I fail to see how comparing Zionism to Nazism is a criticism of a particular policy. Maybe you can explain that to me, but I highly doubt it. As for anti-Semitism, again, it's perfectly possible to be critical of particular Israeli policies and not be an anti-Semite. It's possible to be anti-Zionist and not be an anti-Semite. That said, it's inarguable that a great many actual anti-Semites travel in anti-Zionist circles, and I would think that it doesn't need to be explained how comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany and a general attitude that treats Israel not as a normal state with particular objectionable policies, but as some sort of uniquely evil entity on the world stage easily slips over the line into anti-Semitism, or at the very least normalizes anti-Semitic discourse and provides a respectable cover for anti-Semitic remarks so long as it is phrased in anti-Israel terms rather than presented as blatant traditional Jew hatred.
If you want a concrete example of how criticism of Israel can easily and unknowingly slip into blatant anti-Semitism, a few years ago a regular contributor on this forum (who I won't name) posted an article that claimed that Israel was murdering Palestinian children so that it could harvest their internal organs. That is essentially a blood libel claim, which is one of the oldest and most notorious anti-Semitic myths. And yet it got posted on this forum because someone was so blinded by anger at Israel that they were willing to uncritically accept the truth of whatever claims of Israeli brutality they came across. So you'll forgive me if I think that the anti-Zionist rhetoric on this forum sometimes crosses lines that shouldn't be crossed.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Thirty, sorry for that. There's a background to this whole part of the discussion that I guess not everyone is privy to. "Hasbara" is a Hebrew term which means roughly public relations or propaganda. The term is often used to refer to Israel's efforts to explain itself to the rest of the world. For a few years now people on this forum have claimed that Israel, as part of its hasbara effort, pays a cadre of young adults to spread propaganda online. I have repeatedly been accused on this forum of being one such paid propagandist by people who disagree with my positions. I took Gimme's reference to "hasbara" to be another such accusation.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Thirty, sorry for that. There's a background to this whole part of the discussion that I guess not everyone is privy to. "Hasbara" is a Hebrew term which means roughly public relations or propaganda. The term is often used to refer to Israel's efforts to explain itself to the rest of the world. For a few years now people on this forum have claimed that Israel, as part of its hasbara effort, pays a cadre of young adults to spread propaganda online. I have repeatedly been accused on this forum of being one such paid propagandist by people who disagree with my positions. I took Gimme's reference to "hasbara" to be another such accusation.
I see. Thanks for taking a moment to clear this up for me.
Since I mentioned the new IDF senior officer appointments earlier in the thread as an example of how much more complex Israel is than its depiction by many here would suggest, and since I think it's safe to assume that probably no one here has any idea what I'm talking about, I thought I'd post this (I've edited out a bit in the middle to fit the length requirements for posts).
New Crop of IDF Chiefs Is Flock of Hardline Doves By J.J. Goldberg
The Israeli military has sent what amounts to a barely disguised message to the political leadership and the troops in the latest round of senior command promotions, announced April 25.
With the Israeli-Palestinian peace process frozen, settler militancy on the rise and right-wing religious nationalists increasingly making their presence felt at the junior command level, the appointments make clear that the General Staff, led by chief of staff Benny Gantz, is doubling down on its basic strategic outlook: cooperation with the Palestinian leadership, enforcement of the soldiers’ code of ethics, deterrence on the northern front — and zero tolerance for Palestinian terrorism. Call them the hardline doves.
The three most charged appointments are the promotion of Brigadier General Herzl “Herzi” Halevi, the IDF’s so-called “philosopher-general,” until recently commander of the Galilee Division, to major general and chief of military intelligence; the appointment of the outgoing intelligence chief, Major General Aviv Kochavi, as chief of Northern Command; and the striking decision to retain the left-leaning chief of Central Command, Major General Nitzan Alon, in his current post overseeing the West Bank.
Alon’s retention at the head of Central Command, which covers the West Bank, sends a clear signal of the army’s impatience with growing settler radicalism and the spread of so-called price tag attacks. Alon is regarded by settler leaders as an undisguised liberal; it’s frequently noted that his wife Mor has been a supporter of the women’s human-rights group Machsom Watch, which is viewed on the right as subversive.
Alon spent much of his career in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit before taking a series of positions in intelligence and field command, mostly in the West Bank. Shortly before assuming his current position as chief of Central Command in December 2011, Alon infuriated settler leaders by calling price-tag actions “Jewish terrorism” in a New York Times interview. He also warned against cutting U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, then under congressional consideration because of the Palestinian application for United Nations recognition. He said cutting aid would destabilize Palestinian security forces, which he described as crucial to stability in the area. Under his command the army has clashed repeatedly with West Bank settlers, and he himself has been physically attacked by settlers and had protest demonstrations mounted outside his home.
...
Of all the latest appointments, though, the most talked-about is the promotion of Brigadier General “Herzi” Halevi to chief of Military Intelligence. A former commander of the paratroops brigade and of the Sayeret Matkal commando, he was described last November in a flattering New York Times profile — itself a rarity for an Israel Defense Forces general — as a likely future IDF chief of staff. Even so, the promotion of a brigadier to head military intelligence, leapfrogging over various qualified major generals, is unusual.
Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea reported this past Friday that after the New York Times interview appeared, Halevi called him and begged him not to publish an interview he’d conducted several days earlier, fearing it would look like he was campaigning for the top spot, sparking jealousy and resentment among his peers.
Halevi was raised in what he’s described as a “liberal religious” home in Jerusalem. After high school he enlisted as a member of a kibbutz-linked youth movement in Battalion 50 of the Nachal Brigade, the unit that carries on the Nachal tradition of combining military service and kibbutz agricultural work. He worked his way up through various command postings in the paratroops and Sayeret Matkal. As a junior paratroops officer in the West Bank in 2002, he shocked his peers by speaking out against plans to capture Yasser Arafat, who was then holed up in his headquarters in Ramallah. Then-chief of Central Command Moshe Kaplinsky is commonly credited with blocking the plan, warning the General Staff that it would cause the Middle East to “explode.”
In 2007 he was made commander of the paratroops brigade, which went on to participate in ground action in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09. Later that year he spoke out publicly to urge that field commanders be held responsible for educating their troops on the ethics of warfare.
More than almost any other IDF officer, Halevi is the subject of numerous stories and near-legends, most having to do with his philosophizing. Much of it revolves around his penchant for drawing on religious text to appeal to the religious right for moderation.
In September 2008, while debate was still raging over the Gaza disengagement and rabbinic calls for soldiers to disobey orders, Halevi gathered his paratroop officers for a New Year’s lecture and taught a pointed Talmud lesson on deferring to authority. It concerned a tale from Tractate Rosh Hashanah in which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania, who chaired the Sanhedrin after the fall of the Temple, sparred with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the Nassi or prince, over the correct date of Yom Kippur. When neither could convince the other, Rabbi Yehoshua deferred to Rabban Shimon because of his senior rank, and on the day that he believed was Yom Kippur he left his home carrying money and a walking stick to show it was not a holy day. The lesson, Halevi told his officers, was that even when religious principles seem overriding, a leader’s first duty is to maintain unity.
Another legendary talk came a year later, at a memorial in Tel Aviv for the late Haaretz military analyst Zeev Schiff in early September 2009. At the time Israelis were sharply divided over the costs inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza by Operation Cast Lead the previous January. Considerable attention was focused the actions of military and Chabad rabbis who were circulating among units at the front with literature urging soldiers to “show no mercy” and treat civilians as enemies. In addition, the contents of the U.N.’s Goldstone Report, accusing Israel of war crimes, were beginning to leak out, with formal publication three weeks away. In his talk that day, Halevi argued that field commanders have a duty to teach their troops the ethics of combat and laws of war, and not leave the soldiers to their own personal struggles or the influence of outside factors.
YOU are the one who is conflating particular criticisms into general criticisms..when byrnzie makes points about specific issues and you defend it is Israel you defend. You take criticism of terrorists and Zionism and equate that to antisemitism and everyone versed in this issue is worn out with that mentality.
Just because the rhetoric isn't placatory and equivocating doesn't mean it is irresponsible. What are the consequences that arise from passionate discourse? You don't like it, fine, but who made you the judge of whats acceptable? "lending aid and comfort to racists" theres some inflammatory rhetoric!!! Does he run some sort of shelter for racists who need aid and comfort? Or are you stretching the antisemitism arguement past it's credibility?
Anti-Zionism is also not outlandish, that is just ridiculous.
Whats outlandish is the idea that people from particular bloodlines should be able to make a "self-deterministic" state in direct opposition to people from other bloodlines based on several thousand year old myths which are poorly construed into reality. Inflammatory? Yes. Irresponsible? I highly doubt it.
Exactly. And he fails to see that his, and others, constant defense of the Israeli government, and it's policies - "I'm opposed to the settlements, but..." - gives aid and comfort to those who support the ongoing ethnic cleansing and land grab. But because I'm critical of Israel's race war against the Palestinians, then I must be giving aid and comfort to anti-Semites. Yosi, I also doubt that the Israeli government read this message board. And I also doubt that anti-Semites read it either.
Yosi, according to Zionism, how much of the area of Palestine rightfully belongs to the Jews? What does your Zionist ideology say about what portion of the land the Jews are entitled to?
It doesn't say anything about it. That's the whole point. Zionism is not one monolithic ideology. There are all sorts of different Zionisms. I'd say the only common denominator is that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel, because it is our homeland. Beyond that everything is up for debate. Your notion that Zionism necessarily has any other substantive content is just wrong.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
It doesn't say anything about it. That's the whole point. Zionism is not one monolithic ideology. There are all sorts of different Zionisms. I'd say the only common denominator is that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel, because it is our homeland. Beyond that everything is up for debate. Your notion that Zionism necessarily has any other substantive content is just wrong.
And when you say 'Israel', what do you mean exactly?
If you're asking whether I think "Israel" could conceivably include the West Bank, then yes, in principle it could. But I don't think it should. At all. Because I'm not a crazy person blind to reality.
Do you think there is such a thing as anti-Semitism in the world?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
If you're asking whether I think "Israel" could conceivably include the West Bank, then yes, in principle it could. But I don't think it should. At all. Because I'm not a crazy person blind to reality.
No, what I asked you was what you mean by the word 'Israel'. You said that 'the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel'. Please explain to me what you mean by 'Israel'.
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
In other words, “Greater Israel” consists of an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.
You claim to be a Zionist, Yosi. So what are your thoughts on this? What does 'Israel' encompass exactly?
Are you serious?! This is ridiculous. Nobody claims that the State of Israel should include all of greater Israel except for maybe a lunatic fringe. Even the Likud has given up calling for all of greater Israel. And even if they hadn't, they wouldn't be speaking for "Zionism," because no one person or group speaks for Zionism. You're really just showing your ignorance now.
But if you want to play this game, Ken O'Keefe, a well known anti-Zionist, has said that Jews control world finance and that 9/11 was planned by the Mossad. As an anti-Zionist, what are your thoughts on that?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Are you serious?! This is ridiculous. Nobody claims that the State of Israel should include all of greater Israel except for maybe a lunatic fringe. Even the Likud has given up calling for all of greater Israel. And even if they hadn't, they wouldn't be speaking for "Zionism," because no one person or group speaks for Zionism. You're really just showing your ignorance now.
But if you want to play this game, Ken O'Keefe, a well known anti-Zionist, has said that Jews control world finance and that 9/11 was planned by the Mossad. As an anti-Zionist, what are your thoughts on that?
If you weren't so busy frothing at the mouth, then you'd notice that they're not my words. They were spoken by the founding father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl. Did he say those words, or didn't he?
And you still haven't answered my question. Are you hoping that it will just go away? Here, I'll ask it a third time: You said that 'the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel'. Please explain to me what you mean by 'Israel'.
Thanks for the patronizing tone. I know exactly who Herzl is. And if you would stop and think rationally for a second you might understand that Herzl is not the be-all-and-end-all of Zionism, and that what he said does not define the ideology. Just like the fact that the founding fathers of the United States wrote into the Constitution that black people are only worth 3/5 of white people, but Americans aren't therefore bound to believe that.
If you want an answer to your question then explain what it is you're asking about if it isn't geography. And while you're at it why don't you try answering any of the other questions I've posed to you, cause your constant dodging is well past the point of looking dodgy.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Do you think there is such a thing as anti-Semitism in the world?
...Ken O'Keefe, a well known anti-Zionist, has said that Jews control world finance and that 9/11 was planned by the Mossad. As an anti-Zionist, what are your thoughts on that?
Like I said before Yosi: You're not fooling anybody.
You're pathetic attempts to try and paint me as a racist are all too transparent, and all too lame.
Now why don't you go ahead and answer the question that I've now posed to you three times?
I'm not trying to fool anybody. My point is simply that just as the statements of Ken O'Keefe don't define all anti-Zionists, whatever cherry-picked statements you dig up don't define all Zionists.
Is there something wrong with you? I'd be happy to answer your question if I understood what your question is, but instead of clarifying as I've asked you to do twice now you just keep insisting that I answer a question I don't understand. So what the hell is your question? Are you asking what I think the geographical borders of Israel are? Because I thought I already answered that. And if that's not your question then can you please explain yourself instead of insisting like a lunatic that I answer a question that I don't understand and that you seem to be refusing to clarify?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'm not trying to fool anybody. My point is simply that just as the statements of Ken O'Keefe don't define all anti-Zionists, whatever cherry-picked statements you dig up don't define all Zionists.
No, that wasn't your point. You're 'point' was all too obvious.
I'd be happy to answer your question if I understood what your question is..
My question is perfectly simple. It's a question that even a four year old could comprehend. So why cant you comprehend it?
You said that 'the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel'. Please explain to me what you mean by 'Israel'.
And I suggest you quit trying to deflect my question with further reference to anti-Semitism, or with questions referring to somebody who thinks 9/11 was carried as part of a Jewish conspiracy. Like I said already, you're fooling no one.
Stop squirming like a toad, and answer my question.
I think between the two of us I'm much better positioned to know what my own point was.
Seriously? What is wrong with you? If you want an answer to your question then explain to me what your question is, because I honestly don't understand what you are asking? If you refuse to clarify your question as I've asked you to do then stop asking for an answer. This is really a very simple dilemma and I can't understand why you won't just explain your question.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Ok, seriously, please try to get this through your insanely conspiratorial skull. I. DON'T. UNDERSTAND. WHAT. YOU. ARE. ASKING. ME. Just indulge me and explain the question. Please.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Zion - The Promised Land. Zionism - a political ideology claiming the right for all Jews to live in the Biblical notion of a Greater Israel. The Zionist ideology is opposed by many orthodox Jews, who regard it as being completely contrary to the teachings of Judaism. The founding Father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, said that “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”
Here's some more quotes:
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever." -- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country." -- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." -- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
I asked Yosi what the word 'Israel' means, in relation to his assertion that 'the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel'.
You are really amazing. How does anyone take you seriously? It's like trying to have a discussion with a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.
I take from your screed that your question was actually about the geographic boundaries of Israel, in which case I've already answered your question. But now that you've finally given me enough information to understand what the hell you were asking me I'll answer it again. The Land of Israel, in theory, encompasses more than the 1967 borders of the State of Israel. That said, Zionism does not demand that the State of Israel encompass all of what could theoretically be considered part of the Land of Israel, and in the present day mainstream Zionism does not in any way call for the State of Israel to include all of the Land of Israel/Greater Israel.
If this is not what you're talking about then again, please explain your question cause I'm at a complete loss as to what the hell is going through your crazy head.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
The Land of Israel, in theory, encompasses more than the 1967 borders of the State of Israel. That said, Zionism does not demand that the State of Israel encompass all of what could theoretically be considered part of the Land of Israel, and in the present day mainstream Zionism does not in any way call for the State of Israel to include all of the Land of Israel/Greater Israel.
There, that wasn't difficult, was it?
The Zionists also had no intention to accept the U.N Partition Plan. They only only decided to accept it publicly, once they knew the Palestinians had decided to reject it. Privately, the Zionists had no intention of accepting the Partition Resolution. As for what the mainstream Zionists now publicly demand, it's really irrelevant in light of their 60 years of lying and deceit. As for the 'theory' - 'the Land of Israel' - on which Zionism is based, can you please enlighten us as to what exactly this word 'Israel' encompasses?
And, you claim to be a Zionist. So what does the word Israel mean to you? What do you envision to be the Land of Israel that the Jews have a right to requisition at the expense of it's Arab inhabitants?
You are insane. I literally answered your question 16 posts ago!!!! Seriously, do you even bother to read what anyone writes here? How many times do I have to tell you that there is no such thing as "The Zionists." Zionism is not a monolithic, centrally organized belief system. And now you're going to try to say that the nascent state of Israel had no intention of accepting the partition plan that they fought tirelessly to get through the UN and then actually did accept?! You're just completely willing to rewrite history if it better suits your conspiracy theories.
How about you answer some questions. I'll start easy for you. Does anti-Semitism exist?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Zionism's basic tenet is that the Jews have a right to 'return' to their idea of the Promised Land. That's the foundation of Zionism. 'Zion' being another word for Jerusalem, or Promised Land, etc, as you know full well. So quit pretending that it's a complex ideology, beyond the capacity of a non-Zionist like myself to understand. You're simply muddying the water in an attempt to distance Zionism from the statements if it's founders, and from those who still call for annexation of the land from the river to the sea. The Zionists are not, and never were, open to negotiating on what they believed to be rightfully theirs, and on what their whole political ideology is founded upon.
And there's documentary evidence that the Zionist leadership had no intention of accepting the Partition Plan. I'll provide that evidence if you like?
In the meantime, you still haven't answered my question, other than to make fleeting reference to the West Bank. The West Bank is illegally occupied. The Israeli's have no right to one inch of it. Pretty ironic that someone who tries desperately to paint me as a racist believes that the Jews have the right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians based on a self-serving notion of ancestry.
Sorry, not playing this game. I've answered your question (more than once). Now you answer mine, or should I take your silence to mean that you don't think there is such a thing as anti-Semitism?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Sorry, not playing this game. I've answered your question (more than once). Now you answer mine, or should I take your silence to mean that you don't think there is such a thing as anti-Semitism?
Is there such a thing as anti-semitism? Yes. Why? Is there also such a thing as anti-Arab racism in Israel?
Comments
If you want a concrete example of how criticism of Israel can easily and unknowingly slip into blatant anti-Semitism, a few years ago a regular contributor on this forum (who I won't name) posted an article that claimed that Israel was murdering Palestinian children so that it could harvest their internal organs. That is essentially a blood libel claim, which is one of the oldest and most notorious anti-Semitic myths. And yet it got posted on this forum because someone was so blinded by anger at Israel that they were willing to uncritically accept the truth of whatever claims of Israeli brutality they came across. So you'll forgive me if I think that the anti-Zionist rhetoric on this forum sometimes crosses lines that shouldn't be crossed.
New Crop of IDF Chiefs Is Flock of Hardline Doves
By J.J. Goldberg
The Israeli military has sent what amounts to a barely disguised message to the political leadership and the troops in the latest round of senior command promotions, announced April 25.
With the Israeli-Palestinian peace process frozen, settler militancy on the rise and right-wing religious nationalists increasingly making their presence felt at the junior command level, the appointments make clear that the General Staff, led by chief of staff Benny Gantz, is doubling down on its basic strategic outlook: cooperation with the Palestinian leadership, enforcement of the soldiers’ code of ethics, deterrence on the northern front — and zero tolerance for Palestinian terrorism. Call them the hardline doves.
The three most charged appointments are the promotion of Brigadier General Herzl “Herzi” Halevi, the IDF’s so-called “philosopher-general,” until recently commander of the Galilee Division, to major general and chief of military intelligence; the appointment of the outgoing intelligence chief, Major General Aviv Kochavi, as chief of Northern Command; and the striking decision to retain the left-leaning chief of Central Command, Major General Nitzan Alon, in his current post overseeing the West Bank.
Alon’s retention at the head of Central Command, which covers the West Bank, sends a clear signal of the army’s impatience with growing settler radicalism and the spread of so-called price tag attacks. Alon is regarded by settler leaders as an undisguised liberal; it’s frequently noted that his wife Mor has been a supporter of the women’s human-rights group Machsom Watch, which is viewed on the right as subversive.
Alon spent much of his career in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit before taking a series of positions in intelligence and field command, mostly in the West Bank. Shortly before assuming his current position as chief of Central Command in December 2011, Alon infuriated settler leaders by calling price-tag actions “Jewish terrorism” in a New York Times interview. He also warned against cutting U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, then under congressional consideration because of the Palestinian application for United Nations recognition. He said cutting aid would destabilize Palestinian security forces, which he described as crucial to stability in the area. Under his command the army has clashed repeatedly with West Bank settlers, and he himself has been physically attacked by settlers and had protest demonstrations mounted outside his home.
...
Of all the latest appointments, though, the most talked-about is the promotion of Brigadier General “Herzi” Halevi to chief of Military Intelligence. A former commander of the paratroops brigade and of the Sayeret Matkal commando, he was described last November in a flattering New York Times profile — itself a rarity for an Israel Defense Forces general — as a likely future IDF chief of staff. Even so, the promotion of a brigadier to head military intelligence, leapfrogging over various qualified major generals, is unusual.
Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea reported this past Friday that after the New York Times interview appeared, Halevi called him and begged him not to publish an interview he’d conducted several days earlier, fearing it would look like he was campaigning for the top spot, sparking jealousy and resentment among his peers.
Halevi was raised in what he’s described as a “liberal religious” home in Jerusalem. After high school he enlisted as a member of a kibbutz-linked youth movement in Battalion 50 of the Nachal Brigade, the unit that carries on the Nachal tradition of combining military service and kibbutz agricultural work. He worked his way up through various command postings in the paratroops and Sayeret Matkal. As a junior paratroops officer in the West Bank in 2002, he shocked his peers by speaking out against plans to capture Yasser Arafat, who was then holed up in his headquarters in Ramallah. Then-chief of Central Command Moshe Kaplinsky is commonly credited with blocking the plan, warning the General Staff that it would cause the Middle East to “explode.”
In 2007 he was made commander of the paratroops brigade, which went on to participate in ground action in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09. Later that year he spoke out publicly to urge that field commanders be held responsible for educating their troops on the ethics of warfare.
More than almost any other IDF officer, Halevi is the subject of numerous stories and near-legends, most having to do with his philosophizing. Much of it revolves around his penchant for drawing on religious text to appeal to the religious right for moderation.
In September 2008, while debate was still raging over the Gaza disengagement and rabbinic calls for soldiers to disobey orders, Halevi gathered his paratroop officers for a New Year’s lecture and taught a pointed Talmud lesson on deferring to authority. It concerned a tale from Tractate Rosh Hashanah in which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania, who chaired the Sanhedrin after the fall of the Temple, sparred with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the Nassi or prince, over the correct date of Yom Kippur. When neither could convince the other, Rabbi Yehoshua deferred to Rabban Shimon because of his senior rank, and on the day that he believed was Yom Kippur he left his home carrying money and a walking stick to show it was not a holy day. The lesson, Halevi told his officers, was that even when religious principles seem overriding, a leader’s first duty is to maintain unity.
Another legendary talk came a year later, at a memorial in Tel Aviv for the late Haaretz military analyst Zeev Schiff in early September 2009. At the time Israelis were sharply divided over the costs inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza by Operation Cast Lead the previous January. Considerable attention was focused the actions of military and Chabad rabbis who were circulating among units at the front with literature urging soldiers to “show no mercy” and treat civilians as enemies. In addition, the contents of the U.N.’s Goldstone Report, accusing Israel of war crimes, were beginning to leak out, with formal publication three weeks away. In his talk that day, Halevi argued that field commanders have a duty to teach their troops the ethics of combat and laws of war, and not leave the soldiers to their own personal struggles or the influence of outside factors.
Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/jj-goldberg/198014/new-crop-of-idf-chiefs-is-flock-of-hardline-doves/#ixzz325VK2arH
Exactly. And he fails to see that his, and others, constant defense of the Israeli government, and it's policies - "I'm opposed to the settlements, but..." - gives aid and comfort to those who support the ongoing ethnic cleansing and land grab. But because I'm critical of Israel's race war against the Palestinians, then I must be giving aid and comfort to anti-Semites.
Yosi, I also doubt that the Israeli government read this message board. And I also doubt that anti-Semites read it either.
Do you think there is such a thing as anti-Semitism in the world?
In other words, “Greater Israel” consists of an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates.
You claim to be a Zionist, Yosi. So what are your thoughts on this? What does 'Israel' encompass exactly?
But if you want to play this game, Ken O'Keefe, a well known anti-Zionist, has said that Jews control world finance and that 9/11 was planned by the Mossad. As an anti-Zionist, what are your thoughts on that?
If you weren't so busy frothing at the mouth, then you'd notice that they're not my words. They were spoken by the founding father of Zionism, Theodore Herzl. Did he say those words, or didn't he?
And you still haven't answered my question. Are you hoping that it will just go away? Here, I'll ask it a third time: You said that 'the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel'. Please explain to me what you mean by 'Israel'.
If you want an answer to your question then explain what it is you're asking about if it isn't geography. And while you're at it why don't you try answering any of the other questions I've posed to you, cause your constant dodging is well past the point of looking dodgy.
You're pathetic attempts to try and paint me as a racist are all too transparent, and all too lame.
Now why don't you go ahead and answer the question that I've now posed to you three times?
Is there something wrong with you? I'd be happy to answer your question if I understood what your question is, but instead of clarifying as I've asked you to do twice now you just keep insisting that I answer a question I don't understand. So what the hell is your question? Are you asking what I think the geographical borders of Israel are? Because I thought I already answered that. And if that's not your question then can you please explain yourself instead of insisting like a lunatic that I answer a question that I don't understand and that you seem to be refusing to clarify?
Nice try at wriggling out of that one.
My question is perfectly simple. It's a question that even a four year old could comprehend. So why cant you comprehend it?
You said that 'the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel'. Please explain to me what you mean by 'Israel'.
And I suggest you quit trying to deflect my question with further reference to anti-Semitism, or with questions referring to somebody who thinks 9/11 was carried as part of a Jewish conspiracy. Like I said already, you're fooling no one.
Stop squirming like a toad, and answer my question.
Seriously? What is wrong with you? If you want an answer to your question then explain to me what your question is, because I honestly don't understand what you are asking? If you refuse to clarify your question as I've asked you to do then stop asking for an answer. This is really a very simple dilemma and I can't understand why you won't just explain your question.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying my belief that honesty is not one of your strong points.
Here's some more quotes:
"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
-- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine.
"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country."
-- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir declares at a Tel Aviv memorial service for former Likud leaders, November 1990. Jerusalem Domestic Radio Service.
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."
-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
I asked Yosi what the word 'Israel' means, in relation to his assertion that 'the Jewish people have a right to self-determination, and that that right should be exercised in Israel'.
He then pretends to not understand my question.
I take from your screed that your question was actually about the geographic boundaries of Israel, in which case I've already answered your question. But now that you've finally given me enough information to understand what the hell you were asking me I'll answer it again. The Land of Israel, in theory, encompasses more than the 1967 borders of the State of Israel. That said, Zionism does not demand that the State of Israel encompass all of what could theoretically be considered part of the Land of Israel, and in the present day mainstream Zionism does not in any way call for the State of Israel to include all of the Land of Israel/Greater Israel.
If this is not what you're talking about then again, please explain your question cause I'm at a complete loss as to what the hell is going through your crazy head.
The Zionists also had no intention to accept the U.N Partition Plan. They only only decided to accept it publicly, once they knew the Palestinians had decided to reject it. Privately, the Zionists had no intention of accepting the Partition Resolution. As for what the mainstream Zionists now publicly demand, it's really irrelevant in light of their 60 years of lying and deceit.
As for the 'theory' - 'the Land of Israel' - on which Zionism is based, can you please enlighten us as to what exactly this word 'Israel' encompasses?
And, you claim to be a Zionist. So what does the word Israel mean to you? What do you envision to be the Land of Israel that the Jews have a right to requisition at the expense of it's Arab inhabitants?
How about you answer some questions. I'll start easy for you. Does anti-Semitism exist?
Zionism's basic tenet is that the Jews have a right to 'return' to their idea of the Promised Land. That's the foundation of Zionism. 'Zion' being another word for Jerusalem, or Promised Land, etc, as you know full well.
So quit pretending that it's a complex ideology, beyond the capacity of a non-Zionist like myself to understand. You're simply muddying the water in an attempt to distance Zionism from the statements if it's founders, and from those who still call for annexation of the land from the river to the sea.
The Zionists are not, and never were, open to negotiating on what they believed to be rightfully theirs, and on what their whole political ideology is founded upon.
And there's documentary evidence that the Zionist leadership had no intention of accepting the Partition Plan. I'll provide that evidence if you like?
In the meantime, you still haven't answered my question, other than to make fleeting reference to the West Bank. The West Bank is illegally occupied. The Israeli's have no right to one inch of it.
Pretty ironic that someone who tries desperately to paint me as a racist believes that the Jews have the right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians based on a self-serving notion of ancestry.
Very ironic indeed!
What's your point?