Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 17, 2013

NYT Publishes "Pro-Palestinian Manifesto"

Shortly before Obama's visit to Israel the normally very pro-Zionist New York Times publishes a long-read piece describing the life of Palestinians who try to peacefully resist the Israeli occupation. The headline is Is This Where the Third Intifada Will Start?. Haaretz calls the piece a "pro-Palestinian manifesto". Well, any realistic and factual description of Israel's occupation is indeed a "pro-Palestinian manifesto". What else does Haaretz think could it be?

The author of the piece is Ben Ehrenreich, who earlier pointed out that Zionism is the problem that rejects peace with the Arabs. Zionismus is an ideology that is based on racial discrimination. It is thereby, like antisemitism, a form of racism and racism is hardly ever a base of peace.

This week's Economist also takes a longer look at the Palestinian-Israeli situation and finds a bleak future for the "Jewish state".

I do not agree with the conclusions of either piece but recommend to read both.

Are these pieces part of a concerted Obama campaign to push for some change of opinion, if not in Israel then at least in the Anglo-sphere?

Posted by b on March 17, 2013 at 18:33 UTC | Permalink


As'ad AbuKhalil on the Economist piece:

On the future of "Israel"

I wish to recommend the long article on the future of "Israel" in the Economist. I think it raises points rarely raised in Western media. No, it does not mean that I agree with everything in the article but I agree with the tone regarding the bleak future of the terrorist state.

Posted by: Frank | Mar 17 2013 18:55 utc | 1

Let every Jew declare "I am an ex-Jew. I will throw in my lot with the rest of humanity and not The Vanity State." Problem solved.

Posted by: ruralito | Mar 17 2013 19:35 utc | 2

Zionismus is an ideology that is based on racial discrimination. It is thereby, like antisemitism, a form of racism and racism is hardly ever a base of peace......Are these pieces part of a concerted Obama campaign to push for some change of opinion

Yet Obama is due to lay a wreath at the tomb of the founder of Zionism!

Posted by: FB Ali | Mar 18 2013 2:08 utc | 3

Thanks b, good articles. I'm shocked the NYT actually published the Ehrenreich piece. How anyone can still believe in a just and kind God, given the plight of the Palestinians, is beyond me.

This from the Economist, seems operative, given the talk about a one state solution.

"Israel, as Mr Netanyahu must know, cannot remain both democratic and Jewish if it continues to control several million Palestinians without granting them full political rights."

Not only Netanyahu, but most of the world should also know this, so IMO,the two state solution is the only viable option. Obama could push this issue, by holding the 3 billion in aid, the US doles out yearly, as a bargaining chip. But, that will never happen. The Kabuki will continue.

Posted by: ben | Mar 18 2013 4:07 utc | 4

Hating Palestinians makes one an anti-semite as well.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 18 2013 5:19 utc | 5

Q: "Israel, as Mr Netanyahu must know, cannot remain both democratic and Jewish if it continues to control several million Palestinians without granting them full political rights."

R: Hence all those efforts to destroy whatever remnants are left. Cut it up, carve it up and make life for Palestinians so miserable in that Apartheid State, that they'll leave on their own account [unfortunately those 'towelheads' are way more resilient than counted upon].

People ought to think at what they're really looking at when they leave Yad Vashem.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 18 2013 5:24 utc | 6

I think it's safe to say the entire western establishment is utter hypocritical when it comes to Palestine and more over, Israel.

"More bad news emerged from Israel in recent weeks. It's not that good news has the habit of being associated with Israel, its military occupation, institutionalized discrimination and mistreatment of Palestinians, but the emerging consensus that Israel is heading to an irrevocably perilous course is now crossing from the realm of political analysts over to international organizations previously lenient in the face of Israel's dismissal of international law." - Asia Times Online.

Btw, when Joan Rivers said, "The last time a German looked so hot was when they were pushing Jews into the ovens." did anyone stand up for the current German population?

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 18 2013 6:39 utc | 7

Sharon made the declaration that Israel cannot long remain democratic and Jewish. Appropriately, both Sharon and the peace process fester in a coma. I wish the Israelis bore the bedsores that the Palestinians do.

Posted by: scottindallas | Mar 18 2013 12:41 utc | 8

@ ben 4
unforunately the two state solution is also not workable as the way the isrealis have allowed settlers to take over palestinian land and isreali only roads criscrossing it.

Posted by: heath | Mar 18 2013 12:50 utc | 9

"Are these pieces part of a concerted Obama campaign to push for some change of opinion, if not in Israel then at least in the Anglo-sphere?"
It sure looks like it.
The Hagel nomination was an indication that Obama is getting as tired as everyone else on the planet with "Israel's" gloating - and psychotic humour, the best example of which is their phonetic joke, the Piece Process.

That little joke backfired as a result of "Israel's" Iran Talk when numerous commentators on the www pointed out the idiocy of a state(let) which had set out to wipe Palestine off the map whining about fear of being wiped off the map itself.

I still think Hagel's nomination was an ambush. And the the Lobby and its Senate satraps fell for it hook, line and sinker and talked more about "Israel" than the US of A.

The Sun is setting on the Kookie Little Paradise/Parasite.
Say goodnight, Bibi. You were just too greedy and stupid.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 18 2013 13:07 utc | 10

"Are these pieces part of a concerted Obama campaign to push for some change of opinion, if not in Israel then at least in the Anglo-sphere?"

Gosh, that would almost be a reasonable question if there was the slightest indication or evidence the Obama administration had something to do with those articles.
If there's one thing I can't see Obama doing it's racheting UP the discussion over the I-P issues. But of course, you may have sources of information far beyond those known to mortal men, or even a Kosher ungulate (Not that all ungulates aren't Kosher, of course, I'm no mayvhen. I just know I have split hooves (and don't think they don't hurt!) and fallen arches, so I'm in, as easy as uno, dose, tref

Posted by: Mooser | Mar 18 2013 16:47 utc | 11

@ 9: You're probably right, unfortunately.

Posted by: ben | Mar 18 2013 17:08 utc | 12

The American media seems to be learning from Al Jazeera's brilliant deception of the Arab world. Al Jazeera understood the mass deception formula for Muslims. They pretended to be pro-Palestinian.
After all, you can't win over Arab or Muslim public opinion without at least pretending to sympathize with the Palestinian cause.

Well, that was the bait for the Arab spring. The Arab viewers ate it up. It reminded me of how the born again Christians love Fox News.
It was brilliant. The masses can always be fooled.

Posted by: HIlmi Hakim | Mar 18 2013 21:29 utc | 13

@ Mooser [#11]

Hill Whisperer.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 18 2013 22:49 utc | 14

@ HIlmi Hakim [#13],

Over a decade ago I believed AlJazeera to be a breath of fresh air in the global Media world. That dream came crashing down when they published a cartoon portraying the two WTC [1 + 2] towers as 2 gas dispensers in a gas station, only to have it shredded the moment W picked up the phone to complain about it.

The level of excrement saturated BS portraying itself as 'news' is staggering [for way too long now]. Good luck in finding those nuggets of truth [and if you find one -or more-, please share it/them].

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 18 2013 23:06 utc | 15

here's a solution for both problems.

Posted by: amspirnational | Mar 19 2013 0:00 utc | 16

I think on Mondoweiss they wrote that the NYT piece was delayed for months. Is this consistent with it being "part of a concerted Obama campaign to push for some change of opinion"?

Posted by: Edward | Mar 19 2013 0:30 utc | 17

amspirnational - 16

"here's a solution for both problems."

If you mean this piece:

Save Sergeant Pshenichnikov

I agree.

Posted by: вот так | Mar 19 2013 1:26 utc | 18

@amspirnational 16

that makes sense to me and most others here however on the ground in the holy land, you can't have a one man one vote system and a Jewish state. The only reason I can think off that that story was in the Times was as warning that America, while it can look the other way on a lot of things, can't stomach an apartheid state.

Posted by: heath | Mar 19 2013 1:29 utc | 19

"... America, while it can look the other way on a lot of things, can't stomach an apartheid state."

Are you sure? It stomached Jim Crow and Reservations for a long time. And it supported South Africa with money, arms and diplomatic cover for years. And as Israel has become increasingly racist, support from the US has increased.
The truth is that America virtually invented Apartheid which is a lot more American than the sugared, cinnamon concoction they call apple pie.

Posted by: bevin | Mar 19 2013 1:35 utc | 20

@ bevin [#20],

If you want to conquer the world or be one of its top dogs you've got to be ruthless, regardless whether you're Genghis Khan, Kim Cartra$$ian or Madonna. You've got to give it your soul, your all...

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 19 2013 1:58 utc | 21

Are these pieces part of a concerted Obama campaign to push for some change of opinion, if not in Israel then at least in the Anglo-sphere?

b I do not think so. What we are seeing is that many liberal Zionist (NYT the case in point) are beginning to worry that Israel is headed over a cliff. They want the US to induce Israel to act rationally. Unfortunately for them it is too late. Israel will do what it wants to do. The Obama admin has been seriously burned trying to move the two state solution forward and right now they have given up. The lobby inside the US has succeeded in preventing the US to pressure Israel. It is up to them to find a solution. Obama is right to get out of the way. It is time to just let Israel keep on digging deeper into that hole and as they go in deeper and deeper the American Zionist movement can rejoice in their "victory".

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 19 2013 6:20 utc | 22

"Getting out of the way" would mean ceasing the annual delivery of 3 billion dollars of weaponry and economic aid.

Until that happens, the U.S. remains the main aidor and abettor.

Posted by: China_hand2 | Mar 19 2013 7:40 utc | 23

“The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability,” the Pentagon said in a statement. The deal is expected to sail through formal approval by legislators.

The Pentagon has approved a deal to supply 6,900 precision bomb kits to replenish Israel’s weapons stockpiles, diminished by the recent war against Hamas in Gaza. 10,000 explosive charges are also part of the contract. Of these, 3,450 are one ton bombs, 1725 bombs weighing 250 kilograms with the rest being BLU-109 and GBU-39 bunker busters. LINK

Ahh, the attack in order to defend ploy. Pretty darn smart...

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Mar 19 2013 10:56 utc | 24

Good segment on Democracy Now! this morning about how the US role in "brokering" a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is more like making sure any agreement can be "broken" to Israel's ends.

Posted by: jawbone | Mar 19 2013 16:11 utc | 25

Shlomo Sand is right: Gene study settles debate over origin of European Jews

PARIS — Jews of European origin are a mix of ancestries, with many hailing from tribes in the Caucasus who converted to Judaism and created an empire that lasted half a millennium, according to a gene study.

The investigation, its author says, should settle a debate that has been roiling for more than two centuries.

Jews of European descent, often called Ashkenazis, account for some 90 percent of the more than 13 million Jews in the world today.
a study published in the British journal Genome Biology and Evolution, compares the genomes of 1,287 unrelated individuals who hail from eight Jewish and 74 non-Jewish populations.

Geneticist Eran Elhaik of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, trawled through this small mountain of data in search of single changes in the DNA code that are linked to a group's geographical origins.

Such telltales have been used in past research to delve into the origins of the Basque people and the pygmy people of central Africa.

Among European Jews, Elhaik found ancestral signatures that pointed clearly to the Caucasus and also, but to a smaller degree, the Middle East.

The results, said Elhaik, give sound backing for the rival theory -- the "Khazarian Hypothesis."

Under this concept, eastern European Jews descended from the Khazars, a hotchpotch of Turkic clans that settled the Caucasus in the early centuries AD and, influenced by Jews from Palestine, converted to Judaism in the 8th century.

The Judeo-Khazars built a flourishing empire, drawing in Jews from Mesopotamia and imperial Byzantium.

They became so successful that they sent offshoots into Hungary and Romania, planting the seeds of a great diaspora.

But Khazaria collapsed in the 13th century when it was attacked by the Mongols and became weakened by outbreaks of the Black Death.

The Judeo-Khazars fled westwards, settling in the rising Polish Kingdom and in Hungary, where their skills in finance, economics and politics were in demand, and eventually spread to central and western Europe, according to the "Khazarian Hypothesis."

"We conclude that the genome of European Jews is a tapestry of ancient populations including Judaised Khazars, Greco-Roman Jews, Mesopotamian Jews and Judeans," says Elhaik.

Posted by: b | Mar 19 2013 18:16 utc | 26

Listen b. this is a joke not science ...

In fact, “There is no genetic basis for race,” says Fullwiley, who has studied the ethical, legal, and social implications of the human genome project with sociologist Troy Duster at UC, Berkeley. She sometimes quotes Richard Lewontin, now professor of biology and Agassiz professor of zoology emeritus, who said much the same thing in 1972, when he discovered that of all human genetic variation (which we now know to be just 0.1 percent of all genetic material), 85 percent occurs within geographically distinct groups, while 15 percent or less occurs between them. The issue today, Fullwiley says, is that many scientists are mining that 15 percent in search of human differences by continent.

Last October, Fullwiley and colleagues from 14 academic institutions around the country articulated some of their concerns about ancestry testing in Science magazine. More than half a million people have paid between $100 and $900 for such tests, and for some—those seeking to establish membership in a Native American tribe poised to open a lucrative casino, for example—the stakes can be high. Unfortunately, the Science authors noted, the tests have serious limitations.

Most tests focus on just two types of DNA: the paternally inherited Y sex chromosome that only men carry, and mitochondrial DNA, which is passed exclusively from mothers to their children. Scientists favor these markers with good reason: because only one parent can pass them to offspring, they are not subject to recombination, the reshuffling of genetic data that normally occurs in each generation. But they represent less than 1 percent of a subject’s DNA, and each tells about only one ancestor per generation. Two generations back, a customer might learn about one of four grandparents; three generations back, about one of eight great-grandparents; and by 10 generations back (roughly 250 years ago), such genetic tests reference just one of the 1,024 ancestors in that generation. It doesn’t take long to reach the point when, mathematically, a person’s ancestors start to outnumber the sum total of all people who have ever lived.

Nor can genetic tests verify a person’s race or ethnicity. Genes that affect skin pigmentation or blood proteins involved in malarial resistance, the authors note, may not measure direct and unique ancestry (for example, a founder effect), but reflect instead an evolutionary response to “shared environmental exposures.” Furthermore, the tests are based on comparisons to databases of DNA from living populations, and are therefore vulnerable to “systematic bias” because of “incomplete geographic sampling” or the fact that “present-day patterns of residence are rarely identical to what existed in the past.” One testing company even uses an underlying model that “reinforces the archaic racial view that four discrete ‘parental’ populations (Africans, Europeans, East Asians, and Native Americans) existed in the past” even though “there is little evidence that four biologically discrete groups of humans ever existed….”

Posted by: somebody | Mar 19 2013 19:53 utc | 27

b - might account for the anti-semetism then, bunchs of khazaian Jews turning up with the Black Death ;)

Posted by: heath | Mar 20 2013 2:53 utc | 28

The comments to this entry are closed.