How many have to die to achieve 'One State'?

Have you ever tried addressing your predictably ludicrous question to Caroline Glick ? Have you ever called her an anti semite to her face ? That I would buy a ticket for.

Or to Daniel " from the river to the sea, the land of Israel will be free " Marks.

I would buy a ticket for that too.

And isn't your friend Sharon a one stater ?

I must admit that comment from Loewenstein startled me out of my torpor , especially as it was accompanied by that smirk .
Just one more antisemitic Jew in the same vein as Atzmon .
On a brighter note it was good to see Frank ' Borat ' back in the chair
He seemed to have disappeared off the map after the Finklestein interview / debacle .
Some say to a Gulag in Siberia for reprogramming .
I was reminded of Finklesteins comments when listening to the guff being spouted last night about one state solutions .
Finklestein nailed it when he labelled the bds a cult without political traction and for failing to achieve any semblance of critical mass particularly in the West Bank and Gaza .
Labelling Israel as an apartheid state is of course their perogative but it ain't necessarily so as the song goes at least not according to the vast majority of the global community of nations .
The appalling irony of it all is that the only racist dogma , antisemitism and outright apartheid emanates from the Palestinians who demand a Juden frei Palestine from the River to the Sea .
Now that's what I call real apartheid !

Rrz
As usual you are off topic . Jonathan was focussing on the appalling comment made by Loewenstein when asked how many dead Jews it would take to satisfy the blood lust of those demanding a one state solution . Without the smirk it could have been regarded as an unfortunate random plucking of a number and given the dubious benefit of the doubt .
With the smirk it was quite apparent that Loewenstein knew what he was saying .
Following the debate , a Pakistani gentleman introduced himself to us . He mentioned that he was a journalist and that he was very disappointed by the comment as it was overtly antisemitic . I believe he intended mentioning it in his article .

Well there seems to be two topics.

One is the sheer stupidy of the question

The other disgusting racist answer.

I don't see why both can't be addressed.

Good to see you on the JC blog, Rich. Can't you hang around here more? The JC blog is where it's at, not my miniscule irrelevant blog. Now as for Jonathan's question no one is stopping you addressing it. You might think it a stupid one, no surprise there, but it set off some interesting discussions afterwards from audience members who came up to Jonathan and actually said it was an interesting question! Then we stood around discussing it afterwards, a small crowd of us. People want debate, not hardcore ridiculous ideology brought to us by the Loewensein's of the world.

Why is it a stupid question . Just take a momentary step back from your traditionally confrontational position vis a vis Jonathan and imagine the question was posed by someone less contra to your sensitivities .
Jonathan asked the perfectly valid question ( in fact he pipped me to the post ) as to how the bds theoreticians hoped to implement a one state solution on Israel . Do they imagine Israelis will simply hold a referendum and vote themselves out of their homeland . Absurd , but what one comes to expect from Finklesteins cultists .
The reality is that a one state solution could only be imposed on Israel through existential war on a hitherto unprecedented scale of bloodshed .
It was that scenario that Jonathan rightly referred to when questioning how many dead it would take to satisfy the bds determination to see the eradication of Israel as an independent Jewish nation .
Marxist theoreticians never count the cost in human misery .
Throughout the Stalinist years , millions perished in pursuit of the Communist ideal .
Those present last night in their own way , carry the torch from that nightmare era .
Don't worry about the cost . It's the cause that's all important .
Last night , the bds theoreticians were caught off guard by Jonathans question .
No time for a considered reply - not that there is one .
Instead a nasty off the cuff one liner which demonstrates the true nature of our erstwhile ' repeatedly claimed ' Jewish supporter ' of the Palestinian cause .
Like Greenstein and his ilk , his 'Judaism ' was taken down from the shelf , given a good dusting off in order to be used for special occasions .

A really good point, Harvey, about the cause being more important than the cost for these people. Well put. Thanks.

Actually Lorwensteins sardonic comment regarding how many Jews would need to die , reminded me of the comments made by Janet Green of the Psc when questioned by Richard Millett after a psc meeting in Hammersmith last year .
When asked by Richard as to how Jews were murdered in Nazi occupied Europe , she replied that she supposed they had their foreskins chopped off .
A reply which is meant to be irreverent , jocular and mocking at the same time .
Her other comments regarding Jewish men were also recorded and archived by Richard .
As I've said countless times scratch an antizionist and you reveal an antisemite and no amount of desperate whitewashing by the likes of Greenstein will ever overcome that reality .
We saw it at play last night from Loewenstein .No doubt we will see it again .

RRZ will buy two tickets for what exactly? No matter he can well afford it now he is being paid to attack real Zionists.

Hey hi, Richard. Nice to see you too. As for my presence here, there and hither. Well you know, genius is not just a blessing, it is a responsibility too. It should receive as much exposure as possible and in as many places as possible, do you not think?

The question is a stupid one because it emerges out of one of Hoffie's more favoured nonsensical sound bites. That is, that "advocacy of a one state solution is anti-Semitic and in effect a call for genocide against the Jews."

This is one of the better examples of how his thinking is as woolly as his taste in hats.

Some very influential Israelis, lead by Caroline Glick, are passionate advocates of one state between the river and the sea. Your big buddies Daniel and Sharon agree with them.

Just because some people cannot conceive of it coming about except by force doesn't make its advocacy illegitimate. To say that its anti-Semitic because the majority of Israelis don't at this time want it, is ludicrous.Can't its advocates hope, however forlornly, that one day minds might be changed? Can't someone say " whilst it is highly unlikey to happen this would be the best solution" ? To argue that it would be the best solution is perfectly legitimate even if wrong. Can't you just disagree with them instead of screaming anti-Semite?

You may as well argue that in the late 19th century that the call for female sufferage, when the majority of the people were against it, was to call for a genocide against those with a contrary opinion.

Far from a call for debate, Hoffie's little one liners are an attempt to bully people into not engaging by making contrary opinions dangerous. That is by screaming that they are " anti semitic by DEFINITION." His definition of course.

Hi Janet. I think I know to what you allude.You maybe should recheck your " facts " with Hoffie and Harv. o:)

They can hope forlornly or otherwise . It's only a perfectly reasonable solution for those who cannot countenance the existence of an independent Jewish nation and have seen their attempts to destroy it first through state warfare , terrorism and two intifadas come to nothing .
What we are witness to now is the next means to an end .
It will fail miserably like all the other efforts .

If you say so Harv. Maybe you would be better employed taking up you point with Danny and Sharon?

I am happy that you are talking to me again though.

I have missed you.

The call for the end of the Jewish State is antisemitic and those who call for it always ignore the genocide that would have to happen to bring it about.

The advent of female suffrage was never going to lead to the deaths of those who opposed it so the comparison is completely bogus and intellectually fraudulent (quite apart from the completely different circumstances behind the creation of Israel as compared with the suffragette movement).

See what I mean ?

See the dance ?

Yes. He not so deftly dances around the point that someone who has and argues for a minority position isn't necessarily implying that he intends to enforce that opinion by force. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a legitimate minority opinion.

Actually, some form of one state solution is being increasingly talked about in Israel. It is very much on the discursive agenda.

Sounds good Banacek
Maybe you can persuade the Israelis to hold a referendum .

Who is this Harvey?

Well........where to begin

" ....the ever reliable Daphne Anson"

" Daphne Anson. " is about as reliable as Hoffies beloved IsraelNationalNews and the other extremist nutjob bloggers he favours as sources of " information".

I had never heard of Loewenstein, not even sure I have spelt his name right. I have no interest in him. As for heads to heads between the seemingly competing, but in reality the symbiotic London parochial sand pit squabbling cults, they are about as interesting as last Sundays results in the Albanian basketball league. Their outcomes even less so.

However, I did finally manage to force myself to listen to the audio. And surprise, surprise, all is not as The Three Muppeteeers make it seem.

We are led to understand that Hoffie calmly asked a question at an appropriate time and got an outrageously antisemitic response.

What we find is Hoffie doing his regular disruption routine. Rudely shouting out and interrupting the man with the most idiotic, hysterical question imaginable. A question so idiotic it lent itself only to idiotic answers. Not surprisingly the man prefers not to answer it. Since Hoffie is clearly not going to drop it he tries to move on by giving ( barely audibly ) Hoffie the kind of answer he knows he is looking for. It was more akin to swatting a rude pestering fly.

He wouldn't have got an answer from me. I would have had the oaf thrown out.

Except Loewenstein said it and said it with relish with a nasty smirk on his face .
I have no doubt he was caught off guard by Jonathans question which makes his reply even more telling .
People tend to reveal their true innermost thoughts and beliefs when called upon to provide a spontaneous reply .
Loewenstein is just another Atzmon . Nothing new there only the proof .

Harv, you wouldn't want to get onto the subject of things people have said? I am happy to go there but you surely know that is not a good place for you.

Harvey, you said that Jonathan pipped you to the post with his question. You also said that Lowenstein's answer awoke you from your stupor. Were you going to ask your question from a stupor?

,