Well, the time has come for us to bid this blog behind and move on to bigger and better things. If you have come looking for "The Brothers of Judea" you should know that we are now at a blog named: Huffington Post Monitor and are located at this address: http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com/
All of our old information and posts (user profiles, blogger responses) are also located at the news site.
Hopefully we will see you all there! Email us if you have any other questions.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Jewish Power Struggle!
The original link.
The Past Is Past....Except When It's Not
I'm sure I wouldn't be the first person to reference the expression, "Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it" on a blog. The only thing that it is more common to argue about between Zionists and anti-Zionists than current events is the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. One of the things that I find so amazing, though, is anti-Zionist hypocrisy on the subject of the past.
This hypocrisy most clearly takes a very simple form: Misdeeds of Israel's enemies in the past are not happening now, times have changed, the situation is different, so Israel just needs to get over it. But on the other hand, the actions of Israel from decade or even millennia ago (seriously) are continually dredged up and aired out in every single thread.
Here are two examples from this thread if you don't believe me. The first poster thinks it's totally natural that the Lebanese should be skittish around Israel because of Israel's invasions of Lebanon twenty years ago and four years ago. Meanwhile, the second poster completely dismisses the genocidal invasion of Israel by five Arab armies as a "deflection."
It strikes me as very hypocritical for anti-Zionists to expect Israel to simply "get over" the past (including the Holocaust) but not expect the same from their enemies. How many times are the AZs going to wave the bloody shirt of the Nakba while out of the other side of their mouths complain that the Jews play up the Holocaust too much? Nor, I think, would they be particularly receptive if I were to point out that Cast Lead and the flotilla raid all happened in "the past" as well, and it's time that they all moved on from it.
I personally think that the history of both peoples (right or wrong) affects the conflict to this day and neither actions should be dismissed as "off topic" or a deflection, as long as the poster referencing it explains how it is related to the current discussion. Honestly, this conflict is not that long and there are many people who still remember everything that has happened since the beginning. It might be pretty easy for bbsnews to forget about that time Israel almost got wiped off the planet, but it's harder for Israel to do so.
Say what you will about the Zionists on the HP, but at least they are not hypocrites in this way.
This hypocrisy most clearly takes a very simple form: Misdeeds of Israel's enemies in the past are not happening now, times have changed, the situation is different, so Israel just needs to get over it. But on the other hand, the actions of Israel from decade or even millennia ago (seriously) are continually dredged up and aired out in every single thread.
Here are two examples from this thread if you don't believe me. The first poster thinks it's totally natural that the Lebanese should be skittish around Israel because of Israel's invasions of Lebanon twenty years ago and four years ago. Meanwhile, the second poster completely dismisses the genocidal invasion of Israel by five Arab armies as a "deflection."
I personally think that the history of both peoples (right or wrong) affects the conflict to this day and neither actions should be dismissed as "off topic" or a deflection, as long as the poster referencing it explains how it is related to the current discussion. Honestly, this conflict is not that long and there are many people who still remember everything that has happened since the beginning. It might be pretty easy for bbsnews to forget about that time Israel almost got wiped off the planet, but it's harder for Israel to do so.
Say what you will about the Zionists on the HP, but at least they are not hypocrites in this way.
Jews Support "Ground Zero Mosque," Haters Come Out
In the week or so since Matt and I wrote our thoughts about the supposed "Ground Zero Mosque," both of our opinions have changed. I'm not going to speak for Matt but I was convinced that there is no good reason to punish Muslims who have nothing to do with the attacks no matter what the reason.
Anyway, the HP published a story about Jewish groups supporting the Cordoba Center. As you might expect there was a little bit of Muslim-bashing but also some Jew-bashing, including the old "no Jews died in 9/11" conspiracy theory. Here's what I found:
Anyway, the HP published a story about Jewish groups supporting the Cordoba Center. As you might expect there was a little bit of Muslim-bashing but also some Jew-bashing, including the old "no Jews died in 9/11" conspiracy theory. Here's what I found:
Sharmine Narwani's Moussa Interview (Part 1)
Sharmine "Dignity Rockets" Narwani has written a very, very long interview with Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, who might potentially become President of Egypt. In sum the article was about how they both thought the current peace process wasn't working and Mr. Moussa had some ideas of what to do instead. To be honest the interview is too long to analyze completely but I did want to indicate an exchange here that is very telling about Ms. Narwani's point of view:
Ignores History of Peace Process: Like many anti-Zionists, Ms. Narwani is an expert in history until that history become inconvenient for making her case. Not only does she ignore the violence that the Palestinians have unleashed against Israel while those settlements were being built, but she also ignores the not one but three offers of statehood that Israel offered the Palestinians. All of which were rejected because "they weren't good enough," obviously. In fact according to her the only thing that has happened during the past nineteen years is that settlements have expanded. Then she wonders why "land for peace" doesn't seem to be working? There is no peace, why should Israel give up land?
Ignores Gaza Withdrawal. Ms. Narwani will find support among hardcore Zionists that "land for peace" doesn't work, but not in the way that she hoped to. Israel did withdraw the settlements and troops out of Gaza and now Gaza is more of a danger to Israel than ever before. In other words, Israel did give land to the Palestinians but there was no peace as a result of it. This would seem to indicate that "land for peace" is actually a myth, and that Israel shouldn't bother giving the Palestinians anything until a peace treaty is signed and sealed. But somehow I don't think that was what Ms. Narwani was going for when she said that.
Finally, Ignores Current Status of Settlements: According to Ms. Narwani, because there are a lot of settlers in the West Bank, there can't be a Palestinian state. It's not that I've never seen this viewpoint before, but every time I see it I am stunned that people who endorse this view can be so close-minded about solutions. There are many things that can be done with the settlers before giving up the idea of a two-state solution:
1) Give the 5% to Israel and expel the rest. It won't be easy but the Palestinians have shown their willingness to kill the settlers in the past so it will be easy to get recruits for that mission.
2) Make the settlers Palestinian citizens. If they don't want to be Palestinian citizens they can leave.
3) Offer the settlers incentives to move back home. That "incentive" can be their own life. I for one wouldn't mind.
The trouble, of course, is that all of these solutions involve the Palestinians giving something up for peace, whether it be 100% of the West Bank or a 100% Jew-free Palestine. And based on this interview, asking the Palestinians to make a sacrifice for peace is like a dirty word for Sharmine Narwani and her pals in the Arab League. But we'll discuss that more in the next post.
S: We both know that today there can be no Palestinian state or peace solution based on a land-for-peace formula because the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since talks started in Madrid nineteen years ago have quintupled. Right?So what Ms. Narwani is getting at is that because Israeli settlements in the West Bank have continued over the past nineteen years (implying that peace talks have been happening non-stop ever since) therefore the idea of "land for peace" is unattainable and therefore there cannot be a Palestinian state or a two-state solution. Of course this viewpoint is flawed for many reasons and here are some:
A: Yes, yes, right.
S: While Likud has been yelling about building settlements, Labor has stealthily built them - it has made no difference which Israeli political party is in power. There's no land-for-peace formula, yet still to this day, we're talking about King Abdullah's peace plan, the Arab League's Initiative. Why such hypocricy? Why did the Arab League waste so much time until this very minute defending these initiatives and pushing the Palestinians to sit at this table?
Ignores History of Peace Process: Like many anti-Zionists, Ms. Narwani is an expert in history until that history become inconvenient for making her case. Not only does she ignore the violence that the Palestinians have unleashed against Israel while those settlements were being built, but she also ignores the not one but three offers of statehood that Israel offered the Palestinians. All of which were rejected because "they weren't good enough," obviously. In fact according to her the only thing that has happened during the past nineteen years is that settlements have expanded. Then she wonders why "land for peace" doesn't seem to be working? There is no peace, why should Israel give up land?
Ignores Gaza Withdrawal. Ms. Narwani will find support among hardcore Zionists that "land for peace" doesn't work, but not in the way that she hoped to. Israel did withdraw the settlements and troops out of Gaza and now Gaza is more of a danger to Israel than ever before. In other words, Israel did give land to the Palestinians but there was no peace as a result of it. This would seem to indicate that "land for peace" is actually a myth, and that Israel shouldn't bother giving the Palestinians anything until a peace treaty is signed and sealed. But somehow I don't think that was what Ms. Narwani was going for when she said that.
Finally, Ignores Current Status of Settlements: According to Ms. Narwani, because there are a lot of settlers in the West Bank, there can't be a Palestinian state. It's not that I've never seen this viewpoint before, but every time I see it I am stunned that people who endorse this view can be so close-minded about solutions. There are many things that can be done with the settlers before giving up the idea of a two-state solution:
1) Give the 5% to Israel and expel the rest. It won't be easy but the Palestinians have shown their willingness to kill the settlers in the past so it will be easy to get recruits for that mission.
2) Make the settlers Palestinian citizens. If they don't want to be Palestinian citizens they can leave.
3) Offer the settlers incentives to move back home. That "incentive" can be their own life. I for one wouldn't mind.
The trouble, of course, is that all of these solutions involve the Palestinians giving something up for peace, whether it be 100% of the West Bank or a 100% Jew-free Palestine. And based on this interview, asking the Palestinians to make a sacrifice for peace is like a dirty word for Sharmine Narwani and her pals in the Arab League. But we'll discuss that more in the next post.
How Low Can You Go?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)