Notorious Masada2000 site taken down, time to call the FBI?
Posted on March 14 2007 by Cecilie Surasky under Anti-semitism , Lee Kaplan.Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam may need protection. He complained to the hosts of the notorious, pornographic hate website Masada2000 which maintains a list of some 7,000 Jewish “traitors” ranging from Gloria Steinem to any Jew who has ever signed a petition for peace, ever. The host service apparently took one look at this monstrosity and took it down. (I should add that the people who got him interested in the site by sending him his vicious “bio” via email, also sent me mine on the same day. They were angry about something we had both posted on the blogs and it was meant to intimidate us.)
And before people get up in arms about muzzling free speech, what part of “boot licking kike” don’t you understand? And that’s mild for the attacks on this site, which sometimes include email addresses and photos to encourage direct “contacting” of folks. It is a vile, homophobic, anti-Semitic and misogynist hit-list.
There has been conjecture that at least some of the more well-known extreme right protectors-of-Israel add entries to the database of shame. SF Weekly wrote this about Ehud Appel who is one of the people who runs the Lee Kaplan Watch website:
Appel, who will be a senior next year, is a Jewish member of Students for Justice in Palestine, majoring in Middle Eastern studies. He says he’s not worried about the consequences of taking Kaplan on, but professes to be creeped out by his zealotry. “There’s something odd about what is fueling him,” he says. A few days after Appel posted his first critical piece about Kaplan (and informed him of it via e-mail), Appel checked a Web site dedicated to Kahanism, an aggressive Jewish movement that has been banned in Israel. The American site includes an extensive list of Jewish people it calls “Self-Hating and/or Israel-Threatening” — a SHIT list. Appel found a recent, lengthy write-up on himself, which included his photo and e-mail address and called him a “boot-licking kike,” among other slurs.
Appel believes that Kaplan either wrote the entry or submitted Appel’s name to those who run the SHIT list, a charge that Kaplan refutes. However, Kaplan does admit that he posted a nearly identical write-up in the “rogues’ gallery” on one of his own Web sites, StopTheISM.com, soon after Lee Kaplan Watch launched. Only a few words were different: “Kike” became “kapo,” and a coda was added at the end: “If anyone reading this Web site knows any members of Ehud Moshe Appel’s family in Israel, we would like to talk to them and find out what they think of a guy who works for the likes of Hamas that declares no Jews may live anywhere in Israel at all and that it is OK to kill them.”
(Probably just a strange coincidence, but Kaplan’s two websites, Dafka. org and StoptheISM.com are also both down.)
Now Silverstein is getting fan letters like this (Muzzlewatch will too, no doubt.):
THIS “SILVERSTEIN” KIKE IS JUST ANOTHER COMMUNIST-INTERNATIONALIST SCUMBAG TRAITOR WORKING TO COMMIT SUICIDE IN HOPES THAT ALL OF THE NON-JEW “INTERNATIONALIST-GLOBALIST-SOCIALISTS” WHO WORSHIP THE LIKES OF ARAFAT, MANDELA, CASTRO, & KOFI ANUS WILL “LIKE AND ACCEPT” HIM; AND NOT THINK OF HIM AS A CLASSIC CASE OF KIKE-DREK-MAMZER.
Get Muzzlewatch delivered fresh daily
Print This Post
March 14th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Congratulations on successfully muzzing a Jewish website because you disagree with their opinions and position on Israel! It just becomes more clear.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Personally, I think Masada2000 is odious. Of course, since I made the S.H.I.T. list years ago, I may not be objective.
Still, it’s not much different than Richard Silverstein’s own site or, for that matter, this one. Masada2000 is more over the top in its rhetoric and just plain disgusting foul language. But for the most part they are two sides of the same coin, largely devoted to personal attacks and labeling.
BTW: I notice that in the links section, this website spells the name of Richard’s website wrong. He spells it “Tikun Olam” not “Tikkun Olam.” Personally I think this is of little importance, since it is not erroneous to spell it with two k’s when you translate it into the English. But Richard makes a huge issue of this, at least when he’s making personal attacks on people who point out the factual errors on his site.
March 14th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Masada2000– good riddance! It’s ridiculously exteme and gives us mainstream Zionists a bad name, because people like Cecelie will use it to tar all supporters of Israel. It’s just as if I would condemn all those who say they are for peace in the Middle East by saying that they’re just like JVP–not supporting Israel’s right to exist. Fortunately, there ARE pro-Israel groups that do support peace– but JVP can’t claim to be one of them.
Note that Jewish community organizations have all denounced Kahanists and won’t let them participate either. Have you seen any pro-Palestinian group that acts specifically against anti-Semitism? The recent dustup in the UK, in which the Palestine Solidarity Movement refused to condemn Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, stands in stark contrast to the Jewish community’s response to Kahanists. heck out http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2007/03/anti-racist-anti-zionists-end-of.html for all the gory details.
Still feeling comfortable standing with the jihadists who chant “Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs”, Cecelie?
March 14th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
This is one strange dude. He claims he’s on the S.H.I.T. list (btw, could you provide us a Google cache or Wayback Machine link so we can verify that for ourselves?) yet doesn’t see any diff. bet. Masada2000 or Tikun Olam & Muzzlewatch. Maybe that’s because of all the pictures of nude people (who were’re meant to believe are the people next to whose entry they are displayed) we post on our sites or because we say that Jewish women we don’t agree with should be “reamed” (all of which Masada2000 did btw). How anyone in their right mind couldn’t understand the distinction is far beyond my mere mortal comprehension.
More silliness. Cecilie & virtually all the readers of this blog understand the diff. bet. Kahanism and merely supporting Israel. I support Israel as a progressive Zionist & few people in JVP including Cecilie would make the mistake of lumping me together w. M2000. No, I’m afraid you’re going to have to reframe your dislike of JVP in some other less dubious way.
BTW, your goading of Cecilie reminds me in some pale way of M2000’s goading of liberal Jews. But your baiting won’t work since we don’t accept any of the terms of yr argument.
March 15th, 2007 at 11:01 am
damn, masada2000 was one of the most useful sites for contacting other activists, and it showed from the sheer numbers how widespread opposition to israeli policy is. it made me feel less lonely.
March 15th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
what are you talking about? masada2000 was militantly pro-israel.
March 15th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Actually, I was thrilled when I finally made the SHIT list. When I was growing up, my parents and most of their friends were on the FBI list and on the McCarthy House Un-American Activities Committee blacklist for their left-wing activities in the 1950’s, and I always hoped that someday I, too, would have the honor of making someone’s list as a consequence of my political activities. I would have preferred a somewhat more literate and less crude list than Masada2000, but I got a kick out of the fact that my son Andrew (semitism.net)was referred to as a “son of a bitch” and I was listed beneath that as “the bitch.” And I certainly felt I was in very good company on that list!
Oh well, I’ve had my 15 minutes of infamy, so I should not complain!
March 15th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
yes, yehudit, but they had 7,000 “self-haters” on it. that’s an awful lot for kahanist webthugs to compile all by their lonesome.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Steffi - I have to admit I was a bit happy when I found myself on the SHIT list to and I also considered myself in good company. Being a big blonde guy wearing an IDF uniform (my uncle’s, it was for a bit of street theater we put on during our local “Walk for Israel” against the Apartheid Wall) and carrying a very large sign in English & Hebrew, they decided to equate me with Nazis (a picture of me at the protest next to a picture of a Nazi). It was utterly hilarious and I sent them a note affirming that the IDF uniform reminded me of Nazis too… they never responded.
Anyway, I’m still glad the site is down just because it really was something of an implied threat against the people on the list. I wasn’t too worried about myself, but there were others who were probably really worried about it. Not to mention, just as a propaganda site, it was well designed to confuse and misinform many Americans who are more prone to remember pretty colorful pictures than to actually read the history.
John S.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
hi john,
calling it an apartheid wall is ridiculous. i won’t call you a nazi, but that is certainly anti-israel, maybe even anti-semitic. oppose the fence, but calling it apartheid is just ignorant.
remember that in israel, everyone has full civil rights, including the 40% of so of israelis who are arab. free press, free speech, voting rights, etc. arab israelis serve in the israeli parliament.
compare that to the arab countries where most arabs, including all women, don’t have voting or civil rights, and jews are not even allowed to live.
March 15th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
No Yehudi - in Israel upwards of four million de facto residents (the Palestinians of the OPTs that have languished under Israeli rule for going on forty years with absolutely no say so in the government that rules them - the Israeli government) are as disenfranchised from the gov’t that controls them just as blacks were in Apartheid South Africa. And beyond that, the Palestinians inside the Green Line are exactly on par with the 30,000 Jews inside Iran (both have the vote, both have parliamentary representation, both are segregated into their own primary schools, both are viewed as potential ‘fifth columnists’, both are systematically discriminated against throughout society… One notable difference, in 2000 Iran arrested 13 Jews as spies and later most of them were freed, in the same year year, Israel simply gunned down 13 Palestinians for protesting - who is better?)
John S.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:52 am
I am also glad that Massda 2000 is gone. This site was used to demonize mainstream Zionists by the anti-Israel forces.
No matter how many times the Simon Weisenthal Center, JCRC, or other mainstream groups would denounce this site, anti-Israel activists would still try to trarnish any pro-Israel activist by attempting to associate them with the site.
Of course, no matter how many times Zionists insist that not all criticism of Israel crosses the lines into anti-Semitism, anti-Israel activists still claim we call all criticims of Israel anti-Semitic.
Le plus ca change…..
March 16th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I’m sure Masada2000 will be back. If your side managed to muzzle it by getting its service provider to take it down (possibly in contravention of the service provider’s own terms of service, the way Indybay censors postings in contravention of its own posted rules), it can always move to a more responsible service provider. This assumes that it was, in fact, muzzled.
March 16th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Re: the “apartheid wall.” Israel’s security wall is no more an “apartheid wall” than the security barriers at airports, that force you to go through screening checkpoints to make sure you are not trying to bring a bomb or weapon on an aircraft. And the proportion of Palestinians that want to bring bombs and weapons into Israel is far higher than that of air travelers who want to hijack or crash a passenger plane.
China built a security wall too, to keep out the Mongol Hordes. Any objections to security walls to keep out invaders, as opposed to Berlin Walls to keep in people who want to leave?
March 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“in Israel upwards of four million de facto residents (the Palestinians of the OPTs that have languished under Israeli rule for going on forty years with absolutely no say so in the government that rules them - the Israeli government) ”
i’m confused. is the west bank occupied, or is it part of israel. if it’s occupied then it’s not part of israel, and of course the people don’t have a say. if the israeli government is their government, then there’s no occupation.
anyway, last i heard there was a palestinian government, if they can get their act together. so they are not under israeli government rule, they have their own.
millions of arabs do have full voting and civil right in israel.
in arab controlled territory, neither jews nor arabs have any voting or civil rights.
but i’m sure you’ll find a way to blame that on the Jews.
March 16th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
“i’m confused. is the west bank occupied, or is it part of israel. if it’s occupied then it’s not part of israel, and of course the people don’t have a say. if the israeli government is their government, then there’s no occupation.”
Legally speaking it is occupied, much the same way as South West Africa was under Apartheid South Africa (though in that case it was a bit different since it was an expired mandate as opposed to an armed invasion). Nevertheless, in de facto terms, the OPTs are - and will remain -integrated elements of Israel/Palestine & after forty years of occupation with absolutely no reason to believe that this will change, I do not believe it is too much of a stretch to say these Palestinians should have a say in the gov’t that rules every aspect of their lives on a daily basis, namely, the Israeli government.
“anyway, last i heard there was a palestinian government, if they can get their act together. so they are not under israeli government rule, they have their own.”
What nonsense. Yes, there is an ostensible “Palestine Authority” - which Israel itself goes out of its way to say is NOT a sovereign government - which again takes us back to South Africa. Under Apartheid, the Blacks also ostensibly had homeland “governments” of their own - and like the PA they even had “fights” with the central government in Pretoria including the Transkei “breaking off diplomatic relations” and what have you. However, realistically speaking, these bantustan governments - exactly like the PA - were creations of, and completely dependent on, the real governments - in South Africa the white Apartheid gov’t, in the OPTs the Israeli government.
“millions of arabs do have full voting and civil right in israel.”
Must have been a big demographic change… I thought there were only some 1.3 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. But if there are “millions” that just strengthens my case for one state.
“in arab controlled territory, neither jews nor arabs have any voting or civil rights.”
Depends on which “arab controlled territory” you are referring to. In say, “liberated Iraq” or Wahabbist Soudi Arabia you’re certainly correct; in say Tunisia or Yemen, you are not correct.
“but i’m sure you’ll find a way to blame that on the Jews.”
I don’t blame anything on “the Jews” and challenge you to find a comment where I have. Now the ethnocentric ideology of Zionism I do blame for a lot and consider many decent Jewish people to be victims of it along with everyone else… In my view it’s an ideology of hate and should be relegated to the dustbin of history along with other similar ethnic supremacist (or should I say “particularist” to use the more popular euphemism?) ideologies.
March 16th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
hey bill –
“And the proportion of Palestinians that want to bring bombs and weapons into Israel”
on commercial flights? why wouldnt they try to do it on the roads or smuggle it through the sinai instead? I dont think Israel claims they’re trying to prevent weapons smuggling at tel aviv airport.
March 16th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
your analogy with south africa is absurd.
in apartheid, no blacks had civil rights.
if israel, all arab citizens of israel have civil rights. the deciding factor is not race, as it was in south africa, but citizenship.
“much the same way as South West Africa was under Apartheid South Africa”
was south west africa part of another country that attacked south africa, lost the war, and then gave up all rights to that land? if not, it’s not a comparison.
the west bank was part of jordan. jordan attacked. jordan lost the war and some territory. jordan decided to give up all rights to that territory, and forced the jordanian residents of that territory into refugee camps, denying them admission into the new, smaller jordan. that’s not remotely analogous to the situation in south africa.
it’s nice for you to throw around buzzwords but they have no relationship with reality.
of the 22 or so arab/muslim countries, how many let women vote? how many don’t mistreat (or simply expel) their jewish population? how many have freedom of religion and press and speech?
of course you know israel does, for all citizens.
the west bank and gaza are not part of israel, they will never be part of israel, we don’t want them. they can become independent states the moment they join the civilized world and stop calling for the destruction of UN member states.
and your talking about one state is also code for the destruction of israel. we don’t want the west bank.
make yourselves viable, use the international aid for something other than mansions for your leaders and weapons, and join the world. you are welcome.
“Now the ethnocentric ideology of Zionism…”
do you expect jews to be ashamed of their ethnicity? i don’t understand this, you celebrate arabic culture and ethnicity, france protects the french culture and you don’t complain, but if jews pay attention to their own ethnicity, you have a problem with that?
the usual double standard.
“In my view it’s an ideology of hate and should be relegated to the dustbin of history along with other similar ethnic supremacist ideologies.”
then you don’t understand it. zionism simply means support for a jewish political entity, a jewish state. it’s not anti anything, it doesn’t claim to be superior to anything.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“your analogy with south africa is absurd. in apartheid, no blacks had civil rights.”
Exactly like some four million Palestinians that have lived under Israeli rule for forty years.
“if israel, all arab citizens of israel have civil rights. the deciding factor is not race, as it was in south africa, but citizenship.”
Very much akin to the “Coloured” franchise at the Cape (that was later removed, just as much of the Israeli Right – including sitting ministers in the gov’t like Lieberman have suggested doing to the Israeli Palestinians). Again, the most precise parallel right now is the situation of the 20-30 thousand Jews in Iran. Both have the vote, both have representatives sitting in their respective parliaments, both officially have full rights, both are viewed as potential traitors, both are unofficially – but really – discriminated against by both the government and the society in general, both are segregated from mainstream society (following the Apartheid idea that different cultures should be separated for their own good), and so on.
“was south west africa part of another country that attacked south africa, lost the war, and then gave up all rights to that land? if not, it’s not a comparison.”
South West Africa was a League of Nations mandate entrusted to South Africa in much the same way as Palestine was a British mandate. However, after WWII, Britain renounced its mandate, thus Israeli independence and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians (Al Nakba). South Africa, on the other hand, decided to effectively annex SWA illegally (as ruled by the ICJ) and was deemed illegally occupied. There is plenty of comparison, though there were some differences too.
“the west bank was part of jordan. jordan attacked. jordan lost the war and some territory. jordan decided to give up all rights to that territory, and forced the jordanian residents of that territory into refugee camps, denying them admission into the new, smaller jordan. that’s not remotely analogous to the situation in south africa.”
The West bank was never legally part of Jordan, despite illegal Jordanian attempts to annex it. The Jordanian “annexation” was deemed completely illegal and only two countries in the world – the UK & Pakistan – recognized it as legitimate. Just like the Egyptian occupation of Gaza, legally speaking it was nothing more than a temporary occupation of Palestinian land by neighboring states; a view articulated first by the Arab League and accepted by the entire world community (except the UK & Pakistan).
[I am going to answer your questions here despite the fact that the situation in Arab countries has nothing to do with Israel]
”it’s nice for you to throw around buzzwords but they have no relationship with reality.
of the 22 or so arab/muslim countries, how many let women vote?”
Women have the vote in every Arab country except three: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2005/08/31/iraqi_women/index.html
“how many don’t mistreat (or simply expel) their jewish population?”
This is a loaded question since of Israel itself was responsible for a lot of this; the Israeli “Lavon Affair” in Egypt is why that population fled; the Israeli bombing campaign in Baghdad is why that population fled and so on. Further, due to politics – as well as Israel’s malicious libel of claiming to represent all Jews against their will – other populations have left voluntarily or been expelled. Today, there is still a thriving Jewish community in Iran (not Arab) and Tunisia, smaller communities elsewhere…
“how many have freedom of religion and press and speech?”
Granted.
”the west bank and gaza are not part of israel, they will never be part of israel, we don’t want them.”
You seem to have forgot to mention this to the some 440,000 Israeli settlers in the OPTs and every democratically elected government since Begin that has – presumably with the full support of the Israeli electorate – made separation impossible now.
“they can become independent states the moment they join the civilized world and stop calling for the destruction of UN member states.”
You sound like an “anti-Semite” talking about “they” and lumping all Palestinians into one mass horde, the same way some people – like Nazis & Zionists – do to Jews.
”we don’t want the west bank.”
Too late. Quite simply, there is absolutely no reason to believe the occupation will ever end. As I write this settlements are expanding and the democratically-elected Israeli government is investing millions into not only maintaining but expanding the integration of the West bank into Israel proper. At the same time, the Palestinians aren’t going anywhere. Maybe you as an individual “don’t want” the West Bank, but plainly this is a minority position among those holding the franchise in Israel, the voting public.
”make yourselves viable, use the international aid for something other than mansions for your leaders and weapons, and join the world. you are welcome.”
I don’t know who you think I am, but I’m not Palestinian. Otherwise though, I completely agree with you. The “Palestine Authority” has conclusively proven itself hopelessly corrupt and should be done away with as another step forward in the one democratic secular state program.
“do you expect jews to be ashamed of their ethnicity? i don’t understand this, you celebrate arabic culture and ethnicity, france protects the french culture and you don’t complain, but if jews pay attention to their own ethnicity, you have a problem with that?
the usual double standard.”
No, being Jewish myself obviously I have nothing against people, esp. Jewish people, taking pride in their ethnicity. However, since obviously you have no idea what the term “ethnocentric” means, here is a straight dictionary definition for you [Columbia] “ethnocentrism: the feeling that one’s group has a mode of living, values, and patterns of adaptation that are superior to those of other groups. It is coupled with a generalized contempt for members of other groups. Ethnocentrism may manifest itself in attitudes of superiority or sometimes hostility. Violence, discrimination, proselytizing, and verbal aggressiveness are other means whereby ethnocentrism may be expressed.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/et/ethnocen.html
John S.
March 17th, 2007 at 10:50 am
“your analogy with south africa is absurd. in apartheid, no blacks had civil rights.”
Exactly like some four million Palestinians that have lived under Israeli rule for forty years.
“if israel, all arab citizens of israel have civil rights. the deciding factor is not race, as it was in south africa, but citizenship.”
Very much akin to the “Coloured” franchise at the Cape (that was later removed, just as much of the Israeli Right – including sitting ministers in the gov’t like Lieberman have suggested doing to the Israeli Palestinians). Again, the most precise parallel right now is the situation of the 20-30 thousand Jews in Iran. Both have the vote, both have representatives sitting in their respective parliaments, both officially have full rights, both are viewed as potential traitors, both are unofficially – but really – discriminated against by both the government and the society in general, both are segregated from mainstream society (following the Apartheid idea that different cultures should be separated for their own good), and so on.
“was south west africa part of another country that attacked south africa, lost the war, and then gave up all rights to that land? if not, it’s not a comparison.”
South West Africa was a League of Nations mandate entrusted to South Africa in much the same way as Palestine was a British mandate. However, after WWII, Britain renounced its mandate, thus Israeli independence and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians (Al Nakba). South Africa, on the other hand, decided to effectively annex SWA illegally (as ruled by the ICJ) and was deemed illegally occupied. There is plenty of comparison, though there were some differences too.
“the west bank was part of jordan. jordan attacked. jordan lost the war and some territory. jordan decided to give up all rights to that territory, and forced the jordanian residents of that territory into refugee camps, denying them admission into the new, smaller jordan. that’s not remotely analogous to the situation in south africa.”
The West bank was never legally part of Jordan, despite illegal Jordanian attempts to annex it. The Jordanian “annexation” was deemed completely illegal and only two countries in the world – the UK & Pakistan – recognized it as legitimate. Just like the Egyptian occupation of Gaza, legally speaking it was nothing more than a temporary occupation of Palestinian land by neighboring states; a view articulated first by the Arab League and accepted by the entire world community (except the UK & Pakistan).
[I am going to answer your questions here despite the fact that the situation in Arab countries has nothing to do with Israel]
”it’s nice for you to throw around buzzwords but they have no relationship with reality.
of the 22 or so arab/muslim countries, how many let women vote?”
Women have the vote in every Arab country except three: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2005/08/31/iraqi_women/index.html
“how many don’t mistreat (or simply expel) their jewish population?”
This is a loaded question since of Israel itself was responsible for a lot of this; the Israeli “Lavon Affair” in Egypt is why that population fled; the Israeli bombing campaign in Baghdad is why that population fled and so on. Further, due to politics – as well as Israel’s malicious libel of claiming to represent all Jews against their will – other populations have left voluntarily or been expelled. Today, there is still a thriving Jewish community in Iran (not Arab) and Tunisia, smaller communities elsewhere…
“how many have freedom of religion and press and speech?”
Granted.
”the west bank and gaza are not part of israel, they will never be part of israel, we don’t want them.”
You seem to have forgot to mention this to the some 440,000 Israeli settlers in the OPTs and every democratically elected government since Begin that has – presumably with the full support of the Israeli electorate – made separation impossible now.
“they can become independent states the moment they join the civilized world and stop calling for the destruction of UN member states.”
You sound like an “anti-Semite” talking about “they” and lumping all Palestinians into one mass horde, the same way some people – like Nazis & Zionists – do to Jews.
”we don’t want the west bank.”
Too late. Quite simply, there is absolutely no reason to believe the occupation will ever end. As I write this settlements are expanding and the democratically-elected Israeli government is investing millions into not only maintaining but expanding the integration of the West bank into Israel proper. At the same time, the Palestinians aren’t going anywhere. Maybe you as an individual “don’t want” the West Bank, but plainly this is a minority position among those holding the franchise in Israel, the voting public.
”make yourselves viable, use the international aid for something other than mansions for your leaders and weapons, and join the world. you are welcome.”
I don’t know who you think I am, but I’m not Palestinian. Otherwise though, I completely agree with you. The “Palestine Authority” has conclusively proven itself hopelessly corrupt and should be done away with as another step forward in the one democratic secular state program.
“do you expect jews to be ashamed of their ethnicity? i don’t understand this, you celebrate arabic culture and ethnicity, france protects the french culture and you don’t complain, but if jews pay attention to their own ethnicity, you have a problem with that?
the usual double standard.”
No, being Jewish myself obviously I have nothing against people, esp. Jewish people, taking pride in their ethnicity. However, since obviously you have no idea what the term “ethnocentric” means, here is a straight dictionary definition for you [Columbia] “ethnocentrism: the feeling that one’s group has a mode of living, values, and patterns of adaptation that are superior to those of other groups. It is coupled with a generalized contempt for members of other groups. Ethnocentrism may manifest itself in attitudes of superiority or sometimes hostility. Violence, discrimination, proselytizing, and verbal aggressiveness are other means whereby ethnocentrism may be expressed.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/et/ethnocen.html
John S.
March 17th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
” Quite simply, there is absolutely no reason to believe the occupation will ever end. ”
why not? israel left gaza, israel would be happy to discuss final borders the moment the palestinians give up their goal of destroying israel.
it’s really as simple as that.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
oh as as far as ethnocentrism, i was using the 2nd definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnocentric
but it’s semantics anyway. obviously thinking your group is better than anyone else is odious. i don’t think that zionism, or support for the state of israel is inherently ethnocentric (now using your definition) any more than supporting the existence of the state of france means you are saying that french culture is the best.
and the west bank. you say jordan never legally owned it, israel never legally owned it, under international law it is not owned by any state. israel did occupy it when it was used as staging groups from which to attack israel. before then, jordan controlled it, and when they lost the war, they forced all the residents into refugee camps. since then, israel has tried repeatedly to make peace and secure borders. they have repeatedly withdrawn, given civil control to the local palestinians, made plans to give up all the land. every single time, the palestinians have refused to keep their side of the agreements, have continued the terrorism.
israel wasn’t always in that land. when they weren’t, the land was used to attack israel. the westernmost point of the west bank is like 10 miles from the sea. israel could be literally cut in 2 if the residents there are hostile.
when it is safe to do so, israel will leave, as they left gaza.
really, what do you want israel to do? and if israel were to withdraw, and then were attacked, and defended herself, you’d be among the first to condemn her then too. seriously, what would you have israel do, realistically?
March 17th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Y - “why not? israel left gaza, israel would be happy to discuss final borders the moment the palestinians give up their goal of destroying israel. it’s really as simple as that.”
Afraid not, but in this instance I won’t suggest or imply that you’re just regurgitating Hasbara talking points, because a lot people – even well meaning ones – do sincerely believe that “Israel left Gaza”, which in turn made the continued Palestinian resistance from Gaza appear totally unreasonable and unjustified. This is the way that the Israeli government – and its supporters – presented the case, and many people have fallen for it. I’ll assume you are in that camp.
First, you have to understand that it is a pillar of Israeli security doctrine that no Palestinian entity can be allowed control of its own borders or import/export policies. The border issue is justified almost exclusively on security grounds, whereas the import/export control is ostensibly justified by security but really has more to do with the fact that the OPTs have become an integrated element of the Israeli economy (Israel has maintained the stance that Israel Proper and the OPTs constitute a single unified economic unit from the very outset of negotiations) that it is unwilling to let go of.
The security argument is that if Palestinians are allowed to control their own borders and import/export policy they will import high tech weapons and/or volunteer fighters of various stripes and thus would represent an intolerable threat to the security of Israel. This is not an unreasonable supposition, BUT it also absolutely rules out a free Palestinian state as well, meaning that whatever little Bantustan is established will always be under Israeli control and basic necessities like importing food, controlling water, and so on will always remain under Israeli control, i.e. no free Palestinian state.
This has been Israel’s position from the start and since it is not unreasonable, it has been afforded its just due by most outside observers (US, EU, UN, &c.). Developments toward a compromise on the point generally operated on the premise of international border control. That is, Israel would cede control over the borders of the Palestinian statelet to an international force created for this purpose which would probably be a joint force composed of US (pro-Israel) and EU (pro-Palestinian) elements. Work has been done in this respect and I believe a compromise had been accepted that satisfied both sides, at least up until the death of Arafat.
However, once Israel opted to go for unilateral disengagement, none of these international elements came into play at all, which meant that Israel itself intended to remain in complete control of everything and did. From the outset, “Disengagement” never intended to free Gaza (http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/isrlpa9577.htm ) and of course did not (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5718.shtml ), effectively it was nothing more than a restructuring of the occupation. Yes, the settlers were removed and the IDF left its permanent positions within the strip, but this didn’t end the occupation at all. Israel remained in total control of all the borders, including the one with Egypt, Israel remained in control of the airspace and of the coast, effectively turning Gaza into the world’s largest open-air concentration camp. (“The World’s Largest Prison Camp” - http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0816-25.htm )
On the pro-Israeli side, everyone – apparently including you – believed the lie that Gaza was now free, so why were the Palestinians still attacking Israel across the border? And of course many reached the conclusion that this was validation of the notion that the Palestinians didn’t want freedom, they just wanted to destroy Israel. Conversely, from the pro-Palestinian perspective, the occupation didn’t end at all and the Palestinians remained held “in their place” beneath IDF jackboots just as securely as they were before “Disengagement” so of course continued Palestinian resistance was inevitable. The point being: Israel did NOT “leave” Gaza. If they had, then maybe the post-Disengagement situation would be significantly different, but they didn’t so its just speculation as to what would have happened.
Further, due to Israel’s security doctrine regarding Palestinian borders and economic interests in the OPTs, not only was actually “leaving” Gaza not on the table, the same is true in the West Bank. That is not to say that some sort of bantustan or ghettoization scheme might come into existence at some point; but just like Gaza, it won’t bring peace and it won’t be sustainable.
A free Palestinian state isn’t even on the table. Is it theoretically possible? Yes, but not realistically. Theoretically the U.S. could cede Manhattan Island to the Native Americans too, but realistically this isn’t going to happen either. So holding your breath for a mutually acceptable two-state solution is nothing more than a waste of time and wishful thinking. Israel has made its bed and now must lie in it. (which brings us back to my one state case).
March 17th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
“and the west bank. you say jordan never legally owned it, israel never legally owned it, under international law it is not owned by any state. israel did occupy it when it was used as staging groups from which to attack israel. before then, jordan controlled it, and when they lost the war, they forced all the residents into refugee camps since then, israel has tried repeatedly to make peace and secure borders.”
This was Israel’s “Disputed Territories” argument that was somewhat legitimate prior to 1988, but not since. Prior to 1988, Jordan still claimed sovereignty over the West Bank (backed by the UK & Pakistan); whereas the world community in general (everyone else) recognized the West Bank as Palestinian territory. So Israel’s position was that this territory was “disputed” though under Israeli control. However, this all ended in 1988 when Jordan formally renounced its claim to the West Bank and specifically ceded it to the PLO (as the only body authorized to represent the Palestinian people). Since that time, there has been no “dispute,” Israel is occupying Palestinian territory period and that includes every square inch of the territory taken in the Israeli invasion of 1967.
“they have repeatedly withdrawn, given civil control to the local palestinians,”
The point is, a little Palestinian judenrat under Israeli control isn’t good enough, not even close. Israel has experimented with creating various little “authorities” pretty much from the outset, but has always maintained all real control. As noted in my previous post on this thread, the idea of actually affording Palestinian freedom isn’t even on the agenda and never has been.
“made plans to give up all the land.”
That is just patently false by any and all accounts. An actually free Palestine, much less one on “all the land” has NEVER even been hinted at, much less planned for. Even completely unofficial fantasy proposals – like the Geneva Accords – never went that far. This is part of the one state argument; specifically a mutually acceptable two-state solution has never been presented, much less discussed, whereas at the same time Israel already has foundation in both multiculturalism (as reflected by the extremely diverse Jewish groups that have been integrated to one extent or another in Israel) and democracy: thus the shorter route to a sustainable final settlement is integration as opposed to separation.
“when it is safe to do so, israel will leave, as they left gaza.”
As noted previously, they didn’t “leave Gaza” at all and as Gaza has clearly shown, as long as the Occupation continues (even if restructured) so to will Palestinian resistance. A Catch-22? Not at all, it just means a two-state ethnic separatist scenario isn’t realistic.
”really, what do you want israel to do? and if israel were to withdraw, and then were attacked, and defended herself, you’d be among the first to condemn her then too. seriously, what would you have israel do, realistically?”
One democratic secular state for all its people with equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens. There are several models that show this can be done despite the bitterness of the conflict: South Africa, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, &c. Full political and institutional integration, again there are example of how it can be done: the mergers of East & West Germany, North & South Yemen, and the current efforts at unifying Korea. In fact Israel is better prepared to do this than many other countries just because of its monumental experience in merging extremely diverse Jewish groups into “Israelis” and the fact that if you belong to the right ethnicity Israel has an extremely liberal and progressive governmental base. Just expand it to include everyone. As can be seen here: http://www.onestate.org – a growing number of Israelis, Palestinians, non-Israeli Jews (myself), non-Palestinian Arabs, and others are reaching this conclusion.
March 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
“The security argument is that if Palestinians are allowed to control their own borders and import/export policy they will import high tech weapons and/or volunteer fighters of various stripes and thus would represent an intolerable threat to the security of Israel. This is not an unreasonable supposition, BUT it also absolutely rules out a free Palestinian state as well”
yes, as it presently stands. as long as it is the official policy of the palestinian authority to wipe israel off the map, it is not safe for israel to sign any final agreements. remember that the west bank and gaza weren’t always occupied. the occupation was a response to terrorism and attacks, not the cause of it. those lands were used to attack israel in 67, and the losing party never signed an armistice or peace agreement.
secondly, israel did LEAVE gaza, they just still control the border, for reasons stated above.
and why didn’t the palestinians complain about jordanian occupation until 1967? from 48-67 you didn’t hear a word about jordanian occupation. the occupation issue is a red herring.
“”what do you want israel to do? ” One democratic secular state for all its people with equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens.”
again, you first. there are 22 arab/muslim countries that are far behind israel. there is no voting, no civil rights, no free speech in so many of those countries. most of them are officially muslim, not secular, without equal rights and responsibilities for its citizens.
on the other hand, israel does have all that, full civil rights, for all its real citizens, including 1.2 million arabs.
when the arab countries do it, get back to me. otherwise, it’s a double standard and you’re a hypocrite.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Y - “as long as it is the official policy of the palestinian authority to wipe israel off the map, it is not safe for israel to sign any final agreements.”
That is, of course, ridiculous. The Palestinian Authority is a creation of Israel via Oslo. I challenge you to show ANY official pronouncement by the PA saying that its “official policy” is to wipe Israel off the map. You won’t because you can’t – the charge is just something out of your imagination.
Y - “secondly, israel did LEAVE gaza, they just still control the border, for reasons stated above.”
No, they did not as detailed previously. Gaza remains just as occupied today as it was prior to “Disengagement.” Sharon’s whole policy was little more than a restructuring of the occupation, not an ending of it by any means.
Y - “and why didn’t the palestinians complain about jordanian occupation until 1967? from 48-67 you didn’t hear a word about jordanian occupation. the occupation issue is a red herring.”
That is flatly false as well. Both the Palestinians as well as the entire Arab world outright rejected the Jordanian “annexation” as well as its actions trying to implement this “annexation” during the Jordanian occupation. Note the comments of the Israeli representative to the UN on the issue of Palestinian resistance to the Jordanian occupation: “79. The Jordanian record on the West Bank is no better than that of Egypt in Gaza. During 19 years of Jordanian occupation, thousands of West Bank residents were arrested, prominent local leaders were gaoled, political activity was curbed, and the Jordanian army brutally suppressed the riots which broke out every few months, killing and wounding hundreds of West Bank Arabs.” [http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/99818751a6a4c9c6852560690077ef61/65a12b78bc3108a8052565fd0056a8be!OpenDocument ] No opposition to the Jordanian occupation? Go back and try again.
Y – “when the arab countries do it, get back to me. otherwise, it’s a double standard and you’re a hypocrite.”
What nonsense. Your argument is essentially that Israel doesn’t have to do the right thing because other countries aren’t doing it. I firmly agree that there should be reform throughout the Arab world, but that has nothing to do with Israel at all. Further, since apparently you’re confused, we’re talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict not generalized world peace. You asked what I think Israel should do that would result in a permanent sustainable peace and I told you. Would it be nice if all the rest of the world did the same? Of course, but that isn’t what we are talking about and isn’t what you asked. Like it or not, the Israel/Palestine conflict is between Israelis and Palestinians and their respective supporters – it has nothing to do with Morocco or Bahrain or any other state; and it is Israelis and the Palestinians that will have to resolve it. There are, of course, international aspects on both sides, but ultimately there will be no solution until Israelis and Palestinians specifically agree on one. I think the last forty years – with foreign interventions from all sides and in all forms – has conclusively shown this. Prattle about “22 Arab States” (none of which are Palestinian) is completely pointless and silly.
John S.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
How naive to think that a “one state soultion” would be anything other than a prelude to massacre! A “one state solution” would last until the Arabs felt that they were in a dominant position, either by numbers or military strength. In the first scenario the “democratic” vote would be used to install an all Arab and perhaps Islamacist government. The Jews would then be expelled or compeled to live as subservient Dhimmi. More likely is essentially a repeat of what happened in the binational state of Ruanda. One a “one state ” solution was declared, vaious Arab and Moslem countries would ensure financing, arms, and perhaps even Jihadis, and there be a tremendous civil war and massacre.
Rather than stay so naive, how about reading the Arab press and see what they actually say rather what very nice, pleasant naive Californians think they MIGHT say were they the Arabs.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
[…] Where else today would I learn so fast that the S.H.I.T. list has been taken down, or read the latest op-eds by Soros or Kristof. All there right in one spot. […]
March 19th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
R - “How naive to think that a “one state soultion” would be anything other than a prelude to massacre! … [blah blah blah] …”
You perfectly echo both the Ulster Catholics (”if we lay down our arms the Protestants will exterminate us!”) and the Afrikaners (”the blacks will drive us into the sea!” “calling for the blacks to have rights is calling for the genocide of the Afrikaner people!”) and so on.
I will agree that this is the likely conclusion IF the Israeli people are stupid enough to “fight to the very end” and other such rot; but if they take the lead in integration (as happened with both the Ulster Protestants/Brits and the South African Whites - despite some backlash from a minority of extremists) - as has been suggested by Daniel Gavron - then this is utter nonsense.
Despite all the stereotypes and vilification, Palestinians are in fact one of the best educated, the most secular, and the most experienced (meaning in dealing with the rest of the world via al-Shatat; the Palestinian Diaspora) peoples in the Arab world. While there is certainly extremism, this is the DIRECT result of Israeli occupation and oppression; a charge that is fully substantiated by the Palestinian reaction when they believed that the peace process actually offered hope for a brighter future (at the time, the extremists were virtually exiled forming the “Rejectionist” camp based in Syria because they lost virtually all support). Another example is the recent poll showing that most Israeli Palestinians (those holding Israeli citizenship) would choose to maintain their position as Israeli citizens with or without a Palestinian state in the OPTs.
Of course it won’t happen anytime soon, but since a mutually acceptable two-state solution isn’t going to happen and “transfer” is a pipe dream of the radical Right; in the end it WILL happen. By the time Israel is desperate enough to offer a real viable Palestinian state, it will be much too late and the Palestinians will be seeking more. It is the exact same situation the Afrikaners faced; they chose land over reality and in the end were confronted with truly losing everything or taking the lead in integrating the state in such a way that their national existence was assured.
March 20th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
south africa was one country that discriminated against the majority because of race.
israel is one country, with arab and jewish citizens, and they have full civil rights.
the west bank is not part of israel. their rights are the business of their government.
it’s not analogous.
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:04 pm
John S. makes up nonsense.
The Palestinian Authority is under license by the Israeli government to be the governing authority of a new Palestinian state subject to final peace negotiations over disputed borders. This is one reason the Israelis collect taxes in the PA, so the PLO leadership cannot steal it form their people.
All the West Bank and Gaza are not indisputable Palestinian or Arab land. Prior to 1948, there were Jewish settlements (all land legally purchased) in both Gaza and the West Bank. After 1948, Israel lost 28 of these to Arabs. After 1967 some were taken back like Kfar Etzion.
All Israeli settlements since 1967 wre built on Jordanian giovernment land. It is a myth of the PLO that Jews stole the individual homes of Arabs. Likewise, in Gaza, Jewish settlements were built on former sand dunes, unused or unowned by anyone. The Arabs want you to think they were stolen land from Arabs.
The land is indeed disputed and UN resolutions back in 1967 did not say its all Arab–only the arabs keeprepeating the Big Lie without cessation.
The PA is a military dictatorship with few human or civil rights for people not part of the terrorist infrastructure. Their constitution mandates Sharia law as in IRan and Saudi Arabia. Israel is a western style democracy.
Israel as licensee, allows arabs access toi Israeli courts for legal and land disputes.
In many cases arabs have won. Nonoe of this gets reported in the western media. John S. suffers from a sickness, a desire to bend the facts to suit an outcome without Israel.
He will never succeed.
May 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
This is a message for John S. I’m surprised that you have so poor an understandiing about the history and origins of Zionism (vis-a-vis: how and why it came into existence.) The genesis of Zionism has everything to do with what the daily of life for Jews was like under the Pale as witnessed by Herzl in Russia, Poland, France and Austria. Herzl came to his Zionism as a means to escape oppression only. It was a means for Jews to live in peace where the goal of humanitarian liberalism failed. If you read any of his works, there’s nothing in there about racism or what we here in America would associate with North American racism, never mind South African apartheid . It really bothers me that educated people who write so well and are obviously intelligent and informed about issues really don’t have any fund of information for which to make the scurrilious equivocation of American racism to Zionism. If you are talking about another Zionism, you should be specific. I can assure you–you are not talking about Herzl’s Zionism.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
So much for free speech.
MASADA2000 will go on!
THE ISLAMITAZTION OF THE WEST HAS BEGUN!