tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post7730398607394424239..comments2023-10-26T06:29:39.824-07:00Comments on The Magnes Zionist: More on Israel’s Foundational Discrimination against its Arab MinorityJerry Haberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-3433201089387847112010-05-14T11:14:58.491-07:002010-05-14T11:14:58.491-07:00I have little respect for a person who attacks in ...I have little respect for a person who attacks in the manner you do and then only publishes those comments by his victims that he feels pass muster. How many have you declined to publish from me just in this discussion, 2, 3, 4? <br /><br />Are you afraid that somehow your readers will become confused? <br /><br />It's interesting to me that this censorship happens on many of the "progressive" blogs. You do it, Richard Silverstein does it and Muzzlewatch couldn't do it so they closed their comments section. How "progressive!"<br /><br />The fact you consider me "right wing" is a sad joke. I haven't voiced any opinion that would peg me on that side of the aisle. The constant harping on my supposed bigotry and now making a comparison between me and Kahane is a sadder joke, but in the days that I've been here I've come to understand this is how you operate. <br /><br />You are wrong about many things. Unfortunately, your actions and the actions of people like you feed the haters of compromise and peace, not to mention that they also feed into what is becoming a serious problem of antisemitism in Europe and coming soon to the US (it's already gotten some serious legs in Canada). No, it's not Israel or its actions that are doing it, it's the unbelievable interpretations of its actions by people like you that cause the problem because you tend to ascribe the basest, lowest motives and because your being Jewish provides "cover" for others also ascribing the basest, lowest motives to Israel and its supporters. <br /><br />I find it endlessly interesting that not only can't I talk to the extreme right wingers about this conflict, but that it's even harder to talk to the extreme leftists about it. Although, to be fair to the right, they don't censor me or compare me to lunatics. <br /><br />Have a peaceful sabbath.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-28131764006904396922010-05-14T00:22:12.939-07:002010-05-14T00:22:12.939-07:00Anonymous, once again -- for the third time, I thi...Anonymous, once again -- for the third time, I think -- you implied that I had attributed Israeli's refusal to allow Arabs back to "racism", despite the fact that in almost every post I said no. Do you selectively read the way you selectively quote. Or should I require you to do a Bart Simpson and write hundred times, "Haber did not accuse the Israelis of racism"<br /><br />Perhaps we simply do not understand how each of us is using that term.<br /><br />When I hear "racism" in English, I think of the view that says that some people are inferior, or have certain negative character traits, by virtue of their race, or if you like, their genetic makeup. <br /><br />Now I denied and deny that Israelis' attitudes towards Arabs vis-a-vis the law of return follow from their notions of Arab inferiority, which all my Israeli friends have, but which is not relevant here. <br /><br />Instead I prefer to talk about ethnic bias towards Arabs because the history of the conflict. And this is bad enough.<br /><br />Now you share this ethnic bias. You don't believe that Arabs can be trusted to be allowed to return to their land because of their history. For the same reason you won't allow Americans to live in America (because of slavery), or Germans to live in Germany (because of the holocaust.) In fact, I understand that you wanted to expel all Germans from Germany who had any time expressed any support of the Nazi regime.<br /><br />Israel's status as a sovereign nation does not allow it to pursue blanket ethnic discrimination in immigration. The fact that other countries do is immaterial; there are lots of human rights violators out there.<br /><br />But we are not talking about immigrants; we are talking about returning residents of Palestine. The fact that you did not even recognize the distinction speaks volumes. <br /><br />According to your logic, Jordan was perfectly justified in not allowing Jews to live in Jerusalem after 1948, and Saudi Arabia is perfectly justified in not allowing Jews to live there now.<br /><br />By the way, I heard Meir Kahane once make the same argument. He said Germany was perfectly justified in expelling Jews who had lived there for centuries. As a state, it had the sovereign right to decide who was dangerous in its eyes. <br /><br />Your comments are welcome as long as they are shorter and do not attribute to me ideas that I explicitly deny. <br /><br />And trust me, I have many right wing readers who are intelligent and perspicacious enough not to just mouth the hasbara. I don't want to get him angry at me for complimenting him, but Y. Ben David is one of them.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-44037138353393030192010-05-13T12:01:45.227-07:002010-05-13T12:01:45.227-07:00I don't understand why anybody would object to...I don't understand why anybody would object to the claim that Israel wanted -- and wants to -- ethnically cleanse Israel of Palestinians. It does not want or need a total ethnic cleansing; as long as the Palestinians are not more than around 20%, Israel is satisfied. <br /><br />As Morris showed, the discussion of ethnic cleansing, or population transfer (the two are identical, the latter phrase sounds better) became a real issue in the forties. To this day Israel is an ethnocracy that rejects 20% of its citizens as represented by the nation state. <br /><br />Whether Palestinians were forced out or left voluntarily was irrelevant. Refugees have a right to return to their homes, and resolution 194 (I am not talking about Israel's twisted reading of it) gave the refugees the choice of going back to Israel, provided that they were willing to live in peace with Israelis. <br /><br />It is important to realize that the continuing refusal of Israel to let Palestinian refugees to return has absolutely nothing to do with Israel's security and never did; that was only a smokescreen for the rest of the world. Israel never wanted too many Arabs within its borders because it was a Jewish state, and only a token number of Arabs would be allowed in. That is why there is no route for Arabs to be naturalized citizens, why Palestinian Israeli citizens cannot have their spouses naturalized, and why Israel would not accept several hundred thousand refugees, which would pose neither a security nor a demographic threat -- in fact, the won't accept from than 30,000. <br /><br />Just like the security fence, the goal of this prohibition is to keep the Arab out, and to make it easier to expropriate his lands; we continue to see this in the various petitions to the High Court, and we see this now in the attempt to get deny Palestinians permanent resident status in the West Bank. Since Israelis don't like to see themselves as thieves, they deceive themselves by these little fictions. <br /><br />Let's not forget that Israel is one of the only countries of the world that has no naturalization procedure besides the fiat of the Minister of the Interior. Israel doesn't want goyyim, and it certainly doesn't want Arabs. Those who stay should know their place.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-24166149517939948772010-05-13T10:54:01.286-07:002010-05-13T10:54:01.286-07:00Peter, Ben Ami is someone who taught me that no ma...Peter, Ben Ami is someone who taught me that no matter how good of a person you are, or how "fair" you wish to be in this struggle over land and history, ultimately the divide is so great and THEIR inability to compromise is so aggressive that it is like a truck running over people who want peace and co-existence. <br /><br />Hourani addresses Ben Ami's claims. The battle over how to address the Peel Commission's proposal in the Yishuv was important and, like a political campaign, both sides laid out positions they felt would win over the majority (of the leadership anyway). Ben Gurion said things that can be attributed to lobbying to ACCEPT the Commission's proposals, which the Yishuv ultimately did. <br /><br />That Ben Ami calls transfer a "magic solution" for the Yishuv doesn't inform us of anything we don't know. Today, the idea of transfer would still be considered a "magic solution." For both sides, by the way. <br /><br />And that's part of the issue here, Peter. I don't just challenge the fact that the Yishuv dreamed of implementing ethnic cleansing or transfer, because I don't believe they did and I don't think the record shows they did. You quote Ben Ami but Shabtai Tevet, the premier historian covering Ben Gurion, rejects the idea that Ben Gurion sought transfer. <br /><br />In fact, what the RECORD shows about the Yishuv is they bought land at exorbitant prices and on the two occasions where a compromise over land was proposed, in 1937 and 1947, they accepted. <br /><br />Moreover, Israel kept 120,000 Arabs in its borders and, in 1950, proposed to accept 100,000 Palestinian refugees. We also know, for example, stories like Sheikh Munis. In early 1948, the Arabs of Sheikh Munis (the village where Tel Aviv University resides now) sought to flee. There had been Etzel attacks on nearby villages because some attacks on Jews had emanated from them. The situation was made worse by the fact that five shooting incidents (at Jews, of course) from Sheikh Munis had taken place recently. Despite this, Haganah representatives approached the village elders more than once and asked them NOT to leave. To remain. They fled anyway. <br /><br />Are these the actions of an army or a people who are seeking to evict others? Of course not. <br /><br />The war changed a great deal of what people believed and wanted, and part of what it changed was any possible confusion about what the ARABS were trying to do. Compare the above to what happened at Gush Etzion and Jerusalem. Compare it to the Jordanian law that prohibits and prohibited Jews from being citizens of Jordan. <br /><br />Finally, with respect to Morris responding to Karsh, not only has he never convinced me, in part because his attempts at condescension reveal deep insecurities about his position, but he also failed to convince Ilan Pappe who admits that Karsh can be an effective opponent: http://www.ifamericansknew.net/history/ref-pappe.html<br /><br />"Or does his [Morris's] manipulation of the Ben-Gurion diary’s text, as has been exposed unfortunately by a rival of both of us, Ephraim Karsh (who rejects the ‘new history’ but none the less exposed a serious gap between Morris’ text and the original diary of Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel) of all people..."<br /><br />Karsh is dismissed by Morris, but these days Morris is edging ever closer to Karsh. Speaking of Karsh, you should read his latest book, Palestine Betrayed. It speaks of the OTHER reasons so many Palestinians left Palestine. You know, the reasons that don't involve ethnic cleansing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-49397886885382161582010-05-13T07:53:29.209-07:002010-05-13T07:53:29.209-07:00Tobias, thanks for the ridicule, I feel cleansed. ...Tobias, thanks for the ridicule, I feel cleansed. <br /><br />Have you ever spoken to Israelis who fought or lived at the time in the Yishuv and Israel? I'm talking about 1947-48, not 30 AD. You should. You might learn something, even from the leftists who feel guilty about the Palestinian refugees about what the feeling of being threatened and being on the verge of annihilation is like. Yu will also learn that much of that concern involved the Arabs of Palestine, not just the surrounding armies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-23219801199451377312010-05-13T07:26:12.020-07:002010-05-13T07:26:12.020-07:00Anonymous,
Thanks for the link. I'm actually ...Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for the link. I'm actually already well-aware of Karsh's debates with the New Historians. If you're interested, you can read Morris' <a href="http://www.palestine-studies.org/enakba/debates/Morris,%20Refabricating%201948.pdf" rel="nofollow">response</a> to Karsh. In my opinion, Morris completely demolishes Karsh, but readers of this blog can decide for themselves. <br /><br />Also, I recommend chapter 2 of Shlomo Ben-Ami's Book, <i>Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragey</i>, "Bisecting the Land or Zionism's Strategy of Phases." <br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=O-uMJuYdDxwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=scars+of+war+wounds+of+peace&source=bl&ots=eROCJCxxKL&sig=S4zyMjnhkVlAMFP5K6-bKwSSszU&hl=en&ei=GArsS_TSG4TGlQeP8pi0CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=falsePeter Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16487445526366418524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-78346498753350091732010-05-12T18:03:17.718-07:002010-05-12T18:03:17.718-07:00I have just read this Haaretz article (http://www....I have just read this Haaretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/netanyahu-we-will-never-divide-jerusalem-1.290001). I think in view of our general argument about discrimination in Israel, the following part of the article is important to read:<br /><br />Netanyahu says:<br /><br />"We are the generation that had the privilege of seeing Jerusalem united, and we need to impart this privilege onto our children and grandchildren," said the prime minister.<br /><br />"The connection Israel has to Jerusalem is extremely deep and it surpasses any connection any other country has to a city. The connection stayed strong for thousands of years and now it's stronger than ever."<br /><br />In response to Netanyahu's words, MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta'al) said that "there is no greater lie than the unity of Jerusalem."<br /><br />"East Jerusalem is a city under foreign occupation, and peace will not established until the occupation ends and East Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine," he said."<br /><br /><br /><br />Now you can say whatever you want about whether Netanyahu is being fair or unfair, reasonable or unreasonable, or whatever. But you know that what Tibi is saying IS representative of what many Israeli Arabs believe and certainly what a good portion of their Knesset representatives believe. You also know that this flies in the face of what most Israelis believe. <br /><br />As long as there is a sense that Israel is surrounded by enemies and Israel's Arabs MAY be siding with those enemies, finding true equality is going to be difficult...and with good reason. In fact, it is statements such as these by the Israeli-Arabs' elected officials that lead to significant distrust between the two groups.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-36038528387826463002010-05-12T15:39:23.894-07:002010-05-12T15:39:23.894-07:00Peter, thank you for the read. It was exactly what...Peter, thank you for the read. It was exactly what I expected and I'm afraid much of it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. For example, I went directly to the Ben Gurion section and found numerous passages showing that he had always intended to expel the Arabs. However, those of us who've been around the block with these debates, know these passages and know their context - when the passages are even valid.<br /><br />Why don't you read your own link's Ben Gurion section and then read this article:<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=SN2FJRMll8oC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=ben+gurion+transfer+expulsion+karsh&source=bl&ots=B4BNbGfwUn&sig=E1fB6fuweVXjsC_JdAZOs7bg8RE&hl=en&ei=SijrS_HTGYX6sQOVlumuDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />It's by Hourani in Karsh's edited book about the so-called "New Historians." Enjoy the read.<br /><br />As for your first point about wanting a majority state, you should be aware that even Jabotinsky, godfather of the Likud and groups like Lehi and Stern, advocated a democratic state for Arabs and Jews together. Jews were buying land and moving to Israel in large numbers. The hope was that the Zionist enterprise would eventually bring in sufficient numbers to establish a Jewish majority. <br /><br />The fact remains that in both 1937 and 1947, Israel accepted a parcel of land much smaller than promised to them in 1922 by the League of Nations and part of these plans involved movement of populations into their respective areas. <br /><br />You do realize that had the Arab agreed, as did the Jews, that these past 60 years would never have taken place? I think bringing up false stories of a desired expulsion when viewed in that context is about as false as complaining about Israeli "apartheid" and occupation at a time when the Palestinians could have established a state twice in the last 10 years and not had any "apartheid" or occupation concerns left.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-68013667455525884492010-05-12T15:19:08.224-07:002010-05-12T15:19:08.224-07:00"That is only a true statement if you can sho..."That is only a true statement if you can show that local Arabs in 1947 and 1948 did not instigate or participate in the war and the events leading up to the war."<br /><br />Good thinking. In another example, one would of course have to show that local Jews in ~30AD did <b>not</b> want to kill Jesus and thus Jews almost 2000 years later are not Jesus murderers. <br /><br />Because of course people are <br />a) collectively guilty of whatever one accuses them of until they prove their innocence in each and every case and <br />b) identical to their ancestors.<br /><br />P.S.: I admire Jerry for having the patience to treat you like a rational person who can be discussed with. I am a lesser man, I'm afraid. I can read only small amounts of obstinate inanity before switching into ridicule mode.Tobiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06499126921801952616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-77002599712343740892010-05-12T09:17:36.373-07:002010-05-12T09:17:36.373-07:00Tsk, tsk, why so afraid to publish a comment? It&#...Tsk, tsk, why so afraid to publish a comment? It's only words and some ideas. Surely, your superior intellect, not to mention your erudite, sophisticated and assuredly correct views of the conflict, its history and Israel will always prove superior to my subpar, devalued, outmoded and disproven ramblings and "hasbara." Right? <br /><br />I'd understand if I had been posting something antisemitic or truly offensive, but I've been both civil and on point. The history I point to is indisputable, even if our readings of it differ, and unlike you I actually have a realistic solution to the conflict where two countries sit side by side in peace and neither pretends that they have moral superiority or blamelessness regarding the conflict on their side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-34512520574487881972010-05-12T09:13:26.574-07:002010-05-12T09:13:26.574-07:00Anonymous,
Two points in response to your argumen...Anonymous,<br /><br />Two points in response to your argument that the Palestinian refugee problems is exclusively their fault for launching a war "a war where they intended to remove or annihilate the Jews." First, many of the Palestinian villages whose residents were expelled and/or forcibly prevented from returning did not partake in fighting against the Yishuv. Second, and more importantly, look at the demographics. Without the removal of much of the Palestinian population, Israel would have had, at best, a tenuous narrow majority ruling over enormous minority population that was hostile to the Zionist project. No dispossession of the refugees, no Jewish state. <br /><br />Further, it's been well-documented that "transfer" -euphemisim for explusions of Arabs - played a large role in Zionist thinking well-before the war of 1947-48. Read this <a href="http://chaimsimons.net/transfer.html" rel="nofollow">essay</a>, for instance.Peter Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16487445526366418524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-32577861897541030802010-05-11T23:47:46.845-07:002010-05-11T23:47:46.845-07:00Anonymous, please try not to be so long-winded.
...Anonymous, please try not to be so long-winded. <br /><br />If you can't write shorter comments, please find another blog to post your hasbarah. If you continue to write long comments, I will summarize them occasionally if I have time. <br /><br />I am glad, however, that you admit that Israel intended to commit ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, as evidenced by the a) massacres and atrocities of Palestinians civilians; b) secret discussions of population transfers before the outbreak of hostilities (see the revised edition of Benny Morris's book on Palestinian refugees; and c) a racist law that barred all Arabs, of whatever age, gender, and political pursuasion, return to their lands, WHETHER THEY HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE HOSTILITIES OR NOT, or whether they were willing to live or not. According to you, a young Palestinian going to school in Dayton, Ohio when hostilities broke out, because his parents were on sabbatical, must share the responsibility for the massacre at Gush Etzion. By that thinking, all the Jews in Israel should be barred entry because of the Deir Yassin massacre.<br /><br />That is my last response to you. I have more important things to do.<br /><br />But I do have some advice. Read some books. Frankly, your brand of hasbara doesn't reach the level of a Dershowitz or a Bard. <br /><br />It is more like AZYF, c. 1970.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-29594674943249536452010-05-11T15:05:10.304-07:002010-05-11T15:05:10.304-07:00"The Palestinians were made to suffer twice -..."The Palestinians were made to suffer twice -- first when they were denied the right to return to their homes, and then when there homes were settled by Jewish immigrants -- (not refugees, by the way, according to the Zionists, because Israel is the home of all Jews, and you are not a refugee when you are coming home.)"<br /><br />Yes, they suffered. They lost a war where they intended to remove or annihilate the Jews. <br /><br />I know, I know, I'm a bigot because I didn't mention that the children and women didn't fight, but the fact remains that they launched a war, participated in it and lost. The examples of Gush Etzion and Jerusalem show with great clarity what the Arabs' intentions were - it was a war of ethnic cleansing against the Jews. <br /><br />"So, the Palestinians were shafted by the Israelis and by the Arabs states, just as they were shafted by Jordan and Israel when the two divided Palestine among them, a clear rejection of the partition plan."<br /><br />Why would anybody return to the Partition Plan after a war was launched over it? Why would anybody return to such a plan aftet losing 1% of their population in that war? <br /><br />"Yet, fortunately, there is now some hope for the Palestinian refugees. For the decision of the Israeli courts to restore 1948 Jewish property to Jews in Sheikh Jarrah will be an important precedent for all future Palestinian claims for property in West Jerusalem (don't bother to go there, Y. Ben David) and around the country."<br /><br /><br />Sadly, you are right. <br /><br /><br />"And as for forced population transfers -- fortunately, the idea has now been altogether rejected because of the bad experiences of post world war ii. Nobody (except right wing Zionists) talks about it seriously anymore."<br /><br />I didn't realize I was a right wing Zionist. Anyway, I was simply proposing that you look at the 1951 committee report where people far less wise than you or left wing Zionists, who were non-Jewish as well, sought to explore the idea off a population transfer to address the situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-33491220176851014572010-05-11T15:05:10.303-07:002010-05-11T15:05:10.303-07:00Israel is certainly not completely responsible for...Israel is certainly not completely responsible for the Palestinian refugee problem. It might be reasonable to say that it's responsible for part of it, but that's about it as far as being reasonable goes. And yes, I'm going by earlier Benny Morris history when I say this. <br /><br />As for being indirectly responsible for Jewish refugees from Arab lands, certainly no more than the Arab states that launched their wars or the local Arabs who fought or led the fight against the Yishuv and then the state. The Morooccan and Iraqi pogroms of the early 1940s preceded the formation of the state of Israel.<br /><br />As for your other comments:<br /><br /><br />"1) The responsibility for resettling the Jewish refugees lies solely with the Arab countries that created the problem."<br /><br />Too late. They've resettled in Israel, Montreal, New York, Boston, Toronto, Paris, etc. <br /><br />"Those refugees should be given the choice to be resettled there or elsewhere, with compensation."<br /><br />Compensation, yes. Resettled? They've all launched new lives. Also, how many first generation refugees are there? As you know, refugee-ness does not transfer past first generation except at UNRWA. <br /><br />"This was never the responsibility of the Palestinians, and to suggest that they should suffer as a result is morally reprehensible (and, once again, the kind of thinking that lumps all "Arabs" together)."<br /><br />That is only a true statement if you can show that local Arabs in 1947 and 1948 did not instigate or participate in the war and the events leading up to the war. If they participated or instigated, they bear some of the responsibility. As one example, consider the critical importance of the Massacre of the 35 near Gush Etzion, who were killed and mutilated by Palestinians. <br /><br /><br />"If Israel in the 1950's wanted to take the opportunity to swell the number of Jews by absorbing them (and then treating them as second-class citizens), that is its business. But obviously its first responsibility would be to those who already lived in Palestine and not to newcomers."<br /><br />Why would that be? Those people had waged war against the Jews before and after the state was formed, while many of the Jews in Arab lands found their circumstances challenging and sometimes also dangerous. It seems to me that it would be the height of foolishness to invite those who showed hostility to your presence back to the source of that hostility. <br /><br />Also, with all due respect to your universalist outlook, the fact remains that the Jews from Arab lands shared far more with the Jews who were in Israel than the Arabs who were there did. A longing for Zion, for example. <br /><br />As for the second class citizen business, that may have some validity but then again, we've now seen half of Israel's presidents come from those lands and reach the Chief of Staff position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-66771717165333220392010-05-11T02:29:14.041-07:002010-05-11T02:29:14.041-07:00Anonymous,
The idea that Israel, which was comple...Anonymous,<br /><br />The idea that Israel, which was completely responsible for creating the Arab refugee problem, and indirectly responsible for creating the Jewish refugee problem from Arab countries, should be able to deny the Arab refugees the right to return to their homes at the expense of the Jewish refugees -- is sheer chutzpah.<br /><br />I have discussed this issue before. So let's get some things crystal clear.<br /><br />1) The responsibility for resettling the Jewish refugees lies solely with the Arab countries that created the problem. Those refugees should be given the choice to be resettled there or elsewhere, with compensation. This was never the responsibility of the Palestinians, and to suggest that they should suffer as a result is morally reprehensible (and, once again, the kind of thinking that lumps all "Arabs" together).<br /><br />If Israel in the 1950's wanted to take the opportunity to swell the number of Jews by absorbing them (and then treating them as second-class citizens), that is its business. But obviously its first responsibility would be to those who already lived in Palestine and not to newcomers.<br /><br />The Palestinians were made to suffer twice -- first when they were denied the right to return to their homes, and then when there homes were settled by Jewish immigrants -- (not refugees, by the way, according to the Zionists, because Israel is the home of all Jews, and you are not a refugee when you are coming home.)<br /><br />So, the Palestinians were shafted by the Israelis and by the Arabs states, just as they were shafted by Jordan and Israel when the two divided Palestine among them, a clear rejection of the partition plan. <br /><br />Yet, fortunately, there is now some hope for the Palestinian refugees. For the decision of the Israeli courts to restore 1948 Jewish property to Jews in Sheikh Jarrah will be an important precedent for all future Palestinian claims for property in West Jerusalem (don't bother to go there, Y. Ben David) and around the country.<br /><br />And as for forced population transfers -- fortunately, the idea has now been altogether rejected because of the bad experiences of post world war ii. Nobody (except right wing Zionists) talks about it seriously anymore.<br /><br />Barukh ha-Shem.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-44918066989508099032010-05-11T00:45:47.680-07:002010-05-11T00:45:47.680-07:00It means that the Arab countries share a responsib...It means that the Arab countries share a responsibility for the rehabilitation of the Jewish people whom they persecuted, just as the Europeans have and that creating a Jewish state is a part of that. This also plays a role in 'the peace process', and how serious the Arabs are in pursuing a true peace.<br /><br />I have not read much from Shahak, but what I understand is that he cherry-picked quotations from Jewish sources that, on the surface at least, are problematic, but in no way really represent Judaism as it has been practiced or Jewish attitudes. For that reason, I avoid reading quotations from the Qur'an, realizing that might not represent authentic Islam. Boston and Bat Ye'or, on the other hand, give extensively<br />documented historical facts.Y. Ben-Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-9770562240387438792010-05-11T00:19:13.210-07:002010-05-11T00:19:13.210-07:00Discrimination against Jews in Arab lands does ind...Discrimination against Jews in Arab lands does indeed strengthen Zionist claims to Israel. In those UN documents to which I keep referring, you can see that by 1951, Israel is claiming that because it has had to absorb 200,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries - the very same ones that are demanding Israel permit all Palestinian refugees to move back into Israel - it has limited resources to also absorb Palestinians. <br /><br />It also opens the question to one of population exchange. If you look at the UN 1951 report that discusses Lausanne, you will see the committee attempting to bring in parallel situations of population transfers that had taken place so they could serve as guides for the Arab-Israeli conflict.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-81415329353290128862010-05-11T00:06:55.589-07:002010-05-11T00:06:55.589-07:00All right, seriously.
Discrimination against Jew...All right, seriously. <br /><br />Discrimination against Jews in Arab lands was prevalent. So what is your point? That because Jews were discriminated and persecuted in Arab lands (and yet very few left before they were kicked out or brought here by the Zionists), that has anything to do with the claims of the Zionists to Palestine? I mean, how does that follow? <br /><br />Why don't you argue that because the Germans exterminated the Jews, we are able to have a state in Germany? <br /><br />I already conceded in my post that there was persecution that was unrelated to Zionism. So what? If there were a medinat halakha, we would be persecuting Muslims and Christians, or at least denying them equal rights. As it is, we often deny Muslims access to the Haram al-Sharif, and we have desecrated their mosques and cemetaries.<br /><br />I grant you that there are Mizrahiyim who are bigoted towards Palestinian Arabs because of their experiences in Arab lands. Again, so what?Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-14638974401234938372010-05-10T23:58:16.450-07:002010-05-10T23:58:16.450-07:00Y Ben David,
So you like Shahak, then?Y Ben David,<br /><br />So you like Shahak, then?Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-5050983217987110582010-05-10T18:21:03.710-07:002010-05-10T18:21:03.710-07:00I knew that when I mentioned Andrew Bostom and Bat...I knew that when I mentioned Andrew Bostom and Bat Ye'or that this would unleash a barrage of ad hominem attacks on them by you. I have seen this from other "progressives" as well. Now, would you give me at least an example of what they say that you claim is not true?<br />For example, please refute the following that Bostom has in his book: He has an article pointing out how the jizya dhimmi tax was an onerous burden on most Jews....equal today to several thousand dollars per year per person in a family. And if the Jew could not prove he paid it he was subject to possibly being sold into slavery or even being killed. This article was based on documents found in the Cairo Genizah.<br /><br />I have a good friend here in Israel who was born in Iraq and was brought as a baby to Israel by his parents in Operation Ezra and Nehemia. His father was a fairly prosperous small business proprietor. He told my friend about the general feeling of insecurity that the Jews had, even if they were part of the more well-off parts of the community. He also told him a story very similar to the one about the Jew who served the King and was then executed in order to placate "the mob". His name was Shafik 'Adas (first letter an ayin). He was wealthy, gave a lot of money to the community and served the king until they had no further use for him. They threatened to kill his whole family unless he confessed to a laundry list of imaginary crimes which he did and he was executed. And this was in the 20th century. Please don't claim that this was an "understandable" reaction in Iraq to the "crimes of the Zionists in Palestine".Y. Ben-Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-61989877156342303552010-05-10T12:12:14.967-07:002010-05-10T12:12:14.967-07:00"No, because the Arab states refused to allow..."No, because the Arab states refused to allow Israel to only accept a portion of the refugees. This is all documented at the UN."<br /><br />So if the Israeli government had just offered for every refugee to apply for return as an individual, Arab states would have kept said refugees from doing so by... I dunno? Locking them up? Yeah, riiight. <br />But I think I know what the basic problem is, as evidenced by the following:<br /><br />"The point is that the Arab side fought against the Jewish side."<br /><br />Lemme answer by quoting a comment from the talkback section of Haaretz.com which is right on target:<br /><br />"A person is a human being. A person is not the same person as his ancestors. Nor is a person the same as some other person who happens to believe that earth was created exactly in the same way that the first person thinks."<br /><br />Please process this in your mind. And don't disgrace yourself by posting some inane explanation how it's not EVERY Arab and thus it's not bigoted or somesuch nonsense.Tobiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06499126921801952616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-7441630393180435872010-05-10T06:36:00.600-07:002010-05-10T06:36:00.600-07:00from wikipedia on Lausanne Conference:
The Israel...from wikipedia on Lausanne Conference:<br /><br />The Israelis insisted on discussing solutions to refugee problems only in the context of an overall settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This agreed with the commission's stance that<br /><br /> The interrelation of all the aspects of the problem was too obvious to be overlooked." The Israeli government briefly offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees, but only as part of a final settlement in which all other refugees were absorbed by Arab states. Compensation would be paid, but not to individual refugees or Arab states, only to a "common fund" and only for land that had been under cultivation prior to being abandoned; not for any movable property or uncultivated land. The common fund would be reduced by an amount of compensation to Israel for war reparations.<br /><br />The Commission found this proposal to be unsatisfactory and declared that:<br /><br /> the Government of Israel is not prepared to implement the part of paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 which resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date. <br /><br />I guess Bard and Dershowitz would disagree with the CommissionJerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-16369518067117971502010-05-10T06:28:36.215-07:002010-05-10T06:28:36.215-07:00Anonymous
All right, it's my blog, so I get t...Anonymous<br /><br />All right, it's my blog, so I get the right to the last word.<br /><br />On refugees you are dead wrong. In fact, what you says doesn't even make sense. Ben Gurion decided not to take in 100,000 Palestinians because of the attitudes of the Arabs? That's a joke. Refugees had a right to return regardless of the Arab position. Who is using them as bargaining chips? Ben Gurion? Your Mitchell Bardian interpretation of 194 is accepted by nobody except Mitchell Bard and Alan Dershowitz. But I guess that wouldn't bother you.<br /><br />I also think that Jews who have dubious morality, who have been known to cheat the goyyim, should have a waiting period before they are accepted as full citizens of the state, with equal rights....oops, sorry, I thought I was in the nineteenth century Germany.<br /><br />All I can say is that I hope you do not live in the United States. Because if you disqualified somebody for work on the basis of his moral convictions, or opinions, you could be sued. You apparently are opposed to some forms of discrimination but not others. <br /><br />But I really love how you would disqualify Arabs from the diplomatic corps. First, require that they have a college diploma. Then, assume that with a college diploma they are rabid nationalists who oppose the state (hey, there are those, right?) I mean, you really don't need proof that this Arab isn't Azmi Bishara right? After all, how can you trust them. Let them do national service first -- like all the thousands of non-haredi Israelis who do neither national service nor Army service.<br /><br />Ah, but they aren't Arabs....Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-54765073169288436712010-05-10T06:04:03.011-07:002010-05-10T06:04:03.011-07:00you write:
Even if they were right to wage war, t...you write:<br /><br />Even if they were right to wage war, the outcome which has led to Israeli fears about the Arabs are no less valid. This "foundational discrimination" makes less sense to you than Arabs wishing to wage war over land they perceive has been stolen from them? If you give one side this sort of credit, give it to the other. <br /><br />Did I say that it made less sense. On the contrary, I claimed that this foundational discrimination made perfect sense. That it inevitably followed from statist Zionism. <br /><br />I said, and apparently you agree, that a statist Zionism inevitably meant war, because no normal person would compromise over something that belonged to him. Again, the Arabs saw the Zionist as somebody who has no rights to a house claiming one floor of it. Where the Zionists saw a fair compromise, the Arabs saw theft.<br /><br />Ribono shel olam., I am not saying here who was right. I am saying that the conflict was inevitable and irrevocable.<br /><br />Maybe I will conclude this discussion by agreeing with you that the foundational discrimination against Israeli Arabs can be laid at the blame of the Zionists who pressed their claims without the agreement of the Arabs, and the Arabs who pressed their claims without the agreement of the Zionists. In any event, what I wanted you to understand is that this discrimination is inevitable. And I think you agree, though I am not sure. <br /><br />And that was the point of my post. That Israel cannot be Israel -- a Zionist state -- without foundational discrimination.Jerry Haberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173892714754718716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7675600882597316438.post-50073189900713895212010-05-10T06:02:24.856-07:002010-05-10T06:02:24.856-07:00"Finally, some more questions. Do you agree w..."Finally, some more questions. Do you agree with the government that the the percentage of Arabs in government positions should be 20%. If not, then why not? And if yes, then what would you do to achieve that goal? And who would you fight with ideologically to see that goal achieved?"<br /><br />That should be the goal. There should be a 15-20 year plan to get there. I would start with national service. Any Arab or Jew who doesn't serve the state with military or national service may not serve in a government ministry. Once they do this, both Arabs and Jews must undergo extensive questioning about their values and ideas regarding the state. If the Arab Israeli or Haredi candidate for a position expresses hostility to the state, they are rejected from working for a ministry. If they lie and are caught in the lie, they face a permanent ban.<br /><br />Who would I fight over this? You have to fight the entire bureaucratic system. It's not just Arabs who suffer discrimination in Israeli government, it's many well qualified people who are overlooked because people with connections get the jobs. <br /><br />In a perfect world you would just establish quotas, but in Israel you first have to fight the existing system. <br /><br /><br />"I should be ashamed of myself?"<br /><br />Yes. <br /><br /><br />"You have no idea how much I am ashamed of myself. I am ashamed at how little I do for the cause of justice. I am ashamed at how little I do for the cause of eliminating poverty. I am ashamed of myself for what my people have done to others, how they have shown themselves no better, and sometimes worse, than their persecutors. Every minute of every day an injustice is committed against every Palestinian in the West Bank -- simply by virtue of the Occupation, not to mention, the ongoing theft. It is not the settlers who are at fault; or not only the settlers. It is all of us."<br /><br />Well then, you should strive with all of your might to get the Palestinians to finally, finally, finally, after all these decades, agree to a compromise that doesn't involve making Israel into an entity that isn't a Jewish state. <br /><br />I realize you are targeting the Israelis, but you are actually undermining the possibility of peace because you strengthen the Palestinians who seek to avoid coming to terms with Israel. Force them to come to a compromise and you will see how quickly Israeli Jewish society lines up behind the peace deal that follows. <br /><br /><br />"And we all shall pay one day."<br /><br />We are already paying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com