Israel’s Incoming Defense Minister Evaded War Crimes Arrest, Called Palestinians "Cancer"

[Purveyor]

Israel’s next "defense" minister poses for a photo with notorious racist blogger Pamela Geller(Wikipedia)

This is Moshe Ya’alon, the Likud parliamentarian set to become minister of "defense" in Israel’s new hard-right coalition government due to be sworn in early next week.

In a 2002 interview with Israeli paper Haaretz, when he was Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Ya’alon said the "Palestinian threat" was "like cancer" and an "existential threat." He explained that his solution was "applying chemotherapy."

The "chemotherapy," was the massive destruction his forces visited on Palestinian society during the second intifada. Israeli forces infamously fired over a million bullets at Palestinian demonstrators within the first few days of that popular uprising.

Under pressure, Ya’alon later back-pedaled, saying his statements were "inopportune," but that he had been "taken out of context" reported financial publication Globes in Hebrew.

War crimes

In 2005, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against Ya’alon, charging him with war crimes for his role in the Israeli army’s 1996 attack on a United Nations compound in Qana, Lebanon that killed more than 100 Lebanese civilians who had taken shelter there, injuring many more.

MORE...

http://uruknet.com/?p=m95971&hd=&size=1&l=e

[Scootaloo]

1. Lovely picture of two liberal zionists hanging out together n/t

[Purveyor]

2. A picture is worth a thousand words, indeed! eom

[Shaktimaan]

4. Explain please?

This is Moshe Ya’alon, the Likud parliamentarian set to become minister of "defense" in Israel’s new hard-right coalition government due to be sworn in early next week.

The OP describes them as "hard-right" yet you seem to revel in calling them "liberal Zionists" which leaves me questioning your intent. Now I already know your tendency to label all Zionists as hard right yet you specifically chose conservatives to try and prove your point.

But all this shows to me is a willingness to sell out honesty in the service of ideology. Those people aren't liberal. Why present them as such?

Sarcasm? But we all know that conservative Israelis exist. Big whoop. Wouldn't it be better to find a self styled leftist supporting right policies and call him/her out in this way?

Because this just makes you look self-serving. Not Zionism.

[King_David]

6. +1

[Scootaloo]

10. I don't label all Zionists as "hard right"

..Because there are no appreciable right / left, liberal / conservative variations in Zionism. There are only two questions that Zionists disagree on, and this is how they work.

1) How much land should Israel wrench from under the Palestinians? The "right" Zionists say "ALL OF IT!" while the "left" says "LOTS!"
and
2) How many Palestinian should suffer or die to enable that? The "right" Zionists say "LOTS!" and the "left" Zionists say "I DON'T REALLY CARE!"

These deep and profound divisions in Zionism are why no matter which way Israel's government leans, the result is always identical for Palestinians. If the right is in charge, the Palestinians are killed, dispossessed, and stolen from. If the left is in charge, the Palestinians are killed, dispossessed, and stolen from. Because in Israel, both right and left worship the graven idol of Zionism, and Zionism cannot allow for anything other than the wholesale dispossession and abuse of Palestinians.

I simply point out that Zionism is an inherently illiberal philosophy and one cannot actually claim the mantles of "liberal" and "Zionist"at the same time. Otherwise you end up like Peter Beinart, basically the pro-Israel version of "Almost Politically-Correct Redneck". Where the ideologies conflict (and the only way for them to NOT conflict is if you pretend Palestinians just don't exist at all, which is itself a conflict) then for the "liberal Zionist," liberalism takes a back seat to Zionism (or more likely, gets beaten and stuffed in the trunk.)

Pam Gellar and Moshe Yaaron are the face of Zionism. They're not pretty faces. They're not Beinart with his softcore Jewish supremacism and boyish good looks, nor are they Tzipi Livni with her well-practiced (but unapplied) vocabulary and nice smile. They're crude and loud and abrasive... But the only meaningful difference is the volume and terms used. Gellar and Yaaron are just the pig without the lipstick.

[holdencaufield]

12. "...and this is how they work"

Obviously, following some sort of "protocols", right?

[Scootaloo]

13. You really have no other defense for your philosophy, do you?

Why do you believe in something that you can't even argue in favor of? That's sad.

[holdencaufield]

14. Who's arguing?

I'm just here to watch the dancing semantics and waiting for little bits of truthiness when they come out accidentally.

[Scootaloo]

15. Didn't you know? I'm quite the anti-semantic poster.

At any rate, keep doing whatever it is that fuels your modern mythmaking skills. I find your perception of reality to be utterly fascinating.

[King_David]

68. +1

[King_David]

28. The democratic party must sicken you ?Your extremist views on Zionism are clear

Thankfully they are marginal views in the USA .

[Scootaloo]

31. It's cute how you wallow in irony, Dave.

"Thankfully they are marginal views in the USA ."

This is known as an appeal from popularity. Basically, you're making the argument that a bunch of people agree with something, so that something must be valid and correct. "The mob has spoken," essentially.

I think this is a really rather awkward position for a gay Jewish person to take. Perhaps you just don't have a problem when the mob is fir ye rather than agin' ye?

"Thankfully they are marginal views in the USA ."

Like abolition, suffrage, religious equality, integration, equal pay, Indigenous recognition, marriage equality, and so many other things that the mob opposed?

The democratic party must sicken you

Just the parts that don't regard Arabs as human beings, like liberal Zionist icon Dov "Blackface" Hikind.

[King_David]

40. WTF is Dave ?

[King_David]

41. Extremist antiZionist views are very commen

Amongst various regimes such as Iran , Gaza , Syria , Egypt and also by extreme right wingers like those on Stormfromt David Duke etc..

I doubt such extremism will gain any traction or popular support in the USA .

Those other causes you mentioned in your post are noble causes,
antiZionism is neither noble and not does it belong anywhere liberal or civilized.. It's out and out bigotry...

[Shaktimaan]

29. Please expand on that thought...

Because in Israel, both right and left worship the graven idol of Zionism

The graven idol of Zionism?

no matter which way Israel's government leans, the result is always identical for Palestinians.

Huh, that is interesting. So you see no difference between giving the Palestinians land and sovereignty and elections and open borders for trade versus blockades and allowing the settlers to run over them, setting up wildcat settlements and destroying their fields, and setting strict army enforced curfews? If that is the case then why should Israel have bothered to go through all the trouble of withdrawing from Gaza and part of the WB?

In a perfect world, what would you like to see happen? (Perfect world meaning within our reality, just with you making all the decisions.)

[Scootaloo]

33. You're adorable.

So you see no difference between giving the Palestinians land

The word you're looking for is "returning." As in, "I took this that belongs to you, and now I am returning it." Giving is an act of charity, but returning is an act of basic responsibility. Generally it also helps if the thing you took and are now returning hasn't been mangled into tiny little pieces that you will still insist on claiming as your own when you feel like it...

and sovereignty

Except over land, people, air, water, resources, security (except in Area C, though this has its own list of interesting conditions and failures...), politics, movement...

and elections

Ah. generosity, allowing people to elect their own leaders. So long as you like those leaders. if you don't, you help arm coup attempts against them.

and open borders

I'm growing steadily puzzled about what nation you're picturing in your head when you type this shit.

versus blockades

...Enacted by the "liberal" Olmert government? As reprisal for those elections you were just bragging about? To, you know, "put them on a diet, where they will get thinner, but won't die", as popular Israeli stand-up comic Dov Weissglass put it?

and allowing the settlers to run over them, setting up wildcat settlements and destroying their fields

I'm curious as to whether you think any Israeli government has ever actually stopped this. The answer is, they haven't. it's Israeli national policy.

and setting strict army enforced curfews?

You mean like in Kafr Qasim, enaged under Ben-Gurion? Was Mapai a far-right party? Oh dear, my head hurts.

If that is the case then why should Israel have bothered to go through all the trouble of withdrawing from Gaza and part of the WB?

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Haaretz.

"And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

This, paired with increasing the colonization process in the west bank. Such generosity. But hey, round of applause for Dov here, who's managed to be enough of an asshole to grace the thread twice as often as pam Gellar.

==============================

In a perfect world, what would you like to see happen? (Perfect world meaning within our reality, just with you making all the decisions.)

I'd regulate the chemicals they use to dye the shirts Birthright mails to you, 'cause that shit is clearly inducing hallucinations.

[Shaktimaan]

38. I'm not sure what your answer is supposed to mean.

I asked a question. You seen to have just given examples or opinions on single details... ie: "Surely you don't prefer blockades" Answer: "Blockades from Olmerts government where someone said something!"

Surely you can tell this isn't an answer to my question at all.

Let's try again, shall we?

[King_David]

7. You have difficulty containing it now

so we see.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Liberal Zionists, my hind foot; these are right-wing extremists!

And no, not all Zionists or Israelis are like these nuts! Any more than all Americans are like the Tea Party.

[Scootaloo]

11. I never said anything about Israelis

And not all Americans are like the tea Party... but all Tea Partiers are Republicans, aren't they?

[King_David]

30. Try adress actually what Leftish Brit

Said about Liberal Zionists.(She should know because she is one)

[Scootaloo]

34. I did upthread.

Gellar and Yaaron are just the pig without the lipstick.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113435823#post10

[King_David]

55. That's an extremist view of what you call "Zionists "

A very right wing view diametrically opposite to any Democratic Party view which this website supports.

And quite a bigoted view.

When you say Zionist it's clear to all of us what you really mean.

[Scootaloo]

57. It's like listening to a broken record

Derp derp, extremism, hurrr democrat, yap yap bigoted, duhhhh, allusions of antisemitism... skriiiiiiiiitch... Derp derp, extremism, hurrr democrat, yap yap bigoted, duhhhh, allusions of antisemitism... skriiiiiiiiitch... Derp derp, extremism, hurrr democrat, yap yap bigoted, duhhhh, allusions of antisemitism...

it's noticeable that you never expand on or defend any of your positions. I have two suggestions for you, David.

1) Expand your vocabulary. Language is a beautiful and useful thing, necessary for conveying thoughts and ideas. The better you are at it, the more able you are at expressing what's going on in your head. Granted, no matter how large your vocabulary, it is limited by intelligence, so you might find diminishing returns at some point.

2) If you're going to hold a particular philosophy, you need to be able to defend it. otherwise you just end up looking like someone who believes because someone else told you that you have to. You don't need a 100% in-and-out total understanding of the philosophy (though it really does help) but you at least need to be able to articulate the basic reasons for your support, rather than just squawking about how awful people are when they don't share your philosophy.

[King_David]

67. If the shoe fits ,

Imagine how tired we are of having to read bigotry ( especially against ourselves , our families , our community )
Speaking if broken records ..

Are you sure your comfortable here on DU ?

A website supporting the Democratic Party ideals must be foreign to someone who hates the Jewish State founding philosophy . Visceral , systematic and reflexively so.

As been demonstrated in other threads such as the time you never knew Ethiopian immigrants were Jews , you know very little about Zionism or Israel , so the hate must be some other ingrained prejudice.

Obama and the Democratic Party won and support Zionism and Israel .... Get over it and end this hate.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

95. Ah, yes. The ever present thinly veiled accusation of anti-Semitism.

How quaint.

A website supporting the Democratic Party ideals must be foreign to someone who hates the Jewish State founding philosophy . Visceral , systematic and reflexively so.

As been demonstrated in other threads such as the time you never knew Ethiopian immigrants were Jews , you know very little about Zionism or Israel , so the hate must be some other ingrained prejudice.

Obama and the Democratic Party won and support Zionism and Israel .... Get over it and end this hate.

Oh, how the irony is just so delicious when it comes to either hypocritical points of view, deflecting from the OP or just flat out trying to shut down any further dialog with accusations of bigotry.

On one hand we have the original OP where Purveyor posted this.

Israel’s Incoming Defense Minister Evaded War Crimes Arrest, Called Palestinians "Cancer"

Now that was horrid all by itself, but being in the same photo with real life racist Pamela Geller is the icing on the cake.

I can understand that some will go to great lengths to distract from this, and others will be upset that they cannot hide from the truth of what Moshe said. All in all to mostly accuse Scoot of being an anti-Semite (yes, you didn't use the words but you clearly jumped through all the hoops) is just more of the same BS that others in I/P pride themselves on.

You don't like that those two are lumped into the Zionist movement; well send an alert and see what the jury decides.

[King_David]

96. I don't send alerts just in case your posts are hidden ..

I prefer them stand.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

97. You alerted on me. You posted it to me about it being 3-3. No?

Or did somebody else send that to you to share the bragging rights?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

100. "I don't send alerts"

But I guess that everything else that I mentioned is above board?

[Scootaloo]

104. It's not even thinly-veiled

But I've been on the internet for a long while, and have been called everything from "n****r-lover" to "fag" and "commie" and the ever-popular "Nazi." I'm a fifth columnist for Jihad and I'm an extension of the Crusader-Zionist Conspiracy. I'm a man-hating feminist, and a woman-hating chauvinist. I'm stupid, I'm an idiot, I'm a dumbass, and I'm of course an asshole, according to many. I've even been called a Blizzard Fanboi, which hurts the most.

So if David wants to call me an antisemite, oh well. It's the only way he has to defend his own position. I'm more saddened by his lack of intellectual rigor and ability to understand his own position more than I am by his crude attempts at name-calling.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

109. Okay, but do you mind being called scoot?

[Scootaloo]

113. I find it deeply offensive to my heritage and ancestors.

[Scootaloo]

103. I'm very comfortable on DU, thanks for asking.

A website supporting the Democratic Party ideals must be foreign to someone who hates the Jewish State founding philosophy

Ethnic cleansing hasn't been a part of the Democratic Party's platform since at least the closing of the frontier in 1890, Dave. I'll grant segregation and racial hostility characterized the party for some years later, until, at the earliest 1964.

As I pointed out to Shira upthread, recognition of and alliance with Israel doesn't actually translate into holding a Zionist philosophy. Zionism goes quite a bit further than "Oh, there's Israel, let's say hi."

If it bothers you that I'm disgusted with a political philosophy that privileges one race over others, maybe you're the one who should question your presence on a democratic discussion forum.

[King_David]

107. Again who is "Dave"?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

110. Nobody of consequence.

[King_David]

111. Well if I say stop calling me that a bunch of people should stop their immaturity

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

112. Perhaps scoot would like it if you also don't imply s/he is an antiSemite or bigot

just because you disagree with her/his remarks.

Seeing how you want to address levels of maturity or immaturity and all.


I can only speak for myself here so perhaps you could IM Scoot as to your concerns.

[Scootaloo]

115. You want my respect? Okay. You just have to do one thing...

Stop being this guy:


That said, abbreviating your name has squat to do with respect or lack thereof. I have better ways of conveying my contempt for you.

[King_David]

108. The willful misrepresentation of Zionism

And what the motivation is especially for someone who knows very little about Zionism ,Jews and Israel ( as has been demonstrated over and over here - you never even knew Ethiopians were Jews and Zionists in Israel ) is the big problem.

[Scootaloo]

114. Small correction, Dave...

I didn't know that the Ethiopian women in the depo-provera scandal were Jews. It was not mentioned in the original article I read, and the Loyal Zionists like Shira were tumbling over themselves to justify coercive application of long-term birth control by Israel, by using "demographic threat" arguments.

So, I thanked you for your correction, and now I just wonder why Zionists were endorsing the forced application of birth control to Jewish women. Hey, if Israel does it, it must be right, I guess.

[King_David]

78. WTF is "David " nt

[Jefferson23]

60. Bullshit.

You do not speak for all Jews and you do not speak for all Zionists, current, nor post.

The Democratic Party supports you, so you think you've got yourself a nice shield here, eh?

[King_David]

69. No shield

Ardent supporter , member and voter of the Democratic Party ... And proud of it.

[Jefferson23]

72. Yea, and what?

You're trying to use it as a tool to throw your bullshit bigotry accusations around, that much is
evident.

[King_David]

76. Accusations of Bigotry ? Yes if the shoe fits , and not talking about you,

‘when people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.’”

Martin Luther King

[Jefferson23]

77. That is not anti-semitism, you know this.

What is the criticism, that is what is essential to understand.

[King_David]

79. Really ?

The sentiment that all Zionists are evil and can't possibly be liberal or left wing or some other bigotry is not antisemitic ?

Really ?

[Jefferson23]

83. No, it most certainly is not. You may feel offended by the statement as you

believe liberal ideology and Zionism do not contradict each other.

The opinion that this is not possible, is not rooted in anti semitism..that would be
a stretch. That is why I wish you would stop suggesting it is more than a disagreement
of ideology ( liberal is how you define yourself ) and Zionism..a Jewish national movement.

You are well aware not all Jews are Zionists..and why is this? For many reasons of course,
many personal, but in the end it is a rejection of Zionism not Judaism. Not by a long shot
do all Jews look at Israel as their homeland...they look at their host country for that identity.
Nothing to do with anti semitism.

There is a huge difference between resentment of Israeli policy and anti-semitism. Israel's
government violates democratic principles, if you don't hold that opinion, then defend it.
The poster arguing against you is not arguing from an anti semitic point of view.

It does no good to defend Israeli policy by inserting Obama..US policy regarding Israel
vs the Palestinians is lopsided..and that is being kind. The policy will remain the same as
long as Israel's interests do not conflict with ours...if that changes, you may have a very
different view of Obama if it were to happen over the next four years.

[King_David]

84. Most anti Zionist Jews

Are right wing fundamentalist , sexist and homophobic .



It's already also been demonstrated that 2 of the most fervent antiZionists posting in this forum know absolutly minimum about Israel and Jews ( see thread on Ethiopians where they never even knew they were Jewish ) so you tell me the motivation ....

[Jefferson23]

85. They are all those things??

Come off it..you have stretched this too far. So now the poster is grouped with right wing
fundamentalists, sexists and also homophobic.

I don't believe that you believe this.

You'd have to produce a great deal more than a case of Ethiopian Jews thread ( I've seen it ) to satisfy me.

I suggest you let it go, it only makes you look bad..not the poster.

[King_David]

88. Just calling it as it is ,

Not trying to look good or bad in your eyes I don't really care .

Naturei Karta are fundamentalist Jewish sect.

[Jefferson23]

89. Oh I have no delusions about you needing my approval.

Simply passing along an observation, just another day in I/P.

Naturei Karta has nothing to do with the poster in question, btw.

[King_David]

92. Never said they do

You were the one that said not all Jews are Zionists... Naturei Karte makes up the majority of that group .

[Jefferson23]

94. If you're attempting to group anyone who rejects Zionism is likely part of this group, you're

truly lost.

[King_David]

70. Of course I don't speak for all Zionists who are varied in their political philosophy

Across the spectrum , Left to Right .

Yep

[King_David]

71. I do speak for some Jews actually,

Part of my job on fact.

How about you ?

[Jefferson23]

73. Do you have a difficult time answering in one post?

Your job?

No, I don't speak for anyone but myself.

[holdencaufield]

86. "No, I don't speak for anyone but myself."

Yourself and the millions of Zionists (on the left and on the right) about who you CLAIM to know everything.

If you're going to have a ventriloquist act -- at least make a believable one.

[Jefferson23]

87. I do claim to speak for no one but me. You should understand that

I do read other opinions and have said as such..there are other opinions out there.

I'm not speaking for them, wise ass.

[holdencaufield]

91. "All _____ believe ______"

That is pretty much the textbook definition of speaking for someone else.

[shira]

43. Obama is a liberal Zionist. Got a problem with our POTUS?

Is he too rightwing for you?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

44. Are you equating the POTUS with Pamela Geller and Moshe Ya’alon?

[shira]

45. Looks like Scoot is - all zionists being equal. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

46. Actually, no. That is not what Scoot wrote, and I am asking you if

you are equating the POTUS with them.

Well? Yes, or no?

[shira]

47. That's what Scoot's implying. The POTUS admits to being a zionist....

He's a liberal/progressive, not ultra rightwing and conservative like the bozos in the OP.

So do you have a problem with that?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. No, that's not what scoot has written or implied. That's what you are implying, and I am asking you

for a third time, since you want to duck it, is that what YOU are impliing about the POTUS: equating him with Pamela Geller and Moshe Ya’alon?

Yes, or no?

[shira]

49. Seriously, what's wrong with you? I answered you already...

In no way am I equating the POTUS with the clowns mentioned in the OP.

How about finally answering me?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

50. Good, Shira. I'm very happy that you didn't.

[King_David]

54. Actually it is exactly what was implied nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

56. No it wasn't dave. Try as you may to deflect. It wasn't.

Nice college try though.

[King_David]

82. I already told you my names not Dave

WTF ???

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

93. I believe that you were writing to Scoot upthread.

I wonder if Scoot gets upset when I write scoot?

[Scootaloo]

58. I'm curious. What makes you think he's a liberal Zionist, Shira? Do tell.

I'm betting you either have no idea about US policy, or you have no idea what Zionism is... But let's see.

[shira]

61. Read this from his 2011 UN speech....

Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors. And friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth, just as friends of Israel must recognize the need to pursue a two-state solution with a secure Israel next to an independent Palestine.

That is the truth -- each side has legitimate aspirations -- and that’s part of what makes peace so hard. And the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other’s shoes; each side can see the world through the other’s eyes. That’s what we should be encouraging. That’s what we should be promoting.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[Scootaloo]

63. And what's Zionist there, exactly?

"Israel deserves recognition?" Okay. Is that it? Hell, even I hold that position, I guess I'm a Zionist too

Maybe the long-standing American idea that only Israel's desires "count" when talking about two-state negotiations? Okay, I guess that's rather Zionist, the belief that Palestinaisn are below any consideration.

I don't see a ringing endorsement of Israel's ethnic cleansing of '47-'48, unless you want to count recognizing Israel exists as such an endorsement. I don't see advocacy for expanded settlements. I see no justifications for segregation and human rights abuses against Arabs. I don't see him thundering about how the Golan is and forever will be Israel, and he's certainly not backing up Israel's pledge of Jerusalem as its "eternally undivided" capital. I do not see him sticking to the belief that beating Arab children to death with a gun is acceptable, so long as the killer is Jewish. I do not see him calling the pre-67 borders "Auschwitz Borders.'

As I suspected, you mistake diplomacy and political alliance with adherence to Zionism.

[shira]

64. He's very clearly for a 2 state solution. Israel as a Jewish state, & homeland...

...for the Jewish people, etc.

I'm assuming you're against that, otherwise you'd be a Zionist too.

[Scootaloo]

102. Well, if you'd been reading my posts for the last year and a half, rather than just screaming...

1) I'm not opposed to a two-state solution. I just don't think it's terribly likely to succeed. If you're interested in an intelligent discussion of why I hold this idea, I'd be happy to explain it to you. Also, I'm old enough to remember the idea of a Palestinian state being the most unimaginably anti-Israel, non-Zionist idea anyone could conceive of, so you're not very convincing on that being a Zionist hallmark

2) I've stated that I have no issue with Israel as a state with a Jewish majority or strong Jewish culture. Where I develop a problem is in the notion of an exclusionary state. Think of it this way - I have no problem with the United States as a nation that has a white, christian majority, and a strong Anglo-Saxon cultural underpinning. I do have a problem with those cretins who think that makes us a "white, christian, Anglo-saxon nation."

[oberliner]

66. Obama: "Israel’s place as a Jewish and democratic state must be protected."

That's from 2012.

And your other remarks show, again, that you don't know what Zionism is.

[King_David]

75. +1

[Shaktimaan]

90. So,

Obviously your list of absurd requirements to supposedly qualify one as a Zionist aren't based on anything but your own predjudicial views on the movement. They are individually isolated events and Israeli policy decisions.

It is a commonly seen tactic in examples of predjudicial rhetoric to attribute any negative policies or events as being central to the core philosophy of the victim's beliefs/behavior. It is this kind of distorted logic that transposes cause and effect while purposefully confusing corollations with causations. Thus, one is never simply mugged by a black person... a person mugged you because he is black.

Affixing monolithic beliefs and traits to groups that simply do not posess them; attributing specific, (and often absurdly negative), requirements to political movements... these are all just flip sides of the same coin where all xenophobia and racism lie. Convincing yourself that to be a Zionist one must support the actions of the most odious settler, must hold specific views on specific political issues... this is part of the process of dehumanizing avowed Zionists, making them easier to hate without any real thought or consideration. X is a horrible war crime. All Zionists believe X. Therefore all Zionists support horrible war crimes, how awful of them!

I often wonder what the point is in coming to a place like DU to espouse such an absurdly cartoonish version of anti-Zionist propaganda. It isn't like anyone here will buy into it as reasonable, let alone rational. Actually, I wonder what it is that YOU really think yourself.

What is it? Do you know any version of this history that isn't contorted to fit the Frankensteinish narrative you publicly cleave to in this forum? Have you ever read any bit of the mountains of published literature that runs contrary to your stilted historical viewpoint? I believe you have. I don't think for a second that you could possibly choose to learn something about this conflict and come away with such a disturbingly malformed vision of one of the key players. Unless you were doing it on purpose, of course. Which, sadly, is often exactly what happens when someone who "already knows" who the victim is and who the villian is chooses to deepen their knowledge base.

It does get ever deeper, but never any broader.

[Scootaloo]

105. You make some particularly bad arguments, Shaktimaan.

First, this one;

Affixing monolithic beliefs and traits to groups that simply do not posess them; attributing specific, (and often absurdly negative), requirements to political movements... these are all just flip sides of the same coin where all xenophobia and racism lie.

Okay, tell me the positive sides to fascism and white nationalism. C'mon, Shaktimaan, German National Socialism, show me the bright side. 'Cause I'm afraid that I'm just all kinds of bigot now, since I can't see the beautiful and benign sides to these no doubt wondrously diverse and merited political philosophies - and that's just like being a racist! I hate being a racist and xenophobe, but - alas - being an ignorant stooge I just cannot see the deep and inherent value of Stalinism. I'm certain that there must be an upside, a garden of delight to theocracy, now that you have mentioned it, but I just can't see it. While we're at it, could you sit me down and explain to me the merits of xenophobia and racism? I know you're attacking me with them, but you've shown me that opposition to any political philosophy is such an awful, bigoted thing.



Do you know why people attribute uniform beliefs to political philosophies? Because that's what fucking defines them as political philosophies, silly. Political philosophies hold certain beliefs, and are pretty damn uniform on those beliefs. They're maybe not monolithic, but no matter what flavor ice cream comes in, it's still ice cream, and not a Belgian waffle. If I come up to you and tell you "I'm a Socialist," you don't need to sit me down and find out if I believe in the Labor Theory of Value or support unions or endorse the Republican Party, you already know the answer to all three because I told you I'm a socialist. There might be valid questions about whether I endorse Marx' conclusions, favor an antagonistic or collaborative relationship between labor and capital, or vote for Democrats, but you already know what the outlines are.

And if I come up and say "I'm a socialist but I think the idea of social ownership is utter horseshit," you can look me in the eye and say "then you're not a socialist." Because that's the core unifying idea of socialism, isn't it?

But I guess in your world that would make you racist against socialists.

=================================

And then there's this...

They are individually isolated events and Israeli policy decisions.

I refer to the above link.

No, but seriously. These are not isolated events, Shaktimaan. In fact by your own acknowledgement of them being Israeli policy decisions, you kind of admit this.

I don't know if you knew this, but here in the United States, we had this problem with lynching a while back (yes, lynching, I know it's surprising, but it happens in places other than Ramallah. You learn something new every day!) What would happen is that a bunch of (always) white people would find themselves a (usually) black person, wrap a rope around their neck, and drag them up a tree, or sometimes a telephone pole or in at least one instance, a tow truck, until they asphyxiated to death. These were regarded as social events, and were sometimes even advertised in newspapers! The police rarely ever interfered, and sometimes even collaborated, handing over prisoners or providing firepower during the capture.

Of course this was just the classic version of lynching. There were beatings, burnings, drownings, stabbings, draggings, and explodings, too.

Now of course, to your argument, all of these were individual, isolated vents. A few bad apples, as it were. No sense in tarring the white people of the United States with that brush (did I forget to mention tarring was popular, too? heat the tar to boiling, pour it over... well ,you get the idea, right?)

Yup, just out of the wild blue, a bunch of white people would get together and kill a black person - or sometimes several black people! or sometimes it'd be Indians, or Mexicans, or a "n****r lover" white person. Jews and Catholics suffered it, too, often in the context of being such collaborators with blacks. But of course none of these isolated, individual events had anything in common other than the commonality of perpetrator and victim, right? It just... happened. A few bad apples.

Wrong.

These lynchings, beatings, burnings, tarrings, draggings, drownings, and explodings were tied into a larger narrative, that of Jim Crow, segregation, and institutionalized injustice. These were in turn tied into an even broader narrative that portrayed blacks - all nonwhites in fact - as an alien "other," subhuman and subservient, yet a threat to the dominant caste should they ever get "uppity" - whether that meant backtalk or demographically outnumbering the dominant caste was irrelevant, just that they were "out of their place" and had to be beaten down again. This was all borne on the back of the ideology conceived to justify the slavery that these people and their ancestors endured at the hands of White Americans.

That ideology, political in nature and expression, was white supremacy.

It wasn't isolated events. It wasn't some bad apples. This was the core American paradigm, even from the days before our independence, and it still reverberates in our society today - when a white cop can stand over a 16 year old black boy and empty a clip into him while the kid screams for help and face no censure for it, you can't tell me that this is not part of a larger problem, a macroscopic framework of race relations and politics in the nation.

Now, you tell me about how these events in Israel - the political disenfranchisement, the dispossession and expulsions, the murders, the torture, the thefts, the expansionism, the intimidation, and just all-around shitty behavior going on - is not part of a larger framework, that it's all just a few isolated bad apples (many of whom just happen to author Israel's policies), and what can you do, right? Golly, why, to think there is a larger picture behind these "isolated events" must make a person some awful Seig-heiling motherfucking antisemite, right? How dare someone think that the prevalence of racism and violence and dispossession going on has anything to do with the prevailing racist ideology that revolves around violence and dispossession!

But of course we have no such qualms with attributing Palestinian racism and violence to some all-connecting narrative, do we?

=======================================

And of course, this...

Convincing yourself that to be a Zionist one must support the actions of the most odious settler, must hold specific views on specific political issues...

I don't think that one has to support the actions of the most odious settler. I just recognize that a lot of them do. even more - including every single Zionist poster on DU just refuses to condemn those actions. I did a search on Nachum Korman - the settler who clubbed a little boy to death? Not a single condemnation from the DU Zionists, even going years back. Just insults and vilifications against the people who bring or his murder (or his non-penalty) up. Even you - unsurprisingly - label him a "bad apple" and brush it under the rug as if it doesn't matter.

So no, I don't think you have to support the most odious shit. But I recognize that you usually do, and that even when you don't, you're doing what amounts to telling the choir to sing louder so they can't hear the trains passing. I don't like to use the word "evil" for little shit like this, but I think the phrase "the evil of apathy" is at least somewhat fitting for you.

[Shaktimaan]

116. not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good, I'm assuming?

I know you're attacking me with them, but you've shown me that opposition to any political philosophy is such an awful, bigoted thing.

Really? I showed you that? Well, if I did it certainly wasn't through anything I wrote here. Perhaps I inadvertently beamed it to you while I was cooking or something. Just adjust your tin foil helmet array and you should be fine. What I wrote was criticizing the attribution of false or misleading ideologies to unpopular national movements. It's kind of like saying "don't lie." You're saying "everyone's nice in their own way." Not the same message.

Do you know why people attribute uniform beliefs to political philosophies? Because that's what fucking defines them as political philosophies, silly

.

Very true! Political and national movements are defined by their own specific ideologies and core beliefs that all of their sub-groups hold in common. However they almost always hold OTHER beliefs that further differentiate them from one another.

Political philosophies hold certain beliefs, and are pretty damn uniform on those beliefs.

Obviously! (Except, of course, for those beliefs they aren't uniform on.)

There might be valid questions about whether I endorse Marx' conclusions, favor an antagonistic or collaborative relationship between labor and capital, or vote for Democrats, but you already know what the outlines are.

When you define all of Zionism according to specific acts and ideas held only by specific sub-factions like the violent settlers, it would be as though you defined Socialism in general according to the Nepali Maoist rebels' philosophy.

That ideology, political in nature and expression, was white supremacy

.

Whew! I thought you were going to tell me it was Zionism.

Golly, why, to think there is a larger picture behind these "isolated events" must make a person some awful Seig-heiling motherfucking antisemite, right?

Of course not!

But saying that this larger picture of yours describes the key philosophy and goals of Zionism, more or less in its entirety might reveal such a person as some awful Seig-heiling motherfucking antisemite. But it far more frequently reveals someone who is merely ignorant.

But of course we have no such qualms with attributing Palestinian racism and violence to some all-connecting narrative, do we?

Not really, no. But this is because Palestinian leaders themselves have defined their movement along such lines. Israel doesn't force them to name their streets after suicide bombers, does it?

That said, violence and racism certainly does not define every sub-sect of Palestinian Nationalists. It's just how the leaders of the PA, PLO and Hamas have historically defined their movements. This has been changing within the PA somewhat in the past few years.

Even you - unsurprisingly - label him a "bad apple" and brush it under the rug as if it doesn't matter.

Because he doesn't. It's one death. In 1996. That may not have even been an intentional murder. Within the scope of evolving nation-states, this is an invisible statistic. You're trying to se it as an example by which to define Zionism, which is akin to defining the color of an elephant by a single dust mote on its head. You may just as well look at the group condemning the settler's sentence, B'tselem. They're also Zionists. But you probably won't, will you?

So no, I don't think you have to support the most odious shit. But I recognize that you usually do,

No you don't.

and that even when you don't, you're doing what amounts to telling the choir to sing louder so they can't hear the trains passing.

Do you see this choir all the time? Can they see you?

I don't like to use the word "evil" for little shit like this, but I think the phrase "the evil of apathy" is at least somewhat fitting for you.

Sure. You only use words like that for the very worst. People like me. Makes sense.

[Jefferson23]

62. Obama stated he is a Zionist? n/t

[oberliner]

65. Biden has

(Google that for some interesting hits)

I don't believe Obama has uttered those exact words, though he has certainly expressed support and admiration for Zionism.

For example:

I deeply understood the Zionist idea — that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work.

Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders.

Also, he is planning to lay a wreath at the grave of Theodor Herzl on his upcoming visit to Israel for what that is worth.

[Jefferson23]

74. I know about Biden, was stated in 2007.

If you're going to use snips oberliner, kindly add the link as well.



Obama, never heard him make any such statement referring to himself as a Zionist.

[oberliner]

80. There was no snip

I just know Biden had said it. And when I Googled it, a lot of odd sites came up.

Anyway, they are obviously both supporters of Zionism in that they support Israel as a Jewish state.

Edit to Add: Oops, I just realized you meant the Obama quotes. They are from his 2008 and 2012 AIPAC speeches.

[Jefferson23]

81. I don't think anyone doubted Obama supported Zionism. The statements I was referencing

were; Obama is a Zionist, a liberal one at that....big difference. No such statement
from him that I'm aware of.

[azurnoir]

3. Darling couple

birds of a feather and all

[cali]

5. This is like spitting in President Obama's eye

this fuck is so reprehensible. He's advocated shooting Palestinian stone throwers. He is a champion of the ILLEGAL settlers. He's a right wing criminal freak.

<snip>

"I, for one, am not afraid of the Americans. There are issues on which one should say 'that's enough'," he said, insisting that Jews have a rightful claim to all of the Land of Israel -- a term which includes the Palestinian territories.

"I believe that Jews have the right to live anywhere in the Land of Israel for ever," he said.

As defence minister, Yaalon will enjoy huge power to advance the settler movement, with both new construction and the dismantling of existing outposts unauthorised by the government falling under his authority.

<snip>

http://www.france24.com/en/20130317-israels-new-defence-minister-champion-settlers

[holdencaufield]

17. "This is like spitting in President Obama's eye"

Not sure I understand the connection. Are you saying that the settler movement was created to make President Obama look bad?

[cali]

18. No, I'm saying that naming this criminal piece of dog shit

to one of the highest ranking post just before President Obama's visit sends a certain message. duh.

[holdencaufield]

19. That might be an Americentric interpretation ...

... of the timing. The nomination of Defence Minister coincides with the final forming of a coalition government after a close parliamentary election. I don't think it was deliberately timed to "spit in the eye" of President Obama.

As Americans, we need to realise that the entire world doesn't revolve around our comings and goings -- or those of our President.

[cali]

20. so do tell what you think of Yaalon.

I'm quite aware that the world doesn't revolve around the U.S., but thanks for the idiotic straw man.

The U.S. is Israel's only powerful support and it supports Israel with a lot of money as well as with its political clout. This is President Obama's first visit to Israel as President.

So do you support this man for Defense Minister? Why haven't YOU spoken out against him if you don't?

[holdencaufield]

21. That would be Lashon hara

But seriously, it makes no difference who is in charge -- the occupation will end when BOTH sides sit down an hammer out a compromise that ensure the safety and stability of both the Jewish and the Palestinian States -- demonizing the players doesn't solve a thing.

[cali]

22. just what would be lashon hara?

and yes, of course it makes a difference if a bloodthirsty bigot is in charge. And the lashon hara is in Yaalon's words and actions, or isn't calling Palestinians cancer and Israeli peace activists viruses, lashon hara?

So it doesn't matter to you if bigots and criminals are appointed in the U.S. gov't? How cute of you.

Disgusting that you can't even condemn this repulsive, dangerous man.

[holdencaufield]

23. "So it doesn't matter to you if bigots and criminals are appointed in the U.S. gov't?"

Are you claiming they're not?

That's adorable

[cali]

25. Why don't you name a U.S. cabinet secretary under THIS president who

is a bigot, someone who has made remarks akin to the those Yaalon has made. Again, a current cabinet secretary, not Earl Butz from 30 years ago.

[holdencaufield]

26. "The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people."

Chuck Hagel -- currently serving Secretary of State


I would call that a bigoted statement.

[cali]

27. wait a minute: you actually think that that comment which was

a comment he apologized for is remotely akin to calling Palestinians cancer and peace groups viruses? Really. How sick that you believe that.

No, Hagel shouldn't have used the word "Jewish". He should have said Israeli. But Hagel is a long time supporter of Israel. His record reflects that.

Is that the best you can do, poppet?

[holdencaufield]

42. And then there's always THIS classic

"You f-cking Jew bastard" -- Hillary Clinton (former Secretary of State under Obama and presidential hopeful) to Paul Fray

Should she have said "You f-cking ZIONIST bastard"? That would have been politically correct, right?


Personally -- I prefer people like Hagel and Hillary say what they mean.

[cali]

53. apocryphal.

I wouldn't believe Patterson or the other right wing fuckwads that you are so devoted too. Hillary Clinton has long been a staunch supporter of Israel.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Ya'alon makes me sick.

He is viciously right wing, and has a nasty habit of equating everyone with whom he disagrees to a disease. The 'Palestinian threat' is like cancer and Peace Now are a 'virus'! Someone like that as Defence Secretary doesn't sound like a very good idea.

As for Pamela Geller, apart from her support for the American Tea Party and for far-right-wingers in Israel, she has also given support to the English Defence League.

[bemildred]

16. Dang, I haven't seen Uruknet around here for ages. nt

[holdencaufield]

24. Everyone can calm down now ...

... Juan Cole just called and said it was a mistranslation.

Whew!

[Jefferson23]

32. Is it not true that some posters here believed Israel was not going further to the right?

hmmm.

[Scootaloo]

35. Well, if you mean in this particular thread?

Nah. we had the one guy who spent a week and a half patting himself on the back for "totally calling it" - after predicting Livni and Kadima would take the gold. Then he declared that clearly Lapid would usher in a new spring thaw of liberalism and peacemaking, and Bennet would have no role in the government.

He actually compared himself to Nate Silver.

But that person isn't posting on this thread, perhaps for obvious reasons.

[Jefferson23]

36. Yes, that's the one..thanks..maybe he'll show up, later.

lol@ Nate Silver comparison..I missed that one.

[azurnoir]

37. I remember a poster giving the Israeli election results a high five

posting about how the 'left' had won big and how a certain publication was so off base in it's tallies of polls from other Israeli publication, except he never quite said that the was how the results were arrived at

this sort of poster who would so disingenuously present things IMO must not have much respect for the intelligence of people @ DU

[shaayecanaan]

39. It was a "seismic" change as I recall...

apparently, it was impossible to imagine a more earth-shattering and profound change than the election result that took place in January.

I thought it was setting the bar fairly low, myself.

[Hayabusa]

51. Oh my God, she looks like a vampire!

Back on topic, calling any other race or ethnicity or nationality a cancer is not a very good thing to do, especially if you're a politician.

[delrem]

52. "not a very good thing to do"

But in Israel it's a winning move - the guy is going to be the new minister of defense.

So things are looking up for Pamela Geller.

[Ken Burch]

59. That blogger looks like a psychotic version of Mila Kunis.

n/t.

[holdencaufield]

98. Wow ... that's hot

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

99. Purveyor, do you ever get the impression that some want to run screaming

from the bad press that Israel makes for itself, but feel compelled to distract from these OPs?

It appears that some will do anything except address the article.

Let me help you by bringing the subject back into focus.

War crimes

In 2005, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against Ya’alon, charging him with war crimes for his role in the Israeli army’s 1996 attack on a United Nations compound in Qana, Lebanon that killed more than 100 Lebanese civilians who had taken shelter there, injuring many more.
---
In 2006 a federal judge dismissed the case on the grounds that Ya’alon enjoyed immunity under the Foreign Sovereigns Immunities Act. But Ya’alon’s legal problems did not end there.

He was invited to a 2009 fund-raising event for Israeli soldiers in London, but had to cancel the trip for fear of arrest on suspicion of war crimes.

The charges to have been brought against him related to the infamous 2002 Israeli bombing of an apartment block in Gaza, which killed 14 civilians, including children. Hamas military leader Salah Shehadeh was also killed in the attack.

In the grand tradition of the "Butcher" of Beirut, Israel has another defense minister with blood on his hands. You would think that he would at least have the common decency of waiting until he got into office before ordering an attack on civilians.

[Purveyor]

101. Main reason 'they' have forced this forum to relegate Palistinian/israel issues to this backroom

forum.

No matter, they are failing on 'what is right and what is wrong'...

[Violet_Crumble]

106. Disgusting and revolting doesn't even begin to describe that one. Him and Pam Geller are soulmates..

I hope anyone who is of the mistaken belief that there's no extremists in positions of power in the Israeli govt is reading this OP...