• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« MRN Propaganda 101: Lie! | Main | Dept of Foreign Affairs Funds Apartheid Israel Study »

June 01, 2009


Religious Fundamentalist 1


I support your call for reasoned debate. The following words should be banned: fascist, leftist, racist, and any other term intended to quash the person's logic by resorting the defamation. On the other hand, being caught lying should be an instant dismissal.
To the point:

What do you think Netanyahu would have gained by formally endorsing a two-state solution (and what do you think he lossed, by not)?

Why do you think he opted for the formulation:

“We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel.”
"The Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; will have to also enable Israel to have the means to defend itself. And if...Israel’s security conditions are met, and there’s recognition of Israel’s...permanent legitimacy, then I think we can envision an arrangement where Palestinians and Israelis live side by side in dignity, in security, and in peace.”
What do you think the hysterics that followed his visit (by reporters and people pointing at the non-explicit endorsement) say about those peoples' ability to assess the situation from anything other than their pre-conceived jargon points and consequently their actual level of knowledge of the situation? (not to mention their ability to analyse it)?

The Blacklisted Dictator


I think it is pretty much irrelevant what The SAJR, David Saks, Zev Krengel, Avrom Krengel, Dennis Davis, Michael Kransdorff, Gary Selikow, Nathan Geffen, Doron Isaacs and even Anthony Posner etc etc think about The Israeli's Govt attitude towards "The Two State Solution". If we go and live in Israel our views might be worth discussing. But whilst we are living in South Africa, we should actually "Shut The F Up".

Our views on what the Israeli Govt, should or shouldn't do next, are about as pertinent as our views on Sri Lanka, Burma, General Motors, Gordon Brown, Chrysler, The Pope and Basque terrorism.

It is a bit demeaning to think of oneself as irrelevant. It does nothing for the self-esteem. So it might be worth reading some self-help books to get us through this temporary impasse re Israeli politics.


That sure is rich coming from a guy who requests that Israel cuts ties with SA :)

The Blacklisted Dictator

Posner's demand that Israel cuts diplomatic links with SA isn't hypocritical since it concerns SA, a dominion in which he resides.

(the previous comment btw was actually posted by Steve, not by The Blacklisted Dictator)


(Steve occasionally posts comments Anthony emails to him because he is often blocked from posting comments due to his poor choice of web browser or proxy settings.)

Anthony however also presses for Israel to draft new legislation and to boycott various hearings and voiced a strong opinion that they should have boycotted Durban 2 (which they did, following his advice).

Israel is however not a dominion in which Anthony resides.


RF1 makes an excellent point.

Regarding the right of foreigners to comment on Israeli politics, the issue is thorny. On the one hand Israel is the Jewish state. We're very careful to point this out when people say they're anti-zionists not anti semetic. It has always been accepted the Jews around the world should be able to comment on Israeli politics but should overall support the country. Not that commenting an influeincing are very different. If you want to write letters to the SAJR, the Star, IAS or even the North Eastern Tribune, thats fine, but don't try and interfere with policy unless you live here and are affected by said policy. In order for Jews around the world to feel a connection to Israel they should feel a connection to the politics and commenting on policy is fundamental to this.

That said....I can't say the I didn't find this little line particularly patronising.

"But there are also many who now understand the necessity of a 2 state solution and the painful concessions that entails."
Its a bit condescending to talk about understanding the pain of a Jewish family that is going to be evicted from the homes when you're sitting 10 000 miles away. Who is anyone outside of Israel, perhaps even outside of yehudah and Shomron, to talk about painful concessions. Talk about concessions fine, but any sympathy is either fake or condescending.

Anyway, those are the two sides of the coin. I'm not sure where I stand exactly.


I would like to take issue with the editor (29May 2009) for condemning legislation outlawing "Nakba Day" commemorations-those that label Israel's re-establishment on her ancient soil, and the return of her people, as a catastrophe.
What other nation would have to tolerate a fifth column labelling her existence a 'catastrophe' and therefore by implication that she should be destroyed, and her people exiled and murdered. And what does the editor mean "Palestinians use the word nakba ("catastrophe" to denote their feelings about what happened to them in 1948).
What happened to them?
From 1810 onwards, Jews in the Land of Israel have been murdered by Arabs. The pious Jews of Safed, who would raise no hand in their defense, were robbed and murdered and burned out again and again by Arabs - as where the Jews in Jerusalem and Tiberius. Bedouin Arabs passed through Land of Israel at will-and robbed and killed Jews for profit. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Arab feudal lords in the Land of Israel organized pogroms precisely as the Tsar had organized pogroms.

In 1920 Jews where massacred by Arabs in Jerusalem, in 1921 in Jaffa and in 1929 in Hebron. Thousands of Jews where murdered in 1936 to 1939 in the Nazi inspired Arab Revolt. After the British pulled out, and the UN awarded a tiny state to the Jews, 6 Arab armies descended on the reborn nation, with Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha declaring to the world's assembled media that "this would be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which would be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
The Jewish survivors fought back, and after losing a tenth of their population, won.
The Jews had re-established themselves in their ancient homeland, as foretold in the Bible .

Israel does not belong to the Arabs and they have simply no right to deny the state's right to exist under the sovereignty of her rightful owners-the Jewish people.
As regards the editor's comments "If nakba celebrations spill over into sedition and incitement the state must act to protect itself, but until then.But until they do the right to freedom of expression must take precedence."
The act of labelling the return of the Jews to their ancient land and the existence of the Jewish state is incitement by it's very nature.
It is part of the same incitement that leads to Arab celebrations of Jewish terror, that shows all of Israel as 'Palestine' in PA textbooks and ultimately leads the Arabs to believe that murderous attacks on Jewish men, women and children is justified. It is the same type of incitement that consists of Arab religious leaders referring to the Jews as' the sons of pigs and monkeys' and frequent statements such as those by the state-controlled Egyptian daily Al Akhbar (April 18, 2001) declared "Our thanks to the late Hitler who wrought, in advance, the vengeance of the Palestinians upon the most despicable villains on the face of the earth. However we rebuke Hitler for the fact that the vengeance was insufficient".
Freedom of expression can never take precedence over a nation's right to be.
. The Arab nations are represented by 21 separate countries. The combined territories of Arab countries is 650 fold greater than Israel Their population is 50 fold greater than Israel.
There are millions of Kurds, Berbers, Copts, Maronites and others who live as minorities in the many Arab countries-in many cases persecuted and with no rights.

. Why is it so unjust that a small portion of the world's Arabs should live as a minority in Israel?

Religious Fundamentalist 1


Not sure I agree.

Freedom of Expression takes precedence. The Israeli Arab's are free to say as they wish - and they have the right to be taken seriously and treated accordingly.

Moreover, other Israeli's should be extended the same rights. And this includes the right to demand: expulsion of traitors and treasonous elements, pre-emptive action against murderers and plotters of genocide.

The free exchange of ideas must trump sensitivities. Peoples ideas must be heard, evaluated and their consequence taken seriously by the "hearers", and the "sayers".


I'm wondering what the legality of say a bunch of Afrikaaners marking 27 April as a day of mourning. If they had big meetings where everyone could wear a comb in their sock, tuck their shirt into their shorts, have a braai and cry about the good old days.

Sounds funny.

What if they were to fly the old sa flag at these meetings.

And what if they would not only have these meetings but would call for the demise of SA and every now and again kill some innocent black people on the way to school.

I wpnder then how legal this commerations would remain.


RF1 u write:"Freedom of Expression takes precedence". The free exchange of ideas must trump sensitivities. Peoples ideas must be heard, evaluated and their consequence taken seriously by the "hearers", and the "sayers".

-should holocaust denial be legal then?


RF 2- there was a massive stink kicked up because this weekend at the rugby, some Afrikaners hosted an old SA flag.
So why should we have to endure the ARabs calling our exisatnce in our own state a "Nakba' and have to look at their hideous Palestinian flag.
Seriously-f%^& them!

Religious Fundamentalist 1

Re holocaust denial. Yes, it should absolutely be "legal". People should also be educated enough to dismiss such cranks out of hand and to hold such people up for ridicule and disdain.

Expressing opinions doesn't make them valid, nor does it prevent passing judgment on such opinions - in fact the opposite.


There is a major issue that is being ignored. The new law doesn’t mention any ethnic group, it mentions mourning and calling for the dismantling of the Jewish democratic state. Will these also forbid demonstrations among Haradi’ population of Ramat Bet Shemesh and Geula? What about the Anarchists of Shenkin in Tel-Aviv?

RF2 makes a great parallel to South Africa. Perhaps this analogy could be used the next time we hear an Israel is an Apartheid state claim


Yes, if the Haredim and anarchists don't accept the state of Israel they should also leave!


On the "Nakba":

I disagree with the restriction, but also with the editorial. Arabs don't all see Israel that way and we should not endorse the idea that they do. Also, the comparison to apartheid laws was totally inappropriate and inaccurate.

On the 2-state solution:

I don't think the current Israeli government has rejected it; it has, rather, rejected the Annapolis final-status approach for the Road Map's incremental approach. As ever, the real question is not whether Israelis support a two-state solution but whether Palestinians do. Furthermore, settlements are a problem for the rule of law in Israel but they are not the obstacle to peace (and even this government opposes new settlements).



Read carefully, there was no analogy to apartheid laws. The analogy was that afrikaaners may see a particular date as the day they lost sa, or even as the day they became oppressed. I'm not saying that its justified but there are many that feel this way. I was asking the question - if they were to voice there opinions would they be tolerated, particularly be the author of the SAJR (liberals aren't known for their consistency). My suspicion is that the same people that criticise the law in Israel would be ready to serve the arrests themselves on anyone calling 27 April a day of mourning. Why, because its close to home and liberals are as consistant and kosher jelly.

Regarding the law itself I think its stupid, unenforcable and will only waste money.

Rather allow such meetings and then you have a list of enemies of the state to follow.


I reckon there aint no law preventing Afrikaners or other folk from mourning the new SA. And there shouldn't be. If Israelis are comfortable with their legitimacy then they shouldnt be wasting time formulating laws preventing others from mourning their loss. (And there was a loss but they backwards folk and only look back).
Today I dont believe that Israel really wants 2 states even if the Palestinians would comply with all demands.
Anyways do yall give me permission as a non Israeli and non Jew to speak about Israeli policy? Yanks don't seem to try stopping me from criticising Obama policy. What is all this mind control? And who are you to say I cant feel sympathy for a suicide bomb victim? Or does your silly rule only apply to people moving out to homes because there you feel you are losing something (land) whereas with the bomb its someone else's problem entirely? Are you the boss os sympathy? Did you study this law somewhere?

Anyways, what you gonna do to stop me from speaking about Israeli policy and what they should do and trying to influence others to agree with me?

And what you gonna do to stop me expressing sympathy for any people that gotta move houses?

But, I bet you dont talk like that when a nion Israeli agrees with your opinion. If he says he is against a 2 state solution the you wont be saying he should shut up and mind his own business cos he aint allowed to talk policy if he dont live there.

Last I heard you could talk it just not vote it. Is this also a new Israeli law that has been passed?



Well there's a nice idea. Mark any Palestinian who mourns his past as an enemy and follow him home from work. Then what? Kill his babies?

Zionism 101 right here on this blog. Come and get it!

Kill those dirty enemies. Follow them, mark them and finish them off once and for all.


Dont you dare comment on if SA should allow mourning the new SA. Its our business. You have not right to comment and I hate the fact that you reckon you can spread your ideas freely! You dont live here so you got no right. No one got no right to say nothing bout nothing. We all about mind control right here.

And if SA don't allow the mourning (which they do) then does it make it alright for Israel? So SA is the beacon and paragon we gots to go by?

That's just a side note. my real gripe is how you think you got a right to control what other may or may not talk about and you make like its the principle when it aint. What matters is its an opinion which is against yours. You wont a brought up the mind control if the opinion was against a 2 state. and you know it. Your principles is as consistent as kosher jelly!


Poo RF2. Poo!


"Why is it so unjust that a small portion of the world's Arabs should live as a minority in Israel?"

Most say the situation in the occupied lands is where it is unjust and not about them living as a minority inside israel where they got them rights.

Have you been playing with a bit of ctrl-C and ctrl-V or you prefer the right clicking?

Poo Gary!


Its been a while since I've been this misunderstood. Sun, despite lets try keeping the debate clean, there's enough poo written around here that we don't need to mention it outright.

Firstly. I don't think it should be illegal to mourn either the New Sa or Israel. Such bans are silly. I do think that care should be taken that no incitement to violence occurs but even this is hard to Police. The point I was trying to make was aimed at the author of the SAJR article. The reasons given there as to why the Nakba should be allowed related more to liberalism. I was suggesting, and I believe, that the author would strongly condemn Afrikaaners mourning the new SA, even if they did it peacefully, something the Arabs do not do.

Regarding my comments on sympathy. I was not saying you or anyone else can't feel sympathy. I was making the point that if you're suggesting that people be forced to make massive sacrifices (being evicted, increased terrorist attacks etc)for an ideal you hold dear, but you are not affected by that ideal, then your sympathy for these sacrifices is meaningless. Therefor, if you, not living in Israel, suggest that people be thrown out of their homes in order for there to be 2 states, but you do not live in either of the states, then what you feel for these people does not help them. Regardless of whether the sympathy is misplaced I made no reference to preventing people from speaking. You and anyone else may speak their mind as they please. The specific issue related to Jews commenting on Israeli policy as if they are as invested as those that live in Israel, and as I said, there is a legitimate argument for this. What is important to note was that I gave bothsides of the argument and I stated that I don't know what I feel. I lean more towards all Jews expressing an interest in Israeli foreign and domestic policy, just with the sensitivity that they are not affected by it.

Regarding your reference to my point about intellegince gathering from these meetings. Please, if you want to behave like a child go play somewhere else. I made no reference to killing anyone. A list of self proclaimed enemies of the state is normal in any country. Folowing these people movements will lead to preventing acts of terrorism, with the need for killing anyone.


You said any sympathy is either fake or condescending. I'm with Sun here.

That is your emotions talking. How does a Jew in Tel Aviv supporting massive withdrawals for ideological reasons have more meaningful sympathy than a Jew in JHB does who supports withdrawals for practical purposes?

What price is the Jew in Tel Aviv paying?

You know the situation in SA. Jews are very close to Israel. Many of us will end up living there. Dismissing our sympathy out of hand is both patronising and condescending.

And I agree - its not the address that concerns you but the opinion. You will accept the sympathy someone who opposes withdrawals. Its the sympathy of people who support it that you deem fake and patronising.

I don't think it is correct to limit the conversation on sympathy purely to concessions. In any event, many feel that avoiding withdrawals, however limited, is in fact a painful concession.


I believe Netanyahu has hurt Israel's international standing by not supporting a 2 state solution explicitly. Netanyau has placed Israel in the rejectionist camp. We are seen as no better than Hamas while Fatah are seen as the only people who want peace.

I also think that it kills the one state solution approach. By providing a broad framework that both Israelis and Palestinians agree to, it makes the one state solution redundant. But now all options are on the table.


Mike surely it is not unreasonable to demmand that the Palestinians must recognize Israel before they get a state and give up on mechanism designed to destroy Israel completely such as the so called 'Right of Return'
It is grossly unfair to expect Israel to recognize a Palestinian state without mutual recognition.

Thelest Israel can expect is full recognition, not just an extended ceasefire.
Bibi would accept a 2 state solution if the Palestinians accepted and recognized Israel formally.


Israel has compromised a lot. It's time for the Palestinians to also make some concessions.



They argue that they have done so, from as far back as the late 1980's.

What Bibi is asking them to do is recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Of course I would also love that if it happened but its not realistic. Abbas says that he has no business saying what the character of Israel should be. That that is a matter for the Israeli people to decide. As long as he recognizes Israel has a right to exist as a state and its people can determine its character, I dont think that is a problem.



Mike, please tell me you don't believe that dribble. "we will accept you have a right to exist but we won't say you can exist as a Jewish state - you decide".

Steve. Its got nothing to do with supporting me. What does someone mean when the say they sympethise with a family that will be evicted from their homes but they think it should be done anyway? If you were that family you would find that condescending. Perhaps you feel genuine pain for them and believe that evicted Jews from Israel is the lesser of 2 evils but the sympathty is still condescending to the person that will be in a caravan after its through. I'm not saying supporting a withdrawl is not allowed, I'm saying that if you hold that opinion then accept that noone who is affected by it will be feeling your sympathy. Regarding the difference between an SA zionist and a Ramat Aviv Israeli. Firstly I did state that perhaps even Israelis outside Yehudah and Shomron fall into the same category. But there are some differences. Maybe you love Israel (probably more than half of israel) and maybe you will live here one day - but you don't now. So as muchas you are entitled to you opinion and encouraged to voice it - it counts for less. Because if you say you support the withdrawl because it might bring peace even though it will bring Israeli towns into missile range, what have you personally really got to loose. But if you have to go and make sure you know where the nearest bomb shelter is first now you're weighing up the risk/benefit ratio.

During the beggining of Cast Lead when rockets started fallong on Beer Sheva I was sitting in my car (well within rocket range) an listening to the radio one night. The talk shw host was reading out emails and dedications. He read out one from a resident of Beer Sheva. It was an apology to the residents of Sderot. She basically said that all these years they were neighbours but while Sderot was being pounded (in the post withdrawl rocket range) Beer Sheva residents went about their days, making policy, ignoring the suffering of those just a few km's away. Not that they were being pounded they could really sympathise.

Again, once you support a withdrawl your sympathy for those that will suffer under it will only offend them. This does not mean you don't have sympathy, just that voicing it will be offensive. Sorry Steve, noone likes to be told that they offending people, but thats life. Taking a position comes with responsibilities and consequences and if you hold that people short be evicted then no matter how much sympathy you feel you're offensive to them. If you feel so strongly that a withdrawl would bring peace then you should feel sympathy for them, you should see them as obstacles to peace - perhaps, that was just a thought.

On a seperate note. There seems to be an implication here that if one does not support a withdrawl one does not support a 2 state solution. THis is ridiculous. The Arabs are already in control of, and govern more than 80% of Yehudah and Shomron inhabited by them. It is possible with soem land concessions on both sides to create 2 states, ecompassing almost all residents of both in their current positions, without the need to evict anyone. The primary requirement for this by the way is really promise of security from the Arabs. Before I get misquoted again: I said it is possible to support this, one does not have and specifically I do not. But it is possible.

And as a totalside track if anyone is interested. Could the supporters of a withdrawl please demostrate how they believe that this will bring peace. In your argument please show how Yehudah and Shomron will be different to Azza. If you claim Azza was a success, please explain how and tell me who your dealer is.


On my sympathy:
I understand it is offensive. That does not mean it is objectively fake and condescending. Fake and offensive are vastly different and I didn't change your words here, you did.

I feel you are regarding Israel as just another state where the people outside of it don't count. If you can't see that diaspora Jews have a personal stake in Israel and have the world to lose if Israel fails then you have forgotten why Israel was in fact created.

On your side track:
Michael Oren regarded it as a success with massive failings. I don't think we can do much better than that. Oren's background legitimates that opinion.
He is not a man of the left and he is no radical. I use his opinion instead of mine because his counts and mine doesn't. First I need to feel worthy of arguing with you who really lives there. Once my points are not so easily dismissed by glancing at my address, then we can maybe talk about the pros and cons of withdrawals.

And RF2, I stand by my claim that you really care more about opinion than address. You won't be telling South Africans or Americans who support the right of Likud, or even Kach, that their opinions don't count because they don't live there and don't understand the pain of the people that do.

And of course we can't really understand the real pain of people evicted from Gaza. Neither can the family of my wife in Tel Aviv. That is so obvious it need not even be stated. Why I can't understand the pain of the working class battling with poor wages so perhaps I shouldn't voice an opinion when cosatu strikes?

You live there, you vote. Doesn't mean your opinion on matters becomes illegitimate or less worthy than someone who does. What about the radical left who live there? Their address validate their radicalism?

The Blacklisted Dictator

Steve and Mike,

How should The SAJBD etc respond to Netanyahu and The Two State Solution?

To learn from history ... I wonder whether The SAJBD's clumsy support for The Gaza War was at all beneficial. My view is that it wasn't.

So with regard to Netanyahu and "Two States or Not Two States"... If The SAJBD has learnt anything along the way, it should just say that South African Jews hold a multiplicity of views about the subject. It is not their job to try and paraphrase what the majority think. And of course, a substantial minority might also hold views which should not be ignored.

It is up to The Israeli embassy in Pretoria to state Israeli govt policy. And if The SAJBD is wise, it would have learnt to reiterate the formula that I have outlined above.

Of course, Krengel has got a written undertaking from Zuma about The ANC's support for a Two State solution. A bizarre bit of "diplomacy" on behalf of The SAJBD!

The Blacklisted Dictator


I agree with the attached quote from RF2...

" Steve,...Maybe you love Israel (probably more than half of israel) and maybe you will live here one day - but you don't now. So as muchas you are entitled to you opinion and encouraged to voice it - it counts for less. Because if you say you support the withdrawl because it might bring peace even though it will bring Israeli towns into missile range, what have you personally really got to lose. But if you have to go and make sure you know where the nearest bomb shelter is first now you're weighing up the risk/benefit ratio." Posted by: RF2 | June 03, 2009 at 22:23


Mike, do you believe Israel should just clear the 'West Bank' of all Jews in all the land liberated in 1967 including East Jerusalem, withdraw all Israeli troops from those areas and anounce that it now all belongs to the Palestinians, and without anything in return?


I am not answering Mike but I just want to note how irritating it is that support for withdrawals becomes equated with supporting the withdrawals from all of the WB including the major settlement blocks which house over 80% of the settlers.

Not even a Labour government has ever supported a 100% withdrawal. That is why Israel and all its governments have contested the meaning of UNR 242.

Do you support the tearing down of the security barrier so that the settlers on the eastern side ar not isolated from the rest of Israel?


I am confused, who here believes the Pelestinians will ever accept a 2 state policy?
If they do, it is for no other reason than to show the world one thing, whilst at the same time continue doing what they set out to do, destroy Israel and send every Jew into the sea. How does one change a mind set of murder to co-existence?

if this debate if purely theoretical, i apologise

Religious Fundamentalist 1

Skipper, you're on the wrong thread. This question needs to be posed to David Zinn over on MRN Propaganda 101 (one thread to the left).
Your question is strengthened wrt to David, because he's advocating a single arab state.



Actually the solution I support is not supported by ANY Israeli political party I know of.
There is no major player on the Palestinian side that will really accept our right to be and meet our compromises with theirs.
But you are correct that we cannot continue to rule over all the 'WEst Bank'-although morally, histroically and religiously we do have a right to it.
But nevertheless we cannot continue to rule over several million hostile Arabs, so I believe that the major settlement blocs should be absorbed ito Israel and the rest of the West Bank returned to Jordan.
The point that I took issue with Mike about is that he object's to Bibi's insistence that the Palestinians recognize Israel first before we hand them a state on a silver platter.
If it lead to full recognition of Israel and greater peace and security for Israel, this two state solution would be worth a try.
But it would hve to mean that Israel get's full recognition, not just a "ten year cesefire".
We don't need any hudnas, we need recognition, same as any other nation. WE are in Israel, by right and not sufferance.
The Palestinians mus, if they want a state, see a two satte solution as a permanent one, and not as a stepping stone to a greater Judenreihn Palestine, euphemistically reffered to as 'a one state solution'.
That means they must give up the idea of flooding Israel with millions of Arab refugees under the so-called 'right of return'.
And they must show some flexibility too. since there will not be any forced removals of Arabs, it is only fair that the major settlement blocks be absorbed into Israel, to prevent the human rights crime of mass forced removals/ethnic cleansing of Jews.
If its all give,give,give from the Israeli side and take,take,take from the Arab side this will mean another breakdown and more bloodshed.
The Arabs have to genuinely realize that the Jews are entitled to their corner of the Middle East, before there can even be any talk of a settlement.

Israeli Jews are as entitled to human rights as Arabs, something not only Muslims, but even som,e leftwing Jews, have yet to realize.



Your're missing my point enetirely.

I never said you can;t comment, or even that your comments aren't important. I said that your sympathy is condescending. And, yues condescending is subjective too. I do understand the importance of diaspora Jewry to Israel and I mentioned this in a previous post. But I also mentioned that as important as Israel is to a diaspora Jew it is up there near the top of Maslow's traingle. For Israelis its pretty low down at the base - so yes, whilst diaspora Jews have an important role to play and can and must voice their opinions, and rally and even exert pressure sometimes, they still should have less weight than those living here. If you want more of a say I hear the Jewish Agency gives out free tickets.

I will reiterate: You are welcome to say that despite the massive human cost you think that areas of Yehudah and Shomron should be evacuated because the reward outweighs the cost. It only becomes condescending when you say you understand the meaning of the cost. And that is why people against a withdrawl I would support here - because the are not advocating a withdrawl.

By the way - what in my posts gives you an indication that I will support foreign opinoions if they agree with me? I take issue. Please name some equivalent situations. (the ones you listed or irrelevant becuase they are not issues to which there is a cost. Supprt of Likud......vs what?)
You probably can't so I will give you some examples. I believe it is the responsibility of Israeli parents to send their children to do national or army service (unless they have a particular dilegence fore learning Torah and then the service may be delayed). Now I have no problem with an diaspora Jew saying the absolutely agree but do say you understand how difficult it is for Israeli mothers to send their boys of to the army until you have had to do it.

Steve, maybe you really do care about disengagement victims, but as long as you support their eviction, all I'm saying is keep you caring to yourself. By a box of cleanex and cry yourself to sleep or something, but don't rub salt in the wounds by telling them you sympathise.

Regarding Oren's assessment of the withdrawl, I'm not familiar with his argument. If you support it please could you enlighten us.

Regarding your point about support for withdrawl being put under a a large left umbrella - I hear you. And I'll tell you a secret. Myself, and many thousand of other conservatives would support a withdrawl for limited temporary settlements if there was any indication that this might bring peace. But Oren's arguments notwithstanding, uo to now results of the last 2 pull outs have been pretty disasterous. And the Arabs have given no indication that leave Yehudah and Shomron will help.


Remember you also said my sympathy was fake. I think that is condescending.

And on that note, I don't agree that my sympathy is condescending, but I can accept that it might sound condescending and offensive to people who are directly affected and I wouldnt be silly enough to tell them I understand their pain and suffering. Nor would I advise my family in Tel Aviv to do the same. Even though they have an Israeli postal code.

Still, I won't keep it to myself and a box of Kleenex. I visited victims of disengagement in 2006 and heard them tell their stories sitting in their new temporary dwellings in Nitzan.

I don't understand what you mean when you say my opinion carries less weight. Relative to what and on what scale? You can vote and we can't. I am not arguing for the right to vote. I think this is a pointless debate. It's up to open interpretation what you mean when you say it carries less weight. Whatever.

I maintain there is a cost to not withdrawing just as there is a cost to withdrawing. The costs need to be weighed up and perhaps I am wrong about which is "more expensive" - but they are costs nonetheless.

I will look for a link to some of the Oren articles recently doing the rounds.

Empress Trudy

If the SA Jews haven't left yet they never will. It's axiomatic. So their support or lack of support or qualified support or passive aggressive support is largely besides the point, yes?

The Blacklisted Dictator

You write: "I believe Netanyahu has hurt Israel's international standing by not supporting a 2 state solution explicitly. Netanyau has placed Israel in the rejectionist camp. We are seen as no better than Hamas while Fatah are seen as the only people who want peace.
I also think that it kills the one state solution approach. By providing a broad framework that both Israelis and Palestinians agree to, it makes the one state solution redundant. But now all options are on the table." Posted by: Mike | June 03, 2009 at 17:02

Let's face it Mike, Israel has been a pariah state since time immemorial so she really doesn't have to worry that much about her "international standing". However, whether there will be a major fall-out with Oba-mausa remains to be seen. My gut feeling is that Netanyahu is smarter than Oba-mausa so all is not lost.

"That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons." (Obama)
So... Is America going to give up all her nuclear weapons? If America is committed to giving up nuclear weapons, why doesn't she take the lead?

"And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." (Obama)
What will America do if Iran does not uphold the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

"Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear." "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." "That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it." (Obama)
But what about forcing Muslim women to comply with conservative Islamic dress codes, particularly in Iran and Saudi Arabia? Isn't that the real issue about freedom that Obama intentionally neglects?


Perhaps the last time that the community would have been against divided on Israeli policy on this issue was the Rabin era. Surely at that time there was lots of debate on that?

On whether we should voice opinions on how I think that it is important whether we live there or not. Diaspora communities can sometimes be important for policy considerations. I would rather that Israel knew what we were thinking then just guess. It is a tough one for communal organisations but the general public should not be discouraged from debate simply because they dont live there.

Zionist Boer

There's only one solution: Israel must exercise its power and sommer annex the West Bank and Gaza, like it annexed Jerusalem. Finish and klaar. End of story. No more Palestine and no more Palestinians. Everyone then just must be an Israeli.


What young Israelis think of Obama

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog

Contact Us

  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed

Comments Disclaimer

  • Comments on this site are the views and opinions of the persons who write the comments and do not reflect the views of the authors of this blog. Comments are often left unmoderated. Should you feel that you have been personally slandered in the comments, please let us know and we will remove the offensive comment.