+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

Liberman's de-patriation plan of illusions

Liberman’s proposal to cure Palestinian citizens of their ‘split personality’ violates pretty much everything democracy stands for.

Headlines blazed in Friday’s Yedioth Ahronoth announcing the outlines of a peace proposal released by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman.

It’s not clear what prompted Liberman to release the plan at this moment – campaign considerations, a brief drop in attention as the “Jewish Nation-State Law” took center stage, or a distraction from Israel’s deteriorating foreign relations as yet another European parliamentary debate on Palestinian statehood was held on Friday, this time in France.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman (Photo by Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman (Photo by Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

But there is nothing new about it for Liberman, who has been pushing his principles for at least four years now. It is not a shift in any political direction. The best that can be said is that it is easy to explain: two states along 1967 lines, and Israel annexes large settlement blocs. The kicker is Liberman’s key condition of “moving boundaries,” such that large swaths of land populated mostly by Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel would become part the Palestinian state.

He writes on the party’s website (my translation):

… the arrangement must include the land and population exchange plan. The arrangement…will allow Arab Israelis who do not identify with the State of Israel to become part of the Palestinian state. This will solve… the problem of Arabs in the Triangle and Wadi Ara…who can become citizens of the Palestinian state without leaving their homes, and it will also allow the Arabs in other parts of Israel, such as Jaffa, Acre, etc., who feel they are part of the Palestinian nation, to solve the problem of dualism and “split personality” they suffer from. They will be able to decide… If their identity is Palestinian, they can give up on their Israeli citizenship and become citizens [of Palestine]. The State of Israel must even encourage them to do so through a system of financial incentives.

It is not totally clear whether Arabs in the Triangle or Wadi Ara will be given a choice, or if they will be summarily de-patriated. It is not clear whether they will be allowed to have dual citizenship, although based on the statement about Arabs of Jaffa it seems not. Maybe the most concrete innovation in this version is the generous offer of financial incentives for Arabs to leave Israel. 

It shouldn’t need to be said to anyone representing any democratic country, that stripping citizenship as a collective policy, from people who have committed nothing resembling a crime such as treason, violates pretty much everything democracy stands for. No Jew or human being can accept that citizens are a problem to be solved. Jews were once also considered a “problem.”

Worse: the program targets those who have been the shoved to the margins of Israeli society for 66 years. Now they could be forced out altogether. The plan embodies what is perhaps the nastiest racist expression in the Hebrew language, loosely translated as: “The ‘n’ has done his work, the ‘n’ can go now.”

Perhaps some outsiders see Liberman’s ethnic separation as a neat solution to the Gordian Knot of hostile, intertwined populations. Maybe hard two-staters are relieved to consider a counterweight to the relentless mixing of populations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that is such an obstacle to the two-state plan.

But let’s get this straight: Palestinian citizens of Israel are not an obstacle to peace. That’s an absurd, fabricated connection. They are, however, a dynamic, integral, and vital part of Israeli life. They hold a mirror to democracy here and remind us to do better, by organizing and demanding rights as any dignified human being must. They are part of the rich culture, religion and heritage and humor of the country. They love this land fiercely and they share that with Jewish Israelis.

If this sounds like a patronizing defense of Arabs in Israel – it’s not. It’s a plea to Jewish society to save Israel from rotting inside by pushing everyone else out. To cure itself from the fallacy that isolation and manufactured homogeneity are healthy.

Apropos homogeneity, there is a larger, historic reason Liberman’s plan is wrong. Renowned international relations scholar Barry Buzan once characterized (I paraphrase) Israel as a tragic product of 19th century political currents, that emerged just as those worldviews were losing legitimacy as political movements. He was referring to the political projects based on industrialization, rational state-building and ideologies of enlightened progress – and their accompanying “dark side” of dispossession and domination.

Similarly, I would argue that the days, or the myth, of national sameness are over. The earth’s people are moving around in staggering, record numbers. Call the world flat, global, interconnected, wired; countries are less homogeneous than ever and many are going through the pains of redefining identity.

Yet Liberman continues to build Israel out of the ashes of failed notions of the past, namely ethnic isolationism. He sells the idea that with the right formula, Israel can remain homogeneous, as if that’s a good thing. He presents it as condition of survival, when in fact it is an ingredient for destruction.

“Israel cannot accept raising a black flag on Independence Day, or not respecting the siren on Memorial Day,” he writes. Really? Has the U.S. crashed because some people watch fireworks on the Fourth of July while others do not? Will his declaration stop foreign workers and migrants from putting down roots here? Will it prevent Israelis from marrying foreigners, or from Jews marrying Arabs?

Instead of embracing the diversification of Israeli society that is already happening – a beautiful thing, actually – Liberman is essentially saying: your fulfillment lies in sameness and solitude. “A rock feels no pain, and an island never cries,” wrote Paul Simon. But they are words of mourning.

All the start-up-nation success in the world won’t save a society that can’t face itself.

Related:
Liberman: Citizenship annulment is a condition for peace
The ‘Jewish Nation-State Law’: Turning liberal Zionism on its head
For Palestinian citizens, nothing but contempt and rejection for Liberman plan

Newsletter banner 6 -540

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. Pedro X

      The not too perceptive Dahlia:

      “It’s not clear what prompted Liberman to release the plan at this moment – ”

      The answer is clear, politics, the possibility of elections and staking out ground on the right and among Liberman’s voters’ base.

      Reply to Comment
      • Lo

        What does it say about a country when a cabinet-level politician goes on the stump by trying to sell a plan to denaturalize a fifth of the population?

        This isn’t the “hey vote for me and I’ll give you jobs and pride” nonsense that spews out of every politician as a matter of course in an election campaign. This is indicative of a much deeper affliction with the political psyche of Mr. Lieberman’s constituency.

        Reply to Comment
        • “What does it say about a country when a cabinet-level politician goes on the stump by trying to sell a plan to denaturalize a fifth of the population?”

          The closest example that I can think of that resembles Israel’s position in the Middle East is that of Quebec in America. Quebec is a minuscule minority of French speaking people in an ocean of English speaking continent. It is culturally and historically different from the vast majority. It feels much beleaguered because of this fact and has produced a popular sovereignist movement to separate itself from Canada. One of the questions that are always asked is what about the Anglo minority in Quebec? What if they don’t want to lose their Canadian citizenship?

          Interestingly, a question in 2006 poll was, “Currently, there is a political debate on recognizing Quebec as a nation. Do you personally consider that Quebecers form a nation or not?” Canadians from every region outside (!) Quebec, non-Francophone Quebecers (!), Francophone Canadians outside Quebec (!) all rejected the idea.

          It is interesting that such results do not dampen at all the drive by French Quebecois to continue towards separation and the potential of Article 151 in the constitution clear the way for stripping of Anglo rights.

          Bear in mind that Quebec is not a besieged, persecuted minority in America, threatened on all sides by eliminationist-minded enemies. Its Anglo minority is thoroughly and fundamentally peaceful. Still, the spirit of the Belle Province tends towards French nationhood that, if ever successful, will compromise the rights and citizenship status of Anglo minority. Many Anglos have responded by physically moving from the province into other, English Canadian provinces.

          Imagine what would be Quebec’s position if its Anglo community were to act in even a fraction of the hostility to the state of Quebec as the Palestinian minority in Israel shows towards Israel nationhood? (Haneen Zoabi is a fine exemplar)

          What Pierre Eliot Trudeau did in 1970 would pale in comparison.

          Reply to Comment
        • Whiplash

          This is not a plan to get rid of a fifth of the Israeli population but a suggestion how to get rid of Israeli Arabs who are not loyal to the Israeli state and identify most closely with Israel’s enemies.

          The proposal which Liberman makes is a voluntary one. I will give you disgruntled Arab Israelis who want to be Palestinians monetary compensation to leave Israel and resettle yourself in the Palestinian territories.

          In the past a large segment of the Russian community, who voluntarily left Russia to move to Israel to participate in Israeli life and prosperity, have supported Lieberman at the ballot box. They would find it more than reasonable if the segment of the Arab people who live in Israel and hate Israel be given financial compensation to move to a country which suits them as the Russian Jews did without financial compensation from the Russian government.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ray

            You’re making the assumption that most or a lot of Israeli Arabs want to leave. Can you back that up? There is nothing disloyal about protesting discriminatory practices or tendencies within one’s own country.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            “There is nothing disloyal about protesting discriminatory practices or tendencies within one’s own country”. CORRECT and no one has claimed otherwise! But, that’s not the issue, is it? Indeed, Jewish Israelis also protest what you call “discriminatory practices or tendencies within one’s own country” – go ask the Heredim et al! If you have no idea as to what the issue is, maybe you should consider researching it first before running your mouth. And if you know what the issue is, maybe you should stop the hypocrisy, the misrepresentation and the lies, no?

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Ginger: “But, that’s not the issue, is it?”

            Then, pray, tell us what the issue is.

            Ginger: [sound of crickets chirping]

            Hello? Ginger, are you there?

            Ginger: “If you have no idea as to what the issue is, maybe you should consider researching it first before running your mouth.”

            Then, pray, tell us what the issue is.

            Ginger: [sound of crickets chirping]

            Hello? Ginger, are you there?

            That entire post of Ginger’s – from start to finish – is a classic example of a polemic.

            Ginger won’t say what she thinks the issue **is**, only what she insists the issue **isn’t**.

            Polemic, plain and simple and oh-so-Ginger.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            1. Below, in my posts numbered ‘a’ (to ‘d’, especially in number ‘a’), I told you exactly what the issue(s) is/are – in no uncertain terms. I made a series of arguments to support my claim(s) with the utmost clarity rarely seen on +972mag.

            2. Here are what you and Ray need to do IF you disagree: (a) first read, (b) second comprehend, (c) THINK, and then (d) make counter-arguments. I have no need to let the discussions degenerate into shouting and yelling or even hostilities. If you continue with you current/usual behavior, I won’t accord you even the cutesy of any form of response. I have told you this over and over again.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Ginger: “I told you exactly what the issue(s) is/are – in no uncertain terms.”

            Explain it to me again, because I am telling you right now that your explanations so far have been utterly incomprehensible to me.

            Ginger: “Here are what you and Ray need to do IF you disagree: (a) first read, (b) second comprehend, (c) THINK, and then (d) make counter-arguments. ”

            Oh, I suspect very much that I will make a “counter-argument”, if only I could comprehended your original “argument”.

            But your original argument appears to be… incomprehensible.

            In which case I can’t actually decide if I disagree with you or not.

            So I’m appealing to you for help, Ginger.

            Please, please, please, help me comprehend your notion of what the “issue” really is here.

            Then – and only then – can I have any hope of deciding if I agree with you or not.

            After all, it is perfectly possible that you will spell out your position and I will then respond with “Of course! Ginger is correct on every point!”.

            But I can’t make that response, because – and I’m being perfectly honest here – I have No Idea What You Are Talking About.

            None at all.
            Nada.
            Zilch.
            Zero.
            Zip.

            Think of it as a Public Service Announcement, Ginger.

            After all, you are convinced that you are right so you should want as many people as possible to comprehend your magnificence…

            Over to you, lovey….

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Below, in my posts numbered ‘a’ (to ‘d’, especially in number ‘a’), I told you exactly what the issue(s) is/are – in no uncertain terms! Scroll down thread and you will find it (I am absolutely certain you already did, but continue to act childishly, running around circles.

            If you are serious, go down thread, click the reply button of the post you reply to and make your arguments there. If not, I won’t respond. You may run around circles as much as and as long as you want – alone. I am done here.)

            Reply to Comment
    2. Bar

      Ironically, Lieberman’s “plan” which is really just a “suggestion” (and an obvious campaign ploy) is in line with what the Palestinians and the Arabs have been asking for ever since they got over rejecting UNGAR 194 and started demanding it, claiming that it enshrines the non-existent “right of return.”

      194 offers the option of paying off refugees.

      Lieberman’s “suggestion” also addresses a problem that everyone on 972 except for the one-staters seems to ignore: 25% of Israel’s Arab population has stated they would prefer to live in a Palestinian state than inside Israel. What do the 972ers expect to do with these people who wish for a different life and country?

      Reply to Comment
      • Whiplash

        Liberman’s plan is most humane, even if its a political ploy (since it has little chance of success). He offers financial compensation to Arab Israelis, who see themselves as Palestinians, to leave Israel and live in Gaza or the West Bank or in the Palestinian diaspora. This would be a voluntary plan.

        Such a plan would be spectacularly unsuccessful because Arab Israelis are not dumb. They know they are financially well off in Israel compared to Arab countries in general and the Palestinian territories. They know unemployment in the territories is 500% higher than in Israel. They know that Palestinian governments are corrupt and based on patrimonial relationships. They know they have better health and government services than in other Arab countries or under Hamas or Fatah governments. They know they have more and better human rights in Israel than they would in any other Arab country or the Palestinian territories.

        It is difficult to see many Israeli Arabs giving up their homes and proximity to family ties in a secure nation to live in the squalor and turbulence of Gaza or the West Bank.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, right

          W: “This would be a voluntary plan.”

          Yes, of course it would.

          Honestly, Whiplash, do you really believe that?

          Man, have I got a bridge to sell you…..

          Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        Bar: “is in line with what the Palestinians and the Arabs have been asking for ever since they got over rejecting UNGAR 194 and started demanding it, claiming that it enshrines the non-existent ‘right of return.’ ”

        Pardon me?

        Are you really claiming that the Arabs of the Little Triangle are there because they fled *to* that place of refuge *from* places in the West Bank?

        Bar: “194 offers the option of paying off refugees.”

        I hate to tell you this, Bar, but the Arab citizens of Israel are not “refugees”.

        They are Israelis, living in places like Jaffa, Acre, the Triangle, etc., which are all places that are inside Israel.

        And an Israeli citizen can’t be a refugee when he is living inside Israel.

        At best (or worse) he might be an “internally displaced person”, but in that case his “right of return” would see him returning to someplace… somewhere else inside Israel.

        So, yeah, I’m sure an Israeli Arab living in the Triangle would be delighted to be offered a bucketful of money to help him relocate to Jaffa.

        After all, that’s extraordinarily generous of Liberman…. maybe he’ll use Party funds to pay for it or, better yet, pull the money out of his own pocket.

        Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        Bar: “194 offers the option of paying off refugees”

        Ah, OK, I see where Bar has managed to confuse himself.

        The equation in 194 is this: you let them return from whence they came **OR** you pay them compensation to stay where they are.

        As in…

        You let them return, in which case no compensation need be paid to them.

        Otherwise you refuse to let them return, in which case you owe them compensation for their loss.

        Take the case of an Israeli Arab who fled from Jaffa when the Irgun assaulted the city, ending up via many misadventures in the Little Triangle when the Armistice came into effect.

        According to UNGAR194 he should be allowed to return to his house in Jaffa.

        But if he can’t return (e.g. Israel razed his house), or Israel won’t let him return (because, well, you-know-why), then UNGAR194 says that Israel pays him off.

        But he doesn’t *go* anywhere because of that payment.

        As in……

        The payment is made for this reason: Here, take the money and Shut The F**k Up.

        The payment isn’t made for this reason: Here, take the money and Piss Off, Good Riddance To Ya’.

        Reply to Comment
        • Bar

          If it’s okay with you, I’m just going to ignore the above since it demonstrates poor critical reading and comprehension abilities.

          Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Bar: “If it’s okay with you, I’m just going to ignore the above since it demonstrates poor critical reading and comprehension abilities.”

            No, actually, it’s not OK with me.

            I’ve pointed out what UNGAR194 has to say regarding the Return vs Compensation, and I’ve pointed out that it says something Very Different to what you appeared to be claiming.

            Now, can you find a fault with that analysis, or can’t you?

            If you can’t (and, apparently, you can’t) then I’m calling BS on your original post.

            Over to you, Bar…..

            Reply to Comment
      • Bar,

        The offering of monetary compensation in lieu of exact material replacement for a loss is not identical to paying a racial minority to leave. If you assert it is, then you are saying the racial minority has experienced a loss. If so, there are two compensations due: reverse Aliyah, plus whatever was lost to cause those accepting this reverse Aliyah to want out so badly.

        I don’t think you are willing to accept the proposition that there have been damages which await compensation.

        Sometimes left politicians are not very good, neigh unto stupidity. Happens on the right too. Jettison Liby. All he’s going to do is drown you along with him.

        Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        Bar: “25% of Israel’s Arab population has stated they would prefer to live in a Palestinian state than inside Israel.”

        OK, in which case Israel need only
        a) allow that Palestinian state exist and then
        b) tell its Arab Israeli citizens that they are free to go there.

        But explain to me why Israel has to PAY them to go, when you insist that they want to go regardless.

        Bar: “What do the 972ers expect to do with these people who wish for a different life and country?”

        Well, first off those 972ers will have to agitate for Israel to let that country come into existence.

        After all, first things first…

        But then I’d expect those 972ers to spin those Arab Israelis around until they are facing east, then say “Palestine’s over there, you’re free to go”.

        But, again, remind me why Israel has to PAY those Arab Israelis to go to a place that they “wish to go to”.

        Reply to Comment
    3. Ginger Eis

      Comrade Dahlia Scheinlin has just presented another ideological, incomprehensible polemics based on distortions and very bad logic:

      a. The core of the article is false: it is clear that the Lieberman-plan does not envisage “de-patriation”, but calls for ‘patriation’. The Muslim-Arabs involved want Self-determination. Lieberman wants them to have just that, while preserving Jewish Self-determination. Unfortunately, those Muslim Arabs deny Jewish Self-determination and want THEIR Self-determination in the place of Jewish Self-determination. The author willfully lies when she states otherwise or pretends that such is not the case.
      b. The article is riddled with very bad, false comparisons (the specific Muslim Arabs Lieberman has in mind are not remotely comparable to the African Americans and/or those Americans ‘who do not watch fire works on Fourth July’ and/or Jews who were considered “a problem” by those who want just to loot and kill them or consider them less human even though Jews always bested them!).

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        c. The internal logic of the article is based on false moral equivalence (African Americans are not seeking to annihilate Whites; AAs did not go-/are not going to war repeatedly to annihilate Whites, destroy the USA and replace it with an African nation – and I can go on and on and on. If AA’s did/do to European Americans 1% of what Arabs did/continue to do to Jews, AAs would have been wiped out a long time ago. But Jews are different. We defeat the enemy and let the enemy live to fight us another day and as such the problem continues, while we hope to solve the problem one day on the negotiation table and continue to pay the price for that with the blood of our own brothers and sisters. That’s Jewish values that make Europeans think we are nuts!). The author willfully lies when she pretends that this is not the case.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          d. The article provides a distorted context of the subject it deals with and neglects to factor in the equation comparable international solutions that (1) are still in place as of today (!), (2) perfectly in harmony with International law and (3) render the entire message of the article not just incorrect, but flat out idiotic – think Czechoslovakia. Think Yugoslavia, etc.

          All the author needed to do was (1) a little research and (2) a little thinking – instead of mouthing off ranting.

          Reply to Comment
    4. Brian

      “Renowned international relations scholar Barry Buzan once characterized (I paraphrase) Israel as a tragic product of 19th century political currents, that emerged just as those worldviews were losing legitimacy as political movements.”

      This is an important theme that deserves extended exploration by +972: Israel as awkward 21st C anachronism. And how the country can move forward, up and out of that anachronistic orientation.

      Reply to Comment
      • Baladi Akka 1948

        I noticed that part too and it continues on the “dark side of dispossession and domination”
        And I think it’s hilarious that Dahlia Scheindlin who’s American and came to the Middel East as an adult by the supremacist Law of Return, has the guts to write that. Nothing more funny than foreign-born Israeli Jews critizing the very concept of Zionism that allows them to squat Palestinian land.
        Well that’s just my opinion …

        Reply to Comment
        • Sluggo

          Right. Aren’t you the one who wants to rebuild villages? LoL

          Reply to Comment
      • Lo

        I can’t agree with you more.

        It’s truly strange to see a country so deeply invested in a 19th century “blood and soil” nationalism in the 21st century.

        Reply to Comment
    5. Ginger Eis

      “Apropos homogeneity, there is a larger, historic reason Lieberman’s plan is wrong. (…)”.

      This a complete falsehood. The Jewish State is a-priori not homogeneous and Lieberman – himself is a perfect example of that – has never claimed otherwise or advocated ethnic/racial homogeneity. To state contrary as true, is distortion – plain and simple.

      Reply to Comment
    6. Ginger Eis

      “Renowned international relations scholar Barry Buzan once characterized (…) Israel as a tragic product of 19th century political currents, that emerged just as those worldviews were losing legitimacy as political movements. He was referring to the political projects based on industrialization, rational state-building and ideologies of enlightened progress – and their accompanying “dark side” of dispossession and domination.”

      This is another manifestation of the leftist lunacy – a perfect product of empty, know-nothing, but hyped-up “intellectuals” such as Barry Buzan whose hallucinatory claims are accepted as eternal words of wisdom by his fellow leftist Cult-members who present said claims as somehow embodying any kind of intellectual content. No sane person waste his/her time rebutting such imbecilic claims.

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        It’s a very serious claim having to do with how much an amalgam of tribal-ethno-racial-religious forces will define the government of a state that very much insists it wants to be and wants to be regarded as a modern, western democratic 21st Century country. So that the description, “awkwardly anachronistic,” is not to be simply dismissed, but needs to be carefully thought out. “Imbecilic,” as elsewhere, here also does not cut it as thoughtful, serious criticism.

        An exchange on earlier thread between Utemia and myself:

        Utemia (November 25, 2014): I find this whole issue oddly anachronistic in the 21st century. And especially so since Israel claims for itself to be a democratic nation that has the values and institutions that make up a modern 1st world western nation. But European nations had to go through the process of defining what “nationality” means for them, and in Germany and elsewhere this lead to revolutions and wars aplenty. Israel has to go through this process, and hopefully it will come out intact at the end.

        Brian (November 26, 2014): Utemia, precisely. “Anachronism” is the word that comes to my mind most often in considering the problem with Israel in 2014. It is the most awkwardly anachronistic state by far among those in the club it declares itself a member of: Western democracies. It is anachronistic to the point of incoherence, to the point actually of impossibility (in terms of sustainability). Paraphrasing YR, above, it cannot, in the 21st Century, suffice to say that Israel should be defined as a “Jewish country” on the basis that Israel Belongs Only To The Jews, And Everyone Else Simply Lives There.

        Reply to Comment
      • Yeah, right

        GE: “No sane person waste his/her time rebutting such imbecilic claims.”

        His argument is correct, Ginger.

        Zionism is, indeed, predicated upon colonial expansionist theories – including the notion of The White Man’s Burden – and the only wrinkle that the original Zionists added to it was the concept that ALL the White Men would relocate to the colony.

        That’s all 19th century political theory, and if Israel had been founded in the 19th century then it would be in fine shape today as a post-colonial state.

        But the essential problem for Israel is that this theory wasn’t put into action until the second half of the 20th century, when such ideas were already discredited.

        Zionism has done a FANTASTIC job of swimming against the tide – no argument from me – but eventually fatigue had to set in.

        Well, it has now: Zionism is running out of puff, and it’s starting to panic.

        You can see it in the flailing of arms and legs by Netanyahu, Liberman, etc., etc.

        Damn funny to see, but it does cause that Clown Car to veer all over the road…. when if finally hits something the carnage is going to be…. ugly.

        Reply to Comment
        • “Zionism is, indeed, predicated upon colonial expansionist theories – including the notion of The White Man’s Burden – and the only wrinkle that the original Zionists added to it was the concept that ALL the White Men would relocate to the colony.”

          Yeah, right! What could possibly go wrong with a set up like that?

          Reply to Comment
          • “It shouldn’t need to be said to anyone representing any democratic country, that stripping citizenship as a collective policy, from people who have committed nothing resembling a crime such as treason, violates pretty much everything democracy stands for. No Jew or human being can accept that citizens are a problem to be solved. Jews were once also considered a “problem.”

            Worse: the program targets those who have been the shoved to the margins of Israeli society for 66 years. Now they could be forced out altogether. The plan embodies what is perhaps the nastiest racist expression in the Hebrew language, loosely translated as: “The ‘n’ has done his work, the ‘n’ can go now.”

            The former Moldovan nightclub bouncer cum statesman. Couldn’t have been a difficult transition for him as so many in Israel government have the appearance/attitude/swagger of thugs. Can’t understand the bad press they’ve been getting, even by their own. Even at JPost, wow, not exactly a “leftist” newspaper. There must be a lot of self-hating Jews out there, it can’t be the fact that they are nothing but racist gangsters of a rogue state.

            Reply to Comment
        • Ginger Eis

          The math is very simple: ‘a + b ≠ c’

          a. Israel is the product of Zionism
          b. Zionism dates several centuries (1400 BCE / 641 BCE) before all, and mean all, “19th century political currents” (whatever that means);
          c. Thus, Israel is not-, could not- and cannot be a product of “19th century political currents”.

          The above is basis math. The laws of space and time does not allow for a different conclusion. To lend any credence to the claim made by Barry Buzan on the basis of the prefix: “Renowned international relations scholar” is (1) fallacy ad non-sequitur and (2) fallacy ad verecundiam. You see, some stuff are so self-evidently false and thus imbecilic that no serious person wastes his/time rebutting it. That I chose to do so now is purely a matter of courtesy to re the efforts you made.

          Reply to Comment
          • Lo

            You’re going to use formal logic to explain historical sociology-political outcomes? What’s next? Are you going to play a concerto using only a tuna fish?

            Specifically, a lot rides on your second premise. You’re seriously going to argue that there’s been a coherent, almost monolithic consensus to build Israel in its current composition in the 20th century for tens of centuries? Is there some secret design document that was passed down and edited, moving from stone tablets to a PDF? Moreover, what about all the Jews who were deeply opposed to creating a state at all?

            Instead, I think it’s far more useful to understand Zionism as one of many nationalistic uprisings emerging from the tail years of the Enlightenment. As with all other national movements of the period, some measure of opportunistic strategy, hard work, and luck really explain Zionism. Not some magical destiny foretold by Bronze Age prophets.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Indeed, the only way “The Grand International University Of +972mag” and its retarded students get to be right about anything and win any arguments is if we throw away ‘formal logic’, as you stated.

            Thank you, Lo, for making that point loud and clear. Priceless.

            Your honor, I am done here. The defense rests!

            Reply to Comment
          • I wondered about the same thing. Must’ve been the fine print on the 10 commandments somewhere between “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, right

            Ginger: “b. Zionism dates several centuries (1400 BCE / 641 BCE) before all, and mean all, “19th century political currents” (whatever that means);”

            Hmmm, remind me again: when was Herzl born?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            YeahRight, I knew you will rush to cite Theodore Herzl (as would anyone who has a peripheral knowledge of the Jewish People), so I intentionally set-up that trap to help you expose yourself by yourself. And behold, there you are – caught right in the middle of that trap. Zionism, the tie of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, existed since the time of the exile, throughout the history of the Galut (Diaspora). In this period, Zionism was often expressed in Messianic movements. Some renowned scholars go further and make the case that the moment the following words were spoken: “Pharaoh, let My People go!”, Zionism was born. Theodore Herzl is one of the most prominent figures of HIS time in the long, long history of Zionism.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            [Chortle]

            Ginger: “a. Israel is the product of Zionism”

            Then that would be the Zionism that predicated itself upon the establishment of a modern nation-state for Jews.

            That’s a 19th century concept, and no mistaking.

            Ginger: “Zionism, the tie of the Jewish people to the land of Israel, existed since the time of the exile, throughout the history of the Galut (Diaspora).”

            And that’s something DIFFERENT, because while “the land of Israel” may mean many things to many people one thing it most definitely is **not** is “a modern nation-state”.

            Here, check it out again:
            Ginger (then): “a. Israel is the product of Zionism”
            Ginger (now): “Zionism, the tie of the Jewish people to the land of Israel,”

            Those are not one and the same thing.

            Israel is a modern nation-state, it is not “the land of Israel”.

            The “land of Israel” is an ancient concept, it is not a modern nation-state.

            The Zionism whose aim was to establish that modern nation-state is without a doubt a 19th century political movement (heck, at one stage they were seriously considering Someplace That Wasn’t Anywhere Near The “Land Of Israel”).

            It is not a millennia-old yearning for The Lost Land From Which We Were So Brutally Exiled.

            Really, Ginger, you aren’t even half as smart as you think you are.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            AND, in tying nationalist feelings about a modern nation state to primitive, mystical “blood an soil” concepts of “the Land” and “The People” (explicitly defined and strictly enforced by its official governmental agencies employing a concept of an indivisible amalgam of blood-ethnicity-genetics-religion-culture) we are unmistakably entering (in the 21st Century) the realm of 20th Century fascism which grew from 19th Century political currents. This is no benign religious-cultural project as conceived by Ginger Eis. It is a link–fiercely insisted upon–between a modern nation state and much more primitive concepts, and with a declared willingness to act with considerable brutality in its realization and enforcement.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            “Ginger (then): “a. srael is the product of Zionism”. Ginger (now): “Zionism, the tie of the Jewish people to the land of Israel,” Those are not one and the same thing. Israel is a modern nation-state, it is not “the land of Israel”.

            Oh boy …… YeahRight is confused – yet again….. lol! Goosh, I love watching this movie over and over again, i.e. ‘retarded +972mag-students lured into a confined space where they can do nothing except run furiously around circles in total, wild confusion ranting!’ …. lol. Thank you, YeahRight, for the laugh of the day (even my ever very composed Mom burst out laughing); truly amazing stuff.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “Oh boy …… YeahRight is confused – yet again….. lol! Goosh, I love watching this movie over and over again, i.e. ‘retarded +972mag-students lured into a confined space where they can do nothing except run furiously around circles in total, wild confusion ranting!’ …. lol. Thank you, YeahRight, for the laugh of the day (even my ever very composed Mom burst out laughing); truly amazing stuff.”

            That spluttering nonsense of Ginger’s is 100% Polemic.

            Not a single attempt to refute a single thing that I wrote.

            Not one debatable proposition is to be found anywhere in that incoherent waffle.

            Not a single “fact” nor a solitary “claim” nor even an attempt at “argument” is evident anywhere within that lamentable abuse of the English language.

            Pure, unadulterated polemic.

            As I said, Ginger is not even half as smart as she thinks she is.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            YR, You might as well be presenting 10th grade trigonometry to a first grade student struggling to master the difference between a triangle and a square. But in this case the student is a dim, disingenuous tenth grade student pretending to be a rude first grade student. The abiding characteristic of this student is that when caught out she slinks away out the classroom door.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            YeahRight, you said this:

            “Ginger (then): “a. Israel is the product of Zionism”. “Ginger (now): “Zionism, the tie of the Jewish people to the land of Israel,” Those are not one and the same thing. Israel is a modern nation-state, it is not “the land of Israel”. (…)”.

            The above are YOUR words. You refuted yourself. You exposed how confused you yourself are, not me! You did that to yourself all by yourself. Fair minds will follow the exchanges and make their own judgments. We have both made our points very clearly. The debate ended a long time ago, but you like arguing endlessly! Fine. If you want to continue down the bottomless pit of argumentum ad infinitum, you may do so on your own – alone. I am done here.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Fascinating. Yet again the personal attack–“how confused you are”–and on and on all the while carefully avoiding the slightest attempt to refute a single proposition. Zilch. Zero.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “The above are YOUR words. You refuted yourself.”

            No, I am a model of clarity, unlike yourself.

            Here is a place, and it is called “Israel”

            And “Israel” is a modern nation-state, conceived as such, and it was “produced” as such.

            It is not the “Land of Israel” (which has existed for thousands of years without it) nor was it absolutely necessary for that state’s “production” to have taken place there (e.g. serious consideration was given to “producing Israel” in what is now Uganda).

            Soooooo, back to Ginger’s original words: “a. Israel is the product of Zionism”

            Then you are talking about the modern-day nation-state of “Israel”, and THAT is the “product” of a political movement started by Herzl in the 19th century.

            Ginger: “Zionism, the tie of the Jewish people to the land of Israel,”…

            Note this: you are now talking about the “Land of Israel”, which is not “Israel” (one is “a land”, one is “a state”).

            The “Zionism” that yearned for that land is millennia-old, but the Zionism that “produced Israel” did not evolve until the 19th century.

            Ginger, You Are Wrong.

            Question: Who or what “produced Israel”?
            Answer: The political movement that was founded by Herzl in the 19th century “produced Israel” as a “state for the Jews”.

            Question: It wasn’t a “product” of the ties the Jews have to the Land of Israel?
            Answer: No, you just need to live there for that. A “state” is not required.

            Honestly, Ginger, if you were even half as smart as you think you are then you’d have no problem comprehending that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “Fine. If you want to continue down the bottomless pit of argumentum ad infinitum, you may do so on your own – alone. I am done here”

            I hate to be rude, but Ginger’s idea of “debate” is this:
            a) She waddles into a room, looks around her, and then drops a big dump on the carpet
            b) And whenever someone points out that Ginger’s Big Dump Of The Day is just sitting there stinking up the place then she replies with some variation on:
            c) I don’t want to talk to you… I’ve already done what I wanted to do… you deal with it.

            Which is all not very impressive, but oh-so-Ginger.

            Reply to Comment
          • That was awesome.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            “so I intentionally set-up that trap to help you expose yourself by yourself.”

            Translation: “Be vewy vewy quiet! I’m hunting wabbits! huh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh!”

            Eis: Really, it’s not kind to say so, but with your rudeness and downright viciousness you’ve earned no wages of compassion: Your thinking is especially idiotic. Let’s start with the basics. To put it in the simplest terms, what you say here is like saying a river with several tributary sources along it cannot possibly be the product of all of those sources, including the large (that is, 19th Century) source closest to the riverbank on which you are standing! This is absurd. It is the product actually of a mind with embarrassing limitations. Which is why it is especially cartoonish that you speak of “laying traps” for people so much more nimbler than you that it is painful to watch. Honestly, this is the kind of stuff of which Looney Tunes crafted its classic cartoons of Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny. Elmer never gets it right and Bugs always outsmarts him. To a comic degree that is painful and funny to watch at the same time. This is your +972 legacy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            “The math is very simple…Thus, Israel is not-, could not- and cannot be a product of “19th century political currents””

            Hilarious. Really, this is like a Saturday Night Live skit by Roseanne Rosannahdannah (Gilda Radner) or something. But she’s not joking!!! You can’t make this stuff up. You just could not believe it if you didn’t read it with your own eyes.

            Reply to Comment
    7. Gert

      Liberman is either a fool, an ignoramus, a cynic or all of the above. Plans for ‘voluntary’ and ‘monetised’ ‘repatriation’ have been floated in the past by various fringe rightwing loons in Europe. Never did the proposed legislation even make it into a proposal for Law, never mind into actual Law.

      It’s the wet dream fantasy of the fascistoid fringe here at 972: Pedro, Whiplash, Bar and Gingernut. Leave them be.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Liberman’s racist plan won’t succeed in accomplishing what he has been trying to sell to impressionable minds – quite the contrary. This type of proposal may appear to pave the way to some J-dominant “democracy” or other Zionist fantasy world… but over time it will simply make Israel more of a target and increase the liabilities in the negative column.

      This type of proposal though isn’t surprising coming from someone who suggested drowning 350 Palestinian prisoners in the Dead Sea and bombing the Aswan Dam, among other homicidal schemes. Liberman is a sociopath. He brings the same thuggish calculations to politics that probably served him well when he worked as a bouncer in Moldova.

      All this and other proposed xenophobic measures will do is dig a deeper hole. Moves in this direction will never unshackle Israel from the moral and political debt accumulated on the back of a great historical injustice. It’s a price that will have to be paid one way or another. The only question is where are the Israelis who give some signs of wanting to get serious in order do the right thing… not so many it seems.

      Uri Avnery summed up what Liberman is about in a 2009 article entitled “Dirty Socks.” Despite Liberman’s efforts at becoming more “statesmanlike” in the interim, leopards as we know don’t change their spots:

      “Liberman has created a party that is simply and thoroughly racist. Its election campaign is centered on the demand to annul the Israeli citizenship of “non-loyal” people. Meaning: the Arabs, who constitute 20% of Israel’s citizens. In every other country, Liberman’s program would be called fascist, without quotation marks. Nowhere in the Western world is there a large party that would dare to advance such a demand. The neo-fascists in Switzerland and Holland want to expel foreigners, not to annul the citizenship of the native-born. When Joerg Haider was taken into the Austrian cabinet, Israel recalled its ambassador from Vienna in protest. But compared to Liberman, Haider was a raving liberal, and so is Jean-Marie le Pen.”

      Reply to Comment
      • Ginger Eis

        Here is the basic equation which you are either (a) unaware of or (b) aware of but chose to neglect/lie about:

        1. The Muslim-Arabs Lieberman has in mind want their own Self-determination. They abhor and reject the Jewish State, Jewish majority and being ruled by Jews.
        2. Lieberman wants said Muslim-Arabs to have that Self-determination they crave in THEIR own State where they can rule over themselves and be masters of their own destiny – free of Jewish rule!
        3. As such, Lieberman’s plan is the most moral and honest. The Muslim-Arabs get to exercise their own Self-determination in their own State – free of Jewish rule. The Jewish People get to do the same in a Jewish State – free of Arab rule (no Jew wants another Dhimmitude).

        Who thus can be a better champion of Arab human rights and freedom than Lieberman? These are the issues you need to consider thoughtfully instead of going off on an automatic rant each time the word ‘Israel’ is mentioned.

        Reply to Comment
        • Lo

          Why can’t these damn Moozlim-Ayrabs just go on an’ git from our pure Jewish-ruled Jewish State for Jews*.

          *and whatever minorities who just grit their teeth and sigh.

          Reply to Comment
        • @Ginger Eis

          More to the point, this is a basic equation that suits your partisan view of the situation – not reality.

          Liberman’s scheme amounts to the creation of a glorified bantustan for Palestinians. A dumping ground – especially so in the face of the illegal settlement building and plans for “greater Israel.”

          No so-called “state” of this sort will ever rise to the level of true self-determination for Palestinians given the theft, exile and persecution they have been subjected to by incoming Zionists with their phony myths of ownership. Israelis who back Liberman’s delusions won’t escape that easily from the debt they owe.

          The Palestinian people – as Ben-Gurion and other early Zionists acknowledged – are the original people of the land… the indigenous inhabitants of land stolen to create “Israel.”

          Why don’t you leave? Ironically Israeli Jews are already leaving voluntarily and fleeing back to Berlin, London, New Jersey etc because they can’t stomach the racist, reactionary gulag Netanyahu and co are turning the country into.

          A few Israelis get it right… notably Shlomo Sand who said this:

          “In the Israeli discourse about roots there is a degree of perversion. This is an ethnocentric, biological, genetic discourse. But Israel has no existence as a Jewish state: If Israel does not develop and become an open, multicultural society we will have a Kosovo in the Galilee. The consciousness concerning the right to this place must be more flexible and varied, and if I have contributed with my book to the likelihood that I and my children will be able to live with the others here in this country in a more egalitarian situation – I will have done my bit.

          We must begin to work hard to transform our place into an Israeli republic where ethnic origin, as well as faith, will not be relevant in the eyes of the law. Anyone who is acquainted with the young elites of the Israeli Arab community can see that they will not agree to live in a country that declares it is not theirs. If I were a Palestinian I would rebel against a state like that, but even as an Israeli I am rebelling against it.”

          Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Jcee

            1. The History (and the Right) of the Jewish People to the entire Land Of Israel is well documented and not up for debate. That said, your perfectly entitled to your own opinion as to who stole what from whom.
            2. “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism for tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.” (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.) Arab leaders and elite and academia recognize that there is no such thing as the “Palestinian people” (I know some will jump in now and start quoting Israeli leaders to me).
            3. The conflict is not really about land, because (a) there is enough land in the Middle East for all and (b) the Jewish State occupies less, and I mean LESS, than 1% of the entire Middle East. The conflict is about the primitive madness called Islam and rejection of The Jewish Commonwealth/State in their Ancestral Homeland by Muslim-Arabs. But the Jewish State ain’t going anywhere and before She is destroyed by the Arabs, the entire Arab-Muslim world shall have perished! Let there be no illusions about that.
            4. Do YOU Jcee support Jewish Self-determination in a JEWISH State on any piece of land at all? If not, why not? If yes, pls. say so, because that would be a big deal.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            I see. Blut und Erde. Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Land. But it has nothing!, nooo-thing!, to do with 19th Century political currents. And Herzl had nothing to do with it. It’s about ‘the exodus’ and ‘the pharaoh.’ Because you watched it on the remake of Leon Uris’ pulp fiction ‘Exodus’ with Paul Newman and Eva Marie Saint on the Lifetime channel. History as kitsch as defense of a blood-and soil-based concept of Zionist expansion in the 21st Century. Lovely. And here’s the best part: “It’s not up for debate.”

            Reply to Comment
          • What can you say to something that proposes former Moldovan strongarm nightclub bouncer Lieberman as moral and just.

            “Some renowned scholars go further and make the case that the moment the following words were spoken: “Pharaoh, let My People go!”, Zionism was born.”

            Was that with DeMille’s 1923 silent version “The 10 Commandments” or the redo 1956 version with Charleton Heston?

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            No answer. Yet again this nasty character slinks away. An abiding characteristic of the fascist right on this site is that when you call them on the fascism, they have no reply. Never. It forms a tacit agreement: You name it correctly, but we are not about to admit it in public, at least not yet.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “(I know some will jump in now and start quoting Israeli leaders to me)”

            Yeah, funny that.

            Actually, no, I’ll go you one better: I’ll quote an EXCHANGE between a Palestinian leader and an Israeli leader.

            Here….
            “Mr. Prime Minister,” .. “I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments: The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.”

            And here…..
            “Mr. Chairman,” …. “I wish to confirm to you that, in light of the PLO commitments included in your letter, the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people and commence negotiations with the PLO within the Middle East peace process.”

            The. Representative. Of. The. Palestinian. People.

            Hmmm, it does rather appear that the Palestinians were recognized as “A People” in that exchange and, sorry, try as I might I can find so subsequent letter from any Palestinian leader shouting that No, No, We’re Not A People!

            Odd, that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein”

            You *do* understand that Muhsein worked from the Syrians, right?

            That he sat on the PLO executive as the representative of the Ba’ath party, and so reported directly to Syrian President Hafed Assad, and not to Yassar Arafat.

            You did know that, didn’t you?

            Because if you did then you’d have known that quoting Muhsein is about as convincing as going to Moshe Feiglin for an “authoritative” pronouncement on the policy position of Likud.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            Professor Azmi Bishara: There Is No “Palestinian Nation”, Never Was ! Professor Bishara is an Israeli Arab nationalist, a Muslim and an MK.

            Watch, YeahRight. Watch. And weep!

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3n5-yG-6dU

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Ginger: “Professor Bishara is an Israeli Arab nationalist, a Muslim and an MK.”

            Ahem. You are using an ISRAELI to “prove” that the Palestinian People do not exist?

            You do realize how crazy that makes you sound, right?

            Ginger: “Watch, YeahRight. Watch. And weep!”

            Why, exactly?

            It simply doesn’t matter if he is an Arab, a Muslim, or a pole-dancer.

            He can be all those things and more – including being a member of the ISRAELI legislature – and he still would not be able to claim for himself the title of “representative of the Palestinian People”.

            That role rests with Someone Else i.e. it rests with the organization known as the PLO, and it certainly does not rest with **any** MK of **any** race, creed or religion.

            We know that for a fact, because of that official exchange of letters between Rabin and Arafat.

            Honestly, Ginger, do you know a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ginger Eis

            YeahRight, I will debate you as necessary. Right now you are once again acting like a fool and, to be honest, I have neither the patience nor the civility to deal with that. We have both made our points very clear. The debate is over (as all debates have a beginning and an end; try to learn that!). Fair folks will read and make their own judgments. And if you want to continue arguing and twisting endlessly down the bottomless hole, you may do so – alone. I am done here.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            Since Ginger has decided to Run Away! Run Away! I think that now is an appropriate time for a summary of events.

            Ginger insists that the Palestinian People do not exist.

            As evidence for that assertion she quotes Syrian President Assad’s hand-picked man on the PLO Executive i.e. a man who was there representing the interests of the Syrian Ba’ath Party.

            Hmm, not much joy there…

            So Ginger tried another dude who was a MEMBER OF THE ISRAELI KNESSET, and who therefore represented nobody except the Israeli constituents who elected him.

            Hmm, much joy there either….

            And the funny thing about all that is that Ginger flat-out refuses to quote the one person that did claim to be the legitimate representative of the is-there-or-isn’t-there “Palestinian People”

            You know, Arafat.

            He insisted that the Palestinian People not only exist, but that the PLO was entitled to speak on their behalf.

            And….Israel agreed with him.
            And…. so did the USA.
            And…. so did the UN.
            And…. so did the EU.

            And who does Ginger have on her contrarian side of the fence?

            Possibly the Syrian Ba’ath Party.
            Possibly the Israeli Balad Party.

            Nice company you are keeping, Ginger. Does it make you feel the urge to scratch?

            Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          Eis: One problem with this, and only one of course, is that if you really want to go with this, then fair’s fair: It needs be encompass ALL the Israeli Arabs on the land they live on. Just as Lieberman’s plan will include all the major Jewish settlements. So that means, just as in the West Bank maps with those long, snaking, gerrymandering tentacles of Israeli settlement zones creating surrounded pockets of land deep in the territories, so Lieberman’s going have to surrender long, snaking tentacles of Palestinian land encompassing, just for example, a large Arab section of Haifa/Jaffa. Etc. Let’s go! Ready to start drawing the maps? (This in itself is a terribly stingy deal from the indigenous Israeli Arabs’ perspective since they were long ago pushed off so much land inside the Green Line that was theirs, but we can talk about this later after we attend to basic principles.)

          Reply to Comment
    9. Ginger Eis

      Arise. Sing. Dance. And Rejoice. The Sons And The Daughters Of Zion Are Back From Exile after centuries of near total annihilation and extinction. Zion has been restored.

      Zion Forever!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm1g8FFRArc

      Wooohooo!

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        Eis, nothing could better reveal the nasty, kitsch (sentimental phoniness) values of your Zionism than this popular video, populated by images of Jamaican descendants of black Africans seeking freedom across oceans. 52% of Israeli Jews, under the leadership of your hero MK Miri Regev, call black Africans immigrants seeking freedom from oppression “a cancer in the body” of racially “pure” Israel:

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-israeli-jews-agree-africans-are-a-cancer/

        …The report termed the findings “troubling” and “surprising,” especially considering the fact that 79.5 percent of respondents said that “where they live there are only a few, very few, or no” refugees or migrant workers. “This raises doubt about the often-heard claim that it is direct exposure or vulnerability that accounts for negative positions and feelings toward the presence of foreigners,” the report said…

        Reply to Comment
    10. I love reggae, especially Bob Marley and Peter Tosh, RIP to both. Like so many things, the black folks singing about Zion, and there are numerous, including soul singers Marvin Gaye and Sam Cooke, RIP to them too. How would they find the reality of the Zion they sang about to the reality on the ground? They can sing about Israel, but that’s about it.

      You go ahead and have your little love fest with Zion, but it is become nothing more than a “gated community” for european/north american jews and is not the apple of God’s eye. Zion is restored? Hardly.

      Reply to Comment
    11. Average American

      To Joaquin (small print) and Eis –
      What is “The Levant”? What is “The Land Of Israel”? What does it look like on a map? From where to where? Just how much territory are you claiming ownership of? Let’s hear your full intentions.

      Reply to Comment
    12. Ginger Eis

      The haters stomp their feet and foam at the mouth when they witness the Beauty Of Zion; their eyes bulge out of their eye sockets out of deranged jealousy when the behold and hear the Children of Zion; they stomp their feet in a wild frenzy, their hearts full of rage and hate when the behold the Magnificence of Zion, but the day their ugly heads rear themselves up against Zion, those heads will be crushed!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4pjKopHoHg

      Am Yisrael Chai!

      Reply to Comment
      • Brian

        For a second there I thought you might be going somewhere truthful for a change–“The haters stomp their feet and foam at the mouth”–but after a mere ten words you drift off into the same kitsch. You might have stopped at word #10 and posted this:

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-israeli-jews-agree-africans-are-a-cancer/

        “…The report termed the findings “troubling” and “surprising,” especially considering the fact that 79.5 percent of respondents said that “where they live there are only a few, very few, or no” refugees or migrant workers. “This raises doubt about the often-heard claim that it is direct exposure or vulnerability that accounts for negative positions and feelings toward the presence of foreigners,” the report said…”

        But you didn’t.

        Reply to Comment
        • Merav

          stop “foaming at the mouth”, brian, as Gingi said. No one hears you because you are crazy and hateful. Richard told you that before. Listen to Richard, brian. all the posts you have been bombarding Gingi with go unreplied and many are really scary and point to a classic case of online stalking by a crazed person; ‘looks like you really have “a thing” for Gingi and the fact that she has consistently ignored you makes you go wild. Anyways, try not to hit your head against the wall, little man.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Well if it isn’t good ol’ Gingi “You Lie!” Merav. Finished reading that court transcript yet? Hee hee.

            Reply to Comment
    13. Click here to load previous comments