+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

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

This election, Liberman's racism is going mainstream

Liberman launched his election campaign under the slogan ‘Ariel to Israel, Umm al-Fahm to Palestine,’ once again signaling his willingness to expel Palestinian citizens from the country. The only difference? This time around he is being flagged as a moderate.

Avigdor Liberman speaks at the campaign launch for the upcoming elections. (photo: Yotam Ronen/Activestills)

Avigdor Liberman speaks at the campaign launch for the upcoming elections. One of the campaign slogans reads “Ariel to Israel, Umm al-Fahm to Palestine.” (photo: Yotam Ronen/Activestills)

Every time Avigdor Liberman opens his mouth to speak, one can smell hate and fear-mongering. In a speech during his election campaign launch Thursday morning, Liberman went a step further in his racist and inciting speech against Israel’s Arab citizens.

While his Yisrael Beiteinu party is being investigated for a major corruption scandal, Liberman is pulling out his most powerful weapon – one that always works in catching the attention of both the Left and the Right (assuming there is such a thing in Israel): attacking the Arabs, threatening in the most obscene way to harm their lives, security and rights to their land.

Once again he pulls the rabbit out of the hat: “population exchange.” Again? Yes, again and again. And this time, like all the other times, the idea that once seemed so out of touch is beginning to permeate into the political “center.” It goes something like this: Liberman lets fly another crazy idea into the political ether, repeats it at any given opportunity, forcing citizens and the media alike to play around with it. At a certain point they start to discuss it as a serious possibility. “Moving Umm al-Fahm to Palestine.” Slowly but surely the idea sounds like it is becoming more acceptable and possible. It is a classically racist plan whose goal is to erase, demonize and take whatever rights are left to the oppressed minority. Time after time it’s the same message: transfer, population exchange, expelling the local population, loyalty oaths and more.

Liberman is thus crowning himself as the expert on discrimination and violence. He demands the expulsion of Arabs from Wadi Ara in Israel’s north, as well as from everywhere else, while continuing to fan the flames of war in the occupied territories. He is not willing to see the Palestinians who were born here – and have been here for generations – as deserving of rights to their land. Their land was occupied, most were expelled, and in their stead came Jews from across the world. Liberman himself only arrived here in 1978, but in his eyes Palestinians such as myself, who were born here and became second-class citizens in the Jewish people’s democratic and moral state, need to continue and search for the way toward peace by themselves. Without him.

Liberman staunchly opposes any progress toward an agreement with the Palestinians. To his credit, it must be said that he has quit every coalition he has been a part of for one of two reasons: progress toward a peace deal, or due to investigations against him. In 1997 he quit due to an investigation; in 2001 he left along with Rehavam Ze’evi after Israel returned the Abu Snina neighborhood of Hebron to the Palestinians; in 2002 he left Sharon’s government; in 2004 he was fired in the wake of the disengagement from Gaza; in 2008 he quit due to the negotiations with the Palestinians over core issues; and in 2012 he left due to the Belarus ambassador affair.

If you ask Liberman, there is no solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict – war and power are the name of the game – this is the fate of all Jews who come to this part of the world. He has a hard time admitting to the failures of 1948, when the job wasn’t finished and “Arabs” still remained in the country. In such a reality, the only thing that Liberman believes is left to do is to continue occupying the West Bank, tighten the stranglehold on Gaza forever, feed the cancerous settlement enterprise and swallow the Palestinians inside Israel until they disappear.

Let’s put aside the worrying fact that a party like Yisrael Beiteinu even exists in Israel. Any party in France or Germany, whose main goal was to throw out all the Jews to Israel in a population exchange, or even to segregate all the Jews in one big city (a ghetto, perhaps), would not survive the tidal wave of condemnations from both the Jewish and international community.

Tzipi Livni and Isaac Herzog announce a joint slate for the upcoming elections, December 10, 2014. (Photo by Activestills.org)

Tzipi Livni and Isaac Herzog announce a joint slate for the upcoming elections, December 10, 2014. (Photo by Activestills.org)

But we can put this aside for a second, since Israel’s Arab citizens have long ago developed a kind of immunity to these phenomenons over the course of 65 years. What is truly worrisome is the fact that this party has started to crawl leftwards. All of a sudden Tzipi Livni and Isaac Herzog’s “Zionist Camp” is talking peace, and Liberman has become a potential coalition partner in the next government – the “anyone but Bibi” government.

The fact that Livni is embracing Liberman’s party is not surprising. She has yet to match her new leftist look to her old right-wing wardrobe. But what about the ostensibly left-wing Herzog? Is it ideological blindness? A lust for being prime minister? Or perhaps a couple of thousand of Arabs in Wadi Ara don’t really count on the way ballot box? I mean, surely no one will really take notice anyway. It’s not like we’re a bunch of racists.

Samah Salaime Egbariya is a social worker, a director of AWC (Arab Women in the Center) in Lod and a graduate of the Mandel Leadership Institute in Jerusalem. This article was first published on +972′s Hebrew-language sister site, Local Call. Read it in Hebrew here

Related:
Liberman’s de-patriation plan of illusions
If Herzog wants to lead, he’ll need to bring the Arabs with him

Newsletter banner 5 - 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. Kolumn4

      Liberman’s plan is to move the border so that the city of Umm al-Fahm will be in the Palestinian State and not in Israel. No one is being expelled. But I am glad you found a topic to misrepresent for whatever political benefit you deem to gain out of this.

      If the residents of Umm al-Fahm continue repeatedly marching with the flag of the neighboring country that is a pretty damn strong indication that they do not wish to stay in this one. And frankly we don’t particularly want people that celebrate when their brethren manage to kill us or shoot rockets at us. In any other situation Arabs waving Palestinian flags complaining about the possibility of becoming part of a Palestinian state that would rise a hundred meters away would be laughable. In this case it is just pathetic. Pathetic from every possible angle. Pathetic because their Israeli citizenship is worth so little to them that they would mourn the creation of their own state. Pathetic because their Palestinian identity is worth so little to them that they would scream about a ‘catastrophe’ or a ‘nakba’ when the possibility of them living in a Palestinian state came up because they are afraid of losing the monetary benefits their Israeli citizenship provides. Just pathetic.

      They are bad citizens and they don’t want to be in this state. There is no reason why they should continue to live in this state. In this case the solution is extremely straight-forward. The border moves and they get the citizenship of the country whose flag they like to parade with. They themselves don’t need to move an inch. Liberman is right and the Arabs that march with Palestinian flags in Umm al-Fahm and reject his ideas are the most pathetic people possible.

      Reply to Comment
      • Bar

        It’s astounding to hear “activists” call his plan “racism” while the people under discussion support the enemies of their state; enemies who are open about seeking to turn the state into a different one.

        Reply to Comment
        • Yeah, Right

          Bar: “support the enemies of their state; enemies who are open about seeking to turn the state into a different one.”

          Bar appears to be terribly confused about the difference between a “regime” and a “state”.

          Obviously so, since even in Bar’s polemic the “state” remains even if Bar’s “enemies” get their way.

          Sure, it won’t be a “state” that is to Bar’s liking. No doubt about that.

          But the state will still be there, even if it is no longer governed by the racist supremacist regime that Bar oh-so revels in.

          No real surprises there, I suppose: South Africa is still there, even if it is no longer governed by a racist supremacist bunch o’ Afrikaaners.

          Though I don’t ever expect Bar to understand: racist supremacists seldom do…

          Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn4

            If the new state has a different name, a different official language, a different population makeup, a different calendar and different borders then the previous state has most certainly ceased to exist.

            So, if Israel disappears and is replaced by a state called Palestine where the official language is Arabic, where laws are based on Sharia, and where Jews are at best persecuted second class citizens, then yes, the state of Israel has most certainly stopped existing.

            Now that might not see much of an issue for you, but at least be honest enough to acknowledge that those that wish to Israel eliminated are indeed trying to destroy the state of Israel rather than going through all the pretense of talking about regimes and states.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            K4: “If the new state has a different name, a different official language, a different population makeup, a different calendar and different borders then the previous state has most certainly ceased to exist.”

            But Bar’s “enemies” are not seeking any of those things, K4.

            What they want is for Israel to STOP expanding its territory, to STOP attempting to change the popln demographics, to STOP its denial of any borders whatsoever.

            In short, they want Israel to STOP doing exactly that which you and Bar are insisting is so utterly heinous.

            Look in the mirror, dude, because that’s where you’ll see “the enemy”.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn4

            Bar is absolutely correct. Balad is basically entirely explicit about wanting to overturn Israel in stages though they prefer not to talk about the end game. Scratch an Arab Hadash activist and you will find a one-stater that wants to replace Israel with Palestine. If you lay out the demands made by the Israeli Arab parties you will understand that the ultimate goal of every single one is the elimination of Israel and the replacement of it with an Arab state called Palestine with a Jewish minority. Yes, even Hadash, though they are more ambiguous on the matter in order to attract Jewish support. And that is just the parties that are represented in the Knesset. If you look at the Northern Islamic Movement and the Sons of the Village movement they are completely explicit in wanting to destroy Israel.

            Anyone that marches in Umm al-Fahm with a Palestinian flag while the Palestinians are at war with Israel has no loyalty to Israel and I see no reason why Israel should keep them as citizens.

            We know who our enemies are and so do you. You are just trying to obfuscate for whatever reasons.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            K4: Whatever ultimate aims you think you read deep in the minds of Balad and Hadash members, YR’s four “STOPS” remain true. Why is it you and Lieberman get to keep expanding your territory, keep attempting to change the WB demographics, keep denying any borders whatsoever, keep insisting on living on their relatives’ lands and renaming it what you want, all the while complaining about those ungrateful Arab citizens who refuse to sing your anthem and wave a flag that at least to them is a symbol of ethnic Jewish supremacy rather than an inclusive national symbol.

            At least part of the reason you think you get to do that is because this is your version of Zionism:

            “it would be hard to argue that Zionism is not at its core based on a Jewish religious belief that Israel is the holy land, that it is the homeland of the Jewish people, and that the Jews have an exclusive right to it. Likewise Zionism uses the ambiguous nature of the Judaic definition of Jews to support its definition of Jews as an ethnic group or a nation and not just a religious group.”

            This version is in all honesty a version of Jewish Supremacy from the river to the sea that involves ethnic rights to take other people’s lands. This is at least part of the reason you are so horrified by the phrase “a state of all its citizens”–and it horrifies you even in the context of a two state solution with token ROR at most that ensures a solid Jewish majority west of the green line. Honest liberal Zionists (e.g., Derfner, Avishai, Gorenburg) want what I just stated. But you don’t want that, you think the solution is to keep stealing the West Bank and engaging in actual illegal transfer of Jews over there while complaining about ungrateful Israeli citizens who just can’t get with the program and wave the Star of David while you’re doing that.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn4

            We do whatever we need to in order to maintain our country and the borders of our country have not yet been established so there is nothing wrong with working to get the best possible borders.

            The Arab citizens of the State of Israel can choose to identify with the state or they can choose to identify with her enemies. They have, for the most part, chosen the latter. Other citizens (the Druze for example) have chosen to identify with the state. As long as the majority of the Israeli Arabs continue to identify with our enemies and insist on continuing to desire to overturn the state they are in their beliefs hostile and should be treated accordingly. They are not obligated to march around with an Israeli flag or to sing Hatikva. However when they march around with a Palestinian flag and mourn the creation of Israel, that isn’t just indifference to the state, but outright hostility in its most obvious form.

            I am not horrified by the term “a state of all its citizens”. I don’t have a particular problem with that general formulation but I believe that in this context it is a misleading premise put forward by hopeless idealists and people who wish to eliminate Israel and replace it with yet another Arab Muslim majority state where Jews and other minorities are persecuted. There are no civic states in this region. They simply don’t work here because other identities (religious/ethnic) are far stronger than any sense of shared citizenship. And the idea that a shared citizenship between Jews and Arabs can form the basis of a viable state in this region after 100 years of conflict and no shared cultural background is just preposterous. To believe in this is to embrace insanity.

            Israel without a Jewish identity will not be able to survive. It will break down on ethnic/religious lines and there will be nothing to keep it together. This is why the premise of “a state of all its citizens” is flawed and misleading, probably on purpose.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Please clarify.

            Are you saying that even in the context of a two state solution without ROR that ensures a solid and enduring Jewish majority west of borders base on 67 lines with swaps, that even in that context, “the idea that a shared citizenship between Jews and Arabs can form the basis of a viable state in this region after 100 years of conflict and no shared cultural background is just preposterous. To believe in this is to embrace insanity”?

            And are you also saying that no civic states in the region, including an Israeli civic state, can work “because other identities (religious/ethnic) are far stronger than any sense of shared citizenship”?

            Thank you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn4

            The only means of mobilizing the resources to sustain Israel (both internally and externally) is by ensuring that the country is an expression of the Jewish desire for self-determination in their homeland. Such a simple goal is entirely capable of organizing the required resources and manpower to defend a state. A “state of all its citizens” would have no capacity to defend its existence because there is no basis for bonds of common citizenship in whose name anyone would be willing to act or sacrifice. Almost inevitably (in this region) there would be a crisis (internal or external) that would split the country into its constituent communities and a government of such a state would be rendered incapable of acting. The military would split into its constituent components and the surrounding powers would intervene. A civil war would likely follow. It should be apparent that I am describing here the Lebanese scenario where the Christians lost control of their state and turned into a weak and shrinking minority.

            And once this structure breaks down we are back at the Jews insisting on self-determination, their own government, and a military capable of defending them. But whether it will be possible to get back to where we already are now is not obvious, and the sacrifices required to do so, even if it was possible, would be vast. The Christians in Lebanon were too weak to force partition and to regain their own state. It is fundamentally a sucker’s bet for Israeli Jews to “de-Zionize” Israel and this is something that is understood across the board in the political elites. This remains true even within the context of a two state solution with no RoR because history continues even after the “solution”. The status quo, even with heavily increased costs, is vastly and obviously preferable. The only real option to the status quo is an agreement that accepts Israel as a Jewish state so that it can ensure its existence.

            Yes, I am saying that civic states can not work in this region for the foreseeable future. The cultural and historical prerequisites that made such states possible in Europe, America and elsewhere are entirely absent here. Civic nationalism took hundreds of years to evolve elsewhere and hasn’t even started here (here being the Middle East). The idea that it is going to make its first appearance in Israel/Palestine between Jews/Arabs that have been fighting for a hundred years and are surrounded by chaos and political failure on all sides is nothing less than absurd. If the idea for a civic state is going to take hold in the region it would have to start somewhere more or less politically stable where people are more secure about their basic identities, that is in a homogenous state like Tunisia and it would have to spread slowly throughout the region. States with highly polarized opposing ethnic/religious groups both claiming exclusive ownership of the land are the least likely to develop any serious form of civic nationalism until such a paradigm is dominant in the region and even then it is questionable.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Whether Lebanon is on balance an illuminating or an obscuring and misleading example is worth debating and would be instructive. Your pessimism about history after a proper two state solution that Derfner could endorse would also be a good starting point for debate. If “a state of all its citizens” means to you “de-Zionizing” Israel, I did not mean such a thing myself. Zionism needs to evolve not die. You are right: history continues. I guess it depends on what you mean by Zionism. I’ve quoted your description of it. I’m not sure your objections to a 2SS stem from practical worries about it all deteriorating into a Lebanon or in truth from a felt fundamentalist ethnic-religious right to Greater Israel. You would on account of that not be the most objective analyst of the “will it become Lebanon?” question.

            You say that it “is fundamentally a sucker’s bet for Israeli Jews to ‘de-Zionize’ Israel and this is something that is understood across the board in the political elites” but this elides the question of what you mean by Zionism. Reuven Rivlin seems perfectly willing to de-Zionize if Zionism means what you mean and not what Derfner means. The thing with President Rivlin though is that it comes attached to a one-state not two state outcome. He is not “elite” (despite begin called traitorous rotten filth etc. by the Right)? Ehud Barak is willing even eager to withdraw from the West Bank for strategic reasons. Where he stands on “de-Zionizing” is certainly to the left of your idea and to the left of Netanyahu’s “they must recognize us as the Jewish State” idea which Barak calls trickery and manipulation.* Is Barak not “elite” enough? None of your concerns about Lebanonization have anything to do with staying in occupied territory. They are two separate issues.

            But you must regard people like Ze’ev Sternhell—a self-described “super Zionist”** and Larry Derfner, a self-described “honest liberal Zionist”*** as complete fools. (Well, I know, I think you maligned the latter today as “an alarmist retard” with no grip on reality.) Sternhell (call him what you will, retard?, no) takes a much calmer and less sinister view than you do of the Arab citizens of Israel now and in the future. Sternhell’s biography does not suggest anyone who is either the least bit naive about human nature, about Arabs, Israeli or otherwise, or about designing institutional safeguards against tyranny into a “history that continues” (in fact he’s a deeply informed expert on it) or the least bit weak or ambivalent about defending Israel as a state. Niebuhr’s realism, his distinction between “children of light and…darkness” and the need for the perspective of the latter as corrective to the perspective of the former****, is to me embodied to a kind of perfection in an Israeli like Sternhell.
            _______________________________
            * http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.635978
            ** http://www.haaretz.com/amazing-grace-1.240739
            *** http://972mag.com/response-to-joseph-dana-a-case-for-liberal-zionism/28549/
            **** http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo12091283.html

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn4

            You have not quoted my description of Zionism. You have quoted things that I accept as being major Jewish/Judaic influences on Zionism from a post about whether it is legitimate or not to discuss the religious/cultural origins of ideas or whether the whole discussion should be shut down as a priori racist.

            I have no objection to a 2SS, where we are talking about two states for two peoples. I have an objection to Derfner’s version thereof which is based on wishful thinking and also the one the Palestinians continue to insist on which continues to reject the Jews as a people and insist on two states neither of which would be Jewish. History continues and I have little faith that the Palestinians will be capable of building a successful state and the failure of such a state, or the strong possibility thereof, has to be made a central component in the security arrangements that produce any agreement. The Palestinian ‘trust us, we’ll prevent terrorism’ or the American ‘trust us, we’ll make sure they do so’ or Derfner’s ‘trust them, its all about the occupation’ are empty promises based on less than nothing. Likewise the Palestinians must be forced into accepting that Israel is a Jewish state in any agreement because otherwise, again, history continues and so does the Palestinian narrative that the Jewish state must be overturned which grants legitimacy to various policies within the Palestinian state that undermine any possibility for peaceful and productive relations between the states. And no, I don’t see any particular reason why the Palestinian state must follow the 1948 cease-fire lines though. The lines have no meaning. If the Palestinians want a state they can have one, but it will only be a state that is from the start accepts living in perpetual peace next to a Jewish state, and not one which is just biding its time and collecting strength for the next confrontation. I thought Barak’s original offer to Arafat was reasonable. To offer more after the Palestinians launched a wave of suicide bombings thus undermining any trust in the good faith of a future Palestinian state is absurd and entirely irrational. If anything the offer should be modified down to take into account the lack of trust in the intentions of the Palestinian side.

            Again, I have no objection to a 2SS at least as far as I define it, but we weren’t talking about a 2SS. We were talking about turning Israel into a ‘state of all its citizens’ and I explained why I believe that concept has no place here at the moment. They are indeed two separate issues.

            Lebanon, Iraq, Syria. Pick your poison. States in the Middle East are fragile. A ‘state of all its citizens’ is the most fragile possible proposition and one that leaves minimal chances for our state to continue to exist and most certainly minimal chances for us to remain here in relative safety. I think Lebanon is a wonderful example. The Christians had their Mutasarrifate. In a fit of optimism and arrogance they chose to insist that France vastly expand their borders thinking they could continue to control it all with French help. They lost it all, went through a massive civil war, and are now a weak minority with little influence on what happens in their country. I am not a one-stater. I do not have the confidence that some (Rivlin) have in human nature or the arrogance that others (Bennett) have in the capacity of Jews to maintain control over large numbers of non-Jews. And yet I believe that maintaining Israel as a strong nation state of the Jewish people is essential for any form of stability to be possible for Jews in our homeland. I sincerely doubt Barak would disagree in any way. He probably thinks, like many on the left, that the Jewish state issue can be massaged in negotiations in a way that implicitly recognizes it. I think Bibi is completely right on the issue and that it is a core symbolic issue that determines whether the Palestinians are willing to live in peace with us or not.

            I probably would consider Derfner to be a complete fool. Only a complete fool would believe against all evidence to the contrary that the struggle between Israel and the Palestinians is about the 1967 borders and that it would end if only that issue was resolved. I think Sternhell is much more rational but his judgement is clouded by his violent atheism and his insistence out of his attempt at universalism that we concern ourselves with the best interests of the Palestinians. I believe that as long as the conflict continues the Palestinians are the opponent or the enemy and it is only once they accept peace with us that they should be treated as anything but. I also believe that universalism forces Sternhell into compromising his rational judgement in favor of ideals. I also think he exaggerates the risks for effect. Barak and others of that camp do so as well. There is not going to be a one-state solution here or a binational state. There are too many Arabs and no Israelis that want to direct traffic in Nablus or for that matter share the state with the Palestinians. I think partition is a done deal. It is only a matter of establishing the terms/conditions/borders. It is just a matter of time and we have plenty of it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            K4 your reply is sobering in this sense: It makes me realize how wide is the chasm that separates right and center-to-left and how hardened in concrete the right has become, and so how a decent two state arrangement is likely to have to be forced (legal and economic sanctions of some kind) or a non-solution (some variant of one state) will evolve by passive default. I know you scoff at the idea. We shall see. You live in interesting times.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bryan

            So is it ever legitimate, K4, for a minority or even a majority to attempt to change the regime under which they live? Had you been an American in the time of George III would resistance have been OK? Or a slave in the southern US? or a Russian under Tsarism, or later under Stalinism? Or a South African under Apartheid rule? or a south-east Asian under French or American rule? States are two a penny, have no right to exist, and come and go, no matter how determinedly their supporters seek to maintain dominance. Be sure that at some point Israel in its current form will be history (it may become a middle-eastern theocracy, or a bi-national state of all its citizens, or a liberal democracy within its own territory) but it will change, just as day follows night, and spring follows winter.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn4

            Its legitimate from them to try and legitimate for us to maintain our state the way we want it to be. We as the majority will determine what we consider legitimate in our country. And supporting our enemies and marching with their flags is generally not considered legitimate in any democracy.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            K4: “Balad is basically entirely explicit about wanting to overturn Israel in stages though they prefer not to talk about the end game. Scratch an Arab Hadash activist and you will find a one-stater that wants to replace Israel with Palestine.”

            Ahem, you are talking about people who are attempting to change the fundamental nature of the state VIA THE BALLOT BOX.

            Remind me again: what is so heinous about attempting to convince everyone to agree to such radical changes VIA A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS?

            Either the people agree, or they don’t, in which case Balad and/or Hadash either succeed or they fail.

            Either way, that’s “democracy” at work, and it’s laughable in the extreme to be planting the label “enemy of the state” on those who seek to express their political aims via “a democratic process”.

            Where does that end, K4?

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn4

            They are trying to eliminate the state of Israel via the ballot box. So, at the very least we agree that this is indeed their goal. Now given that the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews wish for Israel to continue to exist we have now defined a conflict with sides. And given that they wish to overturn the state they live in and replace it with something else it is pretty hard to classify them as anything other than self-defined enemies of the state. I know which side I am on, so that would make the people on the other side either an opponent or an enemy. So, yes, I know who my enemies are and so does Bar, and yes they wish to eliminate the State of Israel. Is it heinous to wish to eliminate the state you live in? Perhaps not depending on your view of the matter, but it is certainly treasonous at its most basic definition regardless of whether such a goal is pursued democratically or through violence.

            Given all this what precisely is wrong with moving a border so that traitorous citizens who wish to eliminate the state they live in become citizens of the state whose flag they march with?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Then you agree the Zionist immigrants to Mandate Palestine were enemy aliens and should not have been granted Palestinian citizenship, since they intended to overturn that state and replace it with an immigrant-settler entity that would depopulate the natives.

            Reply to Comment
          • Kolumn4

            Regardless of how many times you repeat your silly analogies, there was no state here and the ruling power – Britain – had an international mandate to establish a national home for the Jews here. The Arabs rejected any and all compromises in the matter and launched a war of destruction on the Jews which ended with the Arabs running out of fear for their lives.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            First, some historical revisionism is in order, because it’s necessary to revise what wasn’t correct the first time: Palestine was recognized by the LoN as a Class A mandate, which meant it was a provisionally independent state administered by the mandatory power. Palestine was responsible for its own debt incurred under the Ottomans, had to pay for its own development (The Mandatory Administration was even billed for the railroad tracks set down by the British Army during 1917-18 because they were converted to civilian use) and if you actually read the UN Partition Plan you constantly go on about, you’d know there was Palestinian citizenship.

            For that matter, Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon made it clear any talk of a “national home” could be reinterpreted by the British at will: while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim (…) while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred

            However, regardless of the ultimate intent of the British, we can all agree the LoN Mandate gave the Zionists an essential foothold for their eventual conquest of Palestine. The high concept here is that the colonial nature of the mandatory powers (Belgium, South Africa, Australia and Japan in addition to Britain and France) and the Zionist movement undermined any high-minded intent behind the Mandate System. Zionist settlement of Palestine was not fulfilling the stated purpose of the Mandates, to administer the trust territories for “the well-being and development” of the colonized populations. It was, like the flogging of plantation hands in New Guinea (Aus) and the dispossession of the Rehoboths in South West Africa, an abuse of a system set up for the express purpose of being abused.

            juancole.com/2010/03/lord-curzon-on-palestine-as-class.html

            http://aiscibhistory.wikispaces.com/file/view/meaningmandates.pdf

            Reply to Comment
          • Bar

            “Yeah Right” if all you can do to make your argument is make up things, ignore facts and misunderstand the word “regime,” why bother commenting?

            Kolumn is right on target.

            Reply to Comment
          • Yeah, Right

            OK, I think that it is now quite obvious that Bar does not understand the correct definition of the phrase “ruling regime”, instead confusing it with the the western media’s pejorative misuse of the word “regime” to denote any government that Uncle Sam does not like and wants to overthrow.

            Would that be about right, Bar, or are you going to give me some sign that you comprehend that “ruling regime” actually does have a non-perjorative definition?

            Over to you sonny….

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            @[Yeah Right]

            Tell me, my Australian anti colonist (sarcasm). Why do you call Israel’s democratically elected coalition government (elected by the majority of Israeli citizens) a ruling regime?

            You are a propagandist, aren’t you? That is why!

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            @[Gustav]

            Tell me, my sarcastic Ashkenazi settler-colonist. Why do you call Israel’s coalition government “democratically elected”, when the majority of the population living under Israeli rule don’t get to vote.

            You are a Zionist, aren’t you. That is why!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “Tell me, my sarcastic Ashkenazi settler-colonist. Why do you call Israel’s coalition government “democratically elected”, when the majority of the population living under Israeli rule don’t get to vote.”

            Tell me, Brian, Bryan, MuslimJew, poopsie dear…

            Why should Israel grant voting rights to non citizens who have been making war on us for the last 100 years? Show me an instance in history when an occupied people who were not willing to sign a peace deal with the occupying power were granted voting rights by the occupying power?

            I know, had you been alive in 1945, you would have jumped up and down like the yo yo that you are and would have demanded that the allies who occupied Germany should give voting rights for Germans to vote in elections in the USA or France or Canada or England or Australia, right Brian? Bryan? MuslimJew? Poopsie?

            PS
            Unlike your Saint Palestinian Arabs, the Germans were willing to sign a peace deal yet no idiot like you demanded that they should be allowed to vote in the national elections of the occupying powers, clown!!!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            What is obvious is that [Yeah Right] himself does not understand terms which he chooses to invoke.

            I googled the term “Ruling Regime” and in my first attempt the following definition of it was given by one dictionary site…

            “1.a. A government, especially an oppressive or undemocratic one: a fascist regime.
            b. A usually heavy-handed administration or group in charge of an organization: Raises were canceled under the new regime.”

            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ruling+regime

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “What is obvious is that [Yeah Right] himself does not understand terms which he chooses to invoke.

            I googled the term “Ruling Regime” and in my first attempt the following definition of it was given by one dictionary site…”

            What is obvious is that [Gustav] does not understand English, or scrolling.

            If you click on the link provided above, then scroll down, these further definitions are given:

            regime (reɪˈʒiːm)
            or régime
            n

            1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a system of government or a particular administration: a fascist regime; the regime of Fidel Castro.
            2. (Sociology) a social system or order
            3. (Medicine) med another word for regimen1

            [C18: from French, from Latin regimen guidance, from regere to rule]

            Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

            re•gime
            or ré•gime
            (rəˈʒim, reɪ-)

            n.
            1. a system of rule or government.
            2. a ruling system.
            3. a government in power.
            4. the period during which a particular ruling system is in power.
            5. regimen (def. 1).

            [1770–80; < French régime < Latin regimen regimen]

            Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved."

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yep, no matter how far you scroll it confirms that [Yeah Right] does not understand his own term, Poopsie dear. Or should I say Brian? Or do you answer to the name Bryan?

            Nah, the name poopsie suits you 🙂 it has a ring to it, doesn’t it, you little hater?

            Reply to Comment
      • sh

        How can you move a border where there is no border?

        Reply to Comment
        • MuslimJew

          “How can you move a border where there is no border?”

          How can you be a “state” and not have borders.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “How can you be a “state” and not have borders”

            When a state is up against supremacist Arabs who don’t recognize our very existence and swear to eradicate us, one may as well be as bloody minded as those supremacists till they regain their humanity and agree to negotiate mutually acceptable borders.

            If they force us to shed our blood to defend our very existence, we may as well be able to show something for our effort at the end of it and they may as well be prepared to pay a price for their bloody minded aggression against us!

            Reply to Comment
    2. Brian

      All Lieberman wants to do is remove as many Arabs as he can from the state so as clamp down even more on the lesser percentage of Arabs remaining, so as to make the Arabs in Israel even more second class citizens than they already are. You would think this was Gal-On teaming with Barakeh to formulate this proposal rather than Lieberman teaming with Netanyahu, the way Kolumn and Bar cavalierly dismiss the objections. To make this truly work with integrity you’ll have to redraw the border much more extensively than Lieberman of course would ever think of doing, with long fingers extending westward, e.g., to Jaffa, like the long finger extending eastward to Ariel. Wouldn’t that be interesting. And entirely consistent with Lieberman’s logic.

      Look, as Chemi Shalev has said,

      “…by demanding that hundreds of thousands of Israeli Arabs be “transferred” to another sovereignty and another citizenship…Lieberman is only confirming the claims of many Palestinians: that by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, Abbas would be giving his blessing to those, like Lieberman, who view the citizenship of Israeli Arabs as second rate and expendable….

      If Netanyahu had demanded that Abbas recognize the historic links between Israel and the Jewish people or its centrality in Israeli life, I would be backing him all the way. But Netanyahu has not only injected Abbas into the whole “Who is a Jew” conundrum, he wants him to accept that a Jew who lives in Buenos Aires has a weightier connection to Israel than the Palestinian family that has lived in Shfaram or in Tirah or in Taybe for hundreds of years…”

      Reply to Comment
      • C.C. DeVille

        Brian, please read. Nobody has to move.

        Reply to Comment
        • Brian

          It should be evident from what I wrote that I well understand that.

          Reply to Comment
    3. Ben Zakkai

      On the specific issue of population and land transfers, it’s obviously immoral and unacceptable for Israel either to retain illegal settlements like Ariel that are located smack in the middle of Palestinian territory, or to strip the residents of Umm al-Fahm of their Israeli citizenship against their will simply because they’re not Jews. If, in the context of a final peace settlement between Israel and Palestine, some Israeli Arabs wish to renounce Israeli citizenship and residence and accept Palestinian citizenship and residence instead, then they ought to be allowed to do so, and Israel should then cede to Palestine additional territory on the Israeli side of the Green Line, proportional to the number of people making such a decision.

      As for Liberman and the mainstream, I don’t think Liberman has changed his views or positions much during the past 10-15 years, but the spectrum of Jewish Israeli opinion has moved so far to the right that Liberman’s relative position on that spectrum has traveled from far-right wing to right-center, perhaps. That’s because the Jewish Israeli public, still unwilling and unable to face the fact that its role as Occupier has over the years transformed Israel into the role of the bad guy in the movie, has no choice but to double down on a bad bet by (1) viewing Palestinians who oppose oppression and dispossession as evil, (2) viewing people all over the world who sympathize more and more with Palestinians after almost half a century of Occupation as antisemitic, and (3) becoming ever more brutal and corrupt in its mistreatment of Palestinians. All of which is what will set up the inevitable final crash when Israeli apartheid finally hits the iceberg.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Driggs

      The author is not accurately or honestly describing Lieberman’s slogan. Liebs has said some noxious things, but suggesting that the border be moved is not per se racist – the suggestion implicitly recognizes Palestinians’ right to self-determination IN THEIR OWN STATE.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Mikesailor

      Lieberman’s racism has already been mainstreamed long ago. It was just that it was considered to be, in polite society, bad form to be so blatantly racist. The forbearance was due to the belief that Diaspora Jews would not approve and might stop financing the ongoing ethnic-cleansing. Silly them. They didn’t realize that Diaspora Jews are even more like sheep than Israeli Jews. Now, the gloves are off and the rest of the world can witness the outright bigotry and slide toward a nationalistic fascism accelerating in the so-called “Jewish” state. It is the natural culmination of Zionism, an ideology which not only presupposes a Jewish supremacy, but actively discriminates against, humiliates, brutalizes, murders and steals from non-Jews with the approval, or at least acquiescence of the majority Jewish population. Transfer of population and stripping of citizenship is only the latest “idea” copied from those they have been emulating for so long. Liebensraum is what they have wanted, and is what they still seek. All non-Jews are Untermenschen and their wishes are nothing compared to those of the Jewish Supermen. Sounds all too familiar doesn’t it?

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        Idiot.

        With bastards like you, we can’t win. You constantly accuse us of state discrimination against our Arab Israeli citizens and pretend that they live a life of misery under the heels of the Jewish majority.

        But when Liberman comes along and proposes to let those allegedly abused Arab Israelis keep all their lands, properties, assets and become citizens of “the proposed shiny new democratic state of Palestine” where they would allegedly become free and be treated as equals, you cry blue murder.

        So tell us exactly what is so wrong with Liberman’s proposal? They won’t lose lands, they won’t lose properties nor assets. They would just lose their alleged misery of being Israelis. Why oh why are you insisting that they MUST remain Israelis? Make up your mind for crying out loud. Are they or are they not miserable with us? And if you say that they ARE, then why do you insist that they must remain Israeli citizens, mmmmmmm?????!!!!!

        Reply to Comment
        • Bryan

          Might be something to do with human rights, freedom, democracy, justice and vision. Let me offer a similar parallel: the West Indians who came to Britain in the late 1940s and 1950s. They had grown up in the British Empire, had absorbed the British narrative about freedom and equality, had been educated at English-speaking schools, which extolled the family of Commonwealth nations, and responded to labour shortages here by immigrating to work as nurses and bus-drivers in Birmingham, London and elsewhere. When they complained at blatant prejudice, the Liebermans of British society, like the National Front and Enoch Powell said if they were not happy here they could go home, and the state could even pay their tickets. Civil society rejected this option, since they had established themselves here, made friends, married, had families with children established in schools, etc. They stayed and Britain conquered the worst features of its racism and prejudice. It was a similar story in the US where ex-slave owners offered their freed slaves transit to Liberia after the Civil War. Now Lieberman isn’t offering repatriation, but he is offering disruption of the social fabric of their lives, as well as repudiating the Zionist vision of the Israeli Declaration of Independence which promised Arab Israelis “full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions”. With the benefit of hindsight we can clearly see that white Anglo-Saxon protestant American and Britain became better societies by conquering prejudice and fear of “the other”, and we can hope that Israel can go down the same road. Were Lieberman to succeed Israel would become even more intolerant and illiberal, and its brightest and best would leave in droves. None of us supporters of Israel as it could be would want to see that.

          Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            In addition to all that, and other reasons still, there is the simple, concrete issues of those borders. He gets to keep Jaffa but they don’t get to keep “Ariel”? And Ma’aleh Adumim and Efrat? He wants to play sovereignty transfer games, that paragon of the honest, ethical, democratic spirit Lieberman? Ok, let’s do it. But the paragon does not get to dictate the borders. “Nice” concept, Lieberman. Here’s a crayon. Draw the borders. And we’ll keep in mind while you’re doing that that Vlad Putin of Ukraine fame is a beloved mentor of yours. Keep your hands above the table where we can see them please. And Fania can’t help you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            And attach to it your detailed plan for how you plan to treat the remaining Arab citizens of Israel. It’s not that we don’t trust you it’s just that when you buy a house there are a lot of papers to sign.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Nice rant Bryan…

            Once again, Liberman is not telling Arab Israeli citizens to go home if they don’t like it. He is telling them that they can stay in their homes, together with the rest of their society.

            What he IS telling them is that since they detest their lot as Israeli citizens, they can become citizens of the proposed shiny New Democratic Palestinian state where everyone would be treated equally, even Jews?! What is your objection to that offer?

            Don’t bother giving me your BS answer. It is a rhetorical question designed to expose your hypocrisy. You are no friend of ours. In past posts of yours you questioned even our right to exist.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            The King of Ranters tells me I rant. Since you reappeared all you’ve done is spray one tedious long rant after another. You were an ass to Baladi today btw. Friend of “ours”? Who is ours? Do Zonszein, Omer-Man, Derfner, Sternhell et al. not belong to your club either? Don’t bother to answer. Go have lunch with Hairball instead.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Aha …

            Brian responded to my post to Bryan. He claims that I told him that he rants. Conclusion?

            Brian = Bryan.

            Brian has long used different pseudonyms to post here. He even had a character known by the dubious name of MuslimJew. How dishonest, he is trying to amplify his dubious message by pretending that more people profess his opinion.

            Oh and yes I was as nasty to Baladi as he was to me. Boo hoo he only noticed my nastiness. What a surprise!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You really are a goofball. Looks like you took extra lessons in obnoxiousness and paranoid attitude while you were away and are all charged up for the spring offensive. You come barging in here clueless. Anybody here in the past two months knows I and Bryan are two unconnected individuals. Unless they are a troll like hairball with nothing else to say. It’s is a prime example in fact of how you, Gustav, just know what you know and by golly no ones gonna tell YOU different. Merav aka hairball the ICat has been babbling on about Bryan/Brian two headed Gingi moaning what do you do with your left hand blah blah blah for months now and finally got embarrassed enough to retire it for a few days only to have, you, genius, reinvent the wheel. Congrats. You’re probably gonna get hairball all excited again and he’ll relapse.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            “Brian has long used different pseudonyms to post here. He even had a character known by the dubious name of MuslimJew.”

            Are you kidding me??!! Honestly,Gustav, this is really a revelation to me. I did NOT know how truly paranoid and obsessed you are. Wow.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Paranoid?

            No doubt about it. One of your handles was that hateful foul mouthed MuslimJew whom I named poopsie.

            You have shown your true colors when you revealed yourself to be BOTH Brian and Bryan. Or do you deny that too? You have revealed yourself to be as the shifty little bastard who youreally are. LOL, LOL, LOL …

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “One of your handles was that hateful foul mouthed MuslimJew whom I named poopsie.

            Hateful and foul mouthed only to Ashkenazi anti-semites, like you.

            Reply to Comment
          • MuslimJew

            “He even had a character known by the dubious name of MuslimJew.”

            Dubious only to Ashkenazi anti-semites, like you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            BUT, it is true I kicked off this silliness by misreading on my iPhone who you were addressing. I apologize for that honest and rather comical error. It didn’t quite ring right your “You are no friend of ours. In past posts of yours you questioned even our right to exist”–when did I ever do that?–so I responded as I did. There is so much repetitive hostility coming from you–like a fusillade–that it’s not hard to make a mistake like this. I own up to the misreading, a misreading that then uncovered surprising beliefs you harbor. A comedy, truly.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            In the time it takes me to respond with an apology I get another fusillade of paranoia and the authentic MuslimJew shows up. Can we submit this to a studio somewhere as a comedy sketch?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Oh, what a coincidence…

            MuslimJew shows up again. What a surprise, Brian dear…

            LOL, LOL, LOL …

            You have outed yourself again. LOL, LOL, LOL…

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Gustav, Gustav, OMG, take your medicine. Do you not realize how eerily paranoid sounds your LOL, LOL, LOL …
            LOL, LOL, LOL … ?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Yea paranoid…

            Paranoid my foot. Poopsie, AKA MuslimJew shows up on queue wherever you are. Coincidence? My foot. Why are you denying the obvious? And all the more obvious since you now revealed yourself to be BOTH Brian and Brian, you cynical little crook, LOL, LOL, LOL ….

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Gustav, there two possibilities here. Either you are really, truly delusionally paranoid (you always have come across as very angry and hotheaded as opposed to your cooly detached fellow ideologues K4, Pedro etc) or you know full well your “conclusions” here are false and you have swiftly descended into mere trollism. Either way it’s not attractive. Since you showed back up the level of angry, paranoid sounding nonsense has skyrocketed. No wonder someone like MuslimJew has zeroed in on you up and down this page. You’re easy pickings.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Hey you just made the same honest mistake I did today in reverse. You saw “Bryan” on the page when what is really there is “Brian.” Then you pushed the Submit button. Oh, Gustav, we have to have a long talk about the sinister conspiracy this clearly signals! You cynical little crook!………..

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            I feel like I’m watching an episode of Seinfeld. I’m Jerry and you’re George Costanza. MuslimJew is the Soup Nazi. LOL!

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Poor, poor … poor Brian or Bryan or MuslimJew or poopsie or whatever pseudonym you may use depending on your state of mind…

            You can run but you can’t hide. You revealed yourself for the crooked little cheap propagandist whom you always appeared to be, but now you have outed yourself in all your glory.

            LOL, LOL, LOL and more LOL:)

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            The best line of defense is attack. Right, Brian? Or Bryan? Or MuslimJew? Or whatever you call yourself, poopsie dear.

            You outed yourself as someone who posts here under multiple names. You can call me troll or paranoid or whatever else but you will never be able to deny what you did. Much as you try, the evidence is above for everyone to see.

            But keep trying poopsie. The more you try, the more you will manage to wrap yourself up in your own sh…t dearie.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You never get it, Gustav. You, shamelessly, are the attacker. It always ends this way with you. Actually, it usually begins this way with you too. It’s a well established pattern. Who are you to engage me in a scurrilous troll’s game of having to deny something utterly ridiculous? “Evidence”? The above is evidence of only two things: your comically obsessive/paranoid personality and/or your deviousness. I kind of think you know very well you’re making stuff up but I have to allow for the possibility you really are that paranoid and preoccupied with trolls you hear under the bed. They’re hidden behind every tree in your universe, scheming and plotting. In either condition, you’re not a person with whom an honest dialogue is possible. And you waste everyone else’s time here. With the coldly rational and intelligent people on the far right here one learns how they really think and what the width of the divides really are and one sharpens what one thinks oneself. It’s clarifying. A dialogue of a kind is possible. I just had one with K4. With you, nada. You’ve shown that. And you still don’t get why this MuslimJew has jumped all over you here. Sort of, in a way, why the Soup Nazi jumps all over George. Maybe you’ve never watched Seinfeld but I rather doubt it.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Keep talking Brian, Bryan, MuslimJew, Poopsie, you are just getting yourself deeper and deeper in it. You fucked up, I caught you at it and the evidence is here for everyone to see …

            1. I addressed my post to Bryan but you responded to me as Brian. Then with a straight face you try to deny that you are the same person posting here under BOTH names. Good luck with that, LOL.

            2. I have long suspected and said so too that when you are angry, you also post here under the name of MuslimJew, AKA Poopsie. So loh and behold, when I brought up that fact here again, who popped up immediately out of the blue? Yes, you guessed it …. Good old MuslimJew/Poopsie. So tell me Brian/Bryan/MuslimJew/Poopsie, what are the odds that would happen if he would be a different person than yourself? The reason I always suspected that he IS you was because he always popped up after I cornered you in a discussion and you had nowhere to go. He/You just popped up and heaped abuse. Nowhere else on this site was he ever active just in places where YOU were active and where all your propaganda was shot down in flames.

            Coincidence, you say? You may as well say flying pigs, pink elephants and 1001 Arabian nights … LOL!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Geez. This is getting kind of sad now. Nope, we are not gonna keep talking, Gustav. You can’t talk a person out of delusions.

            You’re morphing into Newman!
            http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/SEINFELD_NEWMAN.JPG

            George: “Paranoid my foot! Poopsie.”

            Jerry: [sighs] “Ok, George, whatever you say, bye George…bye George…George…shut the door George…”

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Poor old Brian/Bryan/MuslimJew/Poopsie. You want to say the last word so badly you can taste it, don’t Ya? But you won’t.

            Again: You fucked up. You outed yourself as BOTH Bryan and Brian. And you demonstrated that you are also this strange little creature called MuslimJew whom I call poopsie.

            You wiggle like a fish trying to get off a hook but I am here to make sure that you won’t. You may as well accept your fate poopsie dear.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            You’re nuts.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I am nuts? LOL you have flooded this page with what one can best describe as …

            Ready for it….?

            THE SEINFELD DEFENSE…

            But I am nuts, huh? LOL, you funny little man. Funny as in strange. Not funny funny which would be a good thing…

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Here’s another reason I feel like I’m watching Seinfeld. This is all, thanks to you and ludicrously, “about nothing”:

            http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI

            (I’m starting to sound like my friend Weiss: “and yet another reason why I am ashamed….”)

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            And I’m not “defending” myself against anything, Newman.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            No? Then I must have imagined your dozen or so silly Seinfeld posts trying to deflect by counter accusations. Trying to make me out to be the troll.

            The truth is that if anyone is a troll then it’s YOU. I mean no serious person would pretend to be three different personas. Only a troll like you does that, Brian/Bryan/MuslimJew (the last name is a doozy. How did you come up with that one?).

            It is obvious that you are not here to debate. You are here to play silly games, score points and to entertain yourself. To you, the whole Middle East debate is just a source of joy and a ‘feel good exercise’ in which you put us Israelis down for the sole purpose of entertaining yourself. In other words, you seek self gratification. You are truly a TROLL, Brian, Bryan, Muslim Jew or whatever your real name is.

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            I do not “put Israelis down.” You are not “us Israelis.” You are you. I have spoken very respectfully of actual Israelis. Some are public figures such as journalist Larry Derfner and Professor Ze’ev Sternhell, and some are my private friends.

            You started out here trolling me with your gambit on January 21 of “Brian = Bryan.” To this set of imaginary conjoined twins you added MuslimJew and concocted the three-headed monster you sally forth against like some deranged Knight of Zion in a demented Don Quixote a la Levant. Now that this picaresque troll adventure has curdled you want to imagine that the three-headed monster in your mind started it all.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Now you are being your usual dishonest self. You mention three co-ideologues who happen to be Israelis and try to use them as alibi. But in reality, all you do here is rile against the majority of other Israelis and you use three pseudonyms to do so in order to amplify your hateful message. Classic trollish behavior.

            For instance, according to you, most of us are racist thugs who oppress the saint Palestinians with our settlements and war mongering while all your saintly Palestinians crave nothing but peace and justice. You do like cartoon characters don’t you, Brian, Bryan, MuslimJew?

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Again with the Seinfeld defense to try and negate a very serious accusation against your fraud.

            Here is your fraud just so you won’t obfuscate it with your silly Seinfeld nonsense …

            1. I addressed my post to Bryan but you responded to me as Brian. Then with a straight face you try to deny that you are the same person posting here under BOTH names. Good luck with that, LOL.

            2. I have long suspected and said so too that when you are angry, you also post here under the name of MuslimJew, AKA Poopsie. So loh and behold, when I brought up that fact here again, who popped up immediately out of the blue? Yes, you guessed it …. Good old MuslimJew/Poopsie. So tell me Brian/Bryan/MuslimJew/Poopsie, what are the odds that would happen if he would be a different person than yourself? The reason I always suspected that he IS you was because he always popped up after I cornered you in a discussion and you had nowhere to go. He/You just popped up and heaped abuse. Nowhere else on this site was he ever active just in places where YOU were active and where all your propaganda was shot down in flames.

            Coincidence, you say? You may as well say flying pigs, pink elephants and 1001 Arabian nights … LOL!

            Reply to Comment
          • Brian

            Please listen to how obsessive, querulous and paranoid you sound. These pop ups and cornerings exist only in your mind. Have mercy on yourself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            I do have mercy on myself.

            It is YOUR trollish self I don’t care about, Brian, AKA Bryan, AKA MuslimJew.

            Reply to Comment
        • andrew r

          A few things are wrong with the Bouncer’s plan:

          1. It’s a stopgap measure until Israel can physically expel its non-Jewish citizens who are not resident in the Triangle. If you can get away with something bad today, you’ll do even worse tomorrow.

          2. Now the residents of Umm el-Fahm and the other cities will be citizens of a fictitious state with no sovereignty. They’ll be subjected to checkpoints and IDF incursions. Some might call it a bantustan, I’d call it a ghetto or pale of settlement.

          3. The plan is symptomatic of how asinine the Zionist state is as a concept.

          Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            “3. The plan is symptomatic of how asinine the Zionist state is as a concept”

            Live with it Andrew. Live with the Zionist or not for all we care but accept the fact that we are here to stay or suffer the consequences!

            As for the rest of your post? It is stupid because you condemn us for what you perceive we want to do. You attribute to us what you think we would do and you found us guilty of things we haven’t even done. Typical. Typical of haters like you …

            Reply to Comment
    6. Click here to load previous comments