Guardian

CiF commenter unhinged anti-Israel comment of the day


The recent Guardian piece, “Window of opportunity for two-state solution fading, Hague warns Israel“, by Harriet Sherwod, produced an abundance of one-state solution comments (euphemism for the wish to commit politicide against the world’s only Jewish state, so it can be radically reconstituted into the 51st majority Muslim state.).

But, worse than these was this, by commenter “CDale”:

Well, well: We have three gems:

“Israel wishes to ethnically cleanse all Palestinians”

Of course this hideous and utterly unsupportable accusation is leveled so frequently above and below the line that I’ve almost become numb to the charge.  (See my reply to the charge,Ethnic Cleansing, Real and Imagined“)

“Israel will cause a nuclear war which will threat all of Europe”

This hyperbolic charge is just another manifestation of the narrative that Israel’s very existence is not only a threat to the Palestinians, but to world peace itself.  Further, it represents the tendency of many to engage in something approaching an obsession with the Jewish state.

“Israel is/will be responsible for anti-Semitism that will occur in Europe”

This is the most insidious charge of the post because, if you read it carefully, it infers that such a reaction (the outbreak of anti-Semitic attacks in Europe) will be the inevitable – indeed, natural – result of Likud’s policies.  Let me note that “Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel” is codified as anti-Semitic by the European Union.  Also, as writer Leon Wieseltier observed, “the notion that all Jews are responsible for whatever any Jews do is not a Zionist notion. It is an anti-Semitic notion.” Wieseltier adds that attacks on Jews in Europe have nothing whatsoever to do with Israel. To blame Jews for anti-Semitism is similar to saying blacks are responsible for racism.

As of the time of this post, this comment has not been deleted by CiF moderators.

5 replies »

  1. Forgive me for quoting Elder of Ziyon’s post in its entirety, but it is worth considering in response to CDale’s comment:

    PLO “ambassador” to US advocates expelling all Jews from “Palestine”
    If anyone fits the very picture of a “moderate” Palestinian Arab, it would be the PLO’s ambassador to Washington, Maen Rashid Areikat. As Tablet describes him,

    A robust, dark-skinned man with salt-and-pepper hair and black-rimmed architect’s glasses, he is a protégé of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who supervised Areikat’s work as director-general of the Negotiations Affairs Department of the PLO. The two men are said to be temperamentally similar and personally close. With his direct manner and relaxed but forceful presence, he seems more like a businessman than a diplomat. It is easy to imagine him traveling through international airports hammering out partnership deals for Hewlett-Packard or SAP, in Europe one day and Dubai the next.

    [He was] born in Jericho, on the West Bank, raised under Israeli military occupation, and educated in Arizona (where he received an undergraduate degree in finance and then an MBA.)
    Friends and similar in temperament to the reknowned “moderate” PA president? Check.
    Acts like a Westerner? Check.
    US education? Check.

    What’s not to love?

    Only one, small, niggling problem: The guy is a bigoted liar, and he perfectly represents everything that is wrong about Palestinian Arab leadership.

    I won’t fisk the entire thing, because he is re-hashing a lot of the usual stuff we’ve heard before. But here is something that for some reason did not get much coverage.

    Q: When you imagine a future Palestinian state, do you imagine it being a place where Jews, if they wish to become Palestinian citizens, could own property, vote in elections, and practice their religion freely?

    A: I remember in the mid-’90s, the late [PLO official] Faisal Husseini said repeatedly “OK, if Israelis choose to stay in a future Palestinian state, they are more than welcome to do that. But under one condition: They have to respect and obey Palestinian laws, they cannot be living as Israelis. They have to respect Palestinian laws and abide by them.” When Faisal Husseini died, basically no Palestinian leader has publicly supported the notion that they can stay.

    What we are saying is the following: We need to separate. We have to separate. We are in a forced marriage. We need to divorce. After we divorce, and everybody takes a period of time to recoup, rebound, whatever you want to call it, we may consider dating again.

    Q: So, you think it would be necessary to first transfer and remove every Jew—

    A: Absolutely. No, I’m not saying to transfer every Jew, I’m saying transfer Jews who, after an agreement with Israel, fall under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.

    Q: Any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?

    A: Absolutely. I think this is a very necessary step, before we can allow the two states to somehow develop their separate national identities, and then maybe open up the doors for all kinds of cultural, social, political, economic exchanges, that freedom of movement of both citizens of Israelis and Palestinians from one area to another. You know you have to think of the day after.
    The PLO representative to the US publicly calls to ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes. Not Israelis – Jews.

    I think that is called “transfer” and in another context it is considered the most heinous crime imaginable. When right-wing Zionists mention it, they are called “extremists” and “genocidal.” When the PLO representative says it, it causes nary a ripple.

    This interview was published a week ago!

    Earlier in the interview, he said that one reason he doesn’t like the idea of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is because
    [Y]ou know that there are between 18 and 20 percent non-Jews who are living in Israel, who are mostly Palestinians, and who are part of the Palestinian people. By accepting the Israeli plan that they are a Jewish state, we are undermining the rights of this minority, who are already suffering discrimination at the hands of the Israeli authorities.
    So Areikat is saying that “Palestine” must ethnically cleanse every Jew who lives in its borders, but at the same time calling Israel a Jewish state would somehow cause discrimination against the “Palestinians” who live in Israel. Apparently, ethnic cleansing is OK, but calling a state Jewish is a terrible crime.

    Then, Areikat goes into fantasyland:

    A: Why should I pay the price for the political movement called Zionism, which said, “It’s time to reclaim parts of Palestinian territory that at one point were home for the kingdom of David, of Israel”—which you and I know was concentrated in the northern part of the West Bank. It never was in Jerusalem, it never was on the coast, it never was in Hebron.

    Q: Of course it was in Jerusalem.

    A: No.

    Q: The City of David is right there.

    A: No, I mean, it was from Shechem to the outskirts of Jerusalem. It was never the Palestine that they claim.
    The rest of the interview is almost equally ridiculous, and that’s the point – Tablet isn’t interviewing a construction worker in Ramallah, but a respected Palestinian Arab diplomat who represents his supposed nation to the US.

    He is moderate – compared to many or most of the people he represents. And that is the entire problem with the word “moderate.” The West seems to think that we must reward relative moderation, because the alternative is even worse. But when such “moderation” nakedly calls for ethnic cleansing, why should it be rewarded? Shouldn’t the absolute bigotry displayed by Palestinian Arab leaders today – when they are trying to impress an American audience no less, in English – indicate that their desired state would be a human rights disaster?

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/11/plo-ambassador-to-us-advocates.html

  2. From cdale, If the actions of Israel defending itself from genocide threaten the welfare of Jews in europe, it must then follow that the actions of islamofascists threaten the welfare of Muslims elsewhere in the world.

    As for Mr. Hauge, the UK is fast approaching the tipping point where islamism will dominate the UK.

    http://www.boycottscotland.com

  3. What a pity that CDale didn’t (or couldn’t) supply any evidence supporting his or her claims regarding the supposed intentions of Israel’s foreign minister.

    What a pity too that CDale apparently does not comprehend that it is the decisions of the entire Israeli government – not just one man – which dictate Israeli policy and that the current government, like its predecessor and indeed several other predecessors before it, is committed to a two-state solution in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

  4. I thought the very first comment showed the lunacy and ego of typical CiF commenter who knows exactly what the solution to the problem is:

    NoNukesPlease

    4 November 2010 4:39PM

    I think there should be a one state solution where Christian, Jew and Muslim could have one parliament in Jerusalem and the religion of each group could vie with one another as to who could be the most wise and loving.

    The mere fact that “Christian, Jew and Muslim” do not want anything to do with what this person thinks does not hinder, for a microsecond, his/her willingness to try to impose his/her preferred solution on them all!!