In These Times
With liberty and justice for all...
Why Bernie Sanders Will Win This Election—Even If He Doesn’t Win the White House
Noam Chomsky: The Real ‘Grave Threat’ to World Peace Isn’t Iran—It’s the U.S.
The Real War on Families: Why the U.S. Needs Paid Leave Now
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: The U.S. Military Is in Africa—But What Is It Doing There?
Gov. Walker Gets Off ‘Scot-Free’ For Alleged Campaign Finance Violations
How the Government Fast-Tracked Shell’s Arctic Drilling
Feticide Laws Are Disproportionately Used Against Women of Color
Is Climate Change Causing Pre-traumatic Stress Disorder in Millennials?
A Year Post-Ferguson, the Nation’s Youngest and Boldest Movement Debates Reform vs. Revolution
How One Group of Moms Is Keeping the Peace on One of Chicago’s Most Violent Street Corners
10 Years After Katrina, New Orleans’ All-Charter School System Has Proven a Failure
The Real War on Families: Why the U.S. Needs Paid Leave Now
The Union Behind the Biggest Campaign Against Walmart in History May Be Throwing in the Towel. Why?
Fall In Love with Your Job, Get Ripped Off by Your Boss
Bruce Rauner is Using a Manufactured Crisis to Bust Unions, Privatize Services and Destroy Pensions
Selling Off New Orleans: Gentrification and the Loss of Community 10 Years After Katrina
‘The Wire’ Humanized Urban Black People. In ‘Show Me a Hero,’ David Simon Humanizes White Racists.
The New Anthems of Resistance: Hip-Hop and Black Lives Matter
Yes, ‘Diary of a Teenage Girl’ Is Empowering. No, Having Sex with Your Stepdaughter Is Not Okay.
Fall In Love with Your Job, Get Ripped Off by Your Boss
GIVE A GIFT
if you like this, check out:
Iran and the Myth of Anti-Semitism
The Amazing Plasticity of American Statecraft
They Voted ‘No’ to Austerity. They Got ‘Yes’ Anyway. What Do Greeks Think About Tsipras Now?
Lessons from Tonkin and Libya: We Need a President Who Won’t Trick Us Into War
The Media’s Portrayal of the Iran Deal Implies U.S. Imperialism Is a Good Thing
A thoughtful and courageous article by Neve Gordon, an Israeli citizen who supports a two-state solution, explaining the reasons for supporting BDS, and calling on others to support this common goal. Neve states: "So if the two-state solution is the way to stop the apartheid state, then how does one achieve this goal? I am convinced that outside pressure is the only answer. Over the last three decades, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories have dramatically increased their numbers. The myth of the united Jerusalem has led to the creation of an apartheid city where Palestinians aren't citizens and lack basic services. The Israeli peace camp has gradually dwindled so that today it is almost nonexistent, and Israeli politics are moving more and more to the extreme right. It is therefore clear to me that the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories." For the full article, see: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/20-10
Posted by Imran on 2009-08-21 10:57:27
>>Find a common goal to work on and WAR will cease I could not agree with you more. As the old proverb says" An idle mind is the devil's workshop". When you don't have anything to do, evil ideas would start sprouting in your head! And yes, investing in pollution-control measures is far more important than investing in war.
Posted by Marlena Burns on 2009-07-15 16:57:47
I think this article is incredibly biased. It starts by making the assumption that Israel is the evil aggressor, and we need to do something to stop them. I support Israel, and the only mistake they made with the Gaza invasion is leaving hezbollah in power. This is a very complicated issue, but I will leave it on a simple note. Who was it that was dancing and celebrating in the streets on 911?
Posted by Tommy Hilly on 2009-07-15 00:57:15
Oh Sirah...I am so sad for you.....keep reading like I told you meny times and when you have a right conclusion please come and enjoy us .....disingenuous sounds better than zionist
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-07-10 16:23:51
untrue. ..especially in the u.s, and canada, the accusation of anti-semitism has been used to block any kind of truth about "israel".. the above is a hasbarah lie or disingenuous, and blind to current reality at best
Posted by guernica on 2009-07-10 03:56:55
Catauro, Yes, I have read the definition of Semite, but antisemitism has come to mean the hatred or the belief in certain stereotypes of Jews and only Jews. Antisemitism has nothing to do with weather you stand with Palestinians or not and you know it. You are being disingenuous at best.
Posted by Shirah on 2009-07-10 03:33:35
Forgive and Forget.. Find a common goal to work on and WAR will cease ! The Earth is dying from all the pollution and every country is responsible Ok off topic...just a rant
Posted by inthfapt on 2009-07-09 12:42:07
>>Who put down the apartheid in South Africa was the blood , sweat and heroicicity of the Cuban people, Not EWlton John refuse to play or who ever hell was at that time I don
Posted by Carmen Thorne on 2009-07-08 20:18:43
When the peoples of the world, and especially the jewish people can stand with Rachel Corrie and say to the palestinians,"you are our brothers ans our sisters," then that monstrous and devouring entity, born of the psycho-pathological dreams of t.herzl, d.ben gurion and others, the state which hides behind the name "israel", can disappear and fall back into the abyss in the human spirit from which it arose..
Posted by guernica on 2009-05-22 02:46:40
Shirah I told you may times stop reading crap!!! go and look this, from merriam webster dictionary "1 a: a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b: a descendant of these peoples" from Encyclopedia Britanica "Person speaking one of a group of related languages, presumably derived from a common language, Semitic (see Semitic languages). The term came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, some Ethiopians, and Aramaean tribes including Hebrews. Semitic tribes migrated from the Arabian Peninsula, beginning c. 2500 bc, to the Mediterranean coast, Mesopotamia, and the Nile River delta. In Phoenicia, they became seafarers. In Mesopotamia, they blended with the civilization of Sumer. The Hebrews settled at last with other Semites in Palestine." In your research did you look for the meaning of Semite?? I am sure not .........
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-05-03 16:56:04
I looked up the word antisemitism in the dictionary. Here is the meaning given: antisemitism - hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group You certainly have hostility to Jews as an ethnic group. You discriminate against Jews, because Jews are the only people on the planet who you oppose having their own country. Yes, I know Arabs also speak a Semitic language, but antisemitism has come to mean hostility to Jews in the modern world.
Posted by Shirah on 2009-05-03 07:51:27
Ken, you don't have to go so far , They smell and acting like yourself, I can not be an antisemitic because, soulder by shoulder I stand in solidarity with the heroic people of Palestine, and they are Semite I am anti-Zionism , and anti Genocidal Israel's government ...you like it or not Imran, You can check some articles from Mary Rizzo She had made some very interesting investigations about it...palestinianthinkthank.com or org ...So sad that Ken left us ....thanks!!!! catauro
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-04-30 17:34:32
Ken, I didn't know that it was making "common cause" with someone to say that I had not heard of the Hasbara Web Brigades. The themes and tactics contained in its Handbook are disturbingly similar to much of what I have read and responded to on this website and across the web. I am grateful to CCI for pointing out its existence to me. http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-30 14:26:13
CCI please tell me - just how do Zionist Jews "act and smell".?..and Imran pray tell - how does a "fact based historian" like yourself - who is so far above anti-Semitism - just how is it that you are making common cause with someone like CCI? And THIS time, I mean it - no more comments from me- you two deserve each other and aren't worth 5 seconds more of my time.
Posted by kenbrociner on 2009-04-30 13:51:13
CCI, I had not heard about the Hasbara Web Brigades. Simply fascinating. Here is a link to the Hasbara Handbook online. http://www.middle-east-info.org/take/wujshasbara.pdf This appears to be the source of many of the articles and posts of Zionists seen on the web, especially considering the stark similarities in the tactics, themes, and statements. Google "Hasbara Web Brigades" for more, especially the article in the Guardian by Richard Silverstein.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-30 13:22:22
kenbrociner I will give you the web where I found that comment but since I notice your Zionist way of thinking (maybe acting?) I decide do not do that ....you smell like a prototype of some Hasbara Web Brigade
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-04-30 12:06:33
The negative portrayal of the Palestinian rejection of the 1948 UN-dictated partition "agreement" is an oft-repeated Zionist myth. This myth, perhaps necessary for the peace of mind of well-intentioned Zionists, is simply not true and a weak attempt to obscure the very cause of the conflict. The Palestinian reality is that Israel was created by Europeans, guilty over the holocaust and other pogroms, on Palestinian land without their consent. It amazes me when Zionists talk about how "grateful" the Palestinians should have been to get what was "offered" by the UN in 1948. It's the equivalent of me deciding to take half your land without your consent, and because you had the temerity to resist, I take the rest, mocking that you should have been "grateful" for the half I had "offered" to leave for you ("Just think, you could have had half of your OWN state in 1948"). What hogwash.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-30 11:50:28
The "Zionist project" did not have to be a disaster. It would not have been if the Arabs did not attack Israel in 1948. Just think, the Palestinians could have had their own state in 1948.
Posted by Shirah on 2009-04-29 02:45:33
Ken, I too believe in a two-state solution. However, it seems that just hearing the Palestinian narrative is simply too much for you to bear (i.e. your characterization of this narrative as "ideological absolutism, dogmatic, and fanaticism)." Me thinks thou protest too much - perhaps a subconscious admission of guilt for the sins of the Zionist Project? I wonder if you are equally vehement in correcting the Israeli narrative that has been, and continues to be repeated ad nauseum in the MSM. Accepting a two-state solution does not require my accepting the Israeli narrative of its "righteousness," nor does it require your acceptance of the Palestinian narrative of their being a people upon whom Zionists forcibly imposed themselves. Which narrative is correct, or who is the aggressor/victim is for "history" to decide (the reports of its death or passing are premature at best). I insist upon advancing the Palestinian narrative as a corrective to years of unquestioning acceptance of the Israeli narrative. I do not recall many cries for balanced narratives during the previous 50 years, when the dominant strain was how "poor Israel was just defending herself" from hordes who were attacking apparently for no reason whatsoever, without any discussion of the land grab which was the basis of the conflict. For the Palestinians, the Zionist Project has been an unmitigated disaster. There are no "shades of gray" for them, as they live dispossessed from their land and their dignity as a result of this project, in open air prisons in Gaza and ghettos in the West Bank. The Zionist imposition on them continues to be a living nightmare. Their narrative is not some "oversimplified claptrap" but the very story of the cause of their diaspora. Try as you might, to obsure the issue of the unlawful land grab, the cause of the conflict was Zionists deciding amongst themselves to forcibly create a state in a land where the vast majority of the indigenous inhabitants were not Jewish. Everything that has followed was a forseeable result of this act. If you believe that this narrative is inaccurate, you should explain how it is incorrect, rather than spout generalities about "shades of gray." If not to convince me, then as you say, for the benefit of others.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-28 15:27:38
Israel was formed by the United Nations. Most Palestinians did not have to leave. They could have stayed. I'm not saying a single Palestinian was not forced out, but most could have stayed. Most Palestinians had to leave because of the war the Arab governments started. The Arab governments never consulted the Palestinians, they just attacked. There are more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Palestinian refugees from Israel. You never responded to my point about antisemitism. I still deny that the only reason Congress is pro-Israel is because of AIPAC or that AIPAC holds a stranglehold on Congress. I still maintain that it is antisemitic to think so. You say that Israel exists and cannot be destroyed, and that is true. Real peace will require that Arabs accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Yes, you did deny Israel's right to exist, you just acknowledged that it exists illegitimately. Anyone can become Jewish by converting to Judaism. When you convert, you also become part of the Jewish people. There are Jews from all over the world in Israel. There are Jews from India, Yemen, Ethiopia, Libya, Morocco, Armenia, Syria, Iraq, etc. in Israel
Posted by Shirah on 2009-04-28 15:11:16
Very impressively "written" CCI... which anti-Semitic website did you copy that screed from? As for Imran...you are such an open-minded, generous of spirit, kind of guy. After all, you do recognize the fact that Israel exists and will continue to do so (however unfortunate that may be from your point of view).But your ideological absolutism causes you to insist that Israel was born in utter sin - and that's all there is to it! It also leads you to look down your nose (with such dogmatic certainty that it very closely resembles fanaticism) at any and all people who see shades of gray (instead of oversimplified claptrap) and who believe that both Palestinians and Jews each have the RIGHT to a national homeland in Palestine. Go ahead, be my guest...have the last word with me - again. History has passed you by. In the end, there will be a two state settlement (hopefully sooner rather than later). And when it does actually happen, the many reasonable people on both sides will, for the most part, simply agree to disagree about their historical narratives and/or they will admit that both narratives contain some measure of truth. A small minority on both sides will keep on insisting they have "the truth" - and 100% of it, for that matter. You seem destined to keep on playing that song for the indefinite future. And given the proliferation of websites and online discussions that are out there, I'm sure you will find lots of opportunities to keep on doing so. Best of luck to you.
Posted by kenbrociner on 2009-04-28 10:29:49
Shirah, Not only are you not "reading me correctly" about Israel's "right to exist," but you are apparently not reading me at all. Here is my post, in full, directed to you just a few days ago. "Shirah, Recognizing that Zionists created a Jewish State in a land where the vast majority of the people were not Jewish does not "turn into a debate on Israel's right to exist." It simply recognizes the injustice of the Zionist Project against such non-Jewish indigenous population, as well as identify the motives of those who resisted it in the past, and continue to resist it today. If we are going to find a just and meaningful solution to the problem, we must understand its causes. The Palestinian resistance did not spring up out of nowhere. It is the direct result of the forcible dispossession of their land by European Jews fleeing European pogroms. Accepting this reality does not call Israel's "right to exist" into question, but is simply a recognition of what triggered the conflict in the first place, as a first step towards finding a solution. Today, if there is to be a solution, the question is not who gets what as a matter of "right" (to exist), but how much taken or occupied land Israel should get to keep, or be rewarded with, by virtue of its monopoly on overwhelming force. This will require Palestinians not kid themselves about the reality of a nuclear armed Israel, even on stolen land, and Zionists and their sympathizers not delude themselves about the "righteousness" of what is in essense Israeli imperialism. Posted by Imran on Apr 22, 2009 at 3:28 PM" Does this post deny either Israel or Palestine the "right to exist?" Try to keep up, and try not to project your caricatures of "the other" onto people who otherwise have a legitimate disagreement with you. And I'm not sure if you read my previous post about people throwing about the term "anti-semitism" in lieu of an actual argument (usually because they either don't have an argument, or are simply too intellectually lazy to come up with one), but thank you for proving my point.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-28 09:50:10
Zionism is in fact a nationalist perception that connotes Jewishness to race rather than to a religious belief. As such, Zionism is the belief that Zion ( Palestine) is the national homeland of the Jewish people. This strange belief is basically grounded on a Biblical promise. In other words, the Zionists transform the spiritual text (the Bible) into a mere land registry. But then one may ask, who are the Jewish people? From a Zionist perspective, Jews are those who happen to be racially Jewish. In fact, Zionism predates Nazism. Early Zionists spoke about Jewish blood and racial eugenics when Hitler was still in nappies. The problem is that while Zionism started as a marginal esoteric political movement and was highly criticised by most Jewish ideological and religious schools of thought, it is now touted as the official voice of the Jewish people. I tend to argue that many Jews, and this would include even the so called
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-04-28 09:17:16
Imran, first of all Evangelical Christians are too the right of most American Jews. They had more power than AIPAC during the Bush administration. When you said that AIPAC has a "stranglehold on congress", you were using classic antisemitic stereotype. No, I don't think that AIPAC has a stranglehold on Congress. If you think that a classic antiemitic stereotype is true then you're an antisemite. Most Americans are supportive of Israel and I'm sorrty that you can't accept that so you blame AIPAC. Go read David Duke's web site. He thinks AIPAC has a stranglehol on Congress too. Yes, J Street formed because some very liberal Jews felt unrepresented. AIPAC tends to support whatever Israeli government is in power. You have not simply criticized the Zionist project. You've denied Israel's right to exist. If I have read you correctly. The Zionist project has not been perfect and no one is saying that is was or is. Jews are human beings. That does not deny that a Jewish state needs to exist. I personally, don't agree with AIPAC on most of their current policies, but I don't always agree with JStreet either. I don't give money to or support either of them.
Posted by Shirah on 2009-04-27 19:20:59
And as for Ken's characterization of "having gone back and forth a few times" with me in the past, here is a link to that discussion which occurred on this website, so that people can decide for themselves whether it proves that my "hatred of Israel trumps everything else." http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/discuss/4261/israel_gaza_and_the_left/ It can also be accessed by clicking on Ken's article on this website, entitled "Israel Gaza and the Left," and then clicking the "extended discussion" section at the bottom of the article.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-27 10:42:59
Shirah, I am amazed that you would question AIPAC's stranglehold on US foreign policy. Nearly everyone on the "left" agrees that not only does AIPAC have such undue influence, but that it's advocacy of Neo-con/Likudite positions is a major impediment to a just and lasting peace, which harms rather than advances the long term interests of both the US and Israel. A brief perusal of progressive and anti-war websites will confirm this view. Even the formation of "J" Street reflects a knowledge of AIPAC's undue influence, and is an attempt by progessive Jews to counter it's Likudite policies. Your defense of AIPAC, by simply labelling as "anti-semitic" anyone who points out and wishes to counter such influence, calls into question not only your alleged progressive credentials, but also Ken's claim that your positions reflect "intelligence, clear logic and human decency." BTW, it cheapens the term "anti-semitism" when it is thrown about so carelessly (which often reflects either the lack of an actual argument and/or a deliberate mischaracterization of the term). While I have criticized the Zionist Project with some fervor, I have NOT criticized or demonized Jews. Your attempt to conflate the two is more in line with right-wing neo-con outlets, who regularly do so with the conscious attempt to obscure the issue and deceive, rather than to identify the root cause of the problem. It is not "hatred" to point out that a Jewish State was forcibly created against the wishes of the vast majority of the indigenous population, and that recognizing such reality is likely going to be a first step towards finding a just and meaningful peace. During the discussions about the merits of boycotting the apartheid regime, many apologists for such regime raised the same questions you raise now, whether a boycott of the apartheid regime should or would actually harm South African blacks. It did not fly then, it should not fly now. Welcome back Ken, I sincerely hope that you can find the time to stay and discuss this issue, if not to convince me, then as you say, for the benefit of others.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-27 09:28:39
kenbrociner LOLL you make me lougth you look like a naive Hasbara web commander LOLOLOLOL
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-04-26 19:16:33
Shirah, I just "tuned into" this discussion after having unplugged from it a while ago. I want to salute you for showing such intelligence, clear logic, human decency, and amazing patience in this debate. I suspect that the reason you are being so persistent is for the benefit of those who might be following along, rather than to try to open the minds of people like Imran and CCI whose hatred of Israel trumps everything else. Good for you! I myself have much more limited patience for any sort of dialogue with people like that. I have already gone back and forth a few times with Imran and, speaking only for myself, consider it not worth the aggravation. Keep up the great work - here and wherever else you are fighting the good fight. Ken Brociner
Posted by kenbrociner on 2009-04-26 09:55:46
Omar Barghouti is one of the leaders of the campaign for the boycott of Israeli universities. He is a founder of PACBI, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural boycott of Israel. He says that the boycott of Israel is
Posted by Shirah on 2009-04-25 06:53:30
If you use a cell phone or a computer, you are using technology invented in Israel. The company may have been bought out by an American company, but it was developed in Israel. How are you going to boycott these products. Israel also has an advanced medical and pharmaceutical organizations and businesses. Suppose you had a son or daughter with schizophrenia, would you boycott the medication developed in Israel that is the best yet developed with the least side affects?
Posted by Shirah on 2009-04-24 19:01:34
There you go again. The idea that AIPAC has a stranglehold on our elected officials is a classic antisemitic stereotype that one expects to hear from David Duke. I disagree with your assessment of what the Zionist left has offered the Palestinians.
Posted by Shirah on 2009-04-24 18:53:45
Shirah, While I do not deny that Jews from all over the world were able to avail themselves of the fruits of the Zionist Project to escape brutal persecution, that in no way justifies or excuses what in my opinion is the "original sin" of Zionism: the forcible creation of a Jewish State in a land where the overwhelming majority of the indigenous population was not Jewish. It would have been the same if these Zionists had forcibly created a Jewish State in the US, Europe or Uganda against their wishes. A Jewish state should not have come about at the expense of another people. As for the difference between Zionist extremists and the Zionist "Left," this has meant little to the Palestinians as far as the dispossession of their land is concerned. As pointed out by Daphna Bagram in the Guardian, "The fact of the matter is that the Israeli Labor Party has supported all the wars Israel has waged, and actually ran and instigated most of them...paying lip service to the division of Palestine while planning and propogating territorial expansionism and land-grabbing has been the policy of the Labor party ever since the early days of the Zionist movement..." I accept that negotiation is the most beneficial way to resolve this conflict. The problem is that both parties must perceive some gain from negotiation versus war: the party that can get everything it wants by force does not want or need negotiation. Israel has a monopoly on overwhelming force. It takes what it wants, and even when it "negotiates," it dictates rather than negotiates in good faith, using the inevitable rejection of such dictation as further excuse for more aggression. It has been unlimited US aid and political cover that has encouraged such Israeli misbehavior. While AIPAC has a stranglehold on our elected officials and our official policy, it is hoped that grassroots boycotts can have an effect. In the past, such grassroots boycotts were successful in South Africa, despite official US governmental support for the apartheid regime. The boycotts are worth trying, in spite of the questionable contention that they will only harm the "left." The Zionist "left" has so far offered the Palestinians ghettos in the West Bank and Gaza, and the obligation to kill fellow Palestinian discontents who won't accept such a "grand bargain." People might care more about the Zionist "left" if it were not so complicit in the Palestinian tragedy.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-24 15:27:04
That is ridiculous. Yes, you can be Jewish and even Israeli and be an antisemite. He has antisemitic and negative attitudes about Jews everywhere. I have met Black Americans who have racist ideas of Black people. Judaism is civilization, and Jews ARE an ethnic group. You can be an atheist and still be Jewish. "I look like a Zionist." Thank you, I will take that as the compliment that it is. I am a Zionist that supports a Palestinian state and who believes that the settlements should all be closed down. I have no problem with a Palestinian state next to Israel. Anyone who really wants to support peace, should instead be supporting group like One Voice that try to foster understanding between Jews and Palestinians.
Posted by Shirah on 2009-04-24 01:01:53
Shirah, Gilad Atzmon can't be antisemite he is an israeli - born and he consider himself a Palestinian and Palestinian are Semite too..... Jew is a religion not a race or ethnic group.... He is against Israel Zionist state create by the Holocasut ashes .....Why can't all Jews be like Gilad Atzmon? Were this to happen, then our earth would be tuned into Paradise...and yes you are right my color is anti zionist and PRO PALESTINA if you like it or not ....you look like a zionist
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-04-23 18:53:56
catauro cubano isleno, Gilad Atzmon is an antisemite. A real antisemite who hates all Jews, not just Israelis. You show your true colors by quoting him. Frank 67, If Israelis are like Nazis, why has the Palestinian population continued to grow every year? The Jews were devoted citizens of Germany. They never denied Germany's right to exist. They only wanted to be accepted as real Germans, but they never were. They never bombed anyone or killed German civilians.
Posted by Shirah on 2009-04-23 18:05:43
Imram, Jews were also fleeing Arab antisemitism. What do you know about what happened to Iraqi Jews in the 1940s? The faced an Iraqi Kristallnacht. Antisemitism in the Arab and Muslim world did not start in 1948. It started in the late 1800s with the Damascus Affair. Nearly half of all Israelis were born in Arab countries or are descendents of Jews from Arab countries. However, the Holocaust does prove that Jews need a state of own. The most assimilated and integrated Jews were German Jews, and we know what happened to them. I wasn't lying when I said that I can live in America because Israel exists. Jews must have a place where they can control their own destiny and for most Jews that place to control our destiny is our ancient homeland. The land could have been shared. Most Palestinians did not have to flee. Yes, I do not deny that some Palestinians had not choice, but they were not a majority. Jews in 1948 did not have overwhelming force. They barely had weapons. One of their major weapons was a fake rocket that only made a lot of noise. 70% of Israelis and Palestinians support a two-state solution. Most Israelis accept a Palestinian right to exist. They just have become disillusioned of the possibility of a peace treaty working right now under the current circumstances. A boycott won't work. I repeat that a boycott of Israeli academics will end up being a boycott of Israeli Jewish academics or are you going to boycott Israeli Arab academics too? I don't think so. Jews were once considered international pariahs. The modern version is to declare Israeli Jews international pariahs. Israelis will just conclude they are hated and there isn't much they can do about it. It also weakens the left and the peace movement in Israel.
Posted by Shirah on 2009-04-23 18:01:07
Recognizing these realities, as opposed to "rights," seems to me to be a necessary prerequisite, rather than a disqualification from having a meaningful opinion about the merits of a boycott. As side note, I would note that these "rights" notably and voloubly seem to exist only on the Israeli side - when was the last time you heard that the Israelis must publicly declare and recognize Palestine's "right to exist" as a precondition to talks (and that Israeli security forces should take action against elected Knesset members who question such Palestinian right to exist)? Should those who deny such right to Palestine also not have a meaningful opinion about the merits of a boycott?
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-22 10:58:22
Shirah, Recognizing that Zionists created a Jewish State in a land where the vast majority of the people were not Jewish does not "turn into a debate on Israel's right to exist." It simply recognizes the injustice of the Zionist Project against such non-Jewish indigenous population, as well as identify the motives of those who resisted it in the past, and continue to resist it today. If we are going to find a just and meaningful solution to the problem, we must understand its causes. The Palestinian resistance did not spring up out of nowhere. It is the direct result of the forcible dispossession of their land by European Jews fleeing European pogroms. Accepting this reality does not call Israel's "right to exist" into question, but is simply a recognition of what triggered the conflict in the first place, as a first step towards finding a solution. Today, if there is to be a solution, the question is not who gets what as a matter of "right" (to exist), but how much taken or occupied land Israel should get to keep, or be rewarded with, by virtue of its monopoly on overwhelming force. This will require Palestinians not kid themselves about the reality of a nuclear armed Israel, even on stolen land, and Zionists and their sympathizers not delude themselves about the "righteousness" of what is in essense Israeli imperialism.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-22 09:28:32
The academic boycott is an interesting example of why the boycott won't work. It will end up being a boycott of Israeli Jews. It boycotts the most liberal and dovish part of the population. It is trying to end the Vietnam war by boycotting Berkeley. It is unfortunate that any discussion of Israel turns into a debate on Israel's right to exist. I can't respect the opinion of whether to boycott Israel or not from people who don't think that Israel ought to exist. I would like to point out that there are more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Palestinian refugees from Israel. It is necessary for a Jewish state to exist where Jews have control of their destiny. I can live in America because Israel exists. If Israel did not exist, I would be there creating a Palestinian state. The German Jews were the most assimilated and integrated Jews in Europe and look what happened to them.
Posted by Shirah on 2009-04-21 18:40:44
And as for miriam's assesment of the Zionist Project being some sort of a "democratic" utopia for non-Jews in the Middle East, here is an article highlighting the dicotomy between being a "Jewish" state versus being a "democratic" one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/israelandthepalestinians-israeli-elections-2009 (NOTE please delete extra space and - before "israeli-elections"). The Zionist Project was brain child of 19th and 20th century European Jews, deciding amongst themselves, to create a Jewish State in a land where the vast majority of its inhabitants were not Jewish. They did this without even consulting, much less securing the consent of such indigenous population. Everything that has followed was a forseeable consequence of this act. While we cannot erase the crimes that have been committed against the Palestinians, we can certainly stop financing further aggression, as well as encourage the Israelis to deal with the Palestinians in a just and meaningful way. I agree with Naomi that coordinated boycotts can be part of an effective overall strategy to acheive this result.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-14 11:05:21
Miriam for the love of your God, go and read something useful you read to much bullshit Hasbara information.... go and READ!!! Illan Pape, Gilad Aztmon , Norman Finkelstein GOOOOOOOOO EDUCATE YOURSELF
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-04-10 21:04:02
I've said for a long time that the Israelies are the New Nazies. They treat the Palestinians the same way the Germans treated the European Jews. The only thing missing is the ovens.
Posted by frank67 on 2009-04-10 14:16:53
I never claimed that the census used the term "Palestinian." My statement, if you read it carefully, says that that there were only about 24,000 Jews among a Palestinian population of 500,000. This total included Christians, Muslims, Jews and others. But at no point prior the Zionist-inspired immigration of the early part of the 20th Century did Jews constitute anything more than a tiny minority of the "indigenous population." Try to keep up. I am amazed that you are arguing this point, as even the most committed of Zionists admitted that there were going to be difficulties with creating a Jewish state in a land where the vast majority of the inhabitants were not Jewish. Are you truly not familiar with the verbal gymnastics Zionists engaged in about the population "transfers" that were going to be necessary to create this Jewish State? At least some Zionists were honest about it. See: http://www.monabaker.com/quotes.htm And nobody here buys that criticizing Zionism is the same as "anti-semitism." Save it for Fox News (or shall I say "faux news"). While right-wing outlets conflate the two with the conscience intent to deceive, the left mostly tries not to. It is NOT "anti-semitic" to point out that it is wrong to create a state against the wishes of the vast majority of the indigenous population. While I do not deny that European Jews were escaping horrible persecution, this does not give them a blank check to steal the land of others. An emotional "connection" dating back to 70 AD, along tiny resident minorities (which I might add were encouraged, despite your Islamaphobia, by the Islamic rulers of Spain, the Ottomans and Saladin), does not trump the nearly two thousand years of actual residence by the vast majority of the indigenous population, which included, and continues to include, Muslims and Christians opposed to the Zionist project.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-09 15:56:22
The Jewish people were kicked out of Israel, their temple destroyed in 70AD. They never stopped going back to Palestine--the name imposed on the region by the Romans. In modern time, during the first wave of ALiyah, Zionists purchased land from absentee landlords. In any event, even today, Arab muslims in Israel who want to sell land to Jews cannot because their own leaders threaten them with death. Please, if you haven't even been to Israel or lived there, been to Gaza or the Sinai or the West Bank, save your breath. And a people in diaspora ALWAYS has a connection to a homeland. WHere was your righteous indignation for the "Palestinians" when Jordan occupied the West Bank pre-67, or when Egypt occuppied Gaza then as well? Please take your anti-Semitic rantings elsewhere. It's obvious that you have a double standard and self determination is only for those whom you feel are deserving through some subjective standard and not through any rational observation of facts and history. As for the Vatican, it's completely ridiculous to compare strained relations between Israel and the Vatican over soveriegnty of holy places and passports when the CHristians who live under muslim rule in the Palestinian Territories (let alone the entire Middle East) are under oppresion, and in many instances, don't even have the right to pray in the privacy of their own homes (eg Saudi Arabia). Feel free to look up the history of the Gran Mufti of Jerusalem paling around with Hitler, since evidently, you feel it's a shame that nothing productive evolved out of that partnership.
Posted by Miriam on 2009-04-09 14:12:56
whatever history you're reading is already wrong because there were no "Palestinians" in the land before 48. The Census classified individuals based on religion or ethnicity: Jewish, Arab, etc. That you're selecting a narrative of a census that uses the term 'Palestinian" demonstrates your ignorance. As mentioned above, the British classified Jews as Palestinians on their passports.
Posted by Miriam on 2009-04-09 13:43:59
Miriam again this is for you EDUCATE yourself! please!!!!!!!!! Israel exists as an illegally imposed by force and genocide 'entity' of foreign powers against the UN founding Charter. Also against the expressed will and wishes of the Palestinians who've resided there in relative peace for thousands of years. The Zionists, being primarily East European have no connection with the land or the people who occupied and farmed it all along. The Zionists have absolutely NO RIGHT to displace any people from their own homelands. Go and read something else!!!
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-04-09 10:25:19
Wow, where to begin with Miriam? "Arab/Muslim strategy?" Are you serious? Did you know that George Habash of the PFLP was a Christian? Did you know that the Vatican did not have full diplomatic relations with Israel until 1994 because of its mistreatment of Catholics, many of whom in their bad forture happened to be Palestinian Arabs? Your statement tell us more about your biases against Muslims and Arabs than anything you may claim to know about "strategies." As for the "indigeneous people" of the region, there are census records from the period that were kept by both the British and the Ottomans. In 1882, Palestine had a small, native and migrant religious Jewish community of roughly 24,000 among a Palestinian population of nearly 500,000. Prior to the Zionist inspired immigration of the early part of the 20th century, Jews never made up more than a tiny fraction of the native population of Palestine during the previous two thousand year period. But these European Jews, fleeing 20th-Century European pogroms, are the true "indigenous people?" Who is being the "revisionist?" People are slowly realizing that these Zionist myths are not only inaccurate, but actually counterproductive to finding a just and meaningful peace.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-08 14:54:07
Coordinated boycotts are part of an overall Arab/Muslim strategy of non-recognition of Israel's existence. of course, if one chooses to boycott israel, make sure not to use your Pentium intel chip in your PC, since Intel Israel developed it. And don't use your motorola phone. In fact, stay away from non-invasive breast cancer detection techniques developed at the Weizman Insttitute in Rehovot, and make sure that certain types of drip irrigation prevelant in North American and Europe are not used to grow the food you eat. when you look at the population and history of cities in Israel such as Jerusalem, Beersheva, Haifa, Tiberias and Tzfat these all had Majority Jewish populations throughout the history of Israel/Jewish diaspora. Of course, the preferred dominant narrative of the territory is the revisionist version that depicts "Palestinians" as the indigenous people, despite 1) the above, and 2) Jews having "Palestinian" on their passports and birth certificates pre-1948. The PLO came into existence in 1964--3 years before the Six Day War. So what, precisely, were they trying to "liberate?" The only goal of pro-palestinian leadership is to see the eradication of a Jewish state from historical Jewish territitory, not the establishment of any democratic arab or non-secular Israel/Palestinian country.
Posted by Miriam on 2009-04-07 21:23:46
Coordinated boycotts should be part of an overall stragegy to modify Israeli behavior and encourage them to seek a just settlement. It has been decades of unlimited aid and political cover provided by the US that has allowed Israel to avoid dealing with the Palestinians in a meaningful manner. Israel may choose to do as it pleases, but we in the US should not finance or encourage Israeli activities that do not enhance our interests in the region. While AIPAC may have a stranglehold on our elected officials, grass-roots boycotts are a way for the people to get involved directly and try to make a difference on their own.
Posted by Imran on 2009-04-07 11:03:37
Miriam Israel is a Zionist settlers
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-04-06 11:09:48
Israel has been nothing but trouble for the rest of the Middle East for the past six decades, and I wish that the U.S. had simply ignored it from 1948 onwards. Israel belongs on any objective list of nations sponsoring terrorism.
Posted by patrick hattman on 2009-04-05 17:19:32
Partition in 1947. Typo
Posted by Miriam on 2009-04-05 16:09:01
Sure, I know nothing. Like the UN Resolution 181that actually partitioned Israel into two states. Ha ha, remember that? A two state solution in 1974? Remember that the Babylonians exiled the Jews, or that the Romans finished off the Kingdom of Israel in 70AD? Israel, when founded, was attacked by the surrounding arab states. They're the ones that violated an international agreement instituting the State of Israel. When Egypt closed the straits of Tehran and kicked out the UN peace keeping force in 67, it wasn't breaking any international law or demonstrating a lack of civilized behavior under your paradigm of it. Nice double standard. Israel is smaller than New Jersey. Where do you want the Jews to go? They've been kicked out of most countries in the history of western civilization, ghettoed, or treated as second class citizens. Having lived there on a Fulbright scholarship, having been in classes with a diverse student body, having seen first hand the incredible treatment of Palestinians by Israeli doctors, having seen schools and buses blown up by Arab terrorists who don't want peace for their own people but only destruction of the Jewish state, then I can say I know exactly what I'm talking about and you are the one that is completely misinformed--and selectively so.
Posted by Miriam on 2009-04-05 16:08:14
wow Miriam you do not know nothing...Israel a nation that has violated every norm of civilized behavior and international law since its founding in 1948. wacth this documentary when you have time http://video.google.de/videoplay...819867080& hl=de and we can talk but you are deth wrong
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-04-05 15:45:19
Wow, great. Let's boycott the only democracy in the region. If Israel is SOOOO bad, how come all the Muslim and Christian citizens aren't boycotting Jewish owned shops and restaurants? If Israel is SOooo bad ,then why are Arab Muslims running for Parliament? Israel is a free country and gives the most amount of Aid to the Palestinians following the US and Jordan. They're not under any legal or moral obligation to do so because theirs was a small country partitioned by the UN in 1947. Back then, Israel had less territory then it did after the Muslim Arab states attacked it, and lost, in 1967. It's tough luck on those refugees. But time to start getting the UN and all the donor agencies to monitor where money goes in the PA (eg cronyism) instead of accusing Israel of Apartheid. It's really sick and twisted to accuse Israel of that when those living inside Israel have full citizenship, and the refugees are not citizens but are being portrayed as such (2nd class). They're not citizens by default . Futhermore, UNWRA still classifies 1.8M citizens of Jordan as Palestinian Refugees. There is something wrong and it's not Israel's fault for existing. Anyone who knows the history of Apartheid AND the history of Israel (like, Jewish sovereignty there predates muslims', and Jews are indigenous to Israel/Palestine) needs to give up the facade.
Posted by Miriam on 2009-04-05 14:42:02
quoteIn her syndicated column, Klein wrote,
Posted by catauro cubano isleno on 2009-03-31 18:23:12
Read this next
Iran and the Myth of Anti-Semitism