Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumHow many have to die to achieve 'One State'?
That's the question I always ask advocates of 'One State' - meaning the antisemitic act of eliminating Israel as a Jewish State, the one Jewish State alongside 57 Muslim States.
I ask it because the vast majority of Israelis - Jews and Arabs - do not want 'One State' under any circumstances, so it could only be achieved by force. I asked it of Antony Loewenstein tonight at SOAS. Loewenstein ("As an atheist non-practising Jew"
has co-edited a book advocating "One State".
Of course the 'One State' antisemites can never answer my question.......As Loewenstein wasn’t quite answering the question he was pressed further by Hoffman as to how many people Loewenstein thinks should die. [font color = "red"]First, Frank Barat, the Chairman, answered “200,000″ (here is more on Barat). Then Loewenstein answered “Six million. That’s my answer. Write that down.“
more...
http://www.thejc.com/blogs/jonathan-hoffman/how-many-have-die-achieve-one-state-0
[font color = "blue"]With anti-racists like Loewenstein...[/font]
Another article about this, but with audio:
http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/antony-loewenstein-six-million-should-die/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
shira
(30,109 posts)http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/antony-loewenstein-six-million-should-die/
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)So I looked 'em up. Can't find Hoffman anywhere but The Jewish Chronicle. Lucky me, Loewnstein has his own website, and plenty of information besides.
Interesting find? Absolutely nowhere has Antony Loewenstein ever advocated the use of force to impose a single-state solution. Nowhere. Ever. Not once. At no point has he ever done this.
Cue Jonathan Hoffman bellowing at him - you can hear the volume in the audio - asking how many people Loewenstein "wants to die" - he even pats himself on the back for his own numbers, "One million? Two million?"
Accusing someone of a position they plainly do not hold, and then yelling at them, accusing them of wanting millions to die. I guess that's something to make a blog post to brag on?
If I were to, say accuse you of being a supporter of Meir Kahane's "philosophy," and scream "questions" at you about whether you wanted to liquidate all seven million Arabs in Israel and Palestine, or if you would be content with a symbolic six million, I imagine your response would be pretty similar to what Hoffman got; "Fuck you and choke on it, you raving lunatic asshole," or more succinctly, a sarcastic, shut-the-fuck answer like "six million, write that down."
Hoffman acted like a deranged lunatic asshole. Loewenstein responded to him as such. And now Team Israel has a blurb they can try to defame Loewenstein with. Everyone wins.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Why not simply state - I am opposed to violence, I do not believe force should be imposed to create a single-state solution?
The whole "Six million should die - write that down" response seems at the very least a weird (and, as you intimate, nasty) way to answer the question.
If you were to reverse the scenario - let's say you had a supporter of George W Bush talking in support of the Iraq War and you had someone from Code Pink shouting questions about how many people have to die in Iraq to achieve success.
Do you think it would be appropriate to respond in a similar way?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Why not just say "I am opposed to violence, I do not believe force should be imposed to create a single state"?
Read Hoffman's position again. He regards such a statement as being impossible. He believes that mass murder is absolutely, unquestionably integral to the idea of a single state. For an idea of what this is like, think of here in the United States, where some people really, truly, with all their heart believe that soviet-style gulags and "death panels" are absolutely, unquestionably integral to the notion of public health care.
There's really no way to be reasonable if you find yourself dealing with these sort of fanatics. Their position is completely irrational, and it's a closed loop; you can't "correct" them, you can't "debate" them. If you try, they do like Hoffman did; "ANSWER THE QUESTION! WHY CAN'T YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION! DON'T ANSWER LIKE THAT JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!"
Loewenstein initially tried to respond to what Hoffman said. I have no idea what Loewenstein was trying to say, the sound clip starts in the middle and is pretty low-quality - but Hoffman's bloviating, angry demands to Loewenstein, demanding an answer to "HOW MANY?!" makes it clear that Hoffman was not going to accept anything other than an answer that fits into his pre-ordained belief. That is, he would keep yelling until Loewenstein gave him a number in the millions.
So... Loewenstein, presumably pissed at having his response interrupted by someone bellowing at him, gave him a number in the millions. It was rude, it was crass, it was nasty, and it was sinking down to Hoffman's level. We're in agreement there.
Of course it's conjecture here, but I imagine that even if Loewenstein had remained perfectly polite and given (Attempts at) reasonable answers, Hoffman would still have come up with some shitheaded "I win, that fucking antisemite couldn't answer me lolz lolz lolz!" post, and we'd still be reading his self-congratulatory garbage and accusatory nonsense.
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)he attends events such as these and then shouts slogans at the speakers, typically until the police have to remove him. He is also something of an inveterate liar. He previously made false accusations of having been the recipient of anti-Jewish slurs at SOAS, which were disproved when someone produced the video of the event.
He is also rather pally with some interesting individuals. Here he is alongside Roberta Moore, former card-carrying Kahanist and chair of the Jewish Division of the English Defence League, a far-right neo-fascist street organization, at a counter-demonstration outside an Ahava shop in the UK:-
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FKUpGU_Jbp0/TG73M-EVA4I/AAAAAAAAEgI/KRqLfNecwvA/s1600/Hoffman+and+Moore+glaring+at+each+other.jpg
Hoffman claimed that the photo was photoshopped, a claim he quickly retracted once the relevant photojournalist indicated that he took those kinds of allegations rather seriously. Incidentally, Hoffman behaved so obnoxiously outside the shop that the pro-Palestinian protesters thought that he was actually more effective at turning people away than they were.
Loewenstein was rather silly to rise to the bait on this occasion. Far better to turn the tables on a nasty piece of work such as Hoffman and ask him a few questions about his own positions. Hoffman is incapable of articulating his own positions for more than twenty seconds without all manner of anti-Muslim tropes pouring out of his mouth. A bit like several people around here.
http://randompottins.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/snap-what-united-david-and-roberta.html
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Does remind me of some posters around here. I could understand how he could be a sort of folk hero for them.
shira
(30,109 posts)And nearly all Israel's loudest critics are for it:
How else can the OSS be achieved?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean like, actual research. Primary sources and the like, not simply schlepping around some screaming lunatic's blog as he rants and raves mindlessly against it.
In every case you will find the method; democratic process. Here's how it works.
You have an idea. You think it's a pretty good idea, but people around you aren't so sure, and many people haven't heard your idea, or have only heard snips of it... or perhaps like some DU posters, all they know of it has been gleaned from angry screaming assholes on the internet. Your task is to advocate the idea, and try to educate people about the notion. This is called "mainstreaming," getting the idea into the popular perception, familiarizing people with it and making it clear what it's all about. As you go forward, you work to further your idea in the political process. If mainstreaming works out, popular opinion and the voters favor you and your ideas over others. Maybe it's only a little at a time, but it's progress.
Maybe Hoffman is right, a majority of Israelis don't want a single state. That can change, however; very few people have immutable opinions. Perhaps this is what gets Hoffman so riled up, is the notion that the status quo could very well change on him. So he has to scream and rant at the advocates of the idea and accuse them of advocating the murder of millions in an effort to squelch it.
shira
(30,109 posts)============
Of the 1,024 people surveyed, only 10.4 percent shared Mr. Abu-Lughod's dream of a ''democratic, secular'' Palestinian state. Instead, nearly 60 percent dream of a state founded on Islamic law (26.5 percent) or on a hybrid of Islam and Arab nationalism (29.6 percent).
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/06/opinion/l-who-wants-a-democratic-secular-palestine-807988.html
============
From 2011...
About how the respondents identify themselves, the majority, 57%, identified themselves as Muslims, 21% identified themselves as Palestinians first, 19% as human beings first and 5% as Arabs first.
The increase in adherence to religious identity is also reflected in the system preferred by the Palestinian people.
About 40% of the respondents said that they believe that the Islamic caliphate is the best system for Palestinians, 24% chose a system like one of the Arab countries, and 12 % prefer a system like one of the European countries.
http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16042
At best 10-12% of Palestinians support a secular, one state solution.
Israeli support is minuscule, maybe 1-2% at most.
It's a prescription for war. Just read the OP here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x358320
That OP alone explains why almost no Israelis are for such a scenario.
So how can the secular 1-state solution be carried out peacefully?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Remember, just over two decades ago, the "two state" solution was utterly unthinkable as well. The idea of a Palestinian state sent shivers down the spines of "right-thinking" Israeli Jews. Just admitting to being a Palestinian nationalist, even an act as harmless as owning a Palestinian flag, could earn you 4-7 years in prison. Cue Oslo in 1993, and he idea of two states starts to take root, and by 2001, is the "normal" position... Even though Oslo and Camp David were both ultimately busts.
How did that happen? Leprechauns? The Make-A-Wish foundation? Was Dr. Who involved? No, it came about by publicizing the idea, talking about the idea, educating people about the idea, chewing over the implications and details of the idea. It took time, but most people agree that two states could be a workable solution to the conflict.
The trouble with the idea of two states is obvious, and has been demonstrated time and again; neither Israel nor the Palestinians are able to hash out a border that works for the other side - and that's even without throwing Jerusalem into the mix. Neither can agree on how much autonomy the Palestinian state should have, either... the Palestinians obviously want full autonomy, while the Israelis are... let's say they're unenthusiastic of that ideas. It would probably take a sea change in how the two-state idea is approached for it to ever actually work; Israel will have to realize it's impossible unless the starting point for negotiations are the pre-67 borders and full autonomy, while the Palestinians need to accept that they will have to negotiate away at least the land with the larger settlements
Without that sea change, single-state becomes a practical inevitability. Every indication says that Israel will continue its expansion into the West Bank. At best, the west bank becomes cantonized, similar to the Barak plan in '00, at worse it becomes a splash of isolated enclaves within an Israeli nation. Neither situation will work out well for either Israel or these cantons / enclaves. It'll be a whole bunch of mini-Gazas, and Gaza doesn't seem to be doing anyone any good, maybe you've been noticing.
There are only two ways to alleviate this situation;
1) Integration, i.e., the Palestinian enclaves become part of Israel, the palestinians become Israeli citizens, and work is done to ensure the security and rights of every Israeli. it'd be one hell of a mess, but it beats the second option...
2) Purging the enclaves of Palestinians. Whether it's forced expulsions or worse, this is the second "solution" to the enclave problem. I find it unacceptable, you find it unacceptable, and no matter what you may believe I think of Israel, I'm certain even the worst Israel's government has to offer would find this option unacceptable as well.
So honestly, only #1 is viable at all, in this situation.
This situation is an inevitable aftermath if the two-state plan fails to come through - Or even if it comes through but ends up looking like Barak's plan, with a "state" that can't function as a state. With that in mind, then the one-state solution, if nothing else, needs consideration as a "plan B." Better to have a plan B that you end up not needing, than to need a plan B and not having one, right?
shira
(30,109 posts)And who will ensure this secular democracy succeeds and doesn't turn into Lebanon or Yugoslavia?
=========
Can't let this go...
You also mention Israel will just continue its expansion into the WB. FYI, Israel hasn't built any new settlement blocs since the mid 90's. That was Israel's decision, as Oslo doesn't demand settlement building should stop. The only expansion that has happened since then is within settlement blocs.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)As I said, Israel will have to accept terms - "preconditions," as Israel currently calls 'em - that they are currently completely not willing to even hear. The Palestinians will have to accept that they probably will have to sell of some swaths of the West bank whether they like it or not, and will probably have to forego some level of autonomy, at least for a temporary period... which are things they seem unwilling to hear at the moment.
How long do YOU think it'll take for both sides to come to these realizations and apply them to the effort? I honestly have no idea; the weird and wacky world of Israeli politics means it could be next week or never.
As for who will guarantee that the state remains secular and doesn't fragment... Well, who's guaranteeing that now, Shira? In Israel, or in any other democracy? Thing is, that's just not how democracy works, there is no "strongman," no Tito holding things together in a democracy. it's the will of the people in said democracy.
That said, there are intrinsic differences between Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and a hypothetical one-state.
Primarily, the one-state idea proposed is created democratically, and not imposed by colonial power. Look at it this way.. .what force keeps the fifty nations ("states" of the United States from turning into a continent-sized Yugoslavia?
As for the settlements... You're drawing an arbitrary boundary between legal and illegal expansion. No, Israel has not "officially" plonked any new settlements down in the West bank. But as you note, the current settlements are expanding due to population growth. There's the issue of the illegal / unauthorized "outposts" as well. And as you were kind of crowing about not too long ago, an Israeli panel appointed by Netanyahu recently "proved" Netanyahu's claim that there are no legal barriers at all to expanding in the west bank.
It's very simple. Israel's population is expanding through immigration and birthrates. People are attracted by the cheap rates in the territories - and there's an element of "white flight," too, as the Arab Israeli population expands. Israel's government has for all practical means washed its hands of the whole affair. Just as westward expansion was inevitable under the same conditions in the US, so to is eastward expansion inevitable with Israel.
shira
(30,109 posts)...meaning full RoR and Israel replaced by an Arab majority ruled state. They were not talking about the greater Israel concept, which you're writing about. It's the BDS version of "secular democracy" that no Israelis want and maybe 10% of Palestinians want. FWIW, Israelis don't want it b/c they know a "secular democracy" with an Arab majority would eventually become yet another totalitarian theocracy among all the rest in the mideast.
It would result in a LOT of bloodshed. The chair of this event, Frank Barat, realizes the bloodbath that would result. He answered Hoffman with "200,000".
The "colonialist mentality" belongs to those who will have to forcibly impose this solution that hardly any Israelis/Palestinians want.
========
The TSS is not the topic under discussion as the BDS movement (Loewenstein too) is against the 2-state paradigm.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I've been looking, haven't found one.
shira
(30,109 posts)That calls for the OSS based on full RoR and majority Arab rule.
He and Loewenstein cannot be confused with far right-wingers pining for the OSS based on Greater Israel.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Arabs can only produce a "theocratic dictatorship," gotcha.
At any rate...
I'm sure there are many lines of thought and approaches to the idea of a single state. The point is to talk about them, get people thinking, etc.
shira
(30,109 posts)...polls show that at most 10-12% of Palestinians support a OSS based on a secular democracy. I'm not sure it's even 1% of Israeli Jews who are for that. The majority of Arabs support a theocratic state or something along the lines of other Arab countries in that region.
So how can such a wonderful solution be implemented any time soon without imposing it on both people?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)As I pointed out, barely 20 years ago, the idea of a Palestinian state would have been absolutely unthinkable, by about the same percentages; the Palestinians at the time still wanted a unified state, and the Israelis wanted a Judea and Samaria without any Arabs. But discussion of a two-state solution began to catch traction despite these facts, and now it's a generally-accepted idea.
Very obviously, no two-state solution has been "imposed" in the last 20 years. Maybe you've noticed, it's kind of an important point when discussing Israel / Palestine.
An idea cannot become popularized unless it is discussed. A one-state solution doesn't get much discussion, largely because of people liek Hoffman and yourself making an effort to squelch any such talk and denigrate anyone who broaches the idea.
shira
(30,109 posts)Hardly anyone wants it and there's little chance that once implemented it would succeed (see Lebanon and Yugoslavia examples). Tell me how you believe the majority of Palestinians, who favor a state whose basis is sharia law, will become convinced that the secular democratic model is the way to go? What are your fellow Leftwing advocates (not liberal Zionists who are part of the decent Left) doing today to bring secular democratic ideals to the Palestinian people?
Do you also hold out hope that the Greater Israel model for one state will be implemented at a later time when all involved are properly educated about it? If not, why not?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And doesn't seem any closer to reaching a resolution than it was in 1994. Opposing the OSS idea because it won't happen yesterday, while claiming to be an advocate of TSS is kinda... dumb?
Neither Yugoslavia nor Lebanon resemble the idea. If you're ignorant about a nation's history and situation - and you obviously are - avoid using them as examples.
Interesting thing about that "Sharia law" thing? The answer depends on how you phrase the question. Palestinians surely don't want an Islamic theocracy... But they're also not going to say "Fuck my religion, who needs it?" It's a neat experiment, and I'm sure you could get the same results from Jewish Israelis; Do they want a Jewish theocracy? of course not. Do they want the state of Israel to abandon Judiasm as a basis? Again, you're not likely to hear that opinion, either. Ask either group, "do you want a democracy with freedom of religion," and you'll be met with nothing but "yes."
There's also the phenomena of divergence between public and private opinion. Do you know why the King James Bible is still everyone's "favorite book" in the United States? Because very few people are going to tell a pollster, "my favorite book is the New Moon ohmigosh Team Jacob for life!" even though it's probably true. Instead, they deliver some pious pablum to make themselves sound like "good people." They'll also tell you they regularly attend church, donate to good causes, and have never watched "Jersey Shore."
Basically people, outside of private confidence, usually give whatever answer seems like it would be most popular in their society and cast that person in the best light. In private, among friends, they will argue over who Bella should have gone with while Snooki nasally garbles her lines in the background.
shira
(30,109 posts)...by pointing to evidence that it would actually work. Having hope it can work is a religious point of view. IOW blind faith. Is that all you have?
shaayecanaan
(6,068 posts)Its become clear that you certainly don't support two states, and most of the settler types that you clearly admire don't either. The only difference between you and Loewenstein is that he supports a democratic single state whereas you favour a fascist one.
shira
(30,109 posts)...so I'm not sure why you believe that rubbish. I support a 2-state solution along the lines of the Clinton Initiatives, Olmert's Plan, and the Geneva Accords. Just as most liberals and US Democrats do. I don't see any other way that would work and not result in war.
And you're simply wrong about Loewenstein.
Loewenstein and his ilk from movements like the FGM, BDS, PSC, and ISM do not support a democratic, secular single state. If they did, they'd have something to say about the way Hamas runs Gaza. After all, the Palestinians' biggest Western fans want what's best for Palestinians, right? That's why they're for a secular state...
OK seriously, if that's the way Loewenstein and his ilk are WRT Gaza, and based on their disgraceful record WRT ignoring and denying Palestinian mistreatment throughout the Arab world, then what on earth would make anyone think that lot would care if the OSS turned into something along the lines of Hamas-run Gaza?
Please.
But now that I think about it, you believe Palestinian style democracy is something on the order of what we're seeing with the 'moderate' MB running 'democratic' Egypt. It is a democracy "on its way" to being AWESOME, after all. That's what you wrote just the other day here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113416651#post46
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I know that you want to talk about Egypt and Jordan and Hamas and 1948 and who really invented falafel; you're a person with a lot on your mind!
But let's try to keep it topical.
shira
(30,109 posts)Well, except for the part in which he claims Israel is a fascist state.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He said you are in favor of a fascist state.
shira
(30,109 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)It seems every political scholar has their own definition of just what "fascism" is. Does it depend on a nation's economic structure? Is it defined by strong nationalism? Does there need to be a dictator, or can a democracy be fascist at the same time?
Just for pure fuckin' conveniance, let's look at the definition provided by Wiki;
Is Israel a fascist state? I would hesitate to apply that label. I see certain elements of varying strength displayed in Israeli national policy, but I can see 'em in many, many other nations as well; China's probably more fascist, if there's a scale to measure with.
However... it appears to me that many individual Israelis, even whole political parties in the state are outright fascist. Again this is no different from most other nations - have look at the Republican party and its "base" for example. But it's definitely there.
it also seems that a majority of Israel's supporters in the US - "Team Israel: America Division" - come from that sort of cloth. They have an intense authoritarian streak; "well, if this commentator I like says so, IT IS SO," "The government of Israel released a statement, NONE SHALL QUESTION!" They also have a very strong tendency towards racism, as if their "love" of Israel is simply a cover for hatred of Arabs / Muslims in general and Palestinians in particular. Given their strong tendency to refer to Jews who disagree with them as "kapos," "judenrat," "Nazis" and the like, as displayed by Alan Dershowitz, or to accuse them of wanting genocide, as Hoffman is doing in the OP, it seems that their hatred includes Jews just as happily as Arabs.
So. Israel's not a Fascist state. But there are fascist elements within it that would love the country to slouch in that direction, and they have the strong support of many "Israel Supporters" abroad.
Response to shira (Original post)
Post removed
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)in area c of the West Bank, and allowing if not actually encouraging the growth in numbers of settlers to the degree that the number has doubled since 2000 that has created this impasse.
The settler leaders have said that their aim was to make a Palestinian state impossible and at this juncture they may have accomplished their goal
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Everybody clearly wants the whole thing, the dispute is over what the ethnicity of the resulting one state should be, i.e. who should have to move to bring the new mono-ethnic utopia into being.
I also call to mind the famous Albright quote: "we think it's worth it", WRT the how many must die question. The question seems to be more what sort of people need to die to bring utopia about, not how many, any number is OK as long as pie will be found in the sky by and by.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)I guess he was taking the 'Heinz' approach to counting Arab states
shira
(30,109 posts)...their own state.
And of course the Palestinian side has in the past made credible offers for 2 states.
Israel's holding out for 1 state, not the Palestinian leadership...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)its settlement, did that failure require Israel to allow the settler population to double, did that failure require Israel to 'displace' Palestinians in area C, did it require Israel to stake out additional 'state land' in the West Bank? or did it merely present opportunity to do so?
shira
(30,109 posts)Settlements haven't expanded geographically beyond the existing settlement blocs of 2000-01.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)and the results are that the ring of roads and settlements cutting Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank has tightened a bit , but still you failed to answer a very clear question
eta you are also very careful to specify "settlement blocs" because that does not count existing outposts (must be careful here as to terminologies unless one can be 'misled') and land that Israel has claimed as state property
shira
(30,109 posts)...you keep claiming both the Clinton Initiatives and Olmert's offer were jokes.
Arafat didn't think so when he wished he had accepted:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Speaking on the sidelines of the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York, the former U.S. president was quoted by Foreign Policy magazine as claiming that Netanyahu lost interest in the peace process as soon as two basic Israelis demands seemed to come into reach: a viable Palestinian leadership and the possibility of normalizing ties with the Arab world.
"The Israelis always wanted two things that once it turned out they had, it didn't seem so appealing to Mr. Netanyahu," Clinton said, adding that Israel wanted "to believe they had a partner for peace in a Palestinian government, and there's no question -- and the Netanyahu government has said -- that this is the finest Palestinian government they've ever had in the West Bank."
Furthermore, the former U.S. president is quoted by Foreign Policy as saying that Israel was also on the verge of being recognized by Arab nations adding that the "king of Saudi Arabia started lining up all the Arab countries to say to the Israelis, ‘if you work it out with the Palestinians ... we will give you immediately not only recognition but a political, economic, and security partnership."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/bill-clinton-netanyahu-isn-t-interested-in-mideast-peace-deal-1.386222
has Bibi changed or maybe you were thinking of a different Clinton?
shira
(30,109 posts)I expect to never again see you making such a baseless claim.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2012, 09:13 PM - Edit history (1)
you made the claim I did and then ran with it , I said they expanded I meant by means of population but tell us shira where in those blocs are all new housing units going? It is apparent Israel already had land staked out for that purpose as far back as the early 1990's, why? what I did say was that that the settlement blocs did not include land recently claimed by Israel as 'state property' and the network of 'Israeli only' roads connecting them
King_David
(14,851 posts)As Richard says:
Mocking the Holocaust seems to be becoming de rigeur within anti-Israel activism
shira
(30,109 posts)....for sitting through dozens of nauseating hatefests like the one described in the OP.
shira
(30,109 posts)"Haringey Palestine Solidarity Campaign hosted the evening in the St John Vianney Church."
Kasrils’ opening attack was the usual nonsense:
“The Jews took that land from the Arabs who had been there for over 1,000 years…The mythology of the establishment of the state of Israel is ‘The Lord Our G-d acting as an estate agent’…and He decided He has a Chosen People… ‘There is a Chosen People and it’s me the Jews and we are specially given the land’…We are the Chosen People and we can come here and evacuate, we can dismiss an entire population of people, at that time 700,000, by all means possible.”
Then he described what Jews in South Africa told their children:
“Don’t worry about the blacks. They’re used to it. That’s the mantra. Don’t worry, they’re used to it. All the poverty and the way they have to live etc. Each to his own. Focus on your own life. You can give the beggars some money. But these people; the poor, the wretched of the earth, they’re used to it. Don’t waste your time.”
http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/jews-told-children-not-waste-time-on-blacks/
This is the ugly face of the vile, anti-Israel, Zionism = Apartheid, BDS movement in which Antony Loewenstein is a leading figure.
Background on Kasrils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Kasrils
Is it any wonder Norman Finkelstein called these nut jobs "cultists"?
tama
(9,137 posts)so the question 'How Many' is not about dying but changing opinion. And the answer is very few, at the tops of political power hierarchies. Or if there would national or bi-national referendum, that would open bi-national opinion reformulating discussion about some well formulated proposal to be voted upon.
Mention of anti-semitism (and need of people dying) in this connections seems just flame baiting.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)The Palestinians were meant to be protected, and the actions of the Jewish state has been to entirely abrogate that vision. The state of Israel can scream all it likes about anti-semitism, but that state has used the Holocaust to deny rights to people who were not involved in the death of European Jewry in any way. They are, in fact, determined to do to the Palestinians what was done to the American Indians, to Africa, to European Jewry and to the original inhabitants of Israel; to remove them into smaller and smaller enclaves, until they become almost invisible. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
You can yell about the legitimacy of the Israeli State and the legitimacy of the settlements and the righteousness of the Israeli position until hell freezes over, but the fact of the matter is that the plucky little state of Israel fighting against all the big, bad arabs was never true, and is not true now. Israel was always better armed, willing to use terrorism as a state tactic, and able to outgun their neighbours.
It was and remains an attempt, right or wrong, to re-build something that was, is, and remains a fairy tale. Yes, there was an Israel. It conquered the land, was conquered in turn, and the God of Abraham grew to encompass other sects but Judaism. Belief can make it into something it wasn't then, and isn't now. But belief can't make it true, any more than it can weave Christ into the historical record.
King_David
(14,851 posts)Strange but true.
'that state has used the Holocaust to deny rights to people '
'They are, in fact, determined to do to the Palestinians what was done to the American Indians'
'willing to use terrorism as a state tactic'
Did you get lost and found this website ?
PDJane
(10,103 posts)And you still pull this crap up to rebut it. The fact is that, King David, you are brainwashed, and Israel is doing just that. Hatred doesn't have to reach the level of the holocaust to be evil. You only have to believe that a people who are obviously there and have been for a very long time, aren't entitled to the land. That's it.
shira
(30,109 posts)...but for some reason you don't believe Jews are entitled to any land there.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)They were not given the entire land of Palestine, nor are they entitled to it because of a book that bears very little resemblence to reality and a fight that happened in Europe. The Palestinians and the Jews should be able to live in peace; it is the actions of both that have made that unlikely, but the Jewish state and the actions of the Jewish state are making it impossible.
Don't decide what I believe and what I think based on your own views. Nor, frankly, does everyone on DU believe in everything that you believe; we aren't a monolothic group. We have people I would consider gun nuts, and we have progressives, and we have blue dogs.....and we have people who take a long view of the Irael/Palestine problem.
That's a problem I have with King David, too. If you don't agree with him, then you are anti-semitic. That's not the way to win an argument....or friends.
shira
(30,109 posts)...in 2000-01 and 2008 that would have granted them their own state on ~100% of pre-67 Gaza/WB land? If not, do you believe at the very least that the Palestinians should have made reasonable counter-proposals to each offer, rather than start Intifada 2, for example?
As I see it, they could've had their own state for at least the last 12 years.
Was their refusal really worth it?
King_David
(14,851 posts)I do not agree with any antisemites.
BUT that does not include anyone on DU,with 1 or 2 exceptions.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)This is something you seriously believe?
PDJane
(10,103 posts)And the American Indians, and a bunch of others.....from the Congo to the southwest....who were living on lands that others wanted. The European Jews were a bit different in their history, which stemmed from banking. However, the first step was to make them stateless, and that is happening in Palestine. They were deligitimized, and that's happening to Palestinians, too.
The fact is that Palestinian land is being stolen an inch at a time, while they are being forced into smaller and smaller areas, and they are not compensated for the theft of their resources. This is the same old method of taking over someone else's land. Get a foothold in the door, claim they're trying to kill you, or they are sub humans and what you are doing is legitimate because of something back in the mists of time or their religion, and work to remove them from public view.
The methods are the same, only the details change.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I preface by stating that I do not under any circumstances believe that the government of Israel has the best interests of wither Israelis or Palestinians at heart. I believe it sees the killing of Jews by terrorists as a positive outcome, because it allows the state of Israel to further justify what it's doing to the Palestinians.
But I do believe that even the fucks in the Israeli government have lines that they won't cross. A point where even the biggest assholes among them will look and refuse to go further. Full-on genocide, as you describe, is several steps beyond whatever that point is.
The Palestinians have had a fucking rough time of it. Their land has been stolen, their identity steadily eroded, they've suffered abuse at the hands and guns of everyone around them. In many ways their situation can be paralleled against situations found in history regarding the people you cite. But wholesale eradication is not one of those parallels.
Over 6 million of Europe's Jews were slaughtered during the reign of the Nazis. Along with them were 3 million Poles, six hundred thousand Yugoslavs, five hundred thousand Serbs, one point five million Romani, somewhere between eighty and a hundred thousand mentally ill person were killed, on top of unknown numbers of homosexuals, leftists, assorted "non-Aryans," even Freemasons killed. These numbers do not include the 13 million Russian civilians slaughtered by the Nazis under their Generalplan Ost, Jew and otherwise, both planned and of incidental cause.
Over 22 million Native Americans died in North America to "make way" for the United States, Canada, and Mexico; many, many more have died in the Caribbean and South America. Entire cultures, whole NATIONS of people.. .extinct. A feat that has only ever been repeated in Australia (though Africa has had many close calls.) Probably most of these deaths were accidents of disease, and we'll probably never have a good figure of how many are in the difference.
At least twelve million Africans were forcibly transported to North and South America during the long reign of American slavery. These are the men and women who survived transport, who were the ones who survived the conditions at the African ports, who were hte oens who survived the grueling rigors of forced march from the interior, who were themsleves the ones who survived the slave raids themselves. At each of these stages, it's been estimated one in ten died, occasionally higher figures are given; never lower. The figures do not figure in the deaths of Africans in the Americas after purchase. These figures do not figure in the death tolls caused by the colonial powers in Africa. Taken all together, the varied peoples of Africa have been brutalized and massacred like no other group on Earth.
As bad as the treatment of the Palestinians is... you really can't point to the genocide of the Americans, you can't point to the Holocaust, you can't point to the scourging of Africa and say "the Palestinians are going through exactly that." Even foregoing the raw numbers, the situation isn't even on scale. 20% of Russia died in WW2. TWENTY FUCKING PERCENT OF THE LARGEST COUNTRY ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, died in six years.
No, you really can't compare that.
If you want to draw parallels between the racist treatments, the rhetoric, the segregation and attitudes and alienation and the land theft and cultural damages... be my guest, comparisons can be drawn. But do note the boundaries.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)We disagree on a lot, but I'm glad we agree on this at least.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He's claiming that Jewish history stems from banking.
There are not enough facepalms on membase to cover this.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)than simplistically screeching antisemite so thankyou
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Can you point to the post on this thread you are referring to?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)or would you rather I call out another DUer? 
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Pointing to an existing post on a thread is not "calling out".
There is no such post.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)more than one word
King_David
(14,851 posts)Because from your reply you never understood it at all.
Again.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it was not IMO all that complex
King_David
(14,851 posts)Helps with understanding
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)it was what she posted after that it took the cake
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)And yet, this person has been a regular poster here for quite some time.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(assuming, of course, that the lives of innocent Palestinian civilians count in your mindset, or that you can admit a Palestinian can BE an innocent civilian).
It's not as if the state you're defending unquestioningly is being any less brutal and bloodyminded than the Pal crazies are these days, shira.
And it's not as if that state is actually TRYING to make a two-state solution happen.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It's not the question but rather the response given that is the disturbing part of the article.
You do find the answer do be repulsive, do you not?
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Yes, Loewenstein shouldn't have said "six million", but unfortunately people sometimes say ugly things when they're unfairly goaded.
Obviously he didn't mean that. Hoffman should have backed off on endlessly repeating the question before it got to that, since he KNEW perfectly well that Loewenstein didn't want to see any more killing, and Loewenstein should have found some way to maintain more self-control. Both of them handled the situation badly, but Hoffman started it by asking what he knew to be a demagogic and loaded question.
It's not as if the status quo(which is what Hoffman REALLY defends, since he clearly opposes even a two-state solution by his defense of everything Netanyahu does)is protecting lives.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)"I oppose violence and support a peaceful but just resolution of the conflict" would have been a pretty simple (and not at all nasty) way to respond.
Or "no one has to die" or even "how many have to die to keep the occupation going" as you suggested would have also been reasonable responses.
The "six million" reply, however, was really disgusting.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Hoffman was just going to keep tormenting the Loewenstein until Loewenstein lashed out and said something stupid. That's what Hoffman does, from what I've gathered here.
If Hoffman hadn't asked what he knew perfectly well was an outrageous and inflammatory question, this wouldn't have happened. Blame him.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 27, 2012, 12:48 AM - Edit history (2)
at least that's my impression but perhaps he should have said something like 4.91 million still it was nasty and showed poor judgement
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It is such a grotesque response.
Pretty sure it was a rhetorical question - i.e. how can you promote an idea that would lead to a lot of people dying?
The fact that "six million" came out of this guy's mouth in reply speaks volumes.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)He's up there screaming and accusing a Jew of wanting to commit genocide against Jews. What's the correct answer to his question of "how many"?
I'm sure Hoffman had a particular number in mind. And like a mall psychic, Loewenstein correctly guessed.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The response of "six million" was off-the-charts bizarre and sickening.
Hoffman wanted to draw attention to the fact that the one-state solution will inevitably lead to violence. And in his view, those who support it are, by extension supporting violence.
Whether you agree with that or not is your prerogative, but there is no way that Hoffman wanted or expected anything like the reply he received.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And Jonathon Hoffman fits the profile perfectly. He's no different than Glen Beck, Fred Phelps, or any other screaming doofus you can find around just about any political issue.
We've already agreed that the answer given was rude and crass as hell. Let's not watch you diminish your dignity by trying to re-cast Hoffman as some sort of truthspeaking, valiant hero, kay?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)as much as you like and to of course attack me too both speak volumes IMO
oberliner
(58,724 posts)But again - the "see what you look for" phenomenon is strong here.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)What do you make of that?
shira
(30,109 posts)Look, they let the cat out of the bag, everyone knows it, and now we're seeing a pitiful effort to explain away their foul comments.
FFS, the chairman Frank Barat answered "200,000". This is a "human rights" activist. Is Hoffman to blame for this warmongerer's reply? FWIW, Barat is the dummy who interviewed Norman Finkelstein (the interview where he calls the BDS movement a cult). Barat posted the video and then took it down in embarrassment.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Loewenstein doesn't want anybody to be killed. Neither does Barat.
You embarass yourself when you use these tactics. It isn't necessary.
The best way to work for a two-state solution is to press Bibi and Co. to cut out the hardline policies...NOT to vilify people for disagreeing with you.
And I did say that I was appalled by Loewenstein's answer, if you read my earlier posts. I just didn't agree that Loewenstein's answer was the only thing that needed to be condemned.
The status quo kills plenty of people too, shira. And while I disagree with the one-state approach, it isn't EVIL to advocate it.
shira
(30,109 posts)...who will have to die as a result of this 1-state vision? He realizes the bloodbath that would result, even if you wish to deny it.
shira
(30,109 posts)It's colonialist mentality (imposing a solution no Israelis/Palestinians want) that will result in a bloodbath.
It's also an excuse for these evil scumbags to not work towards developing a successful future Palestine that would exist in peace alongside Israel. They're against any peaceful co-existence b/w the 2 peoples (see their recent boycott of Daniel Barenboim).
They are nasty scumbags.
The BDS version of 1-state isn't pro-Israeli but it's certainly not pro-Palestinian either, since maybe 10% of Palestinians at most want it. In fact the BDS movement isn't pro-Palestinian at all and that is why (as faux human rights activists) these warmongering bigots never speak out against Palestinian oppression at the hands of their Arab tormentors throughout the mideast. Instead, they work alongside Hamas, the PLO, Syria, Iran (like FreeGaza and GlobalMarch2Jerusalem) in their "resistance" efforts.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It can only be made to happen by pushing Netanyahu to stop the hardline tactics and the COMPLETELY UNJUSTIFIED continued settlement expansion. Even if there were a justification for the settlements, there can't be a justification for CONTINUING to make them larger. They're big enough.
BTW...you used the phrase "The BDS version of the OSS"...is there a NON-BDS version that would be acceptable to you?(and no, having the Palestinians vote in Jordanian elections doesn't count, since the world agrees that Jordan is NOT Palestine).
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #80)
shira This message was self-deleted by its author.
shira
(30,109 posts)...and needs to be opposed by people genuinely for the TSS and peace? Why? Please explain w/o deflecting.
I use the phrase b/c there was some confusion WRT the OSS in posts above (Loewenstein being for the settler version).
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)...is evil?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And no, you're not allowed to fall back on your racist horse-shit inferences about "what Arabs are like."
shira
(30,109 posts)And it has nothing to do with "racist horse-shit inferences about what Arabs are like".
You wrote that "evil" is a big word that should be saved for big things. I just want to know what you consider evil, that's all. There's no question oppressing women and gays is evil. But also very evil is the deliberate intent to set up a OSS that will result in a bloodbath (a warmonger's wet dream).
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Show me where Loewenstein is calling for mass war. In quotes. With a link to source, please.
shira
(30,109 posts)As Hoffman rightly pointed out, no Israelis are for it and that won't change. They will go to war before they commit suicide against themselves. As I pointed out already, and you must have ignored it, this OP explains why Israelis won't ever go for it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x358320
There are also all those videos you were shown that show Palestinian leaders calling for the murder of Jews.
As for the Palestinian side, a secular democracy will be viewed as being too "Zionist" by the leaders in charge whose regimes are in no way liberal or progressive. Imagine the pressure from neighboring regimes in Egypt, Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. They would never support such a thing. It's exactly what they oppose. This isn't rocket science.
But for proof it's all bullshit, look no further than the BDS, OSS movement. What are they doing to make a secular democracy a reality? Nothing! They know it's pointless.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Just your own assumptions and assertions. Nothing to show how "evil" Loewenstein is, nothing to back up your claims that he wants to create war, nothing backing your hero Hoffman's assertions that Loewenstein wants to kill all the Jews in Israel ("three million?"
Just your assumption that it must be so, because you want it to be so.
Again.
Shira, when we reach this point in our "discussions," where you're basically just circling the drain, repeating your same nonsense post after post... that's the point where I bid thee adieu.
See you next thread.
shira
(30,109 posts)...to show that such a solution can ever work. It's so bad, you can't even defend it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And again, you used the term "The BDS version of OSS"...is there some other version?
shira
(30,109 posts)...for liberal/progressive values WRT its implementation.
1. They don't push for secular, democratic values within Palestinian society - proving they don't really care to see that kind of OSS. Which means a totalitarian, theocratic, nightmarish rightwing OSS like the rest of the mideast neighborhood.
2. Advocating for BDS is an attempt to undo and work against collaborative, peaceful attempts to bring the 2 peoples together. See for the latest example, Daniel Barenboim: a good friend of Edward Said FFS!
3. It's advocates realize it would amount in a lot of bloodshed and mass murder, as both Loewenstein and Barat admitted it the other night. If other advocates were asked and they were honest, they'd admit it too. So they're pushing for war. Warmongers are evil by definition.
4. The OSS is an excuse to never to advocate or work for developing a successful, thriving, peaceful, progressive/liberal/secular Palestine that would exist alongside Israel. The result is a failing, destitute, corrupt and hopelessly rightwing totalitarian, theocratic nightmare that these alleged "humanitarians" tolerate quite well. Of course the BDS'ers can tolerate that, even if anti-sharia Muslims trying to get on with their lives have to constantly put up with it.
5. It's colonialist mentality to be advocates for imposing a solution on people who clearly do not want it.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Activists have been known to shout similar questions at visiting Israeli speakers.
shira
(30,109 posts)Antony Loewenstein @antloewenstein Aug 25
Vital to understand how ultra #Zionists pushed #America into war with #Iraq; lest we forget http://mondoweiss.net/2012/08/neocons-pushed-mindless-bush-into-idiotic-war-chris-matthews.html … via @Mondoweiss
Expand
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)fascinating conversation especially the part about how Iran has been dehumanized and cast as the bad bad bad guys to the extent that bombing them seems acceptable no matter how many Iranians die
didn't notice your tweet though guess I'll just take your word for it
shira
(30,109 posts)...he's little more than another lunatic, paranoid, conspiracy monger just like the discredited Gilad Atzmon loving twits, Walt and Mearsheimer.
Iran has nothing to do with it. Except maybe as some lame attempt to deflect...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)but I understand that you may prefer those like Hoffman who ask their questions loudly and frequently how many how many HOW MANY
but without a crystal ball or a clairvoyant such a question is actually quite meaningless unless perhaps Hoffman thinks Loewenstein has such powers
I think Loewwnstein's answer was crude, bad judgement, horrible and handed Hoffman the dripping red meat Hoffman wanted/needed this thread is proof positive of that IMO
shira
(30,109 posts)Good, I agree.
What do you think about Frank Barat's answer of 200,000 in response to Hoffman?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)shira
(30,109 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)except to say that Israel will go to war first which IMO is quite a revealing statement in and of itself don't you think?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)same stock stuff