I have a lot of respect for the veteran Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery. The first time I met him was in the PLO headquarters in Tunis in the late 1980s– a place that was anathema to both of our governments, but to his a lot more than to mine. (Indeed, for him as an Israeli it was actually illegal to meet with PLO people then.)
However, the argument he published yesterday that was against the burgeoning BDS movement was had some deeply flawed and dangerous arguments in it.
Over at Mondoweiss, Anees of Jerusalem has highlighted one serious (and apparently very racist) flaw in Avnery’s argument. His criticism was of these statements:
- Blacks in South Africa are very different from the Israelis, and from the Palestinians, too. The collapse of the oppressive racist regime did not lead to a bloodbath, as could have been predicted, but on the contrary: to the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee.
Actually, Avnery’s argument there is not only racist– with the clear implication that the Palestinians (“unlike the blacks of South Africa”) are indeed intent on a bloodbath; but also illogical.
Because yes, it is true that a “bloodbath” was what was widely predicted in South Africa after the fall of the apartheid regime– but western liberals went along with the sanctions campaign notwithstanding that.
… And then, it didn’t happen. So what good are the predictions of western liberals in regard to South Africa or Palestine, anyway??
Anyway, Anees was right to call Avnery on the racism of his argument there.
I want to call Avnery on a couple of other aspects of his argument.
First, he plays a deliberately deceptive numbers game.
He writes,
- The South African struggle was between a large majority and a small minority. Among a general population of almost 50 million, the Whites amounted to less than 10%. That means that more than 90% of the country’s inhabitants supported the boycott, in spite of the argument that it hurt them, too.
In Israel, the situation is the very opposite. The Jews amount to more than 80% of Israel’s citizens, and constitute a majority of some 60% throughout the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. 99.9% of the Jews oppose a boycott on Israel.
They will not feel the “the whole world is with us”, but rather that “the whole world is against us”.
No, regarding Israel and Palestinians the situation is not “the very opposite” of what it was in South Africa. There are around six million Jews in Israel (and maybe 99.9% of them oppose the BDS campaign; or maybe fewer than that.) But there are some 5.5 million ethnic Palestinians in the area under Israeli control– and an additional five million or more Palestinians forced to live in exile from homeland.
Avnery just wipes the Palestinian exiles from his tally-board of political relevance as if they have no legitimate say in anything!
Well, that is one huge problem with his numbers game.
Don’t you think it would be important to Avnery as a peace activist that Palestinians moldering in refugee camps in Lebanon or elsewhere might finally be able to say, “the world is with us”?
But apparently, he doesn’t care.
Another problem with his argument comes where he tries to say that the Israelis have nothing in common with the Afrikaners– because only the Israelis suffered the Holocaust, and besides, many Afrikaners were pro-Hitler.
But guess what. The Afrikaners were also acting from a very deep sense of past community hurt and community vulnerability. They were the people for whom the whole concept of “concentration camps” had been invented in the first place, for goodness sake!
And they too, like many Jewish ethnonationalists in Israel, had a profound sense of having been “called” by their G-d to create their settler state in Africa.
So the two peoples have many similarities in their core culture. But one big difference is that the Israelis have not thrown up their “Frederik De Klerk” figure yet: a national leader who over time came to recognize the equal humanity and equal rights of the long-despised “other.”
What can all of us do to help persuade Jewish israeli society to generate its own De Klerk?
Wide-reaching BDS may indeed be one of the best ways.
But at a very minimum, in the first instance, all those governments in the west that espouse the cause of human equality and human freedoms should absolutely stop the generous and quite unconditional subsidies they continue to give to the Israeli state and business community.
See also the close critique of Avnery’s argument by the South African Ran Greenstein, that Avnery’s own organization was good enough to publish, here.
… Regarding Avnery, this is sadly not the first time I’ve had to remark on the limits of this veteran campaigner’s vision. Earlier this month, I wrote about the plea he had written to his fellow veteran in the peace movement Dov Yermiya, urging Yermiya not to go ahead with his planned renunciation of Zionism as a guiding philosophy.
In 2003-04 I was in charge of getting a new phone system where I worked. The phones made in Israel didn’t make the cut because I started my personal boycot then.
You are a noble human being Jackie .
Helena,
Whatever Avneri and his likes babble about the future of historic Palestine:
Palestinians and their supporters says: Palestine, all Palestine united, its capital AlQuds-Jerusalem, whoever wants to stay is welcome and those who do not like it can go from where they came from .
This is the only solution.
Humans are equal, freedom for all.
world peace,
Is that what all Palestinians say, or some and if so, how many?
They [the Israelis] will not feel the “the whole world is with us”, but rather that “the whole world is against us”.
Well, duh! Isn’t that exactly what they’re supposed to feel? To force them back to their senses?
The whole world is appalled by the monstrous, inhuman, exploitation oppression and expropriation of Palestine and the Palestinians by Israel.
The whole world is against them.
As it is against the USA and its aggressive warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan… and its support for aggressive warfare in Palestine.
Boycott the USA and Israel.
Any person with a grain of justice . So I will leave with you MW to come up with the numbers !
The call for a boycott will remind many people around the world of the Nazi slogan “Kauft nicht bei Juden!” – don’t buy from Jews.
Here Avnery is making an “anti-Semitic”, as it is fashioned, statement. The boycott of Israel has nothing whatsoever to do with Jews, it is against Israeli Zionists. And they are now as monstrous and out-of-control as the Afrikanners or the NAZI movemnet in Germany of seventy years ago.
It is the mark of a truly desperate Zionist to consciously, despicably, conflate the two. Avnery certainly knows better. He has stooped to the level of intellectual dishonesty. He is grovelling in the gutter with the leaders of the US/Israeli propaganda squad now.
John Francis,I think your argument would be much stronger if it weren’t exaggerated. I think it’s impossible to argue that today’s Zionists are as “monstrous and out-of-control” as the German Nazis 70 years ago. The Nazis set out to use the machinery of a modern industrialized state to physically exterminate whole classes of people– Jews, Roma, gays, people with handicaps. Neither the Israeli government nor any other party in Israel is proposing that.
What they are proposing– and trying to do– is monstrous enough: deliberately making the lives of the OPT Palestinians so miserable that they will up and leave. But I think it undermines your credibility to say it’s as bad as the Nazis.
Their program has, I think, more in common with the Afrikaners’ pursuit of apartheid in that it stops short of aiming at mass extermination but seeks to control and limit the lives of the disfranchised ‘others’ while claiming (1) that it is in line with western democratic norms, and (2 that somehow what they’re doing can be seen as being in the interest of the people oppressed, whom they therefore have to strip of any agency or voice of their own lest that voice be raised to challenge this claim.
“Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.”
That’s how it begins, and not much has changed in that regard, so John Frantic Lee is at least partly right, I feel bound to say.
And don’t also forget the Jehovah’s Witnesses. One told me that they got on well with the communists and respected them in those Nazi death camps, because only the communists were like themselves in that they knew why they were there.
Helena,
You write: “Their program … seeks to control and limit the lives of the disfranchised ‘others’ while claiming (1) that it is in line with western democratic norms, and (2 that somehow what they’re doing can be seen as being in the interest of the people oppressed ….”
You can, in my humble view, come to your conclusion only by erasing, as if everything that occurs is only the result of Israel’s actions, entirely the dispute as it impacts on the Israelis. Yes, there are some Israelis who who would oppress Palestinian Arabs. But, frankly, the vast majority of Israelis would give their right arm to end the dispute, a dispute they see as a tragedy, with two parties having legitimate claims and with the legitimacy of their own claim denied entirely by the Arab side.
Having read your views for months now, I am a complete loss regarding how you can erase entirely the Israeli perspective, as if it is wrong for Israelis to ignore entirely Hamas’ publicly asserted – in writing no less – agenda to kill off the Israeli population. Maybe Hamas does not mean what their covenant asserts. Maybe. Then again, Hamas never changes it. And, we have the leaders of the PA stating that there is no condition under which they would accept Israel as the homeland for Jews. In this regard, read the recent comment by the well known Israeli scholar, Shlomo Avineri, “The Palestinian position is important” Frankly, it is time for people like you to realize that this argument – and Avineri is hardly the first to make the point – is an important one.
By the way, I think your point (2) is simply inaccurate.
I find it difficult, N. Friedman, to understand your point. You attribute to the Hamas charter an eternal hostility to the Jewish State, though the Likud charter says the same thing, an eternal refusal to admit a Palestinian state. Even more, with relevance to the latest political developments, Netanyahu has only just, with enormous, enormous, difficulty, been brought to admit the theoretical possibility of a Palestinian state. Without admitting anything as the circumstances of that acceptance.
If it is really true that
frankly, the vast majority of Israelis would give their right arm to end the dispute, a dispute they see as a tragedy
it is easy to do, go ahead and make peace, the conditions are well known. pre-1967 status would be accepted.
The fact is that Israel doesn’t want that, it wants everything, even the “vast majority of Israelis”. Simple peace won’t do. They’re like the Germans in 1918; they’ve “suffered” and they deserve to take over large parts of Russia. Of course, in the end they lost, failed to defeat the Bolsheviks, or the allies.
There is a classic joke about a husband taking revenge on his wife’s extra-marital lover by hiding under the bed and spitting in his shoes. I obviously spoiled it, but it is the closest metaphor to what Jackie prides in having done:
In 2003-04 I was in charge of getting a new phone system where I worked. The phones made in Israel didn’t make the cut because I started my personal boycot then.
I cannot think of anything more coward than taking revenge anonymously, with shareholders money rather than your own, and bragging again anonymously. The Israeli tech sector is doing just fine, Jackie’s integrity however is history.
Go put that bravado in your resume, silent coward.
Alex_no,
No sir. The Hamas covenant includes a call for genocide. There is nothing like that in the position of the Likud. According to Hamas:
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
(Emphasis added.)
So says Hamas. The words indicate that Hamas advocates, as a political program, killing the Jews to the last man, no matter how long such will take. By the way, the Hadith quoted has been recast from its original millennial end of days meaning into a political program. And, by the way, that recasting was formulating during the period where the Brotherhood was in bed with the Nazis. See the writings of Jeffrey Herf.
Well, of course, Mr N. Friedman, you have cited a version of the Hamas charter from a tendentious pro-Israel source. Do you seriously expect them to do so correctly?
Go to a Hamas website and quote me the Arabic. Can you read Arabic? If you can’t, how can you be sure?
I think superficial citations from ready-made packages on pro-Israel propaganda sites, simply shows ignorance.
The fact is, that text you quote was never operational.
What about the Likud charter? I see you didn’t quote that.
Alex_no,
My source was Yale University, which translated the Hamas covenant – and hundreds, if not thousands, of other documents in the fields of law, history, economics, politics, diplomacy and government, from over the course of several millennia – in connection with the Avalon Project, which you can find at avalon[dot]law[dot]yale[dot]edu.
If you take issue with Yale University’s translation, you are free to correct it. In fact, though, it is an excellent translation. Moreover, the quoted Hadith is a well known one, one I learned in my studies, long before the Hamas was founded.
Traditionally, the Hadith was more or less eschatological in nature. As I already noted, Hamas has recast the Hadith into a current political program, one that advocates genocide. This political program, melding genocidal objectives and religious motifs, has its origins in the connections between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nazi party – associations that ran very deep and pre-date opposition to Zionism as the major focus of Islamists. In fact, the original focus of the hatred was connected with the viewpoint that Jews were somehow centrally involved in eliminating the Caliphate. Later, the argument was expanded to encompass Zionism.
Why, Alex_no, ought I to quote the Likud? Do they advocate genocide? In fact, they do not. Hence, there is nothing for me to quote.
If you want to say that the Likud holds positions that are anti-Palestinian or otherwise disagreeable to your views, I would not disagree. If you want to say that the Likud official charter advocates genocide, prove it. Frankly, you will not be able to do so because such would be contrary to fact.
N Friedman,
If ancient texts and their latter day adoption is what keeps you awake at night, I’d be far more concerned about Israel’s Christian friends if I were you. The end of days people are hardly enraptured (forgive the pun) with Judaism.
The Muslims are just the first on the list.
Also, taking the Hadith at face value – and assuming a fairly widespread scholarly knowledge of such – it does seem to point to a certain lack of foresight on the part of Zionism’s founding father’s, don’t you think?
Mr. Connors,
Again, the issue is the recasting of a Hadith (one traditionally involving the end of the world as we know it) into a political program to commit genocide today in the name of God. That makes it something of importance.
The issue that created the genocidal aspect in the Brotherhood movement arose out of the viewpoint that somehow, someway the Jews destroyed the Caliphate. Hence, Jews have committed an unpardonable crime that requires their total destruction. That, itself, is a recasting of traditional Islamic views about inherent Jewish perfidy into a doctrine that sounds more Christian – perhaps the result of the Nazi influence – than Islamic.
Some, but not all, Christian movements that support Israel are eschatological. And, such eschatological movements sometimes also call for the destruction of those Jews who do not, at the end of days – and, to be clear, not in the present -, convert to Christianity. These eschatological typically posit views one would associate with Pascal’s wager. However Antisemitic many of these people may or may not be, they have no current political program to kill the current generation of Jews – unless, of course, Armageddon arrives. There is, however, a concern.
By contrast and surely more significant, Hamas – winner of the last Palestinian Arab election and part of the Brotherhood, which itself, according to polling over the years, has widespread support in the region – has published a covenant that openly advocates genocide, not at the end of days but now, in this world and at this time. That concerns me far more than Christian friends – the world “friends” being important – of Israel.
Josh Marshall links to Avnery for once. A boycott is “Neither Moral Nor Effective”
Since you’re still allowed there do us all a favor and risk your good standing with that racist and post your comments there as well.
It’s incredible the contortions the anti_israelis undergo to deny what anyone can uncover with two minutes research on the internet.
Alex / Alastair forgets we’ve already had this discussion on this site many times. he himself has already demanded I cite the original arabic, which I did:
https://vintage.justworldnews.org/archives/003470.html
unfortunately he then disappeared in a puff of smoke, offering us no reason to believe these many translations were false.
Here again, another thread where the Charter was quoted in Arabic from HAMAS own website:
https://vintage.justworldnews.org/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3666
So Alastair, what is your basis for claiming the translations put forward by these many native speakers are false?
anomalous, you post is a tad deceptive. marshal did not say the boycott was “Neither Moral Nor Effective”, he said avnery wrote an article claiming such. big diff.
somehow, someway the Jews destroyed the Caliphate.
NF,
From were you getting this utterly statement?
Where in Arab or Islamic world were said or written that Jews brought down by Jews?
The history of Islamic state clearly (that what we studies in our history books in Iraq) telling that the “Europe Sick man” was declining because the late Turkish Caliphate went far from the soul of Islam.
they much forgot their destiny and immersed in all sort of downy life…. that brought the empire to its death by her strong enemies which British empire with all industrial revolutions they got and power while the Caliphate busy with his mistress and the bribes and corruption like fire in the forest, till now Iraqi remembers the back days of Turkish empire and their inhuman treatment of them.
Are you writing your version of the world history dude?
Salah,
I am well aware of the actual history of the decline of the Ottoman Empire. My comment, however, was not about the decline of that empire.
My comment was about the interpretation given by certain Islamists to the elimination, by Attaturk – the father of modern Turkey -, of the Caliphate. It has been argued that he was, secretly, a Jew. It has been argued that his group was influenced by Jews. Such arguments first arose in Egypt during the 1920’s and 1930’s. The theme was widely held in the 1930’s by many in the Brotherhood.
I hope that is helpful. If not, you can pick up a history of the Brotherhood.
NF,
if you want to say that the Likud official charter advocates genocide, prove it. Frankly, you will not be able to do so because such would be contrary to fact.
Yes, they did not put it in plan English they wipe off Palestinian from their land or slaughtering them.
But tell us how they implements getting more land from Palestinians? is it by kissing them and they gifting their homeland to Israelis?
Hamas vs. Likud Charter
NF
Just to correct your interpretation, its not as you said “influenced by Jews”.
It has been said he inspired/influenced by Zionists (Not Jews) when the Zionist movement was in its top time with Theodor Herzl leading the movement.
but any way is just said this can be coming here claiming as a matter of fact to accuse Muslims and Islamic words on what was said or thoughts that rounded.
So we can made a lot of what it said bay various people or political body and make stories all around and let start war then….
“anomalous, your post is a tad deceptive. marshal did not say the boycott was “Neither Moral Nor Effective”, he said avnery wrote an article claiming such. big diff.”
No, not at all. He linked to a defense of Avnery’s argument made by a friend. He would never link to Avnery and neither would Jo-Ann Mort except for the fact that Avnery, is now on the right [wing] side of current debate. The terms are shifting and Marshall, M.J. Rosenberg, Mort and others are cleaving hard to the right side of a boat that’s drifting to the left.
It’s funny in a pathetic sort of way.
N Friedman,
Do you really believe that Hamas – whether this has been adopted in their charter or not – is, or ever will be, in a position to carry it out? This is a fantasy. Theirs and yours.
But check out these guys.
http://www.militaryministry.org/about/
Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long exercised his influence within the State Department to prevent the U.S. from becoming a place of refuge for European Jews. Long’s xenophobia influenced practically every move he made during the war: He led the State Department action to deny visas to political and intellectual refugees. He pushed for decreased immigration quotas. And he suggested Bermuda as the site for the refugee conference because of its inaccessibility.
Do you really believe that Hamas – whether this has been adopted in their charter or not – is, or ever will be, in a position to carry it out?
steve, do you really think that al qaeda is in a position to impose some kind of global caliphate? of course not – no one believes this. should we ignore the fact that this is its *stated purpose?* Might it have some bearing on its political standing in the world? Of course, just as my insistence that I can fly should disqualify me to run for mayor of your town (or come live in your house).
HAMAS’ stated goal at the very least isn’t just to kill Jews as they openly admit, but to impose an islamic government over all of historic palestine, a goal realistic enough to be frightening to a great many israelis, who prefer their variety of ethnonationalism to the islamic flavor pushed by HAMAS or the Arab flavor pushed by every other regional rival.
you seem happy to sweep all these legitimate israeli fears under the rug and pretend they are animated by sadism alone. Maybe like Helena you favor some kind of group punishment to teach those “monstrous” zionists a lesson? Nothing says “peace activist” like mass punishment, eh?
Steve,
My preference is that we be honest about those in the dispute. Hamas is a group that advocates genocide. The Hamas, moreover, commands the respect of a great many Palestinian Arabs.
At the moment, the Hamas is limited, because the Israelis are able to defend themselves, to comparatively small scale atrocities. Were the Hamas to be better armed, it could and would commit larger atrocities. Were the Hamas to come to power over Israel’s Jews, it is reasonable to expect that they would try to kill all such Jews.
Understanding what the Hamas is really about – rather than sugar coating its political agenda so that it sounds reasonable – and its demonstrated support among a great many Palestinian Arabs might help you to understand the Israelis a lot better. Of course, you can continue to whitewash Hamas and, for that matter, Fatah, so that the Israelis, in opposing them, seem like monsters, rather than ordinary human beings facing a very difficult situation.
Again, my preference is that we be honest about those in the dispute.
seem like monsters, rather than ordinary human beings facing a very difficult situation.
You can play this both ways; I guess…whose more dangerous one?
The one without any support or the monsters with all technology with 200 nuclear warheads?
John Francis,I think your argument would be much stronger if it weren’t exaggerated. I think it’s impossible to argue that today’s Zionists are as “monstrous and out-of-control” as the German Nazis 70 years ago. The Nazis set out to use the machinery of a modern industrialized state to physically exterminate whole classes of people– Jews, Roma, gays, people with handicaps. Neither the Israeli government nor any other party in Israel is proposing that.
What they are proposing– and trying to do– is monstrous enough: deliberately making the lives of the OPT Palestinians so miserable that they will up and leave. But I think it undermines your credibility to say it’s as bad as the Nazis.
Well Bush/Cheney and the Neocons used to say, “Hey… we’re not as bad as the NAZIs!”, too.
When forced to address the question, to actually address their expropriation of Palestine, the Zionists pop up with, “Hey… we’re just like everyone else in the world… it’s just our turn now,” and begin a litany of all of history’s bad actors and their bad acts, including the US and the American “Indians”… always stopping before they get to the NAZIs, of course.
Well it’s a continuum of bad actors and bad acts. It is certainly true that the magnitude of Israel’s bad acts have not yet reached the magnitude of NAZI Germany’s, or of the US’ War Crimes in Iraq, Vietnam, or Japan. But the difference is one of degree. It is quantitative.
Qualitatively there is no difference. Once you start down the “us-them” road, the Aryan-Jew road, the GoodOleBoy-Raghead road, the Draftee-Gook road, the GI-Jap road… the most horrific outcomes loom in your future, limited only by your resources and ambition.
Putting the NAZIs on a pedestal, putting their holocaust of the European Jews on a pedestal is a mistake.
The European Americans killed as many or more of the prior generation of Asian Americans, the Indians, than the NAZIs killed Jews.
We Americans are responsible for more than a million Iraqi deaths.
We Americans killed two or three million Vietnamese according to Robert McNamera, who ought to know.
There have been many “holocausts” in history and no shortage of bad actors to play the NAZI role.
I’m told it was Hannah Arndt who first spoke of the banality of evil, and that is the key to recognizing and controlling it, in my view.
I think that you weaken the chances of humanity getting itself under control by claiming special status for the NAZIs, making them somehow a “race” apart from the rest of us. There’s just one “kind” of people here on planet earth.
N Friedman and Vadim,
If I were the stay-awake-at-night-worrying-about stuff-type – which I’m not – Hamas or Al Qaeda wouldn’t make the list. But way up there at the top of that list would be Israel.
A bunch of generationally traumatized people are encouraged by a load of ahistorical hocus-pocus to go steal somebody else’s prime, seafront real estate, still can’t work out why they’ve upset the neighbors and then threaten the rest of the world with Armageddon (just to encourage others susceptible to hocus-pocus) by holding the trembling finger over the proverbial nuclear button. And you guys are telling me I should be concerned about Hamas? Ha!
Exclude the USA for a moment and ask the rest of the world what country is the greatest threat to world peace and stability. Despite the decades long campaign to demonize Iran and N Korea, there you are, right up there at the top. There’s a reason for that. Not that reason seems to matter much to you very much.
Btw, check out the comments by the editor of the Jewish Chronicle.
Steve,
Stolen? That sounds like agitprop to me. A more realistic examination of how the Israelis acquired land, prior to the fighting that broke out in November of 1947, appears in Hillel Cohen’s fascinating book, Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948.
Cohen, a rather good scholar and, I might add, holding views similar to Neve Gordon, shows rather clearly that your version of events is simply untrue. He shows that a a great many Palestinian Arabs played a major role in acquiring land for Jews and then selling it to Jews. Moreover, he shows that there were elements of Palestinian society which sided with the country’s Jews.
Moreover, Cohen shows that there was nothing inevitable about the war that later occurred in which Palestinian Arabs lost land. There were substantial elements within Palestinian Arab politics with whom the Jewish population had reasonably good relations and shared political agendas. Cohen shows that roughly 20% of Palestinian Arabs believed in live and let live. In fact, there were battles among the various groups of Palestinian Arabs regarding the issue, with a great many Arab deaths.
So, stolen? No way.
Of course, the later Jewish Arab war left large numbers of people displaced, mostly internally, which resulted in land being lost permanently – on both sides. And, at the end of the war, the Arab side took the position that they would fight to reverse their losses by driving out the Jewish population – the same position taken during the war and before by the al-Husseini faction that had, during WWII, worked with the Nazis and made an agreement with the Nazis to rid Palestine of Jews by killing all of them. See, Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das “Dritte Reich”, die Araber und Palästina (trans. “Crescent Moon and Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine”), by Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers. Efforts to resettle Palestinian Arabs in Israel were, in fact, rebuffed by the Arab side when that side unanimously opposed UN 194 on the theory that it legitimized Jewish rule.
Sorry N, it doesn’t work any more. Do you still believe it all? Really?
Why aren’t you quoting Pappe or Morris? And why not Shlomo Sand?
You’ll be telling me next that there were no Arabs in Palestine before the end of the 19th Century or something!!!
So the Arabs as well as the Stern Gang were trying to do deals with the Nazi’s, huh?
Steve,
Well, Professor Morris does not hold your view. Read his recent book, 1948. You might also read Morris’ most recent book, One State, Two States, which also views your version of history as being fictional.
Further, Pappe appears to take serious liberty with facts and has asserted that he is not bound by facts – an odd view for an historian but remarkably convenient for a propagandist and ideologue.
Cohen, as I mentioned, is a Leftist who, if he takes any liberties with facts, favors the Arab side.
The connection with the Nazis is very well documented. As shown by Mallmann and Cüppers, the Nazis assigned the people to the project that had been assigned elsewhere to carry out extermination. They show rather clearly that an agreement was reached with al-Husseini and that the Nazis were assured of support from al-Husseinis faction in Palestine. Extermination leaders were attached to the Nazi army. That army was defeated, most importantly by the British at El Alamein.
If you do not wish to read their book, a rather simplified version of some elements appears at: http[colon]//www1[dot]yadvashem[dot]org/about_HOLocaust/studies/vol35/Mallmann-Cuppers2[dot]pdf. As well known writer Bernard-Henri Lévy, in his book, Left in Dark Times, explains:
Instead of negating historical fact, how about examining the issues as they really are.
N, your arguments are irrelevant. You talk as if there is some legitimate bill of sale that makes the entire land of Palestine into Israel. It’s nonsense. Millions of people fled a European onslaught in fear of what would happen to them if they didn’t. They have not been allowed back and the rest of the story is subsequent events. None of which forgive the initial land grab.
BTW, those kind of SS units were formed all over the place: the Arab’s were hardly unique in joining the Nazi’s. Why not take Latvia, Romania or Herzegovina to name but a few?
And why have you not addressed Stern and his shameful machinations? Wasn’t Shamir also involved?
Steve,
I again suggest you read more carefully what Mallmann and Cüppers show. Again, there was a specific plan, agreed upon by al-Husseini – leader of the Palestinian Arabs – and the Nazis to exterminate Palestine’s Jewish population. Israel did not exist at the time and, as such, could not have “stolen” any land. And, the land held by Jews at that time was purchased, something that no serious historian denies.
Yes, there was extermination all over Europe and, in addition, in some Arab lands (against Jews, by the way) during WWII. But, that is a different topic. The issue here is a specific extermination plot agreed upon by the Palestinian Arab leadership, a plan that was feasible and based on similar plans put in place by the Nazis in other countries. This plan and the steps taken to implement it were not uncovered until Mallmann and Cüppers’ recent research at the German government archives.
Now, as for the confusing the purchase of land with the stealing of land – since no one can seriously deny that land was purchased, and for substantial money, often above market rate -, what you are really arguing is that you do not believe in the right to seek refuge wherever it becomes available, something I think is the most basic human rights. Why you would want to advocate a position held throughout history by the most reactionary elements of society escapes me. But, that you do negate that most basic human right is a fact – unless, of course, you have no knowledge of the efforts by Jews to escape oppression in Palestine, something permitted by the ruler of the land.
Consider: in Europe, it is the hard right which opposes the migration of Arabs to Europe. They make the very same argument you make against Jews in Israel. Such people are, according to the hard right, attempting to take what is not their property.
“Millions of people fled a European onslaught in fear of what would happen to them if they didn’t.”
In the interest of accuracy, it was somewhere around one million people. The official UN count of refugees was around 750,000, but that does not include thousands of others who fled or were driven out and did not get onto the UN refugee roll for one reason or another. Also, the Palestinians did not merely flee. Hundreds of thousands were actively driven out, as in expelled. That, of course, has been beautifully and meticulously documented by Benny Morris, who then ignored the obvious conclusion of his research and simultaneously insists that they had no intention to expel the Palestinians, and that he is sorry they did not finish the job when they had the chance.
Shirin,
In the interest of accuracy, the material quoted by you states that it concerns people fleeing from Europe. Hence, your reply is nonsensical.
As for the rest of what you write, Benny Morris claims that a great many Palestinian Arabs were expelled, but not hundreds of thousands.
What Benny Morris actually writes, since you propose that he does not follow the logic of his position, is that Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled in connection with fighting that occurred and not as part of a pre-conceived plot – as your logic suggests. The pre-conception plot theory has, in fact, been rather convincingly debunked by Morris and others.
In that displacements and expulsions have occurred in other countries, whatever the logic of Morris’ position may be in the abstract, his theory has the merit of being consistent with both the known facts and actual experience in other countries. India and Pakistan come to mind, only the expulsions and fleeing involved are greater by an order of magnitude – i.e. more than 14 times the number of people were displaced in India/Pakistan as in the first Arab Israeli war. And, unlike the Arab Israeli war, 1 million people died in that displacement. And, by the way, those expelled cannot return to their former homes.
Moreover, the 750,000 estimate of displaced Palestinian Arabs is open to serious question. According to MidEast Web:
http[colon]//www[dot}mideastweb[dot]org/palpop[dot]htm
N, in the interests of economy, can you tell me how many of the SS group were Palestinians? The name infers that they were Egyptian.
Being the Grand Mufti does not confer leadership status among Sunni Muslims.
Is your point that because of this SS group (of how many) the seizure of the Palestinian Arab’s land was somehow justified? Perhaps as an act of revenge for what could have been?
And how does this connect us to all your fearmongering about Hamas? How does capability at the height of WW2 – by attachment to Nazi coat tails – equal capability now? It doesn’t
What percentage of the Palestinian land was purchased up to 1948?
What percentage of that was purchased legally, subject to the laws then in force?
The Jews of Europe, at the end of WW2 were not seeking refuge, they were seeking to colonize the land of others. This is plain.
Tell me: do the Iraqi’s currently seeking refuge in Sweden, now have claim to Swedish land?
Shirin,
Thank you for the correction. Yes, I understand that there was murder, rape and ethnic cleansing – and that Morris now feels they should have finished the job – but I was being nice.
Steve,
In reply to your questions and statements:
1. The SS was not in Israel. They were attached to Rommel’s army and that army was defeated on the battlefield before reaching its goal. Had it reached Palestine, the plan was to kill the Jews living there. That is a fact.
2. The Grand Mufti, al-Husseini, was leader of the Palestinian Arabs, not all Sunni Muslims.
3. I have no idea what seizure of Palestinian Arab land you have in mind. In fact, Jews migrated to the land, purchased property and attempted to build a nation on land that had not had a nation in thousands of years. Such contributed to – but was not the only cause of – a tragedy in which large numbers of people were displaced from all over the region – both Arabs and Jews. The other side of the tragedy is the politics that took hold on the Palestinian Arab side, politics that mixed religious bigotry that made all efforts at compromise impossible.
4. I was not advocating revenge.
5. The issue with Hamas is that their ideology, which, in addition to being religiously conservative, was formed out of the Brotherhood’s relationship, not to mention the Palestinian Arab leadership’s relationship, with the Nazis. Absent such facts – and they are facts, whether you ignore them or not -, one cannot possibly understand the Hamas and what it advocates. One cannot possibly understand Palestinian Arab politics without taking such facts into account.
6/7. By 1948, whatever land Jews owned had been purchased. The vast majority of that land was obtained by legitimate land purchases. Some was, however, purchased via strawmen, but not to fool the seller – who usually knew who was the actual purchaser – but to avoid discriminatory laws put in place from time to time. No doubt, most land, as of 1947, was still owned by Arabs, since they were a larger part of the population of the area.
8. You write: “The Jews of Europe, at the end of WW2 were not seeking refuge, they were seeking to colonize the land of others.” That is a bald faced lie. The Jews in Europe had only one goal, to survive. Maybe you recall that at the end of the war, Jews were forced into DP camps. The powers could not make up their minds about what to do with them. Moreover, those Jews who tried to return to their homes in Europe were not welcomed. Many were massacred, most particularly in Poland.
9. You write: “do the Iraqi’s currently seeking refuge in Sweden, now have claim to Swedish land?” Arabs have – or ought to have – the same right to purchase land as any other people. Such people have the right – or ought to have the right – to participate in the land’s politics. Were there no existing state of Sweden, they ought have the right to form a state in what is called Sweden. To suggest otherwise is to be a reactionary bigot. On the other hand, there is an existing political state. Given that fact, Arabs ought have the right to participate in the country’s governance and, if denied that right, to defend themselves.
10. You write: “Morris now feels they should have finished the job – but I was being nice.” That is a bald faced lie. Morris stated that had the Israelis actually ethnically cleansed the land in 1947, his judgment as an historian – the word “historian” being important – is that today’s conflict might not be have become what it now is. I suggest you read his actual remarks on the topic before writing nonsense.
N,
Those are not answers to the questions I put.
How many of the SS unit were Palestinians?
Not revenge? Then what? You seem to be drawing a distinct line between the willingness of a few hundred(?) thousand(?) Arab’s forming an SS unit and a justification for expropriating their land.
I’ll ask again, because you seem to be reluctant to put a figure on this: what percentage of the land of Palestine was purchased – whether legally or not?
How did the Europeans get the rest of it?
To say the Europeans needed to go on a perilous journey in order to survive is ridiculous. They could have survived – as did millions of other Jews, along with the overwhelming majority of other Europeans – by remaining in Europe. Not a good argument. I have never seen or heard of post war massacres of Jews anywhere in Europe. Why are there still Jews in Poland? Stand it up.
If Hamas is so dangerous, why did the Israeli government extend so much support to them in the late 70’s?
So, you think everyone would be just fine with a few million Iraqi DP’s sailing off to take over Sweden, do you? And opposing the notion would only be a few reactionary bigots?? The fact that you need to call it a “state” I suppose, says everything. If a people and their land are not formalized into the Western European construct that you call a state, it’s all up for grabs?
Forgot to mention. Yes, I realize the SS unit was not in Israel – which didn’t yet exist.
Steve,
I’ll try again:
You write: “How many of the SS unit were Palestinians?” None in Palestine. A similar strategy was used by the Nazis in other regions, where they locals were used to do the killing, led by SS officers. al-Husseini had worked to create the thuggish units which would have carried out the massacres.
You write: “Not revenge? Then what? You seem to be drawing a distinct line between the willingness of a few hundred(?) thousand(?) Arab’s forming an SS unit and a justification for expropriating their land.” No. My argument is to understand Palestinian Arab and Hamas. That means understanding their politics. Nazism was a major influence on that thinking. I look at the matter as an historian might. That means examining the forces that drove each side.
You write: “what percentage of the land of Palestine was purchased – whether legally or not?” I do not know the percentage – except that it was far from a majority of the land. I do not think the percentage matters one wit. Jews were attacked for purchasing land, without regard to the percentage involved. And, the less land involved, the stupider the reasoning behind the attacks.
You write: “How did the Europeans get the rest of it?” Get the rest of what? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
You claim that millions of Jews could have remained where they were. That is untrue. Many millions of Jews did not survive in Europe. By 1946, the total number alive was about 1,250,000, other than in the USSR. As for massacres, there were a number of them including one at Kielce in July, 1946, which had a major impact on displaced Jews. Further, Jews were not Europeans, as Jews were routinely told for centuries including up to and during WWII. They were considered Asiatic.
You write: “If Hamas is so dangerous, why did the Israeli government extend so much support to them in the late 70’s?” Hamas did not even exist in the 1970’s. Israel thought it better in the 1980’s to support religious based groups on the stupid theory that such groups would help counter the influence of Fatah.
You write: “So, you think everyone would be just fine with a few million Iraqi DP’s sailing off to take over Sweden, do you? ….” That is not what I said. Advocating the creation of a state that protects one’s rights is a basic human right. It applies to immigrants and refugee, not just those lucky enough already to own land. In other words, your argument is the same argument made by land owners to all people who are unlucky in life. It is reactionary and bigoted.
Just to reply to you all, and particularly Vadim. There are some useful points, which we can all learn from.
Vadim says:
(Alex) disappeared in a puff of smoke
There’s a good reason why Alex ‘disappeared in a puff of smoke’. Alex has a job which takes up a lot of time. Vadim only appears occasionally, I guess for the same reason. So why the insult? By contrast many of the pro-Israel crowd appear to have lots of time to respond. Why should that be?
Normally it is because they are retired, and have little to do but sit in front of the computer. The other possibility is it is because they are being paid. JES is like that. JES told us that the Israel Foreign Ministry (or was it the Interior Ministry, I forget) budget for hasbara was only 150,000 dollars, and that would scarcely pay his salary. It took me a while to understand that he was being disingenuous. It is normal practice these days in business to keep expenses you want to hide “off balance-sheet”. The Bush administration, mainly composed of businessmen, did the same for the Iraq War, “off-budget”. Why should we imagine that Israeli ministries do differently?
With regard to N. Friedman and the Hamas charter, my point was that N. Friedman was citing ready-packaged cherry-picked translations from tendentious web-sites. N. Friedman responded by saying that he took his translation, the same as cited by Vadim, from avalon.law.yale.edu, and that Avalon couldn’t be tendentious. Wrong. I didn’t find the racist Likud charter on the same server. Now why would that be? Why one supposedly racist charter, and not another? Could it be that there are preferred horrors, but others are omitted?
Turning to the text and translation itself, it must be said that at no point does the Hamas charter call for genocide of Jews. That is completely false, as any reasonable person would expect. What it does, is to cite – apparently with approval – a hadith of the prophet which authorises killing Jews. It does not say all Jews, so not genocide (read the Arabic). If not, the Hamas militant would be obliged to stop in front of an Israeli soldier who was about to kill him, and do nothing.
So, as I thought, we are faced with the usual selective mis-translation.
N. Friedman,
You seemed more polite at the beginning, but to call Steve comment ” a bald faced lie ” is unacceptable, Mr. Friedman :
The Jews were not returning to it as one returns to one’s homeland , they were rather bent on making it into a homeland conceived on European patterns and with European aims .
The Balfour declaration of 1917, which promised the Jews a national homeland in Palestine , was a cruel political manoeuvre designed to foster the principle of all colonial powers “divide and rule” . It was immoral, that immigrants assisted by a foreign great power should come from abroad with the avowed intention of attaining to majority in the country and thus to dispossess the people whose country it had been since time immemorial .
Mr. Friedman, did you ever question how the Jewish people returned to Palestine after being exiled for over 600 years ?
Jews have historically thrived under Muslim rule.
When Muslims freed Jerusalem in 638
C.E. from Roman colonial rule, Caliph Omar granted Jews free access to Jerusalem for the first time in over 600 years.
They had been exiled in 70 C.E. and forbidden to enter the city by Titus, the Roman conqueror, who later became Emperor
of Rome.
Similarly, when invading Christian armies from Europe sacked Jerusalem in 1099 and massacred its inhabitants, Jews were
again, for the third time in their history, barred from Jerusalem. It wasn’t until Salah al Deen vanquished the
European invaders a century later that Jerusalem was reopened for Jews, the second time that a Muslim leader had done
this.
When the fall of Grenada in 1492 signalled the end of Muslim rule in Andalusia, the conquerors, Isabella and Ferdinand,
embarked on a genocidal campaign against Muslims and Jews. It was in the Muslim lands of the Maghreb, Eastern Europe and
Asia Minor that the Jews sought refuge.
Jews lived voluntarily under Muslim rule in many lands right up to the creation of Israel in the mid 20th century.
However, it was the Zionist activity in Palestine during the British Mandate that
poisoned relations between Muslim and Jewish neighbours and made it impossible for most Jews to remain in some Muslim
countries.
More importantly, the Jewish exodus from Muslim countries was prompted by Zionists actively encouraging, threatening,
and in some reported cases, committing terrorist acts, to frighten Jews into relocating to Israel. Zionists also
encouraged Jews in non-Muslim countries to emigrate, as in India, where the ancient Jewish community has virtually
disappeared, just like they have in most Muslim lands.
Zionists are slowly but surely ethnically cleansing the orignal inhabitants of the land .
So please spare us your racist wisdom, defending a racist regime,namely, zionism, makes you a racist, Hamas is a reactionary political movement that is homegrown and in response of those who adopt zionism and think of themselves as the chosen people,and that their suffering surpassed any other people. Wake up, enough!! It is backwardness to think of the Zionist/Arab conflict in Jewish terms alone
After almost a century of Zionist colonial and racist oppression, some Palestinians find it hard to imagine that their oppressors are the sons and daughters of those who were themselves oppressed and massacred .
N,
None in Palestine………
Yes, but how many were Palestinian Arabs? Were any of them? All of them? Or were they, as the name seems to suggest, Egyptians?
And what have they to do with Hamas? We’re in a totally different era – the conditions that led to the mass killing of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc, the ideas about social engineering were rife throughout continental Europe at the time. Why do you insist on placing Hamas in the same box as a 1940’s SS unit?
“That means understanding their politics. Nazism was a major influence on that thinking”. Really? No wonder you don’t get on with the neighbors!
I’ve seen estimated percentages of land purchase at between 6 and 10%. I was hoping you could give me a definitive figure. So, let’s be conservative about this. How did the Europeans (Jews from Europe) get hold of the rest of it? Did those horrible genocidal Arabs just gift it to the shining new state of Israel?
“Further, Jews were not Europeans, as Jews were routinely told for centuries including up to and during WWII. They were considered Asiatic.” Is Palestine in Asia? You can’t have this all ways.
“Advocating the creation of a state that protects one’s rights is a basic human right. It applies to immigrants and refugee, not just those lucky enough already to own land. In other words, your argument is the same argument made by land owners to all people who are unlucky in life.”
And what of the basic human rights of those whose land was taken from them in the name of your human rights? Or don’t they count as humans because a few of them – or people just like them – signed up to some nasty SS unit that intended bad things but, in fact, did nothing? When you’re throwing around words like “bigot” – which you’ve unkindly aimed at me three times now – you should take a moment of self reflection.
Vadim only appears occasionally, I guess for the same reason.
on another thread you suggested that maybe i worked for Mossad alongside JES (because of course they have a full staff devoted to helena’s weblog.) i’ll take this as a change of heart. Progress! Anyway I don’t mind that you disappeared. I object to your blatantly dishonest demand that N. Friedman show you something we all know you’ve already seen as if it were unknown to you. Thank you for confirming that you have read avalon’s rendering, and HAMAS own rendering via the IAP, and that you acknowledge them to be nearly identical, Protocols of Zion, rotarians references and all.
It does not say all Jews, so not genocide (read the Arabic). If not, the Hamas militant would be obliged to stop in front of an Israeli soldier who was about to kill him, and do nothing.
Right, because killing people hiding behind trees is just like killing them in self defense! Impeccable logic alastair. Where is it you teach again?
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
1) the mental element, meaning the “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”
Keep up the good work Alastair. I’ll let the boys down at Mossad HQ you’re doing a bang up job sabotaging the “peace camp”.
That’s not up to much, Vadim. You know as well as I do that killing individuals is quite different from genocide. Extend it to infinity, and you’ve got a problem: what about all those dead Palestinians? I’ve seen lots of genuine videos where Palestinians have been shot for being Palestinians.
NF, Vadim and all hinge to all old stories again and again.
We are now in 2009 what need to be live in peace and stop the killing.
Where Israelite dream promiseland borders ends?
What need to go to peace and finish this business or you keep fighting of 500 years history that gone can not be returned.
Work for the future not memorising old pasts history we don’t agree in all of it.
Let’s make our Truthful History now..
world peace,
I tell it as I see it. I was not calling Steve a liar. I was noting that he was repeating a lie, whether he knows it or not.
You write: “The Jews were not returning to it as one returns to one’s homeland , they were rather bent on making it into a homeland conceived on European patterns and with European aims .” That was not my argument. My argument is that the right of oppressed people to seek refuge where it is made available is a basic human right. Moreover, the right to participate in the politics of where one finds refuge is also a basic human right. You, evidently, deny such fact.
You write: “Mr. Friedman, did you ever question how the Jewish people returned to Palestine after being exiled for over 600 years ?” Well, 600 years is inaccurate. However, at least you admit that Jews were exiled from their homeland.
You claim that Jews thrived under Muslim rule. At times, that was sort of true – although what you write is a gross exaggeration. Of course, at other times, Jews suffered greatly. That, after all, is why Jews were instrumental in helping the reconquista in Spain.
You claim that “the Jewish exodus from Muslim countries was prompted by Zionists actively encouraging, threatening, and in some reported cases, committing terrorist acts, to frighten Jews into relocating to Israel.” There was some agitation by Jews to help other Jews. However, there was also substantial persecution by Arabs and such was the primary motivation. The Farhud in Iraq. The persecutions and massacres in Libya. The persecution and anti-Jewish laws in Egypt, etc.
You write: “Zionists are slowly but surely ethnically cleansing the orignal inhabitants of the land .” In fact, the Arab population of the land is increasing. Hence, you are writing nonsense.
Steve,
You first two comments suggest that you are unfamiliar with how the SS worked in foreign lands. FYI, they found local collaborators to help them, as occurred in Ukraine and elsewhere. Such people, not SS, existed in historic Palestine.
You write: “And what have they to do with Hamas?” They are ideologically related. One movement was causal with respect to the other. The Islamist movement adopted Nazi motifs and propaganda. It still uses agitprop previously used by the Nazis. Moreover, many Nazis became Islamists after WWII and such people played a substantial role in agitating against Jews.
You write: “I’ve seen estimated percentages of land purchase at between 6 and 10%. … How did the Europeans (Jews from Europe) get hold of the rest of it? Did those horrible genocidal Arabs just gift it to the shining new state of Israel?” Read Benny Morris’ book 1948. In a nutshell, Jews won the war started by the Arabs.
You ask: “Is Palestine in Asia?” Answer: Yes.
You write: “And what of the basic human rights of those whose land was taken from them in the name of your human rights?” The Arab population launched an unnecessary civil war in 1947. Then the surrounding Arab countries launched a war in 1948 – a proudly proclaimed that they launched it before the UN, notwithstanding the UN Charter that forbids such conduct. That all resulted in people losing their homes. The Arab side decided to treat the loss as merely a setback and refused to settle. So far as I am concerned, that refusal is the nub of the dispute and the cause of Palestinian Arab suffering, not Israel’s defense of the rights of Jews to a homeland.
to you write,
You write for the sake of argument, you are neither interested in constructive debate nor in giving the “other” the recognition they deserve, you lack in intellectual debate, but you score a perfect 10 in argumentative pitting .
Deaf and blind they do not comprehend !!
N, I’m fully aware of the way the SS recruited their local units. So, were the Einsatzgruppe Ägypten Palestinian’s or not? Were any of them Palestinian?
“Such people, not SS, existed in historic Palestine”
And this was a desirable place to build a “homeland”? Surely, those people just had to go!
By the way, the Serbs were using this kind of argument in 1992. I know, I listened to them ad nauseum.
“many Nazis became Islamists after WWII”. This is a stretch, even for you.
Let me see if I get this straight. A bunch of European’s, having bought a bit of land, flood the place with the intent of taking over the whole lot and, when the locals get uppity about it they’re in the wrong? People “lost” their homes? Did they fall out of their pockets? These are weasel words.
This isn’t about human rights N. It’s the law of the gun and is what has sustained Israel through its short and bloody history.
Interestingly enough, Dr Sands book places the “homeland” somewhere around Southern Russia – Asia? What’s up? No beach there? The other fascinating element of his story is that early Zionists – including DBG – believed the real descendants of the Jews in Palestine were those Nazi’s you’ve been so exercised about.
Steve this historical digression quite simply has nothing to do with BDS. Divestment isn’t about unravelling Israel itself but occupation and settlements. If it were about eliminating Zionism altogether, it’s kept this part of the program well concealed.
So do you believe in divestment as a political strategy and what in your view is its end goal? Is it really about eliminating Zionism as such? BDS proponents should really make that more clear, shouldn’t they?
Vadim, you may be right that this is all digression (it is), but N. Friedman’s remarks are genuinely incredible racial slurs, identical to the worst anti-semitism.
Just look at that:
They are ideologically related. One movement was causal with respect to the other. The Islamist movement adopted Nazi motifs and propaganda. It still uses agitprop previously used by the Nazis. Moreover, many Nazis became Islamists after WWII and such people played a substantial role in agitating against Jews.
This identical to anti-semitic slurs.
I am not surprised you’re embarrassed and want him to stop.
Alex_no,
I have not adopted any racial slur. I have stated my interpretation of historical facts.
Steve,
You say this is not about human rights. Really? Jews have no right to migrate to make a life for themselves. Is that really your opinion? Jews have no right to build a state on sparsely settled land where there was no state. Is that really your opinion?
Surely, the treatment Jews received in Europe prior to and during WWII ought to suggest something to you that a Jew might, looking back, say: there is no future life in Europe. That seems reasonable to me. And, such a person might say, let me try something different. Let me make a life where I, not people who do not accept me fully as a human being, control my own destiny. You, in reality, reject that for Jews, thinking that they ought ignore their history. No. This is all about human rights, Steve. It is you who reject human rights.
There was no plot, Steve – unless you twist evidence to say things it does not say – to throw out any Palestinian Arabs. There was, rather, a plan to create a country on sparsely settled land and to include the inhabitants of that land in the country. That plan was, perhaps, Utopian and it certainly led to tragedy for both sides. Misrepresenting the plan as something else – as an evil plot, perhaps – serves only hate mongers.
Alastair, I’m not responsible for anyone’s posts other than my own. As it happens I don’t think his posts are racist. ‘Islamist’ isnt a racial description.
As you should know Zionists and Israelis are routinely compared to Nazis all over the internet and this website, including some four instances within the HAMAS charter you’re straining to defend. N. Friedman hasn’t even made a general statement about modern Islamism, merely that Nazism contributed ideas to Islamist thought at various times, which may very well be true given the ‘Protocols of Zion” citation in HAMAS’ charter.
Personally, I think shared symbols and a contempt for Jews is a superficial relationship, but then I also think the whole argument is a waste of time and off topic. What matters to me is present day ideology, not that of 60 or even 10 years ago. The HAMAS charter , complete with its Protocols references and offensive hadiths sanctioning the killing of Jews, was reprinted on HAMAS own website as recently as last year. I hope you don’t seriously contest that antisemitism, holocaust denial etc is a real widespread contemporary phenomenon among islamists and not a fiction dreamed up by neocons?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,553724,00.html
Of course maybe you don’t know this because france pulled the plug on Al Aqsa TV some time ago.
A clearly tendentious article you link to. The fact it is in Der Spiegel means nothing.
look at this:
While everything Jewish was considered evil in early Islam,
That is completely false. There was a very close relationship between Judaism and Islam in the early period, apart from the spat in Madina. So the author has been fed material from tendentious anti-islamic sources.
What is the central allegation of the article? the claim that al-Aqsa TV said “Wipe out the Jews”. Was it said, as I imagine, in Arabic? It’s a very dramatic translation; better let us know what the Arabic is. It is indeed a pointed translation, intended to horrify westerners. I should think the original is only mild.
Sounds very like Ahmedinejad’s famous quote, of which the original Persian is very mild, and the translation was worked up into a dramatic expression that was quite unjustified by the original.
The pro-Israel propaganidists do this selective mistranslation all the time, as was said last night. You might check your translations before putting them up as evidence.
I don’t have any time to deal with the rest of your points.
I don’t have a television.
vadim,
If we go by Professor Küntzel’s article you cite to – and, I should add, his well known book, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 -, we have open promotion of genocide by Hamas and other Islamist groups. And, as he shows in his book, Nazism is centrally important to understanding such phenomena – both historically and as a current phenomena.
In a soon to be released book by Professor Jeffrey Herf, we shall have the substantial new details on the propaganda which the likes of Rashid Ali el Khilani and al-Husseini broadcast to Arabs. The propaganda was the vilest sort of Antisemitism. The propaganda was specially prepared so as to draw Islam and Nazism together. The same formulas are used by – and, presumably believed at least by a substantial number of – Islamists today. With Mallmann and Cüppers’ book, we have an agreed upon plan to kill all – not some, but all – of Palestine’s Jews.
Hence, my reason for looking at the historical roots of the Hamas phenomena with an eye towards the present. As Küntzel shows, the Islamist political program simply cannot be understood without its historical ties to Nazism, from which Islamism took both some of its ideological hatreds and some of its goals – including some regarding Jews.
The political/religious/ideological trends in today’s Arab and greater Muslim world are centrally important to understanding why the dispute between Israel and the Arabs does not settle. It is central to understanding why Israel cannot merely cede land without recognition. It is centrally important to understanding just how dangerous, how totalitarian, is the Islamist ideological trend among many – not all, but many – Muslims including many – not all, but many – Palestinian Arabs.
This is all centrally important to understanding where we are today and should not, as you would do, airbrush it away.
Alex_no,
Well, the spat with Jews led to the position, as enunciated in my lifetime – and by previous generations of Islamic scholars as well – that Jews had eternal/inalienable traits that made them perfidious, among other bad things You may recall that such is what Grand Sheik Tantawi wrote in his book about Jews. Such view is properly described by the word “Antisemitic.”
In his book – which I have read -, Tantawi notes numerous hadiths from which the Islamic view of Jews is largely derived. Jews, evidently, attempted to kill all prophets. A Jewish woman tried to poison Mohammad. Jews tried to throw a rock from a house onto Mohammad’s head. Etc., etc.
And, of course, there was the massacre of Jewish men in Medina, with their spouses and children sold into slavery, the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Medina and other such incidents. Later, of course, Jews were ethnically cleansed from most of Arabia.
The view of Jews expressed by Tantawi, and the classical Muslim scholars I have read, closely parallel traditional Christian views regarding Jews. Which is to say, in the largest sense of the word, Professor Küntzel is correct.
Of course, it is also true that Mohammad did business with Jews. And, it is true that, prior to the rejection of Mohammad’s prophethood by Jews, Mohammad was close with the Jewish community. But, that changed and, thereafter, it can correctly be said that the view of Jews in Islamic thinking was rather negative, whether or not such negativity led to harsh treatment of Jews.
That is not to suggest that Jews and Muslims have always been on bad terms. Of course, they frequently were. At times, Jews were well treated. At other times, Jews were treated as bad or worse than in Christian countries. In no instances, have average Jews been treated as equals in any country governed according to Muslim law.
I should think the original is only mild.
How on earth would you even know? You don’t own a television, remember? you’ve never seen Al Aqsa TV or al manar or any other channel belonging to any major arab faction. where are you getting your understanding of HAMAS and its philosophy, if not from its documents or its broadcasts?
Unlike yourself I base my opinion on personal direct experience, not overt prejudice. “You should think the original is mild” because you have already made up your mind. As it happens the french and german governments disagree with you and agree with me.
By the way “I speak arabic” isn’t some kind of trump card, nor is it especially impressive. arabic translation runs .05 a word. If you’re claiming some kind of linguistic expertise, you need to both demonstrate your credentials and show how the translations in question are flawed, or admit that the translations were accurate. You haven’t done so here… the avalon translation is almost identical to the HAMAS translation. your credibility as a linguist looks very shaky.
Alex, on the issue of overly dramatic translations, I am reminded of the infamous MEMRI alleged translation of part of an episode of the Palestinian children’s show with the character Farfour. Among the numerous “mistakes” in that “translation” was “translating” “biddi arsem sura”, which is “I will (or I want to) draw a picture” as “I will shoot”. Even more egregiously, when the little girl said “B’ytukhoona al yahud”, which is “the Jews will shoot us” (something every Palestinian child realistically fears, the MEMRI “translation” came out as “We will annihilate the Jews”. There is simply no way on earth those were honest errors in translation. It is impossible to mistake the Arabic in that way.
In other words, who knows what was actually said on that TV show? It’s a sure thing that N. Friedman does not know (or care, I would wager).
Shirin,
I mentioned no TV shows.
Well, N. Friedman, my big bad! That just shoots the substance of my argument to hell doesn’t it?
OK, who knows what that article actually said?
Better, now?
on the issue of overly dramatic translations, I am reminded of the infamous MEMRI alleged translation blah blah blah
And I am reminded that your 2nd hand analysis hinged on the quality of someone else’s transcript (and with a name like “Angry Arab” you know the guy is completely without bias , right?)
It’s interesting that the French gov. decision to ban Al Manar TV had nothing to do with MEMRI or any of your other stock villains, but with totally unrelated material from its own board-certified translators (specifically a blood libel about Zionists spreading AIDS.)
whats the matter Shirin – didn’t “Angry Arab” cover this story? Wonder why not? Surely his French is as good as his Arabic?
http://www.rtbf.be/info/pas-de-diffusion-en-europe-pour-la-television-du-hamas-al-aqsa-tv-70009
Shirin,
If by that article, you mean Professor Küntzel’s article that Vadim (and not I) cited, you will have to show that Professor Küntzel has relied on a bad translation (and not that the translator may have, in some other circumstances, made errors). After all, translators often make errors and, sometimes, the errors are real whoppers. And such occurs all the time and, despite your assertions, are not proof of bad intent.
If Professor Küntzel has used bad translations, what was actually said in the passages that Professor Küntzel references? My bet is that you neither know nor care what was actually said. And, my bet is that the translations are sufficiently accurate to get the gist of what was said.
To note: if the translations are wrong, I would, in fact, like to know because I actually do care to get at the truth. Can we say that about you? We shall see.
N. Friedman, I was not addressing you, I was addressing Alex, and now that I revisit my comment more attentively, I realize that I was responding to this: “What is the central allegation of the article? the claim that al-Aqsa TV said “Wipe out the Jews”.” So, I was quite correct in referring to a TV show in my original comment. Therefore I take back my correction.
Who knows what was actually said on that TV program that was conveniently translated as “wipe out the Jews”? If MEMRI can “translate” “I will draw a picture” as “I will shoot”, and “the Jews will shoot us” as “we will annihilate the Jews”, then the actual statement in that TV show could have been just about anything.
I have not referred to the article in question, therefore it is not necessary for me to have read it.
As for you claim that you “actually do care to get at the truth”, if you believe that of yourself, then you are seriously delusional.
Shirin,
Again, I mentioned no TV show. And, your post did seem to pertain to me, which is likely why you responded to me. And, as for your MEMRI translation, I do not believe you have it right. I think you have posted some nonsense you read on a third party website.
I might add that MEMRI has been used by the Palestinian National Authority.
N. Friedman,
For the second time I was not addressing you. I didn’t even refer to you. In fact, I did not read what you wrote, so I have no idea what you mentioned or did not mention. I was responding specifically and solely to this from Alex: “What is the central allegation of the article? the claim that al-Aqsa TV said ‘Wipe out the Jews’. Was it said, as I imagine, in Arabic? It’s a very dramatic translation; better let us know what the Arabic is. It is indeed a pointed translation, intended to horrify westerners. I should think the original is only mild. As you can see, he did mention a TV show, and he did suggest that without hearing the Arabic the translation is suspect.
As for the MEMRI translation, how on earth would YOU know whether or not it is correct? Have you seen the video? Would you understand a single word if you DID see it? It so happens that I watched and listened to that video over and over again, as did many other people, and we all agree on what the characters actually said. It is not sophisticated, high-level classical Arabic poetry that requires a scholar to analyze, it is simple, easily understood child-level colloquial Arabic. There is absolutely no question what the characters said, and there is no question that MEMRI’s translation was egregiously wrong, and maliciously so, in several places.
And now I will go back to ignoring you as I have been doing since you reappeared.
Shirin,
1. You referenced me in your comment.
2. Your statement regarding the translation is unproven.
3. MEMRI employs a large number of translators. In that I work with translators in my practice, I know that translators, no matter how careful they are, making humongous errors. Their translations no infrequently, do not resemble the original. So, I think your point is, to be frank, nonsense.
4. I have not checked the translation used by Professor Küntzel but note that, given the amount of vile Antisemitism that is the norm in the Arab Muslim regions including in Palestinian areas, I have no reason to suspect that the translation is incorrect. More than that, were it incorrect, there would be someone who would point out the error. I have not seen any such thing.
As such, I think your position is merely an effort to avoid facts.
My oh my, you guys have a lot of leisure time don’t you? Life on the beach must be treating you very well indedd.
Vadim,
BDS. Yes. As to the main thrust of your question: the only model we have is S Africa and the anti-Apartheid movement. The name may say that its goal was to dismantle Apartheid but what good would that have been without bringing down the system from which it was bred?
Any grass-roots inspired campaign such as this is going to attract people based on the perceived righteousness of the cause and then, if effective, will often exercise power through market forces. I think it would be naive to think that dismantling some concrete obstacles and a few settlements would slake the thirst for change that has taken hold among those around the world who view the denial of rights to Palestinian’s as an injustice worth fighting against. They’ll probably go after the cause of that injustice, which many would see as Zionism. You see, most outside Israel do not share the view of Zionism that prevails within. It has become, in the minds of many in the outside world, something of a dirty word – at best an ideology corrupted in its practice – and as such perhaps best consigned to the dustbin of history along with all the other failed -isms.
What will be truly interesting to watch will be the response of Israeli’s – across the political spectrum – and how they choose to deal with this shift in the power dynamic. If the Palestinian’s are also able to adopt a disciplined campaign of non-violent resistance, as proposed by Barghouti, then we’re really in for a ride.
N,
I don’t know what more to say to you really. Your lack of self awareness displayed in this thread is not only astounding but quite sad. You seem so locked in your own need to be in the right that you can’t recognize the greatness of the contradiction in which you’re locked.
For you human rights are only about your rights and the idea that they come at the expense of another’s seems either not to occur to you or (because of your superiority??) not to matter. I guess that with the kind of hostility you carry on your shoulders it must be difficult to see straight.
and as such perhaps best consigned to the dustbin of history along with all the other failed -isms.
That’s pretty ambitious Steve, consigning other country’s political systems to the dustbin with a regal sweep of your scepter. Any other political movements need abolishing or only zionism?
Of course if you’re going to make BDS about denying the Jewish right to national self determination I only hope you make that super clear to everyone else involved which will likely doom it to failure as it deserves anyway. As far as world opinion goes, the last time it was tested was with UN Res 46/86 when the world firmly rejected the idea that Zionism was racist (a world body not know for excessive friendliness to Israel.) The right for Israel to exist as a Jewish state is in fact well accepted by most of the world.
I don’t think you’re quite grasping what’s possibly going to happen here Vadim. UN resolutions and government policies will become irrelevant and Israel’s right to exist (I’ve always found something childish in that – perhaps it’s just me…) will be overshadowed by a campaign that will take on a life of its own. It doesn’t matter what I think and you can rant away all you like but, if it takes hold, you can’t stop it.
BTW, someone should let Abe Foxman know about UN Res 46/86. He didn’t get the memo!!!
N. Friedman,
For the third and final time
1. I was not responding to you, I was responding to Alex. Up to that point I had not even read anything you had written, including whatever comment it was of yours that Alex was responding to.
2. This is what I was responding to “the claim that al-Aqsa TV said “Wipe out the Jews”. Was it said, as I imagine, in Arabic? It’s a very dramatic translation; better let us know what the Arabic is. It is indeed a pointed translation, intended to horrify westerners. I should think the original is only mild.”
3. We have already had this same conversation at least once about MEMRI’s inexcusably and maliciously false translation of the Farfour TV show, and I will not waste my time replaying it. My statements about the show are corroborated over and over again by a variety of different sources from all over the world, including at Ali Al Arabi, and Octavia Nasr, who were at that time respectively a member of and head of CNN’s Arabic Desk, and who rejected the item for broadcast as “not credible and flat out forgery”. MEMRI appears to have pulled the video from its website.
4. If it is normal for a translator to make such “humongous errors” as translating “biddi arsem sura” as “I will shoot”, and “b’ytukhoona al yahood” as “we will annihilate the Jews”, then they are 100% incompetent and should be fired immediately. Such horrifically bad translations are worse than no translations at all. If the translators you work with in your “practice” (whatever that is) “not infrequently do not resemble the original”, then they are worse than worthless, and I for one would not use them, nor would I ever recommend anyone ever use your services.
5. How on earth would you check Dr. Kuntzel’s translation when you don’t know any Arabic?
My part in this conversation is over. Enjoy talking to yourself.
How on earth would you check Dr. Kuntzel’s translation when you don’t know any Arabic?
Shirin, Dr. Kuntzel doesn’t work for MEMRI. How is he accountable for their errors? Why did you bring them up at all? This digression of yours is a complete smokescreen. Kuntzel is joined by the French and German governments in his view of HAMAS’ programming, and their translations have been vetted by teams of board certified translators. Not that I blame you for trying to change the topic.
As for checking translations, the way most of us check translations is by comparing them to other translations. This is also how most human beings learn to speak foreign languages (unless like you we are simply born knowing Arabic! Lucky Shirin!)
Just to clarify my point, Vadim, about the Künzel article in Der Spiegel.
N. Friedmann has already helped us out by showing that Künzel has written a tendentious anti-Muslim book.
On the TV show, you say
How on earth would you even know?
The expression “Wipe out the Jews” is an incendiary expression, destined to inflame adult Jews; it has no meaning for infant Palestinians. Shirin has shown us very well what happened in the translation (3:19 sept 4).
As for checking translations, the way most of us check translations is by comparing them to other translations.
That says it all. You don’t understand Arabic, so how can you criticise those who do?
Why did I even bother to respond? I have no idea. Friedman and Vadim have already condemned themselves out their own mouths.
With regard to Friedman’s piece displaying his “knowledge” of how the early Muslims hated the Jews.
True that there was a spat between Muhammad and the Jews in Madina. It was a political issue, lasted a couple of years, and never repeated. In following centuries, the relationship between Jews and Muslims was increasingly close. Christians thought initially that Islam was a branch of Judaism. A large part of the Talmud is repeated word-for-word in the Shari’a. I remember particularly an academic paper, given when I was a student, which showed that the Talmud on the bizarre subject of eating lizards is word-for-word the same in Islamic law. A Jew was the most famous vizier of the Fatimid Caliphs in Egypt.
The most revelatory case is an article I recently received from a Bulgarian professor about anti-semitism in Bulgaria. It seems that anti-semitism began in Bulgaria among the Christians in the early 19th century. Curiously enough it began at the same time as anti-Turkish nationalism. The Jews were identified with the Turks of Istanbul. Curious, isn’t it, that anti-semitism in a modern European country started because Jews were identified with Muslims?
“the way most of us check translations is by comparing them to other translations.”
And THEN what? You pick the one you like the best? Very reliable method indeed.
“Dr. Kuntzel doesn’t work for MEMRI. How is he accountable for their errors? ”
How clever of you to miss the point so completely.
“comparing [translations] to other translations…is also how most human beings learn to speak foreign languages…”
Well, I must say that is a very new – and different – technique for learning to speak a foreign language. There are a number of foreign language learning methods, some more effective than others, and I admit have never heard of the comparative translation method. Can you tell me where that one is used?
Yes Shirin, comparing usage is the basis for learning foreign languages, and the basis for understanding our own language. It’s why the OED publishes usage and context next to every definition, comparing usages from one person to the other to allow us to infer a common meaning. But it still hasnt penetrated your brain that A/N’s words were translated as “wiped from the map” by his own office, which shoots your feeble thesis in the foot.
Alex_no, like shirin you have presented no bona fides of your own. For all we know you speak no Arabic at all. It’s already been pointed out to you that HAMAS has been judged to be antisemitic by translators from all over the world, government board certified translators in France and germany. They are experts in modern Arabic; you have no proven expertise as a linguist. In any case you’ve already conceded the literal meaning of the hadith how could you not as its the same one offered by HAMAS itself?); you contest our interpretation that it’s antisemitic, a weird argument to be sure.
If your modus operandi is to avoid material or authors you consider ‘tendentious’ it’s a miracle you’re taken seriously by anyone as a researcher.
Oh, Vadim! How transparent you are sometimes. And how incredibly lame! So now you are changing your claim that people don’t learn foreign language by comparing one translation against other translations into a claim that they learn it by comparing one usage against other usages? And you thought no one would notice your claim shift?
And in the mean time, keep on evaluating translations by comparing them to other translations without having a clue about the original language. Yeah, THAT’s the way to know whether a translation is accurate or not.
Correction:
“you are changing your claim that people don’t learn foreign language…” should be “you are changing your claim that people learn foreign language…”
So, now Vadim has replaced the Comparative Translation Method of foreign language learning with another brand new revolutionary approach, the Comparative Usage Method.
I’m not changing my claim Shirin. You learned how to say “cat”one day when someone showed you a picture of a cat, and the english word, and next to it the arabic word. Ie they translated it. All your knowledge of Arabic is via earlier translations of vocabulary, grammar and idioms. Every translation you have ever made is synthesizing some earlier set of translations. Why is this banal insight so surprising to you?
I’m not sure why we’re on this topic; are guys claiming that only students of arabic are capable of knowing what is expressed in Arab media? That’s idiotic. Are you claiming I am judging HAMAS TV unfairly? Once again, and real slow — it isnt my judgment or memri’s or the israelis, but the french and german media watchdogs! why are they wrong?
LOL! No, Vadim, that is not how I learned to speak Arabic at all. Not even remotely close, but DO keep on making stuff up. It IS amusing.
And “comparing one translation to other translations” is beyond silly as an approach to evaluating translations. The only reasonable approach to evaluating translations is to compare the translation to the original in the original language.
And where on earth did you come up with the idea that anyone here has ever suggested that only students of Arabic are capable of knowing what is expressed on Arabic media? That is a dumb suggestion on its face, and no one here has said anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way.
And where on earth did you come up with the idea that anyone here has ever suggested that only students of Arabic are capable of knowing what is expressed on Arabic media? That is a dumb suggestion on its face…
Glad we agree. now: ignoring MEMRI for a second: is what kunzel claimed wrong? calling on all you know of Palestinian political trends. If he is wrong, why has Al Aqsa tv been banned by so many countries?
true or false: is al aqsa tv guilty of broadcasting anti-semitic hate speech? this is kunzels thesis, not that MEMRI is perfect or Israel is without blemish. FYI his piece doesn’t even cite MEMRI once.
I know you probably haven;t seen Al Aqsa tv, unless you’ve gone out of your way to see it while on vacation somewhere. So “I don’t know” is an ok answer.
Vadim, I merely responded to Alex’s suggestion that one should not accept the translation used by Kunzel without first comparing it to the original Arabic. My reason for this is that based on past experience with such things, translations from Arabic are often, shall we say, enhanced for effect. MEMRI’s fraudulent translation of the Farfour program is a strong case in point. I was not making a judgment about Kunzel’s article, or about Al Aqsa TV. I was merely agreeing with and augmenting Alex’s argument that the accuracy of the translation should not be taken for granted. The fact that Kunzel apparently makes clearly contra factual claims about the relationship with Jews in early Islam does not encourage me to trust anything in the article.
I use the same kind of reasoning with regard to the recent claims that Israel is targeting Palestinians as sources of organs, and is even kidnapping and murdering them for their organs. Until I see forensic evidence confirming these stories I am reserving judgment. Same with any inflammatory-sounding translation from Arabic.
If you have a problem with this, sorry, but that’s how it is.