34 Comments

1. Changing the Public’s Attitude Toward Zionism | Secolul 21 ~ 21st Century:

[...] here to see the original: Changing the Public’s Attitude Toward Zionism This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Pajamas Media. You can follow any responses to this [...]

Aug 13, 2009 - 5:26 pm 2. Changing the Public’s Attitude Toward Zionism :

[...] Reclaiming the concept that Israel doesn’t have to apologize for being a Jewish state. Go to Source [...]

Aug 13, 2009 - 6:50 pm 3. Fairbanks99:

Conservative Christian white guy. Count me in as a supporter of the State of Israel. What can someone like myself do?

Aug 13, 2009 - 6:52 pm 4. Yacov Shlomo:

Shalom Fairbanks99,
What can someone like yourself do? Join or start an Israel Always/Friends of Israel Always group in your area. Go to http://www.israelalways.com or http://www.friendsofisraelalways.com to find out more. You can join the IDF or help others like yourself to join the IDF. By Conservative Christian, I think that you would be considered an Evangelical Christian, is that correct? FYI – There is 1 Pentecostal son of a Pastor and former Youth Pastor himself serving in the Golani Brigade now. Not only is he welcome, he worships with the Orthodox Jews that serve with him. They consider him to be their “mishpocha” or like family.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:14 pm 5. Brian:

This is what i understood Zionism to be.Belief in the State of Israel.A place where jews have a homeland to retreat to if any nation became hostile to them.Its a sensible move.Benjamin mentioned if a jewish were set up BEFORE world war 2 then the holocaust would not have occurred.And i agree.If anti-zionist jews dont understand that then thats their problem not mine.Let them put their trust in those who as far as im concerned havent earned any type of trust if you ask me.Humanity just keeps making the same mistake over and over and over…..
There is no retreat this time.The nation of Israel extends well beyond the physical borders of Israel.We are armed and ready.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:16 pm 6. idov:

I think a qualifier is required here, “Jews hostile to Israel play an increasingly larger role in the public debate.” You are referring to American Jews right?

The phrase “pro-peace” seems antiquated for a movement that seeks relevancy.

In Israel you can judge the strength of political positions by the number of votes they get. During the 90s there was a strong “pro-peace” group because they were going to try something new and half the people were with them. The other half said the mechanism, Oslo, was flawed and doomed to failure.

Then came the wave of terror starting in 2000 and the now shrunken “pro-peace” crowd switched to the refrain of separation and brought about the long fence which did work to overcome the wave of terror.

The “pro-peace” side got a huge boost when their old nemesis Sharon decided on unilateralism and withdrew from Gaza which followed an earlier withdrawal from Lebanon. They could do the same in Judea and Samaria, it was said.

The Second Lebanon War was triggered by a cross-border incursion and then the Gaza War by constant rocket attacks. So much for unilateralism. By the time of the last election the hard-core pro-peace party Meretz was down to a paltry three seats, and two-thirds of that really is dedicated to protecting the commercial interests of a kibbutz movement. The traditional centre-left party Labor which had brought on Oslo collapsed into fourth place, disunited and lacking any coherent policy

Direct talks (Oslo) have failed, unilateral withdrawal has failed, and now the Arabs are split in two, Hamas and Fatah, and at each other’s throats. There is no one to talk to.

After 15 years the Arabs have not budged from two extreme demands, they want half of of the nation’s capital Jerusalem and to flood Israel with two to six million foreign Arabs living in other countries. They could talk for 500 years and they would not get either of those. Under all these circumstances in Israel a “pro-peace” lobby hardly exists. They have nothing to say and no one to say it to.

Only one man seems to think he has the answer, Obama. Zoning restrictions. If you place zoning restrictons on where Jews may live but let the Arabs live anywhere they want, this will bring peace. And that includes Jerusalem. Israelis think Obama is nuts and his approval rating here approaches absolute zero. If the American “pro-peace” movement is following Obama’s lead, the only place they will not be talking to the wall is in the Arab capitals.

Aug 13, 2009 - 9:58 pm 7. Ruvy:

Mazel tov on getting an article published here, Lori. I suggest one minor change, actually a rather major one in its consequence.

Lose the word “Palestinian”. If there is no “Palestine”, there cannot be a “Palestinian”.

Aside from the “mazel tov” and the bit of advice, idov at comment #6 has said everything I have to say. When Obama first got elected, the college kiddies and the “peacenik” profs thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. Now sliced bread has definitely resumed its primacy here. Obama is in the “paH”, as wee like to say here – the trash.

Aug 14, 2009 - 2:58 am 8. Michelle:

My dad’s a southern Baptist minister, mom’s a Salvation Army Canuck. I was raised pro-Israel. God’s chosen people, ya know!
What the Arabs want is the same thing the Nazis wanted. No Jew left alive on Earth.
Israel has a right to exist and to use any means necessary to insure that.

Aug 14, 2009 - 4:23 am 9. eon:

My opinion of Israel has not changed in my lifetime. It is this.

1. In the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the British government promised that, after the “Great War” was over, they would restore the Jewish homeland in the Palestine Mandate in light of the historical fact that the Jews had (a) been driven out by other people in the past (notably the Arabs) and (b) that quite a few of those people were allied with the Central Powers in the present conflict (notably the Turks and what Arab groups had opposed the Arab League, which sided with the Allies). Since the Zionist groups had cast their lot with the Allies, this was entirely reasonable.

2. In spite of this, it took another World War, a Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews, and finally a vote of the then-new UN General Assembly to get Britain to live up to its own Declaration. (A vote which Britain abstained from, BTW.)

3. The original plan was a partition of the Mandate much like that which was done in India when it became independent, resulting in India, Pakistan and, later, Bangladesh. This plan would have given the Arabs most of the Mandate, with Israel as a state that included what is now called the “West Bank”. (This, BTW, was in spite of the fact that, as in the First World War, the Arabs largely sided with the enemy, i.e. the Axis, specifically Germany.)

4. Instead of accepting this, the Arab states immediately launched a “war of extermination” against the new Jewish state- and lost it. Just as they have lost every war since.

5. The “Palestinians” are in fact Arabs who left the new state of Israel voluntarily, fully expecting that they would return in triumph riding behind the Arab armies that would be exterminating the Jews. Since then, instead of assimilating their “brothers” and “sisters”, even unto the present generation, the various “frontline” Arab states have kept them as “refugees” for the sole purpose of providing an excuse for their continued aggressions against Israel.

The Arab states, their leaders, and their radicals have never absorbed one of the basic lessons of statecraft. That being that, if you start a war, or a series of wars, and then are so inept as to lose it or them, you are in no position to complain about the conditions imposed by the victor. The winner makes the rules. (This goes double for repeatedly siding with aggressors who themselves turn out to be losers.)

Furthermore, by rejecting an equitable solution in 1948, the Arab states forever gave up any “right” to have their claims, territorial or otherwise, to be considered legitimate. And all their attempts to solve the “problem” (of their own creation) by force of arms since then do not fit the definition of “just war”, except in their own imaginations.

In short;

Israel exists. The Arab states need to solve their own problems- which are the result of their own (tribalist and backward) culture, not the fact that they have Israel in their midst.

They need to, in the Western idiom, suck it up, and grow up.

Not that I expect it to happen in the rest of my lifetime. Blaming everyone else for their own shortcomings is too deeply ingrained in the Islamic culture to be changed that quickly. But it is a cultural change that is needed.

One that will not happen as long as even suggesting it within the Arab world results in the person doing so being slain as an apostate. That, too, is something that needs to be changed.

BTW, I’m not Jewish; I consider myself a non-practicing and fundamentally disaffected Methodist, when I bother to think of the subject at all. My problem with Islamism isn’t its belief system; it’s its tendency toward blatant aggression against its neighbors, coupled with its infantile penchant for throwing violent tantrums at every opportunity.

clear ether

eon

Aug 14, 2009 - 5:18 am 10. Fairbanks99:

#4 Yacov, I thought of the IDF, but I am past the age of enlistment (49). I’ve also considered conversion to Judaism and making aliya, but at this point in my life I have too many financial obligations to leave my current job. (Unless there is a lot of demand for Fire Alarm technicians?) Maybe when my youngest son, age 15 graduates from high school. I do like your suggestion of starting a local group to support Israel.

Aug 14, 2009 - 7:10 am 11. Fairbanks99:

#4, Yacov, email me. Fairbanks99@hotmail.com. If I can’t join the IDF, maybe I could recruit for them? During my 25 years in the Navy, one of my jobs was as a recruiter. Are there IDF recruiters in the US? What would it take to become one?

Aug 14, 2009 - 7:25 am 12. independantthinker:

Jews? Palestinians? Arabs? Italians? Muslims? Irish?

Last time I checked, they used to be called people before all the self importance took hold. Give the world a break and learn the truth…then the truth just might really set the middle east free, for once. But I fear, like many, it shall not happen for a long, long time. So we all have to pay the price, unless of course, your not human.

Aug 14, 2009 - 8:24 am 13. Fred Goldman:

“You know, the self-important intellectuals and the well-moneyed, honey-tongued groupies currently whispering into the eager ears of the White House.”

If you read The Israel Test you will find that Jewish money is critical for Israelli success and it has been for a long time. The only well-moneyed Jew I can think of, off hand, is Soros. Lots of self-hating Jews out there but most of them are not well-moneyed. Choose your words carefully.

Aug 14, 2009 - 9:58 am 14. Calvin Ball:

The phrase “pro-peace” seems antiquated for a movement that seeks relevancy.

The phrase “pro-peace” is a disingenuous red herring, and always was. The logical opposite of “pro-peace” is “pro-war”. Do you know anyone who thinks that war is a general good (other than a handful of neo-Keynsians)? I don’t either. It’s a libel against people who don’t agree with them, and against the professional military people, who are the last people who want to go to war, if there’s a viable alternative.

Aug 14, 2009 - 11:17 am 15. bibio44:

5. The “Palestinians” are in fact Arabs who left the new state of Israel voluntarily, fully expecting that they would return in triumph riding behind the Arab armies that would be exterminating the Jews. Since then, instead of assimilating their “brothers” and “sisters”, even unto the present generation, the various “frontline” Arab states have kept them as “refugees” for the sole purpose of providing an excuse for their continued aggressions against Israel.

Good post, but I have one quibble: Some Palestinians were indeed forced to flee by the Israelis. On the other hand, approximately equal to the number of Palestinians who left voluntarily or were forced out were Jews who left or were forced out of Moslem lands.

And, eon, since you describe yourself as a “non-practicing and fundamentally disaffected Methodist,” you could back up your principles with action by becoming active in your church, which as part of the National Council of Churches, is particularly hostile to Israel.

Aug 14, 2009 - 9:37 pm 16. Joe:

The reason Zionism has a bad name is because of articles (and the comments to this article) like this one that state things that simply are untrue and which ignore large, inconvenient, historical facts.

Zionism is NOT about finding a “safe haven” for Jews. Jews in America are much safer than Jews in Israel. If it was, Israel would be located in land no one else wanted instead of smack dab in the middle of the most historically signifigant land in the world. Zionism is simply the term applied to a group of people who feel they have a historic right to specific land–Mexicans who believe they should still own California and Iraqi Kurds and Native Americans all have similar claims which contain just as much merit.

And no, I am not an anti-semite. I admire Jewish culture greatly (and not as a lapsed jew, but as a lifelong, moderate, Catholic). But Zionism is not the same thing as Judaism, and equating the two only hurts Jews worldwide.

Aug 15, 2009 - 3:53 am 17. eon:

15. Biblio 44

The same thing happened in the partition of India, in spite of the British trying to talk everyone involved out of it. Religion tends to trump common sense every day of the week, and twice on Sunday (or Saturday, in certain cases).

Behavior like that is one of the reasons I have avoided “organized religion” since childhood.

My opinions on “churches” (all of them) are roughly the same as Robert A. Heinlein’s. “Reforming” a church is rather like “reforming” our educational system. The rot in most is too deep for any such effort to have any effect.

The best thing an intelligent person, believer or otherwise, can do is to simply opt out.

To further quote Heinlein “Everybody has their own personal Revealed Truth, direct from the Almighty, on two subjects- Sex and Religion. All are different, and each is the One True Version.”

In my case, I’ve never asked Himself about either one, and so far He hasn’t volunteered any information, either.

If He wants me to know, I’m sure I’ll get a memo.

clear ether

eon

Aug 15, 2009 - 6:50 am 18. Motti:

Lori,

Very well said. You used the right words and I am sure to repeat them when I speak to local (montreal) Jews who claim to care for Israel but ultimately only care about having good business and make sure their kids get the “right” education and make sure all will not disappear as it happened in Europe.

A few years ago, I saw how all Macabia trips were canceled even though Israeli organizers begged them to come promising the safety of the participates. They did not listen and stayed home.

Not much of a back bone our people have.

Motti

Aug 15, 2009 - 10:48 am 19. Yehudit:

Joe, I agree Israel is not safer than the US, and that is a lousy reason to support Zionism. But you don’t know much about Judaism if you think it can be separated from Zionism. Jews have been trying to return to Israel ever since we were ethnically cleansed from there. We returned after the first ethnic cleansing by Babylonia. Some stayed in the country even after the 2nd ethnic cleansing by the Romans. We collected as much info as we could about how Judaism was practiced in the Temple and then figured out how to translate all that into a world in which there was no more Temple. That became the Oral Law, a complement to the Torah Law.

So note: we didn’t just assimilate and let the religion die out after we were no longer in our land. We preserved as much as we could, and almost all of it is based on the agricultural cycle of the year in Israel, with Jerusalem at the cultural center. Almost all our holidays still are. There is no way to practice Judaism without being intimately connected to the land of Israel. No other people has this connection to that piece of land.

This is way more than Mexicans feel about California. It is similar to Kurds and American Indians, who ARE in their native lands and who have that level of intimate connection. If Indian treaties had been upheld they would have control over more land than they do, and might have formed them into states or autonomous districts within states, still within the United States. Who knows. If they had not been forcibly separated from their culture they would have the cultural strength to rule themselves instead of being weak and dependent on our Federal government. This would not have to conflict with the establishment of the United States. And I am all for the Kurds retaining their ancestral lands; they were there before the Arabs were, and again, that does not have to be in conflict with the normalization of Iraq.

Already Israel is much smaller than its historical size at the largest, and much smaller than the British Mandate which was also carved up to create the made-up state of Jordan, which had never existed, and the Hashemites placed at its head, who had ruled Arabia. So in that kind of shell game, the Jews are actually in the right place.

So Israel is not safer but it is home. Even for Jews who don’t live there, if they have any identity as Jews they have to acknowledge their connection, although they have different ideas what to do with it.

I just want to say one more thing. Israel has its own culture which is Jewish but particularly Israeli. Israelis are Israeli the way French are French and New Yorkers are New Yorkers and the Japanese are Japanese. Israel is not a theoretical exercise, it’s a country.

Aug 15, 2009 - 5:13 pm 20. Yehudit:

PS And it’s not an accident that Kurdistan is very pro-Israel.

Aug 15, 2009 - 5:15 pm 21. Calvin Ball:

Zionism is NOT about finding a “safe haven” for Jews.

I would suggest you get a book (or a wiki article) on Herzl and the history of Zionism. That was exactly the motivating reason. It grew out of, among other things, the Dreyfus affair.

It’s well and good to talk about how much safer the US is, but the St. Louis affair, among other things, demonstrated that in an emergency, large numbers of Jews couldn’t find refuge here, or anywhere else (of all places, it was finally the Dominican Republic that agreed to take some of the passengers, the rest were returned to Germany, and I think you can guess where they ended up).

Right now, the Jewish population of the world is about 40% in the US, 40% in Israel, and 20% everywhere else combined. Even if every Israeli decided tomorrow to emigrate to the US, there’s no way the US can or will absorb that many people.

Realistically, the bulk of the Israelis have no alternative but to stick it out, regardless of the cost in treasure and blood. There just aren’t any alternatives on the table.

So yes, it is about safety and security, and always was. The religious stuff (Herzl was decidedly NOT religious) just rode on the coattails of the real Zionists.

Aug 15, 2009 - 6:17 pm 22. Joe:

Yehudit, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I agree that the Jewish tie to Israel is a very strong one. But you must admit that the world simply could not function if every ethnic group that could claim ownership of a given piece of land based on a historical connection (no matter how valid) violently fought for that land (there is more to the British handover of Israel to the Jews than is acknowledged here). At a certain point there needs to be some sort of order in the world.

Calvin, you made a point I wanted to address but did not in order to be concise. Your point is a valid one, but only to a degree. The Jews had other less confrontational options besides Israel for a homeland after the war but fought for Israel anyway. And however bad and inexcusable the treatment of Jewish refugees was in the run up to WW2, the present day is what we are dealing with now, and there has never been a country as accepting of Jews as America is (and not “accepting” in a patronizing way, but meaning that the Jewish contribution to this country has been so great that there is simply no way to separate the two). I think America would take in every Jew in Israel easily (and would be better off for it). We have taken in many times Israel’s population in immigrants in the past few decades.

And finally, I just have to note the genral point (I forget where this was noted) that any argument that states as “fact” that the arabs living in Israel left their homes voluntarily when Israel was created is an indicator to me that the author is dealing not in historical facts but in political theater. It ruins the credibility of anything that follows and sounds like a pronouncement from the old Soviet Union. No one leaves their ancestral home voluntarily (“ancestral” might only mean 2-5 generations, not 2,000 years, but that is enough to give a person a real bond to a piece of property). This type of argument hurts the Zionist cause greatly.

Aug 15, 2009 - 7:29 pm 23. Calvin Ball:

No one leaves their ancestral home voluntarily

Again, some history might help. It’s way too involved, with way to many specific incidents to make broad generalizations, but the majority of the Arabs who left did chose to leave at the urging of their fellow Arabs outside of the country. The neighbors instructed the locals to get out of the way while they annihilate the Jews. The promise from the Egyptians and Syrians, etc. was for a quick rout of the Jews. It didn’t turn out that way.

The ones who didn’t listen, and chose to stay, were granted full citizenship.

Also, please elaborate:

there is more to the British handover of Israel to the Jews than is acknowledged here

The “handover” was anything but willing. It was British equipment and British officers who fought with Arabs to kill Israel in the cradle. Do you have a conspiracy theory that you wish to share?

Aug 15, 2009 - 9:32 pm 24. Calvin Ball:

And btw,

The Jews had other less confrontational options besides Israel for a homeland after the war…

Zionism had nothing to do with the war. Herzl was a 19th century man. Jews started immigrating to Ottoman Palestine before 1900. Herzl had a vague dream of a sovereign Jewish state sometime in the distant future, but Zionism was created at a time when that was Turkish territory, and there was no reason to believe that it wasn’t going to stay that way for the foreseeable future. The original Zionists had no intention of taking the Turks on, and would have been foolish to try. Their plan was to simply immigrate to the Ottoman Empire, pay their jizya, buy the land from the Turks, and live as Turkish subjects.

By the time WWII came around, there was already a substantial Jewish population, which didn’t rise appreciably during the war partly because of German refusal to allow emigration, but also because of British refusal to take more than a nominal quota (which gets back to the point about the St. Louis).

The only thing that happened in 1948 was a war for independence, since the British empire was collapsing, and Britain decided to leave for her own reasons. At that point, the only thing left to be decided was the borders between Israel and Arab Palestine. Many Zionists welcomed the prospect of independence, but in the end it was the British who made it necessary.

Aug 15, 2009 - 9:44 pm 25. syn:

The majority of those against Israel, who are also the most vocal anti-Semites since the Nazis, happen to be life-long Democrat-voting NYC progressive Liberals.

There is so much bad energy(aka Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel) in NYC these days, one can sense the progressive Liberals life-long Democrat-voting icky vibes all over the place.

Aug 16, 2009 - 8:56 am 26. Spindok:

I applaud Lori Marcus and her efforts.

Yes, the term Zionist has been demonized and turned on its head. Zionism has been realized, the question now, is how to sustain it.

American survival depends upon a certain rejection of the ethnic/religious state. Israel depends upon acceptance of that same distinction for its very existence.

Peace is, of course, the goal. Nobody wants to do what Israelis now must do to sustain the state of perpetual war.

Better to grow banannas and dates, think up better cancer drugs or computer technology, etc.

A water based – simple basic H2O solution – would be really great. Security has as much to do with that as rockets there, maybe more so. Look at what is happening now on the Lebanon border. It is all about the Jordan headwaters.

So have you been in the River Jordan lately? River? We call that a creek or stream in Ohio. The Dead Sea where the little remaing water is pumped from one side to the other?
Anyway…

There is something to be said for the ‘peaceniks’ in terms of their goals even if particular tactics and timing have resulted in catastrophe.

There are in fact Arab non-Jews, mostly Muslim, some Christian, who hail from the same place and are equally as dedicated. Let us just call them ‘Palestinian’ arabs since there is no better term that I know of. To be Arab is not the same as Jew.

We Jews tend to accept the Ethiopian, French, or New Jersey Jew as an equal with same partnership. Not exactly so when we are dealing with the broad classification of Arab.

There are many and nobody is going to ‘wipe them out’ or any such nonsense. They are unhappy and how many more Gilad Shalits do we need?

Lori,

I disagree with all of your three ‘no’s.

All of the things you mentioned, negotiation, concessions, and compromise, are the essential tools of political statecraft. These are the folks who keep the casualties down. They are… (please dont make me quote von clausewitz or Sun Tzu).

So let us still pause at the terrible consequence and hope for a better day. ‘Beser a schlechter shalom vi a guten krieg’ (yiddish)

A bad peace is better than a good war.

Shalom,

Spindok

Aug 16, 2009 - 9:56 am 27. Ruvy:

Reasding these comments, I find myself terribly amused. Lori Marcus wants to resuscitate the idea that Jews should not apologize for being proud of their homeland, she wants to resuscitate the idea of NO compromise with the enemy, she wants resuscitate the idea that we are entitled to all of our homeland – from the River (even if it is just a itty bitty stream) to the Sea.

I agree with all she wishes to do. But none of this is Zionism.

Zionism originated with English Calvinists who studied the prophetic works of the Tana”kh and who figured out the theme of return to Eretz Yisrael written by the prophets, and who gave this concept a name – “Zionism”. The first Zionists were not Jews at all – they were Christians.

When Jews finally got hold of the idea at the end of the 1800’s under the name “Zionism” they were secular in orientation, and wanted to create a German speaking entity in Israel under Turkish suzerainty – but under European protection. To the non-Jew, this looked like a colonial enterprise. The the Jew, especially the Jew suffering in Russia, this was rescue.

In any event, Zionism postulated a secular Jewish state that would be like all other states in the world, and be recognized as such. The Zionists where successful in getting the Jewish state. They have not been successful in getting the world’s recognition of that state.

They won’t be. The world will never recognize the right of a Jew to live in peace in his own home. Therefore, it is time for us Jews to move on from Zionism to fulfilling our destiny – Redemption of our People. As for what the rest of the world thinks, as to the governments who will not let us live in peace – they can all burn in hell. We do not need them – they need us. As for all those individuals who support us – for whatever reason – we should welcome them to our ranks as supporters – so long as they support us on OUR TERMS.

Aug 16, 2009 - 10:33 am 28. Ruvy:

Spindok writes:

Lori,

I disagree with all of your three ‘no’s.

All of the things you mentioned, negotiation, concessions, and compromise, are the essential tools of political statecraft. These are the folks who keep the casualties down. They are… (please dont make me quote von clausewitz or Sun Tzu).

Spindok misses an essential point, one that cannot be ignored, one that I bring up for Lori to note, and for Spindok to remember.

Both el-FataH and Hamas get their ideological bases from the Egyptian branch of the Moslem Brotherhood – which has been under Wahhabi control and influence for a mere 80 years or so. The basic concept of the Wahhabi is very simple – “it’s my way or your head goes on the chopping block”. This applies to Moslems as it does to EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE PLANET. So there is no chance of negotiating any kind of peace with either. Hamas believes in kill first and loot later; el-FataH believes in loot first and kill later. This is why the corrupt and treasonous Israeli politicians who cut deals with el-FataH at Oslo were able to do so. El-FataH wanted to loot the Israelis first and kill them later. That is also why the Israeli government is so opposed to Hamas. Hamas won’t cut any money-making deals. The “Zionist” leadership of Israel is thoroughly corrupted and has no interest in safety of Jews. The lot of them are traitors and deserve the hanging rope.

So, you can stuff von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu in the trash can in this endeavor. All of the Arab leaders of the PA must die. There can be NO peace with them, NO negotiations with them, and certainly NO concessions to them. The Germans were not out to kill all the Frenchmen in 1871, the French were not out to kill all the Austrians in 1807, etc. etc. This does not apply to the Wahhabi pigs who lead (and mislead) the Arabs living in Eretz Yisrael. They want us all dead. Further, THIS pack of Jewish traitors does not deserve the chance to govern any further. But that is a problem for us in Israel to attend to, not for foreigners to worry themselves over.

Aug 16, 2009 - 11:22 am 29. Calvin Ball:

As for all those individuals who support us – for whatever reason – we should welcome them to our ranks as supporters – so long as they support us on OUR TERMS.

Whatever that means.

Aug 16, 2009 - 11:23 am 30. ruvy:

As for all those individuals who support us – for whatever reason – we should welcome them to our ranks as supporters – so long as they support us on OUR TERMS.

In other words Calvin, we do not need folks preaching their religion to us, making their support conditional on their demands (particularly religious demands), or folks who expect us to do what is patently immoral to get their support.

Aug 16, 2009 - 1:48 pm 31. joe:

“there is more to the British handover of Israel to the Jews than is acknowledged here”

what I meant by that statement is that the tactics used by the Jews to get their way were not so different than the tactics used by terrorists today (for example, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing).

Aug 16, 2009 - 2:26 pm 32. Anonymous:

the tactics used by the Jews to get their way were not so different than the tactics used by terrorists today….

There was a distinct difference and the bombing of the King David Hotel provides the perfect example. The terrorists called the hotel to warn them to get people out of the hotel – that there would be an explosion. Nobody listened – scores died.

Very different from the shootings in Jerusalem in the midst of the rush hour – the bombs blowing up a seder or nightclubs or restaurants.
And finally, very different from tearing a child apart bone from bone in a cave like they did to Kobi Mandell and his friend.

The Arabs have proven by their own behavior that they have barely risen above the level of savages. Joe, you do not want to attempt to anwser for these savages. The task is too great for you.

Aug 16, 2009 - 3:04 pm 33. Joe:

I am not answering for them, and I am not even trying to argue moral equivalence. But at the same time, you also should not be so blase about a bomb blast that killed so many innocent people. Acts carried out by others do not change the morality or immorality of one’s own acts–an act is either moral or immoral on its own. And setting off a bomb in a public place, even assuming notice was given, is an inherently immoral act, as it recklessly takes chances with other people’s lives. (And it was not the only act of violence at the time, just the best known).

And I stand by my point about arabs being forced to leave their land. Zionists simply lose all credibility when they say the arabs left voluntarily. Maybe a few did, but certainly not most and definitely not all of them. To be frank, I don’t even know how a reasonable person can argue that they left willingly and keep a straight face.

I would respect the zionist movement much more if it simply argued that “we did it (kicked arabs out) because we thought we had to do it and it’s unfortunate that it had to be that way but there was no other way and that’s just that” as opposed to just lying about it. I’m not proud of America’s historical treatment of Native Americans but I don’t try to pretend it didn’t happen (and I’m also not planning to give the land back any time soon–so don’t think I see this as a reason that Israel should allow a “right of return” or anything else like that).

My overall point is simply that we could use a bit less historical whitewashing in this discussion (and as an aside, a bit less racism as well–I don’t think it is acceptable in the modern world to smear an entire group of people as “savages” because of the acts of a few–if any group should be sensitive to the danger and immorality of “collective guilt,” it should be the Jews).

Aug 16, 2009 - 7:26 pm 34. Ruvy:

Joe, from 1946-1949 there was a civil war here which ultimately became Israel’s War of Independence. During that civil war, Jewish terrorists did what they could to drive out the British, who had perverted the Mandate they were given. The British sided with the Arabs until they left, and when they left, they continued to side wiuth the Arabs in the form of the Arab Legion under Glubb Pasha. But when the British “left”, neighboring Arab states attempted to invade. They asked Arabs to leave so that they could murder of Jews uninmpeded. In some instances Arabs not only did not leave, they fought – Haifa is an example. So is Tzfat and Lod. In any event, the Arab plans of a Jewish massacre never really materialized – Jews fought too hard, and the Arabs (except for the Arab Legion) were not organized enough. Given the opportunity, the IDF implemented its own plans to clear the land of Arabs.

That war, like the war in 1967 and 1973, is over. Wasting time re-fighting it under the guise of a historical discussion only wastes time.

The goals of Zionism – and the Zionists – were partly realized in 1948, and fully realized in 1967. But the Zionists couldn’t figure out what to do with the victory of 1967, and have been going back on their goals since then. This is why we see the immoral and treasonous policies of the Israeli government today. They have been bought out by forces in the world hostile to Jews and a Jewish Entity and they work like a judenrat, serving the American State Department and the European Union.

“Zionism” is a rotting corpse, and the expulsions of Gush Qatíf, ‘Amóna, and further planned expulsions of Jews from Judea and Samaria, like from Giv’át haRo’é, a few kilometers from where I live, only spread the stink of the corpse further.

The Jewish people have outgrown Zionism, and it is time to move to the next stage – Redemption.

For the moment, the folks at Z Street have trouble seeing that. So, I give them support, rather than criticism. But their goals have to do with resuscitating what the Zionist regime has been busy killing off in Jews – PRIDE.

The folks at Z Street have their work cut out for them. The Arab-supported traitors at J Street have been doing the work of the enemy, and are well paid for their efforts. The folks at Z Street have to discredit them, and expose the Arab money trying to stick the knife in the Jewish back, with the help of self-hating Jews.

They have to expose the money trail at “Peace Now” and its “American Friends”, the money trail leading to who funds the “Israel Committee Against House Demolitions” run by Jeff Halper, the money trail of the New Israel Fund.

That’s their job.

As for the Arabs, they demonstratesd their savagery three times over the period of one week in my own neighborhood. On 12 August, Arab gunman from the “al-Aqsa Brigade” shot at a vehicle traveling between Giv’át haRo’é and Ma’alé Levoná. They wounded the passengers in the vehicle.

Yesterday, there were two rock throwing incidents where Arabs attempted to wound or kill Israeli drivers – the first one occurred on Highway 60 near Túrmus Aiye, across the way from Ma’alé Levoná. The second, which injured the passengers, struck a patrol vehicle approaching Ma’alé Levoná.

Elsewhere in the country, Arabs further displayed their savagery, murdering a man and attempting to beat up his wife and daughter at a Tel Aviv beach. In citing these incidents, I barely scratch the surface of Arab murderousness and hostility towards Jews in Israel. You can whine from overseas about the assignation of “collective guilt”. But this murderousness and hatred is in my face, day after day after day.

smear an entire group of people as “savages” because of the acts of a few?

What few? The “few” is a whole crowd, cheering when Jews die and dancing in the streets, handing out candy and sweets. That is what the hatred the Wahhabi-influenced scum who lead these people have accomplished over several generations.

Aug 16, 2009 - 10:41 pm