[Note: I have revised the first paragraph of this post to take some note of comments addressed to the original version, and in light of my own further thoughts]
Dani Dayan’s article, “Israel’s Settlers Are Here to Stay,” was published by the NY Times on July 26, 2012. Dayan is the chairman of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities, and has been long known as a leading spokesperson of the settler movement. An obvious response to such a settler screed might be to dismiss it out of hand as an extremist expression of Israeli views, which it certainly is, but it would seem a mistake to do this before taking some account of its content and timing. The moral and legal premises that underlie Dayan’s insistence that the settlers will never leave the West Bank are without substance, but the political arguments he puts forward are so strong as to be virtually irrefutable. It may also be worthwhile to speculate as to why Dayan decided to drop this bombshell into the midst of the American electoral maelstrom as a kind of trial baloon at this time and why the NY Times, so normally careful about such matters, opened up its opinion page to views so at odd with mainstream thinking that has prevailed for decades about how to resolve the conflict. How Netanyahu stands on these issues is a bit of a mystery. Although he has backed the creation of a Palestinian state in recent years, he has also generally supported the settler movement and has not yet repudiated the recent Levy Report that reached conclusions that I would imagine that Dayan welcomes.
Dayan’s first premise contends that the settler movement is entitled to the territory obtained in 1967 because it was the Palestinians who at the time were threatening Israel with the prospect of annihilation and it was Israel that acted in self-defense whereby it came into the possession of the West Bank and the whole of Jerusalem. This is a position lacking traction among almost all international law specialists, increasingly contested by diplomatic historians as to the actual sequence of events in 1967, and politically rejected shortly after the fact by the entire international community, including the United States. This rejection was expressed in the authoritative and unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 242 passed in 1967 calling for an Israeli withdrawal from the territories that had been occupied in the Six Day War. No Israeli leader, including even the rejectionist Netanyahu, has openly challenged this line of interpretation, although the settler movement from its origins has fed off Israeli ambivalence as to whether a peace agreement was really in Israel’s interest if it meant the substantial return of the territories occupied in 1967. The Israeli de facto compromise was to endorse the two state consensus by incremental stages, but simultaneously to engage in a concerted variety of actions that made its implementation increasingly implausible from the perspective of practical politics.
It is astonishing that most governments in the world and the highest officials at the UN have chosen to disregard this implausibility up to this very moment. What Dayan is in effect telling the world is that the realities of the situation make it hypocritical and useless to keep pretending that a negotiated peace between the parties is, or ever was, a political option. In his opinion, there are now too many settlers with no intention to leave ever, and most not apparently not susceptible to bribes having forgone profitable opportunities to sell their settlement property in the past. Dayan tellingly points out that it was nearly impossible for the pro-settler Sharon government to get 8,000 settlers to leave Gaza in 2005, making the idea of removing the 350,000 settlers now living in the West Bank (expected to rise to 400,000 by 2014), 160,000 of whom are outside the settlement blocs, a misguided pipedream, or in Dayan’s words, “exponentially more difficult” and hence their presence “in all of Judea and Samaria..is an irreversible fact.” Can any responsible person doubt the force of Dayan’s reasoning on this central issue?
Dayan develops his argument by invoking a combination of “inalienable rights” and a “realpolitik” favorable to settler claims . I find Dayan convincing from a realpolitik perspective, given the realities of the current balance of forces in Israel/Palestine, in the region, and in the world, although this could prove to be short lived. In contrast, Dayan is totally self-serving and one-sided when he also claims that inalienable rights support his conception of Greater israel. Such a claim overlooks the relevance of the generally accepted reading of Article 49(6) of Geneva Convention IV that prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population to an occupied territory or altering the character of an occupied society. Dayan’s views also seem blind to the immorality of displacing the Palestinian people who have lived on these lands for centuries even if one grants the underlying Zionist claim to a homeland in historic Palestine. The fact that the Palestinian leaders and the neighboring Arab governments rejected the UN endorsed partition plan back in 1948 does not mean that the Palestinian people implicitly waived or lost their right to self-determination, which is genuinely inalienable. And it certainly doesn’t mean that Palestinians can be doomed to live indefinitely under apartheid conditions as a rightless, subjugated minority (that might soon be a majority), remembering that apartheid is enumerated as one instance of crimes against humanity in the statute of the International Criminal Court. There are, to be sure, inalienable rights, but they belong to the Palestinians, and certainly not to the settlers.
Dayan refers to the West Bank throughout as “Judea and Samaria,” their biblical names in Jewish tradition, apparently as a way of signaling his defiance of world public opinion as to the status of the territories. Again we can at least welcome this brazen expression of honesty, not hiding behind evasions and linguistic ambiguities as Israeli diplomats have tended to do over the years when it comes to acknowledging the significance of continuously expanding the settlements, creating a network of expensive settler roads, and building the separation wall while still affirming their readiness to negotiate the formation of an independent Palestinian state. Dayan minces no words, insisting that a Palestinian state between Jordan and Israel would always have been an unsustainable security disaster for Israel. Such a Palestinian state would quickly fall under the control of Hamas as it became a place of refuge for hundred of thousands of embittered Palestinians who have been living in refugee camps for almost 65 years. According to Dayan, such a Palestinian state would be a crucible of anti-Israeli extremism that would inevitably prompt Israeli military reoccupation. This makes some sense once more from an Israeli realpolitik viewpoint, but its implications for the Palestinians is so manifestly unacceptable as to make its a declaration of total and permanent war against Palestinian hopes, aspirations, and rights. Maybe for this reason such a logic as espoused by Dayan has rarely been articulated outside of Israel.
To be fair, Dayan does not entirely brush aside considerations bearing on Palestinian wellbeing. To his credit, he does not even discuss, much less support, ethnic cleansing, to ensure the maintenance of Jewish identity in a democratic polity. Dayan seems content to endure an eventual Palestinian majority population so long as the Israelis are in control, that is, Israeli domination is apparently sufficient for security, and this outweighs the search for democratic legitimacy. Without raising the question of Palestinian rights, Dayan claims that the Palestinian Authority is not dissatisfied with the status quo, and that Palestinian economic development is proceeding in areas under their control, especially in and around Ramallah. Furthermore, if Palestinians would only give up their futile resistance, Dayan says that most checkpoints could be removed. His ‘solution’ for the refugee problem is to improve the conditions in the camps, which he acknowledges as wretched. To think that this is morally, legally, or politically adequate is to understand how far from accepted ideas of justice Dayan strays while seeking to convince readers that not only is the occupation over but that all can be made to be okay even for the Palestinians.
Why should not this assault of human dignity be merely refuted and cast aside as confirmation of just how extremist and bold the settler movement has become? There are several reasons for a more reflective response. Most importantly, Dayan’s analysis demolishes the existing unquestioned diplomatic framework that has locked Palestinian dreams into an endless nightmare of oppression and futility. By doing this, he opens the way to a necessary dialogue as to what kind of solution can be plausibly put in place of the two-state consensus? Less significantly, he lends credibility to arguments from critics, such as myself, of the peace process as foisting a cruel deception on the Palestinians and public opinion, while the settlement time bomb is allowed keep on ticking without being defused.
Also, perhaps, whether deliberately or not, the NY Times by highlighting Dayan’s views so outrageously at odds with its consistent editorial position over the years, has decided belatedly to acknowledge that a new set of realities pertains to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Maybe this august newspaper that never strays too far from the Pentagon/State Department line on Middle East foreign policy received a midnight signal from Washington that it was time to start a new debate on how to depict the conflict or even to begin the difficult task of envisioning the shape and auspices of a new peace process. Of course, to dump such a smoke bomb into the midst of an already confusing presidential electoral campaign seems so strange as to make one wonder whether the NY Times opinion gatekeepers, normally so vigilant, may have on this occasion been caught sleeping, allowing Dayan’s radical dissent from the liberal conventional wisdom of the newspaper to slip by unnoticed.
Global Justice in the 21st Century 
Richard,
Thanks for your calm analysis of yesterday’s op-ed from Dani Dayan in the newspaper of record. I believe that you are correct that Dayan is serving here as a proxy for the Israeli government, and this article presents what will, eventually, be taken up as Israel’s official policy. That this message is timed to introduce a frightening new reality just before the American elections cannot be accidental; the fig leaf of conciliation represented by talk of a two-state solution is now falling away at a moment when the American president is neutered by huge campaign donations to his political opponent. The world is waking up to the terrifying reality that the Jewish state is so strong that they no longer need to hide their true nature. Driven by some kind of revolting Freudian impulse, they are also telling us more about what probably happened in the 1930’s in Europe. We are all too horrified to admit it even to ourselves, but it does appear that some aspect of Jewish religious observance must promote a particular kind of triumphalism that eventually causes this group, time and time again, to convince themselves that they are entitled, even required, to dominate or eradicate the lesser people they are forced to live among. Probably, there is nothing that can be done to prevent the next catastrophe. Israel has already set up a likely war in Iran, and it appears now that Syria and Israel will also engage militarily, with both sides threatening to deploy their WMD, and America so in thrall to the Israeli’s as to be incapable of preventing this sickening turn of events. Who would have thought that, only 60 years after the previous total war, that we would see this kind of vile behavior on the part of a privileged, wealthy group?
OK, you show it’s “interesting”. But what to do?
Firstly it is not a justifyable position – it’s illegal, immoral and deceptive; secondly (as you imply) it’s a world problem (cf international law, the UN resolutions). So, are we all accepting of illegality, deception and immorality? Of course not. Thirdly, any solution must engage both Palestinians and Israelis, and probably neighbours. Accepting Israeli policy is well before first base of any agreement, and as you say, impossible. Fourthly, the long-term interests of Europe and the Middle east will colour any solution (Europeans regard the Israel problem as the most dangerous for them of all). Even with the Syrian debacle, Lebanon, Egypt etc remain alarmed by Israel’s presence – a nuclear, uncontrollable power, super-supported by USA militarily, financially, politically which unites otherwise disparate Arab countries.
Maybe the best we can all do is clamour for an international conference on the region, involving everyone (including Iran); it’s probably, at most, a review of the framework and the limits of agreement and action. Too many are engaged with the problem for a smaller gathering to be accepted or form any basis for a settlement. What is clear, is that USA and Israel cannot alone decide the matter if any lasting solution is to be found.
Prof. Falk:
I agree that Dani Dayan is seeking to insinuate the issue of Palestinian statehood into the American presidential election. Most conspiratorial theories contain a kernel of truth. It may also be that some Israeli political figures encouraged him to do so. But your allegation that Dayan is shilling for Prime Minister Netanyahu by floating a trial balloon to pressure Obama cannot be supported by the known facts, or by a reasonable assessment of Israeli and American politics.
Were its author not Dani Dayan, a more realistic thesis would be that the piece was intended to sandbag Obama’s Republican opponent. Romney arrives in Israel tomorrow, where reporters will press him for a reaction. Should he give credence to Danyan’s views, reversing more than four decades U.S. policy, a period that includes the administrations of five Republican presidents, he risks a substantial loss of support from the Old GOP base, and well as from independents and some Tea Partiers. If he waffles, he adds to his reputation for being a waffler. It won’t be a comfortable place for him to be. Netanyahu and his people wouldn’t want to put him there, (although it may be why the New York Times chose to publish the piece at this time—but now I’m revealing my own fondness for conspiratorial theories.)
Netanyahu recently reiterated his support for Palestinian statehood, both to a joint session of the US Congress and to the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Netanyahu government’s quarrel with Obama is not over whether settlements will be removed to make way for an independent Palestinian state, but over how many, when and under what circumstances will this happen.
Reliable opinion polls show that upwards of 60 percent of Israel Jews, and more than 75 percent of American Jews accept the concept of Palestinian statehood. This consensus is reflected in a piece entitled “Settler Leader’s Wrongheaded Proposal,” which appeared in yesterday’s edition of the daily blog of Commentary Magazine, a staunchly right-wing Republican voice that excoriates Obama on virtually a daily basis.
(I’m submitting it in its totality so that those who follow your blog can read it. I hope you can find space for it).
Readers will note that its denunciation of the Dayan piece is stronger even than your own. If it outraged the editors of Commentary Magazine, it’s unlikely that your allegation of a Netanyahu connection is credible.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Settler Leader’s Wrongheaded Proposal
Seth Mandel | @SethAMandel 07.26.2012 – 12:06 PM
Yesha Chairman Dani Dayan’s New York Times op-ed is sure to rankle Mideast watchers on both sides of the issue. Dayan writes that not only is the two-state solution dead, but it should be declared so and the settlement movement should be free to expand throughout the West Bank. Although Dayan makes a couple of important points about the weakness of the current push for a two-state solution, he ignores both an accepted reality and the Palestinian people, and two of his ideas contained in the op-ed would be, if accepted, detrimental to the American foreign policy doctrine that results in such steadfast American support for Israel.
First and foremost, a majority of Israelis (usually around the 60 percent mark, sometimes higher) consistently support the two-state solution, even at a time when that proposal is clearly at a post-Oslo low point. So Dayan need not appeal to readers of the New York Times; he is far from convincing his own countrymen to join him. It is much easier to understand why the Times chose to publish the op-ed: the American left would like to frame the debate as consisting of two points of view–Dayan’s and J Street’s. Both are outside the mainstream consensus on this issue, and it is only up against Dayan’s arguments that the hard-left can appear reasonable. With regard to Dayan, there are three questions he should be asked after writing this op-ed.
First, the obvious: What about the Palestinians? Dayan doesn’t say Israel should give the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria voting rights. If he would, is he not concerned about the demographics at play? If he would not, is he suggesting that the Palestinians should be a permanently stateless people and that Israel would be permanently without clear national borders? He writes that Israeli security should be paramount, but the Judea and Samaria he envisions would be a long-term security nightmare for Israel.
Second, has he thought through the implications to U.S. foreign policy of his proposal? Specifically, he seems to want the U.S.–a principal external force on the peace process–to ignore its own dedication to the right of self-determination for the Palestinians. But that would mean weakening American devotion to the general principle of self-determination, which is a major driving force behind continued American support for Israel. Does Dayan, as a political figure in a country whose right to exist is constantly being questioned by a resurging global anti-Semitism, not just in the Arab states but all over Europe, really want to weaken American support for the idea of a right to self-determination?
Additionally, Dayan writes that the return of the Palestinian refugees from around the Arab world to the Palestinian state would be a major security threat. But he also acknowledges that those Palestinian refugees are treated as second-class citizens in those countries and kept in squalor elsewhere (chiefly by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency). Should they stay that way? And isn’t a primary goal of Israeli national policy to convince the Palestinians to return to a Palestinian state, not Israel? Humanitarian concerns often clash with security concerns, but that doesn’t mean we ignore the humanitarian concerns altogether–it means we go back to the drawing board and get creative, not give up.
And finally: Dayan claims removing the settlers would be impossible. Why? Today there are no settlers in Gaza. He’s also moving the goal posts; many of the settlements would remain in Israel as part of any final-status agreement. Israel’s critics often dishonestly ignore this when speaking in broad terms about The Settlers. Dayan is making the same mistake, and playing right into their hands.
The fact is, Dayan is right that the current Palestinian leadership prefers the status quo, and are not making the effort needed to secure a deal. He’s also right that a Hamas takeover of all of the future state of Palestine would immediately nullify the peace deal, and anyone who thinks Hamas isn’t still dedicated to Israel’s destruction is not paying attention. But it would be more constructive if Dayan made these critiques of Mideast policy as part of an effort to reform the current structure of the two-state solution in ways that might make it more workable, not less.
Rabbi Youdovin:
I am persuaded by your reasoning to the effect that it is unlikely that Netanyahu would have encouraged Dayan to publish such a piece in the NYT at such a time. Of course, Dayan’s views were nothing new for an Israeli audience.
I do not trust Netahyahu’s support for a Palestinian state, given his background of opposition to the Oslo framework, and his pro-settlement
record within the Israeli context.
Dear Mr Falk
I think you need to display greater intellectual honesty than you have in this article.
As examples:
1. You state: “Dayan’s first premise contends that the settler movement is entitled to the territory obtained in 1967 because it was the Palestinians who at the time were threatening Israel with the prospect of annihilation ”
This is what Dayan actually said:
“Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967”
There is a big difference.
2. You state: “The moral and legal premises that underlie Dayan’s insistence that the settlers will never leave the West Bank are without substance,”
They do have substance.
Your comment fails to take into account the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter which conferred the legal right on the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank.
You also overlook the fact that the West Bank is also the ancient and biblical homeland of the Jewish people – as strong a moral claim as you might find anywhere in the world..
3. You state: “This rejection was expressed in the authoritative and unanimous UN Security Council Resolution 242 passed in 1967 calling for an Israeli withdrawal from the territories that had been occupied in the Six Day War. No Israeli leader, including even the rejectionist Netanyahu, has openly challenged this line of interpretation
Resolution 242 called for withdrawal “from territories” – not “from the territories”.. Israel has already withdrawn from more than 90% of those territories.
Professor Ruth Lapidot has written:
“… Israel’s interpretation is based on the plain meaning of the English text of the withdrawal clause, which is identical with the wording presented by the British delegation”
4. You state: “.In contrast, Dayan is totally self-serving and one-sided when he also claims that inalienable rights support his conception of Greater israel. Such a claim overlooks the relevance of the generally accepted reading of Article 49(6) of Geneva Convention IV that prohibits an occupying power from transferring its population to an occupied territory or altering the character of an occupied society”.
Dayan’s claim is again supported by the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.
The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention has been seriously questioned as recently as the release of the Levy Report two weeks ago.
Presenting as an absolutist position something that is very contestable should not be done by an academic.
5.You state: ” Dayan’s views also seem blind to the immorality of displacing the Palestinian people who have lived on these lands for centuries even if one grants the underlying Zionist claim to a homeland in historic Palestine.”
The “Palestinian people” were not defined until the PLO Covenant was enacted in 1964. Jews and non-Arab Christians who lived in Palestine are not included.
So – from being part of “the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” in 1920 to dividing Palestine into an “Arab State ” and a “Jewish state” in 1947 – we now have according to you “the Palestinian people who have lived on these lands for centuries” How come the members of the League of Nations and the United Nations were so ignorant?
Palestine included the West Bank and Jews lived there prior to 1948 when they were driven out during the 1948 War. They returned after 1967 as they were legally entitled to do under article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter.
How can you as an academic simply dismiss these factual realities from your thoughts.?
6. You state: “The fact that the Palestinian leaders and the neighboring Arab governments rejected the UN endorsed partition plan back in 1948 does not mean that the Palestinian people implicitly waived or lost their right to self-determination, which is genuinely inalienable.”
The rights the non-Jewish communities were given in Palestine was that their civil and religious rights would not be prejudiced. Arab rights to self-determination were to be exercised within the captured Ottoman territories under the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia. Palestine was to be the area within which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted,
True the Arabs were subsequently offered self determination in Palestine
in 1937 and 1947 – and rejected such offers.
They had another 19 years between 1948-1967 to exercise such self-determination in the West Bank but chose to unify it with Transjordan.
They again rejected self-determination in 2000 and 2008.
There is a doctrine of waiver in law and in my opinion they have by their conduct well and truly waived any claim to self determination offered as a departure from the clear terms of the Mandate, . The concept of “Inalienability” cannot in my opinion be applied to any claims by Palestinian Arabs to self determination – since no such rights were ever promised to them by the Mandate.
Reunification of the West Bank with Jordan – so far as is now possible – to restore the status quo ante existing before the 1967 war is a solution that accords with the history geography and demography of former Palestine.
I am afraid the opportunity to create an independent State between Israel and Jordan for the first time ever in recorded history has become ancient history after 19 years of fruitless negotiations..
I could add my criticisms of many more factual statements made by you in your less than objective analysis – which are misleading and distort and misrepresent.
If you want me to do so – I will happily post them for you to consider..
Your responses to the above with suitable corrections would be a welcome first step..
It’s not necessary to respond to even to read your itemized list. Defenders of Israel on the Internet are known to be paid for promoting a set of talking points exactly like yours. The strategy is to sprinkle around some vehement defenses of Israel, in a desperate effort to show that there are two sides to the story. But everyone knows about this now, so you should quit. It only makes Israeli actions appear that much more unseemly.
I agree with you, and thank you for the sensible advice. At the same time, I have recently written that I welcome differing views if expressed within an idiom of civility, and feel obliged to be as responsive as possible in most instances.
I realize in part I am exploring whether some ethical boundaries are needed to evolve a healthy and beneficial blog culture, and your message helps me with respect to this exploration.
Richard, I agree that civility of tone is important to promote open dialog, but given what is happening and what appears to be coming next, remaining dispassionate is hard. We are told that there are “red lines” that we must not be cross in our comments, although the precise boundaries of these are nowhere articulated, and it appears that red lines can be rejiggered by those whom they are intended to shield from criticism. I know that one big red line is that nobody is allowed to suggest that group behavior might an outcome of cultural or religious practices which embed beliefs and habits of thinking that are continually reinforced, often through coercion, throughout one’s life. People who have invested great energy in avoiding particular foods based on random interpretations of ancient texts, are also probably good at avoiding prohibited ideas. As concerned gloabal citizens, those us who are not similarly blinkered should question the imposition of limits to discourse enforced by one side of an argument. So, while I respect your desire to maintain cordiality in this forum, I feel the need to push the limits and question those who stand to profit from suppressing my speech. Of course, I agree to not use any bad words, and I can try harder to conceal my vehemence and deep, deep fear for the future of our civiliation. Thank you for providing a way for those us who care deeply about these issues to be heard.
With all due respect, Mr. Singer, the deficiencies in my post that your enumerate are not a result of ‘dishonesty,’ but of differing interpretations of complex historical and factual situations and varying rendering of the applicability of international law. I appreciate the care with which you enumerated your various objections to my response to Dani Dayan’s article, and I could if I had time elaborate on the basis of my views, but we could never overcome the wide interpretative gap that separates our understanding of the situation. I agree with you that my post does not qualify as an ‘academic’ text on these issues, leaving out many nuances and qualifications, but it was my intention to be ‘journalistic’ on this blog.
Finally, to suggest that these differences is a matter of my ‘dishonesty’ is the kind of departure from civility that I am trying to avoid on this blog.
With best wishes,
Richard Falk
How do we go forward with dialog when what is most fundamental is not agreed upon?
My feeling is that each individual is sacred, and religion is nothing at all, except as it is embodied in the sacredness of each individual. Culture to me is important, not in its own right, but in how the individual lives through it. Religions and cultures do not have the right to exist, and neither do countries. It is individuals that have the right to exist, the right to practice religion, the right to create culture. For me, countries exist to help safeguard that sacredness, and nationalism is a direct threat to the proper functioning of countries. Religion and culture seem to me to be private and of no interest to the state except to make sure that they remain private. I can not help but feel that there is almost nothing I have in common with David Singer.
Another thing that troubles me about dialog is what appears to be dishonesty. For whatever I think of Dayan’s article, there is a level of honesty that is rare. It reminds me of some of the honesty in Benny Morris’ “Survival of the Fittest” interview with Haaretz, Chilling, but in some ways the honesty was like fresh air. At least I know what we are talking about. I don’t have to guess as to what the real argument is.
1. You state: “Dayan’s first premise contends that the settler movement is entitled to the territory obtained in 1967 because it was the Palestinians who at the time were threatening Israel with the prospect of annihilation ”
This is what Dayan actually said:
“Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967″
There is a big difference.
I don’t know what David Singer thinks, but it isn’t that hard to look up Dayan’s quote and see that he has taken it out of context.
Arabs called for Israel’s annihilation in 1967, and Israel legitimately seized the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria in self-defense. Israel’s moral claim to these territories, and the right of Israelis to call them home today, is therefore unassailable.
Which seems to me to fit very closely to the paraphrasing you give.
If David Singer had the brutal honesty of either Dayan or Morris, I would think that the addition of the comment is worth while. I don’t know what David Singer believes, in the way I know what Benny Morris or Dani Dayan believes. There is a level of clarity lacking in David’s writing – I feel like he is playing a game of obstruction – that I find surprising and distressing given the breadth of his knowledge, and his claim to be An Australian Lawyer, Foundation Member of the International Analyst Network and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International
Dear Mr Falk
I am disappointed that you are not prepared to justify the statements you have made in regard to my numbered comments..
Comment 1: I pointed out a material misquote by you of what Mr Dayan said. No correction?
Comment 2: You claimed Mr Dayan’s moral and legal premises were without substance.
Yet you now say there are “differing interpretations of complex historical and factual situations and varying rendering of the applicability of international law.” Is it fair then that you should state Mr Dayan’s premises are “without substance”?
Comment 3: The English version of Resolution 242 does not call for withdrawal “from the territories” – but from “territories”. Why misquote it?
Comment 4: I raised again your failure to acknowledge the relevance of the Mandate and Article 80 when making this statement. Are you now suggesting these documents have no applicability in international law?
Comment 5: Was in direct response to your use of the term the “Palestinian people” which was certainly not the language used in 1922 or 1947 or indeed 1963. No comment considered necessary to justify your use of that term?
Comment 6: Relates to whether there is a doctrine of waiver or not in law. No comment again thought necessary?.
Your claim that you are in “journalistic” – not academic” – mode on this blog is puzzling. Are you suggesting that this entitles you as a lawyer of not inconsiderable experience to ignore fundamental principles of law on subjects that you choose to write about?
As a professor of law – don’t you think it necessary for you to justify any statements made by you on legal matters dealt with in your articles?
Certainly lawyers differ on interpretations of the law and have differing opinions
However – as a lawyer myself – I find it intriguing that you do not appear to have considered the Mandate or Article 80 of the UN Charter when making the comments that I have objected to.
Now I know the PLO have declared the Mandate and everything that followed to be “null and void”.
Do you as a lawyer or a journalist accept the PLO position or not?
Should the law be upheld or can it be dismissed out of hand by those who are not prepared to accept it?
The Israeli “settler” movement did not like the Oslo Accord that effectively tied their hands in encroaching on any more Palestinian Land for the greater Israel, the very land that is the purpose of Peace negotiations.
As more Israeli preconditions and facts on the ground that preclude any possibility of Peace are put in place, Israelis expect the Palestinians should just roll over and play dead without resistance. This will not happen and Israeli intransigence will guarantee the alternative Biblical reality – Armageddon.
TO SEE ENGLISH SUBTITLES, MAKE SURE YOU CLICK “CC” BUTTON IN LOWER RIGHT
Prof. Falk,
Thank you for your acknowledging an error. I hope to have the same courage and grace whenever I find myself in a similar situation.
Regarding Netanyahu, you are by no means alone in being skeptical. His endorsement of Palestinian statehood was late in coming after long years of opposition.
Nevertheless, those who seek an equitable resolution to a seemingly endless conflict dare not dismiss out of hand the historic importance, and possible potential, of a hawkish Israeli prime minister proclaiming to both the U.S. Congress and U.N. General Assembly that he and his nation asupport Palestinian independence, and “would not be the last to recognize Palestine but the first.”
Finally, while I wholeheartedly concur in your desire to keep religion out of this blog discussion, as a rabbi, I can’t help noting that Judaism, along with most other religions, affirm the possibility of people changing their ways.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Rabbi, I agree with you that we cannot omit considerations of religion when trying to understand the dynamics at work in the middle east. In America, we are squeamish about questioning anyone’s feelings about god, but decorum should be less stringently enforced in this case, where one side in a dispute asserts claims to the property of others based on their own interpretation of scriptures. I don’t know if God exists or what his plans are for us, but one thing I do know for certain is that neither you nor any other religious person knows any more about the nature of the divine then I do. So, based on that logic, I cannot remain quiet when one group claims special knowledge about who, if anybody, created us, and then acts on that “knowledge” to enrich themselves and persecute those they feel are interfering with their plans.
Rabbi, how can religion be kept out of this discussion when temporal Israel is a recreation from the Bible?
Richard,
I agree with you that the balance of power may favor Israel now, but the key phrase in your article is ” this could prove to be short lived.”
Putting aside the moral considerations of his article, Dayan’s “proposal” is extremely short-sighted and could easily lead to Israel’s doom. Dayan is thumbing his nose at the U.S. and he completely ignores how the rest of the world will react to annexation of the West Bank.
He does not state whether Arabs in the West Bank will be given full citizenship with the right to vote. If not, then Israel will officially become an apartheid state. Even if they do grant equal citizenship, there is no guarantee that the Arabs in the West Bank will become happy loyal citizens of Israel. Dayan seems to believe his plan will lead to greater peace and the removal of checkpoints. If the opinion of the West Bank Palestinians are ignored then it is more likely that unrest will increase and more checkpoints will have to go up.
And then there is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. A lot of their members are looking for an excuse to break Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel. Dayan is handing it to them on a silver platter.
Syria is in no position to join an attack against Israel now, but who knows what the situation will be like in two or three years? No matter who is in power, a move like this is going to inflame the streets of not just Syria, but Jordan and the entire Muslim world.
And how will this affect the government of Saudi Arabia? Will they adopt a hard-line stance against Israel in order to avoid outrage on the streets at their passivity?
And you can bet China and Russia will be happy to sell Israel’s neighbors weapons they can use to attack her.
So… Israel may face an uprising on the West Bank at the same time it is attacked on multiple fronts. And just how loyal will Israel’s Arab citizens, which constitute roughly 20% of its population, be?
Israel currently has widespread support in the U.S. But most Americans will probably see this as an aggressive move by Israel. It is hard to imagine the U.S. will fight for Israel if this provocation leads to war.
For more thought on this see:
http://themessinglink.com/Unsettling_Settlements
You assert that Dani’s claim that “Palestinians who at the time were threatening Israel with the prospect of annihilation and it was Israel that acted in self-defense…” – “is a position lacking traction…”. Others have pointed out your reading error but may I point out:
a) let us ignore the Mandate period history, not that it doesn’t assist my argumentation (Arab riots, their ethnic cleansing of Jews, their unwillingness to accept any diplomatic resolution as well as territorial compromise, etc.), but just to save time;
b) during 1949-1956, Arabs residing in Judea and Samaria and in Gaza organized themselves into what was termed Fedyeen units who infiltrated Israel’s cease-fire lines and killed mostly civilians, what most civilized people call terror;
c) in 1964, the Palestine Liberation organization was formed and its first terror attack was on January 1, 1965;
In other words, Israel had been under attack by Arabs who, in the name of “Palestine”, sought to and succeeded in killing Israelis – all this before Israel had “occupied” Judea, Samaria and Gaza or had constructed one “settlement”. Unless, of course, one considers all of Israel, anywhere, as an expression of occupation and any Jewish residential location as a settlement.
To walker percy
You state:
“decorum should be less stringently enforced in this case, where one side in a dispute asserts claims to the property of others based on their own interpretation of scriptures.”
The legal right of the Jews to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine derives from the decisions of the Balfour declaration, the San Remo Conference, the Treaty of Sevres, the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter.
True – the Balfour Declaration gave recognition to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country. But this historical connection must not be confused with Israel’s above quoted legal rights to be and remain in the West Bank in 2012.
How and where Israel chooses to exercise those legal rights is a political decision.
However – to assert affirmatively that it has no such legal right has – in my opinion – been one of the major stumbling block to allocating sovereignty in the West Bank between Jews and Arabs during the last 19 years of negotiations.
Remember too – the introduction of the Mandate system also gave recognition to the Arab claims for self determination by the creation of the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia.
The mandate for Palestine was to be the area of the captured Ottoman empire within which Jewish self-determination was to be enabled.
The Arabs have never accepted getting 99.99% of the spoils of war. They have always coveted the remaining 0.01% as well. That is their entitlement to pursue. However it has brought them nothing but grief and will continue to do so until they come to their senses.
David,
You quoted from my earlier comment as if you were about to offer some form of response, but then you proceeded to cut and paste from your usual talking points. Do you disagree that Israel uses Jewish religion as part of its justification for its actions? Is this incorrect? I would appreciate a direct response. My guess is that, depending on the audience, the arguments supporting Israel’s actions changes: if you are trying to drum up support among evangelical christians in the US, then you focus on the bible, but if your interlocutor is a distinguished legal scholar, then you revert to pseudo legalese. How about if Israel and its apologists, for once, just state what your really think, and stop strategizing?
Walker
Percy
I am not sure what your question means – but I will try to answer it..
If you mean – does Israel seek to be recognized as the one Jewish state on this earth compared to 57 Islamic states? – then yes,
If you mean – does Israel seek to justify its actions in settling in the West Bank because it is part of its biblical and ancient homeland? – then yes – by the majority in Israel – but also on the basis that this right is a legal right having been conferred by the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter.
Whether that legal right should be pursued is a political issue. But denying that such legal right exists has not helped to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict.
I am and have always been concerned with Israel’s legal rights – since it is the constant denial of these legal rights by the Arabs that is at the heart of the conflict.
If there are no legal rights – then any biblical claim or ancient claim of its own becomes a very difficult claim to maintain.
I am sorry if I repeat the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter ad nauseam but these are two of the basic pillars that form the Jewish people’s claim in international law to reconstitute their national home in Palestine – including the West Bank.
No one here seems to want to discuss them. Why?
As I wrote to Mr Falk (as yet unanswered by him) – the PLO have dismissed these legal enactments as null and void.
Do you? And if so why?
I hope you have the courtesy to try and answer my question as I have attempted to answer yours.
David,
Thanks for your response and your candor. I disagree that the biblical claims are a side issue. Any legal arguments that Israel can make to support the righteousness of its actions are dismantled and contradicted when Jews admit to belief in their own elevated status due to their interpretation of ancient texts. The moment Jews acknowledge that they feel entitled to the property of others because of Hashem’s special devotion to them, the discussion is over. Then, everyone with a different conception of the divine is entitled to express their own group’s prerogatives based on their particular theology. It is simply inexcusable to bring up religious beliefs in a dispute about real estate, and by doing so, Jews are ensuring, with breathtaking recklessness, that they will be punished by the rest of the world. No amount of weapons or money can prevent the next shoah that is being constructed, to our great horror. The difference this time is that Samson has nukes, and also that we now have the Internet to record the nightmare in real time. No amount of revision after the fact will be effective in obscuring the sad, sad truth, but since there may be no more people on earth to argue about all of this next time, it probably doesn’t matter.
Walker
Walker
I never said the biblical claims were a side issue, Those biblical claims were recognized by all 51 nations in the League of Nations when unanimously conferring on the Jewish people the legal right to “reconstitute” the Jewish National Home in Palestine.
Why did the international community use the word “reconstitute” – if not for the fact that there was once a Jewish Kingdom and the time had come to sanction its reconstitution after the 400 year rule by the Ottoman Empire had come to an end?.
Jewish self-determination in Palestine was not an isolated act. The religious and civil rights of the “existing non-jewish communities” were to not be prejudiced. it was to be accompanied by Arab self -determination in a vast area of territory covered by the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia – one hundred times larger than the area slated for Jewish self -determination..
This was the basis of the international agreement to the carve up the Ottoman territories lost by Turkey as a result of World War I.
Regrettably the Arabs have never accepted this 99.99% carve up of the pie to them and 0.01% for the Jews. In fact it got even worse for the Jews when 78% of their 0.01% was given to the Arabs for self determination just three moths after it had been included in the area for Jewish self-determination.
You appear to be one who thinks this was an unfair division as well. You are entitled to that view. I think it was folly of the highest order and has brought the Arabs a lot of grief and suffering. But that is another story – which is tragically being played out in Syria today.
Now I did ask you the following question – which you still have to answer:
“As I wrote to Mr Falk (as yet unanswered by him) – the PLO have dismissed these legal enactments (The Mandate for Palestine and article 80) as null and void.
Do you? And if so why?”
When can I expect a reply?
In writing “Any legal arguments that Israel can make to support the righteousness of its actions are dismantled and contradicted when Jews admit to belief in their own elevated status due to their interpretation of ancient texts”, you are making no sense.
a) the international legal basis, which, of course, cannot supplant the natural Jewish right to its homeland, but only confirm, and did that in 1922, noted the “historical connection”. Call that what you will but in part, it represents the recognition of the Jewish claim to its homeland based not only on culture, archaeology, history, etc. but also religion.
b) if religion is to be discounted, why culture?
c) if religion is discounted, why do Arabs have rights to deny rights to Jews to pray on the Temple Mount?
d) if religion is discounted, is the only basis for Arabs in Palestine their conquest and occupation in 638 CE?
e) and if that is the only basis, well, did not Israel conquer Judea and Samaria in 1967?
David,
When Israel supporters lay out their justifications for the Jewish state, they often use the argument that there are many Arab states, so why shouldn’t there be a jewish one? Then, they usually talk about the differences in the size of Israel as compared with Arab states, usually using made up numbers. You say that the size of israel is 1/10000 (.01%) times the size of the arab countries. Is that really what you mean to say, or are you just not familiar with percentages and decimals points? Or, more likely, do you just say whatever you feel like without any regard to factual accuracy? If you are trying to build a persuasive argument, I recommend avoiding pulling numbers out of thin air, because it makes you look like a prevaricator.
Walker
yisraelmedad:
I am unsure how to respond to your remarks, because I cannot follow the thread of your argument. You are mixing up a lot of issues, including ownership of the Temple Mount. I cannot tell if this is just typical israeli obfuscation and hasbara, or if you are trying to make a point. I think you are saying you disagree with my assertion that claims of religious prerogative are illegitimate in property rights disputes. To me, this is obvious: legal matters such as land ownership cannot take into account either group’s supernatural beliefs, and those that insist on bringing up their own theological obsessions in negotiations need to have this explained to them. We are all inhabiting this beautiful planet together. While it may come as a surprise to you, the Islamic world sees the creation of Israel as a new Crusade, and they are (understandably) very upset about it. If Israel and the Jews hope to avoid the next shoah, they had better start learning a little empathy, because, while you are laughing now, things can change very rapidly, as we have seen in the last century (and the one before that, and the one before that….). Do you really want to be on the side that takes down our fragile civilization? STOP SAYING GOD GAVE YOU THIS LAND NOW!!!!
Walker
To Walker,
You write: “legal matters such as land ownership cannot take into account either group’s supernatural beliefs”
so, as I implied, you would support my claim to deny Muslims any legal ability to prevent me from expressing my religious beliefs on the Temple Mount (as long as they do not deny the Muslims the same – just equality) or at the least, back any archaeological excavations there as a matter of scientific interest (or stop destruction of artifacts)? To what extent? Arresting rioting Muslims? Using force? I am trying to get you to admit that Jews have at least equal legal rights to Muslims/Arabs.
Further, “the Islamic world sees the creation of Israel as a new Crusade, and they are (understandably) very upset about it.” Why “understandably”? If Jews have been living in this country, whatever you want to call it, for thousands of years before any Islamist or Arab showed up, whether under Jewish political sovereignty or under occupation (Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Mameluke, Ottoman, British, Jordan – oops, sorry, Jordanians banned any Jewish presence including dead Jews as at the Mount of Olives cemetery destroyed and paved over – why should the Arabs see us as a “new Crusade”? Why can’t we see them as a new wave of conquest?
Further still: “If Israel and the Jews hope to avoid the next shoah, they had better start learning a little empathy…”. Besides the anti-Semitic tone, why we need learn empathy? Why not Arabs learn a bit of coexistence? Willingness to compromise?
And finally, “Do you really want to be on the side that takes down our fragile civilization? STOP SAYING GOD GAVE YOU THIS LAND NOW!!!!” I think actually it is people like you, kowtowing to Islamic imperialism and who demean their own cultural and historical heritage and permit Muslims all sorts of leeway who are doing the real damage, whether as liberal progressives or plain old Judeophobes. STOP SAYING JEWS HAVE NO RIGHTS TO ERETZ-YISRAEL!!!
yisraelmedad,
I enjoyed your post, and I appreciate your engaging this way with me in spite of the wide gulf in our positions. This is what Prof. Falk hoped to accomplish. In some ways, the real job isn’t to get Jews talking to Palestinians (that clearly accomplishes nothing), but to get Jews talking to other Jews.
Firstly, who cares about the Temple Mount? That is a place of some archaeological interest, but to tell you the truth, the nicest things about it are the mosque and the dome of the rock, at least from an architectural point of view. But just because you have a sentimental attachment to a particular ruined building, you may not start a world war over it. Do not tell me its where some important events happened in ancient history. Please. Even if it was Chartres-fucking-Cathedral I would rather see it burned to the ground than watching everyone endlessly arguing about who is allowed to pray where. We can’t afford any more wars, especially ones to rescue Jews who have acted recklessly again and gotten themselves in trouble again with their big mouths and by flaunting their wealth in an unseemly manner.
And please don’t complain to me about Muslims: it was Jews who went to their country and tried to take it over. They didn’t show up in Brooklyn or New Jersey to kick you out of your house. And give me a break with the nonsense about how there are 59 islamic countries but no jewish ones. Grow up, would you? Jews aren’t rich and powerful enough? Don’t you have any human feelings for these poor people you are harming over there?
While we’re at it, cut out the business about everybody hating you just because you are Jewish. They hate you because of the crimes, because or the self-regard and because of your failure to demonstrate any kindness to anyone buy your own clan. Anyway, jewish communities in Israel are at each other’s throats now, carrying on like little babies about stupid shit like who gets to walk on which sidewalk, or who gets to utter some mumbo jumbo in a dead language at what time of the day in some backwater graveyard. So you can’t even get along among yourselves.
Finally, quit saying that Jews being in the minority in Israel is the same thing as destroying the Jewish people. It is not. In every democracy, political power is distributed according to votes. Guess what? If arabs vote all of the Jews out of positions of power, that’s tough. You want America to run over there with our aircraft carriers so that you don’t have to live through the wrenching emotional pain of seeing the character of the Jewish state change? I have news for you: you will survive losing the majority, as long as you change your tune and start behaving.
As I told your fellow traveler David, the world is teetering on the brink of economic cataclysm, and you are still killing and dispossessing and disenfranchising impoverished Arabs. It is shocking to me that jews would behave in this abominable way, year after year. You have a choice: either grow up and co-exist or become universally hated as the instigators of another global catastrophe.
Walker
sorry, at my age i’m a grown up. and with my experience as well. enjoy your narrow-minded self-embitterment.
The British rescinded The Balfour Declaration before the recreation of Israel in 1948. The Declaration is explicit:
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
The wording is precise. The Jewish people were offered a home in Palestine, not all of Palestine as Zionists claim.
You write: “The wording is precise. The Jewish people were offered a home in Palestine, not all of Palestine as Zionists claim”. That’s not all the historical background but let’s take your statement as correct.
But the Mandate as decided upon by the L of N even with the truncated territory in that all the area east of the Jordan River (in other words, “Palestine” included all of TransJordan as well and so even if not “all” but “in” is the geographical definition, at least some of TransJordan has to be part of the Jewish National Home. And if you do not accept that reasoning, if Jewish settlement was postponed in the area east of the River, it is surely permitted throughout all of west of the Jordan which includes Judea, Samaria and Gaza, all or parts of. It surely does not ban/prohibit such activity in all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, not to mention what became Israel in the cease-fire lines of 1949.
So, I put it to you: where “in Palestine” could Jews reconstitute their Jewish homeland?
Ray
You state:
“The British rescinded The Balfour Declaration before the recreation of Israel in 1948”
With respect that is incorrect
The Balfour Declaration had no force of law until it was incorporated into the Mandate for Palestine.
In 1948 Britain handed back its role as mandatory to the United Nations – the successor to the League of Nations that created it.
Now one can argue that the Mandate is probably still alive and kicking in the West Bank and Gaza in 2012 – since they are the only areas of the Mandate (about 5%) where sovereignty remains unallocated between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs have 78% – called Jordan – and the Jews the remaining 17% – called Israel.
Division of the remaining 5% between Israel and Jordan remains the only solution to possibly ending the conflict between Jews and Arabs that has raged for 130 years.
The attempt to create a second Arab state – in addition to Jordan – in the Mandate territory has proved impossible to achieve after 19 years of negotiations.
How many more Jews and Arabs need to be killed before negotiations between Israel and Jordan are put in process?
In my humble view, the Churchill White Paper, coming as it did one month prior to the Mandate document, is attached to that document and authoritative. The League of Nations, fully cognisant of Britain’s stated position, proceeded to confer Mandatory powers on Britain. Had the League disagreed with that position, the Mandate document would, of necessity, have had to specifically address the issue. It did not.
Brewski
The decision was certainly made by the British to exclude 78% of the territory within which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted by introducing Article 25 of the Mandate – thereby limiting the creation of the Jewish national home in the remaining 22% of Mandatory Palestine.
That happened and the Jews (with a few exceptions) unwillingly accepted it – but accept it they did.
There are accordingly already two states in former Palestine today called Jordan and Israel – where only one Jewish National Home was contemplated just three years earlier.
The only area of former Palestine in which sovereignty resides in neither Jews nor Arabs is the West Bank and Gaza;
This area – one twelfth the size of Tasmania – is going to lead to World War III if you believe some of the Jew-hating posts here. And it will all be the fault of the Jews – if you believe some other similar posts.
The Palestinian Arabs are their own worst enemies. They could have had a sovereign Arab state in the whole of the West Bank and Gaza (and considerably more) in 1937, 1947, at any time between 1948-1967 (when not one Jew lived there after they had all been driven out), in 2000/1 and 2008 – but turned down all those offers.
Now they demand that 500000 Jews be driven out of their homes – something that is simply not going to happen – as they demand nothing less than 100% of the West Bank and Gaza as the territory for the creation of a second “Arabs only” state in former Palestine.
This racist demand is simply not going to eventuate as a result of any negotiations.
Jordan and Israel ( and possibly Egypt) therefore remain the only parties capable of negotiating the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza between their respective states.
Under this proposal – no one – Jew or Arab – would have to leave his home.
Jordan’s border would be redrawn to incorporate the Arab part of the West Bank and Israel’s border would be redrawn to incorporate the Jewish part of the West Bank. Gaza could become part of Egypt or become part of Jordan.
Result – the Arabs end up with about 80% of Palestine and the Jews with 20%.
Seems a fair deal to me – unless you are such a Jew-hater that the only good result will be Arabs 100% and 23 states – Jews 0%. and 0 states
I suspect many of those posting here would jump with joy to see the latter outcome.
David, at the end of WWI, the British were the Imperial power in this world. The Imperial mantle started with Ancient Babylon/Iraq according to the Bible History. The Bible carries this OT concept over to Revelation in the NT, the US being the latest, greatest to wear it in the power God lends to men until Judgment Day.
It was the Imperial British Balfour Declaration in 1917 that led to the the formalization of it with the San Remo Treaty of 1922.
The British White Paper on Palestine in 1939 basically nullified the Balfour Declaration.
On this particular issue, I would defer to Professor Falk’s knowledge and experience.
I am afraid it is no good deferring to the opinion of Professor Falk since he doesn’t seem to want to answer statements such as yours.
Let me correct you however.
This is what the Mandate says:
“The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.”
That attempt at rescinding by altering the goal of the Mandate (not the Balfour declaration) by the 1939 White paper was viewed as illegal and the Geneva Mandates Commission began hearings but WW II broke out ending the chance to note England’s illegality.
Check here: http://www.mideastweb.org/league_mandates_report_1939.htm
yisraelismedad, you don’t want to direct this discussion toward illegalities. There is too much fodder on that issue and there are many guilty parties. We will see if Netanyahu signs on to the Levy Report.
In stating the British repudiated the Balfour Declaration did not abrogate the San Remo Treaty.
In the end, the World Community did give Israel a homeland in Palestine over the objections of the majority indigenous people in a defined area. Israel has expanded much beyond the 1948 assigned area. No one can deny Jews have lived in Palestine before the Mandate and before the Romans named it as a Province of Rome.
Here is an interesting graphic of the area from 1947 to 2005. The picture has already changed in the last 7 years.
a) “Israel has expanded much beyond the 1948 assigned area” – legally. if the so-called indigenous people (including Arabs from Jordan, Lebanon, Golan who illegally entered looking for work) had only not engaged in terror, not ethnically cleansed Jews, accepted partition, all would have been fine and dandy but they didn’t and they lost their aggressive wars and so, there’s nothing wrong about expansion if you are using it as a pejorative term.
b) and that map? it’s a lie. propaganda. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/debunking-map-that-lies.html
Fox News is your authority for Truth?
Hey, let’s keep this discussion relatively intelligent. I’m in Israel and do not watch Fox News, no cable. I’m old enough to remember watching in black and white. And I read books, for almost a century now on the subject.
To David Singer in response to the post beginning:
“Brewski
The decision was certainly made by the British to exclude 78% of the territory ”
You have posted a lengthy response to one paragraph of mine on the subject of the 1922 Churchill White Paper without once making reference to that subject. Your reply pre-supposes that the conditions categorically stated by Churchill have no validity.
You must first take hill 1 before proceeding to hill 2, 3 and 4.
Brewski
If you tell me specifically what you want answered I will endeavour to do so. Climbing hills like travelling on Clapham omnibuses is something I am not used to
To Edwin
We are certainly agreed your following comment:
“How do we go forward with dialog when what is most fundamental is not agreed upon?”
So let me pose one fundamental question for you to answer to see if we can agree:
“Do the Jewish people have the legal right to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank?”
You have asked a loaded question. “Jewish people” “reconstitute” “Jewish National Home” and amusingly enough have covered your true beliefs on “Judea and Samaria”.
I was not aware that Judaism had a Pope. Tell me, who is in charge of speaking for all Jews? You?
I don’t think I would bother to argue the legal merits of an Aryan National Home, or the Aryan People, or whether Aryans have the legal right to reconstitute anything.
I don’t think I would bother to argue the legal merits of a Jewish National Home, or the Jewish People, or whether Jews have the legal right to reconstitute anything.
Hitler went to great lengths to define who is and is not a Jew. You, with your “Jewish People” must do exactly the same.
Jewish state on this earth compared to 57 Islamic states?
Ah – now we are seeing some sort of vision that you have. It is not the secular democracies and the equality of Europe that you aspire to, but the third word theocracies that you covet. If you believe that Saudi Arabia has a nasty little theocracy, and so should you – well what can I say.
Albert Einstein said “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” I’m not following you down the rabbit hole.
Walker
I am not in charge of speaking for all Jews.
However the League of Nations unanimously endorsed the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute its national home in Palestine.
Lots of Jews are thoroughly disinterested in this idea – as is their entitlement.
Non-Jews are also similarly entitled to hold this view.
But there are lots more Jews in the world and certainly lots of non-Jews around the world who believe that what the League of Nations did and was subsequently supported by the UN was fair decent and honourable – according rights of self – determination to both Jews and Arabs in the areas freed from the rule of the Ottoman Empire..
You apparently believe Jews are not entitled to any state – though it is unclear what your view is on those 57 Islamic states – 22 of whom are Arab.
If you are at least consistent in your revulsion of nationalism then don’t climb down the rabbit hole with them and support the creation of yet another Arab state between Israel and Jordan or over Israel’s body.
Otherwise one might just conclude you are a Jew-hater. That again is your perfect entitlement. Just be honest and upfront so people know where you are coming from.
Edwin and Walker
Edwin – Sorry I addressed you as “Walker”
Walker – Sorry I attributed Edwin’s post – and his thoughts – to you.
David, I appreciate that you are taking the time to engage in a civilized discussion about these crucial, life and death matters. This is what Prof. Falk had in mind when he set up this blog, and I hope that it continues to provide a forum for honest debate.
In response to your last missive: I believe that the problems that we are now facing in the middle east are largely the outcome of Jewish mis-behavior. It is one thing to seek a jewish homeland, and quite another to reproduce the crusades in the 21st century. I personally think Jewish religion is nonsense, and we all know that there is no genetic link between the people of ancient Israel and you or I. The real problem is the way that Jews have gone about it. Their obvious disdain for those they feel are their inferiors is so palpable that everyone can see it. It is one thing to immigrate to another country and set up religious communities, and it is quite another thing to dominate, imprison and steal from the original inhabitants, and then to expect them all to just leave so that you can be alone with your own kind. It is the violent actions of 1948 that caused all of these terrible problems, and it the continuing arrogance and violence of the Israelis today that guarantees that no solution can be found. I don’t care if you want to go to Palestine and quietly practice your religion, but please, please, please do not run around spouting supremicist, racist nonsense and LYING constantly in the most egregious way about your actions.
I am an American of jewish heritage, and I love my country. I am not persecuted in any way; if anything, I benefit from the reputation of jews as being smart and industrious. But Israel is causing great unhappiness for people like me. I am going to admit something terrible: I don’t blame Osama bin Laden for what he did. I am not surprised that he is considered a hero in the Islamic world, for standing up against the oppressors. I want us all to survive and thrive. The truth is that Jews have a terrible track record, and they seem to be obsessed with the (false) notion that people hate them for no reason. There are very good reasons for hating jews today, and that makes me sad. How can jews be acting this way so soon after the last catastrophe?
If you hadn’t noticed, the whole world is hurting right now, and we desperately need to focus on our serious economic problems, not some silly dispute between people who are acting like we are living in the middle ages. I am looking forward to reading your response.
Walker
Walker
Do you consider the following extracts from the PLO Charter to be “supremacist racist nonsense” ?
Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father – whether inside Palestine or outside it – is also a Palestinian.
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.
Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
To David Singer,
I am not a lawyer and I’m not going to pretend to be a scholar of international law. I’m sure you (and a lot of other people commenting here) know a hell of a lot more about international law than I do. However, please let me be so bold as to offer the following observations:
1. In the U.S., you MAY have the law on your side. The law could be clearly written, but if it leads to a disastrous policy or outrageous injustice then it could be slapped down by the Supreme Court. Justices can often be creative in interpreting phrases or creating new legal theories if the existing law would create widespread outrage. In theory, judges interpret law based solely on their reading of previously established law. In practice, they sometimes interpret law based on changing mores of society. Anti-sodomy laws were perfectly legal before Lawrence v. Texas.
2. If you are the only one who asserts you have a given right under the law, chances are your interpretation of the law is faulty, especially if it is self serving.
3. IF the law is as clear-cut as you say it is, then the Israeli government should go before the U.N and state its case before annexing the West Bank. To my knowledge, not even the Israeli government has asserted that it has the legal right to annex the West Bank. Perhaps the government of Israel has made that claim and I’ve missed it, so please correct me if I’m wrong.
4. You may object to having the Israeli government go before the U.N. to make its case on the grounds that the UN is heavily stacked against Israel. You may argue that the UN is not a venue where Israel can get a fair hearing. But raising the issue does provide two benefits, one academic, the other practical. Academically, by formally stating its case before the UN, Israel may sway future historians in evaluating whether Israel’s actions were justified. From a practical point of view, raising the issue will help Israelis better gauge how much support they will receive from around the world. If annexing the West Bank will turn them into international pariahs and subject them to intensified boycotts and worse, it is better for them to find this out BEFORE they annex the West Bank.
5. Not only has Israel not (to my knowledge) formally made this legal claim, I am unaware of even ONE country that is likely to agree with Israel should it do so. Can you name ONE country that is likely to agree with this interpretation of the law? Would the answer to this question depend on Israel granting the West Bank Arabs full citizenship with the right to vote? If Israel does NOT grant the Arabs the right to vote, would this, in your opinion, nullify any legal standing that Israel has to annex the West Bank? How do you think denial of the right to vote will affect the opinion of other nations about Israel’s claim that it has the right to Annex the West Bank.
6. Even IF Israel has the legal right to Annex the West Bank, the legal right does not guarantee annexation is morally just. Abraham Lincoln once had a case in which he told his client:
” Yes, we can doubtless gain your case for you; we can set a whole neighborhood at loggerheads; we can distress a widowed mother and her six fatherless children and thereby get you six hundred dollars to which you seem to have a legal claim, but which rightfully belongs, it appears to me, a much to the woman and her children as it does to you. You must remember that some things legally right are not morally right. We shall not take your case, but will give you a little advice for which we will charge you nothing. You seem to be a sprightly energetic man; we would advise you to try your hand at making six hundred dollars in some other way.”
7. Most importantly, as I addressed in my post yesterday, asserting that “legal right” (if it exists) is likely to plunge the world into war and lead to Israel’s destruction. Other than as a purely academic exercise, is there any point in making an argument that will lead to Israel’s demise?
Again, as I stated at the outset, I am not a lawyer and I don’t have the background to intelligently debate you on what the international law is. Your assertions may be correct, in a perfect, theoretical world where legal rights can be determined like mathematical theories deduced from first principles. Like it or not, that is not the world we live in.
Forgive me if you respond to me by asking me questions and I do not respond promptly. I’m getting ready to move to a new apartment on Tuesday and my ability to respond might be spotty for the next few days.
Robin, you state, “asserting that “legal right” [to annex the West Bank by Israel] is likely to plunge the world into war and lead to Israel’s destruction.” It appears that launching the next world war is either the explicit intent of the Jewish state or, much more frighteningly, the subconscious product of group neurosis, perhaps caused, in part, by cruel, rule-obsessed fathers and smothering, histrionic mothers. Horrifying as it seems, we are witnessing in real time the same sequence, transposed to a different setting, that has led to mass death of Jews and their “enemies” on repeated occasions throughout history. Before you dismiss this as anti-Semitic rubbish, consider the beloved fables of Samson and Masada, and remember that Golda Meir admitted that Israel was prepared to destroy the world if the Zionist enterprise fails. What kind of monsters would say such a thing, and how can the world permit them to continue to operate with impunity in light of the danger they pose to every living and future human being?
Robin
You miss my point completely.
My initial reason for writing to Mr Falk was because he made the following statement (among others):
“The moral and legal premises that underlie Dayan’s insistence that the settlers will never leave the West Bank are without substance”
My comment to Mr Falk was as follows:
“They do have substance.
Your comment fails to take into account the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter which conferred the legal right on the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in the West Bank.
You also overlook the fact that the West Bank is also the ancient and biblical homeland of the Jewish people – as strong a moral claim as you might find anywhere in the world.”.
Mr Falk’s reply was:
“With all due respect, Mr. Singer, the deficiencies in my post that your enumerate are not a result of ‘dishonesty,’ but of differing interpretations of complex historical and factual situations and varying rendering of the applicability of international law.”
Mr Falk’s acknowledgement of the fact that different interpretations of the applicability of international law was welcome. This of course made nonsense of his statement that Mr Dayan’s claims were without substance.
Surprisingly Mr Falk then added:
“I appreciate the care with which you enumerated your various objections to my response to Dani Dayan’s article, and I could if I had time elaborate on the basis of my views, but we could never overcome the wide interpretative gap that separates our understanding of the situation.”
With the greatest respect to Mr Falk – it would be far wiser for him to discuss the legal and factual issues with me to try to overcome or at least narrow any wide interpretative gap. He is refusing to do so. That is a pity.
I do not assert as you wrongly allege that:
” IF the law is as clear-cut as you say it is…”
It is Mr Falk who is making that claim when he says the moral and legal premises that underlie Mr Dayan’s Mr Dayan’s statement are without substance
Sure – every legal case only gets before the Courts because the lawyer on each side has a different opinion – and one of them is ultimately proven wrong.
Mr Falk – though – professing to now acknowledge that fact – has indeed rejected its conclusion.
He refuses to discuss whether the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter have any bearing on the legal issues surrounding the conflict. Mr Falk does not apparently have the time to discuss this issue.
I asked him two questions:
“As a professor of law – don’t you think it necessary for you to justify any statements made by you on legal matters dealt with in your articles?
Certainly lawyers differ on interpretations of the law and have differing opinions
However – as a lawyer myself – I find it intriguing that you do not appear to have considered the Mandate or Article 80 of the UN Charter when making the comments that I have objected to.
Now I know the PLO have declared the Mandate and everything that followed to be “null and void”.
Do you as a lawyer or a journalist accept the PLO position or not?
Should the law be upheld or can it be dismissed out of hand by those who are not prepared to accept it?”
Mr Falk’s silence is deafening.
It is Mr Falk that is being dismissive – not me. It is Mr Falk asserting that Mr Dayan’s claims are without substance – that Mr Falk’s interpretation of international law is correct and brooks no questioning..
Even worse – after telling us there are different interpretations – he rewrites the first paragraph of his article stating:
“I have revised the first paragraph of this post to take some note of comments addressed to the original version, and in light of my own further thoughts”
Even after answering me as he did – he has still left the following statement in the revised first paragraph of his blog:
“The moral and legal premises that underlie Dayan’s insistence that the settlers will never leave the West Bank are without substance”
It seems to me that your post should be directed to Mr Falk – not me.
I have observed and debated this issue for several decades. I have watched gear changes in the Israeli line of argument, each one ever more reliant on “facts on the ground” and departing further from legal and moral considerations.
The rhetoric of Dayan and the Levy Report seem to me to represent an attempt at major game change.
Now that the Zionist narrative has been thoroughly examined and found to be deficient in legal or moral foundation, the new initiative, aimed at fresh generations unfamiliar with the Historical record, is an attempt to rewrite that record and align it with what was once denied – territorial ambitions in the West Bank and beyond.
Where once the Zionist argument held that, though partition was not intended by the Mandate etc, partition was forced on the Yishuv by the actions of the Palestinians, now it holds that Palestine, in toto was legally ceded to the Jewish people.
This is the thesis promoted by one Howard Grief in “The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law”, a volume that seems to be gaining some status among pro-Israel bloggers.
Needless to say, it is a great edifice erected on the pinhead of Balfour and the San Remo declaration and the enormous leap it makes from those most scanty foundations is buried in the introduction – from that point on, it is assumed that Balfour and San Remo mean what the author says they mean which, to anyone who has read them and the contemporary documents, is scarcely credible.
I doubt that this thesis would last five minutes in any court of law but I do not believe it is intended to. It is the court of public opinion to which it appeals and Israel values most highly. The court of public opinion has powers to grant Israel’s every wish.
Laying down false trails is not new to Zionist tactics. It takes years to eradicate embedded ideas implanted by such as “From Time Immemorial” from the collective consciousness.
Meanwhile, more “facts on the ground” are created and the debate becomes more removed from its first principles.
Nothing happens in isolation and a book such as this, written by a functionary of the Israeli Government and inserted in the debate at this time (2008) indicates a new trend, possibly an end-game strategy.
I would be interested in links to any authoritative discussion of Grief’s argument. The unbounded mendacity of his first premise is his greatest tactical asset for, whilst anyone familiar with the History can spot the flaw, his target is the aforementioned fresh generation unfamiliar with the History and even dismissive of it. Succinct rebuttals by acknowledged scholars would be very useful in this case as the weight of his argument rests solely on his opinion/reputation. His argument can bear none of it.
Let’s be fair – in writing “The rhetoric of Dayan and the Levy Report seem to me to represent an attempt at major game change.” is wrong. The nationalist camp has been championing these positions and legal interpretations from even before the 1967 war. As a member of Betar, I can attest to this. Even Mapam and not only Herut viewed Jordan as a non-entity in the early 1950s with no claim to Judea and Samaria. It’s just that no one wanted to listen.
I don’t think we are at odds.
I am aware polls within Israel have shown significant support and I have long suspected that International disapproval was what prevented mainstream politicians from jumping on board despite their personal sympathy with what you term “the Nationalist camp”. Netanyahu publicly recanted but privately remained in that camp.
Israel’s domestic politics and its public (International) image have always been incompatible.
In every game, Israel has lead with its version of History. I believe this is once again the tactic.
I really find vague and generalised statements such as yours as being a waste of your time and my energy.
Put up the facts to support your statements.
You say Balfour and the San Remo Conference were a “pinhead” when the Conference made these resolutions as to the disposition of the tracts of the Ottoman Empire captured in World War1
“The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.
The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
These resolutions were subsequently incorporated into the Treaty of Sevres
I am afraid that the only pinhead is you.
Mr Falk – care to comment – or are you still too busy?
I really do respect your concern with the historical background of the conflict, and how it bears on the merits of various lines of interpretation from the perspective of relative rights and international law. I hold two views, however, that make it seem to me not useful, in fact, the opposite to dwell on these concerns at this stage: first, a long political process ever since the UN was established that has settled the international law questions in favor of Palestinian claims on such matters as settlements, Jerusalem, self-determination, and even refugees, and I find that these outcomes accord with my sense of justice in determining the relations between the two peoples; I believe that Israel has itself generally, although indirectly, acknowledged this conclusion by using its leverage to avoid the intrusion of international law issues in ‘the peace process’ and by defying international law when it cannot avoid its relevance (wall advisory opinion of ICJ; Goldsone Report);
secondly, I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law.
I am well aware that I have not met your specific points and objections directly, but hopefully I have explained my reasons for not doing so, aside from being (genuinely) busy in the sense of having a series of unfulfilled writing commitments.
Dear Mr Falk
Thank for your long awaited response/
It is very difficult when you make sweeping generalised statements as you have and fail to substantiate those comments.
You are certainly entitled to hold whatever view you like – but with respect you must be ready to back it up with evidence
Could you please therefore answer my questions in response to these statements:
“first, a long political process ever since the UN was established that has settled the international law questions in favor of Palestinian claims on such matters as settlements, Jerusalem, self-determination, and even refugees ”
Are you talking of specific General Assembly Resolutions or Security Council Resolutions? If not – to what are you referring? Did this political process begin before or after 1967?
How have the international law questions in favour of Palestinian claims on such matters as settlements, Jerusalem, self-determination and refugees been determined?
If they have been determined – what is the basis for any further negotiations on these issues?
” I believe that Israel has itself generally, although indirectly, acknowledged this conclusion by using its leverage to avoid the intrusion of international law issues in ‘the peace process’ and by defying international law when it cannot avoid its relevance (wall advisory opinion of ICJ; Goldsone Report);”
Wasn’t the ICJ decision advisory only and non-binding?
Didn’t Goldstone recant from his report.?
What leverage has Israel used and in what regard has it defied international law?
” secondly, I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law.”
The mandatory system delivered self determination to the Arabs as well as the Jews. When did the League of Nations mandate lose its legitimacy as settled international law?
Are both Jordan and Israel illegitimate?
Is article 80 of the UN Charter not settled international law?
The partition proposal was in 1947 – not 1948. It spoke of a Jewish state and an Arab state – not a Palestinian state. There were no 1967 boundaries. Do you agree?
Sorry – but I still fail to understand why you cannot answer my objections. They would take you a lot less time to answer than your current response and hopefully your reply to me answering the above questions.
I have patience and don’t wish to take you away from your commitments.
However I believe you have to stand by your statements as I expect to be held to stand by and justify anything I say.
.
You are welcome to conserve your energy in respect to my posts.
They are directed toward those who, like Professor Falk, are of the opinion that these matters have long since been resolved through a subsequent political and legislative process, including Indigenous Rights legislation which is, by its very nature, retrospective.
I do not mind briefly returning to the History however as (in my opinion) the documents conclusively prove that the granting of territorial and sovereign rights to the Jewish people were never contemplated. Even your own post above is explicit. Administration is granted to a Mandatory. That administration is to put into effect measures conducive to the founding of a “National Home for the Jewish People.”
Now the first thing we notice here is the language. Why was the term “National Home for the Jewish People” used rather than the simpler “Jewish State” and why was the qualification ” nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” inserted ?
This was noted at the time and addressed by the Churchill White Paper:
“Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. ….
It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/brwh1922.htm
– a document that acts as a caveat by virtue of its reference to the Draft Mandate, its publication prior to the final draft and the granting of that Mandate in the full knowledge of its content.
I suggest this reasoning would contain few difficulties for the man in the Clapham omnibus.
We can also point to clauses in the Mandate document itself that are incompatible with a Jewish State:
ART. 3.
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
(This cannot refer to people yet resident in Poland)
ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration…
ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
ART. 9.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs* shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.
(* This is a significant clause – Wakfs or Waqfs comprised around a third of land titles in the Ottoman Empire. Israel deemed them “public lands” which they certainly were not)
A reference to or prescription for a Jewish State does not occur in any of the vast body of documentation, neither do the words “Jewish State” appear. If indeed a State was intended, this would be a legal phenomenon without precedent.
Brewski:
You state:
“A reference to or prescription for a Jewish State does not occur in any of the vast body of documentation, neither do the words “Jewish State” appear. If indeed a State was intended, this would be a legal phenomenon without precedent.”
I guess you are unaware of what the exhaustive 1937 Palestine Royal Commission found in relation to the Churchill White Paper:
“This definition (in the White Paper) of the National Home has sometimes been taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But,though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended”
I think the Royal Commission carries far more weight.than your opinion – especially when it is backed up with evidence from Mr Churchill himself.
Yours is just another myth without foundation.
That Clapham’s bus seems to have got flat tyres.
There is a very good response to Brewski’s statement:”A reference to or prescription for a Jewish State does not occur in any of the vast body of documentation, neither do the words “Jewish State” appear.”.
The Mandate decision reads in the preamble – “Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine…” obviously that means not a “non-Jewish state”. In other words, whatever geopolitical entity was to be contemplated or better, allowed to develope, it was Jewish in national character, certainly not Arab as the word “Arab” deosn’t appear anywhere in any of this documentation.
Further, Article 2 reads: “secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine” – what are self-governing institutions of a Jewish national home? A village? A hertiage park? It’s a state. And again, it’s the Jewish national home vs. nebulous unidentified “inhabitants”.
Article 5 reads: ” no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased”, well, that could only apply to a “state” for only a state possesses sovereignty over a territory. Incidentally, not that Article 25 reads: “In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined…” which means that Palestine, whatever it was, in 1922 extended eastward, beyond the Jordan River. So, for sure, Judea and Samaria are areas in which the right of closettlement using State and waste lands (Article 6) apply. Which brongs us back to the Levy Report.
And finally, Article 28 reads: “In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour…”. So, by the time the Mandate terminates, there’s a “givernment” in place, and we cannot ignore the possibility that that is the Jewish state.
David.
So. Fifteen years after the Mandate document, the Peel Commission found there was nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State.
And this, you feel, supports your contention that Balfour, San Remo and the Mandate Document intended a Jewish State?
Shall we explore the possibilities for such a doctrine as it could apply to other treaties and law? That what is not prohibited is mandated?
I do not think so.
However, this is progress. Do you now agree that a Jewish State was neither promised nor intended?
You see the Peel Commission report also stated:
“the Mandatory has fully implemented this obligation to facilitate the establishment of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine”
No State yet the obligation of a “National Home” is fulfilled.
We now have a clear statement defining what was meant by “Jewish National Home”.
It is interesting to view your former posts on this thread in the light of this information.
So having disposed of Balfour, San Remo and the Mandate Document, no doubt you will wish to hang your case on The Peel Commission and Partition.
Have at it.
Like the Jackson Family and many other families in this world, the Jewish-Palestinian war is over the inheritance of the Promises God made to Abraham. The Zionist Jews in Israel Today think the Jews and Jews alone get it all. The Palestinians have no part in the inheritance according to that ideology.
The Zionists in Israel apparently can’t see it, but the world can. The letter and the Spirit of the legal foundation for the recreation of temporal Israel from the Bible is violated by Zionist policies every day.
His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT NOTHING SHALL BE DONE which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
Brewski
It is indeed interesting that you seem to know better than Winston Churchill what his words meant and what the Royal Commission accepted.from Churchill in sworn evidence.
Of course your supposed knowledge of the Royal Commission Report should have also told you what meaning LLoyd George – the Prime Minister at the time of the Balfour Declaration – also told the Royal Commission in his sworn evidence.
He attributed the same meaning as Churchill did to the words “Jewish National Home”.
But of course you know better. Climb on your Clapham omnibus and spruik your views to the passengers who might be dumb enough to believe you know what you are talking about.
Too many people on this site make comments like yours that are completely at odds with the facts. What credibility have any comments got if they are based on the wrong facts?
I repeat – the words “Jewish National Home” did not preclude the eventual creation of a Jewish state. That is what eventually happened in 1948. The Palestinian Authority, the PLO, Hamas, the Arab League – like you and I guess Mr Falk – are all in self denial.
When you read what Lloyd George told the Royal Commission – get back to me if you wish. I am not going to do your homework for you any more.
Mr. Singer:
Just a word in response. You are quite correct that nothing in the post-Balfour period ‘precludes’ the formation of a Jewish state, but neither does it give authoritative grounding to such a meaning for ‘homeland,’ especially given the assurances to the indigenous Arab population and other minorities living in Palestine at the time.
Further, Churchill was a notorious advocate of colonialism and possessed a colonial mentality, persisting after World War II. I think it is not in Israel’s current interest to argue the historical case for its original claim of statehood.
A more compelling ground would be to work toward peace and reconciliation premised on the 1967 realities. To keep moving the goal posts, ‘fact on the ground’ after 1967, is equally doomed if a sustainable peace is our shared goal.
Mr. Falk, in writing about the wording of various declaration, statements and decisions you note: “…neither does it give authoritative grounding to such a meaning [i.e., “Jewish state”] for ‘homeland,’ especially given the assurances to the indigenous Arab population and other minorities living in Palestine at the time.” Excuse me, but what assurances were those? None of what was guaranteed was political and for sure gave no option for statehood. In fact, Arabs as such aren’t even mentioned once regarding the territory of Palestine’s future.
Mr Falk
The Royal Commission made clear why the words “Jewish State” were not used.
“One reason why no public allusion was made to a state in 1922 was the same reason why no such allusion had been made in 1917. The National Home was still no more than an experiment. Some 16,000 Jews had entered Palestine in I920 and 1921. The Arab population was about 600,000. It would be a very long time, it seemed, before the
Jews could become a majority in the country. Indeed, as late as 1926, a leading Zionist stated that there was ” still little prospect of the Arabs being overtaken in a numerical sense within a measurable period of time ”. It was not till the great rise in the volume of Jewish immigration in the last few years, that the prospect of a Jewish State came wlthin the horizon. In 1922 it lay far beyond it.”
You are doing nothing more than making up a story that is not based on any facts,
I think a Royal Commission’s finding based on sworn evidence carries more weight than your unsubstantiated opinion .
You further attempt to push the Arab barrow when you state that assurances were given “to the indigenous Arab population and other minorities living in Palestine at the time.”
These words were not used and it is intellectually dishonest for you to use them.
The Mandate only spoke of “the existing non-Jewish communities” There was no mention of an “indigenous Arab population”.
Your attempt to rewrite history by using such terminology is the stuff that Arab propaganda is made of.
I now am beginning to understand why you don’t want to have anything to do with the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter or what happened between 1920-1948.. The inconvenient truth of the Jewish people’s struggle to assert its legal claim to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine during those 28 years totally undercuts and dismisses those who would deny the Jews any legal or moral rights in their ancient and biblical homeland.
Now you even go further in wanting to forget 1948-1967 as well – when you state:
“I think it is not in Israel’s current interest to argue the historical case for its original claim of statehood. A more compelling ground would be to work toward peace and reconciliation premised on the 1967 realities.”
Israel’s case is not only historical – it is legal – sanctioned by the League of Nations and the United Nations. Why do you continually seek to deny the existence of these vested Jewish legal rights?
The “1967 realities” were that;
1,: Jordan had already occupied the West Bank for 19 years
2. The Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank had unified the West Bank with Transjordan to create a new country called Jordan – rather than creating a second independent Arab state in the West Bank in addition to Jordan – at a time when not one Jew nor one settlement existed in the West Bank as the Jews living there had been all driven out in the 1948 War..
3, The West Bank Arabs had acquired Jordanian citizenship and Jordanian passports
4. The 1964 PLO Covenant had stated that the PLO did not exercise any regional sovereignty “over the Western Bank in the Hashimite Kingdom of Jordan” or the Gaza Strip.
5. According to the PLO Covenant – Palestine with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate was a regional indivisible unit – which included Jordan.There were no “Palestinians” but the PLO Covenant spoke of the “Palestinian Arab people” – a term unknown from 1920 to 1964.
6. The West Bank was lost by Jordan to Israel when Jordan entered the Six Day War after being warned by Israel to stay out.
Do you want to see peace and reconciliation premised on these realities? If there are any I have overlooked – please let me know.
Based on these realities you should be calling on Israel and Jordan to resolve the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank as the two successor States to the Mandate – not parroting the fictitious mumbo jumbo contained in countless non-binding General Assembly resolutions (“the Occupied Palestinian Territories” and the “two-state solution” – as two examples) that only saw the light of day after Jordan lost the West Bank.
After 19 years of fruitless negotiating with the PLO since 1993 – isn’t it time to call it a day and now acknowledge these 1967 realities as the basis for any future negotiations to resolve the outstanding claims of Jews and Arabs over a tiny piece of land that means so much to Jews but pales into insignificance for the Arabs when compared to the vast areas of land delivered to the Arabs by the Mandates system?
Could you please for once refrain from making general unsubstantiated statements and back up your comments with facts.
Mr. Singer:
Having read your derogatory and personally offensive attack on me that is published online at the Canada Free Press website, I realize that we have no common ground whatsoever to support further communication, and I am disappointed that you didn’t at least have the courtesy to inform me that you were writing about me in such a defamatory vein while here pretending to have a substantive discussion.
The website also made me aware that you support a denial of fundamental Palestinian rights and the negotiation of ‘peace’ by way of Israel/Jordan negotiations with total disregard of the Palestinian reality. In my view such an extremist position is politically, morally, and legally unacceptable.
Mr Falk
More generalised and unsubstantiated comments as usual and a convenient excuse for you to avoid any discussion of my last post.
You claim my article is a “derogatory and personally offensive attack” on you. You claim it is “defamatory”
That is not good enough.
Detail your specific objections and I will deal with them. If they have any merit I will withdraw them.
Indeed let any of your readers do the job for you – if you are not prepared to do so yourself.
Here is the article:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48529
I initially sought to get answers from you to specific matters I found questionable in your article on Mr Dayan. You have ducked and weaved and refused to answer them..
I assure you I will not act in the same manner in regard to anything you want to object to in my article..
yisraelismedad, perhaps you didn’t notice the source you cite to question the map starts with this: From Fox News:
Advertisements at train stations in suburban New York depicting shrinking Palestinian territory in Israel are riling some critics who say they are “deliberately misleading and inaccurate,” FoxNews.com has learned.
Like you, “I’m old enough to remember watching in black and white. And I read books, for almost a century now on the subject.” Well you must be close to 107 now if you’ve been reading for almost a century? I have also been watching the ME scene for a long Time as the Public Record below confirms.
The Bible was the 1st Book I read from cover to cover in 1950 on learning to read. Liking to read, you should be interested in reading this historical Marker of Time in 1976. It is only with retrospect can it be seen the world conformed to the main points AFTER this fact i.e the Camp David Accord and the Iranian Revolution, tandem events in 1979
sorry, that was supposed to be “half a century”.
and can i call you out for misreading? the first part of that post quoted a news report indeed from Fox and then, independently, went on to demolish the maps. read carefully (and I promise to write more carefully). Here’s his additional post of what Palestine comprised: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2010/01/historic-palestine.html
We all fall short of the perfection of God – both Jew and Gentile
Some days ago, Prof. Falk posted a reminder that this blog was intended to be a venue for serious discussion in which participants would adhere to standards of civility. I’m afraid that the conversation has moved in the opposite direction.
Prof. Falk bears a substantial measure of responsibility for this. Despite assuring an admirer, Walker Percy, that he welcomes differing views, and “feels obliged to be as responsive as possible,” he has refused to engage with David Singer, an attorney, who posted a well-researched and informed rebuttal to Prof. Falk’s post on Dani Dayan’s letter-to-the-editor of the New York Times. (Full disclosure: Prof. Falk did acknowledge my critique by posting that he withdraws his allegation that Dayan’s letter originated in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s camp. I am grateful for his candor, but my critique was of his analysis. Singer’s is that he misstates facts, which is a far more serious matter.)
Here were the key ingredients for the kind of exchange Prof. Falk had envisioned: the beginning of an exchange between two lawyers, each with knowledge of the subject under discussion.
But Prof. Falk refused to engage, claiming he had no time to write a response, and adding that their disagreement stems from “differing interpretations of complex historical and factual situations”, which cannot be bridged. But aren’t differing interpretations of complex historical and factual situations precisely what should be sorted through in informed discussion? And even if agreement isn’t reachable, as it often isn’t, shouldn’t discussion be seen as a vehicle for giving both parties an opportunity to explain and defend their position? Isn’t this what educators call a “teachable moment”?
Perhaps Prof. Falk will reconsider, so that this blog can move in the direction he envisioned for it.
So long as I’ve mentioned Walker Percy, I need to cite a post of his that gets a failing grade for both content and civility. While I knew that I would disagree with much of the opinion expressed on this blog, I never thought I’d be writing a post like this one.
Mr. Percy begins by concurring in another commentator’s opinion that Israel’s annexing the West Bank could ignite World War 3.
My view is that Israel will never annex the West Bank, and that if it did, it wouldn’t ignite a world war. But fair enough. Differing opinions are the substance of good discussions. But then Mr. Percy continues:
“It appears that launching the next world war is either the explicit intent of the Jewish state or, much more frighteningly, the subconscious product of group neurosis, perhaps caused, in part, by cruel, rule-obsessed fathers and smothering, histrionic mothers.”
The first part of this diatribe, the utterly baseless allegation that Israel—the Jewish state, as Mr. Walker emphasizes—intends to plunge the world into global warfare, is defamatory.
The second part is outrageous pseudo-psychobabble laced with anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jewish mothers and fathers.
Amazingly, it gets worse.
“Horrifying as it seems, we are witnessing in real time the same sequence, transposed to a different setting, that has led to mass death of Jews and their ‘enemies’ on repeated occasions throughout history.”
If I read this correctly (the language is confusing) Mr. Percy is saying that Jews are behaving like Nazis. And why is “enemies” in quotation marks? Is he implying that the Nazis weren’t enemies of the Jews? That might be difficult to prove. Or is it an allegation that Jews have been guilty of committing mass murder on “repeated occasions throughout their history?
I know a little about Jewish history, but know nothing that substantiates this charge. However, for the sake of serious and civil discussion, I invite Mr. Walker to cite examples. If he can, I will admit my error on this blog.
And still worse:
“Before you dismiss this as anti-Semitic rubbish, consider the beloved fables of Samson and Masada.”
The Bible devotes a total of two verses to Samson’s up-bringing, so there’s not much information available that substantiates that his father was “cruel” and “rule-obsessed,” or his mother was “histrionic.”
As regards Masada, the historian Josephus recounts that a group of some 700 Jews fled Jerusalem as it was under Roman siege in 66 C.E. and took refuge on a promontory in the Judean desert on the shores of the Dead Sea. When the Romans assaulted the mountain several years later catching the Jews with no possibility of escape, all of them committed suicide, choosing to die as free men and women rather than become slaves to Rome.
The puzzling aspect of Mr. Percy’s citing this as proof of a Jewish proclivity for initiating was destruction is that the trapped Jews killed only themselves, which was their intention. Perhaps he’ll elaborate on his thesis.
Finally,
“Golda Meir admitted that Israel was prepared to destroy the world if the Zionist enterprise fails. What kind of monsters would say such a thing, and how can the world permit them to continue to operate with impunity in light of the danger they pose to every living and future human being?”
Once again, I have no information that Golda Meir said such a thing, but invite Mr. Percy to set me straight.
But that last sentence, the one about Jews being monsters who pose a danger to every living and future human being, gives me the creeps. We Jews have heard similar calumnies at other times and in other places. And we know they can have a terrible consequence.
Prof. Falk has stated that he will filter out comments that are “blatantly anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, anti-Semitic, racist, or personally defamatory.” I urge that this standard be applied even-handedly to admirers and critics, alike.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
I haven’t been following Mr. Percy. You have every reason to ask for a reference for Golda Meir threatening to blow up the world. I don’t know of one, and because I don’t I would be suspicious if one suddenly occurred – sort of in line of “too good to be true” – but you never know.
“It appears that launching the next world war is either the explicit intent of the Jewish state or, much more frighteningly, the subconscious product of group neurosis, perhaps caused, in part, by cruel, rule-obsessed fathers and smothering, histrionic mothers.”
I would at least partly be sympathetic to the thought of group neurosis leading to a nuclear war at some point. Such is paranoia – something Israel has in spades. The joke about “Just because you are paranoid does not mean that they aren’t after you” misses the point. Paranoid people arrange their lives so that people really are after them. Paranoid states do the same, and Israel is pretty close to the top of the ladder. Explicit intent – not likely, but you never know – Christian Zionists with their Rapture Ready sites seem to have a certain desire to have one big happy nuclear war so all the good Christians will be raptured to heaven. Haven’t heard any explicit death wish yet from the Jewish counterparts to the Christian crazies Still there is this impression that they are rubbing shoulders. There’s got to be some sort of death wish in that. Rule-obsessed fathers and smothering, histrionic mothers doesn’t add much. As far as crying antisemitism over that perhaps you should hold your breath for something actually serious. A comment about inappropriate and possibly racist and or sexist I think would be more than adequate to express your opinion without you descending into hysterics. Personally, at the end of the day, I’d like the word antisemitism to mean something other than I think you are wrong and I hate your guts.
But that last sentence, the one about Jews being monsters who pose a danger to every living and future human being, gives me the creeps. We Jews have heard similar calumnies at other times and in other places. And we know they can have a terrible consequence.
Monsters – no, but it is no less than is repeated constantly about Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians in Israel and the US – Frankly though, you are misquoting Mr. Percy. First there is a grammatical conflict in the sentences – monsters should be singular or the sentences need to be re-arranged to refer to Zionists. Your own racism is showing though – he did not refer to Jews – it is you who have made the claim that Jews and Zionists are synonymous – a racist statement.
That is not the only racist type of statements made here by supporters of Israel.
1. You also overlook the fact that the West Bank is also the ancient and biblical homeland of the Jewish people – as strong a moral claim as you might find anywhere in the world..
2. during 1949-1956, Arabs residing in Judea and Samaria
3. If there are no legal rights – then any biblical claim or ancient claim of its own becomes a very difficult claim to maintain.
Using religious sources to claim divine right is an extremely ugly and violent position, certainly as bad as anything you have accused Percy of. It directly supports the violence that European Jews have been subject to by Christianity for over a thousand years – If divine right is good enough for Jewish racists, it is good enough for Christian racists – and is good enough for racists of any faith.
The refusal to call or recognize the Palestinian people is also a form of racism, along with your own equating Zionism and Jews as being synonymous.
Perhaps you should look just a bit further than Percy when complaining about the evil antisemites.
Edwin, I am pasting relevant information on the Samson option below. Please let me know what you think!
walker
———————————————————————————-
“Martin Van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, was quoted in 2003 giving explicit support of the Samson Option: “Most European capitals are targets for our air force … we have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”[40]
David Perlmutter, Louisiana State University professor and supporter of Israel wrote in 2002 for the Los Angeles Times: “What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away–unlike the Armenians, Tibetans, World War II European Jews or Rwandans–have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?”[41]
Alan Hart interviewed Golda Meir for the BBC’s Panorama programme in April 1971 and asked her “Prime Minister … You are saying that if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?”. Hart continues that, “without the shortest of pauses for reflection, and in the gravel voice that could charm or intimidate American Presidents according to need, Golda replied ‘Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying'”. Hart further claims that during the “early panic” of the 1973 (Yom Kippur) war, two Israeli missiles were armed with nuclear warheads and targeted on Cairo and Damascus.[42] It is known that the US rapidly re-armed Israel at that time.
The Israelis are encouraged in their nuclear threats by “Christian Zionists” like Hal Lindsay who believe Israel must expand its control of territory to its Biblical borders in order to bring about Armageddon and the return of Jesus Christ.[43] Some suspect that former President George W. Bush holds such beliefs[44] especially after his November 2007 statement “If you want to see World War Three, you know, a way to do that is to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon.”[45]
Walker: thanks for the quote – do you have a link for it? I quickly tried to source it on the internet and missed.
I note that Wikipedia does have an interesting entry under Sampson option (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option) but of course wikipedia does not qualify as a reliable source.
Edwin: check out: Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal & American Foreign Policy by Seymour Hersh.
Rabbi,
I am so pleased that you took the time to respond to my comments, and I am flattered that you felt that it merited a point-by-point rebuttal.
Rather than engage you in the usual arguments about who is to blame I want to change the subject somewhat, and ask you to think about this situation from a different perspective. The world economy is melting down, and the future looks grim. There are 2 billion muslims in the world, and a large percentage of them want to kill Americans at a time when we can no longer afford to fight with them. Muslims say, and we have no reason to disbelieve them, that the main reason they hate us is that we are bankrolling Israel, giving Israel an unfair military advantage so they can be humiliated over and over. In case you never saw Lawrence of Arabia, let me explain something: Arabs are bad asses and are not to be f***** with. Israel has stirred up a hornets nest over there, and for no good reason. Americans should have no dispute with Arabs or Muslims, yet we are locked in mortal combat with them. Why? Are we really going to have a religious war centered on Jerusalem 1000 years after the Crusades? Do Jews really want to be associated with that, regardless of who started it?
It is shocking to me that educated people like you are blind to this obvious reality, and that you support israel’s plan to exacerbate the situation by seizing property that is not theirs, and driving impoverished natives out so that they can create ethnically pure enclaves, in plain sight of the world, only 60 years after the holocaust. When the history of this period is written, people will wonder how the Israelis were able to convince the US to risk its safety and prosperity to defend a group who were so obviously acting in bad faith. They will ask why American Jews were so clueless, so reckless and so self-regarding to allow this terrible dispute that is endangering us all to go on for so many years.
Sorry if you find my language threatening, but I want to try to wake you up, to get you to see how serious this is, and how much more than preserving the character of the Jewish state is at stake here. This is not just about the Jews, but it endangers us all. I am looking forward to your response.
Walker
I’m sure that Rabbi Youdovin will wish to reply to you. I will only say that if your knowledge of the Arabs and the Middle East is based on your having seen Lawrence of Arabia, which I suspect it is, then you really don’t know enough to be making such categorical statements. There is in fact every reason to disbelieve the Muslims when they say they hate America because it is bankrolling Israel. It may just be that they hate America for being America, namely a non-Muslim entity in a world where Islam is meant to prevail.
Secondly, Israel has no plan to exacerbate the situation by seizing property that is not theirs and driving impoverished natives out so that they can create ethnically pure enclaves. Israel built settlements on public land in Judea and Samaria. If you were familiar with the geography of the West Bank you would understand that these settlements are tiny dots in a barren landscape. The question of the legality of such building activity revolves around the question of whether Israel occupied sovereign territory. The U.N. allocated it as part of its partition plan and the Arabs said, We don’t want it. The land was then seized and annexed by Jordan in 1950, an act that was almost universally condemned as illegal, which makes the status of the West Bank and Israel’s rights there debatable. But the entire question is of course irrelevant, as Israel has not constructed new settlements or expanded existing settlements beyond their boundaries for years. Furthermore, as Israel accepts the two-state solution (and Dani Dayan does not speak for Israel), the fate of each settlement, whether it is to remain a part of Israel or be dismantled, will be determined in negotiations, which the Palestinians at present refuse to renew, hoping that with the help of people like yourself enough pressure will be exerted on Israel to compromise its existence. In actual fact, it has been understood for years by all practical people on both sides that with regard to borders, settlements and the expansion of Jewish Jerusalem, there will be an exchange of land that allows the big Jewish settlement blocs to remain part of Israel and compensates the Palestinians territorially. All this involves around 5% of West Bank land. This is the reality of the situation, without the monsters, hysterical Jewish mothers, cruel, obsessed Jewish fathers, and nuclear holocausts.
fred,
From my perspective, you appear to be a dishonest agent, willing to say anything at all if it will make your side look like nice. But this is no longer just about jews and arabs, who is nicer; the details of this argument and questions of culpability are irrelevant. You are so embroiled in your petulant dispute that you can’t see how bad you look to the rest of the world. Jews like me and (I think) Prof. Falk are trying to take responsibility for fixing this. If Israel’s position is that their actions are protecting Jews everywhere from genocide, we have to keep reminding everyone that we are not in any danger, that we have great lives in America, but that Israel’s actions do threaten us, and we demand and end to it, even it means (the horror, the horror) that an Arab majority takes over and changes the Jewish character of Israel, whatever that means.
I am looking forward to your response!
Walker
Rabbi,
You have interpreted what I wrote as meaning that I think Jews are like Nazis. Not at all. In the pattern that has been repeated throughout history, Jews are always ultimately the victim, having set up circumstances to ensure their persecution by the larger community in response to their unethical business dealings, cultural insensitivity to other groups, nepotism, flaunting of wealth, and self-organization into exclusive ethnic enclaves. As a current example, observe the gleeful response to Mitt Romney saying that he thinks that Jewish culture is superior to Arab culture, and that explains the disparity in wealth between them. If you go back to the 1930’s, you find the same complaints about German Jews. Since the outcome of each of these episodes is that they end up with Jews dying en masse, any Freudian analyst would conclude that Jews are sub-consciously making this happen. The most shocking aspect about what is going in Israel now is not so much the bad behavior, but rather the willful blindness in failing to notice this pattern, and to viciously attack and suppress the speech of anyone who tries to bring this to their attention. That level of defensiveness usually is concealing a guilty conscience, don’t you agree?
Walker
Rabbi
Personally I never object to Jew haters exposing themselves – though most of them usually choose to do so under the cover of anonymity.
They are entitled to be Jew haters or be whatever they like.I am entitled to be repulsed by them, denounce them, ignore them and not engage with them in any further exchanges
Some countries do have laws to prosecute people who racially vilify others – but that does not stop them having their say.
I am not sure what has happened to the civility Mr Falk hoped to bring to comments made on his site.
Guess he is still too busy to tell us why he has remained silent in the face of some of the worst cases of Jew hatred I have encountered on the internet.
If these are Mr Falk’s usual followers and it appears he apparently condones their behaviour – he is welcome to them.
If Mr Falk had taken the time to answer my original queries in an open manner in the first place then maybe this vicious outburst of Jew hatred might have been avoided.
The tone for what has happened began with this little exchange between Walker percy and Mr Falk – when Walker percy advised that it was not necessary for Mr Falk to reply to my detailed objections to his article:
“Walker percy July 28, 2012 at 12:02 am#
It’s not necessary to respond to even to read your itemized list. Defenders of Israel on the Internet are known to be paid for promoting a set of talking points exactly like yours. The strategy is to sprinkle around some vehement defenses of Israel, in a desperate effort to show that there are two sides to the story. But everyone knows about this now, so you should quit. It only makes Israeli actions appear that much more unseemly.
Richard FalkJuly 28, 2012 at 1:12 am#
I agree with you, and thank you for the sensible advice. At the same time, I have recently written that I welcome differing views if expressed within an idiom of civility, and feel obliged to be as responsive as possible in most instances.
I realize in part I am exploring whether some ethical boundaries are needed to evolve a healthy and beneficial blog culture, and your message helps me with respect to this exploration.”
So – Mr Falk agreed with Walker percy that I should quit.
Well that won’t be happening Mr Falk.
And what has happened to your responding to the Jew hating posts? Is what you are permitting – without any comment from you – within your “ethical boundaries”.? Is this what you call a “healthy and beneficial blog culture”?
I still hope you will take the time to answer my objections and to answer the question I posed to you – are the Mandate for Palestine, article 80 of UN Charter and Security Council Resolution 242 “null and void” in your opinion?
Mr. Singer:
With all due respect, you are characterizing harsh disagreements with your views as expression as the work of “Jew haters,” but I do not read the comments you are objecting to in that spirit. In fact, one of my objectives in keeping a civil tone is to avoid describing views you dislike as if they are examples of anti-Semitism. I have been myself, as you probably know, subjected to such attacks, and I can say from the bottom of my heart that it confounds the issue of my attitudes of respect for all peoples and traditions with my dissent from some policies of governments whether in this country or abroad.
I know there are difficulties with my position as generalizations about group behavior are sometimes necessary, and even carefully expressed, can lead to perceptions of hostility of the sort that you are claiming. I favor giving the benefit of the doubt, concentrating on useful substantive concerns, and not conflating Israel with Zionism or Zionism with the views of Netanyahu, or for that matter, Dayan.
I hope that these distinctions make sense to you.
sincerely,
Richard Falk
Dear Mr Falk
You state:
“With all due respect, you are characterizing harsh disagreements with your views as expression as the work of “Jew haters,” but I do not read the comments you are objecting to in that spirit.”
This is simply incorrect.
The following comment had nothing to do with any comments I had made – but appeared in response to some else who had posted;
“We can’t afford any more wars, especially ones to rescue Jews who have acted recklessly again and gotten themselves in trouble again with their big mouths and by flaunting their wealth in an unseemly manner.”
There are many more such reprehensible comments that appeared in posts that had nothing to do with any views expressed by me.
I can defend my views without resort to calling my critics Jew haters. They identify themselves in their remarks. I just ignore them because they are beneath contempt. If they make mistakes of fact I will correct them. But they rarely use facts – just a litany of hatred, vilification and abuse.
If you are prepared to allow such statements to pass without comment – then all I can say is I am flabbergasted and very disappointed. But again that is your prerogative – as it is my prerogative to make my own assessment of both you, your site, and persons making such statements.
David, you write:
“Personally I never object to Jew haters exposing themselves – though most of them usually choose to do so under the cover of anonymity.”
The reason that we have to use pseudonyms and conceal our real identities is that people who express ideas that appear to be “bad for the Jews” usually become the targets of whispering campaigns that are intended to destroy their careers or worse. This kind of coercion is intolerable. But the Internet provides a mechanism for defeating this deceitful practice that has served Jewish “leader” well for a long time, and one has only to read the comments sections on blogs like this one to realize that the toothpaste has all squirted out and no amount of mis-direction or outright lies will help to get it back in the tube. You reap what you sow.
Walker Percy
Response to what? I have no idea what you’re saying with reference to what I wrote.
fred,
I know that you have no idea. That’s the problem. Time for you to wake up. Your side has lost because you have revealed yourselves to be dishonest and violent.
walker
Walker Percy,
It’s been a while since I read a statement more racist than this one from your recent posting:
“Arabs are bad asses and are not to be f***** with.”
Perhaps I should feel relieved that your obvious bigotry is directed not only at Jews, but also at Arabs and possibly many others. But I’m not. It’s reckless and hate-filled expressions like your’s that make reconciliation among people and nations so difficult.
Fred Skolnik,
While I appreciate your support and agree with most of your analysis, I’m afraid that Israel’s record is not as clean as your portray it. There have been seizures of privately owned land on the West Bank. Some of these have been overturned by Israeli courts. Others remain. In more than a few instances, documenting ownership has been elusive.
And your “tiny dot” image fails to note that some number of these small settlements are situated in a way that segments Palestine, thus undermining the new state’s territorial cohesiveness As things now stand, a Palestinian living in Naublus going to visit his parents in Hebron would have to drive a zig-zag route around the settlement blocs. An Israeli driving from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv prior to June, 1967 faced the same difficulty, which is one of the factors that justify border modification in the context of peace. This will be a focus of negotiations when and if negotiations resume. And it will continue to be a source of controversy in Israel and among Jews throughout the world. In this regard, it must be noted that a large majority of Israeli and Diaspora Jews favor removing settlements, as happened in Gaza despite protests from the settlers and their supporters. This critical nuance is ignored by Walker Percy and other readers of this blog, which makes reasoned discussion so difficult.
But to repeat, I agree with much of what you write, and thank you, David Singer and a few others for making my life as a reader/commentator less lonely than it would otherwise be.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Rabbi, you misunderstood my point: saying that Arabs are “bad asses is a compliment”, that they are proud, tough people who react vehemently when they believe they have been disrespected or cheated. How is it racist? Or are you saying that any group characterizations of various ethnicities are racist?
I do appreciate your comments to Fred about his uninformed (or more likely disingenous) description of settlements as little dots. It’s when Israel boosters say things like that that the world can only gasp in disbelief.
walker.
Rabbi,
Fundamentally, I consider myself a Jew of the Messianic Christian Sect, a Sect of Judaism as much as Conservative, Orthodox, Haredi or any other denomination of Judaism.
My practical Faith is in the still Living Spirit of the God of Abraham. I cannot be against Jews or any other human of whatever Faith. But when I see my Brother heading in the wrong direction according to my view and understandings, I am obligated to forewarn according to the Lights God has given me. These warnings must be given in all gentleness and in Love, not hate.
It is not from reading any Arab propaganda, but from reading The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, other Zionist Blogs and publications, I am convinced the attitude exhibited towards Arabs by some Israeli Jews is the same attitude the Nazis had toward the Jews in another place and Time. I am literate enough to read between the lines. It does not give me any happiness or satisfaction to see this and I have been closely studying the Israeli-Arab situation for many years as The Kansas City Times on September 13, 1976 chronicles and marks in Time.
The Kansas City Times wrote a follow up story on ALL Souls Day, November 2, 1976. The date, image and content in that report, over which I had no editorial control, is a “sign” for this generation.
For more detail and specifics, read the 1st article in my blog;
http://ray032.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/from-the-revolutionary-spirit-of-76-to-the-revolutionary-spirit-of-11/
As a Rabbi, you might imagine the sometimes difficult position I’m in – between a rock and a hard place – as the appointed Watchman described in Ezekiel 33.
Multitudes! Multitudes! In the Valley of Decision. The Day of The LORD is near in the Valley of Decision.
Yes, Professor Falk, keep encouraging him and all the others.
I received an email link Today that is among dozens of other links I bookmarked from The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz. It gives some idea of how the Israeli Jews, claiming to be the most persecuted on earth, have a different attitude now that they have the qualitative military superiority and military law within a supposed Democracy treat their “inferiors.”
An excerpt:
Welcome to Nazareth
“There could have hardly been a more succinct exposition of the logic of a central plank of Zionist policy known as “Judaization.” Long before Israel began building settlements in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, its strategic planners were devising similar methods to contain, fragment and control the dozens of Palestinian communities whose inhabitants had not been chased out of the new state in 1948. The goal was to turn these towns and villages into figurative “bottles” and transform their Palestinian inhabitants—a fifth of the population—into “drugged cockroaches,” who would docilely accept their inferior status in a self-proclaimed Jewish state.
Judaizing Nazareth
One of the very first targets for Judaization was Nazareth. The city, unlike most other Palestinian communities, had emerged relatively unscathed from the year-long bloodshed of the 1948 war. The newly declared state of Israel, still awaiting recognition from the United Nations, worried about a potential backlash from the international community, and especially the Vatican, if Nazareth were seriously attacked. So the city was left largely in peace as Israel’s armed forces swept northwards towards the Lebanese and Syrian borders.
By the end of the war, hundreds of Palestinian villages—the overwhelming majority—had been destroyed, and their inhabitants, some 750,000, expelled. Only 150,000 Palestinians remained. Palestine’s once-great cities inside the new borders, such as Jaffa, Haifa and Lod, were almost emptied, later to be misleadingly termed “mixed cities”: cities of Jewish immigrants that accommodated an adjoining ghetto of Palestinian casual laborers to build homes for the waves of new arrivals.
http://www.ameu.org/Current-Issue/Current-Issue/2012—Volume-45/Welcome-to-Nazareth.aspx
Walker Percy,
Whatever you now claim to have meant, characterizing Arabs as “bad asses who are not to be f***** with” sounds like the too-familiar vicious caricature of (all!) Arabs as being bad-spirited and bellicose. That your views of Arabs come from watching “Lawrence of Arabia” is both revealing and outrageous. That film reeks with anti-Arab racism. It’s like learning about American Indians from old western movies. I suggest you read “Orientalism” by the late Prof. Edward Said to get a better understanding of the points I’m making.
Additionally, when you respond to my critique of Fred Slotnik’s post with: “when Israel boosters say things like that that the world can only gasp in disbelief” you reveal how little you know about the Jewish community you so frequently criticize. The Jewish community, in both Israel and the Diaspora, is engaged in an on-going internal debate over Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, both the 1.5 million Palestinians who are Israeli citizens, and those in the Occupied Territories. This debate is not a matter of “Jews” vs “Zionists”, as you and other participants in this blog mistakenly believe. It might be handy for you and others to conceptualize “Zionism” as a monolithic ideology seeking to deny Palestinians their legitimate national aspirations. But it’s not. Zionism embraces a broad spectrum of views ranging from a small cadre of settlers who want to annex the West Bank, to a far larger group who oppose settlement expansion and advocate Israeli withdrawal from most or all of the Occupied Territories.
Moreover, a person who has to respond “you misunderstood my point” as often as you do, might examine either his writing style or thinking…or both.
Edwin,
Never before have I quoted someone verbatim, as I did with Walker Percy thanks to the miracle of computerized shadow copying, and then be accused of misquoting him. Congratulations, you have scored a first.
Regrettably, your fanciful reworking of what Mr. Percy wrote doesn’t support your thesis. At no time does he separate “Jew” from “Zionist”…or we to assume that only Zionists were warped by “histrionic mothers” and “cruel fathers”, while the others escaped? Yes, “monsters” should be in the singular if it was intended to slander only the late Golda Meir. But Percy’s obvious intent was to cast Mrs. Meir, in his gross misrepresentation of her, as symbolizing all Jews, who, in his warped opinion, are “monsters.” A subsequent post of his confirms this.
Curiously, your thesis somehow works itself around to charge me of being a racist. How did my Muslim, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish colleagues who elected me president of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago miss that awful truth?
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Prof. Falk,
As I believe you are sincere is wishing to remove anti-Semitism and all hate speech from your blog, I respectfully suggest that you begin with this one from Walker Percy:
‘In the pattern that has been repeated throughout history, Jews are always ultimately the victim, having set up circumstances to ensure their persecution by the larger community in response to their unethical business dealings, cultural insensitivity to other groups, nepotism, flaunting of wealth, and self-organization into exclusive ethnic enclaves. As a current example, observe the gleeful response to Mitt Romney saying that he thinks that Jewish culture is superior to Arab culture, and that explains the disparity in wealth between them. If you go back to the 1930′s, you find the same complaints about German Jews. Since the outcome of each of these episodes is that they end up with Jews dying en masse, any Freudian analyst would conclude that Jews are sub-consciously making this happen. The most shocking aspect about what is going in Israel now is not so much the bad behavior, but rather the willful blindness in failing to notice this pattern, and to viciously attack and suppress the speech of anyone who tries to bring this to their attention. That level of defensiveness usually is concealing a guilty conscience, don’t you agree?
Walker
Or this one from Edwin:
“Using religious sources to claim divine right is an extremely ugly and violent position, certainly as bad as anything you have accused Percy of. It directly supports the violence that European Jews have been subject to by Christianity for over a thousand years – If divine right is good enough for Jewish racists, it is good enough for Christian racists – and is good enough for racists of any faith.”
The notion that the Jews deserved what they got from the Nazis, and from all others who sought our annihilation, is the lowest form of gutter anti-Semitism. It’s your blog so you can do what you want with it. But so long as hate speech like this is allowed to run free, without so much as a rebuke from the moderator, your stated goal of creating a venue for informed discussion is unattainable.
Finally, a word about the context of Edwin’s comment. His supposition is that Israel’s claim to the West Bank is based on the biblical notion that God gave the land to the Jewish People. I agree that this claim is racist when used to deny other people’s right to achieve their own national aspirations. But if fact, the claim is made by only a very small group of religious zealots, and is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Jews in Israel and the Diaspora.
Israel’s claim to the land is based on history, not religion. It rests on the Jewish People’s long and unbroken presence in, and attachment to the land. This is also the basis of the Palestinians’ claim. A substantial majority of Jews, Israelis and non-Israelis, have expressed their willingness to subordinate this historical claim in the interest of achieving peace. Polls indicate that many Palestinians are willing to do the same.
Shouldn’t the objective of a blog that focuses on Palestine-Israel be exploring avenues for achieving reconciliation rooted in the moderation of majorities in both communities? Anti-Semitism, anti-Israelism, anti-Palestinianism and anti-Arabism are obstacles to this process.
Rabbi Youdovin:
I am struggling with this question of how to be a blog moderator in a responsible fashion that encourages a responsible exchange of view in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
In this regard, I think the range of disagreements represented by Walker Percy and Fred Skolnik to be consistent with civility of tone, and voice serious and genuine opinions that seem suitable for discussion and illuminate the problems associated with the conflict.
Also, in a structure one-sided occupation and enjoyment of rights, it is important to consider abuses, and their explanation, as well as to seek means of reconciliation and accommodation. As I have argued in the past, time is neutral as Israel accumulates ‘facts’ while Palestinians lose ‘land,’ and in this manner the ‘peace process’ functions as a cruel charade that obscures a deeper truth, which is why I found Dayan’s opinion piece illuminating if objectionable.
Richard Falk
Mr Falk
You state:
“Also, in a structure one-sided occupation and enjoyment of rights, it is important to consider abuses, and their explanation, as well as to seek means of reconciliation and accommodation. As I have argued in the past, time is neutral as Israel accumulates ‘facts’ while Palestinians lose ‘land,’ and in this manner the ‘peace process’ functions as a cruel charade that obscures a deeper truth,”
One sided?
The Palestinian Authority controls the daily lives of 95% of the Arab population of the West Bank in 40% of the West Bank in Areas A and B.
The Palestinian Authority is also responsible for the security of 55% of the Arab population of the West Bank in Area A – and shares security responsibility with Israel in Area B
Only 5% of the Arab population of the West Bank live in Area C – 60% of the West Bank – in which Israel exercises full administrative and security control.
These are agreed negotiated arrangements between the PLO and Israel under the Oslo Accords.
Calling these arrangements “one sided” is – to use your famous words – “without substance”.
The use of generalised statements of this nature do not in my opinion help – but only hinder – any attempt to resolve the conflict.
Mr. Singer:
Two quick further points:
–because I do discard comments from both sides that contain deeply derisive personal attacks or hate speech,
you may not have realized that I am making some effort to balance free and opinionated discussion with certain
limits, but I find it it harder to do than I realized;
–I am quite aware of the Oslo framework, but it was never intended to provide a vehicle for israeli establishment
of ‘facts on the ground,’ especially when those facts contradicted a general consensus as to the limited rights of
Israel as an occupying power; there are also serious problems about Palestinian representation due to the U.S. role
in training the security forces of the Palestinian Authority and its cooperative relationship with Israeli policies in
Areas A & B. And incidentally, the standard of living of the Palestinians in Area C is reported as worse than that of
the population of Gaza. I do believe we have to look behind the legal structures at the conditions of life, especially
given such a prolonged occupation with no end in sight.
Sincerely,
Richard Falk
Rabbi,
I can’t tell you much it pleases me to know that I have gotten your attention, and that you have obligingly illustrated one of my main points, which is that supporters of Israel routinely attempt to suppress the speech of those who cross ‘red lines’ that they define and then enforce with great energy. The Rabbi appeals to Professor Falk, the moderator, to remove my comments because they are ‘bad for the jews’. I am also gratified that Prof. Falk flatly refused. Frankly, I am surprised that the Rabbi chose to make his demand for censorship in such an open way: it would have been more characteristic for him to have approached Falk privately, one Jew to another, and finally to try to ruin Falk’s reputation or career if he refused to pull my comments. Happily, Falk is no Goldstone.
Walker
You have taken a quote out of context.
“Jews are always ultimately the victim, having set up circumstances to ensure their persecution by the larger community in response to their unethical business dealings, cultural insensitivity to other groups, nepotism, flaunting of wealth, and self-organization into exclusive ethnic enclaves…. If you go back to the 1930’s, you find the same complaints about German Jews.”
Percy’s logic here is that since antisemites today are saying exactly what the Nazis said about Jews in the 1930s, then it must be true. Even by his standards, this is a little crazy. He might also try reading Sartre’s study of antisemitism.
On Moderation.
Interesting discussion – enlivened by the willingness on all sides to sometimes go where “Angels fear to tread”. There are very few blogs where such open discussion is possible, with the exception of Mondoweiss which I am sure is known to readers. In my view, Phil Weiss has done a sterling job in allowing vigorous debate within the bounds of civility but beyond the bounds of political correctness. I hope Richard will continue to allow such debate, even though it might venture into forbidden territory. In my view, the nuisance of the occasional uninformed bigot is a small price to pay for open debate and in my experience, bigots most often depart in fairly short order so where’s the harm?
The debate.
Until such time as there is an equivalent term describing bigotry towards Palestinians (or “Arabs” as some have it – a form of bigotry on its own account in my view) I think Rabbi Youdovin’s use of the term “anti-Semitism” should be considered moot.
Unless I am much mistaken, “anti-Semitism” refers to the application of the particular to the general.
Yet one of the most common justifications for the dispossession suffered by Palestinians is that they made war on the nascent Jewish State.
When I study the photographs of the Palestinian exodus, I see women, children and old folks. Refugee camps populated by helpless individuals stunned by their circumstances who, wouldn’t know one end of a rifle from the other if they held one.
Simple analysis of any given community will reveal a very small percentage of citizens aware of, capable of and willing to make War.
Is not this most common of justifications an example of the application of the particular to the general? Ask an Israeli why they were turned out. It is because “they”….etc.
I should add that, whilst I appreciate walker percy’s point that his characterization of “Arabs” as “bad asses” is a compliment, it is equally a generalisation that does not belong in serious analytical debate.
There is more I would like to contribute but I have run out of time.
I agree with your comments about widening the scope of inclusivity for the blog, and according a presumption of inclusion in the manner of the Mondoweiss blog, which I too think is useful and lively for the reason you suggest. Thanks for your words of guidance.
As Mondoweiss (and Jews sans frontiers) have discovered – moderation is necessary, or as Crazy Country has done – refused all comments. Mondoweiss has some sort of team to approve comments before posting.
I would hardly call Mondoweiss civil, though there is definitely an attempt to cut the worst of it out.
Do the best that you can in moderating, and if it starts detracting from posting – I’d prefer you to go the way of Crazy Country and have no comments over cutting back your posts.
The whole value of a blog like this is to create dialog. Comments are necessary and highly interesting so please don’t eliminate them. It’s my favorite part!
You are right that anti-Semitism is a moot term, as semites are people who speak a semitic language and not a race. You can call antisemites Jew haters then and you can call people who hate Arabs, Arab haters. Or you can call them all racists or bigots. It’s as simple as that, but none of this mitigates what Jews have experienced as Jews throughout their history, which is far from a matter of semantics. The eagerness to set up Israel as a parallel case of persecution and oppression is dishonest. Israel and the Arab states have been involved in a number of wars and you would have to bend history quite a bit, including Arab declarations about their own intentions, to place the blame on Israel. You start a war, you lose a war, you get your territory occupied. The Israeli occupation is as humane as an occupation can be given the fact that the Arab population harbors a considerable number of terrorists. All of Israel’s security measures are meant to prevent the Arab terrorists from murdering Israeli civilians. When the terrorism stops and the Arabs reconcile themselves to Israel’s existence, they will get their state.
“You start a war, you lose a war”
That is also moot.
391,000 Palestinians were driven out of their home before the war began according to a document sourced from IDF archives.
” the Arab population harbors a considerable number of terrorists.”
“Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat… First and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play..”
– Yitzhak Shamir.
Sorry, time is limited. If you need more verification of this it will have to wait until tomorrow GST+12.
But Jewish ethics did disqualify terrorism and that is why the underground groups that Shamir was associated with were condemned and ulimately disbanded by the Jewish leadership.
I’m happy to see that you read Hebrew and study archives but if you look a little further you may discover that as often as not it was the Arabs who encouraged the Palestinians to leave their homes, promising them that they would be able to return as soon as they finished slaughtering the Jews. You seem to have quite an anti-Israel file at your disposal. Do you have one for other people as well?
This is either a complete non-sequester or a complete re-right of international law. Refugees have a right to return home.
In any case:
http://mondoweiss.net/reference
The problem of the refugees will have to be solved within the framework of a Palestinian state just as the problem of a comparable number of Jewish refugees fleeing or expelled from Arab lands in the same period was solved in the State of Israel.
Fred.
Acknowledged terrorists such as Shamir and Begin were elected to high office and if extra-judicial assassination with no regard to collateral damage is terrorism (as I believe it to be), it continues to this day.
That Palestinians were “encouraged to leave their homes” by their fellows is a shibboleth that has long since been thoroughly dismissed, by Erskine Childers, Jon Kimche and others. Even the aforementioned IDF document concludes: “It is possible to say that at least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our [Haganah / IDF] operations and by their influence”. In addition, “the effects of the operations of dissident Jewish organizations ‘directly [caused] some 15 percent … of the emigration’ and attributes “Arab” encouragement to a paltry 5%.
Yet we do not need this to make an educated guess. Unless we consider the Arab Legion thoroughly stupid, the idea is preposterous. The refugees were a great impediment to their operations as any military man could predict.
I have a large amount of History at my disposal.
I also do a little moderation on my own account. If you see “NWR” followed by “irrelevant” “gratuitous insult” or some such, you will know that I consider the previous comment “Not worth Reply” on the grounds given.
“You seem to have quite an anti-Israel file at your disposal. Do you have one for other people as well?” is the type of comment that would attract such a response. I do not have the time or inclination to indulge in such nonsense. On such occasions you will of course be free to belabour the issue alone if you consider it assists your case.
Refs:
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/israel-watch/ErskinChilders.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/arab_invasion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_and_After#The_Causes_and_Character_of_the_Arab_Exodus_from_Palestine:_The_Israel_Defence_Forces_Intelligence_Service_Analysis_of_June_1948
Your logic then is that Arab terrorism is justified because of what Shamir may have said or because there were groups like Etzel or Lehi in 1947. In that case you may as well argue that Israeli “oppression” of the Palestinians is justified because Jews in Arab lands lived under the humiliating conditions of dhimmi law for 1300 years.
Since you are uncritically and selectively picking up information about Palestinian refugees from second hand sources that give you what you are looking for, here’s a couple more you might want to look at.
Jewish Virtual Library: Refugees
Eli Hertz: Arab and Jewish Refugees: The Contrast
Fred.
Feel free to point to the part of my post which contains a justification of terrorism.
If you feel that a legal system in which:
“Generally, the Jewish people were allowed to practice their religion and live according to the laws and scriptures of their community. Furthermore, the restrictions to which they were subject were social and symbolic rather than tangible and practical in character. That is to say, these regulations served to define the relationship between the two communities, and not to oppress the Jewish population.”
– Bernard Lewis, (1984).The Jews of Islam
….justifies Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, make your case.
As for Jewish refugees, I am more inclined to the opinion of Yehouda Shenhav, head of advanced studies in the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, winner of the Association for Israeli Studies award for The Arab Jews: A Postcolonial Reading of Nationalism, Religion, and Ethnicity who tells us:
“The unfounded, immoral analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi immigrants needlessly embroils members of these two groups in a dispute…..the campaign’s proponents hope their efforts will prevent conferral of what is called a “right of return” on Palestinians….The idea of drawing this analogy constitutes a mistaken reading of history, imprudent politics, and moral injustice.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hitching-a-ride-on-the-magic-carpet-1.97357
………than I am towards hasbara. I have little interest in participating in flame wars over worn out Zionist inventions. It is the fresh ones that interest me.
Prof. Falk.
You expressed a desire not to dwell on the past, but to examine contemporary issues. In that spirit, I ask this question:
Earlier this week, the Palestinian Authority and Government of Israel agreed on
arrangements regarding taxation and the transfer of goods between Israel and the PA. The purpose of the arrangements is to deepen the trade between Israel and the PA and help both sides combat smuggling and tax evasion.
In an earlier post, you charged PA President Abbas with being “complicit” in the Occupation by cooperating with Israel on security and other matters.
Is this week’s trade agreement another example of the PA’s being complicit? If not, why is it different from earlier examples of cooperation?
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Dear Brewski
What you are quoting from Bernard Lewis also describes how black Americans lived in the South after the Civil War.
Of course you prefer the sources you quote. That’s the whole problem.
I do not think the periods are analogous Fred.
What is commonly known as “The Golden Age of Jewry in Spain” began with the Moorish conquest in 711, and ended with the expulsion of the Jews, by the Christians in 1492. In that year, Bayezid II sent out the Ottoman Navy under the command of Admiral Kemal Reis to Spain in 1492 in order to evacuate them safely to Ottoman lands where he granted permission for them to settle in the Ottoman Empire and become Ottoman citizens. He ridiculed Ferdinand II for expelling a class of people so useful to their subjects.
The list of Jews who rose to high office during the Ottoman period is large and includes provincial Governors. This continued up until the modern era with figures such as Sir Sassoon Eskell, also known as Sassoon Effendi (Lord) who is regarded as the Father of the Iraqi Parliament.
Dhimmi tax, by the way, was imposed on all non-Muslims to offset their being excused military service. It was sometimes abused no doubt.
It should also be remembered that it was Muslims who liberated the Jews in the Holy land – first Caliph Omar (637), second, Saladin (1187)
It was the advent of the Palestine situation that caused problems for Mizrahim. It is worth noting that as tensions rose, less than half of those who left the old Ottoman lands went to Israel.
This is necessarily a very brief and general summary. There were occasions of strife between the races/religions during those 12 centuries, just as there were between English, Irish, French, Hugenots, Protestants, Catholics, Hindus and just about everybody at some point or other.
That’s very good, but the Jews were living under Arab rule from the 7th century and continued to live under the same disabilities of dhimmi law under the Ottomans as well despite their use of talented or prominent Jews for their own purposes. This is not a question of strife between races and religions but of a ruling religion with a basic tenet that obliges Muslims to degrade and humiliate non-Muslims. There is no way to sugar-coat dhimmi law. Calling it “a way to define relations” is perfectly true, and that is how Southerners saw things as well.
Pushed for time today so just briefly:
Inequality in the allocation of public funding for Jewish and Arab needs, and widespread employment discrimination, present significant economic hurdles for Arab citizens of Israel.
In 2001, Human Rights Watch described government-run Arab schools as “a world apart from government-run Jewish schools.
In 2003, Arab the infant mortality rate was twice as high as the rate among the Jewish population. In the 2002 budget, Israel’s health ministry allocated Arab communities less than 0.6% of its 277 m-shekel (£35m) budget.
In 2003, salary averages for Arab workers were 29% lower than for Jewish workers.
Loyalty oath proves Israel is racist, say Israeli Arab leaders.
Arab citizens are not required to serve in the Israeli military. Are we seeing an analogy here?
But are they allowed to ride on horses?
I don’t think you know what dhimmi law is and I don’t think you know how Arabs live in Israel beyond what you cut and paste out of convenient sources.
Israeli Arabs do face discrimination and that is the result of a very problematic situation of constituting a national minority whose primary identity is with an Arab world that is hostile to Israel. This does not justify discrimination and there are enough voices in Israel calling for a fairer allocation of resources. I am not going to enumerate what Israeli Arabs do have, but will sign off here on this discussion, which is getting us nowhere and certainly not doing the Palestinians any good. Since you seem intent on having the last word, and seem to bear an uncontainable resentment and hostility toward Israel, go right ahead and take it.
Richard,
I was very pleased that you did not remove my comments from a few days ago. Because you did not cave in to the demands of the those who wish to suppress speech that they don’t want anyone to say, I was able to engage in a lively and revealing discussion with several Israel boosters. The beauty of the Internet is that it defeats the usual mechanisms for eliminating view points that are deemed acceptable to those with money and power. In some ways, this is (and has always been) a fundamental disagreement that impedes human progress: that those in power seek to control the speech of malcontents (like me), to avoid awkward questions about their tactics, and so those out of power are rendered mute. But not anymore, and that is why Israel is about to reap the fruits of its duplicitous, humanity-crushing, civilization-ending mis-behavior. Thank you.
Walker
I would like to add my thanks to Professor Falk. This thread has been very revealing, albeit a little disturbing.
Seen at first hand, the technique of the committed Zionist reveals a psychopathology that, if shared by Israel’s leaders, bodes ill for the World and lends weight to Walker Percy’s dire predictions which I initially thought a little “over the top”. That I and many like me should be coming around to a similar view reveals the unintended consequences of the hard-line Zionist style.
For there is little to be accomplished in debate with those who would to build a case for the extinguishment of an indigenous people’s rights (even their expulsion) in this day and age on any grounds let alone on a dubious interpretation of the phrase “Jewish National Home”.
Indigenous rights have held sway over former agreements in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the U.S. and are making headway at the U.N. while Israel clings to a colonialist mindset as outmoded as slavery.
Yet even when the phrase “Jewish National Home” is proven to be limited (as should be obvious from the caveat “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”) and the pledge to assist in its creation deemed fulfilled (despite no State having been created) by the same authority that made that pledge, the Zionist continues to insist that a State was what was intended.
How this can be deduced from the additional “evidence” contained in Peel (1937):
“One reason why no public allusion was made to a state in 1922…..It was not till the great rise in the volume of Jewish immigration in the last few years, that the prospect of a Jewish State came within the horizon”
…..beggars belief for that statement proves beyond doubt that a State was not contemplated until the “last few years” before 1937 by any but the Zionists, whose duplicity in this regard is revealed by Chaim Weisman’s statement in regard to the Churchill White Paper:
“Our representation in Palestine…will have to adapt itself to the policy as laid down in the White Paper. I do not fully agree with this policy, but we have accepted it and we must loyally abide by it in the spirit and the letter….(Hopefully) this policy, which is elastic, will shape itself in a manner more in conformity with our ideas and wishes, but it will require very hard work for the next (several) years.”
Note the tacit expression of bad faith “ we must loyally abide by it in the spirit and the letter” ….followed by the intent to work against it.
It seems that the practice of creating “facts on the ground” is not new.
Since no State was contemplated before circa 1937, all reliance on Balfour and its echoes falls away.
The legitimacy of the self-proclaimed State of Israel, let alone its claim to the West Bank, must therefore rest, for the Historian, on Peel and subsequent documents.
For others, it rests on Israel’s behaviour as a member of the World community. Neither, in my view, offer much support at this time. It is my opinion that annexation of yet more territory will result in further isolation and focus attention on the larger question, a situation Israel should probably avoid.
I seem to remember FW de Klerk saying something about white South Africans lost because they became too greedy.
Israel use to play the media game like a pro. Now it struggles at damage control.
I think both are related – Israel over time has moved into a fantasy world where there is little hope but that things will get worse and worse over time.
—-
On a different note – I haven’t seen anything linking to the Rights of Indigenous Peoples – let me fix that http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
The U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is always in the back of my mind during discussions of this topic. I see no impediment to its applicability (perhaps Professor Falk can advise us) and have often wondered why more use of it is not made by advocates of the Palestinian cause.
In this case however, I took issue with a thesis which, in my view, is simply the old, emotional argument – “God (insert The League of Nations if you will) gave this land to me” – dressed up in legalese and wanted to defeat it within its own logic. I have noticed it becoming prevalent among Zionists during the past couple of years. I suspect this is by design, a new form for an increasingly secular World.
There are a host of other counters to what is, in essence, a racist colonial ideology, another of which is sadly neglected. It is summarized in this short aphorism which surfaced during a discussion on the purported anti-Semitism of Gore Vidal:
“Palestinians are Jews who loved their country more than their religion”.
…and makes the point rather well I thought. The Zionist’s use of the term “Arab” is deliberate and should be defeated in every instance.
Vidal’s amusing essay is here by the way:
http://peoplesgeography.com/2009/10/21/the-empire-lovers-strike-back/
Thanks.
Can I correct a misconceptualization? This – “the old, emotional argument – ‘God (insert The League of Nations if you will) gave this land to me'” is a misrepresentation. Archaeology, historical documents and other quite scientific material confirms (and every year there is added material) the facts of Jewish history in the Land of Israel. Religious Jews (and even less-than-observant ones) do believe that God made a covenant (and many Christians also believe that also) but that does not override the diplomatic and political history of the Jewish people as a national group who created a culture and political life in Eretz-Yisrael over 3000 years ago, with a tribal federation and then a monarchy and then a priestly-led autonomy and then, due to the loss of independence and exile, a religious-textual component kept the Jews togther. That is not an “emotional argument”. And to promote that, even without the ‘put-down’, is simply disparaging and incorrect.
yisraelmedad.
I have been under the impression that “Archaeology, historical documents and other quite scientific material” were moving scholarship in the opposite direction:
“This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. ……
Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people—and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story—now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people’s emergence are radically different from what that story tells.”
– Prof. Ze’ev Herzog, Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/jesuit/herzog.html#auth
Nevertheless, even if this Archaeological connection were indeed all that you assert and if such rights were valid, we are still left with the problem of exactly who should be the beneficiaries of this legacy 3,000 years on.
Professor Israel Bartal, dean of the humanities faculty of the Hebrew University informs us:
“No “nationalist” Jewish historian has ever tried to conceal the well-known fact that conversions to Judaism had a major impact on Jewish history in the ancient period and in the early Middle Ages. Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions. Important groups in the Jewish national movement expressed reservations regarding this myth or denied it completely.”,/i>
Is it European Jews, descendants of folk who may or may not have a blood tie with the Holy Land?
Is it the Palestinians whom geneticist Ariella Oppenheim asserts are “descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times”, albeit religiously first Christianized then largely Islamized, and all eventually culturally Arabized.”
Demographic evidence for an influx of outsiders into Palestine is so scant as to be virtually non-existent. The existence of around 20% Christian “Arabs” in the area in the late 19th and early 20th centuries whom one can only assume were the remnant of Jewish Converts to Christianity also argues in favour of a generally geographically stable populace. 1300 years of Ottoman rule must surely have resulted in conversions from Judaism and Christianity to Islam. On this point you may wish to ague that Judaics do not convert. I would suggest that they are just as susceptible to new belief systems as anyone. I have no data on conversions to other religions but we know that a large proportion have become secular in this secular age, indicating a propensity to adopt the mores of the time an place in which they find themselves.
To me this represents the rational position and the “right by Historical association” remains an emotional point of view which would, as Erich Fromm stated, make a madhouse out of the World if applied to all races and religions.
Well, to make it short: you’re wrong. Your facts are incorrect & your information not up-to-date. As for your ideological outlook, way out or off.
Sorry ’bout the italics. they should close after “denied it completely.””
brewski,
You wrote:
“Seen at first hand, the technique of the committed Zionist reveals a psychopathology that, if shared by Israel’s leaders, bodes ill for the World and lends weight to Walker Percy’s dire predictions which I initially thought a little “over the top”. That I and many like me should be coming around to a similar view reveals the unintended consequences of the hard-line Zionist style.”
I hope that many people are having similar epiphanies.
We are witnessing a shedding of inhibition on the part of the pro-Israel crowd. They think that they have won. After all, a country of 7 million is able to control and extort vast amounts of money from the world’s only super power. For people that see the world through the filter of the religion, this all seems very proper: while it is unpleasant to have to destroy the Palestinians, and to threaten everyone with nuclear annihilation, these are things that must be done so that Jews can achieve their destiny. But by revealing their true nature, they appear be setting the stage for their demise.
It is only if people like us go absolutely nuts and tell everyone what is going on that we stand a chance of putting and end to the cycle of violence and saving humanity. It is time to tell the truth, regardless of the consequences. The difference this time is that we have the Internet. Jews don’t own that (yet). To the (virtual) barricades!
walker
General remark:
Consulting history of different states I came to the conclusion, that the fall starts usually within a state.
Too greedy people ruling a country, or too much military supremacy of a country has the same outcome: downfall.
The former Communist Soviet Union fell and the state went bunkrupt. Misuse of power, too much military and police “misuse” inclusive spying on their own citizen. Departments too much money consuming etc. concerning police and military.
This reminds very much of the USA of today (see the newly implemented rules for drones to use against “some sort of suspects” of US citizen within USA) .
The Roman empire fell not only because of the invading other cultures, it fell foremost because as the Roman empire subdued more and more other countries, people inside the mainland got less to trade, because more and more goods were imported. This led to great inequality within.
The Berlin Wall could only fall because people were ripe to do something and the police and military gave a helping hand.
Israel didn’t learn how to deal with other countries: the diplomacy is missing.
The tool of the “holocaust” is used to get money – it is as Norman Finkelstein wrote: The Holocaust Industry.
(How terrible it was we all know – however, I don’t think that the coming generations are going to give money to a country who abuses human rights. Especially when the money belt has to be tightened.)
Israel’s dealing for example with the ships sailed to help that Palestinians get some food and medicine had been captured in a way by Israeli force which shows the ignorance and arrogance of a state.
Naturally such actions fall back to a country: how other countries regard such a state ordered action.
monalisa
The new front opened by our scholar-in-residence Mr. Brewski is so warped and dishonest that is cries out for a response, for either he doesn’t understand what he is reading or conceals its context.
The quote from Prof. Bartal is from a review that in fact ridicules a book by Shlomo Sand called “When and How Was the Jewish People Invented,” a book that promotes the arguments that our Brewski so avidly adopts. Prof. Bartal calls these arguments “bizarre and incoherent,” “baseless,” and “pure fantasy.” He writes:
“What is Sand trying to prove in this study? In his view, the homeland of the Jewish people is not Palestine, and most Jews are descendants of the members of different nations who converted to Judaism in ancient times and in the medieval period. He claims that the Jews of Yemen and Eastern Europe are descendants of pagans.
“According to Sand, this historical truth was concealed by Zionist thinkers, who developed an ethno-biological ideology, and the so-called “Jewish people” was invented as late as the 19th century. Furthermore, he argues, the idea of a “nation” that was exiled from its homeland in ancient times and which is destined to return to it in the modern age so as to rebuild its independent state is merely an invented myth.
“Sand also maintains that, in the era preceding the emergence of European nationalism, the Jews were an ethnic group, not a nation. In his eyes, the argument promulgated by the Zionists and by their successors in the Israeli political arena concerning our “right to this land” rests on a biological-genetic ideology; that argument became the “narrative of the ruling group” thanks to the fact that the “authorized scholars of the past” have concealed the truth concerning the real, impure origin of the Jews.
“My response to Sand’s arguments is that no historian of the Jewish national movement has ever really believed that the origins of the Jews are ethnically and biologically “pure.” Sand applies marginal positions to the entire body of Jewish historiography and, in doing so, denies the existence of the central positions in Jewish historical scholarship.
“No “nationalist” Jewish historian has ever tried to conceal the well-known fact that conversions to Judaism had a major impact on Jewish history in the ancient period and in the early Middle Ages. Although the myth of an exile from the Jewish homeland (Palestine) does exist in popular Israeli culture, it is negligible in serious Jewish historical discussions. Important groups in the Jewish national movement expressed reservations regarding this myth or denied it completely.”
That is to say, the Zionist claim to the Land of Israel does not depend on or have anything to do with “conversions to Judaism” or “exile from the Jewish homeland” (and I wonder if Brewski understands which exile Sand and Bartal are talking about). The Zionist claim rests on the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel in ancient times as a national entity, and it doesn’t matter how you look at the Book of Exodus or David and Solomon. At a certain point you run into historically indisputable facts that don’t depend on the factuality of the Bible, if only through the Greek and Roman historians or the later literary and religious works produced by the Jews themselves in the Land of Israel, which shows at least that they were there and that they were the heirs of a long historical tradition. The Romans did, after all, conquer a sovereign Jewish nation.
And by the way the principle finding of Ariella Oppenheim, whom Brewski is so eager to quote, as well other geneticists, is that the main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim (Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNA haplogroups J and E. I can cut and paste too.
The brainstorm of calling anyone not Jewish who resided in the Land of Israel a Palestinian, even going back to Natufian times, I suppose, is totally irrelevant. The issue is one of a national “Palestinian” identity and this did not exist even after the Arab conquest. But Israel, unlike its more vicious critics, who deny the historic link of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, does not deny the right of the Palestinians to a state. It is there for them to take. Even Netanyahu has said so. All you have to do is call him out on it.
The point at issue in Bartal’s critique is not the validity of Sand’s main thesis, i.e. the conversion of Europeans to Judaism which he confirms, it is Sand’s contention that this was concealed by Zionist thinkers. It is that issue which Bartal considers “bizarre and incoherent,” “baseless,” and “pure fantasy.”
I am not the least interested in that controversy. Nothing I have asserted is in any way affected by it.
Both Sand and Batal confirm that (in Bartal’s words) “conversions to Judaism had a major impact on Jewish history in the ancient period and in the early Middle Ages.”
So tell me Fred, do the descendants of European converts to Judaism in the ancient period and in the early Middle Ages own real estate in the Middle East?
I imagine so, and why shouldn’t they? The issue is not real estate but sovereignty and sovereignty, from ancient times, pertains to the nation as a whole.
What a silly question. Did not Jewish converts to Christianity serve as cardinals and perhaps a Pope? Once you’re Jewish, you belong to the Jewish nation and that nation, with its historical homeland being in the Middle East, you have rights to that homeland. Why should Jews discriminate against Jews?
But what you should be asking is do Arabs who are descended from Jewish converts, forced or otherwise, have rights to the Jewish historica homeland and as what: Arabs or Jews?
A verse from the Quran I just learned Today. This is the same prayer Jews and Christians pray.
Our Lord, and burden us not with that which we have no ability to bear. And pardon us; and forgive us; and have mercy upon us. You are our protector, so give us victory over the disbelieving people.” [2:286]
Searching [2:285] and reading the original thought, as a Jew of the Messianic Sect of Judaism, I can pray this prayer to the God of Abraham who hears it Today.
002.286 On no soul does God place a burden greater than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns, and it suffers every ill that it earns. (Pray): “Our Lord! Condemn us not if we forget or fall into error; Our Lord! Lay not on us a burden like that which You did lay on those before us; Our Lord! Lay not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Blot out our sins, and grant us forgiveness. Have mercy on us. You are our Protector; Help us against those who stand against Faith.”
We are justified by Faith and not the works of the Law the Bible teaches.
to Fred Skolnik:
Dear Mr. Skolnik,
First:
Do you think, for how long lastet the ancient state of a “Jewish religious group” ?
Was that not only a city-state as recorded scriptures tell by neighboring states at about three thousand years ago (for example like the Greek had their city-state) ?
At which time could a “Jewish religious group” refer to “their own Jewish religious group state” ?
Second:
Do you prefer that only for Jewish (Mosaic religion believers) people the “ancient state” claim applies ?
Because you think that Jewish (Mosaic religion believers) people have more rights over any other groups/people/nations to claim an area they believe their forefathers inhabited as a state about three thousand years ago ?
Third:
Did you read the whole DNA-analysis ???
Fouth:
Ancient history recorded some state as Phalestine, Philistine and so forth, therefore word stem is a few thousand years old. (Pharaonic Egypt has for example a lot of records of different states/tribes.)
Fifth:
If people in other countries get more and more aware that Israeli Jews think that they are superior to other nations on our globe – what do you think could be the outcome ?
monalisa
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say. The Israeli Jews certainly do not think they are superior to other nations on the globe. The Philistines (biblical Pelishtim) were a sea people who arrived from the West, possibly from as far away as Italy. The Romans simply took over the name when they renamed Judea.
monalisa,
Of course Israeli (and American) Jews think of themselves as superior, that is the subtext of the outrageous claims voiced here by Fred and Yisrael. What else could be behind their preposterous reasoning? How else can we interpret the idea that, because a group lived in a certain place thousands of years ago, people who today claim to be their genetic descendants have the right to violently take it for their own? Based on that logic, any group could make similarly wild claims, and the notion of land ownership, and the rule of law itself, would be upended.
Personally, I don’t care about the legal or even ethical minutiae of the conflict. It’s irrelevant and a distraction from the real issue, which is: why do Jews, given freedom to express their true selves, believe that the peace and stability of the world is secondary to their desire to dominate people they consider their cultural, intellectual and spiritual inferiors? What common features of their upbringing or culture could create this mass delusion of being singled out for a special destiny by a divine figure of their own invention?
Jews must begin by looking inward to figure out what is going on here. I’ll start. I remember a Passover Seder from my childhood. I announced to the table that I had read that Jews were never in Egypt, and so the whole story of the Exodus is made up. After an awkward silence, my mother started weeping. She said that she had worked hard to prepare a beautiful meal, why was I trying to ruin it? The feeling around the table was that it didn’t matter whether it was true or not, the Passover story was central to our people’s history, and I was clearly the Wicked Son for breaking my mother’s heart. Needless to say, next year I kept my mouth shut. I learned that the big sin is to go against the group, because that dilutes the collective power of Jews. When people act as one, when they vote the way they are told, and when they give special preferences in business to fellow Jews, they contribute to their power to dominate less well-organized groups. It is no accident that Jews have survived for so long, but rather one outcome of strong clan identification. But this coerced consensus, where individuals are required to suppress their doubts in the face of obvious falsehoods, also leads to pernicious side effects, including what we are seeing from our friends Fred and Yisrael. From their perspective, they are respecting their mothers and fathers by telling these lies, and that makes it OK.
I recently read an interview by the madman Benny Morris (http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm) in which he explained that, while Zionism is immoral, it is justified because of his need to save the life of his mother. But this argument is a recipe for endless war, because Arabs (and Germans, Turks, Persians, Muslims and Christians) also have mothers.
Sorry for dragging the discussion back to questions better addressed by a psychiatrist than a historian, but it seems likely that the problems we are facing are driven by damage done to Jewish children through coercive indoctrination, and so we have to begin examining this if we ever hope to understand what is going on here.
Walker
I’ll led Fred answer for himself but just to keep you from fainting for holding your breath, Jews established a political administration, including use of military force, around 1250 BCE or so (depending on the minimalists or maximalists of archaeology), that continued until 135 CE except for a 70 year hiatus of the Babylonian exile as a tribal federation, a monarchy, a Hasmonean government and a Temple-caste led autonomous framework under Roman supervision. Until 638 when the Arabs came, there was a social land economic and intellectual community of Jews with limited self-government. That’s pretty good, I’d say.
to yisrael.medad:
Your given “historic time line” seems to me like some sort of fantasy.
Established historians wouldn’t agree with it at all.
monalisa
Try this:
c. 1312 BC(?*)
the Exodus from Egypt (Moses)
c. 1150 BC–c. 1025 BC
Biblical Judges lead the people
c. 1025 BC–c. 1007 BC
King Saul
c. 1010 BC–c. 970 BC
King David
c. 1001 BCE–c. 931 BC
King Solomon
c. 960 BC
Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem completed
c. 931 BC
Split between Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Kingdom of Judah
840 BC
Mesha inscription describes Moabite victory over a son of King Omri of Israel.
c. 740 BC–c. 722 BC
Kingdom of Israel falls to Neo-Assyrian Empire
597 BC
first deportation to Babylon
586 BC
Jerusalem falls to Nebuchadnezzar and Solomon’s Temple destroyed
539 BC
Jews allowed to return to Jerusalem, by permission of Cyrus
516 BC
Second Temple of Jerusalem consecrated
332 BCE
Alexander the Great conquers Phoenicia and Gaza, probably passing by Judea without entering the Jewish dominated hill country on his way into Egypt.
167–161 BCE
The Maccabees (Hasmoneans) revolt against the Hellenistic Empire of Seleucids, led by Judah Maccabee, resulting in victory and installation of the Hanukkah holiday.
157–129 BCE
Hasmonean dynasty establishes its royal dominance in Judea during renewed war with Seleucid Empire.
63 BCE
The Romans intervene in the civil war in Judea, which becomes a Roman province (see Iudaea Province).
40 BCE–4 BCE
Herod the Great, appointed King of the Jews by the Roman Senate.
30 CE
Helena of Adiabene], a vassal Parthian kingdom in Mesopotamia, converts to Israelite religion. Significant numbers of Adiabene population follow her, later also providing limited support for Jews during Jewish-Roman wars.
66–70
The Great Jewish Revolt against Roman occupation ended with destruction of the Second Temple and the fall of Jerusalem. 1,100,000 people are killed by the Romans during the siege, and 97,000 captured and enslaved. The Sanhedrin was relocated to Yavne by Yochanan ben Zakai, see also Council of Jamnia.
70–200
Period of the Tannaim, rabbis who organized and elucidated the Jewish oral law.
73
Final events of the Great Jewish Revolt – the fall of Masada. Christianity starts off as a Jewish sect and then develops its own texts and ideology and branches off from Judaism to become a distinct religion.
115–117
Kitos War (Revolt against Trajan) – a second Jewish-Roman War initiated in large Jewish communities of Cyprus, Cyrene (modern Libya), Aegipta (modern Egypt) and Mesopotamia (modern Syria and Iraq). It led to mutual killing of hundreds of thousands Jews, Greeks and Romans, ending with a total defeat of Jewish rebels and complete extermination of Jews in Cyprus and Cyrene by the newly installed Emperor Hadrian.
131–136
The Roman emperor Hadrian, among other provocations, renames Jerusalem “Aelia Capitolina” and prohibits circumcision. Bar Kokhba (Bar Kosiba) leads a large Jewish revolt against Rome in response to Hadrian’s actions. In the aftermath, most Jewish population is annihilated (about 580,000 killed) and Hadrian renames the province of Judea to Syria Palaestina, and attempts to root out Judaism..
138
With Emperor Hadrian’s death, the persecution of Jews within the Roman Empire is eased and Jews are allowed to visit Jerusalem on Tisha B’av. In the following centuries the Jewish center moves to Galilee.
200
The Mishnah, the standardization of the Jewish oral law as it stands today, is redacted by Judah haNasi in Eretz Israel.
220–500
Period of the amoraim, the rabbis of the Talmud.
315–337
Roman Emperor Constantine I enacts new restrictive legislature. Conversion of Christians to Judaism is outlawed, congregations for religious services are curtailed, but Jews are also allowed to enter Jerusalem on the anniversary of the Temple’s destruction.
351-352
Jewish revolt, directed against Constantius Gallus, is put down.
361–363
The last pagan Roman Emperor, Julian, allows the Jews to return to “holy Jerusalem which you have for many years longed to see rebuilt” and to rebuild the Second Temple. Shortly after, the Emperor is assassinated, and the plan is dissolved.
438
The Empress Eudocia removes the ban on Jews’ praying at the Temple site and the heads of the Community in Galilee issue a call “to the great and mighty people of the Jews”: “Know that the end of the exile of our people has come”!
450
Redaction of Talmud Yerushalmi (Talmud of Jerusalem)
500–523
Yosef Dhu Nuwas, King of Himyarite Kingdom (Modern Yemen) converting to Judaism, upgrading existing Yemenese Jewish center. His kingdom falls in a war against Axum and the Christians.
550
The main redaction of Talmud Bavli (Babylonian Talmud) is completed.
550–700
Period of the savoraim, the sages in Persia who put the Talmud in its final form.
555-572
The Fourth Samaritan Revolt against Byzantium results in great reduction of the Samaritan community, their Israelite faith is outlawed. Neighbouring Jews, who mostly reside in Galilee, are also affected by the oppressive rule of the Byzantines.
610-628
Jews of Galilee led by Benjamin of Tiberias gain autonomy in Jerusalem after revolting against Heraclius as a joint military campaign with ally Sassanid Empire under Khosrau II and Jewish militias from Persia, but are subsequently massacred.
7th century
The rise and domination of Islam among largely pagan Arabs in the Arabian peninsula results in the almost complete removal and conversion of the ancient Jewish communities there, and sack of Levant from the hands of Byzantines.
yisrael.medad, you are mad. Where do you live?
Dear Walker Percy
Just because your mother poisoned your life doesn’t mean that you have to take it out on the rest of us. You are perfectly right about the need for a psychiatrist in this context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Forrestal
To yisreal medad:
Your given time table wouldn’t hold to any historical verified time table.
You omitted several hundred years where occupation took place.
This is verified in other historical records.
Mixing religious believes with scientific work doesn’t good.
You are mixing up in order to “get a proper picture”.
This cannot fool educated individuals.
By the way: The Roman Empire appointed ‘vassal kings’. Which is different than a real king because vassal kings served and resumed responsibility towards their own king/kaiser and country.
monalisa
Dear Monalisa, I am not sure if you are smiling or even female but you are quite ignorant of scientific discoveries which confirm major elements of the Biblical narrative, attest to Jewish presence during the timetable periods I set forth. Nothing to do with religious beliefs. For example, to draw a parallel, if I say you’re an idiot, do I know your exact IQ or do I know you do not know what you are talking about, or what I am talking about? But I do have a general impression that you are displaying illogical and irrational verbal behavior, no matter how an “educated” individual you may be. As I wrote, that timeline was not only based on religious-based interpretation but on artifacts, pottery, contemporary writings by Jews and non-Jews and so forth. As for vassal, spell it slowly.
Living in CanaDa, I think Prime Minister Harper is a vassal king to President Obama, the king of kings on our time line.
As to historical records, thinking of the next article for my Blog, I want to post an article titled ‘Samson and Delilah’ my interpretation of the story as it applies to our time line.
I was pleased to learn after meditating and praying about it, as if a sign, The Jerusalem Post reported this: Ancient shul, Samson mosaic found in Galilee
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=275996
clarification:
Living in CanaDa, I think Prime Minister Harper is a vassal king to President Obama, the earthly, Babylonian king of kings on our time line.
to yisrael medad:
I didn’t express something personal concerning you – more precise: put any personal qualification about your person.
I would be grateful if you behave in the same manner:
we are grown-up individuals.
monalisa
Oh, I think you did. You basically accused me of lying, of fooling people, of using unverifiable material.
to yisrael medad:
I didn’t state something very personal.
I referred to your posts – your expression of a given topic.
For example: omitting parts of history.
But this has nothing to do with you personally. It concerns your writing about a given topic.
I think we misunderstood each other. Especially when it comes to history of believes and facts, of found material, srciptures etc.
Anyhow, if you feel offended, because my knowledge about history of the Middle East is different, I cannot help it. Different view points, different information, different individuals as we are.
monalisa
The Judaization of the Occupied Territories continues…………………….
IDF raids Hebron-area village; residents fear impending demolition
IDF helicopters ferried masked, armed soldiers to isolated Palestinian village of Jinba, where they raided homes, photographing and mapping the site, say residents.
An unusual operation by the Israel Defense Forces in the South Hebron Hills region has intensified suspicions among Palestinian residents that Israel is moving forward with its plan to demolish villages in the area and expel their residents.
Two Israel Air Force helicopters landed soldiers on Tuesday in Jinba, an isolated village inhabited by cave dwellings in the southern West Bank. It is one of eight villages slated for demolition according to Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s plan to allow the military to resume its training in the area, known as Firing Zone 918.
According to reports by the residents, the helicopters landed and took off at the site six times, each time carrying soldiers. The soldiers erected a command center in a tent outside the village, and two jeeps and a Hummer parked next to the tent.
The soldiers, who were masked and armed, raided the village, photographed and mapped the cave dwellings, the tents and the structures, and made extensive searches while causing property damage, the residents said. The soldiers also emptied out the contents of closets and poured out jugs of milk and cream.
At the time of the raid, dozens of children, who study in the town of Yatta during the school year, were present in the village. Their parents said the children were frightened by the sight of masked soldiers fanning out among the houses of the village. The villagers were not given any explanation as to the nature of the operation.
The IDF conducted a similar operation last week in two of the four villages in the area that are not slated for demolition. Four soldiers arrived in Tuba and checked the identity papers of those present. On the same day, soldiers photographed the caves and tents in Magher al-Abeed – specifically the electricity system and solar panels that were installed there in the last year. Low-flying helicopters that hovered above the village frightened some residents. Once more, the soldiers gave no explanation for the operation.
In response to Monday’s raid on Jinba, Tamar Feldman, a lawyer for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) said that Israel’s High Court of Justice issued an injunction in 2000 preventing the demolition and allowing the residents to continue living in the area and working their lands.
Over the years, the state pledged to not allow the military to train in the area. Shlomo Lecker, a lawyer representing the residents of Jinba, said that the raids on the village constitute a “heavy-handed violation of the injunction issued by Supreme Court President Aharon Barak in 2000.”
The IDF Spokesman said in response that the army does not provide details on the operations it conducts.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-raids-hebron-area-village-residents-fear-impending-demolition.premium-1.456665
“Judaization” is an anti-Semitic and pejorative term. If you oppose the right of Jews to live soemwhere, you could have written “Israel is extending its control over….”. But to “Judaize” is a non-acceptable term.
But it describes the Truth and reality of what is happening under the Zionist Regime in Israel and the conquered territories.
Behold, the LORD’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue has muttered perverseness.
None calls for Justice, nor any pleads for Truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.
They hatch cockatrice’ eggs, and weave the spider’s web: he that eats of their eggs dies, and that which is crushed breaks out into a viper.
Their webs shall not become garments, neither shall they cover themselves with their works: their works are works of iniquity, and the act of violence is in their hands.
Their feet run to evil, and they make hast to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.
The way of Peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goes therein shall not know Peace.
Therefore is Judgment far from us, neither does Justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.
We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noonday as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.
We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for Judgment, but there is none; for Salvation, but it is far off from us.
For our transgressions are multiplied before you, and our sins testify against us: for our transgressions are with us; and as for our iniquities, we know them;
In transgressing and lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood.
And Judgment is turned away backward, and Justice stands afar off: for Truth is fallen in the street, and Equity cannot enter.
Yea, truth fails; and he that departs from evil makes himself a prey: and the LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no Judgment.
Isaiah 59
Palestinian homes in IDF fire zones face demolition
Palestinians living in IDF firing zones, particularly in the Jordan Valley and the South Hebron Hills, are especially vulnerable to home demolitions by Israeli security forces, according to a UN report issued this week by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
“Some 45 percent of demolitions of Palestinian-owned structures in Area C since 2010 have occurred in firing zones, displacing over 820 Palestinian civilians,” the OCHA report said.
Approximately 38 Palestinian villages with a total population of 5,000 are located in West Bank IDF firing zones, the report said.
Two schools and one kindergarten located in the zones also have demolition orders issued against them…………………………………………..
The state added that the army was also concerned that people in firing zones could “collect intelligence [of] IDF training methods or gather weapons that the forces leave behind for purposes of terrorist activity.”………………………………………………………..
Palestinian residents of the zones are among the most vulnerable in the West Bank, because their access to education and health care is limited. Communities lack infrastructure such as water, sanitation and electricity.
“Many of the communities have sustained multiple waves of destruction,” the document continued.
According to OCHA, there are 10 West Bank outposts located in IDF firing zones which do not face the same threats of destruction.
These outposts include Hills 777 and 836 near the Itamar settlement; Hill 833 near Ma’on; Ma’ale Hagit near Ma’ale Michmash; Ma’ale Rehav’am near Kfar Eldad; Magen Dan near Elkana; Mitzpe Kramm near Kochav HaShahar; Mitzpe Yair near Sussiya; Tekoa D near Tekoa and Yitav East near Yativ.
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=280441
to Ray Joseph Cormier:
I find it very good that you placed both above articles from the news papers.
Far too many people outside Israel and Palestina don’t know what is really going on there.
Both articles from the news papers show clearly that the Israeli intention is to “cleanse” the area from Palestinians.
This means too that only Israelis of Mosaic religion belief will be settled there – after a while.
This too shows the intention of Israel to create slow and steady an apartheit state.
When the displacement of Palestinians will be not enough: not enough drinking water and food, not enough medical facilities, no schools and kindergarten will do the rest. Without enough food and water – we all know what that means. Without proper education – the same.
PS: I wonder why politicans don’t ever think on longer terms.
Israel will depend on tourists. They too will want to see a countryside how it looked in former times and not all over the same kind of new buildings and new factories looking like in other countries. While the countryside of older times has been lost.
We shall see how this will go.
monalisa
I think the Israeli media are a credit to the industry. They are still the most free to investigate and publish more than in any other country that I can see in the world Today.
I distinctly recall seeing in The Jerusalem Post an X-ray of the head of a 17 year old Palestinian in custody of the IDF. The X-ray showed the bullet in the head of the youth from the back of the head pointed downward. I was amazed to see the Israeli media could be so free. No one from the IDF was charged with wrong doing of violating the Rules of War in the Geneva Convention.
What concern me are the comments to the articles that re-inforce that Israeli-Nazi type thinking as I read them. It’s the same Nazi spirit but with a new face.
Mr Falk
Do you intend to allow this following statement by Mr Cormier to pass without comment? Does your silence amount to endorsement of his statement – as with so many other offensive comments posted on your blog where you have remained silent?
“What concern me are the comments to the articles that re-inforce that Israeli-Nazi type thinking as I read them. It’s the same Nazi spirit but with a new face.”
I appreciate that you are struggling as gatekeeper to decide what to allow and not to allow.
Yours is no ordinary blog and I believe you have a special responsibility to comment on any offensive statement that appears on your blog.
I have previously made it clear that I personally have no objection to anything being published that is submitted. Everyone is entitled to his opinion – no matter how vile it is. But not everyone has to accept that opinion.
You as the blogmaster are specially charged with indicating that such a comment as the above is to be condemned and rejected on your blog page.
In doing so you will make it clear to others what your view is of such comments and hopefully be able to inject a tone of civility into the discussion rather than an opportunity to vilify and denigrate Jews.
And the saddest tragedy is the Zionists in Israel cannot see the Truth & reality in my statement. Calling a spade a spade as my comment does is the Truth as I see it and as The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz reports relatively objectively as fact in the articles above and many others have revealed.
But as you acknowledge, It is my right to say it and you do not have to accept my opinion as you vehemently protest.
I stand by my statement but let me assure you, I don’t hate you for not seeing it. I am not anti-Jewish but anti-Nazi.
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Ephesians 6
You David Singer are flesh and blood.
I had a wonderful lunch with a Jewish friend last Saturday who was with me when I was touched by the God of Abraham February 1, 1975. I write about the circumstances of that Day without exaggeration or embellishment.. That was a long Time ago, and my Faith in the God of Abraham is even stronger Today. I feel Psalm 23 was written for me in my 69th year. I had no idea 69 could be so good!
DAY OF AWAKENING – DAVID vs GOLIATH vs ARMAGEDDON
December 25, 2011
http://ray032.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/day-of-awakening-david-vs-goliath-vs-armageddon/
To Mr Cormier
I am not really interested in anything you have to say.
I am far more interested in hearing from Mr Falk – does he endorse your following statement?
““What concern me are the comments to the articles that re-inforce that Israeli-Nazi type thinking as I read them. It’s the same Nazi spirit but with a new face.”
Mr Falk – Mr Cormier has now gone even further with this statement:
“And the saddest tragedy is the Zionists in Israel cannot see the Truth & reality in my statement. Calling a spade a spade as my comment does is the Truth as I see it and as The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz reports relatively objectively as fact in the articles above and many others have revealed.”
Tell us Mr Falk – Is that the Truth as you see it and as the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz report relatively objectively as fact ?
If you are not interested in anything I have to say why are you making such a big deal of it?
Sorry, I have to state this:
Ethnic cleansing is what the Nazi-regime did (not ohnly Jews, there were gipsies and other groups too);
ethnic cleansing is what the Australians did
and so forth …..
denied, reported, lied upon and held high …
some regimes fell, others still present
monalisa
Mr. Singer:
After your personal invective directed at me published online, and without any notification to me that you were acting in this manner while purporting to engage in civil discourse on this blog, I am surprised that you expect me to communicate with me, and in fact challenge me to do so.
But Mr. Falk, for a liberal like you, what difference does it make if in essence the issue is whether one is moral, fair, pluralistic, one who rejects a double-standard, is factual, avoids outright hate-langauge, etc. if someone slighted you? Is not the object not someone’s subjective feelings but truth and good for the greater community?
I do try my best to adhere to truthful witnessing as a standard, but dialogue and discourse are not worthwhile if there is not minimum mutual respect and adherence to a shared sense of civility.
Richard, I’m relatively new to having invective directed at me for speaking my mind. Even Jesus had to suffer that. The Jewish leadership at the Time called him the devil and he returned in kind saying hookers would get into the Kingdom of Heaven before the religious leadership.
A recent article in The Jerusalem Post had this screaming headline “Ahmadinejad: World forces must annihilate Israel”
That’s not what Ahmadinejad said. He said Zionism must be eliminated and an increasing number of non-Iranians have the same view and assessment.
Someone by the name of rainbomike replied to my comment saying he was disgusted by my Blog saying it promotes Jew hatred. Nowhere in the 46 articles posted to date does it do that. Most people won’t bother to check for themselves and just accept the slur in an effort at character assassination. I’m sure you are very familiar with that. Oddly enough, The Jerusalem Posted deleted that exchange without the usual notice “comment removed.”
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=279864#comment-607940767
Israel is trying to convince the world Iran has an irrational hatred for Jews and must be attacked. The True real fact is Iran is home to more Jews than any other Muslim country in the Middle East outside of Israel. Jews are a protected minority in Iran unlike the other Muslim countries in the American orbit. The propaganda is at odds with the Truth and reality.
THE NUCLEAR QUESTION? IRAN – DIFFERENT FROM THE REST?
March 14, 2012
http://ray032.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/the-nuclear-question-iran-different-from-the-rest/
Mr Falk
I ask you again to provide details of what you now claim to be “personal invective” directed against you by me and published on-line- so that I can have the opportunity to justify such alleged comments or to withdraw them if necessary.
Vague generalized statements of the kind made by you have no real meaning whatsoever.
So – what did I specifically say that has upset you?
I hope you are not using this as an excuse to avoid answering why you are allowing so many Jew-hating statements to be posted on your blog page without any comment as to whether they represent your view or are rejected by you.
Mr. Singer:
If you do not consider it to be “personal invective” to be accusing me of fostering “Jew-hatred” I am not sure what would qualify in your mind. I deeply resent such an allegation, and believe that you transform criticism of the behavior of the israeli government and of certain Zionist tendencies into a form of ‘Jew hatred.” Your reliance on the Balfour Declaration, UN partition proposals, etc., is one, but only one, construction of international law. There are competing constructions that do not regard as any longer valid all acts based on colonialist authority. My own view because of these contradictory lines of historical authority is to start from the present reality to sort out the respective claims of both peoples according to the logic of self-determination, an approach that will never satisfy extremists on either side, but has the best chance of achieving a sustainable peace.
I paste below the nasty and deeply insulting prose used in your article in the Canada Free Press, a right-wing online publication, to denigrate me and my work. I leave it to readers of this comments section of the blog to judge whether or not this qualifies as personal invective:
“Richard Falk – UN Special Rapporteur
Palestine – UN Special Rapporteur Fostering Jew-Hatred Again
– David Singer Friday, August 3, 2012
(1) Comments | Print friendly | Email Us
4
Richard Falk – UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 – appears to have landed himself in hot water once again – as his web site “Citizen Pilgrimage” – has hosted a series of posts that contain comments that are highly offensive and insulting of Jews.
He apparently has not learned any lesson after having been rapped over the knuckles by UN Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay following his posting of an anti-Semitic cartoon on the same website last June – which drew the following admonition from Ms Pillay in a letter to UN Watch.”
Mr. Falk, you have me perplexed. You write: “Your reliance on the Balfour Declaration, UN partition proposals, etc., is one, but only one, construction of international law. There are competing constructions that do not regard as any longer valid all acts based on colonialist authority.”
If so, what happens to Jordan? To Iraq? Lebanon? Syria? All of them exist because of the same basic construct. The entire rational of the Great Arab revolt, the one from the movie “Lawrence of Arabia”, was no different from a legal, diplomatic and political framework than Zionism in Palestine. No?
What so we do now?
You are logically quite correct. There is a comprehensive potential precariousness, but except in relation to the Palestinian people there is no grievance that has been acknowledged as valid by the organized international community. There are a variety of minority peoples, most notably the Kurds that could invoke a similar line of argument, but have not done so to my knowledge, The other states that were formed after World War I are by now accepted as having established a new legitimated de facto and de jure legal order in the Middle East. International law is always vulnerable to diverse interpretations of claims of right and grievances, and there is no generally available authoritative body available to assess the merits of such claims. Israel, for instance, is completely selective in insisting on its sovereign authority to disregard international law as it has done with respect to the 14-1 2004 ICJ decision invalidating the construction of the separation wall on Occupied Palestinian Territory. The fact that this was an ‘advisory opinion’ is irrelevant as it the most authoritative statement of the relevant international law principles.
So you accept that there exists and perhaps even a accept as valid a duplicitous double-standard whereby Jews are to be treated discriminatory different?
Not at all. It is the Palestinians, i.e. the indigenous population of Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration who have been doubly vicitimized, first by the colonial arrangements, then by the historical triumph of the hard line variant of Zionism.
Whoa there. There were no “Palestinians” living in Palestine at that time. Arabs. Jews. Armenians. Beduin. Legal and illegal immigrants from across the Middle East, Some Arabs forcibly transferred from North Africa by Muhammed Ali and son. Until early 1920s, local indigenous Arabs claimed to be Southern Syrians and by nationality demanded to be united with Syria or, in any case, not separated into two Mandates: Syria and Palestine. One can argue about numbers of Jews vs. Muslims (and Jews were the demographic majority in Jerusalem by 1860) but Jews were indigenous to the country. They predated Arabs arrival.
As for victims of “hardline variety of Zionism’, you mean the variety that agreed reluctantly to a territorial compromise having Palestine truncated and losing Transjordan? Willing to discuss further terms to the 1937 Partition Plan? Accepting the UN 1947 partition? All of which the Arabs rejected while hooking up with Hitler and Nazi Germany from 1933 all through WW II? That hardline Zionism? Do you really not know who was the victim here?
It is not I who seek the young fool;
The young fool seeks me.
At the first oracle I inform him.
If he asks two or three times, it is importunity.
If he importunes, I give him no information.
Perseverance furthers.
– Y Ching.
While I have read moments of reasonable logic on your part, your emotion has blinded your reason in your reply to Richard as evidenced by this: “Whoa there. There were no “Palestinians” living in Palestine at that time.”
Richard’s precise words are these: “It is the Palestinians, i.e. the indigenous population of Palestine at the time of the Balfour Declaration who have been doubly vicitimized,” The key words are “indigenous population” The indigenous population was made up of Jews and Arabs the Arabs being the majority. For you to argue there were no indigenous Palestinians living in recognized Palestine is disingenuous.
No reasonable person can deny the Jews historical relationship to that part of the world. If the Balfour Declaration is the basis for the recreation of temporal Israel from the Bible after an absence of some 2700 years it relates to the area in Today’s world, not the world of 2700 years ago.
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”
The recreation of temporal Israel is built on two pillars – the establishment in “Palestine” of a national home for the Jewish people” The precise wording does not give all of Palestine to the Jews although the Zionists interpret it to mean that.
The Zionists have abandoned the 2nd pillar as they constantly violate the adjunct requirement in possession of the Land, “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” as the two links to The Jerusalem Post & Haaretz reveal.
Going back to the original conquest of the land to create “The Promised Land” an adjunct to that promise was to Declare a Jubilee Year every 50 years. It is already 13 years overdue and there is no discussion of it yet in Israel.
Following those requirements of the God of Israel would remove many roadblocks to Peace with the indigenous people of Palestine. In the meantime, Israel is recreating it’s own self-imposed modern Day Ghetto in the area.
Professor Falk, what are the current International legal conventions concerning Jerusalem? Doing some research, I have the impression there is supposed to be some sort of International Trusteeship Council of the UN from 1950.
Is there any addendum to any of the Legal Treaties concerning an International Trusteeship Administering Jerusalem, from the League of Nations to the United Nations, leading to the recreation of Israel in 1948?
Mr Falk
You state:
“Mr. Singer: If you do not consider it to be “personal invective” to be accusing me of fostering “Jew-hatred” I am not sure what would qualify in your mind. I deeply resent such an allegation, and believe that you transform criticism of the behavior of the israeli government and of certain Zionist tendencies into a form of ‘Jew hatred.”
The reasons for my allegation that you were fostering Jew-hatred were clearly spelled out in the article. They had nothing to do with anything you write in criticism of the Israeli Government ‘and of certain Zionist tendencies’ – but what you were permitting to allow to appear in posts on your blog page – given your stated opposition of any denigration of a people based on ethnicity,race or religion,
How you could believe anything else was intended or contemplated escapes me.
As I pointed out in the article:
1. You had made the following statement at the time of withdrawing an anti-Semitic cartoon posted by you on your blog page last year:
““My intention has never been to demean in any way Jews as a people despite my strong criticisms of Israeli policies,and some versions of “Zionist support. To be clear, I oppose any denigration of a people based on ethnicity, race, religion, stage of development, and believe in the human dignity of all people in their individual and collective identity.”
2, Notwithstanding your above comment you had allowed the following comments to be posted on your blog page by other persons:
“If Israel and the Jews hope to avoid the next shoah, they had better start learning a little empathy, because, while you are laughing now, things can change very rapidly, as we have seen in the last century (and the one before that, and the one before that….). Do you really want to be on the side that takes down our fragile civilization?”
“We can’t afford any more wars, especially ones to rescue Jews who have acted recklessly again and gotten themselves in trouble again with their big mouths and by flaunting their wealth in an unseemly manner.”
“The truth is that Jews have a terrible track record, and they seem to be obsessed with the (false) notion that people hate them for no reason. There are very good reasons for hating jews today, and that makes me sad. How can jews be acting this way so soon after the last catastrophe?”
3. You yourself acknowledged the seriousness of publishing such comments when you stated:
““Recently my blog posts have attracted some venomous comments. I have somewhat reluctantly ‘approved’ of most such comments unless blatantly anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, anti-Semitic, racist, or personally defamatory, and even with such offending comments I have leaned toward inclusion. Recently, however, I have received several critical messages (one of which I assume was from me – author) suggesting that allowing such comments demeans the quality of the dialogue generated by the blog. These messages have prompted me to reconsider my way of filtering comments,and lead me to become somewhat more of a gatekeeper.”
I also pointed out that In a further sign of your intent to forbid posts such as those set out above – you had stated:
“ I welcome dissent, I will exclude ‘Jew haters,’ but include all who seek discussion and debate carried on in a civil tone, without bashing those whose views they disagree with.”
4. However as I further pointed out in the article:
,..” Mr Falk actually published these remarks the day before the publication of the above offensive statements. It would appear that his protestations at ending the publication of Jew-hatred posts lasted less than 24 hours.
Mr Falk might show how serious his intentions are this third time around by immediately removing the above offensive statements and many more posts in similar vein still able to be read on his site.
Will it be a case of “three strikes and you’re out” as Special Rapporteur if he doesn‘t?
These inflammatory statements have no place on the web site of a Special Rapporteur.”
For those who want to read my article in full – it can be found at:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/48529
In fairness to you – Mr Falk – I posted your initial response and my reply in the “comments” section.
This is the first time since then that you have deigned to particularize your complaint.
Is anything I wrote factually incorrect? If it is please let me know and I will correct it.
What you now call “personal invective” appears to have been based on a “belief” by yourself that has no basis.
Mr Falk:
You state:
“There are competing constructions that do not regard as any longer valid all acts based on colonialist authority. My own view because of these contradictory lines of historical authority is to start from the present reality to sort out the respective claims of both peoples according to the logic of self-determination, an approach that will never satisfy extremists on either side, but has the best chance of achieving a sustainable peace.”
Which of the “contradictory lines of historical authority” do you you personally accept?
1. the PLO position that regards the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate and everything that resulted from it to be null and void.
OR
2. The Zionist position that accepts the Mandate to have been a proper exercise of the League of Nations sovereign power to confer on Great Britan
With respect this is the third time you have changed your starting date:
1. You orignally said 1948 or 1967
2. You then said 1967
3. You now state – “the present reality”
Won’t any of these starting points still involve sorting out the respective claims of both parties to self determination based on what happened between at least 1917-2012 and what happened to the territory once called Palestine during that period?
Mr Singer.
Off-topic I know but I’m just curious, did you write some of the old Monty Python scripts?
Brewski,
I love this guy! You can just picture the smoke coming out of his ears as he plans his next brilliant argument. My favorite part is that he is still seething about my comments from a week ago, still insisting that Falk take down what I wrote. That must mean I hit a nerve, cool. I guess we should study characters like this if we are to ever understand what is going on in the mind of zionists. It appears that a lifetime of self-deception ends up causing a kind of brain damage.
This is only an attempt by Mr. Singer to obfuscate the issues in this article by decoy.
Professor Falk is the Jew subjected to Jew hate by the extreme Zionists who will stop at nothing in their attempt to discredit him for his pointing out the legitimate concern for the other side in this religious war under way in the Middle East.
Now that Saddam’s Iraq has been destroyed, Iran is the only country left that stands up for the indigenous Palestinians and that is why they are next on the hit list after Syria. All the other Arab nations in the area are in the American orbit and sphere of Influence. They have remained silent in the face of the gradual, surreptitious Judaization of Palestine in violation of the 2nd pillar of the Balfour Declaration.
Succinct and accurate. Isn’t it amazing that the most part Americans are taken in by the Zionist stratagems?
Ray:
I wanted to put a disclaimer as to endorsing comments responding to posts to avoid impressions that I am necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, but I don’t know how to alter the text beneath my picture when you open the blog. I thought you might know, given your experience with a WordPress blog of your own.
Mr Falk
With respect Mr Falk – publishing a disclaimer is not good enough.
You are a person with a not inconsiderable international reputation and a person of great influence and eminence.
You either have to condemn those posting Jew-hating comments on your blog page or not put them on at all.
As I have said before – I think Jew-haters should be exposed. A lot of them are anonymous but the extent of Jew-hatred should be out there for all to see. They should not be able to run off shouting “denial of freedom of speech” because their posts are barred. Don’t bar them.
However you need to condemn each and every Jew-hating statement they make and make your reasons clear.to them and your readers on each occasion there is such a post.
Standing silent in the background and allowing it to happen on your blog page because there is a disclaimer by you is simply not good enough.
Can I remind you what Navi Pillay – the UN Human Rights Commissioner – said at the time you posted that anti-semitic cartoon on your site:
“I utterly deplore and condemn anti-Semitism, as I do any form of incitement to hatred and racial discrimination.
I also note Mr. Falk’s series of public apologies, in which he explained his inadvertent mistake and clearly acknowledged the anti-Semitic and objectionable nature of the cartoon. I welcome the fact that he swiftly removed the image from his website, and expressed his regrets at his own “carelessness” in not examining it more carefully before posting it in the first place.”
The Jew-hating comments appearing on this blog that i have specified in my article in Canada Free Press are as objectionable as anything I have come across on the Internet.
That they are allowed to stand uncondemned by a person of your stature on your own blog page is frankly a disgrace.
You cannot plead “inadvertence” or “carelessness” this time round.
Mr Cormier
What do you mean by the phrase -“2nd pillar of the Balfour Declaration”?
Professor Falk, you do not have to put up a disclaimer. You are in no way responsible for any unsavory commentary put up on this blog according to the explicit rules of Word Press. See http://en.wordpress.com/freedom-of-speech/. You are performing an important public service by stimulating these discussions, and the idea that you would be threatened for refusing to take down commentary is outrageous.
walker percy
You are misleading Mr Falk and other readers to the point where it is necessary to print what WordPress says:
“Our service is designed to let internet users freely express any ideas and opinions without us censoring or endorsing them. We think this has led to many great blogs being published on WordPress.com. However, you may also find the occasional blog that offends you. It might offend us as well, but while we are strict about shutting down blogs that violate our terms of service (no spam, personal threats, incitement of violence, etc), we will not shut down blogs because they are offensive. We think the right response to bad or offensive ideas is to speak out against them, not to censor them.”
I certainly have not asked WordPress to censor or endorse remarks such as yours or to shut down Mr Falk’s blog..
WordPress indeed supports my previous comments that the right response to bad and offensive comments is to speak out against them not to censor them.
That is what I have asked Mr Falk to do in relation to some Jew-hating comments. He refuses to specifically do so. That is his right. Readers are then entitled to conclude that in the absence of his speaking out specifically against such comments he must be taken to agree with them.
There is no tightrope Mr Falk can successfully hope to negotiate in this instance by the use of vague and generalized comments…
Support or condemn the following offensive statements I set out in my article Mr Falk – or stand condemned yourself for failing to do so.
1.“If Israel and the Jews hope to avoid the next shoah, they had better start learning a little empathy, because, while you are laughing now, things can change very rapidly, as we have seen in the last century (and the one before that, and the one before that….). Do you really want to be on the side that takes down our fragile civilization?”
2.“We can’t afford any more wars, especially ones to rescue Jews who have acted recklessly again and gotten themselves in trouble again with their big mouths and by flaunting their wealth in an unseemly manner.”
3.“The truth is that Jews have a terrible track record, and they seem to be obsessed with the (false) notion that people hate them for no reason. There are very good reasons for hating jews today, and that makes me sad. How can jews be acting this way so soon after the last catastrophe?
to Walker Percy:
Dr. Singer (please see above the insert) has his own blog:
http://jordanpalestine.blogspot.com
he is propagating that Palestine is practically Jordan ….
and he lives in Australia ….
and also defaming Prof. Falk in the so-called “freecanadianpress” ….
monalisa
To Mona Lisa
Please tell me how I have defamed Mr Falk. You can do so either on this page or on the “Comments ” section appearing at the end of the Canada Free Press article.
Here is the link
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/comments/48529
I will post an answer in reply.
To David Singer:
Dr. Singer, the whole article is in my opinion some sort of defamation not only of Prof. Falk also concerning some individuals expressing their opinion freely in Prof. Falk’s blog.. Same as you do.
And to “crown” your article
httpt://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/comments/48529
you wrote:
Quote:
Has the leopard changed his spots or merely tried to camouflage his tracks?
I reserve my judgement.
Unquote
I am not a lawyer and therefore my point of view differs from yours.
But to read the last two sentences it occured to me:
would you like that I judge you ????
And by which terms should I judge you ???
What should I include ???
What should I exclude and not judge ???
You can judge some individual when you are in court – whereby you have to consider extremely careful all the available facts.
To judge an individual outside the court is in my opinion blasphemy.
Who are you to judge people ???
monalisa
To monalisa
I note that you are not a lawyer and I am not a Dr – but I am a lawyer.
You are entitled to your opinion which you have expressed as:
“the whole article is in my opinion some sort of defamation not only of Prof. Falk also concerning some individuals expressing their opinion freely in Prof. Falk’s blog.. Same as you do.”
However you need to be more specific in what you consider to be “a sort of defamation” of Mr Falk.
What particular statements in my article do you consider sort of defame Mr Falk? I can then hopefully answer your complaint.
Similarly what statements in my article sort of defame some individuals expressing their opinion freely in Prof Falk’s blog?
Be prepared to back up your general comments with some substantive facts – or your posts are simply a waste of everyone’s time.
You will note I have also asked Prof Falk a series of specific questions – none of which he is prepared to answer.
That is not the way to advance a discussion or achieve understanding.
So please – tell me specifically what statements have led you to believe that Prof Falk and some individuals have been sort of defamed and I will post a response.
To Dr. Singer:
Sorry, by citing the website I made a typing mistake:
I took the quotation out from:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/48529.
monalisa
to Mr. Singer:
First of all: Sorry I put a doctor title in front of your name. I did it automatically and didn’t look into your bio at first. Most lawyers here have a doctorate in order to work as a lawyer. Only the last ten, fifteen years this has changed and this only for the younger people having studied in the field of law.
As I told you: yes the whole article in my opinion is some sort of defamation insofar, as you
1) got outside this blog and wrote at another website what concerns Prof Falk’s blog
2) put Prof. Falk’s writing into this article at Canada Free Press Internet website
3) put other author’s comments too in this article
4) wrote it in such a manner as to hold Prof. Falk responsible for those comments written in his blog by other authors.
To the 2nd and 3rd point: Each author is responsible for his/her own writing.
Normally, each author has to be asked before citing him/her – please see this point as a lawyer and taking into consideration the US law for Internet users.
I am not a lawyer and therefore I am expressing only what I have read about.
It would be an infrigement to let people comment on an Internet platform and then just remove some sentences from their comment.
To the 4th point: You aren’t objective and cited only a few authors where Jews and Israel mightbe are mentioned. But you didn’t get to the point where Palestinians for example are mentioned. So your objective is not balanced and points only to one direction.
If Prof. Falk is generous in his blog and allows different opinions, different peope to write how they see some topics from their point of view, it means, that there is just an open discussion.
But this doesn’t mean that his viewpoints are necessarily the same – this is usually understood within Internet users when giving comments to different topics at different platforms.
Take this into consideration.
And moreover: this is a very personal individual blog – is is written right at the beginning of this blog – and isn’t a political platform where parties of different sides are present. To critisize politicans is widely common in blogs and Internet platforms same as to critisize a state for some misdemaneour. And Israel should be no exception especially within the light that Israel’s government is wanting to belong to the EU.
PS: It is not the fine art of behaviour what you did – but this is also my own opinion and no one elses !
PPS: I am not going to comment any further concerning your writings at the Canada Free Press.
To cite any of my comments whether in part or as a whole without consulting me prior I don’t approve.
monalisa
well stated, monalisa.
When analyzing a subject, card sharps and polygraph administrators look for a “tell”, a habitual action that unconsciously reveals the truth. In the case of zionists, it is always easy to find out what they are trying hardest to conceal (even to themselves) by looking for cases where their reactions and denials are the most vehement. Since my comments from 10 days ago or so are still producing such a strong reaction, I can only assume that this is a tell, and we would be well-served to go back and examine those comments to figure out what their guilty consciences are telling us.
walker
To walker percy
It is interesting to note that since my article your Jew-hating comments have ceased. . Maybe it is you who has had a habitual reaction that reveals the realisation of the truth. That is to be welcomed.
By the way “Zionists” – like “Jews” – are not some kind of cohesive group all having the same political views and objectives.
You might not have noticed but there are elections in Israel on at least a four yearly basis – and sometimes more frequently – where the votes cast reflect many different hopes and aspirations of the electors. You would do well to curb outbursts such as:
” In the case of zionists, it is always easy to find out what they are trying hardest to conceal (even to themselves) by looking for cases where their reactions and denials are the most vehement.”
It is a pity that I have to condemn you for such statements – whilst Prof Falk sits idly by and says nothing. I can only assume his continuing silence indicates his agreement with such a remark. He is certainly entitled to that opinion – as I am to criticize him for holding that opinion. Trying to hide behind some kind of disclaimer is a shallow form of defence that a UN Special Rapporteur should be anxious to avoid. He expresses his opinion on so many matters – why remain silent in expressing his opinion on such a comment?
Mr Falk really needs to take a stand on this kind of language.appearing on his site. I hope he does join me in condemning you for making such statements.
If you want to criticize specific actions of the Israeli Government – feel free to do so.
Mr. Singer: With all due respect, if you fail to appreciate why I should find your article defamatory, I am at truly at a loss to explain. To suggest that I am tolerant of ‘Jew-hating’ comments is itself defamatory. Of course, the very language of ‘Jew-hating’ is offensive to me. And should be obvious to you that sharp criticisms of Israel and Jewish collective behavior that you regard as highly anti-Semitic, whether I agree with them or not, within the scope of sincere and serious discussion of a must contested set of issues. Your aggressive language does not invite communication, nor did your practice of seeking clarification on this blog while denouncing me on your website that I discovered only because someone else called it to my attention. I wonder if you think that such behavior invites trust and is in keeping with Internet ethics.
Well, since I have not made any accusations, defamatory or other, on this matter, can I ask Mr. Falk if one can assume that he does attempt to review all comments and especially comments to which his attention has been drawn? And that he does give due and proper consideration to such/ And if they continue to appear, can we assume he thinks those comments are not hate-speech or racist or otherwise what we all would think of as improper in polite society? And then, if we disagree, can we than assign to Mr. Falk a cooperative assistance with such that could be criticized?
Mr Falk
I post here in response to your remarks my comment to walker percy:
“walker percy
You are misleading Mr Falk and other readers to the point where it is necessary to print what WordPress says:
“Our service is designed to let internet users freely express any ideas and opinions without us censoring or endorsing them. We think this has led to many great blogs being published on WordPress.com. However, you may also find the occasional blog that offends you. It might offend us as well, but while we are strict about shutting down blogs that violate our terms of service (no spam, personal threats, incitement of violence, etc), we will not shut down blogs because they are offensive. We think the right response to bad or offensive ideas is to speak out against them, not to censor them.”
I certainly have not asked WordPress to censor or endorse remarks such as yours or to shut down Mr Falk’s blog..
WordPress indeed supports my previous comments that the right response to bad and offensive comments is to speak out against them not to censor them.
That is what I have asked Mr Falk to do in relation to some Jew-hating comments. He refuses to specifically do so. That is his right. Readers are then entitled to conclude that in the absence of his speaking out specifically against such comments he must be taken to agree with them.
There is no tightrope Mr Falk can successfully hope to negotiate in this instance by the use of vague and generalized comments…
Support or condemn the following offensive statements I set out in my article Mr Falk – or stand condemned yourself for failing to do so.
1.“If Israel and the Jews hope to avoid the next shoah, they had better start learning a little empathy, because, while you are laughing now, things can change very rapidly, as we have seen in the last century (and the one before that, and the one before that….). Do you really want to be on the side that takes down our fragile civilization?”
2.“We can’t afford any more wars, especially ones to rescue Jews who have acted recklessly again and gotten themselves in trouble again with their big mouths and by flaunting their wealth in an unseemly manner.”
3.“The truth is that Jews have a terrible track record, and they seem to be obsessed with the (false) notion that people hate them for no reason. There are very good reasons for hating jews today, and that makes me sad. How can jews be acting this way so soon after the last catastrophe?”
Mr Falk – readers of your blog are entitled to know whether you – as a UN Rapporteur – support or condemn these views expressed on your blog page.
Dear David,
Since it is me that you are accusing of Jew hatred, I feel that I had better respond directly, and leave Prof. Falk out of it. I am sorry that my actions have caused him to have to defend against your accusations of enabling or abetting Jew hatred. Rather than rebut your critique of my writing directly, I will instead take this opportunity to elaborate on my feelings about Israel and Zionism, and hope this fills in some gaps in your understanding of my positions.
You seem especially indignant that I pointed out that a new catastrophe for the Jewish people could occur as an outcome of choices Israel is making today. To me, it is obvious that a massive, unprovoked attack of military installations deep inside Iran will require retaliation by the Iranians, and that missile attacks on Tel Aviv, nuclear or not, could lead to mass death in tiny Israel, home to “six million” jews. We are told by Barak, there is nothing to worry about, only 500 (israelis) killed, and it will all be over in a month. Barak doesn’t mention how many Iranians will die when Israel retaliates on Tehran, or what happens after that. What I want to know is this: are we living through a Jewish psychodrama which is leading, Ouija Board-like, to a sick recapitulation of past horrors? And if so, don’t Jews who are aware of this danger have a responsibility to try to persuade other Jews to stop behaving this way?
Yesterday, we learned in the New York Times about idealistic young jewish men from Long Island who are moving to Israel, risking their lives and their souls in the service of this modern Crusade. After kissing the tarmac and announcing that that they had “come home” to the ancient homeland of their People (no, not Jericho, Long Island, the real Jericho), they right away enlisted for IDF duty, presumably to take part in some kind of invasion of Persia/Iran (just like Purim! Yay! Don’t forget to shake your noisemaker when anybody says the name, A’Jad, I mean, Haman!). These good-natured suburban kids have no doubts about who is the agressor and who is the victim, and are looking forward to re-enacting cherished bible stories. But to the rest of the world that is not blinded by clan loyalty, Iran’s efforts to acquire nukes appear reasonable, because they have had to live in the shadow of Israel’s doomsday machine pointed at them for decades. Israel paints itself as the only rational player in the middle east, but from my perspective they appear to be a culture of sociopaths, inured to violence after decades of holocaust and war trauma, and capable of doing crazy things, as we have seen. Who knows, maybe the ultra orthodox will take control of the nuclear arsenal. The wild, overtly racist behavior of the settlers, and the brutal frontier justice administered by apparently remorseless young IDF should be a tip-off that Israel cannot be trusted with these weapons, and America will eventually have to take them away, and then Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora must get on their knees and start begging the world’s forgiveness for their terrible behavior.
Well, by now your head has exploded. You may notice that many, many others express similar ideas on Internet comment forums, as long as their identities are concealed. We know that dishonorable Zionists will retaliate against us personally if we reveal our names, just like you have been attempting to do to Prof. Falk. But this will backfire on the Jews, as it always does.
walker percy
monalisa
Don’t worry – I will not be publishing your comments on Canada Free Press because they are not worth printing. There is nothing you have said in your rambling screed to support your claim that there is “some sort of defamation”
I would think yisraelmedad is not a common name anywhere. This is why I was surprised to see in The Jerusalem Post Today, an article by our own yisraelmedad, the Vice Chairman of Israel’s Media Watch.
Media Comment: The inattentive media
By YISRAEL MEDAD, ELI POLLAK
08/15/2012 21:48
Is the media afraid Jewish presence on the Temple Mount would undermine their secular cultural and post-modern views?
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=281344
To Mr. Cormier,
thank you for this information.
I wasn’t aware that Israel needs a media watch dog in order to look after whatever is written globally concerning Israel and if it doesn’t conform to “their standards” critisizing it openly.
Interesting ….
It sounds somehow like spying for some words as the US governrmental departments for sercurity service are doing within the Internet and e-mails.
Maybe I was uptil yet still too naive !
monalisa
ML,
are you permanently destabilized or is it just things & people that are Jewish or Israel?
To monalisa,
Israel needs a media watch dog in order to defend itself against Jew-haters and anti-Israel campaigns devoted to destabilising it as a country. Interesting?
to Ray Joseph Cormier,
I read Yisrael Medad’s article in the ‘Jerusalem Post Today’, so kindly provided by you via the website. Very informative, concise, appropriate and well-written. What’s your problem with it?
Some people are multi-tasked; i’m multi-talented, Is there anything wrong?
@ walker percy
Mentioning Jericho in your comment brings to mind another irony of present Day Israel. In the old Israel, the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. In the new Israel the walls are being erected.
Ray,
Do you know about the Israeli General who blew his shofar at the Kotel (Wailing Wall) upon seizing the Temple Mount from the Jordanians in 1967? Talk about re-enacting cherished bible stories….this maniac helped explain to let the world know what was really going on. Here’s what he said on that occasion that is still reverberating:
“I am speaking to you from the plaza of the Western Wall, the remnant of our Holy Temple. ‘Comfort my people, comfort them, says the Lord your God.’ This is the day we have hoped for, let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation. The vision of all generations is being realized before our eyes: The city of God, the site of the Temple, the Temple Mount and the Western Wall, the symbol of the nation’s redemption, have been redeemed today by you, heroes of the Israel Defense Forces. By doing so you have fulfilled the oath of generations, ‘If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning.’ Indeed, we have not forgotten you, Jerusalem, our holy city, our glory. In the name of the entire Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora, I hereby recite with supreme joy, Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who has kept us in life, who has preserved us, and enabled us to reach this day. This year in Jerusalem – rebuilt! “
–General Shlomo Goren, Israel Defense Forces.
If you want to see picture of this fool blowing his horn, go here. http://causesofconflict.vision.org/causes_of_conflict/?Tag=Shlomo%20Goren
Walker,
There was a similar event yesterday at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, before 1967 mostly Palestinian, but now being settled by Jews.
The outgoing IDF Commander of the Judea Brigade held the changeover ceremony at the Cave instead of at the nearby Brigade base where a change of command was always held until yesterday.
The IDF Commander said that the cave validates the Jewish nation legally and morally and strengthens its hold on the Land of Israel.
“This is not a religious or political statement, but rather a purely Zionist and Israeli matter,” Hazut said.
Again, read the comments to the article which in my view, objectively reports just the facts.
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=281600
AS if Ishmael was not Abraham’s seed. The God of Israel saved Ishmael and his mother from perishing according to the Bible. For God’s plan and purposes, God wanted the Father of the Arab people to survive and produce offspring.
Ishmael along with Issac was at Abraham’s bedside when he died.
Zionist and Israeli matter,” Hazut said.
this is how Judeophobes act, take note: he writes “in Hebron, before 1967 mostly Palestinian, but now being settled by Jews.”
a) it was mostly not-Jewish before 1967 because Arabs killed 70 Jews in 1929, effectively ethnically cleansing the city of its Jews;
b) those Jews had been living in the city for centuries previously
c) the city was where David was first king for his first 7 years.
d) Jews were also “Palestinians”. call the other residents there Arabs.
a) he was the Chief Army Rabbi/Chaplain. what did you want him to quote? John Adams? (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/adams.html). And why a “maniac”? Is that respectful?
Yisrael Medad,
I checked out your website, you are amazingly consistent in your views. I am impressed that you can keep it all straight in your head.
I see that you are upset that I was not adequately respectful to Goren. I regard his act as one of the most consequential, unintentionally symbolic moments of the twentieth century, and I imagine that future generations will look back at that cringe-making photograph of the hapless european Jew desecrating the third most sacred place in the Muslim world, in some kind of direct provocation and incitement to Holy War. Who could have foreseen this? In the 60’s, they worried that God is Dead. If only we had been so lucky. No God is making us dead. Thoughts?
Walker
Walk, you remind me of the joke about the graffiti found: “God is dead. Nietszche” and underneath “Nietszche is dead. God”. Actually, here’s the better pic: http://joesettler.blogspot.co.il/2010/05/jerusalem-day.html
Walker Percy,
Your description of the Israeli General blowing his shofar at the Kotel in 1967 upon seizing the Temple Mount from the Jordanians expresses nothing but your own ignorance and derisory contempt. This kind of denigration has nothing to do with discussion, communication and learning. It’s simply destructive.
Hi Ms. Nagar,
Thanks for your response.
Are you saying, “shhhh, don’t say those things (even though they are true) because it is bad for the Jews” or are you saying that my statements are false? Do you disagree that it is highly provocative for a jewish military figure to celebrate the capture of the sacred Islamic shrines by symbolically carrying out the same actions of Joshua before the walls of Jericho, just before the biblical jews slaughtered every man, woman and child, at the direction of their bloodthirsty deity? My statements are intended to be destructive, and I hope that others will be inspired by my refusal to accept the Jewish state, given the venality and dishonesty of its leaders and most of its residents. My comments echo those of millions of others disgusted by Israel’s biblically-inspired violence against people whose only crime is to live in the very spot where Jews decided that they wanted to set up their state. If you have an actual point other than simply to complain that I am spilling the beans, then please let me know. But my guess is that you just want to silence truth-tellers. But you will fail at that, I predict. The whole world now understands what has been going on in Israel, and sorry to say, the writing is on the wall. No amount of cosmetics will cover up the ugly face of this situation.
Walker
Walker Percy,
I meant to make a comment earlier on your words to Yisrael Medad on 18/08, most especially in regard to your obviously distressed uttering*, “… the hapless European Jew [General Shlomo Goren – LN] desecrating the third most sacred place in the Muslim world’.
*maybe this is your ‘tell’, as articulated by you in earlier posting.
Three things are strange in this regard:
(1) your recognition of anything denoting religion being important, as is implied in any religious discussion by you and is most certainly shown in your discussion of Jewish observance and holy sites – so, perhaps your concern here is simply and only for Muslim belief and practices.
(2) that you accept this Jerusalem area as being sacred to Muslims, but overlook, dismiss, negate the prime importance it has for Jews. I’m sure you know that the Arab people built the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa right on the spot the Second Jewish Temple once stood on Temple Mount. You probably also know that in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem the Hurva synagogue was completely destroyed by Muslims in 1721, then destroyed again, after rebuilding, during the Arab-Israeli 1967 war. You’re probably also aware that during Jordanian control of Jerusalem in 1949 Muslims uprooted Jewish grave headstones from the Mount of Olives, east of Temple Mount, using them for road-making and even the construction of toilet blocks in Jordanian Army barracks; as well King Hussein at the time permitted construction of the Intercontinental Hotel at the summit of the Mount of Olives, destroying hundreds of Jewish graves to accommodate building a road through the cemetery – this had been a cemetery for Jews for 3,000 years. This, Walker Percy, is desecration and yet completely ignored, forgotten, or perhaps even denied, by you. As an aside, I can’t help wondering if fellow blogger monalisa would be ‘interested’ in this knowledge and perhaps ‘saddened’ by it so perhaps you could draw her attention to it.
(3) Nowhere in the Koran is the word ‘Jerusalem’ mentioned, strange if one considers, as you say, that it’s such a sacred Muslim place. The ‘third most sacred place in the Muslim world”, you say : hmmm, I guess the first most sacred place in the Muslim world is Mecca and the second is Medina – of course, as we know the pre-eminent sacred place, and holiest of holy, for the Jews is Jerusalem.
Speaks for itself, really, doesn’t it.
Dear Liat,
I am not going to respond to your “points” because they are so logically flawed and ethically clueless that I know it would be hopeless. Instead, I will attempt to explain to you that the deep devotion and yearning you feel toward Israel is an illusion. You have zero connection to the “Land of Israel” and you are being used in a despicable way by some people who are getting rich while endangering you, your family, and the rest of the world. Remember, no Jews thought or cared about Palestine until relatively recently. The idea of Jerusalem was only symbolic, something discussed in shul, not a real place that one would move to. It was probably a couple of nudniks in some Polish shtetl who first dreamed up this ludicrous plan, probably as a way of stealing money from fellow Jews, a la Bernie Madoff. I can picture the scene:
Moishe: Hey, Mordechai, you know how the rabbi is always going on and on about Israel this, Israel that, saying how we own that land over there…
Mordechai: Yeah, so what?
Moishe: Well, what if we convince Horowitz and Ableman to “buy” land over there? We will make up some phony paperwork, I’ll bet we can trick those money bags into “investing” in some prime real estate!
Mordechai: You’re a genius, Moishe! I’ll get started printing up some “deeds”. And guess what, Moishe? I hear they struck oil over there in the Middle East….We can use that as way to trick Horowitz and Ableman!
As with many crazy schemes, this one kind of got away from Mordechai and Moishe and led to some unexpected consequences. Over the decades and centuries, Jews kept thinking about Palestine and convinced themselves that they must move there or be murdered, and the lie (and business model) took on a life of its own. And by now, everyone understands what a terrible mistake it was (yes, Liat, even you understand that the world would have been much better off if Israel had never been created in Palestine, even though to admit it would melt all the circuitry in your head). Jews realize that if they admit this obvious truth, the world will turn against them, the US will withdraw its support for Israel, and the next catastrophe will commence. But, unless Israel intends to place a bomb-proof bubble around themselves, I have a feeling that this is an inevitability. No amount of interference in the US elections will save Israel, but i can tell you that when America finally wakes up, this dirty political business will not be soon forgotten or forgiven.
walker
Oh, my. Not only ignorant, not only a Jew-hater but a bitter, irrational, vicious discombobulator. To have to read this – “Remember, no Jews thought or cared about Palestine until relatively recently. The idea of Jerusalem was only symbolic, something discussed in shul, not a real place that one would move to…” is not only painful, not only evidence of feebleness, not only being witness to a total twisting of historical fact but to a deep-seated religiously motivated hatred.
Walker Percy,
This is a response to your comments to me of 01/09/2012:
1. You “are not going to respond to my points” because they are indisputable facts, so concrete in nature that they can be proved from the materials out of which they’re born, viz. known historical events, stone, rock and a Muslim religious text.
2. You have absolutely no access to or knowledge of my feelings, viz. the “deep devotion and yearning” you refer to.
3. You have absolutely no knowledge of my personal “connection to Israel” or of my personal experience of Israel.
4. The idea of Jerusalem (or as you put it, “symbol”) is what has enabled the Jewish people, throughout centuries of dispersion and persecution, to survive and exist as a people, which is a unique phenomenon in the circumstances associated with it – in other words, other peoples throughout history undergoing dispersal and alienation for such a lengthy period of time have died out in regard to culture/religion/language (see for your information and consideration “The Gifts of the Jews” by Tim Cahill, an Irish author who is neither Jewish or Muslim – one of many books in which this is discussed).
5. Your fantasy in words of the conversation between “a couple of nudniks in some Polish shtetl” exposes a somewhat disturbing picture of your state of mind.
6. You state that “… everyone understands what a terrible mistake it was [creation of the modern State of Israel – LN] (yes, Liat, even you understand …) – if you consider what you’ve written here it must be obvious that you, as an individual, cannot speak for or assume knowledge of the understanding and thoughts of “everyone”, or of me. The general scenario you postulate is constructed by your own thoughts and inclinations, whatever they might be … nobody else’s. It’s a dangerously insular interiority you’re residing in.
Liat and Yisrael
Wasting your time communicating with a rabid Jew hater like Walker Percy is pointless.
What continues to intrigue me is why Richard Falk has not sought to condemn Walker Percy’s obnoxious and disgusting comments,
These foul statements are appearing on the blog page of a United Nations Special Rapporteur. One can only presume they are published with Mr Falk’s endorsement and consent in the absence of any attempt by him to condemn or disassociate himself from such comments or point out to his readers his personal revulsion at such comments.
Mr Falk refuses to communicate with me because he feels aggrieved at what I wrote about him and published in another place without letting him know. He refuses precisely to particularize what upset him despite many requests by me to find out what offended him.
Sitting on high as he does on a matter of principle involving himself – he finds no problem with allowing Walker Percy to continue to spew his hate filled posts defaming Jews (which includes Mr Falk) without comment.
Richard Falk needs to take a stand against such spiteful and inciting posts. Until he does – he brings no credit to the UN post he holds nor to himself personally.
You are probably, no, positively correct. Scratch an anti-Zionist and….
wall erected? ah, because of senseless Arab terror?
Some violence may be difficult to understand but as a response to greater violence and dispossession, it is hardly “senseless”.
You probably are not even aware that your use of the term “Arab” is racist to an extent that rivals anti- Semitic stereotypes.
don’t be silly. the Arabs use the term Arab. The Syrian Arab Republic. The Arab League. Arab States Broadcasting Union. Silly? Worse.
How great can the violence get?
And the Nations were angry, and your wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that you should give reward to your servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear your name, small and great; and should destroy them which destroy the earth.
Revelation 11:18
Don’t froth but the New Testament really isn’t my theological prophetic tract. I respect it as a work of faith and spirituality but don’t go quoting scripture at me. Unless of course you agree with Acts 8:1 that the land is called Judea and Samaria, not Palestine.
This is another angle on the the subject of the Nations being angry and the wrath of God and the general increase of mindless violence among the people.
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Therefore rejoice, you heavens, and you that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has but a short time.
Revelation 12:12
I repeat: come down off your soapbox before you fall and hurt yourself.
Of course, you would only believe in the lines from the Torah/Bible that gave the land 3000 + years ago to the Jews only to the exclusion of all other lines in the Holy Books and the realities of Today.
This gives Zionists the false belief they can treat the Palestinians Today with the same the same contempt and inferior status with which the Nazis treated the Jews in another place and Time in recent history.
Walker Percy,
It’s common for people who hate to hide behind their own form of ‘truth-telling’, which is what you are doing. Your many comments on this blog seek to polarise and incite. All the issues you raise are couched in the same venal tonality. You also show that you enjoy the ‘game’ you are playing. There’s no point to any morally serious-minded person engaging with that.
David,
I too have referred to the blatant anti-Jewish propaganda expressed in such vitriolic fashion in my comments to Richard Falk at the end of this blog site, on 30/08. I ask him why he condones it. He has not responded, nor has he responded to my communication with him re the Palestinian hunger strikers on another site. He has given you, at least initially, reason for not wishing to communicate with you. He is ignoring me, or avoiding me, possibly the latter.
The UN post he holds is UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of the Palestinian people, however that role does not permit, and should never allow, any sort of alignment, implicit or otherwise, with the hatred and denigration of Jews that permeates the comments on this blog site. Further, it is certainly not good enough for Falk to sit above it and apart from it, in silence, while more and more posts of this kind are published. It’s his blog; he needs to be accountable.
Just to give you some idea how wide the gulf is between the Zionist Jews and Palestinians in Israel Today, read the comments in this generally objective reporting in The Jerusalem Post. The comments are much more disturbing than the article itself and shows the Zionists have no mind frame to compromise in their single minded purpose in pursuit of the greater Land of Israel from 3000 years ago, ignoring the present realities and consequences of their actions. They want the whole pie.
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=281545
To Walker Percy and Ray Cormier:
Thank you both for this information.
I read the comments in the Jerusalem Post.
I am extremely shocked how aggressive some comments were. Its like those people don’t have any respect towards other humans, other cultures.
There is a saying:
Pride goes before fall.
I will never again buy some goods imported from Israel and I will inform my friends what I have read in the comments and give them the respective website name.
How sad these developments, how sad that nothing has been learnt from past catastrophes.
monalisa
monalisa, ray is correct when he says that the truth becomes inescapable when you discover the comments section on JPost and similar sites, where Zionists let it all hang out. This will be their undoing. It is there that you see the stunted humanity that appear to be either a product of Zionism, or its source. Just dreadful, and finally out in the open for the world to gaze on in horror and recognition.
walker
monalisa, those kind of comments are in The Jerusalem Post Daily in any article concerning Iran and Palestinians.
http://www.jpost.com.
I wouldn’t be concerned if there was only the occasional hateful, arrogant comment, but when the majority of comments are that bad, people had better take notice.
Again, I commend the Free Israeli Press as a credit to any notion of an Independent Free Press. Unfortunately, there are steps being taken in Israel to hamper and intimidate the Israeli Press from doing it’s job.
Check out the video embedded in my comment in Richard’s earlier article ‘For What?’
https://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/for-what
Ray,
I checked out the video you linked to, where the Israeli professor reveals the way that Israeli text books are highly biased, and how they paint a deliberately false historical picture as a way of de-humanizing Arabs, to ensure that future IDF soldiers are ready to kill the enemy when so directed. Do you think the professor was saying that IDF soldiers are innocent of war crimes because they were brain washed? I can’t buy that high school seniors with access to the Internet do not understand that they are taking part in ethnic cleansing, plain and simple. Unfortunately, these young adults, like the Long Island Crusaders that I mentioned above, should be held responsible for their choices, especially the Americans, who are betraying their own country and whose US citizenship should be forfeited.
walker
monalisa,
Sadness is part of the whole of history and the human condition. You might learn even more if you do your own research by way of extensive in depth reading/research of ‘past catastrophes’, rather than relying so fully on websites, newspapers and Messrs. Walker Percy and Ray Joseph Cornier.
Ms. monalisa,
You write:
“Sadness is part of the whole of history and the human condition. You might learn even more if you do your own research by way of extensive in depth reading/research of ‘past catastrophes’, rather than relying so fully on websites, newspapers and Messrs. Walker Percy and Ray Joseph Cornier.”
Your cryptic comments are very hard to decipher. Please elaborate. Are you saying that, since the world is a sad place, and people die in horrible ways every day, that justifies more murders? Are you saying that Hashem decided everything, and Israeli Jews are simply carrying out his plan? If so, you better state that openly, then we will understand better your position and can take appropriate action.
Walker Percy
The Joy of The Lord trumps all the sadness of this world.
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
You are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
You are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it gives light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 5
And again, when he brings in the first begotten into the world, he says, And let all the angels of God worship him.
And of the angels he says, Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
But to the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the OIL OF GLADNESS above your fellows.
And, You, Lord, in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of your hands:
They shall perish; but you remain; and they all shall wax old as does a garment;
And as a vesture shall you fold them up, and they shall be changed: but you are the same, and your years shall not fail.
But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool?
Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth TO MINISTER for them WHO SHALL BE Heirs of Salvation?
Hebrews 1
Liat,
thanks for your detailed response and your trenchant, and partially correct assessment of my character. I admit to there being a tinge of malice in my written expressions about Israel, and will work harder to refrain from producing commentary that could be construed as Jew-hating. I know that Jews are uniquely sensitive about their spiritual lives, which are inviolable, and their physical existence, which should be understood as being especially precious (1000 palestinians = 1 jew!). So because of a history of abuse at the hands of their neighbors, commenters on internet blogs should refrain from making statements that contradict cherished beliefs held by this tiny group of 14 million. For example, it would be Jew Hating to point out that there are 2 billion Muslims with whom we also have to get along, and avoid offending.
Oops, I did it again. The problem for me is that I am very angry about what Jews in Israel and the Diaspora have produced: an uncontrollable, nuclear-armed baby, who doesn’t care where its fecal matter lands. Listen, Liat, it doesn’t matter anymore that you feel strongly about Israel and the Jewish people and you feel they deserve ownership of certain real estate. There just aren’t enough of you to merit this level of disruption, so you will have to stand down. Zionism made some sense in the 1960’s and 70’s, but now it obviously doesn’t work, and all of the warnings of John Kennedy, James Forrestal and Dwight Eisenhower went unheeded. After the horrific mass death, endless wasting of resources and global terrorists who claim to be inspired by Zionist actions, we come to see how stupid it was to ignore these wise men. But now we enter the 21 st century,with a garrison crusader state in Jerusalem acting re-enacting bible stories in the desert, complete with Shofars, and implicating their poor Islamic neighbors as new interloqutors.
Liat, I don’t intend to stop posting things on the web, and there are a lot of people like me, so its better you understand the situation. I am an admirer of Richard Falk, but believe me there are lots of other blogs to write commentary on. It also must be said that the idea that this distinguished individual was harassed or intimidated because he expressed opinions Zionists don’t like is frankly an outrage and should be understood as an indictment of Zionism, and even Judaism, if religious people do not dissociate themselves from the the pro-Israeli position, as the ultra orthodox have done, wisely. You may importune Professor Falk to delete my postings if you like, but remember that is a public action, and makes you look like you can’t handle yourself in an argument.
walker percy
YISRAEL MEDAD just so there is no mistaking the fact I could label myself GOD MEDAD.
Let the 1st one without sin cast the 1st stone Jesus taught. Then no one could cast a stone.
Baruch Kopel Goldstein was an American-born Jewish Israeli physician, terrorist and mass murderer who perpetrated the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in the city of Hebron, killing 29 Palestinian Muslim worshipers and wounding another 125.
The Chosen People of God are supposed to be way above such kind of evil behaviour.
Let’s not forget the Zionist terrorist groups, Irgun, the Stern Gang and The Lehi were as terrorist as anything you can say about Palestinians. Those terrorists believed they were Freedom Fighters against the British, the legal authority in Palestine.
Now that the Zionists exercise legal authority, the Palestinians who resist the seizure of their native land under the guise of Zionism, even though the Zionists brand them as terrorists, they are Freedom fighters as much as the Irgun, The Stern Gang and Lehi were so long ago.
Zionists expect them to roll over and play dead and not resist the theft of their land by stealth, little by little. It won’t happen that way.
aw, c’mon. 1 Baruch G. give me another similar. and how many Arab suicide bombers and other types of mass murderers?
and the Jewish undergrounds were any less than George Washington or Simon Bolivar? your dislike of Jews causes you to exclude any standard of measure well, except when you employ the old double standard.
I was witness to the murderous bombardment of Gaza on TV during Christmas of 2008-09 while the world was distracted by the Global financial meltdown-Economic Pearl Harbour/Tsunami-Writing on the Wall.
With all those Hamas rockets, only 3 Israeli civilians were killed and only 10 IDF soldiers were killed, 4 of them from Israeli friendly fire. Over 1400 Palestinians were killed.
There was an effective truce between Hamas and the IDF for 6 months prior to Operation Cast Lead. Hamas abided by the terms.
The terms were simple. No incursions by IDF helicopter gunships in Gaza on targeted assassination operations and Hamas would stop the rockets.
On November 5, 2008, Israel broke the Truce by sending a helicopter gunship into Gaza. Rocket fire from Gaza resumed after that Israeli breach of the Truce.
that’s quite an excellent fictional rewriting.
Fictional only to your own mind. Naturally this generation of Zionist Jews see themselves as sinless, faultless and blameless, unlike the records of the Prophets God sent to Israel to admonish the Chosen People’s forefathers.
you’re losing it RJC. or never had it.
yisraelmedad,
God gives all of us, Jew and Gentile, Male or Female, Free or Bond, Freedom of Thought, Belief and Choice.
I conform my beliefs with Truth and Reality. If someone can provide me with new information I never considered before, I am not a fixed ideologue. I can change my mind when confronted with indisputable fact.
You haven’t provided such information as yet.
ok. can anyone guess how many of those 1600 dead mentioned were members of Hamas units?
The estimates were about 400.
you’re off by almost half. Hamas admitted 700. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.co.il/2010/11/so-how-many-were-killed-in-operation.html
Hamas is primarily a Political/Social Welfare entity. More than 90% of its budget is non-military.
Israel has much invested in obscuring this fact in order to be able to do exactly as Ysraelmedad does here – obfuscate. Thus all Hamas in his book become “terrorists” while the colonial invader’s tactics which were,and remain, many times more brutal, are cloaked in euphemistic language.
To understand this it is only necessary to consult the writings of Palestinian Christian leaders.
Hamas primarily exists to kill Jews, deny them any land as their patrimony, also kills Muslims who aren’t fanatic enough and throws Fatah men off roof in Gaza, handcuffed so they can hear the splat sound.
Walker Percy,
I’m merely commenting on monalisa’s personal projection and wistful exclamation of ‘sadness’ in regard to ‘developments’ and ‘past catastrophes’. Nothing more. I’m assuming you meant to address me and not monalisa in your comments.
To Ray Cormier:
Yes, I have seen that too in TV 2008/2009 and it had been mentioned that Israel broke the Truce.
Children and women too have been targeted !
How sad !
Denial of facts is usually expressed by some (not all) Israeli Jews. But there cannot be much denial of documented facts.
Together with the years long open air prison of Gaza being Palestinians the prisoners, men, women and children, together with such actions as happened in 2008/2009 points directly to ethnic cleansing, as such actions are supporting the genozide of Palestinians.
Denial will not work these times, only temporarily. Far too many countries, people, are aware of documented facts.
PS: It is interesting to note that each time facts, documented, are brought into the open light, the repetition follows like a hurdy-gurdy that those speaking about facts are Jew-haters or Israel-haters ! How silly is that hurdy-gurdy behaviour !
monalisa
‘How sad!”, again, monalisa! Are you really sad? “How silly is that hurdy-gurdy behaviour!” You’re giving yourself away with that one. Facade. Facade.
To Richard Falk,
Your blog is degenerating into ugliness and malice. Many of the comments comprise hate, contempt and denigration in their tonality. David Singer is right in citing extracts he singles out as showing hatred for Jews; they employ all the old stereotypes handed down through the ages to denigrate and persecute Jews. All of this in the name of ‘truth’, and supposedly justice for the Palestinian people – a mere cover, as it turns out, for the expression of anti-Jewish propaganda. The kinds of beliefs and attitudes you are supporting with your inclusion of these comments, and your silence and refusal to dissociate yourself from them, speaks for itself. Any serious-minded person of whatever opinion or persuasion, who might be genuinely seeking discussion that could illuminate, will not find it here. In a comment dated August 9, you state that “dialogue and discourse is not worthwhile” without “a minimum of mutual respect and civility”. Why then are you condoning the sorts of comments I refer to above?
Give it up, Liat. Falk is no Goldstone. I can tell that you don’t like “truth-tellers” if their “truth” doesn’t comport with Israeli hasbara. But “truth” is not something you can control. Stick to posting comments on JPost, where you will find your kind of “truth”.
walker
Walker Percy,
What is a ‘truth-teller”? Perhaps someone who only speaks the truth (is that how you see yourself)? Impossible in a universal or individual sense, yes, given people’s legitimately different perspectives and experiences? Truth changes with the facts brought to it, and sometimes ‘facts’ change with the truth brought to them. What I don’t like are ‘truth-benders’ for the sake of causes, and what I especially don’t like are bigots and those who bring malice and game-playing to their behaviour and comments. It’s not appropriate for you to tell anyone where to post their comments.
I was thrilled when I saw a TV news clip of PM Netanayahu addressing a rally of Jews in Toronto saying “Let The Truth reign Supreme.” I said “amen” to that within myself . This was the night before Netanyahu woke up to the Mavi Marmara nightmare May 31, 2010.
I was disturbed to read in The Jerusalem Post last week, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the Shas spiritual leader, invoked a prayer saying “Do good, God, wipe them out, kill them,” referring to Iran, to which the assembled crowd answered “amen.”
It moved me to re-post in my Blog another report I read in The Jerusalem Post July 2, 2009. The title of that report was ‘SHIP OF FOOLS.’
http://ray032.com/2012/08/31/ship-of-fools/
And at the same time, there’s this news: “Despite PM’s Efforts, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Opposes Attack on Iran /// Rabbi Ovadia Yosef has said that he would oppose any Israeli unilateral action against Iranian nuclear facilities. By Arutz 7 Staff First Publish: 8/29/2012, 9:10 PM
Despite Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s attempts at persuading Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef to support a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, it seems that such efforts have failed to produce the results desired by the prime minister.
Rabbi Yosef has indicated that he would oppose any Israeli unilateral action against Iranian nuclear facilities, Israel’s Channel 10 news reported”..
So, what is the good Rabbi saying?
Obviously he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth
I think he is saying that he supports the destruction of the Jewish people. Jews everywhere must treat this as an existential threat. These self-hating Shas rabbis apparently feel that the world needs 59 Muslim states but one Jewish state is too many. He seems to be saying that, deep in his heart he yearns for then destruction of the Jewish state.