Google+ Followers

Saturday, 5 November 2011

The Hypocrisy of Jonathan Freedland and Fellow Liberals

Israel Hasn’t Changed – It’s Merely Become More Honest

It’s unusual when I post an article by an open Zionist from the Jewish Chronicle (4.11.11.) but I was sent this today by a friend and am happy to make an exception in this case.

The description by Freedland of the centre of Hebron is widely known. A city of nearly 200,000 with a bustling market which I can still remember visiting has been reduced to a ghost. Roads that Palestinians cannot walk down. Like the Warsaw Ghetto the front doors of houses that open up onto the forbidden Aryan, sorry Israeli, side are sealed in. Colour coded maps depict where Palestinians cannot walk, their cars cannot go and where they cannot live. It doesn’t take much imagination to realise that this kind of Apartheid is taken straight from the Nuremberg Laws, which classified Germans into Aryans and non-Aryan.

As Jonathan Freedland noted, without comment, the ‘vile’ slogan of ‘Death to the Arab’s is painted on the empty houses and shops. If Freedland had taken a step backwards and engaged his brain he might have asked where this slogan came from (hint - 'Death to the Jews was a favourite of anti-Semites in Europe). If Freedland had not averted his eyes, he might have caught the odd slogan urging ‘Gas the Arabs’ or ‘Arabs to the ovens’ and even he, I suspect might have worked out where that one came from.

But Freedland, whose position as one of the key Guardian leader writers ensures that papers faces two ways like a latter-day Janus, begins with a heavy dose of hypocrisy, praising to that appalling PR organisation Bicom, whose tentacles were covered in shit as a result of their ill-fated liaison with Liam Fox and his war mongering fellows. That Freedland is incapable of asking why this organisation works so closely with war mongers, why it bribes and flatters its way across the globe, working in secrecy as Israel’s propagandist arm in Britain, and believes its ‘big tent’ approach in Manchester is worthy of anything other than burning down, says everything. The fact is that Freedland wants to have his cake and eat it.

He praises Netanyahu’s hasbara organisation, he has no problems with it, and then he wonders why they say nothing about Hebron. Clearly when it comes to Zionism Freedland’s brain stops engaging.

It is said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue but it seems to me in this case that it is a question of the self-proclaimed virtuous who are paying the tribute. As Freedland knows very well, Israel has not changed in any fundamental way. Israel under the Labour Zionists that Jonathan just loves, was just as brutal and racist as Lieberman and Netanyahu. But they were more savvy, more media wise, they spoke the language of the times, they even called each other ‘chaver’ (comrade) and extolled the virtues of their Kibbutzim - collective colonialism which refused membership to the Arabs whose land they settled.

It was Mapai, the Israeli Labour Party, that put the religious Zionists in power from the first election to the Knesset in 1949 when they chose to ally with the National Religious Party rather than the ‘left’ Zionists of Mapam, who had obtained the second highest number of seats. If there was one thing that Mapai, then seeking to build an alliance with the USA did not want, and that was accusations of being seen as soft on communism.

It was Israeli Labour, Mapam included, that presided over the military rule of Israel’s Arabs, seen as a 5th column, for 18 years, until 1966, just as it was the Zionist ‘trade union’ Histadrut that barred Arabs from even joining until 1959 and until 1966 retained the name ‘the General Federation of Hebrew Labour in the Land of Israel’.

It was Israeli Labour that put in place the institutional tie up between the Jewish National Fund, whose constitution bars Arabs from leasing or renting its land (together with the Israeli Lands Authority it administers 93% of Israeli land). It was Israeli Labour and Histadrut that barred Arabs from ‘security’ industries, i.e. from the best paid jobs and confined them to manual labour.

It was Israeli Labour that established the policy of Judification in the Galilee and established a system of having ‘unrecognised’ Arab villages, some 50% of all Arab villages. What is being played out today with the ethnic cleansing of the Bedouin in the Negev was the policy of Israeli Labour. Indeed it was David Ben Gurion who laid especial emphasis on the colonisation of the Negev and under his Administration thousands of Bedouin were expelled to Jordan and Egypt.

And it wasn’t Likud who pioneered the settlements. It was Israeli Labour under the Allon plan (named after Defence Minister Yigal Allon of the militarist Ahdut Ha’avodah party, many of whose founders such Yitzhak Tabenkin would become members of the settler party Tehiya in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Netanyahu’s opposition to a Palestinian state is based on the Zionist principle that the Arabs have no more right to Hebron and Nablus than they do to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The purpose of Zionism is colonisation of the land of Palestine – the British Mandate territories from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan.

The differences between Herut (Likud) – the Revisionist Zionists - and Israeli Labour were never more than semantic. There was no principle involved. Both wanted a Jewish state in which the Arabs could only be a tolerated minority. It was Labour not Likud which expelled ¾ million Arabs in 1948. It was Labour that deprived the refugees of the right of return and dreamt up the lie that they had left voluntarily.

Today there is barely a Labour Party left in Israel. It split down the middle less than a year ago, with its leader Ehud Barak, and former leader Amir Peretz, choosing to remain in their positions in Netanyahu’s cabinet in ‘The Independence’ party (they are certainly original in their names).

So Jonathan Freedland and fellow liberals have a simple choice. They can either abandon their attachment to democratic and liberal values at home, (albeit that the Guardian/Observer has moved to the right over the years) or support them in Israel too. But if they want to support democratic liberal values in Israel they have to come to terms with the fact that a state based on part of its citizens, which grants privileges to the Jewish part of its population is an inherently racist and yes apartheid state. In other words the ‘Jewish’ nature of Israel is not cultural or even religious, it implies practical political and economic benefit to a section of its population. That is the choice Freedland and others have to make. There is no middle way and if Jonathan wishes to stick with Bicom them he has no cause to complain about the fact that Israel no longer even pretend to be a liberal society.

Tony Greenstein


Anonymous said...

How stupid of You:
"...they even called each other ‘macher’ (comrade) and extolled the virtues of... "

Comrade in Hebrew is Chaver חבר.
‘macher’ is something completely different in Yiddish.

Erez said...

What about that - You invent people that don't exist - There was no Israel Tabenkin.

Amir Peretz was never a member of Netanyahu's government, and was almost elected for its leadership, 2 months ago, lost only because of the growing (and justful) popularity of Shelly Yechimovitz.

There is no reason to read your ideological nonsense while your "as if" facts, are so wrong.

Don't you check anything before You publish ?

How about some standards ?

The original British mandate included Jordan, and indeed, The Zionist movement had an utopia of settling the entire territory as a solution for the huge Jewish masses haunted by Pogroms and racism.

The difference, and not a minor one, between Zionist left and right, is the realization about the need of compromise, in order save the ability to have Israel, in any borders.

Unlike American or Spanish settlers,or British imperialists, Jews never performed Genocide.

Unlike Arab dictators, or Palestinian Terrorists, Israel doesn't murder it's own citizens.

Any Palestinian who comes close to denying violence, is condemned by You as a "collaborator", almost a Nazi.

Though roughly discriminated, Arab citizens of Israel enjoy more rights than any other Arab citizens in any Arab country, especially Christians.

The Histadrut today joins united Arab and Jewish workers, while its youth movement devotes the majority of its Histadrut budget to its Arab sector. Today the Histadrut makes a general strike for the weakest unorganized workers in Israel, the contractor workers (strike is now limited by Israel's court) which include many Arabs.

Your attack against LABOUR Zionists, is nothing but absurd: While colonialists usually exploit local peoples as slaves, unlike Rothchild's Jewish landowners, Jewish socialists wanted to develop their land by their own work force.

Even at 1948, Only a minor portion of the mandate was suppose to reach Jewish hands, while The Majority of demography and territory was supposed to be given to local Arabs (like Palestine Jews, many of them newcomers). Only their decision to commit war against Israel changed the balance, and indeed, helped Ben-Gurion, Dayan and Peres and the rest of Mapai's right wing,to build Israel on capitalism-by-statism basis.

Your inability to recognize inner struggles inside Zionist society, while such struggles exists in any society, and your complete denial of the roles of Arab imperialism/nationalism and French and British imperialism in the area makes your analysis ridicules, including your static role of American influence, while in Reality, in changed many times, and expressed contradictional forces inside American society.

Yes, The Jews of Hebron are Genocidal scum (towards Arabs and Jews alike), and they gather widening influence in Israeli society, so as radical Muslim terrorists, and they help each other quite well.

But why do You feel a desperate need to assist them, is beyond me.

Tony Greenstein said...

One of the problems about posting late at night or early in the morning is that one gets tired! Yes 'chaver' is the hebrew for 'comrade' but the point I was makin is unchanged.

Likewise for Eres. It was of course Yitzhak Tabenkin. But given that Tabenkin is not a well-known name, indeed the only one to attain prominence in the Zionist world, to claim that he doesn't exist is a bit much.

Peretz may not have been a member of Netanyahu's government but he followed Barak out of Labour into Atzmut (independence) or some such.

Maybe the popularity of Shelly Yachimovich (I won't pull you up on Yechimovitz as we all know who you mean!) is well deserved. However during the tent protests she welcomed the settlers to the protest. As Noga Wolff wrote in a letter to Ha'aretz in response to an article (18.8.11.) 'I don't see settlement's as a sin,'8

"By welcoming the settlers to the protest, Shelly Yachimovich contributes to the weakening of Israeli political awareness....

Right and left cannot sit together in one tent. The left-wing tent should be calling on all citizens wherever they may be, regardless of religion, and on all those who have yet to receive civil rights of whatever kind, to sit together....

A tent calling for social justice that includes settlers will not include the Arab citizens of the State of Israel, Bedouin in unrecognized towns and the Palestinians living without civil rights.'

By placing your faith and having illusions in another unprincipled labour Zionist you simply perpetuate, Erez, the idea that there is any fundamental difference between Labour and Likud/Revisionist Zionism.

The original British Mandate did NOT include Jordan (in fact Transjordan for someone who is so particular about getting names right!). It was separated off in 1921 by the British from the proposed Mandate, as agreed at San Remo in 1920. This was agreed in July 1922 by the League of Nations and ratified, i.e. came into operation on 26 September 1923.

At the same time the Zionist Organisation Executive, INCLUDING JABOTINSKY, agreed to the severing off of 'Eastern Palestine' to Abdullah. Indeed an article to this effect had been included by the British in the Mandate, allowing particular areas east of the Jordan to be excluded from the Mandate. The LoN formally agreed this in September 1922 and this was ratified by the British in September 1923.

In short Transjordan was NEVER part of the Mandate and is another Zionist myth.

We know very well that the 'Zionist movement had an utopia of settling the entire territory' It was called Erez Yisrael and you could define it as you wanted, right up to the Euphrates. However it was never for 'the huge Jewish masses haunted by Pogroms and racism.' 98% of them, when they emigrated, preferred the USA to Palestine!

Erez you say that 'The difference, and not a minor one, between Zionist left and right, is the realization about the need of compromise, in order save the ability to have Israel, in any borders.'

Not so. Ben Gurion was just as much a maximalist as Jabotinsky. Where they differed was over tactics. I've already quoted to you the militarist Ahdut faction of Tabenkin and Allon. Labour Zionism was every bit as expansionist as the 'right'. But it was also realistic. It knew you couldn't just do it in a day.

It is true that genocide has never been practised in the same way as American or Spanish settlers,or even British imperialists. But the indiscriminate murder of Palestinians and the repeated massacres of them amount to much the same. And certainly there are large elements now within the Zionist concensus who would indeed carry out genocide - as you well know.

Tony Greenstein said...

No I don't condemn any Palestinian who denies violence as a collaborator, still less a Nazi. But who are you referring to? Abbas and co. you inflict horrific violence and torture on their own. It is only with Israel that they profess peace. Which is certainly collaboration as Israel is the occupying power and it occupies by force (am I wrong - is it a peaceful occupation?). In which case violence to ppose it is justified.

It is irrelevant whether Arab citizens enjoy more rights than Arabs in Arab countries. The latter are creatures of imperialism and a lack of democratic rights, as the Arab Spring has shown, is integral to that. In any event, Arabs are not denied their very right to a home and land in Arab countries, which is the most fundamental of human rights. They are not strangers in those lands.

The Histadrut today is a bureaucratic organisation which is losing support. I believe Kav Laoved has now achieved a formal recognition status with an employer. Why stick with a discredited, not even social democratic organisation that was one of the main instruments of division of the Palestinians from the Jewish workers? Histadrut fought hard to keep Jews and Arabs separate, both within its own organisation and in unions where it gained influence/control like the railworkers union pre-1920.

Read Zeev Sternhell's Founding Myths of Zionism for more details.

Even if some of its youth budget is now spent organising Arabs nothing can undo its pernicious role in placing Arabs in an inferior status to begin with.

It is not my criticism of Labour Zionism but your defence of it that is absurd. What was better? That the Rothschild settlements exployed cheap Arab labour or that Deganiah not only evicted Arabs from the land it settled but REFUSED to employ them again afterwards? This was the precursor of driving Arabs from the land.

And in the 1920s and 1930s Histadrut waged major and continuing campaigns against Arab labour, the very idea of employing an Arab was taboo. They didn't demand equalisation of their wages but their removal altogether. This was not any solidarity, this was apartheid - if you like the colour bar so beloved of British imperialism. It has nothing to do with solidarity (are cheap wages worse than starvation?) and everything to do with building up the Jewish economy.

Erez- try reading Ben Gurions 'Rebirth & Destiny' where he describes at length the 'evil' of employing mixed labour. Better still read my article on Electronic Intifada on the Histadrut.

You are wrong about 1948. 55% of Palestine was allocated to the Zionists. Please don't repeat Zionist hasbara about the attack of the Arab armies. There had been a war waged by Zionist militias for 6 months to expel the Palestinians. It was called Plan Dalet and although he has been demonised Ilan Pappe's Ethnic Cleansing of palestine is invaluable. A Transfer Committee were set up by the Jewish Agency in 1937 and again in 1947.

Transfer was discussed throught the period of Zionist establishment in Palestine as you well know.

Tony Greenstein said...

When you say that it was 'Only their decision to commit war against Israel changed the balance, and indeed, helped Ben-Gurion, Dayan and Peres and the rest of Mapai's right wing,to build Israel on capitalism-by-statism basis.' You are sadly disillusioned. The Labour right-wing was already in power and had already defeated the left - the anti-capitalists in the 1920s in Gdud Avodah.

You are talking about Mapam and Ahdut. But they always came on board to Mapai. They were never anti-capitalist nor did they attempt to mobilise the workers in that direction. on the contrary when Ben GUrion starved out the northern Kibbutzim Hashomer Hatzair gave its support.

I do recognise the inner struggles of Zionism but I also recognise that the external antagonism to the Palestinians prevailed. As did Mapam - the banner headline of its paper Al Hamishmar was 'To Zionism, Socialism and Friendship Between Nations.' The order is important. Mapam took an equal part in the eviction and expulsion of the Palestinians. Indeed given its over representation in the Palmach shock troops, it did more than its fair share. Its leftism was always for the camp fire, never for day to day operations.

At least we agree on the Jews of Hebron, but it was labour leader Ehud Barak who allowed them to stay!

Erez said...

Why do You insist of getting all wrong all the time ?
Amir Peretz never left Avoda, and he opposed Ehud Barak all along the period where Barak led the party.

as for Yechimovitz, You fell for it like everyone else, she accept the settlers, not the settlements. You probably don't care very much, but in the case of eviction, these people should be treated like welcomed citizens, and not as criminals, in spite of the hardships made by those settlements, their sociology is not unison, and the vast majority of them moved under the umbrella of the Israeli government who sent them.

Again You clear the Arabs of any responsibility to their status.
That's kind of a paradigm of victimizing in my opinion.
Plan Dalet, that inspired many of the deportations of Arabs from Palestine, followed the Arab revolt of 1936-1939, so as economic separation. The need for separation, including deportations is not only a resualt of zionism, or the the Palestinians, but also of the pogroms against Jews all over the Arab World.
Palestinian suffering was caused by the Arab regimes no less than by the Zionists.

I think we agree that the framework of the middle east today, is a result of Imperialism, but somehow You always blame Israel, because it is a democracy, and you never consider that as an achievement for itself.
How many new states who rose out of imperialism remained democratic for long ?

the Us is considered democratic but it kills much more innocent citizens all over the world, with much worse moral standards than the IDF. Russia and China support Nuclear Iran and fund Genocide in Africa, but hell, let's blame Israel!!!

Zionism was always democratic (excluding religious zealots who calls themselves Zionists, while more and more of them give up the term each day, and yet, some try to attach themselves to it while twisting it), and was one of the first national movements to accept women as equal members (formally at least).

The fact that Jews preferred the Us is hardly relevant since the the Us did not prefer THEM since the mid 1920'.

in spite of your criticism, #j14 made more Jews identify with the needs of Arab citizens than anything ever before.

I was referring to Fayed, who is not supported by any terror group, and even Abbas is much less cruel than Jihadists.

Your strict lines does smell of revolutionary thinking, from the undemocratic side, more like Bolshevik.

You compare the killings done by Israel to Genocide, which is not just very far from true, it also absurd considering that Palestinian terror groups kills more Palestinians than Israel.

Hussein butchered about 20,000 of them in September 1970, but you don't see any repent for that or a demand for. The paradox is, that Israel has quite a good case for self defense while fighting the Palestinians, and yet, it treats Palestinians better than any other country in the middle east.

Your critism of the Histadrut is quite funny. Yes, It is corrupt and lazy, but advocating for Kav-laOved as an alternative shows just how much your ideas are marginal in their politics and your intel' is wrong.

Kav-Laoved is a third sector organization. it is not a union, as much as I know. other small unions: Ma'an of Assaf adiv, or Coach Laovdim of Ami Vetory are nice, but more like insects compared to Histadrut. More people joined the Histadrut this year that the small ones would unify in decades. For the first time in years Histadrut is doing through groundwork, backed by Ofer Einy, but You cling to what happened in the 20's. Wake up Tony, this is the 21th century!

Your set of marginal ideas, and false analitics , does not prevent genocide, but provokes it.

Tony Greenstein said...

Yes I was wrong to say that Amir Peretz had resigned from Labour to join Atzmaut. But I wasn't far wrong. Firstly it was reported over here that he had resigned and Ha'aretz of 18.1.11. reported what went on as follows:

'Four Labor MKs - Amir Peretz, Eitan Cabel, Raleb Majadele and Daniel Ben-Simon - met on Tuesday morning to consult with each other on their political futures.

It is believed that Peretz is trying to convince Cabel, Majadele and Ben-Simon to leave Labor. Peretz, however, is under heavy pressure to not take such a step.'

Clearly there was no principle involved, which is the main point.

And to suggest that Yachimovich welcomed the settlers not the settlements is a blatant falsehood. She welcomed them as settlers and thus automatically turned the protests from a political protest against the impoverishment of Jews and Arabs into a Jewish/Zionist affair.

To my mind this dishonesty shows that the rest of your post is spurious. Settlements are based on stolen land. They operate according to a different set of laws (i.e. apartheid).

It's no wonder 'everyone else' fell for it too. I suggest the only person who doesn't get it is you Erez. No one is saying that the sociology of settlers is uniform. Clearly it isn't. I'm aware of the economic incentives, but the fact is that German ethnic settlers in Poland (the Warthgau) also had economic settlements. Did that make the displacement of Poles and Jews ok then?

Your stuff on Plan Dalet is simply incomprehensible. The Arab Revolt, against the British, was 1936-39. The Zionists as settlers naturally opposed it. Jewish Labour was a policy not only of Histadrut when it began in 1920, but of the earliest Zionist settlers going back to 1904 and the 2nd Aliya. You know this so again this is dishonesty, hence your garbled account.

It had nothing to do with Arab pogroms. There were in fact very few such, the main example was the Farhud in Iraq in June 1941 and that was because of the role of the British and the perceived role of the Jewish community. In fact most of Baghdad's population protected them. The anti-Jewish riots that occurred were almost wholly AFTER 1948, in other words a reaction to the expulsion of the Palestinians, not a cause thereof.

Tony Greenstein said...

To invent this nonsense just shows how much your case is lacking. The most vivid example of anti-Semitism in the Arab countries was the blood libel in Damascus in 1840 and that was caused by Franciscan monks and French imperialism.

If you knew anything you'd know that it was precisely in the Arab countries that the fascists occupied in WW2 that Jews were not deported to death camps and likewise it was a Muslim country, Albania, that was the only one in Europe. where Jews again were not deported to the death camps.

How can Israel be a democracy when it has ruled for 40 years over those who have no vote - some 4+ million people? How is a democracy compatible with the desire of most Israelis to strip Arab Israelis of even the right to vote? The fact that Tsipi Livni and now her successors, proposed in 'peace talks' with Abbas & co. that there be an exchange of Israeli territory, i.e. those parts with large numbers of Arabs like the triangle speaks volumes about Israeli democracy.

Or was Nazi Germany a democracy? Hitler received up to 37% of the vote.

Zionism was always democratic. Well yes, so was Sparta. But women weren't always that equal. No women attended the first Zionist Congress. Democracy resting on oppression is not democratic. Zionism was a petty bourgeois movement, hence why it gravitated to all manner of minor aristocrats, rulers and just plain vanilla anti-semites.

I don't consider the US democratic. Not at all. It is the rule of capital that prevails. But Israel is its watchdog in the Middle East and my attacks on it are for the same reason as South Africa. Racism and apartheid is inherent in the system.

'even Abbas is much less cruel than Jihadists.' really? 95% of those imprisoned by his Internal Security Forces are tortured. don't fool yourself (according to Palestinian human rights groups).

I'm well aware that King Hussein butchered thousands in September 1970. But who supported him in that? You may not remember but I do that Israel threatened Syria if it were to move its forces into Jordan as it had said it would do. Israel was always the best of friends with Hussein and his grandfather Abdullah.

My understanding is that Kav-Laoved has moved from being a third sector group to also becoming a workers organisation and that it has just chalked up its first victory.

Histadrut is of course bigger but as a socialist I welcome the formation of genuine workers organisations, as opposed to bureaucratic monoliths which is what the Histadrut is.

I'm surprised that you don't too.

ארז said...

"Histadrut is of course bigger but as a socialist I welcome the formation of genuine workers organisations, as opposed to bureaucratic monoliths which is what the Histadrut is."

Meaning, You rather workers would have no rights. Yeah, it's not what You wrote, but if You bother to read Weber, You'd know that that is what it means.

"It is believed that Peretz is trying to convince Cabel, Majadele and Ben-Simon to leave Labor."

in order to oppose Barak, which You somehow failed to mention.
that makes You 3 times wrong in a row.

There's no connection between Jewish labour policy, and Plan Dalet. Until the Arab Revolt in 1936, Kibush Ha'avoda had very little influence over Arabs, but a strong one over Jews. You forget that the Jewish majority hired much more Arabs the all of Second Alyia ever numbered (and most of them left Palestine, unlike Arab immigrants)

In fact, much more Arabs immigrated to Palestine than Jews and settled there, in spite of any Jewish Policy. it's a common mistake to think of Zionism in the early years as strong is it came to be after 1948.

the reason was, that the British invested more money per capita in the Arab education system and encouraged limited modernization of Palestine,but probably more than any other territory in the middle east.

The aspirations of Zionism before 1948 were almost the opposite of its very limited successes in buying land and settling people. Your focus on Zionist propaganda weakens your claims very much. Arab propaganda after the Holocaust is full of genocidal aspirations, much more than the worst Zionists ever imagined towards Arabs, but actual Arab politics was more moderate than what they said.
The mufti's actual connection to the Nazi's makes Jabotinsky's fondness towards Mussolini seem like a child's joke.

unlike your tautology, If Shelly Yechimovitz said this or that about no matter what, it doesn't mean much about #J14. Clearly You don't comprehend how Israeli public debate is done.
Fact is, Jew and Arabs came closer during the protests, and that may have future sociological effect, independent of the current MK's.

As of Kav-laoved - I think You just got it all wrong.

AS of Jihadists, Hamas did street executions of FAtah men, During cast-led, and during his coup at 2005, and of other Jihadist groups who opposed it.

I said Fayad is a better start than the rest,and You ignored. You cry for the suffering of the Palestinians, but You don't offer any kind of relevant leadership. Again, Weber, morality, intentions, etc.

If You ever spoke to Jews of occupied North Africa, you'd know, that not the Arabs are responsible to the small numbers of Jewish victims in those lands, but inner Nazi causes, and the British who drove them out of there, as the main one.

Your statistical (and not essential) claim about Muslim and Jews is basically relevant of everything before Jews began to strive for self-determination, much like Armenians, Curds and other minority groups that start to become political in the 20th century.

AS for Israel's democracy, Was Britain not democratic when it enslaved hundreds of millions ?
Is it democratic today when it serves global capitalism ?
try to answer something that's more than a pain in the ass.

In general, You are so dis-proportioned and twisted, that a soviet martial parade could walk through the holes in your claims, and there's still be much room.

ארז said...

Well, distorting the events of the holocaust is quite low, even for a fraud like You.

"it was a Muslim country, Albania, that was the only one in Europe. where Jews again were not deported to the death camps."

Albanians did save many Jews and they should be noted for that, but You said "death camps", so you ignore Denmark, who saved much more Jews, and none of its Jews were murdered. If You look in the map, I think you'd see Denmark in Europe.look north, near Sweden.

In fact, a good portion of Germany's allies in the war did not turn their own Jews to death camps, or made a lot of efforts to prevent it.Though not very moral, they are very much in Europe.

And above all, The Albanians claim it was because of their understanding of Islam. I say, that their view of Islam is (unfortunately ) quite marginal in most Islamic countries, but why bother with solid facts, when You can just jump to conclusions ?

Tony Greenstein said...

The article in Ha'aretz is quite clear. Peretz was trying to get the other Labour ministers to leave Labour after Barak had resigned.

'Four Labor MKs - Amir Peretz, Eitan Cabel, Raleb Majadele and Daniel Ben-Simon - met on Tuesday morning to consult with each other on their political futures.

It is believed that Peretz is trying to convince Cabel, Majadele and Ben-Simon to leave Labor. Peretz, however, is under heavy pressure to not take such a step.

Among others, Peretz has spoken with the three resigned Labor ministers - Braverman, Herzog and Ben-Eliezer - as well as mayors and businessmen.

Barak's resignation on Monday caught Peretz, Cabel, Majadele and Ben-Simon by surprise. For months they had tried to split off from Labor but failed to find a fifth MK required to do so.

They now face the dilemma of whether to stay in Labor or leave the party. Including the four, Labor currently has eight remaining MKs.'

So for all the normal Zionist vitriol, which is standard of course, what we have is an utterly unprincipled party that remains, with Peretz, the author of the Lebanese invasion as a major player.

The Conquest of Jewish Labour was the Boycott of Arab Labour. It was a major campaign of Histadrut, it imposed a separate levy. This bastard 'union' was borne as an apartheid organisation, actually the main engine of the Zionist movement in Palestine. As Golda Meir remarked, it wasn't a union so much as a general organisation.

Clearly there is a connection between Jewish Labour and Plan Dalet. First you expel from the economy and then from the land altogether. Even the most stupid Zionist should be able to see that.

I concentrate on Zionist propaganda because unlike the Palestinians it was capable of being transformed into practice.

Palestinian propaganda was not genocidal. I differentiate between it and the outpourings of Arab regimes, which were for the most part client regimes of the West.

Of course you love Fayad. He's the World Bank representative that the USA insists upon. Naturally you welcome the imposition of the institutions of world capitalism. After all, you are a Zionist.

It is a fiction, a lie, to say that more Arabs immigrated to Palestine than Jews. This is part of the thesis of the discredited plagiarist Joan Peters and her 'From Time Immemorial' which attempted to suggest that Palestine was empty and the Zionists were responsible for the Palestinians being there.

Similar racist myths were propagated by the Whites of South Africa.

As for Denmark and the Holocaust. What is indisputable is that throughout the war, the Zionist movement sought to utilise the final solution and the holocaust to build their state. This is a matter of fact.

Tom Segev writes (7th Million p. 81-2) that Ben Gurion saw the final solution as a 'natural disaster'. 'since members of the party had no control over what was happening in Europe, there was no point wasting words on the moral aspects of recent developments... The second war should end by giving them their own state. That, according to Ben Gurion, was the 'political compass' that would guide the Zionist movement during the war. The movement's position has left a legacy of doubts and paradoxes, ambivalence, and, above all, nagging question.' He descibes how the Jewish Agency's role was to save Jews in Palestine not elsewhere.

Or take Ben Gurion's biographer, Shabtai Teveth, who is more of a hagiographer. Even he writes that 'If there was a line in Ben Gurion's mind between the beneficial disaster and an all-destroying catastrophe, it must have been a very fine one.'

Tony Greenstein said...

Distorting the holocaust and its meaning has been standard fare for Zionist activists like yourself. Today you welcome people Michal Kaminski of the Polish Justice & Order Party who opposed a state apology for the massacre of Jews in Jedwabne or Robert Ziles, of Latvia's Freedom & Fatherland Party, who when he's not touring Yad Vashem (a must see for touring fascists) is parading with what's left of the Latvian SS veterans.

So it's no surprise that you become sarcastic. I'm well aware of the position of Denmark and Sweden on the map. Fact is that the Zionist movement in Sweden OPPOSED the immigration of Jewish refugees in the form of Herzl's old mate Rabbi Ehrenpreisz. You can read the sordid details of this quisling scumbag in Holocaust Victims Accuse by Rabbi Moshe Shonfield (pp. 108-116) where he describes what Ehrenpreisz did and reproduces an extract from the official parliamentary journal.

Fortunately the Swedish Zionists were taken by surprise when the rescue operation for Danish Jewry was mounted in October 1943. The reason I made a differentiation was that 477 Jews were netted in the round-up of Jews. They were sent to Thereinstadt. Normally that was a way-station to Auschwitz but because of the pressure exerted from Denmark, the only ones who died (about 50) were from natural causes.

But Zionism can take no pride in it. After all its message has always been that you can't trust non-Jews and Jews should rely on themselves - hence the importance of the Jewish state. But strictly speaking Jews were deported from Denmark, unlike Albania.

But the main point is that just as in many countries of Europe (and the same is incidentally true of Bulgaria if Thrace & Macedonia are excluded)it wasn't the nostrums of Zionism, which led to the saving of Jews, not least from the collaboration of Zionism and its functionaries (yes the Zionists were well represented on the Judenrat) but the opposition of non-Jews. And that was true above all in Arab and Muslim countries.

So congratulations. By your own account, which is of course not to be believed, you have managed to convince those who most supported the Jews to embrace the anti-Semites. Wonder why that is? Palestine and what you do there even though you seem to be oblivious?

You also write that

'In fact, a good portion of Germany's allies in the war did not turn their own Jews to death camps, or made a lot of efforts to prevent it.Though not very moral, they are very much in Europe.'

This is meaningless. Which allies? The Bulgarian regime were prepared to hand over Jews, it was the people (you know, those poor gullible people who gave support to the Bulgarian communists) who refused to allow it. Hungary? It depends what period you are talking about. Slovakia and Croatia? The first was also the first to deport its Jews. Croatia's record hardly bears scrutiny.

In fact it is Italy, no thanks to the Zionists' friend Mussolini though, who were most vigorous in opposing deportations (Italian troops ensured that French Jews had a haven in the South of France and also rescued Jews, even from the camps, in Greece).

But Zionism's major contribution was to breaking the boycott of nazi Germany with Ha'avara, whose sole purpose was to use German Jewish money to build their state.

I really don't think you should get onto this subject!

Anonymous said...

Tony'LE is known for "NOT HAVING EVIDENCE".
its not the first time and not the last.
Look how he just made a joke out of you.....
Oh excuse me it was written late at night I was tired.....
Oh Excuse me it was written before .......
lets have some more stories loser.

And you want to debate..... Ha

Tony Greenstein said...

The last comment was made by the notorious anti-Semite Gilad Atzmon Atzmon asserts that it is Jews behind the latest banking crisis 'Swindlers List' and attributes a mysterious 'Jewishness' to all manner of sin.

Nice to know he is in full support of Erez and the other Zionist bloggers. 'Birds of a feather' etc.

But no doubt since Atzmon tells us that there was no holocaust, since the Nazis were quite happy to have Jews living in Germany, he could also give us a few citations to back up his theories?

ארז said...

When You fail to understand a very simple political article, all your eclectic historical knowledge isn't worth much.

You said Amir Peretz supported Barak, which was the opposite.

Then You said he has no principles, which maybe true, but the articles fails to show that. It states quite clear - Peretz tried to split while Barak was in power - a disputable move, but consistent with opposing Barak. Then and remained in the party (and almost got elected for its leadership) after Barak had split.
actual decisions and supposed intentions written by reporters are not so difficult to tell which is which, even for You.

In general, I think that article shows that Barak has no principles, not Peretz.

Your inability to relate to anything without shitting about Zionism implies your more of an obsessed persaon than anything else. I didn't criticize You for being a so-called socialist, or for denying principally a Jewish state (which in the case You support other nation's states, is quite antisemitic), I just showed many flaws in what You write, Which You try to divert the focus from. My Zionism is well based and is irrelevant to the many mistakes You make - literal, factual, or ones made by ideological blindness.

You can just apologize, mend your mistakes, and try to claim what You think on stronger bases.

as of Denmark, You fail to mention that they took care of their Jewish prisoners, even when they were in Nazi hands, and this care is the prime reason of them not being sent to death camps. Now, You said 'death camps' about Albania, not me, and your false protections over your mistakes just make You look less and less credible, no matter how much do You think Zionism is the Blame for everything.

As for Palestine, I never said I support Fayad (or the world bank), just that he is a better alternative to the rest of the popular Palestinian leaders, since he doesn't lead a terror group, and is not supported by Iran. That has nothing to do with Zionism, or a myth of an empty country. I said You only support marginal ideas, with only a tiny support in both peoples, with no political leaders who has a strong chance of winning with those ideas. Your failure in displaying any realistic solutions to cardinal problems
makes You an Utopist, worst enemy of true socialists, according to Marks.

Could You invite Atzmon for a fist fight instead of wasting time writing nonsense ?

Tony Greenstein said...

Look dimwit. The article in Ha'aretz 18.1.11. is quite clear

Barak's Atzmaut faction receives four portfolios in coalition government

"The coalition agreement with the Labor Party will serve as a basis for the coalition agreement with Azmaut," Elkin said on Monday.

The new Atzmaut party has five MKs.

Four Labor MKs - Amir Peretz, Eitan Cabel, Raleb Majadele and Daniel Ben-Simon - met on Tuesday morning to consult with each other on their political futures.

It is believed that Peretz is trying to convince Cabel, Majadele and Ben-Simon to leave Labor. Peretz, however, is under heavy pressure to not take such a step."

So after Barak has resigned from Labour, after the 4 Atzmaut Ministers have been appointed to their position, Peretz THEN tries to persuade 3 other Labour MKs to leave the party, leaving it (if he had been successful) with just 4 MKs.

This mind you the party that with Mapam could win an overall majority, though even in the days of 49 they preferred an alliance with the National Religious Party.

But what is more important than the ins and outs of a living dead party, and the machinations of those to whom political principle is a foreign word, is the situation of those who are the most oppressed, the Palestinians. About them you have nothing to say.

And speaking of mistakes, your description of Jordan as part of the British Mandate when it wasn't (& it was called Transjordan anyway) is more illustrative of your inability to even understand the origins of the country you live in.

Instead you parrot crap like

"much more Arabs immigrated to Palestine than Jews and settled there, in spite of any Jewish Policy."

There isn't any evidence for this crap. Try reading the speech of Leo Motzkin to the 2nd Zionist congress where he admits the land is already occupied

No Fayed doesn't lead a 'terror group' i.e. any group which opposes the Israeli military with force. But then any armed opposition to the occupation is 'terror'. That's what the Nazis also called armed opposition or 'bandits' so u r no different.

Fayed just presides over a police state and tortures his own people rather than supporting armed resistance to Israel's occupation. That is acceptable to you. Just as is his role as the representative of international finance capital.

The rest of your post isn't worth bothering about.

Erez said...

So You admit that when it is written "it is believed..." it's kind of a fact in your eyes. which afterwords becomes somehow as if he actually did it and left the party.

well, "it is believed" You are a fool and a liar, and that You apologized for it in your Blog, while considering closing the damn thing for lack of truth, or Didn't You ?

Now, about the quirky way You pretend to care about the Palestinians: You don't seem to support any of their leadership, while charging them in worse crimes than any Israeli leader ever did, except for moral support in armed opposition to the occupation, i.e. 'terror', meaning terror.

What You call "armed resistance to the occupation" kills more Palestinians then Israelis, and even more than Israelis kill Palestinians, but also helps to entrench the occupation, as a bonus. High ethics indeed.

How would You term non-violent resistance - Quisling ? Judenrat ?
Anyone that doesn't kill Israelis is one who wears - "please occupy me" sign in your mind ?

While being anti-Israeli indeed, no reasonable person would consider You a pro-Palestinian with this attitude.

but hey, Maybe when a Zionist, think this way it doesn't count, but, in fact, after googling some, it seems that there are many Palestinians who believe You are distracting their campaigns and warn against working with You.

When it comes to ethics and writing standards, it seems You and Atsmon, Rizzo and such are playing in the same filth.

I take my words back about the fist fight. You fit each other so much, You should all marry each other and have kids together.

Good luck in that !

but please leave us Palestinians and Israelis alone, we deal with enough local hatred and incitement, so save us yours from abroad.

Tony Greenstein said...

Another Erez rant. Since your command of English is far from perfect, inane jokes are probably not your best suit.

Yup, you got it. I don't support what you term the Palestinian leadership. Abbas is widely seen as a crook and quisling. Netanyahu's puppet with a puppet regime. What possible reason could there be to support the armed extension of the Israeli state?

Well of course the use of torture and 'disappearances' by Abbas are not going to be criticised by Israel's leaders, since they indulge in much the same behaviour, but some of us operate according to different standards.

You term opposition to the occupation 'terror' but I believe that there is an inherent right of any occupied people to wage armed resistance against the occupier. Is that too difficult for you? What you call 'terror' others call a liberation struggle. Did not Zionist terror groups fight the British? Or do you disavow Hagannah and Palmach?

I don't term non-violent resistance to the Zionist occupation 'quisling'. The bravery of the people of Bi'ilin is a wonder to behold. But that doesn't stop the terror of the Israeli military, does it?

Yes of course some Palestinians disagree with what I will say. So? I support the resistance of the Palestinians. That does not mean I have to support the politics of one or any faction.

As for Atzmon. He came from Israel. He has the Zionist mentality, he just inverts the racism against other Jews. But his concepts are the same.

I shall leave the production and rearing of bastards to the Zionist family. After all, the mamzer has a special place in Israel today, much like the mischlingen did in Germany some years ago.

Anonymous said...

uhhh dimwit mmm what a so·phis·ti·cat·ed English vocabulary.....
Are you going to stop your friend Atzmon who uses your beloved country money "Lottery-funded Arts Council of England" .....
uhhh An antisemitic musician funded by the "Lottery-funded Arts Council of England".

What are you going to do about it.
tell another dimwit story....
Send your duplicated person.

As usual the anti Zionist Activist will do nothing, just write dimwit stories....

Serafiotti said...

Sir, I have read some of your work and it is hard for me to see any purpose for it, except perhaps that you are trying to get yourself killed last.

Remember, while being killed last might offer indeed the comfort that you could possibly die of something else in the meantime, you are still a Jew, Muslim Arabs still hate the guts of you and the mirage of the 'secular, peaceful, democratic Israel/Palestine in which Muslim Arabs are a majority' has never been more fantasy.

That being said, it is good for diversity that the 'Palestinians' are in the UNESCO; what do you call it, Italy has Pompeii and the Vatican, Russia has the Ermitage, Israel has the highest number of classical music conservatories concentrated on the smallest space and 'Palestine' has the Open Museum of Suicide Bombing & Eating Raw Kiskes of Israelis (you know, as illustrated here

Welcome to Unesco!