JERUSALEM — Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday urged Israeli leaders to relinquish the idea of a unified Jerusalem if they truly want peace, contending in a pair of interviews that years of government neglect have kept the Jewish and Arab sectors irreparably divided.
...
"No Israeli government since 1967 has done even a smidgen of what was needed in order to unify the city in practical terms. That is a tragedy that is going to lead us, for want of another choice, to making inevitable political concessions," Olmert told the Maariv daily.
...
Olmert said the notion of a united Holy City is unrealistic. He pointed to a number of Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, saying they have not been integrated into the rest of the city.

"We can't unite them and connect them to the real fabric of life in Jerusalem, and except for grief, we haven't gotten anything from them," he said.

Olmert went through a dramatic political transformation late in his career.

As mayor from 1993 to 2003, he was an outspoken hard-liner opposed to concessions to the Palestinians. Then, while prime minister from 2006 to 2009, he pursued a peace agreement envisioning broad territorial concessions to the Palestinians before a corruption case forced him to step down.

In those talks, Olmert offered to turn over parts of east Jerusalem to the Palestinians, and have Jerusalem's Old City, home to the most sensitive religious sites, be administered by an international consortium including Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, Jordanians and Saudis.
...
The Palestinians have refused to conduct peace talks with Netanyahu unless he halts settlement construction in east Jerusalem and the West Bank. About 200,000 Israelis live in east Jerusalem, approaching the Arab population of about 280,000. Netanyahu says talks should resume without any preconditions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/20/ehud-olmert-former-israel-pm-jerusalem-partitioned_n_1531020.html
(Although the link is to the Huffington Post, the article is by AP)

Thoughts? Although Olmert is no longer PM, does this indicate Israeli politicians are starting to understand their current policy toward Palestine is unsustainable? Will this have any impact on Hamas-Fatah forming a united government?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/world/middleeast/hamas-and-fatah-agree-in-cairo-to-begin-work-on-elections.html
Discuss.
Also, let's try and avoid the 'Genocide Olympics' and 'who killed who' debates that seem to plague any thread about Israel and Palestine.

He seems to be saying that Israel's colonial effort in Jerusalem has stalled due to lack of enthusiasm and that the Jewish state should consolidate what it has before moving further east.

I suppose in Israel this is probably regarded as a conciliatory approach, in much the same way that people in America regard Obama as a liberal.

I don't think divided cities work out too well. If they manage to successfully divide Jerusalem between two independent states, it would indeed be the logical and fairest solution.

He seems to be saying that Israel's colonial effort in Jerusalem has stalled due to lack of enthusiasm and that the Jewish state should consolidate what it has before moving further east.

I suppose in Israel this is probably regarded as a conciliatory approach, in much the same way that people in America regard Obama as a liberal.

It wouldn't surprise me if many Israelis regret having treated the vanquished people in the most humane manner in the history of mankind, since it forces them to deal with many problems others don't have to deal with. But it was still the right thing to do.

That argument might have flown back in the sixties and seventies when Israel was under an actual threat and harsh measures could be justified. However, it does not excuse their poor handling of the Palestine issue, from both a political and legal view, for the past twenty years.

That argument might have flown back in the sixties and seventies when Israel was under an actual threat and harsh measures could be justified. However, it does not excuse their poor handling of the Palestine issue, from both a political and legal view, for the past twenty years.

That's what I meant, that it wouldn't surprise me if some Israelis regret not being harsher on Palestinians during the 60's, like say driving them out of Jerusalem. I am not justifying anything, in fact I said it would be wrong if they had been any harsher, even if it would obviously have resulted in far less problems (for Israel) today.

A divided city worked so well for Berlin.

One problem I have with the idea is the fact that when Jerusalem was just a small city and it was mostly Jewish, the old city of Jerusalem was where the were, and that is part of eastern part of the city. We also know what happened when the Arabs had control of that part of the city under Jordanian rule, they basically desecrated hundreds of years old tombs and places of worship.

That's what I meant, that it wouldn't surprise me if some Israelis regret not being harsher on Palestinians during the 60's, like say driving them out of Jerusalem. I am not justifying anything, in fact I said it would be wrong if they had been any harsher, even if it would obviously have resulted in far less problems (for Israel) today.
Sorry, my mistake.
A divided city worked so well for Berlin.

One problem I have with the idea is the fact that when Jerusalem was just a small city and it was mostly Jewish, the old city of Jerusalem was where the were, and that is part of eastern part of the city. We also know what happened when the Arabs had control of that part of the city under Jordanian rule, they basically desecrated hundreds of years old tombs and places of worship.
So because the Jordanians did a bad job administrating East Jerusalem during a war, it would be a bad idea to place the administration of the Old City under an international body?:huh:
I must be missing something

A divided city worked so well for Berlin.
That is a trainwreck of an analogy.

Israeli politicians keep insisting on playing dumb, whatever else is new?

The one reasonable exit for that conflict is a single inclusive state. Everything else is but tactics to maintain the situation as it is now. They know that partition can't happen, but they'll keep pretending it will.

A divided city worked so well for Berlin.


How is a comparing a situation where the people didnt want to be separated but were forced to be to the opposite situation a reasonable comparison?

Israeli politicians keep insisting on playing dumb, whatever else is new?

The one reasonable exit for that conflict is a single inclusive state. Everything else is but tactics to maintain the situation as it is now. They know that partition can't happen, but they'll keep pretending it will.

A united Palestine/Israel is completely unfeasible, since it would require either the Palestinian organisations to destroy Israel (which is totally impossible) or Israel to annex West-Bank and Gaza and then accept the Palestinian Arab populations as Israeli citizens (which is just as unlikely too).

A divided city worked so well for Berlin.

One problem I have with the idea is the fact that when Jerusalem was just a small city and it was mostly Jewish, the old city of Jerusalem was where the were, and that is part of eastern part of the city. We also know what happened when the Arabs had control of that part of the city under Jordanian rule, they basically desecrated hundreds of years old tombs and places of worship.

I would imagine people would be free to travel between east and west Jerusalem without being tangled in barbed wire.

Israel to annex West-Bank and Gaza and then accept the Palestinian Arab populations as Israeli citizens (which is just as unlikely too).

Not unlikely at all, and I'm betting that it will eventually happen. The only reason it hasn't happened already is that most present political leaders on either side owe their influence to the continued state of war. But sooner or later there will be a break on that succession of warmonger leaders, and the now impossible will happen.

What Israel needs (because the initiative lies there) is a good trashing, either economic, social, or military. Then they'll change leaders. And years later people will be looking back at the folly of half a century of wars and wondering why didn't they sort things out sooner.

I'll try to explain my reasoning, it comes from my pet theory on the breakup of modern empires: all empires that cut lose their peripheral regions (not talking about ceding them to an enemy after a defeat) did it when the ruling elites in the capital realized that holding on to them imperiled their control over the whole thing. They often choose to rule over a smaller empire than risk their own continued existence as the ruling caste. Sometimes they do try to hold on to the whole, and lose it all. The end of the USSR was the latest example of both things happening...

Anyway, the israeli elites would have cut loose the occupied territories, imposing the borders of their own choice, if they could do it at all. But they can't. The two-state solution was always a lie, neither state would have the territory to be viable, or at least their prospective rulers never believed so.It was always a game about gaining (or delaying the loss of) some positions for the next round, the ultimate end of which must be a unified state without the current apartheid. The prize is political control over the state: the current palestinian politicians want to be the ones in the top position in that state, likewise with the israeli ones.

Realistically, the israely jewish population has nothing to fear, they are too irreplaceable, too valuable for even a hypothetical palestinian politicians' victory to lead to attacks against them. And realistically the israeli politicians have little to fear: their place as incumbents in the present state apparatus, and the sough equilibrium between the respective populations alone guarantee that they'll be the predominant faction. So why have they kept blocking the single state solution? Because of their incredibly messy internal politics: some of them - many of them - would be sidelined in this scenario.

..but Inno do you really think Muslims can co-exist peacefully with Jews? I mean do you see those toxic anti-semitic cartoons Palestinian children watch and the propaganda they are taught in schools about the large nosed, money loving, tentacle-grabbing-the-globe neighbours?

..but Inno do you really think Muslims can co-exist peacefully with Jews? I mean do you see those toxic anti-semitic cartoons Palestinian children watch and the propaganda they are taught in schools about the large nosed, money loving, tentacle-grabbing-the-globe neighbours?

Yes, I do. I doubt they came up with something worst that what Goebbels cooked up, and nevertheless Germany was pronounced "denazified" pretty quickly. Propaganda, especially of the extreme kind, has a very limited life unless its targets are kept absolutely in the dark from other sources of information. String states cannot effectively censor modern communications, much less can the weak and fragmented palestinian authorities. If palestinians are kept in the dark (and I don't know about the situation) it will be solely due to the physical destruction or impediment of communication channels, and that's something Israel can either make or break as it pleases...
So, I don't know the specifics now, after all the walls went up, but I know that a few years ago jews and muslims mingled, communicated and many worked in the "other sectors", even if there was little love lost due to the apartheid. They lived and still live in the same country, despite the walls and the wars. They know each other. That reality, that direct knowledge of past wrongs, is a bigger obstacle than any manufactured propaganda. The palestinians will want compensation for a lot of damage suffered by them, for the theft of the better lands by settlers, the water issues, the decades of prohibition against economic initiative by them; and the israeli groups that benefited from all that (especially, but not only, the settlers) will want to keep everything they accumulated during those decades.
But people get tired of wars. If given an opportunity to change things for the better, the vast majority of the palestinians at least would take it. And the reason I blame the successive israeli governments is that I don't believe they ever wanted to take the initiative, which can be theirs alone, to offer that opportunity to the palestinians. First because they were drunk with success and though that the palestinian problem would magically go away, more recently because the internal workings of the incredibly fragmented israeli politics discourage any compromises, the influence of the interests that benefited with the occupation policies and fear losing their gains were it reversed have grown too strong. The "roadmaps to peace" were not followed, the settlements were kept but for the ones too expensive to keep defending in Gaza, any and all other issues of economic reparations were blocked.

The only solution to get past the present block is by cutting the knot of israeli politics blocking a deal offering citizenship and some economic reparations to the palestinians. It'll only happen when the status quo turns unsustainable, until then those interests that would lose from such a deal retain enough influence to block any progress. South Africa really is the best parallel. Israel could be pressured economically and the gains/losses calculation of its elites changed, were the US to pull the rug from under them. But the famous israeli lobby there keeps blocking such a step. And no lobby from palestinians there.
In South Africa's case there was the "african-american lobby" against the SA government, and the "anti-communist lobby" for it, and the end of the Cold War was the writing on the wall for the SA regime. They saw it and quickly changed things. What can change the israeli situation? I don't see anything yet. But I'm sure that if some geopolitical changes does indeed cause it to happen it won't be any unwillingness of jews and muslims to mix that will then block change! That's just an excuse for the present situation. Israel's situation of internal war is nothing unique, and nothing unsolvable. Just frozen for the time being.

..but Inno do you really think Muslims can co-exist peacefully with Jews? I mean do you see those toxic anti-semitic cartoons Palestinian children watch and the propaganda they are taught in schools about the large nosed, money loving, tentacle-grabbing-the-globe neighbours?

Be sure to check out the Israeli "hotline" staffed by racial police professional psychologists for the prevention of mixed Jewish-Arab couples.

NAZARETH // A local authority in Israel has announced that it is establishing a special team of youth counsellors and psychologists whose job it will be to identify young Jewish women who are dating Arab men and "rescue" them. The move by the municipality of Petah Tikva, a city close to Tel Aviv, is the latest in a series of separate - and little discussed - initiatives from official bodies, rabbis, private organisations and groups of Israeli residents to try to prevent interracial dating and marriage.

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/israeli-drive-to-prevent-jewish-girls-dating-arabs

Thoughts? Although Olmert is no longer PM, does this indicate Israeli politicians are starting to understand their current policy toward Palestine is unsustainable?
No. It indicates that some Israelis, who aren't necessarily politicians, think the current policy towards the Palestinians might be unsustainable.

Whether it's actually unsustainable is entirely a matter of opinion. However, the fact that Israel has kept it going for so long suggests that currently policy could be entirely sustainable.

No. It indicates that some Israelis, who aren't necessarily politicians, think the current policy towards the Palestinians might be unsustainable.

Whether it's actually unsustainable is entirely a matter of opinion. However, the fact that Israel has kept it going for so long suggests that currently policy could be entirely sustainable.
Yes, because Israel is such a happy place currently. Mission accomplished.

But I agree with you that most Israeli politicians only start to come to their senses when they have ceased to be politicians.

..but Inno do you really think Muslims can co-exist peacefully with Jews?

I don't see why not. They did so for twelve centuries.

Dividing Jerusalem again would be akin to re-building the Berlin Wall. In other words, ridiculous, especially considering the Arab population of Jerusalem doesn't want that either.

Dividing Jerusalem again would be akin to re-building the Berlin Wall. In other words, ridiculous, especially considering the Arab population of Jerusalem doesn't want that either.
Yawn, that analogy still isn't better than the first time it was used in this thread. Besides, Israel's already building walls everywhere, so there's that.

Yawn, that analogy still isn't better than the first time it was used in this thread. Besides, Israel's already building walls everywhere, so there's that.

Yawn as much as you want, the fact is that the Arab population of Jerusalem prefers their current status of Israeli inhabitants to a citizenship of the hypothetical Palestinian state and divided Jerusalem.

Not surprising, given that their livelihoods mostly depend on access to Israeli customers. Divided Jerusalem was a bad joke before 1967 and repeating it now wouldn't make it any more funny - just more disastrous.

The West Bank barrier put an end to almost daily bombings by Palestinian terrorists, so there's that. If the Palestinians learn to live in peace with Israel, then perhaps Israel will respect their "rights" more.

I don't see why not. They did so for twelve centuries.

Only when they were the ones calling the shots and the others were kept as second class citizens.

So a wall in Palestine is good even though it disrupts the local economy and the livelihoods of Palestinians depend on access to Israeli markets and ports.
But a wall in Jerusalem is bad because it disrupts the local economy and the livelihoods of residents of East Jerusalem dependson access to Israeli markets?

So a wall in Palestine is good even though it disrupts the local economy and the livelihoods of Palestinians depend on access to Israeli markets and ports.
But a wall in Jerusalem is bad because it disrupts the local economy and the livelihoods of residents of East Jerusalem dependson access to Israeli markets?

A wall in general is an extreme solution. The question here is whether it is necessary or desirable to apply this solution in Jerusalem. The answer to that question is no, because it would serve no practical purpose. Jerusalem already is separated from the bulk of Palestinian inhabitation further inland, so additional division would not only make life more difficult for everyone, it would totally ruin Jerusalem's Arab community which depends on Israel even more than the rest of Palestinian territories. And for what - so that Fatah leaders can play kings in a walled-off part of the city? Please.

It's funny how people who denounce the barrier with their every breath are suddenly so enamoured with the idea of building one in Jerusalem. Be consistent people - either you do believe a peaceful solution without the barrier is possible, or you don't.

I believe most people here supported a divided Jerusalem, where did anyone but the Berlin analogy users bring up a wall?

People who oppose the Separation Wall generally don't oppose it because it's a wall. :rolleyes:

People who oppose the Separation Wall generally don't oppose it because it's a wall. :rolleyes:

Right, it's a security barrier.

Which differs from a wall how exactly? A big lump of concrete/stone designed to impede movement is pretty much the definition of a wall.

The West Bank barrier put an end to almost daily bombings by Palestinian terrorists
Sure, and the Berlin Wall put an end to Western imperialism.

But I agree with you that most Israeli politicians only start to come to their senses when they have ceased to be politicians.
Straw man. Knock it off.

Being IN office is what brings people to their senses. They gain access to top-secret materials and high-tech surveillance, and they see the world the way it really is. The number one reason they quit being politicians is because they get tired of dealing with reality.

Next time you wonder why a politician is doing something that looks completely incomprehensible? Remember that they can see the whole world as it is, via secret agents and spy satellites, and they can see a bunch of things you can't. You cannot accurately assess their performance from your non-security-clearance viewpoint.

Only when they were the ones calling the shots and the others were kept as second class citizens.
Another reason why hegemonic solutions are best solutions.

I don't think that this could work. If Israel did (and that is a very slight did) split Jerusalem in two, then I expect one of two things to happen: either Israel would invade the non-Israel owned part, or Palestine (if Palestine does become independent and move their capital to Jerusalem), invades the Israel owned part. I expect that Israel does not split Jerusalem into two because they know that would possibly cause riots all across Israel. Plus, Jerusalem is a holy city for Jews -as well as Christians and Muslims- and would want full control over it.

The strongest sense of those who are in office is generally the sense of how they should act if they want to stay in office.

Seeing as how their ability to stay in office is no more reliable than a coin flip, it's obvious that's not the case.

Straw man. Knock it off.

Being IN office is what brings people to their senses. They gain access to top-secret materials and high-tech surveillance, and they see the world the way it really is. The number one reason they quit being politicians is because they get tired of dealing with reality.

Next time you wonder why a politician is doing something that looks completely incomprehensible? Remember that they can see the whole world as it is, via secret agents and spy satellites, and they can see a bunch of things you can't. You cannot accurately assess their performance from your non-security-clearance viewpoint.
Do you have to preface every one of your posts with "straw man", "ad hominem" or "debate fail"? It's getting annoying.

And yes, we should totally trust our mighty leaders in everything they do because they are so much wiser and knowledgeable than us :rolleyes:

You know what being in office also brings? The desire to stay in office. So next time you wonder why a politician is doing something that looks completely incomprehensible, remember they see the world only in form of political opinion polls.

Do you have to preface every one of your posts with "straw man", "ad hominem" or "debate fail"? It's getting annoying.
If you keep attacking the person instead of the idea, then yes--I'm going to keep starting off with accusations of "straw man" and "ad hominem". By the way? You did it again with the above line. "BasketCase, do you have to keep doing that???" Enough about me, already.

And yes, we should totally trust our mighty leaders in everything they do because they are so much wiser and knowledgeable than us :rolleyes:
No, we shouldn't trust them, but we must remember that since they have access to the CIA and spy satellites, and we don't, that they actually do have a lot more information about the real world than we do.

You know what being in office also brings? The desire to stay in office.
Disagree. I see people quit politics all the time. Even when they're ahead in the polls.

Being IN office is what brings people to their senses. They gain access to top-secret materials and high-tech surveillance, and they see the world the way it really is. The number one reason they quit being politicians is because they get tired of dealing with reality.

Next time you wonder why a politician is doing something that looks completely incomprehensible? Remember that they can see the whole world as it is, via secret agents and spy satellites, and they can see a bunch of things you can't. You cannot accurately assess their performance from your non-security-clearance viewpoint.

This is just laughable. What a politician says and does is influced by a whole range of things, but the most important consideration is what it is poitically acceptable to say and do. Many ex-politicians, when freed from the confines of needing to win an election have spoken about their ability to speak more freely on certain issues.

We see this with many things, for example many ex-leaders call for the legalisation of drugs, but almost no current politicians will say the same. Why? Because of the CIA or secrets agents? I think not.

The only solution is a two state solution, a predominantly Jewish state and a palestinian state, I think while meddling external groups like Iran are involved this will not be possible.

The status of Jerusalem will be the most difficult thing to overcome, my preference is it should be in Israels control as during their control muslim and christians have been able to worship at their sites, while during Jordan's control Jews couldnt go to the wailing wall.

Sure, and the Berlin Wall put an end to Western imperialism.

The difference between the Berlin Wall and Israeil's security barrier (part fence / part wall), is the Berlin Wall was built to keep the population in and stop them mingling with those dangerous western ideas, the security barrier was built to keep out those who wanted to kill Israelis and it has acheived some sucess in this.

Not unlikely at all, and I'm betting that it will eventually happen. The only reason it hasn't happened already is that most present political leaders on either side owe their influence to the continued state of war. But sooner or later there will be a break on that succession of warmonger leaders, and the now impossible will happen.


There is so much wrong with what you say it is difficult to know where to start



What Israel needs (because the initiative lies there) is a good trashing, either economic, social, or military. Then they'll change leaders. And years later people will be looking back at the folly of half a century of wars and wondering why didn't they sort things out sooner.


Hmm, so what you really saying is you want the defeat of Israel, be honest come out and say it.


I'll try to explain my reasoning, it comes from my pet theory on the breakup of modern empires: all empires that cut lose their peripheral regions (not talking about ceding them to an enemy after a defeat) did it when the ruling elites in the capital realized that holding on to them imperiled their control over the whole thing. They often choose to rule over a smaller empire than risk their own continued existence as the ruling caste. Sometimes they do try to hold on to the whole, and lose it all. The end of the USSR was the latest example of both things happening...


Complete irrelevence, we are not talking about empires here



Anyway, the israeli elites would have cut loose the occupied territories, imposing the borders of their own choice, if they could do it at all. But they can't. The two-state solution was always a lie, neither state would have the territory to be viable, or at least their prospective rulers never believed so.It was always a game about gaining (or delaying the loss of) some positions for the next round, the ultimate end of which must be a unified state without the current apartheid. The prize is political control over the state: the current palestinian politicians want to be the ones in the top position in that state, likewise with the israeli ones.


There is no real problem with the two state having viable territory, there are smaller states in the world.

p.s. politically loaded terms like arpatheid are not helpful in this situation




Realistically, the israely jewish population has nothing to fear, they are too irreplaceable, too valuable for even a hypothetical palestinian politicians' victory to lead to attacks against them. And realistically the israeli politicians have little to fear: their place as incumbents in the present state apparatus, and the sough equilibrium between the respective populations alone guarantee that they'll be the predominant faction. So why have they kept blocking the single state solution? Because of their incredibly messy internal politics: some of them - many of them - would be sidelined in this scenario.

hmm, I dont thing the Israelis will want to experiment given the rhetoric from the other side with you hypothetical nothing to fear, from what you have said I would recommend you steer well clear of a career in mediation.

There is no real problem with the two state having viable territory, there are smaller states in the world.
The West Bank is not Luxembourg, though. The question is whether the Palestinian territory would actually be able to sustain the Palestines.

The West Bank is not Luxembourg, though. The question is whether the Palestinian territory would actually be able to sustain the Palestines.

The answer is no -- Not without very good relations with Israel and extensive, EU-like cooperation between the two states. The matter of water use itself is a critical one. Elsewhere, if the Palestinians are to have any chance at building something that's not just another Middle Eastern kleptocracy, they need to be able to sell their products, services, and labour to the far richer Israelis. That of course requires 100% terrorist free environment, because the Israelis are hardly going to let in people who want to blow up school buses.

Generally speaking, the holy land is waaaay to crowded.

The answer is no -- Not without very good relations with Israel and extensive, EU-like cooperation between the two states. The matter of water use itself is a critical one. Elsewhere, if the Palestinians are to have any chance at building something that's not just another Middle Eastern kleptocracy, they need to be able to sell their products, services, and labour to the far richer Israelis. That of course requires 100% terrorist free environment, because the Israelis are hardly going to let in people who want to blow up school buses.

Generally speaking, the holy land is waaaay to crowded.
Wow, I agree with you on something in this issue ;)

There is so much wrong with what you say it is difficult to know where to start

Hmm, so what you really saying is you want the defeat of Israel, be honest come out and say it.

If you are so functionally illiterate that you have trouble understanding what I wrote, I suggest that you invest some more time in your education, instead of trying to bait me.

Complete irrelevence, we are not talking about empires here

We're talking about a territory that is imperially governed, with a population that has no political representation with the government of the state which governs the territory. Government of a portion of the territory through force, as opposed to the regular political process applied in the rest of the territory of the state of Israel. You can't get more imperial than that. But if you want to be pedantic and believe, for whatever reason, that imperial government requires an individual as emperor, we can call it colonial government. It fits the textbook definition of it as as practiced by imperialistic powers in the 19th/20th centuries.


There is no real problem with the two state having viable territory, there are smaller states in the world.

p.s. politically loaded terms like arpatheid are not helpful in this situation

Because this is not a political issue at all, no sir...

hmm, I dont thing the Israelis will want to experiment given the rhetoric from the other side with you hypothetical nothing to fear, from what you have said I would recommend you steer well clear of a career in mediation.

Oh, I know they, the people who have their hands in the machinery of the state, don't want do try anything different. It's been obvious, they want for things to remain exactly as they are. I wouldn't even bother trying to mediate in the present circumstances, it'd be a fool's errand. But the present situation is not stable, however much the people comfortably in power due to it want to believe otherwise. Its sustainability depends on frail international alliances.

If you are so functionally illiterate that you have trouble understanding what I wrote, I suggest that you invest some more time in your education, instead of trying to bait me.



who is baiting who here?

the rest of your post is plain wrong, what we have is a community in the ME attacked by their neighbours, who made and continue to make existential threats against them, which they have to take steps to combat, not connection with imperialism except in your mindset.

What neighbors making existential threats? The most anti-Israel Egyptian candidate (who has already lost) simply wanted to re-do the peace settlement. The rest look like they will continue the Mubarak platform. As long as Assad retains some control over Syria no threats are coming from there. Jordan was one of the first Arab states to make peace with Israel. The same holds true for the other countries in the area. The worst 'threat' I have seen against Israel made in the last decade by a head of state is the Iranian criticism of the 'Zionist Regime' and wishing to see it replaced. Unless you view Zionism as inseprable from the Israeli identity, the Iranian statement is on the same level as Maggie Thatcher or Ronald Reagan calling for a regime change in the Eastern Bloc.
The biggest threat to Israel is their current policy toward Palestinians which looks unsustainable and misguided.

I am not sure if the Israelis can afford to play as loose and fast over the semantics of the meaning of the statements coming out Iran as you can,

What neighbors making existential threats?

All of them. Don't confuse the momentary lack of ability with the lack of will.

If hostile intent of ones neighbors is something presumed is there any state on earth not surrounded by existential threats?

If hostile intent of ones neighbors is something presumed is there any state on earth not surrounded by existential threats?

:rolleyes: Israel is surrounded by countries and peoples who have repeatedly attempted to wipe it out, the sole reason for that being that it's a Jewish state. Israel pretty much has to operate under the assumption that all its neighbours have hostile intentions, no matter what they say and how they act at the moment.

It will take a looooong period of genuine peace between that changes.

If hostile intent of ones neighbors is something presumed is there any state on earth not surrounded by existential threats?

Iceland.

On a more serious note, the Israelis have a bit more reason to presume that their neighbours are likely to be hostile given the chance - as much as appealing to history is usually redundant, it seems equally foolish to say 'this time is different'

:rolleyes: Israel is surrounded by countries and peoples who have repeatedly attempted to wipe it out, the sole reason for that being that it's a Jewish state. Israel pretty much has to operate under the assumption that all its neighbours have hostile intentions, no matter what they say and how they act at the moment.

It will take a looooong period of genuine peace between that changes.

How long does the peace have to last.

added

Flyingpig@ we did have a slight set too, with Iceland, that could have escalated to some extent.

Flyingpig@ we did have a slight set too, with Iceland, that could have escalated to some extent.

You talking about the Cod War? I doubt even then that we would have raised the Union Jack over Reykjavic - but if we're counting maritime borders, alright.

How long does the peace have to last.

If I knew, I would have said so. All I am saying is that Israel needs far more that a relatively short period of "cold peace" which countries like Egypt used to arm themselves to the teeth to start trusting its neighbours.

Which is kind of obvious, so if anyone doesn't get it, he's either an idiot or he's pretending not to understand.

Who has been arming Egypt.
I do not think it has been armed to attack Israel.

Flyingpig@ yes the Cod wars

Who has been arming Egypt.
I do not think it has been armed to attack Israel.

Nooooo, of course not. Egypt naturally needs all these thousands of MBTs, F-16s and other toys to defend against... Sudan... and... and Libya! Yeah, that must be it.

Nooooo, of course not. Egypt naturally needs all these thousands of MBTs, F-16s and other toys to defend against... Sudan... and... and Libya! Yeah, that must be it.

You got it.:goodjob:

The US saw Libya as a threat.

And yes giving the Egyptian military nice toys also helps to control them.

I don't care what Americans think. The Egyptians clearly want their army to "defend" against Israel. (Quotation marks because they'd prefer active defence in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, if they were confident they could win).

Only when the Arabs give up on their dream of Arab-controlled Palestine - the whole of it - can there be a lasting peace and only then can Israel afford to actually put some trust in its neighbours. Until then, peace will have to be backed by overwhelming force. Whether Israel can afford it in the future, that's a different question.

Many countries have dreams that differ from reality.

Israel needs to deal with the reality.

If Israel continues to fight dreams it will lose touch with reality.

I am not sure if the Israelis can afford to play as loose and fast over the semantics of the meaning of the statements coming out Iran as you can,
So using a more accurate translation of that the Iranians said is playing 'fast and loose' over the meaning?

Iceland.

On a more serious note, the Israelis have a bit more reason to presume that their neighbours are likely to be hostile given the chance - as much as appealing to history is usually redundant, it seems equally foolish to say 'this time is different'
How do the current problems facing Israel bear any resemblence to the problems thirty-odd years ago when they invaded Lebanon? The biggest threat from their neighbors Israel has to face is from popular opinion, and their domestic policies certiantly are not doing anything to improve foreign public opinion.

Many countries have dreams that differ from reality.

Israel needs to deal with the reality.

If Israel continues to fight dreams it will lose touch with reality.

What? :crazyeye: Israel keeps dealing with the reality in a realistic manner on daily basis. It's the idealists in the West who keep blathering about what it should do, usually without any clue about the situation really is like there.

---

Anyway, the idea of unilateral peace with the Palestinians, or more accurately a 'separation' is gaining ground in Israel. Many are sick of being subject to international meddling that never produces any results on the ground and so they want to create the reality themselves.

It probably won't work anyway (simply because that if you leave the West Bank to its own devices, it will soon collapse into chaos and Israel will be forced to intervene again), but I wanted to mention it here.

Israel keeps dealing with the reality in a realistic manner on daily basis.
Such as continuing to build settlements when even the US Secretary of State asked them to cease for the duration of the talks?

Such as continuing to build settlements when even the US Secretary of State asked them to cease for the duration of the talks?

Yes .

Please, do explain to me how doing things that all involved parties say will damage outcome (however small) of discussions is dealing with the situation in a 'realistic manner'.

I, for one, cannot see that.

I don't care what Americans think. The Egyptians clearly want their army to "defend" against Israel. (Quotation marks because they'd prefer active defence in the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, if they were confident they could win).

These would be the same Egyptians who have been at peace with Israel for many years and have even helped the Israel in their collective punishment of the people of Gaza.

So using a more accurate translation of that the Iranians said is playing 'fast and loose' over the meaning?


No, your translation is that of the apologists for the president and supreme leader of Iran, a country which through Hezbollah and Hamas have been carrying out a proxy war against Israel for some time.

What neighbors making existential threats? The most anti-Israel Egyptian candidate (who has already lost) simply wanted to re-do the peace settlement. The rest look like they will continue the Mubarak platform. As long as Assad retains some control over Syria no threats are coming from there. Jordan was one of the first Arab states to make peace with Israel. The same holds true for the other countries in the area. The worst 'threat' I have seen against Israel made in the last decade by a head of state is the Iranian criticism of the 'Zionist Regime' and wishing to see it replaced. Unless you view Zionism as inseprable from the Israeli identity, the Iranian statement is on the same level as Maggie Thatcher or Ronald Reagan calling for a regime change in the Eastern Bloc.
The biggest threat to Israel is their current policy toward Palestinians which looks unsustainable and misguided.

You have to be kidding me. The term Zionist Entity is the Arab term for Israel, since if they say Israel they are recognising that they are legitimate. In reality it should be considered an ethnic slur. Also see this. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=525387

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/21038007.jpg

No, your translation is that of the apologists for the president and supreme leader of Iran, a country which through Hezbollah and Hamas have been carrying out a proxy war against Israel for some time.
Not quite. From the Guardian:
Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/02/comment.usa
The author further discusses the exact reasons why the 'accepted' translation is inaccurate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155
And more information here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2012/03/israel-iran-rentoul
Regardless of whether you approve of Iranian policy toward Israel and their support of militant groups, it is quite clear that Ahmadinejad did not say what you seem to think he said.

You have to be kidding me. The term Zionist Entity is the Arab term for Israel, since if they say Israel they are recognising that they are legitimate. In reality it should be considered an ethnic slur. Also see this. http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=525387
The term 'Zionist Entity' only applies to Israel if its Zionist character is inseprable from its existence as a modern nation-state.
Furthermore, how can 'Zionist Entity' be an ethnic slur? There is a large number of Jews who are distinctly not Zionist and still support the existence of the state of Israel. While all Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists.

You have to be kidding me. The term Zionist Entity is the Arab term for Israel, since if they say Israel they are recognising that they are legitimate. In reality it should be considered an ethnic slur.
I don't follow; why does the fact that some neighbouring countries use an unpleasant name when referring to Israel suggest that they represent an "existential threat"?

The term 'Zionist Entity' only applies to Israel if its Zionist character is inseprable from its existence as a modern nation-state.
Well, arguably that is the case, at least insofar as Israel entertains a self-conception as an explicitly Zionist state, and is understood by others in similar terms. A definitive movement away from Zionism wouldn't mean the dissolution of the Israeli state, but it would in practice amount to an ideological revolution akin to, for example, the deconstruction of Unionist hegemony in Northern Ireland after the Good Friday Agreements.

Adjicia you cannot trust anything from "Comment is free" seriously.

Are they going to have a Tavern Jerusalem and a Chamber Jerusalem?

Adjicia you cannot trust anything from "Comment is free" seriously.

That is an extremely weak argument.

Adjicia you cannot trust anything from "Comment is free" seriously.
So, no comment as to the issues he raised as a problem with the 'common' translations? Or is your Farsi good enough to know he was mistaken when he clarified the statement?

What? :crazyeye: Israel keeps dealing with the reality in a realistic manner on daily basis. It's the idealists in the West who keep blathering about what it should do, usually without any clue about the situation really is like there.
Unlike those who have even advocated that Palestinians be forcibly relocated someplace else?


So, no comment as to the issues he raised as a problem with the 'common' translations? Or is your Farsi good enough to know he was mistaken when he clarified the statement?
One would think those who use Iran as an excuse to condone Israeli governmental acts against Palestinians and other Muslims would have learned by now to update that particular rhetoric given how discredited it has become.

Unlike those who have even advocated that Palestinians be forcibly relocated someplace else?

Well, granted, it is easier than a "peace agreement", especially when people can't agree on what "peace" is supposed to mean. It's a fine plan you're not bothered by arcane concepts like justice.

These would be the same Egyptians who have been at peace with Israel for many years and have even helped the Israel in their collective punishment of the people of Gaza.

So? Egypt and Israel are at peace, but it's a "Cold Peace" - there is no neighbourly love between the two states. At the same time, Egypt insists on maintaining a standing army many times larger that that of Israel, without facing any credible threats. Do the math. Especially now, Gods only know who will end up running Egypt and whether they'll chose to keep the peace with Israel or not.

Well, granted, it is easier than a "peace agreement", especially when people can't agree on what "peace" is supposed to mean. It's a fine plan you're not bothered by arcane concepts like justice.

Oh there would be a lot of justice involved in that. Just not that sort of justice you believe in. In any case, should justice stand in the way of peace? Not just in this case, but generally.

The term 'Zionist Entity' only applies to Israel if its Zionist character is inseprable from its existence as a modern nation-state.
Furthermore, how can 'Zionist Entity' be an ethnic slur? There is a large number of Jews who are distinctly not Zionist and still support the existence of the state of Israel. While all Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists.

Even Dr Martin Luther King Jr recognised the fact when people are talking about Zionism, they are really talking about the Jews. http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

This is a letter from someone who knew Dr King very well.
Once again, the words of King ran through my memory, “I solemnly pledge to do my utmost to uphold the fair name of the Jews-because bigotry in any form is an affront to us all.”

During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

The Guardian is not the great newspaper it was and sometimes allows articles by peddlers of anti-semitism, so I wont be looking at the Guardian links if you don't mind.

So? Egypt and Israel are at peace, but it's a "Cold Peace" - there is no neighbourly love between the two states. At the same time, Egypt insists on maintaining a standing army many times larger that that of Israel, without facing any credible threats. Do the math. Especially now, Gods only know who will end up running Egypt and whether they'll chose to keep the peace with Israel or not.

What does Egypt gain from war with Israel? They probably can't even reach Eilat before getting nuked.

Even Dr Martin Luther King Jr recognised the fact when people are talking about Zionism, they are really talking about the Jews. http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html

This is a letter from someone who knew Dr King very well.
An appeal to authority is bad enough, but you could at least have picked someone who is actually an authority on the matter.

Even Dr Martin Luther King Jr recognised the fact when people are talking about Zionism, they are really talking about the Jews. http://www.jewish-history.com/mlk_zionism.html
No, I am smart enough to know the difference between Zionism and Judaism. Any forced connection between the two is on your end and not my fault. It is perfectly possibly to criticize Zionism witout criticizing Judaism at all (Israeli journalist Amira Hass comes to mind). In fact, the vast majority of Jews are not Zionists!
(Indeed, there is a distinct group in Judaism which is against Zionism and the state of Israel because they feel that those things directly go against God's commandments, that only God can recreate Israel when the Messiah comes.)

The Guardian is not the great newspaper it was and sometimes allows articles by peddlers of anti-semitism, so I wont be looking at the Guardian links if you don't mind.
Come off it. We get no where when you refuse to even look at the sources I post directly refuting your assertion because they might have a trace on anti-semetism. If I was linking to articles on Stormfront or the Aryan Daily, you might have a point, but I'm not.
Anyhow, here was a clarifying comment by the Iranian Foreign Minister:
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."
At the very least read the Wikipedia article on the translation (first entry), or is wikipedia too anti-semetic for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_ma p.22_controversy

I understood perfectly that he was not talking about the land, but the people in it.

Having read the wiki article I would say on balance it does not support your position

And that is pretty much contrary to the Iranian position toward Israel/Palestine.
From the wiki article:

Asked if [Ahmadinejdad] objected to the government of Israel or Jewish people, he said that "creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish". He added that Jews lived in Iran and were represented in the country's parliament.[27]

In a September 2008 interview Ahmadinejad was asked: "If the Palestinian leaders agree to a two-state solution, could Iran live with an Israeli state?" He replied:


If they [the Palestinians] want to keep the Zionists, they can stay ... Whatever the people decide, we will respect it. I mean, it's very much in correspondence with our proposal to allow Palestinian people to decide through free referendums.[29]
It is perfectly possible to dislike a government without being opposed to the people in it.

Having read the wiki article I would say on balance it does not support your position
How so?

Since we are democratic societies, the people would be the government. There is still the big issue though, that if people do not like the "government", they can move, suffer, or wait until it is their turn to be the oppressor.

An appeal to authority is bad enough, but you could at least have picked someone who is actually an authority on the matter.

He knew bigotry when he saw bigotry, so he is suitable a source on this topic.

He knew bigotry when he saw bigotry, so he is suitable a source on this topic.
I have the distinct suspicion that if MLK were alive today, you would denounce him as a pro-Hamas, anti-Israeli apologist.

Since we are democratic societies, the people would be the government. There is still the big issue though, that if people do not like the "government", they can move, suffer, or wait until it is their turn to be the oppressor.

That is an extremely naive view of government, which ignores institutional inertia, the influence of special interest groups, and the general selfish concerns of individuals who happen to be public officials.

That is an extremely naive view of government, which ignores institutional inertia, the influence of special interest groups, and the general selfish concerns of individuals who happen to be public officials.

So you are saying that special interest groups and selfish concerns are not means to oppression? Shouldn't you have said "the interest of all groups, and the benevolent concerns"?

I said people can move, suffer (under oppression of other's interest), or wait to get their own turn at oppressing others.

If we were not democratic, we would never get a turn to oppress others.

I am sorry, but there is never going to be a perfect government.

Unless you can get one that is detached from social issues where every one feels equal. But every one has an opinion, and they usually clash.

He knew bigotry when he saw bigotry, so he is suitable a source on this topic.
That isn't even an argument.

It suits my opinion, so he's a suitable source on this topic, unlike others who disagree with my opinion.

How so?

I see you only put up the part of the wiki article that supports your case, not the weight of evidence

I have the distinct suspicion that if MLK were alive today, you would denounce him as a pro-Hamas, anti-Israeli apologist.

Why do you think MLK would agree with the Hamas charter?

I see you only put up the part of the wiki article that supports your case, not the weight of evidence
And that evidence is?
Besides, even if Ahmadinejad did say what you believe him to say, with all the implications behind it, what then? When viewed in conjunction with all of the other statements and actions of the Iranian government it becomes clear it was some silly rhetoric with Unfortunate Implications. Using rhetoric with Unfortunate Implications is hardly solely and Iranian issue. Not to play Genocide Olympics, but it is very easy to find statements similar to that from Israeli government and leaders. Just recently the leader of the Shas party in Israel (4th largest in parliament) said about asylum seekers:
"Most of those people arriving here are Muslims who think the country doesn't belong to us, the white man."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18322416
I really don't feel like playing Genocide Olympics and track down quotes from Israeli politicians saying similarly distasteful things.
Why do you think MLK would agree with the Hamas charter?
I didn't say he would. I said CH would consider him pro-Hamas because MLK would likely be rather critical of Israeli policy toward Palestine.
Regardless, it was a throwaway response to a throwaway post.

He knew bigotry when he saw bigotry, so he is suitable a source on this topic.
So if I tracked down pro-palestinian quotes by Gerry Adams or John Hume, or something like that, that would be enough to demonstrate that Israelis are bigots, because they knew bigotry when they saw it, or is that a property unique to MLK?

This sounds like a fun game.

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French." - M.K. Gandhi

Interesting enough I found an article which states that there is no evidence that MLK ever said anything regarding Zionism. Mind you the article is a bit politicized but the parts where the alleged MLK quote is refuted and questioned still holds.
In formal logic, Argumentum Ad Verecundiam refers to arguing a point with an appeal to authority. This type is categorized as a logical fallacy. Citing one seemingly authoritative source is simply not conclusive evidence, even if the authority is seen as an expert on the given subject.

For the sake of clarity, there are three degradations of this maxim enumerated in this essay. First, it is especially fallacious as proof when the quoted authority demonstrates no special knowledge on the subject. Second, when the authority who is not an expert on the given subject is also quoted out of context, the argument is even weaker. Third, the lowest violation of this formal logic principle is when an advocate uses a false rendition, or a fabricated quote, by the same authority who can claim no expertise.

This is the best framework for understanding how various exponents of Israel have used Martin Luther King Jr. to promote their cause.

Dr. King’s expertise as a non-violent civil rights leader and visionary are unparalleled in U.S. history. However, that does not make him an informed commentator on Middle Eastern affairs or on the ideological facets of Zionism. As impressive as the references to his views on Israel may seem, this is a textbook example of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.

Finding direct and published utterances by Dr. King about the modern Middle East and Zionism is extremely rare. A cursory review of dozens of books on and by the civil rights leader turned up nothing.

Nonetheless, defenders of Israel often refer to a letter by Dr. King. This letter is reprinted in full on many web pages and in print. One example of a quotation derived from this letter is:

“… You declare, my friend; that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely ‘anti-Zionist’ … And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God’s green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews… Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so.”

Antiracism writer Tim Wise checked the citation, which claimed that it originated from a “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend” in an August, 1967 edition of Saturday Review. In an article on January, 2003, essay he declared that he found no letters from Dr. King in any of the four August, 1967 editions. The authors of this essay verified Wise’s discovery. The letter was commonly cited to also have been published in a book by Dr. King entitled, “This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.” No such book was listed in the bibliography provided by the King Center in Atlanta, nor in the catalogs of several large public and university libraries.

Soon afterwards, CAMERA, a rabidly pro-Israeli organization, published a statement declaring that the letter was “apparently” a hoax. CAMERA explained how it gained so much currency. The “letter” came from a “reputable” book, Shared Dreams, by Rabbi Marc Shneier. Martin Luther King III authored the preface for the book, giving the impression of familial approval. Also, the Anti-Defamation League’s Michael Salberg used the same quotes in his July 31st, 2001 testimony before the U.S. House of Representative’s International Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.

The bogus letter was further quoted by writers in prominent publications one would imagine armed with fact-checkers capable of spending the short amount of time needed to verify the primary source. Mort Zuckerman, the editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report quoted the letter in a column (17 September 2001). Warren Kinsella followed suit in an article for Maclean’s (20 January 2003). Commentary, which is known more for its ideological zeal than any appreciation for factual scruples, ran a piece by Natan Sharansky. He quoted the false passage as a block–some ten months after CAMERA declared it a hoax.

More recently, the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) featured excerpts from the letter prominently on its website. Despite its name, SPME is an advocacy group seeking to bolster Israel’s image on campus–a mission it claims promotes peace in the region. Ironically, right under the false Dr. King quotation is an announcement of the formation of a task force “dealing with academic integrity with respect to fabricating and falsifying data when discussing the Middle East.”

After one of the authors of this article informed SPME’s director of the quotation’s discredited status, he replied with hostility despite the simple verifiability of the claim that the citation is incorrect. After several exchanges he replaced it with another seemingly far-fetched quote:

Martin Luther King addressed the issue in 1968, in a speech at Harvard when he said: “.. You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely ‘anti-Zionist.’ …When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews… And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe…When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews–make no mistake about it.”

When a citation for this new quote was requested, he refused to provide one, leaving visitors only with its claim that Dr. King delivered it in a 1968 Harvard “speech.” However, the language of SPME’s new posting strongly resembles their original one – on account of the fact that it too comes from the same discredited “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend.”

The first time the fake letter was quoted, it could have been a mistake, but to draw on different lines from the same fictitious letter is strikingly unscholarly – as is the false citation of it to a 1968 “speech” at Harvard. Either this citation was invented or taken from another unspecified source–classic plagiarism, whether intentional or out of gross negligence.

SPME’s reference to a 1968 “speech” at Harvard mirrors the details from a published account that appeared in two sources: First, it was in right-wing and ardently pro-Israeli sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset’s 1969 article in Encounter. Second, it was in a January, 2002 San Francisco Chronicle op-ed by Congressman John Lewis, who knew Dr. King personally.

Lipset wrote in his essay “The Socialism of Fools: The Left, the Jews & Israel” about a “dinner” for Dr. King he attended. When one black student made “some remark against the Zionists,” Dr. King “snapped” back, “‘When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism’.” The piece by Congressman Lewis also quotes this same remark though it is not clear if it is gathered from Lipset’s essay.

Congressman Lewis claims Dr. King made this comment “shortly before his death” during “an appearance at Harvard.” Lipset states it was “shortly before he was assassinated” at a “dinner given for him in Cambridge.” This quotation seems on its face much more credible. Yet, SPME presents snippets from the fake letter while apparently citing this statement (a 1968 “speech” at Harvard).

There are still, however, a few reasons for casting doubt on the authenticity of this statement. According to the Harvard Crimson, “The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago–April 23, 1967” (“While You Were Away” 4/8/68). If this is true, Dr. King could not have been in Cambridge in 1968. Lipset stated he was in the area for a “fund-raising mission,” which would seem to imply a high profile visit. Also, an intensive inventory of publications by Stanford University’s Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project accounts for numerous speeches in 1968. None of them are for talks in Cambridge or Boston.

While these points raise some doubt, let us assume that the quote is accurate.

This is where context comes in. One of the principal arguments of Lipset’s 1969 article is that the split between blacks and Jews “stems much more from the American situation than from the Middle East Conflict.” He identifies Jews as a dominating force within the civil rights movement. Black nationalist leadership wanted to distance themselves from Whites in the movement, Lipset argues. In Lipset’s own words, he summarized what Black nationalists were saying: “We don’t want whites, but we particularly don’t want Jews, and we are expressing antagonism to Jews in the form of opposition to Israel.”

Few of the articles that cite Lipset’s essay mention this crucial context. One individual who did explore this, albeit crudely, still managed to contrive another Dr. King quote unimaginatively. Dr. Andrew Bostom, a medical professor at Brown University, wrote an article for Front Page Magazine (20 January 2003) that was reprinted on former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s website. In it, he claimed that Dr. King had the “moral courage” to confront the anti-Jewish rhetoric of black left-wing and Muslim organizations. This is not to say that Dr. Bostom is a reliable source. Central to his article is a 347 word passage which he attributes to Dr. King. He fails to cite a source for the outlandish tirade. A quick google search determined it was lifted entirely from original material on the homepage of www.yahoodi.com (which has a copyright date of 2002), plus healthy portions of the fake “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend.” Dr. Bostom’s article featured the least creative and perhaps most fraudulent doctored script yet: a patchwork of plagiarism.

Taking the context described by Lipset and Dr. Bostom to be generally correct for the sake of argument would shed light on the credible Dr. King quotes. If the movement he figured so prominently in was facing such a rift, his response was only natural. To borrow Lipset’s analysis then, Dr. King’s statement also “stems much more from the American situation than from the Middle East Conflict.” Given his local political anxieties, Dr. King was hardly the kind of disinterested authority worth quoting on the subject.

As a note: the actual validity of Lipset and Dr. Bostom’s views of that context is beyond the scope of this essay. While it is true that black nationalists, such as SNCC’s leadership, became increasingly critical of Israel after 1967, it is not convincing that the motive was to alienate American Jews even if that was the foreseeable effect. An ardent internationalist for example would care more about linking oppressed people’s struggles across the globe than they would about the relatively mainstream political movement for equality in the American polity.

Back to the main point: if the forged quotes reflecting Dr. King’s views on Israel were accurate, citing him would still be classic Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. Where is the proof that Dr. King studied the region or its modern history? The dearth of then-publicized comments and writings on the region by Dr. King shows that it was probably not a subject he was well-versed on, nor did it appear to be a priority of his throughout his career.

Even the statements Congressman Lewis attributes to him are low in substance and high on flourishing rhetoric. For example, Dr. King stated that Israel is a “marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy.” Referring to it as “marvelous” and an “oasis” sounds rather uninformed given the realities of military occupation and the forced exile the Palestinians have witnessed since Israel’s foundation. They surely do not sound like the words of someone familiar with both sides of the story.

More significantly, as Tim Wise pointed out, Dr. King’s supposed statements on Zionism came before the more than three decades of crippling Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the 1987 intifada that grabbed the world’s attention. The Palestinian narrative was sparsely conveyed in the United States up to that point. There were few Arabs or Palestinians in the U.S. and fewer Arab academics, policymakers, and activists working with Dr. King. Wise also suggests that application of Dr. King’s principles logically give way to more sympathy to the Palestinian side given the systematic inequality it faces.

That advocates of Israel have relied on fabricated and out-of-context quotations from a leading moral figure of yesteryear only underscores the absurdity of the general point that all opposition to a Jewish state in a diverse land is anti-Semitic. There are obviously many legitimate ways to critique Zionism. One quite reasonable observation is that after more than a half-century of conflict, the Zionist project has failed to bring the Jews of Israel peace and security–its raison d’etre. One might counter that this is due to Arab intransigence; the Palestinians should accept their dispossession. However, Palestinian opposition to this fate is an indisputable fact, and security was and is Zionism’s key goal. This necessarily was an analytical failure on the part of the Zionists who assumed the Palestinians would blend in to other Arab countries while the later generations forget their past. To dismiss this argument–one that evaluates Zionism by its own goals–and every other critique of Zionism as anti-Semitism is not only dishonest but a cowardly evasion of meaningful debate.

This is not to say that all opponents of Israel are not anti-Semitic. Of course the Palestinian cause, like all movements, is exploited by those with other agendas, such as David Duke and Osama Bin Laden. Blanket statements in either direction are inaccurate.

The main reason why critique of Zionism persists is that whether Israeli officials like it or not, history as it is written and the actual land are still disputed by the millions of Palestinians who are refugees as a result of Israel’s birth, the 3.5 million Palestinians living under Israel’s direct military rule, and the Palestinians who compose twenty percent of Israel’s citizens in second class status. If Israel was founded and developed on uncontested terrain then arguments against its existence would more likely be out of hatred against the Jewish people. For supporters of Israel to wipe away all critics of the methods and outcomes of Israel’s foundation with the “anti-Semitic” label denies completely the legitimacy of the Palestinian narrative–the experiences and perspectives that never show up in Dr. King’s imagined “oasis.”

Dr. King, though long-passed, is still monumental in the continuing movement for civil rights in the United States. His legacy should be celebrated, and also critiqued constructively; it should not be falsified or stretched to accommodate a different agenda today. The context behind Dr. King’s authentic statements on Zionism was unique to a particular domestic political moment in order to sustain a fragile political coalition. Beyond that, Dr. King never claimed any expertise on the subject, nor made it a frequent topic of his speeches or writings. Claiming that all critiques of Zionism are anti-Semitic based on the force Martin Luther King Jr.’s words on the matter fails as an argument on many different levels.

Fadi Kiblawi is a law student at George Washington University. Will Youmans is a contributor to The Politics of Anti-Semitism (AK Press, 2003).

I have the distinct suspicion that if MLK were alive today, you would denounce him as a pro-Hamas, anti-Israeli apologist.

From that quote, it seemed he was very much pro-Israel.

@J pride, he said it at a dinner and that is backed up by many people. What people say about the letter is that is more than likely an hoax, but it resembles closely what his views on Israel were.

@tailless, the Jews have a far longer history in the region than the Arabs ever had and Palestine did not exist until last century.

@tailless, the Jews have a far longer history in the region than the Arabs ever had and Palestine did not exist until last century.
Dude, but Gandhi said it. Gandhi. The big G.

This great source must mean something.

I don't know what since you never explained, but when you said it, it sounded really relevant.

What does Egypt gain from war with Israel? They probably can't even reach Eilat before getting nuked.

An why would Israel use nukes?

This sounds like a fun game.

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French." - M.K. Gandhi

Backwards rhetoric. If he said "Palestinians" instead of "Arabs", he'd at least be consistent on the semantic level, besides being trivial. Then of course I'd reply that Israel belongs to the Israelis, and we'd be right where we started.

Dude, but Gandhi said it. Gandhi. The big G.

This great source must mean something.

I don't know what since you never explained, but when you said it, it sounded really relevant.

Here is something else Gandhi said

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed"

"Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions."

Which basically means that Gandhi wrt the Jews he was a naive idiot.

That is an extremely weak argument.

Not an argument just pointing out a fact.

So, no comment as to the issues he raised as a problem with the 'common' translations? Or is your Farsi good enough to know he was mistaken when he clarified the statement?

No idea, but as a general rule its worth avoiding anything in "Comment is Free" the rest of the paper is fine, but it's a hotbed for excluding unfavourable evidence when it comes to analysis. Just not to be trusted. You may as well source a few Daily Mail Blogs, which apart from peter hitchens are as bad:P

So if I tracked down pro-palestinian quotes by Gerry Adams or John Hume, or something like that, that would be enough to demonstrate that Israelis are bigots, because they knew bigotry when they saw it, or is that a property unique to MLK?

I would have thought Gerry Adams knows a lot about his own bigotry.

From that quote, it seemed he was very much pro-Israel.
And that has what to do with the price of tea in China? I am failing to see that whatever MLK thought about the relation of Zionism to Judaism has any bearing on a criticism on Zionism in modern Israel which manifests itself as a near-racist, militaristic, expansionist, and at time near aparthied ideology.

@J pride, he said it at a dinner and that is backed up by many people. What people say about the letter is that is more than likely an hoax, but it resembles closely what his views on Israel were.
It isn't 'more than likely is is a hoax', it is a hoax. When CAMERA says a pro-Israeli thing is wrong, you know it has to be seriously wrong.

@tailless, the Jews have a far longer history in the region than the Arabs ever had and Palestine did not exist until last century.
If Palestine didn't exist until the last century, then why is it refrenced in the Medieval German song Palestinaleid and a whole host of other contemporary sources dating back to the Romans? IIRC, after the Diaspora the term Judea became less common and Palestine became more common as it was the official name for the area.
But regardless, why should it even matter who lived there thousands of years ago? If Bob the Native were to walk up to your house and tell you to get out, he lived there a few hundred years ago, would you go? After all, the Aborigines have a far longer history in the region than Europeans ever had and Australia didn't exist until a few centuries ago. (Sue me, I can't remember when Austrialia transition from 'penal colony' to 'not penal colony'.)

Here is something else Gandhi said

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed"

"Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions."

Which basically means that Gandhi wrt the Jews he was a naive idiot.
Two things:
1. Source for the first one?
2. The second quote very much resembles Gandhis style of protest in India. I cannot remember the name of the salt mine where it happened, but Gandhi and his followers spent a day walking into the British troops guarding the gates and were beat with sticks. A reporter in the area communicated the barbarity of the British acts to the world which damaged the security of British rule in India. Gandhi was saying the Jews in Germany should have tried the same thing. Bring their grievances out into the open. Hold mass protests outside of foreign embassies, resisted the SS, but they should not have gone quietly.

No idea, but as a general rule its worth avoiding anything in "Comment is Free" the rest of the paper is fine, but it's a hotbed for excluding unfavourable evidence when it comes to analysis. Just not to be trusted. You may as well source a few Daily Mail Blogs, which apart from peter hitchens are as bad:P
I think we know each other well enough to know that I won't intentionaly link to distasteful articles.
However, how will I know if the article is distasteful if you won't tell me if it or isn't by reading it?:p

@tailless, the Jews have a far longer history in the region than the Arabs ever had and Palestine did not exist until last century.
Didn't take you for a blood-and-soil type. Learn something new every day.

Two things:
1. Source for the first one?
2. The second quote very much resembles Gandhis style of protest in India. I cannot remember the name of the salt mine where it happened, but Gandhi and his followers spent a day walking into the British troops guarding the gates and were beat with sticks. A reporter in the area communicated the barbarity of the British acts to the world which damaged the security of British rule in India. Gandhi was saying the Jews in Germany should have tried the same thing. Bring their grievances out into the open. Hold mass protests outside of foreign embassies, resisted the SS, but they should not have gone quietly.



1. Letter to Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, regarding the military situation between England and Germany (May 1940), quoted in Collected Works (1958), p. 70
2. I think this just shows Gandhi's complete naivete of what the Nazi's where like, and the difference between the Nazi regime and British rule.

2. I think this just shows Gandhi's complete naivete of what the Nazi's where like, and the difference between the Nazi regime and British rule.

Actually, I seem to recall Gandhi saying words to the effect of 'my methods could only work with the British, because it's possible to shame them into doing the right thing'. Does anyone know the actual quote?