Posts

POST A COMMENT

• 
  By Fishman 8/19/09 at 12:57 p.m. UTC

  "After Zionists began their filthy aggressions………………"

   Ismail, even Dier Yassin, the event that people like you point to as the quintesential Zionist "crime", took place after the Arabs attacked Israel.

  What agressions do you mean? The illegal Jewish immigration into UK-mandated Palestine?  

  There is overwhelming evidence, which I have cited in previous conversations with you on this very blog, that proves that the Middle Eastern Arabs (including the Palestinian Arab Liberation Army) were in 1948 seeking to kill every Jew in Palestine.

  There was never any intention by the governments in Cairo or Amman to ever allow the Palestinian Arabs to establish their own post-UK state.

  If you are such a defender of the Palestinian cause (and not of the pan-Arab cause) then blame Arab states for failing to allow for the establishment of a prosperous Palestine and instead seeking a pan-Arab anschluss. 

  Every one of your arguments is predicated on the denial of Israel’s right to exist. This is the very idea that has prevented normalization in the region for 61 years. It is the idea that the Palestinians can continue to grab pieces of land from Israel, under the pretense d’jour (Oslo, two-state solution), with the promise that one day they will recuperate the entirety of Palestine. Thus the Gazan disaster, the farcicle Fatah conference, the lack of a credible governing body in Palestine.

  Israel and the Zionists owe nothing to the Palestinians. They set out to create an Israel and succeeded. Arabs set out to commit genocide and reconquer territory and failed.  

    

   
• 
  By Ismail 8/17/09 at 1:30 p.m. UTC

  fishman-

  I find it fascinating to observe the contortions apologists for Zionism will perform in order to evade even the most obvious conclusions. Let me try once more:

  Nationalism develops differently in different places and at different times. It is true that the indigenes of Palestine identified themselves according to overlapping categories-Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, Christian, Ottoman et al-as did most peoples in pre-nation state levels of development. Interestingly (and unsurprisingly), as other national entities impinge upon locals, national identities seem to predominate; witness the rise of Palestinian nationalism when the Ottomans began to aggressively conscript the locals. When things are relatively quiet-when you can earn a living, raise a family, etc, in peace, the press for a national identity lessens.

  The fact that people affiliated as clans, co-religionists etc in no way mitigates their claim to the land that their people lived on for millenia. You wouldn’t want to prejudice their rights on the grounds that they weren’t nationalistically active when "nations" pretty much didn’t exist at that time and place, would you?

  After lines began to be drawn (by Europeans) after WWl, consciousness changed. After Zionists began their filthy aggressions, consciousness changed big time. Again, wholly unsurprising. I seem to recall a tiny corner of North America undergoing just such a development of national identity in the mid-18th century, despite some time as a happy colony of England.

  Here’s the take-away: when Palestinians of all sorts-different clans, religions, socioeconomic status, educational attainments, professions-are brutalized, displaced, killed, routed, imprisoned etc by an occupying force, they tend to look for the commonality, which in this case is Palestinian identity. So, in a sense you may say that Zionist crimes helped to forge a Palestinian identity, and so Palis were "only" reacting to Zionism. But this (correct) analysis doesn’t do the work you intended, does it?

  isaac-

  "Except in the case of borders with countries which have put an end to their permanent state of war against Israel, such as Egypt, Jordan."

  When we say that x has a border, we usually mean that there is an unbroken perimeter that encloses x, so that we may tell where x stops and not-x begins. By making the claim above, you seem to agree that Israel has in fact not declared its borders, which was my original assertion.

  Thank you for finally coming to your senses. 

    
• 
  By samantha91400 8/17/09 at 1:24 a.m. UTC

  Well people should remember that Kristin is passionate about her relationship with Oxfam, and she intends to work with them and other humanitarian causes for years to come.
• 
  By Isaac 8/14/09 at 7:35 p.m. UTC

  Long time, no see. Long story.

  Ismail said, "Israel has never felt it important to declare its borders, the better
  to rationalize its continued usurpation of the Palestinians’ land, I
  suppose."

  Except in the case of borders with countries which have put an end to their permanent state of war against Israel, such as Egypt, Jordan. 
• 
  By Fishman 8/14/09 at 12:41 p.m. UTC

  So now you’ve switched from arguing that the Egyptian/Jordanian occupation was culturally unthreatening to arguing that at least the Jordanian occupation and succesful administration of the W.Bank (a former part of TransJordan partitioned for a creation of a Palistinian state) was politically inocuous to the Palistinian Arabs.

  Forget the fact that Jordan annexed the W.Bank (a territory designated for Palistinian statehood) in a war in which it was the aggressor.  

  The subsequent succesful political re-absorbtion of the W.Bank by Jordan, unimpeded by any Palistinian self-determination movement, simply reinforces my point that there never was any Palestinian drive for authentic independence. They simply wanted the territory of Palestine to revert completely to Arab control. Or, in fact, to the control of any power (UK) which would prevent the erosion of Arab dominance.  

  If you like refuting "crackpot fantasies" so much, why don’t you put to rest the one about the Palestinian effort for self-determination?
• 
  By Ismail 8/13/09 at 5:29 p.m. UTC

  fishman-

  You’re being silly. While I generally hold Jordan in contempt (not least for its appeasement of Israel), the fact is that its occupation of Palestine bore very little resemblance to Israel’s current thievery. For example,

  West Bank Palestinians could vote as Jordanian citizens. They had representation in Jordan’s parliament in equal numbers to Jordanians on the east bank. They could migrate into Jordan, as many did. And, as I mentioned earlier, Jordan did not kick them off their land, destroy their homes, forbid them passage, export themselves into the west bank to establish Jordanian-only enclaves, etc, etc.

  None of this is to suggest Jordanian magnanimity. Instead, Hussein was happier with a controllable population administered from Amman than with an autonomous Palestine on the west bank.

  So, no, nobody’s picking on poor Israel out of antisemitism or grand plans for a worldwide ummah or whatever the latest crackpot Zionist fantasy may be; opposition to Israel’s occupation, despite the Zionist wish to paint it as exotic or sinister, is exactly what one would expect from a people subjected to Israel’s relentless assaults and expansion.

  stuart-

  Priceless! After the neocons went ballistic presenting Iraq as the devil’s own bailiwick, it’s now being portrayed as the reluctant responder to Iran’s endless aggression and subversion! Of course! Iraq’s down, and Iran is now Zionist Target Number One!

  Hold the hasbara, pal. Iran was the victim of Iraqi aggression, not its fomenter, and it has not been the author of an aggressive assault for centuries.

  And your conclusions, insofar as I can decipher them, are half-right. Iran does not bear major responsibility for the Iran-Iraq war deaths (that honor belongs to Iraq, along with its then-sponsor, the USA), but Israel does indeed bear responsibility for 1948, the result of decades-long Zionist efforts to establish a racialist state in an area where it was a distinct minority, and for 1967 too, which even Moshe Dayan has admitted was a war of choice.

  Israel does not need me to besmirch its image; it does quite well by itself.

  Oh, and lay off the Shakespeare until you learn to express yourself better. Like placing an orchid in a garbage dump. 
• 
  By mikewinddale 8/11/09 at 5:54 p.m. UTC

  Ismail, you also have a penchant for obfuscation by using so many overinflated metaphors and illustrations that the facts get lost in the mix. If that’s what you want to be proud of, have fun wallowing.
• 
  By Ismail 8/11/09 at 5:46 p.m. UTC

  "…the world’s warm and amiable recognition of Ahmedinijad…"

  Huh? Which world would that be? Perhaps windale is referring to the scorn and opprobrium that the world visited upon the Iranian protesters who rightly denounced Ahmadinejad’s theft of the election? Oh, wait…their cause was supported by virtually the entire planet.

  As for the rest, more of the same space-cadet musings we’ve come to expect from lad windale. Each of us is entitled to his or her own fairy tales regarding how their arcane mumbles and crackpot rituals delight the Old Man in the Sky, but when these delusions are taken to be equivalent to such things as property deeds…..look out. Whether they are Christians who think matters of biology are settled with reference to a compilation of the 2500 year old musings of itinerant shepherds, or Jews who imagine that their Sky Daddy is looking out for their real estate interests, or Muslims who opine about which meats are the most deity-pleasing….spare me.

  Folks whose "reasoning" about such matters follow from Voodoo convictions like the above are simply placing themselves outside the discourse of consensually-validated reality.

  Which, come to think of it, is a territory windale seems quite proud to claim as his own.    
• 
  By Fishman 8/10/09 at 4:55 p.m. UTC

  I think that in explaining the lack of a Palestinian national movement in Arab occupied Gaza and West bank one has two choices: 

  Either one regards the Palestinian Arabs as a distinct culture which is existentially threatened by other Arab cultures, in which case the absence of Palestinian nationalism under the Jordan/Egypt occupation can be seen as a result of succesful supression by the Arab occupiers (so succesful that no evidence of Palestinian rebelion ever leaked out), or one considers them to be a part of a homogenious Arabian heritage,with only minor differences in traditions; in which case the lack of nationalist sentiment can be attributed to Palestinian recognition of the Arab occuption’s legitimacy.

  Whatever choice Ismail makes, his argument is evicerated. Either the Arab occupiers are to be blamed for perpetuating the Palestinian’s homelessness and dismal condition after 1948, or the Palestinians have bought into a pan-Arab movement to destroy Israel.
• 
  By David N. Friedman 8/10/09 at 1:01 p.m. UTC

  Mike, please allow me to amend your comment regarding the supposed "Palestinian" claim to the land of Israel being based ujpon the existence of the Muslims in 700 AD.  In fact, given your acceptance of Fishman’s point that there was no such claim in the years of Jordanian occupation (this can be called an occupation given the fact the borders of the state of Jordan were established by the international community and this occupation was illegal in international terms)–ipso facto–there was also no other previous claim and certainly no claim dating all the way back to the founding of Islam by Muhommed.

  As Jews, we have surely prejudiced this whole argument by accepting the distortion that there is some "native" people called Palestinians who must be honored–as if there was some peculiar difference between an Arab living in Judea/Samaria and his brethren in Jordan or Syria, etc.  Therefore the battle between perhaps the most distinctive people in the world–the Jews–and the least distinctive people–the Palestinians–is thought to be a stand off between two ancient historic people both embroiled in a conflict over the same territory–etc.  This is a huge historical fiction–you know it and so does Fishman–but Ismail contests all of it.
• 
  By Fishman 8/9/09 at 5:24 p.m. UTC

  "but how ’bout you don’t worry about how the Palis will get along and just take your foot off their necks, hmmm?"

  I don’t have my foot on anyone’s neck, but Israelis (and the rest of the world) cannot afford to "leave the Palis" alone. When they are left alone they elect Hamas, waste aid money on Kassams and indoctrinate the next generation for the perpetual Intifada. 

  I can see the difference between an indigenous Palestinian family and a Bronx shmuck. Can you see a similarity between what you call Israel’s "colonial" existence and the resettlement of Pali families from the West Bank into East Jerusalem by the UNRWA? These particular families were not from East Jerusalem. They were resettled by a Western NGO into an a pre-dominantly Arab area inside Israel. What would you say if AIPAC bought some land in Ramallah and resettled some Yisrael Beitteinu activists there?

  That’s right! You are your ilk would call them the "main impediment to peace".

  As for Arabs and solutions to the Middle East crisis, I would love to see at least one workable solution come from Ryad or Cairo or Amman. If they are urging for anything, it is an Arab Palestinian state free of Jews next to an open and voulnerable Israel flooded by four million Palestinian refugees whose nationlessness is absolutely the fault of Arab governments.

  Also, it is wonderous strange, but during the 19 years of Jordanian/Egyptian occupation of the Palestinians (1948-1967) no-one seemed to be burning with the flame of Palestinian nationalism. Either they felt that the Arab occupation is legitimate, or the occupiers were ruthless…..makes one think.
• 
  By David N. Friedman 8/9/09 at 11:55 a.m. UTC

  Ismail, allow me to make a few comments.  First, your remarks are so familiar to us since the ideology of contempt for Israel is so solidly imbued in the Jewish left–you could pass easily for a boilerplate liberal Jew.  Tell me, where can I can to find a pro-Jewish Arab for some balance?  Has there ever been such a thing–could there ever be such a person?  Therefore, it would be truly wonderful if you were right and Israelis were the monsters you make them out to be–sadly, many are made of the same ideological cloth as you.

  Regarding "occupied territories" following the 1967 war, yes, there were occupied territories and the state of Israel retunred those territories with the exception of the Golan Heights which Israel rightly annexed as part of Israel, won in that defensive war, and will never return to the aggressors.  Here is where the complaint can be lodged–go ahead, Israel will not budge and should not.  However, in no sense can the state of Israel occupy its own territory and this is territory not belong to any other state.  Under the terms of UN 242 and 338–this is land to be negotiated between the parties.  Jerusalem can easily accomodate Arabs and Christians in peace but cannot be divided and its political sovereignty will always be Israeli.  As for territory where Arabs predominate, Israel has always held open the possibility of ceding this land to Arabs, given basic conditions that the land not be used as a launching pad for attacks.  It is inconsistent that you hold as sacred a Green line–a line marked by a historical event of a war, while denying any other line defined by war. 

  The Arab side has never acknowledged the right of a Jewish state to exist–instead, the recognition of Israel comes with caveats that include the "right of return" so that any state of Israel must be one that somehow allows Arabs to predominate.  This is no right of recognition–it is a sham and it must end.
• 
  By mikewinddale 8/8/09 at 2:09 p.m. UTC

  " I suspect that his is the part where young Windale will remind us that the UN et al are just a bunch of slobbering antisemites whose opinions may safely be ignored."

  Actually, this is the part where I will note that the UN is anti-human. Note the UN’s response to Darfur. Apparently, if you’re not an Arab, it doesn’t matter how many human rights violations are committed against you. The UN isn’t merely antisemitic; it is simply racist across the board.

  As for international law, it declares that any territory seized in a defensive war belongs to the conqueror. Since Israel conquered the West Bank from Jordan in a defensive operation, international law declares that the West Bank belongs to Israel. There’s your international law.

  However, I might note further: Jewish law gives no credence to law when it violates the Torah. If the king of Israel, or the Sanhedrin, or the UN, or the American Congress, or anyone else, told me to do something against the Torah, I’d ignore it. So in the end, what international law declares is of precious little importance. Ein shaliah b’davar averah – if the Melekh Malkhei ha-Melakhim tells you one thing, and everyone else tells you something else, who will you listen to?

  And as immoral as it may be to kick people from their homes, is it more moral to detonate cafes? To my thinking, if someone has a legitimate claim to property, any act of terrorism on his part nullifies his claim, however legitimate it was previously. Interestingly, the Kurds agree – they say that theoretically, they’d support the Palestinians, but their terrorism has led to the Kurds rather supporting Israel. So perhaps many Arabs did once have a legitimate claim, but now that polls have established that 80% of PA residents support the Merkaz ha-Rav attacks, their claims have lost all legitimacy.
• 
  By Ismail 8/8/09 at 12:16 p.m. UTC

  yonah-

  "…insist on mixing in sneers and hate. "

  Sneers I can see, but hate? Please point out an instance of hate in either of my comments.

  "pro palestinians too often want to have their cake and eat it too.  they want to hold hands with rabid jew haters and then accuse the zionists of paranoia.  they want to soft peddle hamas and fatah’s charters which reek with jew hatred and then accuse the zionists of paranoia."

  Huh? Which rabid Jew-haters am I looking to hold hands with? And why would you focus on Hamas’ stupid charter rather than on their numerous offers of a truce and their implicit recognition of Israel’s right to exist within the 1967 borders? Why do you see the lunacies of that document as more significant than Israel’s sneering disregard of Hamas’ truce overtures?Remember, the incidence of flying pipes over Sderot had dropped from hundreds to about half a dozen in the months prior to Cast Lead, as Hamas had promised. Nevertheless, Israel went ahead with its butchery.

  None of this exculpates Hamas from its crimes nor from the mindless religious illusions of its right wing. But to focus on the decades-old charter instead of engaging with Hamas’ sensible elements today, as even some in Israel’s intelligence community recommend, is to insure more murdering of innocents on both sides.  

  Regarding Zionism and paranoia, while Herzl et al had correctly foreseen the Nazis filthy plans (as had others), they erred in transferring this suspicion to the world at large, forever and ever. The mass transfer of Palestinians was rationalized with reference to their murderous impulses, surely to be turned upon the blameless Zionist pioneers at any moment. This tendency continues today, with Moldovan thugs and feverishly deranged rabbis (Kooks, you might say) warning of being swept into the sea while doing their best to efface what remains of a Palestinian presence both within Israel and in the OPT.

  It is this dynamic-warning of impending doom due to the malicious intent of The Other while steadily and assiduously sequestering, imprisoning, bombing, corraling and bulldozing that very Other-that I describe as a paranoid projection.

  Sorry you don’t like this, but I think it’s rather generous. After all, psychodynamics like this derive their power from operating below the  limits of awareness-the perpetrator doesn’t think he’s doing anything wrong. The other alternative is that Israel is quite consciously acting like an amoral, vicious gangster, cynically disguising its rapaciousness with protestations of self-defense.

  So, deluded paranoid or outright criminal? You choose.

   

   
• 
  By Ismail 8/7/09 at 4:35 p.m. UTC

  "Ismail, did you poll "most Palestinians"? Where are these claims coming from?"

  I did not, but fortunately for us all there are some good souls out there who gather such data. In April of this year, Ha’aretz reported on a poll which found that 70-odd percent of Palis supported a two-state solution (a marginally greater percentage of Israelis, by the way, did so as well.) There are similar polls done regularly, most with comparable results.

  "Just as many as then abrogated these recognitions by continuing wars and incitement of Palestinian violence against Israel."

  Tell me, does urging resistance to occupation count as "incitement"? You may have read of the arrest by Israel of several non-violent protesters in Bil’in just this week. "Continuing war", yes, but authored by Israel. I will also note that none of the Arab players who’ve long urged a 2-state solution have reneged despite denouncing Israel’s continued aggression.

  "You must also think then that the UNRWA acted improperly when it gave two families homes in Eastern Jerusalem…"

  Not at all. I’m sure you can see the difference between an indigenous family living for numberless generations in the same spot and a schmuck from the Bronx who points to the Bible as his property deed. 

  "And the rise of what exactly?"

  Neither Hamas nor Fatah, one hopes, but how ’bout you don’t worry about how the Palis will get along and just take your foot off their necks, hmmm?

  Very glad you liked the hooves bit. Wait’ll you see my stuff on mixing linen and wool. 

   

      
• 
  By Fishman 8/7/09 at 12:32 p.m. UTC

  "Most Palestinians are also willing to accept the truncated state that remains and acknowledge Israel’s statehood within the 1967 borders, an act of magnanimity that has never been approached by the metastasizing Zionist entity."

  Ismail, did you poll "most Palestinians"? Where are these claims coming from?

   "So successive Palestinian leaderships and numberless Arab League resolutions have recognized Israel."

  Just as many as then abrogated these recognitions by continuing wars and incitement of Palestinian violence against Israel.

  "This, as they rout more Arab families from their homes"

  - given to them by the UNRWA in a resettlement program. If you’re going to label Israel a "Zionist entity" and call the division of Mandatory  Palestine "colonialism", because Jews were "illigaly" ressetled to Palestine. You must also think then that the UNRWA acted improperly when it gave two families homes in Eastern Jerusalem, apperantly without proper deed documents.

  "We are witnessing the decline of the Zionist moment."

  And the rise of what exactly? The rise of Islamist HAMAS moment? The rise of Arabist fascism of Fatah? Perhaps the Iranian humanists in Teheran? Who will lead the Palestinians to prosperity that is supposedly being stolen from them by the Zionist occupiers? 

   Love the part about the hooves, by the way.
• 
  By Ismail 8/7/09 at 9:19 a.m. UTC

  Poor Windale would do better to focus on his tedious exegeses concerning hoof anatomy and its implications for supernaturally-approved meat consumption and leave the political analysis to others.

  "The truth is, the boundaries of the West Bank are entirely arbitrary."

  And those national boundaries which are not arbitrary would be….? What’s that you say? None? Right you are! So your groundbreaking scoop re the West Bank would be….entirely vacuous? Right again!

  And what of the boundaries of Israel? Oh, wait….Israel has never felt it important to declare its borders, the better to rationalize its continued usurpation of the Palestinians’ land, I suppose. Imagine, a citizen of a nation that has the temerity to declare that its boundaries are flexible lecturing anyone else about proper borders.

  " Since then, the Palestinians, with no discernable logic that conforms to conventional canons of human reasoning, have claimed that these armistice lines have special cultural and demographic value. "

  Not just the Palestinians, as it happens. In fact, multiple UN resolutions, the Geneva conventions and numerous other worldwide agreements of the sort that international law is derived from have declared the West Bank to be Palestinian land. I suspect that his is the part where young Windale will remind us that the UN et al are just a bunch of slobbering antisemites whose opinions may safely be ignored.

  "The fact is, the Palestinians could just as well claim – with equal basis – that any other territory in Israel belongs to them."

  In fact, most Palestinians do believe-correctly, as it happens-that Tel Aviv and the rest of Israel was stolen from them in a massively criminal spasm of European colonialism. Most Palestinians are also willing to accept the truncated state that remains and acknowledge Israel’s statehood within the 1967 borders, an act of magnanimity that has never been approached by the metastasizing Zionist entity.

  So successive Palestinian leaderships and numberless Arab League resolutions have recognized Israel. So has the UN and the entire international community, with a few exceptions. These same entities that recognize Israel to a person do not recognize its occupation of the West Bank.

  So your declaration that the Palestinians could claim, e.g., Tel Aviv "…with equal basis…" is simply wrong to the point of deranged. The basis of the Palestinian claim to the West Bank is found in international declarations and international law and international consensus. These same sources do not suggest any basis for a claim to pre 1967 Israel, nor do the repeated declarations of the Palestinian leadership and its Arab confederates. Interestingly, the current plurality of the Zionist leadership has repeatedly insisted upon its ownership of what it amusingly refers to as "Judea" and "Samaria", as has been enshrined in the Likud charter.

  "Look out", cry the usurpers. "Once they get the West Bank, they’ll claim Tel Aviv". This, as they rout more Arab families from their homes and induce deluded "pioneers" from Larchmont to "come home".

  Once again, a textbook case of the sort of paranoid projection that has characterized Zionism from the beginning.

  To return to the subject of the post, the West Bank is internationally recognized as occupied. International law forbids the extraction of resources by occupying powers from such territories. Simple as that. Windale finds this quite risible, but such jeering indifference to settled norms of public conduct are precisely why Israel finds itself increasingly marginalized. And about time, too. We are witnessing the decline of the Zionist moment.

  Mike, if you don’t already know some, learn Arabic. Word to the wise.     
• 
  By tatanano 8/6/09 at 2:46 p.m. UTC

  determing borders can be pain in the a**. She should stay neutral IMO.

Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!