Trending Topics:

The ‘NY Times’ editorial on the Netanyahu/Trump annexation plan is a cowardly disgrace

Media Analysis
on 131 Comments

The New York Times Editorial Board should be ashamed of their cowardly full-page opinion in today’s paper. In the past, Times editors have occasionally shown some spine on Israel/Palestine, but this editorial is a dishonest embarrassment.

Some of the editorial sounds reasonably harmless, a tedious recitation of the details of the Trump/Netanyahu “peace plan” that will already be familiar to anyone following the story. But the Times mostly refuses to give the “plan’s” features the contempt or even the skepticism they deserve, so overall the implication is that we should at least take it seriously.

The paper explicitly reinforces that view in this sentence:

Yet the conflict has gone on too long, with too much suffering, to dismiss any new initiative out of hand.

Then, the heart of the paper’s argument:

This could well be the “last opportunity” for their own state that the Palestinians will ever have. . . or at least the makings of the best deal they can expect. . . that may not be a just outcome, but it is perhaps becoming the realistic one.

In short, the New York Times Editorial Board is asserting that “Might Makes Right,” although they are too afraid to come right out and say it.

Here’s another example of the editorial’s dishonesty. It notes that the Trump/Netanyahu “plan” includes a proposal that Israel would “cede some land, including possibly transferring an area of central Israel where Arab citizens of Israel live.” The editorial does not judge this proposal, other than noting: “This is a step long favored by Israeli nationalists as a means of sharply reducing the number of Arab citizens of Israel.”

The Times says its Editorial Board has 17 members. Was not a single one of them aware that what Netanyahu and Trump are proposing is called “denationalization,” and that it is regarded as a crime against humanity?

Another way was possible. The Washington Post, which is usually even more pro-Israel than the Times, published its own editorial the other day, and it was far more hard-hitting, refusing to take the Netanyahu/Trump “peace plan” at all seriously. There was no respectful talk about a “new initiative.” The Post ended by stating the obvious: “Mideast peace was an already distant prospect, but these cynical and self-seeking leaders have made it more so.”

James North

James North is a Mondoweiss Editor-at-Large, and has reported from Africa, Latin America, and Asia for four decades. He lives in New York City.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

131 Responses

  1. Talkback on January 31, 2020, 1:06 pm

    James: “Was not a single one of them aware that what Netanyahu and Trump are proposing is called “denationalization,” and that it is regarded as a crime against humanity?”

    Oh, they are aware, but that would mean that they would have to admit that Israel’s nationality law is a crime against humanity, too, because it denationalizes Palestinian refugees. And that’s something even the so called “liberal Zionists” will never do.

    • JWalters on January 31, 2020, 7:45 pm

      Yes, they MUST be fully aware. A more honest NYT statement would have been

      “Yet the illegal invasion, occupation, mass murder and robbery has gone on too long, with too much suffering, to dismiss any new initiative to finish off the victims out of hand.”

      I would question the article’s theory that the NYT editors are cowards. An equally plausible theory is that they are full-fledged members of the criminal gang. Like mob lawyers, they aid and abet the crimes with their specialized trade.

    • oldgeezer on January 31, 2020, 11:29 pm

      @talkback

      While in the current scenario nonJewish Israelis may not be stripped of citizenship they have been effectively denationalized as well.

  2. Misterioso on January 31, 2020, 1:59 pm

    A “Must read.” Few people know the Middle East as well as Robert Fisk.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-israel-palestinian-peace-deal-century-netanyahu-middle-east-a9309396.html

    “Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’ is so absurd and banal, its impossible to take it seriously”
    By Robert Fisk, The Independent, January 31/20

    “When the two old political fraudsters emerged at the White House this week with the most deranged, farcical tragi-comedy in Middle East history, it was difficult to know whether to laugh or cry.

    “The 80-page ‘peace’ plan from the White House contained 56 references to ‘Vision’ in its first 60 pages – and yes, with a capital V on each occasion to suggest, I guess, that this ‘deal of the century’ was a supernatural revelation. It was not, though it might have been written by a super-Israeli.

    “It said goodbye to Palestinian refugees – the famous/infamous ‘right of return’ and all who now rot in the camps of the Middle East; farewell to the old city of Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital; adieu to UNRWA, the UN relief agency. But it welcomed a permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the total annexation of almost every Jewish colony built there against all international law.

    “It’s a given, of course – and has been for days – that this nonsense might just cast some magic dust over the travails of the leaders of America and Israel. As the two rogues, Donald Trump under impeachment and Benjamin Netanyahu charged with corruption, grinned to the applause of their supporters in Washington, it became clear at once that this mendacious document – containing absurdity, burlesque and dreary banality in about equal measure – destroyed forever any hope of an independent Palestinian state of any kind. That’s not what it said, but you only had to glance at the verbiage – where Israel’s occupation, the longest in modern history, was described as a ‘security footprint’ and where the Oslo accord was trashed as an agreement which produced ‘waves of terror and violence.’

    “Truly, all must read these 80 pages. And every reader should go through them twice, in case, first time round, they missed some extra egregious indignity inflicted upon the Palestinians.

    “The document wasn’t just a gift to Israel. It embodied every Israeli demand ever made to Washington (plus a few more) and effectively destroyed every effort made by the United Nations Security Council; every UN resolution on Israeli withdrawal; every effort of the EU and the Quartet on the Middle East to produce a just and fair resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli war.

    “In short, Israel will – under this wretched ‘deal,’ doomed though it was within seconds – get all of Jerusalem forever, most of the West Bank, own almost every Jewish colony in occupied land and dominate a disarmed, truncated, neutered Palestinian people who must promise to call Israel the ‘nation state of the Jewish people’ (albeit almost 21 per cent of its people are Arabs), censor its own schoolbooks, arrest and interrogate anyone daring to oppose the Israeli occupier, and who will have a cluster of villages outside Jerusalem’s walls to call a capital.

    “True, this is a unique and historic document that the Trump menagerie (especially son-in-law Jared Kushner) has produced, since its belief that the Palestinians would dream of accepting such a deranged, farcical set of political demands is without precedent in the western world. But when should we journalists take all the stops out, I asked myself when I’d finished reading the 56 ‘Visions’ – there are others, by the way, in lower case, and several ‘missions’ – and the list of prohibitions imposed upon the Palestinians? These included, we should note, the instruction that ‘the State of Palestine may not join any international organisation if such membership would contradict commitments of the State of Palestine to demilitarisation and cessation of political and judicial warfare against the State of Israel.’ So goodbye as well to the protection of the International Criminal Court.

    “Some of my colleagues lapsed into apoplexy, like Marwan Bishara of Al Jazeera. Farce, fraud, fury, surrealistic, opportunistic, populist and cynical. He used all these descriptions – but surely he was mincing his words. Gideon Levy, my hero from the Israeli daily Haaretz, was not so apoplectic. He was apocalyptic. It was ‘the final nail in the coffin of that walking corpse known as the two-state solution,’ he wrote, and created a reality ‘in which international law, the resolutions of the international community and especially international institutions are meaningless.’

    “There is no Palestinian state, quoth Levy, and there never will be. It’s got to be one democracy between the Jordan and the Mediterranean – equal rights for both Israelis and Palestinians – or Israel is going to be an apartheid state. Trump had created ‘a world in which the US president’s son-in-law is more powerful than the UN General Assembly. If the settlements are permitted, everything is permitted.’ Quite so.

    “But do we writers and journalists and ‘experts’ and analysts still possess the tools to deal with this mumbo-jumbo? Is this not a moment – not just the end of morality, justice, integrity, dignity – to ask an ever-more important question: when will journalists have to stop taking this stuff (and themselves) seriously? Merely to write about this Trump ballyhoo as if it is real or workable or even discussable is somehow demeaning, humiliating, preposterous. Not just for media rabbits, but for those who must suffer the consequences of this dreadful document; the Palestinians and all who have faithfully supported their perfectly reasonable demands for freedom and fairness.

    “I realised a few hours after reading it that, for every anti-Israel Muslim who believes in the fantastical, crazed verbiage of the ‘Zionist conspiracy,’ these 80 pages of White House notepaper would only reinforce those mind-boggling beliefs. In cases like this, perhaps we should invite our comedians to become reporters. Or ask our cartoonists to write the story. Or maybe I should turn to that fine old Ripley’s Believe It or Not feature to get the message across. Believe it Or Not: a US president gave a foreign power the right to eternally occupy someone else’s land. To me, that captures the story in 15 words.

    “But let’s not forget that in return for their abject surrender, the Palestinians will get cash, cash and more cash – millions of greenies set out in pages of graphs and funding plans, and ‘fast-track’ tourism (that phrase is actually used in the document) and massive investment, ‘social betterment’ (sic), ‘self-determination’ (sic again, I guess), and ‘a path to a dignified national life, respect, security and economic opportunity…’

    “And didn’t our Boris Johnson tell Trump it was ‘a positive step forwards’? And didn’t our Dominic Raab call it ‘a serious proposal’ worthy of ‘genuine and fair consideration?’
    “Believe it or not, indeed.”

    • Ernie on February 2, 2020, 11:37 am

      There’s more than one way to shoot yourself in the foot. Robert Fisk may, as Misterioso asserts, ‘know the Middle East’, but seems to have missed out on other regions if he can write that ‘Israel’s occupation’ of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1967 is ‘the longest in modern history’, as if he had never heard Indonesia’s occupation of West Papua (1962), China’s of Tibet (1949), India and Pakistan’s of Kashmir (1947), or the US’s of Guam and Puerto Rico (1898), etc.

      On the other hand, if he sincerely believes that ‘every effort of the EU and the Quartet on the Middle East’ aimed ‘to produce a just and fair resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli war’, he simply has not been paying attention. Leaving aside questions like whether ethnic partition can ever be just or fair, or whether it can be just and fair specifically in the Palestinian context (https://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2007/06/how-many-states.html), it has long been clear that ‘we have a situation where a country of some 7 million, occupies territory with a population of some 3-4 million over a period of four decades in defiance of binding UN Security Council resolutions, underwritten with billions of dollars per year from the US, and yet the US itself, in league with Europe, Russia, and the entire ‘international community’, has failed, although exerting its best efforts since the promulgation of the Road Map in 2003, to secure the cooperation of its client?’, as I wrote in 2007 (https://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2007/01/mighty-effort.html)!

      Finally, the conceit that ‘Israel is going to be an apartheid state’, which he attributes approvingly to his hero Gideon Levy, flies in the face of everything we know about Israel from its founding and the longing for ‘transfer’ since the earliest Zionist thinkers, at least as far as the Apartheid Convention (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.10_International%20Convention%20on%20the%20Suppression%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Apartheid.pdf) and the Rome Statute (https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/romefra.htm) are concerned.

      • jon s on February 2, 2020, 2:42 pm

        Ernie,
        Actually, the early mainstream Zionist thinkers envisaged peaceful coexistence with the Arab population, not displacing them.

      • just on February 2, 2020, 4:53 pm

        jon s~ though it’s difficult to read “Zionist thinkers” without laughing in derision, please inform all of us who, how, and where these early Zionists hail from. Give us some facts and citations. I only worry that your students are being taught truth.

      • Ernie on February 2, 2020, 5:35 pm

        You mean like Herzl, ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country.’ (https://archive.org/stream/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzl_201606/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzlEngVolume1_OCR_djvu.txt)?

        I’d find you more, but unfortunately all my books were reduced to ash, along with everything else, in the New Year’s Eve bushfire.

      • eljay on February 2, 2020, 5:49 pm

        || jon s: … the early mainstream Zionist thinkers envisaged peaceful coexistence with the Arab population, not displacing them. ||

        And what better way to “envisage peaceful coexistence” with the indigenous population of geographic Palestine than to advocate and pursue Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of the region.

      • Talkback on February 2, 2020, 6:12 pm

        @ jon s

        Who are you refering to exactly?

      • Mooser on February 2, 2020, 7:43 pm

        “Actually, the early mainstream Zionist thinkers envisaged peaceful coexistence with the Arab population, not displacing them.” “Jon s”

        Shorter “Jon s”, today, tomorrow, and forever: “It’s all the Arab’s fault!”

      • Mooser on February 2, 2020, 7:46 pm

        “You mean like Herzl, ‘We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border…”

        Does Herzl qualify as an “early mainstream Zionist thinker”, “Jon s”?

      • jon s on February 2, 2020, 7:59 pm

        Ernie,
        Sorry to learn about the loss of your property. I can hardly imagine what it feels like. Hope that at least you and your family were not injured and that you can rebuild.

        The quote from Herzl: don’t see any mention of Arabs or Palestinians there.
        The link you provided doesn’t work (at least not for me).

      • jon s on February 2, 2020, 8:08 pm

        Just ,too bad that the archive feature on mw is gone. I’ll look up citations ,hold on…

        Talkback: Herzl, Ben Gurion, Jabotinsky…

      • jon s on February 2, 2020, 8:49 pm

        Herzl in his utopian novel Altneuland envisions a state which is liberal and secular. From the plot:
        Löwenberg and Kingscourt spend the following twenty years on the island, cut off from civilization. As they stop over in Palestine on their way back to Europe in 1923, they are astonished to discover a land drastically transformed. A Jewish state officially named the “New Society” has since risen as European Jews have rediscovered and re-inhabited their Altneuland, reclaiming their own destiny in the Land of Israel. The country, whose leaders include some old acquaintances from Vienna, is now prosperous and well-populated, boasts a thriving cooperative industry based on state-of-the-art technology, and is home to a free, just, and cosmopolitan modernsociety. Arabs have full equal rights with Jews, with an Arab engineer among the New Society’s leaders, and most merchants in the country are Armenians, Greeks, and members of other ethnic groups. The duo arrives at the time of a general election campaign, during which a fanatical rabbi establishes a political platform arguing that the country belongs exclusively to Jews and demands non-Jewish citizens be stripped of their voting rights, but is ultimately defeated.

        Ben Gurion:
        WE APPEAL – in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.(from the Declaration of Independence. BG wrote the final draft)

        We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.(from a letter to his son Amos, 1937)

        In our state there will be non-Jews as well — and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception; that is: the state will be their state as well. …The attitude of the Jewish State to its Arab citizens will be an important factor—though not the only one—in building good neighbourly relations with the Arab States. If the Arab citizen will feel at home in our state, and if his status will not be the least different from that of the Jew, and perhaps better than the status of the Arab in an Arab state, and if the state will help him in a truthful and dedicated way to reach the economic, social, and cultural level of the Jewish community, then Arab distrust will accordingly subside and a bridge to a Semitic, Jewish-Arab alliance, will be built… (Ba-Ma’Araha Vol IV, Part 2, pp. 260, 265, quoted in Fabricating Israeli History, Efraim Karsh, p.67)
        Jabotinsky :
        https://en.idi.org.il/media/5103/jabotinsky-idi-2013.pdf

      • oldgeezer on February 2, 2020, 10:06 pm

        @jon s et al

        Geee this is the craziest and most hilarious thread in ages

        As proof that the zionists came in peace, jon s, as a counterpoint to his actual diary writings offers a work of fiction.

        Ben Gurion’s letter to his son was likely meant for public consumption as this doesn’t strike me as either a method of communication used during that period. Nor a subject matter discussed.

        The first one is the rib tickler. And so amusing he claims to be a history teacher. Of both fiction and fiction, no doubt (not a typo.)

      • Talkback on February 2, 2020, 11:24 pm

        jon s: “The quote from Herzl: don’t see any mention of Arabs or Palestinians there.”

        WOW, and because you don’t see any mention of “Arabs or Palestinia there” this next quote of him proves your claim, too, that he wanted to co-exist with the native population, right?

        Herzl: “Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”

        Ben Gurion to the High Commissioner of Palestine about co-existence: “… if at present Jews are not permitted to settle in Transjordan; at least give us permission to purchase land in Transjordan and settle there Arabs from Palestine from whom we are buying land.”

        Ben Gurion’s version of coexistence: “By agreement with the Syrian government it would be possible to transfer large numbers of tenant farmers and Bedouin to Northern Syria.”

        Ben Gurion dreams about coexistence: ““if the Arabs would leave Palestine and Transjordan to the Jews, they could count on Jewish help, not only in resettling the displaced Palestinians, but for Arab causes in other countries.”

        Ben Gurion’s coexistence: ““If the Arabs agree to give us the Dead Sea and the Negev – it may be worth our while to forgo their compulsory transfer from the plains, as proposed by the Commission.””

        Ben Gurion about the Peel “transfer” proposal: “We should not assume that it is definitely impossible. If it were put into effect, it would be of tremendous advantage to us.” and “For every transferred Arab, one could settle four Jews on the land,”

        Ben Gurion loves co-existence: “In my notes on the Report immediately after my first reading (of 10.7.37), I ignored a central point whose importance is far greater than all the other advantages and outweighs all the deficiencies and drawbacks in the Report and, if it does not remain a dead letter, is likely to give us something which we have never had, … namely the compulsory transfer of Arabs from the Plains.”

        Ben Gurion, master of co-existence: “With the removal of the Arabs from the Plains, we are getting for the first time in our history a truly Jewish State,”

        Ben Gurion: “We must insist on the implementation of this proposal with all our strength, heart and soul, since of all the proposals of the Commission, this is the (only) one which can compensate us for the amputation of the remaining parts of Palestine.”

        Ben Gurion: “The transfer paragraph is in my eyes more important than all our demands for additional land.”

        Ben Gurion: “If we are not able to remove the Arabs from our midst now and transfer them to the Arab area as the British Royal commission has suggested to England, then we will not be able to do it easily (if at all) after the establishment of the State.”

        Ben Gurion: “we must do this (transfer) now – and the first and perhaps decisive step is preparing ourselves to implement it.”

        Ben Gurion about the advantages of the Peel plan: “All the Plains in the Jewish State will be cleared of their Arab residents.”

        Ben Gurion about the British Goverment’s rejection of the Peel plan: “One should remember that the cancelling of the compulsory transfer (proposal) decreased our possibilities and serves as a great legacy for the Arabs.”

        Ben Gurion: “In my opinion, the suggestion of the Peel Commission was on the whole good, provided that they were also to implement the transfer (of Arabs) from all the Plains as the ‘Royal Commission’ suggested.”

        Ben Gurion: “By this means the Jews will receive these valleys completely free of Arabs and hence the possibility of Jewish settlement will grow considerably. This proposal has an enormous advantage and is equivalent in my opinion to the Negev (if it is put into practice).”

        Ben Gurion about co-existence: “We will offer to Iraq ten million pounds to transfer one hundred thousand Arab families from Palestine to Iraq.”

        Ben Gurion: ““A proposal should be made to Iraq and to Saudi Arabia for ten million pounds to transfer 100,000 Arab families from Palestine.””

        Ben Gurion: “complete transfer without compulsion – and ruthless compulsion at that – is hardly imaginable.”

        Ben Gurion: “the idea of transfer of population is steadily gaining in popularity … it would, however, be unsafe and unwise on our part to advocate, or even expect, a compulsory transfer of Arabs from Palestine.”

        Ben Gurion loves co-existence: “I am against that any suggestion of transfer should come from our side. I do not reject transfer on ethical grounds and I do not reject it on political grounds; if there was a chance for its realisation. With regards to the Druze it is possible. With their consent, it is possible to transfer all the Druze to the Jebel Druze. The others – I don’t know. But it must not be a Jewish proposal. If such a suggestion would come from Iraq and Syria, we could join in. If such a suggestion would come from the British, we would say to them: go (yourselves) to the Arabs; don’t send us. If we were to suggest it, the Arabs would reject it and the non-Jews will say that there is no room for the Jews in Palestine.”

        Ben Gurion: “A unified Eretz Israel would be no source of satisfaction for me—if it were Arab.”

        Ben Gurion thinks that co-existeence is positiv: “I saw in the Peel Plan two positive things: the ideas of a state and compulsory transfer … I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral, …”

        Ben-Gurion loved to co-exist with Nonjews in Lod an Ramleh: During the battle for the capture of the cities Lod and Ramleh, Yigal Allon asked Ben Gurion what do with the Arabs. Ben-Gurion gestured with his hands to expell them and this was immediately communicated to the Army Headquarters and the expulsion implemented.

        Ben Gurion loved to co-exist with Nonjews in Nazareth: “Why are there so many Arabs? Why didn’t you expel them?”

        Do you want to read more about Ben Gurion’s love to co-exist with Nonjews? Btw. the original letter read “We must expel Arabs and take their place.” and Ben Gurion had crossed out the addition in his original handletter that says “We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs and take their place.”

        Jabotinsky loves co-existence, too: His biographer Schechtmann wrote that Jabotinsky’s recipe for the Arab problem was that “the establishment of a Jewish majority in Palestine will have to be achieved against the wish of the country’s present Arab majority, an “iron wall” of a Jewish armed force would have to protect the process of achieving a majority; ”

        Jabotinsky read a paper from Edward Norman who had prepared a scheme to transfer Arabs from Palestine to Iraq. According to Norman, Jabotinsky “approved of the whole idea very much. He said that he felt, however, that the most difficult part would be to induce Arabs to leave Palestine.”

        Jabotinsky about the Peel transfer proposal: “we need not regard the possible departure of 900,000 with dismay,”

        On the loan to transfer Arabs he suggested “This is the job for Amer. [American] Jewry.”

        Would you rather refer to other Zionists who wanted to “co-exist” with the Palestinians? Especially after 1939 when Jewish immigration was halted and sank the idea of a Jewish majority in Palestine through immigration and co-existence within one unitary state was inevitable?

        Btw. don’t forget Plan Dalet: “Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.”

      • RoHa on February 3, 2020, 12:21 am

        “Actually, the early mainstream Zionist thinkers envisaged peaceful coexistence with the Arab population, not displacing them.”

        But the Zionists never lived up to that vision. As far as I can tell, they never even tried.

      • RoHa on February 3, 2020, 12:23 am

        “The quote from Herzl: don’t see any mention of Arabs or Palestinians there.”

        Doesn’t matter. It was a general principle to be applied to whoever was the native population of the land chosen for the Jewish State.

      • eljay on February 3, 2020, 5:29 am

        || jon s: Herzl in his utopian novel Altneuland envisions a state which is liberal and secular. … ||

        Well, sure. It wouldn’t have been very utopian of him to envision a state that is deliberately and unapologetically oppressive, colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist.

        || … European Jews have rediscovered and re-inhabited their Altneuland … ||

        That’s a utopian Zionist way of saying “European Jews set their sights on and colonized a foreign land”, given that Palestine was not and still is not the ancient / historic / ancestral / eternal / one true homeland of every person in the world – every citizen of every homeland throughout the world – who has chosen to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish.

        || … Ben Gurion: … We do not wish, we do not need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the Arabs.(from a letter to his son Amos, 1937)

        In our state there will be non-Jews as well — and all of them will be equal citizens; equal in everything without any exception … ||

        There’s the template: Arabs can colonize Israel, prove that there is enough room in the country for themselves and for Jews and then carve it up and establish within it a supremacist “Arab State” whose citizens – according to a letter from one Arab visionary to his son – will be “equal in everything without any exception”.

        Only Israelis who are terrorists filled with “Arab hatred” would rebel against such a “moral beacon” and “progressive paradise” state.

      • jon s on February 3, 2020, 6:22 am

        Old geezer,
        Herzl was a 19th century European liberal. His utopian novel reflects those values .

      • echinococcus on February 3, 2020, 8:19 am

        Sure,, that Herzl (“Little Heart”, as in I Heart Colonialist Genocide) was a European Liberal just like Jan Smuts and Cecil Rhodes, and diid the same job: set up the stage for those who steal steal and massacre and give them their marching orders.

      • oldgeezer on February 3, 2020, 10:48 am

        @jon s

        Pure bs jon. It’s irrelevant even if he was an ultra radical revolutionary leftist Martian.

        His true values are recorded in his diary and a work of fiction is not a better indication of his true feelings.

        Pure pure bs.

      • punterweger on February 3, 2020, 11:54 am

        Ernie – your views on Israel’s non-apartheid status flies in the face of everything that is observable in the West Bank and inside of Israel on a daily basis and flies in the face of the testimony of those who lived and struggled against the South African version. I’m not much for anointing heroes but the Palestinians who fight the daily struggle against apartheid, and Gideon Levy’s commitment to their cause would certainly qualify them for that status.

      • MHughes976 on February 3, 2020, 11:58 am

        ‘Altneuland’ seems to be the earliest and most benign-sounding of the versions of ‘economic peace’, as later adopted by Martin Luther King and by Netanyahu in one phase, though earlier rejected by the Christian ‘realist’ Niebuhr. It is indeed true that immigrants anywhere, if they have energy or capital, in this case both, are likely to boost the local economy. But immigrants who say and mean that they have an especial and overriding right to be there must be a threat to the existing population, meaning that the immigrants can live up to their economic promises at best only partially and cannot stop short of cruelty in their overall effect. The idea of economic peace, at least without an admission that the locally born Palestinians have as much right as Jewish people from anywhere in the world to be there – something of a poison pill to Zionism – has always been a conscience salve at best. But some conscience salves are powerful drugs and there have been many addicts. A brand of what Mooser calls Ziocaine, perhaps, patented in many countries.

      • Mooser on February 3, 2020, 1:12 pm

        Shorter “Jon s”: ‘It’s all the Arab’s fault.’

        (I always wonder, is “Jon s” telling us these things because he thinks we are stupid enough to believe them, or because he is projecting what he is stupid enough to believe. That question applies to all of the hasbaratchiks.)

      • Ernie on February 3, 2020, 1:26 pm

        Punterweger, on reflection, I could have been clearer, although everyone else seems to have got my point, which was that Israel is not GOING TO BECOME an apartheid state, it has always been one. For the record, the Kushner ‘plan’ does not differ from any prior iteration of the Two State ‘solution’ in creating one or more bantustans. The whole point of partition has always been to preserve a Jewish majority and disenfranchise Palestinians in ‘Israel Proper’, as J Street, et al., keep reminding us, ‘The two-state solution represents the best way to ensure that Israel remains a democracy and a national home for the Jewish people.’ (https://jstreet.org/policy/the-two-state-solution/#.XjhlMCNxU2w)

      • Mooser on February 3, 2020, 2:03 pm

        Okay, “Jon s”, you win.
        I look at your quotes, and I look at the quotes from the same people, submitted by others, but I have to ask myself: ‘Who is Herzl, Ben Gurion, and Jabotinsky more likely to lie to? Non-Zionist, non-Jewish people, or a good Zionist like “Jon s”?

      • Talkback on February 3, 2020, 2:29 pm

        Jon s: “Herzl was a 19th century European liberal. His utopian novel reflects those values.”

        How can you still make this claim after quotes like:
        “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country.” and
        “Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”

        Herzl told Cecil Rhodes that Zionism is a “colonial project”.

      • Mooser on February 3, 2020, 7:40 pm

        “As proof that the zionists came in peace, jon s, as a counterpoint to his actual diary writings offers a work of fiction.”

        You bet. “Jon s” saw a new nym, and thought: ‘Here’s my mark! Here’s my sucker!’ And went right into his ‘Stuart Smalley of Zionism’ act.

        I know, let’s ask “Jon s” about Herzl’s (a stone racist, crank, and no “liberal”) children, and make “Jon s” shout “meshumads” again.

      • jon s on February 4, 2020, 5:26 pm

        The novel is actually super-important in trying to understand Herzl’s motives and aspirations. Through the device of a utopian novel, free of the constraints of political platforms, Herzl was free to imagine and describe the kind of society he sought to establish.

        Again, the quote from Herzl’s diary from 1895 -about the “destitute population”- doesn’t mention Arabs or Palestinians and has nothing to do with them.

        The comparison with Cecil Rhodes is flawed: Southern Africa was not the historic homeland of Rhodes’ people.

      • eljay on February 4, 2020, 6:00 pm

        || jon s: The novel is actually super-important in trying to understand Herzl’s motives and aspirations. Through the device of a utopian novel, free of the constraints of political platforms, Herzl was free to imagine and describe the kind of society he sought to establish. … ||

        Person A: Dude’s a rapist.
        Person B: I would argue that he is merely exercising his “right” of “self-determination”. Sure, it’s flawed, but through the device of a utopian novel, free of the constraints of social and political norms and consequences, he imagined and described the kind of relationship he sought to establish.
        Person A: Ummm…it’s just a novel and he is actively a rapist.
        Person B: The novel is actually super-important in trying to understand his motives and aspirations.
        Person A: What’s actually super-important is that he actually kidnaps, imprisons and rapes women.

        A utopian novel of imagined “motives and aspirations” doesn’t forgive actual motives and aspirations and their actual implementation.

        || … Southern Africa was not the historic homeland of Rhodes’ people. ||

        Geographic Palestine wasn’t (and still isn’t) the historic (or ancient or eternal or lost or one true) homeland of Herzl or of:
        – his fellow Hungarians; or
        – of every person in the world – every citizen of every homeland throughout the world – who, like Herzl, chose to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish.

      • oldgeezer on February 4, 2020, 9:30 pm

        @jon s

        “The novel is actually super-important in trying to understand Herzl’s motives and aspirations. ”

        Now you’re piling manure on top of manure.
        Unless you can read minds of dead people or have some actual factual evidence (not sure you understand that concept. more on that later) then it says nothing about his motives, aspirations, intent, goals or anything else.

        It. Is. A. Novel.

        Without such evidence it is equally likely that he wrote it as a fluff propaganda piece intended to sell cuddly cozy zionism to Jewish people who rejected it as an abomination at that time. And to the larger world from which support was sought.

        I can think of other likely scenarios for writing.

        “Again, the quote from Herzl’s diary from 1895 -about the “destitute population”- doesn’t mention Arabs or Palestinians and has nothing to do with them.”

        That’s more complete manure. He is clearly talking about the land that zionists would occupy and the poor population they would dispossess. Considering the actual crimes perpetrated by zionists over the past 70+ years it’s ludicrous to suggest it has nothing to do with them.

        It’s only about a week ago I noted that objectively you and jon66 have comprehension problems. jon66 proved that on his own. Are about to see you do the same? Don’t worry though, I’m not thinking comprehension is the major issue here. Just your basic dishonesty.

        Enjoy teaching your fake fictional history and living on stolen land. Land that was stolen by slaughtering and terrorizing innocent civilians.

        The comparison with Cecil Rhodes is flawed:”

        The comparison is extremely valid. Palestine is not the historic homeland of all people who choose to be of the Jewish religion. Just as it is not the historic homeland of all Christians even though it was equally born there. It’s more historic fiction of immoral zionists.

        Feel free to post on. I’ll ignore you on this thread most likely. I can’t see anything sincere in anything you say. I have no reason to believe anything you say. Worse if I thought you were sincere and believed that you understoood things that way I’d have to consider you a left hand side dweller on the bell curve. Far far left hand side.

      • Mooser on February 4, 2020, 9:53 pm

        Sure, “Jon s”. Why don’t you tell us about all the time Herzl spent in Palestine?

        There is no denying, however, that Herzl gave his name to a very important measurement. Herzl-per-second is the unit used to quantify Zionist prevarication.

      • Mooser on February 4, 2020, 9:58 pm

        ” was not the historic homeland of…”

        Yeah, yeah, mishegos and mashpocha is all you need to make a Jewish State.

        And let’s not be too hard on Jabotinsky. After all, Jabotinsky was prescient enough to divine that out-marriage is the biggest danger facing Zionism and the Jewish community. If that stuff ever gets started, it will destroy everything.

      • just on February 4, 2020, 11:31 pm

        “The novel is actually super-important in trying to understand Herzl’s motives and aspirations. Through the device of a utopian novel, free of the constraints of political platforms, Herzl was free to imagine and describe the kind of society he sought to establish.”

        jon s~ it’s so charming that you still believe in fairy tales and nonfiction! Do you teach it as history to your benighted students? It is completely ahistorical~ you must know that. It was then and has only proved to be more so every minute of every day since over a century ago.

        “super- important”, my a**. Utopia it ain’t.

        fyi:

        ( benighted
        adjective literary
        UK /bɪˈnaɪ.tɪd/ US /bɪˈnaɪ.t̬ɪd/

        without knowledge or morals:

        Some of the early explorers thought of the local people as benighted savages who could be exploited. )

        https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/benighted

      • RoHa on February 5, 2020, 1:35 am

        “Southern Africa was not the historic homeland of Rhodes’ people.”

        Can you explain why this makes the comparison with Rhodes invalid?

      • Talkback on February 5, 2020, 8:45 am

        jon s: “Again, the quote from Herzl’s diary from 1895 -about the “destitute population”- doesn’t mention Arabs or Palestinians and has nothing to do with them.”

        That’s highly disengineous from you. Herzl had not decided yet where to implement Zionism. But it is obvious HOW it should be implemented according to him, no matter who the native population was.

        And again, you ignoring his other quotes from his diary and emphasizing his “utopian” (for who?) work of fiction.

        jon s: “The comparison with Cecil Rhodes is flawed: Southern Africa was not the historic homeland of Rhodes’ people.”

        It’s not. He didn’t care about the present native population either.

      • just on February 5, 2020, 8:56 am

        *sorry*- meant to write fiction, not “nonfiction”. aargh that’s what happens when one watches Trump give the SOTU.

        btw~ have a go at this debacle:
        “Trophy hunting event to auction ‘dream hunt’ with Donald Trump Jr

        Nevada convention to culminate with chance to hunt deer with ‘accomplished conservationist’ Trump Jr and son

        A week-long “dream hunt” with the US president’s son Donald Trump Jr is being auctioned at an annual trophy hunting convention in Reno, Nevada alongside expeditions to shoot elephants, bears and giraffes.

        The four-day event organized by Safari Club International (SCI) and advertised as a “hunters’ heaven”, will culminate on Saturday with an auction for a week-long Sitka black-tailed deer hunt in Alaska with Trump Jr, his son and a guide. At the time of writing, bidding for the yacht-based expedition stands at $10,000 (£7,685).

        Other prizes include the chance to shoot an elephant on a 14-day trip in Namibia, an all-inclusive hunt package to Zimbabwe to kill buffalo, giraffe and wildebeest, and a 10-day crocodile hunting expedition in South Africa. The proceeds from the auction, which campaigners say could exceed $5m, will fund SCI’s “hunter advocacy and wildlife conservation efforts”, according to the organization.

        Thousands of hunters from around the world are expected to attend the convention which begins on Wednesday, where Trump Jr, an avid trophy hunter, is set to give a keynote address.

        The description of the auction prize states: “This year we will be featuring Donald Trump Jr, a man who needs no introduction, and whose passion for the outdoors makes him the number one ambassador for our way of life.

        “Don Jr shares this heritage with his son and believes in handing down these lessons to young hunters. Don Jr and his son will be hosting this year’s hunt along with Keegan [the guide] in Alaska.”

        It comes just weeks after ProPublica revealed Trump Jr killed a rare species of endangered sheep during a hunting trip to Mongolia last summer.

        Last week, anti-hunting campaigners condemned the annual SCI convention, and Brian Wilson and Al Jardine backed a boycott of their former band the Beach Boys, who are scheduled to appear at the event.” …

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/04/donald-trump-jr-trophy-hunting-auction-nevada-aoe

      • oldgeezer on February 5, 2020, 10:19 am

        @Mooser
        “Herzl-per-second is the unit used to quantify Zionist prevarication.”

        They say that if you read him 60 times it’s like a light bulb going on over your head. If you only read him 25 times then you’re a lighted but a bit of a dim bulb.

      • Mooser on February 5, 2020, 12:23 pm

        It is a very useful measurement. For instance the number of people who have jobs producing the Zionist narrative (employed as Hasbaratchiks that is) is measured in Giga-Herzls.

      • jon s on February 6, 2020, 4:12 am

        Eljay refers to Herzl’s “fellow Hungarians”. Herzl was a Hungarian?! That’s like saying that the Jews in Poland were Poles, the Jews in Ukraine were Ukrainians, the Jews in Lithuania were Lithuanians. Ridiculous.

        Once again, the device of a novel allowed Herzl to elaborate on his vision, on the kind of society he envisioned. And I don’t see a contradiction between that vision of co existence with the Arab population and his relevant political writings.

        I keep being accused of teaching fake history.
        Actually I don’t go for any kind of alternative or revisionist history. I teach the conventional version of history that’s found in standard reliable textbooks.

      • eljay on February 6, 2020, 8:54 am

        || jon s: Eljay refers to Herzl’s “fellow Hungarians”. Herzl was a Hungarian?! … ||

        My bad. He was born in Hungary but then became Austro-Hungarian.

        || … That’s like saying that the Jews in Poland were Poles, the Jews in Ukraine were Ukrainians, the Jews in Lithuania were Lithuanians. Ridiculous. … ||

        Not nearly as ridiculous as the insane insistence that people all over the world – citizens of homelands throughout the world – who have chosen to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish are actually Ancient Israelites long exiled from their ancient / historic / eternal / lost / one true homeland of “Land of Israel” (geographic Palestine).

        || … Once again, the device of a novel allowed Herzl to elaborate on his vision, on the kind of society he envisioned. … ||

        So, just to be clear: As long as someone writes a novel that allows him to elaborate on a vision of a society in which Jews are treated well, it is acceptable to treat Jews poorly.

        Seriously, with friends like you Zionists, Jews really don’t need enemies.

        || … I keep being accused of teaching fake history. … ||

        Dunno if you teach it, but you certainly do spout it.

      • echinococcus on February 6, 2020, 9:08 am

        “Herzl was a Hungarian?! That’s like saying that the Jews in Poland were Poles, the Jews in Ukraine were Ukrainians, the Jews in Lithuania were Lithuanians. Ridiculous.”

        That’s the kind of total, out-of-control insanity Zionists represent.
        From the mouth of American Johnny S.

      • Talkback on February 6, 2020, 1:42 pm

        jon s: “Eljay refers to Herzl’s “fellow Hungarians”. Herzl was a Hungarian?! That’s like saying that the Jews in Poland were Poles, the Jews in Ukraine were Ukrainians, the Jews in Lithuania were Lithuanians. Ridiculous.”

        ROFL. Hitler would have agreed: Jews are a foreign body and don’t belong to the nation of the state of which they are citizens. Wait, that’s actually what Israel says about IIraeli Nonjews. What a coincidence.

        jon s: “Once again, the device of a novel allowed Herzl to elaborate on his vision, on the kind of society he envisioned. And I don’t see a contradiction between that vision of co existence with the Arab population and his relevant political writings.”

        Herzl’s vision and jon s’ interpretation of “coexistence”:
        “We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country.”
        “Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”

        Say jon s, if Herzl was keen on co-existence why did he call his only-for-Jews-utopian book “Judenstaat”? Did you know that the first General Attorney of Palestine and observant Jew Norman Bentwich called the Jewish labor policy of 1929 “economic apartheid”?

        jon s: “I teach the conventional version of history that’s found in standard reliable textbooks.”

        That can be only found in standard reliable Zionist/Israeli textbooks?

      • jon s on February 6, 2020, 4:57 pm

        Talkback,
        Perhaps I should clarify: the Jews in Poland (and the other examples I mentioned) were Polish CITIZENS but that didn’t make them part of the Polish NATION.

        Herzl’s utopian novel was “Altneuland” not Der Judenstadt.

        The quote that you keep repeating about the “destitute population” does not mention Arabs or Palestinians and doesn’t refer to them

      • Mooser on February 6, 2020, 6:52 pm

        ” I teach the conventional version of history that’s found in standard reliable textbooks.”

        And if they are so standard and “reliable” why not cite the names and publishers of the books?

        “Herzl was a Hungarian?! That’s like saying that the Jews in Poland were Poles…”,

        …or that the Palestinians in Israel are Israelis?

        Anyway, I’m sure that “Jon s” point is that since Jews were at times denied citizenship in European countries, anything does to the Palestinians is justified.

      • Mooser on February 6, 2020, 7:05 pm

        “I keep being accused of teaching fake history.” “Jon s”

        No, you told us yourself, you are an “Israeli history teacher”.

        “Actually I don’t go for any kind of alternative or revisionist history.”

        So you’re not a Kings Torah or Rabbi Kook fan? Wow, what a lefty.

      • Talkback on February 7, 2020, 4:38 am

        jon s: ” Perhaps I should clarify: the Jews in Poland (and the other examples I mentioned) were Polish CITIZENS but that didn’t make them part of the Polish NATION.”

        Well, jon s. They were according to Poland and the other examples you mentioned. But your view is exactly the Nazis and Israelis view: That being a citizens not necesserely means that one is part of the nation of a state in one implements racist and discrimatory laws that make a distinction between nationals and citizens. You continuously intepret the word “nation” not in a civic sense, not in the sense of a constitutive people, but in terms of ethnicity/religion. That’s Nazism and Zionism 101. That’s exactly what antisemites claim all day and night long: Jews don’t belong to our nation. “Juden raus!”

        jon s: “Herzl’s utopian novel was “Altneuland” not Der Judenstadt.”

        Indeed. My mistake, but same consequences. And the term is “Juden-STAAT” (state not city),

        jon s: “The quote that you keep repeating about the “destitute population” does not mention Arabs or Palestinians and doesn’t refer to them.”

        Again jon s, you are being highly disingenious. Herzl refered how to deal with the Nonjewish native population, but had not decided, yet, if he was prefering Palestine, Uganda or any other territory. It is completely irrelevant if the “destitute population” he was going get rid off was Palestinian or Ugandian. I have to assume that even you could come to this logical conclusion that Herzl’s ideas were not about co-existence.

      • Mooser on February 7, 2020, 1:44 pm

        Herzl was a crank who wrote a novel. But “Jon s” is claiming Herzl as the L Ron Hubbard of Zionistology. What rank presumption.

      • oldgeezer on February 7, 2020, 3:37 pm

        @jon s

        The vast majority of history you spout on this web site is fake either outright or by the omission of significant events that occurred contemporaneously.

        You’ve shown no inclination to deal with known historical events, factors and influences. Since you don’t espouse valid history here I fail to see why you would teach students any real history.

        Ignoring Herzl’s diary entries and relying on his novel is a great way to create a fictional ahistorical narrative for sure.

        You keep griping his diary doesnt specify Palestinians which is either a comprehension issue on your part of just being extremely disingenuous. I opt for the latter but the former cant be eliminated as a cause.

      • Mooser on February 8, 2020, 10:37 pm

        Shorter “Jon s”: ‘Herzl put Jews in the driver’s seat!’

    • RoHa on February 6, 2020, 8:14 pm

      “the Jews in Poland (and the other examples I mentioned) were Polish CITIZENS but that didn’t make them part of the Polish NATION.”

      What makes someone part of the Polish “nation”?

      Jerzy Grzegorczyk was born in Warsaw in 1928. His ancestors have been living in Poland for centuries. Jerzy grew up in Warsaw, went to an ordinary school there, and has lived there all his life. He is a Polish citizen. Jerzy was brought up as a Catholic, but he is an atheist.

      Jan Kapliwatzki was born in Warsaw in 1928. His ancestors have been living in Poland for centuries. Jan grew up in Warsaw, went to an ordinary school there, and has lived there all his life. He is a Polish citizen. Jan was brought up as a Jew, but he is an atheist.

      Why is Jerzy part of the Polish nation, and Jan not?

      • wondering jew on February 7, 2020, 2:57 am

        Kapliwatzki? Not a Jewish name. You made this story up and intentionally made this detail false?

        But to your question, not necessarily to the point you have in mind, any conversation I would have on this subject with mr. Kapliwatzky himself would ask him how his family fared between 1939 and 1945. Mr. K’s self identity in 2020 has been formed both through his self concept and how others (society, an invading army) have perceived him and labeled him. Odds are if mr. K survived ww2 he would have emigrated in 1968 when some version of antisemitism erupted in poland and questions regarding that era would also be asked.
        Theodor Herzl wanted to assimilate into his city of vienna, but vienna did not want him, so to call him hungarian or whatever is not false per se but incomplete to the point of obfuscation. Not all periods of history on this globe have been as unfriendly to jews as that period in vienna, but herzl did not live “in the modern era in the west”, he lived in the late 19th century in a society with a sickness called jew hatred and to omit his jewishness would be an attempt to prove some point through pretense rather than attempting to understand history.

      • Talkback on February 7, 2020, 5:40 am

        RoHa: “Why is Jerzy part of the Polish nation, and Jan not?”

        Because of the Nazi’s, antisemites’, Zionist’s and jon s’ racist, non-civic interpretation of the word “nation”.

      • echinococcus on February 7, 2020, 10:55 am

        Johnny S clearly indicates that he doesn’t consider “Jews” part of their respective nations.

        He thus fully justifies the worst racists, even the murderous antisemites, and anyone who views the Jewish population (by religious or racist criteria) as a traitorous fifth column.

        He also, by his absurd note, indicates that he doesn’t consider himself an American.
        He should relinquish his US passport and avoid seeking shelter here when his Zionist piracy project unravels!

      • Mooser on February 7, 2020, 1:22 pm

        “Mr. K’s self identity in 2020 has been formed both through his self concept and how others (society, an invading army) have perceived him and labeled him” “wj”

        Mr K will always be etched heroically in the public mind, the same as he is for many Jews, a man first bounding over men and horses, then hoops and garters and lastly, through a hogshead of real fire!
        In this way Mr. K. will challenge the world.

      • Mooser on February 7, 2020, 1:50 pm

        My heart breaks for the Poles. Won’t anybody buy them some vowels?

        “Kapliwatzki? Not a Jewish name.” Chief Rabbi “wj”

        Nonsense, “yonah” . We had a very nice family of Kapliwatzkis in our neighborhood. Don’t overlook the fact that the name may be mis-spelled when transliterated into English, as often happens.

      • RoHa on February 7, 2020, 10:43 pm

        ” Kapliwatzki? Not a Jewish name.”

        That’s a surprise. I took the name from Dr. Jochanan Kapliwatzki, author of Arabic Language and Grammar, 1938, Rubin Mass, Jerusalem.

        But replace it with any Jewish name you want.

      • RoHa on February 7, 2020, 10:48 pm

        Poland definitely needs more vowels.

        I once had a Polish girlfriend who tried to teach me a bit of the language. It was like speaking with a mouth full of razor blades.

        I chose the name Grzegorczyk from one of the Polish logicians. They don’t get as much credit as they deserve because its so hard say their names. Tarski is easy enough, but most of us find it exhausting just saying “Łukasiewicz”.

        “Llanfair­pwllgwyngyll­gogery­chwyrn­drobwll­llan­tysilio­gogo­goch” is much simpler.

        And that’s before we get to Polish notation.

      • Talkback on February 8, 2020, 4:24 am

        RoHa: “Jan Kapliwatzki was born in Warsaw in 1928. His ancestors have been living in Poland for centuries. Jan grew up in Warsaw, went to an ordinary school there, and has lived there all his life. He is a Polish citizen. Jan was brought up as a Jew, but he is an atheist. ”

        Where did you get this info from? That’s not “Dr. Jochanan Kapliwatzki, author of Arabic Language and Grammar, 1938, Rubin Mass, Jerusalem.” Born in 1928 and wrote this book 10 years later? Or did you just took the name of the Jew Jochanan Kapliwatzki to make your argument? Nevertheless that guy was born in Serbia.

      • Talkback on February 8, 2020, 4:31 am

        Mooser: “We had a very nice family of Kapliwatzkis in our neighborhood.”

        Dr. Jochanan Kapliwatzki – who was mentioned by RoHa – is from a family of rabbis for many generations, wrote several books in Hebrew about the Arabic language and is listed in the Encyclopedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel.
        http://www.tidhar.tourolib.org/tidhar/view/7/2785

      • RoHa on February 8, 2020, 9:06 am

        Well, WJ, I had hoped that Jon s might actually answer, but I’ll make a few comments about what you said.

        It looks as though you have two necessary conditions for a person to be a member of the Polish nation.
        The first is that the person regards himself as a member.
        The second is that the other members regard him as a member.

        Are these sufficient conditions? I would like to think that some sort of connection with Poland would also be required. When we look at the definitions that involve common language, culture, inhabiting a specific territory, and so forth, it seems strange to say that, if Albert Namatjira regarded himself as a member, and was so regarded by other members, this would make him a member.

        But it also seems odd to say that my JK, or [ insert Jewish name here], who fulfills all the language, culture, territory, etc., conditions, is not a member.

        If he is not part of the Polish nation, is he part of another nation? A Jewish nation, perhaps?

        And if we step away from the weird nationalism of vowel-deprived Eastern Europe, we have to ask whether British Jews are part of the British nation. The British in general certainly regard them as such. Are they also part of the Jewish nation?

        Finally, your comment gave the impression that you placed all the blame on the members of the Polish nation for not regarding the Polish Jews as members. But a few years ago we looked at the way Polish Jews kept themselves separate from Polish society. It is not so clear to me which is the chicken, and which the egg.

      • wondering jew on February 8, 2020, 10:42 am

        Roha , a richard nixon joke i read about in halberstam’s the powers that be, involved leaving a pail of manure in a part of the room in order to attract the flies and leave part of the room fly free. Consider the name portion of my comment a pail of this sort.

        Yes indeed the foreignness of jews in poland must include the fact that for a majority of Poland’s jews Polish was not their first language, Yiddish was. This was certainly true in 1923. And the pale of settlement was not something from the history books,but rather a living memory. And polish nationalism trying to recover from russian domination , their greatest challenge and purpose, seemed to identify bolshevism as the newest form of russian domination and many jews had some affinity for the russian regime (or strong affinity for populations or family living under that regime and thus a weaker allegiance to polish nationalism. ) The tendency of eastern European nationalisms to resemble white racism of the kkk and to mesh with nazisymbols and ideas quite neatly seems to have evidence in recent years, so lets not ignore causes and effects.

        I consider the reaction or identity of British jews far differently, with my assumption that it is in some ways similar to the US, though im sure this is too broad an assumption. The american polity is barely 250 years old,old for a settler colony, but young compared to mother england. In the US in the post 1967 era philosemitism has been the rule. Though this wasnot so before during or immediately (22 years) after ww2, this cultural phenomenon and the prevalent dictum of the ideal of the melting pot that dominated jewish american adaptation thinking leads to an assessment of overemphasis on Jewish identity to the point of emigration and adherence to Zionist identity attitudes an unusual stance that reveals an inability to move on away from the past. ( that’s with air quotes)The poverty and ethnic heedlessness of tossing jewishness into the trashcan can indeed stir a reaction in individuals against the grain of the majority, that’s the richness of human emotions and the license of liberty and individualism, even if the individualism is an expression of group cohesion.

      • Mooser on February 8, 2020, 1:06 pm

        Gotta say, “yonah”, you sure can type!

        “Dr. Jochanan Kapliwatzki – who was mentioned by RoHa – is from a family of rabbis…”

        Different family. Or maybe related. The Kapliwatzki’s (we just called them Mr. and Mrs. K) in my ‘hood had been circus performers in Poland before emigrating to Syosset, NY,( “because it had a Polish-sounding name”.) It was said Mr. K could do ten somersaults on solid ground! They were the only Jewish family with a trampoline in their yard, which caused all kinds of problems. Mostly, The K’s kids hung out with the Henderson brood. They were a musical family.

      • James North on February 8, 2020, 4:49 pm

        Mooser: Wasn’t Mr. Kapliwatzki at times also called “Mr. Kite,” for ease of pronunciation? Did the Hendersons own a shop in Syosset called Pablo Fanque’s Fair?

      • Talkback on February 8, 2020, 1:17 pm

        RoHa: “If he is not part of the Polish nation, is he part of another nation? A Jewish nation, perhaps?

        And if we step away from the weird nationalism of vowel-deprived Eastern Europe, we have to ask whether British Jews are part of the British nation. The British in general certainly regard them as such. Are they also part of the Jewish nation?”

        You allready know that Zionist Jews interpret “nation” as “nationality WITHIN citizenship” and not as nationality AS citizenship. Jews are not a constitutive people, but need to distract from that and with it the Apartheid character of the “Jewish state” in which nobody can aquire its citizenship to become part of the (Jewish) nation of this state.

      • jon s on February 8, 2020, 4:13 pm

        In general the Jews in Poland did not think of themselves as Poles, nor did the Poles consider the Jews as such . In that the Jews were not unique: there were plenty of ethnic minorities throughout Eastern Europe , who were not perceived as being part of the majority nation . For example the ethnic Germans or the Roma.

        As to that “destitute population” quote from Herzl’s diary, it may be a good idea to see the entire quote and not just the out-of-context partial version. Here it is:

        “When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly … It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us.”

        In any case , there’s no mention of Arabs or Palestinians. At that point in 1895 Herzl’s focus was on Argentina.

        On “Altneuland”, Prof. Avineri had some interesting insights:
        https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/213/rereading-herzls-old-new-land/

      • Mooser on February 8, 2020, 4:49 pm

        Gosh darn it “Jon s”! You’re good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you”.
        That’s why you are such a good spokesperson for Israel.

      • Mooser on February 8, 2020, 5:06 pm

        ” Jews are not a constitutive people”

        How can you say that?
        “Jon s” will tell you; we have the two most important ingredients needed in our diet to make us constitutive: mishegos and mashpocha. Takes a lot of prune juice to get unconstituated from that.

      • just on February 8, 2020, 5:38 pm

        The Polish people have an abundance of ‘vowels’! Try this:

        ‘witaj w domu i bądź zdrowa’

        (welcome home and be well)

        https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto&tl=es&text=welcome%20home%20and%20be%20well

      • Talkback on February 8, 2020, 6:28 pm

        jon s: “As to that “destitute population” quote from Herzl’s diary, it may be a good idea to see the entire quote and not just the out-of-context partial version. ”

        Thank you for showing us Herzl’s vision about “co-existing” with the native population.

        jon s: “In any case , there’s no mention of Arabs or Palestinians. At that point in 1895 Herzl’s focus was on Argentina.”

        He didn’t wrote about the Argentinians either. He didn’t have to be specific at all. He wrote what his vision of “coexistence”with the native population in general was going to be.

        Mentioning that he didn’t specificly and explicitly mentioned Arab, Palestinians (or Argentinians) is just higly stupid and dishonest as usual.

        jon s: “On “Altneuland”, Prof. Avineri had some interesting insights:”

        Make a claim and use a quote to support it. Nobody is going to read any article a whole article to find out that your pseudo arguments fail. Especially not if we are talking about fictional works we are in total contrast to his diaries.

      • RoHa on February 8, 2020, 7:59 pm

        “Try this: ”

        I daren’t.

      • RoHa on February 8, 2020, 8:06 pm

        And there we see that nice, liberal, Mr. Herzl planned to occupy a land, rule it, take over as much property as possible, and drive out as many of the natives as possible by economic pressure.

        But he might have been thinking of doing this to Argentinians, so his ideas have nothing to do with what the Zionists did to Arabs. Even though they did exactly the sort of thing he advocated.

        Herzl can’t be blamed for any of it.

      • RoHa on February 8, 2020, 8:07 pm

        “Takes a lot of prune juice to get unconstituated from that.”

        Prune juice should open up the vowels.

      • Mooser on February 8, 2020, 10:04 pm

        “the Hendersons own a shop in Syosset called Pablo Fanque’s Fair?”

        I Googled, and you are right. I guess that’s why it said “late of Pablo Fanques Fair” (in Polish?) on the framed circus-posters in their house. Must have been before they hooked up with the K’s.
        They claimed they used to have a horse, named Henry, who could dance the waltz! But kids will say anything.

      • Mooser on February 8, 2020, 10:09 pm

        “‘witaj w domu i bądź zdrowa’ (welcome home and be well)” “just”

        See? Poles can’t be as bad as “yonah” says, can they? A vowel-poor people, but always willing to lavish welcoming vowels on the stranger and returning prodigal.

      • Talkback on February 9, 2020, 4:08 am

        RoHa: “Herzl can’t be blamed for any of it.”

        And we find his racist vision of how to deprive allready destituted Nonjews ) to make room for Jews (or what jon s calls “co-existence”) only in his diaries and not in his far more important science fiction work. LOL.

        It’s amazing how Zionist Jews have been “co-existing” that way for almost 100 years in Palesine. They were succesfull right from the beginning when the General Attorney of Palesine accused them of “economic Apartheid”, because of their orwellian only-for-Jews-workers union “Histradut” which primary task was to sack Arabs and keep them out of Jewish business.

      • Mooser on February 9, 2020, 12:19 pm

        Sad thing, one of Mr. K’s sons, Joe, was the victim of some kind of legal frame-up. He was arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to his lawyer.
        The rest of the K family later mysteriously disappeared while waiting at a gas station advertising a free set of tumblers with a fill-up. Or maybe they just flipped out.

      • RoHa on February 9, 2020, 7:26 pm

        ‘“Histradut” which primary task was to sack Arabs and keep them out of Jewish business.’

        And the early Zionist practice of buying land and then sending armed men to drive off the Arab tenants.

        (The modern “settlers” don’t seem to bother with the “buying” bit.)

      • RoHa on February 11, 2020, 1:16 am

        Part 1.
        WJ, you have given a bit of historic background to Jon s. “In general the Jews in Poland did not think of themselves as Poles, nor did the Poles consider the Jews as such .”

      • Mooser on February 14, 2020, 1:16 pm

        Okay, now we know all about Mr. K, a splendid thread was guaranteed for all.
        But now it is time to talk about the space between us all, and the people, who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion.
        Never glimpse the truth, then it’s far too late when they pass away!

    • RoHa on February 6, 2020, 8:17 pm

      ‘The quote that you keep repeating about the “destitute population” does not mention Arabs or Palestinians and doesn’t refer to them.’

      Of course it refers to them. It doesn’t refer exclusively to them, because it refers to any and all people Herzl doesn’t want in his state, but they are certainly included.

      • Mooser on February 7, 2020, 1:35 pm

        “to any and all people Herzl doesn’t want in his state…”

        Now, gee, which would frighten a Zionist more, the “destitute population” or prosperous and educated Arabs (or even just not destitute) willing to live with Jews? Zionists are much more frightened by the latter.

      • RoHa on February 7, 2020, 10:46 pm

        Those prosperous Arabs will be destitute when the Zionists drive them of the farms and out of the factories. Then you push them over the border.

      • jon s on February 12, 2020, 11:33 am

        Talkback, the fictional work does not contradict the diaries. In the novel he imagines Jews and Arabs living in prosperity and peaceful coexistence and in the diary he never says anything different and does not imagine displacing the local Arab population.
        Not surprised that you’re not going to bother reading an article with a different viewpoint .

      • Mooser on February 12, 2020, 1:43 pm

        “In the novel he imagines Jews and Arabs living in prosperity and peaceful coexistence…”

        So we have to imagine it, too, instead of looking at the reality? Bug off.

        “Not surprised that you’re not going to bother…”

        “Jon s”, this is not a class made up of little Zionist toches-leckers learning their slogans, dialectics and statistical numerology.

      • Talkback on February 13, 2020, 9:38 am

        jon s: “Talkback, the fictional work does not contradict the diaries. In the novel he imagines Jews and Arabs living in prosperity and peaceful coexistence and in the diary he never says anything different and does not imagine displacing the local Arab population.”

        You are dishonest, jon s. Herzl wrote in his diaries how he would treat any native population to implement Zionism. That’s why he didn’t mention any specific people in particular.

        jon s: “Not surprised that you’re not going to bother reading an article with a different viewpoint.”

        Not surprised that you need to put your failure to state a viewpoint and then substantiate it with quotes from an article that supports your viewpoint on me. I’m not going to waste my time reading a long article without knowing WHY I even should read it. So, what’s your point? What’s the issue? What’s your claim?

    • Talkback on February 7, 2020, 5:42 am

      Trump even outtrumps mainsttream Zionists when it comes to being a right wing extremist.

  3. James Canning on February 1, 2020, 7:18 pm

    I recommend the leader (editorial) in the Financial Times, offering a stark contrast with the blather in the NYT.

  4. Ossinev on February 3, 2020, 11:02 am

    For those who like a good farce have a read of Mad Melanie Phillips ` take on the steal of the Century:
    https://www.melaniephillips.com/palestinians-bluff-called-over-to-you-world/

    THE PALESTINIANS’ BLUFF HAS BEEN CALLED. OVER TO YOU, WORLD
    JANUARY 31, 2020 MELANIE “DEAL OF THE CENTURY”, ISRAEL, PALESTINIANS, PRESIDENT TRUMP
    U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East “deal of the century” offers the Palestinians a state. They have rejected it and threatened instead to ramp up violence against Israel.

    No one can be surprised. They have rejected every offer of a state previously made to them in 1937, 1947, 2000, 2008 and 2014.

    So is this latest deal anything more than Groundhog Day for the Middle East all over again? Yes, because this isn’t a deal. It’s an ultimatum.

    Israel intends to enact its part in the plan unilaterally by declaring sovereignty over the Israeli settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley. The big change is that, despite the subsequent crossed wires over timing, the United States will accept this.

    That’s because this isn’t a “peace process” in which both sides must progress in tandem with each other — a process that gave the Palestinians an effective veto even while they continued to wage their war of extermination against Israel.

    For the first time, here’s an American plan that puts the security of Israel first and foremost. It’s therefore the first time that the United States has unequivocally supported Israel’s future existence.

    For if a country cannot defend itself against enemies sworn to liquidate it, that country can’t survive. Yet until now, even U.S. administrations supposedly sympathetic to Israel imposed upon it requirements that undermined its security and defense against attack.

    Other supposed allies, such as Britain or the European Union, have also paid mere lip service to Israel while denying the validity of its claim to the disputed territories in Judea and Samaria. Yet its claim to these territories is legal many times over, both under international laws of self-defense and through the international community’s decision in the 1920s to designate the whole of Palestine as the homeland of the Jews alone.

    By denying Israel’s right to all the land, Britain and the rest of the west have effectively undermined the Jews’ entitlement to any of it.

    The Trump plan has now swept aside that appeasement of evil, started by the British in the 1930s and which has been pursued by the American and Western foreign-policy establishment ever since.

    Yet this proposal is far from being one-sided. On the contrary, it generously provides the Palestinians with a route to a state of their own consisting of most of the disputed territories (with sovereignty less limited than the conditions imposed by the allies on Germany after World War II). It is a highly detailed map for a two-state solution.

    This has produced cries of dismay from Israelis for whom a Palestine state is anathema, and who view this as yet another reward being dangled for continued Palestinian terrorism and war. But this reward is entirely conditional upon the Palestinians giving up the very thing which forms their identity and without which they are nothing: their aim to liquidate the State of Israel.

    Trump is telling the Palestinians to suck this up — or lose, because the Israelis are going to get what they need to survive regardless. Jared Kushner, one of the architects of this plan, says it’s the Palestinians’ last opportunity for a state.

    But this assumes they want a state — which, of course, they don’t. That demand has always been a ruse to destroy Israel.

    That’s why the Palestinians have always refused previous offers of a state and turned to violence instead; whereupon Israel has been pressured to offer them still more concessions. And that’s why the “peace process” has been in fact an engine of perpetual conflict.

    Now the Palestinians’ bluff has been called. Once again they are responding with threats of more violence, because there are no circumstances in which they will ever accept the right of the Jews to their own ancestral homeland.

    Increasingly shunned by the Arab world, their one hope of keeping alive this war of extermination lies in the support they continue to receive from the liberal west: Britain, the E.U. and increasing numbers of U.S. Democrats.

    They robotically pump out the lies that the Palestinians tell. The lie that they, and not the Jews, are the indigenous people of the land. The lie that Israel illegally occupies that land. The lie that the Israelis oppress and persecute the Palestinians, whose only crime is to want their own state and whose claim to the land must therefore be given at least the same status as that of Israel.

    The morally bankrupt equivalence between victim and aggressor has kept this war going. It has now been repudiated by the Trump peace plan.

    But the war of extermination against Israel will stop only if the rest of the west now ends its tacit support for it.

    It will end only if the west stops funding it and instead makes all aid to the Palestinians conditional on ending their institutionalized incitement to violence against Jews, the salaries they pay the families of those who murder Israelis and their glorification of terrorism.

    It will end only if the “human rights” community that wages “lawfare” against Israel is now exposed as the sham that it is for hijacking the language, eviscerating the concepts of law and justice and grotesquely turning “human rights” into murderous wrongs.

    Perhaps the Trump plan’s most important achievement is to put on record the truth about the Jews’ unique rights to the land of Israel. As it states, the areas that Israel is being asked to yield to the Palestinians nevertheless constitute “territory to which Israel has asserted valid legal and historical claims, and which are part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people.”

    As for the loud protests that Israel is being allowed to “annex the West Bank,” professor of international law Eugene Kontorovich has tweeted that the United States is not proposing to recognize Israeli annexation of the territory; “it is recognizing that Israel has always had a legitimate claim on this land.” In other words, the application of Israeli sovereignty is to be based on its pre-existing rights to the land.

    The most intractable element of these pre-existing Jewish rights is Jerusalem, which Israel will never allow to be divided again but to which the Palestinians lay claim as their state’s intended capital. The plan audaciously resolves this apparently insoluble conundrum by stating that the Palestine capital should be located “in all areas east and north of the existing security barrier,” including Kafr Aqab, the eastern part of Shuafat and Abu Dis, and which could be named Al Quds.

    In other words, the Trump team has simply redefined Jerusalem to exclude those Arab areas of the city beyond the security barrier. This would enable the Palestinians to tell themselves their capital is Jerusalem, while Israel will have ceased to regard that area as Jerusalem at all.

    Of course, the Palestinians would never agree to this. “Al Quds” to them centers on their illegitimate appropriation of Temple Mount — the most sacred site in Judaism.

    But the plan states the all-important historical truth denied by the Palestinians because it vitiates their entire claim to the land — that Jerusalem was the political center of the Jewish people under King David, and has remained their spiritual center and the focus of their religious beliefs for nearly 3,000 years.

    The Trump plan won’t bring peace; however, it restores the truth and justice that are essential prerequisites of peace. Crushing the lethal and poisonous fantasies about Israel and the Jewish people, as well as taking a hard-headed approach to Palestinian intentions, it replaces illusions by reality.

    That’s no small achievement. Now it’s up to the rest of the world.”

    A load of unmitigated B….ocks. Of particular note in this unhinged raving is Mad Mel`s claim ref” the international community’s decision in the 1920s to designate the whole of Palestine as the homeland of the Jews alone.”

    Still on the bright side Since MM is in underwear shredding rapture over the “decision” of the imbecile Trump it surely surely please please please brings the day closer when she finally packs her bags and jets off permanently to her country of first loyalty where she will just be a freakish non event addition to the millions of other Ziofreaks. And hopefully hopefully in a short period of time she will be followed by the hundreds of her fellow fifth column Israel firsters who must be waxing lyrical about the attractions on offer in the Chosen Apartheid Paradise.

    • eljay on February 3, 2020, 3:30 pm

      || Ossinev: For those who like a good farce have a read of Mad Melanie Phillips ` take on the steal of the Century … ||

      Ms. Phillips and Bari Weiss are excellent examples of the madness of Zionism – a disturbing fanaticism that seems increasingly tinged with insanity.

    • Ernie on February 3, 2020, 4:47 pm

      I saw that on J-wire the other day.

      ‘The morally bankrupt equivalence between victim and aggressor has kept this war going. It has now been repudiated by the Trump peace plan. But the war of extermination against Israel will stop only if the rest of the west now ends its tacit support for it.’

      In other words, ‘War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.’

      You’d think an editor would have intervened. You’d think!

  5. lonely rico on February 3, 2020, 6:07 pm

    jon s

    Actually, the early mainstream Zionist thinkers envisaged peaceful coexistence with the Arab population, not displacing them.

    In 1891 early Zionist settler Ahad Ha’an wrote –

    Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? … Serfs they were in the land of the diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in freedom, and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause … and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination

    Zionists have been spewing their venom and hateful violence on the Palestinians for over a century.

    • jon s on February 12, 2020, 11:34 am

      Talkback, the fictional work does not contradict the diaries. In the novel he imagines Jews and Arabs living in prosperity and peaceful coexistence and in the diary he never says anything different and does not imagine displacing the local Arab population.
      Not surprised that you’re not going to bother reading an article with a different viewpoint .

      • RoHa on February 12, 2020, 7:21 pm

        “in the diary he never says anything different and does not imagine displacing the local Arab population.”

        You yourself quoted Herzl as advocating driving out the “destitute” natives by economic pressure.

        I am beginning to think that you are not just lying to us, you are lying to yourself.

      • oldgeezer on February 12, 2020, 10:17 pm

        @Roha

        There is nothing intellectually honest about jon s. Nothing

        Any degree of actual honesty requires an equal degree of ignorance and/or stupidity.

        jon enjoys his life living on stolen land bought on the cost of the blood or the owners and earning a living peddling fake history. And in this particular case peddling a work of fiction as an indicator of truth.

        What education level do you require to be a teacher in Israel? I know they are low enough in the US but I suspect they are even worse in Israel. No need to answer…. I’ll google.

      • jon s on February 13, 2020, 3:24 am

        Old geezer’s comments -at least those directed at me – contain little more than name-calling and insults. He even doubts my professional integrity (“fake history”) without any proof or examples.

      • jon s on February 13, 2020, 3:28 am

        RoHa
        As I’ve tried to explain that early quote about assisting the destitute population has nothing to do with the Arab population in Palestine.

      • Talkback on February 13, 2020, 9:54 am

        “Talkback, the fictional work does not contradict the diaries. In the novel he imagines Jews and Arabs living in prosperity and peaceful coexistence and in the diary he never says anything different and does not imagine displacing the local Arab population.
        Not surprised that you’re not going to bother reading an article with a different viewpoint .”

        Why did your post the same comment twice? Here’s my response to your second dishonesty:
        “Not surprised that you need to put your failure to state a viewpoint and then substantiate it with quotes from an article that supports your viewpoint on me. I’m not going to waste my time reading a long article without knowing WHY I even should read it. So, what’s your point? What’s the issue? What’s your claim?”

        Regarding your first:
        jon s: “As I’ve tried to explain that early quote about assisting the destitute population has nothing to do with the Arab population in Palestine.”

        jon’s dishonest fallacy:
        Herzl talks about how to disposses destitute natives to implement Zionism.
        Herzl did not mention Palestinian natives in particular
        Therefore Herzl did not talk about dispossing Palestinian natives.

        I want to eat fruits.
        I didn’t mention that I want to eat oranges in particular.
        Therefore I’m not going to eat oranges.

        ROFL. See what Zionism does your brian, while you are still allive?

      • oldgeezer on February 13, 2020, 12:27 pm

        @jon s

        Stop peddling false history here and I’ll believe you have some prof integrity.

      • Mooser on February 13, 2020, 5:39 pm

        “He even doubts my professional integrity (“fake history”) without any proof or examples.” “Jon s”

        Oh, I don’t think anybody doubts you are an “Israeli history teacher”. Every Zionist is. And you type for Israel in your spare time.

      • RoHa on February 13, 2020, 7:39 pm

        “As I’ve tried to explain that early quote about assisting”

        expelling

        ” the destitute population has nothing to do with the Arab population in Palestine.”

        And as we have explained over and over again, it is a general principle that applies to Argentinians, Arabs, Igorot, and everyone else.

      • jon s on February 14, 2020, 4:51 am

        talkback, RoHa,
        Back to that Herzl quote:
        !895 was an early phase in the evolution of Herzl’s thinking on what was called “The Jewish Question”. At that point, summer of 1895, he was considering the idea of establishing a Jewish national home in South America. In fact, the day after the “destitute population ” quote he wrote:”I am assuming that we shall go to Argentina” . Apparently he had read or heard accounts of conditions in Argentina and had thought about assisting the needy population to settle in other South American countries, without coercion.
        In any case, as we know, he eventually came to the conclusion that the Jewish state should be in the Jewish historic homeland and NEVER proposed displacing the local Arab population. Not in his books, or speeches or diary or letters. So we have one quote from 1895, not even relevant to Palestine, compared with everything else he wrote and said.

      • jon s on February 14, 2020, 4:55 am

        old geezer
        I wonder whether you’ve gone over the syllabus? observed my classroom? spoken to my students?

      • Talkback on February 14, 2020, 11:46 am

        jon s: “Apparently he had read or heard accounts of conditions in Argentina and had thought about assisting the needy population to settle in other South American countries, without coercion.”

        ROFL. So now Herzl is even “assisting the needy population” when he writes:

        “We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. ”

        That’s what someone like jon s calls “co-existence” and “assistance” when it comes to dealing with Nonjews.

        jon s: “So we have one quote from 1895, not even relevant to Palestine, compared with everything else he wrote and said.”

        It is your claim that it wasn’t relevant, but he wrote about “the private property on the state assigned to us” which makes it a blue print for any state whether it is in Argentine or elsewhere.

        Just drop it, jon s. It’s getting ridiculous. I uunderstand that Herzl is your G-d, but he was more of a racist D-g.

      • Mooser on February 14, 2020, 12:37 pm

        “I wonder whether you’ve gone over the syllabus? observed my classroom? spoken to my students?” “Jon s” Israeli history teacher.

        And how would that differ from the usual Ziocaine-laced left-overs you serve up here?

        Why not have some of your students or contemporaries register for Mondo comments? I assume you encourage your students to read the blog on which you lavish so much time and attention.

  6. Ossinev on February 5, 2020, 2:34 pm

    To be reluctantly fair to the NYT and very reluctantly fair to Thomas Friedman in his latest NYT opinion piece he has pointed out the reality facing Israel = the current actual stench and the Apartheid stench in waiting.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/opinion/middle-east-climate-change.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

    Give it a decade perhaps the before all those chosen choose to become unchosen and start infiltrating back into Western Countries to get away from it all.

  7. jon s on February 14, 2020, 2:05 pm

    Talkback,
    I’m actually not a big fan of Herzl and think that his importance is over-rated.
    However, bottom line is that he never proposed displacing the Arab population and envisaged a prosperous co-existence.
    I agree that it’s getting ridiculous . Ridiculous like claiming that Israel is NOT the Jewish homeland or that the Jews in Poland were Poles and the Jews in Ukraine were Ukrainians..
    So yes, I will drop it. It looks like no rational proof is going to get through to you.

    • eljay on February 14, 2020, 3:23 pm

      || jon s: … Ridiculous like claiming that Israel is NOT the Jewish homeland … ||

      It’s ridiculous – and not just a little bit insane – to claim and to insist that Israel is the “Jewish homeland” when the indisputable fact is that geographic Palestine was not and is not the ancient / historic / eternal / lost / one true or even actual homeland of every person in the world – every citizen of every homeland throughout the world – who has chosen to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish.

      • eljay on February 14, 2020, 3:36 pm

        || jon s: … It looks like no rational proof is going to get through to you. ||

        Zionist lack of self-awareness hits another high! You’re giving Mayhem a good run for his money…   :-)

    • Mooser on February 14, 2020, 4:53 pm

      “So yes, I will drop it. It looks like no rational proof is going to get through to you”

      Oh-oh, “Jon s” is going to give “Talkback” a failing grade in “Israeli history” and report him to Hidrustat.

      • Talkback on February 14, 2020, 6:44 pm

        Yeah, according to jon s’ lessons in Zionist counterfactual science fiction Ben Gurion wanted a prosperous co-existences with Nonjewish Palestinians, too. Because when he said “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral” he didn’t explicitly mention Arab Palestinans either.

      • Mooser on February 14, 2020, 7:55 pm

        ” Because when he said “I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral”

        And of course, Herzl sees no objection on any practical terms to Jews going anywhere, inveigling with the ‘property owners’ and deporting whole peoples. I mean, that’s just what we do.

      • Talkback on February 15, 2020, 4:41 am

        @ Mooser

        jon s calls the expulsion of the penny-less Nonjews “assisting” them and “prosperous co-existence”. That’s Orwell on a new level.

      • Mooser on February 15, 2020, 12:58 pm

        “That’s Orwell on a new level.”

        Not to mention “Jon s” blithe assumption that there will always be Jewish feet willing to wear the boot smashing a Palestinian face, forever.

    • hai_bar on February 14, 2020, 5:16 pm

      “Ridiculous like claiming that Israel is NOT the Jewish homeland or that the Jews in Poland were Poles and the Jews in Ukraine were Ukrainians..”

      Yeh, it’s as ridiculous as to claim that Mecca is not the Muslim homeland, or the Muslims in Chechnya are Chechnyans, or the Muslims in Malaysia are Malaysians. The World is pretty dumb “jon s”, isn’t it?

      I think this guy is broke, this website’s comment section might finally reveal what a Zionist hasbarist starts to deliver when running out of pseudo-rational arguments.

      • Talkback on February 15, 2020, 4:46 am

        If I undersand jon s correctly, he claims that the Jewish citizens of Palestine pre 1948 were actually not Palestinians, but just another “foreign body”. Mhm.

    • Talkback on February 14, 2020, 5:53 pm

      jon s: “However, bottom line is that he never proposed displacing the Arab population and envisaged a prosperous co-existence.”

      No he didn’t. That’s what he planned to do in general in the state assigned to Jews which have nothing to to with a “prosperous co-existence”:
      “We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly.”

      At that time no state was “assigned” to Jews which means that he was talking about a general blue-print what to do with the native population. Why don’t you find us a quote where Herzl explicitly states that he “envisaged a prosperous co-existence” with Arab natives. Until now you have been just making it up.

      jon s: “Ridiculous like claiming that Israel is NOT the Jewish homeland …”

      My “homeland” is the country of my nationality, the place in which I grew up and where my ancestors and I have been living for generations. To claim that Israel is my “homeland”, just because Halacha considers me to be a Jew is literally insane and borderline scizophrenic.

      jon s”… or that the Jews in Poland were Poles and the Jews in Ukraine were Ukrainians.”

      Or the Jews in Germany were Germans, right? Your view is exactly the same as the Nazi’s view which enabled the Holocaust. If anyone publicly claims in my country that Jews are NOT nationals of my country they will be rightly charged with antisemitic incitement. Let’s face it jon, you are an antisemite who considers Jews to be a “foreign body “in the country they have been living in.

      jon s: ” It looks like no rational proof is going to get through to you.”

      Says the one whose invented claims about Herzl’s view contradict Herzl’s own words. ROFL.

      • Mooser on February 14, 2020, 7:23 pm

        “Why don’t you find us a quote where Herzl explicitly states that he “envisaged a prosperous co-existence” with Arab natives.”

        Yes, Herzl’s diary records a dream he had; he envisaged co-existence, prosperity, socializing, marriage finally a Judeo-Muslim syncretism… He awoke screaming, and shouting, “Never, never! Exterminate the brutes! Expel them…”

      • jon s on February 17, 2020, 4:02 pm

        I feel like this discussion is going around in circles. I started by citing Herzl’s “Altneuland” in which he envisages Jews and Arabs living in prosperity and co-existence and now Talkback asks for a quote, which would bring me back to “Altneuland”.

        The Jews in Ukraine and Lithuania and Poland did not consider themselves to be Ukrainians or Lithuanians or Poles, nor did those majority nations perceive the Jews to be part of their nation.
        I’m not condemning or applauding , I’m just saying that’s the way it was.
        In Germany most of the Jews did consider themselves to be Germans. It didn’t work out well.

      • Talkback on February 18, 2020, 10:37 am

        jon s: “I feel like this discussion is going around in circles. I started by citing Herzl’s “Altneuland” in which he envisages Jews and Arabs living in prosperity and co-existence and now Talkback asks for a quote, which would bring me back to “Altneuland”.”

        Sigh I was not talking about quotes from an utopian novel.

        jon s: “The Jews in Ukraine and Lithuania and Poland did not consider themselves to be Ukrainians or Lithuanians or Poles, …”

        Jewish racism?

        jon s: “… nor did those majority nations perceive the Jews to be part of their nation.”

        Antijewish racism?

        jon s: “In Germany most of the Jews did consider themselves to be Germans. It didn’t work out well.”

        What didn’t work out well? The fact that they were Jewish or that “most” of them considered themselves to be German?

      • Mooser on February 18, 2020, 3:27 pm

        “In Germany most of the Jews did consider themselves to be Germans. It didn’t work out well.” “Jon s”

        So, if the Jews in Germany decided they were not Germans, they could laugh at Hitler and say: “Ha,ha, since we don’t consider ourselves Germans, just Jews who happen to be living in Germany now, you can’t touch us?”

      • RoHa on February 18, 2020, 9:21 pm

        In Britain and Australia most of the Jews used to consider themselves to be British or Australian.

        It seems to have worked out pretty well.

  8. Eva Smagacz on February 18, 2020, 7:54 am

    “In Germany most of the Jews did consider themselves to be Germans. It didn’t work out well”.

    It didn’t work out well for communists, homosexuals, political opponents who did consider themselves Germans, either.

    It didn’t work out well for Jews and Roma, but luckily, Slavs, (who were meant to be culled next, after Roma and Jews were disposed of), were spared due to Germany loosing the war.

    I find it distasteful that Nazi Supremacist ideology is highjacked as a base and underpinning for Jewish exceptionalistic victimology, when in reality, Nazi ideology had loathing and revulsion for all “lesser” breeds of humans.

    This is why we are not alarmed to a degree we should be about Muslims in India, Uyghurs in China, Palestinians in Israel and Occupied Territories and Burma’s Rohingya.

    You know, the idea that as they are not Jewish, they cannot have it
    so bad
    , so one should keep one’s sympathy in check otherwise one is anti-semitic.

    • Talkback on February 19, 2020, 10:10 am

      Eva: “… when in reality, Nazi ideology had loathing and revulsion for all “lesser” breeds of humans.”

      “I did see enough to be very impressed by the way the Jewish colonists were building up their land. I admired their desperate will to live, the more so since I myself was an idealist. In the years that followed I often said to Jews with whom I had dealings that, had I been a Jew, I would have been a fanatical Zionist. I could not imagine being anything else. In fact, I would have been the most ardent Zionist imaginable.” (Adolph Eichmann, quoted in “Zionism in the Age of the Dictators,” by Lenni Brenner, p119)

      No comment.

      • catalan on February 19, 2020, 2:21 pm

        Talkback,
        first you are putting too much stock in what a lying sociopath like Eichmann says about Zionism. But actually in this case I can see where he is coming from. If I was Palestinian, I definitely would be with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. I mean, at least they are honest about what they want, which is an Islamic state in all of Palestine, without Jews or with a token number of Jews. That doesn’t mean I admire Hamas, but that I can put myself in the shoes of a Palestinian. One group of Palestinians (the so called moderates) says that BDS will liberate them (and they have serious discussions on whether boycotting Cheerios is a way to go). They also think that whining at the UN security council will give them a state. The other group (Hamas, Jihad, etc), say that killing Jews would get them an Islamic state. Honestly, I think both approaches are doomed, but it does seem that terrorism has a better shot than boycotting Cheerios.

      • Talkback on February 20, 2020, 12:38 pm

        catalan: “But actually in this case I can see where he is coming from.”

        I’m 100% sure of that. You did see enough to be very impressed by the way the Hanas are building up Gaza. You admire their desperate will to live, the more so since you yourself are an idealist. In the years to come you will often say to Hamas members that, had you been a Palestinian, you would have been a fanatical Hamas member. You could not imagine being anything else. In fact, you would have been the most ardent Hamas member imaginable.

        catatlan: “… without Jews or with a token number of Jews …”

        No catalan, that’s not Hamas, not even in their charter. That’s Zionism about Nonjews in Palestine.

Leave a Reply