+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

'The problem isn't Arab protesters, it's the society that sees them as an enemy'

Fifteen years since the events of October 2000, in which Israeli police killed 13 Arab protesters, Hassan Jabareen, head of Israel’s leading Arab civil rights organization, talks to +972 about the lessons Israel’s Palestinian population learned from the killings, the escalation of systematic discrimination since, and the vision of a democratic state of all its citizens. ‘If Arabs in Israel determined their political leanings in accordance with what Jews said, they would always be inferior.’

Atty. Hassan Jabareen (Photo by Amal Shufani/Adalah)

Atty. Hassan Jabareen (Photo by Amal Shufani/Adalah)

The Arab public in Israel this week marked 15 years since protests that resulted in the police killings of 13 people and left hundreds wounded. “October 2000 led our public to understand that the existing parliamentary and legal tools are not enough to defend our rights,” says Attorney Hassan Jabareen, founder and executive director of Adalah, in an interview to +972 Magazine. October 2000, Jabareen explains, was a pivotal moment for Palestinian citizens of Israel, one that changed the way they viewed the State of Israel and forever altered their political relationship to it.

Only five years after establishing Adalah when the events broke, Jabareen led the legal team that represented the families of the victims in commission of inquiry appointed by then Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak (also known as the Or Commission). Since then, Adalah has become the leading legal advocacy organization for the Arab minority in Israel — more than 1.6 million Palestinians (21 percent of the population) who are Israeli citizens.

Over the years, Adalah has filed a long series of petitions demanding equal rights and equal distribution of resources for the Arab minority. Many of its cases resulted in landmark rulings. Adalah has also challenged, unsuccessfully, a new wave of legislation targeting Palestinian rights and political activities in Israel: the Nakba Law, citizenship law, the acceptance committees law that legalized housing segregation, and the anti-boycott law. Jabareen himself led the representation of Palestinian members of Knesset who were disqualified from running in elections (he won in every case), and the defense of Arab public figures facing criminal and political persecution.

Jabareen is the attorney for the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel and an attorney for many Palestinian members of Knesset. Former High Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak once called him “one of the most important constitutional attorneys in Israel.” He was part of the team that published the Haifa Declaration in 2007, which presented the Arab-Israeli public’s vision of for “a democratic state for all its citizens.”

In our conversation, Jabareen revisited the events of October 2000, what has — and hasn’t — changed since, and discussed the prospects of civil equality in Israel.

October 2000 Banner

What had you been working on in the months leading up to October 2000?

We entered the new millennium with a certain degree of optimism. Those were the glory days for civil society organizations, when Adalah and other Palestinian rights organizations inside Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza were founded. Talks between the PLO and the Israeli government were looking serious and we thought we were nearing the end of the occupation. Momentum could be felt around the world. New democratic regimes were being established, apartheid fell, the Berlin Wall fell. We knew we were living under a institutionally discriminatory regime, but there was hope. The events of October 2000 surprised us.

Palestinians in Israel were used to political protests, but we hadn’t had intensive experience with people being killed during demonstrations since Land Day in 1976, when six people were killed in Sakhnin and Arabeh. We thought that was behind us. I was at a demonstration at Umm el-Fahm, that’s where the first victim was killed. I saw people’s reactions. I felt the anger. I was there at Rambam Hospital the moment Wissam Yazbek from Nazareth passed away. I was next to his mother when the doctor came out and broke the news that her son had died. I will never forget that moment.

How did you understand the incidents at the time?

As a member of a human rights organization, what preoccupied us most was how to react: how we could do our utmost to provide legal protection to protestors, and how to raise awareness of the killings. We got 500 Palestinian lawyers to represent, pro-bono, all those who were arrested. We published a few sharply worded press releases — in Arabic, Hebrew, and English — accusing the prime minister, the public security minister, and the police commissioner of murder. We blamed Israeli society for not reacting. We stand behind every word. We wrote back then that [the killings] simply were not justified. After investigating the incidents, it was clear we were right. The Or Commission later confirmed all this.

Israeli Border Police officers aim assault rifles toward Arab demonstrators in northern Israel during October 2000. (Courtesy of Adalah)

Israeli Border Police officers aim assault rifles toward Arab demonstrators in northern Israel during October 2000. (Courtesy of Adalah)

The Jewish public was also taken by surprise. What do you tell people who believe Arab citizens joined the Intifada on October 2000?

The events began with Ariel Sharon, then head of the opposition, going up to the Temple Mount, where Al-Aqsa Mosque is located, which was designed to harm negotiations between the PLO and the Ehud Barak government. There is no dispute about this. Border Police used enormous firepower there and those images resonated deeply among the Palestinian-Israeli public. In response, the High Follow Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel called a general strike among Palestinian-Israelis — an obvious response, in my opinion.

The strike could have ended like any other. To remind you, strikes were also called in December 1988, which were widespread demonstrations in solidarity with the events of the First Intifada. Nothing happened back then. But this time, the government’s use of lethal force in Wadi Ara triggered an escalation. If the police had allowed people to protest, everything would have turned out differently. Even if Wadi Ara’s highway had been shut for a few hours. By the way, the police tolerate such closures every now and again, sometimes even with prior coordination with some of the Arab MKs. That confirms that it doesn’t always have to end the way it did in October 2000.

Tens of thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel demonstrate in northern Israel in October 2000. (Courtesy of Adalah)

Tens of thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel demonstrate in northern Israel in October 2000. (Courtesy of Adalah)

The solidarity Palestinian-Israelis demonstrated with fellow Palestinians was legitimate. It was done peacefully and civilly. No one used live ammunition. Out of the 800-page Or Commission Report on the events of October 2000, not one incident is mentioned in which an Arab used live ammunition.

Still, roads were blocked. Stones were thrown at innocent drivers. 

It is permissible for minority or depressed groups to block roads to protest certain incidents. Democracies allow marginalized groups to protest sometimes in ways that fall outside the framework of the law. Only a fascist worldview would insist that one must fulfill and obey the law at all costs. Clearly it’s not permissible to hurt others while engaging in protest but you can allow roads to be blocked and traffic upset in exceptional cases. The State of Israel is very far from this democratic view of things, especially with regard to us Arabs.

The problem isn’t Arab protesters. The problem is that the Israeli public sees them as an enemy against which force must be used. The police use lethal force against Arab protesters not by chance, but because the police are part of the Jewish public and internalize its racism. Of course there are members of the Israeli public who oppose this sort of hostility toward Arabs, to the use of violence, and who support equality, but these are a minority. The majority does not distinguish between legitimate solidarity and violence — the only question being if you are Jewish or Palestinian. That’s the determining factor. That’s why the October killings had racist underpinnings.

Didn’t the protesters put peoples’ lives in danger? Is that not the context of the shooting?

The Or Commission heard 434 testimonies. It reviewed tens of thousands of documents and a large portion of police and Shin Bet intelligence reports. They visited sites where people were killed and evaluated each incident individually. After all this, it stated unequivocally that not one murder was justified. Not one. It confirmed unequivocally that the police used excessive force in violation of the rules of engagement. The committee condemned the use of snipers and live fire.

It is true that during the “eight days of October” there were severe incidents. Some Jewish drivers were pulled out of their cars and were harmed, and one Jewish citizen was killed near Jissr a-Zarqa. But these were isolated and exceptional incidents. The Follow Up Committee condemned them vehemently and immediately. The dominant picture from those days, alongside the death of 13 [Arab] youths and the wounding of countless others by the police, was injury and persecution of Arabs by Jewish citizens in Nazareth Illit, Tiberias, Acre, Lod, and Ramle.

Yom Kippur October 2000 was horrific. Jews went out and attacked Arabs — some even used knives. They terrorized Arab shops and workers. In Tiberias they tried to destroy an old mosque. The authorities focused on arresting and prosecuting hundreds of Arabs, but they were very indifferent toward Jews who harmed Arabs.

How do Palestinian citizens of Israel understand October 2000 today?

Many things have changed since then. The separation barrier was erected; Gaza was placed under siege; the West Bank became more disconnected. New laws against the Arab public have been introduced in Israel; family reunification for Arab families in Israel was abolished by the Supreme Court itself; the Nakba Law; the acceptance committee law. We’re living in a different reality.

Palestinian citizens of Israel have come to the conclusion that legislative and legal tools are no longer sufficient in safeguarding their status. Thus, since October 2000, you see more efforts being dedicated to international advocacy; to appearances in front of international committees, meetings with foreign embassy representatives in Tel Aviv, advocacy before the European Commission and various UN committees. The aim is to get the international community more engaged in order to safeguard the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel.

We cooperated with the Or Commission, despite concerns and reservations. We expected legal proceedings. It was the attorney general’s decision to close the investigations against police officers that led us to the decision to appeal to the international community. In years prior, there had been Arabs who opposed turning to the UN and the international community. But after the [internal] investigations were shut, international advocacy became part of the consensus.

In the years that followed, the Arabs of Israel published a series of vision documents that acknowledged the structural hostilities of the state vis-a-vis its Palestinian citizens. We emphasized our Palestinian national identity and cited the Nakba as a formative and central component of Palestinian identity. The documents were highly influenced by the events of October 2000.

Palestinian citizens of Israel march to commemorate the killing of 13 protesters by Israeli police in October 2000, Sakhnin, October 1, 2015. (Omar Sameer/Activestills.org)

Palestinian citizens of Israel march to commemorate the killing of 13 protesters by Israeli police in October 2000, Sakhnin, October 1, 2015. (Omar Sameer/Activestills.org)

From a Jewish perspective, this process describes a certain narrative whereby the Palestinian citizens of Israel detached themselves from the state in October 2000 and then anchored this detachment in the documents outlining their vision.

I understand how it’s possible to see it this way if you subscribe to Israeli consensus worldviews. The decision to engage in international advocacy is seen as hostile because the belief is that Arabs ought to be submissive and accept the foundations of the regime, primarily its constitutional foundations of being a Jewish and democratic state, and to act accordingly. We reject this.

This is not just my personal opinion, this is the opinion held by the vast majority of people active in civil society, the political parties, and the members of the Follow Up Committee. We do not accept Israel’s ethnic constitutional foundations; instead we strive for a democratic state for all citizens. If Arabs in Israel determined their political leanings in accordance with what Jews say, they wouldn’t even be able to ask for equality; they would continue being inferior.

In retrospect, the Or Commission emerged as an act of readiness on the part of the government. It’s hard to imagine such a commission being appointed or operating today.

Correct. Despite our criticism of certain aspects of the commission’s work, and our claim that the commission didn’t have the courage to explicitly cite the names of the police commanders guilty of murder nor recommend that they be indicted, it did a serious job, especially given the prevailing political context and attacks by government ministers criticizing its legitimacy. The commission addressed the issue of discrimination in depth in its conclusions. And it tried to argue for criminal investigations into those involved in the killings.

Fifteen years later, the Or Commission looks like an institution alien to this state. And I use the term ‘alien’ in a positive sense. There was an opportunity with the commission, but it was missed.

Has that led you to have second thoughts about your work with the commission?

Before deciding to work with the Or Commission, a delegation from Adalah traveled to Northern Ireland to confer with lawyers who had a similar experience with a commission that investigated the events of Bloody Sunday, and to South Africa. We were concerned not only about the crushing nature of the events, but also that they would eventually blame the Arab public in Israel of what happened.

Although we did not have high expectations, we decided to use the commission so that we would have a platform to present personal stories, gather testimonies, present the claims of victims, and scrutinize police testimony. We opted to use the proceedings as a means of empowering us from within, as a society, regardless of what the outcome of the proceedings. Thus, we always stated at hearings that we already knew who the culprits were.

Israeli police officers shooting at Arab protesters in northern Israel during the protests of October 2000. (Courtesy of Adalah)

Israeli police officers shooting at Arab protesters in northern Israel during the protests of October 2000. (Courtesy of Adalah)

No one was indicted as a result of the Or Commission. On the contrary, the only charges filed by the attorney general were against the victims: against the father of a slain victim who attacked police officer Guy Reif during commission proceedings; the brother of one of the victims who stated after his brother’s investigation was closed that he himself would kill whoever killed his brother. In this respect, despite the professional and intensive work we did, we did not succeed. The racism of law enforcement officials was stronger than the rule of law.

Despite all this, I am not sorry about the work we did. If we hadn’t appealed to the Or Commission, we would not have amassed over 400 testimonies, which Adalah later released in reports. We would not have been exposed to testimonies by policemen. We would not have received over 4,000 pieces of evidence. We wouldn’t have an extensive record of each one of the killings. We would not have had an 800-page Israeli report stating that the police were hostile toward the entire Arab public. We would not have a report that states the events took place against a backdrop of historical discrimination against Arab citizens.

Do you still believe today in working together with Israeli institutions? In petitioning the Supreme Court?

One must distinguish between the necessity of using the law and legitimizing norms of oppression and discrimination. Human rights organizations have always used legal means. Slaves also represented their issues to the American Supreme Court. In South Africa, they turned intensively to the judicial tribunals. Residents of the West Bank and Gaza, Northern Ireland. None of those examples suggest that turning to the courts on behalf of victims provides legitimacy to the system, or that it is the only way to struggle against oppression and achieve equality. It is just one method of many.

The court serves the regime and the law is just one aspect of the politics of the Jewish consensus, especially when it comes to the Palestinians. We are working to change our position [in society]. And precisely out of an understanding of the connection between law and politics, politics also seeks change though the courts.

Hassan Jabareen, wearing his trademark hat, waits to see a client in Haifa court, October 16, 2013. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

Hassan Jabareen, wearing his trademark hat, waits to see a client in Haifa court, October 16, 2013. (Oren Ziv/Activestills.org)

You probably know that most Israelis consider Israel’s High Court of Justice to be ‘leftist’?

I do not measure my values on a Jewish-Israeli scale. In recent years, the High Court has surrendered more and more to the Israeli consensus, rejecting petitions that were completely just. This is how it upheld the Acceptance Committee law, the Nakba Law, the anti-Boycott Law, and the most racist law of the past 20 years, the law banning family reunification.

It is highly doubtful whether the current High Court would have written today the Ka’adan ruling. Decisions that contradict the Ka’adan decision are being handed down these days. The ruling on the village of Umm al-Hiran is a colonialist ruling. Instead of saying that Arabs have the right to live with dignity in their villages, it rules that it is permissible to banish Arabs from villages inhabited for over 50 years in order to build Jewish townships. The Umm al-Hiran ruling should be used to teach a course about the linkages between law and colonialism.

In the past, I’ve heard Palestinian intellectuals claim that the laws against Palestinian Israelis are the Jewish public’s push-back to the vision documents and the attempts of Israeli Arabs to take their Israeli citizenship seriously, with regard to all the rights citizenship confers. In other words, until the 1980s, Palestinian citizens of Israel didn’t really internalize the fact that they were Israeli citizens, and once they realized this and started to struggle for their rights within Israel, the Jewish public became stunned and started consolidating its discrimination into additional laws. What’s your stance on this?

What you’ve just quoted is the account that most Arab intellectuals and academics in Israel ascribe to. I don’t agree with it. It’s not that “they didn’t take citizenship seriously” in the 1950s, it’s that it was a struggle for survival back then with regard to preventing deportation, home demolitions, land expropriation, and military rule. In the 1950s and 60s there was an Arab national consciousness in Israel. Back then the state was racist as well, but the political consensus was different.

It is not possible for Arabs to adopt their Israeli citizenship in its entirety. To take citizenship seriously, in its entirety, is to fight for full equality, equal rights and duties in all domains. For example, to fight for military service and advancement within the military, so that we are represented among the top officers, or in the Foreign Ministry, or so that we have seats on the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. But Arabs won’t demand that and Adalah will never submit a petition making that demand because the current regime does not guarantee equal citizenship at its core, not even in theory. I do not know a group of natives in modern history who fought for equality in all domains, including integration, before regime change occurred and their rights were recognized. The struggle of Arab citizens is first and foremost to change the regime to a democracy for all its citizens, and end to the occupation.

Adalah does seek achievements that address equality and dignity in daily life. That’s why our court petitions demand equal budgets and fight discrimination or land expropriation. But we won’t ask for an equal distribution of Palestinian refugee property, for example. And when Jewish-Mizrahi intellectuals call for equal distribution of the Kibbutz-owned lands, they are asking to distribute what was taken from the Palestinians. We aren’t part of Israeli wars and won’t ask for equality in the distribution of spoils from these wars. We are the victims of these wars.

You can’t take part in dispossessing and revoking the right of return of your fellow people. You cannot be a Palestinian soldier in a Jewish army that is occupying your people. You cannot be an ambassador of a government that occupies. You have to fight for dignified life.

But there is a Palestinian consul and there are Palestinian soldiers…

I’m referring to the call for equality, a process of political parties, leadership and civil society, not to individuals. Those aren’t Adalah’s struggles. We cannot be equal in a regime that is based on denying our identity. You can’t join the machine that is suppressing your people. A blind call for civil equality that ignores the right to live with dignity is not a true call for equality; it is merely an illusion.

Why shouldn’t Palestinian national identity and group rights be expressed in a Palestinian state? The State of Palestine could extend self-determination to all Palestinians in the world, while Palestinian-Israeli citizens of Israel would be entitled to full civil rights and equality in the State of Israel, as a Jewish state.

This is what liberal Zionist philosophers claim. When I hear that, I laugh. To whom will we pay taxes? To the Palestinian Authority that safeguards our national rights, or to the Jewish state? Where will we be able to work as ambassadors? In our nation-state or in the Jewish state? What parliament will we be a part of? And if there is a vote in parliament regarding national matters, will it be possible for Arab members of Knesset to participate in the vote? Which regime, the Palestinian or the Jewish one, will set the curricula of our schools? Who will decide which religious holidays and national holidays are given during the school year? What about the status of Arabic? Where will the Al Midan Theater get the funds to do plays depicting Palestinian life? The idea you suggest necessitates three types of laws in the Jewish state. One for Jews, one for Arabs, and one for citizenship. This is apartheid par excellence.

Zionism wanted to gather all the Jews in one territory. The idea was that only in Palestine would you would have a national and civil life for Jews. Here, freedom and autonomy would be realized. Thus it was possible to say to Jews in the world: if you want full rights, go to the state of the Jews. By the way, this is what Netanyahu said when he invited French Jews to immigrate to the Jewish state after the events of Charlie Hebdo. This is also what the liberal Zionists say to us today. But this idea that states uphold the civil rights of only one ethnic group, that is the racist idea that prevailed in old Europe. A Jew is entitled to full civil rights in France as well. Citizenship doesn’t get split apart by territory or regime. The idea of an ethno-nationalist state is anachronistic. It has a dreadful past, and it has no future. And this is without even saying a word about the point of departure of our discussion. We did not immigrate to Israel, it immigrated to us.

On a more personal level, you are 50 years old and you’ve been involved in civil struggles on behalf Arab-Israelis for more than 20 years. What is the thing that most worries you today?

Civil war. First and foremost, what’s going on in Syria, but also in Iraq, Libya, and Yemen. This is a very difficult situation. Every Arab man or woman who hopes for a better life is thinking about that right now. The situation in Syria does not mean that I am abandoning the struggle against the occupation or the fight for a life of dignity here; but on a personal level I acknowledge that this is what worries me most today. This is the thing that more than 300 million Arabs are talking about, including Arabs in Israel.

Translated from Hebrew by translated by Gila Norich.

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. Jason Kidd

      Let’s take his gripes at face value. What is the solution?
      He calls for the end of the Israeli regime and believes that Palistinians can only thrive in a Palistinian state. So he is a one stater. This has zero probsblity of success. Zero. It would be a human tragedy and a disaster and sadly, one that could be avoided. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not thought this out or has other hidden intentions.
      So let’s agree that the best solution will not give many people (on both sides) everything they want and move on with life.

      Reply to Comment
      • BigCat

        Well Said!

        Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Another simplistic explanation. And it’s conclusion is that the situation is bad because WE treat THEM as the enemy.

        Now here is the flip side of the coin. Could it be that WE treat them as the enemy because THEY behave like enemies? Want proof?

        In 2000, 13 Israeli Arabs were killed after THEY rioted and murdered some Jewish Israelis. Very unfortunate for both of us. And perhaps both sides have something to answer for. But this is why I think that Noam’s take on this is simplistic. Are the Arabs the only side with grievances? We don’t have grievances for things that the Arabs have done to us? Yet they hang on to every grievance of theirs. They keep it alive and lovingly nurture their grievances. Maybe we should commemorate the massacres of Jews in Hebron, by Arabs in 1929? And other massacres too? Would that be the way to end old enmities? Noam would say no (I am sure). Yet he takes it for granted that it is a good idea for Arabs to do so, and then he is surprised if we treat each other as enemies. Not as he claims, that we are the only ones who treat THEM as enemies.

        Reply to Comment
    2. BigCat

      Do the Muslim-Arab population in Israel and the Muslim-Arab-World not see Israel as the enemy that must be rid off?

      Did the Muslim-Arab population in Israel and the Muslim-Arab-World not reject the UN-partition Plan?

      Did the Muslim-Arab population in Israel and the Muslim-Arab-World not go to war in 1948 to annihilate the Jewish State, commit genocide against the Jewish People and “throw the Joos into the sea”, but lost the that war and every other war of annihilation they have fought against the Jewish State since then?

      Have the Muslim-Arab population in Israel and the Muslim-Arab-World not pursued that same goal of annihilating the Jewish State from 1948 till this very moment, and, is achieving that same goal not still the creed and the objective of the Muslim-Arab population in Israel and the entire Muslim-Arab-World?

      The protests are a symptom of a deep rooted problem that the Israeli-Extreme-Left represented by this kind of article refuses to see – i.e. (a) Muslim-Arab hatred of the Jewish People, (b) Muslim-Arab rejection of the Jewish People and the Jewish State in the Ancestral Homeland of the Jewish People and (c) continued struggle to get rid of the Jewish State. The Yellow Star of David was NOT invented by the Germans, but by Muslim-Arabs. Pogroms, expulsions, dispossessions and mass-murder of Jews started amongst Muslim-Arabs and spread to Europe!

      According to Sheikh Muhammed Abd al Hadi La’afi, quoted in the official P.A. newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (May 18, 2001), and Dr. Muhammed Ibrahim Madi, delivering the main Friday sermon on Palestinian TV (April 13, 2001), the Hadith itself states:

      “The Day of Resurrection will not arrive until the Moslems make war against the Jews and kill them, and until a Jew hiding behind a rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: ‘Oh Moslem, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'”

      Noam, if you and your ilk are (intellectually) honest and seriously looking for a solution to the conflict, you need to start asking the Arabs called “Palestinians” tough questions, else you become part of the problem (if you already are not), not the solution.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Gustav

      The lie that Sharon’s visit to our holiest site at the temple mount was the trigger for the intifada has been exposed by none other than Suha Arafat, the widow of Arafat. Watch this video…

      http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3689.htm

      According to Suha, Arafat already had a plan to initiate an intifada. Sharon’s visit to our holiest site, gave him the excuse to do it!

      Reply to Comment
    4. Ben

      Great interview. Thanks.

      “The problem is that the Israeli public sees them as an enemy against which force must be used.”

      This is the Gussie’s entire credo. “Now let me tell you about the Hundred Years’ War. You see, . . . . ”

      The Umm al-Hiran ruling should be used to teach a course about the linkages between law and colonialism.”

      There you go.

      “But this idea that states uphold the civil rights of only one ethnic group, that is the racist idea that prevailed in old Europe. A Jew is entitled to full civil rights in France as well. Citizenship doesn’t get split apart by territory or regime. The idea of an ethno-nationalist state is anachronistic. It has a dreadful past, and it has no future.”

      And Bob’s your uncle.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        This is a vintage Benny response. He ignores or distorts everything that I said in my earlier post. Nevertheless, let me respond to him…

        Benny’s Quote From Sheizaf’s Article:“The problem is that the Israeli public sees them as an enemy against which force must be used.”

        Benny’s subsequent assertion:”This is the Gussie’s entire credo. “Now let me tell you about the Hundred Years’ War. You see, . . . . ”

        Is that all I said, Benny? You wouldn’t be dishonest would you? Go read my post again.

        Benny:”The Umm al-Hiran ruling should be used to teach a course about the linkages between law and colonialism.”

        As usual, preach to Israeli Jews, let Palestinian Arabs off the hook. Yes folks, let’s simplify things into a black and white cartoon world. All we are dealing with here is colonialism not two competing national movements each fighting for their own rights.

        Benny:”There you go.”

        Nah Benny, I ain’t goin’ anywhere. I am here to show you up to be the simplistic propagandist who you truly are.

        Benny:“But this idea that states uphold the civil rights of only one ethnic group, that is the racist idea that prevailed in old Europe. A Jew is entitled to full civil rights in France as well. Citizenship doesn’t get split apart by territory or regime. The idea of an ethno-nationalist state is anachronistic. It has a dreadful past, and it has no future.”

        Yes folks, that’s what we have here according to Benny. According to him, the “poor Palestinian Arabs” have become the new Jews who were oppressed and subject to racism in Europe…

        Now let’s compare and contrast…

        According to Benny, the Jews of Europe were competing with their host nations to take over Europe and claimed that the Europeans were just colonialist transgressors who had to be kicked out of Europe.

        According to Benny, the Jews of Europe waged a relentless war of attrition and terrorism against the European host nations in order to press their demands.

        According to Benny, the Jews of Europe strapped bombs embedded with nails onto their bodies and blew themselves up in order to murder and maim civilians of their host nations.

        According to Benny, the Jews of Europe fired primitive rockets onto the heads of the host nations civilians for years.

        According to Benny, when all of those tactics failed, the Jews of Europe resorted to stone throwing and hurling molotov cocktails or driving into crowds of civilians or kidnappings of teenagers or stabbings or… you get it, right Benny?

        And after all that, Benny pretends to be scandalized about the racism of Europeans against the poor defenseless Jews who did all of the above. I’ll stop there Benny, coz you and I both know that what I wrote above was not reality. It is only what you implied by your simplistic claims…

        I’ll tell you though what true reality is. It is that what I wrote above about Jews is true about how Palestinian Arabs have behaved against us. Yes, I know we responded in kind too but wouldn’t anybody in our place?

        So Benny dear, read my lips. The term RACISM does not apply in such situations. That’s what people do to each other in wars. And yes there is mutual hatred too but the term racism still does not apply. It only applies in the tiny bigotted minds of confirmed propagandists such as YOU,Benny.

        “And Bob’s your uncle.”

        Yep.

        Reply to Comment
        • Ben

          You obviously did not read Sternhell. Read him! ==>

          “The Declaration of Independence was not imbued with legal or moral power. It was a public-relations document ….The Israeli democratic system did not prevent the state’s founding fathers from placing the Arabs under military rule and depriving them of their human rights until 1966. There was no security need for this, only a psychological one: to teach the Arabs who the lords of the land were, and to continue to maintain the emergency situation of the pre-state period.

          Most Israelis did not understand, and some did not want to understand, that the provisional situation must be terminated – that what was right and just before 1949, because it was necessary, ceased to be so after the war.

          The conquest of the land was necessary. The conception that the fewer Arabs there were in the Jewish state, the better, was understandable in the context of the war for survival that was conducted then. After the victory and the opening of the gates to mass immigration, however, a new period should have begun. Its salient symbol should have been a constitution, as promised in the Declaration of Independence – a democratic constitution, based on human rights and placing at its center the political and social life of the corpus of citizens, not of one particular ethnic or religious community.

          Such a constitution would have shown that, upon the Jews becoming citizens in their own state, alongside non-Jews, a completely new chapter in Jewish history had begun.”

          It is self-evident that a constitution would have annulled the Defense (Emergency) Regulations (a holdover from the British Mandate period…”

          Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Apparently “Ben” is not intelligent enough to go head –to-head, man-to-man in a debate Gustav and come up with counter-arguments?! Oh dear…….

            Ben’s mind is so impoverished that it cannot produce anything of value to anyone. Ben resorts then to copying and pasting the opinion of others/pundits to cover-up his own personal intellectual incompetence, and even then, Ben copies and pastes out of the context of the discussions.

            What an intellectual incompetence! What a pitiful individual!

            Indeed, how pathetic!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            But see that’s one (only one) of the differences between you and me. You are interested in pointless battles, anatagonisms, distractions, ego contests, and personal attacks generally. I am interested in the truth. If Sternhell says it best, I don’t mind taking a back seat. Because it’s not about me. And it’s not about you. You never get that. I can’t help you with that.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            No, Benny, I do not engage you substantively on purpose, because I know that your mind is impoverished and that you do not have the intellect to produce the goods needed. Ya don’t believe that? Ok, Benny, let’s get to it and show what a dunce you are, shall we?

            YOU copied and pasted this idiotic mumbo jumbo without understanding the subject matter of which you copy and paste other people’s stuff:

            “The Declaration of Independence was not imbued with legal or moral power. It was a public-relations document ….”

            That’s FALSE, Benny, because:

            a. The Declaration Of Independence is the single document in Israel that has the most Legal and moral power in that it is the Document that Established The Jewish State Of Israel and gave a Homeland to the Jewish People after near extinction in exile. Without the Declaration of Independence, there is no State – FULL STOP!

            b. The Israeli Supreme Court has also Ruled that the Declaration Of Independence has a Constitutional Status.

            You see why YOU are a fool, Benny? You swallow every in-print anti-Israel garbage line, hook and sinker and do not have the brain-power to process the veracity of what you copy and paste.

            What a moron!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “No, Benny, I do not engage you substantively on purpose….”

            Not intelligent enough to deserve a reply. Except to say that it’s about time you admitted that you don’t engage me (or anyone else) substantively. We’ll make a note of it. Thanks. Oh, and your manners are atrocious.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            You see, “Ben”, I told you in advance that my goal was to show that you (a) can only copy and paste the opinion of pundits, (b) have not substance that worth engaging and (c) cannot engage on any substance based on the power of YOUR OWN intellect, because your mind is impoverished. I just tested you by challenging the substance of the FALSE claim you copied and pasted, AND behold, you can’t even defend your idiotic claim. YOU failed – again.

            Beyond that, YOU use multiple identities “Brian”, “Ben”, “Viktor Arajs”, “Bryan”, “MuslimJew”, “Richard Flantz”, “Bluto”, “Been There”, “None”, etc. to fixate EVERY SINGLE DAY on Jews and Israel, hurling anti-Semitic insults on Israelis, calling Israel “apartheid” and all sorts of racist names, while claiming that you “seek the truth”?

            Good grief. Go find a job, you psychotic psychopath!

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            You see, “Ben”, I told you in advance that my goal was to show that YOU (a) can only copy and paste the opinion of pundits, (b) have no substance to be engaged, (c) cannot engage on any substance based on the power of YOUR OWN intellect, because (d) your mind is impoverished. I just tested you by challenging the substance of the FALSE claim you copied and pasted, AND behold, you can’t even defend your idiotic claim. YOU failed – again.

            Beyond that, YOU use multiple identities “Brian”, “Ben”, “Viktor Arajs”, “Bryan”, “MuslimJew”, “Richard Flantz”, “Bluto”, “Been There”, “None”, etc. to fixate EVERY SINGLE DAY on Jews and Israel, hurling anti-Semitic insults on Israelis, calling Israel “apartheid” and all sorts of racist names, while claiming that you “seek the truth”?

            You indeed are psychotic. Oh dear ….

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Not intelligent enough to read. I stopped halfway through the first sentence.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            “Not intelligent enough to read. I stopped halfway through the first sentence”.

            But you see, Benny, that’s what Bar has said to you over and over again! Now you go from mimicking Ginger Eis and trying to sound like her to mimicking Bar and trying to sound like her as well? What kind of an idiot are you, “Ben”? How impoverished is your little mind? Can’t you produce at least ONE sentence that is entirely the creation of your own mind?! Oh dear……

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            You see, “Ben”, I told you in advance that my goal was to show that YOU (a) can only copy and paste the opinion of pundits, (b) have no substance to be engaged, (c) cannot engage on any substance based on the power of YOUR OWN intellect, because (d) your mind is impoverished. I just tested you by challenging the substance of the FALSE claim you copied and pasted, AND behold, you can’t even defend your idiotic claim. YOU failed – again.

            Beyond that, YOU use multiple identities “Brian”, “Ben”, “Viktor Arajs”, “Bryan”, “MuslimJew”, “Richard Flantz”, “Bluto”, “Been There”, “None”, etc. to fixate EVERY SINGLE DAY on Jews and Israel, hurling anti-Semitic insults on Israelis, calling Israel “apartheid” and all sorts of racist names, while claiming that you “seek the truth”?

            You indeed are psychotic. Good grief!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            You remind me of a screeching parrot.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Indeed, “Ben” alias “Bryan” alias “Viktor Arajs” alias “MuslimJew” alias “Brian” alias “Weiss” alias “Bluto” alias “Richard Flantz” alias “None” alias “Been There” alias etc. cannot defend the FALSE claim he copied and pasted!

            When “Ben” poses as “Viktor Arajs”, he calls for and supports genocide against Jews!

            When “Ben” poses as “Weiss” he falsely claims that he is a Jew and starts hurling all kinds of insults on Israel and Israeli Jews.

            Yeah, that’s how messed-up and psychotic you are Mr. Weiss…..eh…. “Ben”. Are you too stupid to notice that, moron?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”The Israeli democratic system did not prevent the state’s founding fathers from placing the Arabs under military rule and depriving them of their human rights until 1966″

            The declaration of independence was a statement of intention as to what would happen in peace time.

            Did peace ensue in 1948, Benny? No, the Palestinian Arabs and their allies tried to snuff out our state at birth.

            BEN:”There was no security need for this”

            We have known nothing but war since the birth of our state, no… even before the birth of our state. Your Palestinian Arabs, as a people waged this relentless war against us but there were no security needs? Have you heard about the Fedayeen? Of course you have, I wrote about them before but you are just not interested Benny. You are not interested in any Arab on Jew violence. You are only interested in us not turning the other cheek to absorb more violence. Anything else is undenocratic according to you.

            How can you be taken seriously Benny? On any other topic, you’d be a source of amusement. Your hateful ignorance would be funny. But this topic is serious. No one ignores pyromaniacs who play with fire. And you are one. And so are all other extreme lefties.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “We have known nothing but war….”

            More black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking. What is it about? I think you need this all or nothing stance actually to justify and rationalize to yourself the torturing, the brutalizing, the harsh repression, the thievery, the whole shebang of the occupation, and this, aside from simply personality traits and habits of thought, is my sense of your psychological need to so staunchly hew to the all-or-nothing paradigm. It’s all-or-nothing thinking that does not own up to and incorporate the truths contained in Sternhell’s words, that “there was no security need for this, only a psychological one: to teach the Arabs who the lords of the land were, and to continue to maintain the emergency situation of the pre-state period. Most Israelis did not understand, and some did not want to understand, that the provisional situation must be terminated – that what was right and just before 1949, because it was necessary, ceased to be so after the war.”
            Now we are quite used to your calling me an idiot and a moral degenerate, etc. But one of the reasons I think it appropriate to quote people like Professor Sternhell is not, as the snarling GrossKatze (to paraphrase: “Aaaack! Phhthhpt!”) would have it, because I can’t hack it, but because, look Sternhell was an IDF officer, fought well and bravely, was there from the very beginning, has extraordinary experience, has lived in Israeli society for 67 years, is a distinguished scholar on how societies fall prey to fascism, and is a self-declared super-Zionist. That you can attack someone like Sternhell with such nastiness says a lot about your extremism. You know, sorry, as Sheizaf has said, +972 does not feel the need to include a settler voice in the conversation.

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Oh boy! Yet another incoherent rambling mumbo jumbo from “Ben”, whose mind is so impoverished that it cannot produce any coherent original thoughts of any value to anyone. You see, Ben, your latest post demonstrates yet again that when you are not copying and paste the un-sourced opinions of Haaretz pundits to make-up for what your impoverished mind cannot produce you end-up posting nothing other than the kind of gibberish rants you posted above.

            Woe, Benny! Go find a job and be useful to yourself at least. Quit your psychotic fixation on- and obsession with Jews and Israel.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            GUSTAV:“We have known nothing but war….”

            BEN:”More black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking.

            Spoken by a man who does nothing else than spew black and white thinking and pro Palestinian Arab propaganda.

            BEN:”What is it about? I think you need this all or nothing stance actually to justify and rationalize to yourself the torturing, the brutalizing, the harsh repression, the thievery, the whole shebang of the occupation”

            Benny, would you say the above is black and white thinking?

            BEN:”and this, aside from simply personality traits and habits of thought, is my sense of your psychological need to so staunchly hew to the all-or-nothing paradigm.”

            There you go again. Benny preaches water but he drinks wine.

            BEN:”It’s all-or-nothing thinking that does not own up to and incorporate the truths contained in Sternhell’s words, that “there was no security need for this, only a psychological one: to teach the Arabs who the lords of the land were, and to continue to maintain the emergency situation of the pre-state period.”

            Yep, and constant Arab terrorism by their Fedayeen had nothing to do with it, eh Benny? (Sarcasm).

            BEN:”Most Israelis did not understand, and some did not want to understand, that the provisional situation must be terminated – that what was right and just before 1949, because it was necessary, ceased to be so after the war.”

            What after the war? The war has never ended. It only ebbed and flowed. Sometimes it was more intense sometimes it was less intense. The Arabs have never stopped their terror campaign against us, Benny. When we reacted harshly, they slowed down a bit. When we tried to make peace, they intensified their attacks.

            Examples:

            After Oslo was signed, terrorism escalated.

            After Ehud Barak’s year 2000 peace offer, we got an intifada.

            After Sharon uprooted 10,000 of our people from their homes in Gaza, the rocket fire on our civilians intensified.

            After Ehud Olmert’s year 2008 peace offer another war flared up in Gaza.

            Tell your Sternhell, Benny, that he is talking BS. But he makes a good living out of his BS coz people like you eagerly lap up every peace of garbage which he spews.

            BEN:”Now we are quite used to your calling me an idiot and a moral degenerate, etc. But one of the reasons I think it appropriate to quote people like Professor Sternhell is not, as the snarling GrossKatze (to paraphrase: “Aaaack! Phhthhpt!”) would have it, because I can’t hack it, but because, look Sternhell was an IDF officer, fought well and bravely, was there from the very beginning, has extraordinary experience, has lived in Israeli society for 67 years, is a distinguished scholar on how societies fall prey to fascism, and is a self-declared super-Zionist.”

            Really? But what makes him more qualified than others who have an even more distinguished army record and who lived here even longer? Or maybe even me, Benny? I mean I too lived here all my life and I experienced it all on my skin so left wing ideologues are not going to fool me with their BS even though foreigners like you who WANT to be fooled are an easier proposition for him. And heck… the fact that he makes a decent living out of his BS, comes in handy for him too.

            BEN:”That you can attack someone like Sternhell with such nastiness says a lot about your extremism. You know, sorry, as Sheizaf has said, +972 does not feel the need to include a settler voice in the conversation.”

            First of all, I am not a settler. I am a symphatiser though. Second of all, like it or not, voices like mine are the majority here. We are the ones who any government will need to convince whether we agree to make concessions for the sake of peace or not. And we are. But we will need to be convinced that it would be REAL peace not just the empty BS that we were delivered for our past concessions.

            Wanna ban us from +972? Please do Benny. But remember that without the consent of the likes of me, no Israeli government will be able to make ANY concessions. And we will not give that consent unless we can be convinced that we are dealing with realists on the other side who are willing and able to give us the concessions that we too insist on.

            Time to tell your Sternhells and Sheizafs to start talk to the more pragmatic and realistic Palestinian Arabs so they’ll know what they too need to do. Time to tell them that their BDS or any other silly tactic will not steam roll us into agreeing tocommit national suicide. Are you up to this task, Benny? I doubt it. And I also doubt that you have a voice with them so you are just a silly voice in the wilderness a voice of a parrot.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            No my thinking is not black and white. Saying it is won’t make it so. Each of the four points you base your whole argument on we have discussed ad nauseam in this forum and I have pointed out that your black and white capsule histories are deeply flawed. We have been over and over each one of these four points ==>

            1. After Oslo was signed, terrorism escalated. 2. After Ehud Barak’s year 2000 peace offer, we got an intifada. 3. After Sharon uprooted 10,000 of our people from their homes in Gaza, the rocket fire on our civilians intensified. 4. After Ehud Olmert’s year 2008 peace offer another war flared up in Gaza. ==>

            1. Palestinian violence contributed but was not the main cause. The fundamental reason was that Israel reneged on the deal. Rabin was murdered, Netanyahu, accomplice in that murder, returned to power and sabotaged Oslo from the get go and ever since and there is a videotape of him out there confiding this to settlers.

            2. Barak cynically schemed to pose as the one to “rip the mask off.” He offered Arafat no politically viable deal. Sharon exploited this and deliberately triggered the second intifada and five years of ensuing bloodshed. Not the only blood on the man’s hands by any means as you well know. Arafat took the bait and made the horrendous strategic and moral mistake of the suicide bombings. Not the only blood on the man’s hands by any means as you well know. Abbas is not Arafat. Unfortunately Netanyahu is much closer to Sharon than Abbas is to Arafat.

            3. Sharon uprooted intruders who should never have been there in the first place and on whom the Israeli state therefore played a nasty trick. To say the least. Sharon, looking east at Gaza, did the “uprooting” with the express intent of rooting deeply in place the occupation behind him in the west.

            4. Ehud Olmert. See Bernard Avishai’s authoritative debunking of the idea Abbas rejected Olmert.

            We have been over this ground many many times.

            Why is Professor Sternhell more “qualified”? Well, he’s much more learned, knowledgable and intelligent than most. Much more. And of excellent character. A rare man.

            Of course I don’t want to ban you but I don’t have to accord you the same credence as others, and I accord the likes of Grosskatze, a repellent and ridiculous creature, a complete waste of everyone’s time, zero credence.

            Your leaders have to convince the likes of you to make “concessions”? Your leaders do not want to convince you. They want to do the opposite.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”No my thinking is not black and white. Saying it is won’t make it so. ”

            No need for me to say it. It’s self evident to normal people be they center right or even center left.

            BEN:”Each of the four points you base your whole argument on we have discussed ad nauseam in this forum and I have pointed out that your black and white capsule histories are deeply flawed. We have been over and over each one of these four points ==> ”

            We sure have and you close your eyes block your ears and see/hear only what you want to hear.

            BEN:”1. Palestinian violence contributed but was not the main cause. The fundamental reason was that Israel reneged on the deal. Rabin was murdered, Netanyahu, accomplice in that murder, returned to power and sabotaged Oslo from the get go and ever since and there is a videotape of him out there confiding this to settlers.”

            The Oslo accords were signed in 1993. Rabin was murdered in 1995. And during that time already before Rabin’s assassination, terror has escalated after Oslo was signed. Here look at the statistics…

            http://www.iris.org.il/arab_terror_chart.htm

            That is why Rabin said: We will fight terrorism as if there is no peace and make peace like there is no terror. You have heard of that famous saying of Rabin’s haven’t you Benny?

            Rabin was a good man but he became Arafat’s dupe.

            BEN:”2. Barak cynically schemed to pose as the one to “rip the mask off.” He offered Arafat no politically viable deal. Sharon exploited this and deliberately triggered the second intifada and five years of ensuing bloodshed. Not the only blood on the man’s hands by any means as you well know. Arafat took the bait and made the horrendous strategic and moral mistake of the suicide bombings. Not the only blood on the man’s hands by any means as you well know. Abbas is not Arafat. Unfortunately Netanyahu is much closer to Sharon than Abbas is to Arafat.

            Vintage Benny whitewashing of suicide bombings “strategic mistake”.

            Contrast that to his description of Barak’s peace offer which broke all taboos at the time in Israel. In fact, his offer went further than Rabin’s Oslo offer. But according to Benny, he was “cynical”. Certainly Bill Clinton described the offer as an offer of a life time.

            Anyone notice a pattern? Extreme lefties always whitewash Palestinian Arab actions but no matter what concessions we make, we are “just cynical”.

            BEN:”3. Sharon uprooted intruders who should never have been there in the first place and on whom the Israeli state therefore played a nasty trick. To say the least. Sharon, looking east at Gaza, did the “uprooting” with the express intent of rooting deeply in place the occupation behind him in the west.”

            So are we to take it then that if we uproot 500,000 of our people from the West Bank that would be dismissed the same way and terrorism would continue against us?

            Of course that’s exactly what would happen. That’s why we ain’t gonna do it Benny.

            BEN:”4. Ehud Olmert. See Bernard Avishai’s authoritative debunking of the idea Abbas rejected Olmert.”

            You see it Benny. Again, I’d rather listen to Condi Rice who was surprised about Abbas’s refusal to respond.

            BEN:”We have been over this ground many many times.”

            Yep and you still see only what you want to see and ignore everything else. That’s why I know that you are just another propagandist with a set agenda and a closed mind.

            BEN:”Why is Professor Sternhell more “qualified”? Well, he’s much more learned, knowledgable and intelligent than most. Much more. And of excellent character. A rare man.”

            Yep. And he makes a good living out of peddling his BS.

            BEN:”Of course I don’t want to ban you but I don’t have to accord you the same credence as others, and I accord the likes of Grosskatze, a repellent and ridiculous creature, a complete waste of everyone’s time, zero credence.”

            Of course you want to ban me. You have said as much many times.

            BEN:”Your leaders have to convince the likes of you to make “concessions”? Your leaders do not want to convince you. They want to do the opposite.”

            Poor old Benny is pretending that there are no regular elections in Israel. And that government isn’t formed by parties/leaders who are most persuasive. He is confusing us with his Arab darlings.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”Arafat took the bait and made the horrendous strategic and moral mistake of the suicide bombings.”

            Took the bait? BS Benny, he planned the Intifada. He confided that fact to his wife Suha who blabbed about it on Kuwaiti TV back in 2012.

            “Strategic mistake”? Yes, Benny, a “mistake” which caused the death and maiming of over 8000 Israelis. That is more than the casualty rate of 9/11 and we are a country of only 7million people.

            Typical extreme leftist clap trap. They never condemn Arab misdeeds without qualifying it. Coz to them, Palestinian Arabs never really do wrong even when they do, it is someone elses doing. Really disgusting!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Look how glibly Benny accepts the idea that “really, underneath it all” it was Sharon’s fault that the murderous Intifada broke out.

            Imagine that. A Jewish leader dares to visit Judaism’s holiest site. Yes, I said VISIT. They consider it natural for Muslim Arabs to riot and go on a four year murderous rampage because of that.

            If we Jews or Christians would react that way to a perceived wrong against us, these STUPID left wing extremists would damn us to hell for eternity and they would never stop talking about it. But it seems that according to them, it should be acceptable for Arab Muslims to behave that way. Why? Because. Just because. What can one say other than just shake one’s head in disbelief.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            Well we’ve each said our piece in this latest edition of Point-Counterpoint, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree or to admit that the the truth is more complicated and troublesome than the simple binary oppositions you insist on. We’ll have to let others make up their own minds. I’m quite comfortable with that. You never seem to be. Why is that? Hey by the way, that yellow-shirted beast with the keffiyeh who shot the kid point blank in the thigh while other beasts held him down, *after* egging the kid on to throw rocks in the first place? Are those your non-lefty pals? They’re real gems. Friends of yours? “Most moral”? Poor Israel, just seeking peace?

            Reply to Comment
          • BigCat

            Oy! Ben is on the run – AGAIN – after getting beat-up and is looking for a face saving way out: “we agree to disagree” blah, blah, blah. Run, Ben/Brian/Viktor Arajs/etc., run. Run for your poor empty old life.

            Btw

            That shot thug was resisting arrest, swinging, kicking and hitting soldiers;

            Thug’s thug-brothers were hurling stones at the same soldiers at THE SAME time;

            Thug was shot in the leg to subdue him and prevent serious injury to soldiers and/or death;

            So, shoot is ‘le-git’!

            Good shoot!

            Btw, this is the barbarism Israel faces. This is how innocent Jews are murdered. This is what YOU psychotic pig support. http://www.timesofisrael.com/im-going-to-become-a-martyr-palestinian-teen-wrote-before-attack/

            “I’m going to become a shahid [martyr],” 18-year-old Shorouq Dwayyat wrote in a Facebook post Wednesday morning. In the post, Dwayyat, a resident of East Jerusalem’s Tsur Baher neighborhood and a student at Bethlehem University, wrote: “Mother: Where are you going? Mother, I am going to become a shahid Mother, I want to ask a request of you Don’t cry about me, when I become a shahid #Our greatest desire is to become shadids for Allah. (…). Wednesday’s terror attack took place close to where a Palestinian man stabbed two Israeli men to death Saturday night. The wife of one of those murdered and her toddler child were also wounded in that attack, while the stabber was shot dead by security forces”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”I’m quite comfortable with that. You never seem to be. Why is that?”

            First of all I am very comfortable with the facts that I presented which you seem unable to refute.

            As for why are you comfortable Benny? Dunno. Is it because you are a cynic who thinks he has a job to do? To knock… knock…. knock…. and keep on knocking Israel till you go blue in the face, then whitewash your darling Palestinians irrespective of the facts? Ya know what that’s called, Benny? It’s called wall to wall propaganda.

            BEN:”Hey by the way, that yellow-shirted beast”

            Oh dear, that’s the best you can do? Want me to point to beastly acts carried out by your darling Palestinian thugs? I promise you, Benny dear, that for every beast of ours I can easily bring up 10 of THEIR beasts and their beastly acts. Ya really wanna go that way…?!

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            “To knock… knock…. knock…. and keep on knock…”

            This is indicative of how you’ve tried to shift the center of the discourse very far rightwards and pretend that +972 is a forum for discussing whether the occupation should be “knocked” or not. So that the negative response to seeing undercover agents, official agents of the state of Israel, egg kids on to throw stones and then hold them down and plow a bullet into their thigh as retribution for throwing the stone–the negative response to that, for example, gets reduced to so much trivial carping and knocking. “Nag nag nag. All you do is nag.” And it’s me who has the problem not the agents. I refuse to participate in that shift. I refuse to be sucked into that detour, that trap. Go to Arutz Sheva if you want such a discussion. Or go here (no one is “banning” you) but don’t nag me to “refute” incessant propaganda. There are not enough minutes in my day.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            You know Ben? I am not the extremist that you make me out to be. Unfortunately people like you with your one sided robotic monotonic diatribe bring out the worst in me. God job Benny. Keep it up and I’ll probably end up doing something I will regret.

            As I said, you are a pyromaniac who pours oil on the fire with your constant one sided propaganda. Is that your intention? Or are you just a fool, Benny?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I hate to tell you this Benny, your monotonic one sided diatribe evokes extremism. You are polarise instead of discuss. Is that your intention?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”+972 is a forum for discussing whether the occupation should be “knocked” or not.”

            Oh no it isn’t there is no debate about it even according to people like me we all say that the occupation is not a good thing.

            What the debate is about how to end it. The debate is about what compromises should be made and by whom. The debate is also about the risks associated with various compromises. To answer that question, history is very relevant. But propagandists like you Benny revise and even deny history. And you do that in order to be able to knock…knock…and knock Israel more so that you badger us into making compromises which we cannot and should not make.

            That is what the real debate is all about but even that you distort Benny.

            Reply to Comment
    5. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter