Hadar Susskind Joins J Street
J Street, the newish pro-peace Israel lobby, seems to have scored a major coup by snagging Hadar Susskind, currently vice president and Washington director for the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, as their new director of policy and strategy. James Besser from New York Jewish Week explains:
“My goal is to build as broad a base of support as possible for Israel at this politically pivotal moment when there is both great opportunity to make progress in resolving the conflict and a tremendous risk of squandering it,” Susskind said in a statement. “I look forward to working to grow a strong and integrated progressive pro-Israel movement and to build that much needed support across the spectrum of American political life.”
His background – he was born in Israel and served in the IDF in Lebanon – won’t please those right-wingers who say J Street is anti-Israel because it disagrees with …well, them. And it probably won’t mollify more mainstream leaders who worry that the new group undercuts American Jewish unity on key questions involving Israel.
The significance of attracting people with this kind of credibility, however, isn’t to mollify high-information ideologues who simply disagree with a progressive approach to these issues. The significance is that a great many American Jews are torn between their generally progressive approach to political issues and the fact that they often worry about the real motives of people who become critical of Israeli policy or the status quo in US-Israel relations. It’s difficult to have those kind of doubts about Israeli-born IDF veterans with a track record of working in significant Jewish organizations.
98 Responses to “Hadar Susskind Joins J Street”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 27th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Zionism is a disgrace.
“Jewish unity” – what a fucking disgrace; Zionists are the worst and most active proliferators of antisemitic stereotypes.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
…and that includes scummy Zionist “J Street”, of course.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“My goal is to build as broad a base of support as possible for Israel at this politically pivotal moment….”
AIPAC will be pleased.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I used to take the Likud line on Israel. But then I lived with an Israeli. Like all males, he was in the Israeli army. He got out of boot camp in May 1982. First stop? Lebanon. His experience there made him a little jaded, partly because his stay in the army got extended, but mostly because it was a really fucked up war. He cured me of my delusion that Israel acts only in a purely defensive role. He left Israel because he just couldn’t take it anymore. And it wasn’t cowardice, he fought two years of combat in Lebanon for Israel, so he wasn’t scared of violence. But he was scared of stupid policy.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
This is great for j street, great for the Jewish community, great for Israel and great for Middle East peace.
One important thing is that Susskind understand the internals of the Jewish community organizations. They are big deal….federation, synagouges, school, etc are the main interaction Jews have with their community, not Israel activist organizations. Understanding how that works, because JCPA is a creature of those organizations, give a lot of value that Susskind brings to the table
August 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
The significance is that a great many American Jews are torn between their generally progressive approach to political issues and the fact that on the issue that they are most intensely mobilised by, they favour, one way or another, apartheid colonialism.
With Israeli-born IDF veterans with a track record of working in significant Jewish organizations, you can be pretty sure that colonial apartheid remains the basic policy.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Well, clearly this guy is nothing more than a puppet for Ahmadinejad. I mean, haven’t you guys heard? Some Arabs gave money to J Street, thus proving that J Street is pure evil. I read in the the Jerusalem Post so I know it’s true!
August 27th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Although he himself might not be aware of it. this guy is a trojan horse. It won’t take long before J-Street starts sounding like AIPAC.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
and the fact that on the issue that they are most intensely mobilised by, they favour, one way or another, apartheid colonialism.
I don’t believe that either assertion in this statement is true. American Jews don’t seem to be most intensely mobilized by Israel policy and they don’t generally favor the current apartheid situation. If this were true, American Jews would vote overwhelmingly Republican. The fact is, they vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
You might argue that Democrats are no better than Republicans on this issue, and while Dems are generally bad, they are nowhere near as hardline as Rs. The real problem is that the dominant Jewish-American advocacy groups on this issue do not represent the true feelings of the majority of American Jews. That’s kind of the whole point of J Street, in fact.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Abby1, I always thought it strange that so many in the zionist movement seem to be going way out of their way to perpetuate every negative stereotype.
This is only ‘great’ so long as he doesn’t pull them to the right. Never underestimate the possibility of being co-opted and nuetralised. If this guy is disinterested in putting any pressure on Israel, he’s worse than useless. He’ll be a smokescreen used to tar any other group that condemns Israel “If Even J-Street doesn’t see anything wrong with this…”
Color me skeptical. There’s a good chance that J-Street just became the “New Republic” of the Israel lobby.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
It won’t take long before J-Street starts sounding like AIPAC.
They already sound like AIPAC, and they always have. A branch of AIPAC to bullshit ‘liberal’ idiots, like most of you here.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
J-Street, AIPAC: Good cop, meet bad cop.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Soullite, there is no left and right; it’s an ethnocentric ideology; nuances, even if they exist, are irrelevant. One doesn’t concern oneself whether a particular Aryan Nation fella is left or right compared to another. Either you are a Zionist or you are not.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I’ve read J-Street’s policy positions. They’re really not like AIPAC at all.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
RobMac, that “tool of Ahmadinejad” ship has sailed. Look at this thread: five commenters—out of a total of eight—equating the organization with AIPAC or the equivalent; essentially saying saying “tool of Netanyahu.” Three of those commenters (abb1, otto, and soullite) simply going for it with regular ol’ anti-Semitism. Around here, the “tool of Ahmadinejad” rhetoric isn’t where the action is, at least until SLC logs on.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
abb1, by equating all Zionists with Aryan Nation members you have unmasked yourself as someone who can be safely ignored.
August 27th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Around here, the “tool of Ahmadinejad” rhetoric isn’t where the action is, at least until SLC logs on.
Well, yeah, but who could have imagined that it would take him so long to show up? How was I supposed to know I was baiting the wrong set of freaks?
August 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I would not underestimate the ability for
right-wing“mainstream” Jewish leaders to maintain doubts about J Street despite Hadar’s record as an “Israeli-born IDF veterans with a track record of working in significant Jewish organizations.”There are plenty of IDF veterans in Israel who protest the occupation, and their street cred as vets doesn’t help too much. In fact, the government goes after groups such as Breaking the Silence.
That said, this is definitely a great coup for J Street. I also would highly doubt that either Hadar or J Street would be in this position if they didn’t have agreement about the politics of the matter.
Perhaps rather than being a trojan horse from the “mainstream”, he too was fed up with the pressure in the JCPA and other institutions to seek illusory “Jewish unity on Israel”?
August 27th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
“It won’t take long before J-Street starts sounding like AIPAC.”
I don’t buy it. There is a legitimate belief that the way to preserve Israel is through peace. Ultimately, J Street wants Israel to exist forever. They just think that violence isn’t the solution. But they are basically Zionist. There are plenty of people like abb1 who would rather see Israel cease to exist. But I’m surely not one of them, and J Street isn’t either. J Street thinks that Israel’s survival requires Israel to exist peacefully within the 1967 borders (with maybe a few land swaps). AIPAC thinks that Israel must at least control all of the Levant and probably Iraq, Iran, and Egypt as well. And AIPAC is perfectly content with constant bloodshed. J Street is not and never will be.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
“and their street cred as vets doesn’t help too much.”
It can’t. Every male in Israel has to join the IDF, so it provides the same street cred that breathing and having a penis does.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
That was my point.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“Every male in Israel has to join the IDF, so it provides the same street cred that breathing and having a penis does.”
Not quite true – UltraOrthodox do not have to join the IDF, and people can also do things like medical service instead of the IDF.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“Three of those commenters (abb1, otto, and soullite) simply going for it with regular ol’ anti-Semitism….”
Why did that take so long? That bullshit usually shows in the first few comments.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
fosert, you miss the point. J-Street doesn’t need street cred in Israel. It needs it in the US. IDF experience provides a lot of street cred here, regardless of how it’s regarded in Israel.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Abb1, point taken. Again. Thing is, though, that it isn’t 1947, and continuing to harp on the legitimacy of Zionism seems sort of beside the point now. Seems to me that the thing to do would be to try figure out a policy that would minimize the killing of human beings, but for all the pixels you expend on Zionism you never seem to have any suggestions at all.
Om the other hand, I thought that fostert’s analysis of this issue here was perfect and complete, and I’m a bit unpleasantly surprised that he feels that there is anything more to discuss.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
American jews are indeed intensely mobilised by Israel policy, as discussion from a wide variety of commentators from Seymour Lipset to Dershowitz and many other would demonstrate. Part of the surrounding tropes involves claims that it’s just one issue among many, but that’s like saying abortion is just one issue among many for Evangelical Christians. And mainstream jewish opinion overwhelmingly favours the current apartheid situation: the only issue really up for debate in both Israel and the US is how much of the West Bank and East Jerusalem Israel will colonise and keep. But the colonial apartheid situation existed pre 1967 and would of course continue to exist if Israel withdrew from all its colonies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. One state with an arab majority is the non-apartheid solution, just as one state with a black african majority was the non-apartheid solution in South Africa. I think you’ll find that in those terms J Street and your former IDF characters tend to prefer the apartheid outcome.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Sorry, Kafka, claiming that a group is the source for its own negative stereotypes is racist. (You may have heard that one regarding black people, if you think back.) And claiming that a group blindly supports evil policies en masse out of racial self-interest is racist too. (Does The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ring any bells?)
It’s not anti-Semitic to strongly criticize Israel. Matt Y does it, I do it. It is anti-Semitic to stereotype Jews; that is actually the definition of the term.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
p.s. yes fostert, I do get it.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“Not quite true – UltraOrthodox do not have to join the IDF, and people can also do things like medical service instead of the IDF.”
That’s true, but for most Israeli males, they’ll be in the army. Basically, being in the army in Israel is like not being gay in the US. Pretty much the norm. It would be unusual to not have been in the army.
“IDF experience provides a lot of street cred here, regardless of how it’s regarded in Israel.”
You are probably right, but it’s silly. I have never met an Israeli male who hasn’t been in the military. The real issue is what war you fought in and when. If you fought in the 1982 Lebanon war, you’re a real soldier. If you fought in other wars, not so much. Although in either case, the term “war criminal” might apply. My friend who fought in Lebanon did a lot things that he’s not proud of. Is he a war criminal? Technically, yes. But I hesitate to put blame on enlisted soldiers. If you are an officer, yes, I will hold you responsible. But enlisted guys swear allegiance only to their commanding officers. If they were following orders, they shouldn’t be blamed. Their commanding officers should.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
“American jews are indeed intensely mobilised by Israel policy, as discussion from a wide variety of commentators from Seymour Lipset to Dershowitz and many other would demonstrate.”
Many of the staunchest prominent pro-Israel hawks in America are indeed Jewish. Many are not, like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, etc. Using public figures to determine what “intensely mobilizes” the American Jewish population is not reliable. Some actual evidence of the population’s behavior—like, for instance, whether it tends to vote for the more hawkish American party, or the less hawkish one—would serve you better here, but for some reason you’re not providing that.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
“and I’m a bit unpleasantly surprised that he feels that there is anything more to discuss”
I am as well. But this discussion will go on for all of eternity. I’ll be long dead before this gets close to a resolution. I try to stay out of discussions of Israel, but I can’t do it. Next time you come across a car accident, see how hard it is to not look. Then you’ll understand why I write about this.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Both those authors give some evidence for their claims that Israel is central to jewish political activism in the US as do many others. I didnt use public figures like Armey to determine what mobilises American jewish population, but fwiw the big politicians of course reflect the concerns of their mobilised interest groups, so Gingrich and co reflect the concerns of jewish political mobilisation just as they do pharmaceutical companies mobilisation without necessarily being either jewish or drug makers themselves. The democrats follow the AIPAC line quite enough for there to be no problem, particularly for those who want their apartheid colonialiam sprinkled with claims to liberalism.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Thing is, though, that it isn’t 1947, and continuing to harp on the legitimacy of Zionism seems sort of beside the point now.
Actually, I would cut some slack to a 1947 Zionist; it was an understandable sentiment in 1947. Even in 1957, perhaps.
But this is 2000 and 9 for fuck’s sake, and we know what had come out of it, we know what it is, it’s right in front of our eyes. A 2009 Zionist got no excuse, he is a militant racist scum and disgrace to humanity.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Otto, exactly. It’s just like when people say ‘But Israeli’s want peace!” No. They don’t. They want land and water. They are the stronger party, if they wanted peace there would be peace.
Tormenos, the source? no. But it isn’t copies of “Elders of Zion” that spread the idea of a vast jewish conspiracy these days. It’s the triumphant declarations of AIPAC and it’s political power that do that. You’re average American has never heard about ‘blood libel’, but they have damn sure seen how we bend-over-backwards to give them whatever they want, even going so far as to ignore outright threats and acts of aggression. AIPAC isn’t the source of anti-semitism, but it’s damn sure one of the biggest reasons why it still have a pulse in the US.
August 27th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“Tormenos, the source? no. But it isn’t copies of “Elders of Zion” that spread the idea of a vast jewish conspiracy these days. It’s the triumphant declarations of AIPAC and it’s political power that do that.”
I don’t understand. What definition are you using for “source” that doesn’t entail what you just said? Isn’t the “source” of an idea that from which it spreads?
August 27th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
“A 2009 Zionist got no excuse, he is a militant racist scum and disgrace to humanity.”
Umm, that’s a little over the top. I guess it’s a question of what Zionism is. If Zionism means that Israel should exist within the 1967 borders, then I’m a Zionist. If it means controlling all of the Levant and maybe some other countries as well, count me out. But one thing I do know is that I’m not a militant racist scum. Well, maybe a scum, but certainly not militant or racist. Well, possibly racist, as I do believe that my white skin is inferior. I spend an hour or two in the sun, and my skin turns lobster red and falls off. Few people ever get a third degree sunburn, but I’m one of them. I wish I had that cool brown skin that handles the sun better. And yes, black people get sunburn. But if your skin isn’t falling off, it’s not a real sunburn.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Tomemos, you are an idiot, and that’s in the best case scenario.
“Elders of Zion” is a fake story, while Zionism is a real political movement and its real leaders and followers really make these statements about “Jewish unity”; idiotic statements perpetuating antisemitic stereotypes. These are the facts. Facts can’t be antisemitic. If you are unable to understand a simple thing like that you better shut up and stop embarrassing yourself.
Fostert, for the purpose of this discussion Zionism is a political movement advocating an ethnocentric nation-state. If you believe in such a thing as “Jewish state” (whatever the borders), then you’re a Zionist. This makes you a racist, at a minimum. I don’t mind you being a racist, but the fact that in order to create and maintain such a state in a populated area you have to use violence makes you a militant racist. The word “scum” is just an indication of my annoyance; ignore it.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Abb1, how many more insults before you win a medal and a ten-speed? You must be nearly there by now.
You might notice that the calls for “Jewish unity” were put out by the “mainstream leaders” that J Street is attempting to “undercut.” But whatever, we’ve danced this dance before.
Facts can’t be anti-Semitic; rhetoric can. It’s a fact that there are inner-city criminal gangs that are predominantly black or Latino, and that these do a lot of harm to their respective communities. However, someone who said that racist stereotypes were justified because of these (factual!) gangs would be saying a racist thing. Ditto the ascribing of anti-Semitism to the (factual!) crimes of the Israeli government and the iniquities of its supporters.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
As I posted previously, Jstreet has contributors from Arab and Muslim backgrounds who are about as pro-Israel as Mr. abb1 is.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418604334&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418678387&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Now Mr. Rob Mac has questioned the veracity of the two reports published in the Jerusalem Post, presumably because it leans to the Likud faction in Israel. However, the facts, which were extracted from reports by the US Federal Election Commission, are the facts. I suggest that Mr. Rob Mac demonstrate that either the Federal Election Commission report is in error or that the Jerusalem Post is seriously in error in their analysis of that report.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Fostert, Zionism generally means that Israel should exist over it’s entire biblical kingdom, not the ‘67 borders or even where they are limited to now. It should be noted that there is absolutely no archeological evidence that Israel and Judea reached even half the territory the bible claims.
Tormenos: In the context you’ve provided “the Source” means “that which is originated from” not “thats which it flows from”. “A source” may have been an acceptable way to describe the later, but certainly not THE source.
Regardless, your assertion violates all basic logic: you have dictated that something can’t be true, even if it is. Under your rubric, it would be wrong to say that AIPAC perpetuates stereotypes about a grand jewish kabal EVEN IF THEY ACTUALLY DO. Hell, it’s the basis of their efficacy. It’s why they only ever really target weak people (to make themselves seem invincible when they win) and it’s the reason they try to brow-beat everyone who disagrees with them into submission, to imply that they have total dominance of the conversation. I’m outright claiming it’s a deliberate strategy of playing to stereo-types to try and intimidate.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Hmm, and who here said that stereotypes are justified?
I am pretty sure a typical normal Jew (as defined by the Zionists) won’t give a fuck about being a Jew; he/she is an parent, an engineer, a New Yorker, an American, a jazz records collector, a vegetarian, and a million other identities before such a meaningless one as a “Jew”.
And of course those gangs play into the stereotype and propagate them, there is no doubt about that; but of course no mainstream institution will defend these gangs and pretend they are legitimate organizations, unlike they do Zionism.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“for the purpose of this discussion Zionism is a political movement advocating an ethnocentric nation-state.”
Fair enough, but isn’t that what most nations are about. Would we deny France’s right to exist because it’s made up of French people? Okay maybe we would, but how about Poland? Or Thailand? Or Japan? Should we only accept multi-ethnic countries like Vietnam or Russia?
The Israeli people have a right to have a country. And that country includes Arab Muslims now. And it always will. And that’s somehow a problem for you? What they don’t have right to do is steal land and water. They do that now, and it’s not fair to those whose land and water are stolen. And that’s where I draw the line. The Israelis can have their land and water, but not other people’s land and water. We draw borders for a reason. This is ours, and that is yours. Israel’s problem is that they don’t accept borders. This is mine, and so is everything else. That’s a bad attitude. And I really don’t see where it stops. Once Israel has the West Bank, Iraq, Iran, and Egypt, what’s to stop them from taking Florida? After all, if we assume that Israel has the right to invade any territory, how can we possibly claim that our territory is somehow exempt?
August 27th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Fostert, France didn’t form 50 years ago, kick a whole lot of people off of land their family lived on for centuries, and then start putting up “FRENCH ONLY!” signs.
There is a mountain of a difference between a xenophibic country and what’s happened in Israel.Japan may be Japanese, but thats by choice of the people of Japan. Israel did not become “Jewish only” by virtue of a bunch of jews already living in Arabia blocking other people from living there. Israel is an artifical construct, not a natural outgrowth of culture or of the people living within a region. It was the re-colonialization of Arabia by millions of white europeans. Japan may be Japanese, but thats by choice of the people of Japan. Israel did not become “Jewish only” by virtue of a bunch of jews already living in Arabia blocking other people from living there.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“Fostert, Zionism generally means that Israel should exist over it’s entire biblical kingdom, not the ‘67 borders or even where they are limited to now.”
If you define it that way, then I’m not a Zionist. Whatever. We can define this term as we wish, but it would be nice if we did. Call me what you will, but I’ll stand my ground. And my ground is the 1967 borders. No more, and no less. I can deal with some land swaps for convenience, but they must be fair in both land and water.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
wierd, it only copies when I dragged the selected area to reformat.
That’s just plain strange. You don’t usually have to actuall hit “cut” when you do that, it generally assumed drag&drop is cut&paste.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“Japan may be Japanese, but thats by choice of the people of Japan.”
Tell that to the Ainu. I’m guessing they weren’t too keen on having their land taken. And I’m guessing the Native Americans didn’t like their land being taken as well. But it happened. Sorry. But the only way to move on is to accept what happened and stay with it. These things that happened in the past were wrong. But continuing the practice doesn’t make it right. My attitude here is simple: stop stealing people’s land and water. What was stolen will still be stolen, but just stop stealing.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
And wow, I’m the guy defending Israel? How weird is that? Hell, I started out on this thread criticizing them.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Fair enough, but isn’t that what most nations are about. Would we deny France’s right to exist because it’s made up of French people?
Jesus fucking Christ. France is made up of French citizens. The French government officially prohibits collecting any census data about their citizens’ ethnicity or religion. All citizens of France are equal, regardless of their ancestry; ancestry plays no role whatsoever. Quite naturally, like in any civilized state.
You seriously don’t see any difference between France and a “Jewish state” or you’re just pretending not to? What about “Aryan empire”, was it also just like France?
August 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
So, just out of curiosity: imagine abb1 is elected PM of Israel, and everybody in parliament pledges to support whatever he wants. What does he do?
August 27th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Or, if you don’t like that, how about this: do you consider yourself a post-Zionist? Because that would at least be a little less banal then reiterating Zionism=bad.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Now Mr. Rob Mac has questioned the veracity of the two reports published in the Jerusalem Post . . .
SLC misses my point completely. I don’t question their veracity. I question their reasoning. Here’s what I said:
“Some Arabs gave money to J Street, thus proving that J Street is pure evil.”
See, the reason I thought this was funny was because I think it’s ridiculous to assume that because an organization took money from some Arabs that the organization is somehow morally compromised. This is because I am not a racist and I think people who make racist assumptions (Arab money = EVIL money) are being foolish. Get it?
August 28th, 2009 at 12:02 am
Great. I won’t worry about his (or J street’s) “real” motives. I’ll only worry about how to counter the cover they give to people whose motives are 100% clear.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:27 am
I really need to double-check my links before posting. Here’s Foster’s analysis. Luv.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:28 am
t
August 28th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Although I’d missed the response to mine before. Some people just have no sense of humor, I swear.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:59 am
imagine abb1 is elected PM of Israel, and everybody in parliament pledges to support whatever he wants. What does he do?
There are a couple of things the government of Israel must do, by law, no matter who their PM is. That’s return/compensation of the refugees and to end the occupation.
Once these two things are completed, you hold an election and do whatever the population of the country wants.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:07 am
“by law”
What law?
August 28th, 2009 at 2:34 am
While I’m waiting for an answer, I’ll just say that, while I don’t have a problem with that in principal, I fear that, in practice it would just lead to slaughter, very possibly much worse than we’ve seen.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:35 am
But anyway as I said I just wanted a clarification.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:15 am
A member of the IDF like every other Jewish Israeli? Member of a “social justice” orgainization. Wow, those that is complete credibility for non-bias.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:17 am
International law. UNSC resolutions 242 and 338.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Re abb1
There are a couple of things the government of Israel must do, by law, no matter who their PM is. That’s return/compensation of the refugees and to end the occupation.
The problem with Mr. abb1s’ comment here is that, if the Arabs had been willing to accept compensation, this dispute would have been solved at any time in the past 60 years. Unfortunately, the Arabs have insisted on the non-negotiable demand that refugees living in refugee camps be resettled in Israel. Since the odds of any Israeli Government accepting such a demand are about equal to the odds of the US Government agreeing to return New York City to Native Americans from whom the land was stolen 400 years ago, there will be no peace under such a demand.
Re Rob Mac
The issue isn’t whether or not Jstreet is evil. The issue is why Arabs and Muslims who do not wish the State of Israel well are making contributions to this organization which purports to be pro-Israel. It is certainly reasonable for bystanders to concluded that these contributors are not stupid people and they they don’t see Jstreet as a pro-Israel organization, despite the latters’ claims.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
The problem with Mr. abb1s’ comment here is that, if the Arabs had been willing to accept compensation, this dispute would have been solved at any time in the past 60 years.
First of all this is not true, see Taba negotiations and Geneva accord; second: there is no such things as “the Arabs” (unless you’re referring to the population of a certain geographical area, like “the Europeans”), and third: the refugees have to be compensated and be able to return to the places of their pre-1948 residence.
Compensation is not a substitute for the right of return. If you expelled someone for 60 years and leveled his house, he should be compensated for the house, for the 60 years in exile and be able to return and build a new house on the same place. This seems rather obvious.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The position that Arab refugees from 1948 and their descendents must be permitted to live in Israel is equivalent to the position that there can be no negotiated peace. Which may in fact be true. But it seems strange to whole-heartedly endorse such an outcome.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Actually, the occupation, by law, is completely legal. The law of war is clear that any land gained through a defensive war can be occupied until there is a peace agreement. As Jordan and the Palestinians attacked Israel in 1967 and the Israelis and Palestinians are still at war, they can legally occupy the land until peace is achieved.
338 only refers to 242. 242 only applies after peace has been made. And the word “all” was specifically excluded from the resolution before the word “territories.” as it’s drafters have explicitly said.
Here is the earlier drafts with the word “all” included.
Here is the text of the final document with the word “all removed.
Here is the significance of that removal as stated by 242’s drafters
Lord Caradon, chief author of the resolution
Eugene Rostow, who helped draft 242, a legal scholar and former dean of Yale Law School, was US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, 1966-1969.
See Proceedings of the 64th annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, 1970, pgs 894-96:
Mr. Michael Stewart, British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in a reply to a question in Parliament, 9 December 1969:
American Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg, another of the resolution’s drafters,
See Christian Science Monitor, “Middle East peace prospects” July 9, 1985
August 28th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
There were 200,000,000 refugess in the 20th century that were not granted any “right of return” including the 850,000 Jewish refugess from Arab countries who lost everything and are now make up 40% of Israel’s Jewish population.
The question is were they expelled or did they leave on their own in order to give Arab armies the chance to kill all the Jews. There is plenty of evidence for that.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
The position that Arab refugees from 1948 and their descendents must be permitted to live in Israel is equivalent to the position that there can be no negotiated peace.
That’s not true, there is still plenty to negotiate, for example: whether any of the Israel’s ‘citizens’ admitted under the racist “laws of return” should continue to be treated as citizens or legal residents. The extent to which individual Zionists and Zionist institutions implicated in ethnic cleansing, illegal occupation, murder, destruction of property, etc. should be punished. Plenty to negotiate about.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
You those “racist” policies kept out the 2 million Arab Jews expelled from Arab countriesand the African Jews rescued from Somailia?
You mean like those right of return law that exists in
1 Armenia
2 Belarus
3 Bulgaria
4 People’s Republic of China
5 Republic of China (Taiwan)
6 Croatia
7 Czech Republic
8 Diego Garcia
9 Finland
10 France
11 Germany
12 Greece
13 India
14 Iraqi Kurdistan
15 Ireland
August 28th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
It’s more like the Israelis starting negotiations by saying, once all the Palestinians are tranferred to Jordan and Egypt, we can being negotiations.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Dave123, the bullshit you’re spewing here is not supported even by Zionists anymore, hasn’t been for quite a while now. Well, only by especially stupid Zionists who didn’t get the memo, Zionists who are seriously stupid for a Zionist, and that’s quite an achievement.
For the 1948 war you don’t need the Economist, just read this:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/arab_invasion.html
August 28th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Well I can’t respond to the childish outburst, but is that link supposed to prove anything?
August 28th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
the 2 million Arab Jews expelled from Arab countries
Very few were expelled, and they as well as those who left voluntarily should be able to move right back, of course. No question about that.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
You mean like those right of return law that exists in
Well, that’s just bullshit, I an sorry to say.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
The pogroms and riots against forcing Arab Jews out of Aran countries are all well documented here. See also here
I don’t think any Jew would want to return to the above mentioned violence and Dhimmitude, the religiously sanctioned Apartheid for Jews in Arab countries. See also here.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Unlike you, I do not post things without a source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
August 28th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Just to be clear, the position stated above is that what people of that mindset refer to as “the Zionist entity” should be dissolved. Since Israel isn’t planning to negotiate its own dissolution, if this were in fact taken as the only acceptable basis for negotiation it would follow that there couldn’t be a negotiated resolution of the conflict.
It is, in other words, an astoundingly nihilistic and bloodthirsty statement of preferance for resolving the conflict through military means. As if there hasn’t already been enough death and destruction, some people apparently are always longing for more.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Well, Dave, “Armenians living abroad are entitled to the citizenship of the Republic of Armenia” means that someone whose grandfather was an Armenian citizen can become a citizen of Armenia.
Since, obviously, no subject of Israel’s “law of return” can produce a grandfather (or any ancestor for 50 generations) who used to be a citizen of Israel, Israel’s law, obviously, has nothing whatsoever in common with Armenia’s law.
Same goes for all those other countries. Therefore your wikipedia article is nothing but bullshit and demagoguery. QED
August 28th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
First, your argument is rediculous as the substance of the law is still the same, it is just limited by time. So the laws are just as “racist” according to your definition.
Second, you need to read the entire link before making an argument: several countries have laws with no such restriction. Did you really think I would just ignore these?
German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe (Aussiedler/Spätaussiedler (”late emigrants”; de:Aussiedler), see History of German settlement in Eastern Europe) to return to Germany and claim German citizenship.
Greece grants citizenship to broad categories of people of alleged ethnic Greek ancestry
Chinese immigration law gives priority to returning Overseas Chinese ethnic Chinese who were living abroad.
Finland grants permanant residencey to certain aliens, who have Finnish ancestryor otherwise a close connection with Finland.
From the Constitution of Lithuania, Article 32(4): “Every Lithuanian person may settle in Lithuania.”
“Anyone whose Polish origin has been confirmed in accordance with statute may settle permanently in Poland.
Russia offers citizenship to individuals descended from Russian ancestors who can demonstrate an affinity for Russian culture and, preferably, speak Russian.
Article 23 of the 2004 citizenship law provides that the descendants of emigrants from Serbia, or ethnic Serbs residing abroad, may take up citizenship upon written declaration.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
In fact, the Armenian, Greek, etc. laws are a rough equivalent of the concept according to which the expelled Palestinians and their children and grandchildren are entitled to return to their homes in Palestine.
Israel’s “law of return” is the opposite, colonial concept, it says: “you don’t have any meaningful connection to this place, yet you’re entitled to come, kick out the folks who lived here for generations and settle on their land.”
August 28th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Um, Dave the word “ancestry” in this context means “citizenship”, not “ethnicity”.
From your article:
As you can see (clearly, I hope), this is not about “ethnicity”; this is about your parents or grandparents being Finnish citizens.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
So after losing the argument, you change the subject back to whose land is it. Keep trying.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Cherry picking just makes you seem desperate
“ethnic Germans from other countries”in Central and Eastern Europe.
Greece
Greece grants citizenship to broad categories of people of alleged ethnic Greek ancestry who are members of the Greek diaspora, including individuals and families whose ancestors have been resident in diaspora communities outside the modern state of Greece for centuries or millennia.
The Taiwan law refers to all ethnic Chinese living abroad.
“Every Lithuanian person may settle in Lithuania.”
“Anyone whose Polish origin has been confirmed in accordance with statute may settle permanently in Poland.”
descended from Russian ancestors
ethnic Serbs residing abroad
Keep trying
August 28th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
When did I lose the argument, give me the comment number, please.
However, “whose land is it?” is the question, there is no other question. The indigenous people, people who lived in the area for generations are the owners for the land. That’s as basic as it can be. The rest is all bullshit.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Your quotes are all translation, and I maintain that they don’t mean what you think they mean. For example “descended from Russian ancestors” simply means, again, “someone whose grandparent was a Russian citizen,” not “ethnic Slav”.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Incidentally, there is no such an ethnic group as “the Russians”. Russia is a multi-ethnic country with, probably, hundreds of very different ethnic groups, and the largest one is common between Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Serbia and so on.
According to your reading, the Russian federation has to grant citizenship to all the Ukrainians, for example. Now, that’s just stupid, I’m sorry to say.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Re abb1
The inhabitants of Middle East refugee camps are not going to return to Israel, just as the Germans expelled from the Sudetenland after WW 2 are not going to return to the Czech Republic or Slovakia and the native Americans who were expelled from most of the United States and Canada will not return to New York City or Toronto. If Mr. abb1 doesn’t like that, tough noogies.
However, in the case of Germany, it is interesting that anyone who can show that he/she had one grandparent who was a citizen of Germany before 1932 and was forced to emigrate by the Nazi Government thereafter can be granted a German passport. There is a graduate student at Columbia Un. who was born in Israel but who had a grandparent who was a German citizen before 1932 but was forced to emigrate after the Nazi takeover. Despite the fact that this individual had never set foot in Germany or spoke more then a few words of German (actually, probably Yiddish), he was granted a German passport on which he currently travels.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
However, in the case of Germany, it is interesting that anyone who can show that he/she had one grandparent who was a citizen of Germany before 1932 and was forced to emigrate by the Nazi Government thereafter can be granted a German passport.
Well, great. This proves my point, that’s exactly what I was saying to my friend Dave here.
The inhabitants of Middle East refugee camps are not going to return to Israel
Well, I’m pretty sure they will return, because colonialism is a thing of the past. Whether the place will still be called “Israel” is a different question.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
So find the original and prove me wrong. Otherwise, my citations are more credible than your bluster.
In what world does the word “ancestors” mean “grandparents”? In fact, it doesn’t mean grandparents.
From webster’s dictionary
The Israeli law of return is about the Jewish People whose nation is Israel which is why Ethiopian Jews, Moroccan Jews, Iraqi Jews, Spanish Jews, ethnic Jews who do not practice Judaism, are all eligible for the right of return to their national homeland where Jews have lived for over 2000 years.
Exactly like the Greek law is about the greek people even those who are decended from people who left Greece millenia ago.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I know what the word “ancestors” mean, and I also know that it doesn’t make sense in this context (and I already explained to you why), so I assume this is a bad (or, most likely, deliberately misleading) translation.
And why should I prove your wrong in every case? You can easily produce thousands of fake Zionist-manufactured texts; what, you think I have nothing better to do than disproving them all?
I already disproved you in the case of Finland, and that’s enough to diminish your credibility.
The Israeli law of return is about the Jewish People whose nation is Israel
What does it even mean? This is just a random meaningless sequence of words. Israel is supposed to be a state. A state is a geographical area with a population that exercises self-government.
If you remove the population from the area by force and bring a group of insane ethnocentric ideologues from all over the world to replace it – that doesn’t make a state, that’s a criminal enterprise, criminal entity.
By the way, even though it still wouldn’t be at all similar to Israel’s racist “law of return”, I don’t believe that there is a Greek law that grant citizenship to people who left Greece millennia ago, that’s definitely bullshit. Here: Greek Citizenship Code; find me the word “millennia” in it. Uh? Just another Zionist lie, my friend.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Here is your “argument”
I hate to tell you, but that is a conclusion not an argument so it doesn’t prove anything.
Wikipedia is a Zionist text?
Israel is a state for the Jewish people. Just as Poland is a state for the Polish people and Greece is a state for the Greek people. The Turks who live in Greece and the Germans who live in Poland are no less citizens than anyone else, but there is no right of return for Turks to Greece or Germans to Poland.
I am glad you agree that Roman, Arab, and Ottoman invasions of Israel and the expelling of Jews from their homeland was wrong.
August 28th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Let’s be clear about this. Arab refugees from 1948 and their descendents won’t be settling in Israel unless Israel is utterly defeated and destroyed in a war, in which case their future would hardly be the major concern of the people of the Middle East, Jewish or Arab. Demanding this as an outcome is demanding death on an unbelievable scale.
There’s a word for people who are excited by that prospect.
August 29th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Thoughts:
1) Israel deliberately encourages the largest number of Jews possible, by providing all sorts of perks, and by defining “Jewish” is an extremely broad manner, including converts, secular Jews, and of course, people like me, whose Israeli ancestry, if any, dates back two thousand fucking years (my traceable ancestry is 1/2 Hungarian, 1/4 Rumanian, 1/8 Polish, 1/8 Lithuanian, and I look pretty much like what you’d expect with that mix). Why do they do this? To artificially maintain a Jewish majority, where the native Jewish population is small, and the Arab population has been largely, yes, expelled).
2) Don’t know the source of the quote apparently meant to disprove expulsion, but those quotes that are most consistent with the traditional idea of Palestinians leaving on the advice of Arab leaders mainly come from mainstream news sources soon after the fact, and I think can be safely dismissed in light of research beginning in the ’80s. In fact, Benny (I assume) Morris, one of the most prominent of these researchers is cited there after the quote that merely says “The invading Arab armies also occasionally ordered whole villages to depart, so as not to be in their way.” But if you read Morris, he certainly does not show this to be the major cause of the Arabs’ departure (of course he was always the most conservative of these historians, and in recent years has notoriously come to the conclusion that the expulsion that he documented was necessary – google his name and the phrase “cleanse the hinterlands”).
3. “There’s a word for people who are excited by that prospect.” Well, I understand that it’s a fairly popular view among Jewish Israeli academics. Perhaps they’re naïve. But I don’t think that was the point of your nasty little insinuation.
August 29th, 2009 at 1:09 am
And, preemptively, if you’re thinking about citing my link about as evidence that I’m a self-hating Jew or whatever, I’d suggest that you 1) reread your Swift, and 2) suck my dick.
That is all.
Except, please don’t actually suck my dick. It does nothing form me.
August 29th, 2009 at 1:24 am
correction “hinterland” should be singular
August 29th, 2009 at 1:40 am
And, of course, as has been pointed out on this blog before, the Jewish majority which Israel’s unique immigration policies are meant to maintain, is ultimately unmaintainable (a real word, apparently!), and thus its Jewish character (and those very policies, come to think of it) will be increasingly in conflict with its status as a quasi-democracy. What to do? What to do?
August 29th, 2009 at 2:47 am
More for Larry Birnbaum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-state_solution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Zionism
You don’t need to agree, just stop being a fucking scumbag.
August 29th, 2009 at 5:47 am
Israel is a state for the Jewish people. Just as Poland is a state for the Polish people and Greece is a state for the Greek people.
Dave, it’s a very simple thing you seem to be unable to understand; let’s try again, it’s very-very simple: “the Polish people” are all the Polish citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, and “the Greek people” are all the Greek citizens, regardless of their ethnicity.
“A people” is determined by the geographical area where this group has been residing, not by some magic criteria ethnocentric maniacs invent.
I’ll give you an example:
Suppose you’re an ethnic Jew (100%) whose grandfather was a citizen of Greece. If you have the proof, you can go to a Greek embassy and with any luck they will soon issue you a Greek passport, according to that “special exception” in their immigration law. Because to them (as well as to every civilized person on this planet) your grandfather was a Greek – a citizen of Greece.
And now imagine that you’re an ethnic Greek whose grandfather was a Israeli citizen. You have the proof, you go to an Israeli embassy in your country and ask for Israeli citizenship. What will you get? – you’ll get a kick in the ass, that’s what you’ll get.
Do you understand the difference? Dave123 and David Duke on one side – the civilized people on the other side. That is it, my friend.
Re: wikipedia
That particular article was clearly created by Zionists. Incidentally, there is a Zionist task-force that spreads Zionist propaganda and disinformation on the internet; that a fact, it’s in newspapers.
August 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
godoggo,
First, cut the invective, asshole.
Second, you misunderstood my point about a word for people like that. The word is “pervert.”
Third, the theoretical possibility of a single state isn’t the point. It’s just that the IDF stands between here and there, and I don’t think they’re planning to stand aside.
Mao, also, envisioned a perfect world. G-d save us from people like that.