International Zionist groups back petition against settler actions in Hebron

8 Comments

1. es says:

   March 29, 2007 at 3:27 pm

   The only thing out of hand is Jews condemning the actions of their brother and sisters who live in Judea and Samaria out of a false sense of justice and high morality. The only thing you are serving is your own inflated ego’s. You swallow every media accusation, accept every negatuve perspective without seperating fact from media spin as long as its against the Jews living in Judea and Samaria. What have you come to? You think you will create a better world by making your brothers and sisters your adversaries? You pander to every remote arab claim in the name of humanity without giving second thought to the humanity of your brothers and sisters. This is pure insanity and a very deep dysfunction.
2. Uri DeYoung says:

   April 12, 2007 at 12:40 pm

   I don’t know what sort of “anarchist” you are, or what “orthodox” means in your language, but…

   As far as I know, there is no evidence that the title transfer for that building was forged. Of course the Arab who apparently sold it claims otherwise. Selling property to Jews is a capital offense in the Palestinian State, in case you haven’t heard.

   Assuming, for now, that the Arab agreed to sell his building to the Jews, what’s your problem with the situation?

   – The Israeli army has to defend it?

   No they don’t. Let the residents defend themselves, or hire someone else to do it.

   – It will upset the “peace process” between the thugs of the Zionist State and the warlords of the Palestinian State?

   Some anarchist! LOL.

   – The local Arabs don’t like Jews, and having Hebrew neighbors will “inflame” them?

   Tough toenails. If they really, really must live in a Judenfrei environment, they can either raise a lot of money and buy the building back, or try to convert the Jews to Mohammedanism. If these options fail, they’ll just have to get used to having non-Muslims around. That’s life in a free, anarchist society.

   There’s more to being an “anarchist” than putting up a trendy, foul-mouthed, self-indulgent blog.

   Zil g’mor, sweetheart.

   By the way, I like your “A” logo. I’ll be using a modified version of it for our Judean cycling club. I hope you don’t believe in copyrights or anything
3. Mobius says:

   April 12, 2007 at 1:20 pm

   As far as I know, there is no evidence that the title transfer for that building was forged. Of course the Arab who apparently sold it claims otherwise. Selling property to Jews is a capital offense in the Palestinian State, in case you haven’t heard.

   And yet likewise, there’s no evidence that the title transfer is real. It’s a he-said/she-said situation, with the Palestinian bearing the original deed. Furthermore, there is a long-standing precedent of settlers forging documents or simply occupying Palestinian homes, particularly in Hebron. Therefore, I am more inclined to believe the Palestinian homeowner in this case.

   The Israeli army has to defend it? No they don’t. Let the residents defend themselves, or hire someone else to do it.

   Except, that’s not what the settlers did. They had the army come and protect them.

   It will upset the “peace process” between the thugs of the Zionist State and the warlords of the Palestinian State? Some anarchist! LOL.

   This statement was composed by a coalition of international Zionist organizations, not by me. I printed it because I am interested in help ing them get traction on this issue.

   The local Arabs don’t like Jews, and having Hebrew neighbors will “inflame” them? Tough toenails. If they really, really must live in a Judenfrei environment, they can either raise a lot of money and buy the building back, or try to convert the Jews to Mohammedanism. If these options fail, they’ll just have to get used to having non-Muslims around. That’s life in a free, anarchist society.

   Oh kiss my ass. Ideological settlers are not anarchists. They are not settling the West Bank to live in peace and equality with their neighbors. They are engaged in the practice of forcibly dispossessing Palestinians, and they have repeatedly engaged in acts of violence against the Palestinian community in Hebron. The settlement of the West Bank, encouraged and supported by the Israeli government and military as an act of warfare, cannot be portrayed as the mere innocent desires of Jews to live in their ancient homeland. It is an act of aggression.

   Before the Zionists began asserting their desire to throw all the Arabs out of eretz yisrael, Jews lived in peace with their neighbors in Hebron. Five years before the Hebron riots, Yaakov Yisrael DeHaan was murdered by the Haganah for negotiating the terms of a binational state with the local Arabs. Who wants what to be ethnically cleansed?

   You don’t think I’m familiar with Noam Federman and Mike Guzofsky? You don’t think I know what’s going on over there? Seriously… Get bent.

   There’s more to being an “anarchist” than putting up a trendy, foul-mouthed, self-indulgent blog.

   Oh, boo hoo, you called into question my anarchist credentials. I’m so hurt, I’m going to stop fighting the occupation immediately.

   Anarchism is the fight against oppression, not the fight for you to freely oppress whomever you’d like.

   By the way, I like your “A” logo. I’ll be using a modified version of it for our Judean cycling club. I hope you don’t believe in copyrights or anything

   Technically, you can do whatever you like. You’re criminals anyway.
4. Uri DeYoung says:

   April 15, 2007 at 6:29 am

   //[T]here is a long-standing precedent of settlers forging documents or simply occupying Palestinian homes, particularly in Hebron.//

   This also a case of he-said-she-said. I’d like to stick to the case at hand. If the Jews purchased the property, there should be no ideological problem as far as we are concerned. Ownership should be clarified through mutually acceptable, impartial investigation. There must be a record of an exchange of money, signed documents, etc. If not, we don’t have much of a case. If everything is in order, the house is sold — no backsies.

   //[The settlers] had the army come and protect them.//

   I don’t know if the settlers called the army or if the government, as it often does, insisted upon protecting people who could have (and should have) taken care of themselves. There is a school of thought that says that if the government already forces us to support it through taxation, then we “citizens” have a right to call upon the army to come to our defense. But, once you call in the army or police. they they point to this as evidence that the world can’t get along without their “help.” Then, they follow you to the grave “protecting” you, “taxing” you and enforcing their “laws” upon you. It’s better to have nothing to do with them in the first place. That way, when they turn on you like they did in Gush Qatif, you fight them with a clear conscience and don’t feel as if you owe them something.

   //Oh kiss my ass. Ideological settlers are not anarchists.//

   I am, and I think that we all should be. But, it requires education and clear debate, not vulgarity and name-calling. And, by the way, most ideological Muslims are also not anarchists, either, which brings me to the following point:

   //They are not settling the West Bank to live in peace and equality with their neighbors.//

   Politically, it really doesn’t matter what people’s motivations are. The question is whether or not someone is initiating physical aggression against someone else.

   But, as an aside: I and my older neighbors remember what life was like before the Intifadha. Jewish women went shopping alone in Khan Yunis. Groups of women used to go take driving lessons there. I used to walk freely (and unarmed) through the shuq in Shekhem and drink coffee in the coffee houses there. In Gaza, they even formed a basketball league with teams from Gush Qatif and Dir Al-Balah. But, this is not what G-d had in mind for us here, because in 1987 the Arabs themselves put an end to our neighborly relations.

   //They are engaged in the practice of forcibly dispossessing Palestinians, and they have repeatedly engaged in acts of violence against the Palestinian community in Hebron.//

   I must admit that I don’t know the details of these forcible dispossessions and repeated acts of violence. The settlers that I know don’t really care who lives in Hevron, as long as (1) Jews are allowed to pray freely at the Cave of Makhpela, (2) Jews can rebuild the neighborhoods stolen from them during the Arab rampages of the early 20th Century, (3) Jews are free to purchase homes in the area.

   //The settlement of the West Bank, [is] encouraged and supported by the Israeli government and military as an act of warfare…//

   OK. The people calling themselves the Israeli government should butt out of settlement policy, and let people live wherever they can buy land, homestead unused land or repossess land that was stolen from them. However, we must also be allowed to stop paying taxes and to acquire arms to defend ourselves. Heck, the Arabs are allowed to have all sorts of defense agencies to protect them (PLO, DFLP, Hamas, Hizballah, Islamic Jihad, Al Qa`ida, etc.); let us have the same option.

   //[This] cannot be portrayed as the mere innocent desires of Jews to live in their ancient homeland. It is an act of aggression.//

   I think that, for the most part, it is a mere innocent desire of Jews to live in their ancient homeland. But again, motivations are not the issue. Questions of ownership are the issue, and there is a huge problem of land ownership here in Erets Yisrael.

   For hundreds of years, the Ottoman government gave huge land grants to their cronies. Often the “owners” never even saw the land or improved it in any way. The British and Jordanians continued to recognize these bogus “titles” as a sort of professional courtesy to Arab notables, or sometimes transferred “ownership” to some other, more politically connected tribe. And the Israelis, when they retook Judea and Samaria from the Jordanians turned much of it into “state land.”

   So, when an Arab comes up with a title that says that his great-grandfather, Sheikh Such-and-Such, owned all of the hills east of Nablus as far as the Dead Sea, it’s rather like William Penn’s descendants claiming that they own all of Pennsylvania. The question is: did the Ottoman, British, Jordanian or Israeli governments ever have the right to make such land grants? An anarchist would say “no.” Unused land is acquired by working it, building on it, or in some way changing it from wilderness.

   When Elon Moreh was built on a barren hilltop (except for a lone sheikh’s grave that still stands unmolested on top of Har Kabir), it could hardly be called an “act of aggression.” When the settlers of Gush Qatif built towns on dusty sand dunes and proceeded to grow vegetables where nothing had grown before, it could hardly be called an “act of aggression.”

   Now, maybe in Islamspeak these were acts of aggression because they “insulted Islam” and turned dar es-salam into dar al-harb or some such nonsense. But, in the eyes of an anarchist they were perfectly legal.

   //Before the Zionists began asserting their desire to throw all the Arabs out of eretz yisrael, Jews lived in peace with their neighbors in Hebron.//

   Yes, I believe that the turning point was when those uppity Jews “asserted their desire to throw all the Arabs out of Eretz Yisrael” by holding prayers in an alleyway next to the outer wall of their ruined temple — the very wall where Mohammad once tethered his trusty steed Al-Buraq! I guess you’re right, the Muslims had no choice but to hew the Jews of Hevron into tiny pieces.

   //Five years before the Hebron riots, Yaakov Yisrael DeHaan was murdered by the Haganah for negotiating the terms of a binational state with the local Arabs. Who wants what to be ethnically cleansed?//

   As far as I know, Dr. DeHaan was murdered for negotiating with the British government, not with the local Arabs. Further, I understood that at the time of his murder DeHaan was the spokesman for the Old Yishuv’s Eidah Hareidit organization. As such, he had been against the entire concept of Jewish self-rule in Palestine and was on his way to London to present that view to the British government. In any case, his murder was a crime and a disgrace, one of many committed by the Labor Zionists.

   //You don’t think I’m familiar with Noam Federman and Mike Guzofsky? You don’t think I know what’s going on over there?//

   I never thought that you were unfamiliar with the subject matter. But, what do their personalities have to with the purchase of a building in Hevron? The only question should be whether or not the building was purchased.

   //Oh, boo hoo, you called into question my anarchist credentials. I’m so hurt, I’m going to stop fighting the occupation immediately.//

   No. I didn’t call your credentials into question. I just think that you’re not dissecting the case logically.

   //Anarchism is the fight against oppression, not the fight for you to freely oppress whomever you’d like.//

   Ah-ha! That’s the problem. Perhaps “the fight against oppression” is too vague a concept. Even Hitler could have claimed to be fighting against “Jewish economic, cultural and racial oppression.” If we limit ourselves to “fighting against the initiation of physical force,” the struggle would be more focused.

   //You’re criminals anyway.//

   Take it up with my protection agency, Stern & Savir. They’re humorless, but effective

   //Seriously… Get bent.//

   All the best.
5. Mobius says:

   April 15, 2007 at 4:48 pm

   If the Jews purchased the property, there should be no ideological problem as far as we are concerned.

   when you’re purchasing property in disputed territory presently under military occupation, there is an inescapable ideological problem.

   I don’t know if the settlers called the army or if the government, as it often does, insisted upon protecting people who could have (and should have) taken care of themselves.

   the settlers occupied the house under israeli protection. ie., they showed up with the soldiers.

   But, once you call in the army or police. they they point to this as evidence that the world can’t get along without their “help.”

   this is absurd.

   it requires education and clear debate, not vulgarity and name-calling.

   don’t play the moral high ground after coming out swinging with condescension.

   Politically, it really doesn’t matter what people’s motivations are. The question is whether or not someone is initiating physical aggression against someone else.

   here’s video evidence of settlers initiation physical aggression against their palestinian neighbors and non-violent international solidarity activists.

   The settlers that I know don’t really care who lives in Hevron, as long as (1) Jews are allowed to pray freely at the Cave of Makhpela, (2) Jews can rebuild the neighborhoods stolen from them during the Arab rampages of the early 20th Century, (3) Jews are free to purchase homes in the area.

   and what–those aren’t all extremely contentious issues? dividing and militarily occupying a mosque? driving arabs out of the casbah and occupying their abandoned homes and presenting forged ownership documents? expanding jewish control over a palestinian-dominated town by strategically purchasing land?

   <sarcasm> such innocent peaceful actions. i can’t understand what palestinians would be so upset about. </sarcasm>

   as per the rest…

   if you want the right and freedom to live in the west bank and gaza, then you must grant palestinians their right to do the same. you must give palestinians a right of return and full and equal citizenship in a binational state in which jews and arabs have equal protection under the law. you must allow arabs to buy land and houses in israel, to be equally represented in israel, and to have full democratic, civil and human rights in israel. and at that, you may have stop calling it israel as well and reject the essentially jewish nature of the state. then, and only then, will you be entitled to settle the west bank freely.

   Yes, I believe that the turning point was when those uppity Jews “asserted their desire to throw all the Arabs out of Eretz Yisrael” by holding prayers in an alleyway next to the outer wall of their ruined temple — the very wall where Mohammad once tethered his trusty steed Al-Buraq! I guess you’re right, the Muslims had no choice but to hew the Jews of Hevron into tiny pieces.

   the hebron riots were not orchestrated in response to jews praying at the kotel; they were orchestrated in response to the zionist’s dispossession of hundreds of thousands of palestinians by 1929.

   Ah-ha! That’s the problem. Perhaps “the fight against oppression” is too vague a concept. Even Hitler could have claimed to be fighting against “Jewish economic, cultural and racial oppression.” If we limit ourselves to “fighting against the initiation of physical force,” the struggle would be more focused.

   the abuse of oppression as a concept fails to negate the centrality of oppression to our struggle. to that, the initiation of physical force is acceptable when initiated in response to oppression.

   you accuse me of thinking about matters illogically, but i would argue it is you who is being illogical.

   the anarchist credo, as best articulated by bakunin is:

   “I am truly free only when all human beings around me, men and women alike, are equally free…I only become truly free through the freedom of others, so that the greater the numbers of free men around me, and the more extensive and comprehensive their freedom, the more extensive and profound my freedom becomes.”

   that includes arabs.
6. Uri DeYoung says:

   April 18, 2007 at 9:19 am

   “What you lookin’ at me for,
   I didn’t come here to stay,
   I just came here to speak my piece,
   And then I’m goin’ away.”

   I’m not sure that continuing this will be productive. We are really coming from two different perspectives: collectivist anarchism vs. individualist (free-market) anarchism.

   I would suggest that you check out for an encyclopedic overview of just about where I’m coming from. They are much more professional, academic and well-spoken than I am. Many of the main ideologues there — Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Frank Chodorov, Israel Kirzner & Walter Block seem rather comfortable with their Jewishishness, although most aren’t observant (except Kirzner, a hareidi rav who learned under Rav Yitshaq Hutner). I think you’ll especially enjoy Rothbard; he’s a radical, a fun read and sharp as a sakkin-yappani.

   Someone back in September 2006 suggested this site to you in response to “Interrogating Anarchism.” Did you ever check it out?

   I’d be interested to know what you think.
7. Uri DeYoung says:

   April 18, 2007 at 9:21 am

   The suggested website’s hyperlink didn’t show up on the last post.

   That’s http://www.mises.org
8. Mobius says:

   April 18, 2007 at 10:25 am

   i went over the mises stuff when it was first recommended, and there are elements of market anarchism from which i borrow. however, i ultimately view rugged individualism and capitalism as destructive forces.

   if you have an entirely open and free market, all that means is that whoever bears the power of capital can wield it over others heads without restraint, thus perpetuating an unjust hierarchy and injustice in general.

   as per the rugged individualism, we’re social creatures and we live in community with others. no one is alone in this world, and no one’s behavior is without its impact on others. an individual ought to be free to do whatever it is that drives them, but to do so without considering the impact it has on others is selfish and immoral.

   thus i reject such a worldview.