I think that’s a lot of projection on your part on a subject that’s got little to do with the Mid-East. The reason I know that is you never asked about Germans or Slovakians, you seem like you saved that in your back pocket in order to throw down like a Black Lotus at a Magic: The Gathering tournament. If you want to know why my opinion doesn’t take into account those countries, or why those countries are irrelevant, simply ask, no need to pretend like you dropped the mic on the debate
I can’t believe that I have to say this out loud but you do realize “Jewish” is both an ethnicity and a religion, right? You want to assume I mean one thing and hit me for it yet you don’t consider that I take both meanings into account? Even Nic Cage would have problems finding enough straw to construct that man
Given your lack of semantic clarity, I have to correct you: No, the “Jews” are not a nation, Israel is a nation. “Jews” refer to an characteristic of people, some of whom live in Israel.
It seems to me that your contention is that because the Germans did it, the Jews get to do it. I should not have to point out the logical fallacy of that remark. You will, of course, deny that’s what you were trying to say, and my reply would be to say it better so that there is no misunderstanding
While I’m sure that has happened in the past, you’ll have to excuse me for not taking your interpretation at face value
I’m sure there are Arabs in Palestine just as I’m sure some Americans are Arabs. Ethnicity and country of origin are not mutually exclusive
It’s relevant because the sins that Morris’ scholarship identified are the “lies” he’s now trying to claim are being told. As Shavit said, Morris is trying to deal with the contradiction between his scholarship (which documents that there were, in Morris’ own words, “far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves”), and his right-wing political views.
Morris apparently resolves this contradiction by believing that the sins his scholarship uncovered, the records of rapes and massacres and deliberate expulsions of Palestinians by the Israeli military, certainly happened (unlike right-wing “traditionalist” historians such as Karsh, who simply deny that those things occurred), but that they aren’t “sins” at all. That, in fact, the Israeli military was justified and should be even be lauded for the atrocities they committed against the Palestinians. But for those who don’t have the particular extremist views held by Morris, the fact that the nascent IDF committed those atrocities in the first place is problematic enough in and of itself.
So, the “lies” that Morris talks about are actually the very same historical occurrences he writes about in his books, and the “demonisation” he talks about that is ostensibly based on those “lies” is simply him being pissy about the fact that not everyone has the same right-wing ideological interpretation of those historical occurrences that he does.
There certainly is a lot of demonisation of Israel - and of Jews - based on lies. But what Morris is talking about in that quote you keep repeating like it’s some kind of magical incantation against liberals isn’t part of it.
Ok, leaving aside the fact that you seem to have misunderstood my argument(which is probably my fault) since I never said Israel had formally annexed the West Bank, it’s a bit hard to understand why you were so upset by the comparison to South Africa since if we use the definition you seem to have for Democracy then you must think that under Apartheid South Africa was a “democracy” just a “bad democracy” since they had an elected Parliament and non-dictatorial Prime Ministers which seems to be the standard that you and Captain Amazing are using?
Now, if you think South Africa was NOT a democracy, then please explain your reasoning.
Leaving aside that you have yet to demonstrate how I’m “wrong” yet again you make your complaint regarding the comparison to SA quite odd. I suspect Mr. Dibble might want a word with you since you just described the Bantustans of South Africa.
In that case I sincerely apologize. I read what you’d written as saying that the annexation had been proclaimed and that all the Palestinians in the West Bank were Israeli Citizens.
Because it’s unapt. The South African majority were citizens, but were not only denied the right to vote, but many other legal protections.
The Palestinians are allowed to vote…in their own region, for their own leadership. They do their own governance and policing.
The two situations are vastly different, so different that comparisons are absurd.
When the majority is not allowed to vote, the “badness” of the democracy becomes destructive of it. South Africa was dictatorial: blacks had no protection against government abuses.
South Africa was a democracy much the way China is today. There actually are elections…but they’re a sham.
In any case, Israel does not suffer from any of these flaws. The Arab minority does have the vote. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of their rights.
So, rather than perpetuate the fallacious highjack over South Africa, you need to belly up to the evidence bar and show us why Israel is not a democracy, which was your original claim and thus burdens you for proof.
It seems pretty clear to me, a “leftist”, I suppose, that a significant part of the anti-Israel movement (that I read and hear about, anyway) in Europe is at least partially motivated by anti-Semitism. I don’t know if it’s a majority, and I don’t know how much of it is anti-Semites who join up to bash Israel vice people who legitimately oppose some Israeli policies but tolerate or even utilize anti-Semitic language, tropes, and imagery, but whenever Israel is compared to the Nazis, that’s pretty clearly anti-Semitic. Whenever Israel is referred to as illegitimate (in terms of its status as a nation), then that’s anti-Semitic.
I’m not sure if holding Israel to a higher standard than its neighbors is anti-Semitic, though. It might be unfair, or perhaps not, but I don’t believe this particular kind of criticism (of the “Israel could do more to make the lives of Palestinians and other stateless people better” variety) is necessarily anti-Semitic.
Wow, you are just adorable. Playing with language to score internet points, saying stupid shit and then hiding behind semantics…it’s truly a treat to watch.
You know very well what you intended and insinuated, and everyone else reading your posts knows too. But you go ahead and do whatever makes you feel bigger.
Terr is right. He clearly used the past tense. I don’t see how that is playing semantics. If I say Romney used to be a Democrat (he was), am I playing semantics?
Fair enough. My point was that Israel makes a mockery of the idea that it’s a democracy by refusing to grant them citizenship while has not granted them citizenship when they really should have if they’re going to clai to be a democracy particularly if they’re going to make the West Bank and de facto if not de jure part of Israel and portray it as a part of Israel.
No, Black South Africans were not citizens of South Africa. They were officially citizens of the various “homelands”, AKA Bantustans, spread around South Africa.
That’s why South Africa claimed that they were a democracy.
Of course reasonable people like you and I would argue they aren’t because to be a democracy it’s not a question of just whether ALL citizens can vote, but all who SHOULD be citizens can vote.
Two things. First you seem to be conceding based on this logic that prior to the setting up of the PA in the mid 90s, that Israel’s claim to being a democracy during the first roughly 30 years of the Occupation. Second, that was also true regarding South Africa’s Bantustans.
Simple, to reword your statement about South Africa, when South Africa refuses to grant 90% of the people ruled by the government the vote or citizenship they make a mockery of the idea of democracy. Similarly, when Israel denies citizenship and the vote to nearly 40% of their population it’s a bit of a stretch to claim they’re a democracy.
Every other similar such “occupation” has always ended with either independence or citizenship.
For example, the Tibetans and Kurds of Iraq were given citizenship, though being granted citizenship in such countries was rather pointless.
Well, Israel is left with a three fold dilemma. First, they don’t want to grant the Palestinians of the Occupied territories citizenship because unlike like Saddam’s Iraq and China, allowing 40% of all voters to be non-Jews would lead eventually to end of the Jewish state. Second, they don’t want to grant them independence and third they want to place huge numbers of settlers in the area which is illegal if the territory was “occupied” per the Geneva Conventions.
So what Israel has been doing is like South Africa constructing a fantasy. They’ve denied the territories are “occupied”(which they did long before the PA) and come up with various rationalizations to treat the West Bank as a part of Israel and continue to rule it and fill it with settlers while pretending they’re not making a mockery of the idea of democracy. The latest being “they’re not occupied territories, they’re disputed territories” and ignored the fact that in doing so they’re admitting that Israel is claiming the West Bank. After all, the rational behind the phrase “disputed territories” is that two different groups claim they control the area. For example, the pro-Israel groups often point to the Kashmir district as an area referred to as “disputed territory” rather than “occupied territory” and hope no one asks whether the Muslims of the Kashmir are given the vote and Indian citizenship. Of course they are.
Now, if Israel wants to be seen as a Democracy, I’d say stop kicking the ball down the road and be like India and either grant them citizenship or independence.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I find Shagnasty’s views on Jews in general and Israel in particular to be as simplistic and patronizing as his views of black people, women, and leftists.
I have to disagree with this as well. Terr is not a troll. Yes, he’s right-wing, and he has said some ugly things, but I believe his views are a result of his life experiences. He reminds me of a friend of mine with a similar background. I can only hope that like my friend, his actions in real life belie his words, and positive exposure to people with different life experiences modifies his uglier views.
But some of the attacks and accusations against him here are completely unfounded (see semantic-gate above).
Now, can we get back to disagreeing with him about the relevancy of the Morris example? (thanks A’isha)
Whoa there! Y’all thought I was quibbling over the verb tense! Sorry, I was never taking issue with that. I freely admit “used to be” is right there, and I never meant to claim he was changing tense.
I meant to claim he was changing up who he was talking about.
Quite correct, and I sincerely apologize for appearing to insinuate otherwise. It was not my intention.
No, it’s not. You said he was “the revisionist leftist historian whom leftists used to love.” Alls I’m saying is that the original Morris line was not about anti-Israel leftists. It was about leftists, in a clear attempt to tar the entirety of the left with Morris’ opinions.
It appears that you’re now amending that to merely say he was “the darling of anti-Israel Leftists,” and presumably backing off the idea that he ever represented “the left.” So no worries, and my apologies again.
.
I don’t get it. Every link you gave shows maps that have Judea and Samaria in different color, or with lines around it, etc. What exactly is your point? That the lines on the map are not actually green? Like the one article that complains that the lines are gray? Is that the problem?
And mondoweiss? Really? You gotta pick your sources a bit more carefully.
What defines an “Arab”? There were, off the top of my head, Samaritans, Druze, Christians, Bedouins, and Jews all living in the territory before Zionism. Which are “Arabs”?