i know we all say we wouldnt allow it in our own countries(i know ive said it before) but when the force stealing the land has the backing of other powerful countries, then what would we really do???? what would we be capable of doing aside from dying?
Protesting. Writing to your local representatives. Confronting lies on internet forums, and comments sections, supporting human rights organizations, e.t.c. What did people do to bring about the end of Apartheid in South Africa? Nothing?
i was speaking of what would we really do if we were in the shoes of the palestinians. we talk of not allowing it to happen to us.. but what would we really do given the same situation. THATS what i was talking about... ive always had a lot of time for you and your opinions over the years steve but sometimes your passion blinds you.
France was a powerful country - still is - yet the Algerians managed to end their 100 year occupation of their country. It wasn't pretty, and many thousands died, but they eventually won their independence. The Vietnamese are another example, as are the Indians who overthrew the might of the British Empire. Independence movements can prevail. The Apartheid regime in South Africa had the backing of the U.S and Israel, yet the blacks there also managed to rid themselves of that regime - in their case, with a lot of help from the international community.
As I said in our long pm session a couple of years ago, in which you tried to label me an anti-Semite. This was due to the fact that I posted three articles - in a thread entitled "Dispatches - children of Gaza" - on the subject of Israel's kidnapping of Palestinians, and one of those articles happened to contain something to do with the harvesting of organs, which you then took to be evidence of my being an anti-semite:
'This has nothing to do with anti-semitism. I harbour no racist tendencies whatsoever. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a special case. It interests me especially due to the level of misinformation, subterfuge, and outright lies that envelop it. The 40 propaganda campaign instigated by the Israeli's in their attempts to justify the occupation and ongoing land-grab are quite extraordinary. And I think it should be every concerned citizens duty to expose this propaganda for what it is. The Zionists sought, and continue to seek, a Jewish state. That is, a state run by, and for, Jews. It's my belief that Ethnic nationalism should have no place in the modern World. And that's not racism on my part. It's the exact opposite of racism.'
i know we all say we wouldnt allow it in our own countries(i know ive said it before) but when the force stealing the land has the backing of other powerful countries, then what would we really do???? what would we be capable of doing aside from dying?
Protesting. Writing to your local representatives. Confronting lies on internet forums, and comments sections, supporting human rights organizations, e.t.c. What did people do to bring about the end of Apartheid in South Africa? Nothing?
i was speaking of what would we really do if we were in the shoes of the palestinians. we talk of not allowing it to happen to us.. but what would we really do given the same situation. THATS what i was talking about... ive always had a lot of time for you and your opinions over the years steve but sometimes your passion blinds you.
France was a powerful country - still is - yet the Algerians managed to end their 100 year occupation of their country. It wasn't pretty, and many thousands died, but they eventually won their independence. The Vietnamese are another example, as are the Indians who overthrew the might of the British Empire. Independence movements can prevail. The Apartheid regime in South Africa had the backing of the U.S and Israel, yet the blacks there also managed to rid themselves of that regime - in their case, with a lot of help from the international community.
so were comparing the jews to the imperialist forces of france and britain?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
From my perspective it's clear that there are plenty of Israelis who for numerous reasons want to end the occupation. Your "simplicity," which is really just willful blindness, prevents you from acknowledging them and trying to empower them, which I think would be the most effective tactic for ending the occupation. Instead you are in favor of a tactic that alienates Israelis in general, and in particular disempowers the Israeli left. That to me seems completely counterproductive, and motivated more by a desire to punish Israel than to really aid the Palestinians. But that's just my perspective.
Sure, I don't acknowledge them which is why I've quoted from Physicians for Human Rights and B'Tselem on numerous occasions. As for 'disempowering the Israeli left', that's just ridiculous.
Of Course they Should be Classed as Terrorist...It sees No Particular Race or Country...if they Want there Voices Heard then they Should go about it without about being Terrorists and Murderers.
You misunderstood my question. I was not asking whether legitimate criticism of Israel should be disregarded based on whether the person making that criticism is an anti-Semite. I was asking about statements made by anti-Semites that purport to be "criticism" of Israel, but that are actually expressions of anti-Semitism. Is it problematic if such anti-Semitic expressions become a routine feature of left-discourse on Israel because anyone condemning such expressions is dismissed as crying anti-Semitism in bad-faith?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Also, B, is there a place in the world for Greece? For Armenia? Should the Kurds not be able to have a state of their own?
And "race war"?! You've apparently turned what is in fact a conflict between two national movements over land into a racial conflict in your own mind. Why? What work does this misunderstanding do for you?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I was asking about statements made by anti-Semites that purport to be "criticism" of Israel, but that are actually expressions of anti-Semitism. Is it problematic if such anti-Semitic expressions become a routine feature of left-discourse on Israel because anyone condemning such expressions is dismissed as crying anti-Semitism in bad-faith?
Also, B, is there a place in the world for Greece? For Armenia? Should the Kurds not be able to have a state of their own?
Yes, there is a place in the World for Greece, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're not talking about the right of the 'inhabitants' of Greece, or of France, or any other country, to their homeland. What we're talking about is the right of an ethnic group to live in one place, at the expense of any other group that may just happen to be in the way. It's called ethnic Nationalism, and as I've already said, it's an ugly and pernicious ideology that should have been seen the back of with the end of the Nazis, upon whose ideology it's based, as I again pointed out above.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/14/fearsome-words/ The Nazi conception of a Jewish people lies at the heart of Israel’s famous right of return. Don’t take my word for it. Listen instead to the AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE), which describes itself as "a nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance – the values our nations share". To explain in what sense ‘Jews’ have a right to return to their homeland, the AICE states that "At present, the definition is based on Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws: the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent. As a result, thousands of people with no meaningful connection to the Jewish people theoretically have the right to immigrate."
...What matters are not the citizens of a state, but the state itself, the totemic icon of ‘the Jewish people’. The fatal confusion that legitimized ethnic nationalism at the Paris Peace Conference now legitimizes Israel itself. When Zionists suggest that the French and Germans have a right to their states, they conveniently forget that this means the *inhabitants* of France and Germany, not those of some French or German *ancestry*, not a ‘people’ in the sense of an ethnic group. (The world was outraged when it suspected that Britain’s ‘patrial’ immigration laws were designed to favor those of ethnically British ancestry.) But ‘the Jewish people’ have a right to their state, and this is supposed to be some lofty ideal. Why? Because ethnic nationalism has taken on the cloak of civic nationalism, and we are too stupid to notice.
And "race war"?! You've apparently turned what is in fact a conflict between two national movements over land into a racial conflict in your own mind. Why? What work does this misunderstanding do for you?
It's not a misunderstanding. The Israeli's are engaged in a war of ethnic cleansing based on a semi-racial category of Jewishness. The illegal settlements are for Jews only, and the Arabs are being dispossessed of their land, brutalized, and killed. Zionism wasn't designed to accommodate Arabs. It's a race war.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/14/fearsome-words/ For the homeland to *belong* to the Jews is for them to have *sovereignty* there. Thus Article 7(a) of Israel’s Basic Law stipulates that "A candidates’ list shall not participate in the elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include… negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." The Jewish people, in other words, are sovereign, and hold the power of life and death over all non-Jewish inhabitants under state control. Lest this seem overdramatic, note how the Israeli ministry of justice commented on a court case in March 2009: "The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective."
Just want to point something out. Byrnzie, on the previous page of this thread you wrote "As for whether any anti-Semite may use anything I, or anyone else, critical of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign, for his or her own ends, I really couldn't give a flying fuck."
Your anti-racist sentiments seem to have some glaring loopholes. Could anyone imagine the same sentiment being expressed with regards to anti-black racism. Could you imagine someone claiming with a straight face to be an anti-racist and then saying "As for whether any member of the KKK may use anything I, or anyone else who is critical of [insert controversial African-American figure] says for his or her own racist ends, I really couldn't give a flying fuck."
Forgive me, but if you are really an anti-racist then you should give a flying fuck, and the fact that your statements could be embraced and used by racists should be a cause for introspection and a warning that perhaps you've allowed your anger to direct your rhetoric on a legitimate issue into nasty territory best avoided.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Jewish identity is not racial. If you knew the first thing about Israel and its demographics you'd know that the racial makeup of its Jewish population is extraordinarily diverse. Yes, Israel has a right of return which allows people of Jewish ancestry to immigrate to Israel and claim citizenship, and yes, the law considers membership in the national group to be inherited from one's parents. Similar laws are on the books in a great many countries that conceive of themselves as the homeland of a national group. Your distinction between these other countries, which you apparently consider legitimate, and Israel, boils down to the fact that you reject the Jewish people's claim to Israel as their homeland. I strongly disagree with that rejection, but I'm not going to argue about it with you here.
My point is simply that Israel and Zionism is really no different then any of the other nation-states and nationalisms that conceive of the state as being the homeland of a particular people. If you have no problem with Greece then you should have no problem with Israel as such. Criticism of the occupation is certainly valid, but if you're going to tell me that Greek nationalism is valid but Zionism is not, then I am going to question why you judge Jewish nationalism according to different standards than those you apply to the nationalisms of other national groups.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
It's not a misunderstanding. The Israeli's are engaged in a war of ethnic cleansing based on a semi-racial category of Jewishness. The illegal settlements are for Jews only, and the Arabs are being dispossessed of their land, brutalized, and killed. Zionism wasn't designed to accommodate Arabs. It's a race war.
Is it a Race War? Possibly...War is Money...and TPTB will do anything so the Money Machine can Keep Rolling on...I'm sure we're all aware of 'Plants' thrown into the MIddle of Protest or whatever to Strike up some sort of conflict.
The Jewish Settler Attacks was Planned and Calculated to get a RISE out of the Palestinians and to make the Normal Regular Law abiding Jewish Folk look Bad.
How many People of all Races and Nationalities say they want World Peace and No More war Just about everyone says it...But Yet here we are in the 21st Century and it's still Prominent.
Just want to point something out. Byrnzie, on the previous page of this thread you wrote "As for whether any anti-Semite may use anything I, or anyone else, critical of Israel's ethnic cleansing campaign, for his or her own ends, I really couldn't give a flying fuck."
Your anti-racist sentiments seem to have some glaring loopholes. Could anyone imagine the same sentiment being expressed with regards to anti-black racism. Could you imagine someone claiming with a straight face to be an anti-racist and then saying "As for whether any member of the KKK may use anything I, or anyone else who is critical of [insert controversial African-American figure] says for his or her own racist ends, I really couldn't give a flying fuck."
Forgive me, but if you are really an anti-racist then you should give a flying fuck, and the fact that your statements could be embraced and used by racists should be a cause for introspection and a warning that perhaps you've allowed your anger to direct your rhetoric on a legitimate issue into nasty territory best avoided.
Or maybe it's that I don't give a fuck if my legitimate criticisms of Israel's ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians are co-opted by racists, and that I refuse to be silenced as a result, as I'm sure Israel apologists like yourself would like. I'll confront racists if and when I encounter them, and that includes anti-Semites, and Israeli racists who believe they have a God given right - or a right bestowed on them by their Jewishness - to trample the Palestinians under foot.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/14/fearsome-words/ ‘Jew’ [...] does not refer to those who espouse Judaism or embrace Jewish culture. ‘Jew’ means ‘of Jewish ancestry’. In virtually every Canadian jurisdiction, ancestry is explicitly cited as a prohibited ground of discrimination. Ancestry is just a contemporary stand-in for the older notion of race and is generally used in references to racial discrimination.(**) Like skin colour, it’s something you cannot change, and therefore a particularly repugnant basis for determining civic status.
Yes, Israel has a right of return which allows people of Jewish ancestry to immigrate to Israel and claim citizenship, and yes, the law considers membership in the national group to be inherited from one's parents. Similar laws are on the books in a great many countries that conceive of themselves as the homeland of a national group. Your distinction between these other countries, which you apparently consider legitimate, and Israel, boils down to the fact that you reject the Jewish people's claim to Israel as their homeland. I strongly disagree with that rejection, but I'm not going to argue about it with you here.
Nice try. My distinction between Israel and 'these other countries' boils down to the fact that regarding these other countries, we're not talking about the right of any particular race to live in these countries, but simply the right of each countries inhabitants, regardless of race, colour or creed. Israel, on the other hand, is a country founded on ethnic nationalism, which declares itself to be a country run by, and for Jews. It's a racist country. In fact the only other country that comes close is Australia.
Where were you born, Yosi? You were born in America. Do you think Jews have a right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from their land?
My point is simply that Israel and Zionism is really no different then any of the other nation-states and nationalisms that conceive of the state as being the homeland of a particular people. If you have no problem with Greece then you should have no problem with Israel as such. Criticism of the occupation is certainly valid, but if you're going to tell me that Greek nationalism is valid but Zionism is not, then I am going to question why you judge Jewish nationalism according to different standards than those you apply to the nationalisms of other national groups.
I've already covered this. Do you think that if you repeat the same empty nonsense long enough that it will eventually become legitimate?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/14/fearsome-words/ 'For the homeland to *belong* to the Jews is for them to have *sovereignty* there. Thus Article 7(a) of Israel’s Basic Law stipulates that "A candidates’ list shall not participate in the elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include… negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." The Jewish people, in other words, are sovereign, and hold the power of life and death over all non-Jewish inhabitants under state control. Lest this seem overdramatic, note how the Israeli ministry of justice commented on a court case in March 2009: "The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective."
So a miracle appears among us. The very ideology of homelands and peoples under whose auspices the Jews were all but exterminated has become the sustaining ideology of Israel, a state devoted to Jewish ethnic sovereignty. This is why we always hear that Israel – not Israelis – has a right to exist. What matters are not the citizens of a state, but the state itself, the totemic icon of ‘the Jewish people’.
Do you think that Israel's racism against the Palestinians is acceptable?
(And when I say 'Israel's', I mean just that - the codified, ideologically grounded, and systematic racism that exists from the top to the bottom in every aspect of Israeli life and it's institutions. Is it acceptable to you? Do you regard the Arabs as inferior to Jews?)
I was asking about statements made by anti-Semites that purport to be "criticism" of Israel, but that are actually expressions of anti-Semitism.
I already responded above. Did you not see it? I responded by asking 'Such as?'
I.e, I'll answer your question if and when you can provide me with an example of a statement that purports to be "criticism" of Israel, but that is actually an expression of anti-Semitism.
How am I to take your refusal to engage with the hypothetical I've given you? Are you simply trying to avoid the question or do you believe that no criticism of Israel could possibly be anti-Semitic? If the latter is the case, then the implication is that you believe that no "criticism" of Israel could possibly be off the mark or excessive? So let's ask you that question. Do you believe that any criticism of Israel could ever be illegitimate?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
By the way, Byrnzie, if you really want to disassociate yourself from antisemites who may share some of your views (and you may want to think about the implications of that reality a bit), you probably shouldn't be looking to counterpunch for your info. A brief rundown on counterpunch, for those reading who don't know about the site and its history vis-a-vis Jews:
Counterpunch has repeatedly run articles by prolific anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon. Briefly, Atzmon has questioned whether the Holocaust occurred, while simultaneously arguing that, if Hitler’s genocide did occur, it can partly be explained by Jews’ villainous behavior. Atzmon also explicitly charged that Jews are indeed trying to take over the world, and has endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, arguing about the document that “it is impossible to ignore its prophetic qualities and its capacity to describe” later Jewish behavior.
Counterpunch published an article by Alison Weir which alleges that the blood libel, (the charge that Jews ritually murdered gentiles), is true and is related to the false reports, in 2009, regarding Israeli thefts of human organs from Palestinians.
CounterPunch has made a cause celebre of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.
CounterPunch’s Alexander Cockburn has advanced the argument that Jews have a stranglehold on the U.S. media.
CounterPunch has advanced dual loyalty canards about Jews, and xenophobic narratives about how Washington is “occupied” by Israel
Counterpunch also has often welcomed Eric Walburg, a neo Nazi, to publish at their site. Walburg is also a Holocaust denier who, on the pages of CounterPunch, engaged in pro-Taliban propaganda.
CounterPunch published a rant by Jennifer Loewenstein, about a “Gazan Holocaust”, which included a passage referring to Israelis as “Neo-Jewish Masters” who used the Gaza war as a “pretext to carry out mass murder of the Arab Untermenschen.”
CounterPunch published the fascist Holocaust denier, and blood libel promoter, ‘Israel Shamir‘.
If you're looking to Counterpunch to form your opinions about Israel, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised if antisemitic language has found its way into your arguments. But seriously, please don't quote from an antisemitic publication to argue that your rhetoric is not unintentionally antisemitic. It's just embarrassing.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
How am I to take your refusal to engage with the hypothetical I've given you? Are you simply trying to avoid the question or do you believe that no criticism of Israel could possibly be anti-Semitic? If the latter is the case, then the implication is that you believe that no "criticism" of Israel could possibly be off the mark or excessive? So let's ask you that question. Do you believe that any criticism of Israel could ever be illegitimate?
I asked you to provide me with an example of a statement that purports to be "criticism" of Israel, but that is actually an expression of anti-Semitism.
What you're implying is that because some anti-Semites may post criticisms of Israel, that all criticism of Israel should therefore be considered suspect, and otherwise dismissed or stifled.
What I'm saying is that this is bullshit.
Also, I asked you a number of questions above, and you've avoided answering them. Why's that? Do you think this is one way traffic? Is this the Yosi train we're on here?
I'll ask them again:
Do you think Jews have a right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from their land?
Do you think that Israel's racism against the Palestinians is acceptable?
(And when I say 'Israel's', I mean just that - the codified, ideologically grounded, and systematic racism that exists from the top to the bottom in every aspect of Israeli life and it's institutions. Is it acceptable to you? Do you regard the Arabs as inferior to Jews?)
How exactly am I implying, to quote you, that "because some anti-Semites may post criticisms of Israel, that all criticism of Israel should therefore be considered suspect, and otherwise dismissed or stifled." I haven't implied that nor would I. I am implying that some criticisms of Israel is actually antisemitic. Some does not equal all. Nor does it equal most. I have said repeatedly and explicitly that criticism of Israeli policies as such are not antisemitic. You are very blatantly inventing a straw man to avoid answering the question I've posed you. So I'll ask you again, do you reject the proposition that SOME statements that purport to be criticism of Israel can in fact be antisemitic? And if you do not reject that proposition, do you find that antisemitism to be problematic?
In answer to your questions no and no, although with respect to the first question I expect that I would not agree with you about what constitutes ethnic cleansing (and I disagree with your premise that Israel is in fact carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing).
By the way, it dawns on me that you've also repeatedly cited to Michael Neumann in the past. Here's a bit on that wonderful fellow and source for Byrnzie's wisdom.
The Canadian Jewish Congress reported in 2003 on an email exchange between Neumann and the proprietors on the anti-Semitic website Jewish Tribal Review.
The Web site quotes Neumann as writing, “I should perhaps have said I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care.”
I wonder, Byrnzie, since you've so often quoted Mr. Neumann on these threads, perhaps you can explain what he meant by "reasonable anti-Semitism"?
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
do you reject the proposition that SOME statements that purport to be criticism of Israel can in fact be antisemitic?
Yeah, I do reject it. There's legitimate criticism of Israel - which should be judged on it's own merits, i.e, legitimate - and anti-Semitic raciai prejudice, which is something else besides. Even if an essay full of racist attacks against Jews contains some legitimate criticisms of Israel's crimes, that doesn't mean that those legitimate criticisms should be dismissed as anti-semitic. Legitimate criticsms and anti-semitic racial hated are not the same thing.
In answer to your questions no and no, although with respect to the first question I expect that I would not agree with you about what constitutes ethnic cleansing (and I disagree with your premise that Israel is in fact carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing).
So you don't think Israel is engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing, despite the fact that it's been systematically uprooting Palestinians from their land and placing Jews in their place? Israel enlarged its territory by 50 per cent during the 1948 war - a war it triggered by a series of massacres, incursions, and provocations. The Palestinians have ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN’s partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants.The Palestinians now exisit on 22 per cent of the territory that was originally theirs, and this territory is shrinking every day with more and more illegal Jewish-only settlements being built. But no ethnic cleasning is taking place? Really? Just what fantasy World do you inhabit?
By the way, it dawns on me that you've also repeatedly cited to Michael Neumann in the past. Here's a bit on that wonderful fellow and source for Byrnzie's wisdom.
The Canadian Jewish Congress reported in 2003 on an email exchange between Neumann and the proprietors on the anti-Semitic website Jewish Tribal Review.
The Web site quotes Neumann as writing, “I should perhaps have said I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care.”
I wonder, Byrnzie, since you've so often quoted Mr. Neumann on these threads, perhaps you can explain what he meant by "reasonable anti-Semitism"?
I've already answerd this bullshit attack [Hasbara talking point] on Michael Neuman before. Do you need me to repeat myself?
Michael Neumann clarified exactly what he intended by the above statement, published without his permission by 'Jewish Tribal Review' who Neumann regards as anti-Semitic:
'I will not self-censor my writings because they may be misused by antisemites, and it is only in this very particular and limited sense that I 'don't care' about encouraging antisemitism. Antisemites misuse all sorts of materials, including the statements of committed Zionists and of Mahatma Gandhi. It would be futile and impossible for me to tailor my writings to avoid such misuse.'
'...let me begin with the greatest absurdity, the claim that I am antisemitic. In rejecting this claim I do not hide behind my Jewishness; there may have been, on rare occasions, Jewish antisemites. But there is nothing even close to antisemitism in my opinions.
Take the material that has caused the most outrage, a private email correspondence allegedly reproduced on the Jewish Tribal Review site. I have never denied that such a correspondence occurred, but only said the truth: that the site is not to be trusted, and that, lacking the original emails, I cannot vouch for its accuracy. I am distressed that the CJC has made so much of the material, not because it embarrasses me, but because it legitimates a truly poisonous, truly antisemitic site. I will comment on the material as if it were accurate, because that is the only way I can refute the claims made on its basis. However at the same time I repudiate that material. No one has disputed that it was published, not only without my consent, but against my express wishes.
What is almost comical about the use of the Jewish Tribal Review material is its context. The correspondence exists only because I published an article called "Blame Yourself: American Power and Jewish Power". This article is entirely devoted to attacking the myth that Jews control America: I believe and hope it to be one of the most systematic and effective attacks on that myth published to date.
As a result of its publication, I received a good deal of hate mail. One message I kept, entitled "Neumann the Zionist", reads as follows:
"Neumann's Jewish stripes finally begin to show, as we all knew they would. The Jews commandeer American foreign policy and make it do their dirty work, then send their mole Neumann to tell the goyim that its all their fault. How utterly predictable. You, Chomsky, Bennis, you're all the same. Go pick up your paycheck from the ADL. Show me a Jew who criticizes Israel and I'll show you a Zionist who hasn't had his coming out party yet. You just had yours."
The Jewish Tribal Review is much more polite, but it was precisely their unhappiness with my contentions that provoked the email exchange.
In this exchange, two sentences have been quoted entirely out of context: it strains my conciliatory intentions to believe that the quoting was done in good faith. Both occur in the following passage:
"My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care."
...I am the first to admit, and regret, the disturbing and intemperate language of the paragraph, but in context its meaning is not alarming. My correspondent has reproached me for showing no interest in further investigations into Jewish power. Having failed to demonstrate that Jews control America, he nevertheless wants me to endorse open-ended, unsystematic investigations into Jewish ownership. He wants me, that is, to help him dig up dirt on the Jews, in the guise of pursuing The Truth.
In this context, it could hardly be clearer that my reply concerns my political writing, not my academic work. My political writing has a political, not an academic purpose; it is to help the Palestinians. For reasons detailed in the "Jewish power' article under discussion, I believe that the myth of Jewish control of America - an antisemitic myth - harms and discredits the Palestinian cause. So I say that, even if it is true that Jews own this or that or the other thing, I am not *interested* in such truths.
My correspondent takes this, in mock horror, as some admission that I habitually twist the truth to suit my political objectives; I regret to say that the CJC happily embraces this interpretation. But my statement means what it literally says: that I am not *interested*, as I write on behalf of the Palestinians, in irrelevant truths, truths that don't further the Palestinian cause. It does not mean that I am out to conceal or twist truths. It does mean - which is what I am saying - that I am not about t o climb on board in search of Jewish power when that project has nothing to do with the welfare of the Palestinians. Later on I make clear that, in general, I do believe that political objectives may trump the obligation to be truthful, but go on to say that almost everyone believes this. Lies were used to hide Jews from Hitler, and indeed at times to defeat him; it is childish to believe that, in politics, one must always be truthful. But I have never seen any occasion to bend the truth on behalf of the Palestinians, and I take great care for the factual accuracy of my claims.
What then of the statement: "If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care"?
In the first place, as the preceding statements make clear, I am stressing the importance of the Palestinian cause by considering extreme possibilities. I first say that "if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it." In other words, I first say that I will not uncover truths detrimental to the Jewish people if that doesn't help the Palestinians. This hardly sounds like the project of an antisemite.
In the second place, the statement is neither antisemitic, nor does it encourage antisemitism. It raises a remote possibility, and says that, should what I do - my writing - encourage antisemitism, that will not deter me. As I said in my letter to the National Post: "I will not self-censor my writings because they may be misused by antisemites, and it is only in this very particular and limited sense that I 'don't care' about encouraging antisemitism. Antisemites misuse all sorts of materials, including the statements of committed Zionists and of Mahatma Gandhi. It would be futile and impossible for me to tailor my writings to avoid such misuse." The notion that I would even contemplate deliberately cultivating antisemitism is absurd, not only because my family has been decimated by (Nazi) antisemites, but also because I have argued, at length, that Zionists manipulate antisemitism to their own purposes. (The Israeli commentator Ran HaCohen, in http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html, is of much the same opinion.)
Finally, the import of the passage can be understood by making a substitution in some of it. Suppose a committed defender of Israel had said:
"My sole concern is indeed to defend Israel, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, I still don't care."
Of course I have left out the part about the destruction of the Israeli state, but that cannot be considered an antisemitic comment. It should now be clear that a willingness to tolerate these extreme consequences is neither antisemitism nor encouragement to antisemitism. Indeed the noted Israeli dove, Uri Avnery, has accused Zionists of exactly the same refusal to be deterred by antisemitic reactions: see his essay, "Manufacturing Antisemites". Like me, Zionists certainly care about the reactions - they won't just let such reactions stand in their way...
The notion that I am antisemitic or racist becomes even more absurd in the light of my repeated claims that Israeli crimes endanger and discredit the Jewish people - not because Israeli crimes ought to be blamed on all Jews, but because they are committed in the name of all Jews. (Many Jews object to this: hence the dissident Jewish organization called "Not In My Name".) Why would an antisemite care about this? Why have these repeated assertions, readily available to the CJC, never made it into their polemics?
...This is not to deny that my criticism of Israel is savage; I do indeed call Israel "an emerging evil". But I have no hatred of Israel, pathological or otherwise. Israel is an abstraction; to hate it would be foolish. Like all nations it contains wonderful and awful people; it is far too complex and heterogenous to hate.'
Michael Neumann: 'In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn't, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all? Is the fact that Israel's race war has provoked bitter anger of any importance besides the war itself? Is the remote possibility that somewhere, sometime, somehow, this hatred may in theory, possibly kill some Jews of any importance besides the brutal, actual, physical persecution of Palestinians, and the hundreds of thousands of votes for Arabs to be herded into transit camps?"
In February 2009, Neumann and his brother Osha Neumann asked the Israeli president to remove their grandmother’s name from the Yad Vashem because of the 2008-2009 Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. Neumann wrote that
'I do not believe that the Jewish people, in whose name you [i.e the israeli president] have committed so many crimes with such outrageous complacency, can ever rid itself of the shame you have brought upon us. Nazi propaganda, for all its calumnies, never disgraced and corrupted the Jews; you have succeeded in this...you blacken our names not only by your acts, but by the lies, the coy evasions, the smirking arrogance and the infantile self-righteousness with which you embroider our history... You will never pay for your crimes and you will continue to preen yourself, to bask in your illusions of moral ascendancy.'
Ok, so we have nothing to talk about. In your opinion any statement that is claimed by the person making it to be a "criticism" of Israel, no matter its content, is legitimate. If you're unwilling even to admit that some criticism of Israel can cross the line into anti-Semitism than there's no point in continuing this conversation. You just aren't living in the same reality as me.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Comments
Independence movements can prevail. The Apartheid regime in South Africa had the backing of the U.S and Israel, yet the blacks there also managed to rid themselves of that regime - in their case, with a lot of help from the international community.
'This has nothing to do with anti-semitism. I harbour no racist tendencies whatsoever.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is a special case. It interests me especially due to the level of misinformation, subterfuge, and outright lies that envelop it. The 40 propaganda campaign instigated by the Israeli's in their attempts to justify the occupation and ongoing land-grab are quite extraordinary. And I think it should be every concerned citizens duty to expose this propaganda for what it is. The Zionists sought, and continue to seek, a Jewish state. That is, a state run by, and for, Jews. It's my belief that Ethnic nationalism should have no place in the modern World. And that's not racism on my part. It's the exact opposite of racism.'
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
As for 'disempowering the Israeli left', that's just ridiculous.
And "race war"?! You've apparently turned what is in fact a conflict between two national movements over land into a racial conflict in your own mind. Why? What work does this misunderstanding do for you?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/14/fearsome-words/
The Nazi conception of a Jewish people lies at the heart of Israel’s famous right of return. Don’t take my word for it. Listen instead to the AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE), which describes itself as "a nonpartisan organization to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship by emphasizing the fundamentals of the alliance – the values our nations share". To explain in what sense ‘Jews’ have a right to return to their homeland, the AICE states that "At present, the definition is based on Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws: the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent. As a result, thousands of people with no meaningful connection to the Jewish people theoretically have the right to immigrate."
...What matters are not the citizens of a state, but the state itself, the totemic icon of ‘the Jewish people’. The fatal confusion that legitimized ethnic nationalism at the Paris Peace Conference now legitimizes Israel itself. When Zionists suggest that the French and Germans have a right to their states, they conveniently forget that this means the *inhabitants* of France and Germany, not those of some French or German *ancestry*, not a ‘people’ in the sense of an ethnic group. (The world was outraged when it suspected that Britain’s ‘patrial’ immigration laws were designed to favor those of ethnically British ancestry.) But ‘the Jewish people’ have a right to their state, and this is supposed to be some lofty ideal. Why? Because ethnic nationalism has taken on the cloak of civic nationalism, and we are too stupid to notice.
It's not a misunderstanding. The Israeli's are engaged in a war of ethnic cleansing based on a semi-racial category of Jewishness. The illegal settlements are for Jews only, and the Arabs are being dispossessed of their land, brutalized, and killed. Zionism wasn't designed to accommodate Arabs. It's a race war.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2009/10/14/fearsome-words/
For the homeland to *belong* to the Jews is for them to have *sovereignty* there. Thus Article 7(a) of Israel’s Basic Law stipulates that "A candidates’ list shall not participate in the elections to the Knesset if its objects or actions, expressly or by implication, include… negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." The Jewish people, in other words, are sovereign, and hold the power of life and death over all non-Jewish inhabitants under state control. Lest this seem overdramatic, note how the Israeli ministry of justice commented on a court case in March 2009: "The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective."
Your anti-racist sentiments seem to have some glaring loopholes. Could anyone imagine the same sentiment being expressed with regards to anti-black racism. Could you imagine someone claiming with a straight face to be an anti-racist and then saying "As for whether any member of the KKK may use anything I, or anyone else who is critical of [insert controversial African-American figure] says for his or her own racist ends, I really couldn't give a flying fuck."
Forgive me, but if you are really an anti-racist then you should give a flying fuck, and the fact that your statements could be embraced and used by racists should be a cause for introspection and a warning that perhaps you've allowed your anger to direct your rhetoric on a legitimate issue into nasty territory best avoided.
My point is simply that Israel and Zionism is really no different then any of the other nation-states and nationalisms that conceive of the state as being the homeland of a particular people. If you have no problem with Greece then you should have no problem with Israel as such. Criticism of the occupation is certainly valid, but if you're going to tell me that Greek nationalism is valid but Zionism is not, then I am going to question why you judge Jewish nationalism according to different standards than those you apply to the nationalisms of other national groups.
The Jewish Settler Attacks was Planned and Calculated to get a RISE out of the Palestinians and to make the Normal Regular Law abiding Jewish Folk look Bad.
How many People of all Races and Nationalities say they want World Peace and No More war Just about everyone says it...But Yet here we are in the 21st Century and it's still Prominent.
I'll confront racists if and when I encounter them, and that includes anti-Semites, and Israeli racists who believe they have a God given right - or a right bestowed on them by their Jewishness - to trample the Palestinians under foot.
Do you think that Israel's racism against the Palestinians is acceptable?
(And when I say 'Israel's', I mean just that - the codified, ideologically grounded, and systematic racism that exists from the top to the bottom in every aspect of Israeli life and it's institutions. Is it acceptable to you? Do you regard the Arabs as inferior to Jews?)
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Counterpunch has repeatedly run articles by prolific anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon. Briefly, Atzmon has questioned whether the Holocaust occurred, while simultaneously arguing that, if Hitler’s genocide did occur, it can partly be explained by Jews’ villainous behavior. Atzmon also explicitly charged that Jews are indeed trying to take over the world, and has endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, arguing about the document that “it is impossible to ignore its prophetic qualities and its capacity to describe” later Jewish behavior.
Counterpunch published an article by Alison Weir which alleges that the blood libel, (the charge that Jews ritually murdered gentiles), is true and is related to the false reports, in 2009, regarding Israeli thefts of human organs from Palestinians.
CounterPunch has made a cause celebre of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.
CounterPunch’s Alexander Cockburn has advanced the argument that Jews have a stranglehold on the U.S. media.
CounterPunch has advanced dual loyalty canards about Jews, and xenophobic narratives about how Washington is “occupied” by Israel
Counterpunch also has often welcomed Eric Walburg, a neo Nazi, to publish at their site. Walburg is also a Holocaust denier who, on the pages of CounterPunch, engaged in pro-Taliban propaganda.
CounterPunch published a rant by Jennifer Loewenstein, about a “Gazan Holocaust”, which included a passage referring to Israelis as “Neo-Jewish Masters” who used the Gaza war as a “pretext to carry out mass murder of the Arab Untermenschen.”
CounterPunch published the fascist Holocaust denier, and blood libel promoter, ‘Israel Shamir‘.
If you're looking to Counterpunch to form your opinions about Israel, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised if antisemitic language has found its way into your arguments. But seriously, please don't quote from an antisemitic publication to argue that your rhetoric is not unintentionally antisemitic. It's just embarrassing.
What you're implying is that because some anti-Semites may post criticisms of Israel, that all criticism of Israel should therefore be considered suspect, and otherwise dismissed or stifled.
What I'm saying is that this is bullshit.
Also, I asked you a number of questions above, and you've avoided answering them. Why's that? Do you think this is one way traffic? Is this the Yosi train we're on here?
I'll ask them again:
Do you think Jews have a right to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from their land?
Do you think that Israel's racism against the Palestinians is acceptable?
(And when I say 'Israel's', I mean just that - the codified, ideologically grounded, and systematic racism that exists from the top to the bottom in every aspect of Israeli life and it's institutions. Is it acceptable to you? Do you regard the Arabs as inferior to Jews?)
It's not difficult. Thanks.
In answer to your questions no and no, although with respect to the first question I expect that I would not agree with you about what constitutes ethnic cleansing (and I disagree with your premise that Israel is in fact carrying out a policy of ethnic cleansing).
By the way, it dawns on me that you've also repeatedly cited to Michael Neumann in the past. Here's a bit on that wonderful fellow and source for Byrnzie's wisdom.
The Canadian Jewish Congress reported in 2003 on an email exchange between Neumann and the proprietors on the anti-Semitic website Jewish Tribal Review.
The Web site quotes Neumann as writing, “I should perhaps have said I am very interested in truth, justice and understanding, but right now I have far more interest in helping the Palestinians. I would use anything, including lies, injustice and obfuscation, to do so. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don’t come to light, I don’t care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism or reasonable hostility to Jews, I don’t care. If it means encouraging vicious racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the State of Israel, I still don’t care.”
I wonder, Byrnzie, since you've so often quoted Mr. Neumann on these threads, perhaps you can explain what he meant by "reasonable anti-Semitism"?
Even if an essay full of racist attacks against Jews contains some legitimate criticisms of Israel's crimes, that doesn't mean that those legitimate criticisms should be dismissed as anti-semitic. Legitimate criticsms and anti-semitic racial hated are not the same thing.
So you don't think Israel is engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing, despite the fact that it's been systematically uprooting Palestinians from their land and placing Jews in their place? Israel enlarged its territory by 50 per cent during the 1948 war - a war it triggered by a series of massacres, incursions, and provocations. The Palestinians have ceded their claim to more than half the territory that the UN’s partition resolution had assigned to its Arab inhabitants.The Palestinians now exisit on 22 per cent of the territory that was originally theirs, and this territory is shrinking every day with more and more illegal Jewish-only settlements being built.
But no ethnic cleasning is taking place? Really? Just what fantasy World do you inhabit? I've already answerd this bullshit attack [Hasbara talking point] on Michael Neuman before. Do you need me to repeat myself?
Michael Neumann clarified exactly what he intended by the above statement, published without his permission by 'Jewish Tribal Review' who Neumann regards as anti-Semitic:
'I will not self-censor my writings because they may be misused by antisemites, and it is only in this very particular and limited sense that I 'don't care' about encouraging antisemitism. Antisemites misuse all sorts of materials, including the statements of committed Zionists and of Mahatma Gandhi. It would be futile and impossible for me to tailor my writings to avoid such misuse.'
..and in more detail here: http://mneumann.tripod.com/cjctripo.txt
'...let me begin with the greatest absurdity, the claim that I am antisemitic. In rejecting this claim I do not hide behind my Jewishness; there may have been, on rare occasions, Jewish antisemites. But there is nothing even close to antisemitism in my opinions.
Take the material that has caused the most outrage, a private email correspondence allegedly reproduced on the Jewish Tribal Review site. I have never denied that such a correspondence occurred, but only said the truth: that the site is not to be trusted, and that, lacking the original emails, I cannot vouch for its accuracy. I am distressed that the CJC has made so much of the material, not because it embarrasses me, but because it legitimates a truly poisonous, truly antisemitic site. I will comment on the material as if it were accurate, because that is the only way I can refute the claims made on its basis. However at the same time I repudiate that material. No one has disputed that it was published, not only without my consent, but against my express wishes.
What is almost comical about the use of the Jewish Tribal Review material is its context. The correspondence exists only because I published an article called "Blame Yourself: American Power and Jewish Power". This article is entirely devoted to attacking the myth that Jews control America: I believe and hope it to be one of the most systematic and effective attacks on that myth published to date.
As a result of its publication, I received a good deal of hate mail. One message I kept, entitled "Neumann the Zionist", reads as follows:
"Neumann's Jewish stripes finally begin to show, as we all knew they would. The Jews commandeer American foreign policy and make it do their dirty work, then send their mole Neumann to tell the goyim that its all their fault. How utterly predictable. You, Chomsky, Bennis, you're all the same. Go pick up your paycheck from the ADL. Show me a Jew who criticizes Israel and I'll show you a Zionist who hasn't had his coming out party yet. You just had yours."
The Jewish Tribal Review is much more polite, but it was precisely their unhappiness with my contentions that provoked the email exchange.
In this exchange, two sentences have been quoted entirely out of context: it strains my conciliatory intentions to believe that the quoting was done in good faith. Both occur in the following passage:
"My sole concern is indeed to help the Palestinians, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care."
In this context, it could hardly be clearer that my reply concerns my political writing, not my academic work. My political writing has a political, not an academic purpose; it is to help the Palestinians. For reasons detailed in the "Jewish power' article under discussion, I believe that the myth of Jewish control of America - an antisemitic myth - harms and discredits the Palestinian cause. So I say that, even if it is true that Jews own this or that or the other thing, I am not *interested* in such truths.
My correspondent takes this, in mock horror, as some admission that I habitually twist the truth to suit my political objectives; I regret to say that the CJC happily embraces this interpretation.
But my statement means what it literally says: that I am not *interested*, as I write on behalf of the Palestinians, in irrelevant truths, truths that don't further the Palestinian cause.
It does not mean that I am out to conceal or twist truths. It does mean - which is what I am saying - that I am not about t o climb on board in search of Jewish power when that project has nothing to do with the welfare of the Palestinians. Later on I make clear that, in general, I do believe that political objectives may trump the obligation to be truthful, but go on to say that almost everyone believes this. Lies were used to hide Jews from Hitler, and indeed at times to defeat him; it is childish to believe that, in politics, one must always be truthful. But I have never seen any occasion to bend the truth on behalf of the Palestinians, and I take great care for the factual accuracy of my claims.
What then of the statement: "If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care"?
In the first place, as the preceding statements make clear, I am stressing the importance of the Palestinian cause by considering extreme possibilities. I first say that "if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it." In other words, I first say that I will not uncover truths detrimental to the Jewish people if that doesn't help the Palestinians. This hardly sounds like the project of an antisemite.
In the second place, the statement is neither antisemitic, nor does it encourage antisemitism. It raises a remote possibility, and says that, should what I do - my writing - encourage antisemitism, that will not deter me. As I said in my letter to the National Post: "I will not self-censor my writings because they may be misused by antisemites, and it is only in this very particular and limited sense that I 'don't care' about encouraging antisemitism. Antisemites misuse all sorts of materials, including the statements of committed Zionists and of Mahatma Gandhi. It would be futile and impossible for me to tailor my writings to avoid such misuse." The notion that I would even contemplate deliberately cultivating antisemitism is absurd, not only because my family has been decimated by (Nazi) antisemites, but also because I have argued, at length, that Zionists manipulate antisemitism to their own purposes.
(The Israeli commentator Ran HaCohen, in http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h-col.html, is of much the same
opinion.)
Finally, the import of the passage can be understood by making a substitution in some of it. Suppose a committed defender of Israel had said:
"My sole concern is indeed to defend Israel, and I try to play for keeps. I am not interested in the truth, or justice, or understanding, or anything else, except so far as it serves that purpose. This means, among other things, that if talking about Jewish power doesn't fit my strategy, I won't talk about it. If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, I still don't care."
Of course I have left out the part about the destruction of the Israeli state, but that cannot be considered an antisemitic comment. It should now be clear that a willingness to tolerate these extreme consequences is neither antisemitism nor encouragement to antisemitism. Indeed the noted Israeli dove, Uri Avnery, has accused Zionists of exactly the same refusal to be deterred by antisemitic reactions: see his essay, "Manufacturing Antisemites". Like me, Zionists certainly care about the reactions - they won't just let such reactions stand in their way...
The notion that I am antisemitic or racist becomes even more absurd in the light of my repeated claims that Israeli crimes endanger and discredit the Jewish people - not because Israeli crimes ought to be blamed on all Jews, but because they are committed in the name of all Jews. (Many Jews object to this: hence the dissident Jewish organization called "Not In My Name".) Why would an antisemite care about this? Why have these repeated assertions, readily available to the CJC, never made it into their polemics?
...This is not to deny that my criticism of Israel is savage; I do indeed call Israel "an emerging evil". But I have no hatred of Israel, pathological or otherwise. Israel is an abstraction; to hate it would be foolish. Like all nations it contains wonderful and awful people; it is far too complex and heterogenous to hate.'
Michael Neumann: 'In short, the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given. Israel has committed war crimes. It has implicated Jews generally in these crimes, and Jews generally have hastened to implicate themselves. This has provoked hatred against Jews. Why not? Some of this hatred is racist, some isn't, but who cares? Why should we pay any attention to this issue at all? Is the fact that Israel's race war has provoked bitter anger of any importance besides the war itself? Is the remote possibility that somewhere, sometime, somehow, this hatred may in theory, possibly kill some Jews of any importance besides the brutal, actual, physical persecution of Palestinians, and the hundreds of thousands of votes for Arabs to be herded into transit camps?"
In February 2009, Neumann and his brother Osha Neumann asked the Israeli president to remove their grandmother’s name from the Yad Vashem because of the 2008-2009 Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. Neumann wrote that
'I do not believe that the Jewish people, in whose name you [i.e the israeli president] have committed so many crimes with such outrageous complacency, can ever rid itself of the shame you have brought upon us. Nazi propaganda, for all its calumnies, never disgraced and corrupted the Jews; you have succeeded in this...you blacken our names not only by your acts, but by the lies, the coy evasions, the smirking arrogance and the infantile self-righteousness with which you embroider our history... You will never pay for your crimes and you will continue to preen yourself, to bask in your illusions of moral ascendancy.'