Trending Topics:

Democrats have no problem criticizing Israel, but no specifics on holding it accountable

News
on 30 Comments

Earlier this week, New York Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand told ABC’s Martha Raddatz that the United States should hold Israel accountable for barring Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) from entering the country.

“Congress has a duty to make decisions about whether we give aid, how we protect allies such as Israel with qualitative military edge,” she said. “I don’t know why Netanyahu would want to deny members of Congress to come to Israel if they expect us to be that never-ending partner and friend. I think our obligation, as an ally and as a friend is to hold them accountable when they’re wrong…”

This certainly isn’t the first time the subject has come up on the campaign trail. The Jewish progressive organization IfNotNow has also been asking candidates about the occupation and whether or not they’re prepared to pressure Israel in order to end it. Nearly every Democrat who’s been questioned has indicated that they would be, but no one has provided much detail in how such pressure would be applied. The only two candidates who have proposed something resembling such a policy are Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg.

Sanders has repeatedly stated that he’d be open to leveraging aid to Israel in order to help change their policies. “The United States government gives a whole lot of money to Israel and I think we can leverage that money to end some of the racism that we have recently seen in Israel,” he said most recently. Buttigieg said he wouldn’t allow U.S. aid to pay for a potential annexation of the West Bank. “If Prime Minister Netanyahu makes good on his threat to annex West Bank settlements, he should know that a President Buttigieg would take steps to ensure that American taxpayers won’t help foot the bill,” he said at Indiana University in June.

Buttigieg’s plan is obviously more specific than Sanders’, but it remains unclear how either idea would actually be implemented. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received stern criticisms from many of the Democratic candidates before he blocked Tlaib and Omar from entering the country and the move has only heightened that rhetoric, but it still hasn’t generated much in the way of policy details.

For a legislative plan that actually aims to hold Israel accountable for any of its actions, one has to turn to the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) introduced HR 2407, a bill that would amend the Foreign Assistance Act to block any funding for the military detention of children in Israel, or any other country. The resolution currently has 21 cosponsors (including every member of “The Squad”), but it’s not backed by Hawaii congresswoman and presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard, who has positioned herself as a critic of United States’ foreign policy. Last month, The Intercept reported that McCollum sent a letter to Bernie Sanders in June, asking him to introduce a companion bill to HR 2407 in the Senate. Sanders never got back to her and his office never responded to the publication when it asked whether he supports the legislation. They also got no response from Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) when they asked the same question.

Brad Parker, a senior adviser for policy and advocacy at Defense for Children International Palestine, told Mondoweiss that it remains quite difficult to push Democrats on this issue despite their disdain for Netanyahu’s government. “For decades, Palestinian rights advocates have pushed for justice and accountability yet systemic impunity and non-rights respecting policy toward Israel remain the norm,” he said. “A small group of lawmakers led by Rep. Betty McCollum have made some real headway, but over and over we see that when discussions turn toward actual justice and accountability, most lawmakers abandon their principles and maintain a specific exception for Israeli forces and officials to completely disregard international law perpetuating impunity and an occupation with no end in sight. Increasing rhetoric concerning conditions on U.S. military assistance to Israel is promising, but lawmakers generally are still hesitant to pursue any accountability measures by putting forward concrete policy vehicles or pursuing real action on their statements.”

Parker’s point was recently encapsulated at a Working Families Party event that Elizabeth Warren attended. During a Q & A session, IfNotNow co-founder and organizer Dani Moscovitch asked the Senator how she would pressure the Israeli government to end the occupation. Warren’s answer centered around pushing Israel and Palestine towards a two-state solution, but she never actually answered the question. After the event Moscovitch tweeted, “Tonight, I asked Elizabeth Warren how her plan to confront the crisis of Occupation will apply meaningful pressure on the Israeli government to move toward freedom and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians. She said she’d ‘push, and push hard.’…It’s a start! But it’s not a plan. Elizabeth Warren you have so many incredible plans putting forth a bold vision for structural change in this country. Do you have a plan to pressure the Israeli government to end the military occupation of millions of Palestinians?”

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow and Director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies who has been working on these issues for years. She told me that “we’re in the midst of a period of amazingly strong shifts in the public and media discourse” when it comes to Israel and that these shifts could pave the way for actual policy.”

A number of statistics back up Bennis’ assertion. According to a University of Maryland Critical Issues Poll from last winter, 40 percent of Americans support imposing sanctions on Israel if the country continues to expand its settlements; 56 percent of Democrats support such measures. 38 percent of Americans believe that Israel has too much influence on United States foreign policy (55 percent for Democrats and 44 percent for people under the age of 35); and just 9 percent believe it should have more influence. There’s also reason to believe that the media coverage of Omar and Tlaib could lead to deeper statistical shifts. A J Street poll conducted before the House passed a resolution condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement found that almost 64 percent of Democratic voters had never even heard of BDS. That same poll shows that just 12 percent of Democratic voters have a favorable view of Netanyahu’s government.

“We’re a long way from a profound US policy shift away from backing Israeli occupation and apartheid to instead support for human rights and equality for all — but the first step requires huge shifts in public opinion and the media, that’s already underway,” Bennis said. “And with a few members of Congress coming out directly in favor of BDS, others calling for Israel to be held accountable for its military juvenile detention system, or for its banning of Congress members by considering conditioning military aid on human rights compliance, a lot of new possibilities lie ahead.”

Michael Arria

Michael Arria is the U.S. correspondent for Mondoweiss.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

30 Responses

  1. JWalters on August 22, 2019, 7:45 pm

    “We’re a long way from … support for human rights and equality for all.” – Phyllis Bennis

    That’s because Zionists insist that “Equal Justice for All” equals “Injustice for Jews”. Which is a logical absurdity (except under certain deeply bigoted presumptions).

  2. Misterioso on August 23, 2019, 8:38 am

    Not specifically on topic, but relevant and well worth reading:

    https://nader.org/2019/08/22/they-dont-make-republicans-like-the-great-paul-findley-anymore/

    “They Don’t Make Republicans Like the Great Paul Findley Anymore!” By Ralph Nader, August 22/19

    “They don’t make Congressional Republicans like Congressman Paul Findley anymore. Not even close!

    “In his 22 years in Congress (1960 – 1982), Paul Findley achieved a sterling record for fundamental positions, proposals and breakthroughs that revealed a great man, pure and simple. He never stopped learning and applying his knowledge to advance the right course of action, regardless of political party, ideology or pressure from various groups.

    “Findley, a courteous, kindly, ex-World War II navy veteran passed away earlier this month at the age of 98 in his home town of Jacksonville, Illinois. The District he represented was the one Abraham Lincoln was elected from for his one term in the House of Representatives. Findley was a student of Lincoln’s life, and embraced Lincoln’s view that ‘a politician should be willing to reject outmoded ways of thinking that no longer fit the times.’

    “Findley was a thoughtful, studious legislator with a superb sense of justice. He was an early civil rights champion. His opposition to runaway Presidential war-making was reflected in his leading support for the War Powers Act of 1973, though he wanted stronger curbs on the White House’s unilateral militarism.

    “Having been a journalist and owner of a small-town newspaper – the Pike Press, before going to Congress in 1960, Findley used his writing skills to explain issues regarding agricultural policies, a foreign policy of diplomacy and peace, and nuclear arms controls. He was an outspoken early opponent of the Vietnam War and a critic of the Pentagon’s chronically wasteful spending. He was not a ‘press-release’ legislator, staking out his opinions and leaving it at that. He worked hard and smart to lead, to persuade, to get down to the minute details of coalition-building, lawmaking and legislating.

    “Back in Jacksonville, after his Congressional career ended in 1982, Findley wrote books and articles and lectured around the country. He courageously defended Americans of the Islamic faith, after 9/11, from bias, exclusion and intimidation. He did his civic duties with local associations. He also started the Lucille Findley Educational Foundation, in memory of his beloved wife – an Army nurse – he met in war-time Guam. They had two children. He always found time to be helpful, to serve others both locally and nationally. He also played tennis daily into his mid-eighties.

    “Findley possessed more than a streak of mid-west populism. Agricultural subsidies disproportionally going to a few wealthy landowners upset him greatly. He got through the House, after years of rejection, and over the objections of the Republican leadership, a $20,000 yearly limit of such subsidies per farm. The measure failed in the Senate.

    “Once again, in 1973, he bucked his Party and introduced an impeachment resolution against Nixon’s vice president Spiro Agnew, who later resigned in disgrace over a bribery scandal.

    “It was Findley’s interest in U.S. policies and operations in the Middle East, following his 1973 successful effort to obtain the release of a constituent from South Yemen that showed his moral courage, his belief in dialogue between adversaries and his commitment to the treatment of all people with dignity and respect. It also led to his defeat by Democrat Richard J. Durbin, now Illinois’s senior Senator.

    “Findley learned that the dispossessed and occupied Palestinian people were being treated unfairly and deprived of their human rights and self-determination. He visited refugee camps in the region. He met with Yasser Arafat, head of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and he urged peaceful diplomatic resolution of that conflict. For this sensible, though rare outreach by a Congressional lawmaker, he earned the immense enmity of U.S. partisans of the Israeli government. How dare he speak out on behalf of Palestinians, even though, he continued to vote for foreign aid to a prosperous militarily advanced Israeli superpower?

    “As the New York Times reported: “He became convinced that the influential pro-Israel lobby known as Aipac, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, had a stranglehold on American politicians that prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state and prevented rational dealings with Arab leaders in general.”

    “AIPAC activists, nationally and with their local affiliates, openly mobilized to defeat Findley in the 1980 election. They failed to do so. In 1982, they tried again, helping his Democratic opponent, Richard Durbin, to end Findley’s Congressional career by a margin of less than 1500 votes. AIPAC took credit for the win, raising over 80 percent of Durbin’s $750,000 in campaign funds from around the country. AIPAC’s executive director told a gathering in Texas: ‘We beat the odds and defeated Findley.’

    “Three years later, in 1985, Findley wrote and published his bold book ‘They Dare to Speak Out,’ that described his efforts at peaceful advocacy for a two-state solution, which is now supported by many Israelis and Jewish Americans. In his book, he profiled other Americans who dared to speak out, and who endured intimidating slander and ostracism. Findley’s documentation of the suppression of their freedom of speech was an early precursor of what is going on now.

    “It was acceptable for the early patriots to boycott British tea, for civil rights leaders to boycott certain businesses in the South, for opponents of South Africa’s apartheid to launch a worldwide economic boycott. But some state governments impose sanctions on their contractors if they merely speak out in favor of the call to boycott, divest and sanction Israel’s illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine and its millions of Palestinians. (Today, Palestine is only twenty two percent the size of the original Palestine).

    “Findley wrote his autobiography in 2011. But it will take a fuller biography to place this modest lawmaker/public citizen, and wager of peace over unlawful wars and rampant militarism, in the conforming context of his times. His career contrasts with the present big business, Wall Street over Main Street, militaristic GOP and shows that the Republican Party didn’t always demand rigid unanimity.

    “To his credit, Senator Durbin eulogized Paul Findley, as ‘An exceptional public servant and friend.’ He added that the man he defeated was ‘an elected official who showed exceptional courage in tackling the age old controversies in the Middle East.’

    “Senator Durbin could not say this about a single Republican in either the Senate or the House today, nor of over 95 percent of the Democrats.”

    • genesto on August 23, 2019, 12:28 pm

      Very nice eulogy for Paul Findley. Thank you.

      Reminds me of a time when there were respectable individuals within the Republican Party. Those days are long gone!

    • FightTribalism on August 23, 2019, 3:04 pm

      Problem is that any person of strong moral principles would be critical of Israel and thus AIPAC would work hard against them. As a result, our government is filled with either spineless or outright immoral individuals.

  3. pabelmont on August 23, 2019, 12:33 pm

    Beware of politicians who propose not to allow Israel to use USA’s aid money (or military money) to do “this or that that we do not approve of”. Money is fungible. If they can use ANY money to do “this or that” (i.e., to arrest kids at 3 AM) then they are, in effect, using USA’s aid money to do it, even if they do not keep the books that way.

    Those (possibly well-meaning) politicians should instead say, “We will not give ANY money to Israel if Israel does “this or that which we do not approve of”.

    Of course, such “laws” have been passed before. The USA, as is well known, does not give any military aid to countries which use the weapons for offensive purposes. Unless it’s Israel. So we must also not allow an escape hatch such as a Presidential waiver in favor of special allies.

    • Citizen on August 26, 2019, 4:29 am

      Good point. Any money going to Israel from US government or its individual citizens or NGOs for anything is the most fungible of all once in Israel.

    • Citizen on August 26, 2019, 4:30 am

      Good point. Any money going to Israel from US government or its individual citizens or NGOs for anything is the most fungible of all once in Israel. Worth repeating.

  4. echinococcus on August 23, 2019, 1:37 pm

    “Democrats have no problem criticizing Israel…”

    Well, that is not the point.

    They can “criticize Israel” all they want: all they are criticizing is the current policies. Not, repeat not, the principle of an invader state usurping the sovereignty over Palestine. Not the invasion, theft, apartheid and genocidal practices.

    That is not going to make a dent in the framework based on an acceptance of the colonial right to invasion and genocide of the Zionist state.

    Zionists are jake with that; that is precisely why they keep an army in both “parties” governing the US (the Adelson Party and the Saban Party, shorthand.) In fact, the figurehead of those supposed to “criticize Israel” is a diehard Zionist mountebank of the “Labour” variety and an inveterate imperialist warmonger who voted to support every war, including the AUMF: Sanders.

    Every act of that “criticizing Israel” is reducible to one thing: criticizing the openly reactionary Likud government, which is explicitly supporting and helping the current Republican administration and its hated orange-hued head against the other, Democrat war criminals.

    Calling attention to that “criticizing Israel” is a diversionary maneuver. It is intended to keep the readership away from questioning the very existence of the cancerous Zionist state.

    • Citizen on August 26, 2019, 4:35 am

      Gulf War and Desert Storm: Bernie voted against the joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 1991, calling for economic sanctions and other diplomatic means to address the conflict instead.

      Iraq War and Operation Iraqi Freedom: Bernie voted against the joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq in 2002, and voted against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

      Iraq War Spending Bills to Aid Veterans and Vermonters: Bernie supported four war-spending bills, in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2011; he voted against six others.

      • echinococcus on August 26, 2019, 2:08 pm

        Citizen,

        Looks like you missed a lot. First, the fact that Sanders voted a big yes to the AUMF
        (Authorization for Use of Military Force) of 2001. The only nay in all of both Houses, remember, came from Barbara Lee. The 2001 AUMF was the basis used for the aggression against Iraq, as it was (and continues to be?) the basis of all the undeclared (unconstitutional) US war of aggression since then. The specific Iraq vote was an ideal setup for Bernard Sanders grandstanding, as the war had already been approved earlier (and his VT constituency was losing patience wits his continuous militarism.) Also, he approved the spending for that war, too, period. As for veterans, that was not spending for drafted veterans any longer, but for voluntarily enlisted, inexcusable murderers.

        Even with that specific Iraq vote, we haven’t heard him protest the Iraq aggression before it started to sputter. He cheered all other US aggressions, not only the direct military ones in Libya and Syria and Afghanistan etc. but also all the putsches performed by our spy agencies and dollars, from the Ukraine to Venezuela, and he approved all the gestures and spending to provoke Russia. He also brought the blessing of the F35 to Vermont…

        And he is a card-carrying Zionist of the Labor variety (= the original invaders and genocidaires, today “Zionist Bloc”.) His opposition to the current Zionist entity government is not directed at their invasion and genocide but their “right-wing” spot on the now meaningless spectrum of USZionist Empire “left” and “right”.

        If the insincere words by the old charlatan at the last minute, in an attempt to try and keep the boobies still voting Democrat, for whoever the next Democratic War Party candidate will be eventually selected by the Owners of the Empire (do we need yet another demonstration?) may convince even a few of his starry-eyed followers to shun Zionists or give even a dollar to Palestinian resistance, that’s a good thing, of course. But not a reason to join the legion of the gullible.

  5. Vera Gottlieb on August 24, 2019, 11:45 am

    Perro que ladra no muerde…Barking dog doesn’t bite.

    • RoHa on August 24, 2019, 7:04 pm

      But it could stop barking at any moment.

    • Citizen on August 27, 2019, 7:06 pm

      @ echinococcus , thanks for the additional information on Bernie’s record!

      • echinococcus on August 28, 2019, 3:25 am

        You’re welcome, Citizen. Liberals, unlike plain reactionaries who don’t need it, are adept at falsifying their record; we the no-‘counts, to be able to survive, must learn to check every single word they utter.

      • Mooser on August 28, 2019, 11:54 am

        “Liberals, unlike plain reactionaries who don’t need it, are adept at falsifying their record; we the no-‘counts, to be able to survive, must learn to check every single word they utter.”

        I’m sorry, “Echin”, but did you make a mistake in that sentence? Didn’t you mean to say “revolutionaries” instead of “reactionaries”?

      • Keith on August 28, 2019, 6:22 pm

        MOOSER- “Didn’t you mean to say “revolutionaries” instead of “reactionaries”?”

        Liberal revolutionaries? Always with the jokes, you are. Echinococcus is quite right, those without power need to be cognizant of reality in order to defend ourselves as best they can under the circumstances. Correctly perceiving reality our one competitive advantage in a world of gross power imbalances.

      • echinococcus on August 29, 2019, 1:17 am

        Keith,

        One must have some patience with Mooser’s confusion, as with all liberals.

      • Mooser on August 29, 2019, 5:06 pm

        “One must have some patience with Mooser’s confusion, as with all liberals.”

        Yes, we must be quite frustrating for you revolutionaries to deal with.

  6. Jackdaw on August 25, 2019, 4:55 am

    It is difficult to hold Israel ‘accountable’, when she’s been at war with her Arab neighbors for close to one hundred years.

    Israel has fought three existential wars, a half dozen elective wars, fights murderous terror attacks daily on her innocent civilians, and is now is fighting a Cold War with Persian Iran and Iran’s Arab proxies.

    Iran, of course, lies 1000 miles away , and dwarves Israel in size and population.

    But none of this matters when you live in the Mondoweiss universe.

    • eljay on August 25, 2019, 9:00 am

      || Jackdaw: It is difficult to hold Israel ‘accountable’, when she’s been at war with her Arab neighbors for close to one hundred years. … ||

      There’s nothing difficult about it.

      For close to one hundred years, Israel has been stealing, militarily-occupying and colonizing territory outside of its / Partition borders.

      For close to one hundred years, Israel has been committing (war) crimes deliberately and with impunity.

      All states that do the sort of evil Israel has been doing for close to one hundred years should be held accountable for their actions.

      You Zionists need to stop anti-Semitically “singling out” Israel for special treatment.

    • Talkback on August 26, 2019, 6:03 am

      Jackdaw: “It is difficult to hold Israel ‘accountable’, when she’s been at war with her Arab neighbors for close to one hundred years.”

      Sure, because the root of the problem is not Jewish settler colonialism and its goal of taking over Palestine while denying political power to its Nonjewish residents, but the response of the latter, right? You poor, poor, poor victim of anti-Zionism.

      Jackdaw: “Israel has fought three existential wars, …”

      Really? When where they “existential” and not of free choice besides in 1973 when Arab states only tried to liberate territories under Israeli occupation and didn’t even enter Israel. And does a state’s “existential” war somehow legitimize its existence?

      Jackdaw: “… fights murderous terror attacks daily on her innocent civilians …”

      ROFL. What’s the ratio between these attacks and Israel’s daily murderous terror attacks on Palestinian civilians? Can Israel even maintain a belligerent brutal oland grabbing ccupation without daily murderous terror attacks on Palestinian civilians?

  7. Ossinev on August 25, 2019, 9:12 am

    @Jackdaw
    “It is difficult to hold Israel ‘accountable’, when she’s been at war with her Arab neighbors for close to one hundred years.

    Israel has fought three existential wars, a half dozen elective wars, fights murderous terror attacks daily on her innocent civilians, and is now is fighting a Cold War with Persian Iran and Iran’s Arab proxies.

    Iran, of course, lies 1000 miles away , and dwarves Israel in size and population”

    This really brought tears to my eyes. Poor eternally “accountable ” little Zioland.

    BTW WTF is an”elective” war ?

    • RoHa on August 25, 2019, 11:21 pm

      “BTW WTF is an”elective” war ?”

      If A does not need to make war on B, but chooses to do so, then, from A’s point of view, the war is an elective war. The war on Iraq was an elective war from the US point of view.

      Of course, B also has a choice – fight back or not. But the necessity of making that choice was forced upon B by A’s choice, so we do not say the war was elective from B’s point of view.

      Except for the 1973 war, I would consider all Israel’s wars to have been elective. There was no necessity for the 1948 war. That was a choice of the Zionists to set up their state.

      There was no necessity for the 1956 war, or the 1967 war, or for all the others. Only in the case of the 1973 war can Israel claim to have had war forced upon it.

      In general, elective wars are deemed to be immoral. That certainly applies to Israel’s wars.

  8. ritzl on August 25, 2019, 3:43 pm

    It is difficult for simple-minded people like me to discern how Bernie’s position (antiBDS but pro withholding USG aid) is different from normal people exerting their economic rights to boycott/sithohold economic support for Israel.

    I always couch my “are you wiling to do whateverit takes to realize your goals” discretion within the “believability” spectrum of “are you willing to do something for Palestine”.

    I’m not sure Bernie is.

    Still he is among the best, but “best” is a highly relevant consideration.

    • Citizen on August 26, 2019, 4:42 am

      Perhaps he is against the portion of the stated BDS agenda that calls for ROT for families of Palestinians who were terrorized out of their homeland during the Nakba? Somebody needs to ask him precisely why he is against BDS, & also ask other candidates too. He may ignore that Jews when & wherever born have a ROT, so why not the mentioned Palestinians where justification is more meritorious? He may not want to risk reversal of minority status resulting in installation of Sharia Law in a BDS state?

  9. Emet on August 28, 2019, 5:07 am

    Secular liberals have no problem saying that they support justice, peace and security for all but never talk about specifics when despicable acts of violence are perpetrated and/or supported by Palestinian Arabs and Muslims. And this goes back over 100 years. Apparently the hate for Jews and Israel surmounts the need for justice, security and a recognition that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, especially the West Bank and Jerusalem, to which the Bible directly refers, over and over again. And the same hypocritical liberals reject religious points of view when presented by Jews but are fine with same coming from Muslims. For liberals the Koran trumps the Torah, but even then are selective in the Surahs and verse’s they are willing to consider.

    • eljay on August 28, 2019, 10:23 am

      || Emet: Secular liberals have no problem saying that they support justice, peace and security for all … ||

      I support the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality.

      Hypocrite Zionists do not.

      || … but never talk about specifics when despicable acts of violence are perpetrated and/or supported by Palestinian Arabs and Muslims. … ||

      The specifics are the same for “Palestinian Arabs and Muslims” as they are for Israelis or Zionists or Jews: (War) criminals should be held accountable for their (war) crimes.

      Not surprisingly, hypocrite Zionists prefer not to hold their co-collectivists accountable for their past and on-going (war) crimes.

      || … Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people … ||

      Geographic Palestine was not and still is not the homeland – historic, ancient, one true, lost or otherwise – of people all over the world – citizens of homelands all over the world – who have chosen to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish.

      Stop making stuff up.

      || … And the same hypocritical liberals reject religious points of view when presented by Jews but are fine with same coming from Muslims. … ||

      I’ve never heard any “liberals” – hypocrite or otherwise – claim that geographic Palestine is the homeland of every person in the world who embraces the religion-based identity of Muslim.

      Seriously, stop making stuff up.

    • Mooser on August 28, 2019, 12:07 pm

      “a recognition that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, especially the West Bank and Jerusalem, to which the Bible directly refer”

      Exactly, “Emet”! As the great Jabotinsky said:

      “There can be no assimilation as long as there is no mixed marriage. … An increase in the number of mixed marriages is the only sure and infallible means for the destruction of nationality as such. … A preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity”

      “Emet” when we get that little “racial purity” problem solved, there will be no stopping us. Our Jewish nationality and race will be secure.

    • Talkback on August 29, 2019, 4:48 am

      Emet: “Secular liberals have no problem saying that they support justice, peace and security …”

      Othodox Jewish racists like you do.

      Emet: “… but never talk about specifics when despicable acts of violence are perpetrated and/or supported by Palestinian Arabs and Muslims.”

      As if you would ever talk about specifics when despicable acts of violence are perpetrated and/or supported by Jews and Zionists.

      Emet: “… a recognition that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, especially the West Bank and Jerusalem, to which the Bible directly refers, over and over again.”

      Everybody recognizes that “Israel” WAS the homeland of the Jews. Since the mandate it became the homeland of the citizens of Palestine whether they were Jewish or not. That excludes you or any other foreign colonist or anyone else who illegally entered Palestine without the consent of its people. YOU have never been amongst those who belong to the indegineous population of Palestine. We both know that it pains you so much that you have to manipulate history and language.

  10. Ossinev on August 28, 2019, 10:39 am

    @Emet
    “a recognition that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, especially the West Bank and Jerusalem, to which the Bible directly refer”

    It`s 2019 Emet – yawn. Time to ditch your Jews in Wonderland “biblical” calendar and seriously engage with the 21st century

Leave a Reply