Comments on: Wednesday Morning Rant

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 May 2005 17:59:34 +0000

Womble,

I have long accepted the fact that a PLO Arab state may be a solution…but only IF they stop trying to destroy us. I oppose the state on the grounds that this condition is not even close to being met.

Be that as it may, it is still important to show the lies being spread by the anti-Israel crowd (who, by the way, more often than not do not favor the two-state solution, but rather the “no Israel” solution).

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 May 2005 17:35:43 +0000

Here’s the problem, David. Whether or not there existed a Palestinian national identity, there indeed were Arabs who lived here, and they do count for “natives”, no less so than we do. Our historical connection to this land precedes theirs, but does not necesserily nullify it. I hold to the opinion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a case of CONFLICTING RIGHTS, not of one’s rights for land usurped by someone else who has no right for this land. And I think it can be resolved if each nation gets a state of its own and stops intruding on the neighbor’s souvereignity. At the moment I am entertaining myself with the idea of using the Weizmann-Feisal agreement as a basis for a final settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in general and the Israeli-Palestinian one in particular.

“We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other.”

Emir Feisal Ibn al-Hussein al-Hashemi, 1919

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 May 2005 13:32:49 +0000

Womble,

Thanks for your well informed comments. Although I strongly disagree with

I don’t think it matters at this point in time whether or not the Palestinians were a nation 100 years ago

since many people think that the PLO Arabs were a nation living in the land for centuries – hence the “natives vs usurpers” view of the conflict. If more people knew the facts – including the Jewish presence in the land for centuries, previous PLO Arab rejections of the two-state solution, the purpose of Transjordan, PLO Arab support for the Nazis, and the reasons for constructing a unique “palestinian” identity – then I am sure Israel would have more support.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 May 2005 13:18:38 +0000

Scott has a hobby- his blog. He even has a paid job… at a non-profit.

David, your comment, of course, wasn’t racist, although I don’t entirely agree on the conclusions. I don’t think it matters at this point in time whether or not the Palestinians were a nation 100 years ago. But yeah, at least your take on the issue is well founded in the historical facts and valid sources. I find that total historical ignorance and reluctance to do first-hand research is incredibly pervasive among the anti-Zionist crowd, and neither Scott nor Shamess are exceptions in this regard. They keep recycling the same old propaganda cliches, the same fabrications or in the best case half-truths. Their reading, for the most part, consists of recent books where the facts are pre-interpreted in a way favorable to them (Shamess’ citing of Benny Morris and Rashid Khalidi are a good illustration of that). Oh and ignoring the context, of course. Shamess’ explanation of the 1936 Arab riots as a “nationalist uprising” ignores the proven historical fact that it was a pro-Nazi, not pro-independence, uprising, funded by the Abwehr and perpetrated simultaneously both in Palestine and in Iraq (and after it failed, both leaders of the rioters, Haj Amin Al-Husseini and Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani, ended up in Berlin, recruiting Muslim soldiers for SS and conducting propaganda via Radio Berlin). Shamess and others are loathe to actually go to the authentic sources of the time, like The Elder of Ziyon did with the Palestine Post or like any interested person can do by spending a few hours in the library archives.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 May 2005 11:42:53 +0000

You know what just occurred to me? Scott looks alot like an Australian celebrity:That's Agro. He's an angry puppet, which means he doesn't have an original thing to say, and operates via a hand up the bottom. So you see, Scott, that you and he don't just look alike.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 May 2005 11:23:15 +0000

Scott, you need to get yourself a hobby… you have far too much time on your hands.

I hear there’s this new sport where people jump off these really high cliffs…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 May 2005 11:19:09 +0000

Scott,

Thanks for leaving this comment on my site. It speaks volumes about the mindset of people like you, making empty accusations of racism and ethnic cleansing without providing even a shred of evidence.

Long live Falluja, huh Scott?

Your’e a classy guy.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 May 2005 08:42:45 +0000

scott writes:

i knew you’d get pissed off by that comment…it’s partially what motivated me to write it. haha.

i do consider myself to be a fairly nice person. and i don’t yell racist just because your views are contrary to mine. i yell racist because that’s what you are – a racist. and i see no reason to be nice to racists, whether they be people like you or people like wendy campbell.

the way i figure it, i must be doing something right. i’m pissing off right-wing pro-israel people like you, who label me an anti-semite. and i’m also pissing off white supremacists like wendy and the vanguard news network who label me a zionist.

looking over the post again, you don’t actually link to anything where i say i’m kind hearted or where i

constantly tries to undermine the pro-Israel crowd by claiming that we yell “anti-Semite” anytime people like him criticize Israel.

though you yourself have proved that point by calling me an anti-semite.

you’re also wrong that i ignore “real” oppression elsewhere. though my mind is boggled as to how 57 years of ethnic cleansing and 38 years of occupation isn’t oppression…but moving on. (i know, you’ve read books that say it isn’t, so it must not be true.) recently i’ve written posts on uzbekistan, bolivia, and california prisons. i focus on the I/P conflict – but deal with other issues as well.

anyway, your whole post illustrates my point about you

flail[ing] about when anyone challenges the reality of the bizarre and racist world he’s constructed for himself.

i’m glad that you have such a paternalistic approach to dealing with me. it’s endearing, if not a bit creepy.

well, i’m off. take it easy, david…until the next time.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 May 2005 07:41:55 +0000

*Micol* writes:

This reminds me of an odd incident which happenned at the Union of Jewish Students in Belgium quite a while ago (at the very beginning of the Intifada).

One of the local Jewish leaders wrote in his union’s magazine something along the lines of “They day we will have peace, it will not be because the Palestinians want to have peace with us, it will be because they will have understood that they’ll never beat us” or something along those lines (I wish I remembered it exactly, sorry). The phrase itself was quoted from some other person.

After reading this magazine, the Jewish Students’ vice president (whose views more than just resembled Schamess’) wrote an angry editorial in the students’ magazine, saying how he was shocked that such an important person would say things like that, that he is a racist, that he understood nothing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that it’s a shame, that he’s a horrible example, and so on. (And this was an 18 year old kid lecturing a respected community member who’s over 50).

I didn’t understand what the fuss was about. I failed (and still do) to see where the racist part was. He’s racist for pointing out that after 50 years of trying to make peace with the Palestinians, they have never agreed to peace and ended up with war? He’s a racist because he’s aware of the fact that Israel will never stop until it achieves peace? He’s a racist because he dares say what everybody is thinking deep inside, that while Israel wants peace, the goal of the Palestinian leaders is to annihilate Israel?

It became a whole big problem. It took us years to be in good terms with that other union once again. And all this, because the vice president thought he was “doing something good”, standing up for the rights of minorities or what not. He’s one of those people who refuse to listen to whatever reasoning people might have, if it conflicts with their own. He can have lengthy hearted debates with people who think almost exactly like him, but any conversation with, say, me, he dismisses immediately as being useless, because we don’t agree and never will and I’m Israeli and therefore biased towards my country and hate all Palestinians. Never mind actually talking to me.

To end this whole d’j’ vu I’m having here, this ex-vice president now works for the Belgian Socialist party (PS), where he is considered very zionist and is often left out of discussions about this subject because “being Jewish, his opinion can’t be without prejudice”

(i miss being able to preview the comments too)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 25 May 2005 06:14:34 +0000

Jack writes:

Well that was different. What a wacky woman.