An open letter to Fouad Ajami on his misrepresentation of the Arab revolutions

Israel/Palestine
on 12 Comments

Neocon Fouad Ajami lately published an attack on the Palestinians in the Wall Street Journal– an unfiltered anthology of Israeli myths and lies, revisionist history, misrepresentation of the Arab revolution, and so forth; dismissing the UN statehood effort. I wrote out a letter, an e-mail really, to Ajami only to find that he does not have a listed e-mail. Odd, considering he’s an academic who frequently publishes. I guess he does not want to hear any rebuttals.

I kind of felt like kicking myself after I had written so lengthy a letter and now without anything to do with it. Then I thought maybe it could be an open letter.

Fouad, 

I have read your books and try to read all your WSJ contributions, but this is the first time I have decided to reply in a (open) letter. I hope you’ll do the same, a simple courtesy, and fully read this letter. 

I never truly appreciated your callousness and proclivity to pander to American Zionists until I read your recent op-ed in the WSJ dismissing the forthcoming Palestinian statehood declaration. Even for a page that features the likes of Bret Stephens, it was filled with casual lies and distortion of history, and adopted so uncritically the Israeli narrative, in a pathetic effort to cater to the “White Man”.

You say the Palestinians and Arabs rejected partition and chose war with the Zionists, but I know you know that the Zionists were working with the Hashemite kingdom to sabotage any truncated Palestinian state. Even if the Palestinians accepted the principle that they should attend to Western hearts and guilt by sacrificing their own land and accepted a partition plan whereby the one-third population of Jews, overwhelmingly recent immigrants, nay colonizers, should receive 55% of Palestine while the two-thirds population of indigenous Palestinians should redraw their borders to solely 41% of their homeland (I am sure it is superfluous to remind you that Jerusalem was proscribed an international zone on 4% of the land), an absurd partition plan, unprecedented in history where colonization is bestowed not just with recognition but with an even more favorable condition than the natives (it is not as if the Palestinians were accorded even a majority of the land, how did they the actual majority of the people get less than half? and they are supposed to be the bad guy and ingrates for not accepting this handed down injustice?!). But even if the Palestinians accepted this cruelty, the Zionists and Hashemites were in agreement that no Palestinian state should come into being. The Zionists – then and now – believe that Zionism cannot survive unless the natives are denied their rights. It was not the Palestinians who sought to deny the Jews, since Palestinian nationalism does not deny Jews their rights as individuals, but the Zionists who were not content to deny simply Palestinian statehood but the very idea of a Palestinian people, to quote your inspirer Golda Meir.

And your nonsense about combined Arab armies, meant to convey a massive Arab force seeking to overrun a underdog Jewish force, is further disinformation when you know that the Arab forces were 1) late to the game 2) 1/3 of the combined force of the Zionists 3) poorly armed as opposed to the Zionists who had superior weapons, procured weapons, including bombers from sympathetic Americans, and even violated the ceasefire agreement to purchase weapons and 4) the Arabs were so poorly organized that they were at times shooting at one another and 5) most of the Arab armies never even crossed into the territory allocated for the colonial Jewish state. And besides, the Zionists had ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians even before a single Arab army declared war, whatever the merit of that declaration.

Contrary to your Zionist propaganda, the Palestinians did not flee on their own accord, but were massacred and compelled to flee under threat of further violence. You cite Jaffa, the Palestinians in Jaffa, then Palestine’s greatest city and so important that it was carved out by the United Nations as part of the Arab state, an Arab island of 70,000 citizens, enveloped by the Jewish state next to Tel Aviv in the partition. In Jaffa, the people were pushed into the sea by the Zionists who later posed as victims of Arabs who were allegedly seeking to do unto them what they had cruelly did to the Palestinians. Jaffa was the victim of a barrage of rockets, you know the ones Israel whines about today, by Menachem Begin’s Stern gang, leading to tens of thousands to escape (what they thought temporary) via ferry to Beirut. But the Zionists made sure there was no return. And Begin used Jaffa as a way to prove his Zionist bona fides. For it was the Zionists who refused to accept an Arab city in their generous 55% allocation. (who has the sense of entitlement? forgive the Palestinians for actually believing they have a right to their country).

It is fallacious that you seek to position Arab Jews as comparable to Palestinian refugees, a Zionist gimmick. In no way to lessen their plight, but their tragedy is not the same: it was a migration or forced exodus over decades, greatly encouraged by the Zionists, and many were allowed to sell their property, and they deserve compensation and return, but that is a separate issue for which the Palestinians do not need to answer. Your statement about the Beirut of your dreams and the Jewish quarter being a Hezbollah enclave, what further fabrication! The Jewish quarter is in Beirut’s Sunni dominated central district and the Maghen synagogue has been recently renovated, that entire area is as much a Hezbollah stronghold as the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board is dominated by leftists. Hezbollah wouldn’t dare to even step foot next to Lebanese Sunnis who detest it. And are you ever reminiscent about the lost quarters of the Palestinians? I am sure you know this but I guess without such nonsense and pandering you would not be part of the club, and not get published. Sell your soul to be treated like a human being by America’s fanatical pro-Israel elites.

One last point: Nothing was more egregious than your patently false statement that the Arabs in Tunis, Cairo, et al have not raised the banner of Palestine since the revolution began. Of course, if you read Arabic newspapers, and I am sure you do, you know that many Egyptians have been open about their disdain for Israel, a wish to end the shameful bought “peace” of Sadat, attacking Mubarak-Suleiman as stooges, and proudly raising the flag of Palestine. But if you choose to adopt the Tom Friedman nonsense that the revolutions have no foreign policy implications, that’s your wish to ignore reality. Palestine is there, it is always there for Arabs.

Let me conclude by stating that I am a Tunisian living in America and I watched every moment of my birth nation and its revolution in exhilarating and tearful excitement. Do not use the rising up of the Arab people as a fig leaf in your silly and inferiority-minded polemics. No Tunisian would ever dignify you, for you readily humiliate yourself. An Arab like yourself, so eager to cast aspersions on the Palestinians people, who have suffered so much and so unfairly, no, this moment is not for you. You do not share it with us. We do not wish to have you. Please, no longer wish us Arabs goodwill for we do not seek it from such a hand. On the day of the Tunisian revolution, an al Jazeera screen grab casually captured a Palestinian flag hanging from a Tunisian apartment balcony. Palestine always waves high for the Arabs, it is always there, Tunisians have not forgotten it and have shouted, in an amendment, “The people want the liberation of Palestine”.

Nothing is more vulgar than to use the Arab revolution to advance your anti-Palestinian cause, the revolution does not vindicate you, it refutes you. Palestine will only rise in a free Arab world. It is your tyrants Ben Ali, Mubarak and al-Saud who sought to deny Palestine in the Arab conscience. Every Arab knows that the Arab revolution will not be complete until Palestine is free. A cursory run through a Tunisian Facebook page will show that Palestine is still the heart of the Arab people. So, please, at least have the decency to acknowledge that you are not part of the Arab moment, rejected by the Arab people and further pulling yourself away, and that you may never awake from your slumber to recognize the justice of the Palestinian cause and call yourself an Arab, head held high.

12 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    June 1, 2011, 12:04 pm

    If Jordan was in cahoots with Israel in early 1948 (before May 15), then it cannot be said to have truly been an anti-Israeli invader. Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, OK, but not Jordan.

    Did Palestine await the Arab Spring and depend on it? I don’t think so.

    In practice, the forces disallowing a Palestinian state (in West Bank and Gaza) since 1967 have been the primary actors (Israel and USA) and the secondary actors (all the other countries which had promised to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention and then did not do so, allowing settlement for example). They could, even without the USA, have gone a great distance (by shunning Israel and other BDS activity) to improve life for Palestinians and, perhaps, brought about a Palestinian State. This possibility had nothing to do with the (recent) Arab Spring. The Arab Spring may, however, over time, pave the way for a re-calculation of “interest” on the part of the nations and thus end up being of importance for their (BDS-like) machinations to force Israel to remove settlers and make peace.

  2. Citizen
    June 1, 2011, 12:41 pm

    This open letter needs to be read by Obama, if you can get it past Dennis Ross. Meanwhile, Israel is prepping to stop the next Gaza flotilla–IDF snipers will be used to take out those on the boats who might resist: link to weeklyintercept.blogspot.com

  3. Leper Colonialist
    June 1, 2011, 12:43 pm

    It is amazing and sad to consider that the same Faoud Ajami is the author of one of the greatest political science review articles I’ve ever read, way back in 1976, “The Global Logic of the Neoconservatives” [a review of Robert W. Tucker's, "The Inequality of Nations."] Was 1976 really that long ago? And what happened to F.A. in between?

    link to jstor.org

    [Sorry, you'll have to go to the library to read the full essay - the link is a purchase-to-read site, but the original publication was in "World Politics" one of the best known journals in the IR/IP field].

  4. annie
    June 1, 2011, 1:20 pm

    this is a fantastic letter Khelil , one i will be bookmarking for future reference. i especially appreciate your take down of the myth there is some symmetry or reciprocity between the claims palestinian refugees and arab jews, which is a constant theme of the hasbarists.

    i am emailing Ajami myself @ the address provided by merlot ([email protected]) , providing this url and informing him what i think of his myth pandering.

    the only question i have with your excellent essay is this:

    Hezbollah wouldn’t dare to even step foot next to Lebanese Sunnis who detest it.

    did you mean the sunnis detest the Maghen synagogue or Hezbollah? i have no idea what lebanese sunnis think of the synagogue but it is my understanding after the 06 israel war on lebanon many lebanese sunnis support hezbollah. perhaps i am mistaken. either way your meaning was not completely clear to me.

    thank you very very much for this excellent open letter.

  5. Miura
    June 1, 2011, 1:50 pm

    Edward Said reviewed Thomas Friedman’s From Beirut to Jerusalem in 1989 for the The Village Voice–presumably because no publication that hewed to “polite New York intellectual opinion” would touch such a piece–in which he mentioned Fouad Ajami and his ilk. It was entitled The Orientalist Express: Thomas Friedman Wraps Up the Middle East and is a rollicking good read if only for its prescience on Friedman’s budding megalomania:

    Yet Friedman is also something of a craftsman. From Beirut to Jerusalem, for all its gargantuan length, doesn’t often flag or bog down except, it must be said, when Friedman either gets mushy with testimonials about his feelings, or when he offers advice to everyone about how much better they could be doing if they paid attention to him. The result
    is therefore an interesting book, as much a collection of anecdotes as it is clever writing studded with eye-catching but symptomatic bits of analysis.

    What keeps it together as a book is Friedman’s own "insider" voice — smart, frequently vulgar and tough, sententious, effortlessly knowledgeable. When Arabs or Jews do things, it is not what they do but how their actions register on Tom’s sensibility that matters. Not surprisingly, therefore, it is a strangely ignorant book: Friedman’s two main sources of illumination are trusted gurus (e.g., the "philosopher" David Hartman, who — we are not told this — runs a strange religious school in Israel largely on U.S. funds; he doesn’t seem to have any "philosophical" works to his credit) or bits of expert and/or folk wisdom, unconnected to specific works or research, asserted rather than argued or proved. I do not disagree with Friedman, for example, in his account of how Hafez al-Assad ruthlessly destroyed Muslim opposition in Hama by massacring thousands of his own citizens; Friedman takes the incident as a case of "Hama Rules" and attributes them to "different political traditions" in the Arab world whose true origin, he pronounces, are such things as a "tribalism" learned in the desert. So astonishing a jump, from modern, predominantly urban Syria to the prehistoric desert, is of course the purest Orientalism, and is of a piece with the moronic and hopelessly false dictum offered later in the book that the Arab political tradition has produced only two types: the merchant and the messiah.

    These ludicrous reductions do have sources: In the case of tribalism it is the Israeli "Bedouin expert" Clinton Bailey; in the case of the Arab political tradition "Lebanese Shiite scholar" Fouad Ajami. Friedman deploys these ideas disingenuously, as if there wasn’t a fairly active controversy seething in all departments of knowledge about the Middle East. In fact Friedman belongs very clearly on one side, the side associated with classical anti-Arab and anti-Islamic Orientalism, the world according to Bernard Lewis, Ajami, Bailey, and their ilk. Of course Friedman is perfectly entitled to his views, which are not always unsympathetic, but what is particularly shady is that Friedman palms off his opinions (and those of his sources) as reasonable, uncontested, secure. In fact they are minority views and have been under severe attack for several decades now. They represent a narrow consensus associated not with desirable political change but with the equally political, basically conservative perspective of the status quo. People in this camp characterize. themselves as pragmatic and realistic, labels that are intended to dismiss the theories of Marxists, non-Western and non-white nationalists, feminists, political economists. The point, of course, is that what Friedman and the Orientalists espouse is a threadbare repertoire of often racist clichés, all of them bearing the marks of colonial knowledge now allied with Naipaulesque disenchantment. People can’t change, Friedman says in effect; they are what they are forever. Give Ahmed, or Sambo, a place in the bus and he’ll simmer down.

    • Kathleen
      June 1, 2011, 4:49 pm

      “Give Ahmed, or Sambo, a place in the bus and he’ll simmer down. ”

      Whoa Said really smacks Friedman upside the head. Had never read this

  6. Robert767
    June 2, 2011, 3:44 am

    Well put Khelil,just a word for pabelmont,I can recomend a biography The Lion King; Hussein Of Jordan it is clear that he and his grandfather Abdullah gave away Palestinian rights to secure the Hashemite dynasty.

  7. sam
    June 2, 2011, 11:12 am

    FANTASTIC letter!!!

  8. Robert Werdine
    June 2, 2011, 2:53 pm

    Khelil,

    Said you to Fouad Ajami: “You say the Palestinians and Arabs rejected partition and chose war with the Zionists, but I know you know that the Zionists were working with the Hashemite kingdom to sabotage any truncated Palestinian state.”

    The Arabs did reject the partition and the notion that “the Zionists were working with the Hashemite kingdom to sabotage any truncated Palestinian state” is without foundation. The charge, posited by Avi Schlaim and others, stems from a meeting between King ‘Abdullah of Jordan and Golda Meir on November 17, 1947—12 days before the UN partition vote. Reports by two Zionist officials, Ezra Danin and Eliyahu Sasson, indicate that Meir was opposed to any annexation of Arab Palestine by ‘Abdullah that would be in violation of the UN partition.

    Said Meir, according to Danin: “We explained that our matter was being discussed at the UN, that we hoped that it would be decided there to establish two states, one Jewish and one Arab, and that we wished to speak now about an agreement with him [i.e., `Abdullah] based on these resolutions.” Said Sasson: “[Meir] Replied we prepared [to] give every assistance within [the] frame [of the] UN Charter.”

    Meir did envisage a limited, temporary role for Jordan in post-Mandatory Arab Palestine “to maintain law and order and to preserve peace until the UN could establish a government in that area.” But there was no consent to any Jordanian annexation of Arab Palestine. Indeed ‘Abdullah himself had no such expectations from their meeting. Said Danin: “At the end [‘Abdullah] reiterated that concrete matters could be discussed only after the UN had passed its resolution, and said that we must meet again immediately afterwards.”

    Said Meir in her own account: “For our part we told him then that we could not promise to help his incursion into the country [i.e., Mandatory Palestine], since we would be obliged to observe the UN Resolution which, as we already reckoned at the time, would provide for the establishment of two states in Palestine. Hence, we could not — so we said — give active support to the violation of this resolution.”

    Said Ben-Gurion in December 1948, thirteen months after the Meir-‘Abdullah meeting: “An Arab State in Western Palestine is less dangerous than a state that is tied to Transjordan, and tomorrow — probably to Iraq,” he told his advisers. “Why should we vainly antagonize the Russians? Why should we do this [i.e., agree to Transjordan's annexation of Western Palestine] against the [wishes of the] rest of the Arab states?” (Source: “Rewriting Israel’s History” Efraim Karsh, Middle East Quarterly June 1996, pp. 19-29).

    Said you: “Even if the Palestinians accepted the principle that they should attend to Western hearts and guilt by sacrificing their own land and accepted a partition plan whereby the one-third population of Jews, overwhelmingly recent immigrants, nay colonizers, should receive 55% of Palestine while the two-thirds population of indigenous Palestinians should redraw their borders to solely 41% of their homeland.”

    This argument ignores the fact that some 550,000 Jews and some 397,000 Arabs would be living in the proposed 55% allotted to the Jewish state, while some 800,000 or more Palestinian Arabs would be living in the 41% of the Arab Palestinian state, and that 62% of the Jewish state envisioned by the partition would have consisted of desert, while the Palestinians were offered the most fertile land. (Some 100,000 Jews and an equal number of Arabs would inhabit the 4% international protectorate of Jerusalem). This further ignores that the rejection of the partition did not stem merely from objections to the specifics of the partition plan (though there was that, of course). The Palestinians, and the Arab world, were, and had been, rejecting any independent Jewish sovereign statehood in any form or size, for quite some time. That, and not some objections to the particulars of the partition, was the crux of the issue. It still is today.

    Said you to FA: “And your nonsense about combined Arab armies, meant to convey a massive Arab force seeking to overrun a underdog Jewish force, is further disinformation when you know that the Arab forces were 1) late to the game 2) 1/3 of the combined force of the Zionists 3) poorly armed as opposed to the Zionists who had superior weapons, procured weapons, including bombers from sympathetic Americans, and even violated the ceasefire agreement to purchase weapons and 4) the Arabs were so poorly organized that they were at times shooting at one another and 5) most of the Arab armies never even crossed into the territory allocated for the colonial Jewish state.”

    There is certainly some truth to this, but it is not the whole truth. After the war both sides subsequently argued that they were the weaker side; the Israelis to emphasize the extent of their triumph, the Arabs to excuse the extent of their defeat. In demographic terms, the Arabs had an overwhelming edge: some forty million Arabs and 1,200,000 Palestinian Arabs against some 600,000 of the Yishuv. The Arabs/Palestinians’ edge in land mass, economic resources, and potential economic resources were even greater.

    The Yishuv, however, had prepared for war, and the Arabs had not. The Yishuv was a political and economically cohesive entity, and this cohesion was reflected in the Hagana’s superior organization, leadership, and tactics. Nonetheless, Palestinian militias performed reasonably well against the Yishuv in the Nov.1947 to March 1948 period despite this. But once the Yishuv took to the offensive in early April with Operation Nachshon, the fragility and disorganization of the Palestinian armies became apparent, and Palestinian Arab society quickly fell apart under the strain of the war.

    In the post-May 15 stage of the conflict the Yishuv certainly had a superiority in numbers, and they increased those numbers as the conflict progressed, but this ignores the fact that those numbers could never be concentrated at a single decisive point; the Yishuv were now fighting three distinct, interconnected entities on a multi-front crescent perimeter that was extremely awkward to defend: the Palestinians, a pan-Arab volunteer force, and the regular armed forces of six Arab states—Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and a Saudi contingent. The Arab invasion consisted of a ten pronged attack: one from South Lebanon northwest of Safed, one Syrian force from the Golan south of the Sea of Galilee, six Jordanian thrusts north of the Dead Sea, and two Egyptian thrusts from the Sinai toward Gaza and Beersheba. The ability of the Arabs to field their forces on a wide front., and concentrate their individual armies at decisive points of the front created a fundamental asymmetry between them and the Yishuv.

    Prospects of a Jewish victory were not rated high at the time. Said US intelligence: “The Jewish forces will initially have the advantage. However, as the Arabs gradually coordinate their war effort, the Jews will be forced to withdraw from isolated positions, and having been drawn into a war of attrition, will gradually be defeated.”

    Eventually, the Yishuv won the war, but at horrific cost—about one percent of the population were killed. They won because of superior organization, leadership, tactics, luck, and the fact that they were literally fighting for their lives with nowhere to retreat to.

    Said you “And besides, the Zionists had ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians even before a single Arab army declared war, whatever the merit of that declaration.

    Contrary to your Zionist propaganda, the Palestinians did not flee on their own accord, but were massacred and compelled to flee under threat of further violence.”

    This is, of course, an extremely contentious, much argued issue. I have always felt that “ethnically cleansed” is a harsh and inaccurate term to describe the flight of the refugees in the 1948 War. As I have said countless times here, the events which led to the flight of the refugees did not occur in a vacuum; they occurred in the context of a war, a war that resulted from the Arabs’ rejection of the partition. Certainly the Deir Yassin massacre, and the hysterical broadcasts exaggerating the scale of it, sowed panic and (unintentionally) influenced the flight of the refugees, but the violence of the fighting in the towns and villages, the flight of so many high ranking Arab functionaries, and the near total breakdown in services also played a role in the exodus of the refugees throughout the 1948 War. This is not to deny that there were not some expulsions at Lydda and elsewhere; there were, but the numbers of those actually expelled were rather few. All Palestine was a war zone in those days, and, in general, Palestinian Arab society had always been governed by a somewhat fragile polity at that time, and it simply collapsed under the strain of the conflict, as did countless other societies in Europe during World War Two. When war comes to your village, it is only human to want to get out of the way until it is over.

    Said you to Fouad Ajami: “Do not use the rising up of the Arab people as a fig leaf in your silly and inferiority-minded polemics. No Tunisian would ever dignify you, for you readily humiliate yourself. An Arab like yourself, so eager to cast aspersions on the Palestinians people, who have suffered so much and so unfairly, no, this moment is not for you. You do not share it with us. We do not wish to have you. Please, no longer wish us Arabs goodwill for we do not seek it from such a hand.”

    These are hard, harsh words. “So eager to cast aspersions on the Palestinians people”? I can only say Fouad Ajami does not speak any ill of the Palestinian people in his op-ed, and I have never heard him do so anywhere else. He is, however, critical of their past and present leaders, and rightly so in my view.

    It is sad that you seem to condemn as treasonous a worldview held by an Arab that does not embrace the hatred of Israel, hostility, paranoia and self-righteous victimhood that are regrettably expressed in your letter, and consider Fouad Ajami’s moderate, balanced op-ed as “adopted so uncritically [to] the Israeli narrative, in a pathetic effort to cater to the “White Man.”

    As I have often remarked here, I have long thought that we do the Palestinian people no favors if we fail to recognize the unhelpful behavior of the PA with regard to negotiating with Israel in good faith, or if we fail to encourage civic mindedness and a sense of self-sufficient, and responsible citizenship among them instead of treating them as so much fodder for the “cause” and nourishing them on hatred, rejection, and cruel, lunatic fantasies of “return” that will never happen, or deny or downplay the lawlessness or the murderousness of Hamas, and the impediment that they constitute to the Palestinians’ aspirations for peaceful, democratic statehood, among other things.

    This is deeply tragic for the Palestinian people. You know, one of the things about the Jewish communities in both America and Israel that I have long admired is the wonderful diversity of thought and opinion that exists within them. As an Arab myself, it is my dearest hope that the Palestinians, like all of their Arab brethren, will soon experience the same thing in their own societies without fear of punishment from those who rule them. Insha’Allah.

    • Citizen
      June 2, 2011, 3:55 pm

      Werdine:
      Theft of land is theft of land. You should start with the basics before filling up space with details you say about the conflict this theft caused.

  9. talknic
    June 3, 2011, 4:51 pm

    All one needs do is read through the UNSC resolutions for the period to see that the Hasbara is BULLSH*TE

    link to un.org

    There is no UNSC Resolution condemning any Arab State for attacking Israel.

    There is no UNSC condemnation of the Arab States Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, submitted and accepted by the UNSC 15th May 1948 (Israel had just been declared independent of Palestine.) To the best of my knowledge, the Arab States Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine, was the last legal declaration of war ever lodged with the UNSC.

    You might note this line in respect to the twaddle about Arab states driving the Jews into the sea. “The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.” It follows almost exactly the LoN Mandate for Palestine. MORE

    There is no UNSC Resolution that calls for Peace in Israel. They say “peace in Palestine”. Rather odd if it was Israel being attacked.

    In fact, by the Provisional Israeli Government statement to the UNSC May 22nd 1948 it was Jewish/Israeli forces OUTSIDE of Israel being attacked.

    There is no official Palestinian claim for Palestine refugees and their lineal descendants to return to the actual sovereign territory of Israel. The claim is based on UNGA Res 194 which, being a UN resolution, is based on the UN definition of refugees (see the UNHCR statute) and does not include lineal descendants only folk who lived in the region of return. Simple maths shows there was and still is no demographic threat within the actual sovereignty of Israel. Even less so today. Those with actual RoR to Israeli sovereign territory are all over 63 years of age. They were children in ’48. MORE

    The notion that the Palestinians must sign a peace agreement with Israel for there to be any RoR at all (even limited) is completely bizarre. Were they to return A) It is on an individual basis and assessment B) The country of return has final veto. C) They have to agree to live in peace D) (this is the bizarre part) – They would be citizens of Israel. NOT Palestine with whom the peace agreement would apply. Seems ziocaine prevents simple logic.

    The famous “Palestinians never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity” is completely false

    Jordan and the West bank? Israel AGREED to Jordan being the occupying power over the West Bank. It’s in the Armistice AGREEMENT

    The West Bank was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians. It was by agreement with the people in the territory being annexed. There is no UNSC Resolution condemning it

    Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only (Session: 12-I Date: May 1950) at the insistence of the Arab States, in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI.

    Where as Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem, without request by the citizens in the territory being annexed, was condemned by UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980

    Could go on. Almost everything perpetuated by Israel against the Palestinians is a blatant lie

Leave a Reply