How happy I am to read in his profile that Benjamin has decamped from the US to reside in Israel.

While I find his typical post to be yawnsome, reflexive, and moth-eaten Zio-bombast, this one really takes the macaroon.

Consider that lad Benjamin cites the following twaddle approvingly:

""Since Israel is a Jewish state, and if you use false analogies between Israel and Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany, you are comparing them with Jews and you are therefore engaged in anti-Semitism."

Did that syntax spend some time in Abu Ghraib to get so tortured? More important, what does the (presumed) logic of this claim entail? Any false statement about Israel must, because Israel is a Jewish state, be anti-Semitic? Only unflattering false statements? What about unflattering true statements? How closely analogous to apartheid can one claim Israel to be before one crosses the line into racism? Analogies aren't perfect, after all, so how many features of racial preference may we note in Israeli society before the axe falls? Why is comparison of Israelis to Nazis not merely false, but anti-Semitic? And so on.....

Sorry, but this is merely the latest iteration of the shell game of identity that Zionists depend upon. Israel is a political entity which avoids political censure by playing the religion/race/culture card when convenient.

To be clear, the statement, "Israel is a nation founded upon ethnic cleansing whose overall political trajectory has required the systematic sociocide of the indigenes of Palestine and the world would be better off if it abandoned its essentialist and tribal notions of citizenship/nationality for something a little more becoming to a modern democracy" contains not a shred of anti-Semitism. You may disagree with the reading of history suggested by the foregoing, of course, but you must refrain from name-calling when your arguments fail to convince. The statement, "Israel is a nation filled with Jews, who are an untrustworthy, Messiah-killing people without scruples", on the other hand, is disgraceful and anti-Semitic to boot. See the difference?

I understand why it is in the interests of apologists for Israeli policy to propose the most elastic and expansive definitions of anti-Semitism, but I'm having none of it. Make your arguments as strongly as you like, be fearless, give no quarter-but put down your copy of "Psychoanalysis for Dummies", quit aiming to uncover your opponents' sinister motives, and cease this shameful ploy of portraying folks who disagree with you as not just political adversaries but as moral scoundrels.

Anonymous:

You coudn't be a bit nicer, eh? He is young, he was taught that we are always right,  what else can he do? Give him another 25 years. 

be nicer because anonymous is a loathsome hater. This is clearly evident as anonymous smears Israelis with the apartheid state canard. In any case, my suspicion is that in 25 years Benjamin will be just as bright as he is today.

Benjamen is doing the simplest thing in the history of men - to believe that one's tribe is always right. So, we do not know how bright he is.

But we do know that Israel is an apartheid state.  

But then again you're no stranger to controversy Alex.

Of course if you were to argue that Russia was an Apartheid state I might be more inclined to agree with you.

I thought you had given up posting on this site.

There is no controversy on apartheid in Israel. There are people who do not agree with that, but the same people benefit from not agreeing with that. 

Russia is a state (I have not lived there for 20 years, though) with tonnes of serious and grave problems between religious and ethnic groups. But Russia is not an apartheid state. It does not have two sets of laws for different religious and ethnic groups on the territory it controls. It does not proclaim itself officially a Slavic State, as Israel proclaim itself a Jewish State. Many nationalists would want that, but the state did not sink that low yet.

>>I thought you had given up posting on this site.

Why should I?

 One question - why are you anonymous? What are you afraid of?

You need to look up what the definition of apartheid is, because apparently you are confused. Yours is not even close, in fact if we were to accept your definition then nearly every nation on the planet would be practicing 'apartheid'. Russia, however comes closer to the classic definition in the way it is brutally supressing Chechnyan's under its rule.

>>>>I thought you had given up posting on this site.

>>Why should I?

Really I don't why you should. Its just that you stated that you were quiting on another thread, so I was merely surprised to find you back again.

>>One question - why are you anonymous? What are you afraid of?

Why do you assume I'm 'afraid' of anything? I prefer to remain anonymous. But if it makes it you feel any better, call me Max.

I understand that it is a full-time Zionist job to find injustices and tragedies all over the world and shout "They are worse than us!" Sad and what is worse - ineffective.

Russia committed many sins toward Chechens and I am not at all prepared to defend them. But apartheid? You have to be joking. Chechens in Russia even during worst times of Chechen war were able to move around, marry Russian girls if they choose to, live where they want. There is no law in Russia prohibiting a Chechen (or anyone else) to buy any chunk of land they want, they all have passports and equal rights, while sadistic Israeli system of  checkpoints and ID cards  knows no precedents in history. Even Nazis were not treating occupied peoples with such sadistic gusto.

 >>But if it makes it you feel any better, call me Max.

I will feel better when you register with "JEWCY" under the name your mother, God bless her,  gave you and not some  stupid pretend name. But hey, some people are so bored with who they are, that "Anonymous" may feel sexy for them. Knock yourself out.

Alex,

You said that "the simplest thing in the history of men" is "to believe that one's tribe is always right."  Fair enough.  But then it must be the second-simplest thing to make hyperbolic comparisons between an object one dislikes and the Nazis.  (look up Godwin's Law on wiki). 

Max isn't doing much to elevate this conversation but let's not stoop to his level.  

--Z

I agree wholeheartedly. But because your side uses ridiculous terms like "islamofascism", I think it is just to use symmetrical terminology. Its tit-4-tat. I, as you,  prefer both sides to stay away from comparison with Nazis.

If I'm not doing much to elevate this 'conversation' then is Alex. In other words do you believe that Israel is practicing 'apartheid'?

And what about the USA? In the state of Hawaii I believe there is a quota on how much land non-native Hawaiians can own. In Israel everyone goes through checkpoints all the time, everyday - go to mall they will search your car and then they search you - no matter who you are. Everywhere you go, everyone is stopped and searched and of course profiling takes place. Profiling is a necessity, its either that or society would not function

You have to take us all for idiots to have a nerve to compare a security check where you are checked for illegal weapons or explosoves with roadblock checkpoint, which has an authority to allow or not allow you to go to your home, to your work, to the hospital, or to visit your sick mother. This is very indicative for Zionist propaganda - that American public is so stupid that you can feed it anything.

Now about Hawaii. First check you facts, I am not going to do it for you. Then we talk. 

You are just a vicious anti-semitic propagandist.

>>You are just a vicious anti-semitic propagandist.

Good arguments. Very powerful and very well thought-out. I mean - I am swept of my feet with your eloquence and rhetorical skill.

That is what happens when you try to defence the indefensible. Apartheid is indefensible. Occupation is indefensible. Torture is indefensible. Once you entered a discussion when you try to justify these things you will end up just as you did - no arguments, insults and running for cover. 

Its not you being stupid, its the side you arrogantly chose against your own moral compass because of your primitive and naively racist tribal loyalty.

Just like the Aryan bunch some three quarters of a century ago.

you said: "If I'm not doing much to elevate this 'conversation' then is Alex. In other words do you believe that Israel is practicing 'apartheid'?"

 No, those are not "other words" for what I was trying to say.  I had no comment about whether I think Israel is an apartheid state.  My point was that if you do not believe Israel is an apartheid state, you should explain why not, rather than accusing anyone who disagrees with you a "loathsome hater" and making pathetic and irrelevant attacks against Russia, as if Alex should be responsible (or even identified) for everything his country of birth does.  It's not your arguments themselves but the way you present your arguments that makes you degrade the conversation.  

Lest you now accuse of avoiding the question here's my opinion on the whole apartheid question:

Anyone who steps foot in Israel (or reads its laws) cannot deny that the state discriminates based on religion.  Furthermore, it also cannot be denied that life is miserable for the Palestinians trapped in in Gaza and the West Bank, living with constant checkpoints, unemployment, and despair.  And if you look at settlement activity in Israel (particularly since the 1990s, when there was no plausible security need for the settlements), it is clear that in many ways the Israelis acted like a colonial power, and have to at least partly blame themselves for their current problems.  

That being said, I think the use of the term "apartheid" is overly harsh and shows a lack of understanding of the Israeli predicament.  The Palestinians in particular and the Arabs in general have been trying to wipe them off the planet for the past 60 years.  Although they never made enough progress controlling their extremist settlers, the Israelis did repeatedly take big risks and make concessions in the hopes for peace, only to see those hopes dashed by a Palestinian populace and leadership that wanted Israelis to die more than they wanted Palestinians to live.  Given the enemy they face, I don't think it's fair for Americans or Europeans to sit in relative safety and demand that the Israelis unilaterally tear down their barricades.

Zbird:

Its a natural instinct of occupied nations to kick into a higher gear of nationalism and fundamentalism and wish to destroy the occupant. Somehow nobody complained about French resistance during WWII or Russian partizans during same War for blowing up, bombing, cutting throats and burning anything of German they can get their hands on. The right of an occupied nation to use any means it can against occupier was never questioned during WWII or at any other military conflict but Israeli-Arab.

Having demanded from Arabs the pre-condition of national recognition (which wisely and very cleverly is called "the right to exist" makes any serious negotiation impossible. Israel, as long as it has American support, does not WANT any peace deals. The status quo is quite satisfactory for the ruling elite. At the moment any future American President will show any hesitation in blind support for Israel, the whole game will turn 180 degrees. That is if he will live to see another day after such an abominable thought will enter his mind.

Cheers,

The "pathetic and irrelevant" attacks which you accuse me of are actually being made by your good friend Alex who unfairly attacks the Jewish state of practicing apartheid, which even you categorize as 'harsh'. My point, which is well taken, is that if you accuse Israel of this libel, then there are states which are better candidates, such as Russia. Perhaps China and her treatment of the Tibetans would have been a better example, but Russia's suppression of the Chechnyans is valid as well. Sorry that you can't see that, but thats no fault of mine.

-M

Anon:

Your argument is old, broken, silly and stupid. Never in the history of men a crime committed by a third party was an excuse to the crime committed by accused. The unique situation here is that the apartheid and racist crimes that are committed by the State of Israel is committed with the help of OUR TAX money and I think that as taxpayers we have a right to demand that it will stop. That should not preclude OTHER taxpayers who support Israeli policies to insist that killings and occupation go on, but its their business and they will answer before Almighty for what is done in their name.

I am and was not a fan of Russian treatment of Chechens and/or Chinese occupation of Tibet. And I think both should stop. But Russia stopped military operations in Chechnya, the Chechens do not live under a separate  et of laws and China is building roads in Tibet and there is no checkpoints there and no regular bombings. But the most important thing - it is NOT done with MY TAX MONEY! 

Also we have people all over the world who take Tibetan and Chechen cause closer to their heart that Palestinian case. That is fine - a human heart is not a calculator. But as a JEW, I am more concerned with JEWISH crimes against humanity and how my coreligionists are treating my God's Law as applied to my brothers in blood - the sons of the other son of our father Abraham, the Arabic peoples of Palestine. 

I also am concerned about the young generation of my people growing up rude, loutish, arrogant occupiers with all signs of the "prison guard" generation and no immune reaction to "Master Race" rhetoric. Call me crazy, but I still want jewish boys and girls to grow up scientists, musicians, writers, %^$#-ing doctors and even %$#&-ing lawyers, if nothing better.

Got it, buddy? 

Here's what you said: "Having demanded from Arabs the pre-condition of national recognition (which wisely and very cleverly is called "the right to exist" makes any serious negotiation impossible."

 So how is national recognition different from the right to exist?  And if national recognition is not a precondition to negotiation with the arabs, does that mean you believe Israelis should be willing to pack up and leave just to satisfy some other ethnic group's claim to the land?

 Also, your perceived right of an occupied power to violently resist the occupation is not quite a absolute, morally defensible, or clear-cut as you may imply.  Because to the extent that every nation must draw a border somewhere, there will always be those inside the borders who question the legitimacy of the state and flaunt its laws.  And because no nation can date itself to the beginning of time, there will always be claims to land by some minority, or wounded pride from some long-lost war, that compels some individuals to violently seek a nation's overthrow.  

I'm not saying that some of those claims can't be justified, but do they all need to be respected?  If a Navajo blows up a Phoenix restaurant to protest America's "occupation" of Indian land, must the United States negotiate with such a criminal, or accede to his demands?

Finally, you state that "The right of an occupied nation to use any means it can against occupier was never questioned during WWII or at any other military conflict but Israeli-Arab."  This is patently false.  The right of ETA and the IRA to commit acts of terrorism was questioned and condemned throughout the world, even by many who shared their political goals, and even though these groups were far more limited in their use of violence than the Palestinians.  To the extent the French resistance or, say, the American revolutionaries, are today considered heroic, it is not because they resisted occupation per se, but because their cause was just and because we count ourselves among the victors in their struggle.  

Once again, I am NOT claiming that everything Israel does is right or that all Palestinians deserve their horrible plight.  I think many Jews should sympathize more with the Palestinians, rather than running to the barricades every time violence breaks out.  But I also think it accomplishes nothing and over-simplifies the conflict to unpack the tired jargon of "occupation" every time the conflict comes up in conversation, as if the Israelis could instantly make everything better by laying down their arms. 

--Z

You are completely ridiculous and off the wall. Nowhere in what I am saying am I I justifying suppposed 'apartheid crimes' committed by Israelis. I am merely pointing out to you that if you accept the thesis that Israel is guilty of apartheid then there are nations which are practicing far worse versions of it. Given your misinterpretation of what I am saying, I really think you have some sort of comprehension problem which is causing you to completely misinterpret things such that you actually believe that Israel is guilty of apartheid.

Anon -

I never said "justified", I said "excused".

Your words: "My point, which is well taken, is that if you accuse Israel of this libel, then there are states which are better candidates, such as Russia. Perhaps China and her treatment of the Tibetans would have been a better example,"

My words:  "Never in the history of men a crime committed by a third party was an excuse to the crime committed by accused". 

I do not "misinterpret" you argument. Your argument is that there are nations are "better example" of apartheid than Israel. I.e. they commit graver crimes of apartheid than Israel. Implied is, since they  are greater offenders, that Israel is a lesser offender and therefore should be less criticized or not criticized at all. Which is - excused.

Stop your tantrums and polish your arguments. Every time  you accuse your opponent of "comprehension problem" you just show how weak your arguments were. 

But since you are an anonymous writer, you really do not give a shit, how weak your arguments are, do you? 

Zbird -

Yours is a serious post, give me a day to get back, OK? 

...we all have day jobs.

--Z

I will answr the most important question for now.

How is national recognition is different from the right to exist?

1. A right to exist is an absolute human right but not at all a right for a state. Each state when it PROCLAIMS independance may or may not be recognized by others and there is no obligation here. Israel declared its independance in a unilateral way against UN resolutions and therefore the other side is under no obligation of its recognition. Balfour Declaration and UN documents were guaranteeing "Jewish Home in Palestine" which is not at all "independant State". So, while nobody is questioning the right of Jews to live in Palestine and therfore their right "to exist", Israel demands as a pre-condition its national recognition as an independant state, which Palestinians would be crazy to do because it immediately legitimize all land grabs and everything that was done since 1948.

Zbird:

>>Also, your perceived right of an occupied power to violently resist the occupation is not quite a absolute, morally defensible, or clear-cut as you may imply.

It looks like you did not read the Geneva Convention.  Its not a big deal, but let us return to your question after you do. You apply a common sesnse where there are international laws.

>> Because to the extent that every nation must draw a border somewhere, ...

Again, we are talking about internationally recognized lines (not borders because Israeli borders are a big legal problem to begin with (see my previous post)

>> If a Navajo blows up a Phoenix restaurant to protest America's "occupation" of Indian land, must the United States negotiate with such a criminal, or accede to his demands?

The US is NOT recognized by UN resolutions as an occupier. But this can be challenged in the future. The question about Native American lands are one of the most complex in international law. But believe me - the time will come when these lands that are now almost academic will become bloody  fields. Al it takes is a leader. native Americans today do not have such a person. But these things can happen very quickly.

>> Finally, you state that "The right of an occupied nation to use any means it can against occupier was never questioned during WWII or at any other military conflict but Israeli-Arab."  This is patently false.  The right of ETA and the IRA to commit acts of terrorism was questioned and condemned throughout the world

ETA and IRA do not represent internationally recognized occupied people or territories. You forget international laws too easily.

Regards.

Alex,

 I think you understand my argument, which is essentially that people who challenge the legitimacy of the state come in two forms: 1) criminals/terrorists/thugs/troublemakers, or 2) freedom fighters / fighters against the occupation.  Your argument started out as saying that the Palestinians must be supported because they are fighting an occupying power.  My response was essentially that one man's freedom-fighter is another man's terrorist.  You now answer that the Palestinians are freedom-fighters because they are recognized as an occupied power under international law.  

 I'll start out by noting that I am a lawyer but am certainly no expert on international law.  In any event, I was not making a legal argument about the rights and obligations of the various parties to this conflict, but an argument based on my notions of common sense and morality.  And I don't think anyone's sense of morality should be dictated by whatever document a majority of the Security Counsel or General Assembly manages to agree on in a conference room in Turtle Bay.

--Z

Also, your support of a "Jewish home in Palestine" but not an independent state raises more questions than answers, and doesn't really solve the problems in the region. Would such a "Jewish home" be a an autonomous region of a larger Arab/Jewish state  (i.e.: Kurdistan in Iraq or, more successfully, the Basque region in Spain)?  How would its border be determined?  How are the Jews and Palestinian supposed to run a government together if they can't even agree on where to build a fence to separate them?  Would all people have a right to travel freely throughout region?  If so, how is terrorism to be prevented (whatever you think of the checkpoints and fences, you have to admit that they've been successful at nearly eliminating suicide bombing--just compare the number of bombs now with 2000).

 And even if the Israelis were willing to downgrade their hard-fought sovereignty to a "Jewish home" status,  would the Arabs actually accept that status?  The behavior of Arab states and terrorist groups (who, I admit, do not represent all Arabs) over the past fifty years indicates they are more interested in placing the "Jewish home" at the bottom of the Mediterranean than in actually sharing the land.   

--Z

1. When a lawyer starts to brush off legal arguments and refer to "common sense" and "morality" we know that he has no ground. You cannot use law in some disputes and not in others - unless both sides agree and they are not.

This will only be decided in the UN and international courts. Palestinians know thet they are right and they won't back off.  You and I can disagree on this, but please remember my words when Native Americans will start to pledge their case to teh UN and Mexico and the whole latin America  starts to support their case. 

2.  All the questions about pre-independence Jewish Home in Palestine are irrelevant now. But if you spend some time with UN resolutions and partition plans as I did you will find that they were quite elaborate and detailed. Your words about Arab attitude toward Jews pre-independance are. I am sorry, ignorant. Neturei Karta amassed huge database of J on J, A on J, J on A and A on A murder database of pre-war times that will blew your socks off. Did you know that Jew-on-Jew murders outnumbered Abrab-on-Jew murders 10 to 1? Did you know that Jewish religious community in Palestime was pleading with UN not to put them under the Israeli jurisdiction and leave them under Arab control? ?  I mean you are a lawyer, so you are capable of understanding large bodies of documents at short times and English is your mothertongue,so why don't you spend some time with League of nations and  UN resolutions starting from Balfour instead of other people's opinions (including mine)?

Respectfully,

Zbird -

BTW, if you are interested in my thinking how this crisis can be put on the road to resolution, we can talk, but privately.  

To the extent I brush off legal arguments, it's because I know the law well enough to know its limits, and one of the places where law's usefulness is particularly limiting is the international arena.  Although international law is useful is telling countries how to treat diplomats or in resolving cross-border commercial results, it is completely ineffective in resolving issues of national self-determination.  I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I am convinced that no document issued from Turtle Bay will, by fiat, resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or any other violent inter-ethnic dispute. 

I'd love to hear your thoughts on how you think the crisis can be resolved, although I may not respond right away, as I hope to minimize computer time over the holidays. 

 Shana Tova,

 --Z