Posts by Real Real Zionist

On Jenny Tonge without the hysteria

Real Real Zionist — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 09:10:08 +0000

Death by camera and recording.

I have long been exasperated by Jenny Tonge.I don't think she is any sense a racist. I think her heart is in the right place, if only it were so in the case of her head. My quarrel with Jenny is that she is a very poor advocate of " the cause ".

She has little sense of the importance of language, style and association.She has very poor impulse control. She also is apt to be distracted by the competing and incompatible cause of self promotion. Do we know anyone else like that ? A related disability is that, given the inevitable iffyness of some of the company she will be keeping when she puts herself on the platform at these kinds of meetings,in order to maintain a prominence among them, she needs to say the most startling things. So Jenny Tonge has said some pretty stupid things, not least the organ harvesting comments ( almost unbelievable that she did that ).

Her style and habits will only cause her to be heard in the ghetto of BDS and the more extremist fringes of PSC. Regular people don't buy from rabids they sense they can't trust or believe. I wouldn't be seen dead at this kind of meeting. I prefer to spend my time where I might learn something.( Like hanging out on this blog site ha ha.)

There is of course a mirror image of Jenny Tonge and some of her associates in the lunatic fringe of the Zionist Federation. More then that, the relationship between Tonge et al and the Richard Millets and Jonathan Hoffmans of this world is one of truly symbiotic, mutual, self promotional back scratching.

The LFZF won't sell anything either. This was graphically illustrated by the Ahava fiasco, and captured for posterity by the infamous video of one of Hoffmans more celebrated performances. Bear in mind the context when you watch the video ( link below ). Regular anti Ahava demonstrations had been established in an attempt to persuade the public not to buy Ahava products. Then counter demonstrations began to deliver a counter message. In other words to try to sell something to an uninformed public.

What is most interesting is the reactions of passers by. Hoffman is in a state of extreme agitation throughout,frequently shading off into unedifying rants. And always with a deep scowl on his face. YET ALL THE WHILE trying to shove flyers into the hands of passers by. There is no record of anyone accepting one of these flyers. Would you accept something from someone in an extreme state of agitation that was scowling at you ? Personally I like my salespersons to be smiling.

It is interesting to see what did for Jenny Tonge so far as her place in the LIB DEM party is concerned. It seems there were two charges, consisting of something she said and something she didn't say.

She said " Israel won't last forever" or "Israel won't last forever in it's present form ", depending on which account you read. Now it seems strange that she should be required to apologise for that. That can be a perfectly respectable position depending on how it is arrived at and delivered. What is wrong with, " If Israel doesn't do a deal soon it will bring about the end of Israel, in the sense of a Jewish majority state." What's wrong with that ? It is a view I hold myself. Of course it wouldn't have come out like that. More likely it came out as an emotive " ISRAEL WON'T LAST FOREVER " with an undertone of " ISRAEL WILL BE DESTOYED !!!!!".

More interesting is the second charge.Apparently O'Keefe said something. She was on the same platform. She remained quiet.She said nothing to challenge him. Well if we can be hung for what we don't say there are members of the ZF who should be considering their position regarding their membership thereof.

Jenny Tonge hasn't gone away. Hopefully she will have learned something and be able to adapt and make a more positive and effective contribution ( I am not holding my breath ). What we can say for sure is she will very quickly come to see the virtue of being at a distance from a rapidly sinking political party and its dead in the water leader.

Is there really anyone in the world that cares whether Jenny Tonge is a member of the LIB DEMS or the Ferret Fanciers Liberation Front ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBH6XONDpes&list=PL184F6C508064E7BD&index...

The Self Determination Myth

Real Real Zionist — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:34:27 +0000

Can anything or anyone self determine ? Can I self determine ? Would I not have to be the only agent in the world and everyone and everything else in the world be a great mass of passivities ?

Where is this " right" to self determination located, in what is it grounded ? And if one person, one thing or one country/people has it does not every person, every thing and every country/ people have it too ? What an unholy mess if all these rights, many conflicting with each other, were exercised. As the saying goes, German cemeteries are full of motorists that had the right of way.

Now we are endlessly told that to come down too heavy on Israel is a denial of the right of the Jewish people to self determination, and therefore anti semitic. Hard to make any sense of this. Are all Jews included in the " Jewish people " or just some ?

How is Israel an expression of the right of self determination of non Zionist Jews or Zionist Jews that feel strongly that there ought not to be a political expression of Zionism, even that such an expression is idolatry? Do these Jews have the right of self determination too ?

Take the case of the comfortable New York Jew who thinks about Israel from time to time but not often. He likes his life and is happy self determining on Wall Street. If Israel ceased to be or never had been how would this person be less self determined ?

The problem with these lazy sound bites whose main purpose seems to be intimidatory, is that they embroil us in a morass of contradictions. Just one example...

We are told that it is anti semitic to hold Jews collectively responsible for the actions and policies of the State of Israel. We are also told that Israel is the exercise of the right to self determination of the Jewish people and to deny this is anti semitic. Now these things cannot be true together. One or both of them must be false.

Take Joe Cohen down the street. If the State of Israel enterprise is the exercise of HIS right to self determination how can HE not be responsible ? When I exercise my right of self determination do I do so with no responsiblity whatsoever ? Unless you want to say " the Jewish people " doesn't include Joe.

Dont miss tomorrows exciting instalment....What is the purpose of these lazy sound bites ?

But what if.....

Real Real Zionist — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:08:10 +0000

But what if Finkelstein is wrong ?

Finkelstein acknowledges that Israel will never willingly comply with the law, but appears to feel that the right kind of world wide movement with the right simple and honest message will compel it to do so.But what if he is wrong ?

There is no doubt that the world CAN compel Israeli compliance and very, very easily. But in the light of there being no sign of any change in the American policy of " Israel first " or in the first principle of western foreign policy, " don't get too far away from the Americans", WILL it ?

And if not would it then not be fair and reasonable, and acceptable to Finkelstein's " wider public " to reformulate the message and redefine the objective as one fully democratic, secular state between the river and the sea,and a fair resolution of the refugee problem ? In the circumstances described above the message could be formulated very simply and would pass Finkelsteins " defendability " test.

But, says Joe Public, that means no Israel,certainly no Jewish state doesn't it ?

Well yes it would mean that,would come the reply ( everyone, remember, has adopted Finkelsteins honesty is the best policy mantra ). But that is the choice Israel itself has made.It has had plenty of chances to comply with the law and the almost universal will of the international community but simply refuses to do so.

Have you talked to them ?

Oh yeah, they will always talk. They will talk until the sun leaves it's main sequence ( about 5,000 million years) and we are all dead ( so much for eternal Israel ). But they just keep repeating their mantras.....

Jerusalem will never be divided or shared

Israel will never give up the Jordan Valley

Most of the Israelis living over the green line must be included in the state of Israel

And all the while they continue their illegal colonising of the land which is the clearest indication imaginable that compliance is not on their agenda.

The Palestinian people cannot live like this any longer. Effectively stateless, subject to the daily trauma of violent military dictatorship. So while two states for two people was the ideal the time has come to face up to reality. Israel's maximum comes nowhere near the international community's minimum and nor ever will it.

Enough is enough. Since Israel has chosen for there to be one state between the river and the sea the task now is to turn this apartheid state into a fully democratic and secular state.And the means is to be a world wide anti apartheid movement. Why don't you join us ?

Joe Public would buy that wouldn't it ?

But of course, Finkelstein might not be wrong. He might be right.

Don't miss Mondays exciting instalment. The myth of the possibility of " self determination "

What Finkelstein didn't say

Real Real Zionist — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:47:25 +0000

What Finkelstein didn't say.

Having said there was no point in talking to the Israelis and they would have to be compelled to accept the law he fails to tell us how they would be compelled and who would do the compelling.He couldn't say everything in one short interview and I suspect that he had it planned to say it in the talk that was to follow,on the evening of the day of the interview.

Further the hopeless Frank Barat didn't help. Completely misunderstanding his role an an interviewer he sought( rather pathetically ) to engage the interviewee in argument rather then ask penetrative questions. Further Finkelstein is apparently co authoring a book ( with someone whose name I didn't catch )that seems orientated towards how a solution might be brought about which presumably will include addressing these questions.

Since he said that PSC/BDS were employing correct tactics I imagine that some kind of campaign, with honestly stated objectives, of boycott etc would play a part a la apartheid South Africa.

Until the book is published we are just guessing. But I found what he said very helpful. Particularly the implied point that the wider public won't support something they don't understand at the behest of those they don't feel able to trust. That is the weakness of BDS at this point in time.They just come over like the lunatic fringe of the ZF...incoherent, unclear,rabid and shiftily dishonest. So people just see a sand pit squabble that bores them, so they pass by on the other side whenever they can.

Finkelstein seems to be calling for what he feels would garner massive world wide support. That is a simple call for law enforcement, acknowledging that the existence of Israel within pre June 1967 borders is the law too. He could be right. The public like law and law enforcement.

Further,Israeli propaganda has been very effective in at least one respect.It has been very effective in confusing people. To be fair " the other side " has helped a lot in this respect. Go to any meeting on the subject, listen to any argument about it and there is one word you are guaranteed to hear, " complex ", as in " well it is a very complex issue." Just about EVERYONE thinks it is complex. And as we know complexity is the last refuge of the scoundrel. It is not complex, it is very, very simple.

Thanks Normie for reminding us of this. You have helped me a lot.

Look out for tomorrows exciting instalment " But what if........"

What Finkelstein said.

Real Real Zionist — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:04:46 +0000

What Finkelstein actually said ......or hysterics from the lunatic fringe of the ZF and accuracy make poor bed fellows.

First of all he said NOTHING that contradicted anything he has said in the past. He has always been an unequivocal " two stater ". He said additional things but not contradictory things.

He starts by saying that his objective was simple. He wants to see the enforcement of the law. And there is almost universal agreement on what the law says. It is simple and uncomplicated.

The settlements are illegal.

East Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory.

The West Bank and Gaza are occupied Palestinian territory

But the law also says that Israel is a state, as uniquivocally a legal entity as any other state, and that it's legal borders are the pre June 1967 borders.

He then goes on to talk about strategies and tactics for getting the law enforced. He says that the goals of the so called PA are correct in that they are on all fours with the international consensus. However their adopted means are hopeless, they will never work. The Palestinians greatest asset is the people. If the 4 million Palestinian people were mobilised " Israel wouldn't have a prayer ". But they never will because they are corrupt, wretched collaborators who know that it would not only be the occupation that would be swept away but them also. They prefer to talk behind closed doors with the Israelis who will give them NOTHING.

He then goes on to talk about PSC/BDS and says their adopted means are essentially CORRECT, but the problem lay with their goals.In particuar with their refusal to state their objectives HONESTLY. That their " three principles " could only have one result ie NO ISRAEL.

That they cannot be honest about this because for a sizeable section of the membership this IS the objective and to honestly state this objective would split the movement. That the wider public are ready or would be ready to support the enforcement of the law, ALL of the law, once it has been made clear to them that this is the objective.

He says that any appeal to the law must include recognition of Israel because THAT is the law too. For these reasons of dishonesty and evasiveness and alleged " agnosticism on Israel " and selectivity when it comes to the law BDS etc are destined to remain a cult rather than a movement taking in the wider public that would result in the law being enforced. And he is sick of cults and doesnt intend to waste any more of his life in them.

Rather he wants to engage with the wider public on terms they understand and are ready to support. That is the enforcement of ALL of the law.

Watch out for tomorrows exciting instalment. " What Finkelstein DIDN'T say ".

Finkelstein headline du jour...... " American Jewish leaders affirm that while the universe belongs to the Jewish people they are willing to make painful concessions over Pluto ".

What a relief

Real Real Zionist — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:45:42 +0000

What price Israeli moral supremacy. It is so unedifying when pots call kettles black.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/enemies-a-hate-story-1.4134...

The good bad and indifferent

Real Real Zionist — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:27:51 +0000

There was this professor who was walking down the corridor of his university department when he encountered one of his brighter students.

He said " young lady yours was a damn fine answer to my last assignment question "

She said " yes sir but it was a damn fine question. "

Your questions raise too many questions that need to be answered before they can themselves be adequately answered ( that's what you get when you quote grave, self important yet sloppy people )

However, not wishing to be a complete party pooper, I am going to assume some of these answers.

I have been unable to persuade myself that there can be racism without at least one racist.So I have reformulated the question( s ) along the lines of " Do you agree that this that or the other occurrence is always a racist incident / event. Since I am not persuaded that there is such a thing as anti Israeli racism as opposed to anti semitism I am just going to say racism. If you object to this and are inclined to say I have not answered the questions you asked I can only advise that you address your questions to those to whom they make sense.

Do you agree that seeking the destruction of Israel is ALWAYS a racist event/ incident ? Hard to imagine such an occurence that wasn't so I am inclined to say yes I do agree. That is not to say that saying such things as " The State of Israel was a bad idea " or " an idea that needs to be radically revised " etc etc is ALWAYS such.

Do you agree that denying Israel's right to exist is ALWAYS a racist event / incident ? Well does any state exist as a matter of right or as a matter of fact ? If as a matter of right it could only be within a closed system, eg a legal right, a right under international law, say.So I do not agree that saying this is ALWAYS a racist event / incident. It could be a mistake.

Do you agree that singling out Israel for selective condemnation and opprobrium is ALWAYS a racist event / incident ? No I don't agree. Every time we refer to someone, something, some country we single out. The word " selectively" doesn't make any difference. What is the difference between " single out " and " single out selectively" ? The word selectively is redundant. If I say Syria sucks I am singling out Syria. ( singling out Syria selectively if you like ).

Good things come to those that wait

Real Real Zionist — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:38:45 +0000

First let me say that " postphoned " is a very diplomatic choice of words.

Because I choose not to quibble with "there is such a thing as anti Israeli racism ( as opposed to anti semitism ), doesn't mean I am comfortable with the language. Many people wanted to see an end to the Soviet Union but I never heard it called racism. But like I said I will play. I won't quibble.

The problem with these kinds of empirical statements is that regardless of how many confirming instances there are just one counter example renders them false.

This why scientists say there are no scientific facts just theories.We have varying degrees of confidence in these theories. Take the theory that water boils at 100C at sea level.We have so much confidence in this theory that we act as if it were a fact rather a product of inductive reasoning.When we get on an airplane we express confidence in a whole host of theories since we have not encountered any counter instances.

How do the statements you invite me to agree with rate as theories ? Not very well I am afraid.

" Seeking the destruction of Israel...." That is probably the best bet. " Destruction " has apocolyptic undertones. The destruction of Israel would involve the destruction of many people. When people think Israel they think Jews. So I would say that that is genocidal anti semitism.

However, variants such as " a bad idea ", " should be dismantled ", " should not have come about " , etc not so. To say that these ARE racist is false because there will be any number of counter examples. Why can't you be content with the entirely true statement that such things are often motivated by racism ?

Will deal with the singling out thing tomorrow. Got up late ha ha ha .

PS don't be too hard on Jose. After all it was a free education ha ha ha

If you were a smart West Bank Palestinian....

Real Real Zionist — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:38:29 +0000

If you were a smart West Bank Palestinian what would you do now the two state solution idea is dead ?

Well the first thing you would do is acknowledge this indisputable fact, come out of denial and admit that there is already one state between the river and the sea. You would then call for the dissolution of the PA and insist that Israel be seen to be doing ALL of its own dirty work.

You would redefine the struggle as an anti apartheid movement and demand full equality in this already existing state. Equality of movement, settlement and political participation. The world would get behind this.

To those of you about to go into a rant about the end of the Jewish state I would just say this...

Israel's choice.

Where was I

Real Real Zionist — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:19:40 +0000

Ok so that is your position....

But why do people adopt a maximalist position and stand by a statement that is so obviously false ? Especially as there are near alternatives that that are as obviously true as aZas is obviously false?

Eg. " anti Zionism is often a manifestation of anti semitism? What is WRONG with that ?

It's a rhetorical question, I know the answer.

Changing tack slightly. Do you REALLY think the meaning of a word in long term common usage can be changed by a dozen bums around a table?

Testing

Real Real Zionist — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:57:48 +0000

Test

By Mitnachel
February 8, 2012
Share

H2O

Welcome back Jose.

Boycott The Guardian

Real Real Zionist — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:19:12 +0000

For happygoldfish ......since I was so rudely interrupted by Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Or rather Mr Hyde and Mr Hyde.

There is nothing wrong with the English in the sentences you example. I never said there was anything wrong with the English in " Anti Zionism is anti semitism " , merely that it was a dumb thing to say.

It is often used in such a way that the speaker seems to employing the " is " of identity, even interchanging between " is " and " same as " ," equivalent to " etc. There is no point in arguing about this, it is a purely empirical observation. Advs3r/ Jose/ Anthony/ blackie does so his very self on the previous blog if you would care to take a look and see. If your experience is different to mine we will just have to leave it at that.

While there often seems to be a number of different " is's " there is really just the is of identity and the ontological is ( unless we admit the dubious case of the existential is ) " I think therefore I am " ( is )..

So if on any occasion we don't have the is of identity we have the ontological is.The is that refers to the being of a person or thing or phenomenon. Anti Zionism consists of anti semitism, anti semitism is a property of anti Zionism, anti Zionism is made up of, among other things, anti semitism. Monkey chanting on the terraces is made up of racism.

But there is a great deal of difference between " chicken is meat " and " anti Zionism is anti semitism ".
" Chicken is meat " is a NECESSARY TRUTH because being meat is a NECESSARY PROPERTY of chickens. You can't be a chicken if you aren't meat.

Famous examples provided by Saul Kripke include the queens parentage and the atomic number of gold. Could the queen have had different parents to the ones she actually had ? Not if we mean Elizabeth. How could this very woman have had different parents ? It could only be true that the queen had parents other than those people >> if the queen was someone other than Elizabeth. And how could something with an atomic number other than 12345 ( whatever it is ) be gold ? And how could something with atomic number 12345 not be gold ? Having atomic number 12345 is a necessary property of gold. Having atomic number 12345 is the ESSENCE of gold.

Are you claiming the same status for " Anti Zionism is anti semitism " ? And " monkey chanting on the terraces is racism " ? Are you saying antisemitism is the essence of anti zionism ? That you cant be anti zionist without being anti semitic ? That only anti semites can be anti zionist in the same way that only meat can be a chicken ?

We can argue phiosophically about whether only meat can be a chicken but since every chicken ever known to man has been meat just as every piece of gold has had atomic number 12345 is strong empirical evidence in favour of a particular view.

Are you saying that every anti zionist there is or ever has been is or was anti semitic ? What about people like Einstein who change their mind quite a bit ? Was Einstein anti semitic on some days but not others ?

It doesn't even have the status of monkey chanting on the terraces is racism.

The reality is that anti Zionism is anti semititism is purely stipulative. It is because I AND/OR SOME COMMITTEE OR OTHER SAYS SO.

So here we are trapped in the contradiction of trying to speak a private language, just like humpty dumpty. And as I pointed out on another blog, speaking a private language was the surest sign that humpty was nuts.

Boycott The Guardian

Real Real Zionist — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:23:23 +0000

It never ceases to amaze me just how dumb much of the stuff that is said on here is. Most of it said in all sincerity and seriousness.

Today's example....." Anti Zionism is anti semitism". Get your head around that if you possibly can.

The "IS " here is the is of identity. "Anti Zionism IS anti semitism "

The ancients noticed a star low down in the evening sky and called it " Hesperus". They also noticed a star low down in the morning sky and called it " Phosphorous". It was eventually realised that Hesperus and Phosphorous were the self same heavenly body, the planet Venus.

Hesperus is Phosphorous.Hesperus and Phosphorous are identicals. Now the Law of the Indiscernability of Identicals tells us that identicals have ALL of their properties in common. These include of course common
origin, common history, common fate etc.

So if anti Zionism really IS anti semitism, anti semitism cannot possibly pre date Zionism.So all the persecution and discrimination against Jews prior to the rise of Zionism, wasn't really anti semitism at all.

The simple fool proof test of whether this or that IS this or that, is the test of substitutivity. We should be able to substitute one word or expression for the other in ANY sentence without loss or change of sense.

So " There was a great deal of anti Zionism in Moorish Spain " ,has as much, and the same,sense as " There was a great deal of anti semitism in Moorish Spain" .

Watch out for the next exciting episode, when we will consider the question of whether any sense can be made of the notion of " self determination" .

And remember.

Dumb is dumb. The fact that it was said by some parliamentary committee or whatever, doesn't make it less dumb.

On a slightly different tack.There are a great many Jews that are anti Zionist ( not me ). There a great many Zionist Jews that are anti any political expression of Zionism. There are a great many Zionist Jews that are sympathetic to it's political expression yet are horrified by what The State of Israel has become.

Buycott The Guardian

Real Real Zionist — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:12:32 +0000

Buycott The Guardian !!!!!

10 per cent off !!!!

No nazi boycotts on Fleet Street !!!

Boycott The Guardian

Real Real Zionist — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 19:04:00 +0000

Jose you don't seem to have much luck with your whining whining crying appeals to the moderator. Time to give up ?

Go to sleep

Real Real Zionist — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:31:37 +0000

Go to sleep Advsr/Jose/Anthony/blackie you know it makes sense. All of this can't be good for your blood pressure. You will feel so much better in the morning.I do believe on a clear day you can see East Jerusalem from the dizzy heights of Milton Keynes.

Shared values again

Real Real Zionist — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:46:50 +0000

Western style liberal democracy in action again.

What a country come back real real zionism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/22/palestinian-children-detaine...

Anyone have any news....

Real Real Zionist — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 20:22:45 +0000

Anyone have any news yet on the IOF " investigation" into the murder of Mustafa Tamini ?

It doesn't look good

Real Real Zionist — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:40:43 +0000

It doesn't look good does it ?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-s-arabs-and-seculars...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/give-israel-s-secular-liber...

What a mess Israel has made of itself.

Jose doesn't need ....

Real Real Zionist — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 20:52:35 +0000

Interesting expression " Israeli security forces " . Ordinarily when the IOF say this or that it is said the IOF said this or that. Who are these Israeli security forces ?

Jose doesn't need white phosphorous to burn himself..

" The shells landed in open fields, causing no injuries or damage."

" The chemical is banned by international law for use near civilians."

Near civilians ?

Gaza City is the most densely populated part of one one of the most densely populated areas of the world yet scores of civilians in Gaza City were burned by the abominable stuff.

War crimes confirmed ?

And as for Jonathan Sarcedoti isn't he one of Hoffmans mates ? Oh my, credibility is us.