Avigdor Lieberman’s electoral success has been a cause of alarm in Israel and abroad. Lieberman’s critics are justifiably concerned by his often inflammatory rhetoric, as well as his demand that the right to vote be made contingent upon citizens taking a loyalty oath — a policy totally unacceptable in a democratic society.
One of Lieberman’s more controversial proposals is his call to surrender Israeli Arab population centers to eventual Palestinian sovereignty as part of a land swap. Within the framework of an eventual Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank, he advocates annexing major Israeli settlement blocs and in exchange handing over to the Palestinians Israel’s Triangle region, an almost entirely Arab-populated strip of land just inside the 1967 Green Line, extending from the city of Umm al-Fahm in the north down to Kafr Qassem in the south.
Many view this proposal as part and parcel of what they see as Lieberman’s xenophobic agenda. But his critics should not be so quick to write off this idea simply because of the political leanings of its most prominent supporter. Such a land swap may even be necessary to ensure Israel’s long-term political and demographic stability.
While Lieberman is often labeled a far-rightist, the notion of swapping sovereignty over the Triangle is not a far-right idea. On the left, former deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh, a committed dove and until recently a prominent member of the Labor Party, has been an advocate of this very notion. And in 2002 Ehud Barak said that “such an exchange makes demographic sense and is not inconceivable” (though he cautioned that it “could only be done by agreement”). Indeed, underlying this idea is a principle that has long been championed by the left and is today supported by a majority of Israelis: the concept of two states for two peoples.
Most Israelis know that Israel must withdraw from the West Bank if it is to remain both a Jewish and a democratic state. But even if Israel does so, the underlying demographic dynamic will continue to yield a constant erosion of Israel’s Jewish majority.
In 2008, Arabs comprised 21% of the inhabitants of Israel (including East Jerusalem but not West Bank Palestinians). Because of higher Arab fertility rates, however, 25% of all births in Israel are to Arab families. Moreover, because of a much younger age composition, Arabs account for only 10% of all deaths in Israel. Thus, in 2008, excluding international migration, 30% of Israel’s natural population increase was in the Arab sector.
The present trend generates a steady growth of the Arab share of Israel’s population. Israel’s Arab population is expected to reach 23% in 2020 and 27% in 2050, while the share of Arabs among children younger than 15 will likely be 30% by 2020.
These numbers point toward a bi-national state, not to the Jewish state that most Israelis prefer. With two small adjustments to the Green Line, however, this demographic outlook can be radically transformed.
The Triangle region has an Arab population of some 250,000; another 250,000 Arabs reside in East Jerusalem. Together these two areas cover about 3% of Israel’s territory but are home to more than a third of Israel’s 1.4 million Arabs. By redrawing the frontier between Israel and the West Bank to place the Triangle and East Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian control, the Jewish proportion of the Israeli population would increase from the current 79% to 87%.
Under this scenario, the Jewish share of the population would remain well above 80% into the 2030s and beyond. Concern about Israel’s demographic composition would be postponed to a distant future, by which time the respective growth rates of the Jewish and Arab populations may well have converged.
True, this proposal has not been greeted warmly by the Triangle’s Arab residents. Israeli Arabs know that becoming citizens of a Palestinian state would involve a trade-off: Gains in the realm of national identity would likely be accompanied by losses in the areas of civil liberties, democratic rights and standard of living. As a result, for many Arabs remaining Israeli citizens while fighting for a separate identity within Israel — and, for some, demanding an alteration of the core identity of the Jewish state — seems like a better option. But it is also a recipe for heightened tensions and ongoing strife within Israeli society.
It is worth remembering that the text of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, adopted on November 29, 1947, called for the partition of British Mandate Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state — not an Israeli state and a Palestinian state. This solution was intended to solve a complicated conflict by recognizing the relevance and legitimacy of two distinct identities. Division along ethno-religious lines, possibly followed by economic cooperation, was the right solution back in 1947, and it still might be the only viable one now.
Sergio DellaPergola holds the Shlomo Argov Chair on Israel-Diaspora Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. The views expressed in this article are his own.
It's a subtle but crucial distinction: a Jewish and an Arab state as opposed to Israeli and Arab. Why isn't it enunciated more frequently?
Surely any such population "swap" would be premised on a referendum in each affected area. Israeli Arabs, some of whom identify as Palestinians, should be given the opportunity to decide for themselves in this matter. Do they vote to remain in the State of Israel, or to transfer their land and citizenship to the State of Palestine?
I don't see why the future State of Palestine can (and indeed is expected) to expel its Jewish residents, while any talk of expelling Arab residents from Israel is considered racist.
If the land west of the Jordan is to be divided into two sovereign states, then Jews living in the West Bank should be given the opportunity to decide for themselves. Do they vote to remain in the future State of Palestine, or to transfer their land to the State of Israel?
If one is to rely on the 1947 partition agreement as a rationale for the unlawful removal of citizenship from some 300,000 Palestinian-Israelis in the sole interest of a Jewish State (i.e., ethnic cleansing), then would this reliance also entail the return of all the land accorded the Palestinians in that agreement but taken in the 1948 war?
Of course, I doubt very much Mr DellaPergola would entertain any such notion. As his article makes clear he is unblushing in his support of his brand of ethnic nationalism. Any state that relies for its identity and concept of survival on maintaining in perpetuity a majority of a particular ethnic group is not worth supporting.
Mr. DellaPergola proposes facts that may not be facts. First, Democratic Societies such as the USA have loyalty oaths that every Service Man must swear too. MR. Dellapergoilla may not have served in the US Military so he would not be aware of this Loyalty fete. It seems to me,atb least when I went to Public School in the US, many, many years ago we pledged the Alegiance to the Flag and for which it stands every morning. Enough of this nonsense about Democratic Societies not haveing Loyalty pledges.
As I recall, courtesy of the Jerusalem Post, the Birth rates in Jerusalem are now almost equal, the Arab birthrate declining and the Jewish Birthrate on the increase. It is not unusual for birthrates of people used to living in third world enviorments, to decrease when exposed to a higher standard of living. No need to have a dozen children to support a family when the head of the household can do it himself, or herself.
The fear tactic of overwhelmingly taking over Israel by birthrate is just that. If 1,400,000 Arabs can overtake 6,000,000 Jews in thirty years, so be it.
Grif You got a problem with the Jews having their own state? Too racist and militaristic those Zionist Jews unlike their tolerant Jihadist neighbors. I won't mention those White settlers who wiped out the Native Americans, enslaved the Africans and imprisoned the Japanese (for their own good)ofcourse. I won't mention that most Europeans are White and Christian or that Most Arabs are Muslims and that they have not been all that tolerent of minorities. To mention these facts would be fresh and an inconvenent truth.
Danny,
You seem to have a problem with logic. You want me to support a Jewish state but openly compare Zionist Jews with such perpetrators of genocide as racist early American settlers. I take your reasoning runs that since we murdered Native Americans, enslaved Blacks, and deprived Japanese-Americans of their civil liberties then the Israelis should be able to do the same to the Palestinians without anyone complaining. This is the logic of the sandbox and remarkably obtuse. You do remember that all of the above is now considered by all as crimes against humanity?
As to your equally childish second point: Neither the USA nor any European nation is designated as for Christians only. They are states of all their citizens, a phrase abhorred and rejected in Israel as code for the end of the Jewish state. While Muslim states can indeed be intolerant it is hardly an argument for the continuation of another intolerant state merely because it is not Muslim but Jewish.
I continue to be surprised at the number of American Jews (like you) who openly support discriminatory conditions and policies in Israel in the name of a Jewish State, but would scream to holy heaven if the same were once again practiced here.
Grif,
I agree with a lot of what you say about we American Jews and the prevalent double standard (although it is NOT true that no European states are officially Christian e.g. the UK, Denmark and others). However, in your rush to condemn the idea you ignore the fact that there are many ways to describe this so-called "swap."
First, you characterize it merely as the "ethnic cleansing" of Arab citizens of Israel. But they would not be kicked out of houses or land, so I don't see how you call it ethnic cleansing. Nevertheless, while not really "ethnic cleansing" it certainnly wouldn't be acceptable if their area were unilaterally cut off and kicked aside by Israel (although it's hard to see how those who deny the legitimacy of the State of Israel could object, since in their view it would just be the return of more occupied territory that could be turned into another base for rocket attacks like Gaza, no?)
You also seem to forget that the idea is for a swap. There are Jewish towns and communities in the West Bank (mostly close to the border) which, although illegal, Israel legitimately needs to retain for defensive purposes. Most are not built on confiscated land. Certainly the Palestinian state might be willing to swap these areas, especially since not swapping them WOULD also require them to kick these Jews out of the Palestinian state, which would also be unacceptable.
Obviously all this stuff would have to be done as part of an agreement. But it may be a useful idea, nevertheless, and need not be done in a racist or violent manner. So don't be so quick to dismiss it.
By the way, I agree that Danny Seigel's comments are idiotic.
David and Grif So you have the right disagree with me. I'm concerned about Israel's future and that of the Jewish People. I believe that they will continue to be a moral people and a just if imperfect nation unlike their neighbor/enemies. I guess I have so much to learn from you gents about the Arabs persuit of peace and their genuine concern for the minorities amongst them.
Danny,
Your childish and sarcastic comment is as foolish as the first. If you care about Israel, then pointing out what you call the "fresh and inconvenient truth" that the US wiped out Native Americans and that Arab states have really bad human rights (and therefore why can't we?) is just plain dumb.
Sorry, but your previous comments were rude and sarcastic so you can't mind being treated rudely too.
Your way is not the way to win and argument. Grif's posting about Lieberman's idea was wrong and one-sided, but rudeness, sarcasm and putting words into his mouth is not the best way to respond.
David How can I be more to the point? I certainly do not condone the ill treatment of minorities but I sympathize with Israel's need to enhance her security. Actually I think you agree with the author as well. Our difference is in our approach to Grif. Nothing you or I say will resonate with him because he is anti zionist. I doubt Grif cares much about seperatists in India or Spain or minorities in the Arab countries or the lack there of in some of them but he would support a boycott of Israel. What you don't get is that he finds your politics every bit as repulsive as mine. So I choose to disparage his comments with sarcasm and you prefer to apologize. You don't have to apologize for me and certainly not to people like Grif.
Danny, you are reading an awful lot into Grif's posting that is not there. Maybe he thinks the things you say, maybe he doesn't. But he hasn't said them and you are attacking a straw man that you have created.
Why do you think I apologize, when in fact I criticized Grif? You appear to be one of those people that thinks engaging in a rational debate is the same as "apologizing" (the same as you seem to think that anyone critizing Zionism must hold all sorts of unpleasant views about Jews). The fact that you argue in an illogical way (by referring to unpleasant acts comitted by other groups as if this were an excuse) is not my problem, it's yours.
And attributing fictitious statements and beliefs to other people that are the product of your own imagination is not helpful either.
David I never justified Israeli actions by the wrong doings of other nations. I compare Israel favorably to these other states. In light of Jewish history I don't think zionism is such a bad idea. Israel is not beyond criticism but I'm still in favour of a state for the Jews. I'm convinced Grif isn't. And I don't think you get it. Then again I read in your post to Grif that you actually agree about some prevalent double standard. Maybe you don't get it.
Really, then why mention the wrongdoings of other nations? To say we're not AS bad NOW as they were THEN? Sorry, but what's your point?
And I do agree with Grif about the double standard, although probably little else. We American Jews make the separation of church and state (in America) almost an article of faith. But when it comes to Israel no-one says a word. And he is right when he says that the notion of a "state of all its citizens" is abhorred and rejected in Israel as a code for the end of the Jewish state. But the notion for we Jews that the US could be a "Christian" country is just as abhorrent to us. How is that not a double standard?
If Israel wants to be a modern, Western democracy then it may have to adjust. If it wants to be a state like the others around it (where minorities are oppressed and dispossessed, if tolerated at all), it can also choose that path. But you can't have it both ways.
Zionism comes in many shades, including that of Ahad Ha'am and Martin Buber, as well as Zionist political parties in Israel who adopt political and defense views very different from those of most Israeli governments.
So what is it again that I "don't get?"
I support the resettlement of all Jews living in Palestine to Las Vegas. Unlike Palestine, Jews do have a historic claim to Las Vegas, since Bugsy Siegel founded Las Vegas. Palestine is holy to Islam and Christianity, Las Vegas is holy to Jews
Raed Kami I don't care what you support.I just wish you would take a bath.
David
Do you really want to discuss Achad Ha'am? Why not Rip Van Winkle because what you are missing is the last 60 years of war. Grif would have us return to 1947 and Raed wants us out. That is what you are missing. Thanks Raed for making my point. What you are missing is that inspite of all the wars Israel has treated the Israeli Arabs much better than the Americans treated the Japanese Americans during WW2. Really David you are all over the place. You agree with Grif about church and state and American Jews double standards but you also see the merit of land swaps. You even said the Grif was one sided. That is putting it mildly. You/Grif-Grif/you can twist my words all you want but I compare Israel favourably to the Spanish with the Basques and the Americans with the Japanese Americans. Don't tell me about Israel's additude towards non Jews. Remember how they rescued Vietnamese boat people? How is it that Sudanese refugees prefer to be Moslems living in a Jewish State than Africans living in Egypt? What you are missing is that Israel is a Jewish state much like Itally is an Itallian state. They are both basically secular but have a strong religious presence. You don't have to be Jewish to be Israeli. The Druze don't seem to mind. The problem in a nut shell is that many Israeli Arabs identify with our enemies. They refer to themselves as Palestinians and many support Hamas and Hizbollah. So David reading Buber is a nice thing but sending your kid to school on a bus in Jerusalem requires reading psalms. That is what this conversation is all about. That is why 12% of Israelis voted for Lieberman. Israel is not above criticism. Indeed soul searching is the Jewish national pastime but shmucks like Grif and Kami try my patience.
So much intelligence wasted upon such an easy solution. Jews have no historic claim to Palestine. They could have come to Peru and called it a holy land, but Palestine was closer. Here is the solution. Have Georg Soros and Bernie Madoff finance the resettlement of Jews to Las Vegas with the money they stole. The world will forgive them, and this will be a final solution to the Palestinian conflict
Raed There is no such thing as a Palestinian nor is there a Jordanian or Syrian. Anyway if the Jews packed up and left Israel you still wouldn't have peace. The truth is the Arab world doesn't give a damn about the 'Palestinians'. Atleast under Israeli occupation the infant mortality rate of the Arabs has decreased (thankfully). What is your excuse for the suicide bombings in Iraq? Zionist imperialism? The Arab leadership is responsible for the poor shameful state of affaires in your countries. There is no solution for the improvement of your average 'Joe Arab's' life as long as your leaders are thugs like Assad or Moslem fanatics like Nasrallah. I pity you Raed.
David,
I would disagree that Israel needs the illegal settlements of the West Bank for defensive purposes. It is those settlements indeed, and the actions of those within them, that spark much of the anger and violence. What Israel needs for defense is peace with its neighbors based on equal justice for Palestinians, which is not now, nor has ever been on the table. For a two-state solution to work Israel must withdraw entirely from the West Bank and Gaza (yes, its still occupied) and this newly created Palestine must have all the rights and privileges that Israel enjoys, as well as sancrosanct borders, air space, and control over its resources. Also Jerusalem would have to be shared - not just some outlying suburb but the old city itself, contiguous with Palestine.
But even if this is done the question remains: What of the rights of Palestinian-Israelis? At the moment they are third-class citizens, the Druze included. The question never fully answered is how can Israel remain a "Jewish State" in the sense that it is today and still give full and equal rights to all its citizens? I don't believe it can, and I don't believe Israeli Jews even entertain the notion that it can. Otherwise there would not be all this fuss over the "demographic threat." European nations may, as you point out, officially be Christian of various stripes, but no rights or privileges in any European nation depend on whether one is a Christian or not. But whether one is Jewish in Israel (and even what sort of Jew if you wish to be married) determines what rights and privileges of citizenship one may enjoy.
As for the "swap" I would say that if each Palestinian-Israeli to be swapped back to the PA was given the individual choice either to stay an Israeli or become a citizen of the PA then I would have no complaints at all. But as long as that choice remains out of their hands and done for the convenience of Israel's obsession with the "demographic threat" then it remain an act of ethnic cleansing, whether or not they are pushed from their homes and land.
If there is anything that the long struggle for equality in the United States demonstrated is that one cannot have a democracy, or domestic peace and tranquility, until all citizens enjoy equal rights. One item the US has over Israel is the promise of equality in the Constitution, that which Dr, King referred to as "that promissory note." Israel has no constitution (although creating such remains an unfulfilled condition of its admission to the UN) and no binding "promissory note" for its citizens.
Grif
I agree as I think the author probably wood that the Arabs would not easily agree to redrawing borders for the reasons he mentioned. But the real question is why didn't the Arabs create a Palestinian state during the 19 years of Jordanian rule. You can't seem to accept that this is not a border war and that territorial adjustments and affirmative action/integration will create peace for Israel. If Palestinians are to achieve statehood in the near future they will have to compromise with Israel based on resolution 242. Unfortunately for these people their leaders (the Mufti) started the war and they lost and then they cried foul and that they anted their land back. Just ask Raed.
Danny,
According to John Glubb in his 1957 biography "A Soldier with the Arabs" the leaders of Arab Palestine assembled in Jericho on December 1st, 1948 and drew up a resolution in support of the unification of Trans-Jordan and what was left of Arab Palestine. On December 13 the Trans-Jordan Parliament passed the necessary modifcation of the constitution into law.
The other Arab states immediately raised hell, Egypt and Syria in particular. The Arab League agreed not to recognize the unification. Glubb goes on to claim the unification to represent the genuine desire of the Palestinian people. Without a government or an army of their own they had no alternative but to join another existing government, the army of which was already defending their country. I might add also the already existing affinity between the two.
This is Glubb's take. It seems about right to me.
So this goes on without a complaint for 19 years until the Israelis take the West Bank. Jordan had long before dismantled the military machine that had kept the Israelis at bay, and had no stomach for a long drawn-out fight. But life under Israel is not the same kettle of fish. Land gets taken, settlements are built, the military and settlers rule. Palestinians are now being squeezed on their last bit of land. Why wouldn't there be a revival of Palestinian national aspirations? There is nowhere else for them to turn.
I don't believe this to be a border war. I believe this to be colonial war, among the last, if not the last. Israel has two viable paths, neither of which, I am afraid, Israel has any interest in following.
One is a bi-national, pluralistic democracy, of which there are several examples Israel might model her own after ranging from ours to the Swiss confederation. The other is the two-state solution along the lines of which I posted before. The former is an idea gaining ground, but far, far from any acceptance in Israel. A shame, since it the path most likely to provide a lasting peace. As to the latter, Israel could have done this any time in the last 42 years, but clearly has no interest. In fact for years after Arafat first promoted the two-state, land for peace, concept it was anathema to even mention it in Israel. It considered code for the end of the Jewish State (seems like nearly everything is code for the end of the Jewish State - "You don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's!" What, you're driving our rye bread into the sea!). Israel instead was openly consolidating its control over the WB. Ariel Sharon most famously insisted upon this, "Take all the hills," and everyone since has only followed suit.
Israel's plans for the WB are a series of disconnected bantustans surrounded by Jewish settlements, IDF checkpoints, and Jewish only roads. It will continue as a pit of poverty, misery, and festering anger at their overlords. Israel itself will continue on its path to become a theocratic Jewish Prussia in the Middle East, belligerent, paranoid, violent, and growing ever more alienated from the diaspora. Remember, the Irish fought the British for 800 years, and some are still fighting, the Vietnamese fought the Chinese for 1000 years, the French for 120 years, the Japanese for 4, and the Americans for 12. I see no evidence that the Palestinians are not able and willing to do the same.
As to the Palestinians compromising with Israel. I fail to see how the Palestinians have not already compromised more than any other people in a like situation. They relinquished claim to 78% of their homeland in hopes of retaining the last 22%. Israel, however, wants half of that as well, if not more. It is Israel that needs to back down, the sooner the better.
And frankly, the Mufti did not start this war. The Zionists started this war long ago. The historical evidence weighs down every library shelf in the country. Read Benny Morris, for Christ's sake. While Morris supports the total ethnic cleansing of every last Palestinian, he is at least honest enough to admit that this was the aim all along.
Grif I just don't see it. The Mufti (Hitler's friend) said we'll drive the jews in to the sea.Nasser said so too. Although Jordan annexed the West Bank only a couple of countries recognized it. Why didn't Jordan help the Palestinians establish an independent state during those 19 years? I fail to see the compomise. The Palestinians would say the have nothing to give up but a claim. That doesn't sound like much. They chose not to accept partition before either they or Israel had indepedence. The Arabs states refused peace negotiations after the 6 day war. They were offered a contiguous state with East Jerusalem 9 years ago. I disagree that Israel is a colonial power. The Jews were expelled or fled in fear from most of the countries from which they came. This was not like the British in Virginia or India. The Arabs may continue to fight for 1000 years and eventually they might win but what will they have won? Certainly the last several years have been absolute hell. It's so much easier to blame others rather than take resonsibility for themselves. Many Arabs will tell you that it was the Zionists that blew up the Trade Center. Their convinced of it. Does that make it so? Their leaders have done more harm to them than their enemies. And their brethren don't care about them which is why they suffer in refige camps. Grif I believe you genuinely care about the welfare of the Palestinians. Aren't you disturbed at how they have been exploited by their leadership? Aren't you outraged by their use of kids as suicide bombers? Now about Arafat you are aware that the PLO was formed in 1964 three years before the 6 day War. Their intention was to replace Israel with a Palestinian state not 2 states coexisting. I suppose you and I could go on and on but the bottom line is that you will never accept the Israel has legitimate security needs. As I tried to tell David this is because you don't accept the legitamacy of the state of Israel. At best you will tolerate an Israel that gives in to all of her enemies demands. Hello David
Danny,
Nearly everything you said in your last post is either entirely incorrect, immaterial, or repetitive.
The Mufti, for all his rhetoric did not start this conflict. It had been going on for some time before he fled to Germany.
I already mentioned how unpopular Jordan's unification with the WB was. To what purpose are you bringing it up again? Entirely unclear what point you are making.
I already gave one explanation as to why Jordan did not create a Palestinian state. Why are you asking the same question again?
Neither side truly accepted the 1947 partition, not the Palestinians for obvious reasons, neither the Zionists for they had no intention of remaining within their portion, but immediately began driving out the Arabs from theirs.
The Zionists had been preparing for war with the Palestinians for decades with arms, military training, and cadre. Zionist ideology always planned the takeover - Read Herzl, Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion, none of the founding Zionists were shy about it.
What some Arabs may say about 9-11 has nothing to do with this conversation. I've heard Jews say crazy things as well, so what?
What Arafat wanted in 1964 was different from he came to in 1988, which was the proposal for a two-state solution.
I think that the Palestinian leadership has been incompetent, stupidly violent, and far too often corrupt. I think the Israeli leadership has been mendacious, stupidly violent, and also corrupt.
Your notion of Israel's security needs is whatever Israel cares to do at any given moment. For you it is Israel Uber Alles. Israel is her own worst enemy. In the name of this anachronistic ethnic nationalism Israel has gotten more Jews (and Americans) killed than at any time or place since World War Two - and all on the American tax payer's dime. Thank you very much.
If there will ever be peace in that tiny corner it will come only when Israel is dragged kicking and screaming to the table and forced to observe the dictates of International Law and Treaty. Until then Israelis will continue to slaughter Palestinians, Israelis will continue to die, and ordinary Americans, who have long been denied a voice in this affair, will continue to be targeted by extremists.
Grif You do miss the point. Jordan had the opportunity to help he Palestinians create their own state and they didn't. The Arabs were always against an Israel and that is a theat to their security. Don't give me this crap that Americans don't have a say. What does the Jewish lobby control your vote? believe me Grif I don't give a damn where you stand or if you want to withold your tax dollars or go to Gaza on a boat or protest the wall. That is your right so exercize it. You are flat out anti Israel and I don't care. That was my point from our first correspondence and you have confirmed it. I don't know just hw many Americans have put their lives on the line for Jews but I wouldn't expect you to. I told David that nothing he would say would ever resonate with you. That is why I continued to engage him and you. I think anyone who has bothered to follow our correspondence has enough from your writings to see your views are tainted.
At least Danny is an honest thief. He knows the Jews stole Palestine and wants to keep it. Grif wants to gloss the theft over with morality. If the Jews get to keep pre-1967 Palestine, that is acceptance of a massive theft. If they stay in a so-called state of all its people, the theft is accepted as well, because the Jews keep their stolen land. There is only one solution-Jews out of Palestine, to be absorbed somewhere on the planet.
Raed Stop talking.Start acting. Be a martyr. 72 virgins await you.
Danny,
Your problem is that you are a racist ignorant ideologue, an ultranationalist, a brown shirt - scratch you and a little man in jack boots jumps out.
Haaretz recently published the findings of a study from Tel Aviv University that speaks directly to the likes of you.
"A pioneering research study dealing with Israeli Jews' memory of the conflict with the Arabs, from its inception to the present, came into the world together with the war in Gaza. The sweeping support for Operation Cast Lead confirmed the main diagnosis that arises from the study, conducted by Daniel Bar-Tal, one of the world's leading political psychologists, and Rafi Nets-Zehngut, a doctoral student: Israeli Jews' consciousness is characterized by a sense of victimization, a siege mentality, blind patriotism, belligerence, self-righteousness, dehumanization of the Palestinians and insensitivity to their suffering. The fighting in Gaza dashed the little hope Bar-Tal had left - that this public would exchange the drums of war for the cooing of doves.
"Most of the nation retains a simplistic collective memory of the conflict, a black-and-white memory that portrays us in a very positive light and the Arabs in a very negative one," says the professor from Tel Aviv University."
Grif It seems I've struck a nerve in you. Have you read Raed's comments that all Jews should be relocated from the middle east? Or have you given any thought about your own comments blaming Jews for the loss of American lives? And who has denied you a 'voice'. The Forward, a Jewish newspaper has afforded you plenty of opportunity to spout your opposition not only to Israeli policies but to the existence of Israel. You haven't read my posts if you call me an ultranationalist. If you had you would know I am saddened by the suffering of Arabs and hope that peace can be achieved. However I have no illusions that I have enemies such as Raem who given half a chance would destroy Israel through violent means and people like you who would approve. Regarding your accusation that I am a brown shirt I'm not at all bothered as this is one more of your distortions of history and reality considering my family background. Inspite of my encounter with you I have come to enjoy these posts. Most amuzing amongst them was Raem's last post where he actually likens us except that I am considered the more honest of the two. Go ahead Grif read it. He not only hates the Jew but the anti semite too. I'll tell you a true story that happened some years back. An Arab in London placed his pregnant Irish girlfriend on a plane to Tel Aviv. She was going to meet his parents on the west bank. The Arab did not board the plane himself but placed a suit case loaded with a bomb on it. Fortunately security discovered and prevented this terrorist attempt. Now even a brown shirt like me can have a blessing for Raem and you: INSHAALLAH Raem should be a martyr and you can be his bitch.
Danny,
You are one very sick human being filled with hate and arrogance.
Grif cry baby
Grif,
Danny has made some inconsistent, irrelevant and foolish points in the course of this discussion, as well as many things with which I disagree. (He has also allowed himself to sink to the level of the racist idiot who says that "the Jews" should take the money stolen by George Soros and Bernard Madoff to resettle in Las Vegas).
However, you Grif have made some comments that indicate your own mentality. I had hoped Danny was mistaken, how disappointing.
1. The Bar-Tal study illustrates the unfortunate (to say the least) attitudes that many Israelis increasingly hold towards the Palestinians. That so many hold these attitudes, while disappointing, is probably not surprising. I dare say the majority of Palestinians hold a similar set of views (or much worse) as they have repeatedly shown, but you don't seem at all excercised about that. I dare say a large majority of Americans also felt the same way when George Bush invaded Iraq. But these things apparently make Israelis (or their supporters) into Nazis ("brown shirts," "jack booted thugs"). You just can't resist the nice little Israelis=Nazis analogy can you?
2. You state: "Israel has gotten more Jews (and Americans) killed than at any time or place since World War Two - and all on the American tax payer's dime." Not sure what you're talking about here, you've conveniently forgotten Vietnam and Korea (or perhaps the Zionists were behind those wars?), but even if you do so, are you blaming Israel for 9/11 or for the Iraq war? Perhaps you'd like to explain.
3. Your history of the 2-State solution and its proponents is severely lacking. Israel had been officially proposing that long before Arafat came around to it. And now that Israel evacuated one of the 2 major chunks of land that would constitute a Palestinian state, albeit the smaller one, what's the lesson the Palestinians have taught them? Have the Palestinians shown that they are interested in prosperity, in getting along? That Israelis should trust their lives to them?
4. Stop pretending to be concerned for the American taxpayer's dime. I'm from the same place as you are, and it's pretty obvious.
5. Read this if you want to see some decent Left analysis: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6118/
David I'm not flattered when you disagree with Grif about almost everything but me. I think I read him right from the start. And I never suggested that the Jews relocate to Las Vegas with 'Madoff's money. That was our friendly Jihadist Raem. That would be completely inconsistent with everything I have written. Perhaps you should read more carefully the written word and stop referring to me unkindly and inaccurately. I'm not a racist. Grif is anti Israel--not just critical of her policies but opposed to her existence. Raem is even more extreme. I will tell you one thing though. If the Israelis were to pick up and move to Nevada property values would go up but it would plummet in Palestine.(LOL) So please refrain from calling me names or I will tell every one what a wimp you have been.
David I'm not flattered when you disagree with Grif about almost everything but me. I think I read him right from the start. And I never suggested that the Jews relocate to Las Vegas with 'Madoff's money. That was our friendly Jihadist Raem. That would be completely inconsistent with everything I have written. Perhaps you should read more carefully the written word and stop referring to me unkindly and inaccurately. I'm not a racist. Grif is anti Israel--not just critical of her policies but opposed to her existence. Raem is even more extreme. I will tell you one thing though. If the Israelis were to pick up and move to Nevada property values would go up but it would plummet in Palestine.(LOL) So please refrain from calling me names or I will tell every one what a wimp you have been.
David I'm not flattered when you disagree with Grif about almost everything but me. I think I read him right from the start. And I never suggested that the Jews relocate to Las Vegas with 'Madoff's money. That was our friendly Jihadist Raem. That would be completely inconsistent with everything I have written. Perhaps you should read more carefully the written word and stop referring to me unkindly and inaccurately. I'm not a racist. Grif is anti Israel--not just critical of her policies but opposed to her existence. Raem is even more extreme. I will tell you one thing though. If the Israelis were to pick up and move to Nevada property values would go up but it would plummet in Palestine.(LOL) So please refrain from calling me names or I will tell every one what a wimp you have been.
Danny,
I certainly didn't say anything that you should consider flattering. You are a fool, at best. What are we to make of the fact that you make childish racist comments in one breath and then claim not to be a racist in the next? Do you think you are helping anyone by making racist comments? Do you think that if someone makes racist comments about Jews that it's OK to make racist comments about other races?
I'm really not interested in a discussion with you. You argue like an immature college student.
David I didn't make racist statements. You are quite stupid as you just woke up to Grif's extreme views which he expressed in his first post. My posts have mocked him/her and Raem. You even attributed Raem's posts to me. You can continue to grovel to them if you want by name calling me before trying to persuade them but they still regard you as a racist zionist. Quite frankly I don't think you have any guts.
Apparently your English comprehension is at an even lower level than I thought. You can't even follow what I wrote. And I suppose it was another Danny Seigel that wrote those racist things (which you call "mocking" Raem).
Again, you repeat more of this idiotic nonsense that if someone else did something bad, someone else is a racist, someone else blah blah blah that it somehow excuses you from being a decent human being.
You have diverted this discussion to make it all about you. I am not interested in continuing this discussion with you, so go away. I'm sure you will write something else childish and tedious, as I'm sure you feel the need to have the last word. Good luck with that.
David Calling Raem a Jihadist because he wants the Jews of the planet is racist? Asking him to martyr himself because he suggests Jewish resettlement could be financed by Soros or Madoff is racist? The point you finally woke up to was that Grif was not opposed to Israeli policies but her existence. You did attribute Raem's comments to me but I won't ask for an apology. No amount of links you send to Grif are going to persuade him of Israel's cause. He believes Zionism is racism. I wouldn't have minded civil discourse with you and exploring your views whether we would agree or not because I don't think your an anti semite but Grif certainly showed his colors. that is why I attacked him. You may not think I was effective but I never thought I could reason with him. No sarcasm intended--Good Luck.
You really are dumb. Since your tedious repetitions of the same 2 ridiculous points appear to be the result of stupididy rather than malice, I will spell it out for you in black and white:
1. If it is not a racist comment, then what is "I wish you would take a bath" supposed to mean? That was an ignorant racist comment, and there are no two way about it. Do you still not get it?
2. I DID NOT ATTRIBUTE RAED'S COMMENTS TO YOU. What, you can't follow the object noun of a simple sentence in English? Duh. I said you had sunk to his level, which you did.
Enough already, just crawl back under your rock.
In response to Raem's filthy comment I told him to take a bath. Not an unprovoked slur. To your second point I would have to reread your comment. By the way why did it take you so long to catch on to Grif? I thonk you mentioned you read Buber and Achad Ha'am? Perhaps you should read them again and learn to be a mensch.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.