Trending Topics:

Michael Oren accuses ‘New Yorker’ of anti-Semitism for questioning Jewish right to move from US to West Bank

Media Analysis

This weekend everyone is talking about a revealing interview with Michael Oren by Isaac Chotiner in the New Yorker, titled, “Michael Oren cuts short a conversation about Israel.” The short version is that Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the U.S. and deputy prime minister, just blew himself up.

When Chotiner pressed Oren about the future of the two-state solution, Oren said Jews have an absolute right to settle in the West Bank as much as in Haifa, and Chotiner said, “You were born in New York . . . Where did you get that right?” Oren answered, “It’s my heritage for three thousand years.” Chotiner said, “You are saying that wherever they are living, they [Palestinians] have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York.”

Then Oren bridles and says the New Yorker is promoting “delegitimization” of the Jewish state. He hangs up the phone.

“The great thing about the Oren interview is that he’s being honest and the argument sucks so bad he can’t even have a conversation,” Scott Roth wrote on Twitter. “It’s glorious!”

We’ve got an excerpt of the interview below, but don’t forget that Oren was a high official in the Netanyahu government and these questions were entirely reasonable, indeed perfectly mundane, given Netanyahu’s destruction of the two-state solution, and yet he can’t take the heat. Why does he get so flustered? Because right-wing Zionists have been pampered in the mainstream American press for many years, the underlying religious-chauvinist assumptions of their ideology never sharply questioned. When Oren says “delegitimization,” he is accusing the New Yorker of endorsing anti-Semitism under international guidelines that are now embedded in anti-BDS legislation that one U.S. state after another is rushing to pass.

In finally asking these questions, the New Yorker inches closer to the understanding that Zionism really is settler-colonialism.

Isaac Chotiner, staff writer at the New Yorker.

Also, Oren understands Jewish Israeli society when he hits Chotiner with the truth that young Jewish Israelis are far to the right and disdain the two-state solution. This is the work that the New Yorker should have been doing years ago — revealing the intolerance and supremacism in Israeli society.

Here’s an excerpt from the interview:

Oren: We have the highest percentage, of any Western-style democracy, of the population under the age of thirty. That population does not remember the Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords—it remembers Israel’s withdrawal from territory, whether it be Lebanon or Gaza, in an effort to sort of jump-start peace, and not getting peace, getting thousands of rockets. This is the generation that came of age in the second intifada. If I went into an audience of people that you would call millennials, and I talked about the peace process and the two-state solution, people would look at me like I am crazy. Because this is where we get to the moral imperative: for them, the moral imperative is, if you are giving up territory, you are going to die. You are not going to get peace. The opposite of peace—you are going to get terror.

Q. Is that what annexing settlements and building more settlements is about? The safety and security of the Jewish people? [Or] it is being done because people are traditional and religious—

Oren: That’s my point. It’s not just security. It’s also ideology, it’s also belief. . . It is definitely our right. I think it is our incontrovertible right as Jews to live anywhere in our ancestral homeland. . . Anywhere. And a member of the Sioux nation has a right to live on Sioux-nation territory. These are our tribal lands. The cradle of our civilization.

Q. Just to be clear: You were born in New York, correct?

Oren: I was.

Q. So you think that you, as a Jewish person born in New York, have a right to be anywhere in Israel —

Oren: Absolutely. . .

Q. Where did you get that right?

Oren: It’s my heritage for three thousand years. . . I live in Jaffa. The same right I have to live in Jaffa I have in [the settlement] Beit El or Efrat, or in Hebron. Exact same right. Take away one right, the other right makes no sense. By the way, P.S., most of the lands of pre-1967 Israel are not even in the Bible. Haifa is not in the Bible; Tel Aviv is not in the Bible . . .

Q. You are saying there are Palestinians living in various areas of the West Bank right now. . . which may or may not at some point become a state. But you are saying that, wherever they are living, they have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York.

Oren: I didn’t say that. Don’t impute words to me I didn’t say.

Q. I’m sorry, I thought you just said that.

Oren: No, I did not say that in any way. Listen, I don’t think I want to continue this interview. I don’t think this is a constructive interview. You can do with it — I would like to request you withdraw it. I don’t think you are actually interested in anything I have to say. And that’s been my experience with the New Yorker all the time. You guys are just into delegitimization. You are not really interested. Why don’t we call it quits right here, and I will pull this interview? I am relying on you to do that, as a journalist. . .

Q. I am not going to take anything out of context.

Oren: Sure you are. You already have in the questions. Your questions are hostile, but they are not even informed hostile. You are not that good. So let’s just pull it, and we will call it quits, and please don’t call me again. Take care. [Hangs up.]

Notice the arrogance of Oren to expect the journalist to be professional and “pull this interview.” This is the same arrogance that drove Oren not to meet with J Street, a liberal Zionist group, when he was Israel’s ambassador here, but he got away with it because the rightwing American Jewish leadership went right along with that exclusion. Zionist extremists are cosseted.

A couple other points. Here is Oren saying why annexation is inevitable, at least of major portions of the West Bank, and no Israeli Jew of right mind supports a two-state solution.

Oren: [E]ven under the Obama Administration, the assumption was a swap, if you remember. And it was always assumed that Israel would annex the major settlement blocs but relinquish territories as compensation. That position is no longer tenable for the right part of the Israeli spectrum.

Q. Why is it no longer tenable?

Oren: The two-state solution, of which that formula was part, is no longer supported by anybody, not just to the center right but even in the center. You would have to go to the left to find anyone who supports the two-state solution.

And again reflect that Oren’s extremism has been perfectly acceptable in the U.S. discourse until now, among center-left Dems. Oren tweeted this extremism about Hamas a few days ago: “Hamas must go. Right after our holidays and Eurovision, Israel must evict Hamas from Gaza. The U.S. should back us militarily and diplomatically and, together with Arab states, commit to Gaza’s renewal. Peace in the region is impossible with Hamas in Gaza. Israel is ready to act.”

You’d think that would make Oren an outlier; it doesn’t. Even Peace Now says: “Once [Netanyahu’s new] government is in place, will it finally take serious action to end this ridiculous chain of disruptive clashes and get rid of Hamas?”

P.S. Chotiner’s interview is an interview, not a “conversation.” Journalists should stop using this word for all discussion. Conversation suggests two peers and an exchange. The interview is a very different construct, as Chotiner knows.

 

James North and Philip Weiss

Other posts by .


Posted In:

115 Responses

  1. bcg on May 12, 2019, 1:12 pm

    About this last point Oren made, ” Oren tweeted this extremism about Hamas a few days ago: “Hamas must go. Right after our holidays and Eurovision, Israel must evict Hamas from Gaza. “, we have some contradictory opinions –

    “The Israeli right is now openly saying it wants to keep Hamas in power…In the eyes of the right today, every Israeli patriot must wholeheartedly support the Hamas regime in Gaza. Leftist traitors, they say, support the possibility that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who rules over the West Bank, take control of the Gaza Strip, bringing Israel closer to the “pit of the two-state solution,” as right-wing pundit and former IDF Major-General Gershon Hacohen put it.”

    https://972mag.com/israeli-right-hamas-gaza-palestinians/141386/

    • Misterioso on May 13, 2019, 3:00 pm

      BREAKING NEWS!!

      Beyond words!! Once again, the Trump administration demonstrates it is a loyal servant of Israel.
      _____________________________________________________________________

      “U.S. Rejects Top Palestinian Official Hanan Ashrawi’s Visa Request”

      “Ashrawi, who in the past met with U.S. presidents and senior officials, says no reason was given for refusal. State Department says it does not refuse visas based solely on political views if they are ‘lawful in the United States’ ”

      Amir Tibon, Jack Khoury and Reuters (Washington).
      Haaretz, May 13, 2019 9:44 PM

      WASHINGTON – Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, a PLO Executive Committee member and a senior figure in the Palestinian public relations arena, announced Monday evening that her U.S. visa application has been rejected.”

      • just on May 13, 2019, 6:36 pm

        Trumpco is following Israel’s lead for stupid, anti- Palestinian, and obviously racist travel restrictions. Hanan Ashrawi has family in the US, was educated @ UVA, has visited with many a President and Secretaries of State, etc. She does exemplify diplomacy, grace, intellect, etc. and puts all of the Trump admin to shame. Unfortunately, like the US MSM, they will not countenance any Palestinian voices. It is disgraceful…

  2. eljay on May 12, 2019, 2:32 pm

    … When Chotiner pressed Oren about the future of the two-state solution, Oren said Jews have an absolute right to settle in the West Bank as much as in Haifa, and Chotiner said, “You were born in New York . . . Where did you get that right?” Oren answered, “It’s my heritage for three thousand years.” Chotiner said, “You are saying that wherever they are living, they [Palestinians] have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York.”

    Then Oren bridles and says the New Yorker is promoting “delegitimization” of the Jewish state. He hangs up the phone. …

    Oren’s Zionist “logic” is similar to the rapist’s “logic” that because men have always had sex with women it is therefore his right to kidnap women, chain them in his basement and “legitimize” / “self-determine” himself in them.

    Zionists (and rapists) are truly hateful and immoral people.

    • Misterioso on May 13, 2019, 10:14 am

      @eljay, et al

      “You were born in New York . . . Where did you get that right?” Oren answered, “It’s my heritage for three thousand years.”

      Ha, ha. Utter nonsense!! Check out a good photo of Oren. He is obviously an Ashkenazi Jew probably without even a drop of Hebrew blood in his veins. Indeed, he looks like a German or Norwegian. Let’s be clear however: Even if he were a direct descendant of the Hebrews he had/has no right whatsoever to relocate to Palestine and violently dispossess and expel the indigenous Arab inhabitants who including their ancestors, have lived continuously between the River and the Sea for about 15,000 years.**

      For the record: It is estimated that the Hebrews did not invade until circa 1184 BCE and their resulting United Kingdom of Israel, which never controlled the coast from Jaffa to Gaza, lasted only about 75–80 years, less than a blip in the history of Canaan and Palestine. Even the Hasmonean Dynasty under the Maccabees lasted only about 70 years (circa 140–70 BCE) and it was under Roman control. By way of comparison, the Crusaders occupied Palestine in whole or in part for about 200 years; Egyptians ruled the region between the River and the Sea for 615 intermittent years, including the era of the Muslim Mamelukes; the Romans ruled the region for 677 continuous years. It was also ruled for several centuries by two other peoples: the Arabs (Muslims), for 447 continuous years (638-1085) and the Ottoman Turks (Muslims), for 401 uninterrupted years (1517-1918).

      It is important to note that during all the turmoil that engulfed the region for over 7000 years as conquerors came and went, the Canaanites and their Palestinian descendants remained on the land and continued to be the base of the population until most, about 1,250,000, were driven out by Zionist Jews of foreign origin in 1947/48 and thereafter.

      By about 1300 CE there were virtually no Jews in Palestine, which was a recognized geographical concept using coinage with “Filistin” written on them. There were diaries of Palestinian travelers who said they missed “Palestine” and a distinctive Palestinian dialect of Arabic had evolved. From 1300 on, the vast majority of people who lived in Palestine were Christians and Muslims.

      Renowned historian/anthropologist and “Holy Land” specialist, Professor Ilene Beatty: “When we speak of ‘Palestinians’ or of the ‘Arab population [of Palestine]‘, we must bear in mind their Canaanite origin. This is important because their legal right to the country stems… from the fact that the Canaanites were first, which gives them priority; their descendants have continued to live there, which gives them continuity; and (except for the 800,000 dispossessed refugees [of 1948 along with the further hundreds of thousands expelled before and after the war Israel launched on 5 June 1967]) they are still living there, which gives them present possession. Thus we see that on purely statistical grounds they have a proven legal right to their own land.” (“Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan,” 1957)

      A reminder:
      ** http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full Front. Genet.,
      21 June 2017 – https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087

      “The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish”
      “Recent genetic samples from bones found in Palestine dating to the Epipaleolithic (20000-10500 BCE) showed remarkable resemblance to modern day Palestinians.

      “Overall, the combined results are in a strong agreement with the predictions of the Irano-Turko-Slavic hypothesis (Table 1) and rule out an ancient Levantine origin for AJs [Ashkenazi Jews], which is predominant among modern-day Levantine populations (e.g., Bedouins and Palestinians). “

  3. JohnSmith on May 12, 2019, 2:49 pm

    It should be illegal–Congress should make it illegal–for United States citizens to be ambassadors to the United States. It’s profoundly, inherently corrupt. It’s corrupt for a country like Israel to send such ambassadors to the United States, and it’s corrupt and foolish for the United States to accept them.

    If Michael Oren wants to be an Israeli, he should be an Israeli. If he wants to be an American, he should be an American. The concept of dual-citizenship is maybe a bit screwy in general, but in the case of diplomats to the United States it inherently undermines our security.

    But how lucky for people like Michael Oren to be able to be able to prance about and “be” whatever they want to be and “go” wherever they want to go, as their mood and the moment allows!

    • Bumblebye on May 12, 2019, 6:44 pm

      Iirc, he did give up his US citizenship in order to become Ambassador.

    • Nathan on May 12, 2019, 7:51 pm

      JohnSmith – You might be happy to learn that Michael Oren is NOT an American citizen. He is only a citizen of Israel.

      • pjdude on May 17, 2019, 9:37 pm

        while technically true it was only when he became the israeli ambassedor that he renounced his american citizenship. so for the majority of his life he was an american citizen.

  4. brent on May 12, 2019, 2:52 pm

    Great article for future reference.

    Greater Israel can prevail over all considerations and do what it pleases using the “security narrative’, it has so carefully cultivated at home and abroad. That’s why in 1987 it birthed, armed, funded and facilitated, Hamas. It explains why it now empower the armed factions in Gaza by negotiating with them.

    Israel will come inline in line with international norms when Palestinians understand the double game being run on them and reign in their exploiters and hotheads…. and achieve one authority with a one gun policy.

    The supremacy argument can then fall from its own weight. Even Trump can be influenced. He has essentially said he’ll go with equality or independence…. that he wants a “great deal” for Palestinians. Without that how can he make his ego serving “deal of the century, prove his critics wrong and walk away with a Nobel? Then as he’s said work on ME Peace. I don’t recall any previous President warn Israel with cutting off the money, “all of it”.

  5. Jon66 on May 12, 2019, 3:15 pm

    This is actual dialogue from the article.
    “But you are saying that, wherever they are living, they have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York.”

    “I didn’t say that. Don’t impute words to me I didn’t say.”
    The interviewer was making up words to put in his mouth and it seems that he wasn’t interested in that

    • eljay on May 12, 2019, 3:36 pm

      || Jon66: This is actual dialogue from the article.
      “But you are saying that, wherever they are living, they have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York.”

      “I didn’t say that. Don’t impute words to me I didn’t say.”
      The interviewer was making up words to put in his mouth and it seems that he wasn’t interested in that ||

      Oren could simply have countered with: No, that’s not true. They absolutely have more right to be there than do I, an American born in New York.

      But he wasn’t interested in countering the accusatoin because he’s a Jewish supremacist (Zionist) who very much believes that he is more entitled to (geographic) Palestine than are its indigenous people, the (geographic) Palestinians.

      • Jon66 on May 12, 2019, 6:24 pm

        Or…
        Maybe he just thought the interviewer had an agenda, wasn’t paying attention to what he actually said, and was therefore concerned that his words would be distorted or worse.

    • Donald on May 12, 2019, 4:53 pm

      Jon, there is this thing called “logic”. Let me explain.

      Oren thinks he as an American Jew has the right to live anywhere in Israel, which he thinks includes the West Bank. He would be willing to compromise and give up parts of the West Bank, in theory.

      But he can’t possibly believe that Palestinians have the right to live in Israel or he tosses out the whole idea of Israel as a majority Jewish state. He doesn’t have to spell it out. If he thinks otherwise than he is a one state solution proponent who wants equal rights for everyone and he clearly isn’t that.

      He probably would be willing to say Palestinians have the right to live in whatever fragment of the West Bank he is willing to let them have, but they have zero rights to live in Israel.

      Oren doesn’t want to state all this openly because he realized at that point how ridiculous his position sounds to someone not fully invested in Zionism. So he cut the interview short.

      • eljay on May 12, 2019, 6:25 pm

        || Donald: Jon, there is this thing called “logic”. … ||

        Sorry, Donald, but I have to correct you: There is a thing called logic. It’s a real thing. What Zionists use is “logic”, which is logic re-defined essentially to mean whatever argument supports the injustice and immorality of Zionism.

      • Donald on May 12, 2019, 10:40 pm

        Eljay. You’re right. And it is interesting to see Jon defending Oren. A liberal Zionist, someone who sincerely favors a 2ss, should be appalled by Oren, but not Jon. Given what Israel has become, apparently it is more important to circle the wagons.

      • Jon66 on May 13, 2019, 6:14 am

        Donald,
        I’m obviously not being clear enough. It’s not whether or not Oren is right or wrong. My point is that this article is misleading. He ended the interview after the interviewer asked not a leading question, but rather asked a false question. He believed at that point, and not without justification, that his words would not be truthfully conveyed. The real story here is one of shoddy interviewing and a misleading story on MW.

      • Donald on May 13, 2019, 4:13 pm

        No it isn’t, Jon. It is normal for interviewers to ask leading questions and Chotiner’s. assumption about Oren’s beliefs were logical , which was my point. Oren could have responded by explaining what rights he thinks Palestinians do have. He didn’t, probably because he realized it wouldn’t sound good.

      • Jon66 on May 13, 2019, 7:42 pm

        Donald,
        “But you are saying that, wherever they are living, they have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York.

        I didn’t say that. Don’t impute words to me I didn’t say.

        I’m sorry, I thought you just said that.”

        He didn’t ask a leading question. He didn’t say, ‘ let me see if I understand your position, etc..
        Perhaps Chortiner thought he was using “saying/said” as the equivalent of ‘thought, position’. As in, So your position is… and Oren obviously thought it was an intentional misquote.

      • Donald on May 13, 2019, 9:33 pm

        Oren was running away from a tough interview. All he had to do was explain what rights he thinks Palestinians have. Since he clearly does think they have less rights to live there than he does, it would be awkward to admit that to someone who was being as blunt as Chotiner was.

    • Donald on May 13, 2019, 4:22 pm

      Here Jon ( and Yonah) is a piece in the Forward about the interview. I think it portrays what happened fairly accurately.

      https://forward.com/opinion/424223/michael-oren-hung-up-on-the-new-yorker-like-israel-has-hung-up-on-american/

      • Jon66 on May 13, 2019, 7:31 pm

        Donald,
        That’s not a portrayal, that’s an analysis from an English lit major. He says Oren feels the need to make Chortiner understand and not just answer his questions. Isn’t a journalist supposed to want true understanding, not just black and white answers to complex issues.

      • Donald on May 13, 2019, 9:42 pm

        Jon, be serious. Oren was pushing his point of view. He got upset when he realized Chotiner wouldn’t go along with letting him set the parameters of how the issues should be discussed.
        The last thing he wanted was to talk about what rights Palestinians have to live in any part of their homeland compared to his rights as a Brooklyn born Jew, so he had to end the conversation. And you are defending him, because it is more comfortable for you to make it about a supposed journalistic lapse rather than about how far right Israel has moved.

      • wondering jew on May 13, 2019, 9:42 pm

        Donald, the forward article does not deal with the specifics that i dealt with.

        I think chotiner would have informed me (with more information regarding oren’s opinions) had he asked,, “Does a palestinian have a right to live there?”

        then oren might have said, “well, that needs to be negotiated.” or he might have said, “the palestinian thinks he has a right to be there, but he does not.” or conceivably he might have said, “the palestinian also has rights to be there. He has rights based on his current residency and I have rights based on my jewish identity.” then chotiner might have asked, “are those rights equal?” and then oren would have answered and then chotiner would have asked and then oren would have answered, etc.

        but instead chotiner, said, “so the palestinian has no rights to be there.”

        chotiner was out to impress phil weiss and donald johnson how he knows how to be blunt when he talks to a prick like oren. i would have prefered a wally cox, approach, a lieutenant columbo approach, “to be clear. are you saying that the palestinian has no rights to be there?” instead he did not ask a question for me designed to educate me, but instead , he asked a question for you, designed to impress you how blunt he can be. I would have preferred having oren on record confirming your assumption. i don’t need to be impressed by chotiner’s bluntness.

        If you consider that defending oren, you are wrong.

      • Donald on May 13, 2019, 10:03 pm

        Actually, Yonah, you presume too much regarding what I think. I think it would have been better for Chotiner to do as you suggest. I doubt the results would have been much different if Chotiner pressed him on the subject of Palestinian rights using your approach, but yes, I prefer precise questions that would pin Oren down on what he really thinks. I suspect they would have quickly reached a point where Oren would have been outraged.. I suspect that some ( not you) would have come to his defense.

        I think the Forward writer understood Oren’s motives and attitude.

      • eljay on May 14, 2019, 8:21 am

        || Donald: Jon, be serious. … ||

        Jon66 is being Master Evader and, of course, hypocrite.

        Imagine for a moment an interviewer…
        – positing to an American Nazi (AN) that one of the AN’s hateful and immoral views is in fact his (the AN’s) own; and
        – the AN takes (feigned?) offense and abruptly ending the interview.

        Not for a moment would Jon (or y.f.) be sympathetic to the AN’s (feigned?) discomfort or argue that the interviewer had (deliberately) bungled the interview.

    • pjdude on May 17, 2019, 9:39 pm

      no the interviewer wasn’t putting words in orens mouth. what the interviewer asked him was a logical implication of orens extremist views. if a jew from new york has an automatic right to move to a place that isn’t even in Israel than yes he is asserting he has more right to live their than a palestinian living there already. i know your a zionist so logic and honesty aren’t your strong suit but the interviewer did nothing improper.

  6. Ossinev on May 12, 2019, 5:09 pm

    @Jon66
    “I didn’t say that. Don’t impute words to me I didn’t say.”
    The interviewer was making up words to put in his mouth and it seems that he wasn’t interested in that”
    So then put yourself in an interviewers position Jon. What do you think the New York/American native was imputing/implying/inferring other than that Jews whatever their country of birth/whatever their family history/whatever their conversion history have a right to settle in Palestine irrespective of the rights of native population.

    Bottom(sic) line is that Ziofreaks like Oren get their knickers in an almight twist when they are questioned logically about this grotesque universal all encompassing “right” of Jews to settle in their “native” “ancestral” “homeland”. They invariably press the “Anti- Semitic” or “delegitimisation” panic buttons.

    They get more repulsive , repugnant and crazier by the day.

    • eljay on May 12, 2019, 5:59 pm

      || Ossinev: … Bottom(sic) line is that Ziofreaks like Oren get their knickers in an almight twist when they are questioned logically about this grotesque universal all encompassing “right” of Jews to settle in their “native” “ancestral” “homeland”. They invariably press the “Anti- Semitic” or “delegitimisation” panic buttons. … ||

      Zionists either promote the grotesqueness that is Zionism – as Oren has done – or defend it either belligerently or, as Jon66 just did (and often tends to do), by feigning confusion and/or naïveté.

      • Jon66 on May 12, 2019, 6:31 pm

        Eljay,
        It’s not confusion it’s facts. The article falsely portrays the interaction and the interviewer made up facts. Despite appearances, it’s not a post truth world.

      • eljay on May 12, 2019, 8:07 pm

        || Jon66: Eljay,
        It’s not confusion it’s facts. The article falsely portrays the interaction and the interviewer made up facts. Despite appearances, it’s not a post truth world. ||

        Jon, in another thread you (facetiously?) asked me “Do you still beat your wife?” I didn’t get offended, call you names or swear never to speak to you again. I simply responded to your question.

        It’s easy to answer questions when you’re not trying to work around an agenda of hatefulness and immorality.

        It’s a lot harder when you are.

        That’s why Oren and you and Zionists just like you have such a hard time answering simple, straightforward questions. It’s why you feign offense / anger / confusion / naïveté.

    • Jon66 on May 12, 2019, 6:29 pm

      Except he wasn’t questioned about that. The interviewer asked him about something he never said. Maybe he was just tired of talking to someone who couldn’t be bothered to listen

      • pjdude on May 17, 2019, 9:50 pm

        thats not true. he was asked about the unstated premise that is a logical implication of his beliefs. by stating he felt jews had an incontrovertible right to move to palestine to live there while palestinians are denied the right to build houses on land they one than yes he is saying jews have more right to live their than palestinians. if i say i believe i have the incontrovertible to enter any house in the state of georgia it would be well within an interviewers scope to ask me why i feel i have the right to break and enter. again he wasn’t be asked a false question but an honest one which is why your throwing a hissyfit. because its you don’t like the idea of zionists jewish belief in that they should have more rights than others brought into the open.

  7. Keith on May 12, 2019, 5:53 pm

    MICHAEL OREN- “And a member of the Sioux nation has a right to live on Sioux-nation territory.”

    And where was the Sioux-nation territory before the Sioux were forcibly driven westward from Wisconsin and Minnesota to the plains? Can they go back and reclaim these former tribal lands? What stunning arrogance and ignorance. Apparently, Zionist myth-history doesn’t regard the actual genocide of the native Americans as significant enough that this former New York resident considers these US defined Indian reservations as some sort of victorious homecoming for the Sioux and other native Americans. I strongly recommend that Michael Oren (and others) read “Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee” by Dee Brown.

    • Nathan on May 12, 2019, 8:14 pm

      Keith – You asked if the Sioux Nation can go back and reclaim their former tribal lands, but you didn’t give an answer to your very interesting question. Can they?

      • umm al-hamam on May 13, 2019, 3:13 am

        Their former tribal lands are currently mostly the U.S. state of Minnesota, and the governor of that state would likely not be happy to see the Oceti Sakowin reestablished in St. Paul in his place. Institutions like the National Guard and US Army, as well as militias made up of police forces, mercenaries and “concerned citizens” (white), have existed in part to suppress any indigenous revolts or attempts to secede from the US for a very long time, and we already saw the deployment of those units at Standing Rock on a small scale. An attempt to establish Sioux sovereignty would undoubtedly be met with much greater force. (The Supreme Court has also repeatedly ruled that indigenous nations have no sovereignty even on their US-designated “tribal lands”.) As such it is extremely impractical for them to “return”.

        Obviously it is practical for them to reside in the Mni Sota area, but under constant threat of arbitrary violence from the US police forces, which proportionally kill and imprison more indigenous people per year than any other ethnic group, as well as from white American men in general, whose use of rape and sexual violence against indigenous women as a weapon of war has continued unabated since approx 1607. There is, in general, no safe place within the US, Canada or Latin America for any indigenous person to reside.

        It should be noted that the ultimate goal of Israeli settler-colonialism is to reduce the Palestinians to this same status, as inhabitants of the “Gaza Palestinian Reservation”, “Hebron Palestinian Reservation” and so on, even though they neglected the crucial initial step of handing out smallpox infected blankets.

      • MHughes976 on May 13, 2019, 7:02 am

        I would say that there are normal rights which exist prior to agreements and conventions, but which can be laid down to avoid endless trouble and secure some common good, and then special rights which arise out of agreements and conventions. Also that there is the right for members of a group to live in an area and the right to insist on being the majority in that area. Oren seems to conflate these different things.
        It being normally wrong to exclude people from an area by race or ancestry, people of Sioux descent, who are almost all American citizens, have an undoubted right, equal to that of other citizens, to live on the Plains or in Minnesota. They may have the right, arising from their
        agreements with the encroaching White Americans, to form the majority in certain areas and to limit the presence of others there. They do not have the right to form the majority anywhere – even anywhere where they once were the majority – since that right was laid down by the agreements which have taken hold and which have made them American citizens with the rights thereof. Rights of return and restoration lapse when new citizenship is accepted.

      • Jon66 on May 13, 2019, 9:46 am

        Hughes,
        “Rights of return and restoration lapse when new citizenship is accepted.”
        Yet, UNWRA still classifies Palestinians with Jordanian citizenship as refugees.

      • Keith on May 13, 2019, 4:39 pm

        NATHAN- “Can they?”

        Surely you jest? The victorious invader sets the rules, the defeated invaded lucky to survive. It should be rather obvious that the white European invaders of North America are analogous to the Ashkenazi invaders of Palestine, Gaza analogous to a huge Indian reservation where the natives are restricted and starved. Both Hitler and the Zionists copied the US.

        But let us end on an up note with a link to the John Trudell “Crazy Horse” video (6:00 min), which I find very beautiful and moving. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku8ga-krBe4

    • Nathan on May 13, 2019, 8:58 pm

      No, Keith, I do not jest. I would like to hear a clear answer of “yes” or “no”. Can the Sioux Nation go back and reclaim their former tribal lands?

      • Donald on May 13, 2019, 9:49 pm

        Which lands, Nathan. The lands their ancestors lived in 2000 years ago?

        Also, on this whole reclaiming lands thing, do you mean the Lakota driving out white people currently living on their lands from the 19th Century, or do you mean having the freedom to live anywhere inside the United States? Personally I think it is a bad idea to cure ethnic cleansing with ethnic cleansing, but in the modern era we feel embarrassed by the 19th Century practice of stealing land and forcing people to live in reservations.

      • Keith on May 14, 2019, 12:33 am

        NATHAN- “No, Keith, I do not jest. I would like to hear a clear answer of “yes” or “no”. Can the Sioux Nation go back and reclaim their former tribal lands?”

        No! They lack the power to do so. And while the dispossession of the native Americans was perhaps inevitable, the extremely brutal and callous manner was inexcusable. Genocide (as this surely was) is never acceptable. What exactly is your point?

      • eljay on May 14, 2019, 7:38 am

        || Nathan: No, Keith, I do not jest. I would like to hear a clear answer of “yes” or “no”. Can the Sioux Nation go back and reclaim their former tribal lands? ||

        The Sioux are people in and from Sioux tribal lands. Jews are people all over the world – citizens of homelands all over the world – who have chosen to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish.

        The idea that Jewish citizens of homelands throughout the world should be permitted to claim a foreign territory ((geographic) Palestine, the actual homeland of (geographic) Palestinians) while the Sioux are denied the right to reclaim their actual former tribal lands illustrates how unjust and immoral – and ludicrous – is Zionism.

        Good work, Nathan.

      • echinococcus on May 14, 2019, 12:30 pm

        The Ziotroll “Nathan” is another one who, in his infinite sadism, can’t help stating in so many words what his Propaganda-Ministerium recommends to keep absolutely secret. Good. Continue.

        “No, Keith, I do not jest. I would like to hear a clear answer of “yes” or “no”. Can the Sioux Nation go back and reclaim their former tribal lands?”

        …because we Zionists are doing to the Palestinian people exactly what America invaders did to Native Americans, with the unconditional help of the same American genocidaires. And when we’re done, there won’t be a single thing you can do about it.

        Watch him say we’re putting words in his mouth.

      • Nathan on May 14, 2019, 8:34 pm

        Keith – There is no “point” in my asking you questions. It’s only about intellectual curiosity. What was so interesting in your comment? Well, as you probably noticed, Michael Oren made a comparison between the Jews and the American Indians. Obviously, all these comparisons are totally nonsensical (including, for example, your comment that Hitler copied the USA…) – but, nevertheless, a comparison was made. The point of Mr Oren was that the Jews lost their land (just like the American Indians), and hence they have the right to claim it back. Now, this is an anti-Israel forum (I’m not anti-Israel, but you are), so I would have expected that there be a protest against the analogy that put the Jews and the American Indians in the same category (of those deserving the restoration of their former status). Your comment was, therefore, quite baffling. You didn’t refute the analogy; rather, you just asked if the Indians can return to their former tribal lands.

        So, did you mean that the Jews cannot return because the Indians can’t return? In your further comments, you placed the Palestinians in the role of the American Indians, so that made things even more baffling. Did you now hint that the Palestinians cannot return because the Indians can’t?

        In the end, you were willing to give a clear answer regarding the return of the Indians: “They lack the power to do so”. But if they would have the power, they could return. Right?

      • Keith on May 15, 2019, 2:11 pm

        NATHAN- “It’s only about intellectual curiosity.”

        Rubbish! You think that you are clever enough to defend Oren’s ludicrous comparison of the Israeli Jews to the Sioux. The notion that the European Jews who conquered Palestine are analogous to the American Indians and that the Palestinians are analogous to the European colonists is so bizarre it defies description. His analogy and your attempted defense is an insult to the intelligence.

        As for your “Intellectual curiosity,” you have ignored everything I have said so far. One reason I avoid engaging with you Zionists is that there is no possibility of discussion. You are completely devoid of intellectual and moral integrity, always engaging in pilpul in support of the Zionist meme that Jews are always the victim and any criticism is by definition anti-Semitic.

    • Boris on May 14, 2019, 8:52 pm

      … Zionist myth-history doesn’t regard the actual genocide of the native Americans …

      You have TOTALLY misunderstood the argument.

      The simple facts are that the history of expulsion of Native Americans from their ancestral lands is very similar to the history of expulsion of Jews from the Land of Israel. The difference is that American Indians had been pushed for the last 400 years, while Jews had resisted Roman Occupation 2,000 years ago.

      Another and a more recent difference is that the Jewish Nation had accumulated enough political and military power to return to its homeland and establish its nation state there.

      There is no question that Siouxes would also like to establish their nation state on their ancestral lands in Wisconsin and Minnesota, Cherokees on their lands in Georgia, Lakotas on theirs in New York and so on. They just can’t, at least right now.

      Actually, Israel is the living proof to the indigenous people everywhere that maybe at some point in the future they will.

      • RoHa on May 14, 2019, 9:53 pm

        “Actually, Israel is the living proof to the indigenous people everywhere that maybe at some point in the future they will.”

        That thought should encourage the Palestinians to continue the struggle to regain their ancestral homeland of Palestine.

      • Boris on May 14, 2019, 10:22 pm

        … Israel is the living proof to the indigenous people … thought should encourage the Palestinians…

        No. The key word is INDIGENOUS.

        Palestinians are as indigenous to the area now called Palestine, as Americans are to what is now called America.

      • Keith on May 15, 2019, 12:53 am

        BORIS- “The simple facts are that the history of expulsion of Native Americans from their ancestral lands is very similar to the history of expulsion of Jews from the Land of Israel.”

        The Romans were settler colonialists? Is it possible to be this ignorant of historical reality? The expulsion of the “Jews” from Palestine is a myth. The leaders, perhaps, but the majority remained and converted to Christianity then Islam. The Palestinians are the descendants of the original Hebrews in Palestine. This, by the way, was acknowledged by the early Zionist leadership. The rather obvious comparison is that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the white European Jews is similar to the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the native Americans by the white European colonists.

        That the victimizer claims victim status is indicative of Zionist hypocrisy.

      • RoHa on May 15, 2019, 1:26 am

        Palestinians are as indigenous to the area now called Palestine as Native Americans are to what is now called America.

      • eljay on May 15, 2019, 7:14 am

        || Boris: … The key word is INDIGENOUS. … ||

        It is. Unfortunately, you Zionists don’t seem to understand what the word actually (not Zionistically) means.

        || … Palestinians are as indigenous to the area now called Palestine, as Americans are to what is now called America. ||

        Jewish citizens of homelands all over the world are immeasurably less indigenous to Palestine than are the Palestinians in, of and from Palestine.

      • Boris on May 15, 2019, 8:15 am

        … ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the white European Jews …

        Anybody who visited Israel or even had watched a B’Tselem video of peaceful Palestinians throwing rocks and confronted by IDF would know that Israeli Jews come in all kind of shades of color. At the very least half of Israel’s Jewish population is non-white. Actually, Palestinians are more “white” that Israelis.

        … expulsion of the “Jews” …

        These quotes betray your bias. There is nothing more to discuss.

      • Keith on May 15, 2019, 10:14 am

        BORIS- “… Israeli Jews come in all kind of shades of color.”

        The early Zionists who settled in Palestine and eventually founded Israel were overwhelmingly Ashkenazi and had a typically European low opinion of the natives. How can you not be aware of this?

      • Boris on May 15, 2019, 11:30 am

        … were overwhelmingly Ashkenazi …

        So, what difference does it make? Yes, Ashkenazim where pioneers. It does not change the fact that Israeli Jews are multi racial and multi cultural.

        European Jews were more oppressed than Jews in other countries. There are a number of reasons.

        First, they can be easily distinguished from the population for their Semitic facial features. So, they could be quickly identified — like what happened during the Holocaust.

        Second, Christian Church had a significant role in the persecution of the Jews, who they had accused of deicide.

        Third, it all started with the Roman Empire when the Judea could not be pacified for over hundred years and Roman legions were humiliated by a small nation. So, it was Roman policy to humiliate Jews after their defeat. It had multiplied after Romans accepted Christianity.

        And so on…

        Another myth is that Jews lived happily in Muslim countries. They were not. It is just that their discrimination and persecution was not as bad as in Europe/

        As far as looking down on the Arabs — it is probably typical snobbish behavior of an educated person vs. a peasant.

        I admit that I am looking down on people who believe that they will go to heaven after blowing up a bus or a restaurant. Would not you?

      • Keith on May 15, 2019, 2:25 pm

        BORIS- “So, what difference does it make?”

        My comment was that the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed by white European Jews, which is true. The current Israeli demographics are irrelevant to this historical reality. Likewise, the native Americans were ethnically cleansed by predominantly white Europeans. The subsequent increase in the size of the non-white US population is likewise irrelevant to the historical reality. And tales about Roman ethnic cleansing are irrelevant theology, nothing more. And you, like Nathan, don’t care. Historical reality is the enemy of Zionist mythology.

      • Boris on May 16, 2019, 8:12 am

        at the Palestinians were ethnically cleansed by white European Jews, which is true. The current Israeli demographics are irrelevant to this historical reality.

        It is a known fact that from day one Israel’s population was 20% Arab, while territories taken by Arab countries were Judenfrei. So, if there was ethnic cleansing, it was not done by “white European Jews”.

        But it doesn’t look like you want to be bothered by facts.

        Nevertheless, it was an interesting discussion. It looks like your anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian biases help to absolve your little liberal soul from the guilt of living on the occupied Native American land.

        I always wanted to understand what motivates people like you. Now I know …

      • RoHa on May 17, 2019, 1:45 am

        ‘It is a known fact that from day one Israel’s population was 20% Arab, while territories taken by Arab countries were Judenfrei. So, if there was ethnic cleansing, it was not done by “white European Jews”.’

        It is a known fact that white European Jews carried out ethnic cleansing. The fact that this was not complete cleansing does not falsify that.

      • pjdude on May 17, 2019, 9:55 pm

        @boris
        The treatment of the native americans by the us and the ancient jewish population of palestine are in no way anagolous. the natives were expelled because we wanted their lands. jews were expelled because they literally rebelled against the controling power. had the jews acted different their would have been no expulsion that is not the case with the native american population. and no comrade the palestinians are the indigenious people of palestine. that you are too much of a bigot to admit doesn’t change that fact.

      • Boris on May 19, 2019, 11:13 am

        dude,

        You are splitting hairs, but thanks for admitting that the Jews were indeed expelled from their homeland. Many here are denying even this.

        In comparison to Native Americans – the net result was the same.

      • eljay on May 19, 2019, 5:43 pm

        || Boris: dude,

        You are splitting hairs, but thanks for admitting that the Jews were indeed expelled from their homeland. … ||

        Ancient Israelites may have been expelled from their homeland, but ancient Israelites haven’t existed for centuries.

        Jewish is a religion-based identity. No citizen of any homeland in the world – not even Israel – is:
        – an ancient Israelite; or
        – magically transformed into an ancient Israelite simply because s/he chooses to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish.

        By sharp contrast, Palestinians – the indigenous people of geographic Palestine – did and still do exist. Many were expelled from their actual homeland and many remain barred from actually returning (as opposed to fake Zionist “returning”) to it.

      • MHughes976 on May 21, 2019, 7:49 am

        I think that the question of expulsion of Jews from their homes after 135 is difficult. I think it’s clear that there were areas where the recent war had done cruel damage and that probably for many decades there was an extensive security zone around Jerusalem where Jews could not reside. Some Christians gloated over the Jews’ having ‘to look from afar’ – however there is no great protest over loss of the Land in the Jewish sources. I think that it’s unlikely that there was either a proclamation of expulsion of Jews by any Roman or post-Roman ruler or else any de facto exodus from the whole territory.
        The Sioux have – and on all evidence believe that they have – made their peace with the White Americans, whose citizenship they now share. They do claim their rights under the main treaty, Fort Laramie 1868, which were massively violated in the scramble for the gold of the Black Hills. For around 40 years they have declined to accept the financial settlement awarded by the Supreme Court – now worth over a billion dollars – and have insisted that they want full jurisdiction and freedom from American taxation in the full Black Hills area. This is a right flowing from an agreement, not a prior moral right. I think that they have, by words and behaviour, joined the American social contract and thus laid down their ancient rights.

  8. eljay on May 12, 2019, 6:46 pm

    It’s funny how Zionists feign anger and offense and smear with destructive accusations of anti-Semitism people who simply state exactly what it is that Zionists believe, advocate, promote, defend and do.

    Rapist: I am right to with women what I wish. Men are the stronger sex. History shows this to be true.
    Interviewer: So you’re saying that history gives you the right to imprison and rape women?
    Rapist: How dare you! I didn’t say that. Don’t impute words to me I didn’t say.
    Interviewer: But…you don’t deny it.
    Rapist: I don’t talk to haters. This conversation is over.

    • Jon66 on May 12, 2019, 10:41 pm

      Eljay,
      Again I defer to you as the resident expert on the inner thoughts of rapists.

      • eljay on May 13, 2019, 7:06 am

        || Jon66: Eljay,
        Again I defer to you as the resident expert on the inner thoughts of rapists. ||

        Evade away, Jon. It’s what you do.

  9. CigarGod on May 12, 2019, 7:56 pm

    He said exactly that, and he said it twice.

    1. “It is definitely our right. I think it is our incontrovertible right as Jews to live anywhere in our ancestral homeland. . . Anywhere.”

    2. “Q. Just to be clear: You were born in New York, correct?

    Oren: I was.

    Q. So you think that you, as a Jewish person born in New York, have a right to be anywhere in Israel —

    Oren: Absolutely. . .”

    • mondonut on May 13, 2019, 11:52 am

      So you think that you, as a Jewish person born in New York, have a right to be anywhere in Israel

      Of course he has the right to be anywhere in Israel, that much is indisputable even if not for the reasons he states. The State of Israel, as the sovereign power in Israel, grants him as a citizen of Israel the right to be in Israel.

      • Mooser on May 14, 2019, 12:09 pm

        “…the right to be anywhere in Israel…”

        Okay then, tell us where “Israel” begins and ends? And what are all those signs, posted by Israel, barring Israelis from certain areas?

      • mondonut on May 14, 2019, 2:21 pm

        Mooser, Okay then, tell us where “Israel” begins and ends?

        Israel has defined borders with each and every adjacent country. What parts are you confused about?

  10. wondering jew on May 12, 2019, 8:37 pm

    “You are saying there are Palestinians living in various areas of the West Bank right now. . . which may or may not at some point become a state. But you are saying that, wherever they are living, they have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York.”

    If instead of stating this last part as fact: “they have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York,” he would have asked, “Do they have less right to be there than you?” then Oren might have continued the interview. Instead indeed Chotiner put words into Oren’s mouth and that’s why Oren reacted as he did. Maybe an over reaction, but certainly it could have been easily avoided if Chotiner had asked it as a question instead of presenting it as he did.

    • Donald on May 12, 2019, 11:13 pm

      It’s common for reporters to ask leading questions. I don’t always like it, but a reasonably intelligent interviewer can respond by saying “ No, I don’t think that, I think this other thing.” Oren thinks the entire region belongs to Jews no matter where they were born and he clearly must believe that Israel had the right to expel Palestinians in 48 or there wouldn’t be a majority Jewish state inside the 67 lines. But Oren also thinks he has a right to live on the West Bank. Regarding his own rights as a Jew they are absolute in his mind.

      Palestinians, on the other hand, have to negotiate for whatever portions of the land he and other Israeli Jews might be willing to give up. So yes, Oren has to think his rights to the land are greater than those of the Palestinians. His position doesn’t make sense otherwise. They aren’t even discussing whether Palestinians have the right to move back inside the 67 lines.

      Imagine Oren’s reaction if Chotiner asked why Palestinians didn’t have the right to build homes inside Israel. A perfectly fair question, but from Oren’s POV it would be ten times worse than what Chotiner did ask.

      • MHughes976 on May 13, 2019, 3:07 am

        Chotiner’s ‘You are saying’ is colloquially equivalent to ‘Don’t your words imply?’ which is a perfectly fair question even if the exact words have not been uttered. It would be perfectly fair to record Chotiner’s words in writing with a question mark at the end ‘You are saying…?’

    • eljay on May 13, 2019, 7:36 am

      || wondering jew: … Chotiner put words into Oren’s mouth and that’s why Oren reacted as he did. Maybe an over reaction, but certainly it could have been easily avoided if Chotiner had asked it as a question instead of presenting it as he did. ||

      Chotiner simply stated a truth about Oren. Oren could very easily have countered with: No, that’s not true. They absolutely have more right to be there than do I, an American born in New York.

      But he wasn’t interested in countering the accusation because he’s a Jewish supremacist (Zionist) who very much believes that he is more entitled to (geographic) Palestine than are its indigenous people, the (geographic) Palestinians.

      And, so, rather than confirm the ugly truth stated by Chotiner or outright lie to counter it he feigned offense.

      When simple truth to him was said
      he bravely turned his tail and fled
      Brave Sir Oren turned about
      and gallantly he chickened out
      Bravely taking to his feet
      he beat a very brave retreat
      Bravest of the brave, Sir Oren!

      (with sincerest apologies to Monty Python)

  11. Donald on May 12, 2019, 10:45 pm

    “This weekend everyone is talking about a revealing interview with Michael Oren by Isaac Chotiner in the New Yorker”

    I googled and while you can find discussions on Twitter, I don’t see much else. Unless that changes, not many people are even going to know the conversation happened at all. If the msm wanted people to know how far right Israel has moved, they could have said so years ago.

  12. CigarGod on May 13, 2019, 9:45 am

    It is all about the business owner and who the business hires to cover stories.
    Every editor and reporter in the country knows what stories not to cover, or if they do cover…how to cover them.

  13. Marnie on May 13, 2019, 10:05 am

    Humble beginnings as a neighborhood bully I imagine; the kid that wants to play against younger, smaller kids, beats them and brags about the victory. However, the same bully when faced with an opponent of equal size and strength, will quit the game on some pretense and stomp off harrumphing about cheaters or mommy ringing the dinner bell. Anything but admit the truth. Watching Ben Shapiro get served by a conservative BBC commentator, and walk off the interview rather than admit he’s a damn fool. Same with Oren and many others.

  14. James Canning on May 13, 2019, 10:39 am

    Utter rubbish from Michael Oren. Jews illegally settling in the occupied West Bank should be roundly condemned, not protected by nonsense claims such criticism is “anti-Semitic”.

  15. bcg on May 13, 2019, 11:16 am

    @Jon66: Let me pose the infamous question to you: do Palestinians have less right of return than a New York born Jew? What’s your opinion?

    • Jon66 on May 13, 2019, 1:02 pm

      I think Israel, like any country, has the right to set its own immigration policy.

      • Maghlawatan on May 13, 2019, 1:21 pm

        But not its own borders

      • Bumblebye on May 13, 2019, 1:37 pm

        You obviously think that includes illegally occupied, non sovereign territory of Palestine. As well as giving the finger to the treaties and resolutions it promised to uphold/fulfill on becoming a member of the UN. It’s not an ‘immigration’ policy, it’s an *exclusion* policy.

      • bcg on May 13, 2019, 1:56 pm

        @Jon66: That’s the answer to a question I didn’t ask – you’re evading the question.

      • mondonut on May 13, 2019, 1:57 pm

        @Bumblebye, …treaties and resolutions it promised to uphold/fulfill on becoming a member of the UN.

        This has been Fisked too many times to count, the only promise Israel made on becoming a member of the UN was the same as every other country, that is to unreservedly accept the obligations of the United Nations Charter.

      • eljay on May 13, 2019, 2:24 pm

        || bcg: @Jon66: Let me pose the infamous question to you: do Palestinians have less right of return than a New York born Jew? What’s your opinion? ||

        || Jon66: I think Israel, like any country, has the right to set its own immigration policy. ||

        Jon66, you truly are Master of the Non-Answer.

      • Jon66 on May 13, 2019, 3:10 pm

        BCG,
        Right of return is shorthand for immigration policy. I think Israel has the right to set its own.

      • Brewer on May 13, 2019, 5:19 pm

        Israel, an entity forced on the indigenous people by the brute force of illegal immigrants wielding illegally imported arms – “has the right to set its own immigration policy”, a policy that prohibits the return of said indigenous people to the homes which, by international law, they still own?
        Altogether now
        “This is the land of honey, honey! “

      • RoHa on May 14, 2019, 7:51 am

        The right that Oren claims is not a legal right set by a government, but a moral right. (I do not think he has that right.). In the context, then, the question is whether Palestinians have a moral right of return.

        A country may set an immigration policy, but that policy can be an immoral policy. (The White Australia policy was widely regarded as immoral, even by Australians.)

        No country has the right to set an immoral policy.

        So the real question is “Is the Israeli policy moral?”

        (And we will note that the Palestinians are not immigrants in the sense of being foreigners with no connection to the land, but people with a prima facie moral and legal right to live there.)

      • msmoore on May 14, 2019, 9:13 am

        Jon66

        “Right of return is shorthand for immigration policy. I think Israel has the right to set its own.”

        Return is not the same as immigrate. It is a right specified in law.

      • pjdude on May 17, 2019, 10:01 pm

        so than why doesn’t palestine have the right to deny the terrorists of the settler movement into its land?

      • pjdude on May 17, 2019, 10:02 pm

        @mondonut

        And israel has flagrently violated its obligations under the un charter by making zero effort to live in peace and forgo military action.

      • mondonut on May 18, 2019, 6:52 pm

        @pjdude why doesn’t palestine have the right to deny the terrorists of the settler movement into its land?

        They do, of course the only land that the Palestinians have is Gaza and there are no Israelis living there.

    • mondonut on May 13, 2019, 5:20 pm

      @bcg , do Palestinians have less right of return than a New York born Jew?

      Less than zero? Because that is how much RoR a New York born Jew has. Consequently the Israelis passed the Law of Return in 1950 to provide a right to a New York born Jews.

      • echinococcus on May 14, 2019, 1:41 am

        “Less than zero? Because that is how much RoR a New York born Jew has.”
        Very good, Zionist. Continue to give the game away.
        Exactly zero right to be there!

        “Consequently the Israelis”
        i.e. invaders from NY, Warsaw, Lvov, Vilnius, Sakhalin, Berlin, Rabat, Prag, Chişinau and all other Holyland locations, who had exactly as much right to be there as your “New York born Jew”, which we fully agree to be nil…

        “passed the Law of Return in 1950 to provide a right to a New York born Jews”
        without having themselves the slightest right to be there, let alone legiferate for Palestine. Thank you.

    • johneill on May 13, 2019, 8:53 pm

      clearly ivanka trump has more right to israel than mahmoud darwish had.

  16. Dan From Away on May 13, 2019, 1:19 pm

    The ever-enlightening Hasbara Handbook

    https://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf

    has an entire section entitled, Just Walk Away: When Not to Engage

    Among the reasons given:

    When Discussion Offers Legitimacy to Unacceptable Ideas

    and:

    When the Debate Is Set Up Badly

    Seems Oren has kept up with his Hasbara Training and had the Handbook right by his side.

    Know this: All political Zionists, irrespective of stream, are cowards. They will only snipe from highly protected positions and give the position up as soon as it becomes clear that their opponent is a moral human being, one who is better informed than they are and importantly, not going to give up or surrender.

    The other imo important reveal in Oren’s comments is that he thinks that he, being Zionist royalty, can “offer” (read: bestow) legitimacy. His flight from the interview may have been equal parts fear of saying something that would “legitimate” Palestinian rights or saying something that would come back to haunt him. So glad to see that even the authors of hasbara can get caught up in its contradictions, illogical constructions and outright surrealism.

    MW might consider developing a process whereby hasbaritically-derived comments and content, for example every word written by Jon66 or Hophmi, et. al., would automatically carry a direct link to the pertinent Hasbara Handbook page and para. The result would be that MW continues to allow political Zionists to continue to “contribute” to MW’s posts but also to demonstrate in real-time that we see through them.

    I would have included the text under each of the above headings but the HH pdf is locked and beyond my pdf-cracking skills. Anyone have an open version?

    Posters related to Oren’s POV:

    This Land Is Ours (political Zionist poster)

    https://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/this-land-is-ours

    Our Land – Our Home (Palestinian nationalist poster)

    https://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/our-land-our-home

    176 Land Day posters:

    https://www.palestineposterproject.org/special-collection/land-day

    524 posters on Jewish Colonization/Zionist Kibbutzim/Israeli Settlements:

    https://www.palestineposterproject.org/special-collection/jewish-colonizationzionist-kibbutzimisraeli-settlements

  17. Maghlawatan on May 13, 2019, 1:29 pm

    Oren is odious.

    He is a liar, a humbug, a hypocrite, a vagabond, a loathsome spotted reptile , a fucking Zionist and a tyrant.

  18. bcg on May 14, 2019, 9:50 am

    This just in: the Forward just ran a piece titled “Michael Oren’s Trainwreck Interview Shows Israelis No Longer Care What We Think” (clear yur browser history if nccessary)

    https://forward.com/opinion/424223/michael-oren-hung-up-on-the-new-yorker-like-israel-has-hung-up-on-american/

    But the problem runs deeper. Oren assumes that he, as the Israeli authority, gets to interpret the murky Middle East for a passive American audience. He constantly condescends to Chotiner, answering his questions not with clear arguments but with “explanations” of Israeli society. Pressed on settlements, he says, “Remember, this is a deeply traumatized generation. This is a generation that—virtually everyone in it has lost friends and family members to terror.”…This pablum has nothing to do with the real disagreements between Chotiner and Oren. Rather, Oren is working as a high-class tour-guide, answering Chotiner as if he were a naive college student on a Birthright bus, giving him vague stereotypes about Israeli society.

    Eventually, Oren angrily told Chotiner, “You guys are just into delegitimization.” Then he cut the interview short. “I am not interested, because you are not interested in anything I have to say,” he said, and hung up.

    That’s the Israeli right’s line these days with anyone who won’t swallow the hasbarah unquestioningly. For years, they honed a passive-aggressive style of insisting they are negotiating while refusing to respond to any serious critique on Palestinians; now, Oren is turning it on the New Yorker as well.

    • Maghlawatan on May 17, 2019, 1:12 pm

      Israel is like a failing company. Everything is fine as long as there are no problems. If something goes wrong like missing a profit target people start asking questions and wondering what else is wrong. Management get defensive. Only certain analysis is suddenly acceptable. It is usually a death spiral

  19. hophmi on May 14, 2019, 6:39 pm

    Actually, I think it’s more accurate to say that Israelis have been coddling ill-intentioned people like Isaac Chotiner’s for too long.

    • eljay on May 14, 2019, 7:34 pm

      || hophmi: Actually, I think it’s more accurate to say that Israelis have been coddling ill-intentioned people like Isaac Chotiner’s for too long. ||

      It’s a wonder Jewish supremacists (Zionists) would think to coddle anyone who might draw attention to just how hateful and immoral are Zionism and its colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist construct.

      Like all supremacists, you folks should stick to coddling ‘yes’ men.

    • hophmi on May 15, 2019, 8:29 am

      I bet you’ll feel that way when some BDS activist does an interview like this and gets upset when someone like Chotiner asks them why they support terrorism.

      • eljay on May 15, 2019, 10:02 am

        || hophmi: I bet you’ll feel that way when some BDS activist does an interview like this and gets upset when someone like Chotiner asks them why they support terrorism. ||

        hophmi, you are so deliberately dishonest it’s not funny.

        Chotiner’s statement to Oren was in line with Oren’s Jewish supremacist (Zionist) beliefs and values.

        Support for BDS does not imply support for terrorism, and one cannot honestly infer support for terrorism solely from support for BDS.

        A supporter of BDS could easily, honestly and without any contradiction counter your dishonest hypothetical statement from Chotiner by saying “I do not support terrorism.”

        Oren chose not to counter Chotiner’s statement – but, instead, to feign offense – because the statement was honest and accurate and in order to counter it Oren would have had either:
        – to lie about his Zionist beliefs and values; or
        – to openly contradict them.

      • pjdude on May 17, 2019, 10:04 pm

        you mean like people like you get made when we ask you why you support terrorism? if you support the israeli settlers you support terrorism thats just a fact

    • Mooser on May 15, 2019, 11:14 am

      ” Israelis have been coddling ill-intentioned people like Isaac Chotiner’s”

      Yeah, “Hophmi”, there are certain kinds of people you just can’t trust.

    • Boris on May 16, 2019, 12:04 pm

      It was Goebbels who had said that, if you keep repeating a lie, sooner or later people will believe it.

      Looks like you had good teachers…

      • eljay on May 16, 2019, 12:16 pm

        || Boris: It was Goebbels who had said that, if you keep repeating a lie, sooner or later people will believe it. … ||

        Goebbels would be proud of Zionism and Zionists.

  20. RoHa on May 15, 2019, 9:40 pm

    Boris believes it. This seems to be a bit of an embarrassment to Jon66.

    But the important point is that all Jews, everywhere, have a 3000 year-old right to live anywhere they want in Palestine, and no-one else has any right to be there at all.

    And if you ask why, or question it in any way, then you are an evil anti-Semite.

    Mind you, you are an evil anti-Semite anyway.

    • echinococcus on May 15, 2019, 11:06 pm

      John66 isn’t embarrassed at all. On his way to the Deeds Office he greets us with a chirpy and woke “Jews aren’t a race!”, then appears before the Registrar and claims all rights to Palestine, where his racial ancestors in direct line used to live 3,000 years ago, deposits his Old Testament containing his racial Civil Registry records in Phoenician and Square Aramaic letters, and gets his deed issued. Only Antisemites would be embarrassed.

    • Mooser on May 16, 2019, 6:27 pm

      “Mind you, you are an evil anti-Semite anyway.”

      “RoHa”, you are being manifestly unfair. Sure, maybe anti-semitism is the default judgement, but if you’re no deadbeat, switching that “anti” to “philo” is as easy as dialing the number on this page.

    • Maghlawatan on May 17, 2019, 1:17 pm

      They want the right to live wherever they want but they also want to run an open economy.
      Let’s see how long it lasts.

      “The conventional wisdom gives way not so much to new ideas as to the massive onslaught of circumstances with which it cannot contend »

  21. Rebekkah on May 19, 2019, 2:36 pm

    “But you are saying that, wherever they are living, they have less right to be there than you as a Jew born in New York.”

    I hate to split hairs here, but i went through the article a couple of times and didn’t actually see those words. We all know that Palestinians are not allowed to live wherever they want in the West Bank, but the reporter should have done a better job of getting Oren to the point in the conversation where he couldn’t deny that is the case.

    • annie on May 19, 2019, 4:14 pm

      i went through the article a couple of times and didn’t actually see those words.

      it’s a figure of speech rebekka. and while it may have been more accurate for the reporter to have stated “you are effectively saying that, wherever they are living…” most english speakers are going to understand the reporters point.

      the reporter should have done a better job of getting Oren to the point in the conversation where he couldn’t deny that is the case.

      the reporter accomplished that, which is why Oren promptly exited the interview. because he felt backed into a corner.

      btw, here’s (part of) what oren said that effectively confirmed the reporters statement:

      It’s not just security. It’s also ideology, it’s also belief. . . It is definitely our right. I think it is our incontrovertible right as Jews to live anywhere in our ancestral homeland. . . Anywhere.

  22. echinococcus on May 19, 2019, 3:53 pm

    Wrong, you love to split hairs and pull pills and be the most ludicrousest in town. “where he couldn’t deny it’s the case” indeed.

Leave a Reply