Why Liberals Must Repudiate the BDS Movement

[Mosby]

The recent controversy over Scarlett Johansson’s endorsement of SodaStream, an Israeli company with a factory in the West Bank, and her subsequent refusal to be bullied into repudiating the company, has cast a spotlight on the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and its campaign against the Jewish state. Far less attention, however, has been paid to the media’s role in furthering this campaign and anti-Israel hatred in general. This is unfortunate, because much of the media coverage of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist activity has been characterized by misreporting, selective outrage, and sometimes outright falsehood.

This is particularly the case in regard to media coverage of the academic world, which is the main source of support, organization, and activism for anti-Israel causes across North America and Europe. Some parts of academia have turned anti-Israel words and actions into a cottage industry, manufacturing vitriol and protest against the very existence of the Jewish State. By and large, the media allows members of the anti-Israel industry to portray themselves as concerned humanitarians, paragons of free speech, even objects of oppression and censorship by pro-Israel Jews and Jewish organizations. Those who question their motives and the validity of their arguments, and demonstrate the hypocrisy they espouse, are rarely

http://www.thetower.org/article/why-liberals-must-repudiate-the-bds-movement/

[Jefferson23]

1. This is silly, the occupation has been going on for well over forty years. Bibi

just stated he will not consider any RoR, and he must have recognition of a
Jewish state...which secular Jews are less than thrilled about. That is only
the tip of the iceberg.

BDS is non violent, so no matter what else you complain about it, Israel has a
lunatic running their government. Fixate that concern on him, would
be a better use of time instead of casting aspersions on Kerry..who is not
abandoning Israel..quite the opposite.

Netanyahu and his like minded appear to want eternal occupation.

[Fozzledick]

2. The occupation can only end after the war is over.

The war can only end when the Palestinians decide to stop continuing it.

Harassing Israel for defending itself only prolongs the war.

[Jefferson23]

3. You have an entire pocketful of empty talking points, how nice. n/t

[Fozzledick]

5. And you have no rebuttal, how surprising.

[Jefferson23]

6. Rebuttal to empty talking points? nah..you're having too much fun with them.

You have said nothing to seriously consider.

[Scootaloo]

9. There was nothing to rebut, Fozzie

Your post was the intellectual equivalent of pop-rocks, nothing more.

[Fozzledick]

10. You're very good at ignoring the obvious.

It must be the result of constant practice.

[Scootaloo]

12. Naw, I notice the obvious pretty well

As in, "Fozzledick obviously can't make a coherent argument."

[Violet_Crumble]

13. How is building settlements on occupied territory defending Israel?

How is allowing extremist settlers to terrorise Palestinian civilians defending Israel?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

103. I think the U.S. had better get ready to give back Texas, New Mexico, and much more to Mexico nt

[Scootaloo]

106. It was all ceded by Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo

With final parts via the Gadsten Purchase.

Currently, the US' only standing illegal annexation is the Hawaiian Islands - and as the rightful claimant is a defunct government, there's no way to actually resolve that, so the status quo stands.

Do note that noting our annexations were legal is different from saying we respected treaties. You'd think the concepts would be related, but they're actually not. A violation of a treaty doesn't annul the treaty, unless the violated party declares it to be null due to the violation... Which usually re-opens the issue that the treaty was about.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

107. You mean the U.S. attack on Mexico, and the treaty forced upon Mexico? Is that the one?

And while we're at it, what treaty did the U.S. make with the native Americans?

[Scootaloo]

108. Yes, that one

And there's a plethora of treaties with Native American nations. I'm pretty sure that list isn't exhaustive.

Thing is, once a treaty is signed, that's it, it's binding. Violating the terms of the treaty doesn't annull the treaty, unless the violated party takes it as such - which tends to re-open whatever issue hte treaty was in place to solve.

The US invasion of Mexico was in no way not a grotesque violation of pretty much every international principle, even by the standards of the day. But, as soon as Couto, Atristain, and Cuevas signed the treaty, the cession of territory to the US was formal and binding. Mexico could have kept fighting. Or it could have simply refused to fight or agree to the treaty's onerous demands. But it was signed, and that seals the deal.

As pertains to the Middle East, have a look at the treaty betwene Israel and Egypt - there are no Egyptian troop movements allowed i nthe Sinai without Israel's permission. on the face of it this is a fucking ludicrous demand... and not too long ago a consequence developed; since it's a lawless noman's land, terrorist groups have been using Sinai as a staging ground to attack Israel. However, when Egypt (under the elected government, not the current junta) tried to send in armed forces to deal with the problem, Israel rebuked the move and readied its own armed forces - not to respond to the terrorists, but to respond to Egypt's violation of the treaty.

it's dumb, bit that's what the law is. And the only way to change it is to renegotiate.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

116. Oh BS. The attack on Mexico and forcing them to sign a treaty or else was not a violation?

Please!

[Ken Burch]

118. Maybe not give back, but at least admit the injustice done in stealing that territory from Mexico.

The "Mexican War" was an unjust and unprovoked attack on Mexico by the U.S., and we had no right to take any land from Mexico in that conflict.

Don't assume that people who oppose the West Bank Occupation have given the U.S. a pass on what it did to Mexico OR what it to Native Americans. Anti-Occupation types have been consistent in denouncing ALL of that...it's just that that doesn't get talked about in this group since, due to the group rules, we deal only with one topic in isolation.

And, in case you didn't know, "Violet" is Australian, so she isn't responsible for what us Yanks did.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

125. Violet could be Australian, but she's posting on a (American) Democratic Party board so all things

apply to her. I don't see why she should be given special passes for being Australian,

And as for anti-occupation folks, how come they're ignoring the whole native American thing here in the U.S.?

Speaking of Violet, what is she doing to give back the land stolen from the aboriginal Australians? Nothing?

It's funny how the same people creating a whole to-do about Palestinian this, Palestinian that, limit it strictly to that and REFUSE to discuss in detail anything else, for example, the Mexico thing, the Aboriginal thing, the history of Israel during the British occupation, the history of Israel BEFORE the British occupation. Convenient silences when it comes to those things, huh?

[King_David]

126. +1

[Ken Burch]

127. Actually, they aren't ignoring "the whole Native American thing"

It's just that they don't discuss it in this group...because this group is reserved for discussion of I/P issues.

People who are sympathetic to Palestinians are almost always sympathetic to the Native American cause as well.

And Violet has never defended what her government has done to indigenous people there...it's just that, again, this group was designed to discuss the I/P issue and to keep that issue from being discussed ANY WHERE ELSE ON DU. That restriction was not put in place by people who are sympathetic to Palestinians, it was put in place by those who wanted to silence discussion about Israeli security policy on any other part of the DU Board. So it's bullshit to say that people like Violet have a double standard on that, and you know it.

OH, and "Israel" didn't exist during the British Occupation, so it's not actually possible to discuss that particular topic. The actions of those who would later create the state of Israel, and those who opposed that state's creation(a group that included both Palestinian Arabs and those members of the Palestinian Jewish community who weren't Zionists, a not inconsiderable faction at the time)are often discussed here, however.

SO you have no point in that last post at all.

[quakerboy]

28. And Diabetes can only end once

Coca cola wins the soda war. And the soda war can only end when Pepsi admits defeat and quits selling their product.

Taking issue with HFCS in soda only prolongs diabetes in our nation, really.

[FarrenH]

29. Because defending yourself requires settling your civilians in occupied territory

Right....

This tired argument is so self evidently vacuous it doesn't deserve a detailed response. But hey, keep defending Apartheid and theft if that's your thing. Just don't pretend you're a liberal while doing it.

[Fozzledick]

30. The attacks from Gaza prove why the occupation is necessary

But hey, don't pretend you're not a warhawk while making false excuses to rationalize them.

[FarrenH]

36. Military occupation and civilian settlement are two different things

What part of that do you not understand?

[Fozzledick]

38. I was talking specifically about the occupation.

I understand why you want to change the subject.

[FarrenH]

39. I'm not changing the subject

Civilian settlement under military protection is called colonization, and quite obviously belies any claim that the associated occupation is purely defensive in nature. Its straight up land and resource theft by Europe's last major colonial project.

[Fozzledick]

40. As I said, I understand why you want to change the subject.

What I don't understand is why you want to make excuses for aggressive war and terrorism against civilian populations.

[King_David]

41. Europes last Colonial Project ? LOL

So 1st Europe tries to wipe out the Jews in an actual Genocide and then Europe enlists them to realize "Europes Last Colonial" project ?

LOL

You actually believe this nonsense ?


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

[FarrenH]

44. Europe enlists them?

You misunderstand me. I mean that many European Jews enlisted themselves. I realise it originated in existential threat but they definitely colonized Palestine, which was not unpopulated. Other colonial projects also involved persecuted religious minorities fleeing Europe. We don't pretend those aren't colonial projects. And the fact that there was indigenous Jewish population doesn't obviate the number of colonists.

Much of it was economic, buying extensive property, but a lot of it was incremental land theft in wars that are portrayed as defensive (which is mostly true, although one involved a first strike by Israel). And there was very conscious colonialism involved. Many Palestinians who did not go to war against the burgeoning state were still intimidated or forced into surrendering property.

This to me clearly means the same moral considerations that apply to other colonial states applies to Israel. We don't expect 3rd, 4th or fifth generations to just uproot themselves and go back to the land of their ancestors, but we expect the acknowledgment of historical responsibility for dispossession, just as we do for Americans, Australians and South Africans (my nationality).

And we expect more respect for those indigenous people living under highly restrictive military occupation and constantly increasing land and resource theft for 40 years. Not his disingenuous crap about 40 years of what has clearly developed into de facto Apartheid being necessary for "self defense"

As someone who has lived through Apartheid, someone to whom your rationalizations sound extremely familiar and someone who has heard practically all of the moral giants of our own struggle who've visited the West Bank call it "worse than Apartheid", I find the blunt refusal to confront such an obvious moral wrong unattractive.

[shira]

45. Jews are indigenous to Israel, not colonialists.

Jews are the only people in the mideast that still inhabit the same land, embraces the same religion, speaks the same aboriginal language (hebrew), and bears the same aboriginal name (Israel) as it did 3500 years ago.

The Jews’ language, history,culture, & folklore were born & forged in Israel.

There is no statute of limitations on being indigenous.

===========

To deny this is racist against indigenous aboriginal people.

[FarrenH]

46. So by the same logic

All of our common ancestors lived in Egypt hundreds of generations ago, so I can call myself "indigenous" to Egypt. Hell, Europe's entire population is indigenous to Africa so no European ever colonized Africa. There is no statute of limitations after all.

Nice logic you're employing there. Next time someone tells me my people colonized Africa I'll say "Racist! I'm indigenous"

[shira]

47. Egypt is a sovereign nation. Palestine was not prior to 1948. It was British Imperialist...

Zionism triumphed over British Imperialism.

Besides, what nation of people today shares the same culture, language, religion, traditions, and folklore that they had in Egypt thousands of years ago? Name one.

[FarrenH]

48. Way to rather spectacularly miss the point that

who ruled a land has no actual bearing on specious attempts to justify colonialism. Rule and colonization, though they often overlap, are distinct phenomena.

I don't see how cultural commonalities with actual indigenous people makes colonisation of their land (and the land of their co-indigenes) by their cultural brethren any less colonialism. You seem to accept as axiomatic that a shared mythology and ritual (but also significant difference in actual culture) with ancient people who briefly dominated the land make foreign colonists "indigenous". But where that is derived from is unicorns. That description of does not fit any common sense or widespread notion of indigenousness.

By the same token, I can simply take it as axiomatic that anyone who has ancestors in Africa is African, because they share common DNA - a vastly less temporary phenomenon than any one religion/culture - with the ancient inhabitants 35,000 years ago. It is an assertion which rests on the same spurious invention of axiomatic rules of consequences as you are attempting.

Also, since Israel/Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity, half of Christendom could demand that they're indigenous because most of them share DNA with ancient humans that passed through Israel/Palestine AND because they share culture with ancient people who lived there.

Its all rather silly and would be funny if it wasn't deployed in defense of colonial dispossession of an indigenous people and Apartheid.

[shira]

51. Israel is the world's 1st modern indigenous state

This is the first time in history that an indigenous people has managed to regain control of its ancestral lands to re-build a nation state where it once existed 1000's of years ago. They did so w/o invading, attacking, or conquering & did so with the full consent of the League of Nations (later the UN).

There simply isn't another people/nation indigenous to the land of Israel that has been spiritually attached to that land, that has kept INTACT its culture, history, language, traditions, blood quantum, religion, and folklore, nor any other nation that has a similar continuity with the pre-invasion and pre-colonial Israeli society that existed 1000's of years ago.

The Jews' land was invaded, conquered, and occupied not only by the Romans but also Arabs (from Arabia) in the 7th century, meaning the Palestinian Arabs there today have at best rights of longstanding presence.....which do not trump indigenous rights.

The Jews' indigenous status meets the criteria defined for indigenous peoples worldwide. Palestinian Arabs do not, as their language and religion mostly originates from 7th century Arabia. There is no distinct Palestinian culture that dates back more than 75 years ago. They do not follow indigenous traditions that go back beyond 75 years. Palestinian nationalism wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Zionism.

In the 7th century, Arabs were conquerers of the Levant region. Assigning indigenous status to their offspring is as problematic as doing so with the offspring of the 1st white Europeans who conquered Australia and New Zealand.

[FarrenH]

55. I must accede the point that Palestinians are not,

by the same metric, indigenous. Still, I think there is a priority of values. I imagine it from the perspective of someone living in the land that is being gobbled up, thinking "This is the land of my parents and their parents and their parents and their parents and etc. And I am being asked to accept that someone else's preserved history from more than a millennium ago takes precedence over my and my forebears' continuous connection to the land"

[King_David]

56. So does history from the last 50 years take precedence

Now over the last 200 years by that logic.

Who decides now?

[FarrenH]

110. King_David

Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 05:22 AM - Edit history (5)

My point was that a history that connects you to the land continuously for hundreds or 1000+ years to the present day clearly takes precedence over a colonial exercise 100 years old, with or without ancient and unreliable folk history. That's not difficult.

The point I made to Shira about all humans coming from Africa illustrates what is intuitively obvious to anyone not inured to the self-justifying rationalizations of ethnic nationalism. "we briefly dominated this land thousands of years ago although our ancestors spent thousands of years elsewhere and we were by no means the first" is not the basis of any other land claim currently being demanded or enforced in the world. While "we've been here for for tens of generations" is.

In South Africa, for example, the Khoi and San people, not the Zulu and Xhosa (who settled later from the north - and by all accounts in the last 2000 years) are indigenous by the definition I've fleshed out with Shira. Yet it is accepted without controversy that I, as a White South African, owe my presence here and economic advantage to colonialism and dispossession and there is a moral debt that comes with that - while the same is not true of Zulus or Xhosas. It has a lot to do with living memory. The memories of the still living and the very personal stories that connect them to the memories of their original forebears. My only recently deceased grandfather told me stories of Ireland and I know other ancestors with a longer connection only arrived here a generation or two before him. In contrast, Zulus and Xhosas cannot remember a time when they or their ancestors did not live here. For that they must go to the oral histories, rather than any personal history of their lineage. Similarly, Shira's appeal to preserved (and only partially true) cultural history does not speak to living memory.

Let's not forget that after the latest finds, anthropology is again leaning to the idea that my ancestors came from here. Not just Africa, but South Africa, where I live. I don't, however, make the disingenuous claim that, despite hundreds of generations having passed between then and now and most of my culture being quintessentially European, that antique connection makes me "indigenous", or any less the descendant of colonists who invaded this land and dispossessed people.

So in essence the very idea that an antique ancestory imparts entitlement is an convenient fiction invented to justify some desire. The sheer absurdity of which is trivially easy to show by looking at every other people whose ancestors briefly dominated a region then moved on. The sheer number of similar claims enabled by accepting this reasoning the world over, and the absence of those claims being made or accepted by the enforcers of our age, which are essentially the superpowers, means that you've invented a special moral case just for Israel and it's colonists. This has every appearance of self-serving rationalization employed to justify land and resource theft, not a consistent moral logic that must be accepted.

[shira]

112. Now you're just spamming...

You're trying to compare Jewish claims to Palestine with that of some whites who claim they can trace their origins back to Africa for thousands of years. The 2 situations are incomparable.

Jews are tied by culture, history, language, traditions, blood quantum, religion, and folklore. They are a distinct people with continuous ties to the land of Israel. This isn't some concocted bullshit claim. They cannot be considered colonialists, like your white ancestors were when they colonized S.Africa centuries ago.

[FarrenH]

114. The European Jews who colonised Israel/Palestine in the 20th century

had not lived there for thousands of years before the 20th century. No amount of handwaving can obviate that. I notice that you won't address the issue of tens of generations of continuous physical occupation of a land taking precedence over millennia-old folk history.

Nor do you even appear to understand what I'm saying. The claim that millennia-old folk history validates the claiming of land occupied for centuries by another people is based on no extant precedent or consensus. That it is different from making a similar claim based only on ancestry and not culture is besides the point.

Germans can trace their language and culture back to Iron Age Denmark, Sweden and Norway. We don't say that this gives modern Germans the right to colonize Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The Irish, oddly enough, to Spain. As someone of mainly Irish ancestry, I don't think this gives me the right to colonize Spain.

In short, you're suggesting a formula

<<Culture flourished somewhere 2000-3000 years ago>> = <<eternal right to conquer and settle thousands of years later, regardless of who lives there now or how far back their *living ties* - not folk tales - go>>

This formula is without precedent in modern human-rights culture and *is*, no matter what you say, inconsistent with the moral logic applied to other self-identified ethnic groups in the modern world. So if we're engaging in an exercise of simply making up moral logic to suit ethnic nationalist positions, then the similar formula

<<My people had ancestors here 40,000 years ago>> = <<eternal right to conquer and settle tens of thousands of years later, regardless of who lives there now or how far back their ties go>>

is equally valid.

But of course its not valid. It's a silly and specious argument. Just as specious as the settler claim to being "indigenous", which is an insult to any humanitarian's intelligence. Even more specious now that we've accepted "indigenous" means "original people" not just "people who've been there for ten generations or more", which means that according to Jewish folk history itself, Jews are not indigenous to the area in question, but previously conquered and colonized it.

[King_David]

113. I wasn't asking about antique history or anything

Where does history start and end and how far back or near back do corrections need to be made and is that to all countries or just the Jewish ones?

[FarrenH]

122. What relevance is it when history starts or ends?

Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2014, 09:41 AM - Edit history (24)

The proposition is remarkably simple, and the same regardless of which ethnic group does the colonizing: The claims of a people who have a continuous unbroken living connection to the land for tens of generations take precedence over the folk history of people who haven't lived there for thousands of years. I even described what makes ancient vs modern history different. Its called "living memory". "My parents and their parents and their parents and their parents..." takes precedence over "my ancestors 50 generations back". Whatever stories are passed along, there is obviously a threshold beyond which practical, economic connection to a land is lost and 40-50 generations is way past that point. That there is such a threshold is a necessary consequence of the history of mankind. Everyone migrated out of Africa. It would be somewhat unfair to people living closer to the source if we sustained all such claims from antiquity.

My people have a prehistory in Africa. I don't claim that my rights supercede those those of the Zulu or Xhosa on those grounds. If, for the sake of argument, Irishmen had somehow preserved their African origins in folk history till the present day, I STILL wouldn't claim that my right to land takes precedence over Zulus or Xhosas who have lived here for the last thousand years. Shira's argument seems to be that simply preserving some memory of our time in Africa in folk history magically creates the right to dispossess people who live there currently and have lived there for hundreds of years, based on events that happened 40,000 years ago ("there is no statute of limitations" - an absurd proposition).

Also the constant innuendo in discussions like these that some unique metric is being applied to Jews because of conscious or unconscious antisemitism is tiresome. I don't have an antisemitic bone in my body. My criticism doesn't single Jews out because they're Jews. It singles out a *political position* that demands that a unique moral formula is applied to colonists of one ethnicity in terms of precedence of claims over those of another ethnicity who have been continuously settled there for tens of generations. A formula not being applied to any other colonial people. The criticism would be the same for any similar example, regardless of which ethnicity fills which slot. I don't buy the Chinese rationalization that they ruled Tibet hundreds of years ago so occupying Tibet today is OK. Similarly, I don't buy the right-wing Zionist position that Jews once ruled the region thousands of years ago, so dispossessing and denying self-determination to Palestinians is OK.

And that arises out of originally having a pro-Israeli position just over a decade ago. My views have changed in the last decade because I grew up under Apartheid and most of my heroes from the struggle days who've actually visited the region (and in the case of Tutu, worked closely with various NGOs there) have called the situation in the West Bank "worse than Apartheid". And reading debates on boards like DU over the years the articulated positions of both right-wing Zionists like yourself and their opponents have convinced me that the latter not the former position is right.

Many of the rationalizations employed by people like you and Shira look like they were copy/pasted from white South African rationalizations, circa 1980 - Existential threat: check, a defining historical catastrophe: check (an estimated 100, 000 Boer women and children died in British concentration camps, Afrikaners felt they had no home in Europe and this was their true home/last stand), the belief that your "enemy" (prior occupants of the land) is implacable and a just peace will only be a prelude to genocide: check (in fact the "creeping white genocide" trope is still popular among right-wing whites who claim that its actually happening 20 years after Apartheid ended - in defiance of actual violent crime statistics which say otherwise). If it walks like Apartheid and talks like Apartheid....

[Jefferson23]

58. A word of caution, the poster's alleged history lesson was copied and pasted

word for word, in parts, from a website..Arutz Sheva. It is known as a publication for the settler movement
in Israel.

The poster did not link nor suggest who she is using as a reference.

snip* Based in Beit El, an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, Arutz Sheva is regarded as the voice of the Israeli settlement movement.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arutz_Sheva


1) Israel is the world's first modern indigenous state

2) a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that

3) rights of longstanding presence;” ... these are legitimate rights, they do not trump indigenous rights. ....

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14377#.Uyy0IVf535M


4) there is no distinct Palestinian culture ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/660257/posts )


Among other bullshit in her post, when you see a statement like this one: *There is no distinct Palestinian culture that dates back more than 75 years ago.

That is a red flag..best to Google on your own for sources.

On edit to add her original post to you..so it's one post:

Israel is the world's 1st modern indigenous state

This is the first time in history that an indigenous people has managed to regain control of its ancestral lands to re-build a nation state where it once existed 1000's of years ago. They did so w/o invading, attacking, or conquering & did so with the full consent of the League of Nations (later the UN).

There simply isn't another people/nation indigenous to the land of Israel that has been spiritually attached to that land, that has kept INTACT its culture, history, language, traditions, blood quantum, religion, and folklore, nor any other nation that has a similar continuity with the pre-invasion and pre-colonial Israeli society that existed 1000's of years ago.

The Jews' land was invaded, conquered, and occupied not only by the Romans but also Arabs (from Arabia) in the 7th century, meaning the Palestinian Arabs there today have at best rights of longstanding presence.....which do not trump indigenous rights.

The Jews' indigenous status meets the criteria defined for indigenous peoples worldwide. Palestinian Arabs do not, as their language and religion mostly originates from 7th century Arabia. There is no distinct Palestinian culture that dates back more than 75 years ago. They do not follow indigenous traditions that go back beyond 75 years. Palestinian nationalism wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Zionism.

In the 7th century, Arabs were conquerers of the Levant region. Assigning indigenous status to their offspring is as problematic as doing so with the offspring of the 1st white Europeans who conquered Australia and New Zealand.

[Israeli]

66. and yet she says she voted ....

for Obama .... I dont understand how a Democrat can support our religious Right wing ...seiously confused am I .....not

[shira]

67. This isn't rocket science. I was addressing the false charge that Jews are colonizers...

...when in fact they are the original, aboriginal and indigenous population of that land.

I couldn't give a FF whether there was an article in Haaretz or Arutz Sheva making the case. Facts are facts.

Now this is where you usually reply with some racist rightwing horseshit about the Jews not being a people/nation, but only being a religion...

[Israeli]

68. Professor Shlomo Sand....

is Rightwing ..... news to me .

ref : http://www.democraticunderground.com/113459054

#t=28

Mainly after the Oslo Accords, a new movement started amongst a large section of left-wing Israelis who believe that the state of Israel should no longer declare itself to be a Jewish democratic state and should rather focus on its democratic aspects. This movement seeks to create social equality in Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Zionism

I'm with Tom Segev and Shlomo Sand ....Israel for Israelies

[shira]

69. S.Sand, a pathetic racist bigot denying Jews are a people....

....shilling on Putin's Russia Today as an "anti-imperialist".

What a laugh.

I don't care what you call him, Left or Right, he's a fascist POS.

-----------

If someone had written a book on the Invention of the Palestinian people, would you be head cheerleader for that effort?

[Israeli]

71. Shlomo Sand: “I am not a Jew. I am an Israeli.”

Bestselling Israeli historian Shlomo Sand on identity politics, political despair, why Lieberman is right… and drowning sorrows with Mahmoud Darwish.

Monday 12 March 2012

http://chronikler.com/middle-east/israel-palestine/shlomo-sand/

[shira]

73. Sand recycles hate from neo-nazi websites, claims Jews are descendants of Khazars...

He's a total 100% looneytune crackpot, racist conspiracy crank.

The post-zionists have so much to be proud of with Sand, Israeli.

[Israeli]

74. thank you shira I agree ....

ref : We .... " post-zionists have so much to be proud of with Sand, Israeli. "

.....and ...your no where near understanding what " we " are all about .

Who We Are :

http://forum-ezrachy.tripod.com/englishIndex.html

[shira]

75. P-Z's will never be more than an insignificant minority...

Last edited Sat Mar 22, 2014, 06:31 PM - Edit history (2)

A little, racist cult of narcissist cranks.

Popular with fascists and run-of-the-mill antisemites. But that's about it.

All considered useful idiotic Jews by gutter antisemites and neo-nazis.

-----------

And as much as you hate religious Judaism, your politics are just a different form of intolerant extreme religion you share with your fellow marxist and communist co-religionists.

[Israeli]

111. If you say so shira ....

You are the expert after all ......

I have great faith in the youth of this country .

How is your Hebrew ?

[Israeli]

115. having a problem ....

with translation shira ??
maybe King_David could help you out ?

[Jefferson23]

76. Link it, your evidence that he is a racist.

Chomsky snip*Now I won’t swear to the precise accuracy of this, because these are childhood memories, but I remember reading together with my father an essay that Ahad Ha’am wrote about Moses. The basic idea was there are two Moseses—the first is the historical Moses, if there was such a person, and the other is the image of Moses that was constructed and came down through the ages and occupies an important place in the national mythology.

Ahad Ha’am was an early advocate of the idea that later became famous with [the Marxist political scientist] Ben Anderson, when he wrote his books about how nations are imagined communities. He said there’s an imagined—I don’t think he used the term—but there’s an imagined Jewish community, in which Moses plays a central role, and it really doesn’t matter if there was a historical Moses or not. That’s part of the national myth, which is a sophisticated version of what [author] Shlomo Sand was trying to get at. Sand debunks the historical Moses, but from Ha’am’s point of view, it makes no difference.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/50260/qa-noam-chomsky


Modern Jewish identity is not racist or nationalist: A letter to Shlomo Sand

snip* The cure for the manifestations of chauvinism and racism in Israel is to make Israelis realize that Israel’s existence and safety depends on strengthening its ties with the free world, on embracing pluralism and detaching politics from religion. The way to liberate Israel from its current woes is not to make it less Jewish, but to make it more Jewish in the modern sense: cosmopolitan, open to the world, and committed to human rights.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/modern-jewish-identity-is-not-racist-or-nationalist-a-letter-to-shlomo-sand.premium-1.526594


Shlomo Sand (pronounced Zand; Hebrew: (born 10 September 1946 in Linz, Austria) is an Israeli professor of history at Tel Aviv University. He is an expert in the history of nationalism, film as history, and French intellectual history.[1]

Biography

Sand was born in Linz, Austria, to Polish Jewish survivors of the Holocaust. His parents had Communist and anti-imperialist views and refused to accept compensation from Germany for their suffering during the Second World War. Sand spent his first two years in a displaced-persons camp near Munich, and moved with the family to Jaffa in 1948. He was expelled from high school at the age of sixteen.[2][3] According to one interview, “Sand spent the late 1960s and early 1970s working a series of odd jobs, including several years as a telephone lineman.” He completed his high-school work at age 25 and spent three years in the military.[4] The Six Day War, in which he served, “pushed him towards the radical left.”[4] Quitting the Union of Israeli Communist Youth (Banki), he joined the more radical, and anti-Zionist, Matzpen in 1968. He resigned from Matzpen in 1970 due to his disillusionment with the organisation.[2][5][6]
Main article: Matzpen

Declining an offer by the Israeli Communist Party Rakah to be sent to do cinema studies in Poland, Sand graduated with a BA in History from Tel Aviv University in 1975. Determined to “abandon everything” Israeli,[7] he moved to France, where, from 1975 to 1985, after winning a scholarship, he studied and taught in Paris, receiving an MA in French History and a PhD for his thesis on "Georges Sorel and Marxism."[8] Since 1982, Sand has taught at Tel Aviv University as well as at the University of California, Berkeley, and the École des hautes études en sciences sociales in Paris.[1]

In 1983, according to one source, Sand “took part in a heated exchange over Zeev Sternhell’s Ni droite, ni gauche: l’idéologie fasciste en France, and later drew the ire of Claude Lanzmann with his 2002 book in Hebrew, Film as History, in which he not only passed scathing judgement on Lanzmann’s Shoah, but also revealed that the film had been secretly funded by the Israeli government.”[3]
Views

While acknowledging “the affinity between Jews and the holy land,” Sand has said that “I don’t think the religious affinity to the land gives you historical right.” Still, he supports Israel's existence “not because of historical right, but because of the fact that it exist today and any effort to destroy it will bring new tragedies.” He explained that he doesn't call himself a Zionist, but “a post-Zionist and non-Zionist because the justification of this land is not historical right.”[9]

Comparing the Palestinians to children of rape, Sand has said that Israel “raped a population. And not only a population – we destroyed this society, in constituting the Israeli state.” He opposes the law of return an the right of return. Still, “Israel has to be the state of Israelis. That is the only way we can continue to live in the middle east.” He argues that before Hitler, Jews were overwhelmingly against Zionism, and the concept of “Eretz Israel” was not about an earthly homeland but about something more spiritual. He also opposes the one-state solution because, while “very very popular in leftist circles,” it is “not serious” because Israelis, being “one of the most racist societies in the western world,” will never accept it. Thus he supports a “two state solution on the borders of ’67, taking out most of the settlers. I don’t think it will be a big problem.”[9]

Criticism of gene studies

In 2010, when Harry Ostrer, a Jewish professor of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, announced the results of a DNA study showing “powerful genetic markers of Jewish ancestry,” Sand told Science Magazine that “Hitler would certainly have been very pleased.” Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Josh Fischman noted that Sand's argument in The Invention of the Jews “that Jews arose from converting many local communities in Europe and elsewhere...is contradicted by Ostrer's work, which shows that geographically and culturally distant Jews still have more genes in common than they do with non-Jews around them, and that those genes can be traced back to the Levant, an area including modern-day Israel.” Ostrer was offended by Sand's attack: “Bringing up Hitler was overheated and misconstrues my work,” he said. But Sand reiterated his criticism, writing in an email to Fischman that “It is a shame for somebody who defines himself as a Jew to look for a Jewish gene.”[10]

Genetic support for Shlomo Sand has come from Johns Hopkins University geneticist Dr. Eran Elhaik [2] who published the genetic study "The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses" in December 2012.[11] Sand was quoted widely in a December 28, 2012 Haaretz newspaper article discussing Dr. Elhaik's work.[12] And the journal Genome Biology and Evolution also ran a news piece mentioning Sand, in relation to Elhaik's research; "For Shlomo Sand, history professor at Tel Aviv University and author of the controversial book The Invention of the Jewish People, Elhaik's paper was a vindication of his long-held ideas."[13]
The Invention of the Jewish People
Main article: The Invention of the Jewish People

Sand’s best-known book in English is The Invention of the Jewish People, originally published in Hebrew (Resling, 2008) as Matai ve’eich humtsa ha‘am hayehudi? (When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?) and translated into English the following year (Verso, 2009).It has generated a heated controversy.[14][15][16][17][18][19]

The book was in the best-seller list in Israel for nineteen weeks.[20] It was reprinted three times when published in French (Comment le peuple juif fut inventé, Fayard, Paris, 2008). In France, it received the "Prix Aujourd'hui", a journalists' award given to a non-fiction political or historical work.[21] An English translation of the book was published by Verso Books in October 2009.[22] The book has also been translated into German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, and Russian, and as of late 2009 further translations were underway.[23][24][25][26][27][28] The Invention of the Jewish People has now been translated into more languages than any other Israeli history book.[26]
The Invention of the Land of Israel

In April 2012, a sequel, The Invention of the Land of Israel, was published in Hebrew by Kinneret Zmora-Bitan Dvir. It was published in English in 2013.[29][30]
How I Ceased to Be a Jew

In 2013, Sand published a book entitled How I Ceased to Be a Jew. The book examines the question of Jewish identity and the distinction between being a Jew and being Israeli. It also examines the identity of Israel, with a focus on the country's relationship, as a “Jewish state,” to Jews around the world and to its non-Jewish citizens.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shlomo_Sand

[shira]

78. European Jews descended from Khazars is a neo-nazi crank conspiracy theory...

Do your own fucking homework on that batshit insanity.

[Jefferson23]

80. Just as I thought, you have nothing..thank you. I did look at your Arutz Sheva website, the one

where you claimed they never have bogus info nor hateful comments toward Palestinians.

That was where I found an OP defending Pamela Geller.

[Jefferson23]

85. You told me, Arutz Sheva does not have any anti Palestinian propaganda.

I left a link for you how they support Pamela Geller..an OP Ed. You have not commented
from that other thread. Are you going to ignore that thread?

I also gave you links where you lifted info from Arutz Sheva..so yea..you do.

You should link your sources...most people do that most of the time.

[shira]

88. Don't pretend. I compared Israel's absolute WORST to Maan....

...which is supposedly the Palestinian's best news outlet.

As bad as Geller is - and as rightwing and pro-settler as Arutz Sheva is - the neo-nazi crap that still exists on Maan's website makes Arutz Sheva's worst pale in comparison:

http://www.maannews.net/arb/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=672533

Author: Abdul-Halim Abuhaggag

Revealed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - wicked sons of Zion - about their plans to subjugate the people and control the world; That masterminding the means to capture the reins of world politics, and the disclosure of systematic sabotage of the country and the corruption of the subjects captured through banking and jewelers, and control of the wealth of financial and natural resources and labor, and through Control of the media and the arts and directed destination that serve their purposes and achieve their goals. has been these protocols very secret, they are mostly the minutes of meetings and instructions issued by the organizations of Light Jewish (members of Masonic lodges), which met with members twelve - the wealthy the powerful - at the invitation of Mayer Bauer ( Rothschild's grandfather), and under his leadership the year 1773 in Frankfurt, Germany, and addressed to the Masonaa Grand Orient in France, but equally willing to unfold these protocols the year 1785, when what has been tuned, accompanied by a cavalry that - is said to be - injured by lightning sentenced him, on his way from Frankfurt and Paris. Vankhevc her intentions, plans and methods of invisible hands of the Illuminati group moneylenders Jews (members of the Jewish Masonic associations). The leaders of the associations of the Jewish Masonic conspiracies planning, and design of structures, coups and revolutions, so deceiving the people and control the money in their hands to mark the Ihtkronh heart regimes.

That bigoted shit is what you apparently support, as you continue to promote Maan.

[Jefferson23]

91. I am not pretending anything, your words and challenge are right here:

Your words http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=60414




My response here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=60439


On edit to add: Your link to Ma'an, I suspect the reason you do not post the English translation is
because through Google it comes through more like gibberish than an accurate translation.

[shira]

92. You are. My previous posts to the one you're citing show that while I concede Arutz-7...

....is pretty damned bad, nevertheless, Maan is worse.

You seem pretty proud of yourself promoting Maan, considering it still contains a horrifically antisemitic screed on its website from last month. What gives you the right to call out others when you're defending such neo-nazi filth?

[Jefferson23]

94. Ma'an was vindicated by an Israeli judge on incitement and other Palestinian publications.

The one letter to the editor is no worse than comments on many publications...sad but those bigoted statements remain too.
Each of the online publications have the ability to screen/remove them, but most do not.


I find your lifting information from Arutz Sheva and not linking it quite telling.

Of course you would think a letter to the editor at Ma'an is worse than Arutz Sheva, lol

[shira]

98. It's fascinating u keep supporting, defending, and promoting Maan's racism here. n/t

[Jefferson23]

100. Only according to Itamar Marcus,( Palwatch) and settler living in the OPT. n/t

[Jefferson23]

77. She can say whatever she wants, but her sources she should link to.

[shira]

79. Your friend "Israeli", like Sand, denies Jews are a people/nation. How about yourself?

Simple question.

[Jefferson23]

81. He has an opinion, just like you..yours come from settler websites.

I have not read his work, so have no opinion and I asked you to link your evidence
of racism..you refused.

Carlo Strenger did not agree with Sand, but no where in his OP does he accuse
him of racism.

[shira]

82. So denying Jews are a people is not racist in your view, right? n/t

[Jefferson23]

84. That has been proven to be what his work represents? I did not read his work, as

I already told you...so no opinion.

Carlo Strenger did no state nor suggest he is racist..hmmm.

Considering who you rely on for information, I can't accept your opinion.You
refused to source your evidence that he is a racist.

[shira]

86. Denying Jews are a people is racist. Sand does that. n/t

[Jefferson23]

87. Again, Carlo Strenger does not agree with his work yet he does not state nor imply

that Sands is a racist.

You refuse to provide any evidence that your statement represents his work.

[shira]

89. Who gives a FF what Strenger says? He was probably being kind.

Stop trolling.

[Jefferson23]

90. Trolling? lol You have nothing to offer other than your opinion on the subject. I posted

two opinions, one from Chomsky and one from Strenger, who is not by any means considered
a radical...he does not agree with Sands and he also makes no charge of racism...none.

I have not read his work, so I don't have an opinion it.

Considering you refuse to provide any links to support your charge of racism and you blow off Strenger,
and The Nation as a publication, among others, it is impossible to take you seriously.

Is Chomsky a racist too?

You still going to ignore the thread where you told me Arutz Sheva has no bias toward Palestinians?
The Op Ed where Pamela Geller is defended is on their website.

[shira]

93. The US State Dept adopted the EU working definition of antisemitism...

One of the many aspects defined as antisemitism is denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination. Denying that the Jews are a nation/people worthy of self-determination (like any other people/nation) is antisemitic.

Our State Dept. adopted the EU working definition.

But keep on bringing in Chomsky and Strenger as your proof. LOL.

========

It's also beyond hypocritical that you and yours take great offense to people who deny Palestinians are a people/nation worthy of self-determination. There's no question you see that as racist/bigoted. So why the hypocritical double-standard when it comes to denying Jews the same equal rights as any other sovereign people/nation on the planet?

[Jefferson23]

96. The US State Dept has declared Sands a racist?

You still have offered nothing to back up your claim he is a racist.

I offered you Strenger because he does not agree with Sands opinion, just does not accuse
him of racism..like you do.

He has an opinion you don't agree with but that does not constitute your charge against him.

[shira]

97. I've had enough of your trolling. n/t

[Jefferson23]

99. So says the lifter of unlinked information from Arutz Sheva. bye. n/t

[shira]

101. Your detective work sucks too...

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/israel-the-first-modern-indigenous-state/

[Jefferson23]

102. lol, and you think this is your vindication?? You crack me up. n/t

[Sarah Ibarruri]

104. And the U.S. would have to give lots of land back to Mexico, right? In fact, let's go further...

the entire nation of the U.S. needs to be given to the First Nations people (native Americans).

[Ken Burch]

121. At the same time, that indigenous heritage doesn't justify the Zionist attitude since the 1940's

That the existence of a large Arab majority in Palestine for at least fourteen centuries meant nothing and was deserving of no respect. OR the refusal of those who created the modern State of Israel to admit, until at least 1994, that Palestinians were a real people with a real national identity, and that they were going to have to be negotiated with, as equals and on their own terms, if the question of who rules these lands and who gets what share of them was ever to be decided fairly and humanely.

Much of what Palestinians have done in the name of resistance can be condemned. Much of what the Israelis have done in the name of preserving their hegemony(and, frankly, in pushing what can only be considered a right-wing and bigoted obsession with holding the lands of the West Bank at all cost)was equally wrong. But there has to be an acknowledgment that both of these nations have deep roots in the soil of that land.

And if you REALLY want to fight BDS, call on Netanyahu and company to stop at least some of the things they are doing to Palestinians. Collective punishment is not acceptable and it doesn't help Israel to impose it.

[Ken Burch]

120. That's actually not unusual.

European and British colonial traditions have often used colonized or subjugated peoples as part of imperial project.

Look at the way the Brits used people from India as civil servants in their African colonies...they used them, rather than Africans, so that no one in the local colonial bureaucracy would secretly assist the anti-colonial movement.

Similar things were done by the French and German empires.

And here's the thing...while the existence of Israel(within the pre-1967 lines) is justified, a major case can be made that, to some degree, Zionism actually gave European antisemites what they wanted...an essentially Judenrein Europe. And it gave antisemitic U.S. and Canadian governments what THEY wanted...a place for Jews who were driven out of their home countries to go OTHER than the U.S. or Canada. And it gave Arab antisemites(a group that I'm not sure was in the majority of the Arab world prior to 1948) a pretext (not a justification, mind you, but something they could use as an excuse) to force into exile ancient and indigenous Jewish communities that probably would have preferred to stay just where they were.

So it's not entirely clear that what has happened has actually struck any real blows against antisemitism at all.

[Ken Burch]

119. So you admit there's no security justification for the settlements?

that WOULD be progress, given your usual Likudnik take on these issues.

[Fozzledick]

124. Of course not, I never said there was.

But they're not a real obstacle to peace, just a diversion from the real security issues.

[Ken Burch]

128. Of course they are a major obstacle.

1)No one has any right to expect the Palestinians to accept the permanent existence of most of the settlements-especially since they were placed where they were to make the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state impossible.

2)It can't ever be a realistic expectation to think that other Arab countries would make peace with Israel WITHOUT the Palestinians getting a real, viable state...and the settlements so badly divide Palestinian territory that a viable state, with their continuing presence is impossible.

3)By antagonizing Palestinians in a way they don't need or deserve to be antagonized(the settlements are an injustice and nobody else, in the Palestinians' position, would ever make peace with a country that insisted on maintaining such an injustice.

The truth is, the settlements, the land theft, the water diversion, the daily collective punishment of ALL Palestinians for the crimes of violent minority(imposed in the knowledge that there is nothing that nonviolent Palestinians could ever do to stop the acts of groups like Al-Aksa or Hamas, at least while the war against Palestinians that is waged by the Israeli government on a daily basis continues.

Any Palestinian leadership that accepted the settlements would be hated by everyone in Palestine, and would thus be immediately overthrown. This is because accepting the settlements means accepting that the creation of a Palestinian state would be impossible, so agreeing to the presence of the settlements would mean, to all Palesetinians surrendering, for all eternity, the goal of self-determination. Clearly you'd have to agree that a Palestinian state, divided permanently by large blocs of what would effectively be Israeli territory, requiring Palestinians to eternally pass through checkpoint after checkpoint simply to get from one part of Palestine to another, would be doomed to fail. And, in failing, would simply cause the war that was supposed to end to start up all over again. Knowing that, why insist on something that would make peace impossible?

The way to make peace is to address and redress the real grievances on both sides(and clearly Palestinians have at least as many as Israelis, if not more). Trying to end a war WITHOUT redressing the grievances, and without admitting that there is parity of blame and parity of victimhood on both sides, can't be done, especially in a war, such as the I/P conflict, in which military "victory" is impossible, and only a negotiated compromise in which both sides are treated with equal respect can work.

It's childish for you to insist on that "it's all THEIR fault...and they never had any reason to be mad about anything" attitude regarding Palestinians. They are neither saints nor demon-beasts, but simply human beings in a terrible situation behaving as you could expect desperate, powerless people to behave.

[Ken Burch]

117. You can't expect Palestinians to just surrender.

And this has never just been about "Israel defending itself", because settlement construction, water diversion, and things like the uprooting of Palestinian olive groves or the destruction of solar panels built by international NGO's for innocent Palestinian villagers have NEVER been necessary to defend Israel.

It is impossible for Palestinians to end all hostilities without, at least, the Occupation ending simultaneously. It's not like Israel is totally right here and everything Palestinians have ever done was totally wrong-OR that Palestinians never had any legitimate grievances in this.

[Fozzledick]

123. Why not? It worked for Germany and Japan.

And their occupations ended only after they were disarmed and had stable non-belligerent governments in place.

The Palestinians' so-called "grievances" are all the result of the occupation they brought on themselves. Their only "grievance" at the beginning was their desire to destroy the state of Israel, and that's the one that Abbas is unwilling to give up.

[Ken Burch]

129. The occupations in Germany and Japan had nothing in common with the West Bank occupation.

The German and Japanese occupations were non-repressive, involved massive reconstruction projects, and treated the populations of those country with nothing but positive intent.

(There is also the fact that, unlike Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, the Palestinians have never been guilty of anything remotely resembling either genocide or even genocidal intent. Palestinians just didn't want to get driven off of their land...they didn't care WHO was driving them off.)

The West Bank occupation is part of the continuing war, and is designed to punish all for the actions of a few. It has never been run with any intent to help the locals make their lives better.

[Scootaloo]

4. ...because the President of Brooklyn College Hillel is bitchy at the New York Times?

Funny. The Tower is a media outlet for the far-right 501(c), The Israel project, which has famously held that George W. Bush was too liberal to be trusted on matters pertaining to Israel.

Given that J-Street, a supposedly "liberal" group regards this organization as an extremist group wildly out of touch with the American mainstream, and that the advisory board of TIP includes such luminaries as...

Saxby Chambliss, R-GA
Tom Coburn R-OK
Norm Coleman, R-MN
Susan Collins, R-ME
Judd Gregg, R NH
Joe Lieberman, I-CT
Gordon Smith, R-OR
Arlen Specter, D-PA
Tom Davis, R-VA
Jon Porter, R-NV
Jim Saxton, R-NJ
Joe Wilson, R-SC

I have to wonder why I should take their publication's word on what liberals should think or do?

[Jefferson23]

7. Good to know where the talking points came from..thanks. n/t

[Scootaloo]

8. There's way more out there than just AIPAC

[Violet_Crumble]

14. eah, I picked up that it was The Israel Project straight away...

I wondered what sort of raving idiots would be peddling moronic crap like that, so I headed straight to the 'About us' section and found it.

While I'm not a Liberal (that's what the conservative party's called here), if I were, a bunch of RW fuckwits telling me what I should or shouldn't do is gonna fall on very deaf ears...

[Scootaloo]

15. I'm perfectly happy with "leftist" myself

Cracks me up when the posters around here use the term as an attempt at a personal attack. Tells me exactly what angle they're coming from.

TIP shares an office address with B'nai B'rith International. its current CEO is Josh Block.

Block was at the center of an important debate in Democratic Party circles that erupted in December 2011 after the publication of an article by Politico's Ben Smith that contended that some Democratic-allied organizations were diverging from the party's standard "pro-Israel" line. Smith wrote, "The Center for American Progress [CAP], the party's key hub of ideas and strategy, and Media Matters, a central messaging organization, have emerged as vocal critics of their party's staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership and have been at odds, at times, with Barack Obama's White House, which has acted as a reluctant ally to Benjamin Netanyahu's Israeli government."[13]

Block served as the key source for Smith's piece[14] and was quoted in the story claiming that some CAP writers at the think tank's blog, ThinkProgress, were "borderline anti-Semitic": "There's two explanations here—either the inmates are running the asylum or the Center for American Progress has made a decision to be anti-Israel. … Either they can allow people to say borderline anti-Semitic stuff and to say things that are antithetical to the fundamental values of the Democratic Party, or they can fire them and stop it."[15]

A day after Smith's story broke, Justin Elliott at Salon.com revealed that Block pushed the Politico story on a neoconservative listserv, urging the writers on the listserv to "AMPLIFY" that article and reiterating his claim that the CAP writers were anti-Semitic. Wrote Block: "This kind of anti-Israel sentiment is so fringe it's [sic] support by CAP is outrageous, but at least it is out in the open now—as is their goal—clearly applauded by revolting allies like the pro-HAMAS and anti-Zionist/One State Solution advocate Ali Abunumiah [sic] and those who accuse pro-Israel Americans of having 'dual loyalties' or being 'Israel-Firsters'—to shape the minds of future generations of Democrats. These are the words of anti-Semites, not Democratic political players."

TIP is also the apparent source for the notion that removing illegal squatters from the West Bank is ethnic cleansing. So in addition to being a right-wing outlet, it's actively contributing to the aggressive stupidity of its own followers.

[azurnoir]

17. Here's TIP's (how to) Hasbara handbook

http://english6.net/t/the-israel-project%E2%80%99s-2009-w12469.html

[King_David]

18. Hasbara ? LOL

Apartheid
Genocide
War Criminals
Ethnic Cleansing
BDS
Boycott
Broccoli

LOL

[azurnoir]

19. glad you liked it

[King_David]

20. Every ridiculous epithet

begins to sound the same and just as ridiculous as the next especially with repetition .

Israel the Jewish Bananas State--- see I can do it too .

[azurnoir]

21. so your saying The Israel Project is ridiculous?

I'm a bit surprised by that

[King_David]

22. Why not say what YOU are saying instead if incorrectly

Translating and attributing stuff too there's incorrectly so...that's a bad habit.

[azurnoir]

23. I said exactly what I meant to say but why don't you give us your translation pretty please

[King_David]

24. You the one putting words in my mouth

How about I talk for myself and you talk for yourself --- much better habit .

[azurnoir]

25. no I am asking what you mean as I said precisely what I wanted to say n/t

[Scootaloo]

26. It'd be great if you started speaking for yourself, David

I'm sure that somewhere in that propaganda mouthpiece is an individual, maybe even developed and researched opinion yearning to break free!

[King_David]

27. Oww

That hurts..

[Shaktimaan]

59. Question

Where does it say that the settlements are illegal? Even assuming that Israel violated the 4th GC by transferring them, nowhere does anything suggest that any such settlements are then themselves illegal. Nor that such settlements, once constructed, must be razed and it's inhabitants expelled.

If that were so then the majority of Palestinians in the West Bank would also be illegally squatting themselves, as they settled there during Jordanian occupation as Jordanian citizens.

[Scootaloo]

60. Wait, what?

Even assuming that Israel violated the 4th GC by transferring them,

There's no question of the illegality. The occupying power is simply not allowed to move people into or our of the territory - Israel has violated both conditions, though more on the former than the latter. As Israel's government very clearly endorses, enables, and encourages the establishment and expansion of these colonies, that places it in violation.

There are some other issues beyond the 4th Geneva conventions - the very concept of territorial integrity, the meaning of borders, you know, basic stuff like that. But the 4th convention seems good enough for the US Government, so, let's go with that.

nowhere does anything suggest that any such settlements are then themselves illegal. Nor that such settlements, once constructed, must be razed and it's inhabitants expelled.

While I understand you're attempting to baffle with bullshit since you clearly have no brilliance to dazzle me with, this is a really sad attempt. If you take something that does not belong to you, its return is obligated. The exception is in cases such as property that is lost, destroyed, or consumed, in which case compensation is paid in stead of the return. Since you cannot consume, lose, or destroy territory, the standard is that the territory be returned to its lawful owner - in this case the representative body of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority.

And no, the law doesn't care if you tricked out the car you stole with a spoiler, high-guage exhaust, and a killer sound system. You don't get recompense for your investment in stolen property any more than you get to keep the property in the first place. meaning that should the PA demand it, the buildings and infrastructure get to remain on their property, for Palestinian use. Israel can of course turn off water and electricity that originatesfrom within Israel, but besides that... The territory and whatever is on it belongs to Palestine.

If that were so then the majority of Palestinians in the West Bank would also be illegally squatting themselves, as they settled there during Jordanian occupation as Jordanian citizens.

Well first, that's wholly untrue and is more of that standard "There's no such thing as the Palestinian People" horse shit. Even by the low standards of the Jewish Defense League and other far-right racist organizations you've locked arms with, this is a defunct argument. You might as well be telling me "Jews are really Khazars!" for all the seriousness I'm going ot give this argument.

Second, even if it were true, there's the factor of the Palestinian government recognizing these people as Palestinians.

Once again, you've got no questions, just shitty statements with poor punctuation.

[Shaktimaan]

61. Simply...

The territory and whatever is on it belongs to Palestine.

And what precisely are you basing that assumption on? How are you determining which specific territory belongs to Palestine exclusively? To date no agreed upon borders exist between the WB and Israel. In fact, the existing treaties specify that no borders exist. So what's your basis for deciding what belongs to whom?

The occupying power is simply not allowed to move people into or our of the territory - Israel has violated both conditions, though more on the former than the latter. As Israel's government very clearly endorses, enables, and encourages the establishment and expansion of these colonies, that places it in violation.

No, the occupying power isn't allowed to "deport or transfer" people into occupied territory. Neither of which Israel did. It doesn't say anything about "endorsing or allowing or encouraging" being tantamount to "forcible transfer."

Well first, that's wholly untrue and is more of that standard "There's no such thing as the Palestinian People" horse shit.

Haha. You think? Ok, what's untrue about it?

Edit: Btw, the "representative body of the Palestinian people" isn't even the Palestinian Authority. It's the PLO. You don't know the first fucking thing about this subject, seriously. Hahahaha. The amount of factual errors you make in your posts outweigh the accurate ones around 20 to 1.

[Scootaloo]

64. This is getting deeply pathetic

And what precisely are you basing that assumption on? How are you determining which specific territory belongs to Palestine exclusively? To date no agreed upon borders exist between the WB and Israel. In fact, the existing treaties specify that no borders exist.

First - there are no existing treaties between Israel and Palestine.

Second, Israel damn sure DOES have borders. And you know what those borders are? The 1947 partition plan's lines.

My dear Mr. President:
I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The act of independence will become effective at one minute after six o'clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.

Source: The Truman Library

Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform you in this letter that the Government of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.

Source: The American Journal of International law

Israel's "territory" outside these bounds has never been legally Annexed; Israel tried to cut a deal whereby in exchange for permitting some refugees to return, all of the territory Israel had occupied would be formally recognized as Israel's, at the Lausanne Conference in 1949... an attempt that was rebuked by the presiding commission (consisting of the US, France, and Turkey - not exactly Israel's sworn enemies by any measure.)

Third... it's a good thing Israel has legal borders. Else, Israel would not be a state at all. Such boundaries are essential for a state's existence, after all. if Israel has no borders, then Israel is not a state, boy, that comes with a whole mess of complications, to be sure!

So what's your basis for deciding what belongs to whom?

Well, territory that isn't within the borders of a state does not belong to that state. So that one's pretty simple.

So that means that we have, in the southern Levant, territory that falls outside the recognized borders of Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon. By definition these territories do not belong to any of those four states, and thus none of them have any valid claim at all to the territory.

Such territories are generally two sorts of entities; Non-State entities, and non-sovereign states.

Prior to November 15, 1988, Palestine was a non-state entity. Now, despite not being a state, such an entity DOES have legal right to its own claimed territory, and territory cannot be seized from it any more than it can be seized from anyone else through force of arms. Only by mutual agreement can territory be removed from an NSE.

As of that date, when Palestine declared independence by declaration of Yassir Arafat - then head of the PLO - Palestine became a non-sovereign state. Its declaration is, as Israel's, based on the borders drawn in 1947. This was reaffirmed (in much less flowery terms) on November 29, 2011, when Abbas reintroduced a declaration of Palestinian independence;

This application for membership is being submitted on the Palestinian people's natural, legal and historic rights and based on United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as well as the Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine of 15 November 1988 and the acknowledgement by the General Assembly of this declaration in resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988.

Source: The Telegraph

Which was, if you'll remember, voted into approval by the UN general assembly a year later, admitting Palestine as an observer state. it is a non-sovereign state because, well, the occupation; not just of the West Bank, but also of quite a bit more. Fortunately Palestine has been pretty clear it's willing to begin negotiations at the armistice lines; thereby ceding that territory to Israel once an agreement is reached.

No, the occupying power isn't allowed to "deport or transfer" people into occupied territory. Neither of which Israel did. It doesn't say anything about "endorsing or allowing or encouraging" being tantamount to "forcible transfer."

Once again, more bafflement and bullshit. Transfer is a technical term in the document and does not imply violence or the lack thereof; simply the movement of a population into or out of the territory. It is the occupying power's obligation to prevent that from happening - and instead Israel has done the opposite, and continues to do so. And then it demands legitimization of its criminal acts.

Haha. You think? Ok, what's untrue about it?

The part where you make the claim. Which is why I called your claim bullshit.

Edit: Btw, the "representative body of the Palestinian people" isn't even the Palestinian Authority. It's the PLO.

Had you made this statement in 1992, sure. But as of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian National Authority is the de jure successor to the Palestinian Liberation organization in this regard (though de facto currently only over the West Bank.)

You don't know the first fucking thing about this subject, seriously. Hahahaha. The amount of factual errors you make in your posts outweigh the accurate ones around 20 to 1.

Tell me again how Palestinian aren't real and Israel has no borders and that ethnic nationalism is a great idea.

[Shaktimaan]

65. Hahaha

Had you made this statement in 1992, sure. But as of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian National Authority is the de jure successor to the Palestinian Liberation organization in this regard (though de facto currently only over the West Bank

Let's start with this. Prove it.
(I already know it's not true btw.)

[King_David]

70. Actually Shaktimaan is 100% right

"The amount of factual errors you make in your posts outweigh the accurate ones around 20 to 1."

You once admitted you haven't read any books in this topic but yet you consider yourself an expert.


Well you really need read more on this.

[King_David]

72. I am also interested in you proving this :

""Had you made this statement in 1992, sure. But as of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian National Authority is the de jure successor to the Palestinian Liberation organization in this regard (though de facto currently only over the West Bank.) "


Come on... Prove your expertise .

[Shaktimaan]

95. sorry

First - there are no existing treaties between Israel and Palestine.

You mean besides Oslo?

If your only evidence of israel's borders is a non-legally binding letter from truman's office dating back a half-century then you don't have anything at all. The armistice agreements clearly state that the matter of permanent borders in that area would be subject to future negotiations, confirming my own statement.

On September 22, 1948, during a truce in the war, the Provisional State Council of Israel passed a law annexing all land that Israel had captured in that war, and declaring that from then on, any part of Palestine taken by the Israeli army would automatically be annexed to Israel.[29] The end of the war saw the 1949 Armistice Agreements, during which Israel's expanded territorial holdings, with some minor adjustments, were made into boundaries, commonly referred to as the Green Line. The Green Line was expressly declared in the Armistice Agreements as a temporary demarcation line, rather than a permanent border, and the Armistice Agreements relegated the issue of permanent borders to future negotiations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_Israel#cite_note-29

If you accept such ancient, irrelevant documents as iron-clad evidence, then you'd probably also have to accept the statements made by the PLO's original national charter, which specifically admits to having no sovereignty over gaza and the west bank. Obviously this is just as silly as trying to use Truman's letter as evidence of Israel's official and permanent borders. Your second quote doesn't even mention national boundaries.

This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area.

Third... it's a good thing Israel has legal borders. Else, Israel would not be a state at all. Such boundaries are essential for a state's existence, after all. if Israel has no borders, then Israel is not a state, boy, that comes with a whole mess of complications, to be sure!

So according to you, any state involved in a border dispute automatically loses its legal statehood? I'd love to see the source for your absurd claim.

As of that date, when Palestine declared independence by declaration of Yassir Arafat - then head of the PLO - Palestine became a non-sovereign state. Its declaration is, as Israel's, based on the borders drawn in 1947.

There were no borders drawn in 1947.

This application for membership is being submitted on the Palestinian people's natural, legal and historic rights and based on United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as well as the Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine of 15 November 1988 and the acknowledgement by the General Assembly of this declaration in resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988.

The UNGA resolutions is non-binding first of all. Secondly, if Arafat wanted to use it as evidence for Palestine's legal right to self-determination, then he'd also be implicitly agreeing to abide by the whole of the resolution's articles. Namely, the acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state and the acceptance that Palestine has no sovereign right to east Jerusalem.

Once again, more bafflement and bullshit. Transfer is a technical term in the document and does not imply violence or the lack thereof; simply the movement of a population into or out of the territory.

Really? And what are you basing that assumption on? Transfer has a specific meaning. If it was meant to include your expanded definition then why doesn't it specifically say so? What's your source for this overly liberal interpretation of yours? Because it sounds made up.

Had you made this statement in 1992, sure. But as of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian National Authority is the de jure successor to the Palestinian Liberation organization in this regard (though de facto currently only over the West Bank.)

Untrue. The PA is just the governing body within Palestine. It holds no international authority as an official representative. Which is why the PLO is the Palentinian's UN representative. By all means though, link to some evidence supporting your made up theory.

BTW, still waiting for that link to see where you've been learning all this interesting stuff about this subject. Since you don't need to bother reading any boring, time-consuming books to know all about the IP conflict. You're just a naturally gifted authority on it I guess.

[Scootaloo]

105. From the top

You mean besides Oslo?

The Oslo Accords are a set of agreements towards a treaty. They are not themselves a treaty.

If your only evidence of israel's borders is a non-legally binding letter from truman's office dating back a half-century then you don't have anything at all. The armistice agreements clearly state that the matter of permanent borders in that area would be subject to future negotiations, confirming my own statement.

So you're telling me Israel is not bound by its own declaration of borders? Well, that's interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_Israel#cite_note-29

If you accept such ancient, irrelevant documents as iron-clad evidence, then you'd probably also have to accept the statements made by the PLO's original national charter, which specifically admits to having no sovereignty over gaza and the west bank. Obviously this is just as silly as trying to use Truman's letter as evidence of Israel's official and permanent borders. Your second quote doesn't even mention national boundaries.

Unilateral annexations are not legal, Shaktimaan. You know that whole "inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war" thing? Yeah, that's what that's about. You can't just roll into someone else's turf and say "Mine now." That's a unilateral annexation and is illegal under international law.

The armistice agreement's border finalization carries the implication that some territory might be ceded to Israel as part of a peace treaty. it does not negate Israel's declared borders, not does it obligate any such concessions. As I said however, the Palestinians are willing to begin talks at the armistice lines. so, good for them I suppose.

Third, a statement by the de facto government of the state of Israel delineating the borders of the new state, formally recognized by hte head of the United States government is... silly. H'uh. Looks to me like you're moving those goalposts into the nosebleed seats of hte bleachers, kiddo.

So according to you, any state involved in a border dispute automatically loses its legal statehood? I'd love to see the source for your absurd claim.

Your argument is that israel has no set borders. States need borders to have border disputes. You're comparing poodles and peanuts here. Now if we're going to recognize that israel has borders, we also have to realize that the claims of a disputed border are flimsy at best. yeah, the border is disputed, in the same way the Iraq-Kuwait border was in dispute.

There were no borders drawn in 1947.

Lines then. You certainly understand the point I'm making, I hope. The borders were declared on the basis of the lines drawn in the '47 partition plan.

The UNGA resolutions is non-binding first of all. Secondly, if Arafat wanted to use it as evidence for Palestine's legal right to self-determination, then he'd also be implicitly agreeing to abide by the whole of the resolution's articles. Namely, the acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state and the acceptance that Palestine has no sovereign right to east Jerusalem.

Well, Israel chose those lines as their border when they declared independence. Secondly... nope. One state's existence is not dependent on the other's existence (which is how we have an Israeli state but not a sovereign Palestinian state, see?) Nor are they actually bound by those lines; Israel chose to declare within the liens of the Jewish partition, and the 88 declaration from Arafat claimed the remainder of the territory of mandatory Palestine. He coulda chopped Palestine into sixteen different polities if it seemd like a good idea (I suppose it didn't).

Jerusalem falls outside of Israel's declared borders. Palestine claims the city. Barring the city saying "piss off, we're with someone else," that claim is valid - and such a statement cannot be considered legal while the city is under occupation, whether by Israel today or by Jordan back in the 50's.

Really? And what are you basing that assumption on? Transfer has a specific meaning. If it was meant to include your expanded definition then why doesn't it specifically say so? What's your source for this overly liberal interpretation of yours? Because it sounds made up.

Yup. it has a specific meaning. To move. And Article 49 of the Geneva conventions does indeed regard the forcible transfer... of the protected persons in occupied territory. What this means is that those persons are free to move, but the occupying power is forbidden to move them. As regard to the occupying power's nationals, it forbids transfer broadly, with nothing about force or lack thereof.

it ain't rocket surgery. You can't clear the population from an occupied territory nor can you move your own people in. This all ties in with the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory through war, and the notion that no you can't just roll in, kill a bunch of people, scatter the rest, and start hanging new curtains.

Untrue. The PA is just the governing body within Palestine. It holds no international authority as an official representative. Which is why the PLO is the Palentinian's UN representative. By all means though, link to some evidence supporting your made up theory.

A little re-reading, and you're right; my muistake. There's so many little niggling groups and titles clustered around this thing. I got thrown becuase hte "PLO" is defunct as a title, now referring to itself as State of Palestine; and then atural assumption is that the de facto government thereof would be hte representative.

Okay.

So then, change this statement:

Since you cannot consume, lose, or destroy territory, the standard is that the territory be returned to its lawful owner - in this case the representative body of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority.

to this:

Since you cannot consume, lose, or destroy territory, the standard is that the territory be returned to its lawful owner - in this case the State of Palestine.

Congratulations on a semantic victory. Now that this has been cleared up, any plan to address the point made?

BTW, still waiting for that link to see where you've been learning all this interesting stuff about this subject. Since you don't need to bother reading any boring, time-consuming books to know all about the IP conflict. You're just a naturally gifted authority on it I guess.

Oh, I've read a shitload of books about the I/P conflict, and the broader middle east as a whole. I told you I hadn't read any specifically about Zionism - Except for Herzl's "The Jewish State."

Books currently in my arm's reach, counting loaners from the library, in no particular order (I just moved, the shelves are a bit of a jumble)...

The Israelis - Donna Rosenthal
Power, Faith, and Fantasy; America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present - Michael Oren
The Great War for Civilisation - Robert Fisk
Dreams and Shadows; The Future of the Middle East - Robin Wright
Once Upon a Country - Sari Nussiebeh
Arab and Jew - David Shipler
The Hour of Sunlight - Sami al Jundi and Jen Marlowe
A History of the Arab Peoples - Albert Hourani
A History of the Middle East - Peter Mansfield
The Fight For Jerusalem - Dore Gold
The Case for Israel - Alan Dershowitz
War Without end; Israelis, Palestinians, and the Struggle for a Promised Land - Anton La Guardia

I used to have Jimmy Carter's book, but frankly that thing read like a coloring book. Now i'm sure you're going to sniff at my selection, so, what's yours? And anything you'd recommend as reading? I'm on limited funds, so if stuff can be found on scribd (yay subscription memberships!) or are otherwise accessible online, that'd be fine

[Shaktimaan]

109. sigh

The Oslo Accords are a set of agreements towards a treaty. They are not themselves a treaty.

They're not a PEACE treaty, no. But they are a set of binding legal agreements between two international parties. In other words, a treaty.

So you're telling me Israel is not bound by its own declaration of borders? Well, that's interesting.

Israel never declared it's borders. Your link was to a letter written by an american organization regarding Israel. Israel's actual declaration of independence made no mention of it's borders.

Unilateral annexations are not legal, Shaktimaan. You know that whole "inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war" thing? Yeah, that's what that's about. You can't just roll into someone else's turf and say "Mine now." That's a unilateral annexation and is illegal under international law.

The land in question wasn't under any state's sovereignty. It wasn't "someone else's turf."

You can't clear the population from an occupied territory nor can you move your own people in.

But where does it outlaw the movement of citizens of the occupying power to the occupied territory of their own accord? Especially considering that in this case the settlers in question were granted the legal right to settle that specific area via league of nations mandate. Otherwise what you're suggesting is that the ethnic cleansing of a people can not be rectified if the refugees are citizens of a state that later occupies that area. For example, jerusalem, which originally had a majority Jewish population. By your argument, the geneva convention outlaws the return of any of the ethnically cleansed Jewish population on the grounds that to do so would constitute colonization. That seems illogical to me.

[Shaktimaan]

62. Well

Once again, you've got no questions, just shitty statements with poor punctuation.

I'm still waiting for you to link up where you learned all your crazy propaganda that you accept as historical fact. I get that you're probably a little embarrassed to reveal it but I'm genuinely interested.

[Shaktimaan]

63. Well. You can't have it both ways.

If distinguishing between Israeli citizens and Palestinians in the WB is evidence of ethnic discrimination and apartheid wrt Israeli policy, then doing the same thing to argue for the expulsion of Israelis would have to be ethnic cleansing.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's legal and ethically acceptable to apply different rules according to nationality/citizenship, or it isn't. You can't cry racism when Israel does it without admitting to the same crime when applied to settlers.

Is ethnicity the factor, or is it national affiliation?

Btw, before you start slinging accusations, let me be very clear. I'm not arguing in defense of settlements. Just pointing out your hypocrisy.

[shira]

31. If you read the article, you'd see the author is a liberal who votes Democratic...

"I have been a New York Times reader for more than a half-century, a political liberal who has long supported the Democratic Party and the National Jewish Democratic Council. I have fought for free speech, fair play and religious pluralism in North America and in Israel. I have been vilified by right-wing Jewish extremists who have called me a kapo and worse."

This article would appeal to pretty much every elected Democrat in office today. The problem you have with liberal Zionists applies to nearly every Democratic official in power. Obviously, they're all "rightwingers" to you.

[Scootaloo]

34. And yet he's writing puff for an outlet that thinks Dubya was a wacky liberal

Why is that, Shira?

He also doesn't make much of a point. Like i said, it's just him bitching about the "Liberal media" *cough* of the New York Times.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Maybe Shira believes that TIP is a very progressive group...

Y'know, despite all but one of its advisory board being Republicans...

Just an aside - This reminds me of those 'guest' liberals that have appeared on Fox and end up agreeing with their Republican 'opposition'.

[Scootaloo]

43. Well, the list of odd things Shira believes is pretty extensive

"I vote Democrat, here's my illiberal position!" sounds an awful lot like "I have black friends, here's my racist joke," doesn't it?

[shira]

37. And yet, what he wrote would jibe with most of the Democratic Party...

Your views are way outside the mainstream as no official Dems support your Israel = apartheid, white nationalism, colonialism bullshit.

You must think just about all Dems holding office today are rightwing, considering they're all liberal zionists.

[Scootaloo]

42. So did what most of Milton Friedman wrote

Which is why we have NAFTA. What a great idea that was, right?

Your argument, in a single link.

Seriously it's boring enough that Dave does this, but you at least used to be entertaining.

[Dick Dastardly]

49. The advisory board list you posted is the 2008 version and looks as it came from Sourcewatch

as they are the only ones I saw who posts a 2008 version as well as matching its order and style. Whats funny is yours was the same as Sourcewatch except that all the Dems are edited out of your list and it shows only Repubs. The unedited Sourcewatch list shows Dems and Repubs on the advisory board are pretty equal in number as do other complete yearly versions found elswhere.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Israel_Project

Complete 2008 Version from SW

Evan Bayh D-IN
Ben Cardin, D-MD
Saxby Chambliss, R-GA
Tom Coburn R-OK
Norm Coleman, R-MN
Susan Collins, R-ME
Judd Gregg, R NH
Joe Lieberman, I-CT
Bill Nelson, D-FL
Gordon Smith, R-OR
Arlen Specter, R-PA
Ron Wyden, D-OR
Rob Andrews, D-NJ
Shelley Berkley, D-NV
Tom Davis, R-VA
Eliot Engel, D-NY
Frank Pallone, D-NJ
Jon Porter, R-NV
John Sarbanes, D-MD
Jim Saxton, R-NJ
Brad Sherman, D-CA
Joe Wilson, R-SC
Ron Silver, Actor & Director


Your 2008 Edited Version

Saxby Chambliss, R-GA
Tom Coburn R-OK
Norm Coleman, R-MN
Susan Collins, R-ME
Judd Gregg, R NH
Joe Lieberman, I-CT
Gordon Smith, R-OR
Arlen Specter, D-PA
Tom Davis, R-VA
Jon Porter, R-NV
Jim Saxton, R-NJ
Joe Wilson, R-SC

As you can see there is a big difference.

You did not post a source. Could you post the source of your 2008 edited version?
I looked around to try and find a site with your 2008 edited version but could not find it.

[azurnoir]

50. Did you forget someone? Like Republican Strategist Frank Luntz

who was commissioned to write TIP's Hasbara Handbook for them? also thanks for giving us the full list R's still out number D's

[Dick Dastardly]

52. What does Luntz have to do with an edited list of the advisory council? nothing!!

Yes in 2008 the they outnumber by 1 on the advisory council ....wow.
Anyway It changes all the time with 1 more Dem sometimes, but it always stays balanced.

It seems your OK with such deceptive editing and trying to deflect from it?

[azurnoir]

53. Luntz is deeply involved in TIP's

seems a good number of the resources used here have Republican or antiDemocratic party roots

[Scootaloo]

54. I used sourcewatch

I chose to emphasize the right-wing nutjobs - "contains such luminaries as..." Especially given the heavy right-wing leaning of TIP, and the frothlingly anti-Obama stance of their publication, The Tower.

I suppose I could have left in such stunning examples of Blue Doggery as Rob Andrews and Tom Wyden and still made the same point, though. Pretty clear that Tom Coburn carries more weight than Bill Nelson in this board.

Current list, if you're curious (I just found it on rightweb ):

Rep. Robert Andrews D-NJ
Sen. John Barasso R-WY
Sen. Ben Cardin D-MD
Sen. Robert Casey D-PA
Sen. Saxby Chambliss R-GA
Sen. Tom Coburn R-OK
Rep. Mike Coffman R-CO
Sen. Susan Collins R-ME
Rep. Ted Deutch D-FL
Rep. Renee Ellmers R-NC
Rep. Eliot Engel D-NY
Sen. James Inhofe R-OK
Sen. Mark Kirk R-IL
Rep. Michael McCaul R-TX
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers R-WA
Sen. Robert Menendez D-NJ
Rep. Devin Nunes R-CA
Rep. Frank Pallone D-NJ
Sen. Pat Roberts R-KS
Rep. John Sarbanes D-MD
Rep. Adam Schiff D-CA
Sen. John Thune R-SD
Rep. Brad Sherman D-CA
Rep. Joe Wilson R-SC
Sen. Ron Wyden D-OR

Any place that'll give Inhofe an advisory position is bound to be a little nucking futz.

[King_David]

57. Bust !!!

Ha ha ha

[WhiteTara]

11. I wouldn't be able to drink a liquid from that machine

I would only be able to see Palestinian blood....and I think there is a great denial in their actions.

snip:
Some parts of academia have turned anti-Israel words and actions into a cottage industry, manufacturing vitriol and protest against the very existence of the Jewish State.

So, instead of a democracy, Israel is now a theological state. Does that mean you are either Jewish or ?...if I were ?, I would be very afraid.

[azurnoir]

16. so a link to a Rightwing organization to tell us "liberals" what we MUST do

on a progressive website yet

[shira]

32. About the author of the article...excerpted from the OP

I have been a New York Times reader for more than a half-century, a political liberal who has long supported the Democratic Party and the National Jewish Democratic Council. I have fought for free speech, fair play and religious pluralism in North America and in Israel. I have been vilified by right-wing Jewish extremists who have called me a kapo and worse.

Nothing rightwing about that. His position on Israel is echoed by just about all Dems in power today. You're the one out of the mainstream when it comes to Democratic viewpoints on Israel.

[azurnoir]

33. more about TIP the organization the magazine is representing

members of it's advisory board, notice the predominance of R's

Saxby Chambliss, R-GA
Tom Coburn R-OK
Norm Coleman, R-MN
Susan Collins, R-ME
Judd Gregg, R NH
Joe Lieberman, I-CT
Gordon Smith, R-OR
Arlen Specter, D-PA
Tom Davis, R-VA
Jon Porter, R-NV
Jim Saxton, R-NJ
Joe Wilson, R-SC