Palestinians establish new village– Bab al-Shams, ‘Gate of the Sun’– in Occupied E1

ActivismIsrael/PalestineMiddle East
bab al shams
First new Palestinian village since 1967 in the E1 area between East Jerusalem and the West Bank, established January 11, 2013. (Photo: ActiveStills)

Today in a show of defiance against Israel’s occupation and announced settlement expansion in the E1 area between East Jerusalem and the West Bank,  250 Palestinians erected tents near the village of Za’I’m and announced the establishment of a new Palestinian village named Bab al-Shams (Gate of the Sun).

“Because this is our land and it is our right to inhabit it,” said a statement by the Popular Struggle Coordinating Committee (PSCC) who spearheaded the action, “we will not remain silent as settlement expansion and confiscation of our land continues.”

“We have set up 20 tents, and have enough equipment to stay here for a long time,” said PSCC spokesperson Abir Kopty (a frequent contributor to this site) to the Agence France-Presse. Following the construction, the Israeli military promptly ordered the villagers to evacuate the camp and delivered an eviction notice. The Israeli military then returned several hours later to issue a second set of eviction documents, according to Tweets from activists present on the groud. However, Israel’s High Court has already decided that the village cannot be evicted for the next six days, according to Bab al-Shams villagers.

Earlier today the PSCC released the following statement, clarifying that Bab al-Shams is not a symbolic action and the group intends to maintain the new village as a permanent establishment:

We, the sons and daughters of Palestine from all throughout the land, announce the establishment of Bab al-Shams Village (Gate of the Sun). We the people, without permits from the occupation, without permission from anyone, sit here today because this is our land and it is our right to inhabit it.

A few months ago the Israeli government announced its intention to build about 4000 settlement housing units in the area Israel refers to as E1. E1 block is an area of about 13 square km that falls on confiscated Palestinian land East of Jerusalem between Ma’ale Adumim settlement, which lies on occupied West Bank Palestinian land, and Jerusalem. We will not remain silent as settlement expansion and confiscation of our land continues. Therefore we hereby establish the village of Bab al-Shams to proclaim our faith in direct action and popular resistance. We declare that the village will stand steadfast until the owners of this land will get their right to build on their land.

The village’s name is taken from the novel, ‘Bab al-Shams,’ by Lebanese writer Elias Khoury. The book depicts the history of Palestine through a love story between a Palestinian man, Younis, and his wife Nahila. Younis leaves his wife to join the Palestinian resistance in Lebanon while Nahila remains steadfast in what remains of their village in the Galilee. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Younis smuggles through Lebanon and back to the Galilee to meet his wife in the ‘Bab Alshams’ cave, where she gives birth to their children. Younis returns to the resistance in Lebanon as his wife remains in Bab Al Shams.

Bab al-Shams is the gate to our freedom and steadfastness. Bab al-Shams is our gate to Jerusalem. Bab al-Shams is the gate to our to our return.

For decades, Israel has established facts on the ground as the International community remained silent in response to these violations. The time has come now to change the rules of the game, for us to establish facts on the ground – our own land. This action involving women and men from the north to the south is a form of popular resistance. In the coming days we will hold various discussion groups, educational and artistic presentations, as well as film screenings on the lands of this village. The residents of Bab al-Shams invite all the sons and daughters of our people to participate and join the village in supporting our resilience.
 

 

A police contingency has blocked entry to the site, and there is still no decision on what is to be done with those already there.

Abdallah Abu Rahma, a leading Palestinian activist, said that the decision to build the new village sends the message that “Palestinians are no longer content with policies of occupation and settlement.”

According to Abu Rahma, the project was started roughly a month ago, mainly by Palestinian residents of villages in danger of having their lands “frozen” to accommodate settlement expansions. The activists are from A-Tur, Isawiyah, Abu Dis, al-Eizariya, and Anata, among other places. Abu Rahma that the activists will reside at the location until their outpost is recognized.

On Friday morning, 25 tents were erected for residents, as well as one to be used as a health clinic. Activists stated that they will hold daily events to discuss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s settlement policies.

Throughout the day Palestinian activists used social media to photograph and provide updates of the status of their new village and run-in with the Israeli Border Police. They also made a live-stream account where viewers can log in to watch in real time.

Screen shot 2013 01 11 at 5 40 46 PM
 
Screen shot 2013 01 11 at 5 32 59 PM
 
Screen shot 2013 01 11 at 5 33 14 PM
 
Screen shot 2013 01 11 at 5 47 28 PM
 
BAUslUBCcAAznjq
Making tea Bab al-Shams, new Palestinian village on the hilltops overlooking Jerusalem. (Photo: @Tweet_Palestine/Twitter)
BAUbs7jCEAA7ZmM
First Friday prayer in the newly created village of Bab al-Shams, Palestine January 11, 2013. (Photo: ActiveStills)
BAUZ2nICMAAJ7Ix
First flag set in the new Palestinian village of Bab al-Shams January 11, 2013. (Photo: Abir Kopty/Twitter)

Israel’s plans to construct in E1 include 4,000 new housing units and an additional 1,000 hotel rooms. The settlement expansion was announced as a punitive measure after the Palestinian United Nations non-member observer bid last November, sparking outcry from Palestinians and the international community.

160 Responses

  1. Annie Robbins
    January 11, 2013, 1:06 pm

    Israel’s High Court has already decided that the village cannot be evicted for the next six days

    really looking forward to following this story. this is an incredible move taken by palestinians. i hope the world pays attention.

    • Kathleen
      January 12, 2013, 8:12 am

      The only way folks in the US will pay attention is if they find out about this necessary move by the Palestinians. And you can be sure they will not be hearing about it on any hmmm ‘liberal’ outlets like MSNBC that is unless Chris Hayes mentions this development today (Sat or Sun). Bet Amy Goodman covered it. Anyone hear anything on NPR? As Mondoweiss has pointed out NYbloody Times mentioned the new development but not the illegal occupation of the West Bank.

      This statement by Palestinian activist Abdullah Abu Rahma is confusing “Palestinians are no longer CONTENT with policies of occupation and settlement” Don’t think the Palestinians have ever seemed “content” with Israel’s illegal activities. Maybe somewhat and understandably beaten down but never content.

      • gingershot
        January 12, 2013, 1:54 pm

        Huffingtonpost has an article up about this – fairly ‘fact based’ but on the superficial side – not very helpful in giving the deeper story/analysis. The comments are helping make up for it

        link to huffingtonpost.com

    • Bumblebye
      January 12, 2013, 2:49 pm

      Apparently Netanyaboosucks has ordered the army to evict the encampment and impose a closed military zone on the area:
      link to guardian.co.uk
      More illegal orders which will undoubtedly be willingly carried out by a bunch of fools on stolen land with no consequences to them or their government.

  2. gingershot
    January 11, 2013, 1:34 pm

    Go Palestine! This is the way!!!

    This is what Israel cannot fight – or at least what Israel ‘does least well’.

    They ‘don’t do Ghandi’

    This is a positive step for the beginning of the long process of building the non-Apartheid One State – Palestinians taking Palestine back

    • Annie Robbins
      January 11, 2013, 1:39 pm

      gingershot, the comments at haaretz are very telling also. this is huge.

      • gingershot
        January 11, 2013, 2:46 pm

        These are the kind of moves the whole world gets behind – I can just feel this one

  3. giladg
    January 11, 2013, 1:49 pm

    The only thing that this move emphasizes is the level to which Palestinians reject Jewish history in this region and especially in Jerusalem. Because acknowledging the history of the Jewish people would open the door to reconciliation and sharing, and the Palestinians are not interested in either. And the sooner Jewish activists for the Palestinians realize this, the better. The other anti-Semites will carry on with their business as usual, no matter what happens.
    Jews have shown and proven they are willing to share and compromise, but not if it means suicide. The Palestinians are not independent enough to make the bold decisions needed for compromise and sharing. Islam is right there in the middle of it all and the Koran included anti-Semitic chants long before the establishment of the modern State of Israel and the story of the Palestinians. Inconvenient details?

    • justicewillprevail
      January 12, 2013, 6:17 am

      No, convenient hasbara. A litany of cliches and self-serving myths, none of it remotely true. Laughable.

      • giladg
        January 12, 2013, 1:48 pm

        As religion is at the core of the conflict, I would advise you to brush up a little on your study of the Koran. You may just learn a thing or two. I loose faith in mankind when you come across activists who are intensely involved but who choose to remain intensely ignorant. Do the hard work justicewiiprevail!

      • Annie Robbins
        January 12, 2013, 1:58 pm

        religion is not at the core of the conflict, colonialism is. even if that were the case, your comment about ‘acknowledging jewish history’ is related to judaism, not the koran. if you think palestinians don’t like having their homes bulldozed because of the koran you are sorely mistaken. if you think people don’t like occupation, the theft of their land and resources because of the koran you’re a fool.

        what you want from palestinians, and from us, it to recognize some alleged land deed from god to the jews and then pretend the rejection of that claim is religiously inspired. it’s not.

        also, you act like there’s some natural inclination of mankind to grant a modern legal deed on land due to some past centuries land holding by an alleged relative 3000 years ago, some biblical holding. this kind of recognition of deed just doesn’t exist in todays world which is EXACTLY why netanyahu committed fraud at oslo (which he bragged about) to be the decider about what constituted closed military zones in the west bank allegedly for israel’s ‘security’ (a lie), to steal the land just like it stole the other land on the pretext of aquiring it thru warfare (against international law). here in the real world land is passed on by selling it but palestinians are not interested in selling their land, which has nothing to do with the koran.

      • chinese box
        January 12, 2013, 4:20 pm

        religion is not at the core of the conflict, colonialism is.

        Right on Annie. Getting more people to understand this is the key to change. Although I’m sure giladg is perfectly happy to let people continue wallowing in ignorance. I’ve found that people who believe it’s about religion are often the same ones who believe this I/P conflict has been going on for “thousands of years” (eye roll).

      • giladg
        January 12, 2013, 5:14 pm

        The Palestinian desire for a single nation identity, which has never existed previously in all of history, inextricably links two things. Arab pride and Islamic symbols. The Palestinian people want to control the Temple Mount, something that they believe will elevate their status in the Arab and Muslim world. Unfortunately for them, Jews also have a history in the same places they have set their eyes upon. The Temple Mount is the holiest site for Jews. As the Palestinians know this, the obvious tactic for them is to deny the Jewish connection. The modern spin on the conflict is to push colonialism and racism and does a great job in masking the religious aspect to it. It is in the Palestinian interest to keep the spotlight off the religious significance to the conflict. I don’t know how many years it will take for the mask to be exposed. It will happen. To say the conflict is not a religious one is to take a short sighted and naive approach to your world view. Political correctness in leftist circles treats the religious side to the Palestinian struggle like a hot potato. Start pealing away the skin of this potato and you will discover the point I am trying to make about Palestinian rejectionism. The current conflict is a result of the rejection of the Arab and Muslims that Jews have a religious connection to the land. If Jews have a connection, and we know they do, then Palestinians will need to start talking about sharing. No Palestinian leader has yet to go down this road. The talk about 22% of historic Palestine is purely a distraction. It is all about Jerusalem.

      • Mayhem
        January 12, 2013, 6:43 pm

        This claim that the settlement of Jews in Israel is colonialism is complete bunkum and is trumpeted by those lazy thinkers who want to put Israel into a dirty bucket so its existence can be conveniently criticized. There is nothing in common between historic colonialism or even “neocolonialism” and the resettlement of the Land of Israel by Jews according to Zionist philosophy.

        The Britannica defines colonialism as follows:

        A political-economic phenomenon beginning about the year 1500 whereby various European nations discovered, conquered, settled, and exploited large areas of the world.

        There are five characteristic elements in European colonialism and Israel has not demonstrated any of these:

        All colonial powers were motivated and driven by material profits to the mother country. Material gain could be achieved either by plundering the local treasures or by exploitation of local natural resources (including labor) and transferring them to the mother country, or by opening captive markets for products of the colonizing country.

        Conquest of colonies by military force; this was typical of traditional European colonialism (“gunboat diplomacy”).

        Maintaining the rule of the colonizing power over the local population by garrisons (i.e., revolving military units) generally under the command of colonial military governors.

        Imposing the culture of the colonizing power (i.e., language, religion, legal system, etc.) on the local native population, generally by force.

        Export of surplus or undesirable populations of the colonizing power to certain colonial territories (e.g., Libya, Algeria, Australia).

        Zionism advocates the return of Jews to the land of their ancestors from which they were exiled by brutal military conquests. There were two such major exiles in Jewish history – in 586 BCE and six hundred fifty-eight years later, in 72 AD. Both exiles were associated with the total destruction of Jerusalem, the ancient Jewish capital, and the demolition of its temple. The eastern hill of Jerusalem where the citadel captured by King David once stood, south of the Temple Mound, has been called Mount Zion. This name became synonymous with Jerusalem; hence Zionism.

        Quoting the Britannica again:

        Although Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the late 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient and deep-felt nationalist attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to Palestine, the promised land where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion. This attachment to Zion continued to inspire the Jews throughout the Middle Ages and found its expression in many important parts of their liturgy.

        Zionism has emerged even earlier than what I have just cited from the Britannica. Psalm 137:

        Besides the streams of Babylon we sat and wept at the memory of Zion … Jerusalem, if I forget you, may my right hand wither, may I never speak again, if I forget you!

        The Psalm is a twenty-five hundred years old Zionist expression. Nehemiah, who came to Jerusalem about 440 BCE, giving up a high position in the Persian court, was a Zionist and so was Hillel who emigrated from Mesopotamia four hundred years later. So was Judah Halevi, the philosopher poet who wrote:

        Better a day in the land of God than a thousand on foreign soil, the ruins on the Holy mount than coronation halls…

        As a result of the perpetual yearning of the Jewish people for the Land of Israel, Jewish communities existed there continuously since the destruction of the Second Temple to date, notwithstanding its destroyed or occupied capital.

        Now where is the analogy with colonialism? The Jews who immigrated to the Land of Israel over the millennia never represented an alien colonizing power. French Jews who immigrated to the Land of Israel did not do this for the sake of France, Russian Jews did not represent the colonial ambitions of Russia, German Jews did not have the economic welfare of Germany in mind, and so on. The only remote analogy of the establishment of peaceful settlements in another country by a persecuted minority is that of the Pilgrims in 1620; but even they had no historical claims to the land they made their new home.

        Moreover, Jewish immigrants throughout the centuries did not grab land by force; they purchased it. Only the brutal War of Survival of 1948, which was initiated by the Arabs, changed this trend forcing the Israelis to confiscate Arab land to maintain their survival in a hostile region. Jews obviously did not plunder their own land for the benefit of any foreign colonial power. They did not impose Judaism on the local Arab population. The current practice of the Hebrew language by many Arabs is a matter of convenience for those who wish to maintain ties with the technologically advanced Israeli economy. Even in terms of globalization, the State of Israel is not a domineering force, definitely not when it comes to the local Arabs.

        So where in the world did Israeli Jews practice colonialism in any sense? This is a myth disseminated by the same Palestinian Arabs who claim that the existence of the Jewish temple in their ancient capital is a Zionist myth. These kinds of myths need to be dispelled so that we can get to the crux of the conflict.

        Adapted from link to palestinefacts.org

      • Cliff
        January 12, 2013, 7:29 pm

        The Palestinian desire for a single nation identity, which has never existed previously in all of history, inextricably links two things.

        Gilad-g,

        Palestinian nationalism never existed before it existed.

        That puts Palestinian nationalism in the same standard as every other nationalism and every other IDEA for that matter.

        Before your start/end date for relevance – those people who call themselves and identify as ‘Palestinian’ were still first and foremost human beings with natural rights.

        They can identify anyway they wish but nevertheless they were still people. You kicked them off their land and out of their homes to bring in a bunch of European Jews who stole Palestinian property, land, homes, etc.

        Your summary of Palestinian nationalism as consisting of 2 components is pure nonsense.

        Are you a settler? That would explain why you’re so tin-foil-hat.

      • Cliff
        January 12, 2013, 7:30 pm

        You don’t know anything about the Quran, giladg.

        You have selected quotes (no doubt fabricated) by Zionist and Neoconservative hate-sites and blogs (Elders of Ziyon, Pam Gellar, etc.)

      • Annie Robbins
        January 12, 2013, 7:39 pm

        All colonial powers were motivated and driven by material profits to the mother country.

        that’s simply untrue. link to en.wikipedia.org

        Colonization (or colonisation) occurs whenever any one or more species populate an area. The term, which is derived from the Latin colere, “to inhabit, cultivate, frequent practice, tend, guard, respect”,[1] originally referred to humans. During the 19th century, biogeographers appropriated the term to also describe the activities of birds, bacteria, or plant species. Human colonization is a narrower category than the related concept of colonialism. Colonization refers strictly to migration, for example, to settler colonies, trading posts, and plantations, while colonialism deals with this as well as the ruling of new territories’ existing peoples.

        there’s simply no requirement of a motivation driven by material profits to the mother country. that is what is referred to as “Neo-colonization”.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        furthermore don’t be fooled into believing palestinefacts.org has any relationship to facts about palestine. it’s a hasbara site.

      • tree
        January 12, 2013, 8:12 pm

        … is trumpeted by those lazy thinkers…

        Its deeply ironic, if not just downright hilarious, that Mayhem excoriates “lazy thinkers” by cutting and pasting from the two bit hasbara site, “palestinefacts”. He’s too lazy to even come up with his own arguments, and instead just regurgitates in toto, short of a spare sentence here or there. Isn’t it a violation of comment policy to quote verbatim and at length without attributing. (“Adapted from” is a lie, its a verbatim cut and paste.)

        Here’s a thought for you to ponder, Mayhem. If you also believe the bit of hasbara that says that Jews are a nation unto themselves, separate from any other nation, then that Jewish nation is the “mother country” that sought to benefit from the colonization of Palestine. Of course, Annie is correct in saying that a “mother country” is not a necessary element of colonialism. I do find it quite fascinating however that modern Zionists can, at the very same time, insist that there was always a Jewish Nation, even before and beyond Israel, and then insist that there was no “mother country(or nation)” that sponsored the colonizing of Palestine.

        I say modern Zionists here because the early Zionists knew that they were colonizing and always described their activities as such. Of course, now that colonialism has such a bad name, the modern day Zionists are force yet again to falsify history.

      • Elliot
        January 12, 2013, 8:21 pm

        @Giladg
        The Temple Mount is the holiest site for Jews.
        That is not true for the overwhelming majority of American Jews. They couldn’t care less about Haram el-Sharif: it’s got a pretty mosque on it: it’s a Muslim holy site. Even though they could easily visit this “holiest site”, American Jews don’t. They spend all their time there down below, at the Western Wall, which is, the holiest site for Jews.
        Certainly, if the prospect of peace hinged on Muslims retaining control of the mosques on the temple mount, American Jews would have backed a peace settlement with Palestinians yesterday.
        Ditto for most Israeli Jews.

      • giladg
        January 13, 2013, 2:00 am

        American secular Jews are a dying breed. In California for example, the assimilation rate is close to 70%. Why would anyone concerned with the long term safety and security of the single Jewish State, want to listen to the category of American Jews Elliot places himself in? The Western Wall is the holiest site for Jews to pray at. It itself is not the holiest site. Unfortunately Elliot, as well as far too many secular Israeli Jews, show similar ignorance.

      • giladg
        January 13, 2013, 2:05 am

        You cannot be a colonialist if you are returning home, especially after purchasing land only to be then denied access to further purchases and then subjected to terror and wars.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 13, 2013, 4:16 am

        You cannot be a colonialist if you are returning home

        i covered your ‘returning home’ concept earlier in the thread: link to mondoweiss.net

        this is just not a sentiment most people recognized or find compelling unless they’ve been brainwashed. it’s hard to wrap ones head around a place you call ‘home’ because an ancient ancestor lived there a few thousand years ago.

      • giladg
        January 13, 2013, 6:06 am

        The problem Cliff, is that the Palestinians want to advance their national struggle at the expense of another religion and people. The two should not be allowed to be placed in the same ring, but you seem to think that it is okay. I am all for the protecting the rights of human beings, on an individual level, but when those same human beings get together and form a national movement that has its aims and objectives that will cause a crushing blow to another people and religion, then I will not accept this and will fight with everything I have to make sure that this objective is not met. On a humanitarian level I can, have and will treat everyone equally. On a national level, this is another story, especially as the Palestinian national movement finds no place for Jewish history and heritage.

      • Shmuel
        January 13, 2013, 6:23 am

        but when those same human beings get together and form a national movement that has its aims and objectives that will cause a crushing blow to another people and religion, then I will not accept this and will fight with everything I have to make sure that this objective is not met

        So which anti-Zionist organisations have you joined?

      • Mayhem
        January 13, 2013, 6:55 am

        it’s hard to wrap ones head around a place you call ‘home’ because an ancient ancestor lived there a few thousand years ago

        @Annie, you might have a difficulty identifying with a ‘home’ as you describe it, but that is because you cannot appreciate or understand the intrinsic connection all Jews feel and express every year at end of the Passover seder when they say “Next year in Jerusalem”.
        Israel in its formation and first 20 years of its existence manifested no colonialist characteristics, so the remark

        colonialism deals with this as well as the ruling of new territories’ existing peoples.

        has no possible validity pre-1967.
        To say then that Israel suddenly became a colonialist entity is somewhat ludicrous in view of the fact that Israel fought a defensive war in 1967 and had not yet demonstrated any colonialist ambitions or intentions.

      • justicewillprevail
        January 13, 2013, 8:36 am

        gg, everything you say is true for Palestinians, who are suffering due to a nationalist, messianic movement. I take it then, that you will not accept this and recognise their right to ‘fight with everything they have to make sure this objective is not met’. Otherwise you are just another zionist hypocrite.

      • talknic
        January 13, 2013, 8:46 am

        giladg “The problem … is that the Palestinians want to advance their national struggle at the expense of another religion and people”

        By wanting their rights to be respected? WOW!! That is all they ask for. Their legal rights under the Laws and UN Charter Israel agreed to uphold. Laws and a Charter written in large part BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED TO JEWISH FOLK UNDER THE NAZIS!!

        “The two should not be allowed to be placed in the same ring, but you seem to think that it is okay”

        The Zionist Federation dis-agrees with you, they made the choice in the 1890’s. Long before the Holocaust, long before the 1920’s and riots

        ” I am all for the protecting the rights of human beings, on an individual level, but when those same human beings get together and form a national movement that has its aims and objectives that will cause a crushing blow to another people and religion, then I will not accept this and will fight with everything I have to make sure that this objective is not met”

        Interesting. That would be the Jewish state, given completely gratis over 50% of Palestine and after declaration illegally acquiring by war a further 50% of what remained of Palestine.

        What you’re saying is complete nonsense and contradicted by your attempts to defend the usurping of the Palestinians

      • American
        January 13, 2013, 10:28 am

        gilad says:

        The problem Cliff, is that the Palestinians want to advance their national struggle at the expense of another religion and people.
        >>>>

        LOL….The problem gilad is the Jews want to advance their national struggle at the expense of another religion and people.

        Are you sure you’re not a anti jewish/anti Israel agent posing as a Israeli trying to show us how hypocritical and narcissistic they are?
        Can’t think of another reason you would make such a dumb statement, unless you really are such a narcissistic Israeli it has impaired your brain.

      • bintbiba
        January 13, 2013, 10:53 am

        Shmuel, Hello!
        Always brief, concise and to the point.
        gilad seems so desperate…I feel pity, keeps digging his hole deeper and deeper.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 13, 2013, 3:37 pm

        you cannot appreciate or understand the intrinsic connection all Jews feel and express every year at end of the Passover seder when they say “Next year in Jerusalem”.

        obviously, not all jews translate that “intrinsic connection” as you do, as a physical ‘returning’ to a place similar to a persons concept of ‘home’. as i said earlier, this is just not a sentiment most people recognized or find compelling unless they’ve been brainwashed. you can’t really expect the rest of humanity to buy into this sentimental emotional component of ‘home’ because you do.

      • Shmuel
        January 13, 2013, 4:03 pm

        Thank you, bintbiba.

        Thank you also for your comment on the passage I cited from Romain Gary’s Roots of Heaven the the other day. I’m glad you saw the beauty and hope in his words. May Palestine always be blessed with “elephants” like Bassem Abu Rahmah.

      • tree
        January 13, 2013, 4:13 pm

        You cannot be a colonialist if you are returning home

        I guess that means they’ll have to rewrite all the textbooks on European colonialism in Africa, since the Europeans were only “returning home” to their origins in Africa in exactly the same way that European Jews were “returning home” to their origins in Palestine. In fact the European case for “returning home” to Africa is stronger, since not all Jews originated from Palestine, but all humanity originated in Africa.

      • Elliot
        January 13, 2013, 4:18 pm

        @Giladg
        You fault the Palestinians for using a Muslim holy site as a political tool:
        The Palestinian people want to control the Temple Mount, something that they believe will elevate their status in the Arab and Muslim world.

        and yet your concern with Judaism only goes as far as that will serve Israeli needs:

        Why would anyone concerned with the long term safety and security of the single Jewish State, want to listen to the category of American Jews Elliot places himself in?

        P.S. In case you’re interested, I actually don’t care for “holy sites” myself.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2013, 4:26 pm

        “The Palestinian desire for a single nation identity”

        Looks to me like all they want is what was stolen from them. After that they may see about their “single nation identity”.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2013, 4:33 pm

        Mayhem, shut up. “Colonialism” is something people do. When they do those things, it’s called “colonialism”. Why they do them is an interesting question, but it has no bearing at all on what their actions are called. Sure, if you want to put a modifier in front of it (“religious colonialism” “mercantile colonialism” “military colonialism” “benevolent colonialism” or whatever) that’s fun, too.
        But it doesn’t change the facts, nor the description of what Zionists do. It’s a colonial ideology, with colonial aims, and it took, what do you know, colonial actions. But even if the first two were missing the last one (“actions”) is enough.
        Of course, if one wanted to, one could even make a distinction between “legal colonialism” and “criminal colonialism”. Wonder where the Zionists would fit in that?

      • eljay
        January 13, 2013, 4:35 pm

        >> … you cannot appreciate or understand the intrinsic connection all Jews feel and express every year at end of the Passover seder when they say “Next year in Jerusalem”.

        It would seem that “all Jews” need to understand that they are not entitled to have what they want simply because they believe they are entitled to it and express that feeling annually (or even more frequently).

        There’s an intrinsic connection all gamblers feel and express every time they gamble (“big money! come to poppa!”), but that doesn’t mean that the casino’s money belongs to them, even if that money is just their money “returning” to their Promised Pockets.

      • Shmuel
        January 13, 2013, 4:48 pm

        @Annie, you might have a difficulty identifying with a ‘home’ as you describe it, but that is because you cannot appreciate or understand the intrinsic connection all Jews feel and express every year at end of the Passover seder when they say “Next year in Jerusalem”.

        My mind-reading skills are not as keen as Mayhem’s, but I would guess that most Jews (although by no means “all” – if only because many are asleep or only semi-conscious by the time the last Passover song is sung) are thinking things like “thank God it’s over”, “I shouldn’t have eaten that last macaroon”, “I’m never coming here again for the Seder/inviting the X-es to the Seder”, “I wonder if X is seeing anyone – she’d be perfect for X”, “Mom looks tired – we should take her to a nice hotel next year”, “why does Uncle X always have to talk politics at these gatherings”, “I can’t wait to upload the pictures I took tonight – the kids were so cute”, etc.

        You’d think “all Jews” were as uptight and focused as Mayhem.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2013, 5:27 pm

        “American secular Jews are a dying breed.”

        Won’t it be wonderful, Mayhem, when there are no more Jews left? I mean, when there’s only Zionists and Jewish Leaders left? No more trouble with all those damn Jews and their varying outlooks and opinions.

        And tell me giladg, what is the minimum number of Jews needed to support a project like “Israel”? Or is the case this: It doesn’t matter how few Jews there are, as long as all of them are Zionists? Yeah, giladg, you just fight it out on those lines, that’s a sure winner. If it comes down to it, you can always go for “protected species” status.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2013, 5:39 pm

        “As religion is at the core of the conflict”

        Gosh, giladg, I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean that if the Palestinians were some other religion, they would have just let the Zionist’s move in and take their country?
        Or are you saying that Judaism compels the Zionists to act as they did?

        So I’m not quite sure what you mean.

      • Mayhem
        January 13, 2013, 5:42 pm

        @annie

        you can’t really expect the rest of humanity to buy into this sentimental emotional component of ‘home’ because you do

        I do expect others to respect a viewpoint that they don’t happen to understand or agree with. Submitting to those who have not allowed Jews to live according to their beliefs has occurred repeatedly throughout the long, awful history of anti-semitism.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2013, 5:43 pm

        “you might have a difficulty identifying with a ‘home’ as you describe it, but that is because you cannot appreciate or understand the intrinsic connection all Jews feel and express every year at end of the Passover seder when they say “Next year in Jerusalem”.”

        There you gfo Sean! There you go Klaus! You’ve got us now! This is a tip from the stable, straight from the horse’s ass. There’s that big “intrinsic” you’ve been looking for.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2013, 5:52 pm

        “American secular Jews are a dying breed.”

        And when they’re gone, watch out world!! You is gonna get your ass Haredimed, punk! And the Ultra-Orthodox can be a very tough taskmaster! Yes, sir, all you Gentiles don’t know it yet, but you is a gone goose! The only thing standing between you and Jewish domination is the American Secular Jew, and he’s a dying breed!

        Yes, sir, Giladg, when the American Secular Jew goes, Judaism can show its real potential. I haven’t laughed this hard since, oh, the last time giladg commented.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 13, 2013, 7:27 pm

        @annie I do expect others to respect a viewpoint that they don’t happen to understand or agree with.

        but you’re asking for a lot more than respect mayhem. you’re asking for us to be blind to colonialism as if it was determined by a point of view. it isn’t. its determined by actions as i have shown. you also called it ‘ludicrous’ we would call it that. don’t ask me to respect your religious pov when you’re using it as justifications for crimes against humanity. it’s asking too much. maybe it’s you who should be thinking about respecting others.

        Submitting to those who have not allowed Jews to live according to their beliefs has occurred repeatedly throughout the long, awful history of anti-semitism.

        not allowed Jews to live according to their beliefs? i’m sorry, which belief was it that is reminiscent of israel’s apartheid policies you were prevented from practicing in the past? i missed that part of jewish history.

        what previous centuries did you ethnically cleanse a people from their homes and land and a bunch of anti semites prevented this ‘self determination’ from taking place?

        this hasbara is so old and stale. go back to reut and tell them it just isn’t working anymore.

      • MRW
        January 13, 2013, 7:45 pm

        Israel in its formation and first 20 years of its existence manifested no colonialist characteristics

        ROTFLMGAO.

      • Bumblebye
        January 13, 2013, 7:57 pm

        I dunno, tree, with that teaspoon of Neanderthal genes, and mebbe a spot of Denisovan, I don’t feel cut out for the hotter climes of Africa!

      • Elliot
        January 13, 2013, 10:18 pm

        The Western Wall is the holiest site for Jews to pray at. It itself is not the holiest site. Unfortunately Elliot, as well as far too many secular Israeli Jews, show similar ignorance.
        Isn’t reality such a bummer? Either the Temple Mount is too holy to step foot on (see the Halacha on this) or the Jews are satisfied with the Western Wall as an acceptable “holiest site.” It’s just so hard to calibrate just the right amount of religious feeling for the Temple Mount with sufficient arrogance to cast off centuries of religious prohibition that put a damper on turning the site into a political symbol. Perhaps that’s why the Temple Mount Faithful (נאמני הר הבית) are such a curious anomaly.
        Of course, the Western Wall has its own set of problems but at least using it doesn’t involve any new crimes. And it serves the need Jews have for a “holiest site.”

      • giladg
        January 13, 2013, 11:28 pm

        Why is it at the expense of another religion? Explain!

      • RoHa
        January 13, 2013, 11:45 pm

        ‘you cannot appreciate or understand the intrinsic connection all Jews feel and express every year at end of the Passover seder when they say “Next year in Jerusalem”.’

        I can, because I have watched so many old films that I feel an intrinsic connection to New York. ( And especially 42nd Street.) Next year I will move in and push out those pesky Americans who don’t really belong there.

      • giladg
        January 14, 2013, 10:05 am

        Elliot, you obviously have no roots in anything, and you laugh at anyone connected to religion, just as long as he is Jewish. May not be important to you, but the Temple Mount is where the Jewish religion was established and developed, and remains central to the religion as Jews believe that one day man will again communicate directly with G-d, and it will be from this site. Until the Temple is rebuilt, the status quo can remain. Islam jumped on board regarding the Temple Mount because of the Jewish connection. The site is extremely important to Jews. The ruins of the First and Second Temples, on top of which now stand the Dome of the Rock and the Aksa Mosque, should not be touched. There are many Jews who believe that the Ten Commandments may still be buried on this site. Jews want to be sure that if these are found, that they will not be destroyed. The Arabs cannot be trusted to maintain Jewish interests on the Temple Mount. And neither can anyone else besides Jews themselves. You Elliot, have told us that you don’t care. Sorry, but your opinion does not count in the real world, and by the way, neither does mine. The radicals dictate what will be, the less than 10% who are willing to put their lives on the line.
        You jump on the human rights bandwagon and that is all you see and you have little idea what is really going on, and you have no idea what the less than 10% are doing.

      • Mooser
        January 14, 2013, 1:49 pm

        “I can, because I have watched so many old films that I feel an intrinsic connection to New York. ( And especially 42nd Street.)”

        If you’ve seen “Manhattan” and “Annie Hall” you should be fully prepared.

      • Mooser
        January 14, 2013, 1:52 pm

        “American secular Jews are a dying breed.”

        Yup, if there’s one person who is always convinced there are too many Jews, it’s a Zionist.

        And those dying-off American Secular Jews, what good are they? Never made a goddamed dime, or accomplished anything worth talking about. Never supported your lazy Zionist colonialist ass, either, huh, giladg?

        But then again, maybe I haven’t got it straight. Just think, the fewer Jews there are, the bigger each Jew’s share in the benefits will be! Maybe Gilad has a point.

      • pjdude
        January 14, 2013, 7:49 pm

        war of survival damn the whole war of independence was orwellian enough but war of survival is about as far from reality. dude they started it and had every advantage trying to pretend the war of zionist conquest the war of survival is a lie of incredible magnitude.

      • Elliot
        January 15, 2013, 8:14 am

        Giladg:
        Until the Temple is rebuilt, the status quo can remain.
        Sounds like a plan.

      • Elliot
        January 15, 2013, 9:03 am

        the Temple Mount is where the Jewish religion was established and developed,
        Per the Bible, pre-rabbinic “Judaism” started out in Mesopotamia, passed through parts of Canaan and really took shape in Egypt and the desert to its east.
        The Talmud (the basis and stuff of what we know as Judaism) came out of Mesopotamia (again) and, to a lesser extent, the Galilee.
        Post Talmudic-Judaism thrived all over the Mediterranean basin and beyond.
        All this Jewish history skips right over the “Temple Mount”.

      • MHughes976
        January 15, 2013, 2:15 pm

        There was a time when the Temple and its sacrifices occupied an exceptionally important place in Judaism, though at all times there have been people in the Holy Land whose connection to that land was as substantial as anyone’s who took different views. (The name Palestine is attested centuries before the Romans, of course.)
        We cannot accept morally, surely we can’t, any idea of a right to something established by wanting it, by wanting it from the heart or by laying claim through a religious ritual which inspires the strongest feelings. How else but by rejecting this idea could any coherent idea of ownership or possession be formed?

      • Elliot
        January 15, 2013, 4:16 pm

        There was a time when the Temple and its sacrifices occupied an exceptionally important place in Judaism,
        The history is interesting but, as you make clear, must give way to more compelling – and just – concerns.
        The sentiment that Judaism cultivated regarding the Temple Mount was inseparable from prayers for the restoration of the temple cult. Once that messianic vision was rejected by most Jews, the past lost its potency too.
        Historically, I find the Temple Mount interesting, not for the animal sacrifices.I don’t dream of a Third Temples or think nostalgically of past ones. I prefer texts like the Midrash that this site as the place of brotherly love, shared by the tribes of Benjamin and Judah and so on. Otherwise, it is a glorious mosque. As long as I can visit it, that’s fine with me.
        I don’t know many people who, when visiting the Western Wall, even try to get into the Temple Mount. For these strongly-identifying Jews, it’s simply not on their radar.
        The one time I was almost barred from getting in to the Temple Mount was when the Israeli police were suspicious of me, as an Israeli (all the other people in line were tourists with foreign passports). The police feared I was an undercover settler. It was bizarre and amusing. Ultimately they let me in. Not before admonishing me not to pray on the Temple Mount. For real.

      • MHughes976
        January 15, 2013, 4:43 pm

        Just let me get off my chest Herodotus’ references in mid-5th century BCE to Palestine or Syria-Palestine.
        Histories I 105 – The Scythians, marching from Media (northern Iraq?) to Egypt and reaching ‘the part of Syria called Palestine’, are bought off.
        II 104 – The custom of circumcision brought from Egypt to ‘the Syrians who dwell in Palestine’.
        II 105 – Egyptian monuments which have perished elsewhere still extant in Syria-Palestine.
        III 5 – The route used for invasion of Egypt is the territory of the Syrians called Palestinian. Some of the coastal territory south of the great city of Cadytis (?Gaza) is controlled by the Arabians.
        III 91 – Phoenicia (Lebanon) plus all Syria-Palestine and Cyprus, form the Fifth Province of the Iranian Empire.
        IV 39 – There is an expanse of land between waters running from Phoenicia past the sea by way of Syria-Palestine and Egypt, where it ends. It contains only three nations.
        VII 89 – The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine furnish ships.
        (same passage) – Syria in this part (where the Phoenicians have settled) and all up to Egypt is called Palestine.
        The debate has been whether H refers only to the coastal strip or to the whole territory. Know what I think.

      • Mayhem
        January 15, 2013, 5:16 pm

        And it serves the need Jews have for a “holiest site.”

        @Elliot, this is the kind of contemptible language that has become the MW trademark.
        Translation: You Jews don’t bother us and we won’t bother you.

      • Elliot
        January 15, 2013, 6:43 pm

        @Mayhem –
        Not all Jews believe in holy sites, either as places imbued with a special spirit or a place governed by Halachic strictures.
        It’s the notion of one group’s “holy site” that translates into political demands that makes no sense to me and which people here find offensive.
        And there certainly is a growing need for Jewish holy sites that has given rise to many invented ones. One of the fathers of Zionist historiography, Zev Vilnay, admitted as such on Israeli TV. Back in the 80s, I saw hime standing in front of two burial structures which had official signs identifying them as the graves of Samson and his father Manoah. Vilnay told how he had invented that myth based on a “dream” he had. And that, he switched the names around in later versions. Not that his tour guide fables mattered at all to the Muslim sheikhs buried under those Hebrew signs. But they do make a difference to their descendants. This site is now a State of Israel Jewish pilgrimage site, with no mention of the place’s Palestinian (real) history.
        The Western Wall has been so sullied by political manipulations and violence that I do not feel connected to it. (Last time, I happened to be in the area, the Israeli army had taken over the plaza for a swearing in of troops.)
        If you find that offensive, try to imagine how Palestinians must feel when they read your postings.

      • Cliff
        January 15, 2013, 7:45 pm

        you and the majority of Jews worldwide, are not ‘returning’ home, gilad-g, if that home is in Historic Palestine.

        you have no connection to ancient Jews

        most Jews today are Jews by conversion or marriage

        unless there’s a lot of incest going on that is

      • eljay
        January 16, 2013, 8:09 am

        >> … the Temple Mount … the Temple Mount … Temple Mount …

        giladgeee’s obsession with the Temple Mount smacks of idolatry.

        >> … one day man will again communicate directly with G-d, and it will be from this site.

        It’s funny that in the 21st century anyone would assume that an omnipotent “god” would be forced to communicate with mankind from a specific location. When the omnipresent Allah “returns” (whence, I’m not sure, since she’s omnipresent), she will surely be able to communicate with every human being instantly, thoroughly and unambiguously.

      • Mayhem
        January 16, 2013, 4:41 pm

        @eljay, thanks for your admission. Your feelings re religions are quite evident.
        Just let some of your confederates know that this Muslim anti-semitism thing is nothing new and this blame on Zionism for Muslim rage is nothing other a more recent manifestation of age old anti-semitism.
        @cliff, the book by Gilbert that I have quoted is full of historical examples of Muslim anti-semitism. I only referred to Maimonides in response to the false comments by Elliot. As you say “there was religious tolerance”, but tolerance does not mean acceptance. Pray tell what was the reason things got so bad without resorting to your usual insults.
        @mooser, for your cynical demeanor a few more examples from Gilbert’s book:

        The mid-14th century saw an upsurge in Mamluk fanaticism. In 1327 the synagogue in Aleppo was turned into a mosque with the approval of the Mamluk Sultan in Cairo. In 1354, throughout the Mamluk dominions, some of the more onerous of the dhimmi restrictions were extended to Jewish converts to Islam. Converts were not allowed to serve as government officials or to work as physicians in the Muslim community. They were also forced to cut off all contact with relatives who had not converted to Islam.
        At the beginning of the 17th century an English visitor to the Ottoman empire, George Sandys, was a witness to the plight of Jews under their dhimmi statusin Jerusalem. ‘Here also be some Jewes, ‘ he wrote in his account of his travels, ‘yet inherit they no part of the land, but in their owne countrydo live as aliens, a people scattered throughout the whole world, and hated amongst whom they live; yet suffred, as a necessary mischiefe: subject to all wrongs and contumelies, which they support with an invincible patience.’
        In the town of Entifa in Morocco in 1879, a pious 65 year old Jew, Jacob Dahan, took in a poor Muslim woman during a severe famine. He fed and looked after her, and in return the woman worked in his house. But when the town’s governor learned of the arrangement, he ordered Dahan to come before him and declared: ‘Can a Jew have a Moorish woman to serve him? He deserves to be burnt!’ Jacob Dahan was then taken outside, nailed to the ground and beaten so severely he died.

      • Cliff
        January 18, 2013, 10:23 am

        Saying ‘Malmuk fanaticism’ with any sliver of hate in your tone is evidence of YOUR fanaticism.

        This was an era of fanaticism, and you make it seem as if Islamic radicals were an exception.

        The Iberian peninsula saw many different dynasties. You have condensed the history of Islamic Spain to a ZIONIST meme/one-liner.

        You cite a passage of that book as proof to your one-liner. Then you ask me to tell you the entire history.

        Look up a college history book and not a Zionist partisan. I will cite, from the book I had in school where I did undergrad, some parts of the history.

        There is also a documentary on the history of Islamic Spain.

      • Mooser
        January 18, 2013, 12:45 pm

        “The mid-14th century saw an upsurge in Mamluk fanaticism. In 1327…”

        Note to self- Avoid 14th Century! Give it the old miss-in-baulk, is the only way. When the 14th Century says “Where’s Mooser?” don’t be there to answer. Okay, got it.

        Thanks, Mayhem! If I see the 14th Century in the street, I’ll cut over to the other side. I’ll show the 14th Century it can’t intimidate me!

    • pjdude
      January 12, 2013, 1:41 pm

      So the palestinians pushing for their rights is a rejection of jewish history. ok to be perfectly honest jewish history really has had a whole lot to do with palestine in the past 2000 years. and sorry it the jews in the israelis ignoring the palestinians history there not the reverse but hey why skip a chance to be bigoted.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 12, 2013, 1:49 pm

      what myopic pretzel logic you’ve displayed with this comment gilad.

    • pjdude
      January 12, 2013, 7:17 pm

      why your like to lie. jews at least in Israel have shown zero willingness to share and compromise. to say that is a complete and utter lie. they have not ever nor will ever share and compromise because of the WANT.

    • Cliff
      January 12, 2013, 7:25 pm

      Religion has nothing to do with this conflict.

      Colonialism does.

      You want the land that Palestinians have been living on for thousands of years.

      You base your claim on a conceit. ‘Jewish history’ has become a catch-all phrase that basically means: non-Jews, who have lived on the land you covet, do not matter.

      The only criteria should be residency and not ‘Jewish history’.

      A fractional population of Jews lived in Israel/Palestine.

      The land was mostly populated by Arabs. End of story.

      It is only through war and ethnic cleansing and apartheid and colonialism that there is a Jewish majority.

      You also seem to delude yourself into thinking that the indigenous population is opposed to you and your fellow settlers because of your Jewishness.

      I think you wear your Jewishness on your sleeve. Literally. Zionism puts Judaism on it’s national flag. On it’s tanks. On it’s colonial project.

      So it’s unsurprising that, if there is significant anti-Jewish sentiment, it is precisely because Zionist Jews use Judaism to justify Zionist colonialism.

      You’re simply insulated and narcissistic. History does not start or end with whatever happened to ‘the Jews’. You do not own ‘the Holy Land.’ And being ‘Jewish’ does not give you the right to steal or ‘settle the land’ of another people.

      • yourstruly
        January 13, 2013, 1:51 am

        zionist jews use judaism to justify zionist colonialism?

        being jewish doesn’t give one the right to steal or ‘settle the land’ of another people?

        but didn’t zionism resurrect a dead language?

        as if that’s enough to make up for the nakba & what’s been going on in occupied palestine ever since?

        palestine, just & free?

        the new era begins?

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2013, 4:38 pm

        “I think you wear your Jewishness on your sleeve.”

        I disagree, vehemently! I don’t think it’s his Jewishness he wears on his sleeve. It’s every other Jew’s Jewishness he wears there. I will never, ever forgive Zionists for that.

    • Elliot
      January 12, 2013, 8:27 pm

      @Giladg
      the Koran included anti-Semitic chants long before the establishment of the modern State of Israel and the story of the Palestinians. Inconvenient details?
      And Jewish tradition includes many hateful statements against Muslims.
      Look at the pre-eminent Jewish scholar in the Islamic world: Maimonides. His racism against his Muslim neighbors runs through his writings, formative of Jewish attitudes for many centuries.
      So what’s your point?

      • Mayhem
        January 15, 2013, 5:41 pm

        @Elliot, you condemn Maimonides for “racism against his Muslim neighbors runs through his writings”.
        This is simply one of the most ridiculous comments I have heard in ages – helping to prop up the lie that Jews were fairly treated under Muslim rule.
        Maimonides was the greatest Jewish scholar of the Middle Ages. He held positions close to power in Muslim society. He was given special status because of what he was able to contribute. In other words the Muslim leaders took advantage of him and today falsely trumpet this as an example of Jews being treated equally in Muslim societies at the time. Absolutely false.
        “In 1159, having fled the ferocious persecution of the Jews by the Almohads in Muslim Spain, Maimonides settled for five years in Fez. There he was forced to convert to Islam under an obligation introduced for all Jews living in the city. Later he was arrested by Muslim authorities on the charge of relapsing into Judaism. …. In his Epistle on Martyrdom, Maimonides justified this formal conversion to Islam as an acceptable alternative to torture and death under the rule of fanatical Muslim rulers.”
        In his Epistle to the Jews of Yemen following an appeal from the head of the Yemeni Jews for advice on how to face the threat of persecution and forced conversions under Muslim rule he said, “on account of our sins Gods has cast us into the midst of these people, the nation of Ishmael, who persecute us severely, and who devise ways to harm us and debase us. This is as the Exalted has warned us…. We have done as our sages of blessed memory instructed us, bearing the lies and absurdities of Ishmael. We listen but we remain silent. In spite of this silence, ‘we are not spared from the ferocity of their wickedness, and their outburst at any time. On the contrary, the more we suffer and chose to conciliate them, the more they choose to act belligerently toward us.’
        Source:In Ishmael’s House by Martin Gilbert

      • Cliff
        January 15, 2013, 7:15 pm

        The Almohad dynasty was but one of several Islamic dynasties in the Iberian peninsula.

        Al-Andalus was a great center of Jewish and Islamic cooperation. The Islamic scholars transmitted Greek texts and so did Jewish scholars. There was religious tolerance and booming economy.

        The reason things got so bad was not some simplistic, Zionist-distorted conception of Islamic Jew-hatred.

        You haven’t really made an argument, Mayhem.

        You’re using the treatment of Jews under one dynasty (and out of historical context and standard).

        This is a typical Zionist meme. Except, you are indifferent to the murder of Palestinian children by IDF fascists and the abuses by the settlers and the economic sabotage by the Israeli government. Instead, you say ‘look at Syria, Darfur, Libya, etc.’ – you do this while simultaneously exaggerating the so-called profundity of discrimination against Jews in medieval Europe and Arabia.

        You do this because you are self-centered and do not see patterns in history. You don’t ask basic and elementary questions like, WHY did such and such occur. Is there a historical precedent? Blah blah blah.

        A lot of time is wasted on discussing Jewish this and that and especially antisemitism. Get it through your head – you are not special.

      • Mooser
        January 15, 2013, 7:50 pm

        Thanks, Mayhem. Next time we have a situation like the one in 1159, we’ll know what to do.

      • eljay
        January 15, 2013, 8:19 pm

        >> This is simply one of the most ridiculous comments I have heard in ages – helping to prop up the lie that Jews were fairly treated under Muslim rule. … Absolutely false.

        I don’t doubt that you’re right, that Jews (and other non-Muslims) were not treated fairly by Muslims.

        One would expect this to result in a demand for the reformation of Islam – or for the abolition of all religions – but not for the creation of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and (fundamentally religion-)supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

      • Mayhem
        January 15, 2013, 10:00 pm

        @eljay, thanks for your admission. Your feelings re religions are quite evident.
        Just let some of your confederates know that this Muslim anti-semitism thing is nothing new and this blame on Zionism for Muslim rage is nothing other a more recent manifestation of age old anti-semitism.
        @cliff, the book by Gilbert that I have quoted is full of historical examples of Muslim anti-semitism. I only referred to Maimonides in response to the false comments by Elliot. As you say “there was religious tolerance”, but tolerance does not mean acceptance. Pray tell what was the reason things got so bad without making assumptions and resorting to your usual abuse and insults.
        @mooser, for your cynical demeanor a few more examples from Gilbert’s book:

        The mid-14th century saw an upsurge in Mamluk fanaticism. In 1327 the synagogue in Aleppo was turned into a mosque with the approval of the Mamluk Sultan in Cairo. In 1354, throughout the Mamluk dominions, some of the more onerous of the dhimmi restrictions were extended to Jewish converts to Islam. Converts were not allowed to serve as government officials or to work as physicians in the Muslim community. They were also forced to cut off all contact with relatives who had not converted to Islam.
        At the beginning of the 17th century an English visitor to the Ottoman empire, George Sandys, was a witness to the plight of Jews under their dhimmi statusin Jerusalem. ‘Here also be some Jewes, ‘ he wrote in his account of his travels, ‘yet inherit they no part of the land, but in their owne countrydo live as aliens, a people scattered throughout the whole world, and hated amongst whom they live; yet suffred, as a necessary mischiefe: subject to all wrongs and contumelies, which they support with an invincible patience.’
        In the town of Entifa in Morocco in 1879, a pious 65 year old Jew, Jacob Dahan, took in a poor Muslim woman during a severe famine. He fed and looked after her, and in return the woman worked in his house. But when the town’s governor learned of the arrangement, he ordered Dahan to come before him and declared: ‘Can a Jew have a Moorish woman to serve him? He deserves to be burnt!’ Jacob Dahan was then taken outside, nailed to the ground and beaten so severely he died.

        Sometimes I don’t why I post these kind of remarks because I feel that they fall on deaf ears. Too many here are just interested in propaganda that furthers their cause.

      • Elliot
        January 16, 2013, 10:06 am

        @Mayhem:
        Maimonides held positions close to power in Muslim society…In other words the Muslim leaders took advantage of him .
        Right. The more positions of power that minorities hold, the more they are taken advantage of (sarcasm). When the US elects a Jewish president, we’ll know for sure that this country really has it in for the Jews.

        There is no evidence to show that Maimonides developed (what today would be considered) racist attitudes to non-Jews in response to the harshness of the Almohads, Yemeni authorities to Jews and other minorities. As I wrote previously, Maimonides’ discriminatory attitude runs throughout his writings, most significantly in his legal compendium, the Yad. For instance, in the classic instance of usury. Similarly, in his hierarchy of living forms, Jews top non-Jews.

        So, in Maimonides’ time and beyond, Muslims and Jews said nasty things about each other.
        What has this got to do with Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the racism of the State of Israel and the American Jewish establishment?

      • eljay
        January 17, 2013, 7:53 am

        >> Just let some of your confederates know that this Muslim anti-semitism thing is nothing new and this blame on Zionism for Muslim rage is nothing other a more recent manifestation of age old anti-semitism.

        1. Maybe that’s just the “collectivist” or “tribalist” in you talking, but I don’t have “confederates”.

        2. Whatever degree of anti-Semitism can correctly be blamed on Islam – and I do believe some (much?) of it can be – none of it absolves Zio-supremacists and their oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” enterprise of their past and ON-GOING crimes and immorality.

        That’s something you might want to let some of your co-collectivists / co-tribalists know.

      • Mooser
        January 18, 2013, 12:50 pm

        “Too many here are just interested in propaganda that furthers their cause.”

        Like bringing up atrocity stories from the Middle Ages? I guess it depends on who you want to further your cause with, donnit? Obviously, as well as inspire them, Zionists want to qualify them by intelligence.

  4. kalithea
    January 11, 2013, 2:09 pm

    What a ballsy, brilliant move! Palestinians both in the West Bank AND Gaza have been paving the road to empowerment for some time in creative, unique ways now and this is one of the best moves yet. More power to them!! BRAVO!

  5. kalithea
    January 11, 2013, 2:18 pm

    Speaking of ballsy moves, albeit off-topic, Justin Bieber apparently beat the crap out of an ex-Israeli soldier and that jerk Israeli is seeking to cash in by launching a lawsuit (good luck with that cry-baby move…not!)

    wooohooo! Justin Bieber is starting to earn my respect!!! Good on him!

  6. IL1948
    January 11, 2013, 2:28 pm

    Don’t get too comfortable…

    • Mndwss
      January 11, 2013, 4:41 pm

      “Don’t get too comfortable”

      What is that?

      The Zionist Creed?:

      “We will do to you what we did in IsraeL1948?”

      More massacres?

      • IL1948
        January 12, 2013, 12:10 am

        Who declared war on who in 1948?

      • Darcha
        January 12, 2013, 3:43 am

        Umm. I think Israel’s illegal declaration of independence–in complete violation of the Partition resolution–was seen by the US and the UN as a declaration of war. That’s why both tried so hard to get BG and the colonists to hold off. The Arab League’s actions–half-hearted as they were–were an attempt at reestablishing international law. Short answer: Israel declared war on its neighbours after conducting a war against the natives since November.

      • Ellen
        January 12, 2013, 11:03 am

        Who declared on whom…

        The Zionist machers were already deep into a declared war with the local population including the British authorities. You know people like former Israeli PMs Begin and Shamir.

      • Robert P
        January 12, 2013, 12:23 pm

        Certainly not the Arabs, according to the leading Zionist expert on 1948. In fact, not even a general call to arms was issued!

        “Through the civil war, the mufti and the AHC never issued a general call to arms or a blanket order to attack “the Yishuv.” Neither did the Arab states. British intelligence assessed that at the Arab League’s Cairo Conference in December 1947 the Arab leaders agreed that “the campaign must not start prematurely, for the Arabs are not ready, neither organized or armed. The first real move should be made in May, by when the Mandate will have terminated.” It appears that the Arab leaders were primarily motivated by fear of antagonising the British.

        The mufti and AHC desisted from ordering a general assault on the Yishuv, at least in the civil war’s first three or four months, probably in large measure because of their inability to raise another full-scale military enterprise so soon after the crushing defeat in 1939 and because of Palestinian unpreparedness. But they also took account of the needs of Palestinian peasantry – to defer large-scale fighting until after the harvests of citrus fruit in the Costal Plain in winter 1947-1948 and, perhaps, the start of the grain harvest in spring 1948 – and the minatory British presence. The mufti repeatedly told visiting notables to keep their powder dry until a general assault was ordered several months hence. But the order was never issued. The mufti was probably pre-empted by the start of the Haganah offensive in early April 1948.

        In mid-December 1947, one HIS informant told his controller that “the AHC had had no intention of starting disturbances on the scale that they had reached … But they had made a mistake in announcing a three-day strike without taking account of the character of the Arab public; because the Arab going on strike for a protracted period is [prone to be] sucked into all sorts of acts of hooliganism and criminality [pirhahut uviryonut].”

        In late December, Husseini reportedly sent Jerusalem NC leader Hussein al-Khalidi a letter explicitly stating that the purpose of the present violence was to “harass (and only to harass)” the Yishuv, not full scale assault. ” Benny Morris – 1948 [p. 97-8]

      • IL1948
        January 12, 2013, 1:23 pm

        Right, and its the Jews who engage in hasabra.

        The UN proposed a partition plan that would have given the Arabs approximately half of what is now Israel (even though the Arabs already got 100% of what is now Jordan which, as you may recall was also part of the British mandate).

        Israel accepted the UN plan and the Arabs rejected it.

        Israel declared its independence and, within 24 hours, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Egypt invaded.

        Then again, you probably knew all that… The truth just doesn’t coincide with your agenda.

      • pjdude
        January 12, 2013, 1:42 pm

        Israel on the palestinians

      • Annie Robbins
        January 12, 2013, 1:50 pm

        Israel declared its independence and, within 24 hours, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Egypt invaded.

        triple yawn

      • amigo
        January 12, 2013, 4:04 pm

        “Israel accepted the UN plan and the Arabs rejected it.”il1948

        Yeah and less than 24 hours later the following happened.

        ” One day after the UN vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the Irgun gang and Israel’s future Prime Minister between 1977-1983, proclaimed: “The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized …. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.” (Iron Wall p. 25) *

        Where do you get your facts from.

        Hasbara central??.

      • sardelapasti
        January 12, 2013, 7:44 pm

        ’48: Some of us were around and the record is clear, so don’t even try.
        In November 1947, not 1948, the Zionist terrorist bands attacked and invaded outside the line proposed for future partition by the colonialist powers (who themselves had no right to give away Palestinian territory), thereby cancelling the partition proposal and ensuring forever to themselves, all their offspring and all the illegal Russian immigrants and Brooklyn scum the status of illegal alien. That war continues, so the civilian population should be invited to get out. Shoo.

      • tree
        January 12, 2013, 8:24 pm

        Israel declared its independence and, within 24 hours, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Egypt invaded.

        They “invaded” the area assigned to the Arab State, which had already been invaded by the nascent Jewish State. Obviously the leaders of Israel were lying through their teeth when they claimed that they accepted partition. They didn’t. They didn’t accept the terms and they didn’t accept the amount of territory they were alloted. They merely “accepted” that Israel had a “right” to grab by war whatever it could . The UN Partition Plan specifically prohibited ethnic cleansing, and the Jewish State had already forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their homes before May of 1948.

        Speaking of lazy thinking, I think Zionist have to take the cake on that.

      • talknic
        January 13, 2013, 9:11 am

        IL1948 “Who declared war on who in 1948?”

        The civil war that existed prior to Israel being declared was escalated by Plan Dalet in the weeks prior to declaration. On the day Israel was declared, with Jewish forces already outside the territories allotted for the Jewish State, the civil war instantly became a war by the State of Israel against the non-self-governed-territory of Palestine that remained.

        (Bouvier) “4. War is not only an act, but a state or condition, for nations are said to be at war not only when their armies are engaged, so as to be in the very act of contention, but also when, they have any matter of controversy or dispute subsisting between them which they are determined to decide by the use of force, and have declared publicly, or by their acts, their determination so to decide it.”

        The Arab States Declared an invasion of “Palestine”. Israel was not a part of Palestine as of 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). Even the Israeli Govt website claims the Arab States invaded “Palestine”, not Israel. link to mfa.gov.il

        None of the UNSC resolutions call for ‘peace in Israel’ they do however call for “peace in Palestine”

      • pjdude
        January 13, 2013, 6:10 pm

        jordan historically was always a seperate terrtiory than palestine just because the british had them linked for like a year and they were part of a larger grouping doesn’t mean the palestinians didn’t have a right to choose the political status of their territory.

      • eljay
        January 13, 2013, 7:01 pm

        >> The UN proposed a partition plan that would have given the Arabs approximately half of what is now Israel … Israel accepted the UN plan and the Arabs rejected it.

        The UN proposed a partition plan that gave the inhabitants of Palestine half of what was once theirs, and turned the other half over to people of the Jewish faith all over world for the creation of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist state.

        No wonder Israel accepted it and Palestinians rejected it!

        Then again, you knew that, but the truth just doesn’t coincide with your hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist agenda.

      • RoHa
        January 13, 2013, 11:57 pm

        “The UN proposed a partition plan that would have given the Arabs approximately half of what is now Israel … Israel [sic.]accepted the UN plan and the Arabs rejected it. ”

        And since the plan was rejected by the majority of the population, it was wrong for the Zionists to carry it out.

      • talknic
        January 15, 2013, 10:35 am

        IL1948 and its the Jews who engage in hasabra

        Not exclusively…

        “The UN proposed a partition plan that would have given the Arabs approximately half of what is now Israel “

        No the 1947 UN partition would have given Israel over half of what was Palestine post Jordan’s independence of 1946. 1946 is BEFORE 1947. Jordan was never part of the partition plan.

        Israel accepted the UN plan .. Indeed and considered it binding “http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yx”

        and the Arabs rejected it Irrelevant. It didn’t give Israel the right to take any of what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared.

        Israel declared its independence and, within 24 hours, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Egypt invaded

        They invaded “Palestine” according to the mfa website link to mfa.gov.il

      • Cliff
        January 15, 2013, 7:20 pm

        Jewish terrorists began their campaign of rape, murder, massacre and ethnic cleansing before the Arab States mobilized for war.

        The Jewish colonists had segregated themselves from the local Arab economy with the help of the British.

        War was inevitable. There would be no Jewish State without a Jewish majority.

        The land was not Jewish in that it did not have a Jewish majority.

        So to get a Jewish majority, the Zionists flooded Palestine with Jewish immigrants and bided their time.

        You can find all the early Zionist leaders saying that partition was simply one step/a foot in the door so to speak. It’s not as if the Zionist enterprise would accept a State with 50% Arabs.

        And in any case, the Arab response to Jewish immigration was entirely understandable and if another ethnic group were in the shoes of the Palestinian Arabs during this era of nationalism and decolonization – they too would have reacted with anger and violence.

        Again, if Zionist Jews weren’t so self-centered and sociopathic, they would be able to empathize with non-Jews who have suffered throughout history as well.

        But judging by your psychopathic comments, “IL48″, you are settler-level crazy.

      • Cliff
        January 15, 2013, 7:22 pm

        The UN plan was a recommendation.

        That’s it.

        Moreover, who had the right to divide the land? The Brits? The UN? The Jewish agency? HA!

        You had no right to make a State on top of the majority indigenous population.

        No one would have accepted a Jewish State on top of their society. They’re people just like you with their own concerns and did not have to accept Zionism just because you flooded their land with Jewish immigrants.

    • Avi_G.
      January 11, 2013, 4:47 pm

      IL1948 says:
      January 11, 2013 at 2:28 pm

      Don’t get too comfortable…

      “Don’t get too comfortable…,” said the thug.

    • Woody Tanaka
      January 11, 2013, 4:50 pm

      yeah, terrorist of the idf are no doubt on the way to continue the criminal ways of this criminal state.

    • Mooser
      January 11, 2013, 5:05 pm

      “Don’t get too comfortable…”

      Listen to the macher! What do you plan to do about it? Write comments encouraging the IDF to murder the Palestinians in Haaretz? Not even brave enough to write under his own name, not even brave enough to state his position outright, but he’s giving out threatening warnings.
      A blow-hard, a phony, a yatebedam. And a shondah for Judaism.

      • thankgodimatheist
        January 11, 2013, 9:50 pm

        “shondah”
        Let me guess. Means soldier in Hebrew? Sounds close to the Arabic Jondi (soldier), Jondah/Junood (plural).

      • Whizdom
        January 12, 2013, 6:47 am

        A shame, as in shameful act

      • LeaNder
        January 12, 2013, 7:12 am

        tgia, disgrace, embarrassment, shame, I would suggest. Since it is Yiddish not Hebrew. I am not aware Moose ever used Hebrew, but I may be mistaken.

        Mind you Yiddish contains quite a bit of Hebrew but this one seems to be derived from the German Schande, which means shame. The origins of Yiddish are much earlier than the German standard Luther’s bible created. Before you had quite a bit of variant spellings from North to South from East to West, they most prominently show in the vowels. So the different vowel’s don’t really bother me. There are quite a few variant spellings in Yiddish too depending on it’s specific context. “Webwise” some spell it shande. And there are quite a few Yiddish phrases reminiscent of Southern German dialect.

        This one is with Moose:

        Shondah: (rhymes with Honda) a shame, a pity….”

        Notice the bike surfaces, Moose’s special sport’s bike posse comes to mind.

      • Ellen
        January 12, 2013, 11:14 am

        Mooser, Great use of Yiddish, which is a very old German.

        What is called Yiddish was also spoken in rural eastern regions in the late Middle Ages. Like Ladino, which was a very old spoken and sung Spanish, it was preserved and evolved in Jewish communities.

        Macher, the BIG guy, the doer, also the big swinging…..

        Shande a dispicable disgrace. Much stronger than simply a pity or a shame.

      • LeaNder
        January 12, 2013, 12:11 pm

        which is a very old German

        no, it’s not quite as easy as that. If you got the impression from my comment, than my comment was bad. It always contained Hebrew to start with, old German didn’t. Besides I had more Middle High German in mind than Old German.

      • Mooser
        January 12, 2013, 12:42 pm

        Ellen, as I’ve admitted many times, I foolishly wasted my chance to learn Yiddish from real mayvens.
        But there are some good Yiddish glossaries and dictionaries on the web. I stick pretty much to the ten or so words I remember, those being adequate to express the full range of my ideas.

      • seanmcbride
        January 12, 2013, 6:19 pm

        Mooser,

        Ellen, as I’ve admitted many times, I foolishly wasted my chance to learn Yiddish from real mavens.

        A few other languages worth learning that have had or are now having a bit of impact on the world: Latin, Greek, French, German, Italian, Mandarin, Python, Ruby, Clojure, R, Javascript, HTML5 and RDFa. (Yes, I am mixing together natural with artificial languages since computer programming literacy is so extraordinarily important in the present age.)

        I was able to pick up a fair amount of Yiddish from learning German — Yiddish is a fun language, especially for creative and forceful insults. As a medium for epic or lyric poetry, I am not so sure — I need to learn more about the best Yiddish literature.

      • Ellen
        January 12, 2013, 8:15 pm

        LeaNder, I have no impression or judgement of your post.

        I think you speak German, right? Have you heard the Yiddish language/dialect, or whatever we want to categorize it. (Not even linguists can agree on that yet.) Every German speaker will understand it even more easily than Swiss German dialects. (Which I guess could also be called seperate,but related languages.)

        Yet Yiddish is a language with German grammar and vocabulary, but sprinkled with some Slavic, Romance and Hebrew words.

        Just as English has French or German words, but it is still the English language.

        It is an old German dialect that was preserved and evolved in Jewish Communities of Eastern Europe. By “old” German, I mean that much of it is likely to be the same sort of German spoken in the early middle ages in Eastern Europe and the Volga.

        Nobody knows or can even say what influences were on the language to start with — Slavic, Hebrew, whatever.

        It would be natural that Hebrew words would work their way into Yiddish German from religious text into the spoken language.

        It is of great interest because it was spoken across so many regions and an old preserved — and living — dialect/language.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2013, 4:55 pm

        “It would be natural that Hebrew words would work their way into Yiddish German from religious text into the spoken language.”

        Those must have been some pretty forceful religious texts! I don’t remember an expression like, oh : Zol makekhs voxen offen tsung! from any of the prayers I learned, but religious education varies widely, and I never claimed mine was anything but rudimentary.

      • LeaNder
        January 13, 2013, 6:07 pm

        Every German speaker will understand it even more easily than Swiss German dialects. (Which I guess could also be called seperate,but related languages.)

        No, way Ellen. The Swiss language just as the Austrian has the same grammar German has. Yiddish hasn’t. Already Goethe had to learn Yiddish to understand it.

        True, somebody from North Germany may have troubles to understand people in Switzerland if they do not modify their accents. But the same person would have the same problem with anybody from the South if he speaks his dialect strongly. The dialect in Southern Germany towards the Swiss border is similar to Swiss German. But strictly only very few people usually older ones speak a strong dialect today, since it is not used in media or very, very rarely. Some people worry about the Southern dialect getting lost and created Wikipedia Alemannic, the dialect in South West German and Switzerland among others . See the map, that’s were this dialect is spoken with modifications and differences it crosses national borders.

        Yiddish has a different grammar. One can guess occasionally at least if the words have German origins but one could never understand or speak it without learning it like a foreign language. Similar really to Flemish or Dutch which are close like Austrian, German and Swiss German are. Germans can guess but do not necessarily understand or speak it, if they haven’t learned it.

        No German has to learn Swiss German or Austrian German.

      • Ellen
        January 15, 2013, 10:36 am

        Moose, that sure does not sound Hebrew to me, but instead “low” German. Something translated into “Should make his tongue hang out!” Right?

      • Ellen
        January 15, 2013, 10:52 am

        Well, I am not going to get into a debate with you Lea on this stuff.

        But your information is strange and simply wrong. Does it come from Wikipedia? I live and have lived in these countries. A Stuttgarter or Bavarian cannot understand a Basler or Züricher speaking the local dialects. We won’t even get into the German spoken in Wallis. But they are all GERMAN language dialects, each spiced with their own words. And so is Yiddish a German dialect, sprinkled with original words or those of other origins.

        To say that Goethe (who lived in Saxony) and spoke a very high German (but probably also the Saxon dialect) had to learn Yiddish to understand it means nothing! It is no different from a banker from Frankfurt (central Germany) who attends courses to learn the spoken Swiss German while in Zürich. And they do!

        And that But strictly only very few people usually older ones speak a strong dialect today, since it is not used in media or very, very rarely. Is simply nonsense.

        Visit a Kindergarten in Basel or Lucern.
        The schools only switch to instruction in universal high German in the upper grades. And at some schools, not even then.

        Listen to the local TV stations.

      • amigo
        January 12, 2013, 4:11 pm

        Haaretz is probably a little too far to the left for this apologist.

        Il 1948 would most likely feel much more at home posting on JP.

        He/She will find an abundance of brave “Shondahs there all out to kill/deport/ethnically cleanse or spray skunk gas or WP on those untermenschen.

    • kalithea
      January 11, 2013, 7:14 pm

      with the ZIO Occupation!

    • thankgodimatheist
      January 11, 2013, 9:57 pm

      “Don’t get too comfortable…”
      And don’t get too comfortable yourself IL48. I have reasons to believe that your stay in our midst is akin to a Summer camp that is ending.

  7. gingershot
    January 11, 2013, 3:09 pm

    Isabel Kerscher at nytimes is out of the gates with her spin – equating Palestinians with ‘Jewish Settlers':
    JERUSALEM — Adopting a tactic more commonly employed by Jewish settlers who establish wildcat outposts in the West Bank, scores of Palestinian activists and international supporters erected tents on Friday in a hotly contested piece of Israeli-occupied West Bank territory known as E1, and said they intended to stay put.

    link to nytimes.com

    From the same article Abir Kopty, a spokeswoman for the coordination committee shoots right back at Isabel:
    “We call this a village, not an outpost,” Ms. Kopty said, “because there is a huge difference between Palestinians living on their own land and settlers building illegally on our occupied land.”

    Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee, said in a statement: “This initiative is a highly creative and legitimate nonviolent tool to protect our land from Israeli colonial plans. We have the right to live anywhere in our state, and we call upon the international community to support such initiatives.”

    • mondonut
      January 11, 2013, 11:26 pm

      because there is a huge difference between Palestinians living on their own land…
      We have the right to live anywhere in our state…
      ==============================
      Except it is not their land. Unless of course they are on privately owned lands and they are there with the permission of the owners – then by all means, camp away.

      But the E1 is not state land under the sovereignty of the State of Palestine, the Palestinians may claim it, but that is far different from it actually being theirs.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 11, 2013, 11:42 pm

        Unless of course they are on privately owned lands and they are there with the permission of the owners

        they are on private palestinian land and have permission of the owners to be there.

      • mondonut
        January 12, 2013, 2:41 am

        Annie Robbins says: they are on private palestinian land and have permission of the owners to be there.
        ===========================================
        If that is true, then I would support them being there. How is it that you have information that apparently no media source has? Where is the property owner, why have they not spoken up?

      • Inanna
        January 12, 2013, 12:00 am

        E1 belongs to the Erekat family, as does Maale Adumim. It was stolen by the Israeli govt and the Israelis who settled there. But it still belongs to them, despite the theft. Thieves don’t get to keep their ill-gotten gains and one day soon, the rightful owners will return to their lands.

        link to jadaliyya.com

      • thankgodimatheist
        January 12, 2013, 12:55 am

        “Except it is not their land. Unless of course they are on privately owned lands and they are there with the permission of the owners”
        Does this apply to the Jewish settlers too or only to Palestinians? Oh wait, no need to rush to answer, it was a rhetorical question.

      • mondonut
        January 12, 2013, 1:15 pm

        thankgodimatheist says: Does this apply to the Jewish settlers too or only to Palestinians? Oh wait, no need to rush to answer, it was a rhetorical question.
        =========================================
        Yes, it does, or at least it should. Private property ownership should be respected by all parties and authorities. Land within the E1 that is owned by Palestinians should remain their property. Of course this would apply to actual, provable claims and not phony ones such as the Erekat claim.

        Unfortunately, Palestinian owners will be unable to profit from the vastly increased value of their land – as selling the land to an Israeli would earn them a death sentence. I guess respecting private property rights only goes so far.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 12, 2013, 1:54 pm

        this would apply to actual, provable claims and not phony ones such as the Erekat claim.

        and what neutral body, pray tell, do you support deciding what is legitimate and what is not? god perhaps?

      • mondonut
        January 12, 2013, 6:33 pm

        and what neutral body, pray tell, do you support deciding what is legitimate and what is not? god perhaps?
        ——————————–
        Why would you post a snarky comment without making your own recommendation? Or do Palestinians not have to prove their claims?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 12, 2013, 7:16 pm

        Why would you post a snarky comment without making your own recommendation?

        sorry for not being clearer nut, according to the UN (recognized internationally) , it’s occupied palestinian territory. hence, it’s palestinian territory. therefore it should be under the purview of a palestinian legislative body to hear a case if there is one.

        israel has prevented palestinians from building there claiming it is a closed military zone. they really have no jurisdiction to annex or make claims upon it or play the judge over a region not in their sovereignty. if they are going to being scrutinizing the legality of each claim in that area then then technically palestinians should be able to do the same for west jerusalem.

        i don’t know why you called the erakat claim ‘phony’.

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2013, 4:59 pm

        “Of course this would apply to actual, provable claims and not phony ones “

        And just think, all us American Jews have been operating under the handicap of principles like: “You don’t have to know who it belongs to, to know it isn’t yours and you shouldn’t steal it”. Amazing we haven’t gotten as far as you Zionists.

      • Mooser
        January 12, 2013, 12:46 pm

        Except it is not their land”

        Maybe I shouldn’t have worried about not learning a lot of Yiddish. It is not a very expressive tongue, really. There’s the Yiddish word “chutzpah” , but it doesn’t seem strong enough for Zionist thinking and actions. This goes way beyond chutzpah.
        Let’s see, what’s the Yiddish word for ‘criminal chutzpah‘?

        Oh, here it is: psychopathy.

      • pjdude
        January 12, 2013, 1:44 pm

        true if a jew wants it as far as your concerned the owners have zero right to it.

      • sardelapasti
        January 12, 2013, 7:52 pm

        Wrong. If a “Jew” belonging to the 6% Palestinian Jews before the Zionist invasion has a title, of course anyone who can read will recognize it.

      • talknic
        January 13, 2013, 9:21 am

        mondonut “Except it is not their land. Unless of course they are on privately owned lands and they are there with the permission of the owners”

        They are in and on their own ‘territory’. Like all logic avoiding Hasbarristers you must confuse ‘real estate’ with ‘territory’. Territory belongs to all the legitimate citizens of the territory including state owned lands, whether they own or rent/lease ‘real estate’ or are homeless bums living under a bridge.

        “But the E1 is not state land under the sovereignty of the State of Palestine, the Palestinians may claim it, but that is far different from it actually being theirs.”

        It is not under the sovereignty of Israel.. it IS a part of the “territories occupied” in the 1967 war. UNSC res 476 tells us it IS Arab territory and Israel must end the occupation

      • Mooser
        January 13, 2013, 5:03 pm

        Gosh, and , maybe I’m nuts, but, I don’t know, a person could be forgiven for thinking that Israel might have some especial reasons for conforming to the suggestions and laws governing occupation made in response to the Nazi occupation of Europe. Sorry, I don’t know where I get these crazy ideas.

      • mondonut
        January 13, 2013, 11:25 pm

        talknic says: Like all logic avoiding Hasbarristers you must confuse ‘real estate’ with ‘territory’.
        =====================================
        I am not confused at all. I know that you like to think that you are the authority in these matters but you are really twisting this around. I never said it was under the sovereignty of Israel, and as you stated, it is not. Nor is it under sovereignty of Palestinians. Neither does it fall under the sovereignty of “legitimate citizens” (whatever the hell that means) or homeless bums. It is however, legitimately occupied by the State of Israel.

        Ultimately who has sovereignty over the E1 will be determined if and when the Israelis and Palestinians complete a treaty.

      • talknic
        January 15, 2013, 10:53 am

        mondonut

        “I am not confused at all. I know that you like to think that you are the authority in these matters but you are really twisting this around. I never said it was under the sovereignty of Israel, and as you stated, it is not.”

        I didn’t quote you.. and quite, it is not.

        “Nor is it under sovereignty of Palestinians”

        Then it is a non-self-governing-territory see Chapt XI UN Charter. Israel has obligations it has not been keeping.

        “Neither does it fall under the sovereignty of “legitimate citizens” (whatever the hell that means) or homeless bums.”

        A) I didn’t say sovereignty of legitimate citizens.
        B) You don’t know what a legitimate citizen is? AMAZING!!!
        C) All ‘territory’ belongs to all its legitimate citizens and they belong to it. It has nothing to do with how much ‘real estate’ is owned, rented, leased or not.
        D) BTW I didn’t say it came under their “sovereignty”. Why do you need to change what was said?

        ” It is however, legitimately occupied by the State of Israel”

        Yes it is occupied non-self-governing-territory see Chapt XI UN Charter

        “Ultimately who has sovereignty over the E1 will be determined if and when the Israelis and Palestinians complete a treaty.”

        Meanwhile, it is not Israeli and; according to the UNSC resolutions on the matter it is Arab territory and Israel is required to skedaddle. The law falls in the Palestinian favour. Israel must plea bargain… The Palestinians have no legal obligation in negotiations or at any other time to forgo any of their rights.

        Israel depends on Palestinian generosity to get Israel out of the illegal mess it has created for itself and everyone around it. To adhere to the law, pay rightful compensation and relocate hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens back to Israeli territory would send Israel bankrupt for decades.

  8. justicewillprevail
    January 11, 2013, 5:08 pm

    I would like to see how Israel argues that people from abroad, with no connection whatsoever to the West Bank, can come and set up villages there with Israeli subsidy, yet the people whose land it is, who have been there for centuries, cannot do so. Indeed why can’t Palestinian people start settlements in Israel?

    • Qualtrough
      January 11, 2013, 10:55 pm

      That an easy one to answer, and at the root of the entire problem. Zionists believe that Jews were given title to the land by God a few thousand years ago. So, in their minds, Jewish = Inalienable right to live there. This mindset is impervious to any rational argument, and the reason why the Zionist experiment will end very badly for those on both sides.

  9. a blah chick
    January 11, 2013, 7:25 pm

    Where’s Friedman? Isn’t this the kind of non-violent protesting he’s always saying should be engaged in?

    Somebody contact his favorite cabbie.

  10. Elliot
    January 11, 2013, 10:26 pm

    This is exquisite. If Palestine belongs, not to its occupants but to settlers, then just set yourself up as the newest settlers.
    The Israeli ethos lionizes the Jewish settlers of the 30s who defied British law and Arab opposition by putting up illegal settlements in overnight operations. Anyone who’s gone through the Israeli school system has been inculcated with the exploits of “chomah umigdal” “the water tower and wall”.
    Bab el-Shams will resonate with the Israeli soul. What irony.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 11, 2013, 11:37 pm

      If Palestine belongs, not to its occupants but to settlers, then just set yourself up as the newest settlers.

      the zionist framing of ‘settlers’ doesn’t work for me for many reasons. we used the term villagers in our report. and palestinians are not ‘the newest settlers’. but i appreciate your positive intent.

      • Avi_G.
        January 11, 2013, 11:53 pm

        Several Israeli websites have refereed to these tents as “outposts”, as though Palestinians were colonizing a land that didn’t belong to them. Orwellian.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 12, 2013, 3:04 am

        i know avi, very strange. zionsit colonization conditioning/framing.

      • Elliot
        January 12, 2013, 4:37 pm

        “Settlement” and “outpost” work fine for Al Jazirah, among other non-Zionist sources:

        link to aljazeera.com

      • Avi_G.
        January 12, 2013, 5:56 pm

        Elliot says:
        January 12, 2013 at 4:37 pm

        “Settlement” and “outpost” work fine for Al Jazirah, among other non-Zionist sources:

        I think Al-Jazeera is wrong to have used those terms. But, I’m not surprised given the network’s treatment of the Palestinian narrative in recent months. Note, for example, Al-Jazeera’s treatment of Israel’s latest attack on Gaza. It was slanted in favor of Hasbara.

      • MRW
        January 13, 2013, 8:02 pm

        @Avi_G,

        That’s because Al Jazeera English is partially owned by an Israeli. Don’t have the link. Read it a couple of years ago, could have been three.

      • ritzl
        January 13, 2013, 9:31 pm

        @MRW Haim Saban tried to buy a share in 2009, but I don’t think he did. That would fit your timeframe.

      • Elliot
        January 12, 2013, 3:51 pm

        Annie – You can mock your adversary’s framing without buying into it. It is interesting that the protesters chose not to repopulate one of the many destroyed Palestinians villages but to erect a new village. This is a PR move, aimed at, among others, Israelis. It is ironic for Palestinians to use a Zionist settlement practice to draw attention to Israeli policies. And the use of Zionist settlement practice will not be lost on Israelis.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 12, 2013, 4:42 pm

        absolutely elliot, i was referencing avi’s comment and didn’t mean to imply you had personally bought into anything. i noticed a sharp rebuke tweet from one of the villagers towards some press or tweet calling it an outpost

        Abir Kopty @AbirKopty

        Dear Israeli media: #BabAlShams is not an “outpost”, this is a Palestinian village. Full stop!

        link to electronicintifada.net

        btw, zionists have self identified as ‘settlers’ which immediately identifies the land as ‘unsettled’, which it clearly is not merely because it’s been used for grazing, agro and home to countless bedouin throughout the ages.

        but it’s very clear what they are doing which is using the same action ( as ‘ Zionist settlement practice’) which already has applicable laws created for it within the israeli justice system used against palestinians time and again. but they would likely never consider themselves as settlers imho, or ‘newest’ settlers. that would be anathema to their self identification as laid out in their announcement:

        We, the sons and daughters of Palestine from all throughout the land…..sit here today because this is our land and it is our right to inhabit it. [note ‘inhabit’ not ‘settle’]

        …..

        Therefore we hereby establish the village of Bab al-Shams to proclaim our faith in direct action and popular resistance. We declare that the village will stand steadfast until the owners of this land will get their right to build on their land.

        The village’s name is taken from the novel, ‘Bab al-Shams,’ by Lebanese writer Elias Khoury. The book depicts the history of Palestine through a love story between a Palestinian man, Younis, and his wife Nahila. Younis leaves his wife to join the Palestinian resistance in Lebanon while Nahila remains steadfast in what remains of their village in the Galilee.

        albeit the practice is the same action, they are not ‘settling’.

      • Avi_G.
        January 12, 2013, 5:54 pm

        Elliot,

        It’s important to take into account the geographic importance of E-1 to the contiguity of the northern and southern parts of the West Bank before calling this a PR stunt.

      • Elliot
        January 12, 2013, 7:36 pm

        Bab el-Shams isn’t going to ensure contiguity, particularly as it isn’t going to be around for much longer. If you have any experience with activism you will know that a successful action is performance art. And that requires publicity. Bab el-Shams has already been successful because it has captured headlines.
        Not quite the same as denigrating this as a “stunt.”

      • Elliot
        January 12, 2013, 8:33 pm

        …and Haaretz is reporting that Bab el Shams is being taken down right now. Israel is citing “urgent security needs”.
        Reminds me of a boss I once had who squashed any initiative he didn’t like by deeming it a “fire hazard.” Like the Israelis, he was quite shameless.

      • Elliot
        January 13, 2013, 11:38 pm

        @ Annie and Avi,
        but they would likely never consider themselves as settlers imho, or ‘newest’ settlers.
        and neither would I. As I have tried to make clear, my comments are all in the framework of protest tactics, not essence. I hope that puts this to rest.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 15, 2013, 6:45 pm

        thanks elliot. took me a while to get back to you. i agree it has been an incredible powerful action.

  11. mcohen
    January 12, 2013, 1:12 am

    time to put up the big tent on the hill -a meeting place for all people to come together
    coordinates on google earth

    the area in the first photo upper left where people are standing would be perfect
    must be the size of a circus tent carpets on the floor -the entrance must face north

    anyone here who can contact the spokes person get in contact and find out if they are prepared to help put one up.leave messages on this thread
    anyone know where a tent that size can be found and delivered to to the hill

    this is my second post today of this message -first one disappeared

  12. yourstruly
    January 12, 2013, 2:03 am

    bab al-shams?

    gate of the sun?

    dawn’s early light?

    palestine, just & free?

  13. justicewillprevail
    January 12, 2013, 2:14 pm

    Well, here’s the proof of Israeli hypocrisy and apartheid rule:

    link to guardian.co.uk

    If you are Jewish and you set up an illegal encampment, you are subsidised, connected to the water, telephone and electricity networks, and have roads constructed for you. If you are Palestinian and set up a legal encampment, you are immediately ordered out and the area declared a ‘closed military zone’, and thus closed to honest reporting, demonstrations and subject to arrest without trial simply for using land that belongs to you. Let the message go out loud and clear. Apartheid and occupation is evil. Well done to the Palestinians with the cojones to do this and demonstrate the facade of Israeli lies and hypocrisy. No doubt they will suffer for their non-violent moral victory over the sadists.

  14. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    January 12, 2013, 2:23 pm

    Finally the Guardian has woken up to this story, but of course the headline, and the article itself, is written very much from the Israeli point of view. The word ‘occupation’ is not used except in a direct quote from one of the activists, and the land is referred to as ‘highly sensitive’. Ya think. Also, just like the Beeb, the Guardian is comparing the native Palestinians to illegal foreign colonists:

    ”The protesters’ actions echoed the tactics of radical settlers when establishing wildcat outposts in the West Bank.”

    link to guardian.co.uk

    Harriet Sherwood used to be a fairly decent reporter. These days you get the definite impression that she has someone from the Israeli govt proof-read her articles before publication.

Leave a Reply