Author/Journalist Phil Weiss on The Jewish Community's Turn Toward Peace
Phil Weiss is a terrific writer who, only recently, began dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A 49 year old Jewish Harvard graduate, Weiss is not a Zionist and never has been.
But he's a Jew and a proud one (in a non-chauvinist way). He cares about Israel and he cares about Palestine but, mostly, I think, he is cares that a several thousand year tradition of Jewish enlightenment and humanity not be replaced by the kind of ugly neocon chauvinism that has a strong hold in certain parts of the community.
I am a Zionist (more or less) and Phil is not (less and more) but we agree on the central issue that divides Israelis and Palestinians: sharing the land and establishing security and justice for both peoples.
I read him religiously (the only thing I do religiously other than lighting candles and saying kiddush on Friday nights) and, to be honest, we are part of a mutual admiration society. He is a brave and intelligent man.
Read his heartening report about Monday's Israel Policy Forum event (IPF is my employer), see it through his eyes, and know that it's getting better all the time.


Comments (161)
(1) Efraim Sneh was never Defense Minister, he was DEPUTY Defense Minister.
(2) Haim Ramon is a convicted sex offender (if that is what forcing a kiss on an unwilling woman can be considered). That is very liberal of IPF and particularly the women present to overlook that, but I guess the IPF can overlook things like that in people who have the "correct" political views.
(3) I don't know if Weiss's report is accurate, but it sounds like the usual cliches that we hear in these type of gatherings. I heard Efraim Sneh speak years ago for an hour and the whole thing was just the usual slogans and tripe (don't worry, most right-wing politicians do the same thing), so I presume he did the same thing here. I doubt any people in the audience learned anything they didn't know from before by reading the newspapers.
(4) What I want to know is this: What exactly did the PLO representative say?
How exactly does he see the "right of return" controversly being worked out? I am willing to bet he didn't say anything specific except to say that "there has to be an agreed-upon solution acceptable to both sides" which, of course, doesn't mean anything. I imagine that all he did was talk about how much he and the Palestinans "want peace" and then he let's the audience's imagination extrapolate their idea of peace to what he means when he uses the same word, which is NOT the case.
This PLO guy views audiences like this as groups that Lenin called "useful idiots", well-meaning people who can have the wool pulled over their eyes in order to exploit their good intentions for their own purposes. He can talk all night about how much he wants "peace" but if, back home, in their government-controlled media they are still dehumanizing Jews, praising suicide bombers, encouraging people to read "Mein Kampf" and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" then he simply a hypcrite, and if the audience doesnt' realize it, then they are sadly out of touch with reality.
(It is possible that someone in the audience would ask him about this, and his answer would be "we have a free press and the gov't can't control what is publicized", which of course would be a lie.
December 8, 2007 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 8, 2007 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, davai, he's *for* the two-state solution, just as you claim to be. How can you be so against what seems to be a progressive approach, when you and Phil agree in principle on the two-state solution?
December 8, 2007 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is not for the two-state solution.
He is for "a federated solution".
December 8, 2007 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must be using your Famous Russian Clarivoyant skills again, or else you are reading a different article--I don't see the term 'federated solution' anywhere, yet 'two-state solution' is right up front:
December 8, 2007 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most Americans Jews (including me) were for favor of a two-state solution for a long time. We supported Clinton plan in 2000. So there are no news here.
Do a find on the page.
Anyway, how about you, leftAhead, do YOU in favor of a two-state solution now?
December 8, 2007 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I did find it, at the end, however, I don't understand how this negates the two-state solution.
And, since you've been asking so politely, yes, I would favor a two-state solution--one that removes the illegal settlements.
December 8, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where? In Tel Aviv?
December 8, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
There might be some people somewhere who could be referring to Tel Aviv and the rest of Israel; but I think it reasonable to surmise that most of the commenters on this site would be referring to settlements beyond -- that is, largely east of -- the Green Line.
December 8, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, davai, you've once again proven why you are such a dwarfish troll--you don't really believe in the two state solution that the rest of us human beings are discussing here, you're just a simple, reactionary hater.
I've finally figured out what davai's two-state solution really is:
-the State of Israel for Jews
-the State of Misery for Palestinians
Your feeble dream involves penning up the Pals and calling it a state; luckily, you are an extreme minority, both here and everywhere--except in your own mind, which is a tiny piece of real estate indeed.
December 9, 2007 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
How did you figure out this?
December 9, 2007 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you only make quotes and ask questions?
When did you stop beating your wife?
December 9, 2007 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong woth asking questions?
December 9, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Were you beaten as a child?
December 9, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with you?
December 9, 2007 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not true. Here's what Weiss said in the very first paragraph:
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 8, 2007 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it's not what he said in his last paragraph.
His goal is still the same.
BTW, Wordie, how about you and your conversion to a two-state solution?
December 8, 2007 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even in the last paragraph Weiss confirms his support for a two-state solution in the here-and-now, and only describes the federated solution as an idealistic thing to talk about in the future when peace is achieved. Is that really so threatening?
And as far as my own beliefs are concerned, no "conversion" was ever necessary. Like Weiss, I believe that a one-state solution in which the religious and political rights of both Jews and Muslims were guaranteed would have represented the ideal, had it been accomplished in '48. But I'm practical enough to know that after so many years of hatred and bloodshed, it's not possible now. Therefore, I've always supported a two-state solution.
The nuance of my position is, I realize, lost on those who live in a black-and-white, good-and-evil world.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 8, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 8, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
A two state solution is the only solution. The problem, and it is never acknowledged or discussed, is that right now the Palestinians have divided themselves. One can imagine Olmert and Abbas reaching an agreement, having it somewhat implemented only to have Hamas and Fatah go to war over the agreement.
The settlers might make problems but is there really any doubt that if necesary either the IDF will remove them or the settlers will find themselves living within Palestinian territory.
Davai this isn't to disagree with you, it seemed like a convenient place to post this, but it is remarkable how every discussion of the Middle East is about what Isreal should or should not do while the reality of the Palestinians is ignored.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 9, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the reason is very simple. Joke about
the drunk looking for his keys explain everything.
December 9, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel.
"but it is remarkable how every discussion of the Middle East is about what Isreal should or should not do while the reality of the Palestinians is ignored."
For the most part, I have to agree. The Palestinian reality is ignored and when it is brought up, it's usually in claims such as :
"right now the Palestinians have divided themselves."
In what context have the Palestinians "divided themselves" Daniel? Did the Palestinians decide that it would be a good idea to subvert the unity government formed under the Saudi umbrella just because? Did the Palestinians "decide" to arm and train the Fatah forces of the corrupt and cowardly thug Mohammed Dahlan in order to rid Gaza of Hamas? Did the Palestinians decide to starve Gaza?
Or is it more likely that certain defenders of Israel refuse to admit the cupability of Israeli actions no matter what they do? If admitting the truth about Israel is impossible for you, at least you could admit the American role in this duo of the damned.
It would be a start.
December 9, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 9, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phil gets Sneh's title wrong. Most relevant, Sneh is a Brigadier General (ret) and the son of the commander of the Haganah (a leftist, like all of the soldiers and pioneers who built the state).
When I talk about the tide turning, I don't include the likes of Davai and certainly not the settler BarK. I am talking about the vast majority (90% or so) of Jewish Americans.
December 8, 2007 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
(1) Your statement that "90% of Jewish Americans" are "turning the tide", which I assume by that you mean that they are beginning to think like you. That is totally false. The fact that a slim majority may favor the "2-state solution" has nothing in common with your and Phil Weiss's position, and I don't believe anything like a majority support dividing (and thus destroying) Jerusalem.
(2) Your statement that "all the soldiers and pioneers who built the state were Leftists" is an outrageous falsehood. THE JEWISH PEOPLE BUILT THE STATE OF ISRAEL, and not one political party or another. True, the Leftist Kibbutzim made a major contribution, but so did the urban workers, most of whom were Sefardic and traditionalist if not religious. It was these people who built Israel's infrastructure and industry, not the kibbutzim. True, Ben-Gurion and his MAPAI (Labor Party) mafia appointed only political loyalists to high positions in the army, but there were many officers who were not Leftists and the rank-and-file soldiers included many right-wing people, including former ETZEL and LEHI underground fighters.
What you, MJ, consider the "Left" never was a majority in Israel. However, even most non-Leftists accepted Ben-Gurion's leadership and the parties that represented them, like the General Zionists, Agudat Israel, National Religious Party went along with him, even though they vociferously opposed many aspects of his policies and the pervasive corruption of his MAPAI machine.
It should be pointed out that Efraim Sneh's father was not simply a "Leftist", he was a Marxist-Leninst Communist and supporter of Stalin even after MAPAM started showind discomfort at Stalin's plan to carry out another Holocaust in the USSR as signalled by the "Doctor's Plot"...so you see, diseased political thinking in Israel is nothing new...the father had his perverted political icon (Stalin) and the son his (Arafat and Oslo). In fairness, it should be pointed out that Moshe Sneh did "teshuva" (repentence) on his deathbed and requested a traditional, Orthodox Jewish funeral and he stated his respect for Jewish tradition at that time, so there is hope that others will see the light as well.
December 8, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 8, 2007 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know meaningful numbers of American Jews against a two state solution?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 9, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg, please answer davai's thoughtful questions to you. I would find your answers most illuminating, as I am sure other readers would. Happy Hanukah!
December 8, 2007 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second, here is what French people have to endure at the hands of settlers. It's much more sickening.
On the night of the 14th and the morning of the 15th, 215 vehicles were burned across France and 71 people were arrested. Thirteen vehicles were torched in central Paris, compared to only one the night before. In the suburbs of Paris, firebombs were thrown at the treasury in Bobigny and at an electrical transformer in Clichy-sous-Bois, the neighborhood where the disturbances started. A daycare centre in Cambrai and a tourist agency in Fontenay-sous-Bois were also attacked. Eighteen buses were damaged by arson at a depot in Saint-Etienne. The mosque in Saint-Chamond was hit by three firebombs, which did little damage.
Only 163 vehicles went up in flames on the 20th night of unrest, 15 November to 16, leading the French government to claim that the country was returning to an "almost normal situation". During the night's events, a Roman Catholic church was burned and a vehicle was rammed into an unoccupied police station in Romans-sur-Isère. In other incidents, a police officer was injured while making an arrest after youths threw bottles of acid at the town hall in Pont-l'Évêque, and a junior high school in Grenoble was set on fire. Fifty arrests were carried out across the country.[6]
December 8, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And some Black Americans rioted in Watts...so what? Does it prove that they are bad or that the United States was inherently, oppressively racist?
The Europeans have done a lousy job of welcoming immigrants. Sticking them in ghettos and then defining "citizenship" isn such a way as to make them permanent outsiders is hardly civilized. When France's social justice issues improve, the riots will become less frequent.
December 10, 2007 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is another example of what's really SICKENING.
Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, was a University of Melbourne student who was in the United States conducting research for his doctorate. Approximately three hours after the riots began, he was surrounded by a group of approximately 20 young black men, was stabbed several times in the back, had his skull fractured, and died later that night. U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called it "a lynching."[20]
Before being taken to the hospital, he was able to identify 16-year-old Lemrick Nelson, Jr. as his assailant out of five suspects shown to him by the police.[6] Nelson was charged with murder. Despite his admission to detectives that he stabbed Rosenbaum, and police evidence of finding a knife with blood on it that matched Rosenbaum's blood type,[42][43] he was acquitted by the jury in New York State Court. Afterwards, Nelson publicly celebrated his acquittal with jurors.[44]
December 8, 2007 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for responding by telling us what happened to 1 guy 16 years ago in contrast to the thousands of Palestinians (and 800 kids) killed over the few years including six this week.
But the Brooklyn story gives you the chance to move neatly from race baiting Arabs to your African American neighbors in NYC.
December 8, 2007 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
TEL AVIV, May 3, 2002 -- In a press briefing Thursday, IDF Intelligence Officer Colonel Miri Eisen screened a four minute tape of a staged Palestinian funeral photographed by an Israeli drone flying over Jenin on Monday, April 28. Pallbearers repeatedly tried to carry a green blanket wrapped around a man who pretended to be dead, but kept falling out of the blanket. The funeral took place between the area that was destroyed in the Jenin refugee camp and the nearby cemetery. The Palestinians, Col. Eisen said, sought "to show as many casualties as possible were buried inside Jenin. They tried to falsify evidence in preparation for the committee by executing a fake [funeral] ceremony, carrying the 'body' and filming the entire process." The film was screened to foreign reporters and later shown on Israeli television, causing considerable amusement among the TV commentators and journalists, since the "corpse" kept tumbling out of the blanket. "One time he falls off the stretcher when he is already in a crowd," Col. Eisen narrated. "When he came back to life in the middle of the crowd, the crowd breaks up because they didn't know that it wasn't really a corpse." Israel Radio reported that many reporters laughed at the point in the tape that the "corpse" seemed to "rise from the dead," causing the people around him to flee in terror.
December 8, 2007 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sean,
I'm contrasting riots in France, LA and in NY to riots that MJ pointed to in his post.
I don't race baiting anybody. If you have problems with Crown Heights Riot description, complain to Wikipedia.
December 8, 2007 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phil Weiss is a terrific writer who, only recently, began dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I also read his blog and it has superseded Haaretz, which I have read daily for so long I can't remember when I started, as the one read on the web I would not miss and recommend it to others here.
-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking
December 8, 2007 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't normally post but I really don't get the connection between what the Palestinians endure at the hands of the settlers, and what happened to Yankel Rosenbaum. I was hoping someone could explain this to me.
I imagine it has something to do with the fact that the Jews have suffered at the hands of anti-semites all over the world and as a result must maintain the greater state of Israel so Jews will always be safe.
Or is it that Jews suffer at the hands of people of color, and therefore their actions are justified.
Personally, I don't know how anyone could defend the stuff going on in the article in todays Times and not be an insane nationalist of some sort.
December 8, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not defending this riot, however I'm just pointing out that such things happen in many places where several ethnic groups live together or in proximity. I'm also pointing out that this riot ended up without any additional victims and was much milder compare to riots in France, LA or NY.
Therefore, I think that language such as "endure at the hands of the settlers" or "SICKENING" to describe this event is an exaggeration.
If MJ is SICKENED when to response to a killing of a member of one ethnic group, people broken several windows, he must be a very sick man. So much worse things happen every day in the world, so a normal person who wants to keep his/her sanity, can't possibly be SICKENED by such event.
So, MJ is a liar or a really sick man.
FYI, I think that Israel should remove Israeli civilians from the most of West Bank, including from Shvut Ami, right away without waiting for reaching final agreement with Palestinians, however, I would rather to argue this point without exaggerations.
December 8, 2007 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
A couple of points Davai. First, what the NYT described sounded to me like a pogrom. The very thought of Jews engaging in such behavior is sickening. That you are so dismissive of it is alarming.
Second, the settler who was killed was an occupier in violation of both Israeli and international law, consequently it was very different. IMHO, if you're going to choose to illegally occupy land that does not belong to you, you are taking your life in your hands. In short, the guy had it coming. I'm sure he was thrilled that it happened though because it allowed him to be a martyr, and gave his savage brethren-in-insanity an excuse to terrorize Palestinian children.
My third point really has nothing to do with the issues. Rather, it has to do with the fact that you kind of love MJ. You are always blowing up his blogs on here and driving up his reply counts. Its sort of strange. If he disgusts you so much, why do you wake up in the morning thinking about him? Sounds to me like the ultimate in fandom.
December 8, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 8, 2007 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
God forbid I equate Palestinian suffering with Jewish suffering. I will be sure not to make that mistake again.
December 8, 2007 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously you can't equate Palestinian suffering with Jewish suffering in 20th century.
However, it does not give excuses settlers to go and rampage through the village, smashing house and car windows. In general, Jewish suffering in 20th century don't give excuses today Israel for anything.
On another hand, I'm totally reject your assertion:
Just because my uncle was murdered in pogrom and some of my relatives were murdered in Holocaust, it doesn't mean that I have a special responsibility to be extra sensitive to Jews smashing house and car windows anywhere in the world and have to be especially sickened by it. I don't.
My point was that while smashing house and car windows is inexcusable, it's not pogrom, it's not genocide it’s not ethnic cleansing, it’s not a war crime, it's not LA riot, it's not French riot, it's not NY riot, it’s not a SICKENING.
The reason why it's not SICKENING is very simple, if you are SICKENINED by "smashing house and car windows" you must be sick every time you turn on TV, or read a newspaper and you don't.
December 9, 2007 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
First off the words is "sickened," not "sickenined."
Second off, you're not the only whose family has suffered. My ancestors were Eastern European Jews who suffered at the hands of anti-semites. I was named after a person who was butchered in the concentration camps, as was his sister. I don't have a big family because of what the Nazis did. So don't use that tired trick to argue your nationalist nonsense.
Second off its's all sickening. Yankel Rosenbaum's murder was sickening. Reginald Denny's murder was sickening. Countless murders in Northern Ireland were sickening But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the West Bank and Gaza. If I tell you that I think that what OJ did is disgusting I don't have to go and tell you that I think every other murder that ever happened in history is disgusting. I can leave it at just OJ. The rest are for another conversation another day.
With that in mind, your point in bringing this all up is to make the point that everyone else does this sort of thing so it's not particularly sickening when Jews do. In other words, you want to use other horrible ethnic transgressions to excuse the orthodox savages on the West Bank.
December 9, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
bsidewinzagain said:
My condolences.
December 9, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 9, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you can't equate Jewish suffering with Palestinian suffering in the 21st Century. Your goal posts are finally fixed.
December 10, 2007 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, however Palestinian suffering often are often self inflicted. In the beginning of this century Palestinians got offer that would greatly reduce their suffering or eliminate them completely but they didn’t take the offer.They missed another opportunity to reduce the suffering. After withdrawal from Gaza, Palestinians decided to “resist”. This totally mindless and pointless “resistance” achieved noting for Palestinians but suffering
December 10, 2007 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Having actually been to the West Bank for myself, your claim that Palestinian resistence is "mindless" shows that you are either ignorant of Israeli brutality or have no concept of freedom. A free people do not accept a foreign people's brutal overlordship over them. I know it may be hard for you--and for the nitwit Israeli UN Ambassador--but Palestinians do not consider the Jews a "gift." Maybe they would, if this "gift" didn't keep taking their land, uprooting their olive groves, and circling their towns and villages with barb wire.
December 10, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying that after Israel left Gaza, Palestinian "resistance" in Gaza was pointless and mindless, and achieved nothing. If you can explain, what was the point of sending a few rockets in Israel every day? What did they achieve? You might agree with their right to "resistance", but you have to admit that their tactic in Gaza brought nothing but more suffering for Palestinians.
December 10, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
After a seemingly Pyrrhic victory in the Battle of Britain, after the fall of France and Britain's other continental allies, Rudolf Hess certainly regarded continued British resistance "mindless", especially if the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland agreed to spheres of influence with the Third Reich. In his strange flight to Britain in May 1941, Hess certainly believed resistance was mindless. After all, Britain only could send some symbolic bombing raids over continental Europe, as it patched its wounds and begged for resources from the United States.
Hess was surprised not to find his offer a "gift", not understanding the philosophy of Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill:
By any reasonable standard, the Palestinians in Gaza have been defeated, and have absolutely no reason not to defy their conquerors. By any reasonable standard, they could accept economic assistance, although it is highly debatable if they have an area that can be more than a colony.
People aren't always reasonable and accept what their conqueror, or near-conqueror chooses to give them. They might be more reasonable had they a sense of dignity at the negotiating table.
Again apropos of Britain, I think of Sublieutenant John Godwin, Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve, who was captured by the Nazis, along with his raiding crew. They were taken to Sachenhausen Concentration Camp, and abused at length. Eventually, they were being taken to the execution grounds, but Godwin grabbed the firing squad leader's pistol and killed him. Godwin went down, moments later, in a hail of bullets. After all, that was going to happen to him anyway -- I wonder why he chose to die on his own terms? Rather mindless, isn't it?
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 10, 2007 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 10, 2007 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least Godwin got a law named after himself!
Perhaps one day, there will be a law named after davai.
December 11, 2007 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pathetic Howard, Your analogy with John Godwin backfired, so instead of admiting this or just silentlly move on, you just have to show a finger/rate 0. Poor Howard.
December 10, 2007 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, it is obvious you did not, in the slightest, understand the reference to John Godwin, his heroism, and his defiance.
Second, it is a rare honor to have you annoyed to the point that you resort to ad hominem rather than tu quoque. Clearly, your actual level of defiance is approximately equal to that of Brave Sir Robin, wink wink nudge nudge, know what I mean?
--
Howard
His utmost power with adverse power opposed
In dubious battle on the plains of Heaven,
And shook his throne. What though the field be lost?
All is not lost--the unconquerable will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield:
And what is else not to be overcome?
That glory never shall his wrath or might
Extort from me. To bow and sue for grace
With suppliant knee, and deify his power
Who, from the terror of this arm, so late
Doubted his empire--that were low indeed;
That were an ignominy and shame beneath
This downfall; since, by fate, the strength of Gods,
And this empyreal sybstance, cannot fail;
Since, through experience of this great event,
In arms not worse, in foresight much advanced,
We may with more successful hope resolve
To wage by force or guile eternal war,
Irreconcilable to our grand Foe,
Who now triumphs, and in th' excess of joy
Sole reigning holds the tyranny of Heaven.
December 10, 2007 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 10, 2007 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected. In your case, the comment would properly be ad puerem.
December 10, 2007 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"There was also the strong sense that without the American Jewish community allowing Washington to become more independent, this moment will be lost."
I cannot believe that I am reading this from a website linked approvingly from TPM. This is appalling, raw Jew hatred.
Truly sickening....
December 8, 2007 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
nrglaw,
MJ has been accused of spewing Jew hatred more times than the Nazis.
Accusing MJ of Jew hatred is no different than accusing those of us who disagree with the Bush gang of being America haters, anti-American, unpatriotic, traitors, blah, blah, blah.
December 9, 2007 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why it's OK to accuse anybody who doesn't agree with MJ in racism, but it's not ok to point it out that he does spew Jew hatred over and over again. Here is a fresh example:
I'm just curious if this is position of IPF and Haim Ramon, the vice prime minister of Israel,
do people who come to IPF know that IPF employs
MJ, who is not ugly neocon but a person who about cares about several thousand year tradition of Jewish enlightenment and humanity.
With such Jewish humanists, why would Jews need antisemites?
December 9, 2007 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
My my. Powerful words MJ. You seem have provoked Davai to drop any attempts at civility and expose his/hers racism. These are the extreme views within Israel that I fear make any settlement possible.
I hope it is not too late for American Jews to influence events towards a two state solution. I fear it may be too late. If not then more power to you and Weiss.
December 8, 2007 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 9, 2007 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
False propaganda. Arafat rejected Barak's offer because it stunk. No Israeli has ever offered Palestinians a real state, i.e., with borders, control of its own water resources, and...wait for it....the right to keep Israelis out. That has never happened. What the Barak "generous offer" crowd have offered is permanent Israeli overlordship over the Palestinians. Thanks, but no thanks.
December 10, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to argue this point. MJ thinks now that Clinton plan was a good plan. So, go ahead and argues with him.
December 10, 2007 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Mythie. The Barak plan was exactly as you describe it. The plan Clinton put on the table, five months later when it was too late, was much better. But it was too late. Sharon was coming in as PM and made clear that he had nothing to offer. Plus, Clinton offered his ideas two weeks before Bush's inaugural.
Read Clayton Swisher's excellent "The truth About Camp David."
December 10, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, MJ, your screaming headlines have presumably done their job.....you convinced your fellow "progressives" that "hey--don't confuse me with those BAD Jews, I one of the GOOD Jews!".
I read the report in the NY TIMES. The story of the supposed incident at El-Funduk doesn't make any sense. It wouldn't surprise me if there was an angry demonstration there, but the report about the settlers supposedly smashing up the place is confused. First of all, we have two sides to the story....the Palestinians claimed the army "stood aside" while the incident was occurring, the army says they didn't and they broke up the demonstration. The army is a conscript force and is made up of all the various sectors of the population, so it includes many "Leftists" and "Rightists" who would oppose passively watching an incident as the one described by the Arabs.
How much damage was done? We aren't told. Although the article correctly points out that the gunmen were affiliated with the "moderate" FATAH terrorist group under Abbas direct control (unlike HAMAS), the article failed to point out the important fact that the gunmen were official, uniformed Palestinian policemen. This fact was already reported a week ago. What is even more odd to me is why this "atrocity" wasn't reported in screaming headlines in the Israeli media. Believe me, the editors of the 3 main daily newspapers in addition to those who run the electronic media don't like the settlers any more than MJ does, but I don't recall hearing any reports about a major incident in the village. They certainly would enjoy publicizing one if it indeed happened. Ha'aretz regularly publicizes incidents where Arabs, accompanied by various sympathetic foreign NGO's provoke rock-throwing incidents with settlers, and the stories often end up at the government's cabinet where the anti-Settler forces demand investigations which almost always never turn up anything. This makes me wonder if anything serious happened there at all.
Regarding the supposed "stealing" of Arab land.....much of the land in Judea/Samaria is classified as state land and Jews have every right to build on this state land. No doubt some Arabs may dispute the claims, the courts are the proper address to deal with these. They have in the past, and have found in favor of the two different sides in various cases. Peace Now's claim that much of the land the settlemens are built on is private Arab land is very doubtful because research was done before the building started. It is possible the courts will have to investigate this claim, but I don't think Peace Now has much of a case. It is important to remember that they are a political organization, and they oppose all Jewish settlements, regardless of their "legality", so they just view claims of the sort they are making as just another weapon in their political struggle. It doesn't have to be true for them to find making such a claim useful.
December 9, 2007 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We lived in the Philly suburbs, and we lived in one particular house we purchased 40 years ago and paid off 15 years ago.
Last year some Philly people came here and forced me and my wife and 3 children out of our house and off our 3 acre lot. We now live in a cramped small apartment with what belongings we were able to take with us when we left our home.
We drive by our old house now and then and see the Philly people's kids playing on the swing sets we put up. We see them picinicking on the lot and enjoying the fruit trees.
Our children, seeing this and remembering the good times there, ask why we moved away.
December 9, 2007 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
December 9, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious, bar, if your post means you deny that there is any violence by the settlers. No uprooted olive groves? No efforts to force Palestinians to abandon their property? No incidents of violence by settlers at all? No demolished homes and villages?
And since you brought up the issue of "state land," perhaps you'd like to explain why, in a supposedly democratic state, only Jewish Israelis are allowed by law to purchase land from the state. Do you have no problem with that? And that law applies within Israel proper, which is bad enough. Any land that is in the occupied territories is not legally Israeli state land according to international law, no matter what illegal definitions may be applied to it, either by the Israeli government or by yourself.
b'tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, has a very good article on the subject:
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
December 9, 2007 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are confusing two different things here. Within pre-1967 Israel, the Jewish National Fund has a mandate to purchase land for Jewish settlement. The Supreme Court recently ruled that was "racist", and ordered some sort of other arrangement to be made. Money was collected from generations of Jews for this purpose and yet the Court ruled that the land their money can be taken away from their collective ownership. This is a major scandal and has caused a further erosion in the Court's standing in public opinion.
In Judea/Samaria, JNF does not have any land (I think there was a small amount before 1948 but I don't know what happened to it).
Judea/Samaria, as a result of the Oslo Agreements was divided into 3 types of territory
"A"-under Palestinian civil and security control
"B"-under Palestinian civil but Israeli security control and
"C"-under Israeli civil and security control
The "state lands" I referred to which can be used for Jewish settlement are only in the "C" zone. Thus State Lands in the A and B zones Israel has no control over.
Regarding the "C" zone, I don't believe there is anything that can prevent an Arab getting use of it, I really don't know. I believe that something lie 60% of the total land area of Judea/Samaria is A or B. Most the State land in the "C" zone is either in the eastern slope of the central mountain range which goes down to the Jordan River and the Dead Sea. (this areas is almost completely empty)or Western Samaria which also has a small population with the exception of the towns of Qalqilya and Tulkarem.
The large part of the Arab population in Judea/Samaria is located on the central mountain ridge and few Jewish settlements are in this area, since the land there is mostly under Arab control.
December 9, 2007 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right that the state lands issue within Israel was decided in favor of preserving the democratic rights of Israeli Arabs in 2004, but there's now a bill in the Knesset to overturn that ruling, and revert to the no-Arab policy. That part of my post wasn't really the primary point, however.
The Israelis have no right to annex any portion of the occupied territories under international law - whether they are "empty" or not - and that's essentially the intent of the de facto settler policy.
Further, your claim that most of the Jewish settlement activity in the occupied territories has occurred within "empty" lands in Area C isn't accurate. Again, take a look at the b'tselem info on this issue (and I'd like to suggest actually following the link, as there are maps there graphically illustrating the point):