Zionism for Dummies

In pondering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I have found that very few people actually have a basic understanding of the conflict nor could they define it in even rough approximating terms.

Thus one sometimes hears that it is all about Arab/Palestinian ‘terrorism’ and suicide bombings and the ultimate goal of the terrorists-Palestinians is to ‘push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive” and that their motives are those of anti-Semitism and hatred of Jews. Those who hold this view see the conflict as one of the survival of the Jewish state amid a sea of irrational hatred.

That is the view of the Zionists, and the one they would like for the world to accept.

One also hears that the conflict is a religious one between Jews and Arabs and that it has been continuous for ‘thousands of years’.

Neither is correct.

The first Palestinian suicide bombing occurred in 1994, 40 days after the massacre by the Brooklyn native Baruch Goldstein of 29 praying Muslims at the Al Ibrahim Mosque in Hebron. The ’67 War and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip was 25 years old at that time. Thus an entire generation of Palestinians had grown to maturity knowing nothing but occupation before the first suicide bomber struck.

The phrase, ”push all the Jews into the sea, dead or alive”, can be traced to a 1961 speech to the Knesset delivered by Prime Minister David Ben Gurion. This apparently was the first use of this phrase by a significant political personality, and thus, for all intents and purposes, the phrase has a Jewish and not an Arab origin. The propagation of this emotional phrase throughout the Israeli-Palestinian debate has its source the Israeli Prime Minister himself. (See “Who is Pushing Whom into the Sea?“)

The view that the conflict is religious and that it has been ongoing for thousands of years is inaccurate. For approximately 2000 years Jews and Arabs enjoyed a harmonious relation, and for four hundred years up until World War I, as citizens of the Ottoman empire with equal rights. Indeed, Jews enjoyed high government position within the Ottoman Empire.

Change occurred in 1896 with the publication of Theodore Herzl’s book, The Jewish State, in which Herzl propounded the idea of inevitability, immutability, permanence, and omnipresence of anti-Semitism and argued that the only solution was a separate state for Jews.

Herzl’s understanding of the inevitability of anti-Semitism was possibly self fulfilling, for rather that opposing anti-Semitism in the first half of the 20th century, the Zionists found common cause with Hitler, Eichmann and the Nazis and used anti-Semitism and Nazism as a means of achieving their end which was the establishment of a Jewish state. The two reactionary movements shared the view that German Jews were living there as a ‘foreign race’ and that the racial divide was essential to maintain. (Historian Lenny Brenner has written three excellent books on the Zionists-Nazi collaboration.) The Zionist’s use of Nazism involved, among other things, the blocking of avenues of escape to other countries of Europe’s Jews and diverting them to Palestine, even as the death trains began to roll in Europe. The rise of Nazism and Hitler to power was never, or almost never, opposed by the Zionist prior to the establishment of Israel.

History might have been very different had the Zionists component of Jewry opposed Nazism and there might never have been a Holocaust. And there might never have been a state of Israel, as many of the Zionists well understood.

Lenni Brenner puts it:

… of all of the active Jewish opponents of the boycott idea [of Nazi Germany], the most important was the world Zionists Organization (WZO). It not only bought German wares; it sold them, and even sought out new customers for Hitler and his industrialist backers.

The WZO saw Hitler’s victory in much the same way as its German affiliate, the ZVfD [the German Zionist Organization]: not primarily as a defeat for all Jewry, but as positive proof of the bankruptcy of assimilation and liberalism. (Brenner, Zionism in the Age of Dictators)

Zionist collaboration with the Nazis, as well as with the Fascists and Mussolini is a deep and extensive topic and must be abandoned here.

Though a region of Argentina as well as Ethiopia were considered by Herzl, Palestine was the site for which there was the greatest consensus.

Of the indigenous Palestinians, of which there were about a million at the time living in Palestine, he said: “[We shall] spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.”

Thus the concept of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Zionism was introduced.

It is not rocket science. If you want to create a state exclusively of European Jews in the heart of the Middle East, you must first get rid of the Arabs.

Herzl went on the found the World Zionists Organization, whose intent was to establish a Jewish state in Palestine and to make itself into proto-government from which the actual state government would seamlessly emerge upon the establishment of the Jewish state.

Though the world seems not to understand the intent of the Zionist program, there was no misunderstanding among the Zionists themselves.

In his 1923 book, The Iron Wall, Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder to the “Revisionists” wing of Zionism, wrote

There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between the Arabs, not now and not in the foreseeable future. All well-meaning people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago the complete impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country to a country with a Jewish majority.

Any native people view their country as their national home, of which they will be the complete masters. They will never voluntarily allow a new master. So it is for the Arabs. Compromisers among us try to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked with hidden formulations of our basic goals. I flatly refuse to accept this view of the Palestinian Arabs.

The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.

It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs and the same conditions exist now.

… a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.

Whether through the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, external force is a necessity for the establishing in the country conditions of rule and defence through which the local population, regardless of what it wishes, will be deprived of the possibility of impeding our colonization, administratively or physically. Force must play its role – with strength and without indulgence. In this, there are no meaningful differences between our militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers an Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets; the other an Iron Wall of English bayonets.

If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for that land,… . Or else? Or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is IMPOSSIBLE! Zionism is a colonization adventure and there fore it stands or it falls by the question of armed force. It is important to speak Hebrew but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonization.

To the hackneyed reproach that this point is unethical, I answer – absolutely untrue. This is our ethic. There is no other ethic. As long as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they will not sell these hopes – not for any sweet words not for any tasty morsel. Because this (the Palestinians) is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in the Iron Wall.

The ‘Revisionists’ advocated the revision of the British Mandate for Palestine to include the east bank of the Jordan, now the state of Jordan, as well as the west bank, the Jordan River forming the eastern boundary of the mandate at that time. The ‘Revisionist’ transformed over time into the present day Lukud party, the right wing party of Menachem Begin, who regarded Zabotinsky as his model and philosophical father, of Yitzchak Shamir, who became the leader of the Revisionists at the time of Zabotinsky’s death, of Ariel Sharon, and of Benjamin Netanyahu.

Thus in 1937, Ben Gurion stated: “The compulsory transfer of Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own feet during the days of the First and Second Temple.”

And in a letter to his son, also in 1937, he stated: “We must expel the Arabs and take their places and if we have to use force, to guarantee our own right to settle in those places then we have force at our disposal.”

And in early 1948 Ben Gurion wrote in his War Diary, “During the assault we must be ready to strike the decisive blow; that is, either to destroy the towns or expel its inhabitants so our people can replace them.”

And in February 1948, Ben Gurion told Yoseph Weitz, director of the settlement of the Jewish National Fund and head of the official Transfer Committee of 1948: “The war will give us land. The concept of ‘ours’ and ‘not ours’ are peace concepts, only, in war they lose their whole meaning.”

And in 1940, Joseph Weitz, who was head of land purchasing for the World Jewish Organization, and head of one of several ‘transfer committees’ (committees to study ways of transferring the Arabs from Palestine) wrote:

Between ourselves it must be clear that here is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries – all of them. Not one village, not one tribe, should be left.

And in 1983, Raphael Eytan, then chief of staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, said,

We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel .… Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours…. When we have settled the land, all the Arab will be able to do will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.

Exactly why the indigenous people of Palestine do not have right to live on the land of their and their ancestors births, or why the colonial European Jews have this right, Mr Eytan is silent.

Between the time that Israel declared itself a state in May of 1948 and the summer of 2005, Israel killed 50,000 Palestinians, according to Israeli Historian Ilan Pappe. And since October of 2000, Israel has killed 6348 Palestinians, according to the web site, If American Knew. The latter figure averages to about 2 Palestinians killed per day by Israel (1.932, by my calculation.)

One thing is certain: Israel is not the victim, as it is constantly screaming, but the victimizer.

What then is the conflict all about? What is the theme that runs through the entire history of

Zionism?

It is about the ongoing program of Zionism to destroy the Palestinians as a people and to assume possession of their ancestral land.

There are Zionists who would settle for a two state solution and a withdrawal of the Israel presence to the 1967 borders allowing a mini-Palestinian state on the remaining 22% of Palestine. But the reality on the ground is that Israel has expanded beyond the point of retreat with 300,000 settlers in the West Bank, 183,000 in East Jerusalem, as of this writing, with 200 or more settlements in the West Bank some twice the size of Manhattan containing their own, schools, universities, shopping malls and the billions of dollars of invested infrastructure, both private and public, and a segregated, for-Jews-only, highway system, 300 miles long, cutting up the West Bank with Palestinians imprisoned between these disjoint concrete and asphalt barriers.

But whatever the views of these moderate Zionists, who call for contraction to the ’67 borders, the dynamics of Israel is and has always been expansion. The centrifugal forces pushing the expansion are multivaried and complicated. They are religious, they are military, they are for want of security, they are from want of power for its own sake, but they are persistent and they have an entire century of momentum and a century of Zionism on the move.

What the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is all about then is the destruction of the Palestinian people and their evacuation and the complete takeover of Palestine to the Jordan River by the Jewish state. And what hangs win the balance is whether or not the Palestinians will be destroyed and eliminated as a people with a distinct culture and history and with an attachment to the land of their birth and their parent’s and ancestor’s births.

William James Martin writes frequently on the Middle East. He can be reached at wjm20@caa.columbia.edu. Read other articles by William.

81 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Max Shields said on September 11th, 2009 at 9:20am #

    Thank you Mr. Martin for this straightforward lesson in Zionism and the conflict.

    While I do not claim to be a scholar of Zionist history, your points square with all the reading I have done on the topic.

    It is important also when people talk about who is and isn’t a Zionist to use what you’ve provided as a benchmark from which to make such accusations. All to frequently air splitting in the name of “exposing” Zionists can be just as dangerous as ignoring the threat of Zionism as it exists in the horrible and inhuman results of it’s proponents.

    I don’t know that I call someone who believes in a two-state solution a Zionist, but such a solution provides the fundamental sustainment of a state created in an expansionist aggression that will not go away until the very state is dissolved.

  2. Alan Novick said on September 11th, 2009 at 9:43am #

    This article is filled with so many falsehoods it would take a long reply to correct. I will just say this: the indigenous people of Israel are the Jews. It is as if the native Americans who lived in Louisiana but were removed to reservations were to return and say: “this land is ours, I don’t know how you got here but it belongs to us and we are here to reclaim it”.

  3. mary said on September 11th, 2009 at 10:16am #

    An excellent and factual article from William James Martin.

    This is the weekly newsletter from the UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign from which you can see that it is a lively organisation and that there are many ways in which to register protest. The events are usually very well supported, especially so last Spring during and after Cast Lead.

    http://www.palestinecampaign.org/index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=2&l2_id=14&Content_ID=824

    PS Perhaps Mr Novick could elucidate on the ‘falsehoods’.

  4. Max Shields said on September 11th, 2009 at 10:38am #

    Alan Novick, I don’t think you read carefully what Mr. Martin wrote.

    He’s not claiming that Jews have not been indigenous to the region, he is claiming Zionism is NOT indigenous.

    Eastern European Jews or Russian Jews have no more connection with the region than do nearly all people on the planet who have a common root somewhere in the African continent and spread outwards toward what we call the Middle East.

  5. balkas b b said on September 11th, 2009 at 11:02am #

    It may not be correct to call [unless one can prove it] people of mosheic faith, “jews”. All we know for certain is that people inhabiting that area are a melange of shemitic peoples.

    Jesus’, moshe’s, and mohammed’s followers were amonites, amorites, jebusites, nabateans, hebrews, hivvites, hittites, perizzites, philistines, arameans, edomites, moabites, et al.
    For the purpose of elucidation, we might call these people “palestinians” of three different religions or, to me, cults.
    And the three cults, according to what we read, got along.

    Thus the labels “christian”, “muslims”, and “jew” is only valid on the level of piousness and not on level of ethnicities.
    All three shemitic cultitst of palestine apear as one people.

    Europeans with moshe’s cult have no connection whasoever with the palestinians nor israelites or yehudim/benjaminim. tnx

  6. Ismail Zayid said on September 11th, 2009 at 11:03am #

    William James Martin deserves full credit for his accurate analysis of the Zionist program, as asserted by all zionist leaders from Herzl in 1896 to Netanyahu in 2009. The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from their homeland was planned and effected as outlined in this excellent aricle. And the process continues.

  7. B99 said on September 11th, 2009 at 2:43pm #

    Alan – When the Hebrews arrived with their goatherds from where ever, the region was inhabited by Palestinians – called Canaanites then (the collective term for the various tribes). When the Jews left the region for greener pastures all who remained, including a few Jews, were Palestinian. When the Zionists shipped into Palestine in the early 20th century – they found the land inhabited by its indigenous people – the Palestinians.

    The Native-Americans were removed by force in recent history. Those who support Palestinians usually also support Native-American claims as well. Jews willingly left Palestine under their own locomotion beginning nearly two-thousand years ago and continued to do so until only a handful were left. Emigrants have no right of return. Only refugees have a right of return. That would be the Palestinians.

  8. Synic3 said on September 11th, 2009 at 3:31pm #

    Max Shield wrote:
    ” don’t know that I call someone who believes in a two-state solution a Zionist, but such a solution provides the fundamental sustainment of a state created in an expansionist aggression that will not go away until the very state is dissolved.”
    _____________________________________________________

    Max,

    With two hundred Israeli settlements and more than 300,000 settlersl living in them and these settlements are connected by roads
    for Isrealis only, there is nothing left for the Palistinian but isolated urban ghettos to live in. This is not a viable so called state.
    If Israel abandon the settlements and retreat to pre 1967 borders,
    which will never happen, then the two states solution might worth looking into.
    Without an Israeli withdrawal to pre 1967 borders, anyone thinking that the two states solution is a viable solution either kidding himself or is trying to bullshit us.
    In my humble opinion, the only solution is Israel become a secular nation with equal rights for all and the right of return for the Palestinians.

  9. B99 said on September 11th, 2009 at 3:44pm #

    An excellent history of Zionism, accurate even in its simplicity. A couple of small caveats. I would say that the Zionists clearly in bed with the Nazis of Austria and Germany (and with whom they had been cooperating almost up until the outbreak of the war) were the immediate ancestors of the Revisionists – especially groups like the ZVfD. There were other Zionists who while willing to use the Nazis for their own ends but drew the line much earlier when the handwriting on the wall became clear. These largely became Israel’s Labor Party. Doesn’t make them good, only good by comparison to the Revisionists – who lost the theoretical battle to Ben Gurion in Palestine/Israel but eventually won the policy war, that is, Israel’s practices towards the Palestinians has clearly been that advocated by Jabotinsky’s Revisionists, though it was Labor who came to power and stayed there for decades. in the meantime – the pre-World-War period in the US – most Jews abhorred cooperation with the Nazis and it was only the eventual success of Israel and lots of Zionist propaganda that brought them on board for Israel.

    A second point. The early Zionists of Herzl’s time were wrong about the Dreyfus case. Their interpretation was that there was no place for Jews in Europe – that anti-Semitism was rife and that Jews needed a state of their own as they would never be able to assimilate. The problem with their view was that ALL of France was on the side of Dreyfus. There were no institutions nor classes of people that sides against Dreyfus. The Zionists drew the wrong conclusion – perhaps deliberately in order to embark upon the task of colonizing another’s land.

  10. Mulga Mumblebrain said on September 11th, 2009 at 4:59pm #

    Novick has the straight racist Zionist point of view. Despite Palestine being inhabited by innumerable peoples for hundreds of thousands of years, only the Holy Jews, the Herrenvolk, who wandered in a couple of thousand years ago, or, more likely, invented themselves ‘in situ’,and left in great part two thousand years ago, are ‘indigenous’. The rank, narcissistic, arrogance is sickeningly familiar. The comparison with the indigenous of North America a nauseating humbug and gibberish. For a start the indigenous in North America have been there for tens of thousands of years, and absent for only about two hundred. The people who are in the analogous position to the North American indigenous, in their ruthless dispossession, slaughter, and herding into ‘reservations’ are the Palestinians, and Novick’s co-religionists, the neo-Nazi,Talibanesque, ‘settlers’ openly speak of the Palestinians as Indians, and compare their land-theft to the ‘settlement’ of the Wild West.
    This particular little escapade in Judaic myth-making reminds me of incidents here. One of the stalwarts of public radio, the ABC, here, is Phillip Adams, on ‘Late Night Live’. He’s been there for years, and the show was once interesting, with Chomsky, E.O Wilson, Carl Sagan, John Pilger et al often appearing. But after the election of the ultra-Right bigot, Howard, as PM in 1996, the ABC was gutted and it was stacked with Rightists. Adams, who has been a whipping-boy of the Right for years, they prefering like all crypto-fascists, suppression of unacceptable opinion to the dangers of debate, as their intellectual pretensions and bigotries are so easily exposed as risible and psychotic, apparently decided to ‘go with the flow’, and, although occasionally interesting still, the prevalence of Rightwingers grew and grew. One clear manifestation of the Rightwing purge of the ABC has been its Zionisation. We get an incessant flow of Holocaust stories (but none concerning the Roma, the Serbs, the citizens of the Soviet Union or the genocides of Armenians, Native Americans etc, of course)’human interest’ stories about the details of Jewish life etc the usual narcissistic self-obsession. And, in the political realm, the Palestinians have been banished. Save if they are Fatah collaborators, of course. There are several pro-Palestinian groups here, and they are all never heard from. Pro-Israel groups are omnipresent. After the Gaza horror, the stories of Israeli atrocities were dropped after a day, never to re-surface. The suffering in Gaza is now forgotten, proceeding behind a screen of deliberate silence. In grotesque comparison, we get story after story concerning the immense suffering of the poor wretches of Sderot, exposed to the evil Hamas rocket barrage, and so wonderfully stoical. That’s about the Zionist calculus of today’s ABC. 1400 dead Gazans, hundreds children, compared to 13 dead Israelis, none children, and all the coverage is of the Israeli ‘suffering’. And the really nauseating aspect is that, as this sickening, narcissistic, racist paradigm, that only Jewish suffering matters, and that the vastly vastly greater suffering of the victims of Jewish cruelty is simply ignored, or not blamed on the victims themselves, no-one at the ABC seems to suffer any qualms of conscience whatsoever over joining in this racist charade.
    Certainly not Phillip Adams. He’s long boasted of being a ‘philo-Semite’ and has an endless stream of Jewish guests. Gaza long ago disappeared from view, save for some Rightwing Israeli reptile to spread venom against Hamas, with which narrative Adams purrrs and simpers along. The particular guest I have in mind, a Jewish doctor, who Adams has had on twice in recent years, repeated a version of Novick’s ‘indigenous’ garbage. The first time he asserted that his son had met an Aboriginal man in a St Kilda pub, who stated his great admiration for Israel. and the way it had gotten its land back. So, we are meant to believe that this Aboriginal man apparently knows nothing of the Palestinian dispossession, so exactly alike that of his own people, by the same sort of European settler racists, and instead identifies with the settlers. Of course it is possible that there exist Aborigines so well educated in Arab-hatred and Islamophobia that they simply reflect Judaic bigotry, now absolutely mandatory here. Or perhaps he was just really drunk. I think that he is actually an invention, another creation of Judaic narcissism, that refuses to even recognise the suffering of the Palestinians, so invents mythologies to deny or diminish their travails.
    The good doctor re-emerged this year-’Philo-Semite’ Phil loves his Jewish interlocutors (one of his daughters has apparently converted to ‘Chosenness’)He peddled a new version of the same garbage. Working in Aboriginal health, for which he ought to be congratulated, he’s always, or so he would have us believe, meeting Aborigines who congratulate him on Israel reclaiming its ‘native land’. Need I say that this reiteration of his original idea, and he extension of it from one Aborigine in a pub, to a wider opinion, is, in my opinion, a nauseating hypocrisy? To invert reality to make the colonial settler dispossessors analogous to the dispossessed Australian Aborigines, and the Palestinian indigenous victims of Judaic settler violence and sadism the guilty party (for the crime of existing) is in my opinion, sign of such grotesque narcissistic self-obsession as sorely in need of some sort of treatment. Needless to say, Adams listened to this twaddle with the compulsory rapt attention required when ‘Jewish wisdom’ is being dispensed, not a murmur of dissent, or, one would have thought, incredulity, at the inversion of the facts, passing his lips. We live in a strange world, in strange times, but the process of Judaisation of acceptable opinion seems to me one of the weirdest.

  11. Max Shields said on September 11th, 2009 at 6:10pm #

    “In my humble opinion, the only solution is Israel become a secular nation with equal rights for all and the right of return for the Palestinians.”

    While the notion of a secular state in lieu of what exists is attractive, the idea that it could be based on “Israel” becoming this is a contradiction in terms.

    I don’t think nation-states are what is called for. There are hundreds throughout the world and they have not answered fundamental human problems.

    But let’s say a nation could be created that was secular, peaceful and welcomed the return of Palestinians. This would be fine and dandy, but I don’t think that vision is what it is cracked up to be. The right of return is, to me, an imperative; but having emerge from that a nation-state called Israel or Palestine seems anachronistic. This may seem difficult for those on DV to come to terms with. This is hardly a new concept, in fact, I think there is a very significant movement throughout the world that calls into question the value of the nation-state. If there are fundamental problem with the nation-state, then why should we not consider alternatives when discussing Palestinians. Why must we go back to something that is a very shaky if not failed concept/entity to begin with?

  12. B99 said on September 11th, 2009 at 6:29pm #

    Max – Better to go with what the Palestinians actually want – a state of their own, rather than use them for a post-state experiment of unknown character. No sense imposing extra burdens and exogenous theories on a people who understand what the solution is.

  13. B99 said on September 11th, 2009 at 6:30pm #

    Mulga – Novick did not correct the article’s ‘falsehoods’ because he hasn’t a clue. In over his head, he is.

  14. Max Shields said on September 11th, 2009 at 7:08pm #

    B99, I don’t think you know what the Palestinians “actually want”.

    Let’s not go back to the trivial quibble over whose polls are correct.

    So, we cannot start from this poll vs that to determine what the Palestinians “actually want”.

    I think we face the undoing of modernity and progress as it has been defined by the world powers of the twentieth century. You may think this is unfair to “impose” [my term] this “problem” (opportunity) on the Palestinian people, and their cruesome struggles with Zionist and genocide/apartheid. But I disagree, it is during those most horrific occasions that bifurcation happens, and from it something new is born.

    I think the problem is everywhere and can’t be avoided whether you are a Palestinian living in a kind of prison environment, or if you live in Bangkok, or New York City. This is an inescapable problem, but one that finds resolve, sometimes, under the most dire circumstances. Which is why the US has been socially and culturally retarded; it’s predicament has never been dire enough, as it has expanded and reaped and extracted much of the world’s industrial resources.

    But the modern state requires this unsustainable industrial existence, Israel is a perfect example. It cannot have enough water, land, oil, you name the it.

    So, if Palestinians “really want” to have a state of their own, I question the wisdom of that want. But, again, that “want” is, if not mythical, very hypothetical. The world is not a template, it emerges. Maybe a Palestine “state” will emerge, but then, Palestinians will simply be on a rapid road to no where, and have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. But some of this will not be decided by Palestinians or Israelis or the West. Our solutions, those of the twentieth century are hitting a moving wall and it’s coming directly at us.

  15. B99 said on September 11th, 2009 at 8:58pm #

    Max – You have polls?? Surveys and polls of Palestinians show they support the position of Fatah and now Hamas for decades now – the two state solution. Do I need to reprint the quotes of Hamas? Do you understand what Arafat meant when he went before the UN in 1974 (THE SEVENTIES) and offered Israel the gun or the olive branch? You, who admit to knowing little about the situation are going to tell me AND the Palestinians what they really want? In fact, you are going to tell them that what they really want is the world’s first ecological entity? Is that like so totally gringo of you? You want to get past the state system, start at home. You are not going to build post-state societies on the backs of the Palestinians. They are not green guinea pigs. They want what everyone else wants – their own country.

  16. Mulga Mumblebrain said on September 11th, 2009 at 11:07pm #

    I’d say what the Palestinians want, like the Iraqis, is an end to their imprisonment, humiliation, torture, murder, the murder and maiming of their children and the continued studied indifference of Western elites in hock to the Judaic Herrenvolk. If they are released from their torture chamber, I’m sure it will only be in order to be ruled by a thuggish Yankee stooge like Abbas or Dahlan, in the Mubarrak, Saddam, Shah mould, but at least even the worst despot will not treat them with the sadistic cruelty of the Israelis. The element of racial and civilizational contempt will also be absent.

  17. mary said on September 11th, 2009 at 11:56pm #

    Mulga For ABC read BBC. Snap!

    This horror was reported on Palestine Monitor but there was not a mention on the ZBC. Imagine that if an Israeli child had been shot in the chest it would be ZBC’s lead story. Do the words ‘camp’ and ‘watchtowers’ ring any bells?

    http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article1067

    Child Shot Dead By Israeli Snipers
    Palestine Monitor
    7 September 2009

    Israeli soldiers, shooting from a settlement watchtower, shot three bullets into the chest of a Palestinian teenager at the entrance of the refugee camp in which he lived. The boy was then left to bleed for one hour as the Israeli army shot at the Palestine Red Crescent ambulance which was trying to reach him.

    Around 9.30pm on Monday 31 August, Israeli troops opened fire on five Palestinian children walking by a UN School, close to the south-eastern entrance of the camp. The snipers, shooting from a watchtower guarding the Jewish settlement Beit Eil, shot 15-year-old Mohammed Riad Nayef ’Elayan three times in his chest. The boy’s father had been killed by Israeli soldiers seven years ago.

    Dozens of civilians gathered to help the boy, but they were bombed with tear gas canisters. Thirty Israeli soldiers blocked the Palestinian ambulance, coming from Sheikh Zayed Hospital in Ramallah, from reaching the area where the boy lay bleeding. Ambulance driver Osama al-Najjar was shot in his leg, and Ali Al-Qaisi, sustained similar injures, while trying to rescue the victim. There was no help given to the boy for around an hour, then Mohammed was transferred by helicopter to Hadasa ’Ein Karem Hospital in West Jerusalem. Early the next morning, Mohammed died of his gunshot wounds. The other four children who were with him were detained in the settlement until 3am.

    According to eye witnesses, stones were thrown only after Mohammed was shot by the Israeli soldiers, and left bleeding without any medical help.

    An Israeli military spokesman claimed that soldiers started firing, allegedly in self-defense, in response to Palestinians throwing fire-bombs outside the settlement. However an investigation by the Palestinian Center For Human Rights found that all the boys were unarmed. Regardless, it is hard to believe that armed and trained soldiers, inside a fortified tower, was in great danger because of children throwing stones or firebombs, particularly considering that the UN School, where the incident took place, is around two hundred meters from the Israeli outpost. Further, even if the boys had thrown firebombs, surely this did not warrant the death penalty.

    In the last 10 months, three other children have been shot dead by soldiers from the same watchtower which guards the illegal Israeli settlement. Mohammad Ali Abed Al-Fattah Nowarah, aged 16, killed on April 17 2009, Abed Al-Qader Badawi Zeed, aged 16, killed on October 14 2008 and Mohammad Al-Romhi, aged 15, killed on October 15 2008, were all students at the UN school for boys in al-Jalazoun refugee camp.

  18. Synic3 said on September 12th, 2009 at 2:31am #

    Max Shield wrote:
    “I don’t think nation-states are what is called for. There are hundreds throughout the world and they have not answered fundamental human problems”
    ____________________________________________________

    Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are guinea pigs to be subjected to such theoritical meaningless mumbo jumbo.
    Do you have any idea how to convert your too abstract idea to a real fact on the ground.
    There are only two possible solutions to the problem:
    1) A VIABLE seperate Palistinian state.
    2) Single secular state with equal rights to all with the right of return for the Palestinians.

  19. janet said on September 12th, 2009 at 5:00am #

    Mary, the American Indians are American citizens. you cannot say that about the Palestinians living in camps on occupied lands. Make it all one state giving Palestinians rights as full citizens and THEN you can use the American Indian analogy.

  20. mary said on September 12th, 2009 at 5:33am #

    Janet – I am not aware of saying anything about Native Americans here. Perhaps you meant B99 who referred to them yeterday at 2.43pm (above).

  21. B99 said on September 12th, 2009 at 6:15am #

    Yes Mulga, to condemn Palestinians to a life under Israeli culture (political and otherwise) is a fate no others would choose (not even American Jews to any degree). Yet this is the future that awaits Palestinians, a small state now and the slow recovery of their entire homeland, or to cast their lot fully with one of the least attractive cultures on earth. The third option is that the Israelis, knowing no one can stand to live with them, will continue the process of beneficently banishing the gentiles to the desert.

  22. Max Shields said on September 12th, 2009 at 9:01am #

    Synic3 said, “Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are guinea pigs to be subjected to such theoritical meaningless mumbo jumbo.”

    You sound like Margret Thatcher and her infamous – TINA – There’s Is No Alternative. You think nation-states are the only reality, when in fact there are relatively new and have fine tuned the art of propaganda and war.

    When Thatcher said that she was taking about neoliberal capitalism with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    This is not mumbo jumbo and I am not the author of this kind of thinking which is on the move throughout the world.

    It is a pitty that far too many posters here on DV are not tuned into the most pressing needs and fall into a 20th Century mind-set of how things work. There is NO dissence in how things work, just more of the same.

    The Palestinians did NOT have a state prior to the invasion of Zionist into the region. It is a label for a region where people lived, known as Palestinian and Jews, rather peacefully. In fact until the 20th Century much of what we call African and Middle Eastern nation-states did not exist.

    That said, I’m not calling for “going back” but to realize the unsustainability of nation-states. Palestinians may chose to have a state. I’m simply saying that that’s a Western frame that they can either buy into or not. There is NOTHING sacrosant about a nation-state and perhaps we should not only think “out side of the box” but get rid of the f*cking box.

    Calling that mumbo jumbo is pretty weak and is more in line with our empire’s thinking about “nation building” than anything truly progressive to match what confronts us globally.

  23. balkas b b said on September 12th, 2009 at 9:16am #

    ethnocentrism at this stage of human development is not as much a bane, if at all, but serf-master relationship is most lands is our greatest bane.
    Division of people into cultists and noncultists is also more vitiating than nationalism.
    Masterclass nearly everywhere utterly control miseducation and disinformation. That leads to despondency, sense of worthlessness, helplessness, frustration, anger, hate, etc.
    nationalism can wait. Let’s change the structure of society. If we don’t, we can expect worsening for our children and their children for centuries or millenia longer. tnx

  24. B99 said on September 12th, 2009 at 9:54am #

    Janet/Mary – My comment about Native-Americans was in reply to Alan Novick’s comment where he compared their situation with that of the Palestinians.

  25. B99 said on September 12th, 2009 at 10:08am #

    Max – The Palestinians did not have a state prior to the invasion of the zyonz because nobody did. It was a subset of a region in the Ottoman Empire. With the dissolution of the Empire it was then occupied by Britain. Everybody else in the region got a state or at least a UN mandate on the road to becoming a state. Even in Africa, the borders of the European colonies became the borders of the successor states – the only exceptions being those that combined to become larger like Cameroon and Somalia.

    States emerged in Europe with the rise of the mercantile class and the decline of feudal society. Merchants needed the protection of a central power to secure their markets, the delineation of borders and the establishment of a state apparatus being parts of that.

    That Western framework is now the global framework with the exception of a few ‘failed’ states. It’s no longer merely a Western paradigm because its absence creates a political vacuum that surrounding states would be eager to fill. But what IS a western paradigm is the notion of a post-state world. That’s something that must begin at home before imposing it upon a besieged people.

  26. Max Shields said on September 12th, 2009 at 12:18pm #

    B99, I agree. I’m not saying they should have had a state. The point is that nation-states are not the only governing principles and from what we see they carry a bundle of problems.

    Getting a state is not a “gift” but something that should be considered as a governing principle which is not a human need. The human need, for sure, is community. A state can, and has frequently, disintegrated real community.

    But again, this issue of to have or not have a state should be taken on its own merits and not an ideological tug of war. It is a paradigm shift that needs to be thought through, is all I’m saying.

    Some of the global studies that have come out of the UN, some of the very good work out of that dysfuncational institution, bears review and consideration regarding global sustainability.

    We need new ideas, not simply throwing everything into the same old, and frequently failed, bucket.

    (B99, no, post-state world as you call it, assuming you’re referring to the paradigm I’ve addressed, is not a Western creation. It is an indigenous one that has many indigenous owners.)

  27. Max Shields said on September 12th, 2009 at 12:25pm #

    Here’s that report: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment
    http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Index.aspx

    Max

  28. mary said on September 12th, 2009 at 12:28pm #

    B99 Yes I did realise that – btw we have not heard back fromMr Novick have we with his list of ‘falsehoods’.

  29. B99 said on September 12th, 2009 at 12:58pm #

    Everyone on earth with the exception of the Palestinians – who are under occupation – lives in a state society. Even tribal groups are under the aegis of states.
    No state for Palestine is the Zionist position.

  30. Deadbeat said on September 12th, 2009 at 1:09pm #

    Millenium Ecosystem Assessment report is good to see how the rhetoric of “human activity” get to replace “capitalism”. In other words capitalism is not the problem “human activity” is the problem.

  31. Max Shields said on September 12th, 2009 at 1:35pm #

    B99, Perhaps I thought you were capable of discussing options without name calling – I am in no way introducing a Zionist position and resent your name calling…that has nothing to do with the proposal.

    Another example of the limitations of many of the posters here on DV. It is not a dissident site, it is a status quo, raising the same solutions that have plagued human-kind for several centuries.

  32. B99 said on September 12th, 2009 at 1:54pm #

    Uh Max, here’s what you said, “I don’t know that I call someone who believes in a two-state solution a Zionist, but such a solution provides the fundamental sustainment of a state created in an expansionist aggression that will not go away until the very state is dissolved.” That would be to raise the specter that just perhaps I should be called a zionist – and that my position puts me in favor of expansionist aggression on the part of Israel.

    Well, I disagree. I happen to think that NOT advocating a state for Palestine makes one a Zionist. And knowing that a post-state entity in that region is beyond the pale of rational options merely reveals that one who advocates for such really just supports the status quo – that is, pro Israel.

  33. B99 said on September 12th, 2009 at 1:55pm #

    Thanks Mebosa! You do serve some purpose in life.

  34. Max Shields said on September 12th, 2009 at 2:10pm #

    B99, you must learn first to read carefully (it seems this misunderstanding is a lesson that can serve you well outside of this DV site).

    The original article, your use of my quote out of context, was made in response to the assertion that it was some Zionist who were proponents of the two-state. I simply stated that one need not be a Zionist to be advocating for two-state.

    Is that clear? Again, the idea that a sustainable region might call for something other than a nation-state divided by 2 is what I’m addressing NOT your introduction of what Zionists want. I know it’s a bit subtle for some minds here…but hey…for figure!

  35. balkas b b said on September 12th, 2009 at 2:13pm #

    db, yes,
    People exist on one level and a state on another. The label state includes such charachteristics as boundaries, laws, constitution, jurisprudence, police, armed services, spy agencies [terroristic and others], etc.

    People create all that. So fundamental question wld be to ask how, why , and who were these people who created it?
    We know the answer to that. In US, and everywhere else, it had been the largest land owners who have written the constitution and subsequently solely or largely set up other institutions.

    And why? So that the richest people always have the sole or greatest say in what goes on.
    And how? By totally excluding peasants, hunters, fishers, repair people from participation in state building and state management.
    So as db says, problem is people! No state can exist w.o. people! tnx

  36. David said on September 12th, 2009 at 4:36pm #

    Alas, Zionism for Dummies is aptly-named because the reader will have been exposed to an arbitrary smattering of factoids but will be no closer to understanding the origins of Zionism. For someone with patience, Arthur Hertzberg’s “The Zionist Idea” portrays Zionism in the words of those who created it. Walter Laqueur’s “A History of Zionism” is slightly shorter and more readable. Although both books are written by men sympathetic to Zionism, a neutral reader can make his own conclusions. One important thing to remember about Zionism is that it was born the younger brother of German nationalism. Both of these revered “Blut und Boden” and cultivated a racialist identification with “unser Land.” When you investigate the ideological underpinnings of Zionism, it’s more coherent and even scarier than Martin’s recital of some of its disembodied sins and excesses.

    which Zionists have done, but it will

  37. Synic3 said on September 12th, 2009 at 6:35pm #

    Max Shield,

    Can you describe please, how this stateless entity will look like and and how its compenents will interact together and its relation to the inhabitants of “its domain??!!”.
    How this stateless entity will solve the Palestinian/Israeli problem?

  38. Max Shields said on September 12th, 2009 at 7:04pm #

    What I’m proposing is a clean slate. No ready made, off-the-shelf solutions ala US imperial nation-building with one teaspoon of nation-mix and 3 cups of water bull.

    If you just look at the land and imagine what it could be then start from there. This is not about a fuzzy lack of state. It’s about rethinking the land, the water, the health and well being of the people, about interdependence and community. It’s about bringing all of life back into the human condition.

    I’ve described this a number of times before Sync3, as a bio-region:
    Bioregionalism is a system which uses identifiable natural regions as the basis for self-managed political units. The demarcation of these bioregions takes into account climate, soils, drainage, vegetation, mineral resources and importantly the cultures and societies that occur in these regions. A bioregion is thus an identifiable unit that integrates the human systems with non human systems.

    As far as how this solves the Palestinian/Israeli problem, well that problem is born of nation-building. You don’t solve it by doing more of the same. I think bio-regions are the future, at least a viable solution to the human condition vis a vis the rest of the planet.

  39. Max Shields said on September 12th, 2009 at 7:13pm #

    The “problem” beyond the solution, is that there is a paracitic pathology known as Zionism which cannot be accommodated in any form. But another state is going to “solve” that problem.

  40. Max Shields said on September 12th, 2009 at 7:19pm #

    correction: But another state is NOT going to “solve” that problem.

  41. Shabnam said on September 12th, 2009 at 11:34pm #

    [Herzl went on the found the World Zionists Organization, whose intent was to establish a Jewish state in Palestine and to make itself into proto-government from which the actual state government would seamlessly emerge upon the establishment of the Jewish state.]

    You are right Mr. Martin. Herzl tried even before World Zionist Organization to put his hand on Palestine but Abdul Hamid, the Ottoman Sultan, denied him. Abul Hamid was aware of Jewish aristocracy’s intention on taking over the wealth of his empire. He also was aware of Rothschilds’ control of British Empire where was looking to destabilize the territories under his rule to engineer crisis to destabilize the empire towards partition to bring the wealth of Ottoman Empire under its control. Herzl try to bribe Abul-Hamid with Jewish aristocracy’s money where was gained by stealing other people’s resources like Diamond, Gold, Silver, to get permission for Jewish emigration to Palestine in 1882 but Abdul-Hamid refused.
    In 1901 the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow and two other Jewish
    influential leaders came to visit Abdul Hamid, they offered to give
    him the following:

    1) Paying ALL the empire’s debts
    2) Building the Navy of the Ottoman empire
    3) 35 Million Golden Liras without interest to the empire
    In Exchange for:

    1) to allow Jews to visit Palestine anytime they please, and to stay
    as long as they want “to visit the holy sites.”
    2) to allow Jews to build settlements where they live, and they
    wanted Jews to be located near Jerusalem.

    Abdul Hamid refused again and sent them a message:
    {Tell those impolite Jews that debts of the Ottoman state are not a shame, France has debts and that doesn’t affect it. Jerusalem became part of the Islamic land when Omar Bin Al khattab took the city and I am not going to carry the historical shame of selling the holy lands to Jews and betraying the responsibility and trust of my people. May the Jews keep their money; the Ottoman’s will not hide in castles built with the money of the enemies of Islam.}

    The Jewish money was an important asset to finance the
    destruction of the Ottoman state to build the Zionist state in
    Palestine. Therefore, in order to fight this vicious group it is necessary to destroy their source of strength meaning economic base where is built on usury and stealing other people resources by privatization.
    The Jews did not give up on Abdul Hamid, later in the same year, 1901, the founder of the Zionist movement, Theodor Herzl, visited Istanbul and tried to meet Abdul Hamid. Abdul Hamid refused to meet him and he told his Head of the Ministers Council

    {Advise Dr. Herzl not to take any further steps in his project. I cannot give away a handful of the soil of this land for it is not my own, it is for all the Islamic Nation.}

    Abdul Hamid is respected by Muslims because he refused Zionist’s demand for Jewish emigration to Palestine. Thus, British Empire became very active in DIVIDE AND RULE in order to destroy the empire using COMMITTEE OF UNION PROGRESS (CUP) where Jews of Salonika played a vital role in the demise of the empire.
    Salonika was an Ottoman province from 1864 to 1912 where hold large number of Jews, especially Donme, who helped the British Empire to bring the empire down.Donme were Jews who converted to Islam but remained faithful to their own faith.

    The Donme trace their origins to the messianic rabbi Shabtai Tzvi, who converted to Islam in 1666. Unlike other Muslims, the Donme maintained a belief that Shabtai Tzvi was the messiah, practiced kabbalistic rituals. They also followed the requirements of Islam, including fasting at Ramadan and praying in mosques. The ‘Eighteen Commandments,’ ordinances articulated by Shabtai Tzvi, were observed by the Donme as late as the early twentieth century and served as the basis for the group’s organization. The Donme actively maintained their separate identity.
    They all lived in a particular area of Salonika, between the residential quarters of the Muslims and those of the Jews; they had their own schools, clubs, social centers, and philanthropic institutions. Most Salonika donmes were educated and many were active in the affairs of their city. In the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey, anti-Semitism was not widespread.

    Many Arabs and who were looking for ‘reforms’ were active in the CUP. Later, the Zionist puppet, Young Turks, came from CUP to take over and bring changes according to British Empire’ demand, secularization, and change in dress code. Palestine as Abudl Hamid predicted came under the control of Zionist Jews. Arabs who were active in the CUP were not motivated by Arab Nationalism, contrary to the lies of Western ‘scholars’ according – to Hasan Kayah – rather they were seeking reforms. According to Kayali, Sharif Husayn’s dedication to Arab independence is highly exaggerated and his initial role as a puppet of the Ottoman government understated. Kayali argues that the Arab revolt, initiated by sharif Husayn, was not motivated by nationalism but by personal ambition of Hussein and other Arab notables. But the Zionist Jews were agents of the British Empire and its master, Rothschilds, working towards the demise of the Ottoman Empire to get hold of Palestine In the elections of 1912, the CUP lost, but the Young Turks came to power through a Coup by CUP.
    Today, Zionists are playing the same musice and treating Iran like ‘Ottoman Empire’ making Persian as the enemy in order to bring the Iranian traitors and fools to help them in divide and rule game.
    I am warning the Iranian fools not to give this vicious group any hand and everyone must see what has happened to Iraq in order to see what zionists are looking fro. This vicious group
    Today, the zionists have created so many “CUP” like NED, Open Society, Freedom House, Documentation Center, Journalist without Borders, so on and so forth to create chaos to push the world toward ‘World Government’ according to ‘protocol.’

    http://www.nogw.com/download/_07_jews_armenian_holocaust.pdf

  42. Deadbeat said on September 13th, 2009 at 1:01am #

    balkas b b writes…
    So as db says, problem is people! No state can exist w.o. people! tnx

    I’ve never said “problem is people”. That is essentially what the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment report is saying. It is saying the problem is “human activity” — no shit?! That right humans!!! That like saying solar activity create heat.

    What this kind of fallacy is confusing cause and effect. There are various kinds of “human activity” however what the Assessment explanation does is conceal the effect of Capitalism — especially Capitalist inequality. Therefore “human activity” mask inequality.

    This kind of framing conceal injustices and will yield solutions that do not address injustice. We see this kind of fallacious framing with Zionism and we see this same tactic with ecological issues.

    This kind of rhetoric is abhorrent and it will not bring justice to the people who need it the most.

    thx.

  43. Synic3 said on September 13th, 2009 at 3:03am #

    Re: Max Shields said on September 12th, 2009 at 7:04pm

    Max,

    Your solutions is beautiful on paper and nonsense in the real world.
    First, how this can be done??!!
    Second, how people will share in this “bioregion” and how fair sharing
    in resources is guaranteed.
    That solution will require a more evolved homosapiens down the evolution trail and cann’t be implemented by the current homosapiens.
    Again, with all due respect, that idea is theoritical nonsense and it will solve nothing.

  44. Max Shields said on September 13th, 2009 at 4:35am #

    And Synic3, what is your perfect plan?

    Note it was not a state that the indigenous people lost, and are losing.

  45. bozh said on September 13th, 2009 at 6:28am #

    db, my apology,
    You quoted another org ab. “people being the problem”.
    tnx

  46. bozh said on September 13th, 2009 at 6:55am #

    Calling a spade “instrument” instead of spade can be likened onto calling theft of land with murder “imperialism” or “zionism”.
    “Theft of land” automatically evokes in one’s mind an entirely different thought/image than the term “imperialism”.
    Theft of land evokes the notion that also italians, spaniards, french, persians, russians, chinese, mongols, and many more, stole land by murder.
    And, of course, that land robbers feel good being in such ‘illustrious’ company and also as members of League of Nations and now UN and who actually also control UN!
    So, why keep talking ab. what zionism IS? When even most seven-year old kids wld quickly understand “robbery with intent to murder”
    Most of the books ab. zionism are written in order so that children wld not understand what ‘zionism’ does or even what it IS!
    We need to write for children and for unschooled adults! tnx

  47. Shabnam said on September 13th, 2009 at 12:15pm #

    The best way to fight against Zionism is to attack their financial base so can not survive and expand. Therefore, expose those companies’ spokeperson who say we are committed to divestment from Israel but do not honor their own commitment.

    [The U.S. pension fund giant, TIAA-CREF, confirmed in statements to the media on Friday that it divested from Africa Israel Investments, owned by Israeli billionaire Lev Leviev, earlier this year.
    The fund's investment in Africa Israel amounted to only $257,000, so the financial effect of the divestment is minimal. The news of the divestment came as the Israeli firm was suffering a deep financial crisis, having recently announced that is unable to meet its liabilities to its bondholders Advertisement Adalah NY noted in its press release that "Despite the recent divestment from Africa-Israel, the new June 30th TIAA-CREF report indicates that the fund continues to invest clients' money in a number of companies supporting Israeli settlement activity including Israel Discount Bank, Cellcom Israel, Bezeq Israeli Telecommunications Corp, Bank Leumi, and Motorola, among others."]

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1114143.html

  48. Max Shields said on September 13th, 2009 at 2:10pm #

    Yes, and it was land, not a state that was stolen from the Indigenous people in the Palestinian region.

  49. mary said on September 13th, 2009 at 2:25pm #

    Amira Hass who saw her mother being driven to the trucks with others and the German women ‘looking from the side’, writes this account of a tragedy from Cast Lead. It is at once horrific yet compelling in the description of the barbarity and violence meted out to the Samouni family that day in early January.

    We must not watch from the side.

    http://uruknet.com/index.php?p=m57893&hd=&size=1&l=e
    ‘I fed him like a baby bird’

  50. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 13th, 2009 at 2:48pm #

    one of the most astounding notions or discoveries i’ve come across is to distinguish what anything IS from what anything does.
    Once one begins to explain, enumerate [traits of], define, or redefine any ism or any entity, the process never ends or ends in anger, frustration, etc.

    That’s why so many books are written ab. what bible, quran, nazism, communism, socialism, capiatalism, bible, torah, et al, Are and seldom properly describe to us what the followers of these ideologies do.

    Irritants crop up such as: what’s an angel, communism, democracy, capiatlism, priest, scientist, writer, zionist, imperialist, et al.

    Even a crawling baby when it sees a crumb, orange peel, stick, etc., wants to know solely what they do, how they feel, etc.
    Baby cld care less what all that IS.
    In other words, the nature/god endowned the baby with natural order of evaluation: experiencing a peel; i.e. learning by seeing, touching, tasting, hearing, smelling comes first.
    after that comes naming and describing and defining isms probably never.
    I’ll now ask my wife to define capitalism or socialism! What can we expect?
    A scream of agony? Get a dirty or annoying look? Or probably she’ll say: i don’t care ab. that.
    If anyone doesn’t believe me, ask people what s’mthing IS?! No, you better not! tnx

  51. Shabnam said on September 13th, 2009 at 2:57pm #

    Howard Zinn said the following regarding election 2008:

    In this situation we are desperate for change. So even though Obama does not represent any fundamental change, he creates an opening for a possibility of change. That’s why I am voting for him, that’s why I suggest to people that vote for him. To me it is a waste of Ralph’s energy to throw himself into the electoral process ….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_M2W5SisPs

  52. Synic3 said on September 13th, 2009 at 8:02pm #

    Max Shield,

    Here AGAIN my suggested solution:
    1) A VIABLE seperate Palistinian state.
    2) Single secular state with equal rights to all with the right of return for the Palestinians.

  53. MEBOSA RITCHIE said on September 14th, 2009 at 6:16am #

    Here AGAIN my suggested solution:
    1) A VIABLE seperate Palistinian state. I AGREE .IT’S CALLED JORDAN WHICH ALREADY HAS 70% PALESTINIAN POPULATION

    2) Single secular state with equal rights to all with the right of return for the Palestinians.
    THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE PALESTINIANS IN JORDAN
    UNLIKELY TO TO BE SECULAR AS EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THAT REGION IS A MUSLIM STATE APART FROM ISRAEL

    I SUSPECT IT WON’T BE A SOLUTION AS THE ARAB STATES HAVE ALL PLEDGED TO GET RID OF ISRAEL,THE JEWISH STATE,EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF A PALESTINIAN STATE
    NICE TRY THOUGH

  54. b99 said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:51am #

    Mebosa – By referencing Palestnians in Jordan you clearly understand that Jordanians and Palestinians are two different people, thus you also understand that Jordan is not Palestine. Palestinians, of course, belong in Palestine (for the time being called Israel).

    Turkey is a secular state with an almost total Muslim population. Israel is only quasi-secular – its religious sector is extremely powerful in state affairs.

    All Arab states in the Arab League (22 Arab states plus Fatah and Hamas) have offered full recognition to Israel in return for pull-out from illegally-occupied Palestine and negotiation of refugee status. Israel rejects this offer. The Arab League has said this offer will not be on the table forever. If Israel continues to reject, it has earned whatever wrath is visited upon it.

  55. b99 said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:19am #

    Synic – No sense wasting your time discussing bio-regionalist solutions to Palestine’s Israel problem. It’s a middle-class American ‘deus ex machina’ non-solution, i.e. crackpot suggestion. What it means is that all others may have a state – even Kosovars and Kurds – but the Palestinians have to join the Jews in an imaginary post-state (non)-entity. Said bioregion – formerly known as Israel and the West Bank – will not even constitute a true bio-region – which entity would necessarily include Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon (or actually parts of these states, as other parts would belong to other bioregions).

    It’s a Zionist’s dream – the notion that the Palestinians should give up their struggle for a state of their own for some half-baked notion of a life of Jews and Palestinians together in bio-regional bliss. Guess who gets to run that!

    Bio-regionalism begins at home.

  56. b99 said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:32am #

    Shabnam- Good history there. A couple of caveats. As powerful as Rothschild was, he was not in control of the British Empire. He was a major actor who knew how (with maximal money and influence) to get his way. Rothschild liked to think he was the British Empire, but him saying so does not make it so.

    Shariff Hussein may have acted out of selfish impulses (don’t all of us to some degree?) – but no matter – the correspondence between him and McMahon of the Brits clearly calls for non-interference by outsiders in Arab SW Asia – a demand agreed to by the Brits. At that point Palestine was destined to be a state, or part of Greater Syria, or part of an even larger Arab political arrangement. The Balfour Note was a betrayal of Hussein and all Arabs.

  57. Max Shields said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:29am #

    Synic3,

    The operative word is “VIABLE”. My assertion is that you cannot create a viable 2nd state. That is the ruse, and the Zionists know it. It’s the old kick the can down the road. It’s not serious, and it sounds so good. It’s like voting for Obama…people just wanted sooooooo much to believe that they stopped thinking critically about what was being said, or not said.

    This idea of a bioregion-basis for a sustainable area for the indigenous people will become less an idea and more an imperative. We are working on borrowed time with the non-renewability of the resources essential for the modern-state.

    B99, speak for yourself…stop telling others what to address.

  58. MEBOSA RITCHIE said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:32am #

    b99-some truths–and i know you make up your own truths-

    pre-1948 there were no palestinians;there were arabs and jews
    post 1948 there were arabs and israelis-jews
    after 4 attempts and failure by the arabs to destroy israel suddenly the arabs became palestinians whimpering and sobbing to the world that their arab brothers have shafted them as they couldn’t defeat israel.
    nobody wants the arabs who left israel-not the syrians,the jordanians,the lebanese,the egyptians who have killed more “palestinians” than the israelis
    but folk like you love them because you can use them to help hate the jews
    it won’t work;there will be no palestinian state because the arabs refuse to have ANY non muslim entity in the middle east
    the arab league have not offered recognition to israel
    they could have done it pre-1967,but didn’t so why will they now
    only yesterday the arab league confirmed they will continue to boycott israel
    israel doesn’t need them or you or your like

  59. Max Shields said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:43am #

    Synic3 are you offering your 2nd solution as an alternative to the first? If so, we are closer on this issue than your objections would lead one to believe.

  60. Max Shields said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:51am #

    MEBOSA RITCHIE

    While I think the Zionist state of Israel is a criminal state, I can see one point you make as an assumption that while it does not pertain to many, could have some merit.

    I think there are many on DV who believe there is a mighty injustice in the ME and it has to do with the killing of children and innocents with impunity by a fully armed military – we all know that Israel has the largest military force in the region, with perhaps the most sophistated – primarily US made – weaponry, add to that a full fledged army, air force, naval forces NONE of which your neighbors, the Palestinians have. This is complete asymmetrical warfar. Of course guerrila warfar is the only force that can effectively combate the superiority of an occupier such as the state of Israel.

    So, there is really no claim you can make that would in any stretch of the imagination supercede that truth. Period.

    However, people are people. There may be those among us, who care not a twit about this horror waged on the Palestinian children. The sheer disproportionality of the casualties speaks clearly to this, no double talk will change this truth – BUT, as I was saying, there are those who care less about Palestinian justice and are bent on torpedoing Jews regardless of who they are or what they say and do.

    But MEBOSA RITCHIE, it does not appear that you have been the butt of that issue.

  61. b99 said on September 14th, 2009 at 12:00pm #

    Max – Speak for yourself, stop telling me what to address.

  62. b99 said on September 14th, 2009 at 12:11pm #

    Mebosa – Some REAL truths.

    Pre-1948 there certainly was a Palestine, that’s what EVERYBODY called it – there certainly was NO Israel. Pre-colonization Palestine was less than 2% Jewish (Jews had left a thousand or more years earlier).

    There were no attempts by Arabs to destroy Israel. Israel began ALL wars but one – and that was the 1973 war by Egypt and Syria to regain their own land under Israeli occupation since 1967 – not an attack on Israel. Other wars were begun by Israel.

    If you think that nobody wanted the Palestinians (not really true) what do you think if the Jews in central Europe? Did the Germans want them? The Poles? The Russians? I don’t think so. So how does that square with you getting Palestinian land?

    Yes, the ARab League has offered FULL recognition of Israel as per 2002 Saudi offer. Arab states did not recognize Israel prior to ’67 because they exist on stolen land and carried out genocide. They must not be rewarded for that. But Fatah has accepted Israel since the 1970s and Hamas accepts Israel as well – but Israel refuses peace because it is a rogue state. The boycott will stop when Israel comes to the table. And you WILLcome to the table – sooner or later – the clock is ticking.

  63. Max Shields said on September 14th, 2009 at 1:33pm #

    B99 I am speaking for myself. You made reference to my posts regarding bio-regions. Now if you want to have a mature discussion on the topic fine, otherwise….

    PLEASE, bug off!

  64. Max Shields said on September 14th, 2009 at 1:43pm #

    who the hell cares if there were 2% jews in the region prior to 1948? What’s the relevance? Let’s go through the species that existed before and after 1948….how about the extinction rate….

    This is the type of anal talk that a quasi academic offers up as important. There are people in the region KILLING other people…many children.

    The truth, is that land is not owned by anyone. Hard to swallow for those bent on hierachical empire organizing principles. The ISSUE is not who OWNS the land, but who was pushed off the land by external forces who then proceeded to reign ethnic cleansing and genocide.

    Who made the land? B99? Palestinians? Jews? NO. This is the PROBLEM. And until we face the REAL problem, we’ll not ever solve it. This is about land, not who owns it, but who has full access to the regions resources. That is the fundamental problem, and it cannot be solved by carving up states (and as I’ve said, and B99 you’ve never refuted it with facts). Such a carving is not VIABLE, so we are left with a cat and mouse game that goes NO WHERE.

  65. B99 said on September 14th, 2009 at 4:02pm #

    Max – You were instructing me on what to address. So bugger off.

    As for who cares if Jews were 2% of Palestine’s population pre-colonization, certainly Mebosa does. He’d very much like it if we functioned under the illusion that Jews made up a large percentage of Palestine’s population. In fact, anyone interested in solving Palestine’s Israel problem (exclusive of silly bioregionalists) should be interested in understanding that the reason Palestinians have the right to Palestine is because they were the people of that country – the 98%.

    The land – legal or illegal – is now overwhelmingly OWNED by Israelis – in fact, the quasi-state organization, the Jewish National Fund. If you don’t believe in land ownership let’s start with yours.

    The states are ALREADY carved up bozo, and if you wanted your precious bioregional solution to work, you’d have to unite far more than Israel and the West Bank. But if you want regional cooperation on the environment you won’t get it until Palestine has its own state (something you are against).

  66. Max Shields said on September 14th, 2009 at 4:16pm #

    B99, now we’re going back to name-calling. What states are already carved up? Gaza? West Bank? are those the areas we’ll call the Palestinian state? Separated by Israel? So, problem is solved?

    You don’t get it. There isn’t going to be a two-state solution that works for Palestinians.

    Land is never “owned” by someone. They may dominate it, and exclude others, but legal or illegal “ownership” is the problem. Israel excludes the Palestinians from access to the land they once freely accessed. That is the fundamental issue.

    A state is a fabrication which creates more problems than it solves.

    What is it about bio-regions that you don’t like? Why is this an “ideal” when, in fact, it’s natural, as opposed to states which are unnatural?

  67. b99 said on September 16th, 2009 at 11:21am #

    The states of the region are Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel – and these have all been in place since the 1930s and 1940s. Jordan under Hussein released the West Bank to pursue its own negotiations (thereby largely relieving itself from the wrath of Israel). Thus, the region is long ago carved-up. The Palestinians will either achieve what they want: 1) a state of their own – and if not viable they will likely return to union with Jordan, and 2) the refugees return to their homes in Israel – (or compensated) in which case the demographic change within Israel and the region will likely alter the politics of that country.

    If the Palestinians don’t achieve what they want, that is if their leadership or Israel’s backs them into an untenable position, the Palestinian people will likely begin pushing for a one-state solution, vote with their feet, or both. But neither of these scenarios will play out before the 2-state solution is either achieved or becomes a dead horse.

    Land is not owned by anyone if you think we don’t live in a capitalist world. But for those who understand that we live under the aegis of capitalism, very little land on this planet is not owned. That’s a fact, not an opinion – and does not require magical thinking. Israel DOES forbid Palestinian access to land – but even where Palestinians are permitted access, they are forbidden to purchase that land in 93% of Israel.

    A state is not a fabrication. I know a spot where you can leave the US without going thru customs, but outside of that place your ‘state membership’ credentials are examined and challenged all the way. The nation-state system emerged as the capitalist successor to the fuedal kingdoms and empires. The state-system makes the world safe for capitalism. It is real and it is here to stay for the forseeable future. If you want, you can try passing thru international airports without documents, or try to avoid income and sales taxes, and try passing your home and yard to others without legal paperwork. But you will find yourself behind state-authorized bars in no time.

    Bio-regions are a fine idea. At this point they may be tried within the state system (though that’s highly unlikely) – but they will not be tried in lieu of the state system in your lifetime. The direction that states around the world are going in is toward supra-nationalist bodies such as the European Union, or similar arrangements elsewhere on the planet. These arrangements have nothing to do with bio-regions but have a lot do with commerce and mutual defense (including non-aggression against each other).

    There is nothing ideal about states and they were not fore-ordained, but are instead the result of human socio-economic processes as Europe moved from one economic mode to another. In this, they are no more or less natural than bio-regions. In fact, I think were a bio-region to survive the onslaught of its neighbor states, it too would start forming the accoutrements of a state.

    In the case of Palestine, the bio-region consists of a good deal of the Levant and would necessarily include all of the West Bank, but only parts of Israel, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. But who has brought THAT to the negotiating table?

  68. lance watson said on September 20th, 2009 at 6:36pm #

    Also recommended is

    Ralph Schoenman

    The Hidden History of Zionism

    http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/ch01.htm

    It is not accidental that when anyone attempts to examine the nature of Zionism – its origins, history and dynamics – they meet with people who terrorize or threaten them. Quite recently, after mentioning a meeting on the plight of the Palestinian people during an interview on KPFK, a Los Angeles radio station, the organizers of the public meeting were deluged with bomb threats from anonymous callers.

    Nor is it easy in the United States or Western Europe to disseminate information about the nature of Zionism or to analyze the specific events which denote Zionism as a political movement. Even the announcement on university campuses of authorized forums or meetings on the subject invariably engenders a campaign designed to close off discussion. Posters are torn down as fast as they are put up. Meetings are packed by flying squads of Zionist youth who seek to break them up. Literature tables are vandalized and leaflets and articles appear accusing the speaker of anti-Semitism or, in the case of those of Jewish origin, of self-hatred.

    Vindictiveness and slander are so universally meted out to anti-Zionists because the disparity between the official fiction about Zionism and the Israeli state, on the one hand, and the barbarous practice of this colonial ideology and coercive apparatus, on the other, is so vast. People are in shock when they have an opportunity to hear or read about the century of persecution suffered by the Palestinians, and, thus, the apologists for Zionism are relentless in seeking to prevent coherent, dispassionate examination of the virulent and chauvinist record of the Zionist movement and of the state which embodies its values.

    The irony of this is that when we study what the Zionists have written and said – particularly when addressing themselves – no doubt remains about what they have done or of their place in the political spectrum, dating from the last quarter of the 19th century to the present day.

  69. lance watson said on September 20th, 2009 at 7:13pm #

    Slavery and Rabbinic Judaism
    Saturday, 05 August 2006 17:29 Joachim Martillo

    Among the Zionist interlopers in stolen Palestine we find many practices that look like slavery including abuse of guest workers and a massive sex trade. Some argue that such systematic human rights violations have their origins in the Talmudic mind set, but we probably do not have to look much further back than recent Eastern European history to understand Zionist sociopathy.

    Slavery (usually called serfdom) continued in the Russian Empire until 1860. It lasted somewhat longer in Rumania, Bulgaria, and Ottoman territories. After the Soviet revolution, serfdom was essentially re instituted with collectivization. Probably not. The Czarist and Ottoman states both were essentially slave-based gunpowder empires. The Soviet Union was essentially a slavery-based state, but it attempted to produce its own weaponry.

    White slavery as an ethnic Ashkenazi profession (hardly ever practiced by other Jews in E. Europe and the Russian empire) seems to grow out of the kinderkhapper criminal organizations, which did not exist among Jewish Tatars, Jewish Georgians, Jewish Persians or Jewish Ibero-Berber refugees in the Balkans and New Russia. The kinderkhapper (child-snatchers) were a response to the peculiar form of military draft of the Czarist Empire.

    Nevertheless careful study of medieval sources indicates that ethnic Ashkenazim, proto-ethnic Ashkenazim and Jews in general were heavily involved in the slave trade in Slavs up until 1453 when the Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople and closed down the main slave trade routes for Slavs into the Mediterranean. Martin Luther and the Wars of the Reformation closed down the minor routes through Germany approximately 50 years later.

    Modern Rabbinic Judaism probably develops in tandem with the ancient Slave trade. The Khazars adopted various forms of Judean religion in the 8th and 9th centuries because it facilitated Slave trade with the Byzantines and the nascent Islamic states. The transformation of Geonic Judaism into Rabbinic Judaism and the developing predominance of Rabbinic Judaism over other currents of ancient Judean religion are all inextricably linked to the willingness of the Geonim to accommodate slavery and the slave trade in their developing halakhic system.

    All major Jewish communities in the Mediterranean and Europe were centers of the slave trade. Jewish banking develops out of the slave trade (debt slavery). The spread of Catharism and the expulsion of the Jews from England all relate to the slave trade. The disproportionate representation of (Ibero-Berber not Ashkenazi) Jews in the Atlantic slave trade is probably a reverberation of a traditional trade.

    After the Slavic slave trade breaks down, we see members of the Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazi group move into estate management (i.e., taxing and exploiting serfs in lieu of selling slaves) and distribution of goods (instead of distributing slaves). Overall, Eastern European ethnic Ashkenazim, even as their status as an elite group declines, manage to maintain higher incomes, higher levels of education and longer life-spans right into the 20th century in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the USA.

    As a frustrated or disenfranchised elite with more money and more education than coterritorial non-Jews, ethnic Ashkenazim manage to do tremendous damage in Europe, the Russian Empire, Palestine and the USA. ethnic Ashkenazi involvement in mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing provokes an extreme reaction in Germany, Eastern Europe, and liberated Soviet territories, but after WW2 ethnic Ashkenazim quickly regroup with the theft of Palestine to become transnational suprastate or extrastate actor in international politics by subverting the political systems in the USA, Canada, the UK and Germany.

    Unless democratic transformation takes place in the West to completely neutralize racist ethnic Ashkenazim and Zionist interlopers via disenfranchisement, removal from Palestine, expropriation and internment, increasing conflict is practically guaranteed between the West, subverted by ethnic Ashkenazi and Zionist political-economic elites, and the East, enraged by Zionist depredations and by US foreign policy essentially created by these same elite

  70. lance watson said on September 20th, 2009 at 7:31pm #

    David said on September 12th, 2009 at 4:36pm #

    Alas, Zionism for Dummies is aptly-named because the reader will have been exposed to an arbitrary smattering of factoids but will be no closer to understanding the origins of Zionism. For someone with patience, Arthur Hertzberg’s “The Zionist Idea” portrays Zionism in the words of those who created it. Walter Laqueur’s “A History of Zionism” is slightly shorter and more readable. Although both books are written by men sympathetic to Zionism, a neutral reader can make his own conclusions

    Check out

    The Center of the Matrix
    Tuesday, 15 September 2009 02:43 Phishna

    http://www.therebel.org/opinion/race/the_center_of_the_matrix_2009091546054/

    How did this all start?

    Imagine a religion born of hate. Imagine that this hatred was so intense that it followed humanity through time and still is affecting the world today. Imagine that this hate was codified into religious law and became the basis of our reality today. That religion is Judaism, the most hateful memeplex every invented by the human mind.

    In a nutshell, Judaism is a tribal code of hate toward all other tribes, it is hate for that which is outside of itself.

    Hate is the result of one thing and only one thing: the loss of control either real or imagined. If you really think about what hate actually is, it is the perception of loss of control.

    The emotion of hatred is also based on fear, it is fear expressed. War is this mind fear expressed into the physical realm. The reason that the world is so preoccupied with war is that Jews dominate the mental planes. The Jew money machine and the wars waged to prop it up are second order results of the Jewish “spirit” of hate codified into law. Even the unconstitutional war in Iraq is “legal” under our current mindspell.

    We might have been taught that murder is immoral and against god’s commandments, but the truth is we love war because of our mindset. War is our anger expressed, so what is causing this anger, what is making us so angry and hateful that we are willing to spend our time waging war? Good question, to find the answer go find a happy person who was not taught the Bible.

    We can also say unequivocally that hate is the opposite of love. The emotion of hatred is the starting point of Judaism and the devil is in the details.

    Hatred toward an individual or hatred toward a rival tribe was later expressed as hatred toward rival nation states. Like any memeplex, Judaism keeps evolving toward more perfect hate, that’s why post Torah holy books like the Talmud and Protocols are more and more radical. Some say the Protocols are a forgery, but the truth about the Jews is how the Jews behave right now toward the Palestinians and how they treat America, exactly like the code in the Protocols

  71. deceschi said on September 21st, 2009 at 12:42am #

    @lanpse watson

    G’d, spare us the hateful anti-Semitic libels and trite theories of brain-washed anti-Zionist Morons and make it sure that they will bite their perfidious tongue twice and once more and more before opening their mouth again to spite their venom.

    Amen.

  72. mary said on September 21st, 2009 at 2:35am #

    Why do the Zionist trolls frequently misspell the names of other correspondents?

    eg Mulga becomes Mugla
    Lance becomes Lanpse
    etc

    These are not just typos. Are they are done deliberately perhaps to belittle or depersonalize?

  73. deceschi said on September 21st, 2009 at 3:28am #

    @mary

    exactly: my name was already transformed by you Israel- and Jew-haters to desechi, deseschi, deteschi, and so on and so forth. So why do anti-Zionist deliberately belittle and depersonalize? Or are these just typos?

    And why do you anti-Zionists have the insolence to spread anti-Semitic garbage on the web? Is this maybe a way to depersonalize and belittle – or just typos?

  74. mary said on September 21st, 2009 at 3:56am #

    D E S E S C H I (hope I have spelt that right!) have a look at this You Tube before it is taken off by the Lobby.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im7nUSLY_hk

    Interview with James Traficant

  75. deceschi said on September 21st, 2009 at 5:21am #

    De Ceschi, my beauty, de Ceschi (I know it’s difficult for you to spell Italian names, so for me Anglo-Saxon names).

    Isn’t it symptomatic that your (non-)response to my question about systematic anti-Semitic derailments by anti-Zionists the kind of lapse watsom is a ideologically old-fashioned video-interview with this guy named Traficant? A guy who was in prison for seven years for bribery, filing false tax returns, racketeering, and other unpleasant things? A man with has a criminal record who, surprise surprise, attacks Israel and Jews charging them for the sins and the gaps of the USA? Is this your record and the record of the average Anti-Zionists too, beyond the evident trivial mystification of the excentric character as “one of few men who has balls in America”, as written in a comment below?

    Try it maybe again with better “trafics”, Maria, pleeaase.

  76. lance not Lanpse watson said on September 21st, 2009 at 8:16am #

    deceschi said on September 21st, 2009 at 5:21am #

    De Ceschi, my beauty, de Ceschi (I know it’s difficult for you to spell Italian names, so for me Anglo-Saxon names).

    Isn’t it symptomatic that your (non-)response to my question about systematic anti-Semitic derailments by anti-Zionists the kind of lapse watsom is a ideologically old-fashioned video-interview with this guy named Traficant? A guy who was in prison for seven years for bribery, filing false tax returns, racketeering, and other unpleasant things? A man with has a criminal record who, surprise surprise, attacks Israel and Jews charging them for the sins and the gaps of the USA?

    ….It is not accidental that when anyone attempts to examine the nature of Zionism – its origins, history and dynamics – they meet with people who terrorize or threaten them…….

    …..Imagine a religion born of hate. Imagine that this hatred was so intense that it followed humanity through time and still is affecting the world today. Imagine that this hate was codified into religious law and became the basis of our reality today. That religion is Judaism, the most hateful memeplex every invented by the human mind.

    …….Hate is the result of one thing and only one thing: the loss of control either real or imagined. If you really think about what hate actually is, it is the perception of loss of control……

  77. MEBOSA RITCHIE said on September 21st, 2009 at 8:43am #

    MARY—and i feel i have spelt it right–answer the question
    why do you hate jews?

    And why do you anti-Zionists have the insolence to spread anti-Semitic garbage on the web? Is this maybe a way to depersonalize and belittle – or just typos?

  78. lance watson said on September 21st, 2009 at 11:41am #

    The next entry on the same blog:

    Jeff Blankfort said on September 20th, 2009 at 2:07pm #

    I have not commented on this very long thread in a long time but I feel remiss in not having let others know that Deteschi (sic) seems to be interested in getting into endless arguments with what he considers to be erudite arguments in defense of the indefensible and which the rest of us of identify as recycled ziobabble. I ran into him on another site before he popped up on this one. Is this a coincidence on Deteschi’s part or is he one of a number of Jewish volunteers who have been either recruited or have volunteered to defend Israel on progressive web sites? I would advise not responding to his messages as a solution to the immediate problem. But that’s just me and I though a word of warning was overdue..

    Jeff

    deceschi De Ceschi, my beauty, de Ceschi you have been outed!

  79. deceschi said on September 22nd, 2009 at 1:48pm #

    “deceschi De Ceschi, my beauty, de Ceschi you have been outed!”

    Not so elementary, my dear watson, not so elementary.

  80. bozhidar balkas vancouver said on September 22nd, 2009 at 2:49pm #

    why do some 6bn people hate ‘jews’? And the answer appears: Because they are 100% innocent! How innocent are we, the haters of ‘jews’?
    I know me, so i speak for me: I am ab. 0001% innocent and that’s why people love me.
    And nature is forgiving. One asks her once to forgive and she forgives. But ask god or an owl [wise or otherwise] to forgive, u get a resounding NO.
    Now, no shoe throwing! sheshe! chinese for danke.

  81. Jake USA said on October 25th, 2009 at 12:47pm #

    The first suicide bombing was in 1994???

    LMFAO!!!!

    1929 Hebron Massacre (during the British mandate) started the war between Arabs & Jews. Many believe that the British were responsible for fomenting hatred between Jews & Arabs, who were previously quite civil toward each other. The British empire has a long history of pitting man against man, and this is just one more example of that.

    This conflict will rapidly conclude when both sides WAKE UP!!

    Jews are fighting for Israel because their religion obligated them to, NOT because of the Holocaust. Arabs are fighting for Israel because they believe that the Israeli government is satanic (or the “little satan”).. Sooner or later the Arabs will realize they are fighting wars for the “infidel” and they will finally allow their Jewish brothers to live peacefully in their tiny God-given land.

    Peace!