Accosted on Kingsway (Benny Morris)

[oberliner]

Last week I had a rather ambivalent experience at the London School of Economics which may point to something beyond the personal—indeed, about where Britain, and possibly Western Europe as a whole, are heading.

I was invited to lecture on the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948. A few hours earlier, a fire had broken out in a nearby building and Kingsway was sealed off, so the taxi dropped me off a few blocks away. As I walked down Kingsway, a major London thoroughfare, a small mob—I don't think any other word is appropriate—of some dozen Muslims, Arabs and their supporters, both men and women, surrounded me and, walking alongside me for several hundred yards as I advanced towards the building where the lecture was to take place, raucously harangued and bated me with cries of "fascist," "racist," "England should never have allowed you in," "you shouldn't be allowed to speak." Several spoke in broken, obviously newly acquired, English. Violence was thick in the air though none was actually used. Passersby looked on in astonishment, and perhaps shame, but it seemed the sight of angry bearded, caftaned Muslims was sufficient to deter any intervention. To me, it felt like Brownshirts in a street scene in 1920s Berlin—though on Kingsway no one, to the best of my recall, screamed the word "Jew."

In the lecture hall, after a cup of tea, the session, with an audience of some 350 students and others, passed remarkably smoothly. Entry required tickets, which were freely dispensed upon the provision of name and address. The LSE had beefed up security and several bobbies stood outside the building confronting the dozen or so demonstrators who held aloft placards stating "Benni Morris is a Fascist," "Go home," etc. Inside, in the lecture hall, surprisingly, there was absolute silence during my talk; you could have heard a pin drop. The Q and A session afterwards was by and large civilized, though several Muslim participants, including girls with scarves, displayed anger and dismissiveness. One asserted: "You are not an historian"; another, more delicately, suggested that the lecturer "professes to be a serious historian." However, the overwhleming majority of the audience was respectful and, in my view, appreciative (to judge by the volume of clapping at the end of the lecture and at the end of the Q and A), but a small minority jeered and clapped loudly when anti-Zionist questions or points were raised.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/curbing-muslim-intimidation-5496

This story is a first-person account from Benny Morris, oft-quoted historian/author on topics relevant to this board.

[bemildred]

1. Interesting. Ambivalent indeed.

It sounds to me like the protestors did it exactly "right", no assault or battery, but plenty of verbal nasty, they are getting more savvy, right up to the edge but not over, but there is always the fear of a bomb belt lurking in the back of your mind, I suppose.

[oberliner]

2. Here's the incident from the other perspective

On Tuesday evening, June 14th, Palestinian rights campaigners in London produced a determined and visible show of opposition when Israeli historian Benny Morris came to the London School of Economics to expound his repugnant views of Arabs and his whitewashing of the Nakba.

Earlier that evening, Palestinian rights campaigners sitting in a coffee shop near the LSE, spotted Benny Morris walking down Kingsway, a busy street near Holborn Tube Station. This was too good an opportunity to miss; in a flash, campaigners gathered around him and took turns to put questions directly to Morris about his writings and statements on the necessity of ethnic cleansing, his call for the caging of Palestinians, and the racist overtones of his descriptions of Arabs.

Morris ignored the questions and instead marched on. If he was hoping to get away with that, he was mistaken. Campaigners simply followed him and continued to put questions to him loudly and asked for him to reply. This carried on for about 200 yards and created a spectacle for the public. Morris then bolted into the LSE building along with his rather confused and bewildered minders. Morris had muttered ‘right’ a couple of times and that was the sum total of his engagement; his demeanour throughout had been more like a criminal trying to hide from the spotlight rather than an academic confident of his ground and willing to take up the invite of open debate.

http://londonbds.org/2011/06/16/its-no-walk-in-the-park-for-benny-morris-in-london/

[bemildred]

4. Well, people disagree about these things, don't they?

I don't really have a problem with Morris, in fact he deserves some credit, but I don't feel any need to defend him here either. You want to be a big shot and lecture people about controversial issues, you don't automatically get adulation along with the package. I suppose it is a bummer for him, since he has pissed off the irate contingent on both sides.

[aranthus]

3. They may have been Muslims, but their language isn't.

Does anyone think it typical of Muslims that they yell that people with whom they disagree are "fascists" and "racists" even though Morris is neither? I think that's a tactic that they learned from from the Left.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. I didn't realise there was a *typical* Muslim behaviour

I'm pretty sure the terms fascist and racist are used by people regardless of whether they're Muslim or Jewish or any other religion. Also, why would Muslims 'learn' those words from the Left? Isn't it possible for Muslims (even those swarthy ones with broken accents from non-racist Morris' account) to be part of the Left?

Do you find what Morris had to say in this interview just a bit on the bigoted side? While I think as a historian, his work has been great, as a social commentator and a person, he reeks to high heaven...

Survival of the Fittest? An Interview with Benny Morris

[aranthus]

6. Obviously, Muslims know words like fascisgt and racist.

However, the tactic of smearing political enemies by calling them by such terms appears to me to be the province of the Left (the Right has its own terms, but not "racist" or "fascist".) I have never heard of anything like that in the Koran or the teachings of Mohammed. If anyone can point to such, I would be happy to be corrected.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. So what? I don't think those words appear in the Bible either.

So, what do you think is typical of Muslims? Are they all supposed to just sit round only using words that appear in the Qu'ran or something? And as I pointed out previously, there are Muslims who are leftists, just like there's Christians, Jews, Hindus etc who are leftist. I'm really not following yr line of reasoning on this...

Did you read the interview with Morris that I linked to in the post you replied to? Calling Morris what he is isn't smearing him at all. I think he's a bigot, so how is that smearing him? Anyway, I really am interested to know if you think Morris is a bigot after reading 'Survival of the fittest' and seeing his views on 'transfer' or ethnic cleansing of Israeli-Arabs...

[aranthus]

8. Well that was my point.

They were referred to in the article as Muslims, and they may have been. But the tactic of calling the opposition "fascist" or racist" doesn't come from Islam or Judaism or Christianity. It comes from the Left. You hear Leftist Arabs, Jews, Muslims and Christians doing this. The common denominator is Leftist ideology.

I will look at the interview and get back to you.

[tootrueleft]

10. Is that anything like calling people critical of israeli policy 'anti-semites'?

[aranthus]

11. Exactly what do you mean?

Give me an example of someone who has been critical of Israeli policy being called an antisemite.

[tootrueleft]

12. George Galloway, whom I've heard defending orthodox jewish communities.

[aranthus]

13. I meant more specific.

What did he say, and who said he was being antisemitic and why? Was he simply criticizing Israeli government policy or was he saying something else?

[tootrueleft]

14. Oh, more specific than answering the question you asked by naming one person???

you asked who, i gave you a person. Sounds pretty specific to me...

[aranthus]

15. Except he's a terrible example.

He's not merely critical of Israeli government policy. He's critical of Israel's existence. He's earned being called an antisemite. If he's all you've got, then you've got nothing.

[shira]

16. George Galloway - May 2011 - in video showing he wants Israel destroyed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES1snlzOysc&feature=player_embedded

[aranthus]

17. Yeah, I know about George Galloway.

I was trying to give tootrueleft a chance to explain himself. Thanks for the video.

[tootrueleft]

26. Where in that clip is israels destruction mentioned?

[aranthus]

27. Be honest.

Shira did not say that Galloway said he wants Israel destroyed. Shira posted that Galooway showed he wanted israel destroyed. Galloway said that Palestine is from the Jordan to the sea; that it is the whole country. Well, if the whole country is Palestine that doesn't leave any room for Israel does it?

[azurnoir]

28. I would suggesst that the video be watched as you are paraphrasing Galloway's comments

in a way that to be very polite is IMO misleading

[aranthus]

30. He says that Palestine is the whole country.

How is it misleading to claim he says that. He's damn clear about what he means. What other possible meaning do you think that there is?

[azurnoir]

33. Thank you I found the entire quote you paraphrase on MEMRI's site

Our next land convoy, which will arrive, God willing, in Gaza on the 27th of December this year, will be called "The Return Convoy," because we insist that Palestine is not only Gaza, the West Bank, and what they call "East Jerusalem." Palestine is the whole country and the whole people.
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2966.htm


eta will you actually try to claim that while the whole country means Israel the wholew people means only Arabs?

[shira]

100. Video of Galloway's support of Hamas....

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

[tootrueleft]

35. Galloways stance is for a single state called israel-palestine with equal rights for all.

How is that wanting to destroy israel?

[aranthus]

37. He wants an Arab state in place of the Jewish state.

How is that not antisemitic?

[azurnoir]

39. Is that what Galloway means when he says the whole people? n/t

[aranthus]

44. That's a good question.

I think Galloway is engaging in deceit here. There is no "whole people" of Palestine in the sense that there is an American people or a French people or a Jewish people or a Palestinian people. There are two peoples in historic Palestine; Palestinian Arabs and Jews. Galloway must know this. Therefore, when he talks about a single state he must know that he's talking about an Arab state with a Jewish minority.

[tootrueleft]

41. Back up your accusation with the relevant quote please aranthus.

[aranthus]

43. Here is what he has said.

Our next land convoy, which will arrive, God willing, in Gaza on the 27th of December this year, will be called "The Return Convoy," because we insist that Palestine is not only Gaza, the West Bank, and what they call "East Jerusalem." Palestine is the whole country and the whole people.
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/2966.htm Thanks to azurnoir for posting the link.

He's also all for the right of return, as I'm certain you are as well. Put those two things together and you have an Arab state with a Jewish minority.
Since that is the overwhelmingly likely outcome, and since Galloway is more than smart enough to realize the implications of what he's saying, it's fair to conclude that that is what he wants. He claims that he wants a secular state, which means non-religious. However, "Arab" and "Jewish" are ethnicities (I'm aware that Jewish is also a religion, but Jewishness is somewhat unique in being both). Notice that neither Galloway, nor anyone else that I have heard demanding a "secular" state, has never called for a non-ethnic state. That's because he knows that the state would be majority Arab, and would be an Arab state by default.

[tootrueleft]

46. In other words you're telling us what YOU RECKON he wants. No evidence, of course.

Quelle surprise.

[aranthus]

48. Of course there's evidence. Now you're just in denial.

He's said what he wants. A single state with right of return. Isn't that what you want? Do you understand that there are more Arabs who will be living in that state than Jews? There is only one seriously conceivable result of having one state with a right of return, and that is an Arab state.

[tootrueleft]

50. Three quarters of america is christian. Is america a christian state?

[aranthus]

53. America is a Judeo-Christian state, at least in part.

Those ideas are part of the American ideology. However, you are again mixing apples and oranges. No one that I know of suggests that Christianity constitutes a people hood. I have never heard anyone refer to the "Christian People" in the same way that they refer to the "Jewish People" or the French, Italians, etc. But let's back up for a minute. What you are doing is trying to "prove" that the Jews are just a religion rather than a people. First of all, it's way presumptuous of you to be trying to tell Jews what they are. Second, it's so obvious that the Jews are a people with a unique language, point of origin, history, culture, etc., that your effort is doomed to failure. Third, assuming that the Jews regard themselves as a people, don't you think that they would consider it anti-Jewish (antisemitic) to deny it?

[tootrueleft]

57. Its a secular state. But we all know that too, don't we.

[aranthus]

60. It's a secular government. n/t

[tootrueleft]

71. Cough- enshrined seperation of church and state - cough.

[shira]

77. Why doesn't Galloway call for one secular state in front of all Gazans? n/t

[tootrueleft]

82. Ah yes, the zionist equivalent of "try sayin dat in saudi araybyurr" rethug bollocks statement.

He says it on the airwaves and on international television. Oh, and he brings convoys of aid to the gazans. Yep, they really have it in for ol' George LOL!!

[shira]

99. So why does Galloway send funds and support to Hamas if he wants a secular state?

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

[Shaktimaan]

94. of course not.

But christianity is a religion. In the context of Israel Judaism is a nationality.
This distinction is key to understanding both Zionism and the conflict as seen from Israel's perspective.

[azurnoir]

108. Bullocks Judaism is a created 'nationality' based on a religion

one can not be a Jew if ones ancestors did not observe the Jewish religion

[Shaktimaan]

112. and what about you statement...

excludes judaism from being a nationality?

[azurnoir]

114. It is a 'nationality' based on a religon one cannot be an 'ethnic' Jew unless ones

recent ancestors were Jews, how many generation of secularism does it take before that at least foe most becomes irrelevant?

[shira]

115. You reject Jewish nationality but accept Palestinian nationality w/o a problem? n/t

[Shaktimaan]

116. good question.

I have no idea. But why does it matter?

One probably can't become an ethnic Japanese person unless ones recent ancestors were Japanese. Is Japanese no longer a nationality in your book?

The fact that people argue over the exact meaning of the term in no was disproves Judaism's acceptance and usage as a modern nationality. Look, not EVERY nation has to have the exact same rules govern their understanding of the term for it to be used universally. Judaism's rules differ from a lot of other accepted criteria, primarily because Judaism is one of the sole existing nations to outlive a thousands year old diaspora. It stands to reason that you'd expect some differences.

But again... so what?

The term itself is famously difficult to pin down. It astounds me that liberal people on this board argue so vehemently against Judaism being a Nationality. I mean, at the end of the day it is really up to the people in question to decide if they are a nation or not. And there is plenty of substantiating evidence to support the fact that many, many Jews have thought of themselves in just this way for generations. I was raised with this belief, and it is the philosophy that underlies Zionism. To so nonchalantly sit there and type that I (and by extension, all my people), are mistaken is beyond ludicrous... It is insulting.

At the very least you could offer up some kind of comprehensive argument. (You would still lose it, of course, but at least you would have made the effort.)

[azurnoir]

117. I am hardly veing ah non-chalant

but I also see that the argument has been conveniently and se changed my discussion started over a week ago as you well know because you waited a week to reply so just to remind you here is your comment

But christianity is a religion. In the context of Israel Judaism is a nationality.
This distinction is key to understanding both Zionism and the conflict as seen from Israel's perspective.

In the context of Israel Judaism as a nationality is clung to as a means of maintaining a prejudicial domination over the minority population of nonJews Israeli laws reenforce that, a constant 'them' vs us state quite literally, Israeli ID cards state Jew or not newer ones supposedly don't but due to protests by Israeli Jews that will be changed back Israel as a country boasts of being a liberal democracy because of having advanced women's and gay rights however recent articles in Haaretz call just how liberal Israel is in respect to women and advances in gay rights seem 'strangely' to coincide with external pressure in the area of Palestinians and Arabs rights as if there is a trade off or more like distraction of some sort

my point is what is wrong with simply being Israeli? rather than Jew or not Jew? I can not think of any other liberal democracy that so openly carries laws that discriminate against their minority population and then pats it self on the back because it is so liberal

eta may I remind you that it was you who informed me a while back that I am eligible for RoR in Israel with all of the privileges that come with but it strikes me as ludicrous that someone born in Israel who not a Jew does not no matter how many generations their family may have lived in what is now called Israel

[Shaktimaan]

119. I feel like we have this conversation over and over

The entire concept of having nation-states was so that people could protect "their own" in a format that operated within our increasingly modern world. Take it further back... most modern states are based on specific tribes and their desire to assert and defend themselves. There is nothing wrong with this. Ultra-modern states like the USA and Australia (all born out of some form of colonial past incidentally), have a different philosophy that is both easier to understand yet harder to really pin down. But I won't get into that here.

my point is what is wrong with simply being Israeli? rather than Jew or not Jew?

Nothing at all. And I think it is a noble goal. But Israel wasn't invented to create another America in the MidEast. It was formed specifically to protect the rights of one of the world's most long suffering and oppressed people. THAT is its primary mission. If one day anti-semitism were to disappear, and the obvious need for Jewish self-determination dissipated then, THEN you would have an argument.

But right now your question sounds as naive as Rodney King weeping "Why can't we all get along?"

Ideally Israel's Zionist mission wouldn't interfere with the rights of the non-Jewish citizens at all. Obviously this isn't yet the case. But to be fair in your criticism Israel is still embroiled in a war split down these same ethnic lines that exist within its own state. Free rights means equal responsibility... aka: fighting against Israel's enemies, who would likely be Arab and could even by one's own family members. We'll probably see significant changes in these areas once the larger I/P conflict is resolved.

In the context of Israel Judaism as a nationality is clung to as a means of maintaining a prejudicial domination over the minority population

That's ridiculous. How would oppressing Israel's Arabs benefit Israel in any way? Seriously, in the context of Israel, Judaism is considered a nationality on par with French, Italian or Palestinian. That is the whole point. HOWEVER that does not mean that all of Israel's citizens aren't guaranteed equal treatment under the law. They are. This isn't to say discrimination doesn't exist. It does. But it does everywhere else too, and Israel is not particularly worse than other western nations.

I can not think of any other liberal democracy that so openly carries laws that discriminate against their minority population

What laws are you referring to?

Try not to mistake laws that favor non-citizen Jews at the expense of non-citizen Arabs. THAT certainly does happen. But there's nothing wrong with it. Many states have an interest in the well-being of their diaspora members and looking after them has a long and established tradition in international law. It's not considered racist or anything like that, if that's what you're getting at.

but it strikes me as ludicrous that someone born in Israel who not a Jew does not no matter how many generations their family may have lived in what is now called Israel

Ludicrous? Really? Why? It happens all the time. Indians can't go to Pakistan. Poles couldn't go to Germany. Jews couldn't go to Poland. Israelis can't go to Palestine. etc.

What can I tell you? Write a letter to Brahma.

[Shaktimaan]

122. it seems obvious...

that should Israel's population shift to one that's primarily composed of non-Jews then the very purpose of its creation (and by extension, Zionism), has failed. After all, it would be nearly impossible to offer the kind of semitic safety net Israel employs to mitigate the still prevalent spectre of anti-semitism which many Jews continue to face today.

Not to mention the Palestinians. They would lose their state as well, for something like the 28th time.

In short, he favors the unilateral(?) destruction of two proud, independent nations to form a single, chaotic state steeped in generations of hate and distrust, by following the same blueprint that we have seen soaked deep in red time and time again throughout history. Yet this particular magnanimous plan would WORK because he's adding a special twist. Ready for it? He sees his magical (and-not-at-all-racist), state practicing "Equal rights for all!" Isn't that just CHARMING? (Why didn't we think of that?) It's positively ADORABLE! I just want to put a little candle in it's frosting and then murder it for being so retarded.

But seriously, on second thought, let me know when he's got it set up because I would just love to telepod over for my 180th birthday (before I start getting old, you know?), to learn how to ultra-surf down by where the dead sea used to be. It's always a fun trip because outside of the US almost no one ever sees Jews anymore so I'm considered kind of a cool relic. It's a nerdy sort of cool, sure, but since the Palestinian girls got liberated I'm considered great arm-candy for any rebellious teen who's looking to drive her square parents to Jihad. Guess who's coming to dinner!... am I right? Ha Ha! Luckily they'll just sit there, fuming, while I fondle her because there's free rights and they can't do anything to stop my besmirching thousands of years of tradition. Good thing for that!

Well, I'm off to bed, but good luck with your whole crazed, Bolsevyk-ey sounding, eugenics thingee. Sounds like a HOOT!

[tootrueleft]

23. Does being critical of israels actions make someone an antisemite?

[aranthus]

29. Be honest. Deal with what I actually post instead of trying to mold it to your agenda.

What I said is that Galloway does more than than criticize Israel's actions. He criticizes Israel's existence. That is antisemitic. That is why I originally asked you to point to someone who was called an antisemite merely for criticizing Israeli government policy. Instead you post Galloway, who is clearly hostile to the existence of the Jewish state. Do you think that's legitimate? If were to say that Israel is the whole country, with no room for the Palestinians, don't you think that would be considered anti-Palestinian? How about if I said that Palestinians were not a nation entitled to their own state? Wouldn't that be anti-Palestinian? So how is being against the existence of the Jewish state not anti-Jewish (that is antisemitic)?

[tootrueleft]

42. LOL! "He criticizes Israel's existence. That is antisemitic". No it is not.

Anymore than criticising robert mugabes regime makes you a racist.

Isn't equating israel with jews as a whole frowned upon by the mods. Or is it just when gentiles do it?

[aranthus]

45. Now we come to the crux of it.

If I were to say that the Palestinians didn't deserve their own state (criticizing Palestinian existence) you'd call me anti-Palestinian. There is a huge difference between criticizing a single leader like Mugabe and claiming that an entire nation has no right to exist, or should be replaced by some other nation. Galloway denies Jewish national rights. He doesn't deny Palestinian national rights; in fact he wants them to have the whole country. Presumably, he doesn't want England to disappear; only the Jewish state.


By the way, this entire discussion has proved my main point in "Leftists Need to Have the Talk" thread over and over. There is a huge unbridgeable gap between being a Leftist and being a Jew. Your position comes totally from the Left. Judaism points to the opposite conclusion.

[tootrueleft]

47. I wouldn't call you anti-muslim,the way you're calling someone criticizing israel an anti-semite.

[aranthus]

49. But you would call me anti-Palestinian, and that is the equivalent.

You're treating Jewishness as if it's only a religion and that isn't true. We are talking about two peoples: Palestinians and the Jewish people. Denying Jewish national identity and rights is no different than denying Italian national identity and rights.

[tootrueleft]

51. Bollocks, Anti-israeli would be the equivalent, not anti-semite. But we all know that.

[aranthus]

55. No. the Left "knows" that, but it hasn't got a clue.

Israel is the Jewish state. It was created by the Jewish people living in Palestine. The denial of Jewish national identity is per se antisemitism.

[tootrueleft]

59. Thats some pretty revisionist jewish supremecy filth right there.

Funny how your diatribe doesn't mention the arab-israelis. Or does israels jewish identity require you ignoring a quarter of its citizens.

Kinda like talking about americas white, christian identity. But theres nothing racist, no siree. Those damn arabs should know their place in the jewish fatherland, right?

[aranthus]

61. Where do you get this crap from?

First, there is nothing supremacist about saying that Israel is a Jewish state, anymore than than saying that France is a French state is supremacist. It is merely a fact that Israel was created by the Jews of Palestine. How does that ignore Arab Israelis. Does saying that France is a French state mean that I'm ignoring French citizens of Arab descent? Second, this Kinda like talking about americas white, christian identity. But theres nothing racist, no siree. Those damn arabs should know their place in the jewish fatherland, right? is just clean out of Left field. Of course, I never said anything about "America's white christian identity" or anything like it. No, there is nothing racist about a state with a Jewish identity. In fact, you seem ot be engaging in the same tactic as the mob that acosted Morris. When you run out of ideas, call your oppenent a racist. So let's see if we can move this discussion to a rational plane.

1. Do you admit that a so called "single secular state" would be a majority Arab state by default?
2. If not, why not.
3. If yes, then why should the Jews have to give up their national identity so that the Arabs can have the whole country?
4. Do you at least recognize why Jews would consider that idea anti-Jewish?

[Dick Dastardly]

87. Well the EU's Commision on racism and intolerance does not agree with you

in their definition of what constitutes anti-semitism as well as how it manifests itself in regards to Israel.


Here are just two of the many items

Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor;

Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;

http://www.webcitation.org/5mYcsxZaK
http://www.webcitation.org/5mYZH56QA


I think I will accept the EU rather than your usual hyperbole and non sequitor arguments.

[shira]

98. The EU def'n is obviously a zionist plot to whitewash zionist crimes against innocents. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

107. Jewish supremacy! I have that book.

It's by David Duke.

Now, how is admitting that a state has a fundamental connection to a specific ethnicity or nation in any way revisionist or indicative of racism? Most states are formed this way. It's practice has never been considered bigoted. No one is saying anything bigoted about the Arab-Israelis. It is considered common knowledge that they did not participate in the development of Zionism or the founding of Israel. Certainly no one is ignoring them.

Do you deny that a Palestinian state would be connected to the Palestinians?

[Ken Burch]

66. No it isn't.

The way you prove you're not an antisemite is to oppose discrimination against and persecution of people who are Jewish. Nothing else is required.

Support for Zionism is not inseparable from opposition to antisemitism. The two are entirely different questions.

[shira]

76. So if Morris says he opposes discrimination and persecution of Muslims and Arabs, then he cannot be

...considered racist, right?

[Ken Burch]

86. He compared the Palestinian people collectively to a wild animal that must be penned up.

that PROVES he's not against discrimination against Muslims and Arabs. A person can't say he opposes such discrimination and still defend either the transfers of '48 or the Occupation. And Israel's survival would not be jeopardized by admitting that either of those things were wrong.

No one who self-identifies as an "anti-Zionist" supports treating Israeli Jews like the Israeli government has treated Palestinians. Those who back a unitary state(which I don't because at this point there's too much animosity to make it work)favor a democratic state in which everyone lives as equals. It's racist to assume that Palestinians and Arabs in generally are pathologically incapable of every living as civilized, democratic peoples. After all, if the barbarians of Christian Europe could finally learn that after 1945(And remember, Christian Europeans treated Jews far worse and for far longer than Arabs or Muslims ever did anywhere on the Earth), anyone can do it. All people are capable of being decent to each other if allowed to breathe free.

[shira]

90. Wait, the flotillistas enthusiastically hosted Gilad Atzmon recently...

http://ustogaza.org/events/u-s-boat-to-gaza-west-presents-gilad-atzmon/

...but in your opinion that means nothing and Morris is still a bigot no matter what?

[Dick Dastardly]

88. See post 87. The EU does not agree with you n/a

[Shaktimaan]

91. Note the difference...

between making anti-semitic statements and actually being an anti-semite. The two are not interchangeable.
Consider someone who makes racist statements out of ignorance versus someone who openly identifies themselves as a racist.

Someone can be anti-racism and yet still make bigoted or racist remarks.

Certainly rejecting Zionism is a form of anti-semitism. It denies Jewish people the right of self-determination. Just as opposing a Palestinian state would be considered an anti-Palestinian platform.

[Recursion]

83. No, it's just not

The denial of Jewish national identity is per se antisemitism.

Making crap like that up is a sign you've already lost. Anti-semitism has nothing to do with political questions about the ethnic makeup of this or that state.

[Dick Dastardly]

89. See post 87. The EU does not agree with you n/a

[azurnoir]

52. Denying Jewish national identity and rights is no different than denying Italian national identity "

yes it is different as anyone regardless of ethnic origins who obtains Italian citizenship is Italian including Jews, not true with Jewish national identity one must either be born "Jewish" however that is defined or convert religiously.

[aranthus]

54. Now you're conflating citizenship with national identity.

Assuming that you are Caucasian, if you move to Japan and obtain citizenship, then you will be a Japanese citizen, but there's no way that you would be Japanese. If I move to Italy and obtain citizenship, then I am an Italian citizen, but there's no way that the locals are going to consider me Italian, because I have no Italian ethnicity. America may be the only exception to that on the planet, because we are a non-ethnic nation. America is defined strictly by its national ideas.

[azurnoir]

58. your obfuscating and making assumptions

but one that reveal a rather ethnocentric mind set IMO. just because that is true in the 'Jewish" dtate does not make it true everywhere else most modern are becoming more open and IMO America and Israel are[/i[ the exceptions to that

[aranthus]

62. What am I assuming?

That national identity in most countries is based in part on ethnicity? Have you traveled much? It is absolutely true in most European countries. More so in places like Japan and Korea. And in Arab countries it's at least what it is in Europe. And you think that America is actually more ethnocentric than most? That it is less of an open society (ethnically)? Seriously? America has no ethnicity in its self definition. We are strictly a people of ideas, rather than blood. To be American is what you believe. What society do you actually think is less ethnically based than America?

[azurnoir]

81. In America the 'ethnicity' has become American

and if you travel much you would realize that or if you knew many Black Americans

[Shaktimaan]

120. WOW!

This is so naive I can barely believe it!!!

In America the 'ethnicity' has become American and if you travel much you would realize that or if you knew many Black Americans

Ummmm... so you don't see any cultural differences within America based on race? You haven't noticed any racism or political issues related to "immigration" (re: thinly veneered xenophobia), or arguments over affirmative action?

You REALLY don't see any marked cultural differences between black and white communities?

If you honestly don't, then I really need to know where the fuck you live. I'm from Long Island, New York, I grew up in both Roosevelt and then later Rockville Centre and saw both cultures close up.

America has very ridgid subdivisions of ethnicity. But besides that, America isn't even a country based around any specific ethno-cultural tribe. Go somewhere that does... Like Japan, or Cambodia or Germany or Vietnam or Poland or Italy or Greece or Turkey or Syria or Iran or Morocco or so on. There is nothing ethno-centric about having a distincive ethnicity, you know.

[azurnoir]

123. what a ridiculous answer that shows quite the lack of knowledge

there are if you look beyond the surface cultural subdivisions with in same nationality ethnic groups in any country including Israeli Jews will you really try to foist off that one off on us please do I implore you. I can not help but note you name 11 countries will I now be require to illustrate the difference in each country, is that why you include so many? go ahead call it false then all you prove IMO is your own ignorance as to cultures other than your own apparently cloistered one which is what exactly?
as to racial differences in America you seem to set a great amount of store by that one

[Shaktimaan]

121. on edit:

I think it is statements like sarah Palin's when she disparages half our country as being not real Americans that make your assumption so difficult to swallow. I could not disagree with your premise more.

So I'm giving you a free present. A walking tour of Borough Park and Crown Heights anytime this summer. You'll be able to witness four somewhat insular communities living in close proximity to each other here in Brookyn. Black, Chasidic, Chinese and Hispanic. I guarantee that none will be drinking miller lite.

[azurnoir]

124. I can walk less than 1/2 a mile from my own home and do better

let's see Black, Somali, Hmong, Laotian, Egyptian, Mexican, Cambodian shall I go on? go a full mile and I can also include Lubavitch, Russian and Ukrainian and your right Miller Lite isn't all to popular Heineken mixed with Carabao or M-50 Asian energy drinks really it's not as bad as it sounds oh and a couple Cambodians who prefer Khmer BTW we know make this home brew called snake juice but that's another story

but at the end of the day we're all effing Americans

eta you seem to assume that because I live in Minnesota which is one the whitest states in country I have no contact with other cultures, but I live in 'the cities' not the suburbs other of either and the cities both Minneapolis and St Paul are quite different than the rest of the state

[Ken Burch]

65. You don't have to support the existence of the State of Israel just to prove you don't hate Jews

It's absurd to reduce the entire Jewish world to Zionism and Israel.

And all you have to do to prove you're not an antisemite is to oppose discrimination against and persecution of Jews. Period.

[Shaktimaan]

92. sorry...

but racism and bigotry in general are not nearly as simplistic as you make them out to be. Nor is anti-semitism or racism confined to "hatred."

[Ken Burch]

97. Of course racism and bigotry aren't simplistic

And I don't personally support the proposal for a unitary democratic state.

But saying that racism and bigotry aren't simplistic does NOT lead to the unchallengeable conclusion that a person opposed to antisemitism is obligated to back the nationalist movement that claims to act in the names of the victims of antisemitism. If it did, you wouldn't see Holocaust survivors who take an anti-Zionist position.

The real answer to all forms of prejudice is to fight for a world without it, which also means fighting for a world without injustice. Nationalism, in the end, can never give us that world. The fact that antisemitism continues to exist after decades of Israel's existence makes that case for me.

Finally, if support for Israel was the way to fight antisemitism, you wouldn't have seen so many antisemites(like Balfour, Lloyd George and, arguably, Harry Truman)backing the Zionist cause. Some people back the existence of a "Jewish state" because they want to live in a Judenrein state. So it's even LESS simplistic then you thought.

[Shaktimaan]

104. huh?

The fact that antisemitism continues to exist after decades of Israel's existence makes that case for me.

The creation of Israel wasn't supposed to eradicate anti-semitism. It was supposed to offer a solution for its victims.

It seems a little ridiculous that you expect Zionism to result in the end of racism as we know it in order to justify its existence.

[Ken Burch]

105. It was a response to the idea that a person has to support Zionism

To prove that that person opposes antisemitism.

If Israel's existence hasn't really done much to stop antisemitism(and if, in fact, a case can be made that some of the actions of the Israeli government may have exacerbated it, especially when combined with that government's insistence that it acts in the name of and is inseparable from all Jewish people on the planet)than that calls the assertion that a person must support Israel's existence to prove they're not an antisemite into question.

(I do support Israel's existence, but reject the idea that those who want to see it replaced with a democratic unitary state are antisemites).

[Shaktimaan]

106. Here's the thing.

Saying that one's rejection of Zionism is not an anti-semitic belief is sort of like saying that opposing equal rights isn't racist. Zionism is equal rights for Jewish nationalism. Rejecting it is implicitly anti-semitic, regardless if the person likes Jews, sees himself as progressive or has the best of intentions in mind. Just as one can make a racist comment without disliking black people, anyone can hold an anti-semitic belief without hating Jews. Bear in mind that it is entirely possible (and common), to hold anti-semitic or racist beliefs due to ignorance as opposed to animosity.

If it did, you wouldn't see Holocaust survivors who take an anti-Zionist position.

Why not? That's like saying Black Republicans could never support policies that oppress black people. It happens. Incidentally, very very few Holocaust survivors are anti-Zionist. But finding the odd Uncle Tom out there does not validate racist beliefs.

especially when combined with that government's insistence that it acts in the name of and is inseparable from all Jewish people on the planet

What are you talking about? When has Israel insisted that it acts in the name of all Jewish people in the world? You make these kinds of crazy statements all the time. I have no idea where you get your ideology or facts from.

The real answer to all forms of prejudice is to fight for a world without it, which also means fighting for a world without injustice.

Yeah, why is it that this argument only seems to come up when people argue against Zionism's legitimacy? Needless to say it seems rather naive to suggest that Jews would be better served by fighting against global prejudice instead of supporting self-determination.

The fact that antisemitism continues to exist after decades of Israel's existence makes that case for me.

Actually, I think it makes MY case... The existence of anti-semitism proves the need for a Jewish state. And the fact that Israel's existence is responsible for rescuing millions(!) of Jewish refugees (who would have otherwise been killed, left stateless, died of famine, etc.), makes the case for Zionism difficult to refute.

Some people back the existence of a "Jewish state" because they want to live in a Judenrein state.

Then isn't it good that Israel exists? How would Jews fare in a state run by people who despise them? (Oh wait, we already know.)

(I do support Israel's existence, but reject the idea that those who want to see it replaced with a democratic unitary state are antisemites).

That's fine. They may not identify as anti-semites, but supporting the dissolution of Israel IS an anti-semitic belief. (Just as refuting Palestinian self-determination is anti-Palestinian.) Especially when you consider the probable fate of Jewish refugees without Israel. Look at the lives of Palestinian refugees in Arab states... how can denying them a state be anything but anti-Palestinian? Would you tell them that a better solution would be to work towards eradicating prejudice from their refugee camps? There is no difference between their need for self-determination and Jew's. (Except perhaps that Jewish refugees would have far fewer options than even the Palestinians.)

[Recursion]

78. Being critical of Israel's existence is by definition anti-Semitic? Who knew?

Are we all anti-Kurdites also?

[shira]

79. Are you critical of other nations' existence, and if so, care to show us your criticism of them?

See, if your answer is no then ask yourself why it's only Israel's existence that you're critical of?

[Recursion]

80. I'm critical of attempts to form Kurdistan, so yes; read the post for the rest

I'm also critical of attempts by the Walloons to form their own state, as well as the Yazidi and the Hutu. Turkish Cypriots. Western Sahara. The Quebecois. I don't approve of Tuareg attempts to form their own state. As far as currently-recognized nations, Macedonia and Kosovo both come to mind, along with Liberia, (going back into the past) Apartheid-era South Africa (though the residents seem to have opted for a state with the same borders, which isn't my place to criticize), the Sinhalese should not have a Sinhalese state in Sri Lanka... do you want me to keep going? There are plenty of nations who for various reasons don't and/or shouldn't have states.

[Ken Burch]

96. Some days, I'm critical of MY country's existence

And think that it needs to be radically restructured, perhaps unrecognizably so in political and economic terms, to redress the injustices that built it.

To me, that's what progressive non-Zionists are saying...including and especially the Jewish progressive non-Zionists. Those people have seen what they thought would be a state that embodied their dreams turn into a cynical mockery of everything they stand for...and I can understand how hard it is for them to believe that there's any reason to think that the damage can be undone without something like the creation of a unitary democratic state.

The best way to respond to them is not to call them bigots or to make the absurd statement that they loathe themselves, but to fight as hard as you can AS A ZIONIST to end the Occupation and to end all the unjust treatment inflicted both on Palestinians and on the Israeli Arabs. Doing that wouldn't endanger Israel's security-indeed, it would strengthen it. What endangers that security more than anything is the attitude I see in your posts-that Palestinians have to keep being subjugated and Israeli Arabs distrusted and treated as inferiors because, supposedly, they can never be trusted to stop fighting no matter what.

The way to peace in this is justice, not insisting on the hopeless strategy of "peace through victory", nor by acting as if the other side is incapable of anything but savagery. If either of the latter two approaches could ever have worked, they would have by now. The fact that they've achieved nothing as of yet proves they never can achieve anything.

[shira]

101. Here's George Galloway on video supporting Hamas. Still think he's not a hateful bigot?

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

[Shaktimaan]

20. are you suggesting...

that he could not have ever made anti-semitic remarks because you once heard him defending orthodox jewish communities? That is sort of like saying that your comment couldn't possibly be racist because you have a black friend.

Look. just because someone criticizes Zionism does not mean that their anti-semitic comments are somehow legitimized. Using someone who actually makes anti-semitic statements as an example is not going to support your argument here.

[tootrueleft]

24. List his antisemitic remarks for us all please......

[Shaktimaan]

95. you posted it yourself

He is for the dissolution of the single Jewish state in the world, which was created wholly to offer protection for that oppressed minority. How is that anything but anti-semitic?

I mean, is he for the dissolution of all national borders and the formation of a single, global state? If so then I recant my accusation. Otherwise he is advocating the denial of a right to Jews that he supports awarding to other nationalities. What do you think that is?

[shira]

102. Here's Galloway on video supporting and aiding Hamas....

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

[Ken Burch]

67. I agree with the first line in your second paragraph.

By the same token, just because someone criticizes or even opposes Zionism does not prove that that person is an antisemite.

(I do support Israel's right to a peaceful existence within the pre-1967 lines, for the record).

[Shaktimaan]

93. well duh.

But there is a difference between being an active anti-semite and supporting anti-semitic politics. Consider some Republicans who might never consider themselves racist yet would happily support racist policies without considering them so.

How is opposing a nation for Jews while supporting it for other nationalities anything BUT anti-semitic?

[shaayecanaan]

22. Jimmy Carter (nt)

[aranthus]

31. Called Israel an aparthied state.

That's way more than just criticizing israeli government policy.

[shaayecanaan]

64. Your question was...

"Give me an example of someone who has been critical of Israeli policy being called an antisemite."

You've been given examples, yet you try to distinguish them by making arbitrary distinctions after the fact.

"Called Israel an aparthied state"

No he didnt. He made it quite clear he was not referring to the situation within Israel proper.

[Recursion]

84. Actually he called the settled/colonized territories Apartheid states

Which they obviously are. But you may not know what "Apartheid" actually means, because of all the emotions invested in the history of that term.

[bemildred]

25. LOL.

:popcorn:

[aranthus]

34. I notice that you haven't proposed anyone.

The problem is that most, if not all of the "critics of Israeli actions" mentioned so far, have gone way beyond mere criticism of government policy. I'm perfectly willing to admit to the possibility that some on the pro-Israel side have unfairly called some critics of the Israeli government antisemites. It's just that most of those who scream about people being called antisemitic are doing so precisely to deflect legitimate questions about whether critics of Israel are antisemitic.

[bemildred]

36. Why bother, we will not agree.

I have been called both an anti-semite and a Israel apologist on more than one occasion here, and had both suggested obliquely often. Neither side is above a bit of slander.

[aranthus]

38. Don't be too sure about that.

I take at your word that you have been called both an antisemite and an Israel apologist on this board. Neither charge is true. I recognize that both sides have the potential for slander. However, I do believe it comes more from the anti-Israel side. I certainly don't know of a critic of israeli policy being heckled as an antisemtie in the streets similar to what was done to Professor Morris.

[bemildred]

40. Please see post #1 and the two following for my views on the street tactics.

I think "Who's the worst?" arguments are always retrospective, and thus never really go anywhere. I would only point out that even Prof. Morris seems to recognize the ambiguity of what happened.

[aranthus]

9. About Morris

First, I could not find the interview on the Ha'aretz website, nor did a Google search find it on Ha'aretz. It could have been only in the print version I suppose. In any event, some of his words are harsh, perhaps even bigoted, but they are not racist or fascist. If they are bigoted, they are that way in the way that anyone becomes hateful of an enemy. He makes some salient points.

1. That the Arabs of Palestine started the war with the jews in 1947 in order to destroy the Jewish state.
2. Assuming that the Jews had a right to their own state (something I support), then they were justified in removing the hostile fifth column that sought to destroy it. (Though I disagree that all 700,000 refugees were intentionally expelled, obviously some of them were). However the best response is that there wouldn't have been any refugees had not the Arabs started the war in the first place.
3. The Palestinians of today are not ready to accept a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. (I hope he's wrong, however, his claim isn't racist).

[Violet_Crumble]

18. How are those points salient?

Salient to what? Morris was clearly advocating ethnic cleansing. Are there circumstances that make attitudes like that understandable or acceptable? how is that any less bigoted than someone holding similar views about Jews or advocating the destruction of Israel (a view you label as bigoted elsewhere in this thread).

Also, I've seen the terms racist and fascist used to label some who criticise Israel. Do you consider them to be smears?

On edit : sorry. Hit submit before I should have. Those three points are a mixture of being incorrect or omissios and oversimplifications. I'm thumb typing on my iPhone now but am happy to explain why when I get to a normal keyboard later today

[aranthus]

19. They go to the heart of the conflict.

He makes the valid point that if the choice is between being killed and killing the person trying to kill you, then the latter is preferable. The Palestinians are the ones who set the stakes in this conflict right from the beginning; all or nothing. Morris was arguing that if ethnic cleansing required to survive in that situation, then it's justifiable. He's not advocating it in all situations or merely for convenience.

And no, it's not at all comparable to advocating the destruction of Israel. Context and timing are important. The Jews didn't start this war. The Jews didn't reject all compromise. The Arabs of Palestine did. The Jews were not about to start a war. They were not about to drive out the Arabs of Palestine but for the Arabs trying to drive out the Jews. It wasn't a question of the Jews denying the Arabs a state of their own (they expressly agreed to it by accepting the Partition Resolution that the Arabs rejected). In fact, if anyone was trying to deny the Arabs of Palestine a state of their own it was their brother Arabs. In contrast, the Arab position has always been about denying the Jews any state in the Middle East. Nowhere does Morris say that the Palestinians are not a people entitled to a state (something that the Palestinians put into their national charter about Jews). If the Jews (correctly in my opinion) believed that they were fighting for their national and actual lives, then what should they have done?

[Violet_Crumble]

69. See my response to Shakti...

Also, those three points weren't salient at all to the question you were asked, which was do you think Benny Morris is a bigot. But as I've dealt with that in the other post tonight, I'll address each of those three points you made:

1. That the Arabs of Palestine started the war with the jews in 1947 in order to destroy the Jewish state.

There was no Jewish state in 1947. Also, there was no one single cause or party to blame when it came to the war.

2. Assuming that the Jews had a right to their own state (something I support), then they were justified in removing the hostile fifth column that sought to destroy it. (Though I disagree that all 700,000 refugees were intentionally expelled, obviously some of them were). However the best response is that there wouldn't have been any refugees had not the Arabs started the war in the first place.

That 'hostile fifth column' which you blame for what befell them in that last sentence also had a right to their own state. As it was, yr totally incorrect in what you said as the territory allocated to the Zionists wasn't invaded. Have you read 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited'? I'm not sure how anyone could read it and come away from it thinking that all those hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from their homes were a 'hostile fifth column that sought to destroy' the fledgling state...

3. The Palestinians of today are not ready to accept a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. (I hope he's wrong, however, his claim isn't racist).

Sorry, but if you look at the polls, the majority of Palestinians support a two-state solution, and the PLO long ago recognised the right of Israel to exist. Are you saying all that doesn't matter?

[shira]

73. You're wrong. There have been 10's of millions of refugees the past century...

...due to religious and ethnic strife, WW2, etc...

There is no demand by the world's sanctimonious "moral police" for "justice" via RoR in any of those other cases.

Here's a very well written article about it.

"And the World is Lying" - The Plight of the Refugees
http://www.mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8878&sid=e17b7f126b9799baf53b1b7fb1003f0a

The greatest injustice WRT the Palestinians is the fact that their so-called supporters (the world's sanctimonious morality police) actually help perpetuate the refugee problem - as well as the conflict - by demanding a "right" that will never be fulfilled, not that it should it be fulfilled as more war and bloodshed would result. By siding with the world's most far rightwing, religious extremists in demanding this "right", they have helped perpetuate the conflict and given hope to the far right wing fascists that one day Israel will be destroyed.

Lastly, pulling the racist card is a cheap, lazy tactic to stifle debate.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. I know. How dare anyone support the Palestinians! The nerve of them!

Lastly, pulling the racist card is a cheap, lazy tactic to stifle debate.

So, it's okay to pull the bigot card? And the fascist card? And the morality police card? Just want to find out which cards are okay to play! ;)

[shira]

75. Perpetuating the refugee situation is not supporting Palestinians. It's destroying them. n/t

[Shaktimaan]

21. Salient in that they are a strategy that appeared unavoidable.

Mind if I...?

Morris was clearly advocating ethnic cleansing.

Of course. The conflict was split down ethnic lines, and the violence born of the previous decades of living together led everyone to the opinion that there should be two states. An Arab one and a Jewish one. Ethic cleansing could have only been avoided were there a peaceful partition, which there was not.

Are there circumstances that make attitudes like that understandable or acceptable?

Of course. When it is necessary to save lives; to diminish a very real threat to the fledgling state. It was the lesser of two bad choices.

how is that any less bigoted than someone holding similar views about Jews or advocating the destruction of Israel

Well, how is it the same? A population exchange is not the same thing as destroying an existing state or genocide.

Also, it WAS done with Jews. (Which is why 95ish% are only living in two countries.) It's been done to them already... there ARE no Jews living in Palestine for the Palestinians to cleanse, with the exception of the settlers... which is a policy I believe you support Violet, is it not? ;)

Third, there is no evidence to back up the idea... when have Jewish inhabitants of a region or state ever started a civil war?

Fourth, Israel did not DESTROY Palestine, it internally displaced some of the Palestinians. Palestine is still there, along with a few million other square kilometers of sovereign Arab land. IOW: Israel's actions were existentially justified, they had no where to go should they lose. In short, Israel was justified. It was facing an existential crisis. There's no comparable situation facing the Palestinians.

[aranthus]

32. Thanks for this post.

You made my point more clearly than I did.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. But it's not salient as to whether Morris is a bigot, which is what the discussion was about...

Nice to see you again, Shakti. I hope you and aranthus don't mind me combining both yr posts into one reply, as you both touched on the same points in yr replies...

My question to aranthus was: 'Do you find what Morris had to say in this interview just a bit on the bigoted side? While I think as a historian, his work has been great, as a social commentator and a person, he reeks to high heaven...' Who started a conflict, or who in someone's opinion had a greater claim on the territory isn't salient to a discussion of whether someone is bigoted or not. Those points that were made are salient when it comes to discussing the partition of Palestine and the war, and I'm happy to discuss them in that context, which I'll do a bit further on...

Ethnic cleansing's a crime against humanity, and there's no clause somewhere that makes it acceptable depending on which side started a conflict. It's unacceptable under all circumstances, and definately not understandable. I strongly disagree with what you said about it being understandable and acceptable in order to save lives or to diminish a very real threat to a fledgling state, because I can't think of any circumstance where the only solution to that would be ethnic cleansing. Apart from the obvious that it's so totally wrong to target civilians like that, who would get to decide that ethnic cleansing is the only option in order to save lives, or that a threat to a fledgling state would justify it?

Also, when I asked you how is Morris' comments about Palestinians (you might want to reread the interview as there's some revolting comments in there) any less bigoted than if similar was aimed at Jews, yr reply didn't address what I'd asked you. It would have been fine if I'd told you they were the same thing, which of course I didn't...

[Shaktimaan]

118. sorry for the late post

I don't think the issue was about whether one could consider Morris a bigot so much as to whether it seemed strange to hear an overwhelmingly Muslim audience appropriating this specific terminology from the left. For the record, I think it is happening... that's obvious. But I don't know if it's a big deal or not. I know people on the hard left who label people "fascists" as easily as rightists label people "commies." It's really just rhetoric at this level IMO.

It's unacceptable under all circumstances, and definitely not understandable. I strongly disagree with what you said about it being understandable and acceptable in order to save lives or to diminish a very real threat to a fledgling state, because I can't think of any circumstance where the only solution to that would be ethnic cleansing.

Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree. Look at India's partition for example, where the alternative to ethnic cleansing would have been genocide. In that case I think it is a very easy choice. I wholeheartedly support ethnic cleansing in those situations.

Apart from the obvious that it's so totally wrong to target civilians like that, who would get to decide that ethnic cleansing is the only option in order to save lives, or that a threat to a fledgling state would justify it?

No one is saying that it isn't wrong. Just that it is sometimes the only available option. The points you bring up are all excellent. There are no easy answers to them. But ultimately V. we are talking about WAR here. No decisions are going to be easy nor will any be "right" or magically end the war war without any loss of innocent life. These are the facts, which is why we should always try and avoid war and violence at all costs, unless every other avenue has been tried and retried and retried.

But if you're asking me whether I think it was a fair decision to "internally displace" the Palestinians in 47-8 to buy the new Jewish state a chance at survival, (especially considering the massive loss of life had that endeavor failed), then yes, I am going to agree with that choice. I think it's unfortunate for those who were displaced, especially since the entire rest of the world chose to abandon them and keep them in squalor to forever demonstrate the callousness of the Jews. But THAT is not the fault of Zionism. That is the fault of the Arab League, of Arafat, of the UN and especially the UNRWA. The world is at fault for their treatment. And, sadly, it is the fault of the Palestinians too.

And I have trouble looking at the vast expanses of the Arab Kingdom and the tiny sliver that is Israel and seriously proclaim anger at the heartless theft of that tiny sliver from that huge, resources-rich, oil laden monolith. Especially when I think about how almost every single Jew was expelled from that vast land to be accepted by that tiny splinter of a nation... a nation that remains 20% Arab itself. When we talk about concepts like "fairness" in this context it is easy to lose sight of the meaning of the word itself.

You say that ethnic cleansing is ALWAYS wrong Violet, yet you actually support it yourself under certain circumstances. You were happy for Gaza to be ethnically cleansed. (Which is WAS, any way you look at it.) You may argue that it was done for law, or for justice, or for peace... but then your argument is no different than my own.

But don't lie to yourself. You can dislike ethnic cleansing and yet still find it preferable to other, worse alternatives.

[Violet_Crumble]

125. I nearly missed yr reply...

I gave up on this thread once it started veering off into 'Flotilla! Flotilla!' territory, but I've got some time on my hands this morning and I've been glancing at some of the threads I haven't been posting in...

I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on a fair bit here. The bits where I'm not going to settle for agreeing to disagree is where you've told me what my opinion is when that opinion is totally incorrect. There are no circumstances where I support ethnic cleansing. The Israeli govt's removal of settlers from Gaza wasn't an example of ethnic cleansing. It removed its own citizens from areas it had under military occupation back to Israel (many of them, appearing to have an allergy to living in Israel itself, promptly set up shop in the West Bank). The motivation of ethnic cleansing is to render areas ethnically homogenous, and that wasn't the aim of the Israeli government...

If we talk about the creation of Israel specifically, there's clearly no point where the only two options were ethnic cleansing or genocide. What would have happened if all those hundreds of thousands of Palestinians hadn't fled or been expelled would have been a state with a very sizeable non-Jewish population, and depending on how the state treated them after that point, a resentful population that for the most part just wanted to be left alone to live their lives quietly. Also, they weren't 'internally displaced'. They were forced out of Palestine and not allowed to return. And I totally disagree with yr list of who's to blame, in that while there's many parties to blame, Israel must be included.

Correct me if I'm not reading what you said the right way, but when you talk about a Muslim audience appropriating specific terminology of the Left, are you viewing Muslims and the Left as being two mutually exclusive groups? Also, I'm not sure where the idea came from that 'fascist' is terminology that's 'owned' by the Left. Try googling Obama+fascist. Conservatives are all over the whole fascist thing...

Arab Kingdom? There's no such place. It doesn't matter what ethnicity, nationality, religion people are. You just can't pick up a bunch and demand they move somewhere where a bunch of others live and expect them to not notice that they've lost their homes and land they've been on for centuries. That'd be like picking me up and plonking me down in the middle of London with not a cent to my name and stateless. I share the same ancestry, almost speak the same language, but it's not my home and I'd kind of notice I'd been kicked out of my old one and yearn to go home....

[Ken Burch]

68. The "Arabs of Palestine"(I.E., the Palestinian people) could NOT have started

a war in 1947 to destroy the state of Israel, because the state of Israel did not as yet exist in 1947.

Also, you can't assume that the entire group of 700,000 to 800,000 displaced Palestinians would have remained a "hostile fifth column" if they'd been allowed to return to their homes. It's entirely possible that they might have let the matter go at that. Palestinians are not inherently savage, after all.

[shira]

72. The Palestinians started a civil war in 1947 vs. the Jews. Get over it already. n/t

[Ken Burch]

85. There was always equal blame on both sides. Accept reality

It's never served the Pro-Israel cause to pretend that the Israeli side was blameless and that its actions were always morally superior to the Palestinians.

For one thing, Bibi still needs to apologize, as the leader of the party founded by the Irgun, for Deir Yassin. The Israeli government of the day apologized, but never anyone connected with the actual act.

[Ken Burch]

56. It's demagogic for Morris to have written "though no one...screamed the word "Jew"."

Morris knew perfectly well that those who disagree with his defense of the forced transfer of Palestinians in 1948 DO NOT do so because he happens to be Jewish. He also knows that a large and growing number of Jewish people disagree with him as well.

[Ken Burch]

63. Here are the quotes from Dr. Morris that were included in the pamphlet

that the London BDS group handed out to those who attended Morris' lecture. Clearly, they speak for themselves and no "context" can make them defensible:

“Under some circumstances expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can’t make an omlet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands.”
-Haaretz Magazine(January 8, 2004)

“Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihiliation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.”
-Haaretz Magazine(January 8,2004)

“We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process. But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be contained so they will not succeed in murdering us.”
(Interviewer: To fence them in? To place them under closure? )
“Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up one way or another.”
-Haaretz Magazine(January 8, 2004)

“Ben-Gurion argued that the Arabs understand only force and that ultimate force is the one thing that will persuade them to accept our presence here. He was right. That’s not to say that we don’t need diplomacy. Both toward the West and for our own conscience, it’s important that we strive for a political solution. But in the end, what will decide their readiness to accept us will be force alone. Only the recognition tthat they are not capable of defeating us.”
-Haaretz Magazine(January 8,2004)

(And some people wonder why Benny Morris is considered a racist?)

(personal note:as an American, I take the comment about "Indians" to be despicable and, frankly, a lie. The United States never had to do what we did to Native Americans, and those who call for Palestinian self-determination are also united in supporting Native Americans in their struggle for justice in THIS system.)

[shira]

103. You can't pull out the bigot/racist card and excuse Galloway, Finkelstein, Thomas, etc...

Here's Galloway on video supporting and aiding Hamas...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmhrWoSTpys

And here's some information WRT the rank antisemitism involved in the Gaza flotilla movement...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x356733

For some odd reason you CAN'T condemn them. WHY?

Who do you hope to persuade here if you refuse to condemn/criticize genuine antisemitism?

[oberliner]

109. Right of Reply / I do not support expulsion By Benny Morris

Excerpt:

The compression of the seven hours of my interview with Ari Shavit into two pages did not do me justice, at least in terms of the tone. From a whole range of statements on different issues, the harshest ones were chosen, sometimes without nuances or qualifications. I admit, I slipped here and there - I do not support and did not support the extermination of the Indians, and I regret the use of the word "cage."

Also worth noting:

In 1988, I regarded the Palestinian rebellion ("the first intifada") as a legitimate struggle for liberation from occupation. And I believe that most of the Palestinian stone-throwers then saw their struggle that way. This is why I felt it was right to refuse to serve in the territories, and to sit in prison.

[shira]

111. It's "Look-over-there" whataboutery. Sanctimonious pro-Hamas bigots accosting Morris...

...when their vile hatred is in another league compared to what they allege Morris believes.

Haters gonna hate and do what they do...

[Shaktimaan]

113. how do you know?

Clearly, they speak for themselves and no "context" can make them defensible:

did you see the context?

[shira]

110. I do not support expulsion, By Benny Morris

http://www.mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=389&sid=8aed8c5d3c5d5a08d57e1a2ccc4463a5

<snip>

A central accusation in the letters to Haaretz Magazine ("The judgment of history," January 16) concerned the issue of "ethnic cleansing." I will repeat my words, which apparently did not register (perhaps because of the misleading title on the cover): I do not support the expulsion of Arabs from the territories or from the State of Israel! Such an expulsion would be immoral, and is also unrealistic. What I said was, that if in the future, these communities were to launch massive violence against the State of Israel in combination with a broad assault on Israel by its neighbors, and endanger its survival, expulsions would certainly be in the cards. As for Israeli Arabs, my comments may be seen to represent a minatory road sign pointing in two possible directions: They could, as a whole, choose the path of loyalty to the Jewish state and integration within it as equal citizens, and thus enjoy quiet, prosperous lives; or they could choose the path of disloyalty to the state and of active and violent support for those who seek its demise. The latter path - with which many Israeli Arabs identified in October 2000 and with which many in its leadership seem to identify today, in one convoluted way or another - will help lead to either the destruction of the Jewish state or to their being uprooted.

A general comment on the matter of ethnic cleansing: I am aware that "ethnic cleansing" is not politically correct and is morally problematic. But, what can we do - the history of the 20th century is replete with instances of ethnic cleansing that occurred under catastrophic circumstances and were ultimately beneficial for humanity, including for the expulsees themselves. Was not the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans (after World War II) - who contributed to the destruction of the Czechoslovak Republic - justified? And didn't it contribute, in the end, to their happiness, and certainly to the happiness of the Czech people? In the final analysis, didn't the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the Turks against their Greek minority and by the Greeks against their Turkish minority after World War I contribute to the welfare and happiness of the two peoples, and to the peace that has prevailed between the two nations ever since?

<snip>


The compression of the seven hours of my interview with Ari Shavit into two pages did not do me justice, at least in terms of the tone. From a whole range of statements on different issues, the harshest ones were chosen, sometimes without nuances or qualifications. I admit, I slipped here and there - I do not support and did not support the extermination of the Indians, and I regret the use of the word "cage."

One last thing. I find it odd that the editors of Haaretz Magazine chose to accompany an article dealing with the tragedy of two peoples with photographs of a smiling Benny Morris. Contrary to the implication, I do not rejoice over bloodletting and expulsion. I also do not understand why the English edition of the magazine chose to entitle the interview, "Survival of the fittest." I did not use that expression and I abhor it.

In any event, I will be the first to rejoice if my judgments and predictions are proved wrong.

<snip>