Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIsraeli Jews and The One-State Solution
Anyone who rejects the two-state solution, won't bring a one-state solution. They will instead bring one war, not one state. A bloody war with no end. -- Israeli President Shimon Peres, 7 November 2009.
One of the most commonly voiced objections to a one-state solution for Palestine/Israel stems from the accurate observation that the vast majority of Israeli Jews reject it, and fear being "swamped" by a Palestinian majority. Across the political spectrum, Israeli Jews insist on maintaining a separate Jewish-majority state.
But with the total collapse of the Obama Administration's peace efforts, and relentless Israeli colonization of the occupied West Bank, the reality is dawning rapidly that the two-state solution is no more than a slogan that has no chance of being implemented or altering the reality of a de facto binational state in Palestine/Israel.
This places an obligation on all who care about the future of Palestine/Israel to seriously consider the democratic alternatives. I have long argued that the systems in post-apartheid South Africa (a unitary democratic state), and Northern Ireland (consociational democracy) -- offer hopeful, real-life models.
But does solid Israeli Jewish opposition to a one-state solution mean that a peaceful one-state outcome is so unlikely that Palestinians should not pursue it, and should instead focus only on "pragmatic" solutions that would be less fiercely resisted by Israeli Jews?
The experience in South Africa suggests otherwise. In 1994, white-minority rule -- apartheid -- came to a peaceful, negotiated end, and was replaced (after a transitional period of power-sharing) with a unitary democratic state with a one person, one vote system. Before this happened, how likely did this outcome look? Was there any significant constituency of whites prepared to contemplate it, and what if the African National Congress (ANC) had only advanced political solutions that whites told pollsters they would accept?
Until close to the end of apartheid, the vast majority of whites, including many of the system's liberal critics, completely rejected a one person, one vote system, predicting that any attempt to impose it would lead to a bloodbath. As late as 1989, F.W. de Klerk, South Africa's last apartheid president, described a one person, one vote system as the "death knell" for South Africa.
A 1988 study by political scientist Pierre Hugo documented the widespread fears among South African whites that a transition to majority rule would entail not only a loss of political power and socioeconomic status, but engendered "physical dread" and fear of "violence, total collapse, expulsion and flight." Successive surveys showed that four out of five whites thought that majority rule would threaten their "physical safety." Such fears were frequently heightened by common racist tropes of inherently savage and violent Africans, but the departure of more than a million white colons from Algeria and the airlifting of 300,000 whites from Angola during decolonization set terrifying precedents ("Towards darkness and death: racial demonology in South Africa," The Journal of Modern African Studies, 26(4), 1988).
Throughout the 1980s, polls showed that even as whites increasingly understood that apartheid could not last, only a small minority ever supported majority rule and a one person, one vote system. In a March 1986 survey, for example, 47 percent of whites said they would favor some form of "mixed-race" government, but 83 percent said they would opt for continued white domination of the government if they had the choice (Peter Goodspeed, "Afrikaners cling to their all-white dream," The Toronto Star, 5 October 1986).
A 1990 nationwide survey of Afrikaner whites (native speakers of Afrikaans, as opposed to English, and who traditionally formed the backbone of the apartheid state), found just 2.2 percent were willing to accept a "universal franchise with majority rule" (Kate Manzo and Pat McGowan, "Afrikaner fears and the politics of despair: Understanding change in South Africa," International Studies Quarterly, 36, 1992).
Perhaps an enlightened white elite was able to lead the white masses to higher ground? This was not the case either. A 1988 academic survey of more than 400 white politicians, business and media leaders, top civil servants, academics and clergy found that just 4.8 percent were prepared to accept a unitary state with a universal voting franchise and two-thirds considered such an outcome "unacceptable." According to Manzo and McGowan, white elites reflected the sentiments and biases of the rest of the society and overwhelmingly considered whites inherently more civilized and culturally superior to black Africans. Just more than half of prominent whites were prepared to accept "a federal state in which power is shared between white and non-white groups and areas so that no one group dominates."
During the 1980s, the white electorate in South Africa moved to the right, as Israel's Jewish electorate is doing today. Support seeped from the National Party, which had established formal apartheid in 1948, to the even more extreme Conservative Party. Yet, "on the issue of majority rule," Hugo observed, "supporters of the National Party and the Conservative Party, as well as most white voters to the 'left' of these organizations, ha[d] little quarrel with each other."
The vast majority of whites, wracked with existential fears, were simply unable to contemplate relinquishing effective control, or at least a veto, over political decision-making in South Africa.
Yet, the African National Congress insisted firmly on a one person, one vote system with no white veto. As the township protests and strikes and international pressure mounted, The Economist observed in an extensive 1986 survey of South Africa published on 1 February of that year, that many "enlightened" whites "still fondly argue that a dramatic improvement in the quality of black life may take the revolutionary sting out of the black townships -- and persuade 'responsible' blacks, led by the emergent black middle class, to accept some power-sharing formula."
Schemes to stabilize the apartheid system abounded, and bear a strong resemblance to the current Israeli government's vision of "economic peace" in which a collaborationist Palestinian Authority leadership would manage a still-subjugated Palestinian population anesthetized by consumer goods and shopping malls.
Because of the staunch opposition of whites to a unitary democratic state, the ANC heard no shortage of advice from western liberals that it should seek a "realistic" political accommodation with the apartheid regime, and that no amount of pressure could force whites to succumb to the ANC's political demands. The ANC was warned that insistence on majority rule would force Afrikaners into the "laager" -- they would retreat into a militarized garrison state and siege economy, preferring death before surrender.
Even the late Helen Suzman, one of apartheid's fiercest liberal critics, predicted in 1987, as quoted by Hugo, "The Zimbabwe conflict took 15 years ... and cost 20,000 lives and I can assure you that the South African transfer of power will take a good deal more than that, both in time and I am afraid lives."
But as The Economist observed, the view that whites would prefer "collective suicide" was something of a caricature. The vast majority of Afrikaners were "no longer bible-thumping boers." They were "part of a spoilt, affluent suburban society, whose economic pain threshold may prove to be rather low."
The Economist concluded that if whites would only come so far voluntarily, then it was perfectly reasonable for the anti-apartheid movement to bring them the rest of the way through "coercion" in the form of sanctions and other forms of pressure. "The quicker the white tribe submits," the magazine wrote, "the better its chance of a bearable future in a black-ruled South Africa."
Ultimately, as we now know, the combination of internal resistance and international isolation did force whites to abandon political apartheid and accept majority rule. However, it is important to note that the combined strength of the anti-apartheid movement never seriously threatened the physical integrity of the white regime.
Even after the massive township uprisings of 1985-86, the South African regime was secure. "So far there is no real physical threat to white power," The Economist noted, "so far there is little threat to white lives. ... The white state is mighty, and well-equipped. It has the capacity to repress the township revolts far more bloodily. The blacks have virtually no urban or rural guerrilla capacity, practically no guns, few safe havens within South Africa or without."
This balance never changed, and a similar equation could be written today about the relative power of a massively-armed -- and much more ruthless -- Israeli state, and lightly armed Palestinian resistance factions.
What did change for South Africa, and what all the weapons in the world were not able to prevent, was the complete loss of legitimacy of the apartheid regime and its practices. Once this legitimacy was gone, whites lost the will to maintain a system that relied on repression and violence and rendered them international pariahs; they negotiated a way out and lived to tell the tale. It all happened much more quickly and with considerably less violence than even the most optimistic predictions of the time. But this outcome could not have been predicted based on what whites said they were willing to accept, and it would not have occurred had the ANC been guided by opinion polls rather than the democratic principles of the Freedom Charter.
Zionism -- as many Israelis openly worry -- is suffering a similar, terminal loss of legitimacy as Israel is ever more isolated as a result of its actions. Israel's self-image as a liberal "Jewish and democratic state" is proving impossible to maintain against the reality of a militarized, ultra-nationalist Jewish sectarian settler-colony that must carry out frequent and escalating massacres of "enemy" civilians (Lebanon and Gaza 2006, Gaza 2009) in a losing effort to check the resistance of the region's indigenous people. Zionism cannot bomb, kidnap, assassinate, expel, demolish, settle and lie its way to legitimacy and acceptance.
Already difficult to disguise, the loss of legitimacy becomes impossible to conceal once Palestinians are a demographic majority ruled by a Jewish minority. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel's "right to exist as a Jewish state" is in effect an acknowledgement of failure: without Palestinian consent, something which is unlikely ever to be granted, the Zionist project of a Jewish ethnocracy in Palestine has grim long-term prospects.
Similarly, South African whites typically attempted to justify their opposition to democracy, not in terms of a desire to preserve their privilege and power, but using liberal arguments about protecting distinctive cultural differences. Hendrik Verwoerd Jr., the son of assassinated Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd, apartheid's founder, expressed the problem in these terms in 1986, as reported by The Toronto Star, stating that, "These two people, the Afrikaner and the black, are not capable of becoming one nation. Our differences are unique, cultural and deep. The only way a man can be happy, can live in peace, is really when he is among his own people, when he shares cultural values."
The younger Verwoerd was on the far-right of South African politics, leading a quixotic effort to carve out a whites-only homeland in the heart of South Africa. But his reasoning sounds remarkably similar to liberal Zionist defenses of the "two-state solution" today. The Economist clarified the use of such language at the time, stating that "One of the weirder products of apartheid is the crippling of language in a maw of hypocrisy, euphemism and sociologese. You talk about the Afrikaner 'right to self-determination' -- meaning power over everybody else."
Zionism's claim for "Jewish self-determination" amidst an intermixed population, is in effect a demand to preserve and legitimize a status quo in which Israeli Jews exercise power in perpetuity. But there's little reason to expect that Israeli Jews would abandon this quest voluntarily any more than South African whites did. As in South Africa, coercion is necessary -- and the growing boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement is one of the most powerful, nonviolent, legitimate and proven tools of coercion that Palestinians possess. Israel's vulnerabilities may be different from those of apartheid South Africa, but Israel is not invulnerable to pressure.
Coercion is not enough, however; as I have long argued, and sought to do, Palestinians must also put forward a positive vision. Neither can Palestinians advocating a one-state solution simply disregard the views of Israeli Jews. We must recognize that the opposition of Israeli Jews to any solution that threatens their power and privilege stems from at least two sources. One is irrational, racist fears of black and brown hordes (in this case, Arab Muslims) stoked by decades of colonial, racist demonization. The other source -- certainly heightened by the former -- are normal human concerns about personal and family dislocation, loss of socioeconomic status and community security: change is scary.
But change will come. Without indulging Israeli racism or preserving undue privilege, the legitimate concerns of ordinary Israeli Jews can be addressed directly in any negotiated transition to ensure that the shift to democracy is orderly, and essential redistributive policies are carried out fairly. Inevitably, decolonization will cause some pain as Israeli Jews lose power and privilege, but there are few reasons to believe it cannot be a well-managed process, or that the vast majority of Israeli Jews, like white South Africans, would not be prepared to make the adjustment for the sake of a normality and legitimacy they cannot have any other way.
This is where the wealth of research and real-life experience about the successes, failures, difficulties and opportunities of managing such transitions at the level of national and local politics, neighborhoods, schools and universities, workplaces, state institutions and policing, emerging from South Africa and Northern Ireland, will be of enormous value.
Every situation has unique features, and although there are patterns in history, it never repeats itself exactly. But what we can conclude from studying the pasts and presents of others is that Palestinians and Israelis are no less capable of writing themselves a post-colonial future that gives everyone a chance at a life worth living in a single, democratic state.
66 Comments so far
Show AllDear Ali Abunimah,
You actually think that the Zionists in Israel are ever going to agree to such an idea?
If you do, then you are naive. The Zionists want the Palestinians out! That is all the Zionists care about. You cannot see that this one-state solution is NEVER GOING TO WORK?
After all this and you are this gullible?
Ali Abunimah proposal, drawing from the South African experience, is predicated upon all parties respecting the rule of law. The concept of the rule of law is not one that does too well in the Middle East.
The rule of law?
The US Empire is settting them a great example: torture, illegal wars and attacks, rendition, regime change, black ops, targeted drone attacks and assasinations and what not. Supporting and funding Israel, who violates the rule of law every day with protection at the UNSC by the US veto.
Obama effectively pardoned Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld etc. and is now engaging in his own war crimes.
So if it is our Kipling-esque duty to show these savages the merits of the rule of law and western civilisation, we are doing a great job.
Where exactly in my comment did you extrapolate all the above?
You conveniently ignore the region is littered with absolutist monarchies & sheikdoms (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, etc.), dictatorial one-party states headed by cult of personality wannabes (Libya, Syria, Egypt, Yemen), & Islamic fundamentalist regimes (Iran, Gaza under Hamas)for whom competent governance is at best an afterthought. Such governments, by their very nature, consider the rule of law as an annoyance at best.
Casting Israel as the sole villain and source of evil is childish, naive, and ultimately delusional.
Please re-read my post carefully, I really don't know what you're on about, sorry.
"Casting Israel as the sole villain and source of evil is childish, naive, and ultimately delusional."
Please show us where the article claims that Israelis are solely responsible for the conflict with the Palestinians.
Nothing is more childish or delusional than trying to ignore the fact that zionists are ethnically cleansing Palestine.
q
Abunimah nails it once again. A two-state solution is un-workable and impossible given the reality of all the illegal colonial settlements.
A one-state solution is the only practical, fair, just and legal way to solve the issue. Muslims, Jews, Christians et al. ought to have equal rights and justice. No one group should have special priveleges and trample over minority rights.
With that said, I am not very optimistic about the short term future. Conditions for Palestinians are going from very bad to worse.
"I don't want no peace without equal rights and justice"
Peter Tosh
War is gonna be the solution as long as our Congress, President, and the world economy of banking on war remains reality.
And as long as Gaza is not physically connected to the rest of Palestine, a border issue, it is three failed states.
Israel and the US together are the spearhead that drives war as the solution.
Obama has not proved to have the intelligence and courage to deal with that.
bligh4
Go back to EXACTLY how it was before the 1967 war.
Remove the settlement areas in the West Bank and have Israel withdraw behind the Green Line. Then turn the area back over to Jordan, who claimed the area from 1948 until 1988. Turn Gaza back over to the Egyptians who ruled in 1967. Pay both countries some billions to redevelop the infrastructure and offset costs.
One state solution will never work.
The US already has more than its share of zionists.
Greenland has plenty of room.
q
nativetongueredux:
You're bang on. That little corner of the planet is Palestine. If the Zionists and their progeny are to continue to live there, then they should have to compensate the Palestinians evicted from their homes and farms. That is what justice demands--you takeover someone's home by force, you (provided the evicted person agrees), then either compensate that person or vacate the property you've illegally expropriated. Really quite reasonable, and it's the decent thing to do.
The author failed to mention one important aspect of the ending of apartheid, documented in Shock Doctrine. The minority whites gave the APPEARANCE of giving into the ANC. As negotiations were proceeding, the neocon whites rigged the financial systems of South Africa so that in the end, they would still have full power financially over anything the newly formed black government could do. So in effect they gave up nothing.
Very true, just a newer form of economical slavery.
INTELLIGENCE DICTATORSHIP
We are all given a different level of intelligence as a test,
to see if we pass our excessive wealth down to those less
intelligent where it belongs.
For the purpose of this world is to prove the harm in it,
the harm being everyone enslaving the next man less
intelligent and everyone worshiping the man more intelligent.
For Abraham was the richest man on earth because he was
the most intelligent, and he being the first Hebrew, we now
have Hebrews the most intelligent and richest race on earth.
You sound like a racist social Darwinist. Where the hell did that nonsense come from?
WHAT ARE JEWS?
“God created grass, trees, stones, water, ANIMALS, HUMANS, and JEWS”
“A Jew is a unique creation, so the soul of a Jew is inherently ... different than the soul of a non-Jew ...... it is an eternal, infinite part of the eternal, infinite God”
“THE JEW IS A PIECE OF GOD. We are to treat other Jews as DIVINE BEINGS, because that's what they are”
“There are TWO different and distinct ENTITIES: the human being, and the JEW who is part of G-d”
“We are a G-dly people, we have G-dly souls. Our place is in Heaven, in fact HIGHER than Heaven because Heaven is also a created place, and we are a part of G-d”
Excerpts from:
Print:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2902/jewish/What-Is-the-Cause-of-Antisemitism.htm
Audio:
http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/300700/jewish/If-Youre-Chosen-Act-It.htm#
By Rabbi Manis Friedman, author and lecturer, dean of Bais Chanah Women's Institute of Jewish Studies.
***************************************************
THE CHOSEN PEOPLE:
“... God offered [the other nations] the seven mitzvahs ... and said, "Do you accept these ... without hesitation and WITHOUT QUESTION?" And they said no; they first wanted to hear WHAT the commandments were BEFORE accepting. Whereas when G-d came to the Jews and offered us the 613 commandments, we didn't say we wanted to hear a few examples. We accepted.”
"So we CAN'T SAY we're ORDINARY people like everyone else because they see that we're NOT like them, we're a Heavenly people"
"The world is not only willing to accept that Jews are different, the world wants Jews to be different. The world is not only willing to enjoy the TALENTS and UNIQUENESS of the JEWISH people"
"Or we're going to stand up straight and say, "Yes, WE'RE DIFFERENT, we're SPECIAL, we're JEWISH, we're created from G-d's thought. Yes, we are CHOSEN"
***************************************************
“A JEW IS .....A GODLY BEING SENT TO THIS WORLD ON A MISSION”
“..... When a poor person comes to a Jew and asks for something to eat, the Jew is actually lowering himself to give the poor person a meal, because this is not his field ... .... So every Jew faced with someone who is hungry, could say, "This is not my business. MY BUSINESS IS WITH GODLY THINGS, HOLY THINGS." ... (but) we say, "OK, if that's what G-d wants, we'll do it....."
"When a Jew gives tzedakah, HE'S BASICALLY A DIVINE BEING ACCEPTING HUMAN OBLIGATIONS; he is basically ... LOWERING HIMSELF into the worldly human condition. When a non-Jew gives charity, he is basically a human being TRYING TO ELEVATE HIMSELF to something more Divine. So are the Jew and the non-Jew doing the same thing? Not at all...”
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2902/jewish/What-Is-the-Cause-of-Antisemitism.htm
***************************************************
WORLD LEADERSHIP:
“The world wants LEADERSHIP and who are they going to look to for moral LEADERSHIP if not the JEWS?”
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2902/jewish/What-Is-the-Cause-of-Antisemitism.htm
"We are Jews because G-d chose us to be His "cherished treasure from all the nations... a kingdom of priests and a holy people" (Exodus 19:5-6). We are Jews because G-d chose us to play the central role in the implementation of His purpose in creation"
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45132/jewish/What-Makes-a-Jew-Jewish.htm
"We have proved ourselves to be the LEADERS of enlightenment, progress and revolution wherever we have traveled
"In that way, we are chosen, and in that way, we have performed our chosenness. If it were not for Jews, there would be no concept of human dignity, of meaning and purpose, of the right of every person to education and knowledge, of social justice and of the value of world peace. These (along with psychology, relativity, quantum physics, anthropology, Hollywood and superheroes) are among our many vital contributions to the world"
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/743998/jewish/How-do-you-get-a-Jewish-soul.htm
.
Well documented bullshit is still bullshit.
There is no god.
q
OK, so if you want me to believe Jews are the "Chosen Ones" than you need to accept responsibility and blame for the world's ills.
Jesus kind of did that already, die for our sins.... are you ready to do it again?
So Abraham was a Jew and a Zionista?! And even if I were to buy your Hebrew-centric argument, what about Abraham's children from his son Ishmael/Ismail? Sorry, I forgot, you probably think Ishmael/Ismail was illegitimate, right?
One state is the ONLY solution and that state should be called PALESTINE.
Under the current conditions that is not likely to happen any time soon, so once the zionists provoke a new holocaust the rightful owners of Palestine will claim it back (if theres something left) and maybe let the few surviving jews live there, altough in my opinion shit hit the fan once the fictional state that is called israel (I prefer to call it shitsrael) came into being, the shit will come down over all zionists and their supporters, make no mistake about it.
Ray Berthiaume
Name-calling insults do not contribute to dialog and peace.
Neither does slaughtering innocent women and children.
q
Boycotts, divestments & sanctions (BDS) should prove to be just as effective in breaking Israeli aparthaid as it was against white South African aparthaid. Recall, too, that what brought down S. Africa's aparthaid system wasn't the economic toll that BDS inflicted on that country, rather it was the cultural isolation than took place, with the refusal to allow S. Africa's rugby team to participate in international competition turning out to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. What'll it take to break Israeli aparthaid, the refusal of celebrity artists to perform in the settler-state, or of its world class scientists to present papers at international conferences, or its students to attend universities in Europe and elsewhere? Looks like we're about to find out.
One must question the morality and ethical grounds upon which “Israel” was founded.
When the Zionists adopted Palestine as a home land for all the Jewish people they ignored the fact that Palestine had already its own native Palestinian inhabitants, with a very small Jewish minority of 2.5%.
The early Jewish refugees did not come with olive branches in their hands; rather they came with tanks and machine guns, they engaged in extensive terror attacks on the native Palestinians, they were building their armed forces ever since until it became the forth most powerful state in the world today.
Israel’s recognition as a state (by the United Nations and the International community) was conditional to Israel abiding by UN resolutions including the right of return of Palestinians; which were never implemented by Israel.
And as we have seen from Alan Hart's article:
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/10/16/alan-hart-israels-right-or-not-to-exist-the-facts-and-truth/
"the General Assembly's partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration..... while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence – actually in defiance of the will of the organized international community, including the Truman administration......the partition plan was vitiated (became invalid)"
The other extremely serious implication of asserting “Israel’s” right to exist as a Jewish state, is that the Palestinians must give up completely on their right of return; because if that right was to be implemented, It will spontaneously erode “Israel” as a purely Jewish state, and that would contradict the precondition of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
The continuous existence of such a state (as defined by the hegemony of one particular group “the Jewish” over the rest of its citizens) is morally unacceptable; as by definition “”Israel” is a Jewish state; in order to maintain its exclusive “Jewishness” it denies millions of exiled Palestinians the right of return to their homes and their families ignoring their basic human rights.
When Hitler called for a purely Arian state the world got up in arms against such an exclusive racists regime.
How can such a state demand the right be recognized and to be secured when the very foundation on which it was established are immoral? How such a state should continue to exist when by its very definition it is insular, exclusive, and racist?
This ILLEGAL entity that was established by TERROR, sustained by TERROR, and can only exist by practicing barbaric acts of TERROR has NO RIGHT TO EXIST in a world that aspires for peace and justice
This zionist entity was established on the ruins of 531 annihilated towns and villages, and built-up on the flesh, blood and bones of hundreds of thousands of innocent murdered people, and maintained by the agony of millions of refugees who still languish in refugee camps in Gaza and elsewhere
As a Palestinian I assert:
There is no other solution for the restoration of peace and justice, than the reinstatement of PALESTINE, the return to pre 1948, and the return of ALL Palestinian refugees
Let all work together to rid our world of this abomination
END the RACIST EXCLUSIVE Jewish state
This is precisely the Palestinian mindset that has led to where we are today. Nahida demands "reinstatement" of Palestine, which never in history has existed as a state or as a separate political entity. The state of Palestine was a creation of the UN just as much as the state of Israel but, unfortunately, it never came into being - precisely because of the mindset that rejected any room for compromise.
But it's also amazing how almost every statement in this post is factually wrong. Of course I anticipate already the responses I'll get to my post. To some of the commentators here the facts don't really matter, and everything I say will be dismissed, as usual, as "zionist talking points". But some readers perhaps do care whether what they read here is factually correct. I'm sure that most readers have the capacity to check the facts from credible sources if they want to.
> Israel’s recognition as a state (by the United Nations and the
> International community) was conditional to Israel abiding by UN
> resolutions including the right of return of Palestinians"... "the
> General Assembly's partition proposal never went to the Security
> Council for consideration..... the partition plan was vitiated (became
> invalid)"
The partition plan became invalid because the palestinian leadership, as well as all surrounding Arab states rejected it. However the legitimacy of the state of Israel was clearly acknowledged by most of the international community by their act of recognizing the state of Israel immediately following its declaration of independence. One may ask what prevented the creation of a Palestinian state, in accordance with the UN resolution between 1948 to 1967, when the west bank and Gaza were under Jordanian and Egyptian control.
> When the Zionists adopted Palestine as a home land for all the
> Jewish people they ignored the fact that Palestine had already its
> own native Palestinian inhabitants, with a very small Jewish
> minority of 2.5%.
In 1890 the number of Jews was about %10 of the number of Muslims, and about the same as the number of christians. So jews were a minority, but they were about %8 of the population, not %2.5. Further, whether Nahida wants to acknowledge this or not, the country was quite sparsely inhabited - around 500,000 people in all. By the way, in Jerusalem Jews were a majority.
> The early Jewish refugees did not come with olive branches in their
> hands; rather they came with tanks and machine guns.
That's a funny one. Jews in palestine didn't have tanks up to the very beginning of the 1948 war, and throughout that war the number of tanks held by the attacking arab armies greatly outnumbered those of the Israeli forces. Early Jewish immigrants in the beginning of the 20th century certainly did not come with "tanks and machine guns". This whole narrative, portraying the jewish immigrants as those bringing western weapons into the region is bogus - arabs in palestine were much better armed than Jews when the zionist movement started. It took several decades of bitter violence between Arabs and Jews in palestine to change this.
> The continuous existence of such a state (as defined by the hegemony
> of one particular group “the Jewish” over the rest of its citizens) is
> morally unacceptable; as by definition “”Israel” is a Jewish state; in order
> to maintain its exclusive “Jewishness” it denies millions of exiled
> Palestinians the right of return to their homes and their families ignoring
> their basic human rights.
Millions of people were displaced in World War II including more than 10 million Germans expelled from countries in central and eastern Europe, a million and a half Poles, around 200,000 Romanians expelled by the Russians from Moldova, and there are many other examples. There were also massive population transfers in the Balkans following the two world wars. Is anyone of these people demanding a right of return?
Of specific interest to the present discussion, about a million Jews were forced out of the Muslim countries when these countries gained independence - this is more than the the number of arabs displaced from palestine in 1948. Is anyone offering these Jews or their children a "right of return"?
> When Hitler called for a purely Arian state the world got up in arms
> against such an exclusive racists regime.
Sadly, that's not true. The world stood still and mostly hoped to negotiate with Hitler. Most countries got up in arms when they were forced into war by Hitler's aggression. However, large parts of the civilized world at least expressed some opposition to Hitler's actions and ideology. In contrast Palestinian leaders at the time embraced Nazi germany with great enthusiasm. As I'm sure Nahida knows, the most prominent leader of the nationalist palestinian movement, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a dear friend of Hitler. Here is an excerpt from his memoirs:
"Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: The Jews are yours."
And this is a excerpt from his address on Radio Berlin in 1944: "Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."
A good collection of photos of al-Husseini amongst his friends can be seen at http://www.tellchildrenthetruth.com/gallery/index.html.
Right on cue: the racist, imperialist hatemongers show up every time, thanks for proving my point. Thanks for the boilerplate Hasbara propaganda.
There is no excuse for War Crimes, Racism, Apartheid, and Ethnic Cleansing. The USA funds Israeli crimes, and is therefore equally responsible
[When Hitler called for a purely Arian state the world got up in arms against such an exclusive racists regime.]
Did Hitler call for a purely Aryan state? I recently read Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, and while he does extol the superiority of Aryan culture, I don't recall anything resembling a call for a purely Aryan state.
Hitler did have an animus toward the Jews, which he fully explains in the book. He identified Jews as the source of Marxism and communism, and identified them as the controllers of the Social Democratic party which was very active in Germany. He believed that the Jews, Marxists, communists, and SDs were destroying German culture. He had the example of Marxist Russia, where the communists had killed millions of their own citizens, and threatened the rest of the world, on his doorstep.
Here is something Hitler did write, it merits careful reading I think -
"As I listened to Gottfried Feder's first lecture about the 'breaking of interest slavery,' I knew at once that this was a theoretical truth which would inevitably be of immense importance for the future of the German people. The sharp separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy offered the possibility of opposing the internationalization of the German economy without at the same time menacing the foundations of an independent national self-maintenance by a struggle against all capital. The development of Germany was much too clear in my eyes for me not to know that the hardest battle would have to be fought, not against hostile nations, but against international capital. In Feder's lecture I sensed a powerful slogan for this coming struggle.
And here again later developments proved how correct our sentiment of those days was. Today the know-it-alls among our bourgeois politicians no longer laugh at us: today even they, in so far as they are not conscious liars, see that international stock exchange capital was not only the greatest agitator for the War, but that especially, now that the fight is over, it spares no effort to turn the peace into a hell.
The fight against international finance and loan capital became the most important point in the program of the German nation's struggle for its economic independence and freedom."
From Ch. 8. You can google Mein Kampf and read it online.
Nahida,
Thanks for your extremely valuable input. You are the most gracious Ambassador for Palestinians, for Arabs and for Muslims.
On a very fundamental level, we must ask ourselves what is the central cause of the endless and bloody wars in the Middle East: The irrevocable answer is "Israel".
Before "Israel", Palestine was a model of peaceful cohabitation between its majority of Muslims and its Christian and Jewish minorities.
The illegitimate instauration of the jewish-zionist colonial entity "Israel" over 60 years ago happened by means of mass-murder, terrorism and destruction of biblical villages.
Since 60 years, the Jews who come to Palestine and live on stolen land or confiscated houses, have not departed from these criminal methods.
In fact, they have escalated them, and even pushed the disgrace as to hijack Judaism, down to the point where Judaism and Zionism are almost indistinguishable from each other, to the dismay of the few Jews who have kept their humanity, like the Naturei Karta, or Karaites.
In 60 years, the Jews who came to Palestine had enough time to slowly abandon their criminal mathods and to integrate into the notoriously peaceful, cohesive and harmonious Palestinian society, and act as good neighbors and decent human beings. There was enough time to admit the jewish crimes, for repentance and to move forward into a sort of conciliatory peaceful cohabitation, in which Justice and Forgiveness, would not have been vain words.
Israeli Jews and their allied Diaspora chose instead, to become contemporaneously the most inhumane, depraved, amoral, violent, revolting, obnoxious, group of people.
They target young children, finance WMD used on extermination camps like Gaza where with Middle Age style they starve people to death. They engage into organ theft and traffic, corrupt whole governments and try to suppress freedom of information. They corrupted international laws and national laws, by means of deceit, threats, corruption, whatever it takes...
In this unstable era, we must have the courage to remove this thorn in the foot of humanity, dismantle the "Jewish state" and disband its racist population, especially those who have participated directly and indirectly in crimes against Palestinians.
Without "Israel", and without its international zionist and crypto-zionist networks, the entire Middle East would return slowly to peace, to the great strategical benefit of the entire western world, but also to the great relief of the heroic martyred Arab populations.
The colonial crimes against Arabs, have lasted so long and are so horrific, that we owe reparations forever to all Arabs, and Palestinians in particular.
Israel must be dismantled, with full restitution of Palestine to the Palestinians.
Thanks for the articulate and thoughtful comments nahida and exilem. I am with you 100%
Finally, we have some more viewpoints to offset the ultra right-wing, imperialist, racist trolls who inevitably show up as soon as a rational discussion of the issues comes up.
... Jews reject it, and fear being "swamped" by a Palestinian majority ...
The Jews are a minority in the United States but that hasn't stopped them from controlling it.
Yawn. It would appear as if you mistakenly put up a post intended for stormfront.org here instead. Save the retread of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" for nitwits who actually believe that tripe.
Really? Can you provide an explanation for the Congress' overwhlelming rejection of the completely legitimate Goldstone report other than the influence of AIPAC?
I didn't think so.
q
Conspiracy theory is a refuge for the intellectually weak whom have a hard time understanding and processing complex, multi-tiered issues and events. So they find a perverse solace in the mental catch all of conspiracy theory.
As for AIPAC (whom for all intents and purposes, are an American auxiliary of the Likud party), their influence in Congress was done the old fashioned way: they organized and spent money in much the same manner as any political machine. The longer a lobbying organization can stay together and consistently deliver money and votes (which are the only things that really matter in a republic), the more powerful they become within an institution such as Congress.
Did AIPAC engineer the rejection of the Goldstone Report? Sure.
Was it the result a vast worldwide conspiracy a la "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" (which, btw, is a forgery created by agents of the Czarist Okhranka)? No.
If you believe that, may I interest you in a bridge in Brooklyn I am looking to sell?
Yeah, but you are the conspiracy theorist nutcase, don't you see that?
If you dispute my narrative YOU are the conspiracy thoerist because I am right and you are wrong.
Just like I said, the ultra-right-wing, racist, imperialists will come and try and make excuses and divert attention away from the crimes. Nice try, but some folks here have studied the issues and do not tall for your pitiful justifications and excuses for aggression, occupation, war crimes, and Apartheid.
I don't want no peace without equal rights and justice.
Lame try at obfuscation via transference.
So let me restate even more clearly: conspiracy theory is the province of the intellectually lazy and weak. Your consistent spouting has all the echoes of classic anti-Jewish tripe, from what I surmise, a Strasserite position. YOU are just wrong period in this instance no matter how many times you spout otherwise.
If you had actually bothered to read my many postings on this site, your positing of me as "ultra-right wing, racist, imperialist" is completely off the mark to the point of absurdity. But then I have the suspicion that mere details like context, shades of opinion, and complexity disrupt your obviously cartoon like "us vs. them," "good vs. evil" worldview (another sure sign of intellectual laziness, btw).
And if you had actually studied the history of Israel / Palestine issue: you would know it goes back to the Ottoman Empire era & that the Palestinians have had the consistent curse of poor leadership (particularly the al-Husayni clan). Meanwhile, Israeli leaders have not been exactly pure as the driven snow either (David Ben-Gurion personally ordered the expulsion of an Arab community so that Lod Airport could be built, for example). At present, Israel plays out as the main villain due to a variety of reasons relevant and not-so-relevant, but if to offer the posit that the Arabs are not 100% pure is "justification for aggression, occupation, war crimes, and Apartheid," that is a leap of fancy comparable to the "children' blood used for matzo's" lie.
Get a grip!
"So let me restate even more clearly: conspiracy theory is the province of the intellectually lazy and weak."
The Idea of the Chosen People is based on conspiracy theory and the Bible is full of conspiracy tales.
Some of it true and some of it false.
Conspiracies do exist whether you like it or not.
Shalom
I was being sarcastic, my Arab hating friend. They are called Palestinians to be more precise in this case, by the way. Or is that what your masters tell you to call them?
You are bringing up straw man arguments to intentionally divert attention away from the crimes of the USA and its Israeli partners.
I hate to break your naive bubble world: the USA and Israel have committed War Crimes, Ethnic Cleansing, and Apartheid. There is NO JUSTIFICATION!
Try to "rationalize" crime all you want, but it aint workin, haven't you got the hint by now?
"chosen" !!!!
So they can
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrkhN6Pcto&feature=player_embedded
.
'One State Solution' is just the same turd wrapped and rewrapped over and over again since Israel's War of Indepedence. Did the Arabs not wish to annihilate Israel before the 67' War? Then clearly it is not a matter of the West Bank and Gaza. Did the Arabs not wish to annihilate Israel before there were any refugees? Well, then certainly they are not the issue either.
First and foremost there is no legal precedent for resettling refugees. My own family fled advancing Russian soldiers from what is today Poland in the largest mass migration in history. Why? They were ethnic Germans and were scared. Their vacant property was expropriated without compensation and were not allowed back. What is the precedent on this? Was Poland attacked as a pariah?
Further, all the Jews that fled the Arab countries in fear due to the backlash and hostility left vacant property. Vacant property that was, guess what, expropriated by the respective Arab governments. No compensation, and the total land seized from absent Jewish landowners was far more massive than Israel itself. Are Arab states criminal for doing so? Oh, and how many Palestinians actually owned the homes they lived on? The majority were sharecroppers.
Right on cue; thanks for proving my point
I realize that you right-wing racist imperialists don't agree but Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, anad war crimes are not only illegal, it is immoral.
Funny how these same folks only appear on Israel/Palestine related articles. Very interesting indeed...
And now the ultra right wing racist imperialist trolls showed up again to attempt to "rationalize" Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, land theft, and war crimes. This as well as providing straw man arguments and diversions from the crimes of the USA and Israel
And he claims he is not right wing, or a racist, or an imperialist.
War is Peace. Hatred is Love. The World is Flat
Demonstrate that Apartheid is taking place. Not virtual Apartheid or figurative Apartheid, actual Apartheid. You just love using heavily loaded buzz words don't you. There is no need to rationalize something that does not exist.
Anyone who doubts that Israel is an apartheid state should talk to Naomi Klein, Also read Jimmy Carter's book on the subject or view I think it was 2003 DVD on Israel from FAIR which documents how Palestinians based on their lineage are treated as differently from Jewish Israelis as whites were from blacks in South Africa. Not only that Israel is nation state based on genes or blood as it used to be called, an outmoded idea which even though the Irish were oppressed terribly, never allowed for when the Republic of Ireland came into being. Now don't get into that whine about that people of Irish decent can return. They can. But the Republic never forced those of the Anglo Saxon or Scots or Welch European tribe to leave the land where they were born simply due to their tribal status. This is right out of the dark ages. Also the right place for a Jewish homeland, at least a basically exclusively Jewish one would have been Germany, as that's where the Holocaust occurred, but that didn't happen even though it was at the heart of Jewish life on the European continent. But then a homeland for the Gypsies might well have followed, and how could the Ciold War weirdos with the 'grand crusade" against the "terrible Communists" in Moscow have a base of operations given the huge land mass Germany occupies in the heart of Europe if this happened? This is what it was all about big power,corrupt politics and policies that were bad for all concerned and led to the division of not only Germany but all Europe as well and a military confrontation between East and West which could easily have been avoided had Franklin D Roosevelt lived out his fourth term.
AD
Anyone who doubts that Israel is an apartheid state should talk to Naomi Klein, Also read Jimmy Carter's book on the subject or view I think it was 2003 DVD on Israel from FAIR which documents how Palestinians based on their lineage are treated as differently from Jewish Israelis as whites were from blacks in South Africa. Not only that Israel is nation state based on genes or blood as it used to be called, an outmoded idea which even though the Irish were oppressed terribly, never allowed for when the Republic of Ireland came into being. Now don't get into that whine about that people of Irish decent can return. They can. But the Republic never forced those of the Anglo Saxon or Scots or Welch European tribe to leave the land where they were born simply due to their tribal status. This is right out of the dark ages. Also the right place for a Jewish homeland, at least a basically exclusively Jewish one would have been Germany, as that's where the Holocaust occurred, but that didn't happen even though it was at the heart of Jewish life on the European continent. But then a homeland for the Gypsies might well have followed, and how could the Ciold War weirdos with the 'grand crusade" against the "terrible Communists" in Moscow have a base of operations given the huge land mass Germany occupies in the heart of Europe if this happened? This is what it was all about big power,corrupt politics and policies that were bad for all concerned and led to the division of not only Germany but all Europe as well and a military confrontation between East and West which could easily have been avoided had Franklin D Roosevelt lived out his fourth term.
AD
[Anyone who doubts that Israel is an apartheid state should talk to Naomi Klein,]
Naomi Klein does not oppose the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem, so it is not clear that she regards the theft of Palestinian lands as apartheid of itself.
[Also read Jimmy Carter's book on the subject]
Following publication of the book Carter was at great pains to explain that the 'apartheid' in the title referred only to the treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Carter is in full support of a two-state solution and the continued existence of a Jewish state on Palestinian land.
[Germany, as that's where the Holocaust occurred,]
Doubts have been expressed on this subject, in fact people (Irving, Zundel, Rudolf, Toben to name 4) have gone to jail for expressing these doubts. To see why doubts exist, google holohoax 101 and judge for yourself.
Not Allan, “[Germany, as that's where the Holocaust occurred,]
Doubts have been expressed on this subject, in fact people (Irving, Zundel, Rudolf, Toben to name 4) have gone to jail for expressing these doubts. To see why doubts exist, google holohoax 101 and judge for yourself.”
---
I come from a family of holocaust survivors. 80% of my extended family was exterminated in Poland (only those who flee survived). My wife’s grandmother had a tattoo from Auschwitz.
Trust me; In spite of what Ahmadinejad and Irving say, the holocaust is not a hoax.
[My wife’s grandmother had a tattoo from Auschwitz.]
Auschwitz was the alleged primary extermination camp, one of six. Don't you understand that the fact that your grandmother survived Auschwitz argues against the holocaust?
Perhaps she became ill or injured while at Auschwitz. What did the Nazis do with ill or injured Jews? Gas them, or send them to the hospital?
Did you know that the three most famous holocaust survivors, Elie Weisel, Otto Frank, and Primo Levi, were in the Auschwitz hospital being treated for injuries (Weisel) and illness (Frank and Levi) when the Russian army approached the camp? The Nazis gave the patients able to travel the option of evacuating with them or awaiting the Russians. Weisel chose to go with the Nazis, Frank and Levi were too sick to travel.
Did you know that the Nazis kept detailed records of deaths in the camps and that these records are now available? Google holohoax 101 for the links.
Also I don't know that those of European descent had it that rough after Algeria and Angola gained independence. Maybe somebody needs to stop relying on British sources as far to the right as the Economist. How about we check what the New Statesman used to say about this and similar issues and check what Red Pepper says today.
AD
Dam, a lot of ugly vitriolic, anti-Israel anti-Jewish anti-Judaism anti-Zionist comments---I,like many, yet not most, have the distinction of being a Jewish American, who is not only morally outraged & ashamed of my countries crimes against humanity but also w/my own 'people/tribes' crimes against humanity---a rather common societial trait amongst all dominant cultures regardless of race color religion or creed----yet it is certainly not religion or faith or theology that are the seeds of all this---more like a blind obedience to theology ideology etc-------
As for the more disturbing anti-Judaism comments directed & attributed to the ultra-orthodox-fundamentalist branch of Judaism, as a 'proof'-- these folk no more represent all Jews or Judaism then any other ultra-orthodox-fundamentalism be it Christianity Islam Hindu----you name it-----
These orthodox-fundamentalists all share a common ground, they believe they are doing Gods will & will be rewarded in the after-life---So would it not be better for those of us who are not so keen on the afterlife, if God or aliens or some force would simply snap their fingers & bring all these blood-thirsty venal specimens to their just rewards sooner then later & in our life-time---& let the rest of us work things out here upon the ground.
To those who feel the uncontrollable urge for vitriol, which I myself feel towards Christianity at times, & while I have an understanding of enmity held by victims of crimes against humanity, my parents could never forgive the Germans or Poles after WWII---I will point out that Israel & 'the Jewish people' have come to terms w/Germany & the German people--we could certainly, in my mind, come to resolve w/Palestinians--
I'd like to proffer, not only mine but many many other Jewish Jews definition of what it means to be a Jew....'someone who is always on the side of the slave & never on the side of the master' ---a more prophetic interpretation of Scriptures vs the radical true believers representatives of Judaism pointed out here----
For the record, I hold with the premise & points made in this post---we are already de-facto a bi-national state----I oppose a Jewish Israeli State---believe in reparations to the Palestinian people, (Israeli marshal plan if you will), A truth commission so that each side can begin to incorporate the others narrative---
That all said, given the virulent vitriol spewed here by some, gives my fellow Yidden much consternation---should they/we be afraid, very afraid?
[Dam, a lot of ugly vitriolic, anti-Israel anti-Jewish anti-Judaism anti-Zionist comments-]
This is the standard response to any criticism of Zionism. Recall the firestorm that greeted Jimmy Carter's book. By immediately resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks you avoid discussing any issue.
[To those who feel the uncontrollable urge for vitriol,]
Do you include yourself in this group? All you have done is make unsubstantiated personal attacks.
[As for the more disturbing anti-Judaism comments directed & attributed to the ultra-orthodox-fundamentalist branch of Judaism, as a 'proof'-- these folk no more represent all Jews]
The fact is that all governments in Israel have expanded the settlements, indicating their contempt for the Palestinians and their desire to dominate the entire region. They have done so with the full support of US Jewry. On this essential point, the Ultra Orthodox and the majority of Jews in Israel and the US agree.
[That all said, given the virulent vitriol spewed here by some, gives my fellow Yidden much consternation---should they/we be afraid, very afraid?]
Your 'virulent vitriol' is just a recitation of facts you do not want to hear. I think we all should be very afraid. The Jews in Israel are inviting a catastrophe for themselves that might engulf the world.
It seems that we’ve completed a circle. One state solution was already sought in 1919.
After World War I, Weizmann, a Liberal Zionists and Faisal, Kind of Hejaz, sign an agreement which would have made Palestine a homeland to the Jewish people, together with the Arab’s who lived there (Palestinians). In return, the Jews would use their experience and influence to develop the entire Middle-East.
Too bad the Arabs rejected this agreement. So much suffering and blood could have been spared.
For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal-Weizmann_Agreement
What do you mean by "the Arabs rejected it"? Did you read the webpage you sent the link to?
First it was an agreement made by a despotic ruler - Faisal - without consulting the local inhabitants. This ruler regarded the Palestinian peasants as worthless and wished to associate with the more educated Zionists coming from Europe. Even so, Faisal believed that the agreement was nullified by the Sykes-Picot agreement that secretly divided up the Middle East between British and French spheres of influence. All of this is on the page you directed us to. How did the Arabs reject it?
Moreover here are a few quotes about how the British (the occupying power)
and the Zionists viewed the local inhabitants of Palestine at the time:
"The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ['kushim']
and for those there is no value." (Chaim Weizmann, around 1917)
"[I]n Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting
the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country ... The four powers are
committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted
in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder
import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit
that ancient land." (Arthur James Balfour, 11 August 1919)
"There arises the further question, what is to become of the people of this
country [Palestine], assuming the Turk to be expelled, and the inhabitants not
to have been exterminated by the War? There are over half a million of these,
Syrian Arabs - a mixed community with Arab, Hebrew, Canaanite, Greek,
Egyptian, and possibly Crusaders' blood. They and their forefathers have
occupied the country for the best part of 1500 years. They own the soil, which
belongs either to individual landowners or to village communities. They
profess the Mohammedan faith. They will not be content either to be
expropriated for Jewish immigrants, or to act merely as hewers of wood and
drawers of water to the latter. Further, there are other settlers who will
have to be reckoned with. There are 100,000 Christians, who will not wish to
be disturbed; east of the Jordan are large colonies of Circassian Mohammedans,
firmly established; there are also settlements of Druses and Moslems from
Algeria, Bulgaria, and Egypt." (George Nathaniel Curzon, around 1919)
"We have not come to an empty land to inherit it but we have
come to conquer a country from a people inhabiting it." Sharrett 1914.
Would you make an agreement with someone whose avowed aim was to steal your land and kill you if you resisted?
Why does Letto only comment on Israel/Palestine issues? Is he a paid troll? Hasbarist? Ministry of Propaganda?
More BS diversions
Those who believe, or want us to believe that this SUPREMACIST ideology, as held by “CHABAD LUBAVITCH”, is only an “ultra-orthodox-fundamentalist branch of Judaism”, I would say:
NO SIRS; this alarming ideology is not confined to a small group of lunatics, as one might hope or imagine!!!
I URGE YOU ALL to research the ideology of “Chabad Lubavitch”
At first; I assumed these were some fringe radical lunatics, of which we can find equivalents in most cultures. As long as they are monitored and their dangerous ideology exposed, and as long as they are at safe distance outside the axiomatic centres of our cultures and civilizations, their freedom of speech and thought should not be denied.
But the endless amount of these publications and their cross-referencing, accumulates to substantial evidence, proving their own boasting of being "…A MORE VISIBLE REPRESENTITIVE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER BODY, ORGANIZATION OR ENTITY- INCLUDING THE STATE OF ISRAEL”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1227702365037
It will require a lot of patience, to be able to read through, listen to tapes and look at the pictures, no matter how much time it needs, I think that investigating such horrors and finding out the scope of their influence, authority and outreach, is a duty, as well as an obligation
I have listened to rabbi’s recordings and lectures, what I have heard made me sick and made my heart cry
.
“Chabad Lubavitch”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad
ADHERENTS:
Abbreviated excerpts from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad#Philosophy_of_Chabad
Chabad is currently thought to be the THIRD or FOURTH LARGEST Hasidic movement in Orthodox Judaism in terms of numbers of adherents. There are more than 200,000 adherents to the movement, and up to a MILLION JEWS attend Chabad services at least once a year."
CAMPS:
Main article: Gan Israel Camping Network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gan_Israel_Camping_Network
"Chabad has set up an extensive network of camps around the world, ……. There are 1,200 sites serving 210,000 CHILDREN — most of whom DO NOT come from Orthodox homes. Of these, 500 camps are in the United States."
CAMPUS:
Main article: Chabad on Campus Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_on_Campus_Foundation
"In recent years Chabad has greatly expanded its reach on university and college campuses. Chabad Student Centers are active on over 100 campuses, and Chabad offers varied activities at an additional 150 universities worldwide.
"Professor Alan Dershowitz has said that "Chabad’s presence on college campuses today is absolutely crucial", and "WE CANNOT REST UNTIL CHABAD IS ON EVERY MAJOR CAMPUS IN THE WORLD"
INTERNET:
Main article: Chabad.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad.org
Setting up Chabad.org, one of the first Jewish educational websites[ and the first and largest virtual congregation.It serves not just its own members but Jews worldwide in general. According to Alexa.com, Chabad.org is currently the largest Jewish educational website worldwide.
INFLUENCE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad#Philosophy_of_Chabad
Chabad pioneered the post-World War II outreach movement, which spread Judaism to many assimilated Jews worldwide, leading to a substantial number of baalei teshuva ("returnees" to Judaism). The very first Yeshiva/Rabbinical College for such "baalei teshuva", Hadar Hatorah was established by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Chabad was also one of the first Jewish outreach organizations to use the World Wide Web as an outreach tool.
Chabad followers have had a notable influence on Jewish entertainment. Composer and rabbi Shlomo Carlebach began his outreach work as a representative of Chabad (he later moved away from the movement), Avraham Fried is also an adherent.
According to Steven I. Weiss, Chabad's ideology has DRAMATICALLY INFLUENCED NON-Hasidic Jews'
.
[At first; I assumed these were some fringe radical lunatics, of which we can find equivalents in most cultures.]
Equivalents in most cultures? I'll challenge that. What/who in specific can you cite as equivalent to Manis Freedman and his followers? (I did listen to his lecture on how Jews can relate to vegetables, animals, and non-Jews .... LOL).
I meant, every culture has its own weird fanatics, nothing of course equates with, or comes near to such as Chabad's lunacies
.
CHABAD CONFERENCE:
http://www.chabad.org/news/photo_cdo/aid/593396/jewish/Largest-Ever-Chabad-Conference.htm
"Close to 4,500 Chabad-Lubavitch emissaries, their parents and supporters packed the ballroom on Manhattan's Pier 94 for the grand banquet of the International Conference of Chabad-Lubavitch Emissaries."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chabad's success depends on its accessibility”
Excerpts of:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1227702365037
"This amazing outreach campaign, first orchestrated by Schneerson and continued by his followers since his death in 1994, has made Chabad a MORE visible REPRESENTATIVE of the JEWISH people THAN ANY OTHER BODY, ORGANIZATION OR ENTITY- including the State of Israel".
.
Jonathan Sacks, UK's Chief Rabbi Opens New Chabad Center
http://lubavitch.com/news/article/2017098/United-Kingdoms-Chief-Rabbi-Opens-New-Chabad-Center.htm
———————————-
Chabad Comes to Cambridge
http://lubavitch.com/news/article/2014820/Chabad-Comes-to-Cambridge.html
———————————-
Chabad of Vancouver Recipient of $1.2 Million Government Grants
http://lubavitch.com/news/article/2027390/Chabad-of-Vancouver-Recipient-of-1-2-Million-Government-Gran...
.
Chabad-Lubavitch Centers in the world:
North-America
http://www.chabad.org.uk/centers/default_cdo/aid/9311/jewish/North-America.htm
--------------------------
Central-South-America
http://www.chabad.org.uk/centers/default_cdo/aid/9312/jewish/Central-South-America.htm
---------------------------
Europe
http://www.chabad.org.uk/centers/default_cdo/aid/9313/jewish/Europe.htm
---------------------------
israel
http://www.chabad.org.uk/centers/default_cdo/aid/9331/jewish/Israel.htm
----------------------------
Africa
http://www.chabad.org.uk/centers/default_cdo/aid/9315/jewish/Africa.htm
----------------------------
Asia
http://www.chabad.org.uk/centers/default_cdo/aid/9316/jewish/Asia.htm
----------------------------
Australia
http://www.chabad.org.uk/centers/default_cdo/aid/9317/jewish/Australia-New-Zealand.htm
.
"when we talk about the part of God that is present in the world...it is in fact the collective JEWISH souls"
"so wherever 10 Jews get together, the 10 souls of these 10 Jews represent 10 pieces of God... actually make the presence of God evident, tangible...and an angel would not be able to enter the room because that angel would be consumed by the holiness present in the room"
Rabbi Manis Friedman
http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/300704/jewish/The-Jew-and-the-Non-Jew.htm
.