Europeans with ‘no legitimate claim’ to America wiped out indigenous people — ‘totally different’ from Israel (Harris)

Israel/Palestine
on 107 Comments
Modified by Engin Coban

Modified by Engin Coban

One of the rising choruses from the pro-Israel crowd is that the U.S. is no better because it too is based on an ethnic cleansing (though the U.S. got its ethnic cleansing in before the age of decolonization). David Harris at the American Jewish Committee is taking that line one step further in a post railing at the boycotters. It’s amazing that HuffingtonPost publishes this kind of stuff.

No other country has faced such a constant challenge to its very right to exist, even though the age-old biblical, spiritual, and physical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel is unique in the annals of history.Indeed, that connection is of a totally different character from the basis on which, say, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the bulk of Latin American countries were established, that is, by Europeans with no legitimate claim to those lands who decimated indigenous populations and proclaimed their own authority. Or, for that matter, North African countries that were conquered and occupied by Arab-Islamic invaders and totally redefined in their national character.

This is religious language, by the way. That’s why I insist that the lobby is a rightwing religious movement. H/t Scott McConell.

107 Responses

  1. Cliff
    January 15, 2014, 1:54 pm

    How many Jews lived in Palestine in 1800? 1700? 1600? 1500? 1400?

    In 1900?

    How many non-Jews lived in Palestine during that time?

    • Krauss
      January 15, 2014, 3:36 pm

      Why are you insisting on using facts on the internet, Cliff?

    • yonah fredman
      January 15, 2014, 6:34 pm

      The Jews had more “connection” to the land (Palestine/Israel/Jerusalem) because of their beliefs and prayers and books, than the Puritans had to North America. This certainly is insufficient to console the indigenous of the Middle East, so your point has a point.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 16, 2014, 3:42 am

        The Jews had more “connection” to the land

        who are you quoting yonah? this dweeb:

        even though the age-old biblical, spiritual, and physical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel is unique in the annals of history.

        and what age-old biblical, spiritual, and physical “connection” is it we’re all supposed to bow down too here to anyway? this statement presumes humans are born w/age-old biblical, spiritual, and physical connections to land they’ve never been to that some alleged relative lived in thousands of years ago. that’s brainwashing.

        what percentage of jews were even interested in visiting palestine 100 years ago much less living there? this is manufactured sentiment used to colonize the land.

      • MRW
        January 16, 2014, 4:06 am

        By beloved fearless annie.

      • Sibiriak
        January 16, 2014, 4:38 am

        MRW:

        By beloved fearless annie.

        Ditto!

      • mcohen
        January 16, 2014, 6:02 am

        manufactured sentiment
        Annie says

        Masada

      • Theo
        January 16, 2014, 12:46 pm

        Right, Annie

        And just think the spriritual connection to the Vatican in Rome by all those roman catholics in Africa, South America and Asia, according to yonah they all could move to Rome and throw out the locals who lived there a few thousand years.
        Since great percentage of jews have ansolutly no genetic connection to the original hebrew tribes, some say as high as 80-90%, the israelis have just as much right to Palestina as those above mentioned catholics to Rome.

      • eljay
        January 16, 2014, 7:18 am

        >> The Jews had more “connection” to the land (Palestine/Israel/Jerusalem) because of their beliefs and prayers and books, than the Puritans had to North America.

        Imaginary “connections” to a land – hell, even real connections to a land -did not and do not justify terrorism, ethnic cleansing, theft, colonization, destruction, torture, murder and the establishment of a supremacist state.

      • MahaneYehude1
        January 16, 2014, 12:20 pm

        @eljay:

        Imaginary “connections” to a land – hell, even real connections to a land -did not and do not justify terrorism, ethnic cleansing, theft, colonization, destruction, torture, murder and the establishment of a supremacist state.

        Imaginary “connections” to a land – hell, even real connections to a land – did not and do not justify wars, suicide bombers, missile attacks, boycotting, lies factories and incitement, establishment of a supremacist state and above all, do not justify war crimes like letting people suffer in refugee camps for more than 65 years only to use them as a future weapon against the state of Israel.

      • Cliff
        January 18, 2014, 7:13 pm

        Potato salesman said:

        [....]do not justify wars, suicide bombers, missile attacks, boycotting, lies factories and incitement, establishment of a supremacist state and above all, do not justify war crimes like letting people suffer in refugee camps for more than 65 years only to use them as a future weapon against the state of Israel.

        Let’s take the potato seller’s hasbarat talking-points down one-by-one:

        1. The Palestinian militants have no missiles.

        2. The only supremacist State in existence between the warring parties is the apartheid Jewish State.

        3. The Palestinian refugee problem was created by Jewish terrorists who stole Palestine from the Palestinians.

        4. The Jewish terrorists past/present/future are the ones who either kill Palestinians in refugee camps or let them be killed and aide their killers (Sabra and Shatilla).

        5. Boycotting is a peaceful tactic – a peaceful form of protest. It is also the ONLY GAME IN TOWN. The boycott is against settlement products and the Brand Israel propaganda campaign – as well as against normalizing relations with Israeli academia which is in league w/ the Israeli military.

        6. Suicide bombing began in 1994 and has ended for at least 7 years.
        Suicide bombing first arose after a Jewish terrorist/psychopath and Orthodox settler named Baruch Goldstein, butchered 30+ Palestinian civilians praying in a mosque.

        In 30+ years – there have been 806 Israeli casualties to suicide attacks. Attacks – so not just bombings, but all attacks that could be classified as ‘suicide’ attacks.

        In 1.5 weeks, you Israelis butchered 1400+ people – mostly civilians, mostly children.

        Suicide bombing is a blip on the violence scale. Israel has killed 10 times the number of children and 5 times the number of civilians.

        Everyday the occupation exists, is an act of violence against the Palestinian people.

        7. Israel fired a million rounds of bullets during the first few days of the 2nd Intifada (I recall Chomsky bringing this up, gotta find the source).

        Israeli MISSILES versus Palestinian Qassams:

        The IDF have fired approximately 15,000 artillery shells and more than 550 air strikes into the Gaza Strip since disengagement.

        Since the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip in September 2005, at least 1,700 Qassam rockets have been fired into Israel by Palestinian militants.

        2006 UN REPORT: link to ochaopt.org

        Is that all you got, potato salesman?

      • eljay
        January 19, 2014, 9:51 am

        >> @eljay:
        >> Imaginary “connections” to a land …

        @Potato-man: The refugees driven from their homes and lands had real connections – not imaginary ones – to their homes and lands. I know you’re a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist, but you don’t need to act* stupid, too.

        (*I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.)

        Attacks on civilians are immoral and unjust when Palestinians do it, and they are immoral and unjust when your supremacist “Jewish State” does it. I condemn all attacks on civilians.

        There is no supremacist Palestinian state – there is only your supremacist “Jewish State” and the Palestinians it oppresses, tortures and kills, and whose lands it steals and colonizes.

        If you don’t want the refugees you ethnically cleansed from their homes and lands to continue suffering, let them return to their homes and lands. You know, the homes and lands your supremacist “Jewish State” stole and colonized, and which it continues to steal and colonize.

        If you don’t want the people you are oppressing to fight your oppression, stop oppressing them. Stop stealing and colonizing their lands.

        As for “lies factories and incitement”, that’s a perfect description of you, your fellow Zio-supremacists and your supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 16, 2014, 9:58 am

        “The Jews had more ‘connection’ to the land (Palestine/Israel/Jerusalem) because of their beliefs and prayers and books, than the Puritans had to North America. ”

        Please, show the math. Because I know of no basis upon which such a thing as a “religious” connection can be measured, quantified and compared. To the Puritans, North America was a gift from God, in which they could exercise their religion. It would not surprise me if they believed that connection more strongly than the Jews believed their connection to Palestine. It would would also not surprise me if the reverse were true. Or if they were equal. Or if there is no way to measure. Or there is no way to compare. So, please, show you math, literally. Or simply admit that you take this position not because it is true, but because you favor it.

    • thankgodimatheist
      January 15, 2014, 6:49 pm

      “How many non-Jews lived in Palestine during that time?”
      It’s always worth repeating that up to the middle 1800s the number of Jews did not exceed between 1 and 2% of the population..

  2. hophmi
    January 15, 2014, 1:54 pm

    “though the U.S. got its ethnic cleansing in before the age of decolonization”

    So? I can never understand this line of reasoning Phil. The fact of the matter is that you’re an American, and you are the beneficiary of that ethnic cleansing. So why does it matter that it took place before the age of decolonization?

    And by the way, how is 1948 the age of decolonization? Most of the Africa was still colonized at that time. And what was happening in the Holy Land? The people whom you accuse of doing this ethnic cleansing were in the process of decolonizing it, not colonizing it. They were fighting a war with others in the region who wanted to control it, people who were not whom you dub the natives. You’re showing exactly how arbitrary and simplistic this argument is.

    • Philip Weiss
      January 15, 2014, 2:32 pm

      I’ve said I’m the beneficiary, Hophmi. Never denied that. I’m looking out my window at ethnically cleansed land.
      And Max Blumenthal says he would have been a reporter denouncing the trail of tears.
      And yes there’s a realist piece to this.

      • OlegR
        January 15, 2014, 6:23 pm

        Besides paying lip tribute what exactly are the practical consequences of you living on an ethnically cleansed land?

      • thankgodimatheist
        January 15, 2014, 6:57 pm

        “I’ve said I’m the beneficiary, Hophmi.”
        A beneficiary but only retroactively and remotely as the genocide of the native Americans is an irreversible ‘fait accompli’ that took place more than 200 years ago. You or your parents took no part neither directly nor indirectly unlike every single Israeli today directly or indirectly involved in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine which, by the way, is still completely reversible.

      • thankgodimatheist
        January 15, 2014, 7:25 pm

        Another thing, hophmi. If Phil is really a beneficiary what could he, effectively, do to right the wrongs? Pray tell. Not much, nothing. But for an Israeli, the possibilities to stop and reverse the genocidal process are infinite.

      • hophmi
        January 16, 2014, 10:27 am

        ” If Phil is really a beneficiary what could he, effectively, do to right the wrongs? Pray tell.”

        Start a movement to simply give whatever land he lives on back to the people who inhabited it in the 17th century.

        “But for an Israeli, the possibilities to stop and reverse the genocidal process are infinite.”

        There’s no genocidal process going on.

      • puppies
        January 17, 2014, 7:24 am

        Precisely. All Hophmi is asking you to do is extend the colonial era a few years more –until there are no Palestinians left in Palestine. What’s a few years more, eh?

      • hophmi
        January 16, 2014, 10:26 am

        “You or your parents took no part neither directly nor indirectly unlike every single Israeli today directly or indirectly involved in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine which, by the way, is still completely reversible.”

        Nonsense; the vast majority of Israeli alive today took no part in the 1948 War and also are not settlers.

        Under your definition, anyone who derives benefit from an act of ethnic cleansing, no matter how far removed, is culpable.

        “is still completely reversible.”

        Please define how it could be reversed.

      • Kathleen
        January 15, 2014, 8:48 pm

        Bur it would have taken him awhile if all of those doing the killing were Jews. But clearly when Max gets his head clear on an issue there is no holding back. Putting his own well being on the line

    • eljay
      January 15, 2014, 2:47 pm

      >> So? I can never understand this line of reasoning Phil. The fact of the matter is that you’re an American, and you are the beneficiary of that ethnic cleansing.

      “Everyone else did it, so Jews had and have every right to do it, too.”

      Zio-supremacists always reach for the very worst examples of injustice and immorality as justification for the past – and ON-GOING – acts of injustice and immorality committed by their co-collectivists.

      And then, hypocrites that they are, they wail and moan about people who commit similar acts of injustice and immorality against them.

    • American
      January 15, 2014, 2:56 pm

      ‘The fact of the matter is that you’re an American, and you are the beneficiary of that ethnic cleansing. So why does it matter that it took place before the age of decolonization?”…hoppie

      This is your defense strategy?—-> Using an ethnic cleansing to justify an ethnic cleansing?
      Rent a brain pleezze.

    • Donald
      January 15, 2014, 3:03 pm

      “The fact of the matter is that you’re an American, and you are the beneficiary of that ethnic cleansing.”

      It’s generally acknowledged that the whites stole the land from the Native Americans. They are no longer forced to live on reservations. There is still injustice, but people don’t deny the crime. And nobody thinks that in acknowledging the crime this means white people have to move back to Europe. The one interesting point you could make on this was made by Larry Derfner a few weeks ago, but I’ll wait and see if you either look it up or think of it yourself.

      “And by the way, how is 1948 the age of decolonization? Most of the Africa was still colonized at that time. ”

      Nitpicking. The process of decolonization began after WWII. It took decades–the Vietnam War was part of that. You know this.

      “The people whom you accuse of doing this ethnic cleansing were in the process of decolonizing it, not colonizing it.”

      The Zionists didn’t want to be ruled by the Brits and they wanted the land for themselves–it’s hard to have a democratic Jewish state with a lot of non-Jews forming a majority. So they fought to get rid of both the Brits and the bulk of the Palestinians. And “whom you accuse of doing this ethnic cleansing” sounds like you’re not willing to grant it happened. Avi Shavit thinks it did–much as many of us criticized his justification for it, at least he doesn’t pretend like it didn’t happen. So you have no problem acknowledging the ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans, but you still hedge on the Nakba.

      • Krauss
        January 15, 2014, 3:42 pm

        Donald, you essentially slayed the hasbara troll.

        I would just add one thing. The colonization of Palestine didn’t begin with 1948(it began decades earlier since co-habitation was never the goal, as Herzl and Gen-Gurion both made clear).

        Israel in this regard was not unique(as Harris likes to point out) but that’s necessarily a good thing.

        However, colonization of Palestine after 48 has continued apace, the 67 war saw hundreds of thousands of people ethnically cleansing.

        And even after that, you’ve seen the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of people from places like Jerusalem where they are evicted and given no new house, forcing them into the West Bank.

        As bad as America’s record is, and it’s bad, nobody can tell me that colonization is somehow a legitimate activity in late 1960s, as the decolonization efforts had already peaked and were coming to a close and definitely not in the 21th century.

        So maybe Harris is right after all. Maybe Israel is unique among the Western nations which it feels itself being closest to culturally.
        But again, not in the way he thinks.

      • Citizen
        January 15, 2014, 4:57 pm

        He’s also ignoring the international principles of law laid down by the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes tribunals, all of which were ignored by the Zionists who performed the Nakba even before those trials were finished. His arguments are regressive to the max, and present us with a justification for Israel’s existence and conduct that take us back to the stone age in philosophy, just like Hitler’s did. This was explained to the world by Goering at Nuremberg.

        Might makes right, and a democracy is easily handled by the use of Fear tactics. It worked to form Nazi Germany, and it works now to justify US and Israel’s conduct–so far.

      • hophmi
        January 15, 2014, 5:42 pm

        “There is still injustice, but people don’t deny the crime.”

        How many years did that take? And what does mean when you wait until you completed the crime to acknowledge it? Not much, in my view.

        “And nobody thinks that in acknowledging the crime this means white people have to move back to Europe.”

        Sure, not now. It would be silly. How about in 1800?

        “The one interesting point you could make on this was made by Larry Derfner a few weeks ago, but I’ll wait and see if you either look it up or think of it yourself.”

        I don’t see any recent Derfner posts, and I don’t have time to look for them now. You’ll have to clue me in.

        “Nitpicking. The process of decolonization began after WWII. It took decades–the Vietnam War was part of that. You know this.”

        OK. It doesn’t really matter; it’s an ancillary point.

        “The Zionists didn’t want to be ruled by the Brits and they wanted the land for themselves–it’s hard to have a democratic Jewish state with a lot of non-Jews forming a majority. So they fought to get rid of both the Brits and the bulk of the Palestinians. And “whom you accuse of doing this ethnic cleansing” sounds like you’re not willing to grant it happened. ”

        I’m willing to grant that it happened, with full context that includes prevailing practice at that time in history, the concurrent ethnic cleansing of Jews in certain neighborhoods during the same war, and the ethnic cleansing campaign that occurred in Arab states afterward.

      • yonah fredman
        January 15, 2014, 6:38 pm

        hello hophmi,

        here’s the post about derfner that contains his assertions regarding America’s relationship to the indigenous of the americas.

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • hophmi
        January 16, 2014, 10:42 am

        “here’s the post about derfner that contains his assertions regarding America’s relationship to the indigenous of the americas.”

        Larry’s post is ridiculous and stupid. He lists a few of the world’s worst human rights violators, to which Israel cannot be compared in any way, shape or form, and in most cases, ignores the reality of some of these so-called “punishments.”

        China has MFN status and a huge trade surplus with the United States.

        The grand total of the “punishment” meted out to Russia, which in effect operates as a large colonial ruler of several smaller states within its border, including displaying a brutality in Chechnya that greatly exceeds anything Israel has ever done in the territories, except that the MSM barely covers it, is the freezing of assets of 18 people and a boycott of Russia vodka in gay bars that I doubt is all that comprehensive and that will mysteriously end as soon the Sochi Olympics does.

        Syria is a country where hundreds of thousands of people have died at the hands of a regime that has been summarily killing people for two generations and has used chemical weapons.

        Cuba is embargoed by one country, and the vast majority of the world believes that the embargo is an injustice, and counterproductive.

        I could go on. And Larry is wrong; Israel HAS been punished. It was the subject of an Arab boycott (and remains so) for decades, and it is, unlike every other country on Larry’s ridiculous list, surrounded by hostile countries.

      • Donald
        January 16, 2014, 11:12 am

        Yonah–The Derfner comment I was thinking of was in a slightly earlier thread. I haven’t tracked it down (I should be doing some work right now), but I mention his earlier argument in the comment in the thread you linked, here–

        link

        His point was that the analogy between white American settlement and the I/P conflict would be closer if the demographics were different–if there were 200 million Native Americans crammed into 22 percent (and shrinking) of the US land mass then the whites might have been a lot more reluctant to allow a right of return. Given the history of white American distrust of immigrants, that’s certainly true.

        Of course it doesn’t change the ethical situation–it’s just a more accurate analogy.

      • Donald
        January 16, 2014, 11:21 am

        “Sure, not now. It would be silly. How about in 1800?”

        That would still have been silly. Whites had been living on the Atlantic coast for 150 years or so.

        Anyway, the point in such cases is not that the “newcomers” have to go back, not when we’re talking about people who were actually born there. The ideal solution is to allow the expelled to come back. In the case of Israel, I suspect a 1ss would have to pass through a 2ss first–as trust built up, the border might start to become less and less important. Though at the moment all solutions seem unlikely.

      • Elisabeth
        January 16, 2014, 11:01 am

        In my experience Americans are very much aware of the history of ethnic cleansing of their country. I have never met anyone who denied it or tried to whitewash it. It is easier of course to admit these things as the events are longer ago.
        (By the way Hophmi: The Boers thought they were fighting colonizition as well during the Boer war. Of course we see that differently now: It was just two colonizers fighting with each other, just as between the British and the Zionist movement )

    • Walker
      January 15, 2014, 4:32 pm

      So why does it matter that it took place before the age of decolonization?

      It makes a big difference because standards change. It was one thing to found a nation that allowed slavery in 1776. It would be quite another thing to try it now. Israel’s behavior violates international norms today, so American support for Israel brings the US into very bad repute.

      The people whom you accuse of doing this ethnic cleansing were in the process of decolonizing it, not colonizing it.

      So much for the Nakba.

    • Tzombo
      January 15, 2014, 5:57 pm

      The major difference here is that the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is ongoing. We can still try to stop it, by putting pressure on the people doing it.

    • thankgodimatheist
      January 15, 2014, 7:10 pm

      “And by the way, how is 1948 the age of decolonization? Most of the Africa was still colonized at that time. ”

      Was still* colonised but no colonisation was started* at this time. Not the same thing, genius. If you really think of this as a valid line of defense then allow me to question your intellectual honesty, integrity and capacity to reason. You strike me as one of the least honest among all Israel apologists on this site. No small feat.

      • Ron Edwards
        January 15, 2014, 11:31 pm

        You got that right! I’m also struck by how well Hophmi managed to get an enormous response-count with a few well-placed outrageous statements. Could that be the aim? Not a reasoned argument and dialogue, but rather to create a pile of objections and continued back-and-forth based on erroneous statements – so that when people come look at the thread, they see “people fighting” or “dogpile on the pro-Israel guy” and are turned off? Maybe there is method to Hophmi’s technique, which as you say, taken at face value, is consistently hard to credit as genuine in any way.

      • thankgodimatheist
        January 16, 2014, 12:13 am

        Exactly, Ron. He surely must know that his argument is horseshit but still thinks it must be made for some advantage .

    • talknic
      January 15, 2014, 7:18 pm

      @ hophmi “The fact of the matter is that you’re an American, and you are the beneficiary of that ethnic cleansing.”

      If it hadn’t happened or if he wasn’t or if he and all non American Indians including Jews, were to move elsewhere, would Israel then begin to adhere to International Law and the UN Charter?

      “So why does it matter that it took place before the age of decolonization?”

      Israel accepted and obliged itself to a UN Charter, International Law and conventions adopted to STOP the practice because the majority of the world agreed in essence that what had been done in the past was morally wrong. So much for Israel being a shining light

      ” how is 1948 the age of decolonization? “

      1948? The LoN Covenant 1920 Article 22. Ever read it?

      “The people whom you accuse of doing this ethnic cleansing were in the process of decolonizing it, not colonizing it.”

      Strange, the Jewish COLONIAL Trust was named by & set up by the Zionist Federation 1897

      “They were fighting a war with others in the region who wanted to control it”

      Of course they did. It didn’t belong to foreigners.

      “people who were not whom you dub the natives”

      LoN Covenant, LoN Mandate for Palestine. Ever read them or just cherry picked?

    • Sumud
      January 15, 2014, 9:31 pm

      The people whom you accuse of doing this ethnic cleansing were in the process of decolonizing it, not colonizing it.

      Only in the fevered mind of a zionist does foreigners going to Palestine, expelling and killing the indigenous population, and stealing their property and land equal DECOLONISATION.

    • Inanna
      January 15, 2014, 9:38 pm

      So you want a free pass from everyone to keep doing what we have all realized is so criminal that humanity in the 20th century has decided to set up an entire body of international law to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

      Well done hophmi. You’ve got a GPA of 4.0 from Hasbara U.

      And before you ask, yeah, I think that we should be giving land back to aboriginal peoples in the New World. It’s easy enough to return public lands but I think there should be wider campaigns to return sizable amounts of privately-owned land to the living descendants of the dispossessed. In the case of Palestine, since so many Palestinians can prove ownership of homes and lands through deeds issued by Ottoman or Mandate authorities, it should be pretty simple to take it from the JNF and return it to the rightful owners.

      • talknic
        January 16, 2014, 12:07 am

        @Inanna “In the case of Palestine, since so many Palestinians can prove ownership of homes and lands through deeds issued by Ottoman or Mandate authorities, it should be pretty simple to take it from the JNF and return it to the rightful owners.”

        Indeed.

        However, private and institutionally owned land is ‘real estate’. There’s also the significant matter of Israel having illegally acquired by war some 50% of Palestinian ‘territory’ that remained after Israel was declared independent of Palestine. Worth some billions or even or trillions of dollars today.

      • Sibiriak
        January 16, 2014, 3:27 am

        Free all Serbian War Criminals now!

        link to bosniafacts.info

        They were only doing what other nationalists have done in the past!

  3. American
    January 15, 2014, 2:01 pm

    ‘One of the rising choruses from the pro-Israel crowd is that the U.S. is no better because it too is based on an ethnic cleansing (though the U.S. got its ethnic cleansing in before the age of decolonization). ”

    Who cares.
    The majority of the world today is opposed to Israel….thats all there is for them to understand….thats what matters ‘today’……1600 is long gone…the nazis are long gone…..burning witches is long gone……..Palestine is here and now.
    How stupid can these people be..seriously?….using an ethnic cleansing to justify an ethnic cleansing?….really moronic.

  4. pabelmont
    January 15, 2014, 2:22 pm

    I think he’s right.

    The difference is that the (few) Jews who started the Israel-project had a book, which they called their Bible, and a long-time religion, which (one or both) they interpreted to grant them [1] historical DESIRE for homeland in Palestine (which DESIRE was contradicted to my satisfaction by Shlomo Sand) and [2] some mysterious “right” over and above the wrongly-asserted DESIRE to capture and possess The Land.

    The English and Spanish had opportunity, guns, and gall. In those days that was all it took. (The Pope of the day seems to have “given” lands to the Spanish and perhaps Portuguese, and the English King “gave” lands to the English settlers.

    So, There was a difference. Maybe. Did age-old DESIRE (even if present, but see caveat above) create RIGHT? And without right, what precisely is the importance of the difference?

    So: a distinction (maybe) but without a difference (as to right).

    • RoHa
      January 15, 2014, 11:00 pm

      “the English King “gave” lands to the English settlers”

      King James wasn’t English.

      • Citizen
        January 16, 2014, 3:31 am

        With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England.

      • RoHa
        January 16, 2014, 6:50 pm

        King of England, but still Scots.

      • James Canning
        January 19, 2014, 2:57 pm

        King James VI of Scotland, succeeded Queen Elizabeth I of England. As King James I.

  5. Seth Edenbaum
    January 15, 2014, 2:34 pm

    It’s different in that the Jews are descendants of emigres from Palestine, as the Roma are descendants of emigres from Rajasthan. The cultural or religious aspect is closer the the Serbian relation to Kosovo, with the caveat that unlike the Albanian Kosovars, the Palestinians are the descendants of Jews who never left. Every European caricature of a Jewish face has Arafat’s nose.

    That’s no excuse for conquest.

    • Sibiriak
      January 16, 2014, 3:30 am

      Seth Edenbaum :

      It’s different in that the Jews are descendants of emigres from Palestine…

      But most (many) Jews are descendants of converts, not emigres.

      • Seth Edenbaum
        January 16, 2014, 3:12 pm

        No. According to the most recent research, a lot of Ashkenazi men slept with shiksas. link to the-scientist.com

        That’s not really news. Schlomo Sand conflates acknowledgement of ethnicity with acknowledgement of rights to land, but there’s no logical connection. The descendants of the Mayflower have no right of return to England. 50 million Americans can claim German descent and they have to right to return to Germany.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 16, 2014, 5:16 pm

        “No. According to the most recent research, a lot of Ashkenazi men slept with shiksas.”

        Why are you using a vile insult for the women, but not calling these men by a slur?? That’s a disgusting word that is no better than the N-word.

      • Sibiriak
        January 16, 2014, 9:42 pm

        Seth Edenbaum:

        [Sibiriak: But most (many) Jews are descendants of converts, not emigres.]

        No. According to the most recent research, a lot of Ashkenazi men slept with shiksas.

        link to the-scientist.com

        My statement was accurate, and your link actually confirms what I wrote.

        Let’s be clear. You stated flatly and without any nuance that Ashkenazi Jews were “descendants of emigres from Palestine.” That suggests the mythology of Jews as a unitary “people” (ethnic group) that was exiled (emigrated) from Palestine, a portion of which migrated to Europe and became the Ashkenazis.

        However, the article you link tells us:

        The majority of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from prehistoric European women, according to study published today (October 8) in Nature Communications. While the Jewish religion began in the Near East, and the Ashkenazi Jews were believed to have origins in the early indigenous tribes of this region…

        And crucially, that single study you grasp onto can hardly be said to present the whole picture or a consensus view found in “the most recent research”.

        Your cited article also tells us:

        Eran Elhaik, a research associate studying genetics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, is split. He agreed with the study authors that the study rules out a Near Eastern origin for many mitochondrial lineages of the Ashkenazis but disagreed that it rules out a Khazarian contribution. “Jews and non-Jews residing in the regions of Khazaria are underrepresented, which biases the results toward Europe as we have seen in many other studies,” he said in an e-mail to The Scientist. Elhaik recently concluded from autosomal DNA that European Jews did, in fact, have a Khazarian background.

        Key point: a Near Eastern origin is ruled out for many mitochondrial lineages of the Ashkenazis, but a Khazarian contribution is NOT ruled out, and is in fact, supported by Elhaik’s recent research.

        [Seth Edenbaum:]That’s not really news. Schlomo Sand conflates acknowledgement of ethnicity with acknowledgement of rights to land…

        No, he does not. Please cite any statement of his where he makes such a conflation.

        Sand certainly does deny that that a unitary ethnicity forms a foundation of a “Jewish People”.

        Sand:

        after many years of studying history, I believe neither in the past existence of a Jewish people, exiled from its land, nor in the premise that the Jews are originally descended from the ancient land of Judea.

        There can be no mistaking the striking resemblance between Yemenite Jews and Yemenite Muslims, between North African Jews and the indigenous Berber population of the region, between Ethiopian Jews and their African neighbors, between the Cochin Jews and the other inhabitants of southwestern India, or between the Jews of Eastern Europe and the members of the Turkish and Slavic tribes that inhabited the Caucasus and southeast Russia.

        To the dismay of anti-Semites, the Jews were never a foreign “ethnos” of invaders from afar but rather an autochthonous population whose ancestors, for the most part, converted to Judaism before the arrival of Christianity or Islam.

        (“The Invention of the Land of Israel”)

        —–
        Sand:

        …the Jews have always comprised significant religious communities that appeared and settled in various parts of the world, rather than an ethnos that shared a single origin and wandered in a permanent exile…

        Contrary to modern conceptions, from the second century BCE to the early fourth century CE Judaism was a proselytizing religion, dynamic and expanding, and no data today can refute this.

        (“The Invention of the Jewish People “)

  6. Denis
    January 15, 2014, 2:48 pm

    David Harris? . . . blank. Is he the guy who was married to Joan Baez, and who spent years in prison for refusing to register for the draft while Joan and Bob Dylan rolled in the hay together and made huge amounts of money singing anti-war songs to poor hippy kids?

    I could not finish Harris’ HuffPo BS, my tummy was taking a tumble. And I’m not defending his POV, so all you anti-Israel Edward Scissorhands put your hands back in your pockets, but . . . I think one point he makes is indisputable: the 20th century history of Israel really does beggar belief. Nobody in their right mind in 1900 would have believed the trailer to this movie had one been available. For a bunch of clothes-on-their-backs migrants to Palestine to have evolved into a nuclear power and a menace to the entire world in not much more than half a century almost leaves one with a sense that it was preordained — manifest destiny in the Middle East.

    And that thought is unsettling. I mean a bunch of rabid zionists arising out of nowhere, now sitting on hundreds of nukes — at least 2 of which are thermonukes — in the land of Armageddon suggests a very serious question: Chosen to do what?

  7. mondonut
    January 15, 2014, 2:52 pm

    Of course it is totally different. The Jewish people are also the indigenous people. Moreover while not as deliberately false as the disappearing Palestine maps that presumably inspire these, they are nonetheless highly inaccurate.

    • Cliff
      January 15, 2014, 7:26 pm

      The Jewish people are not indigenous to Palestine because ‘THE Jewish people’ is a generalization.

      Jews are also indigenous to America or Europe or Morocco.

      There were Jews who were indigenous Palestinians.

      But the generalization, used as a justification for another generalization (Jewish nationalism), ‘the Jewish people’ – is false.

      Even a nut like you should be able to understand the distinction. Take your fanatical nationalistic blinders off.

      • Sibiriak
        January 16, 2014, 3:42 am

        Cliff:

        The Jewish people are not indigenous to Palestine because ‘THE Jewish people’ is a generalization. Jews are also indigenous to America or Europe or Morocco. There were Jews who were indigenous Palestinians. But the generalization, used as a justification for another generalization (Jewish nationalism), ‘the Jewish people’ – is false.

        Absolutely fundamental points. The mythology of the “Jewish People” and “the Land of Israel” (“the Chosen People”, “Promised Land”, “Exile”, “Wandering”, “Return”) needs to be thoroughly and incessantly debunked.

      • hophmi
        January 16, 2014, 10:47 am

        “Jews are also indigenous to America or Europe or Morocco.”

        Thanks for that. I’m glad to hear that after hundreds of years of slaughter culminating in the Holocaust, Jews are finally considered indigenous to Europe. Too bad I am way past the point of caring.

        “But the generalization, used as a justification for another generalization (Jewish nationalism), ‘the Jewish people’ – is false.”

        No more false than saying that a Greek-American is indigenous to America and still believing that Greeks are the national people of Greece.

      • Cliff
        January 17, 2014, 8:47 pm

        hophmi said:

        No more false than saying that a Greek-American is indigenous to America and still believing that Greeks are the national people of Greece.

        It’s good that you admit it’s false though and that you and your cult are a band of thieves and murderers who stole the land from the indigenous Palestinian population.

        There is no Jewish State without a Jewish majority. No major Zionist leader – that mattered – was ever going to accept a Jewish State with 45% Arabs.

        Your nationalistic cult raped and massacred their way into Palestine.

        ‘The Jewish people’ – a generalization – is a meaningless term in this discussion. Jews are not indigenous ANYWHERE by simply being Jewish.

        Get it through your thick skull.

      • eljay
        January 20, 2014, 8:18 am

        >> No more false than saying that a Greek-American is indigenous to America and still believing that Greeks are the national people of Greece.

        Greeks are the national people of Greece.

        Israelis are the national people of Israel.

        Jews are the national people of…? If the answer is “Jewish State”:
        – Is Jewish the bureaucratic nationality of “Jewish State” – the nationality of its citizens, its immigrants, its ex-pats and all refugees from its territory (as should be the case)?
        – What happens to Israel and the bureaucratic nationality of Israeli?

      • mondonut
        January 16, 2014, 10:49 am

        Cliff says: Jews are also indigenous to America or Europe or Morocco.
        ==========================================
        And the Palestinian Arabs are also indigenous to Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc… What’s your point?

      • Cliff
        January 20, 2014, 5:46 am

        My point?

        I think you proved my point just now. Here you say ‘the Palestinian Arabs’.

        But for Jews, simply by being Jews, you say ‘the Jewish people’.

        The Palestinian people are not universally indigenous anywhere – however their homeland is Palestine. Whereas, Jews can be from plenty of other places. Israel is not the universal homeland of world Jewry.

        Jews existed before Zionists stole Palestine from the Palestinians.

        There are even Chinese or Indian Jews apparently.

        I am an Indian American. I am not indigenous to India. I am indigenous to AMERICA. This is where I was born. This is where I live. This is where I formed my identity.

        You are saying Jews – simply by being Jews – are indigenous to Palestine even though they weren’t born there or may never set foot there.

        That’s my ‘point’.

    • thankgodimatheist
      January 15, 2014, 8:04 pm

      “The Jewish people are also the indigenous people. ”

      Not if we look at those who initiated the Zionist project, the Ashkenazi Jews. Many scientific researches now are validating the view that they’re mostly indigenous to Eastern Europe.

    • Sumud
      January 15, 2014, 9:35 pm

      By that logic we’re all indigenous – to Africa.

      Stopping the clock X thousand years ago and declaring mandate Palestine jewish property forever because there were some jews there one upon a time is obvious claptrap.

      • RoHa
        January 15, 2014, 9:44 pm

        I claim Kenya for myself.

      • just
        January 15, 2014, 11:07 pm

        I’m claiming Iran and Norway and Denmark and South Africa and Utica, NY!

        (Cuba, Afghanistan, and Selma AL and the entire states of MA, NH, ME, and RI, too!)

      • RoHa
        January 16, 2014, 2:24 am

        On what basis?

        As an indigenous African, you can, of course, claim South Africa, but those other places are not parts of Africa. Perhaps Norway and Denmark are included as “Greater Africa”, but I doubt that Utica is.

        I think you are going to have to argue that Utica is necessary for your security in a hostile world.

      • Sumud
        January 16, 2014, 3:07 am

        On what basis?

        Perhaps just has some relations that lived in those locations at some point in history.

        If Israelis can arbitrarily stop the clock during an age where their ancestors or [more relevant perhaps] their co-religionists lived, why can’t we all do the same?

        I’m not greedy – I’ll not have a whole country, but just small pockets of outback NSW and a city residence in Melbourne, and then some land in England, Ireland and Scotland. There are a few other locations but as I said I’m a man of modest aspirations. For my piece of Africa I’m going north and will have the town of Constantine in Algeria.

        All mine. At gunpoint.

      • Shingo
        January 16, 2014, 5:45 am

        I’m not greedy – I’ll not have a whole country, but just small pockets of outback NSW and a city residence in Melbourne, and then some land in England, Ireland and Scotland.

        I might consider the Zionist strategy. I’ll convert to an Australian Aborigine, them claim one of the $50 million + waterfront properties at Point Piper to be my native land and drive out the multi-millionaires that live there.

  8. DICKERSON3870
    January 15, 2014, 3:22 pm

    RE: “No other country has faced such a constant challenge to its very right to exist, even though the age-old biblical, spiritual, and physical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel is unique in the annals of history. ~ Harris of AJC

    MY COMMENT: I sounds as though the AJC’s Harris and “Pastor” John Hagee are on the same page!

    SEE: “A Serial Obstructionist”, By Rachel Tabachnick, ZEEK – Forward, 3/15/10

    [EXCERPTS] . . . Shortly after Vice President Joe Biden’s arrival in Israel, Netanyahu and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat were the headliners at Pastor John Hagee’s two-hour Christians United for Israel (CUFI) extravaganza at the Jerusalem Convention Center. . .
    . . . Monday’s CUFI production was based on the concept of “biblical Zionism,” or the belief that God mandates nonnegotiable borders of Israel, and any leader or nation who thwarts this divine plan will be cursed. Before introducing Netanyahu, Hagee stated, “World leaders do not have the authority to tell Israel and the Jewish people what they can and can not do in Jerusalem.” He added, “Israel does not exist because of a decree of the United Nations in 1948. Israel exists because of a covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. . . The settlements are not the problem.”
    In his books and sermons Hagee has promoted a “greater Israel,” that will reclaim all of Israel’s former biblical territory, stating “In modern terms, Israel rightfully owns all of present-day Israel, all of Lebanon, half of Syria, two-thirds of Jordan, all of Iraq, and the northern portion of Saudi Arabia.”
    At the Jerusalem CUFI event Hagee described Ahmadinejad as the Hitler of the Middle East who could turn the world upside down in 24 hours, words similar to those he made when lobbying for the attack on Iraq. . .
    . . . During a performance by singer Dudu Fisher, the God TV camera panned to the audience and centered on Joel Bell, leader of Worldwide Biblical Zionists. WBZ is currently building a center in Sha’ar Benjamin for “facilitating absorption” of Christian Zionists into the West Bank. It was established after a joint meeting held in Texas of the Board of Governors of World Likud led by Danny Danon, and World Evangelical Zionists led by Joel Bell. Speakers included ZOA’s Morton Klein. . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to zeek.forward.com

  9. Andreas Schlueter
    January 15, 2014, 3:24 pm

    This reveals the true thinking of hardcore Zionists when it comes to Western critics of the occupation policy (anyway the thing is showing the true crimes of the Europeans on the autochonious people in America): “those Goyim should shut up, in the US they had enough time to deal with their Red Indians, and they don´t want to allow us to deal with our Red Indians the same way!” It leads to this: link to wipokuli.wordpress.com
    Andreas Schlüter
    Sociologist
    Berlin, Germany

  10. Donald
    January 15, 2014, 3:25 pm

    I just read the Harris piece. It’s incredibly childish, the sort of thing you teach elementary school kids if you simply want to indoctrinate them. I didn’t see a single mention of “Palestinians”, though he does talk about Israeli Arabs, the ones not driven out. And speaking of that, he mentions Jews driven out of Arab lands, but not the Nakba. The mighty five Arab armies and the miraculous defense against their overwhelming might as they invaded on the very first day of Israel’s existence are referenced. Nevermind that 300,000 Palestinians had already been driven from their homes. In describing Israel’s shortcomings there’s not a word about settlements or the occupation. He mentions suicide bombing, but not white phosphorus on Gaza or cluster munitions dropped on Lebanon.

    If this came from an essay written by a fifth grader at that Long Island school mentioned here the other day, I’d be impressed–appalled at what the child had been taught, but impressed. Coming from someone who is a bit older than ten, it’s an embarrassing display.

    • Citizen
      January 15, 2014, 5:06 pm

      Don’t look to the historical knowledge and consistent logic, just look to who has the money and single focus to keep the US a lackey of Israel. Go after the selfish goys staying in power and nice living by rubber-stamping Israeli whims. For starters, go after the 59 senators supporting the Kill Diplomacy Bill re Iran. It contains a promise delegating the US war power to Israel.

    • marc b.
      January 15, 2014, 5:13 pm

      it is shrill and juvenile and self-centered. he apparently doesn’t know much history either. the whole ‘civilizing mission’ and ‘manifest destiny’ scheme beneficently imposed on an effectively uninhabited, unproductive landscape is a precise similarity of ideologies between 16th century European colonists, and 19th-2oth Zionist colonialism. harris isn’t content though to draw the comparison. forever putting Zionism and it’s advocates on the superlative pedestal. that’s the game.

    • Shingo
      January 17, 2014, 6:26 am

      It’s incredibly childish, the sort of thing you teach elementary school kids if you simply want to indoctrinate them.

      That’s pretty much always the case, be it Harris, Dershowitz, Alterman,Ayalon, Dannon, Netenyahu or Oren.

      Childish and superficial is the best these idiots are capable of.

  11. oldgeezer
    January 15, 2014, 3:41 pm

    Yes let’s roll back all of our laws and norms by a couple of hundred years that we live by so that the zionist enterprise can feel good about themselves or put on a pretty face to the rest of the world.

    Natives in Canada, at least, have been receiving reparations for the past 50 years. There have been apologies and attempts at redress. That process is not complete. More needs to be done. While Canadians have pride in their heritage they take no pride in those actions of their ancestors. And particularly not in the abuse of native children which doesn’t seem to hamper the Israeli collective conscience one bit.

    If we roll laws back to that period then genocide and ethnic cleansing was frequently the norm. I struggle to understand why anyone would want to provide ammunition to those who would legitimize or sanitize the horrors of the Nazis. That’s taking it to the extreme admittedly but it was only because of the horrors of that period that many of the laws being broken by Israel came into existence.

    This is the 21st century. Unless one is to believe that Israeli’s are some form of lesser type of human it’s not unreasonable to expect them to follow the laws we have today (and the agreements/treaties that they’ve signed). There is no argument to be made that they deserve exemption from the laws which govern the rest of us.

  12. ThorsteinVeblen2012
    January 15, 2014, 5:20 pm

    I wasn’t alive when the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans occurred. It was wrong then. I had no say in the matter.

    The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is happening today.

    How does a wrong that happened before I was born either justify it happening today or make me responsible for it’s consequences?

    If I don’t say it is wrong today what are the consequences tomorrow?

    • just
      January 15, 2014, 7:46 pm

      Well said, ThorsteinVeblen2012 .

      I’m going out on a limb here and surmising that that’s a question that no Zionist can answer effectively nor truthfully. (I am glad that the cradle of truth will break the fall, or push.)

      • Citizen
        January 16, 2014, 3:50 am

        Seems to me the Zionists’ current working ethical/moral red line is they can do anything to undesirables short of en masse extermination a la Hitler. Apparently that’s a practical policy justified by the conviction the world wouldn’t stand by and allow such a extermination policy. It would intervene with military force to stop it. A secondary rational is such a policy implemented would be bad PR in an internet-connected world. They push the envelope as much as possible, for example, by keeping Gaza under siege, keeping the inmates of Gaza on an unhealthy diet, and raining down white phosphorus on the children of Gaza, as happened some five years ago. Of course there are those Zionists who preach native babies can be killed since they will only grow up to be enemies of the Zionist state, but that’s not a current state policy to my knowledge.

    • hophmi
      January 16, 2014, 10:50 am

      “How does a wrong that happened before I was born either justify it happening today or make me responsible for it’s consequences?”

      LOL. Most Israelis were not alive in 1948. If you’re an American living on land that was stolen from a Native American, and you know this, you’re responsible, albeit less than the guy who actually took it. You have a say. You could move and find land that was never stolen from anyone. Try Antartica or Greenland. I hear they have some of that.

      Anyway, that’s exactly what Max Blumenthal and others would tell the Israelis – you’re all responsible, and you should just leave.

  13. Mike_Konrad
    January 15, 2014, 5:32 pm

    I am aware of the analogy, but it is tortured.

    Israel is 8,000 sq miles. 20,000 km² . The number of Palestinians in 1900 was around 550,000

    The density was 26 people/km² or roughly 70 people/mi². That would translate to roughly 180 Million American Indians in 1607.

    That is insane.

    The American Indians were far less dense

    Far more spread out

    Spoke different languages

    Had different cultures

    Had not major cities like Jaffa or Shechem

    Were truly tribal

    Most were wiped out due to diseases, NOT aggression, though obviously, some were.

    American Indians have absolute full civil rights now.

    I am not saying that what we did to the American Indian was right; but the analogy is stretched.

    A better analogy might be Bolivia and/or Paraguay where the natives eventually reasserted themselves. (Quecha and Aymara) and Guarani are now an official languages.

    Al Jazeera report on the Guarani resurgence in Paraguay

    I UNDERSTAND THE ANALOGY. It is not totally wrong, but it is weak.

    Aymara is also resurgent in Bolivia.

    By the way, the languages in Bolivia and Paraguay are genuinely resurgent. Unlike Ireland where Gaelic is kept alive only by the government, in Bolivia and Paraguay, the Indian languages never died out. They are genuinely resurgent. Al the governments had to do was stop suppressing the languages.

    This song is in Aymara and Spanish by a Bolivan tinka group:
    Los Kjarkes: imilitay
    link to youtube.com

    The group is famous in Latin America and Japan.

    Israel is closer to the South American situation. The Spanish never got complete control of the Northern Andes.

    The USA and Canadian experiences were different. Far different. The number of immigrants to native is on the order of 50 to 1. Intermarriage was minor. In South America, intermarriage was the norm.

  14. Sumud
    January 15, 2014, 5:59 pm

    To cut a long story short [too late]: for Harris, Israelis have permission from his god to do whatever they want to the Palestinians.

    Not very convincing.

  15. Kathleen
    January 15, 2014, 6:23 pm

    The man at KGNU in Boulder began his interview with Max Blumenthal with these excuses and comparisons. So they committed “genocide” so ok for Israel to do it. What a lame approach.

    PW ” It’s amazing that HuffingtonPost publishes this kind of stuff.” When Huff Po first came on line no links that I would try to put up to UN, Anti.war.com, Emptywheel’s, Juan Cole’s, Mondoweiss when it came to be would not make it up. Then for about four years they were letting these links through. Now again far far more restricted. They definitely will not allow any criticisms based on facts about Hillary Clinton up. They are as bad as Fox News but the other side of the pendulum. Pathetic

    • MHughes976
      January 15, 2014, 6:36 pm

      I’d say it was wildly illogical, more than just lame, to justify something or suggest that it’s in any sense ok by likening it to something you say was horrible and over which you pour strong words of condemnation, like ‘genocide’.

  16. MHughes976
    January 15, 2014, 6:24 pm

    I’m not sure that Harris ‘principle’ is an unambiguous appeal to religion, about which Zionism has always been triumphantly ambivalent. It could mean that everyone, as a matter of non-religious moral principle, inherits a right to return to, and to become part of the dominant group in, any territory which ancestors left because of the injustice of others.
    I would dispute this principle because I think that rights of return apply only to refugees (including children born to refugees in refugee conditions) who have not accepted citizenship elsewhere and that there is no right for anyone to belong to a dominant group. And I think it would run into paradoxes because the group forced at one time to leave may have forced its way in at another.
    So I think Harris’ principle would imply an excessively strong demand on the part of Native Americans. Not even they have a right of domination – though they may well deserve better or much better than they currently have, just as the Palestinians certainly do.

    • Sibiriak
      January 16, 2014, 3:54 am

      MHughes976

      I think that rights of return apply only to refugees (including children born to refugees in refugee conditions) who have not accepted citizenship elsewhere

      But, but…all Jews are descendants of refugees, victims of Roman ethnic cleansing campaigns…and Exile WAS one grand experience of refugee conditions, isolated, persecuted, non-assimilated…and…the renowned and revered legal scholar known as “Hostage” has told us that a “right of return” is not necessarily waived upon acquisition of new citizenship.

      • MHughes976
        January 16, 2014, 5:29 am

        I certainly wouldn’t challenge Hostage on matters of law! When it comes to underlying morality I would think that if the inhabitants of a country accept a refugee as a full citizen, absolutely ‘one of us’, they are at least entitled to ask the refugee to waive claims that ‘one of us’ does not normally have, such as a claim to citizenship elsewhere. I’m not so sure whether ‘entitled’ could become ‘obliged’ and I wouldn’t think that a refugee could be asked to give up claims to identifiable private property in the other country, since there’s nothing abnormal about citizens of one country owning property in another.

  17. Abdul-Rahman
    January 15, 2014, 7:05 pm

    These Zionist propagandists are of course very unconcerned with a little something called accurate history!

    link to books.google.com

    ‘Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from, historical Palestine… Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture.’ Bassam Abu-Libdeh, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi, ‘Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians,’ in Dhavendra Kumar (ed.) Genomics and Health in the Developing World, OUP 2012 pp.700-711, p.700.

    And Harris might want to check out two of the newest genetic studies on the “topic” (i.e. mythology) that he is attempting to bloviate about in his trash that “huffpo” should be condemned for publishing.

    link to gbe.oxfordjournals.org The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses

    by Dr. Eran Elhaik link to eelhaik.aravindachakravartilab.org

    and then also,

    link to nature.com

    “A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages”

    by Dr. Martin B. Richards (study also known as, Costa et al. 2013)

    And of course Professor Shlomo Sand has also already put forward the bestselling and acclaimed debunking of all this very tired Zionist mythology as well.

    In closing, Harris and company simply go on with their silly mythology “angle”, because they clearly just don’t like the concrete modern international law that is against the crimes of the ongoing Zionist occupation.

    • Abdul-Rahman
      January 15, 2014, 7:16 pm

      Oh yeah and Ali Abunimah already wrote a very well worded essay (a few years back) noting the utter absurdity of Zionist propagandists who occasionally try to trot out the line of “well America was no better to the Indians!” as supposedly some sort of alleged “defense” for Israel’s ongoing crimes today.

      link to mondoweiss.net

  18. James Canning
    January 15, 2014, 7:52 pm

    David Harris is full of cr*p. All Arab countries agree to accept Israel WITHIN ITS PRE-1967 BORDERS.

    • hophmi
      January 16, 2014, 10:52 am

      “All Arab countries agree to accept Israel WITHIN ITS PRE-1967 BORDERS.”

      With a right of return for refugees. In other words, we accept Israel as long as it agrees to turn into Palestine.

      • James Canning
        January 18, 2014, 6:55 pm

        Wrong. “Right of return” to Israel within “1967” borders, is essentially a non-starter.
        Adequate compensation is another matter, however.

  19. Kathleen
    January 15, 2014, 8:51 pm

    Look over there. No over there

  20. Ecru
    January 16, 2014, 12:36 am

    As usual a Zionist finds it impossible to follow their own “logic” to its conclusion or apply it equally.

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that yes, the morality of the 1700’s should still apply and pardon similar behaviour today, what would that mean?

    It’d mean it was perfectly OK for a European or any other nation to force its Jewish population to live in Ghettoes. It’d mean that discrimination against Jews was OK. It’d mean it was perfectly OK to force Jews into very limited livelihoods. It’d mean it was perfectly OK in those nations to take, by force, a Jewish persons property based on little more than an accusation. It’d mean it was perfectly OK for a Gentile in those nations to murder a Jew and get away with it. It’d mean it was perfectly OK for people to wage Pogroms against Jews.

    It’d mean it was perfectly OK to commit Genocide against Jews.

    Is this really what a Zionist thinks is acceptable behaviour? Or could it be that in these cases they’d argue that what was acceptable at one time no longer is? Very selective lot aren’t they………

    • MHughes976
      January 16, 2014, 8:30 am

      We hear an awful lot of this comparison but I’m not sure that we’re being asked to applaud the predominant morality of the 1700s or to condemn it. The usual tone of Zionist references to European expansion in the Americas actually seems rather scornful and negative.
      Not that there was universal consent in the 1700s to a rapacious international morality. To some extent there has been consent throughout human history that there is no right to invade or maraud.

      • Ecru
        January 17, 2014, 5:29 am

        I don’t think we’re being asked to applaud it but we are being asked to accept it. And if we accept that, why then should we not accept other behaviours from the period, behaviours such as the ones I mentioned against Jews?

        As for the tone I see that not as being scornful and negative towards the actions (why would it be, after all genocide is a Zionists wet dream) but rather towards the non-Jews who carried these actions out and those Jews and non-Jews today who object to similar things happening in the present.

      • MHughes976
        January 19, 2014, 11:46 am

        If we say that we accept the older morality for its own time and that it’s not our purpose to sit in judgement on the past but only on the present then I agree that that position should apply to whatever was going on then, such as the widespread special taxation of Jews. But at that rate you specifically break the link between then-judgements and now-judgements, so that the comparison between colonisation in the 1700s and Zionist behaviour now becomes irrelevant, so of no value to the Zionist cause. We would then be spared all this insistence on the comparison.
        If we do sit in judgement and scorn non-Jewish people doing certain things in the past then we have, unless we give good reason – what would it be? – make a negative judgement on Jewish people doing the same things in the present. At that rate the comparison would be destructive, not helpful, to the Zionist cause. Zionist apologists seem not to take this point.
        The third possibility is to deny that there was ever much comparison in any event.
        A fourth possibility would be to praise both, though this option doesn’t seem popular.

      • Sibiriak
        January 19, 2014, 12:15 pm

        MHughes976 says:

        If we say that we accept the older morality for its own time and that it’s not our purpose to sit in judgement on the past but only on the present then I agree that that position should apply to whatever was going on then…

        Perhaps the Zionist argument is better formulated this way:

        “The crimes of the past are not being used today to delegitimize many nations that committed those crimes. (The U.S. is not being delegitimized today because of the genocide of native Americans in the past.)

        Therefore, Zionist crimes of the past cannot be used to delegitimize Israel today. ”

        This argument does nothing to justify current Israeli crimes, of course, but it does allow liberal Zionists to admit that Israel was founded on ethnic cleansing etc. yet say “the past is the past” and there is no point harping on it–and if you do harp on it, you are being hypocritical at best, antisemitic at worst.

      • MHughes976
        January 20, 2014, 9:13 am

        Thanks for your comment, Sibiriak – there’s no reply button so I’m replying ‘to myself’.
        I do see the force of the argument that the crimes of the past do not by themselves delegitimise a regime in the present. The obligation is not to change the past, which is impossible, but to correct things in the present as much as possible and if rights were violated to restore those rights.

  21. Sid
    January 16, 2014, 1:38 am

    According to Harris: “To understand the essence of Israel’s meaning, it is enough to ask how the history of the Jewish people might have been different had there been a Jewish state in 1933, in 1938, or even in 1941. If Israel had controlled its borders and the right of entry instead of Britain?”

    Well, Mr. Harris, maybe the following 2 points are worth noting:

    1. In 1937, the Zionists were offered a two state solution (the Peel Commission Plan), but they deliberately rejected it because they wanted more land. Many years later, David Ben Gurion would remark, “had [the Peel Commission plan] been carried out, the history of our people would have been different and six million Jews in Europe would not have been killed – most of them would be in Israel”.

    2. In the 1930’s and 40’s, the Jewish Agency, an arm of the Zionist movement, did indeed have the power to issue immigration certificates, subject to a limit set by the British colonial government in Palestine. In handing out these immigration certificates, the primary criterion used by the Jewish Agency was not who faced the greatest danger of persecution, but rather, who could better satisfy Zionist needs in Palestine. A Jewish Agency executive stated that those receiving immigration certificates “merely as refugees” were “undesirable human material”. And a decision was made in 1935 that “anyone who was a merchant or of similar employment, will not receive a certificate under any circumstances, except in the case of veteran Zionists” (ref. Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust).

  22. Little_Shih_Tzu
    January 16, 2014, 8:06 am

    Hey, is Harris willing to do his small share to right the wrong done to the indigenous peoples of North America?

    Kudos to the first person to challenge Harris to renounce his US citizenship and thus end his part in the occupation of north America.

  23. seafoid
    January 16, 2014, 9:41 am

    “One of the rising choruses from the pro-Israel crowd is that the U.S. is no better because it too is based on an ethnic cleansing”

  24. Woody Tanaka
    January 16, 2014, 9:49 am

    “One of the rising choruses from the pro-Israel crowd is that the U.S. is no better because it too is based on an ethnic cleansing (though the U.S. got its ethnic cleansing in before the age of decolonization).”

    Yes, this is called “genocide envy.” The underlying subtext is that israel is jealous that the US got away with committing a near complete genocide against the Native Americans and a lament that the israelis didn’t do the same to the Palestinians to achieve the same results.

  25. Woody Tanaka
    January 16, 2014, 9:52 am

    “even though the age-old biblical, spiritual, and physical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel is unique in the annals of history.”

    Yes, “unique” just as the Palestinians’ connection to the land is “unique” and the Christian connection to the land is “unique” and the Muslim connection to the land is “unique.” BFD. Even if it is “unique,” that does not mean it is dispositive or even relevant to any political question.

  26. Shingo
    January 17, 2014, 6:36 am

    Harris and Dershowitz seem to be laying the ground work for the new Hasbara. Having failed to make the care that Israel is on the right side of international law, they are now trying to argue that international law and human rights laws are irrelevant.

    Of course this opens a whole cam of worms that undermines their position regardless . If international law and human rights don’t matter, then surely there is no case for the creation of Israel.

Leave a Reply