I Was Wrong. On The Biggest Issue of Our Time.

On September 11, 2001 I watched the first plane hit the World Trade Center from the street.  Several hours later I participated in a panicked, thronged, exodus from Manhattan.

As soon as the smoke cleared I reached a conclusion about what the biggest geo-political threat resulting from this momentous day would be:  The biggest threat was going to be, I thought, American and Western military over-reach and aggression.

As I surveyed the landscape of American flags covering every possible surface in those days of immediate aftermath, there was little chance, in my reckoning, that the that this new, extreme, senseless form of terrorism would not be taken seriously enough.  Rather, my primary fear was that it would be taken too seriously.

So I frantically sent out e-mails warning the recipients to be careful of American military interventions.  I monitored the news for evidence of a large-scale backlash against Muslims which, with a few notable exceptions, to my surprise, didn't happen.

Well, was I correct when I looked to the future and saw the nightmare of over-reaction?  Was I right about the nightmare of a society too obsessed with the danger of Islamic terrorism, and too quick to react based on that obsession?

No.  I was wrong.

Other people were right and I was wrong, and if you were one of those people who was right, I apologize to you here and now.

-----------------

No. to my surprise, but perhaps not to the surprise of people who were wiser than me in 2001, what I feared then is not what turned out to happen.  Instead, the opposite of what I feared then is what turned out to happen.

The 9/11 attacks have been followed up with a litany of Islamist terrorist incidents and atrocities, large and small, to which Western society's reaction has not been increasing vigilance but rather increasing apathy and equivocation.

To list all of the atrocities which have been visited on us in those 14 years would take more bytes than Blogspot allows.  Just a partial rendering of the terror that Islamists unleashed upon the innocent in the West since 9/11 would include the LAX attack, the shoe bomber, the underpants bomber, the Madrid train bombings, the Bali bombing, the Lackawanna six plot, the London 7/7 bombings, the Glasgow airport attack, the Mumbai massacre, the Delhi Bombings, the Times Square bomb plot, the Ft. Hood shooting, the Little Rock recruiting shooting, the Frankfurt Airport shooting, the Boston bombing, the Kenya mall slaughter, the Toulouse School Massacre, the Brussels Museum massacre, the Lee Rigby dissection, the Canadian Parliament shootings, the New Jersey Copt beheadings, the Oklahoma City beheadings, the New York Police ambush, the Sydney cafe attack, the Sydney bomb plots, the France Christmas car rammings, the Charlie Hebdo assassinations, the Kosher Supermarket massacre, the US Capitol bomb plot, and the Copenhangen assassinations.

That very abbreviated list was, as I said, only a selection of the atrocities served to Western and non-Muslim majority countries since 9/11.  Even beyond a comprehensive list of that violence, the full tally of Islamist violence would have to include the slaughters and tortures visited upon their brethren in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia by ISIS, AQAP, AQIM, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, the Taliban, and countless other groups.  It would also have to include the daily drumbeat of chaos brought to Israel, where, proportionally to their population, they suffer a 9/11 every year.

It turns out that in the face of the mangled bodies and mangled vehicles, in the United States, in Canada, in Europe, in Australia, in India, and in Africa, the response of the West has been to cede more ground, to give up more of its hard-earned religious freedom and openness, which each successive attack.

As the 2000s became the 2010s and to the present, each attack carried out and each plot uncovered has been met with less and less discussion of the senseless violence and what can be done about it, and more and more discussion of how the attacks are not the atrocities they appear to be, how we are responsible, and how that supposed responsibility precludes action.

---------------

In the aftermath of 9/11 some people with whom I was acquainted viewed those attacks as unfortunate, but ultimately understandable, blowback for American imperialism.  This unsettled me because how can this be the case when the attackers are themselves imperialists, who have a stated goal to dominate the world or a large part of it?  On Al Qaeda's published list of grievances against the West was that we supported the independence of East Timor against the imperialism of Indonesia.
While the impossibility of equating arch-imperialist Islamists with anti-imperialists bothered me then, I had no idea of the trends to come.

For what was then confined to the realm of extremists has since become a standard presence in the mainstream discourse:

Today we have the largest circulation newspapers in the West telling us that making fun of a religion or ideology in ink is the same as incitements to violence and Holocaust denial.

Today we have feminists telling us that burqas mean freedom, people of African descent rushing to embrace the religion of the people who started the African slave trade and still practice it, and human rights commissioners of major American cities comparing Iran favorably to America on LGBT issues.

Today we have the largest internet forums proclaiming that we must understand the grievances of terrorists.  But only Islamist terrorists, for these sites would never dream of claiming that one must understand the grievances of any other terrorists.

Today we have pundits at our largest news outlets telling us that the Charlie Hebdo massacre must be understood in the context that the assassins were radicalized by the Iraq war.  Never mind that France did not participate in the Iraq war - remember Freedom Fries.

Today we have many people who appear in mainstream programs telling us that to oppose Islamism as an ideology is just as bad as white supremacy or calling for the extermination of an ethnicity.

Today we have, while the Jewish dead in the Kosher supermarket are still smoldering, a BBC  reporter berating a grieving woman on live TV about what other Jews are supposedly doing to Arabs a thousand miles away.

Today we have people saying that because of the perceived relatively low death toll of terrorism, efforts to combat terrorism are wasteful and immoral.  The same logic would mean that because of our modern relatively low death toll from contaminated water and contaminated medicine, the efforts we expend to treat the water and regulate pharmaceuticals are wasteful.

Today people who occupy central positions in the culture tell us that these Islamist atrocities are not Islamist atrocities at all, but rather outlandish conspiracies of our own governments.

Today we have people literally telling us that their goal is to enslave and rape all of us, and our response is to find yet another way to blame ourselves.

Worst of all, the terrorists have literally won in achieving their major objective: the Western media has surrendered by agreeing not to do anything that the terrorists dislike.  And not only have they acquiesced, they have done so pathetically, and they lie about the reason.

----------------------

There you have it.  I was wrong back then.  The biggest threat was not that we would over-react to terrorism.  It turned out that we would seriously under-react to terrorism, and begin the process of equivocating about it, and therefore ultimately surrendering to it.

If I had seen the following BBC program on September 13, 2001, perhaps I would have had more insight into the brave new world which was to come.  Here, just two days after 9/11, while bodies were still being pulled out of the wreckage, the audience brings the still shocked American Ambassador to tears with all of the above and then some, delivered in the crudest manner.  I would like to think that had I seen this then, I would have been wiser.  I will never know.

Genocide! Happening Right Now!

By now everyone is probably aware of the terrible genocide currently being committed against that proud ancient brown indigenous people in the Middle East.  You know, the people who have been colonized and occupied for years?

Picture from the genocide in question

------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh wait, you thought I was talking about the Palestinians?   You must be incredibly stupid!

First of all, the "Palestinian" territories have the highest rate of natural population increase in the world.  In the world!  That is the opposite of a genocide.  For something to be a genocide, the population of the supposed target group has to at least stop going up at the highest rate in the world.  Plus there is all that stuff about thousands of rockets being fired from schools and hospitals and so on.  There is also that little matter that the Palestinians are not ancient at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I am talking about the genocide of the Yezidis.  See, even though you don't know about it, because the media seems to be silent, right now the Yezidi people, who practice a unique religion that predates Islam and speak Kurdish, are being killed and expelled from the last of their homeland in Iraq.   A larger fraction of Yezidis have died and been displaced than Palestinians lately, but for some reason hardly anyone knows about the Yezidis.  Hmm, very "interesting".

Stranded on a barren mountaintop, thousands of minority Iraqis are faced with a bleak choice: descend and risk slaughter at the hands of the encircled Sunni extremists or sit tight and risk dying of thirst.

Humanitarian agencies said Tuesday that between 10,000 and 40,000 civilians remain trapped on Mount Sinjar since being driven out of surrounding villages and the town of Sinjar two days earlier. But the mountain that had looked like a refuge is becoming a graveyard for their children. 

Unable to dig deep into the rocky mountainside, displaced families said they have buried young and elderly victims of the harsh conditions in shallow graves, their bodies covered with stones.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Yezidis are not the only current victims of genocide that you've never heard of.

The Assyrian people are even more ancient, the descendents of the Sumerian civilization.  Historically they were spread across Iraq and formed around 8% of the Iraqi population in the late 20th century.  As Christians they have been an especially vulnerable target of Islamic militants.  Between 2003 and 2009 one million Assyrians - two-thirds of the total population - were driven from Iraq.  The rump that has remained has now been targeted by ISIS, who have issued convert or die orders to the remaining Assyrian community in Mosul.

But wait, there's more!  Have you heard of the Mandaeans?  I didn't think so.  They are another ancient minority in Iraq.  The Mandeans practice a religion that fuses Christianity with Gnostic philosophy.  In the past 20 years, due to persecutions, murders, and expulsions, their population in Iraq has gone from 60,000 to around 5,000 today.  A reduction of 92%?  Now that is a genocide. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

So why is it that all of these groups, who are each more ancient than the Palestinians, and who are actually losing numbers and actually in danger of extinction in their homelands whereas the Palestinians are not, are getting only the tiniest fraction of the amount of concern that the Palestinians are??

Why is it that there are thousands of editorials over the Palestinians but zero for the Yezidis, who are actually going extinct?? 

Why are there hundreds of articles at HuffPo and Daily Kos about the Palestinians but none for the Assyrians, who are going to actually disappear from their five thousand year homeland?? 

Why have their been dozens of protests worldwide about the Palestinians whose population goes up every single day but none for the Mandaeans who have declined by 92%??

One of those "human rights" activists who supports Palestinians and definitely doesn't have any other motivation

------------------------------------------------------------

Well, we all know the answer.

It is because Palestinians are involved in a conflict with Jews, and the rest are not.  When Jews can be somehow blamed, the world perks up and takes note.  The rest of these groups are S.O.L., because even though they are actually going extinct in the Middle East due to the genocidal activities of their neighbors, nobody cares for or has even heard about them, because their situation cannot be blamed on Israel.

This proves that people who are supposedly concerned with "Palestinians" are really just haters of Jews.  If they were really concerned about human rights and oppressed peoples, they would devote at least a fraction of their concern to the Yezidis, Assyrians, and Mandaeans.

--------------------------------------------------------------

This is why I must conclude that all Western pro-Palestinian activists are solely motivated by pure antisemitism, and/or pure hatred of America and the West.  Full stop.  They simply don't care one bit about human rights or actual people, or else they would have at least heard of these other groups.  They only care about people if they can be a means to bash America, Israel, or the West.

So let me say it again:

So-called pro-Palestinian activists only care about people if they can be a means to bash America, Israel, or the West. 

The Best Video Clip Ever

If you are a person who, like me, is appalled by anti-Israel idiocy, both of the left and the right, then this video clip will make your day, possibly your year:

For those who are not familiar with it, Real Time With Bill Maher is one of the touchstones of American liberal culture.

In this episode Maher, along with Liberal Congresswoman Jane Harmon and conservative pundit Jamie Weinstein, spend five minutes bashing Hamas and praising Israel!  They make it perfectly clear who is to blame for the violence.

Not only that, they manage to hit so many of the salient points that are tragically taboo in American and Western discourse about the Israeli-Arab conflict, including the one million Jews ethnically cleansed from Arab countries, Hamas' genocidal charter, and the cultural reasons that Arab society is backward and cannot accept peace.

It is absolutely amazing to see this discussion on American television.  Moreso, this clip, because it has both liberal and conservative figures on it - agreeing - should be forwarded to everyone's liberal and conservative friends.  It simply cannot be dismissed as "oh just those (liberal/conservative) partisans".

And I have saved the best for last...  Throughout this clip Maher's audience constantly cheers the points made!  That's right, those extreme LA liberals are cheering over and over the defense of Israel and the bashing of Hamas AND the whole anti-Israel position.

I'm just beside myself.  It is the perfect anecdote to the hateful, ignorant, idiocy being belched all over the internet by deluded Israel haters.  I think I'll watch it again.

It's Time for Recognition, Truth, and Reparations

When I was growing up, in school we spent a lot of time in history class learning about the horrors of racism in the US, and in particular slavery.  This was understandable as it is a huge part of American history, and also considering that the school district was majority black.

But it is interesting to note that even though we covered the Middle Passage and Harriet Tubman and Uncle Tom's Cabin year after year, we never once learned in class which culture actually started the African slave trade.  Nor did we learn that even today, there are hundreds of thousands of black Africans still enslaved by members of that same certain culture.  These are things I had to seek out on my own.  Hmmm....

-------

There has actually been a lot of accounting for some of the atrocities that have transpired in the world in recent centuries.  Germany has admirably led the way by taking full responsibility for the Holocaust and the Nazi regime, by compensating the victims and zealously stamping out any symbols of that era.  The Western European colonial powers have largely recognized the injustices of their colonial empires.  America is aware of its shameful past of slavery, racism, and theft from Native Americans, and there is even discussion of financial reparations.  America has apologized and compensated victims of the WW2 era Japanese internment.  Japan has officially apologized for its use of foreign 'comfort women' in that same era.

Even when apologies, recognition, and reparations have not yet happened, there has often been a widespread movement to keep memories of the atrocities alive.  For instance people still fight for recognition of the Armenian Genocide, the Holodomor Famine, and the Rape of Nanking.

Now let's take a minute to realize the crucial point that there is, just to take one case from the list above, absolutely nothing anti-German or "racist against Germans" or "Germanophobic" in seeking to have Germany take responsibility for the crimes of the Nazi era.  Keep this in mind.

--------

There is a litany of horrors perpetrated in recent centuries by one particular group that is almost completely unknown in the West, even among educated and informed people.  That group is Arabs.  The horrors include:

1) Starting the African slave trade

2) Continuing the African slave trade long after Western counties abolished it

3) STILL, in 2014, enslaving hundreds of thousands of black Africans in countries such as Sudan and Mauretania

4) Ethnically cleansing at least 750,000 Jews from Arab countries after 1948

5) The Barbary Corsairs' kidnapping and enslaving millions of Europeans and others from the 1600s until the Barbary Wars

6) Launching a war in 1948 with the stated genocidal intent to "drive the Jews into the sea."

7) Carrying out a cultural and now possibly physical genocide of the ancient Assyrian people

8) The recent near complete elimination of the ancient Mandean people

9) Collaborating with and supporting the axis powers during WW2

(It should be mentioned that the later was not nearly universal in the Arab world, but for reference neither was German support for the Nazi regime, and yet Germany took responsibility as a whole.)

---------

So, here we have an undeniable litany of horrors perpetrated by Muslim Arabs, any one of which would be widely acknowledged if it was perpetrated by a Western country.  And yet from the Arab world we have heard no hint of responsibility, no hint even of recognition.

In fact the Arab world has gone to great lengths of obfuscate and deny these events.  In the recent UN Conference on Racism (known as Durban III) the Arab and Muslim countries sponsored a resolution condemning the "Trans-Atlantic" slave trade, the text of which completely omitted the Arab and Muslim role in it and other slave systems of the time.

It is high time that the Arab world be held to account for these horrible injustices and crimes against humanity, just as Germany has been held to account for the Nazis, the Western powers have been held to account for Colonialism, Japan has been held to account for some WW2 atrocities, and so on.

-------

The Arab world is uniquely positioned to recognize and pay reparations for these atrocities.

- The coffers of the Gulf oil monarchies are overflowing with cash which could be used for monetary reparations for victims of the African slave trade, and the Assyrian and Mandean genocides.

- Given that European colonialism lasted for around 25 to 50 years in the Middle East (longer in Algeria, obviously), the Arab world should consider it a good deal if they and Europe could call it even when both the Barbaray slave trade and European colonialism are considered.

And finally

- Most of the Jewish victims of Arab ethnic cleansing ended up in Israel, so acceptable reparations for the ethnic cleansing of Jews and the launching of the 1948 war of genocidal intent could be 1) immediate recognition of Israel and 2) the dropping of all claims to compensation or any territory West of the Jordan River.

BYE FOLKS

Hey folks...

I am giving up PZ. My friend fizziks is going to take over the name and run the blog.

I simply don't have the time or the will to do this anymore. For me it is a fairly useless exercise. Of course that doesn't mean I won't be posting (if fiz lets me) and I will definitely be commenting but I am suffering from a bit of burn out here.

Honestly, I was accomplishing absolutely nothing writing here. Nada, Zero. I am not Israeli and as much as I love and care about the country, I am almost certainly not making Aliyah. I love the United States, a nation that took my family in from Russia and Romania when Jews that were in those nations didn't get many breaks. My father was an officer in the U.S. Army and served during WWII (I was born when he was older). So really if I am going to be political (and I am) I need to focus my writing on issues here at home about things I care about, issues like Global Warming, Gun Control, Healthcare, and frankly doing my part to get Democratic, and Liberal politicians elected (I really like Elizabeth Warren, and pretty much there is no Republican out there who can get my vote given how insane that party has gotten).

Do I still care about Israel? Very much. Do I still care about Israel on-line advocacy... to a degree. Frankly, there is no one out there that really represents what I would like to see as a result. AIPAC is too much to the Right for me, and J Street really has simply become a mouthpiece for anti-Semites and anti-Zionists despite their repeated claims to the contrary. I thought they were the "good guys" because I like their platform, but, since they don't live up to their platform with their deeds and allow anti-Semites and anti-Zionists a platform to speak... I am not interested in being part of their movement.

All that said, I am simply tired of the extremes (both Left and Right) taking over the arguments on line when really no one except the whacked out fringes of the political spectrum are posting. The Right Wing simply lies and continues to post those lies as if they were fact hoping that somehow by saying something enough it will turn into a truth. These people have no interest in offering up any solutions, it is all just "I hate the Left and President Obama so much...." Just another healthy dose of Obama Derangement Syndrome and a refusal to offer a solution or even present a factual argument.

As for the Hard Left.... That is all just "We Hate America and Love Teh Irans". These fools just spend all day slobbering over anyone who goes after the U.S. and the West (by extension Israel) no matter how fucked up they may be. They too offer no solutions and when presented with evidence of their brazen hypocrisy, they simply dismiss it.

In a nutshell, the Rightists are deranged liars, and the Hard Leftists are deranged hypocrites. It boggles the mind and it is a fairly toxic mixture to deal with on a day to day basis.

SO rather than continue this charade I am done. Instead of writing article after article which sometimes get read and sometimes not, I am going to focus on real life stuff like working on my Krav Maga (currently going P-5 to G-1), and getting good at Tactical Shooting. I only have so many years left for this kind of physical activity so it becomes a priority over the "blah, blah, blah of the internet".

Anyway, for friends of this blog... Thanks for being part of it. I hope we can comment here together under fizziks banner. Your comments and articles were greatly appreciated even if we disagreed. I think that we showed that there can be fact based discussions on both sides of any issue and that if people stuck to facts they could have productive discourse.

For my opponents out there - it really is too bad that you were too fucking stupid to read anything that we wrote here, because honestly you might have learned something and you would have been challenged to face up to your ideas. But c'est la vie... you couldn't be bothered. So keep on keepin' on with your deranged hate or hypocrisy... You do know that most people are not paying attention to you, right?

So peace all... and tomorrow when you see this it will be fizziks blog.

Jon

UCLA EMBROILED IN BDS CONTROVERSY

This is a reprint with the authors permission from Daily Kos where this site is called a "hate site" (will the goofiness and stupidity never cease) and where we are told that Palestinians are to be held to a different moral standing than Jews in this case..

The LA Times today reports on demands made by student activists that candidates for student government sign a pledge to not take part in sponsored trips to Israel.

Activists succeeded in pressuring 17 of 30 candidates to sign the pledge to refuse trips sponsored by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation League or Hasbara Fellowships.
One student candidate said "It seemed unnecessary," Singh said, adding: "We spent a lot of time talking about what we thought about Israel." He added that he had gone on a ADL sponsored trip as a history and economics major so he could "see the region with my own eyes."

The administration at UCLA is concerned about the activists pressure to limit discussion and the lingering effects of the effort.

Chancellor Gene Block sent an email to the campus Friday, saying he was disturbed by the events in the campaign. He asked for more tolerance and said administrators would try to find ways to avoid similar instances in the future. 

"I am troubled that the pledge sought to delegitimize educational trips offered by some organizations but not others," he said. "I am troubled that the pledge can reasonably be seen as trying to eliminate selected viewpoints from the discussion."

UC President Janet Napolitano also weighed in, saying she shared Block's concerns. "The principles of civility, respect, and inclusion ... should also govern our campuses," she said. "The actions of these students at UCLA violate these principles."

ONE SIDE NOTE TO COMMENTARY HERE (from volleyboy)

This all comes on the heels of the BDS Movement getting absolutely tarred in a meeting trying to get UCLA to follow the anti-Semitic Israeli Jews only Boycott proposed by the movement and now is getting hammered by the UCLA Administration. As reported here:

Fortunately, SJP’s campaign of hatred and intimidation has sparked major backlash on campus. The Jewish student government candidate who was slandered won by a comfortable margin. Pro-Israel students published a statement condemning SJP’s hate speech and discrimination, calling for action by the UCLA student government and administration. As of press time, the statement had been signed by over 1,850 members of the UCLA community (to sign, click here). In response to public outcries, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block and UC President Janet Napolitano have released public statements condemning SJP’s actions. The battle over Israel’s legitimacy on campus will likely continue for years to come, but it is now clear that UCLA’s Jewish and pro-Israel student community will no longer allow SJP’s bigotry to go unchallenged.

Thank You Chris Christe

Yep... You will probably never see those words again from me, a committed Democrat and strong supporter of President Obama. BUT when people do things that you like or respect it is really important that no matter what side of the aisle they sit on I believe they should get due praise when they do something right and due criticism when they are wrong. In this case, I believe that a note of thanks is in order for Governor Christie.
Now... this "thank you" does not come easy to me. There are many things that I simply don't like about the Governor (though I do respect him for casting aside partisanship during Hurricane Sandy). That said... I have to appreciate the following about him.
I noticed this headline on the Right Wing "news site" NewsMax (sorry, it's hard to call what they do "news").

No Mention of Israel in Christie's Jewish Gala Speech

Now ... why is this something I appreciate about Chris Christie?

Well.... one of the things that anti-Semites like to claim is that Jews are More loyal to Israel (or "their own kind" as anti-Semites like to claim) than their own country. This has been a canard since the beginning of time and it has been used by various regimes to pass measures against their own Jewish communities claiming that Jews are disloyal citizens and "enemies of the State".

Strangely enough the American Right Wing has also taken on this lie and made it their own. Not only that but even Hard Rightist Jews constantly argue that people should vote for Republicans because they feel President Obama is bad for Israel.... and then they go on to bemoan conservative politics both in the U.S. and Middle East.

Didn't the Republicans use this commercial in Florida (without PM Netanyahu's permission) to get American Jews to vote for them over President Obama? Where they feature Israeli PM Netanyahu as an argument against Iran's nuclear program. Now... why use the Israeli PM to sway Jewish Voters? What? An American voice would not be good enough? Are they implying that Jewish voters wouldn't listen to an American security expert on Iran?

I find this disturbing to say the least. SO... when I see a Right Wing Headline attacking Chris Christie over that fact that all he did was talk about American priorities and NOT Israel that actually strikes me as complimentary towards Christie.

I mean here is Christie speaking to Jews and treating them like Americans (which everyone should). And here is what NewsMax reported said:

Christie, along with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, shared a table with Adelson on Sunday night. While the New Jersey governor did not mention Israel specifically in his address, he did address another topic Adelson champions — an aggressive American foreign policy that defends American values overseas.

"No one understands any longer who America stands with or against," Christie said, according to BuzzFeed. "It's not good enough to say that we tried. We must succeed."

Christie also slammed Obama for not enforcing his self-drawn "red line," when he declared there would be retribution for the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

"It is time, in every respect, whether it’s our national debt or an out-of-control entitlement system, our unreformed tax system, or our failure to set a strong clear [message] or more importantly a strong clear action on behalf of our friends around the world," Christie said. "It’s time for our leaders to stop singing a happy tune to the American people about the condition of our country. It is time for us to tell the truth about that condition."

Now while I may very much disagree with Gov. Christie about what he said, I think it is very important that what he did here was address the American community with American issues. Not Israeli issues, not particularly Jewish issues, but with American issues.

See this is the thing.... American Jews complain about anti-Semitism (and we should) coming from attacks from the Left. While we don't vote with the Right, certainly the constant drumbeat and obnoxiously loud commentary from so called Human Rights Activists has driven a number of  Jewish Americans away from the Liberal / Progressive side of the aisle.

But that said the Right is offering nothing more than the re-hashed "dual loyalty" canard, and what is even sadder is that some Jewish Americans have accepted that narrative and taken it on for themselves. Lately Rightward leaning Jewish commentators on the web have all been calling themselves "Liberals" but here at home they vote with the Republican Party, a party which stands against almost everything they believe for their country. And why do they do that.. because they don't like President Obama's stand on Israel. Period. They claim they don't agree with the Republicans on anything else.. yet.... they vote for the Republicans anyway.

And here is "the rub".... They expect that every other Jew will feel the same way, and if they don't they are somehow less Jewish. But isn't that what anti-Semites from Rome, to the Islamic Caliphates, to the Spanish Inquistion, to the Czarist Russians, to Hitler and Stalin have argued. That Jews only vote for their own interests and not for the interests of the nation where they live. The nation of which they are citizens.

THAT is the heart of anti-Semitism. Not some BDS Supporting lunatics who have a small (but admittedly growing) presence in both American political parties. No.... it is those in the establishment and on the Right that say: "Don't vote for your domestic values. Who cares if the Republicans want to eliminate abortion or choice in marriage or measures for gender equality. Who cares that they deny man made global climate change, or oppose Americans having healthcare. Vote for us because the Republicans are better for Israel (a concept that I reject), and that should be your priority".

SO when I see Governor Christie stand up and NOT address the issue of Israel, but actually talk about what affects Jews as Americans.. I say: "Thank You" because he, unlike the rest of his party and the Right Wing in general seems to be treating American Jews as Americans and NOT as others when in our society. I may not agree with Christie on his policies (and I don't), but I give him credit for standing above the prejudice that affects the Right in general and even affects a minority of Right Wing Jews.

I will now give my own answer to the question posed at Israel Thrives:

Is it true, or is it false, that the primary venues of BDS and anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the West today primarily come from the progressive-left, including the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic Party?

False.

It's as simple as that.  In what follows, I will restrict the analysis to antisemitism and anti-Zionism in America, because that is how I assume the question was intended, given that it specifically mentions the Democratic Party.

First of all, the focus on BDS is misleading.  While BDS in indeed is a scheme cooked up to appeal to stupid leftists and liberals, and rears its head in left-leaning forums and organizations, we must not lose sight of the fact that BDS is only one small and very particular aspect of antisemitism and anti-Zionism. 

If the question is about the problem of antisemitism or even anti-Zionism generally, then focusing on BDS in particular is like having a bad baseball team and focusing on the third base coach.  It is not intellectually honest to ignore the pitching, hitting, fielding, managing, and everything that is more important and consequential than the third base coach.  Likewise, when it comes to evaluating the huge problem of antisemitism, it is not intellectually honest to hone in on BDS and ignore all of the other manifestations of it out there.

When antisemitism and anti-Zionism are considered in their totality, the primary venues in America are, quite simply, NOT the progressive-left and/or the netroots.

--------------

We were all traumatized by the insane (yet simultaneously banal) anti-Israel and antisemitic  rhetoric we saw at Daily Kos, and were rightly scandalized by the way it was tolerated by others.  As I've said before, it should eternally shame the admins of that website, and should be a blemish on the record of any politician that participated there after the rhetoric became prominent.

BUT... The stuff at Daily Kos is child's play compared to the antisemitism / anti-Zionism that can be found in right-wing forums. Spend any time browsing through right leaning forums and you will encounter antisemitism so bad it will make you want to run and hug Sandra Tamari screaming "Thank you for being so moderate!"  In our justified outrage at the insane yet banal anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric at Daily Kos, it is easy to lose sight of the orders of magnitude worse rhetoric that is out there elsewhere.

Just to point to one illuminating example, there is the "Manosphere" website Return of Kings.  The people who comment there are a mixture of paleoconservatives, libertarian sadists, corporate raiders, and basement dwelling nutjobs - the political mirror image of the Daily Kos crowd.  And the antisemitism there is off the charts!  Just go read the 1100 comments attached to an article where ironically the author is actually trying to get them to tone down the antisemitism.  True, in those comments you won't find much advocacy for BDS.  But you will find hundreds of people charging Jews/Zionists with controlling the world through communism and feminism, with carrying out the genocide of 100 million (or 100 billion or 100 trillion - pick your number) Christians, shooting Palestinian children for sport, asaassinating all enemies, and Jews actually deserving every antisemitic act in history.  You will also find near universal Holocaust denial.  Some of the people there appear to literally believe that their lives are in danger because they dare to criticize the Zionist power structure supposedly running the world.  And the amount of aid that they claim that the US sends to Israel every year?  Well, let's just say that they can't settle on a number but it is somewhere between eleventy googleplex trijillion and infinity.

I must emphaize that Return of Kings is not even supposed to be antisemitic.  It is supposed to be a website to help men with their "game" with women, and to deal with issues supposedly arising from too much feminism in society.  It is simply a website that attracts a lot of people on the political right, and lo-and-behold, the Jew-hate that results makes Daily Kos look like the ADL.

That is just one example, but just read through any right-leaning forum not controlled by the Republican party or a media organization and you will see the same or similar.  Am I saying here that the right in general is full of insane antisemites?  No, I am definitely not.  But I am saying that if one is going to use what is posted at Daily Kos and similar fora to evaluate the antisemitism/anti-Zionism present in the progressive left, then one must also use what is posted at right-leaning fora to evaluate the presence of antisemitism/anti-Zionism on the right.  If one does so, the clear conclusion is that antisemitism is worse on the right.

Let's also not forget that most violent antisemitic incidents are still carried out by the right-wing, such as the recent Kansas City shootings.  Plus there is the undeniable phenomenon that the Mondoweiss crowd primarily supports the Ron/Rand Paul wing of American politics.

If you still feel that antisemitism is worse among the progressive netroots than among the equivalent demographic on the right, I humbly suggest the following simple thought experiment.  If you had to appear as a conspisuous Jew at one of the two following places, which would you choose:  A) at the next Daily Kos Netroots Nation convention, or B) at Cliven Bundy's militia encampment?  I believe that any honest person will choose option A, and that says something about the relative amount and virulence of antisemitism among segments of the left versus segments of the right.

In summary,  in American politics antisemitism/anti-Zionism is simply not primarily the province of progressives.  The right wing, in its paleoconservative and libertarian wings, has a significant problem with antisemitism, and if one is to judge by the amount and virulence of antisemitic fora, a worse problem.

I will qualify this by saying that in Europe the situation is indeed different, because social conservatism is largely taboo there and the leftist parties have become thoroughly infested with Islamists and their sympathizers.  On that continent it is indeed more accuate to say that the primary venue of antisemitism/anti-Zionism is the left.  However, there are still the examples of Jobbik, the National Front, and other explicitly antisemitic/anti-Zionist right wing parties. 

Still, when we are talking about American politics it is inaccurate to say that the primary venue is the liberal netroots and/or the Democratic Party.

To Answer a Question....

Over at the Rightist Blog Israel Thrives Mike Lumish asks the question:

Is it true, or is it false, that the primary venues of BDS and anti-Semitic anti-Zionism in the West today primarily come from the progressive-left, including the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic Party?

What is the answer?

{Anyone?}

Who will give a clear and simple answer to an obvious question?

Seemingly Mike doesn't feel that he can get a straight answer.

Well I tried to answer his question but he promptly deleted my answer which was:

 Mike.... All I will say on this is that I have to disagree with your premise  

To say that BDS and support for it has a good deal of traction on the "Progressive" (self styled because they are not progressive) Left is true. I would even go so far as to say that BDS in particular (which has it's roots in Right Wing / Arab boycotts of Jews) comes out of the very hard left which manifests itself at times in the netroots of generally left leaning sites. 

I would disagree that this is particularly a problem with the Democratic Party which as we have seen over and over again is solidly Pro-Israel. Indeed there are some in the netroots of the party who are anti-Semitic, and who take on the mantle of anti-Zionism to hide their anti-Semitism. Is anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism a problem with the Left? Absolutely, and yes now more than ever it is. 

That said... I think the answer to the question "Does anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism come primarily from the Left the and Netroots of the Democratic Party?" I would have to say "NO". I think anti-Semitism is very much alive on the Right and in the Republican Party (particularly the Teahaddist faction) AND in the Ron/Rand Paul insane Libertarian wing of the party (who while a minority of the Party do have a large public presence). 

Mike, anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are NOT a matter of Republican / Democrat or Right / Left. there is plenty of it on either side of the spectrum. Anti-Semitism / anti-Zionism are cancers that affect the body politic of both sides. So rather than blame one side or the other, why not just go after the anti-Semites / anti-Zionists / enablers of both (JVP - The Useful Idiot) whether they be Rick Santorum sending out Hanukkah cards that tell Jews to worship Jesus, OR whether they be the SJP at Vasser who published real life Nazi Propaganda posters? To simply call this a problem of the Left and the Democratic Party smacks of partisan nonsense more geared towards getting people to vote Republican more than actually fighting the issue of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.

Now, I understand why Mike would want to delete my answer since it expressly rejects the "fact" that he presents in his question. But that said there are other questions raised regarding this article that Mike doesn't respond to so I would be interested to hear his thoughts on these questions asked by JayinPhiladelphia:

But beyond that, the question to you then becomes, what do we do about it then? Are we all supposed to become Republicans? Take up with the right on social issues? I'm never going to do that. And I'm also never going to stop fighting for Israel.

First of all, while I disagree with Jay in his agreement with Mike on his question, I applaud his efforts to find a solution to the problem of anti-Semitism AND to for his stout defense in other forums (Daily Kos) against the anti-Semitism that rages there almost unchecked.

Jay's question of what do we do about it (anti-Semitism / anti-Zionism on the Left) is a very valid one. How do we fight it? Do we fight it by becoming Rightists / Republicans, taking up their cause and in doing so simply become a mirror image of the Leftists that disregard facts and arguments in the pursuit of partisan justifications for their cause as is what Mike does? OR do we work to recognize that the problem of anti-Semitism / anti-Zionism is one that is NOT the property of one side of the fence but a problem taken up by extremes on both sides of the Political aisle as fizziks does?

Personally, I will go with the "fizziks approach" where he takes issue with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on both sides of the fence and attacks through information and reason without either misrepresenting or falsifying opposing points of view. Honestly, that seems the way to do this. Accurate and factual information is the key.

So to continue the answer to the question which Mike poses not as a question but as a statement of fact.

As I stated above there certainly is a problem with anti-Semitism on the Left. No one will deny it. To say it is the current source of anti-Semitism is the "Progressive Left" is to put it bluntly... Nonsense.
As Reuven points out (where Mike mistakenly thinks that Reuven agrees with his principle):

How is it not anti-Semitic when they are busy telling us we should give truth to the dual loyalty meme by placing Israel first and above all else, including priorities here at home.

This is something that Mike and the RJC actively engage in (and to call those groups Leftists would be a joke). They regularly make appeals to Jewish voters to vote Republican because of the Israel issue. They don't even try to argue that Jews may agree with their economic policies or not, their argument is "Forget domestic concerns vote Republican because really your loyalty is to Israel not your own country". This is a constant from Republicans using Benjamin Netanyahu in a commercial (when PM Netanyahu did not endorse the use of his image or words for said commercial) to a post on Mikes blog here and here. Isn't this the very epitome of the dual loyalty canard?

But aside from that - the Right is rife with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in full with more examples than one can count.

SO to say that it is  the left and the netroots of the Democratic Party that is the primary source of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, well that is simply false. To say that there is a problem on the left with anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, that would be true. HOWEVER, it is also true to say that this is a problem on the Right as well.

Shalom.

Anti-Semitism Is Rampant in the Middle East and North Africa

This is a reprint with permission of the author from Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/14/1299372/-Anti-Semitism-Is-Rampant-in-the-Middle-East-and-North-Africa. I was going to write something about this but got "beat to the punch"... So... Here it is:

The New York Times certainly got my attention with this headline: “26 Percent of World’s Adults Are Anti-Semitic, Survey Finds.”

http://www.nytimes.com/...
http://global100.adl.org

The survey in question was a global survey conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, and designed to probe the level and intensity of anti-semitism. The survey also found that half the respondents had never heard of the Holocaust. Now, that finding doesn’t necessarily mean the people are anti-semitic. It could to some extent just indicate ignorance. I’d consider it more anti-semitic if someone had indeed heard of the Holocaust, but denied that it actually happened or tried to argue that it was overblown.

Interestingly, the highest levels of anti-semitism are in the Middle East and North Africa. But before jumping to the list of the most anti-semitic countries, let’s take a look at the least anti-semitic countries, as measured by the percentages of adults holding anti-semitic views:

Thailand                    13%
Tanzania                    12%
Denmark                      9%
United States               9%
United Kingdom         8%
Vietnam                      6%
Netherlands                5%
Sweden                      4%
Philippines                 3%
Laos                        0.2%

http://www.timesofisrael.com/...

A couple of interesting observations. Some of these countries have almost no Jewish population, and few Jewish visitors, so one might suggest that lack of direct exposure correlates with the absence of anti-semitism. That isn’t really the case, however, as we will see when we reach the list of the worst offenders. Many of those virulently anti-semitic countries have no Jewish population or visitors, either. The other observation is that even in the good countries, there are significant percentages of respondents who believe that Jews put loyalty to Israel ahead of loyalty to their own country:

Sweden        27%
UK               27%
US                31%
Denmark      39%

The dual-loyalty claim is anti-semitic, but is also a form of prejudice directed against other minorities. For example, dual loyalty claims were common smears during John F. Kennedy’s presidential campaign.

Now let’s look at the worst offenders. Greece is apparently the most anti-semitic country in Europe, at 69%, but the Greeks are amateurs when compared to the Arab/Moslem world:

Morocco/Qatar/UAE     tied for 10th most anti-semitic, at 80%
Jordan      81%
Bahrain    81%
Kuwait     82%
Tunisia     86%
Libya       87%
Algeria    87%
Yemen     88%
Iraq          92%

And the most anti-semitic (cue drum roll, please)....

West Bank/Gaza 93%

Now I know that West Bank/Gaza isn’t actually a country, but if a Palestinian state is ever formed, that’s what it consist of.

So what is the takeaway from this survey? Well, as it applies to the prospects for peace between Israel, on the one hand, and the Palestinians and other Arab countries, on the other hand, it is both relevant and bleak. It is often argued that all Israel has to do is end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and there will be peace. These extreme levels of anti-semitism, however, raise the distinct possibility that the Arab/Moslem world will never accept Israel, because it is the Jewish national homeland. Indeed, one must ask whether this conflict can ever end, as long as one side harbors such extreme prejudice and hatred towards the majority population of the other side. 

Why I Mostly Align With the Democratic Party

There has been a lot of confusion, and frankly misinformation, posted lately about my political leanings and the reasons for them.  So here I'm going to set the record straight.

I mostly align with the Democratic party.  I mostly vote for Democratic candidates (with occasional exceptions).  I do so because of only one reason, which is the following:

ON MOST OF THE IMPORTANT ISSUES, I ALIGN WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL, ON BALANCE, PURSUE POLICIES THAT ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO LEAD TO THE OUTCOMES I WANT.  Those outcomes are 1) scientific and technological advancement, 2) environmental sustainability, 3) quality infrastructure, 4) the rights of consenting adults to live their lives as they choose, and 5) a fair economy where people who work hard and play by the rules have a middle class standard of living.

If you feel tempted to ascribe any other motivation to my political positions and voting patterns - such as Obama worship, racial guilt, Jewish tradition, my parents, being dropped on my head, trying to impress a girl, or anything else - you must reread the above passage until you learn.  If you have proven unable to learn this, in spite of me stating it clearly for years, then the fault lies with your intelligence.

-----------

Do I agree with the bulk of the Democratic Party on every issue?  Absolutely not.  Do I disagree with some Democrats on some issues.  Absolutely.

But this is where people who try to pick apart the Democratic party and my support for it over any particular issue start to be either stupid and/or dishonest.

In America, we have a two-party political system.  Our first-past-the-post district-based election system guarantees it.  Except in a few fringe cases where a handful of cities have instituted rank choice voting for local offices, we have a two-party system.  Third parties are simply not happening, and the only other alternative is not voting and withdrawing from the process, which just means your voice disappears.

So recite it with me:  In America, your choice in any given vote is either Republican or Democrat.  Period.  Because of this, claiming to be against Democrats but not for Republicans is nonsense.  So is claiming to be against Republicans and not for Democrats.  In American politics, you are either for one or for the other.  Period.

There is simply no such thing, if one is being intellectually honest, as being against the Democratic party but not for the Republican party, unless one is proposing to withdraw from the political process.  Your choices are Democrat or Republican.  One or the other.  Period.

If we are honest and admit that stark choice, we must then choose which of the two to support.

So which should I support?

---------

Well, some people out there claim that the Democratic party has embraced anti-Zionism, and that makes it so that one can not support the Democrats.

Clearly the claim that the Democratic party as a whole has embraced anti-Zionism is nonsense, since the Democratic Party platform and every single national Democratic elected party official openly supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, even those Democrats who are more hostile to Israel than I would like.  So the claimants try to step it back by saying that the Democratic Party is just as guilty because it has "let anti-Zionism into the progressive netroots tent" or somesuch.

Now, I will be the first to say that the sad fact that anti-Zionism nonsense has gotten a toe hold among a certain portion of the liberal netroots is absolutely shameful, and should shame those who have let it in and who tolerate it until the end of time.  But it is a huge leap from there to saying that anti-Zionism has infected the Democratic party.  Clearly, most netroots anti-Zionists themselves align with either Ron/Rand Paul or fringe parties such as the Orwellian-ly named Peace and Freedom Party, and do not, in fact, support the Democratic party.  Also it is important to restate that zero national Democratic elected officials have embraced anti-Zionism.  In fact, in a recent House vote on the Israel Strategic Partnership Act, all Democrats voted in favor and the sole opposition vote was cast by a Republican Rand Paul devotee.

However, much to my dismay, it is indeed the case that some of the netroots anti-Zionists do actually support the Democratic party, notoriously including, as far as I'm aware, anti-Zionist netroots extrordinaire David Harris Gershon.  So the question stands how one should respond to this fact.

--------

At this point, for the sake of argument, and only for the sake of argument, I'm going to actually accept the charge that the Democratic party is somehow culpable for the presence of anti-Zionism in a portion of the grassroots /netroots.  Remember, I am only accepting this claim to move the argument along.

So, accepting that the Democratic party is culpable for anti-Zionists being allowed into the tent, what does a sober person such as myself do?

Well, as discussed above, since the only two possible alternatives are to either align with the Democratic party or align with the Republican party, let's examine who the Republicans have 'allowed into their tent':

- Creationists
- Climate Deniers
- Pseudo-Anarchist thieves such as Cliven Bundy and his supporters
- Those who seek to use government to control others' sex lives
- The extraction industries

But it is far worse than that, because the Republican party has not simply allowed these interests into their tent.  They have turned the entire tent over to them.

We've accepted for the sake of argument that anti-Zionists are in the Democratic Netroots tent, and that it is the Democrats' fault.  And yet in spite of this, as of now, zero national Democratic elected officials have declared themselves to be anti-Zionists.  In contrast, almost every national Republican elected official is a declared climate denier!  Zero Democratic presidential primary candidates have declared themselves to be anti-Zionists, while a majority of Republican presidential candidates in the last primary election declared that they do not accept evolution.

Do you see the tremendous and crucial difference in degree here, even if we do accept the charge that the presence of anti-Zionists in the Netroots is the fault of the Democratic party?  Anti-Zionists are loud, obnoxious dillbags, but they are not as of now in a position of real power in the Democratic party.  In contrast, creationists, climate deniers, sexual moralists, and the extraction industries hold the balance of power in the Republican party.

So I face a choice between the Democratic party, which we accept for the sake of argument is culpable for having allowed anti-Zionists into its tent but without giving them much actual power, and the Republican party, which has actively ceded most of its platform and actual power to creationists, climate deniers, the extraction industries, sexual moralists, and pseudo-anarchists.  Given this, which one should I support to have the greatest chance of furthering my goals of scientific and technological advancement, environmental sustainability, quality infrastructure, the rights of consenting adults to live their lives as they choose, and a fair economy where people who work hard and play by the rules have a middle class standard of living?  Gee, that's a hard one.  If the answer is not obvious to you, then there is probably not much that can be done for you.

Hamas: Recognizing Israel is a Red Line

From JNEREBEL over at Daily Kos 

RE-PRINTED WITH AUTHORS PERMISSION

Note: Over at Daily Kos, the admins. have decided to attempt to create a "Fact Free Zone" around the discussion of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Only a few of the original Progressive / Liberal Zionists are left in the face of increasing administratively sanctioned anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist attacks.  One of these few JNEREBEL has been great in bringing full honesty to the endless barrage of hate that passes for writing over there.

US News reports today in an interview with Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of Hamas' political bureau that Hamas will not abide by any of the Quartets requirements.

Hamas will not recognize Israel

Hamas will not renounce violence

Hamas will not abide by previous international agreements
Marzouk says recognizing Israel is a red line that Hamas will not cross. He further declares that Hamas military forces will remain separate and not be absorbed into the future Palestinian army. Having a standing militia not under government control would obviously imperil any future non-Hamas ruled regime with a waiting militia ready to attack it as well as Israel at any time.

Al-Monitor: The weapons wielded by the al-Qassam Brigades constitute one of the hardest issues dealt with in the reconciliation effort. What are Hamas’ proposals in this regard, and what are the red lines that you think must not be crossed? Will you allow the brigades to be assimilated into the Palestinian security forces? 

Abu Marzouk: This issue was not discussed at all in reconciliation negotiations with Fatah; it was never put on the table. The al-Qassam Brigades’ weaponry is of national importance to confront the occupation. Hamas’ position in this regard is clear, and it will not allow any tampering with the brigades’ armament, under any circumstances, because it is a strategic asset for all Palestinians. In contrast, the Quartet negotiations require that violence be renounced, which, in effect, means that the al-Qassam weapons must be decommissioned. But this is unacceptable, and Hamas will reject it outright.

Al-Monitor: It was not clear whether Hamas would endorse the agreements signed between the PLO and Israel, if it became part of the former. Can you clarify the movement’s position in this regard?

Abu Marzouk: Hamas will not recognize Israel. This is a red line that cannot be crossed. The future government is not interested in providing Israel with recognition, and the conditions set by the Quartet committee do not concern us one bit. We would have spared ourselves seven years of misery under the siege and two wars in 2008 and 2012 had we wanted to recognize Israel. Hamas underwent great political pressure and suffering during the past years, and yet it did not recognize Israel.

Juan Cole… Definitely Uninformed and Often Wrong

Juan Cole of “Ahmadinejhad really didn’t say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map” fame is at it once again. When it comes to Israel, Cole spends so much time twisting himself and distorting positions that it seems that the man would have to screw his pants on (h/t to Hunter S. Thompson) to get dressed in the morning. On his page “Informed Comment” (a misnomer if there ever was one) Cole writes: John Kerry admits Israeli Apartheid; and 5 Ways he is Understating It. In this article Cole gives us an fact free screed as to how Israel is an “Apartheid State” beginning with his inaccurate headline.

Where to start? Well let’s look at the Headline “Kerry admits Israeli Apartheid”. First of all that is NOT what Secretary Kerry did. What Kerry did do was say that were there to be a “One State Solution” there COULD be Apartheid (by the way, a term / position that runs directly contrary to terminology used by President Obama).
Here is Kerry’s statement:

“A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative,”…. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state. Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.”

Unless one has the reading comprehension of a small child, it is clear that Secretary Kerry is saying that should there be One State solution (which there is not); Israel would run the risk of becoming an Apartheid type state. What he did not say was “Israel is an Apartheid State”. So, from the very headline this article fails.

From here it simply gets more ridiculous. The entire premise of the article states that there is already a One State solution in place and that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are in fact Israeli Citizens who are treated as “second class citizens”. NOW, if Israel did annex the West Bank and Gaza and did not offer the right of franchise amongst other civil rights to all of its citizens one could make that argument but the Israelis have not done this. AND even if they wanted to ignore all of the security concerns and everything else exactly to whom would they be handing this land over too (but never mind that I guess)? So with that the entire analogy of conflating Israel to South Africa fails miserably.

Cole’s first argument is that Israel is creating “Bantustans” in the West Bank and Gaza (just like South Africa):

“South Africa created Bantustans as a way of denaturalizing Blacks, ensuring that they could not vote for the national government and were assigned citizenship only in their weak Bantustan.”

So, while on the surface there is a similarity to say the Bennett plan for this kind of solution, the Bennett plan is a plan created by a coalition member and not an official negotiating position of the Israelis at this point in time. But even so, this is only a surface similarity to the Bantustans created by the South Africans.  Why is that?

First of all Gaza is and always has been a separate district from the founding of Israel forward. It has been occupied by the Egyptians and by the Israelis and both nations no longer occupy it. It was not part of the original State of Israel but it has always been a hostile territory to Israel.  Moreover, Gaza is not under military rule of Israel. It is under military blockade (and rightfully so considering the regular attacks that are continually launched from Gaza) but, the streets there are not patrolled by Israeli troops and the Haniyeh Government does not answer to the Israelis. It was not a piece of land that was carved out of Israel by the Israelis and handed to the Gazans in the same way the Whites in South Africa carved out states for Blacks.

Second of all, The West Bank is the same situation. It is not and was not originally part of Israel or at least the Partition Plan that the U.N. used to establish Palestinian and Jewish homelands. The Israelis have installed a series of checkpoints in the West Bank and Israeli soldiers do patrol the area but given the security climate, that is understandable. I know in Cole’s world that Jews and Israelis are not allowed to defend themselves but here in reality we are and we do. Still, as mentioned above, the “Bantustans” (which don’t in reality – there’s that word again, exist) are not land carved out of a national territory that had already existed. The checkpoints exist due to security concerns. Last I or any checked a nation is certainly not obligated to allow people to attack it.

Cole’s second argument like his first once again falls flat when he argues:

South Africa instituted a “pass” system to control the movement of Blacks.

“Israel instituted a “permit” system to control the movement of Palestinians.”

Now wait… I didn’t realize that Palestinians who were citizens of Israel needed permits to move around inside of Israel. They don’t? Well golly…. Of course the Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories are not citizens of Israel, they don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, and there have been a number of terror strikes against Israel originating from the Territories, is it any wonder why the Israelis would want security in these areas. Now in order to be analogous to South Africa, Israel would have to have those same checkpoints in place throughout its territory and only Israeli – Arabs would have to be subject to that as Blacks were in South Africa. However, that is simply not the case. So yet again Cole’s fact free article remains true to form.

Cole’s next argument again relies on fiction to try to make a comparison:

“In Apartheid South Africa, 80% of the land was set aside for white settlers.

Israel itself was ethnically cleansed of 750,000 Palestinians in 1948, and was designated “Jewish,” such that the expelled Palestinians (now millions strong) were denied the right to return to their homes.”

Now… for a second let’s remember that history actually exists and it is not some made up story as Cole wishes it was.

First of all, according to the U.N. Partition plan Israel was to be 17.5% of the Original Partition. Of that land:

“Overall, the Jewish State was to be comprised of roughly 5,500 square miles and the population was to be 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. The Arab State was to be 4,500 square miles with a population of 804,000 Arabs and 10,000 Jews. Though the Jews were allotted more total land, the majority of that land was in the desert.”

Not even of the 17.5% of the original Mandate was there any land set aside for “Jews only”. But the weak comparison to South Africa is not the most egregious part of this statement.  The most egregious part of this is the claim that 750,000 (and now millions of) Palestinians were “ethnically cleansed”. First of all the “millions” claim is based on a unique count that the U.N. assigns only to Palestinian refugees. No other refugees in the world can share this status. Not the almost 900,000 Jewish refugees from the Arab countries that came to Israel or any other refugees that exist in the world. Just the Palestinians get to do this.

Second of all, even according to Benny Morris’ book 1948 (considered one of the foremost works on this issue); many refugees were not actually “cleansed”. There were instances of that and in cases where the villagers had peace treaties with Haganah forces but were still driven out; I do believe that those people should have a right to compensation for their losses. But in most cases, the civilian populations either left in flight of the war or left as a result of hostile action against the IDF. I understand why someone would leave a war zone but if one leaves a war that one’s side started, and one is either an active or sympathetic participant on the losing side then one pretty much loses their “right” to return. The Israelis of the Yishuv had no obligation to allow hostile forces who were sniping convoys from villages or actively working against them to return to those villages. Again, suicide is not something that Israel is obligated to do.

And again we see Cole really stretching the “Apartheid” comparison when he says:

“In Apartheid South Africa, Blacks from the Bantustans could not attend universities designated for whites”

But in Israel, Israeli citizens whether they are Arab or Jewish can attend Israeli Universities. Again, to attend Israeli Universities, one must be an Israeli citizen in most cases (with exceptions for foreign exchange students). Palestinians in the West Bank are not Israeli citizens, so really Israel has no obligation to allow them to attend Israeli Universities. No nation’s educational system has an obligation to allow people that are not citizens attend their colleges. Israeli Universities are also not “designated for Whites” (or Jews as Cole means), all Israelis are allowed to attend.
Now none of this is meant to “whitewash” problems that Arab Students face when attending school in Israel. There certainly are problems with the system. But to compare it Apartheid South Africa is to diminish just how horrible real Apartheid was.
Finally Cole, ends up his embarrassingly fact free column with this:

“South African Apartheid forbade marriages between people of different ethnicities.

Israelis of Jewish and Palestinian heritage cannot intermarry in Israel. Two Israeli citizens of different ethnic heritage can marry abroad and return to Israel. But Israeli-Palestinians who marry Palestinians from the Occupied West Bank are not allowed to bring their spouse to Israel. The same problem is not faced by Israeli Jews who marry squatters on the Palestinian West Bank.”

Unlike South Africa where this was a system designed to keep Black and White South Africans from marrying this is not the case in Israel. The system (one, I think is awful) was designed so that only Orthodox Jews can have State licensed / performed marriages. It is a stupid law for the year 2014 but it is not designed to discriminate against Palestinians. For instance, I cannot get married in Israel because my wife is not Jewish. I would have had to go to Cyprus or Europe or the U.S. for a civil marriage. The system sucks (pardon my language) but it is not a “racist” system, it is just very much behind the times.

As for Palestinians marrying someone from the Territories, the Israeli position while sad is understandable given the fact that again Israel is under no obligation to grant citizenship or residency to anyone that is not a citizen. Can Israelis marry someone from the territories and bring them to Israel? Nope. Is that objectively fair? No. Is it Apartheid? Not by a long shot.

In the end, Cole’s farce of an article should be satire. Sadly it is not. To compare Israel to South Africa is a joke. In South Africa Whites were 12% of that nation’s population. In Israel Jews are 77% of the population. Blacks as a population were completely disenfranchised. Arab-Israelis are not. Blacks were segregated in every sector of society. Israeli-Arabs are not. Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. I am pretty sure that South Africa is NOT the ancestral homeland of the Dutch or British White people.

One can agree with the point being made by John Kerry or not. I happen to think Kerry chose an unfortunate word “Apartheid” to make his point. I think his concern is valid but even with a One State solution; one would still be fairly far away from accurately using the term Apartheid and having that term mean anything.