A Note on the Algemeiner and Usage of "West Bank"

Michael Lumish

It is important to note that the usage of "West Bank" to refer to the traditional Jewish homeland of Yehuda and Shomron (or Judea and Samaria in the Latinate) is a way of robbing the Jewish people of our connection to the land of our ancestry.

When pro-Israel / pro-Jewish publications such as the Algemeiner or the Times of Israel or the Jerusalem Post use that designation they are undermining Jewish claims to Jewish land.

I have focused on the Algemeiner because I have fifteen articles published in that venue and because I am pissed-off at them. I have, therefore, decided to keep an eye on their usage of that term in their headlines. From what I can tell Dovid Efune and his staff are using that anti-Zionist phraseology less than they used to.

Today, February 18, 2020, they did not use it at all in the headlines and that's a good thing. We need to discourage the usage of "West Bank" and we need to call into account any of the Jewish press that continues to use anti-Jewish / anti-Israel terminology in their front page.

What if we got rid of the nation-state?

Michael Lumish

There is much dislike for "nationalism" on the progressive-left because -- due to World War II and the Nazis -- they generally equate it with fascism.

But what we call nationalism is the basis of the modern international system usually attributed by historians to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

So, how would a world without nation-states -- which is to say, without nationalism -- function? I can think of two possibilities, although surely there must be others.

One would be an international series of anarchist groupings, small independent townships and farming communities. Sort of like a world made up of an endless series of kibbutzim. The likelihood of any such thing emerging is virtually zero and hardly something that would benefit humanity.

The other alternative is considerably worse. It would mean a one-world government, presumably executed by the United Nations. In other words, the result would be global authoritarianism.

Those of you calling for open borders are calling for precisely that because nations do not exist with open borders. Nations are defined geographically precisely by borders.

If you can think of any other alternatives beyond the nation-state, I would love to hear.

Elizabeth Warren Spits at AIPAC

Michael Lumish

The Jerusalem Post headline reads, "Elizabeth Warren says she will skip the AIPAC conference".

AIPAC is a politically neutral organization.

Its sole purpose is to represent the Jewish State to the American government and the American people. It is an entirely non-partisan organization and it is an entirely American organization.

If Warren boycotts AIPAC it demonstrates not only hostility to the Jewish State of Israel, but to American and Jewish American supporters of Israel.

This is something that no self-respecting Jewish person, or friend of, should accept.

This is a move that tells me that Elizabeth Warren is no friend to the Jewish people.

There is no good bigotry

Sar Shalom

One of the harshest insults used in contemporary society is "Bigot!" In general, any form of bigotry is considered by society to be a bad form of bigotry, whether the target is based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or identity, or socioeconomic status.

However, society seems to cut out one category as an exception to this rule that all bigotry is bad. That exception is any bigotry by or on behalf of any marginalized community directed and those who are its "oppressors." Two common examples of that category are left-wing and Islamist bigotry directed at Jews and those who support Jewish self-determination.

The message must be simple and clear. THERE IS NO GOOD BIGOTRY!

The Stupid Arab League

Doodad

After initial encouraging reports that Arab states were supporting the Deal of the Century, the Arab League rejected it.

All three nations — Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates — on Saturday backed an Arab League decision that rejected the US plan, seemingly dashing any hopes the administration may have had of Arab support for its efforts......“These are clauses no Arab or Islamic nation could agree to, so in the end the foreign ministers aligned with the position opposed to the Trump plan.”

The clauses of which they speak, of course, are Islam related: a feeling that the US was promoting a change in the status quo. And therein is the rub. The Islam factor. The mere thought that Jews might trump (no pun intended) Muslims is too much to bear and the all encompassing nail in the coffin of all and every so called peace plan. And as much sense as a prosperous Palestinian state makes to westerners, it ignores the Islam factor and the honor/shame culture Islam creates.

Everyone thought Arab states were coming around and they feared Iran more than anything until it all hit that brick wall;Islam. Kushner told the Palestinians to give up "fairy tales," for peace totally unaware of the terrifying and stupefying pull of the Islam factor.

And so it goes, eternally. Oh BTW, the Arab League rejection was UNANIMOUS. Big surprise.

NOTE: didnt want to start a whole new thread just for this so....added this neat cartoon here. I just know Vindman and Greta probably love them some cuddly Palestinians.