Yes, it's time once again for I Hate Jews Week!

[Bonam]

On Tuesday, defence minister Ehud Barak gave a dire public warning: "As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic," he said. "If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

I'd like to see his statement in full context. These sentences were quoted on their own in the article you linked. His point is true though, the Palestinians need to get off their a**es and start building their own state.

[eyeball]

His point is true though, the Palestinians need to get off their a**es and start building their own state.

Perhaps they could use the Israeli model of nation building and get Britain to carve them out a piece of Germany or something.

[DogOnPorch]

Perhaps they could use the Israeli model of nation building and get Britain to carve them out a piece of Germany or something.

That would seem appropriate seeing the Palestinian's first leader was a general in the SS and one of the key figures in the Holocaust. What do you think? Should the 'powers that be' give 'em Baden Baden or Gooden Gooden?

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps they could use the Israeli model of nation building and get Britain to carve them out a piece of Germany or something.

Or they could have used the israeli model and used britain ...wait....they had that chance already.

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps they could use the Israeli model of nation building and get Britain to carve them out a piece of Germany or something.

Could you point to me where there was even the concept of a Palestinian state prior to the British Mandate?

Here's a hint. The area was part of the Ottoman Empire, had had only one period of any kind of self-rule in over two millennia prior to the formation of Israel, and that was the Crusader states. The area has been conquered more times than probably any other strip of dirt in the world, but a brief survey of the last two thousand years or so shows Rome owned it (at one time as a sort of protectorate but ultimately as a province), then it passed on to the Eastern Roman Empire which became the Byzantine Empire before the Muslims invaded, and they were beaten back to some degree by the Crusaders who founded a few states like the Kingdom of Jerusalem before the Turks wiped those out and putting the whole region under the Ottoman Empire, which persisted until the collapse of that Empire in 1918-1919, when Palestine became a British Mandate.

At no point was there ever a Palestinian state, or any notion of it. Most of the land that makes up both Israel and the Palestinian Authority was, until just under a century ago, owned by absentee Ottoman landlords. The notion of a state for the Palestinians didn't really arise until the notion of an Jewish state had been thought up.

Edited March 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[JB Globe]

I'd like to see his statement in full context. These sentences were quoted on their own in the article you linked. His point is true though, the Palestinians need to get off their a**es and start building their own state.

Link to an article with more of the quotes.

Link to Barak interview by CNN's Amanpour where she asks him about the quote.

AMANPOUR: As you know, it is a requirement of all the peace maps, the roadmap and all the rest. But I want to ask you about a comment that you made recently at a conference in, I believe it was Herzliya. And this is what you said:

"As long as in this territory, west of the Jordan River, there is only one political entity called Israel, it is going to be either non-Jewish or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."

That's what you said.

BARAK: I said the obvious, basically. It's not about the word "apartheid". Basically what I said is, there is a compelling imperative for us to disengage from the Palestinians. As I said, there are probably 11 million people there - if the bloc of millions vote, it is a non-Jewish state by definition. If they do not vote, it's a non-democratic state.

AMANPOUR: And you used the word "apartheid state." Do you stand by that?

BARAK: I said it. It's not a secret. I said it in public. In fact I've been saying it in different words now for 20 years since the time I was -

AMANPOUR: But if it's such a huge challenge, why don't you enact bolder steps?

BARAK: Let me tell you, I'm not afraid of any bolder steps. I said it in order to warn ourselves that we might enter into a slippery slope toward either a non-Jewish or a non-democratic state. Neither is the Zionist dream. So we have to take steps to change it. That's why I am in this government. This government, in spite of being heavily biased to the right, agreed to the two state solution, agreed to accept all previous agreements signed by Israeli governments, agreed to accept the idea of the roadmap, and basically we have Netanyahu talking about a Palestinian viable state with a national flag living side by side with Israel. This is our vision.

I remember folks on this website frothing at the mouth when Jimmy Carter said that unless Israelis reach a peace deal with the Palestinians, it will become an apartheid state. Apparently, he was an anti-semite because he read the writing on the wall.

I pointed out then that this is nothing that Israelis hadn't been saying for years.

Now you have the Defense Minister saying the same exact thing, pointing out this is nothing new.

Frankly, no one throws a hissy fit when people say this in Israel, so why do politicians here in NA jump over themselves to condemn things like Israeli Apartheid Week?

Is it because they mistakenly believe all Jews are aghast at the suggestion that Israel might be doing something seriously wrong? Or is it because a good chunk of non-Jewish Canadians think they're doing Jews and Israel a favour by being it's Goyim apologists?

[Argus]

Now please, Argus an others can commence with explaining to the rest of us rational individuals how Ehud Barak is actually a self-hating Jew.

I don't know enough about him to know if he is as much as self-hating Jew as you are.

But what he said was that if more viable options weren't explored the current Palestinian territories could be on the "slippery slope" to becoming an apartheid state.

The current "protests" are unanimous in that Israel itself IS an apartheid state now, not just in the territories but throughout Israel. The protest are organized by jJew-haters and Jew-baters, and few Jews would argue that except of course, a self-hating Jew willing to twist himself into pretzel knots to forgive those who hate Jews.

For the record: I don't plan on attending any Israeli Apartheid week because I don't find them constructive towards peace, not because the central thesis is wrong.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact you'd be beaten up if you announced you were Jewish, would it?

[JB Globe]

I don't know enough about him to know if he is as much as self-hating Jew as you are.

Why am I a self-hating Jew?

Any coward can toss around insults.

Are you man enough to try and back them up?

But what he said was that if more viable options weren't explored the current Palestinian territories could be on the "slippery slope" to becoming an apartheid state.

Not "could be," but WILL be.

The only thing Barak and the IAW organizers disagree on is the metrics of when a state is an apartheid regime or not. Barak is waiting until Palestinians are in the majority in Israel and the occupied territories, which is about 10 years away according to demographic trends - then it will officially be apartheid for him. For the IAW organizers, it doesn't have to be a clear majority, but an ALMOST majority, which it is now.

Barak also has to be inherently more cautious and restrained about what he says because he's a politician, the IAW people don't have to be.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact you'd be beaten up if you announced you were Jewish, would it?

Most of the organizing committees have a large chunk of people who are Jewish, and I haven't heard of any such problems, and neither have you, because you're just making things up, because you're an idiot.

[JB Globe]

Why Some folks might think that Israel possibly resembles an apartheid state . . .

1. Different rights for different races In the case of Israel, it is different rights for Jews and for non-Jews. For example the law of return of 1950 says Jews can return to Israel and be given citizenship even if they have no links to the country other than mythical biblical ones; whereas Palestinians cannot return even if their parents or grandparents lived there.

2. Separation of so-called racial groups into different geographical areas. Even within the borders of Israel, 93 percent of land is reserved as a national land trust or Jewish National Fund land is for the exclusive use of Jews. The 20 percent of the population that is Palestinians living in Israel have to share access to the 7 percent of private land that is left. The Israeli Supreme Court has made a number of decisions that Palestinians cannot live on Jewish lands. There are not only residential areas that are banned to Palestinians but there are separate roads for Jews and Palestinians. That was never true in South Africa even in times of crisis. Moreover Palestinians have less access to water than Jews living nearby

Finally the movement of Palestinians is severely restricted much more so than were blacks in South Africa. The famous pass laws in South Africa meant that Blacks had to show government issued passes to move around but Palestinians are even more restricted by walls and checkpoints and if they live in the Gaza Strip can't leave at all.

3. Security and Repression Matrix of Laws and Security. There was serious repression in the Black townships but there were never tanks or planes buzzing overhead like there is in West Bank. Israeli military violence against Palestinian communities. says Jena, is far worse than anything suffered by Blacks in South Africa during apartheid.

If Israel is becoming a pariah in the world it is not because of anti-Semitism, it is because they are practicing a form of apartheid even more egregious than that practiced in South Africa. Others have compiled comments from some of the most respected leaders of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa who see what Israel is doing as apartheid. There is a reason why the BDS is strongest in South African. People there recognize apartheid when they see it.

BTW - I didn't write this, another self-hating Jew did.

[whowhere]

That is a stero-typical approach. From my experience Israel is not the boss of it's own future...the idea that the Jooos are some great controlling conspiracy is false..after all is said and done- they have masters to answer too and they are not Jewish.

1 Israeli shekel = 0.263922 U.S. dollars

Yes, the money masters.

[bloodyminded]

Why is it that when a Jewish person criticizes Israel he is deemed a "self-hating Jew"?

I think it's a profoundly unfair form of debate...in fact, it's not a form of debate; it's a way to try to avoid an actual debate.

It's cowardice.

Edited March 3, 2010 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

Why is it that when a Jewish person criticizes Israel he is deemed a "self-hating Jew"?

The way I see it is, the people who label others as self-hating jews is an attempt at marginalizing them.

I think it's a profoundly unfair form of debate...in fact, it's not a form of debate; it's a way to try to avoid an actual debate.It's cowardice.

I agree.

JB Globe

But those three points are something to take note of correct? Regardless of the writer being a self-hating jew?

[eyeball]

The notion of a state for the Palestinians didn't really arise until the notion of an Jewish state had been thought up.

The notion of simply carving countries out of thin air has been around forever, it's often messy but I guess that's the nature of making lemonade sometimes.

Why can't we stick with that program or a variation of it, has anyone tried to purchase the land Palestinians need from the countries surrounding Israel?

In any case I still think the world powers that created Israel should be the one's who are primarily responsible for coming up with a country for the people that their first creation displaced. They need to finish what they started.

[ToadBrother]

The notion of simply carving countries out of thin air has been around forever, it's often messy but I guess that's the nature of making lemonade sometimes.

Why can't we stick with that program or a variation of it, has anyone tried to purchase the land Palestinians need from the countries surrounding Israel?

You're so amusingly naive. The Palestinians are pariahs even among their neighbors. Sure places like Syria will gnash their teeth and make all the appropriate noises of solidarity, but they don't want the Palestinians either.

In any case I still think the world powers that created Israel should be the one's who are primarily responsible for coming up with a country for the people that their first creation displaced. They need to finish what they started.

The world powers tried to create a Palestinian state, but the Arab world decided they would rather wipe Israel off the map. They lost in spectacular fashion, on a number of occasions. To my mind, when a belligerent loses, they don't get to have their land back. If the Palestinians had agreed to what the Brits and formulated, they would have had their state in 1949.

I've often felt that Israel should unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state, pull out of the occupied territories, dismantle the settlements, and the second a rocket launches out of those areas, declare war, invade and annex the whole bloody thing.

The real irony here is that the Palestinians probably have one of the most corrupt and ineffective governments north of the Sahara desert, and probably would do better as Israeli citizens.

Edited March 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[bloodyminded]

You're so amusingly naive. The Palestinians are pariahs even among their neighbors. Sure places like Syria will gnash their teeth and make all the appropriate noises of solidarity, but they don't want the Palestinians either.

That's true.

The world powers tried to create a Palestinian state, but the Arab world decided they would rather wipe Israel off the map. They lost in spectacular fashion, on a number of occasions. To my mind, when a belligerent loses, they don't get to have their land back. If the Palestinians had agreed to what the Brits and formulated, they would have had their state in 1949.

Wrong. The Israelis--and the Americans--have been the chief obstructionists. Not the Palestinians.

The real irony here is that the Palestinians probably have one of the most corrupt and ineffective governments north of the Sahara desert, and probably would do better as Israeli citizens.

But Israel expressly will not allow the Palestinians to become Israeli citizens. The demographics would demand that Israel would no longer be a Jewish state. So that's a moot point. Because it is not up to the Palestinians; they have zero choice on that matter.

[ToadBrother]

Wrong. The Israelis--and the Americans--have been the chief obstructionists. Not the Palestinians.

The Arab-Israeli War was not started by the Americans, or the Israelis for that matter. It was that war where the Palestinians basically lost the state that had been guaranteed them.

[bloodyminded]

The Arab-Israeli War was not started by the Americans, or the Israelis for that matter. It was that war where the Palestinians basically lost the state that had been guaranteed them.

Actually, I agree with you at least this far. The aggression of Arab states has been all too real, and has been counterproductive even from a coldly practical viewpoint.

[DogOnPorch]

Actually, I agree with you at least this far. The aggression of Arab states has been all too real, and has been counterproductive even from a coldly practical viewpoint.

Counterproductive? Now there's an understatement. The Arab's decision to go to war rather than have peace with Israel has been the THE problem that has resulted in all the fuss we see today. Had the USSR not fallen, we'd have probably seen another Syrian-Israeli War by now. But alas...the Arabs lost their sugar-daddy.

ToadBrother: The Arab-Israeli War was not started by the Americans, or the Israelis for that matter. It was that war where the Palestinians basically lost the state that had been guaranteed them.

Correct to a T.

[ToadBrother]

Actually, I agree with you at least this far. The aggression of Arab states has been all too real, and has been counterproductive even from a coldly practical viewpoint.

The problem here is that the Palestinians have always assumed, for some odd reason, that their co-religionists in fact give a crap about them. They have allowed themselves to become the tools of regimes who happily use them as cannon fodder. They put governments in place that are utterly corrupt and ultimately incapable of actually governing. They have spit on every meaningful attempt to solve the issue.

In 1948 they had a state. The Brits didn't leave them hanging. The Mandate was split into two pieces, one for the Jewish state, one for the Palestinian state. As I have said before, there was never any concept of a Palestinian state until the idea of a Jewish state was well on its way to reality. Those lands, prior to the Mandate, were part of the Ottoman Empire, and had been for centuries. Now I'll gladly accept an argument for some inherent indigenous rights here, but at the same time, the Palestinians gambled on the Arabs winning in 1948, and, if this war were to follow the same path as most wars throughout history, even into the modern era, losers never get to dictate terms, and very often lose territory (I mean, do the Germans still get to claim Danzig?).

The Israeli position has largely hardened precisely because deals with the Palestinians are meaningless. The Palestinian people are the authors of their own misfortune, and continue to believe that somehow their co-religionists will ultimately drive Israel into the sea. Their co-religionists, in particular the real puppet masters in Damascus and Tehran, are quite happy to lead on the Palestinians.

[JB Globe]

The way I see it is, the people who label others as self-hating jews is an attempt at marginalizing them.

Thanks for that.

As you see, Argus isn't going to actually tell me why I'm a "self hating Jew" in his eyes.

There are several reasons for this:

1 - He's not that smart, because if he were, he wouldn't have to resort to trying to shut down debate in order to avoid loosing by calling me a "self hating Jew" and then running away like a little boy.

2 - It would require him forming an actual argument supported by facts, instead of making many random statements in the hopes of one of them sticking.

3 - Knowing why someone is a self-hating Jew requires knowledge of what it means to be Jewish, and Argus doesn't have the slightest idea about that.

I would have liked to include there's something inherently foolish about someone from outside an ethnic/religious group, lecturing someone inside that group about who is or isn't a true member of that group. But of course, Argus apparently has no problems making a complete fool out of himself.

I wouldn't be surprised if at some point he tried lecturing a black man on what it means to be black in his non-black mind.

[bloodyminded]

The problem here is that the Palestinians have always assumed, for some odd reason, that their co-religionists in fact give a crap about them. They have allowed themselves to become the tools of regimes who happily use them as cannon fodder. They put governments in place that are utterly corrupt and ultimately incapable of actually governing. They have spit on every meaningful attempt to solve the issue.

In 1948 they had a state. The Brits didn't leave them hanging. The Mandate was split into two pieces, one for the Jewish state, one for the Palestinian state. As I have said before, there was never any concept of a Palestinian state until the idea of a Jewish state was well on its way to reality. Those lands, prior to the Mandate, were part of the Ottoman Empire, and had been for centuries. Now I'll gladly accept an argument for some inherent indigenous rights here, but at the same time, the Palestinians gambled on the Arabs winning in 1948, and, if this war were to follow the same path as most wars throughout history, even into the modern era, losers never get to dictate terms, and very often lose territory (I mean, do the Germans still get to claim Danzig?).

The Israeli position has largely hardened precisely because deals with the Palestinians are meaningless. The Palestinian people are the authors of their own misfortune, and continue to believe that somehow their co-religionists will ultimately drive Israel into the sea. Their co-religionists, in particular the real puppet masters in Damascus and Tehran, are quite happy to lead on the Palestinians.

I get what you're saying, but we again crash up against the frustrating wall: while those who are more likely to defend Israeli actions in these debates continually complain that the "Palestinian side" of the argument is too simplistic, too lacking in nuance (and that assessment is undoubtedly correct)....those who claim this will then turn around and do exactly the same thing. To the letter.

Ie. Israel is blameless.

This is of course preposterous--seriously, it doesn't even rise to elementary levels of decency, much less reason and understanding.

And honestly, the few Israelis with whom I've discussed these matters are far, far more open and understanding and reasonable than are the North Americans, who take a Manichean, either/or view, in which Israel is always right.

Sheer indoctrination, I can only assume.

In other words, what is probably THE most contentious and hotly-debated conflict in the world is actually the ONLY one where we can say "One side absolutely right; one side totally the authors of all their own misfortunes."

It's literal lunacy.

[ToadBrother]

In other words, what is probably THE most contentious and hotly-debated conflict in the world is actually the ONLY one where we can say "One side absolutely right; one side totally the authors of all their own misfortunes."

It's literal lunacy.

I never said Israel was blameless. But Israel has to be the only repeatedly victorious nation on the planet who everyone thinks still owes the belligerents favors. A few generations before, under the old rules of engagement, everyone would have told that Palestinians and the Arabs in general to get stuffed. Like I said, why aren't you upset that Germany doesn't get Danzig back or Japan the Sakhalins back? Even Mexico long abandoned any claims to the territories the US won (and the US waged a helluva less justifiable war to get that vast strip of territory from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific).

The problem here is that in trying to be fair and honorable, the UN paved the way for endless conflict. Once the Arab world had made clear they weren't going to go for the partition agreements, and attempted to wipe Israel out, the UN should have said "The Palestinian Arabs are on their own" and washed its hands of it. In the real world, actions have consequences, and the losers of wars lose, pure and simple.

[bloodyminded]

I never said Israel was blameless. But Israel has to be the only repeatedly victorious nation on the planet who everyone thinks still owes the belligerents favors. A few generations before, under the old rules of engagement, everyone would have told that Palestinians and the Arabs in general to get stuffed. Like I said, why aren't you upset that Germany doesn't get Danzig back or Japan the Sakhalins back? Even Mexico long abandoned any claims to the territories the US won (and the US waged a helluva less justifiable war to get that vast strip of territory from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific).

The problem here is that in trying to be fair and honorable, the UN paved the way for endless conflict. Once the Arab world had made clear they weren't going to go for the partition agreements, and attempted to wipe Israel out, the UN should have said "The Palestinian Arabs are on their own" and washed its hands of it. In the real world, actions have consequences, and the losers of wars lose, pure and simple.

But few of us truck much with "might makes right" anymore. Obviously, what was done to the Mexicans, to the indiginous Canadians, and a whole host of others is worse than what has happened to the Palestinians. That doesn't make it right.

Hell, we're at the point now where Palestinians are being told (and certainly not asked) that they will have to be happy with a lot less than the 1967 borders--borders universally recognzied by everybody...including Israel, though they have altered their stance somewhat for their own benefit. Further, we are now hearing from Barack exactly what the "anti-semites" (ie people who criticize Israel) have been saying for a long time: that Palestinian inclusion into Israeli democracy is an impossibility--for Israeli reasons, not Palestinian; and that genuine apartheid is going to be a very real concern.

And the UN is not the only entity who has "paved the way for endless conflict." The blame reaches far and wide--most certainly, incontestably (and in a saner world, uncontroversially)--right to Israel and to their American backers.

the fact is, Israel is not going away...nor should it, obviously.

But neither are the Palestinians. Not a single chance.

So, practicality demands a settlement.

And while everyone agrees on this, everyone still wishes to blame one side in entirety.

Hell, the only agents who have shown any courage, any principle, and any wisdom about the matter, are the peaceable joint Israeli/Palestinian groups...who are uniformly derided and scorned in the Western press, when they aren't utterly ignored.

[ToadBrother]

But few of us truck much with "might makes right" anymore. Obviously, what was done to the Mexicans, to the indiginous Canadians, and a whole host of others is worse than what has happened to the Palestinians. That doesn't make it right.

Hell, we're at the point now where Palestinians are being told (and certainly not asked) that they will have to be happy with a lot less than the 1967 borders--borders universally recognzied by everybody...including Israel, though they have altered their stance somewhat for their own benefit. Further, we are now hearing from Barack exactly what the "anti-semites" (ie people who criticize Israel) have been saying for a long time: that Palestinian inclusion into Israeli democracy is an impossibility--for Israeli reasons, not Palestinian; and that genuine apartheid is going to be a very real concern.

And the UN is not the only entity who has "paved the way for endless conflict." The blame reaches far and wide--most certainly, incontestably (and in a saner world, uncontroversially)--right to Israel and to their American backers.

the fact is, Israel is not going away...nor should it, obviously.

But neither are the Palestinians. Not a single chance.

So, practicality demands a settlement.

And while everyone agrees on this, everyone still wishes to blame one side in entirety.

Hell, the only agents who have shown any courage, any principle, and any wisdom about the matter, are the peaceable joint Israeli/Palestinian groups...who are uniformly derided and scorned in the Western press, when they aren't utterly ignored.

Until the Palestinians can guarantee that their lands won't be used for a launching points for the minions of Damascus and Tehran, I cannot imagine any reason why Israel should even pay the least bit of attention to Palestinian demands. It's that simple. When the Palestinian Authority starts jailing the terrorists, and stops being a puppet for its co-religionist states, then we'll see peace.

What would be nice, perhaps, is if the world community, which spends so much time crying crocodile tears for the Palestinians, would back Israel in turning Iran's nuclear dreams into molten slag, and maybe bombing Damascus back into the stone age. These two are the real enemies.

[bloodyminded]

Until the Palestinians can guarantee that their lands won't be used for a launching points for the minions of Damascus and Tehran, I cannot imagine any reason why Israel should even pay the least bit of attention to Palestinian demands. It's that simple. When the Palestinian Authority starts jailing the terrorists, and stops being a puppet for its co-religionist states, then we'll see peace.

What would be nice, perhaps, is if the world community, which spends so much time crying crocodile tears for the Palestinians, would back Israel in turning Iran's nuclear dreams into molten slag, and maybe bombing Damascus back into the stone age. These two are the real enemies.

Bombing Damascus back into the stone age necessitates a catastrophic human tragedy.

And remember, anyone who advocates for "preemptive war" is a servile, indoctrinated fool.

Period.

It has entered popular usage directly and only because of the Bush administration's disingenuousness.

Because "preemptive" is (at best!) a euphemism for "preventive"--which is a whole different animal.

If Israel--with or without "the world community" (which means only whichever countries the proponents of the phrase wish it to mean at any given point--it usually means less than ten...that's the "world community")--bombed Damscus right now, we are talking about a war of aggression. Which is the supreme international crime.