Caroline Glick says there were no Palestinian refugees

US Politics
on 182 Comments

It is the prime of Caroline Glick. The contributing editor of the Jerusalem Post who grew up in Chicago and moved to Israel after graduating from Columbia University in 1991 had a showdown with European diplomats ten days ago in which she told them that their concern with Israeli settlements was a manifestation of anti-Semitism that goes back to Jesus.

A couple weeks before that, she got to spout three paragraphs of her intolerant ideas in a long piece in The New Yorker on the one-state reality:

Like Netanyahu, Glick sees a Palestinian state as little more than a staging ground for assaults on Israel. “The border will be permeable,” she said. “Jerusalem will be divided and people will walk in the Damascus Gate and then through the Jaffa Gate and murder people. There is no way of securing the country…”

That piece mentioned her book, The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East. It came out earlier this year from a big US publisher, Crown, with blurbs from the governor of Indiana and former UN Ambassador John Bolton.

I got the book. Glick denies the Nakba, the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948; denies the existence of Palestinian refugees; denies that Palestinians are the “indigenous population” of the land; and denies the existence of the West Bank, which she mentions only in quotation marks– its real name for her is its biblical Jewish designation, Judea and Samaria.

The book affirms “the Jewish people’s status as the indigenous people of the Land of Israel.” Glick may have grown up in Chicago, but she has a religious view of Middle East history:

[T]he Jewish people’s rights to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria–as with their rights to the rest of the Land of Israel– are overwhelming….[D]uring the 3,500 year political history of the Land of Israel, the Jews were the only nation that viewed Israel as a single political unit…

The Temple Mount is… the holiest site in Judaism. According to Jewish tradition, the Temple Mount is where the world was created… The destruction of the Temple Mount [by what Glick calls a Palestinian “campaign” today to excavate the site] is a cultural crime certainly no less damaging than the Taliban’s destruction of the ancient Buddhist Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan in March 2001…

The people of Israel, and indeed the Jewish people worldwide, are a community of memory. The reconsitution of the Jewish state in the Land of Israel is an unprecedented historic accomplishment. No other indigenous people has preserved its national identity for so long and against such great odds, only to repatriate itself to its historic homeland…

And it was in recognition of this remarkable feat that in 1922, the nations of the world determined that the legal right to sovereignty over the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people alone.

Glick’s one straight reference to the “Nakba,” is the claim that it is the Palestinian name for May 15, 1948. In fact the Nakba refers to a months-long period of expulsion. Glick generally puts the word “Palestine” inside quotations too. It has never existed as a political entity, she asserts, just a geographical one.

And so there could be no Palestinian refugees from the land of Israel, because they were interlopers. The refugees in her view are “the so-called Palestinian refugees.” She says the refugee problem began after Israel’s establishment on May 15, 1948– thereby denying the Zionist campaign of ethnic cleansing that began weeks before that, including the massacre at Deir Yassin in April 1948 and the campaign against the coastal city of Jaffa: Jaffa’s Palestinian population went from 75,000 to 4,500 over several months ending on May 13, 1948.

But Glick says the so-called refugees left later than that:

During the course of the war  [with Arab armies that commenced May 1948], several hundred thousand Palestinians had left the territory of Israel and relocated to neighboring Arab states. Since they left, the Arab states, aside from Jordan, have denied them and their descendants citizenship…

Today there are several million Arabs whom the United Nations classifies as Palestinian refugees who have lived for generations in the Arab states neighboring Israel…

As for the right of return, Glick never mentions UN Resolution 194, guaranteeing the right of refugees to return. She does say:

“This demand is without precedent in the history of warfare. There is no precedent of a civilian population, displaced by a war that their leadership started and lost, claiming a right to return to territory that they failed to conquer…. In other words, the demand for a ‘right of return’ of the ‘refugees’ is a Palestinian — and pan-Arab, and UN– attempt to retroactively achieve the result they failed to achieve in a war of aggression instigated by their ancestors.”

Every Palestinian I’ve ever asked about the right of return has said that it is a central issue. In part this is because the right affirms Palestinian history and grievances: their expulsion in 1948 and the refusal to allow them to return to their property. As endless peace processors have discovered, any resolution of the conflict must honor and reckon with the right of return. Whether or not a sizable portion of refugees and descendants would choose to return is not the question; the issue is one of acknowledgement of a grave injustice. Imagine how Jews would respond if a prominent writer denied the Holocaust; that kind of lie has generated lawsuits and laws. What’s more, the Nazi extermination of Jews resulted years ago in German reparations to Jews and other goodwill gestures between Germany and Israel, to the point that Netanyahu has a German car. Yet there have been no reparations to Palestinians for the theft of their property and their expulsion from their lands 66 years ago.Reporting on the Ground

Glick’s statements must be understood in that context, as hugely offensive. Can you imagine someone who denies the history of Jim Crow being granted a platform in The New Yorker to spout her ideas? Impossible. She’d be marginalized. And this is the journalist who is regarded as representative of rightwing Israeli thought!

Yizhar Smilansky, who wrote under the name S. Yizhar

Yizhar Smilansky, who wrote under the name S. Yizhar

This very month, an American publisher has reissued a historic 1949 book by the late Israeli writer S. Yizhar, called Khirbet Khizeh. The short book is a novel but it documents the expulsion of Palestinians from a village in 1948 in the most vivid and undeniable terms. The narrator of the book is an officer who at the climax of a day of expelling villagers observes a dignified woman walking with her son to a transport truck to be taken from her home and realizes that Zionists are creating a refugee crisis, in an upside-down reflection of Jewish history:

Something struck me like lightning.. This was exile. This was what exile was like. This was what exile looked like.

I had never been to the Diaspora… but people had spoken to me, told me, taught me, and repeatedly recited to me, from every direction, in books and newspapers, everywhere: exile. They had played on all my nerves. Our nation’s protest to the world: exile! It had entered me, apparently, with my mother’s milk. What, in fact, had we perpetrated here today?…

My guts cried out. Colonizers, they shouted. Lies, my guts shouted. Khirbet Khizeh is not ours. The Spandau gun never gave us any rights. Oh, my guts scream. What hadn’t they told us about refugees. Everything, everything was for the refugees, their welfare, their rescue… our refugees, naturally. Those we were driving out– that was a totally different matter. Wait. Two thousand years of exile. The whole story. Jews being killed. Europe. We were the masters now.

Our refugees from Europe and their refugees from Palestine. That is a true Jewish witness to history. Caroline Glick is a false one. What a disgrace that she is getting so much attention. Sadly, her ideas get traction outside the right. Her rise is reminiscent of Joan Peters’s book 30 years ago. Norman Finkelstein destroyed those lies; and the late Anthony Lewis picked up Finkelstein’s research in The New York Times in a great column titled, “There Were No Indians.” Glick deserves the same treatment.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

182 Responses

  1. William Burns
    December 27, 2014, 12:07 pm

    “There is no precedent of a civilian population, displaced by a war that their leadership started and lost, claiming a right to return to territory that they failed to conquer.”

    Weirdly, that’s a pretty good summation of the history of Zionism.

    • Pretext
      December 27, 2014, 1:51 pm

      I suspect that her feeble attempt to dodge an accusation of hypocrisy lies in “…that their leadership started and lost”.

      But boy do you need some tall boots to wade through this stuff. It’s like a homework assignment in Propaganda 101 to deconstruct the layers of fertilizer:

      1. It requires that you accept the revisionist narrative that the Palestinians were the aggressors in 1948.

      2. It contradicts itself by mentioning a displaced civilian population and a territory that they failed to conquer in the same breath.

      3. Even if you blindly assume that everything she says is true, it’s still a wholly irrelevant distinction: Whether or not a civilian population has a right to return home most certainly does not turn on whether or not their leaders started and lost a war.

      • Shingo
        December 28, 2014, 8:19 am

        2. It contradicts itself by mentioning a displaced civilian population and a territory that they failed to conquer in the same breath.

        Great observation. There are so many contradictions.

        On one hand, she insists there are no refugees, while claiming they don’t have a right to return because according to her – no refugees have ever been allowe to return after war.

        The contradiction bring that there would be no debate about ROR if the were never refugees to begin with.

        In another one of her deranged speeches, she said that the reason the U.S. and Israel shared common values was because neither state has ever committed genocide. Apparently, the genocide against the native North American Indians doesn’t count.

        If it wasn’t done to Jews it’s not genocide.

    • RoHa
      December 27, 2014, 6:24 pm

      “There is no precedent of a civilian population, displaced by a war that their leadership started and lost, claiming a right to return to territory that they failed to conquer.”

      Even if this is true, the civilian population may still have the right to return.
      (And I say they do have that right.)

      • Annie Robbins
        December 27, 2014, 7:22 pm

        plus the idea the “leadership” of the palestinian civilian population started a war with the zionists is absurd. or that palestinians “failed to conquer” their own land — argh, logic alert!

      • MHughes976
        December 28, 2014, 6:11 am

        You’re in good company, RoHa – Locke (2nd Treatise, ch.16) asserts that same right. Almost as if he could see the Palestine problem coming.

      • Mooser
        December 28, 2014, 3:26 pm

        There is, like, zero appreciation for shibboleths and slogans around here. They don’t have to be true, or make sense. In fact they are best when they pile several meaningless words or phrases on each other.

      • RoHa
        December 28, 2014, 6:26 pm

        MHughes, yes, the idea that people who have been driven from their homes have a right to return follows from basic conceptions of justice.

        But, as you suggest, the Zionist does not think that the Palestinians had a right to be in those homes in the first place.

      • yonah fredman
        December 29, 2014, 9:23 pm

        The reaction of the Arab (Palestinian) leadership to the Partition resolution passed in November 1947 was war: low level war, but war.

      • Mooser
        December 30, 2014, 12:00 pm

        “The reaction of the Arab (Palestinian) leadership…”

        Awww, what a sweetheart you are, Yonah! You’ve actually gone as far as giving the Palestinians a parenthetical existence! Are those parentheses your ‘security fence’?
        Don’t worry, Yonah, as long as they stay within those parenthesis, you’ll be safe! Unless they launch a wave of apostrophe attacks on your Iron Dome, that is!

      • RoHa
        December 30, 2014, 6:52 pm

        “The reaction of the Arab (Palestinian) leadership to the Partition resolution passed in November 1947 was war: low level war, but war.”

        Yonah, two questions.

        1. What did the Arabs [Palestinian]/indigines/natives do that constitutes war?

        2. What should they have done?

        When answering the second question, remember to put it into the context of their position.

        For thirty years they had been held in Mandate and denied independence.

        During that period immigrants with clearly hostile intent had flooded into the country.

        TheA[P]in had made it absolutely clear that they did not want this to continue.

        TheA[P]in had offered to integrate the immigrants who were already present as full citizens with equal rights, and (if I remember rightly*) had even agreed to Hebrew as an official language.

        TheA[P]in had made it absolutely clear that they did not want their country to be cut up.

        The UN resolution went completely against the wishes of the A[P]in, even though the A[P]in are the majority in the territory.

        The A[P]in knew that the Zionists would not be content with the partition. The Zionists had made that clear.

        In short, then, the rights, desires, and interests of the A[P]in had been completely overridden and ignored.

        So, all things considered, what should the A[P]in have done?

        (*Hostage will know. We need him.)

    • Philemon
      December 28, 2014, 8:22 pm

      William Burns makes a good point.

      The funny thing is that, in Glick’s view, the Zionist story, which is absolutely bizarro, is one of supposed descendants (of descendants, etc., or maybe not, as some of them were from Bialistok) of supposed refugees (from an uprising or two by their leadership that failed to conquer, no less) having a right to return to “their land.”

      Of course, the Zionists never had any real documentary evidence beyond highly embroidered myths and legends of the distant past, most of which were pilfered from other people, that there ever was any serious kingdom there. The story of Jewish refugees in great numbers from Palestine 2000™ years ago is not historically supported.

      Just another case of Israel supporters projecting the weakness of their case onto others.

      Does Glick even know how she comes across to non-fanatical readers?

      Coo-coo for cocoa puffs.

      • tree
        December 28, 2014, 11:44 pm

        So much of Zionist “reasoning” is simply special pleading. Not only does Glick think that foreign Jews have a right to “return” to “their land” in Palestine/Israel because she believes they’ve had a sense of nationhood centered on Israel for x number of millenia, but she also believes that the indigenous Palestinians have no right to live in the land, since they are comparative johnny-come-latelys. So their expulsion can be morally defended and they are not refugees.

        Now, if one was to believe that steaming pile of brain poop, and apply it to the situation in Europe over the same x millenia, then European Jews were the johnny come lately’s, who (according to Glick) had a sense of nationhood different from the one in which they lived, so therefore their expulsion from European countries at various times could be morally justified in exactly the same warped way that Glick justifies the expulsion of the Palestinians. And therefore there were NO European Jewish refugees, according to Glick’s logic.

        But then, I’m sure she’d insist that different rules apply in Palestine/Israel that exist no where else. Special pleading to a tee. (And she doesn’t even have a clue how many anti-semitic tropes she’s embraced with her thinking.)

  2. just
    December 27, 2014, 12:31 pm

    Phil~ I am glad that you continue to follow this Nakba/Palestinian denier. Yesterday I had my eyes opened even wider by Ally Cohen here:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/extremist-confronts-volunteer

    In that article, she made me aware of a violent, extremist settler named Anat Cohen.

    From a “New Yorker” article by Goldberg in 2014:

    “Cohen pulled up a few minutes later, in a station wagon, its windshield cracked from stone-throwing attacks. She is one of the leaders of the Hebron Jews. A short woman in her early forties, she had a taut, windburned face and muscular arms, and her fingernails were chewed and dirty. As we walked through her front door, into a stone-walled living room, I asked her how she could let her son play amid the barbed wire and soldiers and barricades, and with snipers in the hills above.

    “Hebron is ours,” she said. “Why shouldn’t he play?”

    “Because he could get killed,” I said.

    “There’s a bullet out there for each one of us,” she said. “But you can always die. At least his death here would sanctify God’s name.”

    Cohen and other settlers say that they are obliged to fulfill God’s command that Jews settle the land of Israel. But there are safer places to live than King David Street in Hebron. I asked Cohen how she reconciled her decision to settle here with an even greater imperative of Judaism, the saving of lives—in this case, those of her children.

    She glared at me. “Hellenizers”—secular Jews—“will never understand,” she said with contempt.

    Anat Cohen is known, even among Hebron’s Jews, who are some of the least placatory of all the settlers, for her ferocity. According to Army commanders, she has cursed and insulted soldiers, and assaulted Arabs. The first time we met, she told me that she was a soldier of God.”

    Cohen has about ten children—like certain religious Jews, she refused to specify the number, in order to confuse the evil eye. The Cohen house is cramped and dark, and there are few toys. On one wall hangs a framed photograph of Meir Kahane, the zealot rabbi from Brooklyn, who advocated the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel. Behind a stone pillar hangs a photograph of Baruch Goldstein, with the inscription “The Saint Dr. Goldstein.” A candle burned in a makeshift shrine, in memory of Cohen’s brother, Gilad Zar. He was the security chief of the settlements in Samaria, the territory of the northern West Bank.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/05/31/among-the-settlers

    I am quite sure that Glick and Anat Cohen would gladly break bread together. Perhaps they already have. Glick sounds as fundy as Cohen, she only uses different weapons some of the time. What I find so astonishing is that Cohen has been allowed to get away with her threats and violence for so many years! I am glad that you are exposing Glick for her vile comments and views, thinly veiled by her Ivy League degrees, but more indicative of her IOF creds and more in keeping with extremist “settlers”.

    PS~ nice that you and Annie are splitting up the burden of covering Glick.

    • Mooser
      December 28, 2014, 3:28 pm

      “She glared at me. “Hellenizers”—secular Jews—“will never understand,” she said with contempt.”

      “Hellenizers?” ROTFLMSJAO!!

      • RoHa
        December 28, 2014, 6:22 pm

        Vote for Judas Maccabeus, the settler’s friend!

    • Philemon
      December 28, 2014, 8:57 pm

      Maccabees or… ? What about the Essenes?

      • RoHa
        December 28, 2014, 10:42 pm

        Essenes? Ptah! Buncha wimps.

      • Walid
        December 29, 2014, 2:01 am

        “Buncha wimps.”

        More like an early version of Jesus loves you more than you will know-flower children floating on a cloud.

      • Mooser
        December 29, 2014, 12:04 pm

        The Judean People’s Front is the only one for me.

      • RoHa
        December 29, 2014, 6:20 pm

        Not the People’s Front of Judea?

      • Mooser
        December 30, 2014, 12:04 pm

        “Not the People’s Front of Judea?”

        Splitter!

  3. bintbiba
    December 27, 2014, 12:52 pm

    Reading this… I just feel my head is about too explode !

    I can’t comment as I won’t stumble into the sin of being “uncivil” . As time passes I am getting more and more lost for words . But thanks to all of the commenters here and of course Philip Weiss , Annie Robbins, Adam Horowitz the valiant three … they speak much better than I ever could. I embrace you all !!

    • catporn
      December 28, 2014, 7:17 am

      Reading this… I just feel my head is about too explode !
      Snap, if I was gonna put myself through the discomfiture of reading the whole book I’d have to treat it as a parody.

    • Bornajoo
      December 29, 2014, 6:54 pm

      Bintbiba, I also couldn’t comment on this article immediately as I doubt my comment would have passed through moderation. What a horrible, disgusting, vile and despicable person she is. She should be locked up. I notice that some of the zionist commentators have tried to distance themselves from her and label her as the extreme right but she’s the contributing editor of the Jerusalem post!

      But I’ve calmed down a bit now and am starting to think that maybe it’s a good thing that this vile creature parades herself and her views as much as possible. She can join the other right wing, supremacist, fascist nutters like Bennett and Feiglin by being brutally honest about their true motivation, agenda and intentions which in my opinion is the only way we will ever get to the end of this seemingly never ending nightmare.

      She obviously believes that her international audience will accept and validate her views. I’m hoping, obviously, that this is a huge miscalculation which will backfire in spectacular fashion. If I’ve got that wrong then there is really no hope but I really do believe that this mob will eventually bring about the change required as long as they are not shoved aside by the so called liberal lefties

  4. Bill
    December 27, 2014, 1:26 pm

    This is becoming annoying. Norman Finkelstein did great work on Joan Peters, but as he will tell you, he was not the only person who did significant work in shooting down Peters (as the Anthony Lewis column you mentioned points out).

    • RoHa
      December 27, 2014, 6:26 pm

      Yehoshua Porath is another major figure in the anti-Peters camp.

      • tree
        December 27, 2014, 8:10 pm

        As was Ian and David Gilmour’s review in the London Review of Books. readable in part without registration here:

        http://www.lrb.co.uk/v07/n02/ian-gilmour/pseudo-travellers

      • RoHa
        December 27, 2014, 9:48 pm

        And that Gilmour review mentions the Cockburn review.

        It also raises two of the “arguments” that I find totally incomprehensible.

        1.
        There have been Palestinian Jews living in Palestine for x thousand years.
        Therefore Polish Jews (whose Palestinian ancestors, if any, left Palestine close on two thousand years ago) have a right to set up a state in Palestine.

        2.
        Arabs migrated to Palestine at the same time as Polish Jews migrated to Palestine.
        Therefore the Arab migrants do not have the same right to set up a state as the Polish migrants.

        Even if we accept 1, I cannot see how its conclusion supports 2.

      • oldgeezer
        December 30, 2014, 12:25 am

        Understanding how conclusion 1 relates to conclusion 2 requires a purely racist mindset. It really is that simple. Not everything in life is complicated.

  5. Jim Holstun
    December 27, 2014, 1:46 pm

    S. Yizhar’s book is magnificent–an amazing book on ethnic cleansing that deserves to be as well known as Heart of Darkness. But its reception history is complicated: many Israelis took it as testimony to the heroism of “dirty hands” necessary for modern nation building. The narrator proceeds with the ethnic cleansing; S. Yizhar proceeded with his literary and political career as an MK and an ally of David Ben Gurion.

  6. amigo
    December 27, 2014, 2:13 pm

    “[T]he Jewish people’s rights to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria–as with their rights to the rest of the Land of Israel– are overwhelming….[D]uring the 3,500 year political history of the Land of Israel, the Jews were the only nation that viewed Israel as a single political unit…” glick.

    2000 , 3000 , 3500 , 4000.

    Wouldn,t you think they would come up with a common conclusion.

    Who to believe.

    • RoHa
      December 27, 2014, 6:30 pm

      Is

      (a) ” [D]uring the 3,500 year political history of the Land of Israel, the Jews were the only nation that viewed Israel as a single political unit… ”

      supposed to be a reason why

      (b) “[T]he Jewish people’s rights to sovereignty over Judea and Samaria–as with their rights to the rest of the Land of Israel– are overwhelming” ?

      I can’t see the argument How does (a) imply (b)?

      And is (a) true, anyway?

      • Annie Robbins
        December 27, 2014, 7:11 pm

        I can’t see the argument How does (a) imply (b)?

        no kidding. this reminds me of a conversation i had w/jack the other day about the “jewish claim” to the land. i asked him what claim he was referencing? and he responded:

        The Roman Province was called Judea, the name deriving from the Kingdom of Judah of the 6th century B.C. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/occupation-bethlehem-protesters#comment-732044

        then i said you didn’t answer my question jack. i didn’t asked what it was called or where the name derived from, i asked “what claim” to the land. where did today’s jewish claim come from?

        he never got back to me on that. and as i mentioned to him at the time the idea anyone has a real estate claim on land because they allegedly had relatives who lived there in the time of christ is so far fetched as to be rendered insane by any normal person, imho. but who am i?!!! – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/annie#sthash.O28lllq5.dpuf

        i think mooser and i were talking about it on another thread the other day too.

      • MHughes976
        December 28, 2014, 6:02 am

        ‘Only I think that this piece of land should exist by itself, neither divided nor expanded, therefore this piece of land belongs only to me and always has’. A strange implication indeed.

      • Mooser
        December 28, 2014, 11:40 am

        “i think mooser and i were talking about it on another thread the other day too.”

        Yup, we were. Shibboleths don’t have to make sense, in fact, it’s better if they don’t. And whether we like it or not, the Zionists have had some of the best in the business. Must be the sonorousness, or the interplay of the syllables or something.

  7. hophmi
    December 27, 2014, 2:25 pm

    I set we’re going for the low hanging fruit here. Have no fear, no one takes Glick seriously outside of the hard right.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 27, 2014, 2:44 pm

      we’re going for the low hanging fruit here

      leave the poor girl alone!

      so hops, should we pay it no mind if the newyorker or the NYT publishes flat out holocaust denial too? would you toss it aside as if nothing because ‘no one takes that talk seriously’ except the hard right?’

      • jon s
        December 27, 2014, 4:56 pm

        It’s remarkable how Israeli extremists like Caroline Glick and Palestinian extremists and their supporters are so much alike, in their inability to recognize the humanity and the legitimacy of the other side, and even in their rejection of a two-state solution.

      • Mooser
        December 27, 2014, 6:39 pm

        “the humanity and the legitimacy of”

        The Zionists had no legitimacy, and the Palestinians had every right to look upon them, at the very least, as something foisted on them by the British, and “Jon s” you can drop all the tallit and teffillim BS, because the Zionists came armed and militarized from the first.

      • Mooser
        December 27, 2014, 6:41 pm

        “It’s remarkable how Israeli extremists like Caroline Glick and Palestinian extremists and their supporters are so much alike”

        I see. And who are the “Palestinian extremists and their supporters” you would say are “so much alike” with Caroline Glick? Care to provide any names? Or did you just mean BDS in general?

      • Annie Robbins
        December 27, 2014, 6:58 pm

        Care to provide any names?

        oh jon! i’m sooo looking forward to you linking to some celebrated palestinian w/ whom you allege has a “remarkable” similarities with this wackjob: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/caroline-european-diplomats

        !!!!! do tell !!!

        and then by all means link to the nyt or newyorker article by or about the person.

        are you crazy jon?

      • eljay
        December 28, 2014, 12:12 am

        >> jon seee: It’s remarkable how Israeli extremists like Caroline Glick and Palestinian extremists and their supporters are so much alike, in their inability to recognize the humanity and the legitimacy of the other side, and even in their rejection of a two-state solution.

        Ethnic cleansing has no legitimacy. Decades of land theft, colonialism and expansionism have no legitimacy. Decades of oppression, torture and murder have no legitimacy. Jewish supremacism has no legitimacy. A religion-supremacist “Jewish State” has no legitimacy.

        Justice, accountability and equality have legitimacy. Zio-supremacists despise justice, accountability and equality.

    • DaBakr
      December 28, 2014, 1:00 am

      @hpm

      Bullshit that “nobody but the hard right” takes Glick seriously. Plenty of Israelis take her seriously and don’t ascribe to hard right (unless of course the definition of ‘hard right’ is anybody standing on the right side of Tzipi) . Glicks ideas are not even all that original but she does possess a certain charisma in her delivery. And yes, of course she does appeal to many on the right and hard right who undoubtedly are her biggest fans. But still, don’t make the mistake of thinking many center center-right Israelis and perhaps plenty of American Jews also see some favor in her ideas.

      • jon s
        December 28, 2014, 1:11 am

        Annie,
        The replies to my comment pretty much prove my point.

        And no, I’m not crazy. My shrink assures me that I’m making “significant progress”.

      • talknic
        December 28, 2014, 7:49 am

        @ DaBakr “Bullshit that “nobody but the hard right” takes Glick seriously. Plenty of Israelis take her seriously and don’t ascribe to hard right….”

        OK if you say so …. then they’re either brain washed, brain dead or too stupid to use the internet to look up the documents from which she falsely claims support

        “Glicks ideas are not even all that original but she does possess a certain charisma in her delivery”

        Dogmatism, ugliness and blatant lies are not charisma

        ” But still, don’t make the mistake of thinking many center center-right Israelis and perhaps plenty of American Jews also see some favor in her ideas “

        Let’s start again at the top “Plenty of Israelis take her seriously and don’t ascribe to hard right “ and have another turn in the spin cycle“don’t make the mistake of thinking many center center-right Israelis … see some favor in her ideas”.

        Again from the top “Plenty of Israelis take her seriously and don’t ascribe to hard right “ and spin, spin, spin “don’t make the mistake of thinking many center center-right Israelis … see some favor in her ideas”.

        What fun .. from the top “Plenty of Israelis take her seriously and don’t ascribe to hard right “ and spin “don’t make the mistake of thinking many center center-right Israelis … see some favor in her ideas”

        Zionist propagandists will say anything no matter how contradictory, idiotic or untrue.

    • Marnie
      December 29, 2014, 7:17 am

      I would love to see Max Blumenthal and/or Norman Finkelstein tear that calbah up and it wouldn’t take any time at all before her pretty smile (ugh) got all Anat Cohen on her. She is the face of hatred and intolerance.

      • Shingo
        December 29, 2014, 9:10 pm

        I would love to see Max Blumenthal and/or Norman Finkelstein tear that calbah up and it wouldn’t take any time at all before her pretty smile (ugh) got all Anat Cohen on her.

        Certainly Blumenthal. He has the ability to maintain a cold detachment while eviscerating his opponents in a debate. Along with his amazing ability to cite specific facts and sources, he would reduce these harpies into puddles of slime.

      • Citizen
        December 29, 2014, 9:20 pm

        @ Shingo

        “I’m melting, I’m melting!”

        Oz Translation

      • Shingo
        December 30, 2014, 4:58 pm

        “I’m melting, I’m melting!”

        Oz Translation

        I wish. We’re having the crappiest summer in years.

      • seafoid
        December 30, 2014, 5:22 pm

        Shingo

        How are the flowers doing in Oz this summer? It rained so much in Europe many didn’t bloom properly.

  8. eljay
    December 27, 2014, 2:32 pm

    Glick denies … denies … denies … and denies …

    Ms. Glick is a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist. There’s no denying that.

    • Giles
      December 27, 2014, 5:17 pm

      “It’s remarkable how Israeli extremists like Caroline Glick and Palestinian extremists and their supporters are so much alike, in their inability to recognize the humanity and the legitimacy of the other side, and even in their rejection of a two-state solution.”

      Yeah right. As if the Palestinians are anywhere near as racist as the Israelis.

      I guess you would compare as equals the slave owners and the slaves, the white settlers and the American Indians, and condemn the extremists on both sides

  9. Patrick
    December 27, 2014, 2:49 pm

    Before Glick, it was Avi Shavit who toured the U.S. and ‘explained’ the conflict. However, in contrast to Glick, he didn’t attempt to deny the Nakba. Rather, he simply said it was justified.

    Perhaps Glick figures that this line really won’t wash with the U.S. public, so she attempts to recycle all of the old lies.

  10. ivri
    December 27, 2014, 3:13 pm

    Yes, as you write, the Palestinians most likely are unable to give up on the right of return claim – while that is seen in Israel as its practical end (there are millions that define themselves in that status). This by itself ensures an indefinite impasse (Jerusalem ranks second on that list and uprooting half a million settlers is the third), which means endemic instability and occasional outbursts of violence. However, while formal accords are a sheer impossibility some progress may come as a result of evolutionary processes “on the ground” – but takes time and patience though. So, in particular, all those that made the Israel- Palestine conflict their main business in whatever form, this site included (in the coverage realm), can feel assured that they “baby” is not going to vanish anytime soon.

    • DaBakr
      December 28, 2014, 1:19 am

      Meshaal just made an important speech today where he boasted that “ALL” of Palestine including all of Jerusalem will be “liberated” from the Jews. He did not specify Zionists since he was speaking in Arabic. Also think its clear that if ‘democratic’ elections were held in the wb today that the Hamas would win. So, U[seless]N[othing] or no UN you can bet your sweet ass the conflict is going to drag on for decades if not more. Bds may continue to make gains and Israel very likely will lose a lot in the EU (a separate and large issue in itself) but the shift eastward in IS fp will force the issue to confront the greater abuses of human rights, free-speech issues and so on in the large trading partners in Asia, Africa, South A and so on.

      • Shingo
        December 28, 2014, 5:37 pm

        Meshaal just made an important speech today where he boasted that “ALL” of Palestine including all of Jerusalem will be “liberated” from the Jews. He did not specify Zionists since he was speaking in Arabic. Also think its clear that if ‘democratic’ elections were held in the wb today that the Hamas would win.

        It’s hilarious how when Israeli political leader make inflammatory comments for domestic consumption, you are nowhere to be found in the comments section, but when a leaders of Hamas/Iran etc make an equivalent comment, you run to the comments section to vent your outrage.

        You don’t even have the decency to link to the speech, probably because you are lying about it anyway.

      • eljay
        December 28, 2014, 6:17 pm

        >> DaBakreee: Meshaal just made an important speech today where he boasted that “ALL” of Palestine including all of Jerusalem will be “liberated” from the Jews.

        Assuming he did say what you claim he said, I condemn his inflammatory language.

        That said, his words do not absolve Israel of its past and on-going (war) crimes or its obligations under international law.

      • Zofia
        December 28, 2014, 6:27 pm

        odd…even The Times of Israel writes that he said: “liberate Palestine and Jerusalem”. Haaretz: he praised the Turkish leadership and called for greater Turkish-Palestinian co-operation in the “fight to liberate Jerusalem,” Turkey’s Hurriyet reported. + “Meshal enthusiastically praised the Turkish leadership and expressed hopes Turkey would in the future join the Palestinian people in their fight to “liberate Palestine and Jerusalem.” Also: “Khaled Mashaal, the head of Hamas’ political bureau, has made a surprise appearance at an event of Turkey’s ruling party, endorsing the Turkish leaders and voicing his hope to “liberate Palestine and Jerusalem” together with them in the future.”A strong Turkey means a strong Palestine … Inshallah, God is with us and with you on the road to victory,” Mashaal said in his address to the Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) annual congress in the Konya province on Dec. 27.” in http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/hamas-leader-mashaal-endorses-turkish-leaders-in-surprise-speech.aspx?PageID=238&NID=76166&NewsCatID=352

        Why did you add “ALL”??

      • Annie Robbins
        December 28, 2014, 7:04 pm

        Why did you add “ALL”??

        Why did he add “from the jews” after “liberated”?

        “Inshallah we will liberate Palestine and Jerusalem again in the future,” Mashaal added,

        debakr goes on to claim He did not specify Zionists since he was speaking in Arabic.

        whatever that means.

      • RoHa
        December 28, 2014, 7:35 pm

        “Meshaal just made an important speech today where he boasted that “ALL” of Palestine including all of Jerusalem will be “liberated” from the Jews. He did not specify Zionists since he was speaking in Arabic. ”

        I will let those whose Arabic up to the task parse the actual speech. However, the plain meaning of the English words you have used is that all Palestine will be freed from Jewish domination. What is wrong with that?

      • Zofia
        December 28, 2014, 7:35 pm

        You are right Annie :) And I didn’t understand that part too…

      • talknic
        December 28, 2014, 8:40 pm

        @ DaBakr ” he boasted that “ALL” of Palestine including all of Jerusalem will be “liberated”…”

        So? Israel was declared independent of Palestine. Palestine does not include any Israeli territory and Jerusalem was never legally separated from what remained of Palestine after Israel was proclaimed by the Israeli Government as within the boundaries stipulated by UNGA 181. corpus separatum was never instituted.

        ” …from the Jews.”

        You claim he said ‘Jews’. So why didn’t you quote him?

        You like all apologists for Zionist Colonization of other folks territory do have a well earned reputation of being blatant liars (oddly in complete contradiction to Judaisms most basic tenets).

        So perhaps you’d best cite your source. Once you can verify he meant including Israel and Jews, I’ll help you disseminate the information …

      • DaBakr
        December 28, 2014, 10:11 pm

        shingo..

        why would i lie to the likes of you about a Meshaal speech which he has made over and over and over again in arabic and slightly altered versions for western consumption? I give Hamas the credit of being honest about their ultimate goals…just as we are honest about are goal of keeping Jerusalem united as well. I am not in the least “outraged” as you seem to be projecting.

        I was simply commenting on one of the reasons why the conflict will not be settled any time soon. I did not make any kind of moral judgement on Hamas which is entitled to boast about whatever they want. You can choose to ignore it or take it seriously as you see fit as will Israeli citizens. And go and google meshaal speeches if you think I am lying, though I suspect you are not so big a fool or ignoramus to think meshaal would ever say anything other then what he said the other day.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 28, 2014, 10:40 pm

        why would i lie

        DaBakr, let’s just clear this up. why don’t you link to your source? i’m not going to fight about whether you were lying or not because i can’t see the source for your “ALL” quote anyway. why not just blockquote the text, otherwise perhaps you’re just paraphrasing using your own words adding quotemarks for a bolstered effect.

        I did not make any kind of moral judgement on Hamas which is entitled to boast about whatever they want.

        call it what you will. “God willing we will liberate Palestine and Jerusalem again in the future,” is not a “boast”, you added your little flavoring to the delivery and amplified it with quote marks. now just back it up please. where’s your source please. i’m not interested in your denials.

      • Shingo
        December 29, 2014, 12:09 am

        why would i lie to the likes of you about a Meshaal speech which he has made over and over and over again in arabic and slightly altered versions for western consumption?

        Oh I dunno. It’s not like you’ve been busted lying and telling half truths countless other times.

        You’ve now posted 3 comments relating to this Meshaal speech and you still haven’t included a link. Now why the stalling?

        First of Meshaal is a politically savvy politician who positions himself as a moderate – certainly more moderate than his colleagues from Hamas. So no, this is not typical of comments he’s made in the past.

        As as Annie has pointed out, there is a difference between a threat and prefacing a desired outcome with “God willing”.

        It’s also worth noting that while you are your fellow travellers like to refer to the goal of keeping Jerusalem united, don’t for a minute think this is anything more than code for Israeli controler owned and occupied. There is no desire on the part of Israel to unite with anyone but their own.

      • Walid
        December 29, 2014, 12:26 am

        From Maan News :

        “… Meshaal said in an address to the ruling Justice and Development Party annual congress that a “strong Turkey means a strong Jerusalem, a strong Palestine,” voicing hopes to “liberate Palestine and Jerusalem,” according to the state-run Anatolia news agency….”

        So yes, Meshaal did say these words, minus the self-pittying “Jews” and the “all” colouring added by DaBakre and minus the context in which they were said. It’s a given that liberating Palestine and Jerusalem is meant by Hamas to liberate the currently occupied territories including East Jerusalem. Meshaal was at a political celebration rally in Turkey and since he doesn’t have much to say, he repeated his usual “we will liberate” speech. Turkey’s leaders, that maintain business as usual with Israel humoured him by cheering him on and without consequence. Lots of hot air all around.

      • oldgeezer
        December 29, 2014, 12:42 am

        “why would i lie to the likes of you about a Meshaal speech which he has made over and over and over again in arabic and slightly altered versions for western consumption? ”

        Ok I will bite.

        Because that’s all you have?

        Whether it’s lies about what is or isn’t in international law. Lies about who started various conflicts. Who broke ceasefires first. Who owns the land. What was promised to what group. Who has made peace offers and who refuses to do so. Who is willing to make peace even if their goals are not met and who isn’t.

        It’s all you zionists have is lies. Strip away the lies and you’re naked in public.

        So why? Well either because it’s become part of you or because you feel you will benefit by doing so. Anything to get a few more square feet of stolen land or to forestall the inevitable.

        Time is running out but it’s long overdue.

      • talknic
        December 29, 2014, 1:49 am

        @ DaBakr ” why would i lie …. “

        Better still, why would you NOT give a source …

        Thanks for showing folk the deceitful (and stupid) tactics employed by Israel’s apologists.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        December 29, 2014, 7:05 am

        dabakr

        ”why would i lie to the likes of you about a Meshaal speech which he has made over and over and over again in arabic ”

        All people are asking for is a link to the speech or a transcript thereof, preferably to the original Arabic, so that those readers fluent in Arabic could tell us exactly what Mishaal said or didn’t say. Not a big ask, is it?

        ”and slightly altered versions for western consumption?”

        Ah, so we’re back to Arafat and the ol’ ”he says one thing in Arabic for his fanatic domestic audiences and another in English for the civilised West” line. Thing is, I don’t think Mishaal speaks any language other than Arabic, nor does he make speeches for ‘western consumption’ so other than try to revive the old ”Arabs are duplicitous’ slur as outlined above, I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here.

        Obviously, all of this will be cleared up when you link to the ‘many times’ Mishaal has said what you claim he said. Over to you.

      • Mooser
        December 29, 2014, 12:10 pm

        Once again, thank you, Zofia.

        Yup here we have some of the strange ZIonist relationship with quotes and quote marks.

      • Mooser
        December 29, 2014, 12:15 pm

        “why would i lie to the likes of you…”

        I mean, it’s not as if you have anything to gain or anything. I know that the Zionists have been struggling to rid themselves of Palestine, and those awful Palestinians won’t let them leave.

      • DaBakr
        December 29, 2014, 6:35 pm

        so if i am such a big liar then explain what Meshaal means when he says “god willing” Palestine and Jerusalem will be liberated again? Ypou talk about me lying but insist on playing games and pretending that the Hamas doesn’t claim all of what is Haifa, TA, Jer. and Gal will be “liberated”. [G-d willing, of course]
        This game playing I suppose is part of your major Palestinian hasbara campaign and your too blinded{ just as you claim Zionists are so blinded) to see anything but your take on Zionists as the epitome of evil. So you insist on me providing quotes to a widely publicized speech that most Palestinians understand perfectly well as exactly what Meshaal has said over again. You play. We fight. Palestinians fight. You play your bleeding heart games and call people evil, racist, genocidal and so on and its taken more and more like a joke and less like outrage. But Caroline Glick still obviously takes umbrage at the Palestinian hasbara with her own hasbara and I can see why MW commentors don’t like her much. You frame Zionists as the evil arch enemy of everything good on earth and yet you expect to have a discussion with them about giving up power and security. Oh? You don’t want a discussion any longer. Too late, yes? Israel must bend to the left’s will.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 29, 2014, 6:59 pm

        iow, no you will not provide your source, we got it. in the future please do not use double quote marks without providing a source. quotes are taken more seriously than paraphrasing and are understood to be the exact wording of what a person says. it’s never considered a an appropriate rhetorical flourish to make up a quote and is roundly considered dishonest.

        meshaal is on record as making a distinction, in a charlie rose interview, between jews and the occupation. i can’t remember the exact words but i doubted the minute i heard it he said ‘liberate from the jews’.

        god willing means if god wills it or if god is willing to grant something. it’s not a boast, it is more like a prayer. it is also my prayer all of palestine will be free someday.

        btw, you sound really really immature, you get busted for fabricating a quote and go on a rant instead of just admitting you have no source for your allegation. good bye.

      • Shingo
        December 29, 2014, 9:14 pm

        so if i am such a big liar then explain what Meshaal means when he says “god willing” Palestine and Jerusalem will be liberated again?

        Exactly what it means. Palestine and Jerusalem are under occupation and Israeli domination. LIberation from such oppression is exactly what it needed.

      • gamal
        December 29, 2014, 7:47 pm

        “debakr goes on to claim He did not specify Zionists since he was speaking in Arabic.

        ………….whatever that means.”

        He was speaking Islamic, Annie, you know what that means….i laughed so much i hurt my belly… i dont know why but i giggle like a school girl, he did not “specify”, like he did not ensure she came first, I always specify, like a real man, and you can get two of me for less than the price of one. less than nothing

      • DaBakr
        December 29, 2014, 7:48 pm

        OMG! Enough already with the quotes and links. You all know very well what Meshaal says and can easily google the speech he made the other day and many other days past. You interpret the way you want. You think i feel “busted” ? Give me a break child. I’m immature? Okay, you said it.

        Here is an infernal quote-link to a Meshaal speech not necessarily for western consumption-which folks here seem to think is a preposterous idea. (and normally detest the whole link-dump protocol of commentary blogs since most ppl use links to buttress their own wild bias in the first place) but here, enjoy: (you can find the video on memri or the arabic TV site (since I guess you suspect memri of what?)under “Meshaal 2012 speech” since I suppose I should assume you will think I am lying about this as well:

        Khaled Mash’al: First of all, Palestine – from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, from its north to its south – is our land, our right, and our homeland. There will be no relinquishing or forsaking even an inch or small part of it.

        Second, Palestine was, continues to be, and will remain Arab and Islamic. It belongs to the Arab and the Islamic world. Palestine belongs to us and to nobody else. This is the Palestine which we know and in which we believe.

        Third, since Palestine belongs to us, and is the land of Arabism and Islam, we must never recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of it. The occupation is illegitimate, and therefore, Israel is illegitimate, and will remain so throughout the passage of time. Palestine belongs to us, not to the Zionists.
        […]
        The liberation of Palestine – all of Palestine – is a duty, a right, a goal, and a purpose. It is the responsibility of the Palestinian people, as well as of the Arab and Islamic nation.

        Fifth, Jihad and armed resistance are the proper and true path to liberation and to the restoration of our rights, along with all other forms of struggle – through politics, through diplomacy, through the masses, and through legal channels. All these forms of struggle, however, are worthless without resistance.
        […]
        Politics are born from the womb of resistance. The true statesman is born from the womb of the rifle and the missile.

        Announcer: Say: “Allah Akbar.”

        Song: Oh Abu Al-Walid, oh Mash’al, prepare the way, come on.

        Our journey must be completed. Allah is with you.

        Khaled Mash’al: May Allah bless you.

        Oh Palestinian statesmen, oh Arab and Muslim statesmen, learn your lesson from Gaza. Anyone who wishes to take the path of diplomacy must take a missile along with him. He must rely upon the infrastructure of the resistance. Your value, oh statesman, is derived from the value of resistance.

        I, along with my dear brother Abu Al-Abd Haniya, the entire Hamas leadership, both here and abroad, our comrades, the leaders of the resistance, in Gaza, in the West Bank, here and abroad – by Allah, we are indebted to the leadership of the Palestinian military wings. If not for the great commanders of the military wings, we would have no statesmen. This is thanks first to Allah, and then to the heroes of the resistance.

        How wonderful was your shelling of Tel Aviv. May your hands be blessed. May your hands be blessed. We are proud of what you have done.

        Jihad and resistance are the path. This is not mere rhetoric. Events have shown us that Jihad and resistance are the most advantageous and reliable option. This option is not a delusion or a mirage. By no means. The resistance is a palpable, visible, and envisioned thing. It marches on the ground, spreading light to its people, and unleashing fire upon its enemies. That is the resistance.
        […]
        For us, resistance is the means, not the end. I say to the entire world, through the media: If the world finds a way other than through resistance and bloodshed to restore Palestine and Jerusalem to us, to implement the Right of Return, and to put an end to the loathsome Zionist occupation – we will welcome it. But we gave you a chance for 64 years, and you did not do a thing. That is why we opted for resistance. Don’t reproach us. If we had found another way – one that did not involve war and battle – we would have proceeded upon it, but history and the laws of Allah tell us that victory and liberation cannot be achieved without resistance, battle, and sacrifice.
        […]
        Jerusalem is our soul, our history, our collective memory, our past, our present, and our future. It is our eternal capital, to which we hold fast and which we will liberate, inch by inch, neighborhood by neighborhood, stone by stone, every place sacred to Islam, and every place sacred to Christianity. Israel has no right to Jerusalem.
        […]
        The Right of Return means the return of all the refugees, the displaced, and the exiled to the land of Palestine – to its cities and its villages, to the neighborhoods of Gaza, the West Bank, and within the 1948 borders. We own every inch of our land. Our fathers and our forefathers were born there. We lived there. It retains our memory and our history. The Right of Return is sacred to us, and it cannot be depreciated.

        When my brothers and I entered the Gaza Strip yesterday, we began the fulfillment of the Right of Return, Allah willing.
        […]
        Hamas has a clear-cut principle: no to resettlement of refugees and no to an alternative homeland. There is no substitute for Palestine.
        […]
        The unity of Palestinian land refers to Gaza, the West Bank, and the land within the 1948 borders. That is the land of Palestine – it is all Palestine, every part of it is Palestine.

        No part of it will be separated from the other parts. Anyone who believes that Gaza can be kept far from the West Bank is delusional. Gaza, the West Bank, and the land within the 1948 borders are all beloved parts of the great Palestinian homeland.

        Isn’t that so, Abu Al-Abd [Haniya]?

        Announcer: Say: “Allah Akbar.”
        Crowds: Allah Akbar.
        Announcer: Say: “Allah Akbar.”
        Crowds: Allah Akbar.
        Announcer: Say: “Allah Akbar.”
        Crowds: Allah Akbar.
        Khaled Mash’al: The West Bank is inseparable from Gaza, Gaza is inseparable from the West Bank, and they are both inseparable from Haifa, Jaffa, Beersheba… and Safed.
        […]
        Man: Oh Mash’al, our beloved…
        Crowds: Oh Mash’al, our beloved…
        Man: Your army shelled Tel Aviv…
        Crowds: Your army shelled Tel Aviv…
        Man: Your army struck Tel Aviv…
        Crowds: Your army struck Tel Aviv…
        Man: Oh Qassam, do it again…
        Crowds: Oh Qassam, do it again…
        Man: But this time, strike Haifa…
        Crowds: But this time, strike Haifa…
        Man: But this time, strike Jaffa…
        Khaled Mash’al: Allah willing…
        Man: Say: “Allah Akbar.”
        Crowds: Allah Akbar.
        Khaled Mash’al: Hear me well, my comrades in the various factions. Liberation will precede statehood. A real state will be the fruit of liberation, not of negotiations.

        There is no alternative to a free Palestinian state with real sovereignty on the entire land of Palestine.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 29, 2014, 8:26 pm

        Khaled Mash’al: May Allah bless you.

        so that’s where the “ALL” comes from. ;)

      • Shingo
        December 29, 2014, 9:17 pm

        You all know very well what Meshaal says and can easily google the speech he made the other day and many other days past

        We tried Googling based on your quotes liar and it came up NADA. Walid produced the actual quotes and you were exposed as a liar.

      • Kris
        December 29, 2014, 8:28 pm

        DaBakr: “why would I lie…”

        Because the truth doesn’t support what you want to say.

        DaBakr: “so if i am such a big liar then explain what Meshaal means when he says “god willing” Palestine and Jerusalem will be liberated again?”

        Surely if God wills the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem, it will happen. Won’t it? Or do you think that God, like the U.S. government, takes orders from Israel?

      • Zofia
        December 29, 2014, 10:15 pm

        @DaBakr:
        well you don’t discover anything when you say there are different speeches given depending on to whom it is addressed. Israeli politicians do that too and you know it :) Have you ever heard for example about Herzliya conferences in Israel? Well you will find it interesting how different are the speeches given there from those later announced to the Western press, etc ;]

        About the speech:
        Have you read it with a cool head? Have you noticed it is quite ambiguous??
        Jerome Slater rightly notes that:
        Khaled Meshal proclaimed that Hamas would never recognize Israel or abandon its claim to all Israeli territory: “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on an inch of the land.” There can be no doubt that Meshal’s demagogic but empty rhetoric was shocking, irresponsible, and profoundly stupid. Nor can there be any doubt that he has handed Netanyahu and the Israeli right precisely the excuse they want to continue the policy of no negotiations with Hamas—or even, in quite imaginable circumstances, to launch a massive attack on Gaza to destroy Hamas.

        Nonetheless, for a number of reasons Meshal’s buffoonery does not justify Israel’s refusal to explore the possibility of a negotiated two-state negotiated settlement with Hamas—or perhaps even with Meshal himself. First, some of what Meshal said was ambiguous, and probably deliberately so: “We will never recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation and therefore there is no legitimacy for Israel, no matter how long it will take.” That is, Meshal could be read as saying that Hamas would never recognize the legitimacy of Israel as long as the occupation continues, in which case he was still leaving open the possibility of a negotiated end to the conflict if Israel agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

        In fact, there are a number of strong indications that Meshal has been steadily moving, however inconsistently, towards a negotiated settlement. I provide the evidence for this in my extended discussion of the evolution of Hamas in general and Meshal in particular in my recent International Security article on the 2008-09 Israeli attack on Gaza (http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22373/just_war_moral_philosophy_and_the_200809_israeli_campaign_in_gaza.html).

        Read his summary and the article here:
        http://www.jeromeslater.com/2012/12/what-to-make-of-khaled-meshal.html

        UK’s Observer adds “kill Jews” to Hamas leader Khaled Meshal’s Gaza speech when he did not say it
        http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/uks-observer-adds-kill-jews-hamas-leader-khaled-meshals-gaza-speech-when-he-did

        Understanding Hamas after Khaled Meshaal’s Gaza speech
        http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/20121215135432787820.html

        And yeah… historical Palestine is considered by many Palestinians as their home. And that doesn’t mean that they don’t recognize Israel. It is their historical legacy, which they don’t want to forget or lose. So no surprise here.
        But later he says about the occupation, etc. THAT IS WHY HIS SPEECH IS AMBIGUOUS- it is addressed to many ppl, he wanted to satisfy them all…

        Time and again Hamas and Meshal stated they will recognise Israel if it ends the occupation.
        Two examples, you can find the rest yourself (+ Jerome Slater’s article above):
        Meshaal: We are ready to coexist with Jews, but not ‘occupiers’ (2014)
        http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=716621

        #GazaUnderAttack | The Speech of Khaled Meshaal – July 23, 2014
        With transcriptions:
        Meshal: Resistance will only disarm on 2 conditions. 1) Israel to end all its occupation of Palestine 2) Israel has to disarm too
        http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/gazaunderattack-the-speech-of-khaled-meshaal-july-23-2014/

        Ignoring his other speeches, both before and after that of 2012 and ignoring the nuances of the speech itself doesn’t constitute a good argument on your part. Don’t forget that he has opposition and critics in Hamas… Hamas actually has many voices and that must be taken into account too.
        The fact remains that you added some words that he didn’t say. That is just dishonest.

        It’s like taking only one speech/interview with Netanyahu [from his many speeches about opposing the ending of the occupation, establishing a Palestinian state, etc.] and on that basis (ignoring the opposition to him, his other speeches, in both English and Hebrew) describe his and his party’s entire complex politics. I doubt you would praise this type of action in his case, so why do it in the case of Meshal and Hamas?

        If anyone is interested:
        The Translatability of Figures of Speech in Khalid Mashaal’s Political Speeches: A Critical Discourse Analysis, by Ahmad Mohammad Al-Harahsheh
        http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/viewFile/25351/16690

      • DaBakr
        December 30, 2014, 1:03 am

        Meshaal: “god willing”

        MW folks: it means should god will it.

        forget about the arms being shipped by Iran or built by the Hamas. So I guess then if I say god willing Israel will not cede the old city except possibly some Palestinian neighborhoods then it just means that…god willing and has nothing to do with military might or Israeli policy.

        You people here seem to delight in calling me a liar and how I have been supposedly ‘busted’ for using the word “all” in double quotes when it is entirely clear to millions what was meant but since the ‘all’ is the be all for you in determining that Meshaal does not desire to reclaim ALL of what is now Israel I would answer that the facts on the ground say otherwise. Of course when you add “god willing” anything is possible.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 30, 2014, 9:54 am

        So I guess then if I say god willing Israel will not cede the old city except possibly some Palestinian neighborhoods then it just means that…god willing and has nothing to do with military might or Israeli policy.

        well i can’t speak for what you mean when you say god willing. but generally speaking no, it would not have to mean the person stating it has military might or a policy behind them. for example if i am in a rickety leaky boat crossing a river with small children and i say ‘god willing we reach the other side’ it is not boasting. if one is facing one of the strongest military powers in the world with nuclear weapons who has recently slaughter thousands of innocent defenseless people including demolishing neighborhoods, mosques, schools and hospitals and one says “god willing we will liberate our land” it is not a boasting. it is the voice of a man whose mind is still free, who resists the genocide of his people. it is the hope and dreams of a people and this will never change so you might as well get used to it. this is palestinian sumud. you can bomb them to smithereens as the world stands by, you can bulldoze their homes and steal and imprison and kill their children, but some things will never change. you cannot change their prayers to god. god willing, they will be liberated.

        all for you in determining that Meshaal does not desire to reclaim ALL of what is now Israel I would answer that the facts on the ground say otherwise.

        you shouldn’t speak for other people. the term liberated means just that. israel is located in palestine, you can’t change that. no amount of “facts on the ground” can or will change the facts of history. it’s the palestinian homeland and nothing will ever change or erase that. people should not live under occupation. god willing there will be freedom for all people there one day. god willing the land and all the people will be liberated from this fascist oppressive racist regime, occupying palestine, in which over half the people have no human rights. it’s simply wrong. a rational sane person would desire for that land, and all the people, to be liberated and no “facts on the ground say otherwise”.

      • Bornajoo
        December 30, 2014, 10:43 am

        Thank you for that excellent reply Annie. Really well said. I couldn’t agree more

      • Shingo
        December 30, 2014, 5:01 pm

        MW folks: it means should god will it.

        No dufus, Mehsaal does not profess to be God, so “God willing” clearly implies that the will of God is unknown.

        forget about the arms being shipped by Iran or built by the Hamas.

        No need to forget about it unless you want to forget about the billions in arms being shipped by US or built by the Israel.

        So I guess then if I say god willing Israel will not cede the old city except possibly some Palestinian neighborhoods then it just means that…god willing and has nothing to do with military might or Israeli policy.

        Sorry sleaze ball, but you have already stated that an Israeli dominated Jerusalem (ie. undivided) is Israeli policy. No use trying walk back that demonstration of foot in mouth disease.

      • Mooser
        December 30, 2014, 12:13 pm

        “Why would I lie to the likes of you….”

        Gee, what did you mean by “the likes of you”? I don’t quite get what you are referring to. Could you clarify?

      • adele
        December 30, 2014, 2:20 pm

        Annie,
        great reply, but so so so sad that an innocuous phrase such as “god willing” needs a lengthy explanation. No matter what the Palestinians say or do the zionists perceive it as threatening. The thought just occurred to me that if Palestinians were areligious the zionists would slander them for that too and use it as a justification for stealing the land from godless “heathens”. Settler-colonialists must do what they gotta do and any duplicitous means justifies their ends.

        Your reply also reminded me of the scene in Donnie Brasco where he explains what “Fuggetaboutit” means?

        “And sometimes Fuggetaboutit just means Fuggetaboutit”

      • lysias
        December 30, 2014, 2:41 pm

        For as long as Communism ruled Russia, the Cold War was against “godless Communism”. Now that Communism is disestablished and Orthodox Christianity is once more an established religion in Russia, what is this new Cold War against Russia all about?

    • talknic
      December 28, 2014, 3:36 am

      @ ivri ” the Palestinians most likely are unable to give up on the right of return claim”

      There is no legal reason why they should give up any legal rights afforded under the laws Israel agreed to uphold!

      ” while that is seen in Israel as its practical end (there are millions that define themselves in that status)”

      You’re spouting Hasbara bullsh*t pal. Some non-Jewish folk have RoR as Israelis to Israel as it was officially proclaimed and recognized May 15th 1948 00:01 (ME time) And their children under Israeli law BTW.

      The remainder have a right to return to whatever remained of Palestine by default after Israel was declared independent of Palestine.

      “Jerusalem ranks second on that list”

      It simply is not Israeli, not legally, not morally or by any recognized agreement (UNSC res 476)

      ” and uprooting half a million settlers is the third”

      Tough pal. The rules have been clear for over a hundred years (Laws of War 1907)

      “However, while formal accords are a sheer impossibility..”

      When one party refuses to adhere to the law & makes more and more nonsense demands that have no legal basis, what can one expect. The Jewish state has missed opportunity after opportunity to adhere to the Laws reaffirmed and emphasized in hundreds of UNCS resolutions, giving Israel opportunity after opportunity after opportunity

      Meanwhile,
      the Palestinians have made some amazingly generous offers

      Israel has offered …….. no thing … nothing … nada … nil … nought … zip … zero

      You’re squawkin’ at the wrong people. Go yell at the Zionist Federation who screwed the Jewish People’s right to live anywhere in their historic homeland by demanding and declaring a state separate from Palestine.

      • pjdude
        December 28, 2014, 10:17 am

        yeah zionists haven’t figured out we’re going to steal less is not a consession

      • Mooser
        December 28, 2014, 11:49 am

        “right to live anywhere in their historic homeland”

        Just a small typo. Didn’t you mean “hysteric” homeland?

      • oldgeezer
        December 29, 2014, 12:47 am

        “There is no legal reason why they should give up any legal rights afforded under the laws Israel agreed to uphold! ”

        Indeed, Israelis insist that Palestinians give up actual legal rights while we constantly read about their demands that they invent and enforce with the barrel of a gun.

        Truly disgusting. I am amazed anyone can support such criminal enterprise.

      • jon s
        December 29, 2014, 11:05 am

        I don’t know what Meshaal said in that specific speech, but he is, after all, leader of Hamas, an organization committed to killing Jews, in ideology and in practice.

      • Shingo
        December 29, 2014, 8:57 pm

        I don’t know what Meshaal said in that specific speech, but he is, after all, leader of Hamas, an organization committed to killing Jews, in ideology and in practice.

        Stop lying Jon. You’ve had the facts presented you countless times, but like a computer stuck in an infinite loop, you keep spouting the same nonsense no matter what the facts.

      • Mooser
        December 29, 2014, 12:19 pm

        “I don’t know what Meshaal said in that specific speech, but he is, after all, leader of Hamas, an organization committed to killing Jews, in ideology and in practice.”

        Gee, “Jon s” you wouldn’t wrap yourself in the Israeli flag at Auschwitz (yup!) but you are always ready to make all the Jews human shields for your ZIonist project. It’s a shameful habit, and what’s worse, you do it reflexively. Feh!.

      • Zofia
        December 29, 2014, 1:05 pm

        @Jon
        heh well this is really tiresome…some ppl just love generalization, it makes everything easier :) It is like saying: well it is Likud (or sth else)… you know… Likud- bad Ju-Ju and all, who needs any more knowledge about them and stuff… Isn’t it a great and comprehensive argument? Who needs any confirmation of an info…you know…cause it is xx…
        So yeah… who cares what he really said right? I had this discussion before, you can read it in the archive.

        Additional reading, if you even care:
        1.AWESOME BOOK: J. Gunning, Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence, Columbia University Press New York 2009
        2.THIS TOO: Y. Sayigh, Hamas Rule in Gaza: Three Years On
        http://www.brandeis.edu/crown/publications/meb/MEB41.pdf
        3.Yezid Sayigh, Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949-1993
        4.Kh. Hroub, Hamas: Political Though and Practice, Institute for Palestine Studies, 2000
        5.Kh. Hroub, A “New Hamas” through Its New Documents, “Journal of Palestine Studies”, vol.35 no.4, 2006
        6.L.D. Lybarger, Identity and Religion in Palestine. The Struggle Between Islamism and Secularism in the Occupied Territories, Princeton University Press, Princeton 2007
        7.Z. Abu-Amr, Hamas: A Historical and Political Background, “Journal of Palestine Studies”, vol.22 no.4, 1993
        8.J. Adas, Mazin Qumsiyeh on the History and Practice Of Nonviolent Palestinian Resistance, “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs” 2010
        http://www.wrmea.org/component/content/article/351-2010-may-june/9051%20-mazin-qumsiyeh-on-the-history-
        and-practice-of-nonviolent-palestinian%20-resistance-.html
        9.A. Yousef, The Hamas Charter: Vision, fact and fiction
        http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=353587
        10.R. Gaes, Interview with Mousa Abu Marzook
        http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Interview+with+Mousa+Abu+Marzook.-a019496510
        *many of them you can just download…

        And really ppl should know the diff between Hamas and the so called “religious movements”… Read for example this:
        1.R.C.Martin, A. Barzegar, Islamism. Contested Persprectives on Political Islam, Stanford University Press, Stanford 2010
        2.(!) Kh.Hroub, Salafi Formations in Palestine and the Limits of a De-Palestinised Milieu, “Holy Land Studies”, vol.7 no.2, 2008
        3.A. Bayat, What is Post-Islamism?, “ISIM Review 16”, no. 5, 2005

        Also:
        1.Kill Him Silently. The story behind Mossad’s bungled bid to assassinate Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal.
        http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/aljazeeraworld/2013/01/201312210472621589.html
        2.Kill Khalid: The Failed Mossad Assassination of Khalid Mishal and the Rise of Hamas, by Paul McGeough

        After all this you will know why you are wrong…

      • talknic
        December 29, 2014, 4:55 pm

        @ jon s
        “I don’t know what Meshaal said in that specific speech, but he is, after all, leader of Hamas, an organization committed to killing Jews, in ideology and in practice”

        Uh huh.

        Hamas Charter Article Thirty-One: “As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” (The Tried – verse 8).

    • Sibiriak
      December 28, 2014, 12:12 pm

      ivri: “… the Palestinians most likely are unable to give up on the right of return claim

      In fact, Palestinian leaders have already given up on any fully effective “right of return”, agreeing on multiple occasions to a largely symbolic “right of return” w/compensation etc. which would allow very few Palestinians to return to Israel proper.

      • Walid
        December 29, 2014, 2:34 am

        I agree, Sibiriak, sad but true, Palestinian leaders have already given up their RoR and posters here don’t appear to be aware of this important fact as they are the only ones harping on it.

      • jon s
        December 29, 2014, 3:44 pm

        Zofia,
        First of all , thanks for your comments, which are on-topic and informative, without resorting to name-calling and personal insults, as is so often the case on this forum.

        Of course I haven’t had the time to go over all your links (and I’ll try to do so in the next few days), but just a brief look leads to the question as to the relevancy of non-violence here. We are talking about Khaled Mashal, leader of Hamas, after all.
        Hamas’ ideology is formulated in its covenant, which has never been repealed as far as I know:

        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

        See especially the Introduction, Article 7 , and Article 22.

        If we were just talking about an ideology formulated in a document from 1988, one coud argue that it’s outdated and irrelevant. But Hamas continuously practices its murderous anti-Jewish ideology, as we saw as recently as this past summer.

      • Shingo
        December 29, 2014, 9:07 pm

        Hamas’ ideology is formulated in its covenant, which has never been repealed as far as I know:

        Neither has LIkud’s or the PLO’s , which is almost as incendiary, but you have had it pointed out countless times to you that Meshaal himself has declared the Hamas Charter no longer valid.

        See especially the Introduction, Article 7 , and Article 22.

        Why not article 6 and 31?

        Article 6: “Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights.”

        Article 31: “[Hamas] is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts. Under the shadow of Islam it is possible for the members of the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in safety and security. Safety and security can only prevail under the shadow of Islam, and recent and ancient history is the best witness to that effect.”
        http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397

        But Hamas continuously practices its murderous anti-Jewish ideology, as we saw as recently as this past summer.

        Your dishonesty is disgusting Jon. You know for a fact that Israel has been occupying, murdering and oppressing Palestinians for 48 years. Yet because you cannot divorce yourself from your support for a racist supremacist state and greater Israel, you maintain the BS that the resentment and hatred reflected in the Hamas Charter is based entirely on an irrational hatred towards Jews and that the crimes and injustices inflicted by Israel are no big deal.

      • Mooser
        December 29, 2014, 4:05 pm

        ” But Hamas continuously practices its murderous anti-Jewish ideology, as we saw as recently as this past summer. “

        Oh well, “Jon s”, get caught lying in one spot, just pop up again later with the same bullshit. You really want to talk about the murderous thing Hamas did this summer?

      • Zofia
        December 29, 2014, 4:50 pm

        @Jon:
        When it comes to the Covenant I won’t repeat myself (archive), but still I will write that ppl use it as a distraction to omit the issue of contemporary Hamas’ actions and ideas…
        Article 7.”…struggle against the Zionist invaders” is this the part you are referring to? What is wrong with that? When you take into account Nakba, the occupation etc. it is a typical resistance statement actually… They write about Zionism and Zionists not Jews in general. The part mentioning Jews is a quote… The main issue therefore are Zionists and Zionism.
        Article 22- still about Zionists and Zionist interests.

        If you would wait with the comment and read at least the articles or some parts of the 1st and 2nd book you wouldn’t so easily write about Hamas being murderous! Come on… you place so much emphasis on meaning and yet you don’t mind writing that!

        Still more important are the contemporary docs and doings… not some old document that wasn’t even basis for the politics of the “old guard”.

        About the summer: so much has been written about the genesis of it that I don’t have time now to write about it. It is hard though to blame only Hamas… Israel wanted to break Hamas-Fatah deal, the killings of the Palestinian youths… that “war” had its genesis…
        Can Israel Claim Self-Defense Against the Territory It Occupies? Int’l Jurist John Dugard Says No
        http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/6/can_israel_claim_self_defense_against

        Discussion would be more productive if ppl just took the time to read and later comment… Otherwise it doesn’t make much sense to write everytime the same thing over and over again.

      • Shingo
        December 29, 2014, 9:12 pm

        Discussion would be more productive if ppl just took the time to read and later comment

        Not in the case of people like JonS. No matter how much he is given to read, his mind is like a hard drive filled to capacity with hasbara. You can’t write any new information to it without deleting old files.

      • Zofia
        December 29, 2014, 5:53 pm

        @Jon
        Also in the Charter: Article Thirty-One:
        “Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that”.
        The struggle isn’t against Jews but Zionists (who are mostly Jews, that is why they sometimes use Jews as synonym of a Zionist).

        About the “war”
        Remember that the situation was being inflamed by Israel for a long time now (for example the murder of the teenagers).
        On June 2, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas announced the completion of an agreement unifying the two governments

        Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, however vowed never to work with a government that included Hamas…

        The abduction and murder of three Israeli youths was met by Mr Netanyahu’s response: “Hamas is responsible, and Hamas will pay.” – NO PROOF FOR THAT!!
        Bibi’s aim was to discredit Mahmoud Abbas for reconciling with Hamas

        A ‘search and destroy’ operation was initiated: Israeli army rampages which targeted anything affiliated with Hamas on the West Bank. Hundreds were arrested, about 500 total, and about a dozen Palestinians killed

        burning alive of a Palestinian teenager by several Israelis.

        The rampage of Israeli soldiers in the west Bank was quickly followed by aerial attacks by Israel into Gaza which killed seven Hamas members.

        Read this: Look Carefully at Who Started the Current Israel-Hamas Conflict
        http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/22/self-defense-or-atrocties-in-gaza/look-carefully-at-who-started-the-current-israel-hamas-conflict

        Blaming Hamas rockets for instigating the Israeli attacks ignores what preceded those rocket launchings. The Times of Israel reported that Hamas had fired missiles on June 30, for the first time since the November 2012 cease-fire, “in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier.” Earlier rocket fire came from other groups in Gaza which, the article notes, Hamas had tried to stop.

        Before that, Israel rampaged through the West Bank after three young Israeli settlers were kidnapped, even though the Israelis apparently knew they were already dead. This ratcheted up tensions over an action that Hamas leaders in Gaza appear not to have authorized. Israel somehow thinks it can kill civilians in the West Bank, arrest hundreds, and harass thousands and not be blamed for starting this round of violence with Palestinians.

        Israel chose that war…and did what it did…
        http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israel-lost-war-gaza-struggle-justice-goes

        Israel keeping Gaza siege despite deal
        https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/13839-israel-keeping-gaza-siege-despite-deal-official

        For Israel, the beginning of wisdom is to admit its mistakes Israel should embrace Palestinian unity for its own security. A further land grab will only inflame tensions
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/07/israel-palestinian-unity-land-grab

        Exclusive: Israel’s Video Justifying Destruction of a Gaza Hospital Was From 2009
        http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25999-israels-video-justifying-destruction-of-a-hospital-was-from-2009

        Medical personnel claim Israel tested new weapons during attacks on Gaza
        http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/medical-personnel-claim-israel-tested-new-weapons-during-attacks-on-gaza-1.1919645#.VAtJsjImL0g.facebook

        Netanyahu urges Ban to postpone probe into shelling of UN facilities in Gaza
        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.618747?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+imeu+%28IMEU+%3A+Institute+for+Middle+East+Understanding%29

        http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/israeli-officer-admits-ordering-lethal-strike-own-soldier-during-gaza-massacre

        http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-tested-an-improved-arrow-2-2014-9

        http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/watch-testimonies-atrocities-gaza-russell-tribunal

        http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/patrick-strickland/prominent-israeli-settler-rabbi-calls-cleansing-palestinians

        Netanyahu urges Ban to postpone probe into shelling of UN facilities in Gaza
        http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.618747?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+imeu+%28IMEU+%3A+Institute+for+Middle+East+Understanding%29

        Not to mention the atrocities Israel committed during the war, even killed one of their own…So blaming Hamas for the war is just erroneous.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 29, 2014, 7:54 pm

        On June 2, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas announced the completion of an agreement unifying the two governments

        Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, however vowed never to work with a government that included Hamas…

        zofia, imho they wanted to pound hamas since the announcement of the reconciliation on ARR 23rd, and note netanyahu’s tweets: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/backing-negotiate-reporters

        this was one of many many tweets that day, big glaring photos, he really freaked out. it (unification announcement) was timed right at the breakdown of the talks and immediately that triggered calls to go to the ICC and abbas signed on to a bunch of UN bodies. israel was geared up to pulverize gaza and blame hamas from that time, then came the nakba day killings, then the teens which they used to abduct released prisoners which was considered at that time netanyahu’s biggest domestic problem of his term in office by the settler movement (the prisoner swap).

        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/backing-negotiate-reporters
        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/khalidi-palestinians-europe
        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/reasons-breakdown-talks
        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/04/palestinian-reconciliation-accountability

        there was also this report (one of many) Claim that Hamas killed 3 teens is turning out to be the WMD of Gaza onslaught – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/07/killed-turning-onslaught#sthash.eyEBZrAM.dpuf

      • Zofia
        December 29, 2014, 8:25 pm

        Of course Annie you are right!:) I wanted to stress that the date of the announcement of the completion of Hamas-Fatah agreement in June has to do with the Israeli air strike and missiles fired in late June :)

      • MHughes976
        December 30, 2014, 9:30 am

        Hope I’m choosing the right place to join in the discussion amid the threads and sub-threads. I think it’s clear enough that very few of those on the ground of any group or faction see a real moral reason for partition. I think that’s because there isn’t one. The vast majority of outsiders yearn for partition or 2ss, but that’s not because they can justify it in terms of morality or justice but because they badly want the problem to go away and stop bothering them or pricking our unquiet, fickle Western consciences.
        The desire to be rid of the whole accursed conflict is not confined to the West. of course, and many on the ground on all sides would take it in negotiation if they could get it.
        Meshaal’s brief remarks in Turkey do seem, ‘in plain English’ to show openness to a 2ss and to no significant RoR. That would be because he did not, unless the report is slightly misleading, say ‘all Palestine’ and because he did not seem to mention RoR. I don’t think some of the harsher remarks made about him here, that he is a buffoon spouting hot air, are justified: he is a politician raising support by rhetoric. They all – in a sense we all – do that.
        In any event, extremist rhetoric and proclaimed refusal to compromise by any leader never furnish logically valid reason tor refusing to offer such a person compromise that would objectively meet many of the needs of his/her supporters. In fact the signature that you really want on the Great Compromise, if there is to be one, is that of the most intransigent of former enemies.
        Extremist, anti-compromise rhetoric provokes counter-rhetoric of just the same kind, of course. We often notice extreme rhetoric from the Zionist side, as here with Ms. Glick, which for all its faults does not provide a valid reason for Palestinian leaders not to negotiate.
        However, I’m afraid that it’s also true that the rhetoric of compromise, when it breaks out in its turn, does not in itself provide a reason for trusting the other side. The current balance of forces and the basic imperatives of Zionism must make the Palestinians think that any apparent compromise would be viewed by Israel merely as offering a pause, after which some excuse for further population transfer would be found.
        From the Israeli side there must (I’m sadly agreeing with some of our Zionist colleagues here) be objective suspicion that even if RoR recedes in Palestinian rhetoric (even to the point of ‘think of it always, speak of it never’) it will always be there as a moral imperative in every Palestinian heart and that once the Palestinians gain the advantages of international status, recognition, investment etc. – ie change the current balance of forces – they will nibble away at the settlement until the real objective is obtained.

      • eljay
        December 30, 2014, 9:47 am

        >> jon seee: … But Hamas continuously practices its murderous anti-Jewish ideology, as we saw as recently as this past summer.

        Hmmm…that would have been right around the time the oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel was continuing with its 60+ years, ON-GOING and offensive (i.e., not defensive) campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder.

        You know the campaign – the one that began with Jewish terrorism and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands so that a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” could be established in as much of Mandate Palestine as possible. Yeah, that campaign.

    • Annie Robbins
      December 28, 2014, 7:10 pm

      right of return claim – while that is seen in Israel as its practical end (there are millions that define themselves in that status). This by itself ensures an indefinite impasse (Jerusalem ranks second on that list and uprooting half a million settlers is the third),

      gee, i noticed you skipped netanyahu’s determination not to end the occupation. i’d think that would be #1. and bennett/feiglin’s determination to annex the WB (or ‘declare sovereignty’ over the territory, however one frames it)? i’d say both of those should fall in the “indefinite impasse” category.

      • jon s
        December 30, 2014, 4:19 am

        Zofia,
        Article 7 in the Hamas charter:
        You state:”The part mentioning Jews is a quote”. Sure it’s a quote, one that extols the murder of Jews.

        Article 22 recycles classic Anti-Semitic themes: Jewish control, Jewish wealth, blaming the Jews for the French Revolution, Communism , and both world wars.

        Again, if this was just some old, out-dated document, maybe we could just forget about it, but that’s not the case. Hamas practices what it preaches in the charter, terrorism and murder. The Hamas attacks this summer were only the most recent examples,

      • Shingo
        December 30, 2014, 5:33 am

        You state:”The part mentioning Jews is a quote”. Sure it’s a quote, one that extols the murder of Jews.

        This is a classic example of Israeli hypocrisy. Israel and it’s apologists insist Israel is the Jewish state and dismiss all criticism of Israel and anti Semitism and Jew hatred. So when Israel’s enemies refers to Israel as the Jews, people like yourself and Jackjaw jump up and down and cry see, they want to kill Jews, all Jews, it’s nothing to do with Israel.

        Article 22 recycles classic Anti-Semitic themes: Jewish control, Jewish wealth, blaming the Jews for the French Revolution, Communism , and both world wars.

        And people like Adelson and Saban back in the US are doing their utmost to give life and credibility to these Anti-Semitic themes.

      • Marnie
        December 30, 2014, 6:20 am

        Annie and Zofia – you ladies are the bomb (you know what I mean right? Not the boom!) – just awesome. I am so impressed with your dissection of the BS and cut right to the heart of the matter without losing your cool or point.

      • Kris
        December 30, 2014, 8:43 am

        jon s: “The Hamas attacks this summer…”

        The HAMAS attacks??? Is this an example of chutzpah?

      • Zofia
        December 30, 2014, 9:39 am

        @Jon,
        Come on;] The quote was about Jews that opposed Muslims (not all Jews + from a long time ago) + it is a typical motivational technic to encourage to resist, fight the enemy. You know… Jews used similar rhetoric fighting Palestinians during British Mandate, they used even fragments of the Bible against them, etc…(and still do ;]) So it is a typical rhetoric used by many groups… The context of the Chart is still about Zionist (who were mostly Jews…hence the use of that quote to fight against them).
        As to the other article about Zionist using money and their influence- it is in some part true, is it not?? The difference between their influence on British and US policy was much much greater than Palestinians could even wish to have. They stressed that fact it that article. The Jews weren’t the big force of every historical event they mentioned (but still the communist part is not that far off, or the financial gains by trading in armaments (not only that), but still you can’t deny those things took place… it is typical to exaggerate to show sb’s point. Zionist did/do the same when it comes to Muslims and Arabs too- see… it is a typical technic.
        Read:
        1.Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, by Alison Weir
        2.Baksheesh Diplomacy: Secret Negotiations between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of World War II, by Rafael Medoff.
        3.Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, by John B. Judis
        About that “summer war” I replied:
        http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/caroline-palestinian-refugees#comment-732726 and about Hamas: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/12/caroline-palestinian-refugees#comment-732671

      • Citizen
        December 30, 2014, 10:52 am

        Meanwhile the Jewish Life cable TV show daily peddles the idea that the US should kick UN to the curb because UN is useless, full of tiny bums from backward countries living the good life off the US taxpayers, and heavily suggesting very glibly that Shrub Jr’s neocon/IsraelFirst war on Iraq was a good thing because it created the Arab Spring against Arab despots.

      • Zofia
        December 30, 2014, 2:38 pm

        @Jon:
        I am writing regarding the use of religious Zionist rhetoric to mobilize society (like Hamas)

        Yitzhak Shamir, former Prime Minister of Israel, in one of his political speeches described Palestinians as Canaanites, as did Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (second president of Israel) and many other Israeli politicians
        B.L. Ra’ad, Who Are The „Canaanites”?, „The Link”2011, vol.44 no.5

        Ramon Bennett in his work “Philistine: The Great Deception” compares Palestinians to the biblical Philistines. Bennett used this comparison to criticize political decisions taken during the peace talks in Oslo. According to him, as foreign ppl Palestinians have no right to the land of Palestine, which they reside. He uses symbolism and mythology of the Bible to legitimize his and Israel’s position.

        Ilan Gur-Ze’ev writes about the role of “goy” in Zionist discourse as a historical realization of “Amalek”- as an idea. Palestinian Arabs were often presented as such (even in school textbooks)- in:Destroying the Other’s Collective Memory, p. 34-35; 74-75.
        More: In Spite of Partition: Jews, Arabs, and the Limits of Separatist Imagination, by Gil Z. Hochberg.
        Ilan Zvi Baron writes that the more militant Zionists adopted without hesitation Biblical myths and stories of Jewish resistance against the Romans to exaggerate the historical significance, Jewish relevance, and heroics of the Zionist dying for the sake of Zionism. By the late 1940s,these ideas were so firmly implanted in the Zionist psyche that when the time came there was little ideological or moral resistance to establishing a forced draft of eligible conscripts in the Jewish Displaced Persons Camps in Germany and Austria after the War- in: Justifying the Obligation to Die: War, Ethics, and Political Obligation with Illustrations from Zionism, by Ilan Zvi Baron. There is lot more on the subject in his book.

        The use of Bible symbols and myths in various drafts of the Israeli declaration and in its final version or in other documents, political ideas etc you can read in: Jewish Rhetorics: History, Theory, Practice, by Michael Bernard-Donals and Janice W. Fernheimer.

        Robert Eisen writes that so called secular Zionists revered the Bible but rejected rabbinic Judaism. This tendency was particulaerly strong among right-wing secular Zionists. Thinkers in this group, such as Berdichevsky and Brenner, looked to the Bible to provide models for militarism, heroism, and bravery whom modern Zionists should emulate.They created what Ehud Luz reffered to as a counterhistory by glorifying the militarism of the Maccabees, the Zealots, Bar Kokhba, and those who died at Masada, and by vilifying R. Yohanan b. Zakkai, who ed the Jews to surrender to Rome. In: The Peace and Violence of Judaism: From the Bible to Modern Zionism, by Robert Eisen.

        Ben-Gurion recognized the need for a “national narrative” and turned to the Bible for that story. In that national narrative, Ben-Gurion de-emphasized the “suffering of the Jews in the diaspora—which had been the central factor in shaping classical Zionist theory” and instead emphasized “the bond between the Jewish people and its land.” As explained earlier, Ben-Gurion’s use of biblical language was calculated, not millennial. Shapira notes that “Ben-Gurion’s motive in refasioning his narrative was functional, a product of his interpretation of the new situation taking place before his eyes.-in: SHARED LAND/CONFLICTING IDENTITY, by Robert C. Rowland and David A Frank.
        Guess what! Hamas works similarly ;] That is why it is hard to call Hamas an “islamist” party or movement… They use religion in a different way than actual islamist movements- I gave some bibliography for that in earlier post, like: Kh.Hroub, Salafi Formations in Palestine and the Limits of a De-Palestinised Milieu, “Holy Land Studies” .

        Books on the topic:
        The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-Colonialism in 1.Palestine- Israel, by Nur Masalha
        2.Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion, by Nur Masalha
        3.Theodore Herzl’s The Jewish State: Prophetic Rhetoric in the Service of Political Objectives, by Amos Kiewe
        http://vpa.syr.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/TheodoreHerzlsTheJewishState.pdf
        4.Political Uses of the Hebrew Bible in Current Israeli Discourse: Transcending Right and Left, by Fania Oz-Salzberger
        http://www.academia.edu/1803735/Political_Uses_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_in_Current_Israeli_Discourse_Transcending_Right_and_Left
        5.In general use of Bible in politics, etc., you can read:
        The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique, by Michael Prior

        So as you can see Zionists use religious references too, they used and use it to mobilize ppl…as Hamas does. Bible was/is often used against Palestinians as the representatives of ancient Canaanites or Philistines who can be rid of. Their expulsion therefore is justified. Why do you think Bibi gave Obama the Bible (and not Mark Twain’s book as it was firstly thought). So ging by your own argumentation: Zionists practice what they preach, terrorism and murder (with the ongoing Nakba, brutal occupation, racism…)…BUT this thinking is counterproductive and doesn’t explain anything nor it is useful in anyway. It just blurs the political and social reality of both sides.

      • jon s
        December 31, 2014, 4:02 pm

        Zofia and other commenters are ignoring a key point. Even if – just to make the point – I accept your claim that IDF strikes on Hamas targets preceded Hamas rocket fire – it doesn’t matter!
        That’s because firing rockets and mortars at a civilian population is a criminal, terrorist , act. Every rocket fired at Sderot and Beersheva and Ashkelon, every mortar round aimed at Nahal Oz and Nirim, represents a criminal act.

      • Shingo
        December 31, 2014, 7:53 pm

        Even if – just to make the point – I accept your claim that IDF strikes on Hamas targets preceded Hamas rocket fire – it doesn’t matter!

        What I have noticed about you Jon, is that you go to great lengths to sound moderate and sensible, but inevitable, your Zinoist insanity and racist supremacist ideology rises to the surface every time.

        What you are saying is that it’s acceptable to you for Israel to launch shells, bombs and missiles at civilian populations in Gaza, but it’s a terrorist act when it’s done by Palestinians against Israeli civilians.

        And it’s acceptable to you for Israel to launch shells even in the absence of any rockets or mortars being fired into Israel , because the response such attacks are intended to incite are also acts of terror.

        If only you realized how insane and deranged you sounded. You really are tarred with the chosenness brush.

      • eljay
        December 31, 2014, 4:11 pm

        >> jon seee: Zofia and other commenters are ignoring a key point.

        Says the Zio-supremacist who never fails to ignore the significantly more key point that for over 60 years and with impunity, Israel – an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and self-proclaimed, religion-supremacist “Jewish State” – has been stealing, occupying and colonizing Palestinian land and oppressing, torturing and killing Palestinians.

        jon seee is more concerned with the victim’s attempts to stab the rapist than he is by the fact that the rapist has a victim chained up in his basement!

  11. lonely rico
    December 27, 2014, 4:31 pm

    Her rise is reminiscent of Joan Peters’s book 30 years ago

    I recollect Peters referring to the Palestinian claim to the land coveted by the Zionists – “It’s a scam, and must be denounced”.
    The words were true,
    not of the Palestinian presence,
    but of the spurious history Peters had written.
    Peter’s derisive words well describe Glick’s sneering Zionist falsities –
    They’re a scam and must be denounced

    • jon s
      December 30, 2014, 4:39 am

      Zofia, I see that you’re bringing up this accusation:

      Exclusive: Israel’s Video Justifying Destruction of a Gaza Hospital Was From 2009

      When Annie posted the same link , I asked if there was any proof, aside from “Truthout says so”. In other words, a link from 2009 showing the same video.
      I even said that if I would see the proof, I would try to take it up with the IDF spokesperson’s office.
      I don’t recall seeing a reply (but I may have missed it, I don’t monitor MW every day).

    • jon s
      December 31, 2014, 4:19 pm

      Just to be clear on Article 22 of the Hamas Chater, which Zofia now says is ” in some part true”:

      “… With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

      You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it…”

      • tree
        December 31, 2014, 6:00 pm

        jon,

        Just to be even more clear on Article 22 of the Charter, it begins thus:

        “Article Twenty-Two: The Powers which Support the Enemy

        The enemies have been scheming for a long time, and they have consolidated their schemes, in order to achieve what they have achieved. They took advantage of key elements in unfolding events, and accumulated a huge and influential material wealth which they put to the service of implementing their dream…”

        http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html?chocaid=397

        Note that Article 22 never once uses the term “Jews” but instead refers to “the enemies” and “Zionist interests”. While greatly over broad in its explanation of the origins of the problem, it is in fact, as Zofia said, “in some part true”. Zionist Jews bear responsibility for the Balfour Declaration, and usurpation of Palestine and the dispossession and impoverishment of its non-Jewish citizens. Some wealthy Zionist Jews, both in Israel and the US, are using their wealth and influence to continue the oppression of the Palestinians. Which was exactly Zofia’s point. Just because something is a stereotype doesn’t mean that certain individuals don’t match the stereotype. Some blondes are dumb, some Scots are stingy. (And of course some brunettes are dumb and stingy people come in all flavors.) Denying that Zionist Jews worked successfully to alter events in order to achieve their goals is not only false but is replacing one false stereotype with another equally false stereotype – that no Jew or group of Jews would ever attempt or be successful at using power for their own benefit to the detriment of others. The success of Zionism proves that alternate stereotype of yours to be false.

        As Article 31 makes clear, the Charter is not condemning all Jews, but only those who are oppressing or fighting others. Taken in that context its clear that when the Charter does use the term “Jews” in other Articles, it is clearly referring to Zionist Jews who dispossess(ed) and oppress(ed) Palestinians.

        (As a side note, I find it interesting that your source for the translation of the Charter omits “B’nai Brith” from its list of organizations mentioned in Article 22. I don’t think I would use a source that purposely omitted this one organization from their translation. It doesn’t speak well to their accuracy. )

      • Shingo
        December 31, 2014, 8:04 pm

        The success of Zionism proves that alternate stereotype of yours to be false.

        Superb summation Tree.

        This goes to the very heart of the anti semitism trope – that any criticism of Israel is anti Semitic, because it implies that Jews are incapable of crimes, wrongdoing and violence – which itself is a stereotype.

  12. Mooser
    December 27, 2014, 6:34 pm

    “A couple weeks before that, she got to spout three paragraphs of her intolerant ideas in a long piece in The New Yorker on the one-state reality:”

    An article by no less a personage than David Remnick,. I guess he considers her credible.

    • jon s
      December 31, 2014, 2:59 pm

      Shingo,
      There’s no proof there, it’s just Mr Porter saying so.
      All we need is to see the same video, as it was supposedly posted in 2009.

      Aside from that, your comment doesn’t make much sense. Are you saying that the building of Al Wafa hospital didn’t exist in 2014? So how can anyone complain about its destruction in 2014?

      • Shingo
        December 31, 2014, 9:13 pm

        There’s no proof there, it’s just Mr Porter saying so.

        Wrong. The proof comes from the fact that the audio clip accompanying it was from an incident unrelated to Al Wafa.

        While an IDF spokesman said that Hamas rocket launches had come “from exactly near the hospital, 100 meters near,” according to Dr. Basman Alashi, Al Wafa’s director, points out that the image shown in the aerial maps and photos used by the IDF were not actually of the Wafa Hospital. In fact, even a google map of the Wafa Hospital shows that not one of the buildings even remotely look like the ones the IDF said were Al Wafa. According to Truth Out, the buildings in the IDF image belong to the Right to Life Society.

        You’re just trying to salvage IDF lies Jon and exposing yourself as an ideological zealot.

    • jon s
      January 6, 2015, 3:35 am

      It’s clear that Article 22 in the Hamas Charter is referring to the Jews, with all the classic anti-semitic themes, and not just “zionist interests”. The Zionist movement, founded in 1897, could hardly have been behind the French Revolution in 1789.
      Zofia says that she agrees , at least in part, to the part about “trading in armaments”.
      Article 22 states: ” They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments …”
      It takes an absolutely demented, hate-filled ,mind to accuse the Jews of profitting from WW2, when 6 million Jews , 1/3 of our people, perished.

      • Shingo
        January 6, 2015, 4:42 am

        It’s clear that Article 22 in the Hamas Charter is referring to the Jews, with all the classic anti-semitic themes, and not just “zionist interests”. The Zionist movement, founded in 1897, could hardly have been behind the French Revolution in 1789.

        So you’re going to criticize Hamas for being anti Semitic while Israel is murdering Palestinians? That’s about a mypic and accusing Jews in 1939 of having a biased view of Germans.

        My God, you Zios take self obsession and narcissism to a stratospheric level.

      • Zofia
        January 6, 2015, 10:12 am

        excuse me? Is this part addressed to me? It takes an absolutely demented, hate-filled ,mind to accuse the Jews of profitting from WW2

        Well well…I hope not…+ it shows you have no detailed knowledge of the war and the events before/after it…
        If you like it or not SOME Jews (as Zionist and even non-zionist) did profit from the war in various ways, you can’t just dismiss them like that, because you don’t like that fact- it is childish.
        Another thing is the use of those facts… as I wrote before: for propaganda use, to justify some acts, etc facts are inflated and so on. Zionists did/do the same when it comes to Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, etc. It is all normal when it comes to those types of actions (I wrote about it elsewhere). Hamas used the well known (by then) facts of Zionist (or non-zionist) influence on American or British policy, their various policy during the war (and before 1939).. etc. They combined all that info and used to show their international support (which they had/have) and that Palestinians don’t have that kind of support. Of course in part it is propaganda, but if you dismiss some historical facts because they were used (and inflated) by sb you don’t like, it only shows that your lack of certain knowledge about history and rather to admit that in certain ways those things took place you prefer to pretend that non of them happened at all…

        The Secret Contacts – Zionism and Nazi Germany 1933-1941 — Journal of Palestine Studies — Polkehn,Klaus, Vol-5, No-3-4
        https://archive.org/details/TheSecretContacts-ZionismAndNaziGermany1933-1941

        Zionists (also non-zionist Jews) in US didn’t have the same narrative, policy, etc as other Zionists (or non-zionist Jews)… that is shown for example in their attitude toward the German government in the 30’s. Read about the Verein who were against anti-german propaganda especially of the US Zionists and even non-zionist Jews…They were afraid that the anti-german propaganda will have consequences on Jews living in Germany…
        On March 12, 1933 the American Jewish Congress (considered non-zionist) announced a protest at Madison Square Gardens for March 27…+ called for an American boycott of German goods. On March 23 there were protests at New York’s City Hall… boycotts were mounted against German goods throughout shops and businesses in New York City.

        The Zionist Union for Germany (or Zionist Association of Germany) sent a telegram on March 26, 1933:
        “In regard to foreign misinformation about the German Jews for the purpose of making anti-German propaganda, The Zionist Union for Germany declares: With great resolve we have informed the entire Jewish world press via the Jewish Telegraph Agency, already on March 17th, of our declaration against all anti-German propaganda. We have publicly repeated our protest against all untruthful atrocity announcements and baseless sensationalism. We protest against every attempt to place Jewish interests at the service of other countries or groups. The defence of Jews’ civil rights and their economic position cannot and must not be coupled with anti-German political actions.”… We all know the direct response to that boycott…

        Aside of that issue (as various Zionist and Jewish policy before 1939), which you can explore on your own there is also this:
        Robert John (for example he wrote with Sami Hadawi,”Palestine Diary: British, American and United Nations Intervention, 1914-1948″, first published in 1970, includes a foreword by British historian Arnold Toynbee) wrote:
        Britain, France and Germany attached considerable importance to the attitudes of Jewry towards them because money and credit were needed for the war. The international banking houses of Lazard Frères, Eugene Mayer, J. & W. Seligman, Speyer Brothers and M.M. Warburg, were all conducting major operations in the United States, as were the Rothschilds through the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. Apart from their goodwill the votes of America’s Jewish community of 3,000,000 were important to the issue of that country’s intervention or non-intervention in the war, and the provision of military supplies.

        Read about: Jacob Schiff, German-born senior partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. He wrote in The Menorah Journal of April 1915: “It is well known that I am a German sympathizer … England has been contaminated by her alliance with Russia … am quite convinced that in Germany anti-Semitism is a thing of the past. The Jewish Encyclopedia for 1906 states that “Schiff’s firm subscribed for and floated the large Japanese war loan in 1904-05” (for the Russo-Japanese war). “in recognition of which the Mikado conferred on Schiff the second order of the Sacred Treasure of Japan.” Partners with Schiff were Felix M. Warburg and his brother Paul who had come to New York in 1902 from Hamburg, and organized the Federal Reserve System.Read more in: Behind the Balfour Declaration. Britain’s Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild, by Robert John

        Who do you think profited for example from the “Transfer Agreement”? The poor Jews? The people who couldn’t afford to leave on their own? Well Hostage wrote about it before, and he gave nice bibliography for it. Getting Jews to Palestine required money, proprer propaganda and even forceful acts toward Jews who didn’t share the idea of going to Palestine […forced draft of eligible conscripts in the Jewish Displaced Persons Camps in Germany and Austria after the War- in: Justifying the Obligation to Die: War, Ethics, and Political Obligation with Illustrations from Zionism, by Ilan Zvi Baron.]… deal with it.
        WANT MORE?
        Israeli reporter, Bo’az Evron, writing in the April 4, 1991 Israeli newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, actually described Israel’s policy toward Soviet Jews as, in his own words, “anti-Semitic”:
        “The new Jewish immigrants are, in fact, refugees fleeing a country fast falling apart … Israeli and Zionist emissaries have left no stone unturned in prodding the nations of the world to deny entry to Jewish refugees, so as to force them to settle in Israel…But this means that the nations of the world, at Israel’s prodding, have consciously embarked upon a policy of discrimination against the Jewish refugees. Incontestably, it is an anti-Semitic policy which in a different context could not fail to provoke outrage. Only because the gates have been locked, and [the Soviet Jews] have nowhere else to go, can we celebrate the ‘immigration miracle.’
        “If they were guided by the best interests of these Jews, the [Israeli] government and the Jewish Agency would seek to open all the doors in the world to everyone wishing to leave the USSR… But who cares about the best interests of these Jews? They concern Shamir and Sharon only insofar as they can populate the settlements, or serve as a pretext for grabbing more land in the West Bank, or become soldiers in future wars …
        “Here the great secret of Zionism in the past few generations stands revealed. Long ago, Zionism ceased its concern for what is good for the Jews. Quite the contrary, Zionism is interested in seeing to it that the Jews suffer, so that they will leave their homes and come to Israel. This is why each glimmer of anti-Semitism fills the hearts of Zionists with relief. Zionism needs Jews in order to boost the Jewish population and military strength of Israel, not for their own sake … As human beings, they are of no concern to either the State of Israel or the Zionist Movement.”
        MORE:
        Baruch Kimmerling, in his review of Yosef Grodzinsky’s In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II, writes:
        “Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders vetoed the immigration of 1,000 orphans, who were in physical and emotional danger as a result of the harsh winter of 1945, from the camps in Germany to England, where the Jewish community had managed to secure them permits. Another group of roughly 500 children of camp inhabitants was barred, after Zionist intervention, from reaching France, whose rabbinical institutions had offered them safe haven.”
        Yitzchak Greenbaum, Chairman of the (Zionist) Jewish Agency’s Rescue Committee in Jerusalem, wrote, “when they asked me, couldn’t you give money out of the United Jewish Appeal funds for the rescue of Jews in Europe, I said, ‘NO!’ and I say again, ‘NO!’…one should resist this wave which pushes the Zionist activities to secondary importance.” In February, 1943, Greenbaum gave a speech in Tel Aviv on the subject, “The Diaspora and the Redemption” in which he said:
        “When they come to us with two plans — the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land [settling Jews in Palestine — JS] — I vote, without a second thought, for the redemption of the land…If there would be a possibility today of buying packages of food with the money of the Keren Hayesod (United Jewish Appeal) to send it through Lisbon, would we do such a thing? No! and once again No!”- in his book In Days of Holocaust and Destruction
        MORE:
        Times of London of June 6, 1961, Rabbi Dr. Solomon Schonfeld, who served in the period of the Holocaust as the chairman of the rescue committee founded by the chief rabbi of Britain,, publicized a letter to the editor which set off a storm amongst British Zionists: Your recent reports of the Eichmann trial include considerable evidence tending to show that H. M. Government was largely indifferent to and unwilling to take action in defense of the European Jews who were l massacred daily by the Nazis; and that this was so in spite of efforts by Zionist leaders to persuade the British Foreign Office to rouse itself into action on behalf of the victims. In your leader (June 1) you express concern lest it be held that our wartime Government was guilty of negligence in the face of the holocaust. Your correspondent succinctly suggests that the attention now being given to this side of the picture is connected with some current criticism of Zionist inactivity during the war.
        “My experience in 1942-43 was wholly in favor of British readiness to help, openly, constructively and totally, and that this readiness met with opposition from Zionist leaders who insisted on rescue to Palestine as the only acceptable form of help”.
        AND SO ON….

        As you can see Zionist policy wasn’t monolithic… And you can’t just write that sb couldn’t just do sth only because you think there was 1 Zionist policy (toward Jews, Germans, war, etc)… There was no such thing. You also must read more about pre-war Jewish (as non-zionist) and Zionist policy… since we can all see you have a rather romantic vision of that policy to say the least….

        You can read:
        1.Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, by Alison Weir
        2.Baksheesh Diplomacy: Secret Negotiations between American Jewish Leaders and Arab Officials on the Eve of World War II, by Rafael Medoff.
        3.Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict, by John B. Judis
        4.51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, by Lenni Brenner
        5.Ben-Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews, by Naeim Giladi
        6. Idith Zertal books:
        From Catastrophe to Power: The Holocaust Survivors and the Emergence of Israel
        Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood
        7.Before Catastrophe: The Distinctive Path of German Zionism, by Hagit Lavsky
        8.Israel’s Sacred Terrorism: A Study Based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary and Other Documents
        9.In the Shadow of the Holocaust. The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II, by Yosef Grodzinsky
        10.The Holocaust Victims Accuse: Documents and Testimony on Jewish War Criminals

        you cannot dismiss the simple fact that some Jews did profit from the war… some preferred to sacrifice Jews to boost emigration to Palestine. Some for example saw an opportunity in war to boost the Zionist cause in Palestine (read about Max Nordau and the Zionist Congress at Basle in August 1903; Chaim Weizmann’s letter to Justice Louis D. Brandeis in 1918, etc)- that is no secret! Do you also deny the Zionist and Jewish influence on US or British policy? Read the above books then….

        Really… read those books… and don’t use that old accusation of anti-semitism to cover up your lack of certain historical knowledge and your ideological preferences.

  13. Citizen
    December 27, 2014, 6:45 pm

    Glick would be the first one to jeer at a Confederate banner flying from the back of a truck.

    • bilal a
      December 28, 2014, 12:56 am

      someone here said they could never be friends with a beliving christian — and this was a secular anti zionist

      Israel is merely a symptom of an underlying systemic disease.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 28, 2014, 1:07 am

        “a beliving christian” ? that’s a rather broad statement. there are lots of different ways christians worship. perhaps that is not what they meant.

      • DaBakr
        December 28, 2014, 1:29 am

        bil is most likely is referring to the fact a “believing” Christian would presumably ‘believe’ that the Jews must return to Jerusalem/Israel in order for the rapture to occur. (and no, I do not think the New Testament specifies when or how the Jews shall return to Jerusalem so the attributed statement above really does not make sense. A ‘believing’ Christian does not necessarily have to be a Zionist even if many are. And I obviously take issue with the characterization of Zionism as a desease and find the statement no different then any other typically bigoted and hateful slander. But then this is MW comments-the obverse of the comments on the JP site so its expected to some degree.

      • Annie Robbins
        December 28, 2014, 2:44 am

        most likely is referring to the fact a “believing” Christian would presumably ‘believe’ that the Jews must return to Jerusalem/Israel in order for the rapture to occur.

        other than the fact that there is no fact that all or even most believing christians believe jews must return to jerusalem or even believe the rapture will occur, i think i know what you mean.

        most likely is referring to a “believing” Christian who presumably ‘believes’ that Jews must return to Jerusalem/Israel in order for the rapture to occur.

        yes there are a few of those around, i can’t say i’d be socializing with them either.

        obviously take issue with the characterization of Zionism as a desease

        right. well, what can i say. if only they had picked a land with no people for a people with no land*, then it could have been different. but alas, they didn’t. zionism in palestine was doomed from the beginning because it required the ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of the inhabitants. that’s sort of a recipe for a disaster.

        it’s hard to pull off something groovy when it requires a crime against humanity to get it off it’s feet. i mean, europe with no jews might not sound like such a horrible thing to some people (the ones who don’t like jews). but once you throw in the genocide it kind of leaves a horrible side effect that’s not easy to ignore, doesn’t it? it’s like a cup of tea with a tablespoon of salt instead of sugar. how do you get the salt out? how do you take the nakba away from zionism when palestinians are still being ethnically cleansed from the their land? that salt in the tea is zionism’s disease, it permeates everything. they chose the wrong place to do it. shouldn’t have tried to colonize the holy land, very disrespectful.

        *they probably already figured that out which is why they lied and made up that myth.

      • ritzl
        December 28, 2014, 4:31 am

        Great comment (@2:44), Annie.

        “Salt in the tea” is a perfect way to express Zionism’s embedded, fatal flaw.

      • just
        December 28, 2014, 7:43 am

        Brilliant comment, Annie! That’s a keeper.

      • catporn
        December 28, 2014, 10:16 am

        Z1: Oi, there’s a lady out front complaining her tea tastes salty, she wants a fresh cup.
        Z2: Mmm OK, give her a fresh cup but put salt in that too.
        Z1: She’ll just send it back.
        Z2: Tell her that’s how tea has always tasted, in fact from now on make sure every cup we serve has salt in it.
        Z1: But won’t people just stop coming here, go elsewhere for their tea?
        Z2: Yes your right, well we’re going to have to buy out every cafe we can, and those we can’t buy we’ll infiltrate and make sure tea everywhere has salt in it.
        Z1: Are you sure, it seems like a lot of trouble to go to, wouldn’t it be easier to just give her a cup without salt?
        Z2: Here, wait a minute, your not one of those anti-saltites are you?
        Z1: Well of course not, I’m not against salt per se, it’s just, well… Ohh alright, let’s do it your way, anything for a quiet life.
        Z2:Good boy, you wait and see, after a few years people will think tea always had salt in it.

      • DaBakr
        December 30, 2014, 1:25 am

        The Israeli spirit is such that if what you said was actually true-they would find the technology to turn the salty tea into sugar. What can I say? The Palestinians are welcome to partake in this-or- welcome to a state of their own but first there must be a negotiated solution and there will not be another militarized and/or Jew-free Muslim nation next to an Israel with a 20% population of non-Jews

      • Annie Robbins
        December 30, 2014, 7:50 am

        Z2:Good boy, you wait and see, after a few years people will think tea always had salt in it.

        DaBakr: The Israeli spirit is such that if what you said was actually true-they would find the technology to turn the salty tea into sugar.

        excellent idea! so do tell, when would the “Israeli spirit” go about doing this?

        Z1: Are you sure, it seems like a lot of trouble to go to, wouldn’t it be easier to just give her a cup without salt?

        Israeli spirit: not yet, put salt in all the water for a few decades while we haggle over a negotiated solution , til they concede to our right to be fully militarized while they remain completely defenseless! that’s the The Israeli spirit!

        and the technology to turn the salty tea into sugar?

        Israeli spirit: you’re not one of those anti-saltites are you? have another cup of salty tea while we negotiate your surrender. Besides, this is a jewish state, only jews are allowed sugar which is not up for negotiation.

      • DaBakr
        December 31, 2014, 9:03 am

        Annie:

        pretty funny answer. Salt, Sugar, Negotiations and more. I really do respect your enthusiasm, set of principles for what you believe is right for the Palestinians and Israel and you do not usually descend into personal attack (usually, but hey, its the I/P conflict after all)

        As for my original post about the Meshaal speech and its implications your response (as well as the many others) can be interpreted as nothing more then Palestinian Hasbara 101. And in all fairness I suppose my posts are seen as equally pumped full of Israeli Hasbara as well. Not really much of a discussion but more or less a cheerleading session with the flunkies who throw insults (well meaning souls, I’m sure) cheer you on and others such as Zofia post endless links to buttress her [and our] understanding of the ‘facts’ even further. (and it would seem that she truly does not seem to want to admit that there is a huge abundance of equally scholarly and polemical articles, books and speeches rounding out the Israeli/Zionist position which is, at least in my and millions of other Zionists-left, center and right feel sufficiently explain the legality, morality and righteousness of most Israeli/Zionist policy circa 1900s thru 2014. Yes, there is plenty to criticize, and thank you for doing so but there are equal and possibly even more egregious ;policies; and manifestos’ that need be explained by not only Hamas, Fatah, PPFLP, PLO in a positive light but also justly be explained by Zionists, neutral Scholars , Israelis and other interested parties inn parsing through what is ‘truth’, ‘lies’ and the Hasbara that litters the spaces in-between.

        So my point again is: You here have your own version of hasbara to explain certain things like, e.g. a common, obvious and recurrent speech by Meshaal whereas a Zionist hears a Meshaal speech for what the lofty words mean in actuality and less so on the surface. [and of course, as Zofia pointed out, Israeli politicians have done in many ways the same for years. But the fact remains that neither side is really negotiating but merely positioning and/or jockeying for key positions later on. Some are threats (like the, imo, bound-to-backfire-and-blow-up Palestinian bid for the ICC and other international orgs. Orgs which due to their focus mostly on two-bit African[read dark skinned] or other NON_EURO international criminals that its seen as a huge joke by a huge % of the ‘developing’ [3rd] world. Bush and Cheney in the docket? lol. Putin? Erdogan, Mubarak, Mugabe, the NKoreans, Assad, and much more. This impotence of an institution set up by colonialist EU trash to try the worlds 2 and 3bit tyrants has mostly sen a huge international joke.

        Why it is the anti-Zionist left and some (only some) Palestinians believe that putting its trust in the ICC is anything more then a big PR coup is beyond me. They must know that Israel(though admittedly not what they want to be involved with) has a contingency plan for any potential action by this completely discredited [imo] and non-illustrious body (whose only claim to fame is the oddly neutral prosecutions of Serbian criminals who-by coincidence-were charged with slaughtering Muslims and the supposedly ‘Islamaphobic” west went in a bombed the shit out of Christian Serbs + to ultimately defend Muslims from slaughter but naturally-that effort by the US (against U[seless]N[othing]policy has never been acknowledged as an act of caring and protection for Muslims. No. Muslims continue to see the US in general as evil because why? Well, support of Israel which supported the US in defending Serb and Croat Muslims counts for zitch because the Nation of israel is the “thorn in the ME side/the irritating grain of sand in the oyster of the Arab crescent”/and outsider culture of ‘Khazzers’ from EU with absolutely no ties to the land/. Zionists have heard them all. As if the holy book that birthed the 2 largest monotheistic religions on earth-and which contains at least 600 references to Jerusalem and returning there as the holiest of holies means absolutely NADA. As in: the only Jews that belong in Jerusalem were the 2-3000 religious Jews living there continuously for over 2000yrs. They , the Arabs can abide since they were willing to live under the Muslim Dhimmi code w/o protest. But of course no other Jews have any natural, political or since what happened happened-military rights in the eyes of the far-left of the Palestinian supporter movement such as MW and EI, JVP, openH, etc

      • Annie Robbins
        December 31, 2014, 4:41 pm

        So my point again is: You here have your own version of hasbara to explain certain things like, e.g. a common, obvious and recurrent speech by Meshaal whereas a Zionist hears a Meshaal speech for what the lofty words mean in actuality and less so on the surface. [yada yada] ….fact remains that neither side is really negotiating but merely positioning and/or jockeying for key positions later on.

        debakr, my main point is this neither-side/both-side argument is irrelevant because one side, the side that is powerful, has a deep fundamental flaw (SALT) inherent in the core of its argument whereas the other side deserves human rights for freedom and equality that all man can relate to.

        aside from that we are stacked up on comments and i cannot divert attention to follow the rest of your comment right now, maybe when i have some free time unless someone else gets to it first. i look forward to the new year, palestine will prevail.

      • seafoid
        December 31, 2014, 4:39 pm

        Salt in the tea a.k.a. sand in the Vaseline

    • jon s
      January 1, 2015, 1:42 am

      Shingo,
      So now you’re withdrawing the accusation that the video was recycled from 2009?

      • Shingo
        January 1, 2015, 1:43 am

        So now you’re withdrawing the accusation that the video was recycled from 2009?

        Absolutely not, I have just provided additional evidence to support it. However did you come to that conclusion?

    • jon s
      January 6, 2015, 5:25 am

      Shingo,
      I certainly do criticize Hamas anti-semitism.
      I don’t make excuses for racism from any side.

      • Shingo
        January 6, 2015, 7:03 am

        I don’t make excuses for racism from any side.

        You have to be joking. You demonstrate rampant racism week in week out. A week ago you stated that it doesn’t matter if ISrael attacks the Palestinians first or initiated the conflicts because Palestinians are terrorists and what they do is never self defense it’s terrorism.

      • eljay
        January 6, 2015, 9:15 am

        jon seee: … I don’t make excuses for racism from any side.

        But you do make all sorts of excuses for Jewish supremacism.

  14. catporn
    December 27, 2014, 8:21 pm

    She’s a loon, a total loon, yet pretty representative of her community.
    Looking inside the Zionist mind sends a chill up my spine and leaves me feeling more that a little bit afraid.

    • jon s
      January 6, 2015, 10:33 am

      Shingo,

      I never “stated” any such thing.

      I abhor all forms of racism.

      • Shingo
        January 6, 2015, 5:01 pm

        I never “stated” any such thing.

        So you’re a liar as well as a racist.

        From your post December 31, 2014, 4:02 pm:

        Zofia and other commenters are ignoring a key point. Even if – just to make the point –I accept your claim that IDF strikes on Hamas targets preceded Hamas rocket fire – it doesn’t matter! That’s because firing rockets and mortars at a civilian population is a criminal, terrorist , act. Every rocket fired at Sderot and Beersheva and Ashkelon, every mortar round aimed at Nahal Oz and Nirim, represents a criminal act.

        How much more racist, biased and one sided can you get to call Israel’s actions justified even if they are not warranted while any response from Hamas to be a criminal act?

  15. Kay24
    December 27, 2014, 9:24 pm

    Their brains have been programmed that way. To make such idiotic statements that do not jive with facts, and be in total denial, is how they always express themselves in their factless writing.
    It seems to a large extent their little minds think that they are doing their mothership a great service, and show devotion to zionism. It is a shame that this poison is also a major part of the American media.

    • jon s
      January 7, 2015, 3:50 pm

      Shingo,
      This is what you accused me of:

      “A week ago you stated that it doesn’t matter if ISrael attacks the Palestinians first or initiated the conflicts because Palestinians are terrorists and what they do is never self defense it’s terrorism. ”

      You’ve also been kind enough to cite my original post.

      So anyone who can read can see that I referred to Hamas, who are, indeed, terrorists, and not to the Palestinians in general. Also, in that quote I didn’t express an opinion one way or the other as to Israeli actions.
      So who’s the liar?

      • eGuard
        January 7, 2015, 4:08 pm

        jon sEvery rocket fired at … Ashkelon … represents a criminal act.

        Not true. Ashkelon is a Navy base, and so a military target. Israel is using their civilian population as a human shield.

      • Shingo
        January 7, 2015, 4:23 pm

        So anyone who can read can see that I referred to Hamas, who are, indeed, terrorists, and not to the Palestinians in general.

        Hamas are Palestinians and but you think that labelling someone terrorists means they are forever incapable of moderation or reform, and that Israel has the right to attack them regardless of their actions.

        What you said was that it is irrelevant whether Israel starts wars or otherwise because any action against Hamas is therefore warranted.

        Based on your logic, the Palestinians have every right to attack Israel because Likud was founded by Israeli terrorists.

  16. Pixel
    December 28, 2014, 4:04 am

    .
    Glick – the Israeli Ann Coulter.

    She may believe all or part of what she spouts. Coulter stands for nothing.

    The role from which they both carved out their celebrity is that of provocateur, the easiest and most self-entertaining of gigs.

    I’m “in loath” with both of them.

    • jon s
      January 8, 2015, 1:55 am

      Shingo,
      Once again, you presume to tell me what I think, without any foundation in what I wrote.

      “Hamas are Palestinians and but(sic!) you think that labelling someone terrorists means they are forever incapable of moderation or reform, and that Israel has the right to attack them regardless of their actions. ”

      “Forever” is a long time and I don’t think that all terrorists are incapable of ever changing.
      I would certainly welcome any indication that Hamas is ready to abandon terrorism.
      Israel’s right to defend itself is relevant to Hamas’ actions, not “regardless”.

  17. just
    December 28, 2014, 8:29 am

    “It is impossible to overstate the significance of the High Court of Justice ruling ordering the state to demolish within two years the Amona illegal outpost, which was built on private Palestinian land. After years of evasion, legal tricks, forged documents and unfulfilled pledges, even the High Court came to realize that the state cannot be trusted, not to mention the settlers, to voluntarily agree to return the land they plundered from their owners.

    Amona was born in sin in 1997, when a group of settlers established residence in an area that had been earmarked for an archaeological site and a Mekorot Water Company reservoir. Cease and desist orders issued by Civil Administration inspectors in 2004 halted building for four years, but it resumed in force despite new stop-work orders.

    In 2006, after the High Court ordered the demolition of Amona’s permanent structures, the settlers made clear that they were not bound by the court’s authority and they turned the “battle for Amona” into a national event in which they violently confronted the police. If there was no alternative to demolition, they would make Amona a “national trauma” that would threaten any future plans to evacuate outposts or settlements.

    Even now, after the High Court ruling, the settler leaders are adamant: “We swear today to fight this with all our might,” Amona spokesman Avihai Boaron said. This is nothing but a continuation of the settlers’ common view that the state and its institutions are their servants, and when they do not fulfill their mission they must be fought. Particularly infuriating is the idea that “the left-wing government and the High Court are leading the country”; That is, in the struggle between land theft and the law, the High Court is not only a legal and ideological enemy but it also violates the political reality in which the right wing is in control. That perception is no less distorted and dangerous than the settlers’ position that the theft of Palestinian land is part of the Redemption.

    The government of Israel cannot continue to avoid carrying out the High Court’s ruling, according to which “there is no possibility of authorizing the construction, even retroactively,”……… Two years is sufficient time to find alternative housing, and it would be best not to not wait until the last moment. The Palestinian landowners have waited too many years for the Israeli wheels of justice to turn. They have the right to have their property returned to them, with appropriate compensation.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.634061

    Bye- bye. 2 years more is too much. If one pulls on this thread, the whole enterprise becomes an unraveled ball of yarns…

    Extrapolate, please.

  18. just
    December 28, 2014, 8:48 am

    Is Caroline Glick related to Yehuda Glick?

    O/T (sort of)

    “Study: 22 percent of Israeli Jews identify with religious Zionist camp

    One-third of these say they aren’t religious, new study finds; growth of pro-settler camp explains growth of Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi.”

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.634036

    (it’s all about the “settlements” and stealing land)

    • Mooser
      December 28, 2014, 11:55 am

      How is old Yehuda doing? Is he back in circulation?

      • a blah chick
        December 28, 2014, 12:42 pm

        I heard he got out of the hospital and that there does not appear to be any permanent damage.

  19. Mooser
    December 28, 2014, 12:41 pm

    Ah! Psycho, from the regions which
    Are Holy Land!

    (Sorry, Edgar)

  20. Walid
    December 28, 2014, 2:04 pm

    For Glick’s benefit and of that of other similar creeps, life of Palestinians in Palestine in 1896 before the Zionists moved in and spoiled the neighbourhood, of a short clip by moving pictures pioneers, the Lumière brothers; it was the most FB shared video for 2014 in Lebanon:

    • Walid
      December 28, 2014, 2:23 pm

      And more, for those that persist in believing that Palestine was a swamp that the Zionists drained. A video of what the Zionists actualy drained from the land, with great music:

      (to be watched in full-screen)

      • eljay
        December 29, 2014, 2:00 pm

        >> Mooser: More still pictures, of old Palestine, and it’s people, and the coming of the Zionists.

        Huh. For “a land without a people”, it looks quite populated.

        I guess that’s why Zio-supremacists – even the “liberal Zionist” types – felt that the Nakba was a “necessary wrong”.

        A whole bunch of terrorism, “necessary” ethnic cleansing and/or nose-holding later and – badda-boom, badda-bing! – it’s time to “primarily celebrate” the establishment of an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • Zofia
        December 29, 2014, 2:09 pm

        @Walid and Mooser :)
        Here are some interesting photos too :)
        The Great War in Palestine: Dr Tawfiq Canaan’s Photographic Album
        http://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/JQ%2056-57%20The%20Great%20War.pdf

        More photos here: Before Their Diaspora is a visual journey into Palestine before 1948.
        http://btd.palestine-studies.org/

        You can look into Khalil Raad’s photos too :)
        There is a good article about him by Salim Tamari:
        The War Photography of Khalil Raad: Ottoman Modernity and the Biblical Gaze
        http://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/JQ-52-Tamari-The_War_Photography_of_Khalil_Raad_1.pdf
        And:
        Perspective is everything.
        From 1891 until 1948 the Jerusalem photographer Chalil Raad documented Palestinian society of the time as well as Zionist land settlement.
        http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/perspective-is-everything-1.315478

        Or women like: Karimeh Abbud, Najla Ra’ad (wife of Johannes Krikorian), Margo Abdo. You can read: Issam Nassar “Early Local Photography in Palestine: The Legacy of Karimeh Abbud” in: http://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/46-Early_local_photographer_2.pdf

        Interesting is also the case of Elia Kahvedjian:
        The finest photographs of early 20th century Palestine, shuttered in controversy
        The family of Armenian refugee and photographer Elia Kahvedjian is fighting to preserve his legacy:
        http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-finest-photographs-of-early-20th-century-palestine-shuttered-in-controversy-1.411086
        In that article:
        One of the photos became the focus of a political controversy last year. The picture, a portrait of a Palestinian family taken in a citrus grove at the end of the 1930s, served as the basis for artist Eliyahu Arik Bokobza’s painting “The Citrus Grower.” MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union ) protested the Knesset’s purchase of the painting for its permanent exhibit, claiming that it was an attempt to depict the past from an Arab perspective, and suggest that “we robbed and expelled them.”

        A. Merli, A New Art in an Ancient Land: Palestine through the lens of early European photographers, “The Jerusalem Quarterly”, issue 50, 2012
        L. Wheatley-Irving, Holy Land Photographs and Their Worlds Francis Bedford and the ‘Tour in the East’, “The Jerusalem Quarterly”, issue 31, 2007
        You can read it all online :)

        ps. I wish you all a Happy New Year!!:)

      • Walid
        December 29, 2014, 3:39 pm

        Great photos, Zofia, if anything, all these photos and videos demonstrate very clearly the intellectual level of Palestinians and their standard of living long before the arrival of the European Zionists.

        Your links show the importance of Armenian photographers in Palestine and throughout the ME. Other great Armenian-Canadian photographers come to mind, Yusuf Karsh and his uncle that taught him the art, George Naccache.

        A happy new year to you and everyone here.

      • Mooser
        December 29, 2014, 4:07 pm

        Thanks, Zofia! Happy New Year to you, and all!

      • adele
        December 29, 2014, 4:43 pm

        I recall some kids in a refugee camp in Palestine devouring these photos, mesmerised by the historical record, and so so proud of the achievements Palestinians had made prior to the Nakba. It was bittersweet to say the least, and it is impossible for anyone who knows this history not to let our imagination wander off and think: What if…..and not just a “what if” for Palestine, but for Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt too. The geo-politics of Zionism substantially affected the entire area.

        I often also think, what if the Jewish immigrants had integrated within the society that they went to live in? The social/cultural/economic/political developments that could have been realized are now lost and buried underneath all the violence that the zionist campaign engendered. I hope all is not lost for the current and future generations.

        Thanks very much for posting the photos and videos.

      • jon s
        December 31, 2014, 3:44 pm

        The photographs of Palestinian life are quite impressive and serve as a reminder of how much was lost. Some of the pictures remind me of some old photos of my own family.

        I was amazed to see basketball players from 1913! (at 5:50)

        There’s also at least one erroneous caption. The Palestine Post seen at 9:53 is from May 16, 1948, not May 5.
        And of course the obvious intention to only show acts of violence perpetrated by the Jewish side, such as the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre, but not bombings and massacres perpetrated by the Arab side.

    • Citizen
      December 31, 2014, 4:07 pm

      @ jon s
      You say nobody’s talking about the suffering of the Jews on Palestine land when the feeble Arab armies came into the part set aside by the UN partition for Palestinians in 1948? They were trying to impede the more modernly armed and trained Jews stealing more land beyond that partition line, and Jordan had already reached an agreement not to aid those Arab armies.

      • jon s
        December 31, 2014, 4:46 pm

        Citizen, You make it sound like the Arab armies were trying to implement the partition plan, when, in fact, their goal was to prevent its implementation.
        6000 people, on the Jewish side (out of 600,000), gave their lives to repulse the “feeble” Arab armies.

      • Shingo
        December 31, 2014, 7:48 pm

        Citizen, You make it sound like the Arab armies were trying to implement the partition plan, when, in fact, their goal was to prevent its implementation.

        The historical record shows that this was exactly what the Arab Armies were doing. Abdullah assured the British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevine, that the Jordanians military would defend the Arab territory. Bevine agreed provided they did not cross into Jewish territory.

        6000 people, on the Jewish side (out of 600,000), gave their lives to repulse the “feeble” Arab armies.

        You can always be counted on to resort to sentimental drek when your logic runs aground JonS.

        The fact that 6000 Jews died in itself is a tragedy, The fact that they died fighting does not in any way prove they died for a worthy cause. Many Germans died fighting for the Nazis.

        Most of the fighting took place outside the borders of the Jewish state, so they clearly were not fighting for self defense but conquest of more land.

        In fact, both Ben Gurion and the US State Department predicted that this is precisely what would happen – that the Jews would be the aggressors, the Arabs would come to the aid of the Palestinians and then the Jews would run to the UN and claim they were under attack.

  21. hardteachings
    December 28, 2014, 8:24 pm

    “And it was in recognition of this remarkable feat that in 1922, the nations of the world determined that the legal right to sovereignty over the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people alone.”

    ms. glick is clearly suffering from ‘vapours’ ; or perhaps she understands all too well the
    rampant ignorance of the American polity.

    just say’n…h

  22. a blah chick
    December 28, 2014, 8:39 pm

    Isn’t it interesting that for many Zionist hypothetical or imaginary massacres of Jews by Arabs are ALWAYS worst than the very real massacres Israel perpetrates.

  23. Vera Gottlieb
    December 29, 2014, 9:54 am

    And even if Jews had lived there a million years, still NO reason to treat Palestinians so viciously. This woman should ask Cheney to give her an enema…she is full of it.

    • Citizen
      December 31, 2014, 4:09 pm

      Yes, Cheney says he fed the captives though their assholes because he was a humanitarian.

  24. Misterioso
    December 29, 2014, 11:52 am

    In 1949, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) conducted a methodical survey that determined at least 726,000 Palestinians were made refugees prior to and during the 1948 Arab/Israeli war. As this figure did not include several thousand unregistered refugees, the total was revised to 750,000.

    “Walter Eytan, then Director General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, referred to the UNRWA registration of 726,000 [refugees] as ‘meticulous’ and believed that the ‘real number was close to 800,000’.” (Norman Finkelstein, “Debate on the 1948 Exodus” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. XXI, number 1, autumn, 1991, footnote #4, p. 86.) (Benny Morris concurs with this figure.)

    Per the Jewish Agency’s Plan Dalet, about 400,000 Palestinians were expelled between passage of the UNGA Partition Plan (Resolution 181, 29 November 1947), and the declaration of the state of Israel effective 15 May 1948, e.g., 60,000 from Haifa in late April; 30,000 from West Jerusalem in March and 75,000 from Jaffa in late April and early May. During the ensuing war precipitated by necessary intervention by reluctant, outmanned/outgunned Arab state armies to stem the accelerating expulsion of Palestinians, the IDF captured 78% of mandated Palestine, drove out a further approximately 400,000 Palestinians and destroyed over 500 of their towns and villages, including churches, mosques and cemeteries.

    Apropos Joan Peters mountain of mendacity, From Time Immemorial…. :
    Dr. Porath, one of Israel’s leading demographic historians, called Peters’ book a “forgery… [that] was almost universally dismissed [in Israel] as sheer rubbish except maybe as a propaganda weapon.”(New York Times, Nov.28, 1985)

    Rabbi Arthur Herzberg, vice-president of the WJC, agreed: “I think that she’s cooked the statistics…. The scholarship is phony and tendentious. I do not believe that she has read the Arabic sources that she quotes.”(ibid)

    To further quote Professor Porath: “The precise demographic history of modern Palestine cannot be summed up briefly, but its main features are clear enough and they are very different from the fanciful description Mrs. Peters gives…. [S]he has apparently searched through documents for any statement to the effect that Arabs entered Palestine. But even if we put together all the cases she cites, one cannot escape the conclusion that most of the growth of the Palestinian Arab community resulted from a process of natural increase.” (“Mrs. Peters’ Palestine” New York Review of Books, 16 January 1986.)

  25. seafoid
    December 30, 2014, 2:46 pm

    “There is no precedent of a civilian population, displaced by a war that their leadership started and lost, claiming a right to return to territory that they failed to conquer.”

    That is the death sentence of Zionism. Maybe IS or one of its successors will sign it.

    And there are loads of precedents. And Israelis actually need better legal protection than that when the shit hits the fan. Which is why they need to be nice to the Palestinians now. It’s called enlightened self interest.

    BTW Glick is odious. She could play Cruella de Vil.
    On an other tangent, it’s really interesting how 1930s Disney cartoon villainesses are all thin. And the kind women aren’t.

Leave a Reply