Featured Cause
-
End Homelessness
- 2170 Members
- 1598 Actions
- $205 Dollars Raised
Museum of Tolerance - or Provocation?
Published November 15, 2008 @ 07:53PM PST
The Museum of Tolerance is a project organized by the Simon Wiesenthal Center (MoT), to build a world class center in Jerusalem to teach the value of well, tolerance. A controversy has been brewing for sometime around its location, which is to be on the site of a former parking lot that was also a Muslim graveyard in the past.
The protagonists include Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and director of the Wiesenthal Center, the Muslim and Palestinian leaders of Jerusalem, the Israeli High Court, the Jerusalem municipality, progressive groups in Israel that support the Palestinian Jerusalemites, and the U.S. based international donors and supporters of the MoT.
Durragham Saif, the lawyer who brought the Islamic Court petition on behalf of three Palestinian families, Al Dijani, Nusseibeh and Bader Elzain, all of whom have members buried at the cemetery, said: "It's unbelievable, it's immoral. You cannot build a museum of tolerance on the graves of other people. Imagine this kind of thing in the [United] States or England. And this is the Middle East where events are sensitive. If this goes ahead in this way it is going to cause the opposite thing to tolerance." [from an article that appeared in The Independent.]
Supporters of the Museum, and the proposed site, say that Muslims have allowed construction on cemeteries before; that the site was not used as a cemetery for 45 years, but as a parking lot; and that previous Islamic authorities approved. Why then, should this particular project be forbidden? One answer, is that Palestinians in East Jerusalem are using spurious religious arguments to deny Israelis, Jews, and supporters of tolerance to have their way. They are spoilers without merit.
Opponents say that this was a historic cemetery, and that corrupt Islamic leaders are guilty of allowing a parking lot to be constructed there. It is time to honor it as a religious and historic site.
Both sides do a poor job of explaining the underlying issue. The site of the (now under construction) MoT is part of Mamila, an area nestled between the western wall of the Old City and the 1949 armistice line that separated Israel from the West Bank until 1967. For Israel, the city is unified, end of story. For the Palestinians, East Jerusalem will one day be the capital of a Palestinian state. This slow moving battle over Jerusalem has been going on since 1967, without interruption. Mamila is one of the last prime pieces of real estate along the 1949 armistice line, and any major construction will influence the cityscape - forever.
The Wiesenthal Center is guilty of a massive provocation in this battle over the future of Jerusalem. Under the pretense that it's just real estate with no "religious" significance, they seek to establish what amounts to a propaganda center for a particularly self serving version of tolerance. This bone being forced down the throat of East Jerusalem's Palestinian Arabs represents another defeat for the cause of real tolerance, which would involve - on some level - recognition that Jerusalem is a holy city for Muslims, a city of great political and emotional importance for Palestinians, and an international symbol of both religious fanaticism and bloody conflict.
Could it be that they don't understand? That the Wiesenthal folks are just slow or blind? I decided to look up information on the Chairman and Co-Chairman to see what I could find. And it turns out that all three are contributors to Republican politicians who represent the right wing of the Jewish political spectrum. They are at the core of the wealthy and powerful Jewish right wing, which is unrepresentative of the U.S. Jewish community, but manages to appear as though they are thoroughly mainstream.
- Larry Mizel, Chairman. Link to political contributions from opensecrets.org.
- Nelson Peltz, Co-Chairman. Link to political contributions from opensecrets.org.
- Ed Snider, Co-Chairman. Link to political contributions from opensecrets.org.
In the Wiesenthal Center's case, this is especially problematic. It was founded on the legacy of an important author, a Jewish Holocaust survivor who helped the world better understand that event. As an icon of Holocaust education, Wiesenthal has been at the forefront of efforts to prevent genocide, address human rights concerns and antisemitism around the world. Were the Israeli-Palestinian conflict absent from the equation, very little could be said to criticize this important work.
However, we have seen the growth over the decades of an ideological apparatus that connects the Holocaust to support for Israel, and then again to support for Israel's policies, and then again in support of Israel's apologists around the world. This cheapens the legitimate goals of Holocaust education and the struggle against antisemitism by harnessing it to the horse of Israeli interests, which at the moment include the occupation of the Palestinian people.
There is a modicum of ideological unity among the American and Israeli right wing. They support using the charge of anti-Semitism to silence those who criticize Israel "the wrong way". They support political efforts aimed at preventing other states from pressuring Israel to change any of its policies. Finally, they wage ideological battle against other Jews who they accuse of being in league with "enemies of Israel and anti-Semites" when they participate in efforts to influence Israel's policies in a pro-peace direction. This ideological praxis is what many refer to as "Holocaust Judaism." They behave this way, even when they pay lip service to the need for peace and a two-state solution.
This isn't a top secret plan for world domination; this is good organizing. It's open, insofar as all the players know what's going on. But it's secret, in that most of this work takes place behind the scenes. The controversy around the MoT is an opportunity to pull aside the veil and take a look. This is what I see:
- Wealthy, Republican older Jews raise money for nonprofits working (formally) for human rights, civil rights, social justice, international relations, Holocaust education and tolerance.
- The nonprofits provide a liberal cover for engaging in right-wing Zionist apologetics, and helping to silence opponents of Israeli occupation, and keeping a natural sympathy for the Palestinians away from mainstream Jewish organizations. It's not always done directly - but it gets done.
- To the extent that the issue of Israel and the Holocaust intersect, it is for the purpose of demonizing critics of Israel with the broad brush of antisemitism. Or, if those critics are Jewish, with the brush of naivete, youth, self-hatred or extremism.
- The same demographic also supports AIPAC and right wing causes in Israel and the United States.
The Museum of Tolerance is an extension of these strategies from New York, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. into the heart of Jerusalem. It can be difficult arguing against the project based only on the headlines. While the Israeli left gets it right away how the slogan "never again" can be misused to support the occupation and human rights violations, American liberals might be cowed into silence.
And there's another problem. On some level, the opposition to the project finds it hard to communicate around the complexity of the issues, and are quick to turn to a reflexive anti-Israel stance, never mind the nuances. There are weaknesses to the formal legal arguments used in past court challenges. There had to be, given the way any legal system operates. This is not really about legalisms. This is a heart issue. [And some opponents, undoubtedly, are extremists of various stripes. I'm not ignoring them, I'm just not going to treat them as the main issue.]
My heart tells me that Palestinians are justified in defending their continued presence in Jerusalem, physically and psychically. They are justified in trying to put the brakes on major developments that alter the cityscape away from its Arab, Palestinian, Muslim and Christian heritage. It's true that Jerusalem is also Jewish, Israeli and modern - and it should be - but this is a political moment that calls for tzimzum, a Jewish term for reducing your presence to make room for the divine. Limiting the imperial impulse to make Jerusalem more Jewish and more Israeli opens up more space for a Jerusalem that is more peaceful and more tolerant.
On political, moral and religious grounds, I call upon others to join me in demanding that construction of the Museum of Tolerance be halted.
Join peacemakers around the world and take action now.
Further Resources:
- IPCRI's Gershon Baskin's article from the Jerusalem Post opposing the MoT.
- Rabbi Hier defending the Museum's location and comparing Gershon Baskin with Hamas and Hizbollah.
- Description of the Muslim Cemetery at Mamila from 2004
Author
-
Charles Lenchner
- Brooklyn, NY
-
Charles is a nonprofit professional with 20 years of experience working with nonprofit organizations in Israel, Palestine and the U.S. For the past few years, he's been specializing in online organizing.
Related Blog Posts
-
- Museum of Tolerance to be Built on Muslim Graveyard
-
Posted by Charles Lenchner
Nov 04 @ 11:28AM PST
Lynn, now don't go philosophical on me :0) You are right about the Contra, Israel is no saint, but better behaved then most nations at war, especially the USA. I think that if the world does not address the root cause to the unrest in the ME, ie Iran, we will not have peace. Iran is supplying money, weapons and training to Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria. Unless we stop Iran we will not have peace, their will always sprout another terror group ready to take Iran's monies and cause trouble in the region, and Abbas will not or cannot restrain these groups.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/17/2008 @ 11:29PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Careful who you call the devil. Hezbollah considers itself a populist humanitarian organization and Hamas was the democratically elected entity, members of which I believe were detained and incarcerated by Israel.
The Treaty of Versailles punitive measures created the climate for Hitler to rise.
Go back, go back-- even Marshall Rosenberg has the curiosity to discover in interviews what motivates sexual predators (a misguided need for love).
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 12:02AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
As far as Syria, what about the Shabaa Farms? And I thought the Golan Heights were part of Palestine.
Know what, I declare it is no longer the West Bank and Gaza. It is the country of Palestine. And like Iraq, it is being illegally occupied against all reason and countless UN Security Council resolutions. It is being eaten alive by Israel by the most unconscionable means of civil disenfranchisement known to civil society, separating down to man from wife! And while Israel has the audacity to declare the Palestinians are driving them into the sea, Israel is disappearing them into unspeakable despair in the longest most prolonged suffering death known to civilization. I am ashamed to live in this era to have to watch this.
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 12:15AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Lynn, Lynn, relax and take a deep breath, were is all this hate coming from? You need to receive information from both sides. So far in history the Nazis have caused the most death and despair, so you need to get a perspective on history. Secondly you need to step back and take a look 60 years back, just recent history of the 20th century. The UN in 1948 declared Israel a state and gave about 1/3 of then Palestine to the Jews and approx. 2/3 to the Arabs, that's a fact. What happened next is history, six Arab nations including the Arab Palestinians attacked the Jewish Palestinians with the full intent of eliminating them, if they had won, their would be no Israel. They lost and as a consequence have to pay for that loss, that is how history is written. If it was the opposite no one would stand up for defeated Israel. So time for a reality check, fast forward to 2008, and we have the same mentality as we had in 1948, get rid of the Jews, kill the Israelis, that is what the Palestinians teach their children. But still Israel is willing to sit down and discuss peace with its neighbors, the problem is, their is no one to talk to. Who represents the "peace loving Palestinians" Abbas, Hamas? If so why don't they arrest their terrorists instead of supporting them, why are they still teaching in schools that Israel is the enemy? I agree the Palestinians suffer, but the suffering is of their own making, they support and grow terrorists that kill innocent children, the wall stopped that, once they denounce terror the wall will come down. What would you do Lynn, if terrorists were blowing themselves up daily in your city?
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 12:57PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael,
"Before the end of the mandate and, therefore, before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied... most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...
"In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution." British author Henry Catton, "Palestine, The Arabs and Israel"
It was a completely illegal land grab outside the "1/3" you speak of, just as Israel continues to do now in the "occupied" territories (i.e., the Palestinian part of the mandate). So the cynical and deceiptful - not on your part but on the part of the zionists - BS about the Arab nations attacking simply to deny the fait accompli of the mandate and destroy the new infant state is just patently false.
Posted by Alan Cheney on 11/18/2008 @ 03:13PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Alan, One British author Henry Catton, does not make history. These cities if taken, were taken from the British if at all, and not from the Arabs. The fact is that six Arab armies attacked the state of Israel, upon its declaration, if they had not done so, the Arab Palestinians would now have a prosperous state. But lets move on, this endless discusion about history will lead us no where. The big question is, do we have a partner for peace? Do you have an answer? A democracy vs a group of terrorists.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 03:24PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
"In December 1947, the British announced that they would withdraw from Palestine by May 15, 1948. Palestinians in Jerusalem and Jaffa called a general strike against the partition. Fighting broke out in Jerusalem's streets almost immediately. Violent incidents mushroomed into all-out war. During that fateful April of 1948, 8 out of 13 major Zionist military attacks on Palestinians occurred in the territory granted to the Arab state." - "Our Roots Are Still Alive" by the People Press Palestine Book Project
"The Arab League hastily called for its member countries to send regular army troops into Palestine. They were ordered to secure only the sections of Palestine given to the Arabs under the partition plan... [Jordan's King Abdullah] promised [the Israelis and British] that his troops, the Arab Legion, the only real fighting force among the Arab armies, would avoid fighting with Jewish settlements. Yet Western historians record this as the moment when the young state of Israel fought off 'the overwhelming hordes' of five Arab countries. In reality, the Israeli offensive against the Palestinians intensified." - Ibid.
Posted by Alan Cheney on 11/18/2008 @ 03:24PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Alan, I am not a historian and will not enter into a detailed historical discussion with you. The big fact is, that if the Arab nations and the local Palestinians had accepted the UN ruling in 1948, like Israel accepted it, they would now have a state of their own. And we would not have this discussion. So lets move on and find a partner for peace, do you have any ideas who we can sit down with?
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 03:30PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
With all due respect, Michael, let's not just move on. I've recommended a downloadable book with 37 pages of such quotes, of which I've chosen three. Have you read Jimmy Carter's book? Your information is just not accurate and your insistance that we just move on reflects why there is still so much strife in the area. It's not because the Arab League entered Palestine in 1948 to secure land that Israel was illegally grabbing.
And let's be careful throwing around the 'T' word. Ever heard of Irgun/LEHI, the King David Hotel, Deir Yassin, Sabra, Shatilla?
The current illegal seige and collective punishment of Gaza?
Posted by Alan Cheney on 11/18/2008 @ 03:33PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Alan, is that your source, Jimmy Carter he is funded to the tune of $10 million every year by the Saudi government, so please give me a break, Jimmy will not bite the hand that feeds him, read Dershovitz "The Case For Israel", not just books funded by Arab money, try a little bit to be objective, just a little.
What is the point of rehashing history Alan? Will you find justice in that way. Yes I am aware and proud of the Irgun and Lehi, they fought the British, who are now our friends, so what has that got to do with today? Where is all this leading, are you another closet anti-semite?
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 03:48PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry Michael, but history rules. I am not a historian either, but I want to know. A curious person will go back as far as the text goes.
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 03:49PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Lynn, dear, I agree History rules, not fiction, and so far no one on this blog is quoting history, but books and columns written by Arab propagandists.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 03:53PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
We can afford to be curious. Those in the thick of it can only resort to anger, resentment and despair that results in stones throwing, suicide bombings or bulldozing residences, olive tree excavation, humiliations and downright F16's, as the case may be. Have we the right to ignore our responsibilty to learn history when we are the fortunate ones (for the time being) to be able to better influence foreign policy?
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 04:12PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
And yes, text is open to interpretation, so lets debate that.
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 04:14PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael:
Do you really need to be so smug and patronizing?
"Lynn, dear"
Do you have to get so personally abusive - as you have with me in direct terms, whilst you reserve your more subtle attempted demolitions for Lynn apparently.
I have come across many people like you on a lot of blogs ... dyed in the wool zionists who are doing FAR more to stir up hatred against jews than any neo-nazi organization could do.
You and your ilk are causing immense damge.
It will be your fault - and those of your ilk - if there is another jewish progam.
Posted by Gerry Hiles on 11/18/2008 @ 04:19PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael it could be argued that Jews also are anti-semitic. It is plausible to suggest this when one considers the acceptance of support from pre-millennial dispensationalists, Christian fundamentalist lobbies that join with AIPAC. I thought Jews did not consider him the son of God. I know I don't, but I am an atheist.
But is it functional to use words? Especially words that say I hate you and you hate me. Duh! We know there is a problem. Stating the obvious is not exploring the nature of the problem. In fact it is so tedious to hear the endless stream of editorial commentary.
Life's too short!
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 04:25PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Gerry, dear is a term of indearment, I like Lynn, with her philosophical approach, please read her response, she is not offended, that is your own interpretation and meaning that you add to things you hear and read. I am just applying logical thought to things I read and see, I am a scientist, what are you? An antagonist? Bringing up the Nazi's, or are you another anti-semite. This blog is about Pro-Israel, so far all I read are mostly Pro-Palestinian remarks, what happened to rational thought?
Lynn, I would love to have a debate on how to achieve peace in the ME, any suggestions, I keep getting stuck defending Israel's position.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 04:30PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael, may I suggest reading Benny Morris, Tom Segev, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Tania Reinhart, Baruch Kimmerling and other Israeli historians and authors instead of regurgitating zionist propaganda.
The war in 1948 was a culmination of years of struggle before. The Palestinians and Arabs have always voiced their opposition to the zionist project of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. It was the collusion between the British--the Balfour Declaration and subsequent colonial presence of the British in Palestine--which set the stage for the conflict. The British and the rest of the world refused to listen and to act to alleviate the concerns of the idigenous population. You want to discuss history please put things in context and analyze events in light of this context. History is not simply a cataloging of events it is first and foremost an analysis and interpretation of events and of facts.
It is always amazing to me that the creation of the state of Israel is always claimed to rest on international law and therefore legitimate while at the same time international law is dismissed and ignored when it does not serve the interests of zionism and its child the State of Israel. Isn't the right of return inshrined by legitimacy of international law and will because it has been affirmed repeatedly by the UN? Isn't the construction of settlements and transfer of population into occupied territories illegal under international law? Isn't the annexation of territory acquired by war illegal under international law? Please do not respond to this if you are simply going to regurgitate propaganda and rely on half truths. I am not interested in that.
Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/18/2008 @ 04:33PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael:
You admit to not being an historian and that you have no interest in history.
Maybe this is a personal attack - which you have no problem with yourself - but it occurs to me that what sums you up is:
"Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up already."
And it occurs to me to warn Charles that his site is in danger of being taken over by you.
Posted by Gerry Hiles on 11/18/2008 @ 04:36PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael dear, from your 12:57 pm remark. (This expression, "dear" reminds me of McCains' "My friends...")
"What would you do Lynn, if terrorists were blowing themselves up daily in your city? "
Returning the favor, of course. But then they wouldn't be blowing themselves up because I wouldn't be illegally occupying their country and driving them into the sea.
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 04:38PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Lynn, sorry if you took offense, none was intended, and I respect yours and everyones viewpoint, it just seems to me to be a very one sided blog, all Pro-Palestine, but I will shut up for a while if it will make you happy.
One other thought, the West bank is not their country, and Israel is not an occupier, if anything the Palestinians are occupying Israeli land, land ruled by the kings of Israel at one point, then by Romans, Turks, Greeks, Muslims, so who is to say to whom the land belongs? All this is open to interpretation. Good night and good luck. BTW, I voted for real change by Obama, not McCain.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 04:48PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
" I am a scientist, what are you? An antagonist? Bringing up the Nazi's, or are you another anti-semite. This blog is about Pro-Israel, so far all I read are mostly Pro-Palestinian remarks, what happened to rational thought? "
What kind of scientist would reach the conclusion that being Pro-Palestinian implies irrational thought? That is what the logic of your statement implies. Some kind of logic I have not encountered before I suppose.
Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/18/2008 @ 04:50PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael, and who was there before Jews came and established their kingdoms? Why does history begins with the Jewsih kingdoms? Is this the result of judeocentric interpretation of history or is it the result of a supremcist ideology otherwise known as Zionism? The land belongs to those indigenous people who lived there for centuries. Yes there was a Jewish presence in Palestine and it ended. And again where is the respect for international law that you professed and referred to earlier? Forgive my ignorance I forgot that Israel is beyond reproach and that international law applies only if it suits Israel and its policies of expansion and of domination.
Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/18/2008 @ 04:57PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Aref, I did not claim that history begins with Jewish kingdoms, read carefully, I simply stated and state again that throughout history, Jews, Greeks, Turks, Romans and Muslims have all reigned over the land that is now Israel, therefore history cannot determine who has a claim on this land, and therefore Israel is not an occupier, no one is. The only way to settle this dispute is to stop fighting drop the use of force and sit down by one table and reach a compromise. All for Palestine will not wash, neither will all for Israel, all I am saying is, lets talk more and fight less. If you can convince Iran and Syria to stop funding terrorists, then maybe we can talk. Or can you guarantee that Hamas and Abbas will stop taking funds from Iran, and Syria?
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 05:06PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
The land I am sitting on was native American before it was Mexico and was taken by the US. Yes, my house is not really mine. At least I haven't been recruited to settle on expropriated land for cheap rent and ethnic cleansing in the last 60 years.
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 05:06PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Perhaps this is veering off a bit, but rather than only discussing whether or not this project is provocative, getting into a political discussion, can the feasability of the project be discussed?
1. This is a Frank Gehry project. It was projected in 2000 that the cost would be 150 mil, now it's up to more that 250 mil. Frank Gehry projects are notorious for cost over-runs. The Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles ended up COSTING the contractor who built it, M.A. Mortenson (Minnesota) more than 26 million dollars (they sued for 43 and settled out of court-to avoid a COSTLY legal battle, ending up recovering only 17 mil owed them).
2. The project is not fully funded at TODAY'S cost. Has anyone noticed the state of the world wide economy these days? Only 150 has been raised and much of that is in PLEDGES.
3. The concert hall was the center piece of the larger Grand Avenue project. (Just as this museum is part of a larger project) They ran out of money and Dubai had to rescue them. Maybe Israel can do the same.
4. England got smart and cancelled their Gehry project due to funding. They chose a less expensive design from another architect/builder and that one had to be scrapped too due to lack of funding.
Point being, this project is not fully funded at today's cost. How the heck is the city of Jerusalem allowing it to go forward? It seems the rightful issue of this being abhorant due to the location (on top of a Muslim cemetery) has been dismissed by those who approved it, perhaps it would be a good idea to fight this thing using a different strategy, it's spelled B-O-O-N-D-O-G-G-L-E, since they don't understand morality, maybe they WILL understand cold hard cash.
Posted by Robin McLaren on 11/18/2008 @ 05:14PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael, if you were being terrorized, wouldn't you take funds from your allies, like Israel does to the tune of 9 billion annually from the USA among others?
More editorial commentary. "bla bla bla ... "like Shirley MacClaine would say. Yes there IS an argument. And SO?
Come on, lets not take the dialogue to the lowest common denominator. You know better, you voted for Obama (though you ought to have voted for Nader as I should have).
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 05:24PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Lynn, one, Israel does not use terror, the definition of terror is the use of force for the sole purpose of creating panic and fear in the civilian population. The opposite is true it is Israel's policy to minimize civilian fatalities and injuries. Two The funds Israel takes from the US are used for defense against for example rockets now fired on civilians daily, many of these systems like the Arrow project are defensive by nature designed to stop inbound rockets, and cannot harm anybody. Thirdly, the funds donated to Hamas are primarly used for offensive weapons, like rockets and suicide bombs that target civilians. You really can not compare the two entities. One, the one hand a modern democracy with the rule of law and on the other hand a terrorist organization that has stated as its purpose to exist to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. If the Palestinian are so peace loving why did they vote for Hamas to represent them, a majority of 60% did, and Hamas is by their own words a terrorist organization.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 05:35PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Frank Gehry-- from Barcelona, right? Very cool architecture, if I'm remembering correctly-- whimsical, conical, mosaic structures.
If there wasn't such expense dedicated to imperial conquest, we'd have funds to buy great architects. He could design a global temple on top of the one that's been rebuilt by multiple contenders.
And we wouldn't need a Museum to showcase tolerance. Tolerence would just be a standard principle.
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 05:37PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Gerry, now, now, lets not get personal and name calling, and insulting, I do not do that, and this is not the purpose of this blog, I would recommend to Charles that this kind of language is not acceptable. I recommend Gerry that you check your facts, their is no sense arguing about facts, first check them out, then come back, and on the way clean up your language. Good night and good luck. :0)
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 05:42PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Because Hamas was most closely representing their basic needs? Why did Israel incarcerate those elected Hamas officials? And get recognized for human rights abuses for cutting off energy and food to Gaza TODAY?
Again, yes there is a problem, bla bla , you're the terrorist, I'm the terrorist and so on.
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 05:46PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Frank Gehry is Canadian originally living in Los Angeles. The very first pledge towards this project (40 million) came from Gary Winnick. Global Crossing ring a bell?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E0DC153FF936A2575BC0A9629C8B63
Dirty money funding a very immoral project. Hope they have a printing press on hand for the rest of the funds needed to fully fund it. (BTW, he hasn't fully met his pledge yet)
Posted by Robin McLaren on 11/18/2008 @ 05:50PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
" the definition of terror is the use of force for the sole purpose of creating panic and fear in the civilian population. The opposite is true it is Israel's policy to minimize civilian fatalities and injuries. "
First the accepted definition of terror is the use or the threat to use violence to achieve political goals. This means that all states are terrorist because they use coersion and violence to impose their rule.
Second, may I suggest that you dig your head from the sand it is burried in. What do you call dropping a one tonne bomb and wiping out a whole block in the middle of a densely populated city? Minimization of civilian casualties? Rational thinking and scientific objective assessment? Wake up and smell the coffee.
Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/18/2008 @ 06:59PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
All right, Michael, you are clearly a troll. Jimmy Carter a shill for the Saudis? You're 'proud' of Irgun? I'm a (self-hating) closet antisemite? You've revealed yourself for who you are. Shanda.
Adios. Shalom.
Posted by Alan Cheney on 11/18/2008 @ 07:14PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Aref, First it is the killing of civilians to achieve political goals that defines terror, and I challange you to prove to me one example whereas Israel intentionally killed civilians, it has happened but not as a policy but as a mistake, a mistake that happens in all wars. And in all cases Israel has apologized for these mistakes, even in a case when it was not Israel that caused the death of civilians, but Palestinians.
Second, Aref, no need to be insulting, we are trying to have a civil discussion. We can disagree without getting nasty about it. I just demand the truth and not invented fantasies and lies as a base for discussion. Talking about coffee, I think all people should sit down with a finjan of coffee and discuss their differences in a civil way, don't you agree? I make a great cup of freshly ground and roasted coffee, over coals in a copper finjan.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 07:14PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Alan, I was asking a question not making a statement, no need to take offense, we can disagree without fighting. Jimmy Carter does receive funds from the Saudi's, a fact, please do your research. The Irgun fought bravely against huge odds the British army, and on their deaths the IDf was founded, another fact.
As far as being a troll if that what it takes to speak the truth I am proud to wear the badge of a troll. Read Dershowitz's The case for Israel, Dershowitz is a respected lawyer, not a troll. Shalom and good night, Michael.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 07:21PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Alan, check out the book: "The Real Jimmy Carter" you may learn something about him.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 07:30PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Dropping a one tonne bomb on a residential building is no accident. It is a deliberate act and the consequences of that act--killing of civilians--is well known in advance.
You say it is a war, well then, there usually are two parties--maybe more--to a war. If yopu can justify the killing of civilians because it is a war then the same logic should apply to the other side. But again, the same sickenning Zionist supremacist ideology is at play here "Israel is above reproach and does no bad deeds".
It is people like you that are obstacles to peace, because you refuse to see the facts and refuse to acknowledge the wrongs and injustices done. Not only you refuse to see them but you justify them and blame the victim instead, like a rapist blaming his victim for tempting him. You sicken me. You call yourself a peacemaker but I am willing to bet that if tomorrow you are called to go drop a bomb on a Palestinian home, or demolish one because they don't have a permit to build you would not hesitate a second. I do not justify suicide bombongs and do not justify the killing of anyone. Yes, indeed power and the lust for power and domination that has been the creed of Zionism is a corruption of the humanity not only of their victims but of those who are committed Zionists like yourself. This is what Hannah Arendt meant by the "banality of evil". Evil becomes so routine like a desk job, functionaries deciding who to jail and what to bomb and then they justify it by "doing their job" or as a necessity to maitain the "Jewish character" of the state and nobody realizes to what extent racism oozes from such statement and to what extent their own humanity has been stripped and brutalized.
Michael, you claim to be a scientist and a rational thinker, however you have proven beyond any doubt that you are nothing but a a sheep and a brainwashed individual who cannot think independently and outside the framework of a corrupt, xenophobic, racist and supremacist ideology. You can have the last word because I will not respond to your regurgitations--I have heard them so many times.
Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/18/2008 @ 07:36PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Charles, you take my comments off and allow this blatant nonsense of Aref to continue on a Pro-Israel blog, I protest, cut him off, this is nothing but BS, not one grain of truth, and I will not respond to such complete nonsense.
For your information one more time Aref, Israel is a democratic nation ruled by law, and it is its policy to defend civilians. If your cowardly friends fire their rockets from civilian homes, then yes once in a while civilians will get hit, tell your cowardly friends not to hide behind women's dresses. Good night and good riddance, I have tried, no use talking to blocked minds.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 08:49PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
As Al Franken would say "ditto-head".
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 09:01PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Lynn, who is the dittohead? I have never listened to Rush, and I voted for Oabama, I speak truth to the masses, that have been misled for decades by lies generated by Arab dictators, so many times that they can no longer distinguish the truth from falsehood. Repeating a lie thousands of times does not make it a truth. I am sorry to break up your world view, but the truth cannot be denied, read more about the subject you wish to debate. I read over twenty newspapers, periodicals, websites and TV news stations, then try and form an unbiased informed opinion. How many newspapers do you read? How many periodicals do you read? How many books on this subject have you read? How many news TV telecasts do you watch? I watch CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS and BBC so I get a balanced view, and am able to filter out the truth from lies. So please get informed beyond one TV station AL-Jazeera before entering into an intelligent conversation on the ME.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 09:25PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Bloggers: what world are you all living in? What are your news sources? This is starting to sound unreal, surreal, are you coming at me from a parallel universe? Try: The Economist, The LA Times, The NY Times, The London Times, The Jerusalem Post, Debka, MSNBC.com, CNN.com all good solid sources, to read the real news, not fabricated fairy tales, Arabian Nights tales, please.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 09:31PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Democracy Now.org., the truth behind the truth. Like the "drug war" in Bolivia which is todays' episode. Evo Morales stuck it to Bush, who allegedly tied the auto industry bailout to free-trade pacts in Columbia 12 Nov. episode. The drug "war" is really the drug SUPPLY chain to undermine the infrastructure of black communities and other underclass in the inner cities in the US. Heard of Gary Webb of the San Jose Mercury News? An investigative reporter who was targeted by the powerful intelligence operations, lost his job for reporting the real news and committed suicide 10 December, my sons' birthday, a couple years ago.
Incidentally, I have one of Dershowitzs' books. "Preemption".
Posted by lynn segal on 11/18/2008 @ 11:41PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Lynn, Get "The Case for Israel", Amazon for $7.00 new or $5.00 used.
Posted by Michael Ross on 11/18/2008 @ 11:50PM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Michael:
"Troll".
That really sums you up.
You are a jewish nightmare - you and others like you.
I visit sites, e.g. iraqwar, where sundry people bang on about jews being to blame for everything.
I try to moderate things and introduce tolerance, but then along come trolls like you, who demolish any attempt at balance.
I have lost count of the number of times that I have tried to explain that not all jews are zionists, but you persist and push a radical zionist line which alienates all moderate people everywhere.
Do you have a death-wish, or something?
If I could not retain my intellectual and moral integrity, then such as you would have turned me into a "jew hater" many years ago.
Such as you are the worst enemies of both Israel and judaism.
For as long as zionists, like you, infect blogs which are intended to promote peace, there is NO chance of peace ever happening.
You and your kind push even me to imagine that you represent "all jews".
Heck Charles allows you to take over his site ... which is what trolls tend to do.
Whatever, Michael, you and your kind are the very worst enemies of jewish people.
You spout misinformation which is easily used to fuel a nascent attempt to blame jews for everything, as the current economic world implodes.
Posted by Gerry Hiles on 11/19/2008 @ 12:57AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Gery wrote "Do you have a death-wish, or something?" Not necessarily. Zionism never seriuosly fought antisemitism when it mattered in the period from the foundation of the zionist movement up to the nazi holocaust. Zionism accepted antisemitism as inevitable and endemic and that there is no hope for jews of ever fully being integrated and assimilated in any society but their own. This what Herzl wrote in his little pamphlet "The Jewish State". Zionism justifies its existence by antisemitism and therefore fanning the flames of hatred may be a deliberate attempt at demonstrating that the zionist thesis is correct and will always be.
A book I have read quite sometime and maybe very hard to find is "Zionism in The Age of The Dictators" by Lenni Brenner in which he shows to what extent the zionist movement was willing to collaborate with nazis and the fascists. Hannah Arendt's essay "Zionism Reconsidered" also talks about the acceptance of antisemitism by the zionists.
That is why I believe the equation of anti-zionism and critique of the State of Israel are equated with anti-semitism: to demonstrate the continuity of jew-hatred and to make it harder for people to criticize either lest they be labeled anti-semite. This also serves the purpose of blurring the lines between zionist, Israel and Jew using the words interchangeably again making it hard for people to distinguish between them and to criticize.
Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/19/2008 @ 04:36AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
One last word about "Trolls" the best approach is not to feed them by responding to them. There sole purpose is to divert and hijack the discussion and by responding to them we are actually playing into their hand. So please everyone do not respond to and do not feed the Trolls. Michael is a Troll and his sole purpose here is not to seek understanding and peace but to disrupt any attempt at reaching such understanding by spewing his venom.
Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/19/2008 @ 05:01AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
This is a fascinating discussion. I lived and worked in the Middle East from early 1945 to late 1947. I came to know and respect Jewish refugees, "Arab Jews," Muslims and Middle East Christians. I think that to understand somewhat the events of the past century with respect to Palestine/Israel one needs to realize that a few ardent Zionists (including Christian Zionists) have exploited the incomprehensible tragedy of the holocaust for political ends. This in turn provoked, understandably, a reaction from Palestinians (of all religions) to resist Europeans who wanted to claim Palestine as their homeland. We need to realize that we are all humans and all equal as human beings. I recommend the book entitled The Zionist Connection by Alfred M. Lilienthal, first published in 1978, for reliable historical information on this international tragedy. Modern Zionism, an ideology, has not brought peace and security to anyone. Non-violence, respect for all humans, and reconciliation are the solution. Any American, including American Jews, who is not willing to give up his home, farm, or land to native Americans who lived here first and who would like to reclaim their land should not expect Palestinians to give up their claims to their ancestral lands to Jews who lived in other regions for centuries.
Posted by Pearl Hoffman on 11/19/2008 @ 05:03AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you Pearl. I agree with you.
"Any American, including American Jews, who is not willing to give up his home, farm, or land to native Americans who lived here first and who would like to reclaim their land should not expect Palestinians to give up their claims to their ancestral lands to Jews who lived in other regions for centuries."
Yes, Jabotinsky, the founder of revisionsit zionism which led to foundation of the Irgun and Stern gang, and then the Likud and who is the inspiration to many hardline zionist right-wing, he well understood that. His proposal was that the Jewish State must build an "Iron Wall", i.e. become such a powerful and ruthless military force as to dissuade the Arabs from ever dreaming of attacking it and regaining what they claim as theirs. It hasn't worked has it? There is no military solution to the problem. Also nationalism has bever brought peace nor prosperity to the world.
A new kind of thinking has to emerge. This new thinking will have to begin with the rejection of "us versus them" and move to "us together".
Posted by Aref Nammari on 11/19/2008 @ 05:28AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.
It is good to see a solid consensual core here.
You are right, Aref, that the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, but that is practically impossible to start with, i.e. it takes a while for a troll to reveal itself for what it really is, by which time a lot of damage has been done.
Moving on:
It is not directly on topic, but I am picking up on what Pearl, Aref and some others have alluded to ... which is the question of how the state of Israel should be constituted/how what was originally Palestine (Canaan, if you prefer) should be divided-up.
For as long as I have been actively aware of problems in the ME - ever since I read "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" over fifty years ago - it has been more or less clear to me that some kind of unification is needed, so as to attempt to undo the terrible damage done by the London Empire and sundry other European empires.
At least, under the Ottoman Empire (whatever its faults), all manner of people lived in relative harmony for centuries ... there was a 'unity of diversity', if you get what I mean, e.g. people kinda muddled along in a way which actually worked. (Same applies worldwide.)
But in sailed the London Empire (especially, but not exclusively) and sliced and diced artificial geo-political lines on the map of the world ... and that destroyed the albeit muddled harmony which existed before.
To cut to the chase:
Israel is one tragic outcome of European colonialism. But given that it exists, what should be done to unwind the damage?
A "two state solution"?
I hardly think so, e.g. muslims will shortly outnumber jews in Israel-proper, never mind the occupied territories.
How about a "one state solution"?
Idealistic?
Not really. It is the way things always used to muddle along.
Sorry not to have been more specific about things but, after all, this is just a comment on some blog and I don't feel inclined to write a book anyway.
Posted by Gerry Hiles on 11/19/2008 @ 07:45AM PST
You must be signed in to report content.