251 thoughts on “The Schadenfreude of the Israeli Right – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Really bizarre people out there, Richard. As soon as I read your post about the wall, I realized it was a joke and I took your post as a joke as well.

    The abysmal caliber of the comments you received does not surprise me.

  2. Judging from the comment section on the Haaretz site, you were not the only one that took it seriously Richard.
    I do not think that they would be making any comments on that. Haters will be hatin’ I guess.

  3. So, who knows from Purim? I took it seriously, Richard (and Mary), and was going to make a few suggestions for sabotaging the ad campaign with pro Palestine PR. Anyhow, congratulations for being big enough to admit your error and eating humble pie. Also, you gotta be careful of those gremlins in your computer.

  4. I thought the scene with the Turkish ambassador was a joke, but it turned out to be true. Then you had the ‘Israeli’ heritage sites on what is left of what is supposed to become a Palestinian state one day. I thought that was a joke too, but it turned out to be true. I could go on. Israeli policy as a whole has become one a big Purim joke. This makes it hard to pick out the real ‘jokes’ nowadays, so I guess you are excused.

    1. That was precisely what fooled me for a time. Israel currently seems to specialize in the outrageous so I thought it was of a piece w. recent past mishugas (“nuttiness”).

      But it’s amazing how many are just waiting for you to trip on the banana peel and how much pleasure it brings them when you do. Doesn’t matter to them how the mistake was made or corrected. All they care about is that you failed and can be ridiculed for it. It also doesn’t matter to them that Israeli policy is just as fahrcoch’d (“cock-eyed”) as it was before the Purim story was published. NOthing changed on that score. For these bozos it’s all a question of pt scoring rather than anything of substance. If they can catch you out in an error, it delights them. It also distracts them fr the real pt of the matter which is the disaster Israel faces.

    2. The word is Schadenfreude with an e. For the rest: it really is difficult to know real purim jokes that are meant to be purim jokes from jokes that one would have liked to be purim jokes. Take the purimspiel in Dubai, or building a Museum of Tolerance and Human Dignity on top of a 800 year old muslim cemetary in Jerusalem…There are too many of these examples.

      1. Thanks for the correction. I should know better than to spell a German word w/o checking it first to be sure I have it right.

        And yes, you got at the problem precisely. Is Israeli policy one gigantic Purim joke (with lethal consequences of course)?

  5. Given your long track record of transvestitism and of groping little boys in the playground, don’t you think you are being a bit hypocritical…

    Oh Richard. That’s so unfair.

    I don’t think that you are being hypocritical at all…….

  6. This is rather like the girl who can’t dance blaming the orchestra.

    There’s a lot of material here for a psychoanalyst about unconscious motivation. Myself, I believe you had an unconscious need to post it and all the above waffle by way of excuse is precisely that.

  7. Me, too. I was taking it seriously until about halfway thru the article, simply because nothing the Israelis do surprises me anymore.

  8. Richard,

    Your article paints a picture of you red-faced and sweating when your false accusations were revealed. It only adds to your foolishness.

    1. red-faced and sweating

      What an active imagination you have. Perhaps you’ve been watching too many videos lately?

      As for “foolishness,” your delight in my errors shows you for what you are.

      1. “As for “foolishness,” your delight in my errors shows you for what you are.”

        Tsk, tsk, aren’t you the defensive one. By the way, you only made one error, and that was believing the Purim story. Only in your nonsensical and fabricated explanation did you make “errors.”

        1. No, I made a 2nd error which another commenter pointed out. The Kotel is the retaining wall of the Second Temple and not the actuall wall of the Temple as I stated. Contrary to yr claim, I actually do appreciate being corrected on factual matters on which I’ve made errors & I always note this when someone catches my errors. I do NOT appreciate people having a party and enjoying someone else’s misfortune.

          1. “I do NOT appreciate people having a party and enjoying someone else’s misfortune.”

            If you believe what happened to you constitutes “misfortune,” then you have indeed led a pampered life. Misfortune is what happened to the people of Haiti. In your case, all you did was make a fool of yourself. You’ll get over it.

          2. Paul, I think perhaps Richard made an unfortunate word choice with ‘misfortune’, it happens when you’re writing a lot and fast, but his bigger point still stands. It’s very interesting how when he ‘messed up’ or made a mistake as was the case in initially falling for the Purim joke, so many of his ‘friends’ out there on the internets were right there to jump on him. The zealotry with which they were ready to pounce, and their general viciousness, was the point of the blog post, and he provides illuminating examples, particularly the last one.

            And I think Richard is quite aware of real misfortune and suffering. He spends a good amount of time and space chronicling it right here on this blog—specifically in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as the West’s broader conflicts in the Middle East (like the Iran question), this is his area of focus. And I agree that Haiti was certainly a massive mind-boggling catastrophe, absolutely horrific. I would also gingerly suggest that the Gaza massacre, and the IDF’s slaughter of at least 350 Palestinian children, and 1,100 innocent Palestinian civilians overall (as per the Goldstone report), a year ago might qualify as “misfortune”.

            There are so many (almost too many to count) horrible misfortunes, and crimes, that have happened in the past— and so many that are happening around the globe today, as we speak. Richard focuses on an admittedly specific, but very globally and geo-politically important, slice of the world’s problems right here at Tikkun Olam.

  9. If it’s any comfort, someone projected the words “No pensions for parliamentarians” on the dome of St. Peter’s last week. I would expect nothing less of the current hasbara-meisters.

  10. Yes, I can certainly see how this tack redounds to your honor:

    ************

    Dear World,

    Owing to my unabashed ignorance of Jewish holiday traditions, an inherent anti-Israeli prejudice that predisposes me to believe the worst anyone might be prepared to say about them, and my general technical incompetence, I managed to do something really, really embarrassing.

    But, oo, oo, look over there! Vile orthodox perverts and mean emails! Quick, look! Look!

    And, beside, as you can tell from the comments, all my really enlightened friends are just as prejudiced as I am.

    **********

    Yes, very honorable indeed.

    1. Nothing better to do? Perhaps you should be defending your precious Mossad, it sure looks like they’re going to need it.

      1. See, now there you go, making assumptions. I haven’t said anything at all about any actual Israeli policies or any other events in the region, but you right away assume that because I call Richard out on making a fool of himself, first with the act itself and a second time with a hapless explanation that only cements the foolishness, that you have a solid grip on my politics.

        Nothing especially prejudiced about that, is there?

        1. you have a solid grip on my politics.

          You’ve said more than enough & we know your politics through & through. As far as you’re concerned you’re a liberal type, in favor of ending the Occupation, two states & all. Just like Bibi, right? Right.

          1. I am not now and have never been a Likudnik. And, yes, as far as I’m concerned, I’m a liberal type, in favor of ending the Occupation, and in favor of a two-state solution, etc., etc., etc. Not sure what to make of the sneering way you lay these out, but okay.

            So, I stated the clear opinion that your explanation of your self-described “bone-headed” errors exposes you to the interpretation that you are under-informed about Jewish religious practice, are predisposed to believe the worst about your ideological opponents, aren’t exactly the lightest touch with a keyboard, and are inclined to deflect attention from your own errors by pointing to the villainy of others. You can disagree with any and all of those claims. But, really, what insight does any of that give you into my political orientation?

            You will note, I hope, that I have used no forbidden vocabulary in the course of this comment.

          2. I didn’t say you’re a Likudnik. You’re liberal right? You support Kadima or Labor if you support any political party. You’re PEP through & through. Which means your views are the same old, same old liberal pro-Israel pablum. Bibi supports all the things you do btw & you claim you’re not Likudist. Can you distinguish yrself fr him?

            One of my comment rules here is that you not repeat yrself. In order to maximally embarrass me (supposedly) you’ve snarkily repeated yr various claims about my errors. That’ll be the last time you mention them.

            I am NOT under-informed about Jewish practice. If you’d read my About page you’d see my religious & academic background & wouldn’t even go near such a patently stupid statement.

          3. Now it’s clear: it is OK to draw absurd conclusions about a person’s character based one a few sentences that they write on a blog site because they don’t have an “About” page. But to do the same for a person who does have an “About” page is “patently stupid”.

          4. I told the commenter what his political beliefs were & he agreed with me. What more do you want fr me? To tell you his birthdate & social security #? There are nearly 30,000 comments at this site & I read them all. I’ve heard almost every variation of argument left, right, & center & can tell a lot about someone’s views based on the rhetorical/political tropes they use..

          5. Sorry, I don’t know what “PEP” means, so I’m not in a position to confirm or deny.

            So Bibi supports the withdrawal of settlements and a return to a strategically reasonable approximation of the ’67 borders? I didn’t know that.

          6. I really could care less about yr views of settlement withdrawal. What matters to me is whether you’re in favor of Israel immediately ending the Occupation & withdrawing to 67 borders & if so what you’ve done to work on behalf of this view. It would also be nice to know your view of the Separation Wall, Right of Return, the Gaza & Lebanon War & targeted assassinations among other things. Then we can really determine how liberal yr views are.

          7. I think it would be all to the good for Israeli military forces to take up positions within as reasonable an approximation of the 67 borders as may be effectively defended. Settlers who choose to stay in the WB outside these borders would be placing their security in the hands of whatever Palestinian government manages to establish itself there, on on their own military prowess — in either case foolishly, in my opinion. But I don’t think IDF resources ought to be expended in their defense.

            The Separation Wall: on the whole, I think it a wise precaution. It ought, however, to be erected in such a way as to hew to Israel’s borders.

            Right of Return: Answered above. I believe Palestinians ought to justly compensated by Israel for their losses.

            Lebanon War: Stupid policy stupidly implemented. Hezbollah is probably a greater threat now than before the war.

            Gaza War: That’s tougher, and. I don’t really have a good answer on it. I’m perplexed, however, by the oft-repeated complaint that Israel’s response was unacceptable because it was a disproportionate response to the rocketing of Sderot — I have to wonder: what would have been a proportionate response?

            Targeted assassinations: On the whole, I have rather less a problem with these than with large-scale military operations. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah deny that they are in a state of war with Israel. I can think of no historical precedent for insisting that an enemy’s leadership is off limits under such conditions. And I certainly don’t think that it is purely a matter of moral scruple that prevents Hamas or Hezbollah from pursuing reprisals in kind.

          8. I want to amend what I said about yr political views. We actually do share something politically. But yr views of the Gaza war are completely misguided as Israel violated the ceasefire which Hamas then cancelled. This in turn led the the indefensible Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, which in turn led to Israel’s attack. The main problem among many w. the issue that “perplexes” you is that in 7 yrs. approx. 20 Israelis were killed & in response in 3 weeks Israel killed 1,400 including over 300 children & a total of 1,100 civilians. You ask what would’ve been a proportionate response. I’ll ignore the proximate answer & respond w. the real solution which is for Israel to move to final status talks, recognize a Palestinian state, return to 67 borders, share Jerusalem. That would immediately resolve almost all outstanding problems & certainly end most, if not all rocket attacks. Anything short of that is continuing the Occupation. Israel has no defense even in the face of rocket attacks if it does not end the ultimate injustice, the Occupation.

            Regarding assassinations, I would like to hear you say clearly that the assassination of Rehavam Zeevi was justified under the same criteria you use claiming that “the enemy’s leadership is not off limits considering Palestinian militants consider themselves at war w. Israel. If you do not concede this pt. then you are a hypocrite. If you do, then you are simply in a moral dead end.

            Considering all this, no matter how much agreement we find, you are a liar if you dare to make any claim that I am anti-Israel. I simply do not accept such garbage arguments. As for yr other comments about the Kotel post, you are simply a mean-spirited person regardless of whatever political opinions we may or may not share.

          9. The fact that you believe the Purim story is funny. The fact the you believe the above comment is sad.

          10. The fact that you believe the Purim story

            I do not believe it & didn’t believe it as soon as I’dread half the article. But if this is “funny” to you you must laugh your head off when you get a root canal. As for anything I say making you “sad” you’re stretching the credible.

        2. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out who you are and where you come from. Coward that you are, you only come out from under your manhole cover when you sense an opportunity to stomp on a man who doesn’t peddle cheesy hasbara lies but instead believes in truth. I’m sure Richard is more than capable of defending himself, but I can’t resist the opportunity to verbally slap around bright guys like you who don’t have anything intelligent to say, either for or against the issues Richard discusses on his blog.

          Come back when you think you can participate in a serious discussion (not merely to hurl insults), and we’ll see how long you last.

          1. Mary:
            To be honest it doesn’t take a genius to figure out who you are and where you come from either.
            What conclusions do you draw about me from that ?

          2. “Coward that you are, you only come out from under your manhole cover when you sense an opportunity to stomp on a man who doesn’t peddle cheesy hasbara lies but instead believes in truth. I’m sure Richard is more than capable of defending himself, but I can’t resist the opportunity to verbally slap around bright guys like you who don’t have anything intelligent to say, either for or against the issues Richard discusses on his blog.”

            Really? This meets the vaunted standards for civility on this blog?

    2. I always admire and respect those who put words in the mouths of others they despise. It’s so convincing & I’m sure everyone who reads it will see me precisely as you do. Nice try.

      I’ll put my knowledge of Jewish holiday traditions up against yours any day of the week. As for “anti-Israel prejudice” you’ve just violated my comment rules & you ought to read them if you plan to comment here again. And as for technical incompetence, I’ve been blogging longer than almost every other progressive Jewish blogger on this subject & have one of the more technically challenging blog installations on which I’ve spent hundreds of hours of technical maintenance. So no, you’d be wrong again. But that wouldn’t be anything new for you.

      As for doing something embarrassing, I’d say you have the market cornered on that. And as for honorable, I won’t even go there as far as you’re concerned.

      1. “As for doing something embarrassing, I’d say you have the market cornered on that.”

        Perhaps you could substantiate this claim by demonstrating knowledge of something (anything) I’ve done, embarrassing or otherwise?

        1. The snark you levelled against me is quite embarrasing as far as I’m concerned since it’s based on even less knowledge of me than my accurate guess about yr political self-definition.

          1. Wow. Now you’re clairvoyant, too. I can certainly see why you should be taken seriously as a contributor to the debate on these difficult questions.

            In what sense, exactly, do you assume your guess about my political self-definition to be accurate? You’ve only snarked about it. Neither you nor anyone else in your amen chorus has actually made explicit what you think my political self-definition consists of — just a lot of sneering innuendo.

          2. You explicitly agreed w. my description of you as someone who considered himself liberal, anti-Occupation, in favor of a 2 state solution. Or did you forget about that? But more accurately, you are really PEP.

    3. Rather, all really enlightened people are just as worried by what has become of Israel. I am one of those many, many people who grew up with a very positive image of Israel, which gradually changed over the years.

      You would be so lucky, David Lieberman, if only people with an inherent anti-Israeli prejudice were sickened by what Israel is doing today. Whether people like me or Richard or others are aware of whether it is Purim or April Fools Day or not (who the hell cares) should be the least of your problems, because we are aware of so many other things concerning Israel. Better address those issues, dear.

      1. It is certainly possible — even, I think, desirable — to be upset by the policies being pursued by the Netanyahu government. I still don’t see how that feeds into the very specific arguments I’ve made that Richard’s rather hapless attempt to explain his mistakes and divert attention from them in nearly the same breath really just compounds the original error.

          1. I’ve read the comment rules. Can you be more explicit about which rule, precisely, I violate here?

          2. Do not repeat yrself. Once you state an argument you’ve done so & move on. Do not level ad hominem personal insults that have nothing to do with political issues. That’s for starters.

      2. …what has become of Israel.

        Israel is what it has always been. Nothing significant has changed since the beginning. All that has changed really is that the veil is getting thinner and thinner, so that more of the time more people are able to see more of the reality that was there all along.

      3. Elisabeth:
        Thank you for your modest explanation that you are an “enlightened person”. I am sure that Mary for one appreciates that you have saved her the effort of figuring that out.

        1. Thank you too Torsion, but it was actually David Lieberman who made me that compliment. I was just humbly quoting him…

        2. Interestingly, you only come to this blog when you smell blood in the water, so it seems. Discussion of anything doesn’t seem to be your purpose. When you close the manhole cover, watch your fingers.

          1. I think he has finally evaporated, but maybe you’re right and he just slithered underground. An extremely nasty person: A coward who shies away from addressing issues, only capable of spouting venom. I hope he hurt his fingers.

  11. Richard, I don’t know if you are familiar with the works of Theodor Adorno and Nevitt Sanford, especially “The Authoritarian Personality” and the accompanying “F-Scale”. An obsession with sexual “goings-on” is one component of the authoritarian, or proto-fascist personality. A tendency to look for and condemn alleged deviants is another.

    TAP has been largely replaced by newer works, and it has been criticized for several flaws, but I still find it amazing how well the “F-Scale” works in describing all the key components of the psychological make-up of (mostly) right-wing authoritarians.

    1. I’d suggest that Bob Altemeyer has the claim to having done the strongest recent work in this area.

        1. I was referring to your correct observation that the right-wing hate-mailers display an obsession with sex and deviancy. “The Authoritarian Personality” included this in the larger context of its description of authoritarian positions.

          1. Sorry, Koshiro, I was responding to Lieberman, whose comment made no sense to me partly because I don’t read comments by thread & didn’t know he was replying to you.

            Thanks for yr recommendation. It sounds very interesting. I need to get that book. I think I’ve heard fr. every right wing Jewish socio/psychopath/deviant since I began writing this blog.

        2. I was following up on the reference to Adorno, et al. The more current psychological research on authoritarianism is dominated by Altemeyer’s work with what he defines as the “Right Wing Authoritarianism” scale. Altemeyer is one of those who, as Koshiro notes, subjects the Berkeley team’s work in “The Authoritarian Personality” to fairly severe criticism.

  12. It’s not a surprise, we all know these people are mean-spirited. I could say more, but it would violate your comment rules.

  13. Richard:
    My comment referred to your statement:
    “we know your politics through & through. As far as you’re concerned you’re a liberal type, in favor of ending the Occupation, two states & all. Just like Bibi, right?”
    Well, I have been denouncing Likud ideology far longer than you have and I can discuss Bibi’s transparent hypocrisy in greater detail than you can, but as someone who is on the same side of the political fence I sense that you don’t understand the point that other people are trying to make, namely, that Richard Silverstein instinctively embraces every anti-Israel viewpoint and automatically interprets everything associated with Israel in the most negative light. There is no Schadenfreude on my part because I am not exempt from the occasional silly mistake and nor are any of your detractors. By coincidence I recently had a discussion with a journalist who moaned that everything he and his colleagues writes is on the web for posterity and can forever be dredged up and be used as “evidence” in any argument against him. Since I sympathized with him I must be honest and sympathize with you. Sometimes the best policy is to quit while you are behind.

    1. Likud, Kadima, Labor, what’s the difference. It’s all nothing but a good cop bad cop routine. Please humor me and give me some examples of things associated with Israel that you personally interpret in a positive light. I am hoping for a good laugh for posterity you see…

      1. I thought comment rules here explicitly banned statements that simply paint one side as entirely irredeemable. Is such a sentiment not implied by the notion that there is simply nothing that could be said about Israel which may be interpreted in “a positive light”?

        1. Is such a sentiment not implied by the notion that there is simply nothing that could be said about Israel which may be interpreted in “a positive light”?

          Pls don’t bother trying to interpret my own comment rules on my behalf. I’m quite able to do so for myself. I have never made the statement you express above nor do I subscribe to it. When the few commenters post here with this view I exercise my editorial judgment & discretion in deleting such comments.

          I’d say that you are allergic to ANY criticism of Israel & its policies & interpret ANY criticism as something irredemibly anti-Israel. That’s YOUR problem, not mine.

          1. “I’d say that you are allergic to ANY criticism of Israel & its policies & interpret ANY criticism as something irredemibly anti-Israel.”

            Well you can certainly say that, but it’s not true.

            “I have never made the statement you express above nor do I subscribe to it.”

            I didn’t ascribe the statement to you. It’s rather clearly stated in the comment from Elizabeth to which I was responding.

        2. Didn’t I INVITE you to give me some examples so they can be discussed?!!!

          (Or, yeah, laughed about if they are silly: You post here, you deal with the consequences.)

          I am still waiting….

          If you dish it out the way you do, you should be able to take it. But you are a coward:
          You are unwilling to say ANYTHING of consequence, anything concrete about the way you yourself think about the current state of affairs in Israel.

          If you give people nothing to think about or react to, what are you doing here? Get lost. You have contributed nothing but insults, and self-aggrandizement. You should be banned.

          1. I think the example I gave this morning is apposite. Israel continues to be a necessary place of refuge for Jews from places that for a variety of reasons have grown uncomfortable. That I don’t have much sympathy for the agenda or policies of the Likud government doesn’t shake that core conviction. I suppose if that’s the kind of thing that gives you, in your words, “a good laugh,” that’s your right.

          2. Israel continues to be a necessary place of refuge for Jews from places that for a variety of reasons have grown uncomfortable.

            Lots of people are “uncomfortable” in this world, which doesn’t necessarily give them a right to migrate to a country with which they have nothing other than a distant religious or historic connection. I’m prepared to say that Jews under immediately physical threat should have a right to come to Israel & apply for citizenship just the same as migrants do for most other countries in the world. But not the current Right of Return, which is unjust & exclusivist in light of the rejection of the Right of Return.

          3. By the same token, as a revert to Islam I should have the “right” to emigrate to any Muslim majority country in the world simply because I am a Muslim, although I have no historic or ethnic tie to any of those countries.

            Israel’s “right of return” is clearly a misnomer since most Jews were never there to begin with, and neither were their ancestors.

          4. If such a Muslim-majority country established such a policy, mary, then you would indeed enjoy such a right. No need to put the term in scare quotes.

          5. Actually, Richard, mass migrations are a constant, perhaps *the* constant, of human history. People move in large groups to new places all the time. I don’t see any reason why the duly constituted government that exists in a given place at a given time may not set its own immigration policies. This doesn’t relieve such a government of the responsibility to deal justly with all of the people within its jurisdiction, and to redress the grievances of those with him it has failed to deal justly.

          6. “I don’t see any reason why the duly constituted government that exists in a given place at a given time may not set its own immigration policies.”

            You might be interested to know you just nipped the early Zionist colonization of Palestine in the bud. The Turkish royals did not like Zionism from day one as they expected another separatist movement to result. They placed gradual harsher restrictions on Jews entering Palestine and buying land.

            However, the Capitulations regime allowed nationals of a European power to buy property and since the Certificate of Protection issued by the powers to their subjects didn’t mention their religion, Zionists who obtained this protection could circumvent the anti-Zionist measures.

            According to “the duly constituted government” of Ottoman Turkey, Zionism never should have taken a foothold. It was dependence on Europe for economic development that made local officials powerless to enforce the restrictions.

            http://www.scribd.com/doc/8104532/The-Ottoman-Empire-Zionism-And-the-Question-of-Palestine

          7. So the Ottoman regime was either incompetent or ineffective in the enforcement of its own stated policies. I don’t see how that delegitimizes Zionism then or Israel now. Perhaps I ought to have said, “I don’t see any reason why the duly constituted government that exists in a given place and given time may not set and enforce its own immigration policies.”

            Question: hypothesize that the European powers *had* specified the issuant’s religion in the Certification of Protection. Would it have been legitimate for the Ottomans to allow any national of a European power to buy property in the protectorate *except* Jews?

          8. “I don’t see how that delegitimizes Zionism then or Israel now.”

            That wasn’t the point (at least not of that particular post). You give the impression that you respect the immigration policy of a given state. Zionist settlement flouted the policy of the host state because, of course, it was exactly what the Ottomans expected, a campaign for political sovereignty. And that still wasn’t the point. I’m trying to see if you accord immigration policy hostile to Zionism the same respect as the Israeli Law of Return.

            “Would it have been legitimate for the Ottomans to allow any national of a European power to buy property in the protectorate *except* Jews?”

            Let’s establish this up front. I deal in hypothetical questions only if I can think of a good reason why the scenario would happen. This never could have happened because the Euro powers wanted no challenge to their stake in the capitulations. If they wanted to curb Zionism it would’ve been done for the Ottomans.

          9. @andrew r: “I’m trying to see if you accord immigration policy hostile to Zionism the same respect as the Israeli Law of Return.”

            Whether I would accord such a policy respect is irrelevant. If the policy existed and were effectively enforced, I would have to abide by it. I gather that’s not a position you would accept with respect to immigration policies friendly to Zionism.

            Of course, I might also choose to protest an effectively enforced anti-Zionism policy by peaceful means, perhaps even up to the point of civil disobedience, if I thought that might be at all effective. And it’s entirely possible that such tactics, effectively applied, might in the long term lead to a revision of current Israeli immigration policy — an outcome I personally would find regrettable. I can pretty much guarantee, however, that a policy founded on suicide bombings and rocket attacks on civilian villages (rationalized by the observation that even Israeli two-year-olds will one day serve in the IDF) will have no such effect.

          10. I don’t see any reason why the duly constituted government that exists in a given place at a given time may not set its own immigration policies.

            I can think of few if any other government’s in the world which allow members of the majority religion to have automatic citizenship merely because of their religion. Now, if you’re saying that Israel has the right to enforce the Law of Return in a similar fashion then you’ll have to endure the claim by many that this is racist. That’s why I favor modifying the Law of Return.

          11. “Now, if you’re saying that Israel has the right to enforce the Law of Return in a similar fashion then you’ll have to endure the claim by many that this is racist.”

            I can endure much that is flatly wrong, if I am in a position to protect myself against the worst consequences of it — in this case, the false claim that Israeli immigration policy is “racist” because it privileges Jews deployed as a pretext to deprive Israelis of the democratic right to determine their own national immigration policy.

            I suspect the 120,000 Beta Israel Jews from Ethiopia now residing in Israel would reject the notion that the immigration policy that allowed them refuge there is racist. (Whether the popular culture there has been able to overcome the more casual, everyday forms of racism that bedevil every culture on the face of the earth is a separate question.)

          12. I’m going to have to ask you not to monopolize the comment threads. Pls. try to publish no more than 5 comments/day. Otherwise, it looks like you’re hogging the discourse, as Helena Cobban writes on her blog.

            the false claim that Israeli immigration policy is “racist” because it privileges Jews deployed as a pretext to deprive Israelis of the democratic right to determine their own national immigration policy.

            YOU have created the notion of this being a “pretext.” Again with the anti-Israel conspiracies. The preference of Jews in Israeli immigration policy & exclusion of Arabs who have a claim to settlement by virture of their direct family connection to Israel is racist. Now, if Israel wishes to maintain a racist immigrant policy it loses the right to call itself a democracy. You simply cannot wave a wand as you seem to do to say it IS a democracy. These are irreconciliable contradictions. This compromise of democratic values may be a satisfactory trade off for you, but it is not for the many Israeli academics & journalists who write about the issue of Israeli democracy (& even more so the many non-Jewish overseas academics & analysts who write on this subject) & see it my way rather than yours.

            I would say that the Ethiopian Jews in Israel don’t necessarily see Israel as the Eden you seem to believe they do. THey face massive discrimination, poverty, etc. Calling what they face “casual” or “everyday racism” is a pathetic dismissal of the severity of the problem that is certainly not divorced fr. the racism of Israel’s immigration policy. They in fact are Exhibit 1 (or 1a) in the battle for democracy and ethnic equality in Israel.

          13. I suspect the 120,000 Beta Israel Jews from Ethiopia now residing in Israel would reject the notion that the immigration policy that allowed them refuge there is racist.

            Another standard fallacious Zionist talking point. The Jewish State is not racist because it allows black-skinned Jews to immigrate.

            (Whether the popular culture there has been able to overcome the more casual, everyday forms of racism that bedevil every culture on the face of the earth is a separate question.)

            Casual my a**, and by the way the racism in Israel is not limited to the “popular culture”. It is practiced by the government and civil institutions, most blatantly – even brazenly – against non-Jewish citizens, but also even to this day against non-Ashkenazi Jews.

        3. Saying that the present state of affairs in Israel cannot possibly be painted in a positive light without invoking ridicule has nothing to do with saying that the Israeli side of the conflict is ‘irredeemable’.

          How silly of you to say so.

          I have asked Torsion so many times to please give me examples of the positive light in which he prefers to see Israel. Could you perhaps do it for him as he seems to have cowardly fled the scene?
          Thank you so much in advance.

          1. Elisabeth, the new qualifier “the present state of affairs” was not part of your original formulation, and significantly alters the context. I think my interpretation of your original query, coupled with your stated need for “a good laugh,” fully warrants my interpretation, which was anything but “silly.”

            I have already offered what I think is the most compelling value Israel uniquely has to offer: a place of refuge for Jews in need. I repeat myself on this point only because you have yet to acknowledge it.

          2. The Holocaust ended in 1945. Is there something else we should know about, why Jews still need a “refuge” in 2010?

            Speaking of refuges, where do Palestinians find refuge from their “uncomfortable” lives? Gaza?

          3. mary — this may answer your question as to whether there continues to be a need for a refuge for Jews:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgBXfpFGSGI

            I know of no moment in the course of history from the reign of Constantine to the present in which there was not a noticeable level of hostility — to varying degrees of intensity — toward Jews residing as minorities among non-Jewish populations. One could make a good argument for the claim that the two-millienium long experiment of sojourning has been a spectacular failure. (As a Jew living in the US, I clearly can’t give full force to such an argument, but neither can I dismiss it out of hand.)

          4. Mr. Lieberman, do you really think Jews are the only ones to be treated badly in this world?

            Do African Americans, gays, American Muslims, Latinos, and other people have a “refuge” such as Israel? They’ve also been subjected to murder, mayhem, lynchings, discrimination of all kinds. No, they don’t.

            The State of Israel was NOT created as an answer to the Holocaust’s devastation of the Jews. That is one very commonly held belief in the world; many people don’t know that the idea for a Jewish State was born in the 1800’s. Zionism is an ideology exploiting the past suffering of the Jewish people for political gains, it is not a humanitarian mission to provide a place of refuge for “uncomfortable” Jews.

            Israel is a fact; six million people live there and so it is a country and will remain so. However, I am not at all in agreement that it must be a “Jewish state,” especially when it so blatantly discriminates against Palestinians. It is already overpopulated and the “uncomfortable Jews” making aliyah to Israel are settling in the West Bank illegally, on Palestinian-owned land. This should make you uncomfortable.

          5. But that is the context of this entire blog is it not? The Middle East conflict. But I am sure Israel has beautiful flowers.

          6. Elisabeth, ask Richard for my email address. You are just too important to lose. Thanks

    2. My my, how quiet you are all of a sudden… You were so busy posting this and that, but suddenly you don’t seem to have such a big mouth anymore.

      Come on: It is your turn now to bare yourself. Let’s hear your views on things Israeli that you – unlike Richard – would interpret in a positive light. Or are you only capable of being nasty about others?

      1. Umm … it’s a place where Jews who find their lives increasingly unpleasant in France|Sweden|Ethiopia|India|Iran|the United Kingdom|Romania|Hungary can seek refuge? I think on the whole that’s a better than bad thing.

        1. But you would preclude Palestinian refugees & their immediate descendants expelled from this same land from returning to it & instead offer exclusive rights of return to Jews who have never lived in that country? I think on the whole that’s a rather unjust thing.

          As I said, you’re PEP, PEP, PEP through & through.

          1. I said nothing of the kind. I would expect and hope issues of return or just compensation to be negotiated between the parties. Palestinians clearly have just claims to press. The concern I have is purely with the means by which they are pressed.

        2. David Lieberman, if you think the lives of Jews are “increasingly unpleasant” in France, Sweden and the UK today, or seriously threatened so that the question of “refuge” is salient, then I think you need to get out a bit more. You clearly have no conception of what real oppression, economic or physical suffering, etc., is about to be able to write such nonsense as you do above. There is a lot of severe oppression in the world, the plight of French, Swedish or British Jews doesn’t particularly come to mind.

          How about sub-saharan Africa? Or the horribly oppressed Palestinians? Or the fact that we have such deep economic
          inequality in the world that a good chunk of the world’s population just barely gets by.

          I’m not too worried about where Bernard Henri-Levy is getting his next meal, or that he’s in danger of transfer to Bagram prison. Get some perspective man. (and yes, the last bit was meant as sarcastic humour).

          1. I have made no claim that the current condition of Jews in Europe rises to the level of what innocent people in other regions of the world are experiencing. But I take the lessons of history seriously: the fates of Jewish communities fluctuate. The existence of a refuge state is at least some security against the next round of fluctuations.

            You aren’t too worried for Bernard Henri-Levy, Warren, but were you at all worried for Ilan Halimi?

          2. David, what happened to Ilan Halimi was evil. The most awful of crimes.

            I would nonetheless argue that anti-Arab (& anti-Persian) racism & hostility is much deeper and more pervasive in the West than anti-Jewish bigotry today. The nonchalance with which the U.S. and Israel dispatch innocent Arab (especially Palestinian) lives is one testimony, among others, to this.

            But that doesn’t at all mitigate the horror of what happened to Ilan Halimi (who was evidently targetted because he was Jewish). And yes, I do worry for anyone who could be the target of racist violence or murder. I’m guessing (and this is admittedly an assumption on my part) that my frame of concern is a little more universal and encompassing of all of humanity than yours, but I could be wrong about that.

          3. Warren, why do you and mary insist that because I call attention to hostility toward Jews, that I must believe that Jews are the only group that faces hostility, or for that matter that I believe that there are no groups in the world that face greater hostility?

            Moreover, shouldn’t the individuals facing the hostility (as, say, the Jews of Malmo, Sweden) have the right to determine for themselves whether or not the level of hostility is or is not intolerable? Or are they obligated to wait in line until genocidal civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa, American combat missions as well as suicide bombings targeting Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, brutal Chinese repression in Tibet, brutal Revolutionary Guard repression in the streets of Teheran, brutal military repression in Myanmar and, yes, the Israeli occupation in Palestine have all been brought to an end before they may decide they have had enough of having their cemetery desecrated and their synagogue burned and being assaulted in the street and are ready to leave?

          4. Or are they obligated to wait in line until genocidal civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa

            First, you’ve posited an anti-Semitic cliimate in a single Swedish city. I have no idea whether your claim is correct & even if it is, what’s the nature of the issue or hostility. 2nd, you’re comparing a the discomfort of the Jews of Malmo w. “genocidal wars in Africa?” Is that what you’re really expecting us to take seriously?

          5. I happen to know some people in Malmo, and I doubt very seriously that Jews in Malmo are having anything close to as difficult a time as Muslims there are. I know Muslims who have left France and other European countries because of the abuses they suffered there.

            But then, I suppose for someone whose main area of interest appears to be antisemitism it is important to see it everywhere.

          6. @Richard: “you’re comparing a the discomfort of the Jews of Malmo w. “genocidal wars in Africa?””

            No, Richard, that is exactly not what I am saying. I am saying that the Jews of Malmo will decide for themselves whether their situation has grown intolerable so that they must leave, and the suffering of people elsewhere in the world will not factor into that decision. That is why responses such as mary’s (“Mr. Lieberman, do you really think Jews are the only ones to be treated badly in this world?”) and Warren’s (“There is a lot of severe oppression in the world, the plight of French, Swedish or British Jews doesn’t particularly come to mind.”), and Shirin’s (“I doubt very seriously that Jews in Malmo are having anything close to as difficult a time as Muslims there are.”) though familiar enough as rhetorical devices, are beside the point. I am not proposing to get into a suffering contest — that is something all of you have proposed. The fact that conditions in Malmo are making Jews unhappy there and ready to leave is not mitigated one bit by the fact that others there or elsewhere are suffering more.

            As for what actually is going on in Malmo, I suppose you are all as capable of using Google as I am, but here is a representative sample:

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/7278532/Jews-leave-Swedish-city-after-sharp-rise-in-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html

          7. I have had enough of you, David. I must insist that you stop putting words in my mouth. Suffering contest, indeed. Now you’ve successfully dominated this thread to the point where YOU are the only one deciding what should be discussed. Now it’s the Jews of Malmo and “suffering contests.” I give up. If I ever see you on another comment thread in the future, I will head the other way.

          8. that is exactly not what I am saying

            Ah, but it is exactly what you ARE saying as shown below in which you make a clear comparison bet. the alleged anti-Semitic hostility in Malmo & genocidal wars in Africa claiming clearly that the situation in Sweden could or might become comparable to that of Africa. Go back & read yr own words. And then for once try to be honest about what you’ve written & own up to it.

            shouldn’t the individuals facing the hostility (as, say, the Jews of Malmo, Sweden) have the right to determine for themselves whether or not the level of hostility is or is not intolerable? Or are they obligated to wait in line until genocidal civil wars in sub-Saharan Africa…have all been brought to an end…

            I am not proposing to get into a suffering contest

            Well, perhaps not “suffering” per se. But you in fact compare the inequities of Israel favorably to the inequities of other democratic countries in a vain attempt to paint them as at least as lacking in democractic values as Israel.

            You are reading my mind again.

            No, not yr mind. Just yr prose.

            I am doing you the respect of taking your arguments at face value.

            On the contrary, you show DISRESPECT to our arguments & do precisely the opposite of taking them at face value. Yr mind truly must work in remarkable ways to perceive reality in precisely the opposite way fr. what it really is.

            I have mentioned the Civil War several times here already. I don’t believe I have neglected it.

            You most certainly did neglect it in the only instance when it was truly relevant, which was when I invoked it because you didn’t. I remain amused by yr vain attempt to argue that America is as racist a country as Israel because there are inoperative discrimination clauses in property deeds. I hate to say this but you are a loser in just about every way. Someone who uses their intelligence in ways that betray & demean their humanity & that of others.

            Perhaps you should Google “Trail of Tears” or “Indian Removal Act.”

            You’re arguing that Oklahoma was outside the boundaries of then U.S. territory? That’s truly what you’re arguing? Puh-leeze. I think I heard recently that Oklahoma was accepted as a state & that it is part of the U.S. But if you’re scoring this at home I give you 1/5 of a pt.

            As for whether the wars of expropriation were or were not also “in effect” wars of extermination

            Once again, this isn’t what you originally argued. You said that the Indian Wars were a SUCCESSFUL war of extermination. And I maintain that in their entirety they were not, nor did they succeed even if I grant yr false claim that they were a war of extermination.

            I’m not aware of any Palestinians earning billions of dollars a yr. in gambling revenue as many tribes currently do. Nor am I aware that Israel has ever entered into agreements with Palestinians offering compensation in the billions for the unjust taking of their property as has happened in this country. When that happens in Israel could you shoot me an e mail?

    3. Still nothing? I guess your policy is to quit while you are behind then. (Oh, but I DO sympathize with you of course…)

      1. Elisabeth:
        My comment was addressed to Richard, not you. I will pay him a compliment by assuming he will cringe when he reads what you wrote.

        1. And my comment was to you, not Richard.

          You don’t know how to put Israel in a positive light without sounding ridiculous, and you know it, so you just chickened out.

          You’re such a pompous fool too: “I have been denouncing Likud ideology far longer than you have and I can discuss Bibi’s transparent hypocrisy in greater detail than you can”. I can guess what else you can do better (or rather farther).

          You’re nothing but nastiness and empty talk, and yet you claim to have “discussions with journalists”. (You just couldn’t resist throwing that one in could you?) Give us a taste of your skill in discussion then, or just get lost.

    4. I have been denouncing Likud ideology far longer than you have

      A patently ludicrous statement unless you’ve been doing so since 1967, which is when I first started my activism on this subject.

      I can discuss Bibi’s transparent hypocrisy in greater detail than you can

      Again, highly doubtful.

      someone who is on the same side of the political fence

      You do NOT share my political or any other views. Your are PEP & ought to look it up since it fits you to a T.

      Richard Silverstein instinctively embraces every anti-Israel viewpoint

      That’s a lie. I am PRO-ISRAEL. It is impoverished pro-Israel types like you who narrowly determine Israel’s interests & can’t stand to read legitimate criticism of Israeli policy, who do Israel no favors. Read my comment rules. If you use this specifically banned meme in the threads again you lose yr privileges.

      I must be honest and sympathize with you

      You may be honest in yr own limited self-involved way. But you’re not being honest in this debate & I reject yr false sympathy.

      1. I’ve looked through all of my previous posts and I really can’t see how you have reached such definite conclusions about my political convictions. All I attempted to discuss was the influence of your article on OTHER PEOPLE’S perceptions of you and how to minimize potential damage. I am not responsible for the conclusions drawn by other people. I clearly stated that I personally have no feelings of schadenfreude in this case. I am also disappointed that you have embraced Elisabeth’s numerous unfounded personal attacks on me.

        1. As far as I’m concerned all I need to know about you is that you’ve written this lie:

          Richard Silverstein instinctively embraces every anti-Israel viewpoint and automatically interprets everything associated with Israel in the most negative light.

          And further, this statement is also false:

          All I attempted to discuss was the influence of your article on OTHER PEOPLE’S perceptions of you

          Whatever yr intent may’ve been interests me very little. And I care very little how my views or posts influence those to my political right. I’m much more interested in what you actually wrote, which was an evaluation of my political views, and one that is false. Yes, it is yr opinion & you’re entitled to it. But you’re not entitled to spread that garbage here because it violates rule #1 in my comment rules.

          I am also disappointed that you have embraced Elisabeth’s numerous unfounded personal attacks on me.

          If you hadn’t written what you did about me above I might feel more sympathetic & might actually take your part. But as it is…

          1. You have misquoted me. What I said was:
            “I sense that you don’t understand the point that OTHER PEOPLE are trying to make, namely, that Richard Silverstein instinctively embraces …..”. I don’t see where I said that I agree with them. Again, I really can’t understand how you have determined my entire political philosophy from a single statement that was intended as constructive “criticism” to help focus your replies to others.

          2. @ Torsion:

            I don’t see where I said that I agree with them.

            If that’s what you intended & you weren’t yrself saying that my views were anti-Israel then I misunderstood you & apologize. But why should I “understand the pt. that other people are trying to make” that I am anti-Israel? People have written that since Day 1 of this blog & they will say it until there is an IP peace agreement–then they will be quiet.

          3. How arrogant, of you, torsion, to presume to take upon yourself any such task that you must help people to understand Richard. You yourself need to get up to speed; you’ve not been here before but you somehow think you know all about Richard’s views.

  14. “I would like to hear you say clearly that the assassination of Rehavam Zeevi was justified”

    You won’t hear me say that, because I didn’t use the word “justified” in the first place. It was an act of war, in a context of many such acts of war. Justice has little role to play in such a context, in neither the spiritual, the poetic, nor the strictly technical sense of the word.

    You are certainly free to cast any aspersions on my character you see fit; it’s your sandbox. But I have to say, I don’t see much that differs my sarcastic tone from the general tone of your entire blog — if I am, indeed, “mean-spirited” on such evidence, it seems to me, then we are in much the same company.

    1. What you neglect to understand is that I responded to yr nasty comments about me w. a tone that was proportionate. WHen people disagree w. me w/o the snark you used, they don’t get that sarcastic tone. Unlike Israel in Gaza or Lebanon, I endeavor to be engage people in the same tone & spirit they engage me.

    2. It was an act of war

      As I said, you are in a moral dead end because you cannot condemn either Israeli or Palestinian assassinations. As MLK said: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us blind and toothless.” That pretty much sums up both sides of the I-P conflict (but esp. Israel).

      1. @Richard: As MLK said: “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us blind and toothless.”

        Really? I always thought that was Tevye.

        @Richard: “As I said, you are in a moral dead end because you cannot condemn either Israeli or Palestinian assassinations.”

        As I said — I find them to be preferable to large-scale military operations, and certainly nowhere near as reprehensible as suicide bombings. This is clearly a non-negotiable absolute for you. So I suppose you would also classify Claus von Stauffenberg as a moral deadender?

        1. I suppose you would also classify Claus von Stauffenberg as a moral deadender?

          No, I think both of us would agree that there are a very few individuals so evil as to cause us to suspend normal rules. Hitler was one. But are we arguing that Salah Shehadeh or Mahmoud al Mabouh or the hundreds of Palestinian militants killed by targeted assassinations pose the same level of danger as Hitler posed? I don’t think so.

          were you at all worried for Ilan Halimi?

          Are you arguing on the basis of the murder of a single Jew that all French Jewry is in danger? Besides, events equally tragic & racist occur in virtually every country. Does that mean that every ethnic group so targeted would be justified in establishing a safe haven somewhere in the world for that partiuclar group?

          1. We’re merging two (or maybe three) threads here that I’d like to pursue separately a little further:

            1. Targeted assassinations: OK, we’ve established a bit of a sliding ethical scale that allows us to assassinate Hitler. Perhaps we can also stipulate that the other two members of the usual triumvirate, Stalin and Mao, might also fall under the “exceptionally evil” rubric. Let me turn attention to a few softer targets.

            Suppose a Union operative were able to slip into Robert E. Lee’s field tent one fine night in the spring of 1862 and slit the sleeping general’s throat? One could argue that depriving the Confederacy of its singular military genius might well have shortened the Civil War by two or even three years, saving tens or hundreds of thousands of lives. An ‘acceptable’ act of war or not?

            What if the assassin got not to Lee but to cavalryman Nathan Bedford Forrest? His assassination might not have changed the course of the war much, but it would certainly have removed one of the most brutal Confederate commanders from the field.

            What if instead of Lee or Forrest our Union operative found his way to Jefferson Davis’s mansion in Richmond? What if the assassin were black, maybe an escape or freed slave?

            Finally, I think we can agree that killing Lee or Davis after the war would amount to nothing more than a crime of vengeance, but what about Forrest, who repurposed his peculiar brand of vicious brutality during the Reconstruction era as a founder of (and not infrequent rider with) the Ku Klux Klan?

            2. The current condition of French Jews: clearly, Jews in the France of 2010 do not face the threat they did in 1942. But I’d also submit that your dismissal of Halimi’s murder as a one-off understates the current state of affairs. Google “france antisemitism attacks” for a fuller picture.

            One could also call attention to the recent experience of the tiny Jewish community of Malmo, Sweden, targeted for assault by members of a neighboring ethnic community and facing what appears to be the calculated apathy of the civic authorities. Some number of them have taken stock of their circumstances and decided that, indeed, emigration to Israel is an appealing alternative. Given that there does, indeed, exist a state of Israel, what mechanism would you propose that would close such an alternative to them?

            3. You ask “[E]vents equally tragic & racist occur in virtually every country. Does that mean that every ethnic group so targeted would be justified in establishing a safe haven somewhere in the world for that partiuclar group?”

            Actually, I think that’s a pretty good thumbnail sketch of the course of events in central and eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. Would you insist on the reunionification of the Czech Republic and Slovakia or, good heavens, the former Yugoslavia because states formed around ethnicity are as a matter of principle anathema? Or the ‘unreunionifcation’ of Germany on the same grounds? Would you also insist that the Kurds of northern Iraq must surrender their relative autonomy to the Shi’ite majority to the south on the ground that the basis of that autonomy is grounded almost exclusively in the fact that they live in a de facto ethnic enclave?

          2. An ‘acceptable’ act of war or not?

            Most definitely not. One could argue that Hitler, Stalin & perhaps Mao might’ve been tried before an international court (were there one) for genocide or crimes against humanity. I can hardly justify charging Robert E. Lee w. such a crime. Actually Grant & Sherman were far more butchers than Lee, but of course they were on the winning side. But none of them I think could be accused of crimes against humanity or genocide.

            I don’t think the criteria you use to justify assassination is the number of lives saved, which is entirely speculative anyway unless you want to talk about lives already extinguished in which case you can quantify harm done. More importantly, you also have to consider the actions, goals & intent of the accused.

          3. The problem I see here is that you think there is EVER a circumstance where vigilante justice is justifiable.

            In your zeal to murder those you see are undoubtedly guilty, you forget one very, very important function of courts when they deal in criminal matters. That one thing is that you deny the victims of these monsters a venue within which they have the opportunity to tell their stories to the world. Vigilantism denies victims their right to confront those who have committed crimes against them.

            You also deny the chance for a historical record to be made of the facts of the crimes; for murder victims, this is all they have, that their deaths are remembered in this way.

            We DO NOT have the right to take these rights away from victims.

          4. I did think in hindsight there was one problem w. murdering a Hitler, Stalin or whoever. Generally such totalitarian systems are resilient enough that they would produce a replacement just as Hamas will replace al Mabouh. In some cases, they might have replaced a Hitler or Stalin w. someone equally as capable & evil as the original despot. So then what would you have gained? I still waver on whether killing a supremely evil despot is justified. If it is, it is a problematic view.

          5. There is an even bigger problem than that, Richard. You simply cannot declare a person immune from human rights simply because he fits your idea of someone who does not deserve them. Human rights is very much an all or nothing thing, and is not just for the “common man”. When we cut corners on human rights we imperil the rights of every human being. Hitler had a right to due process just as you do, just as I do, just as every one of us does.

          6. It unfortunately sounds like a desire for revenge that forgoes reason in favor of emotion. My point is that this mentality, this willingness to let slip away the safeguards against vigilantism, is dangerous. It is also similar to the case of a person who says they don’t believe in the death penalty – until a loved one is murdered. Yes, it’s a very slippery slope. What we believe can be tested by our experiences, and our minds can conflict with our hearts.

          7. It is also similar to the case of a person who says they don’t believe in the death penalty – until a loved one is murdered.

            To have one person murdered in one family pales in comparison to having 6 million murdered & thus wiping out virtually an entire people living on an entire continent. I believe the issue of genocide raises this to a sui generis category. Again, I’m not claiming that assassination of a genocidaire like Hitler is something I feel comfortable with. But if I was a Jew during that era & had a chance to kill him I would’ve done so willingly at the cost of my life.

            But I also see the pt that Shirin & you are making as well. It is morally problematic.

          8. Not only morally, Richard, but legally. Human rights is also a matter of law, and must be applied to all equally or it can be guaranteed to none.

          9. if I was a Jew during that era & had a chance to kill him I would’ve done so willingly at the cost of my life

            Ah, but that is an entirely different matter than the State granting itself the right to decide who is and who is not entitled to human rights, and then acting upon those decisions.

          10. Precisely, Shirin. And we must not allow any State to practice a similar vigilantism; it is the ultimate Fascist-style act and the worst form of human rights abuse.

          11. @mary “We DO NOT have the right to take these rights away from victims.”

            That’s an interesting and important point. I’d say it applies very nicely to the case of the Eichmann trial, for instance. (A trial, I might add, that would almost certainly not have taken place if there did not exist an Israel.) In the case of Forrest, on the other hand, no such trial ever took place at all. In the context of on-going hostilities, however, I’d think the higher priority would be the prevention of the accrual of more victims, no? (I’ll ignore your comments on my “zeal” as an ad hominem slur for which you can provide no evidence.)

          12. Which victims are you referring to, Lieberman? I’m with you if there is anything that can be done to stop the killing of Palestinians, or of maiming them, or of yanking children out of their beds in the dead of night and hauling them to the police station, or of starving, beating, bombing and shooting them, especially if they happen to be civilians innocently sleeping in their beds.

          13. @mary: “I’m with you if there is anything that can be done to stop the killing of Palestinians, or of maiming them, or of yanking children out of their beds in the dead of night and hauling them to the police station, or of starving, beating, bombing and shooting them, especially if they happen to be civilians innocently sleeping in their beds.”

            Ah. So does this mean you suspend your principled objection to vigilante justice if the criminals in question are Israeli Jews?

          14. I didn’t say that, Lieberman. I see you’re into playing games. I, however, am not. I will not waste my time with you anymore because it is obvious to me that you’re here on Richard’s comment thread as a joke. You think you can out-semanticize and out-bullshit people on this thread, so go to it and I will watch to see how it all turns out. You like word games and meaningless dialogue, that much is obvious. I don’t play with tiresome pedants such as yourself.

          15. @mary: “I didn’t say that, Lieberman.”

            I was speaking explicitly about the use of targeted assassinations as a tool of war could limit the harm to innocents on both sides of an armed conflict. What did you think I meant when you said you were “with me” after rejecting such tactics as unacceptable vigilantism?

          16. there are a very few individuals so evil as to cause us to suspend normal rules. Hitler was one.

            Richard, this is a very dangerous slippery slope you just stepped onto. Assassination violates multiple human rights, including the ultimate one, the right to stay alive, and it does so on a number of levels. Human rights must apply equally to everyone from the most innocent and virtuous to the worst of the worst because if you can find a pretext for denying them to one person you can find a pretext for denying them to another, and another, and another. And as we can all see, if you can decide that Hitler is not entitled to human rights, someone else can decide the same thing about whomever they would like to see eliminated.

            As a human being Hitler was entitled to the same human rights as every other human being, and that includes the right to a fair trial for his crimes. And as Mary pointed out earlier, his victims were also entitled to see him tried, and convicted.

            I cannot caution you strongly enough not to fall into the trap of believing that we can pick and choose who is entitled to have his human rights respected, and who is not.

          17. I replied to Mary’s comment saying that I was beginning to see problems w. my statement about Hitler. I remain conflicted about this. Certainly he should’ve been tried for his crimes & that would’ve been infinitely preferable to assassinating him. But let’s presume he could’ve been assassinated in 1944 and 2 million Jewish lives (the number is an educated guess about how many Jews may’ve died in the year bet. von Stauffenberg’s assassination attempt & the actual end of the war) not to mention millions of other non-Jews who might’ve been spared? What then? You see, for me those 2 million are not an abstract number. They are souls seared in my brain & very DNA & their loss is more than the death of these individuals, it is the death of the heart of world Jewry. So I cannot be objective or deliberate about this as perhaps you can.

            As I wrote in my reappraisal, there is no guarantee that Hitler’s replacement would not have continued his policies & so a plan to assassinate him was no guarantee of stopping the genocide. But certainly not killing him meant the deaths of millions. So where does that leave one?

          18. I was speaking explicitly about the use of targeted assassinations as a tool of war could limit the harm to innocents on both sides of an armed conflict.

            Aside from the fact that so-called “targeted assassinations”, aka murder, not a “tool of war”, but rather crimes of war, they generally result in the deaths of multiple innocents, in some cases tens of them, and often without even touching the actual target. Do you know how many innocent Iraqi civilians were murdered by Americans in their supposed attempts to kill Saddam? In one incident alone the Americans murdered around thirty people, including one entire Christian family who were going about their own business in their own home, and all on some speculation that Saddam was in a nearby building (they then spent a couple of weeks pretending that Saddam’s body was buried somewhere in the rubble.

          19. Shirin, yours were the points I wanted to make. Thank you for stating them more succinctly than I have. I was actually addressing both Richard and Lieberman, in response to their assertion that there is ever a time or an excuse for targeted assassinations. I say that there is not. It’s an extremely slippery slope and one that can be avoided by the use of courts of law as opposed to vigilante justice.

  15. @mary: “Mr. Lieberman, do you really think Jews are the only ones to be treated badly in this world?”

    Of course not. How does it follow from this unpleasant reality that they should take no action in their own defense until everyone else’s problems are solved first?

    @mary: “The State of Israel was NOT created as an answer to the Holocaust’s devastation of the Jews.”

    I never said it was. Don’t know who you’re arguing with here.

    @mary: “That is one very commonly held belief in the world; many people don’t know that the idea for a Jewish State was born in the 1800’s.”

    I’m quite aware of the history of Zionism, thanks. The fact is that it wasn’t a particularly wonderful experience to be Jewish in Europe during the nineteenth century either, which is why Zionism was able to gain traction among a significant number of Jews in the first place. Given that Zionism, as you note, actually *predates* the Holocaust, I’d say the early movement turned out to have been rather prescient.

    @mary: “However, I am not at all in agreement that it must be a ‘Jewish state,’ especially when it so blatantly discriminates against Palestinians.”

    At the risk of sounding snarky, I suspect the Jews living there aren’t going to be too put off by their failure to win your agreement to the character of the state.

    @mary: “It is already overpopulated and the ‘uncomfortable Jews’ making aliyah to Israel are settling in the West Bank illegally, on Palestinian-owned land. This should make you uncomfortable.”

    Some are going to the WB. Some aren’t. I agree that none should, at least, not if they can’t make legal arrangements with those who currently hold title to the land.

    1. I suspect the Jews living there aren’t going to be too put off by their failure to win your agreement to the character of the state.

      You’re neglecting several important issues. First, those Jews are not the only citizens of their state. In fact, over 20% of their fellow citizens are indeed put off by the Jewish supremacist nature of the state. 2nd, those Jewish like to claim that Israel is a democracy which is direct conflict w. the undemocratic, discriminatory ways in which the state treats its Palestinian citizens. Third, there are many Jews who have understood that the exclusivist nature of Israel as a Jewish state is problematic & contrary to what you claim are put off by Israel as a Jewish state which fails to fully acknowledge or integrate a significant minority.

      Personally, I would never consider an Israel which did not acknowledge its Jewish population, its heritage, language, etc. But Israel must become a state in which there is no privilege attached to being of any particular ethnic group. It must be a state for ALL its citizens.

      1. mary states her fundamental disagreement that Israel “must be a Jewish state;” so stated, there’s really no point in arguing with her any further — there’s simply no way to bridge that gap. Your argument on this point, however, is more functional and less definitional than hers, insofar as you emphasize the treatment of non-Jews within the state as grounds for its delegitimation. I’d say the fact that the Jewish state *has* failed to find a way to treat non-Jewish citizens as full equals doesn’t mean that a Jewish state *must* fail in this.

        Your separate claim about Israeli democracy being in “direct conflict” with the status of its non-Jewish citizens is, again, a little absolutist. It’s clearly an imperfect democracy (they all are) — but I can’t think of a single democracy in the world in which there are no real inequities embedded in its systems. Israel is worse on this score than some, but better than others (Iraq and Turkey come to mind — and ask the Basques about Spanish democracy sometime, or Native Americans about democracy in the US, or African Americans, even in the age of Obama). If Israel is not a democracy because of its failings, then no country is a democracy.

        I suspect that the number of Jews who disagree with the notion of a Jewish state as such is probably larger outside Israel (and probably also outside the US) than within — and even then, I don’t imagine it is very large. I see no problem in principle with an Israel with a majority Jewish population setting immigration policies that privilege Jewish entry. I say this because I see little evidence to suggest that the need for a refuge for Jews has simply evaporated, Warren’s personal assurances for the personal safety Bernard Henri-Levy notwithstanding. And I also suspect that an Israel that could establish a real peace with its neighbors would be in a better position to satisfy the demand that it truly become a state for all its citizens.

        1. you emphasize the treatment of non-Jews within the state as grounds for its delegitimation [sic]

          I never said I delegitimized Israel. You did. I merely want Israel to be a more just, democratic country. That is not delegitimizing it.

          It’s clearly an imperfect democracy (they all are)

          No, it is not a real, true democracy. It is an ethnocracy. And excusing its fault by saying “they all are” is saying very little that is useful. The U.S. is not a perfect democracy either, but it is not an ethnocracy because it does not provide superior rights to the majority ethnic group as Israel does.

          I see no problem in principle with an Israel with a majority Jewish population setting immigration policies that privilege Jewish entry.

          Once again, this is not the practice of a democratic country. It is the practice of a country that practices ethnic supremacism for the majority. This is an especial injustice in light of the Israeli rejection of the Right of Return as Israeli Palestinians exiled fr. their land certainly have as much & prob. more right to return to Israel as any Jew who has never been to Israel, speaks not a word of Israel & has no connection beyond a quasi-historical/religious bond.

          an Israel that could establish a real peace with its neighbors would be in a better position to satisfy the demand that it truly become a state for all its citizens.

          You bet, but there’s no time to start like the present.

          1. @Richard: “Once again, this is not the practice of a democratic country. It is the practice of a country that practices ethnic supremacism for the majority.”

            I disagree. Democracy is a function of how the state interacts with its citizens. Immigration policy sets constraints on who may become a citizen and *then* participate in its democracy, including the process of setting those immigration constraints. If Israel’s immigration policies are changed by imposing new constraints set not by its own citizens but by outsiders who have no legal voice in selecting representatives to its government, *then* it will cease to be a democracy.

            It was once the case (and I believe still is) that the majority of Turkish workers living in Germany were not granted citizenship but instead reside there under “Gastarbeiter” status, a condition that could persist for generations. Does this policy disqualify Germany as a democracy?

          2. *then* it will cease to be a democracy.

            No, it is already not a democracy. At least not one in the sense that other western nations are democracies.

            As for Germany, the situation is quite diff. though of course the plight of Turkish immigrants in Germany is worthy of condemnation. Turkish immigrants IMMIGRATED to Germany. Israeli Palestinians lived there at least for generations if not longer before establishment of the state. They were indigenous to Israel & therefore deserve rights at least equal to those of Jews esp. Jews who haven’t even yet immigrated to Israel.

          3. On another point, I should say that by “delegitimation” I mean the explicit renunciation of Israel as a state founded on the premises of Jewish self-defense and refuge. You may disagree with me that such renunciation constitutes an act of delegitimation, but unless I am much mistaken, such renunciation is indeed what you advocate.

          4. I’m getting very cross with you. Do NOT put words in my mouth. Do NOT call me something I have not called myself. Do NOT ascribe views to me I have not ascribed to myself. Do NOT tell me what I advocate regarding Israel. Do NOT use any word like “delegitimate” to describe my views of Israel. I do not accept it & if you continue attempting to insinuate in such ways I will look extremely negatively at such stealth rhetorical devices.

            I am perfectly capable of defining my own views & opinions of Israel. If I had wanted to say anything like what you claim I believe I would have done so. I have not. So don’t go there. I get very testy w. the disingenuousness you’ve exhibited above. Do not make me regret what I said last night about you.

            If you continue on in this vein I will begin to suspect that the liberal/progressive views you ascribed to yrself are a fraud. In fact, I would like you to point us to any other place online where you have outlined your own views of the Israeli Palestinian conflict so we can compare them with what you’ve claimed they are here.

          5. Democracy is a function of how the state interacts with its citizens.

            And the way Israel interacts with its non-Jewish citizens disqualifies it as a democracy.

        2. the Jewish state *has* failed to find a way to treat non-Jewish citizens as full equals doesn’t mean that a Jewish state *must* fail in this.

          Oh, yes it most certainly does. As soon as you define a state as Jewish you make it impossible to treat non-Jewish citizens as full equals by explicitly excluding them from the definition of the country. When the definition, the national hymn, and all the symbols of the state are explicitly Jewish you not only automatically relegate all non-Jewish citizens to a lower tier of citizenship, you also announce to them their lower status each time they have to deal with the State.

          1. Hm. Are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. *necessarily* secondary-status citizens in the US because the national calendar here observes a Sabbath on Sunday and not on Saturday or Friday, or because Christmas is legally observed as a national holiday but Rosh Hashanah, say, is not?

          2. What an utterly inept argument! In fact, your argument dies an instant death when you try to base it on such a blatantly invalid premise.

            How much more clear could I have been that I was referring to the definition of the country, and the national symbols that follow from that definition, not which day it chooses for the weekly holiday, or what the traditional annual holidays are? And by the way, the national calendar is a secular item, and does NOT observe a Sabbath on Sunday or any day.

            Israel has no raison d’etre except to be The Jewish State, it was established in order to be The Jewish State, it is officially designated and defined as The Jewish State, it functions as The Jewish State, and all its national symbols are explicitly Jewish. When the official definition of the State, and all its national symbols – when the very raison d’etre of the State – is to be The [fill in the ethnicity or religion] State, you have by definition either an ethnocracy or a theocracy, not a democracy. When you exclude non-Jewish citizens from the very raison d’etre of the country, you unavoidably create lower tiers of citizens who do not conform with the definition of the country and all that proceeds from that. Only by ceasing to define itself as The Jewish State can Israel ever be a democratic state for all its people. The United States was not established as and is not defined as the state of any particular religion or ethnicity, and the national hymn, and national symbols are secular and not ethnically specific. You have no analogy.

            If you want to to make even a quasi-valid argument based on analogy with another country, you would come somewhat closer to success if you compared Israel with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Pakistan, that officially define themselves as Islamic states. You’d be still better off to compare Israel with Syria, Egypt, or Libya, which define themselves as Arab states. Even so, your analogy would be poor, since none of those states was created at the expense of the existing native population by and on behalf of a foreign population from another continent, nor does any of them falsely claim to be “the only democracy in the region”.

          3. @Shirin: Ah. So ethnographic or theocratic states are ok with you, so long as they do not attempt to present themselves as democracies and if the ethnographic/theocratic identity flows from that of an indigenous population? Or are you also actively campaigning against the state structures of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, and Libya?

            “And by the way, the national calendar is a secular item, and does NOT observe a Sabbath on Sunday or any day.”
            Oh no? Received deliveries from the US Postal Service on a Sunday recently? Why do you suppose they picked *that* as their day of rest rather than, say Tuesday? I also notice you carefully sidestep the legal national observance of the Christmas holiday in the secular US. Or is the US let off the hook because, although it richly ignores the spiritual beliefs and practices if *its* indigenous populations, its panoply of official symbols and customs is a more acceptable admixture of secular (President’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, Thanksgiving Day (sort of)) and sectarian (Christmas Day) than is Israel’s all-Jewish-all-the-time model?

            On national hymns — perhaps you’d care to consult the fourth verse of the Star Spangled Banner, which is rather less than secular, and decidedly monotheistic (sorry, Hindus). And, of course, the secondary national hymn (its melody borrowed from “God Save the Queen”!) pays homage to the “land of the Pilgrims’ pride,” a salute to the decidedly sectarian founding community of my current state of residence. Its later verses, too, take on a decidedly pious cast. Not to mention that other secondary national hymn, what with its repeated pleas for God to “shed his grace,” which also offers tributes to those oh-so-secular pilgrims.

            Perhaps we could peruse the anthems of nations around the world together. How much do you care to bet we’d find a goodly number of expressions of ethnic pride and religious fervor?

          4. So ethnographic or theocratic states are ok with you, so long as they do not attempt to present themselves as democracies

            Look, you may get away w. this where you come from. But not here. Here you’ve done to Shirin precisely what you did to me. She said nothing of the sort. Once again, & I’m very serious ab out this–do not put words in anyone’s mouth. If you want to refer to what someone wrote either quote them or paraphrase carefully & precisely. This is not a debate society where we send off rhetorical zingers at ea. other just to enjoy the sound of our own voice.

            Received deliveries from the US Postal Service on a Sunday recently?

            Can you tell me where in U.S. law it says either that Sunday is the national Sabbath or that the USPS has the right to determine that Sunday is such? And pls. once an argument of yrs falls flat as this one has, I’d suggest you abandon it rather than lamely attempting to prop it up so we can have one more go at it. And are you seriously attempting to argue that Christianity is U.S. state religion because Christmas is a national holiday?

            BTW, this Wikipedia article deflates your argument further:

            Christmas Day is celebrated as a major festival and public holiday in most countries of the world, even in many whose populations are not majority Christian.

            And in answer to yr question, yes, America’s culture is “let off the hook” because it is multi-cultural, separates church & state, & is democratic compared to Israel’s “all Jewish all the time model.” I will not say that America is perfect certainly, far fr. it, but it is infinitely better than Israel at getting these issues right.

            I’d think the higher priority would be the prevention of the accrual of more victims

            No, as I wrote earlier. That is only one consideration & prob. not the most important. The most important consideration is the potential victim himself. What evil acts has he committed, what was his intent in committing them? You cannot possibly defend morally killing a Confederate military commander under these circumstances.

            You obviously like to hear the sound of yr own voice & find yrself very clever. But this discussion is veering into territory that is far off topic fr. both this blog post & the theme of the blog in general. If you want to argue about various anthems sung in this country, dare I say this isn’t the most hospitable place to do so. Pls stay on topic.

            Would that majority then have the right to establish its own immigration policies and symbols of government or would it not?

            First of all yr hypothetical is full of hot air. Israel has shown absolutely no inclination to withdraw to 67 boundaries. It is much more likely that you should be talking about an Israel which refuses to withdraw to 67 boundaries & de facto controls the W. Bank all the while denying its residents any national rights whatsoever. So harping on Israel’s immigration policy is a side issue compared to the great danger in which the continuing Occupation places Israel.

            But in the highly unlikely event Israel ever does withdraw to 67 boundaries it will begin a very long, very hard, reevaluation of its national identity which will eventually bring it to the realization that it can only be viable in the long term as a democratic, rather than supremacist Jewish state. Then, at that pt. the immigration policy will be modified in such a way as not to fully reject the former policy, but to radically revise & reform it to incorporate Israeli Palestinians who have a ties to Israel by family, property ownership, etc.

            Once again another reminder, this is not a verbal playground. I welcome your participation in the comment threads, but not monopolizing them or posting so often that I’ll be responding to you all day & able to get nothing else done. Respect this please.

          5. Christmas Day is celebrated as a major festival and public holiday in most countries of the world, even in many whose populations are not majority Christian.

            Having lived and spent considerable time in non-Christian-majority countries, I can vouch for that.

          6. Interesting point, Shirin.

            And the practices and customs of Christianity as its embraced by the popular culture in the U.S. is about as ‘Christian’ as the leprechaun with his pot of gold.

            Most Christian practices & traditions practiced by the majority culture in the U.S., and elsewhere in the West, have pagan German cultural origins, the ‘Christmas tree’ being the most obvious example of this. Christmas has become a pretty broad, more or less secular & universal holiday in America, celebrated by all sorts of people, though not by everybody (obviously there are many people who don’t celebrate Christmas).

            P.S.—you and Mary rock! Great arguing in this thread. I wish I could keep up with you two, but you girls (no offense intended) have the mojo, I’m rather slow.

          7. Oy vey! ‘Christianity’ in the first sentence should be ‘Christmas’, as in “the practices and customs of Christmas…” The sentence as written doesn’t make any sense at all. I swear, me and my commenting bloopers, it’s getting ridiculous…

          8. Also, the word ‘Christian’ (second word in second paragraph) in my comment a few notches up should also be ‘Christmas’. I was obviously thinking ‘Christmas’ in my head and typed ‘Christian’ a couple different times, there we go, spacin’ out, or was it perhaps a Freudian slip on my part?!… all of this is woefully tangential to the focus of the thread anyway.

          9. “So ethnographic or theocratic states are ok with you, so long as they do not attempt to present themselves as democracies and if the ethnographic/theocratic identity flows from that of an indigenous population? Or are you also actively campaigning against the state structures of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, and Libya?”

            Shirin didn’t say any such thing, and you know it. Read her post again and maybe you’ll learn something. Somehow I doubt that learning interests you.

            The point is that by virtue of defining itself as a “Jewish state,” Israel is effectively a theocracy which relegates its non-Jewish citizens to second class status. There is plenty of evidence for this.

            The remainder of your argument is purely asinine and nonsensical. You forget that 230 years ago the US was struggling with an entirely new concept of government wherein its decisions were based on majority rule. As you know, majority rule, or consensus, is the backbone of democracy. On the other hand, Israel ignores the millions of Arab non-Jews living there (both in the occupied territories and in Israel proper), and they are a significant segment of the total population which is continually subjected to discriminatory practices simply because they are not Jews.

          10. @mary: Actually, mary, both you and Shirin leave quite open to question how you feel about theocracies in general as opposed to what you purport to be the Jewish theocracy in particular. And it was Shirin, not I who introduced the issue of state symbols and national hymns. Insulting me for responding in her terms isn’t really responsive, but nice try.

            As for the principle of majority rule: let’s hypothesize that Israel does as Israel wishes and withdraws from the WB, leaving the majority Arab populations there and in Gaza to their own devices. The population within the 67 borders is, as Richard notes, about 80% majority Jewish. Would that majority then have the right to establish its own immigration policies and symbols of government or would it not?

          11. Correction: “let’s hypothesize that Israel does as Israel wishes” should read “let’s hypothesize that Israel does as Richard wishes”

          12. So ethnographic or theocratic states are ok with you…

            Another pathetically inept argument. If you want to argue with me based on my position, please choose a position I have actually taken. Otherwise at best you are once again making an invalid argument based on a faulty (in this case utterly false) premise, and at worst you are attempting to avoid the issue at hand by diverting the discussion to an argument over nothing.

            Received deliveries from the US Postal Service on a Sunday recently? Why do you suppose they picked *that* as their day of rest rather than, say Tuesday?

            My god, you are bad at this. You are also coming across as very disingenuous. I am basing my argument on the way a state is officially defined, not on what day is chosen as the weekly “day of rest”. And you know as well as I do why Sunday is historically the weekly “day of rest” in the U.S., why it is Saturday in Israel, and Friday in most (but not all) predominantly Muslim countries, and you know as well as I do that this is completely separate from whether the State defines itself in religious or ethnic terms or has as its explicit raison d’etre to be the state of a specific ethnic or religious group. Ditto the choice of certain traditional religious holy days as national holidays. Has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the State defines itself in a religiously or ethnically specific way. Whether or not it designated Jewish holy days as national holidays, as long as Israel is defined as The Jewish State it will remain an ethnocracy that by definition relegates all non-Jewish citizens to a lower tier of citizenry.

            The rest of your arguments are equally irrelevant to the point under discussion, and are therefore inept, but I must mention the particularly silly “pilgrims’ pride” argument because the “pilgrims’ pride” phrase is a historical reference, not a religious one. Further, that song is not an official national hymn, it is simply a nationalistic song someone wrote that people liked well enough to keep it in the standard repertoire of nationalist songs.

            Oh – and as for the fourth verse of the U.S. national hymn (which is a horrible piece of uber-militaristic verse set to ghastly, obnoxiously bombastic, virtually unsingable tune), are you seriously equating the significance of a reference to monotheism in the virtually-unknown fourth verse to “As long as the Jewish spirit is yearning deep in the heart”, etc.?

            In short, stop this disingenuous attempt to divert the conversation away from the real point, which is that Israel was established and is to this day explicitly a state of and for The Jews, and as such can never be a democratic state for all its citizens until and unless it removes all its non-Jewish citizens and strips them of their citizenship.

          13. “Israel was established and is to this day explicitly a state of and for The Jews”

            I don’t believe I have denied or ignored this point. In fact, I believe I have quite explicitly endorsed it.

            “and as such can never be a democratic state for all its citizens until and unless it removes all its non-Jewish citizens and strips them of their citizenship.”

            I do deny this. As long as all citizens of the state have access to the polls, to the courts, the right to free speech and peaceable assembly and to hold public office, I believe that would satisfy most legal definitions of democracy. These things can all coexist quite comfortably with a state that defines itself as a place of Jewish refuge and self-defense. That they do not in all cases is no demonstration that they cannot.

            If you are not interested in clarifying your feelings about non-Jewish theocracies, perhaps you’d care to elaborate on how you view the newly-established, explicitly ethnic states of Central Europe I mentioned in a much earlier post, such as the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Do you believe the minority citizens of these states are at such disadvantage as to render the states’ pretensions to democracy as laughable as Israel’s? If so, do you protest their very existence as indignantly? If not (to either question), why not?

          14. I believe I have quite explicitly endorsed it.

            That you have endorsed the notion of Israel as a “state of and for the Jews” sounds the death knell of yr argument, yr crediblity, & my interest in debating w. you. You are a racist. I don’t care how liberal or progressive you claim yr views are. Israel can never be a state of & for Jews unless you endorse the fact that it cannot be a democracy. Under this definition Israel will be a religious (not in the sense of observance) state, not a democracy.

            As long as all citizens of the state have access to the polls, to the courts, the right to free speech and peaceable assembly and to hold public office, I believe that would satisfy most legal definitions of democracy. These things can all coexist quite comfortably

            This is more fatuousness. Israeli Palestinian citizens are marginalized in every way in Israeli society. They can vote but have no political power. They have the right to peaceable assembly as long as they do not assemble in such ways that threaten the state. If they do they will likely be gunned down as they were in Nazareth during the first Intifada. They have the right to free speech but almost no access to the media to make their views known. They have the right to hold public office, but their parties are refused entry into governing coalitions hence rendering them impotent politically. What I’m describing is a bantustan. That is what Israeli Palestinians suffer in Israel. They are not isolated by borders as S African bantustans were. But they are isolated nevertheless fr. mainstream majority Israeli Jewish society.

            perhaps you’d care to elaborate on how you view the newly-established, explicitly ethnic states of Central Europe

            Pls do not take the bait. Lieberman, once again, stay on topic. If you don’t your comments will be moderated.

          15. Israel is effectively a theocracy which relegates its non-Jewish citizens to second class status.

            Small point, Mary, but I don’t think it is accurate to call Israel a theocracy. Israel is a secular state founded by mainly secular Jews, and it has a mainly secular population. Therefore I think the best descriptive term for it is ethnocracy. Historically, Zionism was devised not for Jews as a religious group, but for a much more inclusive group of Jews as “nation”, and the “Jewish” part of “The Jewish State” refers not to those who practice the religion of Judaism, but to those who are Jewish by background. In that way it would be roughly equivalent to self-defined “Arab” states such as Syria, Egypt and Libya, as opposed to theocratic states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Even Pakistan, which defines itself as a Muslim state, is not a theocracy, since the state structure is secular rather than religious – but no doubt you know a good deal more about Pakistan than I do.

          16. @Shirin: “Small point, Mary, but I don’t think it is accurate to call Israel a theocracy. Israel is a secular state founded by mainly secular Jews, and it has a mainly secular population. Therefore I think the best descriptive term for it is ethnocracy.”

            This is a helpful qualification, Shirin. In light of it, I’d like to ask you again to compare your feelings about Israel with your feelings about newly minted ethnocracies of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. I’d also be interested to hear how you fit Israel’s absorption of the 120,000 Beta Israel Jews of Ethiopia, who have no genetic relationship to other Jewish populations, into your definition of Israel as an ethnocracy.

          17. both you and Shirin leave quite open to question how you feel about theocracies in general as opposed to what you purport to be the Jewish theocracy in particular.

            More disingenuous nonsense. First, I have never said that Israel is a theocracy because it is not. It is best described as an ethnocracy. Second, how either of us feels about theocracies in general has not been under discussion, but you should have been able to discern something from this:

            When the official definition of the State, and all its national symbols – when the very raison d’etre of the State – is to be The [fill in the ethnicity or religion] State, you have by definition either an ethnocracy or a theocracy, not a democracy.

          18. Shirin, honestly I do not think he gives a damn what we think about theocracies. I also meant, in calling Israel a theocracy that there are religious laws assimilated into Israeli law, and that the whole shebang in 1948 was set up for “the Jews.” Whatever that means.

            As such, any non-Jew (such as an Arab) has been, and is, a second-class citizen in “Israel” and any Palestinian is persona non grata.

          19. @mary: “Shirin, honestly I do not think he gives a damn what we think about theocracies.”

            Of course I’m interested, mary. If I weren’t I wouldn’t be asking. For instance, in an earlier post, Shirin offered a useful list of other countries which, being theocracies, could be meaningfully compared to Israel, specifically the Islamic states of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. Do you think non-Muslims living in these states are also second-class citizens or “persona non-grata”? If you so, do think this is an objectionable state of affairs?

          20. The population within the 67 borders is, as Richard notes, about 80% majority Jewish. Would that majority then have the right to establish its own immigration policies and symbols of government or would it not?

            We have not been discussing whether Israel has the right to relegate 20% of its citizens to inferior status and deny the native inhabitants of the land access to the country, we have been talking about the fact that it does so, and what that means.

        3. The whole concept of a “Jewish state” is facially discriminatory. The idea that Jews need to have a refuge is nothing more than hasbara.

          1. right, and it is even more blatantly discriminatory given that unlike most ethnocracies its creation was not based to any degree at all on existing demographic/geographic boundaries. It was, instead, created by, for and on behalf of an ethnically specific group of foreigners from two continents away, and of course its creation required massive ethnic cleansing of the existing native population the overwhelming majority of which did not belong to the “correct” ethnic group. And as if that were not blatant enough, the descendants of the 180,000 or so native non-Jews who were not ethnically cleansed are viewed as a demographic threat to the “Jewish character of the State”, and there is a growing sentiment that they should be elminiated from the country. I don’t know how it could be more clear than that.

            As for Jews needing a refuge, let us set aside for a moment the fact that this “refuge” was created by robbing an entire population of their patrimony, and their most fundamental human rights. Let us instead examine the how sensible it is gather all members of a supposedly threatened minority together in one small area and call it a refuge.

          2. That was my point exactly, that Israel was created as a “Jewish State” and by virtue of this fact it has made all groups secondary in its identity. Theocracy or ethnocracy, the effect on non-Jews is the same.

            I see no point in commenting on the state of affairs of other countries. Bringing up such a diversion is a hasbara tactic.

          3. @shirin: “Let us instead examine the how sensible it is gather all members of a supposedly threatened minority together in one small area and call it a refuge.”

            Now that, in the age of WMDs, is a perfectly legitimate point. If it is fairly clear from this vantage that the generations-long experiment of living as scattered minority communities in places across the globe has had, at best, mixed success, the most that can probably be said about the experiment of gathering together to be prepared to act in mutual self-defense is that the results are not yet in.

            The rest of your argument gets to the point I have made earlier about mass migrations as a constant of human history. Populations move, all the time. Demographic/geographic boundaries are fluid. I certainly believe Israel has a profound responsibility to negotiate in good faith with Palestinians to come to a mutually agreeable plan to compensate them for their losses. I just don’t think that plan must necessarily include invalidating and renouncing what Shirin rightly calls Israel’s “raison d’etre.”

          4. @mary: “I see no point in commenting on the state of affairs of other countries. Bringing up such a diversion is a hasbara tactic.”

            No, it is an attempt to establish a framework of philosophical consistency from which a meaningful discussion may proceed. To insist that one can, should or must discuss Israel as a phenomenon fundamentally different from other comparable human enterprise is a tactic that arises from an entirely different ideological orientation.

          5. mass migrations as a constant of human history. Populations move, all the time. Demographic/geographic boundaries are fluid.

            And now you are resorting to standard Zionist talking points that employ standard Zionist fallacious reasoning. Creating a state in the supposedly enlightened 20th century for an ethnically specific group of foreigners from two continents away by ethnically cleansing inhabited land of its native population is justified by the “demographic/geographic boundaries are fluid and mass migrations are a constant in human history” talking point. There is so much wrong with this argument, I don’t know where to begin.

            I certainly believe Israel has a profound responsibility to negotiate in good faith with Palestinians to come to a mutually agreeable plan to compensate them for their losses.

            “Their losses”. Not what Israel took from them, but “their losses”. And how big of Israel to “negotiate” with its victims for “compensation”.

          6. “To insist that one can, should or must discuss Israel as a phenomenon fundamentally different from other comparable human enterprise is a tactic that arises from an entirely different ideological orientation.” More pedantic hooey. I burst out laughing when I read it.

            Yeah, it’s a “different ideological orientation” when there is only one country on the planet created as a “refuge” for a specific religious-ethnic group, at the expense of an indigenous group already present in the region and who now is still seeking justice and to reclaim at least a small measure of what was taken from them by these so-called seekers of sanctuary.

            There is no comparison to Israel’s tactics unless you want to discuss how the Native Americans were the victims of American colonialist genocide.

            Shirin, I don’t know why you have engaged with this guy. I find him to be nothing but an overly verbose hasbarist playing disingenuous word games.

        4. compare your feelings about Israel with your feelings about newly minted ethnocracies of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

          You just can’t stick to the topic, can you?

          I repeat:

          When the official definition of the State, and all its national symbols – when the very raison d’etre of the State – is to be The [fill in the ethnicity or religion] State, you have by definition either an ethnocracy or a theocracy, not a democracy.

          how you fit Israel’s absorption of the 120,000 Beta Israel Jews of Ethiopia, who have no genetic relationship to other Jewish populations, into your definition of Israel as an ethnocracy.

          Do you seriously believe this supports your position (whatever it is) in some way? Why were the JEWS of Ethiopia brought to The JEWISH State to be “absorbed” (an interesting, if inaccurate term)? Could it, maybe, just possibly be that they are JEWS?! Would they have been brought to The Jewish State to be “absorbed” if they had been, say, Animists? Christians? Muslims? Buddhists? Wiccans?

          Come on, David. Get real, will you?

          Oh – and now, of course, you have brought up the subject of the status of non-Ashkenazi Jews in Israel, which is a whole, very interesting matter in itself, but that is too far off topic to address at this point.

          1. The Beta Israel are Jews, yes, but they are not ethnically related to other Jewish communities. My point in bringing this up is to ask you how you define an “ethnocracy” that is in fact made up of a community consisting of multiple ethnicities. Indeed, your list of alternative identifications (Animists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Wiccans) has nothing to do with ethnicity at all, and everything to do with religion — you know, that feature that defines the identity not of an ethnocracy but of a theocracy.

            (And I have, indeed, acknowledged that the interactions between these ethnically disparate Jewish communities have not been uniformly smooth. We can have that separate, and indeed very interesting discussion as well, if you wish.)

            On the issue of sticking to the topic: I think the counter-examples of Slovakia (86% Slovak) and the Czech Republic (94%[!] Czech) are quite relevant. You have made the categorical assertion that Israel, being an ethnocracy, by definition cannot be a democracy. Yet here we have two explicit ethnocracies that appear to function perfectly well as democracies. I am asking you to consider whether this fact at all complicates your objection to ethnocracies in principle.

          2. The Beta Israel are Jews, yes, but they are not ethnically related to other Jewish communities…

            I think you understand very well the concept I am talking about, and are disingenuously trying to turn this into an argument over semantics. I’m not playing.

            And please do not confuse stating facts about ethnocracies with stating objections to them.

          3. @shirin: “I think you understand very well the concept I am talking about”

            No, Shirin, I honestly don’t. You explicitly declared Israel to be an ethnocracy and not a theocracy, but when discussing why Israel rescued the Jews of Ethiopia, you marked the differences that called them to Israel’s attention along explicitly religious, not ethnic lines. I think you ought to be able to see why I’m confused as to the claim you’re trying to make.

            “And please do not confuse stating facts about ethnocracies with stating objections to them.”

            But you weren’t stating facts; you were making the categorical, philosophical claim that ethnocracy is incompatible with democracy, in explicit response to my argument that Israel’s failings in dealing with its minority population are not evidence that things must be as they are. I offered evidence that contradicts those claims, and I asked (and am asking again now) if you also object in principle to the existence of these two explicitly defined ethnocratic states.

          4. I don’t believe that you don’t understand the concept. So, ethnicity is not exactly the right word, but I think it is quite clear what it means in this context. Or would it be easier if I referred to Jews as a ethno-religious group? Or if it will help if I incorrectly refer to a secular state with a predominantly secular population as a theocracy, I will. Just please stop sidetracking the discussion and address the point.

        5. …your feelings about Israel with your feelings about…

          For the record, this is not about “my feelings”, and your attempt to reduce a question of fact, reality, and reason to merely “my feelings” has been duly noted, despite the fact that I have not mentioned it intil now.

          1. “For the record, this is not about “my feelings”, and your attempt to reduce a question of fact, reality, and reason to merely “my feelings” has been duly noted, despite the fact that I have not mentioned it intil now.”

            Fair enough. How about your thoughts, then, about the fact, the reality, that the Czech Republic and Slovakia are ethnocracies that function as democracies, a fact and reality that does not conform to your categorical definition of ethnocracies.

  16. Warren,

    Sorry, but there was no reply button to your post.But I wanted to thank you for the following points in Richard’s defense:

    “The zealotry with which they were ready to pounce, and their general viciousness, was the point of the blog post, and he provides illuminating examples, particularly the last one.”

    “And I think Richard is quite aware of real misfortune and suffering. He spends a good amount of time and space chronicling it right here on this blog—specifically in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as the West’s broader conflicts in the Middle East (like the Iran question), this is his area of focus.”

    You have admirably represented Richard’s position. Do handle corporate matters, as well?

    1. “You have admirably represented Richard’s position. Do handle corporate matters, as well?”

      It doesn’t take a lawyer to realize the casting aspersions on Richard is really armchair excommunication. The only way Richard could make a fool of himself is by diminishing his credibility in the eyes of people who respect him. Accidentally publishing a blog post is a pretty innocuous mistake and the smug point-scoring frenzy pretty shallow. People who just can’t stand Jews who criticize Israel count for nothing on this matter.

      1. Very well said, Andrew. A very dignified response to a comment that was nothing but an attempt to ridicule. (True to your character from what I have seen from your earlier posts on Richard’s blog.)

        1. Richard has my undying respect and friendship, and I am willing to help him weather any storm. Thanks for articulating this whole thing so well. I see the masada2000 crowd sent a few reps to try to do him in, but God always protects the righteous. Rock on, Richard!

      2. “People who just can’t stand Jews who criticize Israel count for nothing on this matter.”

        You seem to be assuming I’m Jewish.

          1. ‘People’ as in “of the peoples”. You are not assuming Paul is a gentile are you?

    2. Paul, thanks for the backhanded non-compliment. Richard certainly doesn’t need me to “represent” him at all. He is quite capable of doing that himself. I just found your catty nit-picking of Richard kind of empty and pointless, and in defending him I thought I’d give you an overview of the central subject matter of the blog, here. I suppose my response did sound rather “corporate” though, oh well.

      1. Warren,

        I commend you are being able to laugh at yourself. Other than your politics, you seem like a good guy.

  17. The comparison between Rehavam Zeevi and el-Mabhouh being made here us inadequate. Zeevi was just Minister of Tourism when he was brutally murdered in cold blood by Palestinian terrorists as an act of revenge.
    Ek Mabhouh (if he was indeed killed by the Mossad) was killed in order to prevent him from smuggling illegal weapons into the Gaza strip which were to be used against Israeli soldiers and civilians. Clearly, killing his was an act of self defense, assuing that capturing him was impossible. The fact that he murdered two off duty Israeli soldiers who were hitchhiking home, and then celebrated the murder by standing on the corpse, shows what a wretched human being he really was, but I do not believe that is the reason he was killed.
    Here is a link confirming that Mabhouh smuggled weapons and that he stood on the corpse to celebrate his murder.
    http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/crime/hamas-aide-leader-murdered-in-dubai-smuggled-weapons-1.591338

    1. Zeevi was just Minister of Tourism when he was brutally murdered in cold blood

      Malarkey. Zeevi was a former Israeli general & one of the most extreme right wing of the policitians in gov’t. He was not murdered in “cold blood,” esp. if you are prepared to claim that al Mabouh wasn’t murdered in cold blood.

      Ek [sic] Mabhouh…was killed in order to prevent him from smuggling illegal weapons into the Gaza strip which were to be used against Israeli soldiers and civilians.

      There is hardly any evidence that anything al Mabouh imported fr. Iran did what you claim. Hamas weapons are notoriously ineffectual & killed far less efficiently than Israeli weapons killed Gazans.

      Clearly, killing his was an act of self defense, assuing [sic] that capturing him was impossible.

      This is “clear” only to you & right wing Israelis like you. Certainly Palestinians would not agree nor would much of the rest of the world.

      The fact that he murdered two off duty Israeli soldiers who were hitchhiking home…shows what a wretched human being he really was

      Get off it. You know as well as I that IDF soldiers have celebrated when they have killed militants. Further, he killed IDF soldiers. Would you have preferred that he kill Israeli civilians? At least he targeted the IDF, which is the entity which enforces the Occupation. While I justify killing of neither Israelis nor Palestinians, if you’re prepared to justify killing al-Mabouh, you have absolutely no right to complain about any act of terror or otherwise that kills Israeli soldiers.

      1. Being a former general does not make one a legitimate target of assassination nor should one be killed for their political views.
        I would consider anybody gloating over a dead body they just murdered to be a barbarian, regardless of nationality.

        1. Being a former general does not make one a legitimate target of assassination nor should one be killed for their political views.

          Let’s examine this further. Rehavam Zeevi was a senior Israeli general. As such he either took the lives of or was responsible for taking the lives of Palestinians. But he was not a legitimate target of attack. But Mahmoud al Mabouh, also a miltiary commander who took the lives of Israeli soldiers, WAS a legitimate target? You have no idea how lame you are & you never will.

          1. You are simply misrepresenting what I said. Mabhouh was killed because “to prevent him from smuggling illegal weapons into the Gaza strip which were to be used against Israeli soldiers and civilians”. I specifically said that I did not believe that his murdering the two Israeli soldiers was the reason he was killed. So the two cases are in no way comparable. Another name for an ex-general is citizen.
            “Hamas weapons are notoriously ineffectual” – which is probably why Mabhouh was looking for better weapons from Iran. Sorry, we’re not going to sit around waiting to find out what the Hamas will fire at us next.
            By the way, you’re very rude.

          2. By the way, you’re very rude.

            You cut to the quick, sir.

            Mabhouh was killed because “to prevent him from smuggling illegal weapons into the Gaza strip which were to be used against Israeli soldiers and civilians”

            That was one of the reasons. The other was the reason you’ve denied which every Israeli media outlet & international ones as well have acknowledged. You apparently have some superior knowledge doubtless through direct connections w. the Mossad about what their actual motives were.

            al Mabouh was an avg. arms dealer. No genius. His weapons gave Hamas no special ability to kill Israelis nor was that likely to change. This was a garden variety contract killing little diff. than something organized by the Mafia & for motives little diff.

          3. I don’t have “superior knowledge” just common sense. I don’t have any proof what Mahbouh was up to and you don’t have any proof that the Mossad or Israel were responsible for the killing. Any intelligence agancy, including Iran’s could have pulled it off. Any combo of governments with or without Israel could have done it. But the most reasonable theory in light of the information supplied by the media so far, is that the Mossad did it to hamper weapons transfer. I just don’t believe that Israel would send 26, or how ever many agents, to Dubai for the sake of getting revenge.

          4. you don’t have any proof that the Mossad or Israel were responsible for the killing.

            That’s about as convincing as saying we have no proof that the earth orbits the sun.

  18. Richard:

    Simply put, as you admitted, you made a mistake and misunderstood a Purim joke for reality… it happens.

    I’d say it’s a shame that people jumped on the bandwagon against you and “hitting you when you were down”- have to agree some of the posts were really “Purim” in there creation.

    Yet, “what goes around comes around”.
    You have not held back your editorial personal digs, snide remarks and “unforgivingness” for mistakes by other commentors on your blog, whether it be due to misinformation they had or a wrongly-used word etc…. or an error not far from your own jumping the gun before getting the facts/ situation (a joke-not real) straight.

    So, it’s good to eat a little humbling crow, perhaps it’s part of a Tikkun Olam on your part.

    I accept your corrections; agree to disagree on your points of view; appreciate the information you share- BUT think your added condesending remarks to those who don’t see eye-to-eye with you something that lowers your respectibility.

    So perhaps learn a lesson from this incident… keep up your comments, and opinions, but keep out your “witty” comments and character attacks, which don’t add to your credibabilty, but detract from it.

    Replying to somebody who has personally attacked you is one thing. But somebody who replies with alternate POVs and different thinking should hear/understand from you your information, not your digs to undermine a postion.

    So perhaps its an “intellectual Purim Seudah” for you to digest.

    1. You’ve gone overboard. Richard does not need to eat any crow for anything he has ever written. Digs and criticism are his prerogative to deliver, after all, it is his blog, and many people deserve them, especially when they troll his website and attempt to peddle the same old hasbara.

      People such as yourself can whack Richard all you like, but I will remain his friend because he speaks for justice for Jews and Palestinians. He is courageous in the face of great opposition. He puts himself in danger from Likudniks and worse, which I find to be the utmost in courage.

      Richard is also quite astute, and his bullshit meter is in full working order. He doesn’t need to censor himself from either criticizing or banning people from his blog. How dare you make such a statement, that he must play nice with people who are the enemies of freedom?

      I fervently wish there were more Richard Silversteins in the world, so take your criticisms somewhere else.

      1. “How dare you make such a statement, that he must play nice with people who are the enemies of freedom?”

        Mary, I never said any such thing. if you would read what I wrote carefully instead of giving knee-jerked mighty “Hail Richard” you’d notice that I expressed my opinion that his POV would come across stronger and be better received if he’d respond to comments more directly and with less jabs and cuts.

        I certainly didn’t say anything about not criticizing and definitely nothing about banning people… those are all his righs and privledges… yup- it’s his blog.

        But it is open to the public (as long as they obey the blog rules..) and we the public should have the right to criticize something that bothers us about the blog. I hope it is taken as constructive criticizm… I’m not telling him to lie down and not repsond.

        People who are serious about hearing another sides POV are more receptive to straight answers. Again, though I don’t agree with his POV I respect hearing what he and others (including you) have to say without all the bullshit jabs and cuts or condecending remarks. I prefer people would save that for kindergarten school sessions.

        I’m more receptive to what he or anybody has to say in expressing their POV without un-needed personal attacks. Doesn’t make the point any stronger or valid and it puts off people (me for one and I’m sure others) and less likely to “listen” to what he has to say.

        I don’t think Richard’s point in this blog is to “dis” people. He has a POV that he expresses. Since it’s open to the public there are those who are going to attack him etc…. sure, go for it… some of the comments on this blog deserve “give it right back to them” approach.

        Yet in other cases straight-forward, fact based answers, which he does give, work much better in stating his point.

        And if he can’t take some constructive criticism on his blog, then he shouldn’t be open to the public (BTW, I think he CAN take the comments… take them or leave them) and it doesn’t help his “reader feedback” if I take them someplace else where he will never hear them. He’ll only hear such “flag waving” suppport from people such as yourself.

        Would be pretty myopic otherwise.

        1. Obviously you are not a regular reader of Tikkun Olam or you would see that Richard responds appropriately to people who either are trolls or abuse his comment rules. I don’t think any person has the right to give either backhanded compliments or any kind of criticism to Richard’s writing or his opinions. It’s a blog; if you don’t like it, go somewhere else, he is not obligated to entertain the masses. We have enough of that crap in the mainstream media.

          I’m no flag waiver; Richard would be the first to tell you that sometimes we disagree. But I don’t come to his blog spouting lies and falsehoods. I appreciate Richard allowing me to state my views. I realize we do not always share the same viewpoint, but he knows that I am a humanitarian whose objectives are (I hope) honorable. This is what Tikun Olam is all about, is it not?

          1. if you don’t like it, go somewhere else

            The only commenters I wish would “go somewhere else” are those I either ban from commenting or ban from the site altogether. None of those currently commenting who are disagreeing with my views (Torsion, David or David Lieberman) are in that category. So I don’t wish them to go somewhere else. I think we can disagree civilly & hopefully have good discussions & arguments in the process.

            And as for the preference expressed that I be more civil and that it would allow my views of go farther or be more persuasive–that may or may not be the case. All I can say is I do my best. When you are the target of hundreds of rather ill-mannered comments over the course of a few months or yr. there may be some circumstances in which you are too short w. someone or too quick to anger. But generally as I wrote earlier, I try to be proportionate.

          2. Well, first of all see Richard’s comment below about who should “go someplace else”.

            Secondly, who are you to tell another person on this blog what they can and can’t say on Richard’s blog? I’ve already stated my reasoning for addressing the issue and I think Richard has responded properly below.

            Your last comment “This is what Tikun Olam is all about, is it not?”

            Do you refer to “Tikkun Olam” the blog, or “Tikkkun Olam” the concept…. I don’t think they are necessarily the same thing.

          3. OMG David, grow up. Your arguments are pointless. I make my comments based on my own points of view, however I do not think it is polite of me to stay silent when I think someone has come to Richard’s blog purely to antagonize either Richard or his readers. As for the rest of your comment, you could have just said it all in the first place, right?

    2. your added condesending remarks to those who don’t see eye-to-eye with you something that lowers your respectibility.

      You would have to point out specific incidents in which you believe I was inappropriately uncivil to someone who merely disagree w. me but did so civilly. As I wrote, I try my best to respond to comments in a proportional way. If there is disagreement w/o ad hominem attack or insult, I do my best to respond in kind. If I’ve failed to do so, pls. let me know.

      1. Okay, I shall try and find the responses that I felt were not responded to in kind. I’ll re-read them and assess the response you made ( and how I phrased my comments).

        I’ll respond to you off-line, as this really isn’t the point of your blog and I appreciate you wanting to “check and balance” your response.

        As I said I listen more to the facts and issues you respond to rather than the rhetoric that (sometimes justifiably) make up part of your responses.

        The best part of this blog is following the debate of issues from the different POVs and less the bashing that goes on (and I don’t necessarily mean you or any one responder).

  19. I have never seen such a large tempest raging around such a tiny teapot. Is this really the best you guys can do?

  20. Richard — In the interest of not monopolizing the comments, I will be as brief as possible. Although you’ve given me several points to address, I’ll limit myself to three:

    1. It’s interesting to be asked to present my CV as a prerequisite for posting to a blog discussion, but OK. You can get access to my very tiny body of published work here

    [Search google books for “antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia” — a scholarly work to which I contributed a handful of articles]

    and here

    [search google books for "Religious and Political Ideas in the Works of Arnold Schoenberg" -- I have an entry on his Survivor from Warsaw oratorio.]

    and a paper I gave at the Parkes Center, University of Southampton in 2005 here

    [search google for "lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire" -- this is a paper on the work evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald]

    [apparently I can’t post links without getting rejected for attempted spamming]

    I was active some years ago on a scholarly discussion site on the topic of the history of antisemitism. You can search its logs here at h-net.org/~antis

    I don’t think you’ll find anything there or anywhere else I’ve posted that contradicts positions I’ve taken here.

    2. I am glad you engage me factually on the question of Turkish Gastarbeitern in Germany, but by emphasizing the fact the the Turks are immigrants you neglect a point I explicitly made: Gastarbeiter status can be inherited, and there are ethnic Turks now living in Germany who are grandchildren of the original immigrants, born in Germany but not citizens of Germany. To complicate matters, Germany also gives preferential (indeed, automatic) citizenship to foreign nationals who can demonstrate German ancestry (specifically, ancestry from the region of the former DDR pre-1937). Again, I ask you, is a Germany that practices such immigration policies a democracy?
    Source: http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=13140#germany

    3. I reject the charge that I am “putting words in people’s mouths.” I am posing questions (almost always clearly marked with a question mark), based on claims you, Shirin or Mary have made, framing additional positions that seem to me consistent with those original claims. It is a standard way of testing propositions, and what I am hoping to elicit is either confirmation of the additional claim or a demonstration that the additional claim is wrong which does not in turn contradict the original claim.

    1. If you or any commenter here has a problem with links causing yr comment to be rejected pls. copy the comment & send it to me in an e mail & I’ll publish it in yr name.

      Gastarbeiter status can be inherited

      I have very little interest in German’s immigration rules. I return to the real issue once again: Israeli Palestinians exiled in 1948 were indigenous to Israel BEFORE creation of the state & so have a far stronger claim to the right to citizenship than any Turkish immigrant to Germany. If Germany give citizenship to those who demonstate German ancestry then surely Israel falls grievously short in denying the ability to immigrate to those who were indigenous to the country even before it was declared. If there is such a thing as Israeli ancestry (as opposed to Jewish ancestry) then surely Israeli Palestinians are the original Israelis (along with Jews who lived in Israel before 1948).

      I reject the charge that I am “putting words in people’s mouths.”

      You don’t get to decide this question. Three of us have independently protested you doing this very thing & we didn’t coordinate our judgements on this in any way. You put words in my mouth & Shirin’s. You mischaracterized our arguments through imprecision & sloppy argumentation. You also added gratuitious arguments that had no bearing on any reality like claiming Palestinian militants have declared their intent to murder 2 yr old Israelis because they will grow up to be soldiers. So I don’t care what you claim or think you did. I’m telling you that’s what you did & warning you not to do it again.

      framing additional positions that seem to me consistent with those original claims.

      DON’T DO THIS. Don’t twist, distort & attempt to drive an opponent’s argument to a place they never intended it to go. If you do, you’ll be in hot water here.

      It is a standard way of testing propositions

      Maybe where you come from. But where I come from its called disingenuousness, fatuousness & being too cute by half. Stick to what people actually say.

      I’m telling you how I wish debate & discussion to be framed at this site. And I ask you to abide by this whether or not it is the way you’re used to arguing elsewhere.

    2. I reject the charge that I am “putting words in people’s mouths.” I am posing questions (almost always clearly marked with a question mark), based on claims you, Shirin or Mary have made, framing additional positions that seem to me consistent with those original claims.

      What an absolute crock of s&^%. In order to make your arguments, you have used the cheap and dishonest debate tactic of attributing to me positions that you have absolutely no basis for in anything I have said, suggested, alluded to, or hinted at. I am not accusing you of being a liar because I honestly don’t know whether it is dishonesty or incompetence that has led you to use this tactic, but use it you have, along with a number of other dishonest approaches to argument.

    3. is a Germany that practices such immigration policies a democracy?

      It is consistently obvious that you need to take a remedial course in the use of analogies. So far you have failed to manage even one remotely valid one.

      You might be able to impress some people with your ability to couch incompetent and dishonest arguments in superficially impressive language, but not here.

      1. The thread was carrying a very important issue that David seemed to avoid directly, and that is, is it ever morally, legally and ethically acceptable for a State to commit “extrajudicial murder”, and what would be the moral, ethical and legal consequences of this for all the world? Instead, the argument went off into the wild blue yonder, where it pretty much dissipated among pompous blatherings about ethnicity and immigration. Whew! At one point I was accused of insulting David (someone show me where I insulted him, as I am not aware of it). For the most part, I pulled out of the discussion when I became aware of the disingenuousness of the argument he was making and that he was, indeed, putting words in people’s mouths.

        So essentially, the question remains unanswered – when, if ever, can a State commit an assassination against a human being it believes does not deserve to live?

        1. Actually, if you look through this entire discussion, you will notice that David has consistently managed to avoid addressing the actual issues by the use of various avoidance techniques. I might have missed one, but I can’t think of a single topic here that he has not diverted into, as you said, pompous blatherings about something else, including views and positions never expressed by his interlocutors.

          1. Shirin, I have spotted him for what he is. As a full time activist my ear has become fine-tuned to hasbara, and our David is nothing more than a sophisticated hasbarist. That is why I disengaged; people like him love nothing more than to take a person’s shoestrings, tie them into knots, and watch them fall on their face because they have gotten too entangled in meaningless rhetoric and disingenuous argument. The smoke-screens and red herrings abound, all couched in intellectual hoo-ha. When we are discussing the ultimate moral question of when it is right or justified to commit murder, this joker is yakking about whether Germany is a democracy? Obfuscating only begins to describe it.

            Shall we ask the obvious question here, put it into words? Is it OK to commit state-sponsored murder to avenge JEWISH lives? Let’s stop dancing around it, shall we all?

          2. On targeted assassinations: I thought I was clear when I said I didn’t believe justice was part of the equation, which is why I stopped participating when the thread moved exclusively in the direction of issues of crime and punishment. This is why I introduced speculative examples from the American Civil War. There is a reason American soldiers do not salute their superior officers when they have reason to believe they are under enemy observation: military commanders know they are high-value targets, and it is unwise to give the enemy any clues as to who is in charge.

            Putting the question in the context of vengeance or punishment is therefore wrong in my view. I don’t see a moral difference between the Union operative who sneaks into General Lee’s tent and kills him in his sleep (or, if you like, the Confederate operative who dispatches Grant or Sherman) and the sharpshooter who kills Stonewall Jackson on the battlefield.

            Of course there are other considerations that must be weighed in any given instance. Some are moral, such as the risk to innocent lives in the vicinity; some are practical — whether the tactical advantage gained would be offset by the costs of the likely aftermath. But the fact remains that neither Hamas nor Israel deny they are in combat with one another, and leaders on each side must be aware that they will be targets in the eyes of the other.

    4. David L., comparing the situation of people of Turkish heritage/background in Germany to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians is pretty ridiculous. There’s no remote comparison. When Germany starts dropping lethal white phosphorus on Turkish civilians who are cramped into a besieged essentially open-air prison as we saw Israel do in Gaza last year, then maybe you can get back to us.

      I’m not saying contemporary Germany is perfect, it certainly isn’t and is deserving of criticism, but your comparison reveals a woeful ignorance of the evils and deprivation visited upon the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza by the Israeli occupation.

  21. David L, 4 March @ 8:01:

    “Immigration policy sets constraints on who may become a citizen and *then* participate in its democracy, including the process of setting those immigration constraints. If Israel’s immigration policies are changed by imposing new constraints set not by its own citizens but by outsiders who have no legal voice in selecting representatives to its government, *then* it will cease to be a democracy.”

    I get a little bored revisiting anti-Zionism 1001 all the time but this is such a sleazy sleight of hand and laid on so thick I can’t hold my tongue.

    Israel’s “immigration policies” are complemented with expulsion policies. Together, they make up a regime of human replacement. If you invade a country, drive out most of the inhabitants at gunpoint and settle it with your favorite demographic, of course the settlers aren’t going to vote on letting the previous inhabitants back in. There’s nothing democratic about denying the Palestinian refugees the right to live in their country. You can call this action by lots of names: I tend to use “social engineering” and “ethnic gerrymandering” but “apartheid” works, too, although that may not be altogether accurate since apartheid at least kept the denationalized Africans within the country.

    Israel is set apart from the FY and FSU in that it’s a colonial-settler state. This means Israel relies on outside logistic and ideological support (namely from the United States, though Britain and France used to be the big udder). As long as we supply Israel with economic aid, loan guarantees and foreign military financing, it’s fair game for outside pressure until rectifying the mass denationalization of the refugees.

    1. andrew r “As long as we supply Israel with economic aid, loan guarantees and foreign military financing, it’s fair game for outside pressure until rectifying the mass denationalization of the refugees.”

      That’s a fair point. I’d go further: outside pressure for change is fair whether Israel is accepting foreign aid or not. But the changes you seek will only be implemented in Israeli by Israelis who choose, out of whatever combination of self-interest and sense of justice it takes, to bow to that pressure, and I doubt very much pressure applied by force of arms will do the trick. In other words, the change will come only through the mechanisms of Israel’s internal democratic processes.

      1. I doubt very much pressure applied by force of arms will do the trick. In other words, the change will come only through the mechanisms of Israel’s internal democratic processes.

        If that’s the case, then Israel will be destroyed as Israel in & of itself, I’m convinced has neither the will nor interest in making such change. And you are entirely wrong about the utility of outside pressure. This stalemate will ONLY be solved by outside pressure. NOT force of arms which is a straw argument. That won’t be necessary. Eventually, Israel will be given a choice bet. acceding to an internationally imposed resolution or being sanctioned by the world a la S. Africa. Israel cannot possibly withstand the opprobrium & unified voices of the EU, NATO, UN, & the U.S. It cannot withstand it’s chiefs of staff, prime ministers & defense ministers being wanted men (& women) outside Israel. I don’t know when it will come to this. But it will. In fact, the Arab League is proposing giving the U.S. 4 months to negotiate bet. Israel & the PA at the end of which it will refer the conflict to the Security Council. This is the beginning of the process I referred to. It may not directly lead to an internationally imposed settlement, but it’s certainly one step toward that.

  22. I’m a little puzzled by this discussion on whether to assassinate genocidal war criminals or try them in a court of law. Because it’s a distinction without a difference. Had the Axis won, there’s a multitude of crimes the Western Allies could’ve been tried for, nevermind the USSR. And at least one prosecutor from Nuremberg proposed a similar judgement could be made against US civilian leaders and brass over Vietnam. With the possible exception of that guy, there are no principles at work here. Inertia is the principle.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1971/1/11/nuremberg-prosecutor-sees-vietnam-parallel-pthe/

    1. I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that state-instigated assassination, aka murder by the State without due process, is an acceptable alternative? If so, I beg to differ for the reasons I have already enumerated here.

  23. Richard, it was you, with concurrence from mary and Shirin, and not I, who made the claim that Israel cannot be a democracy because it is an ethnocracy. I returned by stating that all democracies are flawed, and if Israel is not a democracy then no nation is, an argument you rejected. I know of no other way to evaluate the merits of your position except to understand how you would apply it to cases that seem to me analogous. I have offered as points of comparison examples of democratic states in Europe that have explicitly declared ethnocratic policies. You have contested the relevance of these on the basis that their ethnocratic policies are constructed to benefit rather than to disenfranchise and expropriate the property of indigenous populations. Although I am unconvinced of the moral clarity of such a distinction, I’ll move on.

    Mary suggests the United States as a more valid analogy for Israel, and I agree. This is a nation whose founding document explicitly defined members of a significant percentage of the population as three-fifths of a human being, owing to their status as chattel slaves, which status in turn was justified on the basis of their ethnicity. This is a nation which also, as mary observes, conducted a protracted and ultimately successful war of expropriation and extermination against the indigenous population. (In both cases, I might add, these overtly ethnocratic policies were promoted with liberal helpings of religiously grounded rationalization.)

    So, I return to the question: ethnocratic Israel is not a democracy, but was the United States a democracy at the time it adopted its ethnocratic Constitution? Is it a democracy now? Has it ever been?

    1. You disingenuous person, you. I never “suggested the United States as an analogy for Israel,” I merely used it in a comparison. There you go again, making dishonest argument and putting words in people’s mouths.

      I think you have discussed this topic to death, dishonestly or ignorantly or however, and I think anyone who continues to play your silly debating game is a fool (apologies to Shirin and Richard). You’ve gotten on my last nerve, David.

      1. Oh for God’s sake, mary. If you’re going to suggest there’s some meaningful distinction you can make between “an analogy” and “a comparison,” you really are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

        1. David, if you were even remotely as adept at language as you pretend to be you would know the difference between comparison and analogy.

    2. I know of no other way to evaluate the merits of your position except to understand how you would apply it to cases that seem to me analogous.

      That’s bogus. I think you & I both know what you’re really doing, which is attempting to take an argument & do subtle violence to it by stretching it beyond the context to which it was intended to apply. I’m not pretending to solve Germany’s immigration problem or the world’s problems. My prescriptions are meant to apply to the particular situation on which I comment. I don’t intend it to be stretched out of recognition to cases which YOU feel are analogous, but which are nothing of the sort. I simply have no interest in comparing Israel to European states. That may interest you, but not me. I’m trying to suggest solutions for one country’s problems, period.

      This is a nation whose founding document explicitly defined members of a significant percentage of the population as three-fifths of a human being, owing to their status as chattel slaves, which status in turn was justified on the basis of their ethnicity.

      Yes, in the 18th century. But you neglect to mention that that same nation fought a civl war which in effect nullified that racist provision of its founding principles. Once again, you’re clearly intelligent. But when you present arguments that only tell half the story you undermine yr credibilty. You surely know the rejoinder that is coming & yet act as if what you’ve written is a brilliant riposte when it’s nothing of the sort.

      This is a nation which also, as mary observes, conducted a protracted and ultimately successful war of expropriation and extermination against the indigenous population.

      There is much to say about this. Your analogy is terribly inexact though you have identified one of the worst of several injustices committed by this country against an ethnic minorityk in this case an indigenous one. There are some important differences bet. the condition of Native Americans & Israeli Palestinians. No Native American was ever expelled fr. this country and forced to live outside its boundaries. The U.S. has attempted, as imperfect as the efforts may’ve been, to compensate a number of tribes for injustices & treaty violations committed against them. And there are a whole raft of laws and agencies established in recognition of these former crimes committed against them.

      There was no “war of extermination” as federal policy against all Native Americans as you fraudulently allege. And if such a non-existent policy WAS “successful” as you allege there would no longer be a Native American population in this country.

      Unlike in Israel, the U.S. gov’t and many individual Americans acknowledge the grave injustice done against Native Americans and attempt to rectify these injustices in various ways. I see absolutely no commensurate effort or awareness on the part of the Israeli gov’t or Israeli Jewish population.

      1. you & I both know what you’re really doing, which is attempting to take an argument & do subtle violence to it by stretching it beyond the context to which it was intended to apply.

        It’s an interesting technique for avoiding engaging on the real issues, isn’t it?

      2. “I think you & I both know what you’re really doing, which is attempting to take an argument & do subtle violence to it by stretching it beyond the context to which it was intended to apply.”

        You are reading my mind again. I am doing you the respect of taking your arguments at face value. I ask you to return the favor.

        “But you neglect to mention that that same nation fought a civl war which in effect nullified that racist provision of its founding principles.”

        I have mentioned the Civil War several times here already. I don’t believe I have neglected it. You, on the other hand, neglect to mention that for a century after that Civil War, explicit statutes, mostly in the south but in other parts of the country as well (including right here in New England, where there still exist property deeds containing clauses which explicitly forbid sale of property to blacks), continued to constrain the freedoms of African Americans. I’d further argue that the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina demonstrates how little distance has been traveled since what you describe as the “in effect” nullifcation of that founding doctrine.

        “No Native American was ever expelled fr. this country and forced to live outside its boundaries.”

        Oh no? Perhaps you should Google “Trail of Tears” or “Indian Removal Act.” As for whether the wars of expropriation were or were not also “in effect” wars of extermination, I’d suggest you compare estimates of the size of the indigenous population in the 17th century with those for the turn of the twentieth. This mitigating raft of agencies and policies you point out only came into place in the once the warfare was over, when the remaining fragment of the indigenous population were successfully cordoned off into scattered reservations on highly undesirable patches of land — a condition that brings their circumstances much closer to that of present-day Palestinians than you are willing to acknowledge.

        And you still have not answered my questions. Was the United States a democracy when it adopted the “three-fifths compromise” Constitution in 1787? Is it now?

    3. I know of no other way to evaluate the merits of your position except to understand how you would apply it to cases that seem to me analogous.

      Seriously? This is the best argument you can offer; an argument that completely avoids addressing the issues at all?

      Oh, and you have made it clear throughout this days-long exercise that you do not understand analogy at all, and could not tell analogous from non-analogous if one of them smacked you in the face.

      1. @Shirin: “Oh, and you have made it clear throughout this days-long exercise that you do not understand analogy at all, and could not tell analogous from non-analogous if one of them smacked you in the face.”

        You making this assertion, without actually demonstrating what you mean. Please, enlighten me.

        1. No, I won’t. There are several specific examples here in which your attempts to use analogy demonstrated that you either don’t understand analogy, or were disingenuously trying to get away with its misuse. If you still need enlightenment then I have already wasted more than enough time, and will not waste any more.

          1. Correction: There are several specific examples here in which I have pointed out that your attempts to use analogy demonstrated that you either don’t understand analogy, or were disingenuously trying to get away with its misuse.

          2. And yet not once have you demonstrated an understanding of the distinction you repeatedly assert. So I glad to know you will not waste any more time making empty assertions devoid of content.

  24. I haven’t read all the comments on this thread, but one thing is clear, David Lieberman is more intelligent, knowledgeable and argues better than anyone else here and it’s driving them all crazy.

  25. “None of those currently commenting who are disagreeing with my views (Torsion, David or David Lieberman) are in that category.”

    I can’t really see where I have disagreed with your views. Criticising your handling of this Purim affair has nothing at all to do with the Israel/Palestine conflict.

    I am also disappointed with your response to Elisabeth’s unwarranted and juvenile personal attacks on me which are clearly contrary to your rules for this forum (and this criticism also has nothing to do with the I/P issue).

  26. OK, Richard, point-by-point:

    “Ah, but it is exactly what you ARE saying as shown below in which you make a clear comparison bet. the alleged anti-Semitic hostility in Malmo & genocidal wars in Africa claiming clearly that the situation in Sweden could or might become comparable to that of Africa. Go back & read yr own words.”

    I have explicitly and repeatedly said I do not believe the recent experience of the Jews of Malmo rises to the level of what is going in Africa or many of the other slaughter houses and country-sized prisons around the world. What I have argued is that intense and protracted suffering elsewhere in the world does not invalidate their discomfort, nor does it deprive them of the right to decide when they’ve had enough. If you are going to tell me I have said something that differs from this — if, in other words, you are going to put words in my mouth — then at least quote the passage on which you found the accusation. The one you do quote goes nowhere close to illustrating your point. I illustrate in that quote exactly what I mean — that there is no moral justification for telling the Jews of Malmo they may not see to their own needs on the grounds that elsewhere in the world others are suffering more harshly than they.

    “I remain amused by yr vain attempt to argue that America is as racist a country as Israel because there are inoperative discrimination clauses in property deeds.”

    They were operative when they were written. I pointed to them as a vestige of a legacy that included a century of Jim Crow, school segregation and lynchings as public outings, and which Hurricane Katrina exposed as a still living legacy. I notice you choose to ignore all of that in favor jibing about the antiquated property deeds.

    “You’re arguing that Oklahoma was outside the boundaries of then U.S. territory? That’s truly what you’re arguing? Puh-leeze. I think I heard recently that Oklahoma was accepted as a state & that it is part of the U.S.”

    Point 1: The Trail of Tears expulsions took place in the 1830’s. Oklahoma became a state in 1907. Meaningful governance from Washington, apart from a partially effective and sporadically brutal military occupation, didn’t take shape until after the Civil War, when a critical mass of white settlers started to move in and began to disposess the Indians a second time. What precisely was the legal status of the expellees during the intervening four or five generations?

    Point 2: Do you really want to imply that the American acquisition and annexation of the vast, populated territory on the, ahm, “West Bank” of the Mississippi River fundamentally differed from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank of the Jordan River? By what right did either Napoleon or Thomas Jefferson engage in the trade that brought the Oklahoma territory under American control in the first place? If you really want to argue that the Oklahoma territory was legitimately part of the US territory in the 1830’s by virtue of a purchase agreement that had exactly zero input from the actual inhabitants of the land, you put yourself in an awfully difficult position if you also want to argue against out-an-out Israeli annexation of the WB. (For the record and to forestall misunderstanding — I do not, repeat NOT favor Israeli annexation of the WB.)

    “Once again, this isn’t what you originally argued. You said that the Indian Wars were a SUCCESSFUL war of extermination.”

    And I stand by that claim. I also suspect a majority of Native Americans would agree with me.

    “I’m not aware of any Palestinians earning billions of dollars a yr. in gambling revenue as many tribes currently do. Nor am I aware that Israel has ever entered into agreements with Palestinians offering compensation in the billions for the unjust taking of their property as has happened in this country.”

    Of course, it’s much easier to be magnanimous with an enemy once you have soundly and thoroughly defeated him. In this regard, see also Marshall, George C. I’m certain wouldn’t wish a similar path to “billions of dollars a yr.” on the Palestinians.

    1. Correction: “I’m certain wouldn’t wish a similar path to “billions of dollars a yr.” on the Palestinians.”

      should read

      “I’m certain you wouldn’t wish a similar path to “billions of dollars a yr.” on the Palestinians.”

    2. You’re the one who’s ignoring pts. that are inconvenient to yr argument. Are you arguing that the U.S. is currently a nation as racist as Israel & one w. as compromised a democratic system? The U.S. certainly has more than its share of racist history. But throughout its history there have been forces opposing these trends. And these forces largely succeeded in transforming the U.S. into a society that rid itself of the worst of these excesses. No one here is arguing that America is perfect or that its fight against racism & injustice is over. But I would argue that Israel is somewhere akin to the Confederate states in its level of democracy. It doesn’t hold slaves as the Confederacy did, but it has the Palestinians & Israeli Arabs instead.

      By what right did either Napoleon or Thomas Jefferson engage in the trade that brought the Oklahoma territory under American control in the first place?

      Good pt & entirely convenient for you to justify Israel’s expropriation of Palestinians lands. But are you truly arguing that the colonial manner in which European states & the U.S. disposed of lands formerly controlled by indigenous populations is the way we should do so now? Does that justify somehow Israel’s crimes? Or do you propose that we give back all the lands we dispossesed to their former indigenous inhabitants if we can find them? Perhaps Israel could arrange to meet a Jim Crow Palestinian ‘chief’ & give him $24 worth of trinkets & so purchase all of Palestine & so end all this nonsense?

      I stand by that claim.

      Now, you’re really trying my patience. The Indian Wars, I repeat, were NOT a successful extermination because they did not succeed in exterminating the Native American population. Period. I will not argue & have not that the U.S. did not do a grave injustice to Native Americans, but that doesn’t mean I countenance rhetorical fraud in describing this period. So argue this pt in this fashion again & yr future comments will be moderated. Here’s one of my rules, if you argue something & cannot successfully defend it you don’t get to repeat the argument or pt again. You’re done w. that pt. as you are w. this one.

      I also suspect a majority of Native Americans would agree with me.

      Don’t you just love the noblesse oblige w. which the magnanimous white man speaks on behalf of his Indian brothers.

      I’m certain wouldn’t wish a similar path to “billions of dollars a yr.” on the Palestinians.

      Isn’t that easy for you to say fr. yr well-fed, well-paid vantage pt as a comfortable American Jew (I presume). Could you pt out to me all the ways that Israel is empowering the Palestinians (either within Israel or in Palestine) to sustain themselves with through business development, whether it’s casino gambling or otherwise?

  27. Oh, you let the natives build casinos? How white of you (as you like to say). Ironically, the Israelis also helped the Palestinians build a casino in Jericho, but that didn’t work out so well because the PA was more interested in starting the second intifada.

    1. you let the natives build casinos?

      When you allow Palestinians to build businesses that provide 1/10th the income that casinos do to Native American tribes, then you can talk. Till then, best that you slink back in the corner.

      1. Encouraging a mostly Muslim people to build casinos is so blatantly colonialist that it turns my stomach. Islam forbids gambling and the promotion of gambling.

  28. I know we're all sneering at the "alleged" harassment of Jews in Malmo. I'd love to know what Shirin's friends in Caracas have to say about the state of things there.

    http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Venezuela2009e… (scroll to paragraph 780ff)

    Or is the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States also too ideologically suspect to take seriously when it declares itself "concerned by reports claiming that the Jewish community in Venezuela is being especially affected by violent incidents"?

    1. Perhaps if the wealthy Jews of Caracas wouldn't ally themselves w. coup plotters seeking to install a gov't favorable to their business interests, there might be less antagonism toward Jews. And if Israel didn't treat Hugo Chavez as the spawn of the devil it might change the environment somewhat.

Leave a Reply

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