I emailed Ammous to ask what happened. She wrote back:
I left Ramallah at 5 in the morning on Friday to go to the Allenby Bridge on a 70-mile journey that is supposed to take only 3 hours. I went through three checkpoints before I managed to reach the bridge. When I arrived there I found thousands of people waiting for the Israelis to open the gates and let us in. I was among the lucky people who managed to reach the gate and wait to take a number. My number was 1414.
Around 9:30 o'clock while waiting under the burning sun, the Israeli side announced that only 1400 passengers are allowed to pass. The reason behind the 1400 quota is that on Friday the Israelis work a half day. So I wasn't allowed to pass and was sent home!!! I waited from 10 am till 2 p.m. until we finished the procedures and found a taxi to drive me from Jericho (where the bridge is) to Ramallah. I didn't call Noor. I called another friend to tell her that I couldn't make it. I was sure that Noor was busy. I've known her since we were 7 years old. We went to the same university.
Dana is the public relations officer for an NGO in Ramallah that works on women's issues: the Palestinian Working Woman Society for Development.When I got home I just slept. All my friends around the world managed to share Noor's joy. I was the only one who couldn't. And then I felt, it is a burden that I'm Palestinian. Palestinian people are used to such kind of suffering. They are not allowed to move freely all the time, and so this was my part of the suffering. If I seem angry, it is the suffering that talks not me.
In 1986, I missed a flight from Cairo to Calcutta, because the Egyptian border was closed on Friday for a religious holiday, then closed on the Israeli side on Saturday for Shabbat.
Its not just occupation that is a pain in the ass when crossing borders with security concerns.
It would be wonderful if every border were as safe as the border between the US and Mexico. (Thats a joke as Mexicans have a very hard time at the US border.)
Or what used to be between US and Canada. (No longer a functionally open border.)
Richard, your missed flight is an example of poor travel planning (as a religious Jew, did you not know that the Israeli border would be closed for Shabbat?), and has nothing in common with the daily plight of the Palestinians.
I cannot imagine trying to function under Israeli occupation.
Let's eliminate all the borders, including those between every town, city, state, both internal and external. And everybody is taxed at X % of total income, capital gains, and assets every year
to pay for everything deemed needed.
Richard,
The callousness with which you dismiss the suffering of an entire people as comparable to a missed flight speaks volume about how low American Zionists like yourself have sunk in their inhuman disregard for the plight of Palestinians.
One day, your grandkids will google your name and come across this and other equally racist, moronic and disgusting remarks from you and be thoroughly ashamed that their grandfather could ever be so inhuman about other humans' suffering.
I really hope, for your sake, that you start changing quick.
God Witty is an asshole. Philip, why do you let him post here?
God Witty is an asshole. Philip, why do you let him post here?
It's like an Old Man details his story how he couldn't afford to pay rent, and the kid says, I feel your pain, I couldn't spend a cent on new DVDs. Witty is an example of entitlement generation, but multiplied by AIPAC largess. He has no clue at all
how most Americans live, but is full of sympathy for the victims of white gentile oppression–even while he and his son reap the USA benefits.
Witty's a spoiled brat–you can't dent him. Just pay for him.
Go to hell, Witty. You missed one flight 22 years ago and you think the experience in any way compares to what Palestinians face every single day?! Admit it, Witty: You wouldn't make all of the excuses you make here if were talking about an occupation by any country besides Israel.
Witty cheering the sufferings of others
(picture 12 – tour de France thread)
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/
Remember, Richard Witty is an example of the "liberal" side of Zionism.
Ok, it's monday, so here comes the link for the lazy. (but you are missing a great site)
Witty the "liberal" zionist
You didn't read my comments on Mexico?
Or, if Palestine was a state, but in some conflict with Jordan, would it have been easy to get from Ramallah to Amman?
Also, you didn't get the unspoken dig to all those "libertarians" for whom borders are a primary issue?
MEXICO.
Saif,
I do not dismiss the suffering of a people, or people.
Sorry that the pathos got lost.
Restricted travel is idiotic certainly, as is the restricted travel for those Jews with Israeli stamps on their passports, into any Arab country.
I was harrassed (held in a holding area in Mumbai for 18 hours, while they considered my case, at least not tortured), during the same trip when I went to India with an Israeli entry stamp in my passport.
I'm sorry if my comment appeared callous.
It was meant to convey the universality of cruelty and absurdity in the world, in far far more places than just Palestine.
Witty wrote: "I'm sorry if my comment appeared callous. It was meant to convey the universality of cruelty and absurdity in the world, in far far more places than just Palestine."
Yeah, Witty. Palestinian women die at the Israeli checkpoints while waiting to give birth, and you got inconveninced while globe-trotting 22 years ago. Way to show you can relate.
The problem, Witty, is that not a single post appears on this site in which you don't immediately respond by trying to rationalize Israel's cruel and inhuman policies. Nobody here agrees with everything Phil writes and the comments section is great for expressing divergent opinions. But even when he documents clear and horrific cases of Israeli injustice, you never simply respond by saying: "You're right, that's indefensible."
There are two million media outlets in this country that happily document every ill deed perpetrated by Palestinians, starting with the major US television networks and newspapers. This is one of the comparatively few venues where Israel's crimes are also aired. You'd have a lot more credibility if you acknowledged some of them from time to time. Instead, you come off like a mere apologist.
Many of my posts here are my responses to what I take offense at.
I commented to Phil in an e-mail that I don't do enough in real life to convey my real concerns regarding Palestinian welfare, and instead react to often racist slights toward Jews (as individuals), and as a community.
The United States for the last seven years has acted appallingly in the world, to the extent that MANY regard the "nature" of the US to be evil. In many locales, it is similarly unusual for someone to stand up for the US.
When liberal Americans travel, they usually feel a twinge of resentment. "No, America is not like that." We lie low. We don't want to be insulted, about things that "everyone knows", even as we agree on many of it.
I take offense at the inference by many here, accepted largely, that American Jews are an "external influence", a "corruptian" of American identity.
I think that is a bullshit approach.
To the extent that pro-Palestinian efforts are anti-Israel, I recoil. I, like many Americans, hate much that Israel does, and are even largely indifferent to Israel as an entity in ways, but are NOT indifferent to verbal and physical assaults on any in the Jewish community for being or associating as a Jew.
It is obvious when comments do not distinguish between the policies and actions of Israel or Zionism, and the existence of Zionism.
Saif wants to castigate me for being callous to a woman's inconvenience (an unnecessary and institutionally unjust one most likely), but feels no compunction at describing "Zionism is racism", even as Zionism (when defined as the self-governance movement of the Jewish people) is critical to modern Jews' affirmation in the world.
There is truth in the statement, and callousness as well.
Thats if human sensitivity is a goal of his.
I am fairly typical of liberal Jews. That is true. My periods of callousness, defensiveness, etc.
We walk an ambiguous route. None of us are "Israel right or wrong" advocates (as much as it appears that way to some).
We are uncomfortable with how we treat, and we are uncomfortable with how we are treated.
Same as my attitude towards the US.
I would hope that humanists like Phil and Saif feel similarly about groups, nations, organizations, states that they are associated.
Fair enough, Witty. But I'm not letting you off the hook on this one. You are the FIRST person to comment in this thread. You were not responding to the perceived slights of any other commenters. Phil presented an outrageous injustice, one that will not be presented in the American media — a perfect example of why most Americans only relate to one side of this conflict. And you replied not by saying "There'e no excuse for that" but rather BY MAKING EXCUSES FOR IT.
Claim all you want that you're responding to anti-Semitism here. YOU were the first one to respond to this post and YOU were the one to do so in an inflammatory way.
Let it go, Contrarian.
My perspective and sensitivity is a very common one among Jews. And, it is a liberal perspective, one that does feel compassion for Palestinian suffering, and others'.
Phil has commented much on Jews "over-reaction" to callousness expressed towards them, using language that infers that if comments don't result in actual political suppression or violence, that they are not that consequential, that the insensitivity is not that important.
I apologized for the appearance of insensitivity to others' suffering, which is not what I feel.
I hope that similar sensitivity is asserted as important, towards Jews, towards Jews wishing to live with a Jewish community and nation.
Coingrats to Richard for provoking rabid hysteria on the part of the Phillipinas! I personally will cry myself to sleep tonight because some Arab missed some other Arab's wedding.
'Richard,
The callousness with which you dismiss the suffering of an entire people as comparable to a missed flight speaks volume about how low American Zionists like yourself have sunk in their inhuman disregard for the plight of Palestinians.'
I agree 100%. Richard thinks with the blood on this issue, and the results are uglier for me than the manic racism of a Pearlman.
' But even when he documents clear and horrific cases of Israeli injustice, you never simply respond by saying: "You're right, that's indefensible." '
That's if he responds at all. There are threads and there are threads, some safer than others. Richard often keeps his powder dry when the topic is Palestinian suffering; his effort here indicates why.
I take that back about Pearlman, who is wearing Jim Haygood's clothes today.
They're a bit loose on you Bill.
Hmm.. that last was a response to a phantom SOG-bot comment, you know, the ones where he dresses up as one of us.
Glenn, the impersonator is not Pearlman, but the megaphone boy currently signing "david" (he had other names in the past.)
Witty, like the EverReady Bunny, just keeps going on and on…never knowing when to just STFU. He pretentiously pontificates about little or nothing(did I ever tell you about the flight I missed once upon a time…yawn). His psuedo intellect can't discern the difference between "imply" and "infer" yet he's leaping to share the "context" and wisdom of his "liberal Zionism" with the very same self serving fervor Jonah Goldberg unleashes when he starts ranting about "IslamoFacism."
It's one thing to be pathetic, Witty; much worse to be shamelessly pathetic.
Richard,
I have tried to be polite everytime I engaged you, but now I have decided it's better to be honest: you are obviously an absolutely disgusting racist hypocrite. I used to think some of the moronic stuff you said could be dismimssed as idiocy, but no, no one could possibly be this stupid. There's no other explanation, you're a racist whose only concern in life is one group's ability to supress and oppress others, and you will spend countless hours on this forum making yourself look remarkably stupid with your stories of missing airplanes, with your pathetic excuses for Israel, and with your even more pathetic humanist pleas for Palestinians to stop saying anything bad about Israel.
The standard Witty reply to any story about Israeli crimes has been this:
1- "Well that's not such a bad thing…"
2- Recount a story of how someday somewhere in the world, some person had something similar happen to them (which is never in any way similar)
3- The repeat some idiotic pathetic rant about the need for peace, and how we need to understand each other, and how recounting the crimes of the Israeli army is not helpful in this regard (never, of course, mentioning that is the crimes themselves that are not helpful, and not merely mentioning them.)
4- criticize Phil or anyone else for attacking Israel and allude to anti-Semitism.
What you need to remember is that all these crimes are being committed with your tax dollars, by politicians you vote for, by a racist criminal state that claims to act in your name. That is what you should be outraged about, and if you had a shread of human decency in you, and a shred of concern for humans, you would be actively working against that.
But you absolutely do not. And therefore you spend your time on this forum defending torture, murder, occupation and oppression, and pretending you are stupid enough to believe the crap that the Israeli foreign ministry puts out for asses around the world to feed on.
Finally, this was the absolutely most stupid thing you have ever said:
"Saif wants to castigate me for being callous to a woman's inconvenience (an unnecessary and institutionally unjust one most likely), but feels no compunction at describing "Zionism is racism", even as Zionism (when defined as the self-governance movement of the Jewish people) is critical to modern Jews' affirmation in the world."
Really? You think that dismissing the suffering of the Palestinian people is similar to saying a racist system is racist? What an absolute load of garbage. Zionism is a racist movement, if you support it, that does not make it a respectable movement, that just makes you a racist. And that you would then be blinded to others' suffering by your racism only makes you a truly despicable human being.
Saif,
Obviously I disagree with you about Zionism, and as that is the nut of our premises, we will disagree, and in your case name-call.
The Jewish people are a people, and as a community of communities constitute a nation.
And, as a nation under some attack over a long extended time prior to 1948 and certainly since, a state with the full powers of a state.
As a state, accepted by the United Nations (though not by Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.), it has some options as to how it conducts itself as a state.
It does not have the option to magically dissolve. It does not have the option to not manage its borders. It does not have the option to fail to militarily protect its citizens.
It definitely does have the option to establish law within Israel and within areas under its temporary jurisdiction (along principles of equal due process), which it is doing unsatisfactorily to my mind.
You describe my reaction as callous, criminal, racist. I think that is bullshit.
There probably is some other way for us to each understand one anothers' perspective, but calling me racist isn't really it.
The degree of reaction to insensitivity, indicates the importance OF sensitivity, of the choice of words that one applies and for what purpose.
Do you understand how the slogan "Zionism is racism" is offensive to many (probably most) Jews, American and otherwise.
Its not offensive because we are in denial. Its offensive because it constructs a zero-sum reality. It constructs the condition that for you to get justice, we must be suppressed in some way, in this case to either not self-govern, or to live in an environment of curses (what I call walking apology).
That IS what has been asked of Jews throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa for thousands of years continuously.
You are not identifying specific policies that you object to. Even in this conversation, you could have turned the argument to substance, rather than character attack.
The thing that is odd, is that I have intentionally and charitably suggested some insight into Jews' sensitivities, and suggestions as to how to communicate to Jews towards understanding your condition and experience.
If you were serious about your goals (any of them, civil single-state, rule of law), you could apply that insight and make presentations that convey your experience.
If it didn't include curses of me or Jews and avoided stating "Zionism is racism" in every other sentence, I'd go to the trouble of making arrangements for your or others' presentations.
Test it, rather than name-call.
Witty writes: "I hope that similar sensitivity is asserted as important, towards Jews, towards Jews wishing to live with a Jewish community and nation."
Hysterical. The only message that any average consumer of news in the United States receives is one of sympathy for Israelis and outrage at Palestinians. This, as I wrote, is one of the very few venues where the existence of another side to this conflict is even acknowledged — and you're still worried that no one will cry for the Israelis. That's terrific that you're so worried about 'Jews wishing to live in a Jewish community and nation.' Why don't you start by acknowledging that the Zionist settlers took the land for their nation from another people? That the root of this onflict is no anti-Semitism, but dispossession? I'm not here to defend and excuse all of the actions of Palestinians over the last 80 years or so. But they have almost no allies in this country. The Israeli side is over-represented and overindulged. I just find it so funny that in the face of a simple, heartfelt post about the degradation of a Palestinian woman your instinct is to dismiss it as commonplace. And your apology for 'appearing' callous is a classic non-apology, like a politician who apologizes 'to anyone I might have offended.' I don't want a watered-down apology. I'd simply like you to acknowledge for once that Israel is wrong.
More Witty: "I have intentionally and charitably suggested some insight into Jews' sensitivities, and suggestions as to how to communicate to Jews towards understanding your condition and experience."
Sorry, Witty, but at some point the burden is on you to acknowledge that this is a two-way street. You think the Palestinian sympathaizers don't do and say enough to mollify the Israel-firsters? What about the Israel-firsters? They've helped poison the entire U.S. media and political establishment against the Palestinian side, to the point that simple stories — like the one Phil presented in this post — are NEVER heard by more than a handful of Americans. But the crude rockets launched from Gaza? Front-page news. How about some effort from the Israel-firsters to acknowledge the humanity of those whose lives have been shattered by their horrific policies? There you go, Witty, "some insight into Palestinian sympathizers' sensibilities." Just as you lecture us about how we ought to talk to your side, you'd clearly benefit from a similar tutorial.
"The Zionist settlers took the land".
Which Zionists are you referring to?
A significant portion was bought. A significant portion was annexed from individuals that voluntarily left. A significant portion was annexed from individuals that were forced to leave, and prohibited from return.
In the West Bank similarly.
If you actually read back in the archives here, I have described my criticism of the three+ laws passed in the early fifties that structured the annexation of former Palestinian titled and residence based ownership.
As Phil and I discussed in a recent e-mail exchange, we dialogued on the significance of the work of Baruch Kimmerling. I'd recommend his writing. He was a Zionist, but a step to the left of Morris, definitely no apologist for the long-term annexation policy.
Its too easy to just name-call.
I've experienced in a number of blogs that people are speaking to different audiences than others.
For example, my understanding is that Phil is attempting to post to the world at large, that this is his commentary to the media world as a whole, and specifically the conventional American media world that he has some contact with.
He doesn't appear to think of his posting here as to a posse, to the choir.
He is stating his criticisms of the way things are, and by that he means the established mass media.
In contrast, I am posting primarily in response to Phil personally, then secondarily to the left and left/right that post here, and not at all in response to the conventional mass media.
I save that commentary for other venues.
There aren't many that post here that disagree with Phil, or that disagree with each other, except to go at Zionists when we show up.
Even Richard Silverstein and Dan Fleshler get a lot of heat when they post here of their own voices.
I think of myself in blogs as opposing conformity. When I post at Haaretz discussions, my posts tend to be in strong opposition to "Israel right or wrong" advocates, or real racists. Similarly at official Jewish sponsored events.
I'm the one asking the confronting questions about "how are racially screened road use statutes in the West Bank, an application of the rule of law?"
A significant portion was bought. [Witty]
"About 6%" (Historian, ex-Israeli foreign minister, and zionist apologist Shlomo Ben Ami, here)
Pretty significant.
But in defense of Richard, as a licensed and insured 100% zionist vehicle, he's got a blindspot that could fit a 40 ton 18-wheel big rig.
There may be some rationales that make zionism look like a fair deal or a good idea. In fact, those are the very justifications the permeate the media narrative.
1. The Holocaust
2. You're defaming me & my people
3. The Holocaust
4. Other persecutions of Jewish people
5. Arabophobia
Witty is essentially no different. Rationale #2 is particularly important to him because people trapped in self-victimization instinctively seek out potentially hostile places, to protect the security of a victim-based identity.
Thus Witty shows up at old pal Phil's blog and does the "zionism is a GOOD" routine, knowing full well that the audience is going to respond to that with invective.
If Richard wanted Phil to know something, he could just email him. But Witty wants an audience.
Well, that audience largely sees the recent activities of zionism having an extremely ill influence on the political situation in the world's only hegemonic interventionist military empire, one whose political structure is so old and rickety that it predates electricity, internal combustion engines, indoor plumbing, and the humanity of non-whites.
(If Obama actually wanted to try to resuscitate American democracy, he'd be talking about a new Constitution. Oh and maybe one for Israel as well, since Israel's welfare is also the U.S.'s responsibility.)
Do you understand how the slogan "Zionism is racism" is offensive to many (probably most) Jews, American and otherwise.
Its not offensive because we are in denial. Its offensive because it constructs a zero-sum reality. It constructs the condition that for you to get justice, we must be suppressed in some way, in this case to either not self-govern, or to live in an environment of curses (what I call walking apology). [Witty]
The irony is that it is, of course, the sociopathic nature of Jewish colonialism that creates the current-day conditions requiring Witty to live in walking apologism.
The checkpoints? Those are just like the inconveniences privileged Jewish Americans sometimes face.
Starving 1.4 million people? Is that really as terrible as the 1:1000000000 chance of getting killed by a rocket that Israelis must face?
Deaths resulting from botched targeted assassinations? Well–did I ever tell you about the time I had to get a tooth pulled?
It's clear that this kind of crude apologism shocks most of us here. That Witty can pay the most unconvincing lip service to Palestinians when his rhetorical jist demands it, and yet actually seem to believe that he is a person committed to justice, and that his zionist ethos of valuing the security of "the Jewish people" over that of all others is actually a humanism. Or that the tribalism, opulence, and egotism of the American zio-Jewish elite that Phil chronicles here are actually nothing but the mark of philanthropy.
It's the blindspot of eternal victimhood that, coupled with the comforts and seductive spoils of world empire, has given the Jews their highest living standards, and lowest conscience, in centuries.
So go on, Rich. Just treat us like a fool…
Just as J-Street is trying to convince the world that there is something called "liberal Zionism," Richard Witty reminds us that it is really an oxymoron.
Liberal tribalism.
"people trapped in self-victimization instinctively seek out potentially hostile places, to protect the security of a victim-based identity."
I just thought that observation deserves repeating.
It's a behavior that psychologists often associate with the passive-agressive personality.
That is an interesting description, but the reality is different. The reality of the world, and the reality of me.
Reality is that there are two + valid narratives. The anti-Zionism narrative is half a truth. The anti-Palestinian narrative is half a truth.
Anger is repitition. If you want something different, its time to respectfully consider both narratives as containing truth, and forging a new synthesis that allows for differing experiences.
I will NOT forget my own. I do not expect Saif to forget his own, nor Phil.
I also will not forget what I've been told second hand. That, and what I read comprise my understanding of reality.
To ask me to say, "Zionism is racism" conflicts with my experience and my sense of possibility and necessity.
Absent a respectful and VIABLE alternative that supports Jews' intimate attraction for the land and community, I'll stick with my liberal Zionism.
Progressive internally, advocating for equal due process under the law, not greedy (like expansionistic flavor of Zionism), not militarily aggressive (but also NOT a victim to aggression).
Consider a definition of intelligence as the ability to retain two conflicting realities without denying either.
Absent a respectful and VIABLE alternative that supports Jews' intimate attraction for the land and community, I'll stick with my liberal Zionism.
See, everyone? Zionism MUST continue, until EVERYONE is RESPECTFUL towards the Jewish need to subvert international law and order for their colonial project.
That Palestinian boy lying limp on the ground there–victim of zionism, or merely paying nature's debt made due?
There are many perspectives.
Witty now claims the land was not taken from Palestinians. There were 750,000 Palestinians on the land at the birth of Zionist movement, and about 90,000 Jews. Land was bought, you say? Yeah, a few acres here and there. Homes were also emptied, villages flattened, renamed and erased from history. And then Zionists like Golda Meir set about trying to erase the Palestinian people themselves from history, telling the world that "there's no such thing as a Palestinian." Imagine that, Witty — wathcing helplessly as the same people who took your land turned around and denied the simple, basic fact of your existence to the world!
And it goes on today. Here's Dennis Miller, the American comedian, talking about "the myth" of Palestinians on national television. Can you imagine anyone tolerating this kind of talk about Israelis or Jews?! Can you imagine what your own reaction would be?! But it's perfectly acceptable in American culture to demean Palestinians this way:
http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2006/06/dennis-millers-take-on-israel.html
Contrarian,
You obviously didn't read what I said.
"A significant portion was bought. A significant portion was annexed from individuals that voluntarily left. A significant portion was annexed from individuals that were forced to leave, and prohibited from return."
No, sir, I read it just fine. A SIGNIFICANT portion was not bought; a paltry, incidental slice was. Palestinians didn't sell their dignity, it was taken from them because they committed the crime of not being born Jewish.
Richard, are you saying six percent is a "significant portion"?
Witty's new three significant portions thesis is so delightful it bears repeated self-citation, even after being debunked.
It is obvious bullshit because it actually makes it sound like roughly equal quantities of real-estate were gained by a) legal purchase, and by b) deliberate warfare against the residing population, a war crime.
Of course, the vast, vast majority of Israel came by violent force.
And 6% was purchased.
If Israelis were living all this time on only what was legitimately sold and bought, or legitimately granted by something other than irregular imperial fiat, well, that would make zionism a more legitimate, humane emigration project, in my eyes at least.
Instead, zionism has dragged Judaism through the mud, using it to justify ruthless, sociopathic colonialism.
On a personal note, I used to be confused by Phil's occasional lapses into Judocentrism, since his blog really represents to me something much more universal (that the phrase "bearing witness" seems to encapsulate).
Fiat justitia, ruat caelum.
But these days, I say maybe it's appropriate for him to talk about it as a Jewish phenomenon. Because it is Jews that will have to cure themselves of zionism, eventually.
Because Witty's persona almost continuously demonstrates that we, the un-chosen people, will never be trusted.
In 1917 the Jewish population of Palestine owned roughly 2.5% of the land. By 1947, when the UN decided to partition Palestine, they still owned less than 10%.
Re: "To ask me to say, "Zionism is racism" conflicts with my experience and my sense of possibility and necessity."–Witty
What personal experience in this context do you have Richard?
We can't wait to hear.
For the record, what looks to be a balance and, as much as possible, a definitive compilation of statistics of demographics and land ownership in Palestine pre-1948. Precise data is pretty much impossible to achieve. A summary:
"Population and Land Ownership prior to the UN Partition Resolution
An Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1945 and 1946 examined the status of Palestine. No official census figures were available, as no census had been conducted in Palestine in 1940, so all their surmises and figures are based on extrapolations and surmises. According to the report, at the end of 1946, About 1,220,000 Arabs and 608,000 Jews resided within the borders of Mandate Palestine. Jews had purchased 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine. This was about 20% of the land that could be settled and cultivated. About 46% of the land was registered in the tax registers to Arab villages, to Arabs living on the land, or absentee owners, and about the same amount was government land. However, most of this land was not privately owned. The Arabs of Palestine had received much of their land in leases conditional upon cultivation or used land that was part of village commons. The partition borders were drawn to give the Jews a majority within the allotted area of the Jewish state, but the land conquered during the fighting included the populous Arab areas of the Galilee, as well as Arab towns such as Lod and Ramla. Greater Jerusalem, which was to be internationalized, included about 100,000 Jews and a larger number of Arabs."
The 6 to 8% percent figure indeed looks paltry, but I remember reading somewhere else (cannot find the link now) that officially only about 15% of the land was Arab-owned. I am not justifying Zionist land grabs, just pointing out that land ownership in itself (as in legalistic definition) might not be a good indicator of the situation in 1948.
The alternative to Witty's pathetic clinging to zionist myth and justifications for the Jewish colonial project, of course, would be acknowledging the truth.
(Richard, you could join us here, outside the cave, in the light. It's always an option.)
The truth is that it IS a genocide, it is a racial, sociopathic colonial project, a genocide in motion continuing to this very day, and the world has largely stood by and done nothing.
Team America, World Police hasn't come to the rescue (which is what I thought we needed to spend over half the discretionary budget on our military for it to do).
The Palestinians are on their own.
I doubt they're waiting on J Street for a call-back.
Even most of their Arab and Islamic neighbors, those enormous military industrial powers, the ones that make soggy-boy wet his pants, are apathetic or inadequate, or have been outright bribed by the World Cop.
Demand for zionism though will eventually exceed supply of willing hearts and minds. Like the capitalist colonialist system it is, when "the realm" can no longer grow, it will perish.
OT, Peter D mentioned Ramla.
From November 1947 to May 1948, when the Jews were driving the residual Arab population out of the sector they were to be given, one of the towns cleared was Ramla.
Sandy Tolan just had a good piece in Al Jazeera on what happened there–
"The Fall of an Arab Town in 1948"
What exactly should a native-born American think about Jewish vision of their ethnic-religious group? Should they think great, or should they think the worst? Human history comes out about 50-50 (for non jews).
The biggest fraud is the idea that some interest group is "a people" somehow apart and higher from other designations, such as a citizen or member of a nation, etc.
Is there an American people, similar to a Jewish people? Any other "people" similar to the world wide jews? If there is, I'd love to hear about them.
To me "a people" means, we can be anything we want to be, depending on the time and circumstances.
Well, wouldn't we all love such a thing?
No, you can't have it–it's only for the chosen.