NY ads depicting Palestinian dispossession are termed anti-Semitic by ‘Jewish community’

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 639 Comments
Maps
Maps

The graphic above, long distributed on postcards at Palestinian solidarity events, is a work of genius; it explains the history of Israel and Palestine better than any other quick summary. Andrew Sullivan published it last year. My wife saw the postcard once and was soon citing it at dinner parties. “Have you seen the maps? Well I have!”

Now this graphic has made the bigtime. It’s part of an ad on train platforms aimed at the elite in the New York suburbs. Here’s reporting by Bob Ryser in the Journal News in the Hudson Valley. (A photo at the link shows how the graphic is used in a larger ad). Note the conflation of the “Jewish community” with Zionism, and the claim that ad-buyer Henry Clifford has “little following.” 

“This is anti-Semitic because when people think of Jews they think of the Jewish state,” said Dovid Efune, editor of the Manhattan-based Jewish newspaper, The Algemeiner. “Jews have seen this happen so many times. It always starts with messaging that says Jews are committing a crime.”

The ads, which show a succession of shrinking Palestinian territory in four maps and contain a headline stating that 4.7 million Palestinians are classified as refugees by the United Nations, were paid for by an 84-year-old ex-Wall Street financier who lives in Connecticut.

“If the facts are inflammatory then they are inflammatory,” said Henry Clifford, the chairman of a 10-member group called the Committee for Peace in Israel/Palestine. “All of the Middle East is infected with the virus of the Arab-Israeli conflict. People need to know the truth of the matter.”…

“As far as we know, this is the work of individuals with little following who don’t deserve additional airtime, particularly because they present a distorted and skewed view of a complicated conflict,” said Rabbi Joshua Davidson, the Senior Rabbi of Temple Beth El of Northern Westchester, a Reform congregation. “Obviously for all of us who love Israel and yearn for peace in the Middle East, it is incumbent upon us to recount the history and portray the conflict honestly and in its full context.”…

“The message has to be delivered to people succinctly,” said Clifford, who has carried out similar ad campaigns in Connecticut.

Leaders in the Jewish community could not object more.

639 Responses

  1. CloakAndDagger
    July 12, 2012, 10:33 am

    How visionary of them! They are reducing the term “anti-semitic” to become so meaningless that when they are confronted by real anti-semitism, they will no longer have an effective term for it. That makes them anti-semites.

    • seafoid
      July 12, 2012, 1:05 pm

      This video is antisemitic

      Look at what they have done to Gaza

      link to guardian.co.uk

      • Carllarc
        July 12, 2012, 2:14 pm

        there is a special room in Hell

    • Blake
      July 12, 2012, 2:02 pm

      Hijacked Judaism and politicized it is the way I see it.

      EDIT: Sorry this was meant as a reply to seafoid below. I noticed whilst it was awaiting moderation I replied to cloak and dagger in error.

    • Stone
      July 12, 2012, 8:59 pm

      Let me see if I got this right. If the graphic above was placed alongside something like “This is how and when we created the glorious state of Israel.” then everything in their view would have been okay? Just basically the problem is that it showed the loss of land by the Palestinians instead of showing that the lands were gained by the Israelis. I guess if it said “Lands gained by the Israelis after defeating the evil Arabs in wars and conflicts” then that is okay? Well, in negotiations too since it mentions the UN plan as well.

      • Bumblebye
        July 12, 2012, 10:40 pm

        Stone
        As in
        “Rejoice! Eretz Israel is so close to full accomplishment!
        Keep sending more of your hard earned tax dollars, and we’ll have it all within another 10 years – no more Palestine!”
        Would complaints about such an ad gain any traction in the msm?

      • Citizen
        July 13, 2012, 8:46 am

        How about an ad with the same sequence of maps atop and text under proclaiming boldly: “REJOICE! SWEET JESUS, THE END TIMES ARE NEAR!

        Would get happy honks from the highway across this great land, at least once you got beyond the NYC burbs and until you got to big city burbs of CALIF.

      • ColinWright
        July 14, 2012, 2:00 pm

        “How about an ad with the same sequence of maps atop and text under proclaiming boldly: “REJOICE! SWEET JESUS, THE END TIMES ARE NEAR! “

        I like it! How do we fund it?

        Think it through…no matter how it plays out, it hurts Israel. My favorite scenario is where Zionists try to get it pulled — and alienate Evangelicals. In fact, if somebody can find some especially clueless Evangelical minister to be the straw man here…

    • Hound
      July 15, 2012, 8:41 pm

      I believe that most of the hostility we’re seeing here is paranoia. A lot of us simply don’t want to lose our homes again (and yes, we do have roots there, check a genetic study) as not only is it a big part of our culture, it gives us a place to go if and when things get bad again. It also doesn’t help that many on the “Left” side of the spectrum really DO have antisemitic feelings. People have a tendency to replace “Jews” with “Zionists” and think that makes it ok, when it doesn’t.

      My solution to the conflict would entail meeting all 3 of the demands the BDS movement has set forth, BUT at the same time putting permanent safeguards in the constitution that protects Jewish rights, including:

      1. Allowing Jewish immigration into the country at all times, without exception. This would help to prevent another Evian les Baines situation: link to en.wikipedia.org

      2. Respecting the Jewish/Hebraic cultural heritage of the region by incorporating both Jewish and Islamic symbols in the flag, retaining Hebrew as an official language in addition to Arabic, etc.

      3. Affirmative action is fine, but don’t overdo it. Don’t let what happened to the whites in South Africa happen to the Jewish citizens of Israel/Palestine.

      4. Strict enforcement of laws against hate crimes.

      5. Official apologies on both sides for the crimes enacted against one another.

      • ColinWright
        July 29, 2012, 2:47 am

        “I believe that most of the hostility we’re seeing here is paranoia. A lot of us simply don’t want to lose our homes again (and yes, we do have roots there, check a genetic study) as not only is it a big part of our culture, it gives us a place to go if and when things get bad again…”

        Not this again. I swear, it’s like trying to drown a rubber duck. Whatever you say, it just bobs to the surface again, happy as a clam.

      • sardelapasti
        August 5, 2012, 3:35 am

        How about making it simple, just because it seems that the rights are not being discussed:

        1. You have no right to be there, so if and only if the owners of the land, i.e. the Palestinians (who did include some 6% Jewish Palestininans before the invasion) allow it, then any citizenship rights of the invader population can be discussed (and only if born there; the others can go wherever they came from.)

        2. Otherwise just get the hell out.

  2. seafoid
    July 12, 2012, 10:39 am

    “It always starts with messaging that says Jews are committing a crime”

    This is why Zionism is such a Jewish tragedy. It is a criminal enterprise run by Jews with the noble goal of saving Judaism , and no ethical boundaries whatsoever. Sadly it does look as though Judaism now has to be rescued from Zionism.

    • American
      July 12, 2012, 11:56 am

      “It is a criminal enterprise run by Jews with the noble goal of saving Judaism”…. ..Seafoid

      I don’t think the aim of zionism was the noble goal of saving Judaism, it was to use it or replace it or turn it into zionist nationalism.

      • seafoid
        July 12, 2012, 12:39 pm

        I think it was always anti assimilation. Which is why the bots hate Reform and Conservative Yank Jews . But they love their money and political support, bien sur.

        Only the Orthodox can be trusted. But they have not as much money.

  3. Mooser
    July 12, 2012, 10:40 am

    There seems to be some kind glitch or typo in the headline. The words “Jewish community” are enclosed in single quotes, as if there was some question about what it is or something. Everybody knows what the “Jewish community” is. And there’s a word for those who don’t!

    • Klaus Bloemker
      July 12, 2012, 12:15 pm

      The quotation marks indicate that the people who comlpain presume to be/represent the Jewish community but they aren’t. – Right?

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2012, 4:01 pm

        “The quotation marks indicate that the people who comlpain presume to be/represent the Jewish community but they aren’t. – Right?”

        I’m not sure. It’s sort of ambiguous. The words are in single quote marks (‘ and ‘) not quote marks (“and “). If they were in quote marks (“) I would think the author is saying, in effect ‘his words, not mine’. But now that you mention it, I don’t think I know exactly what the difference between the two is, and the proper use of the single quote (‘) (or apostrophe?)
        But since there’s a computer in front of me, and I haven’t had a frontal lobotomy, I’ll see if I can’t find out. At any rate, I’m glad the term “Jewish community” isn’t being used as if everybody knows exactly what it is.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        July 12, 2012, 6:21 pm

        Isn’t it so:
        The regular quotation marks (“) are normally used to quote someone.
        But the people who complained about the ads didn’t say, they complained on behalf of the “Jewish community”. Or that there was sort of a poll of the opinion of that community. I think that’s what Phil wanted to indicate.
        ——————-
        As to your: “I’m glad the term “Jewish community” isn’t being used as if everybody knows exactly what it is.”

        I think I do, though not “exactly”. When I read in the NYT for instance:
        “The majority of the Jewish community in Florida will vote for XYZ”,
        I know, whom the author is referring to, though not “exactly”.

      • Mooser
        July 13, 2012, 6:16 pm

        Thanks for the explanation Klaus, you’ve been very helpful. So when you put “exactly” in quotes, you are quoting me, since I used the word in the comment above. That brings up another thing. I wonder, when I quote a sentence or section from another commenter, I try to make sure that if I enclose it in quotes, it is in fact, a quote. But I don’t indicate where it’s from, I assume it’s obvious. Maybe I should put the source of the quote there too? To choose an example at random,(just to show the style) like this:

        “I think that’s what Phil wanted to indicate.” (Klaus Boemker)

        I’ve been busy, so I haven’t yet looked up what the single quote, or apostrophe does, but I will.

      • Klaus Bloemker
        July 14, 2012, 2:47 pm

        You use the regular quote (“)

        1. When you quote someone.
        2. When you talk about a word and not about what the word denotes.
        – “home” has 4 letters and a positive connotation
        3. unoffical use: to distance yourself from a term or use it ironically

        You use (‘) for a quote within a quote or above 3.

      • Mooser
        July 15, 2012, 5:12 pm

        Thanks, Klaus. You don’t see a potential conflict between use “3” and use “1”?
        I use, and have been trying to remember to use the single quote “‘” (wow, that’s clear!) for use “3”. And again, thanks for pointing out that the single quotes are used for the quote-within-a-quote function. I did not know that, or more likely, had forgotten my English class instruction on it.

        I hope Phil doesn’t mind, but we’re doin’ orthography!

      • Klaus Bloemker
        July 15, 2012, 9:17 pm

        [1] conflict between use “3″ and use “1″?
        Actually, #3 is also official. Yes, there can be confusion, it depends on the sentence:
        – David calls me “brother” every time I meet him. #1
        – Jon, you let me down two times, you wanna be a “friend” of mine? #3
        – Jon, you let me down but you used to call me a “friend” of yours. #1

        [2] There is another use of the quotation mark (“) that I didn’t mention.
        Titles of books and names of papers
        – Thomas Mann’s death in Venice was very interesting.
        – Thomas Mann’s “Death in Venice” was very interesting. (the book)
        – I asked Jon: “Did you read ‘Death in Venice’ last year”?

        Instead of italics, people often use a single quotation mark to make a word stick out. – Okay, so far orthography in Germany.

  4. justicewillprevail
    July 12, 2012, 10:44 am

    Ha ha, because they can’t argue with the simple facts, all they can do is resort to name-calling and the old, threadbare, and completely false, ‘anything against Israel is anti-semitic’ line. I guess facts are ‘anti-semitic’, so we can’t let the public have them.

    • Blake
      July 12, 2012, 1:23 pm

      Yep the truth is anti-Semitic

      • seafoid
        July 12, 2012, 2:54 pm

        What they said about the Jews wasn’t true in the 1930s but with sociopaths like Lieberman and Bibi around and evidence like Gaza to hand it is clear that the Jewish State has been a failure and that no tribe has a monopoly on reason

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 2:10 am

        I’m reminded of my theory that God did indeed create Israel — to teach Jews humility.

      • Citizen
        July 13, 2012, 8:52 am

        “A nation of priests” and “the people of the book” is passe? How about “a light to the world”?

        Or

        “Why pick on us? Look over there at what those guys are doing!”

  5. Donald
    July 12, 2012, 11:05 am

    “particularly because they present a distorted and skewed view of a complicated conflict,” said Rabbi Joshua Davidson, the Senior Rabbi of Temple Beth El of Northern Westchester, a Reform congregation. “Obviously for all of us who love Israel and yearn for peace in the Middle East, it is incumbent upon us to recount the history and portray the conflict honestly and in its full context.”

    Yeah there’s been such a concerted effort to make sure Americans hear both sides–that’s why Congress gave dozens of ovations to that idiot Netanyahu last summer, because of the great success of people like Rabbi Davidson in conveying the conflict honestly and in its full context. It’s why the Congressional representatives that come from Westchester County are so scrupulously fair in their depiction of the conflict–

    note the statements about Goldstone and the Gaza flotilla by Nita Lowey

    Elliot Engel praising Netanyahu’s speech

    “This accuses Israel of being land grabbers and imperialistic and insensitive to its neighbors, and anybody who knows anything about history knows it is more complicated than that,” says the editor Efune. “The greatest enemy is ignorance and these ads are taking advantage of people.”

    Sure. Israel has grabbed a lot of land and has been imperialistic, but one thing you can say about this conflict is that nobody has shown the slightest trace of insensitivity on either side. Well, maybe the Palestinians have been insensitive when they commit atrocities, but Israelis shoot and cry, shoot and cry, to the point where all the weeping keeps their neighbors from getting any sleep.

    “This is anti-Semitic because when people think of Jews they think of the Jewish state,”

    I didn’t think one could pack that many non-sequiturs into such a small space–it almost violates the Bekenstein bound

    • Donald
      July 12, 2012, 11:29 am

      I’ve been googling Davidson. He seems to be a fairly typical liberal Zionist. Favors the two state solution, but has the usual biases. It’s not surprising that Lowey and Engel say the things they say when the following positions are held by the “liberal” end of the spectrum.

      Here is one link to an article where he was involved in local Muslim/Jewish dialogue on the Mideast. He favored the Gaza War.

      link

      He signed the rabbis letter against divestment–

      link

      The letter contained this remarkable passage–

      “Yet quite honestly, were American Christian denominations to indict only Jews and Israel for the conflict with the Palestinians, they would justify the violence perpetrated against Israeli civilians – including children – as the unfortunate result of Israel’s unilateral guilt. In other words, Israeli victims would be responsible for their own suffering.”

      So if Israel were solely to blame for the conflict, these rabbis think it would justify killing Israeli children? If any critic of Israel said something like the above they would be torn to shreds. I’ve always suspected that subconsciously many of the people who condemn “terrorism” when it is conducted by Muslims actually have the same attitude towards it as the suicide bombers–that is, children of the enemy are valid targets if the enemy is the one responsible for the conflict. Innocence and moral blame are to be determined collectively–once one side is declared guilty then you can pretty much do what you want to them and their children, and it is all their fault.

    • seafoid
      July 13, 2012, 8:43 am

      What does the El in Beth El mean?

      • MHughes976
        July 15, 2012, 5:35 pm

        You mean it’s God under one of His two Hebrew Bible names, Yahweh and El, the latter being in more widespread use in the ancient ME, and that the Beth El rabbi should remember that fact? It’s a bit odd that Jewish congregations should use that name, though, since Amos made such a point of denouncing the Beth El Temple of old (this was the OT passage in the CofE lectionary for this very morning) and there are quite a few hostile references to it elsewhere.

  6. Dan Crowther
    July 12, 2012, 11:09 am

    Reminds me of Nader’s “only the super rich can save us” book – this is what it will take, some salty millionaires who are just flat tired of the bullshit plunking down some bucks for campaigns like this. This is so much better than a back and forth between academics, or abunimah “winning” a debate in front of a few people. Onward old geezers!

  7. Krauss
    July 12, 2012, 11:29 am

    Ah yes. Just as the truth has a liberal bias, now the facts are supposedly anti-Semitic. You’re not supposed to notice them!

  8. American
    July 12, 2012, 11:38 am

    ““This is anti-Semitic because when people think of Jews they think of the Jewish state,”

    Well ….he has has it backwards….when people think of the Jewish State ‘then’ they think of Jews…there is a difference.
    But they deliberately set up that (universal) linkage so their complaint is typically hypocritical.

    I notice that the ME Arab countries commonly refer to Israel as the’ Zionist’ state or entity not the Jewish state.
    So Zionist State should be introduced into US discourse to replace Jewish State.
    Come to think of it using Zionist State instead would be a good way for the public to check out zionism and learn what Israel was and is actually about.

    • Leper Colonialist
      July 12, 2012, 12:37 pm

      Well, when I hear the term “Jewish state” I sure as heck do not think of Espiscopalians, congregationalists. Presbyterians, Unitarians or any other body of organized superstition.

      And, come to think of it, isn’t the Likudist demand for “Recognition Plus,” that Israel be recognized specifically as a Jewish state, now coming back to bite them?

    • Roya
      July 12, 2012, 12:46 pm

      “I notice that the ME Arab countries commonly refer to Israel as the’ Zionist’ state or entity not the Jewish state.”
      Great observation.
      “So Zionist State should be introduced into US discourse to replace Jewish State.
      Come to think of it using Zionist State instead would be a good way for the public to check out zionism and learn what Israel was and is actually about.”

      Agreed.

      • Mooser
        July 12, 2012, 4:07 pm

        FWIW, I like “Zionist State”. And I like it better than “Zionist entity” or “Zionist regime” which would seem to announce bias in advance, even tho they may not.

      • Philip Munger
        July 12, 2012, 6:03 pm

        I’ve never called Israel “A Jewish State” or “The Jewish State,” nor have I termed it “The Zionist State.” The last of the three, though, is probably the most accurate.

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 12:34 am

        Yeah. And indeed, what is to object to in ‘Zionist state’?

        Israel is a state. Presumably, the Zionists think Zionism is perfectly defensible. So what’s wrong with ‘Zionist State’?

        ‘Jewish state’ suffers from the twin drawbacks that Israel itself rules over an area that only has a slight majority of Jews (and that only by virtue of a process of brutal expropriation, expulsion, and exclusion), while on the other hand, a slight majority of the world’s Jews neither live in it nor evidently wish to live in it. If it has a bare Jewish majority, and most Jews don’t want to go to it, how can it be the ‘Jewish state’?

        ‘Jewish state,’ therefore, is not strictly accurate. ‘Zionist state’ would be.

      • Hostage
        July 13, 2012, 9:06 pm

        ‘Jewish state,’ therefore, is not strictly accurate. ‘Zionist state’ would be.

        Except of course for the 1 in 5 Israelis who are either Palestinian or anti-Zionist Haredim.

      • Mooser
        July 15, 2012, 5:22 pm

        “Except of course for the 1 in 5 Israelis who are either Palestinian or anti-Zionist Haredim.”

        That, of course, is a point Phillip. It is hard to determine whether “Zionist State” describes the ‘State”, not the people, but on the other hand, I’m sure we don’t want to tar everybody in Israel with the same feathers.

      • Hound
        July 15, 2012, 10:48 pm

        “Israel itself rules over an area that only has a slight majority of Jews”

        If we’re talking about the pre-1967 borders only, it’s actually 4/5 Jewish and 1/5 Arab.

        “a slight majority of the world’s Jews neither live in it nor evidently wish to live in it.”

        True enough, but the fact that Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world needs to be pointed out. The only other country that comes close is the USA, which has roughly the same amount. There are hardly any Jews left in Europe, and for good reason. Arab countries almost invariably expelled their Jewish populations which, if I recall correctly, is the same thing as what we’re condemning here.

        “how can it be the ‘Jewish state’?”

        Because it was created with Jews in mind, and we are collectively native to it (at least, Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews are). Granted, not every Jew lives there, but it’s nice to at least have the option to go somewhere that won’t slam the door in our faces when we need protection or to be among our own kind.

      • Shingo
        July 16, 2012, 5:35 am

        If we’re talking about the pre-1967 borders only, it’s actually 4/5 Jewish and 1/5 Arab.

        No, you’re confucing occupation with ownership.

        There are hardly any Jews left in Europe, and for good reason.

        What are you talking about? Germany is the number one toutist destinateion for Israelis and teh ISralei government had to lobby the German government to impose harsh measures to prevent Russia Jews from chosing Germany as their new home rather than Israel.

        Since 2007, emigration has been outpacing immigration in Israel. According to scholars John Mueller and Ian Lustick, “a recent survey indicates that only 69 percent of Jewish Israelis say they want to stay in the country, and a 2007 poll finds that one-quarter of Israelis are considering leaving, including almost half of all young people.” They report, “in another survey, 44 percent of Israelis say they would be ready to leave if they could find a better standard of living elsewhere,” and “over 100,000 Israelis have acquired European passports.” These figures are a bad omen for Israel.

        link to amconmag.com

        Arab countries almost invariably expelled their Jewish populations which, if I recall correctly, is the same thing as what we’re condemning here.

        Also largely false. This is only true of Egypt. Most Jews left Arab states of their own volition for messianic reasons.

        Because it was created with Jews in mind, and we are collectively native to it (at least, Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews are).

        No you are not. Ashkenazi, Sephardi and most Mizrahi Jews are recent immigrants or 1st and 2nd generation descenedents of immigrants. In 1905, Jews made up less than 10% of the population. Most of you are the product of a colonial invasion and conquest.

      • Shmuel
        July 16, 2012, 6:11 am

        There are hardly any Jews left in Europe

        Only a mere 1.5 million, according to the World Jewish Population Report, 2010: link to jewishdatabank.org

        Hardly a Jew to be found on the streets of Paris, London, Berlin, Vienna, Antwerp or Moscow. Hardly a synagogue, kosher restaurant, Jewish school or cultural institution in the vast wasteland between Brookline and Bat Yam. Nary a kind word in Yiddish from Hempstead to Hadera.

      • Hound
        July 16, 2012, 4:33 pm

        “No, you’re confucing occupation with ownership.”

        His comment was that Israel ruled over an area that contained only a slight majority Jews. I added that if we’re talking about the pre-1967 borders (aka the official borders for the state of Israel), then the Jews vastly outnumber Muslims by a ratio of 4:1. I believe that Israel has a right to exist, so on that front, my point stands.

        “What are you talking about? Germany is the number one toutist destinateion for Israelis and teh ISralei government had to lobby the German government to impose harsh measures to prevent Russia Jews from chosing Germany as their new home rather than Israel.

        Since 2007, emigration has been outpacing immigration in Israel. According to scholars John Mueller and Ian Lustick, “a recent survey indicates that only 69 percent of Jewish Israelis say they want to stay in the country, and a 2007 poll finds that one-quarter of Israelis are considering leaving, including almost half of all young people.” They report, “in another survey, 44 percent of Israelis say they would be ready to leave if they could find a better standard of living elsewhere,” and “over 100,000 Israelis have acquired European passports.” These figures are a bad omen for Israel.”

        And yet more than half of them still want to stay in Israel. The current population of Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe is a mere drop in the bucket compared to Israel.

        “Also largely false. This is only true of Egypt. Most Jews left Arab states of their own volition for messianic reasons.”

        And to escape persecution, not just for “messianic” reasons.

        “No you are not. Ashkenazi, Sephardi and most Mizrahi Jews are recent immigrants or 1st and 2nd generation descenedents of immigrants. In 1905, Jews made up less than 10% of the population. Most of you are the product of a colonial invasion and conquest.”

        I think you misinterpreted what I meant by “native”. By that, I mean we are an indigenous population of the Middle East. Ever read a genetic study? More than 2/3 of our genome comes from Middle Eastern descent, and we are markedly similar to the populations surrounding Israel.

      • Hound
        July 16, 2012, 4:34 pm

        1.5 million…..compared to over 5 million in Israel.

      • Shmuel
        July 17, 2012, 3:15 am

        1.5 million…..compared to over 5 million in Israel.

        You were not making a comparison (and even by comparison, 30% is hardly chopped liver), but stating in absolute terms that “There are hardly any Jews left in Europe, and for good reason”. Dismissing 1.5 million Jews as “hardly any” is taking “negation of the diaspora” a little far, don’t you think?

      • Shingo
        July 17, 2012, 3:41 am

        His comment was that Israel ruled over an area that contained only a slight majority Jews. I added that if we’re talking about the pre-1967 borders (aka the official borders for the state of Israel), then the Jews vastly outnumber Muslims by a ratio of 4:1.

        That was only true after 1948, after Isrqael expelled 800,000 Palestinians.

        I believe that Israel has a right to exist, so on that front, my point stands.

        It did not have a right to expell 800,000 Palestinians.

        And yet more than half of them still want to stay in Israel.

        That’s a pretty miserable number.

        The current population of Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe is a mere drop in the bucket compared to Israel.

        Yet, enough to send the Israeli government into a panick that it pressured the Gemrna government to impose restrictions to dissuade Russian Jews from chosing Germany over Israel..

        And to escape persecution, not just for “messianic” reasons.

        A minority yes, but the heaasbrats like to cite figures of 700,000 to 1 million and claim all of them were expelled.

        Ever read a genetic study? More than 2/3 of our genome comes from Middle Eastern descent, and we are markedly similar to the populations surrounding Israel.

        No, it refers to populations throughout the3 Middle East, which includes Turkey, from whom the Kazars descended.

      • Shingo
        July 17, 2012, 3:54 am

        How is 30% hardly any?

      • Hound
        July 17, 2012, 5:07 am

        “That was only true after 1948, after Isrqael expelled 800,000 Palestinians.”

        Don’t play dumb. You knew I meant 1948-1967.

        “It did not have a right to expell 800,000 Palestinians.”

        I agree. Israel was under UN obligation to allow them to return to their homes in Israel, or at least reimburse them. The fact that they haven’t is clearly illegal. Note that I said they should be allowed to return to live in Israel, and not that the state should be dissolved.

        “That’s a pretty miserable number.”

        How so?

        “Yet, enough to send the Israeli government into a panick that it pressured the Gemrna government to impose restrictions to dissuade Russian Jews from chosing Germany over Israel..”

        And yet there are still millions of Jews living in Israel, with more immigrating there each year. It should go without saying that not every Jew will want to live there, but there are millions who do and who should not be deprived of that right. Right now, Germany is still massively guilt tripping over the Holocaust which makes it the preferred destination for many Jews wishing to live in Europe. Eastern Europe, on the other hand….

        “A minority yes, but the heaasbrats like to cite figures of 700,000 to 1 million and claim all of them were expelled.”

        Whether or not they were expelled outright, the Arab governments actions towards their Jewish populations had the same effect of discouraging them from living there.

        “No, it refers to populations throughout the3 Middle East, which includes Turkey, from whom the Kazars descended.”

        The “Khazar” theory has been proven false over and over again. Show me one genetic study (besides the Zoossmann-Diskin study, which I refuted earlier in another comment) that says we’re not Levantine, and then we’ll talk.

      • Shingo
        July 17, 2012, 10:10 am

        Note that I said they should be allowed to return to live in Israel, and not that the state should be dissolved.

        No one has suggested that either, but you deserve credit for agreeing they shoudl have been allowed to return.

        How so?

        There are few countries in the developed world where only half the population are happy stating in that country.“Yet, enough to send the Israeli government into a panick that it pressured the Gemrna government to impose restrictions to dissuade Russian Jews from chosing Germany over Israel..”

        Right now, Germany is still massively guilt tripping over the Holocaust which makes it the preferred destination for many Jews wishing to live in Europe.

        But that’s not why Russian Jews prefer it. They prefer it because they have a cultural affinity with Germany, it’s modernity and it’s standrd of living.

        The “Khazar” theory has been proven false over and over again. Show me one genetic study (besides the Zoossmann-Diskin study, which I refuted earlier in another comment) that says we’re not Levantine, and then we’ll talk.

        As I expained,Khazar’s also originated from the Levant, and contrary to your claims, the studies have not proven the linkage false – simply less likely.

      • MRW
        July 17, 2012, 10:22 pm

        @Hound

        “The “Khazar” theory has been proven false over and over again.”

        No, it hasn’t. From Arutz Sheva, 2008:

        Found: Ancient Capital of ‘Jewish’ Khazar Kingdom

        [...] “This is a hugely important discovery,” said the leader of the Russian expedition, Dmitry Vasilyev, in a report by the French agency AFP. Vasilyev, from Astrakhan State University, made the comments after returning from the excavation site, located near the Russian village of Samosdelka just north of the Caspian Sea. The location of the site corresponds roughly to the area in which historians believe the empire may have existed.

        “We can now shed light on one of the most intriguing mysteries of that period – how the Khazars actually lived,” he added. “We know very little about the Khazars – about their traditions, their funerary rites, their culture.”

        The Jewish University in Moscow and the Russian Jewish Congress helped finance the excavations, which took place during the summer in various locations throughout the region in which the discovery was made. [...]

        link to israelnationalnews.com

        “Jewish city feared by Stalin is rediscovered”
        link to telegraph.co.uk

        Copy of Yahoo report, “Discovery of Khazar capital unearths more about Ashkenazi Jews”
        link to dianarn.wordpress.com

        [...] Yevgeny Satanovsky, director of the Middle Eastern Institute in Moscow, said he believes the Khazar elite chose Judaism out of political expediency — to remain independent of neighboring Muslim and Christian states. “They embraced Judaism because they wanted to remain neutral, like Switzerland these days,” he said. [...]

        The study of the Khazar empire was discouraged in the Soviet Union. The dictator Josef Stalin, in particular, detested the idea that a Jewish empire had come before Russia’s own. He ordered references to Khazar history removed from textbooks because they “disproved his theory of Russian statehood,” Satanovsky said.

        Only now are Russian scholars free to explore Khazar culture. [...]

      • Hound
        July 17, 2012, 10:57 pm

        @MRW

        I did not say that the Khazars never existed, just that they don’t represent the “ethno-genesis” of the Ashkenazi Jews. There had been Jews in Germany and the Mediterranean at least several centuries before the Khazars came into the picture. Only the elite converted anyway, and genetic studies have found that Khazarian influence on the Ashkenazi genome is very minimal at best. Unless you can show me a relevant genetic study that proves otherwise.

      • Blake
        July 17, 2012, 11:26 pm

        Ben Zion Dinur, the father of Israeli historiography, was not hesitant about describing the Khazars as the origin of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and describes Khazaria as ‘the mother of the diasporas’ in Eastern Europe.

        Did hasbara forget to send him the memo?

      • YoungMassJew
        July 18, 2012, 12:09 am

        @ MRW
        I don’t buy it. First of all genetic studies are always changing. New ones come out all the time. Second of all, “the Khazar elite chose Judaism out of political expediency…” Exactly this was a unique situation in a different area than the travels of the Ashkenazim which was from the Levant and Mediterranean through Italy to Germany and northern France and then to the Pale of Settlement. It’s possible that some of the Khazars were absorbed into the Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazim, but only some, probably not a majority. And plus, Ashkenazi Jews don’t look Turkic.Turks came from central Asia (in the area around Khazaria) and settled in Turkey. Yiddish is a Germanic language as well.

      • Shingo
        July 18, 2012, 3:13 am

        Second of all, “the Khazar elite chose Judaism out of political expediency…”

        The same coudl be said of many Israeli leaders, whom changed their names to sound more….Hebrewish.

      • Hound
        July 18, 2012, 4:51 am

        “Ben Zion Dinur, the father of Israeli historiography, was not hesitant about describing the Khazars as the origin of the Jews in Eastern Europe, and describes Khazaria as ‘the mother of the diasporas’ in Eastern Europe.

        Did hasbara forget to send him the memo?”

        Who am I going to believe, some obscure Israeli historiographer I’ve never heard of, or the numerous scientific studies and mountains of other evidence that all contradict him? Yeah, I’ll go with the latter.

        “I don’t buy it. First of all genetic studies are always changing. New ones come out all the time.”

        Geneticists have known for several decades that European Jews have a Middle Eastern origin. All of the most recent studies (that I’ve seen, at least) point to the same thing.

        “Second of all, “the Khazar elite chose Judaism out of political expediency…” Exactly this was a unique situation in a different area than the travels of the Ashkenazim which was from the Levant and Mediterranean through Italy to Germany and northern France and then to the Pale of Settlement. It’s possible that some of the Khazars were absorbed into the Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazim, but only some, probably not a majority. And plus, Ashkenazi Jews don’t look Turkic.Turks came from central Asia (in the area around Khazaria) and settled in Turkey. Yiddish is a Germanic language as well.”

        1. Phenotypes are not a very good way of telling the full extent of someone’s ancestry. I’ll post some photos of “Semitic looking” Ashkenazi a little later.

        2. Yiddish is a pidgin language, between German and Hebrew.

      • Shmuel
        July 18, 2012, 5:21 am

        1. Phenotypes are not a very good way of telling the full extent of someone’s ancestry. I’ll post some photos of “Semitic looking” Ashkenazi a little later.

        Please don’t. Racial phenotyping (including the identification of “Semitic traits” in Ashkenazi Jews) has a rather chequered past. We’ll take your word for it.

        2. Yiddish is a pidgin language, between German and Hebrew.

        By what linguistic definition? Is English a pidgin language between German and French? Or are you engaging in more of the same kind of “negation of the diaspora” that turned 1.5 million European Jews into “hardly any”?

      • Hound
        July 18, 2012, 5:32 am

        “Please don’t. Racial phenotyping (including the identification of “Semitic traits” in Ashkenazi Jews) has a rather chequered past. We’ll take your word for it.”

        Ok then. I’ll just say this: Donna Feldman and Cliff Simon are both full Ashkenazi Jews.

        “By what linguistic definition? Is English a pidgin language between German and French? Or are you engaging in more of the same kind of “negation of the diaspora” that turned 1.5 million European Jews into “hardly any”?”

        Of course not. All I meant was that Yiddish was a synthesis language (aka a “pidgin” language) meant to make it easier for Jews to converse with the locals. That’s all.

      • MRW
        July 18, 2012, 9:18 am

        “Yiddish is a pidgin language, between German and Hebrew”

        Hunh? Yiddish was spoken in Hungary, Rumania, and the Ukraine. (Elie Wiesel grew up speaking Yiddish. He was born in Saghet.) When I was in Georgia, to the west of the Caspian Sea, the Jewish American students who spoke it could speak Yiddish with the old people they met. Georgia was 100% USSR at the time and religion was banned, but they were able to find people throughout our trip in the western half of Russia to talk to in Yiddish.

        And YoungMassJew,
        The Hungarians (Magyars) have a lot in common with Turks, although their language is unique among languages. It’s been ages since I learned all this but if I remember correctly the root of it is tied to the Basques (and the kind of French spoken in Tours, France), Finns, and Japanese! Google Magyars and Turks.

      • Hostage
        July 18, 2012, 9:51 am

        I did not say that the Khazars never existed, just that they don’t represent the “ethno-genesis” of the Ashkenazi Jews. There had been Jews in Germany and the Mediterranean at least several centuries before the Khazars came into the picture.

        You haven’t produced any evidence regarding so-called Khazar DNA, just some blatant assumptions. The Talmud and other sources say that the Romans are descendants of Esau.

        FYI, the twins Esau and Jacob would have admittedly inherited identical Y-Chromosome and MtDNA, yet Deuteronomy 2:5 says:

        You shall not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land not so much as a foot step, because I have given Mount Seir to Esau for an inheritance.

        So the Torah says that, despite any genetic similarities or mutations, the Land of Israel did not become the inheritance of Esau, simply because it became a Roman vassal state or because Herod was reportedly a descendant of Esau. Conversely, the Torah says that the Land of Edom never became part of the inheritance of Israel simply because it briefly became a vassal.

      • Hostage
        July 18, 2012, 11:58 am

        Who am I going to believe, some obscure Israeli historiographer I’ve never heard of, or the numerous scientific studies and mountains of other evidence that all contradict him?

        People have a habit of finding whatever they’re look for. So far as I can see, there are no DNA studies of Khazars or Jews that haven’t been based on circular reasoning. Some idiots claim the Khazars were a lost tribe, while others claim they were the 13th tribe. For all I know, Abraham was a haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) Chaldean who’s line is practically extinct and the rest of us are all a bunch of haplotype J bastards born from an unholy pairing that the authors of the so-called scriptures knew nothing about. Try to get a grip on the limitations of deductive reasoning and our ability to rely on these old myths and legends to interpret the results of modern day genetic tests.

      • Hound
        July 18, 2012, 3:14 pm

        “Hunh? Yiddish was spoken in Hungary, Rumania, and the Ukraine. (Elie Wiesel grew up speaking Yiddish. He was born in Saghet.) When I was in Georgia, to the west of the Caspian Sea, the Jewish American students who spoke it could speak Yiddish with the old people they met. Georgia was 100% USSR at the time and religion was banned, but they were able to find people throughout our trip in the western half of Russia to talk to in Yiddish.”

        Jews took the Yiddish language with them as they migrated and settled in East Europe. Obviously, they tweaked the language a bit further to accommodate their new surroundings.

        “You haven’t produced any evidence regarding so-called Khazar DNA, just some blatant assumptions.”

        I’ve posted studies on here that refute this thesis. People are either ignoring it or the mods won’t publish it, for some reason. I’m not saying that Khazars couldn’t have had an impact on the modern Ashkenazi genome, just that if they did, it’s clearly very minimal. There are a smattering of studies all over the internet that back up what I’m saying. Look at the Wiki article “Genetic studies on Jews”.

        As far as your religious quotations and whatnot are concerned, I am an atheist and thus I don’t believe in any of these mythical figures or events. However, the fact that Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews have origins in the Middle East is a well documented, scientifically proven fact.

        “People have a habit of finding whatever they’re look for. So far as I can see, there are no DNA studies of Khazars or Jews that haven’t been based on circular reasoning. Some idiots claim the Khazars were a lost tribe, while others claim they were the 13th tribe. For all I know, Abraham was a haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) Chaldean who’s line is practically extinct and the rest of us are all a bunch of haplotype J bastards born from an unholy pairing that the authors of the so-called scriptures knew nothing about. Try to get a grip on the limitations of deductive reasoning and our ability to rely on these old myths and legends to interpret the results of modern day genetic tests.”

        When there’s a relevant DNA test out that somehow “proves” that we are descended solely from Khazars or recent European converts, then we’ll talk. Until then, I’m going to go with my gut instinct (genetics are not the only evidence I have for this anyway) and ignore the increasingly desperate claims from those that wish to delegitimize Israel (even though Israeli Jews aren’t just Ashkenazi or Sephardi anyway).

      • Hostage
        July 18, 2012, 9:03 pm

        I’ve posted studies on here that refute this thesis

        No you’ve posted studies which assume that the Khazars were not a people of ancient near eastern origin. I haven’t seen any studies done on samples of ancient Khazar DNA.

      • Hound
        July 18, 2012, 11:16 pm

        “No you’ve posted studies which assume that the Khazars were not a people of ancient near eastern origin. I haven’t seen any studies done on samples of ancient Khazar DNA.”

        The Khazars were a Central Asian/Turkic tribe. Jews overlap with neither of those things to any substantial degree. European, Middle Eastern, and North African Jewish diaspora groups overlap more with each other than anyone else. We plot roughly between South Europeans and Middle Eastern/Levantine peoples.

        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

      • Hostage
        July 19, 2012, 5:40 am

        The Khazars were a Central Asian/Turkic tribe. Jews overlap with neither of those things to any substantial degree. . . . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars

        Reliable published sources claimed for generations that the Samaritans were lion proselytes, Cutheans, or idolators of foreign origin. But modern DNA tests have proven those were myths and established that they shared a common male ancestor with many Jews as recently as the 2nd commonwealth era. The Israeli Antiquities Authority has carried-out decades-long excavations on Mt. Gerizim which indicate that the Samaritan Temple to El/Yahweh pre-dated the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem:

        The Jews had significant competition in antiquity when it came to worshiping Yahweh. Archeologists have discovered a second great temple not far from Jerusalem that predates its better known cousin. It belonged to the Samaritans, and may have been edited out of the Bible once the rivalry had been decided.

        link to spiegel.de

        I’d rather not rely on Wikipedia articles. I can produce reliable published sources which have claimed for generations that Ashkenazim are Khazar/Turkic people from Central Asia. There are also reliable sources which have proposed that some of the Israelites were transported to Central Asia by the Assyrians and became Khazars. Without checking some ancient DNA, no one can rule out the possibility that Khazars might have shared a common ancestor with the Jews. Everything that I’ve seen relies upon circular reasoning and a priori conclusions.

      • Hound
        July 19, 2012, 6:40 am

        @Hostage

        Here’s two studies off the top of my head that refute the Khazar thesis.

        link to s1.zetaboards.com

        link to nature.com

        All scientific, linguistic, cultural, historical and logical facts go against any possibility of a non-Levantine origin. Ashkenazi Jews have a large portion of Middle Eastern ancestry and have actual Jewish traditions.
        No credible scientist/genetic researcher supports an integrally Khazarian origin, which has already been refuted by subsequent peer-reviewed papers. That link isn’t working for me, by the way.

        “I can produce reliable published sources which have claimed for generations that Ashkenazim are Khazar/Turkic people from Central Asia. There are also reliable sources which have proposed that some of the Israelites were transported to Central Asia by the Assyrians and became Khazars.”

        So let’s see it then. I have yet to see anything like this.

      • Hound
        July 19, 2012, 6:57 am

        Finally got the link to work.

        Dude…..really? Are you really this clueless? Because I don’t even know where to begin here. I wanted to see the entire article before passing judgment, but I should have just trusted my instincts.

      • Shingo
        July 19, 2012, 10:10 am

        Here’s two studies off the top of my head that refute the Khazar thesis.

        The first doesn’t even work and the second requires purchased access.

        And you have the gall to call Hostage clueless?

      • Hound
        July 19, 2012, 6:11 pm

        @Shingo

        Whoops, the first one was an accident. This is what I meant to post: link to cell.com

        As for the second link, it didn’t ask me to purchase access and I’ve never had to before, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. However, if it really doesn’t work for you, I’ll just post the excerpt here.

        “Contemporary Jews comprise an aggregate of ethno-religious communities whose worldwide members identify with each other through various shared religious, historical and cultural traditions1, 2. Historical evidence suggests common origins in the Middle East, followed by migrations leading to the establishment of communities of Jews in Europe, Africa and Asia, in what is termed the Jewish Diaspora3, 4, 5. This complex demographic history imposes special challenges in attempting to address the genetic structure of the Jewish people6. Although many genetic studies have shed light on Jewish origins and on diseases prevalent among Jewish communities, including studies focusing on uniparentally and biparentally inherited markers7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, genome-wide patterns of variation across the vast geographic span of Jewish Diaspora communities and their respective neighbours have yet to be addressed. Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations. In contrast, Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in Ethiopia and western India, respectively, despite a clear paternal link between the Bene Israel and the Levant. These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant.”

      • Hostage
        July 20, 2012, 2:45 am

        Dude…..really? Are you really this clueless? Because I don’t even know where to begin here. I wanted to see the entire article before passing judgment, but I should have just trusted my instincts.

        I’m not sure who you’re addressing that comment to. But you’re surely not complaining about the Spiegel article that I cited, because the two articles that you’re linking to support the findings of other Jewish researchers who say that Samaritans had Jewish origins:

        Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.

        –Shen P, Lavi T, Kivisild T, Chou V, Sengun D, Gefel D, Shpirer I, Woolf E, Hillel J, Feldman MW, Oefner PJ. “Reconstruction of patrilineages and matrilineages of Samaritans and other Israeli populations from Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA sequence variation. J. of Human Mutation. 2004 Sep;24(3):248-60. link to evolutsioon.ut.ee

        The BAR and Israeli Antiquities Authority pages on the excavations at Mt Gerazim explains that we now know a lot of the old Jewish legends about the Samaratans and their Temple were false and that construction of other Temples during the Persian period was not unique. The biblical Sanballat was an Israelite governor, not a Cuthean as Josephus supposed. So a union between his daughter and the grandson of the high priest Eliashib should not have resulted in the man being chased from Jerusalem. Dr. Ingrid Hjelm is Research Associate at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies and the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Copenhagen. She specializes in the field of Hellenistic Judaism and has written journal articles on the Samaritans and Mt Gerazim. During a Copenhagen Conference on the subject years ago she advised that more than 480 inscriptions had been found on the spot and that it is the largest collection of building inscriptions, some of which are quite large, ever found in Israel.
        link to antiquities.org.il
        link to bib-arch.org

        FYI, Rabbi Akiva held that Samaritan priests were perfectly fit, their unleavened bread kosher, and etc. Other Sages held that the Samaritans only had to stop worshiping at Mt. Gerizim, take up the practice of levirite marriage (Deut. 25:5-6 a commandment that is no longer observed by Jews), or some other such thing, in order to be accepted into the mainstream Jewish community. So the Talmudic literature establishes the underlying fact that everyone knew that the Samaritan Priests were not a bunch of mamzers who descended from forbidden unions between Jews and Cuthean women. In fact, the Samartians have two unique MtDNA haplotypes not found among any other ethnic groups representing from the five continents. Despite the fact that the research team could not cite any likey non-Samaritan sources, they still suggested that these are likely descendants from a non-Samaritan female. I think that’s an example of unwarranted and unscientific speculation. link to med.stanford.edu

        I’ll respond to the posts on the two genetic studies that you cited in a separate comment.

      • Hostage
        July 20, 2012, 6:10 am

        Here’s two studies off the top of my head that refute the Khazar thesis. . . .link to nature.com . . . Whoops, the first one was an accident. This is what I meant to post: link to cell.com

        In an earlier comment, I cited a study which explained that the Samaritan community, which numbered more than a million in late Roman times had been reduced to only 146 people in 1917. Unlike the Samaritans, the Khazars vanished in the 11th century.

        There is no identifiable living source of Khazar DNA. Neither of the two studies that you cited examined samples of ancient Khazar DNA either. The 2010 premium Nature article by Behar et. al, “The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people” does not contain any discussion or conclusions about the “scientific, linguistic, cultural, historical and logical facts” about Khazars. The article is also available here: link to scribd.com

        The 2010 article at AJHG by Gil Atzmon, et al, “Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry” incorrectly assumes that all “theories” about Ashkenazi descent from the Khazars were summarized by Koestler’s, The Thirteenth Tribe, Random House, 1976.

        Remarkably, the authors of the AJHG article simply shift the question of non-Semetic admixture or descent of Ashkenazi Jews from Eurasia to the Mediterranean. They favor the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups because:
        *A high degree of European admixture (30%–60%) exists among the Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Italian, and Syrian Jews.
        *These groups are closer in proximity to one another and the Europeans than to Middle Eastern Jews from Iraqi or Iranian groups.
        *At most, only 50% of Ashkenazi Jewish Y chromosomal haplogroups appear to be of Middle Eastern origin.
        *Mitochondrial haplogroups of Middle Eastern origin only comprise approximately 40% of the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic pool.

        In practice, this study is just a bad as Koestler’s 13th Tribe theory of non-Semetic Khazar origin for those who wish to establish that their genes equal some sort of title to the Land of Israel or that 60% European genetic admixture makes you the rightful inheritor of Abraham. The authors felt that their study provided a genetic basis for confirming or debunking theories of Jewish origin and history, but that would have required them to establish the origins of the Khazars from DNA evidence.

        There were several nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples that could have gone into temporary exile and returned to Palestine. We know for certain that there were Jewish and Samaritan mercenaries and that their diaspora communities had synagogues and Temples in Africa and Eurasia. One of the weakness of the AJHG article is that it does not envision similar migrations and returns for the Idumean, Iturian, and other communities of Palestine, while at one and the same time, it acknowledges that the non-Iraqi and Iranian Jewish groups were formed in the last 2500 years from Jews who migrated or were expelled from Palestine and from individuals who were converted to Judaism during Hellenic-Hasmonean times, when proselytism was a common Jewish practice. I’ll address that factor in reply to some of your other comments.

      • Hostage
        July 20, 2012, 3:25 pm

        There are also reliable sources which have proposed that some of the Israelites were transported to Central Asia by the Assyrians and became Khazars.” . . . So let’s see it then. I have yet to see anything like this.

        The 2nd President of the State of Israel, Itzhak Ben-Zvi, wrote:

        .“there is no reason to doubt the existence of a continuous Jewish settlement in both the north and south of Caucasia, whose roots were laid in very ancient times, perhaps as early as the days of the Second Temple, perhaps even earlier.”

        — See page 62, The Exiled and the Redeemed, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1957

        He and others have noted the traditions of the so-called Georgian, or Mountain Jews who claim to have been part of the Ten Tribes of Israel. They say that their ancestors were exiled there upon the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. Others have noted that groups from this same Caucasus region are believed to be the ancestors of the Middle eastern Druze people

        The two 2010 studies that you cited compared samples from various Jewish groups to genomic DNA from 1,043 individuals from around the world, in the Human Genome Diversity Project. link to hagsc.org

        None of these studies or projects have investigated or identified Khazar samples or populations, but they have identified proximity of Jewish groups to the Druze. When the Children of Abraham article came out it cited articles about the possible connections and origins of the Khazars. In addition to Koestler, it cited B. Weinryb, A History of the Jews in Poland, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1973; and P. Wexler, Two-Tiered Relexification in Yiddish: Jews, Sorbs, Khazars, and the Kiev-Polessian Dialect, Mouton de Gruyter, 2002 regarding traditions on migration and evidence from linguistics.

        Dr. Eran Elhaik, a native Israeli population geneticist and a postdoctorate fellow at Johns Hopkins University was interviewed about the two 2010 Jewish genome studies that you cited. He noted that the Behar et al article had described how the populations of the Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian) overlie the plots of the Israeli Druze, Cypriots, and most Jews:

        But by 2010, he was a population geneticist. Two studies were published that year on the “Jewish genome.” Neither tested the Khazarian hypothesis — that ancestors of today’s Jews roamed the ancient kingdom.

        One study, however, found “remarkably high genetic similarities” between Eurasian Jews and the Caucasus people. Yet such features were dismissed as “a bias inherent in calculations as a result of the genetically more diverse non-Jewish people of the Levant.”

        But it also found that the Druze — a small Muslim sect in Israel and the region — were more similar to Ashkenazic Jews than Middle Eastern populations.

        Elhaik looked more closely. The Druze, he learned, also could be traced to the southern Caucus region. Geographically, Khazaria sat right above them. But identifiable Khazars were no longer alive, so he turned to studies on Palestinian Arabs, owing to their long history in the Middle East and a genetic makeup similar to Jews.

        “I tested whether Jews are closer to Palestinians or Caucasus populations like Armenians and Georgians, because I believe the Khazars emerged from the same gene pools and these populations shared common history,” he says. “The answer was that European Jews are closer to the Khazars, but that was only half the story.”

        Today, the Druze live in communities scattered from the Be’eka Valley to Banias in the Galilee where the Itureans lived. The latter were forced to convert to Judaism by a Hasmonean ruler Aristobulus in much the same way his father had forced the Edomites to convert. The Iturians could obviously account for one of the sources of Levantine or Mediterranean admixture 2500 years ago that was proposed by the authors of the Children of Abraham study. The Hasmoneans, Idumeans, and Itureans originated from nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples who took advantage of the weakness of the Seleucids and Romans to establish their own provincial or vassal governments. While a great deal is known about the exiles or diasporas of the Jews and Samaritans, little is known about the other peoples in the region that were subjugated by the Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans. Those peoples included the Idumean, Iturean, and Nabatean people. We only have a few details about what happened to them or their migrations after the Jewish wars against the Romans.

        Shortly after the Children of Abraham study was published, Nature ran an article that contained an interview view one of the authors and some criticisms of the sweeping assumptions that he had arrived at:

        But constructing a timeline on the basis of genetic analysis is tricky, say others. “There are too many assumptions you have to make,” says David Goldstein, a geneticist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. “I don’t think we have the resolution right now in the genetics to time the events.”

        Another tantalizing question that the study doesn’t address, he says, is the historical explanation for the shared genetics between the Jewish groups. Although the data point to a common ancestral origin in the Middle East, further details — such as when and how much different populations intermixed — are impossible to glean. “That level of resolution is just not there,” he says.

        link to nature.com

        I pointed out in my earlier comment that Samaritans had originated from a common genetic pool and that they have married Jews in ancient times and in the 2nd commonwealth era. Both communities had diasporas and in recent times marriages between Jewish women and Samaritan men have been permitted. There’s every reason to suspect the same thing has happened with modern-day descendants of other groups like the Idumeans and Iturians. link to jwa.org

        One of the biggest problems with using Jewish historiography is that biblical and other Jewish sources view individuals in metaphysical, not genetic terms. So individuals with otherwise identical DNA can be described as either Israelites, Jews, or a variety of Gentiles depending upon unscientific and arbitrary social boundaries or criteria. The biblical patriarchs all had an identical copy of Terah’s Y chromosome and there’s no reason to suspect that Lot’s wife or daughters didn’t have the same MtDNA as the rest of the clan in Padan-Aram. If the two groups separated then minor mutations would have developed, but the scriptural and historical accounts make it clear that admixture with Ammonites, Moabites, or Edomites was probably commonplace. For example, the ancient Israelites “went whoring” after Moabite women; there were rules about the number of generations that should lapse before their descendants (e.g. King David) could join the congregation of Israel; and in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah the prime examples of men with Moabite and other foreign wives were the Princes of the tribe Judah.

        Converts from these genetically similar groups were still treated with suspicion and resentment according to the accounts in Talmudic and other Jewish literature. For example, according to Josephus (War 4:281), the Idumeans complained that the gates of Jerusalem were open to all foreigners but closed to them. A man of Jerusalem named Simon, who was described as one knowledgeable of the law, aroused public opinion against foreign-born King Herod Agrippa I for entering the Temple, “since it belonged only to native Jews” (Antiquities 19:332).

        Another good example is the case of Sabatai Zvi. According to his own account, when he converted to Islam he stopped being Jew and said: “God has made me an Ishmaelite; He commanded, and it was done. The ninth day of my regeneration.” The Jewish genome of a member of the Dönmeh group would be irrelevant with respect to their personal status in the State of Israel.

        Modern-day Jews often describe biological Jews who are members of the Reform or Conservative streams, and immigrants from Russia as if they are non-Jews or another people. The Zionist view about the destruction or disappearance of Jews through intermarriage or Christian baptism is not based on genetics. Those views apply even in cases where the so-called “Gentile” spouse is actually a person of Jewish descent.

      • Citizen
        July 20, 2012, 5:44 pm

        I get it, nobody knows who’s a jew by reference to history, just by self-identification. Why not leave it at that? If U say U R a Jew, I believe you believe it, so the next question is: What do you justify or want in the name of the jews? And if somebody objects, is the fact that you are a self-identifying jew make it good for all those impacted? And if not, if they object, R they to be dismissed as jew-haters pure and simple?

      • Hound
        July 20, 2012, 7:31 pm

        @Hostage

        I’ll respond to you in depth later, when I get home.

      • Hound
        July 20, 2012, 9:14 pm

        @Hostage

        None of what you have posted is proof of anything, but merely conjecture. Find me a peer-reviewed paper proving your point. Der spiegel is not a peer-reviewed paper, but a daily newspaper written by journalists striving for sensationalism. Central Asian and Slavic segments are scarce at best in Ashkenazi Jews, whereas West Asian ranges from 45-75 percent of the modern Ashkenazi genome (I came out as 65 percent West Asian, clustering close to Palestinians). It’s also rather dubious to make a case that they have no actual Levantine descent simply because of their proximity to S. Europeans, for two reasons:

        1. South Europeans (Sicilians and Greeks, for instance) are also heavily influenced in DNA by SW Asians.
        2. The Roman Empire (where most of the admixture took place) consisted of more than just Rome and Greece, it was all over the Mediterranean.

        And you can’t use Y-DNA and mtDNA alone to paint an entire picture of somebody’s genome. Autosomal DNA tests can do that, and none of them, or any peer-reviewed paper, supports your theories.

      • Hostage
        July 20, 2012, 11:48 pm

        None of what you have posted is proof of anything, but merely conjecture. . . . . you can’t use Y-DNA and mtDNA alone to paint an entire picture of somebody’s genome.

        Sorry but you cited the “Children of Abraham” article. It says that between 30-60% of the genome of the Askenazi, Sephardic, Italian, and Syrian Jewish groups tested was the result of European admixture. FYI, that observation wasn’t limited to the results of tests done on Y chromosomes or MtDNA.

        *It also says that those groups are more closely related to the gentile people of Italy, France, Sardinia, & etc. than to Iraqi or Iranian Jews.

        *It says that up to 50% of the Y chromosomes of those groups are from non-Semetic and European patriarchs.

        *It says that only 40% percent of the MtDNA of those groups comes from Middle Eastern, Semetic sources.

        None of that is based on my conjectures.

        So instead of simply debunking the idea that a sizable percentage of the Askenazi are descended from Kharzar converts, these studies themselves provide concrete evidence and explicit statements that say a sizeable proportion of Askenazi, Sephardic, Italian, and Syrian Jews are descended from non-Semetic converts of Mediterranean origin who lived about 2500 years ago.

        Autosomal DNA tests can do that, and none of them, or any peer-reviewed paper, supports your theories.

        “Theories” is plural. After you ridiculed the Spiegel article, I did provide you with a peer reviewed article in rebuttal from the Geneticists at the Sanford Medical School Genome Technology Center which appeared in the Journal of Human Mutation. That study established that Samaritan and Jewish priests share a common male ancestor who lived in the era of the 2nd commonwealth. I also provided you with links to a peer-reviewed publication of the Biblical Archeology Society and the Israeli Antiquities Authority webpage which confirmed all of the essential details about the Temple on Mt. Gerizim that appeared in the Spiegal article.

        Another of my theories is that no one actually tested the Khazar theses using actual DNA, autosomal or otherwise. The authors of the “Abraham’s Children” article simply deployed circular reasoning and claimed that their data didn’t support the idea. I noted that Dr David Goldstein and Dr. Eran Elhaik, geneticists at Duke University and John Hopkins had criticized the findings. Goldstein’s observations were published in Nature, which is peer reviewed. He said that the study had failed to explain how the apparent relationships between the groups had developed and that genetic testing could not be used to construct an accurate picture.

        Dr. Eran Elhaik was giving his expert opinion. He was discussing both of the papers that you cited in an interview. He noted that the studies do show genetic overlaps between Druse, Caucasus, and Ashkenazi populations. The studies themselves noted that the populations in question are in closer proximity to the Ashkenazi Jews than the Middle Eastern Jews, Palestinians, or Bedouins.

        Central Asian and Slavic segments are scarce at best in Ashkenazi Jews

        There you go again. You can’t just assume that Jews were super portable and wandered over vast expanses of space and time, while everyone else remained stationary. There’s no genetic evidence to support that proposition and a lot of anecdotal evidence that points in other direction. There were many nomadic and semi-nomadic groups wandering around Eurasia and the Middle East and no proof that Khazars were of Slavic or Turkic origin. That begs the central question.

        Some of the theses advanced are based upon founder effects and genetic bottlenecks of fewer than four Jewish community matriarchs. So we aren’t necessarily looking for a large group of permanent residents.

      • Mooser
        July 20, 2012, 11:49 pm

        What on earth is the relevance of all of this?

      • Hostage
        July 21, 2012, 4:15 pm

        What on earth is the relevance of all of this?

        LOL! Years ago the Zionists claimed that the Arabs were merely Jews on horseback. Once they stepped ashore in Palestine, they dropped all of their pretenses and revealed their greed. They announced that the Arabs had plenty of land elsewhere and that the Jews were the rightful inheritors of everything in Palestine – lock, stock, and barrel. The map of dispossession above should be updated to reflect the latest findings of fact from the report of Justice Edmond Levy’s committee on construction in Judea and Samaria.

        Like all of the other “blood and soil” national movements, the Zionists have always employed mythology and genetics in support of their political cause. There are still a handful of Zionist faithful trying to sustain the idea that their racial theories have a sound scientific underpinning, e.g.

        In his new book, “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, claims that Jews are different, and the differences are not just skin deep. Jews exhibit, he writes, a distinctive genetic signature.

        — See Jews Are a ‘Race,’ Genes Reveal link to forward.com

        The fly-in-the-ointment is that, when you look at the statistics from that and the other major studies published in 2010, it emerges that the Ashkenazi genetic signature that emerges is a European one. 60 percent of their genes are not shared by other Semetic peoples, except Sephardim, Italian, and Syrian Jews who have similar European admixtures. In fact, there are dozens of major studies devoted to the so-called “Jewish genome” which have long-since established, beyond any doubt, that the Jewish communities of Europe and the Mediterranean are Heinz 57s, not thoroughbreds.

        In some instances, like the Ashkenazi Levites, the studies have destroyed the basis for any boasting about our pedigrees. Over 50 percent were found to be descended from an anonymous European patriarch. See “Multiple origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y chromosome evidence for both Near Eastern and European ancestries”. link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

        Three major studies were released in 2010 which illustrated that as much as 60 percent of the typical Askenazi or European Sephardi genome is attributable to admixture (sexual unions) with non-Semites. It’s impossible at present to construct a timeline regarding their “origin”, i.e. Judaized Gentiles vs. highly assimilated Semites. The studies demonstrate that, given the opportunity, these communities have added the genetic uniqueness of everyone else to their own. Their Middle Eastern and African genes actually make them more genetically diverse than some of their inbred European neighbors. But you can’t put that sort of news in the lead and expect a Jewish mother to toe the line and lecture her children about the dangers of assimilation or forbidden sex with shiksas. Here is a link to the third 2010 study and a 2011 study on the subject:
        *Signatures of founder effects, admixture, and selection in the Ashkenazi Jewish population
        link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
        *The History of African Gene Flow into Southern Europeans, Levantines, and Jews link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

        Here are the money quotes from the first of those two articles about the Emory University study:

        “We were surprised to find evidence that Ashkenazi Jews have higher heterozygosity than Europeans, contradicting the widely-held presumption that they have been a largely isolated group,” says first author Steven Bray, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in Warren’s laboratory.

        The researchers were able to estimate that between 35 and 55 percent of the modern Ashkenazi genome comes from European descent.

        “Our study represents the largest cohort of Ashkenazi Jews examined to date with such a high density of genetic markers, and our estimate of admixture is considerably higher than previous estimates that used the Y chromosome to calculate European admixture at between five and 23 percent,” Bray says.

        He adds that his group’s analysis agrees with a recently published study from New York University and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and supports estimates of a high level of European admixture, accounting for up to half of the genetic make-up of contemporary Ashkenazi.

        link to sciencedaily.com

        The bottom line is that actual hands-on testing of DNA samples has led to startling revelations that destroy some of the most cherished myths of the Zionists and their religious apparatchiks. You really can’t rely on uniformitarianism, legends, and genetic simulation software to describe Jews, Khazars, or anyone else. So naturally the Ziobots are going to subject the rest of us to the torture of wading through a bunch of pseudo-scientific hasbara.

      • Hound
        July 21, 2012, 7:20 pm

        “Sorry but you cited the “Children of Abraham” article. It says that between 30-60% of the genome of the Askenazi, Sephardic, Italian, and Syrian Jewish groups tested was the result of European admixture. FYI, that observation wasn’t limited to the results of tests done on Y chromosomes or MtDNA.”

        You act as though the European admixture somehow supplanted the Levantine ancestry in Ashkenazim. Sorry, but it’s not true. 40-70 percent of our genome is of Middle Eastern origin. I myself came out as 65 percent Middle Eastern, clustering with Palestinians and Jordanians.

        “*It also says that those groups are more closely related to the gentile people of Italy, France, Sardinia, & etc. than to Iraqi or Iranian Jews. ”

        You do know how a PCA plot works, right? For instance, a half-Irish and half-Japanese guy would probably plot somewhere in Central Asia. That doesn’t make him Central Asian. In the case of Ashkenazi, there are two things to consider.

        1. Italians, French, Sardinians, Greeks, and South Italians all have a degree of West Asian ancestry. No educated person would take that as indication that we’re not Middle Eastern.

        2. There is some fairly recent Central and East European ancestry present in Ashkenazim, which lessens the effect of their West Asian affinity. Granted, admixture with those groups wasn’t exactly common, but it did obviously happen.

        “*It says that up to 50% of the Y chromosomes of those groups are from non-Semetic and European patriarchs.

        *It says that only 40% percent of the MtDNA of those groups comes from Middle Eastern, Semetic sources. ”

        How do I put this in a way that is simple to understand?

        Y-chromosomes and MtDNA are unaffected by admixture. You see, even if that unbroken patrilineal/matrilineal lineage goes back to Europe or elsewhere, it is certain (as a result of the isolated nature of Judaism, rules against intermarriage, widespread persecution, constant expulsions etc) that they mixed with Jews who did have Middle Eastern ancestry. That is why I stress the reliability of autosomal tests above all else. This sort of inbreeding went on for 2000 years, and although we did occasionally intermarry or accept a convert or two, it was never enough to dilute the substantial imprint our Levantine ancestors left on us.

        “So instead of simply debunking the idea that a sizable percentage of the Askenazi are descended from Kharzar converts, these studies themselves provide concrete evidence and explicit statements that say a sizeable proportion of Askenazi, Sephardic, Italian, and Syrian Jews are descended from non-Semetic converts of Mediterranean origin who lived about 2500 years ago. ”

        I never refuted that we had non-Semitic Mediterranean blood, just that A) Khazars, even if they were eventually absorbed into the Ashkenazi gene pool, do not represent our ethnogenesis or any significant portion of our overall ancestry (although I’m open to any evidence that says otherwise, so far I’ve seen nothing) and B) that we are not indigenous at all (in the sense that Amerindians are indigenous to America, and not the various colonizers and immigrants) to the Middle East.

        ““Theories” is plural. After you ridiculed the Spiegel article, I did provide you with a peer reviewed article in rebuttal from the Geneticists at the Sanford Medical School Genome Technology Center which appeared in the Journal of Human Mutation. That study established that Samaritan and Jewish priests share a common male ancestor who lived in the era of the 2nd commonwealth. I also provided you with links to a peer-reviewed publication of the Biblical Archeology Society and the Israeli Antiquities Authority webpage which confirmed all of the essential details about the Temple on Mt. Gerizim that appeared in the Spiegal article. ”

        I never debated the similarities between Samaritans and Jews/Ashkenazi.

        “Another of my theories is that no one actually tested the Khazar theses using actual DNA, autosomal or otherwise. The authors of the “Abraham’s Children” article simply deployed circular reasoning and claimed that their data didn’t support the idea. I noted that Dr David Goldstein and Dr. Eran Elhaik, geneticists at Duke University and John Hopkins had criticized the findings. Goldstein’s observations were published in Nature, which is peer reviewed. He said that the study had failed to explain how the apparent relationships between the groups had developed and that genetic testing could not be used to construct an accurate picture. ”

        Can you link me to these statements please?

        “There you go again. You can’t just assume that Jews were super portable and wandered over vast expanses of space and time, while everyone else remained stationary. There’s no genetic evidence to support that proposition and a lot of anecdotal evidence that points in other direction. There were many nomadic and semi-nomadic groups wandering around Eurasia and the Middle East and no proof that Khazars were of Slavic or Turkic origin. That begs the central question.

        Some of the theses advanced are based upon founder effects and genetic bottlenecks of fewer than four Jewish community matriarchs. So we aren’t necessarily looking for a large group of permanent residents.”

        We shall see with future DNA studies, I suppose. However, until I see any solid, concrete evidence that we are not by and large descended from the Levant, I’m going to trust my own instincts on the matter.

      • Hound
        July 21, 2012, 7:51 pm

        “The fly-in-the-ointment is that, when you look at the statistics from that and the other major studies published in 2010, it emerges that the Ashkenazi genetic signature that emerges is a European one. 60 percent of their genes are not shared by other Semetic peoples, except Sephardim, Italian, and Syrian Jews who have similar European admixtures. In fact, there are dozens of major studies devoted to the so-called “Jewish genome” which have long-since established, beyond any doubt, that the Jewish communities of Europe and the Mediterranean are Heinz 57s, not thoroughbreds.”

        I never said we were thoroughbreds. Please stop putting words in my mouth, and debate like an adult.

        “In some instances, like the Ashkenazi Levites, the studies have destroyed the basis for any boasting about our pedigrees. Over 50 percent were found to be descended from an anonymous European patriarch. See “Multiple origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y chromosome evidence for both Near Eastern and European ancestries”. link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov”

        Obviously the result of admixture in the early Roman Empire. Again, I never contested that. I won’t quote the rest of your post, because they’re essentially the same arguments, however….

        The bottom line is that actual hands-on testing of DNA samples has led to startling revelations that destroy some of the most cherished myths of the Zionists and their religious apparatchiks. You really can’t rely on uniformitarianism, legends, and genetic simulation software to describe Jews, Khazars, or anyone else. So naturally the Ziobots are going to subject the rest of us to the torture of wading through a bunch of pseudo-scientific hasbara.”

        Ziobots? Really? I’m only Zionist in the sense that I believe Israel has the right to exist, if not as a Jewish state, then as a bi-national state where the concerns of both Jews and Arabs are taken into consideration.

        If that makes me such a horrible person or a fanatical zealot, so be it. You clearly have some growing up to do, though.

      • Roya
        July 21, 2012, 9:49 pm

        Hostage, you have clearly hit a nerve because Hound knows that once the Zionist chokehold on the U.S. loosens and it becomes wider knowledge that the Ashkenazis who dominate Israel and who shoved the “We are returning home” lie down our throats are actually not “returning home,” the country will become more ready to see Israel for the terrorist state that it is.

        I’m only Zionist in the sense that I believe Israel has the right to exist, if not as a Jewish state, then as a bi-national state where the concerns of both Jews and Arabs are taken into consideration.

        Really Hound? Because you don’t show the empathy that you purport to have.
        P.S. they are not just Arabs. They are Palestinians.

      • Hound
        July 21, 2012, 10:35 pm

        By the way Hostage, the number isn’t 60 percent, it ranges from 35 to 55, or 30 to 60 in those studies you mention. Roughly, this would mean that at least 45-65, or 40-70 percent of our genome is Middle Eastern.

        Nice try, though.

      • Hound
        July 22, 2012, 1:17 am

        On one final note, I believe that the proximity of Jews to Druze may be that both groups got their start in Persia, before migrating to the Levant and establishing their kingdom. Either way, Persia is still Middle Eastern so that doesn’t exactly refute what I’ve said.

        Also, don’t forget that Palestinians themselves also went through periods of admixture, mainly with Arab tribes from the Gulf, but also with black African groups.

        I must apologize for rushing my earlier comments. Work has been hell these past few days.

      • Hound
        July 22, 2012, 4:24 am

        “Hostage, you have clearly hit a nerve because Hound knows that once the Zionist chokehold on the U.S. loosens and it becomes wider knowledge that the Ashkenazis who dominate Israel and who shoved the “We are returning home” lie down our throats are actually not “returning home,” the country will become more ready to see Israel for the terrorist state that it is.”

        What’s “hitting my nerves” here is ignorance and the increasingly apparent desire around here to force those who made Aliyah out of Israel/Palestine. This includes people who are so eager that they will spout any nonsense they can come up with that even remotely indicates that we might not have roots in Palestine, or the Middle East. All of the evidence currently available just about guarantees a Middle Eastern origin for Ashkenazi Jews.

        “Really Hound? Because you don’t show the empathy that you purport to have.
        P.S. they are not just Arabs. They are Palestinians.”

        I’m not going to jump through hoops just to prove to some stranger over the internet (or anyone, for that matter) that I’m “one of the good guys, not like those other Jews”. That’s just not how I roll. I already laid out my preferred solution to the conflict (although most of it was Gaddafi and his son’s idea), which in my opinion should guarantee peace, security, and prosperity for everyone. I’m willing to bet that the only way I can prove my loyalty to your so-called “cause” (you don’t seem to be entirely altruistic yourself) is if I adopt the extremist calls to cleanse Israel and Palestine of all non-Arab Israelis. I know better than to buy into such absolutes.

        The reason I don’t use the term “Palestinians” to refer to Palestinian Arabs is because it is too ambiguous, and from my experience, used to imply that only THEY have any right to live in the region (assuming in this case that we’re referring to Israel as part of Palestine).

      • Roya
        July 22, 2012, 6:55 am

        This includes people who are so eager that they will spout any nonsense they can come up with that even remotely indicates that we might not have roots in Palestine, or the Middle East. All of the evidence currently available just about guarantees a Middle Eastern origin for Ashkenazi Jews.

        Right, because all the studies Hostage has taken the time to provide have gone past your head and because Tzipi Livni and crew look just like Ahmadinejad and crew.
        To be clear I do not support ethnic cleansing of any kind and that includes the ethnic cleansing of Europeans like you who invaded the Middle East. But based on the supremacist nature of certain Israelis (Eli Yishai and Ben-Ari anyone?), I do suspect that when democracy is served some of you will voluntarily make “descent,” especially the extremist American settlers and others that are recent immigrants. Whether or not you leave does not matter to me. And considering that diaspora Palestinians tend to be highly successful and assimilated in the countries where they seek asylum, it seems to me that a large proportion will seek compensation rather than exercise their right to return, meaning that there probably won’t even be an overcapacity problem (note that I’m no expert, I’m just speculating on this).

        I will ignore your insults and instead let you wallow in your embarrassment about playing the victim card in a game in which you are the victimizer.

      • Hound
        July 22, 2012, 9:03 am

        “Right, because all the studies Hostage has taken the time to provide have gone past your head and because Tzipi Livni and crew look just like Ahmadinejad and crew.”

        None of those studies said anything to disprove my point that we have a Middle Eastern origin, and substantial Middle Eastern ancestry. Granted, he did put a little spin on it a (or gravely misinterpreted it, but I’m going with the former for now) to make it look like 60% percent of our genome across the spectrum is European. The actual number was a range between 35-55, depending on the individual. The amount of Middle Eastern and European ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews varies greatly, but you don’t need me to tell you that.

        “To be clear I do not support ethnic cleansing of any kind and that includes the ethnic cleansing of Europeans like you who invaded the Middle East.”

        As far as my ethnic groups origins are concerned, I am not European.

        As far as my culture is concerned, I am not European.

        As far as my language is concerned, I am not European.

        As far as my genome is concerned, I am more Middle Eastern than European.

        Please do not try to decide for me what my identity is. Thank you.

        “But based on the supremacist nature of certain Israelis (Eli Yishai and Ben-Ari anyone?), I do suspect that when democracy is served some of you will voluntarily make “descent,” especially the extremist American settlers and others that are recent immigrants.”

        This is why I suggest putting safeguards in the constitution, such as strict hate crime laws, to protect the rights of all Jews living in the country.

        “I will ignore your insults and instead let you wallow in your embarrassment about playing the victim card in a game in which you are the victimizer.”

        I’m not responsible for what the Israeli government does. Assuming you are American, should I start blaming you for what the Bush administration did while in office? It’s a silly argument.

      • Hound
        July 22, 2012, 9:30 am

        By the way, here are a couple of important quotations from those articles he posted. This should help clarify what I meant.

        “Recent reports have reaffirmed that the AJ population has a common Middle Eastern origin with other Jewish Diaspora populations, but also suggest that the AJ population, compared with other Jews, has had the most European admixture.”

        Nobody ever said we were pure, but our origins are undeniably in the Levant.

        “To evaluate admixture in the AJ population, we investigated the similarity between AJ and HGDP populations using PCA as well as a population clustering algorithm (32). Both analyses show that AJ individuals cluster between Middle Eastern and European populations (Fig. 2 A and B and Fig. S2A), corroborating other recent reports (13, 20, 22, 23, 25). Interestingly, our population clustering reveals that the AJ population shows an admixture pattern subtly more similar to Europeans than Middle Easterners (Fig. 2 A and C, Lower), while also verifying that the Ashkenazi Jews possess a unique genetic signature clearly distinguishing them from the other two regions (Fig. 2C, Upper).”

        Note how it said subtly, and that due to the nature of PCA plots, it indicates that there is substantial Middle Eastern ancestry alongside the European.

      • Hound
        July 22, 2012, 10:04 am

        A few more things.

        1. Ashkenazi had mixed substantially with European groups in Rome, when proselytism was fairly common. Obviously, they won’t closely resemble Ahmadinejad and other Iranians who never had the chance to absorb European blood.

        2. Many Levantines are white, and look pretty similar to modern Jews. Tony Shalhoub is frequently mistaken for Jewish, when he is in fact Lebanese.

        3. Many modern Ashkenazi Jews have clear Middle Eastern traits. Sasha Baron Cohen (Kohanim), Brad Garrett, Eugene Levy (Levite), Adrien Brody, Cliff Simon, etc. I could also post some pictures of Ashkenazi Jewish families from before WWII, but only if the mods will allow me to do that. They deleted my post last time I tried to post some. Anyway, Google Polish Jews, and you’ll see what I mean.

      • Citizen
        July 22, 2012, 4:57 pm

        Re: “The amount of Middle Eastern and European ancestry in Ashkenazi Jews varies greatly, but you don’t need me to tell you that.”
        Yes, we do have eyes.

        Re: “I’m not responsible for what the Israeli government does. Assuming you are American, should I start blaming you for what the Bush administration did while in office? It’s a silly argument.”

        Correct, no more than the average German should have been blamed for what the Hitler regime did for a dozen years back in the day. Since most Germans living in Germany today were not even born back then, should they still be paying reparations, Hound? Should the Palestinians be getting reparations from Israel?

      • Hound
        July 22, 2012, 6:46 pm

        “Should the Palestinians be getting reparations from Israel?”

        Yes

      • Hound
        July 22, 2012, 8:24 pm

        Alright, it’s time to put this debate to rest.

        For instance, Hostage said:

        “Three major studies were released in 2010 which illustrated that as much as 60 percent of the typical Askenazi or European Sephardi genome is attributable to admixture (sexual unions) with non-Semites. It’s impossible at present to construct a timeline regarding their “origin”, i.e. Judaized Gentiles vs. highly assimilated Semites. The studies demonstrate that, given the opportunity, these communities have added the genetic uniqueness of everyone else to their own. Their Middle Eastern and African genes actually make them more genetically diverse than some of their inbred European neighbors. But you can’t put that sort of news in the lead and expect a Jewish mother to toe the line and lecture her children about the dangers of assimilation or forbidden sex with shiksas. Here is a link to the third 2010 study and a 2011 study on the subject:
        *Signatures of founder effects, admixture, and selection in the Ashkenazi Jewish population
        link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

        But from the same paper…

        ” Bray et al 2010

        Our calculations
        will have overestimated the level of admixture if the true Jewish
        ancestor is genetically closer to Europeans than Middle Easterners”

        If such concerns are expressed within peer-reviewed studies, then there’s no way you can build up assertions regarding the degree of admixture. Also, IBD segments only furnish a clue, no conclusion either (unless they are used in huge proportions). Needless to say, the Mediterranean origin of the ancestry you refer to is for the most part shared with non-Jewish populations of the Levant, I recall Douglass McDonald himself had a hard time making a distinction between Jews and Cypriots (who are likely to be what the source/ancestral population of the Levant looked like):

        “Quote:

        Most likely fit is 74.3% (+- 3.8%) Mideast (all Jewish)
        and 25.7% (+- 3.8%) Mideast (various subcontinents)
        which is 100% total Mideast

        The following are possible population sets and their fractions,
        most likely at the top
        Jewish= 0.701 Druze= 0.299
        Jewish= 0.793 Palestin= 0.207
        Jewish= 0.734 Armenian= 0.266

        however, this fails the specific “Jewish” test. In fact, it seems
        to fit Cypriot, 100% Cypriot, fairly well, and the spot on the
        map is there. So I suggest some sort of eastern Mediterranean
        ancestry (which, of course, the Jews are too).”

        The R1a reported within Atzmon’s 2010 study belongs to the Z93 subclade, which is shared with members of the Quraish tribe in Makka… It is also shared with Turkic populations but whether it is “Khazar” or not is out of reach for now.

      • Hound
        July 22, 2012, 8:28 pm

        Basically, Jews are what they claim to be, that is… Jews, an eastern Mediterranean/Middle Eastern population.

        Uni-parental markers also furnish a very interesting clue regarding the proportion of West Asian ancestry: It is tremendous.

        All in all, all the scientific and logical facts go against what you say, the “European” Jews have a large portion of Middle Eastern ancestry and have actual Jewish traditions.

        Also, Arabs are also very mixed, why should we call them “Semites” but not call the Jews that? Who are you to determine what percentages you can start calling yourself a Semite? Semite in itself is a bogus term, and since West Asian and Southwest Asian are the only middle eastern portions (Semites and other non-Semites), check out how mixed some Arab groups can be:

        Syrians
        West Asian – 37.2%
        Southwest Asian – 33.1%
        Other – 29.7%

        Jordanians
        West Asian – 31.3%
        Southwest Asian – 33.9%
        Other – 34.8%

        Egyptians
        West Asian – 19.1%
        Southwest Asian – 38.9%
        Other – 42%

        link to docs.google.com

        That’s not to mention that the vast majority of the West Asian genes are not actual Semitic markers, meaning the so called Semitic mix in these Arab groups is easily less than 50%.

        If we go by West Asian/Southwest Asian DNA, the Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews both carry 45% to 53% Middle Eastern ancestry… Needless to say, the Mediterranean component most likely was present in a sizable quantity prior to the diaspora so the figure ought to be around 66% to 75%.

        And what are you arguing for anyway? I know of no serious researcher who claims that Jews are unmixed. Seriously, that’s insanity. And if you are referring to inbreeding, you should know it is well established and the proof for this is the % of uniparental markers hailing from the ME and forming tight subclusters such as the extended Kohen Modal Haplotype.

      • Hound
        July 22, 2012, 8:34 pm

        Further….

        “The bottom line is that actual hands-on testing of DNA samples has led to startling revelations that destroy some of the most cherished myths of the Zionists and their religious apparatchiks. You really can’t rely on uniformitarianism, legends, and genetic simulation software to describe Jews, Khazars, or anyone else. So naturally the Ziobots are going to subject the rest of us to the torture of wading through a bunch of pseudo-scientific hasbara.”

        Ahem…..

        “Our calculations
        will have overestimated the level of admixture if the true Jewish
        ancestor is genetically closer to Europeans than Middle Easterners

        Again, your study. And what the hell do you mean by “blood and soil”? All Zionism is really about is the inalienable right of the Jewish people to self-determination. It may also come as a shock to you to learn that the early Zionists argued in favor of respecting the rights of the non-Jewish populations already present in Israel/Palestine.

      • Hound
        July 22, 2012, 8:38 pm

        Plenty of info here too.

        link to bhusers.upf.edu

        And to top it all off….

        ” Tian et al 2009

        It also is worth noting
        that the inclusion of the Arab population
        groups results in larger separation
        between northern Italian and southern
        Italian (and/or Greek) subjects and suggests
        that inclusion of the Arab population
        genotypes may be useful in analyses
        of southern European population groups
        (data not shown).”

        So indeed, we should be talking about Eastern Mediterranean populations, not “Southern Europeans” (since it makes little to no sense, gene-wise).

        You can call me Ziobot all you like, but it’s not gonna change anything. If you still cannot understand the fact that we are native to the area after everything I just laid out, then it’s obvious that you just don’t want to understand.

      • Hostage
        July 22, 2012, 10:57 pm

        I never said we were thoroughbreds. Please stop putting words in my mouth, and debate like an adult. . . . . Ziobots? Really? I’m only Zionist in the sense that I believe Israel has the right to exist, if not as a Jewish state, then as a bi-national state where the concerns of both Jews and Arabs are taken into consideration. . . .If that makes me such a horrible person or a fanatical zealot, so be it. You clearly have some growing up to do, though.

        FYI, I’ve been debating like an adult all along, despite these comments about my immaturity or cluelessness that you’ve been making throughout the thread.

        I subscribe to the view that the Jewish race is a myth and that religious superstition was behind a lot of self-selection that resulted in creation of “the Jews” and other self-fulfilling prophecies. That idea did not originate with Shlomo Sand. See for example: Raphael Patai, Jennifer Patai, The Myth of the Jewish Race, Wayne State University Press, 1989

        For example, we know for certain that’s the case with one or more of the three patriarchal lines of Kohanim and that very few candidates possess all six of the extended markers, only about 45% of Ashkenazim and 56% of Sephardim. The 6 marker Cohen Modal Haplotype cannot “prove” Cohen ancestry. It can only somewhat strengthen a previously existing belief. See for example:
        *Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood
        Michael F. Hammer,1,2 Doron M. Behar,3 Tatiana M. Karafet,1 Fernando L. Mendez,2 Brian Hallmark,1 Tamar Erez,1 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,4 Saharon Rosset,5 and Karl Skoreckicorresponding author3,6
        link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
        *Y-chromosomal Aaron link to en.wikipedia.org

        BTW, I provided a link to a Daily Forward article, Jews Are a ‘Race,’ Genes Reveal link to forward.com and was discussing the fact that it’s Zionist hasbara. It discussed Harry Ostrer’s new book. He is one of the authors of the “Children of Abraham” study and the spokesman that was interviewed by Nature for their article “Jews worldwide share genetic ties” link to nature.com

        That’s the article where the geneticist from Duke complained that:
        a) Constructing a timeline on the basis of genetic analysis requires too many assumptions; and
        b) Although the data point to a common ancestral origin in the Middle East, the authors did not provide an adequate historical explanation for the shared genetics between the various Jewish groups. Details — such as when and how much different populations intermixed — are impossible to glean. “That level of resolution is just not there”.

        Despite that fact, Ostrer enthused that:

        “We really see the events of the Jewish diaspora in the genomes of Jewish people.”

        Here is an example where the detail is just not there. His report said that these European and Middle Eastern Jewish groups separated 2500 years ago. That may be attributable to biases of the technical and historical contributors listed, including Rabbi Salomon Cohen-Scali and Lawrence Schiffman, but it had little or nothing to do with any tests or observations performed on Ashkenazi DNA. Here is is an extract from the report under the heading “Timing of the Middle Eastern-European Jewish Divergence”:

        Ashkenazi Jewish samples were excluded from this analysis, because the sharing in this population was inconsistent with a near-constant recent population size [a demographic miracle]. The ancestral population size was then used in two simulations to estimate the time splits between Middle-Eastern and European (Italian) Jews. Under these assumptions, the split was consistent with 100–150 generations, or during the first millennium BCE, assuming a generation time of 20 years. The split between Middle-Eastern Jews and non-Jews was inconsistent with these simulation assumptions, suggesting a more complex history than a simple split of a single ancestral population.

        The fact that the evidence just doesn’t fit the simulations or pre-conceptions was glossed over in the press releases and the subsequent discussions contained in the report itself:

        This time of a split between Middle Eastern Iraqi and Iranian Jews and European/Syrian Jews, calculated by simulation and comparison of length distributions of IBD segments, is 100–150 generations, compatible with a historical divide that is reported to have occurred more than 2500 years ago.

        So the simulations didn’t include the data set from the Ashkenazi’s and the results were used, despite the fact that they were inconsistent with the observed data regarding inbreeding (IBD) between Middle-Eastern Jews and non-Jews. But hey, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln . . .

        There’s no reason to rule out the possibility of an underappreciated level of contact between members of each of these subclusters, and low levels of intermixing between these groups, in situ, outside the Levant. Behar et al noted:

        Diaspora communities from which Jewish samples were collected refer to communities where Jews have resided during the past century. This is the most commonly accepted usage among scholars of Jewish history. Thus, we do not mean ‘Diaspora’ to imply a shared origin of Jewish communities in an ancient Middle Eastern or Levant source population, as this is one of the questions that we wished to address in the current study.

        — Supplementary Note 1 link to nature.com

        How do I put this in a way that is simple to understand?

        Y-chromosomes and MtDNA are unaffected by admixture. You see, even if that unbroken patrilineal/matrilineal lineage goes back to Europe or elsewhere, it is certain (as a result of the isolated nature of Judaism, rules against intermarriage, widespread persecution, constant expulsions etc) that they mixed with Jews who did have Middle Eastern ancestry. That is why I stress the reliability of autosomal tests above all else.

        All three reports use Y chromosome and MtDNA as evidence of geographical or group origin. In the case of Kohanim and Levites it just doesn’t matter if the individual has acquired some quantum of autosomal Jewish DNA or not. We are looking for direct descendants of Y-Levi or Y-Aaron, not the proverbial milkman. The Children of Abraham and other studies show that 50-60 percent of the Ashkenazim are descended from Y-Gentiles.

        By the way Hostage, the number isn’t 60 percent, it ranges from 35 to 55, or 30 to 60 in those studies you mention. Roughly, this would mean that at least 45-65, or 40-70 percent of our genome is Middle Eastern. . . . Nice try, though.

        In two of the three studies the term “Middle Eastern” does not mean Jewish. Every person carries a copy of their mother’s MtDNA. The Children of Abraham article had to go outside the Levant and find matriarchs from the “Middle East”. Even then they only constituted 40 percent as an absolute upper limit. So 60 percent of Ashkenazi’s are descended from an Mt-Gentile woman:

        Four founder mitochondrial haplogroups of Middle Eastern origins comprise approximately 40% of the Ashkenazi Jewish genetic pool, whereas the remainder is comprised of other haplogroups, many of European origin and supporting the degree of admixture observed in the current study.

        link to sciencedirect.com

        The Children of Abraham article has nothing to say about where in the world all of the Ashkenazi Gentile patriarchs and matriarchs lived:

        In contrast, the other Jewish populations were formed more recently from Jews who migrated or were expelled from Palestine and from individuals who were converted to Judaism during Hellenic-Hasmonean times, when proselytism was a common Jewish practice. During Greco-Roman times, recorded mass conversions led to 6 million people practicing Judaism in Roman times or up to 10% of the population of the Roman Empire. Thus, the genetic proximity of these European/Syrian Jewish populations, including Ashkenazi Jews, to each other and to French, Northern Italian, and Sardinian populations favors the idea of non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestry in the formation of the European/Syrian Jewish groups and is incompatible with theories that Ashkenazi Jews are for the most part the direct lineal descendants of converted Khazars or Slavs.32 The genetic proximity of Ashkenazi Jews to southern European populations has been observed in several other recent studies. [33], [34], [35] and [36]

        Homo sapiens have been around for about 190,000 years and its thought they originated in Ethiopia. See Ethiopia is top choice for cradle of Homo sapiens link to nature.com

        So Abraham and the Jews were merely endogenous to Palestine, not indigenous. The majority of the descendants of Y-chromosome Jacob and MtDNA-Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah were driven into exile in Central Asia and would have either evolved in situ since then or migrated to other areas.

        None of these studies established very strong evidence of sharing based upon the usual evidence of long segments of DNA. Although there were such segments shared within the other groups – which indicated inbreeding – all of the reports expressed surprise that there were no long segments shared in the Ashkenazi group, despite the fact that it had undergone a so-called “demographic miracle” of population expansion from 50,000 people at the beginning of the 15th century to 5,000,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century:

        Unlike the other populations, the Ashkenazi Jews exhibited increased sharing of segments at the shorter end of the range (i.e., 5 cM length), but decreased sharing at the longer end (i.e., 10 cM) (Figure S5)

        The relationship between the groups was the result of PCA calculations. That subject deserves its own post.

      • Hostage
        July 23, 2012, 12:08 am

        Alright, it’s time to put this debate to rest. . . . Our calculations
        will have overestimated the level of admixture if the true Jewish
        ancestor is genetically closer to Europeans than Middle Easterners”

        LOL! The same thing holds true for the arbitrary PCA pruning that the geneticists in your study performed (see below) I already addressed that subject:

        I’ve posted studies on here that refute this thesis

        No you’ve posted studies which assume that the Khazars were not a people of ancient near eastern origin. I haven’t seen any studies done on samples of ancient Khazar DNA.

        *http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/ny-ads-depicting-palestinian-dispossession-are-termed-anti-semitic-by-jewish-community.html/comment-page-1#comment-475496

        Who am I going to believe, some obscure Israeli historiographer I’ve never heard of, or the numerous scientific studies and mountains of other evidence that all contradict him?

        People have a habit of finding whatever they’re look for. So far as I can see, there are no DNA studies of Khazars or Jews that haven’t been based on circular reasoning. Some idiot’s claim the Khazars were a lost tribe, while others claim they were the 13th tribe. For all I know, Abraham was a haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) Chaldean who’s line is practically extinct and the rest of us are all a bunch of haplotype J bastards born from an unholy pairing that the authors of the so-called scriptures knew nothing about. Try to get a grip on the limitations of deductive reasoning and our ability to rely on these old myths and legends to interpret the results of modern day genetic tests.
        *http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/ny-ads-depicting-palestinian-dispossession-are-termed-anti-semitic-by-jewish-community.html/comment-page-1#comment-475125

        FYI:

        Admixture with local populations, including Khazars and Slavs, may have occurred subsequently during the 1000 year (2nd millennium) history of the European Jews. Based on analysis of Y chromosomal polymorphisms, Hammer estimated that the rate might have been as high as 0.5% per generation or 12.5% cumulatively (a figure derived from Motulsky), although this calculation might have underestimated the influx of European Y chromosomes during the initial formation of European Jewry.15 Notably, up to 50% of Ashkenazi Jewish Y chromosomal haplogroups (E3b, G, J1, and Q) are of Middle Eastern origin,15 whereas the other prevalent haplogroups (J2, R1a1, R1b) may be representative of the early European admixture.20 The 7.5% prevalence of the R1a1 haplogroup among Ashkenazi Jews has been interpreted as a possible marker for Slavic or Khazar admixture because this haplogroup is very common among Ukrainians (where it was thought to have originated), Russians, and Sorbs, as well as among Central Asian populations, although the admixture may have occurred with Ukrainians, Poles, or Russians, rather than Khazars. [12] and [35] In support of the ancestry observations reported in the current study, the major distinguishing feature between Ashkenazi and Middle Eastern Jewish Y chromosomes was the absence of European haplogroups in Middle Eastern Jewish populations.37

        .
        link to sciencedirect.com

        Of course the subjects had to self-identify as a member of one of the Middle Eastern Jewish groups – and all four of their Jewish grandparents had to be from that very same Jewish group – just to get into this study in the first place. Then, the geneticists tossed-out any sample which didn’t fit their preconceived idea of the Jewish eugenic norm:

        A total of 305 Jewish samples were successfully genotyped at call rates >99% and with no gender mismatch. The resulting individuals were tested for relatedness via genome-wide IBD estimates. Samples were excluded if the IBD coefficients were ≥0.30, as this suggests hidden relatedness. To assure that members came from the stated community, the SMART PCA program from EIGENSOFT package used to remove genetic outliers (defined as having greater than six standard deviations from the mean PC position on at least one of the top ten eigenvectors). A total of 14 [people] were observed and these samples were removed.

        These people have no idea whether they tossed-out copies of Jewish DNA inherited from Abraham or a Jewish Khazar along with the outliers. They were just engaged in a little arbitrary PCA pruning.

      • Hound
        July 23, 2012, 3:37 am

        @Hostage

        I’ll read and respond to your post tomorrow. Right now, I’m going to bed.

      • Hostage
        July 23, 2012, 3:41 am

        So indeed, we should be talking about Eastern Mediterranean populations, not “Southern Europeans” (since it makes little to no sense, gene-wise).

        The Behar team did split-up the Old World data set, but everyone was comparing Jewish groups to host populations that are not in the Levant. Ashkenazi Jews have already evolved susceptibility to a number of genetic maladies “in situ”, since they left the Mediterranean. There are even detectable differences between groups here in the US. So it would make more sense to stop pounding square pegs in 2000 year old round holes and create more, not less, data sets.

        The Jewish data set was analyzed against a highly selected one from the Human Genome Data Project. In the Children of Abraham study, the original HGDP data set had 1043 unrelated individuals from 52 world-wide populations. Extreme outliers identified by three independent preliminary PCA runs on a set of small randomly selected genome sites was removed. Then to reduce the size of the data set further, members of related population groups were combined, until only 16 world-wide population groups and 418 people were used for comparisons to the Jewish population groups. They also used PopRes data sets and the same pruning procedure to reduce from 6000 individuals to 383 individuals. They claimed that the results were still the same when other combinations were tested – and PCA tends to find whatever you’re targeting for or simulating anyway.

        The studies that you mentioned did not find any long segments of shared DNA between the Ashkenazi and other Jewish groups. The connections were based upon PCA analysis:

        “In this study, Jewish populations from the major Jewish Diaspora groups—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi—formed a distinctive population cluster by PCA analysis”

        10 percent of the population of the Roman Empire were Jews and proselytes that you claim were certain to produce offspring together anyway. Leaving aside the Jews of Roman Gaul, Britain, & etc. for the moment, we can assume that some of the descendants still live in Italy. So where did they all go and what happened to them? At least some, would have lost their religious affiliations along the way.

        The modern-day descendants would be interviewed and asked to self-identify their ancestry. In the studies in question, they seem to have answered “Italian Jew”, “Italian”, and “Tuscan” – and those all overlie one another on the PCA plots.

        The idea of using Principal Components Analysis (PCA), a classical method of representing deviations in statistical data in a linear form, for comparisons of population groups was first introduced by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza. It can be used on large data sets without any modelling, although the studies in question used a number of proprietary software modeling and simulation packages.

        Cavalli-Sforza was interested about the evidence for Mendelian susceptibility in Ashkenazi Jews to a number of genetic ailments. See Cavalli-Sforza LL, Carmelli D (1979) The Ashkenazi gene pool: Interpretations. Genetic Diseases Among Ashkenazi Jews, eds Goodman R, Motulsky A (Raven Press, New York), pp 93–101.

        Unfortunately PCA doesn’t work worth a damn on populations with high degrees of genetic admixture, although a number of work-arounds have been proposed:

        *Traditional methods to ascertain ancestral informative markers usually require the prior knowledge of individual ancestry and have difficulty for admixed populations.
        link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

        *Existing methods to ascertain small sets of markers for the identification of human population structure require prior knowledge of individual ancestry. Based on Principal Components Analysis (PCA), and recent results in theoretical computer science . . .
        link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
        link to plosgenetics.org

        Luigi Cavalli-Sforza was also the founder of “The Human Genome Diversity Project” (HGDP) which provided the data sets for the Gentiles that were used in all of these studies. The Emory/Johns Hopkins project combined the Druze and Palestinians for comparison with the Ashkenazi.

        The concept is still controversial

        In 1991 Cavalli-Sforza and a group of colleagues proposed a comprehensive study of human genetic differences, which they called the Human Genome Diversity Project. The study would involve gathering cells from several thousand people around the world, “immortalizing” the cells by converting them into laboratory cell lines, and using the cells’ DNA to reconstruct human evolution and history. For Cavalli-Sforza, the Human Genome Diversity Project was to be the culmination of a lifetime of work.

        The proposal loosed a flood of controversy. Aboriginal groups in the United States, New Guinea, and other countries accused the HGDP of stealing their genes, destroying their culture, and even contributing to genocide. Academic critics claimed that the project could encourage racist thinking, by oversimplifying issues of great complexity. “The idea of studying human genetic diversity is a good one,” says one outspoken critic, Jonathan Marks, an anthropologist at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. “But the way that Cavalli-Sforza has conceptualized it has problems at all levels.”

        link to theatlantic.com

      • Hostage
        July 23, 2012, 5:17 am

        Further….

        “The bottom line is that actual hands-on testing of DNA samples has led to startling revelations that destroy some of the most cherished myths of the Zionists and their religious apparatchiks. You really can’t rely on uniformitarianism, legends, and genetic simulation software to describe Jews, Khazars, or anyone else. So naturally the Ziobots are going to subject the rest of us to the torture of wading through a bunch of pseudo-scientific hasbara.”

        Ahem…..

        “Our calculations
        will have overestimated the level of admixture if the true Jewish
        ancestor is genetically closer to Europeans than Middle Easterners

        Ahem,

        You just don’t get it. That actually proves the point that I was making. If a geneticist can’t conduct tests or observations on some actual ancient DNA, then they are really just engaging in guesswork and pseudo-science when they talk about the “origins” of a modern-day individual.

        The fact that standard PCA techniques require the individual or the researcher to have some detailed knowledge about their ancestry in order to differentiate between members of overlapping groups of so-called Jews and Gentiles with the same “Principal Components” is very telling.

        And what the hell do you mean by “blood and soil”? All Zionism is really about is the inalienable right of the Jewish people to self-determination.

        No, in reality the government, the Knesset, and Courts of Israel have the final decision on what Zionism and the Zionist state are all about – and its an old fashioned blood and soil political movement. They’ve adopted a plethora of laws, including one which makes any non-Jewish political parties illegal associations unless they recognize the territorial integrity and existence of the Jewish State. See Kretzmer, David. 1990. The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Boulder: Westview, page 24. Here is part of what that entails:
        *Israeli Supreme Court President Shimon Agranat ruled that:

        “the wish of a handful of Jews to break away from the nation and create a new concept of an Israeli nation was not a legitimate aspiration. . . . There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people. . . . The Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewries.”– HCJ 630/70 Tamarin v. State of Israel [1970] IsrSC 26(1) 197

        *Deputy President of the Supreme Court Elon ruled that Arab citizens merely have an equal right to recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people:

        The principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people is Israel’s foundation and mission [yessoda vi-yeuda], and the principle of the equality of rights and obligations of all citizens of the State of Israel is of the State’s essence and character [mahuta ve-ofya]. The latter principle comes only to add to the former, not to modify it; there is nothing in the principle of the equality of civil rights and obligations to modify the principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people. (Ben-Shalom v. CEC 1988, 272)

        It may also come as a shock to you to learn that the early Zionists argued in favor of respecting the rights of the non-Jewish populations already present in Israel/Palestine.

        It might surprise you, that as an Anti-Zionist, I’ve already stated my position about the early liberal Zionists, e.g. link to mondoweiss.net.

        If they’d respected the rights of anyone else, they’d have stayed home and minded their own business. The right of self-determination doesn’t imply the right to commit wrongful acts against others.

      • Hostage
        July 23, 2012, 5:47 am

        Basically, Jews are what they claim to be, that is… Jews, an eastern Mediterranean/Middle Eastern population. . . . . Uni-parental markers also furnish a very interesting clue regarding the proportion of West Asian ancestry: It is tremendous.

        You do realize that Children of Abraham study constructed a cherry picked set of Jewish clusters that did not include Ethiopian or Indian Jewish communities or outliers like the Lemba? All of those groups have their own Jewish traditions too. They’re much more similar to their host countries. The Ethiopian and Indian community members that do get permission to move to Israel have to adopt orthodoxy. FYI, Behar et al didn’t even PCA plot them with the other groups.

        All in all, all the scientific and logical facts go against what you say

        I don’t think there’s any scientific support for Harry Ostrer’s claim that Jews are a race.

        If they are, then it seems odd that authors of “The Children of Abraham” study didn’t include a couple of our Ethiopian and Indian brethren in their all singing, all dancing extravaganza.

      • Hostage
        July 23, 2012, 7:19 am

        And what are you arguing for anyway?

        1. That Jews are part of the humans race, not a Jewish race.
        2. That genes do not make a Jew the rightful inheritor of the Land of Israel.
        3. That “Jewries in the diaspora” are not part of “the people” of the State of Israel.
        4. That there are Jewish communities, like the Mountain Jews and the Bukhara Jewish community, with oral traditions of ancestry attributed to the 8th century BCE exile of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. They were located on either flank of the Kingdom of the Khazars.
        5. That Jewish traditions passed along by Benjamin of Tuleda and Saadia Gaon advised that the Place of Israel’s exile, the Gozan river was the river Balkh, aka the Amu Darya transboundary river in the region of the Aral Sea Basin occupied by the Khazars and the Bukhara Jewish community.
        link to books.google.com
        6. Contrary to claims by Behar et al, in the link below, the Bukhara community were not isolated for 2,000 years. They were practically surrounded by Karaites. The latter migrated from this same region all the way to Egypt in the 9th -12th Century. Karaite Jewish traders from Byzantium continued to travel to the area.
        link to nature.com
        7. There are more than just the one theory about the origins and demographics of the Khazars.

      • Hound
        July 23, 2012, 9:11 am

        “FYI, I’ve been debating like an adult all along, despite these comments about my immaturity or cluelessness that you’ve been making throughout the thread.”

        Calling someone a Ziobot (and various other names, if I recall correctly) simply for disagreeing with you isn’t exactly what I’d call adult behavior. In fact, your mindset closely parallels that of right-wing pundits and fanatics who dismiss any information they don’t like as “liberal propaganda”. You have done this several times throughout the post I’m replying to now, as well as many of your previous posts. Needless to say, it isn’t a healthy attitude to have.

        In any case, you are right in that Shlomo Sand wasn’t the first to claim that we’re not who we say we are (i.e. a Middle Eastern population). The first person to claim that Jews are not actually Levantines, but indigenous Europeans mixed with Khazars was Henry Ford’s (who was never particularly fond of us) newspaper: The Dearborn Independent.

        Now that we’ve cleared that out, we can proceed to fill the genetic gap:

        For example, we know for certain that’s the case with one or more of the three patriarchal lines of Kohanim and that very few candidates possess all six of the extended markers, only about 45% of Ashkenazim and 56% of Sephardim. The 6 marker Cohen Modal Haplotype cannot “prove” Cohen ancestry. It can only somewhat strengthen a previously existing belief. See for example:

        The 6 marker CMH is actually extremely widespread, so well that both people belonging to haplogroup J2 and J1 (the haplogroup I belong to) have. Moreover, many non-Jews have the 6 markers, among them Kurds, Arabs, Turks and so on… So no, it is not “very few candidates” that “possess all six of the extended markers”!
        Let’s go more in depth, shall we?

        Hammer et al 2009

        However, the limited
        number of binary and STR Y chromosome markers used
        previously (six markers) did not provide the phylogenetic resolution
        needed to infer the number of independent paternal lineages
        that are encompassed within the Cohanim or their coalescence
        times.

        [...]

        Subsequently, it was shown that
        »50% of Cohanim carry a characteristic suite of alleles at
        six Y-linked STRs, which deWned the Cohen Modal Haplotype
        (CMH). Dating based on variation associated with Wve
        of these six Y-STRs suggested that contemporary CMH
        chromosomes trace to a common ancestral chromosome
        2,100–3,250 years ago (Thomas et al. 1998). This time
        roughly corresponds to the period between the biblical exodus
        and the destruction of the Wrst temple. However, the
        small number of Y-STRs typed by Thomas et al. (1998)
        produced a “low resolution” CMH that was shared among
        many non-Jewish populations (Arredi et al. 2004; Behar
        et al. 2004; Bonne-Tamir et al. 2003; Cadenas et al. 2008;
        Cinnioglu et al. 2004; Nebel et al. 2001; Robino et al. 2008;
        Shen et al. 2004; Zalloua et al. 2008).

        [...]

        We define a 12-locus “extended CMH” and then
        determine the phylogenetic position and geographic distribution
        of this lineage.

        [...]

        We also performed
        calculations based on a subset of the 17 Y-STRs
        used in the above analysis.

        [...]

        We conducted an extended literature search for Cohanim
        haplotypes identiWed here, by comparing allelic scores at as
        many Y-STRs as possible (i.e., that were typed in our study
        and the published literature). Allele scores at the 12 STRs
        that we use to deWne the extended CMH (DYS19,
        DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II,
        DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS426, and
        DYS439) are 14-13-15-16-13-30-23-10-11-12-11-12,
        respectively (Table S4). The addition of the four STRs
        DYS437, DYS438, DYS459a, and DYS455 showed no further
        variation while the addition of DYS459b and DYS454
        demonstrated two additional haplotypes that were each
        comprised of two samples one mutation step away from the
        extended CMH. The four remaining STRs DYS447,
        DYS448, DYS449 and DYS458 contained most of the
        observed variation with 26, 21, 26, and 17.2, respectively,
        being the most frequent scores observed for these sites.

        [...]

        When we genotype the 6 Y-STRs that deWned the original
        CMH (DYS19, DYS388, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392,
        DYS393) (Thomas et al. 1998) in our sample of 99 Cohanim
        with J-P58* chromosomes, we Wnd that 87 carry a haplotype
        that is identical to the original modal haplotype and
        10 carry haplotypes that are one-step removed from the
        original CMH (i.e., only 2 individuals were 2 or more steps
        removed). A total of 43 of the 99 chromosomes still match
        completely when we increase the number of Y-STRs to 12
        (DYS19, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS388, DYS389I,
        DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393,
        DYS426, and DYS439) (Table S4). We call this 12-locus
        modal haplotype the extended CMH. Figure 3 shows a
        median-joining network of the 29 12-locus STR haplotypes
        associated with Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim JP58*
        chromosomes.

        [...]

        A small number of original CMH chromosomes
        (n = 9) are found within other subclades of Hg J. In contrast,
        the extended CMH and its two closely related haplotypes
        shown in Fig. 3 are almost entirely limited to P58
        chromosomes within the J1 clade: the extended CMH
        appears outside of J-P58* only once (i.e., within J-M319),
        while one of its two closely related haplotypes appears
        within haplogroup J-M67.

        [...]

        A survey of our database conWrms that chromosomes
        carrying the original CMH are not speciWc to either Cohanim
        or Jewish populations. The original CMH is present at
        moderate frequencies (5–8%) in the other Jewish castes
        (i.e., Levites and Israelites), among non-Jewish Yemenites
        (13%) and Jordanians (»7%), and as singletons in a number
        of other non-Jewish populations (Druze, Egyptians,
        Palestinians, Syrians, Turks, Iranians, Italians, Romanians,
        and Uzbeks). In contrast, the extended CMH and its two
        related haplotypes are observed only among Cohanim
        (29.8%) and Israelites (1.5%) (i.e., it is completely absent
        from the Levites and non-Jews surveyed here).

        The “6 marker Cohen Modal Haplotype” you refer to is called “original CMH” in the study.

        “We really see the events of the Jewish diaspora in the genomes of Jewish people.”

        Here is an example where the detail is just not there. His report said that these European and Middle Eastern Jewish groups separated 2500 years ago. That may be attributable to biases of the technical and historical contributors listed, including Rabbi Salomon Cohen-Scali and Lawrence Schiffman, but it had little or nothing to do with any tests or observations performed on Ashkenazi DNA. Here is is an extract from the report under the heading “Timing of the Middle Eastern-European Jewish Divergence”:

        Ashkenazi Jewish samples were excluded from this analysis, because the sharing in this population was inconsistent with a near-constant recent population size [a demographic miracle]. The ancestral population size was then used in two simulations to estimate the time splits between Middle-Eastern and European (Italian) Jews. Under these assumptions, the split was consistent with 100–150 generations, or during the first millennium BCE, assuming a generation time of 20 years. The split between Middle-Eastern Jews and non-Jews was inconsistent with these simulation assumptions, suggesting a more complex history than a simple split of a single ancestral population.

        Let’s have fun:

        Atzmon et al 2010

        Rapid
        decay of IBD in Ashkenazi Jewish genomes was consistent with a severe bottleneck followed by large expansion, such as occurred
        with the so-called demographic miracle of population expansion from 50,000 people at the beginning of the 15th century to
        5,000,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century. Thus, this study demonstrates that European/Syrian and Middle Eastern Jews
        represent a series of geographical isolates or clusters woven together by shared IBD genetic threads.

        [...]

        The
        differential pattern of IBD observed only among Ashkenazi
        Jews in which older IBD segments became shorter and few
        new ones were created is consistent with a population
        bottleneck followed by rapid expansion (see Material and
        Methods). This corresponds to the so-called demographic
        miracle of Ashkenazi Jewish history discussed earlier.6

        “…because the sharing in this population was inconsistent with a near-constant recent population size [a demographic miracle]”
        … LOL?

        Diaspora communities from which Jewish samples were collected refer to communities where Jews have resided during the past century. This is the most commonly accepted usage among scholars of Jewish history. Thus, we do not mean ‘Diaspora’ to imply a shared origin of Jewish communities in an ancient Middle Eastern or Levant source population, as this is one of the questions that we wished to address in the current study.

        What the….where on earth did you find this? Are you trying to distort the data again?

        Anyway, what is to be found in Behar et al’s 2010 study is pretty explicit. Read it again.

        Behar et al 2010

        These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture
        of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish
        Diaspora communities to the Levant.

        [...]

        Most Jewish samples, other than those from Ethiopia and India,
        overlie non-Jewish samples fromthe Levant (Fig. 1b). The tight cluster
        comprising the Ashkenazi, Caucasus (Azerbaijani and Georgian),
        Middle Eastern (Iranian and Iraqi), north African (Moroccan) and
        Sephardi (Bulgarian and Turkish) Jewish communities, as well as
        Samaritans, strongly overlaps Israeli Druze and is centrally located
        on the principal component analysis (PCA) plot when compared with
        Middle Eastern, European Mediterranean, Anatolian and Caucasus
        non-Jewish populations (Fig. 1). This Jewish cluster consists of
        samples from most Jewish communities studied here, which together
        cover more than 90% of the current world Jewish population5; this is
        consistent with an ancestral Levantine contribution to much of contemporary
        Jewry.

        [...]

        Our PCA, ADMIXTURE and ASD analyses, which are based on
        genome-wide data from a large sample of Jewish communities, their
        non-Jewish host populations, and novel samples from the Middle
        East, are concordant in revealing a close relationship between most
        contemporary Jews and non-Jewish populations fromthe Levant.

        The most parsimonious explanation for these observations is a common
        genetic origin, which is consistent with an historical formulation of
        the Jewish people as descending from ancient Hebrew and Israelite
        residents of the Levant.

        Why is it so hard to deal with facts and reality? Why the need to distort the data as to bring false conclusion? If anything, the study is pretty explicit: we’re a Levantine group. I also noticed that you referred to a study I used earlier to disprove you.

        I won’t even bother with the rest of your post, as none of it makes any sense.

      • Hound
        July 23, 2012, 9:48 am

        “1. That Jews are part of the humans race, not a Jewish race.
        2. That genes do not make a Jew the rightful inheritor of the Land of Israel.
        3. That “Jewries in the diaspora” are not part of “the people” of the State of Israel.
        4. That there are Jewish communities, like the Mountain Jews and the Bukhara Jewish community, with oral traditions of ancestry attributed to the 8th century BCE exile of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. They were located on either flank of the Kingdom of the Khazars.
        5. That Jewish traditions passed along by Benjamin of Tuleda and Saadia Gaon advised that the Place of Israel’s exile, the Gozan river was the river Balkh, aka the Amu Darya transboundary river in the region of the Aral Sea Basin occupied by the Khazars and the Bukhara Jewish community.
        link to books.google.com
        6. Contrary to claims by Behar et al, in the link below, the Bukhara community were not isolated for 2,000 years. They were practically surrounded by Karaites. The latter migrated from this same region all the way to Egypt in the 9th -12th Century. Karaite Jewish traders from Byzantium continued to travel to the area.
        link to nature.com
        7. There are more than just the one theory about the origins and demographics of the Khazars.”

        You do know that I’m referring primarily to European Jews here, right? Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Mizrahi Jews all have origins and are indigenous to the Levant. I never said anything about Ethiopian, Indian, or Mountain Jews.

        “You do realize that Children of Abraham study constructed a cherry picked set of Jewish clusters that did not include Ethiopian or Indian Jewish communities or outliers like the Lemba? All of those groups have their own Jewish traditions too. They’re much more similar to their host countries. The Ethiopian and Indian community members that do get permission to move to Israel have to adopt orthodoxy. FYI, Behar et al didn’t even PCA plot them with the other groups.”

        See above.

        “I don’t think there’s any scientific support for Harry Ostrer’s claim that Jews are a race.

        If they are, then it seems odd that authors of “The Children of Abraham” study didn’t include a couple of our Ethiopian and Indian brethren in their all singing, all dancing extravaganza.”

        I agree that “race” was a poor choice of words. However, Ashkenazi origins in the Levant are undeniable.

        “Ahem,

        You just don’t get it. That actually proves the point that I was making. If a geneticist can’t conduct tests or observations on some actual ancient DNA, then they are really just engaging in guesswork and pseudo-science when they talk about the “origins” of a modern-day individual.”

        No, you don’t get it. We can’t conduct tests on ancient DNA, but we can (and have) do tests on modern, non-Jewish Levantine populations. And guess what? European and Middle Eastern Jews all overlap with them considerably. That’s good enough for me.

        “The fact that standard PCA techniques require the individual or the researcher to have some detailed knowledge about their ancestry in order to differentiate between members of overlapping groups of so-called Jews and Gentiles with the same “Principal Components” is very telling.”

        Are you trying to imply that we’re “fake” Jews?

        “No, in reality the government, the Knesset, and Courts of Israel have the final decision on what Zionism and the Zionist state are all about – and its an old fashioned blood and soil political movement. They’ve adopted a plethora of laws, including one which makes any non-Jewish political parties illegal associations unless they recognize the territorial integrity and existence of the Jewish State. See Kretzmer, David. 1990. The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel, Boulder: Westview, page 24. Here is part of what that entails:
        *Israeli Supreme Court President Shimon Agranat ruled that:

        “the wish of a handful of Jews to break away from the nation and create a new concept of an Israeli nation was not a legitimate aspiration. . . . There is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people. . . . The Jewish people is composed not only of those residing in Israel but also of Diaspora Jewries.”– HCJ 630/70 Tamarin v. State of Israel [1970] IsrSC 26(1) 197

        *Deputy President of the Supreme Court Elon ruled that Arab citizens merely have an equal right to recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people:

        The principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people is Israel’s foundation and mission [yessoda vi-yeuda], and the principle of the equality of rights and obligations of all citizens of the State of Israel is of the State’s essence and character [mahuta ve-ofya]. The latter principle comes only to add to the former, not to modify it; there is nothing in the principle of the equality of civil rights and obligations to modify the principle that the State of Israel is the state of the Jewish people, and only the Jewish people. (Ben-Shalom v. CEC 1988, 272)

        It might surprise you, that as an Anti-Zionist, I’ve already stated my position about the early liberal Zionists, e.g. link to mondoweiss.net.”

        So I guess those early liberal Zionists aren’t actually Zionists anymore, huh?

        “If they’d respected the rights of anyone else, they’d have stayed home and minded their own business. The right of self-determination doesn’t imply the right to commit wrongful acts against others.”

        Yeah…”home”, living as minorities in lands that were not really our own*, in shtetls with limited human rights, and subjected to frequent pogroms and all manner of persecution and discrimination, culminating in one of the worst genocides in human history. Our existence there was a miserable one at best. If you’re seriously suggesting that we should have remained in our places, sat on our hands and done nothing, then you have a very disgusting, insensitive, and cruel attitude towards the plight of the Jews in Europe. Honestly, how dare you?

        As for respecting human rights, you already know that my beliefs mostly reflect those of liberal Zionism.

        *European Jews were expelled from many of the host countries they had settled in at various points in time, and thus were frequently on the move.

      • Hound
        July 23, 2012, 10:03 am

        Let me return to this for a moment.

        “1. That Jews are part of the humans race, not a Jewish race.
        2. That genes do not make a Jew the rightful inheritor of the Land of Israel.”

        1. There is no human “race”, only hominid species. Nor are there any “races”, just clines.
        2. They do, since we are natives there along with the Palestinian groups that already lived there… Something our culture and language prove extensively as well.

        By the way….

        “”You just don’t get it. That actually proves the point that I was making. If a geneticist can’t conduct tests or observations on some actual ancient DNA, then they are really just engaging in guesswork and pseudo-science when they talk about the “origins” of a modern-day individual.”

        My point as well, though the term “pseudo-science” is displaced and just sounds funny in his mouth. The distinction has to be made between admixture based on actual reference populations and that based on archeogenetic evidence.

        None the less, your point is that “Jews are not native to the Land of Israel”… Something you cannot prove, of course, since in your distorted logic, Turk-Kipçak speaking Hazarlar (Khazar) came from the Levant.

      • Hound
        July 23, 2012, 10:23 am

        “The studies that you mentioned did not find any long segments of shared DNA between the Ashkenazi and other Jewish groups”

        Bray et al 2010

        Recent reports have
        reaf!rmed that the AJ population has a common Middle Eastern
        origin with other Jewish Diaspora populations

        [...]

        Furthermore, a recent study showed
        increased IBD in Jewish Diaspora populations, including the AJ
        population, in support of a bottleneck (13).

        [...]

        The strongest signal of selection unique to the AJ population
        was on chromosome 12 (110.6–111.72 Mb hg18).

        [...]

        Interestingly, this locus is also within a region that was recently
        identi!ed as having high IBD across many Jewish Diaspora
        populations (13).

        You were saying?

        Seriously, you ought to cope with the data rather than try to deny it.
        It is well established that Ashkenazi Jews hail from the Middle East: All the scientific, linguistic, historical and logical facts prove this to be factual reality.

        Also, PCA is useful as new SPA analysis can break up admixture, so when you say that “Unfortunately PCA doesn’t work worth a damn on populations with high degrees of genetic admixture” you are just revealing your lack of knowledge regarding genetics.

        I recommend talking to Douglass McDonald, you can find his e-mail on the internet and he replies to all inquiries on genetics.

      • Hostage
        July 23, 2012, 6:45 pm

        Yeah…”home”, living as minorities in lands that were not really our own*, in shtetls with limited human rights, and subjected to frequent pogroms and all manner of persecution and discrimination, culminating in one of the worst genocides in human history.

        Judah Magnes was born in San Francisco and raised in Oakland. He was in no need of a homeland in Palestine. When he got there, his genome did not suddenly make him a native or entitle him and his buddies to takeover the chore of city planning in Jerusalem. link to cgj.sagepub.com

        Genocide is still genocide. An estimated 262 million people were killed by their own governments during the 20th Century. link to hawaii.edu

        Thanks to that horrible record, the international community of states adopted laws and established international criminal tribunals to help put an end to that sort of thing. But Israel and the US are opposed to enforcing international laws against aggression, colonialism, and racial segregation.

        My point as well, though the term “pseudo-science” is displaced and just sounds funny in his mouth. The distinction has to be made between admixture based on actual reference populations and that based on archeogenetic evidence.

        No the Primary Component calculations employed by Cavalli-Sforza and others are still in their infancy. But they do seem to be “flawed on every level”. PCA can’t provide a reliable historical/geographical timeline of admixtures – even in so-called reference populations. The researchers don’t even mention a confidence level for the results of their calculations.

        Are you trying to imply that we’re “fake” Jews?

        I view “Jews” as a label for a social boundary. Before the Hasmonean era people who were supposedly descendants of Lot and Esau were not considered Jews, despite their genetic qualifications – then suddenly they were. Many historical accounts say that most of them stopped being Jews again when they subsequently converted to Christianity or Islam. For what its worth, there are still Zionists studying in Yeshiva’s today who take it as an article of faith that the kingdom of Rome was built by Zepho, son of Eliphaz, son of Esau by Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

        None the less, your point is that “Jews are not native to the Land of Israel”… Something you cannot prove, of course, since in your distorted logic, Turk-Kipçak speaking Hazarlar (Khazar) came from the Levant.

        Abraham was not a native of Canaan. According to some estimates, by the time he migrated and settled there other homo sapiens had been lying around the place for nearly 400,000 years. If he was exercising a right of return, it wasn’t included in any surviving copies of the Covenant. link to news.discovery.com

        There are millions of Jews that don’t speak Hebrew as a first language, if at all. Dr. Norman Golb is a Professor of Jewish History and Civilization at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. He published a translation and analysis of 10th century Khazarian documents which established that they communicated in Hebrew too. My “point” was NOT that the Khazars originated in the Levant, but rather that there are traditions to that effect; and that the Children of Abraham study contains an assertion about the Khazars which did not disprove that thesis using a test of the observed data, i.e. the null hypothesis originally described by English geneticist and statistician Sir Ronald Fisher in “The Design of Experiments”, Oliver and Boyd, 1935. In my twisted logic that only means we don’t yet know whether or not the bulk of the Ashkenazi are descended from the Khazars.

        I also was pointing out that our researcher was looking for evidence of the splintering of the population of Judah, but was ignoring the tradition of a much larger separation involving the nearly indistinguishable population of Israel. In this particular case, the researchers ignored evidence from Iraqi and Iranian groups of more than one population base separation event (Israel and Judah?) and didn’t even invite Ethiopians or Indians to participate. He claims that Jews are an identifiable “structure” of any population group, and even a race. If he really is looking for “the events of the Jewish diaspora in the genomes of Jewish people,” then he’s overlooking some obvious opportunities and making unwarranted assumptions about the structure of the population of Central Asia in the Middle Ages.

      • Hostage
        July 24, 2012, 12:47 am

        Calling someone a Ziobot (and various other names, if I recall correctly) simply for disagreeing with you isn’t exactly what I’d call adult behavior.

        Unless the 1) The Daily Jewish Forward has written an article about your new book which claims that genetics have proven that Jews are a race and that there is a biological basis to Jewishness; or 2) you’ve published the results of a study done by Yeshiva University Einstein College of Medicine that was funded by grants from the State of Israel funneled through a Jerusalem-based parastatal agency and one of it’s largest universities + a long list of private contributors and foundations connected to “The Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces,” then I haven’t called you anything. You were not the subject of the comment.

        Thus, we do not mean ‘Diaspora’ to imply a shared origin of Jewish communities in an ancient Middle Eastern or Levant source population, as this is one of the questions that we wished to address in the current study.

        What the….where on earth did you find this? Are you trying to distort the data again?

        That is a verbatim quote from the Supplementary Note. I provided a link to the file directly below the quote.

        Why is it so hard to deal with facts and reality?

        We’ve already been over the fact that the authors of many studies use circular logic. I was pointing out that Behar said that it begs the central question to assume from the outset that all of these groups are of Middle Eastern origin. I’ve already explained that PCA calculations are NOT facts or reality.

        They are pruned data sets that point in the direction of an “ancestral Levantine contribution” but they don’t indicate how the admixture occurred or where. When the researchers use the most points of comparison (larger kernel size), their PC calculations for Askenazi Jews indicated a larger ancestral contribution comes from non-Levantine sources. A European proselyte community, in situ, doesn’t necessarily become one of “Levantine origin” simply because there are ancestral Levantine contributions of <50% from Jews living in the Diaspora.

        So no, it is not “very few candidates” that “possess all six of the extended markers”!

        It’s no where near 100 percent. I provided the percentages from the 1998 Thomas et al study in the same sentence: “only about 45% of Ashkenazim and 56% of Sephardim”. I supplied the article on the separate priestly lines too. The authors, Hammer and Behar say that it demonstrates that only 46.1% of Cohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to the paternal lineage J-P58*. They propose to use a set of extended markers that do not exist in any of the non-Jews surveyed, or in the tens of thousands of reference data sets. It’s extremely unlikely that all of the sons of Aaron have remained within the fold of the Jewish community for that many thousands of years. But here are the percentages they found using the new magic formula:

        The original CMH is present at moderate frequencies (5–8%) in the other Jewish castes (i.e., Levites and Israelites), among non-Jewish Yemenites (13%) and Jordanians (~7%), and as singletons in a number of other non-Jewish populations (Druze, Egyptians, Palestinians, Syrians, Turks, Iranians, Italians, Romanians, and Uzbeks). In contrast, the extended CMH and its two related haplotypes are observed only among Cohanim (29.8%) and Israelites (1.5%) (i.e., it is completely absent from the Levites and non-Jews surveyed here).

        So it appears they are suggesting that one in three Cohanim are genuine candidates.

      • Hound
        July 24, 2012, 4:58 am

        “Judah Magnes was born in San Francisco and raised in Oakland. He was in no need of a homeland in Palestine. When he got there, his genome did not suddenly make him a native or entitle him and his buddies to takeover the chore of city planning in Jerusalem. link to cgj.sagepub.com

        Genocide is still genocide. An estimated 262 million people were killed by their own governments during the 20th Century. link to hawaii.edu

        Thanks to that horrible record, the international community of states adopted laws and established international criminal tribunals to help put an end to that sort of thing. But Israel and the US are opposed to enforcing international laws against aggression, colonialism, and racial segregation.”

        You think the USA didn’t have its own problems with antisemitism? LMFAO.

        Anyway, we might have those laws now, but we sure as hell didn’t in the late 19th century, when Zionism was conceptualized. In Europe, where the early Zionists lived, antisemitism was deeply embedded in society (in Eastern Europe, it still is). Assimilation clearly was not working, and our successes in several fields only seemed to make things even worse (Protocols, for example), and even so-called “progressive” countries like the USA were still struggling with racism. Let’s also mention how all but one of the countries (Dominican Republic) present at the Evian les Baines conference in 1938 flatly REFUSED to accept Jewish immigration. Hitler even said himself that he would help the Jews leave, had the conference been successful. The entire situation was a travesty. Zionism, like it or not, was our only real hope for turning our backs on it all.

        Even after the war, when these laws you speak of were integrated, Israel was already there. Although the British tried for years to get rid of them (despite the fact that two separate Jewish/Arab states was their idea, in the first place), a Jewish presence in the Mandate of Palestine had already been firmly established. The then nascent UN could not have just stepped in and evacuated every Jew who had made Aliyah, especially after what had transpired in our so-called native land (i.e. the Holocaust). Recommending such measures today would be even dumber (although to be fair, only the most hardcore of anti-Zionists would openly make an argument for that) as most of the current Israeli Jewish populace are Israeli citizens by birth. The only way out of this mess is to implement a solution that is fair and just to everybody.

        “No the Primary Component calculations employed by Cavalli-Sforza and others are still in their infancy. But they do seem to be “flawed on every level”. PCA can’t provide a reliable historical/geographical timeline of admixtures – even in so-called reference populations. The researchers don’t even mention a confidence level for the results of their calculations.”

        PCA plots are not in their infancy. Why don’t you go take a look at the current developments within the genetic sector?
        Pagani et al 2012 proved tremendously useful in breaking up subclusters and new plots based on SPA analysis are able to break up ancestry (this method was used on Eurogenes for instance).
        I’m beginning to think that you know nothing at all about genetics.

        “Abraham was not a native of Canaan. According to some estimates, by the time he migrated and settled there other homo sapiens had been lying around the place for nearly 400,000 years. If he was exercising a right of return, it wasn’t included in any surviving copies of the Covenant.”

        What the hell are you talking about? We do not even possess evidence that Abraham even existed. Besides, Homo sapiens is ~175,000 years old, nowhere even close to 400,000. Although I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you added an extra 0 by accident. I’m going to ask you to corroborate what you just said in a peer-reviewed study, otherwise I consider it to be bunk.

        “There are millions of Jews that don’t speak Hebrew as a first language, if at all. Dr. Norman Golb is a Professor of Jewish History and Civilization at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. He published a translation and analysis of 10th century Khazarian documents which established that they communicated in Hebrew too.”

        There are millions of Jews who speak Jewish Babylonian Aramaic when studying the Talmud. And the Persian Empire used Aramaic as a lingua franca while communicating in Persian. Is this supposed to be surprising?
        Moreover, it is well established that Khazars were Oghur-Turkic speakers, one of the sole words of the Khazar language we know of is semantically related to Oghuzic “Okumak” which means “to read”.
        Khazaric words in Yiddish are scarce at best, even Turkic speaking Jews such as the Karaim I hail from speak a Kipçak language rather than an Oghuric language, so no. We’re not Khazars either it seems.
        No serious scholar supports this outlandish theory.

        “My “point” was NOT that the Khazars originated in the Levant, but rather that there are traditions to that effect; and that the Children of Abraham study contains an assertion about the Khazars which did not disprove that thesis using a test of the observed data, i.e. the null hypothesis originally described by English geneticist and statistician Sir Ronald Fisher in “The Design of Experiments”, Oliver and Boyd, 1935. In my twisted logic that only means we don’t yet know whether or not the bulk of the Ashkenazi are descended from the Khazars.”

        Oh, but we do know who the Jews are descended from, or partially at least. And to be honest, it doesn’t look like “the bulk of the Ashkenazi are descended from the Khazars”, this is actually the first and foremost conclusion of all the studies we’ve posted as the Ashkenazim’s autosomal genetic distance to Caucasian Turkic populations is infinitely greater than their own towards Cypriots. Uniparental markers, admixture and IBD segments viewed in Behar et al 2010 and Bray et al 2010 respectively cast out any doubt regarding the “bulk” of their ancestry. So unless you’re about to claim that Cypriots and Palestinians are Khazars, there’s no way you can even doubt the sincerity of the results: Ashkenazi Jews ARE Middle Eastern.
        You’ve seen the data anyway, but it seems like you decided to just ignore it or cherry-pick it.

        “I also was pointing out that our researcher was looking for evidence of the splintering of the population of Judah, but was ignoring the tradition of a much larger separation involving the nearly indistinguishable population of Israel. In this particular case, the researchers ignored evidence from Iraqi and Iranian groups of more than one population base separation event (Israel and Judah?) and didn’t even invite Ethiopians or Indians to participate. He claims that Jews are an identifiable “structure” of any population group, and even a race. If he really is looking for “the events of the Jewish diaspora in the genomes of Jewish people,” then he’s overlooking some obvious opportunities and making unwarranted assumptions about the structure of the population of Central Asia in the Middle Ages.”

        Harry Ostrer was part of the team which worked on Atzmon et al 2010 that you referred to.
        Moreover, it’s not the first time a researcher would make outlandish claims. Pagani’s claims about the Queen of Saba come to mind. But anyway, that’s no valuable reason to throw the data away. The data is pretty much the same and very consistent, only the interpretation differs.

      • Hound
        July 24, 2012, 6:24 am

        “I provided the percentages from the 1998 Thomas et al study in the same sentence: “only about 45% of Ashkenazim and 56% of Sephardim”

        An outdated study. Great.

        “But here are the percentages they found using the new magic formula”

        The quote refers to the ORIGINAL (6 marker) COHEN MODAL HAPLOTYPE, not the Extended CMH/”new magic formula”.
        So again, you’re wrong. The 6 marker CMH is extremely common and is to be found within members of two seperate haplogroups: J1 and J2.

      • Hostage
        July 24, 2012, 12:39 pm

        The quote refers to the ORIGINAL (6 marker) COHEN MODAL HAPLOTYPE, not the Extended CMH/”new magic formula”.
        So again, you’re wrong.

        No the 29.8% figure that I quoted is derived using the new extended CMH test, not the old 6 marker test originally used to extend the 5 Y-STRs used by Thomas. In the very next sentence the authors mention that their new tests confirm the existence of two separate priestly lines that were first discovered using the older 6 marker test:

        In conclusion, we demonstrate that 46.1% (95% CI = 39–53%) of Cohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora. Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4). Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (~20%) and Cohanim (~46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non-Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East. An extended Cohen Modal Haplotype accounts for 64.6% of chromosomes with the J-P58* background, and 29.8% (95% CI = 23–36%) of Cohanim Y chromosomes surveyed here. These results also confirm that lineages characterized by the 6 Y-STRs used to define the original CMH are associated with two divergent sub-clades within haplogroup J and, thus, cannot be assumed to represent a single recently expanding paternal lineage.

        The authors were making their concluding remarks about the foregoing tests involving the extended CMH based on 12 Y chromosome short tandem repeats (12 Y-STR) and calculations of the divergence times of the 3 priestly cell lines using 17 Y-STR tests. Here are some relevant extracts:

        While Cohanim from diverse backgrounds carry a total of 21 Y chromosome haplogroups, 5 haplogroups account for 79.5% of Cohanim Y chromosomes. The most frequent Cohanim lineage (46.1%) is marked by the recently reported P58 T->C mutation, which is prevalent in the Near East. Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is remarkably absent in non-Jews. The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is 3,190 ± 1,090 years.

        To further elucidate the paternal ancestry of Jewish priests, we genotype 75 binary markers and 22 Y-STRs in a sample of 122 Ashkenazi and 93 non-Ashkenazi Cohanim, and compare patterns of Y chromosome variation with similar data from 3,459 Jewish and non-Jewish men from the Near East, Europe, Central Asia, and India. We define a 12-locus “extended CMH” and then determine the phylogenetic position and geographic distribution of this lineage.

        We also performed calculations based on a subset of the 17 Y-STRs used in the above analysis.

        In addition, we used the same five Y-STRs as in the original CMH paper by Thomas et al. (1998): DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393.

        Similar age estimates are returned for our set of 17 Y-STRs and Zhivotovsky et al.’s (2004) set of 9 Y-STRs in our sample of all 99 Cohanim, as well as in our sample of 63 Ashkenazi Cohanim (Table 1).

        When we genotype the 6 Y-STRs that defined the original CMH (DYS19, DYS388, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393) (Thomas et al. 1998) in our sample of 99 Cohanim with J-P58* chromosomes, we find that 87 carry a haplotype that is identical to the original modal haplotype and 10 carry haplotypes that are one-step removed from the original CMH (i.e., only 2 individuals were 2 or more steps removed). A total of 43 of the 99 chromosomes still match completely when we increase the number of Y-STRs to 12 (DYS19, DYS385a, DYS385b, DYS388, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS426, and DYS439) (Table S4). We call this 12-locus modal haplotype the extended CMH.

        We note that estimates of the age of the J-P58* lineage are lower when using the five Y-STRs that were employed in the original CMH study of Thomas et al. (1998) (Table 1)

        link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

      • Hound
        July 24, 2012, 9:28 pm

        @Hostage

        You do realize you just shot yourself in the foot. If anything, it all contradicts your previous claims according to which the 6 marker CMH is rare. Return to me when you have a better understanding of genetics.

        I’ll be right here when you get back.

      • Hostage
        July 25, 2012, 3:48 pm

        You think the USA didn’t have its own problems with antisemitism? LMFAO

        No, but it was far and away better than the alternatives offered in Ottoman Palestine. The fundamental Herzlean propaganda claim that Jews can’t lead normal lives among gentiles was simply never true of the United States. Jews were citizens, and the laws here were not tailored to bar them from holding public office, or joining a profession. There were huge waves of poor Jewish immigrants arriving here and elsewhere in the new world, but there were never pogroms and constant persecution like they had encountered elsewhere. If there had been instances of persecution, you can be sure the Jewish and Zionists publication societies elsewhere would have announced them by now and integrated them into their standard, scripted hasbara.

        Anyway, we might have those laws now, but we sure as hell didn’t in the late 19th century, when Zionism was conceptualized.

        That’s actually incorrect. The laws against non-recognition of territory acquired by force, the laws against war crimes, and the laws regarding minority rights were all products of the 19th century. The only remedies were crude ones that were limited to shunning the violator states or going to war with them. There were no fine grained remedies that could be used to punish only the guilty parties, because there were no international courts with general or compulsory jurisdiction to enforce the laws. National courts avoided the principal of universality of criminal jurisdiction in order to protect their own citizens from the reciprocal jurisdiction of other states they viewed as less civilized. That’s still the only major obstacle, unless you happen to be a former Nazi. But the international community of states have gradually recognized a handful of the most serious crimes and they have established a criminal court of last resort in hopes of eventually bringing absolute impunity to an end.

        FYI, Jewish and Muslim political activists actually introduced the use of minority rights clauses in international treaties that created new states by the mid-19th century. You can read about that here and in many other comments about international minority protection plans and treaties in my comment archive: link to mondoweiss.net

        The provisions made the issue a matter of international law, rather than a domestic political issue.

        Let’s also mention how all but one of the countries (Dominican Republic) present at the Evian les Baines conference in 1938 flatly REFUSED to accept Jewish immigration.

        The attraction of Zionists to the likes of Geert Wilders is no accident or anything new. Herzl, Jabotinsky, Arlosoroff, and the Stern gang provide similar examples where Zionists partnered with, or attempted to capitalize on, other racists movements. The list includes quite a few virulently anti-Semitic ones, like the Nazis. The Jewish Agency for Palestine were Hitler’s business partners. The Zionists of Palestine actually lost money when wealthy German Jews opted to go to other countries and took actions to prevent that from happening. The Zionist Executive met and decided to oppose efforts by other countries to take in Jewish refugees or raise money for their relief. They worked feverishly behind the scenes with their organs in other countries to assure that the Evian Conference would decide to do nothing at all about the problem. The minutes of those meetings and the details of their correspondence have been published far and wide in the Israeli media, but little attention has been paid to the question anywhere else in the world. You can read more about that here: link to mondoweiss.net

        It’s a fact that Jews from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) preferred resettlement in Germany by such a wide margin that the State of Israel and the Jewish Agency for Israel aggressively lobbied the German government to alter its immigration laws to make Jews less welcome or prevent them from being admitted at all. link to forward.com One side effect of that policy was that a few hundred thousand secular people of mixed Jewish descent, like the ones in these DNA studies, were stuck in a country that calls them “Russians” and actively discriminates against them. For example, many small Jewish communal settlements, like Foreign Minister Lieberman’s, have barred Russian-Israeli families from buying housing
        link to haaretz.com To continue arguing that Palestine was their only option to avoid discrimination is simply ludicrous.

        Zionism, like it or not, was our only real hope for turning our backs on it all.

        Palestine was not Judah Magnas “only hope”, or anyone else’s for that matter. In fact, the majority of persecuted Jews opted to go elsewhere. European Jewish intellectuals from Einstein to Arendt warned that an attempt to create an ethnic Jewish state in Palestine would be a disaster for Jews and Judaism. A member of the original Jewish Palestine Commission, Sylvain Levi of France, summed-up the looming disaster:

        In the third place, the masses of people who might wish to return to Palestine, would largely be drawn from those countries where they had been persecuted and ill-treated, and the mentality which such a regime was likely to engender could be easily realised. Those people would carry with them into Palestine highly explosive passions, conducive to very serious trouble . . . For many years the Jews had, in the countries inhabited by them, claimed equality of rights, but those claims had not yet everywhere been admitted. Under the circumstances, it seemed to him shocking that the Jews, as soon as their rights of equality were about to be recognised in all countries of the world, should already seek to obtain exceptional privileges for themselves in Palestine.

        PCA plots are not in their infancy. Why don’t you go take a look at the current developments within the genetic sector? . . . I’m beginning to think that you know nothing at all about genetics.

        PCA is a valuable tool for medical research on modern people, but it can’t be used to determine the course of ancient events and the things that some of these researchers have claimed that it can. I’ve already cited experts from the fields of anthropology, and population genetics, like Jonathan Marks and David Goldstein who say that it is not capable of providing accurate or detailed historical timelines, or gleaning the details of an individual’s ancient origins from a few reference laboratory cell lines. They say that thinking is flawed on every level. Those same criticisms have been leveled against the methodology in peer-reviewed journals since the day the idea was first introduced.

        The use of Principal Components Analysis (PCA) calculations is not new in other fields of statistics, but it’s use in genetics is only a few decades old. There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet, but only a few thousand of them have ever been sampled or assayed on a genome-wide basis. The authors of these studies didn’t even have the computational resources to compare all of samples against a fraction of the existing, very limited, Human Genome Diversity Project data set.

        What the hell are you talking about? We do not even possess evidence that Abraham even existed. Besides, Homo sapiens is ~175,000 years old, nowhere even close to 400,000.

        LOL! You could write a narrative and say that all of this evidence points to the fact that “the Jews” and all of these other populations were actually descended from the Hittites of south central Turkey. But the author’s didn’t do that. Romanian Jews were offered free land to establish large colonies in that area by the Ottoman government, but they weren’t interested in any territory beside Palestine. You’d never know that Abraham’s existence or original homeland was ever in question from reading journal articles like “Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry” or ones that label non-Cohanim non-Levite Jewish subjects as “Israel”. I gave you link to a Discovery news article which said that Avi Gopher and the Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology had found homo sapien remains in Israel that are 400,000 years old. It said:

        Israeli archaeologists have discovered human remains dating from 400,000 years ago, challenging conventional wisdom that Homo sapiens originated in Africa . . .That calls into question the widely held view that Africa was the birthplace of modern man, said Gopher, who headed the dig at Qesem Cave.

        “It is accepted at the moment that the earliest Homo sapiens that we know is in east Africa and is 200,000 years old — or a little less. We don’t know of anywhere else where anyone claims to have an earlier Homo sapiens,” he said.

        Here is that link again —> link to news.discovery.com

        So the Genographic Project on Human Migration, sponsored by IBM and the National Geographic Society, and all of the similar projects which blindly assume that human migration began in Africa 60,000 years ago could be completely mistaken. link to genographic.nationalgeographic.com

        Oh, but we do know who the Jews are descended from, or partially at least.

        As the old saying goes that a quarter will buy you a cup of coffee. If Israel won’t even accept that a person is a Jew for the purposes of the Law of Return – based upon these same personal interviews and DNA testing techniques – why should the Palestinians or anyone else suspend their disbelief and assign any great significance to them?

        So unless you’re about to claim that Cypriots and Palestinians are Khazars, there’s no way you can even doubt the sincerity of the results: Ashkenazi Jews ARE Middle Eastern.

        I’ve pointed out that “Levant” and “Middle East” are imprecise terms. Behar does use the latter term to include Central Asia. That’s where all of the biblical action took place in the 10 generations from Mt. Ararat to Abraham. If you’re arguing that people with an ancestral contribution from that gene pool ended up the Europe, Cyprus, and Palestine that’s fine. But there’s no support for the idea that they all migrated to Europe through Palestine or that the admixture and divergence actually took place there. See Where Is Abraham’s Ur?, By Cyrus H. Gordon link to members.bib-arch.org;

        The Ashkenazi samples weren’t included in the divergence tests in one of the key studies. Our own legends say that Jacob’s twin brother Esau had a grandson who left the Levant with these same gene lines after only four generations to establish his own Kingdom in Rome. They also say that all of Esau’s descendants who remained in their portion of the Levant were forced to convert to Judaism. Many Jewish achievements, like Herod’s temple, were actually attributable to them. The Jews were vassals to Herod and the Romans, but there were an estimated 6 million converts of every ethnicity in the Roman Empire who were part of “the Jews”, including members of the Anatolian population group.

      • Hostage
        July 25, 2012, 6:28 pm

        You do realize you just shot yourself in the foot. If anything, it all contradicts your previous claims according to which the 6 marker CMH is rare.

        I never even used the term rare, although you keep saying that I did.

        I said that there were three patriarchal lines of priests (J-P58* J-M410, J-M12) and that some of those lines didn’t provide very many candidates:

        For example, we know for certain that’s the case with one or more of the three patriarchal lines of Kohanim and that very few candidates possess all six of the extended markers, only about 45% of Ashkenazim and 56% of Sephardim.

        The same thing applies to the 12 extended CMH markers. 64.8 percent of the Priests with those chromosomes came from the J-P58* patriarchal line. They represented only 29.85% of Priestly Y chromosomes in the entire survey:

        An extended Cohen Modal Haplotype accounts for 64.6% of chromosomes with the J-P58* background, and 29.8% (95% CI = 23–36%) of Cohanim Y chromosomes surveyed here.

        My understanding of the genetics is this:

        *The ancients made-up some rules that they attributed to God.
        *The rules provided them with an excuse to subjugate or kill members of competing groups to acquire their territory and resources.
        *The rules prohibited intermarriage with outsiders in order to keep inheritance of the accumulated wealth within the tribe of cousins and other kinsmen.
        *The rules established a cult of hereditary priests who collected a part of their subsistence from all of the other members of the group.
        *Death was one of the punishments for breaking the rules.
        *Owing to the occasional destruction of temples at places like Shiloh, Samaria, and Jerusalem, prophecies concerning the reconstitution of the cult were promulgated.
        *The scriptures continued to provide a basis for the self-identified group of priests to take some degree of pride and recognition in their pedigree, even after the destruction of the Temples.
        *The Priests and Levites always were, and still are, an essentially self-selected genetic sub-population. DNA testing only tends to confirm an individual’s prior beliefs.
        *The DNA evidence of several founding lineages suggests that the priesthood was established by an ethnic or tribal group, rather than any single individual, e.g. the Hammer-Behar metapopulation model. The founders of the J-P58* and J-M410 patriarchal lines were already distant relatives before the foundation of the Jewish people occurred:

        The presence of several founding lineages among the Cohanim of this survey—both shared between or specific to the Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi communities, as well as highly variable frequencies of these lineages among sub-populations within Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi communities (data not shown), may lend support to a metapopulation model. Mutation alone does not provide an explanation for the multiplicity of Cohanim haplogroups, because the ages of most of these haplogroups predate the foundation of the Jewish people(Cruciani et al. 2006; Karafet et al. 2008; Semino et al. 2004)

        — See Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

      • Citizen
        July 26, 2012, 10:06 am

        @ Hostage: “The fundamental Herzlean propaganda claim that Jews can’t lead normal lives among gentiles was simply never true of the United States. Jews were citizens, and the laws here were not tailored to bar them from holding public office, or joining a profession.”

        As a side note: During a period of time prior to the 20th Century, the US actually banned any Gypsies from entering its borders, while Jews had been allowed to flourish here. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

      • Hound
        July 27, 2012, 5:47 pm

        “I said that there were three patriarchal lines of priests (J-P58* J-M410, J-M12) and that some of those lines didn’t provide very many candidates:

        For example, we know for certain that’s the case with one or more of the three patriarchal lines of Kohanim and that very few candidates possess all six of the extended markers, only about 45% of Ashkenazim and 56% of Sephardim.

        It is wrong, the 6 marker CMH is deemed “original CMH” within the study, it is not “very rare” and it is distributed between two haplogroups (J1 and J2).
        The extended CMH goes from 12 to 17 marker within Hammer et al.
        Besides, the study did not have good resolution within P58 and M410 (J2a) since we know Kohanim belonging to J2 do not actually possess the CMH.

        I will get the rest of your post later.

      • Hostage
        July 28, 2012, 6:33 pm

        It is wrong, the 6 marker CMH is deemed “original CMH” within the study, it is not “very rare” and it is distributed between two haplogroups (J1 and J2).

        You’ve been inventing your own straw men on this topic and arguing with them from the outset.

        My original post did not actually use the terminology “extended CMH” or “extended Cohen Modal Haplotype” for the 6 marker test or say that it was “very rare”.

        I called them “extended markers” to distinguish them from the original three marker test used by Hammer and Skorecki. In fact, I specifically labelled the 6 marker test “The 6 marker Cohen Modal Haplotype”. Here is precisely what I said and why:

        For example, we know for certain that’s the case with one or more of the three patriarchal lines of Kohanim and that very few candidates possess all six of the extended markers, only about 45% of Ashkenazim and 56% of Sephardim. The 6 marker Cohen Modal Haplotype cannot “prove” Cohen ancestry. It can only somewhat strengthen a previously existing belief. See for example:
        *Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood
        Michael F. Hammer,1,2 Doron M. Behar,3 Tatiana M. Karafet,1 Fernando L. Mendez,2 Brian Hallmark,1 Tamar Erez,1 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,4 Saharon Rosset,5 and Karl Skorecki corresponding author3,6
        link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
        *Y-chromosomal Aaron link to en.wikipedia.org

        The two sources that I provided discuss and cite tests on three; five/six; and 12/17 loci:

        *The original Michael F. Hammer, Karl Skorecki article “Y chromosomes of Jewish priests”, Nature – Volume 385 –2 January 1997 (subscription required) identified six haplotypes in Ashkenazi and Sephardi Priests using only three markers:
        1) a Y-specific Alu insertion polymorphism, termed the “Y Alu polymorphism” (YAP);
        2) a Y chromosome GATA repeat at a second location, DYS19; and
        3) a non-Y chromosome CA repeat at location D1S191.

        Note the authors said that the YAP insertion dates back as far as 340,000 years ago. It predates the diversification of homo sapiens and appears in all human groups in varying frequencies. Hammer and Skorecki also reported no significant difference in the distribution of alleles for the non-Y-chromosomes at the D1S191 location.

        *M.G. Thomas, Karl Skorecki, et al., “Origins of Old Testament priests”, Nature Volume 394, 9 July 1998 introduced an extended set of six Y chromosome single tandem repeat (6 Y-STR) markers, i.e. “The 6 marker Cohen Modal Haplotype”. The majority of J2a Priests only have 4 out of the 6 markers. Here is what the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) has to say about that subject:

        A significant fraction of Jews belong to haplogroup J, but Jews represent a small minority of the European members of the haplogroup. The “Cohen Modal Haplotype” is a specific set of six Y-STR marker values that occurs in both J1 and J2, though at a much higher frequency in J1.

        link to isogg.org

        You’ve just stated that:

        the study did not have good resolution within P58 and M410 (J2a) since we know Kohanim belonging to J2 do not actually possess the CMH.

        That is certainly true of the 3,674 individuals in the 2009 study. The authors explained that they also conducted an extensive search for different results and other markers by comparing the literature from other studies:

        We conducted an extended literature search for Cohanim haplotypes identified here, by comparing allelic scores at as many Y-STRs as possible . . . The search yielded zero out of 10,243 matching haplotypes in 66 populations for the extended CMH and its two closely related haplotypes.

      • ColinWright
        July 29, 2012, 2:37 am

        “Note the authors said that the YAP insertion dates back as far as 340,000 years ago. It predates the diversification of homo sapiens and appears in all human groups in varying frequencies. “

        Lol. Maybe bananas are entitled to citizenship under the law of return.

      • ColinWright
        July 29, 2012, 3:10 am

        “The “Khazar” theory has been proven false over and over again. Show me one genetic study (besides the Zoossmann-Diskin study, which I refuted earlier in another comment) that says we’re not Levantine, and then we’ll talk….”

        My understanding — if one looks at the actual data, and not the wishful thinking of the conclusions, and the still more wishful thinking of the summaries — is that what the data shows is that Jews in general have a strand in their make up that comes from the Middle East. They also are often related to Jews who live elsewhere. Polish Jews have some connection to Italian Jews, etc.

        What this overlooks is that Jews are almost invariably most closely related to the gentile populations around them. Genetically, a Polish Jew is above all a Pole, a Yemeni Jew is above all a Yemeni, etc.

        Hitler apparently had some Turkish ancestry. It would seem that some Turkish irregular in some sixteenth century raid managed to score. People used to act that way.

        So? Hitler was above all German, and had he taken it into his head to stake a claim to Anatolia on the basis of his ancestry, he would have been laughed out of court.

        The whole notion that the Jews once possessed all of what is now Israel, were expelled from it en masse, and are now descended solely or even primarily from these imaginary expellees is the most obvious nonsense.

        1. History doesn’t work that way. I have no doubt that most Yemeni Jews are descended from Yemenis who converted to Judaism — not from masses of former inhabitants of Palestine making their way down the Red Sea coast and then breeding with only each other for two thousand years.

        2. It really is something anyone can see. Look at Netanyahu. Look at a typical Yemeni Jew. Do they look like each other? No.

        Conversely, when Yishai made his comment about ‘Israel being for the White Man’ he was distinguishing between himself and other Jews on the one hand, and gentile Arabs on the other. Yishai is from Tunisia. I easily found a picture of a Tunisian gentile who could be his twin brother. Yishai is, above all, a Tunisian. Irrespective of whether he fancies himself to be ‘a White man’ in some way gentile Tunisians are not, he has no genetic claim to Palestine.

        Jews are not ‘from’ Palestine in any meaningful sense of the word. That wouldn’t give them a claim to it even if they were — but the proposition is bogus to begin with.

      • sardelapasti
        August 5, 2012, 3:47 am

        The major problem with the term “Zionist state” for the entity occupying Palestine is the fact that, in the absence of any definition of borders by this aggressive entity, it would designate the entirety of the territory occupied or controlled by the Zionists.

    • ColinWright
      July 12, 2012, 2:04 pm

      “…using Zionist State instead would be a good way for the public to check out zionism and learn what Israel was and is actually about.”

      It is an interesting thought experiment. Think ‘Zionist state’ –one is immediately aware that one is dealing with an ideological proposition. ‘Jewish state’ tends more to imply a state composed of Jews — who just happened to evolve there, whose current location is the involuntary result of history. Whatever their behavior, their ‘Jewish state’ has of course the right to endure, to remain.

      And indeed, that argument is often implicit. But, now, think ‘Zionist state.’ Well…

      After all, no one (well, no one except the more bitter of her immediate neighbors) would argue that Russia shouldn’t exist, that there shouldn’t be a Russian State. It’s another matter entirely to assert that the Soviet Union had a right to exist for all eternity, inviolate, regardless of its successes or failures.

      It is curious that ‘Zionist state’ sounds like an extremely polemical term. Why? Was it illegitimate to refer to the Soviet Union as the Soviet Union? Was that polemical? With ‘Jewish state’ we are being asked to concede a certain necessary legitimacy that is not in fact there. ‘Zionist state’ is perfectly accurate. Although they may have been frog-marched into it, virtually all the Jews in Israel are necessarily Zionists — and they virtually all came from elsewhere within the last two generations.

      • Blake
        July 12, 2012, 2:22 pm

        Interestingly enough it was not known until the state of “Israel” self-declared itself what it was to be named. “Zion” itself was considered as a possibility, but rejected, as the result would have necessitated referring to “Arab Israelis”, the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, as “Arab Zionists”.

      • American
        July 12, 2012, 3:21 pm

        But, now, think ‘Zionist state.’”..Colin

        Exactly……. people who don’t know would have to ask what zionism is and find out.
        What they find is going to be a lot different from what 90% of them thought the Jewish state was.

    • Shingo
      July 12, 2012, 7:00 pm

      I notice that the ME Arab countries commonly refer to Israel as the’ Zionist’ state or entity not the Jewish state.

      The dishinesty is cynically exoloited in every way. Israeli leaders and supporters love to conflate Israel with “the Jews”, yet when guys like Erakat or Nasrallah talk about Jews (meaning Israel) , the same idiots jump up and down that Jews everywhere are threatened.

      When guys like Erekat or

    • Hound
      July 15, 2012, 9:50 pm

      Or maybe we could just call it “Israel”?

      • ColinWright
        July 29, 2012, 2:33 am

        “Or maybe we could just call it “Israel”?”

        Well, calling it ‘Israel’ would certainly be deceptive.

        Israel refers to a positive religious ideal — usually to be located in Palestine but not necessarily. It is part of a matrix of religious ideas and concepts that bear an only indirect relationship to any secular reality.

        There’s little that’s positive about the Zionist state — and almost all of its founders were avowedly anti-religious. The label it has arrogated to itself is inappropriate. If one takes one’s religion seriously, it could be seen as obscenely inappropriate. ‘Israel’ is not ‘Israel’ in any sense that the term was ever understood before 1948.

        I can call my backyard ‘Valhalla.’ The label would be absurdly inappropriate (as far as I know, the net total of dead heroes down there consists of one rabbit) but I could do it. That wouldn’t make my backyard Valhalla. Labelling the Zionist state ‘Israel’ confers on the entity a whole list of religious and conceptual attributes it in fact does not have.

        It’s not even an attempt to realize ‘Israel.’ The secular Jews fight the attempts of the religious Jews towards that end tooth and nail. It’s just an attempt to realize an ethnically ‘pure’ state of the kind that went out of fashion everywhere else in 1945.

  9. Avi_G.
    July 12, 2012, 11:41 am

    Phil,

    I don’t know if you read Glenn Greenwald’s invaluable and exceptional articles on a regular basis, but you might want to read up on exactly who is Andrew Sullivan that you continue to mention him as though he were a champion of human rights.

    Sullivan is a war monger, one who continues to support Obama’s drone attacks on innocent (Moslem) civilians and then goes on to whitewash them with ludicrous — and sometimes Orwellian and Orientalist — justifications.

  10. Avi_G.
    July 12, 2012, 11:44 am

    “This is anti-Semitic because when people think of Jews they think of the Jewish state,”

    To which I would reply: “And who’s fault is that?”

    These people aren’t very bright.

    • Citizen
      July 13, 2012, 10:47 am

      AVi_G, your comment reflects my own immediate thought. Upon second thought, another explanation “These people” simply have no intellectual integrity.” In this respect, if memory serves, Adolph Hitler had more of that quality. He believed in another ism, Nazism, which painted his people as top dogs in the survival of the fittest, but as the signs grew the Germans were losing the fight, increasingly, in private at least, he’d say things such as,” Well, we will see who really are the top dogs.” And as the Soviets grew close to his Berlin Bunker, “If we can’t take it, we deserve to lose, to be playthings for the real lions. I always said, I go my way like a sleepwalker, as I’ve always told the German Volk, and I am guided by Providence.”

      Aw, “These people aren’t very bright” does sound at least as applicable as lack of mental integrity. It does appear as if the best salesmen of the pigs in pokes simply don’t see their own pigs popping out of the bags. Or, they think so little of their audience they think if they ignore the developing situation, nobody will notice.

  11. Roberto
    July 12, 2012, 11:57 am

    “it explains the history of Israel and Palestine better than any other quick summary”
    Well, not really. It cannot convey the terrible suffering of Palestinians caused by murder, torture, house demolitions, plants and crops destroyed, diseases, families torn apart, daily humiliations… However, it is wonderful that this ads has been displayed at Metro stations. Bravo, Henry Clifford!

  12. Jim Holstun
    July 12, 2012, 11:58 am

    “He wanted to target Westchester because he was looking for ‘high IQ readers.’”

    Uhh, say again? “Rich” = “high IQ”? Have you ever actually TALKED to anybody from Westchester? Dumberna sack’o’hair.

  13. Shmuel
    July 12, 2012, 12:06 pm

    “This is anti-Semitic because when people think of Jews they think of the Jewish state,”

    And who the hell’s fault is that? Or in the immortal words of the parricide: “Have mercy, your honour; I’m an orphan”.

    • Mooser
      July 12, 2012, 4:11 pm

      “Or in the immortal words of the parricide: “Have mercy, your honour; I’m an orphan”.

      From experience, I know that doesn’t work.

  14. Blake
    July 12, 2012, 12:17 pm

    If that image does not awaken humanity from their apathetic slumber nothing will!

    • Theo
      July 12, 2012, 12:27 pm

      Humanity in the USA fell into a coma a long time ago. To wake them increase the price of gallon of gas to $8, what the average european pays nowdays, and watch them to come to life.

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 12:38 am

        Won’t work. Human nature being what it is, that will just excite us to greater paroxysms of bigotry, misdirected violence, and a general regression into a kind of homicidal infantilism.

        If you doubt that, witness the effect of the Depression on Germany. It didn’t make them more sensible.

  15. Theo
    July 12, 2012, 12:23 pm

    Proves the old saying: a picture worths a thousand words!!

  16. Blake
    July 12, 2012, 12:27 pm

    In 2009, after receiving over six hundred complaints, Transport for London removed Israel Ministry of Tourism posters displayed at London Underground stations that showed a borderless map of Greater Israel that included the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights.
    link to londonbds.org

  17. Leper Colonialist
    July 12, 2012, 12:32 pm

    In other breaking news, the sun rose in the East this morning. Experts expect it to set in the West this evening. Stay tuned for more….

    • justicewillprevail
      July 12, 2012, 1:21 pm

      Are you sure that’s not anti-semitic? The east, you say, where those dastardly Arabs live? How can that be?

  18. Roya
    July 12, 2012, 12:54 pm

    From the Ryser article: “This accuses Israel of being land grabbers and imperialistic and insensitive to its neighbors, and anybody who knows anything about history knows it is more complicated than that.” That’s the excuse they always use– ”Oh, but the Middle East is just soooo complicated, if you knew the history (i.e. how we used terror and ethnic cleansing to get a piece of land) you would totally side with us.”
    Also the title of the article is “Pro-Palestinian ads at Metro-North . . .” So now facts are partial?

  19. radii
    July 12, 2012, 1:16 pm

    these maps are worth a thousand speeches, articles, protests, etc. – and there are so many pictures that tell the story: Rachel Corrie, that fellow shielding his son (and the subsequent bulldozing of the site), flotilla massacre, tear-gas cannister attacks on protesters, farmers being shot, children being beat up and interrogated, on and on it goes … the best campaign to illustrate modern israel is to just put those images out there everywher in an ad campaign that says “Modern Israel: When the ‘Victims’ Become the Abusers”

    • Mooser
      July 12, 2012, 4:16 pm

      ““Modern Israel: When the ‘Victims’ Become the Abusers””

      The concept is good, but one quibble: When have “the Jews” ever been the “victims” of the Palestinians?
      And if you haven’t noticed (of course, I’m sure you have) our Pro-Zionists posters have been at great pains to present the situation that way, with the Jews victims of the “Arabs” unless they fight “back” or “defend themselves”!

      • ColinWright
        July 12, 2012, 6:11 pm

        “…our Pro-Zionists posters have been at great pains to present the situation that way, with the Jews victims of the “Arabs” …”

        That is one of the many, many…many, many…many, many rather vicious ironies of this whole situation.

        It may come as a shock to some — but the past has not been an unbroken tableau of ethnic harmony and equality. Nevertheless, in the scale of things, Arabs (and Muslims in general) have been persistently tolerant of both Jews and Christians. I’ll freely grant the ‘toleration’ was often decidedly qualified — on the whole, it tends to resemble the degree of ‘toleration’ extended by White Southerners to Blacks during the Jim Crow era.

        But it was there. It’s an injunction in the Quran, you see. Muslims have to be nice to ‘people of the book.’ Hence the persistence of large Christian and Jewish communities in Muslim countries into modern times. As a rule, the lifespan of a Christian or Jewish community in a Muslim-dominated society has been for all practical purposes infinite. The Copts are still there. The Jews of Iran and Turkey are still there. Until 1948, the Jews of Morocco, Iraq, and Yemen were still there. Compare and contrast with the almost routine expulsions, forcible conversions, and wholesale exterminations of Christian societies. Not a whole lot of indigenous Muslims in Spain, are there? Or Jews…

        Christianity has always tended to be ferociously intolerant. Has any Muslim or Jewish population survived more than a couple of centuries in a Christian state once the state had developed the power to boot ‘em out? Maybe…but generally, Christian societies did manage to become remarkably homogeneous over time.

        Whatever. I’m not bad-mouthing intolerance. Have at it. But it is a gross distortion of the historical record for Jews to see themselves as an accepted part of some imaginary Judeo-Christian condominium whilst perceiving Arabs or Muslims as ‘the oppressor.’ The situation has been precisely the reverse — from the edicts of the Visigoths to the Holocaust. The perception that it was otherwise is clearly a self-serving act of hypocrisy.

      • YoungMassJew
        July 12, 2012, 11:31 pm

        Colin, that’s because the “white” ones from Europe colonized Palestine instead of the ones from MiddleEast and North Africa. Since Christendom is seen as white and noble for the ethnocentric/prejudiced Ashkenazis, they flipped the script in Palestine and saw the mainly brown-skinned Muslim Arabs as a people to fear even though the Muslims treated the Jews who were mainly Sephardic and Mizrahim comparitively better than white Christians treated “white” Jews. Theres a whole lot of Colorism in this conflict as well that doesn’t get discussed frequently.

      • schlemiel
        July 13, 2012, 11:22 pm

        This is a good analysis contrasting Christian ruled lands with Moslem ruled lands, although Jews did live for several centuries (not just one or two) in parts of Europe. Interestingly, once religion was replaced by nationalism in Europe, that’s when the Jews’ days truly became numbered. They went from Christ-killers to parasites, and we know the rest.

        Compared to both standards, Israel appears pretty tolerant towards its non-Jewish minority.

      • Roya
        July 14, 2012, 9:07 pm

        “Compared to both standards, Israel appears pretty tolerant towards its non-Jewish minority.” Tell yourself whatever lets you sleep at night, schlemiel. Just don’t go crying to ima when you realize that anti-Semitism is truly on the rise for once in 50+ years because of Zionists like you.

      • Hound
        July 15, 2012, 11:01 pm

        “Since Christendom is seen as white and noble for the ethnocentric/prejudiced Ashkenazis”

        Three problems here.

        1. Not all Ashkenazi are prejudiced.

        2. Not all prejudiced Jews are Ashkenazi.

        3. Not all Ashkenazi are even white.

        “Muslims treated the Jews who were mainly Sephardic and Mizrahim comparitively better than white Christians treated “white” Jews.”

        Again, I refer to the above. And by your logic, shouldn’t “Sephardic” Jews be white too, since they were from Spain and Portugal?

      • piotr
        July 16, 2012, 7:34 am

        East and central European Christian states typically did not assume religious purity as in Western Europe. For example, Russia conquered Tatars in 16-th century and Tatar nobility became part of Russian nobility and for a long time they retain their religion. While aristocrats mostly converted for political gains, Tatar people remained Muslim.

        Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was multi-religious and it never had inquisition or forced conversion, although once one sect was expelled by the edict of Parliament — Arians who rejected the Trinity.

      • sardelapasti
        August 5, 2012, 4:04 am

        “1. Not all Ashkenazi are prejudiced.
        2. Not all prejudiced Jews are Ashkenazi.
        3. Not all Ashkenazi are even white”

        1. Correct, the Zionist Ashkenaze are certainly all prejudiced but the others may sometimes be civilized humans.
        2. Correct, among the murderers of the occupation and those of the recent race riots there is a minority of non-Ashkenaze criminals too.
        3. WTF?

      • radii
        July 13, 2012, 12:03 am

        some Jews (particularly political zionists) make up the the World’s Official Victims ™, or WOV as I sometimes call them, and are always the victims in any situation (you did notice the trademark?)
        … it has been a brilliant strategy but once exposed it loses its power and that power is fast evaporating

  20. Egbert
    July 12, 2012, 1:26 pm

    So the facts on the ground are anti-semitic?

    The other day we were told there was no occupation. If there is no occupation, there are no occupiers. If there are no occupiers, there is no Israel. Therefore to deny the occupation is to deny the existence of Israel.

    The shark has not only jumped itself, it has started to eat its own tail.

    BTW someone called ‘Richard SM’ has given the ‘situation’ an excellent name at 972mag.com:

    The Great Terrain Robbery

  21. Chu
    July 12, 2012, 1:32 pm

    “It always starts with messaging that says Jews are committing a crime.”

    ‘It always starts’…
    Facts are troublesome things. This disconnect seems to be a larger part of the religious indoctrination that causes them to live in the ‘poor us’ bubble. They always believe that they are the target when they are the aggressors. And if you bury their arguments with facts, they always reach for the idea that Israel is a safe haven and is actively restoring the lost tribe from the death camps of WWII. Garnering pity for a criminal enterprise is something the mafia never learned, and is such a low attribute for any culture to possess.

    It’s no doubt Palestine’s future is being destroyed, any sane person can see this, but do please wield the antisemitism charge. Tell them what they need to hear to lull them into slumber.

  22. eGuard
    July 12, 2012, 1:47 pm

    … a complicated conflict,” said Rabbi Joshua Davidson, the Senior Rabbi of …

    Using the word “complicated” is a red flag for “hasbara”. Always.

    • ColinWright
      July 12, 2012, 6:16 pm

      Orwell discusses something similar. He goes into the incredibly convoluted justifications offered for the reversals in Soviet foreign policy in the 1930’s, then points out that it was all quite simple and explicable if one assumed that the Soviets were just playing traditional power politics.

      Similarly with the ‘complexities’ of the Israel-Arab conflict. It’s only complicated if one doesn’t admit the truth of what Israel is about, has always been about, and will always be about. There is no complexity. Morally, it’s one of the simplest situations I’ve ever encountered.

      • Hound
        July 15, 2012, 10:20 pm

        Israel is about Jews returning to their native land*, which they had lost 1,500+ years prior. It’s also about raising the Jewish self-esteem by giving them a sense of national pride (since none of our diaspora countries seemed to want anything to do with us, and didn’t see us as one of them), self-determination, and ultimately a place to run to whenever there’s another anti-Jewish resurgence.

        Don’t get me wrong, Israel has done some really shitty things. I just feel like the factors I mentioned above should always be taken into consideration when debating the “purpose” of Israel.

        *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews

      • Shingo
        July 16, 2012, 5:28 am

        Don’t get me wrong, Israel has done some really shitty things. I just feel like the factors I mentioned above should always be taken into consideration when debating the “purpose” of Israel.

        No one’s getting you wrong. You’re as obvious as all the other hasbra hacks that have come and gone after posting similar infantile trash.

        Apparently it never occured to you that Jewish self-esteem by giving them a sense of national pride might not be more imporatnt or relevant than the lives and human rights that were sacrificed to pay for those self-esteem by giving them a sense of national pride.

      • Roya
        July 16, 2012, 12:57 pm

        Hound, I’ve seen 3 comments from you so far and they all say something about Palestine belonging to the Jews and then something about genetic tests. I hate to break it to you, but a good number of the people here shun the genes-are-land-deeds cult.

      • Hound
        July 16, 2012, 4:41 pm

        “No one’s getting you wrong. You’re as obvious as all the other hasbra hacks that have come and gone after posting similar infantile trash.”

        I though personal attacks weren’t allowed here.

        “Apparently it never occured to you that Jewish self-esteem by giving them a sense of national pride might not be more imporatnt or relevant than the lives and human rights that were sacrificed to pay for those self-esteem by giving them a sense of national pride.”

        Well what exactly were we supposed to do? Continue living as minorities in countries that hated us? 2000 years of experience had taught us that it just wasn’t gonna work. I think more could have been done to accommodate the Palestinians, but we needed a state. It was our only ensured protection against persecution.

        “Hound, I’ve seen 3 comments from you so far and they all say something about Palestine belonging to the Jews and then something about genetic tests. I hate to break it to you, but a good number of the people here shun the genes-are-land-deeds cult.”

        But I also acknowledged that it belonged to Arabs. Or did people just skim over that part?

      • Shingo
        July 17, 2012, 3:49 am

        Well what exactly were we supposed to do? Continue living as minorities in countries that hated us?

        Most Jews do continue to live as minioties throughout the world, but escaping persecution is not about restoring self esteem.

        Jews woudl be a minotory today even in Israel if ISrale had not expelled 800,000 Palestinians. That’s a crime against humanity and nothig justified it.

        2000 years of experience had taught us that it just wasn’t gonna work.

        Rubbish, it’s working wornderfull. Jews aer more liekly to get killed in Israel than teh diaspora.

        As Hanna Arendt pointed out, the fact that you are able to tell tall tales of 2000 years of persecution suggests Jews have lived a pretty charmed life – compared to most ehtnicoties that have since dissapeared.

        I think more could have been done to accommodate the Palestinians, but we needed a state. It was our only ensured protection against persecution.

        You Zionists are so tone deaf is mind boggling – an yet you wonder why Israel is considered as blight on humanity. It wasn’t up tpo you to accommodate the Palestinians, it was your obligation to respect their civlian and human rights.

      • Hound
        July 17, 2012, 5:31 am

        Do I sense some anger here? I ask because there are far more typos in your latest response than any of your previous ones.

        “Most Jews do continue to live as minioties throughout the world”

        Ah, but what’s important is having the option of moving there, especially in the case of another anti-Jewish resurgence.

        “but escaping persecution is not about restoring self esteem.”

        I did not say this. Israel grants us both, but they are not mutually exclusive.

        “Jews woudl be a minotory today even in Israel if ISrale had not expelled 800,000 Palestinians. That’s a crime against humanity and nothig justified it.”

        Actually, an extra 800,000 Palestinians returning to what is now Israel would only amount to a minor dent in the demographic ratio at best. More than 5 million Jews compared to less than 3 million Arabs….do the math.

        “Rubbish, it’s working wornderfull.”

        As far as I can tell, you are not Jewish, so you have no way of knowing what the modern Jewish experience looks like. Your argument reminds me of a white guy telling a colored person that racism is dead, when it clearly isn’t.

        “Jews aer more liekly to get killed in Israel than teh diaspora.”

        Antisemitic attacks are still fairly common throughout the world, especially in Europe, South America, the Middle East (excluding Israel, obviously), etc. The US is the only exception, and even that looks like it’s about to change for the worst.

        “As Hanna Arendt pointed out, the fact that you are able to tell tall tales of 2000 years of persecution suggests Jews have lived a pretty charmed life – compared to most ehtnicoties that have since dissapeared.”

        The fact that you just called 2000 years of brutal persecution, constant expulsions, pogroms, genocides, and isolation a “charmed life”, even relatively, is pretty damned offensive if you ask me.

        “You Zionists are so tone deaf is mind boggling – an yet you wonder why Israel is considered as blight on humanity. It wasn’t up tpo you to accommodate the Palestinians, it was your obligation to respect their civlian and human rights.”

        Childish name calling aside, how is accommodating and allowing right of return to the Palestinians (which Israel unfortunately has yet to do) not respecting their civilian and human rights?

      • jonah
        July 17, 2012, 6:04 am

        Israel is considered as blight on humanity

        Ouch, here you’ve got just a little bit out of balance, shingo. This is rather worthy of a speech by the Iranian President or one of his regime colleagues than of a civil debate. Should this kind of discourse be taken as a paradigm for the Palestinian Arab general attitude towards the Jews (of Israel), it would not be surprising that the majority of the Israelis prefer by far the status quo to a Palestinian state and a so-called “peace”. This use of inflammatory language and speech is the humus in which grows extremism.

      • RoHa
        July 17, 2012, 7:49 am

        “but we needed a state.”

        Who is “we”? It certainly doesn’t include Australian Jews. They already have a state in which they lived as free and equal citizens, and in which many of them rose to the highest levels of society. It is called “Australia”.

      • Shingo
        July 17, 2012, 10:24 am

        Do I sense some anger here? I ask because there are far more typos in your latest response than any of your previous ones.

        I suck at typing and I have cuts on some on my fingers, wo they are covered in bandaids.

        Ah, but what’s important is having the option of moving there, especially in the case of another anti-Jewish resurgence.

        That’s a fraud. For that to be true, it would have to be able to accomodate an instant doubling of population, and Israel was never going to be able to do that.

        Actually, an extra 800,000 Palestinians returning to what is now Israel would only amount to a minor dent in the demographic ratio at best. More than 5 million Jews compared to less than 3 million Arabs….do the math.

        But it wouldn’t be 800,000 Palesitianians, because the refugee population has balooned to 5 million. Now do the math.

        As far as I can tell, you are not Jewish, so you have no way of knowing what the modern Jewish experience looks like.

        As far as I can tell, you live in a bubble from which you project your own paranoia and irrational fears onto the world. The modern Jewish experience is more diverse than you living in your shtetl. The fact that 5 million Jews refuse to migrate to Israel from the US is pretty definitive.

        Antisemitic attacks are still fairly common throughout the world, especially in Europe, South America, the Middle East (excluding Israel, obviously), etc. The US is the only exception, and even that looks like it’s about to change for the worst.

        They’re not that common, they arwe just reported and widely when they do happen.

        The fact that you just called 2000 years of brutal persecution, constant expulsions, pogroms, genocides, and isolation a “charmed life”, even relatively, is pretty damned offensive if you ask me.

        The fact that you think violence directed at entire populations (not just Jews) was all about Jewish persecution is pretty narcicistic of you ask me.

        It’s an established fact there was few, if any Jewish historical texts written between 1st ce (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th ce (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2000yrs Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it, so how it is all that this persecution is taken as a fact is pretty suspect.

        Childish name calling aside, how is accommodating and allowing right of return to the Palestinians (which Israel unfortunately has yet to do) not respecting their civilian and human rights?

        Since when has that happened?

      • Betsy
        July 17, 2012, 10:25 am

        @Hound
        Antisemitic attacks are still fairly common throughout the world, especially in Europe, South America, the Middle East (excluding Israel, obviously), etc. The US is the only exception, and even that looks like it’s about to change for the worst.

        can you provide any data to support this statement re/ what’s about to happen in US? Might not some facts bring specificity to what is about to happen — e.g., “the worst” conjures up worrying but extremely vague suggestions…

        If you have no reputable statistics, perhaps you can speak from deep personal experience of living in the US?

        The charge of anti-Semitism is a grave & momentous charge. It is not one to be thrown around lightly. If it is used lightly, to score political points — it will be discounted — becoming a joke — “pulling the Israel card” will just be something people will shrug off…

        Do you have any proof of such dreadful things happening in US?

      • Hound
        July 17, 2012, 5:43 pm

        @jonah- Agreed.

        I can’t reply to everything right now. My internet connection is somewhat slow at the moment.

        “Who is “we”? It certainly doesn’t include Australian Jews. They already have a state in which they lived as free and equal citizens, and in which many of them rose to the highest levels of society. It is called “Australia”.

        It is by no means a guarantee that it will always be this way. Even Poland and Sweden, which at one point had been very tolerant of us for a long time, have become highly antisemitic in the past century. The governments have done very little, if anything, to counter this. So to claim that Australia will always be tolerant is naive at best. And when things get hairy, we need to be sure that we’ll have somewhere to go. For example, all of the nations at the Evian les Baines conference in 1938, save for Dominican Republic, refused to allow any Jewish immigration to their countries, when they knew that we were desperate to flee the Nazis.

        “That’s a fraud. For that to be true, it would have to be able to accomodate an instant doubling of population, and Israel was never going to be able to do that.”

        There are many ways they could be accommodated and sheltered without giving them housing right away. Note that I’m speaking in the case of a serious wave of anti-Jewish persecution, which is likely to be the only time where there would be a dramatic influx of Jews into Israel. See also: Evian les Baines conference.

        “But it wouldn’t be 800,000 Palesitianians, because the refugee population has balooned to 5 million. Now do the math.”

        My bad, I misread that. This is a remarkably tricky situation. As I said before, expelling or cleansing Israel/Palestine of either population is not the way to go. Gaddafi’s Isratine solution is the only fair resolution, as far as I’m concerned.

        “As far as I can tell, you live in a bubble from which you project your own paranoia and irrational fears onto the world. The modern Jewish experience is more diverse than you living in your shtetl. The fact that 5 million Jews refuse to migrate to Israel from the US is pretty definitive.”

        In the context of history, my fears are not irrational at all. 2000 years of institutionalized oppression doesn’t just evaporate overnight after it’s worst outbreak (the Holocaust). It takes generations upon generations of conditioning to reverse the effects of this sort of thing, which is what I’m setting out to do. We have not reached that point yet where we can safely say that “antisemitism is dead”. There are hotels in Austria that still refuse to serve Jewish citizens, and that’s not even scratching the surface.

        “They’re not that common, they arwe just reported and widely when they do happen.”

        In many cases yes, but not always. And certainly not “widely”. The only case of antisemitism I can think of that fits the bill is the kidnapping and murder of Ilan Halimi. Look up April Rosenblum’s “The Past Didn’t Go Anywhere” and you’ll see what I mean.

        “The fact that you think violence directed at entire populations (not just Jews) was all about Jewish persecution is pretty narcicistic of you ask me.”

        Are you trying to say that we were NOT explicitly singled out as “the cause of the worlds problems” or “in league with the devil” 95 percent of the time. If so, you have some serious explaining to do.

        “It’s an established fact there was few, if any Jewish historical texts written between 1st ce (Josephus Flavius) and early 19th ce (Isaak Markus Jost). For almost 2000yrs Jews were not interested in their own or anyone else’s past, at least not enough to chronicle it, so how it is all that this persecution is taken as a fact is pretty suspect.”

        Just because it isn’t chronicled by Jews themselves doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But it is undeniably chronicled. You’re also forgetting that Jews were usually poor and barred from most professions, which includes the publishing of books.

        “Since when has that happened?”

        I said: “which Israel unfortunately has yet to do”. I acknowledged that it’s a problem, did I not?

      • Hound
        July 17, 2012, 5:59 pm

        @ Betsy

        Written in the form of “Gentile Privilege Checklist”. I found this on a blog somewhere, but I can’t link it right now.

        1. If I achieve success in my career, it will not be attributed to a predisposition to cunning and greed, or my group’s supposed control of the field, community, government, or world.

        2. If I save money, accept money, or don’t spend as much as others think I should, it will not be attributed to a predisposition to stinginess or miserliness.

        3. If I am angry, upset, or worried, my emotions are not attributed to my group’s supposed neurotic or infantile tendencies.

        4. If my group suffers a monumental, culture-altering tragedy, no one speculates or tries to prove that I have exaggerated or fabricated the tragedy for material gain.

        5. If I am robbed, it is not because the thief assumes, based on my group identity, that I am unusually rich.

        6. When other members of my group commit violent crimes, I am not regularly portrayed as a monster that engages in demonic, inhuman acts.

        7. In liberal and radical circles, It is not widely believed that my group has caused its own oppression, and I am not viewed as selfish or hypocritical for speaking about my oppression. It is generally accepted that fighting my oppression is not tantamount to endorsing the oppression of another group.

        8. In liberal and radical circles, the very existence of my oppression – in any form or in any part of the world – is not routinely called into question or denied.

        9. If, within a liberal or radical discussion, I feel that an individual’s criticism of members of my group is problematic, it is not immediately and universally assumed that my objection is delusional or a deliberate attempt to halt discussion. While it is acknowledged that one can “play the X-card,” legitimate instances of my oppression are given more attention than false accusations.

        10. When economically oppressed groups organize to fight poverty, racism, and other injustices, they do not scapegoat me for those injustices.

        11. When I work with liberals and radicals who are not members of my group, they do not view me with suspicion, require that I prove my loyalty to their cause, or wait for me to distinguish myself from the “bad” members of my group before they decide to trust me.

        12. I can speak out against, or work to put a stop to, activities that promote hatred of my group without confirming beliefs that I am controlling the media or using a position of uncanny power over the community, government, or world to quell freedom of speech.

        13. If the country in which I happen to live – or a country that is an ally to my country – goes to war, I will not be blamed for starting it.

        14. If the country in which I happen to live – or a country that is an ally to my country – loses a war, I will not be blamed for sabotaging it.

        15. No one assumes, based on my group identity, that I am physically deformed. Upon meeting me, no one violates my privacy by asking to see that deformity, nor do they violate my bodily autonomy to search for it.

      • Betsy
        July 17, 2012, 11:09 pm

        @Hound — Wow! I’m stunned by this list. Is this saying that non-Jews are privileged because these sorts of things don’t happen to them — that they are likely to happen to Jews? I tell you, I’ve been around a lot of different folks in US — and I just don’t hear this stuff. Sure, fringe groups have strange conspiracies — so I suppose if you dug deep enough, you would find junk like this in fringe literature — but it would be right mixed in with stuff about aliens from outer space.

        I’m trying to connect it to what I have actually seen…The only possible connection I can see is 8. In liberal and radical circles, the very existence of my oppression – in any form or in any part of the world – is not routinely called into question or denied. this suggests that there is a concern re/ denial that there HAS been persecution of Jews — as in the Shoah? Actually, the horror & grief about the Shoah has been deeply embedded in American culture. So, to say that NOW I am not concerned re/ persecution of Jews in US — does not mean in any way that I’m diminishing or discounting the unspeakable crimes & injustices of what the Nazis did! I mean America fought a war against the Nazis!

      • Hound
        July 18, 2012, 5:13 am

        ” Is this saying that non-Jews are privileged because these sorts of things don’t happen to them — that they are likely to happen to Jews?”

        Precisely.

        “I tell you, I’ve been around a lot of different folks in US — and I just don’t hear this stuff. Sure, fringe groups have strange conspiracies — so I suppose if you dug deep enough, you would find junk like this in fringe literature — but it would be right mixed in with stuff about aliens from outer space.

        I’m trying to connect it to what I have actually seen…The only possible connection I can see is 8. In liberal and radical circles, the very existence of my oppression – in any form or in any part of the world – is not routinely called into question or denied. this suggests that there is a concern re/ denial that there HAS been persecution of Jews — as in the Shoah? Actually, the horror & grief about the Shoah has been deeply embedded in American culture.”

        Well, you are far less likely to “see it” if you aren’t Jewish yourself. The fact that you haven’t experienced it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I have experienced nearly all of these things, several times in fact.

        “So, to say that NOW I am not concerned re/ persecution of Jews in US — does not mean in any way that I’m diminishing or discounting the unspeakable crimes & injustices of what the Nazis did! I mean America fought a war against the Nazis!”

        It is true that they have fought against the Nazis, and liberated the camps. However, they also refused to allow Jewish immigration into their country, when they knew damn well that we were desperate to get the hell outta there. The body count wouldn’t have been anywhere close to as high as it was (6 million) if they and the other countries in attendance had just opened their doors to us. But alas, they did not, and I will never let them off the hook for this. Ever.

      • straightline
        July 28, 2012, 11:00 pm

        It is well established that at least post-war Zionist groups in Australia, US and UK were doing their best to limit Jewish immigration to those countries. Since you read this blog regularly, Hound, and are not being disingenuous, I’ll assume know this and you don’t mean that period when you talk about those countries not opening “their doors to us”. Let’s consider Germany alone since before 1939 Poland was not occupied by the Nazis. In 1933 the number of Jews in Germany was almost exactly 500,000.

        link to ushmm.org

        According to this article around 280000 had left Germany by September 1939, plus nearly 120000 from Austria.

        That the Zionists did their best to sabotage the Evian conference in 1939 insofar as it was not concerned with emigration of Jews only to Israel is well documented. If that conference had been successful, more Jews would have been saved.

        Here is what Landauer wrote to Wise.

        “I am writing this letter to you at the request of Dr. Weizmann, as we are very much concerned in case the issue is presented at the (Evian) Conference in a manner which may harm the work for Palestine. Even if the Conference will not place countries other than Palestine in the front for Jewish immigration, there will certainly be public appeals, which will tend to overshadow the importance of Palestine. (…) We feel all the more concern as it may bind Jewish organisations to collect large sums of money for assisting Jewish refugees, and these collections are likely to interfere with our own campaigns.”

        No-one here would let the Allies off the hook for their inaction regarding the Holocaust. Are you happy to let the Zionists “off the hook”?

  23. eGuard
    July 12, 2012, 1:53 pm

    Note: the picture in the link (showing the actual ad) is more to the date. It shows the stip of Gaza reduced once more (possibly reflecting the no-go-there, IDF-shooting grounds area inside the strip).

  24. Sin Nombre
    July 12, 2012, 1:59 pm

    Rabbi Joshua Davidson, the Senior Rabbi of Temple Beth El of Northern Westchester said:

    “Obviously for all of us who love Israel and yearn for peace in the Middle East….”

    Can’t really say that anymore in light of the Levy Report, can they? After all what does it essentially say other than that the Gov’t of Israel was always lying when, in the course of implying it would give it all up for peace, it said it really hadn’t seized and hung onto all that Palestinian land because it coveted same.

    But that cat’s officially out of the bag now for the three people left on the planet who still believed the lie: What Israel really yearned for first was land, not peace.

    (And does anyone not grimace by now hearing this sickening “yearn for peace” line once again so greasily and piously vomited up given its overuse over all these past decades? Hell, I don’t know that Shimon Peres can’t but help it drooling out of his lips every fourth sentence he speaks. It’s so patently said in the manner that says “And of course *our* emotions are so much deeper and genuine important than anyone else’s….” I guess they’re just in such a bubble of self-assessed specialness they can’t even help it oozing out anymore.)

    • Dutch
      July 12, 2012, 2:58 pm

      Well, this rabbi guy said a few things more, and what is hard to understand for a European is that this is taken seriously and published in a newspaper. I may hope that both the editor and Mr rabbi himself are being burried under a meter of e-mails.

      • Citizen
        July 13, 2012, 12:00 pm

        Yeah, Dutch, it’s almost like Germany giving Israel nuclear-ready submarines as “reparations” when Israel is already the only nuclear-armed state in the ME with the 4th strongest military in the world, although its the size of a postage stamp, or NJ.

  25. MRW
    July 12, 2012, 2:13 pm

    The title of ROB Ryser’s piece is “Pro-Palestinian ads at Metro-North stations spark alarm from Jewish leaders.”

    Too bad the actual situation in Palestine hasn’t sparked the same alarm. They’ve had 64 years to conjure up a decent reaction.

  26. talknic
    July 12, 2012, 2:46 pm

    Large image for Google Earth link to wp.me

  27. ColinWright
    July 12, 2012, 3:17 pm

    Somewhat — but not completely — unfair.

    One could do several similar maps.

    First — for those who like their curry mild — one could do a map showing the distribution of Indians in the United States, 1803-1900.

    Then, for those who like it hot, one could do one of the distribution of Jews in Germany, 1933-1940. German Jews, above all, were forced into small urban enclaves. The essential preliminary was to physically separate them from the bulk of the German population.

    Finally, for those who like their curry very hot, we could have the distribution of Jews in Poland, 1939-1943.

    All these maps would look a good deal like the above. The ‘German Jews 1933-40′ would probably be the fairest analog. First, like the Palestinians, a good chunk of the German Jewish population was simply driven to leave entirely. Secondly, the series of deprivations levied against German Jews and the scale of violence to which they were exposed through 1940 is about the same as that suffered by the Palestinians. There would actually have been considerably more violence inflicted on the Palestinian population, but then, they’ve been less cooperative than German Jews were. It’s been more or less the same thing.

    • straightline
      July 12, 2012, 6:51 pm

      link to ushmm.org

      Jews in Germany in 1933 were 0.75% of the population – hardly comparable with Palestinians in Palestine in 1947 – 67%.

      link to representativepress.org

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 2:15 am

        Oh certainly there were differences — for one, if you set about taking someone else’s land, you have to figure on there being scads of natives running about. Nevertheless, it would be a fair comparison.

    • schlemiel
      July 13, 2012, 11:27 pm

      Or if you just like curry without the drama you can compare the map to the map of United States dispossession of American Indians and conquest of Mexico. For that matter, any map that involves an arriviste population displacing a local population will do, and that pretty much describes every country on earth, certainly the one I live in.

      But why do that when you can equate Zionism with Nazism?

      • Shingo
        July 14, 2012, 7:03 am

        Or if you just like curry without the drama you can compare the map to the map of United States dispossession of American Indians and conquest of Mexico.

        Yawn,

        While you’re at it, why not also include slavery – oh that’s right, it’s no longer legal – and as is land conquest and theft.

        As Tony Judt said, Zionists think that because Israel missed out on the 19th century, they should be allowed to have their own.

      • MRW
        July 15, 2012, 4:11 pm

        @schlemiel

        “But why do that when you can equate Zionism with Nazism?”

        Uri Avnery just did it for you in his July 14, 2012 quasi-eulogy for Yitzak Shamir, and their escapades together when both were in the Irgun.

  28. LanceThruster
    July 12, 2012, 3:57 pm

    “If the facts are inflammatory then they are inflammatory,” said Henry Clifford, the chairman of a 10-member group called the Committee for Peace in Israel/Palestine. “All of the Middle East is infected with the virus of the Arab-Israeli conflict. People need to know the truth of the matter.”…

    A-f#cking-men!

    Beautifully expressed.

  29. Fredblogs
    July 12, 2012, 4:14 pm

    It’s also a load. In 1946 almost all of the land was government land owned by the then current mandatory government (i.e., the Brits, in trust for the Jews, according to the Mandate for Palestine). This poster just assumes that all land that wasn’t privately held Jewish land was “Palestinian” land. Even though there never has been a country of Palestine.

    • seafoid
      July 12, 2012, 5:17 pm

      Fred

      I am trying to contact the UN to get them to declare that your house belongs to me. I hope you are not too upset but it’s written in my Bible.

    • Bumblebye
      July 12, 2012, 5:34 pm

      The Brits were not holding the land “in trust for the Jews”, such a stupid statement is arrant nonsense.

      • Roya
        July 12, 2012, 5:50 pm

        It is indeed nonsense. The British Command Paper of 1922 states, “Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become “as Jewish as England is English.” His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'”

    • Roya
      July 12, 2012, 5:39 pm

      Fredblogs, how about you offer some reliable sources to back up your interesting claims there? And so all of this government-owned land you talk of was bought by the Jews, was it? Because you see, according to a survey done by the British Mandate, Jews owned 5.8% of land in Palestine in 1943 (you see what I did there? I made a potentially controversial claim and then offered a reliable source!) And all of the Palestinian homes that were forcibly vacated and/or demolished were bought from their owners, or were they just marked absentee property and ‘legally’ handed over to the Zionist state?

      • tree
        July 12, 2012, 8:43 pm

        Roya,

        Fred’s just stuck on a mobius loop. Its already been pointed out to him that his statement is utterly false, most recently in April of this very year. He doesn’t care, he just keeps recycling his false satements. So I’ll repeat my comments in reply to him from April 29th, 2012:

        The majority of land that Israel claimed in 1948 was privately held by Palestinians, with only around 7% per cent owned by Jews. And, according to the British Mandate Government in Palestine, only around 5% of it was previous government land held by the British.

        To reiterate my comment from February of this year:

        According to the official British Survey of Mandate Palestine, issued in 1945, private ownership of land by non-Jewish Palestinians encompassed 24 million dunams (approximately 90% of Mandate Palestine), while Jewish land ownership was only 1.5 million dunams ( approximately 5%).

        Even the Jewish National Fund admitted this in 1949:

        The Jewish National Fund made a study of Jewish villages in Israel in 1949 and stated:(9)

        Of the entire area of the State of Israel only about 300,000- 400,000 dunams – apart from the desolate rocky area of the southern Negev, at present quite unfit for cultivation – are State Domain which the Israel Government took over from the Mandatory regime. The J.N.F. and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunams. Almost all the rest belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country. The fate of these Arabs will be settled when the terms of the peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbours are finally drawn up. The J.N.F., however, cannot wait until then to obtain the land it requires for its pressing needs. It is, therefore, acquiring part of the land abandoned by the Arab owners, through the Government of Israel, the sovereign authority in Israel.

        link to palestine-encyclopedia.com

        So the British said the majority of land in Mandate Palestine was privately owned by Palestinian Arabs, and so did the JNF at the time. I think your assertion is a new form of Nakba denial going around, attempting to rewrite history and claim that most of the land confiscated was not privately owned, as if that would excuse the ethnic cleansing.

        Here’s the link to my comment in April, which was in direct response to Fred’s earlier trotting out of this bit of falsity.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        I had to make a similar response to another poster in February of this year. Something tells me Fred will trot out this same rotten chestnut of his again in another couple of months.

      • tree
        July 12, 2012, 9:05 pm

        A further source for the fact that most land in Mandate Palestine was privately held by Palestinians, from a similar response I had to make in February of this year to the same tripe:

        Subcommittee 2 of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question stated in its report to the United Nations General Assembly the following:

        “Closely connected with the distribution of population is the factor of land ownership in the proposed Jewish State. The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs. This is clear from the following statistics furnished to the Sub-Committee by the United Kingdom representative, showing the respective percentages of Arab and Jewish ownership of land in the various sub-districts of Palestine.(4)”

        4. Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question, Summary Records of Meetings, 25 September-25 November, 1947, pp. 292-
        293.

        as cited in my first link above.

        Most of the land in Mandate Palestine was owned by Palestinians. The British acknowledged that, the UN acknowledged it, and so did the Jewish Agency. Isn’t it time you acknowledged the truth as well, Fred?

      • Roya
        July 12, 2012, 11:44 pm

        Thanks tree. Now if somebody could explain how it is that some people can continue regurgitating claims that they know are false to an audience that also knows the claims are false without feeling embarrassed and ashamed, I would be able to understand the Zionist psyche much better.

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 2:18 am

        “A further source for the fact that most land in Mandate Palestine was privately held by Palestinians, from a similar response I had to make in February of this year to the same tripe…”

        Lol. Surely there is some way we can bill Zionists for making us shoot down the same lame lies — over and over and over.

        It’s really dull. It’s fighting the good fight of course, and kind of gratifying if your ego needs a boost — but really dull. There’s a strong similarity to playing chess with a four-year old.

      • Fredblogs
        July 13, 2012, 3:16 am

        funny how the only sites that even mention a “British Survey of Mandate Palestine” are 6 posts by you, here and elsewhere.

      • Shingo
        July 13, 2012, 4:54 am

        funny how the only sites that even mention a “British Survey of Mandate Palestine” are 6 posts by you, here and elsewhere.

        In the pursuit fo self humiliation, you really are outdoing yourself today Fred.

        link to amazon.com

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 5:16 am

        Lol.

        Gotta feel sorry for Fred. It’s not that he’s necessarily stupid — it’s just that he’s attempting to defend such an indefensible cause.

        Conversely, one really shouldn’t take pride in shooting his arguments apart. Who could do any better — working with the material he has?

      • Erasmus
        July 13, 2012, 8:07 am

        re Tree’s observation of Fredblog’s stubborn intransigence

        Note to the Editors:

        In light of such such an obvious stubborness as Fredblog exhibits continously and without hope of coming to an end –
        I herewith submit that Fredblog is given a red-light warning, meaning to say, at any next occasion repeating the same old obvious lies – he shall be banned from this blog!

        It is grossly indecent and unfair of Fredblog, to waste other commentors’ energy and time to repeat earlier statements, contradicting factually false statements of his.

      • American
        July 13, 2012, 11:54 am

        Fredblogs says:
        July 13, 2012 at 3:16 am

        funny how the only sites that even mention a “British Survey of Mandate Palestine” are 6 posts by you, here and elsewhere
        >>>>>>>>>>>>>

        There have been dozens upon dozens of post here linking to the documents of the British Survey of Mandate Palestine……and the Brisith Census of Palestine.

      • Fredblogs
        July 13, 2012, 1:22 pm

        @Shingo
        Which does not say “British Survey of Mandate Palestine”.
        If you are going to just make up your own names for things, there is no way to check on them.

        Got a source for what’s supposedly in it that isn’t 1300 pages long, costing over $100 and volume 1 of 3?

      • Hostage
        July 13, 2012, 2:15 pm

        The bulk of the land in the Arab State, as well as in the proposed Jewish State, is owned and possessed by Arabs. . . . Most of the land in Mandate Palestine was owned by Palestinians. The British acknowledged that, the UN acknowledged it, and so did the Jewish Agency.

        A lot of people forget that the General Assembly didn’t just “give” the Jews 55 percent of Palestine. They insisted on a very definite relinquishment of sovereignty in exchange for that territory. The UN “Plan for the Future Government of Palestine” contained in resolution 181(II) established a de facto bi-national state under the guise of a regional Economic Union. The initial plan called for the collection and redistribution of revenues from the Jewish state to help fund the essential public services of the Arab state. There was also a minority protection plan which contained safeguards for both political and civil rights and religious freedoms as well as protections for private property. All of the rights and safeguards were placed under a permanent UN guarantee.

        So that’s why the UN appears to spend a disproportionate amount of its time and effort on “The Question of Palestine”. It’s one of the few cases where the UN authored and backed a plan to create a new state, or states, in order to emancipate a dependent people that has never come to fruition (yet). That’s very striking, since the General Assembly and the UN trustee system were responsible for emancipating 2/3rds of the world and the majority of its modern states from forms of foreign occupation, domination, and colonialism.

      • Roya
        July 13, 2012, 8:07 pm

        Here’s a little something for you Freddie buddy.
        link to palestineremembered.com

      • Shingo
        July 13, 2012, 11:05 pm

        Which does not say “British Survey of Mandate Palestine”.

        What other Survey of Palestine was there Fred?

      • tree
        July 13, 2012, 11:05 pm

        Got a source for what’s supposedly in it that isn’t 1300 pages long, costing over $100 and volume 1 of 3?

        Fred, you are incredibly lazy and frankly not worth the effort, but Roya above, and I in my links to previous comments in April and February gave you the source. You didn’t need to go searching the internet for it. We gave you the link which you were too lazy to click on. Please stop asking for cites that you don’t bother to read, or else have the common courtesy to actually read what you are asking for, so we don’t have to go through this again like we are dealing with an advanced Alzheimer’s patient.

        link to palestineremembered.com

        This is Table 2 from page 566 of the Survey.

        The complete scanned copy ( all three volumes) of the official British Mandate Survey of Palestine ( officially called, as indicated at Amazon, “A Survey of Palestine : Prepared in December, 1945 and January, 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry”) is available at the site we gave you FOR FREE for those who aren’t too lazy to read. That caveat may well eliminate yourself, but that’s not our fault.

        Helpful hint: Click link below for the fully scanned 1946 Survey. I feel like I’m trying to lead a horse to water here:

        link to palestineremembered.com

      • Hostage
        July 14, 2012, 1:26 pm

        Gotta feel sorry for Fred. . . . It’s not that he’s necessarily stupid

        Well if ignorance means you don’t know yet, and stupidity means that you never will know, I’m inclining toward a diagnosis of the latter.

      • ColinWright
        July 14, 2012, 2:04 pm

        “Helpful hint: Click link below for the fully scanned 1946 Survey. I feel like I’m trying to lead a horse to water here”

        Bad analogy. A horse presumably really does want to drink water. Almost necessarily, a Zionist is actually averse to the truth.

      • Mooser
        July 15, 2012, 5:58 pm

        “Now if somebody could explain how it is that some people can continue regurgitating claims that they know are false to an audience that also knows the claims are false without feeling embarrassed and ashamed”

        No problem. When a Zionists contemplates any aspect of Zionism, it is hypothesised his body creates a chemical messenger which is called “Ziocaine”, because its action appears to be similar to a combined cocaine and alcohol intoxication. It causes certain physiological and psychological reactions potentially known as the “Ziocaine Syndrome”, usually including feelings of Zionist-Jewphoria, omnipotence, omniscience, extremely self-righteous self righteousness, along with paranoia, victimology, coarsening of ethical and moral sensibilities, and increased salivary gland activity. There may be a potential for violence. A Ziocaine Syndrome event usually ends with a period of amnesia, during which they forget what they’ve said, the facts they’ve been told, and which allows them to come back tomorrow and do it all over again.
        Although there is some scientific objections to the Ziocaine hypothesis, most of them can be answered with a simple ‘So, Mr. Smart Guy, have you got a better explanation?’ or words to that effect.

    • Dexter
      July 12, 2012, 5:40 pm

      The reality of that map cuts deep doesn’t it Fred…clear and visual evidence that your white, European, Jewish brethren stole the land….ouch ;)

      • Fredblogs
        July 13, 2012, 1:24 pm

        The lies of the map are impressive. If they were true, which they aren’t. Of course a map of the U.S. before the American’s took over would show similar results for the natives here. For that matter a map of Spanish territory showing who held what before the Spaniards started kicking out the Moors would look similar.

      • Dexter
        July 14, 2012, 3:01 am

        Let’s notice how Fred answered this question everyone: he used a tricky little Zionist trick called “deflection.” When in doubt, bring up other issues like “Native Americans,” for example.

        Let’s turn the Native American comparison on its head Freddy:

        Let’s say Jews did have a 2,000 year old claim to Palestine, just like Native Americans have a legitimate claim to American land. If no one expects the US to return the land to the Native Americans after just a few hundred years, why should Palestinians have been expected to return their land to Jews after 2,000 years?!

      • Hound
        July 16, 2012, 7:34 pm

        Ahem.

        link to blogs.discovermagazine.com

        This isn’t to say that Palestinian Arabs don’t also have a claim to the land, but to say that we’re only “white Europeans” is absurd.

      • Shingo
        July 17, 2012, 10:11 am

        Ahem your link has a virus/malware.

      • Hound
        July 17, 2012, 6:41 pm

        Does it? Well, then just check the Wiki article “genetic studies on Jews”, which is comprehensive. Or you could hop on a computer at your local library and Google “The Assyrians and the Jews: 3000 years of common history”, which is the article I linked to above.

        Do these articles work? Let me know if they don’t, and I’ll try and correct that.

        link to dienekes.blogspot.com

        link to dienekes.blogspot.com

    • ColinWright
      July 12, 2012, 5:52 pm

      “i.e., the Brits, in trust for the Jews, according to the Mandate for Palestine…”

      Speaking of ‘loads.’ You just can’t type a sentence that doesn’t contain at least one lie, can you?

    • Woody Tanaka
      July 12, 2012, 6:01 pm

      “government land owned by the then current mandatory government (i.e., the Brits, in trust for the Jews, according to the Mandate for Palestine)”

      That’s where your problem lies, Fredo. There was never any such provision in the mandate. It’s typical zio hasbara bullshit. Neither the Brits, nor the League, for that matter, had the right to give any of the land of Palestine to a horde of foreign trouble-making Jews. But, even further, the mandate specifically states that whatever was meant by “national home” regarding the Jews, that nothing done could to prejudice the rights of the Palestinians. Since the priniciples of the League of Nations was in many ways based on the principle of self-determination for people like the Palestinians, it goes without saying that your fanciful imaginings fall flat in contrast with the fact that there would be no way to create a mandate where the Palestinians’ land was held “in trust” for Jews and not maximally prejudice the civil rights of the rightful owners and inhabitants of the land, the Palestinians. Therefore, that nonsense must be rejected.

    • justicewillprevail
      July 12, 2012, 6:43 pm

      Falseblogs, you are not serious and have no idea what you are talking about. Repeating absurd and mendacious Israeli propaganda makes you look ridiculous. Try doing a little research and inform yourself of some facts.

    • straightline
      July 12, 2012, 6:46 pm

      link to merip.org

      Perfidious Albion promised the Palestinians a state of their own while, under pressure from Zionists, it was promising the Jews a home in Palestine.

      • Blake
        July 14, 2012, 5:16 pm

        Indeed, subjugation to the Ottomans necessitated the Arabs to fight for Turkey, an ally of Germany, in the first stages of the WW1. However a year later, Sir Henry MacMahon, promised the Arabs independence if they would fight on the side of the Allies. In addition, General Allenby, commander of the British Army in Palestine, posted a Proclamation in every village assuring the Arabs that their support would confer upon them an “administrative authority” on which “no outside government” would be imposed.

        As a result of these promises the Arabs deserted the Turkish armies and entered the War on the side of the Allies.

    • Shingo
      July 12, 2012, 7:18 pm

      It’s also a load. In 1946 almost all of the land was government land owned by the then current mandatory government

      No matter how often you get corrected on this BS Fred, you return to repeat it again. The majority of land that Israel claimed in 1948 was privately held by Palestinians, with only around 7% per cent owned by Jews. And, according to the British Mandate Government in Palestine, only around 5% of it was previous government land held by the British.

      To reiterate my comment from February of this year:

      According to the official British Survey of Mandate Palestine, issued in 1945, private ownership of land by non-Jewish Palestinians encompassed 24 million dunams (approximately 90% of Mandate Palestine), while Jewish land ownership was only 1.5 million dunams ( approximately 5%).

      Even the Jewish National Fund admitted this in 1949:

      The Jewish National Fund made a study of Jewish villages in Israel in 1949 and stated:(9)

      Of the entire area of the State of Israel only about 300,000- 400,000 dunams – apart from the desolate rocky area of the southern Negev, at present quite unfit for cultivation – are State Domain which the Israel Government took over from the Mandatory regime. The J.N.F. and private Jewish owners possess under two million dunams. Almost all the rest belongs at law to Arab owners, many of whom have left the country. The fate of these Arabs will be settled when the terms of the peace treaties between Israel and her Arab neighbours are finally drawn up. The J.N.F., however, cannot wait until then to obtain the land it requires for its pressing needs. It is, therefore, acquiring part of the land abandoned by the Arab owners, through the Government of Israel, the sovereign authority in Israel.

      link to palestine-encyclopedia.com

      So the British said the majority of land in Mandate Palestine was privately owned by Palestinian Arabs, and so did the JNF at the time. I think your assertion is a new form of Nakba denial going around, attempting to rewrite history and claim that most of the land confiscated was not privately owned, as if that would excuse the ethnic cleansing. All Palestinian land owned by the “external refugees” was confiscated, and over 65% of the “internal refugees” land was likewise confiscated by the mid 1950’s, according to Quigley .

    • RoHa
      July 12, 2012, 8:29 pm

      “Even though there never has been a country of Palestine.”

      I think it would be a good idea for MW to have an archive of the refutations (usually by Hostage) of these standard hasbara points so that we could just give a link instead of making poor Hostage do the work all over again.

      • Philip Weiss
        July 12, 2012, 9:41 pm

        agreed, i would like a post on Hostage FAQs

      • Bing Bong
        August 1, 2012, 8:26 am

        Is this going to include counter arguments and responses to, historians like Crawford…

        link to ejil.org

        …who do not regard Palestine as a state under the Ottomans or during the mandate? Or has the War of Ideas in the Middle East been won single handedly by Hostage on this issue?

        As far as I can glean, Hostage bizarrely upholds the Jericho resolutions as a declaration of Palestinian independence. I am aware of no other literature that supports this. Indeed the literature is compelling in arguing that these resolutions were gerrymandered by Transjordan. Are you seriously considering a go to link response that includes the actions of King Abdullah in subjugating Palestinian Nationalism dressed up as a declaration of independence?

        And if RoHa is so concerned about ‘making poor Hostage do the work all over again’ then perhaps he or she can help him or her out by elucidating these arguments also, as I’m sure that someone so willing to suggest a go to link for all the answers on the minefield of international statehood in the Middle East must have a comprehensive knowledge of those arguments and the final unbiased resolution to them.

      • Shingo
        August 1, 2012, 4:50 pm

        I am aware of no other literature that supports this

        You keep repeationg this argument as though it was some defense, when in fact , it’s nothign mroe than ad admission of your own ognirance. You’re tried desperately to find holes in Hostages argument by examining every agnle and you’re come up empty handed, and you’re left wining like a child that he won’t let you win.

      • Bing Bong
        August 2, 2012, 4:30 am

        If this is an admission of my own ognirance then perhaps you can point me towards some literature that supports the point other than the Gale Encyclopedia of the Mideast & N. Africa

        That’s if you even know what specific point this relates to.

      • Hostage
        August 2, 2012, 1:39 pm

        If this is an admission of my own ognirance then perhaps you can point me towards some literature that supports the point other than the Gale Encyclopedia of the Mideast & N. Africa

        Your ignorance on the subject is staggering and completely willful. The introduction of the Restatement (3rd) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States says “In the United States, the principal resources for research in international law and practice are the successive Digests of International Law – by Wharton (1866); Moore (1906), Hackworth (1940), and Whiteman (1963), and the State Department’s Annual Digest of United States Practice in International Law, beginning in 1973.”

        Whiteman cited the final binding decision of a League of Nations Arbital Court in the Ottoman Public Debt Case; the final decision in the Permanent Court of International Justice, Ser. A., No. 5, Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case; and the final decision in the Supreme Court of Palestine, Heirs of Sultan Abdul Hamid case on questions of State Succession, Act of State, and the interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne.

        Whiteman also cited a number of court decisions on the subject of the mandated states as persons of international law from Lauterpacht’s Annual Digest and International Law Reports. All of the court decisions ruled that the mandated state of Palestine was an allied successor state and a person of international law pursuant to the terms of the relevant treaties, ordinances, & etc.

        Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The status of Palestine as a state for the purposes of international law during the mandate era was, and still is, res judicata. Claims to the contrary were legally precluded by the court decisions cited in these Digests.

        The resolutions of the Jericho Conference and the subsequent ratification of the union by the elected representatives of the two peoples is cited as a typical case of the acquisition of sovereignty over territory through union and annexation. See Volume 2 of the US State Department’s Digest of International Law, M. Whiteman (ed), 1963, pages 1163-1168.

      • Bing Bong
        August 3, 2012, 5:01 am

        “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The status of Palestine as a state for the purposes of international law…was, and still is….”

        Just like Texas.

      • Hostage
        August 3, 2012, 8:58 am

        “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. The status of Palestine as a state for the purposes of international law…was, and still is….” . . . Just like Texas.

        No, the United States is a signatory of the Montevideo Convention. Article 2 stipulates that:

        The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.

        –http://www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/01/1-02/rights-duties-states.xml

        The PCIJ decision in the Mavrommatis case ruled that Palestine was the successor state in the eyes of international law according to the protocols of the Treaty of Lausanne, not Great Britain. That meant Colonial Secretary Churchill did not have the necessary legal standing to cancel the existing Palestine concessions, only to administer them on behalf of Palestine.

        When the US signs a treaty, it becomes the state party in the eyes of international law, not Texas. When a LoN mandatory signed a treaty, the mandated state became the state party in the eyes of international law, not the LoN mandatory state. Prof Quigley, Boyle, and others noted that Palestine even signed treaties with Great Britain, which established that they were separate states for the purpose of international law.

        In 1932, the British Law Lords, the United States, Spain, and Italy each recognized Palestine as a separate foreign state in their treaties of commerce. At the same time, no countries recognized Texas as a state separate from the United States. You just keep spamming the thread with the same unsupported nonsense.

      • Citizen
        August 3, 2012, 12:37 pm

        @ Hostage
        “When the US signs a treaty, it becomes the state party in the eyes of international law, not Texas.:

        One has to be pretty ignorant not to know this. You have the patience of Job
        to put up with such ziobots in the interest of not letting them get away with their cheap attempts to poison newbies to the issues discussed here on MW. We really do need an index to MW archives, so you especially, Hostage, and the rest of us regulars don’t have to keep digging up the evidence and repeating ourselves everytime a ziobot jumps on a thread spewing lies and lying assumptions that would be obvious to anyone schooled in the history of the I-P conflict and the US angle to it.

      • Hostage
        August 4, 2012, 7:15 pm

        You have the patience of Job to put up with such ziobots in the interest of not letting them get away with their cheap attempts to poison newbies to the issues discussed here on MW.

        Yes, Phil has mentioned plans for a FAQ. There are quite a few of the typical non sequitur, unhistorical, and plainly irrelevant arguments presented here in Bing Bong’s comments. Despite the fact that very few readers are going to wade through more than 600 comments to arrive at book-length reply, they should probably still be addressed. The reason these hasbarists post so much nonsense is that they hope it will go unanswered.

      • Hostage
        August 5, 2012, 7:48 am

        Is this going to include counter arguments and responses to, historians like Crawford…link to ejil.org …who do not regard Palestine as a state under the Ottomans or during the mandate?

        Surely. Regarding Dr Crawford. His current views are in total agreement with the advertisements depicting Israel’s illegal expropriation of Arab territories shown in the maps accompanying this article. He led the legal team that represented Palestine and presented oral arguments against Israel in the 2004 Wall case. He is currently leading the effort to ban Israeli settlement products in the EU. You didn’t just step in it, you fell down in it.

        By 1999, Crawford had accepted Prof Quigley’s view on the statehood of Palestine, but still fell victim to doubts caused by hasbara reports which claimed the PLO was going to make another Unilateral Declaration of Independence and that Palestine could not unilaterally alter the status of the territory while the Oslo Accords remained in effect. He thought that, if another declaration were required, that must mean the first one was ineffective. But we know that Palestine relied upon the original 1988 Declaration for its UN and UNESCO applications last year and that its participation in the lapsed Oslo Accords was without any prejudice to its existing position on statehood (which was not listed as a final status issue anyway). Even before the five year term of the Accords officially lapsed, Crawford warned that Israel could not drag its feet any longer:

        None the less this may not be the whole story. There may come a point where international law (like English equity) is justified in regarding as done that which ought to have been done, if the reason it has not been done is the serious default of one party, and if the consequence of its not being done is serious prejudice to another, innocent, party. The principle that a state cannot rely on its own wrongful conduct to avoid the consequences of its international obligations is capable of novel applications and circumstances can be imagined where the international community would be entitled to treat a new state as existing on a given territory, notwithstanding the facts.

        — See Crawford, ‘Israel (1948–49) and Palestine (1998–99): Two Studies in the Creation of States’ in Goodwin-Gill and Talmon (eds), Reality of International Law, 95–124

        Of course the international community of states were way ahead of Crawford on the issue of equity. That’s why the majority had recognized Palestine ten years earlier. Crawford’s 1999 statement was the basis of his oral argument in the 2004 Wall case.

        FYI, In “The Creation of States in International Law”, 2nd Edition, 2006, page 17, Crawford admitted that some governments leave decisions on statehood to the Courts and the law, but that any form of recognition derived from executive branch certification is legally binding. The chapter from Goodwin Gil-Talmon book was reprinted and included. On page 435 he admitted that the 1988 Algiers Declaration of the State of Palestine had been widely recognized by the numerical majority of UN member states. So objections raised by academics about the binding legal effects of recognition are really just that, academic. When the D.C. District Court agreed with the Secretary of State and ruled against Kletter saying that Palestine had been recognized by the Executive branch in a 1932 treaty of commerce, claims to the contrary were legally precluded. Crawford acknowledges that this is the reality under the applicable principles of ordinary law.

        § 204 of The Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States lists the following forms of Executive branch recognition: “Recognition of a state has been effected by express official declaration, by the conclusion of a bilateral agreement with the state, by the presentation of credentials by a United States representative to the authorities of the new state, and by receiving the credentials of a diplomatic represen­tative of that state.” It also explains that, the fact the United States is a member of an international organization to which another state that it does not recognize is also member, doesn’t imply any recognition. But if the United States votes to admit an entity to membership in an organization open only to states or as a state party, then recognition is implied.

        The Montevideo Convention is the law in these parts. It’s a treaty in force between states, not law professors. There are no provisions dealing with dispute resolution regarding recognition. When Syria challenged premature US recognition of Israel and requested an advisory opinion the US ambassador said it was a political matter solely within the jurisdiction of the US:

        “I should regard it as highly improper for me to admit that any country on earth can question the sovereignty of the United States of America in the exercise of that high political act of recognition of the de facto status of a State. Moreover, I would not admit here, by implication or by direct answer, that there exists a tribunal of Justice or of any other kind, anywhere, that can pass judgment upon the legality or the validity of that act of my Country. There were certain powers and certain rights of a sovereign State which were not yielded by any of the members who signed the United Nations Charter and in particular this power to recognize the de facto authority of a provisional Government was not yielded. . . . I am certain that no nation on earth has any right to question that, or to lay down a proposition that a certain length of time of the exercise of de facto authority must elapse before that authority can be recognized.”

        See S/1466, 9 March 1950, Letter Dated 8 March 1950 From the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council Concerning “Legal Aspects of Problems of Representation in the United Nations”, link to un.org

        The written statement of Jordan in the 2004 Wall case provided details about the Jericho Congress and examples of all of the various forms of Executive recognition by other states after the annexation of the West Bank had occurred – including the new entity’s accession in 1951 to the Geneva Conventions, without any objections from the depositary or other High Contracting Parties. The Court performed a legal analysis and concluded that the West Bank was subject to the jurisdiction of Jordan and that its status had not changed under the terms of the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty. link to icj-cij.org

        Back in 1990 Dr Crawford was responding to an article written Dr Francis Boyle. At the time, the PLO was still a government in exile. Like Dr Hersch Lauterpacht, Boyle has two earned PhDs, one as a Doctor of Laws and the other as a Doctor of Political Science. The late Dr. Lauterpacht has been recognized for making the most significant individual contributions to the development of international law in the 20th Century. link to lcil.cam.ac.uk

        Among other things, Dr. Crawford is Director of the Lauterpacht Research Center for International Law, at Cambridge. I’ve noted that Lauterpacht’s International Law Reports and advisory opinions confirmed the status of Palestine as a “third independent state” or separate “mandated state” with the same character of a “regular state”. He also held that a State becomes a person of international law solely and exclusively through recognition. See for example:
        *Case No. 34 Mandated States (Saikaly v. Saikaly) reported in John Fischer Williams and Hersh Lauterpacht (editors), “International Law Reports”, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, page 48 under the heading States as International Persons link to books.google.com
        *The reference to the decision by Law Lords Simon and Erleigh in Lauterpacht’s advisory opinion for the Jewish Agency “States as Persons of International Law”. He noted that the British government had reached the conclusion that Palestine was a “third independent State” for the purposes of the most favored nation clause in its own commerce treaties. link to books.google.com

        Lauterpacht, Boyle, and the overwhelming majority of other academics believe that, while recognition of statehood has binding legal consequences, it is primarily undertaken as a political act of state. I’ve cited the opinions of Ruth Lapidoth, L.C. Green and others who advise that recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another entity as a state. See for example Judge Benq Broms essay on Recognition of States in UNESCO’s volume on International Law: link to books.google.com

        In fact Professor Brownlie who supervised Crawford’s 1977 doctoral thesis states the position succinctly:

        “Recognition, as a public act of state, is an optional and political act and there is no legal duty in this regard. However, in a deeper sense, if an entity bears the marks of statehood, other states put themselves at risk legally, if they ignore the basic obligations of state relations.”

        The primary arguments of Crawford’s doctoral thesis were that 1) the creation of States is a matter in principle governed by international law and not left to the discretion of individual States; and 2) the criteria contained in the Montevideo Convention is seriously flawed. There’s very little evidence that individuals states have adopted Crawford’s view or that the signatories of Montevideo do not consider it a binding treaty still in force. It’s somewhat ironic that Crawford got bogged down in a discussion with Boyle about the meaning of “provisionally independent nations” in Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles and failed to even acknowledge the many Court decisions which recognized Palestine as a “state” did so in accordance with international conventional laws, i.e. Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles; Article 245 of the Treaty of Sèvres, and Article 30, et seq. of the Treaty of Lausanne. Taken together with Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly; Article 74 (2) of the Treaty of Trianon; Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Palestine is one of the truly rare examples of a state that actually was created in accordance with international law. It was not left up to the discretion of individual States.

        Needless to say, Crawford is not a historian. He is the Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge. He is currently working on a legal campaign to ban Israeli settlement products in the EU. He’s written a 60 page advisory opinion about that. You can read more about it at Opinio Juris: link to opiniojuris.org

        A careful reading of the EJIL reveals that Crawford merely said that he believed Palestine was not considered an “independent” state. He did not mention the fact that the Courts had ruled that it was a mandated state or person of international law. He has written about that fact in his books and other articles. In fact, he devoted an entire chapter in his magnum opus, “The Creation of States in International Law”, to a discussion about the establishment of the Mandates and Trusteeships and their international legal personalities. Crawford’s published views have changed considerably since then anyway. Dr. Francis Boyle’s article is available here in EJIL Vol 1 (1990) No. 1. It pointed out that the majority of UN member states had legally recognized Palestine: link to ejil.org

        The Statute of the International Court of Justice permits the Court to solicit the written opinions from public international organizations. But it also stipulates that only states may participate as respondents or interested parties in cases before the Court. There is no requirement that the state be “independent”.

        Crawford had to address arguments from Israel’s supporters, including his own country of origin Australia. They argued that the case was inadmissible, because it was a dispute between two states and that Israel had not consented to have the dispute settled by the Court. Needless to say all of those countries implicitly recognized the statehood of Palestine. The same thing applies to Spain, France, Ireland, Austria, Finland and Greece who voted to admit Palestine as a full member of UNESCO. Crawford pointed out that South Africa did not consent to the Namibia request and that the cases involved a similar request for an advisory opinion from a UN organ. He also argued the Wall was an attempt by Israel to impose a unilateral settlement in relation to a multilateral conflict and to do so in violation of fundamental, erga omnes obligations, to respect the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination. That right includes the right to determine their own political status as a state. link to icj-cij.org

        Your illogical argument that Palestinians occupied themselves after the union is simply irrelevant. Crawford writes:

        Belligerent occupation
        Pending a final settlement of the conflict, belligerent occupation does not affect the continuity of the State. The governmental authorities may be driven into exile or silenced, and the exercise of the powers of the State thereby affected. But it is settled that the powers themselves continue to exist. This is strictly not an application of the ‘actual independence’ rule but an exception to it, based on the maxim ex factis ius non oritur pending a settlement of the conflict by a peace treaty or its equivalent.

        This issue was raised by the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of Alliance of 30 June 1930, 132 BFSP 280, intended to regulate relations after the termination of the Mandate. The treaty provided for ‘co-ordination’ of foreign policies (Art 1), mutual assistance in war (Art 4), and granted to the U.K. extensive facilities in time of war, including two permanent air bases (Art 5). The presence of British forces in Iraq was not to ‘constitute in any manner an occupation and will in no way prejudice the sovereign rights of Iraq.’ The treaty was to remain in force for 25 years and then to be renegotiated on
        a basis which still provided for ‘the continued maintenance and protection in all circumstances of the essential communications of His Britannic Majesty.’ (Art 11) . The Permanent Mandates Commission, while expressing reservations, concluded that ‘although certain of the provisions of the Treaty. . . were somewhat unusual in treaties of this kind, the obligations entered into by Iraq towards Great Britain did not explicitly infringe the independence of the new State.’ See Main, Iraq from Mandate to Independence, 104-12, 110. The Treaty of Alliance came into force upon Iraq’s admission to the League on 3 October 1932.

        Great Britain had a similar agreement with Transjordan that it extended to the West Bank. You can hardly argue that Palestine wasn’t an independent state because it was “occupied”, when the League recognized Iraq as an “independent” state under identical circumstances. See Crawford’s Creation of States, page 73

        The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 Reporters note 3 says “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.”

        Crawford’s conclusions on “sovereignty” are consistent with Whiteman’s conclusions on “independence”:

        The criteria for statehood, and modern practice in the field, have been examined at length in this study and there is no point in repeating the conclusions reached in earlier chapters. Four specific problems, however, deserve brief mention. In the first place, the concept of “sovereignty” as a criterion for plenary competence has been rejected. Although that view gained a certain degree of acceptance among nineteenth-century writers and was accepted in the twentieth century in Soviet and in some western doctrine, the notion of “sovereignty” has been seen to be both unhelpful and misleading as a criterion. It is unhelpful since both the legal and the effective capacities, rights, immunities and so on of States may vary widely, within the limits established by the criteria for separate independence. It is misleading since it implies a necessary and overriding omnipotence which States do not possess in law or in fact. Rejection of “sovereignty” as a criterion involves rejection of the old notion of the “semi-sovereign” State. Those dependent, devolving or sui generis entities that qualify as States under the general criteria do so despite specific limitations as to capacity and the like; . . . Secondly, although the criteria for statehood provide a general, applicable standard, the application of that standard to particular situations where there are conflicting and controversial claims is often difficult. It is here in particular that recognition and, equally importantly, other State practice relating to or implying a judgement as to the status of the entity in question are important. . . . Thirdly, while statehood is a legal concept with a determinate, though flexible, content it is probably the only such concept in the field of legal personality.

        See Creation of States page 718

      • Hostage
        August 5, 2012, 5:32 pm

        historians like Crawford…do not regard Palestine as a state under the Ottomans

        Crawford is a lawyer. Historians and political scientists know perfectly well that the Ottoman “Governor of Jerusalem and Palestine” was the Sultan’s agent in dealing with the 8 Western governments on regional issues like the Survey of Palestine, Jewish immigration, railroad concessions, archeological excavations, and the capitulations. The latter effectively turned Jerusalem and the neighboring Sanjaks into an international condominium known as “Palestine”.

        Although the officials, like Rauof Pasha were the nominal heads of the Sanjak or Mutasarrifyya of Jerusalem, they frequently turned-up elsewhere exercising authority over government works in neighboring Sanjaks in their role as “the Governor of Palestine”. Here is a report from the Palestine Exploration Fund about excavations in the Sanjak of Balka (Nablus) – part of the Vilayet of of Beirut – and the actions taken by there by the Governor of Palestine to secure the archeological discoveries:

        I Discovery on Mount Gerizim of a Marble Pedestal Onnamented With Bas Reliefs and Inscriptions

        About the middle of last year an important archaeological discovery was made in a celebrated locality of Palestine which had not previously supplied us with anything particularly interesting in the way of antiquities Some works undertaken by the Ottoman authorities for the construction of a building at Nablous the ancient Shechem at the foot of Mount Gerizim brought to light a considerable number of fragments of sculptured marble Among these was found a large pedestal of marble about a metre in height triangular or rather hexagonal in shape with three broad and three narrow sides covered with bassi relievi and Greek inscriptions M Paulus a talented sculptor resident in the Holy City and the Governor of Palestine His Excellency Raouf Pasha whose enlightened zeal cannot be too highly praised and who has taken steps to secure the preservation of this beautiful monument kindly sent me as soon as possible different photographs of it.

        — Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly statement, The Society, 1884, pages 187-188
        link to books.google.com

      • Hostage
        August 5, 2012, 8:22 pm

        As far as I can glean, Hostage bizarrely upholds the Jericho resolutions as a declaration of Palestinian independence. I am aware of no other literature that supports this.

        Okay here is the literature the ICJ considered or cited when it reject the government of Israel’s argument on Jordan’s sovereignty over the West Bank:

        International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
        Article 1

        1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

        link to www2.ohchr.org

        Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations:
        The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.

        link to unhcr.org

        From the Written Statement of Jordan to the ICJ:
        2.18 In 1948, during the Arab-Israeli hostilities, the only effective authority in relation to the West Bank was that of Jordan: in December 1949 the West Bank was placed under Jordanian rule, and it was formally incorporated into Jordan on 24 April 1950 . This was the result of the signing by King Abdallah of a resolution passed to him for signature by Jordan’s National Assembly (including representatives of both East and West Banks), which supported the unity of the two Banks as one nation State called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, “without prejudicing the final settlement of Palestine’s just case within the sphere of national aspiration, inter-Arab cooperation and international justice”.

        2.19 The signing of this resolution was the culmination of a series of earlier requests made by the Palestinian Arabs through conferences attended by the elected Mayors of major West Bank towns and villages (Hebron, Ramallah, Al-Beereh, Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya and Anabta), as well as leading religious clerics (Muslims and Christians alike), and a multiplicity of notables, tribal leaders, activists, college presidents, the Chief Shariaa Judge, and the Mufti of Jerusalem Saed-Ideen Al-Alami. Following these conferences, King Abdallah consented to a proposed constitutional amendment to expand the membership of the Jordanian Parliament to include elected representatives from all the West Bank constituencies. Elections for the expanded Parliament were held on 11 April 1950 and a new Parliament was elected with half of its members elected from the West Bank.

        2.20 This provoked something of a crisis in relations between Jordan and other Arab States, but any risk of serious problems was averted when the
        Government of Jordan formally declared in 1950 that unity with the Palestinian territory was “without prejudice to the final settlement” of the
        Palestinian problem: this declaration was accepted by the Arab League.

        2.21 The boundaries of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as it resulted from these events are illustrated in Sketch Map No. 4 following page 7. It was with those publicly known boundaries that Jordan became a Member of the United Nations in 1955, without any objection about Jordan’s territorial extent being made by any State (including Israel, which was already at that time a Member State). Furthermore, after the unification of the West Bank within Jordan’s territory, Jordan concluded with a considerable number of States bilateral and multilateral treaties whose application extended to the entirety of Jordan including all of the West Bank: none of the other parties to those treaties made any reservation to the effect that their applicability to the West Bank was excluded. The Security Council evidently shared that view when it adopted Resolution 228 (1966): the Council observed that, “the grave Israeli Military action which took place in the southern Hebron area [of the West Bank] on 13 November 1966… constituted a large scale and carefully planned military action on the territory of Jordan by the armed forces of Israel” (emphasis added).

        In the course of hearings held from 23 to 25 February 2004, the Court
        heard oral statements from Mr. James Crawford, S.C., Whewell Professor of
        International Law, University of Cambridge, Member of the Institute of International Law, Counsel and Advocate for Palestine. Here is an extract from his “Conclusions” chapter in “The Creation of States in International Law”:

        “In the first place, the concept of “sovereignty” as a criterion for plenary competence has been rejected. Although that view gained a certain degree of acceptance among nineteenth-century writers and was accepted in the twentieth century in Soviet and in some western doctrine, the notion of “sovereignty” has been seen to be both unhelpful and misleading as a criterion. It is unhelpful since both the legal and the effective capacities, rights, immunities and so on of States may vary widely, within the limits established by the criteria for separate independence. It is misleading since it implies a necessary and overriding omnipotence which States do not possess in law or in fact. Rejection of “sovereignty” as a criterion involves rejection of the old notion of the “semi-sovereign” State. Those dependent, devolving or sui generis entities that qualify as States under the general criteria do so despite specific limitations as to capacity and the like;

        Here is an extract from Israel’s losing position from the Secretary General’s report to the International Court of Justice:
        Annex I

        Summary legal position of the Government of Israel . . .
        3. Despite having ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel has not incorporated it into its domestic legislation. Nor does it agree that the Convention is applicable to the occupied Palestinian territory, citing the lack of recognition of the territory as sovereign prior to its annexation by Jordan and Egypt and, therefore, not a territory of a High Contracting Party as required by the Convention. link to unispal.un.org

      • Bing Bong
        August 13, 2012, 8:11 am

        Really? I’m pretty sure no newbies reading this are going to be convinced that Jordan didn’t take the WB like plucking a mish mish for it’s own expansionism. Or are going to be convinced that the Palestinians gave up their proto statehood with the proviso that they can have it back later, promise! Or are going to be convinced giving Jordan the WB was a declaration of Statehood.

        And what’s with all the ziobot business Citizen? I see nothing Zionist about claiming Palestine wasn’t a state. If Palestine wasn’t a state does that make the Zionist position stronger?

        And isn’t this a discussion board? If you’re fed up discussing the issue (or rather letting Hostage do it for you) then go read something anti-Zionist that isn’t a discussion. Or does your viewpoint carry more much needed weight if its presented as the result of a discussion?

      • Bing Bong
        August 13, 2012, 8:28 am

        “By 1999, Crawford had accepted Prof Quigley’s view on the statehood of Palestine,”

        The 2nd ed from 2006 of The Creation of States in International Law still concludes that Palestine isn’t a state.

      • Hostage
        August 13, 2012, 12:37 pm

        “By 1999, Crawford had accepted Prof Quigley’s view on the statehood of Palestine,” . . . . The 2nd ed from 2006 of The Creation of States in International Law still concludes that Palestine isn’t a state.

        I’ll repeat what I said before, and spell it out for you one more time. The chapters in question are an essay written in 1999 that was simply reprinted in the collection of essays published in 2006:
        1) By 1999, Crawford had accepted Prof Quigley’s view on the statehood of Palestine, but still fell victim to doubts caused by hasbara reports which claimed the PLO was going to make another Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) and that Palestine could not unilaterally alter the status of the territory while the Oslo Accords remained in effect.
        – See Crawford, “Israel (1948–49) and Palestine (1998–99): Two Studies in the Creation of States” in Goodwin-Gill and Talmon (eds), Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie, pages 95–124

        2) Note that the Oslo Accords lapsed on September 13, 2000 and the Palestinians did not issue another UDI.

        3) Crawford represented the State of Palestine in the Wall case were he presented oral arguments before the Court. Only States are permitted to participate as respondents or interested parties in cases before the Court in accordance with Article 34 of the ICJ Statute. In fact, Israel’s supporters, including Australia, argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the case was a dispute between two states, and Israel had not consented to have the Court decide the matter. Crawford responded that the Court had provided an advisory opinion in the dispute between South Africa and Namibia, because the dispute touched on a multilateral dispute about obligations erga omnes – and this was another example of the same thing. See Crawford’s oral argument at the heading “(5) This is a dispute between two States: the principle of consent” on pdf page 34 of 64 link to icj-cij.org

        4) I noted that the essay from the 1999 Goodwin Gil-Talmon book (cited above) was simply reprinted in the collection of essays in the 2nd Edition of “Creation of States in International Law”, which was published in 2006.

        5) In “The Creation of States in International Law”, 2nd Edition, 2006, page 17, Crawford admitted that, some governments leave decisions on statehood to the Courts and the law, but that any form of recognition derived from executive branch certification is legally binding.

        6) So on page 435 of “Creation of States” (and page 111 of the earlier “Reality of International Law” 1999) he admitted that the 1988 Algiers Declaration of the State of Palestine had been widely recognized by the numerical majority of UN member states. That is a form of legally binding executive certification:

        Such thinking underlay the ‘declaration of independence’ made by the Palestinian National Council in 1988, on the basis of which the independence of Palestine was recognised by a numerical majority of United Nations Members. It underlies claims made now that the agreements between Israel and Palestine since 1993 have in effect acknowledged the international existence of Palestine, which could be nothing but a State.

        Since Palestine had already declared its statehood and the Oslo Accords did not mention statehood as a final status issue, applying for UN membership is not an attempt to change the status of the territory.

        7) The conclusion of the reprinted 1999 essay naturally contained anachronisms by 2006.

        FYI the UNESCO vote placed Palestine into a category of states that are automatically recognized as having the necessary legal competence to conclude treaties and conduct diplomatic relations in accordance with both the UN Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties and Diplomatic Relations and customary international law. For example the Associated State of the Cook Islands deposited an accession to the Rome Statute of the ICC, although it has never been recognized as an observer state by the General Assembly.

      • Hostage
        August 13, 2012, 1:38 pm

        Really? I’m pretty sure no newbies reading this are going to be convinced that Jordan didn’t take the WB like plucking a mish mish for it’s own expansionism.

        It’s a matter of public record that the newbies can verify that Israel seized a great deal of territory beyond the boundaries of the proposed Jewish state and transferred the bulk of the Palestinian Arab population into the territory of Transjordan. During the membership hearings on Israel’s UN application, it was noted for the record that Jewish immigrants from Europe had taken their place and were living in their homes. On the other hand, the new joint Kingdom of Jordan didn’t result in colonization of West Jordan by the inhabitants of East Jordan. Here is how the situation was summed-up:

        The United Nations had certainly not intended that the Jewish State should rid itself of its Arab citizens. On the contrary, section C of part I of the Assembly’s 1947 resolution had explicitly provided guarantees of minority rights in each of the two States. For example, it had prohibited the expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State except for public purposes, and then only upon payment of full compensation. Yet the fact was that 90 per cent of the Arab population of Israel had been driven outside its boundaries by military operations, had been forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Arab territories, had been reduced to misery and destitution, and had been prevented by Israel from returning to their homes. Their homes and property had been seized and were being used by thousands of European Jewish immigrants. — Representative Malik, Lebanon 45th Session of the Ad Hoc Committee hearings on Israel’s membership application in the UN, A/AC.24/SR.45, 5 May 1949

        link to unispal.un.org

        Or are going to be convinced that the Palestinians gave up their proto statehood with the proviso that they can have it back later, promise! Or are going to be convinced giving Jordan the WB was a declaration of Statehood. declaration of Statehood.

        Check the comment archives. I’ve already cited and quoted the State of Palestine annex from the Charter of the League of Arab States, the text of the resolutions of the Jericho Congress, the text of the 1950 Act of Union, and the historical written summary that Jordan provided to the ICJ which confirms that is exactly what happened. The act of declaring a head of state and forming a union are legal acts of state under customary international and they are cited as valid examples of modes by which the right of self-determination can be exercised in the Declaration on Friendly Relations Between States in Accordance with the Principles of International Law Contained in the Charter of the United Nations.

        In fact, I cited and quoted the summary of the loosing Legal Position of the State of Israel in the 2004 Wall case. It challenged the Jordanian position on the legality of the union and the de jure applicability of the Geneva Conventions in all of the territory subject to the Kingdom of Jordan’s jurisdiction.

        The ICJ provided a legal analysis that settled the dispute over that material fact and ruled that the territory was indeed part of the jurisdiction of Jordan, and that the Geneva Conventions are applicable there on a de jure basis. FYI, the Court also noted that, for its own part, the government of Switzerland considered Palestine’s undertaking to accede to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols in 1982 a valid legal undertaking. So the Court, the UN Security Council, and the General Assembly have all stated that they consider Palestine to be bound by the terms of the Geneva Conventions. See para 91 of the Wall advisory opinion. link to icj-cij.org

        And what’s with all the ziobot business Citizen? I see nothing Zionist about claiming Palestine wasn’t a state.

        You don’t have any legal standing to make a claim. But every time that question has been put to a Court, they’ve ruled that Palestine is a State. Newbies can read more about that here:
        * link to mondoweiss.net
        * link to mondoweiss.net

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 2:24 am

        I was thinking some kind of computer program. Surely, there could be some kind of ‘HasbaraKleen.’ MW could probably check to make sure it hadn’t picked up on the wrong key phrase before its response went up.

        In fact, no reason the Hasbaroids can’t argue with it for days (under the impression that ‘Elmer’ is a person). They’ll keep cycling through their inventory of a thousand and one lies, and ‘Elmer’ will keep posting the necessarily stereotyped rebuttal.

        Should they ever manage to say something original, the program will freeze, and then someone (Hostage?) can step in and kick off the rebuttals.

        …but I doubt that will happen very often.

      • Blake
        July 14, 2012, 4:57 pm

        I did read somewhere Hasbara has a computer program that has a stored list of random responses to recognized sets of keywords. Perhaps fredblogs is one such automaton.

      • Bing Bong
        July 19, 2012, 8:30 am

        And Hostage’s claim that Texas is a country using the same reasoning.

      • Hostage
        July 19, 2012, 1:19 pm

        And Hostage’s claim that Texas is a country using the same reasoning.

        Bing bong I’ve always been able to cite published articles and reports written by experts and government officials about legally binding decisions on immigration to Palestine, the consular jurisdiction of Palestine, the statehood of Palestine, and Palestinian nationality during the 20th century.

        Please do use the “same reasoning” and produce similar 20th century articles, consular reports, documents on foreign relations, international treaties, and court decisions written by Norman Bentwich for the British Annual Digest; Hersh Lauterpacht for the International Law Report; and Marjorie M. Whiteman for the Digest of International Law regarding the state of Texas as a person of international law during the 20th century.

        I won’t be holding my breath.

      • Bing Bong
        July 19, 2012, 5:09 pm

        I get it, Palestine was (and I guess still is) a country just like Texas is.

        “Texas fulfills the definition of a state too. It still retains sovereign immunity except in areas, like foreign relations, that have been delegated to the federal government. See for example Alden v Maine or Medellín or Avena v. Texas”

      • Hostage
        July 19, 2012, 10:02 pm

        I get it, Palestine was (and I guess still is) a country just like Texas is.

        No you obviously don’t get it. Every edition of the US State Department’s Digest of International Law, including Moore ( 1906), ch. II; Hackworth (1940), ch. II; and Whiteman (1963) ch II have contained separate sections in the chapter on States which explain that under international law, the members of federal unions only have a single, composite, international legal personality, unlike a dependent or mandated state.

        Alden v Maine, Medellín or Avena v. Texas held that individual states have residual sovereignty and limited immunities; and that the executive branch of the federal government cannot enforce a non-self-executing treaty in state or Article III Courts, absent federal enabling legislation. However, those cases do not say that the individual states are persons of international law.

        When the United States concludes treaties on its own behalf, it’s the United States that becomes the contracting state party, not Texas. When the PLO concludes a maritime, highway, or airport association agreement on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, it is the PA that becomes the contracting party, e.g. the International Airport Council.

        State of Missouri v. Holland – 252 U.S. 416 (1920) is the classic example of the legal effect of a treaty with an enabling statute.

        The PLO declared the establishment of the State of Palestine in November 1988. The Interim Agreement of 1995, which is the major post-Oslo agreement, specifies that neither party shall be deemed “to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims or positions” (Art. 31-6). Statehood was not mentioned or enumerated as a final status issue. The PLO is permitted to conclude international agreements, while acting on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, in accordance Article IX (5) of Oslo (II).

        Several of the countries listed in Willoughby and Fenwick’s “Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy” were members of the Concert or Congress of Europe, the League of Nations, and the United Nations, including US protected states and dependent territories, e.g. Cuba, Haiti, Philippines, etc. In fact, Syria and Lebanon were founding members of the UN despite the fact that the government of France still considered them to be states under mandate. See paragraph 14 on page 46 of UNESCO/Martinus Nijhoff, “International Law: Achievements and Prospects” link to books.google.com

      • Bing Bong
        July 20, 2012, 9:13 am

        Was, and is, Palestine a country like the counrty of Texas?

      • Citizen
        July 20, 2012, 10:45 am

        Bing Bong
        Talk to any American, educated or not. Texas is not a country today. It is a state within the Republic of the US, which is a country, unlike its member states, that has power to conduct US foreign policy.

      • Bing Bong
        July 20, 2012, 12:33 pm

        “Texas fulfills the definition of a state too. It still retains sovereign immunity except in areas, like foreign relations, that have been delegated to the federal government. See for example Alden v Maine or Medellín or Avena v. Texas”

        And Palestine hasn’t been able to conduct foreign policy, either.

      • Hostage
        July 20, 2012, 2:18 pm

        Was, and is, Palestine a country like the counrty of Texas? . . . And Palestine hasn’t been able to conduct foreign policy, either.

        Texas was an independent country between the years 1835-1845. When it joined the union, it ceased to be a separate person of international law.

        So you’re claiming that Palestine didn’t engage in foreign relations when it asked UNESCO to make the Church of the Nativity a World Heritage site? Palestine has also signed dozens of multilateral treaties with the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) states, and the UN ESCWA. It has bilateral agreements and embassies of the State of Palestine in dozens of other countries, and many of them have embassies in Ramallah. Which foreign countries have embassies from the State of Texas or appoint ambassadors to the State of Texas? You’re obviously trolling the thread at this point.

      • Bing Bong
        July 21, 2012, 3:41 am

        “Texas fulfills the definition of a state too. It still retains sovereign immunity except in areas, like foreign relations, that have been delegated to the federal government. See for example Alden v Maine or Medellín or Avena v. Texas”

        These are your words. I assumed you used them to illustrate a definition of statehood for Texas in the same way you were defining Palestinian statehood.

        I’m claiming Palestine ‘didn’t’ engage in foreign relations not ‘doesn’t’.

        Why are you calling me a troll? Scared I might prove your claims wrong again?

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • Hostage
        July 21, 2012, 5:03 pm

        These are your words. I assumed you used them to illustrate a definition of statehood for Texas in the same way you were defining Palestinian statehood.

        I’m not responsible for your assumptions. I’ve pointed-out that you jumped to the wrong conclusion and gave you reliable sources you can study on the subject.

        I’m claiming Palestine ‘didn’t’ engage in foreign relations not ‘doesn’t’.

        Sorry but I’ve pointed out elsewhere that the US and every other western nation had trade consulates in the major cities of Palestine throughout the 19th Century. I’ve also cited documentary evidence which established that the Governors of Jerusalem and Palestine conducted business with them on a regular basis regarding matters of Jewish immigration, exports, and concessions.

        You can also find more about the various court cases and treaties in John Quigley’s books, including “The Statehood of Palestine”, Cambridge, 2010. Prof. Quigley explains that Palestine concluded treaties as a contracting state party with other countries – including Great Britain. Those trreaties included some with the United States that were registered with the League of Nations. That illustrates that Palestine did have established relations with other foreign states. FYI, the US does not conclude new treaty relationships with states after they are annexed to the union.

      • Bing Bong
        July 21, 2012, 7:28 pm

        Does Texas fulfill the definition of a State or not?

      • Hostage
        July 21, 2012, 10:12 pm

        Does Texas fulfill the definition of a State or not?

        You could just read those Court decisions that you’ve cited and find out for yourself. Texas is one of the 50 States of the union established as the USA and it’s a recognized member of the legal hierarchy of states.

        But it is not a member of one of the four categories of states listed in Article 48 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or Article 81 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. UN Diplomatic Conferences of Plenipotentiaries drafted and adopted those conventions and the four categories as a codification of the customary rules of international law. So Texas, unlike Palestine, is not a state or person of international law for those and many other purposes.

      • Bing Bong
        July 22, 2012, 6:31 pm

        You’re wrong to say that “Texas fulfills the definition of a state too.”

      • Hostage
        July 23, 2012, 1:29 am

        You’re wrong to say that “Texas fulfills the definition of a state too.”

        No I’m not. The only things that keep Texas from acting in the same capacity as any other State are its obligations under the U.S. Constitution. The ICJ Kosovo decision indicates that there is no prohibition in international law against an act of secession. So it could declare it’s independence or try to join the UN or specialized agencies on the basis of “sovereign equality”, just like Palestine.

        Israel and the United States were both recognized as a “peace loving states”, if only for the purposes of Article 4 of the UN Charter. When Israel applied for membership, many members objected that it did not satisfy the traditional requirements of a State. During the 383rd meeting of the Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Jessup said: ‘we already have, among the members of the United Nations, some political entities which do not possess full sovereign power to form their own international policy, which traditionally has been considered characteristic of a State. We know however, that neither at San Francisco nor subsequently has the United Nations considered that complete freedom to frame and manage one’s own foreign policy was an essential requisite of United Nations membership…. …The reason for which I mention the qualification of this aspect of the traditional definition of a State is to underline the point that the term “State”, as used and applied in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, may not be wholly identical with the term “State” as it is used and defined in classic textbooks on international law.” see page 12 of S/PV.383, 2 December 1948 link to un.org

        Jessup was subsequently chosen to serve as a Justice in the ICJ. So it depends entirely upon the particular situation. Texas undoubtedly meets the definition of a “State” for the purposes of the Supremacy and other clauses of the U.S. Constitution, including the 1oth, 11th, and 14th Amendments.

      • Bing Bong
        July 23, 2012, 7:40 am

        “The only things that keep Texas from acting in the same capacity as any other State are its obligations under the U.S. Constitution.”

        Namely Texas doesn’t fulfil the definition of a State because of its obligations under the U.S. Constitution? It would have to secede (and do whatever, declare, be recognised etc) before it could fulfil the definition of a State.

      • Hostage
        July 23, 2012, 12:19 pm

        It would have to secede (and do whatever, declare, be recognised etc) before it could fulfil the definition of a State.

        It already fulfils one or more of the legal definitions of a state. There are more than one kind, and they exist in a legal hierarchy. Texas is not recognized or treated as a person of international law by other countries, because it voluntarily accepted a relinquishment of its own sovereignty under the terms of its Constitution:

        SECTION 1. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government unimpaired to all the States.

        link to tarlton.law.utexas.edu

    • Hostage
      July 12, 2012, 8:36 pm

      This poster just assumes that all land that wasn’t privately held Jewish land was “Palestinian” land. Even though there never has been a country of Palestine.

      Actually there was a country called Palestine and it’s High Court of Justice ruled that it was the allied successor state that had inherited all of the Sultan’s lands that were enumerated on the Ottoman civil lists in accordance with The Palestine Treaty of Peace (Turkey) Ordinance, 1925, and the Amendment Ordinance of 1926. See Hersh Lauterpacht (editor), International Law Reports, Volume 14, Cambridge University Press, 1951, ISBN: 0521463599, pages 36-40.

      By 1946 the Land Transfer Ordinance (1940) had effectively partitioned the state of Palestine in favor of the Arab majority in line with the White Paper policies of 1922 and 1939 that “did not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded “in Palestine.” The ordinance divided the country into threes zones. Land transfers in Zones A and B, except to a “Palestinian Arab”, were prohibited. Judea and Samaria were located in those Zones. Here is a link to the map link to books.google.com
      Ben Gurion testified to the UNSCOP about that situation and didn’t say anything about the British holding the land in trust:
      Mr. BEN GURION: I told you in my evidence that when we had the talks after our last congress with the Government in London, we told them that if a Jewish State in an adequate area of Palestine were offered, we would consider it. Mr. LISICKY (Czechoslovakia) : Does that mean partition?
      Mr. BEN GURION: “To partition,” according to the Oxford dictionary, means to divide a thing into two parts. Palestine is divided into three parts, and only in a small part are the Jews allowed to live. We are against that.
      link to unispal.un.org

      The US was a signatory of the Anglo-American Palestine Mandate convention which mentioned state lands in Article 6. The petitioner in Kletter v Dulles claimed that the Palestine mandate had not been a state, but the US District Court for the District of Colombia ruled in favor of Secretary of State Dulles and held that the Executive Branch of the US Government had indeed recognized the State of Palestine in a treaty of commerce in 1932. — link to dc.findacase.com

      The Treaty of Lausanne contained protocols regarding the responsibilities of the new states that acquired the territories detached from Turkey with respect to citizenship, payment of debts, and succession in interest to state archives, and state properties. The Treaty required that any disputes be submitted to binding arbitration for a final determination. In 1925 Great Britain and France settled a dispute with the foreign bondholders over the distribution of shares in the Ottoman public debt among the successor states. They claimed that Iraq, Palestine, Transjordan, Lebanon, and Syria were separate Mandated States that were the true successors in interest – and an Arbiter appointed by the Council of the League of Nations agreed in a decision that was final. The Permanent Court of International Justice also decided a case in 1925 which held that Palestine, not Great Britain was the successor state responsible for honoring the Ottoman concessions with friendly Allied states. You can read about the various international and national court decisions regarding the Mandated States here:
      link to mondoweiss.net

      • Fredblogs
        July 13, 2012, 3:02 am

        You have trotted out that line of nonsense before. it was a country like Idaho is a country. It was a part of a larger country, not a country of its own.

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 5:18 am

        What part of what Hostage says was nonsense? Conversely, do you have anything (not from a Hasbara site) to support your claims?

      • Talkback
        July 13, 2012, 6:27 am

        Fredblogs: “You have trotted out that line of nonsense before. it was a country like Idaho is a country. It was a part of a larger country, not a country of its own.”

        Oh Fredblog, besides your Hasbara autism which prevents you to process anything what’s new to you; Pierre Orts, chairman of the permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations:

        “Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.”
        link to unispal.un.org

      • Shingo
        July 13, 2012, 9:38 am

        Outstanding post Talkback.

      • Hostage
        July 13, 2012, 1:18 pm

        You have trotted out that line of nonsense before. it was a country like Idaho is a country. It was a part of a larger country, not a country of its own.

        Fred that argument, i.e. that the mandated states were outlying imperial possessions or part of another country or state, was specifically rejected by the League of Nations and the courts in several of the cases that I cited above. For example, the UK Supreme Court rejected it when they deported Mr Kletter (aka Ketter) see the citation to his British case, King v. Ketter, Law Reports, 1 King’s Bench Division, 1940, at page 787, in the decision of the DC District Court that I cited above.

        The United States recognized Palestinian nationality in accordance with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne and the Nationality Law cited in Article 7 of the Anglo-American Palestine Convention. U.S. Title 8, Chapter 12, § 1101. “Definitions” still distinguishes between aliens who immigrated from mandates and those from outlying imperial possessions. It says that territories under mandate or UN trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states. But imperial possessions are not considered separate states.

        Here is another example: in 1926, the Mixed Courts of Egypt recognized Palestinian nationality and ruled that the former Ottoman territories placed under Mandate had the character of regular States, and that their inhabitants possessed the nationality of those States in accordance with Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. See Case No. 34 Mandated States (Saikaly v. Saikaly) reported in John Fischer Williams and Hersh Lauterpacht (editors), “International Law Reports”, Volume 3, Cambridge University Press, under the heading States as International Persons
        *link to books.google.com

        FYI, Judge Hersh Lauterpacht wrote an advisory opinion, in his capacity as legal counsel to the Jewish Agency for Palestine, in which he cited a 1932 decision of the British Law Lords, Simon and Erleigh. Lauterpacht noted that the British government had reached the conclusion that Palestine was a “third independent State” for the purposes of the most favored nation clause in its own commerce treaties.
        link to books.google.com

        In fact, the unsuccessful attempts of the Jewish Agency for Palestine to obtain royal preferences for its exports to the UK had helped trigger formal recognition of Palestine as a separate foreign state by the governments of the US, Spain, and Italy. They insisted that Palestine be treated like any other state under the terms of their existing commerce treaties with Great Britain, and the League of Nations agreed.

      • Fredblogs
        July 13, 2012, 1:25 pm

        @Talkback
        You just proved my point that it wasn’t a country, since it was under someone else. Thanks.

      • tree
        July 13, 2012, 11:14 pm

        You just proved my point that it wasn’t a country, since it was under someone else.

        Geez, you come up with some pretty twisted logic. By your logic, Occupied West and East Germany weren’t countries. Neither was Occupied Japan, or any of the Eastern Bloc countries after WWII when the Soviet Union was still in existence.

      • Hostage
        July 14, 2012, 1:59 am

        You just proved my point that it wasn’t a country, since it was under someone else. Thanks.

        You just proved your stupidity. Here is a list of few of the well known countries listed in a Confidential report written for the US Congress and President Wilson as part of The Inquiry series, “Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy”, by Profs W. W. Willoughby, of Johns Hopkins University, and C.G. Fenwick, Bryn Mawr College. It was completed January 10, 1919, and was published by the US Government Printing Office.

        It listed Semi-Sovereign States, Protected Independent States, Guaranteed States, Neutralized States, and Vassal States, Colonial Protectorates, Spheres of Influence, Administered Provinces, Autonomous Colonies and Dependencies, Members of Federal Unions and of Confederacies. Every one of these countries was under someone else as you put it:
        Abyssinia – Protected Independent State
        Afghanistan – Dependent State under protection of Great Britain
        Albania (1912-1914) – Protected Independent State
        Andorra – Protected Independent State
        Australia – Commonwealth Autonomous Colony
        Belgium – Neutralized State
        Bosnia-Herzegovina (1878-1908) – Turkish provinces occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary
        British West Indies – Crown Colony
        Bulgaria (1878-1908) – Vassal State subject to Suzerainty of Turkey
        Canada – Dominion Autonomous Colony
        Congo Free State (1885-1908) – Neutralized State
        Cracow (1815-1846) – Neutralized State
        Crete (1805-1913) – Vassal State of Turkey under Protection of the Great Powers
        Cuba – Protected Independent State
        Cyprus (1878-1914) – Turkish province administered by Great Britain
        Dominican-Republic – Independent State under the Protection of the United States
        Egypt(1840-1914) – Vassal State subject to Suzerainty of Turkey and British Protected State
        Federated Malay States – Dependent State under protection of Great Britain
        French Indo-China – Dependent State under protection of France
        Haiti – Independent State under protection of United States
        India (British) – British Dependency under special form of government
        India (Native States) – Protected Dependent States
        Ionian Islands (1815-1863) – Independent State under protection of Great Britain
        Korea (1904-1910) – Nominally Independent State under the protectorate of Japan
        Luxemburg – Neutralized State
        Madagascar (1885-1896) – Protected Dependent State
        Monaco – Protected Independent State
        Mongolia (Outer) – Vassal State under the Suzerainty of China
        Montenegro – Guaranteed State restrictions imposed in favor of religious minorities, the neutrality of Antivari and Montenegrin waters, the rights of Musselman aliens, and etc.
        Morocco – Protected Independent State (1906-1911), Protected Dependent State (1911- )
        Newfoundland – 1835 representative government and constitution 1835. Closely approximates to that of Canada with respect to legal status of self-government and relation to British Empire.
        New Zealand Dominion Autonomous Colony
        Panama – Guaranteed State in exchange for canal zone lease and US sovereignty
        Persia – Protected Independent State, British and Russian Spheres of Influence -German trade/railway agreement
        Philippines – Autonomous Dependency
        Porto Rico – Autonomous Dependency
        Roumania – Guaranteed State Article XLIV treaty of Berlin relative to religious freedom and non-discrimination similar to terms imposed on Montenegro
        Roumelia (1878-1908) Turkish province under protection of Great Powers, then Vassal State in Union with Bulgaria
        San Marino – Protected Independent State
        Savoy – Neutralized Provinces
        Serbia – Guaranteed State Article XXXV and XXXIX treaty of Berlin Religious and Alien rights guarantees similar to terms imposed on Montenegro
        South Africa – Autonomous Colony
        Sudan, Anglo-Egyptian – Dependent State under the joint protection of Great Britain and Egypt
        Switzerland – Neutralized state
        Tibet – Vassal State under the nominal suzerainty of China
        Tunis – Protected dependent State

        That’s why our own State Department Digest of International Law explains that independence is not a requirement of statehood

        “A state in the international sense is generally described as a recognized member of the family of nations, an international person. Authorities differ in respect to the qualifications for such statehood, but there is general agreement on certain basic requirements. Independence is not essential. The requisite personality, in the international sense, is seen when the entity claiming to be a State has in fact its own distinctive association with the members of the international society, as by treaties, which, howsoever concluded in its behalf, mark the existence of definite relationships between itself and other contracting parties” Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963) page 223

      • ColinWright
        July 15, 2012, 3:25 am

        “Fredblogs: “You have trotted out that line of nonsense before. it was a country like Idaho is a country. It was a part of a larger country, not a country of its own.”

        Oh Fredblog, besides your Hasbara autism which prevents you to process anything what’s new to you; Pierre Orts, chairman of the permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations…”

        Well really, Fredblogs’ comment is really just the penalty of historical ignorance.

        The modern notion of ‘a country’ is of very recent provenance: try reading Peasants into Frenchmen, which discusses the rise of a sense among the ordinary nineteenth century inhabitants of ‘France’ that they were something called ‘Frenchmen’ at all.

        Prior to about 1850, authentic popular ‘countries’ were pretty few and far between. The vast majority of humanity — and that would include most of the humanity in Europe — had no real sense of being a member of any ‘country’ in the modern sense at all. There was their village — and then there were people further away, who as a rule were more or less menacing, dangerous, and problematically comprehensible.

        So Palestine wasn’t a ‘country.’ So what? Most places weren’t.

        The second point is that ‘countries’ are very often borne under the boot of foreign oppression. I imagine being ‘Polish’ became a mass concept in the course of the repeated oppressions of the nineteenth century. Ditto for Ireland. Ditto for India. Indeed — while he may have preferred not to do put it that way — Gandhi’s satyagraha’s campaigns were all about forcing as many people as possible into confrontations with the British and thus leading them to think of themselves as ‘Indians.’ I daresay most Algerians came to think of themselves as ‘Algerians’ at some point between 1942 and 1962.

        These — and others — became ‘countries’ precisely as a result of undergoing something similar (although not as bad) to what the Palestinians are undergoing now.

        And this leads to the third point. Whatever the Palestinians may have been at some point is essentially beside the point. They are a nation now. Israel made them.

        …and like the British, Russians, and Frenchmen, the Israelis are going to have to leave in consequence.

      • jon s
        July 15, 2012, 3:14 pm

        Colin,
        I wish you would elaborate on that last line , about the Israelis having to leave. Which Israelis? When? How? To where?
        I’d like to know.

      • Mooser
        July 15, 2012, 6:08 pm

        “You just proved my point that it wasn’t a country, since it was under someone else. Thanks.”

        Who, Fredblogs, the British, who “had the land in trust for Israel”? And my yes, didn’t the ZIonist deal honestly and honorably with them in return for the favor they did them.
        Are you really sure, Fredblogs, you want to bring up Zionist-British relations in this context?

      • Bing Bong
        July 19, 2012, 10:28 am

        No Palestine on that list? Can a country under a mandatory power really be a country if that same mandatory power has the power to partition it or decide when it can govern itself? I understand the idea of being a country under occupation or a dependency but the Palestine mandate wasn’t there as an instrument to exercise authority over a nation State/country that had lost its imperial rulers. The mandate wasn’t there to control countries already in existence but to facilitate transition to a State.

        Individual Ottoman territories, however similar to occupied/dependant States did not suddenly become States (either under mandate or not) upon defeat of the Turks any more than they somehow became occupied States under the Ottomans.

      • Hostage
        July 19, 2012, 11:35 pm

        No Palestine on that list?

        No. The US and Allied governments had extended belligerent recognition to the Arab countries. The Sharif of Mecca issued a unilateral Declaration of the Independence of Arabia (“Arabistan” in Turkish) on June 27, 1916, which included both Palestine and Syria according to the parties concerned. That declaration was solicited and acknowledged by the other Allied and Associated Powers. See “International law documents”, by the Naval War College (U.S.), 1917, page 17 or International law studies, Volume 73, by Naval War College (U.S.), 1918, Proclamation of the Sherif of Mecca

        When Allenby entered Jerusalem he told the population to go about its business. It was only some time afterward that the British Cabinet decided to employ the establishment of a so-called “Occupied Enemy Territory Administration” in Palestine under a military governor, General Allenby. That was part of a deliberate subterfuge to use the Hague Convention of 1907 to prevent the French from establishing the international condominium envisioned for the Sanjak of Jerusalem and obtaining their share of political control in the civilian administration. See Matthew Hughes, Allenby and British strategy in the Middle East, 1917-1919, Cass, 1999, page 93.

        The Occupying Powers established the boundaries of Palestine in an “Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919″. The memo is available in the FRUS and in J. C. Hurewitz collection.

        the Palestine mandate wasn’t there as an instrument to exercise authority over a nation State/country that had lost its imperial rulers.

        On the contrary, Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles (the Covenant of the League of Nations) specifically addressed the need to look after the colonies and territories that had ceased to be under their former imperial sovereigns as a result of the war and provide them advice and assistance. The treaty recognized them provisionally as independent nations.

        Individual Ottoman territories, however similar to occupied/dependant States did not suddenly become States (either under mandate or not)

        You need to read the citations I provided again, because they say otherwise. Article 434 of the Treaty of Versailles; Article 60 of the Treaty of Neuilly; Article 74 (2) of the Treaty of Trianon; Article 90 of The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye; Article 245 of the Treaty of Sèvres, and Articles 30 and 60 of the Treaty of Lausanne required the signatories to recognize the “new states” or “newly created states”. The latter two required the governments of the new states to make annuity payments on the Ottoman debt beginning 1 March 1920. That was a month before the draft mandate was even approved by the San Remo Conference. Unlike, the new state of Greece, the governments of Palestine and Transordan did retire their shares of that debt.
        Here are the links to the treaties:
        link to net.lib.byu.edu
        link to wwi.lib.byu.edu
        link to wwi.lib.byu.edu
        link to en.wikisource.org
        link to wwi.lib.byu.edu
        link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

        The inhabitants were also given new nationalities, citizenship, and passports under the terms of the treaties, mandates and by operation of law.

      • ColinWright
        July 21, 2012, 4:12 am

        “Colin,
        I wish you would elaborate on that last line , about the Israelis having to leave. Which Israelis? When? How? To where?
        I’d like to know.”

        All Israelis who don’t wish to live in a state which is controlled by Palestinian Arabs will leave.

        They won’t have to leave at all in any probable scenario. They will choose to leave when it becomes apparent that Arab political control is inevitable and/or the economic and security situation becomes intolerable.

        How they will leave? By air, I imagine.

        To where? Mostly, to the United States. Others to Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

      • jon s
        July 21, 2012, 10:36 am

        Colin,
        Sorry to disappoint you, but that’s not going to happen. Israel is here to stay, and we Israelis are not strangers or invaders. We are quite at home here, and not likely to leave in any “probable scenario”.

      • Bing Bong
        July 21, 2012, 3:17 pm

        Where does that leave the Palestinians in 200, 300, 2000 years time? Is their ROR still in force when there is presumably a Palestinian State in WB and G?

        What ROR does someone identifying themselves as Palestinian in Brooklyn in 200 years time have in regards to a claim on the State of Israel when there is a State of Palestine?

        I know I’ve asked this before but nobody seemed to have an answer.

      • Hound
        July 21, 2012, 8:59 pm

        “All Israelis who don’t wish to live in a state which is controlled by Palestinian Arabs will leave.

        They won’t have to leave at all in any probable scenario. They will choose to leave when it becomes apparent that Arab political control is inevitable and/or the economic and security situation becomes intolerable.

        How they will leave? By air, I imagine.

        To where? Mostly, to the United States. Others to Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.”

        Your apparent desire for an ethnic cleansing of Israelis from the region is disturbing, and no better than the Likud party’s own desire for cleansing of Palestinians. If peace is to be achieved, both sides must move beyond this mindset. Arguments like this do nothing to help, and will only polarize people even further.

      • Roya
        July 21, 2012, 10:15 pm

        I’ll give you an answer, Ding Dong. Palestinians won’t have to wait 200, 300, 2000 years for their right of return. With the way Israel’s public image is declining in the international scene they’ll return in 50 years max. Happy? You got your answer :D.

      • Bing Bong
        July 23, 2012, 6:26 am

        “With the way Israel’s public image is declining in the international scene they’ll return in 50 years max. Happy? You got your answer :D.”

        That’s essentially the response I got last time I asked, I don’t really think its an answer but a hope.

        Imagine if Israel’s public image doesn’t decline (perhaps the mountain of evidence proving the Israel lobby’s undue influence around the world documented here on Mondoweiss is true) where does that leave a Palestinian in Brooklyn in 200, 300 or 2000 years when there is a Palestinian state in WB and G?

    • talknic
      July 13, 2012, 4:14 am

      Fredblogs July 12, 2012 at 4:14 pm

      ” In 1946 almost all of the land was government land owned by the then current mandatory government”

      Red heifer sh*te!

      ” (i.e., the Brits, in trust for the Jews, according to the Mandate for Palestine)”

      Red heifer sh*te!

      Just make it up as you go along… clever boy

    • Citizen
      July 13, 2012, 12:04 pm

      Gee, Fredblogs, please give us the source for your statement that the Mandate land was held by the Brits “in trust for the Jews.” I mean, that reads like “solely and only in trust for the Jews.” Even Balfour makes a Jewish homeland contingent on not interfering with the rights of the native Arabs in the Mandate land.” Further, the Brits specifically declared their intent was not to support a Jewish state, but only a homeland within said land.

      • Fredblogs
        July 13, 2012, 1:26 pm

        Tried to cite what I said about the land being government owned, they censored it. Of course they will probably censor this too.

      • tree
        July 13, 2012, 11:16 pm

        Tried to cite what I said about the land being government owned, they censored it.

        That excuse is getting very old Fred. Your dog ate your cite. We got it.

      • Roya
        July 15, 2012, 11:27 pm

        Just for you Fredblogs: link to answers.yahoo.com

    • MRW
      July 15, 2012, 4:22 pm

      @Fredblogs,

      “Even though there never has been a country of Palestine.”

      Really?

      Jews born in Palestine held Palestinian passports.
      link to jstor.org

      • Hostage
        July 15, 2012, 7:33 pm

        Jews born in Palestine held Palestinian passports.
        link to jstor.org

        True enough, but that article is about the case of Mr I.D. Ketter. He unsuccessfully argued that Palestine had been transferred to the British Empire and that he could not be deported from England as an alien. FYI, I believe that he was only a naturalized citizen of Palestine.

        In addition to his troubles with the British authorities, he also was involved in a lawsuit against Secretary of State Dulles over his U.S. citizenship, using the name “Kletter”. In that case he unsuccessfully argued that Palestine was not a separate foreign state.

      • Bing Bong
        July 21, 2012, 3:33 pm

        Palestinian passports are available now, this doesn’t make Palestine a state.

      • Hostage
        July 21, 2012, 6:50 pm

        Palestinian passports are available now, this doesn’t make Palestine a state.

        The 187 contracting state parties to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations have a treaty obligation under the terms of Articles 48 and 50 to accept Palestine and other members of UN specialized agencies as states belonging to one of the four recognized categories of states enumerated in their own convention. That, and the fact that about 130 countries have formal relations with Palestine does make it a state.
        *See the text of the convention
        link to untreaty.un.org
        And the status of the treaty and participating states:
        link to treaties.un.org

      • Bing Bong
        July 22, 2012, 8:20 pm

        So before this convention and formal recognition after Palestine’s own declaration of independent statehood (and lets face it, where are the functions/residuals of State/Statehood without independence at ANY point in history?) other equally compelling attributes were in evidence as proof of Statehood such as the treaties and obligations you mentioned which granted country status to Palestine as soon as the Ottomans lost soveriegnty and continued through the Mandate (designed to facilitate development into statehood) and Israel’s creation and occupation?

        With the 1988 declaration and the subsequent recognition of Israel facilitating the recognition of a Palestinian government does your ‘State of Palestine’ still include Gaza considering Hamas’ non recognition of Israel.

        Do you regard Israel as a State?

      • Hostage
        July 23, 2012, 12:55 am

        So before this convention and formal recognition after Palestine’s own declaration of independent statehood (and lets face it, where are the functions/residuals of State/Statehood without independence at ANY point in history?)

        There have been many examples, including provisional governments and Allied governments in exile. For example, the Allied governments-in-exile made a regular habit of declaring their independence. Professor L.C. Green pointed-out the examples of the Polish and Czech National Committees during WWI in an article about the [then] anticipated unilateral declaration of independence of the State of Palestine back in 1988. See the text in the last paragraph on page 135 and the first paragraph on page 136. link to books.google.com

        Prof Ruth Lapidot has explained that recognition of statehood is a political act, and every state has the right to decide for itself whether to recognize another entity as a state. link to jpost.com

        does your ‘State of Palestine’ still include Gaza considering Hamas’ non recognition of Israel.

        The Hamas and Fatah parties have not declared separate states, and even if the did, they could still form a federal union or confederation.

        Do you regard Israel as a State?
        Yes. Israel and Albania were examples of entities that didn’t fulfill the classical definition of a state, but were admitted as members of international organizations anyway. Albania was admitted to the League of Nations, despite the fact that its land frontiers were undefined. Israel was in the same situation, but was recognized as a state for the purposes of the UN Charter. That’s one of the four categories of states mentioned in the Vienna conventions.

        No UN member state is allowed to recognize any of the territory that it has acquired in violation of the prohibition against the threat or use of force contained in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

      • Bing Bong
        July 23, 2012, 7:29 am

        “There have been many examples, including provisional governments and Allied governments in exile.”

        Doesn’t provisional government, pre independence also imply provisional State to you?

        “The 187 contracting state parties to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations have a treaty obligation under the terms of Articles 48 and 50 to accept Palestine and other members of UN specialized agencies as states.”

        So Palestine is a State before this obligation is fulfilled?

        “The Hamas and Fatah parties have not declared separate states, and even if the did, they could still form a federal union or confederation.”

        Declaring a State cannot be the be all and end all. Where was the Palestinian declaration pre 1988? For you political and legal facts gave Palestine statehood with a provisional government (I presume) before 1988, aren’t the political and legal facts now giving 2 states. Eg, recognition of Israel in one (and the resultant fact that about 130 countries now have formal relations with Palestine, an important factor in making Palestine a State according to you) and non recognition of Israel. Unless the ‘State of Palestine’ can now (after Hamas started their provisional government in Gaza) entertain the two somehow.

      • Hostage
        July 23, 2012, 1:15 pm

        Doesn’t provisional government, pre independence also imply provisional State to you?

        No, recognition of governments is separate from recognition of statehood under international law. The thing that a provisional government “governs” is a State.

        So Palestine is a State before this obligation is fulfilled?

        Yes the existence of a state does not depend upon its recognition by others. Here is an extract of the Montevideo Convention, which is a treaty in force between the United States and several other countries. Articles 2 and 3 should answer your question:

        Article 1

        The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
        a. a permanent population;
        b. a defined territory;
        c. government; and
        d. capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

        Article 2
        The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.
        Article 3
        The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.
        Article 4
        States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.
        link to jus.uio.no

        Where was the Palestinian declaration pre 1988?

        The Arab Palestinian Congress held at Jericho adopted resolutions naming Abdullah King of Arab Palestine and calling for the establishment of a joint Kingdom with Transjordan. Palestinians were represented in the new government of Jordan until they seceded in 1988. FYI Israel recognized the legal competence of the government of Jordan to negotiate international boundaries in Article VI(11) of the armistice agreement. Only sovereign states can conclude international boundary agreements.

        See Hamas moves to join Palestine Liberation Organization.
        link to haaretz.com

        The PLO Executive and Central Committees act as the government under the terms of the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine. They can form and establish a system of municipal government however they see fit. That’s a matter that falls within the domestic jurisdiction of each state. Americans love layers of government so much that many of us live under the jurisdiction of both county and municipal governments in addition to the state and federal ones.

        Unless the ‘State of Palestine’ can now (after Hamas started their provisional government in Gaza) entertain the two somehow.

        The states of West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio were all carved out of the territory of the Commonwealth of Virginia. It was one of the original 13 colonies. No one cares if Richmond and Charleston ever reach a deal to setup a unity government again.

      • Bing Bong
        July 24, 2012, 6:26 am

        “The Arab Palestinian Congress held at Jericho adopted resolutions naming Abdullah King of Arab Palestine and calling for the establishment of a joint Kingdom with Transjordan.”

        Which authority of the extant State of Palestine agreed to the illegal expansionist annexation by Jordan…..er sorry…..the ‘joint kingdom’ at the Jericho conference? Was it the provisional government of the State of Palestine?

        “The PLO Executive and Central Committees act as the government under the terms of the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine. They can form and establish a system of municipal government however they see fit.”

        They couldn’t in Gaza, Hamas stole power outwith the system of government. Where is the recognition of Palestine if Hamas’ future PLO involvement reverts the organisation and the Palestinian government to a pre 1988 stance on the recognition of Israel?

        The states of West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio aren’t run by organisations so removed from the recognised government that they are self determinedly firing rockets at Canada with a constitutional aim to destroy it. Gaza and WB are not federated states within the country of Palestine. Doesn’t Gaza as it is today fulfil some of the definitions of a country also?

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2012, 8:33 am

        They couldn’t in Gaza, Hamas stole power outwith the system of government.

        What do you mean stole? Is that how you refer to elections that don’t turn out the way you want them to?

        Where is the recognition of Palestine if Hamas’ future PLO involvement reverts the organisation and the Palestinian government to a pre 1988 stance on the recognition of Israel?

        As Meshal has said, recognizing Israel acheived nothing for the PLO, so the outcome would be indistinguishable.

        The states of West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio aren’t run by organisations so removed from the recognised government that they are self determinedly firing rockets at Canada with a constitutional aim to destroy it.

        None fo those states faced a barrage of 7,700 shells in the space of 10 months from their occupier and none are under blockade, so it’s a bit of a silly argument.

      • Hostage
        July 24, 2012, 10:30 am

        Which authority of the extant State of Palestine agreed to the illegal expansionist annexation by Jordan…..er sorry…..the ‘joint kingdom’ at the Jericho conference? Was it the provisional government of the State of Palestine?

        The short answer is the two peoples. It may surprise you, but the overwhelming majority of Palestinians did not want David Ben Gurion to be their first Prime Minister and he couldn’t have gotten enough signatures to place his name on the ballot anyway.

        The United States recognized the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan had come about as the result of the free will of the two peoples. It also recognized the sovereignty of the new entity, Jordan, over the newly combined territory. See “Memorandum of Conversation, between Mr. Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs, US State department and Mr. Abdel Monem Rifai, Counselor, Jordan Legation in Washington, June 5, 1950″ in Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, Volume V (1950), Page 921 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        FYI, The people of the 13 American Colonies did not hold a federal election or decide on a federal system of government until years after their so-called “Continental Congress” had assembled and declared their independence. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The Israelis did something like the “illegal” thing you’ve suggested when the Jewish Agency and Va’ad Leumi announced that they were the provisional government with all executive, legislative, and judicial powers over 500,000 Arab citizens. They promptly seized a lot of Arab territory beyond that which the UN plan had envisioned for their state.

        The government of “Jordan” was composed of Arab Palestinians from the West Bank and Arab Palestinians from Transjordan. There was nothing illegal or expansionist about the union between the two peoples. In fact, it’s cited as a typical case of the acquisition of sovereignty over territory by union and annexation. See Volume 2 of the US State Department’s Digest of International Law, M. Whiteman (ed), 1963, pages 1163-1168

        The UN plan for the future government of Palestine contained in resolution 181(II) called on each of the newly emancipated states to take steps to implement the plan. One of those steps required each state to convene a constituent assembly and decide on its own form of government.

        In 1932 the Council of the League of Nations set down the conditions for terminating a mandate regime. Among other things, it stipulated that all of the territories under a mandate should be emancipated at the same time.
        *See Luther Harris Evans, “The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758, American Society of International Law, link to jstor.org

        When Transjordan applied for UN membership in 1946, the representatives of the Jewish Agency invoked Article 80 of the UN Charter and lobbied against any change in the international status of Transjordan. They pointed out that Transjordan was an indivisible part of the mandate. The President of the UN Security Council agreed and advised that it was part of a joint mandate that had not yet been legally terminated. He and the other members of the Council voted against membership until the United Nations had addressed the status of Palestine “as a whole”. So it’s pretty hypocritical for Zionist to act like “Jordan” was expansionist or an occupying power.
        *See Mandate is Indivisible: Jewish Agency Objections to Severance of [Trans-Jordan] T-J, Palestine Post, Apr 9, 1946, Page 3 link to jpress.org.il
        *See Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52) link to un.org

        The codification of the customary right of self-determination is contained in the Declaration On Principles Of International Law Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations. It explains that establishing a sovereign independent state, free association or integration with another existing State, or the emergence into any other political status chosen by a people constitute valid modes of implementing the right of self-determination.

        So when the joint mandate was terminated by the United Nations and Great Britain it was not illegal for the Arab Palestine, Transjordan, or Israel to convene their own constituent assemblies – and all of them eventually did so.

        Here is an extract from the Jericho Congress (1948) entry in the Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa, 2004, The Gale Group, Inc:

        Held in Jericho on 1 December 1948, the Jericho Congress was convened in response to the establishment of the State of Israel and the corresponding loss to the Arabs of most of Palestine. This provided the legal basis for the union of central Palestine (the West Bank and East Jerusalem) with Transjordan (East Bank). The conference was presided over by Shaykh Muhammad Ali Jaʿbari, mayor of Hebron, and included leaders from Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, Nablus, and Ramallah, as well as representatives of refugees from Israeli-occupied cities and towns. It was attended by 1,000 delegates, including mayors, tribal chiefs, mukhtars, and military governors from all over Palestine. The conferees voted unanimously to request unity with Jordan; [and] proclaimed Abdullah I ibn Hussein to be king of all Palestine”

        King Abdullah had received hundreds of requests from Palestinian notables to protect their territory from Jewish militias after the British withdrawal. Historian Eugene Rogan says that petitions, from nearly every town and village in Palestine, are preserved in “The Hashemite Documents: The Papers of Abdullah bin al-Husayn, volume V: Palestine 1948 (Amman 1995)”. See Chapter 5, Jordan and 1948, in “The war for Palestine: rewriting the history of 1948″, By Eugene L. Rogan, and Avi Shlaim, Cambridge University Press, 2001

      • Bing Bong
        July 24, 2012, 10:45 am

        ” What do you mean stole? Is that how you refer to elections that don’t turn out the way you want them to? ”

        I recognise they were elected, they also took full control of presidential institutions such as security apparatus by force. There is no single government controlling WB and G. In that case, can this be a single state with 2 oppositional governments?

        “As Meshal has said, recognizing Israel acheived nothing for the PLO, so the outcome would be indistinguishable.”

        Look at the international recognition of a sovereign Palestinian State after the 1988 declaration and accompanying change in stance toward Israel.

        ” None fo those states faced a barrage of 7,700 shells in the space of 10 months from their occupier and none are under blockade, so it’s a bit of a silly argument. ”

        It would still be a schism between those states acting outwith the US government.

      • Bing Bong
        July 24, 2012, 12:33 pm

        ‘The short answer is the two peoples.’

        So the people of the State of Palestine, without elections or a government to speak for them immediately expressed their new found sovereignty since the end of the Mandate and the end of the Israeli War of Independence (although in territory under Jordanian control after this war), and decided to form a union with Transjordan as announced by King Abdullah,

        ‘….its support for complete unity between the two sides of the Jordan and their union into one State, which is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, at whose head reigns King Abdullah Ibn al Husain….’

        Really?

      • Hostage
        July 24, 2012, 7:56 pm

        So the people of the State of Palestine, without elections or a government to speak for them immediately expressed their new found sovereignty since the end of the Mandate and the end of the Israeli War of Independence (although in territory under Jordanian control after this war), and decided to form a union with Transjordan as announced by King Abdullah, . . . Really?

        Sure. The delegates that attended the Congress were the elected or appointed representatives of the people. They cast votes on all of the resolutions that were adopted. There were over thousand people in attendance including the mayors and municipal officials of Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jerusalem, and Nablus. The heads of the principle clans and tribes in the area also participated.

        FYI, King Abudullah and the government of Transjordan had repeatedly asked the Jewish Agency, the US Government, and the UN Security Council to recognize the country as an independent state. On each occasion they were rebuffed and told that Transjordan was an integral part of the Palestine mandate and that “Transjordan’s political fate could only be decided as part of a final settlement of the Question of Palestine.” We all know what that means. Zionists are still trying make an issue out all this because Transjordan wouldn’t climb on board the “final settlement” hamster wheel.

        To make matters worse, in November of 1947, the Jewish Agency and the President of the United States proposed that the UN Ad Hoc Committee modify the UNSCOP plan and grant the entire Negev and the Port of Aqaba in Transjordan to the proposed Jewish State. Chaim Weizmann had personally lobbied President Truman at the last moment. That particular measure was only defeated because the US Ambassador was confused by Truman’s telephone instructions and abstained from the final vote. In the end the UN actually did cave-in and hand over the remainder of the Negev to Israel.

        By the time the Jericho Congress was convened, Abdullah had deployed about 5,000 Arab Legionaries in the West Bank and he was hosting hundreds of thousands of Palestine refugees on his own territory. Many of them had been made homeless by 80,000 or so Jewish militia members who were busy dynamiting, demolishing, or plowing-under more than 400 Arab villages in Palestine. So Transjordan was actually the victim of a much larger “occupation” and population transfer, that amounted to overt Israeli aggression.

        It was nonsense to tell the Transjordanians that they and the Palestinians were indivisible, and then flood their country with refugees, only to turn around and complain because the victims stepped-in and played a role in establishing their own Arab successor state.

        When the UN Security Council inquired about the basis for Transjordan’s military involvement in Palestine, the Foreign Minister simply drew attention to the fact that the UN had refused to recognize its independence from Palestine in the first place:

        I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the government of the United States of America, the author of the proposition of addressing the questions about which you informed me, has not yet recognized the government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, despite the fact that for two years it has been in a position to meet all the required conditions for such recognition; yet the government of the United States of America recognized the so-called Jewish government within a few hours, although the factors for this recognition were lacking.

        I also would like to point out that the Security Council refused more than once to recommend to the General Assembly the admission of the Transjordan government to the United Nations.

        Therefore, my government does not feel that there is room for reply to the questions addressed to it.

        –http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AA99BA96C0A95D5985256DB2006928BD

        The only essential function of a constituent assembly is to designate the “duly constituted authorities” of the territory they inhabit. Israel had advised the UN that it had seized depopulated territory outside the state of Israel, which for the most part, had contained Arab majorities. It justified the invasion and seizures on the ground of protecting “Jewish settlements outside the area of the State where, owing to the absence of any duly constituted authority and the failure to implement the guarantees and safeguards provided for under the General Assembly Plan, life and property were in imminent danger.”
        link to unispal.un.org

        A Legal Advisor to the US State Department authored an opinion which noted that Transjordan and Arab Palestine were the actual “non-Jewish communities” that had come under mandate as a result of the WWI and that:

        “The law of nations recognizes an inherent right of people lacking the agencies and institutions of social and political control to organize a state and operate a government.”

        The memo is contained in the Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, volume 5, part 2, and starts on page 960.

        The resolutions of the Jericho Congress accomplished all the necessary tasks. One of them explained that the parties were acting to save the remainder of their territory, while preserving the opportunity of a future life of independence through the establishment of the joint kingdom. The Arab Legion had permanent garrisons in Gaza and Rafah during the mandate, so it had already been used to help maintain law and order there. Abdullah’s government had been duly sanctioned and recognized by the League of Nations as one of the competent authorities under the terms of the mandate itself. So there was no more excuse for Israel to seize territory on the ground of an absence of “duly constituted authority”.

        That compares very favorably to Israel’s elections. It had driven the bulk of the Arab voters into permanent exile in the first place. It held the remainder under martial law for two decades, while using threats and blackmail to control their small remaining block of votes. See John Quigley Apartheid Outside Africa: The Case of Israel”, 2 Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, Volume 1, pp 221-252

      • Shingo
        July 24, 2012, 8:00 pm

        I recognise they were elected, they also took full control of presidential institutions such as security apparatus by force.

        Than you must also realize that they did so AFTER Fatah laundhed an Israli backed coup to overthrow Hamas after the elections. I guess that detail kinda wrecks your whole narrative doesn’t it?

        There is no single government controlling WB and G.

        And Israel insists on keeping it that way, by demanding that Fatah do not form a unity government.

        Look at the international recognition of a sovereign Palestinian State after the 1988 declaration and accompanying change in stance toward Israel.

        Yes, I have looked at it. Your point?

        It would still be a schism between those states acting outwith the US government.

        A schism? Is that your new buzzword for an act of war?

      • Bing Bong
        July 25, 2012, 1:31 pm

        “King Abudullah and the government of Transjordan had repeatedly asked the Jewish Agency, the US Government, and the UN Security Council to recognize the country as an independent state.”

        An independent state that wasn’t to be eventually annexed by Transjordan? Why did Transjordan support the Peel Plan where partitioned land came under their control if it was so concerned about the formulation of an individual sovereign Palestinian State? Or for that matter negotiate with Zionists an independent partition plan at the expense of a Palestinian State?

        The problem is you have to take the line that Palestinians self determinedly exercised its sovereign right of state and decided to join with Jordan because if not the argument that it was a state, able to do so, and remained a state while a part of this united kingdom falls apart. I don’t think that the decisions of a group of Jordanian picked delegates at a conference set up by Jordan with the predetermined aim of Jordanian appropriation and annexation of territory that they already controlled after the war is really the will of the people of Palestine and if anything is the opposite of a Palestinian declaration of statehood. Why does the result of this conference which was not attended by a formal Palestinian State government, equal a declaration of statehood? I haven’t come across this argument before is it your own work?

        By taking this political line you cite the US’s recognition while ignoring the Arab League’s pronouncements (and a mountain of commentary in the literature that opposes your opinion) that this was an expansionist territorial move by Jordan as well as the dissenting WB Palestinian views not reflected in the results of the Jericho conference yet reflected in events such as Abdullah’s assassination by Palestinian nationalists who surprisingly did want an independent Palestinian State rather than a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan based on their mutual aim of there being no independent Palestinian State? The notion that there is no Palestinian State abides with Jordan.

        “In the politics of the region, Abdallah never reconciled himself to the idea that he emerged from World War I and the peace settlement with a mere desert domain. Sir Henry Cox, the British Resident in Amman, observed in 1939 that “it should be accepted as an always present factor, that he will always take any opportunity he may see of bringing more Arabs and more Arab territory under his rule.”

        link to itamarrabinovich.tau.ac.il

        “…the realization of a greater syria which assures the protection of the jews offers the only viable solution of the palestine problem” Dec 1947 Abdullah

        ‘The liberation of Palestine is not the mere liberation of the land but the liberation of the Arab person’ and ‘the West bank is an inseparable part of Jordan, and its inhabitants are Jordanian citizens’. King Hussein.

        ‘Sadat maintained that the West Bank was only temporarily ‘on deposit’ with Jordan until its population decided on its own future. Jordan rejected this interpretation while the PLO, on its part, refused to let Jordan represent the inhabitants of the West Bank even temporarily.’ P45
        link to books.google.co.uk

        The Federal plan of 1972 after the WB was occupied by Israel is the real (reluctant) suggestion of a United Arab Kingdom consisting of 2 regions Palestine and Jordan but only after the WB was back under Jordanian sovereignty. Why Hussein needed to come up with an original plan for a united kingdom under Jordanian rule when (according to you) there was already a Palestinian state united with Jordan (although at this point occupied by Israel) is easy to explain. The WB wasn’t a Palestinian state when taken by Jordan, and wasn’t a united one with Jordan subsequently. Jordan’s concessions in the Federal plan are a recognition of the new Palestinian nationalism caused by Israeli occupation after the 6 day war in 1967 and the popularity of the PLO among the other Arab states who hadn’t expanded their sovereign territory to the WB

        link to en.wikipedia.org Expansionist Aspirations

        Why doesn’t the Palestinian leadership recognise a Palestinian state like you do?

        From A Court for Gaza link to springerlink.com

        At the Arab Summit in Beirut in March 2002, Mr. Arafat said the following:

        “We are all confident in the inevitability of victory, as well as in the inevitability of achieving our national and Pan-Arab goals … including the right of return, the right to self-determination and the establishment of the independent state of Palestine, with holyJerusalem as its capital [...]

        Beloved brothers, I would like to tell you in frank and precise terms that we want ournational, firm and inalienable rights, the rights that are supported by international legality,the rights of our refugees, our right toself-determination and to the establishment of ourindependent state, on the whole territory which was occupied in 1967, with holy Jerusalem
        as its capital.”

        Moreover, the position currently espoused by PA President Mahmoud Abbasthat Palestinians are looking forward to achieving statehood is consistent with a long line of speeches made by Mr. Abbas and others. For example, Mr. Abbas said

        the following in his inaugural speech as PA President in 2005:

        ‘‘The greatest challenge before us, and the fundamental task facing us[,] is national liberation. The task of ending the occupation [and] establishing the Palestinian State…’’

        In February 2005, shortly after his inauguration as PA President, Mr. Abbas
        said the following at an Egyptian summit meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh:

        “Just less than one month ago the Palestinian people went to the ballot boxes for the presidential elections, which were held after the departure of President Yasser Arafat. In this remarkable democratic practice, the Palestinian people embodied through this election[]their [decision for a] just peace that will put an[] end to dictates of war, violence and
        occupation. Peace that means the establishment of a Palestinian state, or the state of—the democratic state of independent Palestine along[side] the State of Israel, as mentioned in the road map plan.”

        Further, on November 24, 2008, President Abbas addressed the General
        Assembly of the United Nations in observance of the International Day of Solidarity
        with the Palestinian People. In that speech, Mr. Abbas clearly confirmed
        the aspirational nature of the current drive for an independent Palestinian state:

        “We highly appreciate your significant role in supporting our efforts to enable our people to
        realize their goals. We are certain that your role contributes in [a] clear and effective way
        in enhancing international solidarity with our just cause and enlarges the circle of international support for the aspirations of our people for freedom and independence and
        the establishment of their State…”

        Continuing his UN speech, Mr. Abbas referred to Jerusalem as ‘‘the capital of
        our future independent State.’’

        On February 5, 2009, President Abbas appeared with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at a press conference at Number 10 Downing Street in London. In answering one of the questions put to him, President Abbas emphasized the need for international support for ‘‘the Arab peace initiative which calls for the two state solution.’’

        Prime Minister Brown stated in support: ‘‘I believe the Arab peace initiative does point the way forward. I believe that the general terms of an agreement are well known to everyone: an Israel that is secure within its own borders, [and] a Palestinian state that is viable … .’

        On June 22, 2009, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad ‘‘called for the
        establishment of a Palestinian state within two years.’’

        In the same speech, he called on all Palestinians to ‘‘help create the institutions that will ‘embody’ the future state.’’

        If the Palestinain leadership doesn’t think Palestine is a State why are you arguing that it is, and even claiming that statehood was declared when some Palestinian allies of Abdullah agreed to become subjects of Abdullah in the single state of Jordan ending the notion of a Palestinian State until the 67 war? I haven’t seen this argument before.

      • Bing Bong
        July 25, 2012, 1:51 pm

        “I guess that detail kinda wrecks your whole narrative doesn’t it?”

        No, I’m saying there are 2 governments in fact for whatever reason you or I can be bothered to argue about.

        “And Israel insists on keeping it that way, by demanding that Fatah do not form a unity government.”

        2 opposing governments indeed.

        “A schism?”

        2 seperate governments.

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2012, 5:13 pm

        No, I’m saying there are 2 governments in fact for whatever reason you or I can be bothered to argue about.

        There are two governments because after the elections were held, the West carried on pretending as though they hadn’t happened.

        Cast Lead happened to take place just months before unity government talks were supposed to take place. So we have Netenyahu arguing that he can;t make a deal with the PA becasue they are not representative of all Palestinians, yet rejecting any unity deal. Thus arguing that there are 2 seperate governments when this is the Israeli plan is circular logic.

      • Shingo
        July 25, 2012, 6:47 pm

        If the Palestinain leadership doesn’t think Palestine is a State why are you arguing that it is, and even claiming that statehood was declared when some Palestinian allies of Abdullah agreed to become subjects of Abdullah in the single state of Jordan ending the notion of a Palestinian State until the 67 war? I haven’t seen this argument before.

        Maybe you need to explain that to the 130 or so other states who have recognized Palestine as a State.

        Medvedev: As we did in 1988, Russia still recognizes an independent Palestine
        link to haaretz.com

        Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay recognize Palestinian state
        link to google.com

        China To Recognize a Palestinian State, Support UN Motion
        link to therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com

        India to recognize a Palestinian state
        link to prc.org.uk

      • Hostage
        July 25, 2012, 7:39 pm

        2 opposing governments indeed. “A schism?” 2 seperate governments.

        Can you name any country that recognizes two Palestinian states today? Israel and the US refuse to recognize even one. So I guess I’m missing the point here. The Organization of Islamic Conference states recognize Hamas and Fatah as a different PA factions that are the de facto governments of the districts of the State of Palestine. They and the Russian Federation have urged the international community to negotiate with the Hamas de facto government, but they nonetheless only recognize and maintain embassies with the State of Palestine.

        Than you must also realize that they did so AFTER Fatah laundhed an Israli backed coup to overthrow Hamas after the elections.

        The record shows that the US and Israel tried, but repeatedly failed to get Abbas to dissolve the Hamas-majority PLC. The fact that Hamas won the elections to the PLC didn’t make Ismail Haniyeh the Commander-in-Chief. Abbas won the Presidential elections in 2005 with 60 percent of the vote. The Hamas militias launched a coup in 2007 against the legitimate Presidential Security Force that had always been controlled by President Arafat and in-turn, by Abbas.

        The Vanity Fair article made it appear that Fatah had inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza through a pre-emptive coup. But it really looks more to me like the US and Israel intentionally provoked Hamas, knowing that would be the result. The bottom line is that the Quartet proposal to transfer control of the military from the President to an empowered Prime Minister was designed to force Arafat out of power and it was never implemented. So I think Hamas made the first move. Even if they held the moral high ground, it was still a coup.

      • Hostage
        July 25, 2012, 9:18 pm

        An independent state that wasn’t to be eventually annexed by Transjordan? Why did Transjordan support the Peel Plan where partitioned land came under their control if it was so concerned about the formulation of an individual sovereign Palestinian State?

        Because Transjordan was dependent on foreign revenues for essential public services and the Peel Plan made good economic sense, while offering the Arabs emancipation.

        FYI every political union is the result of parties looking after their own self interests. The union between Egypt and Syria wasn’t illegal simply because the parties had ulterior political or economic motives. The Peel plan also would have terminated the original mandate without giving the Jews the lion’s share of the territory. BTW, that’s why the Jewish Agency and Zionist Congress never accepted the particulars of the plan.

        You can cut an paste all the hasbara you’d like, but I’ve shown you documentary evidence which illustrates that the US recognized the union and Jordanian sovereignty over the Territory. The Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 201 reflects customary international law. It says “The United States will treat States the territory of which is under foreign military occupation as continuing to exist.” So statements by Palestinians about the on-going occupation do not alter it’s legal status as an independent state any more than Israeli hubris make it more than an occupying power. The Palestinians can discuss the institutions of their future state all they want, because they’ve already declared the existence of the existing one. See Abbas: Palestinian state an existing fact link to ynetnews.com

        The problem is you have to take the line that Palestinians self determinedly exercised its sovereign right of state and decided to join with Jordan because if not the argument that it was a state, able to do so, and remained a state while a part of this united kingdom falls apart.

        I have no problem taking that line, because it’s part of the official documentary record of major foreign policy decisions contained in the Foreign Relations of the United Stares, the US Government Digest of International Law, the UK Hansard, the International Law Report, and the verbatim minutes of the General Assembly and Security Council. That’s why Dr Alan Baker only uses these arguments in the Op Eds. He knows they’ll never even get off the ground in the World Court.

        The UN sent the Capp mission to all the countries in the region, including “Arab Palestine”. Great Britain, the United States, and France each recognized the union between “Arab Palestine” and Transjordan. They accepted “Jordanian sovereignty” over the new territory and issued a declaration that guaranteed the Armistice Borders after Israel failed to return any territory at the Lausanne Conference.

        The 1950 annexation was completely irrelevant, since Abdullah had already been declared the sovereign of Arab Palestine when he was named its King by the Jericho Congress in December of 1948. He issued a proclamation which retained the laws in effect during the mandate and assumed all of the powers reserved for the King, Privy Council, and High Commissioner. So Arab Palestine had a head of state and its own laws that were not those of Transjordan. Assassinations have no relevance to statehood under international law. Lincoln was assassinated. Go argue that he wasn’t the head of a state.

        The new state was eventually admitted to the United Nations and it’s credentials to represent the entire population of the West Bank were never questioned. It exchanged ambassadors and signed treaties with many other countries that contained no reservations whatever regarding the West Bank. When Israel attacked Samu in the Hebron area in November 1966, the entire Security Council condemned it as a premeditated attack on the territory of Jordan.

        You can read more examples of states or organizations that recognized Jordan here: link to mondoweiss.net

      • Bing Bong
        July 26, 2012, 8:11 am

        “Maybe you need to explain that to the 130 or so other states who have recognized Palestine as a State.”

        I don’t think I need to explain to these states that their recognition you are talking about is in the main after the 1988 declaration and not the results of the Jericho Conference that Hostage believes to be a previous declaration of Independent Statehood. I don’t think any states recognised a distinct and existing State of Palestine while under Jordanian control. The notion of a State of Palestine was to be recognised after Jordanian annexation ended. I think Hostage is maintaining this State was in existence for the sake of legal continuity even though the legitimacy of a current notion of a viable and existing Palestinian Statehood doesn’t require this as you kindly illustrate when you mention the large number of States that recognise Palestine after 1988.

        “Where was the Palestinian declaration pre 1988?”

        “The Arab Palestinian Congress held at Jericho adopted resolutions naming Abdullah King of Arab Palestine and calling for the establishment of a joint Kingdom with Transjordan.”

      • Shingo
        July 26, 2012, 8:52 am

        I don’t think I need to explain to these states that their recognition you are talking about is in the main after the 1988 declaration and not the results of the Jericho Conference that Hostage believes to be a previous declaration of Independent Statehood.

        But you do need to explain why you are conflating the Jericho Conference with the 1988 declaration or why you believe Abbas’ and Fayyad’s statements you quoted from 2009 suggest that “the Palestinain leadership doesn’t think Palestine is a State”.

      • Bing Bong
        July 26, 2012, 10:47 am

        I’m not, I would think anyone can see my position denies that Jericho was a declaration of independence and therefore rather unconflateable with the actual 1988 declaration. Hostage is claiming they are both declarations but he isn’t conflating them either. (?)

        The quotes are self evident. If you can prove they have been radically taken out of context, are false or do not represent the public/official position (as per the stage upon which they were made) of these people then do so.

      • Bing Bong
        July 26, 2012, 1:15 pm

        “You can cut an paste all the hasbara you’d like”

        Like the first Palestinian declaration of independence wasn’t proclaiming Abdullah of Jordan the King and giving sovereignty and territory to Jordan? Yes, only Zionist controlled drones and er…the Arab League in 1950 and the PLO in 1967 think this.

        I’ve cited commentary on Jordan’s expansionism and subsequent attitude to the WB. Overwhelmingly the commentary and the evidence points to expansionism, I have to disagree that that, is Jewish controlled hasbara. Is it hasbara to say that the Zionists secretly colluded with Abdullah to reach the same ends of Jordanian control over the Wb and the end of the notion of an independent sovereign Palestinian state? Is it hasbara to cite resolution Arab League Resolution 318?

        “but I’ve shown you documentary evidence which illustrates that the US recognized the union and Jordanian sovereignty over the Territory.”

        Yes. You haven’t touched upon the Arab league’s reaction to this though, who all except Jordan regarded this as illegal Jordanian expansionism, refraining from the expulsion of Jordan by creating the notion of a trusteeship until a separate Palestinian State can be created for the sake of Arab unity. This idea of a‘temporary deposit’ was also later denied by Jordan as I previously showed. To annex a territory like Jordan did in 1950 is different to an amalgamation which is what you seem to be suggesting happened.

        “So statements by Palestinians about the on-going occupation do not alter it’s legal status as an independent state any more than Israeli hubris make it more than an occupying power.”

        Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought you said it had never been an independent state?

        “A Palestinian state is a truth recognized by the world, and we are now leading a battle to have its border recognized”

        link to ynetnews.com

        He’s talking about recognition, I too believe a Palestinian State is recognised in 130+ countries in the world. This does not make Palestine a State. As you said, recognition doesn’t make statehood as per Montevideo Article 3. And most of this recognition came about after the 1988 declaration (how many States recognised Palestine as a separate State from Jordan when it was a part of the State of Jordan?) as a result of a less belligerent stance toward Israel.

        “Assassinations have no relevance to statehood under international law”

        But they do have political relevance and the reason I mentioned his assassination was apparent. Simply arguing the law and not the facts (unless it suits you) is an incomplete argument outside a court or legal textbook. Can you say that the (questionable) international legal legitimacy of the Jericho conference is the will of the people and a declaration of Palestinian Independence? And what of the people of Gaza? Does the declaration of Statehood you speak of not include this element of Palestine? Where was the Gazan Palestinian representation at Jericho and why was Gaza not under Jordanian sovereignty if the ‘will of the people’ of Palestine was voiced at Jericho to declare independence?

        “Assassinations have no relevance to statehood under international law. Lincoln was assassinated. Go argue that he wasn’t the head of a state.”

        He wasn’t immediately after the assassination. That’s pretty relevant I would say.

        “I have no problem taking that line, because it’s part of the official documentary record of major foreign policy decisions contained in the Foreign Relations of the United Stares, the US Government Digest of International Law, the UK Hansard, the International Law Report, and the verbatim minutes of the General Assembly and Security Council.”

        It seems the Palestinians have a problem with this line because they are trying to achieve Statehood, not continue it.

        “King Abudullah and the government of Transjordan had repeatedly asked the Jewish Agency, the US Government, and the UN Security Council to recognize the country as an independent state.”

        Can you elaborate on this? On the face of it, it doesn’t square with his expansionist aims. Makes me wonder why Judea and Samaria wasn’t renamed ‘Palestine’ under Jordanian occupation and subsequent annexation instead of the ‘West Bank’?

        “The Organization of Islamic Conference states recognize Hamas and Fatah as a different PA factions that are the de facto governments of the districts of the State of Palestine.”

        The recognition of the duality of Palestinian governmental methods will be a source of comfort the next time they are throwing each other off tower blocks. Having 2 opposing governments (namely ineffective) isn’t helpful for Statehood according to Montevideo

        “So statements by Palestinians about the on-going occupation do not alter it’s legal status as an independent state any more than Israeli hubris make it more than an occupying power.”

        Are you using this argument also to claim a continuous independent Palestinian state under Jordanian annexation?

        “The 1950 annexation was completely irrelevant”

        Only if you are committed to the belief of the existence of a continuous Palestinian State because Jordanian control and annexation meant the end of the idea of an independent sovereign Palestinian State post mandate. This was one of the aims of Abdullah, a shared aim with the Zionists whom he colluded with.

        “Res 318 13 April 1950, stated that any Member which occupied or partitioned Palestine would face expulsion. Res of 12 April 1948 “the entrance of Arab armies into Palestine for its rescue should be regarded as a temporary measure” and, when liberated, it should be handed over to its people.”

        Exclusion from Participation in International Organisations: P95

        link to books.google.co.uk

        Not annexed indefinitely and turned into an “indivisible” part of the single State of Jordan.

        “Because Transjordan was dependent on foreign revenues for essential public services and the Peel Plan made good economic sense”

        But no concern for a separate Palestinian State (indeed the separate Palestinian State you say was in existence at this time according to you). And good economic/political sense to annex the WB in 1950 too.

      • Hostage
        July 26, 2012, 4:05 pm

        I don’t think I need to explain to these states that their recognition you are talking about is in the main after the 1988 declaration and not the results of the Jericho Conference that Hostage believes to be a previous declaration of Independent Statehood.

        As a matter of fact, the 1950 Act of Union between the two states was enacted by the legally elected representatives of the two peoples after a national plebiscite was conducted. The Act ratified the steps taken by the Jericho Congress, the Parliament of Transjordan, and the King. It also expressly stated that The Union was without prejudice to the final settlement of the question of Palestine. Long before the 1988 Algiers Declaration the UN was referring to the PLO and Palestine as a state for the purposes of participation in UN organs like the Economic and Social Council. When relations between the PLO and the King of Jordan soured, the two sides went through all of the customary steps to formally dissolve a political union between states. The King immediately extended recognition to the successor. Many of the countries that had recognized Jordan simply elected to maintain their existing friendly relations with the continuator and successor states. There was nothing unusual at all about that. It was a typical case of state succession. Many scholars, including some like Francis Boyle who helped draft the 1988 Declaration, pointed out that it was the declaration of an already existing state, not a new one. See for example John Quigley, The Palestine Declaration To The International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue link to uclalawforum.com

        FYI, the international community of states got off the treadmill of debating the virtues of constitutive versus declarative theories of sovereignty at the end of the colonial era. The so-called “Mother countries” or metropoles controlled the existence of other peoples by denying their existence and withholding recognition. The constitutive view was summed-up by Hersh Lauterpact “A State is, and becomes an International Person through recognition only and exclusively.” The former colonies, including the United States, listed the qualifications for a person of international law in Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention. They deliberately omitted any reference there to the terms “independent” or “sovereign”. They summed-up their declarative position in Article III:

        “The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.”

        Article 11 also prohibits the recognition of any foreign military occupation.

        Although the US still lists the Montevideo Convention as a treaty in force, it effectively adopted the constitutive position when it voted with Israel as the lone objectors to the UN resolution that acknowledged the 1988 Declaration of the State of Palestine. The two countries have used blackmail, power politics, and threats or actual force to control the destiny of the Palestinian people ever since. The collaborative role played by US officials in arming Israel, denying the Palestinians their right of self-determination and a nationality is described in Article III of The Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.

        Peoples no longer obtain their sovereignty by virtue of the old colonial method of begging for recognition from “the great powers”. But recognition by other states like Russia, China, and India is still dispositive. So even if we were still living in the colonial era, Palestine would easily satisfy the constitutive criteria for a person of international law, because the majority of other states have now recognized it and the 1967 borders.

        Most of the material that you post here is based on a completely archaic notion of “sovereignty” that the “civilized” nations discarded and outlawed a long time ago. The political revolutions of the 18th Century established the principle that “sovereignty” ultimately resides in the inhabitants of a territory. By the mid-20th century international law recognized an inherent right of people to organize a state and operate their own governments in whatever territory they lawfully inhabit without any foreign interference or coercion. Zionist attempts to portray Arabs as foreigners in Arabia look just as silly today as they did in 1946, when a Russian spokesman for the Jewish Agency complained that article 5 of the mandate prohibited the British from turning over Transjordan to a foreign Hashemite power. Here’s a hint: Palestine was part of Arabia. HaShem is buried in Gaza. His descendants, like King Abdullah and the Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, were indigenous. They acquired their local nationalities because they were Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory before the new borders were laid down. See Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne. link to wwi.lib.byu.edu

        Entire volumes have been devoted to the old notions of conquest and the colonial era assertion that sovereignty depended upon “recognition” by one or more of the “great powers”. That philosophy was thinly disguised racism. Ralph Wilde wrote that: “the ”racialized” concept of a “standard of civilization” was deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were “uncivilized”, lacking organized societies, a position reflected and constituted in the notion that their “sovereignty” was either completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of “civilized” peoples.” link to ilr.lls.edu See also Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: organized hypocrisy, Princeton University Press, 1999.

        Both the Nazis and Israelis excused their invasions and occupation of other territories on the ground that the inhabitants “sovereignty” had not been widely recognized. By the mid-20th century, that sort of thing had been recognized as a crime against peace or a form of illegal aggression.

        That’s why decades before the 2004 ICJ advisory opinion confirmed it, legal experts rejected the notion that Israel had a superior claim to the occupied Arab territories that it had captured in 1967. They explained that the Palestinians, based on the principles of self-determination and the UN Charter, appeared to hold better title to the territory. See for example David John Ball, Toss The Travaux? Application Of The Fourth Geneva Convention To The Middle East Conflict—A Modern (Re)Assessment link to www1.law.nyu.edu

        The UN Charter enshrined the principle of self-determination of peoples in international conventional law. The Charter in-turn was universally ratified and is recognized as customary law binding on non-signatories. The principles contained in it were codified by the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The rules there, and in any classic work on international law, say that when the heads of clans, tribes, and public officials for a territory meet in Congress and name a King of Arab Palestine for themselves, there can be no doubt that the thing they are all governing is called a state. King Abdullah governed Arab Palestine according to the laws in effect there between 1948 and 1950, when the Act of Union applied new “Jordanian” municipal laws.

        Judge Roslyn Cohen Higgins summed-up the case for the Palestinians:

        This is not difficult – from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same – that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.

        link to icj-cij.org

      • Hostage
        July 26, 2012, 7:15 pm

        the Arab League in 1950 and the PLO in 1967 think this.

        The State Department Digest covers the objections of the Arab League. They had no legal standing to object to the actions taken by the emancipated peoples inhabiting the territory of the former mandate. If that were the case, then Israel isn’t a legal state either.

        Dr Chaim Weizmann wrote an article in his capacity as head of the Jewish Agency, “Palestine’s Role in the Solution of the Jewish Problem, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jan., 1942), pp. 324-338 which pointed out the same fact:

        Arab states like ‘Iraq and Egypt, which had no locus standi in Palestinian affairs, were first allowed, and later encouraged, to exercise a powerful influence, and the Arabs were lined up in a united front against the Jewish National Home.

        The PLO didn’t exist in 1948. The rival faction was headed-up by the former Mufti, an exiled wartime enemy of the signatories of the Atlantic and UN Charters. By December of 1948 he had lost his credibility and base of political support in Palestine, because of his unrealistic predictions about a quick and easy Arab victory over the Jews. After the fall of Haifa, most Palestinian Arabs felt that Abdullah couldn’t annex the remainder of Palestine fast enough. The UN Mediator, Count Bernadotte, wrote in his diary that “It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan.” See “To Jerusalem”, Hodder and Stoughton, 1951, pages 112-13.

        The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) and the Mufti were not the formal or elected representatives of the people of Palestine after WWII. they were a creation of the Arab League. Avi Shlaim noted that when the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was reestablished in 1946 after a nine-year hiatus, it was not by the various Palestinian political parties themselves, as had been the case when it was founded in 1936, but by a decision of the Arab League of States. See page 1 of Avi Shlaim, The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza, Journal of Palestine Studies. 20: 37–53. (2001)

        Remarkably enough, in February of 1948 the Council of the Arab League decided not to recognize the Arab Higher Committee or the Mufti as the representatives of the Palestinian people. Thereafter, all of the Leagues’ affairs were handled through its own Palestine Council, not through the Mufti or the AHC. See Politics in Palestine: Arab factionalism and social disintegration, 1939-1948, By Issa Khalaf, University of New York Press, 1991, ISBN 0-7914-0708-X, page 290.

        The Head of the Jericho Congress stated that the government in Gaza was a puppet government that didn’t represent 90 percent of the Palestinians. He said that the Congress wanted to pursue a peaceful settlement and that 750,000 Palestinian Arabs, who could no longer bear their sufferings, had decided to name Abdullah King of Palestine despite the hostility of the other Arab governments. See Hebron Mayor Challenges Egyptians to Tell Truth, Palestine Post, December 14th, 1948. link to jpress.org.il

        The members of the Jericho Congress also said that the Gaza government only represented the views of its 80-odd members. See Sandra Berliant Kadosh, United States Policy toward the West Bank in 1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 46, No. 3/4 (Summer – Autumn, 1984), pp. 231-252

        No one claims that George Washington was unfit because he was a political opportunist who managed to outwit his opponents and become the Chairman of the Continental Congress, the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, and President of the United States. Avi Plascov similarly observed that Abdullah enjoyed a great deal of support that included grassroots propaganda organizations formed by the locals themselves:

        There were votes of thanks to the “redeeming” King on the radio, which also reported on the many delegations of both refugees and non-refugees, who came to the King to pay their respects and express support.

        The Hashimite Propaganda Association, headed by Ali Khalaf and composed of local mayors and notables from the Ramallah area, also came to see Abdullah. They called him “Saviour of Palestine” and trusted that he would solve the Palestinian Problem by peace or war, and regard the inhabitants of Jordan and Palestine as one nation to be led by one leader. A similar declaration came from Abd al-Karim al-Alami, “the Ramleh Lydda representative’’. The Jaffa refugees in Ramallah also told the military Governor there that they gave the King full authority to represent them.

        Delegates from Jerusalem, Ramallah, Dayr Ghassanah, Amwas, Hebron, Bethlehem and Bayt Jala followed suit. Most of these statements, like many others which followed, were organized and encouraged by the new administration. Furthermore, some of the representatives were self-appointed and concerned only to represent themselves, even if they also honestly supported the King. Many people were indifferent or did not make up their minds, not wanting “to commit themselves”; but they were left with little choice. Nonetheless, contrary to the widely-held belief outside Jordan, these various representatives did reflect the feelings of a large segment of the population.

        –See “The Palestinian Refugees In Jordan 1948–1957. Routledge (1981). page 12. link to books.google.com

        The JCPA’s own published minutes from the “Major Knesset Debates-series” illustrates that the Israeli government, headed by David Ben Gurion, refused demands from the opposition that it publicly declare the Jordanian annexation illegal. The opposition parties had called for an “unprecedented” session to debate the ratification of the union and incorporation of the West Bank into Jordan. They did that because the government of Israel’s public statements had not claimed the annexation was illegal. See the Minutes of the 135th Sitting of the First Knesset, 3 May 1950, in Netanel Lorach (ed), “Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981″ Volume 2, JCPA/University Press, 1993, starting on page 571. The government of Israel never advanced any such claims, until after it seized the territory in the Six Day War. link to jcpa.org

        So despite all the propaganda from Israel about the “disputed status” of the territory, it’s never had a leg to stand on on that particular score. That’s why it saves all the brave talk for the Op-Eds and even avoids using these quirky sounding pseudo-legal arguments in its own court cases.

      • Hostage
        July 26, 2012, 8:58 pm

        I’m not, I would think anyone can see my position denies that Jericho was a declaration of independence and therefore rather unconflateable with the actual 1988 declaration. Hostage is claiming they are both declarations but he isn’t conflating them either. (?)

        Why don’t you just stick to presenting your own arguments and read-up on the laws of state succession? Palestine was a mandated state. Arab Palestine and Israel were successor states. Arab Palestine formed and then dissolved a union with Transjordan. States don’t cease to exist simply because they are occupied or get a new governing regime. France provided one of the earliest examples of US foreign policy in that regard:

        When Louis XVI of France was deposed and beheaded in 1793, Alexander Hamilton argued that the supplanting of an admittedly tyrannous government by an equally tyrannous mob should go unrecognized and that the Treaty of Amity and Commerce with France should be considered suspended until a French government was formed. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson instead held that the French people had the inherent right to form their own government, and that the treaty should remain in full force regardless of change in the French government, because treaties, not governments, bind nations. President George Washington agreed with Jefferson and recognized the new French republic and subsequent governments, as did the British, although they were at war with France.

        — U.S. policy in the recognition of states – Recognition link to americanforeignrelations.com

        In fact, it was Jefferson’s formula that was recited by Stuart W. Rockwell of the Office of African and Near Eastern Affairs and the Editors of the Office of the Historian in their footnotes to the 1950 FRUS which said that the union was a reflection of the will of the people, freely expressed.

        Here are some more examples. If you check the list of UN member states, you’ll find that the Russian Federation has been a member since 24-10-1945; Ukraine since 24-10-1945; Belarus since 24-10-1945; and Libya since 14-12-1955.

        Those are actually the successors to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet Socialist State of Ukraine, the Soviet Socialist State of Byelorussia, and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The Russian Federation even inherited a permanent seat and veto in the Security Council without objection, because it agreed to assume all of the rights and treaty obligations of its predecessor as a continuator state. link to un.org

        So, I’m not conflating anything. I’m just talking about what has actually happened according to the documentary historical record. In 1988 the PLO did not declare a new state, just the independence of an already existing one. Try reading this article by Prof. John Quigley: link to uclalawforum.com

      • Bing Bong
        July 27, 2012, 11:51 am

        “They had no legal standing to object to the actions taken by the emancipated peoples inhabiting the territory of the former mandate.“

        I specifically said I was talking about the political elements and didn’t mention their legal standing. Why are you ignoring the political elements opposed to Jordanian annexation and only focussing on the hand picked Jordanian friendly delegates of Jericho?

        “Why don’t you just stick to presenting your own arguments and read-up on the laws of state succession?”

        I tend to do what I want thanks. Why don’t you think about how people who haven’t committed themselves to the idea of a continuous Palestinian State above and beyond everything view it as totally unrealistic to say the Jericho Conference was a declaration of Independence and Jordan at the forefront of Palestinian independence when annexing the WB.

        “So, I’m not conflating anything.”

        Yes, I already said you weren’t.

        “The PLO didn’t exist in 1948.”

        I know.

        “I’m just talking about what has actually happened according to the documentary historical record.”

        No you’re defending a position you’ve reached ideologically with selections from the historical record.

        “King Abudullah and the government of Transjordan had repeatedly asked the Jewish Agency, the US Government, and the UN Security Council to recognize the country as an independent state.”

        Sorry to keep asking but can you elaborate on this? On the face of it, it doesn’t square with his expansionist aims. Makes me wonder why Judea and Samaria wasn’t renamed ‘Palestine’ under Jordanian occupation and subsequent annexation instead of the ‘West Bank’?

        “After the fall of Haifa, most Palestinian Arabs felt that Abdullah couldn’t annex the remainder of Palestine fast enough.”

        “It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan.”

        The sentence previous to this explains why according to you “most Palestinian Arabs felt that Abdullah couldn’t annex the remainder of Palestine fast enough”, it’s because there was no will for an independent Palestinian State.

        The UN Mediator, Count Bernadotte, also wrote in his diary immediately before your quote that “The Palestinian Arabs had at present no will of their own. Neither have they ever developed any specifically Palestinian nationalism. The demand for a separate Arab state in Palestine is consequently relatively weak.” See “To Jerusalem”, Hodder and Stoughton, 1951, pages 112-13

        So from your source (Count Bernadotte’s diary, the very same paragraph) we see that if Palestinian’s were in favour of incorporation and annexation (and this diary entry and Jericho are not actually enough to prove this point) it’s not because of any special Jordanian trusteeship deal to keep the immediate practicalities (fear of occupation by Israel, economics etc) needed to keep a future independent statehood alive but rather a lack of will toward independence at this time. Which makes Jericho (and of course the will to be annexed) a very odd declaration of independence indeed. And why don’t you just stick to presenting your own arguments without such blatant selective quotation.

        This brings us to the main points of your argument, there was a Palestinian nationalism based on an existing State and the best way of realising this nationalism was to incorporate with Jordan. Incorporation with Jordan came about as a means to Palestinian Statehood and was the will of the people. (Albeit a Palestine without Gaza and no agreed plan to facilitate statehood, the closest being the clause not to prejudice existing rights that Jordan included to placate the Arab League).

        “The rival faction was headed-up by the former Mufti, an exiled wartime enemy of the signatories of the Atlantic and UN Charters. By December of 1948 he had lost his credibility and base of political support in Palestine, because of his unrealistic predictions about a quick and easy Arab victory over the Jews.”

        “…there were conflicting views concerning the positive policy to adopt on the future of Palestine. On the one hand there was…the Mufti of Jerusalem, who pursued a maximalist program for an independent and sovereign Palestinian state over the whole of Palestine. On the other hand there was King Abdullah of Transjordan, whose undeclared aim was to partition Palestine with the Zionists and to annex the Arab part to his kingdom” P38 Avi Shlaim, The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza, Journal of Palestine Studies. 20: 37–53. (2001) (NB a source you have also used)

        His [the mufti] credibility was also undermined by the Arab League and opposed by the Zionists in agreement with Abdullah.

        “Separate and conflicting national interests were hidden behind the fig-leaf of securing Palestine for the Palestinians…..The actions of the League were taken ostensibly in support of the Palestinian claim for independence in the whole of Palestine. But the League remained curiously unwilling to allow the Palestinians to assume control over their own destiny. For….the secretary-general of the Arab League, the mufti was “the Menachem Begin of the Arabs”….the Arab League’s policy “was intended to squeeze the mufti out” P82 The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 By Eugene L. Rogan

        “On the eve of the United Nations’ partition of Mandatory Palestine, King Abdullah, who shared with Zionists a hostility to Palestinian nationalism, reached a secret entente with Golda Meir to thwart the mufti and annex the part of Palestine in exchange for Jordan’s dropping its opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state.” link to en.wikipedia.org

        “The friendship between the Hashemite ruler and the Zionist movement was cemented by a common enemy in the shape of the grand mufti….the leader of the Palestinian national movement.” P83 The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 By Eugene L. Rogan

        The mufti’s efforts to create a Palestinian state also lacked credibility because of a lack of will amongst the refugee population (as we have already seen with the Bernadotte diary).

        “The refugees were more concerned with immediate problems of survival than with independence” P9 The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957 Avi Plascov

        Abdullah was not interested in Palestinian nationalism.

        “Abdulla neither trusted nor respected the Palestinians, but he knew he could not further his interests without establishing some base amidst them.” P10 The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957 Avi Plascov

        “After the Jordanian “invasion” an administration was set up to maintain law and order and to neutralize as far as possible any local initiative which supported the establishment of an autonomous Palestine.” P11 The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957 Avi Plascov

        “The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) and the Mufti were not the formal or elected representatives of the people of Palestine after WWII. they were a creation of the Arab League.“

        And Jericho was a creation of King Abdullah. Jericho was another link in Abdullah’s charm offensive chain, he had laid the foundations of his expansionism long before the conference.

        “His contacts with the Palestinian Arabs were intensified in the years leading up to the war. They included overt and covert talks with…the Nashashibi “opposition, local mayors, mukhars, with those who were disenchanted with the Husaynis and who had vested economic interests to protect, as well as with members of the AHC” P10 The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957 Avi Plascov

        “King ‘Abdullah of Transjordan was driven by a long-standing ambition to make himself the master of Greater Syria which included, in addition to Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine” The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948 By Eugene L. Rogan

        “For Abdullah, the annexation of Palestine was the first step in the implementation of his Greater Syria Plan. His expansionist policy placed him at odds with Egypt and Saudi Arabic. Syria and Lebanon, which would be included in the Plan were uneasy. The annexation of Palestine was, therefore, condemned by the Arab League’s Political Committee on May 15, 1950.” Naseer Hasan Aruri (1972). Jordan: a study in political development

        “1st Palestinian National Congress” convened in Ammanto, repudiate the APG and express loyalty to Abdullah. Many took part in the congress because they were either ordered to or expected to do so….and exaggerated the number of participants in order to give an impression of strong support for the King” P11 The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957 Avi Plascov

        “The King therefore decided to prepare a large demonstration in support of himself. Since his direct involvement aroused the inhabitants suspicions, he used the services of his loyalists…..The congress’s setting and procedure were carefully calculated. Abdullah had to prove he was not imposing his will on the Palestinians….The resolutions reflected both the monarch’s policy and the Palestinians’ inability to come up with any viable alternative. Only in this sense could it be said to represent the view of most Palestinians. P12-13 The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957 Avi Plascov

        “The resolutions of the Jericho Congress accomplished all the necessary tasks. One of them explained that the parties were acting to save the remainder of their territory, while preserving the opportunity of a future life of independence through the establishment of the joint kingdom.”

        “The last text (version of the resolutions) emphasized the idea that Palestine was a part of Natural Syria which was divided up by the Mandate, which ended on 15.5.48, when a chance was given for either the establishment of an independent State or the merger with one of the Arab Countries. The new resolution said that he Congress wanted a united kingdom under Abdullah…”

        At the time of Jericho there was no will directed towards an independent Palestinian State by the Palestinians or Transjordan and the Zionists. The APG while a puppet of Egypt had a certain genuine direction of will toward Palestinian nationalism but was unable to effect this due to the fractious nature of the Arab League’s members and of course Abdullah’s outright opposition to an independent Palestine. There was no amalgamation between Palestine and Transjordan, there was a union engineered by Abdullah between the Arab WB and Transjordan that was the preparation for and actual annexation, not a union or trusteeship. As we’ve seen this annexation was intended to be and was maintained as “indivisible”, through the rise of the PLO up until it relinquished its claim on the WB when the political will of the world recognised the State of Palestine and made Jordan’s claim untenable. It may have been the will of the people to agree to Jordanian annexation, this wasn’t because of Palestinian nationalism though and the will of the people cannot be fairly judged by the results of the Abdullah gerrymandered Jericho Conference. I haven’t seen any literature that sees this conference as a declaration of Statehood. Jordan’s clause in the Act of Union is the only concession to a recognition of the existing rights

        And aren’t you going against the Mondoweiss party line somewhat when you wrongly claim that Jordan’s occupation and annexation were a pillar in the struggle of Palestinian independence? Imagine if Abdullah had given military support from his occupying army and political support from his government, started referring to the WB as Palestine along with an alliance of policy with the mufti at the time. You might have had a genuine Palestinian state right there and in Gaza, probably a lot freer from Egyptian influence. Were the “regrettable events” of Black Sept, the bloody result of the papered over gap between Jordanian annexation and Palestinian independence first ‘agreed’ upon at Jericho, another pillar in the Palestinian struggle that Jordan can be thanked for by the usual contributors at Mondoweiss? The gang here will probably agree that Palestine was a State under the Ottomans and through the Mandate and through Jordan’s annexation but do they really believe that Abdullah’s expansionism and anti Palestinian nationalism accelerated and helped the move towards genuine Palestinian Statehood? If they do they are as dogmatic as you and must be clinging on to the notion of a continuous State no matter how much it supports Jordan who have held back an independent State for their own interests.

        Jordan formally annexed the WB, here is the definition of annexation from Wikipedia that cites Encyclopædia Britannica.

        Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the de jure incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity (either adjacent or non-contiguous). Usually, it is implied that the territory and population being annexed is the smaller, more peripheral, and weaker of the two merging entities, barring physical size. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. Because of this, more positive terms like political union or reunification are sometimes preferred. Annexation differs from cession and amalgamation, because unlike cession where territory is given or sold through treaty, or amalgamation (where the authorities of both sides are asked if they agree with the merge), annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and legitimized via general recognition by the other international bodies (i.e. countries and intergovernmental organisations).[1]

      • Hostage
        July 28, 2012, 12:01 pm

        I specifically said I was talking about the political elements and didn’t mention their legal standing. Why are you ignoring the political elements opposed to Jordanian annexation and only focussing on the hand picked Jordanian friendly delegates of Jericho?

        I’m ignoring the losers for the same reason that I don’t discuss “the political elements” of President Dewey’s defeat of Truman. The Palestinians who favored incorporation with Transjordan in a new successor state prevailed over their brethren. They ended-up governing a UN member state with a territory 20 times larger than that of Israel for the better part of the next two decades. That is the relevant political and legal reality.

        I’m the one who should be asking why you’re making such hyperbolic arguments? I cited a comment made by Chaim Weizmann about the climate that resulted from Egyptian and Iraqi interference in domestic Palestinian political affairs. He noted that they had been encouraged to do that, despite their lack of any legal standing. The other citations that I provided also addressed the general political climate. David Ben Gurion, Avi Plascov, Avi Shlaim, Sandra Berliant Kadosh, and Issa Khalaf were not “Jordanian friendly delegates of Jericho”.

        We’re all familiar with the pilpul (bing bong) technique. When a Zionist loses the legal argument, he or she tries to politicize the issue, and vice versa.

        Here is how an expert does that. The fact that Abdullah wanted the top spot in regional government, and positioned himself to obtain it, is no different from the stories of his contemporaries. David Ben Gurion started out as a crooked union organizer like Jimmy Hoffa. He formed a band of Zionist thugs who extorted money for Palestine from wealthy Polish Jews, at gunpoint. It was also no accident of history that Truman and Kennedy rose to power with the assistance of corrupt political machines that used equally shady practices. That doesn’t alter the fact that each these leaders ended up governing a State.

        Baja is part of natural California, in exactly the same sense that Palestine is part of natural Syria. The relevant fact is that the Jericho Congress resolved to make Abdullah the King of Arab Palestine, not natural Syria.

      • Hostage
        July 28, 2012, 2:31 pm

        “After the Jordanian “invasion” an administration was set up to maintain law and order and to neutralize as far as possible any local initiative which supported the establishment of an autonomous Palestine.” P11 The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957 Avi Plascov

        *Abdullah’s political opponents in the Arab Higher Committee advised the UN Security Council that the Arabs of Palestine had requested assistance from governments outside of Palestine. So there was no “invasion”. link to unispal.un.org

        *Ben Gurion told the Palestine Conciliation Committee that the status of Arab Palestine could be recognized through the device of a federal union with Transjordan. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa, page 927 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        *Abdullah actually did establish an autonomous Palestinian state. It existed from December of 1948 until shortly before the Act of Union was adopted in 1950. FYI, you can’t prevent the establishment of a Palestinian autonomous state by 1) arranging to have yourself proclaimed the King of Arab Palestine; 2) issuing a proclamation investing yourself with all the powers that were enjoyed by the King of England, his ministers and the High Commissioner of Palestine by the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922; and 3) proclaiming that all laws, regulations and orders that were applicable in the mandated State of Palestine will remain in full force and effect until they are specifically repealed or amended.

        *Your comments misuse the term “Jordan” in an anachronistic and argumentative attempt to make it appear that Palestinians “occupied” or “annexed” themselves. Abdullah replaced his military governor with a civilian one in November of 1948. After the Arab Palestinian Congress and the Transjordanian Parliament had approved the joint kingdom in December, the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan ceased to exist, and was replaced by the new joint Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in mid-January of 1949. Israel subsequently signed an armistice agreement with the new joint entity. See Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, and Anthony Mango, “The Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements”, Vol. 4, , Routledge, 3rd edition, 2004, printed page 2,354; and Footnote 24 of Yehuda Z. Blum, “The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria”

        *The Palestinians elected their own representatives to the Jordanian Parliament before the Act of Union was adopted. It was those lawmakers who adopted the Act which formally establish a unitary state in the East and West Banks. The Act permitted the application of a new system of municipal laws that would apply to the entire territory. Secretary of State Acheson stated at his April 26, 1950 press conference that “The elections which were held on the 11th were on the basis of the incorporation of Arab Palestine into the Hashemite Kingdom. Those elections have taken place and this action of the parliament will be to ratify that decision.” That is quoted from the Digest of International Law article that I cited earlier. FYI Jewish and Arab Israeli Knesset members “annexed” territory the UN had designated for the new Arab state using the very same method.

        *In the common parlance of international law, an “autonomous state” is neither independent nor established on the basis of sovereign equality. See for example this Israeli-US discussion regarding the establishment of an autonomous state in the West Bank in order to prevent Palestinians living there from becoming citizens of Israel:

        Eban said they had also given thought to establishment of separate, autonomous Palestinian state on West Bank. This also has serious drawbacks. Days of autonomous dependent regions had really passed.

        link to history.state.gov

        The sentence previous to this explains why according to you “most Palestinian Arabs felt that Abdullah couldn’t annex the remainder of Palestine fast enough”, it’s because there was no will for an independent Palestinian State.

        The Jericho Congress and the Jordanian Act of Union both stressed the fact that the decision was being taken to preserve the option of a future independent state and that the steps were taken without prejudice to the final settlement of the Question of Palestine. The decision to incorporate with another existing state or to emerge in another status, at a later date, are both valid modes of exercising the right of self determination. In this particular case, the laws of the mandated state of Palestine remained in full force and effect for more than a year while the necessary steps were being taken.

      • Hostage
        July 28, 2012, 9:23 pm

        No you’re defending a position you’ve reached ideologically with selections from the historical record.

        Sorry but we’ve all seen that the official Zionist spokespeople specialize in preaching contradictory ideological nonsense, like
        1) “Transjordan is an indivisible part or the Palestine mandate”;
        2) “Jordan is Palestine”, and
        3) “Jordan invaded and occupied Palestine”.

        They’ve always enlisted legions of lay persons to recite whatever propaganda the higher-ups consider politically expedient at the particular moment.

        I’m usually interested in gleaning the salient facts about the mandated state of Palestine and its successors, although I’m a font of useless knowledge on the subject too. So far, you haven’t produced any solid contradictory evidence from official documentary sources to support your position on Palestinian statehood. So it isn’t just a matter of me or anyone else “selecting” sources.

        In my comments here, I’m usually quoting official sources, journal articles authored by experts, and standard encyclopedias – like the one published by Gale-MacMillian Reference. It explicitly stated that Arab Palestinian leaders from Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, Nablus, and Ramallah, as well as representatives of refugees from Israeli-occupied cities and towns, met in Congress at Jericho in 1948. It says that they provided the legal basis for the union of central Palestine (the West Bank and East Jerusalem) with Transjordan (East Bank), by proclaiming Abdullah the King of Palestine. That is the inescapable legal and political bottom line.

        And aren’t you going against the Mondoweiss party line somewhat when you wrongly claim that Jordan’s occupation and annexation were a pillar in the struggle of Palestinian independence?

        Perhaps you should just stick to presenting your case and resist attempts to restate my positions or the Mondoweiss party line. No one at Mondoweiss, other than a few Zionists, have ever asserted that the inhabitants of a territory can lose their rights to self-determination, their private property, or a state of their own due to any form of military occupation; as a result of forming and dissolving a political union with a neighboring state; or being placed under international trusteeship.

      • Bing Bong
        July 31, 2012, 8:30 am

        “King Abudullah and the government of Transjordan had repeatedly asked the Jewish Agency, the US Government, and the UN Security Council to recognize the country as an independent state.”

        Sorry to keep asking but can you elaborate on this? On the face of it, it doesn’t square with his expansionist aims and I’m genuinely interested how this is supposed to square up. And didn’t I read somewhere that Abdullah had the word Palestine removed from some (all?) official documents after annexation? If you have no real reason to back this up I’ll just assume it’s a lie.

        “So there was no “invasion”

        Don’t really understand that. I’ve shown you there was no measure of the will of the people in any real respect to validate Transjordan’s first phase of its expansionist annexation or union between 2 states as you call it. What right did Transjordan have to form a union as the first step to annexation and then annex it without the genuine will of the people. That’s like saying stealing is legal if you embezzle or defraud, its not, its just slightly better hidden. And in this case not even very well as the overwhelming amount of commentary illustrates. The lack of Palestinain national ambition meant it happened without much protest from the WB. For someone who appears put a lot of work into siding with a disenfranchised people you seem very keen to downplay the occupation of Palestine by Arab Jordan. Is it because occupation and annexation by Jordan is again a delegitimisation of Palestinian statehood so you have to backflip through numerous legal hoops to reveal that, with a great flourish, that Jordanian occupation and annexation is actually all a part of the process of achieving statehood! Ta Da! And where was the will of the people of Gaza in all this? Was Palestine’s declaration of independence after the mandate which you claim are the resolutions at Jericho deciding upon “incorporation” with Transjordan also speaking for the people of Gaza which did not ‘incorporate’ into Transjordan, which in fact had its own puppet government ‘claiming’ statehood instead? If 1988 was a restatement of statehood how does Gaza now get included? Was the claim of the APG to represent Palestine ever formally challenged legally?

        “In order to legalize the annexation of the West Bank to Transjordan, King Abdullah called for a conference to be held on 1 December 1948 in Jericho. The meeting included Palestinian deputies appointed by the king to speak on his behalf and therefore ‘those who attended the conference could not be called the representatives of the people of Palestine by any standard of national electoral representation” (Tannous 1988: 665)

        “the status of Arab Palestine could be recognized through the device of a federal union”

        ‘Could’, indeed

        “proclaiming that all laws, regulations and orders that were applicable in the mandated State of Palestine will remain in full force and effect until they are specifically repealed or amended.”

        Such as provisional statehood until they could stand alone? Don’t make me laugh, you’re argument all along is that they willingly (except Gaza) chose not to stand alone! It may have been a provisional successor state to the Ottoman empire but as we’ve seen from this it still couldn’t ‘stand alone’ after the end of the mandate because Abdullah strolled in and took it without the genuine will of the people.

        “I’m ignoring the losers for the same reason that I don’t discuss “the political elements” of President Dewey’s defeat of Truman.”

        So essentially a mixture of might is right and the same gamesmanship that sees you ignoring the parts of Bernadotte’s diary that states there was no will for Palestinian independence.

        “The Palestinians who favored incorporation with Transjordan in a new successor state prevailed over their brethren.”

        “It was precisely these notables who had tacitly renounced their national Palestinian aspirations who were chosen for positions in the Jordanian state.” P10 Building a Palestinian State: The Incomplete Revolution By Glenn E. Robinson

        Jordan being the successor state not autonomous Palestine.

        “We’re all familiar with the pilpul (bing bong) technique. When a Zionist loses the legal argument, he or she tries to politicize the issue, and vice versa.”

        I hardly think I’m responsible for introducing politics to the Middle East. The legal position is as debateable as the political, in fact they are rather inseperable. See link to en.wikipedia.org

        And

        “The complexity of the discussions as to whether Palestine is a state or not a state is due to the fact that there is no relevant international regulatory framework under which the issue of statehood can be dealt with in its entirety. It is generally recognised that neither the fulfilment of the requirements of the Montevideo Convention nor the many common theories of recognition by other states can definitively settle the issue of the statehood of a territorial
        unit.” link to kas.de

        “James Crawford argues that while international recognition is important and can help to strengthen the status of a territorial unit, these days the founding of a state is more a question of law and effectiveness, such as the ability of a
        state to carry out the functions and take on the responsibilities which are linked to statehood.18 In short, if you act like a state and are treated like a state, then you are a state.” link to kas.de

        And where is your legal argument for a declaration of independence if the will of the people is proven (as we’ve seen) to not be in favour of “incorporation” into Transjordan?

        “The fact that Abdullah wanted the top spot in regional government, and positioned himself to obtain it, is no different from the stories of his contemporaries. David Ben Gurion started out as a crooked union organizer like Jimmy Hoffa. He formed a band of Zionist thugs who extorted money for Palestine from wealthy Polish Jews, at gunpoint. It was also no accident of history that Truman and Kennedy rose to power with the assistance of corrupt political machines that used equally shady practices. That doesn’t alter the fact that each these leaders ended up governing a State.”

        It is different because the State Abdullah ended up governing was Jordan not an amalgamation of Transjordan and Palestine at the will of the people. And being a politically corrupt leader of a state doesn’t necessarily change that state’s existence. In the case of Palestine the mendacious way in which you claim it gained statehood is to be addressed, not how it is lead (or more accurately, will be lead) by its head of state. Namely, Abdullah’s actions did change that state’s (potential) existence, the provisional state of Palestine was no longer provisional after it was taken by Transjordan, you seem to be arguing that this was the actual declaration of independence, and that is incorrect. At least you seem to be admitting that Abdullah’s Jericho could be described as ‘shady’, ‘corrupt’, ‘crooked’ or whatever synonyms you choose. So it’s not really the will of the people as you’ve said (and I’ve provided many sources that say the opposite) in anything but your chosen interpretation of the law that also allows corruption, extortion or whatever equally immoral synonym, to try to shoehorn in the justification of the existence of a Palestinian state that (you then claim to the opposite) wilfully gave up it’s statehood after a year or so to become a part of Transjordan immediately before annexation. The result of Abdullah’s manoeuvrings that paid lip service to the particular cause of Palestinian statehood.

        Your argument fails politically and relies on a radical interpretation of statehood legally in the case of Jericho. Combine the 2, as happens in the real world and in whatever reality you want to describe Mondoweiss as, (and why can’t I argue the politics if it undermines the legal??) and it falls apart. You can’t argue that real events are always divorced from law. You can try to argue the law and not the fact but you’ll get pulled up on it I’m afraid.

        “The Jericho Congress and the Jordanian Act of Union both stressed the fact that the decision was being taken to preserve the option of a future independent state and that the steps were taken without prejudice to the final settlement of the Question of Palestine.”

        To misquote Mandy Rice-Davis, ‘Well they would say that wouldn’t they’

        And what kind of clause is that? Perhaps Israel should annex the WB and preserve the option of a future Palestinain independent state pending the liberation of the entire country.

        “They’ve always enlisted legions of lay persons to recite whatever propaganda the higher-ups consider politically expedient at the particular moment.”

        Its as annoying and lazy as the shout of “anti-semitism” when Israel is criticised to be called hasbaraist when a Palestinian narrative is criticised. Although this isn’t actually a Palestinian narrative is it?

        “No one at Mondoweiss, other than a few Zionists, have ever asserted that the inhabitants of a territory can lose their rights to self-determination, their private property, or a state of their own due to any form of military occupation; as a result of forming and dissolving a political union with a neighbouring state; or being placed under international trusteeship.”

        That’s great. That isn’t what happened in this case though.

      • Hostage
        August 3, 2012, 10:17 am

        “King Abudullah and the government of Transjordan had repeatedly asked the Jewish Agency, the US Government, and the UN Security Council to recognize the country as an independent state.”

        Sorry to keep asking but can you elaborate on this? On the face of it, it doesn’t square with his expansionist aims and I’m genuinely interested how this is supposed to square up. And didn’t I read somewhere that Abdullah had the word Palestine removed from some (all?) official documents after annexation? If you have no real reason to back this up I’ll just assume it’s a lie.

        The application of Transjordan/Jordan for membership in the UN was rejected every year between 1946 and 1955. It was the subject of the very first case in the International Court of Justice. I don’t see why anyone here is responsible for educating you about well known facts of history, just because you’re ignorant and busy spamming a thread that has 600+ comments with off topic remarks and insults. Briefly:

        The Jewish Agency and their Zionist supporters were responsible for a campaign to torpedo recognition of Transjordan as an independent state and its application for membership in the United Nations. It was really no different than the on-going political campaign the Israelis and their supporters are waging today to prevent Palestine from becoming a member of the UN. I already gave you a link to an article in the Palestine Post where the Jewish Agency Spokesman invoked Article 80 of the UN Charter and the legal argument that the mandate was indivisible.

        At first the United States Congress, and Secretary of State Byrnes spoke out against any change in the status of Transjordan until the UN addressed the question of Palestine as a whole. The USSR and the Soviet bloc joined-in, after Golda Meir was dispatched to be the new Ambassador to the Soviets Union. I gave you a link to the verbatim minutes of the Security Council in which the President (Poland) objected on the grounds that Transjordan was part of a mandate that had not been legally terminated. Here are the details behind all that from the Foreign Relations of the United States:

        In view of application of Trans-Jordan for membership in UN received July 5, we have to establish our attitude without delay and I am sending memorandum to President requesting his views. I should appreciate knowing your thoughts in advance of beginning of SC Committee discussion on membership on July 15.

        As you are aware, we have had correspondence with Senator Myers regarding Trans-Jordan and he has introduced resolution containing request that executive take no action in any way recognizing Trans-Jordan as separate or independent state and that US representative on UN be instructed to seek postponement of international determination of status of Trans-Jordan area until future status of Palestine as a whole will be determined.

        We also have received a long detailed legal argument from Rabbis Wise and Silver [on behalf of the Jewish Agency for Palestine] objecting to independence of Trans-Jordan.

        –See Foreign relations of the United States, 1946. General; the United Nations Volume I, Page 411 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        The Secretary of State did exactly what Senator Myers requested. See –Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52) link to un.org

        Transjordan had been recognized as a separate state by treaties since 1922. The UN application was the subject of an ICJ advisory opinion, Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter). Afterward the General Assembly adopted resolutions recognizing Transjordan/Jordan as a state and advising the Security Council that vetoes of the application were not based on the criteria contained in Article 4 of the UN Charter, e.g.
        *link to icj-cij.org
        *http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/1170
        *http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/1170/add.1
        Argentina and other states reserved their position saying that membership applications were a procedural matter and not subject to any veto under the terms of the Charter.
        *http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.431

        The United States and other countries suggested that the Security Council could make the necessary recommendation without taking a vote. At the time, the US promised that it would not veto any applications in the future that were supported by 7 or more votes.
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        The bottom line is that in 1948 Truman recognized Israel in a matter of minutes, while he still had not recognized Transjordan’s independence from Palestine. When the US wanted to know by what right Transjordan had sent armed forces to Palestine after the mandate was terminated, the Foreign Minister told the UN, US, and USSR that there was no need to answer stupid questions, because they had refused to recognize Transjordan as a state separate from Palestine on many occasions.

      • Citizen
        August 3, 2012, 12:18 pm

        @ Hostage

        Thanks for that information! Very interesting and erudite, as all of your comments are. Are you a practicing appellate lawyer? You don’t have to answer. Just curious.

      • Hostage
        August 4, 2012, 5:28 am

        Are you a practicing appellate lawyer? You don’t have to answer. Just curious.

        No. I’m not a lawyer. All of my legal training was provided by the service schools as continuing professional education. In the aftermath of the My Lai massacres there was a much greater emphasis on incorporating reviews of the laws of armed conflict to operations planning, policy, and doctrines. I’ve mentioned that I served in MAJCOM staff positions for the Commanders who made or promulgated Air Force policy for the tactical and strategic air forces. We also were responsible for implementing the content and intent of Congressional statutory mandates in departmental regulations or directives. Our working groups always included the Judge Advocate General and the tasks required JAG coordination and approval.

        After I retired, I continued to study international law, political science, and history. I’ve been a regular commentator or contributor under various names or avatars at the European Journal of International Law, Opinio Juris, the ICC Prosecutor’s Forum, the experts blog at Leiden Journal of International Law, and the PhD Studies in Human Rights blog. I’ve had in-depth discussions about the I-P conflict in the online forums or in offline emails with Profs M. Cherif Bassiouni, John Quigley, Michael Kerney (Al Haq), Jordan J. Paust, and Kevin Jon Heller.

        Here are some typical articles and or comments where I participated as Hostage:
        *http://opiniojuris.org/2012/04/04/which-organ-of-the-icc-decides-whether-palestine-is-a-state/
        *link to ejiltalk.org

      • Citizen
        August 4, 2012, 7:03 am

        @ Hostage
        RE the topic of Palestinian statehood you discuss on those two linked blogs:
        August 3, 2012
        (JTA) – The Palestinian Authority is considering a bid in September to be a UN “non-member observer state.”

        Also, I loved this question you left at the end of the EJIL thread last April: “If the Prosecutor is going to defer to the competence of the Secretary General in order to determine if a reasonable basis exists to proceed with an investigation, why hasn’t he already requested the Secretary General’s opinion on the matter?”

        Just for the hell of it I looked up the definition of “state” in Black’s and Ballentine’s just for the heck of it. Not much help. And Ballentine’s cross-indexed to “sovereign state.” Are there comparable International Law dictionaries? Beck’s Law Dictionary: A Compendium of International Law Terms and Phrases?

      • Hostage
        August 4, 2012, 6:31 pm

        Are there comparable International Law dictionaries? Beck’s Law Dictionary: A Compendium of International Law Terms and Phrases?

        I don’t really know from first hand experience. I’ve used Boczek’s “International Law: A Dictionary” because its available in the local campus library, but it’s really more of an alphabetized collection of essays. It cites Parry and Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law and Fox’s Dictionary of International and Comparative Law.

        The Digest of International Law includes an entire chapter on States. It has subsections on each of the various types, including the mandates. The US government uses the bare definition from Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention without the usual additions that academics try to shoehorn-in regarding effective control, sovereignty, or independence. The cheapest, and by far the best resource, is the “Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States”. The paperback version of the 3rd edition is about $30 and it contains definition of terms and extensive commentary in the Reporters Notes.

        Speaking logically, belligerents shouldn’t be able to commit violent crimes against any indigenous civilian population by resorting to the flimsy alibi that they don’t “effectively control” the territory they inhabit, or that they aren’t “independent” or “sovereign”. None of that is contained in the Montevideo criteria, which is the applicable law in these and many other parts of the world.

      • Hostage
        August 4, 2012, 11:00 pm

        “proclaiming that all laws, regulations and orders that were applicable in the mandated State of Palestine will remain in full force and effect until they are specifically repealed or amended.” . . . Such as provisional statehood until they could stand alone? Don’t make me laugh

        Israel adopted an identical Transition Act. FYI, Israel employed Ottoman and Jordanian laws to re-designate portions of the West Bank as “state land” after the High Court of Justice decision in the Elon Moreh case. So I’m not trying to make you laugh.

        I’d rather make you read the State Department advisory opinion on recognition of new states in Palestine. You’re quoting Article 22 of the Convent of the League of Nations, not the laws of Palestine. FYI the subjects of that Article were plural -“communities”- that had been provisionally recognized as nations. In the case of Palestine it addressed their ability to stand alone as a collective. The State Department’s legal expert, Ernest Gross, noted that the Palestine mandate contained more than one non-Jewish community, including Transjordan, and that the Covenant did not originally envision that each of them would become independent states. Mr. Gross noted that the law of nations recognized the inherent right of the peoples of these communities to organize a state and operate a government.
        — The memo is contained in the Foreign Relations of the United States 1948, volume 5, part 2, and starts on page 960. It is cited by Stefan Talmon, in “Recognition of Governments in International Law”, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, page 36

        The lack of Palestinain national ambition meant it happened without much protest from the WB. For someone who appears put a lot of work into siding with a disenfranchised people you seem very keen to downplay the occupation of Palestine by Arab Jordan.

        You’re spinning your wheels and engaging in mental gymnastics when you try to claim that Jordanian nationalism wasn’t a Palestinian one. Jordanian nationalism wasn’t “expansionist” either. Transjordan was part of the Palestinian mandate and the union didn’t add any new territory to those inhabited by Arabs in either the East or West Banks during the previous mandate period. Conversely, the Zionists advised the UN that they had seized a great deal of territory that had been occupied by an Arab majority.

        FYI, in March of 1945 Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria founded the League of Arab States. Yemen joined as a member in May 1945. All of the signatories of the Charter accepted the “Annex on Palestine”, which contained stipulations regarding the de jure existence and recognition of the State of Palestine. That annex has never been revised or rescinded. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        The franchise that you’re mentioning in the comment above, is simply the right to be represented by officials, like those who adopted the resolutions of the Jericho Conference. Those resolutions specifically mentioned that the delegates were acting to preserve the possibility of “a future life of Independence”. The franchise also refers to the right to vote for representatives, like the members of the Jordanian Parliament from Palestine. Those members could have voted against the union and attempted to preserved the status quo ante against Zionist militias who were trying to secure their outlying settlements. Instead, they helped draft and unanimously ratified an Act of Union, which stipulated that it was without prejudice to the final status of Palestine. The Digest, the FRUS, and the Hansard all mention that those elections did reflect the will of the two peoples.

        Was Palestine’s declaration of independence after the mandate which you claim are the resolutions at Jericho deciding upon “incorporation” with Transjordan also speaking for the people of Gaza which did not ‘incorporate’ into Transjordan, which in fact had its own puppet government ‘claiming’ statehood instead?

        The residents of Gaza didn’t claim to be part of a different state or relinquish their claims to statehood. They simply resided in an unannexed portion of the territory of Palestine that never became part of any other sovereignty. The Egyptians adopted a transition act that retained the laws in effect during the Palestine mandate and never consulted the wishes of a constituent assembly before installing the All Palestine Government.

        Abdullah was named King of all of Arab Palestine. Egypt acting as a trustee, had evacuated its forces from Hebron and Bethlehem and turned those territories over to the King to administer. The Iraqis did exactly the same thing. There were plans to establish a corridor between Beersheba and Gaza and to eventually replace the Egyptian administration there with a Jordanian one. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        The State Department recognized the King’s sovereignty in line with the principles underlying the Jericho resolutions. link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        President Truman offered advice to the King as the legal representative of the Palestinians in the negotiations: “I desire to recall to Your Majesty that the policy of the United States Government as regards a final territorial settlement in Palestine and as stated in the General Assembly on Nov 30, 1948 by Dr. Philip Jessup, the American representative, is that Israel is entitled to the territory allotted to her by the General Assembly Resolution of November 29, 1947, but that if Israel desires additions, i.e., territory allotted to, the Arabs by the November 29 Resolution, it should offer territorial compensation. See the FRUS Volume VI 1949, pages 878-879.
        link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Jessup endorsed the mediator’s recommendation for a union between the former Arab portions of the Mandate. At the time the US was only concerned with 1) the threat of territorial expansion from Revisionist Zionists and the All-Palestine Government in Gaza; 2) the failure to consult the wishes of the Palestinian people before setting up the regime in Gaza; 3) the involvement of the Mufti, a wartime enemy. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1948. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa Volume V, Part 2, Pages 1447-1448

        After the Six Day War, Prime Minister Eshkol attempted to suggest that Jordan or Egypt were improperly occupying the territories they administered in Palestine. In response, President Johnson directed Ambassador Goldberg to reword the withdrawal clause of resolution 242 to stipulate that it only applied to the armed forces of Israel. See Foreign relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967, Document 515

        “In order to legalize the annexation of the West Bank to Transjordan, King Abdullah called for a conference to be held on 1 December 1948 in Jericho. The meeting included Palestinian deputies appointed by the king to speak on his behalf and therefore ‘those who attended the conference could not be called the representatives of the people of Palestine by any standard of national electoral representation” (Tannous 1988: 665)

        No, the mayors of Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Hebron, Bethlehem, & etc. were the day-to-day Arab officials. Tannous is correct to the extent that the Congress was convened to keep everything legal, and of course it was.

        “the status of Arab Palestine could be recognized through the device of a federal union” . . . ‘Could’, indeed

        No, it was recognized through Israel’s subsequent words and deeds. Israel signed an Armistice Agreement with the new joint kingdom of Jordan and accepted its legal competence to negotiate the details of a final settlement including borders. That’s one of many examples of legally binding recognition. Only States are legally competent to establish international boundaries.

      • Citizen
        August 5, 2012, 9:40 am

        @ Hostage
        Thanks. Very helpful.

      • Hostage
        August 5, 2012, 11:44 am

        @Bing Bong,

        *You’ve attempted to show that Palestinians gave up their national movement by opting for a Jordanian one. But Transjordan was one of the two states laid down inside the boundaries of the British mandate for Palestine. So the new joint Jordanian nationality was still an entirely Palestinian one.

        *Using your logic, the Jews also gave up their own national movement when Weizmann and Sokolow claimed they had no interest in a state of their own and opted for autonomy and incorporation in Palestine or, wait for it, Greater Syria:

        Dr. Weizmann expressed the view that the most advantageous settlement of the Palestine question in his opinion would be the division of the country into Jewish and Arab cantons with wide powers of autonomy and the federation of Palestine and Trans-Jordan into one state under continued British supervision for some time to come. As Jewish cantons he would include Galilee (northern Palestine) and
        the coastal region of Palestine, and as Arab cantons the hill country and western Palestine, together with Trans-Jordan. The Negev or southern Palestine comprises 11,000,000 dunums of land inhabited by
        no more than 50,000 Bedouins. At least one-tenth of this region was cultivable and might serve as an eventual place of settlement of large numbers of people. He would leave this area, however, outside the cantonization plan for subsequent disposition.

        The hope was expressed by Dr. Weizmann that eventually such Jewish and Arab areas as might be set up in Palestine and Trans-Jordan could be merged in a larger federation of states, including Syria and Iraq, but he was afraid that the French might be an obstacle to this. The Jewish leader added that his proposed boundaries for cantonal settlement followed in general the lines of the partition proposals of the Royal Commission. He had succeeded in obtaining the approval of the partition proposals by the World Zionist Congress in 1937 as he felt that those proposals were something in hand which were worth accepting. Unfortunately, the partition scheme had had to be abandoned.

        Dr. Weizmann stated that he would be one of the first to admit that the Jews had made many mistakes in Palestine. Twenty years had not been enough in which to reach a durable basis of settlement. It would take many more years than that. Mr. Murray inquired what Dr. Weizmann’s reaction had been to the statement in Parliament in 1938 of Viscount Samuel that the Arab nationalist movement in Palestine was as genuine as the Egyptian nationalist movement, the Irish nationalist movement, or the Indian nationalist movement. Dr. Weizmann replied that he was in entire accord with Viscount Samuel as to this.

        Mr. Murray observed that he did not think that Dr. Weizmann’s views as to the advantages of the partition proposals of the Royal Commission or as to the significance of the Arab uprising of the past three years in Palestine were generally shared by American Zionists. Dr. Weizmann replied that with all due respect to American Zionists, he found them either too extreme in their views, on the one hand, or too lukewarm, on the other. By reason of their distance from the practical problems which the Jews had to face, American Zionists were insufficiently informed concerning the day-to-day development of those problems. As a result, American Zionists were either uncompromising in their outlook or completely disillusioned regarding the future.

        — See Foreign relations of the United States diplomatic papers, 1940. The British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, the Near East and Africa
        (1940), pages 837-838 link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Five years later in 1945 he still didn’t express the will for independence that you keep brining-up:

        *10. As regards the possible government of Palestine, Mr. Blevin recently had a talk with Dr. Weizmann, who appears now to be against partition and talked about a Swiss constitution with cantons which would be a bilingual state with opportunities for both races to be represented abroad, and which would provide common services within. His Majesty’s Government would be willing for consideration to be given to this as well.

        — See Foreign relations of the United States : diplomatic papers, 1945, The Near East and Africa, page 776

        *There is ample evidence that the Hashemites supported the establishment of a confederation of Arab states, such as the one mentioned in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. link to avalon.law.yale.edu

        *There was nothing incompatible with the idea of a Palestinian state as a member of a Greater Syrian confederation. The Hashemites were more than willing to cede dependent, autonomous regions in Palestine to others. See for example the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement between “the Arab State” and “Palestine”. link to unispal.un.org

        In “War in Palestine, 1948: Strategy and Diplomacy”, Israeli military historian David Tal noted that Great Britain hoped to create a pro-British Greater Syria (page 355). The original members of the League of Arab States essentially consisted of Egypt + the Greater Syrian confederation of states that had been liberated from the Ottoman Empire. Tal notes that Abdullah had already abandoned his plans for Greater Syria by 1948, and that he entered into negotiations with Musa Alami regarding an alliance to protect the Syrian flank once they were deployed in return for acquiescence to his control of the central adjacent region of the Palestinian Arab State (pages 21-23).

        *So the Syrians still had expansionist ambitions of their own in Palestine. Israel claimed that it was created by its own act of secession and was not in any sense a successor to the former government, its debts, or treaty obligations. It claimed the refugees had never been its citizens. The Syrians responded by pointing out that Israel could not have inherited the former government’s territory either and claimed 10 Arab villages in the region it had occupied under the armistice agreements: Khan el Duweir in the northern sector; Baqqara, Ghannameh, Mansurat el Khayt, Yirda in the central sector; Samra, old and new Nuqeib, Kh. Tawafiq and al Hemma in the southern sector. There were two Jewish villages in the region, Mishmar Hayarden and Ein Gev. Israel eventually occupied the DMZs, but the Security Council adopted a Chapter VII resolution refusing to recognize Israeli sovereignty and directing Israel to stop the activities of the Palestine Land Development Company there.

        *Abdullah and the Palestinians did not challenge the Syrian claim. The PA still only claims a state within the 4 June 1967 borders, not within the 1949 armistice lines (which included the Syrian DMZs). link to un.org

        *FYI, the ex-Mufti Hajj Amin Al-Husseni worked as the liaison official in Damascus between the Arab nationalist supporters of Faisal, serving on the Syrian committee preparing for the General Syrian Congress, and the Palestinian delegation who named Faisal their King. So the Mufti was a supporter of “Greater Syria” too. Palestinians didn’t necessarily surrender their nationalists ideals by endorsing the Syrian platform:

        We opposed the pretensions of the Zionists to create a Jewish commonwealth in the southern part of Syria, known as Palestine and oppose Zionist migration to any part of our country for we do not acknowledge their title but consider them a grave peril to our people from the national, economical, and political points of view.

        See Article 7 of the Memorandum of the General Syrian Congress, July 2, 1919

        *You have cited Glen Robinson, “Building a Palestinian State: The Incomplete Revolution”, page 10 which noted that Egypt and Israel prevented Palestinian notables from occupying decision making positions in their governments. But Robinson noted that King Abdullah was very forthcoming in appointing Palestinians to very high positions in government. The King dissolved the original parliament in preparation for the April 1950 national elections. The new Parliament was composed of a House of Notables (Majlis al-A’yan), or Senate, and the House of Deputies (Majlis al-Nuwwab). Half the seats in the House Deputies were reserved for representatives from the West Bank. The King appointed many senators from the West Bank. They adopted the Act of Union in April 1950. So it’s nonsense to suggest they weren’t integrated in government until much later. Here is a good overview of the Parliamentary history of the Hashemite Kingdoms. The text doesn’t display in IE and has a lot of white space after the introduction in Mozilla. Its best viewed with Google Chrome or Apple Safari. link to justlawlinks.com

  30. yourstruly
    July 12, 2012, 4:46 pm

    something about yelling wolf one too many times?

  31. Misterioso
    July 12, 2012, 5:28 pm

    Fredblogs
    Utter nonsense. The British mandatory government did not own land in Palestine.
    The 1922 League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate,
    i. e, Palestine was to be administered by Britain AS A WHOLE until its citizens were able to assume democratic self-rule. By incorporating the Balfour Declaration, the mandate did facilitate Jewish immigration to “secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home,” but it did not call for the creation of a sovereign Jewish state or homeland in Palestine or any form of partition. This was made very clear in the Churchill Memorandum (1 July 1922) regarding the British Mandate: “[T]he status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status.”

    Furthermore, regarding the British Mandate, as approved by the Council of the League of nations, the British government declared: “His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.” (Command Paper, 1922)

  32. Roberto
    July 12, 2012, 6:37 pm

    I recommend to see the following. I think it shows the horrible situation of Palestine in a most striking way:
    link to bigthink.com

  33. jonah
    July 12, 2012, 8:15 pm

    There is a fair amount of crude simplification, distortion, in this abused map of the territories, as well as in the legend that mentions a very misleading figure of refugees. It displays a so large degree of simplification that it borders on outright lie, or even slander. In this sense, the Jewish community speaks the truth: this kind of misinformation can foment anti-Semitism. And it can be rightly said, given that Israel has become the target of criticism and hate by a large front, ranging from the most staunchest anti-Zionist groups up to the mainstream, which tends (more or less ostentatiously) to question the legitimacy and self-determination of the Jewish State (as embodied by the Israel), that means the right of the Jewish people on a own secure national home.
    Actually, it would be enough for these champions of the Palestinian and Arab rights (versus Jewish rights) to have some basic knowledge of history and international law (the real one, not the distorted anti-Zionist version) to understand that reality is far more complex than shown in their advertisement for simpletons. I might suggest to these gentlemen for example to read the Levy committee report on the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (also called West Bank from the Jordanian occupation onwards), published a few days ago by three Israeli experts in international law, headed by retired judge of the Supreme Court of Israel Edmund Levy. link to pmo.gov.il
    I could also make them aware that not the Jewish settlements are the primary cause of the failure of the peace process, but rather the anti-pacifist attitude of the Palestinians (I mean expressly the so-called moderates, let alone the others), as evidenced by this fine article by journalist Khaled Abu Toameh: link to jewishpress.com
    But I am afraid of having to face the obvious and impervious: What is the point to show someone who sees only red that the world actually has different colors? He stubbornly and against all best arguments will persevere in seeing only red (especially when it comes to Israel). That’s why his arguments must be called for what they in their evident anti-Israeli/-Jewish manicheism are: as the modern form of anti-Semitism.

    • RoHa
      July 12, 2012, 10:14 pm

      “the right of the Jewish people on a own secure national home.”

      What is a “national home”, and why do you think the Jewish people (or any other “people”, for that matter) have a right to one?

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 12:25 am

        ‘What is a “national home”, and why do you think the Jewish people (or any other “people”, for that matter) have a right to one?’

        Leaving aside the Jews’ right to it, at the time the phrase ‘National Home’ was formulated Weizmann explicitly disavowed any claim that this implied national sovereignty, and in 1922 the British government took the view that the then-current Zionist community of 80,000 settlers with their own cooperatives, schools, newspapers, etc constituted a ‘national home.’

        Thereafter, of course, complete independence in part of Palestine became the goal, then complete independence in all of Palestine, then complete independence in all of Palestine plus bits nearby…but that’s another story.

      • jonah
        July 13, 2012, 2:53 am

        1) National home = Nation
        2) So let’s say that also the North American people do not have the right to a nation called US. Or that the Arab Palestinian people do not have this very right. This should be ok for you, right?

      • Shingo
        July 13, 2012, 4:51 am

        1) National home = Nation

        LOL. Jonah’s like teh guy who rocked up at a party on Sunday that started on Friday.

        1. On October 31, 1917, when the BalfourDeclaration came before the War Cabinet,Balfour summarized the arguments for and against it. He specifically addressed Curzon’s objections to the use of the vague term “national home” maintaining that it did not mean the establishment of an independent Jewish state.
        See Karl Ernest Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac, Kingmakers: the invention of the modern Middle East, page 120

        2. During the Versailles Peace Conference, US Secretary of State Lansing specifically asked Dr. Weizmann “to clear up some confusion which existed in his mind as to the correct meaning of the words “Jewish National Home”. Did that mean an autonomous Jewish Government?” Dr Weizmann” replied in the negative.” and provided an explanation which ruled-out any possibility of Jewish minority rule over the non-Jewish population under the terms of the proposed Mandate. See the “The Council of Ten: minutes of meetings February 15 to June 17, 1919, page 169 in Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919.

        2) So let’s say that also the North American people do not have the right to a nation called US.

        The US was not created by a British decalration creating a national home dufus.

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 5:26 am

        “1) National home = Nation
        2) So let’s say that also the North American people do not have the right to a nation called US. Or that the Arab Palestinian people do not have this very right. This should be ok for you, right?”

        But Jonah…

        First, the word choice ‘national home’ was obviously made advisedly, and secondly, everyone at the time — including the Zionists — agreed it did not mean a nation. This is assuming the parties making these statements had the moral right to dispose of Palestine and its people, which is quite a leap right there.

        Then I’m not aware of the ‘North American people’ ever having agreed to a ‘national home’ and the last time I looked, neither Canada nor Mexico were in the US, so the next part of your post is simply nonsensical.

        Finally, the Palestinians have an unrestricted right to national sovereignty in Palestine for the same reason that the Greeks do in Greece, the French in France, and the Norwegians in Norway. It is their land.

        Not yours. Theirs. What is hard to understand about that?

        …It must be hard being a Zionist. How do you do it? It must be like going to school and trying to prove that two and two do not make four — over and over, every day. You poor man…

      • jon s
        July 13, 2012, 6:09 am

        Sorry, Colin, it is our land, our historic homeland. Jews in Israel are not invaders or foreigners . It’s also the Palestinian’s homeland. Two peoples with the same homeland: that’s the conflict in a nutshell.

      • edwin
        July 13, 2012, 8:21 am

        Yes – all those converts to Israel Judaism really secretly came from Israel. So did all those people who were born in England, United States and so forth.

        No – the only people, by your definition, are the Canaanites. Jews come from Egypt or so the fairytale goes.

        As far as conflict goes – most civilized countries have managed to work something out with a form of democracy and guaranteeing equal rights for everyone.

      • seafoid
        July 13, 2012, 8:23 am

        Jon

        The Ashkenazi homeland is Italy

        • According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and EEJ (Eastern European Jews) are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations… EEJ are Europeans probably of Roman descent who converted to Judaism at times, when Judaism was the first monotheistic religion that spread in the ancient world. Any other theory about their origin is not supported by the genetic data.

      • Woody Tanaka
        July 13, 2012, 8:32 am

        “Sorry, Colin, it is our land, our historic homeland. Jews in Israel are not invaders or foreigners . It’s also the Palestinian’s homeland. Two peoples with the same homeland: that’s the conflict in a nutshell.”

        Nope. At the time the zionist project was started, the Jewish population in Palestine was nearly zero. The Jews had no specific homeland, at the time, as they were a people spread across many lands. They traced their culture and roots to Palestine, but it was no longer their land. They were, at that point, simply fans of religious myths which were set there.

        Through political manipulation, racism and major power politics in the 19 and 20 centuries, a bunch of foreign Jews from Europe and America were successful in invading and taking over Palestine, stealing the Palestinians land.

        So, to sum up: while the land may have been home to Jews a few thousand years ago, by the time the zionist invasion project started, the Jews had virtually no present day connection with the land and the land belonged to the Palestinians people. The fact that foreign invaders stole it means nothing, as one does not obtain title through theft. So, no, it is the Palestinians’ land. The Jews just covet it.

      • seafoid
        July 13, 2012, 8:40 am

        “Our historic homeland” is such a crock of shit. “Our homeland” couldn’t cut it and was very grubby because there were so few Jews there so they tacked on “historic” to give it some gravitas. LOL

      • Citizen
        July 13, 2012, 12:20 pm

        jonah, you like to turn the clock back to a time when there was less international agreement on what a sovereign state could do in its own interest. The American Indian Wars ended before the turn of the 20th Century. The 20th Century brought us WW1, which concluded with the Versailles Treaty, which inequity directly caused WW2, which resulted in the Nuremberg Trials (and the Trials in Japan); those trials, enhanced by Geneva, have laid down the internationally -recognized limits on the powers of any sovereign state to “self govern” at the expense of its own people, another state, or any stateless people. While Israel takes its legitimacy from an international body, the UN, it has ignored from inception the condition subsequent to UN recognition as “a nation among nations” (ASAP return of natives scared out of their land by Jews and their self-proclaimed state), and it has ignored countless attempts to be held accountable for its actions under the conditions mandated by the international community, which commenced at Nuremberg. It is, in every sense of the word, a rogue state, an aberration, a 19th Century value and power in the more progressive 21st Century.

      • American
        July 13, 2012, 1:02 pm

        ”Jews in Israel are not invaders or foreigners .”…..jon s

        Actually they are jon. This is easily proven by simply using the numbers in the two British census of 1922 and 1931. It is a waste of time I am sure to tell you to download the complete census carried out by Major E. Mills and read the in depth details for your self.

        link to archive.org

        But the findings were that the Jewish population of Palestine had increased “108% from European Jewish immigration” in the space of 9 years, 1922 to 1931. Also in contrast to foreign born Jewish immigrants, only 2% of the Palestine population was born outside Palestine.

        * The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2] – an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]
        The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 “no religion.

      • YoungMassJew
        July 13, 2012, 2:36 pm

        Seafoid, I agree with most of that, but the Hebrew word for Germany, not Italy is Ashkenaz. The Ashkies definitely went through Italy at some point on the way to northern France and Germany and then towards the Russian sphere where there was significant intermarriage and/or conversions. If you look closely at their facial features, European Jews don’t really look like Italians. Evidence: I grew up in a predominately Italian neighborhood for the first 12 years of my life then a somewhat Jewish neighborhood thereafter.

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 3:08 pm

        “…Sorry, Colin, it is our land, our historic homeland. Jews in Israel are not invaders or foreigners …”

        Now there you are. Right here, somewhere on this site, some establishment Israeli historian is quoted as criticizing Shlomo Sand by saying ‘all us serious historians know perfectly well that most Jews are descendants of converts and that there was no expulsion,’ etc.

        And here’s the same, discredited fantasy. Most Jews are not descendants of inhabitants of the Palestine in the first place, and conversely, the descendants of most of the Jews who did reside in Palestine are today known as ‘Palestinians.’

        No state is a perfect ethnic island. An emphatically English friend of mine has a Minorcan great grandmother. However, there is exactly one people with a reasonable claim to Palestine, and (incredibly enough) they are the Palestinians.

      • jon s
        July 13, 2012, 5:00 pm

        The Jews are not foreigners or invaders in Israel because you’re not an invader in your homeland. It’s not as if the Jews were in the country in ancient times, and then left and forgot about it and then suddenly in the 19th century it occurred to them to manufacture a claim to it. In fact there was a continuous Jewish presence in Israel –albeit as a minority- throughout the centuries between the 2nd Temple period and the advent of Zionism, and that Jewish presence in the country played a significant role in the Jewish world. Moreover, Jews everywhere continuously expressed yearnings for a return to the land.
        Whether or not Jews today are biologically descendents of the Jews of antiquity is irrelevant.

      • Hostage
        July 14, 2012, 12:58 am

        it is our land, our historic homeland.

        The “historical connection”, was concocted to downplay the fact that the Zionists lacked any legal standing to assert a claim to the territory of Palestine during the Post-WWI peace conferences at Versailles and San Remo. The Principle Allied Powers decided there were no bases for a legal entitlement, so Lord Balfour suggested that some polite words about the “historical connection” of the Jewish people be added to the Mandate instead. The travaux préparatoires of the British Foreign Office Committee that was tasked with drafting the Mandate said:

        “It was agreed that they had no claim, whatever might be done for them on sentimental grounds; further that all that was necessary was to make room for Zionists in Palestine, not that they should turn “it”, that is the whole country, into their home.

        – See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100

        Jews in Israel are not invaders or foreigners .

        That’s a tautology. FYI, the Quartet deadline lapsed and Nuthinyahu failed to even produce a map of Israel. So how can we know for sure that your not lying (as usual)?

      • RoHa
        July 14, 2012, 1:03 am

        1) National home = Nation

        I’m going to assume you are using “nation” in the usual sense (as in “Mexico and Australia are nations”) and not the weird Zionist “Jews are a nation” sense.

        2) So let’s say that also the North American people do not have the right to a nation called US.

        If the overwhelming majority of the people inhabiting the territory between Canada and Mexico want to organize themselves into a nation, I would say that they may have a prima facie right to do so. This is not an absolute right. If, for example, establishing such a nation would seriously harm either a portion of the population of the territory, or the people of the neighbouring territories, the right becomes questionable.

        But “the Jewish people” (= all the Jews in the world) do not inhabit a single territory. They are scattered throughout the world. Australian Jews have as much right to a nation called Australia as non-Jewish Australians. Mexican Jews have as much right to a nation called Mexico as non-Jewish Mexicans. Why should they have any right to any other nation than the one they inhabit?

        Even if we restrict “the Jewish people” to only all the Jews in Israel, they are still not an overwhelming majority, and the “serous harm” consideration applies as well.

        Or that the Arab Palestinian people do not have this very right.

        Correct. The Palestinian Arabs who inhabit Gaza may have a prima facie right to establish a nation there, and, before the place became infested by Jewish settlers the Palestinian Arabs who inhabited the West Bank may have similarly had the right. But this was based on the fact that they lived there, not on the fact that they were Palestinian Arabs.

        However, all Palestinian Arabs have the right to be full and equal citizens of the country they legally inhabit. And this is what Israel denies them.

      • Shingo
        July 14, 2012, 4:05 am

        The Jews are not foreigners or invaders in Israel because you’re not an invader in your homeland.

        The territory was only a homeland to the minority you refer to and more importantly, it was not exclusively their homeland anyway.

        It’s not as if the Jews were in the country in ancient times, and then left and forgot about it and then suddenly in the 19th century it occurred to them to manufacture a claim to it.

        Actually that’s exactly how it was. There was no interest on the part of Jews to return to Palestine. In fact, when Herl came up with the idea, he was dismissed as a kook and most Jews didn’t want anything to do with the idea. Even at the height of immigration, most Jews wanted to head to the US, but opted for PAlestine when they were refused entry.

        So yeah, the claim was entirely manufactured.

      • jon s
        July 14, 2012, 11:44 am

        The Jews prayed for it, hoped for it, and kept those yearnings alive for nearly 2000 years. And, as I mentioned, the ties to the land were never severed.

      • jon s
        July 14, 2012, 12:00 pm

        Hostage, Are you saying that thousands of years of historical ties -including a continuous presence – were “concocted” by the WW1 Allies?
        “Invaders” and “foreigners” are not necessarily one and the same, so I don’t see a tautology there.
        I hope you don’t think I’m a fan of Netanyahu. I see little hope of progress towards any kind of peace as long as his gov’t is in office.
        I don’t know why you accuse me of lying. I’ve never intentionally lied on this forum.

      • Hostage
        July 14, 2012, 12:07 pm

        It’s not as if the Jews were in the country in ancient times, and then left and forgot about it and then suddenly in the 19th century it occurred to them to manufacture a claim to it.

        No they didn’t leave, because most Jews were never there in the first place. The largest Jewish communities during the second commonwealth era were located outside Palestine. There’s no physical evidence that there ever was a first commonwealth that exercised sovereignty over the mythical land of Israel.

        The myth of “the continuous Jewish presence” is another asinine 19th century Zionist fabrication. Although the phrase “Next year in Jerusalem!” was only introduced into the Hagaddah in medieval times to signify a desire for redemption and a spot in the world to come, it was appropriated by Zionists too. They back-dated it more than a thousand years and pretended it represented a mundane longing on the part of Russian Jews to live somewhere else, in a place that they actually knew little to nothing about. They claimed their unknown ancestor’s pedigrees entitled them to be the top dogs there and they literally got off the boat and demanded “the transfer of Palestine’s land, water, and natural resources to the people of Israel (themselves naturally) as their eternal possession.” See Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, Shabtai Teveth, page 99.

      • Avi_G.
        July 14, 2012, 12:15 pm

        jon s says:
        July 14, 2012 at 11:44 am

        The Jews prayed for it, hoped for it, and kept those yearnings alive for nearly 2000 years. And, as I mentioned, the ties to the land were never severed.

        Kept those yearnings alive, eh?

        Tell that to Palestinians who were expelled from some 460 villages between 1947 and 1949 when Israel razed and destroyed them. They’re still living in refugee camps.

        Tell you what, see if you can first find the affikoman before you start regurgitating phrases from your passover seder.

      • edwin
        July 14, 2012, 12:39 pm

        Persian Jews have lived in the territories of today’s Iran for over 2,700 years

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        So Jews come from Israel, except for those that don’t.

        Jewish Colonial Trust Assets

        link to porozow.net

        It is called the Jewish Colonial Trust because that is what Zionism is – a colonial enterprise. When the word colonial became a bad word suddenly all Jewish colonial activities magically became something else.

        If we are going to go to absurdities, Jews come from from Egypt, or more distantly, from Africa.

        The modern world does not have room for such messianic re-births through blood and soil. I would have thought the first time was more than enough. Today we recognize the rights of individuals to religious freedom and to marry whomever they wish. We believe, well most of us, that the rights of an individual are more important than the rights of a religion, or the rights of an ethnicity.

        Judaism does not have rights. People have rights – the right to practice whatever religion they please.

        The ancient “connections” of Judaism to Israel should have no bearing on the modern rights of individuals to run their own lives. That Stonehenge is extremely important to Wiccans everywhere does not give all Wiccans automatic right to British citizenship, nor the right to expel those non Wiccans who live near Stonehenge, and steal their homes.

      • jon s
        July 14, 2012, 1:01 pm

        The continuous presence not a fabrication, it’s part of the historical record . And it was more than just a presence, significant contributions to Jewish culture emanated from Israel. If you’re interested I could provide examples.
        The “next year in Jerusalem” phrase from the Haggadah is only one example, as is the oath to remember Jerusalem made at every wedding. Perhaps even more significant is that Jews prayed for a return to Zion three times a day on weekdays , four times on the Sabbath, five on Yom Kippur. See the 10th and 14th blessings in the Shmoneh Esreh.

      • Blake
        July 14, 2012, 1:44 pm

        jons: Jerusalem is not an Israelite city, it was an ancient metropolis of the Canaanites long before any Israelite presence in the area. Palestinian parent tree goes back further than the Israelite invasion by millenia.

        To quote the renowned historian/anthropologist and “Holy Land” specialist, Ilene Beatty: “When we speak of ‘Palestinians’ or of the ‘Arab population [of Palestine]‘, we must bear in mind their Canaanite origin. This is important because their legal right to the country stems…from the fact that the Canaanites were first, which gives them priority; their descendants have continued to live there, which gives them continuity; and they are still living there, which gives them present possession. Thus we see that on purely statistical grounds they have a proven legal right to their own land.” (“Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan,” 1957)

      • Annie Robbins
        July 14, 2012, 1:44 pm

        The continuous presence not a fabrication

        “continuous presence” of a few is irrelevant. all kinds of people have been continually present on lots of different kind of land throughout history. “continuous presence” of a few is not akin to a real estate deed. there’s not recognized ‘continuous presence of a few’ laws on the books as far as i know pertaining to dna or anything. just because i tiny minority of jews lived there they do not serve and a seat warmer for the multitudes who may or may not arrive.

        try that at a concert. send three people to go stand in line a few days early and then let a thousand come late and stand in front of the stage based on dna of the 3 ..then pull out your ‘continuous presence of a few’ routine and see how the crowd reacts. ‘but all my friends have always yearned/prayed to see bruce springsteen’ therefore my thousands of friends are using our ‘continuous presence rights of a few’ to trump your rights of standing in line for days.

        i know what you would do if that were you in line for days, you would look at the buddy’s 1000 of friends and say.. you know, they are superior people to me therefor just 3 of them is worth thousands of us. it’s the ‘continuous presence of a few of your superior dna beings’ routine that’ll get you every time.

        it’s part of the historical record

        it’s also part of the historical record some jews have blue eyes. but, like continuous presence, blue eyes do not come with a land deed. a historical record doesn’t justify ethnic cleansing.

        do you believe in the ‘continuous presence of a few of your superior dna beings’ rights for?

      • Annie Robbins
        July 14, 2012, 2:04 pm

        Perhaps even more significant is that Jews prayed for a return to Zion three times a day on weekdays , four times on the Sabbath, five on Yom Kippur.

        jon, hostage points out, and others have repeatedly claimed introduced into the Hagaddah in medieval times to signify a desire for redemption and a spot in the world to come

        so what i want to ask you is why, if, as you claim, it was an actual physical move to jerusalem they were praying for 3-4 times a day..why did so many jews opt out for all those centuries? and since the vast majority of jews opted out of the big move and only prayed for it isn’t it fair to say they weren’t too committed to their convictions? what else could explain the reason millions of jewish people didn’t find their religious convictions til zionism came along with the ‘continuous presence’ excuse routine?

      • yonah fredman
        July 14, 2012, 2:31 pm

        Annie- The return to Zion expressed in the prayers were invested in God’s hands. It was up to him to decide the timing of the redemption.

        The Shabtai Zevi movement is usually only mentioned here as a means of dissing modern Zionism, but it is relevant that so many were prepared to consider the end as having arrived and a move to Israel in the offing. (Eretz Yisroel was probably how it was referred to by those who invested their hopes in Shabtai Zevi’s messiahhood.)

        Zionism’s motto vis a vis the passivity I just cited was “In our hands”. Meaning- it is not in God’s hands to redeem us, we must redeem ourselves.
        The Zionism of the Orthodox, valuing Jerusalem, mourning Jerusalem, praying about Jerusalem, was primarily passive. Modern Zionism attempted to utilize the Zionism of the pre modern Jews and to add activism.

      • yonah fredman
        July 14, 2012, 2:34 pm

        hostage- “Next year in Jerusalem” meant a spot in the world to come? You just made that part up or did you read that somewhere?

      • Shmuel
        July 14, 2012, 3:27 pm

        Jon,

        I could quibble with you over the actual meaning of the blessings you cite (or the fact that you left out the additional prayers on Rosh Hodesh and the Regalim, or the differences between weekday and Sabbath/Holiday evening prayers), or the significance of what you call the wedding “oath”, or the continuity of the contribution of Palestinian Jews to the corpus of Jewish culture, and many other things, but I would be wasting my time.

        None of your arguments, accurate or otherwise, add up to any legal or moral basis for the establishment of a modern nation state in any part of Palestine, against the wishes of its indigenous inhabitants. Tell me that Jews needed a safe haven, that Israel has received ample international recognition, that Israel now exists and is home to millions of Israelis. I will argue, but I will concede that your arguments (right or wrong) have some basis in reality. But when you talk about the overriding right of some Jews to “re-establish” their ancient commonwealth (in the form of a modern nation state), based on the fact that their ancestors preserved a memory of that ancient homeland and nurtured a longing to return to it some day (not today though, thank you very much), and a few of their co-religionists happened to live – as subjects of various rulers and regimes – in parts of that territory over the centuries, I will tell you that you are either crazy or bullshitting.

      • Shmuel
        July 14, 2012, 3:50 pm

        I’ve just started reading Shlomo Sand’s latest book on this very subject (delivered to me under protest by an Israeli guest): מתי ואיך הומצאה ארץ ישראל [When and How the Land of Israel Was Invented]. I’ll let you know how it turns out.

      • jon s
        July 14, 2012, 3:51 pm

        Annie, I note that at least you accept that the continued presence is not a fabrication, you just think it’s irrelevant.
        Yonah Fredman’s explanation is astute. I would add, that , taking the “Occam’s razor” approach, the simple truth is that generally the Jews who prayed for redemption in the land of Israel meant what they said.

      • Hostage
        July 14, 2012, 4:12 pm

        Hostage, Are you saying that thousands of years of historical ties -including a continuous presence – were “concocted” by the WW1 Allies?

        The war time Allies never claimed there had been a “continuous presence”. It’s a matter of public record that Balfour suggested the wording “historical connection” when the delegations to the Versailles peace conference rejected the wording “historical claim”. Generations of Zionist propagandists have tried to capitalize on that signal defeat.

        There’s no such thing as a “historical presence” that the inhabitants of a place share vicariously with strangers to transform the place into everyone’s homeland. Praying about spiritual redemption and the world to come only establishes an imaginary connection, not a legal one that forms the basis of a personal claim or remedy. You can repeat shopworn hasbara all you want, but the response is never going to change.

      • jon s
        July 14, 2012, 4:12 pm

        Shmuel,
        It so happens that I also just received Sand’s book. It will probably take me some time to get around to it.
        As to the blessings: I’d like to assume that they mean what they say, and were understood as such by the Jews who recited them over the centuries.
        I know that I didn’t mention Rosh Hodesh and regalim, I wasn’t conducting a seminar, just trying to make a point.
        Off – topic here: you may – or may not- have noticed that I’ve stayed away from this forum for several months (actually since last October) -for various personal reasons. This week I’ve started posting again, and I see there are a few changes, some of them puzzling. My main question is this: Where is Richard Witty!? What have you people done to him?

      • Hostage
        July 14, 2012, 4:29 pm

        “Invaders” and “foreigners” are not necessarily one and the same, so I don’t see a tautology there.

        The fact that you claim the Jews are not foreigners or invaders because they are supposedly in “the Land of Israel” is most definitely a tautology.

      • Shmuel
        July 14, 2012, 4:42 pm

        As to the blessings: I’d like to assume that they mean what they say

        But they don’t say what you want them to say, and even if they could stand on their heads and recite Der Judenstaat backwards, forwards and sideways, in flawless German, they would still be irrelevant to modern political claims to Palestine.

        My main question is this: Where is Richard Witty!? What have you people done to him?

        We have eaten him, of course (bit stringy, with a lingering aftertaste), and will do the same to you if you are not careful. You have been warned.

      • Hostage
        July 14, 2012, 5:15 pm

        hostage- “Next year in Jerusalem” meant a spot in the world to come? You just made that part up or did you read that somewhere?

        Entire volumes have been written on the significance of “this world” and “the world to come” in Jewish soteriology. To many believers Jerusalem and Zion are just metaphors for a perfected spiritual state of things or redemption during a Messianic Age and a New Jerusalem in the World to Come that is intended only for the offshoots of the stock of the assembly of the community. Even the Jews living in Jerusalem today have been known to recite “Next Year in Jerusalem!” as part of their seder. See for example this article and the accompanying comments: link to chabad.org

      • straightline
        July 14, 2012, 5:44 pm

        Witty – here he is peddling his usual waffle:

        link to liberalzionism.wordpress.com

        I note that he’s the perennial victim even about his exodus from Mondoweiss.

      • Citizen
        July 14, 2012, 6:20 pm

        jon s, and didn’t the jews who prayed for “next year in Jerusalem” also believe that in order for this to happen a Messiah would have to first come and lead them there providing they all, every one of them, were living according to the 613 (If memory serves) commandments of G-d? I don’t recall any breaking news from the Jewish community world-wide that the Messiah came in 1947 or ‘8 or ‘9 or ’67, or ever, not to mention a time when all the Jews the world over were at last all fully practicing Judaism.

      • eljay
        July 14, 2012, 7:02 pm

        >> straightline: Witty – here he is peddling his usual waffle:
        >> RW: I am an unpopular commenter there because I remain a supporter of Zionism, although a critic of the application.

        Here are a few “greatest hits” reasons ol’ RW was “an unpopular commenter”:
        >> RW: I cannot consistently say that “ethnic cleansing is never necessary”.
        >> 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.
        >> RW: I feel that the nakba [sic] was a necessary wrong …
        >> RW: The nakba [sic] that occurred in 1948 was accompanied by the independence, the liberation, of the Jewish community. So, I primarily celebrate …

      • Hostage
        July 14, 2012, 7:19 pm

        I would add, that , taking the “Occam’s razor” approach, the simple truth is that generally the Jews who prayed for redemption in the land of Israel meant what they said.

        I would add, that , taking the “Occam’s razor” approach, the relatively small number of Jews who maintained a continuous presence in Jerusalem obviously weren’t longing for the place when they recited the phrase “Next year in Jerusalem” for 2,000 years as you seem to think.

      • yonah fredman
        July 15, 2012, 12:43 am

        Hostage- There are two possible meanings to the phrase “the world to come”. One is heaven, as in where we go after death. The other is the messianic age, or the better world that will be established on this earth after the messiah comes. Next year in Jerusalem or references to Jerusalem indeed do refer to the messianic age, but do not refer to heaven.

      • RoHa
        July 15, 2012, 3:15 am

        “The continuous presence not a fabrication, it’s part of the historical record . ”

        Who was continuously present for 2000 years? Not one individual, of course. No-one lives that long. But it is true that there have been native Palestinian Jews in Israel for the past 2000 years. There have also been native Palestinian Christians there for around 2000 years. But how does this give Russian Jews or Welsh Christians any rights to Palestine?

      • ColinWright
        July 15, 2012, 3:33 am

        “Sorry, Colin, it is our land, our historic homeland. “

        But this is simply and demonstrably not true. Jews never enjoyed either a demographic, religious, or political monopoly in Palestine, most of the then ‘Jews’ stayed right there and became ‘Palestinians,’ and most of the Jews of today are the results of conversion and intermarriage. A Filipino Christian can make as reasonable a claim to Palestine as you can.

      • jon s
        July 15, 2012, 7:25 am

        Shmuel,
        Thanks for the warning. I have the feeling that after me, you will be next. That’s what happens in purges.
        Back to the topic, and here’s where we differ. In my view the unbroken ties to the land, the continuous presence , the centuries of yearnings – they count for something. It’s something quite admirable , something we can be proud of. And the fact that some Jews translated those yearnings into deeds , actually came here to live and work under difficult conditions, also launching a remarkable cultural revolution , re-inventing Hebrew as a living language and so on- it does matter. (Incidentally – the way the Palestinians also demonstrate a commitment to their homeland – our common homeland – is something I respect .)

      • Shingo
        July 15, 2012, 7:57 am

        In my view the unbroken ties to the land, the continuous presence , the centuries of yearnings – they count for something. It’s something quite admirable , something we can be proud of.

        No it isn’t. It’s simply collective narcism and presumption of privelage.

      • Eva Smagacz
        July 15, 2012, 8:44 am

        “Shmuel, Thanks for the warning. I have the feeling that after me, you will be next. That’s what happens in purges.

        I beg to differ. I believe that in literary cannibalistic purge (you did mean pogrom , didn’t you? ) the matter of quantity (half a ton at least!) will become more significant. I am sure that poor Mooser will end up spit roasted ahead of Shmuel.

        On a serious note: you are really cheapening the suffering of people faced with real purges, by abusing the word to score cheap “remember the Holocaust” point here on Mondoweiss.

        Or you are really seeing no difference between editorial control exercised by Mondoweiss and Anti-Semitic purges?

      • Shmuel
        July 15, 2012, 9:22 am

        Thanks for the warning. I have the feeling that after me, you will be next.

        You can be my canary then.

        In my view the unbroken ties to the land, the continuous presence , the centuries of yearnings – they count for something.

        Maybe so, but not for a legal or moral claim to a modern nation state in Palestine against the will of its indigenous inhabitants. By all means, admire, be proud – but that does not a legal title or a moral right to a state on someone else’s land make. The devil is in the details. One may very well “translate” ancient religious yearnings into modern political aspirations (although I think you’ve got that backwards), but it is quite another thing to try to “translate” such self-referential aspirations into concrete claims in the real world.

        For its own, internal reasons, Zionism needs to show Jewish continuity and even supercessionism. Fine. But try to step outside that bubble for a moment and ask yourself what that actually has to do with a claim to political sovereignty that is supposed to trump the claims of the people who actually lived there – not prayed or yearned or hoped (in a vague, eschatological sort of way) or translated (into 19th century organic nationalism), but actually lived. It beggars belief that this particular claim is still given currency.

      • Shingo
        July 15, 2012, 9:33 am

        Excellent response Shmuel

      • Citizen
        July 15, 2012, 10:11 am

        Who was, or is the messiah that had to come as a precondition to returning to Israel as the Zionists have done? And what about the other precondition, the daily practice of the 613 commandments by all Jews the world over?

      • Blake
        July 15, 2012, 10:17 am

        jons: “Re-inventing” is the key word there. Modern Hebrew is nothing like ancient Hebrew.

        I may be wrong but I think I read somewhere you have the latest book by Shlomo Sand where he debunks all these myths you claim as fact.

        “After the people was exiled from its land by force of arms, it kept faith with it in all the lands of its diaspora, & never ceased from praying & hoping to return to its land and renewing in it its political sovereignty.” Among the many falsehoods contained in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, this must be most baseless, yet you can hardly describe the core of Zionism without it. After dedicating his earlier book, “The Invention of the Jewish People,” to debunking the notion that there is a Jewish nation, & the lie that it was “exiled from its land by force,” Sand now turns attention in his new book, “The Invention of the Land of Israel”.

        link to 972mag.com

      • Roya
        July 15, 2012, 12:49 pm

        Jon, genes are not land deeds. End of story.

      • Roya
        July 15, 2012, 1:05 pm

        “It’s not as if the Jews were in the country in ancient times, and then left and forgot about it and then suddenly in the 19th century it occurred to them to manufacture a claim to it.”

        That’s exactly what happened. The “continuous Jewish presence” you refer to was the minority of Jews who remained in Palestine throughout the centuries and regarded themselves as Palestinians, and who lived side by side in the Holy Land with Christians and Muslims without feeling the animalistic urge to dominate them. And correct me if I’m wrong, but I would assume they were exclusively Mizrahi Jews.

      • Hostage
        July 15, 2012, 1:47 pm

        There are two possible meanings to the phrase “the world to come”. One is heaven, as in where we go after death. The other is the messianic age, or the better world that will be established on this earth after the messiah comes. Next year in Jerusalem or references to Jerusalem indeed do refer to the messianic age, but do not refer to heaven.

        Many Jews have always believed that the coming of the Messiah will be accompanied by a new or restored order right here on planet Earth – and that it will include a resurrection of the dead:

        It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected.

        link to jewfaq.org

        So the New Jerusalem on planet Earth in the Messianic Age is still a place you can go after death.

        There is a great deal of evidence that messianic expectations include the Antinomian idea that the fasts and festivals ordained in the Torah, including the recitation of the Passover seder itself will be abolished and that only Purim will be observed in the world to come. link to torah.org

        See also Gershom Scholem, The Crisis of Tradition in Jewish Messianism link to scribd.com

        There’s also evidence of antinomianism in mainstream Judaism, not just the examples provided by the early Jewish Christians and the 17th century followers of Sabbatai Zevi. The Maccabees may have been viewed as a Messianic line. The Testament of Levi anticipated a Messiah from the tribe of Levi. Fragments of an Aramaic Levi were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea sect viewed the Maccabees as wicked priests who led Israel astray.
        link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        Not only did the Maccabees institute changes in the collection of the sacred tithe, the Talmudic literature reveals that there were significant changes to other observances. For example, under their leadership the people treated Yom Kippur like a festive occasion, almost like Valentine’s Day. “The daughters of Jerusalem would go forth, dressed in white, and dance in the vineyards – “And what did they say? – ‘Young man! Raise your eyes and behold what you choose for yourself ” (Ta’an. 4:8)”. Compare that with Leviticus Chapter 23:27-30 especially 29 “For any person who will not be afflicted on that very day, shall be cut off from its people.”

      • yonah fredman
        July 15, 2012, 1:55 pm

        Roya- “regarded themselves as Palestinians”? Please. The Jews, of the continuous presence, regarded themselves as Jews first and then as loyal (or reluctant or rebellious) subjects of the Byzantine, then the Arabian Muslims and then the Ottomans.

        If anybody living in the land between 130 C.E. and 1800 thought of themselves as Palestinians , proof of their existence has not yet surfaced. They thought of themselves as inhabitants of a particularly city in close proximity to the graves of their fathers and near their fields or trees and if they had religious beliefs near Jerusalem and other holy places. “Palestinians” is not what people were going to answer, Jewish or not, when you asked them, “Who are you?” for most of the last two thousand years.

      • yonah fredman
        July 15, 2012, 2:01 pm

        Blake- Do you read ancient Hebrew? Do you read Modern Hebrew? How is it that study of modern Hebrew allows you to understand most of the Hebrew Bible and much of the Mishna, if the two languages are unrelated? Maybe you study languages and you can tell me with precision which aspects of the language are parallel and which are divergent? Someone suggested that syntax of the grammar is very different, but the vocabulary is very similar. I might buy that. But “modern Hebrew is nothing like ancient Hebrew”? That’s nonsense and part of your anti hasbara handbook that oughta be updated by reality.

      • Blake
        July 15, 2012, 2:41 pm

        Yonah: 2 things: Firstly, there is not one word of Yiddish in ancient Hebrew. They are totally different as Swedish & Spanish which use same Latin characters for their alphabets. The Yiddish language is cultural common denominator for all the Jews in or from e. Europe.

        Secondly, Baal was the false God and the modern Hebrew word for husband is Baali, God forbade they use the word and they put it in modern Hebrew. Old Hebrew word was Ishi.

      • Mooser
        July 15, 2012, 3:05 pm

        “your anti hasbara handbook”

        Well, if there’s a “hasbara handbook” and anti-hasbara handbook is simply fair play. Perhaps we should call them ‘anti-hasbara protocols’. Does that sound good to you, yoni?

      • Roya
        July 15, 2012, 3:16 pm

        @ Wondering Jew ” If anybody living in the land between 130 C.E. and 1800 thought of themselves as Palestinians , proof of their existence has not yet surfaced . . .Palestinians” is not what people were going to answer, Jewish or not, when you asked them, “Who are you?” for most of the last two thousand years.
        This really reveals your ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject matter that you obsess yourself with. Of course people living between 130 CE and 1800 did not call themselves Palestinian, because nationalism and nation-states hardly existed 2,000 years ago; nationalism is barely 300 years old, let alone the idea of nation-states, which is a 200 year old European phenomenon. But within the context of the relatively new phenomenon of Middle Eastern nationalism, yes, Palestinian Jews regarded themselves as Palestinians and they certainly didn’t regard themselves as Israelis. During Mandate Palestine they held birth certificates titled “Government of Palestine.” Here’s a little on lingering Palestinian Jewish identity. And this, “We are Jewish Palestinians”. And Blake earlier posted a link to a review of Shlomo Sand’s new book, The Invention of the Land of Israel, which exposes the lack of Jewish nationalism before the days of Zionism. Not a lack of Jewish identity, but a lack of Jewish nationalism (i.e. before having their minds infected with Zionism Palestinian Jews had no thirst for terror and ethnic cleansing).

        Also we don’t buy anti hasbara handbooks because they don’t exist–when you have the truth on your side you don’t need to train yourself on how to think and what to say. What we anti-Zionists use is a pretty cool thing called “scholarly works.” You should get over your gag reflex for facts and try it some time.

      • jon s
        July 15, 2012, 3:19 pm

        Eva
        No I didn’t mean pogrom, and I was not alluding to the Holocaust.
        It was meant as a semihumorous comment…

      • jon s
        July 15, 2012, 3:26 pm

        The Zionists rebelled against that concept. They said: “let’s stop waiting passively for the messiah, let’s take matters into our own hands.”

      • jon s
        July 15, 2012, 3:34 pm

        Roya, you’re very wrong. The Jews in the land of Israel didn’t regard themselves as Palestinians (neither did the Palestinians , yet) and they weren’t exclusively Mizrahi Jews.
        As to the “animalistic urge to dominate” – I assume that in your view it was OK for the Christians and Muslims to feel the urge, and act accordingly.

      • Light
        July 15, 2012, 3:43 pm

        “How is it that study of modern Hebrew allows you to understand most of the Hebrew Bible and much of the Mishna, if the two languages are unrelated? ”

        Yonah, did you ever consider that speakers of Modern Hebrew don’t understand Biblical Hebrew as well as they think?

        link to zuckermann.org

        The reason Israelis can be expected to understand the Book of Isaiah – albeit still with difficulty – is surely because they study the Old Testament at school for eleven years, rather than because it is familiar to them from their daily conversation. Furthermore, Israelis read the Bible as if it were Israeli Hebrew and often therefore misunderstand it. When an Israeli reads “yéled sha‘ashu‘ím” in Jeremiah 31: 19 (King James 20), she or he does not understand it as “pleasant child” but rather as “playboy.” “Bá’u baním ‘ad mashbér” in Isaiah 37: 3 is interpreted by Israelis as “children arrived at a crisis” rather than as “children arrived at the mouth of the womb, to be born.” “Kol ha’anash m hayyod‘ m ki meqa[tcedil] [tcedi l ] r t
        neshehém le’elohím ’aakn]pcl[ erím” in Jeremiah 44: 15 is understood by many Israelis as “all the men who know that their wives are complaining to other gods” rather than “all the men who knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods.”6

      • Hostage
        July 15, 2012, 3:52 pm

        And what about the other precondition, the daily practice of the 613 commandments by all Jews the world over?

        Well that’s one of the things that’s so bizarre. The Tanakh and Talmud claim that we’ve never properly kept the commandments. When the Zionists returned to Palestine, the impossibility of establishing a state governed only by the commandments became rather obvious.

        Many of the commandments are only applicable to those so-called Jews who maintained a “continuous presence” in the Land. But they simply left them undone and unfulfilled. Even the Christians have been enlisted in attempts to provide herds that can produce red heifers, because the Palestinian Jews “went native” and forgot to keep any around. Likewise, the secret to making tekhelet, considered necessary for the performance of the mitzvah of making tzitzit in some orthodox circles, became completely “lost”. So you’d have to give the continuous Jewish presence a failing grade.

      • MRW
        July 15, 2012, 4:24 pm

        @jonah,

        Read Hostage’s archives. We’ve done this to death. You are so left-behind.

      • yonah fredman
        July 15, 2012, 4:29 pm

        Blake- Yiddish is about 15% ancient Hebrew. For example, the Yiddish word for moon is “levana”. This is the word used for moon in Isaiah a number of times.

      • American
        July 15, 2012, 4:40 pm

        Well witty’s greatest hits do put into a nutshell what the zionist belief is…and these are even echoed by most of the liberal zionist.
        I can’t say today that the American colonist wiping out the native Indians was necessary or worth it…..I prefer to believe there was some other way to accommodate the both the European immigrants and the Indians. Maybe our American ‘advancement’ wouldn’t have been as fast but advancement isn ‘t always what it’s cracked up to be.

      • MRW
        July 15, 2012, 4:42 pm

        @Shingo, agreed.

        Shmuel donates the cube of Charmin: July 15, 2012 at 9:22 am. ;-) But declines to wipe jon’s it’s-you-and-me-against-the-multitudes ass.

      • Shmuel
        July 15, 2012, 5:02 pm

        The Zionists rebelled against that concept. They said: “let’s stop waiting passively for the messiah, let’s take matters into our own hands.”

        So they understood the liturgy in a new and fundamentally different way – less like the longing of their fathers for the restoration of the Kingdom of Shaddai, and more akin say to the national aspirations of Germans, Czechs, Poles or Ukrainians?

      • Blake
        July 15, 2012, 5:13 pm

        “The source of Judaism is not the Bible, it is the Talmud. The people who wrote the Talmud are the ones who decided what books would be included in the Biblical canon. For example the Catholic church included the Maccabees in its version of the canon, Judaism did not. The books of Judith, Tobias and many others were only preserved by Christianity. The Judaism that preceded rabbinical (Talmud) Judaism was pretty much erased from history. There were Sadducees, there were Pharisees (rabbinical Jews) & Essenes. The Pharisees simply erased them from history. What we do know for sure: Rabbinical Judaism is a Judaism that hates humans. It defines only Jews as humans. ” – Yossi Gurvitz.

        Excerpt from : The Might of Israel

      • Hostage
        July 15, 2012, 5:16 pm

        Please. The Jews, of the continuous presence, regarded themselves as Jews first and then as loyal (or reluctant or rebellious) subjects of the Byzantine, then the Arabian Muslims and then the Ottomans.

        LOL! The Zio-nazis have argued just the opposite in one of the longest running edit wars at Wikipedia. They of course argue that there was no Palestinian people except of course for the Jews, e.g.:

        See the Talk pages and archives for the articles Palestinian People and Palestinian Jews
        *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinian_people
        *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Palestinian_Jews

        The true believers in blood and soil Zionism, like Dr Arthur Ruppin the father of modern Israeli culture, considered the indigenous Palestinian Jews to be racially inferior, of low moral standing, and indistinguishable from their Arab brethren in most respects. link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        But “modern Hebrew is nothing like ancient Hebrew”? That’s nonsense and part of your anti hasbara handbook that oughta be updated by reality.

        Well the idea that you can rediscover or understand every nuance, idiom, or pun in a centuries-long dead language by studying it or the post hoc discussions among the so-called sages is nonsense too.

        Someone suggested that syntax of the grammar is very different, but the vocabulary is very similar.

        That assumes that there is someone living today who is familiar with non-literary ancient Hebrew vernacular. Zuckermann argues that Israeli Hebrew is the continuation not only of literary Hebrew but also of Yiddish, as well as Polish, Russian, German, English, Ladino, Arabic and other languages spoken by the modern revivalists. See Ghil‘ad Zuckermann, Do Israelis Understand the Hebrew Bible? link to bibleandcriticaltheory.org

      • Roya
        July 15, 2012, 5:37 pm

        Jon you wanna offer up some sources or do you just expect me to follow blindly into your alternate universe?
        “As to the “animalistic urge to dominate” – I assume that in your view it was OK for the Christians and Muslims to feel the urge, and act accordingly.”
        Elaborate.

      • Hostage
        July 15, 2012, 5:55 pm

        Roya, you’re very wrong. The Jews in the land of Israel didn’t regard themselves as Palestinians (neither did the Palestinians , yet) and they weren’t exclusively Mizrahi Jews.

        Jonah we’ve been over this before. Filastin was an administrative district during the Golden Age of the Arabs and there is no evidence that the inhabitants ever stopped considering themselves as Palestinians. The Ottoman Sultan had issued a firman which permitted Jewish immigration any area in Ottoman Asia, except Palestine. The Western Consulates in the Jerusalem, Gaza, Acre, Haifa, and Jaffa called the country Palestine and the the Pasha of the Mutasarrifyya or Sanjak of Jerusalem the Governor of Palestine.

        The Delegation of leaders that went to London in 1922 said that they represented the Palestinian Arab people. The disciples of Jabotinsky who are governing Israel today can’t deny the fact that he called the Palestinians a living nation in 1923:

        As long as there is a spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but still living. A living people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions only when there is no hope left. Only when not a single breach is visible in the iron wall, only then do extreme groups lose their sway, and influence transfers to moderate groups. Only then would these moderate groups come to us with proposals for mutual concessions. And only then will moderates offer suggestions for compromise on practical questions like a guarantee against expulsion, or equality and national autonomy.
        ….
        If it were possible (and I doubt this) to discuss Palestine with the Arabs of Baghdad and Mecca as if it were some kind of small, immaterial borderland, then Palestine would still remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence. Therefore it would be necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs, which is the same condition that exists now.

        — Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs), (1923)

      • Hostage
        July 15, 2012, 7:09 pm

        ” If anybody living in the land between 130 C.E. and 1800 thought of themselves as Palestinians , proof of their existence has not yet surfaced .

        That’s bizzare, because the Zionists are always insisting that after 130 A.D. the Roman government changed the name of the region to Palestine. They certainly established provincial governments with citizens and capitals that used those names. The Code of Theodosius, a work that dates from the fifth century A.D. describes:
        *Palaestina Prima, with Caesarea for its capital, comprising Judaea and Samaria, which became the Arab Jund of Filastin, with Ramlah for its capital.
        *Palaestina Secunda, with Scythopolis (Beth Shean, Baisan) for its capital, comprising the two Galilees and the western part of Persea, became the Jund of Al Urdunn (the Jordan), with Tiberias for the new capital.
        *Palaestina Tertia, or Salutaris, including Idumaea and Arabia Petrcea, was absorbed partly into the Damascus Jund, and partly was counted in Filastin. — link to archive.org

        You’ll have to argue with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs too:

        According to historical sources, Ramla was founded at the beginning of the 8th century by the Umayyad Calif Suleiman ibn Abd el-Malik. It served as the Umayyad and Abbasid capital of the Province of Palestine (Jund Filistin), and the seat of Arab governors of the province in the 8th and 9th centuries.

        link to mfa.gov.il

        Jerusalem eventually became the capital of Jund Filistin, after the Fatimids conquered the district from the Abbasids. Its principal towns were Ashkelon, Ramla, Gaza, Arsuf, Caesarea, Jaffa, Jericho, Nablus, Bayt Jibrin, and Amman.

      • ColinWright
        July 15, 2012, 10:44 pm

        “…The Jews are not foreigners or invaders in Israel because you’re not an invader in your homeland. It’s not as if the Jews were in the country in ancient times, and then left and forgot about it and then suddenly in the 19th century it occurred to them to manufacture a claim to it. In fact there was a continuous Jewish presence in Israel –albeit as a minority- throughout the centuries between the 2nd Temple period and the advent of Zionism, and that Jewish presence in the country played a significant role in the Jewish world. Moreover, Jews everywhere continuously expressed yearnings for a return to the land.
        Whether or not Jews today are biologically descendents of the Jews of antiquity is irrelevant…”

        Better.

        However, you are talking primarily about a connection of religious sentiment. Most Christians could make exactly the same claim: there has been a continuous Christian presence — both in the form of a native population and in the form of religious establishments — there has been Christian pilgrimage, and there has been a recurrent Christian desire to ‘return’ to the Holy Land. The various false Messiahs are more than matched by the Crusades. Indeed, if anyone’s entitled to the Holy Land on the basis of sincere effort to obtain it, it would be Christians.

        Conversely, the Jewish religious claim to Palestine has always assumed the Messiah would show up and lead them there — and that until then, there was nothing to be done. Although Jews have had unimpeded access to the Holy Land at various points in time, few bothered to move there until Zionism came along. The idea of a secular ‘return’ is a novelty and completely alien to traditional Jewish religious thought.

        It is logically inconsistent to take a secular argument (Zionism) and attempt to distort a religious claim to support it. You want to employ the religious angle — fine. Settle back, wait for the Messiah, and then have at it. Pending that, there’s no religious justification for doing anything.

        Finally, anyone can make a ‘religious claim.’ Indeed, both Christians and Muslims do — we are the successors to the Jews, the one group that is truly faithful to the final honest to goodness revelation, and so it’s ours. There are a billion Christians, a billion Muslims, and fifteen million Jews. Let’s split it proportionately!

        Actually, of course, any religious claim is essentially a circular argument: it’s ours because we say it’s ours. If one is going to grant validity to that, I fail to see why the Jewish claim and only the Jewish claim has validity.

      • CloakAndDagger
        July 16, 2012, 1:10 am

        @Hostage

        In all my life, I have never met anyone as knowledgeable as you! Holy smoke! You totally blow everyone away! Only a fool would argue with you!

      • Hound
        July 16, 2012, 1:41 am

        Ah, the Zoossmann-Diskin study. That study is seriously flawed. They use only a limited amount of autosomes (17) whereas Dienekes, Douglass McDonald, and David Wesolowski use 100s of them. It’s also pretty clear that whoever ran this study has no idea how a PCA plot works. These are much better studies:

        link to dienekes.blogspot.com

        link to blogs.discovermagazine.com

        link to eurekalert.org

        Edit: And by the way, the Zoossmann-Diskin study cites Ernst Renan (a notorious antisemite) as a source. Yikes.

      • Shingo
        July 16, 2012, 4:27 am

        I second that CloakAndDagger,

        Hostage has an ability to source information that I only wished existed.

      • Annie Robbins
        July 17, 2012, 12:05 pm

        why would i think it a fabrication jon? it’s the holy land..of course there has always been christians muslims and jews there. that’s kind of a no brainer. but ‘continued presence’ is just no big deal in the home of 3 major religions. jews not being there at all, that would have been a tad odd. in fact it very much supports the notion that for the most part jews were safe there even when they were a minute percentage of the people. i’m just not getting why that minute percentage remaining in the region gives it some kind of magical power or presence into the future. as if the mere presence of a scattering of jews justifies something, a privileged status.

        the prayers for redemption i get, the exclusivity, the ethnic cleansing..not so much.

      • jon s
        July 17, 2012, 2:30 pm

        Shmuel, It would have been strange if the Jews living in Europe had not been influenced by the intellectual and political trends manifested all around them. (and I have a pretty good idea of where you’re leading with this line…)

      • jon s
        July 17, 2012, 2:53 pm

        Hostage,
        Jabotinsky published the remarkable “Iron Wall” essay in 1923 in Russian, updated and republished it in Hebrew in 1933.
        Throughout the essay he consistently refers to the Palestinians as “Arabs of Eretz-Israel” ערביי ארץ ישראל .
        The text can be found online here:
        link to jabotinsky.org

      • jon s
        July 17, 2012, 3:10 pm

        Annie,
        I was trying to point out not only the continuous presence, but also the continuing significance of the land to the Jewish people.
        I’ve never made a claim of exclusivity, nor do I suport ethnic cleansing.

      • Hostage
        July 17, 2012, 10:25 pm

        Jabotinsky published the remarkable “Iron Wall” essay in 1923 in Russian, updated and republished it in Hebrew in 1933.
        Throughout the essay he consistently refers to the Palestinians as “Arabs of Eretz-Israel” ערביי ארץ ישראל .

        That’s pretty unsurprising, but I believe that the original text of the Russian article called the country “Палестин” – Palestine and the people “палестинских арабов” – Palestinian Arabs just like the English text published in South Africa. Compare the Russian version from the History of the Jewish People and Daniel Pipes websites
        *http://jhistory.nfurman.com/zion/zion007_19.htm
        *http://www.danielpipes.org/3510/the-iron-wall-we-and-the-arabs

        FYI, the actual text of Basle Program of the First Zionist Congress did NOT use the term “Eretz Israel”, it used the term “Palistina”. link to upload.wikimedia.org

        Let’s assume your last statement is correct and let’s go down the path of your beliefs: Can you enlighten me about that “still living nation of Palestinian Arab people”, but please without the usual cherry-picking of quotes Zionist quotes in support of your claims? Can you bring instead some quotes by “Palestinians” about their own “nation” . . . what kind of nation was it, what form of government did it have? When was it created? Which were its fundamental institutions? Who were their national representatives?

        LOL! I already gave you links which explained that Jerusalem was the capital of Jund Filastin in the golden age. Adulwahab Al Kayyali, “Palestine a Modern History” documents that the Mutasarrifyya or Sanjak of Jerusalem with about 2/3rds of the Palestinian population was independent and directly linked to the Ottoman Minister of the Interior in view of its importance to the three major monotheistic religions. He also notes the fact that when ex-patriot Arab nationalists called for independence in their literature, that it had to be smuggled into Palestine. He relates that notables in Jaffa, Gaza, and Ramle were imprisoned by the Ottoman authorities as a consequence. link to archive.org

        So maybe you can give us some quotes from the Hakham Bashi, Makhlouf Eldaoudi, of the Jewish communities of Acre, Haifa, Safed and Tiberias (1889–1909) or any other Palestinian Jewish notables calling for the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Palestine during the same Ottoman period? In the 1887 parliament we see Jewish parliament member Abraham Adjiman, Menahem Salah Pasa, Ziver, Davitchon Levi and David Karmona. In the 1908 parliament Vitali Faradji Alberta Fua, Emmanuel Carasso, Nisim Mazliyah, Yehezkel Sasson and at the senate Bohor Eskenazi. Maybe you can quote the published remarks of one of them calling for an independent Jewish state in Palestine? link to sephardicstudies.org

        We know that the Ottoman Governor of Jerusalem and Palestine had deported Jews during the late 19th Century at the direction of the central government in Constantinople. See for example: link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu

        Here is a link to the debate in the Ottoman Parliament in 1911 in which the two representatives from Jerusalem, al Khalidi and al Husayni, argued that “the district of Palestine” had reached the limit of its capacity of Jewish immigrants, and that they should be settled elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire. See Yuval Ben-Bassat and Eyal Ginio, Late Ottoman Palestine: The Period of Young Turk Rule (Library of Ottoman Studies), 2011, page 111 et seq. link to books.google.com

        Neville Mandel, wrote that one of the pre-war newspapers, the Filastin, spoke of Palestine as a distinct national entity. He also noted that in 1914, a circular entitled “General Summons to Palestinians – Beware Zionist Danger” was distributed and published in the press. It warned that “Zionists want to settle in our country and expel us from it” and it was signed anonymously by “a Palestinian”. See Neville Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism before World War I, University of California Press, 1980, pages 127 and 220.

        Issam Khalidi, The Coverage of Sports News in “Filastin” 1911 –1948 explains that the newspaper’s coverage of sporting events also played an important role in Palestinian nation building. link to jerusalemquarterly.org

      • MRW
        July 17, 2012, 10:43 pm

        @Hostage, nice find.

        See PRO FO 371/5245, cited in Doreen Ingrams, Palestine Papers 1917-1922: Seeds of Conflict, George Brazziler, 1972, pages 99-100

      • Shmuel
        July 18, 2012, 2:35 am

        I have a pretty good idea of where you’re leading with this line…

        To an irrelevancy (mea culpa). The fact is that neither Jewish longing, nor the historical presence of some Jews in Palestine, nor the genetic nonsense Hound is spouting give Jews a claim to political sovereignty in that country.

        Granted, Jews had more of a connection to Palestine than to British East Africa, but they had no more legal or moral right to establish a state in the former than in the latter.

      • Hound
        July 18, 2012, 5:01 am

        “nor the genetic nonsense Hound is spouting”

        Disregarding the rest of your post (as I don’t really feel like repeating myself), how is it “nonsense”?

      • Shmuel
        July 18, 2012, 5:38 am

        Disregarding the rest of your post (as I don’t really feel like repeating myself), how is it “nonsense”?

        Funny, I had you pegged as someone who loves repeating him/herself.

        Disregarding your disregarding (except to say that I am disregarding it of course), regardless of the validity of the genetic studies you have cited and those you have dismissed (I am not a geneticist and wouldn’t know a haplotype from a mitochondrion), DNA does not make you indigenous or native to a given region (although your ancestors may have been at some point, barring other reasonable explanations), and it certainly does not grant moral or legal claims to that region. The racist, organic-nationalist implications of your use of such an argument are also, frankly, disturbing.

        Please feel free not to respond. There’s really no need for you to repeat yourself. Really.

      • Shingo
        July 18, 2012, 5:49 am

        The racist, organic-nationalist implications of your use of such an argument are also, frankly, disturbing.

        It’s more than creepy, it borders on Nazi like obsession with eugenics, though not surprisingly, Zionist did dabble in that too.

        If you want proof that Israel is incubating its own form of fascism, Huond is it. Many people think that fascism equals Nazism, but countries develop their own variant of it when the conditions are right. Israel is developing its own variation but the common threads are there: a belief in blood and soil, a belief in ‘race’ as an absolute quality, the concomitant belief that outsiders to this ‘race’ are inferior and can be punished and abused arbitrarily, a sense of grievance carefully nurtured and inflated over often mythical circumstances, elevation of militarism as a supreme value of society with its overtones of power and might mixed with a religious sense of righteousness in its deployment. And, of course, the pathological inability to see other human beings not of their tribe as equal in terms of entitlement to the wealth and resources of the country, or just as normal human beings, just like them.

        Perverted eugenic theory is indeed a fundamental aspect of Zionism. Zionism is based on the belief that all Jews and the descendants of Biblical Israelites even though the claim is founded in scientic impossibility [and explicitly contradicted by the Bible in the Book of Esther.]

      • Hound
        July 18, 2012, 5:53 am

        “Funny, I had you pegged as someone who loves repeating him/herself.

        Disregarding your disregarding (except to say that I am disregarding it of course), regardless of the validity of the genetic studies you have cited and those you have dismissed (I am not a geneticist and wouldn’t know a haplotype from a mitochondrion), DNA does not make you indigenous or native to a given region (although your ancestors may have been at some point, barring other reasonable explanations), and it certainly does not grant moral or legal claims to that region. The racist, organic-nationalist implications of your use of such an argument are also, frankly, disturbing.

        Please feel free not to respond. There’s really no need for you to repeat yourself. Really.”

        I don’t see how it doesn’t make them indigenous to the Middle East. That’s like saying a guy born in America to Irish parents is “indigenous” to America. Such a claim would be absurd.

      • Hound
        July 18, 2012, 6:09 am

        “It’s more than creepy, it borders on Nazi like obsession with eugenics, though not surprisingly, Zionist did dabble in that too. ”

        Again, I’m simply telling you what I know. Some people have a fascination with genetics and dedicate their careers to it, just like with any other science. This hardly makes them “creepy”, but to each their own.

        By the way, the only thing the Zionists collaborated with the Nazis on was Jewish immigration to Palestine, and the motives of both parties for that should be obvious to everyone.

        “If you want proof that Israel is incubating its own form of fascism, Huond is it. Many people think that fascism equals Nazism, but countries develop their own variant of it when the conditions are right. Israel is developing its own variation but the common threads are there: a belief in blood and soil, a belief in ‘race’ as an absolute quality, the concomitant belief that outsiders to this ‘race’ are inferior and can be punished and abused arbitrarily, a sense of grievance carefully nurtured and inflated over often mythical circumstances, elevation of militarism as a supreme value of society with its overtones of power and might mixed with a religious sense of righteousness in its deployment. And, of course, the pathological inability to see other human beings not of their tribe as equal in terms of entitlement to the wealth and resources of the country, or just as normal human beings, just like them.”

        Even more baseless claims. I do not subscribe to any of these beliefs that you say I do, just because I don’t agree that the Jews should be driven into the sea or shipped back to Europe, North Africa, etc.

        “Perverted eugenic theory is indeed a fundamental aspect of Zionism. Zionism is based on the belief that all Jews and the descendants of Biblical Israelites even though the claim is founded in scientic impossibility [and explicitly contradicted by the Bible in the Book of Esther.]”

        I don’t care much for the Biblical aspects of Zionism, even though it was largely a secular movement anyway (most Rabbis were initially opposed to Zionism). However, facts have shown that we do have roots in the Levant, and that we are genetically similar to modern Levantine populations.

      • Hostage
        July 18, 2012, 1:19 pm

        I don’t see how it doesn’t make them indigenous to the Middle East. That’s like saying a guy born in America to Irish parents is “indigenous” to America. Such a claim would be absurd.

        A guy born in America to Irish parents is legally entitled to be treated as part of the indigenous population under the constitution and laws of the United States and the principles of universal human rights regarding the right of each person to leave and return to their own country of origin.

      • jon s
        July 18, 2012, 3:50 pm

        As to the legal right , I’m not a legal expert , but Israel declared it’s independence as a Jewish state and was subsequently recognized by most of the world and admitted to the UN. All of which would seem to point to a firm legal foundation.
        The moral dimension is more complicated, and here is where we differ. As I see it, the Palestinians, from their perspective, certainly suffered an injustice. The Jews, on the other hand, had suffered from discrimination and persecution, a 2000 year injustice, culminating in the Holocaust. Our people were in dire need of a state, and given the historic, religious and emotional connection to the land we call Eretz Yisrael, it was quite natural for the territorial focus to be on that land.
        Now I’m not aware of any good method to weigh the relative value of those injustices. I can’t say “our injustice was 30% worse than your injustice, so we should have proportionally more land”. Any such formula would be stupid. The only possible formula is to recognize that both peoples have equal rights, including the right to a state of their own: a Jewish state- Israel, a Palestinian state- Palestine.

      • Hostage
        July 18, 2012, 5:11 pm

        As to the legal right , I’m not a legal expert , but Israel declared it’s independence as a Jewish state and was subsequently recognized by most of the world and admitted to the UN. All of which would seem to point to a firm legal foundation.

        We’ve been over and over this before. Israel had to make a unilateral declaration accepting a minority rights undertaking before it could be admitted to the United Nations:

        The Crimean War was reputedly triggered by a religious dispute between the non-Jewish communities in Palestine over the key to the main door of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. All of the Ottoman communities were subsequently placed under the protection of the public international law of Europe. See Mohammed Bedjaoui, International Law: Achievements and Prospects, UNESCO/Martinus Nijhoff, 1991, page 7, paragraph 20
        link to books.google.com

        Beginning with the Treaty of Berlin 1878, formal treaty-based protection of minority and religious groups became a part of the conventional international law of Europe for the creation of new states, including Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania. Recognition of new states and grants of territory were conditioned upon acceptance of international minority rights obligations. See Defending the Rights of Others, by Carole Fink, on page 37

        Eli Likovski wrote an essay on the Status of the Jewish Agency and WZO which explained that when the Zionist Congress said “to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine, secured under public law” that it meant “public international law”. See page 32 of Daniel Judah Elazar, Alysa M. Dortort (editors) “Understanding the Jewish Agency: a handbook, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1984

        FYI, Jews and Muslims helped patent the idea of granting cessions of territory and recognition of sovereignty on the basis of a new government’s acceptance of minority treaties protecting Jewish rights and property. At the Versailles Peace Conference the Supreme Council established “The Committee on New States and for The Protection of Minorities”. The terms of the agreements were negotiated by Jewish leaders, like Lucien Wolf. Jews, like Jacob Robinson of Lithuania, took part in the European Congress of National Minorities. He represented Jews and other minorities there from 1922 to 1926, long before he went to work representing the Jewish Agency and Israel in the United Nations. See for example
        *”The Jews And Minority Rights, (1898-1919), Oscar I. Janowsky, Colombia University Press, 1933, page 342
        *Part III Creation of States in International Organizations, Chapter 13 “Mandates and Trust Territories” in James Crawford, “Creation of States in International Law, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, 2006, page 565
        *Mr. Lucien Wolf’s Diary of Peace Conference Negotiations for Minority Treaties Bequeathed to Jewish Historical Society link to archive.jta.org
        *Jacob Robinson, Max M. Laserson, Mark Vishniak, “Were The Minority Treaties a Failure?”, New York, Institute of Jewish Affairs of the American Jewish Congress and World Jewish Congress, 1943.

        French Prime Minister Clemenceau noted in an aide-memoire attached to the treaty that created Poland that the minority protections were part of European public law:

        This treaty does not constitute any fresh departure. It has for long been the established procedure of the public law of Europe that when a State is created, or when large accessions of territory are made to an established State, the joint and formal recognition of the Great Powers should be accompanied by the requirement that such States should, in the form of a binding International convention undertake to comply with certain principles of Government. In this regard I must recall for your consideration the fact that it is to the endeavors and sacrifices of the Powers in whose name I am addressing you that the Polish nation owes the recovery of its independence. It is by their decision that Polish sovereignty is being restored over the territories in question, and that the inhabitants of these territories are being incorporated into the Polish nation…. …There rests, therefore, upon these Powers an obligation, which they cannot evade, to secure in the most permanent and solemn form guarantees for certain essential rights which will afford to the inhabitants the necessary protection, whatever changes may take place in the internal constitution of the Polish State.

        link to macalester.edu

        Minority rights were placed under the jurisdiction of the League of Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice. Individual petitions addressed to organs of international organizations, like the Bernheim Petition, were a new feature of international law that were first introduced by the League of Nations. See the Bernheim Petition and the report on “Minority Rights in Albania”, by the Albanian Helsinki Committee, September 1999.

        In 1932 the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution which required the mandated states to accept a minority rights undertaking in a formal declaration or treaty as a condition for the termination of a mandate regime. See The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758
        Stable URL: link to jstor.org

        *During the 48th session of the Ad Hoc Political Committee that was considering Israel’s application for membership, the representative of Cuba asked if Israel had supplied the required declaration? He noted that the rights were under United Nations guarantee. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf A/AC.24/SR.48 Mr Abba Eban said he could answer in the affirmative and needed a little time to produce the documents, but said that a declaration had been made by the Foreign Minister to the Secretary General on 15 May 1948.
        *At the 51st session Mr Eban said that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution when the Declaration of Independence had been promulgated as law in the official gazette. See The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86-87 and the verbatim UN record, A/AC.24/SR.51
        Mr. Eban’s explanations and Israel’s acknowledgment of those undertakings were specifically noted in the text and footnotes of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) “Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations”, 11 May 1949.

        The UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People subsequently reported to the Security Council that:

        19. In this respect, it was pointed out that Israel was under binding obligation to permit the return of all the Palestinian refugees displaced as a result of the hostilities of 1948 and 1967. This obligation flowed from the unreserved agreement by Israel to honour its commitments under the Charter of the United Nations, and from its specific undertaking, when applying for membership of the United Nations, to implement General Assembly resolutions 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, safeguarding the rights of the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel, and 194 (III) of 11 December 1948, concerning the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or to choose compensation for their property. This undertaking was also clearly reflected in General Assembly resolution 273 (III).

        The Knesset and the Supreme Court of Israel have subsequently denied that the reference to equal rights in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State Of Israel is legally binding or that it can be used to overturn conflicting statutes. link to knesset.gov.il

      • ColinWright
        July 21, 2012, 4:20 am

        “the simple truth is that generally the Jews who prayed for redemption in the land of Israel meant what they said.”

        In which case, if we grant this, that I want something means I get to have it.

        A man has a boat. I like the boat. Therefore, I can pitch him off the boat and take it.

        It’s the logic of a badly spoiled four year old.

      • Bing Bong
        July 24, 2012, 5:49 pm

        “try that at a concert. send three people to go stand in line a few days early and then let a thousand come late and stand in front of the stage”

        Except it would be more accurate to say let the thousand back in who were also there 3 days ago but were forced out of the venue. And while outside the venue were attacked constantly by, I don’t know, street toughs or whatever fits your droll analogy.

      • Abdul-Rahman
        November 25, 2012, 9:22 am

        Your old comments here are absolutely ridiculous. First you just brush aside the conclusions of Bray et al. 2010 link to pnas.org that demonstrate clearly what other people here were saying and noting; such as showing a “Heinz 57″ nature versus a supposed mythological “thoroughbred” nature that Zionist mythology promotes along with the myth of a supposed “exile” in 70 CE that no historian believes in link to muse.jhu.edu

        Bray et al. 2010 clearly say Ashkenazi Jews cluster closer to Europeans; as again: “The fixation index, FST, calculated concurrently to the PCA, confirms that there is a closer relationship between the AJ and several European populations (Tuscans, Italians, and French) than between the AJ and Middle Eastern populations (Fig. S2B). This finding can be visualized with a phylogenetic tree built using the FST data (Fig. S2C), showing that the AJ population branches with the Europeans and not Middle Easterners.”

        And then as for geneticist Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D., you (someone who gives no evidence of any scientific or academic credentials of any kind) basically just assert that supposedly “I know Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D. is ‘wrong'”. If one actually wants to read actual debate regarding an issue they can go to the section with three “Reviewer’s report”s followed by Zoossmann-Diskin’s “Author’s response”s; for example Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D. states in one response:

        “There is no need to type the same samples for all the polymorphisms, because the unit of study is the population, not the individual. One can use polymorphisms typed by different researchers using different samples and combine them to create a genetic profile of each population. Typing all the polymorphisms on the same sample does not add more credibility to the study. Indeed the renowned works that employed classical autosomal markers to portray the genetic affinities of human populations were based on many different samples typed by many different researchers [56,57]. ”

        So it is clear you simply DO NOT LIKE the results geneticist Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D.’s studies have come up with link to biology-direct.com and link to ncbi.nlm.nih.gov for example; but that does not mean some unscientific person like you can supposedly “challenge” the research of Zoossmann-Diskin who along with currently being employed at a medical facility is affiliated with the: “Department of Haematology and Genetic Pathology, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia” and the “Department of Human Genetics, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel” (look up the history of the ethnically cleansed Palestinian village of Shaykh Al-Muwannis in regards to Tel Aviv University).

        And then finally you also quickly resorted to a completely weak and absurd Ad hominem attack on Zoossmann-Diskin over his quick reference page citation of Ernest Renan which Zoossmann-Diskin, Ph.D. only uses for the following short sentence; “Where did these Jews come from? It seems that they came to Germany and France from Italy [5-8].” (with Renan’s work being listed as source number six, along with works from Israeli academics). Reading on Ernest Renan shows he was an important 19th century philosopher who is controversial by modern standards for having racialized views such as believing “Semitic” people, link to counterpunch.org supposedly were “mentally inferior”. But this in no way deserves your “yikes” for Zoossmann-Diskin including him along with three other works for one quick sentence relating to Germany, France, and Italy.

        And as for Khazars, researchers highly suspect R1a1, Q, and G are Khazar inputs, but as Zoossmann-Diskin himself has been noted to have said the Khazar hypothesis is difficult to test due to a lack of Caucasus population data. Most recently however: link to arxiv.org

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 5:46 am

        “What is a “national home”, and why do you think the Jewish people (or any other “people”, for that matter) have a right to one?”

        There’s also the point that ‘the Jewish people’ is quite a stretch right there.

        At the time, everyone was clearly thinking of European Ashkenazim — which would have been kinda defensible, although assimilated German Jews don’t seem to have felt much of a bond with Eastern Hassidim.

        But it gets absurd once you start tossing in Moroccan Jews, Yemeni Jews, Bokharan Jews. There’s a common element there — just as Norwegians and Filipinos are both Christians –but one nation they’re not.

        And indeed, that has exacerbated the problem. To maintain the illusion of nationhood, Israel has had to maintain a common enemy, and as we see currently, that need is reaching the point of absurdity. She’s trying to concoct a war with a nation that is literally a thousand miles away.

      • Avi_G.
        July 13, 2012, 8:15 am

        Very good points, Colin – incisive.

      • Shingo
        July 13, 2012, 8:48 am

        To maintain the illusion of nationhood, Israel has had to maintain a common enemy, and as we see currently, that need is reaching the point of absurdity. She’s trying to concoct a war with a nation that is literally a thousand miles away.

        Outstanding post Colin.

      • Citizen
        July 13, 2012, 12:27 pm

        Colin, almost as absurd as concocting an eternal war with “terrorism” around the world to maintain the illusion of nationhood in a state crumbling under its elite-manipulated diversity, such as the USA. Goering said at Nuremberg that it was easy to manipulate a democracy simply by instilling fear. Goering took his own life, but the US elite and Israel certainly took up his salty veteran’s walking stick. PS: Bibi, caught on tape, speaking to close fellow Jewish Israelis: “America? America is easily moved.”

        Danke schone, AIPAC et al.

      • Mooser
        July 15, 2012, 3:18 pm

        “to maintain the illusion of nationhood in a state crumbling under its elite-manipulated diversity”

        See, Woody, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Everybody knows there’s not an ounce, a smidgin, of prejudice in Citizen, he just doesn’t express his ideas in a politically correct way.
        There must be a politically correct way to say that all the minorities are “crumbling” America at the behest of the “elites”. I don’t know what it is, but it must be there. Of course, in the mean-time, what else can we do except parrot right-wing cant?

        Sure, Citizen, I know, it’s the elite involvement in America’s diversity which is “crumbling” us. Had the process been left to the real, salt-of-the-earth Americans, the right minority group members would get the affirmative action.

      • Citizen
        July 15, 2012, 9:04 pm

        Mooser, not an ounce of prejudice in you either! Kudos back to you! No balkanization going on in the USA by either political party; they never use such hole cards–move along.

    • Light
      July 12, 2012, 10:56 pm

      Nice job Jonah. You must have been studying your hasbara all day. What really amazes me is how many words you can write without saying anything that might be confused with facts.

    • ColinWright
      July 13, 2012, 12:11 am

      “…to have some basic knowledge of history and international law (the real one, not the distorted anti-Zionist version) …

      Newspeak. Your subsequent remarks make it clear that by ‘some basic knowledge of history and international law,’ you mean the Zionist version of the same, while by ‘the distorted anti-Zionist version’ you mean everything external to Zionist propaganda.

      It is a shame the Nazis didn’t have propagandists as assiduous as you. We could still be arguing about whether Nazi Germany was right or wrong, and whether its settlements in the Ukraine were in violation of international law. I suppose by now they’d be permanent as well, wouldn’t they?

      • Citizen
        July 13, 2012, 12:34 pm

        Colin, Germans still remain the largest white ethnic group in America, as they did in both WW 1 & 2 (although whites are fast headed for minority demographic status now); but the German Americans really melted in yee old melting pot. And so they contributed more cannon fodder than any against defeating their own cousins in Germany because they were morally and intellectually consistent with America’s highest values. So, how do Jewish Americans compare since the Jews have had their own totally self-governing state? The test of virtue is always power.

      • Mooser
        July 15, 2012, 3:23 pm

        “(although whites are fast headed for minority demographic status now)”

        And when that happens, we can kiss this place good-bye. You don’t think so? Look what happened in South Africa!
        My God, America with a non-white majority (whatever that means, exactly)!! What a crap-hole that’ll be. Well, better start studying the “three R’s” (razor, rope, revolver) now. I’ve heard all about what the Mau-Maus did to innocent English ladies!

    • ColinWright
      July 13, 2012, 12:16 am

      “But I am afraid of having to face the obvious and impervious: What is the point to show someone who sees only red that the world actually has different colors? He stubbornly and against all best arguments will persevere in seeing only red (especially when it comes to Israel). That’s why his arguments must be called for what they in their evident anti-Israeli/-Jewish manicheism are: as the modern form of anti-Semitism.”

      Now that is ironic. I’m actually usually plagued by the consciousness of there being two sides to any question. I can see how the contractor I am fighting with looks at things. I can be arguing with my wife — and entirely aware of her point of view in the matter at hand. Not to mention my kids, abortion rights activists, fish and game laws… I do tend to disregard my dog’s point of view, I have to grant that. But I am sure he has one — and indeed, it is legitimate. The chocolates are delicious, he can get at them, and so of course he should eat the whole box if I’m not around. I understand.

      But Israel? Nope. It really is good versus evil. Of course, I can see how the evil arose — but it’s as evil as evil can be. Now, why do you suppose that is?

      • Mooser
        July 15, 2012, 3:28 pm

        “Now, why do you suppose that is?”

        It’s dat ol’ colonial mentality, don’ com’ back to give you the heebie-jeebies, honeychile. (Sorry, but I’ve always loved Twain’s “Jim” and Twain’s rendering of his speech. So Sioux me.)

      • Hostage
        July 15, 2012, 6:22 pm

        “Now, why do you suppose that is?” . . . (Sorry, but I’ve always loved Twain’s “Jim” and Twain’s rendering of his speech. So Sioux me.)

        Twain was a anti-imperialist who ridiculed American “manifest destiny” by deconstructing the biblical myths in his Innocents Abroad mock travelogue. But he saved his most scathing satire for the Christians and Jews who wanted to redeem the Holy Land from its Muslim inhabitants in the first Chapter of Tom Sawyer Abroad

    • straightline
      July 13, 2012, 12:49 am

      Pray tell us the real history but please don’t expect us to believe Israeli government sites or jewishpress.com. They don’t have a lot of credibility in these parts. Give us some objective sources.

      “What is the point to show someone who sees only red that the world actually has different colors? He stubbornly and against all best arguments will persevere in seeing only red (especially when it comes to Israel). ” Exactly, jonah!

      Again I ask for objective sources that counter what Hostage, tree, RoHa, Shingo and others have said here. Come on!

    • mig
      July 13, 2012, 2:05 am

      jonah :

      the legitimacy and self-determination of the Jewish State (as embodied by the Israel), that means the right of the Jewish people on a own secure national home.

      This is a common misconception. That universal right for a self-determination ( which of course means we all humans, including jewish people just to make clear this ), doesn’t automatically mean any “national home”. Or state. Or autonomy. Et cetera.

      Self-determination is the principle in international law that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it be independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation.[1] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.[2] Moreover, self-determination is just one of many principles applied to determining international borders.[3]
      By extension the term self-determination has come to mean the free choice of one’s own acts without external compulsion.

    • Mndwss
      July 13, 2012, 1:51 pm

      jonah. You remind me of another Jonah. He went out to buy a bottle of milk and some stonetablet newspapers and was gone for a few weeks. Everybody was very worried.

      After a few weeks at the local pub, he was broke and had to go home. He actually managed to convince people that he had been trapped inside the belly of a fish.

      His story was more convincing than yours!

  34. RoHa
    July 12, 2012, 8:39 pm

    ““This is anti-Semitic because when people think of Jews they think of the Jewish state,” said Dovid Efune, editor of the Manhattan-based Jewish newspaper, The Algemeiner”

    “Rabbi Joshua Davidson, the Senior Rabbi of Temple Beth El of Northern Westchester, a Reform congregation. “Obviously for all of us who love Israel …”

    We keep getting told that we should not blame “the Jewish Community”, or Jews in general, for the evils of Israel. But when we see this sort of thing (and we see it over and over again), it is really difficult to remember that there are Jews who are not Zionists. They seem to be an almost invisible, silent, minority.

    • Philip Weiss
      July 12, 2012, 9:40 pm

      youre a smart cat. have you had to make other distinctions in your life, say around islamism?

      • RoHa
        July 12, 2012, 10:05 pm

        Yes. And at times it is really difficult to remember that there are Muslims who are not rabid fundmentalists with a taste for terrorism.

        However, while it seems to me that Muslims who disapprove of the fundamentalists stay silent, I don’t see much sign of approval or support of the fundmentalists. I do not see many articles, letters to the editor, or statments from Islamic organizations in support of them.

      • Philip Weiss
        July 12, 2012, 10:17 pm

        good point. how large is the max blumenthal jvp mooser contingent of jews in yr estimation, now that you’ve spent time reading their work

      • RoHa
        July 12, 2012, 11:49 pm

        Couldn’t say. I know they are there, but if I relied on the MSM I would hardly notice them.

      • Kathleen
        July 13, 2012, 9:26 am

        “However, while it seems to me that Muslims who disapprove of the fundamentalists stay silent, I don’t see much sign of approval or support of the fundmentalists. I do not see many articles, letters to the editor, or statments from Islamic organizations in support of them.”

        Great points Roha.

        And as Phillip and others know things have changed a great deal the last five or so years. With many Jews coming out and taking a stand on this as they never have before. But up until the last five or so years lets be real a massive amount of silence out of the Jewish community.

        Leonard Peltier
        “Silence, they say, is the voice of complicity.
        But silence is impossible.
        Silence screams.
        Silence is a message,
        just as doing nothing is an act.
        Let who you are ring out & resonate
        in every word & every deed.
        Yes, become who you are.
        There’s no sidestepping your own being
        or your own responsibility.
        What you do is who you are.
        You are your own comeuppance.
        You become your own message.
        You are the message.”

      • Citizen
        July 13, 2012, 12:41 pm

        RoHa, Phil has not responded to your last exchange of comments here, but I imagine he gets your point because that’s why this blog came into existence, as he has told us.

      • American
        July 13, 2012, 1:17 pm

        I agree RoHa. I think it’s impossible to tell how many Jews support Israel and how many don’t. Or more accurately how many ‘vehemently” support Israel and how many “sorta” support it by pure reflex or conditioning.
        To my knowledge no one except Jewish orgs do any polls specifically on Jews and the pro Israel org polls always show the majority support Israel and the anti zionist orgs always show most don’t or don’t support what Israel does at any rate.
        I don’t think either are that reliable because they both want to prove something favorable to their position.

      • Betsy
        July 14, 2012, 1:09 pm

        Actually, mass Muslim organizations in US & world have been issuing statement after statement after public statement disapproving of “rabid fundamental[ism] with a taste for terrorism”. The idea that there is Islamic silence on terrorism is a vicious meme — that does not seem to die — no matter how often it is rebutted by simple facts.

        Here is a recent link to Council on American-Islamic Relations re/ its stance on terror: link to cair.com

        Or this, from the Islamic Society of North America link to religioustolerance.org

        Or scroll through the Cordoba Initiative link to cordobainitiative.org

        Is the lack of awareness re/ what American Muslims have been saying a symptom a) that they are invisible to the people who make these comments? or b) that they lack power to get access to the bully pulpits of public life? or c) both

      • American
        July 14, 2012, 7:23 pm

        Yes they have and what’s so funny is that it’s the Israel firsters in congress who screamed, screeched and ‘demanded’ US Muslims should condemn publicaly Islamic terrorist……are the same congressperps that lie for Israel every day with blood dripping from their hands.

      • RoHa
        July 15, 2012, 3:20 am

        Probably c because of b.

        I don’t hear much of this in Australia because the MSM don’t make a big deal of reporting it.

        They don’t do much reporting of anti-Israeli Jews, either.

      • ColinWright
        July 15, 2012, 3:39 am

        “…However, while it seems to me that Muslims who disapprove of the fundamentalists stay silent, I don’t see much sign of approval or support of the fundmentalists. I do not see many articles, letters to the editor, or statments from Islamic organizations in support of them…”

        To be fair, this is hardly evidence that they don’t sympathize in any way at all.

        They could sympathize — but they’d be crazy to say so.

        Just as I imagine there are few really loud Israel-boosters among the Jews of Iran.

        Muslims in the West have to be very careful.

      • Roya
        July 15, 2012, 4:03 am

        Wow Betsy I wasn’t aware of this, thanks for pointing it out. I think c), is your answer, and I guess that one of the downfalls of not controlling the mainstream media is that you don’t get your voice heard when it doesn’t benefit the agenda of those who do.

      • traintosiberia
        July 15, 2012, 11:26 am

        Though I will add that following 911, a large number of Imams and theologians occupying powerful positions across Islamic belts from Indonesia to morocco criticized the attacks on religious grounds .They did almost immidietly after the event .Thus it can be said that the denunciation was not coerced or disingenous Not a single gathering other than Palestininian celebrated the attack.

      • Mooser
        July 15, 2012, 3:38 pm

        “you’ve spent time reading their work”

        “You call this work?

        Phil, please don’t belittle Max Blumenthal and JVP by mentioning me in the same breath with them. No matter what you think of them, they do not deserve it. I am a commenter at your website, and anonymous, at that. They are, well, Max Blumenthal and JVP and the depth of their commitment and the bravery of their actions is indispitable (unless “are indisputable” is the mot orthographique. but I don’t think so.)

      • Mooser
        July 15, 2012, 3:49 pm

        Sorry, should be “indisputable”.

    • ColinWright
      July 13, 2012, 12:05 am

      “Obviously for all of us who love Israel …”

      It seems self-evident to me that someone who ‘loves Israel’ accepts responsibility for its crimes. Can one ‘love Stalinism’ and somehow disavow its crimes?

      • edwin
        July 13, 2012, 8:01 am

        Colin, please.

        Zionism and Stalinism are two ideologies. Israel is a state. You are comparing two different things here.

        One can love a state and disavow its crimes. See for example:

        How Would a Patriot Act?

        If one loves Israel as the Zionist State then I would agree with you, even noting that a few Zionists manage to some pretty strong criticisms of Zionism. I would also agree that it is uncommon or even rare for someone to “love Israel” but to see Zionism as a form of extreme nationalism. That does not mean that it can not be done.

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 3:20 pm

        “Zionism and Stalinism are two ideologies. Israel is a state. You are comparing two different things here.

        One can love a state and disavow its crimes. See for example…”

        Not really. In other cases, your distinction would be valid. One could, for example, love Germany but reject Naziism. There was a whole community of expatriate Russians who loved Russia but rejected Communism.

        Israel, however, is different. There would indeed be a Germany even if Naziism had never happened — but there never could have been an ‘Israel’ without Zionism.

        To hate Zionism is to hate Israel. The one is necessary for the other. Your distinction is meaningless.

      • Citizen
        July 13, 2012, 12:46 pm

        Colin, it’s never been a question of loving “Stalinism” but accepting responsibility for his crimes, or ignoring his crimes. Communism is a universal movement, with the same principles for all humanity. Zionism is more akin to any ism that is bipolar in nature, with automatic double standards to be applied. I am sure you can think of at least two.

      • ColinWright
        July 13, 2012, 3:21 pm

        I chose the term ‘Stalinism’ advisedly. You discuss ‘Communism’ but that is not what I was referring to.

  35. Klaus Bloemker
    July 12, 2012, 8:41 pm

    The article, Phil links to, says about the ads and the commuter line:

    – “Commuters reported seeing the posters in Chappaqua, Scarsdale,
    Mount Kisco, White Plains and Tarrytown …”
    He [Henry Clifford] wanted to target Westchester [Jewish community]
    because he was looking for “high IQ readers.””
    ————————
    I’m a little authority on this commuter line. It must be the Harlem line.
    I stayed for a month in New Rochelle, that’s one stop beyond Scarsdale.
    I commuted every day to NYC. – So: I belonged for a month to the
    “high IQ” people on that line.

    The people I stayed with were German friends by the name ‘Bloch’.
    They told me, their neighbors had of course thought they were Jewi