that will fool only those who are ignorant of history or have a warped moral sense

though he and I don’t have much in common politically, he’s a good guy and certainly is “pro-Israel”.

According to a story in today’s Jerusalem Post on-line, (thanks Solomonia.com) reporting from the J Street conference:

J Street’s university arm has dropped the “pro-Israel” part of the left-wing US lobby’s “pro-Israel, pro-peace” slogan to avoid alienating students…

…”We don’t want to isolate people because they don’t feel quite so comfortable with ‘pro-Israel,’ so we say ‘pro-peace,’” said American University junior Lauren Barr of the “J Street U” slogan, “but behind that is ‘pro-Israel.’

This would be funny if it weren’t sad: “Don’t SAY we’re pro-Israel, we don’t want to alienate our support base.”

And yes, Heaven forefend that the UN should bring it to the attention of Palestinian high school students that “there were Arab culprits involved in the Holocaust,” like Arafat’s “cousin” the despicable Mufti of Jerusalem, thereby challenging the Palestinians false and hateful narrative

I have a hunch that Strict is smart enough to know these things, but that he simply prefers to distort facts and arguments in a pathetic attempt to score a few cheap rethorical points that will not fool only those who are ignorant of history or have a warped moral sense.

The UN wanting to educate Palestinian schoolchildren about the historic plight of the Jews is “anti-Israel,” because, umm, there were Arab culprits involved in the Holocaust

. Not at all what I said. I did say that teaching it is not necessarily pro-Israel, that it can be taught in ways that are neutral, pro-Israel or anti-Israel (e.g. the Germans — and only the Germans — did it to the Jews, and now the Jews are doing it to the Arabs), and that I do not trust the UN to teach it in a way that is not anti-Israel. Since I assume you have sufficient intelligence to understand these distinctions, I have to assume that you are deliberately distorting what I said, and therefore I see no reason to waste my time by engaging with you any further.

Strict: The UN wanting to educate Palestinian schoolchildren about the historic plight of the Jews is “anti-Israel,” because, umm, there were Arab culprits involved in the Holocaust. Sure thing.

It is not about UNRWA “educat(ing) Palestinian schoolchildren about the historic plight of the Jews;” it is about UNRWA finally not acquiescing in Holocaust denial, a most Orwellian form of lying in the service of evil.

And it shows where Segev’s head is that he allows a “parallel” between the murder of Anne Franke and millions of other innocents by the Nazis to “the suffering the Zionists” caused Sari Nusseibeh’s mother. (“Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al-Quds University, described in his memoirs how his sister Saida broke down and wept bitterly after reading the diary of Anne Frank. Saida, who was 13 at the time, saw in Anne Frank’s suffering a parallel to the suffering the Zionists had caused her mother, Nusseibeh wrote. It is entirely possible that Gaza’s pupils will interpret likewise what they learn about the Holocaust.”)

And yes, Heaven forefend that the UN should bring it to the attention of Palestinian high school students that “there were Arab culprits involved in the Holocaust,” like Arafat’s “cousin” the despicable Mufti of Jerusalem, thereby challenging the Palestinians false and hateful narrative

Yankev: Good points, all, Neurodoc, but in my defense I’ll note that every now and then I still have billable work to do.

Hilarious! How dare you make money, you capitalist.

Yankev, you fail to note that

Good points, all, Neurodoc, but in my defense I’ll note that every now and then I still have billable work to do. Not that I am convinced of strict’s bona fide desire for an answer to his question.

Yankev, you fail to note that

Good points, all, Neurodoc, but in my defense I’ll note that every now and then I still have billable work to do.

Yankev: Strict, how does this contradict the idea that the UN is anti-Israel? Merely teaching that the Shoah occurred is not pro-Israel (though in fact the PA has protested the idea of the UNWRA teaching this in Palestinian schools). In fact, several years ago either Norway or Sweded, I forget which, banned Jews from attending the country’s holocaust memorial. I’m curious whether the UN will teach the way that Arab leaders collaborated in the Shoah, particularly the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent the war in Germany, encouraged Hitler to invade Palestine to wipe out the Jewish community there, and encouraged Muslims in Europe to butcher Jews there. And the Arab leadership in Iraq, where numerous Jews were killed during WWII by government-inspired pogroms. Or will it instead perpetuate the Arab meme that the Holocaust was committed solely by European Christians, and the innocent Arabs are paying the price by having an alien Jewish presence imposed on them. Or worse, the Soviet-inspired “Israel is doing to the Arabs what the Nazis did to Israel” meme. The fact that you could consider this news to be even remote evidence that the UN had done something pro-Israel is bizarre.

Yankev, you fail to note that the Mufti also helped the Nazis put together a special Waffen SS unit, the Hanjar (also Handzar) division, of Bosnian Muslim troops to help with the slaughter of Jews and Gypsies, as well as Serbs. In recognition of their status as Muslim formerly subjects of the Ottoman Empire, those troops wore a distinctive fez-like hat.

Also, you mention Nazi-inspired pogroms during WWII in which Jews were killed by their Arab neighbors in Iraq, but you say nothing of similar pogroms elsewhere in the Arab world, e.g., Libya. (It should be noted that just as there were “righteous Gentiles” who at personal risk to themselves helped save Jews in Europe, there were “righteous Muslims” in what had been the Ottoman Empire who at personal risk to themselves helped save Jews in their midst. Unfortunately, such Christian and Muslim individuals were few in numbers.)

Once you get into the Middle East you’re not in Kansas any more, and access to information that we take for granted is not easy. For a basic description of the Israeli eminent domain (expropriation) process see David Kretzmer, The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Westview Press 1990, at 58-61.

As for the statistics you seek, to the best of my knowledge they have not been published but they are no secret either. The best I can do is provide you with a hand-written memo on the stationery of the Israel Land Adninistration, that contains the figures you are interested in.

I also have a copy (somewhere) of the Israeli eminent domain law. That’s the good news. The bad news is that it is in Hebrew (in which I am not fluent) and last time I looked, it would cost over $1000 to translate it.

For now (using the figures from that memo), as of 1993, 14,692 compensation claims were made, and a total of NIS 9,956,828 had been paid to the claimants. Also 54,481 dunams of [substitute] land were given as compensation. A dunam is about a quarter-acre. Bear in mind that we are talking about a small place, not Nebraska ag land — the whole shebang out there could probably fit into San Bernardino county.

This is all terra incognita as far as the American press is concerned, and to the best of my knowledge it has not been reported on — I guess it doesn’t fit with the politically correct version of wicked Israelis confiscating land of downtrodden Arabs. Only a few years ago, Bush (eithr Sr. or Jr., I don’t recall at the moment) was quoted as voicing a need for compensating Israeli Arabs for land taken from them, without any evidence of having a clue to the fact that they have already been paid. In contrast, nobody that I know of demands that compensation be paid to the 800,000 Jews who were expelled from Arab land in the late 1940s, and whose property was simply seized. I believe in the State Department that’s known as a policy of even-handedness. Right?

Strict:
Strict says:
Here’s an new article by Tom Segev about the UN in Gaza.
Professor Bernstein, can you reconcile this with your oft repeated theme that the UN is “anti-Israel”?

Strict, how does this contradict the idea that the UN is anti-Israel? Merely teaching that the Shoah occurred is not pro-Israel (though in fact the PA has protested the idea of the UNWRA teaching this in Palestinian schools). In fact, several years ago either Norway or Sweded, I forget which, banned Jews from attending the country’s holocaust memorial. I’m curious whether the UN will teach the way that Arab leaders collaborated in the Shoah, particularly the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent the war in Germany, encouraged Hitler to invade Palestine to wipe out the Jewish community there, and encouraged Muslims in Europe to butcher Jews there. And the Arab leadership in Iraq, where numerous Jews were killed during WWII by government-inspired pogroms. Or will it instead perpetuate the Arab meme that the Holocaust was committed solely by European Christians, and the innocent Arabs are paying the price by having an alien Jewish presence imposed on them. Or worse, the Soviet-inspired “Israel is doing to the Arabs what the Nazis did to Israel” meme. The fact that you could consider this news to be even remote evidence that the UN had done something pro-Israel is bizarre.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by buberzionist: http://ow.ly/wARa “Many…JStreet…people…are bigshots in Democratic politics…JStreet…hate[s] AIPAC because it supports Republicans”…

Professor Bernstein, can you reconcile this with your oft repeated theme that the UN is “anti-Israel”?

Professor Bernstein, can you reconcile this with your oft repeated theme that the UN is “anti-Israel”?

David Bernstein: Neuro: I have “concerns” about JStreet. But I’m not “hostile” to JStreet, and won’t be until its been around long enough to find out whether it truly develops into a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby, or into an “anti-pro-Israel” lobby.

There is enough evidence to say that within JStreet’s tent there are the generally naive (“pro-Israel, pro-peace”) and the generally pernicious (“anti-pro-Israel”). The JStreet pitch that DG described above (“very short on support for Israel and very long on attacking Christian Zionists, Republicans, the Likud, and anyone else they didn’t like”) is telling as the official, collective expression of the enterprise. And the individual expressions of many prominent supporters are decidedly “anti-pro-Israel,” when not frankly “anti-Israel,” or “anti-Zionist,” or even “anti-Jews.” (I use “anti-Jews” here rather than “anti-semitic” because I am not speaking of hatred for Jews qua Jews, but of manifest antipathy for large swaths of the Jewish community and its concerns.) While BenAmi, JStreet’s head, may not endorse Walt and Mearsheimer, I expect that the majority of JStreeters do, and that one could find many admirers/defenders of people like Chomsky, Finkelstein, Joel Beinin, etc. among them.

There are times when a “watch and wait” approach to a disease is the prudent one. Usually, though, early intervention is the way to go. JStreet is not a healthy expression of concern for Israel, and those who are concerned for Israel and all that Israel represents to Jews and non-Jews shouldn’t adopt a “watch and wait” approach to JStreet. They should actively oppose it now.

(BTW, Professor Bernsstein, what do you think of JStreet’s support for Chas Freeman’s nomination and attack on those who opposed it?)

The political part was really hardball and turned me off. The lack of concrete solutions to real problems on the ground made me toss the mailer. It isn’t enough to unilaterally withdraw everywhere, whether thats part of the likely endgame or not. Getting rid of Hamas and ensuring that a future Palestine has a monopoly on violence is essential. I’m open to pretty much any idea that will lead to a viable two-state solution, but J-Street doesnt seem to espouse anything except withdrawal, which may be necessary but is not a standalone magical solution.

David Bernstein: …I’m not hostile to JStreet…the definition of “pro-Israel” would have to exclude the likes of Joel Beinin, Juan Cole,Norman Finkelstein, Joel Stork, Philip Weiss, and Sarah Leah Whitson, no matter how “progressive” and purportedly “pro-peace” they are (pro-peace, to some people, means “Israel surrenders”).

No concerns about JStreet’s backers?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/showdown-on-j-street/

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418604334&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

And no problem with JStreet inviting the likes of Salam Al-Marayati to be on their program?

http://http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/oped_view.asp?opedID=1719

And how many on that “independent” panel of bloggers (JStreet is letting them use a hotel meeting room during their conference ) to can be counted as remotely “pro-Israel:”
Phil Weiss (Mondoweiss)
Jerry Haber (Magnes Zionist)
Richard Silverstein (Tikun Olam)
Dan Sieradski (formerly of Jewschool)
Helena Cobban (Just World News)
Max Blumenthal (Daily Beast)
Laila el Haddad (Gaza Mom)
Matt Duss (Think Progress)
Joseph Dana (Ibn Ezra)
Ray Hanania
Jesse Hochheiser (Across the Border)

The problem with that is that Bush was, in fact, biased in favor of Israel as regards their dealings with the Palestinians. I don’t mean that as a criticism of him, because I’m also biased in that way, and so has the U.S. Congress been for the past few decades, including majorities of both Democratic and Republican members.

If Bush had tried to present himself as neutral in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestinians wouldn’t have believed him (because of his past pro-Israel record), and the Israelis would have felt betrayed (because he would be abandoning his pro-Israel record).

I can’t think of a good example of someone or some country who Ben-Ami should recommend get out of the Palestinians’ “amen choir” to become an impartial mediator instead, but if he wants the U.S. to adopt a more neutral position he ought to encourage a country or countries that support the Palestinians to do so as well.

David Bernstein:
I’ve said it like a million times before, but for the vast majority of Christian Zionists, this claim is false.And the fact that Jews on the left repeat it over and over doesn’t make it true.

For what it’s worth, I completely agree with you. But what’s worse about it is that even if it is true, it doesn’t help their case. If it’s true, Jews and Christian Zionists shouldn’t cooperate, despite similar aims, because they think it will lead to the Second Coming? That just doesn’t make sense. From a religious Jewish point of view, if the Second Coming happens, we were all wrong anyway – in other words, we disagree with them theologically. In the unlikely event that Jesus takes a second tour after Christian Zionists support Israel, I don’t think many American Jews will be upset that they cooperated with Christian Zionists. If their aim is something we don’t believe is possible, but they’re willing to help us in the interim, I don’t see the harm. So even if it’s true, it doesn’t help their case. I also don’t think it’s true.

(3) Christian Zionists are bad because they only support Israel in hopes that it will lead to Armageddon

I’ve said it like a million times before, but for the vast majority of Christian Zionists, this claim is false. And the fact that Jews on the left repeat it over and over doesn’t make it true.

(1) Most Jews favor a balanced approach to lead to peace
(2) Helping the Palestinians achieve a viable, prosperous state will lead to peace, so that’s pro-Israel
(3) Christian Zionists are bad because they only support Israel in hopes that it will lead to Armageddon
(4) The US should engage with Iran, Hamas, and Syria
(5) The US should be an honest broker between the parties

#3 is probably the most interesting – we shouldn’t work with these other pro-Israel folks, because their motives aren’t pure. When you supposedly have common aims with folks, different motives might not matter all that much.

When you look at each of the other four, each might sound like it is “pro-Israel” in the sense of trying to support Israel in her quest for peace. Each also represents a shift away from supporting Israel in other circumstances. The fundamental problem is it takes two to make peace, one to make war. While Israel has sought to make peace over the years, the Arabs have not. (See, e.g., the Three No’s.) Given that that’s the case, if you’re going to support Israel working for peace, but you’re going to ignore that the other side is not working for peace, it’s a very special kind of meaning that J Street is attaching to the words “pro-Israel.” They are not so much “pro-Israel” as pro-peace.

Israel would certainly do better if peace broke out. We would all be thrilled to find a deed for forty acres and a unicorn. These are about equally likely, when the other side won’t make peace. Insofar as J Street is really only pro-peace and the odds of this happening are nil, I don’t think it’s fair to describe them as pro-Israel. To be pro-Israel, you should support Israel when it has to defend itself.

The business of supposed uncompensated takings of Arab land is fraught with misstatements. First, when land is taken by eminent domain WITHIN ISRAEL’S BORDERS, the taking is compensated, with compensation often more generous than here (displaced Arabs are often offered substitute land along with compensation, either gratis or on very favorable terms). Also, if the condemnor fails to devote or ceases to devote the taken land to the public use for which it was taken, title must be restored to the condemnees.

As to those Arabs who fled in 1948, they could get their land back from the Israel Adminstrator of Absentee Lands after the war, upon their proving title, and thousands of Arabs have done so. As for the Arabs who fled in 1948 but refused to deal with Israel, their land was taken by eminent domain and they were awarded compensation with interest, which some of them refused to take (some of those under duress from Arab extremists).

As far as the controversy in the territories is concerned (outside Israel’s borders), when mulk land is taken by eminent domain, it is compensated for. The land in question in the controversial cases is often miri land which is a type of government-owned land to which private individuals can gain possessory and usufructory rights (but no title) by prescribed periods of possesion, cultivation and payment of taxes. In many cases the Arab occupants of such land have failed to comply with these requirements, so that under their own law they are squatters. That has been the law over there going back to the Turkish Ottoman Empire days, as well as under the British and the Jordanians.

Similar charges have been made against groups like AIPAC and the ADL: that they’re too close to the Republican party, that they’ll associate with people who favor an aggressive stance towards Israel’s enemies but don’t have Israel’s (or Jewish people’s) best interest at heart, etc

The vast majority of AIPACers and ADLers, at the leadership level and at the grassroots, are Democrats in their personal politics. AIPAC’s job is not to figure out what’s in the Jewish people’s best interest, but to support a strong American-Israel relationship. And it’s clearly in the interest of the American-Israel relationship for AIPAC to support pro-Israel Republicans as well as Democrats, to make friends with pro-Israel evangelicals, and to say nice things about the Israeli government that’s in power, even if it’s a “right-wing” government. People can reasonably think that when AIPAC does its job, AIPAC is harming the long-term interests of Israel and or the Jewish people, but that’s quite a different matter than the common accusation that AIPAC is “right-wing” or “pro-Republican.”

And the idea that the ADL is somehow soft on Republicans and harsh on Democrats is, well, ridiculous except from the perspective of someone who is an extremely partisan liberal Democrat. Sure, you could argue that the ADL shouldn’t even have a dialogue with evangelical Christians, but the ADL has much closer relationships with other “communities” whose members are far more like to be anti-Semitic than are evangelicals, and it’s not clear to me how not even trying to get along at all with the leaders of a tens of million of Americans would promote the ADL’s basic mission of combating anti-Semitism.

The complaint, in short, is that AIPAC and the ADL are doing their respective jobs (and conservatives, by contrast, strongly believe that the latter lets its liberal politics interfere with their job), instead of understanding that Israel’s and/or the Jewish people’s interests lie in Jewish and pro-Israel organizations being partisan liberal Democrats/peaceniks. My position is that JStreet will do fine if it sticks to peacenik policies, but if it becomes a partisan liberal Democratic outfit, with no enemies on the Left, it is (a) redundant; (b) will simply become a cover for anti-Israel liberal politicians to get a pro-Israel credential (“well, the right-wing AIPAC doesn’t like me, but JStreet, which is truly pro-Israel loves me); and therefore (c) won’t be taken seriously as a pro-Israel or pro-peace outfit.