The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Wattree's picture

    Israel Has Become A Serious Problem That We Need To Address

    By Wattree on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 6:54pm |

    Beneath the Spin*Eric L. Wattree

    Israel Has Become A Serious Problem That We Need To Address
     

    Here are the facts. The United States CREATED some of the most severe problems currently going on in the Middle East by interfering in that part of the world and expecting the people in the region to just sit back and casually accept the U.S.' racist view of reality. For example, the way that the State of Israel was created in 1948 set into motion a policy of Manifest Destiny 2, and then it was shoved down the throats of the indigenous people in the region.
    .
    As badly as the German people treated the Jews, why didn't they just break off a piece of Germany and give it to the Jewish people? I'll tell you why, because Germany is a White nation, so they felt that it was easier to simply go and TAKE a piece of land from "THOSE" non-White Arabs, and get the Jews out of our hair. As a direct result, we've had our hands full, and that rash decision has taken over our lives. We've paid out billions of dollars, made ourselves one of the most hated nations in the world among the Arab people, and young Americans have been senselessly dying in the region, and having their lives destroyed every since. 

    You can't just TAKE land from someone else and then tell them that God wanted you to have it. That pretext is not only blatantly ridiculous on its face, but insulting. Everybody knows what the facts are, and everyone knows how unjust it was, but no one wants to say it out loud because we've been indulging in a conspiracy of silence.  But we've got to address this issue, even though, at this point, we can't turn the clock back and get a do-over.  What's done is done. That was the mistake of another generation, and at this point there are two generations of Israelis who were born in Israel so they have every right to call it home. But it's past time to start having an honest discussion on this issue and thinking about ways to compensate the Arabs for the hit that they took. That would undoubtedly go a long way toward healing longstanding wounds. Trying to ignore injustice only allows it to fester and foster deep-seated hatred.  We're seeing that scenario playing out right here in the United Stats among our own people.
    .
    The Jerusalem Post quoted former Israeli Defense Force Commander-in-Chief Gabi Ashkenazi as saying,  U.S. taxpayers have contributed more to the Israeli defense budget than Israeli taxpayers in the past three years (http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Ashkenazi-Preserving-US-ties-a-securi...).  That fact is in dispute, but what's not in dispute is the United States is spending $3.15 billion per year from 2013-2018 - even as Netanyahu comes over here, thumbs his nose in our president's face, and conspires to undermine our nation's interest. Thus, instead of spending that money on military arms and foreign aid to Israel, we should start spending the money on helping to make a better life for the Arabs in the surrounding area in compensation for the injustice they've endured as a result of our atrocious foreign policy.  And we should also start holding Israel's feet to the fire regarding their behavior in the region. Perhaps then it wouldn't be so easy for radical militants to recruit American and Jew-hating terrorists. In short, we need to use that money and SAVE lives, instead of enriching war profiteers, and providing Israel with ever more weapons of mass destruction.

    The issues in the region could have been resolved long ago, but there are hard-liners, like Netanyahu, in Israel who don't want them resolved, because they want to use "security" as a pretext to continue their land-grab. But they, and we, are engaged in a global game of Israeli roulette, because everybody in the region hates the Israelis so intensely that they're prepared to die to strike a blow against Israel - and regardless to what we do, we're not going to be able to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle indefinitely.  Pakistan is already a nuclear power, so if Islamic extremists ever gain control of Pakistan, Israel is toast, because many of the people in the region feel so frustrated,  put upon, and filled with hatred toward Israel, they don't care whether they die or not. Martyrdom is a very significant part of their culture, so they'll consider it an honorable event to go out in a blaze of glory - and lets call a hat a hat, they feel that way with very good cause. Injustice will do that to you.
    .
    So the entire world needs to come together and FORCE Israel to get its act together and start acting like a good neighbor and a responsible member of the world community, instead of running around trying to sabotage peace agreements, because this is not just about Israel.  People like Netanyahu - with the help of other fanatics, on both sides, and the mindless greed of the war profiteers - are placing the entire world - your family, and my family - in jeopardy, and personally, I don't appreciate it.

    Thus, the United States, and the rest of the world, needs stop play footsie with Israel, and forge an agreement calling for EVERYONE to be treated with complete equity, and stop trying to always give Israel a leg up.  Let's send nuclear arms inspectors into BOTH countries and destroy Israel's nuclear arms arsenal as well (Yeah, they've got 'em, and everyone knows it). Thereafter,  a treaty should be signed guaranteeing the security of both nations. 
    .
    Netanyahu would undoubtedly be totally against such an agreement, but so what?  What makes Israel more deserving, or trustworthy, with nuclear arms than Iran?  So if Israel refuses to go along with the agreement, we should push for a global embargo against Israel just like we would Iran. They can't survive in the desert alone, but the world can't survive much longer with them acting like sugar deprived kids turned loose in an all-you-can-eat chocolate factory either.
    .
    Israel has been getting a pass by the world as a result of the atrocities committed against Jews during WWII, but enough is enough. The Netanyahu incident, and other information coming out regarding Israeli spying on the United States, and conspiring with irresponsible individuals within our own government to undermine United States interests, strongly suggest that it's time to rein Israel in, because we've created a monster. There's no such thing as an ally that you cannot trust.

    THAT'S THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY. THERE ARE HOMES, FAMILIES, 
    AND INNOCENT CHILDREN DOWN THERE - AND THERE'S 
    SHRAPNEL (BULLETS FROM BOMBS) 
    FLYING IN EVERY DIRECTION. 

    Eric L. Wattree
    ​Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    Hi Eric. Trouble posting?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 7:40pm

    Hey, Michael - I've had trouble linking to posts through recent comments. The post threads are broken, they just stop midway through. Additionally, while viewing those posts, the right side of the page is blank - no news links, new comments, etc.


    by barefooted on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 8:08pm

    I believe that I fixed this problem on Monday. Have you seen it this end?

    PS I don't think it's related to the posting problem.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 8:52pm

    Happened twice yesterday, but I just did a test and it worked. (Yea!)


    by barefooted on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 9:20pm

    Big time, Michael.

    I'll try again. 


    by Wattree on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 8:24pm

    Yeah I had some problems posting this week.

    But I had worse problems just getting to Salon or Huffpo or whatever...

    One day.

    When I wished to post of course. hahahahah.

    Everything is fine today.

     

    This entire issue is of import. hahaha

    WE HAVE JUST GOT TO GET IT TOGETHER NOW.

    hahhahah


    by Richard Day on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 10:12pm

    Same thing happened to mine earlier.  I hit "save" and an error showed but my headline appeared with blank text box on the front page.  I had to put the text back in again and when I did I lost a picture.


    by Ramona on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 8:14pm

    I have been having trouble also.  I first noticed loosing text while posting in the News column a couple of months ago.  Also having the same troubles as all of above are having.  


    by trkingmomoe on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 8:51pm

    I'll look into the posting issue tomorrow morning. Is it happening every time or just once in a while?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 8:57pm

    It was a first for me but then I haven't posted in a couple of weeks.


    by Ramona on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 8:58pm

    It doesn't happen every time but often enough to be aggravating.  I have even had the page freeze on me. 


    by trkingmomoe on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 9:11pm

    This is a brave post Eric. When President Jimmy Carter argued that Israel was becoming an apartheid society in "Peace Not Apartheid", he was labeled an anti-Semite. Both sides in the Middle East have decided to use the United States as target practice. Let us use our troops as the cannon fodder. Dictators are tolerated. The Saudis dish out legal punishment with the same ferococity as ISIS. ISIS and Al-Queda terrorize the neighbors of nations who stand by silently. Beheadings are entertainment and a pilot is burned alive. We send arms to support Arab armies that are reluctant to fight other Muslims. Money is stolen. We send money to Israel and they feel justified in dictating our foreign policy. Israel controls water access and money to the Palestinians. Israel can dole out money or withhold money from Palestinians on a whim. Arab governments openly steal money. There are no reliable allies in the region. It is a money pit.

    Before sending money to help individual Muslims, Christians or others in Arab communities, we have to find a system that puts money directly in the hands of citizens and is not open to siphoning by Arab or Israeli governments.

    We need to develop our energy independence. Middle East fossil fuels, the only reason we care about the region, are hastening planetary death. The United States is viewed as a bunch of fools by both sides in the conflict. There is not going to be a peaceful rational solution because the powers that be on both sides could not make their money if peace came. We have managed to make to carpetbagger in Afghanistan a very wealthy man.

    End of rant.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 10:07pm

    I hear everything your saying here, RM. 
    .
    It's a very frustrating situation, but continuing to throw money at Israel is not going to improve it. As for what people call me, they can knock themselves out. I'm not going to be afraid to speak my mind. I know who I am so what other people think doesn't matter. I'm on the side of truth and justice, so I see anyone who objects to either of the two, their opinion is meaningless to me anyway. 


    by Wattree on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 11:32pm

    Jews were "treated badly" not only by the Germans during World War II, but by almost every other nation, government and non-Jewish ethnic group across Europe after WW2. How Israel wound up where it is is a long story, but the desire, need and right for the Jews to seek refuge somewhere had huge justification.

    In the chaos and lawlessness after the end of the war in Europe, another war started between and among the survivors. Excluding German civilians or collaborators outside of Germany, Jews were primary targets of the hate and violence. There was wholesale theft of Jewish homes and property, pogroms killing thousands from Poland to the Ukraine.

    In Savage Continent (2012) the author relates that post-WW2 Jews were actually safer in refugee camps in Germany than in their native homes and towns across Europe which they tried to return to from the concentration camps.

    This is not to excuse Netanyahu policy, but it is historic fact that is little known these days, but remembered by many and documented in the linked book.


    by NCD on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 10:47pm

    The problem is that by planting Europeans in the Middle East there was conflict that resulted in targeting of Palestinians by Zionists. Both sides feel that they have grievances.

    http://www.acjna.org/acjna/articles_detail.aspx?id=558


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 11:09pm

    NCD,
    .
    While all of that might be true, it still doesn't justify taking land from others. In fact, there IS  no justification for it.


    by Wattree on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 11:37pm

    Forget it, NCD - this conversation's going nowhere, despite the facts.

    An article describing Zionism as "analogous to 19th century European colonialism" is obviously absurd, as first it was a move with obvious cultural & historical roots, however lengthy, while the Zionists had no interest in putting Palestinians to work for them, which of course is the basic precept for colonialism.

    And historically migration of people has taken over many areas - often escaping atrocities or economic disasters elsewhere - so you had Turks & Vandals and Slavs pushed into Europe, upsetting those who lived there - occasionally decimating those living there, sometimes living in peace. The Dalai Lama set up his government-in-exile in Dharamsala in northern India, probably pissing off the locals, just as Vietnamese fishermen resettled on the south Texan coast pissed off their hosts. Afghan refugees have occupied huge chunks of Pakistan for decades, just as Ethiopian refugees have settled in someone's backyard.

    The creation of Israel combined an order from the United Nations along with a post-war abandonment of the British Mandate, along with on-the-ground Zionist land purchases, harassment of Palestinians, lobbying & kibbutz building. But this isn't unique - Masaryk was in New York lobbying Wilson for Czechoslovak independence post-war, and all the Balkan states were jostling for independence and more territory as the Ottoman Empire fell apart - the west did much more to help the Greeks screw the Turks than they did to help Israel, including supporting all Greece's ancient history claims to whatever islands a kilometer off Turkish shore.

    Typically people who are occupied and managed by another culture don't have too much say in their future. Eastern Poland was given to Ukraine after WWII - the Poles didn't have a lot of say in the matter, though they got eastern East Germany & Danzig to make up for it. The Arab lands were occupied by the Ottoman Empire, and to a large extent not set up as classic states, especially the Levant. The Lebanese and Syrians weren't thrilled to be placed under the French either, and fought some wars over this.

    The Ottomans in particular tried to avoid occupation in WWI, and eventually had to side with the Germans - and then after WWI the west wanted to chop them up between European parties as they had wanted all along - only the Turkish fight for independence against France, British & Greece stopped that, but the Turks lost Thrace, Cyprus and much other territory. The little bit of land that was taken from the Palestinian Mandate would be utterly insignificant compared to the huge territorial and population shifts in Ottoman territory, were it not for the presence of Jerusalem (and historical anti-semitism/Muslim-Jewish conflicts and the background of the holocaust). It's easy to look back at the leaders of the time committing a huge brain fart, but in terms of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe, handling the intrigue and budding war threats of the new Communist states, deciding the fate of European colonies from Africa to India to SE Asia, etc., etc. it's easy to see why Palestine wouldn't be that big of a deal. Frankly I think the Arab population should be happy they got to keep most of their lands and didn't suffer most of the atrocities that other regions did. The Mideast ones didn't even have to fight for independence (unlike say Algeria) - it was pretty well given to them. Slackers.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 2:51am

    The Arabs should not be happy that their land was given away by Europeans after Europeans fought a war among themselves. The decisions made to divide territory was a huge brain fart. Part of the problem is ignoring that fact that the land division led to some of the tribal turmoil we face today. Acknowledge that a mistake was made.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 9:20am

    Mistakes are always made. Muslims killed how many millions extending the Empire from Morocco to Brunei & Malaysia? How many under the Ottoman Caliphate? Will they acknowledge mistakes?

    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 10:49am

    The scenario here is that the West told a bunch of assumed lesser beings what was going to happen. Admitting the mistake and saying they could have done better by both the Arabs and Jews sets a new tone. The longstanding myth has been that there was nothing in Palestine of value. The Arabs were therefore insignificant at best, and at worse liars making up a fairy tales about a dispossessed population.

    Apologies can be made based on the situation and the ability of one group involved in a particular decision to empathize with those impacted by the decision. The apology has nothing to do with what the group did to other people. The apology is based on what you did to the group.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 11:19am

    .

    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 12:00pm

    Imagine you judged the entire Reconstruction and northern occupation of the South by what happened in Macon, Georgia. Britain inherited the management of the Arab parts of the Ottoman Empire when the Turks sided with Germany. The Brits had a lot bigger issues than Palestine. The Palestinians can bugger off if they don't understand that. Yeah, wasn't fair, nor was the treatment of the Kirin people in Burma when the Brits left, nor the million Hindus and Muslims killed during population exchanges partitioning India and surely other spots in the decline of the British Empire. Life sucks, then you die. Deal with it. The Bulgarians were also "lesser people" who lost land after WWI, and then got occupied by Communists for 40 years. Think they're sitting around crying? By the way, how could they have done better by the Jews? Think they made out pretty well from the Brits.

    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 11:57am

    We are discussing what happened to the Arabs when Israel was created. There is no requirement that the Arabs care about anything other than the removal of Arabs from their land. They are not required to follow European advice to get over it. They are not over it. If we are going to use other cases, the apartheid of South Africa was more on point. The native South Africans were under no obligation to get over the loss of their land or their freedom. At the end of the South African turmoil, there was a Pesce and Recoviliation tribunal. Forgiveness was requested.

    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 12:26pm

    There was little "they" - it was a ragtag conglomeration of fiefdoms. Who killed whom, Wahhabis, Shiites, Sunnis, and the more peaceful Sufis? The Saudis spent much of their time fighting among themselves, with the winner invading Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan to spread their influence - is it "their land" because they have 1 branch of Islam, or because they're ethnically related to the people they're butchering?

    This has nothing to do with South Africa, however much you want to drag that in.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 3:26pm

    The bottom line is "they" weren't European. The battles that we're going on in the Middle East were no different than the battles that when on in Europe. Heck, Alsace is France but with German accents. Arabs never got to finish their internal battles to decide what the Arabs wanted the countries to be. It may be that Bush lit the match to reignite the battles we now have Saudis going after rebels in Yemen and unhappy Iranians.

    The South African analogy is appropriate today because the Palestinians are controlled just like the South Africans were. Native South Africans carried documents to travel through their country, Palestinians carry documents to travel through their country. South African natives, for the most part, could not vote. Palestinians, for the most, part cannot vote.

    When votes come up in the UN, watch how quickly references will be made to the apartheid government in Israel. Bibi won the vote, but Jewish people in the United States, Europe, and within Israel have spoken out about the Israeli right wing. The same type of protest happened among white South Africans, Europeans, and Americans when it came to South Africa. There was a boycott of South Africa and there is the early stage of boycotts against Israel.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 4:38pm

    I really don't want to argue with you about anything you've written but I do think it's important -- and particularly so if you wish to make this a race argument or something akin thereto -- that you consider Jewish refugees (1 million or more) from Arab and other muslim countries where there are virtually no more Jews.  Where do they go, along with all of their descendants?  Before the exodus of Jewish refugees from the Soviet Union, Jews from Arab lands (and certainly having nothing to do with Europe at all),  made up more than 1/2 the population in Israel.  And fwiw, they are credited with electing Menachem Begin, the first Likud prime minister -- about as hardlne as one can be.  


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 5:39pm

    Israel took in African and Arab Jews. Obviously, as Netanyahu noted, Israeli Arabs can vote. It is also true that Netanyahu used ethnic bias to aid in getting elected. 

    The linked Wiki article you provided has a link to another article noting disparities among racial groups in Israel. No country is perfect.

    The point I am making, as unpleasant as it is, is that the election is going to be viewed as Israel supporting disenfranchisement of people under its control. The people in the occupied territories have little political or economic power. 

    Given the situation as it stands with no possibility of a two-state solution with the current Israeli government, do you think that the term apartheid is not going to be used? Do you think that I am  incorrect that the term will be used, even by people who support Israel? 

    BTW thanks for the info. I knew about African Jews taken in but was unaware of the other group.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 6:57pm

    To summarize, as I tried to say, before "the point" gets shifted elsewhere - Israel is founded as a refugee state for a beleaguered people, not a classic colonialist state to enslave & suck off the locals, whether British/Dutch/French/Portuguese in Africa, Spanish in Latin America, British in India, French in Indochina.

    A reasonable analogy would be say the early religious refugees of Pilgrims, Puritans & Quakers in the colonies or the black "return" to Liberia. And similar to Jews in Israel, the early colonists had little tolerance for those outside their faith, Roger Williams' banishment as just 1 example (though the Quakers apparently got on fine with the natives). Palestine of course was less sparsely populated than the Americas, so there was no opportunity to do a truly greenfield development without purchasing and pushing out locals. (there were competing factions of Zionists in how they regarded cooperation or antagonism with local Arabs, as described in this article).

    While it's reasonable to infer an analogy between South African apartheid and Israeli-Palestinian (and of course some people will object to the term & connotations as well), the causes & setting for these apartheids are quite different.

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 2:32am

    You seem to have some latent theory about racial purity controlling its own territory - it's okay for Russia to occupy East Germany because they both seem to be white (and Christian, though different branches) but not to control Persia because those people are darker and Muslim. I don't know if it was okay in your eyes for Ottomans to control Arabs in Jordan, or only okay for Arabs from Saudi Arabia to control Jordan. Was it okay for Ottomans to occupy what's now Greek and Bulgarian and Croatian and Albanian territory, or wrong because they were different religions or race or linguistic groups? Is it okay for black Africans to go slaughter each other across borders, "finishing their internal battles to decide what the [Blacks] wanted the countries to be" but not okay for white Europeans to do the same thing? When Genghis Khan swept across Mongolia, China and on through Turkic areas up into Poland, Hungary and Croatia, was that okay because he wasn't a white dude, or was it as bad or worse than European colonization? How abut later Turkic settlement across Central Asia into Turkey, and then creating the Ottoman Empire controlling Egypt and Arabia?

    Searching for some logic here.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 5:34pm

    We are talking about Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians don't care about the other histories. Seven months ago, Noam Chomsky opined that calling the situation apartheid was being too kind. The optics are those of an occupying force and an oppressed people.

    http://m.democracynow.org/web_exclusives/2223

    The Israeli elections were not on the horizon when activists were asking for boycotting and divesting from Israel. The tactics used during the election and the election result will cause more people to question Israel's actions.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 7:42pm

    Sorry, but Palestinians are part of the human experience and the tide of other histories - Persian, Macedonian/Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab Muslim, European Crusaders, Ottoman, British, Jewish Israeli. Eat or be eaten.

    They can try sitting outside of history, but that never worked for anyone.

    Anyway, you ignored my question why intraethnic jostling for territory is okay but interethnic isn't. Are geopolitics color coded?


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 1:55am

    Eat or be eaten justifies a host of practices. Lobbing missiles into neighborhoods in Israel from Gaza would fall under that type of justification. ISIS can be criticized along with governments in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Religious differences are an important part of the discussion of conflicts between the two governments. To pretend there is no religious aspect would be foolish. Denying  that apartheid is going on in Israel is sheer denial. Bibi used ethnic bias to turn the tide in his election and many Israelis came out in support. 

    Feel free to discuss intra- or interethnic conflict, but don't shut out discussion when race plays a role in the conflict. There have been atrocities throughout history, but each situation is viewed on its own. The Crusades cannot be used to justify beheadings by ISIS. Slavery in Africa is not an excuse for slavery in Europe and the United States. The Civil War is not a justification for Jim Crow. Prior acts cannot be used as a cover for current evil. The acts of Muslims intranets inc conflicts does not justify persecution of another group because they are Muslim or represent an inconvenience for the powerful.

    Are geopolitics color-coded, meaning that race/ ethnicity can be taken into account during discussion? Yes.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 8:23am

    I think it is dubious to say that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is much worse than apartheid. I can't agree that the government is simply a puppet of the rich, as there has been a good deal of legislation that serves the interests of people other than the rich.

     I'm surprised to hear Chomsky say that the U.S. government did something good in East Timor, since Chomsky's theme since Kosovo has been that the government always has base motives(at least in foreign policy).


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 7:55am

    One of the things that tanked Netanyahu's numbers before his race-baiting was the economy. Do you have any data that middle class and poor are doing well under Bibi's policies?

    As I understand the situation, Palestinians are penned in with limited access to fresh water. How is that better than South Africa during apartheid?


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 8:01am

    When I said "the government" I met the U.S. government. I don't think bad times for the poor demonstrate that a government isn't democratic. A democratic society isn't the same as a just society, or a perfect society.

     The occupation and bantustans may rival apartheid, but I don't see how it is "much worse". I can think of two differences from apartheid: Arabs in Israel have the vote( though not equal rights) and South African blacks didn't want to expel or subjugate whites.

    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/new-palestinian-...

    This poll is kind of old, but it is significant that it was done before the slaughter in Gaza further embittered Palestinians.

     


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 8:22am

    There was a brief period where Homeland/Bantustands had the vote in apartheid South Africa.

    http://www.sahistory.org.za/20th-century-south-africa/history-elections-...

     

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 8:33am

    It isn't the same thing, since blacks could only vote inside the bantustans, and only for a local government, not a national one. Israeli Arabs have full voting rights.


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 8:37am

    The Palestinians are under control of Israel and have no voting rights.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 8:47am

    As I made clear, I was talking about Arabs in Israel, not in the territories.


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 8:53am

    See below


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 9:00am

    This seems to be your logic - "People have been unjust and committing atrocities throughout history, so why not give Israel a pass?"  Answer: Because Israel's greed and injustice is costing American lives, TRILLIONS of dollars, and it's threatening the entire world.


    by Wattree on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 9:26am

    Not sure who you're responding to, but:

    - not giving Israel "a pass" - evaluating Israel the same I would any other country, level playing field, balanced historical perspectives.

    - Israel isn't costing us anything - we're big boys & girls and can decide what we want to support and don't. Iraq was our cock-up, nothing to do with Israel. Don't see where Israel's cost us more than our $5 billion(?) a year payoff to them & Egypt.

    Also don't see where it threatens the entire world - just our electoral system, and again, that's our stupidity.

    Anyway, I'm bored - spent enough time trying to provide detailed historical analysis & thoughtful reply to get into "Israel's coming! Israel's coming!"


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 9:41am

    Billions in foreign aid is not costing us nothing.

    The visual of Israel pounding Gaza to dust with US ordinance added to the loss of the two-state option is destabilizing. The Destabilzation is global. Britain , China, Russia, and France are partners in the Iran nuclear deal that Bibi wants to scuttle. Loss of the two-state options will be viewed by Arabs in the region as justification of any action Palestinians take against Israel.if Palestinians are never going to be free, then what do they have to lose? They will not be placated by telling them that others in history suffered under worse conditions.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 10:28am

    It's a nonsensical argument. It would follow that because IEDs were used against US troops and civilians in the Middle East, no one can argue about the US using drones. No serious person says that you cannot isolate on a situation and analyze the options and ethics involved without pointing out that fact that other atrocities occurred in another part of the world.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 12:02pm

    Several others in these comments have provided excellent responses to the factual predicate for this post and so I don't see any need to delve further into that area.  I would separate the issue of the 3 plus billion in aid that the US gives to Israel from the issue of whether we need to change American policy towards Israel and, if so, how.  On the first point, I am coming around to agree with those who believe that Israel is not a country that requires the type of aid that it currently receives from the United States, and so I would favor a phase out of that, as something to be worked out with two allies and in accordance with the will on our end of the American people.  On the other hand, President Obama, as part of his strategy to pressure Israel while still trying to demonstrate a commitment to Israel's security, relies on that aid as tangible evidence to demonstrate that commitment -- the love part of the tough love strategy perhaps.  But, in any event, I don't take issue with the notion that we no longer need to continue to provide that kind of aid to Israel.  [I would add that IMO more and more American supporters of Israel also share this view.]

    The second point relating to American policy towards Israel should be changed, and as critical as I often am about the president and his foreign policy generally, I appreciate that in less turbulent moments he has explained over the last week that: (a) the U.S. is committed to 2-states; and (b) if Israel's PM doesn't see that during his term (for whatever reason), then the U.S. needs to pursue its policy in another way.  I can assure you that, on both sides of the pond, in Israel and in America, nothing causes more fear in those of us who support the US/Israel traditional relationship than the fear that that "unbreakable" relationship (president's characterization) is, in fact, something very different than unbreakable.

    In the end, as I think we've just seen over the past week, if the president intends to change decades-old bipartisan policy supporting a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians, he cannot do it by focusing on Bibi campaign statements and he instead needs to be more candid with the American people (who for whatever reason continue to support a strong relationship with Israel) if he really wants to effectuate that kind of a change.  


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 6:27am

    I hate Watree's article here Bruce, because he is so wrong.. but you are wrong when you write this:

    if the president intends to change decades-old bipartisan policy supporting a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians, he cannot do it by focusing on Bibi campaign statements and he instead needs to be more candid with the American people (who for whatever reason continue to support a strong relationship with Israel) if he really wants to effectuate that kind of a change.  

    I take issue with this, because it isn't our President trying to change our relationship with Israel, the minute Netanyahu 1. endorsed Romney in the last Presidential election and 2. accepted or in reality insisted he make a speech to congress about our negotiations with Iran... no dude, he is the one trying to change our relationship. Not the President. And if I were President, I'd be doing the same things this as this President. I would isolate the Netanyahu government and I certainly wouldn't' trust them at all.  Netanyahu did this, not the President. And who is the lynch pin of all of this mess.. Ron Dermer. Yeah, Republican.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 8:40am

    I don't agree with you but I'm not going to address that in this thread.  I do understand your argument.

    Just to clarify that I think in a way we're talking about two different things: one is whether Bibi started the deterioration in the relationship, and that's an issue that I understand you to be addressing.  My point in your quote from me relates to where I believe the president is at now, and what that means now (without regard to whether Bibi started it or is fully responsible, etc.) and how it should IMO be presented to the American people.  So that's where I disagree with you.  

    Reread your thing, and want to also add that there is a material distinction between isolating Bibi and: (1) isolating Israel internationally and (2) perhaps more importantly in the long-term, changing decades-long bipartisan policy supporting a negotiated solution based upon a campaign statement.  And I'll sell the Brooklyn Bridge to anyone who believes that the president was newly apprised by Bibi's campaign statements of the hardline positions the man has taken with respect to 2-states over the last 25 years or so in the public record.


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 9:01am

    Obama may have been surprised that Israel spied on negotiations and fed information back to the GOP.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/israel-republicans-espionage_...


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 10:33am

    Bruce,
    .
    This is a well thought out, balanced, and very insightful comment.

    Thank you 


    by Wattree on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 11:23am

    I don't think Israel is getting a pass from the world. Israel is pretty unpopular.

    I myself think the 1947 partition plan was the best solution, but we shouldn't be hard on the Arabs for rejecting it. Nobody wants to give up 55 percent of their country.

     When Alan Dershowitz carps that there wouldn't be any Palestinian refugees if the Palestinians had accepted partition, the best answer is "so what". Rejection of partition doesn't mean they deserved what they got.


    by Aaron Carine on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 9:00am

    The BEST solution would have been to partition off part of Germany. THEY are the ones who owed a debt to the Jewish people. But that was unthinkable - Germany is a WHITE country. You just don't take from Anglo-Saxons to compensate Jews - regardless to WHAT the Anglo-Saxons have done.

    "Hey! Isn't there a myth somewhere in the Bible that says something about the Jews returning to Israel?  There's the solution!  Let's help them take the land from the Arabs! That will give us a power base over there with the oil as well. They can have the land, and we can take what's under the land. That's the perfect solution to all of our problems - we both get the Jews out of our hair, AND we can establish a power base next to the oil. Perfect!"
    .
    That was the bottom line that's currently blowing up in our face.  We never stopped to realize that Jews could produce fascists just like anyone else.  So we're getting exactly what we deserve - but the Palestinians aren't.

    .
    THAT'S THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY. THERE ARE HOMES, FAMILIES, 
    AND INNOCENT CHILDREN DOWN THERE - AND THERE'S 
    SHRAPNEL (BULLETS FROM BOMBS) 
    FLYING IN EVERY DIRECTION. 


    by Wattree on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 11:58am

    Uh, German and Polish and Russian Jews are white. But I'm sure the European Jews would have settled fine in the restored bits of Dachau, or maybe a new Jewish ghetto in Spandau - God knows putting Jews in a European enclave has never been tried.

    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 12:06pm

    Wattree, you seem to lack a historical understanding of how Israel came about. Zionism was not initiated by Western powers looking for a place to dump Jewish refugees. It was initiated by Jews long before WWII and long resisted by Western powers, particularly Britain.

    Originally, European Jews simply moved to British-occupied Palestine and bought land there. My grandfather's brother actually bicycled from Poland to Palestine in the 1920s. Tragically, he didn't like living there and returned to Poland, where he and his family were later slaughtered in the camps.

    During and after the Holocaust, Britain continued to suppress Jewish emigration to Palestine. Underground Zionist organizations smuggled in refugees and even committed acts of terror against the British colonial government. Eventually, Britain handed over responsibility the U.N., which recommended partitioning the region between Jews (many of whom were already living there) and Palestinians.

    Israel's creation was certainly a disaster for the Palestinians. Many lost their ancestral lands and continue to suffer under Israeli occupation today. Yet, your characterization of Israel's founding as white Westerner powers dumping Jews on Arab land is simply incorrect. It's a projection of American race relations and European colonialism that doesn't fit Israel's historical reality. I encourage you to challenge popular simplifications and educate yourself about what actually happened.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 6:58pm

    Question, After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD and with so many Jews enslaved and forcibly relocated;  what took the Jewish people so long (70 AD -1900's) to reestablish their ancestral grounds?


    by Resistance on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 2:35am

    Jews remained in the area (up to 600,000 were killed by Hadrian in a failed revolt 60 years later), and the Romans rebranded it Syria-Palestine. Then it was assimilated into the Byzantine Empire, until annexed by the Muslims.  What took them so long?  Tiny, powerless people against huge armies roving around Middle Earth. Only so much Hobbits can do against Ringwraiths - unless you have the ring.  (sorry, got my Wikipedia pages confused...)
     


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 6:18am

    I have trouble taking anything Wattree posts about Jews or Israel seriously since he has a large credibility issue in this area. I still remember his post where he pushed some bizarre conspiracy theory that Goodwin's law was created and spread throughout the internet by Jews so they could claim special status as victims of genocide and to stop people from criticizing Israel.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 03/26/2015 - 6:01pm

    Michael,
    .
    I know the history of history of Israel. And Ocean-Kat I know the history of the Jewish people - I have a tree in Israel with my name on it.  As a young man I was hired right out of college and mentored by a gentleman by the name of Sid Ostrow, who was very closely associated with Simon Wiesenthal, as the only non-Jew in a in a totally Jewish company, and I was taught to write by a Jewish professor: "Eric, you say absolutely nothing more eloquently than any student I've ever had. If you plan to get past me, you're going to have to learn that EVERY TIME, you make an assertion, I expect you to start backing it up in the following sentence, or no later that the following paragraph." I thought she was being racist because she continued to embarrass me in front of a class in which I was the only Black male student, and every paper that I turned in was came looking like a chicken had danced on it after walking through red paint. But that was before I met her husband and he could discuss with me, in detail, every paper that I had written - he was Black. The three of us ended up becoming very close friends. And the one thing that I learned from both Sid and Ms. Immel was to ALWAYS be on the side of truth. Truth should be your ONLY ally. 

    Jews, Zionism, and the Stupidity of Bigotry
     

    I guess I'm going to have to retrace my steps, yet again. Last week I reprise an article on Zionism (Maybe I'm Dumb, but Could Somebody Please Tell Me the Difference Between Zionism and Racism?).  Due to a response to the article by a young Black man the first time it ran, I found it necessary to write a follow-up article the following week. That seems to be necessary once again:
    .
    I try to Avoid addressing the same issue in consecutive columns - that's my only defense against my natural tendency to be tedious and predictable. But this past weekend a young man, let's call him Rob, came up to me and said, "Brother, I got to give you props - you really stuck it to those damn Jews last week." As soon as the words came out of his mouth I knew I had to clarify my message by revisiting the issue of Zionism. I didn't have the time, at that moment, to stand there in front of the store and explain to the young man that my article wasn't against Jews, but on the other hand, I wanted to make sure that he understood the distinction between hating a philosophy, and hating a people. So I asked the young man to be sure to pickup the following week's paper because I was going to write an article especially, and specifically, for him. So Rob, as promised, this one's for you - and I sincerely hope that God gives me the skill to make my point. 
    .
    Rob, while my last article had to do with a segment of Judaism, it wasn't intended as a diatribe against Jews. I'm not against Jews, or any other group of people. I'm against various behaviors. 
    .
    It would be a pity to go through the pain and suffering that Black people have experience in America and not come out the other end with at least some measure of wisdom. One would think that we would have learned through the blood, sweat, and tears that we've shed, that trying to paint any group of people with the same broad brush, whether it's to say that they're all good, or they're all bad, is not only the height of stupidity, but is the very mindset that has caused Black people so much misery here in America. How can I claim to detest racism, only to turn around and embrace that very same ignorant philosophy?

    .

     

    Joel Elias Spingarn

    ​Founder of the NAACP

    So let me assure you, Michael. I know as much, or more, about Judaism, and its history, than many Jews. So it's not a lack of knowledge that led to my article, it's just that I have no tolerance for bullshit, regardless to who it promotes or denigrates. 
    .
    I'VE KNOWN BULLSHIT
    .
    In
    Every newspaper, every nook,
    I see blatant bullshit wherever I look.
    Prolific bullshit, 
    pro and con,
    Man deceiving man, 
    like human pawns.
    .
    We
    Bullshit our children 
    whenever we can
    On the role of government, 
    and the sojourn of man;
    We bullshit the people 
    regarding their lot,
    While failing to address 
    the conservative plot.
    And now I hear even Santa's a myth,
    So even my mother got caught up in this.
    . 
    So,
    My threshold for Bullshit is extremely low,
    I sense him wherever he hides;
    While Langston Hughes has known his rivers,
    I've known Bullshit in every disguise:
    . 
    I've 
    Known bullshit lovers of innocent women,
    Who fades with a piece a ass,
    I've known bullshit preachers who loved the Lord,
    But not nearly as much as your cash;
    I've known bullshit politicians, 
    who "Just want to help" 
    Right up til they get your vote,
    Then after reciting their bullshit oath
    can't wait to start cuttin' your throat.
    .
    Yes,
    Bullshit's a stalker who seems to haunt me;
    I see him wherever I go--
    On the street, in the store,
    In the eyes of my lover,
    Though I try to deny that it's so.
    .
    I used to 
    Simply shut my eyes, 
    so I wouldn't see him no more,
    But my ears betrayed me and--
    Knock, Knock, Knock--
    "It's Bullshit. Open the door!"
    .
    So
    I came up with a plan to take a stand, a    nd 
    Confront Bullshit wherever he hides;
    Like the terrorist he is, you must weed him out,
    By confronting him where he resides.
    .
    I learned
    That shit will be shit because shit is shit's nature,
    So it's really not Bullshit's fault;
    It's the fault of the people for embracing ignorance,
    For the enemy of Bullshit is thought.

     

    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2014/02/jews-zionism-and-stupidity-of-bigotr...


    by Wattree on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 8:37am

    Wattree, you say (your linked piece from July 22, 2010)

    "all of the killing in the Middle East is about European hubris, injustice, and greed"

    ...is there really nothing else but white devilry involved in the ongoing conflicts, destruction, deaths and mayhem in the Middle East?


    by NCD on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 6:44pm

    Wattree,

    When you post that after about ten people here took you to task over your post claiming Jews invented Goodwin's law and spread it throughout the internet to claim special status as victims of genocide and to stop people from criticizing Jews and Israel you looked up the history of Goodwin's law. When you post that after carefully looking at the evidence you realize there is no factual basis for that bizarre conspiracy theory. When you actually take the time to look at the facts and the overwhelming evidence I'll consider you a person worth having a dialog with.

    Right now I just see you as a person to be rebuked when you go too far off the rails into stupid land. Not as someone I might have a valuable dialog or debate with.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 3:48pm

    "So let me assure you, Michael. I know as much, or more, about Judaism, and its history, than many Jews." - no lacking of self-confidence there.

    Me, I'm sure I know much less about Judaism than most or perhaps nearly all Jews (allowing for a few who might be in a coma or otherwise incapacitated). I'm fairly educated, but I probably know much less about black history, Islam, Catholicism, etc. than people who are parts of these groups. Know enough to look up stuff and analyze, but certain there are huge gaps in my understanding until the Wiki fills me in.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/28/2015 - 1:50pm

    Response to Aaron Carine above.

    Bibi openly used race to win an election. He may get the Iranian war that he desperately wants if the Saudis and Iran get into direct conflict. What he may not see is how everybody may go after Isarael if this becomes a true Sunni vs Shiite conflict.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 9:09am

    I don't think this has anything to do with what I was talking about.


    by Aaron Carine on Fri, 03/27/2015 - 8:49pm