Sharon again reneges on promises, expands illegal West Bank outposts, settlements
The Guardian reports,
Months after Ariel Sharon announced his dramatic plan to pull Jewish settlers out of Gaza, portraying it as a sacrifice for peace, the government is grabbing more land for West Bank settlements.
Israeli peace groups and Palestinian officials say thousands of homes are under construction in the main settlements, in addition to an expansion of Jewish outposts that are illegal under Israeli law. Mr Sharon has promised the US he will dismantle the outposts, which are usually clusters of containers or trailer homes serviced by government-built roads, but has failed to do so.
[…]Dror Etkes, head of Settlement Watch, said that the expansion of Jewish outposts and continuing house building since Mr Sharon announced his plan in December was evidence that the government was seeking more territory.
I believe the word is “disputed West Bank outposts” not “illegal.”
John,
Do you ever post anything nice about Jews? What’s your purpose here on Jew*School?
velvel wrote:
I believe the word is “disputed West Bank outposts” not “illegal.”
Well, you would be wrong on that point – see any of the coverage in the Jerusalem Post, Ha’aretz, Maariv, Israel Insider, etc.
–Israel submits list of illegal outposts to US – JPost
–Bush is right: Illegal outposts must come down – Israel Insider
–U.S. grows impatient over illegal outposts – Ha’aretz
–Government, settlers close to compromise on illegal outposts – Maariv
velvel continued:
Do you ever post anything nice about Jews? What’s your purpose here on Jew*School?
Hmm.. Maybe you should have a look in the mirror, my friend. What’s your purpose here on Jew*School ? Cuz I see you posting not-nice things here about left wing Jews regularly. Shouldn’t you be posting nice things about us or something?
See some of my earlier JewSchool stories:
Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and the place in history of American Jews
or
Facing Reality
I think those are nice things about Jews.
I disagree on the niceness, and the legality.
Velvel wrote: I believe the word is “disputed West Bank outposts” not “illegal.” Brown Babylonian wrote: Well, you would be wrong on that point.
I think it’s just a wording issue. Chris McGreal, and each of the articles Brown Babylonian cites, is careful to distinguish between the main settlements and outposts that are illegal under Israeli law. Brown Babylonian refers to these as illegal West Bank outposts, settlements; the sources he cites suggest that this really should have been West Bank settlements, illegal outposts, or disputed settlements, illegal outposts in West Bank, etc.
Maybe you should have a look in the mirror, my friend. What’s your purpose here on Jew*School ? You’re missing his point: Velvel doesn’t post to Jewschool, only to its comments sections. You do. So, unlike Velvel, you set the agenda and tone for the Web site. That’s the difference between you.
See some of my earlier JewSchool stories: Brit Tzedek v’Shalom and the place in history of American Jews or Facing Reality. I think those are nice things about Jews. Yes, 2003 was a good year for you. But I think he was referring to the image of Israel that emerges from your posts — a one-dimensional Axis of Evil that is incapable of good, stripped of humanity, absent of culture, and without any existence except as an insidious and illegal presence in the Middle East.
Of the two posts from the fall of 2003 that you dredge up against Velvel’s criticism, though, one of them (re Brit Tzedek) is relevant imho, because here you actually suggest a step forward and, not coincidentally, an alternative to the endless bad-bad-Israel (or bad-bad-religion) drivel we can hear from a thousand Web sites. You might want to try more of that; it’d give your posts a more interesting sheen that would help the endless cutting-and-pasting and courageous stands against Islam — or against multiethnic anti-racism coalitions — fade into the background.
8opus wrote:
“Chris McGreal, and each of the articles Brown Babylonian cites, is careful to distinguish between the main settlements and outposts that are illegal under Israeli law.”
I didn’t call the settlements illegal in that headline. That’s why there is a comma between ‘illegal outposts’ and ‘settlements’.
But, as a matter of fact, the settlements are illegal, if not under Israeli law then under International law which Israel has agreed to be bound to.
1) Under the UN Charter there can lawfully be no territorial gains from war, even by a state acting in self-defense.
2) Furthermore all settlements in territories occupied in the 1967 war are a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which Israel has signed, and which the Knesset ratified in 1951.
8opus continued:
“But I think he was referring to the image of Israel that emerges from your posts — a one-dimensional Axis of Evil that is incapable of good, stripped of humanity, absent of culture, and without any existence except as an insidious and illegal presence in the Middle East. ”
Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I have absolutely no problem with the vast majority of Israelis who – according to polls I’ve read – are secular, want peace and are willing to dismantle all the settlements. It’s just the right-wingnuts I object to.
I have no idea where you’re getting this “incapable of good, stripped of humanity, absent of culture” stuff, because I’ve never written anything remotely resembling that.
I have never hidden the fact that I do have a problem with the concept of a non-secular Jewish state, but I have the same problem with Muslim states and Christian states, or any state where one ethnicity has more rights than the next.
8opus continued:
“You’re missing his point: Velvel doesn’t post to Jewschool”
Oh really? I could have sworn that I read his comment that I replied to on Jew*School
You read me in the comment section. Not on Jewschool. A commenter isn’t a poster. This isn’t my venue. This is a comment. Take some responsibility for yourself. You can ignore me just like we ignore “unknown [[email protected]]”
What is it you want out of Israel?
velvel wrote:
“You read me in the comment section. Not on Jewschool. ”
Yeah, the comment section on Jew*School, which also sets the tone of the site
“A commenter isn’t a poster.”
This is a game of semantics. The words end up on the same page, do they not?
“This isn’t my venue.”
nor is it mine – I am simply a guest here
velvel continued:
What is it you want out of Israel?
Not much, other than:
I’d like the government of Israel to stop fucking up, to stop making all Jews look bad, and to stop causing my hometown to be attacked by terrorists. And it would be nice if the Israeli government would stop claiming to act in the name of the Jewish people, since it doesn’t.
Oh really? I could have sworn that I read his comment that I replied to on Jew*School. You’re still missing the point, I’m afraid; you’re confusing the main site with its Comments section.
I didn’t call the settlements illegal in that headline. That’s why there is a comma between ‘illegal outposts’ and ‘settlements’. Yes — as I say, a question of wording. You wrote “illegal West Bank outposts, settlements”. Some will interpret this as meaning “outposts and settlements, all of which in the West Bank, all of which illegal”. You’re saying they should have interpreted it as meaning “outposts, in the West Bank, illegal; settlements, unspecified location, unspecified legality”. Clearer wording would make this obvious to everyone. Not a big deal.
As to the additional discussion you seem to be trying to open as to whether the disputed West Bank settlements are or are not in fact illegal, suffice it to say that I am cognizant the matter is not settled, think it obvious that the points you raise above hardly settle the matter, and feel strongly that they are a bad idea. Ultimately scoring “points” of international law is unlikely to settle the matter; the more important thing is what’s right, and what works. Settlements fall into neither category.
I have absolutely no problem with the vast majority of Israelis who – according to polls I’ve read – are secular, want peace and are willing to dismantle all the settlements. It’s just the right-wingnuts I object to. We weren’t talking about Israelis; we were talking about Israel. That said, this is not about you; it’s about what you write. Over the course of posting, a picture emerges. The picture may or may not correspond to what you think. More feedback may help you paint a more accurate picture, of course.
I have never hidden the fact that I do have a problem with the concept of a non-secular Jewish state, but I have the same problem with Muslim states and Christian states, or any state where one ethnicity has more rights than the next. This is an old debate.
You’re saying that nation-state (Greece, Turkey, Israel, Somalia and, of course, the United Nations) means that some ethnicities have more rights than the next. I’ve argued repeatedly that that’s just plain wrong, given examples of why, and stressed that acting as a nation-state is never an excuse for not granting minority rights. Along the same lines, I’ve noted that the State of Israel in fact grants its minorities significantly fuller rights than many nation-states, including all of the ones I listed (somewhat randomly) above.
That said, I doubt we want to rehash that particular debate. The point I was making is that there are different ways to critique. One way is to suggest alternatives, ie ways in whcih Israel’s policies should be changed. You’re welcome to do that in the posts you make to Jewschool but, obviously, that’s a choice you’ll have to make.
I’d like the government of Israel to stop fucking up, to stop making all Jews look bad, and to stop causing my hometown to be attacked by terrorists. And it would be nice if the Israeli government would stop claiming to act in the name of the Jewish people, since it doesn’t.
This is so vague as to be meaningless; it also attributes to the Israeli government a power that it does not have, regarding its capacity to stop anyone from attacking (unnamed, as it happens) towns. On that last point, though, I must admit to being curious, because it’s something I hear a lot, especially from anti-Zionists, by which I mean those who call for Israel to be dismantled and the Jewish people denied their right to self-determination.
What does it mean? As a Jew, I must confess I’ve never felt that everything the Israeli government does is somehow done with my implied approval — and I’ve never imagined anyone else does, either. What does it mean to say that the Israeli government claims to act in the name of the Jewish people? Does it mean something different than what happens when the Greek government acts, or the Italian, or Brazilian, or Guyanese governments?
Are you saying Israel is causing people to jump on buses with explosive belts? If you are, I’m saying that’s misguided and there are a line of people to blame before you get to anyone of Jewish or Israeli origin.
FWIW,
MrBrown, if you’re a real leftist, then you’ll care about what the Palestinian Arabs say. They consistently portray the difference between Zionist Imperialist settlements (in Yesha) and Illegal Zionist Imperialist settlements (within the green line).
Why the difference? Because they don’t claim Yesha and don’t want it. Their story is that they want to ‘return’ to ‘their’ pre-’48 homes and land within the green line and to the Israeli cities that were illegally built on their land.
Another thing is that as much as Sharon is making a farce out of Israeli democracy, Israel still is a democarcy with a parliament, ministries, and laws. Sharon though playing the part, has no real dictatorial powers (that would seem only convenient for lefties when he carries out their policies) and the knesset must approve action. Maybe Arafat can wave his arm and say hocus-pocus, but Sharon still has rules to play by, in the meantime. He ‘announced a plan’, he ‘promised’, so what? The plan was one he ridiculed and derided in order to get into power, so he his also lied (again, only convenient when it’s for leftist policies).
What a nice double-standard world you live in MrBrown.
8opus wrote:
“it also attributes to the Israeli government a power that it does not have, regarding its capacity to stop anyone from attacking (unnamed, as it happens) towns”
My home town is NYC. Surely you remember the terror attack on 9/11 ?
8opus continued:
“What does it mean to say that the Israeli government claims to act in the name of the Jewish people?”
Well for instance. The land of Israel, as well as settlement land, is owned by the quasi-governmental Jewish National Fund (http://www.jnf.org).
If you read the Guardian article, it quoted Jeff Halper of the Israeli Coalition against House Demolitions as saying:
“The land was taken by the Jewish National Fund,” said Jeff Halper, a veteran Israeli campaigner against settlement expansion. “Almost every house has a demolition order.”
What is the first thing you read when you go to the JNF site ?
Jewish National Fund is the caretaker of the land of Israel, on behalf of its owners – Jewish People everywhere.
The Greek, Italian, Brazilian or Guyanese governments act in the name of their citizens no matter what their ethnicity or religion is. Not in the name of people who have never lived in their respective countries, as the majority of Jews have never lived in Israel, and show no desire to.
here are some quotes from official Israeli government sources, and Israeli law:
“Furthermore, the State of Israel, the State of the Jewish people and a democracy, is the spiritual center for…[blah blah]”
president.gov.il
” The State of Israel, [b]the state of the Jewish people[/b], which is celebrating 55 years of its independence was established so that …[blah blah]”
Israeli ministry of Foreign Affairs
“Amendment No 9 of [Israel’s Basic] law, which was passed on July 31, 1985, states that a [political party] may not participate in the elections if there is in its goals or actions a denial of the existence of the State of Israel as [b]the state of the Jewish people[/b], a denial of the democratic nature of the state, or …[blah blah]”
Knesset site
oops, neglected to turn off underlining.. sorry
“I have never hidden the fact that I do have a problem with the concept of a non-secular Jewish state”
You’re not really the problem though, are you? What about all those Palestinian and Israeli Muslims that *do* have a trouble accepting the reality of a secular Jewish state? For the record, I currently live in a secular Christian state (there are quite a few of these). It’s “ok”.
“I’d like the government of Israel to stop fucking up, to stop making all Jews look bad, and to stop causing my hometown to be attacked by terrorists. And it would be nice if the Israeli government would stop claiming to act in the name of the Jewish people, since it doesn’t.”
It has already been pointed out that this is an absurd and irresponsible point of view but…
I’ve never met “Israel” but if you see him, could you ask it to point out for the rest of us where it claims “to act in the name of the Jewish people”? I mean cuz, “it doesn’t”! Hrmmph.
Also where exactly is your hometown? Do you have any pictures of these Israeli catapults that sling Arab suicide bombers at you and your neighbors? A cabal of capitalist swine calling themselves “Pan Am” fired Arabs at my home town a few years ago (2001). However, a lot of peole think Israel is responsible for this too…that’s why I’d appreciate any information you could send my way.
“Jewish National Fund is the caretaker of the land of Israel, on behalf of its owners – Jewish People everywhere’
This statement says that the “land of Israel” is owned “by Jewish people everywhere” and that the JNF takes care of this land. Nowhere does this statement suggest that the Israeli government claims to act for all Jews.
Instead of typing blah blah blah why don’t you try making sense?
“Furthermore, the State of Israel, the State of the Jewish people and a democracy, is the spiritual center for the Jewish people in the Diaspora. Thousands of Jewish communities in the worldwide Diaspora feel a spiritual connection to the State of Israel through their connection to the President of the State and the institution of the Presidency.”
This is different than “the Israeli government claims to act for all Jews.” Don’t project your own hang-ups (whatever they are) on the rest of the “Jewish people” (whoever they are). And don’t lie.
Also (as above is) from your link: president.gov.il
“Socially, it is clear that a society as replete with controversy as Israeli society finds it difficult to focus on shared symbols, and this is vital to the functioning of a civilian society. Inasmuch as the President of the State is also the address for appeals from minorities and different sectors of the population, the President can alleviate the sense of alienation from society for these citizens and can lessen their sense of deprivation, raising their problems for consideration as part of the national agenda.
Unfortunately, in the present Israeli reality, there is not full cohesion and identification of all of the citizens of the State with the symbols of State, such as the flag and the national anthem.”
The information (at the link you yourself provided) appears to refute your position quite dramatically. You should read this stuff before you post it, no? Or are you just a flip obscurantist?
ok girls and boys (particularly john “i hate israel” brown), a little lesson in international law with regard to “disputed territories” v. “illegal outposts”. it is long established international law that territory won in a defensive war is justifyably the victors: or how else do we explain the current boundries of russia, poland, germany, hungary, romania, etc. all established post wwii as a result of winners retaining their winnings? and further, since the west bank has not been a nation since the original israel, and last belonged to colonial power claiming permanent ownership back when turkey had it, there is no established state to claim their territory has been taken away, rather there is a west bank territory with disputed ownership between a country with a several thousand year claim to ownership + a claim to ownership based on a victorious defensive war; v. a west bank indigenous arab population attempting to establish a state in that territory. the solution is obvious, israel will take the 10 to 20% of the west bank she needs for defense purposes, and the palestinians can have a state in the remaining portion, where they will be free to sink to the level of yemen or the sudan as their little souls desire.
“…there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention “is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign.” In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948. Jordan’s 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.
International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense…”
http://www.israelactivism.com
John Brown is officially nuts (worse off than me I’m afraid). Check out his blog: http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/
“JERUSALEM, July 26. — Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu has said Jerusalem was behind the assassination of President John F Kennedy, who was exerting pressure on the then Jewish head of the state to shed light on the Dimona nuclear plant.”
And his number one fan comments:
“Vanunu’s allegations coincide with evidence from a ground-breaking book by Michael Collins Piper called “Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy,” which details numerous connections between the murder of President Kennedy, the CIA, FBI, the Mafia, Organized Crime Boss Meyer Lansky, the Israeli Lobby and Mossad, the Israeli secret service.”
I’m sorry but if “Jewschool offers a wide array of opinions coming from a number of perspectives on Judaism and Zionism, all of which are equally valid” then the Nazis were really aliens. Just because the LGFers are right wing Bush nuts doesn’t make this shit “valid”. Grow up. Fast.
I complained that Brown Babylonian’s comment attributes to the Israeli government a power that it does not have, regarding its capacity to stop anyone from attacking (unnamed, as it happens) towns; he responds that my home town is NYC. Er, thanks for letting us know. As to his plea for the government of Israel … to stop causing New York City to be attacked by terrorists — well, colour me surprised. This is the kind of drivel that passes for thought these days?
It gets weirder, though: I asked Brown Babylonian what he meant in saying that the Israeli government claims to act in the name of the Jewish people, and how that was different than what happens when the Greek government acts, or the Italian, or Brazilian, or Guyanese governments. His response? Various quotes showing that the State of Israel was founded as the state of the Jewish people! (He also talked at length about the JNF, though it’s hard to understand why.)
As to Israel being linked to the Jewish people: yes, that’s how international law works. But the rules of international law are quite dramatically different than the Brown Babylonian’s claim that somehow the Israeli government pretends to act on behalf of Brown Babylonian and all the rest of the world’s Jews. What’s more, Brown Babylonian even adds that this is somehow different than other governments which act in the name of their citizens no matter what their ethnicity or religion is. Not in the name of people who have never lived in their respective countries, as the majority of Jews have never lived in Israel, and show no desire to.
I’ll go real slow for Brown Babylonian: nation-states both claim a responsibility to certain nations, and to all their citizens. It’s not really that complicated.
In fact, it’s how most democracies operate today. Here’s how it works. When the Israeli government makes laws, those laws are binding on all Israeli citizens, no matter what their ethnicity or religion in — and that the Israeli government makes laws goes back to the right of Israel to exist, in the name of the principle of the self-determination of the Jewish people. Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, last time I looked.
Contrary to Brown Babylonian’s strange assertions the government of, oh, I don’t know, Greece acts the same way. Here’s the Greek government’s take on its diaspora; unsurprisingly, Greece takes great pains to ensure the continuity of its historic language and culture. Sometimes this has led to depriving ethnic minorities of their rights (see Humans Rights Watch’s take here) — but that’s something that Greek democracy is fully capable of overcoming. One day ethnic minorities in Greece may enjoy the same rights that ethnic minorities in Israel hold today.
In the meantime, this whole “speaking for all the Jews everywhere” silliness should really be avoided — it’s patently false, clearly misleading, and obviously deceptive. Why not stick to honest arguments? They’re more persuasive.
Jonny the Jewish Hell’s Angel wrote:
“What about all those Palestinian and Israeli Muslims that *do* have a trouble accepting the reality of a secular Jewish state? For the record, I currently live in a secular Christian state (there are quite a few of these). It’s “ok”.”
What’s a secular Jewish state ? That’s an oxymoron. The word secular means Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body. So a state can’t be both Jewish and secular, or both Christian and secular. That’s like saying you live in a water-free ocean.
“This statement [from the JNF website] says that the “land of Israel” is owned “by Jewish people everywhere” “
Yes including the settlements. the JNF claims all diaspora Jews are the “owners” of the settlements as well as Israel proper. That’s what I mean by acting in our name. The Israeli government and the JNF just stole 60+ more acres in the past 3 months, on top of all the other land, and it claims on the front page of its website that this land is MY property. Why don’t they claim it’s the property of all Israeli citizens and stop blaming diaspora Jews for its crimes ?
avi green wrote:
“it is long established international law that territory won in a defensive war is justifyably the victors: or how else do we explain the current boundries of russia, poland, germany, hungary, romania, etc. all established post wwii as a result of winners retaining their winnings?”
hahahahaha
This wins the booby prize for least well-thought out argument of the day.
How else do we explain the boundaries of Russia, Poland , Hungary etc? Hello! Sounds like someone needs a lesson in basic history.
The 2 pieces of Law I quoted were the Geneva conventions of [b]1949[/b], and the UN Charter – both of those came after WWII, see? And you’re claiming that what the Soviets did in [b]1942-45/6[/b], during and just after the war – but predating the 4th Geneva Convention and the UN is “international law” ? The kind of shit the Soviets pulled is the whole reason that the UN was set up! You’re trying to tell me that the Soviet occupation of Poland and Hungary was OK with you?? “lesson in international law” indeed!
Man, thanks for the laugh. I never knew that international law is “whatever the Soviets did before the UN was founded is legal today, despite having signed multiple agreements that nobody would ever do anything like that again”
8opus wrote:
“He also talked at length about the JNF, though it’s hard to understand why”
If you don’t get that basic point, then maybe you should go back and read the article that started this whole thread ? It has been reported that the JNF claims to “own” the land of the settlements in question, as per its website “on behalf of its owners – Jewish people everywhere”
8opus continued:
“I’ll go real slow for Brown Babylonian: nation-states both claim a responsibility to certain nations, and to all their citizens. It’s not really that complicated. “
If Israel was like the other examples (Greece, etc) then the land of Israel would be held by the JNF “on behalf of its owners – Israeli citizens” not “on behalf of its owners – Jewish people everywhere”
8opus distorted thusly:
“One day ethnic minorities in Greece may enjoy the same rights that ethnic minorities in Israel hold today. ”
That’s a joke.
The land of Greece is not held in trust by a quasi governmental organization “on behalf of its owners – Ethnic Greeks everywhere” is it ? No, I didn’t think it was.
What’s a secular Jewish state ? That’s an oxymoron. Er, no — it’s recognition of the Jewish people qua people. Do you have a problem with that?
It has been reported that the JNF claims to “own” the land of the settlements in question, as per its website “on behalf of its owners – Jewish people everywhere” You sound confused on several levels.
As to the JNF’s relevance to the Israeli government speaking on my behalf: the JNF is not a government. It is not a country. It is an organisation. (As it happens, the israeli government has a relationship with the JNF that I don’t like; these policies should be changed. But, then, that’s hardly novel: the U.S. government has a relationship with Moodys and Standard & Poors that I don’t like, and nobody — last time I checked — had called S&P a branch of the U.S. government.)
As to the settlements being part of the State of Israel: um, no; you’ve made several arguments, parts of which I agree with, as to how they’re not.
And — even overlooking the surprising slippages that lead you to confuse non-governmental action in the Palestinian Territories for governmental action in the State of Israel — you seem to be confusing rhetoric for facts. But, hey, prove me wrong: phone up the JNF, tell them you’re Jewish, and explain you’d like your land back. See what happens.
But let’s bring it back home. All this is your explanation of why you claim the State of Israel’s actions are purportedly done with my approval and yours? You’ll forgive me, but the link seems more than a little bit tenuous to me.
Parenthetically: The land of Greece is not held in trust by a quasi governmental organization “on behalf of its owners – Ethnic Greeks everywhere” is it ? No, I didn’t think it was. Er, nor is Israel. But, then, you can’t tell the difference between a government and an NGO, nor between Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
“One day ethnic minorities in Greece may enjoy the same rights that ethnic minorities in Israel hold today. ” – That’s a joke. Really? In Israel ethnic minorities are allowed to affirm their identities, go to school in their own language, and so forth — unlike, say, the Turks of Greece. After all, just what did you think HRW meant (link above) when it said that the Greek state hasfor the most part been unable to accept the fact that one can be a loyal Greek citizen and, at thesame time, an ethnic Turk proud of his or her culture and religion. Turks are viewed by the statewith suspicion, the strength of which largely reflects the state of Turkish-Greek relations.
Let’s be clear — I’m not singling out Greece here. It’s one country among many. As is Israel. That said though, Brown Babylonian, if your tthat’s a joke is more than just posturing then, by all means, prove me wrong. In what ways is government policy regarding ethnic minorities in Israel worse than all other nations? (Or: worse than all other democratic nations? Or: hey, impress me. I’m listening.)
John Brown is officially nuts (worse off than me I’m afraid). Check out his blog: http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/
I did … so, so far Brown Babylonian holds that:
– the JFK assassination was an Israeli plot;
– the World Trade Centre attacks were caused by the government of Israel; and
– “Israel” itself is an illegal creation for the reason that a secular Jewish state is an oxymoron?
Interesting.
8opus wrote:
“Er, no — it’s recognition of the Jewish people qua people. Do you have a problem with that?”
I have no idea what this means. This does not explain to me how a state can be both secular and Jewish. Please re-state the question.
8opus continued:
“As to the JNF’s relevance to the Israeli government speaking on my behalf: the JNF is not a government. It is not a country. It is an organisation.”
That’s a crock. The Federal Reserve Bank and the FDIC may be private corporations in a legal sense, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t also instruments of, and the responsbility of the USA.
Likewise, the JNF a quasi-governmental organization, and the 1952 Status law gave it official agency to control the land on behalf of the government. The state can’t divest itself of responsibility by spinning off privatized ‘shell corporations’ and pointing the finger at them.
In 1960 a treaty was signed between the Government of Israel and the JNF under which all the land of the Nation and all the JNF land (about 90% of all the land in the State) should be held by the Israel Lands Authority, and that the Israel Lands Authority would do so according to the constitution of the JNF, meaning the land could only be leased to Jews.
The process by which the land becomes national” land is through purchase or confiscation by the Jewish National Fund. The procedure is referred to as “redeeming the land,” which then becomes the inalienable property of the Jews of the world, who are(; Israel’s national constituency and referred to in law as “the Jewish people.”
“Redeeming the land” derives from the Bible. The concept was appropriated by political Zionism and transformed into strictly nationalist terms. The state, instead of God, would return the people from exile to restore the relationship between “the Jewish people ” and the land. The problem was: how can a country, eager for world recognition as non-discriminatory and democratic, structure its institutions to deprive permanently its citizens who are not Jews of use of much of its land?
The solution came through Knesset enactment of the Status Law, empowering the World Zionist Organization/Jewish Agency to develop the country for the Jewish people. “National” institutions, such as the Jewish National Fund, were then established for Jews only. The Zionist movement created a network of “national” institutions to carry out policies-such as land redemption for Jews-which are clearly discriminatory. By publicizing these institutions as purely philanthropic agencies, the popular perception that Israel is a genuine democracy has remained largely undamaged.
The fact is, however, that the Jewish Agency is a component of the government with massive resources and has at times had a budget almost as large as the development budget of the government. Ninety-three percent of Israel’s land is “national” land, which is developed, leased and administered by “national” institutions for Israel’s “national ” constituency, “the Jewish people.”
Israel’s Two-Tiered Citizenship Law Bars Non-Jews From 93 Percent of Its Lands
8opus wrote:
John Brown is officially nuts (worse off than me I’m afraid). Check out his blog: http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/
I did … so, so far Brown Babylonian holds that:
– the JFK assassination was an Israeli plot;
– the World Trade Centre attacks were caused by the government of Israel; and
– “Israel” itself is an illegal creation for the reason that a secular Jewish state is an oxymoron?
This is pretty low of you to give up talking about the subject at hand and to just attack me personally with lies about things I did not say.
But I guess you’ve run out of logic and or energy for legitimate debate. (shrug)
Dude. You ARE nuts. Seriously. I personally don’t want to argue with you because arguing with you lends you the sort of credibility that you totally do not deserve. I mean seriously – what’s with the pirate flag on your Web site? What kind of a pirate are you exactly? Your site runs using an out-of-date vulnerable-to-hacks version of postnuke – that’s nuts! Your sites yellow, red and white color scheme is nauseating, your copyright notice is out of date and your header image ought to either be a gif or a much less compressed jpg – visible artefacts are a totally convincing sign of insanity as far as I’m concerned. Maybe you should move to Syria or something. You and this guy would who claims Bush is a Jew would get along great.
Yes, yes. I know my arguments lack all substance. But remember… I’m NOT arguing with the nutbar.
Hey John, aren’t you a secular Jew? Are you both secular and Jewish?
JB: Please demonstrate your own “energy for legitimate debate”
You wrote:
“The 2 pieces of Law I quoted were the Geneva conventions of [b]1949[/b], and the UN Charter – both of those came after WWII, see?”
I quoted:
“…there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention “is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign.” In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948. Jordan’s 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.
International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of “aggressive conquest” and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense…”
What are you waiting for? If you don’t like being called a “nut” respond to this point and ignore those that criticize your interest (not beliefs!) in ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Jonny:
“The Geneva Convention requires an occupying power to change the existing order as little as possible during its tenure. One aspect of this obligation is that it must leave the territory to the people it finds there. It may not bring its own people to populate the territory. This prohibition is found in the convention’s Article 49, which states, ‘The occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'”
John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”
JB wrote:
“This is pretty low of you to give up talking about the subject at hand and to just attack me personally with lies about things I did not say.”
refering to someone’s attribution of:
-the World Trade Centre attacks were caused by the government of Israel
to JB.
But JB, earlier you wrote:
“I’d like the government of Israel to stop fucking up, to stop making all Jews look bad, and to stop causing my hometown to be attacked by terrorists
So you are a liar. One cannot debate productively with a liar.
Dear JewSchool,
I understand the importance of open debate and a diversity of opinions to maintaining the dynamism of any free society. However, if say, a holocaust denier wanted to post regularly at your site would you grant him a forum? It requires a lot of energy to debate with such a person over the facts of the holocaust, and such debates rarely produce results that either shed more light on actual historical events or increase the standing of the Jewish people. Now, I’m not saying holocaust deniers should be legally prevented from publishing their harmful rubbish. However, this is not to say that a forum for discussing Jewish issues should feel obligated to provide a platform for an individual holding such beliefs. All postions are not equally valid.
Something to think about
“Zionism’s ‘historical right’ to Palestine was neither historical nor a right. It was not historical inasmuch as it voided the two millennia of non-Jewish settlement in Palestine and the two millennia of Jewish settlement outside it. It was not a right, except in the Romantic ‘mysticism’ of ‘blood and soil’ and the Romantic ‘cult’ of ‘death, heroes and graves’… “The claim of Jewish ‘homelessness is founded on a cluster of assumptions that both negates the liberal idea of citizenship and duplicates the anti-Semitic one that the state belongs to the majority ethnic nation. In a word, the Zionist case for a Jewish state is as valid as the anti-Semitic case for an ethnic state that marginalizes Jews.”
–Professor Norman Finkelstein, “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict,”
I think people are doing a good job of beating around the bush and not having an honest debate with John Brown about these issues. I am going to go ahead and assume that John Brown meant that grievances in the Arab world about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians were an important factor in 9/11. I may not agree with that statement, but I do not read him writing “causing terrorists to attack my home town” and take him literally, and I think that one who claims they have nothing else to go on and thus needs to take him literally is being disingenuous.
Next: This whole idea that the occupied territories are not occupied because they weren’t taken from a state is a worn-out bit of misdirection, in my opinion. The point is the rights of the people living there, which is the underlying basis of the entire conflict. Playing semantic tricks and acting like you’ve scored major points by helpfully noting that there never was a sovereign Palestine doesn’t persuade me at all.
Finally: the distinction between “illegal outposts” and “Israeli settlements” is one of Israeli internal discourse, which has been adopted by Diaspora Jews, the U.S. government, and most of the media. The distinction refers to a difference in status accorded to these settlements by Israel’s own law. Israel gave settlers in the “legal” settlements “permission” to settle, and helped them out with financing and setting up utilities, whereas for whatever reason those in the “outposts” did not get this blessing and assistance. Therefore, to the Israeli government, which arrogates to itself the power to set up settlements in the West Bank, the ones it has officially permitted to be set up are “legal” and the ones it hasn’t are “illegal.”
I dispute the right of the Israeli government to place settlements in the West Bank, so to me the whole distinction is yet another bit of discursive misdirection. See the bit of the Geneva convention Babylonian quoted above, about an occupying power not transferring its own residents to occupied territory. And, also, it’s wrong — international law or no (I almost never like to base arguments I make on “international law”, which is an amorphous animal, so let’s go straight to justice on this one).
If we’re signing the petition, then I’d like to be on it too. Thanks Johnny.
Dear JewSchool,
I understand the importance of open debate and a diversity of opinions to maintaining the dynamism of any free society. However, if say, a holocaust denier wanted to post regularly at your site would you grant him a forum? It requires a lot of energy to debate with such a person over the facts of the holocaust, and such debates rarely produce results that either shed more light on actual historical events or increase the standing of the Jewish people. Now, I’m not saying holocaust deniers should be legally prevented from publishing their harmful rubbish. However, this is not to say that a forum for discussing Jewish issues should feel obligated to provide a platform for an individual holding such beliefs. All postions are not equally valid.
Sam,
The occupied / non-occupied distinction is relevant. The correct legal status of the West Bank and Gaza are the unallocated portion of British Mandate Palestine. But you think the legal definitions are a bunch of “misdirection” and that the point is an issue of the “rights of people living there.” You use the term “rights” despite the fact that it’s a legal term. But lets not get into semantics. Screw law for a sec, lets get into, what do you want to call it? Morality?
Israel has always allowed settlers to live in the territories, in a controlled manner (hence the distinction between legal sanctioned settlements and illegal non-sanctioned outposts) because it just makes sense from a security perspective. The Geostrategic importance of the West Bank for instance is readily apparent to any simpleton looking at the map.
No nation would purposely endanger itself by unilaterally adhering to some notion of its enemies rights without a corresponding assurance that such adherence serves some greater purpose.
Until comprehensive peace exists, those settlements make complete sense. Until then, the suffering Palestinians really have only their corrupt and bloodthirsty leadership to blame for their woes.
Oh and as far as John Brown goes, dude’s a tard but even tards are free to express their opinions. If you don’t like it, you are free to ignore and even ridicule him. I have no problem with his being here – If you’ve ever gone to an Israel Day rally and seen people of JB’s ilk protesting against Israel, you know that for better or for worse, they are Jews and represent a part, albeit miniscule, of our community. I enjoy JB’s ramblings if only because they give me a window into the patchouli scented groovy world of this fringe element amongst us.
If anything, I’d love to have MORE JB posts.I want to know more about JB’s daily life, like how many cats he owns or how his last really great date with a Jewish woman was. I want to know where JB shops for clothes, what sort of whimsical stuff he enjoys, how he gets on with his mother, father, siblings whatever. Does he enjoy yoga? Has he been inspired by buddha? Does he have a good seitan-based recipe?
I mean I pretty much know all I need to know about you boring Zionists. You’re friggin all over the place with your rallies and synagogues and camps and free trips to Israel and control of the media and the government blah blah blah. I want something whacky and exotic like say, Gilligan’s Island. I want John Brown!
I think people are doing a good job of beating around the bush and not having an honest debate with John Brown about these issues. I am going to go ahead and assume that John Brown meant that grievances in Northern Europe about the treatment of disenfranchised Germanic people by the Jewish merchant-class were an important factor in the holocaust. I may not agree with that statement, but I do not read him writing “causing Hitler to cremate my family” and take him literally, and I think that one who claims they have nothing else to go on and thus needs to take him literally is being disingenuous.
So JB instead of giving us some vague bullshit “to think about” regarding Jewish “ethnicity” why don’t you stand up for yourself? Are you a liar? Or did I (and most everyone else) misconstrue an attempt to be figurative (as one sensitive soul here writes above)on your part? Speak up John! Are you a liar? Is one liar’s perspective as valid as another liar’s? Let’s work this out John. Did Jewschool pick you as part of an elaborate scheme to diminish the credibilty of the fascistic elements of the left-wing? John, are you a patsy!
Is that you in the pic? Do you want “Palestinians” to stop killing Jews? Are the “Palestinians'” lives worth more than Jews? Do you think protesting the “Palestinians” killing Jews would accomplish anything? What kind of “Palestinians” are targeted for killing, and what kind of Jews are targeted for killing.
You’re a fucking coward with your head up your ass. Go stand up for REAL human rights.
Sam: I think people are doing a good job of beating around the bush and not having an honest debate with John Brown about these issues. I am going to go ahead and assume that John Brown meant that grievances in the Arab world about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians were an important factor in 9/11. I may not agree with that statement, but I do not read him writing “causing terrorists to attack my home town” and take him literally, and I think that one who claims they have nothing else to go on and thus needs to take him literally is being disingenuous.
I concur wholly.
Dave: Oh and as far as John Brown goes, dude’s a tard but even tards are free to express their opinions. If you don’t like it, you are free to ignore and even ridicule him. I have no problem with his being here – If you’ve ever gone to an Israel Day rally and seen people of JB’s ilk protesting against Israel, you know that for better or for worse, they are Jews and represent a part, albeit miniscule, of our community. I enjoy JB’s ramblings if only because they give me a window into the patchouli scented groovy world of this fringe element amongst us.
The main point of this remark, being that John does represent an incredibly marginalized portion of the Jewish community, I agree with, thus making his positions valid and welcome here. I do not agree with everything he says (tho I do agree with some of it) but, more important than whether I agree or not, he makes me think. And maybe sometimes he makes me or other folks irate, and perhaps he isn’t always graceful in the execution of his arguments, but regardless, once again, he makes us all think.
Jonny & Josh: I understand the importance of open debate and a diversity of opinions to maintaining the dynamism of any free society. However, if say, a holocaust denier wanted to post regularly at your site would you grant him a forum? It requires a lot of energy to debate with such a person over the facts of the holocaust, and such debates rarely produce results that either shed more light on actual historical events or increase the standing of the Jewish people. Now, I’m not saying holocaust deniers should be legally prevented from publishing their harmful rubbish. However, this is not to say that a forum for discussing Jewish issues should feel obligated to provide a platform for an individual holding such beliefs. All postions are not equally valid.
To compare anti-Zionism to Holocaust denial is underhanded, incredibly misleading, and ultimately wrong. Anti-Zionism is a Jewish tradition as old as Zionism itself in both religious and secular circles.
Holocaust denial is the denial of factual history. Anti-Zionism is a statement of disagreement with the manner in which the Jewish majority has chosen to realize its self-determination. I find nothing in that akin to Nazism, the defense of Nazism, or the dismissal thereof. Rather, I find the idea of suppressing unpopular speech, and the inherent violence within the Zionist rhetoric in this thread (which is clearly a form of bullying) to have much more in common with Nazism than any anti-Zionist argument that John has made.
And if you’d like me to demonstrate that the employment of Naziesque political tactics is a long standing tradition within Zionism (particularly at the hands of far left and far right groups such as Jabotinsky’s Beitar and Revisionist Party), you can dig through the archives on Jewschool where evidence to such has been thoroughly posted time and time again.
Not to say the Zionism is Nazism. But the Nazis employed political bullying to suppress its opponents, and certainly Zionists do the same, as is sadly evidenced by the behavior of several commentors here.
Sorry kids, I stand by John Brown.
not to say that*
Not to say the Zionism is Nazism. But the Nazis employed political bullying to suppress its opponents, and certainly Zionists do the same, as is sadly evidenced by the behavior of several commentors here. Yes, yes. As have Tibetan monks, Galician farmers, and Guatemalan pinball players, no doubt. This is a bit silly. Standing in solidarity with the fella you’ve chosen to post missives about the illegitimacy of Israel is one thing — hell, why not? It’s sort of funny, if unoriginal next to some of the places that have the same items but do a better job of arguing them (like, say, Electronic Intifada). But to explain why it’s valid to compare everyone to Nazis? That goes beyond solidarity; it’s mainly ridiculous.
This is pretty low of you to give up talking about the subject at hand and to just attack me personally with lies about things I did not say. I’m afraid this isn’t about you, Brown Babylonian; it’s about the things you said. And now claim not to have said, I hasten to add. Oddly, since all of these things are right here for the reading.
But I guess you’ve run out of logic and or energy for legitimate debate. Er, that posting was immediately next to my other one — you sound a bit confused. You’ve also chosen to make but then abandon point after point; now it seems that your main argument is about the JNF. Let’s talk about the JNF, then, I suppose.
Likewise, the JNF a quasi-governmental organization, and the 1952 Status law gave it official agency to control the land on behalf of the government. The state can’t divest itself of responsibility by spinning off privatized ‘shell corporations’ and pointing the finger at them.
Well, you’re half right — the law establishing a relationship bit is accurate; the “quasi-governmental” bit is not. But you’re really going to have to make up your mind: should the relationship between Israel (via the ILA) and the JNF be changed, or not? You seem to be arguing that it should not, can not, must not, because it would violate your sense of the evil that Israel is. Those of us on the left, on the other hand, will choose to push for democratic change. So it goes.
Let’s be clear: there isn’t any argument here about whether or not Israeli policies are all good or all bad; only an idiot would take other side. We’re discussing whether israel has a right to exist, and whether the Jewish people should enjoy the rights granted to all peoples under international law.
Now, is it racist to argue vehemently, as Brown Babylonian seems to do, that Jews should not be granted that right? That’s a topic for another day. What’s surprising is that said right is up for debate on Jewschool. When Brown Babylonian asked What’s a secular Jewish state ? That’s an oxymoron, I responded that it’s recognition of the Jewish people qua people. But Brown Babylonian has no idea what this means. This does not explain to me how a state can be both secular and Jewish.
I s’pose Dave is right; this is a bit futile. But, for the record: the Jewish people has the right to form a state. The way in which it governs the state does not follow any prescribed rules or norms beyond respect for international law — infringement of which does not, quite obviously, mean alienation of one’s rights, or else very few countries would be left standing today. So governing it in a way on which Brown Babylonian (and the Shinui party) bestow the honorific secular is more than valid. Indeed, I doubt Israel is an especially non-secular state on the scale of things. Certainly one of the least so in the Middle East… without getting into European countries whose heads of state are also heads of churches, and stuff.
Ah, one-note-Opus, the Jewish people may have a right to form a state but what will it take to make you see that Israel has exhausted its right to be that state?
mobius wrote:
To compare anti-Zionism to Holocaust denial is underhanded, incredibly misleading, and ultimately wrong. Anti-Zionism is a Jewish tradition as old as Zionism itself in both religious and secular circles.
he added:
Rather, I find the idea of suppressing unpopular speech, and the inherent violence within the Zionist rhetoric in this thread (which is clearly a form of bullying) to have much more in common with Nazism than any anti-Zionist argument that John has made.
And if you’d like me to demonstrate that the employment of Naziesque political tactics is a long standing tradition within Zionism (particularly at the hands of far left and far right groups such as Jabotinsky’s Beitar and Revisionist Party), you can dig through the archives on Jewschool where evidence to such has been thoroughly posted time and time again.
OK. One of the things that makes John Brown a retard is reflected in what I’ve just quoted. With all due respect to mobius – this is your pad after all – I am going to try and politely tell y’all why this is so retarded.
The term Nazi is a poweful one. The Nazis were more than just a politcal party with whacky, facistic and racialist ideas. The Nazis were not just bullies who trampled on the rights of others. The Nazis represent a unique and singular evil in the history of mankind. That’s why the term Nazi is so evocative.
What makes the Nazis so unique is that they channelled all the modern technology and all their resources in order to perpetuate acts of genocide that served no concrete strategic or military advantage. In fact, they continued to pour resources at this endeavor even at the expense of the war effort. I challenge anyone to show me any comparable act of such magnitude and bloodlust before or since.
So the Nazis were also thugs who suppressed and even killed their political opponents? So what. Comparing the most radical right wing Jew, up to and including Kahane or Goldstein, to Nazis is disengenuous. Why? Because political bullying is not something that is exclusive to the Nazis. Even oppressing another people is not exclusive to the Nazis. Look at the history of just about any modern, secular democratic state – they all used “Nazistic” tactics. We don’t call them Nazis, do we? Well, actually, many people on John Brown’s site call Bush and America Nazis. But we’re talking total retards here. Lights are on but no one’s home. Know what I mean?
When you use the term Nazi, you are attempting to evoke the evil that it connotes. You are comparing the subject of that adverb to totally off their rocker maniacal murderers. But of course, when John Brown and people like him use it, they know it’s factually and historically incorrect. They don’y care. They just want to use immediately powerful words in order to inflame.
When you call the state of Israel and even Betar, Nazis, you make Israel sound more horrible than it is and you make Nazis sound better than they were. Believe me, my Safta Julie who survived Auschwitz would have loved to have been treated like the Palestinians are being treated today instead of having her entire family murdered and being forced to live through a death camp. Calling anyone a Nazi who clearly isn’t a Nazi IS a form of holocaust denial.
I submit then, that this incorrect use of the term Nazi by loony tune nutbars like John Brown is in fact a form of holocaust denial. Understand me clearly. I call him a tard and a nutter and all that, but really, he’s not that nuts. And he’s not that stupid. Any one that can discuss the minute details regarding the incorporation of the JNF knows his history. But it’s just so easy to get people inflamed when you mention the word Nazi (and fascist and apartheid). Who cares if it’s completely inaccurate? Who cares if it completely tramples on the memory of actual victims of actual Nazis.
Words are powerful. We ought not be so cavalier with how we use them. So can we all chill with that Nazi this and Nazi that thing please?
Ah, one-note-Opus, the Jewish people may have a right to form a state but what will it take to make you see that Israel has exhausted its right to be that state?
Er, a massive change in international law. Hey, been to Germany lately?
What if Israel did “exhaust its right to be a state.” What should go in its place? Should we make the Arabian empire complete with its crown jewel? What kind of respect will they show our holy sites? What kind of respect will they show the Jews who live there? What rights can the Jews be expected to have in G-d’s promised land without the Israeli government?
Saying Israel exhausted its right to be a state is equivalent to saying the Jews have exhausted their right to exist.
ck_dave wrote:
“I submit then, that this incorrect use of the term Nazi by loony tune nutbars like John Brown is in fact a form of holocaust denial. Understand me clearly. I call him a tard and a nutter and all that, but really, he’s not that nuts. And he’s not that stupid. Any one that can discuss the minute details regarding the incorporation of the JNF knows his history. But it’s just so easy to get people inflamed when you mention the word Nazi (and fascist and apartheid). Who cares if it’s completely inaccurate? Who cares if it completely tramples on the memory of actual victims of actual Nazis. “
Dave, you’re delusional
Go back and read the thread again – I never said Nazi, holocaust or apartheid
JB said:
Dave, you’re delusional
You’re right. Must have been somr of the comments on your Web site that threw me off – you have some people there that are waaaay to liberal with their use of Nazi analogies. Or perhaps I was confused because you quoted Norman Finkelstein who always seems to do the whole Zionist/Nazis thing at every opportunity. Nonetheless, for the moment my comments are better directed at mobius, or anyone else that would compare Israel or Zionists or any non-Nazis to Nazis.
Well thanks for your honesty Dave
re: the Finkelstein quote I posted
please check it out again, breathing slowly while you read it
the last line is really the deep part:
” In a word, the Zionist case for a Jewish state is as valid as the anti-Semitic case for an ethnic state that marginalizes Jews.”
Lets just agree johnbrown is a putz and move on.
Lets just agree johnbrown is a putz and move on.
Yeah, but it’s not so much JohnBrown/Babylonian — his posts are simply a handy shorthand for a whole current of thinking that Mobius claims is an incredibly marginalized portion of the Jewish community (on which more later), and which is a mainstream and even majoritarian view depending on where you’re located (geographically, politically, etc).
The problem is that, by masquerading as a left-wing view, it’s been (I believe) relatively effective in silencing the left. It’s one thing to decry nation-states. It’s another to cling so tightly to the critique of nation-states that one ends up decrying, even denouncing, any attempt at democratic renewal.
That, and I know some will agree, is what I see happening with the anti-Zionist posture which, in my experience (which may or may not be representative) is very much the mainstream view in many versions of the left. Israel is constantly denounced as some unnatural and illegitimate creation. Whether or not that’s racist (I think it is), the effect is that anyone who dares overlook this primeval evil and, instead, pipes up about what needs to be changed in Israel is slapped down (figuratively, I mean) for having accepted Israel’s existence. In the end, this ends up looking not much different from the official and/or unofficial stance in most of the Arab world: where any mention of Israel might lead to the dreaded “normalization”.
Far from being an ‘incredibly marginalized” position, though, it’s become a pretty widespread, common, and on the whole unremarkable postiion in my experience. Maybe that’s because I live in Montreal and not NYC. Maybe that’s because in Montreal I live as much in French as in English, and consume quite a bit of French-language media. Maybe it’s because the folks I talk to tend to be a left-wing and youngish crowd than an elderly and suburban crowd. Regardless of why, Brown Babylonian’s position is pretty much the default position I tend to hear from non-Jews, and from many (unaffiliated, obviously) Jews as well.
The marginalised position — the one I don’t hear — is the one that I’ve found as often as not on Jewschool, and enjoyed. It’s a perspective that’s both Zionist and left-wing; that’s both pro-Israeli and both pro-Palestinian. It should be unremarkable but, sadly, it’s not. The result, I feel, is debate that’s polarised between two extremes (Arielniks and down-with-Israelites), neither of which make much sense. And yet those are the points of view I hear most.
Okay, rant over.
(I meant: “and I know some will disagree”.)
well….I see u have many diferent opinions…..
I agree with josh he is the most reasonable…
I really must say that “Jonny the Jewish Hell” IS RAMBILING…Bla bla bla….
thanks
peace
8opus:
You live in Montreal? Heh. Me too. Right downtown (Bleury / Rene Levesque z”l). I still stand by the notion that those Jews who question or deny Israel’s right to exist represent a tiny minority of the Jewish community. That this may not neccessarily apply to the population at large is a non-issue. I speak fluent french and interact with québécois every day and I believe that while many are critical of Israel, very few believe it’s an apartheid state that needs to be dismantled.
The other position you describe as marginalised, the one that concerns itself with the well being of both the Israelis and the Palestinians is actually not as marginal as you think. For instance, let me go on record (again) to state that I wish nothing but the best for my Palestinian and Arab cousins. I often feel that I actually have more in common with them than I do with my ashkenazic co-religionists (I’m sephardic).
But if your starting perspective is that Israel does not have a right to exist, or that it employs Nazi-like tactics to further its nefarious goals, then I have nothing further to talk to you about. If we can’t get past the fact and the permanence of Israel’s existence then how can we discuss the legitimate needs and aspirations of our Palestinian neighbours? You would be amazed how common this perspective is amongst mainstream Jews.
Even in Montreal. 😉
Salut mec! Shabat Shalom!
I agree with the earlier posting about how people should refrain from Nazi comparisons. At the same time, however, I think there’s some moral slippage going on when you say something like “my safta would love to be treated how the Palestinians are treated today” in comparison with what she actually suffered under Nazism.
Just because something is not as bad as the Holocaust is not a basis for defense. You’ve engaged in an almost reverse comparison, by which you have highlighted the true evil of Nazism and thus made Israel’s actions look good by the wayside.
I don’t think you did this intentionally, but I have seen it done more often than I care for.
We should not be congratulating ourselves for NOT BEING AS BAD AS F**CKING NAZIS.
Sam,
I wasn’t congrdulating myself, or anyone else. Just pointing out a really neat-o tactic employed by scum to get the simple minded to join their cause.
ck_dave, 8opus
Someone’s going to claim that the blog’s been taken over by ‘frogs’.
I’m Herz ’89. The library bombed in April was actually my former kindergarden zillions of years ago.
I’ll agree that Israel ain’t perfect; no poutine here, not even a minimal PizzaPita one.
oy .. i really wish i had finished the article i was writing for jewsweek before i left for israel. it’s called “reducto ad hitlerum” and subtitled “when is it okay to call a nazi a nazi?” a lot of the article focuses on the recent controversy surrounding the bush campaign’s use of the moveon.org bush in 30 seconds submission which likened bush to hitler in a commercial; but then went on to deal with the use of the term nazi when risen in application to zionist practices.
to counter ck’s point, i don’t think ‘unsubstantiated’ genocide is the exclusive property of the nazis. plenty of groups have launched genocidal campaigns against their political opponents or against other groups whom such actions may yield financial incentives. that’s why people go to war, generally speaking: for profit. in rarer cases, it’s for survival, but often that survival comes at the expense of another group (as was demonstrated in the war between ethiopia & eritria). the nazis just so happened to be more efficient and cruel in this practice than their contemporaries. that doesn’t change the name of the game at all, just the precision with which it’s carried out.
the purpose of my article was essentially to understand the reasons why people are so averse to nazi-comparisons, but moreso, to dethrone the nazis as the ultimate untouchable evil. and the reason for doing so is not in any way to lessen the drastic nature of the horrors and attrocities they’ve committed but to show that these people were human, like any other human beings, and that we are each, in the pursuit of our ideals, as capable of committing attrocities as they were. by making nazis this “holy grail” of evil, we make it seem as though they are these mythic characters to whom no others can ever be likened. and in doing that, we lose the potency and importance of the lesson we have to learn from their reign, which is that a movement such as nazism can rise again, because its potential lays within the human mind. and i fear we will be blind to this if we are to disregard valid claims of likeness between the nazis political practices and another group’s. even if “no genocide can ever be as bad as theirs” — that doesn’t mean that we can not show how other political movements are like them up until the point of genocide, in the manner in which they rose to power, in the manner in which they suppressed their political oppossition, in the way they suppressed civil liberties, in the way they scapegoated an ethnic group, and so on.
that being said, the purpose of drawing such a comparison in this context was not to make zionists out to be nazis, particularly with regards to genocide, for i do not believe that israel is committing genocide against the palestinians. frankly, i think the palestinians are attempting to commit genocide against us, and we’re exercising incredible restraint in tolerating their actions. the point, rather, was to show where, in the proliferation of the zionist agenda, the practices of zionists are akin the practices of nazis and other fascist political groups throughout history. and the only way to show how severe and dangerous those practices are is to invoke our most dreaded enemy to show how we have, in some ways, become like them at times.
that isn’t retarded. that’s honest. it’s retarded to make the nazis a holy grail. they’re not. they were our neighbors in germany. and they’re our neighbors and even ourselves today, laying in wait. and until we recognize this, history is doomed to repeat itself.
mobius wrote:
i don’t think ‘unsubstantiated’ genocide is the exclusive property of the nazis. plenty of groups have launched genocidal campaigns against their political opponents or against other groups whom such actions may yield financial incentives. that’s why people go to war, generally speaking: for profit.
Uh… the Nazis gained no real strategic benefit from their genocidal campaign against the Jews. The Nazis persisted in their murder to their own detriment. The Nazis redirected precious resources and manpower that would have better been used towards the war effort, and applied them instead towards the senseless slaughter. The nazis murdered otherwise loyal citizens. See the difference?
mobius continues:
we make it seem as though they are these mythic characters to whom no others can ever be likened. and in doing that, we lose the potency and importance of the lesson we have to learn from their reign, which is that a movement such as nazism can rise again
Mythic? Hardly. I think I get reminded just how NOT mythic they are every time I see Safta Julie’s tatooed forearm. Yes, if a nation that was at one point the most culturally enlightened country in the world can devolve into a murderous Nazi regime then it can happen again. I mean didn’t one in 5 frenchmen vote for Le Pen in the last Presidential elections?
mobius continues:
that doesn’t mean that we can not show how other political movements are like them up until the point of genocide, in the manner in which they rose to power, in the manner in which they suppressed their political oppossition, in the way they suppressed civil liberties, in the way they scapegoated an ethnic group, and so on.
The point is that up until they started with that whole genocide thing, the Nazis were unremarkable and not that unique. Many other countries have utilized what can be best described as pre-genocidal Nazi-esque tactics. Very few went that extra step and started murdering loyal citizens. It’s the genocide that makes them unique and it’s the genocide that people think of when the word Nazi is used.
Mobius concludes:
the point, rather, was to show where, in the proliferation of the zionist agenda, the practices of zionists are akin the practices of nazis and other fascist political groups throughout history. and the only way to show how severe and dangerous those practices are is to invoke our most dreaded enemy to show how we have, in some ways, become like them at times.
Talk about tortured, heavily qualified prose: “how we have, in some ways, become like them at times.” What does that mean? Nazi soldiers wore black boots – so do our soldiers! Nazis wore pants – so do we! Nazis used heavy handed tactics against their opponents – Oh my God! So have we! Nazis stole an election – Any second now Republican shock troops are going to fan out and arrest hipsters and cut off their goatees!!!
Seriously. The Nazi analogy simply fails unless you’re talking about a particularly heinous brand of genocide. The terms genocide and holocaust were created as a result of the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis. That’s their legacy to us. I have no problem calling the Sudanese regime genocidal. But they’re not quite Nazis now, are they? No.
But they’re not quite Nazis now, are they? No.
A tangent, perhaps, but what I’ve always thought unique about the Nazis was the whole industrialisation of genocide: not simply that they engaged in it as a fairly routine, humdrum, next-on-the-list manner, but that they marshalled Europe’s (the West’s) most advanced technologies to do it. Exactly like building better mousetraps, just that it happened that there were human beings somewhere in the middle. Dehumanisation as industrial process, in other words. That the result was genocide at the nodal point of the Western world, carrying through its technology and intellectual currents to one version of their logical conclusions: yes, that’s something we haven’t seen much of.
But one analogue might be the Khmer Rouge, in a way. They too attempted genocide, and in a frighteningly routinized, a-to-z kind of way. But theirs was the agrarian mode of production: not building a better mousetrap, just using the tried-and-true technologies of the country life they prized.
As to claiming that the Jews were somehow unique because no genocide has ever been tried against anyone — that’s one of those straw men, I think. I’ve never heard anyone suggest such a thing, ’cause it’s just be dumb. As to the Nazi way of carrying it out being unique: yes.
As to claiming that the Jews were somehow unique because no genocide has ever been tried against anyone
Did I say or imply that? If I did then I didn’t mean to and I take it back.
Your post was quite good though. Well put – something I was thinking of as I wrote what I wrote but didn’t manage to stick in the post cuz I guess I was kinda fried.
I think that if I were to synthesize my thoughts, in so far as Nazi analogies go, it would look something like this:
When people say Nazi, the first thing that comes to mind is genocide and holocaust. Using the term Nazi in reference to anything done by Israel or Zionists is simply incorrect on every level and serves only to inflame the gullible, ignorant or already biased.
How’s that?
“Uh… the Nazis gained no real strategic benefit from their genocidal campaign against the Jews.”
in the long run, no — in the shortrun? they looted their middle class and redistributed their wealth to both the government and the aryan populace and managed to stave off national bankruptcy in doing so.
You really think that said looting was a good idea? That it benefited the German people from an economic perspective? Taking productive and profitable and LOYAL elements of your society and eviscerating their physical and economic existence, is a wise thing to do? I think you are overstating the wealth of the Jews.
Besides, even if what you say is correct, they could have taken all their wealth, but they didn’t have to kill them too. Certainly towards the end of the war, when resources were stretched to their limit, the Germans could have let up on the killing and use those resources for the war effort. But they didn’t. They just kept on killing.