Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism

Donald Sterling's recent comments have rightly led to opprobrium and a discussion on the state of racism in American today.  Yet, I wonder what it says about America that there has been almost no discussion of the roots of modern-day anti-Semitism following the murder of three innocent people in Kansas City? Jeff Jacoby identifies the source:

"Where anti-Semitism is gaining market share today is not among those who yell “Heil Hitler” or demonize Jews as Christ-killers. The oldest and most protean of hatreds has assumed a new form for a new age: hostility to Zionism and Israel. The classic anti-Semitic motifs — Jews are aliens, Jews are murderous, Jews are rapacious, Jews are disloyal, Jews manipulate governments — have been repurposed for a post-Holocaust generation that speaks with a post-Holocaust vocabulary."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/04/26/amid-holocaust-remembrance-anti-semitism-adapts-and-thrives/D0kkT4Wih5OAiYUFSgHLYM/story.html

J'accuse!

There have been many waves of antisemitism throughout history.  There has been religious antisemitism promoted by the church or the mosque (e.g. the Inquisition). There has been political and nationalist antisemitism based on the xenophobia of nation-states.  There has been racial antisemitism based on social Darwinism and eugenics. And, there has been the antisemitism of the underclass and lumpen proletariat.

What is interesting about today's antisemitism is that it is being spearheaded by "intellectuals."  Whether it is the BDS campaigns against Israel, the outlawing of kosher meat, or the banning of circumcision, present-day antisemitism cannot be separated from trends in academia.

 
Rooted in the postmodernist fallacy that there is no objective truth, postcolianialist guilt, grievance narratives, and (ironically) a liberal universalist worldview with strict and unassailable notions of what is right and wrong, modern-day antisemitism poisons the youth from the top down. Combine this with the current economic malaise, anti-capitalism, anti-nationalism, and isolationism and it is easy to see why this virus easily replicates itself.

To my ex-colleagues in academia: There is nothing courageous about attacking Israel and the Jews.  It is political hipsterism devoid of morality and substance. History will judge your support for the most oppressive and obscurantist forces against a thriving liberal democracy that grants equal rights under the law for all its citizens.

By leveling your invectives solely against Israel and the Jews, you have allied yourselves with the mob. Perhaps this makes you feel a little less powerless, but you are not only playing a dangerous game with other people's lives but also toying with an all consuming fire. 

Cloudy with a Chance of Missiles

John Kerry, who literally lives in cloud cuckoo land, has urged a "reality check" from Israelis and Palestinians.  This come from the person who has been obsessed with the only sliver of land in the Middle East that is not currently on fire as the rest of the region burns.  I am sure he does not even realize that now, like every time there has been a so-called "peace process," we will have to deal with the fallout and frustration of failed expectations.

Personally, I am really looking forward to the day when John Kerry is just a historical footnote.

L'Affaire Yaalon

Recently, the Israeli Defense Minister got himself into hot water for saying what everyone else has been thinking.  Referring to the Crimean crisis, he stated that:

“If you sit and wait at home, the terrorism will come again. Even if you hunker down, it will come. This is a war of civilizations. If your image is feebleness, it doesn’t pay in the world. Nobody will replace the United States as global policeman. I hope the United States comes to its senses. If it doesn’t, it will challenge the world order, and the United States is the one that will suffer.”

This made the State Department go ballistic, caused Kerry to call Bibi, and apparently involved a request from the American side that Yaalon resign from his post!

My thoughts on this whole affair include:

• Instead of trying to turn Israel into your whipping boy, maybe the "cronies" at the State Department should address the points that Yaalon raised. It seems to me that they are trying to kill the messenger precisely because his points were so close to home. 
• Israel is a democracy where free speech is protected. The US also used to value freedom of expression, but clearly those days are gone.
• Yaalon was freely elected by the voting public and is a war hero who is eminently suited to this position. Why would the US think that they could dictate who is in the Israeli cabinet? Can you imagine any country making such demands?
• Since the NSA is reading this, I expect that I am now on some Orwellian watch list.
• Actually one of the things that I love the most about Israel is that being "dugri" (i.e. direct/blunt) and free-wheeling, heated debates, are a valued form of discourse. It is so refreshing to be in a place where political correctness has not yet infiltrated people’s vocabulary and minds to the point that they can't produce a sentence without qualifying it ten times. I honestly can't tell you how much I missed this all the years that I was living in the US! 

Lastly, I find this whole affair slightly odd when you consider how much harm this administration has done to US-Israel relations. Let’s take a moment to recap some highlights:

The administration began its first term pledging the need to put some "daylight" in the relations between Israel and the US. (This is apparently the politically correct way of saying “Distance yourself while kissing up to the Arab States").

Though this administration has repeatedly said to Israelis that "among friends there are bound to be disagreements," it is clear that this is meant to only work one way.

This administration has, on more than one occasion deliberately ambushed Netanyahu on core issues surrounding the peace process - both in the press and at press conferences.

Perhaps most egregious of all, Obama had the temerity to compare Palestinians to African Americans in the antebellum South and the Secretary of State who recently said that Israel's core, simple demand, that it be recognized as the state of the Jewish people was not particularly important.

So these are the people who want an apology because Yaalon said what everyone around the world is thinking? I think it is long past due for the Obama administration to offer an apology to Israel.

Instead, as Shakespeare famously said in Hamlet, they "doth protest too much, methinks.”

Crimea is Bigger than Israel

The BBC is reporting that while in the US, Ukrainian PM Yatsenyuk stated that:

"A country which willingly gave up its nuclear arsenal... and received guarantees from the world's leading countries, finds itself unprotected, one-on-one with a country which is armed to its teeth. If you do not uphold these guarantees… then explain how you will convince Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear status."

I think that it is a good question and certainly something that Israelis are watching carefully.  The Obama administration has removed sanctions from Iran while asking Israel to trust the US amid promises that it will all work out in the end.  At the same time the administration is admonishing Israel not to take any action to ensure our security because the US has our back.

With the Palestinians, Israelis are being asked to return to the ceasefire lines (not borders) of 1967 in which the country will be less than 10 miles wide at its narrowest point.  The US is offering security "guarantees" to entice Israel to commit national suicide by giving up the Jordan Valley.  Based on the Budapest Memorandum and guarantees that were given to the Ukraine in 1994, we will be closely watching how the US and EU react following the upcoming referendum this Sunday in the Crimea.

Even with all of the captured territories, Israel is still smaller than Crimea.  Maybe, instead of pressuring Israel and making 10 trips to Jerusalem in the past year, Kerry should have spent some time in Kiev and Moscow?

Judenrein Palestine Colony Hotel

On Wednesday I spent most of the day in East Jerusalem checking out hotels and restaurants in and around Salah e-din (Saladin) street and searching for a shop that sells Al-Wazah (Swan Brand), my favorite tea.  It has been over 20 years since I was last there and it was nice to see all the changes and to remember the places that I visited so long ago.

For the most part, the area has not really changed or developed a great deal.  Sure, the shops have received a facelift, the restaurants offered pizza and hamburgers as much as they did shawarma and falafel, and there was even a hip-looking youth center just off the main drag.  Though I visited at least ten shops and found some people who favorably remembered drinking Al Wazah, unfortunately I had no luck finding anyone who stocked the tea.  In the end I had to settle on A Rabea, a bland but inoffensive Saudi blend that goes well with nana (spearmint).  Considering that Al Wazah was originally marketed primarily in the West Bank, it was a bit of a disappointment to end up empty handed.

Most of the day I walked around and checked out the hotels in the area to see if any of them might be worth a stay.  I saw every type of accommodation from the Metropole, a hotel that would not feel out of place in India, to the swank St. George Hotel with its beautiful rooftop view of the Old City. Each hotel had something distinctive about it, but I admit that what stuck in my mind was the complete lack of security at the entrance to these hotels.  Whereas Israeli hotels are always high security zones with guards and metal detectors, all of the hotels I visited were freely accessible to anyone off the street. Clear proof, I would say, that only one side in this conflict lives in perpetual fear of losing life and limb.

The last hotel I visited was the American Colony Hotel, of the exclusive "Landmark Hotels of the World" chain.  A remnant of the 19th century evangelical American mission to the Holy Land, the hotel exuded old-world comfort and oriental charm.  Long the leading destination for diplomats, journalists, and UN officials arriving because of the perennial Arab-Israeli conflict, it is strategically located in posh part of Wadi Joz.  Until 2001, it was situated just around the corner from Orient House, which served as the de facto Palestinian seat of government in the 1980s and 1990s.

Perhaps precisely because Orient House was shuttered in 2001 (at the height of the Second Intifada), the American Colony Hotel today serves as an unofficial meeting place to court members of the Palestinian National Authority. Considered one of, if not the most beautiful hotel in Israel, it is beautifully apportioned, with nods to local artisanship.  The lobby is comfortable with inlaid coffee tables decorated with seashells and olive wood over worn marble and limestone tiled floors covered with large Persian carpets in the locally popular hues of red and black. The inner courtyard is lush and contains a diverse collection of succulents that keep the place green all year round. Indeed, everything from the exterior to the deluxe "Pasha" rooms exudes a tasteful, yet faux Orientalism that transports you to the halcyon age of benevolent Empire.

Yet, a closer inspection quickly reveals that the hotel is squarely situated in the present day and age and even doubles as the unofficial Palestinian Propaganda Center for the jet-set and well connected on Facebook crowd.  Already in the lobby, one is greeted with free maps of "Palestine" that focus on Jerusalem and just happen to cover what would otherwise be known as Israel (including the slightly nefarious sounding "Israeli built-up areas").  Next to these maps is a glossy weekly called, "This Week in Palestine" that includes articles such as, "Jerusalem 1948-1967: La Dolce Vita" (i.e. before the Jews ruined the neighborhood and the "fall of Palestine") and "Omar: An Authentic Palestinian Movie" (funded by Europeans and filmed entirely in the Israeli "built-up area" of Nazareth").  Of all the articles, perhaps my favorite were, "Palestinian Hip-Hop" and, "This is Palestine: Building a Positive National Brand through Art and Design."

Unfortunately, a quick visit to the hotel's bookstore reveals that a positive approach does not always characterize the branding efforts of Palestine's supporters.  Displayed prominently on the shelves are the pseudo-histories and diatribes of anti-Zionists such as Shlomo Sand (The Invention of the Jewish People) and Ilan Pappe (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine) and Ari Shavit's recent first-person, best-selling critique of Israeli statehood (My Promised Land).  Next to these lies Bradt's Guidebook to Palestine, the only existing guidebook to a non-existent place, which (not surprisingly) smudges the margins and extends Palestinian sovereignty to the, "culturally Palestinian (Israeli Arab) enclaves found within Israel."

So, what's the big deal?  Well, I think that, by wholeheartedly embracing the Palestinian perspective and publicly identifying itself as representative of "Palestine," the American Colony Hotel is presenting its guests with a false image of what Palestinian independence might look like "if only given a chance." However, at the end of the day, there is a reason that the hotel runs with such Swiss efficiency and that is because it is actually owned a run by a Swiss company.  While guests of the hotel are presented glossy and photoshopped images of Palestine, back in the real world, there is no doubt that hip hop, "positive" art, and the "Dolce Vita" will all go the way of Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Bahrain as the radicals groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad usher in Taliban rule and destroy their domestic opponents with their well-honed terror tactics.

In fact, the only thing about the American Colony Hotel that is true to what a future independent Palestine might look like is that it is functionally Judenrein, with almost no Jewish guests and only one Jewish staff member.

Mainstreaming Hate in France

The New York Times has a piece out today questioning whether France should be setting limits on Dieudonne Mbala Mbala's hate speech.  Mbala ia an ant-Semitic "comic" who has made a name for himself as a Holocaust denier and inventor of the "quenelle" (an inverted Nazi salute). The article seems to imply that denying him "free speech" is a slippery slope that could infringe upon the civil liberties of all French people if allowed to get out of hand.

While I agree that the ideal is a world where free speech is protected, part of me wonders what the reaction would be if a Jewish man or a white person began to perform anti-Muslim shows in France? Not only would the authorities shut them down immediately, they would almost immediately be murdered.  Even in the US, with its "tradition of free speech," I do not recall that the New York Times editorialized in favor of the minister who wanted to burn Korans down in Florida or the guy who made the movie that this administration blamed for the Benghazi debacle.

In Europe, Theo Van Gogh was assasinated and Ayaan Hirsi Ali - a sitting member of parliament - was forced into exile. In Denmark, the cartoonists who drew a picture of Mohammed are still living under constant threat and the NYT feels that this is a good time to remind everyone that MUSLIMS in France could face discrimination if cretins like Mbala are not effectively dealt with.

This story fosters a completely false analogy and then effaces the identity of those Muslims and far-Leftist third-worlders (trois-mondistes) who are fanning the flames.  The former have become the "Jews" of the post-9-11 world - i.e. the "oppresed" who need to be sympathized with, and the latter are the Times's  core audience.

The last paragraph offers this chestnut, "Dieudonné's got this constituency out in the banlieues and he speaks to them in code, he doesn’t have to say, ‘The Holocaust never happened." Pray tell, who is it that lives in the banlieues?  Might it be primarily North African MUSLIMS? If the NYT knows, it certainly isn't saying so. Perhaps they are the ones speaking in code?

By fostering this false analogy and bending over backwards to try and demonstrate that Muslims also have it bad and are being "persecuted," they are essentially equating the victimizers with the victims.

Meanwhile, in the streets of Paris, Jews are being brutalized on a daily basis and neither the NYT or any other major paper cares to cover these outrages. See HERE and HERE for just two recent examples. 

The Fallout Factor

As the Crimean situation lurches slowly forward, it is clear that the US and Europe have very little in the way of traction with Russia. There have been some "targeted" sanctions (read: slaps on the wrist) and cancelled participation in the upcoming G-8 meeting in Sochi (read: declining a dinner invitation). Though there is a lot of talk of the need to prevent nations from redrawing borders in the 21st century, Russia is already holding out its gas shipments and other sanctions as retaliation for and European or American moves. I sincerely doubt that there is the stomach in Europe for the fallout that this may entail.  Europeans are happy to have their indolent lifestyle subsidized by their governments and their defense outsourced to the United States. They will not risk economic consequences over Crimea.

But respond they must in some way. Since a response in Europe would lead to a counter response, I predict that we will witness Cold War style strategic maneuvering throughout various regional theaters around the world.  In fact, while the US and EU have been sleeping on the job, pontificating about democracy, and obsessing about the largely non-existing Arab-Israeli conflict, Russia has been reasserting itself throughout the Middle East. One can cite many examples, but two suffice - Egypt and Syria.

In Egypt, the Obama administration messed up royally. Early in his first term, Obama went to Egypt and chose to do a "reset" with the Arab world by giving a pro-Arab and anti-Israeli speech that embraced the Arab narrative with the regard to the conflict. Shortly after leaving Cairo his administration discontinued the Democracy promotion programs that the Bush administration had put into place when Condoleeza Rice spoke in Cairo. This rightly signaled to Mubarak that America would no longer seek to intervene  in Egyptian affairs.

Yet, when the Tahrir Square demonstrations began, the administration quickly dumped Mubarak and the Egyptian military in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and their fanatical minions. Then in the case of Morsi, the Obama administration fought to restore him to power even though it was clear to almost everyone that being in power had not had a moderating influence on the Brotherhood and that through overreach he had lost the support of the masses. Even worse, the Obama administration chose to label the revolution a coup and cut off some military aid. Not surprisingly, the Russians were there to fill the gap and have just offered Egypt a $2 Bln military aid package with no strings attached. For the historically challenged out there, this brings Egypt back into the Russian fold after over 35 years in the American Camp.

In the case of Syria, Russia has been running interference for Assad since the civil war there started. Putin has not only been supplying the regime with weapons, but most importantly, providing Assad breathing space by vetoing any resolutions in the Security Council. Over the past summer, Putin made the US and France look like his flunkies by outmaneuvering them over the large-scale use of chemical weapons on his civilian population.  For now the regime is "cooperating" with the destruction of the chemical weapons (that they claimed did not exist), though they are nowhere near to meeting the agreed upon targets.

Why is this important? If the EU and the US want to get back at Russia, the obvious choice is to ramp up their involvement in Egypt and Syria. In the case of Egypt, this means a rapprochement and even support for Sisi, in the case of Syria it means more active involvement. While pressure on Russia may lead tit for tat exchanges, greater American support for the rebels in Syria and even a NATO no-fly zone over Syria would do a lot to undermine and blunt Russian interests in the region. Considering all the effort that was put into securing Iraq, I hope the administration can finally use it as a base to arm and train the anti-Assad forces in Syria.

Of course, the problem is that this will undoubtedly add to the instability of the region and risks pulling Iran into direct confrontation with the West.  Certainly, Iran has even less incentive to slow its headlong race to obtain nuclear weapons.  It also adds to the EU and America's desire to "solve" the Palestinian question in a way that appeases the Arab world.  All of these things will only add to Israel's strategic concerns and exacerbate regional instability.

Schooled by Putin

Perhaps I am a terrible person for admitting this (and I definitely hope that bloodshed in Ukraine will be averted), but I cannot help but enjoy watching Obama and Kerry getting schooled in Realpolitik by Putin.

"Now Ukraine has emerged as a test of Obama’s argument that, far from weakening American power, he has enhanced it through smarter diplomacy, stronger alliances and a realism untainted by the ideology that guided his predecessor.

It will be a hard argument for him to make, analysts say." (For entire article)

Now that's the understatement of the day! 

By removing American force from the table and shrinking the military to pre-WW II levels, he has only destabilized the post-Soviet world order.  Frankly speaking, Obama has survived this long largely by coasting and lowered expectations.  Kerry has been wrong on pretty much every policy issue he has ever supported.  Perhaps instead of ten unnecessary trips to Israel, he should not have pawned Ukraine off to Biden and paid a visit to Kiev?

Ask and Ye Shall Receive

"Russia will not leave this request without attention." (HERE)

And so it begins.  I want to say that I was wrong about Yanukovych.  I thought he would not give up so easily the second time around and that he would take courage from Russia's support of Assad in Syria.

I was wrong also in thinking that the action would start in the East of Ukraine where there is a clear Russian majority.  In retrospect, it makes a lot of sense that this will begin in Crimea.  If Russia is going to be a world power again, it needs to be able to project power and that means a warm water fleet (cf. Tartus).  Besides, annexing Eastern Ukraine can wait until later.

I was right that this would all begin once the Olympics were over and that Russia would be more than willing to use force if necessary.  However, instead of Hungary in 1956, it looks like it will play out more like Abkhazia in 2008.  In any case, the fact remains that the euphoria in Kiev is premature. This does not look like it will resolve itself anytime soon.

Once again, the "realists" in foreign affairs were proven right as has Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations." As for Fukuyama and the "idealist" crowd, they have once again been proven to be delusional.  Meanwhile, back on the farm, the US continues its downward spiral and slashes the defence budget to pre-WWII levels.  Let's just wait and see how that works out for the world. 

Obama Caves Again

CNN is reporting that Obama has dropped his demand to halt all settlement construction. Considering that Obama caves on everything, this was pretty predictable.

I have commented on the report below (in red) while also pointing out the bias in the CNN reportage.

The full CNN report is available here:

But the United States and Israel have publicly disagreed on Israeli plans to build more housing on land the Palestinians regard as theirs. Previous Obama administration demands for a freeze have been ignored by the Netanyahu government. (Ignored? Disagreeing is not the same as ignoring. The Obama administrations demands went counter to previous US govt agreements and guarantees.)

Abbas has so far rejected resuming talks with Israel until the Jewish state halts all settlement building in the occupied West Bank and in predominantly Palestinian East Jerusalem. Arab states also have balked at the U.S. request to take confidence-building measures toward Israel until Israel freezes settlement construction. (This was never a show-stopper until the twits in this administration made it one.)

Sitting with Netanyahu and Abbas, Obama softened his regular language on a settlement "freeze," saying that Israel has had meaningful discussions about "restraining" settlement activity. (Israel = 1, Obama = -5, Palestinians = 0)

"But they need to translate these discussions into real action on this and other issues," he said.

"Obama told Abbas that he couldn't get the settlement freeze and promised to keep trying, but that it shouldn't be a condition for talks and it was time to move on," one Palestinian aide to Abbas said.

Several U.S. officials said that Obama told Abbas that although the U.S. believe a settlement freeze would create a better atmosphere for talks to begin, the lack of one should not be used an as excuse not to talk.

"Let's not have the perfect be the enemy of the good," Obama told Abbas, according to the officials. (In other words, the Palestinians were the ones refusing to negotiate.)

"It's been apparent for some time that the Israelis were going to fall short of what is necessary on the settlement freeze," one senior U.S. official said. "But our view is let's get to negotiations and settlements will be addressed within those final status issues" (See previous comment.)

A senior Israeli diplomat said Israel agreed to not building any new settlements, no outward expansion of existing growth and to only build for "natural" growth within existing settlements. He said Israel also agreed not to encourage Israelis to move to settlements, which would increase the population. (i.e. what has been going on for a decade now.)

"A complete settlement freeze wasn't physically or politically possible, especially in the absence of any Arab or Palestinian concessions," the Israeli diplomat said. "There was a time the gaps had significantly narrowed, but now they were starting to widen. The administration recognized, rather than have them widen further, we should start negotiating." (It was precisely this imbecilic administration that caused the gaps to widen by giving the Palestinians false hopes and reneging on previous agreements while focusing on non-issues.)

The Palestinian aide to Abbas said Obama's failure to secure a settlement freeze has weakened him in the eyes of the Palestinian delegation, because it casts doubt on his ability to move Israel during final status negotiations. (Yeah, and the fact that he could not get even one lousy concession from the Arabs weakened him in Israeli eyes. That and North Korea, Iran, Russia, Afghanistan, etc. Besides, this assumes that Israel has to be moved, kicking and screaming into making concessions, when the reality is that the Palestinians have absolutely no track record of making concessions or sticking to their commitments.)

The Palestinians did win an important point, however, with Obama making clear that the peace talks would not start from scratch, which Netanyahu had favored. Rather the talks would take into account progress made in previous negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the sources said. (Yeah and the US should take a look at the guarantees that the Bush administration gave Israel. They should also be held to that.)

The Israeli diplomat said that Israel would "take into account" the previous negotiations, but stressed his country's longstanding position that "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to." (This is what is known colloquially as "negotiations". If you walk away from the table, as the Palestinians did, you can not expect to come back and get everything you already rejected on the first go around.)

Getting Prickly About Israel

Though I never seem to have time to blog, apparently I have time to conduct online battles against anti-Israeli propagandists. Since I have been exchanging back and forth entries with people at this link, I figured I would share it with you all.

Here is just a sample of the debate that has been raging there:

A Palestinian named Hussein began with:

"Dear Mr. Grossman,

As a Palestinian man, I cannot help but sympathize with your situation. The tragedies that have befallen both our peoples are no laughing matter, and have yet to be fully addressed by those involved. The Europeans have yet to truly apologize for their involvement in the Holocaust (even France's faux-absolution of the matter is disgraceful), as is the case with the illegal immigrants that subsequently raided Palestine.

I call it "Palestine" because that is what it was called when my grandfather was there. It is stated on his Ottoman- and British- issued IDs, and was the home he always spoke of until his recent death. I think Ben Gurion said it best when he rhetorically asked why the Palestinians had to pay for the Europeans' atrocities. Then again, he still didn't show remorse.

But that is the past. What I fail to understand right now is the twisted logic within which the world operates, namely: how is it that a fresh convert to Judaism in Indiana has more of a right to be in the Holy Land than those who were expelled from their land (and still hold legal ownership to it)?

A state founded on the premise of religious entitlement is bound to fail. With that in mind, here's to a comprehensive, one-state solution.

And if not, may we senselessly slaughter one another until the victor retains what is left of this desolate land."

I responded with the following (the parts in quotations refer to Hussein's letter):

There were more than a few "dozen" thousands at the turn of the century. In fact, based on Ottoman census records, Jews were the largest community in Jerusalem (as well as in Tiberias and Safed).

"It is the hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants who had no ties whatsoever to the land"

Herein lies the rub. The Jewish people have well over a THREE THOUSAND year tie to the land. Until Palestinians and Arabs publicly recognize that Jews are an INDIGENOUS PEOPLE, there will never be peace.

"or what they subsequently leeched from the US and Europe."

Really? How much do the Palestinians leech from the US and Europe? Ask UNRWA which supports the Palestinians with US and European money (so that they can have kids and live on the dole.) By law almost ALL of the US money "spent" on Israel stays in the US. It is basically a subsidy for the US military industrial complex.

"One can't "become" ethnically Pakistani no matter how hard he tries. I could, however, become a Jew in a year's time."

Good luck with that! Obviously you have no conception how hard it is to convert and be accepted by the Israeli rabbinate. I can assure you it will take you much longer than a year. In any case, every country can decide its immigration policies based on whatever criteria it wishes to use.

PS PAK-istani is a completely made up identity cooked up in 1934.

Here is Hussein's response:

Dear Seraph,

"There were more than a few "dozen" thousands at the turn of the century. In fact, based on Ottoman census records, Jews were the largest community in Jerusalem"

Jerusalem housed between 8 and 20 thousand Jewish people. Your argument is nonsensical. The total Jewish population in the entire region of Biblical Palestine was of about 50,000 to 70,000. Yes, in my book, that is a "few dozen thousand"- four to six dozens, actually.

As for the Native American claim, here goes:

Nothing justifies what happened to the indigenous Indian people of America. That being said, the remaining survivors capitulated and accepted the pilgrims' terms. We Palestinians have refused to do so. We are still here, voicing our opposition to our own Shoah.

Moreover- and more importantly, I must add- your theory of Jewish presence in the holy land is deceiving at best, and malicious at worst. A few dozen thousand Jewish people cannot squat and "save their brothers' seats" until they decide to come back 2000 years later.

Being Jewish in and of itself is not a valid certificate of ownership. Any nutcase can form a religion and claim the region of his choice as his "homeland". That doesn't make him 'entitled' to it.

Fact of the matter is that over 80% of Israeli Jews are the descendants of illegal immigrants who raided Palestine either to escape persecution in Europe or evade the wrath of the Arab countries. The Palestinians who were kicked out of their homes had owned and lived in these lands for at least several hundred years.

Moreover, many of the "Palestinian Jews" in the Holy Land converted to Islam since the 1200's, a fact documented by a notable Israeli historian. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

On a different note, have you heard of the squatter's rights in the US? A man living on an unclaimed property for 10 years can legally claim that property as his own. We've been there for 1900 years. I think we qualify as the land's legal owners. And today's Israelis can't make the same claim for themselves, as we are still demanding our Right of Return.

Oh, and one last thing: if Charles Taylor, the Liberian dictator, can convert to Judaism, I doubt it's as hard as you say it is.

And my retort:

It is more than malicious to compare the situation of Palestinians to the Shoah, it is a complete distortion of history on innumerable levels. When you uncover millions of dead Palestinians and gas chambers, then you can talk about a Shoah.

Based on your argument, then there really is no reason for Israelis to make peace with Palestinians. Instead we should opt for the complete capitulation of the Palestinians.(I guess there are some things we can agree on. I.e. no peace without victory.)

As long as you continue to deny the undeniable - that Jews are indigenous people with a longstanding and unshakable bond to Israel there will always be conflict.

To say that Jews abandoned their claim to their land clearly shows that you know next to nothing about Judaism. Moreover, to compare Judaism to some made up religion is just rude.

You may find this to be an inconvenient fact, but there was nothing illegal about the migration of Jews to Israel. It was enshrined under the League of Nations Mandate in 1922 and again by the UN in 1948.

Frankly, it is the height of audacity for the Palestinians, a people who NEVER ONCE in history had an independent state, to compare their situation to the Jewish people, who ruled Israel for over a thousand years.

PS Charles Taylor did not UNDERGO conversion. He simply announced one day that he is Jewish, but noted that he is still a practicing Christian! I'm sure the Chief Rabbinate in Israel is already scouting out a villa for him in Tel Aviv. LOL!

And again Hussein:

"Frankly, it is the height of audacity for the Palestinians, a people who NEVER ONCE in history had an independent state, to compare their situation to the Jewish people, who ruled Israel for over a thousand years."

Name one Jewish ruler over Palestine in the last 1800 years (pre-1910). One. Seriously...

That's what I thought.

The fact that Palestine was part of a supranational entity (the Ottoman empire) does not mean that it was not a distinct nation. Actually, in 1955, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg (and subsequently Germany) debated whether or not they should do the same. They ended up forming an economic community (the EEC), and decided to forgo the former option. Now, does that mean that France would no longer exist if it is a part of a larger political entity? Your denial of our statehood is pathetic- and visibly flawed.

"there was nothing illegal about the migration of Jews to Israel"... The fact that the League of Nations didn't oppose it doesn't mean it was legal- or moral. The international community said almost nothing when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed... were those justified?

"To say that Jews abandoned their claim to their land clearly shows that you know next to nothing about Judaism."

So are you really trying to sell me that your immigrant parents' ancestors left 1800 years ago with the intention of coming back in two millenniums? Wow, talk about patience.

"It is more than malicious to compare the situation of Palestinians to the Shoah"... I'm perfectly sorry- I didn't know tragedy had a minimum casualty threshold. Again, please excuse my 'foolish' comparison of the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians over 2 months with the murder of 6 million Jews over 6 years.

"As long as you continue to deny the undeniable - that Jews are indigenous people with a longstanding and unshakable bond to Israel there will always be conflict."

Actually, no. As long as the Holy Land is infested with ignorant, brainwashed behemoths (like yourself), then there definitely will be no peace.

Only in Israel will a nation PAY internet commenters to lie about their identities and defend their home state for propaganda purposes.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-374...

Because God forbid that people actually find out about your lunacy.

My response:

What a joke! Name one Palestinian RULER.

To compare "Palestine's" role in the province of Damascus to the EU, is a spurious argument. There was never self-rule in "Palestine", whereas under the EU there was always a local government. In Ottoman times the Turks called the shots.

"The fact that the League of Nations didn't oppose it doesn't mean it was legal- or moral. The international community said almost nothing when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed... were those justified?"

What are you talking about? The League of Nations voted in 1922 to CREATE the British Mandate on the sole condition that it would become the Jewish State. Other Mandates were also created (e.g. Syria, Iraq). To say that Israel has no legal right to exist is the same as saying that those countries have no right to exist.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_... )

"So are you really trying to sell me that your immigrant parents' ancestors left 1800 years ago with the intention of coming back in two millenniums? Wow, talk about patience."

We are a very patient people. My ancestors did not emigrate, they were forced out by the Romans. They had every intention of going back and said so, repeatedly and fervently, three times a day, every day in their prayers and commemorated it on days like today, Tisha B'Av when we fast to remember our exile.

"I'm perfectly sorry- I didn't know tragedy had a minimum casualty threshold. Again, please excuse my 'foolish' comparison of the slaughter of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians over 2 months with the murder of 6 million Jews over 6 years."

There is no threshold to PERSONAL suffering, but you simply can not compare the Shoah to what the Palestinians have suffered. Otherwise, why not call 9-11 a Shoah? Or a car accident a Shoah? It has been not six, but SIXTY years since Israel was created and still no millions dead. Besides, "thousands" of Palestinians did not die in Gaza and a plurality of those who did, died with a weapon in their hand and a Hamas mask on their face. It's hardly a Shoah if they are shooting back at you. It's called self-defense.

"Only in Israel will a nation PAY internet commenters to lie about their identities and defend their home state for propaganda purposes."

I wish someone would pay me to refute your lies, but since it is Tisha B'Av it is a memorial day in Israel and ain't no one on the clock. You, on the other hand, "doth protest too much." Perhaps you are being paid by a Muslim "charity"?

Oh, and Taqiyya to you too.(http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.sht... )

Hussein Again:

"What a joke! Name one Palestinian RULER."

I just said that Palestine was part of a larger, supranational political entity. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a distinct state. My late grandfather was born in 1914, and his Ottoman ID clearly states he is "Palestinian".

"Other Mandates were also created (e.g. Syria, Iraq). To say that Israel has no legal right to exist is the same as saying that those countries have no right to exist. "

No country whatsoever has a "right to exist as a state of a certain religion". In other words, just as Iraq has no "right to exist as a Muslim state", and the Philippines has no "right to exist as a Christian state", Israel does NOT have a "right to exist as a Jewish state". The latter would mean that it can use whatever means necessary- including deportation and ethnic cleansing- to preserve that "right".

"My ancestors did not emigrate, they were forced out by the Romans. They had every intention of going back"

Well, first: Happy Tisha B'Av. Second, your ancestors had every chance to go back from the 1200's till 1910 and still didn't do so. After Saladin's final seizure of Jerusalem, Jews were allowed to live freely and unhindered in the Holy Land. Hell, you could have come WALKING and it still wouldn't have taken you 710 years to get there. Spare me.

"There is no threshold to PERSONAL suffering, but you simply can not compare the Shoah to what the Palestinians have suffered."

http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis...

Actually, if Matan Vilnai can threaten a Shoah against the Gazan people, I definitely think that the Nakba of 1948 can be considered one as well.

"Oh, and Taqiyya to you too."

I think it's sad that people like you resort to baseless religious-bashing to move the light away from Israel. Not once have I criticized the Jewish religion (although the Talmud does give me plenty of cannon fodder). So kindly do me the same justice.

What I find heart-wrenching is that a single minute event in history (namely: "who started it") can frame an entire people's perceptions on right and wrong. The Jews believe the Palestinians wrongfully attacked them during their early 20th century Aaliyah, while the Palestinians see it as a natural response to them being shoved out by hundreds of thousands of unwanted illegal immigrants.

Me Again:

Hussein wrote:

Palestine was part of a larger, supranational political entity. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a distinct state.

Certainly it does. And not only was it not a distinct state, it was part of the Damascus province (and to this day the Syrians would love to get their hands on it.)

Hussein wrote:

My late grandfather was born in 1914, and his Ottoman ID clearly states he is "Palestinian".

Yeah and my mother was born in 1946 and her birth certificate says Palestine. Does that make me a Palestinian too? According to UNRWA Palestinians are those who happened to be in the Mandate from 1946-8. This includes lots of Arabs who ILLEGALLY immigrated to the Mandate for work. Probably about 100,000 "Palestinians" including people such as Yasser Arafat's family.(Of course he was born in Egypt.)

Hussein wrote:

No country whatsoever has a "right to exist as a state of a certain religion".

Really? So are you telling us that Hamas does not seek to create a Muslim state? Will you not recognize an independent Palestine under Hamas leadership? Will you oppose it? Benny Morris tackled this canard well in the following article: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/full...

Hussein wrote:

The latter would mean that it can use whatever means necessary- including deportation and ethnic cleansing- to preserve that "right".

If you want to talk about deportation and ethnic cleansing, talk to the Jordanians, they are the ones currently revoking citizenship for Palestinians. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.a...

Hussein wrote:

"Well, first: Happy Tisha B'Av. Second, your ancestors had every chance to go back from the 1200's till 1910 and still didn't do so.

That's nonsense, they made every effort to do so. Perhaps you have not heard of David Alroy (ca 1160), Sabbtai Zevi's (1626-1676), the Vilna Gaon's (1720-1797) students, Judah ben Solomon (1798-1878), Moses Montefiore (1784-1885) and many, many others, but they certainly ACTIVELY encouraged Jewish migration to Israel and many did (often by walking).

Hussein: Actual ly, if Matan Vilnai can threaten a Shoah against the Gazan people, I definitely think that the Nakba of 1948 can be considered one as well.

Me: I see, so based on your logic, if someone suggests that a "catastrophe" (which is exactly what shoah, as opposed to HaShoah means) will befall the Palestinians if they keep indiscriminately firing rockets on the civilian population that a holocaust/genocide HAS happened in the past? Sounds a little loopy to me. Then again, every single day Palestinians preach hatred and murder, so I guess it must make sense to you.

Hussein wrote:

I think it's sad that people like you resort to baseless religious-bashing to move the light away from Israel. Not once have I criticized the Jewish religion (although the Talmud does give me plenty of cannon fodder).

First off, it is not baseless. Muslims are religiously sanctioned to lie, especially when it comes to war. Secondly, if you have something to say about the Talmud, bring it on. I am sure there will be more than a little that can be said about the Koran and the Hadiths. Third, I am sorry if I do not play the role of the good Dhimmi very well, but I do not intend to pipe down just because you say so.

"Palestinians see it as a natural response to them being shoved out by hundreds of thousands of unwanted illegal immigrants.

The Palestinians shoved themselves out. Even Abbas recently admitted this. See: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite... Also: http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/07/arab-responsi...

Turns out you guys are the ones who chose to emigrate.

Again, if you want to see the continuation of this exchange, or perhaps, add your voice, then: http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/TL2EUA01TRKR7UO77/p2