87 thoughts on “Israel: Nation for All Its Citizens – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. You dilute the gravity of past, present and coming events, by using ambiguous vocabulary such as “ethnocracy”, “truncated democracy”. The term “democracy”, around which you sail, is defined by international law and thus can’t be truncated or followed by any other attributes. This ain’t like at a fancy restaurant, where you choose parmigiano with your pasta, or decide to leave it out, but still call it pasta. A state which privileges people based on their ethnic origin, and has institutionalized practices (laws) to entrench those privileges can only be described as an Apartheid state. None of the states which you mention (China, Russia, Serbia, and I would add lots more) have such laws. Discrimination and racism is present, but it is not institutionalized. This is a huge difference and you seem to miss the thin line between countries that fail to implement constitutional rights and countries which institutionalize discrimination and racism. The only three countries in the world, in modern history which have ever had such institutionalized discrimination were Britain, with their “A protestant state for a protestant people” practices in Northern Ireland, the “Jim Crow” era in the US and of course Apartheid South Africa.

    I’ll give just one example, and that is the amendment of the Citizenship Law in 2006, in which Palestinians from what is called “Sovereign Israel” are forbidden to marry Palestinians living a few miles away in Lebanon, or Gaza, or wherever, and bring them to live together in Israel. Meanwhile, if someone which the State of Israel identifies as a Jew (Not every person which defines themselves Jew is recognized by Israel as Jew), flies into Ben Gurion from Antarctica or Bronx, is given citizenship immediately. That to me, is a profound violation of basic human rights and conventions, to which Israel adhered to, and sincerely I cannot recall another nation on this planet where who you can marry is forbidden / conditioned by law.

    Such mild comparisons have no basis in reality.

    1. We can certainly think of historical states which restricted marriage between ethnicitiesbut not present ones.

      You rightly draw attention to the institutionalized aspect of Israeli racism and to the contradiction and absurdity of the Law of Return extended to foreigners but not to those who lived in the region for many centuries. In emphasizing the institutionalization of racism, you separate Israel, as a case, from more vulgar racism, present but not legitimized by law. It is this legal racism that characterizes Zionism: What other Zionism is there?

  2. Richard, you are schizophrenic. You can’t have it both ways. Either you are a Zionist, or you are a democrat, but not both. Re-imagining Zionism to fit your desires does not change its undemocratic character.

    1. Sorry Gene, we’re already disagreeing again!

      I’m a Zionist (believe in the right and fulfilment of a homeland for the Jews in I/P)
      At the same time I believe in full democratic rights for all I/P’s citizens, Jews or otherwise, which means I’m also a democrat.

      Ipso facto I’m a Zionist and a Democrat, and don’t suffer from schizophrenia

      1. No, shmuel. You didn’t agree with me in the first place. There is no democracy when there is no separation of church and state. Israel/Palestine can be a homeland for Jews without being a Jewish state. Just as the USA, or France is a homeland for Jews that live in those countries. I could never consider I/P a homeland so long as it is Jewish state.

        1. Well Gene, The UK is a democracy but church and state are not separated at all! (you can’t be King if you’re not Christian, but can be even if you weren’t born there).

          If I/P will be as democratic as the UK I’ll take it.

          I can’t see what’s wrong with I/P being a Jewish-Palestinian state (or P-J state if you prefer) and consider it the fulfillment of both the zionist ideal for Jews and the national aspirations of the Palestinians.

          1. Like Israel, the UK has no constitution. So theoretically there
            is no reason a non-Christian could not be king. It is merely tradition that the royals adhere to the Anglican church. The royal family is not the state, rather only a symbol. The democracy in the UK lies in its secular government. Disraeli, after all, was Jew.

        2. It’s going to be a state for Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc. I don’t care what you call it beyond that.

          And again no amount of cavorting by you is going to have any bearing on Zionism is defined & what it is & isn’t. You’re simply not credible on this matter except to the community of anti-Zionists. Not a large group, but you’re welcome to it.

      2. “I’m a Zionist and a Democrat”

        But reality dictates that this statement is an oxymoron and reality trumps good intentions. You can’t deny that reality is what defines the truth about Zionism. Zionism is not defined by “good intentions” that never materialize; it’s defined by reality, like it or not.

        Maybe “some” Zionists started out with good intentions trying to write a different story, but often life/destiny/God end up writing a different story and the truth, to teach us a lesson perhaps, and you just can’t accept that Zionism is bad. Your failure to accept this is hurtful and stands in the way of progress and healing.

        It’s not the first time evil has been done in God’s name by some tribe or another. We can’t pretend to know God’s will, especially when selfishness is involved even if we believe our personal suffering somehow entitles us and justifies the suffering of others.

        Man proposes -God disposes.

        1. reality dictates that this statement is an oxymoron

          YOUR reality and “reality” are not one & the same. I don’t confuse the 2 nor should you.

          Sorry, the US of A has committed many grievous injustices & was even conceived in sin. That doesn’t mean it’s worth throwing in the trash heap.

          As far as what is hurtful–again you’re not any reasonable arbiter and please stop moralizing to me. I find it patronizing.

          1. It’s not MY reality. It’s the reality that Palestinians are being subjected to; and it is, what it is. Can you deny that reality? Can you deny that Zionism didn’t create that reality? Can you deny that the suffering Palestinian have endured is what defines Zionism? Honestly, I hope you don’t.

            And you are the last person I would imagine would use the crimes of the U.S. or anyone else to make your point; I mean, I’ve seen hasbarists use this analogy. Why should the crimes and mistakes of the past be repeated? There was no internet in the 1700’s; no way to mobilize against crimes against humanity. Are we not supposed to evolve as a society and not resort to colonization and oppression of the “savages/natives” for ulterior motives and shouldn’t we be advancing our moral conscience with technology? Obviously, “savages” is not how I see Palestinians, but this is the way Zionists are treating them TODAY and since day one.

  3. Richard,
    You don’t discuss the Palestinian Right of Return.

    This is rather key, wouldn’t you say?

    What are your thoughts?


    ps I agree with Gene, I think you are re-defining the term “zionist”. As far as I know a zionist is someone who wants a Jewish state, which as you have said, a Jewish state cannot be a democratic state.

      1. I read the article twice. Richard spoke about the Israeli Right to Return, but pls point me to where he spoke about Palestinian Right of Return, if I missed it.


      2. He certainly did. Justifiably so. Let’s not accuse Richard of things he didn’t say when he did.

        What I dispute is Jewish DNA. There is no such thing. Anti-Semitism is a cultural trope, not biological. Though I do understand the emotion behind the statement.

        1. Sorry, a more careful reading reveals – Richard said:
          “If Israel wishes to give Jews preferential treatment in offering citizenship it should do so as long as it offers similar preference to the refugees of 1948 and their immediate offspring.”

          “Jews who need an emergency haven should be given it. But direct descendants of Israeli Palestinian refugees who face similar jeopardy should also receive favored treatment.”

          These are major disclaimers that leave the question of Palestinian refugees open: “immediate offspring” . “direct descendants”
          what does that mean? who decides?

          It seems to me that Richard does not wish to confront the question “does every Palestinian who wishes to return to his/her native land have the right to do so?”

          This can not be ignored, or glossed over. It is a game-breaker for many people on both sides.

          1. @ellen

            Please do not pick nits just to score points. Richard clearly includes all Palestinians in his expressed wish for right of return.

            If my formula for a one state solution (above) were followed, there would be no need for the right. It would be solved automatically.

          2. “It seems to me that Richard does not wish to confront the question “does every Palestinian who wishes to return to his/her native land have the right to do so?””

            I agree with you Ellen. Although, it’s a difficult question to confront, it’s necessary to do so and not pretend that the elephant in the room doesn’t exist. Many of the refugees have been suffering for decades and they can’t be ignored or dismissed. They have rights that must be addressed COMPASSIONATELY and HUMANELY.

    1. Not true, Ellen. Ideologies are changed all the time by those who adhere to them. My ideas about Zionism are just as valid as Jabotinsky’s though he & those Zionists I admire had more influence on the movement than I.

      1. @Richard,

        I don’t want to talk about the Law of Return. The Law of Return is an Israeli law that applies only to Jews. Let’s talk about the Right of Return to Palestine-Israel of Palestinians and of Jews (supposedly after 3000 years in diaspora.)

        And don’t toy with us please and by a simple “yes” or “no” answer the two following questions

        (1) Does every Palestinian who wishes to return to his/her native land have the right to do so and be allowed by Israel to do so? and

        (2) Does every Jew from anywhere in the world who wishes to emigrate to Israel have the right to do so and be allowed by Israel to do so?” [Obviously “yes” because it is exactly what the Law of Return says]

        of course we are not talking of criminals and felons here.

        if you cannot or will not answer by a “yes” or “no” then i must conclude that you are hiding your real intentions and don’t want to make them public.

        please don’t take this as an implicit accusation of any kind. it is not. i am just trying to understand you and i don’t like to be toyed with.

  4. Zionism is racism. Yes, we all cry over what happened in Europe to people 70 years ago, just because they were Jewish. Yes, we all believe: “Never again.” Yes we all understand the Arabs made many mistakes since the 1940’s and they should have received the holocaust survivors with open arms.
    But that does not entitle anyone to believe that the Jews are “chosen” or somehow can justify anything they do. That does not justify the apartheid regime in the occupied territories. That does not justify the Zionist manipulation of the US government to start wars in the Middle East or to pay off Christian Zionists to hate all muslims. It does not justify the attempt to change history and create the illusion a “judeo-christian” tradition to fight the muslims. That does not justify using phosphorus bombs on children, that does not justify AIPACs work on the Hill to cover up for the crimes committed on Wall STreet, the main financier of the zionist movement in America. It does not justify the zionist commentators in a wide range of news papers or blogs to pursue a propaganda war to start a war between America and 1.5 billion muslims.
    The zionists are doing exactly what the Nazi’s did when it comes to propaganda. It is going to back fire and it is going to be a disaster for the innocent good jewish people of this world.

  5. Here’s the only part of your comment I find credible with one minor exception:

    “ In fact, if Israel became the sort of state I envision it would go a long way to tempering hostility from all of these frontline states. It would make a large contribution toward resolving the overall conflict among Israel and its neighbors.”

    The exception being: “the state I envision”. Let’s change that to a state that recognizes the rights of Palestinians to their land and either their sovereignty in a separate state OR their full democratic participation in Israel.

    I agree with Gene and Ellen. You are redefining Zionism. I keep telling you that this is not the Zionism most Jews recognize and the Zionism that created the facts on the ground. This is in FACT and in REALITY NOT ZIONISM, Richard.

    I can appreciate your dream, obviously, but what you fail to understand that sacrificing Zionism is the ONLY way to achieve that dream unless a miracle happened and those crazy settlers suddenly vacated the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

    Why is it necessary to cling to Zionism when it holds so many negative connotations and is in fact the impediment to peace?

    One of the first steps Israelis need to take is to RECOGNIZE the Nakba as a great injustice and crime against humanity and specifically, Palestinians. Right there, Israelis would be putting Zionism in the past where it belongs. Second, Zionists must ABSOLUTELY pay a price for this crime; just like the German people paid a price. The price will be, either accepting a two-state solution with full sovereignty for Palestinians along the 67 borders and that means returning the West Bank and East Jerusalem and allowing for the right of return of all refugees living in poverty and compensation for those who wish to rebuild their lives wherever they may be OR assimilating millions of Palestinians into a unified democratic state – and that is no longer Zionism and Zionism should be considered offensive and counter-productive to creating stability and peace in a unified state. BUT , there should be a new Constitution that legally GUARANTEES the rights of Jews, freedom to practice their religion and protection of their present-day religious sites, as well as protections for their language, culture and education. The largest minority should also be guaranteed a high representative in Government.

    Unfortunately, none of this will happen, unless Zionism is put in the past or there is a great tragedy that wakes people up.

    1. I strongly disagree.

      The face the zionism has been stained with crime, does not mean the idea itself is criminal.

      I refuse to reject the idea of a homeland for jews, even as I reject the idea of a jewish state. It seems obvious to me that without suppressing the jewish nature of israel to a bare minimum we will never solve the conflict. Judaism is an inherent source of violance.

      I’m fully aware that very few zionists see zionism the way I do, but this does not discredit the idea itself.

      As I said a while ago, rejecting zionism because it’s *inconvenient* is totally immoral.

      I will give you this: it is becoming increasingly clearer that it might one day be necessary to give up on zionism. Even so, botching the execution of the idea, even if done so spectacularly, doesn’t invalidate the idea itself.

      While I prefer a federal solution, I do believe zionism can work even in the context of a fully unified palestinian state. It’s far from perfect, but it’s more than we deserve.

      1. “…rejecting zionism because it’s *inconvenient* is totally immoral.”

        But cleansing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians through terrorist acts and torching their homes so they have nothing to return to and then denying those who’ve lived as impoverished refugees for decades isn’t merely “inconvenient”; it’s even more immoral. I mean Jews in the Diaspora are doing great as citizens of other countries. I reject Zionism because it’s produced an immoral reality. If you don’t reject Zionism then this is the reality you’re enabling because changing this reality without rejecting Zionism is like reversing gravity – it’s impossible, I mean, you’re in a minute minority; the majority of Zionists don’t agree with you. How do you expect to achieve the Zionism you believe is possible without having Palestinians suffer decades more? How do you expect to achieve it at all? You can’t expect Palestinians to wait around until you accomplish the impossible!

        Zionism doesn’t merely imply a home for the Jewish people; it implies doing an end-run around Democracy to preserve a Jewish majority or Jewish power in Israel whether you’re willing to admit it or not. You don’t expect me to believe you can break down that established wall?

        And you didn’t address the fact that the first step towards a solution is to recognize the harm done to Palestinians and apologize for the Nakba. Are you avoiding the fact that the Nakba is how the fulfillment of the Zionist project began or do you just not want to deal with the reality of this, but instead keep indulging the fantasy of Zionism that hasn’t materialized?

        1. “you’re in a minute minority; the majority of Zionists don’t agree with you”

          True. But this doesn’t make my beliefs any less valid, and it doesn’t erase the fact that they are under the umbrella of zionism.

          Practicality has NOTHING to do with it. There is no foreseeable future in which the majority of israelis reject racism and violance or recognize their crimes.

          The way things are now, it seems that the only outcome is a full or partial demise of zionism, via force rather than any kind of democratic process.

          “How do you expect to achieve it at all?”

          I have’nt the slightest clue. Do you?

          Morally, israelis should apologize for their countless crimes. Practically, this may never happen, and it isn’t a prerequisite for a reasonible solution.

        2. you’re in a minute minority; the majority of Zionists don’t agree with you

          How little you know of history. Would you care to speculate how many ideas which swept the world began as extremely unpopular ones embraced by a tiny minority? I’ll let yr own imagination fill in the blanks rather than do it for you. And I utterly reject YOUR definition of Zionism. Isn’t it a tad ironic to have an anti-Zionist define for us what Zionism is. Would you define Irish Republicanism to an Irish Republican? Or Roman Catholicism to a Roman Catholic if you weren’t one?

          1. Again, I’m not defining what Zionism is; Zionists are defining what Zionism is by what they’re doing to Palestinians and how they manipulated the U.S. government to enable them to keep doing what they’re doing.

            Secondly, I agree that an unpopular idea that a majority rejects can evolve into something embraced by millions or even a billion people, but that happens over generations and Palestinians don’t have the luxury of waiting around suffering in limbo while you and a few others convince the majority of Zionists with insecurity issues that Zionism can embrace diversity and Democracy and still survive.

      2. Then you must agree with Richard because others responding here cannot envision a gentler Zionism, and I am one of them. This gentle Zionism is fantasy: There was never anything right about creating a Jewish state where there were few Jews but many Arabs. So, the idea itself is objectionable, but not a crime unless, and until, it is implemented. And it is implemented, isn’t it?

      3. @duck,

        Zionism does not only call for the establishment in Palestine of a “homeland for the jews,” it also call for the “displacement of the native population” out and away from where the jews settle.

        Please read “Der Judenstaat” by Herzl which even lays the “plan” in minute details on HOW to achieve the objective of creating a “Jewish State.”

        No amount of twisted redefinition of Zionism can do away with what the original source has so plainly stated and later sources (see Jabotinski) have repeatedly stressed.

        Not even Richard’s redefinition can do that.

        1. “it also call for the “displacement of the native population” out and away from where the jews settle.”

          It absolutely does not!

          Most zionists, prehaps inlcluding Herzel (who is NOT the original source), believe ethnic cleansing is needed for the application of zionism. I, and other zionists, do not at all believe this.

    2. You are redefining Zionism.

      I don’t know what “redefining” Zionism means. Ideologies are redefined all the time. And I don’t think you are the final arbiter of what Zionism is or isn’t. Last I checked no one had appointed you the Zionist Pope. In fact, that’s one of the things I’ve always like about Judaism: no Pope. No one to tell you you’re kosher or treif.

      In fact it is you who only know what you’ve read in books about Zionism & Zionist history. The movement is what you make it. I’m trying to adhere to a perfectly kosher interpretation of Zionism which others before me created. I’m actually returning to an earlier form of Zionism represented by Buber, Magnes, Ahad HaAm & others. But of course mine is informed by modern developments they couldn’t have contemplated.

      I don’t “cling to” Zionism. I am a Zionist because I am a Jew who believes in Israel that incorporates Jews as an integral part of itself.

      1. “I don’t know what “redefining” Zionism means. Ideologies are redefined all the time.”

        How can you say you don’t know what redefining Zionism means and then say ideologies are redefined all the time? There seems to be contradiction in this statement.

        “I am a Zionist because I am a Jew who believes in Israel that incorporates Jews as an integral part of itself.”

        Can’t you just say that you’re a Jew who believes….. and leave the Zionist out of it? Is that too much to ask if maybe it’s the Zionist part that is the problem and not the rest of it?

        Anyway, sometimes I think we’re arguing over semantics since I want to see diversity embraced in Israel and I want to see equal rights for everyone including the Palestinians in the territories, but unlike you, I see Zionism as the obstacle to achieving that. With all that you write and believe; I just can’t fathom how you don’t see this. I just wish Jews could be just Jews and lose the Zionist. I feel like Zionism is a wall holding back peace. Maybe, it’s my imagination but I feel anti-Zionist Jews have no agendas, they just live and let live and are moving on, while Zionist Jews are either defensive, aggressive or both, and are held back by the past.

        Anyway, this is my perception, don’t shoot me.

        1. When you accuse me of redefining Zionsim it’s like accusing Newton or Einstein of redefining the laws of nature as understood by science. Before they lived, scientific principles were understood one way, after they were “redefined.” Did anyone carp & say they didn’t have the right to redefine scienctific knowledge? Or if you prefer, it’s like saying the Baal Shem Tov had no right to “redefine” Judaism through his new Hasidic movement. Many Jews of the time believed that & were angry at the Besht. Who were they to say what Judaism could or couldn’t be? Neither do you have the right to tell me what Zionism is or isn’t. You have the right to tell me how YOU define it & what YOUR opinion is. But that’s it. And I have the right to pursue my own vision, which I will.

          Is that too much to ask

          Yup, it is. I get to define myself & my beliefs, not you.

          I just wish Jews could be just Jews and lose the Zionist

          It’s a little like saying I just wish Catholics could be Catholic & lose the pope. I don’t much like the pope either, but without him it’s pretty much not Catholicism

          don’t shoot me

          Nobody’s getting shot here, even in disagreement.

          1. There are many Jews who are not Zionists. Adhering to Zionism is not a prerequisite for being a good Jew.

            And why do you insist on saying that I’m defining Zionism? Zionism is defining itself. Sure you’re free to define it your way, but does it reflect the reality of Zionism on the ground in Israel?

            And I meant to say: don’t bite my head off.

          2. @Richard,
            it is true that “ideologies are redefined all the time.” the old ones are trashed or just fade away and the new ones are given NEW NAMES.
            thus in PHYSICS (the study of the physical aspect of nature) among many others we can count “AncientGreek Physics (four elements, fire, air, earth, water)”, “Newton Physics (static frame of reference),” “Einstein Physics (relative frame of reference,” and “Quantum Physics (completely different concepts altogether).”
            Those “Physics” are generally if not altogether completely different. That’s why they are GIVEN different NEW NAMES.
            Another example comes from the world of the history of Religion with which i am sure you are aware. I begin with Judaism.
            In ancient as well as in modern times, the definitions of the term JUDAISM are many to enumerate, i.e. there were and still are different kinds of Judaism, some even denying the other (according to Israel’s Chief Rabbi, Reform Jews are not really Jews.)
            With the Jew Jesus a MAJOR redefinition of Judaism started to enter the field of history and Judaism slowly metamorphosed first into the NAZARENE religion of Simon-Peter and his clique of friends (who were still technically Jews) and then (later) with Saul of Tarsus (a.k.a. St. Paul), the greatest REDEFINER of them all and as i would say the greatest “RE-DECEIVER” of them all, JUDAISM became (know as) CHRISTIANITY.
            the pre-Jesus JUDAISM remained of course alive and well and retained the name JUDAISM. But the Judaism of Jesus, Peter, and Paul did not become NEW Judaism or PROGRESSIVE Judaism, or ANYTHING Judaism. It became CHRISTIANITY and took the name CHRISTIANITY.
            I could go on with other examples but i think the point is made:
            When redefinition of a term is overused to the point of confusion, incoherence, and inner-contradiction, the “term” is not redefined further, it is tossed away, thrown overboard and a new term takes its place.
            History is abound with examples of this type of term-metamorphoses (and descriptive naming.)
            I think we are now at a junction in history where it is high time for honest people like you to toss away and throw overboard the term ZIONISM and to rename their vision for “a Homeland for the Jews in Palestine” by any other term than ZIONISM.
            Of course, only you will decide what to call your vision for the Homeland of the Jews. What this (clean moral) vision will eventually come to be known as, only time will tell.

          3. @ jjcostandi

            The issue is that versions of zionism like richard an I advocate are NOT new. They are simply a modern understanding of the original zionist idea. Which means we do NOT see the original zionist effort as a bad thing.

            What irkes me here is the historical distortion. One day, you see, israel will lose everything, because it tried to have everything. When this happens, and history is written by the winners, the entire zionist movement will be idenified with israel’s crimes.
            It breaks my heart to think that one day my grandparents will be remembered as bloodthirsty colonial invaders.

        2. “Can’t you just say that you’re a Jew who believes….. and leave the Zionist out of it? Is that too much to ask if maybe it’s the Zionist part that is the problem and not the rest of it?”

          I wish you could understand what you are asking here.

          You are asking us to give up on the national hopes of our people, simply because you have bad connotations from it.

          1. Duck,
            re: “the national hopes of our people” –

            What is Meant by nationalism?
            It seems to me that nationalism is one of those isms that should be buried. Nationalism leads to war, leads to excluding certain people, leads to armed borders, leads to ideas of national superiority.
            What pushes the people who want to round up all the immigrants in the US and inter them, but nationalsim? [no I am not saying all nationalists feel this way.]
            But these horrid ideas do grow out of nationalist feelings.

            and what is the upside of nationalism?
            what does it serve?
            And why need I feel good about being a Jew? I feel good to the extent I am a good human being, to the extent I meet my standards of behavior, to the extent I fulfill my potential of making the world a better place.
            What does that have to do with being a Jew?

            Duck when you say, “Our people?”
            who in the heck do you mean?
            Alan Dershowitz? He is a Jew, does that mean he is one of “my people”?
            I have no idea what that means “our people”.
            People who wish upon Richard death to his family – they are Jews. Are they therefore, because they are born Jewish, one of “my people”?

            not hardly

          2. There is a difference between nationalism and jingoism or Know Nothingism or Tea Partyism. Nationalism is an ideology claiming pride in one’s nation. As such, it can be an entirely positive movement. But taken to extremes, as can happen with any ideology, it is noxious & dangerous. Palestinian nationalism taken to extremes can be just as noxious as Israeli nationalism. The diff. of course is that Israeli nationalism is backed up by 400 nuclear weapons, while Palestinian nationalism, at its worst, is backed up by Qassams or suicide bombs.

            Israeli nationalism has little to do with being a Jew. It has, or should have, to do with being an Israeli. And those two things should be distinguished & discrete fr ea other.

          3. In a better world, yes, I’d like to see nationalism done away with. But this is not the case, and nations DO have the right to pursue self determination.

            Jewish nationalism is more complicated, and I honestly don’t have all the answers. I, personally, do not feel that Alan, or any other diasporic jew for that matter, is really a part of my nation. But that is irrelevant. The jewish nation, in the sense of how a group of people see themselves, has a right for self determination.

        3. And yes, zionism is an obstacle. Still, asking jews to give up on it is just like asking palstinians to give up their nationality for the sake of peace.

          Jews without zionism are jews outside of israel. Without zionism palestine is just another part of the diaspora.
          This is doubly problematic for me, since I do not see myself as jewish at all. I/P is my only homeland. My people are the people of tel-aviv and haifa, aswell as the people of el-arakib and bethlehem. I have no paticular feelings of national solidarity with diasporic jews, other than my standing invitation to them to come here and become a part of this nation. Just like I (but few others, sadly) invite asian migrant workers who have lived here for years to stay and become a part of this nation.

          1. @duck,
            you write:
            “And yes, zionism is an obstacle. Still, asking jews to give up on it is just like asking palstinians [sic] to give up their nationality for the sake of peace.”

            This looks to me as a pretty convoluted and in the concepts that it employs an inherently very fuzzy statement.

            The nationality of the palestinians is what? is it being “palestinian” or being “arab?” (i will not consider semitic here). if their nationality is “palestinian” (which i contend it is) and not “arab” (the arab volk) then asking them to give it up is equivalent to asking them to give up on palestine. so we have:
            (1) palestinians give up on palestine (1)
            let’s see how this work on the other side of the comparison:
            The nationality of the jews is what? is it being “israeli” or being “jewish?” (i will not consider semitic here).
            if their nationality is “israeli” and not “jewish” (the jewish volk) then asking them to give it up is equivalent to asking them to give up israel. so we have:
            (2) israelis give up on israel (2)
            if their nationality is “jewish” and not “israeli” then asking them to give it up is equivalent to asking them to give up what: judaism? or israel?
            if judaism then we have: (3) jews give up on judaism (3)
            if israel then we have: (4) jews give up on israel (4)
            Now where does zionism fit is all of this?
            please enlighten me:
            when you write of “asking jews to give up on zionism,” are you equating “zionism” with “israel the Judenstaat,” with “Judaism” (the Religion of the jews,) or with “being Jewish” (the jewish volk)?
            please enlighten me.
            Let us now try to find where the disconnect originates:
            The arabs are volkwise arab and religionwise muslim, christian, and jewish. (you may not agree that arab jews do exit but we’ll leave his for a latter discussion.)
            The jews are volkwise jewish and religionwise (ALSO) jewish.
            so please enlighten me again:
            Is “asking jews to give up on zionism,” equivalent to
            (5) asking jews to give up on their volk (5) or
            (6) asking jews to give up on their religion (6) or
            (3) asking jews [to] give up on judaism (3) ?

            let us see now where the confusion originates. we have:
            (1) [asking] palestinians [to] give up on palestine (1)
            (1a) [asking] palestinians [to] give up on islam, … (1a)
            (1b) [asking] palestinians [to] give up on their volk (1b)
            (2) [asking] israelis [to] give up on israel (2)
            (3) asking jews [to] give up on judaism (3)
            (4) [asking] jews [to] give up on israel (4) not= (2)
            (5) asking jews to give up on their volk (5)
            (6) asking jews to give up on their religion (6) = (3)

            NO ONE is entertaining (1a), (1b), (3), (5), and (6)
            for POLITICAL reasons
            ZIONISM has long entertained (1)
            HAMAS has long entertained (1) and (4)

            so to start at the beginning. when you say “asking jews to give up on [Zionism] is just like asking palstinians [sic] to give up their nationality for the sake of peace” you are delving into a territory ripe with confusing and very fuzzy concepts as i hope i have demonstrated above.

            Earlier you wrote:
            “The issue is that versions of zionism like richard and I advocate are NOT new. They are simply a modern understanding of the original zionist idea. Which means we do NOT see the original zionist effort as a bad thing.”

            The “original zionist effort” is based on Herzl’s “Judenstaat” which from the outset planned from the covert removal or the (temporary alternative of) economic enslavement of the native population of palestine in furtherance of the zionist enterprise, a racist enterprise from the very beginning and indeed a very bad thing for the palestinians then and now. your modern understanding of the original zionist idea contradicts the original source writings of Zionism. And although later some jewish writer tried to redefine zionism to give it a defensible moral face, “the original zionist effort” projected morality but was and has always been in its very core “a [very] bad thing.”
            I can get you the original “bad zionism” quotations if you so request but you can make life easier for me and google them yourself.
            thank you for staying with me, if you did. I have to go to sleep now.
            and shalom/salaam cousin.

          2. “i hope i have demonstrated above.”

            Yes you did. Impressive.
            However, there is really no need to delve this deeply.
            I realise that the comparison is weak, but the idea is simple.
            I was referring only to the specific point raised by Kalea – that zionism is an obstacle. Rejecting zionism just because it’s an obstacle to peace is no more moral than rejecting palestinian aspirations for statehood. Those are no less a obstacle to peace. From a practical, not moral, viewpoint, ofourse.

            “The “original zionist effort” is based on Herzl’s “Judenstaat””

            This is simply not true. Don’t overestimate Hertzl.

  6. Seeing Richard originally published this on a joint blog with Larry Derfner, this might be the place to inform that Larry has been fired from his job at theJerusalem Post because of his writings.

    Shame on them!

  7. “If Israel is exclusively a Jewish state then it cannot be a democracy.”

    Can’t we agree that we basically want the same result? The truth is that you’re denying Zionism in that comment.

    Why can’t you realize that what you and I hope for can’t be achieved without putting Zionism in the past and admitting the wrong that has been done in its name; the Nakba being the most significant? I dream of the day that Israelis and Palestinians will mourn the Holocaust AND the Nakba TOGETHER.

    When Zionism is no longer the goal and is put in the past; the healing will begin.

    1. My denial of Zionism was implied. “Jewish state” is the goal of Zionism. Eliminate Jewish state and you eliminate Zionism.

  8. “He postulates Israelis who believe more strongly in a vague sense of Arabness, than in the reality of their own Israeli nationality.”

    I don’t like this business of a majority POSTULATING something (objectionable to themselves) ONTO a minority.

    Would USA’s Jews like the Christians (say) to POSTULATE that Jews in USA have a greater sense of Issrtaelis ness than of American ness? (Even if they’ve fooled themselves to believe that they have BOTH “nessess” (this is the Ness Monster).

  9. Imo the current problem is not so much the system per se (“democracy” or otherwise). Any man-made system will always be vulnerable to criminal pressures that infect its foundations and institutions. In the end it will always be down to the PEOPLE to decide whether 1)the time ‘for formatting’ the ‘virus infected hard drive’ and start a fresh has come or 2)they keep patching it and let the stink continue.

    1. Are the “criminal pressures” likened to a virus here? You make bad faith and immorality sound like a disease, not a reflection of character and choice!

  10. Well, I have to admit it is sometimes fun to debate these issues with some of the commenters to these posts. Though there are many disagreements among us, most of us are respectful and try to understand the other’s points of view. However, when Richard joins in it is always with prejudice. His insecurity causes him to over-defend his indoctrinated Judaism and he lashes out indiscriminately at those who have the temerity to disagree with him. He has the nerve to criticize others for making out of place remarks, but has no qualms about making ad hominem remarks about others; always a weak, defensive argument.
    Recently, after a go-around with him, he became very insulting and I suggested I might drop out of the discussion, several of you asked me not to retire my voice from this blog. Another reader, Deir Yassin, also said she was quitting, and you requested that she remain, too. She didn’t. And I now believe I was wrong not to. Well, now is the time to say goodbye. I know Richard will be happy to see me go. I am happy I won’t have to read his ignorant posts.

      1. I think you’re reading Gene wrong. He defended part of your comment on right of return above, so this kinda comes as a slap in the face.:

        “He certainly did. Justifiably so. Let’s not accuse Richard of things he didn’t say when he did.”

        I don’t know; I wouldn’t fuss over his choice of words too much. Maybe he means you’re stubbornly biased when it comes to Zionism, because he suspects it was ingrained at some point; and thinks you’d be better off if your opinions weren’t shaded by indoctrination of any kind.

        Even if he meant it in the sense of religious upbringing; people who are secular and I don’t know whether he is or not, I’m trying to understand, sometimes demonstrate sarcastic irreverence for those who are bound by their religion; it may just be lingering resentment for the “indoctrination” imposed on them, or again the fact that he suspects indoctrination could be clouding your judgment and objectivity and making communication difficult.

        When all is said and done, he’s okay; you’re okay. That’s all that matters not miscommunication and misinterpretation.

      2. @Richard,
        “his indoctrinated Judaism”: Sorry choice of words indeed.
        but consider that the only possible meaning of the phrase “his indoctrinated Judaism” is “the Judaism into which he was indoctrinated” which say nothing about Judaism the religion per se but all about the indoctrination (implicit Zionist) indoctrination that Richard went through supposedly at an early age.
        please take it easy. I too would like to see both Gene Shulman and DeirYassin back on this blog. they make it worth reading.
        also, and pardon me if i overstep here.
        it is obvious from your latest responses that you are under tremendous pressure and that unintentionally i am sure you have turned people off by your tone (especially when it sounds knee-jerk.)
        please consider that not all anti-zionists are anti-jew or anti-israel or anti(a-homeland-for-the-jews-in-palestine-israel).
        they might just be against what they consider and experience as the inherent racism and anti-judaic immorality of Herzl’s, Jabotinski’s and present-day Israeli Likudi Zionism.
        i want to stay on contributing to this blog but Richard sometime you make it difficult for me to do so.
        thanks anyway.

        1. I agree, atleast with (most of) the second part. Taking it easy is a good idea.

          “please consider that not all anti-zionists are anti-jew or anti-israel or anti(a-homeland-for-the-jews-in-palestine-israel)”

          I think this is the crux of this debate. Anti-zionist, the way I see it, IS anti-homeland-for-jews. I suspect richard sees anti-israel as anti-zionist aswell, while I believe it’s very possible to be zionist AND against a jewish state.

          This seems like a very semantic argument, but it’s very important. The stakes are whether jews have a right to exercise their nationality in palestine.

          Also, I see “likudi zionism” as a necessary outcome of judaism, rather than anti-judaic.

          @Richard: Just because you have enemies everywhere (and I suspect you do), doesn’t mean you’re not acting paranoid. Calm down. What you’ve built here is too important to allow the hasbarists to turn us on each other.

          1. @duck,
            please refer to my other “long” response to you (above).

            my friend, your response takes us into a semantic circus and sorry i completely disagree with you on almost every point you raise in it. you say:
            (1) “Anti-zionist, the way I see it, IS anti-homeland-for-jews.”
            –> No Anti-Zionist is definitely NOT anti-homeland-for-jews. Anti-Zionist IS anti-homeland-for-jews ONLY at the expense of the native population, the palestinians, the expropriation of their lands, their ghettoization, their expulsion, and since 1947 the destruction of more than 6000 of their cities and (small) villages.
            (2) “I suspect richard sees anti-israel as anti-zionist as well, while I believe it’s very possible to be zionist AND against a jewish state.”
            –> do you mean it’s very possible to be zionist AND against a jewish state BUT PRO-Israel? ANTI-Israel? Do you mean then that you believe it possible to be simultaneously both a zionist AND AGAINST Israel as a jewish state?
            I don’t get what you mean . your argument rests entirely on how you define the term “jewish state”. if so then what is your definition of “jewish state.” It is obvious to me personally believe that Egypt, whether stated somewhere or not, is a “muslim-majority state.” In the same sense and using the same terminology israel can be defined as a “jewish-majority state” but never oxymoronically as a “jewish state.” The problem is that Likudi-Zionism will never agree to that “jewish-majority state” appellation. ask Netanyahu and Lieberman.
            (3) “This seems like a very semantic argument, but it’s very important. The stakes are whether jews have a right to exercise their nationality in palestine.”
            –> please refer to my other “long” response to you (above). the term “jewish nationality” presents us with a minefield of conceptual and semantic confusion.
            (4) “Also, I see “likudi zionism” as a necessary outcome of judaism, rather than anti-judaic.”
            –> DEFINITELY WRONG HERE. likudi-zionism is a racist immoral enterprise. (CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE and p
            lease use original source material only.) Judaism is not.
            Awaiting your response.

          2. (1) I see anti-zionism as being against jewish “aliyah” even if israel was totally empty, or atleast seeing the existence of palestinians as a reason to totaly reject “aliyah”. Zionism Isn’t “aliyah+racism”. Racism is not integral to zionism.

            (2) Lets clarify.
            I see israel as one of two possibilities: either a jewish state or a jewish majority state. By jewish state I mean a state which has jewish religious and cultural characteristics.
            I totaly reject the idea of a jewish state. It is a racist and vile notion. It is my misfortune to be living in such a state.
            As for jewish majority state, I support this idea, but only as long as it does not hurt any palestinian rights. This could have been accomplished if israel had no native population. It can also be done by creating a palestinian federation, in which there will be one or more cantons with a jewish majority, while other canton/s have a palestinian majority. However, since this ideal is highly dependant on historical circumstances and may not be feasible, I can’t really see myself as “pro-israel”. Nor can I see myself as “anti-israel”, since the idea does hold some merit.

            I do, however, see myself as a zionist. I believe in the right of jews to come here and unify as a nation. So long as no rights are infringed. For this to be possible these jews must minimise their judaism (religion and volk) and become simply israelis, or even hebrew-palestinians. Statehood should only be pursued in cooperation with the native population.

            (3) There is no need to explore such intricacies. I hope my above points are clear enough. If not, feel free to argue further.
            Of myself, I could say this: my religion is not judaism. My nation and my volk are israeli-palestinian.

            (4) “likudi-zionism is a racist immoral enterprise”

            Totaly true. Judaism is the source of this. I would be happy to argue about this, if you think it needs debating.

  11. I agree, ideologies change all the time. If i did not accept this, i would have a difficult time being an American, especially considering how the West was truly won.

    I was fortunate enough to observe first-hand the WTO protests in Seattle. One of my favorite chants from that time is “This is what De-moc-ra-cy looks like!”

    Richard, thank you for this blog post. This is what democracy looks like.

  12. Gene,

    Please don’t give up. I understand how you feel. I have also felt the wrath of Richard, but he ended up removing the moderation on me, and I’m cautiously back for now. His bark is worse than his bite.

    Can you tell me why Deir Yassin wanted to quit commenting?

    Your point of view is important and worthy of debate.

    1. I’m gonna join in on this. A healthy debate needs a variety of voices.

      I’m sad to hear Deir Yassin left. She was a valuable voice here.

      Frankly, the both of you need to grow up. I’ve had worse go arounds with richard. You guys have to acknowledge that the internet is a poor method for communicating intention.

      As for “indoctrinated Judaism”, what religion isn’t indoctrinated? Come on.

      1. @duck,
        you write:
        As for “indoctrinated Judaism”, what religion isn’t indoctrinated? Come on.”
        Sorry to disagree with you. please read part of my (above) comment to Richard which i quote here:

        “his indoctrinated Judaism”: Sorry choice of words indeed.
        but consider that the only possible meaning of the phrase “his indoctrinated Judaism” is “the Judaism into which he was indoctrinated” which says nothing about Judaism the religion per se but all about the indoctrination (implicit Zionist indoctrination) that Richard went through supposedly at an early age.

        1. I implied that the pharse says nothing about judaism the religion, only about the effect of indoctrination. My point was that every religion is the result of indoctrination. I’m not sure how we disagree on this.

          Unless you mean that the phrase doesn’t refer to indoctrination itself, but rather specifically to zionism. In which case, we do disagree, and you may be right on this.

          Not that it really matters.

          1. my dear friend @duck,
            i agree with you that the phrase “indoctrinated judaism” or more specifically “indoctrinated (anyReligion)” refers to the activity of indoctrination of a religion into the minds of (presumably young) people and that the phrase definitely does not refer to the religion itself whatever it be.
            but it appears that @Richard completely misunderstood what appears to be clear to both you and me. how else can one explain his startling response that “this is repulsive and offensive … and the last straw” ?
            Verbatim quote from above:
            “Richard Silverstein says:
            August 29, 2011 at 10:57 PM
            .his indoctrinated Judaism.
            This is repulsive and offensive & for me the last straw as well. If you decide once again to try to return you won’t this time.”

          2. I don’t care what the term refers to. I was not “indoctrinated” by anything. I have a mind. I question everything that is presented to me including religion. I’m not an automaton. I resent the fact that anyone would dare claim that I’ve been indoctrinated. I find it deeply offensive to me intellectually and religiously.

          3. @Richard,
            Perhaps we are just disagreeing on the meaning and use of the term “indoctrination?”
            I personally (as i am sure many others) do not consider the term “indoctrination” to have either a positive/good or a negative/bad connotation per se. In that sense we find in our environment and life examples of what we may consider “indoctrination into” either good or bad habits of life, skill and thought.
            many mistakingly assume that all indoctrination is “indoctrination into the bad” and for them “indoctrination” is implicitly “bad indoctrination.” I disagree. They are mistaken in their assumption and as a result may feel slighted by what other may say to them whiten the context of the word “indoctrination” and its derivatives.
            For example, at an early age, i personally have been indoctrinated at school into the “christian and catholic ethics and morality,” which because i am not an perpetual automaton, i have now rejected, consider bad, anti-natural and immoral (that is the christian ethics and morality, not the indoctrination.) i.e. i have now by choice tossed away and thrown overboard (off of my mental ship) those christian ethics and morality that i have been inculcated with at my early age.
            At the same time (simultaneously) at the same school, i have also been indoctrinated into the “french culture and language,” (i was sternly ordered: “you will not speak arabic here, in this school you will speak only in french”) which i now consider to have been good and very useful in my life (that is the french culture and language.)
            Another example: Many consider the “indoctrination” of new recruits into “the US marine corps culture” to be a national good moral enterprise. Many consider it to be bad and immoral. Again the culture not the indoctrination per se.
            i do not really wish to continue this minute detail conceptual dissection of what is meant by such and such a term. I hope that I have made the point.
            I simply want to state that IMO all human beings have been indoctrinated into whatever habits (good or bad) were imposed on them as babies and young adults, and that to a great extent it is these “indoctrinated habits of skill, thought and belief” (which they by choice may have later rejected altogether) that formed the basis of their personality and made them who they are today.
            That is including myself and you @Richard. No offense intended.

          4. If u know Gene, his rhetorical style etc u know that he was using “indoctrinated” as a synonym for “brainwashed” & in a pejorative context. The implication being that I could not see the “truth” or “error of my Zionist ways” because of the brainwashing I endured into Judaism. This offends me.

            I have no problem with people being anti Zionist and I have no problem w those who dislike religion. My problem is with those who moralize about their beliefs claiming those who don’t share them are brainwashed or morally compromised.

  13. @Kalea
    Deir Yassin was not pleased (as I was not pleased) that Richard headlined his first blog article after the recent attack in southern Israel:
    Gene, Deir Yassin, I and a few others expressed concern about what we saw as a rush to judgment in immediately placing the blame on Palestinians from Gaza. When the smoke cleared and evidence began to point away from Palestinians from Gaza, Richard was unwilling to acknowledge or apologize for his error.

    Initially I intended to just stop posting after Deir Yassin left, but I felt if Gene could move on, then so could I. Also my contributions are minimal and not in the same category as were Deir Yassin’s, because she has so much knowledge and so much passion, so I didn’t see that it matters much whether I stay or not.

    I am uncomfortable with confrontation, and I realize Richard might very well tell me (as he told DY and Gene) that there is a time to stay and a time to leave and that if I want to leave it’s my choice. But I am still saddened by DY’s decision to leave and by the reason she felt she had to do so, because I agreed with her, and I felt it would have been so very easy for Richard to acknowledge his rush to judgment on that occasion, which so far I have not seen happen.

    1. That is a terrible reason to leave!
      Very dissapointing!

      What’s more, Richard has since championed the “it wasn’t gazans” theory. This is all very silly.

      1. @duck,
        it is very disappointing that you used the word “silly” to belittle people you don’t know without really trying to understand their motivation.
        Personally, though i decided to wait a little bit longer, at times, i too have considered leaving this blog.
        will you then have called me silly if i did?
        you owe someone an apology.

        1. Correction: This all *seems* very silly.

          Silly is the least offensive term I can think of. No reason to make such a big deal over it.

          The context is that I have seen some very serious and offensive arguments here, that could definitely cause someone to leave. To leave over a small matter in which Richard seems to have made a 180 degrees turn, seems, by comparison, silly.

          Maybe I just don’t know enough of the background ofthe story.

          1. I think you do. We all sometimes get up on a high horse (of course I do myself) & sometimes find it hard to get down. I just wish they would be able to see it the way you see it.

          2. @ Well obviously Duck sees it your way because she has exactly your viewpoint on Zionism. That in itself makes a difference. It’s easy to gravitate to someone who’s like-minded on an issue that’s important to you.

            But Gene, Mary, DY, myself and maybe a few others feel like we’ve suddenly been left out in the cold since the Eilat article. There’s obviously a difference when you approach the I/P conflict from a Zionist perspective and an anti-Zionist perspective and that difference will divide us from time to time; it’s only normal. We’re going to butt heads on this issue, again, even if our goals are similar.

            It’s just that WE think Zionism is an obstacle to achieving that those goals partly because it compromises Democracy in Israel. To you it’s a question of how you use Zionism, to us, Zionism IS the problem, therefore don’t be surprised and/or upset if this point surfaces from time to time.

            We may be on the same page on most issues, but unfortunately, when it comes to our views on Zionism; we’re worlds apart.

          3. don’t be surprised and/or upset if this point surfaces from time to time.

            I expect it too. I don’t want to paper over differences. But then again, I wish people wouldn’t decide to take their marbles & go home because I feel differently than they do on some issues, no matter how important it may be to them (after all, they’re important to me too).

          4. I don’t see how the zionism argument has any real connection to the eilat attack argument.

            I did not think for a moment that the attackers were gazans rather than egyptians. This was clear to me from the start.

            While I was surprised to see Richard thought otherwise, it did not bother me overmuch. And lo and behold, Richard changed his mind after the dust settled.

            Healthy skpeticism doesn’t have to start from day one, and indeed evidance did not surface right away.

            @ Kalea: I think that the fact that you think zionism can cloud judgment shows that we have yet to convince you that zionism is NOT tangled with anti palestinian sentiment. This saddens me, but I realize that what can be obvious to persons of one upbringing can be unthinkible to persons of another.

          5. I did not think for a moment that the attackers were gazans rather than egyptians.

            Think how much trouble I could’ve avoided if I’d consulted you before I wrote that first post title about the Eilat attack! I’ll have to remember that.

          6. “Think how much trouble I could’ve avoided if I’d consulted you before I wrote that first post title about the Eilat attack! I’ll have to remember that.”

            Hehe maybe you should.

            Seriously though, while sinai based extremists fit better than mainstream gazan factions, in the first hours after the attack I quickly discovered I had no good evidance for this. The evidance you brought only surfaced some time later.

        2. Can we stop asking or demanding apologies from ea. other. I just don’t like the whole notion that we all owe apologies to each other for political views we express. It’s one thing if a major Jewish organization calls you a racist and the claim is patently a fraud. But for making a mistake which you subsequently correct, & then demanding apologies after that fact, that’s going too far.

      2. I agree & your points about my subsequent writing on the issue should be self evident. There are those who seem to need for others to pass litmus tests in order for them to feel comfortable associating with them. The record here speaks for itself. The plain fact of the matter is that I am one of the few bloggers in the world pointing out that the attackers were most likely all Egyptian. And I have done that consistently since I first came to that belief. I have been on Israeli TV news advancing that argument. And Avi Issacharoff in Haaretz lambasted my views as half-baked nonsense claiming that the terrorists were sent by the PRC & were Palestinian. So for speaking the truth like that three formerly loyal readers are willing to turn on their heels and walk away because I won’t apologize.

        I have publicly asked for Deir Yassin to reconsider and told Gene that he could return before his outburst yesterday. But if all this hinges on an explicit apology to them or the entire Palestinian people or whatever, what I wrote that was wrong speaks for itself and what I wrote that was right speaks for itself.

        Personally, I think a lot of this relates to the whole Zionism argument which Kalea fomented. As for that, as Popeye said: I am what I am. If that offends there’s little I can about it. But I’m simply not going to become an anti Zionist.

        1. I think it was a combination of the Zionism argument and the fact that you titled your piece on the Eilat incident ““Palestinian Attack on Eilat, 8 Israeli and 6 Gazan Dead”.

          Both your title, rushing to point the finger at Palestinians, combined with your admission that you’re a Zionist despite, in spite of the many great opinions you write together with all the injustice that Zionism represents and that finally you’re a Zionist come hell or high water disappointed some of us who’ve never really understood or could figure out where you really stood on Zionism. I guess you couldn’t be more brutally honest; and while your admission and anger against me specifically alienated us I think it’s better that it’s out in the open. I think it’s better to know some one’s boundaries, rather than assume that because you write the things you do, it would cause you to change your opinion of Zionism. It’s better to let go of illusions.

          I actually tied in the title of your piece on Eilat to the fact that you’re first and foremost a Zionist which might naturally influence your judgment and believe this angered me and I wrote that comment that sent me to purgatory specifically to draw you out of your ambiguity.

          While I still think that being a Zionist might again cloud your objectivity and judgment in future, again, I appreciate the Liberal, human content of your blog and believe that diverse opinion is necessary for change to happen.

          I do hope that DY returns if she hasn’t already since your blog is a great vehicle for bringing awareness to the plight of Palestinians and while I understand her passion in this regard and therefore her disappointment, the loss of her contribution here unfortunately diminishes the fight, and when all is said and done, that cause, justice for Palestinians, that just might lead to peace should rise above all our differences and disagreements.

          I hope she returns. She’s a heck of a lot more informed on the issue than me or many who come here. She made her point clear and has my respect but it’s time now to focus on what really matters before throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And the Palestinian cause is definitely her baby.

          1. I appreciate the Liberal, human content of your blog and believe that diverse opinion is necessary for change to happen.

            That’s very fine of you to say that esp. considering our previous disagreements. I’ll try to remember that the next time we come to figurative rhetorical blows.

            As for Deir Yassin, I would love for her to return but she is an honorable person of her word and if she said she was leaving she might not be willing to reconsider. But I hope that some day she might. I agree completely that she infinitely enriched the threads with her perspectives.

  14. [Ed.-comment deleted for comment rule violation. As a new commenter here, you haven’t read the comment rules & have violated several. Please read them if you wish to publish a comment here again. Comments are not essays. They don’t need to be 500-1,000 words long. Second, comments shouldn’t reargue 20th century Zionist history. Third, comments need to be on-topic and deal solely with the topic of the post in question. You are welcome here, as someone who will disagree with my views. But you must adhere to the comment rules just as everyone else, right or left, does.]

Leave a Reply

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

Share via
Copy link