Trending Topics:

Montana lawmaker returns from Israel trip drawing comparisons between Palestinians and Native Americans, but reaches wrong conclusions

News
on 57 Comments

Last month, Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton traveled to Israel as part of a bipartisan delegation to the country. The National Association of Secretaries of State delegation trip was sponsored by an American Jewish Committees institute and was carried out in purported effort to further strengthen United States/Israel relations.

Shortly after returning from the trip, Stapleton shared a strange, meandering post on his website titled, “We Were Here First.” In the post, Stapleton compares the Little Shell tribe of Chippewa in Montana to the Palestinians and draws a parallel between Israeli policies and those of Montana’s government. Stapleton also writes that the tribe has become “somewhat ‘lost'” without a piece of land to call their own.

It’s an interesting idea regarding land: “We were here first” often has a strong legal foundation in civilized courts and governments.  But not always.  Just because a tribe or nation occupies a certain plot of land hasn’t historically assured its future ownership.

Just days before I ran into Gerald, I was in Israel.  And wouldn’t you know it—they’re dealing with the same thing!  Kinda.

Several other Secretaries of State, and myself, spent the better part of a week learning about the small nation of Israel and all the nuances of living in a region where different tribes and nations really don’t like each other.  Trying to allocate land and property based upon who was there ‘first’ doesn’t always work very well, to say the least.

Both the Jewish people and the Palestinians want to live in the same place.  Both sides have claims of ownership going back to the beginning of recorded history.  But the creation of the new country of Israel in 1948 on the location of Palestine (as a direct response to the devastating World War II holocaust that ended in 1945) is the rule of the day.  Israel is the mandate of the modern world.  The Jewish people were given a place of their own.

So, here’s the question:  When is it better to blend tribes together, and when is it better to keep them apart?

Both the Jewish and Palestinian leaders agree that a ‘two-state solution’ is the only acceptable course.  In other words, they each want to have their own country, and be physically separated from each other.  They don’t want to live in the same neighborhoods, have children attend the same schools, intra-marry, or vote in the same elections.  They do not want to assimilate cultures.

In Montana, we refer to our Indian reservations as ‘sovereign’ in some regards, but in other situations the tribes are treated just like other citizens of the state and nation.  I guess we could call it a ‘softer’ two-state solution.

Later in the piece, Stapleton asserts that Charles Darwin would have believed that the tribes should assimilate in order to survive. However, he concludes, “With our world’s population approaching 8 billion people, I think this question of assimilating tribes versus separating them will not be going away anytime soon.  Luckily in Montana, we have lots of land and not many people.”

Stapleton’s post has angered members of the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians. “It is frustrating because that goes all the way back to boarding schools, with the notion of ‘kill the Indian, save the man,'” tribe member Chris La Tray told The Independent Record, “They wanted to eliminate the Native parts of who we were to make us assimilate as ‘regular Americans.’ We’re under no obligation to do that. Many of us don’t want to do that. I consider myself a U.S. citizen secondary to a citizen of the Little Shell people.”

Stapleton is a Republican and running for the House of Representatives in 2020.

Michael Arria

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

57 Responses

  1. JWalters on January 2, 2020, 6:49 pm

    “Both the Jewish people and the Palestinians want to live in the same place.”

    Actually, SOME Jewish people want to live in Palestine AND eliminate the Palestinians.

    ” The Jewish people were given a place of their own.”

    Actually, SOME Jewish people invaded Palestine, slaughtering whole villages of innocent people, terrorizing most of the rest into fleeing for their lives.
    “Terrorism: How the Israeli state was won”
    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/terrorism-israeli-state

    Corey Stapleton is just another hired liar for Israel.

    • Talkback on January 3, 2020, 4:15 am

      JWalters: “Actually, SOME Jewish people invaded Palestine, slaughtering whole villages of innocent people, terrorizing most of the rest into fleeing for their lives.”

      Zionist hagiography describes the creation of the state of Israel almost like an immaculate conception. The state “came into being”, it was “born”. It was “given” to the Jewish people. Not a single word that it was forced upon the natives through war and expulsion.

      Some of these Zionist storytellers are more “liberal”: Israel was “born”, but “born out of sin”. As if the creation of Israel was the result of rape and not the act of a rapist.

      • Misterioso on January 3, 2020, 10:34 am

        @Talkback

        Right on!

        Theodore Herzl’s diaries not only confirm that his objective was the establishment of a “Jewish state” in Palestine, but that it would be an expansionist state. In the year of his death, 1904, he described its borders as being “…in the north the mountains facing Cappadocia [Turkey], in the south, the Suez Canal [Egypt] in the east, the Euphrates [Iraq].” (Theodor Herzl, The Complete Diaries, 11 p. 711)

        What is most interesting about Herzl’s brief stay in Palestine, as revealed in his diaries, is how he viewed the indigenous Arabs. It as if the Palestinians did not exist and when he does occasionally refer to them, it is in racist terms. Herzl also failed to mention the fact that the great majority of the population was Muslim and Christian Arabs. He only comments on Jewish holy sites and makes no reference at all to the Islamic ones, not even the Dome of the Rock or the al-Aqsa mosque. (See Walid Khalidi, “The Jewish-Ottoman Land Company: Herzl’s Blueprint for the Colonization of Palestine,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXll, No.2, Winter 1993, pp. 39-42)

        Israel Zangwill, the influential Anglo-Jewish essayist and Zionist, first believed that the Palestinians would simply “fold their tents and slip away.” It was he who first voiced the lie that Palestine was a “land without a people, waiting for a people without a land.” (Zangwill, “The Return to Palestine”, New Liberal Review 11, Dec. 1901, p. 627)

        In 1905, Zangwill contradicted himself during a talk in Manchester when he observed that Palestine was “already twice as thickly populated as the United States…. [W]e must be prepared to either drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien [sic] population….” (Zangwill, Speeches, p. 210, quoted by Nur Masalah, Expulsion of the Palestinians, 1992, p. 10)

        In the February 1919 issue of the League of Nations Journal, Zangwill proposed that the Palestinians “should be gradually transplanted” in Arab countries and at a public meeting in the same year he remarked that “many [Palestinians] are semi-nomad, they have given nothing to Palestine and are not entitled to the rules of democracy.” (Jewish Chronicle, Dec. 12, 1919, Masalha, p.14)

        In 1920, Zangwill proposed in The Voice of Jerusalem, that there should be an “‘Arab exodus’…based on ‘race redistribution’ or a ‘trek like that of the Boers from Cape Colony,’ which he advocated as ‘literally the only way out of the difficulty of creating a Jewish State in Palestine.’” He continued: “We cannot allow the Arabs to block so valuable a piece of historic reconstruction….To fold their tents and silently steal away is their proverbial habit: let them exemplify it now.” (Zangwill, The Voice of Jerusalem, p. 103, quoted by Masalha, EOTP pp. 13- 14)

        Ben-Gurion, 1937: “”[a] partial Jewish state is not the end, but only the beginning. The establishment of such a Jewish state will serve as a means in our historical efforts to redeem the country in its entirety.”

        During a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive on 12 June 1938, Ben-Gurion again advocated expulsion of the Palestinians: “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral.” (Benny Morris, “Refabricating 1948”)

        On 30 January 1941, during a meeting in London, Chaim Weizmann revealed the details of a discussion he had just had with Ivan Maisky, the Soviet ambassador to London regarding the transfer of Arabs from Palestine. According to notes taken during the meeting, “Dr. Weizmann said [to Mr. Maisky] that if half a million Arabs could be transferred, two million Jews could be put in their place. That of course would be a first installment; what might happen afterwards was a matter for history.” (Benny Morris, “Refabricating 1948”).

        Indeed, Some years later, Alfred Einstein revealed to the eminent Jewish America scholar, Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, that during a conversation he [Einstein] had asked Weizmann: “What about the Arabs if Palestine were given to the Jews?” And Weizmann responded: “What Arabs? They are hardly of any consequence.” (Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel?)

        Although its origins can be traced back to Herzl and other early Zionists, Plan Dalet (Plan D) began to take concrete form in 1937, when the Jewish Agency’s Transfer Committee was established by Yosef Weitz and others. The committee’s purpose was to devise a plan that would lead to the “transfer” of the Arab population out of Palestine so that Jews would become a large majority. This would be accomplished by “promoting measures designed to encourage the Arab flight.” Weitz did not mince his words: “…there is no room for both people together in this country….The only solution is a Palestine…without Arabs. And there is no way other than to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, to transfer all of them; not one village, not one tribe, should be left.” (Yosef Weitz, My Diary and Letters to the Children, 1965).

        Laying the groundwork for what would be the well documented brutal (e.g., Deir Yassin) dispossession and expulsion of 800,000 indigenous Palestinian Arabs by Jewish Zionists of foreign origin between late 1947 and early 1949 (a further 250,000 driven out by June 1967), Polish born David Ben-Gurion (real name, David Gruen) stated in a letter to his son in 1937: “When the Jewish state comes into being, we will expel the Arabs and take their places.” He stated in a speech to the 20th. Zionist Congress, on Aug. 7, 1937: ” In many parts of the country new Jewish settlements will not be possible unless there is transfer of the Arab population is what makes possible a comprehensive [Jewish] settlement plan.” This policy of “transfer” was pronounced by Theodor Herzl in 1896, and Joseph Weitz in 1940, and was put in effect in 1948.

      • MHughes976 on January 3, 2020, 5:12 pm

        But a balanced account, Mist, needs reference to Altneuland as well as to The Jewish State. I always think you overestimate Zangwill’s importance, or at least his originality. The ‘land without a people’ idea goes back to Alexander Keith in the 1840s and that is significant because of the proto-Z influence on the Church of Scotland, Balfour’s spiritual nurse. I think his actual nurse or governess filled him with proto-Z ideas at an impressionable age and she is very likely to have been influenced by Keith.

  2. echinococcus on January 2, 2020, 8:42 pm

    The conclusion is not really wrong, it is intentionally stated in misleading terms.
    The main aim of the Zionist entity is to complete the genocide of Palestinians, following the example of the US settlers. And this Stapleton makes his best effort to camouflage the problem, pretending that the Chippewa still retain political significance.

    Of course the whole point of resistance to Zionism is to defeat it — before it gets around to reduce the Palestinians to the condition of the Chippewa. Stapleton shows that he understands this well and chooses his words to hide the central fact, that it all is about genocide.

  3. brent on January 2, 2020, 8:49 pm

    It would be interesting to know how thinking of other members of this delegation was influenced by this ongoing branding program by the AJC. That could lend weight to the one-state concept as originally envisioned by the PLO. A return to the time neighborly relations were the order of the day.

    • Mooser on January 3, 2020, 5:00 pm

      “A return to the time neighborly relations were the order of the day.”

      When was that, “Brent”? Or have you figured out a way to double the land area and resources of Palestine?

  4. Ossinev on January 3, 2020, 6:42 am

    “Luckily in Montana, we have lots of land and not many people.”

    Now that definitely rings a bell = “a land without people for a people without land “. Except that Palestine had and despite all the ethnic cleansing by the invading colonists still has a large native population larger and still growing compared with the colonials.

    “Both sides have claims of ownership going back to the beginning of recorded history”

    Zio ” claims” to historical rights of ownership of any part of Palestine were and are total garbage and totally at odds with modern International Laws.

    Sounds as if this idiot following his freebie jolly to Zioland has felt compelled to say something relevant , ended up describing a circle and is desperately trying to square it.

    • MHughes976 on January 3, 2020, 9:27 am

      If a Martian came across the story of the Israelite conquest the reaction might be that this is a story not of a justified presence ‘from the beginning’ but of immigration in a ruthlessly violent and essentially unprovoked form – just what HG Wells attributes to the Marts themselves. What makes all this seem legitimate is the idea, perhaps widely accepted in Montana, of divine mandate hovering over the grand narrative. I don’t mean to sound snooty about the good people of M, I think we’re no better in Berkshire. It’s a problem for the Christian West.

      • Talkback on January 3, 2020, 5:36 pm

        One day, aliens from outer space will visit our planet and claim that this planet was promised to them and taht they are descendants of others who lived on this planet before. They are going to get rid of the majority of humans and then claim that they are the only democracy in the solar system. And everybody resisting is just xenophobic.

      • Nathan on January 6, 2020, 9:07 am

        MHughes976 – I think that it’s rather obvious that there aren’t any Martians. So, in my humble opinion, there is no point trying to guess what their reaction might be when they hear the anti-Israel version of events. As an simple earthling, I could try to give you my modest reaction to the story you presented. I would probably ask if you could also present the other version of the story. It’s hard to take a story seriously when the presentation is so obviously slanted.

        Talkback – I can calm your fears. The chances that aliens will visit our planet are rather slim. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.

      • MHughes976 on January 6, 2020, 3:44 pm

        The question of whether one proposition implies another is not dependent on whether either proposition is true, though it may help us to discover whether or not they are. HG Wells’ Martians were violent immigrants who presumably thought that their superior technology gave them superior rights.
        I was asking what someone – a rational being – coming on this world’s sacred texts for the first time, with some detachment and without the familiarity and semi-indoctrination that we in this world tend to have, would make of the Joshua-Judges stories. I think he would observe that the Israelites made no claim to have been in the Holy Land from the beginning but to have been violent immigrants not responding to provocation but to a divine mandate which overrode all normal rules. Not so?

      • Talkback on January 6, 2020, 5:01 pm

        Nathan: “Talkback – I can calm your fears. The chances that aliens will visit our planet are rather slim. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.”

        I’m glad to hear that the stupidity of Zionism is very likely unique.

    • Mooser on January 3, 2020, 5:06 pm

      “Both sides have claims of ownership going back to the beginning of recorded history”

      Screw going back, the question is going forward, will Judaism, Jewishness remain the same thing that supported, and was able to support Zionism. I doubt it.

    • Nathan on January 6, 2020, 9:51 pm

      Ossinev – Claims of historic rights are not at odds with international laws. I’m rather certain that you can’t quote a law which forbids making claims of historic rights.

      • annie on January 7, 2020, 7:24 am

        I’m rather certain that you can’t quote a law which forbids making claims of historic rights.

        do any international laws reference “historic rights”?

      • Talkback on January 7, 2020, 8:41 am

        Nathan: “I’m rather certain that you can’t quote a law which forbids making claims of historic rights.”

        What a straw man argument. Cou can claim what ever you want. And we know that Zionists are not even embarassed when it comes to making the most ridiculous claims about rights.

        But it would be up to you to prove that “historic rights” do exist in international law and could lead to legitimate claims. I can’t recall the Jewish Agency took over allmost all of Palestine because it won a case at the International Court of Justice. To the contrary. Proposals to refer this case to the ICJ was intentionally prevented and justice was denied.

      • Mooser on January 7, 2020, 11:50 am

        ” I’m rather certain that you can’t quote a law which forbids making claims of historic rights.” “Nathan”

        I’m rather certain you can’t quote a law (well, except maybe some promulgated at Nuremberg) which forbids Jews from rejecting all that BS about “historical rights”.

      • Nathan on January 8, 2020, 11:25 am

        Talkback – Why would anyone have to prove that historic rights exist in international law? You participate in the propaganda battle against Israel. You should be capable of understanding what is the bla-bla-bla of propaganda. Ossinev’s comment about historical rights being at odds with international law was bla-bla-bla of propaganda, just as your “fear” of an alien invasion was another example of “bla-bla-bla”. Such silly comments are meant for some imaginary audience that might be convinced that Israel is not a legitimate state, and that she can be wished out of existence by some legalistic argument.

        States come into being, and that’s that. There is no need to go to court in order to prove or disprove anything. It’s too bad that you disapprove of Israel’s having come into being, but your feelings are not relevant. Moreover, with the founding of a state, a citizenship is also established. In short, the Israelis are the citizens of Israel. They are not foreigners, even if you insist – and you’re welcome to check the international laws in this regard.

        It’s puzzling that you are so busy with universal principles or international law when the real issue is political. Maybe there’s an explanation. If the issue at hand is political, that means we have a debate. There are two sides to every debate, and we have to accept a reality that both sides have their truth. Since you can’t understand that the Jewish side has its truth, you live in the illusion that the issue has to be settled in court where it will be magically determined that “that truth is false”.

      • eljay on January 8, 2020, 12:04 pm

        || Nathan: … There are two sides to every debate, and we have to accept a reality that both sides have their truth. … ||

        Holocaust denial and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have truths we must accept? Wow. I couldn’t disagree more.

      • Mooser on January 8, 2020, 1:49 pm

        ” There are two sides to every debate, and we have to accept a reality that both sides have their truth. …” “Nathan”

        You bet, “Nathan”. So after that, it just gets down to power. Numbers, resources, unity and discipline! And Judaism, consisting of less than 10 million people in the entire world (or would you like to tell us how many?) at best, can play right up there on the world stage and impress its “truths” upon the world.

      • MHughes976 on January 8, 2020, 3:45 pm

        What is the Palestinian truth as you perceive it, Nathan?

      • Talkback on January 8, 2020, 6:32 pm

        Nathan: “Why would anyone have to prove that historic rights exist in international law?”

        Yeah, why would anyone have to prove any Zionist idiocy? You just can’t prove it.

        Nathan: “You participate in the propaganda battle against Israel.”

        Nope. I participate in the battle against Apartheid. It’s you who needs propaganda to justify a state that’s not the state of all of its citizens and has to keep people expelled to maintain its racist national character.

        Nathan: “You should be capable of understanding what is the bla-bla-bla of propaganda. ”

        Call it Hasbara for short.

        Nathan: “Ossinev’s comment about historical rights being at odds with international law was bla-bla-bla of propaganda, …”

        Israel claims “historical rights” allthough it can’t prove that they exist in international law. That’s the “bla-bla-bla of propaganda”.

        Nathan: “.. just as your “fear” of an alien invasion was another example of “bla-bla-bla”.

        I was just being sarcastic about yours and Israel’s “bla-bla-bla of propaganda”.

        Nathan: “Such silly comments are meant for some imaginary audience that might be convinced that Israel is not a legitimate state, …”

        Nobody needs to be convinced that settler colonialism and an Apartheid state is not legitimate. The civilized part of humanity has allready learned this. You need to convince some imaginary audience that it is legitimate if exercised by Jews.

        Nathan: “… and that she can be wished out of existence by some legalistic argument.”

        Nobody is making that claim. That’s just of your pathetic lies.

        Nathan: “States come into being, and that’s that.”

        States are not entities that “come into being”. That’s just your “bla-bla-bla of propaganda” you need to create a pseudo legitimacy for Israel.

        Nathan: “There is no need to go to court in order to prove or disprove anything.”

        Back in 1947 the UN members that supported partition knew very well, why they prevented the case from being refered to the International Court of Justice, because not even the recommendation of partition was legitimate and violated the right to self determination of the people of Palestine.

        Nathan: “It’s too bad that you disapprove of Israel’s having come into being,”

        It’s to bad that you miserably fail at making a case for settler colonialism, expulsion and a racist state that’s not the state of all of its citizens that was created through war and expulsion in the post Nazi era of human rights and interantional law.

        Narthan: “… but your feelings are not relevant.”

        Neither are yours. What’s your point? That you don’t have an argument and need to resort to stupd ad hominem which is basically the essence of your pathetic comment?

        Nathan: “Moreover, with the founding of a state, a citizenship is also established. In short, the Israelis are the citizens of Israel.”

        First of all this citizenship does not include those that Israel keeps expelled. That’s against human rights and international law. Secondly Israel makes a distinction between nationals and citizens to privilege the former. That’s institutionalized racism and what Nazi Germany did. You can’t make a case for that, can you.

        Nathan: They are not foreigners, even if you insist – and you’re welcome to check the international laws in this regard.”

        You seem to be confused. People who immigrate into a country are obvioulsy foreigners. And the immigration of Jews under mandate was enforced upon the people of Palestine which violated their right to self determination. Again, try tou make a case, I dare you.

        Nathan: “It’s puzzling that you are so busy with universal principles or international law when the real issue is political. Maybe there’s an explanation. If the issue at hand is political, that means we have a debate.”

        Maybe there’s an explanation why you are not busy with universal principles or international law. Because you know that it’s a lost case.

        Nathan: “There are two sides to every debate, and we have to accept a reality that both sides have their truth.”

        ROFL. You seem to be used to lying so much, that you even have to twist the concept of truth. Sorry, there are not two truths. That defies the meaning of the word “truth”. You just sound like the lawyer of a criminal who wants to debate away his guilt like a small child.

        Nathan: “Since you can’t understand that the Jewish side has its truth, …”

        Now what truth would that be, Nathan? That Jews immigrated to Palestine with the consent of its people? That these foreigners created a state within Palestine with the consent of the people of Palestine? That Jews didn’t expell Nonjews to become a majority? That Jews don’t make a distinction between nationals and citizens to privelege Jewsx? That Israel is the state for all of its people despite their faith or heritage and not a genuinly racist state?

        Nathan: “… you live in the illusion that the issue has to be settled in court …”

        Nope. That’s just another of your pathetic lies.

        Nathan: “… where it will be magically determined that “that truth is false”.”

        The magical determination happened when you initially claimed that there is no false, but actually two truths. But now you contradict yourself by inherently admitting that there is only one truth which therefore cannot be false. Otherwise your pathetic and dishonest accusation against me wouldn’t make sense.

        Do you actually realize how deeply dishonest your incoherent manipulation of logic and the concept of truth is? Maybe there’s an explanation. You can’t accept factual reality, but only your bla-bla-bla propaganda.

      • Talkback on January 9, 2020, 7:36 am

        Mooser: ” And Judaism, consisting of less than 10 million people in the entire world (or would you like to tell us how many?) at best, can play right up there on the world stage and impress its “truths” upon the world.”

        Well, let’s start with silencing and criminalizing what’s not the “Jewish side of truth”.

      • Talkback on January 9, 2020, 1:28 pm

        MHughes976 : “What is the Palestinian truth as you perceive it, Nathan?”

        There’s a only “anti-Israel propaganda” on the one hand and the Jewish side’s own truth on the other which can’t be false, because a truth can’t be magically determined false. ROFL.

  5. MHughes976 on January 3, 2020, 9:15 am

    The Little Shell people number fewer than 6,000 amid a population in Montana of over a million, so they are about 0.5%. I’ve no doubt that the Israelis would indeed love to have Palestinians among them in that sort of proportion, even in a rather higher one. The Zionists always thought that they were building an Altneuland whose creation would do everyone a favour and after WW2 always intended not to be compared with Nazis. So this Montana politician is seeing something of the truth, though his reaction seems morally imperfect.

  6. Elizabeth Block on January 3, 2020, 11:20 am

    Someone I know was working in Ramallah (I think at a Quaker org) in 1985. Israeli officials came around every so often to let her know that they were in charge. At one point, one of them said he was going to the US, to visit the Indian reservations, “to see how they do it.”

    And yes, I’m sure most Jewish Israelis would love it if the Palestinians were as few, and as powerless, as Indigenous Americans.

    • MHughes976 on January 3, 2020, 5:06 pm

      The Little Shells ‘own’ an area of 3 acres, if I understand Wikipedia correctly. This is ‘sovereignty’ reduced to the status of a toy.

  7. Ossinev on January 8, 2020, 12:44 pm

    @Nathan
    “There are two sides to every debate, and we have to accept a reality that both sides have their truth.”

    Ah so the Nazi ideologists had their “truth”. Interesting.

    “Ossinev’s comment about historical rights being at odds with international law was bla-bla-bla of propaganda”

    Ah so Ivanka Kushner (the Jewish convert) has an historical right to Palestine. Even more interesting.
    https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-02-07/does-israel-recognize-ivanka-trumps-jewishness-it-does-now

    • eljay on January 8, 2020, 2:10 pm

      || Ossinev: … Ah so Ivanka Kushner (the Jewish convert) has an historical right to Palestine. Even more interesting.
      https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-02-07/does-israel-recognize-ivanka-trumps-jewishness-it-does-now ||

      It’s funny how Zionists insist that Jewish isn’t a religion-based identity. And it was shamefully anti-Semitic of these Israeli rabbis to tell a Jewish woman that she wasn’t Jewish.

      • RoHa on January 8, 2020, 10:00 pm

        “And it was shamefully anti-Semitic of these Israeli rabbis to tell a Jewish woman that she wasn’t Jewish.”

        Petitio principii. You are assuming that she is Jewish, when that is exactly the point on which the rabbis disagree with you.

      • eljay on January 9, 2020, 7:38 am

        || RoHa: “And it was shamefully anti-Semitic of these Israeli rabbis to tell a Jewish woman that she wasn’t Jewish.”

        Petitio principii. You are assuming that she is Jewish, when that is exactly the point on which the rabbis disagree with you. ||

        The article states that the woman underwent a religious conversion to Judaism that was facilitated by an accredited Orthodox rabbi.

        I’m not “assuming that she is Jewish”; I am accepting – based on the information presented in the article – that she is Jewish.

      • eljay on January 9, 2020, 7:55 am

        If anything, the Israeli rabbis are assuming she isn’t Jewish. What evidence do they have to support their assumption?

      • RoHa on January 9, 2020, 11:51 pm

        “The article states that the woman underwent a religious conversion to Judaism that was facilitated by an accredited Orthodox rabbi.”

        But that is the point at contention. The Israeli rabbis don’t accept that was a genuine conversion. They say alleged Orthodox rabbi was a Buddhist nun in a false beard. Or something like that. You’ll have to ask them to get the full argument.

      • echinococcus on January 10, 2020, 12:25 am

        Eljay,

        Looks like you didn’t learn much all the time you were hanging out here. A majority, possibly, of Jews that have any religion do not consider that one can acquire the religion otherwise than by maternal descent. In fact, a good many people who proclaim themselves Jewish and went to live as colonial invaders in Palestine could not get citizenship because their father only was Jewish.
        One of them used to write here time and again.

        So the policies are many, and there is no compulsory rule. Are you aspiring to be the Supreme Infallible Papal Chacham?

      • eljay on January 10, 2020, 9:13 am

        || RoHa: “The article states that the woman underwent a religious conversion to Judaism that was facilitated by an accredited Orthodox rabbi.”

        But that is the point at contention. The Israeli rabbis don’t accept that was a genuine conversion. … ||

        Tough titties that they “don’t accept” the conversion. (Who voted them to be kings of all rabbis?) Until they can prove their claim, she’s properly Jewish (according to the accredited Orthodox rabbi who facilitated her conversion) and they’re anti-Semitically telling her that she isn’t.

      • eljay on January 10, 2020, 9:27 am

        || RoHa: … But that is the point at contention. The Israeli rabbis don’t accept that was a genuine conversion. … ||

        Zionists “don’t accept” that Palestinians are the indigenous people of geographic Palestine. Is their lack of acceptance – without any proof to back it up – really enough to undo the indigeneity of Palestinians? I believe it is not.

      • Mooser on January 10, 2020, 12:52 pm

        The different denominations of Judaism (mostly ‘Orthodox’, ‘Conservative’, and ‘Reform’, but it’s more complicated) are cast, nay, drop-forged (on their heads) into a world-wide religious unity, only differing on minor contentious points like, oh…minor points like, ‘who is a Jew, and who isn’t, and how do you tell’ and ‘ what are the basic obligations of a Jew to his religion, and the religion towards the Jew?’ and stuff like that. Trivial things which cannot affect the basic unity of mishpocha and mishegos.

      • RoHa on January 10, 2020, 8:00 pm

        I don’t know why the Israeli rabbis won’t accept that conversion. You’ll have to ask them. They can probably give you an argument.

        I am not qualified to judge between contending rabbis, so I am not going to affirm or deny that she is Jewish, and thus I think that claiming the Israeli rabbis are telling a Jewish woman that she is not Jewish is a question begging claim.

      • eljay on January 10, 2020, 9:43 pm

        || Mooser: The different denominations of Judaism (mostly ‘Orthodox’, ‘Conservative’, and ‘Reform’, but it’s more complicated) are cast, nay, drop-forged (on their heads) into a world-wide religious unity, only differing on minor contentious points like, oh…minor points like, ‘who is a Jew, and who isn’t, and how do you tell’ and ‘ what are the basic obligations of a Jew to his religion, and the religion towards the Jew?’ and stuff like that. … ||

        Mooser, I’m confused. Either:
        – you’ve got it right and there are many different and entirely valid ways to be Jewish; or
        – Zionists have got it right and every Jewish person is simply part of an undifferentiated mass known as (and referred to by Zionists as) “the Jews”, and only Zionist rabbis know for certain who is and who is not one of “the Jews”.

        Maybe someone both intelligent and eloquent – like Jackdaw or Mayhem or Jack Green or the Potato Man (I sure miss that guy) – will chime in and set things straight.

      • eljay on January 10, 2020, 9:52 pm

        || RoHa: I don’t know why the Israeli rabbis won’t accept that conversion. You’ll have to ask them. They can probably give you an argument.

        I am not qualified to judge between contending rabbis, so I am not going to affirm or deny that she is Jewish, and thus I think that claiming the Israeli rabbis are telling a Jewish woman that she is not Jewish is a question begging claim. ||

        I’m not particularly intelligent, so I remain unable to see how:
        – my accepting the validity of a religious conversion based on the facts at hand (it is valid because it was facilitated by and certified by an accredited Orthodox rabbi) is “begging the question”; but
        – Israeli rabbis questioning the validity of that religious conversion based on nothing more than their assertion that it is not valid (it’s not valid because we say it’s not valid) is not “begging the question”.

        And, so, I’ll just leave it at that. Thanks for the discussion.  :-)

      • Mooser on January 11, 2020, 1:29 pm

        “Mooser, I’m confused”

        The confusion arises because you left out the most important part, the “basic unity of mishpocha and mishegos“.

      • Mooser on January 11, 2020, 5:05 pm

        @”Eljay”: Sorry, my “edit” didn’t take. I got a phone call (in process of buying a car) and messed up.

        The last sentence should read: “…the basic unity derived from mishpocha and mishegos

      • eljay on January 12, 2020, 9:15 am

        || Mooser: @”Eljay”: Sorry, my “edit” didn’t take. I got a phone call (in process of buying a car) and messed up.

        The last sentence should read: “…the basic unity derived from mishpocha and mishegos” ||

        Thanks for the clarification, Mooser.  And I hope the deal on the car went through.  :-)

      • Mooser on January 13, 2020, 1:01 pm

        “Eljay” thanks for asking, the deal did go through. Bought a 2016 (25k) Kia Sportage SX (2 liter turbo and AWD ) just in time for the snow here. Putting on new M+S tires.
        Got caught in last year’s snowstorm and had to chain up my FrontWD Escape, a shattering experience.
        This should deal well with snow.

      • eljay on January 13, 2020, 3:07 pm

        || Mooser: “Eljay” thanks for asking, the deal did go through. … ||

        Glad to hear it worked out.  :-)

      • Mooser on January 13, 2020, 7:19 pm

        “Glad to hear it worked out. :-)”

        Thanks. Time will tell.

      • Mooser on January 15, 2020, 1:41 pm

        “Time will tell”

        See that? It worked perfectly. I bought this AWD thing, and now all the snow is melting, and shouldn’t be back. Ever!

        (I gotta say it, I’ve always gone in for simpler, basic cars, but this modern automotive meteorological engineering is downright wonderful! Come to think of it,that must be why the sunroof is stuck open. An early spring is on the way…)

      • eljay on January 15, 2020, 2:54 pm

        || Mooser: … See that? It worked perfectly. I bought this AWD thing, and now all the snow is melting, and shouldn’t be back. Ever! … ||

        I that case, I’d be very grateful if you would drive it up and leave here for the next few months. I’ll buy you dinner and airfare back home.  :-D

      • Tuyzentfloot on January 16, 2020, 6:44 am

        Really Mooser, first you fail me on Russiagate and then this? You had the ideal RWD winter car and you had to switch to an SUV!

      • Mooser on January 17, 2020, 5:03 am

        “Really Mooser, first you fail me on Russiagate and then this?”

        Oh, I’m the one who is ‘failing you on Russiagate’? Not Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, Rudy Giuliani and Dimitry Firtash. No failure there.

      • Tuyzentfloot on January 17, 2020, 10:19 am

        Well you have that right Mooser, Rudy Guiliani could never disappoint me!

      • Keith on January 17, 2020, 3:23 pm

        MOOSER- “Oh, I’m the one who is ‘failing you on Russiagate’?”

        Speaking of Russiagate/Ukrainegate, below I link to 2 highly recommended videos exploring the adventures of Burisma Joe Biden in the Ukraine.

        videos (8 min & 50 min) on Joe Biden Ukrainegate- http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52848.htm

      • Mooser on January 17, 2020, 5:06 pm

        “Speaking of Russiagate/Ukrainegate” “Keith”

        If somebody hid all the hammers and sharp instruments and put a lock-out on the stove at your house, you could easily outsmart them by banging your face on the desk or head on a concrete wall.
        No, really, I believe you are clever enough to do that.

      • Keith on January 18, 2020, 11:28 am

        MOOSER- “No, really, I believe you are clever enough to do that.”

        My, but aren’t we sensitive? Burisma Joe a hero of yours? Moveon.org your home away from home? Careful Moosey, anger erodes one’s sense of humor. Crude ain’t clever.

    • Talkback on January 9, 2020, 7:40 am

      Ossinev: “Ah so the Nazi ideologists had their “truth”. Interesting.”

      Whenever I read a Zionist comment I automatically translate “Israel” to “Nazi Germany” or “South Africa under Apartheid” and “Palestinians” or non-“Afrikaaners” to “Jews”. And then I ask myself: Does that remind me of Nazi or Apartheid propaganda? Would someone with a Nazi or Apartheid mindset argue the same way? Have a guess how many times it actually does.

      • Mooser on January 13, 2020, 1:04 pm

        You don’t have to go that far to find analogues for Zionist rhetoric. Tracks perfectly with ‘alt-Right’ and ‘white nationalist’ rhetoric.

Leave a Reply