One of the more gruesome massacres of Native Americans/ Indians in my country of birth was that of Methodist preacher and Col. of volunteers John Chivington of Hinono'eino/ Arapaho and Tsistsistas/ Cheyenne at Sand Creek, Colorado in November 1864. His comment about murdering women and children at the time was "nits make lice."
So here's Benny Morris, who once bemoaned that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine wasn't thorough enough to achieve the dream of Zionists like the Irgun/EZL or LEHI/Stern gang or for that matter, the Haganah back in 1948, basically stating that the Palestinians of the Gaza strip should share the fate of Hamas terrorists or political operatives or what-have-you. Some of the reports of massacres at hospitals and other sites in the Gaza strip indicate that men who worked for public works, government functions, etc. were all killed as "Hamas." The Hamas movement has run the place since they overturned the Fatah/Israeli/US coup to prevent Hamas taking the place of the PA through elections, and so for the gravest sin of disobedience, the place has been under siege for 17 years. If Gazans hadn't developed Dubai or the "Singapore of the Middle East" under the restraints and strictures of the occupying IDF and secret police, well then, it's just because Hamas was more committed to making rockets to retaliate for various sundry "mowings of the lawn" than development of the ghetto, right? Quibble delusionally over every demonstrable fact of the unfolding slaughter: "Whaddya mean starvation?" The lawn was never supposed to mow back.
The slippery slope of terrorist logic has been that most Israeli adults are reservists. So if the society is a Zionist Sparta, then attack the soldiers and Wehrbauer in uniform or in mufti. And, the IDF and police and secret police "retaliate" with overwhelming force and state terrorism for the violent reactions that dispossession and brutality elicited. Finally, then cue the manichaeism of "children of light" versus "children of darkness." Add Benny Morris' utterances to the squalid and vile inventory of apologia for mass murder, wanton destruction, hateful invective, genocide.
Thing is: Benny Morris' article pretty much invokes all of the genocides and ethnic cleansing in Turkey and Anatolia but studiously ignores the influence it had on Zionist leaders of various persuasions about "population transfer." Recall that the "exchange" of Muslims in the Balkans and Pontic Greeks and others driven out of Anatolia during the Greek-Turkish War, aka Turkish War of Independence was ratified internationally with the Treaty of Lausanne. Morris wants the same deal for Israel.
Basically, this article about Turkish leaders' hypocrisy is to persuade readership that genocide is simply the stuff of ethnic nationalism, "everybody does it," and that the Middle East is one tough neighborhood, and so Israel's "gotta do what its gotta do..." In "self defense" of course! It also feeds into the "irredeemably intolerant" Muslim world that Morris has now invoked and rehearsed to dismiss his former conclusion that ethnic intolerance and settler colonialism were baked into Zionism from the outset. This is the switch that Norman Finkelstein critiqued him for, and challenged him to demonstrate any further evidence, records, or documents to adduce his change of analysis, or else simply ignore showing us all the goods and demonstrate he's just a shill and propagandist. Morris chose the latter.
How would you answer the question that while between 1948 and 1967 the Palestinians were under Jordanian rule, why did they not demand their independence during this period.
Didn't they? I have it that there was considerable tension what with Palestinian refugees driven out in '48 to the West Bank, and people from the West Bank moving into Trans-Jordan/Jordan. Post 1950 only the UK, Pakistan and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan recognized Jordanian annexation. Perhaps you might recall the Hashemite Kingdom post-1967 driving out the PLO in 1970? I'm no expert certainly. What's your take?
Please help me understand. Ive listened to your Triggernometry interview twice. I listened to you on Candace Owens as you suggested. Ive seen other clips. You say you were forged through your parents experiences and attitudes to one extent or another and you only care about truth and justice.
To them being a "traitor" was the worst thing you could be (referring to critics of Stalin). I know you're not dumb but I cant understand how the broader context (Israel's genocidal enemies) seems to be absent from your calculus - maybe you simply dont care anymore because in your mind everything Israel has done supersedes it.
You said October 7 "warmed every fibre of your soul" which you apparently now claim to regret saying. Please explain to me how YOU are NOT the most vile TRAITOR imaginable. You think your parents would be proud of you? I do not sir. You give aid and comfort to the enemy and readily justify their actions. You applaud the death of your own people! You are guilty of your own sin of "intellectualising" what happened that day in my view with your condemnation of it rather milquetoast at best.
I have tried to give you a fair hearing. I wanted to hear both sides. I understand that Israel has likely done far more harm than I have been aware of. But again you seem to treat it like it happens in a vacuum when you surely know the bitter reality of that. Nothing good is coming of any of this. But the moral equivalency card is the weakest of all cards - Sam Harris has spoken very eloquently about this.
Although Finkelstein never puts it plainly into words, his critique of the Zionist movement in all of its manifestations, his zealous hunt for combative quotes from its figureheads no matter how dovish or at least conciliatory they were in diplomacy, and the notable absence of any significant unqualified criticism of Israel's middle east opponents makes his position plain to see: he opposes the existence of an independent state of Israel in the former British Mandate completely. He understands that practically speaking it won't be dislodged, but utterly detests its existence on principle or in theory as an unforgivable historical crime against the people who were displaced.
This is an understandable point of view under the generally left-wing template of nativist rights. He was a self-admitted Maoist in his youth. What I most object to is his dissimulation that he approaches the conflict from the moral standpoint of international law. This is patently untrue in his selective omissions or minimizations on various aspects, such as UN Resolution 242, the Goldstone report on Operation Cast Lead, and most recently on the UN Commission of Inquiry's accusation of Hamas' war crimes.
Thankyou for this erudite comment..! It seems a good explanation. If true it still seems baffling and contradictory in many ways. Nativist rights? Jews have been there for quite some time also no?!!
Either way, as a grandchild of Holocaust survivors myself i still cannot get my head around that position (rejecting Israel’s legitimacy I guess) holding greater weight in his mind than the survival of the Jewish people - in the historical context of that time at least.
I know there are many Jews who seem to sympathise with his view or at least have at least as much (if not more!) compassion for Gazans and other collateral victims.
Personally that view is viscerally anathema to me (not saying I’m not sympathetic to the suffering of innocents) just the perverse disloyalty of it, and you have to turn a very blind eye indeed to the motivations and actions of Israel’s enemies to find yourself sharing common ground with them.
In short, I’ve tried to understand their position, but thus far am completely unmoved by any of their arguments.
Finkelstein does not appear to believe he is responsible for using his scholarly abilities (and let's be frank he is erudite) to propose either an alternate answer to the Jewish Question from a historical point of view, or a practical response to the reasonable security concerns a Jewish state would have even under the pre-1967 borders - even if he truly promoted this partition of the Palestine mandate, which his writings show no consistent and clear support for.
I can only conclude from this absence of any clear suggestion that a Jewish state is legitimate that he'd be fine if the Diaspora were simply to have continued. Maybe this isn't correct of me, but it's certainly not an unfair assumption on my part given his lack of clearly defining any point in history where he thought Zionism was on the right track, or any Zionist leader he thought had a moral approach.
In an interview he gave some years ago, he explained that his parents were strong supporters of the Soviet Union despite living and working in the USA, because they felt the Jews owed their liberation and the end of WW2 more to the Russian counter-invasion of Europe than the American theater. Recall, it was the Red Army who liberated Auschwitz and many eastern European camps.
He's a fascinating guy, and gives every Jew a lot to think about, in my opinion. But don't let his erudition make you think he doesn't have biases.
Thanks again... The Hebdo article was indeed interesting... I think his conclusion was wholly wrong though - that the muslim reaction to the cartoon was from being "desperate and despised", as I understand it, it was all because they couldnt abide any depictions of Muhammad as being blasphemy! So he seems to have launched from a false premise. Anyway, as you say, it is good to hear both sides, and be aware of that which our own biases may blind us to, for sure, I just havent been swayed in this case...
And every time I read more about Oct 7 and what Hamas did, and what the goals are of them and Hezbollah, my disgust intensifies, and my resolve only strengthens...
One of the more gruesome massacres of Native Americans/ Indians in my country of birth was that of Methodist preacher and Col. of volunteers John Chivington of Hinono'eino/ Arapaho and Tsistsistas/ Cheyenne at Sand Creek, Colorado in November 1864. His comment about murdering women and children at the time was "nits make lice."
So here's Benny Morris, who once bemoaned that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine wasn't thorough enough to achieve the dream of Zionists like the Irgun/EZL or LEHI/Stern gang or for that matter, the Haganah back in 1948, basically stating that the Palestinians of the Gaza strip should share the fate of Hamas terrorists or political operatives or what-have-you. Some of the reports of massacres at hospitals and other sites in the Gaza strip indicate that men who worked for public works, government functions, etc. were all killed as "Hamas." The Hamas movement has run the place since they overturned the Fatah/Israeli/US coup to prevent Hamas taking the place of the PA through elections, and so for the gravest sin of disobedience, the place has been under siege for 17 years. If Gazans hadn't developed Dubai or the "Singapore of the Middle East" under the restraints and strictures of the occupying IDF and secret police, well then, it's just because Hamas was more committed to making rockets to retaliate for various sundry "mowings of the lawn" than development of the ghetto, right? Quibble delusionally over every demonstrable fact of the unfolding slaughter: "Whaddya mean starvation?" The lawn was never supposed to mow back.
The slippery slope of terrorist logic has been that most Israeli adults are reservists. So if the society is a Zionist Sparta, then attack the soldiers and Wehrbauer in uniform or in mufti. And, the IDF and police and secret police "retaliate" with overwhelming force and state terrorism for the violent reactions that dispossession and brutality elicited. Finally, then cue the manichaeism of "children of light" versus "children of darkness." Add Benny Morris' utterances to the squalid and vile inventory of apologia for mass murder, wanton destruction, hateful invective, genocide.
Thing is: Benny Morris' article pretty much invokes all of the genocides and ethnic cleansing in Turkey and Anatolia but studiously ignores the influence it had on Zionist leaders of various persuasions about "population transfer." Recall that the "exchange" of Muslims in the Balkans and Pontic Greeks and others driven out of Anatolia during the Greek-Turkish War, aka Turkish War of Independence was ratified internationally with the Treaty of Lausanne. Morris wants the same deal for Israel.
Basically, this article about Turkish leaders' hypocrisy is to persuade readership that genocide is simply the stuff of ethnic nationalism, "everybody does it," and that the Middle East is one tough neighborhood, and so Israel's "gotta do what its gotta do..." In "self defense" of course! It also feeds into the "irredeemably intolerant" Muslim world that Morris has now invoked and rehearsed to dismiss his former conclusion that ethnic intolerance and settler colonialism were baked into Zionism from the outset. This is the switch that Norman Finkelstein critiqued him for, and challenged him to demonstrate any further evidence, records, or documents to adduce his change of analysis, or else simply ignore showing us all the goods and demonstrate he's just a shill and propagandist. Morris chose the latter.
How would you answer the question that while between 1948 and 1967 the Palestinians were under Jordanian rule, why did they not demand their independence during this period.
Didn't they? I have it that there was considerable tension what with Palestinian refugees driven out in '48 to the West Bank, and people from the West Bank moving into Trans-Jordan/Jordan. Post 1950 only the UK, Pakistan and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan recognized Jordanian annexation. Perhaps you might recall the Hashemite Kingdom post-1967 driving out the PLO in 1970? I'm no expert certainly. What's your take?
I wish you’d use paragraphs.
I thought I was the only one - well said
Please help me understand. Ive listened to your Triggernometry interview twice. I listened to you on Candace Owens as you suggested. Ive seen other clips. You say you were forged through your parents experiences and attitudes to one extent or another and you only care about truth and justice.
To them being a "traitor" was the worst thing you could be (referring to critics of Stalin). I know you're not dumb but I cant understand how the broader context (Israel's genocidal enemies) seems to be absent from your calculus - maybe you simply dont care anymore because in your mind everything Israel has done supersedes it.
You said October 7 "warmed every fibre of your soul" which you apparently now claim to regret saying. Please explain to me how YOU are NOT the most vile TRAITOR imaginable. You think your parents would be proud of you? I do not sir. You give aid and comfort to the enemy and readily justify their actions. You applaud the death of your own people! You are guilty of your own sin of "intellectualising" what happened that day in my view with your condemnation of it rather milquetoast at best.
I have tried to give you a fair hearing. I wanted to hear both sides. I understand that Israel has likely done far more harm than I have been aware of. But again you seem to treat it like it happens in a vacuum when you surely know the bitter reality of that. Nothing good is coming of any of this. But the moral equivalency card is the weakest of all cards - Sam Harris has spoken very eloquently about this.
What am I missing here? What say you Professor?
Although Finkelstein never puts it plainly into words, his critique of the Zionist movement in all of its manifestations, his zealous hunt for combative quotes from its figureheads no matter how dovish or at least conciliatory they were in diplomacy, and the notable absence of any significant unqualified criticism of Israel's middle east opponents makes his position plain to see: he opposes the existence of an independent state of Israel in the former British Mandate completely. He understands that practically speaking it won't be dislodged, but utterly detests its existence on principle or in theory as an unforgivable historical crime against the people who were displaced.
This is an understandable point of view under the generally left-wing template of nativist rights. He was a self-admitted Maoist in his youth. What I most object to is his dissimulation that he approaches the conflict from the moral standpoint of international law. This is patently untrue in his selective omissions or minimizations on various aspects, such as UN Resolution 242, the Goldstone report on Operation Cast Lead, and most recently on the UN Commission of Inquiry's accusation of Hamas' war crimes.
Thankyou for this erudite comment..! It seems a good explanation. If true it still seems baffling and contradictory in many ways. Nativist rights? Jews have been there for quite some time also no?!!
Either way, as a grandchild of Holocaust survivors myself i still cannot get my head around that position (rejecting Israel’s legitimacy I guess) holding greater weight in his mind than the survival of the Jewish people - in the historical context of that time at least.
I know there are many Jews who seem to sympathise with his view or at least have at least as much (if not more!) compassion for Gazans and other collateral victims.
Personally that view is viscerally anathema to me (not saying I’m not sympathetic to the suffering of innocents) just the perverse disloyalty of it, and you have to turn a very blind eye indeed to the motivations and actions of Israel’s enemies to find yourself sharing common ground with them.
In short, I’ve tried to understand their position, but thus far am completely unmoved by any of their arguments.
Finkelstein does not appear to believe he is responsible for using his scholarly abilities (and let's be frank he is erudite) to propose either an alternate answer to the Jewish Question from a historical point of view, or a practical response to the reasonable security concerns a Jewish state would have even under the pre-1967 borders - even if he truly promoted this partition of the Palestine mandate, which his writings show no consistent and clear support for.
I can only conclude from this absence of any clear suggestion that a Jewish state is legitimate that he'd be fine if the Diaspora were simply to have continued. Maybe this isn't correct of me, but it's certainly not an unfair assumption on my part given his lack of clearly defining any point in history where he thought Zionism was on the right track, or any Zionist leader he thought had a moral approach.
Be aware that Finkelstein has taken some "interesting" opinions on matters that don't even involve Israel. For example, his relatively warm support for the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/politics/norman-finkelstein-charlie-hebdo-is-sadism-not-satire/82824)
In an interview he gave some years ago, he explained that his parents were strong supporters of the Soviet Union despite living and working in the USA, because they felt the Jews owed their liberation and the end of WW2 more to the Russian counter-invasion of Europe than the American theater. Recall, it was the Red Army who liberated Auschwitz and many eastern European camps.
He's a fascinating guy, and gives every Jew a lot to think about, in my opinion. But don't let his erudition make you think he doesn't have biases.
Thanks again... The Hebdo article was indeed interesting... I think his conclusion was wholly wrong though - that the muslim reaction to the cartoon was from being "desperate and despised", as I understand it, it was all because they couldnt abide any depictions of Muhammad as being blasphemy! So he seems to have launched from a false premise. Anyway, as you say, it is good to hear both sides, and be aware of that which our own biases may blind us to, for sure, I just havent been swayed in this case...
And every time I read more about Oct 7 and what Hamas did, and what the goals are of them and Hezbollah, my disgust intensifies, and my resolve only strengthens...
holocaust 2.0. jew have it coming
holocaust 2.0. jew have it coming
A few paragraph breaks would make for easier reading!
Mr. Rigatoni got a lesson in actually reading a damn book about the topic in that debate.