David Lange and his Israellycool partner in crime, Brian Thomas, have been cooking with gas lately. Not content merely to shill for Israel, they’ve outdone themselves in a few recent heroic acts of service to the “Jewish fatherland.”
Thomas recently tweeted that the IDF should’ve killed a 17-year-old Palestinian boy who the NYT’s Jodi Rudoren portrayed as someone who threw stones to resist Israeli Occupation:
“I am pissed off that he’s being arrested by soldiers in the middle of the night for the umpteenth time. Because he should have been shot and killed already.”
But we’re not surprised because in January 2012, he tweeted that I should be killed:
Is there a way to excommunicate a Jew…Does it involve firearms?
Ironically, Twitter has taken recent urgent action to protect British women who received Twitter death threats by suspending accounts of the knuckleheads who posted them. The UK police have also launched investigations of some of the perpetrators.
Twitter, however, doesn’t find that homicidal discourse by pro-Israel advocates merits the same level of concern. It refused to take any action against Thomas when he threatened me, and will no doubt refuse to take action for his death-wish tweet concerning the Palestinian boy.
What’s interesting about Abunimah’s post is that he’s found a photo of three pro-Israel chums, Brian Thomas, Avi Mayer, chief social media flack for the Jewish Agency and Barak Raz, one of the IDF’s major social media flacks. Frankly, I can’t figure out what Mayer does for his pay except shill for the bloated, mismanaged JA and its political boss, Natan Sharansky. Raz’s job I understand better: the IDF is one of the most lethal armies in the world and it sure needs the sort of flackery that Raz offers.
But placing the three of them together indicates a level of social intimacy few were aware of previously. It makes perfect sense because while Mayer and Raz possess a bit more polish than the salivating, uncouth Thomas, they’re extensions of him. They are the smiling face of Likudism and the national security state, while Thomas is the ugly, racist, homicidal dark side. One wonders whether either Mayer or Raz feel any sense of shame or embarrassment for being associated with Thomas’ vileness; or whether they’ve expressed any disapproval of him.
Last September, when another pro-Israel cyberwarrior, Semion Kras, hacked and defaced my site, Thomas wrote proudly that he’d sought out Kras and doubtless drank a few beers to celebrate this act of sophomoric pro-Israelism. That makes Thomas an aider and abettor of Israeli cyber-war. Not exactly the sort of cyber-warfare that Raz promotes from his perch as IDF spokes-flack. But close enough. A nod is as good as a wink for the hasbarafia.
Now for Thomas’ partner in crime: Alex Kane exposed the lies Lange spun concerning Alicia Keys’ recent BDS-busting appearance in Israel. Keys wasn’t satisfied merely with performing in Israel. She allowed herself to be co-opted by the Israel advocacy machine. She met Rachel Greenberg, who’s affiliated with Thank Israeli Soldiers, a pro-military NGO. Greenberg got a photo of herself escorting Keys on a guided tour of the group’s Jerusalem office, located in the home of a prominent Republican American-Jewish couple in Occupied East Jerusalem.
Lange was so pleased to be able to trumpet this example of co-opting an international celebrity on behalf of the IDF that he plastered the news (and photo) all over his blog:
“I have it on good authority that the photo was taken in the old city of Jerusalem, at the Thank Israeli Soldiers office, a group that mostly sends care packages to, and hosts Shabbat meals for, IDF soldiers,” reported “Aussie Dave.”
You won’t be able to find the post at his blog because he deleted it. Apparently, either Greenberg or more likely Thank Israeli Soldiers (or perhaps the PM himself) was pissed that Keys might be placed in an embarrassing predicament having, in effect, semi-publicly endorsed an army that kills Palestinians regularly. The hasbara machine went into overdrive, and in no time Lange was back-pedalling from his previous story.
At first, he confirmed the photo’s authenticity, but explained he was asked to remove it (presumably to protect Keys’ reputation and the chance that the hasbara apparatus might be able to exploit her fame at some later date):
“It was from Facebook and was genuine. I can’t go into details as to why I was asked to take it down, but I acceded to the request once I realize there was an issue.”
This comment too disappeared. The next thing we know, Lange is claiming the photo was not authentic and that this was why he deleted the post:
“I was led to believe she visited there and then my source was told this was not the case. So I could not leave my post up… What I can tell you is I was under no pressure to pull it, not from Alicia Keys nor anyone connected with her. As much as I would have loved it to be true, once I was told my initial info was wrong, I had to pull the post for credibility’s sake.”
Don’t ya just love it when an inveterate liar tells you he did something commendable in order to protect his good name and reputation? Alex Kane was too polite to say so in his post, but I’ll say it here: Lange is a liar. Perhaps Lange lied to protect Rachel Greenberg and her job. So it’s not a lie out of a malignant motive. But it’s a lie nonetheless. He’s not the only liar here. The NGO staffer who told Alex Kane Keys hadn’t been to the office likely lied too. They’re all tied up in a knot of lies. Isn’t that just like the hasbara machine in general?
Do you remember the time Lange discovered a “David Silverstein” from Seattle was prosecuted for welfare scam? Lange trumpeted that news too on his site, based on his review of personal photos online which show that I have a relative named “David.” From there it was only a hop, skip and a jump to claiming my brother was the same David Silverstein. Only problem is he got it wrong, dead-wrong. I have no brother named David. Neither have I or anyone in my family been accused of any crime including welfare fraud. Tant pis for poor Duvidel. He’ll have to continue his crawl through the sewers till he finds something more suitable.
Returning to Keys’ visit with the troops, her management released a statement which, when read carefully, doesn’t deny that Keys’ was in the NGO’s office though it appears to (unfortunately Kane didn’t notice the nuance when he wrote his post):
“There was no planned visit with any group Israeli or Palestinian.”
The key here is “planned visit.” It’s entirely possible that Keys met Greenberg in the run-up to her concert, that Greenberg invited her spontaneously to visit to cheer the troops, and Keys did so in an unplanned manner. As far as I’m concerned, this is a non-denial denial from Keys’ folks.
Lange and Thomas are the vanguard of the Israeli propaganda machine. They’re cheap knock-off representations of hasbara, but they’ll do.
Yesterday, Haaretz publicized another disgusting iteration of the hasbara apparatus. This one concerned Danny Seaman, whose prior claim to fame was working in the government press office, where he bullied foreign journalists who didn’t toe the party line. He threatened not to renew their work permits.
After failing to enter Knesset on the Likud party list, Seaman’s been rewarded by Bibi with a seat in the prime minister’s office. Seaman will direct a new social media initiative which will partner with the Israeli university student union. He will recruit student leaders at each of Israel’s seven universities. They in turn will recruit a cadre of Israel advocates who will monitor online sites and post paid propaganda on Israel’s behalf. The kicker is that these hasbara flacks will not identity themselves as being associated with this project nor will they admit they are being paid to flack for Israel.
The seven student leaders will receive full scholarships to be paid from a $750,000 fund the prime minister is setting aside for this purpose. Let’s hear it for debasing Israeli academia by co-opting it on behalf of the propaganda apparatus. Not to mention that this will be music to the ears of those supporting BDS and academic boycott. Once Israel’s universities become part of the government’s nationalist agenda it becomes that much easier to label them political tools rather than legitimate and independent in their pursuit of knowledge.
There are several important elements in this development. First, it signals the further corruption of online discourse regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead of championing Israel’s cause in the online world as the government believes it is doing, it’s generating disgust among those who populate that world.
Frankly, I will warn the pro-Israel commenters who publish here that henceforth I will consider all of them either paid shills or potential paid shills for Israel’s Likudist government. If you’re disturbed by the short-shrift and disrespect I accord you, you don’t have to go far to look for the reason. Your own prime minister. He’s the one who’s made you all suspect. Take it up with Bibi and his hasbarafioso, Danny Seaman.
The second element that’s important is that Israel is displaying its desperation in believing that such a propaganda operation will have any material positive impact on Israel’s status in the world. In fact, this will further lower Israel’s status. Instead of investing its energy in pursuing peace, Israel provokes a propaganda war in the social media outlets. It’s a sad, sordid thing.
The final element that is important to note is that the Israeli government is increasingly co-opting willing NGOs to become semi-official extensions of the government itself in its propaganda wars. Groups like Im Tirzu, StandWithUs, The Israel Project, MEMRI, NGO Monitor, and now the Israel Student Union have lost their standing (if they ever had one) as independent groups. They are cogs in the machine and fighting a dirty war.
Of course, it would be helpful to find a smoking gun indicating the government funded the groups directly. But there are more than enough far-right Jewish donors to substitute for official government funding. Besides, the government, while not sophisticated, is slick enough to understand the damage that could be done by directly funding such groups (not to mention that they’d have to register as foreign agents here in the U.S.).
Long ago I posted a comment on a major American news organisation’s site. Though critical of Israel, it was written in a rather civilised manner. It’s been vetted off the page within a minute or two due to readers’ complaints, suggesting a coodinated gang action.
Looking at other comments, I was amazed to see quite a few rude, patheticly antisemitic comments while no reasonably mannered criticism of Israel was to be found.
It became quite clear to me there was a sinister, organised campaign going on to silence all civilised criticism of Israel while allowing — probably producing — Nazi-style comments to monopolise the Anti-Zionist side of the discussion.
yankel, you are quite correct in your suspicions. We have seen some of these neo-nazi-like comments in quite a few blogs as well. usually channeling some old protocol canrad or other. These are almost certainly posted by the pro-israelites, in an effort to teint all legitimate and impassioned criticism of israel, or, for that matter, the lobby that enables that country’s bad behavior. On the positive side, it’s easy enough to recognize the agent provocateurs by the shrillness of the message and the fact that it is usually not connected to anything than anyone else said. Richard has been effectively policing his commenters, but not everyone can, and when it comes to the MSM, tools such as giyus (now supplanted) have done qquite a job at messing up the comments sections of eg, the Gurdian’s Cif pages. Which is one reason the Cif now is a far cry from what it once was, especially when it comes to I/P.
I suggest you keep trying. You know, the hasbara-bots can’t be everywhere …..
Israellycool article “Huge BDS Fail of the Day” [from a cached version on the Internet plus photo]
After giving the BDSholes the proverbial middle finger, singer Alicia Keys has now mooned them. Proverbially speaking of course (hat tip: Avi Mayer)
Rest of artïcle was a verbatim copy of …
Amidst Israel Boycott Calls, Alicia Keys Removes Palestinian Women’s Youtube Protest Video
You write: “They are the smiling face of Likudism and the national security state, while Thomas is the ugly, racist, homicidal dark side”. Well, as to personalities, hats off to you. But as to the characterization of Israel as a “national security state”, my take is that Israel (like the USA) is an “outward-reaching militarist imperialist state”, that is, a state not content with the secret-police-style internal controls suggested (perhaps only to me) by “national security state”.
“Frankly, I will warn the pro-Israel commenters who publish here that henceforth I will consider all of them either paid shills or potential paid shills for Israel’s Likudist government. ”
Henceforth? You have, even before this, almost invariably accused anyone who presents reasoned, factual arguments on Israel’s behalf, as being precisely that. You know perfectly well that there is no way to DISPROVE such an accusation, so it’s easy enough for you to slander us in this way and get away with it.
Your complaint should be directed at your prime minister who’s discredited your participation in any online website or social media site. The problem isn’t me. I didn’t devise this disgusting program. But I will be forced to respond to it by suspecting every right wing pro Israel commenter of having the same motives these paid, secret pro Israel shills have.
@ Richard
“Your complaint should be directed at your prime minister who’s ”
BS, what is that joke you have here about Ben-Gurion ? How long are you using that line ?
What is it you called me ? “El Al Miki flight ?
I’ve been using that line as long as hasbarists like you have been taking off and landing here like flights arriving at Ben Gurion airport.
Shimona, could you provide perhaps a single “factual” argument on “Israel’s behalf” vis-a-vis the settlements? how about the conquest and subjugation of palestine and the “veil of tears”? no straying off the subject though – OK? it’s Ok to make comparisons with American indians, if you wish.
I suggest a viewing of “budrus” might help – I really would like to know what the defense of the horror show visited by israel are. Yes, I know, there’s always Attila’s argument (the best defense is offense – did he really say that?). can also try the “manifest destiny” – that kind of works – in a racial supremacist context. Actually i think that the pro-israelites would do well to re-read the literature of the early conquistadors. some of them DID actually advance arguments. Usually followed by the sword. but who’s quibbling?
Actually i do wish someone would advance the argument that in the end, the fence around Budrus was moved, showing just how civilized “the only democracy in the ME” is. It’s a good opening move, wanna try it?
@Dana: “Shimona, could you provide perhaps a single “factual” argument on “Israel’s behalf” vis-a-vis the settlements?”
Do you mean a defence of Israel’s right to BUILD “settlements”? Or to expand them? Or do you mean, not so much the “settlements” – as the “settlers”?
What about factual arguments which pro-Israel commentators have advanced in the past about other subjects, such as the refutation of the oft-repeated lie that Israel is an “apartheid state”(only to be accused of being professional hasbarists)? Or the false claim made some time ago on this blog that Arabs are not allowed to live in Jewish neighbourhoods? Or the inaccurate claims of discrimination against Arabs based on a biased and twisted use of statistics?
” no straying off the subject though – OK? ” – That is, in fact, exactly what YOU have done. If I now launch into a defence of “the settlements”, Mr Silverstein will no doubt castigate me for straying off topic.
So – if you want to know what I have to say, on the subjects of the “settlements”, you will have to wait until that is the topic at hand, when I will decide whether or not I have anything to say on the matter. Failing that – and if you cannot curb your impatience – feel free to visit my blog. I, at least, don’t censor opposing points of view, as long as they are couched in more or less civilised language.
Shimona, not bad for starters – conquistadors had a few better arguments though – may be you should stray away from your own cult literature now and then? there were many conquests throughout human history, some far more brutal than whatever israel has committed. Those too were justifiied in the minds of those who did the conquering.
Alas, if you don’t see hasbara in denying the obvious, cf., apartheid due to a racially supremacist ideology promulgated by a militarized garrison “state”, then your blog will hold little surprise – or appeal – for me. having carried on for a while calling it the way it is, it seems to me from your opening moves that the level you care to dwell on will be a bit low on the starting block. I can of course suggest some good readings for you – to help take it up a notch, but again, though again, few would be interested in taking on a handicap just for the dubious pleasure of running in a secondary race on such poorly maintained terrain.
As for Richard’s blog, it’s his and i can’t blame him for not having much patience with peddlers of worn PR masquerading as self-justifying holy-land ooz. he gets more of them than most, probably because of the topics he wrestles with. Those who come here to justify mafeasances by painting lipstick on skunks, seem of a rather low caliber.
Mind you, he didn’t like everything I had to say either but that’s par for the course. If you come to someone’s blog with disputations, be prepared to get a smack down. last i saw, there’s no rule that requires anyone to tolerate comments from anyone else, if they don’t care for it. You can police your own blog anyway you want. of course, to get people to come and visit, you might consider a slightly more appetizing enticement.
Listing all those refutable lies we lefties spread about your paymasters’ state of apartheid, Shimona, you failed to mention the oft-repeated root fallacy of them all — that “two and two make four” — all the rest are just its unavoidable logical derivatives.
@Dana: “Alas, if you don’t see hasbara in denying the obvious, cf., apartheid due to a racially supremacist ideology promulgated by a militarized garrison “state”, then your blog will hold little surprise – or appeal – for me.”
And here we go again, claiming that it’s “obvious” that Israel is “an apartheid state” because of her “racially supremacist Ideology”. Two flaws in that argument, Dana, – first, you haven’t proved that Israel has a “racially supremacist ideology” (and no, giving priority to Jewish olim in what even the UN intended to be a Jewish state is not proof of “supremacist ideology”) and second (even more to the point) you haven’t proved that any of the characteristic apartheid laws which applied in South Africa – and, indeed, to the southern states of the USA until the mid-1960s – are applicable in Israel. Frankly, I wonder if you even know what “apartheid” really was. I am forced to state these facts again and again, because people like you keep side-stepping the gauntlet I have thrown down. As long as you and people like you continue to tell lies about Israel, I have no choice to point out that that’s exactly what they are – LIES – and counter them with the truth. If you don’t want me to keep repeating the facts, then stop telling lies.
@Yankel: I have no paymasters. I defend Israel because I am an Israeli who loves her country. Clearly, the concept is alien to you. Tell me, are you paid for Israel-bashing or do you do it for the sheer fun of expressing your hatred of the Jewish state?
Characteristics of apartheid in South Africa
In no way can one describe the South in the US as living under apartheid rule. Don’t confuse segregation and discrimination with apartheid. I fail to see any purpose to find similarity between Israel and South Africa. The “blanken” in South Africa cannot be seen as occupiers and I don’t see supremacist ideology as mainstream in Israel. The problems between Israelis and Palestinians are unique and as such should be discussed and negotiated for a permanent peace. Of course, a visitor like Mitt Romney who acclaims: “Jewish People a Superior Race” doesn’t really help the cause.
@Shimona: One of the main themes of this blog is offering ongoing proof, with just about every day & post, that contemporary Israel and the classical Zionist ideology on which it is based is “racially supremacist.” The Law of Return (which doesn’t offer “priority” to Jewish olim, it offers automatic citizenship) is only one indicator of that. Rabbinical control of major aspects of civic life like marriage, death & divorce; settlerist domination of domestic politics; restrictions on the ownership or leasing of land to Jews–all of these & much, much more indicate a Israel that is racist to its core.
Unlike some, I don’t believe this was predetermined historically. I believe Israel’s Zionist establishment made certain choices that led to the current predicament. There had been other Zionist streams that would’ve led in a clearly different direction, but which were suppressed or ignored. Further, these historical streams of the movement give me hope that Israel can be transformed at some point and return to its universalist roots. At any rate, we have now what we have. History is hindsight.
As for classical apartheid laws: laws and practice concerning Israeli Palestinians clearly indicate a huge divide between Jewish and non-Jewish citizens. THis is de jure apartheid. In the Territories however, apartheid is legally inscribed (or I should say “illegally”). There are scores if not hundreds of examples of this. Just a few are segregated public roads; theft of Palestinian lands by Jews which are sanctioned by the state; application of military law to civilian Palestinian population.
Don’t throw down any gauntlets here. And cut the over-dramatizations. You’re just a run of the mill hasbarist with little new, interesting or even provocative to say. Don’t get carried away with yourself.
Anyone notice that with the “loss” of our few dearly departed hasbarists in the past week, we’ve gained a few new hasbarists who’ve come in for their landing here?? Welcome Shimona from hasbara central. We’ll enjoy your stay here while it lasts. Look behind you and you’ll see your replacement already lined up to take your place after your departure. Have a nice stay while you’re here. Be sure to use your seat belt on your departing flight.
As for being in the pay of anyone, I assure you there’s no pay in being critical of Israeli apartheid and Occupation. On the other hand, your government is spending tens of millions in its hasbara war, including paying people just like you to do exactly what you’re doing. That phenomenon too is well documented. So anyone who suspects you of being in the pay of Israel advocates is being prudent.
As for your ‘facts’ about Israel, I’ve heard nothing but your opinion. Opinions aren’t facts till they’re bolstered by evidence, none of which you offer.
NOTE: Shimona has violated a cardinal comment rule. She’s used a previous nickname, Simone. She was banned using that nickname. Now she’s returned like a hasbara Zombie assuming a new identity, Shimona. By rights, I should just ban “Shimona” outright. But I’m going to moderate her instead of banning her outright. That means that I will only approve comments that don’t violate the comment rules. And the first time Shimona does this she will be banned again.
The Law of Return is not racially “supremicist” – even if it includes a racial aspect. It is the legitimate piece of legislation in a soverign democratic state to allow in Jews as a matter of legally protected right, precisely BECAUSE Jews have been persecuted in many different countries and had no guaranteed place of refuge. It apples not only to those who are halachically Jewish (whether by birth or conversion) but also those who have even one Jewish grandparent and might be considered Jewish by others.
Also, the Law of return does not exist in a legislative vacuum. That is, allthough no one other than those mentioned above are granted the automatic right by the Law of Return, that law exists in parallel with the discretion of the Minister of the Interior to grant right of entry and residence to others – a right which has been exercised in favour of African refugees from Muslim countries and Vietnamese refugees from Communism. No doubt some will say that this is Israel grandstanding or playing to the gallery, but that is very much part of the “heads I win tails you lose” approach of Israel’s critics.
Regarding banning Shimona/Simone, as you delight in pointing out it’s your blog and you can run it as you please. Perhaps that’s the way that both Israel and the Arabs should negotiate: setting strict rules and ending the discussion as soon as the other side is perceived to break them.
A law encouraging Jews — by birth or by conversion — to “return” to their supposedly ancestral land of bygone millennia while ruling out the right of (often stateless) Palestinian refugees to return to their very own property — robbed by the same law — is racist by definition.
Trying to gain credits for acceptance of African refugees while actualy coercing them to return to the killing fields by forcing them into what’s evolving to be crude concentration camps (Heb: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4413951,00.html ) is grossly hypocritical.
While there are plenty of internationally accepted rules regarding the treatment of occupied land and its inhabitants, Israel takes great pride of disregarding them.
The above link in English: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4414114,00.html
@Thomas Holloway: THere are almost no Jews in the world today who face the imminent need of refuge from persecution as they once did 70 years ago. To enshrine such a policy in perpetuity in national laws when historical circumstances have changed dramatically means setting a country’s interests and policies in concrete. Israel needs to be a country for all its citizens, not just its Jewish citizens. Every citizen needs equal access to all resources & rights. No religion should be privileged. If Jewishness is a privileged status in Israel then that is racist by its very definition.
It’s remarkable that you point to the benficence of Israel offering haven to a few thousand refugees a few decades ago when the country’s views of refugees today are fraught with racism. What African refugees from a Muslim or any other country have been given legal refuge in Israel lately? Please don’t try to pass off bullshit as new mown hay. It doesn’t pass the smell test.
As for what you think about my moderating (I didn’t ban her as you claim) Simone, I don’t recall asking your opinion nor do I care what it is. The comment threads here are not an international peace negotiation. They’re just a blog. So your attempt at wit and one-upsmanship wasn’t at all convincing. Besides, the day that someone like you or Simone contributes a jot or tittle to bringing peace is the day the earth will stand still.
News on Daniel Seaman: suspended, creating a diplomatic incident between Israel and….. Japan.
http://www.electronicintifada.net/blogs/abraham-greenhouse/head-israels-covert-social-media-program-suspended-over-anti-japanese
Haaretz yesterday didn’t say he was suspended. Is that new?
@ Richard
The EI-article links to a second article by Ravid:
“Early this morning Haaretz reported that Seaman had been suspended from his official position”
I didn’t log in to read the article (I stick to the 10 monthly for free), but the headline says: “Israel’s PR chief to cease activity”
@Deir Yassin: Yes, you’re right. He was suspended. No foul hasbarist deed goes unpunished (would that it were always so!).
The fact that no Jews are currently in imminent danger, ignores the fact that these dangers are cyclic. Israel does, as you say, have a duty to serve all its citizens. But this does not negate its right – with the consent of those citizens – to allow new citizens.
I actually agree with you that Israel’s Jewish citizens should not be privileged:that Arabs should not be exempt from military service and that tax laws should be enforced against the cash in hand economy.
I’m not sure what you mean by the country’s views on refugees. Israel is pluralistic and harbours many views. Which African refugees from Arab countries is Israel allowing in, you ask? The ones who Manage to make it to the border.
About not asking my opinion, I never said you did. I said you delight in saying. Just as you delighted in telling me that you didn’t ask my opinion.
So when people negotiate peace they should be able to hear alternative views without walking out but when they simply discuss politics with their fellow men they should lose their patience?
@Thomas Holloway:
And you know this how? Jews did incredibly well for themselves during a 2,000 year period when there was no Israel. As far as I can see on balance, Israel’s current policies cause more danger to Diaspora Jews than the the State offers as a refuge for endangered Jews.
And if you acknowledge we’re in a historical cycle in which such dangers are minimal how do you even know Israel will survive long enough to shelter Jews who may need itself in the next cycle?? Because the way Israel is going, it may not exist that long. At least not as it’s presently constituted.
That’s not at all what I wrote. I wrote that Israeli Palestinians deserved all the rights (not just the obligations) of Jewish citizens. You haven’t acknowledged these rights. You’ve only acknowledged their obligations. Until you embrace rights for these citizens you’re a disingenuous hypocrite.
Where have you been for the last few years? Living in a hole? You sure haven’t been reading this blog because I’ve covered in great detail the horrific racism, violence, & outrageous infringements of the rights of refugees seeking shelter in Israel.
@Richard Silverstein
“Jews did incredibly well for themselves during a 2,000 year period when there was no Israel.”
I would hardly call being subject to pogroms, blood libels, massacres, forced conversion to Islam, and forced baptism “doing incredibly well” – and that’s before we even come to the Holocaust. All these happened when there was no Israel.
“As far as I can see on balance, Israel’s current policies cause more danger to Diaspora Jews than the State offers as a refuge for endangered Jews.”
The word “causing” in this context raises an interesting ethical question. Assuming that “Smith” provokes “Jones” and Jones responds by beating Smith’s brothernds. Who is responsible for Smith’s brother getting beaten Smith or Jones. From an ethical point of view, I would say Jones. The same applies to Israel allegedly “causing” danger to Disapora Jews.
I suppose you could take a down-the-middle approach and say that BOTH Smith and Jones are responsible, but that still leaves the question of why you regard Diaspora Jews as being in danger? Remember that according to your own argument “There are almost no Jews in the world today who face the imminent need of refuge from persecution as they once did 70 years ago.” But in the past they clearly did. If Israel’s policies were CAUSING diaspora Jews to be in danger, then one would expect the opposite to be the case.
“And if you acknowledge we’re in a historical cycle in which such dangers are minimal how do you even know Israel will survive long enough to shelter Jews who may need itself in the next cycle??”
I can’t guarantee it. I never said or sought to imply that I could. But the possibility that Israel MIGHT not survive is hardly a reason for it to not exist or to not be prepared by having a law in place that allows Jews in. I do not see that allowing Jews in per se violates anyone’s rights. Therefore I cannot see any reason for the state not to have a law that reflects the will of the vast majority of its citizens.
ME: “I actually agree with you that Israel’s Jewish citizens should not be privileged:that Arabs should not be exempt from military service and that tax laws should be enforced against the cash in hand economy.”
YOU: That’s not at all what I wrote. I wrote that Israeli Palestinians deserved all the rights (not just the obligations) of Jewish citizens. You haven’t acknowledged these rights. You’ve only acknowledged their obligations. Until you embrace rights for these citizens you’re a disingenuous hypocrite.”
I mentioned the obligations, you mentioned the rights. I don’t see how that makes either of us hypocrites. I suppose it would be pointless to mention the rudeness, as you would once again respond: “It’s my blog and I’ll be rude if I want, rude if I want, rude if I want to…”
For the record, I DO believe that Arab citizens of Israel should have the right to vote, the right to stand (run) for election, the right to be lawyers and judges, doctors and pharmacists, academics and businessmen the right to study at Israel’s universities. If any Israel government tried to take these rigths away from Israel’s Arab citizens, I would oppose them. The one area where I find myself currently at odds with Israel is in their refusal to allow civil marriage (including intermarriage). However, aside from this, Israel’s human rights record is somewhat better than its neighbours.
“Where have you been for the last few years? Living in a hole? You sure haven’t been reading this blog because I’ve covered in great detail the horrific racism, violence, & outrageous infringements of the rights of refugees seeking shelter in Israel.”
First of all, I do read this blog, but I read other sources as well.
Secondly, one might well argue that they aren’t technically refugees, because they didn’t come directly to Israel from their countries of origin but passed first through other countries – such as Egypt. Don’t you think those other countries had a legal and moral duty towards them?
However, Israel HAS allowed them to stay. Yes, I’m aware that SOME Israeli citizens, notably in the southern neighbourhoods of Tel Aviv, have, on occasion, used violence towards them. But this came after a steep increase in the crime rate in those neighbourhoods, particular violent crime, and crime of a sexual nature, committed by African refugees against the Jewish residents of those neighbourhoods. In a country of seven million people, you are bound to find SOME cases of people who act like this towards refugees. Of course I don’t justify the violent reaction – but to say, because of that, that “the country’s” views of the refugees are racist, is pure hyperbole.
@Thomas Holloway:
During the 2,000 years in which Diaspora Jews lived without an Israel there were indeed episodes of violence as you note. But if you compare the level of violence during that period with the level of internal violence in the centuries before Rome conquered Judea when there was an Israel; or the level of violence since the State was created in 1948–you’ll find there were incredibly high levels of violence during those periods as well. Jews killed each other by the thousands during the Biblical era. They also killed Greeks, Romans, Philistines, Moabites, Amalekites, Jebusites & any number of other foreigners. As for the period since 1948, violence directed against Israelis has been intense as well. So I’m afraid Israel’s existence is no guarantee of safety and security for Jews.
As for “forced conversion of Jews to Islam,” I don’t know what you’re talking about. There were some individual cases of Jews forced to convert to Christianity. But I’m not aware of any such phenomena in Islam. But I DO NOT want to get into a pissing contest about the evils of Islam. So if you go there you’re going way off-topic & I warn you not to do so.
As for Israel causing danger to Diaspora Jews, I’m not talking of systemic danger like pogroms or expulsions of the past. I’m talking about terror attacks commmitted by angry Islamist militants in Diaspora communities. In these cases, in which extremist Muslims take their grievances out of these communities, it is very clearly Israel’s Occupation, theft of Arab land, military aggression, & level of violence against it’s Arab neighbors including the Palestinians, that provokes this hate. So sending Diaspora Jews to make aliyah will actually bring them into much more danger than having them remain–until Israel settles its disputes with the Arab frontline states.
The Right of Return is not “a law that allows Jews in” as you state. It is a law that allows Jews automatic citizenship. That is far different than “allowing them in.” Of course I approve of allowing Jews (and non-Jews) to emigrate to Israel. I just don’t approve of automatic citizenship. I would however approve of an expedited form of citizenship for anyone (Jew or non-Jew) who could prove that the lives were in danger due to religious or ethnic violence or hatred. But this would be determined on a case by case basis, not for an entire religious class as it is now.
The list of “rights” you’ve deigned to offer Israeli Palestinians in no way would make them equal citizens to Jews. The rights that would do so would be the right to own lease and own land anywhere in Israel with no restrictions or condition (as there are presently in many cases); the right to choose their own religious leaders without the interference of the State (as it does now); the right to serve in all the elite IDF units (as is denied them now); the right to equal funding of their municipalities to Jewish ones; the right of their relgious parties to inclusion in governing coalitions (something denied de jure currently); the right to health care, education, jobs, and social services that are at parity with Jews (none of which is the case currently). So I’m afraid your “rights” are far inferior to the ones I envision.
As to African refugees in Israel: so because Eritreans, Sudanese, Ethiopians passed through 3rd countries on their way to Israel & aren’t “refugees” according to your fahrkochteh definition, that means that the tens of thousands of European Jews who passed through other countries on their way to havens in the U.S., Israel, Latin AMerica, etc. weren’t refugees either? You can see, I hope, that this defintion is ridiculous. A person is a refugee not due to passing directly from his native country to the country in which he seeks refuge, but rather because of the reason he left his home country, condition there at the time he left, etc. On that basis, these people are refugees and Israel is violating their rights under international law.
Not to mention that your claim that they aren’t refugees seems designed to somehow minimize the outrageous racist violence directed at them by Israeli Jews. Was that your intent? If not, you might want to go back to your original claim that Israel has been so incredibly hospitable to African refugess and modify it (i.e. admit you may’ve been correct decades ago, but that your claim has long since been in error as far as Israel’s record of tolerance for such refugees).
In terms of your justification of violence against African refugees, again you prove your ignorance of the facts in Israeli society. There has been NO increase in crimes in poor neighborhoods of Tel Aviv attributed to African refugees. None. This is the propaganda of Likud racists like Miri Regev which you’ve swallowed lock stock & sinker. The fact that you either are so ignorant or are parroting racist propaganda I find deeply repugnant.
As for sexual violence in these neighborhoods, again most of this is propaganda. But the level of sexual violence among Israeli Jews is far higher than among African refugees.
I’m officially ending your participation in this thread. You may comment in others. But you’re done in this one. Move on.