Presenting Israel

No, that is wrong as well. Resolutions CAN conflict with customary international law. Resolutions are political in nature and can recommend any change they like.

Huh??? Talk about a complete non sequitur!

More strawman
a. I don’t like Nazi comparisons. They demean the unique nature of the Holocaust. Moreover, I dont like essentializing about a people.

b. Its a historical fact that in 48, 67 and 74 Arab forces sought to destroy Israel by force. Had the Arabs been successful, its questionable whether there would be any Jews living in Israel today. Arab nationalism was one of a number of motivations for the destruction of Israel so by you characterizing Arab nationalism as seeking Palestinian independence is highly disingenuous. How you got from my calling you out on making a disingenuous argument to me calling Arabs Nazis is a creation of your own furtive imagination.

c. Zionists were and are not colonists. Your usage of that terminology (that you attribute to me) is historically inaccurate, borrows from the anti-Zionist propaganda of the Soviets and denies the rights of self determination of the Jewish people. If you’re calling for recognition of the rights of Palestinian self determination, doesn’t it cut both ways?

derp http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8632-jewish-colonial-trust-the-judische-colonialbank

A. I did not say that genocide and Holocaust were the same word. I said that genocide was coined to describe the Holocaust, and that when you invoke it, you also conjure images and thoughts of the Holocaust.

B. I could just as easily argue that anti-Arab hatred on the part of Jews is a principal motivator in the conflict, and point to well over a dozen recent surveys showing that the majority of Israeli Jews are racist against Arabs. Hatred, again, is weapon of conflict, used to dehumanize your enemy. You cannot ease the hatred until you resolve the conflict and remove the factors that substantiate the grounds for hatred.

C. So let me get this right: Even though the First Zionist Congress ratified language describing the Zionist enterprise as a “colonization scheme,” because a bunch of European colonial powers retroactively approved said colonization, it is not colonization? Are you kidding?

D. The Jews who are indigenous to Palestine are Palestinian Jews who never left after the Roman exile. If you weren’t there for two thousand years and just showed up, YOU’RE NOT INDIGENOUS. Ashkenazi American Jews who make aliyah are not indigenous to Palestine! They’re indigenous to Europe!

You are engaged in historical revisionism. The nature of this discussion is so preposterous and your argumentation so intellectually dishonest, that there seems little point in continuing.

b. the Irgun was not disbanded. The units themselves were absorbed into the Haganah. One of the disputes that erupted into the Altalena Affair was that Begin wanted the arms earmarked for the end use of the Irgun units in the Haganah. The IDF leadership objected to the maintenance of an “Army within the Army”. See the Wikipedia link that you supplied.

Many of the members of Etzel and Lehi went to work in the Shabak and Mossad when they were created.

c. The immiogration of Jews into Palestine was to be enabled on condition that it did no violate the rights of the existing non-Jewish population.

d. The 3,000 year connection to the land was only symbolic. For much of those 3,000 years, all but a iny minorioty of Jews had no connection to it at all.

I see it instead as part of the natural migrations of peoples.

There was nothing natural about it. The British had no authority to prmise the land in Palestine to Jews.

Daniel, are you aware of the Nazi-Palestinian collaboration from the mid-30s to 1945, the end of World War II? I’m not going to write a tome on this here, rather I just ask that you google “mufti and hitler” and spend a some time reading about Hajj Amin el Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the father of Palestinian nationalism, his close relationship with the highest Nazi officials and his support for the Holocaust.

This is Edwin Black, author of The Transfer Agreement, and also the Farhud, Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust. I know it is extremely common for misguided readers to misuse, misinterpret, and distort my work The Transfer Agreement. The Transfer Agreement is not a collaboration, but rather a rescue by Zionists at the point of a gun. Tens of thousands of Jews were allowed to leave Germany with a pittance of their otherwise confiscated property to set a new life.
By comparison, when the Arabs carried on the Nazi campaign with mass post-war expulsion of Jews–about 850,000–they were kicked out penniless, and again the Zionists had to rescue them. It is because of that rescue that we know that approximately half the people in Israel–and an influential half–came there because their families were expelled penniless from Arab Lands. There has never been a reckoning of all the property seized.
What the Jews did in Arab Lands in the 1950s, in Germany in the 1930s, in pogrom-ridden Czarist Russia in the first years of the 20th Century, and in Pharaoh’s Egypt in the 16th century BCE was to rescue their brethren at the brink of extermination. What the Arabs under Husseini did in the 1930s and 1940s was forge an alliance to openly orchestrate the extermination of the Jews–the Arabs trading the allure of oil for Nazi assistance in mass murder.
While I cannot and will not engage in a dialog with people who distort my work, I hope this expression makes clear that such remarks are just that–a distortion of my research. I see it every hour, and this is just another example. I did the research, I wrote the book.

@selfagency:disqus I’d really be careful with the Transfer Agreement argument. You make much too much out of it, and it’s one of those arguments people like Phil Weiss like to use to make a Zionist-Nazi comparison, and you should take a hint when the author himself does the Marshall McCluhan-Annie Hall thing and tells you point blank that you’re misinterpreting his work.
However the deal Zionists cut with the Nazis in 1933 may look today, it is irresponsible, unfair, and inaccurate to suggest that Zionists of the time acted out of anything other than a belief that they were doing what they could to save German Jews. Most Zionist leaders of the time believed that an international boycott was a bad idea that would not work and would only make things worse for German Jews, who would be blamed for the boycott and suffer further persecution. This was 1933, not 1943. No one knew how bad Hitler would get. The notion that an international boycott would have been successful is educated historical guesswork.
It was actually the Revisionists who bitterly opposed the stance of the mainstream Zionist leaders on the boycott, and who literally walked out of a meeting of American Zionists to discuss a position on the issue when it became clear that the position was going to be against the boycott.

Yeah, I picked up on the Annie-Hall aspect of it as well. Good catch.

Mr. Black – it is an honour to make your acquaintance. I have heard you interviewed and commend you on your work which I’ve scanned on occasion but unfortunately have not read in full. Mr. Sieradski indeed abuses it in the way you describe, and using a common set of talking points that are rather cartoonish, inaccurate and malicious in nature. It presupposes a Yishuv that was far better organized, skilled, influential and resource rich than was actually the. The only way to believe in such nonsense is to also subcribe to a understanding of Jewish power that approaches that of the Protocols.

Last night completed reading Tuvia Friling’s “Arrows in the Dark” which complements what you have done though focuses on later events. The Yishuv did what it could to rescue Jews and the Haavera agreement which effectively terminated at the outbreak of war was more successful than most attempts. Unfortunately what could be said publicly at the time was limited by the need for secrecy, and earlier judgements tended to be clouded by that. It’s a very long and distressing read.

The Yishuv officially confirmed the mass extermination in late November 1942, and this was followed nearly a month later by recognition by the Allies. Some very important points to make from Friling’s book:

Ben Gurion along with other leaders of the Yishuv placed immigration to Palestine third, not first, after moving Jews to free countries and to neutral countries.

Secondly, had the transfer agreement not existed the Nazis would simply have seized that property anyway as they wound up doing so anyway.

Third, the economic impact was less than 1% of German GDP and, as you pointed out, was highly significant in contributing to an infrastructure that made rescue possible.

Fourth, the Yishuv was willing to accept far more refugees than the British quotas allowed, and far less were able to reach Palestine or anywhere else for that matter. One factor was the British assignments of certificates to allow immigration to individuals – but that meant that if someone had managed to obtain exit permits they could not be assigned the certificate of someone who hadn’t, who might have been deported to a concentration camp or already dead.

Fifth, the actual capacity of the Yishuv to absorb the number of refugees that needed to be saved just wasn’t there, therefore building the Yishuv was also a priority, though the budget for Mobilization (support of the families of Jewish soldiers fighting in the war effort) and Rescue was at least twice as much, or 20% of the Yishuv’s meagre budget.

Sixth, and this has not been thrown out into the discussion yet but I would suspect it would come up shortly in the next group of responses, the 3 sets of negotiations that the Yishuv and the JDC entered into where money, trucks and medicine were requested by the Nazis in return for ransoming Jewish lives were, what Ben Gurion termed a 1 in 1 million chance of rescue. There was no possibility of the ransom being paid. It was possible that the Nazis were hoping to leak word of the deal to break apart the West’s relations with the Soviets but there was also the consideration that Himmler was using the talks to signal a split within the Nazi regime interested in cutting some sort of a deal with the West; even though the Nazis were surging in Hungary and the Balkans, they were losing elsewhere. There was also the hope (not born out) that while the Nazis were negotiating they would delay the round ups and the exterminations.
Lastly, for now at least, there were tensions with the Bundists who wanted the Jews to stay and resist the Nazis. No doubt protest in front of the Eitzengruppen death squads as well, our acquaintance Daniel among them. Somehow I don’t see him joining the Orthodox Jews, but I could be wrong. In the final analysis the Bundists were wrong and one could make the counter claim that their actions is what enabled the Holocaust to happen. I won’t do that simply because the Holocaust itself was impossible to forecast, therefore it would be completely wrong to pass judgment on either group, and that is exactly what Daniel is doing.

If I could give one recommendation to Daniel – be less rigid in your idealism. The need to simplify into villains and saints is distorting your vision.

Once again, thank you Mr. Black, for your work and setting the record straight. If not Mr. Sieradski at least others are listening. But I hope that Daniel does too.

Why misquote me, Daniel?

I said the following: “I’ve scanned on occasion but unfortunately have not read in full.” This means that I’ve read sections of the book that I found of interest but not read the book from cover to cover.

As for accusing you of believing in the Protocols what I actually said was that in order to believe the statements you laid out you would need to believe that Jewish skills, resources, and power were approaching that stated in the Protocols, No doubt in the Arab world where the Protocols enjoy a degree of popularity this adds to their perceived credibility.

In your case I could suppose that the underlying premises are unexamined and you’ve been influenced to adopt these conclusions as a package. In which case urging you to reexamine actual circumstances might have the effect of changing your position. Also, rhetorically it’s a cute turn to claim personal offense but its also a transparent effort ignore the arguments stated,

You tend to take arguments to the extreme.

By comparison, when the Arabs carried on the Nazi campaign with mass post-war expulsion of Jews–about 850,000–they were kicked out penniless

False. The 850,000 refers to the total nuber of Jews in Arab lands that left – both willingly and otherwise. The number who were expelled is nut a fraction. The claim that all 850,000 were expelled was invented by WOJAC in the ’70s and rejected by the Mizarahi Jewish community in Israel.

And no, the Zionists did not rescue them. The 850,000 includes many who headed for other states like the US. The Zionists actually went to great lengths to make their lives difficult in their Arab home states in an effort to encourage them to migrate.

What the Arabs under Husseini did in the 1930s and 1940s was forge an alliance to openly orchestrate the extermination of the Jews

Rubbish. Husseini was in exile from 1937 and ceased to hold any influence from that moment. The Arabs armies did not invade Israel, they came to defend the Arab territory. Even Ben-Gurion predicted that they would do so to stem the land grab by the Zionist militias.

I feel much worse about Turkey not recognizing the Armenian genocide than anything else. Please note that not one Muslim country on the planet recognizes the Armenian genocide. Have you registered your objections with them? Nor am I as concerned about the US Federal position – it will come. Ronald Reagan recognized the genocide and many US States officially recognize it as well. IMV the US concern in 2007 that swung the decision was the use of Turkish airspace and bases in light of Iraq. More importantly I appreciate the cooperation between Jewish institutions such as Yad v’Shem and the US Holocaust Museum in helping the victims of other genocides document and make their case.

I understand why Israel took the position it did. There isn’t a nation in the world that can afford to take the moral high ground on every issue. Would you had Churchill and Roosevelt refusing to work with Stalin against Hitler? That doesn’t detract from the observation that Israel’s position mirrored in many ways that of the Armenians, the major difference is that the Israeli Jews managed to survive.

Neither, Daniel, one needs a sense of balance. The usual point made here is the hypocrisy of reduced expectations. And Turkey is a democracy, not a dictatorship, so is Malaysia, Kosovo and Bangladesh – none of which has recognized the Armenian genocide. Neither has China, but Russia has.

I had no idea that “Jewish morality” was as narrow and unbending as the Salem witch trials. Loosen up.

Additionally you are conflating the seriousness of the Armenian genocide itself with different levels of reaction to it, even doing so without reference to what those levels are. You are doing what you accuse others of – turning the event into a political tool.

Both the Yishuv and the Armenians were rising middle class communities treated as usurpers and outsiders, as were the Jews of Nazi Germany. Xenophobia and a sense of entitlement over a dhimmi millet led in both cases to exaggerated fear mongering. What I am doing is observing a pattern. I have no doubt that had the Arabs succeeded the fate of the Jews would have been similar.

So you’re saying it’s morally acceptable for Jews to deny the Armenian genocide if it will help Israel politically and that I should lower my expectations? Great. So is it okay for Ahmadinejad to deny the Holocaust if it will help Iran politically? Or is it only okay for Jews to deny genocides but never okay when other people do it?

I can accept that, but then we have a problem: If you look at the arguments I was having over “The Transfer Agreement” elsewhere in this thread, you will see that several individuals have said that it was impossible to predict the Holocaust, despite Hitler’s ongoing incitement against Jews. Yet today, we hear quite often things to the effect that you have said, re: drawing “reasonable conclusions as to [Ahmadinejad's] intentions.” Indeed, we hear often quotes akin to, “When someone says they want to kill Jews, history teaches us to believe them.” How is it that we could not predict the Holocaust, but now we can predict that Ahmadinejad’s intentions are genocidal, rather than political?

Probably no one could have predicted the killing centers; you’d need the same level of imagination as the ones who carried them out. On the other hand, Germany occupied Poland before, enacted concentration camps before (In Southwest Africa) and practiced sterilization before (Southwest Africa again), so why couldn’t anyone put that together and figure out Germans can be nasty killers when they want to be?

Zionism hasn’t done the Armenians in Palestine any favors. The Armenian Quarter was shelled by the Haganah during 1948 (cite below): “Meanwhile, an Armenian civil guard, armed with makeshift weapons, was formed under the leadership of the Dragoman Father Hayrig and Hrayr Yergatian to protect the quarter from the Haganah shelling of the Old City.76 More than forty Armenians died in the fighting.77″

And of course like all Palestinian refugees, Israel never permitted return of those Armenians who fled Zionist-captured land during 1948.

The Armenians of Palestine 1918-1948

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=historyfacpub

Andre your answer to this: ‘Are there Palestinian Arabs who want to live in peace with the Jews. Yes. Are they in charge of the PA and Gaza? No.’ was just a tad incomplete -and a little inaccurate.

Let’s review:

You said: “Of course they are. The PA and Israel both signed the Road Map
agreement in 2003. The Quartet were very happy with the PA meeting it’s
obligations, while Israel has failed.”

First of all, while the PA signed the Road Map, the PA’s state-run media shows that it is absolutely opposed to living in peace with the Jews. What the PA says in English, for Western consumption, is in complete dis-accord with what it projects to its Arab-speaking constituency. Look at what Arafat said to his different audiences. So, no those Palestinian Arabs who want to live in peace with the Jews are not in charge of the PA. More importantly, you completely ignored the phrase “and Gaza?” Can you straight-facedly maintain that ‘Palestinian Arabs who want to live in peace with the Jews’ are in charge of Gaza (whatever their motivations -and I refer you to the Hamas Charter to discern those)? Hamas -obviously- did not sign the Road Map. Next – you said that the Quartet was happy with the PA meeting its obligations. It looks like they missed the part about continued incitement to violence – but, in any event, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the Quartet, which barely managed to mention the rocket fire emanating from Gaza – is not an indicator, either leading or trailing, of whether the PA is composed of Palestinian Arabs who want to live in peace with Israel. What we do know is that the Quartet understands that Gaza is problematic- as it stated in its April 12th report: “the situation in and around Gaza remains fragile and unsustainable as long as the West Bank and Gaza are not reunited under the legitimate Palestinian Authority adhering to the PLO commitments.” That is not happening any time soon, because Hamas will not let it happen – and they control Gaza.

Andre, see http://joesisrael.com/edwin-blacks-letter/ for Edwin’s reply

You’ve attributed to me statements I never made, and then cry ad hominem because I’ve called you out. Please. This is robust discussion. And no I’m not a staffer.

And anyone who criticizes Dan here must have an answer for how to fix those problems, which are getting worse in Israel, rather than spending endless time fighting for little points of hasbara, talking to like-minded political activists, and pretending that we don’t know about some of the stuff Dan is talking about. Because if we don’t, it frankly doesn’t matter if we win the hasbara battle.

No sh*t. Stay illegally in stolen and militarily occupied land and become complicit in the crime against humanity, and then and only then you can “fight the good fight”… Is this the best Zionist propaganda produces nowadays?

This is what Irving “Yitz” Greenberg calls the “innocence of powerlessness” in his excellent essay “The Ethics of Jewish Power.” His main point: the Shoah was the epitome of Jewish powerlessness, and as such it is immoral for Jews to remain powerless. Wrestling with the ambiguities of empowerment is more moral than powerlessness, which left us — and would leave us — in a situation where we were incapable of defending our physical existence.

Daniel – You accuse me of ad hominem and you refer to Levick in those terms. Nice.

I see so now that you cannot address the merits of my arguments, you now resort to (falsely) accusing me of sock puppetry and take issue with who I am.

And why should Ben Murane or yourself be immune from having their views challenged? Or is criticism a one way street. It sure seems that way with the cavalier way you’ve behaved in this thread.

@Oboler:disqus If Margie/Emet is a colleague of yours, you should be ashamed of this ruse and put an end to it.

Stop lying you awful, awful person. I’m so sickened by your behavior right now I can’t even deal. Ask anyone: I’m not a liar. It’s not my style. My style is brutal honesty, to a fault.

And I curse you, because you are an evil person and your trickery is revealed by the fact that the @name responses on my comments to you as Margie have disappeared, which indicates a Disqus account name change.

You have just demonstrated that if right-wing Zionists can’t beat you in an argument legitimately, they will try to do it by destroying your credibility, even resorting to underhanded trickery.

Why would I make this up? The only other explanation is a bug with Disqus, but your comments were from Margie, my responses said @Margie. That is why I said, “I don’t even know who you are,” to the allegation that I had accused her of ad hominem. I had only called you out for ad hominem attacks, not Margie, who had appeared out of nowhere. Suddenly, after my comment, “Margie=Emet?”, the comments from Margie are now from Emet, my responses say nothing @ anyone, and you accuse me of fabricating it all. Why? Why would I have a need to do that? Also, your citation of CiF, where Margie in Tel Aviv is a blogger, seems to indicate that you are one and the same.

It’s all very fishy to me, but if I am truly incorrect and this was the result of a bug, then I apologize. But your comments were just as denigrating.

Hi all, while we do want to encourage discussion some things are off limits. That includes personal abuse and wrongful allegations against users. I’m saying this as a general warning.

If anyone suspects people are abusing the platform, please e-mail us to have it checked. In this case I can confirm that Emet and Magie are different accounts. They come from different IP address ranges (never mind different addresses) and are not from known proxies. I hope that settles the matter.

Never mind, I have proof you’re both lying now.

Before: http://d.1ski.me/image/1j372x30410D
After: http://d.1ski.me/image/2z261a2i0Z0C

You guys are pathetic. Ladies n’ gentlemen: Hasbara.

Uh huh. Ok.

Technical details: It looks like when a user isn’t logged in the system is caching the last user to post something, putting it up against the new comment. Only after a delay is it updating the user details. The result is it looks like things are posted by the wrong person.
Work around: please verify and log into your account on Disqus, then you won’t have this issue. (Or at least it doesn’t seem to be happening with registered accounts as far as we can see).

Daniel, I am Margie in Tel Aviv.We have spoken in the past.

Why on earth do you think I am Emet? I had no intention of hiding my identity but do have the bad habit of sometimes not adding the second part of my name. I will attempt not to do so in the future.

Daniel, I am a oleh and I am struck by how black-and-white you see things here. Do I see instances of anti-Arab racism here? Yes. Do I see instances of other Israeli Jews opposing this racism? Yes. Have I seen Kahane is right graffiti in Jerusalem? Yes, but it isn’t plastered all over the city, in fact you have to look hard to find it. What did I do when I saw a string of pro-Kahane stickers on King George St.? Did I pack up my bags and leave? No. I took positive action and removed the stickers. They never reappeared. When there was an anti-Arab riot in Jerusalem after a soccer game, I went to an anti-racism rally a few days later, and took my kids.

Daniel, there is no human society on the face of this planet that doesn’t have intolerant people. Putting Israel under a microscope as if Israeli Jewish intolerance is somehow a unique evil is wrong, morally and logically.

Did you miss the part where I said I fell in love with the place and wanted to make a life there? I don’t see Israel in black and white. I see Israel in a nuanced way, and if you ever saw me arguing with the Left, you would see a very different side of me. But I see problems that the pro-Israel solidarity community wants to plug its eyes and ears and ignore. Nowhere have I said that Israel’s racism problem is unique. In fact, elsewhere in this thread, I said it makes Israel no different from those who they condemn. Yet if I am to believe that it is my obligation as a Jew to put the Jewish people first, then it is my obligation to clean up my own house first. Indeed, the Talmud says in Shabbat 54:b, “One who has the power to protest against wrong in his house and does not do so, is responsible for (the transgressions of) every one in his house. In the city, he is responsible for the transgressions of every one of the inhabitants of the city; in the whole world, he is responsible for the world.” I focus my attention on Israel (though I am also active on many domestic U.S. concerns and other international causes) because the Jews are my people and they are conducting themselves in a way that I believe dishonors us, the name of God, and the land of Israel.

No, I realized that I am far more effective trying to change the minds of American Jews who are completely clueless about what’s going on in Israel more so than trying to change the minds of Israelis who, by and large, rejected me outright as a religiously and politically progressive Jew. My tone is from my exasperation over seeing ever more dollars being wasted by Jewish philanthropists on meaningless hasbara bullshit while my parents are losing their house after a lifetime of Jewish communal service because some of the biggest and most beloved funders in the Jewish community decided to destroy the housing market for profit. My parents are going to die in the street so that you can make videos about the history of Israel which don’t include the word Palestinian? Awesome. And forgive me, but as Colbert says, history has a well-known liberal bias. You call it anti-Israel demonization. I call it being honest about reality and trying to deal with it rather than revising it to my liking and attacking everyone who disagrees as a being a Jew hater or a self-hater.

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for taking the time to reply, and for sharing what you’ve shared. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I think it is clear from what you say that you do feel connected to Israel as a Jew. I think that’s the message Joe (and I do mean Joe, rather than Sarah here) is really trying to get out.

Whether that connection leads people to make Aliyah, to donate to environmental projects, volunteer at absorbtion centers, or to become actively involved with an Israel political party (and one can do that abroad, not just in Israel)… it doesn’t really matter. The point is that Jews are connected to each other and to Israel. That’s really the core of Joe’s message.

You start by saying you were raised a Zionist, I think your ending suggests that you are still a Zionist. I don’t believe there needs to be a conflict between: (a) being a Zionist, (b) supporting a two state solution, and (c) wanting equality for all Israel’s citizens. Anyone who has a conflict with those three values has adotped a particularly narrow definition of one or more of those values.

If you’ll cross post the above (perhaps edited into paragraphs and with any additions / changes you want to make) as a comment on Joe’s blog at http://joesisrael.com/catch-the-connection/ I think it might spark a very useful discussion.

Thanks again for the reply and for sharing, At least we didn’t have to stand in the rain for the conversation this time!

Daniel – more intellectual dishonesty and strawman arguments. Why does NIF fund Adalah, an organization that advocates the one-state solution?

“How is it dishonest or a straw man to say that NGO Monitor exists to persecute NIF?”

Umm because its not true.

Now regarding Adalah and their one-state solution. Let me start off by correcting a subtle but important inaccuracy in your statement. Adalah adopted their constitution in 2006, 2 years before Olmert’s 2008 peace plan – a time at which there was still a peace process. More to the point though, the one-state solution spells the end of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people and as a practical matter, Israel will not commit national suicide which means the only way this will ever be achieved is through bloodshed. So yes there is something incredibly insidious about the one-state solution and if you see nothing wrong with the one-state solution well I would question what is left of your Zionism.

You said that NIF supports a two state solution. I said that they fund an organization that supports a one state solution. You then acknowledge this is true but see nothing wrong with the one state solution. You then say you support a two state solution. I think you need to make up your mind.

As for my identity, in better times. The merits of my arguments stand on their own.

Daniel, there are different aspects to this discussion. I’m personally not interested in getting into the argument others are engaging in here. I _am_ interested in hearing about your connection to Israel. I know it’s personal but I think it is at the core of one of the three issues this site is here to discuss.

Too many (e.g. Mondoweiss) are linking you in with the crowd who just wish to see Israel destroyed. I think they are wrong about your position. I say that both from this comment of yours, and from our previous discussions. I see you engaging with the discussion on Israel because you feel a connection to Israel.

If we both feel a connection to Israel, it doesn’t make for a good argument, but it does make for a good discussion. Let’s have that discussion (on the other blog) and also listen to what others have to say about their connection. I have my own stories to share, but I’ll save them for the other thread and in reply to a post you make there as it will make the site easier to follow.

I thought Sarah answered you, but it was as a new post rather than as a reply. If you haven’t seen it you might like to go through the comments and find it.

Sarah’s role here is to present a Jewish narrative. As others have expressed, that is a legitimate thing to do. It also opens up the discussion, not everything she says is right (sorry Sarah!) nor is what she says complete. The aim is to stimulate the discussion. I’m sure in the future Sarah will say more things that upset more people on all sides. Does that answer your question?

If not, I can add that we feel it is important that Jewish people appreciate their connection to Israel and the strength of Israel legal position, before going into a discussion on the two state solution. The reason is because ultimately the two state discussion is not about rights, it is about finding a diplomatic solution that works for both sides.

My own personal thoughts (not speaking on behalf of Joe’s Israel):

If either side insists they won’t compromise on “their rights”… then progress becomes impossible. The claims of Jewish rights and claims of Palestinian rights fundamentally clash. Only through negotiation, where people compromising on what they regard as their absolute rights, can a solution be found. There are sites that try and present both sides and chart a middle road. There are also sites all about the Palestinian narrative and Palestinian rights. This site is about the Jewish narrative and Jewish rights and the discussion we can have around this topic. The topic of Palestinian rights is really only relevant (on this site) to the extent that we agree they have their narrative and we have ours, they have their claim to rights and we have ours, and ultimate… there needs to be some compromises and some giving up of rights on all sides.

Look forward to seeing your post for Joe.

DanielSieradski
Glad you noticed and were horrified by negative attitudes. However, the way to help Israel to overcome them is not to move out and criticise from afar. It is helpful to stay and work with people and show by example what the right way is.. How can you vote to counter the religious parties if you live in the USA? How can you influence younger Israelis from the USA?

Israel is not broken broken. Israel is a new country, finding itself amidst waves of migration, and a virtual continuing war. It is a miraculous society where the polish is not always evenly applied. Norms are different from the USA where everyone is unfailingly politically correct and says please thank you all the time (okay I’m joking but see the gap please)

The people you meet here are part of a melting pot finding their place in society, often the second or even the first generation in a difficult world. I am also shocked and angry when people are rude to me or make offensive statements but I haven’t left Israel for that reason. People are more abrasive than in the polite west. That’s the culture. They are also creative, original and will invite you for the hagim if you’re alone and help you to carry a heavy object without knowing you and without expecting a word of thanks.

ubin’s piece is typical hasbra. He and Fred Gottheib are flat out lying, which one woudl come to expect from Rubin.

They present the false argument that only in the case of Palestinian refugees are children of refugees included in the refugee popultion. In fact, the refugee status of
parents is passed along from generation-to-generation in every other
UNHCR program, e.g. See YNet’s “Don’t blame UNRWA”.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4082176,00.html

And are you seriously going to stand behing a

US Senate resolution proposed by an Israeli shill like Mark Kirk as a letigimate argument?

You’re simply making a fool of yourself.

Stop trying to muddy the waters and replace
polemic for facts. Do this again and you will be blocked.

My mistake. I read Gottheil and Rubin too quickly and should have taken more time to read Gottheil’s argument. Needless to say, he is still wrong, but I
will address his arguments later.

First, let me address the Kirk Resolution. Even if the UNRWA were to magically disappear
tomorrow, the status of the refugees can only be
definitively settled in accordance with the resolutions of the General
Assembly, not by the US Senate; not through bilateral
negotiations; and not according to UNHCR guidelines. The 1951 Refugee
Convention contains an express provision whereby the participating states
assigned the ultimate authority on status decisions to the resolutions of the General Assembly. The ipso facto
application of the provisions of the Refugee Convention
to Palestinian refugees is strictly limited to its
“benefits”:

Now to the rest of your argument.

The fact is that there are two definitions for
refugees. One for UHCR and another for UNRWA.

Not true. The definitions
overlap considerably and in the case of Palestine Refugees, there are a number
of inclusions (which circumvent the exclusions you cited).

“the Convention also does not apply to
those refugees who benefit from the protection or assistance of a United
Nations agency other than UNHCR, such as refugees from Palestine who fall
under…(UNRWA).” Page 4 of the Convention and Protocol document -
http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa1…

As I stated above, the ipso facto application of the provisions of
the Refugee Convention to Palestinian refugees
is strictly limited to its “benefits”. This
has nothing to do with the definition of a refugee. The UNRWA web site explains that to avoid
overlapping competencies between UNRWA and UNHCR:

” The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto exclude Palestine refugees as long as
they receive assistance from UNRWA. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) provides assistance and protection to Palestine refugees
outside UNRWA’s areas of operations. “

http://www.unrwa.org/etemplate.php?id=87

So
in other words, the reason the convention
does not apply to Palestinian Refugees receiving help from UNWRA is because
they are already receiving protection and/or assistance. When such protection or assistance has
ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively
settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the
benefits of the Convention.

There is nothing in this passage that refutes the refugee status
of Palestinian refugees. The passage you
are quoting actually refers to those Palestinians receiving UNRWA assistance as
“refugees from Palestine”.

In the countries under UNWRA jurisdiction, the vast majority of Palestine
refugees do not have a status equivalent to nationals in their country of
asylum. They cannot work and cannot
vote, hence are entirely dependent on UNWRA.

Finally the definition itself says in Article
1(A)(2) that “In the case of a person who has more than one nationality,
the term “the country of his nationality” shall mean each of the countries of
which he is a…

You left out the preceding paragraph which reads:

”As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951
and owing to well rounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and un unable or, owing
to such fear, is unwilling to avail
himself of the protection of that country; or who not having nationality or being
outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events,
is unable or, owing to such fear is unwilling to return to it.”

“ensuring the ipso facto entitlement to the
protection of the 1951 Convention of those refugees who, without having their
position definitively settled in accordance with the relevant UN General
Assembly resolution, have ceased to receive protection or assistance from UNRWA
for any reason. The 1951 Convention
hence avoids overlapping competencies between UNRWA and UNHCR, and in
conjuction with UNHCR’s Statute, ensures the continuity of protection and
assistance to Palestinian refugees as necessary.”

Page 1. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4add77d42.pdf

That means someone who gains citizenship of
another country stops being a refugee. Children born in most countries gain
citizenship of that country so are automatically not refugees. Others get
refugee status and are resettled, or legally migrate between countries… they
are not refugees.

Except that in the countries where UNWRA operates, most refugees
do not have citizenship of another country and their children have not gained citizenship
of those countries through birth.

According to the same UNHCR paper, Palestinian refugees that fall
within the scope of Artilce 1D of the 1951 Convention include:

a) Palestinians who are “Palestine Refugees” within the
sense of UN General Assemble Resolution 194 (III) of December 1948 and
subsequent UN General Assembly Resolutions, and who, as a result of the 1948
Ara-Israeli conflict, were displaces from that part of Mandate Palestine which
became Israel, and who have been unable to return there;

b) Palestinians not falling within paragraph (a) above who are
“displaces persons” within the sense of Un General Assembly resolutions
2252 (ES-V) of July 1967 and subsequent UN General Assemble resolutions, and
who, as a result of the 1967
Arab-Israeli conflict, have been displaced rom the Palestinian territory
occupied by Israel since 1967 and have been unable to return there.

Included within the above groups are
not only persons displaced at the time of the 1948 and 1967 hostilities, but
also descendants of such persons. On the other hand, persons falling within
Articles 1C, 1E or 1F of the 1951 Convention do not fall within the scope of
Article 1D, even if they remain “Palestine refugees” or “displaced persons” whose
position is yet to be definitively settled in accordance with the relevant UN General
Assembly resolutions.”

[Note that even if the persons falling
within Articles 1C, 1E or 1F of the 1951 Convention, it does not change their
refugee status.]

“5. Palestinians not falling within the scope of Article 1D who,
owing to a well rounded fear of being persecuted for reason of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, are
outside of Palestinian territory occupied by Israel since 1967 and are unable
or, owing to such fear, are unwilling to return there, qualify as refugees
under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention.”

Gottheil and Rubin’s piece
ignored this group entirely.

Outside of the Palestinians, where the refugee
problem is used as a political tool, refugee status is an emergency status and
the aim is to bring an end to it for individuals as quickly as possible.

Sorry, but this is simply and example of polemic on your own part. Israel created the refugees, not the states
outside of Palestine, so Israel is hardly impotent in bringing an end to the
refugee problem.

@Andre Oboler

the role played by Middle Eastern states in keep the refugees as refugees is very well document

So is Israel’s role going back to 1947, who’s actions and policies I repeat, created the refugees to begin with (both in 1948 and in 1967) and which they continue to create. Whereas there are UN Resolutions (and international law) demanding that Israel allow refugees to return, there are none demanding Arab states settle them.

The very fact that there are still people in refugee camps and they have not been resettled and that they are legally discriminated against and banned from certain professions etc itself evidence of this.

I agree, but this is all secondary to Israel’s culpability and it’s refusal to allow the refugees to return to their homes. Israel’s transgressions are far more serious than those of the states in which the refugees reside. Whereas the states in question have a moral responsibility to resettle refugees, they do not have a legal one. Israel does.

See this article from a Palestinian Refugee in Lebanon:

Sorry, but I do not find AbdulRaheem’s argument compelling.
He claims that the majority of the refugees in Jordan hold Jordanian citizenship and have integrated themselves into the country’s economic and social life. You blame UNWRA for maintaining theur status as refugees, but it is not UNWRA who has maintained their status as refugees, it is the UN. As I explained to you, the General Assembly alone has the authority to review their status. They would similarly be refugees under UNHCR.
“Lebanon’s discriminatory practices against Palestinians violate international human rights law”
But doesn’t even mention that Israel’s far more egregious discriminatory practices against Palestinians violates international human rights law is a far more serious way.
It’s also interesting according to the author, the majority of the Palestinian refugees in Lebanon would prefer to live in the West . Of course they would. Even people who are not refugees throughout impoverished countries want to live in Western States. Why do you think Western States have such a problem with illegal aliens? Hundreds of refugees from Afghanistan and other war torn areas money to people smugglers and risk their lives every year to reach the shores of Australia, with dozens dying every year from capsizing boats.
Polls show that even the majority of Israelis would prefer to live in the West if they could maintain the same lifestyle – that’s why skilled workers are deserting Israel. The Israeli government had to pressure the German government to discourage Russian Jews heading for Germany rather than Israel, because Germany was their preferred destination.

What AbdulRaheem says it not controversial What is revealing is that AbdulRaheem doesn’t even bother to address the refugees who want to return to their homes in Israel. He does not make any distinction between the desire of refugees to return to their homes and refugees being resettled in the occupied territories. Hegives no consideration to the fact that they are not in a hurry to move to the West Bank, East, East Jerusalem or Gaza while those territories are either under brutal military occupation.

As for convention, the part I cited is clearly labelled as the definition.

No it is not, it comes under the heading Introductory Note .

The definition appears under Article 1.

The passage you cited simply detailed that the refugees under UNWRA’s jurisdiction do not fall under the Convention. The Convention still refers to them as “refugees”, meaning it recognizes their refugee status.

Furthermore, the passage regarding the exclusion of refugees under UNWRA also states that the Convention does not apply to everyone who qualifies as a refugees under Article 1. That means that even refugees who meet UNHCR’s definition of a refugee may not come under the Convention.

UNHCR will give practical assistance to a real refugee who is also Palestinian if they are outside the geographic area covered by UNRWA – agreed. That, however, has nothing to do with out discussion.

Of course it does. I pointed out to you that the passage that excludes UNWRA refugees from the Convention also states that those refugees remain excluded while they remain under UNWRA’s jurisdiction and that in the event UNWRA ceases to provide these benefits, they will be included in the Convention.
You see, they are real refugees under both UNWRA and UNHCR.

You have now conceded that the definitions only partially overlap.

Not at all. I have pointed out that they only differ under articles from the Convention that don’t actually apply to those refugees under UNRWA anyway. I repeat, UNHCR recognizes the Palestine Refugees and does not have the authority to review their refugee status.

In fact, the Convention states this as the definition of a refugee:

“A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”

This applies to all refugees under UNWRA. Every one of them wants to return to their homes, but Israel has refused to allow them to. You might remember how those that tried were shot and how Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, assassinated Counter Bernadotte for trying to facilitate their return, so they certainly have ample reason to fear for their safety.
Hence, they are “unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.”

The definition for Palestinian refugees is vastly wider than the definition for refugees in general.

Quite the opposite. The definition of a Palestine Refugee is actually narrower. The 1951 Convention was expanded in 1967 to include a much wider group.

So contrary to your claim, I am not conceding that you are right. In fact, it appears that you don’t understand how the Convention works nor the scope of UNHCR. The vast majority of Palestinian refugees do not have the protection or citizenship of another country, so even by your own metric, they have not stopped being refugees

If you are Palestinian your “Palestinian Refugee” status not only continues, it has been done in such away that you pass it on to your kids.

This is getting ridiculous. I already provided you a link to an article from the UNWRA spokesman that states that this condition also applies to UNHCR. Did you not bother reading it? Here is the quote:
“All refugee communities, whether those under the care of UNRWA or UNHCR, have their refugee status passed through the generations while their plight remains unresolved. “
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4082176,00.html

As to the power of the US to change the definition, they have every right to have their own definition.

Not really. As members of the UN and signatories to the Refugee Convention, they are actually bound by it because it is a treaty.
Having said that, they obviously have a right to change the amount of money they give to UNRWA; they could cut it altogether if they wished, but that would simply change the status of the Palestine Refugees by qualifying them for care by the UNHCR under the Refugee Convention.

I consider you an enemy of the Jewish people? No my friend. Not at all. I consider you a fellow Jew, at least as Jewish as I or any other Jew. Furthermore, I do not consider Judaism a monolith either. That having been said, I consider your ideas, despite what I am certain are your good intentions, wrong headed. I desperately want you and your future generations to continue to identify as proud Jews. That’s why I said that your notions sadden me because you have effectively removed yourself from what is called Klal Yisrael. You have placed your notions above the interests of Jewish viability and vitality.

As I look back, I see Jewish sovereignty as the singular act that breaks the cycle of victimhood which has been the one historical constant of Jewish diaspora existence.

You are opposed to a Jewish state because you feel that a 2-state solution is impossible given the dispersal of settlements in the West Bank. So does that mean that you had been in favor of the Jewish State as it was constituted in 1948? 1967? 1973? 1982? When it would have still been possible to sign a comprehensive peace treaty that would have left the Palestinians with a viable state without having to remove too many settlers? No. I think you were always opposed to a Jewish state. We returned the Siani to the Egyptians. We forcibly removed our citizens from Gush Katiff and we will do what is necessary for the sake of a peace treaty with the Palestinians.

The current situation is of course untenable. You just let me know who I can talk to in order to end it. I’ll wait.

In doing so, he and others like him, probably your great, great, great grandfather as well, made a statement, and the statement was that they refused to relinquish their right to the land that they were deprived of by force of arms and violent conquest.

I alwasy find this argument amusing. How it is that the violent conquest that took control of Jerusalem away from the Judeans 2000 years ago was so immoral, yet the violent conquest that enabled the Hebrews to capture Jerusalem in the first place was so righteous? What right did Jews have to reliquish? Civilizations come and go, including the ancient and long dead Israeli Kingdom.

It is your right to beleve in your mythical “unbroken link” with the land, but it has no basis in law whatsoever. The fact is that the majority of Jews in the world were oposed to a Jewish State – especialyl those licing in Palestine. Herzl was considered a crack pot at the time.

While I agree with your semtiments on the Holocaust, the creation of Israel was set in motion long before. The Zionist leadership cynically sezied on the Holocaust to further their aims. In fact, part of this tragedy is how appalingly Jews were treated by other Jews.

The sad reality is that Jabotinsky, Weizmann, Herzl, Ruppin, and Ben Gurion ridiculed ordinary Jews in the Diaspora and used derogatory terms to describe them. Chaim Weizmann thought that the majority of the exiles in Europe were little more than human dust with no future ahead of them. He had no intention of bringing them to Palestine.
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1940v03&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=837

Many Jews who were ill and elderly were denied passage to Palestine by these same people on the grounds that they would be a burden on society.

Maybe you should read Herzl’s book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) where he wrote “The idea I have developed in this pamphlet is an ancient one: It is the restoration of the Jewish State. . .” So… I don’t know what you’re smoking.

Herzl wrote a great deal, much of it quite offensive. He proposed that anti Semitism should be encouraged and leveraged to achieve this aim, which is pretty offenive when you think about it.

most of the Jews in the West Bank live in places like Maaleh Adumim and Ariel

Both of which are illegal settlements.

They are not ideologically motivated settlers for the most part, and they will do what the State tells them to do.

You’re in denial. There would be a civil war if the Israeli government made any attempt to remove these setttlers.

Judaism has endured this long and against far fiercer foes than you. We outlived them and we will outlive you.

And long may it continue to. The simple fact is that Judaism has endured without Israel for most of it’s existence.

@ David Abitbol:

Yeah, yeah. And lets not forget the Muslim conquest and the Crusader kingdom that preceded it.

Of course not. All were conquests that results in the ownership and cointrol of the territory and propoerty changing hands. The difference of course, was that WWII was fought to put an end to violence and war being a means by which to acquire territory.

Righteousness and legality are two completely different concepts and we can spend days/months/years arguing those points.

It doesn’t have to take long at all. The legality is pretty clear though there are those who have a vested interested in pretending that it’s a complex issue or that the law is burried deep inside documents from Balfour/San Remo or LON and writte in a form that doesn’t say wht it means or doesn’t mean what it says.

The fact is that Israel is a member state of the United Nations. We have over 7 million citizens living here and we’re not going anywhere.

Again, no one on this forum has challenges either one of those truths, and I can only conclude that people like yourself keep insisting or repeating them to create straw men arguments to use as some cover. Of course, when one refers to the member state of the United Nations, it does not include the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

That and State sovereignty are the only de facto and de jure realities we need in order to assert the “legality” of our existence.

Exactly, thus rendering the “right to exist argument” completely moot and irrelevant, thoguh again, the the sovereignty refers to borders within the June 1957 borders.

Our presence in the West Bank is not meant to be a permanent state of affairs and as per SC242 will end as the result of a negotiated and comprehensive peace settlement.

I am sorry, but you are wrong on both counts. It’s clear that Israel is not going to pack up and leave Aerial behind and other settlements. The Palestine Papers have made that pretty clear. Secondly, 242 clearly stated that Israel had to withdraw prior to a neogiated people settlement, not after.

Such a peace settlement would fix the borders of Israel and perhaps that is why the other side, who is offended by the existence of a permanent and sovereign Jewish entity in its midst, hasn’t made it a priority to do its part to end the occupation.

That’s demonstratly false and dishonest. Please remiond us who’s leader appears before Congress to declare thatthe 1967 borders were not acceptable. Please remind us who stood at the podium and insisted that the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas be torn up.

And last of all, please remind us which leader in 1947 decalred that the borders laid out by UINGA181 were only temporary.

And of course, if Israel were serious about returning these territories as part fo a peace agreement, they wouldn’t be building settlements. Unless fo course, you are suggesting that the occupation and settlement project is one big housing development project to benefit Palestinians in the future.

Settlers in Ariel and Maaleh Adumim: Fact is and remains that most of those people are not the radical settlers portrayed in the media.

Sorry, but they are all coomplicit to a violation of the Geneva Convention and most of them would be abundantly aware of that. The fact that most of them might be peasant and amiable doesn’t change that fact.

@ CML:

2. Pre 67′ Israel features Arab citizens as supreme court justices, members of the Knesset

Pre 67′ Israel, arabs citizens of Israel lived under martial law.

3. The situation over the Green Line is very problematic. I do think that many of the settlements represent a serious obstacle to a two state solution.

You’re in denial. Netenyahu campaigned on a platform rejecting a two state solution and the Likud Charter, which also rejects the two state solution, remains unchanged. Netenyahu has also proclaimed that he sully supports the settlemtns and the settlers are subsidized by Israel. Netenyahu is also fircely opposed to ending the occupation.

Unfortunately the outcome of the Gaza Disengagement (repeated attacks on Israel) and the ferocity of Israel’s critics in not extending Israel any credit for ending the Gaza occupation did no favors for the Israeli peace camp.

Again, that’s willful denial. Ignoring the fact that Israel fired 7,700 shells over a period of 10 months as it withdrew from Gaza, Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar documented what the Gaza Disengagement actually involved in their book, Lords of the Land:

“After Israel withdrew it’s forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel’s military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it’s inhabitants, by means of it’s formidable military might.”

4. The largest Jewish community in the world resides in Israel. Your vision for this community is for it to basically live as a minority in the Arab dominated Middle East.

It would be today were it not for 64 years of ethnic clensing. Do you support the fact that Israel expelled 800,000 Palestinians in 1948 in order to achieve this majority?

And yes, multi-ethnic states are super stable, who wouldn’t want to follow the example of the former Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan.

It’s always amusing to hear Israeli supporters spurn mutli culturalism, when Jews in the West have benefitted so much from it.

5. What else…..Israel enjoys the backing of the majority of the US public and the strong support of President Obama and the Republican and Democratic parties.

Yes, money can buy politicians and the US public is, as Netenyahu himself sais, easily moved. The majority of the US public also beleived Saddam had WMD – that didn’t make it true.

Israeli ingenuity and science is highly respected in places like Africa, India and China.

That’s another matter. Israeli ingenuity does not grant it immunity from human rights abuses and violations of interntaional law – let alone war crimes.

Sorry to disappoint you but Israel is only growing and while disagreements remain it will continue to enjoy the overall support of the global Jewish community.

The support among the Jewish community is drying up and pretty soon, Israel’s main benefactor (the US) is not gong to be able to support it so fanatically. That will leave Israel isolated and Israel wil only have itself to blame.

There’s no talking to this
guy.

I am asking Sarah to present the case
for Israel based on international law that she claimed she was about to share with us. I can understand how that might seem
unreasonable to you.

no, i am not talking about states in general. i am talking about Israel, the Jewish state. all states are flawed. that is not the issue. the issue is a state dedicated to Jews and one whose government is designed around the fact that it is a Jewish state. The US is a highly flawed state, one which was built on the land and backs of its indigenous people. but the US is not a dedicated state to any group. e pluribus unit.

how on earth can the notion of an internationally recognized state mean nothing else is relevant. I am not arguing that israel has a right to exist as a state. and i’m not arguing that the international community should be the one that gets to determine what israel is. Israel can be a state, but it does not have to be a Jewish state. In so being, it has created the impossibility of ever having normalcy because no one in any piece of land (and they are all mixed) will ever accept that dedicated state if it is not of its “people”.

by saying you want a Jewish state, aren’t you in fact saying that what we want as Jews matter; it does not matter what the minority thinks.

BUT YOU MISS MY POINTS HERE COMPLETELY. I am not talking about justifying the Jewish state. I am asking you why you need it. A perfectly acceptable answer would be “You know, it isn’t fair that it exists, it certainly may not be what is right, but I don’t care; I want this.” We all…me very much included…act in our own self-interest. and in doing so, we know we are often morally wrong and that we are making choices we could not justify.

WHY DO YOU NEED A JEWISH STATE, KNOWING IF THAT IT WERE SUDDENLY TO CHANGE INTO A MULTICULTURAL STATE THE JEWS WITHIN WOULD STILL BE THERE AND NO GOING ELSEWHERE?

Would you wish to keep Israel Jewish if Jews fell to 40% of the population? Would you keep it Jewish forever, knowing that demographics are a constant in that they are always there and changing?

Why don’t you want the Jews in Israel to have the elevating and morally comfortable and empathetic thing and make it a non-Jewish, non-any-group state?

what would you lose if Israel became this while keeping all its Jews in a heavily Jewish state with important connections to its past and a rich, thriving Jewish culture?

It’s funny you should think I completely disagree with you about Jews being more a religion than an ethnicity. I actually see Jews that way (although we have had a tremendous amount of blood from others added to our veins in 2000 years of Diaspora; indigenous we ain’t…..I’ve seen far too many blue eyed blond Jews to doubt that one). But my feeling about Jewish peoplehood is just that: no people in modern states have their own state. Britain not British. France is not French. Germany, for crying out loud, is not German. Whatever indigenous people are in these countries, they have no special status over those who are not part of the group. And cities like London today are as international as New York. How do people have a “right” to a homeland. Do all peoples get their own homeland. Is a person whose four grandparents are white, black, hispanic, and Asian even have a homeland? And if homelands are rights, why have Israelis denied Palestinians one for over 40 years? Did the Palestinians attack Israel in 1967? I always thought that Jordan did so and that the Palestinians were occupied people under Jordan’s rule. Seems to me they’ve had two nations….Jordan and Israel occupy them (to go along with the Brits and Turks and all the rest.) So if we Jews are a “people”, why do we have a right to a homeland when the British, French, Germans, and all those other nations are no longer their homeland but places where all citizens are on an even plain?Jewish: Your argument appears be be premised on the idea that Jews are members of a religious group. I reject that. Jews are a people. Greeks and Italians are (ancient) people too, and in their cases a certain number of seats in Parliament are elected by the people living abroad. Israel doesn’t do this, but the principle shows the connection between a people and their state. To deny the Jewish people the right to self determination, is to deny them a human right.

The historical reasons for the
existence of Israel as a state (rather than a continued mandate of Britain or
some other structure) is actually irrelevant.

Then why did Sarah bother making her video? Are you suggesting she wasted her time?