The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Despite What Those Shadowy, Elite, Rich Jews Say, We're Not Antisemites
The "Palestine Writes Literary Festival" is being held at the University of Pennsylvania later this week. This has attracted severe criticism from Jewish groups and individuals within and without Penn because some of the speakers have a history of engaging in antisemitic rhetoric.
The Penn administration acknowledges that people have raised concerns about several speakers who "have a documented and troubling history of engaging in antisemitism by speaking and acting in ways that denigrate Jewish people." Penn nevertheless defends hosting the conference on academic freedom grounds, but adds that the conference was not organized by the university.
OK, but one may wonder why several academic departments are "sponsors" of the festival, meaning that they are providing funding. It's not an academic conference, as such; some of the speakers are neither Palestinians, academics, nor poets; and it's hard to imagine these departments funding a conference featuring speakers with a similar history of denigrating other minority groups.
Be that as it may, the organizers of Palestine Writes want you to know that the charges of antisemitism leveled against their conference are false. Hmm.
Well, if you want to know how NOT to start a letter defending yourself from accusations of antisemitism, you can use this letter as a model. After noting that the festival has been harshly criticized by "the Jewish Federation and the ADL," the organizers have this to say:
unlike our detractors, we do not operate in the shadows nor among elite decision makers and funders. Rather, we value transparency and public access, accountability, and scrutiny. We are also acutely aware of the power disparity between these highly funded, connected and organized Zionist organizations versus our small cultural institution run by volunteers and student organizations, most of them Penn students.
Talk about self-owns… The organizers are so clueless about antisemitism that they engage in classic anti-Jewish tropes while defending themselves from charges of antisemitism. Which kinda undermines anything else they have said or will say in their defense.
UPDATE: I should note that even if PW's detractors really did operate "in the shadows" and so on, it would be at best impolitic to phrase things they way its leaders did. But in fact, ADL and the local Jewish Federation criticized PW openly, and say what you will about the ADL--and it's not exactly my favorite organization, personally--it's basic modus operandi is getting as much publicity and attention for its views as it can. Nor are local Jewish federations (the main communal fundraising arm) exactly known for hiding either their existence or their policy positions.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Your link is to a My Big Fat Greek Wedding 3 review.
Apparently it's pretty good!
Thanks, fixed.
Darn it, I'd sort of like to see that
Bigger and fatter and Greeker!
Sure liberals are the problem.
Dressing up as Nazis calling for a Christian civil war, blaming liberal Jews for their problems...
Oh, wait....
Certainly there are issues all over the spectrum.
But in the real world, fear those who are willing to string you up from a tree for political gain, not those who disagree with the Israeli states policies
"Some of my friends are Jews. Free Palestine!" -arpiniant1
Strange that the Right-Wing is somehow Zionist and Nazis at the same time.
How is that strange? Coalitions are what they are.
The left also has plenty who want Israel to keep existing, but also some who do not.
Oh, that's not strange at all. I was raised in a right-wing Christian sect. They wanted Israel to exist because it was necessary to fulfill prophecy -- Jesus can't have his second coming unless the Jews are back in the land. It's not that they love Jews; it's that prophetically Israel is a necessary precondition for the Lord's return.
And that certainly didn't keep them from being hostile to Jews, both as Christ-rejecters and also as the architects of much liberal social policy that they despised. They blamed Jews for religious pluralism (only the truth has rights), for the increase in "sexual immorality", for Hollywood, and for most wars the US has been involved in; it's all the Jews' fault. When I was in the Third Grade, my Sunday School teacher read a passage from the Gospel of Matthew in which the Jews brought Jesus to Pilate, Pilate said he didn't want to shed the blood of an innocent man, and the Jews responded, "His blood be upon us and upon our children." She then gave a lesson about how the Jews have suffered because of what they did to Jesus.
So yes, I would say that for Christians, Zionism and anti-Semitism are not mutually exclusive.
OK, so maybe I won't open up my "Baruch Goldstein Kosher Deli/BBQ & Shooting Range/Gun Shop"
As has been said many times, anti-Semitism is the disease of which it purports to be the cure.
Who is the actual author of the letter: Susan Abulhawa or Rima Merriman? Talk about own goals.
It's too bad they couldn't ask some literary types for writing advice, and thereby avoid dumb locutions like "organized Zionist organizations".
That's not even grammatically correct
It's redundant, a little, maybe stylistically bad, but it's not violating any grammatical rule.
A group of organizations could be organized or disorganized.
This was poorly written in the sense it does not clearly convey the intended message; it was not illiterate.
Probably better for Palestinians to be writing instead of blowing things up/terrorism.
Have you seen most modern writing? They've just moved on to more insidious and indiscriminate terrorism.
Terrorism? I think you mean exercising their natural right to collective self-defense. Or are you some kind of liberal who thinks they should be made to take tyrannical government oppression without a fight?
Ann Coulter was right: "Invade their countries, Kill their leaders, and "Convert them to Christanity."
It worked with the Japanese, didn't it? (The same Japanese that we are now trying to encourage to defend themselves against China.)
Of course you think she was right. You’re a demon.
These are the people accusing their opponents of being “antisemites”.
Aunt Teefah: Criticizing shadowy, elite, rich, organized Jews is just legitimate criticism of Israel's government.
Also Aunt Teefah: Blowing up children is an inseparable part of the natural right of collective self-defense.
His name says it all.
by murdering Olympic Ath-uh-letes? peoples in Italian airports? and the hundreds of other murders the last 50 years I wouldn't give a fuck if they hadn't done anything since then, payback Mo-Fo! ("Never Forget's Bad Boy brother)
Frank
Some day there will be a Palestinian state. On that day, millions will rejoice the creation of...another dictatorial kleptocracy. I wonder whether more Palistinians will line up to get in or line up to get in the US or Europe.
Words are violence.
The ADL and David Bernstein: two of the most triggered crybullies in existence.
Any Palestinian who dares defend their people’s humanity will necessarily be called an antisemite by them. Good on these folks for not caving to the censors.
Just as a matter of historical causation, the Palestinian leadership would probably have been well advised to be more friendly and peaceful to Israel while it was still run by liberals.
Palestine was partitioned by the UN into Israel and Jordan -- half for me and half for you.
Historically speaking, the entire Arab world would have been a whole lot better of having stomped on (i.e. not permitting) the 1948 war and then not being in bed with the Soviets during the entire Cold War.
Eisenhower *tried* in the Suez Crisis -- he could have simply backed England & France but did the exact opposite.
Palestine was partitioned by the UN into Israel and Jordan — half for me and half for you.
And never mind where people are actually living at that moment, huh? How about we solve the Republican vs. Democrat problems in the U.S. by telling all Democrats to move to Blue states (that aren't already in one) and all Republicans to move to Red states and be done with it!
You are also ignoring that the UN move, approved by the General Assembly after Palestinian Arabs had boycotted the process, was just a plan that was never implemented. It devolved into civil war before any of it was supposed to take effect. The Arabs had boycotted the process because they believed that Jewish interests were being over-represented. They also argued that it violated the UN charter as not respecting the right of self-determination for the existing population.
This was especially concerning to them since the Mandate of Palestine was only ~1/3 Jewish at the time, and most of the Jewish population had migrated there during the previous two decades. (Jewish population estimates went from 84,000 in 1922 to 630,000 in 1947 vs. 660,000 Arabs in 1922 to ~1.2 million in 1947. Not all Arabs there were Muslim, either. The Christian Arab population in 1922 was almost equal to the Jewish population.)
Most of the non-Jewish population, who later came to be called Palestinians, had also migrated there recently. It may not have literally been "a land without a people," but it was rather sparsely populated; the 'indigenous' Palestinians mostly were not.
Yeah, well let us know when that happens. Meanwhile, this is a flagrant invocation of antisemitic tropes, so how about responding to that?
Are there any other minority groups that when someone documents overt racism against them, you respond by talking about the bad things their co-ethnics allegedly do, rather than simply condemining the racism? Or is this a Jews-only thing?
Well, a lot of people do that kind of thing when confronted with documentation of overt racism against Palestinians and Arabs, yourself included.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
What a whopper of a self-own. Their antisemitism runs so deep they can't see it anymore.
[space laser joke deleted]
A good thing. Azilia is right in our crosshairs.
The important thing to remember is, Judaism != Israel, though Zionism does map pretty closely to Israel. Being against Israel's government actions is not antisemitism, it's criticizing the government of a (foreign, for most of us) state. For a Palestinian to say "Jews blah blah" is much like an American saying "Muslims blah blah". One can see where it comes from, but it's BS to the same degree.
One can indeed criticise the Israeli government without being anti-Semitic, as many Jews inside and outside Israel do.
But it is all too easy to use such criticism as a fig-leaf for anti-Semitism. If someone's "anti-Zionism but not anti-Semitism" leads them to use anti-Semitic tropes, they're anti-Semitic. And at root, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic as it denies the right of self-determination to Jews uniquely. I have never heard an anti-Zionist oppose self-determination for any other ethnic group.
And it's easy to defelct criticism of Israel with (sadly often true) accusations of anti-semitism. It's a mess, and a useful one for a hard right government with iron-clad US support apparently bent on genocide.
'I have never heard an anti-Zionist oppose self-determination for any other ethnic group.'
I don't know, but I suspect, some of them might have certain opinions on Ukraine and Syria, but those would not necessarily detract from your overall argument.
People who rely on that arrangement seem destined to experience sadness.
And at root, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic as it denies the right of self-determination to Jews uniquely.
For an Arab living in the Mandate for Palestine in 1947, it was their right to self-determination that was being violated. As I point out in my reply above to Ed, Jews were only ~11% of the population in 1922, and it increased to ~33% by 1947 through migration.
Zionism in the late 19th and early 20th century wasn't looking to create political equality for Jews already living in that region. It was looking to create a homeland for the Jewish people that didn't have a single nation to call their own spread throughout many parts of the world.
I'm no apologist for the Palestinians that have committed acts of violence against Jews or that engage in antisemitism, but I'm also not going to ignore the historical facts of the conflict.
Over a several hundred year period, including emphatically during the British Palestine Mandate, most Palestinians' families had migrated to Palestine from somewhere else. And with no specific historical, cultural, or religious ties to the land. So?
Over a several hundred year period, including emphatically during the British Palestine Mandate, most Palestinians’ families had migrated to Palestine from somewhere else. And with no specific historical, cultural, or religious ties to the land. So?
That doesn't match up with what I have read and found again during these comments. (I'm not Jewish, nor do I have any expertise in history, so if the sources I am using are biased or just wrong on the facts, I'd like to know.)
"An Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine" From 1921: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-204267/
"The country is under-populated because of this lack of development. There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people...Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems."
Of the Jewish population, it says this:
"The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews."
Thus, at the time of that report, it was saying that Muslims (presumably Arab in ethnicity and language) made up around 550,000 people out of 700,000. (There were also 77,000 Christians, the "large majority" of which were Orthodox and Arabic-speaking.)
It goes on to discuss a fair amount about the recent Jewish immigrants bringing modern agricultural techniques with them that were highly successful, and it also discusses Zionism (with there being different views within it) and the Arab response to the Balfour Declaration (again, with different views among the Arabs). The British were not exactly models for treating well the native people under its authority outside of Britain, but I did note this:
"In a word, the degree to which Jewish national aspirations can be fulfilled in Palestine is conditioned by the rights of the present inhabitants."
British reports from near the end of its rule there state that Jewish population growth was driven primarily by immigration. The reasons for the growth of the Arab population is less certain, it seems, but the figures seem fairly clear that the Arab population roughly doubled between 1922 and 1944, whereas the Jewish population increased by a factor of six.
Migrations that occurred over the course of centuries as governments rose and fell is not the same thing as the Zionist movement of that time period.
I occasionally get accused of being a self-hating Jew. But I’m actually a Netanyahu-hating Jew. And a free-loader-hating Jew. (By “free-loaders” I mean those particular Jews who believe that God tells them to spend all their waking hours reading Torah and breeding, rather than working for their livings or defending Israel against her many enemies. May I spend all my waking hours reading books and getting laid at government expense too, please?)
Respectfully, "reading books and getting laid at government expense" strikes me as the definition of "college professor."
Some, particularly here, would vehemently disagree with the thesis that professors are useless eaters -- although I think we can all learn from history -- the history of the Chinese Cultural Revolution when Mao defined them as such.
So Israel may have some public intellectuals. We don't????
we can all learn from history — the history of the Chinese Cultural Revolution
Actually, Ed, that was bad.
College professors, and professional public intellectuals, have to prove themselves in the academy. Publish or perish, you know? (And that means publish work which has genuine value.) In contrast, all the freeloading “Haradim” Jews have to do is wear the funny clothes, and vote for hate-legislation against LGBTQs, and throw rocks at women who venture into "their" neighborhoods without covering their hair "adequately".
Actually, if you look at the fact that Israel is one of the very few developed nations that actually manages to reach replacement level in terms of births by citizens, I’m inclined to say, “They also serve, who ‘merely’ assure that there will be a next generation.”
At this point it’s about time, well past it even, to stop treating breeding as a indulgence, rather than the necessity for the continuation of the species it actually is.
stop treating breeding as a indulgence, rather than the necessity for the continuation of the species it actually is
I'm not worried about the species. Unless by species you mean white people.
I suppose in retrospect I should have expected you to inject racism into just about any topic.
Virtually every single country that has modernized its economy, regardless of the race of the people living there, has gone from having a growing population to below replacement birth rates. You might laugh that off if they were only slightly below replacement, but it's not. It's levels so low they'd previously only have been seen in active war zones or the middle of really bad disease outbreaks or famines. And it keeps dropping!
This is what an extinction event looks like. What's your solution, keeping the poor countries that are still reproducing poor, so that they'll keep pumping out babies to export to the rest of the world?
The observation that highly developed countries have below-replacement fertility is often hypothesized to be due to a few factors inherent in having greater wealth:
- The ability to focus resources on fewer children increases the chance for those children to be successful.
- Greater parity in work and careers for women results in a delay of reproduction to later in life or none at all.
- Greater parity in work and careers also means women are able to leave a marriage much more easily, which can dissuade them from having more children with any new partners even if they are still of reproductive age.
Note that the Ultra-Orthodox Jews that do not gain employment in modern careers will earn less and have less available already to invest in fewer children. Instead, they may experience pressure to have more children that can divide the effort to care for them in old age the way less developed countries and cultures do. And, of course, independence for women is not a thing among them.
This could be an explanation for why Israel maintains a higher birthrate than countries with similar overall wealth.
What do you propose we do to increase birthrates in wealthier countries so that we don't have to rely on immigration to keep our population from aging to the point of it being detrimental to the economy? Reduce the old age social safety net so that people have to have more kids to support them in their old age? Roll back the gains women have made toward equality so that they can go back to focusing on having and caring for more kids?
This makes the Ultra-Orthodox sound like worthless, dumbassed freeloaders.
"Reduce the old age social safety net so that people have to have more kids to support them in their old age?"
Something similar to that: Essentially the problem is that old age safety nets turned the next generation into a commons: Everybody benefited, whether or not they contributed to there BEING a next generation.
I think the solution has to be breaking up that commons, making old age pensions at least partly dependent on the number of productive offspring you have. And at zero, reduce them to bare subsistence.
I think the solution has to be breaking up that commons, making old age pensions at least partly dependent on the number of productive offspring you have. And at zero, reduce them to bare subsistence.
Funny how easily some people that complain about government power will find a government solution to a problem when it suits them. Usually, that occurs when they have some cultural goal that would benefit from that government action.
[edited]
We're talking about the government's own pension systems here. I wouldn't suggest applying such a rule to private retirement savings.
Social Security is already about 'subsistence' level, so any parenting requirement there would actually need to be an increase in spending. And for pensions, private or public, you're talking about an employer giving people more compensation based on whether they have kids rather than anything about their job requirements or performance. I don't see many people thinking that would be a good idea.
Humanity, writ large, is not in danger from extinction from birth rates.
So you're talking about some subset with low birth rates.
Why do we care about people in countries with a 'modernized economy?' Plenty of countries picking up that slack. Do their humans somehow not count?
"Some sub-set", yeah, everybody who's not dirt poor could be described as "some sub-set".
"Why do we care about people in countries with a ‘modernized economy?’ Plenty of countries picking up that slack. Do their humans somehow not count?"
I said why we should care: Are we supposed to keep Africa dirt poor just so they can export babies? As things are now, we can confidently expect that, as soon as we succeeded in lifting the 3rd world out of poverty, they, too, would be sub-replacement.
Is that your idea of a moral policy? Keeping part of the world as a poor baby factory?
Do you think poverty is a genetic trait?
Humans are humans.
Nothing I said even suggests that I think poverty is a genetic trait, though some things that are partly genetic may make it more likely.
But you're just ducking at this point: If poverty is the only thing keeping Africa reproducing, why should we care if it takes keeping a substantial part of the world poor to avoid extinction?
Because keeping people poor is bad, maybe? Not as bad as extinction, but bad. We need to solve this without relying on part of the world being poor!
Why does it matter where humans are being produced?
You've not established poverty is the only thing keeping Africa reproducing. Correlation is not causation. Every country has it's own path, and will deal with modernization in it's own way.
Encouraging kids is a fine national policy. Your thing where you punish the elderly for not having had kids is wild and bad.
Again: May I go to Israel and get paid to breed, too?
In theory, the opportunity is open to anyone willing to satisfy a qualified rabbi.
Phrasing?
As a general rule, you should not hate people you don't know.
The relatively rare sane voice in this context.
If Palestinians are anti-semitic does that make it ok to oppress them, kill them and take their land? If Israelis are racist against Palestinians, is that better or worse than the Palestinians being anti-semitic?
You know, people who keep attacking somebody tend to get oppressed, killed, and eventually have the land they launch the attacks from taken away, unless of course they win.
The Palestinians could have had full statehood and independence decades ago, if they could have just refrained from continually launching attacks on a much more powerful neighbor. Maybe just stop launching rockets, at least, and ditch the maps that don't have Israel on them?
Tend? You dint get to depersonify Israel into historical forces. Born Israel and Palestine have agency and are using it badly. Israel is the one being more effective with their badness.
There are no blind historical forces at work here. The Palestinians are about the most unsympathetic pack of maniacs around. The Palestinians have agency, and they use it to behave incredibly badly.
Can you even imagine for a second how the US would react if Mexico were randomly launching rockets into American suburbs, and we had to have a giant wall along the border to keep out Mexican suicide bombers targeting daycares? Israel is being restrained compared to how the US would react in their place!
Awesome from depersonifying Israel to dehumanizing Palestine, with some collective guilt added on as a treat.
A people being 'unsympathetic' is no excuse in any kind of moral framework.
Listen to what your logic here can rationalizing here. You're into some dark shit.
Mexico-US’s situation is *nothing like* Palestine-Israel. Come on, that's weak.
You can favor Israel’s right to exist while noting it’s own immortality. You can call out Palestine’s behavior without becoming a Manichean sociopath.
"Awesome from depersonifying Israel to dehumanizing Palestine, with some collective guilt added on as a treat."
It's NOT "dehumanizing" to notice that a group is behaving very badly, human being do that sometimes. And when you're talking about policy between states, collective guilt is the norm.
"Mexico-US’s situation is *nothing like* Palestine-Israel. Come on, that’s weak."
I know it isn't, I asked you to imagine for a second how we would behave if it was. Was that beyond your capacity?
It's group guilt, which is dehumanizing. I also note you leave the appropriate reaction to such bad behavior quite open.
Before Netanyahu I understood, but could not condone, Israel's actions towards Palestinians. Now, from rhetoric to human rights to property rights, its well beyond any proportionate or moral reaction.
Ah, the feelz are activated again.
Let me be purely blunt: in today's age, the Palestinians started it. Israel is only reacting to it. They're not holding anyone down; the Pali's are doing that to themselves. It is embedded in their culture to hate the Jews with a white hot hatred, and until that changes, they'll go on consigning themselves to be second class citizens. The exceptions go on living in Israel and thrive just fine; better than they would in most Arab countries.
If Israel wanted, they could end this once and for all by dropping a few MOAB's in heavily Palestinian areas. Why don't they? Because they're not the evil, conniving people that people like you think they are.
It is more likely that Israel doesn't conduct itself in that manner because it recognizes that action would accelerate the loss of the American skirts -- military, political, economic -- behind which Israel currently operates, and it doesn't want to try to operate without them.
I repeat, relations between countries are inherently based on collective guilt, because countries ARE collectives! Countries are routinely held responsible for what their citizens do to other countries.
And the Palestinians, collectively, act VERY badly. Are you going to try to say that the Palestinian government couldn't stop that, if they wanted? Of course they could! They don't really want to.
relations between countries are inherently based on collective guilt, because countries ARE collectives
You're making a moral argument from collective guilt. You're not talking good or bad foreign policy, you are talking moral or immoral.
I wouldn't analyze this as a foreign policy push. First, because that's not the relationship between Israel and Palestine. And second because it only makes the power imbalance more of an issue - if a country's foreign policy includes taking steps with the intent and effect of eliminating another country, or treating them as an occupied people with no inherent rights, that country is committing crimes.
'you are a bad country and we will make you disappear' is not how we roll in the modern era.
If Israel wanted to make the Palestinians disappear, they could have long since achieved that, and in the context of the Middle East, it wouldn't have been even particularly unusual; Genocide of religious/ethnic minorities is the rule in the Middle East, with Israel as the conspicuous exception.
But if you continually wage war against another country, and won't stop, (And scarcely a month goes by when the Palestinians don't commit classic acts of war against Israel.) you DO get occupied if the other country is capable of it. That's NORMAL in such a situation!
Israel's current rhetoric and policy appears to have the intent of either bringing the Palestinian people under permanent occupation without human rights, or to ethnically cleanse the region.
It won't be a fast process, but it's what Netanyahu is currently condoning, and in his rhetoric all but supporting.
And there you go, pretending Israel is a force of nature without agency itself. Don't pretend Israel didn't itself fuck up the peace process plenty of times. No one hands are clean, and anyone pretending they are has blinded themselves. (That counts for Free Palestine leftists as well)
"Israel’s current rhetoric and policy appears to have the intent of either bringing the Palestinian people under permanent occupation without human rights, or to ethnically cleanse the region. "
That's just stupid on a cosmic level, I wonder what level of ideological fixation is required to believe it.
All the Palestinians have to do to escape occupation is to stop attacking Israel for a significant period of time. It's something most countries manage to do without even trying.
All the Palestinians have to do to escape occupation is to stop attacking Israel for a significant period of time.
Once. Again. Both. Sides. Have. Agency.
And the Israelis won't use their agency to commit suicide by releasing their hold on the Palestinians while they're still launching attacks on Israel.
It's a false choice that either you go Netanyahu level or it's suicide.
It's the exact false choice used by genocidal demagogues almost without fail.
My rarely used prayer: pray the US is never engaged in such a severe war where dehumanization of the enemy is useful.
It is a conceit of peace.
For a rather broad definition of peace.
Manicheanism is actually a religion with a history of persecution, and has modern adherence.
You know, people who keep attacking somebody tend to get oppressed, killed, and eventually have the land they launch the attacks from taken away, unless of course they win.
Terrorism* is always wrong, even in a “just war” situation. But I would prefer it if people would factually correct about the history of the Arab-Isreali conflict.
The Palestinians could have had full statehood and independence decades ago.
Well, two or three decades is plural, so that is factually correct, I guess. The Oslo Accords of 1993 resulted in the PLO recognizing the State of Israel and the State of Israel recognizing the PLO as representing the Palestinian people. (The Palestinian Authority formed shortly afterwards.) The negotiations and work that was supposed to lead to the “two-state solution” broke down over the next several years, however. The Second Intifada didn’t start until after negotiations failed in 2000. Maybe you can explain why it was all the Palestinian’s fault that negotiations failed, I don’t know the details well enough right now to judge.
Add to this how it doesn’t state anything about the 26 years that those Palestinians had been living under military occupation, or the 700,000 Arabs that had been pushed out of their homes in what would become the State of Israel in 1948.
To say that the Palestinians could have had their own state by now is saying that they should have dealt with what was done to them only peacefully. Which, sounds exactly right in theory, it also assumes that Israel would have done the same and negotiated in a way to try and make up for their actions. I can’t think of an alternate timeline that didn’t involve violence between these groups, once the British White Paper of 1939 was rejected by hard-liners on both sides.
*I view terrorism as akin to torture. The goal is to inflict so much physical and psychological pain that the person will say or do anything to make it stop. That is, inflict enough death and suffering on a civilian population and they will make their government capitulate to the terrorists’ demands. As I said, a terrorist negates any possible claim to being justified when they commit acts of evil.
70 years ago. 1948 was 70 years ago. That's enough time for someone to have been born had children of their own, had those children have children, and have had those children have had children. A great grandmother and her great grandchildren all born and raised.
"Add to this how it doesn’t state anything about the 26 years that those Palestinians had been living under military occupation, or the 700,000 Arabs that had been pushed out of their homes in what would become the State of Israel in 1948."
You ARE aware, aren't you, that Israel has a substantial Arab population, in decided contrast to the surrounding Arab states, which have vanishingly small Jewish AND Christian populations, because they finished their genocide of Jews a while back, and are close to done with their genocide of Christians? How exactly IS it that Israel has a 21% Arab population, if they expelled the Palestinians? Why didn't they finish the job, the way the Arabs did, if they're so awful?
The essence of anti-Semitic attacks on Israel, I think, is the double standard: It's just taken as given that the Arabs will behave as uncivilized genocidal maniacs, but Israel is held to a higher standard, THEY are expected to behave as if they were situated in the middle of Europe, and not one of the nastiest areas on the face of the earth, where being a nice guy would get you pushed into the sea.
"Which, sounds exactly right in theory,"
It's just exactly right, period. I don't know how many times you need it proved to you that you're not going to solve a problem with violence, because the guy you're fighting with has more of it on tap, before you try solving it peacefully.
Like I said, maybe they could reform their school system, ditch the maps that leave out Israel, stop teaching anti-Semitism to kindergartners, and accept that Israel exists, is going to continue to exist, and that they have to co-exist with it instead of murderously attacking it?
I do hold Israel to a higher standard.
Not because they are closer to my cultural norms, but because they are the dominant ones in the situation; they have the tech the people and the political power.
With power comes responsibility, as they say.
"I do hold Israel to a higher standard."
That's right, you do. Another way to phrase that is that you have a double standard for Israel.
Sure, they're dominant relative to the Palestinians, which is the only reason the Palestinians haven't successfully committed genocide against them. But your double standard extends to the surrounding Arab states, and what's your excuse there?
Israel is more competent and determined than their genocidal non-Palestinian neighbors, so they're dominant there too!
Contra Bush 2, in this case it's a hard bigotry of low expectations.
Demanding I pretend Israel is just like Palestine or else I'm doing a double standard is disingenuous.
It's one standard that is not so myopic as to not take into account that differently situated groups have different sets of choices available to them.
As to the 'other Arab states' they all have their own relationships and history with Israel. You're really leaning hard on group guilt here.
Well Sarcastr0, you do in fact have a double standard. You said so yourself, upthread. You're big on the idea of agency. Very well then, perhaps one side might choose a path other then Judeocide.
And I do not want to neglect the intersectional dimension here, you might try asking one side not to throw gays off rooftops. Or to not hang trannies from cranes until the birds of the air pick the flesh off their decaying bodies.
But double standards, right? So I see.
You think I'm saying Palestine is great? Because as I recall I said the opposite a number of times.
And yet here you are knee-jerk accusing me of supporting genocide and killing gays. Weird, I didn't say anything like that.
In fact, one can note that Israel is doing bad shit to Palestinians without supporting killing gay people. What a weak tea argument for an adult to make.
This is not a choosing sides thing - at the moment both sides seem angling for profoundly immoral results. It is also not a 'who is a better people collectively' thing. Because collective guilt is not how you should do things.
You seem to be kind of urging me to be a bigot - to pre-judge individuals in a group. Not gonna do that. And you shouldn't either.
I reject your premise = This is not a choosing sides thing – at the moment both sides seem angling for profoundly immoral results.
And you chose your side. Own it.
No, you're not saying Palestine is great. You're saying you're holding Israel to a different standard than the rest of the Middle East.
That's what having a double standard MEANS. Not applying the same standard!
I put it to you that Israel is, approximately, about as nice a country as can survive in the Middle East as it is currently. Israel can't be nicer than they are, by much, until the rest of the area, which is objectively much, much worse, civilizes.
You’re saying you’re holding Israel to a different standard than the rest of the Middle East.
A couple is in a heated argument. The woman throws a punch with all her strength at the man, hitting him in the face. The man punches back with all his strength, hitting her in the face. Should we hold them to the same standard? What if we make it a bit more concrete and say that we're talking about a relatively fit woman, but not an athlete, that is 5'6" and 130 lbs. While the man is a professional athlete, 6'2" 225 lbs of muscle. Still say we should hold them to the same standard?
Israel has the wealth, technology, and organized government to have fully modern and effective military and police force. The Palestinians have been living under occupation for 55 years, so they do not have any of those things.
The standard is how one should use their power when they know the effect that use of power will have. Really, then, they should be held to the same standard. The Israeli government has full control over its citizenry, its military, and its police forces. Thus, it should be in full control over how it deploys force and be held to full accountability with how it deploys it. Palestinians do not have a single government with full control in that way, with different terrorist groups, individuals, and corrupt government officials without even the theoretical ability to exert full authority since Israel is occupying their land.
If Israeli police, military members, or even ordinary citizens harm innocent Palestinians, the Israeli government is responsible. It is responsible either for having condoned or ordered the act or for prosecuting the individual citizens responsible if they did not. Palestinian authorities are in an impossible situation even if they did have the moral intent to not use violence and punish any terrorists among them. They simply don't have the power to do that. (They also don't have the intent, but that is not my point.)
Add to the disparity in the ability to inflict harm on each, Israel is in primary control over the ability of Palestinians in the occupied territories to improve their economy. Improving their lot in life would alleviate some of the anger and hatred that might give moderates more sway.
Netanyahu and his allies have been in the "peace through strength" mode my whole adult life. The problem with that strategy is that it forever keeps the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza from making their own lives better. That increases the bitterness and hate that makes recruiting terrorists among young men with no job prospects easier. (And some of the more educated ones will see friends and relatives remaining poor and be easy to recruit as well.)
So, what to do about it? Keep the status quo indefinitely? Israel is the one with the power to make things change. Viewing the Palestinians as the only part of the problem means that they have to accept being poor and occupied, with Israel condoning the building and expansion of settlements in their lands in violation of every previous agreement, for long enough that Israel will stop imposing such heavy restrictions on their lives.
chose your side. Own it
Don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. Especially when I explicitly said that's not my position. And to use your strawman to morally condemn me?! '
Fuck you.
"A couple is in a heated argument. The woman throws a punch with all her strength at the man, hitting him in the face. The man punches back with all his strength, hitting her in the face. Should we hold them to the same standard? "
Or as I put it, Don Knots attacks Arnold Schwarzenegger with a knife, and tries to gut him like a trout. But Arnie gets him in a headlock, and tries to talk him down.
But, no go, every time Arnie tries to let him go, Don picks up the knife and takes a swing at him. And Arnie is accumulating cuts, none of them deadly yet, but that's only because Arnie keeps putting him back in that headlock. Hell, even when he's in the headlock, Don is trying with every ounce of his 98 lbs to gouge his eyes out.
It's tempting, if you're an idiot, to declare Arnie a bully, because he's got a guy less than half his weight in a headlock. But that does require you to ignore Don's actual, real world behavior.
Literally the only reason Arnie, Israel, is still alive and breathing, is that he DOESN'T laugh off the attacks! Your woman in the scenario attempts to murder the guy every time he lets her go, and, no, he's not hitting her full force, she'd be dead. He's just using enough force to keep her from murdering him.
You are assuming that Arnie is only putting Don Knots in a headlock and “tries to talk him down”.
That is nothing at all like what Israel does in the West Bank. You forgot the punching him in the face multiple times while Knots is in the headlock, and that talking him down means telling him to stop the attacks or he’ll keep hitting and even harder next time. [Oh, and he isn't letting Knots go entirely, either. Just as the Palestinians aren't being left alone to do their own thing after the Israeli response to an attack.] It also means that you are also forgetting anything that Arnie might have done wrong that made Knots want him dead in the first place. Even if Knots was vastly overreacting to being wronged, would you let Arnie off the hook entirely for things he did that were wrong?
After all, holding both sides to the same standard means both get punished for their crimes in proportion to the seriousness of their crimes.
The point is that your thought experiment implicitly assumes that the woman isn't blatantly determined to murder the guy.
While the Palestinians are still to this day, launching explosive rockets into Israel. With the only limits on their deadly scale being the fact that the Palestinians are under extremely rigorous import controls, and so can't launch as many as they want, and the existence of a very expensive anti-missile defense system intercepting most of them.
Israel and the PLA are not in a state of peace. They have not been in a state of peace for a couple decades now. They're in a state of war, continual war, persecuted as effectively by the Palestinians as they're capable of. And only Israel maintaining the occupation and controls keeps the death toll down.
I don't see a second state anytime soon, likely never; it is utter madness to even consider it. The two-state paradigm is dead, and only those mired in failed past solutions still advocate for that. Is not happening.
There is a far more humane solution: voluntary incentivized emigration for palestinians who do not wish to live in Israel (which includes Judea and Samaria) under Israeli sovereignty. With sufficient incentive, enough palestinians will opt to take the buy-out over time and build rewarding, successful lives elsewhere.
Note: Nobody dies in a voluntary transaction. In contrast, how many lives have been wasted chasing after a two-state solution? Far too many.
Careful . . . some people around here bristle at any mention of what you call voluntary incentivized emigration.
Note: Nobody dies in a voluntary transaction. In contrast, how many lives have been wasted chasing after a two-state solution? Far too many.
For it to be a transaction, the Israelis that settled in the occupied territories will have to move back to Israel.
It is passing strange how ethnic cleansing is considered the progressive position on the conflict.
Isn't it, though?
Or, did you mean that all of the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusulem that don’t want to live under Israeli rule should voluntarily leave for other countries, like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, etc.?
You did talk about the two-state solution as not feasible after all these years, so it seems like this is what you meant.
[edit: I see that is what you meant, since "Judea and Samaria" refers specifically to the West Bank, though it doesn't include East Jerusulem.
So, what exactly do the Palestinians that would leave under this idea get as part of the "transaction"?]
Since he said “take the buy out,” the implication is that they get monetary compensation.
JasonT20, you have it right, and that is precisely what I meant: a voluntary one-time payment to palestinians who do not wish to live under Israeli sovereignty. They get money, and they relocate to other countries in the region who will take them.
There is no 'east' Jerusalem; Jerusalem is the indivisible capital of Israel.
There is no ‘east’ Jerusalem; Jerusalem is the indivisible capital of Israel.
Since when?
Since June 1967 at the very least.
Oh, since Israel conquered East Jerusalem from Jordan, you mean. Even though the UN General Assembly and Security Council both reject the legality of Israel's claim to a unified Jerusalem.
So, it is the "indivisible" capital in the eyes of Israel (and apparently the U.S. since 2018), but is that true for anyone else?
When you are 4-time losers (1948, 1967, 1973, 2002) like the palestinians are....you lose. You get bupkis.
If you’re going to take such a political realist view, that the fact of Israeli victory that resulted in their control over Jerusalem and the West Bank just is and moral justification doesn’t mean shit, then I will dismiss as irrelevant any comparisons you make between the morality of Israel’s actions and those of the Palestinians. Fair?
I suppose Jerusalem is the indivisible capitol of Israel in much the same way as Taiwan is independent from China: It absolutely is, and it's stupid to say otherwise, until a superior military force actually comes along to change that fact. But politics have driven a lot of countries' governments to pretend otherwise.
As I said in reply to XY,
It is contradictory to emphasize the military result and control as just being the way it is, yet to then also be comparing the Palestinians and Israelis in moral terms. They way you have talked about Israel's right to self defense against terrorism from Palestinian terror groups is a moral argument. Referring to Palestinians as "mad dogs" as you have is a judgement of the morality of their actions.
You can't have it both ways. You can't reference occupation and control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank as just being facts where the moral and legal judgements of the rest of the world are irrelevant and then also make moral judgements yourself regarding the positions and actions of Israel and the Palestinians.
Yeah, that's not happening. There's a reason that the adjoining Arab states have pretty impressive walls against the Palestinians, too. The Palestinians really are the mad dogs of the Middle East. NOBODY wants them.
Until they straighten out, your proposal is a non-starter. Once they straighten out, it's unnecessary.
The Palestinians really are the mad dogs of the Middle East.
Yep, no dehumanizing here!
I know a Jordanian Palestinian. He can tell you all about Jordan plowing his and other nearby villages under.
The were the dogs of the middle east, until some genius realized they could be put to work against Jews. Suddenly all the far worse governments (to Palestinians) feigned sweetness.
Rule 101 of politics (literally psych 101): redirect the population’s hatred against a smaller internal, or external group. Ready made one, hey!
No. They could be put to work against Israel. Not Jews in general. See how that works? Not interchangeable.
I am not so sure about that Brett. After Obama, the dynamic changed. Post covid, it changed even more. What countries in the region will turn away self-sufficient palestinians who have money to invest in their local economies? Not as many as you think. How many more palestinians have to die before they avail themselves of a humane, non-violent solution? You can bet there are many palestinian moms and dads who are asking that question in the quiet of the night.
Why shouldn't palestinians have rewarding lives for themselves elsewhere? They're smart, industrious (just look at all the rockets they build to shoot at innocent civilians), and very entrepreneurial (quite accomplished at smuggling). Now, if nobody in the region is willing to take in palestinians, even those with money, that tells you something (to your point above about nobody wanting them). Brett, I could care less about palestinians 'straightening out'. They can do that elsewhere.
Israel is not going anywhere. The dead-ender palestinians who want to stay and fight Israel will die violent deaths, unloved and forgotten. Israel OTOH, will grow and prosper.
Israel's GDP is roughly 325B. What is 100B spread over 5-10 years? Answer: The best money Israel could ever spend.
It is not like you need millions of palestinians to take the deal....roughly 1-1.5MM is plenty; 2MM would be a wild success. Israel is roughly 65% Jewish...move that percentage to 80% and it is basically game over, demographically. It is very achievable.
Well, we'll see. I don't think it will happen, but I have been surprised on occasion.
Written by someone who expects Israel to
(1) turn strongly away from the Netanyahu-occupation-brutality-right-wing-theocracy path
or
(2) operate successfully without American support (political, military, economic, whatever).
I root for the first approach. I would bet plenty against the second approach.
That describes both sides in this context.
Are there any other minority groups that when someone documents overt racism against them, you respond by talking about the bad things their co-ethnics allegedly do, rather than simply condemining the racism? Or is this a Jews-only thing?
Nope, only people who nitpick the words used by victims of a revanchist apartheid regime.
You mean the Palestinian Authority, right?
"Revanchist apartheid regime"??
You're entirely unserious.
Or, simply a Low IQ / Low EQ Troll.
Are there any other minority groups that when someone documents overt racism against them, you respond by talking about the bad things their co-ethnics allegedly do, rather than simply condemining the racism? Or is this a Jews-only thing?
I think there are Black people that might want to have a word with you after they hear whites responding to Rodney King and George Floyd with statistics about black-on-black crime, bring up Willie Horton, and so on.
Read Prof Bernstein's question again:
I highlighted the relevant word for you that makes your post non-responsive.
If Palestinians are anti-semitic does that make it ok to oppress them, kill them and take their land? If Israelis are racist against Palestinians, is that better or worse than the Palestinians being anti-semitic?
And I highlighted what Prof. Bernstein was replying to. What he said is at least as non-responsive to Nige as what I wrote was to him. Really, I took Bernstein using “you” to mean everyone disagreeing with his arguments here, which was probably a mistake. I can accept that. Bernstein, on the other hand, completely dodged Nige’s question.
His whole point was that Nige's comment was unresponsive to the topic.
Prof. Bernstein: it's antisemitic to accuse Jews of being elites who use their money to control things while lurking in the shadows.
Nige: Oh yeah? But what about what Israel is doing to Palestinians?
Prof. Bernstein: Why, when we're talking about American Jews, are you bringing up what Israelis are doing?
So, Bernstein was clearly only claiming that Susan Abulhawa was using antisemitic tropes against American Jews in his original post? Hmm, I suppose. But we still end up with a lot of talking past each other by everyone here, regardless.
Are there any other countries that when someone criticizes their policies, you consistently respond by accusing the critics of racism?
"Penn nevertheless defends hosting the conference on academic freedom grounds, but adds that the conference was not organized by the university."
Would "academic freedom grounds" include, say, a gun rights conference?
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
In 1947-48, faced with a choice of having a (second) Arab Palestinian state and a Jewish state, or what they saw as the chance to wipe out the Jews in BM Palestine, the Arab nations, with Arab Palestinian support, preferred the latter option.
In 1947-48, faced with a choice of having a (second) Arab Palestinian state and a Jewish state, or what they saw as the chance to wipe out the Jews in BM Palestine, the Arab nations, with Arab Palestinian support, preferred the latter option.
What "second" Arab Palestinian state? And, who was giving them that choice with what authority? And why should they accept the choice at all given that they were a 2/3 majority in Mandatory Palestine to the Jews' 1/3 at that time, when Jews were ~10% of the population in 1922, and a virtually negligible portion of the population half a century before that?
The Arabs actually living in Palestine in 1947-48 saw the UN plan to divide the region into two states (with Jews getting more land area than them despite the lower population) as unacceptable and the war started. But the Arabs were losing badly fairly quickly, and Zionist militias drove hundreds of thousands of Arab civilians out of their villages. It was after that when other Arab nations joined in with their forces.
He's referring, of course, to what then became known as Transjordan.
The United Nations.
Not sure why you're plucking random years, but certainly the practical answer is: because they weren't strong enough to reject it. If you start a war and lose, you might not like the outcome. You pays your money and you takes your chances, as the saying goes.
Yes, if we're living in Benjamin Buttonland where time flows backwards.
And tens of thousands of ethnic Germans were driven out of their eastern European homes after WWII. And the Partition of India saw millions of people displaced from their homes. But for only one population on the planet — Jews — was it decided that after defending themselves against aggression they would have to act as if the other side had won.
How was Transjordan a Palestinian state? What I'm seeing shows the rise of Palestinian nationalism as being fairly concurrent with Zionism in the late 1800's, with the River Jordan being the eastern border of those claims, just as the British Mandate would eventually become. If the Arabs of the Mandate of Palestine and Transjordan were really the same ethnic group, then I could see that making sense, but I don't know if that is the case or not.
And yes, the UN gave them that choice, but did the UN really have that authority? The Arab residents of the time disputed that, saying that the UN charter should have honored their right to self-determination, not to be forced into a choice that wasn't a choice.
And I'm not plucking random years. 1922 was the first year under the British Mandate with population numbers in most of the tables I could find. If you want to look up other sources and use different numbers, go right ahead.
Not sure why you’re plucking random years, but certainly the practical answer is: because they weren’t strong enough to reject it. If you start a war and lose, you might not like the outcome. You pays your money and you takes your chances, as the saying goes.
Might makes right, got it.
Yes, if we’re living in Benjamin Buttonland where time flows backwards.
Uh, not that I can tell. The neighboring Arab nations might have supported the Arab residents of Palestine from outside, but I see them entering the fight with their own armies after those Arabs had already been displaced and Israel declared its existence. If I'm wrong, show me, please.
And tens of thousands of ethnic Germans were driven out of their eastern European homes after WWII. And the Partition of India saw millions of people displaced from their homes. But for only one population on the planet — Jews — was it decided that after defending themselves against aggression they would have to act as if the other side had won.
I don't see where I said anything of the sort.
Besides, one key difference in your examples: The displaced people ended up in sovereign nations controlled by people with shared language, history, and culture. Not right or fair, but perhaps better than living as second class citizens in their own country or under occupation. (Muslims still in India generally don't have equality with the Hindi majority, I believe.)
For a while, the displaced peoples got to be part of Muslim and/or Arab majority nations that absorbed the parts of the Mandate that weren't part of the State of Israel after the war of 1948. Perhaps the Palestinians should have just left the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 after that war and just given their homes to Israel and moved into the post 1967 borders of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt then, huh? Then that could have been true for them as well.
Who occupied Gaza and the West Bank before 1967?
And meanwhile, a simple question: using the ordinary definition of "refugees", how many Palestinian refugees are there?
Who occupied Gaza and the West Bank before 1967?
If you didn't get that from the context of what I wrote and are really still ignorant of those facts, you can look them up yourself. If you're just trying to make a rhetorical point, then I don't get what it could be that I haven't already said above.
And meanwhile, a simple question: using the ordinary definition of “refugees”, how many Palestinian refugees are there?
Again, I don't get where you are going with this red herring.
Your response reminds me of a Japanese phrase that translates as "please do not ask me this question as the answer may embarrass me".
There's nothing embarrassing to me in the fact that Jordan controlled and annexed the West Bank after the 1948 war, and that Egypt controlled Gaza. Remember that I said, "For a while, the displaced peoples got to be part of Muslim and/or Arab majority nations that absorbed the parts of the Mandate that weren’t part of the State of Israel after the war of 1948."
If you have something valuable to say, you can make it clear instead of trying to drag on me with what you think is a clever rhetorical question or cliche. You could even try answering my question to David if it wouldn't embarrass you too much.
"Perhaps the Palestinians should have just left the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 after that war and just given their homes to Israel and moved into the post 1967 borders of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt then, huh?"
It’s anti-semitic for gentiles (cattle) to think of jews the same way that jews think of gentiles. The people who have an ethnostate with walls protecting their borders and a tightly controlled immigration that parasites off of White nations despise the idea that anyone else, especially Whites, should have their own tightly controlled ethnostate. This article is laughable given things like the billion dollar a year anti-White industry jews built.
What this article proves is that multiculturalism is a failure and jews should be segregated.
Careful, KHM001 - our space lasers are tracking you.
Make light all you want, but tracking already occurs by jew controlled banks and big tech like google and facebook. And that tracking is as malicious as you suggest. The reducing gentiles to economic units off which to profit is just a bonus for those jews.
Well, we certainly need no debating to decide whether or not that's antisemitic. Or stupid.
It's relatively difficult to pick-and-choose among flavors when a blog caters to a bigoted audience.
The space lasers ought to fire a few training shots at him.
A lot of well-meaning commenters here have fallen into the trap of debate Israeli-Palestinian politics. My post is about organizers of a conference at an American university defending themselves from charges of antisemitism by describing American Jewish organizations in conspiratorial terms right of classic antisemitism. Israel could be the worst state actor in the history of the world (or the best) and it wouldn't make any difference to the underlying issue, which is antisemitism against Americans, in the US.
David: I think it's inevitable that the Israel-Palestine issue comes up when anti-Semitism is discussed, and specifically in this case because of the organisers' puerile attempts at avoiding the charge of anti-Semitism by talking about anti-Zionism - even if it takes the debate away from your clear point.
BTW I assume you've encountered the term, "Schroedinger's Whites"...
Whereas your article on alleged anti-semitism isn’t well meaning. It’s a malicious attempt to assert special privileges for jews.
More and more are noticing your maliciousness everyday.
The first event in the program that I clicked on, said this about one of the authors:
“Mosab Abu Toha’s poems emerge from his experience of growing up in Gaza, living in constant lockdown, and often under direct attack.”
Israeli-Palestinian politics seems to be significant part of this event. So, I don’t see how it would be possible to discuss this event or people’s responses to some of the authors or the response to those responses, without also discussing Israeli-Palestinian politics.
But sticking to your framing, I noticed some other things in the response from the organizers of the event:
We categorically reject this cynical, sinister, and ahistorical conflation of bigotry with the moral repudiation of a foreign state’s criminality, particularly as most of us are victims of that state. It is distressing that the university blindly accepted this conflation without question or comment. In fact, every instance of the examples listed in the original letter refers to Zionism, Zionists, or Israel. Situating those individual Palestinians and our allies in league with actual anti-semites is wholly irresponsible and dangerous. It is also an insult to the intelligence of your university community.
We Palestinians are an ancient people whose identity passed through and encompassed many identities over millennia—including religious identities of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—as our ancestors converted between religions, and mixed with occupiers, invaders, and pilgrims who settled among us. We know the difference between our ancestors and the colonizers destroying their memory; between Judaism and Zionism, Jews and Zionists. These are not synonymous terms and suggestions otherwise are cynical ploys deployed by those who have no convincing argument against Israel’s systematic and ongoing destruction, theft and colonization of Palestine and her people.
It is absolutely correct that Jews in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere have, for centuries, been falsely accused of “operat[ing] in the shadows … among elite decision makers and funders” and that these accusations were and are still vile examples of antisemitism toward all Jews in the Western world. But you did not address the parts of their response that clearly denounce such history and distinguish between that language being aimed at all Jews vs. their position against the State of Israel and “Zionists”. That antisemites often talk about “Zionists” and “Zionism” as being synonymous with all Jews and Judaism does not make those terms equivalent. The 1921 British report I linked and quoted from uses those terms in a completely non-pejorative way.
Is it false that there was a Zionist movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to establish at least parts of the Biblical Holy Land as a Jewish homeland? Is it false that there are Israelis and Jews outside of Israel today that go further than supporting Israel’s right to exist in peace and want more of that land to be part of the State of Israel? In the link you provided to their statement (an article at israellycool dot com that didn’t include their entire letter, just a lot more of it than you did) the author of the article disputes the idea that Zionism and Judaism are separate in the way Susan Abulhawa claims. “Zionism is integral to Judaism,” they write. What do you think? Is the idea that having a homeland in Israel integral to Judaism? If so, are versions of Zionism that call for all of the Biblical Holy Land to be part of the modern State of Israel integral to Judaism, or is that kind of nationalism a separate idea?
[Edit: I ask those last questions because they are an essential part of what Susan Abulhawa is saying. Calling her antisemitic without addressing her points that I quoted is not honest, in my opinion.]
Sorry, my blockquotes disappeared with that last edit. The two paragraphs with bold emphasis are the ones being quoted.
"We Palestinians are an ancient people"
Nope.
And if someone insists on using anti-Semitic tropes - which you do noy deny - but applies them to "Zionists" or Israel, they're in effect winking to their audience, "we can't say 'Jews' but you all know what we mean".
Nope.
The Greek historian Herodotus (5th century BCE) wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" between Phoenicia and Egypt in The Histories.
So, it is an ancient term for the region.
And if someone insists on using anti-Semitic tropes – which you do noy deny – but applies them to “Zionists” or Israel, they’re in effect winking to their audience, “we can’t say ‘Jews’ but you all know what we mean”.
Except that Zionists and Zionism have been the terms used and originated by people that self-identified with them for over 100 years. So, sure, she has to be winking when she makes the distinction between Zionism and Judaism now.
So, it is an ancient term for the region.
That is an entirely different thing from saying that a particular group so named have lived there as a distinct ethnic group from that time. I don't think anyone denies that the region was called Palestine. But that was not the claim that I denied.
Do English people today not have justification for thinking of themselves as connected and being descended from the pre-Roman inhabitants of the British Isle because of the multiple invasions and migrations of people from elsewhere? Unless those peoples were entirely wiped out they are still likely to have some ancestors among those peoples. Similarly, the peoples that had been living in the area of Mandatory Palestine for several generations had at least some ancestry going back to ancient times. (Talking in statistical population terms, even if that might not be true for every single individual. I.e., all of someone’s ancestors could be from outside of that region, yet it just happened that all of their great-great-great-great grandparents settled there in the early 1800s or something.)
So, like so many of your other replies, I don’t get what you are trying to accomplish with these arguments, unless it is just to serve up red herrings to avoid other things you don't have a response to.
So, like so many of your other replies, I don’t get what you are trying to accomplish
You get it well enough, but you prefer not to address the implications of the points.
What points? That is the problem, you are tossing out red herrings and then acting like I'm supposed to be reading your mind. Stop trying to be clever and actually engage in a real discussion with clear arguments, or stop wasting everyone's time.
I suppose this is how free speech is supposed to work. UPenn is hosting an event that seems to include some antisemitic sentiments, and other people are calling them out on it. Bravo!
Unless what is intended is that Penn cancel the event? Surely free speech loving, cancel culture hating conservatives wouldn't be doing that.
I get the "operating in the shadows" one but not the "power disparity" one. The power disparity seems real, why are they antisemitic for calling it out?
It is 9/23, the first 'day' of that odious festival. It is raining here in the Philly area - all day. More rain tomorrow - on and off all day. Hope those anti-semites get wet and are miserable in the rain in Philly this weekend.
That is poetic justice...or perhaps an answer to one man's prayer.