Congressman Hank Johnson says calling Jewish settlers "termites" was a "poor choice of words"

[SocialMaladroit]

Having read through this thread - twice - it feels like I’m in bizarro world.

Israelis have a long documented history of taking Palestinian land, bombing Palestinian cities to dust, killing Palestinian civilians, destroying Palestinian homes and leaving the occupants to die, etc. - and everyone’s all worried that some Congresscritter’s careless analogy “denied” the Israelis’ “basic humanity.” Aw.

And the dude in this thread who pointed out that the Congresscritter made an analogy, rather than resorting to outright name-calling, well, he’s the concern troll.

So the Congresscritter was trying to say that the Israelis were destroying the foundations of a peace agreement by keeping on with the settlements, and compared the Israelis to “termites” to describe how they’re destroying that foundation.

Guess it’s a good thing I’m not a congressman, because I might have said something to the effect that Israel, with its superior military, is the 800 pound gorilla in the region, and, as such, they are, in the main, responsible for coming up with a solution to the problem. Instead, they consistently either hold on to the status quo, or make the problem worse. Goodness knows what a kerfuffle that would have caused.

[Mindysan33]

Many of us agree with you, but as both @ActionAbe and @milliefink, they are still human beings. Comparing them to bugs does not do anything for the cause of justice in Palestine. Johnson (my congressman, actually) is not helping here.

[Keith_McClary]

@milliefink

common Israeli epithet for Palestinians – “cockroaches”

It was said by an Israeli cabinet minister and this was not repudiated by the regime. Looking at historical maps, the phrase “spreading like cancer” comes to mind.

[Bernel]

Max_Blanch, the period when Israel was ruled by Jews were actually quite short and way back in time. It’s just because of their religion and its descendants Christianity and Islam that we consider it significant. In no other part of he world would it be considered sane to bring up what may have happened over 2000 years ago as relevant for politics today. If you insist on going back that far, you should also consider that genetic studies suggest that the Palestinians are descendants of the Jews who remained and got mixed up with other people moving into the area while the people we today call Jews are the ones who left a long time ago. Why should the descendants of those who left have more right to the land than those who stayed?

The Zionists were a bunch of European immigrants to Israel (look up the background of the people who signed the Israeli declaration of independence if you don’t believe me). If you don’t start history in 1948 but go back a couple of decades more you’ll find that Jews were a tiny minority in the area, and most of those native Jews weren’t even Zionists, they were quite happy to live in a mixed country.

Milliefink makes a perfectly relevant analogy. Both in USA and Israel it was a bunch of European colonists who, claiming religious persecution at home, decided they had a right to conquer a new land, never mind that it was already populated. I think that common history is one reason USA is the most fanatical supporter of Israel today.

As for that to call the “settlers”, what about “war criminals”?

[Bobo]

You’d think that being a member of a group that has had issues with being compared to livestock etc… in the last couple of hundred years would perhaps grant a bit of sensitivity to comparing others to insects, but apparently no…

[Bernel]

When it comes to poor choice of words, what about the Israeli minister of justice, Ayelet Shaked, who wrote a facebook post where she declared that the enemy was the entire Palestinian people. She claimed that not only Palestinians resisting should die, but also their mothers for “raising the snakes”. Calling people snakes as an excuse for killing them, is way, way worse than any bad analogy about termites, and from the minister of justice no less.

[milliefink]

@Mister44

Speaking of their neighbors, why does it feel Israel is being singled out here on human rights.

Serious question – did you ask that question back when South Africa was singled out for its racist policy of apartheid? Or when China was being singled out for its treatment of Tibet?

@Mister44

I concede the way Israel has dealt with the Palestinians has been heavy handed and violent at times.

And it’s heavy handed overall as well. Let’s not understate Israeli abuse here. For starters, much of the Palestinian population basically lives in an open-air prison. Israel’s teenaged soldiers commonly treat Palestinians of all ages like dogs. It typically responds to Palestinian resistance with massively disproportionate force. It commonly steals and bulldozes Palestinian homes while leaving their owners homeless, then steals and installs welfare-supported Israelis on the land – another form of “violence.” I could go on. And on, and on, and on.

@Mister44

But one must also concede that a) Israel has tried many times for peace through diplomacy

And each time, the puny amount of divided land they offered along with other severely limiting conditions would be unacceptable to any other population allowed, at least, to negotiate.

@Mister44

the Palestinians and outside influences have also been perpetrators of violence.

I really am surprised that a proponent like you of the right to defend oneself with guns would advocate passive acceptance of the horrifically disproportionate abuse, dispossession and murder meted out to Palestinians by Israel.[quote=“Mister44, post:59, topic:82155”]
I will clarify that two wrongs don’t make a right, but the condemnation of Israel seems to be very one sided with out acknowledgment that their actions aren’t completely unprovoked.
[/quote]

Like most apologists of state-sponsored Israeli oppression and violence, you start here in the middle of things. What do you suppose it was that provoked the violence that in turn provoked (further) Israeli violence?

[lolipop_jones]

@Bernel

Both in USA and Israel it was a bunch of European colonists who, claiming religious persecution at home, decided they had a right to conquer a new land, never mind that it was already populated.

A fair point. Does any resident of the USA (or Canada, or Mexico) who lives on land from which indigenous people were expelled have a right to condemn the Israelis without themselves relinquishing their own property?

[Israel_B]

Because even the word “settlers” is loaded. You don’t call people who move into a new subdivision in Arizona “settlers” after all. How about just “Israelis”.

[Max_Blancke]

As I said, in the long view, for most of it’s history, Israel was populated primarily by Jews. I am not sure that over 1500 years is “very quite short” period of time. But it was indeed way back in time, at least from your apparent perspective. By not starting in 1948, I was not really talking about going back "a couple of decades"
It is true that modern Jewish immigration back to Israel began on a large scale in 1880, but was slowed somewhat by the British invasion of 1917 (and slowed even more by the British in 1931) But still, in 1922 the League of Nations declared a Jewish mandate for Palestine.
As for the Jewish non-Zionists living there before 1948, they were subject to the Arab massacres of the Jews in 1929, 1935, and 1937, and unlikely to be "quite happy"
But it has to be admitted that every time the Jews were ejected from, or returned to Israel, it was an episode of violence. I do not approve of that tactics of the settlers. Nor do I approve of Palestinians teaching young children that their goal in life should be to stab some Jews.
It should be considered that the majority of Arab countries have been complicit in prolonging the Arab/Israeli conflict, by specifically denying citizenship and some civil rights to Palestinians living in their countries. They have created a situation for the Palestinians that is much the same as the Israelis, that they have nowhere else to go.
Part of your argument copies that of the Zionists. They assert that Arabs who “leave” forfeit their rights to return. But in both cases,“leaving” was not particularly a voluntary act.
Migration of human populations has always been messy, and involved great violence and cruelty. When you have more than one group that believes that a certain piece of land is their historical homeland, you are likely to be in for major conflict.

[nimelennar]

@Max_Blancke

As I said, in the long view, for most of it’s history, Israel was populated primarily by Jews.

From what I can find, if you’re right, you’re only right by a very bare minimum of “most.” Admittedly, this is all Wikipedia research, and deserves as much credibility as that implies but…

It sounds like that are was first populated primarily by Jews around 3200 years ago, ~1200 BCE. Let’s cut out most of the footnotes of history, and say that that continued until the end of the Jewish Roman Wars in 132 CE.

We’re at ~1300 years where Jews were the primary population of the area. During the next 500 years, it was populated mainly by Samaritans, Romans, Persians, the Byzantines, (from Wikipedia, “Jewish presence in the region significantly dwindled after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt against the Roman Empire in 132 CE. […] The region came to be populated predominantly by Greco-Romans on the coast and Samaritans in the hill-country”) and then, (again, omitting most of the historical footnotes), was populated mostly by Muslims for about 1300 years.

Towards the end of WWI, [the British conquered the area] (Israel - Wikipedia), and let’s assume that Jews immediately became a majority of the population for the next hundred years (until today).

Of the past ~3200 years, that’s ~1400 years that Jews were the primary population, ~1300 years of Muslims, and ~500 years of “various other.”

Even if all of the historical footnotes add up to give the Jews that ~200 year push to take them over 1600 and, thus, the majority of those 3200 years, it’s a bare majority, not an overwhelming one.

Again, this is all Wikipedia research, so if you wish to correct my facts, feel free to.

[strangefriendbb]

Jewish settlers, since they are violating International law, don’t deserve respect.

[agger_modspil]

Well…

That is a very bad thing to say, it reeks of anti-Semitism.

I think I’d settle for calling them thieves, who are encroaching on land where they have absolutely no right to be and which they should rightfully vacate now.

But there’s no need to stoop to that level of demonization. Leave the anti-Semitism and Nazi apology to Netanyahu.

[strangefriendbb]

I hope you remember that antisemitism is the irrational fear & hatred of Jews. To oppose the policies of the Israeli government is necessary if you believe in human rights. Same thing with Jewish settlers.

[nimelennar]

@Israel_B

Because even the word “settlers” is loaded. You don’t call people who move into a new subdivision in Arizona “settlers” after all. How about just “Israelis”.

I’m surprised I don’t see this argument coming from the other side.

After all, if you’re “settling” a place, the implication is that the land is “unsettled,” that is to say “unoccupied.”

[agger_modspil]

If Israel desires to add the West Bank to its territory and thus consider it conquered, it can do that by annexing it.

That, however, would require it to grant Israeli citizenship to all of its current inhabitants.

Failing that, it’s holding the territory occupied and is responsible for the needs of the population according to the Geneva conventions. It’s failing these responsibilities big time, illegally offloading the burden on NGO’s.

And it’s illegally settling the area with its own citizens in circumvention of the Geneva conventions. That’s a war crime, even for the “waterboarding is just a walk in the park” blasé.

[Melizmatic]

Repeat:

#I’ve said all that I had to say on the subject.

Good day.

[agger_modspil]

@frauenfelder

There are probably better words to call settlers than “termites.” How about calling them “settlers?”

“Criminals”? “Land grabbers?”

The second is endemically true, the first is at least true of the more aggressive settlers like e.g. the hard core in Hebron.

[Vert]

“Saboteurs”? “Underminers”?

[Mister44]

@agger_modspil

And it’s illegally settling the area with its own citizens in circumvention of the Geneva conventions. That’s a war crime, even for the “waterboarding is just a walk in the park” blasé.

I will try to address other things later, I am having a busy day. But I was curious about this.

Having citizens settle on that land, how is that a war crime? It is people, families, moving and living there. Maybe you will have to explain to me the part of the Geneva convention you are talking about.