58 thoughts on “David Horowitz and the Pornography of the Holocaust – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. “BDS doesn’t seek to destroy Israel. It seeks to destroy Occupation”

    That’s not what the ultra progressive Norman Finkelstein stats. He argues that the BDS movement doesn’t support a two state solution, and ultimately wants to destroy Israel, and convert it to a one state solution with an Arab majority.

    If that’s what NF states, what do you want from Horwitz ?

    Arguing the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign with Norman Finkelstein http://vimeo.com/36854424

    1. I just love it when rightists quote leftists to their supposed advantage. They used to do that with Benny Morris till even they realized he was no longer a progressive & had become one of them. Now it’s Norman Finkelstein, who is supposedly the arbiter of all that’s good and wise and correct for the left. Just as I didn’t agree with much of what he said and how he said it in the past, I disagree with him now about BDS. He has always used a sledgehammer when a scalpel would do & he continues this habit in his attempt to decimate the BDS movement.

      We can see right through you too…

      1. Richard, your portrayal is incorrect. BDS is definitely against a two-state solution and the dissolution of Israel as a home for the Jewish people.

        From the BDS website (http://www.bdsmovement.net/bdsintro#.T5mQo0DI-kA):

        “The call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by:

        1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall;
        2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
        3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

        A right of return would mean an end to Israel. It is fair and correct to describe BDS’ goals as wanting to dismantle Israel.

        1. Then international law and the UN are “against the two-state solution and [for] the dissolution of Israel as a home for the Jewish people” because withdrawal to the ’67-borders, equal rights within the State of Israel and the ROR are all parts of well-known international resolutions (the 242 & 194) and I think the second point in even in Israel’s Declaration of Independence.
          But who reads the Declaration of Independence these days in The-Only-Ethnocracy… ? When Zochrot decides to read out the names of the Palestinian villages destroyed in ’48, they are beaten up by the police and arrested as it happened yesterday in Tel Aviv, so the Declaration of Independence based on UN demands of equal rights for all citizens…

        2. Nonsense. There is nothing in those three points which means the “dissolution” or “end” of Israel. ROR will not cause this either. Again, I’ve written about this in more detail in the post to which I referred you. Read it.

          You’re engaging in histrionics, which is more or less the ultranationalist pro Israel position.

    2. The two-state solution is dead as a doornail. It ceased to be feasible a long time ago. Or do you propose evicting half a million Jews from the West Bank?

      Norman Finkelstein lost an enormous amount of credibility recently. His arrogant voice is no longer relevant in the conversation on Palestinian rights. I find your use of him in your comment very amusing – hasbara taking on a new twist, using “bad boy” Finkelstein to support the nonsensical view that BDS’ aim is to destroy Israel.

      1. In my view, NF, seeking to concentrate only on international law, was completely correct — but his failure to discern the holdings of international law was deplorable. He wanted to distance himself from the BDS call for a Palestinian “right of return” into pre-1967 Israeli territory for the refugees/exiles of 1948.

        However, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified by Israel 3 Oct 1991) provides, at Art 12 subd [4]: “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.” This appears to (retroactively) justify as international law (or international agreement) what UNGA-194 Art 11 said in 1948: “Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” See my discussion here.

        Admittedly, if all those now called refugees were to elect to “return” to Israel, Israel’s Jewish character would be altered. Perhaps its Jewish majority would disappear. But why should the ease and convenience of Israelis take precedence over that of the refugees?

        As to evicting 650,000 Jewish settlers from the West Bank, I indeed believe that they should be removed for so long as the occupation continues, pursuant to international law, and thereafter allowed to live wherever they wish subject to law. (The new Palestinian State might, for instance, allow some or all of them to return.) Israel had no qualms about (illegally) “evicting” 750,000 Palestinian Arabs in 1947-8: it should not be heard to complain about being required to remove a smaller number of its own citizens who are illegally present in occupied territory.

        1. Correct. And not nearly all of the 8 million or so Palestinians around the world would opt to return to Palestine.

          I cannot imagine any Israeli politician ever agreeing to evict any Jews from the West Bank, despite what we’ve been told. They’re ALL there illegally, but since when has Israel given a damn about the laws?

      2. If there will be no Palestinian State soon Israel would cease to be. Israel is defined as a democratic and Jewish State. It cannot sustain the Jewish majority when it occupies millions of Palestinians. It cannot claim to be a democratic state for this reason. Israel was once a moral country, but not anymore. I’m a second generation Holocaust survivor and I’m fully supportive of the BDS project as the only way to save Israel as a Jewish and Democratic country.

        Right of return – sure, to the Palestinian State!

    3. @ Liron
      That interview of Finkelstein by Frank Barat a couple of month ago made a lot of noice. Suddenly people who’d always considered Finkelstein “a self-hating Jew” started using him to prove that BDS wants the destruction of Israel etc.
      If people listen carefully to what he says, here and elsewhere: Finkelstein has a ‘realistic approach’, he’s going for what I think some people call “the big tent” and that’s why he always stick to international law and UN resolutions.

      Funny that you didn’t rather choose to mention his “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering”. It addresses the topic in this article spot on.

  2. I find it to be very sad that neither of you decided to deal with substance.
    Both of you Richard and Marry resorted into using Ad Hominem Directed at Norman Finkelstein.

    So i am a rightist, and he’s a sledgehammer, is that the best you can do ? how about dealing with NF claims about ROR changing the demographic situation to the point that Israel will not exist as a Jewish state ? how about dealing with his claims that BDS while it recognize Palestinian right to self determination in the name of international law, denies the same right from the State of Israel in defiance of the same international law ?

    Ad Hominem is easy, substance is much harder.

    1. You don’t know what ad hominem is. And our comments against Finkelstein are NOT that. Go read up, read a dictionary.

      Finkelstein is not someone whose ideas I particularly embraced before his latest anti BDS eruption nor do I embrace them now, & I’m not about the get into it now with you. Besides, I’ve discussed ROR & in fact written a long post about it in the past. Read that & you’ll find answers to yr questions there.

      In short, I don’t see why Israel needs to exist as a supremacist Jewish state. It needs to exist as a state in which there is a Jewish community and a Palestinian community in which the heritage, religion & traditions of both are protected & respected. As long as those rights are respected Israel doesn’t need to be a Jewish or Palestinian state. It needs to be a state that respects the ethnic & religious traditions of all its citizens.

      I don’t believe Finkelstein has ever said that BDS would deny Israel the right to self determination and if he did he’s not only wrong, he’s stupid. But I’d rather believe, since Finkelstein may be pig-headed but not stupid, that it’s you who’s mangling his views, than Finkelstein himself who’s said what you claim.

  3. Didn’t you claim many times that you do not support a one state solution ? you are advocating here a one state aren’t you ? or do you advocate a Palestinian state and another State next to it in which the rights of all it’s citizens will be respected ?

    As for what NF said..Don’t be so lazy, i provided the link, spend 30 min and listen to what he says.

    1. If I had called Finkelstein an arrogant, pontificating windbag that would have been an ad hominem. I referred specifically to his position on BDS, which he has been quite vocal about for quite some time. It’s nothing new. Noam Chomsky is also critical of BDS, by the way.

      The subject of the blog is not Finkelstein but Horowitz and his exploitation and pandering as it concerns the holocaust. The unhealthy paranoia evidenced in Horowitz’ ad is truly frightening; I cannot imagine anything more obscene than to use the holocaust to sell the idea of more anti-semitism and Jewish suffering. The whole mentality is sick. The Jewish community must stop dwelling on, and wallowing in, the holocaust to perpetuate a mindset that harms not only all Jews but has spilled over into dangerous behavior around the world. Enough is enough.

      1. Why would they give a moment’s consideration to stopping “dwelling on” and “wallowing in”, when it has been and continues to be, the most successful tactic that the propagandists possess.

    2. When/where did Richard say he did not support a one-state solution? Though Richard identifies himself as a “Zionist” (sometimes inserting “progressive” as a modifier), and that is commonly understood to mean dedication to the existence of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state. I believe, however, and ICBW, Richard’s personal vision is a state that does not privilege Judaism in any special way, and certainly in no way like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s 57 member “states” (“Palestine” is included as a “state” member) privilege Islam as their official religion. That sounds like a “one-state” outcome or something very much like one, but it would be best if Richard said exactly what he advocates and what we should understand from his self-identification as a “progressive Zionist,” or pointed us to where he has made this explicitly and unquivocally clear previously.

      [Professor Charles Manekin of the University of Maryland, whose blog Richard links to in apparent approval, goes by the nom de plume of “The Magnes Zionist.” “Zionist” modified by “Magnes” drips with irony, since Judah Magnes devoted himself to blocking recognition of the Jewish state of Israel as a sovereignty by the United Nations. I don’t know whether putting progressive in front of “Zionist” as a modifier, as Richard does, is akin to putting Magnes in front of it. Again, hopefully he will make this clear for those of us who sincerely wish to know.]

      1. Zionism does not mean what YOU claim it means. You are an ultranationalist Zionist. I am not. Zionism calls for a homeland for the Jewish people, which is what I advocate. I also advocate that Israel be a homeland for the Palestinian people. Israel is a homeland for two peoples. There is no conflict with my brand of Zionism in this.

        I take no position on one or two states. That’s not my business. I have no problem ultimately if they choose either option, though a 2 state solution appears more practicable at least in the short run.

        Bringing in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation is a red herring & off topic. The blog comment threads here are not meant to be a forum to argue on behalf of a anti-Muslim agenda. If Islamophobia is your game, go elsewhere.

        I’ve already warned you NOT to impute to me or anyone views that they haven’t explicitly expressed. Do NOT do this again. And do NOT ask that I define anything for you esp. if I’ve already done so in previous posts. Do NOT try to put me or anyone else into a box here or make anyone feel they have to explain or prove anything to you. And don’t use the word “sincere” to modify anything you claim since sincerity is the farthest thing fr yr mind.

        You’ve also mangled Judah Magnes’ views. He wanted Israel to be a state in which two peoples lived together in peace. He saw Ben Gurion’s bull-in-a-china-shop approach as leading to perpetual war, which is essentially happened.

        1. Sorry. I didn’t want to take the words out of your mouth.
          I was writing when you posted your answer.
          What kind of chutzpah is that ? People who drop in and after two days think you are going to answer their special demands ?

        2. I’m not trying to impute views to you or anyone else, only asking you to make explicitly clear what your views in fact are.

          Alas, Richard, like Humpty Dumpty, when you use a word, it seems it is supposed to mean just what you choose it to mean — neither more nor less, how most people use/understand the same word being of little or no consequence for your purposes. That and more (your routine resort to ad hominem; labeling opinions “lies;” refusal to acknowledge rebuttal evidence; etc.) make rational conversation with you nigh unto impossible.

          There have been many strains of Zionism over time and some passionate differences about the details of Zionism among those who have counted themselves Zionists. But does not Zionism denote Jewish nationalism, that is the goal of a Jewish sovereign state, something like all those Muslim sovereign states? (How in the world does it amount to “Islamophobia” to point out the double standard whereby it is OK for more than 50 countries whose state religions are Islam but it is not OK for there to be a single Jewish sovereignty?) Can you point to modern authority, that is since the founding of Israel, for an understanding of “Zionism” that does not perforce call for a Jewish sovereign state, or do you think that can be finessed by talking about a state for Jews, Muslims, Christians and everyone else within its borders with no special status for Judaism, a “homeland” for all? That’s progressive Zionism, at least as you define it?

          If it is possible to be a Zionist while opposing the existance of Israel as a Jewish sovereignty, then words are infinitely maleable and someone who believes in unfettered capitalism is entitled to call themselves a socialist if they so please. (As Lincoln observed, if you call a tail a leg, then you can say that a dog has five legs, but a tail is not a leg, and dogs only have four of them.)

          Anyway, you have persuaded me that you are a very singular type of “Zionist,” all that you say must be understood accordingly. And clearly this is not a forum for dissenting points of view.

          Shalom/salaam aleikum.

          1. Sure you’re trying to impute views to me. You explicitly said you believed I supported a 1 state solution & told me to clarify my views. Not only was this rude but it was wrong & it wasn’t even necessary since I’ve written on the subject many times & you could’ve actually searched the blog for your answer.

            YOUR brand of nationalism seeks a “sovereign Jewish state.” Not mine, especially not if its the sort of Jewish state you & yr friends in this far right ultrantionalist government desire.

            I’m not here to tell you it’s OK to rag on Muslims. As I said, if that’s your purpose you’re gonna go elsewhere. Don’t be too cute by half & whine about not dissing them because you have, you intended to, & you & I both know it. I’ve told you once that references to so called Muslim states is off topic. You’d best pay close attention to my words & when I tell you you’re off topic it means discuss the issues in my post and not whatever anti Muslim comments you wish to dredge up. Unless you like playing with fire.

            Jews do not need “special status” as long as their rights & traditions are respected & protected. “Special status” means exactly the sort of anti-democratic supremacist values that are taking Israel to hell in a handbasket & guaranteeing a slow slide into authoritarianism, if not worse. You’re arguing that Zionism means Jewish supremacy and it doesn’t. It only means that for ultranationalist Israelis of whom you appear to be one.

            You make the same mistake bullies & ideologues have made through the ages. You set the terms of debate & anyone who disagrees with you is treif. Sorry bub, but it’s my blog & you don’t set the terms of debate here.

            I’m not going to further explain or defend my Zionism. I’m now officially done wasting my time on this with you. Which means you’re done too. Move on to a new thread. And heed my words.

            And cut the crap with your fake Arabic. It sickens me. Again it’s being too cute by half.

      2. “When/where did Richard say he did not support a one-state solution ?”
        All the time, practically every week I would say. Everytime a new hasbarista comes along, claiming that he’s for a One-State solution.
        Instead of knocking down the door, claiming that it would be better if Richard stated blahblahblah, you could for instance take your time to find out.
        You think he’s going to reiterate his standpoint everytime some right-wing Zionist on a mission here asks so ?

        Oh, so because Richard links to Magnes Zionist, he must be a One-Stater too. And YOU only talk with people who think exactly like you ?

    3. Sorry, if you want to characterize what YOU believe Finkelstein says, you’ll have to offer it here in black & white. Not just a link. I don’t have time to track every video or statement Finkelstein makes. If you want to make a claim about him YOU have to prove it.

  4. Posts like this could explain why your website is listed as 18+ on Webguard and blocked for some T-Mobile users.

    That being said, I agree with your points about the ad.

    To your peripheral point: though BDS is not 100 percent unified behind a single position, the majority of the leadership of the movement do seek to “destroy Israel” in the sense of opposing the notion of a Jewish State and wanting to see it replaced with a different model of governance. The word destroy may be too strong – perhaps transform would be more apt.

    1. I cannot see how the Middle East will have peace without several states being transformed:

      Iran needs to be transformed, not into a smoking ruin, but into a state where the government and parliament actually control what’s going on. There’s no point in calling for greater democracy in a government that can be over-ruled by the theocracy at any time. Via the coalitions with small extremist parties run by clerics, that’s basically the situation in Israel, too. (Good job Utah isn’t in the Middle East.)

      Lebanon just needs to be transformed back into Lebanon. It has ceased to be a Syrian colony, but large parts are in effect an Iranian/Palestinian colony heavily contested by Israel.

      Yemen needs a temporal adjustment to put it on the same century as everybody else. A lot of Saudia Arabia’s most conservative families and factions have roots in Yemen, so progress there simply will not happen without progress in Yemen.

      Egypt needs the sort of wholesale root-out of corrupt officials and politicians that the people mistakenly thought they had obtained last year.

      Afghanistan badly needs a dissident group that picks more deserving targets than the Taliban do. So does Pakistan. It is unrealistic to expect them to play the pipes of peace: but shooting guns at those who thoroughly deserve to be shot at (ie: nearly all Afghan and Pakistani officials) would constitute progress. Luton is full of very frustrated Pakistani businessmen who are sure they could transform the Pakistani and Afghan economies, if allowed, but who find that they can’t run a business there for more than a day or two without being robbed by officials.

      The new Libyan regime needs a warning shot from somewhere to the effect that it cannot do just as the regime it has replaced did. This may come from within Libya and result in much more regional autonomy on a country which is far too big to be micro-managed from a capital city on the coast.

      Tackling the Israeli-Palistinian problem in isolation from everything else that’s steadily going to hell all around, isn’t going to work, which may explain why nobody can see a solution which anyone else is able to accept.

    2. That’s not just stupid, but offensive. Are you serious that using the word “pornography” should be justification for blocking a site? Or are you arguing that any content that attacks Horowitz or offends your sensibility or his should be blocked? Or just what are you saying?

      BDS is indeed unified behind a single position & its enunciated on the official BDS website. It does not seek to destroy Israel no matter what you or Norman Finkelstein claim. But that’s certainly what ultranationalist pro Israelists want the world to believe. So congratulations for joining their ranks either advertently or inadvertently.

      “Transform” and “destroy” are two very different terms.

      If 500,000 Israeli Palestinian Nakba refugees return to Israel under ROR that will not “destroy” Israel but it would eventually “transform” it.

      1. What have I said that is stupid and offensive? I don’t understand. I was just noting that programs like Webguard tend to block sites where the word “pornography” pops up so an innocuous post like this which is not actually pornographic in any way could set off the Webguard filter and lead to it being blocked. I have no idea why you would call me stupid and be offended by this. I thought I was trying to be helpful in explaining why your site might have ended up on Webguard’s 18+ list. You seemed not entirely clear on how Webguard works. No offense intended whatsoever.

        BDS is definitely not unified behind a single position, and, in fact, they explicitly say that on their website. They express openness to a wide variety of points of view on the subject of what the future should look like for the Israeli and Palestinian people in terms of borders, states, and the like.

        I have no idea who Norman Finkelstein is or why anyone is bringing that person up, nor do I claim that the BDS leadership seeks to destroy Israel – but rather that they aspire towards a transformation of the state into something else. That was why I put destroy in euphemistic quotes and noted that the apt word choice would be “transform” – a sentiment you appear to agree with.

        1. I strongly doubt you are right. If a web filter blocked a site merely for publishing the word “porgography” it would ban most of the news media and half the academic sites on the web. I would hope such programs are smarter than that. If they’re not one wonders why companies like T Mobile would be stupid enough to use them.

          I get a little teed off by people like you and Pea who either report that my blog is banned or speculate why it might be banned rather than protesting that it is banned to begin with. I’m sorry if I expressed myself too strongly.

          You’re mischaracterizing BDS once again. It has three key points listed clearly on their website. Those are points on which everyone agrees who supports BDS. If you don’t agree w those 3 pts then you don’t support BDS. Beyond those 3 pts there are many views on many issues. But those three are immutable.

          I have written here many times that Israel should & will eventually be transformed into a full democracy. It will not be ended or destroyed. Many things about it will not change. But the level of change will resemble the change that occurred in U.S. society in the course of the 20th century. Perhaps it will be even more dramatic. But in the end this new Israel will be a better, more tolerant, more diverse Israel than what now exists, just as the U.S. is now a far better, more democratic country than what it was in 1900 or 1930.

          1. Not only did I report that your blog is banned and speculate about why, I also provided a link to T Mobile and suggested contacting them to get this blog off the list. I, in fact, sent them an email myself from the very link that I posted here.

            Honestly, I do not understand why someone like me who has always posted with courtesy and respect would get such a brusque response, though I appreciate the apology.

            I do think that academic sites get blocked erroneously all the time by Webguard and other similar filters. I’ve experienced this first-hand, and it can be very frustrating.

            In any case, I would be curious to know if you had a chance to go to the link I provided and contact T-Mobile. I wonder what response they would give you as the owner of the blog – perhaps they’d be willing to make the change.

            With respect to BDS, I am not sure why you are saying that I am “mischaracterizing them again” as I am characterizing them exactly the same way that you are. I wrote, and re-asserted that they are not unified behind a single position with respect to borders, states, and other similar details. These are not among the fundamental tenets of the movement. They note on their site that they welcome those who support one-state, two-state, or a variety of other variations therein. Among their ranks are those who support Zionism, such as yourself, and those who are explicitly anti-Zionist. It is a very big tent that includes many different shades of opinion on the issue I was addressing, namely the ideal resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

            On another note, I am very impressed by your optimistic vision of Israel that you not only believe should occur, but will occur! It is hard to reconcile your confidence in the fact that Israel will become more tolerant, diverse, and better in spite of the many posts you’ve made that seem to indicate the opposite trends growing across most of Israeli society.

          2. You didn’t say you contacted them. If you had & I knew that I certainly wouldn’t have written what I did. You have to realize that there are many commenters here who not only disagree with me, but don’t have too much problem with my blog being censored. So if you appear to be making a statement that is close to something they’re written then I’m likely to react as brusquely to you as to them. There is so much hostility generated by the right wing crowd that sometimes my impatience towards their static bleeds over into my responses to people like you.

            I did contact T Mobile & of course they haven’t replied. Their system seems geared only to dealing with customers & not with filtered site owners so I don’t even know if they will respond.

            You didn’t say earlier about BDS what you’re saying now. You said they did not have a unified position, period. You didn’t mention borders, states & other details in the same sentence. There is a perfectly good reason they don’t have a unified position on these issues. That’s because they don’t have any position on them. Nor do they have to. They have 3 unifying principles around which they operate and that’s all they have. You can’t fault them for not having positions or supposedly having multiple positions or disorganized views around issues on which they take no position.

            I don’t know whether Israel will become “more tolerant, diverse, and better” but I hope it will. I won’t give up on it till the very last. Well, perhaps a little before that. But I hope not much. I have faith in Jewish history and human development that justice and right wins in the end, in the long run, though not always in the short run.

  5. @Richard, you and I both know that a state of Israel can only exist for Jews or Palestinians not for both and by that I do not mean politics. As for your article above, well you are a gifted writer and a voice that more Jews should be exposed to. I am appalled by your report about this website being censored by some ISP’s in Israel. BDS will have no effect on Israel but do serve some agenda(s). I have to agree with your post about this advert, it should never ever be in the NJT in the first place and abuse the remembrance of the holocaust and its people. Israel have an idiot in the form of Bibi and he should go. He focus on Iran and forget about Egypt the most important Arab nation in the World, in my opinion. The world are changing and we have this blog to thank for its honest opinion, thanks Richard we may not agree with everything but you are an important voice!

    1. I know no such thing. In fact, Israel must exist for all its citizens both Jewish and Palestinian. If not, in the long run, it may not, probably will not, survive.

      Thanks so much for your praise, I appreciate it though we disagree on some issues.

  6. If we accept Horowitz’s argument about BDS, what does he say about the Iranian boycott? How about the Gaza boycott?

    Where did the Iraqi boycott lead?

    1. Excuse me, i didn’t mean to suggest that the intent of BDS is anywhere near what the Ad suggests. The intent of BDS as i understand it is to expose the maltreatment of the Palestinian people and to encourage Israel to correct itself.

      My questions remain however. Who is encouraging the boycott of Iran and what are they saying?

  7. To hear Israel’s Hasbara cry out against the spectre of “one state solution” is reminiscent of the fabled parricidal parents’ killer asking for special consideration, being the poor orphan he is.

    If the “one state solution” (i.e. recognising Palestinians’ most basic human and civil rights) is so hideous, why has Israel been labouring so hard, with ever-growing intensity, to annihilate any chance for an alternative?

    Israel has deliberately manoeuvred itself into a position where “one state solution” is the only alternative to the continuation of the current state of apartheid (to which BDS is a legitimate, precedented response).

    1. I’m afraid the one state solution you are talking about is a very different one than the one Israeli nationalists have in mind. Two peoples or not two peoples, that’s the question. (Slings and arrows etc.)

  8. @ yankel why one state ? Israel can do what the US does in Puerto Rico, establish a commonwealth let the Arab residents of the West Bank vote in the Hamas primaries but deny them the right to vote for the Knesset, just like in Puerto Rico.
    What’s good for the goose etc…

    1. Puerto Rico was never geographically or politically part of the U.S. The Territories were part of the Mandate & always associated or connected in some way to Israel. Indeed, Israel’s conquest of them in 1967 only confirmed this.

      Further, eventually Puerto Rico will likely become a state. When that happens we can expect you to support full democratic rights for Palestinians & their incorporation as full citizens of the State of Israel, right?

      1. Jordan was “part of the Mandate” too, and how have the Territories “always (been) associated or connected in some way to Israel”? “Israe” did not exist before the UN voted for partition in ’47 and Israel declared its independence in ’48. Between ’48 and ’67, Jordan occupied the West Bank, and though it claimed it as part of Jordan, only two states, one of them being Pakistan, recognized Jordanian sovereignty there. So again, how “always associated or connected,” unless you have in mind the Biblical connection of more remote times?

        And how did Israel’s conquest of the Territories in June ’67 “confirm” anything? There would have been no conquest had not Jordan allied itself with Egypt, rejecting Israel’s call for it to remain neutral, and attacked Israel from the Territories. Are you arguing that there can or should be no “partitioning” now, that is 2 states there, because the parts have “always (been) associated or connected”?

        1. Jordan and Palestine were part of the same British Mandate. In fact, Jordan had sovereignty in East Jerusalem during this period & until 1967 while the Jews had sovereignty in west Jerusalem. That’s what I meant by “associated.”

          SOrry, you continue being off-topic & I’m not going to spend my time rambling the by-ways of ancient hasbara history with you.

    2. “Half-truths are worse than fullblown lies” — says the Jewish proverb — that’s probably why they’re Hasbara’s favourite instrument.

      PuertoRicans want the US to stay and would rather be part of the US. This is no surprise, as the US respect them as equal humans, doesn’t rob them of their possessions, nor tries to drive them of their land by making their everyday life as miserable as it can.

  9. I guess Liron has a good suggestion. Why play supremacy games vicariously through support of Israel if we can confiscate 60% of Richport (called obstinately “Puerto Rico” by the natives) in such a way that they cannot move 10 miles without going through a checkpoint — on routes approved for the natives on the particular day and play assorted other games to the popular amusement. Then we can punch activists in the face rather than merely watching You-tube videos with envy. Then we can leave Israel to her own devices, no financial and diplomatic support, they are big boys and they will manage.

  10. Richard, it is funny that all those who support human rights and democracy in Israel, ignore the democratic situation in Puerto Rico , which became part of the US (geographically or not what does it matter ?) via the paris agreement of 1898, i would say this is way longer for people to be with no democracy then in comparison to the people in the west bank, don’t you think so ? actually almost double.

    You are bringing the mandate ? is that the prevailing agreement ? The mandate included few more pieces of land you know, want to implement the Israeli law over them as well ? i don’t.

    and sure a day after puertoricans will gain full democracy i will support the same thing being implemented in the west bank under a one state solution, till then i support two states (the old fashion way, not the progressive way)

    1. Interesting, Puerto Rico a territory of the U.S. (not the same as becoming “part of” the U.S. as it is not a state & its citizens do not vote in federal elections) via conquest (the Spanish-American War), just as the Territories became “part of” Israel.

      The residents of Puerto Rico get to vote in their own elections & to elect their own leaders. They do enjoy democracy. I think they’re citizens though not sure about that. Those are far more rights than Palestinians have under Occupation.

      You’re a liar when you say you support 2 states. You don’t support the end of the Occupation now. You don’t support sharing Jerusalem as a Palestinian national capital. You don’t support a return to 1967 borders. Don’t waste our time with your nonsense.

      1. “You’re a liar when you say you support 2 states”
        And you know that because you consulted the crystal ball on your desk ?

        As someone who’s looking for respect, you give very little respect to those who don’t agree with you.

        What are you getting a kick out of being bellicose and rude ?

        and just because you asked, i support a two state solution, with Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders with agreed upon land swaps. I think that East Jerusalem which is de-facto under the control of the PA should be under their control, i think that the holly city should be controlled by Israel and govern by what i call “the holly municipality” composed out of representatives of all the main religions who currently has any type of establishments in the holly city, (Why Israeli control ? because we already tried the other way and were denied access for far to many years). I think that the Palestinian state should be allowed to have a strong police force but no Army, and i think that Israel should have a military control over the Jordan Valley for the next 50 years. As part of the said agreement, the issues of all refugees in the area (Jews and Arabs) should be concluded and Israel will remain a Jewish democratic state.

        1. So you think that East Jerusalem should be under PA control, but also think the “Holy city” should be under Israeli control. Besides being an outright contradiction, having the Old (which I presume is what you mean by “Holy City”) City controlled by Israel is a non-starter since the Old City IS East Jerusalem.

          Israeli control over the Jordan Valley is also a non-starter since this is also a direct contradiction of the concept of return to 67 borders. You’re also opposed to any form of refugee Return which is another non-starter. So please don’t tell me you support a two state solution. As I wrote, you aren’t in favor of an immediate end to the Occupation & your “ideas” are politically contradictory & incoherent.

          Your “explanation” of your views is a perfect example of how the Hasbarafia can say with a straight face it supports a 2 state solution…until you read down to the fine print & find out they support anything but a real 2 state solution. For those like you, we should call it the “two-state solution, but.”

          1. Maybe you should open a map of Jerusalem.
            The holly city is the smallest part of East Jerusalem; Wadi-Joz, Al-Sawana, A-Tor, Shaikh Jarrah, Abu-Tor, Ras El-Amud and other Arab neighborhoods which are currently part of the Jerusalem municipality will become parts of the Palestinian state.
            As for your non-starters, when the alternative is nothing, i think it is generous, The Palestinians always had non starters, didn’t get them far.

            I support a two state solution, My vision is different then yours, but please do not tell me what i am or not for, just as you wouldn’t like me to define your affiliation to the jewish world, you say you are zionist, i will not argue with that, when i say i support two states, that is what i support.

          2. I still have no idea what you mean by “holly city” (that would be ‘Holy City’ in proper English). Again, I presume you mean the Old City, which may be “small” but is absolutely Palestinian and must remain under Palestinian control. This is non-negotiable, period. If you want Israeli control of the Old City you don’t want peace in any of our lifetimes.

            You do NOT support a 2 state solution. You support a 2 state “but” solution, which isn’t the same. ANyone who conditions their definition of a 2 state solution as you have done is lying to himself about what he really supports. And I’ll tell you what you support as long as you have the chutzpah to come here & lie to everyone about what you claim to support.

  11. Talk, talk, talk. Why the angst about BDS? After all, since the actions of Menachim Begin before and after the creation of Israel as a state, through the theocratic,exclusionary, discriminatory, and hypocricy of the present government, has not the BDS concept become inevitable?

  12. I have long admired Norman Finkelstein, but in the last couple of years he has sounded a lot like his nemesis, Alan Dershowitz. If you disagree with either of them, they call you names. Dershowitz calls people Nazi, blood libelist, and moser. Finkelstein calls them immature, naive, dishonest, and cultists. Finkelstein claims that his thirty years of activism entitles him to speak abusively. I wish his experience had made him a mentor rather than a name caller.

    1. So do I. This is why I say Finkelstein is becoming irrelevant. He’s become more interested in hearing himself talk than in what is going on around him.

  13. You’d think that Jewish subscribers would have something to say about the paper choosing to publish this. It’s at least as bad as some of the fundraising flyers I’ve seen come out of Canadian Jewish organizations.

    The irony of all this is profound. “Antisemitism” has become a meaningless word, and now “holocaust” is destined for the same fate — not because of the efforts of antisemites and holocaust deniers, but because of the right wing of the Jewish community itself.

    Teaching about antisemitism and the holocaust in a university setting gets more difficult with time because, today, students just think you’re shilling for Israel.

Leave a Reply

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

Share via
Copy link