Settlers and supporters descend on Hebron to assert Jewish sovereignty

hebron11
Settlers and supporters celebrate in front of shuttered Palestinian stores in Hebron’s Old City (with protection from the Israeli military). (Photo: Alistair George)

“So the field of Ephron in Machpelah, which was to the east of Mamre, the field with the cave that was in it and all the trees that were in the field, throughout its whole area, was made over to Abraham as a possession in the presence of the Hittites, before all who went in at the gate of his city. After this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah east of Mamre (that is, Hebron) in the land of Canaan. The field and the cave that is in it were made over to Abraham as property for a burying place by the Hittites.” – Genesis 23:17-20

Over 1,000 American and international Zionists joined 700 extremist settlers in Hebron this weekend to celebrate the reading of this Torah portion detailing Abraham’s biblical purchase of Hebron land, as a means to assert sovereignty over the Palestinian residents of Hebron.

hebron10
Settlers march in Hebron’s Old City (Photo: Alistair George)

On Friday, many Zionist visitors camped in tents on Israeli-controlled Shuhada Street. Inebriated from the Shabbat festivities, the visitors harassed local Palestinians throughout the night. On Saturday, soldiers stationed themselves through the streets of Hebron’s Old City, forcing the shutdown of Palestinian shops, while swarms of visitors were treated to an extensive settler-guided tour championing the Jewish roots of Old Hebron. In what was advertised by the Hebron Committee as “the most unforgettable Jewish experience of a lifetime”,  throngs of young, mostly American males clapped and chanted ‘Am Yisrael Chai’ (‘life to the people of Israel’) and other nationalistic chants, while  Palestinian residents were forced to the sidelines of their own streets and kept there by soldiers. Throughout the day, 7 international activists and 2 Palestinians were arrested.

hebron12
Damage in a Palestinian store (Photo: Alistair George)

While a few visitors were respectful to Palestinian shop owners and residents, many were outright hostile. Mohammed Awawdeah owns a small shop in the old city, selling glass bottles filled with intricate colored sand patterns. Some of his bottles were smashed by a passing settler. “He came and broke my stuff,” Awawdeah says. “I told the police but they are not here for us, they are here for the settlers…I am not even angry for my stuff, I’m angry at the soldiers who let them do this”. The Israeli police have taken the details of the incident and said that they intend to carry out an investigation.

Hamday Dwaik decided to close his bakery in the old city, since his shop was targeted by settlers during the event last year. “The settlers don’t want me to open. If I open they will throw my products on the ground, no one will buy it”.

hebron13
The Israeli military provided an escort for the settler march
(Photo: Alistair George)

Laila Slemiah, who works in Women In Hebron, a woman’s collective in the old city selling kiffiyehs and embroidery, was determined not to close her shop. “I know I won’t have any business today,” she said, “but I have to stay open. I’m not scared of them.”

Clashes were also reported between visiting Americans and international activists. One activist relates that “as we were walking, a group of young American Jewish boys got into an argument with us. They became threatening towards us, and one of them had an M16 around his waist. They told us they would break our camera, they told the nearby Palestinian shop owner they would burn down his shop, they told me I would be dead on the floor…”

As this event is touted by the Zionist community as a Biblically-ordained ‘return to the homeland’, an organization called Project Hayei Sarah has been founded in the U.S. and Israel, offering alternative interpretations of Abraham’s Biblical relationship to Hebron that challenge the attempted Zionist appropriation of this legend to legitimize territorial conquest. [It is covered by Annie, in this accompanying post.]

About Ben Lorber and Alistair George

Ben Lorber is a Jewish community organizer and activist living in Chicago, Illinois.
Posted in American Jewish Community, Israel/Palestine, Occupation, Settlers/Colonists

{ 157 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. A small prelude/preparation for a Kristallnacht???

    ‘Some of his bottles were smashed by a passing settler. “He came and broke my stuff,” Awawdeah says”
    “They told us they would break our camera, they told the nearby Palestinian shop owner they would burn down his shop, they told me I would be dead on the floor…”

    • Exactly. The parallels are horrifying.

    • So two sand filled bottles belonging to an Arab shopkeeper are broken by passing Jewish celebrants =Kristalnacht?

      I think I see a parallel, but it’s exaggerated. No?

      • tree says:

        So two sand filled bottles belonging to an Arab shopkeeper are broken by passing Jewish celebrants = Kristalnacht?

        Funny how you seemed to skip over the next statement, and imply the destruction was merely an act of exuberance. It was more that destroying his property:

        “They told us they would break our camera, they told the nearby Palestinian shop owner they would burn down his shop, they told me I would be dead on the floor…”

        Sounds like a threat of a Kristallnacht to me. And for what? Daring to open his shop. No one even killed an Israeli official the day before. I guess that’s not necessary nowadays.

        • No. I didn’t skip anything. I separated the broken bottles incident from the confrontation between the activists and the Jews. If the two incident are related, than prove it.

          Bottom line. Over a thousand Jews marched through Hevron, with the Army present to keep the peace. Two bottles are damaged and some Jews mouthed off to some activists (over what I couldn’t tell you).

          Thats it.
          Lets but aside ‘projection’ and admit that there was no violence and no real destruction of Arab property save the two bottles.

          Keep it real.

        • Taxi says:

          You mean Hebron, with a ‘b’, right? WRONG! The real/Arabic name of the town is Al Khalil, meaning “the friend.” The city was named after Prophet Abraham who was called “Khalil” in the Quran:
          “Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in faith? For Allah did take Abraham for a friend.”
          Holy Quran 4:125

          (LOL I can’t believe I’ve actually quoted a religious text – this sure is a first!)

          Wow proudzionists, so how ’bout THAT: you know, like the origins of the Al Khalil thang? Apparently the ‘moslem Arabs’ are honoring the prophet Abraham in this city and some euro zionist jews crapped on and removed that name soon as they possibly could.

          Anyhooz proudzionist777 (you some kinda croupier in Vegas?) – I guess you won’t call it a hate-crime, antisemitic blah blahs if I were to go to a jewish pottery shop with a thousand of my friends and smash up some stuff there, right?

          That’s it.

          Keeping it realer.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          The Jewish shoah denier strikes again.

        • Theo says:

          You miss the symbolic:
          Hebron is in the WB and those marching jews had no right to invade the city.
          It is the same if a thousand palestinians from the WB would march through East Jerusalem, the future capitol of the free Palestina, protected by the PA police.
          What do you thing how would such march end?

        • Djinn says:

          What has happened to the people of Hebron is worse than one night of window/business smashing. It is disgusting. The settlers abuse and harass anyone and everyone who isn’t on board with their ethnic cleansing. They throw sewage and garbage at children, they’ve cordoned of whole streets for the sole use of Jews, they spit at people, they assault people and they’ve been doing it for a LONG time. Settlers in Hebron are vile and that your taxes pay for them to be provided with 3 IOF personnel for every one of them so they can uphold their apartheid should make your blood boil. The fact that you try to downplay the situation says everything that needs saying about you.

  2. Chaos4700 says:

    The pogroms will continue until morale improves.

  3. American says:

    And then there’s this:…I caught the tail end of news crawler on cable last night that mentioned West Bank, Israel and annexation. Guess it’s a done deal.

    West Bank land annexed to Israeli kibbutz
    AP – Sat, Nov 19, 2011

    .JERUSALEM (AP) — An Israeli researcher says a tract of Palestinian land in the West Bank has been annexed to a nearby kibbutz inside Israel for the first time.

    Researcher Dror Etkes says for decades Israeli authorities seized such lands for Jewish settlers inside the West Bank, but not for communities in Israel proper.

    Etkes says 375 acres from the Palestinian village of Bardaleh were annexed to the Israeli Kibbutz Meirav.

    The land in question lies on the Israeli side of a barrier built to keep out Palestinian militants.

    Israeli military spokesman Guy Inbar confirmed Saturday that the land now belonged to the kibbutz, but he didn’t have more details.”

    ..

    • annie says:

      american, that was the top story on kate’s list yesterday.

      Israel has carried out a de facto annexation of Palestinian land northeast of the Jordan Valley and given it to Kibbutz Merav.

      the whole haaretz article is worth reading. very shady move, total liars.

      • American says:

        Well darn it! ….twice in 2 days I have done that…..I keep missing stuff already here, maybe I am not use to the new format yet……could have saved myself some time.

        • annie says:

          hey, many people probably missed it so it’s good you pointed it out again. sometimes i even link the same link it dual threads if i think they are important. there’s so much that goes on that doesn’t get it’s own separate post. that’s why i try to check out kate and seham’s lists. i didn’t realize til after i commented you had already copied that very same haaretz post down thread (sorry). had i seen it i probably wouldn’t have directed people to the link.

  4. American says:

    And another annexation by Israel:

    •Latest update 00:33 18.11.11

    Israel effectively annexes Palestinian land near Jordan Valley
    Separation barrier route in Kibbutz Merav area changed leaving 1,500 dunams on Israeli side; may be first transfer of Palestinian-owned land to community on sovereign Israeli territory.

    By Akiva Eldar Tags: West Bank Israel settlements Palestinians

    Israel carried out a de facto annexation of Palestinian land northeast of the Jordan Valley and given it to Kibbutz Merav. Merav, part of the Religious Kibbutz Movement, is about seven kilometers northwest of the parcel.

    The route of the separation barrier in the area was changed so that the plot in question, about 1,500 dunams (375 acres), would be on the Israeli side.

    A tractor working Kibbutz Merav’s fields between the separation fence and the Green Line.

    Photo by: Alon Ron

    Israel has previously built roads on and given Palestinian land in the West Bank to Jewish settlements, but this is thought to be the first instance of Palestinian-owned land being transferred to a community on sovereign Israeli territory.

    A spokesman for the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, Maj. Guy Inbar, confirmed that the property is in the West Bank and said, “Kibbutz Merav has been farming this land for decades.”

    The issue of the land’s legal status and its transfer to Merav is clouded in mystery, and official statements have been contradictory. All efforts to locate documents explaining the situation have failed, Inbar said.

    Map of disputed land near Kibbutz Merav.

    The kibbutz is in the Emek Mayanot Regional Council, whose jurisdiction is entirely within the Green Line. In a statement, council officials said the land is beyond its jurisdiction and that the Israel Lands Administration controls land allocations to the council’s member communities.

    Ofer Amar, a spokesman for the World Zionist Organization’s Jewish settlement division said the tract is classified as farmland within the Emek Mayanot Regional Council. He said the settlement division had no authority over the parcel.

    Kibbutz Merav’s secretary general, David Yisrael, confirmed the kibbutz has been farming the land for years, growing field crops including corn as well as citrus fruit. He said he had a lease with the ILA for it, but refused to show it to Haaretz.

    An official in the Civil Administration said Yisrael refused to show the contract to his agency, too.

    ILA spokeswoman Ortal Tzabar said the ILA had no knowledge of the matter, as it does not deal with land outside sovereign Israeli territory.

    “There is a straight line from plundering these 1,500 dunams to Amona, Migron and Givat Asaf, outposts that were built years later,” said Dror Etkes, who has been researching construction in the settlements for several years and detected the annexed land in aerial photographs.

    If the appropriation of the Palestinian farmers’ lands in the Jordan Valley had happened now, rather than in the 1970s, Israeli civil rights groups would have prevented it, Etkes said.

    “This is an example of why it so important for MK Ofir Akunis and his wacky right-wing colleagues to conceal and silence leftist organizations and turn the High Court of Justice and the media into the government’s puppets,” Etkes said.

    Ashraf Madrasa, from the nearby village of Bardallah, showed Haaretz an ownership deed from 1961 for a 36-dunam tract of the land. He said the Israel Defense Forces seized the land, declared it a “military area,” drove out the owners and ordered never to return.

    A number of landowners were given alternative plots belonging to “absentee” Palestinians who fled during the 1967 Six-Day War. Sami Rajab, whose family farms in the area, said that in exchange for several plots in the area he was evicted from, his father received a tract that belonged to his uncle, who emigrated to Canada.

    Recently his cousin came to visit and demanded his lands back, Rajab related. “We told him he had to ask the Israeli government to give it back to him,” Rajab said.

    According to international law Israel is the custodian of absentee property in the West Bank and is prohibited from giving it to settlers, not to mention to communities within Israel.

    In an opinion issued in 1997, the Civil Administration’s legal adviser said: “The Custodian of Absentee Property in the West Bank is nothing but a trustee looking after the property so it is not harmed while the owners are absent from the area … the custodian may not make any transaction regarding the asset that conflicts with the obligation to safeguard the asset as stated, especially his obligation to return the asset to the owner upon his return to the region.”

    The state comptroller wrote in a 2004 report that thousands of dunams of privately-owned Palestinian lands were given to Israeli communities in the Jordan Valley in the 1960s and 1970s, according to ILA and Custodian of Absentee Property documents.

    The ILA continued “these allocations, defined in the above documents as apparently illegal, after that as well,” he wrote.”

  5. annie says:

    i read in jpost yesterday the settlers surrounded the house in hebron of one of the prisoners released in the swap and were throwing stones at it. i figured they were drunk.

    this is so disgusting. how people can be so disgraceful in the name of religion appalls me.

    excellent reporting Ben and Alistair

  6. Hebron is a microcosm of the whole Israeli fantasy, that they have been given rights over other people by a mythical entity. What hateful Americans these are who fly halfway across the world, from their comfortable homes, in order to harass, provoke and intimidate people far poorer than they, but people who have every right to exist there. It is a disgusting mob hatred which is tolerated and encouraged by those spineless IDF morons who protect the fascist idiots and ignore the rights of the people who actually live there. Oh, this is the ‘country’ which spends millions in US colleges telling them how they promote civil rights for gay Israelis. Apparently they don’t understand the concept of civil rights which are universal, and not selectively chosen according to the accident of where you are born, or which group Israel has chosen for its utterly cynical PR drive.

    • seafoid says:

      + 1

      Hebron is Zionism at its purest. Audacious, religious, violent, hate-filled, self righteous, short sighted, money rolled, politically untouchable and with a very high American content.

      • patm says:

        “…and with a very high American content.” seafoid

        Who’d have thunk it?

        • Hostage says:

          “…and with a very high American content.”

          This part is interesting in that connection:

          “[A] group of young American Jewish boys got into an argument with us. They became threatening towards us, and one of them had an M16 around his waist. They became threatening towards us, and one of them had an M16 around his waist. They told us they would break our camera, they told the nearby Palestinian shop owner they would burn down his shop, they told me I would be dead on the floor…”

          Running around armed and threatening persons in an occupied territory with imminent death is, by definition, torture. That sort of sadistic and xenophobic behavior satisfies the explicit legal criteria for the imposition of “severe mental pain or suffering” in accordance with Title 18, § 2441. War crimes and Title 18 § 2340 Definitions, [Torture] (2)(C).

          Any person committing such a war crime who is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act) can be prosecuted here in the US. Of course, our government only threatens to prosecute unarmed people who try to break Israel’s illegal blockade.

        • American says:

          ““[A] group of young American Jewish boys got into an argument with us. They became threatening towards us, and one of them had an M16 around his waist. They became threatening towards us, and one of them had an M16 around his waist. They told us they would break our camera, they told the nearby Palestinian shop owner they would burn down his shop, they told me I would be dead on the floor…”

          Too bad we don’t have a video and names. We could give them some stateside exposure.

      • And why did the 600 year old Jewish presence in Hevron abruptly end in the 1920′s?
        Why?

        • I think it had something to do with European zionists…. But I am only pointing out the obvious. Does not excuse it, but is the major why. It’s all action reaction but figure out the plan. And also, two wrongs do not make a right, but if we tally wrongs I think the imbalance is stark….

          Do you often post unrelated questions like “what happened to the hundreds of Arab villages that existed in Palestine pre-1947?”

          Or do you blindly rant about the unjust things that happened to those in the tribe.

        • jonah says:

          “And why did the 600 year old Jewish presence in Hevron abruptly end in the 1920′s?”

          Probably it was here also the “very high American content”, too …?

          I don’t agree with the attitude of the Zionist movement in Hebron, but maybe it’s simply a reactive way to be on its guard in a quite hostile environment. I just wonder what would happen to this small Jewish community, if it were not protected by the IDF.
          Were Jews living in Hebron until 1929 “settlers”?

        • eGuard says:

          Why? Quite probably it has to do with the British rule from 1917. Those 600 years under Ottoman (Muslim) Empire were not that bad eh.

          Please explain to your Zionist friends over there that these Palestinians are not to blame for colonial behaviour. Now stop crying and go back to sleep.

        • Shmuel says:

          And why did the 600 year old Jewish presence in Hevron abruptly end in the 1920′s?

          So are you OK with Israeli government policy and settler actions in Hebron, or do you agree with Ben Murane and the people at Project Hayei Sarah that the current situation is intolerable and must be stopped?

        • Avi_G. says:

          proudzionist777 says:
          November 20, 2011 at 1:42 pm

          And why did the 600 year old Jewish presence in Hevron abruptly end in the 1920′s?
          Why?

          Why bring up 1920 when you can bring up a more recent event like the holocaust? The victimhood quotient there would give your argument more oomph.

          Incidentally, if killing a few Zionists in the 1920s justifies the occupation of al-Khalil and the oppression of the Palestinians there, then why aren’t you demanding the Israeli government do far worse in Germany or Austria?

        • Shingo says:

          Were Jews living in Hebron until 1929 “settlers”?

          The Ashkenazi who were the victims of the massacre were yrs.

        • seafoid says:

          Because the Palestinians knew what was coming. They knew what the Zionists wanted. And it has happened.

          They couldn’t stop their country being handed over to strangers. But they did their best. And they will retrieve it.

          They also understood the Zionists. Contemptible.

          In 1944 while the Jewish population of Hungary was being murdered in the death camps the Zionists booked 5000 out of 12000 places for Jewish refugees in Palestine for the purpose of “protecting power for veteran Zionist party members” . They didn’t ever care about ordinary Jews.

        • seafoid says:

          “but maybe it’s simply a reactive way to be on its guard in a quite hostile environment”

          What are they doing in Hebron? Is it for Moshiach ? Does Moshiach approve of the pogroms ?

        • jonah says:

          Were the victims of the massacre only “Ashkenazi settlers”?

          No, there were also indigenous Sephardi Jews among the victims. You know why? Because Rabbi Eliezer Dan Slonim Dwek, who was born in Hebron in 1900, refused to hand over the young “Ashkenazi settlers”, the Jeshiva students of his house. So he was killed on the spot by the mob, along with his wife and his 4-years-old son. His gesture was a act of true humanity and unselfishness, for which he paid with his life.

        • They were murdered in 1920 because of the bigotry of those that associated all Jews with their fears.

          It was politically motivated, ideological, not all that different from much of the ideology cited here by some of the maximalists.

          Rationalized by some stimuli to bigotry. Never justified.

          Is intentional mass murder of teenage boys EVER justified? That anyone would attempt to, is sickening.

        • Actually, the 1929 Hevron massacre began when Moslem religious fanatics fabricated rumors and doctored photos alleging desecration of the Moslem holy sites in Jerusalem by Jews. This succeeded to incite the Hevron’s Moslems into a blood frenzy that they took out on defenceless Rabbincal students and their wives and children who the Moslems raped, carved up, mutilated. The Jewish baker was thrown into his oven and baked. Stuff like that.

          Blaming settlers for the Hevron pogrom is asinine, for in truth, the mid 1920′s marked a low point in Zionist activity and immigration to Palestine and anti-Zionist agitation by the Husseinis was also at its lowest.

          I guess the Mufti and his minions needed something to get them back in the headlines.

        • seafoid says: “They couldn’t stop their country being handed over to strangers”.

          Not quite.
          The Arabs loved to sell their lands, their patrimony, to the Zionists for cash on the barrel head. The Arab-to-Zionist land sales were so brisk that the British Mandatory Authority had to pass all kinds of laws restricting Arab land sales to the Zionists. Anti-Zionist notables would preach anti-Zionism to the Arab fellahin and than secretly sell their land to the Zionists.
          These land sales persisted through the Arab Revolt of the late 1930′s and into the 1940′s as well.

        • Avi_G. says:

          proudzionist777 says:
          November 20, 2011 at 6:15 pm

          Actually, the 1929 Hevron massacre began when Moslem religious fanatics fabricated rumors and doctored photos alleging desecration of the Moslem holy sites in Jerusalem by Jews. This succeeded to incite the Hevron’s Moslems into a blood frenzy that they took out on defenceless Rabbincal students and their wives and children who the Moslems raped, carved up, mutilated. The Jewish baker was thrown into his oven and baked. Stuff like that.

          Yeah. “stuff like that”.

          I suggest that in light of your habitual lying and sick twisted commentary you go and consult a psychiatrist.

        • Avi_G. says:

          proudzionist777 says:
          November 20, 2011 at 6:24 pm

          The Arabs loved to sell their lands, their patrimony, to the Zionists for cash on the barrel head. The Arab-to-Zionist land sales were so brisk that the British Mandatory Authority had to pass all kinds of laws restricting Arab land sales to the Zionists.

          In what kind of delusional and desperate state of existence do you live that you seem to think you can peddle garbage and expect readers to buy into your childish nonsense?

          It boggles the mind.

        • Avio G asks, “Why bring up 1920 when you can bring up a more recent event like the holocaust? ”

          I bring it up because the 1929 Hevron massacre was Zionism’s ‘wake up call’. After the Hevron massacres, Zionism realized that the would have to quietly and without outside help, organize an effective, nationwide self-defense against their Arab neighbors. Zionism realized that it had ‘crossed the Rubicon’, and their was no going back.

        • See Professor Kenneth Stein’s groundbreaking work, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939. It’s also a Google Book if you don’t want to purchase it.

          C’mon Avi. More. Please.

          link to amazon.com

        • john h says:

          777, Zionism ‘crossed the Rubicon’ with Balfour, there was no going back after that.

          Zionism’s ‘wakeup call’ came with The Iron Wall, they just didn’t listen.

        • Bumblebye says:

          Pz7
          Again, during the Hebron massacre hundreds of local Jews were sheltered and saved by their Palestinian neighbors. Why not remember that? More were saved than lost. More helped than hurt.

        • Stein’s book is excellent. So is his article “Palestine’s rural economy1917-1939.”

        • The situation in Hevron IS intolerable and something must be done to make Hevron more liveable for all the residents.

        • annie says:

          the book’s description says

          Stein contends that Zionists were able to purchase the core of a national territory in Palestine during this period for three reasons: they had the single-mindedness of purpose, as well as the capital, to buy the land; the Arabs, economically impoverished, politically fragmented, and socially atomized, were willing to sell the land; and the British were largely ineffective in regulating land sales and protecting Arab tenants.

          Neither Arab opposition to land sales nor British attempts to regulate them actually limited land acquisition. There were always more Arab offers to sell land than there were Zionist funds.

          do you think we are stupid?

        • RoHa says:

          ” Zionists were able to purchase the core of a national territory in Palestine”

          Of course, land purchase does not change sovereignty.

        • The baker’s name was Noah Immerman, z”l.

          Here is a link to the eyewitness accounts of the massacre. A strong stomach is recommended.

          link to einshalom.com

        • tree says:

          The Hebron massacre was one of the end results of Jewish/Arab tensions, created for the most part by Zionists, ove sovereignty of the Wailing Wall. The Zionists wanted to stake a Jewish claim over the area that had been for centuries a Mulsim waqf. Jews could pray there but no tables or screens or any other pieces that might construe the beginnings of a synagogue were allowed there, and the Zionists consistently attempted to flaunt those restrictions in 1929. The Zionists, the majority of whom were secular, wanted to stake the claim because they thought it would earn them a following among the old yishuv religious Jews of Palestine, who mostly had little use for the new Zionists, earn them monetary support among Diaspora Jews, who were mostly uninterested in what the Zionists were selling at the time, and also figured it would be a starting point for actuating their claim to all of Palestine.

          Vincent Sheean was an American reporter who was in Palestine in the summer of 1929, and witnessed first hand the riots in Jerusalem in August of that year, that then tumbled into Hebron as the Hebron massacre. He was originally a believer in Zionism and was hired by Zionist papers to write about life in the Jewish colonies ( as they were called in those days) in Palestine. He gradually became disabused of his belief in Zionism through his experiences in Palestine and gives this first hand account of Zionist demonstrations that occurred in the week leading up to the Jerusalem riot. This is his diary entry for August 15th, one week before the riots broke out:

          Thursday, August 15th. Yesterday was the eve of Thisha ba’Av (the Ninth of Av), which the Jews of Galut call Tishabov. Today is the actual fast itself: commemoration of the destruction of the Temple. The day is particularly associated with the Wailing Wall; and with the new Jewish Agency just formed, all the Wailing Wall propaganda going full tilt, the Arabs in a rare state of anxiety, the situation was ripe for anything. Trouble, trouble and more trouble. There will be plenty. I knew nothing about it at all- didn’t even know Tishabov was so near– when Miss X arrived at the Hospice at three in the afternoon… Said she had to go to the Wailing Wall and write a telegram about it for the Times… :would I go with her and help? I couldn’t understand why, but she said there was going to be a “bust up”. …Anyhow, she said the word had been passed round and hundreds of Haluzim [Hebrew-Pioneers] were coming in during the afternoon and evening from the colonies and Tel-Aviv, ready to fight. I simply couldn’t believe all this. She said the Haluzim would be armed-”three quarters of them”-and it would be a good thing if there was a row at the Wall, to “show that we are here.” I didn’t believe a damned word of it: too fantastic; but I told her I’d be ready to go along at five o’clock, if she would come back. She said there wouldn’t be any trouble until sundown, and five o’clock would do. I went along with her when she came back. She was inconceivable cynical and flippant about the whole thing; said a row would be a very good thing for the Zionist cause, arouse world Jews and increase contributions to the new Agency. Before we reached the Wall it was evident that the police were well prepared. There were little clumps of policemen, Brititsh and Palestinian, at every turning in the road, and a force of about twenty of them on duty at the Wall itself, half in front of the Grand Mufti’s house and half at the other end. There was no excitement whatever, only about a half a dozen religious Jew and Jewesses (Oriental) praying and weeping against the Wall. Towards six, we went away to the Hotel St. John… When we returned to the Wall, a little before seven, everything had changed. There was a dense crowd, made up chiefly of Haluzim, in the little area in front of the Wall. A Yemenite Jew was chanting the lamentations, from the Book, while four other Yemenites sat around him, weeping and rocking themselves back and forth. These seemed to me to be the most sincerely religious manifestants present-they paid no atteniton to ther surroundings, but only to their lament. The rest of that crowd was spoiling for a fight. … All the people who choked the area seemed to be either people like myself, who had come out of curiosity or interest and Haluzim, who were -as Miss X said -”‘rarin’to go.” The Yemenites went on weeping and praying, throughout; they noticed nobody and nobody noticed them. Strange scene.

          …What seems to have upset them so is the new door in the Wall. I actually saw one revolver, but don’t know who the man was who had it (hip pocket). There were only two actual ‘incidents’. In the first a Christian Arab whom I did not see was accused of mocking the services. I heard cries of “Notzri!” and saw the Haluzim shoving, but the police took the man out safely. Then there was an Arab in white clothes who walkied thorugh the place three times – did nothing, simply walked. I believe he was unmolested the first time, although there were angry murmurs. The second time he came through the Haluzim started to leap on him, but the police took him through without difficulty. The third time he appeared, the police wouldn’t let him go on– made him turn back. Very wise of them, for that crowd was in no mood to stand any kind of “incident” without serious trouble. But in this incident the shouts of the Haluzim must certainly have been far more disturbing to the prayers of the religious Jews than the Arab’s progress through the street would have been.

          Both the Arabs and the police must have been warned of this invasion from the colonies, for there was evidence of preparation. For instance, the Arabs remained invisible, the Mufti’s windows were closed and shuttered at about 7:30 so that he wouldn’t have to look at the mob milling around; the police were in force and vigilant. The behavior of this crowd at the wall of the mosque was, I consider, damned insulting. If I were an Arab I should be angry, very angry, and I don’t for a minute think the thing is over.

          X was incredibly cynical. I don’t believe she’s ever seen anybody wounded, or even seen a street fight; she can’t understand the awfulness of the things she said last night….X was indescribable–apparently enjoyed the impression of horror she was making on me. Said there was bound to be trouble’ if not tonight, tomorrow’; ‘we have to show we are here’;and ‘it won’t do a bit of harm if a couple of people get hurt.” I tried to tell her… what this kind of thing meant, what it could lead to. God knows I’ve seen enough of it in my time. She only laughed. I think she thought I was crazy to take it so hard. According to her, it can’t do any harm and will only bring in the shekels.I told her she had definitely killed any remnant of sympathy I had for the Zionist movement….All the time we sat there we could hear the tramp of the Haluzim coming in and marching round the walls. If they were religious at all, if anybody thought they did it for motives of religion, it wouldn’t be so terrible. But doing it as they do it, it’s bound to come to something pretty bad.

          I don’t know yet what happened during the rest of the night and this morning. There were probably minor clashes, but nothing as sensational as these people hoped for. The Arabs shut up their houses and remained invisible, and that’s the one thing that saved the situation. X says they had laid a supply of extra stretchers at the Hadassah Hospital to provide for the casualties expected last night. I must go out and see what has happened.

          —Pages 354-357, Personal History, Vincent Sheean.

          After a week of such demonstrations by Haluzim at the Wailing Wall,including the raising of Zionist flags, and a counter demonstration by Arabs where chairs and tables (not allowed under the status quo ) were knocked down, and prayer slips were removed from the Wall, and after an altercation on a soccer field in which a Jewish boy was killed, the riots finally broke out on August 23rd, exactly as Sheean had predicted they would. According to the British Commission that investigated the riots, the first casualties were two Arabs killed by a grenade tossed by a Jew. Its uncertain whether the grenade was thrown in self-defense or not. In any case the casualties in Jerusalem were 87 Arabs and 120 Jews killed. The British blamed both sides for the riot.

          More on Sheean here:

          link to traces.org

          and here:

          link to maushard.com

        • Bumblebye says:

          pz7
          Does it include accounts of the hundreds of people who were saved from the massacre? If not it is remiss.

        • RoHa says:

          Good account, tree.

          But

          “the Zionists consistently attempted to flaunt those restrictions in 1929.”

          That should be “attempted to flout those restrictions.

          “Flaunt” means “display proudly, show off”.

          “Flout” means “disobey scornfully”.

        • tree says:

          Thanks, RoHa. I know the difference but that doesn’t stop me from making that particular spelling/grammatical mistake often. Hopefully, your reminder will make it harder for me to make the same mistake in the future. But… no promises.

        • tree says:

          Is intentional mass murder of teenage boys EVER justified? That anyone would attempt to, is sickening.

          Unless, of course, its part of Cast Lead, or some of that “hold your nose” kind of ethnic cleansing stuff that the Israelis are so good at. Then, its the “greater good” and all.

        • Shmuel says:

          The situation in Hevron IS intolerable and something must be done to make Hevron more liveable for all the residents.

          Like what?

        • annie says:

          Shmuel , ben has the answer

          link to mondoweiss.net

          specifically scroll down to my response here

          link to mondoweiss.net

          i would really appreciate your input on this btw. it’s very much out of my range but i like what i hear. is my interpretation correct?

        • Shmuel says:

          annie,

          Thanks for your post and comments about Ben and Project Hayei Sarah. Your interpretation (and empathy) are exactly right. Just one small correction – the Sabbath on which the portion of Hayei Sarah (“The Life of Sarah” – Gen. 23:1-25:18) is read is not a “special day in the Jewish calendar”. That is a recent invention of the settler movement – part religio-national ritual and part PR stunt.

        • seafoid says:

          RoHa says:
          November 20, 2011 at 9:23 pm
          ” Zionists were able to purchase the core of a national territory in Palestine”

          6% of the land is not core.

          If investors on Wall St. own 6% of a company’s shares do they get the controlling vote on the board?

        • RoHa says:

          You noticed I was quoting the blurb on Stein’s book, I hope.

        • Shingo says:

          No, there were also indigenous Sephardi Jews among the victims.

          Yes, 5 of the 65.

          His gesture was a act of true humanity and unselfishness, for which he paid with his life.

          Palestinians also gave shelter to the Hebron Jews – was that not a true humanity and unselfishness too?

        • Shingo says:

          Actually, the 1929 Hevron massacre began when Moslem religious fanatics fabricated rumors and doctored photos alleging desecration of the Moslem holy sites in Jerusalem by Jews.

          False. Hebron was a reaction to the violence that erupted in Jerusalem a few days prior to it, which was created by tensions between the indigenous non-Jewish population and the newly arrived Zionists, and reached a deadly boiling point after a Zionist demonstration at the Wailing Wall which included the raising of the Zionist flag. Both Arabs and Jews were killed in nearly equal measure in the few days of violence that consumed Jerusalem, but hasbarists won’t mention that because it doesn’t fit the narrative of poor innocent Jews slaughtered by Arabs, since both sides engaged in horrendous acts there.

          According to all accounts, the massacre in Hebron was mostly instigated by those living outside of Hebron, apparently on having heard rumors of Jews killing Arabs in Jerusalem. (Which were true, but Arabs were likewise killing Jews as well at the same time.) Over a third of the dead were yeshiva students from a Lithuanian yeshiva set up in Palestine in 1924. The majority of dead were Ashkenazi (European Jews), but there were a few Sephardic Jews killed as well. Most of the Jews of Hebron survived by seeking shelter with Arab friends and their families. Most of the 400 or so Jews left immediately after the massacre, but many had returned by 1930. The British were the ones who ordered all Jews out of Hebron in 1936, claiming that they could not protect them in Hebron during the Arab Revolt that started in that year. One Jew remained, unmolested, until he decided to leave in 1947 in the wake of the Partition Plan which alloted Hebron to the Arab State.

          It’s also ironic that Hebron Jewish settlers, who invoke the 1929 massacre to justify their “right” to the land, hail Baruch Goldstein as a hero for killing 29 Palestinians in a shooting rampage in Hebron 1994. I suppose only Jewish life matters to them?

        • Shingo says:

          do you think we are stupid?

          Clearly they think so Annie.

          I love this bit.

          There were always more Arab offers to sell land than there were Zionist funds.

          So in spite fo Arabs falling ober one another to seel their land, Zionists were only able to tome up with the cash to buy 7%.

          Of course, the recommendation from Werdine is the kiss of death to the credibility of any book.

        • Shingo says:

          A strong stomach is recommended.

          A much stronger one is needed when reading eyewitness accounts of the massacre in Deir Yassin. Of course, unlike Hebron, there were no Jews offering protecting to the victims.

        • jonah says:

          “Palestinians also gave shelter to the Hebron Jews – was that not a true humanity and unselfishness too?”

          Of course it was. But the problem were the others, the mob of Jew-killers who slaughtered indiscriminately men, women and children. As long as the majority of the Palestinians tollerate and even support the terrorist minority of Jew-killers in its center, there is no reason for the Hebron Jews – and Jews in general – to stand by idly and expose themselves to other massacres. Modern Jews are willing and ready to defend themselves, although many may not like it.

        • eljay says:

          RW wrote:
          >> It was politically motivated, ideological, not all that different from much of the ideology cited here by some of the maximalists.
          >> Rationalized by some stimuli to bigotry. Never justified.
          >> Is intentional mass murder of teenage boys EVER justified? That anyone would attempt to, is sickening.

          Hmmm…
          ———————–
          The details of the crimes committed by Zionist terrorist organizations in 1948 are recorded in this chapter by date and are verbatim reports photocopied from the War Office, Colonial Office and Foreign Office files i d Public Record Office, Kew Gardens, Surrey, the United Kingdom. Following is a summary of the types of crimes committed by Zionist terrorists in 1948:

          1. Sneak attacks on many Arab villages, resulting in the death of many men, women and children.
          . . .
          3. Blowing up of Arab houses…
          . . .
          4. Firing on Arab cars and killing many Arabs.
          . . .
          7. Firing into cafes and streets and cars, killing many innocent civilians.
          . . .
          10. Throwing hand grenades into churches.
          . . .
          12. Throwing bombs into Arab markets, killing and injuring many men, women and children.

          13. Blowing up of trains and killing many passengers…
          ———————–

          >> RW: If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.

          Immoral hypocrite.

        • seafoid says:

          Jonah , habibi
          You need to tone down the rhetoric.

          If Israelis die in political violence that flows from the occupation they die as Israelis. Jews in Israel have agency, you know. That means responsibility and it means understanding consequences.

          ” Modern Jews are willing and ready to defend themselves, although many may not like it.”

          YESHA has nothing to do with self defence.

          Modern Jews don’t understand how to use political power . That is the main problem. Don’t worry. There will be plenty of time to analyse the problem back in Galut when it is all over.

        • Donald says:

          “RW: If I was an adult in 1948, I probably would have supported whatever it took to create the state of Israel, and held my nose at actions that I could not possibly do myself.”

          Immoral hypocrite.”–eljay

          I’ve interacted with him for years and I don’t think he understands himself. He’s utterly “sincere”, to use one of his favorite terms, and he’s also incapable of understanding your point. This is a guy who doesn’t hesitate to use the strongest language to condemn atrocities against Jews, which is reasonable, but will spend years telling people who use the same harsh language about Israeli atrocities that they are wrong to do so. He really doesn’t see the problem. It really makes one a little depressed about the human race, since so many people are like him in this respect.

        • eljay says:

          >> It really makes one a little depressed about the human race, since so many people are like him in this respect.

          Yup. But as bad as RW and guys like him are, guys like eee are even worse. They’re the goons who’ll have no qualms about doing the dirty work that guys like RW support but are too squeamish to undertake.

          In either case, their ability to rationalize and dismiss their own hypocrisy and immorality is astounding.

        • pjdude says:

          you do it all the time witty.

          they were harmed because zionism turned all jews into weapons against the native arabs.

        • pjdude says:

          like spelling the name correctly and not judaizing the name in an attempt to erase the arab history of palestine.

        • jonah says:

          Seafoid, yakiri

          Not just rhetoric, I’m afraid. If the “political violence” (aka terrorism) flows from the “occupation”, as you state, we get in trouble to explain quite a lot of acts of Palestinian violence that can not be attributed to the “occupation”, unless the Palestinians means as “occupation” the very Jewish presence in Israel, the very existence of Israel als Jewish state.
          The Hebron massacre of 1929 was the first serious act of violence against Jews during the British Mandate for Palestine, later occurred similar other massacres committed by both sides. But then, in 1929, there was no “occupation” yet. There were tensions between the two nationalistic movements, there had been already riots in 1920 and 1921, true, but the situation in the twenties was far from being a threat to the Arabs of Palestine. According to the British census, in 1929 the Jews were not more than 15% of the population, for a total of about 150,000 inhabitants. The Arabs made ​​up the majority of 80-85% for a total of 850,000 people. Besides, parallel to the aliyahs, the flow of Arab immigrants from neighboring countries, “attracted by the improving agricultural conditions and growing job opportunities, most of them created by the Jews” (Gilbert), never came to a stop.
          So how was it possible that the Jewish Hebron community became the easy target of such a primitive destructive aggression by their Arab neighbors? That was not simply a reaction to any kind of “occupation”, that was sheer (mass) murder of innocent people, istigated by local Arab leaders. Other solutions were possible, peaceful and negotiated solutions. But even then, the Arabs chose the path of violence.
          This first act of savagery against the Jews of Palestine already contains in nuce the pattern of Arab-Palestinian violence, whose motivation goes far beyond mere “occupation”. This is often just a good excuse for the “political violence”.

        • Shingo says:

          unless the Palestinians means as “occupation” the very Jewish presence in Israel, the very existence of Israel als Jewish state.

          There was a jewish presence long before Zionists began arrivign. The occupation means the conquest by European settlers in Palestine.

          The Hebron massacre of 1929 was the first serious act of violence against Jews during the British Mandate for Palestine, later occurred similar other massacres committed by both sides.

          No, the only massacres were those perpetrated by Zionists.

          But then, in 1929, there was no “occupation” yet.

          There was the threat of expulsion adn occupation. If immigrants began arrving en masse in the US and decalraign their plans to expell Americans, they would be considered occupiers.

          Besides, parallel to the aliyahs, the flow of Arab immigrants from neighboring countries, “attracted by the improving agricultural conditions and growing job opportunities, most of them created by the Jews” (Gilbert), never came to a stop.

          That acconts for no more than 5% of the Arab population.

          So how was it possible that the Jewish Hebron community became the easy target of such a primitive destructive aggression by their Arab neighbors?

          Becasue violence on all sides was already taking place, and rumors of murders perpetratred by Ashkenzi Jews led to a response.

          Other solutions were possible, peaceful and negotiated solutions.

          The Zionisst have NEVER been interested in peaceful and negotiated solutions.

        • jonah says:

          “The Zionisst have NEVER been interested in peaceful and negotiated solutions.”

          This only is worth to be refuted: link to meforum.org

          The rest of your reply is just the usual obstructive non-sense.

        • Shingo says:

          meforum.org

          Danil Pipes hah?

          Erly as 1914, Ben Gurion already decaled his plans to turn Palestine into a Jewish majority ie. expell the Palestinians.

          BTW. Your link also mentions Israel Zangwil, who had thsi to say as early as 1897:

          “Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ….. [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us.”
          (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)

          The rest of your reply is just the usual obstructive non-sense.

          Translation: You have no congent response.

          Wasn’t it you Jonah, who posted the lie a few months ago that the Hebnron massacre was directed at indigienous Jews?

        • jonah says:

          If all these early Zionists planed so long in advance to expel the Arab Palestinians from what would become the future Jewish state, and with the civil war first and the Arab-Israeli war then, they had actually – merciless as they were – the golden chance to implement their master plan to the end, so why do today live more than a million and half Palestinians in Israel, not to mention all the millions in the territories?

          You will of couse explain me this strange negligence of the Zionists, will you?

        • So in 1914, while the Ottoman Empire still stood, Ben Gurion already planned to ‘expel the Palestinians’.
          Well that’s a gutsy maneuver!

          Shingo. Please provide us with your Ben Gurion cite.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          You can’t deny that the Nakba was planned. Dalet-planned, even.

        • Shingo says:

          so why do today live more than a million and half Palestinians in Israel, not to mention all the millions in the territories?

          Oh Jonah, you can’t seriously be that thick. How is this negligence?

          Ben Gurion said that the Jews would become a majority in 1914. They achieved that aim with the expulsion of the Palestinians in 1947-1948 and again in 1967. The fact that there are a million and half Palestinians in Israel today does not contradict that in any way.

          As for the occupied territories, Israel doesn’t even recgonize their rights as human beings.

        • RobertB says:

          Past Zionist-Jewish Terrorism -

          Some Historical Facts

          From A Concerned American

          “Following are just a few of the many massacres committed by Jewish-Zionist terrorists, notably by the Zionist Hagana, Irgun and Stern Gang groups.

          Don’t expect any Hollywood films highlighting any of these massacres:

          1. King David Hotel, July 22, 1946.
          2. Sharafat, Feb. 7, 1951.
          3. Deir Yassin, April 10, 1948.
          4. Falameh, April 2, 1951.
          5. Naseruddine, April 14, 1948.
          6. Quibya, Oct. 14, 1953.
          7. Carmel, April 20, 1948.
          8. Nahalin, March, 28, 1954.
          9. Al-Qabu, May 1, 1948.
          10. Gaza, Feb. 28, 1955.
          11. Beit Kiras, May 3, 1948.
          12. Khan Yunis, May 31, 1955.
          13. Beitkhoury, May 5, 1948.
          14. Khan Yunis Again, Aug. 31, 1955
          15. Az-Zaytoun, May 6, 1948.
          16. Tiberia, Dec. 11, 1955.
          17. Wadi Araba, May 13, 1950.
          18. As-Sabha, Nov. 2, 1955.
          19. Gaza Again, April 5, 1956.
          20. Houssan, Sept. 25, 1956.
          21. Rafa, Aug. 16, 1956.
          22. Qalqilyah, Oct. 10, 1956.
          23. Ar-Rahwa, Sept. 12, 1956.
          24. Kahr Kassem, Oct. 29, 1956.
          25. Gharandal, Sept. 13, 1956.
          26. Gaza Strip, Nov. 1956.
          26. Gaza Strip, Nov. 1956.

          July 2, 1946: The King David Hotel in Jerusalem was bombed, killing 91 people.

          Menachem Begin, who was later awarded the Nobel Prize for peace, is the same man who planned the destruction of the King David Hotel and the massacre of Deir Yassin. Ex prime minister, Shamir, was originally a member of the Jewish terrorist gang called Irgun, which was headed by none other than Menachem Begin. Shamir later moved over to the even more radical “Stern Gang,” which committed many vicious atrocities.

          Shamir himself has defended the various assassinations committed by the Irgun and Stern gangs on the grounds that “it was the only way we could operate, because we were so small. So it was more efficient and more moral to go for selected targets.” The selected moral targets in those early days of the founding of the state of Israel included bombing of the King David Hotel and the massacre of Deir Yassin.

          April 9, 1948: A combined force of Irgun and Stern Gangs committed a brutal massacre of 260 Arab residents of the village of Deir Yassin. Most of whom were women and children. The Israeli hordes even attacked the dead to satisfy their bestial tendencies. In April, 1954, during Holy Week, and on the eve of Easter, The Christian cemeteries in Haifa were invaded, crosses broken down and trampled under the feet of these miscreants, and the tombs desecrated. The Israeli military conquest, therefore was made against a defenseless people, who had been softened up by such earlier massacres as Deir Yasin (where 250 Arabs; men, women and children were massacred). ”

          ~~~~~~~~~~

          Click on link for the rest:

          link to rense.com

        • Taxi says:

          Thanks RobertB.

        • jonah says:

          “The fact that there are a million and half Palestinians in Israel today does not contradict that in any way.”

          The iron logic of the anti-Zionists never ceases to amaze me.

        • RoHa says:

          I suspect that part of the difficulty people have with this comes from the fact that when people flout the law they usually flaunt their disobedience.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          And growing, jonah! Hang on to your Jewish majority! If you can.

        • tree says:

          The iron logic of the anti-Zionists never ceases to amaze me.

          So are you trying to say that because there is a minority of Palestinians in Israel today, that means that the Zionist did not plan and execute a massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their land?

          You should be wary of saying that, because that same idiotic convoluted logic could be applied to the Holocaust: Hitler must not have meant to exterminate the Jews because there are still millions of Jews today. Same stupid argument as yours, different circumstances.

          There were only 150,000 Palestinians left in what became Israel in 1948. Only around 50,000 of them had avoided being ethnically cleansed at all, out of a total of somewhere around a million Palestinians in the territory Israel claimed for its own. Another 40 or 50 thousand Palestinians lived on land annexed into Israel under the terms of an armistice with Jordan, with the agreement that the inhabitants could not be ethnically cleansed. And another 50,000 or so managed to sneak back into their homeland after being expelled and avoid subsequent deportation by Israel(many who snuck back were discovered and re-deported).

          Most of those who avoided ethnic cleansing in the first place were in the Galilee area and the importance of Nazareth to Western Christian interests was the primary reason that Israel felt constrained not to order a massive expulsion from Nazareth, where many Palestinians other nearby areas had sought refuge along with the city’s inhabitants. Actually, Ben Gurion had originally ordered the expulsion but the Israeli commander, Ben Dunkelman refused the order, having previously promised the surrendered city’s inhabitants that no harm would come to them. He was relieved of duty for his refusal, but BG re-thought the expulsion, fearing possible Western Christian opposition, and canceled the expulsion order.

          This is elemental Zionist history. That you have to be reminded of it constantly simply proves to me that you are speaking from ignorance and are perfectly contented to do so. Ignorance is acceptable and understandable: willful ignorance is reprehensible.

        • And how many Arabs did Israel invite to have Israeli citizenship when Israel annexed East Jerusalem? 250,000?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Great, you invited Arabs to become part of marginalized, segregated communities that get as little as a quarter of the funding per person in various societal services and needs as Jews in Israel get from the government — and until recently, wouldn’t have even merited “Israeli” on their official ID to boot.

          Gee, wow, hard to believe Palestinians took a pass on scrubbing Israeli toilets.

        • tree says:

          And how many Arabs did Israel invite to have Israeli citizenship when Israel annexed East Jerusalem? 250,000?

          Actually, Israel only invited them to APPLY for Israeli citizenship. There was no guarantee from Israel that it would accept all applications, and, in applying for Israeli citizenship, the East Jerusalemites had to relinquish their Jordanian citizenship and any rights they had as Jordanian citizens. Since the annexation itself was illegal under international law, the “invitation” really wasn’t all that attractive when it was given and Israel was well aware of this. It was given more to appease international interests rather than any desire to deal equitably with the residents of East Jerusalem. Even if every East Jerusalemite had taken Israel up on the offer, the number would not have been considered a “demographic threat”, and its certain that Israel did not seriously believe that it would have a large number of takers.

        • Shingo says:

          The iron logic of the anti-Zionists never ceases to amaze me.

          I’m sure any logic would seem amazing to you Jonah.

        • This is not a cite, bro. It’s an ellipsis.

        • jonah says:

          Let’s soften the tone for sensitive ears …

          “This is elemental Zionist history.”

          Your version of elemental Zionist history, I would add. Not all have to agree with the theories of Rashid Khalidi or Ilan Pappe. History and reality of the ME conflict are not a one-way street….
          But maybe you can help me clarify a couple of basic questions that keep buzzing around in my head:
          How explain that Israel, whose intrinsic founding Zionism – as you say – planned and carried out the forced expulsion of the Arab population in its almost entirely, has now a large and growing Arab minority of a million and a half with equal rights, while the entire Arab world now has only some small enclaves of a few thousand Jews, probably destined to disappear with the time? And how can we explain that the Palestinians, who – we hear time again – never opposed and fought the presence of native Jews but only the Zionist/Israeli invaders, already pointed out that they do not want to have a Jewish minority in a future Palestinian state?
          link to haaretz.com

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Growing so fast, in fact, that the Arab population will probably overtake the Jewish population — especially in light of the fact that Israel is angling to annex the whole West Bank.

          What will you do when the Arabs outnumber you again? Resume killing them openly in the streets, like you did in 1947?

        • Shingo says:

          But maybe you can help me clarify a couple of basic questions that keep buzzing around in my head:

          Seeing as you’ve had this explained to you countless times already, I doubt you’ll get your bussing head around it, but here goes:

          1. Tree already explained to you in his post (November 22, 2011 at 6:27 pm) only 50,000 Palestinians out fo 1 million avoided being ethnically cleansed and a totola of 150,000 remained within the artimistice lines. That population has become 1.5 million today. As Tree expalained, there fact that there are millions of Jews today does not mean there was no Holocaust.

          2. The reason only some small enclaves of a few thousand Jews remain in Arab lands is becasue they migrated to Israel.

          3. The Palestinians have not said they would not allow Jews into a Palestinian state. The source of that statement, USA Today, printed a correction that Areikat was referring to Israelis, not Jews.

          Clarification: In the headline and story, Palestinian Ambassador Maen Areikat says he was referring to Israelis, not Jews, when he stated that “it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated first.”
          link to usatoday.com

          Hopefully that should suffice until the next time you bneing up these carnards.

        • jonah says:

          Chaos – you didn’t address my questions, instead you dispayed a emotional mix of revanche (“Arabs will outnumber you again”) and fear (“you will resume killing them”). In doing so, you were unknowingly able to display the two main negative emotions that characterize this conflict. The solution is however in a more pragmatic and balanced approach.

        • jonah says:

          Shingo –

          1) There wasn’t a Zionist master plan for the expulsion of the Arab population, that means: no pre-planned Zionist ethnic cleansing. The Arab population escaped the flaring fights, often pressed by local Arab leaders with the promise to return soon after the defeat of the Jews, and when expulsions occurred, this happened primarily out of strategic and military considerations. If there had really been a master plan of ethnic cleansing hatched in a Zionist bunker, as you buddies claim without providing clear evidence, 157000 Palestinians would and should not have remained in their villages in the new state of Israel, because by definition the purpose of a plan of forcible population transfer is a total and permanent removal of the minority problem, as seen in many cases of ethnic cleansing in Europe and beyond, while a plan that leaves an unwanted minority in the country, which can become a threat to the future, is per se a stillborn, a failed plan. So how to explain that the cynically calculating, ruthless Zionist leaders put together a master plan, envisaged from the earliest origins of the movement, which they were unfortunately unable or unwilling to complete, causing a potential damage to the future stability of the country? Because, in truth, there was no master plan.

          2) When 700000 Palestinians leave their homes it’s forcible transfer and ethnic cleansing, but when a million Jews leave their homes it’s simply voluntary emigration …. Seems convincing.

          3) Are the Muslim Palestinian and Arab citizens of Israel rather Arabs, Palestinians or Muslims, what do you think?
          If I would say: Palestinians have no right to live in Israel, would you think first of the Palestinians, the Arabs or the Muslims?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          True or false — Israel PAID Jews to leave the rest of the Middle East. And they handed landed to Middle Eastern Jews that used to belong to Palestinians, in reward for emigrating.

          I’m so sick of the Nakba/Holocaust denial that’s tolerated here, quite frankly, and I think it should be banned, but if we have to keep coming after Zionists with pooper scoopers and cleaning up the nasty, smelly messes they leave behind when they post, so be it.

        • annie says:

          If there had really been a master plan of ethnic cleansing hatched in a Zionist bunker, as you buddies claim without providing clear evidence

          looks pretty clear to me jonah. what do you require, a soundtrack?

          often pressed by local Arab leaders

          and where’s your clear evidence of that?

        • jonah says:

          I’m so sick of the Nakba/Holocaust denial that’s tolerated here

          The irrationalist approach to the ME conflict become once more evident with the strained, arbitrary and entirely unhistorical comparison between “Nakba” and “Holocaust”. Quite far away from reality and intellectual/moral decency.

        • Shingo says:

          Jonah,

          Zionism is based on strained, arbitrary and entirely unhistorical believes as well as being far away from reality and intellectual/moral decency. As Moshe Sharett explained it:

          “I have learned that the state of Israel cannot be ruled in our generation without deceit and adventurism. These are historical facts that cannot be altered. . . In the end, history will justify both the stratagems and deceit and the acts of adventurism. All I know is that I, Moshe Sharett, am not capable of them, and I am therefore unsuited to lead this country” (Simha Flapan, p. 52-53).

          In other word, what Moshe Sharett is saying that the “Jewish state” is incapable of surviving without lying to its citizens and the rest of the world; in fact it has been national security for the “Jewish state” to do so.

          You are just another example of what Sharett was talking about.

        • Shingo says:

          Jonah,

          1) Benny Morris already debunked the myth about the Arab population fleeing at the behest of local Arab leaders with the promise to return soon after the defeat of the Jews.

          If there had really been a master plan of ethnic cleansing hatched in a Zionist bunker, as you buddies claim without providing clear evidence, 157000 Palestinians would and should not have remained in their villages in the new state of Israel

          As has been explained to you, only 50,000 remained. Another 50,000 we displaced within Israel and a further 50,000 snuck back in. The fect that the plan was not carried out to 100% completion does not prove there wasn’t one.

          because by definition the purpose of a plan of forcible population transfer is a total and permanent removal of the minority problem, as seen in many cases of ethnic cleansing in Europe and beyond

          On the contrary. In all casess of ethnci cleasing, there are examples of some elements of the targeteed population remaining. There was cerainyl a master plan, but in war, no plan goes 100% according to plan.

          2) When 700000 Palestinians leave their homes it’s forcible transfer and ethnic cleansing, but when a million Jews leave their homes it’s simply voluntary emigration …. Seems convincing.

          It’s no uncovbincing, you simply refuse to accept it. The 800,000 Palestinians did not “leave their homes”, they were forced to leave at gun point under fear of murder. Meanwhile, this did not happen to the Jews who migrated to Israel over a period of decades.

          3)

          If I would say: Palestinians have no right to live in Israel, would you think first of the Palestinians, the Arabs or the Muslims?

          You knw perfectly well that the term Palestinian refers to an ethbnicity, whereas Israeli referst to a nationality. Thus, conflating Israeli with Palestinian is entirely false until a state called Palestine is allowed to emerge.

          Why do you even bother to play such grossly dishonest games Jonah? Do you think you’re going to convince anyone?

        • jonah says:

          The way you quote and interpret Sharett shows that you are not really in touch with the meaning of his words. Just too superficial.

        • jonah says:

          Shingo -

          It’s somehow ironic that you call Benny Morris to your aid, since he made it clear and mantained that the Palestinians’ expulsion was born out of war rather than design. Probably you think of Pappe but you say Morris, because the first would prove all too well your bias.

          Where is it written that the Zionists, Ben Gurion himself, wanted a 80-90% Jewish majority in the new-born state? Where are the blueprints of a master plan? Simple allegations borrowed from the likes of Pappe or Khalidi are rather the proof of the contrary, no evidence at all.

          You are in denial of the fact that Arab countries adopted anti-Jewish policies even before the creation of Israel and hardened them in the year and decades to come until the indigenous Jewish communities were completely destroyed. The true ethnic cleansing was perpetrated by the Arab states, in reprisal for the founding of the Jewish state.

          As said above, if the primary purpose of Zionism was to build a purely Jewish – - “Arab-free” – state or a state with overhelming Jewish majority, we can not explain why today there are a million and half Palestinians – at least 20 per cent of the present-day population – living in Israel and other millions in the disputed territories, whereas there are only a handful of remaining Jews throughout the Arab world. The reality speaks volumes.

          Last but not least, there are many accounts that support the argument that a good part of the Arab population was urged, even ordered and threaten, to leave their homes. Here is a small selection:

          Kenneth O.Bilby, the correspondent in Palestine for the New York Herald Tribune during the War of Independence wrote in a book published shortly afterwards that said:

          “The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.

          After the war, the Palestine Arab leaders did try to help people — including their own — to forget that it was they who had called for the exodus in the early spring of 1948. They now blamed the leaders of the invading Arab states themselves. These had added their voices to the exodus call, though not until some weeks after the Palestine Arab Higher Committee had taken a stand.”
          – Kenneth O. Bilby, New Star in the Middle East, (Doubleday, 1950).

          The British news magazine The Economist, no friend of Israel or the Zionist movement, reported on October 2, 1948, while the war was still in progress, that

          “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in [the Palestinian, now Israeli, city of] Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit… It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”

          On May 3, 1948, the American news magazine Time reported that

          “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city…. By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”

          Sir Alan Cunningham, the last high commissioner for the British administration of Palestine, which was in the process of withdrawing from the country while the fighting raged, wrote to the Colonial Office in London on February 22, 1948, and again on April 28, 1948, that

          “British authorities in Haifa have formed the impression that total evacuation is being urged on the Haifa Arabs from higher Arab quarters and that the townsfolk themselves are against it.”

          John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, said: “Villages were frequently abandoned even before they were threatened by the progress of war” (London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948).

          The American consulate in Haifa had telegraphed Washington on April 25 that “local Mufti-dominated Arab leaders urge all Arabs (to) leave (the) city [Haifa] and large numbers are going.” Three days later the consulate followed up this communication with another that said, “reportedly Arab Higher Committee ordering all Arabs (to) leave.”

          On April 23, Jamal Husseini, the Acting Chairman for the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine , admitted as much in a speech to the United Nations Security Council:

          The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce. They rather preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town. This is in fact what they did.

          And on April 27, 1950, only two years after the Arab evacuation of Haifa, the Arab National Committee of Haifa asserted in a memorandum submitted to the governments of the Arab states that

          The removal of the Arab inhabitants… was voluntary and was carried out at our request… The Arab delegation proudly asked for the evacuation of the Arabs and their removal to the neighboring Arab countries…. We are very glad to state that the Arabs guarded their honour and traditions with pride and greatness…. When the [Arab]delegation entered the conference room [for negotiations with the Jewish authorities in Haifa] it proudly refused to sign the truce and asked that the evacuation of the Arab population and their transfer to neighboring Arab countries be facilitated.

          In June 1949, only six months after the conclusion of hostilities, Sir John Troutbeck, the head of the British Middle East office in Cairo and, according to historian Efraim Karsh, “no friend to Israel or the Jews,” made a visit to Gaza and interviewed some of the Arab refugees there. Troutbeck reported that he had learned from these interviews that the refugees

          “…express no bitterness against the Jews (or for that matter against the Americans or ourselves) [but] they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states. “We know who our enemies are,” they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their home… I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over.”

          And the Palestinian Arab newspaper Falastin, only a month after the war ended (Feb. 19, 1949), reported that

          “The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees.”

          And a Jaffa paper, As Sarih (March 30, 1948) excoriated Arab villagers near Tel Aviv for “bringing down disgrace on us all by ‘abandoning the villages.”

        • Shingo says:

          The way you quote and interpret Sharett shows that you are not really in touch with the meaning of his words. Just too superficial.

          In other words, the quote sucks from a Zionist perspective and you have no rebuttal, so you’ll merely resort to arguing that the intepreptation is superficial, while of course, offering no alternat

        • Shingo says:

          jonah ,

          There’s no irony in the fact that Morris states catergorically that there is no evidence of orders given by Arab leaders to leave their homes. Morris after all, argus that there was no plan to expell the Palestinians, while simultaernously arguing that the problems in Palestine would have been averted had Ben Gurion “finished the job” of expulsion.

          The fact that a historian who agrees with you on one aspect of 1948 refutes you on another, which you ignore, proves your own bias.

          Where is it written that the Zionists, Ben Gurion himself, wanted a 80-90% Jewish majority in the new-born state?

          Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:

          We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ….. Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about “the mutual misunderstanding” between us and the Arabs, about “common interests” [and] about “the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples.” ….. [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ….. for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)

          Moshe Sharett also said that:

          “There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews’ entry into Palestine. The state of Israel must, from time to time, prove clearly that it is strong, and able and willing to use force, in a devastating and highly effective way. When the Jewish state is established, it is very possible that the result will be transfer of Arabs. We are equally determined to explore all possibilities of getting rid, once and for all, of the huge Arab minority which originally threatened us. By the reduction of the Arabs on the one hand and Jewish immigration in the transition period on the other, we will ensure an absolute Hebrew majority in a parliamentary regime. Transfer could be the crowning achievement, the final stage in the development of policy, but certainly not the point of departure.”

          Ben Gurion said that:

          “To maintain the status quo will not do. We have to set up a dynamic state bent upon expansion. Take the American Declaration of Independence for instance. It contains no mention of the territorial limits. We are not obliged to state the limits of our State. After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.

          Where are the blueprints of a master plan? Simple allegations borrowed from the likes of Pappe or Khalidi are rather the proof of the contrary, no evidence at all.

          It’s a histical fact that the orders were passed down to military commanders to cleanse the area of Palestinians. Yitzak Rabin stated clearly Ben Gurion was very clear as to what he expected them to do. Rabin also documented how the orders to expless the Palestinians had trasmatized many of the young Jewish members of the Haganah.

          You are in denial of the fact that Arab countries adopted anti-Jewish policies even before the creation of Israel and hardened them in the year and decades to come until the indigenous Jewish communities were completely destroyed.

          The Zionists arrived with blatantly anti Palestinian policies. How else does one explain Hafrada? No indigenous Jewish communities were completely destroyed. They were left behind by Jews migrating to Israel.

          The true ethnic cleansing was perpetrated by the Arab states, in reprisal for the founding of the Jewish state.

          The founding of Israel was based on true ethnic cleansing. After all, how else would a Jewish state have been achieved without it? As Ben Gurion admitetd, even a 60% Jewish majority would never have been sufficient to create a Jewish state.

          As said above, if the primary purpose of Zionism was to build a purely Jewish – – “Arab-free” – state or a state with overhelming Jewish majority, we can not explain why today there are a million and half Palestinians

          Does the fact that there are 15 million Jews in the world disprove that Jitelr set out to destroy the Jewish population?

          The reality speaks volumes.

          The fact that Jews in the Middle East chose to migrate to Israel simply proves that they migrated. It does not stand as evidence of any kind of expulsion.

          Last but not least, there are many accounts that support the argument that a good part of the Arab population was urged, even ordered and threaten, to leave their homes.

          This has all been debunked. There are letters and orders from the leades fo the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine ordering the Palestinians to remain.

          Kenneth O.Bilby’s account is irrelevalnt. Husseini had been in exile for 11 years and ceased to have any following by 1948.

          The British news magazine The Economist, no friend of Israel or the Zionist movement, reported on October 2, 1948, while the war was still in progress, that

          This was debunked too. There is no evidence or record of any announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive calling for anyone to leave.

          Dtto teh reports by Time.

          Sir Alan Cunningham, the last high commissioner for the British administration of Palestine,

          Cunningham is not a credible source. The British were actualyl aiding the Zionuist militias in carrying out the expulsion in Tiberius and Jafah.

          John Bagot Glubb, the commander of Jordan’s Arab Legion, said:

          Glubb Pasha and said this:

          “The story which Jewish publicity at first persuaded the world to accept , that the [Palestinian] Arab refugees left voluntarily, is not true. Voluntary emigrants do not leave their homes with only the clothes they stand in. People who decided to leave house do not do so in such a hurry that they lose other members of their family — husband losing sight of his wife, or parents of their children. The fact is that the majority left in panic flight, to escape massacre. They were in fact helped on their way by the occasional massacres–not of very many at a time, but just enough to keep them running.” (Bitter Harvest, p. 95)

          The rest of your quotes can similarly be dismissed as basless Israeli propagnada.

        • pjdude says:

          only because they couldn’t get away with throwing them out right than and there

        • Mayhem says:

          @tree: How about the whole story?
          Read link to archive.jta.org where we learn that
          “Mr. Sheean’s utterances …. give the impression of a man not desiring to be impartial but utterly blinded by a partisan anti-Jewish feeling which is sufficient to discredit him as an objective impartial observer.”
          @tree is true disingenuous style has touted an ‘American reporter’ (Sheean) whom we are told “became disabused of his belief in Zionism through his experiences in Palestine”.
          The spiteful remarks of a bitter, confirmed anti-Zionist would hardly convince the discerning mind.

        • Shingo says:

          The spiteful remarks of a bitter, confirmed anti-Zionist would hardly convince the discerning mind.

          Funny how Mayhem talks about a discerning mind, while linking to a pro Zionistnweb site.

          Clearly no one has taken the time to explain what “discerning” means to poor Mayhem.

  7. “Today, the sons of Isaac and the sons of Ishmael, recognized by all monotheisms as the Jews and the Muslims, respectively, still come together to mourn their father in Hebron.”

    “Listen and listen well
    O! One who could have been our brother
    We did not come into this world to live here forever
    Neither did you
    One day we will all go from here
    Whether we like it or not
    What is important my brother, son of Israeel
    Sons of a Prophet, O! What have you become today?
    What have you allowed them to make you?
    Kill us, if that is what you want to do
    At least we die at the hands of our own brothers
    And not at the hands of strangers

    Listen and listen well
    O! One who could have been our brother
    We laugh as we see your Apache helicopters and F-16 jets fly overhead
    We laugh because we can smell your fear
    Why else do you need Apaches and F-16s to fight children with rocks?
    A battle of honor is between equals
    We challenge you, you who have sold your honor
    Come to us as equals so that we can show you how to die with honor
    We laugh at you because we know, that not in a million years
    Will one of you ever have the guts to stand up to one of our children
    Without hiding behind an array of weapons that the American tax payer gives you
    We laugh at you, because that is what every warrior does
    When he faces an army of cowards….”

    • john h says:

      Thanks for the link, dumvita.

      One comment there said “This is the best communicated truth I have seen in a long time. Jews need to look into the mirror and feel some heavy shame.”

      Listen and listen well
      O! One who could have been our brother
      We will die on our feet
      But we will not live on our knees.
      You know how to kill, but we know how to die

      Listen and listen well
      O! One who could have been our brother
      Just as others silently watched you going into the gas chambers
      Others silently watch us burying our children, the children that you continue to kill
      But we remind ourselves
      That the blow that does not break the back, only strengthens you.
      O! You who used to be the People of Musa (Moses),
      But today you have become people of the Firawn (Pharaoh)
      Remember we are the real people of Moses, for we, not you, believe in his message
      Remember that when the fight is between Moses and Pharaoh
      Moses always wins.

      We say to the silent watchers, the cowards,
      We say to those who sit securely in their homes
      We are the front line who are holding back the enemy
      When we fall, it will be your turn.

  8. Mndwss says:

    Terrorists! Supported by a terrorist army! That is supported by a terrorist big brother!!!

    Anyone resisisting the terrorists are TERRORISTS. (And resistance is evil.)

    I feel sorry for the terrorist boy with the white kippah in the picture.

    If you teach children to hate, they could become Yahoo when they grow up.

    Someone should stop this madness before he becomes the “MAN” with the helmet and gun in the center of the picture…

  9. American says:

    2011
    “Over 1,000 American and international Zionists joined 700 extremist settlers in Hebron this weekend”…….

    1946
    [8.44] January 1946, British Consul, New York reporting a mass demonstration for Jewish freedom put on by the New Zionist Organization of America. “It was constantly patrolled by the Betarim, the new Jewish Youth Army, attired in a Hebrew version of the old Nazi Bund uniform.” “Great Britain was public enemy no. 1 of the Jewish people, more dangerous and shrewder than the Nazis…”

    [8.65] February 1946, formation of B´rith Trumpeldor of America or Betar, affiliated with the NZO. “there is noticeable similarity in the organisation´s character, structure and aims to those of the Hitler Youth…”, reported by British Embassy, Washington

    link to archiveeditions.co.uk

    I keep looking in my crystal ball for answer to how long Zionism can continue. It is and has more like Nazism than anything else for 6 decades now. Because it has been on a much smaller scale and in a far away tiny country is why it has been able
    to last this long. I keep searching for the ending, if there is one…like once Israel has subjugated and confiscated Palestine entirely what will be next? Does anyone who has studied and observed what Israel and the zionist and zionism are and do believe it will end there, that they will satisfied with that? Which is a silly question considering the enormity of their bomb Iran demand on the US also.
    Where and how does it end? Because if it doesn’t end then it means we have basically a small cult like group that will control decisions and actions in a major portion of the world.

    • tokyobk says:

      How long do places in the world which privilege one group over another because of a stated mandate exist? Probably a long time. But I imagine it is not that Jews may not set foot in a formerly Jewish town that used to be called Yatrib (hint: second holiest site) or that a non Muslim may not hold high office in Pakistan that bothers you, because those lands have a Muslim mandate. Nor do I think Jewish expulsions matter as much to you as Arab expulsions whatever the numbers or value of land lost.

      I am frankly appalled by some of what I have seen in Hebron precisely because if ever there is a case for the Jewish attachment to that part of the world and safeguarding its participation on historic lands, it is Hebron where Jews have lived in an unbroken stream for thousands of years.

      Fortress Israel based on securing the Haredi settlers and American tourists a religious theme park is a disaster and requires forcing out the Palestinians.

      • annie says:

        I imagine it is not that Jews may not set foot in a formerly Jewish town that used to be called Yatrib (hint: second holiest site) or that a non Muslim may not hold high office in Pakistan that bothers you, because those lands have a Muslim mandate. Nor do I think Jewish expulsions matter as much to you as Arab expulsions whatever the numbers or value of land lost.

        so what else do you imagine? why stop there.

        • tokyobk says:

          Because thats about it regarding this subject based on reading this site and the comments regularly.

          PS I don’t begrudge anyone having Israel/Palestine as there big issue and talking about Tibet would indeed be changing the subject.

          But as for comparisons to Naziism as if Israel is the standout nation in the region is absurd.

        • annie says:

          thats about it regarding this subject ….as for comparisons to Naziism as if Israel is the standout nation in the region is absurd.

          uh huh. so what other country does the US support (w/billions of dollars) in the region that is practicing apartheid besides israel?

          and since you are into tibet perhaps you could direct us to your favorite tibet blog. i’d be interested in seeing your comments there. maybe i could learn something. do you have a link?

        • American says:

          Well tell me tokyoba, except for rounding up the Palestines and putting them in camps and using them as slave labor……(opps, we could probably consider Gaza and all the dispossed Palestines in refugee camps roughly the same thing)…..buy anyway, except for the final solution how is Israel any different from nazis?
          Looks like the same intent and operation to me–just a slower version.

      • American says:

        “Nor do I think Jewish expulsions matter as much to you as Arab expulsions whatever the numbers or value of land lost.”

        Are you talking to me? If so let me make my position crystal clear for the 100th time.
        No people or group ‘counts’ more than any other.
        So when some group ‘acts’ like they count more than any other people and steps on their rights, then they need to be stepped on themselves…and I don’t care who they are…Jews, Nazis, Muslims,Presbyterians, the Girl Scouts, doesn’t matter.

      • Shingo says:

        Fortress Israel based on securing the Haredi settlers and American tourists a religious theme park is a disaster and requires forcing out the Palestinians.

        That’s the story of Isrsel from day 1.

    • Here is a picture of Zev Jabotinsky inspecting the Jewish Betar in New York City in 1940.

      Do these young men and women really look like Hitler youth? Sorry. I don’t see it.

      link to google.com

      • tree says:

        Do these young men and women really look like Hitler youth?

        Except for the lack of blond hair, yes. (But then they also look a bit like Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. ) I believe Jabotinsky modeled the Betar youth after the Italian Fascists, not the German ones, as Jabotinsky was a big fan of Mussolini.

        • Oh. Good. What a relief.
          America X had earlier posted that Betar looked liked Hitler Youth.

          Whew.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Gee, considering Zionists rampage through the West Bank setting fire to farms, beating up school children and painting Stars of David on Palestinian shops? Nope, no analog to Hitler’s movement there.

        • tree says:

          Oh. Good. What a relief.
          America X had earlier posted that Betar looked liked Hitler Youth.

          Actually, American had quoted British officials who stated that the Betar uniforms were “Hebrew versions of the old Nazi Bund uniform” and that Betar’s “character, structure and aims” were similar to Hitler Youth. I understand that reading comprehension may not be a strong point for you.

          Yes, as long as the didn’t LOOK like Hitler Youth, its OK with you if they acted like German brownshirts, or Italian blackshirts. Its all about the look. (mostly about the hair color). Since most of the terrorist Irgun came from Betar, and Betar’s “character, structure and aims” were in fact similar to Hitler Youth, the analogy is apt. The look is just slightly different and that’s all that’s important to you, pz. Got it.

        • American says:

          Yea tree….and I love how whenever someone post something from some creditable observer source the zios just gloss over the import of what it says….like these US Betar groups calling Britain the Jews no 1 enemy and more dangerous than the nazis?
          Ha! so now that the nazis were gone they had to invent another huge enemy? Britain, who got the ball rolling for their homeland?
          These fanatics are a bottomless pit. You could destroy everyone on earth but them and Israel and they still wouldn’t be satisfied.

      • Potsherd2 says:

        Not Hitler Youth. Brownshirts.

        link to google.com

  10. patm says:

    Thanks for posting the Gaza Song, dumvitaestspesest.

  11. patm says:

    “Where and how does it end? Because if it doesn’t end then it means we have basically a small cult like group that will control decisions and actions in a major portion of the world.”

    Things look quite bleak, American, that’s for sure. It’s impossible to make any sense out of the present situation. It’s also hard not to become a raving Judeophobe!

    • American says:

      LOL…I had to look up Judeophobe….guess I should gotten the phobic part of it.
      Anyway, I am mentally worn out with trying to untangle the spider web of Jews in or out & and/or Zionism. They are more complicated than the Christian zealots.
      I just believe Zionism needs to end, regardless of who is in or out of it…..Jews, Christians……let some smarter decider sort them out.

      • patm says:

        …”the spider web of Jews in or out & and/or Zionism. They are more complicated than the Christian zealots. American

        You’re right! There is only one group of Christian zealots gumming up the works in Palestine: the so-called dispensationalists. Here’s Wiki’s take on these wacky fun-loving folks:

        Dispensationalists believe that the nation of Israel (not necessarily the same as the state of Israel) is distinct from the Christian Church,[2]:322 and that God has yet to fulfill His promises to national Israel. These promises include the land promises, which in the future result in a millennial kingdom where Christ, upon His return, will rule the world from Jerusalem[3] for a thousand years.

        No mention of the fact that Jews must convert to Christianity in order to get in on this millennial action.

        • yourstruly says:

          rule for a thousand years?

          hmm, wasn’t the 3rd Reich supposed to rule for a thousand years?

          such striking similarities between nazi germany and zionist israel?

          coincidence?

          but is there such a thing as coincidence?

          jethro gibbs in ncis sure doesn’t believe so

        • mig says:

          Take a look yourstruly, how things start to be similar :

          Right-wing group mapping Jerusalem businesses that employ Arabs

          Meir Ettinger, 19, a resident of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar and grandson of late Rabbi Kahane, says goal of Hebrew Labor project is ‘to warn the public’ against buying from businesses that employ Arabs.

          Rest of article :

          link to haaretz.com

        • tree says:

          Take a look yourstruly, how things start to be similar :
          … goal of Hebrew Labor project is ‘to warn the public’ against buying from businesses that employ Arabs.

          This is really nothing new. Zionists in the 20′s were boycotting and threatening Jewish landowners who employed Arab labor and destroying produce and products from Arab markets and businesses in the 20′s and 30′s. There have been ads supporting “Jewish only” labor for decades in Israel.

          Kibush Ha’avoda(Conquest of Labor) is an old Zionist term, as is Kibush Hakarka (Conquest of Land).

          Zionist policies faced Arabs with discrimination based on race, religion, or national origin at every turn: Kibush Hakarka (Conquest of the Land) took the Arab tenant’s land, Kibush Ha’avoda (Conquest of Labor) prevented the hiring of Arabs as employees, and T’ozteret Ha’aretz (Produce of the Land) imposed a boycott of Arab produced commodities.18 The Constitution of the Jewish Agency (1929), Art. HI, declared: “Land is to be acquired as Jewish property… [and] held as the inalienable property of the Jewish people. The Agency shall promote agricultural colonisation based on Jewish labour, and in all works or undertakings carried out or furthered by the Agency, it shall be deemed to be a matter of principle that Jewish labour shall be employed….” The Keren Kayemeth lease contained the restrictive covenant based on race that the holding shall never be held by any but a Jew and that only Jewish labor could be employed in connection with cultivation of the holding. Jewish lessees who hired or attempted to sell rights to Arabs were to have their own leases terminated.19

          link to tmh.floonet.net

        • tree says:

          Further illustration of the age of this practice, from Matzpen, written in 1972:

          “The Zionist colonization proceeded under three basic slogans. The first of these is Kibush Hakarka (Conquest of the Land). This means that the holy soil of Palestine is to be made the patrimony of the Jewish people. Jews must work the land, and Jews alone are entitled to do so. During the mandate period, mis slogan justified the Zionist land purchases and the forcible removal of the Palestinian peasants; since the formation of the state, it continues to justify the violent expropriation of Palestinians without any pretense of contractual agreement

          The second slogan is Kibush Ha’avoda (Conquest of Labor). In practice, this means that, as far as possible, Jewish enterprises must hire only Jewish workers. It meant that the Histadrut, which virtually excluded Arabs from membership until the mid-igsos, had as its main function before the establishment of the state in 1948 the enforcement of an Arab labor boycott

          The third of these slogans is Tozteret Ha’aretz (Produce of the Land). In practice, this slogan meant the maintenance of a strict boycott of Arab-produced goods. Jews were to buy only from Jewish-run farms and stores.

          Today, either from tactical considerations or from stirrings of guilty consciences, Zionist spokesmen try to cover up this past – and present. To demonstrate that these slogans in fact represented day-to-day practice of the Zionist colonization, it suffices to quote David Hacohen, a leader of the Mapai Labor Party, which ruled and still rules in Israel Hacohen was a member of the Knesset for many years and chairman of its most important committee, Defense and Foreign Affairs. In a speech to the secretariat of the Mapai in November 1969, Hacohen stated:

          I remember being one of the first of our comrades to go to London after the First World War … There I became a socialist … When I joined the socialist students – English, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Indian, African – we found that we were all under English domination or rule. And even here, in these intimate surroundings, I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to housewives that they not buy at Arab stores; to defend the fact that we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there. … To pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies the Kereen Kayemet [Jewish Fund] that sent Hanlon to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendi [landlords] and to throw the fellahin [peasants] off the land – to buy dozens of dunams [12] from an Arab is permitted, but to sell, God forbid, one Jewish dunam to an Arab is prohibited; to take Rothschild, the incarnation of capitalism, as a socialist and to name him the “benefactor” – to do all that was not easy. And despite the fact that we did it – maybe we had no choice – I wasn’t happy about it, [13]

          Hacohen’s revelation of his feelings is surely sufficient evidence that these slogans constituted day-to-day practice and that Zionism was in fact a colonization of displacement.”

          link to matzpen.org

        • seafoid says:

          Patm

          Barbara Ehrenreich on Christian fundis . As odious as Jewish extremists

          I found it in an old Funny Times

          link to huffingtonpost.com

          Schuller, like the Osteens, is a proponent of positive thinking — the doctrine that God intends for you to be rich, healthy and generally “great” right here in this life. While politicos have focused on the Christian Right, there’s been far less attention to the fast growing brand of Christianity Light, also represented by televangelists Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar. Positive thinking is the theology of the modern megachurch, and it avoids all mention of sin — including the “sins” of abortion and homosexuality — lest such “negative” topics turn off any potential converts or “seekers.” Its promise is that you can have anything you want simply by “visualizing” it or, as Osteen puts it, “believing for it” — a doctrine derided by some Christian critics as “name it and claim it.”

          Schuller faced a different biohazard on his first class flight in ’97 — cheese. When the flight attendant gave him a fruit and cheese plate for dessert, Schuller insisted that the cheese be removed. The flight attendant refused, explaining, reasonably enough, that all the fruit had been plated with cheese and could be contaminated, from a cheese-allergy sufferer’s point of view . But the pastor was simply on a low-fat diet and did not want to see the cheese on his plate, so he got out of his seat and accosted the flight attendant, shaking him violently by the shoulders. Schuller ended up paying an $1100 fine and undergoing six months of police supervision.

        • Taxi says:

          TAKE THAT PIECE-A-CHEESE AWAY FROM ME NOW I’M WARNIN’ YA TAKE THAT PIECE-A-CHEESE AWAY FROM ME!!!

          Lol!

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Woowoowoowoo! Arf! Moe, Larry, the cheese! :)

        • RoHa says:

          “I would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut … preaching to housewives that they not buy at Arab stores; … we stood guard at orchards to prevent Arab workers from getting jobs there. … To pour kerosene on Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies the Kereen Kayemet [Jewish Fund] that sent Hanlon to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendi [landlords] and to throw the fellahin [peasants] off the land ”

          But tree, they were just refugees seeking a home. (And a little self-determination.)

          And yet the evil anti-Semitic Arabs would not accept their presence in the country.

        • First RoHa wrenches the quote out of context, i.e. high unemployment in Palestine.

          “As unemployment grew in the Zionist economy in Palestine in the 1920s, Histadrut [Israel's trade union federation] launched a campaign to promote Jewish labor (Avodat Ivrit) and Jewish produce (Totzeret Haaretz), which was essentially a boycott of Arab labor and produce.”

          RoHa needs to cherry pick quotes out of context in order to make his point.

          “David HaCohen, former managing director of Solel Boneh, described what this meant: ‘I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my trade union…”

          RoHa lobs off the first part of the sentence because it shows that there was disagreement within Zionism regarding using Arab Labor. In truth, Jewish capitalists opposed the measures of Labor Zionism to exclude (cheap) Arab Labor from the job market.

          RoHa also fails to inform that Labor Zionism did far more to organize Arab Labor than the Arab had ever done by themselves and that some labor unions in Palestine had complete equality, i.e. the locomotive train union.

        • patm says:

          seafoid, I’ve only just read your post on the trials and tribulations of the super rich Christian televangelists. (It was left in my spam folder.)

          It certainly clears up my puzzlement over taxi’s “TAKE THAT PIECE-A-CHEESE AWAY FROM ME!!!” post.

          Barbara Ehrenreich on Christian fundis was also good.

          Religion: the very word is beginning to creep me out!

        • RoHa says:

          “First RoHa wrenches the quote out of context, i.e. high unemployment in Palestine.”

          And that justifies disciminating in favour of Jews? Why are Jews so much more important than everyone else?

          “RoHa lobs off the first part of the sentence because it shows that there was disagreement within Zionism regarding using Arab Labor.”

          Look at the context. “When I joined the socialist students – English, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Indian, African – we found that we were all under English domination or rule. And even here, in these intimate surroundings, I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism…”

          Nothing there to indicate that any of the friends were Zionists.

          And I notice you totally ignore the anti-Arab violence, and the expulsion of fallahin, he speaks of.

          My point was that from the early days the Zionists carried out a policy aimed at taking the country away from the Arabs.
          They were not peaceful refugees.
          They were not innocent immigrants seeking a new home.
          They were invaders.

        • “Nothing there to indicate that any of the friends were Zionists.”
          And no mention that HaCohen’s speech was made in 1969, 45 years after the fact.

          “..the expulsion of fallahin…”

          The fellahin that were removed from Arab owned lands were almost always paid to leave. Remember that all these land transfers were made under the auspices of HMG and were, for the most part, legal and aboveboard.

          The fellahin removed from Arab owned land by Zionism were treated much better than fellahin removed from lands during Ottoman times.

        • “They were not peaceful refugees.”

          Jews had attempted to return to Zion for 1000 years before Balfour’s Declaration. These ‘religious Zionists’ were treated very badly by the Arabs and Turks.

          “They were not innocent immigrants seeking a new home.”

          No. They were returning to the Jewish homeland as Jews had tried to do for 1000 years preceeding Balfour.

          “They were invaders.”

          For 1000 years Jews invaded? What was the date that Jewish emigrants to Eretz Yisroel turned invaders?

        • Chaos4700 says:

          If “the Jews” have been trying to get back to “Zion” en masse this whole time, for thousands of years, why are there still more Jews outside Israel than in it?

          You know, the notion that Jews are “just visiting” in the countries that they were born — England, Germany, Poland, Russia, the US — is a deeply anti-Semitic sentiment that the Jews in those countries, I suspect, would be deeply offended by.

          It’s such a shame that Israeli Jews are the worst anti-Semites of all, today.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “They were returning to the Jewish homeland as Jews had tried to do for 1000 years preceeding Balfour.”

          If the Jews hadn’t lived there for 1000 years, then it was not “the Jewish homeland,” and hadn’t been, again, for 1000 years. It was, at most, the former Jewish homeland.

          In other words, they were invaders.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          So capitalists and labor unions were at odds? FILM AT ELEVEN!

        • RoHa says:

          “The fellahin removed from Arab owned land by Zionism were treated much better than fellahin removed from lands during Ottoman times.”

          “all these land transfers were made under the auspices of HMG and were, for the most part, legal and aboveboard.”

          That’s it? That is your defence for the expulsion of the fellahin?

          “They could have had it worse” and “it was legal”?

          Pathetic. You can’t even tell the difference between “legal” and “moral”.

          Zionists are a fine illustration for the Confucian principle that there cannot be moral order when there is intellectual disorder.

          And Zionists will remain mired in intellectual disorder for as long as they remain committed to their incoherent concepts of “homeland”, “Jewish People”, and so on and so forth. Zionism, by its very nature, excludes morality.

  12. mudder says:

    Over 1,000 American and international Zionists joined 700 extremist settlers in Hebron this weekend to celebrate the reading of this Torah portion detailing Abraham’s biblical purchase of Hebron land, as a means to assert sovereignty over the Palestinian residents of Hebron.

    The Bard, as always, said it best: The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

  13. Kathleen says:

    Land stealing based on books that Jewish men with an agenda wrote centuries ago. Aye yi yi. What a scam

    And the description of the young American Jewish men are very similar to the young Jewish men that I encountered and talked with at a Palestinian solidarity conference at Ohio State almost 10 years ago. The young Jewish students that I talked with were some of the most racist young people that I had ever met.

    Very similar to some of the youth that Max Blumenthal captured here
    link to maxblumenthal.com

    • seafoid says:

      Hello!

      We are urging anyone who possibly can, to come to court for the Tristan Anderson case!

      Tristan is an international solidarity activist from California who was shot in the head at a demonstration in Ni’ilin in 2009. This is a very important court case. Tristan is our friend and he is very seriously disabled- paralyzed on almost half of his body and with very severe damage done to his brain. He can not live independently anymore. He’s doing much better than he was when we were still in Israel, but he needs constant care, more rehabilitation, and we need the army to pay for it.

      Also, we need the army to answer for this.

      Since it is easier for the State to attack our credibility than to address the issue of the shooting (which was a completely unprovoked attack), this is expected to be a real proper smear trial- less about the shooting of Tristan and more about Anarchists Against the Wall, the ISM, and anything controversial that can be dug up about Tristan and Gabby as individuals.

      Please come support us in court! It will be interesting! And important.

      COURT will be held at the DISTRICT COURT BUILDING IN JERUSALEM, beginning at 9:00 on the following dates:

      -Thursday 24, Nov
      -Sunday 27, Nov
      -Sunday 18, December
      with more dates to follow

      • American says:

        I want American citizens injured and the families of those killed by Israel to be able to sue US courts.
        The Jewish orgs have gotten congress to pass laws enabling them to sue everyone on freaking earth , from Iran to insurances companies in US courts.
        Americans should be able to do the same where it concerns Israel.

        • Charon says:

          Like those people who started a lawsuit against the second flotilla and used dual citizens who had been victims of ‘terror’ to do it. Or that lawsuit (I think there were two even) where some Zionists sued Iran for being ‘responsible’ for 9/11. Yet a lawsuit against Israel for killing Americans can’t even make it to court.

    • Charon says:

      The Hebron thing makes absolutely no sense. They waste so much money on security just to give piece of mind to a few hundred uber-religious nutjobs. In a hypothetical two-state solution, the Hebron settlers would declare independence and fight-to-the-death before anybody removed them. Insanity

  14. patm says:

    link to theatlantic.com

    Here is an article with—and about—the famous photograph of the orthodox young men taunting a Palestinian woman who had just been evicted from her home to make way for settlers.

    Work has been done on identifying these young men. Guess where some of them came from?

  15. seafoid says:

    “And the early generation of religious Zionists in America, though fed the prejudiced Zionist line about the Arabs, nevertheless was deeply influenced by liberal American values, and the American rejection of bigotry”

    I don’t buy this. Without American Zionism there would be no Israel. The work that the Zionists did all through the 1940s in the Beltway allowed the dispossession of 1948 to happen. And without bigotry there could never be a jewish majority.

  16. Abu Malia says:

    If Israel were a star, it would be right around the time before it runs out of Hydrogen to burn! May we all survive the coming collapse.

  17. seafoid says:

    Jewish sovereignty is impossible without guns.
    The ultimate failure of Zionism.
    63 years on and they still need an army.

  18. RobertB says:

    The Massacres of 1948

    Not Only Deir Yassin

    By Guy Erlich, Ha’ir,

    According to Yitzhaki, about ten major massacres were committed in the course of the War of Independence (i.e. more than fifty victims in each massacre) and about hundred smaller massacres (of individuals or small groups). According to him, these massacres had an enormous impact on the Arab population, by inducing their (departure) from the country.

    Yitzhaki: “For many Israelis it was easier to find consolation in the lie, that the Arabs left the country under orders from their leaders. This is an absolute fabrication. The fundamental cause of their flight was their fear from Israeli retribution and this fear was not at all imaginary. From almost each report in the IDF archives concerning the conquest of Arab villages between May and July 1948 – when clashes with Arab villagers were the fiercest – a smell of massacre emanates.

    Sometimes the report tells about blatant massacres which were committed after the battle, sometimes the massacres are committed in the heat of battle and while the villages are “cleansed.” Some of my colleagues, such as Me’ir Pa’il, don’t consider such acts as massacres. In my opinion there is no other term for such acts than massacres. This was at the time the rule of the game. It was a dirty war on both sides. This phenomenon spread out in the field; there were no explicit orders to exterminate. In the first phase a village was usually subjected to heavy artillery from distance. Then soldiers would assault the village. After giving up resistance, the Arab fighters would withdraw while attempting to snipe at the advancing forces. Some would not flee and would remain in the village, mainly women and old people. In the course of cleansing we used to hit them. One was “tailing the fugitives,” as it used to be called (“mezanvim baborchim”). There was no established battle procedure as today, namely that when blowing up a house, one has first to check whether civilians are still inside. In a typical battle report about the conquest of a village we find: “We cleansed a village, shot in any direction where resistance was noticed. After the resistance ended, we also had to shoot people so that they would leave or who looked dangerous.”

    The historian Uri Milstein, a myth-shatterer, corroborates Yitzhaki’s assessment regarding the massacres’ extent and goes even further. “If Yitzhaki claims that almost in every village there were murders, then I maintain that even before the establishment of the State, each battle ended with a massacre”. ”

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    Click on link for details:

    link to azvsas.blogspot.com