The Zionist political movement is intended to end the oppression and suffering of Jews in European and Arab lands. Neither region provided equality for Jews. Both regions oppressed their Jewish populations.

The thought was to establish a state in a land only minimally settled. It was also thought, from the beginning, to reach a political compromise with those living on the land, as appears clearly in the public and private writings of both Herzl and Jabontinski.

This is not to say that every word of the two was kindly toward Arabs. Nonetheless, their considered positions – as shown both in public and private writings – favored a compromise with Arabs.

The Zionist movement, in the early days, had substantial support among Arabs. This, of course, was before the rise of Nazism. With the rise of Nazism and its direct connections with the the Mufti of Jerusalem – a Nazi supporter and confidant of Hitler who lived in Nazi Germany for quite a while and is a Nuremberg indicted war criminal for his work on behalf of Hitler -, substantial agitation occurred in the region that was directed at Arabs willing to work with Jews. Large numbers of such Arabs were massacred by Nazi sympathizing Arabs.

Circumstances led to confrontation between Arabs and Jews in any event. In due course, the Arab side clearly chose to side with the Nazis and worked hand in glove with the Nazis.

A substantial number of Nazi ideological themes were fed into the seemingly permanent thinking of the Palestinian Arab side (e.g. as in the Hamas covenant which borrows at length from Nazi writings and propaganda written by the Nazis). In fact, many of the Islamist themes, generally speaking, appear to derive from Nazi propaganda from the 1930’s.

In any event, the sides could not get along and, in due course, there was shooting on a larger scale than had occurred due to disagreements in the early days. In that neither side found a way to accommodate the other side’s needs, the world’s nations thought it best to divide the land up. The Arab side rejected the compromise. The Jewish side accepted it.

That is more or less where things remain although, from time to time, there are Palestinian Arabs who have flirted with the idea of a compromise. The Arab side attacked the Jewish side and lost. As a result, roughly 1.7 million people were displaced – about 700,000 or more Arabs and about 1 million Jews from Arab lands.

My view, for what it is worth, is that there are two legitimate political movements. However, the political position adopted by the Palestinian Arab side, which has its direct connection with Nazism mixed with Islamist bigotry, is, at present, aimed at killing off the other side – i.e. genocide. When and if the Palestinian side rejects the likes of Hamas – a group which has adopted the Nazi formula mixed with Islam, and copied directly into the Hamas covenant -, there could be room again for discussion. Until then, the Palestinian Arab side deserves condemnation.

No doubt you will say that no one asked Palestinian Arabs if they wanted immigrants. In the US, no one asks the public either. Many in the public, at various times in history, say they do not want immigrants. Such people are normally called bigots. And, in the US today, those who oppose the illegal immigration to the US of people are called racists. So, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

“People say all sorts of things in loose conversation. Very little of it means a thing.” Correction, Neal. With you very little of it means a thing if the speaker is an Israeli Jew. But if the speaker is a Palestinian or, god forbid, a member of Hamas, all of it means a great deal. And you go on and on about it, even reading all kinds of meanings of your own into it. Until you can acknowledge this obtuse, hypocritical behavior on your part, I can find very little reason to continue this discussion. Words like “context” and “nuance” are for you and other Zionist defenders of Zionism simply convenient ways of excusing the crimes of Zionists. When you talk about Israel’s enemies or its critics you forget about the context or that things tend to be nuanced. In short, Neal, you are what you continue to falsely accuse Kim Petersen of being, you are a shill for an evil ideology, a propagandist for Zionism, the mouthpiece for a racist and violent political movement.

1) “Okay, “jaime”, you’ve chosen to disown Jabotinsky? You claim that he didn’t mean what he said? ”

- What are you going on about this time? I haven’t posted anything one way or the other about Jabotinsky

2) is it true that you are receiving money from the “Isreali” government?

- Why? Are you from the IRS or something?

3) How is it, when you’re so proud of your “intellectual” agility, that you don’t seem equally proud of your personal identity?

- What’s wrong with being American, Jewish and Queer?

4) At least Kim Petersen is upfront about who he is & what he’s up to;

- He’s a hot looking fellow. Not sure if he’s Queer too. Wouldn’t surprise me though. I think I’d like him better if I knew. I hope he’s a “bottom.”

So what’s your thing Dan? Are you a Man’s Man too???? How about a pic, Sweetie?

Again, my comment was not about Eliyahu. My comment was about Yitzhak Ginsburg. He was, as I said, indicted for incitement.

I have nothing to say about Eliyahu. If he said what you claim he said, if it is being correctly interpreted and in context, it is a contemptible thing to say. It would be even more contemptible if it represents his real opinion.

I refer to the Hamas Covenant because it is not an incidental comment or a comment given in an interview. Rather, it is a political document prepared by people who wanted to proclaim a position to the world. That position includes promotion of genocide. It would be akin to the British Labour Party having a campaign platform that advocates genocide. That, no matter the context, is a bad thing.

By contrast, a nasty or bigoted comment by a politician or religious leader is a bad thing. Projecting that statement as the political platform of a movement, however, is another thing. And, what people like Kim do is claim that mere statements – a few or a lot of them – prove something. My contention is that such statements, unless they are very closely examined, prove very little. That is also true for racist things said by the Hamas.

But, it is a different thing from a political covenant. That speaks to the goal of a group. And, the context may, in some eyes, justify the political platform. But, the platform is what it is. Hence, one can say they can or cannot, depending on your politics, find acceptable the reasons why Hamas wants to kill Jews. But, that such is the platform of Hamas cannot be denied.

By contrast, people say all sorts of things in loose conversation. Very little of it means a thing.

I think you are lying. I don’t believe Jabostinky ever said any such thing. But even if he did, how would that make him more believable than his disciple Begin intoning “Peece, Peece, Shalom Shalommm” on the White House lawn, while he was planning the invasion of Lebanon?

BTW, you don’t seem to have much else to do but post nonsense comments: is it true that you are receiving money from the “Isreali” government?

How is it, when you’re so proud of your “intellectual” agility, that you don’t seem equally proud of your personal identity?

At least Kim Petersen is upfront about who he is & what he’s up to; you on the other hand insist on trying to ambush him while remaining hidden by deep cover. Which from here looks an awful lot like a streak of cowardice;)

This defends Israel how?

I speak about context because words have meaning in a context. Hence, in a war, people say things that, if said in a time of peace, sound belligerent but, in the context of a war, may actually amount to a proposal for peace.

So, one needs to consider context whenever you look at a quote. The major problem with these quotes is that many of them are obvious forgeries and many others mean something quite different in context.

This is not to deny that some Israelis may and do say nasty things. That is human nature. Some people are nasty.

The argument, however, by people like Kim is that these statements tell us something about Israel, not about the individuals who make the statements. And, frankly, you cannot make the argument he makes by citing quotes the way he does.

Consider the statement, made in the context of a war. “We shall have to invade them on their religious holiday. This way they will be on the defensive.” That sort of statement could have been made by Anwar Sadat. However, if one examines his actual views, it becomes obvious that his view was that (a) it was not possible, at his time, to conquer Israel but (b) the only way to bring Egypt along toward Sadat’s hopes to regain the Sinai yet end the dispute with Israel was to start a war.

And, if one investigates Arab history carefully, one finds support for what Sadat did. It finds roots in the sulha [reconciliation] custom. The condition for a such a reconciliation is that the side perceived to have caused an injustice to the other side must, in some way, to pay for it. Full reconciliation occurs at the sulha ceremony where the payment is actually made.

But consider, in the abstract, planning and starting a war is not a nice thing. His war killed a thousand Israelis and thousands and thousands of Egyptians. So, any statements he made supporting such a war would be nasty. But, they led to a peace of sorts.

Again: words and actions must be understood in their context, not in the abstract. By contrast, what Kim does is pure propaganda – agitprop of the worst kind. It is disgraceful.

If you examine my initial comment, it concerned Yitzhak Ginsburg, who was indicted.

As for the call to carpet bomb Palestinian Arabs who shoot rockets at Israeli in order to kill and terrorize them, I note that such is exactly what the US, the UK and Great Britain did in WWII and it, more or less, is what the US did in Fallujah. Was Roosevelt a racist, for ordering such actions? I think not.

And, I note that the noted rabbi did not actually call for the killing of 1 million people. What he said was actually that the Israelis should do whatever is necessary to protect Israelis. That is a very different sort of statement, even if he did cite numbers – as in 100 or 10,000 or 1 million. If he actually meant to kill 1 million people, he would have said so directly.

I believe that one goes by evidence. Evidence does not consist of statements made by people without understanding the context. Again, the Rabbi was indicted for racial incitement. That suggests that his views are not representative of most Israelis. The ben Gurion statements are not likely authentic, for reasons already given.

Apartheid = racism.

If you defend/support Israel in anyway, you are a racist.

You can hem and haw and distort and kill-the-messenger all you want.
Reality is reality.

What Kim actually stated is “We did check out a huge number of quotations, and we rejected many quotations. Still, some of the quotations we cite might be inauthentic, and this would be unsurprising.”

So, I stand corrected by minor degree. Still, a person who is anything but a propagandist would be embarrassed to write what I just quoted.

The first ben Gurion comment does not sound like him at all. He was an atheist. The quote has him speaking about God a bit too much. That suggests to me that someone has put words into his mouth. I have not, however, read the book from which the quote is taken and note that, looking on line, the quote is never explained and the context is never explained. Moreover, the book is written in French, so who knows whether the French has been correctly translated.

I am aware of ben Gurion saying things somewhat akin to what is stated, attempting to explain the Arab position (as he did in a speech in 1938) to his party members. However, such is always ben Gurion explaining what Arabs thought, not what he thought. In fact, his views on the matter were rather different.

It is possible that the quote, if it is accurate at least in part, is part of an attempt to explain the Arab position. Again, no context is provided at all so there is not way to be sure.

The second ben Gurion quote. sounds like a phony quote for sure. Such is a common phenomena. Ben Gurion’s thinking on the matter was not simple minded in the way shown in the quote.