I have a question: Noam’s critique of Khaldi and responses

I posted a piece by Israel’s highest ranking Arab-Muslim diplomat, Ishmael Khaldi, on the moral bankruptcy of “Israel Apartheid Week.” It received an interesting critique of Khaldi and defence of using the term “Israeli apartheid” from “Noam,” an Israeli who then got involved in several exchanges with other commenters at the site. In thinking long and hard about your remarks Noam, and I would like to ask you a question that I hope you will answer.

What strikes me about every exchange you have is a combination of two tendencies:

1) to put anything the Israelis do in the worst possible light, either by making nasty analogies and invidious comparisons, or by dismissing positive things as “done for PR.” Thus you want to fault Israel for the separate roads, without any willingness to acknowledge that that’s a result of suicide terror (which began under Rabin). Thus, you compare Israel’s Muslims unfavorably to French Muslims in terms of rights, when any French observer can (and did) tell you that such a comparison is a bad joke.

2) to treat the Palestinians as if they have no agency, either by conceiving them as pure victims — indigenous (when many were immigrants like the Jews), victims of Israeli policies, rather than formulators of very aggressive strategies. Thus, at one point, you say:

but let’s move forward. all you guys thinking that Israel shouldn’t give the Palestinians any rights AND stay in the West Bank: how is that not Apartheid, if not now than in 5, 10, 20 years? in other words, what are we to do with the Palestinians?

Don’t the Palestinians have anything to do? What about purging the hate and incitement to genocide from their Mainstream Media? What about using the land and resources they do control to get the refugees out of their [concentration] camps?

Why do you allow the Palestinians to behave abominably and then fault the Israelis for not treating them better? You act as if they have no agency, as if they are the passive victims of Israeli malevolence, rather than major contributors to their own misery. You are aware that before the first Intifada, the West Bank was one of the ten fastest growing economies in the world?

So my larger question comes down to this: Why are you so attracted to whatever analysis or comparison you can find that puts Israel in a bad light? Given the dozen other ways one might “spin” the data, what’s your attraction to the “ugly Israeli”?

Post Scriptum: As Aviv requested, I ask commenters to keep personal invective out of their posts. While it’s relatively mild compared with what goes on at, say, Daily Kos, that’s hardly what we want to take for a standard. Terms like “idiot,” “fool,” and “ignorant,” should not be used lightly. In particular, when arguing directly with people, even if you have no respect for them, show respect for the rest of us by explaining why, rather than calling him or her names. It really adds nothing to the post. I think Noam has shown a good deal of good faith in hanging in there despite the verbal abuse.

114 Responses to I have a question: Noam’s critique of Khaldi and responses

  1. Margie says:

    When you live in Israel this sort of attitude is often encountered. I don’t pretend to know all the motives but here are some I’ve encountered.

    There are those who react to the anger against Arabs of others in our society and take the opposite stance to even out scores.

    There are those who are accustomed to being a member of the stronger society and cannot imagine a situation in which they themselves are not automatically protected by their situation and they thus extend their umbrella of specialness to the down trodden of the world. Their fault lies in not seeing that Israel is not as strong, not as favoured, not as invincible as it seems to them. Included in this category is Olmert who proclaimed famously how tired we Israelis are of winning.

    There are those shattered souls who want the good opinion of the rest of the world and think that by this means they will gain it.

    There are also those who are too blind to see that we have a right to survive and are convinced by the ballyhoo.

    There are those who believe that if Israel employed less than the most impeccable tactics we have sullied our record forever and we don’t deserve to succeed.

    All of these ignore the faults of the Palestinians, looking inward as they gaze at their own navels and contemplate their own iniquity.

  2. Aviv says:

    First, I have a question of my own: I am interested to know when they’ll have Malaysian discrimination week. (1, 2)

    Secondly, Noam asked: “And what is it that makes you right-wing guys start throwing curses whenever someone tries to say something?”. I’m sorry to say that in that thread he was right. RL, please tell commenters to stop with the verbal abuse and just stick to the issues. That’s what civil discourse is all about.

  3. Aviv says:

    I would also like to link to my conversation with Noam over at his blog.

    If I were Noam I would answer: We need to clean up our own mess before we start telling other people to shape up.

  4. davidka says:

    you ask your son to clean up the mess in his room. he puts clothes away in the cupboard and stacks papers neatly in folders etc etc. then you inspect and find dust on the ledges and tell him to clean up some more. Then you find the lampshades are dirty and need cleaning and this time you shout at him.
    In the end you become obbsessed with cleaning up more and more and start to oppress your son by telling him off for the slightest trace of ” a mess”.Now you are using a magnifier in his room to find mor mess.
    Your obsession develops into a hatred for your own family because your wife and daughter castigate you for the persecution of your own son. You develop doubt and self hatred and react by transferring your obssession outside your own family and start finding messes everywhere in your own country. You find fault in almost every action of your own government to those you consider to be true victims.
    you become a lover of all palestinians and attend rallies and rise up through the ranks of “peace activists. now you are leaving your son alone and things get better with your wife because you have found and made new victims and do not need to victimise your owen son.
    One day several years later, two ladies at one of your peace rallies talk to each other and one says.
    “you know -who’d have thought such a gentle peace lover like him, used to beat up his own son!”
    “It all starts in the home, so they say”

  5. noam says:

    Professor Landes,

    Thank you for your replay. I will do my best to answer.

    1. I don’t think Israel is the worst regime on earth, nor do I think Israel is to blame for everything. I focus my critic on Israel because (a) I think the important political action is to check ourselves, rather than point fingers at others, and I am an Israeli; (b) I believe that an occupying force shouldn’t lecture the occupied people how to fight for their independence; (c) I think that as the powerful side, Israel has more influence (but not absolute one) on the evaluation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

    Regarding your specific remarks: I call hospitalizing few people from Gaza “a PR stunt”, because as a rule, I try to look at the general norm, not at some particular events (I think you have to do that when you analyze politics), and the norm is that people from Gaza can’t get medical treatment in Israel – not because that aren’t allowed into hospitals, but because they are not allowed out of Gaza.

    “you want to fault Israel for the separate roads, without any willingness to acknowledge that that’s a result of suicide terror”

    You judge intensions in order to make moral judgments. you say: “Israel didn’t want to build separate roads, but was forced to because of terrorism”. I can answer this with the opposite narrative, saying that “the Palestinians were driven to terrorism since Israel wouldn’t leave the West Bank nor grant them any rights”. And you will probably have a good answer to this argument as well. So I suggest that we try to leave the “blame game” behind (though it’s a fan one). Say we OK separate roads. Say that with this and other means, we manage to end terrorism. What do we do than?

    “you compare Israel’s Muslims unfavorably to French Muslims in terms of rights, when any French observer can (and did) tell you that such a comparison is a bad joke”

    I am not comparing the actual state of Arabs in Israel to other nations, though I think that in the Liberman era I might have the upper hand in this game as well. I am talking about Legal statues. I don’t understand why all of Israel’s democracy-loving-supporters dismiss the fact that it’s a state which favors Jews by it’s nature (and laws) over other nationalities? I am having real troubles communicating this point to people outside Israel: A Muslim can become an American or a Frenchman, and enjoy full rights (in theory), while an Arab can’t become a “full Israeli” and enjoy those rights, not even in theory, because those rights are reserved to Jews. This makes Israel a unique case in the West.

    And still, don’t get me wrong – if you don’t deal with the West Bank, I think Israel IS a democracy. A flawed one, but show me a state that isn’t.

    2. you write:
    “Don’t the Palestinians have anything to do? What about purging the hate and incitement to genocide from their Mainstream Media? What about using the land and resources they do control to get the refugees out of their [concentration] camps?
    Why do you allow the Palestinians to behave abominably and then fault the Israelis for not treating them better? You act as if they have no agency, as if they are the passive victims of Israeli malevolence, rather than major contributors to their own misery. You are aware that before the first Intifada, the West Bank was one of the ten fastest growing economies in the world?”

    I will go with you on this one. Say the Palestinians do all that. I think that your argument reaches a dead end at this point (and thus showing the real irony of the Right – that you must have terrorism in order to keep your arguments valid).

    In other words, I try to challenge the people who say (a) we must keep the West Bank under Israeli control but not give the Palestinians full political rights, AND that (b) this is not Apartheid. I think that A negates B. meaning, the only argument for “understanding” the situation in the West Bank so far, was Israel saying that it didn’t annex the land, and that this is a temporary situation. But if you think – like many of the commentators here – that this land is to remain, for whatever reason yu want, under Israeli control, I wonder what political solution you envision.

  6. [...] NewsAtlanta Journal Constitution – Washington Post – Kansas City Star – MLB.comall 1,871 news I have a question: Noam’s critique of Khaldi and responses – theaugeanstables.com 03/09/2009 I posted a piece by Israel’s highest ranking Arab-Muslim [...]

  7. noam says:

    Davidka & Margie

    I don’t see how your psychological analysis of me (or is it leftists in general?) helps the debate.

    But I can understand how it helps you not listening to what I’m saying.

  8. E.G. says:

    noam,

    While still waiting for your reply to my reply in the previous thread, a few comments.

    I believe that an occupying force shouldn’t lecture the occupied people how to fight for their independence;

    But of course! Israel would be wise to be inspired by examples set by some experienced authorities. Such as the whole debate from which the following exchange is taken:

    “Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham) [... ]the situation in Palestine, tragic already, is getting more tragic every day. I welcome what the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) said just now in his condemnation of terrorism, and the resolutions which he read out, but I thought there was a certain inconsistency in what he said. He suggested that the British Government should make some concessions now with a view to clearing up the situation.
    §Mr. Janner No, if the hon. Member thinks that he has misunderstood me. What I said was not that we should make concessions, but that we should do the right thing towards the Jewish authorities, so that they will have the power to stop the terrorists.
    §Mr. Lipson It still remains my opinion that what the hon. Gentleman advocated would be a justification of terrorism, because he is suggesting buying off the terrorists by giving more power to the Jewish Agency, or others. He first said that the Jewish community in Palestine were themselves unable to give any substantial help to the Government in putting down terrorism, and later on he went on to suggest that if the Jewish Agency could get its way it could put it down. Either it can put it down, or it can not, but personally I believe that the British Government have a duty to perform before calling upon the Jewish community in Palestine to put down terrorism. After all, it is not a pleasant thing for them to have to do. Will the British Government guarantee security to those Jews who co-operate with them in Palestine in putting down terrorism? That is what they must do. They are not justified in calling upon the Jewish community to take that risk unless they are prepared to guarantee security against the terrorists to those who help them in this matter.”

    I am having real troubles communicating this point to people outside Israel:
    Indeed. Perhaps is it because what you’re trying to convey is a bit confused?

    A Muslim can become an American or a Frenchman, and enjoy full rights (in theory), while an Arab can’t become a “full Israeli” and enjoy those rights, not even in theory,

    Do you make a difference between Arabs and Moslems?
    It’s “in principle” rather than “in theory”.
    Setting its immigration laws is any sovereign country’s prerogative. The Israeli ones – in particular the one regarding Jewish right of return – has the advantage of clearly stating a policy that other democracies keep somewhat less disclosed. There are, on the other hand, other criteria used in the immigration laws of different democracies but not used by Israel (e.g., financial situation; profession).

    because those rights are reserved to Jews. This makes Israel a unique case in the West.

    Indeed, being entitled to Israeli citizenship for someone born outside Israel to non-Israeli parents and who makes Aliya does favour Jews. Yes, this is a unique case in the whole world, not only in the West.
    So? Isn’t Israel the (one and only) Jewish homeland by its definition? Its own, self definition (which, in Intl. law is the prevalent one), as well as the one recognised internationally.
    Let me remind you that except this specific immigration law, Israel has some other unique features. And let me also remind you that Israel’s Jewish population has not only rights but also duties. Israel’s non-Jewish citizens are either relieved of some duties, or can freely choose whether to undertake them.

    Apartheid is a regime of racial segregation. I sure hope you don’t consider neither Arabs nor Moslems nor Jews as races.

  9. Aviv says:

    (and thus showing the real irony of the Right – that you must have terrorism in order to keep your arguments valid).

    Just to clarify – You’re saying right-wing policy begets more terrorism, which strengthens right-wing policy-makers, and so it becomes a self-catalyzing process.

  10. Aviv says:

    I am having real troubles communicating this point to people outside Israel: A Muslim can become an American or a Frenchman, and enjoy full rights (in theory), while an Arab can’t become a “full Israeli” and enjoy those rights, not even in theory, because those rights are reserved to Jews. This makes Israel a unique case in the West.

    Examples please.

    EG – Take “apartheid” as “segregation” in pre-Civil Rights Movement USA maybe. By arguing the semantics we’ll get nowhere.

  11. noam says:

    E.G. and Aviv

    1. I’ll say this again – when I’m talking about the positions of the Arab citizens of Israel, I am not naming this “Apartheid”. It is the situation in the west bank that I question there. I’m waiting for your arguments on this issue.

    2. E.G., As for the laws of entering the state – I am happy we agree that Israel is a unique case (even if we see this uniqueness differently). Note that recently, it’s not only these laws: for example, an Arab who marry a none-Israeli wife from another Arab country, won’t be able to bring his wife to even live in Israel (not to mention becoming Israeli). That’s, in a liberal framework, a clear violation of his rights (not the wife’s rights, but the husband’s).

    Your claim that Arabs have also different rights in Israel only aids my claim that the country is using legal policies and hidden tactics of racial segregation. But still, I wouldn’t call this Apartheid.

    The West Bank on the other hand…

    3. On the issue of Palestinian terrorism and our moral stand: Yes, I oppose their attacks on Israeli civilians (I would be crazy not to – it’s an attack on me as well), but this is the sort of debate that us, Israelis and Israel-supporters shouldn’t start. To show you what I mean, I would ask you this – what form of struggle by the Palestinians against the occupation IS legitimate in your eyes?

  12. noam says:

    Just to clarify – You’re saying right-wing policy begets more terrorism, which strengthens right-wing policy-makers, and so it becomes a self-catalyzing process

    Aviv,

    i’m not talking policy here, but rather arguments. The right uses terrorism as justification to no-matter-what action we take against the Palestinians. I wonder how would they justifie the occupation itself, if they didn’t have terrorism.
    That brings me to the debate we had in my blog about the settelments – fact is that the first settelment was established – with government approval – less than a year after the 67’ war. So Israel certanly didn’t wait for the terrorist in its action to keep the West Bank to itslef…

  13. noam says:

    Aviv,

    We discussed “the law of return”, but here is another example for segragation: the Jewish National Fund’s policy not to sell land to Arabs. The claim is that the Fund aquired the land through donations form world Jews, and that it makes it a Jewish land; but the fact is that most of the Fund’s land was handed to it by the government after the 48’ war. Since the Fund is ran by the government anyway, it is actually an agancy that looks after state-land, and sells it only to Jews.

  14. Noam, You ask above I would ask you this – what form of struggle by the Palestinians against the occupation IS legitimate in your eyes?

    Maybe you could help me understand something. According to international law on war, occupation is one of the outcomes of war that is covered by laws. The occupier has responsibilities including assuring law and order, maintenance of civil services such as sewage treatment, etc.

    Where do you get the notion that the “struggle by the Palestinians against the occupation” is some right that they are entitled to.

    Any violent struggle against an occupying power is a continuation of war. It is a refusal to accept defeat. Where do you get the idea that Israel should be required to treat such attempts to continue the war as anything other than an act of war?

    If an occupied population wishes to be treated humanely – shouldn’t they submit to the occupiers? And if they don’t shouldn’t they expect harsh treatment as necessary to force them to conform to the edicts of the occupying power as long as such edicts do not break international law? For example, it hardly seems exceptional that an occupying power would set up check points to prevent the movement of belligerents and arms within the occupied territory.

    Why do you think the Pals have some right to attack those checkpoints? As I understand it, just possessing illicit weapons or bomb making materials removes a person from “protected” status under the law.

    I think that either you are or I am missing something fundamental about the nature of war and occupation. It could be me. Maybe you could explain this for me.

  15. Dimitry Papkov says:

    Aviv
    Re: self-catalyzing cycle
    You talked about empirical evidence in another thread, and now you claim this?
    Empirical evidence: suicide bombings started right after Oslo was signed; Hezbollah gained power after Lebanon withdrawal and after not very succesful war in ’06; Hamas signifficantly increased its power (even if we allow that some of it due to Fatah’s corruption) after Gaza disengagement.
    So, empirical evidence shows that concessions breed more violence. There is more empirical evidence from around the ME (and the world in general) that tough actions manage to bring violence down. But even if we leave this aside, what is your suggestion towards terrorism, if fighting it only makes it stronger? Obviously, sitting back and doing nothing is not an option.

  16. Margie says:

    Noam I don’t know you, so I didn’t include you in my list of excusers.

    I have always voted Meretz (though this year I realised how much of a wasted vote it would be), you may be surprised to learn and I believed that Israel was more influential than it is and that the Palestinians were honestly in pursuit of peace. Slowly I’ve come to realise that the majority of Palestinians – and particularly most of their leadership – have a vision of Palestine eventually in place of Israel: this is unpleasant and unwelcome but inescapable, given their charters and their actions.

    I take your point about a Moslem never becoming a Jewish citizen of Israel but as an olah I’ll never become a Sabra either and as such I’m outside much of the culture. I don’t think there’s much difference between the two groups when you consider it practically. Yes there are inequities in Israel, but not even approaching those against us in the ME: the JNF doesn’t sell land to non-Jews while Jordan pronounces a death sentence on those who sell land to Jews. I can’t justify either and don’t wish to.

    As for the Palestinian state being armed or not, the parallel with the Axis after WW2 being slowly granted power to defend/offend should apply.

  17. noam says:

    Where do you get the notion that the “struggle by the Palestinians against the occupation” is some right that they are entitled to

    I think that either you are or I am missing something fundamental about the nature of war and occupation.

    Ray,

    While it is true that after a war there might be a transitional period of occupation when hostilities from the “losing” side might be seen as a continuation of the war, losing a war does not mean losing – forever – the basic civil rights. Above all, we are talking about the right to take part in some sort of sovereignty. Even the Germans didn’t lose this right after WW2.

    How should the Palestinians obtain this right? There are two options, I think: integrating them into Israel, or giving them their own state. The second one is better.

  18. Dimitry Papkov says:

    Noam re: 10:00
    Surely, you are not saying that Palestinian belligirence started as a result of the settlements being built in the WB?
    Look, I personally think settlemnts were a bad idea at the time. Not illegal, mind you (there is a whole different debate about this), but not smart. But for good or for bad, Israel showed willingness to remove settlements (by force, if necessary) and it showed willingness to allow creation of Palestinian state. Palestinians, on the other hand, with the exception of very few (like Nuseiba) never abandoned the right of return and never truely embraced the whole underlying point of negotiations — “two states for two people” (the point of two people being in dispute, since insistence on the right of return basically makes it two states for one people or pretty close). Having that in mind, I think it is safe to say that RL’s point about both settlements and his insistence on returning to the palestinian side of the equation is that whatever we do is moot as long as the palestinian side remains as it is.

    Re- law of return. You are mistaken. I’ll leave aside the fact that you probably know it includes non-jews because it is based on the Nazi laws for persecuting people with jewiush blood and their relatives, but you are wrong on it being unique, too. Switzerland has a similar law.
    As to your claim about israeli arabs marrying, I might be mistaken, but the proposed law talked about them marrying Palestinians. And really, any other state did things far worse in situation even slightly resembling israeli (think Japaneese in US or Germans in UK during WWII)
    You might be interested in this article by Ben-Dror Yremini
    http://192.118.0.136/online/1/ART1/571/620.html
    (if you prefer a hebrew version, google him and go to the first site that pops up)
    Now, does it mean everything is peachy with our arab population? No, there is a long way to go. But I so think that we are doing pretty well, considering the situation (and that includes the arabs own behaviour — at least as it is manifested by their leaders. Did you happen to read an op-ed by an arab israeli about the ascent of Yisrael Beiteinu on YNET? He sure as hell blamed arab leaders for bringing this as a direct result of their behaviour)
    Re- apartheid in the WB. As Ray said, it is not apartheid, but a fall-out of ethnic conflict. I am pretty sure Americans didn’t give Okinawans full citizenship. I am also pretty sure that if the resistance persisted, the treatment would be far harsher than the Israeli treatment of the palestinians in the WB (and that goes for any other state if it occupied the WB). And, of course, as was noted, a lot of restrictions came as a direct result of Palestinian actions.

  19. noam says:

    Margie,

    Like you, I don’t subscribe to every policy Jordan (or other nations) has – but that doesn’t legitimize discrimination in Israel. Jordan is not a democracy. We see ourselves as one, so let’s act this way.

    BTW, does it look fair to you that as an Ola you have more rights than someone who was born here, and so were his father, and his father’s father? I think we all should have the same rights.

    As for the Palestinians and their intensions – I honestly don’t know what they intend. I don’t know what’s in the heart of every Palestinian (or Israeli, for that matter). I have a feeling, though, that you treat them as a monolithic group, which they are not. But never mind that. The real issue is that we have to get rid of the occupation, because it’s killing us as a society.

  20. Noam, Thanks but I don’t think you addressed my question. You now ask, How should the Palestinians obtain this right? There are two options, I think: integrating them into Israel, or giving them their own state. The second one is better.

    There is, it seems to me, a more necessary step before either of the two you mention can even be considered. That would be the end of belligerency, an acceptance of military defeat – a condition that both Japan and Germany acceded to at the end of WWII. Both nations dissolved their offensive military competely in formal unconditional surrender and submitted completely to the allies. My father participated in the post war occupation in Japan. He was treated with great respect. Both these nations are now free democracies with powerful economies and their own defensive armies.

    The Palestinians have had sixty years but continue to adamantly refuse such an option. How can you ignore that and talk about post war options while the war continues and future generations of Palestinians are indoctrinated to perpetuate it into the coming decades?

  21. E.G. says:

    noam,

    losing a war does not mean losing – forever – the basic civil rights.

    Refugees and their rights are protected by Intl. law and, specifically, the Arabs of former Palestine are the exception world-wide to the status of refugee: this has become a hereditary status (not to mention inclusion of non-refugees) and is being taken care of by a unique agency devoted solely to this case. Talk of being unique…

    Could you please remind me what exactly (or approximatively) the basic civil rights were in Palestine? In the WB and Gaza strip respectively under Jordanian and Egyptian occupation? Just to help me realise what and how much was lost.

    Your claim that Arabs have also different rights in Israel only aids my claim that the country is using legal policies and hidden tactics of racial segregation.

    I do not claim but know that Arab citizens, among other minorities in Israel, are not required to fulfill certain duties, and still are considered as law abiding citizens, and benefit from their full rights (including affirmative action).

    So you do consider Arabs (whatever their religion?) as a race? Or do you claim that Jews are a race?

  22. Margie says:

    Noam I don’t claim to know what is in the heart of anyone but I do know what appears in the Fatah and Hamas Charters.

    I wonder whether you know how vulnerable some Jews born abroad feel and how aware we are of our difference from the rest of society? A Jew, bearing all the responsibilities of a citizen remains a Jew, representative of ‘the Jews’ when he errs. Yes, I know that this varies from country to country and citizens of countries where Jews are secure today may violently disagree with me, but two thousand years of experience should be enough for us to understand that we are different and should protect ourselves.

  23. Noam, I invite you to look closely at logical inconsistencies in your statement,

    While it is true that after a war there might be a transitional period of occupation when hostilities from the “losing” side might be seen as a continuation of the war, losing a war does not mean losing – forever – the basic civil rights. Above all, we are talking about the right to take part in some sort of sovereignty. Even the Germans didn’t lose this right after WW2.

    “Losing a war” means losing – stopping – surrender – submission. My father had no stones thrown at him in japan and he did not fear IED’s or sniper fire. He was given a Samurai sword by a Japanese officer who he worked with to restore civil services.

    “Continuation of the war” is the opposite of that.

    The problem is that the Palestinians do not consider themselves as having lost – yet they feel entitled to the benefits that normally accrue to the losers of wars with Western powers – such as vast economic rehabilitation and assistance – and sovereignty.

    Don’t you see anything wrong with this picture? How can you possibly ignore such huge inconsistencies as if they did not exist?

  24. E.G. says:

    Aviv #9,

    Todah but Sorry, Apartheid does have a specific meaning, as well as a particular connotation. Either the term used refers to something or it’s misleading. I don’t see why I should interpret any term as meaning something else while my interlocutor uses it to mean what it actually refers to (see #10).

  25. noam says:

    Margie (19),

    You talk about the Fatah charter, but you forget Seri Nusseiba, the Geneva Accord, and other documents which recognized Israel. That’s what I mean when I say that you have a monolithic view of the Palestinians. you see them all as Hamas.

    As for your second point: I claim that you and an Arab should have the same rights in Israel. I fail to see what “protecting ourselves” has to do with that.

  26. noam says:

    E.G.

    1. Let me see if I get you right: only discrimination along racial lines qualifies as Apartheid, and since we discriminate along religious/national characters, it’s not Apartheid?

    Well, I oppose any discrimination.

    2. Since Jews are neither a race nor a nation, but they are more than just religion, please tell me what are they.

  27. noam says:

    Ray,

    So, if the Palestinians admit they lost, does that means they get their state? or does it mean we get to do whatever we want with them?

    I say we abandon this argument, and answer one simple question: say we win the battle against terrorism. What should Israel do with the West Bank and the people in it?

  28. Cynic says:

    RL,
    Please accept my apology for using invectives. Unfortunately some of the arguments used are so devoid of context and fact ….

    Margie,

    themselves are not automatically protected by their situation and they thus extend their umbrella of specialness to the down trodden of the world.

    So they automatically attack their own instead of those responsible for the down trodden‘s situation?

    Aviv,
    Whom do you refer to with the “we” in We need to clean up our own mess before we start telling other people to shape up

    noam,
    I try to look at the general norm, not at some particular events (I think you have to do that when you analyze politics), and the norm is that people from Gaza can’t get medical treatment in Israel – not because that aren’t allowed into hospitals, but because they are not allowed out of Gaza.

    So then why didn’t you qualify your original statement instead of appearing as a troll?
    Your statements about Palestinians not on buses was just as contentious.

    As for I can answer this with the opposite narrative, saying that “the Palestinians were driven to terrorism since Israel wouldn’t leave the West Bank nor grant them any rights”.

    So we are subjected to you creating statements without substance for the simple purpose of contesting an argument.
    It is not a case of blame game but providing context. Now you would be the first to demand that mitigating circumstances be admitted into evidence.

    On stopping the terrorism and the other side doing nothing to fix its mess, just sit tight.
    What can one do if faced with a disorderly neighbour: appeal to the police or as in the case of the disUNited nations just make the fence high enough, unless of course he starts lobbing things over the fence. Assuming you value your family and possessions sufficiently you will then try to put an end to the aggression.

    I don’t understand why all of Israel’s democracy-loving-supporters dismiss the fact that it’s a state which favors Jews by it’s nature (and laws) over other nationalities?
    Provide some facts to establish this.
    It was set up as a homeland for Jews by the League of Nations so obviously it will have Jewish concerns with regard to holidays and ritual while not denying the Muslims and others their cultural necessities.
    Do you know that many moshavim employing people from Thailand permit them to have their own culture with shrine for praying and days off to accord with their national holidays.
    Seems like you have missed out on some important facts about your heritage.
    What are you trying to clear up in your mind; whether Israeli Jews must kowtow to Muslim demands, and return to dhimmi status, in a manner similar to the West’s PC hypocritical censorship of its own culture to appease the Jihadists?
    If you cannot communicate these points then consider that maybe you need to read up on the topic.
    Muslims, Bahais, Christians, Vietnamese – ex-boat people (religion) are all Israeli citizens in this apartheid state. Hell, (oops) there is even a Swazi (a black guy from Swaziland, that little independent African state surrounded by South Africa) who is a Haredi Rabbi in Safed (Sfat)
    Rabbi Natan was born Prince Nkosinathi Gamedze in 1963. The Gamedze clan was one of the two large royal tribal clans in Swaziland, the power base for the kings of the country.
    And there are those Afro-Americans who have at last received citizenship having arrived as tourists and pigheadedly refusing to leave the apartheid state.

    But I can understand how it helps you not listening to what I’m saying.

    Your replies are very confused and seemingly contradictory.

  29. Noam: So, if the Palestinians admit they lost, does that means they get their state? or does it mean we get to do whatever we want with them?

    Their public admission would be nice but the vastly more important matter is for them to stop killing Israelis – to accept the principle of Israel’s existence and to stop teaching their children that Jews are sons of pigs and apes. You know, what any other people would be expected to do in similar circumstances.

    What happens after that should be up to the deliberations of the states that have an interest in seeing that the conflict remains ended. I don’t know what that will be but based on the considerations the Palestinians have received while engaged in almost continuous deadly aggression against the civilians of a member UN state for sixty years. I doubt they will suffer any significant humiliation – and will probably be offered statehood well before they have proven their intentions are honorable.

    It looks like I must give up any hope that you’ll address my point.

  30. E.G. says:

    noam,

    1. Let me see if I get you right: only discrimination along racial lines qualifies as Apartheid, and since we discriminate along religious/national characters, it’s not Apartheid?

    a. Open a dictionary and see for yourself.
    b. Can you provide facts to substantiate your claim that Israelis discriminate along religious/national characters?

    Well, I oppose any discrimination.
    Sure, we all do.
    Don’t you oppose polygamy too?

    2. Since Jews are neither a race nor a nation, but they are more than just religion, please tell me what are they.

    We already had this discussion on another thread. The consensual notion is that the Jews are a people.
    Now would you please tell me how you consider Arabs and Moslems? Why you often conjunct them?

    It would be nice and polite if you answered my previous questions and replies to your comments.

  31. Noam, This blog is the most considerate place on the web toward trolls that I’ve ever seen. Doesn’t it bother you that given such a polite and unobstructed platform you have been unable to make a case for even one coherent point in your argument? Instead you just duck and weave away from every rebuttal. Maybe you should bring a friend who could do a better job.

  32. noam says:

    Ray (26),

    If I understand you correctly, than we have more in common than you think. If you say that Palestinians should abandon terrorism and than they will receive fair treatment by the international community (probably statehood), than on principle, I’m with you. I think that Israel can and should do more to move this process forward, but the main issue for me is that you accept the possibility of a Palestinian state.

  33. Noam: If you say that Palestinians should abandon terrorism and than they will receive fair treatment by the international community (probably statehood), than on principle, I’m with you.

    Hasn’t that been the exact stance of international community at least since November of 1947?

  34. Margie says:

    Noam, I believe that we need to protect our status within our country in order to remain a Jewish state so that the Jews have a refuge. Of course, saying it goes against the grain to those brought up in a liberal multicultural atmosphere, which turns out to be a fiction with regard to the rights of tiny minorities, which the Jews have become in the light of attempts at wiping us out and the growth of the world’s exploding billions.

    I hope it’s clear now.

    Of course I know about the Arab splinter groups and took your point about my ‘monolithic’ outlook. My view of the majority’s attitudes is based on the results of the frequent polls conducted in the region.

  35. Margie says:

    ,

    themselves are not automatically protected by their situation and they thus extend their umbrella of specialness to the down trodden of the world.

    So they automatically attack their own instead of those responsible for the down trodden’s situation?

    In a word, yes.

  36. noam says:

    E.G.,

    I am sorry for not answering all your points – I’ll get to this later.

    As for details of discrimination against Arabs, both formaly and unformaly, I have given two examples in other comments on this thread (laws of immigration and the Jewish National Fund). I will be happy to provide more. there are tons of them.

  37. noam says:

    Margie

    The big question raised from your comment is what do we do when the “Jewishness” of the state interfere with its democratic laws and values. I tend to prefer democracy and human rights – and I think it is the Jewish thing to do! – but you are naturally entitled to your own opinion.

    My argument here is with those thinking that there is no contradiction, ever.

    Off to a party. Happy Purim!

  38. Cynic says:

    The big question raised from your comment is what do we do when the “Jewishness” of the state interfere with its democratic laws and values.

    So how does the Jewishness of the state interfere with its democratic laws and values?
    Don’t you have a supreme court? I could have sworn that you do and that it functions supremely well in protecting the rights of people. Certainly better than the rights of Jews are being protected in Europe from Muslim hate and invective.

    So you’re off to a Purim party. Why?
    Shouldn’t you be commiserating with the poor Palestinians/Israeli Arabs who haven’t been invited to have as many drinks as it takes to get drunk, or because in their interests Purim should be canceled as Christmas (and most probably next Easter) in the Western World is because of multi-culti, diversity sensitivities?

  39. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    You can’t deny a Jewish Israeli his right to participate in at least one Purim party, disguised as a Palestinian Esther drag queen. Especially not when they promise to have an updated version of the Megilah reading, emphasising Haman’s political foresight that was obviously aimed a liberating the oppressed (wink-wink) peoples from the tyranny of male chauvinism sitting at the gate, patently lobbying (wink-wink), and pitifully trying to change the normal course of History by sending an appealing bait to tell the most fantastic conspiracy theory over a shockingly luxurious dinner that should have fed millions… Just to get us the message that alcohol (rattle!) and fat (rattle!) get one to do bad things for the planet.

  40. oao says:

    RL,

    It looks like you deleted my two replies to Noam.

    I suspect this was due to my use of invectives. I very rarely use invectives but when I do, it’s usually my conclusion that they are necessary; they are not just insults, but descriptions of reality which must be exposed. Not doing so is counterproductive.

    Having a long experience writing and arguing on the net, i have a pretty good idea when I MUST call a spade a spade. I even wrote an article on the subject:

    http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/3161496.htm

    When this is not done, it is equivalent, in my mind, to giving ignorance and inability to reason a platform from which to exhibit those two traits and to be driven to respond to them, rather than drive the agenda. That there is a genuine belief in what they pronounce does not negate the problem and does not obviate the need to call it what it is.

    There are enough platforms in the west for them to pronounce on and which give them an importance they do not deserve, with consequences that we are deploring on this site.

    Of course, this is your site and it is your prerogative to delete whatever comments you want. However, you should at the very least let the author of the comments know that you deleted him and why, and give an opportunity to post without the invectives, should he choose to do so (I probably would not).

    At this point I will reconsider my participation on this site.

    Good luck and best regards.

  41. Aviv says:

    oao, there’s a big difference between A: “you’re an idiot”, B: “your views are idiotic”, and C: “your views do not hold water for the following reasons”.

    If I were RL, I would encourage C, forbid A and allow but discourage B. Having said that, I do hope you continue to contribute.

    Dimitry – You are barging into an open door. I think peace-processing has consistently failed to bring peace due to honor-shame dynamics in Arab society. I think the West has a moral obligation to take a stand for an Arab civil society. Not sure what to do in the near future other than “conflict management”, and I don’t think Bibi’s “Economic Peace Plan” will be very helpful either.

    Maybe I’m not presenting my views clearly. I will try to be clearer when I play devil’s advocate or help the other side of the argument.

    E.G. – I understand. Just trying to be constructive.

    Cynic – I am an Israeli Jew, like RL and Noam. I was referring to Israeli Jews.

  42. oao says:

    aviv,

    oao, there’s a big difference between A: “you’re an idiot”, B: “your views are idiotic”, and C: “your views do not hold water for the following reasons”.

    indeed there is and i explained quite clearly why all of them should be available options, to be used wisely.
    there is a reason why I choose A ove B and B ove C — depending on the circumstances. and it is important to have the options without which you can swim in nonsense and give it importance by just having to keep responding to it.

  43. E.G. says:

    Aviv,

    Todah again, being constructive is always useful, especially when the building blocks are solid, and appropriately laid.

  44. Dimitry Papkov says:

    Actually, Oao, I am with Aviv here. Calling someone an “idiot” has only one benefit — self satisfaction. There is no problem in expressing the same point by saying “you don’t have the correct facts” or something of the sort. The only reason to do this would be if someone was obviously trolling.

  45. oao says:

    Calling someone an “idiot” has only one benefit — self satisfaction.

    i suggest you read my article that i linked you who should disabuse you of this notion.

    we keep deploring here the blindness and ignorance that prevents from identifying our enemies and the dangers it poses, or denying reality and the consequences all this brings.

    yet in our desire to be courteous we equally fail to identify the problems of ignorance and inability to reason when we encounter them. we allow them a platform and spend hours trying to educate them when it is clear that it’s too late, not feasible and we elevate them to an ability for them to claim that and to appear to others as if they have comments worthy of engaging with. not much different than multiculturalism.

    either we are for truth or we’re not. if i detect hat somebody is ignorant and an idiot, then i should be able to say it. the only criticism should be if i had no basis of saying so.

  46. oao says:

    one more thing: of course, i should demonstrate that one is ignorant and unable to reason with evidence (which I always do). without it i should also be subject to criticism.

    as to my decision to continue here, I am awaiting a response from RL, whom I alse emailed.

    but to be honest, I already stated here many times that to me the trend and future is clear and there is nothing either of us can do to reverse or even slow it.
    since RL and others are starting to agree with me, perhaps this is a good point to just stop.

  47. oao says:

    iow, it’s participation here that’s just self-satisfaction.

  48. Eliyahu says:

    Noam, you really need an emergency course in modern history post-1918. Let’s take up a few matters briefly:
    1– there was never a “palestinian people” in all history. After the Crusades, the Mamluk and Ottoman Empires, both Muslim states never had a district or province called Palestine or Filastin, nor any district or province the borders of which even approximated those of the Palestine set up in 1920 by the San Remo Conference to embody the Jewish National Home, a status endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922. All of palestine was supposed to belong to the Jewish National Home [on both sides of the Jordan]. Transjordan was administratively separated from the JNH by the British as a unilateral act. The UN general assembly partition resolution of 11-29-1947 was a mere recommendation which was in any case rejected by the Arabs. Hence, it could not become international law, except in the minds of Judeophobes who misrepresent int’l law.

    Hence, from the int’l law standpoint, Judea-Samaria are not “occupied” in a legal sense. I am aware that most of the major powers and the UN take your position. But it’s still wrong. Further, the UN could probably pass a General assembly resolution recommending sending all Jews to concentration camps or death camps or to drown in the sea. So what? The UN has no moral value.

    2– Next, your mention that Germany retained the right of sovereignty shows your ignorance again. About one-third of pre-1933 Germany was taken away from it and annexed by Poland and the Soviet Union, both Communist states, after WW 2. These were huge territories from which some ten million Germans were expelled. A few million Germans were expelled from the Sudetenland by Czechoslovakia. Some 400,000 Finns were driven out of eastern Karelia by the Soviets and a few hundred thousand ethnic Germans were expelled from various eastern European states, such as Rumania. Moreover, millions of Poles were expelled from Ukraine and Belarus. And then there were a few hudnred thousand Italians expelled from Fiume [now Rijeka] and adjacent areas by the Yugoslavs. How come the only ones still in so-called refugee camps are the Palestinian Arabs?? By the way, they were never considered a people or nation until the 1960s [an invention of British psywar experts], and the PLO charter actually specifies that they are merely a section of the Arab nation and that “palestine” is part of the Great Arab Fatherland [Article 1]. You do see that the Germans lost sovereignty over huge territories and millions of them were expelled from those places, don’t you?

    3– you also seem ignorant of Arab –particularly but not only palestinian Arab– collaboration with Nazi Germany and in the Holocaust.

    4– you seem unaware that Arab-Muslims have been oppressing, exploiting, humiliating Jews [and other non-Muslims] since the Arab conquests 1400 years ago. You seem unaware that oppressing and even killing Jews is part of the Hamas charter [esp. Article 7] and that this is based on medieval Islamic teachings, to which Hamas proclaims its loyalty.

    5– now Israel took Judea-Samaria & Gaza in 1967, whether recovering its own territory, as I say, or as “occupying” as you say. UN secy. council res. 242 calls for a peace settlement based on “secure and recognized boundaries.” Secure boundaries for Israel requires annexing or incorporating parts of Judea-Samaria. Up till now, the Arab side, the PLO and the Arab states, have refused to come to any reasonable terms. As to resistance, it is not a right recognized in int’l law. Do you think that the Americans, British, French or Soviets would have recognized a right of Germans, Austrians, or Japanese to resist them after WW 2 when the UK, USA, France and USSR occupied Germany, Austria, and Japan? By the way, American troops are still based in Germany and Japan, [UK & French troops still in Germany] although they are not now called occupation troops, as they were in 1945. But they are still there.

    The fact that the Arab states and the PLO have never come to reasonable terms does not give the Arab population in Judea-Samaria [and Gaza, where there are no Israeli troops in control] the right to murder Israeli civilians or Jews anywhere else. You should not accept the definitions of international law provided by the Arabs or the Western govts or Switzerland or international bodies like the UN. Don’t interested parties commonly define law to support their own interest in civil lawsuits –as well as in forums like the UN? As to targeting civilians, it is forbidden in international law, although the presence of non-combatants in the same place as a military target does not give that place legal immunity from attack.

    Next, you do know, don’t you, that Fatah was perpetrating terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians long BEFORE the Six Day War. So Arab terrorism against civilians is not the product of any post-Six Day War “occupation.”

  49. Eliyahu says:

    Noam, you should also not accept the lies of so-called “leftist” groups or “human rights” groups or NGOs. These groups are manipulated in their opinions and positions and their funding sources should always be questioned. These groups lie about international laws as do governments, the UN, etc.

  50. oao says:

    apologies to RL: turns out that he did not delete anything, but for some reason my searches could not find them there, dk why.

    so it’s all been a mistake. but allowed me to make a point that i am sensitive too.

    in fact, I left my professional field for the very reason that it was taken over by ignorance and stupidity and i refused to stop calling a spade a spade as it seemed I was required. that’s why I wrote the article. for years I try to educate to no avail: systemic problems cannot be corrected by individuals.

    This is what we are facing in politics and society too. we cannot substitute for education (not schooling)people should have received from childhood.

    engaging noam and ahmed is equivalent to engaging hamas, hizballah and iran: not for the same reason (they are not evil), but the effectiveness is the same.

  51. oao says:

    cynic,

    refer noam (as if it helped) to read daniel gordis who talks precisely on the subject of jewishness vs. democracy.

    the reality is that israel can live as a jewish state or die as a democracy. i would choose to live, cause when you’re dead you can’t be democratic.

    the fact is that the very same countries who criticize israel for being non-democratic and want to destroy it for it are those for whom infidels don’t have ANY rights, as in saudia, iran, the PA, you name it.

    they call themselves MUSLIM countries and criticize israel for being a jewish country.

    and the west and even israelis agree. such idiocy does not deserve survival.

  52. oao says:

    folks,

    were not the terms i used for noam accurate? you have spent considerable time and effort in order to reach the same conclusion. and you gave a platform to nonsense.

  53. Richard Landes says:

    Let me clarify some things about these kinds of discussions.
    1) while i try and convince interlocutors of my opinions, i am at least as interested in what others gain from the exchange as my interlocutor. i think this particular exchange is excellent, and i’ve learned valuable things from it.
    2) i take seriously anyone’s pretension to be a serious person with considered opinions. sometimes that proves false (and they tend to stop posting), sometimes that proves accurate, and there’s an interesting exchange (like this one).
    3) i try to keep expectations for major and instantaneous breakthroughs very low: people don’t change their minds easily, and often need to ruminate before admitting new information and perspective.
    4) even when one makes no headway at all, there’s much to be learned from these exchanges about how people think, what they consider evidence, what they’ll admit and won’t.
    5) i think even idiots, fools, and knaves deserve decent treatment, at least initially. on the other hand, when they bloviate on the pages of the NYT, they lose their immunity.

    but when we get right down to it, as Blake’s “Proverb of Hell” that i posted as a motto to this blog points out, give me a man (like oao) who speaks his mind, and the base will avoid. maybe that’s why, despite how considerate i am towards trolls, the blog has so few of them.

  54. oao says:

    rl,

    your policy is fine if the system contains, say, 20% ignorants and unable to reason or less. if the ratio is inverse your policy will fail.

    for many years I applied your policy in my professional field. when the field was taken over by ignorants and unable to reason, they defeated the policy.

    in the presence of so many what i call “vociferous ignoramuses” (VI), one has no choice but to call a spade a spade (a) for the sake of those readers who may interpret long exchanges with them as an indicator that there is a side to them worthy of consideration (b) to prevent the space from having to waste time and effort on them.

    I urge you to read my article, it’s short and easy.

  55. Rich Rostrom says:

    Eliyahu:

    The “Palestinian people” came into existence the day the British Mandate of Palestine was established. Not because of some profound upwelling of national consciousness, but simply because it was the obvious label for the people living in the territory so defined.

    It is absurd to assert that because a group of people had not previously exercised self-rule as that particular group, they have no claim to self-rule at all. Jordan claimed sovereignty over the West Bank, but abandoned that claim. Egypt never claimed sovereignty over Gaza. If the people in these places are not “Palestinians”, what are they? And what government has sovereign authority over these places?

    You seem to believe that the actions of the League of Nations and San Remo Conference authorizing a “Jewish National Home” in Palestine granted sovereignty over the whole of Palestine to the then-nascent Jewish state – now Israel. By what authority was this done? If the LoN had such authority, does that mean the UN today has authority to rescind that grant?

    Furthermore, the language of the Mandate was formulated to declare that the Jewish National Home would be in Palestine, rather than be Palestine. That is, said National Home was not intended to include the whole territory. No specific territory was allocated to the Jewish Home until the 1947 Partition.

    Your point about the comparative fates of refugees is very well put, BTW. One might also note the exchanges of population in post-partition India and post-WW I Greece and Turkey. Certainly perfect justice was not served; but the people involved went on with their lives, a far better outcome than for the Palestinians.

  56. Aviv says:

    Oao,

    This is what we are facing in politics and society too. we cannot substitute for education (not schooling)people should have received from childhood.

    (This is off-topic, but you did voice your concerns about convincing people, and if we got as far as 1918 I might as well post this).

    At risk of being called a vapid, pandering idiot, I recommend you try to offer constructive conjectures that more-or-less tap into your interlocutor’s existing worldview.

    (I highly recommend Godin’s books to anyone concerned with selling ideas, whether they’re a product/service or a social cause, like, say, I dunno, saving & promoting civil society).

  57. oao says:

    This is off-topic, but you did voice your concerns about convincing people

    not sure what you mean — can you be more specific?
    convincing people can only be done when they are both able and willing to be convinced. and both their ability and willingness are predicated on some basic education which means teaching them to appreciate and seek empirical evidence, to distinguish facts from opinion, how to think critically and independently, logic, etc. such education cannot be given here and without it it is practically impossible to convince.
    i’ve been an educator in both academia and business. there was a time when I could convince quite effectively. no more.

    I highly recommend Godin’s books to anyone concerned with selling ideas, whether they’re a product/service or a social cause, like, say, I dunno, saving & promoting civil society

    what makes you think I am selling anything? i am simply speaking my mind (as RL has noticed); those whom i convince, fine; those whom i don’t, their business. some people here i don’t have to convince, they are already convinced, because their intellect permits them.

    individuals cannot save society when the problems are systemic. that’s my whole point.

  58. oao says:

    Certainly perfect justice was not served; but the people involved went on with their lives, a far better outcome than for the Palestinians.

    ah, but there were no jews involved. makes the whole difference.

  59. noam says:

    I have received many insults here – for some reason this became the center of the debate at one point – but only one commentator (Ray) answered my repeated question: suppose the Palestinians stop attacking Israel – like you demand – what are we to do with the them, and with the West Bank?

    I think this is because you don’t have any answers. Not for real.

  60. Aviv says:

    In a hypothetical world, hopefully sometime in the future, Palestinians show they can self-govern and stop terrorism. In that case, there’s no practical problem with their having their own country, there’s no need to invest so much in “occupation”. שיהיה להם לבריאות – I hope they enjoy it in good health, build the Middle Eastern version of Singapore and have a civil society as healthy as Denmark’s.

    Meanwhile, they’re busy throwing eachother’s political rivals off rooftops and trying to fire rockets from the West Bank.

    It’s not that we don’t want them to have their country; It’s just that they don’t want us to have ours.

    So the crux of the argument is not about solutions insomuch as about methods.

  61. rl says:

    i cd not have put it better than aviv. he represents the classic israeli positive-sum attitude: let them be healthy. it’s the irony of the israeli position, so poignantly illustrated by the nurses in the hospitals putting up with arab cheers at the arrival of israeli casualties (classic zero-sum schadenfreude from people who ought to have a minimum of gratitude and consideration).
    the israelis have to wish well on people who hate them if they are to live in peace.
    as someone said, “if the arabs put down their weapons today, there will be peace, if the israelis lay down there weapons today, there will be no israel.” the palestinians who want statehood are smashing in an open door.

  62. noam says:

    It’s not that we don’t want them to have their country

    Aviv,

    Only problem is that 60 percent of the Jewish public voted for parties who claim we have to stay in the West Bank, East Jerusalm, forever.

  63. noam says:

    RL,

    I see the settlements as the test for this attitude. If you support them, you want to stay in the West Bank > you support Apartheid. And as you know, all Israeli governments built settlements, long before the first Intifada.

    If you would say: I am not building settlements but I am keeping the army in the WB to protect myself, it would have been much harder for me to argue with you.

    (I would add that in this sort of arguments some right-wing people have a tendency to overlook the settlements, saying something like “this is not the issue”. but for me it’s the litmus paper for your views – your real ones – regarding the conflict)

  64. Cynic says:

    noam,

    but you forget Seri Nusseiba, the Geneva Accord, and other documents which recognized Israel.

    Taqiya on the part of Nusseiba is not far fetched given what Arafat said in Arabic in South Africa shortly after signing the Oslo accords, so it is questionable enough not to base one’s faith on it.
    As for the Geneva Accord; which one?
    As for other documents; which documents?

    With hindsight one can see that any accord signed with Arab states is not binding. Read the accord between Egypt and Israel and then see how it was implemented by the Egyptians. For sure there has been no war but basically it is just a hudna.

  65. Eliyahu says:

    noam is so excessively simplistic with his either/or arguments, that I am tempted to laugh. I will return to his misunderstandings and inner confusion when I have time.

  66. Cynic says:

    Certainly perfect justice was not served; but the people involved went on with their lives, a far better outcome than for the Palestinians.

    Those people who went on with their lives were not forced to remain constrained by the PLO and ultimately UNWRA.
    See UN resolutions from the 70s relating to Israel building infrastructure and houses in Gaza:

    Why Palestinians Still Live in Refugee Camps

    While the PLO has done its best to keep Palestinians in refugee camps, Israel has done its best to move Palestinians out of the camps and into new homes. Israel even started a heavily subsidized “build-your-own-home” program for Palestinian refugees. …………….
    …….
    What is perhaps surprising is that the United Nations also opposed the program, and passed harsh resolutions demanding that Israel remove the Palestinians from their new homes and return them to the squalid camps. For example, UN General Assembly Resolution 31/15 of Nov. 23, 1976:
    Calls once more upon Israel:
    (a) To take effective steps immediately for the return of the refugees concerned to the camps from which they were removed in the Gaza Strip and to provide adequate shelters for their accommodation;
    (b) To desist from further removal of refuges and destruction of their shelters.
    Similarly, UNGA Resolution 34/52 of November 23, 1979 declared that:
    measures to resettle Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip away from their homes and property from which they were displaced constitute a violation of their inalienable right to return;
    1. Calls once more upon Israel to desist from removal and resettlement of Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip and from destruction of their shelters;
    Perhaps thanks to this support from the UN, the PLO began threatening to kill any refugee who would move out of the camps. After a few such attacks, the build-your-own-home program died, and that is why there are still Palestinians refugee camps in Gaza.

  67. Cynic says:

    Aviv,

    Cynic – I am an Israeli Jew, like RL and Noam. I was referring to Israeli Jews.

    OK. So what is this mess precisely? {We need to clean up our own mess before we start telling other people to shape up}
    Who is this “other people”?

    You wrote:
    I think the West has a moral obligation to take a stand for an Arab civil society.

    How? By trying to contradict Islam – Qur’an, Hadith, Sira?
    The West should get out of its head that the Islamic culture is the same or can be made the same as that currently practiced by it.

  68. Cynic says:

    Only problem is that 60 percent of the Jewish public voted for parties who claim we have to stay in the West Bank, East Jerusalm, forever.

    After what those 60% witnessed what happened to Gaza when Israel withdrew they are not about to experiment with the very high probability that Hamas will take over and start rocketing all Israeli population centres.
    It wasn’t enough when Arafat’s thugs were shooting into Jerusalem so now you want Hamas and Islamic Jihad to set up shop there?
    Hell, even Peres came out a couple of weeks ago and said that he now realizes that it was a mistake to pull out of Gaza.
    The same guy who was all over Arafat and co., now sees the security disadvantage of the peace dream that was all smoke and no mirrors.
    Wake up to the fact that no two cultures are on the same wavelength, and some sufficiently far apart to make it impossible to attempt to project one’s emotions without getting severely mauled.

  69. Aviv says:

    Cynic – I was only preempting what Noam said more eloquently in post #5. As I told Dimitry, that I try to clarify pro-peace-processing views does not mean that it’s my line of argument. Take it up with Noam.

    As to your second question, I wouldn’t try to tell Muslims that their faith is wrong; Democracies shouldn’t meddle with questions of personal faith. Rather, I’d just focus on the upside, explaining what civil society is all about and encouraging them to implement it, using carrots and sticks. The Bush administration did this in 2002-3 until it decided Iraq, Gaza etc. were reason enough to stop. Hopefully another president can pick up where Bush left off in 2012.

  70. Cynic says:

    I see the settlements as the test for this attitude. If you support them, you want to stay in the West Bank > you support Apartheid.

    Why do you keep using that word; Apartheid? It doesn’t fit the bill. Are you using it alleviate some emotional problem you have with the results of the 67 war?
    Settlements were built after “occupying” the high ground taken in a war, to establish better all round security at the time. Now if the Palestinians were such peace loving people and not used as cannon fodder by the Arab League all these years then the situation would have been resolved a long time ago.
    But what has apartheid to do with settlements? From your writing it is obvious that you know nothing about apartheid.
    Find some other term to describe your angst but not that which is now only an international expletive used against Israelis.
    Debasing the original construct has angered more than a few South Africans who suffered severely under its yoke.
    Where the concept of apartheid Is practiced in other parts of the world the term is not applied. Why?

  71. Cynic says:

    Aviv,

    To be honest I found Noam’s #5 quite confused.

    Israelis cannot clean up the mess without the concerted effort of the other side.
    That does not seem possible going by what has already taken place.

    As for Muslims one cannot dislocate the religious from the civil from the political because it is all intertwined.
    Bush didn’t create a democracy in Iraq just because some people got blue fingers when they voted. They have still not instituted a free judiciary and other civil organs to provide the people with what the West considers necessary for democratic due process.
    To get a reasonable democratic foothold one would need an Ataturk to get the people out from under the Imam’s jackboot.
    One would also need to compete financially against Saudi Arabia’s Wahabbi and Iran’s Shiite sects and again it would have to come from Muslims with no connection to the infidel
    Voting for Hamas also did not constitute a democracy as nothing exists to protect the people from the politicians, the clergy or the security apparatus whose excesses have been witnessed.

    The only positive thing so far from Gaza and Iraq has been the lesson, for those fortunate enough to have their eyes open.

  72. Cynic says:

    By the way here is an article which is worth reading for displaying how misled people can be:

    Save Setting
    Jewish-Muslim Dialogue in Nashville, Tennessee

    My experience in attending these lessons at Congregation Micah could best be described as a study in the psychology of denial and in what Richard L. Rubenstein calls the “defeated people syndrome,” even a budding dhimmitude.

  73. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Don’t you realise how worthwhile noam is?

    A guy drops a few lines then, profiting from the owner’s laxity, occupies a space that definitely is not his and, overnight, is settling in a territory that – as we know – was already populated. Not that the hosting, dispersed, community was hostile or unwelcoming. On the contrary, the newcomer elicited curiosity and questions. But then, rather than conforming to the Land(es) rules, our settler decides to impose his own: his vocabulary, his vision of past and present, his logic of argumentation… Provoking and ignoring, in the best Colonial tradition, that any explanation might be due (notice how rights-oriented is his discourse). Won’t deign reply to questions, merely setting his court to sentence the legitimacy of even raising some objections.

    The moral is that useful noams are extremely valuable in exposing the “do as I say, not as I do” phenomenon.

  74. Eliyahu says:

    Noam has not answered or responded to any of my factual, historical or legal arguments about “occupied territory,” etc. Does he have answers? If he can’t rebut my argument that Judea-Samaria are not “occupied” but are rather parts of the Jewish National Home, then much of his argument is vitiated. It’s obvious that this kid has been well indoctrinated. It goes on in schools, universities, “leftist” youth groups funded and directed by agents of Western govts, the EU, etc.

    But today I came across a book in Steimatzky’s here in Yerushalayim that supplies some important historical material that is unfortunately too little known today. See: Jonathan Adelman, The Rise of Israel, A History of a Revolutionary State.
    This book would be fine as a gift for the factually challenged like Comrade Noam.

    Adelman talks, inter alia, about how the Ottoman Empire tried to keep Jews out of the Land of Israel in the 19th century and, during WW One, persecuted Jews in the country in ways similar to the preliminary stages of the Armenian genocide.

    Thousands of Jews were expelled from their homes in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Yafo [Jaffa], etc. Many thousands of Jews were expelled/deported from the country altogether. Some were sent to forced labor battallions. However, the Ottomans’ German and Austrian allies kept them from going as far as they wanted with the Jews. This was as Jabotinsky had foreseen in his important article “Activism” published in Copenhagen in 1915. From other sources, I estimate that about one-third of the Jews in the country before 1914 were deported by the Ottoman state. Others died of starvation, as did Arabs and other people in the country. These deportations brought the Jewish percentage in the population down from about 14 or 15% of the total in 1914. Hence, arguments citing the lower percentage of Jews in 1918 are misleading. This might be the place to recommend biographies of Aaron Aaronsohn, a great Rumanian-born Jew and Zionist, by Samuel Katz and Ronald Florence. Aaronsohn and his NILI group did much to bring the facts about the Armenian genocide to the British.

    I am still awaiting Noam’s responses to my questions. His claims about “apartheid” in Judea-Samaria are nonsensical non sequiturs. The A-word is used for dramatic, emotional effect, instrumentally not factually. Cynic, you as a former South African [am I right?] could help us by giving some more detail about the real apartheid. What I know about apartheid in SA and the kind of segregation and humiliation it entailed does not fit the situation in Israel on either side of the Green Line, which was never a border [and that at Arab insistence] but only an armistice line. Neither the 11-29-1947 partition plan recommendation nor the Rhodes armistice accords of 1949 cancelled Jewish rights to settle throughout the Jewish National Home, which was the whole country. Saying that Jews must not live over the Green Line, as Noam and jimmy carter do, is in fact advocacy for apartheid against Jews. Somehow noam and jimmy get things backward. In fact, carter seems to be arguing for a re-ghettoization of Jews, maybe something like the Pale of Settlement in tsarist Russia. Also, think of how Jews were expelled from various cities and countries in Europe. Consider England, France, Spain, Portugal, Vienna, Kamenets-Podolsk, etc.

    I also resent how noam and jimmy forget the Arab –particularly the palestinian Arab– role in the Holocaust. If the British had not kept Jewish refugees out of Jewish National Home territory [at the behest of the palestinian Arab leadership] –thus violating their mandate to rule there– many more Jews would have been saved and Jews would likely have become a majority in all the land west of the Jordan before or by 1948. So the Arabs and the UK ought to answer for their Holocaust collaboration. The UK ought to answer specifically for its silent partnership in the Holocaust. This subject ought to be discussed more often. Interested readers might look up how readers of the TLS reacted to a discussion about UK WW2 policy re not rescuing Jews, about 10 years ago in the TLS. Also see the site of David Wyman Institute.

    By the way, Rich, there is an old dispute over the meaning of words in the Balfour Decl. and San Remo and the 1922 LoN Mandate statement. Such as the phrase: “in palestine.” I recommend a new book to you in full confidence that you will understand it. About Noam I’m not sure. See link re the book:

    http://www.librariansforfairness.org/news_post.asp?NPI=313

  75. oao says:

    In a hypothetical world, hopefully sometime in the future, Palestinians show they can self-govern and stop terrorism.

    hypothetically, indeed. how would a group of people without a national identity other than anti-zionism would transform itself into something else? after for six decades they lived on jizziyah and terror and did not have to, nor did they learn how to build a nation? when generation after generation are indoctrinated with rabid hatred? and why would they change just at the point when, after 60 years, they are finally seeing the fruit of their strategy — the world questioning the existence of israel, and supporting and funding its destruction, without them having to change at all?

    even if instituted, a plaestinian state would not be viable and would be a burden to the world and thus a danger for israel. such a state would be a fake, because there is no such thing as a plaestinian people, it was invented to destroy israel. it’s its raison d’etre. it’s an illusion.

    hell, what do you think would happen if there were not dictators in each and every arab state? as soon as the palestinian dictator died, anarchy has taken over.

    so yes, when the pals change and build a nation, no practical problem. when pigs fly.

  76. oao says:

    rl,

    the israelis have to wish well on people who hate them if they are to live in peace.

    nice. but i thought you criticized scruton for something similar.

    I am an Israeli Jew, like RL and Noam.

    RL is an american jew.

    I think the West has a moral obligation to take a stand for an Arab civil society.

    ah, the arrogant westerner imposing his values on the arabs. you can’t impose civility. you can only reward it when it appears organically. in the meantime, as cynic has demonstrated the west rewards barbarism and punishes civility.

    As to your second question, I wouldn’t try to tell Muslims that their faith is wrong; Democracies shouldn’t meddle with questions of personal faith.

    aviv, aviv: the islam is wrong precisley because it is NOT a persoanl faith, but a political and social ideology!!!!! were it a personal faith we would not have jihad and terror. and if we have them, don’t tell me about democracy accepting it, like zakaria.

    Rather, I’d just focus on the upside, explaining what civil society is all about and encouraging them to implement it, using carrots and sticks.

    good luck with that. the west has offered ample example of the advantages of civil society, but they don’t buy it, because that would mean going against islam, with which they are indoctrinated since birth. just ask Quttb and muslim brotherhood what they think about western civil society.

    Israelis cannot clean up the mess without the concerted effort of the other side. That does not seem possible going by what has already taken place.

    worse: israel tried more than once to clean up the mess, as you documented. but it met resistance not from the pals, but from the “int’l community” bless its soul. the refugees and terror would not exist without UNRWA and jizziya.

    Don’t you realise how worthwhile noam is?

    precisely what i predicted would happen and why I responded to him the way i did. and no, I do not think him useful at all.

  77. Eliyahu says:

    oao, let me take your point a little farther. Methinks that if –hypothetically– the Arabs wanted peace with Israel [rather than without Israel], the UK would try to prevent peace and would disrupt peace contacts in the hundred different ways at its disposal. Frankly, most of the West DOES NOT want peace between Israel and the Arabs. Does that opinion make me “right-wing” or “left-wing” or what? Isn’t it obvious that the West is not against genocide? The mass murder, genocide, went on in southern Sudan for 50 years without the UN trying to stop it, in my not so humble opinion. The major powers did not care, nor did bodies such as the UN, Arab League, Organization of the Islamic Conference, or the Org of African Unity.

    can we have a response by noam to the charges that I make in this post?

  78. E.G. says:

    oao,

    How else would I have found out that you’re not only a sensible but also a sensitive person?
    Useful, I tell you.
    Every cause needs its useful noams and, while I can, I choose mine.
    (Ain’t this better than a “ne me quitte pas” complete with Brel’s tormented expression?)

  79. oao says:

    Frankly, most of the West DOES NOT want peace between Israel and the Arabs.

    it sure looks that way and there is probably some truth to it. i am not sure they will openly do something that will disrupt it. but it would not surprise me if they did.

    Every cause needs its useful noams and, while I can, I choose mine.

    perhaps the difference between us is that I had too many of these useful idiots to the point that they took over and it became a quality of life issue.

  80. Cynic says:

    (Ain’t this better than a “ne me quitte pas” complete with Brel’s tormented expression?)

    You mean the “Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in hell Paris” cabaret thingy?

  81. Cynic says:

    Eliyahu,

    Saw a snatch of Sky news with Gordon Brown so hypocritically using invectives against those Irishmen who recently killed two policemen after he started contacts anew with Hezbollah.
    Obviously when it’s the Juice on the receiving end it’s OK.

  82. Cynic says:

    the israelis have to wish well on people who hate them if they are to live in peace.

    Well the Juice have always wished those who hate them well and the typical expression from the Yiddish was something along the lines of: “May he stick his head in the earth and grow onions”!

  83. E.G. says:

    Cynic,

    Update: it’s in Brussels and he’s been singin’ (in the rain) it to a li’l-Mo replay exhibit.

  84. Cynic says:

    Eliyahu,

    help us by giving some more detail about the real apartheid. What I know about apartheid in SA and the kind of segregation and humiliation it entailed

    Just to cite two incidents in which I was personally involved, while not comparing with the incidents occurring in the Soviet bloc, certainly were frightening and such stuff has never to my knowledge been known to occur in Israel:
    I was approached to help Blacks, in my spare time, achieve school leaving certificates by teaching them English and Math. Unfortunately the security police did not take kindly to it and I along with some others spent a very uncomfortable few hours with what I suppose could be considered as a “bad cop, worse cop” routine inflicted on us (mainly to scare the shit out of us from attempting such a stunt again).
    The other incident was when I borrowed a car to go to a cinema which at the time permitted a mixed race audience to see of all things Lawrence of Arabia (The Luxurama in the Cape Town suburb of Wynberg – Cape Town was far more liberal than the rest of the country until Marianne Faithful and another whose name I cannot remember, instead of performing on their tour decided to do politics which culminated in government fiat blocking completely several places of entertainment to non-whites including Maynardville open air theatre for Shakespearean productions and City Hall for among other things symphony concerts).
    Imagine to my shock being phoned by an hysterical owner of the car who had been harassed verbally, before breakfast, by the police because the car had been noted in the cinema parking lot and they wanted to know why it had been there and for what purpose etc.,
    Of course I was named and had to appear at the local police station.
    I leave it to your imagination the cross questioning of what white people could possibly want by mixing with non-white people in such a place …..and the film itself what with the implied sodomizing of Lawrence by the Turks.
    The indignation on the one hand at being mentally abused, the frightening attitude of the Authority and their absolute gall to imply the things that they did left one with a lousy taste which lasted for years.

    When Noam uses the A word so loosely I get that taste again.

  85. Cynic says:

    he’s been singin’

    You mean he’s still around to sing?
    I can’t be so old then :-)

  86. oao says:

    Obviously when it’s the Juice on the receiving end it’s OK.

    goes without saying. besides, we are always doing right, the “other” is always doing wrong. particularly if we are such a utter failure and we need to distract from it.

    while not comparing with the incidents occurring in the Soviet bloc

    your experience, you betcha. but how they treated blacks, probably not much different. worse possibly, given the difference in color.

    When Noam uses the A word so loosely I get that taste again

    how much does noam know about apartheid, you think, short of seeing the term in the media or lefty pronouncements? even better, how many in the media and the left using the term know about it, you think?

  87. Eliyahu says:

    cynic, I was thinking more in the lines of other details. Like riding in public transportation, public toilets, segregated waiting rooms in train stations, segregation in all sorts of public places, restaurants, etc. Much of this went on in the American South, jimmy carter country, under the jimcrow dispensation, but I believe that segregation was far stricter and more extensive in SA. This did not exist in Israel.

    What is commonly forgotten –or unknown to the general run of anti-Zionist ignorami– is the resemblance of apartheid to the dhimma system in Muslim lands. Of course, one diff was that apartheid was based on biological race and skin color –so obvious in SA and US South– whereas dhimma was more based on religion [although Bernard Lewis in Race and Slavery in Islam (or some such title) says that there was color prejudice even among Muslims towards fellow Muslims. Some Blacks were still called `abid]. Of course, there is a broad range of skin colors among both Jews and Arabs so even applying a jimcrow or apartheid system here would be very time consuming. And it was not applied in Judea-Samaria either. Don’t forget that Jordan had [and has] a law against Jews living in its territory, which was enforced in Judea-Samaria pre-6 Day War. Sounds like apartheid to me. Maybe Noam ought to walk into sophisticated, cosmopolitan Ramallah wearing a knit skull cap, a tallis [prayer shawl], and tefillin [phylacteries] and see how he’s treated there. If he doesn’t come back alive, well, that’s the price of scientific experimentation.

    It’s curious that the “Left” in the USA favored the use of military force to implement/enforce DEsegregation, as in Little Rock and in Jackson, Mississippi, in the 1950s. Prez Eisenhower sent troops and federal marshals to those places and a few pro-segregation protesters were killed. All in a good cause. So why not use Israeli troops to enforce the desegregation of housing opportunities for Jews in Judea-Samaria where Jordanian law forbade Jews to live?? But jimmuh carter approves of excluding Jews from those places. He advocates the Judenrein policy of the Kingdom of Jordan. Nowadays that kind of policy is called “liberal” or even “progressive.”

  88. Cynic says:

    Eliyahu,

    Most of what you describe

    Like riding in public transportation, public toilets, segregated waiting rooms in train stations, segregation in all sorts of public places, restaurants, etc. Much of this went on in the American South, jimmy carter country, under the jimcrow dispensation, but I believe that segregation was far stricter and more extensive in SA. This did not exist in Israel.

    is common knowledge which everybody knows DOES NOT exist in Israel but you asked me and I unfortunately have my personal experiences, nothing compared to what the Blacks came up against, but where having someone breathing down one’s neck and then being interrogated because one went to a mixed audience cinema (is not commonplace knowledge) is very unnerving and an indication of how “stricter” things were in SA even for a white skin.
    I bet you’ve never been to the theatre to watch a commedian and notice security police in the audience, nor for that matter see them sitting in on a lecture (physics as it so happens) at university to note what the lecturer was saying.

  89. Just to add a little flavor to this – I grew up in Texas in the fifties. I moved there when I was 8 yo in 1950 when my Dad relocated my family there for work from the northern Midwest – Illinois. I was dropped into a very strange world.

    Blacks there were considered menial labor. Maids came to clean our mother’s houses. Even relatively poor whites had black maids because they cost almost nothing. Black men worked in fields. Never saw a black kid in school. Didn’t know where there schools were. Didn’t know where they lived. I was told “niggertown”. Saw it once when I rode with my Dad to pick up the maid when the busses weren’t running or something. Dirt streets, outhouses – shacks for homes.

    All public buildings in town (Dallas) had dual restrooms and water fountains, one was labeled “colored”. Busses had a sign 2/3 of the way back – said “Colored seating behind this sign”. This was considered entirely normal by all adults I knew (and kids of course).

    My class took a field trip to the Dallas County Jail when I was about 13 to see what happens to criminals and I guess dissuade us from seeing any appeal in that direction. Of course the cell blocks were completely segregated and so we were led past the cellblock where dozens of black men spent their time. I could see they were humiliated by this. I felt embarrassed for them. Never saw any white prisoners that day.

    The idea of non-whites as an inferior race permeated the topic at any level. It was never really discussed because there was no need to.

    Although I am Caucasian when I first arrived there I felt the sting if discrimination. On my first day of school the teacher asked me where I had transferred from. I said “Palatine” which is the suburb of Chicago where I had lived. The teacher seemed quite impressed and made a big deal out of it which I did not understand at the time. I had a rough start at first and many kids seemed to be anxious to fight me for some reason. I accommodated them when I couldn’t get out of it. I picked up that part of that was because I didn’t have the southern drawl so I was different. Several years later I surmised that the teacher had probably assumed I was Jewish and from “Palestine”. (This was 1950) I think the unusual news of “the new Jewish kid” in school got around.

    Within a while though I was somewhat better accepted when it gradually got out that I attended Catholic church on Sunday. Not much better though. In those days although Jews and Catholics had the great advantage of white skin we were not considered nearly as worthy as the Protestants who ran things down there. We too had to know our place.

  90. oao says:

    regarding brown, check out melanie phillips’ blog on the report of what years of Labor rule did to britain. it essentially killed it. so why not invite hezbollah to finish it off.

  91. oao says:

    What is commonly forgotten –or unknown to the general run of anti-Zionist ignorami– is the resemblance of apartheid to the dhimma system in Muslim lands.

    try saudia.

    and “palestine”: some schmucks complained that the sheer
    existence of jews on the temple mount desecrates the place.

  92. oao says:

    ray,

    Just to add a little flavor to this

    you can then understand why so much blaming and dislike
    of the jews who managed to live in such a conflict yet
    never got so low into the gutter. so their “sins” must be inflated so that our diminish.

    i mean, the joos better than us? impossible.

  93. Margie says:

    Noam:

    Only problem is that 60 percent of the Jewish public voted for parties who claim we have to stay in the West Bank, East Jerusalm, forever.

    ‘Have to stay’? I doubt that.

    What disturbs me is your use of ‘East Jerusalem’. I presume what you really mean is what has been known for centuries as ‘the Jewish Quarter’ of Jerusalem which became Arab when Jordan emptied it by slaughtering all those Jews who hadn’t managed to escape?

  94. Eliyahu says:

    Margie, the Jews have been the majority of the population in Jerusalem since 1853. See link:

    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/03/jewish-majority-in-jerusalem-in-1853.html

    At that time, 1853, the whole population lived in the Old City within the walls. Jews were the first ones to start moving out of the walled city, and thus were the ones to found the New City [whatever is outside the walls]. Jews were a majority in the Old City in 1900, and probably for some time later. The British always appointed Arabs as mayors of Jerusalem –despite the Jewish majority– doing the same as the Ottoman Empire had done, thereby violating in another way [among many] their mandate to rule the country. Arab pogroms began in the British period in 1920 and were repeated in Jerusalem in 1929 and 1936-39. These pogroms drove Jews out of all the Old City Quarters but the Jewish Quarter before the War of Independence [1947-49]. The 1929 and 1936-38 pogroms drove Jews out of neighborhoods [quarters] in the New City as well, such as Silwan village. However, some Jews were still living in what later became “east Jerusalem” up till 1948. The Shimon haTsadiq quarter, north-by-northeast of the American Colony Hotel and the Orient House, was emptied of Jews by the terrorism of Arab irregulars in December 1947, thus becoming the first neighborhood in the country from which people were driven out and could not go home after the war [whereas Jews from south Tel Aviv could return after the war].

    I do not see any grounds in the relevant historical facts for any new division of the city. This does not even take into account that the importance of Jerusalem for Christians and Muslims is rooted in the role of the city in Jewish history and religion. To imagine that such a division would represent peace is madness or very gross ignorance or a childish understanding of the world.

  95. Eliyahu says:

    cynic, official Britain was hypocritical about terrorism long before gordon brown [if his first name is really Gordian, then there may be a way to open his knot of a head].

    The bbc long ago was applying the label terrorist to the IRA, whereas Fatah and the PFLP and PDFLP were called “militants” or some other euphemism. So the pro-terrorist policy goes way back. It is pro-terrorist, isn’t it?

  96. Margie says:

    Cynic, I wonder whether you knew that Jews in South Africa at one time teetered on the brink of being declared ‘Asiatics’ – another sub-division of the delightful system designed to give job security to the less gifted section of the white baasskap.

  97. oao says:

    margie,

    ‘Have to stay’? I doubt that.

    did netanyahu behave anything different than labor or kadima with respect to withdrawing from territories, negotiating with palestinians and accepting previous agreements? he seems to be judged by early herut’s reputation, rather than hie actual behavior. indeed, people forget his failures now and turn him into some extreme without any basis in reality. he is as much a failure as all israeli politicians. the elite does not have any serious new generation of leaders. and the electoral system has produces only corrupt, do nothing politicians, who talk a great deal but do nothing.

    don’t waste your time on noam.

  98. Cynic says:

    Margie,

    Cynic, I wonder whether you knew that Jews in South Africa at one time teetered on the brink of being declared ‘Asiatics’

    No. Please fill me in.

  99. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    The link in my #8 above clearly shows that the Brits were using the T-word in 1947.

    In 1938 too.

  100. Eliyahu says:

    E.G., in your #8 above, you refer to immigration policies and preferred groups of immigrants. It is symptomatic of Eurohypocrisy, incl. that of the “Left,” that Germany –for one– long had such a policy, which may still be in effect. Germany gave preference to ethnic Germans, such as the Volga Germans of Russia, Germans from Rumania, Hungary, etc. They even decided to stretch things –I think in the 70s– in order to bring in Jews from the Soviet Union, rather than having them go to Israel. The Soviet Jews became “Germans” because most of their ancestors spoke Yiddish, which is based on a simplified German grammar and a vocabulary mainly of Germanic origin [other words originate in Hebrew, Aramaic, Slavic and medieval Romance tongues]. Hence, these Jews became “honorary” Germans, perhaps like how the Mufti of Jerusalem, haj amin el-husseini, become an honorary Aryan back in the 1940s.

    Those in the EU attacking Israel for its preferential ethnic immigration policies had naught to say about Germany’s policy, which may have changed in the 1990s.

  101. RfaelMoshe says:

    Since the ’70s when Arafat adopted the Marxist rhetoric of “liberation” in place of “throw the Jews into the sea”, the anti-Western bloc in combination with the Moslem bloc, have been in their pocket. Alot of what is mindlessly parroted is what I call “Palestinianism”, “a collection of myths and beliefs that form the basis for Palestinian political thought.” Among these popular myths is “Palestinians were the ‘indigenous people’ of Israel which is really ‘Palestine,”, that “The Jews” aided by mysterious colonial powers, appeared, invaded, conquered, and forcefully expelled peaceful ‘Palestinians”, “the Palestinians have an eternal, inheritable ‘right of return of refugees”, and my favorite, “Palestinian issues are central to the peace of the entire world.” In the same way that we have had “Post-Zionist” analysis, its time fot “Post-Palestiniasm”, analzing the foundational myths of Palestinian political theory.

  102. oao says:

    eliyahu,

    well, we can’t allow the joos to do just as we do, can we?

  103. Eliyahu says:

    of course not.

    But what really gets that gang –let us call them Charles Freemanites– is that Jews may be able to prevent genocidal attacks.

  104. oao says:

    i just read a piece about the elders recommending that obama talk to hamas. it concludes that they it’s personal — they hate israel because it won’t listen to their advice.

  105. E.G. says:

    oao,

    Sounds very logical. Wouldn’t you too hate a guy you’ve been telling to walk on an invisible string out of the window of the 79th floor across the avenue for his own good, who replies alternatively that he won’t or that it’s not for his own good?

  106. Cynic says:

    E.G.

    Now wouldn’t it be nice to be able to provide a “Sword of Damocles” for them?

  107. Cynic says:

    Anyone notice that the times of the comments seem to be a bit strange; E.G. posted #105 before me #106 but his time is later 12:44am > 8:43am for the same date – March 16?

  108. oao says:

    e.g.,

    particularly since they’re joos and they used to know their place. now they got a country, dammit, and they don’t anymore.

  109. oao says:

    cynic, could be the local time of each.

  110. [...] out, for example, this debate I got into at the right-wing blog “The Augean Stables” (what a great [...]

  111. Eliyahu says:

    I read No`am’s blog post which he links to in #110. I don’t want to register for his blog so I will leave my comment here. He says that the Arab minority is discriminated against in Israel. In some ways, this is true. In some ways, the courts have ruled in favor of discrimination in favor of Arabs. Which causes a certain resentment among many Israelis, including those whose families may have suffered oppression in Arab lands.

    Now No`am does not take into account that one reason for discrimination in certain jobs is for security reasons. This is in view of the open disloyalty expressed by the Knesset members in the three Arab parties [including the Communist Party, Hadash, which is considered an Arab party --for good cause-- and its one Jewish member of Knesset. Recall that Jewish Communists supported the Nazi-Soviet Pact]. It is also in view of the disloyalty and hostility to the state expressed by much or most of the Muslim religious leadership and some of the Christian religious leadership despite the acts of aggression by Muslims against local Christians.

    Now, No`am uses the example of railroad watchers as an example of discrimination against Arabs. He pointed out that the state railroad company said that these watchers must be army veterans, not necessarily Jews, but army vets. This is clearly justified on the grounds of security since the railroad has been subject to sabotage in the past and could be subject to it in the future too. So one would want to be reasonably sure of loyalty in that situation. No`am seems rather childish in refusing to recognize that.

  112. Cynic says:

    Eliyahu,

    Noam does not want accept rational reasons for what he classifies as discrimination.
    I bet that he calls it discrimination when the State refuses to pay the wages for the Arab town’s municipal staff because the local residents refuse to pay their rates and local taxes; because of the corruption and nepotism because the money goes to the Juice.
    I saw plenty of Arabs envious of Jewish neighbourhood’s clean streets, gardens and such but one could never get through to them the cost per household.
    They who refused to pay for water and forced the utility company workers to go around armed as they provided a service to those communities.

  113. Cynic says:

    Eliyahu,

    I should have added that Noam doesn’t give a doo that people waiting at the bus stop suddenly seem somewhat agitated and move away in the direction of some shield when they sight a tractor/excavator coming down the road.
    Why should the Juice’s psychological wellbeing be so discriminated against?

  114. oao says:

    Noam doesn’t give a doo that people waiting at the bus stop suddenly seem somewhat agitated and move away in the direction of some shield when they sight a tractor/excavator coming down the road.

    the way things are going in the US, perhaps he’s gonna react the same not too far in the future — let’s see then if he’ll consider it discrimination.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>