School speech pathologist fired for refusing to sign Israel oath

[ruby sparks]

Any disagreements I have with ^this^ are minor quibbles and semantics. I largely agree with you.

I would say the same about your post.

And I read all the links and thank you for posting them.

I was interested to read that a quarter of a million acres (100,000 hectares) of West Palestine was actually purchased from locals by Zionists. I had not known how much if any of the land had been transferred in this way. Also interesting to read of the large scale of the funding that was given (a lot of it seemingly by wealthy Jews abroad) in order to get the 'colony' going.

At the end of the day, it's pretty clear that the leadership of the Zionists felt totally justified in clearing the lands by force if necessary. Which is pretty much how it panned out. It's also clear that the territorial ambitions of this group went beyond what was allocated to them by the UN in 1948, so that in agreeing to the 1948 partition, they were probably merely seeing that as an interim foot in the door.

So perhaps if we are going to blame any bunch of people, we should blame those particular aggressive Zionists, not Israelis (and certainly not Jews as a whole, obviously) and perhaps not even all Zionists, but only or mainly those who were (or still are) more than willing to achieve their (in principle, utopian) aims by force, in effect by ethnic cleansing (albeit mostly achieved by dislocation rather than extermination) which is still going on, in The West Bank.

I will not get into 'the other side of the coin' (arab nationalism, Islamism, antisemitism, etc) or about the dangers of applying modern standards to very different historical scenarios, because I already have and have nothing more to add. In any case, the latter does not apply to things which are still happening (such as in The West Bank for instance).

What the Zionists did in setting up Israel, I mean the way it happened, was wrong, imo. And if it was in some ways no more wrong than a lot of other things happening at the time and before (which it probably was) and if there were some extenuating or mitigating circumstances (which there probably were) and even if we accept that 'right' and 'wrong' are always to some extent window dressing for realpolitiks and geopolitics (which they probably are since history is more about winners and losers than about who was right and who was wrong) it was still wrong, of itself.

I sometimes think that the majority of people now live in places that were gained by force or coercion at one time in history or another. Also, who here knows what they themselves would have done if they were in the shoes of those whose actions they decry (especially if as in this case they were in a group that were often persecuted)? Phrases such as 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' and 'people in glass houses...' and warnings about taking the moral high ground come to mind. Perhaps we should only be as judgemental as is necessary to make things better, not in order to allocate blame for things that can't be undone, done by people in whose shoes we were lucky enough not to have been.

But if there is one thing that we might all be able to decry (or at least think of as very unfortunate) it is the often religious underpinnings (cultural or theistic) of such things (whether it be Zionism or Islamism) which causes a lot of the trouble.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's important to know the history so you can understand how things got to be the way they are today, but the only way forward is to leave a lot of grief in the past and to let bygones be bygones.

When I was growing up here, it was virtually unthinkable that there would ever be peace and reconciliation. In some ways now it seems as if nearly everyone was unduly pessimistic, but at the time it's true that the issues seemed unsolvable and intractable and that endless conflict was almost inevitable. Possibly the same pertained in other places, such as South Africa, or during The Cold War. Possibly some people think this today about Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism. To me, right now, the problems in Israel and the region do seem somewhat intractable. I can't honestly see a road out of them. But I bet there is one nonetheless, even if it may be a very long and bumpy one.

And as far as how people not directly involved should think and act, I'd advocate for as much neutrality as is reasonably possible, and encouragement of compromise on all sides.

To finally go back to the OP, I'm not sure if Boycotting Israel is a useful way to go, it may be ineffectual and too contentious and it may cause people to become more entrenched, but if nothing else it highlights certain issues. And it is at least peaceful protest. I'm undecided as to whether it's fair and reasonable to outlaw it the way that it is being outlawed in the US now.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think the Grand Mufti's palling around with Hitler had as much to do with his being anti-British Mandate as it did with his apparent anti-Jewish bigotry, but it's entirely possible he would have been just as fawning even if the British were gone.

One small quibble, and it's a pity to end this series of agreeable replies to you with a minor quibble, but I wouldn't have put the word apparent in front of anti-Jewish bigotry. There is imo no good reason to think that it, or other overt anti-Jewish bigotry, was or is anything other than real, even if it was or is not the only factor or motive. Bigotry is often tangled up in other issues and politics. And in this case it wan't just a nobody being bigoted, it was, apparently, the leader of the Palestinian arab nationalists between 1945 and 1948, and imo can therefore be taken into account in gaining an understanding of at least part of the reasons for trying to extinguish Israel in 1948, in which the Palestinan arab nationalists took part.

It could be that Amin al-Husseini was not as deep-down bigoted or that his bigotry was not the main motive, that he used it to whip up hatred of Jews in order to advance the cause. Either way, it amounts to much the same thing, especially if, as seems to be the case, he knew about the holocaust and may even have toured some of the concentration camps himself.

I wonder if the Zionists, and David Ben-Gurion in particular, knew it, in 1948, or knew about it in relation to Amin al-Husseini in particular and/or knew about his dealings with the nazis (or indeed the nazi plan to exterminate palestinian Jews in 1942). Not that Ben-Gurion would have needed to know it as an additional motivation or justification, it seems he would not have, since he felt he had enough anyway.

 

[Arctish]

I think the Grand Mufti's palling around with Hitler had as much to do with his being anti-British Mandate as it did with his apparent anti-Jewish bigotry, but it's entirely possible he would have been just as fawning even if the British were gone.

One small quibble, and it's a pity to end this series of agreeable replies to you with a minor quibble, but I wouldn't have put the word apparent in front of anti-Jewish bigotry. There is imo no good reason to think that it, or other overt anti-Jewish bigotry, was or is anything other than real, even if it was or is not the only factor or motive. Bigotry is often tangled up in other issues and politics. And in this case it wan't just a nobody being bigoted, it was, apparently, the leader of the Palestinian arab nationalists between 1945 and 1948, and imo can therefore be taken into account in gaining an understanding of at least part of the reasons for trying to extinguish Israel in 1948, in which the Palestinan arab nationalists took part.

Apparently you use the term 'apparent(ly)' the same way I do, to indicate something that seems to be true based on what is known.

I'm not saying he wasn't prejudiced against Jews. It looks like he was.

It could be that Amin al-Husseini was not as deep-down bigoted or that his bigotry was not the main motive, that he used it to whip up hatred of Jews in order to advance the cause. Either way, it amounts to much the same thing, especially if, as seems to be the case, he knew about the holocaust and may even have toured some of the concentration camps himself.

I don't know much about him or his activities in Germany. But in 1941 when he met with Hitler, Germany was still forcibly relocating Jews, not yet killing them en masse, and al-Husseini didn't want them sent to Palestine. Netanyahu's assertion that it was al-Husseini who gave Hitler the idea to exterminate Jews is an outrageous lie, although there might be some truth to the claim that al-Husseini cut off a potential escape route for them, knowing they would be killed.

I wonder if the Zionists, and David Ben-Gurion in particular, knew it, in 1948, or knew about it in relation to Amin al-Husseini in particular and/or knew about his dealings with the nazis (or indeed the nazi plan to exterminate palestinian Jews in 1942). Not that Ben-Gurion would have needed to know it as an additional motivation or justification, it seems he would not have, since he felt he had enough anyway.

Full official record: What the mufti said to Hitler

The Grand Mufti began by thanking the Fuhrer for the great honor he had bestowed by receiving him. He wished to seize the opportunity to convey to the Fuhrer of the Greater German Reich, admired by the entire Arab world, his thanks of the sympathy which he had always shown for the Arab and especially the Palestinian cause, and to which he had given clear expression in his public speeches.

The Arab countries were firmly convinced that Germany would win the war and that the Arab cause would then prosper. The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends because they had the same enemies as had Germany, namely the English, the Jews and the Communists. Therefore they were prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in the war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion.

<more about the proposed Arab Legion>

In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and unity of Palestine, Syria and Iraq. They had the fullest confidence in the Fuhrer and looked to his hand for the balm on their wounds, which had been inflicted upon them by the enemies of Germany.

He sounds more anti-Zionism and anti-British Rule than anti-Jewish in his conversation with Hitler. Perhaps his anti-Jewish side came out in less formal circumstances. Or perhaps he saw no difference between anti-Zionism and being anti-Jewish because he thought of all Jews as enemies for both religious and nationalist reasons.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

None of that is Jewish persecution.

It is the Israelis that have persecuted the Palestinians. Denied them the right of free travel and the right of self defense and infringed on many other rights.

No Palestinian ever denied a Jew the right of self defense or the right to have an airport or Mediteranian port.

Put your brain in gear and try again. I gave you a list of things from before the creation of Israel.

And since there is a de-facto state of war between Israel and Gaza a blockade is perfectly legal.

None of that is Jewish oppression.

It is not a powerful government oppressing every Jew in the area for every second of their lives.

There is a de-facto state of oppression.

If there is a state of war then anything the Palestinians do is totally justified.

Quit being a fanatic. I'm still talking about events before the creation of Israel. You can't blame Israel for them!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think it's a mistake to try to view the situation in black-and-white terms, or to divorce it from its historical context. I also think it's a mistake to conflate anti-Israel or anti-Zionist opinions with anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic opinions. It can be hard sometimes to separate them, but they're not the same things.

While they are definitely not the same things in the real world anti-Zionist opinions are very likely a cover for anti-Semitic opinions.

Palestinian Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, etc. lived peacefully side by side in Palestine for centuries.

Because the non-Muslims were second class citizens and tolerated the occasional abuse that came along with that. Things blew up when they refused to accept being second-class citizens. Your position is like blaming blacks for opposing slavery.

- - - Updated - - -

An interesting 2004 paper (written jointly by a Jewish Israeli academic and an Arab Israeli academic) on the possibility of granting Palestinians Right of Return:

https://www.zochrot.org/uploads/uplo...ab7dc5623d.pdf

I doubt it will be implemented, but imo there is a lot that could be said in favour of it. As far as I could tell, reading through it fairly quickly, it may even have implied a preference for a one-state (people living together) solution over a two-state (segregated) solution and again, I think there is a lot that could be said in favour of that too, imo.

It's a piece of shit.

I'm sure it comes as no surprise that I think it's very well thought out approach to reconciliation. I agree with everything in it.

It's a formula for a second Holocaust. You want that?

 

[Derec]

Flag of Palestine from 1939, before PLO appropriated that term.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Perhaps the most prominent, relaistic and well-known attempt at a peacful solution was The Geneva Agreement of 2003:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Initiative_(2003)

As with the Arab "Peace" Initiative, demographic victory to the Palestinians and thus the extirpation of the Jews. Doesn't sound very peaceful to me.

There was also the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative

With the Jews extirpated there would be peace there. (But most likely even more violence elsewhere.) You have to look carefully (they hide it as well as they can--you won't find any actual mention of it) but the Arab "Peace" Initiative includes the right of return and thus gives the Palestinians a demographic victory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When I was growing up here, it was virtually unthinkable that there would ever be peace and reconciliation. In some ways now it seems as if nearly everyone was unduly pessimistic, but at the time it's true that the issues seemed unsolvable and intractable and that endless conflict was almost inevitable. Possibly the same pertained in other places, such as South Africa, or during The Cold War. Possibly some people think this today about Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism. To me, right now, the problems in Israel and the region do seem somewhat intractable. I can't honestly see a road out of them. But I bet there is one nonetheless, even if it may be a very long and bumpy one.

You have peace because there isn't a flow of money funding the fighting anymore.

 

[Arctish]

While they are definitely not the same things in the real world anti-Zionist opinions are very likely a cover for anti-Semitic opinions.

Because the non-Muslims were second class citizens and tolerated the occasional abuse that came along with that. Things blew up when they refused to accept being second-class citizens. Your position is like blaming blacks for opposing slavery.

Support your claim that it was the Palestinian Jews refusing to be 'second-class citizens' in the Ottoman Empire that caused things to blow up.

And enough already with the slave rebellion nonsense. The Palestinian Jews weren't enslaved by their non-Jewish neighbors. They weren't enslaved by the Ottoman Turks, either. I know it sounds dramatic and noble and probably brings a tear to the eyes of all True Zionists to think how those plucky, outnumbered Jewish slaves rebelled against those nasty Turks, but it's bullshit.

 

[Arctish]

Flag of Palestine from 1939, before PLO appropriated that term.

Interesting bit of history behind that flag. Thanks for posing it.

Flag of Mandatory Palestine

The use of Zionist or Hebrew flags was common in the Yishuv, as the body of Jewish residents in Palestine was known before the establishment of the State of Israel, and such flags were often flown by such Yishuv institutions as The Jewish Agency or the Histadrut. However, the Yishuv constituted only one of the country's main ethnic communities - the other such community, the Palestinian Arabs, being opposed to the Zionist movement and to this movement's flag(s). Thus, Hebrew flags were never recognized or given an official status by the British authorities, which throughout the vicittudes of their Palestine policy always asserted an impartiality as between Jews and Arabs - the only official Flag of Palestine being the Union Jack and its derivatives, as noted above.

Still, the French dictionary Le Petit Larousse Illustré contained a world flag section which, from 1924 to 1939, showed the flag of Palestine as a yellow Star of David on a Blue and White background.[6] It is unknown on which basis Le Petit Larousse Illustré chose this flag as representing Palestine. While what would become after 1948 the Flag of Israel also includes the Star of David and a Blue and White background, these elements are arranged in a completely different way.

 

[untermensche]

None of that is Jewish oppression.

It is not a powerful government oppressing every Jew in the area for every second of their lives.

There is a de-facto state of oppression.

If there is a state of war then anything the Palestinians do is totally justified.

Quit being a fanatic. I'm still talking about events before the creation of Israel. You can't blame Israel for them!

I blame Israel for an oppression that began in 1973 and has lasted until this day.

And with the oppression and the many many violent acts against Palestinians there has been a constant theft of land.

And that is the key to understanding what is going on.

The constant theft tells us why the oppression goes on and on.

It tells the adults that is.

 

[untermensche]

Flag of Palestine from 1939, before PLO appropriated that term.

Interesting bit of history behind that flag. Thanks for posing it.

Flag of Mandatory Palestine

The use of Zionist or Hebrew flags was common in the Yishuv, as the body of Jewish residents in Palestine was known before the establishment of the State of Israel, and such flags were often flown by such Yishuv institutions as The Jewish Agency or the Histadrut. However, the Yishuv constituted only one of the country's main ethnic communities - the other such community, the Palestinian Arabs, being opposed to the Zionist movement and to this movement's flag(s). Thus, Hebrew flags were never recognized or given an official status by the British authorities, which throughout the vicittudes of their Palestine policy always asserted an impartiality as between Jews and Arabs - the only official Flag of Palestine being the Union Jack and its derivatives, as noted above.

Still, the French dictionary Le Petit Larousse Illustré contained a world flag section which, from 1924 to 1939, showed the flag of Palestine as a yellow Star of David on a Blue and White background.[6] It is unknown on which basis Le Petit Larousse Illustré chose this flag as representing Palestine. While what would become after 1948 the Flag of Israel also includes the Star of David and a Blue and White background, these elements are arranged in a completely different way.

No matter what some publisher thought in 1939 how the matter worked out with the UN was a fair division of lands between the Jews and the Palestinians.

The only way Israel legitimately exists is with a fair distribution of land with the Palestinians.

The only legitimate map of Israel is the 1967 map.

There have been no official changes made to that map at the UN.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

While they are definitely not the same things in the real world anti-Zionist opinions are very likely a cover for anti-Semitic opinions.

Because the non-Muslims were second class citizens and tolerated the occasional abuse that came along with that. Things blew up when they refused to accept being second-class citizens. Your position is like blaming blacks for opposing slavery.

Support your claim that it was the Palestinian Jews refusing to be 'second-class citizens' in the Ottoman Empire that caused things to blow up.

And enough already with the slave rebellion nonsense. The Palestinian Jews weren't enslaved by their non-Jewish neighbors. They weren't enslaved by the Ottoman Turks, either. I know it sounds dramatic and noble and probably brings a tear to the eyes of all True Zionists to think how those plucky, outnumbered Jewish slaves rebelled against those nasty Turks, but it's bullshit.

You're blaming the Jews for not wanting to be oppressed.

Thinking about it, though, slavery is the wrong model. Rather, look at what happened to uppity blacks in the Jim Crow era.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

None of that is Jewish oppression.

It is not a powerful government oppressing every Jew in the area for every second of their lives.

There is a de-facto state of oppression.

If there is a state of war then anything the Palestinians do is totally justified.

Quit being a fanatic. I'm still talking about events before the creation of Israel. You can't blame Israel for them!

I blame Israel for an oppression that began in 1973 and has lasted until this day.

And with the oppression and the many many violent acts against Palestinians there has been a constant theft of land.

And that is the key to understanding what is going on.

The constant theft tells us why the oppression goes on and on.

It tells the adults that is.

1973?? Your knowledge of history is shit.

What I'm talking about is Arab oppression of Jews that was long before 1973. Before 1948, even.

 

[Arctish]

While they are definitely not the same things in the real world anti-Zionist opinions are very likely a cover for anti-Semitic opinions.

Because the non-Muslims were second class citizens and tolerated the occasional abuse that came along with that. Things blew up when they refused to accept being second-class citizens. Your position is like blaming blacks for opposing slavery.

Support your claim that it was the Palestinian Jews refusing to be 'second-class citizens' in the Ottoman Empire that caused things to blow up.

And enough already with the slave rebellion nonsense. The Palestinian Jews weren't enslaved by their non-Jewish neighbors. They weren't enslaved by the Ottoman Turks, either. I know it sounds dramatic and noble and probably brings a tear to the eyes of all True Zionists to think how those plucky, outnumbered Jewish slaves rebelled against those nasty Turks, but it's bullshit.

You're blaming the Jews for not wanting to be oppressed.

Thinking about it, though, slavery is the wrong model. Rather, look at what happened to uppity blacks in the Jim Crow era.

You are refusing to support your argument with evidence and references to actual historical events.

Palestinian Jews were not enslaved by the Ottoman Turks or their neighbors in Palestine. They were not oppressed an any way other than having to pay an extra tax (and that's a pretty paltry example of oppression). In every other way they were the equals of every other citizen of the Empire, and as you know, they enjoyed a great deal of favor from several of the Sultans. They were not significant contributors to the Zionist Movement. In fact, I'm having a hard time finding Palestinian Jews in any sort of role in the Jewish Agency or paramilitary outfits like the Irgun and Haganah.

That whole story about things falling apart because Palestinian Jews staged a slave rebellion and threw off their oppressors is bullshit. You are preaching unsupported counterfactual dogma, and you know it. It was the arrival of thousands of European Zionists that stirred tings up, especially when the Europeans made it clear they were going to expel non-Jews from the nation they intended to create in a region where 90% of the population wasn't Jewish.

 

[untermensche]

I blame Israel for an oppression that began in 1973 and has lasted until this day.

And with the oppression and the many many violent acts against Palestinians there has been a constant theft of land.

And that is the key to understanding what is going on.

The constant theft tells us why the oppression goes on and on.

It tells the adults that is.

1973?? Your knowledge of history is shit.

What I'm talking about is Arab oppression of Jews that was long before 1973. Before 1948, even.

Israel was saved from destruction in 1973 by a massive transfer of arms from the US.

And in that year the modern occupation begins and lasts until this day.

With constant theft of land.

Which is how we know for certain what the oppression is all about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're blaming the Jews for not wanting to be oppressed.

Thinking about it, though, slavery is the wrong model. Rather, look at what happened to uppity blacks in the Jim Crow era.

You are refusing to support your argument with evidence and references to actual historical events.

Palestinian Jews were not enslaved by the Ottoman Turks or their neighbors in Palestine. They were not oppressed an any way other than having to pay an extra tax (and that's a pretty paltry example of oppression). In every other way they were the equals of every other citizen of the Empire, and as you know, they enjoyed a great deal of favor from several of the Sultans. They were not significant contributors to the Zionist Movement. In fact, I'm having a hard time finding Palestinian Jews in any sort of role in the Jewish Agency or paramilitary outfits like the Irgun and Haganah.

As I said, slavery was the wrong model, it should be Jim Crow. Pretending it was just an extra tax doesn't make it so.

That whole story about things falling apart because Palestinian Jews staged a slave rebellion and threw off their oppressors is bullshit. You are preaching unsupported counterfactual dogma, and you know it. It was the arrival of thousands of European Zionists that stirred tings up, especially when the Europeans made it clear they were going to expel non-Jews from the nation they intended to create in a region where 90% of the population wasn't Jewish.

It doesn't matter that it was European Jews that provided the force needed to throw off the oppression, all that matters is it was thrown off.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I blame Israel for an oppression that began in 1973 and has lasted until this day.

And with the oppression and the many many violent acts against Palestinians there has been a constant theft of land.

And that is the key to understanding what is going on.

The constant theft tells us why the oppression goes on and on.

It tells the adults that is.

1973?? Your knowledge of history is shit.

What I'm talking about is Arab oppression of Jews that was long before 1973. Before 1948, even.

Israel was saved from destruction in 1973 by a massive transfer of arms from the US.

And in that year the modern occupation begins and lasts until this day.

With constant theft of land.

Which is how we know for certain what the oppression is all about.

You're obsessed with things which are irrelevant.

1) Israel would have survived 1973 without our intervention--it's just they would have gone nuclear and that could have turned into WWIII. That's why we intervened.

2) It was 1967 that changed the borders, not 1973. Thus your obsession with 1973 has nothing to do with the situation.

3) You are still ignoring the fact that I'm talking about oppression of the Jews before Israel ever existed.

 

[untermensche]

Israel was saved from destruction in 1973 by a massive transfer of arms from the US.

And in that year the modern occupation begins and lasts until this day.

With constant theft of land.

Which is how we know for certain what the oppression is all about.

You're obsessed with things which are irrelevant.

1) Israel would have survived 1973 without our intervention--it's just they would have gone nuclear and that could have turned into WWIII. That's why we intervened.

Delusion.

And that would not be surviving.