Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 30 (since 2010-07-30 16:28:56)


father poet human-rights activist teacher profeminist family and men's counselor - advocate of mothers ruling the planet and of nurse-monitored mind-altering (self-medication) substances, pill diets, intravenous hydration of old dry cats, and penetration-proof plastic cages for restricted-diet, defanged warlords -- and of similar public-display cages for drone pilots in every major U.S. city, so street public can watch/debate illegal executions from "unmanned" skies and make Wanted posters of executioners' bosses. Actually, we need to occupy the MSM until they stop printing lies emboldening corporate dominators.

Showing comments 30 - 1

  • 'Where there is a wall there are holes': Issa Amro's non-violence and Israel's injustice
    • At Harvard's Kennedy School of Government a few years ago Ilan Pappe and others spoke on Israel's colonial apartheid regime of domination in Palestine, but in the morning they always spoke of the Zionist invader colonialists as "settlers" and their illegal colonial instant-towns as "settlements." Just so, our author, like 99 percent of writers in solidarity with Palestinians, unconsciously cede the rhetorical turf of this "conflict" to the Zionists. For instance, in the second paragraph, our author tells us:
      "We visited the homes of two Palestinian families whose houses abut the settlements and whose rooftops are hemmed in by grilles and barbed wire against the stones thrown by settlers and the likelihood that their homes will be invaded and stolen—as happened only this summer to one Palestinian family who had the misfortune to live in a house too close to the interface with settler fanatics."
      Sure, probably everybody attending that event already knew these were "colonial settlers" and "colonialist fanatics" -- unless they didn't, which many Jews, Christians and others do not, having swallowed the lie that this is a religious conflict that has gone on since the beginning of time.
      At Harvard I asked folks to consider the word "settle" and its pacific connotations, of which I am sure American and Zionist historiographers are well aware, which is why they use it to whitewash the nature of the vicious regime of colonial invasion and its pretenses of civility and a holy mission (in this regard, the Israeli Zionists are a sort of Mini-Me version of "the American experiment of Manifest Destiny". We allies of Palestinians, especially in the USA, are trying to reach more American voters, taxpayers, foreign-policy funders, so, strategically, we should make damned sure they know from the starting gate what sort of regime we are discussing.
      So, just before lunch,
      I asked the presenters at Harvard to please use the word "colonial" as adjective to clarify the type of "settlements" to which they referred in their presentations. Yes, we in the know and active for Palestinians KNOW this already, but if we wish to educate those who DON'T, we have to use the language that's real, that clarifies the nature of the Israeli imperial, colonial ethno-supremacist regime.
      I was delighted that, after the lunch break, everybody did just that. The words "colonial" and "colonizers" were liberally peppered through later talks. I even started seeing more writings explicitly speaking of "colonial-settler" states, etc.
      We have to control the language of this literal "civil war" which the Lawfare advocates of the Israeli Department of Hasbarah to date have proved more successful than we in their offensive strategizing. We have to make the public discourse reverberate with our language, not theirs.

  • Elisha Wiesel's Rosh Hashanah remembrance
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem October 1, 2017 at 2:53 am

      Brewer, thank you for posting Israel Shamir's eloquent reply to Wiesel.

      Marc Ellis, I have great respect for you, but this isn't a cheer-leading commentary. It's more a "confessional-commandment" reflection on how I read and re-read your challenging essay above as a sort of "liturgy of commitment and inclusion on the personal and collective level."

      There's so much you write that shows great sympathy for Palestinians, yet it seems your affection for an insider rabbinical-paternal role in writing tends at times to muddy the clarity of your political analysis. I appreciate the need a spiritual counselor has for indirection at times, but this literate temple here,, isn't literally just Weiss's world or a one-windowed room for intratribal philosophizing... Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry made that clear long ago, as have many of the articles, op-eds and essays here, and even more importantly the diverse, at times brilliantly fiery comments (thanks in large part to facilitation and encouragement by Annie, a presence and voice sorely missed in recent weeks/months).

      You wrote:
      "I never pursued Elie Wiesel like some other Jews who felt that his memory of the Holocaust deflected, even buried, the complicity of Israel and the Jewish establishment in America in the injustice done to the Palestinian people." I thought, okay, how did YOU decide to "pursue" him? Did you consider, for instance, how much of what he claimed since "Night" as "memory" might be fiction?

      Then you added: "Over the years, I studied and wrote about Wiesel in a respectful and critical way.....I will never forget a prominent liberal rabbi complaining that Wiesel was cashing in on the Holocaust. When he ended his stinging indictment – “There’s no business, like Shoah business” – he expected from me a sign of solidarity. I cringed and walked away."

      "cringed and walked away" from what? I thought, there you go again, with that (play-it-safe-with-certain-audiences) rabbinical ambivalence. Which devil are you advocating for at this point?

      When you touched the heart of your essay, "a reflection by Wiesel’s son, Elisha, in the Forward on the first Rosh Hashanah since his father’s passing last year," I relaxed, Okay, maybe now Marc is getting somewhere clear and straight.

      But you spun about: "Again respect is due. Each one of us has a right to remember his or her father in the way we need to." "the way we need to"? We're not talking about private lives here, but about a very major public figure, my friend. What's the rabbi doing here? Weaving a web of comfort for some one he imagines needs comforting? Pontius Pilate, maybe (to mix religious metaphors)? I mean ELIE WIESEL, to borrow from Trump's lexicon, was HYUUGE!

      "Elisha calls for the recognition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Nowhere are Palestinians mentioned. Or Israel’s settlement polices in Jerusalem and the West Bank. On Gaza, Elisha is silent." You are pushing him. This is good. "The call among some of Israel’s political and religious leaders to further diminish Palestinian life are likewise unmentioned. As is the need for Jews to listen to Jews of Conscience in solidarity with Palestinians."

      "SOME" of Israel's political and religious leaders"???? I wonder why you didn't write more unequivocally, openly challenging the notion of a state having rights at all. (A state is a massive institutional abstraction dominated by the most domineering of human agents, what Jacques Ranciere has brilliantly clarified as the POLICE operatives of an aesthetic regime.) Or at a minimum you might have ventured declaring that no state "has a right to exist" as an ethno-exclusive regime, especially one that disenfranchises a fifth of its residents while parasitically colonizing its neighbors whenever the opportunity arises - largely thanks to that 69-year-old state's leaders running a regime with leaders (and Founders) who since Herzl's The Jewish State have been infiltrating every European state (including the Euro-colonial states of the Western hemisphere) with an agenda bent on using those states (they're mere gentiles after all, and former persecutors to boot) to finance, arm and even wage Israel's overt and covert wars on its neighbors to soften them up for future colonization.

      "Respect is due" false memories? Like the 1996 Zionist blueprints Wiesel seemed to have no objection to for today's Western/Israeli-devastation of North Africa and the Middle East, i.e., the Project for a New American Century and A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (drawn up, btw, on Clinton's watch)?

      What's the meaning of "the need for Jews to listen to Jews of Conscience"? As if Jews who are NOT "in solidarity with Palestinians" are incapable of, or are entitled to exemption from, listening to non-Jews when it comes to the human rights of non-Jews? I know that's not what you meant, but it's hard at times to "read" you when it feels like you start to walk into a room but then back out of it before you've finished painting the picture you had in your head.

      And you say: "Elisha moves on to more apolitical issues:," and quote his poetic notions of a father generous toward others -- hardly an "apolitical" set of images, given Wiesel was bereft of kindness to the people whose land he dishonestly, or delusionally, claimed for Jews.

      Marc, you call "Elisha’s remembrance of his father tragic." It was certainly tragic his father took pride in ethnic cleansing of Palestine by European Jews who deceitfully call themselves "Israel" -- as if taking that name for their terror-manufactured state of '48 made them holier than any of the post-Enlightenment nation-states attempting to develop genuine social democracies in the modern era.

      A double irony claiming "Israel" as a divine-secular political identity, when history shows the people called Israel in an ancient holy book comprised an ancient tribe of polygamist warlords and their slaves and subordinates -- not much more brutal and supremacist, in fact, than many Yankee/Southern Bible-thumping Christian elitists today who are all too happy to absolve nationalist Jews of accountability to the rest of the living human race if it will bring on "the Second Coming."

      When Elisha earns characterization as "tragic" (as opposed to simply, or stubbornly, ill-informed) it will be when he stops worshipping an abstraction of a man whose example of manliness for his son involved letting his own humanity lie dormant within him because he preferred parroting Judaic scriptural phrases while lording it over an "other" tribe (of Palestinians, including Christians and Jews as well as Muslims and agnostics) whose homeland he and his supremacist ilk coveted and stole (and continue stealing) through killing, torture and lies, in blithe violation of key commandments of (supposedly) his scriptural God.

      "Honor thy father and thy mother," btw, doesn't mean say nice things about them so people regard you as a good obedient son. Or maybe it does? Did? Long, long ago ........ only way for the prince to win the crown. But a crown to what kingdom?

  • Young Jews resist AIPAC-- even as Democrats' 'progressive' thinktank sends a crew to speak there
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem March 23, 2017 at 10:24 am

      Why do you elevate Neera Tanden to such moral heights, JWalters? Unless your comment is some sort of nuanced sarcasm or facetiousness? She gives Netanyahu a loudspeaker, and she pooh-poohs the fact of the Zionist-led DNC torpedoing of the Sanders campaign, in effect supporting Trump's electoral-college coup.

  • If Israel is unwilling to differentiate itself from the settlements, then boycotters shouldn't either
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem March 9, 2017 at 5:51 pm

      echinococcus: "There’s no need to do as if a boycott limited to the post-1967 occupation area were the default!"
      Well, apparently there is. Consider how many years already Phil Weiss et al have been battling to open the minds of fellow Jewish Americans alone! Not to mention the rest of us, many still swooning over Paul Newman's baby blues, and many others regurgitating misquotes of MLK on Israel as an anti-colonialist struggle.

      What many tend to forget, in discussing the settler-colonialist regime of Euro-American Jewish Supremacy (thank you, btw, to Alison Weir, for her brilliant and pithy Against Our Better Judgment - she got beat up so bad because she's NOT Jewish and she exposed what so many of us missed about the depth of Zionist penetration in the politics and ethos of 20th-c America!), is the indisputable fact that the "state of Israel" wouldn't exist, literally, nor would it have evolved world-class universities much less achieved cutting-edge science-and-technology status, if not for the wealth-funneling, media-dominating, dual-citizen American, British and French white-identified Jews for whom Israel is a hothouse plant they cultivate as a sort of elitist home away from home.
      Most Zionists (Jewish ethno-nationalists) prefer to live outside Israel and have cultivated an elaborate guilt/shame-denial mindset that enables them to croon operatic about Holocaust victims their Hero Ben-Gurion was happy to see fall into the flames of Hitler's slave camps rather than have all Europe's Jews escape persecution by emigrating to countries other than Palestine.
      "Liberal Zionism" is an oxymoron, like "humanitarian slave-trader."
      So, the battle we outside Palestine/Israel must engage is with the woodwork of our own local city halls and statehouses, already so infested with the intel-termites of Zionist rhetoric that our elected officials are blithely selling off their own as well as our First Amendment rights.
      Fact is....
      We need an offensive strategy, and must stop getting knocked back on our heels by AIPAC sucker punches like the anti-BDS bills sweeping across the country.
      Otherwise, we might as well sew a giant blue six-pointed star across the stars and stripes and call it a day, relegating Palestinian political prisoners inside Israel's mini-Gulag to the disposability our white forebears, North and South, gladly devised to Ben Carson's "African immigrants" to these shores.

  • A defense of UCLA student paper's decision to publish Netanyahu cartoon
    • "calling into question Jewish religious tenets is reckless, immature and blatantly discriminatory"

      - yes, that is exactly what Netanyahu is being portrayed (accurately!) as having done, and it is what the so-called Jews of the Knesset do every time they pass a law that legalizes their theft, kidnapping, torture and murder of Palestinian civilians.

      The cartoon, far from "calling into question" the values of the Ten Commandments, calls into question the hypocrisy of colonial-ethnosupremacist state agents wrapping themselves in the purportedly "innocent" cloak of Judaism while perpetrating the crimes of thugs and tyrants.
      It seems pretty obvious that the cartoon respects Judaism and chastises hypocritical politicians who disingenuously pose as agents of the Divine. It basically says, to officials of the so-called "Jewish state" who apparently can't read their own scriptures and understand their meaning, why don't you (Knesset and Netanyahu) practice the faith you claim to be members of, or else stop claiming to be Jews? I actually can't recall where it says in the scriptures that politicians can ever represent God.

      The prophets in fact reminded "the children of God" (aka the people calling themselves, or referred to, in their inherited (or adopted) scriptures as "Israel") they are literally exiles, deservedly, and must be as long as they keep breaking their covenant to keep God's commandments. There's nowhere any biblical promise of a literal territorial kingdom like the racist European and American Zionists would have us believe. Even being welcomed back into God's Grace has nothing to do with ownership of land, and everything to do with how you treat your neighbor, especially those less fortunate..

      The prophets certainly chastised politicians for such pretensions back in the day, if I recall..... But maybe I'm mistaken, blinded by a tangle of grey hair.

  • Netanyahu distorts a Palestinian's helpless reaction to occupying soldiers to dehumanize Palestinian parents
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem August 7, 2016 at 3:35 am

      and when you've attained Zionist binational (US-Israeli Jewish supremacist) fat-cat-hood, draftig you kid, male or female, into the IDF/IOF so s/he can suffer ptsd doing your killing for you, too.

    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem August 7, 2016 at 3:30 am

      that's a misquote. Ben-Gurion wasn't talking about children, he was talking about Jews of Europe, and it was in a letter to his son, not an open declaration in public, to the effect that if he had a choice to save all the Jews of Europe by having them emigrate to whatever countries would take them, or only half the Jews of Europe being allowed to emigrate to Palestine, he'd willingly sacrifice half the Jews of Europe for the greater cause of repopulating Palestine with Jews. It is testament to the atrocity-blind ethos of Zionism not only when it comes to non-Jews interfering with the Zionists' agenda of land conquest, but even when it comes to other Jews, whose lives are imperilled by the very agents of genocide with whom Ben-Gurion's team of Zionists should have bravely fought and willingly died to defeat, but instead with whom Ben-Gurion and his ilk collaborated with in order to secure their so-called "safe haven" of "a national homeland" for "the" Jews.

  • Jewish entitlement, and Jewish populism
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem July 8, 2016 at 2:12 pm

      Reminds me of Mark Braverman and his talks in churches, urging Christians to incarnate their theologies in spite of any lingering guilt or shame over the Western nations' failure to have unlimited quotas for Jews and others seeking escape from the Nazi leviathan. It's advisable we all deeply and self-critically examine lingering traces of tribalism in our editorial decision-making. I've noticed some Jewish writers on this site have greater freedom in criticizing other Jews than non-Jewish writers have exercised. Self-censorship out of fear of being called anti-"S"emitic is understandable, but let's get over it, folks. The state of Israel is explicitly racist (Jewish-supremacist) and openly fascistic in its apartheid dual-track legal system that flouts international law, and makes a mockery of its own legitimacy by violating international conventions it signed onto, as if a nudge-and-wink and knife-in-the-back were God's explicit command to "the children of Israel."

    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem July 8, 2016 at 2:03 pm

      Yes, MRW, thank You.

      And, silamcuz: Your saying, "I believe most of the older comments in MW contained highly problematic sentiments that are not in line with the true narrative of the conflict, and therefore presented themselves as a liability to the site owners and its patrons." implies that Phil and Adam intentionally decided to censor the many voices of readers whose presence in this virtual public square are indispensable to Phil and Adam's journalistic careers. It seems unlikely, to say the least. If anything, the content of the comments -- even the trolling snidenesses -- lend inestimable value and weight to this site.

      Phil and Adam, please investigate this unfortunate (and hopefully temporary) kidnapping of the majority of mondoweiss's inhabitants. It's a skill which you have shown yourself capable of exercising astutely and swiftly when it matters to you how well-informed the people can and should be.
      Well, the people need your prowess now more than ever in this matter of the Comments section (the bulk) of all your posts since you started this site.

      I, for one, have returned again and again to -- and I told complete strangers to visit it for the first time -- much more because of the amazing diversity of voices and the humor, wit, and tenacity of educative pyrotechnics to be found in the Comments section than because of the specific content of the "articles", op-eds, or formal posts themselves.
      Please, please, please, do due diligence.
      If you do, you will be restoring to the greatness and credibility, dignity and honor as a Voice for the Voiceless that it achieved during the 2014 Israeli massacres in Gaza -- before the comments started getting censored or "disappeared."
      Phil, Adam: Wake up.
      Somebody with ill intent, somebody you overlooked, is likely behind this virtual walling off of critical historiography. Don't forget: The Zionists "never miss an opportunity to exploit an opportunity." They have had over a half-century head-start on the rest of us in their geostrategic offensive of conquering Palestine for Jews and only Jews.
      (The Holocaust[..], which they diligently exploited during the entirety of Hitler's 12-year Reich, as Edwin Black, Tom Segev, Ilan Pappe, even Zionist historian Benny Morris and others have documented. Ben-Gurion, remember, preferred seeing half the Jews of Europe perish and the other half colonize Palestine than have all the Jews escape Nazi clutches by emigrating to countries other than Palestine....)
      Please don't underestimate the profoundly liberatory powers of all that juicy information, and fast-talk/thinking-on-their-feet ideas and archival sources we all were able to tap into thanks to your visitors, that motley crew of various winter soldiers for truth and justice you welcomed hospitably into this widening political space.
      It is a library waiting to be turned into at least one book, if not a series. It's your call, guys. Do the right thing. Thank You.
      "Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians." -Nelson Mandela

  • Elie Wiesel and Primo Levi: A study in contrasts
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem July 7, 2016 at 4:03 pm

      Several companion pieces to read spring to mind. First perhaps, due to recency, is James Wood's fine review in The New Yorker, . Another very interesting book that leans heavily on Primo Levi's ethical sensibility and visionary witness is Professor of French and Comparative Literatures at SUNY, Stony Brook, Robert Harvey in his slim yet extremely dense book (, Witnessness: Beckett, Dante, Levi and the Foundations of Responsibility. And readers should know of Emmanuel Levinas' work, which feminists have aptly taken to task for its patriarchalist limitations, but which is well worth study. A fine intro is the anthology, Addressing Levins, edited by Eric Sean Nelson, Antje Kapust, and Kent Still.
      Sadly Elie Wiesel's narrow ideological frame, pathetically impoverished in moral/ethical terms, reminds me of Ernest Becker's The Structure of Evil and The Denial of Death, in which we come to understand how most of what constitutes the mind of a mediocre character is what Freud called "trash." Something akin to what Jesus spoke of when cautioning his disciples about the difference between the letter of the Law and the spirit of the Law. If you (Jews and non-Jews interested in really living the Love Jesus spoke of incarnating in all our relations) haven't greater understanding of the Commandments than the scribes, who embraced the letter without the spirit, you risk the fires of Gehenna, that smoldering garbage pit on the southeast corner of Jerusalem... Ironically, Israel's leaders don't even remember the letter, much less care about any spirit of any law, except in its capacity to magnify their material power over "others".

  • In latest pander to Israel lobby, Clinton smears Max Blumenthal's criticism of Wiesel as 'hateful'
    • anti-semite is the "N word" racist Zionists are reduced to for lack of rational grounds for their blatant spurious supremacism posing as intelligent 21st century discourse defending the "only democracy in the Middle East".

      hey, as an aside, mondoweiss editors or webmaster, would you please leave off imposing a spell-check function in these letters. When I write the word "anti-semite" I don't want your machine correcting me by replacing the lower-case "s" with a capital "S". thank YOU.

    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem July 7, 2016 at 2:40 pm

      She has always belonged to the Israel lobby. After all, who instituted the Israel's strategic Trojan Horse policy of the "Oslo Accords" but her man Bill?

  • Video: Israeli forces open fire on Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza killing seven
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem October 13, 2015 at 2:57 am

      And it took three months -- three months, that's 13 weeks, 90 days -- before any Palestinians reached the breaking point to start killing Israeli children n return, like those Zionazi soldiers had been doing daily against the Palestinians. Some may call that crazy. I'd call it incredibly noble and bold. Israel gets its biggest kicks provoking its peaceable neighbors into reacting with the slightest sign of violence, then they unleash their massive firepower, thanks to gullible Yankee-liberal voters, craven media lords and sycophantic politicians in Washington.
      Anybody remember Mubarak Awad, the Palestinian "Gandhi" who was a strong nonviolent activist? Israel expelled him from Palestine because he was too effective. It's as JLewisDickeerson said, Israel is intent on "driving any idea of an unarmed mass action out of their minds." The Zionists, right left and center, love Qassam rockets, for the infinite propaganda mileage they provide in the stupidly naïve West and the minimal damage they do to Israeli Jews -- about 30 to 40 killed in 14 years.
      Luckily, Palestinian leaders on the ground came to realize after five years that suicide bombing was a really bad, counterproductive tactic. They haven't done one in, what, eight years, but the Western press still bandies the term about as if they still are doing it like Tamil Tigers or something. Such intellectual and moral laziness is par for the course in capitalist capitals.

    • "Your comment assumes Palestinians can think, behave and react like any other civilization.
      "They are terrorized, starved fish in a barrel...and have been for generations."

      I'm surprised commenters have let this racist stereotype, sounding very Zionist, pass. It is far less respectful than HarryLaw's clumsy, and patronizing, attempt to inject some carefully pragmatic strategic thinking.

      I didn't see any young men who looked terribly terrorized in the video Dan Cohen and Ahmed Rezeq gave us. They all looked dignified and brave. And a lot of them are likely higher-achieving scholars than most American and Israeli males with all their "peace" and comfort and privileges, but academic freedom isn't really a value Israeli Jews and Zionist Americans care to share with Palestinians. They may be hungrier than you and I on a daily basis, thanks to Zionist Entity leaders having carefully learned from Nazi occupiers of Warsaw and Hitler's Mein Kampf and the great utility of the Great Lie. But they are no fish -- especially since fish has been removed from their diet by the Ziofascists.
      And CigarGod said "for generations"??? It was in 2006 that the blockade became as gruesome as it is. Before that, yes, an apartheid racist colonialist settler state and imperialist conqueror has squatted on Palestine like Yeats' "rough beast", slowly devouring the indigenous, driving them out, attempting to divide them against each other, and so on.
      But the article's question: Is the Sinai option for real? remains.
      I believe the option is being considered bythe Zionist chief warlords, but they are also capitalists, and they are making a real killing in the arms/surveillance/population control industries by holding onto Ariel Sharon's brilliant "disengaged" Gaza Strip as a unique weapons-testing laboratory for the market of growing warlord mini-me "democratic republics" in the "Third World". Moshe Dayan decades ago said Israel can keep kicking Palestinian and Arab butt as long as it has a "pretext" for disproportionate "retaliatory" strikes. And the rockets, which a Jewish friend of mine likens to "distress flares" from a boat taking on water, are the perfect pretext -- they don't cost Israel any lives really -- what, two per year? Sderot is a very convenient part of the laboratory, and all the hoopla over the shitty Iron Dome system was more smoke and mirrors to pull in more money for the rich, freewheelers who give no more care for the well-being of Jews on the ground in Israel than the Founding Fathers of the ZioState did for the 1,800 Jews on board the SS Patria in 1940, which they sank with explosives, killing 267 and injuring 172 to make the Brits look bad. U.S. generals in the Iraq war 10 years ago offered the c-ram system to Israel, but its money-grubbing leaders wanted to make more money doing their own thing -- meanwhile putting their greasy hands out to American taxpayers for evermore funds to build their silly toy.
      Where is the logic in actually trying to institute a 'solution' where Palestinians actually have a state, when their bantustanization has been working quite nicely for the gullible, greedy heirs to Hitler's corrupting definition of Jews as mean-spirited, greedy and ruthless? Why would the U.S. government push a "solution" when it long since has been bought and bound by Zionist billionaires? Remember Cynthia McKinney? Why did she get driven out of Congress? She was just about the only elected member to refuse to sign a loyalty to Israel oath as a junior Congresswoman.
      No, the Sinai option is another distraction. Palestinians would never go for it -- because they are smarter than cigarhead thinks. But so are the elite Zionists.

  • The Adalah database of 50 discriminatory laws in Israel
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem September 1, 2015 at 9:03 pm

      Yes, Roland, thanks.

      But, you wrote: "Although the desire for a Jewish state is understandable in a post-holocaust world, the use of ethnic discrimination that is necessary to achieve and maintain the dominance of a Jewish majority in the country over all others is problematic."

      That's profoundly misleading, and regurgitates Zionist propaganda post-World War 2, that the Holocaust justified the Zionist colonialist project in Palestine. But Zionists had already begun systematically infiltrating the top echelons of Western powers BEFORE WORLD WAR ONE in order to secure their racist-colonialist share of the European race to imperialist conquest of the rest of the planet.

      You also refer to Beinart as a "liberal Zionist" which is a contradiction in terms. Here is your statement: ' In a 2010 interview, Peter Beinart—as liberal a Zionist as you’ll find—said: “I’m not even asking [Israel] to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. I’m actually pretty willing to compromise my liberalism for Israel’s security and for its status as a Jewish state.”

      Beinart shows his intellectual fuzziness by saying he is "willing to compromise [his] liberalism for Israel's security and for its status as Jewish state."

      Reminds me of Hitler willingness to compromise his Christianity in order to secure an Aryan state empire across Europe, Africa and wherever else he could hang his hat.

      Only difference between the Zionists and the Nazis appears to be, the Zionists were a day late and a dollar short -- but they are doing their version of supremacist empire-building more collaboratively, more covertly, and more slow-motion -- and are able to exploit the pervasive Christianist guilt over past anti-semitisms, which Zionists themselves conspired with in imposing immigration quotas on Jews from Europe and in selling Nazi commodities in Palestine in exchange for Hitler's agreement to let certain Jews (selected by the Zionist leadership -- not exactly Sophie's Choice) emigrate from Nazi Germany to -- guess where, you guessed it! -- to Palestine.
      Hence, their nastiness towards the indigenous Arabs, be they Muslim, Christian, Druze or even Jewish -- a nastiness they have gotten away with hiding from most Americans. But how? By insinuating themselves into every nook and cranny of public power and media power, and smearing any critics with the "anti-Semite" label (I did NOT capitalize the semite word in the quotes, but this computer system I'm using automatically did that, which is part of my point -- they are everywhere, like -- to borrow a crudity they have loved to throw at Palestinians whom their leaders have often equated to cockroaches in a bottle -- termites in the woodwork of Western democracy.

  • Philosophy prof who likened Palestinians to 'rabid pit bull' ignites protest on CT campus
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem March 29, 2015 at 5:49 am

      See Mike Davis, The Buda Wagon, I believe chapter 2, he documents that Zionists of Irgun, Stern and even Haganah, used terrorist bombing in marketplaces, including barrel bombs on vegetable trucks, to mass murder and terrorize hundreds upon hundreds of Palestinian civilians, and only the honest few Zionists admitted it was their own doing when Palestinian freedom fighters adopted the tactic years later to try to even the very uneven power imbalance, which included the British putting Zionists in charge of administering all arenas and levels of Mandate Palestine, and also in 1937-9 systematically massacring Palestinian leadership and middle-level activists of nonviolent civil society -- at the same time, thousands of Jews were being trained in the British army and securing underground contacts through out the Western military buildup gaining access to arms as well as tactical and strategic planning skills for military conquest. Not to mention Churchill being a Zionist and racist against Arabs.

  • US Court of Appeals upholds discriminatory ruling against transit ads critical of Israel
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem March 22, 2015 at 5:40 pm

      never crossed anybody's minds because Palestinians are more honest and more committed to nonviolent attainment of justice

  • The Greater Gaza Plan: Is Israel trying to force Palestinians into Sinai?
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem October 14, 2015 at 2:40 am

      I think Horizontal is onto something. Gaza is a U.S.-Israeli weapons-testing laboratory with live test animals, real human beings who are simply on the planet to serve Jews, according to the atheist Zionists who run the Zionist Entity in 48 and the OPT. It is far too profitable, in selling weapons and surveillance, crowd control technologies to dictatorships (which, like apartheid Israel, call themselves democracies) with the unique sales pitch -- "We've tried this on real people and it works marvelously well, as you can see from the impoverishment statistics, the kills and the ethnic cleansing numbers." No, in the next year or two they may roll out a new and improved aerospace defense system to replace the joke that is iron dome. And U.S. tax dollars will finance its development, the lazy sneaky Jewish Supremacists pretending to be victims while financing suppression of free speech in the usa's campuses. The captive test subjects won't be shipped, by rail or boat or desert wind, to Sinai, but kept in place for further sadistic experimenting -- until pro-Palestinians figure out the right strategy to turn the tide of public opinion in favor of the people of Palestine [we could start by occupying Congress with a Million Moms and their pro-feminist auxiliary of brothers, uncles, dads and sons.

  • The elephant in the room, in Marin County
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem September 17, 2014 at 6:24 pm

      I don't agree that "Israel" is the elephant. Rather, the elephant is "Israel, the Rogue ethnosupremacist Colonial state" --
      or in more detail, "Israeli Jewish-supremacist military expansionist, racist colonialist regime," which inherently (since its unilateral (not voted on by any UN) declaration of statehood has continuously violated several international laws, laws which Israel's founders (with a wink and fingers crossed behind their backs) signed onto in order to be admitted to the United Nations, which they openly deride as irrelevant.

    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem September 17, 2014 at 3:15 pm

      "Honey, we need to talk" aint such a hot idea -- it's what the Zionist lobby has managed to trick its Christian, Buddhist and other buddies into doing for decades [ aka "dialogue" ], as if there were any balance whatsoever in the actual living-vs-killingANDstealing situation where the "pro-Israel" side pretends to be "liberal Zionists" [is it possible to BE a "liberal racist"?] and want peace while giving tax breaks to the thieves and murderers -- and their paid liars in the USA - serving the Israeli ethnosupremacist regime's 117-year agenda of colonial expansion.
      You don't ask to talk with a bully's friends when the bully has his boot on a child's throat. You do your damnedest to yank the bastard off his victim. His friends insisting on dialogue are disingenuous at best, cynically contemptuous of you and all non-Zionists ....
      Yes, calm. By all means, calm. This is the Zionist pretense, to be "reasonable." Yes we need to be diplomatic for sure, but the "dialogue" text only gives more cover for the Jews-Who-falsify-Judaism's-ethical-teachings-by-playing-the-Holocaust-card (as Ben-Gurion advised in 1942) to ethnically cleanse more Palestinians from their ancestral homes.

  • Arielle Klagsbrun calls on the Jewish community to 'love and honor' those who refuse to support Israel
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem October 4, 2014 at 5:51 am

      I wonder whether Rabbi Talve will ever get over her Zionist soul-washing (more than her brain is involved) in her cryptic clinging to the racist notion of "a Jewish Democratic state" that has 1.2 million "Arabs" in it. See P.Weiss Oct. 2 or 3 article outing her Zionist fundamentalism.

  • No room for racism in a movement working for equality and freedom
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem October 14, 2012 at 4:03 am

      she was careless, and the tweet was stupid, given her important position; indeed, almost incredible, given her years of consistent and brave activism. but she herself is not stupid, just knocked pretty well off balance by the extremism with which so many otherwise progressive Jews on this site have suddenly turned tribal on her. Scratch a person who self-identifies "as a Jew" by ineptly bringing up a piece of anti-zionist propaganda (for no particularly clear reason) -- the way Marc Ellis so tiresomely has of late on this issue (on his little piece on Sara Roy did he really use the words "Jew" and "Jewishness" about 35 times or so? -- and suddenly you don't have a person you can count on for helping you regain your balance in our common cause for human rights and universal dignity, but you get instantly smeared and shoved out of the lifeboat. Tribalism on this site seems more powerful a motive than love. One reason I really appreciate Mark Braverman, a Jewish psychotherapist and author of Fatal Embrace, who acknowledges "the deal is and should be over for good" between Jews and Christians that Christians can't discuss Israel's crimes and Jews get to tell Christians how to parse their Christian theology and ethics to the satisfaction of Jewish Zionists and Israeli leaders. No, the deal is ended, but you wouldn't know if from reading the vehemence with which the philosemitist tag team on mondoweiss dot net has gone after a woman i find far braver and more steadfastly in the trenches with Palestinians than all of them put together. Phil, Adam, your site is still important, but get off your high horses, will you please. Your credibility as journalists dropped vastly in my view since you started your public stoning of a good activist just to prove yourselves equal to ali abunimah. Why didn't you go after the real source of the problem, the shit-disturbing Israel-Firster who caught Greta's faux pas and spun it viral ? As pabelmont noted below [ pabelmont says: October 13, 2012 at 9:57 am ], before locating Avi Maher's cynical "expose", why did both Phil and Adam fail to respect their readers sufficiently to have either a) described and provided the links needed for sufficient background to catch up factually to the speculative allegations they were tossing in the fan, or b) done basic investigative journalism such as interviewing the lede character in the story and giving her a chance to explain herself?
      in short, the appalling "GOTCHA!" game they have been playing smells distinctly of envy, ressentiment, schadenfreude, perverse spitefulness, almost pathetic sibling rivalry with a nauseating heap of Holocausticism -- us Jews mustn't get our ancestors' feelings hurt or we're liable to go ballistic, even on our more honorable friends. Where kindness is lacking, humor is absent, words are used as weapons. You don't try to shame your friends in public.

    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem October 14, 2012 at 3:30 am

      let me see: i don't think she is a racist, but i don't disagree with purging her.
      Is this logical?
      let me see: "wouldn't it be nice if zionists would condemn and purge their racists"? If all zionists are racists -- by definition zionism is the political ideology that claims all of Palestine belongs to Jews since G*d gave/promised it to them unconditionally (show me exactly where in the Old Testament this is written and i'll sell you a ship that'll automatically enter Gaza unchecked) -- then "if zionists would condemn and purge their racists" zionists would all vanish, cleansed to where if cleansed by themselves of themselves? is this logical.
      "i'm really proposing we are clear about our semantics...." and... "make sure we note that we simply have no tolerance for what *may* be a sign of racism" -- This is indeed pure logic. Watch out, Phil. Your editorial job is now imperiled by a most excellent student of your impeccable logic and expert journalistic presentation of credible evidence for your objective reporting.

    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem October 13, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      Avi Maher's the source of the Israeli propaganda smear campaign against Greta, yes, and evidently they are sharper than the tacks running Mondoweiss, since they suckered Phil into surrendering his savvy activist/journalist adult self for the good-boy goy-chastising Phil into playing along, with due macho viciousness and intolerance for any mistakes by anybody (not that he could make a mistake, gosh darn it by being such a transparent McCarthyite... um er, but his work is still valuable enough that he shouldn't be purged, should he?

    • Danaa,
      It's disturbing how you can say a number of clarifying on-point things, then suddenly, almost unnoticeably, launch a stealthy, Likud-like IDF/Hasbarah torpedo such as this:
      "It is especially difficult for some activists – to ignore THE HOLOCAUST when that WAS THE MAIN REASON ISRAEL CAME TO BE and the Palestinians got kicked out in the first place."

      Say wha-?!? "KICKED OUT?"This sort of PROPAGANDA (even if unintended, its function is as propaganda -- to obfuscate, to conceal the truth, to the advantage of the land-grabbing monsters running the machine of racist supremacism called "ISRAEL" who thank you nudge/winking all the way to the bank and back again to their arms factories and Big Apple penthouses) began flooding unchecked into Americans' eyes and ears particularly after two key moments in Jewish-and-Zionist modern evolution, Leon Uris' mischievous apologia for Jewish colonial conquest of Palestine, the novel (1958) and feature film (1960) EXODUS, and the long-planned military offensive to complete the brutal, LBJ-backed gangland theft of Palestine (aka "Eretz Yisrael"), the June 1967 "SIX-DAY WAR".
      But you, Danaa, a supposedly educated progressive, SEEMINGLY have failed to REMEMBER the year 1897. Theodore Herzl didn't pen "The Jewish State" to counter Herr Hitler's Mein Kampf or later his brownshirt sociopath cultists smashing storefronts, but rather when Hitler was a mere choirboy of 8 being beaten by his aged petty-bureaucrat father. Herzl not only articulated ideas for the Jewish conquest of Palestine already current among many Jewish leaders at the time; he also presciently predicted the state could be secured within 50 years, especially if done by the surreptitious transfer of all "Arabs of Palestine" to lands outside Palestine.
      It wouldn't surprise me if the quotes attributed to Ben Gurion saying that he'd rather half of Europe's Jews die under the Third Reich if the other half could conquer Palestine than that all the Jews of Europe surive and escape a possible "H"olocaust by emigrating to other countries not in Zionists' hands.
      So, in point of fact, Zionism is NOT the spawn of National Socialism (though its agents touted a nationalist-corrupted version of socialism). Zionism isn't a benign "theology of liberation," but rather a political movement whose key agents were -- FROM THE BEGINNING -- VERY VERY BAD in their intentions TOWARDS the Palestinian people (including indigeous Palestinian/Arab Jews who stood by their Muslim and Christian Arabic friends). As i said, by reading Benny Morris alone, you'll find more than sufficient evidence of this PRE-NAZI-ERA fact about the movement you and so many other otherwise progressive (Jewish and "other") folks on this listserv seem fearful of examining with sufficient historical accuracy or moral clarity. (See, for instance, Morris' essay in the anthology, The War for Palestine,
      This is not an anti-Semitic charge, but rather reporting of historic facts about the history of ideas and bloodshed over ideas. Ben-Gurion was perhaps Zionist Jews' most effective leader in securing a "Jewish state" precisely because he had no qualms about a) ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from "the Promised Land" and, b) hiding this fact from the majority of Jews and non-Jews. Reading Zionist Israeli historian Benny Morris' heavily-footnoted history books and articles alone (even without reference to Ilan Pappe's brilliant The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, based on much of the same Israeli Archival materials) is sufficient to give the lie to the Holocaust Industry's claim that Israel was founded "because of the Holocaust." The "never-again" mantra was used not only to puff up manly Jewish chests for all nonJewish men to see and fear, but it was effectively used by openly terrorist inventors of

      Your gross historical blunder above, Danaa, you sadly magnify with this layer-cake of mild misperceptions:

      "Of course nothing, CERTAINLY NOT ZIONISM, is all evil and it may well have STARTED AS NO WORSE THAN ANY OTHER ethnic liberation theology that MINDS ITS OWN AND CARES LITTLE FOR OTHERS in the way. It’s JUST THE OUTCOME THAT TURNED OUT VERY VERY BAD – such that for zionism (now in the body politic of israel) to thrive, another people have to be made to suffer – in perpetuity it seems. "

      You are implying that Zionism
      1. wasn't "bad" in its inception (aspiring to have only Jews live in and benefit from the lands, waters and natural wealth of Palestine),
      2. was never originally "in the body politic of israel,"
      3. was a sort of "ethnic liberation theology" that
      4. unintentionally turned out "very very bad. . . for another people." Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
      1. Zionism, far from being a "theology" of ANY sort whatsoever, is more properly analogous to ancient Spartan militarism. It is a brand of openly-avowed Jewish political-moral supremacism [[(God exempting all Jews from the petty human assertion of universal human rights and the modern internationalist and pacific (see Isaiah 2:4) historical principle of the rule of law, signed onto by virtually every existing nation-state, even Israel (purely opportunistically, however, as plenty of Ben-Gurion's statements show)]] that bastardized the ethical core of Judaism by hitching it to an ancient martial, sexist, tribalist ideology of elite chosenness bent on destroying anyone intent on protecting the rights of those already on the land known for centuries as Palestine. Why? Because "pro-Israel" Zionists -- grade D- readers of the Old Testament, and grade F readers of the NT Gospels -- claim God long ago unconditionally gave (promised) "the Jewish people" all Palestine (aka "eretz yisrael").
      BTW, see the 5-hour, Channel 4 UK series "The Promise" for a graphic recounting of a slice of Zionist "theology".

  • The privileging of Jewish American voices on the issue is rooted in racism
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem October 9, 2012 at 4:08 am

      The fact remains, Zionist Jews openly assert their presumption of entitlement and racial or ethnic or nationalist susperiority, often even blatantly mocking as inferior "goys," or all non-Jews, essentially as their unknowing and divinely-determined servants. Foolish and anti-spiritual as such arrogance is, it nonetheless is indulged in in the name of "Jewish identity" (and if you don't like it, you're "anti-Semitic" or a "self-hating Jew") as the basis for claims of what cannot be characterized in human terms as anything other than self-arrogating entitlement to privilege.

      The Zionist project, of Jews' "re"claiming Palestine as their anciently "godgiven" land, was condemned openly by many secular Jews as well as by more orthodox Jews as a satanic attempt to "take heaven by storm." The string of corrupt prime ministers Israel keeps enthroning should be criticized openly, by self-loving (self-identified) Jews, especially those claiming loyalty to the principles of universalism and equality, as an embarrassment, if not crude betrayal, of the faith or religion of Judaism or at bare minimum of the humanism which Jews figured so significantly in formulating in recent centuries.

    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem October 9, 2012 at 3:49 am

      Speaking of "privileging Jews over Palestinians" in the public discourse concerning the Zionist Jews' 64 years of illegally colonizing Palestine, why is it people as progressive as you, Annie, when referring to Israel's oppression of Palestinians, continue to use the Lobby-mollifying term "Israel/Palestine" (you used "i/p" abbreviation, same thing in essence), instead of "Palestine/Israel" (which at least acknowledges the historically prior, indigenous nation first) or, even better and more precise term, "Zionist-colonized Palestine"?
      It's as bad a habit, or reckless a failure of moral imagination and political commitment, as the casual use of those warm-and-fuzzy "journalistic" codewords (or comfort words) for liberal Zionist-serving complacency, "settlements" and "settlers" which hide the reality and viciousness of "colonies" and "colonists", terms that accurately denote the military-cultural reality with which Zionist Jews, with U.S. monies, daily torture Palestinians...
      Furthermore, I find also troubling, if not downright sickening, that so many "pro-Palestinian" activists and scholars insist "the Green Line" or "the 1967 borders" (Israel/Palestine = 78%/22% of MP) is the legitimate or legal border for a "two-state" resolution of "the conflict" -- when in fact the borders determined by international law, as i understand Palestinian history in its international context (the "law's" Euro-racist colonial bias at the time notwithstanding) was the Mandate Partition of 1947, which officially gave Zionists 55% of Mandate Palestine and Palestinians 45%.

      Why is it that the 23% of Palestine that Zionists stole from the Palestinians by means of Israel's archivally-documented MILITARY OFFENSIVE, strategically-planned, war of ethnic cleansing (commenced even before the British vacated Palestine, and NOT as a spontaneous "self-defense against Arab invaders") is virtually never mentioned by progressives as LEGALLYand legitimately belonging to Palestinians? Why, instead of giving an apparently pro-Palestinian (and allegedly "anti-Israel") nod to "the 1967 borders" or "Green Line" (accepting the fait accompli -- or "facts on the ground" -- of Israel's half-successful war of explicit, Peel Commission-legitimized, ethnic-cleansing leaving Palestinians with only 22% of Mandate Palestine) as the proper borders for a "peace process solution", is it not declared rather that, at the very minimum, Palestinians' rights entail Israel withdrawing at least to "the 1948 borders" existing the moment UK troops evacuated? Wasn't there a post-World-War-II international consensus that no longer would the rule of law permit a group of people to take land away from another group by means of military force?
      We in the progressive activist and academic left need to be more consistent with our language and -- dammit! -- stop ceding historical, rhetorical, moral and legal ground to our more obnoxiously assertive, militarist neighbors and relatives. We share responsibility for killing the truth (or letting it die) when we fail to speak it as clearly and unequivocally as possible whenever and wherever it needs to be said.
      This is not to say i don't greatly admire your work and speaking of truth to power again and again, Annie! By all means, i do. You're among my favorite commentators on behalf of truth and justice and human dignity.

  • 'We must expel Arabs and take their place': Institute for Palestine Studies publishes 1937 Ben-Gurion letter advocating the expulsion of Palestinians
    • Baffling all the ink spilled in lyinzionist claptrap pretending BenGurion and the other founding father terrorists of terrorist regime Israel weren't intent on tranferring all "Arabs" from socalled eretzyisrael.
      Just read Benny Morris, who quite carefully documents this plan, in Ben-Gurion's words, in Herzl's words, etc. Just take, for instance his chapter in The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, edited by Eugene L Rogan and Avi Shlaim, with afterword by Edward Said.
      In "Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948," Morris quotes BG at length, also noting where and when BG or other Jewish Agency leaders chose to muffle his words for public consumption when his frankness could trigger bad PR for the Zionist cause. See esp. pp. 39-48, which renders moot the debate. A couple of excerpts might clarify:
      Morris writes: "The controversy here is really about the nature of Zionism and about the degree of Zionist premeditation in what occurred in 1948." He cleverly uses the intransitive verb "occurred" to avoid explicit naming of the agents of the "occurrences." Essentially Morris quotes Ben-Gurion's diary entries at length in which BG waxes poetic about the gift the Peel Commission's July 1937 publication has put in the Zionists' lap. A careful psychoanalysis of BG's language would reveal how thrilled he is to lean on the excuse that the UK, and not Zionists, came up with the idea and so, if the Zionists carry out the transfer of Palestinian Arabs from Palestine into other Arab territories, it's really the UK that bears responsibility and not the Zionists. It's a kind of childish fantasy he articulates. He insists on overcoming any qualms about wholesale transfer, on the urgency of grasping this "historic opportunity that may not recur. The transfer clause in my eyes is more important than all our demands for additional land. This is the largest and most important andmost vital additional 'area'... We must distinguish between the importance and urgency of our different demands. We must recognize the most important wisdom of any historical work: The wisdom of what comes first and what later.
      "There are a number of things that [we] struggle for now [but] which we cannot achieve now. For example the Negev. [On the other hand,] the evacuation [of the Arabs from] the [Jexreel] Valley we shall [i.e., must] achieve now -- and, if not, perhaps we will never achieve it. If we do not succeed in removing the Arabs from our midst, when a royal commission proposes this to England, and transferring them to the Arab area -- it will not be achieveable easily (or perhaps at all) after the [Jewish] state is established, and the rights of the minorities [in it] will [necessarily] be assured, and the whole world that is antagonistic towards us will carefully scrutinize our behavior towards our minorities. This thing must be done now -- and the first step -- perhaps the crucial [step] -- is conditioning ourselves for its implementation."
      A month later, at the Twentieth Zionist Congress convened in Zurich "specifically to consider the Peel proposals... Ben-Gurion once again posited transfer in no uncertain terms: 'We do not want to expropriate,' he said.
      "'[But] transfer of population has already taken place in the [Jezreel] Valley, in the Sharon [Plain] and in other places. You are aware of the work of the Jewish National Fund in this respect. [The reference is to the sporadic uprooting of Arab tenant farmer communities from lands purchased by the JNF.] Now a transfer of wholly different dimensions will have to be carried out. In various parts of the country new Jewish settlement will not be possible unless there is a transfer of the Arab fellahin. . . It is important that this plan came from the Commission and not from us. . . The transfer of population is what makes possible a comprehensive settlement program. Fortunately for us, the Arab people have enormous desolate areas. The growing Jewish power in the country will increase our possibilities to carry out a large transfer. You must remember that this method [i.e., possibility] also contains an important humane and Zionist idea. To transfer parts of a people [i.e., the Arabs] to their own country and to settle empty lands [i.e.. Transjordan and Iraq]. . .'"
      Morris notes that although BG "had seen fit to speak of it [transfer] in the plenum of the Zionist Congress, the subject was still very sensitive," evidence for which is found in the fact "that the Jewish press reports about the Congress' proceedings generally failed to mention that Ben-Gurion or anyone else had come out strongly in favor of transfer or indeed had even raised the subject."
      In addition to quoting other Yishuv leaders, Morris quotes BG: "I support compulsory transfer. I don't see in it anything immoral." Interesting that he would feel the need to assert its moral status, when elsewhere he is quoted as affirming entitlement of Zionists to "ruthless compulsion" and insisting "the Druze, several of the Beduin tribes in the Jordan Valley and the South, the Circassians, and perhaps also the Matawalis [Shi'ites of northern Galilee]" would "not mind being transferred, under favourable conditions, to some neighbouring country." Complete transfer of Arabs would of course demand "ruthless compulsion." Post-WWII settlement in Europe, "he envisioned," writes Morris, "would include massive population transfers. But the Zionists must take care not to preach openly or advocate compulsory transfer, as this would be impolitic and would antagonize many in the West. At the same time, Ben-Gurion reasoned, the Zionist movement should do nothing to hamper those in the West who were busy advocting transfer as a necessary element in a solution to the Palestine problem." By 1944 BG was able to state unequivocally: "Transfer of Arabs is easier than any other type of transfer. There are Arab states in the area. . . and it is clear that if the Arabs [of Palestine] are sent [to the Arab countries] this will better their situation and not the contrary. . ." Also at that Jewish Agency Executive meeting, soon-to-be Israel's first Interior Minister Yitzhak Gruenbaum declared "It is the function of the Jews occasionally to make the Gentiles [goyim] aware of things they did not until then perceive. . . If for example it is possible to create artificially in Iraq conditions that will magnetize the Arabsof Palestine to emigrate to Iraq, I do not see in it any iniquity or crime. . ."
      Morris also quotes JA immigration director Eliahu Dobkin: "There will be in the country a large [Arab] minority and it must be ejected. There is no room for our internal inhibitions [in this matter]." Werner David Senator said "I do not regard the question of transfer as a moral or immoral problem. . ."
      A month later, BG proposed bringing a million Jewish immigrants "immediately" to Palestine's shores, but cautioned: "I am opposed that any proposal for transfer should come from our side. I do not reject transfer on moral grounds and i do not reject it on political grounds. If there is a chance for it [I support it];. . . But it must not be a Jewish proposal."
      In short, the historical development of the transfer question (ethnic cleansing, in our postmodern, post-Yugoslavia international-law terminology) in the minds of Zionist founders of the state of Israel became decisively something about which they could speak honestly amongst themselves, but dishonestly to the rest of the world. Morris writes that before 1937 Zionist thinking about transfer was "haphazard," but "from 1937 on" there was "virtual consensus in support of the notion" and that this consensus 'conditioned the Zionist leadership, and below it, the officials and officers who managed the new states civilian and military agancies, for the transfer that took place."
      Of particular interest is the fact that Theodor Herzl doesn't mention transfer in his books Der Judenstaat [The Jews' State] and Altneuland [Old-New Land]. But he does write in his 12 June 1895 diary these words: "We must expropriate gently. . . 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. . . Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
      Morris comments: "Given that the vast majority of Palestine's Arabs at the turn of the century were 'poor,' Herzl can only have meant some form of massive transfer. But he realized that discretion and circumspection must accompany any such enterprise.
      "This discretion and circumspection was to characterize Zionist references to the idea of transfer during the following decades."
      In short, the Zionists agreed that non-Jews are not entitled to be dealt with honestly by Zionists intent on God's work of redeeming Eretz Yisrael. The end must justify the means. And the tens of millions of Arabs must be expected to grant Jews their prophetic scriptural inheritance, the little plot of land between the river and the sea and let the Jews prod the local residents to pack up and leave.
      Well, gosh, wishful thinking doesn't make something so. But to avoid cognitive dissonance, BG and his gang of Jewish mafia dons decided it wasn't bad of them to choose to bully the indigenous Palestinians out of their inherited lands.
      So they decided to lie, agree to whatever UN membership conditions, international covenants are required to gain full legitimacy as a member of the Euro-American civilized club of nationstates calling themselves 'democracies' and then break the covenants whenever it suits their superior Jewish souls, goyims be damned.
      Morris has lots of examples of how lying became official foreign policy for Israel, if anyone cares to examine his extensively-researched books. And he's a good source for pro-Zionist readers, since he believes Israel "should have finished the job [of ethnic cleansing] in 48".

  • Vice PM Moshe Ya’alon: Regime change in Ramallah will ultimately be necessary for peace talks to progress
    • BethlehemOlivesRedeem October 1, 2011 at 3:28 am

      I recently saw this 1858 painting in an art book and imagined the woman (as Abbas) is saying to the arrogant man (Netanyahu) grabbing her, "Bibi, i told you on your last visit, i will not be your strumpet. Maybe i wasn't clear about it then. But I really mean it now." The painting is titled "The Awakening Conscience":

Showing comments 30 - 1