Israel to World: "Suck It."

ha, so did the mom of another friend of mine

what's funny about that sentence? his nickname?

― Mordy, Wednesday, November 2, 2011 8:43 AM Bookmark

No I meant that I never used to think of Likkud as "extreme right" just right, like the analog of the mainstream of the GOP I guess. But now they really are extreme right.

I'd call the GOP the extreme right.

Jello Biafra should call his blog "Jello Shots."

Great "response", Israel, really...

Both sides are irrational and counter-productive when it comes to peace, it just irks me that I'm 'supposed' to have more sympathy with Israel 'cause they're 'more civilized' and have a democracy and they play their fears and resentments as stupidly as Hamas does.

my old man uses that argument - that Israel is "more like us". but to me it indicates that they should know better.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Michael

Actually, Jello's piece was pretty strong, and intellectually engaged. I felt a lot of sympathy for both sides, each of whom have been played as pawns in a broader global game, with the extremists as foot soldiers fucking things up for everyone.

Then again, I'm sympathetic to the countless innocents stuck in the middle of intractable conflicts, most of whom suffer under similar or more extreme poverty and violence and lack rich benefactors. Which is, perhaps, why no one is rattling on about, say, the chaos of Somalia.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html

those comments actually seem relatively mild but if you could have seen their faces when they were delivering them, oh boy

was just thinking about coming here to post http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2011/11/israel_and_1948_did_israel_plan_to_expel_its_arabs_in_1948_or_not_.2.html

Sarko/Bibi...Fite!

I would really have loved if Obama had said "You may be sick of him, but me, I have to deal with that lying cockfarmer every day".

was just thinking about coming here to post http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2011/11/israel_and_1948_did_israel_plan_to_expel_its_arabs_in_1948_or_not_.2.html

― Mordy, Tuesday, 8 November 2011 01:56 (13 hours ago) Permalink

The comments on this are surprisingly mostly civil but still make me sad. Taking sides in this kind of argument is always more about utility to one's present day view than it is about any 'truth'. I mean of course "Israel" didn't plan to expel the Arabs in advance since it didn't exist yet as a single body. Of course there were sionists who discussed expelling Arabs, and there were also zionists who opposed it or assumed it wouldn't happen. Israel didn't have a precise blueprint -- it was designed in the making, and regardless of what was planned, the upheaval of the formation of the state included Israelis-to-be deliberately expelling many Arabs and also many fleeing and then being unable to return. The only purpose of denying this entirely as a "pro-Israel" person is to remain entrenched and to deny the other side any validity whatsoever. But to ascribe to zionists a grand sinister plan to destroy Arabs is to dehumanize Jews (in extreme versions of this story you even get claims that Jews exaggerated or even participated in planning the holocaust in order to get their state). And if the "zionists" are inhuman, there's nothing to do but expel them and destroy them.

I think that's why such an article is really important. In my experience there is a widespread belief that the expulsion of the Palestinians was a) entirely due to Jewish actions and b) premeditated. Of course on the other side you can find apologists who will claim that Jews had absolutely nothing to do with the expulsions. The more moderate version of that asserts that, yes, some Palestinians lost their homes because of Israeli military action but culpability is entirely in the hands of the Arab countries that invaded and the Palestinians that encouraged the attack. The more extreme version will assert that actually not a single Palestinian was evicted by an Israeli and that they all left because the Arab nations told them to evacuate until after the war when they could then return and take their neighbor's possessions.

My point being that an article like this is good for both sides. When I went on Birthright our leader (who had served in the first Lebanon War) was clear that Israeli soldiers evicted Palestinians during the War of Independence, though primarily for strategic reasons (like all the homes on the road into Jerusalem were evicted to keep supply lines open). Articles that carefully explain what actually did or didn't happen are important to stop ahistorical mythologizing on both sides of the debate. Yes, people were evicted. No, it wasn't premeditated. Yes, it was tragic.

Well, I don't know, I think it is a reasonable subject of historical inquiry to look at whether the Hagannah and the Jewish Agency had an implicit or explicit plan to expel enemy civilians from Mandate Palestine. It is question that can probably not be answered definitively on the basis of the evidence (and the probelm of proving an absence if there was no plan), but it still seems reasonable to investigate it, and to lump it into Holocaust denial or see this kind of inquiry as some kind of anti-Jewish plot seems to do history a gross disservice.

To get non-meta, I think it is hard to deduce from actual occurences that there was a general mainstream plan to expel all Palestinians from their homes. But events seem to indicate that there was a plan, or that a plan evolved to expel them from certain areas - like the approaches to Jerusalem or parts of Galilee. And there is also evidence that some categories of Palestinians were more likely to be expelled, which suggests either an element of pre-planning or a proto-Israeli conception of their being Good and Bad Palestinians.

The point of that article though is that while there may have been discussions about expulsions before the war, there was certainly no monolithic plan. And certainly if war hadn't broken out, expulsions may not have happened at all. Certainly expulsions related to the approach into Jerusalem, or the Galilee would not have happened (or in those numbers if they did). There wasn't any explicit plan to be invaded in 1948, so it's a little muddling to say that the Hagannah had anything beyond a provisional idea of what they would do under particular circumstances. It's not like they planned the invasion themselves to create a pretense to expel Palestinians (where entertaining the opposite obviously wanders into crazy conspiracy theory territory).

DV, I was referring to comments like this, which I see often:

"The intent is seen in the fact that Muslims who fled under fire were forcibly blocked from returning to their homes and lands, even if they possessed deeds and keys. Further, the '67 war was a war of choice to capture Jerusalem and the West Bank. Then the West Bank has been strategically dotted with occupying "settlements", while the Muslims already in the West Bank have had their living conditions made progressively unlivable. This has all been in keeping with Ben Gurion's plan to take more land after partition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine And it explains why Israel keeps sabotaging progress toward peace. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sharmine-narwani/net...

This intent goes back well before WWII. In 1896, before the First Zionist Congress, Jewish bankers tried to buy Palestine from Turkey in order to create a Jewish state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl Most Jews in Western Europe at this time were assimilating into their various countries, doing quite well, and strongly opposed creating a Jewish state since that could derail their progress. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15... But the bankers went ahead and aligned with fundamentalist Jews of Eastern Europe, who philosophically opposed assimilation, and wanted a Jewish state in Palestine.

With this philosophy, the resulting Zionist movement joined the Nazis in promoting the idea that Jews did not belong as citizens of any European nation, a catastrophic idea that helped sow the seeds of the Holocaust. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html

Jewish writer Amira Hass, Ha'aretz columnist, has said that without the Holocaust there would be no Israel. http://uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=19985 While the back-room dealing to establish a Jewish state in Palestine well pre-dated the Holocaust http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_John.html , there is no doubt it wa a key factor in squeeking out the needed international support to create a Jewish state. http://www.controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/Controversybook_eng_43.htm The main obstacle was the massive injustice required for the inhabitants of Palestine.

Here's a documentary that interviews people from both sides of the Nakba, the driving of Muslims from their homes and lands to make way for a Jewish state. http://vimeo.com/3714871/

User ID:http://slate.com/mItyJ5g3GCu9xmobFySQchVAv%2B6XLigfLyme4pZ7fUWbiQ%2BU5XWG4A%3D%3D/

5 Hours Ago from slate.com· Reply"

Of all the offensive things in that comment, I this one is the most:

Most Jews in Western Europe at this time were assimilating into their various countries, doing quite well, and strongly opposed creating a Jewish state since that could derail their progress.

I think* this...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/01/what-could-possibly-motivate-israel-to-kill-iranian-nuclear-scientists/251280/

Responding to a letter writer:

You have to explain to me why the Zionists are so committed to picking a fight with Iran? What could possibly motivate Israel to kill Iranian nuclear scientists? It makes no sense, unless Israel is looking to start a war to extend its military domination of the Middle East (everyone knows Israel has the strongest military in the Middle East). So you'll have to explain this to me, please.

The thickheadedness of the letter is way more interesting than Goldberg's response.

Why shouldn't Iran have a nuclear weapon? Well, because it's an anti-democratic theocracy that menaces its neighbors, oppresses its own people, and calls for the destruction of another Middle Eastern state. It is profoundly anti-American, anti-Israel, and anti-Sunni. It is in the American national interest to see Iran denied nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are dangerous. They are especially dangerous in the hands of totalitarian regimes, and so these regimes should be discouraged from acquiring them.

But..I...what... Eh. HOW DOES ANY OF THAT MAKE VIOLENT INTERFERENCE BY ANOTHER STATE OKAY? What ever happened to another country's sovereignty?!? Am I just naive?

I think people confused about this would be much less confused if they realized Israel + Iran have been in a state of semi-hot war for years now. Iran openly funds groups (ie Hezbollah) that kill Israelis and use public rhetoric about wiping out Israel.

Also, I don't understand why this is the assassination that is getting all the attention among left-wing American writers (Greenwald, Sullivan, etc). Israel has been assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists for years.

Israel has been assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists people for years.

Also true.

So has Palestine

How convenient for America that we have so far refused to acknowledge the existence of state-sanctioned terrorism. Or is Israel the reason for that?

Or state-sponsored, either.

Assassinations != state-sanctioned terrorism.

tbf, assasinations aren't terrorism. they don't serve the same purpose.

Also I don't know what you're referring to re America refusing to acknowledge state-sponsored terrorism and afaik everyone acknowledges that Iran sponsors terror throughout the region.

i'd've said that the killing of nuclear scientists serves an analogous purpose to terrorism in that it's at least partly intended to discourage others from pursuing a career in the Iranian nuke-development industry

you can characterize any assassination that way. assassinating a general is to discourage others from pursuing a career in that country's military. assassinating a weapons designer (which is what this was) is to discourage others from pursuing a career in that country's weapon design industry. assassinating a whatever is to discourage others from pursuing a career in whatever whatever whatever.

yeah, to be clear i really don't think the world wd be improved by a nuclear-capable Iran, i'm just saying that inasmuch as the assassinations act as a warning or an attempt to speak to sections of a community they are terrorist-like

the problem is with the word "terrorism", obviously

Also I don't know what you're referring to re America refusing to acknowledge state-sponsored terrorism

I don't know all the particulars but I think the official American political line is that if a government does it, it can't be "terrorism." Because "terrorism" is only performed by err dissidents/unaffiliated groups.

I would say the program of assassinations is clearly a sign to Iran to turn aside from their goal of nuclear capabilities? Because killing individuals (who have done nothing wrong but be good citizens of their own country and be smart and have a rare talent), isn't going to stop the program. Wouldn't it fit the criteria for terrorism in the sense of being intended to change Iran's behavior?

I'd like to see specifically what you're referring to re state-sponsored terrorism. What you're saying sounds a bit like a particular argument I've heard used against the United States that they distinguish between their own actions (like drone programs) and what's is generally referred to as terrorism as being separate. Not that this is a particular policy, but that the author of this argument is trying to implicate the US in the very actions they claim to condemn. (I'm not saying whether this argument is legitimate or not. Just where I suspect your comment comes from.)

I do think that if you participate in development nuclear weapons for your country, there is a level of culpability involved in your actions beyond being a "good citizen" who is "smart" and has a "rare talent." You are participating in a program that is designed to kill many people, and that may one day in the future do so. Certainly there were other ways for this man to make a living with his gifts + intelligence beyond designing weapons of death?

Yeah but Mordy, I somehow don't think you would consider it ok for Japan to have assasinated Oppenheimer, and knowing what we know now there was probably considerably more justification for that than this.

I think the official American political line is that if a government does it, it can't be "terrorism."

uh Axis of Evil lol

lol, actually I had written something in that post that I deleted that said that very thing. I would've totally understood if someone had assassinated Oppenheimer, and I understand anyone who assassinates someone who designs weapons for another country. Especially (maybe exclusively?) an antagonist country that is perceived as a threat. xp

My source is the guy Greenwald interviews here.

"As Brulin explains, this dilemma is often “resolved” by countries trying to create definitions that simply bar the possibility that they themselves could ever engage in Terrorism (as exemplified by the long-standing efforts of the U.S. to insist that Terrorism is, by definition, something that only non-state actors can engage in, even as it labels other governments “state sponsors of terrorism”)."

the actual American political line is "when they do it, it's terrorism. when we do it, it's ... uh forget I said that, we don't do it! THIS CONVERSATION IS OVER"

Also I think Goldberg's line of thinking kind of unfairly differentiates Israel's concerns from Iran's. I mean Iran is also a country surrounded by hostile nations, it's fought wars with neighbors in recent memories, and therefore has interest in self-defense, or w/e

Yeah Laurel -- even that quote acknowledges that the US believes some governments are state sponsors of terrorism. Greenwald is trying to condemn US actions, he's not making a nuanced argument about US law + terror.

Uh Hurting, if you read the whole thing:

"By the way, I understand why Iran's unelected supreme leader might believe that nuclear weapons are in his country's best interests. I don't agree that he should have them, but I understand why he would want them. "

But Goldberg believes that Israel should have them for the same reasons that Iran wants them and shouldn't have them.

You are participating in a program that is designed to kill many people

in the US we call this joining the army

Yes?

in the US we call this joining the army paying taxes

fixed courtesy of HD Thoreau