Welcome to Palestine…now let’s reset the relationship

on 230 Comments

Welcome to Palestine, even if it’s a century later. Now let’s reset the relationship. You came from faraway lands claiming an already inhabited one. Oppressed, massacred, and socially separated in Christendom/Europe, you felt as outsiders subject to anti-Semitic threats. Eventually, with the colonial age, a group of you, Eastern Europeans called Zionists argued your right to Palestine, from which ancient Jews were virtually absent from the 1st century and of whom you claimed tenuous descent. You claimed that Jews had a three thousand year cultural and emotional attachment to the holy land; that you are a single group whose roots are to this land and whose heart, spirit, character and center is Jerusalem. That your project wasn’t settler-colonialism, conquest through immigration under the aegis of a colonial power, but return or restoration, rendered moral by your religious roots in the land and in your suffering, hence giving you title to the land that transcends Palestinians rights, claims, attachments, and needs. You insisted that Jews require sovereignty for their safety, protection, and, in the aftermath of the Nazi genocide, survival.

At the time you arose in the late 19th century, the Enlightenment had made great progress and emancipated Jews from ghetto enclaves, accelerating integration and erosion of identity leading some Jews to argue for cultural assimilation and others for distinctiveness and autonomy. Zionism in particular looked on emancipation and cultural integration as a threat, the death of a mythical Jewish nation. You insisted on a “Jewish problem,” a congenital Christian/Western anti-Semitism as natural as darkness in nighttime. As Zionists, you were a part of Judaism gone nationalist, and other Jews saw you as a contradiction to liberal, pluralist tradition that could only cause problems for Jews. Because you organized, politically lobbied and agitated, you, political Zionists, took the stage, getting increasing support among Jews in Europe and the US. Still, Zionism remained a tiny minority and did not significantly spread until the rise of Nazi Germany and the genocidal horrors that followed. At that point, the argument for a Jewish state seemed unassailable and found supporters among many non-Jews.

Of course, the reality from the very beginning was that another people existed in Palestine, becoming alive to its national identity and, by the end of WWI, aspirations for self-determination and independence. They populated villages, towns and cities, cultivated the land, had marvelous citrus groves, owned businesses and shops,  traded and built factories. They were naturally everywhere you looked. They were by the end of the Mandate, one of the most prosperous and educated people in the Middle East. This reality, their existence and your determination to ignore it, and the injustice and violence it has caused ever since, is the root of the conflict in Palestine.

It was not that you were blind to the fact that this place contained, when the World Zionist Organization was formed in 1897, over 95 percent Palestinian Arabs, both Muslim and Christian (12-15 percent of Palestinians) who constituted the overwhelming owners of the country, with the remainder constituting Jews, most of whom were non-Zionist, and others. Nor were you unaware that, by 1917, before the British took over and began to implement their promise to you for a “Jewish national home,” the Jewish colonist population constituted less than 10 percent of the total (50,000 to 60,000) and owned a tiny fraction of the land area. You could not create a viable Jewish state out of thin air, but only at others’ expense and who had nothing to do, and still don’t, with anti-Semitism, who did you no harm. You steadily came to Palestine, though you constituted a tiny fraction of the millions who preferred immigration to the US. By the time of the Nazi ascendance in Germany, immigration to Palestine accelerated as the US and Europe closed their doors. Still, by 1948, at slightly over 600,000, you constituted about 30 or so percent of the population and you owned 7-8 percent of the land surface, despite all your efforts of over fifty years.

So you took Palestine by force and ethnic cleansing, turning over half its population into refugees. Irony of ironies is that those Palestinian villagers whom you cleansed, or those you oppress in the occupied territories, were most likely more Jewish in lineage than you were, many of them descendants of early Jewish converts to Christianity, then to Islam. So are many of the current Palestinian Christians. The UN, after prodigious US arm twisting against its member states, recommended you get 55 percent of the country, gratis. You said you were reasonable and compromising by accepting this, but your argument was devilishly ingenious: you were “giving away” half of a whole you did not own, just as you claim to be compromising today, by merely considering the idea of “giving up” current occupied territory. In any case, your strategy was to wait until an opportune moment to expand. That happened immediately in 1948 as you ended up with 77 percent of Palestine, 22 percent more than was allotted to you by the UN, then again in 1967 when you took the remainder, now the West Bank and Gaza, at which point the Zionist colonial project proceeded in earnest where it left off in 1948.

Your dominant response to Palestinians’ existence was denial and the assertion of a transcendent moral right; the Palestinians after all were part of a larger Arab population of the Middle East, thus justifying exclusive Jewish possession in Palestine. As European colonists, you viewed the Palestinians with a racist lens, as Europeans did peoples of Asia and Africa. Palestine’s colonization was merely a “project” that could be implemented against the wishes of who to you were poor and illiterate people who should make way. Palestine’s Arabs became invisible, non-existent, literally less than human, needing to move over, disappear, for those with superior cultural and intellectual civilization. According to this logic, their resistance then and now is ascribable to their fear and repudiation of the benevolent progress and development Zionists bring with them, not to a natural defense to invasion and oppression.

There was a strong degree of self-delusion in your attitude. The Palestinians were both there and not there: to admit their existence, the reality of “the Arab problem,” was to confront unpleasant truths, to admit that your dream, your colonial project, was unrealizable, to be relinquished. So the Palestinians were imagined, canceled, and interpreted away, denied their humanity, and continue to be relentlessly and violently disbarred from unhindered, unequivocal self-representation. You assumed superiority that emanated in Jewish tradition, exemplified by the biblical phrase, “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau.” You, as Jewish Zionists, are a superior, chosen, elevated people, People of the Book, who used your minds in religious, intellectual, and sublime pursuits while the inferior Goyim, the Gentiles, used their hands and muscle in pursuit of brawn, prostitution, and drunkenness. You were pure; the other degraded. Your life in the urban ghetto or rural village (shtetl) exaggerated the psychological differences.

Your superiority masked an equally strong sense of inferiority caused by centuries of humiliation and shame. This may have led you, Zionists, to overcompensate by emphasizing not only a sort of spiritual rebirth and redemption through labor in a hallowed soil, an activity Jews previously despised, but also a drive to unreflective military and material power, to crush opposition to your project and “threats to Jews.” The Palestinian Esau’s intellectual and cultural inferiority also justified the dismissal of his humanity, eliciting the Palestinians’ pounding with merciless violence and rage. European colonial racism was thus overlaid with the psychological complexity of the Jewish experience that has characterized Israeli Jewish attitudes to this day. This psychosis, the need to wish the Palestinians away and the sense of Jewish superiority mixed with humiliation, is at the core of your violence towards Palestine’s indigenous people.

So here you are. You got your state of 1948, including all you took by force, accepted by the international community. You have a prosperous economy, a vital society. You sport the strongest military in the Middle East. You possess ample stockpiles of fearsome WMDs, and not only nuclear, including the means to deliver them to distant cities, and are furtively engaged in advanced research to develop weaponry that annihilates the enemy without hurting the land.You have the West prostrated at your feet, so guilty are they for their inhumanity against the Jewish people. You plumped 500,000 Jews into the West Bank/Palestinian Jerusalem, many of them fanatics hailing from the US, and want the remainder of Palestine, all of it. You war against Palestine and Arabs and you reject all peace overtures and normalization. You energetically work to undermine yourself. You also continue Jewish separation and superiority, socializing a generation of confused young people and racists, insistent that the Palestinians do not share a common humanity with you. The gun falsely empowered and freed you from your historic weakness and humiliation, for you got oppression and chauvinism in return. You deny, with all the psychosis at your disposal, your guilt, unable to reconcile your moral exceptionalism with your tyranny against the Palestinians. How could they possibly be as human with real grievances and needs?

But the world goes around, and our sins catch up with us. You can’t cover the sun with your palm, as an old Arab proverb has it. Your might and power, your clinging to great powers and their elites to protect yourself and maintain your hegemony is beginning to fall apart. Your strategic environment is changing, your great power patron may not be up to the task in the coming decade or two. You’ve exhausted him anyway, cowed his politicians, confused his public, distorted the meaning of right and wrong. Yet, despite all this, all the craziness, you will not let go of your notion of an indivisible Jewish land, the Land of Israel, as if others are mere trespassers. It’s not that there’s only one narrative, that of the Palestinians, it’s that theirs is as truthful as truth gets, and it is logically and epistemologically false to claim the truth is in the middle. You can’t split the truth.

You seem ready to take down the Middle East with you if you have to. You will not leave your tormented victims alone by relinquishing the occupied territories, you will not award them citizenship, you will not establish an authentic peace, you will not accept being a part of the Middle East, your gaze firmly fixed to the west. Your leaders’ imagination is fossilized. Your young people can’t think beyond themselves because they’ve internalized, thanks to your education and socialization, the idea of besieged victims surrounded by violent Arabs ready to take them down. You teach them that the whole world is against them, you take them on trips to concentration camps to bolster the idea of Zionism and justify Israeli might and right, you scare them with the omnipresence of anti-Semitism and that they can exist only by force. What a future you’re constructing for them! Surely, there is a better way, for your young people and for the Palestinian young people. There is sharing. There is forgiveness. The Palestinians are the door to your redemption, the revivification of ethical Judaism. But you won’t grasp any of this.

Still, Palestinians and Arabs, Muslims and Christians, Palestinian children, welcome you. Let’s reset the past, yours and ours. Pretend you just arrived in the Middle East. Start anew. Take justice and peace, take reconciliation, take compassion, acknowledge your sins against the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian people generally, embrace their humanity, live with them in peace, security, and coexistence. This is all possible even at this moment, but you must make “radical” decisions, transcend your psychosis. Most of all you must look deep inside yourself. There is no other way, except the way of destruction.

(14 February 2011)

Issa Khalaf (Ph.D. Oxford University) is author of Politics in Palestine, Arab Factionalism and Social Disintegration, 1939-1948.

230 Responses

  1. pjdude
    February 16, 2011, 10:45 am

    this was very touching and moving though I doubt it well touch or move those who support palestinian oppression

    • annie
      February 16, 2011, 11:00 am

      it will touch and move them whether they like it or not. it’s the truth, the truth they can’t erase. the truth that will follow them, the truth that all the lipstick in their pr hasbara universe can’t cover up. the truth that delegitimizes them and the truth that will set them free.

      • Kathleen
        February 16, 2011, 11:43 am

        the truth that can not break through onto MSM television screens

      • Citizen
        February 16, 2011, 12:51 pm

        Yes, there is a hand big enough to block the sun–the US MSM. There’s another saying that addresses the US MSM, and it also supports
        Mr Kahlaf’s message–it’s, appropriately enough, an African saying: “Don’t look where you fell, look where you slipped.”

      • annie
        February 16, 2011, 12:54 pm

        right, so we bypass msm television and empower a new way of communicating that’s faster, smarter and more effective.

        the time will come, mark my words.

      • Kathleen
        February 16, 2011, 1:21 pm

        Hammer them. That is my strategy. Keep putting chinks in that wall of silence

      • Citizen
        February 16, 2011, 3:34 pm

        Last December 10th, the FCC adopted net neutrality (lite).
        link to arstechnica.com
        In the last few days, the House pushed forward its 2011 budget-cutting & appropriations Act, for 2011; among its provisions, Amendment #157 (sponsored by Diaz-Balart of FL), which provides that none of the funds made available by the Act may be used to implement or enforce the said FCC’s report and order relating to the matter of preserving the open internet and regulating certain discriminatory broadband industry practices. Wireless discrimination remains unaddressed.

      • annie
        February 16, 2011, 4:15 pm

        keep up the good work kathleen.

      • Kathleen
        February 17, 2011, 10:20 am

        We are part of an ever growing team Annie. I am honored to be among folks like yourself, Phil and so many of the honorable and committed activist for I/P and human justice that have pushed so hard for decades

      • Philip Weiss
        February 17, 2011, 10:35 am

        this is true. we are growing. i think we should have confidence and also grace, tolerance, openness as people come surging thru the tentflaps

  2. annie
    February 16, 2011, 10:50 am

    omg, this is so brilliant. i love you! and yes yes yes The Palestinians are the door to your redemption, the revivification of ethical Judaism.


    • eljay
      February 16, 2011, 11:05 am

      You could not create a viable Jewish state out of thin air, but only at others’ expense … So you took Palestine by force and ethnic cleansing, turning over half its population into refugees.

      This confirms what the Zio-supremacists keep saying: Ethnic cleansing was “necessary”. True, some (most?) of them did have to “hold their noses” while others did the dirty work but, in the end, “a good in the world” was created.

      And, in the end, isn’t that what really matters? :-)

      • annie
        February 16, 2011, 1:03 pm

        in the end, “a good in the world” was created

        not according to the world it isn’t. it’s a contender for the least like nation status, last i heard.

      • sherbrsi
        February 16, 2011, 10:03 pm

        Indeed, not even in the imagination and proposals of Zionists could a Jewish state of Israel be conceived without the prior expulsion of its inhabitants. No wonder they are in constant denial of it, of all the things to spin there is no way around the original sin. I love that proverb…you can’t cover the sun with your palm….that is exactly what Hasbara & Zionism is trying to do, fighting a lost battle.

      • DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells
        February 17, 2011, 7:44 am

        You could not create a viable Jewish state out of thin air, but only at others’ expense …

        Is that strictly true? Birobidzhan wasn’t really created at anyone else’s expense afaik (might be mistaken) not sure about the proposed state in Argentina at the time.

        This is half the problem with the notion of a ‘Jewish state’ far too many people just assume it means Israel, it could be (and is in the case of Birobidzhan) anywhere – Canada, Argentina, the US.

  3. Chaos4700
    February 16, 2011, 11:07 am

    Fuster? Read this. It’s basically a detailed rebuttal of the bullshit “blame the victims” talking point you’ve been touretting at us since your new screen name first showed up.

    • Mooser
      February 16, 2011, 11:27 am

      Chaos, you confuse the hell out of me! (don’t give yourself airs, baby, it’s not that hard to do) Ther trolls bother you so much you can’t bring yourself to post for how long, and now you are calling for them like a demon lover? Why?
      Me, I think JSF has it right: “No timewasters, liars, or bigots”

      And I don’t know much about how the web works, but since there are no ads on Mondoweiss, do the overall number of “hits” matter?

      • annie
        February 16, 2011, 1:00 pm

        thanks mooser. i considered a response very much like yours but decided to deliver it to him on another (old) thread so as not to call attention to his comment here. but it appears the little troll found the thread already anyway.

        people, don’t feed trolls. especially not on this thread w/this brilliant brilliant article.

        thank you

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 3:13 pm

        I’m an artist. My trade is exposing truth. Truth isn’t always beauty.

    • fuster
      February 16, 2011, 12:46 pm

      It’s quite detailed in the details it chooses to consider, Chaos. It avoids many others.

      —–Zionists argued your right to Palestine, from which ancient Jews were virtually absent from the 1st century—–

      it sorta ignores why Jews were not quite abundant and I’m sure that if Palestinians in the area became, for similar reasons, equally absent, the author would certainly not be ignoring THAT or using it as a point against their having a claim to the land.

      —-So you took Palestine by force and ethnic cleansing—

      it sorta is what people would call bullspittle if they were being blunt.

      The stupid pop psychology in the piece is a reeking mess.

      The idea that the author is trying to sell that the Jews went around rejecting all those fine offers to settle matters and live in peace ignores the war that the Arab League waged, ignores the 67 war, and ignores those Three No’s in Khartoum.

      It ignores that the Israelis were quite pleased to maker peace with Egypt and quite willing to return the Sinai.

      • straightline
        February 16, 2011, 2:57 pm

        OK – are we going to let his continual lies stand or feed him – that’s the question.

        What an disgusting apology for a response to a really amazing article. Chaos is so right about this guy!

      • annie
        February 16, 2011, 4:01 pm

        of course he’s right straightline! i just don’t see how feeding him helps. his comments took up 25% of the thread on my last entry. i’ve had it though. on the last comment of his i hit the ‘report abuse’ function. lobby to have him banned if you don’t like him.

        my observations lead me to believe very vital important articles (like this one) are massive massive targets for the israel action network/israel project blogger brigades.

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 8:12 pm

        The “Report Abuse” button doesn’t do jack shit. I’ll bet there are a dozen Holocaust denial posts that are blocked daily by the moderators. Why don’t the extend that to the same sort of lies told in the course of Nakba denial?

        Phil needs to put his money where his mouth is, and he needs to end the Jewish exceptionalism he indulges in right in his own virtual backyard (even if it’s merely reflexive).

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 3:12 pm

        So you’re a Nakba denier. Big surprise. Quite willing to return the Sinai? Really? The murdering thief returns something he’s stolen to get something else in exchange and we’re supposed to exalt him?

        The fact is, you’re racist against Arabs. You want to see them murdered, you hunger for their land and then you blame them when they don’t fall over dead or jump into the sea for you. The only “reeking mess” here is your lack of morality and compassion.

      • Citizen
        February 16, 2011, 3:45 pm

        Joshua took the land from the Arabs, and massacred them too. The Hebrew sacred bible says so. The article does not ignore any of those things fuster claims it does; the Arabs were reacting to Jewish armed land theft. This has all been detailed with authorative sources many many times on this blog. Egyptian leaders were bribed by the US in 1979 to accept the peace accord the tyrant Murabak implemented for 30 years at the expense of his own people and the US taxpayers.

  4. talknic
    February 16, 2011, 11:46 am

    ShortLink link to wp.me

    How many times have you told the fallacy that Israel has no borders with Palestine, when in fact your borders were actually declared, recognized by the International Community and confirmed by your Government in statements to the UNSC BEFORE you were accepted into the UN and BEFORE you made any claims to territories beyond the actual extent of it’s sovereignty.

    link to avalon.law.yale.edu

    link to unispal.un.org

    link to mfa.gov.il

    On May 15th 1948 the extent of your Sovereign territories were clearly defined in your Government’s official announcement of the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel.

    On May 22, 1948 your Government confirmed your frontiers in correspondence to the UNSC

    By May 11th 1949 you had already been recognized by the majority of the International Community of Nations according to your Government statements of May 15th & May 22nd 1948 “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,” .

    On 11 May 1949 you were accepted into the UN as a UN Member State as recognized, “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947,”

    On June 15, 1949 the your Government again confirmed it’s frontiers in correspondence to the UNSC

    On the 31st Aug 1949 you made your first official claim to territories beyond the extent of your sovereign frontiers AFTER IT’S BOUNDARIES WERE RECOGNIZED

    Your own Governments have been LYING to you for 62 years, LYING to the media, LYING to anyone willing to believe them and stupid enough not to check everything they say

    May 15, 1948 Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States,
    “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

    May 22, 1948 The reply of the Provisional Government of Israel (S/766) to the questions addressed to the “Jewish authorities in Palestine” was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations on May 22.

    Question (a): Over which areas of Palestine do you actually exercise control at present over the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947?
    “In addition, the Provisional Government exercises control over the city of Jaffa; Northwestern Galilee, including Acre, Zib, Base, and the Jewish settlements up to the Lebanese frontier; a strip of territory alongside the road from Hilda to Jerusalem; almost all of new Jerusalem; and of the Jewish quarter within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem. The above areas, outside the territory of the State of Israel, are under the control of the military authorities of the State of Israel, who are strictly adhering to international regulations in this regard. The Southern Negev is uninhabited desert over which no effective authority has ever existed.”

    June 15, 1949 Israel-s position on its frontiers VOLUMES 1-2: 1947-1974
    “As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel…”

  5. Kathleen
    February 16, 2011, 11:52 am

    On Tuesday evening Daily Shows Jon Stewart added to the bad bad bad Iran pile on He was hammering the Iranian President again. he implied that Iran is enriching uranium beyond the level that they are legally able Stewart is incapable or unwilling to apply these same standards by criticizing Israel’s unwillingess to sign the NPT and open up to international inspections. Israel’s shut down of all communication systems on the Mavi Marmara. The Mainstream media’s willingness to block any coverage of decades long Palestinian protest.

    Iran just took a page out of Israel’s playbook. Which Stewart and many others refuse to bring any attention to.

    Stewart is a serious and obvious hypocrite.

    • fuster
      February 16, 2011, 12:23 pm

      Kathleen–He was hammering the Iranian President again—

      Hammering the Iranian president is a bad bad bad thing?????

      • Citizen
        February 16, 2011, 1:02 pm

        Fuster, why don’t you address Kathleen’s central core point, Stewart’s long-standing utter hypocrisy regarding Israel; in that matter Stewart completely fails as an important relevant and objective satirist. Is failing to ever criticize Israel a good good good thing????? Really????

        Even when Stewart’s show is sold and viewed by many as a humorously brave vehicle to attack all the sacred cows of the Establishment?

      • Kathleen
        February 16, 2011, 1:23 pm

        And Stewart has consistently protected his “sacred cow” Enough all ready

      • fuster
        February 16, 2011, 1:55 pm

        Citizen, Kathleen’s central point is that everybody on television should present the I/P issue often and entirely from Kathleen’s perspective.

        Kathleen thinks that there’s a moral imperative to do that.
        I disagree with Kathleen’s POV on the issues and on the imperative.

      • Citizen
        February 16, 2011, 3:53 pm

        No, fuster. Her point is plainly that a satirist of the US Establishment
        may consistently criticize Iran and its spoke person, but every once in a while it just might be a tad more objective to also, just once criticize Israel and its lead spokes person. Your lack of even modest proportion is very revealing.

      • Donald
        February 16, 2011, 4:08 pm

        “Citizen, Kathleen’s central point is that everybody on television should present the I/P issue often and entirely from Kathleen’s perspective.”

        Wrong. Her point is that virtually no one on American television ever gives the Palestinian side of the story. I’d add that virtually no one on television gives viewers the information one would find in, say, Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International or B’Tselem reports about the conflict. There is plenty of time given to talk about the brutality of Arab governments or Islamic terrorists and so forth, but little time or no time at all to say anything equally critical about Israel.

      • fuster
        February 16, 2011, 9:34 pm

        Donald, if her point is a general criticism of tv coverage, rather than an attack on one or two people on television, that would be different.
        I agree with that point.

        However, singling out Maddow or Stewart strikes me as different.

        Why should she assign responsibility to those individuals to present her perspective?

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 5:13 am

        Both Maddow and Stewart (and Maher) especially pride themselves on their overt lefty and/or progressive POV on everything; they both cater to that proud demographic audience. Hence they should be especially singled out to point to the fact that when it comes to anything Israel their constant ommissions reflect their double standard. In Israel’s case alone, they are severe right-wing in presentation, or more usually, dirth of presentation.

      • Kathleen
        February 17, 2011, 10:10 am


      • Kathleen
        February 16, 2011, 1:06 pm

        Stewart is extremely lopsided in his criticisms. Never ever touches Israel, the illegal settlements, Netanyahu, the Palestinian protesters and our media never covering them, Israel taking away all communication devices from the humanitarian activist on the Gaza Flotilla. Stewart repeats the horseshit about “Iran wanting to wipe Israel off the map” Professor Juan Cole debunked that hooey years ago.

        Stewart also refers to the Iranian nuclear program as a nuclear weapons program. Questions Iran enriching uranium. You must know that Iran has the right to enrich uranium up to certain levels. You must know that Iran signed the non proliferation treaty while Israel continues to refuse to sign the NPT while they sit on massive stockpiles of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that go uninspected.

        Stewart has demonstrated over and over again that he is incapable of being fair, honest and accurate when it comes to Israel. And at the same time is clearly carrying water for the I lobby when it comes to repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran

        He is a total hypocrite

      • Ellen
        February 16, 2011, 1:27 pm

        But a very rich one.

        He is protecting his job.

        Keeping it irrelevant.

      • Hostage
        February 16, 2011, 7:21 pm


        I would generally agree with your criticisms of Stewart. When he had Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti on the show he said Israelis were defending themselves through segregation and quizzed the guests as to whether or not they supported the existence of Israel. He brought up the notion that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map and complained that Palestinians had blamed or demonized Israel. He also acted as if the non-violent movement was something completely new.

        In the second part of the interview, the audience and his guests got the upper hand. He moderated his tone and ended up suggesting internationalization and a peacekeeping force, but not Palestinian self-determination.

        http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-28-2009/exclusive—anna-baltzer—mustafa-barghouti-extended-interview-pt–1 & http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-28-2009/exclusive—anna-baltzer—mustafa-barghouti-extended-interview-pt–2

      • Kathleen
        February 17, 2011, 10:12 am

        Amd how many times has the U.S. voted against sending UN peacekeepers into the conflict. I believe four times Israel does not want to have more confirmaton about their illegal activities.

      • Hostage
        February 17, 2011, 1:23 pm

        The principles contained in Security Council 242 were based upon President Johnson’s address at the State Department’s Foreign Policy Conference for Educators, on June 19, 1967. He said that the use of peacekeeping forces had been helpful in the past and could not be ruled out in this situation:

        But we must still ask, who can help them? Some say it should be the United Nations; some call for the use of other parties. We have been first in our support of effective peacekeeping in the United Nations, and we also recognize the great values to come from mediation.

        We are ready this morning to see any method tried, and we believe that none should be excluded altogether. Perhaps all of them will be useful and all will be needed. — link to presidency.ucsb.edu

        The mantra that “the final status of the territory can only be settled through negotiations” is unhistorical nonsense. The overwhelming majority of boundary disputes have been settled through international arbitration, adjudication, or international conference diplomacy.

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 3:07 pm

        Considering your refrain is Leave Israel Alone!, fuster? Irony, heal thyself.

      • fuster
        February 16, 2011, 3:27 pm

        I don’t know what you consider, Chaos, but my refrain is but “let’s get factual”

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 8:07 pm

        …from the ugly bigot who states openly that Palestinians “just left” and that they should blame themselves for Zionist militants ethnically cleansing half their population sixty years ago. “Factual” doesn’t even cast a shadow on your purview, let alone resides in it.

      • fuster
        February 16, 2011, 10:53 pm

        Chaos, you’re confused again. It wasn’t I that said “just left”. Review the notes or something.

      • Chaos4700
        February 17, 2011, 12:28 am

        You regurgitate the whole “Five Arab armies came to drive Jews to the sea” garbage is what you did. The war started with Zionist militants attacking Palestinian villages and clearing dozens, then hundreds of villages — communities that existed for centuries, in many cases, and probably had been for farther back than for half of the ancestors in your family tree to be Jewish.

      • Citizen
        February 18, 2011, 9:52 am

        Yeah, let’s get to the ever-expanding “facts on the ground” that are the illegal Israeli settlements. It would help, fuster, if you quit trying to ignore them since they are the key roadblock to peace.

    • Kathleen
      February 16, 2011, 12:28 pm

      Oh yeah forgot to mention that Micheal “Niger Documents” Ledeen’s mug shot was on the Iran rant that Jon Stewart gave last night

      • annie
        February 16, 2011, 2:10 pm

        Micheal “Niger Documents” Ledeen’s mug shot was on the Iran rant that Jon Stewart gave last night

        that’s hysterical! for real? doesn’t he know who mr ‘turn the middle east into a caldron of fire faster please’ ledeen is?

      • Kathleen
        February 17, 2011, 10:15 am

        Was in shock to see their programmers or Stewart put Ledeen up there as he was criticizing Iran again and again. These so called progressives like Stewart, Maddow, Maher need to be called out on the I/P issue. They refuse to criticize Israel. Total bullshit. Hypocrites

  6. Ellen
    February 16, 2011, 11:52 am

    Thank you.

  7. fuster
    February 16, 2011, 12:10 pm

    Very poetic language. Very spotty otherwise.

    • Citizen
      February 16, 2011, 1:03 pm

      That spot you keep seeing is the zionist mote in your own eyes, fuster.

    • Chaos4700
      February 16, 2011, 3:06 pm

      But you have nothing of substance to actually offer. Typical. But then of course you’re convinced that the Palestinians are at fault for the Nakba.

  8. eee
    February 16, 2011, 12:14 pm

    Dr. Khalaf,

    I find your point of view intriguing and want to learn more. Which Palestinian political party or entity represents most closely your views? Sorry for asking a practical question, but with whom exactly can we negotiate this idea of “reset”
    and what it means on the ground?

    • maggielorraine
      February 16, 2011, 12:57 pm

      Maybe those people who have already offered you most of your settlements, Jerusalem, and given up their right of return…which you flatly rejected as not good enough. Remember them? Or are you doing exactly what Khalaf said and calling them “invisible, non-existent, literally less than human.”

      • Hu Bris
        February 16, 2011, 8:48 pm

        eee(k!) February 16, 2011 at 12:14 pm:

        I find your point of view intriguing and want to learn more. Which Palestinian political party or entity represents most closely your views? Sorry for asking a practical question, but with whom exactly can we negotiate this idea of “reset” and what it means on the ground?

        eeeee’s silly little rant is just the same ol hasbara in disguise – It’s just a variation on the “Vee haff no pardner fûr peas!!” nonsense that they always try to peddle whenever they think they can get away with it

    • Citizen
      February 16, 2011, 1:13 pm

      eee, who is “we?” What political party or entity do you have in mind to negotiate with the Palestinians of Dr Khalaf’s frame of mind? Perhaps if you give us your POV on Dr Khalaf’s POV, on the specifics in his article’s content, we, meaning the commenters on this site, can help you learn more, and together we and you can decide the most harmonious coupling of political party/entity negotiators at a peace table with a chance of success.

      • eee
        February 16, 2011, 2:08 pm


        Does he support something like the Geneva Plan or some plan along the Clinton Parameters? What does the poetic language translate to in practice?

      • Citizen
        February 16, 2011, 3:57 pm

        For starters, I think it’s reasonable to assume he supports not supporting in any way the illegal Israeli settlements. Practice that.

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 4:22 pm

        Well, we already know what your language translates into practice — bombed-out hospitals, people crushed under bulldozers, UN warehouses full of ash and ruin and blood spilled on international waters.

    • Chaos4700
      February 16, 2011, 3:04 pm

      And the witch hunt begins. Next you’ll be holding him under water, and if he doesn’t drown then clearly he’s an Islamic fundamentalist.

    • Issa Khalaf
      February 16, 2011, 3:24 pm

      Mr., Ms., or Mrs. eee: I’m glad you’re intrigued. That’s what I’m here for. Answer: the Palestinians (vast majority, mainstream Palestinian nationalism, PA and now including Hamas) who’ve been virtually pleading for peace based on a genuine two state settlement since the late 1980s; the Arab states who’ve been trying to make peace for decades in exchange for recognition and normalization. Try sampling the scholarly literature that decisively demonstrates this political, diplomatic, and historical reality, much of it from Israeli historians. A political settlement leads to end of conflict, to coexistence, to reset, don’t you think?

      • eee
        February 16, 2011, 3:55 pm

        Dr. Khalaf,

        What is your view on the right of return?

        Are you active in any Palestinian political party?

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 8:09 pm

        Like I said. Witch hunt.

      • CK MacLeod
        February 16, 2011, 4:02 pm

        Dr Khalaf,

        Thank you for your eloquent article Can you please link or otherwise refer me/us to Hamas’ unambiguous and credible embrace of a genuine two-state settlement? I apologize if I have failed to keep up, but my impression was that the furthest Hamas has gone in any official respect is to offer a relatively long-term truce in exchange for immediate withdrawal to the ’67 lines.

      • CK MacLeod
        February 16, 2011, 6:48 pm

        Oops garbled my own understanding – meant to say, that I thought Hamas 1) has officially offered truces of different lengths, without prejudice to future negotiations/decisions and 2) has offered to cease the armed struggle though without guarantees, upon Israeli withdrawal to the ’67 lines and granting of right of return, but in neither case has implied a revision of the Hamas Charter and acceptance of a 2-state solution.

      • Issa Khalaf
        February 16, 2011, 7:27 pm

        I highly recommend book by Khaled Hroub, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice.

        Read Fawaz Gergez, “The Transformation of Hamas,” found on Internet.

        And look up Jennifer Lowenstein (of UW Madison) on Hamas, Internet.

      • Issa Khalaf
        February 16, 2011, 7:28 pm

        Sorry, that’s Gerges.

      • Hostage
        February 16, 2011, 9:18 pm

        Khaled Meshaal addressed that point (ad nauseum) on the Charlie Rose show. He said Hamas would accept a state based upon the 1967 frontiers if that satisfied the Palestinian majority.

        So, Meshaal and Netanyahu both want national referendums on any final settlement.

      • CK MacLeod
        February 17, 2011, 12:19 am

        I was familiar with Meshal’s and similar statements, and though I respect Dr Khalaf’s position as well as the way he expresses it, I think summarizing Hamas’s position as above – grouped together with those “virtually pleading for peace based on a genuine two state settlement” amounts to shading the truth, and also exaggerating the unity on the Palestinian side.

        There’s a related contradiction in the depiction of the Israeli side – sometimes described as “psychotic,” but within a context of a “reset” based on forgetting the past and being welcomed. Most people wouldn’t and people in general probably shouldn’t welcome dangerous psychotics into their midst. Fuster and others among those unpersuaded, either pro-Zionist or at a minimum not fiercely anti-Zionist, react to other aspects of the presentation that seem to “stack the deck” in other ways.

        I see Dr. Khalaf making an admirable but only partly successful effort to reach for a different, morally elevated and most of all common language – a rigorously moral and non-judgmental orientation toward the future, especially as in that line highlighted by other commenters: “The Palestinians are the door to your redemption, the revivification of ethical Judaism.” But in the next line, he reverts to absolute pessimism and abnormal psychology: “But you won’t grasp any of this.” Well, if you really believe that, then why even say it? The “letter to the Zionists” approach is defeated by such gestures.

        Criticisms aside, I’d urge him to continue on this path, and honestly am grateful for the effort and the example, but it makes me want to think more what it means to call someone of another faith to be true to that faith. Is that really a sensible gesture, and, if so, how? The issue is, after all, one of common ground, both in the idea and in the reality.

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 5:21 am

        I guess calling someone out to be true to their faith is not totally ineffective, as in, “What would Jesus do?” People may respond by ignoring the question and repeating their presumptions and selected authorities, or they may elaborate on the question in a vein suggested by the context of the question. What would Hillel do?

      • annie
        February 16, 2011, 4:32 pm

        i read your excellent ‘Humanity, dignity, liberty’ article Dr. Khalaf.

        The American national security state is incapable of supporting authentic democratic movements in weak countries it can control, and certainly not in the Middle East, vehemently viewed through the camera obscura of Israel’s needs, desires, fears, hopes and so on. Insistence on facile dichotomies between good and bad, chaos and order, moderate and extremist reflect not reality but advancing perceived interests and camouflaging of the American diktat. Supporting autocrats is a designed policy of hegemony, not the result of dilemmas conveyed to the public as “difficult policy choices.” The essential point is that this bankrupt policy of empire is doomed to an endless cycle of domination and resistance, to the detriment of all sides. Cherished stability and order cannot be had by supporting illegitimate rulers, but by democratic politics in which people choose their own governments, with all the risks and opportunities this implies.

        Through it all, the fundamental assumption is of Western innocence forced to deal with Muslim rage rooted in inferiority and cultural defect. Andrew J. Bacevich argues that Americans’ remarkable absence of self-awareness, the delusionary insistence on reluctant empire, constitutes the greatest obstacle to change and the persistence of the status quo. What more sane policy than to uncompromisingly advocate Arabs’ aspirations and resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without heed to domestic lobbies, thereby conserving American interests, stabilizing the region, and encouraging democracy? The Palestinian and Arab peoples will be grateful for such policy. Obama, any American president, need utter just one line, “America supports democracy, dignity, and freedom of the Arab peoples,” and American flags will fly all over the Middle East.

        thanks. i hope you post here more often.

      • Citizen
        February 16, 2011, 6:48 pm

        RE “America supports democracy, dignity, and freedom of the Arab peoples.” Amazing this line has never been spoken by a sitting American president?

      • bijou
        February 16, 2011, 4:53 pm

        A political settlement leads to end of conflict, to coexistence, to reset, don’t you think?

        Suggested revision: A genuine political settlement that fully and in good faith addresses the needs and concerns of both sides and redresses their primary grievances has the potential to lead to end of conflict, to coexistence, to reset….

  9. Donald
    February 16, 2011, 12:35 pm

    If I were Phil (which I’m not) this post would be given permanent top of the front page status.

    • annie
      February 16, 2011, 3:42 pm

      i don’t know about permanent but at least for a day!!!

      • Donald
        February 16, 2011, 9:23 pm

        “i don’t know about permanent”

        I was thinking permanent because maybe the blog needs some sort of summarizing historical overview of the conflict and this seems like it fits the bill. Possibly it could stand some improvement here and there–Issa Khalaf corrected himself on the presence of Jews after the first century, for example.

        I’m daydreaming, but I think it’d be good if Phil’s blog had a short library of posts that summarized the history and some other specific issues. There would be a link on the sidebar somewhere. A history of the Nakba, for instance or–well, others could suggest ideas. I’d also like to see something on the Jewish refugees/emigrants to Israel from Arab lands, since that issue is sometimes raised and if there is some consensus on what did happen it’d be nice to have a post summarizing that. Or maybe there’d be links to articles elsewhere on the web on these topics.

        It might or might not be worth the effort, of course. I never thought of it until I saw this piece–it reminded me of some of the better articles at “Lawrence of Cyberia”.

      • Philip Weiss
        February 16, 2011, 10:05 pm

        good ideas, donald; also, it’s phil and adam’s site actually, though god knows we have a lot of contribs. adam makes more of the policy decisions, being more calm and logical than me

    • Citizen
      February 16, 2011, 3:58 pm

      Yes; it deserves it. Observe the puny reaction of the hasbarabots so far on this thread.

    • annie
      February 16, 2011, 4:12 pm

      ;) yeah! it’s on top now. thank you donald and thank you phil and adam!

  10. wondering jew
    February 16, 2011, 12:51 pm

    Issa, there are many important points you raise in this post and I’m unable to deal with them right now, but on one point I wish to correct you. Ancient Jews were not absent from the 1st century on. I know that the rhetoric of recovering the connection to Jerusalem refers to a two thousand year longing, but as late as the 4th century the majority of inhabitants of the land were Jews and pagans according to a 4th century monk. (wikipedia)

    • straightline
      February 16, 2011, 3:18 pm

      Without looking up the wikipedia page you refer to, I find the statement “the majority of inhabitants of the land were Jews and pagans” somewhat lacking in precision. Were there more pagans or Jews? Agreed, probably not that many Jews converted to Christianity since it was not supported at that time by the dominant power – Romans. But it seems from your statement that a lot of Jews converted to other religions – Roman or maybe Zoroastrian/Mithras? But you agree with Issa then that there was no large diaspora – right? By about the 9th century these Jews and pagans (or rather their descendants) would have been Muslim.

      Sorry – just noticed that Issa has posted a response. Mine is redundant.

    • Potsherd2
      February 16, 2011, 4:05 pm

      This is quite true, WJ. And it also answers fuster’s question about the reason for the relative absence of Jews from Palestine.

      They didn’t leave. Most of them eventually converted. First to Christianity, then to Islam. But they were the steadfast ones who clung to the land, and their descendants are still there, in refugee camps.

      And here’s another thing: nothing at all kept the diaspora Jews from coming back. It’s true that until the 4th century or so they were forbidden from settling in Jerusalem, but not the rest of Palestine, and for most of the diaspora there was simply nothing to keep them from returning. They chose not to.

  11. Richard Witty
    February 16, 2011, 1:30 pm

    “Still, Palestinians and Arabs, Muslims and Christians, Palestinian children, welcome you. ”

    Interesting “summary”.

    If a two-state deal is negotiated, could you personally reset at that point, or does it require groveling?

    There were many partial truths (emotional stories) in your narrative.

    I think it is necessary for you to distinguish the hot emotional from the actual.

    So, specifically. The invocation of “colonial/settler” is an unrealistic description. It conforms to your prejudice that the intention of Zionists was only to take over, and to ethnically cleanse. At most there is supporting individual quotes from leaders to convince yourself that that was the prevailing thinking or motive (almost all presented out of context). The reality is that the majority of Jewish residents were refugees.

    It is equally a fantasy to think of the middle east as eastward looking. The fact is that the levant is intimately connected to Europe, AND intimately connected to Asia. There certainly were many European Zionists that originally thought in European terminology and norms, but that quickly dissolved into a European/Asian cosmopolitanism.

    To those that remember (or imagine) the quaint, even that mix of occidental and oriental cosmopolitanism is a cultural invasion.

    Only if you watch Exodus, could you conclude that the desparate European refugees were accepted as you infer in your reset. At the same time, there were many incidents (comprising a pattern) of terror directed at legal civilian residents and over a long extended period.

    It is also untrue that “Palestinians” are more ethnically Jewish than European. That is an exageration of speculation.

    It is true that many Palestinians are halachically Jewish, as they are matrilineally descended from Jewish women, and some even demonstrate cultural Jewish ritual and traditions.

    That definitely should counter any assertions by anyone that Palestinians are not peers – in their humanity, and peers though the lens of born members of the b’rit (the conspiracy to transform the world from bland to profound, the instructed and adopted mission of the Jewish people).

    From your comments, I assume that you reject a two-state approach, that only a single state would result in “justice” for Palestinians.

    Can you clarify if that is the case?

    Would you willingly reset at “enough Zionism”, at a consented two-state solution?

    In which the apology you request is intrinsic in desire to actually change the relationship, to change how Israel and Israelis treat Palestinian civilians.

    I refer it to changes in my relationship with my wife. There are sometimes when I personally need an apology so that I can move on. And, then there are times when my wife hears my requests and doesn’t apologize but just changes her behavior. Is that less of an apology?

    And, by the standard of “I will accept her only if she treats me “perfectly”, I will never accept her. It is only by the standard of “does she treat me kindly and respectfully” that our relationship changes for the better.

    An agreement can get to “Israel treats Palestinians and Palestine respectfully”. A condemnation won’t get there.

    • eljay
      February 16, 2011, 3:41 pm

      >> It conforms to your prejudice that the intention of Zionists was only to take over, and to ethnically cleanse.

      Not only has it been shown time and again that the intention of early Zionists was to re-take all of the “Promised Land” – something that, time and again, you pretend not to know – but Zio-supremacists have confirmed time and again that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was “necessary”. It’s not prejudice, it’s fact.

      >> There are sometimes when I personally need an apology so that I can move on. And, then there are times when my wife hears my requests and doesn’t apologize but just changes her behavior.

      Your wife is not Israel, which has neither apologized/atoned/been held accountable for its past immorality and injustices, nor changed its behaviour.

    • Issa Khalaf
      February 16, 2011, 4:02 pm

      Richard, I’m not going to respond to everything you said, but I think we, you and me, share a desire for peace and coexistence–on a just and fair basis. From there the relationship could in fact have been potentially reset. I think you would have noticed by now, from the pieces I posted here, that I prefer a two state solution, but the overwhelming fact is that the Israelis are not interested in peace, and two states have passed. So much has been annexed and colonized of the West Bank/Palestinian East Jerusalem, so unserious are the Israelis in offering anything that would allow an economically, geographically, and politically viable state, so fanatical is Netanyahu and his frenetic race to gobble up as much land as possible, that there’s nothing left but a Bantustan. Look up a piece of mine in the Palestine Chronicle published yesterday, titled “A plan for peace that never was,” critiquing Bernard Avishai, and you’ll get an idea of where I’m coming from. The reality and scholarly evidence that two states have passed is plain for everyone to see. Read the literature then tell me what you think.

      • eee
        February 16, 2011, 4:10 pm

        What I think is that you are falling into the same trap that Palestinians have for 60 years. Any state is viable if you make it so. Honk Kong and Singapore are very small and very viable. It is not the size of the state that matters as to whether it is viable or not. Even a Palestinian state in all the West Bank and Gaza would not be viable unless it could trade freely with Israel. What is plain for everyone to see is that Palestinians think they will get better terms in the negotiation if they wait. If you believe that is the right strategy go for it, but don’t complain about the results.

      • eljay
        February 16, 2011, 5:28 pm

        >> Any state is viable if you make it so. Honk Kong and Singapore are very small and very viable. It is not the size of the state that matters as to whether it is viable or not.

        That explains perfectly Israel’s need for as much of Palestine as it can get its grubby little Zio-supremacist hands on. You clearly have no concept of what “common sense” actually means.

      • Shingo
        February 16, 2011, 5:29 pm

        Any state is viable if you make it so.

        Fine, so either agree to a single state or allow the return of the refugees. After all eee, Israel will still be viable if they make it so right?

        More of the same hypocrisy and contempt for the weak. Israelis wouldn’t accept those conditions, but in your racist view, it’s sufficient for the half breeds.

        In any case, the 2ss is dead, so your argument is moot.

        It is not the size of the state that matters as to whether it is viable or not.

        Israel insist that size does matter, or they wouldn’t be stealing more and more land and what’s more, what it left of the OT is not viable for a state. Without contiguous borders there is no viability.

        If you believe that is the right strategy go for it, but don’t complain about the results.

        Israel is headed for a single state solution which will have a Palestinian majority. They will be forced to chose between apartheid or democracy, but either one will not be pretty.

        If you believe that expansionism is right strategy go for it, but don’t complain about the results.

      • Koshiro
        February 16, 2011, 6:55 pm

        Nonsense. a) Hong Kong is not, and never has been, a state. b) Singapore’s wealth is based on very specific conditions which are just not given here and c) you’re just making up excuses for landgrabs on the part of Israel, which apparently cannot make do with the territory it already has.

      • Citizen
        February 16, 2011, 7:08 pm

        Eee, what is plain for everyone to see is your tiny imagination regarding what Palestinians think, and also plain for everyone to see
        is the “facts on the ground” Israel has been establishing non-stop since 1967, the illegal Israeli settlements, all the while pretending to want peace, a pretence that daily gives more mockery to any two-state future reality. If smaller is perfectly viable, why does Israel keep growing itself by gobbling more land?

      • pjdude
        February 16, 2011, 10:04 pm

        hong kong was never a state plus they are both ports cities. lots of factors go into determining if a state is viable. the most important one is access to natural resources and Israel has made it abundently clear that it wants all of the natural resources of palestine under its control.

      • sherbrsi
        February 16, 2011, 10:18 pm

        Any state is viable if you make it so. Honk Kong and Singapore are very small and very viable.

        That’t nonsense, because size is not the issue preventing a viable Palestinian state, sovereignty (nullified by the imposition of military occupation and incursions) and territorial contiguity (invalidated by the illegal Israeli settlements/wall) are. The Israelis cannot even offer the bare minimum required for a viable physical Palestinian state, let alone one which is under the political authority of the Palestinians.

      • Richard Witty
        February 16, 2011, 9:19 pm

        “A plan for peace that never was,” critiquing Bernard Avishai

        I think that conclusion is at the root of the problem. There were many Israelis that genuinely sought a respectful peace in Israel, that recognized that Palestinians got and were getting the short end of the deal.

        And, over time, more and more and more have come to acknowledge, now the point of assumption, that Palestinians have valid claims, and certainly humanity, and a future.

        What things become is more important than what they originate as.

        And, in this case, it is possible for reconciliation to occur, but only if it is desired.

        The question to you personally was, are you willing to reset at two-states? What do you think? Or, is reconciliation only possible in a long-distant future, conditional, with constantly changing conditions.

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 5:27 am

        Witty, RE: “What things become is more important than what they originate as.”
        We’ve been trying to tell you that about Zionism for years now. Teacher, teach yourself.

    • Koshiro
      February 16, 2011, 7:00 pm

      “It conforms to your prejudice that the intention of Zionists was only to take over, and to ethnically cleanse. ”
      I couldn’t care less what their intentions were. What they did, and still to, was and is to take over and to ethnically cleanse. I’ll judge people by their actions, not by what they claim their intentions are, thank you.

    • RoHa
      February 16, 2011, 8:02 pm

      “The reality is that the majority of Jewish residents were refugees.”

      Yet they showed no gratitude for being able to take refuge in Palestine. Rather, they acted like invaders, colonial settlers, and conquerors.

      • eljay
        February 16, 2011, 8:11 pm

        >> Rather, they acted like invaders, colonial settlers, and conquerors.

        How else was “a good in the world” going to get created?! Anyway, I’m sure that some (most?) of them “held their noses” while the “necessary” ethnic cleansing of Palestinians was being undertaken.

        It warms the heart, it really does. :-)

    • lyn117
      February 17, 2011, 3:22 am

      Richard W. doesn’t desire peace and coexistence on a just and fair basis. He wants Palestinians to consent to forced exile, mass murder and ethnic cleansing

    • lyn117
      February 17, 2011, 3:50 am


      “It is true that many Palestinians are halachically Jewish, as they are matrilineally descended from Jewish women, and some even demonstrate cultural Jewish ritual and traditions.”

      You aren’t content to steal the land of the Palestinians, you also feel the need to steal their traditions as well, renaming them Jewish? Khalaf made no claim that Palestinians were ethnically more Jewish than European, he merely mentioned the lineal descent from the Jewish groups who inhabited the area up to circa 100 CE. Any ritual and traditions they had surely predated as well as postdated the Jewish era (which was a scant few hundred years out of 1000s of years of history) and cannot be said to be Jewish.

      And why do you find it necessary to assert that Palestinian descent from Jews definitely “counters any assertions by anyone that Palestinians are not peers” Do you really insist only people who have Jewish descent are your peers? I find that racist.

      I remain, as always, disappointed in my hopes that you will acquire enlightenment.

  12. Kathleen
    February 16, 2011, 1:30 pm


    Go to Stop Aipac

    Stop AIPAC Newsletter

    Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation

    February 2011

    Dear Kathleen,

    The victory of the people of Egypt in overthrowing their dictator is a very major defeat for the Israeli apartheid system. Beyond an historic victory for the people of Egypt, it is a win for all freedom-loving people around the world, most notably the people of Palestine.

    Two weeks ago General Aviv Kochavi, the head of Israeli intelligence, stated confidently that the Mubarak regime was under no real threat and as stable as ever. Vice-President Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden was saying that Mubarak was “not a dictator” and stressed that he should not be forced to resign. Obama’s own envoy was saying as recently as early February that Mubarak “must stay for now”. It was clear the establishment in Washington was on the side of the “stability” of the regime, if not Mubarak himself. Indeed, Washington’s choice (and by extension, AIPAC’s choice) to lead the transition to democracy was Mubarak’s newly appointed vice-President, Suleiman, who was also Mubarak’s man in-charge of torture.

    The courage and determination of the people of Egypt (and Tunisia and beyond) are an inspiration to all of us. They have proved to us that we the people can create a better future, that the powers that be do not have the final say.

    For further reading, i would suggest “Egypt’s revolution and Israel: “Bad for the Jews”, which is how Israel’s rulers saw the revolution.

    In the US, there is much to do. Politicians still cling to the status quo. Obama just requested over $3 Billion for Israeli occupation, even as he proposed cuts to important social programs in the US. They are also threatening to veto a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning illegal Israeli settlements. We urge you to sign this petition, urging the US not to veto the resolution and instead to stand for international law and human rights.

    Over at End the Occupation…Petition (sorry unable to link)
    Tell U.S. to Support UN Resolution on Israeli Settlements

    Susan E. Rice
    U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations

    Please add your name right now to our petition below to U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice asking her to vote in favor of this resolution.

    One would expect that the Obama Administration would support this resolution since the President himself “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” as stated in his June 2009 Cairo address.

    But instead, the Obama Administration is threatening to use its veto in the Security Council once again to protect Israel from abiding by international law.

    If more than 10,000 people sign our petition before the vote, we will hand-deliver it to the U.S. Mission to the UN. Add your voice and help us spread the word now!

    Dear U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice,

    I urge you to vote in favor of the upcoming Security Council resolution reaffirming that Israel’s settlements “are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.”

    President Obama himself has stated that the United States “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” A 1978 State Department legal memo, which is still official U.S. policy, concluded that Israel’s settlements are “inconsistent with international law.”

    As the Obama Administration appears to be supporting human rights in Tunisia and Egypt and their citizens’ demands for freedom, the United States will lose credibility if it vetoes a UN resolution that supports those same rights for Palestinians.

    The State Department said on Human Rights Day last December that “there is a single universal standard that applies to every country, including our own. We apply it to the Israelis, and we also view… Palestinians as being human beings under the Universal Declaration [of Human Rights] and entitled to those rights.”

    I urge you to put these words into action by voting in favor of the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s illegal settlements.


  13. Justice Please
    February 16, 2011, 2:27 pm

    This is a great piece, thanks to the writer and those who published it. It’s at the same time emotional and reasonable.

    “you must make “radical” decisions, transcend your psychosis.”

    Jackpot. This is the central quest for everyone who still lives the Holocaust. Because it is over, as Avraham Burg wrote, and we must rise from its ashes and from its darkness.

    • Citizen
      February 17, 2011, 5:55 am

      It’s pretty hard to eradicate a psychosis when the psychosis is inculcated, bred in from birth, like a baby born to a crack cocaine mom. An intervention is needed–one by normal people, unaddicted people. Fact is, for today’s Zionists, the zionist fix is in; they won’t give up their drug. They have become their drug. Even though the high gets harder and harder to maintain, they persist. Ask Dr Mooser. But I think he has long ago given up on them.

  14. biorabbi
    February 16, 2011, 3:05 pm

    More apartheid in Israel? Comments please. Or is this another botched, bullshit pr effort?

    link to israel21c.org

    • Chaos4700
      February 16, 2011, 4:25 pm

      …Why does Israel have a separate bone marrow registry for Arabs? There aren’t separate registries for ethnicity in the US. Or any other country, at least as far as I know.

      • biorabbi
        February 16, 2011, 6:10 pm

        From the article. tissue matching for bone marrow transplantation and organ transplantation is exceedingly complicated. It is very difficulty to find “a perfect match” and the best one can do is try to find the most similar match. It’s my information(via an arab doctor)that the Jordanian Palestinians have also accessed this bone marrow registry. What this article neglects to mention is the key factor of variance within specific families/clans throughout the West Bank.

        “When I explain that because of our unique genetics we only find matches for 10% of the Arab population without a family donor, that convinces people that we need them,” says Bishara. “Once people know [donating] doesn’t harm them, they will be encouraged to join the registry and give a donation if they’re matched.”

        All potential donors are made aware that because Arabs and Jews have common ancestors, sometimes an Arab might be a match for a Jew and vice versa. In any case, the identity of the recipient is kept secret. After a year, if the recovered recipient agrees, the donor and recipient are given each other’s contact information.”

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 8:05 pm

        …so why have a separate database? You’ve insisted on elsewhere in the thread about the genetic congruence of Arabs and Jewish immigrants. That’s fine, but then it makes sense to put all of the data in a single database.

        You can’t cut with the handle of your knife as well as the blade. Your article only demonstrates that apartheid in Israel extends even into the medical system — how long have Arabs been completely excluded from any organ transplant database, before this? And now they’re in a separate database entirely?

        “Separate but equal” never works.

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 6:10 am

        Yes, it’s interesting that a single zionist entity has the only slot in Israel for doing a little bit of Arab bone marrow work, while there are quite a few working only to save Israeli Jews. Incidentally, the UAE’s Ministry of Health (MoH) is part of the Arab world and is part of the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR).

  15. Issa Khalaf
    February 16, 2011, 3:08 pm

    You’re right, “wondering jew,” and I really don’t need correcting on this one, though I should have been precise. I apologize. It is the Zionist narrative, in fact, that claims 70AD, the point of Temple’s destruction, led to brutal, wholesale Jewish exile and enslavement. Judeans were not exiled. There were large concentrations of Jews (converts to Judaism) in centers outside Palestine, in the Middle East and elsewhere, and many Palestinian Judeans, as members of the Roman empire, naturally found their way to Rome as merchants etc. The majority of Judeans, the agrarian classes, stayed put and (most likely) slowly converted to Christianity in the following centuries, a large majority doing so when the Palestine province became Christian by early 4th century. Most Jews who converted to Christianity (and probably the very few who did not) gradually converted to Islam beginning in the early 7th century. Some Palestinian Christians today, who obviously did not convert to Islam, are descendants of the ancient Judeans. Islam displaced nor forcefully converted anyone; only the Byzantine elite fled and whose estates were confiscated. So I suppose you can say Jewish presence, those identifying themselves as Jews, virtually disappeared in the early centuries AD. There were of course small numbers of religious Jews in Jerusalem and a couple of other religious centers in the Galilee by the time of Zionism. What is true is that Jewish life, authority, autonomy or independence ceased by the 1st century. That’s my take on it based on my reading.

    • Potsherd2
      February 16, 2011, 4:10 pm

      Issa, I believe this isn’t quite right. There was a Jewish presence responsible for the Galilean (Jerusalem) Talmud in about the 4th century. There was a Jewish presence at the time of the Islamic conquest. From what I have gathered from my own reading is that it gradually faded during the Ottoman period, through conversion, although it’s possible that the Crusades dealt the community a serious blow.

    • biorabbi
      February 16, 2011, 4:52 pm

      The genetic haplotypes, the overwhelming genetic convergence between Jews(both Sephardic and non-Sephardic), the presence of the Cohen allele, ect…ect…ect… is irrefutable connecting the Palestinians(Christians and Muslim) to the Jews. They are not just ‘related’ but are, literally, the same. Interestingly, even the culture and the names of certain clans support a common past. The diaspora itself of 70 AD? Was it a diaspora of the elite? Did the Palestinian Jews leave? No, they stayed.

      Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims and Christians would refute me on each and every point above. Too much for haters to handle.

      Does this knowledge change anything? The better question is should it?

      The fact that the Palestinians are descendants of ancient Jews, sharing multiple lines of genetic, cultural, linguistic relationships with the Jews of today is too much for the anti-semites to process, and I apologize in advance for this post. Could also explain the shabby treatment of Palestinians by the arabs?

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 5:02 pm

        …so why does Israel have a separate bone marrow registry for Arabs?

      • yonira
        February 16, 2011, 10:46 pm

        Israel has the ONLY bone marrow registry for Arabs Chaos:

        link to bit.ly

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 6:16 am

        Incorrect, yonira. The UAE’s Ministry of Health (MoH) is part of the Arab world and is part of the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR).

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 5:06 pm

        Could also explain the shabby treatment of Palestinians by the arabs?

        Because the atrocious behavior of Zionist Jews claiming to be refugees poisoned the well for other types of refugees, considering what they did with the generousity that was afforded to them by Palestinians? It continues to amaze me to watch Zionists all crowded around Palestinians in virtuality and keep kicking them in the ribs, then bemoan why someone isn’t giving the Palestine medical aid while the Zionists are stripping off the victim’s clothes and rifling through his pockets?

      • Potsherd2
        February 16, 2011, 5:11 pm

        What on earth does this have to do with anti-semites?

      • Ellen
        February 16, 2011, 6:20 pm

        Well….here we go again with race based genetics. Or “Science” applied to race studies.

        The Cohen Modal Haplotype is found in many groups all over the world. Just as other Haplotype sequence markers. It is really meaningless.

        We are all out of Africa……

    • annie
      February 16, 2011, 4:57 pm

      That’s my take on it based on my reading.

      which books would you recommend about the first century.

      • Potsherd2
        February 16, 2011, 5:13 pm

        Annie, Josephus is the primary source for the 1st century.

      • Potsherd2
        February 16, 2011, 5:20 pm

        Annie, Josephus is the primary source for the 1st century.

        But I’m not sure that’s the century you want.

      • MHughes976
        February 16, 2011, 5:59 pm

        I’d strongly recommend the Oxford History of the Biblical World, edited Michael Coogan (1998), for the whole sweep of relevant ancient history. In my opinion, for what that may be worth, it’s rather conservative in its treatment of Jewish and Christian tradition but it’s a good background to more provocative work like Shlomo Sand’s.

      • Issa Khalaf
        February 16, 2011, 7:05 pm

        annie, Palestine’s history from first century to the time of the Arab conquests is not the clearest. I recommend, if you haven’t already read it, Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People, esp. chapters 2 and 3. Really good and clear reading. I also very much like Keith W. Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel, about how ancient, and modern, Palestinian history was erased by bible centered scholars, but this obviously predates first century and it’s scholarly-dense, not easy reading, but outstanding.

      • maggielorraine
        February 16, 2011, 7:13 pm

        i just bought this but haven’t started reading it. i’m very much looking forward to it.

      • nyclawyer
        February 16, 2011, 7:16 pm

        The author of the post is choosing sources based exclusively on whether they support his position.
        I recommend scholarly books by :
        Efraim Karsh, Arieh Avneri and Benny Morris

      • annie
        February 16, 2011, 7:40 pm

        thank you.

      • olive
        February 16, 2011, 7:41 pm

        Professor Tim Winter of Cambridge discussing this very topic: Listen to it here: link to cambridgekhutbasetc.blogspot.com

        Description of the talk:

        In this sermon the sheikh discusses some aspects of the noble history of Gaza, burial place of the great-grandfather of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) and discusses its current despicable treatment by Israel. He mentions various historical and contemporary factors that may have contributed to events, from upcoming Israeli elections to the Arab Revolt incited by the British during First World War which led to the collapse of the Islamic Caliphate. The sheikh relates our search for meaning and understanding of events to one of Islam’s earliest tragedies, the murder of Husayn b. ‘Ali (may God be pleased with him) which of course also took place in Muharram as the crimes of Gaza have. During their most trying ordeals the Companions of the Prophet and their successors – by God’s Mercy – maintained their faith in Him and their commitment to justice whilst resisting the human impulse for revenge and indiscriminate violence. May God Almighty, Lord of All the Worlds, grant the people of Gaza quick relief from their unspeakable suffering and show the ummah and the whole world the path to true justice for them.

        The picture here is of the Great Mosque of Gaza, built as the sheikh mentions on the site of the Eudoxiana church when the people of the city rushed to embrace Islam.

      • Hostage
        February 16, 2011, 8:40 pm

        The author of the post is choosing sources based exclusively on whether they support his position.

        You have to be kidding, that’s how Efraim Karsh makes his living. Benny Morris and Efraim Karsh have gone at one another with “hammer and tongs” in the scholarly journals for years. The scholars that Karsh attempts to refute rely heavily on the declassified documentary record contained in the US State Department’s “Foreign Relations of the United States”- series (FRUS). But Karsh never mentions that material in his books or articles. Karsh obviously can’t touch that subject without debunking most of his pet theories. So, he avoids discussing the FRUS accounts of events altogether; engages in ad hominem arguments; and makes very tendentious use of the Documents on the Foreign Policy of Great Britain and Israel. See for example “Fabricating Israeli History: The ‘New Historians'”, by Efraim Karsh and Benny Morris and the Reign of Error

        For a typical response from Morris, see “Refabricating 1948”, Review Essay of Karsh, Efraim, Fabricating Israeli History: The ‘New Historians’.

      • Richard Witty
        February 16, 2011, 9:21 pm

        Islam displaced nor forcefully converted anyone?

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 10:27 pm

        Fear! Fear the Jews Muslims!

        Just how far can you debase yourself, Witty?

      • Saleema
        February 17, 2011, 2:39 am

        Didn’t the Jews/Israelis kill the canaanites ? Their dog, cat and sheep? Children and women? On God’s order?

      • MHughes976
        February 17, 2011, 7:17 am

        Whether the slaughter and dispossession of the Canaanites actually happened is much debated, of course. If the Book of Joshua was written during the Persian period, as some think, then it is a poetic reflection on faith and violence from amid a population that in reality had little political or military power.
        I don’t recommend the Oxford History of the Biblical World because it supports my political views, which I’m sure several, perhaps all, of the contributors would reject. It represents, I think, sound though establishmentarian scholarship.
        Jonathan Tubb’s book on the Canaanites mentions that there are two likely derivations of the name ‘Canaan’, one from an Indo-Euro word meaning ‘blue cloth’, one from a Semitic word meaning ‘be subdued’. If the latter is accepted then we face the grimly amusing fact that Canaan was ‘occupied territory’ all those milennia ago.

  16. fuster
    February 16, 2011, 3:25 pm

    yet some remained, …..through the centuries. heavily taxed and second-class citizens and oppressed by the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. still they remained. mock-ed and scorn-ed, unable to avail themselves of the protection of the law despite their burdensome taxes… o’ verily, still they remained…in Jerusalem always and in the other cities, they remained.

    and in the middle of the 19th century more came.

    • Chaos4700
      February 16, 2011, 5:07 pm

      “Heavily taxed and second class citiznes.” Bullshit. Things were just fine in Palestine between Muslims, Jews and Christians before Zionists with guns and bombs and terrorist tactics showed up.

    • Potsherd2
      February 16, 2011, 5:19 pm

      Cue the violins, fuster.

      And take note that the nasty Ottomans didn’t prevent their coming. Any time they wanted to, they could have gone to live in Palestine. It didn’t take Zionism.

      • fuster
        February 16, 2011, 10:20 pm

        I was aiming for bathetic, Pot.
        And yes, they did go to live in Palestine, under Ottoman rule, in the mid 19th century. All they had to do was accept unequal treatment under Ottoman law and pay heavily disproportionate taxes for the privilege.
        When they came throughout the late 19th century they brought money and the prosperity that Dr Khalaf cites was, in good measure, a consequence of their arrival and their cash. The influx of people from the areas around Palestine was also influenced by the economic benefit of their arrival.

        But I don’t remember any rush to recognize the Jews as equally worthy of legal rights.

      • Chaos4700
        February 17, 2011, 12:30 am

        You don’t remember anything, fuster because you weren’t there. Where the hell are your ancestors from, anyway? Poland? Germany? Russia? What language did your great grandfather speak?

      • Hostage
        February 17, 2011, 3:30 am


        The notion that Arabs came to Palestine because the Jews brought prosperity is bullshit. The Zionists adopted the doctrine of “the Conquest of Labor”. Ben Gurion’s biographer, Shabatai Teveth, repeatedly pointed out that economic, social, and geographical partition were inherent in Ben Gurion’s conception of Zionism. See pages 10, 12, 43-44, and 179-184 of Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1984.

        Teveth was hardly the only author who wrote about the de facto system of apartheid that the Zionists cultivated. Barbara Jean Smith wrote an entire book about the subject “The roots of separatism in Palestine: British economic policy, 1920-1929”, Syracuse University Press, 1993. Zionists propagandist are still claiming today that “The Yishuv” was “a state within the state”.

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 6:25 am

        RE: “Zionists propagandist are still claiming today that “The Yishuv” was “a state within the state”.”

        Gee, German anti-semitic literature in the last century especially made the same claim. No wonder Himmler worked nicely with the Zionists back in the day.

      • Hostage
        February 17, 2011, 4:10 pm


        Zionist cooperation with anti-Semites (e.g. Jabotinsky’s pact with Symon Petlura, the Ha’avara Agreement & etc.) was not and abberation. Pinsker and Herzl wrote that Gentiles suffered from an incurable psychosis triggered by exposure to risk factors, i.e. Jewish life. Herzl claimed the Jews themselves carried the seeds of anti-Semitism with them in their migrations and that he intended to use Jewish misery as the driving force of Zionism. He claimed oppressive governments would enjoy an economic windfall from the immovable property left behind as a result of Jewish emigration to their own homeland.

        The Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor made it clear that Jews were not part of the German Reich or nationality, but Article 4(2) specifically protected the right of Zionists to raise their own nationalist flag.

        There is nothing in that particular ordinance that doesn’t have an exact parallel in modern-day Israeli State-sanctioned laws, customs, and practices.

        The American coordinator, ACLU co-founder Morris Ernst, attributed the failure of the 1938 Evian Conference on resettlement of Jewish refugees to political pressure from the Zionist groups. The matter of resettling refugees was secondary to the Zionist goal of building a Jewish majority in Palestine to bolster their right to statehood. That was even true to the extent that they actively obstructed schemes to resettle them elsewhere. See Morris L. Ernst, So Far so Good, Harper, 1948, 176-77

        Boas Evron wrote that when the Jewish Agency met to discuss the Evian Conference “It was summed up in the meeting that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing… We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection effort.” Ben Gurion said “No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.” See Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”, Indiana University Press, 1995, page 260

        The Jewish Agency did exactly the same thing when they lobbied aggressively to end the mass migration of Jews from the former Soviet Union to Germany and other countries, e.g. link to forward.com

    • Ellen
      February 16, 2011, 6:23 pm

      Actually the Ottoman Empire was good to Jews.

      One example is the Synagogue built in Sarajevo under Ottoman patronage in the 16th Century. One can make the case it was marauding Christians that made life difficult for all non-Christians, including the Jews and others.

      • fuster
        February 16, 2011, 10:27 pm

        no Ellen, you don’t mean “good”, you mean less heavily oppressive than some other regimes.

      • olive
        February 16, 2011, 11:42 pm

        “you mean less heavily oppressive than some other regimes.”

        Errrm, such as the Zionist regime?

      • Ellen
        February 17, 2011, 4:54 am

        Giving sanctuary, support and patronage to a group escaping the Inquisition, and building a temple on behalf of the new community sounds pretty good to me.

        All groups were taxes.

        You may want to read Noel Malcom.

    • RoHa
      February 16, 2011, 8:06 pm

      “yet some remained”

      So what? That doesn’t give any others the right to take over the country.

  17. nyclawyer
    February 16, 2011, 4:20 pm

    Unfortunately for Issa, the facts get in the way:

    Jews have lived in the area since will before the 20th century. I would suggest the author read Arieh Avneri’s book analyzing the demographics of the area. Additionally, many Jews bought land from absentee landlords while Arabs from the surrounding area moved in for employment. Not all the residents in 1948 were expelled (in the arab-initiated war) as well (see Morris, Karsh, etc…).
    Arab violence against Jews started before 1948 anyways. To claim that Jews and Arabs lived in some idyllic Middle East pre-Zionism is a myth.
    Much more can be said about this issue.

    The only solution is complete separation like in Cyprus. The differences between the cultures are too big to be bridged within one generation. With this solution the Arabs will be able to live with their brethren who identify as Palestinians. The irony is that most Arabs polled would rather live under Israeli rule.

    If Palestinians are so pro-peace why did they elect Hamas with its notorious charter? Why did they respond to the unilateral disengagement by shooting rockets into Southern Israel?

    • Chaos4700
      February 16, 2011, 5:09 pm

      Blah blah blah BLAME HAMAS. Seriously, this is not discussion. This is a bunch of drones repeating the same crap that’s been spoon fed to them. Why the fuck are we tolerating lies and Nakba denial here? It’s MODERATED. You guys would categorically block someone posting Holocaust denial shit so why aren’t you doing the same for this?!

      • biorabbi
        February 16, 2011, 8:54 pm

        The bone marrow registry is an joint Muslim-Jewish effort of an Israeli academic institution to the Palestinians. Can you name an arab country which prides itself on outreach and treatment of its arab population??? I’m waiting, Chaos. I’m not reporting you for ‘good Jew who happens to live in Palestine denial’ but you’ve been warned. Thanks.

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 10:25 pm

        And why did your great and precious Israel exclude Arabs from its database to this point? And why is it a SEPARATE database? Can’t have the races mixing, can we! That would dilute Jewish blood as much as the much-feared interfaith marriages that are also banned in Israel.

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 6:31 am

        Other countries subscribe to a nondiscriminatory international bone marrow database; the UAE’s Ministry of Health (MoH) is part of the Arab world and is part of the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR).

      • Potsherd2
        February 16, 2011, 9:08 pm

        Oh, Chaos, this is a newbie. He thinks all his material is hot new shit.

    • andrew r
      February 16, 2011, 8:43 pm

      Oh, and Israel offered 97% of the West Bank in 2000. Do you really think this laundry list constitutes an argument?

    • David Samel
      February 16, 2011, 8:48 pm

      As a lawyer, nyc, you really should be more precise with your facts and argument.

      Jews have lived in the area since well before the 20th century.

      This is utterly meaningless. So what if there have always been people who call themselves Jewish living in the area? How does that give rise to a Jewish right to rule over non-Jews, and to invite Jews the world over to join them in this effort?

      Additionally, many Jews bought land from absentee landlords while Arabs from the surrounding area moved in for employment

      Again, this means nothing. Many Jews bought land? So what? “Many” Koreans and Chinese have bought property in my parents’ neighborhood in the past two decades. Should international boundaries be re-drawn to acknowledge this demographic event? Besides, a very small percentage of the land was owned by Jews in 1947, and even if that percentage had been ten times greater, that provides no basis for “Jewish sovereignty.” You’re an American, presumably Jewish. How would you feel if the US were designated a Christian country because a particular percentage (much higher than Jewish ownership in 1947 Palestine) of land was owned by Christians? Arabs moving in for employment sounds an awful lot like gullible regurgitation of Joan Peters’s discredited thesis, but assuming that some Arabs emigrated at some time to Palestine for this purpose or any other, there was massive Jewish emigration as well. For the most part, the non-Jewish population had much longer continuous roots than the Jewish population, even if there were some Jews whose families went back centuries and some Arabs who were recent emigrants.

      Not all the residents in 1948 were expelled (in the arab-initiated war) as well (see Morris, Karsh, etc…).

      Another meaningless factoid or two. Surely not all were expelled – “only” 750,000 or so. Is this supposed to show restraint? Nazis did not kill “all” the Jews of Europe either. Some survived! And when did the Arabs initiate this war? Hasbara gives the date as May 15, 1948, the day after Israeli independence was declared. But hundreds of thousands of Palestinians already had fled for their lives.

      Arab violence against Jews started before 1948 anyways. There surely were incidents of violence by both sides before 1948. By and large, however, there was peace and harmony between the two communities, and almost all of the tension resulted from the foreign ideology that the Jews should have all the land for their state. It’s not terribly hard to fathom why the native inhabitants might resist. “The Brits promised the land to the Jews” might not have been universally accepted.

      The problem, nyc, is that you make statements that by themselves are arguably true, but are clearly meant to imply things that are not true or do not logically follow. Did you really think anyone here would buy this tactic? You may be new to this site, and your level of hasbara is terribly unsophisticated. My guess is that your fellow Zionists cringed a bit if they read your nonsense. Aren’t there some classes you should take before you venture out into the world?

    • tree
      February 16, 2011, 11:02 pm

      Wow, the Hasbara is getting thick in here. So much bs, so little time. Let me respond to just one fraction of the elitism and bigotry before I’m off for a few days.

      The irony is that most Arabs polled would rather live under Israeli rule.


      ALL the Palestinians in Israel/the West Bank/Gaza live under Israeli rule. The ones who live in Israel within the green line for the most part are treated better (or rather, not treated quite as bad) under Israel’s rule than the one’s in the Occupied Territories. Its totally unsurprising that they wish to remain in their homes and retain the meager benefits they have, and I think they are all aware of what a little bantustan the Israelis would permit if they ever really did permit a Palestinian “state”.

      The irony is that Israel calls itself the national home of the Jews, but the vast majority of American Jews prefer to live in the US, under nominally Christian rule. I’m sure you won’t cast aspersions on Jews for that fact even though you sought to cast aspersions on the Palestinians with your tripe.

      • Shingo
        February 17, 2011, 4:09 am

        The irony is that Israel calls itself the national home of the Jews, but the vast majority of American Jews prefer to live in the US, under nominally Christian rule.

        Beautifully put Tree.

        Not to mention the 25,000 Jews in Iran who prefer to live in Iran, unles nominallty Islamic rule.

    • Hostage
      February 17, 2011, 12:37 am

      Unfortunately for Issa, the facts get in the way

      *Benny Morris wrote “The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism.” See Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-2001, Vintage Books, 2001, page 37

      *Ahdut Ha’avodah (Unity of Labor) was established in 1919. Its founding Charter called for a Jewish Socialist Republic in all of Palestine, and demanded “the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel as their eternal possession.” See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, Oxford University Press, 1984, page 99.

      *Jabotinsky wrote : “Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy. … …All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences between our “militarists” and our “vegetarians.” One prefers an iron wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an iron wall of British bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be satisfied with Baghdad’s bayonets – a strange and somewhat risky taste – but we all applaud, day and night, the iron wall. See “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs) 1923”, by Vladimir Jabotinsky, reprinted in The Jewish Herald, November 26, 1937

      *As early as 1936, Ben Gurion concluded that the only relationship possible with the Palestinians was a military one, since they would not accept unrestricted Jewish immigration or a Jewish majority. See Shabatai Teveth, “Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs: From Peace to War, Oxford University Press, 1984, page 193.

      *Benny Morris said that both Chaim Weizmann and David Ben Gurion saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine. See “Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-1999”, by Benny Morris, Knopf, 1999, ISBN: 0679421203, page 138

      *Morris cited a letter that Ben Gurion wrote to his son Amos in 1937 which said that he was in favor of partition because he didn’t envision a partial Jewish state as the end of the process. He said “What we want is not that the country be united and whole, but that the united and whole country be Jewish.” He explained that a first-class Jewish army would permit the Zionists to settle in the rest of the country and complete the historic task of redeeming the entire land with or without the consent of the Arabs. See Letters to Paula and the Children, David Ben-Gurion, translated by Aubry Hodes, University of Pittsburg Press, 1971, page 153.

      *According to the official Hagganah history, in the summer of 1937 – ten years before the UN Partition plan – David Ben Gurion directed the Haganah Commander of Tel Aviv, Elimelech Avnir, to draw up a plan to take over the country after the British withdrawal. See Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution”

      *Israeli Military historian David Tal says “the Jews initial acceptance of the Partition resolution was not mere rhetoric; the strategic planning of the war against the Palestinians was based upon it.” See David Tal, War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004, page 471

      * Former Israeli Foreign Minister and historian Schlomo Ben Ami writes that 1937 was the same year that the “Field Battalions” under Yitzhak Sadeh wrote the “Avner Plan”, which anticipated and laid the groundwork for what would become in 1948, Plan Dalet. It envisioned going far beyond any boundaries contained in the existing Peel and Jewish Agency partition proposals and planned for the conquest of the Galilee, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. See Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: the Israeli-Arab Tragedy, Oxford University Press, USA, 2006, page 17

      In “A History of Zionism” (3rd Ed., Tauris Parke, 2003, page 375) Walter Laqueur said that Jabotinsky was unhappy about the murder of women and children, and asked the Irgun leaders to warn the Arabs in time for them to evacuate the areas that were to be attacked. The Irgun commanders replied that they were not willing to do that. In “Terror Out of Zion” (Transaction Publishers, 1977, pages 35-36) J. Bowyer Bell says that Jabotinsky was willing to listen to the commanders explanations about the practical problems of limiting reprisals to the “guilty parties”.

      *Yossi Katz outlined the details of the partition plan that was developed by the Jewish Agency Executive in 1937. Katz says the partition plan was not pursued by political action alone. The Agency directed its land purchases and settlement activity to securing the borders it had set out in the plan and that the very same leaders presented their partition proposal to the UNSCOP years later. See “Partner to Partition: The Jewish Agency’s Partition Plan in the Mandate Era”, Yossi Katz, Routledge, 1998, starting from page 163.

      *Uri Ben-Eliezer describes settlements that were established in lightning operations with the assistance of the Palmach in areas that would be outside the Jewish zone in the event of partition. See The making of Israeli militarism, Indiana University Press, 1998, page 143

      *Schlomo Ben Ami says Plan D, was a push to extend the frontiers of the future Jewish state beyond the partition lines by linking Jewish population hubs to the settlements that had been established in outlying areas. See page 3 of A War to Start All Wars”

      *Ben Gurion explained that his acceptance of the principle of partition was an attempt to gain time until the Jews were strong enough to fight the Arab majority. He pledged to Mapai’s Central Committee that the borders of Jewish independence as defined by the UN Plan were by no means final and Yigal Allon said …’the borders of partition cannot be for us the final borders … the partition plan is a compromise plan that is unjust to the Jews. … We are entitled to decide our borders according to our defence needs.’ See “Scars of War”, page 35

      Nyclawyer, just let me know if you’d like anymore suggested reading material.

      • Chaos4700
        February 17, 2011, 12:54 am

        Brilliant scholarship, Hostage.

    • Shingo
      February 17, 2011, 2:01 am

      Jews have lived in the area since will before the 20th century.

      And until the early 20th century, most opposed the creation of a Jewish state. And needless to say, they were outnumbered 10:1 by Palestinians at the time.

      Additionally, many Jews bought land from absentee landlords while Arabs from the surrounding area moved in for employment.

      Yes, they expelled the Palestinians from their homes, then declared them absentee landlords. Very cool trick.

      Not all the residents in 1948 were expelled

      70% were and the rest fled for fear of murder.

      Arab violence against Jews started before 1948 anyways.

      So did Ziniost violence, with 300,000 Palestinians expelled from November 1947 to May 1948.

      To claim that Jews and Arabs lived in some idyllic Middle East pre-Zionism is a myth.

      No it’s not. Zionist arrival is what led to the conflict.

      The irony is that most Arabs polled would rather live under Israeli rule.

      Only because they’ve seen how those not under Israeli rule are treated ie. white phosphorous.

  18. fuster
    February 16, 2011, 5:15 pm

    If Palestinians are so pro-peace why did they elect Hamas with its notorious charter?—-nyclawyer

    Maybe they were dead tired of the Fatah kleptocracy?
    They really didn’t have a great variety of wonderful options.

    • nyclawyer
      February 16, 2011, 8:09 pm

      The alternative to Fatah kleptocracy doesn’t have to be Islamic radicalism (Hamas). It reeks of irony that Israel’s democracy is criticized here, when Palestinians can’t find a happy medium between kleptocracy and Islamic extremism. I suggest you read Hamas’ charter to understand more about the movement

      • Shingo
        February 16, 2011, 10:31 pm

        It reeks of irony that Israel’s democracy is criticized here, when Palestinians can’t find a happy medium between kleptocracy and Islamic extremism. I suggest you read Hamas’ charter to understand more about the movement

        It reeks of irony that Israel claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, while imposing collective punishment on the Palestinians for having exercised democracy in 2006.

        It reeks of irony that Israel claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, when Israelis can’t find a happy medium between right wing Zionists (Likud) and right wing Zionists pretending to be liberal Zionists (Kadima).

        I suggest you look at a map of the region and compare it to the 1948 version and see whom exactly is destroying whom.

      • Potsherd2
        February 16, 2011, 11:16 pm

        Israelis have a dozen choices, but they spend a lot of their votes either on the racist religious fundie parties (their latest gem is to grant criminal immunity to all rabbis) or the racist nationalist parties that want to tow all the Arabs out to sea and torpedo the raft.

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 10:32 pm

        That’s like asking him to read “Elders Protocols of Zion” to understand the world’s Jewish community. Total bullshit.

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 6:39 am

        Did you know that Henry Ford viewed the Protocols as a fabrication, but remained of the POV that the mechanics revealed therein aptly revealed how the Jewish network operated in fact?

      • fuster
        February 16, 2011, 11:00 pm

        It doesn’t have to be, nyc, but try to remember that Fatah had a one-party stranglehold on things until Hamas decided to participate in the elections.
        How about you give a little slack to the voters who had only the two choices, either keep getting screwed or vote for the other guys.
        It wasn’t like they had had decades of national elections up to that point.

      • Potsherd2
        February 16, 2011, 11:14 pm

        Good answer, fustie

    • Shingo
      February 16, 2011, 10:28 pm

      If Palestinians are so pro-peace why did they elect Hamas with its notorious charter?—-nyclawyer

      If Israelis are for 2 state solution why did they elect Likud with it’s notorious foreign minister and it’s own charter which explicitly rejects the creation of a Palestinian state?

      • fuster
        February 17, 2011, 12:03 am

        I think Likud came in second in the last election, Shingo, for what it’s worth and I also think that Lieberman isn’t even Likud but belongs to a worse bunch.

      • Shingo
        February 17, 2011, 12:15 am

        Which is actually worse. Bibbi had to turn to a fascist to form a majority, and you’re complaining about the Palestinians not being peaceful for electing Hamas?

      • Chaos4700
        February 17, 2011, 12:32 am

        Does it matter? Name a ruling party of the Knesset under which the wholesale destruction of Arab, Druze or Bedouin communities hadn’t happened.

      • yonira
        February 17, 2011, 12:50 am

        A “ruling party of the Knesset”? Do you know how a parliamentary system of government works Chaos?

      • Chaos4700
        February 17, 2011, 1:02 am

        Oh right, I forgot, yonira. You apparently believe that the Knesset picks Prime Ministers completely randomly, like they did Ben-Gurion and Begin, who in spite of their virulent anti-Arab rhetoric had no leadership at all in the violent ethnic cleansing of 1947 and 1948. They just magically randomly were made Prime Ministers! According to you.

        The fact of the matter is, the party to which the Prime Minister belongs, belongs to a ruling party so long as A) that party holds a majority of seats or B) that party forms a stable coalition that holds a majority of seats. You can play dumb word games all you like, YoYo, but the only one who will come out of it looking politically inept and uniformed is you.

      • yonira
        February 17, 2011, 1:11 am

        The Knesset doesn’t pick the prime minister you moron. I love how dumb you make yourself look on here.

        BTW I was cracking up while you were trying to accuse fuster of being me, it was so juvenile ;)

      • fuster
        February 17, 2011, 2:18 am

        I don’t know about that, Shingo, the election winner refused to do a deal with Lieberman, his party and Shas.
        It probably doesn’t conform to the fool’s picture that all Israelis are united in extremism, but you’ll have to swallow some stuff if you want a nice neat stereotype.
        I mean, if people want to think that everybody in Gaza stands for all the bilious sh1t in the Hamas Charter, they’re just nuts, but we all can sure lump the Israelis into one.

      • yonira
        February 17, 2011, 2:43 am

        You’re missing the entire essence of how a PM is selected in a party-list proportional representative government Chaos. Google it, you’ll figure out how a PM is appointed. What you didn’t learn this in your drawing classes?

      • Chaos4700
        February 17, 2011, 4:48 pm

        This is the same yonira who didn’t know there was signatures on the Declaration of Independence, mind you.

      • yonira
        February 17, 2011, 5:04 pm

        Chaos, you used that lie already, no idea where you got that from, but by all means quit making shit up.

        Great deflection though, you almost fooled someone.

      • Chaos4700
        February 17, 2011, 9:34 pm

        Why don’t you tell us more blood libels about how Arabs crush children’s skulls? How about more videos from MEMRI where the subtitles have nothing to do what’s being said in the video?

        You know, while your college friends were too cowardly to remain Americans, at least they weren’t half as cowardly as you are.

  19. MHughes976
    February 16, 2011, 5:50 pm

    After the Second Jewish War of the 130s Jerusalem became the pagan city of Aelia Capitolina and was presumably wall-to-wall pagan for a couple of centuries.
    Officially, Jewish people were allowed into the city once a year for a religious ceremony, and I think that Jerome comments in the late fourth century that those who came looked poor – an indication of the continuation of a peasant population even in the vicinity of the city. Galilee remained a centre of better-resourced Jewish life and there are plenty of archaeological remains to attest to that (see Oxford History of the Biblical World). Jewish authority in various forms – the most important, I suppose, was the Patriarchate, based in Tiberias until around 430 – did continue for some time.
    Ancient history interests me massively but I still think that historicism is dangerous. The rights and wrongs of now don’t depend much, certainly not crucially, on the situation of long ago.

    • RoHa
      February 16, 2011, 8:10 pm

      “The rights and wrongs of now don’t depend much, certainly not crucially, on the situation of long ago.”


      The rights of Jews to take over the land can be supported by any bit of history that the Jews wish to invoke.

      The wrongs committed against Palestinians at any time up to twenty minutes ago are ancient history and have no bearing upon the situation.

  20. biorabbi
    February 16, 2011, 6:04 pm

    link to youtube.com

    The Israeli who’s featured in this video may be crazy, but the scientist at the video’s start are not.

    The Israeli narrative of a land for a people for a people without a land is wrong. The Israeli narrative(by some)that there is no “Palestinian” people, just arabs but not a “faux Palestinian” people is also bunk. The Hamas narrative of Jews being pigs and monkey’s routine especially falls flat as the genetic concordance between Jews and Palestinians runs strongest in the Gaza Strip. The notion propagated by various Jew haters differentiating “khazar Jews” from Sephardic Jews is bullshit.

    Interestingly, both the Palestinians and Israelis hide the obvious linkages between the two peoples. In this sense, whatever the morality or rights of one group or the other, the hate itself is pure Rwanda. Essentially the same people using fanciful religious symbols claiming power, unique status, and other fairly tails as a mechanism of division.

    • Chaos4700
      February 16, 2011, 8:08 pm

      Oh here we go again. The “Hamas narrative?” Give me a fucking break.

    • Hu Bris
      February 16, 2011, 9:04 pm

      Biorabbit “The notion propagated by various Jew haters differentiating “khazar Jews” from Sephardic Jews is bullshit. “

      what nonsense- Arthur Koestler, a well known author and openly Zionist, must have been a REAL Jew-Hater then, because he is the author of the book “The Thirteenth Tribe” (link to amazon.co.uk) which helped spread the notion the Ashkenazim descended from Khazars, a nomad Turkic tribe of the Caucus region, who converted to Judaism circa AD 950 – something which might help explain the peculiar Ashkenazi penchant for big silly furhats and long coats, for instance, something which is conspicuously absent from Sephardic wardrobes you might have noticed ;-)

    • Hu Bris
      February 16, 2011, 9:13 pm

      Interestingly, both the Palestinians and Israelis hide the obvious linkages between the two peoples. In this sense, whatever the morality or rights of one group or the other, the hate itself is pure Rwanda.

      Oh how hasbarists LOVE to peddle this notion that the hatred is just so mutual and downright weird – if Palestinians hate the Israelis it is because of what the Israelis have done, the land stealing, the attempted Genocide (read UN definition of Genocide first, if you wish to dispute that charge of Genocide) the on-going dispossession and brutalisation – to try and claim that the division between the two is a false one, akin to some silly little Colonial skin-colour classification, is just plain dishonest

      this however is not to say that the divisions are permanent, they are not necessarily so

      The divisions and any resultant Palestinian ire, springs directly from the continuing actions, mostly illegal, of the Israeli state by which it seeks to negate the inalienable rights of remaining Palestinians in the historic land of Palestine

      They certainly do not spring from some innate, from time immemorial, ‘Jew-hatred’ on the part of Palestinians. They are artificial in the sense that the Zionists had to create the notion of them first, so that they could then try to use them as a reason for justifying the negation of Palestinian rights

      • biorabbi
        February 16, 2011, 10:27 pm

        Is this why Hamas lynches and burns innocents to a grizzle in the 90’s bus bombings?

        I get the sense the Mondoweiss thesis is there is always and explanation and excuse for outright hatred. After all, what is the justification for celebrating incinerating one’s fellow human being? and to revel in their deaths and your own suicide?

        There simply must be a rationale. Land grabbing. Zionist ethnic cleansing. Anything, but pure evil. Do the Jews have any rights to the historic land of Israel? Or does it just apply to the Palestinians?

        Another thing that is ludicrous around here. There seems to be complete denial of the Jews desire or longing for Israel, the land of mild and honey. One quibbles about the lack of a historic connection to Israel by the Jewish people. Even the most lapsed Jew, the most secular Jew who has read a single connection must recognize the historic longing for Israel. To the land of Israel, to the myth of Israel, to the god of Israel, to the prophetic wisdom of Israel.

        One can say, ‘that’s bullshit, just biblical bullshit’ or deny the ruins of Jewish society throughout the land of Israel, but that misses the entire point. This longing for the idea of Israel is not a recent invention. It existed from 70 AD. It led to paroxysms of angst at the comings of the so-called Messiah. It even led to the rebellious, prophetic liberalism of Phil Weiss, although he may or may not deny it, but he knows it in his heart. It led to the literary and prophetic genius of A Heschel whose work was the very heart of Dr. Martin Luther King’s beliefs.

        To say that only “Palestinians in the historic land of Israel’ and their rights are the only issue mises the point. It is about belief. Jews. Islam. The leaders in historic Israel and Palestine are scared to admit working with one another or even closing on agreements.

        The Palestinians are victims of history as much as the Jews.

      • sherbrsi
        February 16, 2011, 11:29 pm

        There simply must be a rationale. Land grabbing. Zionist ethnic cleansing. Anything, but pure evil.

        If Hamas likes to revel in death and suicide so much, what is stopping them from doing it now? How long has it been since the last suicide attack? How long since the last razing of Palestinian farms, homes and villages, the last murder of the Gazan and the last eviction of Arabs from EJ?

        The leaders in historic Israel and Palestine are scared to admit working with one another or even closing on agreements.

        Your statement seems to ignore the fact that the faction motivated by “pure evil” is the one willing to recognize the most viable solution to the two-state arrangement (1967) and ending opposition when Israeli occupation ends, meanwhile the Israeli side that has no “partner of peace” is relentlessly expanding its “facts on the grounds” and purging more Palestinians and Arabs in the process.

        The emotional and religious connection of Judaism with Israel is important, but it needs to be balanced by the realities and destruction imposed by the propagation of Jewish ethno-religious nationalism in the Holy Land. Like that rabbi who surveyed Palestine said (I forget the original quote and can’t find it): the bride is beautiful, but it belongs to someone else.

        Zionists need to display the same maturity and sincerity in appreciating the worth for Israel by recognizing the rights of its dispossessed and current non-Jewish inhabitants. There needs to be substance and acknowledgement of the human price of the Israeli state, not just vanity or emotion or “desert bloom.”

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 6:51 am

        The Jewish longing for Israel is mirrored in the Christian longing for an eventual heaven, and nowadays, by some as the rapture end time. Many people around the world in the last few centuries have longed for the land of milk and honey, the USA, where they could pick up gold on the street and get free land. My point is that the traditional Jewish (repetitive religious) yearning for going home one day to Israel was/is
        actually a metaphor for another ancient Jewish metaphor: Israel stands for the concept of the Jews as “a nation of priests.”
        The nuclear-armed state of Israel today is a totally different thing–nothing poetic about it at all, let alone a wishful fiction built upon another wishful fiction, the poetic rhetoric expressing the wish to be free of so many warts in one’s own mirror. The Christian Zionists haven’t got the reality memo, nor have the rabid settler Zionists and their enabling government.

      • MHughes976
        February 17, 2011, 6:55 am

        Desire and longing are not morally relevant. The right to possess does not arise from the desire to possess. If it did, anyone could claim anything.

      • annie
        February 17, 2011, 8:27 am

        This longing for the idea of Israel…… led to the rebellious, prophetic liberalism of Phil Weiss, although he may or may not deny it, but he knows it in his heart.

        oh my. aren’t we psychic.

      • Hu Bris
        February 17, 2011, 10:20 am

        Such silly ranting from the hasbarists is completely laughable – they seem to think if the ask stupid questions in a loud rant, and insert the most grisly descriptions, that they will somehow make the Israeli crimes disappear

        BioRabit“Is this why Hamas lynches and burns innocents to a grizzle in the 90′s bus bombings?”

        Y.E.S. –

        The Israeli Genocide came BEFORE Hamas – Hamas didn’t just appear out of nowhere.

        Much as you would like to portray all palestinians, or even just Hamas, as simply motivated by ‘Jew-Hate’ and nothing else, it’s simply not true. Hamas came after decades of dispossession and negation of Palestinian rights.

        “There simply must be a rationale”

        There is. It is stated in my original posting and I’ll state it again since you have such a hard time understand a very simple point:

        here we go, read carefully now, Biorabbit- “if Palestinians hate the Israelis it is because of what the Israelis have done, the land stealing, the attempted Genocide”

        For you to deny that, and to present it all as simple ‘Jew-hate’ makes you a liar.

        “Another thing that is ludicrous around here. There seems to be complete denial of the Jews desire or longing for Israel”

        this is probably the stupidest argument of them all –

        so what if since the mid-19th Century there has been a movement advocating grabbing Palestine to create a racist Jewish state? It still does not mean that they had a legal or moral right to do what they did.

        “This longing for the idea of Israel is not a recent invention~”

        Yes it is – from about the 1850’s actually.

        Prior to that there was no political movement advocating such a thing – it was encouraged by the British Peer Lord Salisbury in order to help Britain gain control of the Middle East – it was invented about the same time as a mad Irishman named John Nelson Darby invented the whole notion of ‘Christian Zionism’

        There was no ‘Christian’ teaching of a “rapture” before Darby began preaching about it in Britain in the 1830s. Darby started in the 1830’s and by 1838 the British had established a consulate in Jerusalem, the first diplomatic appointment to Palestine – the ‘coincidence’ in timing is remarkable, no?

        were it not for the intervention of a handful of influential aristocratic British politicians who claimed to share the theological convictions of Darby and his colleagues and translated them into political reality, we probably wouldn’t have this situation today.

        Lord Salisbury believed that with sympathetic Jews controlling Palestine, British imperial and commercial interests as far as India, Arabia and Africa could be secured.

        So the rise in ‘christian Zionsim’ and in Jewish zionism just happened to coincide with the Salisbury’s remedy to secure the strategic interests of Britain’s foreign policy.

        By August 1840, the British government was considering Jewish ‘restoration’ – all within a few years of Darby inventing the notion of ‘rapture’ – for ‘the rapture’ to occur, all Jews must return to the so-called ‘Land of Israel’, as supposedly prophesied by . . . . .. John Nelson Darby. Again. the ‘coincidence’ in timing is remarkable, no?

        Dispensationalism was first introduced to North America by John Inglis (1813–1879) There was a big revival in Dispensationalism in the 1930’s : so while Europeans were being directed towards Fascism and Communism by those who might profit from a war, at the same time an almost Judaic form of Christianity’, which emphasised a Jewish ‘return’ (in actual fact a colonisation by Non-Semitic Ashkenazi Jewsih population) was being encouraged in the US.

        From 1880-1930 evangelicals allied themselves with big business, turned to a pessimistic, premillenial theology, and became increasingly hostile to social reform, which suited big business just fine.

        For some reason American historians seem to have an astounding inability to fit religion into the narrative of modern America.

        To say that only “Palestinians in the historic land of Israel’ and their rights are the only issue mises the point. It is about belief. Jews.

        Nobody said any such thing – I said “the inalienable rights of remaining Palestinians in the historic land of Palestine” – some professed ‘belief’ in a spurious ‘right’ by Jewish people, conned into such beliefs by a concocted history of ‘Exile’, does not in any way negate the very real rights of Palestinians actually living in Palestine at the time of the foundation of Israel in 1948

        Just because someone claims to believe that have a right to something, does not confer legitimacy on that belief.

        Such thinking would lead to the conclusion that ‘Hitler was RIGHT’ because he and the Nazis believed that the had a right to do what they did.

        Jewish people can believe any old nonsense they want but that still won’t grant them a right to commit Genocide

        “The Palestinians are victims of history as much as the Jews.”

        ahh – the old ‘Eternal Victim’ ploy – my suffering is greater than your suffering, naah naah naah

        – seriously, that’s nonsense – the Palestinians are victims, not of history, but of Jewish Racist supremacy and Zionist lies,

    • sherbrsi
      February 16, 2011, 10:47 pm

      The Hamas narrative of Jews being pigs and monkey’s routine especially falls flat as the genetic concordance between Jews and Palestinians runs strongest in the Gaza Strip. The notion propagated by various Jew haters differentiating “khazar Jews” from Sephardic Jews is bullshit.


      It is dishonest to contrast Hamas’ view with that of the Israeli/Zionist mainstream. Hamas is one political faction, while even now if you were to talk to Israelis and Zionists, they are in steadfast denial of any historic Palestinian state and subsequently the Nakba. That is racism in the mainstream, what with Golda Meir herself denying any Palestinian I don’t believe that can be denied.

      If we are going to talk about racist factions, we should also refer to the not uncommon view among Orthodox Jews that Arabs are descended from donkeys.

      I have not witnessed the Palestinians displaying any penchant for “unique status” as you claim, certainly not in the manner displayed by Israelis and Zionists in the way of being the “chosen people” and/or of superior stock and entitlement.

      • biorabbi
        February 16, 2011, 11:24 pm

        So when Hamas wins the only free and fair election in Palestine, there just a faction? I would argue Sarah Palin and the birthers constitute a faction of the american voters and Hamas represents a faction of Palestinian voters. Difference is. Palin is a loser and the birthers will lose every election against Obama.

        I have met Palestinian physicians who became close friends in the US who strongly supported Hamas out of the corruption issue with Arafat, so a vote for Hamas may not be a vote for their beliefs, but a rejection of corruption with Abbas, Arafat and company. Still, they are winners so I, sadly assume they are more than just a ‘political faction’.

        sherbrsi, I sense your comments represent your good faith and true beliefs. Let me ask you a question that has long bothered me. You describe the racist Israeli society towards the Palestinians and their tragedy of 1948 and the negation of it in Israel.

        But inside Israel there are numerous bloggers and speakers, ex generals, historians, politicians who would agree with you. You and I might agree there are not enough of these figures, but, within Israel, there are many courageous voices of peace who refuse military service, document Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians. Outside of Israel, there is an endless supply of Jewish supporters of your thesis including the blog we are interacting now. Where are the Palestinian voices of dissent? Where are the Palestinian voices of peaceful coexistence with the Jews, of admitting a Jewish connection to the land of Israel? I have only heard of a handful of Palestinians who admit to a historic connection of the Jews for Israel, and, then only in a hushed voice in a one-on-one conversation.

        If Israel is a bogus, racist society that would not allow such Palestinian voices to be heard, then what about outside of Israel? All I hear is hateful rhetoric towards the Jews and their state. This is the same thing that was heard before the first nanosecond of the occupation starting in ’67, or the Nakba of ’48. Is it racist for me to even ask such a haughty question?

        While I express strong dissent from the world view of an MJ Rosenthal or a Phil Weiss and post against their themes. Deep down, I admire them as well. There is nothing wrong with a good source of dissent against the status quo. It takes guts for a Jew to demonize Israel on a daily basis. I must admit it does. But I have yet to read an arab/Muslim blog of dissent expressing disdain for the religiously inspired blood libel against the Jews.

      • fuster
        February 16, 2011, 11:35 pm

        –But I have yet to read an arab/Muslim blog of dissent expressing disdain for the religiously inspired blood libel against the Jews.—biorabbi

        try reading the English-language Pakistani press or Iranian exile blogs or in any of a dozen other places. seek and ye shall find out

      • sherbrsi
        February 16, 2011, 11:59 pm

        Still, they are winners so I, sadly assume they are more than just a ‘political faction’.

        I think you described the problem yourself. A vote for Hamas is not necessarily a vote for their extremism or hatred. The elections in Palestine were free to the extent that the electoral process avoided relative contamination, but under the subjection of the Israeli occupation they were the only ones who could have resulted. You have to understand that the Palestinians live under complete and total occupation, with one region only marginally less oppressed than the next. Then there is the issue of divisiveness, not only that which is military instated but territorial segregation that prevents an accurate, representative and cohesive Palestinian leadership from emerging. The Palestinians have their own reasons for not being united but by any reasonable measure it is the externalities of Israeli control that are ultimately to blame for it. Given the limited amount of options they have and the draconian conditions they are imposed with, it is no surprise that Gaza gave birth to Hamas and not a Western liberal confederacy.

        Where are the Palestinian voices of dissent? Where are the Palestinian voices of peaceful coexistence with the Jews, of admitting a Jewish connection to the land of Israel?

        There are plenty, including but not limited to Mr. Khalaf and other voices prominently featured here like Ali Abunimah and Barghouti.

        I think the reason you perceive this lack is due to a biased sphere of influence. Before being engaged in this topic more deeply, I had similar contentions about the Israeli side lacking dissent, and even now, though that feeling is lessened, it remains. But it exists, and it needs to be emphasized. I agree that the mainstream of both sides needs to do more to bring these voices to the forefront.

        IMO the reason why the Jewish connection to Israel is not more commonly acknowledged is due to fear of validating the Zionist propaganda and selling point of Jewish ties to Israel/Jerusalem giving them sole entitlement and hegemony over the Holy Land, which are confirmed by the historical and current colonization of those sites. On the other hand, you cannot confuse rejection of Zionism to rejection of the Jewish ties to Israel. I don’t believe even the strictest opponents of Zionism here deny the religious importance of it to Judaism, relative to its similar status in Christianity and Islam.

      • biorabbi
        February 17, 2011, 1:08 am

        I agree with your last paragraph. But it’s a slippery slope and it greatly bothers me. You write, sherbrsi, “On the other hand, you cannot confuse rejection of zionism to rejection of the Jewish ties to Israel.”

        There is justice and truth to the Palestinian cause. I admit it for to deny it would be evil. But what is the way forward? Are the populations of both countries becoming increasingly radicalized? How would BDS change the status quo. I’m sorry but even if I can accept the justice of the Palestinian cause, I also believe this cause has been hijacked by all sorts of unsavory characters(not Palestinians) within the arab world and outside it. I reject the non-Palestinian arabs want the PA to make a peace treaty, or a a workable two-state solution, or, for that matter, any solution except which would bring the end of Israel. Hatred of Israel and the Jews is a simply, reflexive escape valve for the arab governments. It is used time and time again.

        You may strive for a one-state solution, but would Israel accept it? And even if Israel were destroyed, isolated, vilified, shunned more than they are now, will that bring about peace or justice to the Palestinian cause?

        I probably am isolated in my belief system. My connection with Israel is through the stories of my uncles and relatives who survived the Holocaust. They had no where to go. No one wanted them. And now, Mrs. Thomas, wants them to go home… to Poland and to Germany? And should the Sephardic Jews return to Egypt and to their “homes” in the arab world?

        I realize none of this replaces or addresses the tragedy of the Palestinian people. But is the way forward to vilify the Jewish State yet again through the BDS movement??? Shit, it only reminds me I’m a Jew. It does not help the Palestinians achieve their aim and it reinforces the Israeli populations rightward shift. Nice work, I guess.

        Sherbrsi, sorry for my muddled thoughts, but the future appears to be dismal in the extreme for both Israel and the Palestinians. Let’s conclude with a thought experiment on a one-state solution. Will you have a coalition government between Hamas and Kahane supporters? How can such a farce possibly work. Maybe a Cypress solution along the green line is the only solution but that will only involve yet more ethnic cleansing on both sides of the green line which only inflicts yet more pain.

      • Shingo
        February 17, 2011, 4:17 am

        How would BDS change the status quo?

        How will we know until we try it Biorabbi?

        The reality is that Israel has never been held to account or made to face the consequences of their actions. The idea of BDS is to reach the middle calss Israelis who are too confortable to bother to presure their government to end the occupation.

        I reject the non-Palestinian arabs want the PA to make a peace treaty

        That’s a cop out. Israel has rejected the Peace Initiative, which has been repeatedly offered to them, so to lay the blame on the Arabs because your gut says they are not serious is lame.

        Hatred of Israel and the Jews is a simply, reflexive escape valve for the arab governments. It is used time and time again.

        Another lame excuse. We just witnessed how one such Arab government inflamed resentment of Israel by beign so submissive to Israel. Nothing to do with Jews.

        You may strive for a one-state solution, but would Israel accept it?

        Did the Arabs accept the idea of a Jewish state on 50% of their land? It happened anyway did it not?

        My connection with Israel is through the stories of my uncles and relatives who survived the Holocaust.

        So you admit to having a romanticized view of Israel. Fair enough, but FYI Thomas was not referring to Jews in Israel, but in Palestine. If Sephardic Jews return to Egypt and to their “homes” in the arab world, then what’s to stop them? Apaprently they are welcome in Moroco.

        But is the way forward to vilify the Jewish State yet again through the BDS movement??? Shit, it only reminds me I’m a Jew.

        I suspect you experience the same reactioon ever time you catch a red trffic light too.

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 7:13 am

        biorabbi, why should a Palestinian rate the Jewish claim to connection with their land anything but comparatively ridiculous when compared to their own total reality-based claim? That all you hear from Muslims, whether in the USA, including on this blog and also source referenced here, or emanating directly from the Middle East, is hateful rhetoric towards all the Jews in the world and towards the state many Jews claim to own–is because that’s all your ear is tuned to hear. Criticizing the very real conduct of the state of Israel is not “religiously inspired blood libel.”

      • Hu Bris
        February 17, 2011, 10:40 am

        biorabbit“There is justice and truth to the Palestinian cause. I admit it for to deny it would be evil.”

        YOU already HAVE denied it a number of times – YOU have claimed above that Palestinians are motivated purely by hate, and NOT by the genocide, not by the dispossession and negation of their legal and moral rights – you are now dishonestly trying to claim otherwise

        Ergo, by your own admission, YOUR earlier claim that Palestinian resistance to subjugation, in whatever form you choose to rant against, are motivated simply and solely by racist groundless ‘Jew-hate’, and not by the genocide, not by the dispossession and negation of their legal and moral rights inflicted upon them by the State of Israel, is . . . . . . (I’ll let you fill in the blanks for yourself)

  21. Issa Khalaf
    February 16, 2011, 6:45 pm

    The comments are obviously too numerous for me to respond to individually, though I’d like to. There is nothing I said here that I cannot support with historical, sociological, and documentary facts and evidence, especially the mountainous scholarly evidence that Israel, from the beginning, simply wants Palestine without its people and has effectively rejected peace overtures from the Arabs from day one of its creation. I’m a Palestinian American. I immigrated with my parents, from Ramallah, at the age of seven. I cannot stomach political parties or ideologies of any kind. I just say what I think is true and just, and I’m ready to change my thinking or conclusions if the evidence, or morals, leads me so. I think and hope that Jewish genius and ethics should be applied to this situation in a constructive way. I argued for a two state solution until recent months, because I don’t see hope for this now. I hoped that a long transition of coexistence based on two states will eventually lead to deeper cooperation even integration. I’m criticized for advocating two states, including my argument that Zionism can evolve towards a liberal pluralism, and this, too, I’m increasingly unsure of now. At the same time, there’ll be no bi-national or single democratic state anytime soon. Thus my great fear is more violence that hurts both sides and especially the mass of innocent Palestinians, even another round of mass expulsions. To avoid the changing strategic, demographic and political environment, Israel must urgently reverse the course of colonization. I don’t want to go into the details of two states. And no, not any state, not an atomized state without sovereign access to its resources, is viable if you make it so. Those who say this need to be intimately conversant with the geography of the land, of Israel’s colonization. Yes, a Palestinian state acceptable to the Palestinians must and should have economic and other relations with neighboring states, hopefully even constructing supranational institutions between the states in the area. You might consult Jeff Halper on the parameters and minimal requirements that must be met for a fair, equitable, viable settlement for both sides. The Palestinian refugees are at the heart of the quest for Palestinian self-determination and their legal, moral, and historical rights of return are unassailable. I have no right to speak for them. However, my opinion is that creative conceptual and practical reworking of compensation, restitution, and repatriation, including and especially permanent resettlement, that do not compromise Jewish majoritarianism and Israeli Jewish viability (and if Israel becomes a state of all its citizens), are the only options.

  22. Issa Khalaf
    February 16, 2011, 7:57 pm

    A last word. Instead of the prevailing hyper ethno-religious nationalism, which reduces people anywhere to base group identity, primal territorial instinct, and visceral dehumanization of the enemy, a Zionism rooted in Jewish humanism, true liberal democracy, pluralism, and equality—a thoroughly reformed Jewish majoritarianism which embraces the Palestinians’ humanity and fundamental political equality—is not beyond the realm of possibility. But Israel must first transform its Zionist institutions, again to become a state of ALL its citizens. The Palestinians offer Israeli Jews the concept of living together in two-states (not apartheid), in a unified secular democratic state, or in binational state, their mainstream secular nationalism politically inclusive and sharing. Israel must choose.

    • nyclawyer
      February 16, 2011, 8:13 pm

      Really? Where is liberalism and human rights present in the Arab World? Give me an example of one Arab country that has the abovementioned values? Singling out Israel for criticism is easy however the neutral observer cannot ignore your double standards. Israel speaks the language of violence because this is the nature of political culture in the Middle East (unfortunately) – See Hama massacres, black september and…. Arab expansionism from antiquity.

      Arab critics of Israel would have more credibility if their countries had a better track record.

      • Chaos4700
        February 16, 2011, 10:23 pm

        Great, more “those dirty Arabs” crap from the walking, talking stereotype.

      • Hostage
        February 17, 2011, 3:05 am

        Where is liberalism and human rights present in the Arab World?

        There is certainly none to be found for the Arabs living in Israel. Hannah Arendt wrote about the parallels between the State of Israel’s legal system and the Nuremburg race laws of Germany in “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. She said that government officials had admitted to her the undesirability of a written Constitution in which the unequal status of gentiles would have to be spelled out. That was decades ago, but nothing she mentioned has changed. link to books.google.com

        The MKs in the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee openly admit that there can’t be any guarantee of equality for non-Jewish citizens in the future Constitution. See for example the Haaretz article ‘MKs debate protection of ‘equality’ in future constitution’

        The UN representative from Lebanon, Mr. Charles Malik served as Rapporteur for Eleanor Roosevelt’s Commission and presided over the General Assembly Third Committee deliberations on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. During the General Assembly deliberations on Palestine, Malik offered a compromise proposal for establishing a single federal union with Jewish and Arab states, based upon the separate US federal and state constitutional models::

        “Principle number five: The Constituent Assembly, in defining the powers of the federal state of Palestine, as well as the powers of the judicial and legislative organs, in defining the functions of the cantonal governments, and in defining the relationships between the cantonal governments and the federal state, will be guided by the provisions of the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as the constitutions of the individual states of the United States of America. — Yearbook of the United Nations for 1947-48

        Amazingly enough, the US representative and Rabbi Silver both repeated an earlier claim that the US Constitutional model would be unacceptable to the Jewish people.

        Lebanon had a record of liberalism and human rights until Eisenhower invaded the country. See Israel’s Sacred Terrorism, by Livia Rokach if you want a good run down on the contents of Moshe Sharett’s diary, e.g.

        Sharett’s Diary, however, provides the entire documentation of how in 1954 Ben Gurion developed the diabolic plans to “Christianize” Lebanon, i.e., to invent and create from scratch the inter-Lebanese conflict, and of how a detailed blueprint for the partition and subordination of that country to Israel was elaborated by Israel more than fifteen years before the Palestinian presence became a political factor in Lebanon.

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 7:26 am

        Atta boy, nyclawyer, display your pure racisim. Those Arabs have always been incapable of living up to minimum standards of civilization since the dawn of human history. And the Hebrews, given or taking their freedom to act semi-independently, or fully independently since biblical days up to the present–have always displayed the pinnicle of civilized conduct.

      • annie
        February 17, 2011, 8:37 am

        the racism is just dripping from his comment citizen.

        Arab critics of Israel would have more credibility if their countries had a better track record.

        he attaches this comment to Issa Khalaf who is american.

      • Antidote
        February 17, 2011, 9:03 am

        “Where is liberalism and human rights present in the Arab World? Give me an example of one Arab country that has the abovementioned values?”

        Uh, Islam? The Koran? If the Arab World doesn’t live up to those values, that’s also true for the Judeo-Christian World. And always has been.

    • Chaos4700
      February 16, 2011, 8:46 pm

      I hope you intend to continue writing here. We desperately need authors like you. Thank you for what you have graciously contributed thus far, and sorry for all the crap you’ve had to slog there in the comments section.

    • Richard Witty
      February 16, 2011, 9:31 pm

      You can help the transformation of Jewish consciousness, by very careful use of language, and actual research with a predisposition of respect for the people and the basis of their attitudes.

      Assaults rarely end up changing hearts and minds, and it is hearts and minds that need to be changed.

      EVERY demonstration of civil assertion, proves to Israelis that Arabs/Palestinians are respectable. Every demonstration of condemnation proves to Israelis that Arabs/Palestinians are dangerous.

      You genuinely have some false assumptions about Zionism, and Zionists, particularly the original sin element of “colonialism”. It really is a false story, in that the vast majority of Jewish emigres to Israel were not expansionist or racist. They were seeking a haven, a resting place, and in the only setting that was afforded.

      The history of settlement anywhere on the planet, includes story of migration, and tension when contending populations interact. And, if you study Arab history, you will find much migration, and similar tensions between peoples.

      • RoHa
        February 16, 2011, 10:11 pm

        “They were seeking a haven, a resting place, and in the only setting that was afforded.”

        But they didn’t rest. They began energetically taking over from the native inhabitants.

        “The history of settlement anywhere on the planet, includes story of migration, and tension when contending populations interact”

        But that doesn’t justify ethnic cleansing.

      • Richard Witty
        February 16, 2011, 10:55 pm

        The reason that I describe anti-Zionism as a reactionary movement, rather than a progressive one, is that there is the mythology that there ever was a people “that was always there”.

        Every inch of land on the planet is the site of migration. Israel/Palestine has been the site of MANY, some for its symbology and some for its geography.

        The migration periods occurred at a times when it was possible to “invite”, but in fact pogrom-escaping, idealist socialists, were not invited.

        The women were offensive for their indecency. The labor activists were offensive for the effort to overturn traditional patterns of privilege for “European” definitions of social equality. The religious were the most accepted, for their modesty and respect of monotheism. And, the rabid Zionists scared the Arabs (not so many self-identified national Palestinians then.)

        So, from their fear, they attacked. They sought to chase the Jews away, so that they were not their problem. Let them be someone else’s problem. (A respectful attitude, to be someone else’s “problem”. How dare the world intrude on our “idyllic” home (idyllic except for the poverty, class conflict and clan conflicts).

        Partition and the ethnic cleansing to achieve a viable partition, were later conclusions, definitely strongly held, and nearly universally so.

        If you are willing to drop the idea of universal sympathy, you can retroactively condemn refugees for desiring a homespace. But, then the basis of an ideology based on universal sympathy disappears.

        The precedent of “only original people” have rights, is NOT a good one. It is a shadow of anti-colonialism, a rejection of “give me your tired, your poor.” Instead, only native …. have human rights.

      • Chaos4700
        February 17, 2011, 12:25 am

        You just want Jewish exclusive communities, Witty. That’s your primary motivation.

      • RoHa
        February 17, 2011, 12:49 am

        So the poor Jews were just like the Vietnamese refugees in Australia, simply there to seek a safer or better life. But the Nasty Arabs could not tolerate The Other, and tried to drive them out.

        Tripe, and you know it.

        Most of the Jews who wanted a safer, better life headed to Britain, Australia, Canada, the USA, and South America. It was the Zionists who went to Palestine, and who tried to make sure that the less enthusiastic Jews followed them.

        The Arabs did not invite the Jews in. They were not even consulted on the matter.

        Foreign Jews came into Palestine with the loudly avowed intention of taking over the country. They set up “Jews only” organisations and companies, created a separate Jewish economy (with the assistance of the British, who tended to grant them concessions and protection which gave the Jews economic advantage over the Arabs), purchased land and then evicted Arab tenants.

        They made no attempt to adapt to the Palestinian society, and no attempt to join it. They were separatists and rejectionists from the start.

      • Koshiro
        February 17, 2011, 6:54 am

        “They made no attempt to adapt to the Palestinian society, and no attempt to join it.”
        Precisely. The same holds true, by the way, for the WB settlers of today, which is why all ideas of just “letting them stay where they are as Palestinian citizens” are nonsense. They chose not to come as future Palestinian citizens, but as colonial overlords.

      • Citizen
        February 17, 2011, 8:11 am

        Right, Witty. Why honor anybody’s claimed property rights since nobody was ever on whatever piece of land since the beginning of settled human life? Let’s support Zionism by appeal to barbarism, by appealing to might makes right, and alternatively, by appeal as a beggar appeals. And the same for anybody’s claim to other “human rights.” We don’t need no universal stuff. We have our own ethics, and they suffice in lieu of universal morality or any attempt at the rule of universal law. After all, that’s what the post-Nuremberg world is for, to ignore and be proud of it.

      • Richard Witty
        February 17, 2011, 8:16 am

        The Jewish European holocaust refugees were prohibited from migrating to the US, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, South Africa. A token number were allowed, but mostly elite.

        The only place that the refugees were assisted in migrating were to Israel.

        Israeli immigrants were and are various. There is really no “you” that is representative.

        It would be more accurate to use the term “them”. Keep “them” out. “They” steal from us.

        Somehow speaking in terms that equate a migrating with an invading “them” is an improvement, is progressive?

      • Chaos4700
        February 17, 2011, 12:15 pm

        The Jewish European holocaust refugees were prohibited from migrating to the US, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, South Africa. A token number were allowed, but mostly elite.

        And what was the mantra that this elite repeated as they formed lobbies in the countries into which they were admitted?

        If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.

        Care of David Ben-Gurion.

      • Citizen
        February 18, 2011, 10:07 am

        Witty, let me migrate onto your property; since I only intend to live on it, I assume you won’t do anything as I do what need to, to make your place mine–now, don’t be calling the cops or giving me court notices, or G-D forbid, aiming a weapon at me and mine–because, after all, I’m not invading your land, just merely migrating over to there.

      • pjdude
        February 16, 2011, 11:26 pm

        I see your once again arguing that its the palestinians fault for arguing they should get their rights as why they don’t have their rights

  23. thetumta
    February 16, 2011, 9:20 pm

    Beautiful article. I’m fortunate to have read it. It certainly brought out all of the the Zionists Trolls, except for Witty? Maybe he has the flu. I can’t imagine why you respond to any of them? It’s pointless. The only thing they seem to understand is brute force, although I think many of them will lose their taste for it once they get a little bit bigger taste of it? 2006 in Lebanon was a good start. Egypt will be next. They need to meet the opposition’s Ariel Sharon. Then it will be save me, save me. Followed by threats, nuclear ones yet again.
    If you’re waiting for “a Zionism rooted in Jewish humanism”, I wish you luck, Find a comfortable chair and wait.
    Hej! Tumta

  24. fuster
    February 16, 2011, 10:24 pm

    The only thing they seem to understand is brute force, although I think many of them will lose their taste for it once they get a little bit bigger taste of it?—–thetumta

    no accounting for taste, is there, tumta?

  25. fuster
    February 17, 2011, 1:18 am


    Are you forgetting that the Israelis are quite happily starving the Gazans into submission?

    Here’s something that I remember—-

    Gaza. Gaza is dying. The Israeli siege of the Palestinian enclave is so tight that its people are on the edge of starvation.

    PATRICK COCKBURN September 7, 2006

    Gaza isn’t starving and it isn’t submitting. It’s being alienated and the people stuck there are being screwed by the Israelis and by Hamas.

    They’ll be well rid of both.

    • Chaos4700
      February 17, 2011, 2:08 am

      Gaza isn’t starving

      Dude, the starving Gazan BS was 2010

      Yeah, sure. Identical cousins, I suppose.

  26. MHughes976
    February 17, 2011, 6:51 am

    I agree that the proposition ‘We are the heirs, others are trespassers’ is at the heart of the matter. ‘Trespassers’ is an apt word but another phrase, like ‘graciously received fellow residents’, should also be present, because Zionists have almost always intended to show conspicuous generosity – or what they considered to be conspicuous generosity – to a substantial (but necessarily limited) group of non-Jewish people.
    I think that the ‘traumatised survivor’ element in the makeup of Zionism is misleadingly exaggerated in Issa’s essay. What we face in Zionism is not, or not so much, the psychosis of shell-shocked wanderers but something a hundred times more problematic, the determination of people with a strong moral conviction to secure what they unflinchingly consider to be their absolute right – absolute, so to be vindicated at any cost necessary. The memory of sufferings may have added an element of blinding anger and readiness to lash out, with bitter words and ferocious force, but anger alone would never have achieved so much. There had to be that intellectual (in my view mistaken) conviction.
    The traumatised survivors are the Palestinians and because of the intensity of the trauma and because the natural reaction to this sort of treatment is indeed blinding anger and readiness to lash out, maybe repressed for a time by necessities of daily survival, I find it hard to believe that the Palestinian view of Israelis is as accepting as Issa would have it. Mine would not be. I agree that in the aftermath of liberation there is often very strong objective reason for the former slaves and the former oppressors to cooperate, but that’s another matter.

Leave a Reply