Israel, Politics

The Third Intifada


They have donned yellow stars and given soldiers the Nazi salute. They have declared the State of Israel an illegal entity in the back pocket of the U.S. government. They have assaulted soldiers and attacked neighboring ethnic groups. They have most recently been placed under military curfew. Their gripe is their entitlement to the complete and total land of Palestine, from the river to the sea, as they have determined it in their fundamentalist interpretations of religious scripture.
These are not Palestinians, no. These are Jews. Jews resisting their eviction from Palestinian shops on formerly Jewish land which they have been occupying illegally.
Can you smell the Kumah rising?
In related news, “Hundreds of ultra-Orthodox block road in town of Beit Shemesh, hurl stones at police officers in protest of new residents who are ‘not religious enough’; five protestors arrested.”

51 thoughts on “The Third Intifada

  1. Oy. For a place that’s supposed to be holy, Hevron’s become horribly fucked up.
    I loved the Ma’ara when I was there. But if this is what it turns people into, are we better of without it?

  2. I spoke to someone who covered the withdrawal from Gaza this past summer, and she told me that most of the Gush Katif residents people felt extremely bad for, and even the majority of protestors who came into Gush Katif were generally under control…she said though the the teens who came from Hebron simply were the worst and did not respect any sort of authority. I’ve met and know a few Jews who live in Hebron who are very sweet people and don’t agree with this…but these rioters simply make the whole of Jews there look like the same as Hamas.

  3. ha! I think Josephus said the same kind of thing about the fourth, nameless group of jewish Philosophers, that their refusal to respect any authority but God was a sickness that forced them to be destroyed. But isn’t that a good thing? The conventional settler wisdom is that you have to become like youre attackers in order to defeat them. so what’s wrong with that?

  4. Hebron is at least as Jewish as Jerusalem and its place in Judaism even predates that of Jerusalem. We shouldn’t be so quick to abandon it given what the consequences might be. I’d hate the thought of not having access to the Tomb of the Patriarchs just as we had no access to the Kotel from 1948 to 1967. I don’t want to ever see siddurs burnt and holy places horribly vandalized as happenned to Joseph’s tomb. Whether it’s Fatah or Hamas (one’s kleptoctratic and secular, the other’s theocratic, otherwise there’s very little difference between the two) I hope the Palestinians elect a government that has the vision, the courage and the balls to end the violence. Until then the Hebron Shabab are sending us all a very powerful message.

  5. while first and foremost, I’m embarrassed at this behavior by my fellow Jews and in no way shape or form can condone it, I thought I’d point out a few things
    1. mobius, you yourself have claimed to given a nazi style Sieg Heil to the IDF anti-terror units (aka “ninjas”) in the midrahov. Maybe they got the idea from you?
    2. These settlers have taken their cue from the Palestinians, who, through this sort of behavior got world-wide recognition and support for their cause.
    So honestly, can you blame them? What’s good for the goose….

  6. The main difference of course is the level at which such behavior is tolerated by Israeli and Palestinian culture resepectively. When the settler movement takes over the Knesset (as Hamas is about to take power) then I will be very worried.

  7. responding first to laya: a) if you’re gonna act like the ss, i’m gonna call you the ss. guys who drive around on motorcycles with the sole purpose of harassing anyone who looks arab have a lot more in common with nazis than jews who are stopping other jews from breaking the law and attacking non-jews. b) if you demonize the arabs and then ape their behavior, you’re being a little disingenuous, no?
    ck — what are we fighting to protect here? the tomb of the patriarchs, as far as i’m concerned, is avodah zara. religious shrines in general are avodah zarah. pikuach nefesh is #1. you’re not supposed to save a torah from a burning shul and you’re allowed to break shabbos to save a life. by endangering your lives and the lives of your children to protect a holy shrine, you’re violating the principle of pikuach nefesh. to do it in the name of a bunch of “mock kevers” is even more outrageous. what’s more important? the grave of avraham or the teachings of avraham? avraham would smash his own grave to pieces. and, if we are to believe the rabbinic tradition is the true heir to the legacy of our forefathers and foremothers, than pikuach nefesh should take priority over land and holy shrines, and avraham would want it that way.

  8. also, i think that hamas’ victory can be incredibly good for both the palestinians and the israelis.
    read david horovitz’s piece which i linked to the other day and you will see that, with hamas, the palestinians will finally have a stable leadership that is more interested in providing social services and establishing internal stability than it is with embezzling funds and oppressing the public.
    additionally, for israel, they will be enabled to declare once and for all that they don’t have a real negotiating partner because hamas will refuse to negotiate with israel and vice-versa. then israel will be empowered to act unilaterally without having to deal with criticism of neglecting the p.a., and they’ll be able to get away with it because a hamas-run parliament will declare open war on israel, dramatically altering the nature of the conflict.
    amijenahad didn’t get away with his remarks about wiping israel off the map, and a hamas-run p.a. will soon discover that they can’t either.
    in the end, israel will come out on top.

  9. Mobius—I am glad that you made your 2nd to last comment (“religious shrines in general are avodah zarah”). I think Heschel said it best when he wrote (in “The Sabbath”) that Judaism does not have physical shrines: rather, we have “temples in time.” The obvious response to this is “What was the Temple for, then?,” which is valid to a point. But I think the bottom line is that we LOST said Temple due to Sinas Hinam, and it breaks my heart that, as a community, we still haven’t taken that lesson to heart 2000 years later.

  10. “if you’re gonna act like the ss, i’m gonna call you the ss”
    Dan, you lose so many brownie points with this comparison. It’s so sick and depraved that I can only wonder what compels you to, time and again, use Nazi imagery to vilify those Jews you don’t agree with. So very sick.
    ” the tomb of the patriarchs, as far as i’m concerned, is avodah zara. ”
    But yet, on this point, I agree with Dan. There have been too many times where I’ve heard observant Jews poke fun at those” idol worshipping Buddhists” or “those freaks that worship a dead man on a cross” only to deify our materials i.e. the western wall. I never understood the hypocrisy.

  11. Can anyone find me a t least one worded post from Mobius about the leftists and anarchists who’ve been fighting the police every Friday against building the segregation fence? Can anyone find me where Mobius similarly criticizes these same leftists/anarchists/peace activists when they fight it out with the police and give a platform for people to claim they ‘are embarrased to be Jewish with images like this’?
    Most of you sitting in your cushy homes have no clue what is going on in Hebron or the rest of Israel for you to even know the entire context of these pictures.
    If you ever saw the ‘Jewish’ police deal with Jews, then you might change your opinions. Some food for thought:
    http://rotter.net/forum/scoops1/8440.shtml
    http://hydepark.hevre.co.il/hydepark/topic.asp?topic_id=1522916

  12. If the Tomb of the Patricarchs is “avodah zara”, what is Jerusalem? What is Israel? Where do you stop?
    If pikuach nefesh is the only thing that’s important, then clearly, Israel must go, and Jews should stop defending themselves, becasue, you know, it, like, gets people killed, right? Obviously, all of those Jews who died creating and defending the Jewish State were just a bunch of dirt-worshipping idolatrous scum. Who knew?
    Also, I don’t get it: Israeli cops who bust Arab heads because they don’t like Arabs are Nazis, but Israeli cops who bust frum heads because they hate the religious are not Nazis? Can someone explain this to me?
    Oh, wait a minute, I just thought of the answer: the Arabs are innocent and the frummers are the real Nazis, right? So if you are can’t get behind the Arabs and their Jew-eradication program you’re a Nazi, but if you are against the frummers, you’re for Truth, Justice, and the Jewish Way. If you oppose Nazis, you can’t be a Nazi, right? Of course, it is so obvious now.
    Also, is the land in question actually owned by Jews or not? Some say it is, Jewshcool says it is “formerly” Jewish land. How did they lose title? Was it because of the Jordanian occupation? Or did they sell it to the Arabs?
    If it is Jewish land, I assume that Jewschool is advocating kicking Jews off of Jewish land to appease the Arabs, which, if recent events are any guide, hardly qualifies as pikuach nefesh. Using the power of the state to run Jews off of their legal property usually goes by another name.

  13. so – we tasitly support palastinians in their resistance against israeli oppresion and ‘occupation’ but not religous israeli ‘freedom fighters’? (who are a bunch of kids btw)… i’m confused – i thought we liked young mindless, faceless freedom fighting fundermentalists? i’m not picking sides but i love these young (jewish) palastinian freedom fighters – using intifada weaponry and imagery. Although i would suggest that they wear tallits around there faces in future – just to make an authentic difference, between them and our non-jewish palastinian brothers, who are also fighting the same oppressive enemy. The use of palastinian clothing reminds me of mobius famous ‘wailing wall’ tzit-tzit demonstration. but now all of a sudden its not cool? just because it means your supporting right wing jews instead of right wing palastinians? why do i find it so difficult to condem these young people from expressing the their hatred of the oppression of what they see as an occupation? why is it good for one but not for another? don’t answer that – the revolution has begun! I support the palastinian right to resist oppression and occupation just as i support the jewish palastinians right to resist oppression, eviction and occupation. Israel has to change – the present situation is untenable – as i’ve said before – israel is a land of extremes and it swallows up its enhabitance.

  14. You don’t actually fall for that crap, do you, Mobius? The Arabs are fighting to destroy Israel, not for any other reason. They are “oppressed” because they want to kill Jews and destroy Israel. Israel “oppresses” them to save Jewish lives.
    But anyway, if I understand you, you just object to what you perceive to be the type of people who are in Hebron. Do you deny the right of Jews to live there? Under what circumstances would it be kosher? And to whom does the land actually belong?
    Also, you seem to be schizophrenic. On one hand, you talk about Jewish Nazis and how the Arabs are fighting oppression, and in the next breath you talk about how once Hamas wins the elections and everybody sees that they’re really genocidal maniacs that will allow Israel to destroy them root and branch and no one will object. That could have come right out of a Kach handbook.
    But let’s do a little math, shall we? If Hamas wins the elections fair and square, that will mean that the majority of Pals agree with their “Juden Raus” program. Which would mean that they are, ipso facto, terrorists. Whcih means Israel has the right to fight them. Which will result in their “oppression”. Which will bring cries of rage from you and everyone else. Which will force Israel to “negotiate”. Which will bring us to exactly where we are now.
    Or do you honestly believe that Hamas will have some sort of moderate epiphany when they come to power? You don’t buy that old “when they have to deal with potholes and sewage they’ll wise up” crap, do you? That’s nothing but whistling past the graveyard. Didn’t work with the Nazis in Germany, won’t work with Hamas either.
    You still haven’t answered my question about pikuach nefesh. If that’s really what’s important, and if you really believe that a certain place is not worth anyone’s life, then the Israelis should start getting on boats and shipping out right now. How is Hebron different than Jerusalem? Please explain. Because of the UN? The partition resolution? The 1948 armistice lines? The “Road Map”? Just because it’s your personal “up to here and no further” line? What?
    Just for the record, I do not support the idea of an Israel where non-Jews have no rights. But anyone who objects to the idea of Israel existing as a Jewish state, and who lives in Israel, is a traitor and should be expelled. Jew or Arab, it doesn’t matter. That would effectively end Arab representation in the Knesset, but them’s the breaks.

  15. From Meron Rapaport’s “Ghost Town” in Ha’aertz:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/646948.html
    The truth is that the logic of this separation began even before the intifada. The separation actually began as a result of an attack by a Jew. After the massacre in the Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994, then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin considered exploiting the opportunity to evacuate the settlers from Hebron. In the end he backed down, and the army did what it knows how to do: It punished the Palestinians. A curfew was imposed on the city, Shuhada Street was closed, the wholesale market adjacent to the Avraham Avinu compound was closed, and it hasn’t opened since. TIFH, the international organization established after the mosque massacre in an agreement with Israel, says that was the first sign of the Palestinians’ exit from the city center. In general, the story of the wholesale market serves as a good example of the way in which “security considerations” and considerations of the Jewish settlement in Hebron combine, and together push out the Palestinians in an orderly, legal and almost irreversible manner from the historic heart of the city.
    [….]
    Babies as shields
    “It isn’t true that we see a crime and don’t deal with it,” says Commander Eli Zamir of the Hebron Police, who speaks of the settlers as “them.” “But we have a serious problem here. They have understood where our weak point lies – and that’s the use of children under the age of criminal responsibility, under the age of 12. They do that on purpose. The children throw stones, break walls. The children are the tactical arm, and even the strategic arm, of the adults.” Their strategic goal, according to Zamir, is “to expand the area in which they live.”
    But if the children are a problem, the use of babies makes Zamir’s blood boil. He says that he heard about this custom – of using babies – the moment he arrived in Hebron four years ago, but he understood its significance only when he was in charge of handling a conflict in which four mothers from the Jewish settlement placed their babies in front of them, as a shield from the policemen. “I watch television, and I have never seen any population on earth that uses babies,” he says. “I don’t understand by what right these mothers use 1-year-old babies, by what right they endanger them. I said here at the station: Find me the section in the law books that will enable me to prosecute them.”

  16. mob,
    a) when settlers draw comparisons between IDF soldiers and nazis, is it just as legit as when you do it?
    b) If you learn from the successes of your enemy, is it not a tactful act of war?

  17. i don’t think it’s necessarily legit when i do it. it doesn’t come from a place of rational response. it’s my frustrated attempted to imbue a sense of moral conscience about what they’re doing. these kids don’t even know there’s another side of the story.
    i think it is a grave miscalculation to suggest that this makes the settlers look anything other than stupid. i would hardly call that a success.

  18. Mobius sez:
    “i don’t think it’s necessarily legit when i do it.”
    Oh, really? Well, then, how about not doing it and apologizing, huh?
    Oh, but wait. Apparently it is actually OK:
    “it doesn’t come from a place of rational response.”
    Aha. So if you’re pissed off enough you get to say whatever you want because, you know, you just can’t help yourself, right?
    So it’s all right if I do it too? Hold it, I guess not:
    “it’s my frustrated attempted to imbue a sense of moral conscience about what they’re doing.”
    OK, I think I understand now: it’s OK to scream “Nazi, Nazi” at Jews if you have a Conscience, then, is that it?
    So when my conscience gets the better of me, you won’t get pissed if I call you a pig-fucking terrorist suporter when I don’t agree with your psotion, right, Mob? It’s just my attempt to “imbue a sense of moral conscienece” (whatever the hell that means). No hard feelings.
    Glad you cleared that up.

  19. Mob,
    what’s to discuss? Fighting for our right to opress? So if a Jew owns a home and the Arabs want him out, then he should just leave or expect to be evicted?
    What you are saying is that Palestinian rights are more important than Jewish rights and lives AND that the racial segregating populations is justified.

  20. Mobius:
    We have discussed several times your penchant for applying nazi terminology to people. I think you are dead wrong to do it.
    When’s that terminology use conference in NY? It’s almost Feb. I want that conference to happen, and you lined up people, so do it. And stop it. Thanks.
    Why are you bothering with some of these responses? You will not convince people who are set in their ways to change their minds.
    Lots of Jews are trapped in a victim mentality and have decided that any attack is an attack worthy of a full-run total assault in return. Israel is suffering from siege mentality, and the terrorists are suffering from an excess of hate, and the people who think they will change any of that are delusional.
    Nuance is nonexistent with most of these people, and though Olmert and Sharon agree with you (and yet some of these folks who are writing you and some of our family members were rejoicing in Sharon’s stroke because they are psychopaths. These jerks, who look just like the Islamist extremists, have no idea how vicious and evil they themselves are for doing that, and how anti-Torah they really are and how full of hatred they are, just like their enemies, exactly like them). These are blind people who only want what they want, who refuse to take off their blinders, and well, you know, you have them on both sides.
    I despise Uri Avineri and Tony Kushner’s attitudes toward Israel. They both want it wiped off the map, just like the POS in Iran; Kushner said Israel needs to be destroyed and
    Spielberg, well, I don’t even want to go there… Kushner took a book written by a man who was lied to, gave it to Spielberg, twisted the whole thing around and made a pile of crap to smear all over the Jews.
    (Since I interviewed the real “Avner” 13 years ago, I know what a motherfucking liar he is–the tales he told of PanAm103, Iran Contra, BCCI, and George Habash…he was the president of a failing security company that was supposed to do investigations and was pimping his story around til 60 Minutes ripped him into tiny little pieces.
    He came to the US for one reason only: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and to get a movie made. He conned George Jonas–who said to me–Take everything with a grain of salt, believe nothing except physical evidence.)
    Lefties are full of shit, too, is my point, and the real solutions are nuanced and lie somewhere in the middle.
    But comparing people to the SS doesn’t work. Looking at those photos, the bitch with the yellow star should have it ripped off her chest and should spend three weeks at Yad Vashem learning what a yellow star REALLY means, along with her buddies. Maybe she should go along when Oprah does Auschwitz next month.
    What those little kids are are fucking terrorist piglets who are hormonally challenged. In the states, they would be getting drunk, smacking up their cars and doing five finger discounts. In Israel, these juvenile deliquents found other ways to have fun….by beating up Arabs, instead of going after homeless people in Queens with baseball bats.
    There is no difference between the hooligans in Hebron and the guys busted last week in NY for doing exactly that…tbeating up homeless people because they are offensive.
    So give it up. Stop wasting your time, and go write a book.
    I will never change their minds about anything, and you will never change people like Kachniks and Jewish kids who would rather be shitty little juvenile delinquents.
    Tikkun on yourself, first. Please do not use Nazi terms.
    Don’t worry about the dregs. And those kids in Hebron are the dregs. No better than the Hamas rock throwers who taught them so well. And they will end up the same way, by their own actions. Don’t smear yourself with their shit.

  21. mob, i hesitate to continue a line of questioning that may appear as though I am arguing on the side of josh and ephraim here, but nonetheless…
    Having realized that it is indeed irrational, I would ask if you really think that saying you give IDF anti terror units a Sieg Hiel will actually provoke a positive response. In whom do you think it will imbue a moral conscience? I feel that it’s one of those things which only furthers the polarization of both political sides from each other (those who feel the IDF are genocidal baby killers, and those who feel any Jew critical of of israel is an anti zionist traitor), giving both sides fuel to further their hatred of the other.
    I know you like to be provocative, which has its time and place, but I’m just asking you to consider if your provocations are actually helping or hurting the root cause you are fighting for.

  22. i said it was irrational; that generally means it’s not a well-thought out response; poorly conceived actions do not usually produce the desired results.

  23. anyone who objects to the idea of Israel existing as a Jewish state, and who lives in Israel, is a traitor and should be expelled
    that’s what they said about the abolitionists; those who object to the idea of slavery and live in the u.s. are traitors and should be expelled
    that’s what they say about people who oppose the bush administration presently; those who object to bush’s policies and live in the u.s. are traitors and should be expelled
    more than half the israeli public supports an end to the occpuation and an elevation of the rights and status of arabs living in israel and many support the idea of “israelism” which is a binationhood.
    how ’bout this: any white american ba’al teshuva who moves to israel in the interest of toppling the israeli government and destroying the secular state in order to replace it with a jewish theocracy that deprives all non-orthodox people of their rights is a traitor and should be expelled.

  24. This whole thread is wearing thin on my nerves. This isn’t about Dan’s views, the Jewish right to live in Hebron (reminder: Bibi, the new leader of the right gave majority it up a long time ago), the disgusting racism spewed by Ephraim, etc. It’s about the hooliganism of the “hilltop youth” who are currently attacking our soldiers. Wake up people. The nation of Israel will not and should not tolerate this behavior. Spending a Shabbat in Hebron does not qualify you as an expert on the community. I spent three months in 1999 as a combat soldier in Hebron and by no means does this make me an expert on the city but it sure made me realize how a Jewish community there is never going to work. Seeing a twelve year old Jewish girl kick a 5 year old Arab girl can do that to you. The residents there treated the soldiers protecting their homes with ZERO respect. Don’t you people get it? There are what, 600 Jews living among 130,000 Arabs? It boggles my mind that Israel puts in an enormous amount of resources to protect a community who doesn’t even respect them. These fundamentalists are a danger to our people. It’s not always about the fucking Arabs. I’m not one to sit down and have a glass of sweet tea and talk about our problems. I think dialogue is bullshit and I can’t wait for the final divorce. We have serious internal issues. The fundamentalists and extremist within our own community are getting worse every year. I’m not denying our historical (and for many spiritual ) connection to the city of Hebron. But this isn’t about the Machpaleh, its about an illegal jewish neighborhood. But this argument about who owns what gets old really quickly. Jews lived here first, no it was the Arabs…the reality on the ground is fucked up. The settlers of Hebron give Jews living throughout Judea and Samaria a bad name. I want a peaceful existence for my family in Israel, and that has become more important to me that the tenants of a greater Israel (Apparently the vast majority of Israeli agree with me on that one!) . I would say learn to be more pragmatic in your beliefs but all of you apologists’ brains are too fogged with Messianic thoughts and the old school line of “not one inch.” Thank God you are in the minority. If you feel so strongly about this why don’t you hop on a plane, take the 160 bus to Kiryat Arba, hitch down to Hebron and join your brethren in their struggle.
    Oh and it’s Ramat Beit Shemesh, not Beit Shemesh. Two totally different places. Also, according to the news here the family has lived there for several years and are not new to the neighborhood.

  25. I dunno, those kids looked awful sexy in those pictures. Brave, devoted, and honest.
    Let’s note why these particular images are having such a profound impact amongst Israel this last little while: The ski-masks. I think Israel is kinda shocked at how alienated Some Israelis are from the state, to the point of standing up for their homes and communities against “Our” soldiers.
    Why is this so offensive, this activism? Dan, do you really believe the settlers are only in the settlements for the sake of oppressing? They sound to me when ever I talk to them, that they just wanna do their thing in a wild free place, and fuck me if I want to get in their way.
    This madness is what keeps our borders safe, and our hands clean, the rest of us. Your violent cousin is the one that keeps you from getting mugged, maybe, if you live in that kind of place, and personally, i’d rather have the kids fighting for themselves and their space that have soldiers forced to do it against their wills, for something they don’t care about.
    It’s really shocking and confusing to much of Israel, the idea that some people don’t feel like the State is their friend, and are willing to fight it if it gets in their way. why shouldn’t anyone who’s defending something they value react this way?
    This is certainly not the healing torah, and it comes fromtthe most basest and basic of social convictions: right to your land. It’s kind of a mystery why our Torah would countanence and encourage such a weakness for security, if not for that it’s all we’ve wnated for a long time.
    And Abraham Issac, Simon and Levi, Moses and David, they’d probably be out there fucking shit up and saying the same kind of things as these kids.
    This what the bible’s been promising us the whole time. So, if any of us want, we can redefine what “The Land” means for ourselves. But how can we take away the simple meaning from the Torah itself?
    I’d argue that tribal responsibility to tribal needs, requests and demands, often brutal, are a larger cause for ancient rejection of Judaism by heretics than anything else, but only today.

  26. I’m really shocked (not really, there’s nothing new) about the blatant double standard here. If these kids were ‘refuseniks’ (as Asaf would call them), or ‘peace activists/anarchistrs’, they’d be getting kudos here.
    Harry,

    its about an illegal jewish neighborhood.

    Says who? Why is Caroline Glick reporting today that the supreme court never even ruled on this place? Is she making it up? Does anyone really believe the Army ‘compromise’ to have the current Jews leave and let new ‘legal’ Jews come in their place? I don’t.
    The settlers of Hebron give Jews living throughout Judea and Samaria a bad name.
    The blacks of Harlem give blacks living throughout America a bad name.
    The Arabs of Sachnin give Arabs living throughout the middle east a bad name.
    The white ashkenaz of Har Nof give white ashkenaz living throughout Jerusalem a bad name.
    Harry,
    please go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
    AND FWIW, the kids heating things up in Hebron are not only hilltop youth, or settlers, or even ex-Gush Katifians. You’d hate to hear that they are regular kids from around the country sick and tired of ‘the situation’.
    Much was said about the ‘kids’ who blockaded themselves on the roofs of the synagogues in Kfar Darom and Neve Dekalim. The media (where you seem to get all your info) didn’t know what to make of these people, and they certainly would not report that of the few hundreds bloackaders was a mix of settlers, youth, married professionals, residents of ‘green line’ Israel and what have you’.
    And last but not least, the famous ‘hilltop youth’ number in the dozens to couple of hundred. How do they always seem to be everywhere at the same time?

  27. Josh, please, just shut the fuck up. Seriously, shut the fuck up like you’ve never shut the fuck up before. You know nothing about me. I detest the so-called refuseniks and happen to support the security wall 100 percent. The radical leftists have never gotten any kudos from me so don’t you dare paint me as a leftist. I don’t know who the hell you think you are talking too. You are a delusional fool. Regular kids from around the country play video games, eat falafel, skateboard and sing songs. They do not dress up like out enemies and throw rocks at soldiers. You are not convincing anyone that these are normal kids. They are hoodlums. Period.
    Don’t fucking patronize me with your links to definitions you prick.

  28. What “disgusting racism” have I espoused? Cite, please. I want someone to point out where I have called for:
    1) overthrowing the secular state and replacing it with a theocracy
    2)stripping Arab citizens of Israel of their rights just because they’re Arabs
    3) expelling all Arabs from “Greater Israel” just because the’re Arabs
    Yes, I called Mobius some names, but he’s white, and a fellow Jews, so I hardly think that qualifies as racism.
    I am not discussing whether or not the particular community of people in Hebron conform to some people’s idea of “nice”. If what some people say is true, they sound like disagreeable people.
    What I am doing is asking a few basic questions:
    1) Do, or should, Jews have the right to live in Hebron? If not, why not? And if so, under what circumstances?
    2) Who actually owns the property in question?
    3) If pikuach nefesh is the overriding concern, and since obviously Jews defending themselves often leads to Jews getting killed, should not the Jews abandon Israel altogether and move someplace safe? How is defending the right of Jews to live in Hebron different than defending their right to live in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? This is not, repeat NOT, a rhetorical question. I am really trying to understand the underlying philosophy of Mobius’ postition.
    4) If the fact that the Arabs in Hebron don’t like living with Jews, and this is good reason for them to be expelled, does this not cede the moral high ground to the Arabs? Is it not an admission that Arab hatred of Jews is a good reason for Jews to leave so as not to offend Arabs? And again, if that is true in Hebron, how is it not true in Jerusalem or Haifa? Again, this is not a rhetorical question.
    I cannot speak to some of the actions of the people in Hebron towards the Arabs and their fellow Jews, of which people more knowlegable than I of the facts on the ground have more familiarity. But again: if we are to question the right of Jews to live in Hebron because the actions of a particular group of Jews are offensive, can we not also say that since some of the Arabs in Jenin are terrorists who murder Jewish children, the Arabs should be deprived of their right to live in Jenin? Again, this is not a rhetorical question.
    Regarding “communal punishment”, Mobius has once again evaded my question. Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and they do their best to kill as many Jews as they can. If they are elected by a majority of Palestinains, can we not assume, then, that the majority of Palestinians support this goal? And if so, does this not mean that the Palestinians are in a state of war with Israel? And if they are in a state of war with Israel, is not Israel duty bound to defend itself? This is not a rhetorical question. In objecting to what he calls “communal punishment”, Mobius is effectively saying that the presence of some innocent Arabs makes it impossible for Israel to take the fight to the terrorists. I simply want to know how far Mobius is willing to go to prevent Israel from defending itself and what his “red lines” are.
    For the record, if I believed that real peace would actually result, I would support considerable territorial compromise. If the Arabs really wanted peace this would be possible. But I don’t beleive they want peace. I objected to Oslo and everything that came from it not because I am a Messianist who hates Arabs and is opposed to compromise, but because it was crystal clear from the very beginning that the Palestinians were lying through their teeth and had no intention whatsoever of honoring any single promise they made to Israel. It was always clear to me that they never abandoned the “Strategy of Stages”. If one assumes that they really wanted peace, then abolutely nothing they have done makes any sense whatsoever. But if you start from the position that their ultimate goal is the eventual destruction of Israel, either by armed force or demography (their insistence on the “Right of Return” is the giveaway here), then everything they have done makes perfect sense and is, indeed, succeeding brilliantly. By preying on the fervent Jewish desire for peace and our inability to shake the gollus belief that people hate us because of something we have done, they have sown weakness and defeatism in Israel and in the Jewish community worldwide and have convinced the world that Israsel is the villain.
    I do not pretend to have any answers. And I have nothing but the deepest respect and admiration for the brave soldiers of the IDF who have been subjected to the most trying circumstances.
    But I really want Mobius to explain himself and stop calling Jews Nazis.

  29. Harry,
    who said I painted you as a leftist? Don’t put words into my mouth.
    And thank god that not all Israeli kids are your version of ‘normal’, i.e. consumers in training.
    What scares you is that:
    A) the hoods make them anonymous youth otherwise unrecognizable from ‘normal’ ‘secular’ kids. They don’t have the regular massive kipas and flying tzizit to conjure up connotations of fundamentalists like me I suppose (though I don’t have a massive kipa or usually wear tzizit exposed). Man, you definitely know me.
    B) without the hoods, these kids are perfectly normal (minus wasting time at Azrieli and on TV, let alone iPod). So much for not discriminating with regard to lifestyles alternative to yours.

  30. 1) Do, or should, Jews have the right to live in Hebron? If not, why not? And if so, under what circumstances?
    Yes, I believe Jews should have the right to live anywhere anyone else is allowed to live. However, according to international humanitarian law, an occupying power can not move members of its civilian population into occupied territory. It is considered a war crime. Additionally, Jews have no right to claim a right of return to abandoned property so long as they deny Palestinians that same right. Further, Jews who move to an area with the intention of expelling the residents of that area are not acting in good faith. While their right to residency (when the territory is not occupied) is unquestionable, they have no right to forcibly occupy property that is not legitimately their’s.
    2) Who actually owns the property in question?
    Some of the property in the Old City and the Casbah was originally owned by Sephardi Jews who had lived in Hebron since the Spanish expulsion, and some was also owned by Chabadniks who came later in the late 19th century. After the 1929 riots, most of the Jews left, with about 150 returning some time in 1931, only to be whisked out by British authorities in 1936 for their own protection. Under Jordanian rule, following the War of Independence, the land was apportioned to Arab residents. In 1967, Israel occupied Hebron and Kiryat Arba was soon established. By 1972, twenty Jewish families were squatting homes from which Palestinians had been evicted. In 1980, they took Beit Hadassa, in 1982 Beit Romano, in 1984 Tel Remeida, and throughout the 1990s the established Avraham Avinu. Their undying proclamation is that they are reclaiming Jewish land which was stolen after 1936. However, in 1996, forty members of the surviving Jewish community of Hebron that left in 1936 signed a public petition demanding the settlers give up claims to their families’ property. Some attempted to regain ownership of the property to prevent settlers from living there.
    3) If pikuach nefesh is the overriding concern, and since obviously Jews defending themselves often leads to Jews getting killed, should not the Jews abandon Israel altogether and move someplace safe? How is defending the right of Jews to live in Hebron different than defending their right to live in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem? This is not, repeat NOT, a rhetorical question. I am really trying to understand the underlying philosophy of Mobius’ postition.
    You know that’s a bullshit question. I fully and entirely support the right of Jewish people to defend themselves by whatever means necessary to protect their lives. The creation of the State of Israel was a necessity wrought by global antisemitism. There was no other option for us then. The occupation of Hebron, on the other hand, and settlement there is not a necessity and it never was. We made it from ’48 to ’67 just fine without Hebron. Thus there is no immediate need to live there and to do so is to endanger your own life, the lives of your children, and the lives of the 4000 soldiers stationed there to protect you.
    4) If the fact that the Arabs in Hebron don’t like living with Jews, and this is good reason for them to be expelled, does this not cede the moral high ground to the Arabs? Is it not an admission that Arab hatred of Jews is a good reason for Jews to leave so as not to offend Arabs? And again, if that is true in Hebron, how is it not true in Jerusalem or Haifa? Again, this is not a rhetorical question.
    That’s not why Jews aren’t welcome in Hebron. That’s a total misrepresentation. Jews aren’t welcome in Hebron because settlers steal and squat Arab houses and shops, and further necessitate the continuance of a military occupation which has destroyed Arab economic viability. Jews aren’t welcome in Hebron because they don’t come in peace. They come to expel, by their own vocal admission. And it was precisely a fear of the very explusion they are experiencing now which led the Arabs to riot in 1929 and again in 1936. And that’s even the story in Exodus. If anything, blame Revisionist rhetoric, which declared Arab explusion Zionism’s full intention.
    I cannot speak to some of the actions of the people in Hebron towards the Arabs and their fellow Jews, of which people more knowlegable than I of the facts on the ground have more familiarity. But again: if we are to question the right of Jews to live in Hebron because the actions of a particular group of Jews are offensive, can we not also say that since some of the Arabs in Jenin are terrorists who murder Jewish children, the Arabs should be deprived of their right to live in Jenin? Again, this is not a rhetorical question.
    Again, according to international humanitarian law, an occupying power can not move members of its civilian population into occupied territory. That is the primary reason why Jews cannot live in Hebron. If you want to change that status, annex Hebron, declare it part of Israel, and absorb the non-Jewish residents as Israeli citizens with full civil and democratic rights. Individuals who commit murder deserve to be put in jail. The repercussions of those individuals’ actions should not translate into collective punishment enacted against their entire people.
    Regarding “communal punishment”, Mobius has once again evaded my question. Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and they do their best to kill as many Jews as they can. If they are elected by a majority of Palestinains, can we not assume, then, that the majority of Palestinians support this goal? And if so, does this not mean that the Palestinians are in a state of war with Israel? And if they are in a state of war with Israel, is not Israel duty bound to defend itself? This is not a rhetorical question. In objecting to what he calls “communal punishment”, Mobius is effectively saying that the presence of some innocent Arabs makes it impossible for Israel to take the fight to the terrorists. I simply want to know how far Mobius is willing to go to prevent Israel from defending itself and what his “red lines” are.
    Once again, read the links in the Palestinian election roundup. Hamas is not going to win because people support their call for the destruction of Israel. Hamas is going to win because there is no other alternative to Fatah. (Israel, by the way, in its mission to bolster Fatah, has been crippling moderate parties which have been calling for a two-state solution and an implementation of the Geneva Accords.) Further, when most Palestinians call for an end to Israel, they are calling for an end to what they see as a racist state which dispossesed them of their homeland and disenfranchised them of their civil and democratic rights. They have no problem living side-by-side with Jews in a civil democratic society. That does not translate into our mass-extermination unless you believe that an open democracy will lead to our destruction.
    For the record, if I believed that real peace would actually result, I would support considerable territorial compromise. If the Arabs really wanted peace this would be possible. But I don’t beleive they want peace. I objected to Oslo and everything that came from it not because I am a Messianist who hates Arabs and is opposed to compromise, but because it was crystal clear from the very beginning that the Palestinians were lying through their teeth and had no intention whatsoever of honoring any single promise they made to Israel.
    That’s what they thought about us, as we continued to expand settlements, seize territory, raize houses and olive groves, create checkpoints, cancel work visas, and so forth, all throughout the Oslo negotiations: We were lying through our teeth.
    It was always clear to me that they never abandoned the “Strategy of Stages”. If one assumes that they really wanted peace, then abolutely nothing they have done makes any sense whatsoever. But if you start from the position that their ultimate goal is the eventual destruction of Israel, either by armed force or demography (their insistence on the “Right of Return” is the giveaway here), then everything they have done makes perfect sense and is, indeed, succeeding brilliantly. By preying on the fervent Jewish desire for peace and our inability to shake the gollus belief that people hate us because of something we have done, they have sown weakness and defeatism in Israel and in the Jewish community worldwide and have convinced the world that Israsel is the villain.
    All of this comes through the lens of a right-wing Jewish narrative and none of it takes into account the Palestinian narrative, which, of course, in your self-reinforcing “logic”, is just propaganda and lies.
    Yes, it is perhaps true, their end goal is to see an end to the state of Israel. But once again, that does not translate into a genocide of the Jews unless you believe that our deaths are the only outcome in the event of a civil democracy.
    I do not pretend to have any answers. And I have nothing but the deepest respect and admiration for the brave soldiers of the IDF who have been subjected to the most trying circumstances. But I really want Mobius to explain himself and stop calling Jews Nazis.
    I have explained myself. And fine, I will stop comparing Jews who behave like Nazis to Nazis. But I want you to stop claiming we have a right to violate international humanitarian law.
    A state is a system of laws and an authority with a mandate from the people to uphold those laws. No one in this country respects the law, whether municipal, national, or international. Not the cops, not the politicians, not the military, not the citizens. Until this country comes under the rule of law — it’s own, and the international community’s — its legitimacy will be in question.

  31. Kimmerling on the “stages” argument:
    http://hnn.us/articles/3166.html
    By the same token, Morris fails to ask the right questions about the failed Camp David summit. If the Palestinian strategy is to destroy Israel in phases, why didn’t they accept the “most generous offers” of Ehud Barak Camp David summit, as was described in the famous interview of Morris with Barak in the New York Review of Books (June 13, 2002)?

  32. Mob,
    you’re explanation is somewhat opinionated obviously. There is a dispute whether Israel is an ‘occupying power’ since no sovreignty existed on this land for it to be conquered. But that’s an old and endless argument.
    As for not viewing Hebron or other Jewish neighbourhoods as ‘micro’ for the Israel ‘macro’, your prerogative, but I think that it’s merely hiding your head in the sand. If this whole situation was a simple territorial issue, it could have been solved a long time ago. But you need two to tango with your assumptions and frankly, the Palestinian Arabs have never, ever claimed that a complete Jewish withdrawal to the pre-67 bordersand a two states is their end goal. Thinking that once we complete that move would end the conflict is ignorance as well as condescening towards these Arabs.
    Two things that no one has ever been able to prove:
    -‘racial’ segragation elicits peace,
    -the need for Jews to leave areas where they legally own land, but aren’t wanted will lead to peace.

  33. the Palestinian Arabs have never, ever claimed that a complete Jewish withdrawal to the pre-67 bordersand a two states is their end goal.
    never said it was.
    Thinking that once we complete that move would end the conflict is ignorance as well as condescening towards these Arabs.
    i didn’t say it would end the conflict. it’s an interim step and most folks i know acknowledges it as such.
    Two things that no one has ever been able to prove:
    -’racial’ segragation elicits peace,
    -the need for Jews to leave areas where they legally own land, but aren’t wanted will lead to peace.

    a) i never said either of those things. b) the jews presently in hebron do not legally own the land.
    my guess is, you didn’t actually read my comments.

  34. The blog Ben Chorin has a different explanation of the issue of the land/residency issue in Hebron whoch seems to conflict with Mobius’ version, so I’m not sure what to say on that.
    But that’s really irrelevant now, it seems to me. I think I’m getting a sense of where Mobius is coming from, so if I may extrapolate from some of his remarks:
    He justifies the Arab pogrom against the Jews of Hebron, saying they were rightly afraid of being displaced by the Zionists. That is to say, he is blaming the murder of Jews by Arabs on Zionism, and appears to be saying that if it weren’t for Zionism relations between Jews and Arabs would have been fine. Am I understanding you correctly, Mobius?
    If I am, and I do not see any other way of interpreting his remarks, this is, frankly, profoundly shocking. Usually, it is Nazis and anti-Semites, not Jews, who blame the Jews theselves for causing their own murder, which the anti-Semites themselves conveniently commit, so it is disturbing in the extreme to see Mobius in their company. But what do you expect from a guy who calls Jews Nazis? Apropos of that, if the Jews were real Nazis, there wouldn’t be a single Arab left alive between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and he knows it. As it is, all we hear about is the Arab “demographic timebomb”. Some Nazis. C’mon, Mob, I want to see evidence of Zionist death camps, Zionsit gas chambers, Zionist crematoria and Zionist Einsatzgruppen where the Arabs have been rounded up, shot, gassed and burned, with their gold teeth extracted and melted down to be put in the Zionist vaults. Put up or shut up.
    But, on to the crux of the matter. If Mobius believes that the Arabs in Hebron were justified in mudering the Jews because they were afraid of what would happen to them if the Jews became a majority, then how can one condemn the Arab resistance to Zionism or the establishment of Israel on any level? Indeed, by Mobius’ own logic, he must be honor-bound to believe that the Arab resitance to Jewish immigration was altogether justifed and that, by extension, the entire Zionist premise is illegitimate.
    Mobius says that my question about the difference between Hebron and Jerusalem and Tel Aviv is a bullshit question, but if he really believes that Arab fears were justified, I don’t really see how he can say that and remain true to the thesis of his argument. If Jews caused their own misfortune by espousing Zionism, then isn’t the logical conclusion that the Jews must abandon Zionism and live in such a way that the gentiles do not get mad at us, since any assertion of Jewish independence or self-determination must inevitably bring down the righteous wrath of the gentiles upon us?
    But, says Mobius, the Jews had no choice but to esatablish Israel. But I must ask: why does Mobius believe this? If he believes that the Arabs in Hebron in 1929 and again in 1936, prior to the founding of Israel and the genocide in Europe, were right to resist Jewish “encroachment”, what possible justification can he offer for the founding of Israel?
    Desparate Jewish need? But how, logically, does Jewish need trump Arab rights? And why should the Arabs care about what was happening to the Jews? This is, indeed, the entire crux of their argument: why punish us for what the Nazis did? If the Arabs were right to do what they did in Hebron, they were right to do it wherever they could, no?
    My sense is that while Mobius believes that while in the past the Jews perhaps had no choice but to do their best to save their own lives and to hell with anyone who tried to stop them, this no longer applies. That is, the establishment of Israel was morally wrong, but sometimes them’s the breaks. But now, since the Jews have been saved, which is the only good reason for Israel to exist at all, we have to stop acting like people are still trying to destroy Israel or drive out the Jews and to stop asserting Jewish rights, which is what caused all of this in the first place. How is this anything other than a complete repudiation of the moral right of Israel to exist as a state of, by, and for Jews? I cannot shake the feeling that in his heart of hearts, Mobius simply does not believe in the right of the Jews to Israel as a Jewish state. He may think establishing Israel was an unfortunate necessity, but he does not believe that it has any real right to be there, at least not in its present form.
    Judging from Mobius’ remarks, it seems that he is in favor of not only a complete retreat to the 1948 armistice lines, he views this as an “interim solution”. May I ask what he sees as the “final solution” (pun most definitely intended)? Again, extrapolating from his general tenor and other remarks, I assume it is something like this: go back to the ’48 lines and change Israel from a Jewish state to a “state of all of its citizens”. This will be fine even if the Arabs eventually become a majority, since the Arabs don’t support Hamas because they hate Jews, but would be perfectly happy to live side-by-side with Jews in a civil society where everyone has equal rights.
    Idealistic, perhaps, but dangerous. There is nothing in past history or present practice that should lead any rational person to believe that the rights of Jews would be respected by an Arab-majority state.
    What this amounts to, of course, is a prescription for a state where the Jews would certainly become a minority living among a Muslim Arab majority. Based on past history, I fail to see how this is anything other than a call to return to the Jim Crow days of Jewish dhimmitude under the Muslims.
    Lastly, regarding the “Stages” strategy. Baruch Kimmerling, and anyone who sees any merit in his argument, must be really, really, naive. The deal proposed at Camp David and Taba was a final status agreement. That is, it would have required Arafat to actually sign a real peace treaty saying that this was it, all outstanding issues were settled and that from now on there would be peace between the Palestinians and Israel. A real peace treaty would have tied his hands completely and prevented him from continuing his war, since abrogating it would have brought the wrath of the world down on him and given Israel the moral upper hand. It would have also done something else even more far-reaching: it would have sapped the will of the Palestinians to keep fighting. He knew that once he signed that paper it was all over. So of course he did not sign it.
    The Palsetinain strategy is well served by the present situation, however: they have a “government” which is recognized as legitimate by most of the world, yet they have no obligation to forswear military action precisely because the situation is unsetlled. This what they were after: the ability to establish the Palestinian “fighting authority” on “liberated” land, which would be the springboard to furher conquest. They have their territorial base, no one pressures them to stop fighting, and millions of dollars pour into their coffers from all over the world. So far, I would say the strategy is succeeding brilliantly.

  35. He justifies the Arab pogrom against the Jews of Hebron, saying they were rightly afraid of being displaced by the Zionists. That is to say, he is blaming the murder of Jews by Arabs on Zionism, and appears to be saying that if it weren’t for Zionism relations between Jews and Arabs would have been fine. Am I understanding you correctly, Mobius?
    If a man murders his wife’s lover, and I say, “He killed they guy because the guy was fucking his wife,” am I justifying the murder, or am I identifying the killer’s motive? Clearly the murderer is guilty of murder. Clearly the word murder in-and-of-itself infers the most grave and horrendous crime imaginable. Clearly the murderer has done something sick, wrong, and entirely unjustifiable. That doesn’t even need to be stated.
    I stated that which gave rise to Arab fears, provoking the Hebron massacre: Very public statements on the part of Zionists to forcibly disposses the Arabs of this land. Did I justify the pogrom? No. Did I excuse it? No. Did I say it was ok? No. But you’re saying I did. And I’m saying, fuck you.
    If I am, and I do not see any other way of interpreting his remarks, this is, frankly, profoundly shocking.
    If this is how you interpret my remarks, you need to take a class in reading comprehension and perhaps see a psychologist, because you have this problem with seeing things that aren’t actually there.
    Usually, it is Nazis and anti-Semites, not Jews, who blame the Jews theselves for causing their own murder, which the anti-Semites themselves conveniently commit, so it is disturbing in the extreme to see Mobius in their company. But what do you expect from a guy who calls Jews Nazis? Apropos of that, if the Jews were real Nazis, there wouldn’t be a single Arab left alive between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and he knows it.
    First of all, If you move somewhere and start making very public statements about how you’re going to kick everyone else out and then you get your ass handed to you, you are the one responsible for your own ass kicking. The Jews of Hebron were not Zionists. What happened to them is inexcusible. I haven’t made excuses for it and I haven’t justified it. But I will hold the Revisionist Zionists accountable for their rhetoric which created a pretext for the Mufti to spread his vile garbage and incite the Arab public.
    Zev Jabotinsky publicly called for Chaim Arlozoroff’s assasination. Arlozoroff was murdered soon thereafter. His words led to his fellow Jew being killed. Jabotinsky didn’t pull the trigger, but the World Zionist Congress did seek to hold him accountable for his rhetoric by attempting to expell the Revisionists from the Congress.
    Secondly, I didn’t call Jews Nazis. I said very specifically: The guys riding around on motorcycles dressed in all black whose sole job is to harass Arabs are acting like the fucking SS. You are saying that I made a sweeping generalization about Jews being Nazis. I did no such thing and you are completely and totally misrepresenting what I said, assigning to me words and ideas which are most certainly not mine.
    Indeed, by Mobius’ own logic, he must be honor-bound to believe that the Arab resitance to Jewish immigration was altogether justifed and that, by extension, the entire Zionist premise is illegitimate.
    Jabotinsky himself said that Arab resistance to Jewish immigration was justified, hence why we need to fight them and drive them from the land.
    If Jews caused their own misfortune by espousing Zionism, then isn’t the logical conclusion that the Jews must abandon Zionism and live in such a way that the gentiles do not get mad at us, since any assertion of Jewish independence or self-determination must inevitably bring down the righteous wrath of the gentiles upon us?
    Jews should fight for freedom, independence, and self-determination in every land in which they live. And not all of Zionism espoused the expulsion of Arabs from this land. Throughout all of Zionist history, there have been strains opposed to the existence of a Jewish state. Territory is not a precondition to emancipation. And we should stand up and fight for our rights wherever anyone attempts to deprive us of them. Zionism is a form of escapsim.
    Again, you’re assigning ideas to me which are not “the logical outcome” of my beliefs, because you clearly have no fucking clue what I believe.
    But how, logically, does Jewish need trump Arab rights? And why should the Arabs care about what was happening to the Jews? This is, indeed, the entire crux of their argument: why punish us for what the Nazis did? If the Arabs were right to do what they did in Hebron, they were right to do it wherever they could, no?
    You won’t catch me saying that Jewish need trumps Arab rights. Our entire predicament is a result of our depravation of rights. We can not demand our own rights while depriving others of theirs. And again, I DID NOT SAY THAT THE ARABS OF HEBRON WERE RIGHT FOR WHAT THEY DID. I simply identified the pretext.
    My sense is that while Mobius believes that while in the past the Jews perhaps had no choice but to do their best to save their own lives and to hell with anyone who tried to stop them, this no longer applies. That is, the establishment of Israel was morally wrong, but sometimes them’s the breaks.
    Yep.
    But now, since the Jews have been saved, which is the only good reason for Israel to exist at all, we have to stop acting like people are still trying to destroy Israel or drive out the Jews and to stop asserting Jewish rights, which is what caused all of this in the first place. How is this anything other than a complete repudiation of the moral right of Israel to exist as a state of, by, and for Jews?
    I never said we should stop asserting our rights. No human being, no ethnic group, no population ever, should stop asserting their rights.
    I cannot shake the feeling that in his heart of hearts, Mobius simply does not believe in the right of the Jews to Israel as a Jewish state. He may think establishing Israel was an unfortunate necessity, but he does not believe that it has any real right to be there, at least not in its present form.
    You, sir, are correct. And most university educated secular Israelis under the age of 40 seem to agree with me.
    Judging from Mobius’ remarks, it seems that he is in favor of not only a complete retreat to the 1948 armistice lines, he views this as an “interim solution”. May I ask what he sees as the “final solution” (pun most definitely intended)? Again, extrapolating from his general tenor and other remarks, I assume it is something like this: go back to the ‘48 lines and change Israel from a Jewish state to a “state of all of its citizens”. This will be fine even if the Arabs eventually become a majority, since the Arabs don’t support Hamas because they hate Jews, but would be perfectly happy to live side-by-side with Jews in a civil society where everyone has equal rights.
    I am not in favor of a retreat to the 48 armistice lines. I am in favor of a completely unified binational “state of all its citizens.” But it is not the state you imagine in which an ethnic majority has the power to lord over minorities. A constitution which protects the rights and self-determination of all ethnic groups, and which allows for the representation of these groups via councils (much in the way Yesha operates) is an entirely feasible arrangement. I envision a libertarian protectorate under which Jews, Christians, Muslims, and the secular are all free to manage their own affairs without one imposing rule on the other. Muslims could live under Shariah, Jews could live under halakha, the secular could live under civil law, and in the places where the communities overlap, there could be conflict resolution councils comprised of representatives from all communities, and chaired by experts trained in conflict resolution.
    And there is presenly a Palestinian initiative advancing this very same idea on the other side of the green line.
    None of this is to the exclusion of the fact that Israel exists, and I expect, will continue to exist for some time. And in that, until a negotiated peace and consensual agreement to live in peace is reached, Israel is entitled to exist and to defend itself against those who seek to kill its inhabitants. However, Israel is not entitled to collectively punish Palestinians nor further expropriate land from them. Because it is a response to the immoral actions of the nations of the world, Israel has a responsibility to act morally. The occupation and its attendant sins, however, are not moral endeavors so far as I’m concerned. And I will work to end the occupation, and to foster peace and understanding between Jews and Arabs, so that one day the ideal can be realized.
    Love cannot be coerced; it can only be awakened through love itself.

  36. “I cannot shake the feeling that in his heart of hearts, Mobius simply does not believe in the right of the Jews to Israel as a Jewish state. He may think establishing Israel was an unfortunate necessity, but he does not believe that it has any real right to be there, at least not in its present form.
    You, sir, are correct. And most university educated secular Israelis under the age of 40 seem to agree with me.”
    That’s a pretty strong assertion. Do you have a more precise number of Israelis who believe in that statement?

  37. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. My reading comprehension is perfectly fine. The more you keep saying that you don’t condone what the Arabs did in Hebron, the more you condone it. You say that what they did was perfectly understandable. This is not condoning? This appears to be one of those “Well, I don’t like it, but what do you expect?” things.This kind of understanding but not condemning is not only ridiculous, self-serving moral posturing, it is patronizing and condescending to the Arabs. “I think what they did was awful, uncivilized and barbaric, but what can you expect of them?” I think I understand you perfectly well.
    Would you cut Israel the same slack, I wonder? No, of course not. If you did, you would say it is perfectly understandable for Israel to destroy Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and Hizb’allah, etc., root and branch, come hell or high water, because of its perfectly justifiable fears brought on by Arab rhetoric (and homicide bombers, and Kassems, and etc., etc.). But of course you do not really believe Israel has that right. You say that you do, but at the same time you are actively working towards destroying Israel and replacing it with an unworkable patchwork quilt of mutually esclusive ethno-religious enclaves. The Northern and Southern Kingdoms writ large. We all know how that worked out.
    This is a pleasant pipe-dream, befittitng a person who seems to be an anarcho-libertarian luftmensch, but how and why would such a “country” stay whole? A country neds to have an ethos that unites the people into a nation of people that are willing to sacrifice for one another. The “country” you envision would have no such ethos. Inevitably, the Jews would be swallowed up by the Arabs.
    On one thing you are quite right. I have no fucking idea what you believe. I don’t think you have any fucking clue, either. What do you mean by “Jews should fight for freedom, independence, and self-determination in every land in which they live”. WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you advocating that every country in the world should be carved up into ethnic cantons? Are you basically advocating that each ethinc group should foment insurrection against the government of their respective countries and establish a territorial area carved out of the country in which they live that they will then rule?
    Oh, yeah. That’ll work.
    If most most university educated secular Israelis under the age of 40 seem to agree with you, Israel is in much bigger trouble than I thought. However, since most people seem to live in an echo chamber, I assume that you are wrong and that what you really mean is that most such people you know feel that way.
    But if you are right, Israel is headed towards destruction, G-d forbid. The only bright spot is that I expect, as usual, the Arabs will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.

  38. I’ll be completly unbiased as i conclude , i love these jewish resistance youths! Let us all be with them soon.

Leave a Reply

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.