+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Why the Israeli Left can't reconcile with the most Zionist law

For seven decades, those on the Zionist Left have been reluctant to grapple with Israel’s history of discrimination against its Palestinian minority. With the Jewish Nation-State Law, they have no choice — and that’s what really hurts.

By Meron Rapoport

Palestinian and Israeli peace activists march in central Jerusalem on October 17, 2015. (Hadas Parush/Flash90)

Palestinian and Israeli peace activists march in central Jerusalem on October 17, 2015. (Hadas Parush/Flash90)

It is difficult, if not impossible, to find Palestinians who support Israel’s new Jewish Nation-State Law. It is just as impossible to find Palestinians who are surprised by the law, which, in truth, does not tell Palestinians anything they did not know before: that the State of Israel is the state of the Jews, and the Arabs who live here are second-class citizens at best.

Among Jewish Israelis the response has been, well, different. According to a poll published by Walla! News, a majority of Jewish Israelis support the law. Frankly, it would be surprising if the poll found anything else. After all, the law only repeats what every student in the Israeli education system learns from day one: Israel is a “Jewish state” and Jewish settlement of the land is a near-holy act. Why should anyone think differently?

Perhaps that is why it is surprising that the vast majority of Labor and Meretz voters (left-wing but still Zionist parties) oppose the law, and that opinions are split (with a slight majority in favor of the law) even in centrist parties such as Yesh Atid and Kulanu.

The emotional response of much of the Jewish Left is not self-evident. MK Michal Rozin (Meretz), for example, wrote on her Facebook page that a “black flag” flies above the Jewish Nation-State Law, as it constitutes a “vote of no confidence in the Declaration of Independence upon which the State of Israel was founded and is based.”

Meretz parliament member Michal Rozin (L) attends a Knesset Committee meeting discussing the allegations against Joint Arab List member Basel Ghattas, on September 20, 2016. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Meretz parliament member Michal Rozin (L) attends a Knesset Committee meeting discussing the allegations against Joint Arab List member Basel Ghattas, on September 20, 2016. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

The thousands of Jewish Israelis who crowded Tel Aviv’s Habima Square on Monday for the “world’s largest Arabic lesson” were there to express just how morally reprehensible they found the law — which strips Arabic of its status as one of Israel’s official languages — to be.

Perhaps the clearest expression of the Left’s revulsion, however, came from famed Hebrew University Law Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer, when he spoke to former member of Knesset and journalist Yinon Magal on the latter’s radio show: “This is a humiliating, shocking, and stupid law that every person with a conscience must oppose,” Kremnitzer said as his voice broke, “I am ashamed that this is how they define my country.”

Palestinian leaders, too, were furious about the law, yet none of them came close to breaking down in tears. Perhaps because none of them ever had any expectations. Perhaps because none of them ever saw Israel as “their state.”

It isn’t difficult to view the responses by Rozin and Kremnitzer with a modicum of cynicism. The same Israel that promised to “be devoted to the development of the land for the benefit of all its inhabitants” was built on the ruins of the Palestinian people, half of whom fled or were expelled in 1948 and were forbidden from returning. After the war, Israel built hundreds of exclusively Jewish communities on land belonging to those Palestinians. And that’s without mentioning the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

Palestinians participate in the March of Return, Galilee, May 2, 2017. (Maria Zreik/Activestills)

Palestinians participate in the March of Return, Galilee, May 2, 2017. (Maria Zreik/Activestills)

Yet there is a difference between the vagueness of the Declaration of Independence and the discriminatory practices of the last 70 years on the one hand, and on the other, the Jewish Nation-State Law, which codifies that only one nation has the right to self-determination in this land, that one language is supreme above all others, and that Jewish settlement takes precedence over anyone else’s.

But it would be a mistake to say that those left-wing Zionists who now oppose the Jewish Nation-State Law are turning a blind eye to the injustices of the past. Kremnitzer and others are well aware of the problematic sides of Zionism’s past — ideologies, leaders, and groups which never really believed in equal rights for the Palestinians who live in this land.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, would have supported the law ignores the fact that 70 years have come and gone since Ben-Gurion oversaw the establishment of Israel. The Arabs are not the same Arabs, and the Jews are not the same Jews.

“The State of Israel is the realization of the most justified dream,” Kremnitzer said in his radio interview, but he cannot accept that Israel should discriminate against non-Jews in the name of that “Jewish state.” He is not alone. I believe that many in the Jewish center-left, whether or not they actively define themselves as Zionists, are in the same position.

SUBSCRIBE TO +972 MAGAZINE'S WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

SUBMIT

In their view, Israel is actually “the Israeli state,” as opposed to the Jewish state, meaning it belongs to all its citizens — Jews and Arabs alike. They may be reluctant to look back and admit to the various forms of systemic discrimination Israel implemented against the Palestinian minority over seven decades years, but that’s in the past — they want to look to the future.

The moral revulsion of those on the Zionist Left today is a result of moving away from the ideology of their parents and grandparents. Even if they continue to see Israel as a Jewish state, or at the very least the Jewish national home, they first and foremost view Israel as a democratic state. The Jewish Nation-State Law is a direct attack on that view of their country, and in a sense, on the way they view themselves. Some say it is an illusion. But even if it is, it is a very unpleasant illusion to be woken from.

Meron Rapoport is an editor at Local Call, where a version of this article first appeared in Hebrew. Read it here.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. pascal wick

      “The State of Israel is the realization of the most justified dream,” Can a zionist Jew say that to a Palestinian and at the same time say that he believes in equal rights between israeli Jews and israeli Palestinians in the land today controlled by the israeli Jews, be it in Beni Saleh, Kyriat tiv’on or Ramallah?

      Reply to Comment
    2. Bruce Gould

      @Ido: “Maybe it’s because the BDS is seeking to end Israel…”

      Yes, I want to see the Israel that is the state of only some of it citizens, a state that has now declared that it intends to recognize full rights for only one ethnic-religious group, ended and replaced with a modern nation state that is the state of all its citizens equally. I also wouldn’t object if it became a state that considers it wrong to arrest and imprison people without even charging them with crimes or giving them a trial.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ido

        Apparently you didn’t read the actual law you’re talking about. Please by all means, point me to the sections saying “Israel that is the state of only some of it citizens” and “recognizes
        full rights for only one ethnic-religious group”. I oppose this idiotic unnecessary law but you’re simply lying.
        Are you going to address the evidence I posted about BDS or just ignore it like the other clown ?

        Reply to Comment
        • Bruce Gould

          @Ido: Many people have many different positions, I’m sure you can find people who want to ‘end Israel’. But as a member of JVP I know many Jews who support BDS, and none of them want to ‘end Israel’ – try talking to actual humans and read less words on the screen.

          As for what the nation state law does, try talking to some actual living humans – the Druze in your own country, for example.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Again: I listed the goals of BDS, their core ideology. Quotes from their founders and top supporters. Why are you ignoring this ?
            I also know many Jews who support turning Israel into a de-facto Arab failed state. What does this has to do with what BDS are wnd what they stand for ?
            “As for what the nation state law does” – as expected you were unable to provide any backing to your lies from the previous post.
            “the Druze in your own country, for example” – They didn’t lie like you did.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bruce Gould

            @Ido: Ok, let’s read words on the screen. The first source you mention is this:

            https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/the-bds-movent-is-about-d_b_5038233.html

            And it references this: https://bdsmovement.net/call

            which contains this:

            1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
            2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
            3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

            Resolution 194 is explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_194

            The Resolution defined principles for reaching a final settlement and returning Palestine refugees to their homes. It resolved that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” (Article 11)[1]

            It’s a stretch to imagine this is ‘ending Israel’, and it seems entirely reasonable to me. You’re living on stolen land, Ido.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “It’s a stretch to imagine this is ‘ending Israel’” – why are you also ignoring the evidence I provided ? quoting Norman Finkelstein, a pro-Palestinian former BDS supporter: “I mean we have to be honest, and I loathe the disingenuousness. They don’t want Israel. They think they are being very clever; they call it their three tier. We want the end of the occupation, the right of return, and we want equal rights for Arabs in Israel. And they think they are very clever because they know the result of implementing all three is what, what is the result? You know and I know what the result is. There’s no Israel!”

            Again: why are you ignoring the evidence I posted ? showing very clearly what the BDS goals are ?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            @Ido: You’re one of the most obnoxious and childish people I’ve encountered online.
            Everyone who disagrees with you is not “lying.”
            Everyone who disagrees with you is not “ignoring” or “apparently did not read” or “apparently did not know” something.
            Everything is not ridiculously black and white and literal.

            Bruce is not “lying” by saying any of the things he says above. As one example, Bruce is not lying by characterizing the nation state law as conveying that Israel “is the state of only some of it citizens, a state that has now declared that it intends to recognize full rights for only one ethnic-religious group.” It is an eminently reasonable thing to say what Bruce said, an entirely reasonable position to take. You may disagree with it but that does not mean Bruce is “lying.” Telling him to literally find these exact words of his in the nation state law or be revealed as a “liar” is incredibly childish and simple-minded, would be devious if it even rose to that, if not so transparently bogus.

            Sheldon Ranz was on target when he called you a Bibibot. No matter what nuanced statement someone makes, that data gets fed into the Bibibot and out of the bot comes “Why are you lying?…apparently you did not know….apparently you did not read…is my quote fake?…please by all means find this black and white literal thing, these exact words and if you can’t I have proven you are a liar….”

            You say you detest the Netanyahu government, but nothing you have ever written here at +972 would back up that assertion. You say you are for two states but nothing you have ever said would back that up. You say you are against the nation state law but nothing you have ever said would back that up.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “Everyone who disagrees with you is not “lying.”” – nope, when I claim you’re lying I literally provide exactly where you lied. You are again lying about this. Pointing where you lied is not “a disagreement”. I Pointed this to you so many times and you again continue to lie about lying. This is amazing.

            “Everyone who disagrees with you is not “ignoring”” – says the guy who ignores my evidence and my posts on a regular basis, thinking doing so will somehow make it go away. This is hilarious.
            Look, this is very simple: I post evidence, you can challenge it, you can debate it, what you do is ignore it. As if it doesn’t exist. Is this too complicated for you ?
            ““apparently did not know” – Again: when I say you’re clueless I literally point where exactly you are clueless, why are you lying about this as well ?
            “Everything is not ridiculously black and white and literal” – your lies and ignorance sure are.

            “Bruce is not “lying” by saying any of the things he says” – yes he is, he claimed the law says something which it doesn’t. It’s that simple. I pointed it out, he was unable to provide evidence to refute it. Do you understand ? is this too complicated for you ?
            “it intends to recognize full rights for only one ethnic-religious group” – so you haven’t read it as well ? why are you also lying about this ? the law doesn’t say this.
            “You may disagree” – again with the “disagree” nonsense. Pointing facts are not a disagreement, how hard is this for you, really ?
            “does not mean Bruce is “lying.”” – he claimed something which doesn’t exist. That’s called lying.
            “Telling him to literally” – he claimed something which is wrong, which is never mentioned in the law. How can this be that complicated for you ?
            “Sheldon Ranz was on target when he called you a Bibibot” – so like him you’re lying about me as well ?

            “You say you detest the Netanyahu government, but nothing you have ever written here at +972 would back up that assertion” – you mean besides saying that exact words ? besides saying in this very page that I think this law is idiotic and unnecessary ?
            What’s with your obsession of lying about me ?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Those who want to understand Geller’s habits should scan the Geller-Ranz dialogue, above. I think Ranz does a nice job of showing how Geller obfuscates, misleads and uses unprincipled techniques. A technique Geller habitually employs is burying his interlocutor under endless repetitive bluster involving mere opinions, distortions, oversimplifications, and half-truths at best, masquerading as what he insists are incontrovertible and complete “facts” and “information.” And then extends this by asking if any of this is “fake.” The idea is, if a distortion is not “fake” then it must be “real” and if it is “real” then, case closed, it is a “fact.” You see the chicanery.
            He will now do this in response to my challenge as well.
            Pay it no mind.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Ben, lie as much as you like. Ignore evidence and facts as much as you like. You sure do in our little chats over and over again. Guess what: it won’t make any of them go away.
            Ranz, like you, ignores the evidence I provided spelling it out for him, repeatedly.
            “Geller obfuscates, misleads” – by all means, show it. Where exactly ? go ahead.
            “burying his interlocutor under endless repetitive” – oh you mean pointing out how you ignore evidence over and over again ? how you’re a clueless liar who has no idea what he’s talking about ? I do so because you ignore my evidence over and over again, lie and say idiotic clueless nonsense that I refute sentence after sentence over and over again.
            “mere opinions, distortions, oversimplifications” – hilarious. Facts are not opinions. Reality is not a distortion. When I ask you to actually back your claims you simply ignore it. Like you ignore me pointing exactly where you lied and where you made hilarious mistakes.
            “and half-truths at best, masquerading as what he insists are incontrovertible and complete “facts” and “information.” – Again: where ? why is this so difficult for you to do in our little chats ?
            “And then extends this by asking if any of this is “fake.”” – oh you mean asking for someone to refute my evidence ? to address the facts I’m posting ? yes, that’s terrible. I’m sure to you it is.
            “The idea is, if a distortion is not “fake” then it must be “real” and if it is “real” then, case closed” – why are you lying about this nonsense again ? how many times have I proved you’re a clueless liar ? by actually providing the evidence for it ? literally posting what you said and how you were wrong ? which you couldn’t refute ?
            I’ll post some examples of our little chats where I point in great detail where you lied, where you had no idea what you were talking about, where you made embarrassing mistakes. Please, by all mean, address them.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Geller: “Bruce is not “lying” by saying any of the things he says” – yes he is, he claimed the law says something which it doesn’t. It’s that simple. I pointed it out, he was unable to provide evidence to refute it. … “it intends to recognize full rights for only one ethnic-religious group” – so you haven’t read it as well ? why are you also lying about this ? the law doesn’t say this.’

            Well, this in a nutshell is classic Ido Geller. Is it necessary to point out that Bruce’s claims about the nation state law are eminently reasonable, even obvious, and that it is not “lying” to say that a law, despite its literal surface language, or in fact because of its literal surface language, is obviously saying more than that in the total context? Bruce is interpreting the true meaning of the law. That is not “lying” in any conceivable normal sense.
            Ido Geller is pushing the rather fantastic theme that if the law does not LITERALLY say EXACTLY, VERBATIM, what a person interprets that law to be about, then that person’s interpretation of the law, no matter how reasonable, informed and obvious, is “a lie.” This is preposterous and childish. To use your language, Ido, why is this so difficult for you to understand? Why do you ignore this? Really your simple-mindedness and repetitiousness on this subject is tedious, and we too much indulge your nonsense.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “Well, this in a nutshell is classic Ido Geller” – Exactly. Pointing out very clearly where someone was wrong, where someone lied.
            “are eminently reasonable” – Again: that’s not what he said. He said the law declared something which it didn’t. It’s that simple. How can you not grasp something this simple ?
            “Bruce is interpreting the true meaning of the law” – never mind that’s not what he said, his interpretation contradicts another Basic Law in Israel called ‘Human Dignity and Liberty Law’.
            ” That is not “lying” in any conceivable normal sense” – this is what he said: “a state that has now declared that it intends to recognize full rights for only one ethnic-religious group”. That’s not the case. There’s nothing in this law regarding full rights or otherwise, his comment contradicts the ‘Human Dignity and Liberty’ Law. The new law repeats what is written in Israel declaration of Independence, this is nothing new. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, that’s a fact. My problem with the law is how it doesn’t include all of what is written in the declaration of Independence.
            But saying that the law intends to recognize full rights for only one ethnic-religious group is simply false.

            “not LITERALLY say EXACTLY, VERBATIM” – no I didn’t, I asked him to back up his claim, where the law says what he claimed it does. I asked him to point me to a section that says Israel is the state of only some of it citizens and it recognizes full rights only to them.
            “person’s interpretation of the law” – which is wrong and is contradicted by the Basic Law I mentioned.
            “why is this so difficult for you to understand” – it isn’t, as I explained in detail. Again.
            “Why do you ignore this” – I didn’t, I addressed it directly, quoting it. Unlike you, as evident in the links in the Facebook comments section. You simply ignore posts and evidence, thinking it will go away.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Many, not just Bruce, have pointed out that the nation state law is in fact **intended** to contradict and counter the very Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty that you frankly assert Bruce’s claim is contradicting!

            You didn’t get that before you pushed the send button? You’re rather like Trump tweeting that the meeting his son took with a Russian agent was, after all, all about getting dirt on an opponent (but “it was legal!” (nope) “and “I wasn’t at the meeting anyway!”)

            A key goal, in fact, for Netanyahu and the right-wing camp in passing the law is for it to act as a **counter** to the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) in court rulings. The nation-state law is intended to force judges to favor Jews over other citizens when individual rights and freedoms are at stake in future decisions.

            That Bruce’s claim about one Basic Law would contradict another Basic Law as well as The Declaration of Independence supports **our** case not yours! (“Classic Ido Geller,” indeed! LoL.)

            You can’t fix this nation state law with a bandaid saying “Oh, hey, we like the Declaration of Independence too and don’t worry we really didn’t mean it. All animals are equal it’s just that some animals are more equal than others.” Just because Ayalet Shaked cloaks this in sinister euphemisms about “balancing Jewish and democratic” does not mean Bruce is not correct, or that in any case, that Bruce is “lying,” for gods sake! Whatever else Bruce is doing he is NOT “lying”!

            Besides being extraordinarily offensive (routinely not just impulsively), what you are doing, Ido, is hiding behind the dodge that a law very arguably intended to be what Bruce is saying it is intended to be is not that because Bruce can’t “prove” the exact language stipulates that in a precisely spelled out, literal way. This tactic is bogus. It cannot be defended.

            Case in point” Is Rafik Halabi “lying” here, Ido, or is he just expressing an interpretation of the nation state law that differs from yours?
            https://972mag.com/tens-of-thousands-of-druze-protest-for-equality-in-tel-aviv/137069/

            Halabi: “The alliance with the Jews must be an alliance of equals. The Druze want to be part of the camp. We want our citizenship to mean something. We are real Israelis — the Nation-State Law empties Israeliness of any meaning. From today on there is no blood pact, there is no alliance of life, there is an alliance of equality.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “Many, not just Bruce, have pointed out that the nation state law is in fact **intended** to contradict and counter” – Again: the law doesn’t say anything about that. They can believe it is intended to do whatever they want, the law has no stand about this. How can it contradict something when it doesn’t say anything about it ? the law that actually say something about it is a different law.
            “You didn’t get that before you pushed the send button” – huh ? I explained this to you like to a child. more than once.
            “You’re rather like Trump” – irrelevant nonsense is irrelevant.
            “A key goal, in fact, for Netanyahu and the right-wing camp in passing the law is for it to act as a **counter** to the Basic Law” – a future goal ? they intend to legislate in the future then ? best of luck to them. It’ll never pass the Supreme Court, in fact the court is right now dealing with an appeal against the new law and I hope they reject it.
            The nation-state law is intended to force judges to favor Jews over other citizens” – no way this will pass the Supreme Court.
            “That Bruce’s claim about one Basic Law would contradict another Basic Law as well as The Declaration of Independence supports **our** case not yours!” – Sure, it’ll contradict it with something it doesn’t say but the other law, which it intends to contradict, does.
            I have a problem with the law but saying it contradicts this, sorry, could in the future pending a legislation that doesn’t exist yet, contradict an older law which says something specifically is a lot of wishful thinking.
            ““Classic Ido Geller,” indeed! LoL.” – right. See the huge amount of evidence in the Facebook comments section of links of me listing your clueless nonsense and lies in great detail for some real Ido classics.
            “does not mean Bruce is not correct” – he said the law declared that it intends to do something which it didn’t. That’s it. I have no idea how you are still having a difficult time with this.
            ” Bruce is doing he is NOT “lying”” – he was “paraphrasing” ? remember that hilarious nonsense ? see the evidence in the Facebook comments section, all the links to articles on this site with me refuting your lying clueless nonsense.
            “what you are doing, Ido, is hiding behind the dodge” – pointing out what actually is the truth is a “dodge”. Is that another of your “interpretations” ?
            “that a law very arguably intended to be what Bruce is saying” – and when it does, which it never will, I’ll gladly have that debate with you. I’ll actually be on your side.
            “hat in a precisely spelled out, literal way. This tactic is bogus” – it doesn’t say what he claimed it says. It’s that simple. How can this fly above your head ? so it could say something ? it could say a lot of things.
            “Rafik Halabi “lying” here” – no, unlike Bruce he didn’t claim the law says something it doesn’t. He demands full equality by law and they are angry that the law doesn’t mention them when it says Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, which of course it is.
            If you have been following the news, another law will address the Druze and their demands.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            All of this tediousness, top to bottom, is mere denial and side-stepping, pettifoggery, when it is not simply incoherent. Bruce Gould and Rafik Halabi are saying essentially the same thing, as are thousands of other Israelis and non-Israelis, and you are nitpicking and picking fights and imagining distinctions without differences for no discernable reason other than that you can’t stand to lose an argument. One gets the sense that all of this is all about you, Ido Geller (and your odd fascination with me) and not really about the issues at hand. Whatever point you think you are making, you enlighten no one, you obscure everything, and we are miles away from anything useful.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            The nation state law is what Bruce says it is, it is what Rafik Halabi says it is, it is what the Druze say it is, it is what many Israelis more honest than you, say it is, and is already being used to justify all sorts of discrimination, and that was its purpose from the beginning. Netanyhu admits it (“Israel’s family separation law“ by Michael Omer-Man in +972) and Yariv Levin admits it:

            “The law provides tools that didn’t exist in the past,” he said, citing the case of Upper Nazareth, a Jewish town in the north to which considerable numbers of Arabs have moved and which is adjacent to the Arab city of Nazareth. “If up to now, it was impossible to come and say that we want to provide specific assistance to strengthen the Jewish hold there, the law allows that to be done. “Through the law, we can prevent family reunification not only out of security motives, but also motivated to maintain the character of the country as the national homeland of the Jewish people,” the tourism minister said. “On several occasions, I asked the legal adviser’s office to provide grounds for [opposing reunification] not only on security grounds. The response was that it’s not possible because they don’t have a basis for it. Now I believe we would receive a different answer.”

            https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-minister-explains-why-he-fought-to-pass-nation-state-law-1.6358737

            Now, Ido, you may find this discrimination just fine or excusable. We don’t. Not interested in your thoughts on why it is just fine or excusable.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “The nation state law is what Bruce says it is, it is what Rafik Halabi says it is” – I repeated what both said, based on, well, on what they both said.
            “what many Israelis more honest than you, say it is” – as I said I’m against this law, but lying about what the law actually says is still incorrect.
            “and is already being used to justify all sorts of discrimination” – no it isn’t.
            ““Israel’s family separation law“” – ah, this has nothing to do with the law of course, that has been refused for years before and for a good reason.
            “we can prevent family reunification not only out of security motives” – which was the actual reason.
            “but also motivated to maintain the character of the country” – Again, maybe. a Possibility which the law has no say in the matter. I would like to see them try and how the Israeli court reject them.
            “as the national homeland of the Jewish people” – that’s not what it means. That is a historic fact. It has nothing to do with what that guy claims and it will be thrown out of court.
            “Now I believe” – key words ‘I believe’. Won’t happen.

            “Now, Ido, you may find this discrimination just fine or excusable” – maybe you should read the actual reason the court used to approve this law.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Lie as much as you like, the facts I posted are not going to change.
            Please, by all means, which part of the post is too difficult for you to understand ? I’ll gladly explain it to you if needed.
            “you are nitpicking and picking fights” – yes, pointing out what actually was said by Halabi and Bruce is “nitpicking”. Facts are apparently “nitpicking” to you.
            “you can’t stand to lose an argument” – I explained it in detail, like to a child, how can you not grasp this ? incredible.
            “all about you” – it’s about your clueless nonsense, see the many examples in the links I posted in the Facebook comments section.
            “Whatever point you think you are making, you enlighten no one” – I’m not here to enlighten, I’m here to refute your clueless nonsense.
            “you obscure everything” – I see. So pointing out what actually was said by Halabi and Bruce is now also “obscuring” along with “nitpicking”. What’s next ? “quibbling” ? you of course ignored the talks with the Druze and the proposed law they accepted but since when actual facts that I post are addressed by you, right ?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “…The law is merely a symbolic acknowledgment of a discriminatory reality they’ve long grown accustomed to, in which Israel and its institutions favor Jewish citizens over non-Jews. The law explicitly declared that Israel belongs not to its citizens but to the Jewish people, and stripped Arabic of its status as an official language…”
            https://972mag.com/israels-druze-are-readying-for-a-long-battle-for-equality/137120/

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Thank you for again showing how the law never said the things you claimed others said it does. I don’t need any help but thanks anyway.
            Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people. You again ignore the second law which actually says something about what you posted. You again ignore the solution offered and accepted by the Druze. The Arabic language will be designated as a ‘special status language’ instead and nothing will actually change.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            I really don’t know what you are talking about. The argument is about the law’s content, meaning and intent. The does not lend itself to a fake literalism and simple-minded dismissals. Nor to disingenuousness and slippery evasions. All those thousands of people out demonstrating against the law were not deluded and did not subscribe to your interpretations of this. You really just can’t ever admit you got something wrong, can you?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “You really just can’t ever admit you got something wrong, can you?” – are you trying to get me fired for laughing so hard ? that’s so funny coming from the guy who I proved in great detail how he’s wrong over and over and over again, how he’s a clueless liar over and over and over again. See the links in the Facebook comments section for many examples.
            I was responding to what Bruce said and what you said about the Druze, specifically. If you want to discuss other theoretical aspects of this law, things which it doesn’t say, be my guest. You again ignored what I wrote in the previous post, of course.
            I think this law is idiotic and unnecessary. You don’t need a law claiming the sun is hot, the same way you don’t need a law stating that Israel is the Jewish homeland. Israel’s declaration of Independence is enough.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            The actual truth dribbles out. Now Ido admits that what he dislikes about the nation state law is that is unnecessarily states what to him is obvious! Why the objection then? Why is is idiotic if it only states the obvious? Because he wanted to keep its offensiveness on the down low, unspoken, sotto voce, implied but not declared in public, heaven forbid, where the goyim can read it? To him it is obvious that only Jewish persons should have the right of self determination and that persons of other ethnicities and religions are less important, of a second class status. And he continues to hide behind a literalism: that if the law does not explicitly state, literally, what Bruce and thousands of others interpret it to mean and to intend, then it does not mean that and no one is allowed to say what it means. Ido is oblivious or pretends to be, that what the law does not say is as important as what it says, and that both are offensive, and the total of what it says and does not say is more than the sum of those parts, and cannot be fixed by a band-aid about the Druze. The truth emerges.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “Why the objection then?” – that it’s idiotic and unnecessary. I only mentioned this twice now so I can see what you’re still not grasping this.
            “Now Ido admits that what he dislikes about the” – exactly, that’s one of the reasons. You don’t need to make a law stating the obvious, Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people. “The actual truth dribbles out”, hilarious.

            “Why is is idiotic if it only states the obvious” – Are you dense ? Again: because there is no need to make a law stating the obvious.
            “where the goyim can read it” – did you miss your round of meds again ? yes this is the first time I said Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. This is sarcasm by the way, not sure if you get it.
            “To him it is obvious that only Jewish persons should have the right of self determination” – not only have I said the exact opposite in different articles comments, you again miss the actual point, Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, this is a historic fact. You don’t need a law for this.
            This has nothing to do with anyone’s self determination, this is about a historic fact.
            “and that persons of other ethnicities and religions are less important of a second class status” -both Israel’s declaration of Independence and the 10th Basic Law says the opposite but since when facts matter to you ? this law doesn’t say anything about this which was my entire point.
            “And he continues to hide behind a literalism” – hide ? I again just said it quite clearly. You haven’t been paying attention.
            “it does not mean that and no one is allowed to say what it means” – that’s not what I said of course, Again: If you want to discuss other theoretical aspects of this law, things which it doesn’t say, be my guest.
            “and cannot be fixed by a band-aid about the Druze” – and again you ignored my posts about the agreement with the Druze regarding the law. What a shock.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “This has nothing to do with anyone’s self determination?

            Excuse me? The law explicitly states that the right to self-determination in the State of Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Now…regarding your derogatory tirade about “mekhabel,” and your claim that I was, you put it, “clueless about a word in Hebrew, probably read that hilarious nonsense in some pro-Palestinian propaganda site”:

            I think the subtlety and nuance of the author I quoted (Yoav Haifawi), and his knowledge of Hebrew, is quite lost on you. It would not be the first time of course, and it is emblematic of how your supposedly ironclad “facts” are not facts at all, Ido Geller; how your incessant “clueless” and “hilarious” epithets fall flat; and how you eagerly, willy-nilly, traffic in smug, lazy, “everybody knows,” right-wing Israeli assumptions, essentially propaganda, without even being aware of it. ==>

            https://ulpan[dot]com/how-to-say-terrorist-in-hebrew/

            Replace [dot] with a period. +972 algorithms screened out previous sendings of this post presumably because it looked like commercial spam about Hebrew language classes.

            See the “saboteur” versus “literally terrorist” distinction Ami Steinberger makes.
            All of which supports Yoav Haifawi’s case, and deflates your sneering, derogatory lecture on “mekhabel.”

            An Israeli professional Hebrew teacher and I correct Ido the Israeli’s Hebrew. And expose another “fact” that ain’t a fact, another distortion, another knee jerk oversimplification.
            Can’t make this stuff up. Did I say “hoist by his own petard” somewhere before?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Holy hell, can you dig yourself deeper into the clueless hole ? the word ‘terrorist’ in hebrew is ‘Mehabel’. That’s it.
            Again your own link provides the proof of the opposite of what you say. How can you be this embarrassingly clueless ?
            “how your supposedly ironclad “facts”” – seriously ? are you that dumb ? the english word ‘terrorist’ is in Hebrew ‘Mehabel’ or ‘Mehabelet’. It so happens that it’s used more often regarding Arab terrorists because there are plenty of those around.
            Jews have also been called ‘Mehabel’ when the writer wants to use the word in Hebrew and not ‘Loazit’ (English).

            “how you eagerly, willy-nilly, traffic in smug, lazy, “everybody knows,”” – Hilarious. I’m guessing you’re not a Hebrew speaker otherwise you’ll actually know how insanely stupid your pathetic attempts to save yourself from another idiotic mistake looks like.

            I posted many examples where Jews were specifically referred to as ‘Mehabel’ in the Facebook comments section. Are you going to ignore this evidence as well ? that refutes your idiotic lying nonsense again ?

            “An Israeli professional Hebrew teacher and I correct Ido the Israeli’s Hebrew” – no you didn’t, you only showed again how you have no idea what you’re talking about.
            “And expose another “fact” that ain’t a fact” – yes it is you clueless moron. Read the evidence I provided in the Facebook section.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            We are all well aware that “mekhabel” is the word Israeli Hebrew speakers use for “terrorist,” whether Arab or Jewish. And not these other words Steinberger points to. That is actually the general point Haifawi is getting at and that you miss! I’m not a fluent, native Hebrew speaker. But I am also equally not steeped in Israeli sociolinguistic assumptions! So you derogate Yoav Haifawi but entirely miss his point! Willfully. And not for the first time.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Unbelievable! seriously, how dense can you be ? Again: “Mehabel” is not a special Hebrew term, and most definitely, as my evidence clearly show, not reserved for Palestinian terrorists. It’s simply the Hebrew translation for the word ‘terrorist’. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying, plain and simple. As evident by the many articles who refer to Jews as ‘Mehabel’ in Hebrew. As evident by the link you yourself provided. Amazing. How can you not understand something this simple ? something my evidence in the Facebook comments section very, very clearly show ? something your own link shows ? Really, this is stupid of a new level. I’m actually impressed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “How can you not understand something this simple ?”

            This ritual piece of abuse of yours is always funnier than you intend it to be. Because the joke is invariably on you: it’s not that simple and that’s why you don’t understand it! (And someone who actually has an argument, Ido, and a few ounces of security, feels no need to heap abuse on persons. You, and persons like Donald Trump, for example, through their behavior show a lack of security.)

            And here’s also Haifawi’s point: “mekhabel” is wantonly over-applied to Arab persons but routinely under-applied to Jewish offenders. In case you still don’t get it. (Which you won’t.) I suggest reading the License to Kill series of +972 Magazine. To date you show no evidence of having done so or at least of having understood it (it’s not simple).

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            How deep are you going to dig yourself into the stupid hole ? you changed the subject so you wouldn’t have to address all the posts where I point out very clearly where you lied, where you had no idea what you’re talking about, where you made embarrassing mistakes, all detailed in the Facebook comments section ? This is comedy gold.
            This is what you posted: “For the Israeli racist regime, media and public every Palestinian that is shot by the Israelis is immediately defined as “Mekhabel” – a special term invented in Hebrew to de-humanize Arab resistance fighters, not even describing them as regular “terrorists”.
            Did you post this ? yes or no ? this is a fabrication. A lie. It’s not a special term invented in Hebrew, it is the literally translation of the word ‘terrorist’ in Hebrew.
            Ask any Hebrew speaker how do you say ‘terrorist’ in Hebrew and you’ll get the same answer: ‘mehabel’. How can you not grasp this after I spell it out for you so many time ? incredible.
            “mekhabel” is wantonly over-applied to Arab persons but routinely under-applied to Jewish offenders” – Again: the evidence I provided contradict this. Jews who are also terrorists are named so if the article writer wanted to use the word in Hebrew. I can flood the comments section with examples, I asked you so in the Facbook comments section where I provided many examples for this, why are you ignoring this again ?
            Again: It so happens that it’s used more often regarding Arab terrorists because there are plenty of those around. That’s it. How can you not grasp this ? amazing.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            I’ve noticed for a long time now that your promiscuous tendency to call people “liars” depends more often than not on a dull literalism. Whether this is a device, a pose, or a non-disingenuous simple-mindedness is between you and your confessor—but no, of course, a committee of Israeli linguists did not sit around a conference table in 1948 and say, “Hey, I know! Let’s invent a special word deriving from “saboteur/sabotage” to de-humanize Arab resistance fighters!” The evolution of language is more complicated than that.

            So Yoav Haifawi is intelligently employing a little literary license, hyperbole, to make a larger and very accurate point. Supporting something factual and indisputable:

            In the Israeli mind, any sabotage or subverting of the “settlement project,” declared a national value in the nation state law, is merged even at the linguistic level with “terror.” With “terrorism.” Everything is “terror.” There is even “diplomatic terror.”

            And, correspondingly, as Haifawi says, ‘For the Israeli racist regime, media and public every Palestinian that is shot by the Israelis is immediately defined as “Mekhabel.”’

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Moreover, you truck in this lazy, unexamined assumption:

            “it’s used more often regarding Arab terrorists, this is true, because there are plenty of those around”

            —implying that there are fewer Jewish than Arab terrorists around. This is false. If anything, the reverse is true. The entire occupation depends upon daily and nightly terror, carried out by vast forces. It’s just that the vastly stronger party in this “conflict” uses mostly symmetric, conventional methods of terror (employed by the IDF) while also using asymmetric methods of terror (employed by the Shin Bet and settlers, who are rarely if ever investigated, and do this while IDF stand by protecting them doing it). Read the “License to Kill” series. Until you have done that your replies are going to continue to be uninformed and uninteresting.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Again, for the 246th time: when I call someone a liar I back it up. Explain exactly why that is. Why are you ignoring this again ?
            You lied about that word, do you understand ? you said the opposite of what is actually the truth. Attempting to squirm your way out of this does not help you in any way, it’s the opposite actually.
            “The evolution of language is more complicated than that” – hilarious. You said something. It isn’t true. It’s a hilarious lie. This level of squirming is magnificent.
            “a little literary license” – are you trying to give me an aneurysm from laughing so hard ? Is this like your “paraphrasing” ? it’s just a little lie, “artistic license”. Hilarious.
            “Everything is “terror.” There is even “diplomatic terror.”” – and as I proved to you, very, very clearly so, Jews are also called ‘mehabel’. Why are you ignoring this ?
            You think it’s racist that an Arab woman pulling a knife at a bus station while yelling “terrorists” and refusing to drop the knife, during a time when Jews were stabbed by Arabs on an almost daily basis is called a terrorist ? are you crazy ?
            “For the Israeli racist regime, media and public every Palestinian that is shot by the Israelis is immediately defined as Mekhabel.” – tell me, was this Palestinian by any chance walking his dog on his way to the library or was he ramming his car at Israelis at a bus station or pulling a knife at people ?
            Now I see why you called an idiotic nonsense like this “literary license”. It’s nonsense.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            No. Paraphrasing, taking artistic license, hyperbole, having an opinion, being wrong, and lying are six distinct, different things. Thanks for asking. Wow. I’m sorry this is so difficult for you. Yoav Haifawi and Ami Steinberger and I remain vindicated.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            um, so you didn’t get it that I was being sarcastic ? when you were “paraphrasing” you lied through your teeth as I detailed very, very clearly. Jesus Christ man..
            You lied, very very clearly so. You were wrong, very clearly so as I explained in detail over and over again.
            Your squirming here is truly a sight to behold.
            “Yoav Haifawi and Ami Steinberger and I remain vindicated” – forget evidence, forget facts, forget how I pointed to the actual sentence where you lied, you think you’re right so you are. This is hilarious on multiple levels. I’m actually impressed.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Believe me, I get you completely.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            I get how you again ignored my post where I proved you’re a clueless liar. Your squirming was very amusing. The “literary license” bit was stand up comedy material. Thanks again for the laugh.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            As I said yesterday, there are arguably way more Jewish than Arab terrorists between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. That you don’t get that and won’t get that is understood. You are a fraud when you say you are against the occupation. You’re against the daily savagery by the occupier unless it means withdrawing from comfy Ariel, Ma’aleh Adumim, E1, East Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, and then you’re for it. You’re a fraud. You’re what Betz Uber says you are: a hilarious purveyor of useless rhetoric that does not work anymore.

            Except this is not a game. The occupation is a savage injustice relentlessly carried out against millions of people day in day out with great cruelty. David Shulman well describes the sick system that savagely persecutes millions of Palestinians in the occupied territories, that tortures, in the furtherance of a “settlement enterprise” that from its first days was entirely rooted in the theft of Palestinian land. A system that you aid and abet with every sanctimonious, devious, blame-shifting post you make here.

            The Last of the Tzaddiks
            David Shulman
            https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/06/28/jews-human-rights-last-tzaddiks/

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “there are arguably way more Jewish than Arab terrorists” – sorry it took me some time, I was laughing too hard. Hilarious. That’s one of the more idiotic things you said, almost as equal to the time when you said the Jewish nation doesn’t exist.
            “You are a fraud when you say you are against the occupation” – what’s with your obsession of lying about me ? I’m against the West Bank occupation. To the Palestinian leadership all of Israel, from the River to the Sea is “the occupation” so please be specific.
            “unless it means withdrawing from comfy Ariel, Ma’aleh Adumim” – That ship has sailed, the Palestinians need to understand what ‘compromise’ means and as I recall I explained to you why, I added the link again in the Facebook comments section.
            “East Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley” – I’m actually in favor of handing East Jerusalem to the Arabs who today call themselves Palestinians, the rest can be decided in an actual peace negotiations. If you want to change the subject again and discuss my political views to hide the fact that I caught you in an embarrassing lie again, I don’t mind.
            “You’re a fraud” – yes, by pointing out in detail how you’re a clueless liar, backed by evidence that you can’t refute for some reason, showing what you’re saying sentence after sentence is clueless nonsense makes me “a fraud”. Hey, if it helps you deal with this I don’t mind.
            “You’re what Betz Uber” – so you missed the part where I explained sentence after sentence how she is a clueless liar who doesn’t know what she’s talking about ? which she never addressed ? you “discounted” it too ?
            “The occupation is a savage injustice” – you think changing the subject will make the lying nonsense you posted go away ? I’ll forget it ? hilarious.
            The savage injustice is what the Palestinian leadership does to their own people. Their open stated goal regarding Israel which you ignore on a regular basis even when I post videos of them yelling it to your face. The elimination of Israel, the murder of Jews, turning Israel into a de-facto Arab state, cleansing it from Jews, etc.
            “A system that you aid” – of course I do, by pointing out how you’re a clueless liar who has no idea what he’s talking about in great detail backed by evidence.
            “blame-shifting post” – You mean saying that the Palestinian leadership is not interested in co-existence with Israel but with its elimination ? they say so openly, how can you not understand this ? you think they’re joking ?

            Nice link, seems to ignore the actions and goals of the Palestinians but hey. still doesn’t cancel out the fact that you’re a clueless liar.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Just to clarify, in the first sentence I was of course referring to all of what you said, including “between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            This entire response is a study in not getting it, or pretending you don’t. As we predicted.

            Your emotional reactions are your own business, or ought to be, but I interpret your showy laughter as nervous laughter and a façade as you know I am right about Jewish terrorists but won’t admit it in a million years. What would you do with all that demonizing and subject changing if you did admit it? The occupation is terror. And theft. From day one.

            If that Ariel-Ma’aleh-Adumim-E1 ship has sailed you’d better radio the captain and get it turned around, matey. Or else work on some new red, green, black, blue and white color scheme for a one-state flag. Or start flying a blue and white and gold amalgamation with the pre-1994 South African apartheid state flag. You could just change bottom blue strip to a gold one. And add a nifty symbol of all those arms Israel supplied South Africa all those years and a “brothers in arms and apartheid” logo. The possibilities are endless. Because yes that ship may unreachable by now.

            “Nice link” betrays the fraudulent, easy nonchalance of someone who halfway pretends to take the savagery of the occupation seriously but clearly doesn’t and want to let us know that.

            Meanwhile, in order to stay calm and carry on, Mr. Constant Subject Changer, continue to mindlessly chant whenever you need an escape from honesty: “everybody who refuses to take me seriously is a clueless liar….elimination of Israel, the murder of Jews…”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Yes, reminding you again how you lied and how you changed the subject is “not getting it”.
            “Your emotional reactions are your own business” – says the clueless liar, in a comments thread where I again proved he lied. That’s some interesting projecting thing going on.
            “our showy laughter as nervous laughter” – yes, it’s nervous laughter, not amusement by your clueless lying nonsense. Hey, whatever helps you deal with this, I’m not judging.
            “you know I am right about Jewish terrorists” – I know you are applying some more “artistic license” here. With predictable results.
            “demonizing and subject changing” – says the liar who keeps changing the subject to not address his lying nonsense. Hilarious.
            “The occupation is terror. And theft. From day one” – so Israel’s existence is terror, not the many terrorists who call and work towards its end, who refuse to accept it’s existence, who openly call and act for the slaughter of Jews.
            “you’d better radio the captain and get it turned around” – you better tell the Arabs to accept the Partition Plan, to reverse their “Three No’s” of the Khartoum Resolution and accept the fact that Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people exist and is not going away. Also attempting to destroy it and genocide the Jews several times didn’t help.
            “brothers in arms and apartheid logo” – you mentioned changing the subject ? Israel is not Apartheid as I proved to you so many times including posting a video of a Palestinian Human Rights activist explaining this to you. Which you ignored of course. Sorry, “discounted”.
            “Nice link” betrays the fraudulent, easy nonchalance” – nope, simply that it had nothing to do with what we were discussing, with your embarrassing lie you so pathetically try to hide by changing the subject over and over again.
            “Mr. Constant Subject Changer” – what’s with the projection thing ? you keep changing the subject from your embarrassing lying nonsense and I keep reminding you but I’m “mr constant subject changer”. You’re lying about this as well now ? hilarious.
            ““everybody who refuses to take me seriously is a clueless liar” – that’s not what I said or did, liar. I pointed out very clearly where you lied and later how you attempted to dismiss it and hilariously squirm out of it with your “artistic license” nonsense.
            Lying about what I said is not going to help, it only adds another layer of hilarity.
            “elimination of Israel, the murder of Jews” – I proved this to you so many times, literally showing you videos of members of the Palestinian leadership yelling it to your face and you ignore it. I posted many articles where they openly admit it, you ignored it. It doesn’t exist because you ignore it, right ?
            You seem to have some difficulty coming to terms with reality, reality which contradicts your incorrect brainwashed understanding of the conflict. Do you physically shut your ears and eyes when I post the evidence or you just ignore it thinking that if you do so it doesn’t exist ?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            The Three No’s of Khartoum!!! [*Chortle*] Nothing better confirms the fakeness of your rhetoric, Ido, how dependent you are on cotton candy clichés and slogans. Amidst this rather hysterical and long winded retort of yours, your reprising The Three No’s of Khartoum confirms the diagnosis. Betz Uber was right: You’re a hilarious purveyor of useless rhetoric that does not work anymore. It’s off-the-shelf hasbara but you forgot to look at the expiration date when you opened the can!

            From Three No’s to Three Yes’s
            Elie Podeh
            https://peacenow.org/WP/wp-content/uploads/4_EliePodeh.pdf

            Careful now. Better rest up. You’ll have to read four whole pages and think in nuances and historical complexity and across time and not in static, simplistic slogans. You’re really gonna work up a sweat. Don’t strain yourself. Wouldn’t want you to pull a muscle you’re not used to using.

            Now, parenthetically, I’ve heard all the right wing rhetoric about why Israel can’t engage the Arab Peace Initiative and none of it is convincing. It is clear why Israel’s right-wing governments were and are not interested in the Arab Peace Initiative: it refutes their dogma and yours that the conflict, rather than being a territorial dispute, stems from the Arab world’s refusal to accept a Jewish state in the region, regardless of its borders; and then they would actually have to give up the territories minus swaps and the Israeli government is simply not prepared and able to give up land. Like you, they would much rather posture and hide behind a “Jewish state” gimmick.

            **But, all that about the API is beside the point here.**

            Before you start side tracking on the merits of the API. I’m totally uninterested in your rhetoric on the API.

            Here is the point: You dredged up The Three No’s of Khartoum. As empty rhetoric. Whatever anyone possibly thinks of the API he cannot now with a straight face throw out “the three no’s of Khartoum” as a serious riposte. The person who does that is rather a joke. Who would dumb this forum down to intolerable, nay comic, levels.

            And it confirms Betz Uber’s diagnosis: Hilariously, you act as if we can’t read, have no idea what is really going on (since at least 2002 but actually well before that); and you peddle outdated, useless rhetoric that does not work anymore.

            It simply does not work anymore.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            The ‘three no’s of Khartoum’ are cotton candy clichés and slogans ? so you have no clue what I’m talking about and in what context ? I gave you several examples of the Arabs refusal to accept Israel’s existence and negotiate with Israel in the past and attacking Israel, what shaped the current situation and this is your response ?
            This is stupidly insane. How many more examples are you going to give me showing how you have no clue about what is discussed ? about the Middle-East in general ?
            “Amidst this rather hysterical and long winded” – that’s an interesting phrasing of ‘you again refuted my nonsense, proved beyond a doubt that I’m a liar’. I did this multiple times now and you ignored it every single time. Mainly by changing the subject. And then you blamed me of changing the subject, lying some more.
            “your reprising The Three No’s of Khartoum confirms the diagnosis” – the only thing it confirms is how you have no clue what I’m talking about. Again.
            “Betz Uber was right” – Again: I literally listed where she said incorrect nonsense, where she lied, very, very clearly so. She didn’t touch it. Why are you lying about this as well ?
            “It’s off-the-shelf hasbara” – right, ‘Hasbara’ means literally ‘the explanation’ and that’s exactly what I did, pointed very, very clearly with a detailed list where she said incorrect nonsense, where she lied. Exactly like I did to you.
            From Three No’s to Three Yes’s” – are you that stupid ? seriously ? I gave you examples of the Arabs actions in the past, regarding your “turning around” bit of actions that already happened in the past, like the Partition Plan rejection and the Arabs attempt to destroy Israel and genocide the Jews.
            You bring me an article about diplomatic negotiations from 2002 ? never mind that your article basically mirrors one of the Palestinian plans to end Israel (a new Palestinian state and turning Israel into a de-facto another Palestinian state by allowing any Arab refugee to settle there) ?
            Look, this is very simple: if you can cancel out the “Three No’s” by traveling into the Past, making the situation in the Middle-East very different today, then you have a case. The only thing your article proves, never mind that it basically calls for Israel’s end, is that you didn’t understand my post. So my examples flew above your head, what a shock.
            “You’re really gonna work up a sweat” – hilarious. Proving again that you’re clueless is the opposite of ‘working out a sweat’ since you provide me with so much material.
            “none of it is convincing” – yes, why would Israel refuse to commit suicide and turn itself into another Arab state ? ending it without having the Arabs fire a single bullet ? Arafat’s old dream.
            “I’m totally uninterested in your rhetoric on the API.” – right, since when facts, evidence and reality ever mattered to you ? are you again going to change the subject so you won’t have to address the clueless lie I pointed out several posts above ?
            “You dredged up The Three No’s of Khartoum. As empty rhetoric” – no you clueless moron, I gave you an example of actions from the past that effected the region that we can’t “turn back”. Like the rejection of the Partition Plan. Like the Arabs wars against Israel. How can you be this clueless ? seriously, this is insane.
            “and you peddle outdated, useless rhetoric” – so next do you want me to explain what I’m posting like to a 5 year old child ? how can you be this stupid ?
            “Betz Uber’s diagnosis” – Why are you again and again ignoring the fact that I literally listed all her clueless lies and embarrassing mistakes which she couldn’t touch ? not once ? how deep in denial about this are you ? I did the same to you of course multiple times so I see why you seem to like her.
            “It simply does not work anymore” – thank you again for showing how you’re a clueless liar who has no idea what he’s talking about.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “…Look, this is very simple: if you can cancel out the “Three No’s” by traveling into the Past…”

            Talk about squirming on a hook.

            I didn’t travel into the past, I traveled into the future! From 1967 to 2002! And from there to 2018! And current reality! That was the whole point!

            You’re the one headed in The Wrong Direction, doggedly looking back, in denial, averting your gaze, clinging to a superseded past for dodgy propaganda reasons and weaseling through, trying to make a transparently nonexistent case. And not owning up.

            Ever heard of “Wrong way Corrigan”?
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Corrigan

            You’re “Wrong Way Geller.”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “Talk about squirming on a hook” – hilarious, I explained how you were wrong, how you didn’t get what I said, in great detail like to a child, backed by the other examples which you ignored (rejection of the Partition Plan, attacking Israel and attempting to genomic the Jews) but I’m the one “squirming on a hook”. This is great. Let’s ignore how you lied again, how you again showed how you have no idea what you’re talking about by lying some more. Good idea.
            “From 1967 to 2002! And from there to 2018! And current reality! That was the whole point!” – no it wasn’t you clueless moron, Again: I gave you examples of the Arabs actions in the past, regarding your “turning around” bit of actions that already happened in the past, like the Partition Plan rejection and the Arabs attempt to destroy Israel and genocide the Jews. Actions the Arabs took in the past which shaped the region, do you understand ? how is this so difficult for you to grasp when I explain this like to a child for the second time ? amazing.
            And of course you ignored what I said about the plan itself, creating a Palestinian state, which will be free from Jews of course, and another Palestinian state where the Jews will be allowed to live as a minority. What a fantastic idea! I can’t stress enough how this is never, ever going to happen.
            “doggedly looking back, in denial, averting your gaze, clinging ” – right, pointing in detail where you lied, where you made idiotic mistakes and where you had no idea what you were talking about is “looking back in denial” and the rest of your hilarious nonsense.
            “transparently nonexistent case” – how can you be this clueless ? I literally spelled it out for you, even quoting what I was responding to, and you still cling to this idiotic nonsense, amazing.
            “Ever heard of “Wrong way Corrigan”?” – ever heard of actually addressing my post where I showed how you lied ? how you have no idea what you were talking about ? how you changed the subject over and over again and then hilariously blamed be for doing so ? good times.

            “You’re “Wrong Way Geller.”” – ignore it as much as you like, your lying clueless nonsense is right there. Not going anywhere.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            And again you ignore the posts where I prove in detail how you’re a clueless liar who has no idea what he’s talking about. Yes, linking nonsense like this will somehow make it all go away, no doubt. Very mature of you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            (Not to mention Wrong Woeful Word Geller.

            Number of times Ido Geller uses a form of the word “liar” (liar, lying, lied…) in this post: 8.  On this page: 104!

            Number of times Ido Geller uses a form of the word “clueless” (clueless, no clue…) in this post: 9.  On this page: 35!

            Number of times Ido Geller uses the epithet “clueless liar” in this post: 1.  On this page: 12!

            Number of times Ido Geller uses the epithet “clueless moron” in this post: 1.  On this page: 2!)

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “Number of times Ido Geller uses a form of the word “liar”” – what a coincidence! that was the number of times I addressed your lies, which you ignored.
            “Number of times Ido Geller uses a form of the word “clueless” ‘ – what a coincidence! that was a number of times I addressed your clueless nonsense in detail, which you ignored.
            “Number of times Ido Geller uses the epithet “clueless liar” ” – what a coincidence! that was the number of times I pointed out how you’re a clueless liar and backed it up with proof, which you ignored.
            “Number of times Ido Geller uses the epithet “clueless moron”” – what a coincidence! that was the number of times I literally explained in detail how you’re a clueless moron. Which you mostly ignore, a couple of times you buried yourself even deeper in the ‘clueless liar’ hole by lying about it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Perhaps you’d like also to call the Shin Bet “clueless liars” 12 times? Or do you identify with their practices only too well, Ido Geller? ==>

            ‘The Shin Bet denied the claim, telling Haaretz that Aslan was “interrogated at the border crossing with Israel by the Shin Bet after his behavior raised suspicions…

            The interrogator, [Aslan] said, kept accusing him of lying. “It was absurd. She kept telling me, ‘You’re lying’.” …

            The Shin Bet further stressed that all of its actions “are undertaken in accordance with the law and with the sole intention of protecting Israeli security.”

            When asked by Haaretz if documentation of Aslan’s interrogation could be seen to verify their claims that he was not threatened or asked political questions, the organization said such a documentation does exist, but is classified material that cannot be published.”‘

            https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-denies-reza-aslan-was-political-says-he-behaved-suspiciously-1.6384281

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Are you trying to break your own pathetic record ? changing the subject again and bringing me an example of an interrogation method and comparing it to me showing very, very clearly, backed by evidence and your own posts, how you’re a clueless liar ?
            Do you even understand how ridiculously stupid this is ? see the many examples where I point out your lies including the examples in the Facebook comments section.
            But I’ll answer your stupid question: no, I wouldn’t also call the Shin Bet clueless liars because unlike you I didn’t show how they are clueless liars in detail.
            Look, I’ve only said this about 2357 times so I can understand why this is still hard for you to grasp: linking premium articles behind a paywall in your responses won’t make me pay to see them. You keep doing this and I keep telling you and you still do this, I don’t know if it’s stupidity or a very short attention span.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Thanks, however, for spectacularly missing the point. Even if I were the low down lying idiot you never stop saying I am, after the 104th time of name calling a normal person would move on to something more interesting, intelligent and creative. You’ve made it a compulsive masturbatory act. Repetitive, mindless, mechanical, boring. At least for normal people with integrity and more interesting intellectual, political and moral lives. But you might have a promising future in the Shin Bet saying fake things about “security” and calling distinguished academics and thoroughly decent persons “liars”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Again: when I call you a liar I always back it up by the reason why I call you a liar. You again and again ignore this little bit of information.
            “Repetitive, mindless, mechanical, boring” – and we have another interesting “phrasing” of yours to me pointing out in detail how you’re a clueless liar who is apparently so brainwashed by Arab propaganda to the point of denial of reality even when said reality is literally shoved in your face over and over and over again.
            When I say you had no clue what you were saying I always back it up by the reason of me saying so, which you of course ignore. Like you just ignored how I explained, very, very clearly so, how you didn’t understand what I was saying regarding the Khartoum Resolution, and of course you ignored what I said about the API.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “…Like you just ignored how I explained, very, very clearly so, how you didn’t understand what I was saying regarding the Khartoum Resolution, and of course you ignored what I said about the API.”

            Well, this is as good an example as any, and you’re fatally staking your reputation on it, so sorry to sink your boat for good but it’s only too easy.

            To wit, you “backed up” absolutely nothing whatsoever and you very clearly got caught out claiming the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 said something definitive about 2018 but, oops, then you got it shown to you that the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 clearly negates what you claimed about the Khartoum Resolution’s significance today. This clearly proves my claim that you engaged in typically empty, false, misleading rhetoric that you cannot back up. This could not be clearer. And this will be true not matter how many times you call me “stupid,” etc., like a child in a sandbox. Whatever else you want to assert the Arab Peace Initiative does or does not do, it indisputably, on the face of it, overturns your statement that I “better tell the Arabs to…reverse their “Three No’s” of the Khartoum Resolution.” And so what you did after that was shovel out the back end nothing but a load of smoke to obscure your having been exposed. And you know it. And everybody knows it and the clearest sign of the fact that you know it is that the steaming stream of silly ad hominems coming out your back end has not let up for one second.

            “…how you didn’t understand what I was saying…”

            I understand only too well!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “…Like you just ignored how I explained, very, very clearly so, how you didn’t understand what I was saying regarding the Khartoum Resolution, and of course you ignored what I said about the API.”

            Well, this is as good an example as any, and you’re fatally staking your reputation on it, so sorry to sink your rowboat for good but it’s only too easy.

            To wit, you “backed up” absolutely nothing whatsoever and you very clearly got caught out claiming the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 said something definitive about 2018 but, oops, then you got it shown to you that the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 clearly negates what you claimed about the Khartoum Resolution’s significance today. This clearly proves my claim that you engaged in typically empty, false, misleading rhetoric that you cannot back up. This could not be clearer. (This will be true not matter how many times you call me “stupid” and such like, like a child in a sandbox.) Whatever else you want to assert that the Arab Peace Initiative does or does not do, it indisputably, on the face of it, overturns your statement that I “better tell the Arabs to…reverse their “Three No’s” of the Khartoum Resolution.”
            Now, what you did after that debacle was shovel out the back end while running away nothing but a load of smoke to obscure your having been exposed. And you know it. And everybody knows it and the clearest sign of the fact that you know it is that the stream of your ad hominem silliness (more chaff out the back to distract) has not let up for one second.

            “…how you didn’t understand what I was saying…”

            I understand only too well!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “you’re fatally staking your reputation on it” – right, explaining how you’re a clueless liar again, which you ignored again, is “fatally staking my reputation on it”. This is amazing to me, really. The level of denial of reality.
            “To wit, you “backed up” absolutely nothing” – I literally spelled it out for you, very, very clearly so. Quoting what I was responding to, quoting what you said which I responded to, pointing out the other 2 examples which you of course ignored every single time.
            “clearly got caught out claiming the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 said something definitive about 2018” – why are you lying about this as well ? show me, prove it. You just lied again. I explained 4 times now why I mentioned it and in what context, literally quoting you, explaining like to a child what I was saying and you continue to lie about this, really amazing.
            “but, oops, then you got it shown to you that the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 clearly negates what you claimed about the Khartoum Resolution’s” – Jesus Christ.. Again: I gave you examples of actions the Arabs took in the past which shaped the region. Do you understand ? events that happened, in the past, which shapes the region Israel resides in today.
            The rejection of the Partition plan which could have led to a second Palestinian state (after Trans-Jordan) 70 years ago, the several attempts of the Arabs to destroy Israel and genocide the Jews which led to the major changes in Israel borders, and their refusal to recognize Israel and negotiate with it following the 67′ war (“Khartoum Resolution”) which could have led to the West Bank or most of it returning back to its former owner, Jordan.
            And I explained to you 3 times now how the API is basically the Palestinian demand to turn Israel into a de-facto Palestinian state. Why are you ignoring this over and over and over again ?
            “his clearly proves my claim that you engaged in typically empty, false, misleading rhetoric” – I just proved how you’re a clueless liar. Again.

            “that you cannot back up” – and you’re lying about this as well ? amazing. I literally explained this to you 4 times now, how can you not grasp this ? you ignoring me backing up my posts does not mean I don’t back it up, it only means you are having trouble dealing with reality.
            “you call me “stupid”” – Again: every single time I called you anything I backed it up. Every single time. Ignore it as much as you like, this fact is not going to change.
            “it indisputably, on the face of it, overturns your statement” – no it doesn’t you clueless moron, I just explained it again, for the 4th time. You’re wrong again.
            “that debacle was shovel out the back end while running away” – I always like your pathetic attempts of “phrasing” me proving over and over again how you’re a clueless liar, just like I did with this post.
            “having been exposed. And you know it” – the only thing I know is that you again showed how you’re a clueless liar who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
            “your ad hominem” – Again: every single time I call you a anything I back it up. Do you understand ? why are you ignoring this little bit of information over and over and over again ?
            “I understand only too well!” – not according to your post as I just explained in detail.
            And you still ignore the earlier posts about your other lies, maybe you think your more recent ones will somehow cancel them out ? that I’ll forget them ? hilarious.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “explaining how you’re a clueless liar again, which you ignored again” (and the ensuing spasm of “clueless liar” sprayed all over the rest of your post.)

            You really have no idea, do you, how eerily empty and repetitive this sound. Do you?

            “clearly got caught out claiming the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 said something definitive about 2018” – why are you lying about this as well ? show me, prove it.”

            I don’t have to “prove” what you said on Monday August 13 and subsequently about Khartoum, it is obvious and right there, and I already “showed” you. You are merely trying here your usual “I didn’t use those precise words, verbatim, so you are a liar” dodge.

            “… I explained to you 3 times now…”

            No. you TRIED to “explain” to me, and I’m not BUYING it. Your “explanations” are exercises in distortion and distraction. Smoke. You are wriggling haplessly on the hook of your Khartoum nonsense, only a particularly brazen and obvious, but representative and quite typical, example of what you do here every day.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “You really have no idea, do you, how eerily empty and repetitive this sound. Do you?” – showing again how you’re clueless is repetitive ? of course it is. That was my point. Showing again how you’re a clueless liar, in detail.
            “I don’t have to “prove” what you said on Monday August 13” – I never said it, that’s you lying. Go ahead, quote me. Like I quote you when you lie.
            “it is obvious and right there” – no it isn’t, liar. What is obvious is what I repeated 4 times about why I mentioned the Khartoum Resolution. Which you of course ignored. Like you ignored the other 2 examples I provided with it which you ignored as well.
            This is what you said : “you the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 said something definitive about 2018”. I said nothing of the sort, I was very specific. You’re a liar.
            “No. you TRIED to “explain” to me, and I’m not BUYING it” – It is not my problem that you don’t accept reality or you simply never read the API and how it clearly state that it should be based on UN Resolution 194.
            “Your “explanations” are exercises in distortion and distraction” – stating facts based on evidence is not “exercises in distortion and distraction”, you on the other hand repeatedly ignoring it, changing the subject again and again and lying repeatedly is.
            “You are wriggling haplessly on the hook of your Khartoum nonsense” – why are you still lying about this when I spelled it out for you 4 times now ? literally quoting what I was responding to and what I said ? literally spelling out the context and reason of what I said ? I refuse to believe you are this stupid.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Ido, Ido, Ido, you act as if we can’t read!

            You very clearly posed the 1967 Three No’s of Khartoum as directly relevant to the situation in 2018, accusing “the Arabs” nowadays of needing to be told by me, in August 2018, to “reverse” the 1967 Resolution—

            “you better tell the Arabs to accept the Partition Plan, to reverse their ‘Three No’s’ of the Khartoum Resolution and accept the fact that Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people exist and is not going away”

            —then following on that you have had to have it spelled out for you. And even then, after that, you are in need of having yourself hit over your head with the fact that the API of 2002 makes of your use of the 1967 Resolution the deceptive, bowdlerizing, history-manipulating arrant nonsense that it is. And I am focusing your mind and others’ minds on it because it is representative, quite typical of all that you do here. Representative arrant nonsense. Arrant nonsense that no longer works. WE KNOW YOU BY NOW!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            You are that stupid ? Jesus Christ man, 5th time: I gave you 3 examples of actions made in the past by the Arabs which shaped the region at that time, actions that were very relevant at the time which can’t be undone today. I spelled this out for you 4 times, literally quoting what I was responding to and explaining like to a child what I meant. 4 times. And you still lie about this.
            I never said “the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 said something definitive about 2018”. You are lying. Again. Keep doing it, I don’t mind exposing your lies again.
            “you better tell the Arabs to accept the Partition Plan, to reverse their ‘Three No’s’ of the Khartoum Resolution” – Again, 5th time: I was responding to your nonsense about ‘turning it back’ by giving you examples of actions taken by the Arabs that can’t be “turned back”, do you understand ? how is this so difficult for you to grasp when I literally spell this out for you several times now ? incredible.
            “the fact that the API of 2002 makes of your use of the 1967 Resolution the deceptive, bowdlerizing” – no it doesn’t you clueless moron, unless said plan has something to do with traveling to the past and handing back the West Bank or parts of it back to Jordan like Israel handed back Sinai to Egypt, not to mention how the API is literally the Palestinian plan of turning Israel into a de-facto third Palestinian state (after Jordan and a new Palestinian state free from Jews) which I explained about 4 times which you of course ignored.
            I explained “my use of the 1967 Resolution” 4 times, it has nothing to do with the API or “saying something definitive about 2018”, it has to do with the Arabs refusal to recognize or negotiate with Israel right after the 67′ war which shaped the region. Why are you still lying about this ?

            “WE KNOW YOU BY NOW!!!” – I just proved in great detail how you’re a clueless liar. Again. Yes you sure do, how I again and again show how you’re a clueless liar who has no idea what he’s talking about.
            And you still ignore the earlier posts about your other clueless nonsense and lies, maybe you think your more recent ones will somehow cancel them out ? that I’ll forget them ? hilarious.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “I never said….”

            I don’t expect you will ever admit to this so we can stop this game of infinite ping pong, but all of this is merely the “I didn’t use those precise words so you are a liar” weasel maneuver. And it is not that we caught you out saying one inaccurate, misleading thing. It is a deliberate, characteristic strategy you use. This “you better tell the Arabs about Khartoum” thing is emblematic, so representative of your characteristic attempts to mislead and demonize, and basically, to BS.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Admit what ? what are you talking about ? I just explained for the 5th time in detail what I actually said, how it has nothing to do with what you claim I said which is an absolute lie.
            I have no idea what you think digging yourself deeper into the lie hole is a good idea. Entertaining sure but not such a bright idea.
            ““I didn’t use those precise words so you are a liar”” – are you trolling ? or are you that stupid ? I just explained for the 5th time how what I said didn’t mean what you thought it did, didn’t have anything to do with what you thought it did.
            I explained this to my cat and he got it and he’s 12 years old, half blind and I suspect he has some minor brain damage. I have no idea why you continue to lie about this. Are you taking some “artistic license” again ?
            “It is a deliberate, characteristic strategy you use” – continue to lie about what I said, which is ridiculous because it’s right there and I pointed it out 5 times now, what I said is not going to change.
            “This “you better tell the Arabs about Khartoum” ” – holy hell… 6th time: I was responding to what you said. About “turning back”, your post is right there, your own post. I gave you 3 examples of things the arabs did in the past, things that changed the region. Do you understand ? in the past, the only way to change them and their outcome is going back in time. You of course ignore repeatedly the other 2 examples. Do you understand ? what I said has nothing to do with “the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 said something definitive about 2018”, that is you lying.
            “mislead and demonize” – pointing again, in detail, how your a liar for how many times now ? is not an attempt to mislead and demonize, it’s simply me showing again how you’re a liar.
            And of course you ignored everything else I said showing how you’re clueless, like what the API actually means, but that’s like saying the sun is hot.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “I just explained for the 5th time…”

            No, you TRIED to “explain” for the 5th time but you did not actually explain anything in any of the times. I think what you are doggedly after is a covering up non-explanation! Another way of putting this is that, if you have pushed on the Exit Door five times and it won’t open, consider that maybe you want to PULL on the Exit Door! Pushing 95 more times won’t open it either!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “No, you TRIED to “explain” for the 5th time but you did not actually explain” – why are you lying about this again ? if you’re too stupid to understand what I posted that’s your problem. The only thing I can offer you is my sympathies.
            I explained what I said, what I was responding to, what it meant and in what context 6 times now. What I said has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with what you claimed I said. Keep digging yourself into the lying hole, I don’t mind. I find it somewhat entertaining.
            7th time: I was responding to what you said about “you’d better radio the captain and get it turned around”, about me saying “that ship has sailed” about events that happened and will not be undone, your post is right there above. I gave you 3 examples of things the Arabs did in the past, things that changed the region and can’t be undone. The only way to change them and their outcome is going back in time. You of course ignore repeatedly the other 2 examples (Partition Plan rejection and multiple Arab wars to destroy Israel and genocide the Jews).
            I Mention the Khartoum Resolution, the Arabs refusal to recognize and negotiate with Israel following the 67′ war which cut short any attempt to negotiate with Jordan about returning the West Bank or parts of it back to them after the war. This has nothing to do with “the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 said something definitive about 2018”. You’re a liar, plain and simple.
            And of course you ignored how the API is basically the Palestinian plan to turn Israel into a Palestinian state but that’s a given.
            “covering up non-explanation” – I literally spelled it out for you like to a child 6 times. Why are you still lying about this ?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            You’re trying to shroud this in a lot of smoke but we will focus like a laser through the smoke on your Khartoum Resolution maneuver because it is so typical and so delineating, in one concrete example, of your schtick–your chicanery. And you know, I think you protest so much because at the time you pulled it you had really no idea that these casual slanders, these smug, lazy, history-abusing maneuvers won’t work anymore, and I guess in the center-right wing echo chambers you inhabit they fly just fine. And you just are indignant that you’re getting called out on it. You can’t believe it. The indignity! The narcissistic injury! Me! A “liberal Zionist” Lord of the Land! Why I am in favor of a bantustanzized, crippled, statelet solution! How dare they!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            Are you having some kind of mental breakdown ? anyway: you lied, claimed I said something I never did. I proved this to you for 7 times now by explaining this like to a child, showing how you lied in detail, over and over again.
            I’m not shrouding anything, I’m saying this as clearly as possible: you lied. Claimed something which only happened in your delusional mind. I explained this in detail over and over again.
            I always like it when you go meta, lying about lying. Adds another layer of hilarity to your usual ignorant nonsense.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            IDO: “I always like it when you go meta, lying about lying.”

            This of course is such quintessential internet trolling as to need no further explanation.

            Very timely article here while we are contemplating your breezy attempts at normalizing Ariel, Ma’aleh Adumim and E1:

            In advocating for a Palestinian state, Haaretz forgets about the Palestinians
            By Meron Rapoport
            https://972mag.com/in-advocating-for-a-palestinian-state-haaretz-forgets-about-the-palestinians/137395/

            You don’t like my new name for you? (Ido “You better tell the Arabs to reverse their Three No’s of the Khartoum Resolution” Geller.)

            No?

            OK, how about “Ido the Moth”?

            Or Ido “Give ‘em the Middle Finger” Geller?

            Meron Rappoport explains.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            “This of course is such quintessential internet trolling” – You lied. Plain and simple. Claimed I said something which I never did. I explained this to you 7 times in detail like to a child.
            And now you’re claiming you didn’t lie, without providing any proof of course as usual. As I said: you’re lying about lying. How is pointing out a simple fact is “quintessential Internet trolling” ? please, do explain.
            “Very timely article here while we are contemplating” – yes, let’s bring in an article from a pro-Palestinian news blog against another pro-Palestinians news site. This will somehow change the fact that Israel will never withdraw from a very small area of the West Bank.
            As I already said to you multiple times, the armistice line was never meant to be Israel’s border. It was created solely because that’s where the Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting. Therefore that 1949 line, that people call 1967 border is really only a military line. In fact, 1949 Armistice Agreement with the Jordanians explicitly specified that the line that was designated did not compromise any future territorial claims of the two parties.

            “You don’t like my new name for you?” – on the contrary, I do, I find your childish behavior extremely entertaining. Adds a lot of gravitas to your clueless lies.
            “OK, how about “Ido the Moth”?” – how about addressing all the posts you ignored and coming to terms with reality ?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            You said it (on August 13th):

            “you better tell the Arabs to accept the Partition Plan, to reverse their “Three No’s” of the Khartoum Resolution”

            Reply to Comment
          • Ido

            8th time: I was responding to what you said and I quote: “you’d better radio the captain and get it turned around”, a response to me saying “that ship has sailed” about events that happened and will not be undone. your post is right there above. I gave you 3 examples of things the Arabs did in the past, things that changed the region and can’t be undone. The only way to change them and their outcome is going back in time.
            I mentioned the Khartoum Resolution, the Arabs refusal to recognize and negotiate with Israel following the 67′ war they lost which cut short any attempt to negotiate with Jordan about returning the West Bank or parts of it back to them after the war. This has nothing, I repeat: absolutely nothing, to do with “the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 said something definitive about 2018”. Do you understand ? you’re a liar, plain and simple.
            You tried to bring an article saying the Arabs are willing to negotiate with Israel now as a response, never mind that as I explained 3 times now the API is basically the Palestinian plan to turn Israel into a de-facto third Palestinian state (after a free from Jews “Palestine” and Jordan) and Israel will never ever accept it unless it’s changed. This has nothing to do with events that shaped the region in the past, which can’t be undone, I never ever said anything that has to do with “the Khartoum Resolution of 1967 said something definitive about 2018”, actually it’s the exact opposite: it said something very definitive about the region and the aftermath of the 1967 war. The West Bank or big parts of it would have been part of Jordan following a peace treaty.
            You lied. Very clearly so. I literally spelled this out for you 7 times. Why are you having such a hard time grasping this ? why do you continue to lie about this when the posts are right there, when I’m spelling this out to you like to a child ? for the 8th time now. Amazing. Really. You’re either a troll or suffering from some kind of brain damage.

            Reply to Comment
    3. Lewis from Afula

      Who is the “Israeli Left” ?
      A communist with his girlfriend, his anarchist brother, a demented senile Kibbutznik and a dog called “Bukie”

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        You should get out more, out of Afula, that town where an Arab citizen who pays good money for a house is told by a screaming mob that he is of the wrong race and the contract must be ripped up.

        The real Israeli Left are such people as the writers of +972 Magazine.

        The pseudo-Israeli Left are such people as only rouse themselves from their torpor to protest the price of cottage cheese or apartment rents or the Haredim, or anti-gay discrimination only, or rights regarding Jews only.

        The fake Israeli Left are such people as pretend to be for a two state solution, against the occupation and against the nation state law but nothing they say supports those claims and they spend all their time trying to delegitimize the real Israeli Left and demonize the Palestinians.

        The “Zionist Left” has at this point in history arguably become an oxymoron.

        Israel is not the nation state of the Jewish people. It is the nation state of the Israelis. All of them.

        Israel Is the Nation-state of the Israelis
        Avraham Burg
        Aug 02, 2018
        https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-israel-is-the-nation-state-of-the-israelis-1.6338509?v=2232221D51AF191FA485E368A45DD43E

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          Which is not to single out Afula. The wealthier towns across Israel, resplendent, brimming with members of the pseudo-Left class, are just more discreet about it because they can afford to be.

          Reply to Comment
          • Lewis from Afula

            Ben:
            The Israeli Left is finished.
            You need to get over it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Yeh, those Jewish Atheistic Communist Islamic fundamentalists of the left. Brilliant analysis. When’s your article in Commentary coming out on this?

            Reply to Comment
    4. Click here to load previous comments