Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Revelation: I'm A Palestinian!

Analyzing Dr. Elizabeth Bentley's writings about "Palestinian crocodiles," I was led into a new direction of research, and I discovered something amazing: I'm a Palestinian - and an indigenous one!

Here is how I came to that realization.

There are different definitions of the word "indigenous." According to Wikipedia, indigenous peoples are "culturally distinct ethnic groups whose members are directly descended from the earliest known inhabitants of a particular geographic region and, to some extent, maintain the language and culture of those original peoples." With that definition, neither Palestinians nor Jews are indigenous inhabitants of Palestine - the Canaanites were here before either of us. 

However, many people prefer to use the term more broadly. According to Dr. Bentley, representing the Journal of Palestine Studies, the Ghawarna Bedouin are indigenous Palestinians. This is the case even though they are largely descended from African refugees who came to Palestine within the last few centuries. 

Yasser Arafat was likewise a Palestinian, even though he personally was born in Egypt and grew up there. And the same goes for all the people born to Palestinians around the world, who are classified as Palestinian.

And the main Muslim population of the Land of Israel are likewise Palestinian, even though they are descended from Muslim Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula who violently conquered Palestine in the 7th century, or from groups that came in the 19th century. (Perhaps the 7th century invaders should be called settler-colonials?)

Accordingly, in order to be Palestinian, you can be born outside of Palestine, and you can be descended from people who immigrated to Palestine, whether they did so by way of seeking refuge from persecution or by way of violent conquest. As long there is some point in your history or ancestry which involves living in Palestine, you are classified as an indigenous Palestinian.

The ramifications of this are very interesting. I live here now, and I am descended from ancestors that lived here. (And there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Palestine/Israel since Temple times, such as with the Jews of Peki'in pictured here, and those who left always dreamed of coming back.)  And so I qualify as an indigenous Palestinian on two counts!

The only way to not classify me as an indigenous Palestinian is to use a racist definition whereby Muslims and Christians can be Palestinians but not Jews. And surely nobody wants to be racist!

Maybe this can be a new tactic in countering anti-Israel propaganda. We can point out that we are indigenous Palestinians, too!

For an excellent full-length study of this topic, see "Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis" by Ran Ukashi, which you can freely download here. The final sentence notes that "Despite the complexity and emotions involved in this iconic conflict, it is apparent that by any measure in which Palestinian Arabs can express legitimate indigeneity to the land, so too can the Jewish People."

Hashtag #IamaJewishIsraeliIndigenousPalestinian!

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

183 comments:

  1. I believe the UN uses a very specific and convenient definition : you must be have lived in the British Palestine in 1947. However I still think it is a good tactic to counter anti-israel propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The narrow definition of "Palestinian" is purposely meant to exclude Jews (unless they lived in Israel before 1947, and are still alive...).
      It's much like the Nuremberg Laws: "A Jew cannot be a citizen of the Reich. He cannot exercise the right to vote; he cannot hold public office."

      Delete
    2. It's no better or worse a tactic than citing the first Rashi in the Torah. Like anything else political - one's opinions are one's opinions, and inconvenient facts to the contrary can be ignored, denied, or distinguished.

      GP

      Delete
  2. Note, though, that HaShem expressly gave Eretz Yisrael to us, in preference to the previous inhabitants (Canaanites and their cousins), whose depraved behavior made them unworthy to stay in the Land. Because of the world we live in, we fall back on other justifications, but we still hold the deed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Proof from biblical narrative is not proof that the international community would accept. And why should they?

      Delete
    2. First, "the international community" (which is a meaningless phrase; at this point we're talking about a very small but very vocal number of members of anti-Semitic NGOs) doesn't accept Jewish rights, period. We should stop caring.

      Second, the important thing is to first remind *Jews* who's in the right here. Note well the first Rashi in the Torah, quoting a Midrash and pasuk: "Koach Maasav Higid L'*Amo*,"

      Delete
    3. @David, in all matters, one must explain to oneself first. Once that is moral and logical etc., having others understand is only a bonus. Is it moral, for one example out of countless others, to murder a chicken with a Chalaf, actually mass-murder thousands of chickens daily, and on top of that, eat it?!?

      First you work it out on your own and in your community, and conduct your life accordingly. Where possible, explain it to others. If they don't get it, forget about them. And keep moving on.

      ===
      This is assuming that you don't have a problem on your own understanding it. But your comment might be of a gentleman, who is friendly to present himself as ideologically aligned with the people he is challenging, and only asking 'on behalf of someone else'. In which case you're still before the first step. As for me, I'm already past it. If you indeed aren't there yet, and unlikely to be persuaded, I'll follow my own recommendations and forget about you too.

      Delete
    4. Nachum, I refer you to your own two comments below indicating that anyone taking the historicity of the Bible literally is manifestly in error.

      Genetically, historically, and by birth, we are inextricably Palestinian, and vice versa. That's the reality.

      Delete
    5. I fail to see how any of that implies the Bible is in error.

      Delete
    6. The claim was made that the united 12 tribes, under Joshua, utterly removed all traces of the prior Canaanite civilisations and were genetically distinctive from them.

      However we know that the Judeans, the Israelites, the Jebusites, the Philistines and the Moabites coexisted, intermarried, warred and made peace. The relationship between, say, the Judeans and the Jebusites was if anything less strained than the relationship between the Judeans and the dominant Israelite tribe of Benjamin. Later in history, an Idumean (Herod) ruled over Jerusalem. The reality of mixed Levantine birth and heritage of the modern day Jews is at odds with the traditional Biblical account of a genetic isolate from the East of the Euphrates.

      I remember a very striking moment when Dr Robert Winston's genetic heritage was blind tested. The comment was that he (an Ashkenazi Jew) was Near Eastern... Palestinian perhaps... was powerful proof that we come from Israel and so do they.

      https://learningonscreen.ac.uk/ondemand/index.php/clip/166480

      Delete
    7. You used the word "anachronizing or some cultural appropriation going on. Neither would be a first " with reference to the Bible.

      Delete
  3. This is hardly a new tactic. It's been used repeatedly by many people on many fora to counter the claim that Arab Palestinians are indigenous. Come to that it's not even a tactic. It's simply a straight and true response to some of the nonsense from Palestinian propagandists

    ReplyDelete
  4. You may not be surprised that the official Palestinians have, indeed, claimed descent from the Canaanites, which is ridiculous on a number of levels. (The Lebanese, on the other hand, probably are.)

    A case has been made, bolstered by DNA studies, that at least some of the Palestinians are descendants of Jews forced to convert to Islam. (This may be even more true of the Christians among them.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Palestinian Arabs probably have some Canaanite ancestry. But it is even more highly likely that Palestinian Arabs -- both Muslim and Christian -- have ancestry from Samaritans, as there were a number of historically attested massed forced conversions of the Samaritans during the Byzantine, Fatimid, and Ottoman eras.

      Palestinians and both Ashkenazim and Sephardim are not too far apart in terms of ancestry as determined by genomics. However, Ashkenazim are closer to groups such as the Druze.

      Delete
    2. Dirty little secret: Jews probably have Canaanite ancestry as well. Hebrew is basically a dialect of Canaanite, and there are at least a few examples of intermarriage with Canaanites in Tanach.

      Delete
    3. Nachum is correct.

      Delete
    4. Nachum - Abraham was from Ur. We are actually not Canaanites. We are Sumerians.

      Delete
    5. Dirty little secret: (Christian) Palestinians probably have Jewish ancestry as well.

      Delete
    6. Shmuel:

      First, Sumerian is not a Semitic language. If you want to be really picky, Avraham was Akkadian.

      Second, all Semites, including Canaanites, came from that area originally, if you want to go that far back.

      Third, Avraham's family settled down in Aram and spoke Aramaic, and his kids and grandkids married Aramean cousins.

      Fourth, within a couple of generations Avraham's family was speaking a Canaanite dialect, namely Hebrew, and a bunch of them at least were marrying Canaanites.

      Delete
    7. @ Nachum

      Yes, and for the rest of the story, you are welcome to read Genesis.

      Delete
    8. Weaver: And what will I learn that I didn't already say?

      Delete
    9. Nachum: your right about the Sumerian language. In fact, no one knows the origins. It is not a common dialect in the middle east.

      Did Akkadian exist by the time of Abraham? Wasn't Ur the capital of the Sumerians?

      If Abraham's decedents married Canaanites (as the Bible records) then we are still part Canaanite.

      Delete
  5. Amazing! Also worthy of note: there's a midrash which states that Avraham was originally from the Levant -- that he had moved to Ur. Of course, midrashim aren't to be taken literally, but I like thinking that we're also originally from the land -- in that sense. Besides, his children married from that land, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abraham was from Ur. We are actually not from the Levant (if you believe in the Bible). We are not Canaanites either. We are Sumerians.

      Delete
  6. This is of course in addition to the actual historical fact that pre-1948, the Jews who lived in Palestine were indeed referred to as Palestinians. I have an ancestor or two with this characteristic.

    And on the flipside, (as per Middle East scholars like Daniel Pipes,) Arabs who lived in the region at that time would have been offended if they were referred to as Palestinian - they considered themselves part of "Greater Syria." It was only after 1948 that Arabs, seeking to create a new non-Israeli identity started adopting the use of the now-defunct term Palestinian. (The PLO, for example, was started in 1964.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's not forget that the original term, "Palishtim," literally means "invaders" (from the Biblical Hebrew word-root פלש).

      Delete
    2. The Pelishtim were the Sea Peoples, a Greek (or proto-Greek) people from the Aegean who invaded Canaan at about the same time the Bnei Yisrael were coming in from the other direction.

      There is a reference in the Torah to "Eretz Pelishtim," but it's not clear if that's an anachronism (i.e., the land that *would* be Pelishti) or if the Greek invaders adopted the name of the natives of that area. (Both the rulers at the time of Avraham and at the time of David were called "Avimelech," so there's either some anachronizing or some cultural appropriation going on. Neither would be a first.)

      Delete
    3. Nachum is in this respect entirely right.

      Delete
    4. So in other resects he is entirely wrong!?

      Delete
  7. Israel IS a Palestinian State as it was a State (re)established in the Palestinian Territory. So too, is Jordan a Palestinian State. The original two state solution.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm skimming through Ukashi's high-falutin study, and focusing on his summary. It is clear that there is an erroneous conflation of the Jewish people and the state that is Israel.

    Israel is a political entity. Not a faith and not a people. The Jewish people are an ethnicity that identifies with Judaism - their religion and faith, and are loyal to its commands.

    His final analysis is that the Jewish people may express "indigeneity" (rights to) their land. Yes that is true. It is ours.

    But the fighting is much more about the political entity of the State of Israel and its demands than the Jewish people expressing theirs.

    Proof is that before the State of Israel was a thing there were Jews living in Israel too. Did the Palestinians like them then? No. Were there massacres? Yes. But it is the political state that exacerbated the issue immeasurably.

    We can debate if the political state was necessary. If you say yes, great. But making it as if the political state is the expression of the Jewish people means you are cornering all Jews into the same political beliefs, and many do not agree.

    Many Jews love the Holy Land, as that love is found throughout Scripture. But they hate how the political state governs it and attempts to portray it, in many respects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Ramban was one of the first to make aliyah.

      Delete
    2. Most Jews do not feel loyal to any set of commands (at least not the traditional ones).

      Delete
    3. "Many Jews love the Holy Land, as that love is found throughout Scripture. But they hate how the political state governs it and attempts to portray it, in many respects."

      No matter what flavor of political state governs Israel, around half of the Jews will say that it's not good. And opposition to Israel's existence will morph into something else, to justify itself.

      The "Israel is an apartheid state" slander was started in the Durban conference in 2000, when Ehud Barak was PM, and was negotiating with Arafat to make a Palestinian state. How is that an expression of Israel being an "apartheid state"? What exactly did Israel then do to deserve such a title? I don't know. But it made sense to people at the conference.

      And it only gained momentum with time, with more and more people drumming this mantra into people's heads. Now even a two-state solution isn't good enough, unless Israel takes in all of the refugees from 1948, and all of their descendants. A totally unviable situation, unless you want to see Israel destroyed.

      Delete
    4. Can a Muslim marry a Jew in Israel?

      Delete
  9. It's rather convenient to engage with the vapid musings of an American art therapist, rather than, say, a video taken by a farmer of the violent destruction by Jewish extremists, protected by the IDF, of olive trees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what is the relevance of some violent extremists to the article?

      Delete
    2. The entire article is a straw man fallacy, designed to exculpate the manifest tyranny of the occupation.

      It doesn't matter who is indigenous or not when millions of people are ruled by the barrel of a gun, when military law and universal suffrage is selectively applied in racially discriminatory ways, when public services are denied on discriminatory grounds, when the state protects and supports extremists.

      Those are the real issues with the occupation, not a genteel academic discussion about who got there first.

      YouTube video links showing abuses and abusers will be supplied to anyone feigning ignorance of the veracity of my factual assertions about the realty of the occupation.

      Delete
    3. Being opposed to the occupation does not justify in the slightest the stream of lies coming from the Palestinians and their leaders about how all Israeli Jews are usurpers who have no right to any land between the river and the sea.

      Try and stick to the topic.

      Try and stick to the topic.

      Delete
    4. @anonymous: the streams of lies, myth and religious lunacy frankly emanate from both sides. It is as abhorrent as the idea that Palestinians are somehow aliens with no connection to the land, have no national identity and frankly, are depicted as bestial peoples worthy of transfer to other regions.

      Delete
    5. @Hat:

      "It doesn't matter who is indigenous or not when millions of people are ruled by the barrel of a gun,"

      But that is not strictly true regarding either Gaza - which is completely under Palestinian control - or the West Bank - where the PA has (albeit limited) governmental/administrative control.

      "universal suffrage is selectively applied"
      Well - this is utterly untrue. All Israeli citizens have suffrage, regardless of religious or ethnic identity.

      A comment like that that ignores that fact that the PA in fact rejected sovereignty when offered the opportunity. As recently as 2000. The tyranny of occupation - as you call it - is a consequence of PA inspired belligerence.

      Having said that - I can agree with you that Israeli authorities should be more proactive in reigning in the behaviour of extremists and ideologues who provoke and otherwise engage in violent and illegal behaviours.

      Delete
    6. @Yossi: His point is that Palestinians in IL controlled areas have no rights (except under military law, which is effectively minimal) but Jews in those same areas have full rights as IL citizens.

      Delete
    7. I have little sympathy for the Palestinians of Gaza. I don't particularly care whether or not they they chose to formally declare a state in the territory they control - the fact is they (materially*) control it.

      Meir Moses correctly points out that only Jews born and living in the West Bank have voting rights. Arabs who were born and grew up next door get neither. If that isn't the essence of racial apartheid, I don't know what is.

      -

      *Sea and air access excepted, and bearing in mind that a blockade was acknowledged by Israel as a legitimate casus belli in 1967. However South Africa never declared war on the UK for blockading its oil supplies.

      Delete
    8. @The Hat - A little political theory is in order here. Israel, unlike USA, England and Australia, does not have district based voting - but rather a proportional representation system. In district based voting all citizens living in the district vote for a district representative. The flip side of this is that if I am a non-resident citizen of a country - i.e. I have not permanent address within a district, I am in fact disenfranchised.

      In the Israeli proportional representation system, on the other hand all citizens are eligible to vote both resident and non-residents - since the vote is tied to the party and not the district.

      Since non-residents citizens can vote in an Israeli election - it is not surprising therefore that residents of the West Bank disputed territories who are citizens of the State of Israel are able to vote in Israeli elections. Similarly, non-citizens in the same region who are counted as Palestinians are able to vote in Palestinian Authority elections - while the Israeli populous, who are their neighbours, are disenfranchised.

      Regarding the blockade of Gaza; I think you will find that the Hamas Government of Gaza is a belligerent in conflict with the State of Israel.

      I know, thinking beyond the slogan is difficult.

      Delete
    9. Firstly, voting for the people who militarily occupy the area is not comparable for voting for the PA who cannot even erect a phone mast or install a water mark without taking the knee to COGAT. The PA have no authority or power in relation to Jews; the Jews claim and exercise exorbitant authority and powers in relation to the Arabs. There is no symmetry, no real sovereignty, and therefore there is apartheid.

      Secondly, there is nothing disputed about territories if even Israelis don't apply Israeli civilian law there and give everyone who was born in the territory a vote. A Jew born in the West Bank to US citizen parents is a voting Israeli citizen; an Arab both in the same location is not. That's why it's a militarily occupied territory, not a genteel dispute with bad faith sophists.

      Finally, the only Israelis who live outside Israel and are entitled to vote are the Israelis who live in the West Bank and give the occupation a permanent gerrymandered electoral majority. If Israeli citizens like me could vote, or if Israelis who lived in the West Bank were excluded from voting, the occupation would be over.

      Delete
    10. " General. The right to elect and be elected: every Israeli citizen who is at least 18 years old has the right to vote; every Israel citizen who is at least 21 years old has the right to be elected. Those holding certain official positions, such as the President of the State, the State Comptroller, judges and dayanim, career army officers and senior civil servants, may not run in an election for the Knesset unless they resign from their post 100 days or three years before the elections, as the law specifies."
      https://m.knesset.gov.il/en/about/lexicon/pages/electoralsystem.aspx
      Sorry, The Hat, I do not see a restriction on residency - EVERY Israeli citizen has the right to vote.

      I note - Israel has no internationally recognised boarder along the green line - the green line is simply an armistice line from 1948. It remains to be determined via negotiations between belligerents where the final boarder will be. Thus the territories are disputed.

      Delete
    11. https://m.jpost.com/opinion/israelis-residing-abroad-deserve-voting-rights-576634/amp

      The 1969 Knesset Election Law requires overseas voters to come to Israel to vote - unless they reside in the occupied territories.

      Delighted to be of assistance.

      Delete
    12. The territories are not disputed as Israel has never asserted sovereignty over them. Israel has never disputed that the occupied territories are not part of its sovereign territory. Any assertion to the contrary is at odds with related rulings of Israeli courts which legitimise the in occupation purely as a matter of security and military expediency. If Israel wants to dispute the sovereignty territories, the first step is to give all the residents of that territory citizenship.

      Delete
    13. "There is no symmetry, no real sovereignty, and therefore there is apartheid."

      you mean There is no symmetry, no real sovereignty, and therefore there is ocupation?

      or do you think ocupation is a synonym for Apartheid

      Gershon



      Delete
    14. "Jews born and living in the West Bank have voting rights. Arabs who were born and grew up next door get neither. If that isn't the essence of racial apartheid, I don't know what is."

      If the occupation was purely military and wasn't more than 50 years old it could not be properly called an Apartheid.

      Delete
  10. I can top you.

    I am a Palestinian Refugee.

    I am from the indigenous people of Palestine. And my mother and her parents lived here until 1942. Then they fled the advance of Rommel's forces, making them refugees.

    And since Palestinian Refugee status is inherited...

    ReplyDelete
  11. The reason why hasbarah has consistently eschewed this very argument, is because it gives too much weight to the one state solution.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Palestine was the name for Israel for many years, including rabbis.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So you are a "one Stater" now?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't know why you're making a joke out of it. I believe this is a very serious argument which we should be using full force. The Jews are the indigenous people of the land, the Arabs are not indigenous, even if they are (for arguments sake) the descendants of the Canaanites. They have taken on the identity of Arab and have no religious or cultural connections to the original inhabitants. I believe this argument has not been made public to the extent that it deserves because it doesn't work as well for a secular Zionist who wishes to cut off all ties with his Jewish past. However, even such a person could probably claim indigenuity if he identifies with the Jewish people and speaks Hebrew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 'argument' has not been made because it's nonsensical. Jews and Judaism ORIGINATED in the region and then largely dispersed to other territories over +3,000 years. The tens of millions of Jews that lived for centuries in the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Europe etc. and who built lives outside of Palestine, converted into the faith (Roman times, Arabian Peninsula etc.), cannot realistically be considered indigenous in any sense without rendering the notion meaningless.

      Delete
    2. And the Arabs who moved into Eretz Yisrael because the Jews, and not they, made it habitable?

      Delete
    3. @Meir Moses -- Not entirely true. There is a substantial component of Levantine ancestry in all Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, except of course recent converts. In the case of Ashkenazim it's about 50-55%, and the non-Levantine component is south European (similar to Southern Italians). Ashkenazim are genetically very close to Druze, Cypriots, certain Lebanese groups, etc. and somewhat close to Palestinians, south Italians, and Greeks. With Mizrachi Jewish communities, the picture is murkier and it's very hard to draw conclusions with the data at hand.

      Delete
    4. Hi Joe Q: Thank you for your response. Of course there is Levantine and regional ancestry in our DNAs. Likely our DNAs can ultimately place us in Africa as well! DNA & ancestry does not (to me anyway) confer indigenous status - there has to be more. I think we both agree. Arguably many Mizrachi Jews from the Peninsula and beyond have broader, local 'roots'.

      Delete
    5. Meir, you seem not to know what indigenous means. Please look up the definition before you talk about it.

      Delete
    6. @Meir Moses: You can read the primary literature on this. The research out there on the origin of the Ashkenazi Jews is not really an "of course" thing. DNA sequences are not in and of themselves significant, but they show how groups of people are related to each other. In the case of Ashkenazim, they show that abut 50-55% is similar to modern day peoples of the Levant, especially the Druze. All genomics evidence points to an admixture of mostly male Levantines with mostly female Mediterranean people of farther west, resulting in a proto-Ashkenazi population in late Antiquity (Roman era) that then later underwent a severe population bottleneck around 1,000 years ago. All modern day Ashkenazim descend from the people who "made it through" that bottleneck -- a group of maybe 15-20 families. These conclusions are not in serious doubt and attested by multiple independent studies from different research groups.

      Note that I am talking about the ability of genomics to illustrate the history of Ashkenazi Jews over the last 1,000-2,000 years. If you want to talk about Africa, then you need to go back to 100,000-200,000 years.

      The significance of the modern understanding of Ashkenazi history is that it undermines claims made historically (and sometimes now, especially at the political extremes) that Jews have no actual historical connection to the land that is now Israel, and that we are a rogue European group, or a rogue Turkic group, etc. There are a few people who still posit these types of theories (e.g., the Khazar Hypothesis) but that approach really has crumbled in the wake of modern analysis.

      Delete
    7. I don't think it's as obvious as an "of course" response. Many groups believed, and continued to believe, that Ashkenazim were either a European or a Turkic population that adopted Jewish practices during mass-conversion events (e.g., the "Khazar hypothesis").

      The genomic evidence has pretty soundly disproven these ideas, but has proven tough to swallow for many people. The idea that Ashkenazi Jews have over 50% Levantine ancestry, and are much more closely related to Druze, Cypriots, and (yes) Palestinians than they are to Poles or Germans, causes a lot of cognitive dissonance for those who have a world-view centered on the idea of Jews as imposters or colonizers.

      Note that I am talking about the power of genomic analysis to discern the history and inter-relatedness of groups stemming back about 1,000-2,500 years ago. When you mention "placing us in Africa" you are talking about analysis of events that occurred 100,000-200,000 years ago at which point everyone non-African is related. This is a very different time scale.

      Delete
  15. I've been saying this for years. My great grandfather, who died in 1984, was born in Tzfat, in the 1890s, under Ottoman rule. He knew of multiple generations (like 13+) back who had lived in Tzfat. So I'm of Palestinian descent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, if he was born in the 1890's, then you're Turkish. :-)

      Delete
  16. Hat-sit on your hat! We Jews have liberated our land. The Arabs are terrorists not us. Sit on your propaganda!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's good you should know what many diaspora Jews think of the occupation. The smartphone has been invented, we can all see what happens, and the lies have stopped working.

      Not terrorists

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_08yO90iZ-E

      Not terrorists

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Umhif9ChFFQ

      Not terrorists

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XhBefHrzgqk

      Not terrorists

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=84bK5TITCsU

      Not terrorists

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PsoC9EAkba8

      Not terrorists

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=erZKXJOkV9s

      Not terrorists

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=trLP1Ppd3bw

      Delete
    2. Nice for some diaspora jews to be brave on behalf of Israeli Jews, when it is not they at risk of genocide. If they want a say on the 'occupation ' let them move to Israel and see how brave they are in capitulating to the Palestinian Jihadis

      Delete
    3. Every single one of those videos shows Israeli security being harmed by hotheads and extremists. There is no security reason for any if this.

      Delete
    4. Red herring. A couple of extremists do not make Israel's 'occupation' any less necessary to protect it from the Palestinians who want genocide.

      Gershon

      Delete
    5. What disciplinary action or criminal action does the state take against "one or two extremists"? None. Absolutely no consequences.

      Racism and coercion is intrinsic to the military occupation. How can you occupy a nation without political disenfranchisement, without force?

      The individual abuses of soldiers are simply a logical consequence. They aren't extremists : extremism is state policy.

      These abuses are carried out in the name of the Jewish state. In your name, and in mine. And I protest.

      Delete
  17. Hat, there is one side in this conflict that wants, by charter, to exterminate the other. The fact that there are criminals on both sides should not obfuscate the obvious, fundamental difference exhibited by the fact that were the Arabs to lay down their arms today, there would be peace; while, if Israel were to do so, there would be no Israel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cannot understand the self-pitying hypothetical speculation as to whether or not there would be an Israel if it unilaterally disarmed completely in some unrealistic future scenario, when at the very moment you indulge in such chakiras , there is no Palestine and there is literal military occupation instead!

      As to the wider Arab world, since 1948 Israel has concluded peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, UAE.

      Delete
    2. These arguments are trite. The 'charter' (Hamas) does not represent all Palestinians. Despite your statements, the IL government (whether right wing or the current centre-right government) holds extensive security, fiscal, cultural and other economic ties with the PA. If it wasn't for the approval and security arrangements of the PA, 'pilgrims' would not be able to travel to Nablus to worship at the Kever there, for example. The world is not binary. The conflict is not binary. Alongside the atrocities committed by both sides, the young state liquidated dozens of Palestinian villages. They did remove the populations from Lydda, Ramle, Haifa, Tiberias etc. and replaced them. These are the facts. This is tacheles. It is frankly ridiculous to expect 'peace' without even acknowledging these things happened (which is the position of the State), namely that people and villages that existed for centuries were erased and their peoples either fled or were expelled.

      Delete
    3. The naqba commorates the Arab crime trying to commit genocide against the Jews.

      Delete
    4. There is no Palestine and there is literal military occupation instead for very good reason. To stop the jihadis trying to wipe out the Jews.

      Delete
    5. The exact same existential rhetoric could be used by the Palestinians, but with more basis in actual empirical reality rather than fervid imaginings.

      I cannot accept that after so many decades the current situation is the only possible and most humane one. At a very basic level, by way of example, there is no security interest in extremists destroying olive groves.

      Delete
    6. You cannot accept that after so many decades the current situation is the only possible and most humane one. Dreamers like you brought on the oslo catastrophe enabling the murder of thousands of Israeli jews.

      Not surprising the left is dead in Israel

      Gershon.

      Delete
    7. Correct there is no security interest in extremists destroying olive groves. But there is a massive security interest in keeping the occupation. Stop the obfuscations as saying one negates the other.

      Gershon

      Delete
    8. Actually, there is one reason that occupation continues - the Palestinians - represented by their political leadership - said no to the alternative.

      The Hat and Meir Moses - it remains true that Palestinians on the east side of the 1948 armistice line still talk about 1948 boarders - i.e. no Israel - and removal of "European" colonist.

      Delete
    9. If the occupation is for security purposes why are some of the security personnel little babies like Shalhevet Pass?

      Millions of civilians live in the occupied West Bank. The occupation is and was a land grab.

      Delete
    10. the occupation is there for 2 purposes because of its historical claim to the land and security purposes. Next amazing question?

      Gershon

      Delete
    11. If you feel so connected to the land why don't the people who were born and live in that land get to vote unless they're Jewish?

      If you're so concerned about the existential that that Israel faces why would you waste military resources on defending civilians in isolated locations?

      Delete
    12. It obviously isn't for the Palestinians to force Israel to occupy territory. Arguments about what they do or do not accept agree irrelevant.

      Delete
    13. You say "If you feel so connected to the land why don't the people who were born and live in that land get to vote unless they're Jewish?"

      (1)Your question is a non sequitor
      (2)It is false as millions of arab citizens have voting rights in Israel.

      Delete
    14. " if you're so concerned about the existential that that Israel faces why would you waste military resources on defending civilians in isolated locations?"

      Israel has the resources to do both and does not not discriminate and say some citizens are less worthy of being defended

      Gershon

      Delete
    15. "Millions of civilians live in the occupied West Bank."

      Indeed. and they have an important security function in holding the land and keeping it free of Palestinian terrorists invasion

      Gershon

      Delete
    16. "if you're so concerned about the existential that that Israel faces why would you waste military resources on defending civilians in isolated locations?"

      There will always be an edge to Israeli settlement and the people near it needing protection. Either the army protects Jews in Yehudah veShomron, or Jerusalem and other cities are less safe.

      Delete
    17. The purported security purpose conflicts in part with the other purpose of grabbing the land, which is in fact the actual reason for the occupation.

      Here is the reality. Israel is not scared. If they were existentially scared of an Iranian nuclear weapon they would not alienate the entire Sunni world with the military occupation. The occupation is despite and antithetical to Israel's most existential security needs.

      The reason you are supposed not to say that the land grab is a land grab is because Israeli courts have ruled that customary international law prohibiting such obscenities is binding in Israeli law. The fig leaf for the military occupation (CF Elon Moreh case: https://www.btselem.org/settlements/seizure_of_land_for_military_purposes) was always that it was required for Israeli security: a contention belied by the numerous and egregious way the Occupation undermined the security and rights of Shalhevet Pass.

      Delete
    18. "There will always be an edge to Israeli settlement and the people near it needing protection. Either the army protects Jews in Yehudah veShomron, or Jerusalem and other cities are less safe."

      1) Isolated settlements greatly increase the perimeter which needs defending. The occupation is an inefficient use of security forces.

      2) Why are children wondering around insecure edges? The adult soldiers in Chevron wear helmets and level 2 body armour. The children get nothing. Children shouldn't be living in Chevron, interspersed as it is with active military positions.

      3) Nobody has factored in the way that the politician oppression of Palestinians creates the political conditions for terrorism. It is never reasonable nor moral to respond to the military occupation by killing Israeli civilians, but it is an established pattern throughout history. Not every terrorist motivation is rational but some of them certainly are.

      Delete
    19. "If you feel so connected to the land why don't the people who were born and live in that land get to vote unless they're Jewish?"

      (1)Your question is a non sequitor

      Fair point. I missed out the step of "declare sovereignty over it". Then everything sequiturs.

      (2)It is false as millions of arab citizens have voting rights in Israel.

      Millions of Arabs in the West Bank, ruled as they are by the Israeli military governed, do not. Millions of Jews do. I agree that in Israel proper there is no apartheid. In the West Bank where your right to vote for the government holding the monopoly on the use of force is determined on racial grounds, there is.

      Delete
    20. usa military experts determined that israel will need to retain large portions of the west bank to defend itself against attacks. Not for nothing did leftist eban label the '67 borders the auschwitz borders.

      Delete
    21. " If they were existentially scared of an Iranian nuclear weapon they would not alienate the entire Sunni world
      "
      A revealing sentence.

      Your obsession with the settlements causes you to deny the reality that the vast majority of Jewish Israelis fear the Iranian Mad Mullas having the bomb.

      Delete
    22. The Iranian bomb is another argument for the settlements. If Iran nuked Israel killing all the Jews you would get the mother of all celebrations in Arab World, celeberating the demise of the hated Jewish state. Jews mixed with Arabs in the settlements means a bomb over the green line means most of the casualties will be Arab. That would given even mad Iran pause for thought

      Gershon

      Delete
    23. Calling the borders Israel successfully defended in multiple full scale wars 'Holocaust borders' is so obviously inappropriate, inaccurate, and disrespectful that only deluded Jerusalem syndrome sufferers could ever use such a patently wrong, self-pitying, formulation which instrumentalises the Holocaust.

      If we consider which side is closer to having its own Holocaust, there is no Palestine right now. They do has a military occupation and existential security concerns. Israel has a luxurious land grab because it doesn't really believe it needs defensible borders or defensible morality.

      If you find my Holocaust reference offensive, have a talk with yourself about your own choice of language.

      Delete
    24. Which USA experts thought that the settlement in Chevron (3 security forces per Jewish civilian) was good for Israeli security? It's nuts!

      There are plenty of contiguous areas of Jewish settlements with a radius of 5km or more in both the West Bank and in Israel's sovereign territory which could be attacked by nuclear weapons. The truth these post-hoc rationalisations reveal is that Israelis just don't feel existentially threatened like Palestinians objectively are.

      Delete
    25. "Millions of Arabs in the West Bank, ruled as they are by the Israeli military governed, do not. Millions of Jews do. "

      Palestinians do not want to become citizens of Israel. they hate the country and want it destroyed.

      It is wrong to force citizenship on those who do not want it.

      Gershon

      Delete

    26. Did you really not know not know that Us military expert General Earl Wheeler said Israel would need considerable sections of the West bank to be defensible. ?

      Gershon


      Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara asked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), General Earl Wheeler, what was the “minimum territory” that Israel “might be justified in retaining in order to permit a more effective defense.”

      Wheeler responded with a memorandum on June 29, 1967, which concluded: “From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders.” Specifically, regarding the West Bank, the JCS suggested “a boundary along the commanding terrain overlooking the Jordan River,” and considered taking this defense line up to the crest of the mountain ridge.5


      https://jcpa.org/requirements-for-defensible-borders/us_israels_struggle_against_1967_lines/

      Delete



    27. Only deluded leftists think Holocaust borders' is so obviously inappropriate, inaccurate

      https://www.jns.org/opinion/what-exactly-are-auschwitz-borders/


      Obviously, the Arab armies in 1967 would have killed every Jew they could. That’s why Eban called their approaching attack “the approaching stage of genocide.” Not literally Auschwitz; not gas chambers and crematoria. But, once again, enormous numbers of dead Jews.

      Eban’s position was neither “grotesque” nor “a sign of deep collective failure,” as Magid puts it. It was a realistic assessment of the dangers that Israel faced when it was just nine miles wide.

      Delete
    28. Above all else, Eban was empirically wrong. The Arab armies didn't manage to break through into major conurbations when they tried. It's not a hypothesis but a demonstrated fact. To be still whittering on about a Holocaust in the current circumstances when the Palestinians have been repressed as a serious threat for 70 years just seems pathologically out of touch with reality. It is like me complaining of Holocaust borders if I cannot fit my car in a parking space and genuinely meaning it.. as an onlooker I genuinely feel sorry for you as you obviously live with incredible self generated neuroses. What would feel like a Holocaust would be if Israelis had to live under Arab hegemony, the way Palestinians live under Israeli hegemony.

      Time does catch up with you, and the occupation has been going on for a long time, but citing a 50 year quote from a US general at a time when swift tank thrusts were feasible and the occupation was entirely military is weak. No US general is going to tell you that the security costs of the civilian apartheid in Chevron are anything other than extravagantly misplaced.

      The quote cannot explain why millions of civilian Jews moved into the West Bank. Gershon spoke the truth when he admitted the occupation is a land grab.

      Delete
    29. Gershon never said it was a land grab. ie theft. He said that there was a historical claim to the land as well a security need.

      You conveniently miss out the second part. The security need.



      Delete
    30. You say The Arab armies didn't manage to break through into major conurbations when they tried.

      Which war are you referring to ?

      Delete
    31. Arabs outnumber Jews 50 to 1 . Once the arabs build up their armies to former levels swift tank thrusts will again become feasible and Israel's hold on the west bank will become essential.
      It is easy for you to be complacent about other people's lives as it does not affect you. Try some empathy for your Jewish compatriots rather than apathy.

      Gershon

      Delete
    32. "What would feel like a Holocaust would be if Israelis had to live under Arab hegemony, the way Palestinians live under Israeli hegemony."
      ...
      Calling living undersome else's hegemony a holocaust, is trivialising the holocaust

      https://holocaustlearning.org.uk/latest/holocaust-trivialisation/


      Delete
    33. Just a comment on Mr. Hat's earlier posting: the West Bank is not a "land grab." It was a legitimate acquisition during a war started by the other side. It was not obtained in a war of conquest.

      Delete
    34. good point. There is international precedent for victims of aggression to keep the land they won from aggressors

      Delete
    35. This is our land? Then declare sovereignty and apply Israeli law!

      Oh, not so keen on a million extra Arab voters? Then give it back!

      Israeli courts have long held that the only justification for the occupation is the to supposed security justification, which we all know is nonsense.

      Delete
    36. Who was it who said "If you find my Holocaust reference offensive, have a talk with yourself about your own choice of language."

      Oh, it was me.

      Don't start with the Holocaust sensitivity only when it suits your side. Here's the real truth - you never cared about the Holocaust when you use the term "Holocaust borders" . It is legitimate to point out without drawing a direct moral analogy, that Israel is objectively aggressors to Palestinians , as were the Nazis to the Jews, to people who feel free to use such senseless language.

      Delete
    37. "You say The Arab armies didn't manage to break through into major conurbations when they tried.

      Which war are you referring to ?"

      Pick any. Independence, Suez, 6 Day, Yom Kippur, Grapes of Wrath, Lebanon 2006, the various Gazan wars, the proxy war with Iran.

      Degania Bet and indeed the old city weren't major conurbations. Both had a few hundred Jewish residents.

      Delete
    38. "Arabs outnumber Jews 50 to 1 ."

      Palestinians don't But why are you alienating the entire Sunni world needlessly with kids running around throwing stones and burning cars? You aren't really scared of Egypt and Jordan breaking their piece treaties; you aren't seriously threatened by Syria and Lebanon. That's why these blatant displays of racism are allowed to go on.

      "Once the arabs build up their armies to former levels swift tank thrusts will again become feasible"

      Swift tank thrusts will never again be feasible. The ATGM has been invented. How did the swift tank thrusts go down in Lebanon in 2006? Kiev 2022?

      "and Israel's hold on the west bank will become essential."

      Let's say you're right: Why are children in settlements? I've already expressed my disgust at adults who use children as human shields when the adults are wearing body armour and helmets in Chevron. Get children out of security positions!

      "It is easy for you to be complacent about other people's lives as it does not affect you. Try some empathy for your Jewish compatriots rather than apathy."

      There is no protektzia culture in chutz l'aretz. There is no racial favouritism. We see clearly who is the aggressor and who is the victim, and the empathy is primarily for the victims, which are the Palestinians. I don't believe you are scared like they are scared, that you are oppressed like they are, that your wives are asked to perform sexual favours to a Palestinian officer so that you can get a permit to work in the West Bank like a COGAT major did repeatedly to Arab women. (https://www.timesofisrael.com/ending-censorship-idf-admits-officer-jailed-in-2017-raped-a-palestinian-woman/)

      You should, however, definitely try out the empathy.

      Delete
    39. "why are you alienating the entire Sunni world needlessly with kids running around throwing stones and burning cars? "

      A small minority to respond to arab terror with non lethal violence. I of course condemn this. But if there would be no Arab terror this would not happen.

      Arabs outnumber Jews 50 to 1 and Israel is at risk from the Arab world and plans accordingly. It is not unknown for treatries to be abrogated. Look what happens in uk with Ireland.

      The Palestinians are no victims. They voted for the Nazi Hamas movement in last election and their leader plotted with Hitler to extend the holocaust To the Jews in middle east which they refuse to apologise ot condemn.

      Corbyn has been voted out of power and we have the friendly Johnson.

      The ATGM has been invented and its antidote has also been invented.

      One major commited a crime. As if this never happens in western democracies.

      Have you not heard of Abu Ghraib?

      https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/uk-war-crimes-in-iraq-the-icc-prosecutors-report/

      Gershon









      Delete
    40. Reb Gershon,

      There is no civilian law in the West Bank against throwing stones at Arabs. There is only the local military commander's whim. Many of the local military commander's agree with the stone throwers and do nothing to help. That's how stone throwing and racism is official state policy. If you lie and pretend you don't know if that's true or not, the B'tselem. Videos showing the abuses, and the military officers saying they don't care, will be provided. It's not just one major if you keep minimising I'll keep giving more examples.

      A senior brigade commander was filmed shooting in the back and killing a 12 year old boy outside Qalandiya. This was about ten seconds after the boy heaved a lump of concrete at the jeep window, smashing it. Now, yes, the officer would have been justified shooting to protect himself from deadly force before the concrete was thrown. But afterwards was pure vengeance, and evidently under military law Palestinian lives are cheaper than jeep windshields, because the commander was promoted, not imprisoned.

      https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/07/20/israel-effectively-investigate-boys-killing-colonel
      -

      Palestinians vote for Hamas,but Israelis consistently voted for the actual military occupation. As explained up in the top of the thread, you can't get all emotional about "maybe one day Israel will unilaterally disarmed and the Arabs will tomorrow occupy us like we occupy then today". The military occupation is creating misery today, and Hamas' charter is in word and not in deed. They aren't remotely comparable. Of course not all Palestinians views for Hamas, and many of those who did are being persecuted by Israel, do maybe if there occupation ended even less would vote for the equivalent of the Kahanists.

      Delete
  18. People like Ben-Gurion and Ben-Tzvi always had a bit of a soft spot for the Palestinians because, as they put it, they are the ones who, faced with the choice of Judaism or Israel, chose Israel, while our ancestors chose Judaism.

    Of course, that did not keep such early Zionists from having an entirely hard-headed notion of how to deal with the Palestinians *today*.

    ReplyDelete
  19. According to the Wiki article, Palestinians nor Jews are not indigenous - the Canaanites are indigenous! By this logic, the Palestinians have to go. Of course some secular scholars argue that Jews are really Canaanites (a nonbiblical perspective). According to them Jews are indigenous, and, if your going to call it Palestine (to use the Roman term) then Jews are Palestinian!

    The Arab invaders are the 7th century colonialist!

    ReplyDelete
  20. As a matter of empirical fact, Jews and Palestinians are strongly genetically linked.

    It is important to Jews' and Palestinians' group mythos that they are the children of the land. That claim is, like most sociological / religious / cultural claims and myths, not a literal claim which can be the subject of empirical enquiry, but a form of group identity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ashkenazi and Sefardi Jews are genetically linked to the Palestinians. Mizrahi Jews (esp. Persian, Iraqi, etc.) not so much.

      Delete
    2. Yes. It is a Thing that has been put forth that Palestinians are actually descendants of Jews. But this - while it seems cool and interesting - opens additional cans of worms.

      About the Palestinian as an Arab group, they may be "Children of the Land," but they are not Children of the Land of Palestine since they were not called "of Palestine" until the PLO charter was drawn up. Before that, they were of "Greater Syria." There never was a concept of a "Palestinian People" prior to Arafat's invention of it.

      Delete
    3. If several million people think that they are part of the Palestinian nation, that has profound political consequences. The mythos of a people is not something that can be subjected to any literal empirical enquiry. Hence Germany, a state "invented" by Bismarck; Italy, "invented" by Mazzini; Greece; etc, etc.

      As it happens the first historical mention of "Palestine" appears in the historical record in the 5th century BC historian Herodotus (as a district of Syria). (The first mention of Israel appears to be the Merneptah Steele some 700 years prior).

      Delete
  21. Archeology shows Jewish presence and dominance
    from before the first Bait Hamikdash. The world is telling
    Jews we dont belong in all of
    Eretz Yisrael! This is a
    bad joke!


    bad joke


    ReplyDelete
  22. I think many Israelis suffer in forming their cognitive understanding of society from living in such an intensely anxious, sectarian media, political and security environment. You live in a mad chulent pot, are kept in a state of permanent outraged anxiety by the poor understanding about your history, the military censor and the huge Hebrew language Dover tzahal team. It all prevents objective reality seeping in. You suffer from a divisive voting system. Nobody calls me a traitor in shul for voting for the wrong guy at the mayoral election: we know how to chill.

    You should come to London to see Jews and Moslems, and indeed different types of Jews, getting on together in professional workplaces with mutual respect. I have many Moslem clients who choose to engage me professionally and they don't even consider that I am Jewish in making that decision. We don't mention the war: we keep it chill.

    My charedi business contacts don't care if I put in tefilin on Chol Hamoed and vice versa. Making a faux pas in either regard in Israel produces red faced yelling from anxious people scared for the future of their very way of life: people in Chu"l know how to chill.

    Another way forward is possible. Israel will always be mad, but as a small step forward don't start a fist fight over whether the window in shul is open or shut. Practice the noble art of chill.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Nobody calls me a traitor in shul for voting for the wrong guy at the mayoral election: we know how to chill."

    Your decision on who you vote for in sleepy England will not potentially lead to thousands of innocent deaths.

    So not much to brag about.

    "You should come to London to see Jews and Moslems, and indeed different types of Jews, getting on together in professional workplaces with mutual respect. "

    Maybe address your inviation to Palestinians so that they understand that the Hamas charter which calls for the genocide of Jews is evil and it was a wicked decsion that they made to vote in Hamas knowing they will be facilitating genocide.

    Gershon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reb Gershon, you've been fed a toxic diet of KoolAid, tosh, cabbage, and nonsense. Whether you vote for Lapid, or Netanyahu, or for Balad for that matter, the only people who will be woken up at night by foreign soldiers bursting into their house to take pictures of their children will be Arabs. Sweet dreams.

      Delete
    2. So tell me one false fact that I have posted

      Gershon

      Delete
    3. That voting for the wrong person in Israel could lead to thousands of deaths, in this specific context.

      The IDF is not going to disband itself. It's not a matter of active political controversy.

      Delete
  24. Reb Hat,

    The Hamas charter is available for all to see and it calls for genocide. Digging your head in the sand will not make it magically disappear

    Foreign soldiers bursting into Arab houses at night is essential to saving lives by arresting terrorists.


    Gershon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reb Gershon,

      For starters, it is obvious that the Palestinians are the ones under military occupation, not the Jews. The Hamas charter is an objectionable document, but the military occupation is unimaginably more real.

      Secondly, the 8 year old boys who are being photographed at night are not members of Hamas. The reason these raids are carried out, according to the people who carry out the raids and spoke to breaking the silence, is to simulate what actual soldiers do to bored and under stimulated zone of occupation troops.

      in fact the IDF has implicitly accepted they are not necessary for security reasons and promised to cut back as well https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-to-significantly-limit-controversial-west-bank-home-mapping-operations/

      Delete
    2. "The Hamas charter is an objectionable document, but the military occupation is unimaginably more real."
      ...
      The hamas document obligates hamas to do everything possible to destroy Israel and has real world consequences
      Constant rockets and terror attacks.

      'breaking the silence' have been caught out on lies before, so they are not a credible organisation.

      The IDF has not implicitly accepted they are not necessary for security reasons. The Idf being an ethical army is constantly recalibrating the balance between its security needs and human rights of Palestinians. Notwithstanding that the haters will uses it's humanity to lie and claim there was never a security need in the first place

      The Idf is by far the most humane army in the middle east.


      Delete
    3. Here's the thing. The Hamas charter will never be more brutal than the physical occupation. It's a chaspa b'alma (a scrap of paper). But the occupation is objectively real and happening.

      -

      I've already explained to you that the smartphone has been invented, and the only people you will fool by lying about the brutality of the occupation is yourself.
      It's an absolute disgrace that you send your children to an unwinnable war against Palestine while you sit in comfort and you won't even have the basic respect to listen to combat veterans talk honestly about what really happens when they risk their lives for you. It's so ungrateful.

      Here are some videos of the most moral army in the middle East being such a light unto the nations:

      Most humane army in the middle East

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HCCXWjcZBrc

      Most humane army in the middle East

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rRyY89RaTkg

      Most humane army in the middle East

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9N_8gd5YixA

      -


      You can't watch them can you?

      -


      On what basis do you conclude that the IDF are the most humane army in the middle East? Number of civilians shot? Rules of engagement that allow soldiers to shoot unarmed fleeing 12 year old kids in the back? Genuine question.

      Delete
    4. British miltary expert said the IDF, does more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare

      Gershon
      https://assets.ctfassets.net/qnesrjodfi80/3Eo3mGQdYAYwu22W2wEQus/37d06bde6b68f0d90457cddd35eb90b1/kemp-israel_the_worlds_most_moral_army-transcript.pdf

      Delete
    5. It is callous to refer to the thousands of rockets that Hamas target Israel with in an attempt to fulfil its charter as chaspa b'alma

      Gershon

      Delete
    6. When you say combat veterans talking honestly, are you referring to the organisation breaking the silence which tells falsehoods

      https://www.camera.org/article/breaking-the-silence-gets-failing-grade-in-channel-10-s-fact-check/

      Under rigorous scrutiny, a large percentage of the group’s accounts which Channel 10 reviewed proved to be either false or exaggerated.

      Delete
    7. "combat veterans talk honestly about what really happens when they risk their lives for you. It's so ungrateful."

      Why is it ungrateful to believe the majority combat veterans who say the tiny minority combat veterans of breaking the silence tells lies.

      Delete
    8. CAMERA aren't combat veterans, they are keyboard warriors, and I choose to believe widespread video evidence and personal evidence of abuse because I refuse to make myself stupid.

      I have taken the time to speak to combat veterans. A UK born veteran who returned from service in the IDF to work in healthcare and who used to operate the Negev light machine gun as a lone soldier and identified strongly as being on the political right, even as an anti-Arab Kahanist, told me that in his opinion the settlers of Chevron go too far, make their life harder, and "behave like animals." He dreaded Parshas Chayei Soroh in Chevron because of the constant violence and provocations. Another, who served as squad designated marksman, now working in property in Manchester, told me that his commander would get them to raid Palestinian property just to practice breaching drills, and that he once made a Palestinian teenager stand in the sun blindfolded for hours at a checkpoint because he was bored . Both served in Netzach Yehuda which is now infamous for war crimes even under Israeli law.

      These are not shrinking violets. They are strongly pro-Zionist who traveled overseas to serve in the IDF. Take the time to break the silence with people who have served around Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and ask them what they saw and did. Many of them are suffering from the moral trauma.

      -

      You complain about Palestinian rockets. It's a reasonable complaint, and far more convincing than complaining about Charters. The Occupation clearly did nothing to prevent such rockets: in fact they provide the political context in which terrorism thrives.

      Delete
    9. The occupation has vastly reduced the rockets. Compare The rockets coming from Gaza where there is not one settler than from west bank where there are hundreds of thousands

      May times more rockets coming from gaza. All thanks to the stupid lack of occupation

      The political context in which terrorism thrives is Israel's existence. Arab terror long predates the occupation.

      Delete
    10. so you believe Avner Gvaryahu tells the truth?

      Delete
    11. If I recall and I cannot even be bothered Googling it, he recounts that he and his platoon committed war crimes (abuse of a prisoner if memory serves) and his alleged co-perpetrators have gone on record to deny it. I have to say having spoken to eyewitnesses and watched videos of soldiers behaving in the manner Gvaryahu described I find his testimony compelling. In particular I can see why the alleged co-perpetrators would deny it rather more clearly than why he would make it up.

      The man is clearly upset at what he had done and been through, and it behoves you to listen to him even if you don't like what he says.

      I certainly think it is worth you having non-judgemental, open ended conversations with combat veterans to see what their memory of the occupation is.

      Delete
    12. How do little children running around in Chevron stop rockets? Can we agree that many aspects of the occupation serve no security function?

      Delete
    13. Jewish control of chevron stops the terrorists taking over.

      Delete
    14. His motivation to make it up would be to try and get Israel ro withdraw from the territories. Any lie that serves this purpose is good enough for him

      Delete
    15. "Can we agree that many aspects of the occupation serve no security function?"

      It does serve a security function in the broadest sense. There are many in the international community who want Israel to withdraw to the '67 borders and remain indefensible. The us government has not always acted in good faith here. It commissioned report about Israel's defensible borders and then tried to hide it as it was not politically convenient

      If there were no settlements it would invite pressure from the international community to endanger itself by withdrawing as it can be done rather easily as there are no civilian homes to abandon.

      Israel's policy has proved itself when Bush gave a letter recognising that the big settlements were here to stay.





      Delete
    16. Jewish control of Chevron stops which terrorists taking over what? As far as I can see violent terroristic thugs do control Chevron.

      -


      Building settlements in occupied territory is itself widely reviled. You don't care about that - why would you care about revulsion to army bases?

      -

      I think my expansion of why his platoon mates were lying is far more parsimonious than your explanation of why Gvaryahu faked a story that he was a war criminal. Have you never spoken to a combat veteran and asked them if they ever hit prisoners or behaved tyrannically at checkpoints? Have the conversation.

      Delete
  25. question to the hat
    do you support Von Burgsdorff’s libelous rant?

    https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-709669

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a rather loaded question!

      -

      I'm always rather careful with apologetics for terror.

      I understand why the systemic and political circumstances of oppression in the West Bank (or, for example, the IRA in 1916, or the Jews in mandatory Palestine, or Greece under the Turks or similar) are correlated with an increase in terrorism.

      Importantly, that doesn't mean it's moral. Adam mu'od l'olam and there is no excuse for attacking civillians.

      Without drawing a strict moral parallel, I can understand the cognitive, systemic and sociological factors which make an IDF soldier seek to behave incorrectly towards Palestinian civillians: boredom, jingoism, inadequate supervision, inadequate discipline, lack of purpose. A lot of those systemic issues belong right up the chain of command and ultimately are the making of politicians. But again, there can be no excusing that.

      So insofar as Von Burgsdorff was saying Israelis bear the moral blame for Palestinian acts of terrorism, I don't agree. Two wrongs don't make a right etc.

      -

      The rest of his speech seems spot on. The fact is that Palestinian blood is very cheap to Israelis, and the statement by Mr Marcus that "virtually every Palestinian who has been killed since 2008 is either a terrorist or was killed while Israel was fighting terror" is at least misleading if not outright wrong depending on how broad a definition of "while Israel was fighting terror" is used. Conceivably that could include every moment of the last 40 years.

      Delete
    2. one of your better anwers, but

      "virtually every Palestinian who has been killed since 2008 is either a terrorist or was killed while Israel was fighting terror"

      If you define fighting terror as Israelis being under attack
      either rockets, mortars, or rocks. I believe it it is true.

      Since 2008 only a handful of palestinans have been murdered by a seving Israeli soldier in cold blood.


      Prove me wrong.

      Delete
    3. Depends how cold the blood is, but a young Palestinian man was stabbed to death just yesterday by Jewish settlers who were setting up tents in his parents' land.

      https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-stabbed-to-death-during-west-bank-brawl-with-settlers/

      Nobody has been arrested even though soldiers were present because under the Apartheid military Occupation Palestinian blood is so cheap.

      That was yesterday.

      Delete
  26. one person being murdered does not negate my statement that only a handful of palestinans have been murdered by a serving Israeli soldier in cold blood.

    Murder rate in occupied territories by Jews is no greater than european average murder rate.

    Prove me wrong if you can


    Prove me wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obviously I'm not going to prove you wrong to your own satisfaction, but what is your theory as to why a homicide happened in front of security forces and they didn't intervene or even make an arrest? Is it absolutely nothing to do with the race of the perpetrator and the victim?

      I think it's because the Occupation is Apartheid.

      I'm not going to Google homicide statistics for you. This isn't a service I provide either for free or for payment. I would however be interested in what you find.

      Delete
  27. correct. It is absolutely nothing to do with the race of the perpetrator and the victim. It is to do with the nationality. These sort of incidents rarely happen to arab citizens

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's say you are right. That means I am right. Palestinian blood is cheap. You say that's because they're Palestinians not because they are Arabs. Therefore? The family should be happy because the sikrikim (violent land thieves) who killed them were nationalists, not racists?

      Murder is murder. If you prefer it in Yeshivish, geneiva, shefichas damim and botei din are a universal expectation even for a Ben Noach.

      How can you not protest this outrageous act? How did we come to this that you can see such outrageous injustice and your soul doesn't revolt?

      55 years of Occupation. That's how. It rots the Jewish soul.

      Delete
    2. You are making things up I never said. My point was only your apartheid claim is nonsense. I condemn all murders

      Delete
    3. You have not given the slightest evidence that the murder rate by Jews of palestinians is any higher than the murder rate of an average European country. Do you like to defame Jews for the fun of it?

      Delete
    4. You claim 55 years of Occupation rots the Jewish soul.

      The occupation saves many Israeli lives and stops Israel's major population centre being bombarded by rockets as in gaza
      Do you prefer many Jewish casualties so that their soul should remain pristine?




      Delete
    5. I've stated and demonstrated that we Palestinian blood is cheap. Therefore there is Apartheid.

      You've admitted there is are two laws, one for Israelis, one for Palestinians. That's Apartheid, my friend.

      -

      I'm not going to Google homicide statistics for you. This isn't a service I provide either for free or for payment. I would however be interested in what you find.

      -

      Ein sofek motzri midei vaddai. *Maybe* the occupation saves Jewish lives. I don't think so, you do. It certainly costs Palestinian lives. Your sofek is overruled by their vaddai.

      -

      I think we've already established that thete are significant aspects of the occupation - the children in particular - which serve no security purpose. You cannot excuse the entire huge settlement enterprise - an enterprise now with millions more people than back in the 1970s when a real security threat existed - because a few army bases are needed (you say) for security. How does fighting and stabbing Arab farmers on their farmland improve Israeli security? Despicable acts like these create an atmosphere of Eivah and endangers security.

      Delete
    6. "You've admitted there is are two laws, one for Israelis, one for Palestinians. That's Apartheid, my friend."

      All countries have different laws for nationals and non nationals. If Israel is Apartheid, so is every one else

      "I'm not going to Google homicide statistics for you. " so you do not have any evidence that Jewish muder rate is any higher than european, yet you sling mud. Why?

      . *Maybe* the occupation saves Jewish lives. I don't think so, you do. It certainly costs Palestinian lives.

      (1)what you think does not count. It what Israelis think that counts and 90% support the occupation to save lives.
      (2)It also saves palestinian lives as when the conflct flares up, more palestinians die.



      "How does fighting and stabbing Arab farmers on their farmland improve Israeli security?"

      strawman argument

      "I think we've already established that thete are significant aspects of the occupation - the children in particular -"

      A strong civilian presence relieves the burden of the Idf besides ensuring its long term viability.

      It is unrealistic to expect them not to have children.






      Delete
    7. 90 percent of Israelis are fed up of the Jewish extremists settlers. They're only tolerated because the electoral system promotes the power of kitzonim.

      -

      Also, come whining about how Jews in chutz l'aretz don't support Israel if you aren't prepared to listen to logical, factual criticism. The facts about the occupation don't really care about your feelings.

      -

      Why do you think Jewish sofeik blood (maybe they'll fire rockets) is any redder than Palestinian vaddai blood? The only reason they fire rockets is because of the alimut, the kibush, the lachatz, the gizzanut, the shefichat damim, the absence of justice and kavod habriyot - basic human dignity. You never react compassionately to their distress. In fact without saying that shooting at civilians is moral the only thing you Occupation apologists seen to listen to is rockets. It's your chosen mode of communication.

      Delete
    8. "90 percent of Israelis are fed up of the Jewish extremists settlers." only a small minority of the settlers are extreme

      "The facts about the occupation don't really care about your feelings."

      Agreed. The facts about the occupation saving many lives don't really care about your feelings

      "The only reason they fire rockets is because of the alimut, the kibush, the lachatz, the gizzanut, the shefichat "

      You must live in a fantasy world. They fire rockets to destroy Israel. read their constitution.

      "You never react compassionately to their distress. " (1)as if the english ever showed compassion to germany's distress in the war

      (2)They are distressed becuse they have not managed to destroy Israel.

      Such distress deserves no compassion.



      Btw are you otd?

      Delete
    9. "Also, come whining about how Jews in chutz l'aretz don't support Israel if you aren't prepared to listen to logical, factual criticism."

      Also, come whining about how Jews in Israel do not listen to leftists in chutz l'aretz advising them to withdraw to the auchwitz lines if you are not prepared to move to Israel and risk you own life rather than other peoples

      Delete
    10. "Why do you think Jewish sofeik blood (maybe they'll fire rockets) is any redder than Palestinian vaddai blood?"

      (1) it is not a sofeik. They have promised to kill Israelis in their constitution.
      (2) All countries in the world prioritize the lives of their citizens to the lives of foreigners.
      (3) There is no Palestinian vaddai blood with the occupation as It is nearly always the terrorists that get targeted.
      If the terrorists do not want to get killed, they should not try to kill Israelis.


      Delete
    11. "The only reason they fire rockets is because of the "alimut, the kibush, the lachatz, the gizzanut, the shefichat damim, the absence of justice and kavod habriyot - basic human dignity."

      This is typical of leftist haters. When a Jew (rarely) murders a palestinian it is because of the racist idea that
      Palestinian's blood is cheap.

      When a Palestinan murders a Jew he is protesting against injustice.

      Truly Orwellian

      Delete
  28. "All countries have different laws for nationals and non nationals. If Israel is Apartheid, so is every one else."

    We are taking here about a murderer.

    You are of course completely wrong. Completely bonkers. Do you think we practice the old sport of stabbing Frenchmen here in London with legal impunity? Do you think Germans are free to despatch Bulgarians? Where did it all go so wrong?

    Secondly, nobody is disputing that the Palestinians are being killed in their own land.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Palestinians are being killed in their own land."

      since when did it become legally their own land and who transferred it to them.? Do you know what the Bible says about who owned it?

      Delete
  29. "We are taking here about a murderer."

    You said before
    "You've admitted there is are two laws, one for Israelis, one for Palestinians. That's Apartheid, my friend."

    I replied
    "All countries have different laws for nationals and non nationals. If Israel is Apartheid, so is every one else."

    So you introduce a irrelevancy "We are taking here about a murderer."

    Try to remember the thread


    "Secondly, nobody is disputing that the Palestinians are being killed in their own land."

    Nobody is disputing that all countries have nationals that are killed in their own land.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A young man was stabbed. You said that was a-ok because he was a Palestinian, and it is normal for countries to have different rules for foreigners.

      If none of this makes sense, you are right.

      Delete
    2. I said no such thing.

      Delete

  30. An inconvenient fact for leftist Israel haters.A large majority of innocent Arabs murdered in Israel were commited by Arabs.


    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2022-06-16/ty-article/7-arabs-killed-after-police-boast-of-drop-in-crime/00000181-68fa-d36b-a5d5-6ffeb6900000

    In nine days, seven people were murdered in Arab communities, along with the suspected murder of Sapir Nahu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's your point? That a country which provides no rule of law, no police and no public investment to Arab communities ends up with a high homicide rate in those communities? And you are proud of that racism?

      Delete
    2. "That a country which provides no rule of law, no police and no public investment to Arab communities "

      Source for your lies?

      Delete
  31. "Do you think we practice the old sport of stabbing Frenchmen here in London with legal impunity"

    No such sport in Israel either regarding Palestinians. The reverse is the case.

    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-stabbing-intifada

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, so it's legal for Palestinians to kill Israelis, the police won't intervene, and the perpetrator won't be arrested. No, that's wrong isn't it.

      Delete
    2. No such sport in Israel either regarding Palestinians. The reverse is the case. It is legal under Palestinian law to murder Israelis

      Delete
  32. You sit there, spitting out interminable volumes of disjointed claptrap by way of poor substitute to rational argument.

    By any objective standards, Israel is the aggressor in the occupation. There clearly would be no abuse which would be so outrageous you would say it did not serve a security purpose.

    You, who dared call for my empathy, have acknowledged you feel none. You say this is normal. I'm not interested in your largely inaccurate whatabboutery, your wild piffle, your scepticism that a moral war is possible, except to say not to judge others by your own low standards.

    You have no call on Jewish solidarity. It behoves all Jews to speak up against murder, theft, rape and lawlessness because we were also under occupation once in the land of Egypt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You have no call on Jewish solidarity. It behoves all Jews to speak up against murder, theft, rape and lawlessness because we were also under occupation once in the land of Egypt."

      The murder, theft, rape and lawlessness is nearly entirely one way from Palestine to Israel

      "By any objective standards, Israel is the aggressor in the occupation."

      The occupation was done for self defence and is legal. Israel begged Jordan not to attack it. It refused and paid the price.




      Delete
    2. "You sit there, spitting out interminable volumes of disjointed claptrap by way of poor substitute to rational argument."

      Projection as it is you that is guilty of this

      "There clearly would be no abuse which would be so outrageous you would say it did not serve a security purpose. " Nonsense I do not support abuse as it is not needed for security.

      Delete
    3. " I'm not interested in your largely inaccurate whatabboutery, your wild piffle"

      Pointing at other incidents to highlight obsession and racism is not whataboutery – it is the very basis of almost *every* argument about racism. Anti-Jewish hatred and all forms of racism carry discrimination in their veins.

      Why is the black child the only child being picked on? Pointing at other rowdy, misbehaving children that remain unpunished is not whataboutery. In fact the accusation of ‘whataboutery’ is often the last, desperate defence of the racist. They use it because there is no reason – no explanation – beyond the racism itself – for their actions – and they have simply no other defence.

      https://david-collier.com/shireen/

      Delete
  33. May I ask if you are Otd?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I suspect that the reason why you have so much empathy for our Palestinian enemies who wish to destroy us and so little empathy for their Jewish victims is because you went Otd. Am I right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I said, you basically are demanding racial protektzia with asymmetrical empathy, which I'm unwilling to provide.

      "what is hateful to you do not do unto others: the rest is commentary"

      I'm never going to prove this to your satisfaction, and I am a grievous sinner who has strayed greatly from the true path, but I daven in what would be regarded as a religious shul, I send my kids to a religious school. Inspired by Rabbi A Lichtenstein, the opponents of the occupation are coming to a minyan near you!

      Delete
    2. "the opponents of the occupation are coming to a minyan near you!"

      religious opponents of the occupation are tiny. Would not get one seat in knesset as most religious people are not suicidal.

      "As I said, you basically are demanding racial protektzia with asymmetrical empathy, which I'm unwilling to provide."

      No country in the world empathises with its enemies. certainly your country did not empathise with Germans.

      Delete
    3. "I am a grievous sinner who has strayed greatly from the true path,"


      So I assume that means your aquaintances classify you as otd.

      Any particular reason you decided to go Otd?

      Delete
    4. You assume wrongly.

      https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-127/education-bombing-germany-again/

      "וַֽאֲנִי֙ לֹ֣א אָח֔וּס עַל־נִינְוֵ֖ה הָעִ֣יר הַגְּדוֹלָ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר יֶשׁ־בָּ֡הּ הַרְבֵּה֩ מִֽשְׁתֵּים־עֶשְׂרֵ֨ה רִבּ֜וֹ אָדָ֗ם אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹֽא־יָדַע֙ בֵּין־יְמִינ֣וֹ לִשְׂמֹאל֔וֹ וּבְהֵמָ֖ה רַבָּֽה!”

      Delete
  35. Thanks for the link useful link. Imo nothwithstanding Arab propaganda Israel has a very good record in the protection of civilian lives at times of conflict compared to uk and certainly compared to the middle east

    (By all means point to this or that murder by Israelis and I will do the same)

    Agree or disagree?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pointless discussion. No objective measures of inhumanity and two wrongs don't make any rights.

      Delete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

Rabbinic Mythbusting

Here's a colorful comment that someone under the name of Leah wrote on my previous post regarding abortion: "Thank you "rabbi&...