re at war, and it’s not a secret at all. It can’t be that you haven’t noticed plethora of articles that analyze the conflict. You don’t agree that a deal be reached, because any agreed settlement would allow for the continued existence of Israel. And here is the real tragedy: pro-Palestinian activism is in reality just anti-Israel activism. No one real cares how long the hopeless struggle goes on and on. The only thing that matters is the obsession with the destruction of Israel.

      • Tom Suarez on January 21, 2019, 9:46 am

        Hello Nathan,
        As regards “everyone” agrees with you, well, no… and even if that were the case, my reasoning would still stand or fall on its merits, not on a poll of how many people agree.
        Of course a people’s resistance against ethnic cleansing and repression is a “struggle”, whether armed or otherwise. What’s the contradiction? If I’m big and you’re weak, and I attack you, your fighting back is a struggle. If you call this a “conflict” you need to change the definition of the word.
        Indeed many commentators make this point, as well as such organizations as an American Archeological Association committee. Their report starts off right up front by dismissing the word “conflict” as being something it is not.

      • eljay on January 21, 2019, 9:58 am

        || Nathan: … And here is the real tragedy: pro-Palestinian activism is in reality just anti-Israel activism. No one real cares how long the hopeless struggle goes on and on. The only thing that matters is the obsession with the destruction of Israel. ||

        Equally tragic: Pro-Israel activism is in reality just pro-Zionist activism. Not a single Zionist cares about justice, accountability and equality in I-P. The only thing that matters is the obsession with Jewish / “Jewish State” supremacism in as much as possible of geographic Palestine.

      • Talkback on January 21, 2019, 2:24 pm

        Tom Suarez: “This is not, and has never been, a conflict, but Israel loves the word, because it creates a cloud of obfuscation to “explain” why it continues.”

        It’s fake symmetry. It’s like claiming that perpetrator and its victim have a “conflict”. Or when Israel and Palestinians “clash” at the border and somehow Palestinians “die”.

      • Talkback on January 21, 2019, 2:33 pm

        Nathan: “Your intention is to free the one side of the conflict from having to negotiate, make proposals and to compromise (and to agree to an end-of-conflict scenario).”

        All that Palestinians want is to see their rights restored. All that Israeli Jews want is to violate them eternally. What proposal is their to make? What compromise? What can Israel actually offer what is not allready demanded by international and human rights law? What the oppressor wants is not peace as the result of justive, but peaceful subjugation.

        So spare us your fake symmetry.

      • Talkback on January 21, 2019, 3:26 pm

        Nathan: “And here is the real tragedy: pro-Palestinian activism is in reality just anti-Israel activism.”

        And here is the real tragedy: pro oppressed activism is in reality just anti-oppressor activism.
        You are a genious, Nathan! ROFL.

        (Just another example of your fake symmetry.)

      • MHughes976 on January 21, 2019, 4:33 pm

        I don’t mind calling these events a conflict, very one sided and with the side that is unjust and in the wrong so far massively winning. That is because I am in disagreement with Zionism, which I understand as the belief that people who are Jewish, and they only, have an inherent right, now commonly called birthright, to a share of sovereignty in the Holy Land, others having a share only by the grace and generosity of the true heirs. This is a false principle.

      • MHughes976 on January 21, 2019, 4:39 pm

        If there can be successful negotiation, let it happen. I think that the first step should be a statement from both – or all – sides of what they would consider a fair and final settlement to be like.

      • RoHa on January 21, 2019, 7:00 pm

        “Your intention is to free the one side of the conflict from having to negotiate, make proposals and to compromise (and to agree to an end-of-conflict scenario). ”

        So you think Tom is advocating equality between the Palestinians and the Israeli Zionists?

        The Israeli Zionists do not negotiate, make proposals, or compromise.

      • oldgeezer on January 22, 2019, 10:25 am

        @nathan
        “Your intention is to free the one side of the conflict from having to negotiate, make proposals and to compromise (and to agree to an end-of-conflict scenario). ”

        The only side which has refused to compromise and agree to an actual end to this crime against humanity is the Israeli side. Any proposal ever proposed involves legitimizing Israeli theft to some extent. That in and of itself is morally wrong. Israel needs to pay a price for it’s decades long crime. At the very least that price should be Israel not being allowed to retain any of the territory it has stolen.

        The Palestinians have offered land, restricted right of return, even restrictions on any military force they might have in the future.

        Israel has offered other than ever changing demands in order to avoid any peace.

      • eljay on January 22, 2019, 10:43 am

        || oldgeezer: … The only side which has refused to compromise and agree to an actual end to this crime against humanity is the Israeli side. … ||

        Nonsense, oldgeezer. Israel has repeatedly offered “peace” and in return asked only to:
        – keep as much as possible of what it has stolen, occupied and colonized;
        – remain a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”;
        – be absolved of its obligations under international law; and
        – be absolved of responsibility and accountability for past and on-going (war) crimes committed.

        To expect Israel to offer even more and receive nothing more in return is, well, anti-Semitic. And may even “Jew hatred”.

      • oldgeezer on January 22, 2019, 11:54 am

        @eljay

        lol no doubt it is a/s. Anything which doesn’t recognize the zionist right to do whatever they want is a/s.

        I mean how can it be self determination if you aren’t permitted to ride roughshod over all rights of others and exempt yourselves from the laws and norms that bind us all.

      • eljay on January 22, 2019, 11:59 am

        || oldgeezer: @eljay

        lol no doubt it is a/s. Anything which doesn’t recognize the zionist right to do whatever they want is a/s.

        I mean how can it be self determination if you aren’t permitted to ride roughshod over all rights of others and exempt yourselves from the laws and norms that bind us all. ||

        I’m glad you understand.  ;-)

    • btbLondon on January 21, 2019, 8:53 am

      “Israel manages to handle the conflict very well,”. Really. Is a police terror state on the West Bank the sort of managing you are happy with. Is constant shooting of unarmed civilians on the Gaza border good management?

      The sort of management they reach in Business Schools is hardly enlightened but it is a long way from this.

    • Talkback on January 21, 2019, 2:34 pm

      Nathan: “It doesn’t call for a solution, period.”

      Sure, calling for equality and justice is definetly not a solution for supremacist criminals.

  5. mondonut on January 20, 2019, 8:10 pm

    What a ridiculous straw man argument. The only conceivable destruction of a state involves massive bloodshed? Which incidentally, no attempt was made to disprove. As if “regime” change could be accomplished without bloodshed.

    The goal if BDS, of of most Palestinian supporters, including the vast majority of commentators here – is the elimination of the state of Israel in its entirety. That is indisputable. See how easy that is? Simply change destruction to elimination and it all becomes entirely correct.

    • Citizen on January 21, 2019, 5:01 am

      The usual historical analogy BDS spokes use to describe their boycott goal is the elimination of Jim Crow in America and elimination of the apartheid regime in South Africa. Last I looked, both states still exist.

      • mondonut on January 21, 2019, 11:24 am

        @Citizen, The usual historical analogy…

        Historical analogies are not needed to understand BDS, simply look at their 3 stated goals. The first is flat out racist and the other two are about Israel, not Palestine.

      • eljay on January 21, 2019, 11:45 am

        || mondonut: … Historical analogies are not needed to understand BDS, simply look at their 3 stated goals. The first is flat out racist and the other two are about Israel, not Palestine. ||

        BDS:

        … Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, the BDS call urges action to pressure Israel to comply with international law by:

        1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
        International law recognises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Syrian Golan Heights as occupied by Israel.

        2. Granting Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel their right to full equality

        3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194 …

        Yup, nothing says “racist” like a demand to end colonialism, to respect human rights and international laws and to uphold equality.

      • mondonut on January 21, 2019, 12:28 pm

        @eljay Yup, nothing says “racist” like a demand to end colonialism

        Yup, nothing says racist like claiming that land itself is assigned a racial group.

      • oldgeezer on January 21, 2019, 1:44 pm

        @mondonut
        “Yup, nothing says racist like claiming that land itself is assigned a racial group.”

        zionism would never make such a claim. Israel would never make such a claim.

        uh huh

      • eljay on January 21, 2019, 1:55 pm

        || mondonut: @eljay Yup, nothing says “racist” like a demand to end colonialism

        Yup, nothing says racist like claiming that land itself is assigned a racial group. ||

        1. Thank you for confirming that Zionists are racist for claiming that geographic Palestine is the “Land of Israel” and that it belongs…
        – not to all people living in and up to n-generations removed from the region; but
        – to Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

        2. There’s nothing racist with demanding that Israel end its military occupation and colonization of non-Israeli territory.

      • Talkback on January 21, 2019, 2:37 pm

        mondonut: “Yup, nothing says racist like claiming that land itself is assigned a racial group.”

        Yep. “Jewish state” for example.

    • eljay on January 21, 2019, 8:15 am

      || mondonut: … The goal if BDS, of of most Palestinian supporters, including the vast majority of commentators here – is the elimination of the state of Israel in its entirety. That is indisputable. See how easy that is? … ||

      You’re absolutely right: Not all Palestinian supporters desire the elimination of the state of Israel in its entirety. Some – like me – desire to see it reformed into a secular and democratic state:
      – of and for all people living in and up to n-generations removed from its / Partition borders;
      – that respects human rights and international laws (incl. RoR); and
      – that accepts responsibility and accountability for its past and on-going (war) crimes.

      By contrast, every single Zionist desires Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine and willingly engages in, supports and/or defends some amount of “necessary evil” to maintain it.

      • mondonut on January 21, 2019, 11:17 am

        @eljay. Some – like me – desire to see it reformed into a secular and democratic state:

        Disingenuous at best. And I have no idea what this n-generations nonsense is that you peddle, but I suspect it has to do with believing that all self-identified Palestinians should be permitted entry into Israel. But at the end of the day, what you want is no different. A majority Arab state with a different name, different flag, different language, different holidays, different land owners, different politicians and different laws.

        You may want to act that you have some moral high ground by pretending your prescription is merely reform, but that is patently ridiculous.

      • Mooser on January 21, 2019, 12:08 pm

        “And I have no idea what this n-generations”{

        Try reading “n” as ‘number of’.

      • eljay on January 21, 2019, 12:18 pm

        || mondonut: @eljay. Some – like me – desire to see it reformed into a secular and democratic state:

        Disingenuous at best. … ||

        Completely sincere.

        || … And I have no idea what this n-generations nonsense is … ||

        Sure you do. But it disagrees with your supremacist beliefs.

        || … at the end of the day, what you want is no different. A majority Arab state … ||

        No, I want a secular and democratic and law-abiding Israeli state. And I want a secular and democratic and law-abiding Palestinian state next to it. What the respective citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees of those states decide democratically to do with their states (keep them separate? unite them?) is up to them.

        || .. You may want to act that you have some moral high ground by pretending your prescription is merely reform, but that is patently ridiculous. ||

        I believe in justice, accountability and equality (JAE), universally and consistently applied.
        I’m not acting.

        You may also believe in JAE but only as long as it does not interfere with Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.
        You are a hypocrite.

      • RoHa on January 21, 2019, 7:05 pm

        Eljay, far too sensible.

        Try again.

    • Talkback on January 21, 2019, 3:23 pm

      mondonut: “The goal if BDS, of of most Palestinian supporters, including the vast majority of commentators here – is the elimination of the state of Israel in its entirety. That is indisputable. ”

      Really? That’s aweseome! Who wouldn’t want to end an Apartheid regime? It’s moral and humane. It would be suspicious and could be even construed as hatred against the Afrikaaners, if we had only wanted this to happen to South Africa, right?

  6. RoHa on January 20, 2019, 8:59 pm

    “Number of countries by religion”

    How many of those countries officially proclaim themselves to be Christian states, and legislate that right to exercise national self-determination in the state is unique to the Christian people?

    (We do know that one of them elevates rabbis to the House of Lords.)

    And since we are counting countries by religion, how many Sikh states are there? How many Baha’i or Tenrikyo states? How many Cao Dai states?

  7. brent on January 21, 2019, 12:47 am

    In my judgment, the single most constructive contribution towards making lemonade from this tragic situation would be a campaign for civil rights by Palestinian citizens of Israel. It could suck the oxygen from Israel’s sense of victimization and self-defense arguments. It could build a bridge to humanist Jews, influence the analysis of average Americans and change the politics.

  8. Jackdaw on January 21, 2019, 3:05 am

    I don’t remember Jews and Arabs living peacefully when Palestine was a ‘state’ under British control.

    How naive and uninformed Yossi is.
    This ‘One State’ idyl is a naive fantasy.
    One hard jolt to the State, and the citizens will revert to sectarianism same as happened in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yugoslavia.

    Please.

    Two States and one big fence. That’s the only answer.

    • Talkback on January 21, 2019, 2:52 pm

      Jackdaw: “I don’t remember Jews and Arabs living peacefully when Palestine was a ‘state’ under British control”

      Neither do I. Maybe it has to do with the fact that it only was under British control, because Jewish foreigners wanted to take it over and get rid of Nonjews.

      Jackdaw: “Two States and one big fence. That’s the only answer.”

      Ok. But do you think that Jews will finally accept that Palestinians get 80% and all of Jerusalem and that Jews should be demilitarized? You know their violent history in Palestine.

  9. Jackdaw on January 21, 2019, 3:26 am

    “No one wants to destroy Israel”.

    Iran:’ We are ready for a war that will lead to the destruction of Israel’.

    https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Iran-We-are-ready-for-a-war-that-will-lead-to-the-destruction-of-Israel-578108

    Yossi needs to leave the echo chamber now and than.

    • annie on January 21, 2019, 7:17 am

      no, that’s not what they said https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46941717#

      “fully ready and impatient to confront the Zionist regime and eliminate it from the earth”

      maybe you can’t distinguish between a regime and a country. no worries, they are just threatening regime change. can you imagine netanyahu getting qaddafi treatment? yuk, i don’t like gore.

      • Jackdaw on January 21, 2019, 7:46 am

        Iran doesn’t want to destroy the land and all the people within. Iran doesn’t want to destroy al Quds. Iran just wants to throw out all Jews unwillingly to accept dhimmitude.

      • catalan on January 21, 2019, 9:41 am

        “can you imagine netanyahu getting qaddafi treatment? yuk, i don’t like gore.”
        He would get a worse treatment of Israel ever loses a war. However, given that the boycott of Pepsi and Starbucks is the main threat to the Israeli Navy and Air Force, I don’t think he is too worried. Let’s face it, the threats to Israel are mostly shouts in the “blogosphere”.

      • gamal on January 21, 2019, 9:49 am

        “dhimmitude”

        this term emerged from the work of Bat Ye’or, The Dhimmi, for those of you interested there is a very brief review by one Vera Basch Moreen of West Hartford, Connecticut which starts with the striking sentence

        “It is seldom these days (1986) that scholars have the opportunity to encounter a book that illustrates practically all of the fallacies of the professional historian. The Dhimmi of Y. Masriya is such a book”

        from Middle East Bulletin Vol.20 No.1 (july 1986 p. 62-64), it would be superfluous to suggest perusing the works of al-Subkhi or al-Sharahksi, or probably anything but you could if you so wished.

      • Jackdaw on January 21, 2019, 10:48 am

        @gamal

        My family had the misfortune of living under the Muslim rule of Jerusalem in the 19th century.

        My family suffered beatings and murder, BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWS.

        Vera Basch Morren can read and write about history. My family lived it and would have remained dhimmis hadn’t European diplomats not intervened and protected them with European passports.

        Right Gamal?

      • gamal on January 21, 2019, 12:45 pm

        “Right Gamal?”

        Since you mention the capitulations perhaps interested parties would like to consult say

        Humanitarian Intervention in the Long 19th Century by Alexis Heraclides and Ada Dialla, Manchester University Press 2015

        “would have remained dhimmis hadn’t European diplomats not intervened and protected them with European passports”

        you are just recycling racist propaganda anyone in any doubt about the vicious racism of the European powers could consult sections 2: origins of the idea of humanitarian intervention : Just War Against Tyranny and 3 Eurocentrism ‘civilization’ and the ‘barbarians’ in the above book.

      • Talkback on January 21, 2019, 3:10 pm

        Jackdaw: “Iran doesn’t want to destroy the land and all the people within.”

        Of course not, they are not Zionists.

        Jackdaw: “Iran just wants to throw out all Jews unwillingly to accept dhimmitude.”

        Is that similar to how Nonjews are treated in Israel?

        Jackdaw: “My family had the misfortune of living under the Muslim rule of Jerusalem in the 19th century.

        My family suffered beatings and murder, BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWS.”

        Where Jewish children tortured and shot, too? Cause it almost sounds like the misfortuned Nonjewish families that have been living under Jewish rule.

      • Jackdaw on January 22, 2019, 12:29 am

        @squawkback

        “Where Jewish children tortured and shot, too? Cause it almost sounds like the misfortuned ”

        My family’s children were poor, malnourished Yeshiva boys. They weren’t throwing stones at their neighbors, stabbing strangers or waiting for cameramen to arrive before going out and assaulting soldiers.

      • Jackdaw on January 22, 2019, 6:58 am

        @gamal

        “you are just recycling racist propaganda anyone in any doubt about the vicious racism of the European powers ”

        That’s right, only Europeans can be racist.

        BTW, maybe your books will explain why 19th century messianic Jews needed the protection of the European consuls in Jerusalem in the first place, if, the local Arabs and Ottoman’s were so kindhearted?

        *no answer from gamal *

      • Talkback on January 22, 2019, 8:42 am

        Jackdaw: “My family’s children were poor, malnourished Yeshiva boys. They weren’t throwing stones at their neighbors, stabbing strangers or waiting for cameramen to arrive before going out and assaulting soldiers.”

        Of course they weren’t, because we all know that Jews only torture and shoot Nonjewish children if they throw stones, stabb strangers or assault soldiers. That makes it kosher, right? How about expelling or dispossesing Nonjews? I bet that you have a perfect excuse for that, too.

        Jackdaw @ gamal: “BTW, maybe your books will explain why 19th century messianic Jews needed the protection of the European consuls in Jerusalem in the first place, if, the local Arabs and Ottoman’s were so kindhearted?”

        Good question. Which kind of protection do Palestinians need to not to be killed by Jewish kindness?

      • Jackdaw on January 23, 2019, 4:46 am

        @gamal

        Dhimmitude is a made up word, like Islamophobia. If thee is Islamophobia, then there is dhimmitude.

        BTW, did you even read Vera Basch’s two page review of Bat Yeor’s book?

        *no answer*

  10. Ossinev on January 21, 2019, 9:33 am

    @Nathan
    “Since Israel manages to handle the conflict very well”

    Hilarious sad idiotic self delusion. Most brutal colonising regimes believe that they are”handling the conflict” with the native population very well.

    • Mayhem on February 8, 2019, 7:30 pm

      @Ossinev, yes Israel is handling the conflict very well achieving economic growth and technological innovation that is bringing investors galore to its shores. No doubt this bothers you as all the efforts that you support to bring Israel to its knees are failing.

  11. Misterioso on January 21, 2019, 9:42 am

    Words of wisdom:

    https://www.mintpressnews.com/arguing-zionists-in-public-israel-palestine-necessity-debate-that-offends/253019/

    “Arguing with Zionists in public: The Necessity of a Debate that Offends and Appalls” by Miko Peled, mintprint news, Dec. 18/18

    London: “I came here hoping to see if the other side had any new arguments, any fresh things to say, but what I found out [is] that this gentleman has trotted out every single cliché the Zionists have in their bag and it is very depressing that this is all you have got.”

    “This short statement was made by Dr. Ghada Karmi, a Palestinian professor emeritus at Exeter University, at the end of a ninety-minute debate between myself and a member of a Zionist lobby group called the NW Friends of Israel. [Here is an excerpt from that debate.]”
    Why debate?

    “When Israel’s ambassador to the U.K., Mark Regev, recently went on a speaking tour of U.K. universities, he was received with protests that made it clear he was not welcome. In some cases, university entrances were actually blocked by students protesting. The universities themselves, however, had no issues with having the ambassador visit their campuses and speak to students. In other words, generally speaking, Israel and its representatives are not unwelcome and the state of Israel and Zionist spokespersons are generally welcome everywhere.

    “Therein lies the problem. Whereas representatives of groups and organizations that preach racism and exercise violence — neo-Nazis, skinheads, proponents of apartheid, or any other supremacist group — would be less than welcome and it is not likely they would be allowed a platform, Zionism and the state of Israel are still viewed as legitimate and their point of view is still permitted a platform in academic institutions, in the media, and elsewhere.

    “Although it is commonly thought by people who support the causes of justice and freedom in Palestine that we must boycott representatives of Israel and Zionism, if we wish to delegitimize Zionism and its agents, exposing them through debate in a public forum may in fact be a useful approach. The objective must be to dispel the myth that was promoted by the 1960 movie Exodus, which portrays Zionism and Israel as heroic and even romantic, and clearly demonstrate that Zionism is in fact an ideology that is racist, violent and has been destroying Palestine for over seven decades. That Israel, which was founded on Zionist ideology has been for seven decades engaging in a well-planned campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide and has been imposing an apartheid regime on the indigenous people of Palestine.

    “It may well be that a face-to-face debate makes the difference between the two sides more evident. In what may seem to be a paradox, the face-to-face encounter demonstrates that there is no room for dialogue or normalization and that there is no way to build a bridge between a racist, settler-colonial ideology that calls for the removal of a native people from their land, and the call for freedom, justice and equality.

    “The debate
    “The arguments that support Zionism and seek to legitimize the state of Israel seem to rely heavily on talking points that are used over and over and which portray the oppressed and occupied people of Palestine as untrustworthy villains. It is followed by examples that demonstrate how incapable Palestinians are of governing themselves and that they are dedicated to murdering Jews. These are very obvious, inaccurate, broad-stroke, racist characterizations of an entire people and they are repeated at every opportunity. ‘Look at the Palestinians,’ they say, and they point to the chaos in which they live, leaving out the root cause of the chaos, which is the state of Israel having destroyed their country.

    “The arguments that point out the racist nature of Zionism and Israel can be drawn from the very creation of the Zionist state and its definition as a Jewish state established on the ashes of Palestine. The fact is that Israel was able to establish itself only after an extensive campaign of ethnic cleansing — and the laws passed by the Israeli Knesset that made it impossible for the refugees to return and encouraged Jews from around the world to come and take their place.

    “There is a history now, which is more than seven decades long, that shows beyond any doubt that the state of Israel is a racist settler-colonial endeavor and that it resorts to violence at every opportunity, even though Palestinians have never had a military force, never had as much as a tank or a warplane. Israel has a history of violating international law on many levels, perhaps the most obvious being the abuses of Palestinian human rights. All of this is easy to demonstrate when placed face to face with the Zionists and their arguments.

    The aftermath
    “While no dialogue and no normalization is acceptable with people who hold or represent a racist ideology, and while no platform should be provided to them, when faced with a well-oiled machine of public relations as is the case with Zionism, a public forum may well be the right place to expose them. A public forum can be an opportunity to show that the question of Palestine is about a choice between racism and those who stand in opposition to racism. It is between violence and those who stand in opposition to violence. And it is about justice and those who stand in opposition to justice.

    “The old bag of tricks that was brought by agents of the Zionist propaganda machine, when set against the arguments for justice, freedom and equality will fail every time. Repeating this failure may well be how we delegitimize Israel and the ideology behind it, Zionism.

    ___________________________________________________________________________________

    Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of “The General’s Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine,” and “Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five.”

  12. Vera Gottlieb on January 21, 2019, 11:51 am

    The persecuted turning into the persecutors. I will continue boycotting israel any which way I can until this ends.

  13. bcg on January 21, 2019, 12:38 pm

    @Jackdaw: “My family suffered beatings and murder, BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWS.”

    So now you and your tribe has reversed the situation. Happy?

    Two states for two peoples would be a solution, but Israel is eating up the land dunam by dunam and placing settlements in places that make the idea of a Palestinian state a joke, and I’ve lost track of all the politicians in the current government who have declared there will be no Palestinian state ever. BECAUSE THEY ARE PALESTINIANS.

    • Jackdaw on January 23, 2019, 4:43 am

      Jews are not oppressing Palestinians because they are Palestinians.
      The oppression is a consequence of the 100 year war between Arabs and Jews.

      The Jews won Round 1.

      • Talkback on January 23, 2019, 9:23 am

        Jackdaw: “Jews are not oppressing Palestinians because they are Palestinians.”

        That’s true. Jews are oppresing Palestinians, because they are Nonjews.

        Jackdaw: “The oppression is a consequence of the 100 year war between Arabs and Jews.”

        It is a consequence of the 100 year war between natives and settlers which started with the Zioinst declaration of war against the natives of Palestine by publicly claiming that Jewish foreign settlers are going to take over Palestine to turn it into a Jewish state.

      • Mooser on January 23, 2019, 6:01 pm

        ” the 100 year war between Arabs and Jews. The Jews won Round 1.” “Jackdaw”

        And in just a few years, we will thoroughly outnumber the “Arabs”, and thus insure our lasting dominance.

  14. Jackdaw on January 23, 2019, 11:17 am

    Two peoples, two completely different cultures, that fools like Yossi believe can get along.

    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5451587,00.html

    When is Yossi going to leave his comfortable apartment in Tel Aviv and live among the Arabs for a while in Taibe or Qalkiyah.

    I should make for interesting reporting.

  15. Mooser on January 23, 2019, 3:23 pm

    “.Two peoples, two completely different cultures, that fools like Yossi believe can get along”

    How do people manage to get along with Jews in other places? Same culture clash, Jewish culture against the other culture.

    • Jackdaw on January 24, 2019, 12:34 pm

      “How do people manage to get along with Jews in other places? ”

      I don’t know. Ask the 6 million dead Jews of the Holocaust. Maybe they can answer your question.

      Better yet, ask your wife why the Jews of Kishinev couldn’t get along.

      • Mooser on January 24, 2019, 4:22 pm

        “I don’t know. Ask the 6 million dead Jews of the Holocaust. Maybe they can answer your question.”

        “Jackdaw” if you keep on stressing how dangerous it is to be a Jew, people might stop being Jews. That wouldn’t be good.

      • Jackdaw on January 25, 2019, 1:19 am

        “if you keep on stressing how dangerous it is to be a Jew, people might stop being Jews. That wouldn’t be good. ”

        Of course people stop being Jews for reasons other than fear.

        There are many snivelling, obsequious, cowardly Jews who suck up to gentiles just to get acceptance.

        Sounds like anyone we know?

      • Talkback on January 25, 2019, 10:48 am

        Jackdaw: “There are many snivelling, obsequious, cowardly Jews who suck up to gentiles just to get acceptance.

        Sounds like anyone we know?”

        It depends on what they are actually doing. Are they supporting international and human rights law, equality and condemning Apartheid? Is that what you are calling “sucking up to gentiles”? If so, what inhumane and antisemitic image about Jews as such do you need to spread?

      • Mooser on January 25, 2019, 1:46 pm

        “Of course people stop being Jews for reasons other than fear” “Jackdaw”

        Why, is their something wrong with Judaism?

      • eljay on January 25, 2019, 3:16 pm

        || Jackdaw: … Of course people stop being Jews for reasons other than fear.

        There are many snivelling, obsequious, cowardly Jews who suck up to gentiles just to get acceptance. … ||

        Is it official that “sucking up to gentiles” strips a Jew of his Jewish identity? Or is this just you once again being anti-Semitic and spewing “Jew hatred”?

      • RoHa on January 26, 2019, 1:33 am

        So both Mooser and Jackdaw agree! It’s official. Jews can stop being Jews.

        The sensible step, then, is for all of them to stop. There would be no more anti-Semitism , and no sense in maintaining a Jewish state.

      • Talkback on January 26, 2019, 3:57 am

        Jackdaw: “There are many snivelling, obsequious, cowardly Jews who suck up to gentiles just to get acceptance.”

        Yes, since Hertzl they are called “Zionists”. And they still keep sucking up to gentiles, because they know that Israel doesn’t stand a chance without them.

      • Mooser on January 26, 2019, 12:59 pm

        “The sensible step, then, is for all of them to stop.”

        I can’t do that. It would rob my poor wife of a convenient answer for the often-asked question “Why is he like that?”

        And what would my parents think?

      • eljay on January 26, 2019, 1:10 pm

        || Jackdaw: “How do people manage to get along with Jews in other places? ”

        I don’t know. Ask the 6 million dead Jews of the Holocaust. Maybe they can answer your question. … ||

        The 100% annihilated Amalekites certainly can’t.

      • RoHa on January 26, 2019, 10:37 pm

        Mooser, your wife should think herself lucky. My wife hasn’t got that convenient answer.

      • RoHa on January 26, 2019, 11:25 pm

        The best she can come up with is “He’s a philosopher”, but neither the law courts nor the general public will accept that excuse any more.

      • Mooser on January 27, 2019, 4:38 pm

        “Mooser, your wife should think herself lucky.”

        Many people say I should be a trophy husband.
        A man for all open seasons.

  16. wondering jew on January 23, 2019, 4:34 pm

    The headline which reflects Yossi Gurwitz’s chief assertion: “No one wants to destroy Israel” is false. All he has to do is read the comments section here at mw and though not everyone is of that school of thought, there is certainly more than one who seeks vast destruction and would not deny it, they would only assert that the Zionist (Jews) deserve it.

    Gurwitz’s assertion that no one will have to move is based upon the assumption that the BDS movement’s success will result in like minded Palestinians (like unto those who run the BDS movement) coming to power as a result of the new equality. On what does he base this? Why did Edward Said say he was worried about the results of Palestinian freedom (and its effects on Palestine’s minority Jews), while Mister Gurvitz is not at all worried. Certainly Edward Said’s worry did not stop him from rooting for equality, but at least he had the honesty to voice his worries. Why does Mister Gurvitz lack Dr. Said’s honesty?

    And a linguistic quibble: Yes, you are clever to have switched the weakling Samson with the weakling Goliath, Shimshon der nebechdiker (a Levi Eshkol reference). First it went over the heads of almost everyone here. And second the translation of feckless for nebechdiker seems poor: weak or pitiful is much more accurate (try Harkabi’s dictionary) and why did you write nebechinder, rather than nebechdiker? Is that the accurate German phrase replacing Eshkol’s Yiddish, I don’t know, but I am curious about the three aspects of the phrase: Goliath replacing Samson and the nebechinder replacing nebechdiker and the feckless translation.

    • Talkback on January 23, 2019, 5:57 pm

      wondering jew: “All he has to do is read the comments section here at mw and though not everyone is of that school of thought, there is certainly more than one who seeks vast destruction and would not deny it, they would only assert that the Zionist (Jews) deserve it.”

      Please quote one commenter that wants Israel “destroyed” instead of a regime change like in South Africa. And yes, Jews derserve the same regime change like the Afrikaaners deserved it.

    • amigo on January 23, 2019, 8:00 pm

      “The headline which reflects Yossi Gurwitz’s chief assertion: “No one wants to destroy Israel” is false.”Yonah Fredman aka Wondering Jew.

      The destruction of zionism is what most of the pro Palestinian people want but they don,t have to lift a finger when Israel and it,s apologists are doing a bang up job of destroying Israel.If that is the result of Zionist supremacy and greed then so be it.No skin off my nose.

      • Mooser on January 24, 2019, 4:35 pm

        “The headline which reflects Yossi Gurwitz’s chief assertion: “No one wants to destroy Israel” is false.” “WJ”

        Very true, “Yonah”. At the end of every regime like Zionism, complete destruction is much preferable to leaving reams of evidence. Why hang around to be indited? Why leave records and witnesses? It’s a “bust-out scheme”.

    • RoHa on January 24, 2019, 3:13 am

      What counts as destroying Israel?

      Cutting all the Jewish throats and reducing Tel Aviv to rubble?

      I don’t know of anyone who wants that.
      Not even me.

      Changing the current Israeli political structure to one which Eljay would approve of?

      Count me in.

      • Talkback on January 24, 2019, 1:43 pm

        RoHa: “I don’t know of anyone who wants that.”

        Exactly. It’s just another dishonest Zionist hyperbole to distract from a reasonable and just solution.

Leave a Reply