The Power of Singing to Overcome Israeli Children's Fear of Rockets


By Jonathan Hoffman
November 28, 2012
Share

COMMENTS

KatieCarslake

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 11:24

Rate this:

-2 points

This is disgusting racist junk. Surely the JC must do something about this "man"?


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 11:29

Rate this:

-2 points

You would think so wouldn't you? They won't though. All you can do is flag it and take pictures of each of his obscenities as he has a habit of deleting evidence.


happygoldfish

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 11:50

Rate this:

1 point

KatieCarslake: This is disgusting racist junk.

the first is a 3-minute video showing israeli 4th-grade children singing a song (to the "Agadoo" tune!) to overcome their fear of the "colour red" siren, plus a few short interviews with them

nowhere are they taught to hate the palestinians, or to want the same done to them

the second is a 29-second hamas video of a song telling children that "death is honour and victory", and showing a child throwing a toy rocket at a black-and-white jewish star target

katie, rrz, which of those two do you find more "disgusting", or more "racist"?


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 12:33

Rate this:

-3 points

Meanwhile here's what Palestinian children are offered:

If you don't see anything disgusting and racist about that I doubt I would be able to help you.


Mary in Brighton

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 12:46

Rate this:

-3 points

I doubt I am able to help her either but I am willing to try.

Imagine someone took an instance of a Jewish child being abused and introduced it with

" and here is how Jews treat their kids"


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 13:23

Rate this:

-2 points

Blah blah blah


Mary in Brighton

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 13:25

Rate this:

-2 points

I only said I would try. I didn't promise anything.


zaheerayin

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 13:35

Rate this:

-3 points

Occupation is ugly.


Advis3r

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 14:04

Rate this:

3 points

There is no occupation - take the opportunity to learn what conditions need to be in place for an "occupation" to exist. In any event even if there was an occupation you'd still be the uglier of the two.

Only a Jew-hater like Karslake could possibly term this blog as racist. Nothing less than we have come to expect from the poison she invariably posts on this website.

It's only racist junk in your mind Karslake because it shows up the clear difference in moral attitudes between a society that worships death and one that worships life. As such you are the disgusting one for even making the accusation.


happygoldfish

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 14:12

Rate this:

3 points

Real Real Zionist: Meanwhile here's what Palestinian children are offered:

rrz, which of those two do you find more "disgusting", or more "racist" …

the hamas song for children's tv teaching them that "death is honour and victory", and that launching rockets against jews is good,

or the israeli teacher/therapist's song teaching them how to be less afraid of the sirens?

Mary in Brighton: Imagine someone took an instance of a Jewish child being abused and introduced it with
" and here is how Jews treat their kids"

yes, mary, that would certainly be racist, because it would attribute to jews generally the actions of one jew

but this (second) video is not evidence of one palestinian, it is a children's tv programme broadcast to all gazan children (with tv)

there is nothing racist about objecting to songs (or other incitement) which are broadcast by a government to all its children

(or, as jonathan correctly wrote, "… here's what Palestinian children are offered")


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 14:30

Rate this:

-3 points

Koff. The only antidote to it is not to engage with him/her and just let it play on its own in the corner.


KatieCarslake

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 14:48

Rate this:

-3 points

Goldfish the clear implication is that THIS is typical of what Israelis offer their children and THIS is typical of what Palestinians ( not Gazans) offer their children. This is as racist as racist gets. But I have no intention of arguing the point. I can't do any better than Mary's excellent effort.

What I would like to ask you is this. Do you not think that the whole point of a blog thread is lost when one self absorbed, narcissistic individual ( you ) insists on reposting the same lengthy, rambling post over and over again in order to keep it as the last word ? Do you not think that this makes it impossible for people to follow the discussion? Do you not think that as well as being irritating to other participants it would be discouraging to other potential participants who might feel they want to contribute but are disinclined to do so while this silliness is going on ?Do you not think that if this was happening in a school playground we would be inclined to label it antisocial behaviour ?

Advsr your rudeness seems strangely familiar.


J.Clifford

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 14:55

Rate this:

2 points

You make trolls nauseate me. I have just returned from the kibbutzim and residential areas of the Negev and met with the children and their parents who live there. You know nothing about the way they feel and you care even less. Nothing positive ever comes out of your comments and your sole reason for commenting on everything is to hound Jonathan. For those of us who care passionately about children from both sides of this divide you continue to do your best to hurt rather than heal. Go and comment on a Hamas blog where your spiritual home is.


happygoldfish

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 15:23

Rate this:

2 points

J.Clifford: You know nothing about the way they feel and you care even less. Nothing positive ever comes out of your comments and your sole reason for commenting on everything is to hound Jonathan.

their other reason, of course, is simply to change the subject

whenever someone makes a point defending the israelis, or attacking racism, they derail the debate into personal comments, or even criticise the person for making the comment at all (eg the present ridiculous claim of racism)

Jonathan Hoffman: Meanwhile here's what Palestinian children are offered:

KatieCarslake: Goldfish the clear implication is … THIS is typical of what Palestinians ( not Gazans) offer their children. This is as racist as racist gets.

(since this is a hamas children's tv programme, i agree that jonathan should have written "Gazan children", not "Palestinian children"; with that proviso …)

jonathan did not say that gazans (or palestinians) generally were typically offering their children this

he said that gazan (or palestinian) children were typically being offered this (by hamas, via the tv)

that is correct … no matter how non-racist or non-violent gazans are encouraging their children to be, their government is undermining them by children's tv broadcasts praising the killing of jews and the deaths of the viewers ("death is honour and victory")

you (and katie and rrz) are trying to claim that jonathan made a generalisation (which would be racist) …

he didn't!

there is nothing racist about objecting to songs (or other incitement) which are broadcast by a government to all its children


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 15:31

Rate this:

-2 points

Janet it would help folks make positive comments if they were fed positive posts. I think you and I have been through this one before.


Harvey

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 16:34

Rate this:

2 points

Here is Farfur, Mickey Mouses sociopathic doppelgänger .

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwrel&v=RdWV02Szb5k

Calling for the eradication of Jews - whoops I mean Zionists . Nope right first time .


StevenKalka

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 17:31

Rate this:

1 point

I think it's waste of time to respond to those who constantly make this charge of racism. Maybe if they were ignored, they could just argue among themselves, which is what they deserve.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 17:45

Rate this:

-2 points

Steven are you serious ? Who are these people who incessantly shout " racist " at every opportunity ?

They like to dish it out but in the immortal words of Cpl Jones " they don't like it up em Mr Mannering "


Skovronek2

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 17:54

Rate this:

-1 points

I have personal experience of the settlers in Hebron and I can tell you they are mostly psychos bringing up their children to be psychos.


Skovronek2

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 17:54

Rate this:

-1 points

I have personal experience of the settlers in Hebron and I can tell you they are mostly psychos bringing up their children to be psychos.


StevenKalka

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 17:57

Rate this:

2 points

Look in the mirror!


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 18:38

Rate this:

-1 points

Advis3r
Wed, 11/28/2012 - 13:04
Rate this:
4 points
There is no occupation -

http://www.fco.gov.uk/content/en/country-profile/middle-east-north-afric...

Any Frenchman has the right to live in the USA provided they live in a property that has been owned by Frenchmen for 100 years. How hilarious is that.

Erm I don;t think so.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 18:45

Rate this:

-1 points

But let us say you are right. That would mean of course that any Arab has the right to live in Israel provided he lives in a property that was owned by Arabs for however many years ? Are you arguing for the right of return for Arab refugees ? Tut tut

Silly you.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 18:53

Rate this:

-1 points

I just don't know how you can bear to live in all that slime at the bottom of your bowl


happygoldfish

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 18:55

Rate this:

1 point

Skovronek2: I have personal experience of the settlers in Hebron …

uhh? there are no jewish settlers in hebron!

the only jews there are jews living in properties owned by jews for well over 100 years

legal, on any view, under the geneva conventions!

Real Real ZIonist: Any Frenchman has the right to live in the USA provided they live in a property that has been owned by Frenchmen for 100 years. How hilarious is that.
Erm I don;t think so.

it might be contrary to usa law, but it wouldn't be contrary to the geneva convention (or international law generally)!

Real Real ZIonist: But let us say you are right. That would mean of course that any Arab has the right to live in Israel provided he lives in a property that was owned by Arabs for however many years ? Are you arguing for the right of return for Arab refugees ?

it wouldn't be contrary to international law

Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 18:57

Rate this:

-1 points

It would because it is part of an Israeli govt enterprise to transfer population to occupied territory.


Real Real Zionist

Wed, 11/28/2012 - 19:00

Rate this:

-1 points

Your argument was that the settlemnt( s ) in Hebron was legal because they live in houses that were owned by Jews. Think about it overnight and get back to us tomorrow.


happygoldfish

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:22

Rate this:

0 points

(rrz, why do you make so many short consecutive posts within minutes of each other? why not just edit the first post?)

Real Real ZIonist: Your argument was that the settlemnt( s ) in Hebron was legal because they live in houses that were owned by Jews.

and are owned by jews!
do you claim they aren't?

Real Real ZIonist: It would [be contrary to international law] because it is part of an Israeli govt enterprise to transfer population to occupied territory.

article 49, last sentence, of the fourth geneva convention, says …
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

("deport" of course means compulsorily, "transfer" does not)

leaving aside both the question of whether the fourth geneva convention applies at all, and also the right of settlement of jews under the league of nations and united nations mandate until 1948, i accept that one can argue that the israeli government's financing both of infrastructure and of the homes themselves can amount to "transferring parts of its own civilian population" …

although merely allowing civilians to move is not transferring them, it can be argued that providing infrastructure and homes (by financing or actual construction) is much more than merely allowing, and therefore does amount to "transfer"

(btw, i do not accept that steps taken to protect them can be taken into account, not do i accept that any settlements illegal under israeli law are such transfers)

however, no infrastructure has been provided in hebron, and no homes have been provided in hebron, by the israeli government or anyone else …

individuals who already own property in hebron (or rent it from such owners) have simply exercised their right to live in their own property …

if the israeli government forbade this, what defence (other than military) could they have if those individuals took them to the supreme court?

suppose a british-naturalised kindertransport jew had returned to british-occupied germany in 1948 and had insisted on sitting in parks, going to swimming-pools, riding bicycles, and (worst of all!) evicting the occupants of his own house and living there himself

(or, if the occupation had lasted 60 years, that his grandson had done so in 2008)

would that be declared, by the international court of justice, as illegal under article 49 on the grounds that the pre-existing laws of germany should be respected by the occupier?

the present jewish residents of hebron are just that, residents not settlers, living lawfully in their own properties, and not beneficiaries of an illegal israeli "transfer" contrary to article 49

Harvey

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:27

Rate this:

0 points

This thread appears to have strayed off topic . No surprises there .
Just to remind you , the thread concerns Palestinian indoctrination of children to hate Jews and encourage them to become Shaheed .
Not just racist Katie Carslake , but an appalling abuse of young impressionable minds and certain to perpetuate the hatred and violence .
There is nothing racist about JHs post , but the truth hurts and for seasoned BDS campaigners better to divert attention from the unpalatable reality of life in Palestine while kicking the messenger . Goes to show that Marxist propaganda techniques is alive and thriving down at the BDS politburo headquarters .


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:29

Rate this:

0 points

and are owned by jews! …
do you claim they aren't?

I don't know but I sure as hell am not going to take YOUR word for it.And it is irrelevant anyway.

But anyway I knew you would be up all night concocting that garbage and I was quite keen to see it.

I may respond or I may not, on the one hand I am tempted, on the other hand I don't really want to be a pawn in your OCD game of merely reposting your previous drivel in response to a response.

Hmmmmm suspiciouser and suspiciouser said Alice

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hebron-settlement-born-in-sin-...

Maybe it is best just to summarise your "argument" in all its absurdity and just let the people decide if and when they are able to stop laughing.

What distinguishes the Hebron settlements ( one of which was an Israeli army camp ) from settlements elsewhere in the west bank which I think you are telling us ARE illegal is....

1) Every property on the land and every square metre on which properties have been constructed was owned by a Jew in 1967 and therefore every Israeli Jew ( puzzlingly not Israeli Arabs ) has a right under international law to occupy those properties and build properties on that land. A pretty racist analysis if you don't mind my saying so

2) The State of Israel has not been, and is not, in any way complicit in the development and continued existence of these settlements.

bye bye


Harvey

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:40

Rate this:

-1 points

Real Real Zionist

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 11:43

Rate this:

1 point

Harv would you like to address Skovronek2's point about the abuse of impressionable young minds in Hebron ?

I know you can't write your own name without working BDS into it but just who are you accusing of being a " seasoned BDS campaigner"

And are you confirming the racism inherent in Hoff's post by confirming that what he posted is typical of life in Palestine ?


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:00

Rate this:

0 points

Interestingly we have a leader of the 800 Israeli's in Hebron declaring " they know they will have to go ". By they he means the 170,000 non Jews. He doesn't tell us how this will happen. What is he teaching his kids I wonder. You may safely assume the worst.

Now suppose I were now to say...." And this is what is on offer to Jewish kids." Now you could get technical and say that is true,it IS on offer to Jewish kids. But why would I say it ? What would my motives be if not racist ones ? Why would I pick that particular offer ? Why wouldn't I pick the exposure of Jewish kids in the Jewish homes that are full of vibes about peace and justice ? The answer of course is that I would be engaged in making a racist comparison.

See what a silly game it is ?

I think so far as this is concerned I will just let the racists among us get on with it.


Advis3r

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:09

Rate this:

1 point

Once again the Fake Zionist is parading his total ignorance.

The Israeli supreme court has upheld the rights of the Jews living in Hebron to live there.

The fact which the ignoramus nor the Jew hater Skovoronek will mention is that until the pogrom of 1929 when the Arabs rampaged in Hebron killing Jews left right and centre following which the British evacuated the remnant "for their own safety" the Jews had lived in Hebron for a 3000 year uninterrupted period.

The only abuse young Jews are getting in Hebron is from Arab terrorists one of whom shot a baby through the head to prove his point.

Unfortunately for the fake Zionist there is plenty of evidence to prove how young Arab minds are being poisoned against Jews - there is nothing racist about pointing that out.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinian-television-sti...
http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/JPSR-23-3-4-Fishman.pdf
http://israelcfr.com/documents/5-1/5-1-3-JoelFishman.pdf
http://cnpublications.net/2012/08/14/palestinian-leadership-perpetuates-...


Harvey

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:18

Rate this:

0 points

RRZ
There is a mighty difference between the state policy of Hamas , and the non state musings of a few individuals .


Harvey

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:25

Rate this:

0 points

RRZ
For the umpteenth time . What may or may not go on in Hebron is not the policy of the Israeli government . What goes on in Gaza is strictly vetted and approved by Hamas , the elected government( Koff ) of Gaza .
Unless of course you believe live racist antisemitic children's TV is screened without their knowledge and approval .


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:31

Rate this:

0 points

Jose please don't help undermine happycrayfish's case she is doing a fine job all by herself.

" The Israeli supreme court has upheld the rights of the Jews living in Hebron to live there."


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 12:38

Rate this:

0 points

"there is nothing racist about pointing that out."

There is in the context of making a racist comparison.

Like as in " compare and contrast what is on offer to Israeli kids and what is on offer to Palestinian kids."


happygoldfish

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:12

Rate this:

0 points

Real Real Zionist: "there is nothing racist about pointing that out."
There is in the context of making a racist comparison.
Like as in " compare and contrast what is on offer to Israeli kids and what is on offer to Palestinian kids."

there is nothing racist about comparing:
music therapy on offer to israeli children (to overcome their fear of sirens) without teaching them to hate palestinians, or to want palestinians to suffer
with:
children's tv on offer to gazan children, teaching through song that "death is honour and victory", and praising the launching of rockets against jews

(of course, if similar incitement was on offer to israeli children on israeli tv, then not mentioning it would be a racist comparison …

but i don't think even you and your friends claim that, do you?)

what do you claim is racist about that comparison?


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:50

Rate this:

-1 points

The selecting of an example of the best that is on offer to Israeli kids and prefacing the worst that is on offer to Palestinian kids with " here is what is on offer to Palestian kids " is clearly meant to imply that the " on offers " are typical in each case. Without that implication the post would have NO POINT. It would be just two pieces of unrelated randomly selected information. And I do rather think Hoff was trying to make a point don't you ?

He didn't say this is what is on offer to kids on Hamas controlled TV in Gaza, he said " and here is what is on offer to Palestinian kids ". And of course that isn't true.


Advis3r

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 13:56

Rate this:

1 point

Happy I am not sure why you bother with someone who is so obviously clueless. There may be a legal blockade of Gaza there is no occupation - not one solitary Israeli is on any inch of Gaza.
He and no doubt Karslake who rants about racism and yet calls me rude would probably consider this racist as well
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/education/09gap.html?_r=0
One of their problems (they obviously have many) is that they are not so much pro-Palestinan as anti-Israel. If they were pro-Palestinian they would be concerned about the material being broadcast on Palestinian educational tv rather than ranting at someone who was pointing out that there is a serious problem which Hilary Clinton has mentioned a number of times.

There is a difference every much as marked by the educational materials produced by Israel for its schoolchildren after Oslo to promote peace and the materials produced by the Palestinians which even went as far as denying the Jews' connection with the land of Israel which is still being promoted.

They clearly are unable to understand that by singling out Israel at every stage and holding it and its citizens to a standard they could never aspire to themselves they are practising a form of racism.


Advis3r

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 14:09

Rate this:

1 point

Now the fake is splitting hairs in order to escape from the hole in which he has dug himself.
At the time a comparison is made of what was generally on offer to Israeli children some of whom happened to be living in Sederot and bore the brunt of the terrorists rockets and what was on offer to Palestinian children who happened to be living in Gaza and due to the terrorists using them as human shields and their homes as military facilities in clear breach of the Geneva Conventions were forced to endure eight days of sheer terror.
The Fake however makes an argument that the post was a comparison of the best on Israeli television and the worst on Palestinan television a claim that is as totally false as it is risible.


happygoldfish

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 15:00

Rate this:

1 point

Real Real Zionist: Harv would you like to address Skovronek2's point about the abuse of impressionable young minds in Hebron ?

Skovronek2 didn't make a point, he was simply abusive

Skovronek2: I have personal experience of the settlers in Hebron and I can tell you they are mostly psychos bringing up their children to be psychos.

Real Real Zionist: "and are owned by jews! …
do you claim they aren't?"
I don't know but … it is irrelevant anyway.

a large number of hebron houses have been owned by jews for well over 100 years (and the jewish community there had been continuously present for over 800 years)

on 24th august 1929, 67 jews were massacred by the arab population (and their homes and synagogoues were ransacked)

the remaining 435 jews felt obliged to leave (some temporarily returned), but retained ownership of their houses

how are their rights of ownership, and their history of residence, "irrelevant?"

Real Real Zionist: … to summarise your "argument"…

What distinguishes the Hebron settlements ( one of which was an Israeli army camp ) from settlements elsewhere in the west bank which I think you are telling us ARE illegal is....
2) The State of Israel has not been, and is not, in any way complicit in the development and continued existence of these settlements.

2) no, the israeli government has protected the jewish residents' lives, and therefore has helped the continued existence of jews in hebron

("development", i've no idea … if it comes within "financing or construction", then i've already conceded that it is arguable that that makes it an illegal transfer … are you claiming there's been development? … i certainly haven't heard of any)

(and the army base …as usual, you've given no link : i assume you're referring to plugat hamitkanim? … is only partly on jewish-owned land, and the 6 jewish families live on that part)

Real Real Zionist: 1) Every property on the land and every square metre on which properties have been constructed was owned by a Jew in 1967 and therefore every Israeli Jew ( puzzlingly not Israeli Arabs ) has a right under international law to occupy those properties and build properties on that land. A pretty racist analysis if you don't mind my saying so

i'm saying that ownership (although not necessary) makes the issue very straightforward

the original 1929 residents (now 83 years older) would obviously be entitled to live there!

if they'd died, their children and grandchildren would obviously be entitled to live there!

if they'd sold their property to someone else (jew or arab), that person would obviously be entitled to live there!

where's the racism in that?

the racism on the west bank is the palestinians' law declaring capital punishment for any palestinian citizen who sells land to a jew

that racist law is not a pre-1948 law, and does not have to be respected by the occupiers!!

(nor is there any pre-1948 law forbidding jews to live on the west bank)

however, although 100-year-plus ownership of property makes it very obvious, it's not necessary …

all that is necessary is that the jewish residents should have acquired valid title to pre-1948 land, either with pre-1948 buildings, or with newer buildings constructed by them and not by the israeli government …

in short, that they have simply moved onto property that they own, just like any purchaser (or inheritor) of property anywhere in the world, and not been "transferred" by the government


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 15:21

Rate this:

0 points

all that is necessary is that the jewish residents should have acquired valid title to pre-1948 land

Necessary for what ?

And what is pre 1948 land ? Is not all land pre 1948 ?

And isn't your title arguments a general one ? What is the point about was/is owned by Jews ? Does it make a difference if someone got good title buying from a Jew as opposed to buying from a non Jew ? Taking you back to your original claim....The Hebron settlement is different, ie not a settlement because Jews owned property there. Not THESE Jews of course, THOSE Jews.

I'll engage with you now yuou are playing nicely.


happygoldfish

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 15:47

Rate this:

0 points
sorry , i meant title to land that was in ownership pre-1948 (as opposed to settlements built on previously unowned land, and therefore obviously not acquired in the usual way by purchase or inheritance)

the jewish residents of hebron are different from the jewish settlers on previously vacant unowned land because it's not even arguable that the israeli government has transferred them there

(and they're in exactly the same position … literally! … as the jews who used to live there )


Real Real Zionist

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 17:45

Rate this:

0 points

OK well I think I am losing the plot a little.Don't misunderstand where I am coming from on this. Nothing would make me happier than if anyone could live anywhere they freaking wanted.

You start by telling us that the settlements in Hebron are not really settlements and are not in contravention of the Geneva conventions, while others might be. You say this one two grounds.

These " settlements " don't constitute a transfer, and say this is unarguable. Well I would disagree with that but at least if we talked about it we would understand each other.

But you also tell us that another reason is that " the only Jews there are Jews living in properties owned by Jews for over a hundred years."

You are arguing on an international law front and I can't for the life of me see how, even if this were true, which I doubt,this is relevant. Israeli's living in other settlements, that you presumably would regard as illegal, have good title to the land and properties. You seem to be saying that what makes the big difference in Hebron is that these good titles passed through Jews. I can't for the life of me see how it makes any difference in terms of either local or international law whether these good titles ( if they exist ) passed through Jews or freaking Martians.


happygoldfish

Thu, 11/29/2012 - 18:59

Rate this:

1 point

a


happygoldfish

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 10:01

Rate this:

1 point
rrz, you're mixing up two independent questions …
i] is it wrong (and racist) to call the jewish residents in hebron, settlers?
ii] is the jewish presence there illegal?

(they're independent in the sense that the two answers to them can be yes yes, yes no, no yes, or no no)

on i] (meaning of "settler"): does it matter whether previous (or present) owners were jews?

yes of course it does … "settlers" or "settlement" normally means people going to live in a new place, and if jews are replacing other jews (albeit after an enforced gap of over 50 years), i don't see how you can even begin to argue that they are "settlers" …

the arab residents of hebron successfully got rid of their jews in 1929: if the same, or other, jews, had returned 10 years later, they wouldn't have been called settlers: why does it make any difference if it's 50 years instead of 10?

if, on the other hand, there had never been any jews in hebron, and they started buying up property and living in it, i accept it is arguable that they should be called "settlers" … in the same way that you could call black or asian people coming to live in brixton or bradford "settlers" to racistly distingush them from "genuine" brixtonians or bradfordians

(and on the other other hand, of course, people moving onto empty hilltops, especially in large numbers, are "settlers" … they're living where nobody has ever lived before)

on ii] (legality): the only issue is the meaning of "transfer"

whether they are settlers, or are jews, or have bought from jews, is irrelevant

all that matters is, how much has the israeli government done to get them there?

in the case of israeli jews or arabs purchasing or inheriting existing houses (with presumably no need of new infrastructure), it's very simple … the government has done nothing, so there's no transfer

(but in the case of the west bank hilltops, there seems to be substantial organisation by the government, both of construction and infrastructure, and so it's arguable that there is a transfer )


Real Real Zionist

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 10:20

Rate this:

1 point

Yeah yeah I get that the legality is a function of the complicity ( if any ) of the state, ie whether there has been a transfer. I am sure we would disagree on whether there has been a transfer in the Hebron " settlers " case but I get your argument.

I didn't realise you wanted to argue about the meaning of " settler ".

That seems clear enough, someone who settles might sensibly be called a settler I would have thought.

" But you can't call him a settler because he is a Jew and there was another Jew living there some time ago and he therefore has merely replaced this other Jew. Of course if previously the place had only been inhabited by Martians you could maybe call him a settler."

Well that seems bizarre in the absolute extreme to me.

But I hear you.


suzanna

Fri, 11/30/2012 - 12:32

Rate this:

0 points

Welcome Palestine.

Now let's move forward.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS