Trending Topics:

Two videos to challenge my liberal Zionist friends

US Politics
on 74 Comments

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but a public debate is gathering force these days between American liberal Zionists and non- and anti-Zionists.

A number of events have made this debate more central. The open embrace by the Republican Party of rightwing Zionism means that liberal Zionists are no longer at war with the rightwing Zionists inside the Democratic Party. Or if they are still at war with them, they also have to deal with the enlightened base now: the young, the Hispanics, the blacks, people who care about Palestine and are sure to bring it up in primary races in 2016.

Then there was the Israeli election, which shocked liberal Zionists by demonstrating what a rightwing society Israel is–and just a few months after another massacre in Gaza. In his new book Ilan Pappe says the liberal Zionists have gotten “a wake-up call.” A lot of them must be feeling the way American Communists did in the 40s and 50s, worrying that they got on the wrong horse given the realities in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.

And inside the Jewish community, the Open Hillel tour has been all about bringing anti-Zionists inside: allowing pro-BDS speakers into traditional Jewish and Zionist spaces.

At J Street last month, Peter Beinart said what I’m saying: in the years to come our debate is going to be with the left, not the right. So: are you ready for your close-up, anti-Zionists?

With this debate in mind, I wanted to offer two videos to liberal Zionists and people who are on the fence, trying to make up their minds about Israel and Zionism.

The first one is the Boy on the Horse. I shot it in Hebron three years ago. In the video, a Jewish settler boy on a horse confronts a (very dignified adult) Palestinian, telling him to get off his street because he’s an Arab, summoning a soldier to enforce that order. Scott Roth wrote up the incident here.

The relevance of the video to me is that, you see apartheid before your eyes in this video; you see the authoritarian racism and humiliation. Remember, this is part of the supposed future Palestinian state, but it’s been occupied for nearly 50 years, and Badia Dwaik, the Palestinian, can’t vote for the government that controls his life but the settler kid’s parents can vote. That’s just not right.

And bear in mind that this happened three years ago. The conditions only get worse.

Now liberal Zionists surely hate this video too; but the question then arises: What are you doing to end these hateful conditions? That’s why I’m for boycott. It would put real pressure on Israel. Just this last week a threat of boycott caused Ian Riesner, a real estate magnate, who supports Israel, to apologize for meeting with Senator Ted Cruz.

Riesner made a complete reversal, because of social pressure on the issue of same-sex marriage. And one gathering he organized for Ted Cruz. Doesn’t the Jim Crow humiliation of Palestinians all across the West Bank (let alone the massacre in Gaza) merit such isolation?

The next video is one that I only saw two days ago, when Gil Maguire did his post about the crusading journalist Dorothy Thompson. It’s a documentary called “Sands of Sorrow,” from 1950, and it’s about all the Palestinian refugees of the 1948 Nakba in Gaza. Again I’d point out a very dignified Palestinian gentleman. The mayor getting a handout of food from the UN at 7 minutes– and then a few seconds later, another guy wearing a tie and jacket and seeming dazed as he picks up his handout.

This video is important for a few reasons. First, many of these people became “terrorists” in the eyes of Israel and the United States; and you can understand why. They were forced from their homes and never allowed back; and so they took up arms! By the way, a lot of them looked like you and me, they had good jobs and very stable lives, previously.

More important, this was known and denied. Dorothy Thompson knew about the Nakba and the refugee crisis in 1950. She tried to tell America that there was something wrong with Israel because of this. Palestinians knew about it when it happened; they also tried to tell the world. They’ve been trying for 67 years.

So all this information was available and no one did anything about it. Three American presidents actually tried to enforce the right of return, to let those folks go back to their houses, and they got nowhere. Zionists and Israel supporters suppressed this story, and kept it from mainstream culture (partly by silencing Dorothy Thompson, whom Obama praised the other night).

The Nakba remained out of sight of American society for more than 60 years. It’s finally getting attention now, but still at the margins.

What this video says to me is that the root cause of the violence is the dispossession of a people and their humiliation, and the organized American Jewish community (with some exceptions) was successful in suppressing that story– Zionists liberal and not so liberal brushed this all under the rug. But the problem hasn’t gone away. It’s still a giant problem.

To my liberal Zionist friends: our community denied this reality for more than 60 years, do you still want to be part of that denial?

And: how can you be a liberal and subscribe to this ideology? To me, the dignified man who was forced to leave his village and the boy on the horse berating Badia Dwaik are just two fruits of an ideology of religious nationalism, continuous from Gaza in 1950 to Hebron in 2012. And that’s why I think that ideology should be discredited.

 

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

74 Responses

  1. ritzl
    April 30, 2015, 12:50 pm

    The boy on the horse reminded me of these shirts from the 80s:

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/cpearl/5475110425/in/photostream/

    Brilliant mockery, but sadly, the company is now sleeping with the dinos. The boy on the horse in your video should be the object less of discussion and more of mockery, imho.

    Continuing OT, a new company is selling a similar version but is getting (has gotten; 2008) beat up by Ralph Lauren on trademark infringement grounds. I only bring it up because the suppression mechanism seems so similar to the suppression mechanism used on pro-Palestinian dissent on campuses – drop a [extremely well-funded] piano on it.

    http://trademarred.com/2008/06/saddle-up-law-partners-polo-ralph.html

  2. hophmi
    April 30, 2015, 12:55 pm

    “What this video says to me is that the root cause of the violence is the dispossession of a people and their humiliation…”

    Oh, come on. It’s a propaganda video for the Palestinian cause from 1950. It does not show the Jews murdered by Palestinian fedayeen around that time, nor those murdered by Arab rioters in the 1920’s and 1930’s, not the Jews expelled from Arab countries (which you continue to cover up), or the Jews who came to Israel as DP’s (which you never talk about here). So while you can make the case that “dispossession” is a part of the conflict, it is not the sole root cause or even the most important one; the most important is the failure of the rest of the region to accept a non-Arab, non-Muslim state.

    Again, you greatly understate the work of liberal Zionists who advocate not just for the two-state solution, but for better relationships between Arabs and Jews, which you oppose by arguing that it constitutes “normalization,” essentially the same position taken by Hamas. Many of the people involved in J Street are people who have been on the ground for years supporting Jewish-Arab coexistence projects within the Green Line, and working on ending occupation so that people in the West Bank and Gaza can have a better life and national sovereignty.

    Moreover, your vision contains little for the Jews in the Middle East right now; while the two-state solution provides a measure of justice and security for both peoples that is concrete, yours does not come close to explaining how a Jewish (or a Christian) minority would be safe in a region where Christians and Jews are regularly targeted for murder.

    • eGuard
      April 30, 2015, 1:49 pm

      hopmhi: It’s a propaganda video from 1950. Could be (video in 1950?). hophni then: It does not show the 1920’s and 1930’s. […] not the Jews expelled from Arab countries. Duuuuh.

      Never a film has been so true to its title. See the surprise on hoppi’s face discovering this.

    • a blah chick
      April 30, 2015, 2:42 pm

      Hopmi, most of the the people killed on the border were Palestinian trying to return the homes they were expelled from. As for the Jews in the Arab world Israel sent agents into these countries with the purpose of getting tose people out of the Arab world and into Israel, so don’t complain. That’s how you Zionist wanted it.

      Now, how about you tell us about the boy on the horse.

      • Mooser
        April 30, 2015, 5:56 pm

        “Now, how about you tell us about the boy on the horse.”

        Since he has the benefit of geopolitical strategy,
        I’d say a better Zionist has never, ever, sat a’gee!

    • Donald
      April 30, 2015, 3:03 pm

      “t does not show the Jews murdered by Palestinian fedayeen around that time”

      Haven’t watched it. Does it show the several thousand mostly unarmed Palestinians shot by the Israelis during that time, according to Benny Morris in “Israel’s Border Wars”? You’ve read it, right? Avi Shlaim gives a brief summary in “The Iron Wall”.

      “So while you can make the case that “dispossession” is a part of the conflict, it is not the sole root cause or even the most important one; the most important is the failure of the rest of the region to accept a non-Arab, non-Muslim state. ”

      Everything wrong with mainstream liberal Zionism is incorporated in that sentence. First, “dispossession” is placed in quotes. Hophmi can’t bring himself to admit that Israel exists as a Jewish state because the Palestinians were forced out. Second, he dismisses its importance–for Hophmi, the main cause of the Israel Palestinian conflict can’t possibly be anything so trivial as Palestinian “dispossession”–no, it has to be an explanation in which the Israelis are the main victims of Arab/Muslim intransigence.

      Which is why liberal Zionists of Hophmi’s ilk have not brought about peace. If you think like hophmi, you may encourage dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian kids, but you’re not ever going to put pressure on Israel to end the occupation, because frankly, to liberal Zionists of hophmi’s description, it just isn’t that important and whatever moral blame will be placed on Palestinians, Arabs, Western supporters of Palestinians or anyone and everyone except for Israeli Jews or their American enablers.

      • RoHa
        April 30, 2015, 8:01 pm

        “Hophmi, the main cause of the Israel Palestinian conflict can’t possibly be anything so trivial as Palestinian “dispossession”–no, it has to be an explanation in which the Israelis are the main victims of Arab/Muslim intransigence.”

        I’ve pointed this out before. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/understanding-jewish-national#comment-762094

        So far, no support of the idea.

      • JeffB
        May 1, 2015, 3:09 am

        @Donald

        I think you miss Hophmi point. Causes always precede consequents in time. The anti-Jewish massacres the 1920s and 30s could not have been caused by the ethnic cleansing in 1948-9. The hostility towards Jews can’t be a result of ethnic cleansing because the hostility existed prior to the ethnic cleansing.

        Hophmi can’t bring himself to admit that Israel exists as a Jewish state because the Palestinians were forced out.

        Lots of states exist with minority populations in control.
        Sunni Muslims in Bahrain
        Muhajirs (Urdu-speakers) in Pakistan
        and up until recently and possibly still the Alawites in Syria

        The Yishuv existed as a Jewish proto-state when the Palestinians were still resident. While there was so overlap a partition plan in the 1930s was viable because the Palestinians lived in interior areas that weren’t inhabited by Jews. Most of the areas in Israel (pre-1967) where Palestinians used to live are still empty or close to empty. There are many states where an urban population dominates a rural population politically and economically, the United States being a good example.

        Israel as a Jewish is not a product of the ethnic cleansing. Serious moves towards transfer started happening in 1942 as a result of the war in 1936-9. The plan was implemented as a result of the 1947-9 war. The Jewish community in 1948-9 was able to carry transfer while being harassed by 6 foreign armies which shows the disparity in power that already existed in the 1947. The disparity in power, that is the Jewish dominance of Israel, is not a consequent of the Nabka but a pre-requisite for it.

        Causes always precede consequents in time.

      • RoHa
        May 2, 2015, 1:24 am

        “The anti-Jewish massacres the 1920s and 30s could not have been caused by the ethnic cleansing in 1948-9. The hostility towards Jews can’t be a result of ethnic cleansing because the hostility existed prior to the ethnic cleansing. ”

        The riots of the 20s and 30s were protests against bunch of foreigners coming into the country with the aim of taking it over. Didn’t matter whether those foreigners were Jews or not.

        Suppose a bunch of Welsh Methodists arrived in Denmark, and set about buying farms and pushing Danish tenants off them, setting up Welsh Metehodist institutions, refusing to integrate into Danish society, and loudly proclaiming their intention of setting up a Welsh-speaking Methodist state in which Lutheran Danes, if allowed to remain, would be second class citizens.

        Do you think the Danes would say, “Well, at least you aren’t Jews. Go ahead lads, we could do with a few good eisteddfodau around here.”

        Or do you think they would protest?

        So, no, the riots of the 20s and 30s do not provide evidence for hophmi’s claim that the main cause of the trouble is pre-existing anti-Semitism .

      • JeffB
        May 2, 2015, 2:52 pm

        @RoHa

        The riots of the 20s and 30s were protests against bunch of foreigners coming into the country with the aim of taking it over. Didn’t matter whether those foreigners were Jews or not.

        That’s a nice theory. There are two problems.

        The vast majority of Jews in Palestine in the early 1920 had moved their during Ottoman times for religious reasons and weren’t Zionists. The riots made them Zionists. Had the desire been to reduce Zionism the Palestinians would have employed the opposite of gang mass violence against Jews. The riots unified the Jews of Palestine behind Zionism. Again causes before consequents.

        Second, where the violence often happened were religious centers not centers of Zionism. The religious centers were Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron. Those areas shouldn’t have seen rioting if the goal was to attack the nationalist. Yet things like the 1925 and 1929 Palestine riot were against Jewish religious symbols like the Western Wall not Zionist activities. You would have seen the places for the riots be Zionist symbols. So things like the Jaffa riot are consistent with your theory but the Hebron and Jerusalem are not.

        Its a nice theory for liberals since it lets Palestinians off the hook and creates an easy bad guy. The problem is the evidence is inconsistent with it. The Palestinians of the 1920s and 30s were religious bigots attacking a religious minority. They certainly paid lip service to anti-colonialism but the fundamentally were against Judaism not Zionism. Had they been solely against Zionism they would have chosen different strategies.

      • RoHa
        May 3, 2015, 11:58 pm

        When the First World War started, British mobs attacked shops and businesses that had German names, even though the owners of those shops, or the parents or grandparents of the owners, had migrated to Britain long before the war started.

        When the USA entered the Second World War, the government interned American citizens who had Japanese ancestors.

        Would you seriously claim that neither of these unjustifiable events were the result of (in the sense of being mob reactions to) German and Japanese actions?

        So when Jews in Palestine were attacked (yes, unjustifiably) would you seriously claim that the events were unconnected with the actions of the Zionists, when the Zionists were loudly proclaiming their intention of setting up a Jewish state?

        Well, evidently you would.

        But don’t expect to convince many others.

      • JeffB
        May 4, 2015, 12:52 pm

        @RoHa

        Would you seriously claim that neither of these unjustifiable events were the result of (in the sense of being mob reactions to) German and Japanese actions?

        You aren’t addressing the issue. The American anti-German attacks in WWI were a reaction to German American’s support for Germany in first world war and a desire that America remain neutral. It wasn’t a response to the German government but rather terrorism by the American government directed at Germans in preparation for the American governmental response. Now certainly in some sense the American response was being driven by German government actions. So if we were going to use the analogy:

        The Palestinians were planning to attack Zionism.
        Terrorism against the larger broader Jewish population was an attempt to terrorize that population into submission and not supporting Zionism.

        Then of course the analogy breaks down because unlike the German case the Palestinians were unsuccessful and the Jews responded by becoming more Zionist. And that’s where the problem with that theory that you halfway present is, the types of terrorism the Palestinians were employing inconsistent with the types of terrorism you would use if the goal was to cause a break with the Zionists. If they had wanted to cause a break then they would have terrified the most vulnerable who had moderate ties with Zionism but avoided those with lose or no ties. They didn’t do that. If your theory is true you need to explain why they choose to focus most attacks on the mostly religious civilians with weakest Zionist ties and nor for example the financial colonial Jews in the citrus industry who had moderate ties. You need to work your analogy through in some detail so that Palestinian actions make sense.

        As for the Japanese Americans here you had a situation where white racism had created a situation of an unassimilated minority which could be effectively a 3rd column. The navy began planning for internment in the mid 1930s. So again for your theory to hold you would have to have the consequent of Japanese civilian isolation and thus the military threat they posed predating a cause of the navy utilizing internment to neutralize the threat.

      • Mooser
        May 4, 2015, 3:39 pm

        “Causes always precede consequents (sic) in time.

        Oh goody, we can finally settle that ‘chicken-egg’ thing.

        Which came first, JeffyB?

    • Kris
      April 30, 2015, 3:58 pm

      @hophmi: “how a Jewish (or a Christian) minority would be safe in a region where Christians and Jews are regularly targeted for murder. ”

      Do you think that U.S. (seen as “Christian) interventions in the Middle East, both on behalf of Israel (self-proclaimed “Jewish” state) and on behalf of U.S. “interests” (exploitation of resources) could have anything to do with violence towards Christians and Jews? What about Jewish Israelis’ continuing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians (Muslim and Christian, as you know)?

      Job 4:8: As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it.

      What if the U.S. and Israel stopped pouring gasoline on the flames, apologized, and put our energies (and war budgets) into making reparations to the people we have hurt? Or is it better for Israel and the U.S. to keep making more enemies? Now that people all over the world see videos of U.S. and Israeli brutality in real time, what can we expect in terms of hatred directed at us?

      Do Zionist Jews like you think that the Palestinians will just forget about all this, sort of the way you have let go of the Holocaust? And the way you would have been okay with a Holocaust, if slow-motion, that lasted more than 70 years?

      • just
        April 30, 2015, 4:43 pm

        +1, Kris.

      • Kris
        April 30, 2015, 6:07 pm

        Thanks, just.

      • Marnie
        May 1, 2015, 3:43 am

        That was brilliant Kris.

      • Eva Smagacz
        May 1, 2015, 3:57 am

        Super clarity in your comment, Kris.

      • JeffB
        May 1, 2015, 8:19 am

        @Kris

        The number of Palestinians who died in Gaza in 2014 was roughly the number of Jews who died in a single shower in Auschwitz. The number of Palestinians who have been killed in the entire conflict is about the number that would have died in just one of the death camps in one day. Comparing what Israel is doing to the Palestinians to the Holocaust is a grotesque lack of proportion.

        If Israel were invade Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq… In those countries install a police force that systematically and methodical tracked and then aggregated the Palestinian population to facilitate deportation to Israel so that they could be sent to death camps where they were raped, humiliated, starved prior to being exterminated in death factories churning out hundreds of dead per hour, 24x7x365 for years, then we would be talking about something comparable to the holocaust. Israel is not doing anything remotely like that.

        You aim to be polite so I don’t think you are meaning to be as offensive as that comparison sounds. Jews were ethnically cleansed and forced to move from countries in Europe and Arabia dozens of times. A fair comparison in Jewish history of the Nabka is the First Jewish-Roman war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish–Roman_War) which is when the Jews were expelled from Palestine. And Jews most certainly do still remember that, and prayed for their returned for 1900 years. We have a holiday Tisha B’Av where we mourn the loss of our country.

        So I agree with your main point about remembering while still objecting to the analogy.

        As for your even more key point about the persecution of Christians and Jews with the USA and Israel being responsible no. You are seeing the same kind of persecution regarding other minorities. The middle east is undergoing national consolidations where the vague and overlapping ethnic and cultural identities that existed during the Ottoman period are firming up into strong national identities. The nation-state system requires the dispossession and sometimes destruction of minorities. So for example in Adib Bin Hassan Al-Shishakli (head of Syria in the early 1950s) his focus was on persecuting Druze, declaring any kind of non-Syrian identity to be treasonous. There is no external country whipping up hatred against the Druze. And the consolidation of the Alawites came partially from earlier persecutions like the Turkish expelling them from İskenderun.

        As the people of the middle east form viable states capable of being meaningfully democratic they will do through by hatred and violence. National formation is messy business.

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2015, 2:37 pm

        “National formation is messy business.”

        Yes, JeffB, as you say, that’s why Jews were dying in those showers.

    • Mooser
      April 30, 2015, 6:11 pm

      “Moreover, your vision contains little for the Jews in the Middle East right now”

      “Contains little”? Hophmi, the situation for the Jews in Israel has rich potentialities! All over the world, people identifying as all kinds of Jews are out-marrying, or not insisting that their children’s Judaism be enforced! But in Israel, where these practices (or lack of them) can be controlled and proper practices enforced, will have the purest Jews in the world. I forget who is offering it, but the reward for that is supposed to be of incalculable worth!

    • Mooser
      May 6, 2015, 11:23 pm

      “Again, you greatly understate the work of liberal Zionists who advocate…”

      But never accomplish. Gee, how can you “understate the work of liberal Zionists who advocate” when Israel just elected its most right-wing government ever?

      But we get it, Hophmi. It’s like a protection racket. If we don’t kow-tow to and fill the coffers of Liberal Zionists, they will turn all the Zionist fascists and fanatics loose, and we’ll be sorry, won’t we? Almost like a good-cop-bad-cop routine.

  3. pabelmont
    April 30, 2015, 1:15 pm

    Phil: will you speculate on why the president mentioned Dorothy Thompson at all, and what, again your speculation, what he will do next with her name, her reputation, her activities, and her treatment?

    • Philip Weiss
      April 30, 2015, 1:18 pm

      What’s your speculation Pabelmont? I fear he had not a clue; but I think — per his anger translator — that there’s a lot under the surface with BHO… So that would make DT intentional… His anti-Zionist translator

      • just
        April 30, 2015, 4:44 pm

        Bingo!

  4. Balfour
    April 30, 2015, 2:39 pm

    After watching the video of the boy on the horse, I understood why Netanyahu’s Election Day racist comments were so effective amongst Jewish Israeli voters.

    • amigo
      April 30, 2015, 4:58 pm

      I wonder what the boy on the horse is up to these days.

      Burning Palestinian kids.Beating up Palestinian children.Dropping WP on innocent Palestinians.Bulldozing Palestinian homes.Why , the possibilities are endless in Israel for budding killers like the boy on the horse.

  5. DaBakr
    April 30, 2015, 3:18 pm

    A) Not sure how old PW is exactly but if he is past 50 he should know very well that the story of the expelled Palestinians was never “suppressed”. It was told from an Israeli perspective for sure but there was never any doubt or concealment that Palestinians (Arabs before the ’67 war) suffered a great tragedy. The narratives that are now either disputed, clarified or totally dismissed (depending) but there was never a narrative that large numbers of Palestinians were expelled and some were asked to say while others were killed in the war. Yes-it was promoted as more of a Jewish-Israeli triumph then a Nakbah but again-it was clearly taught in both Israel and I believe to an extant in American hebrew school. While some Israelis may not like the idea of competing narratives I do not think there are any substantial number of citizens who claim Palestinians were not expelled (and all that that entails). It is not inappropriate that the Palestinians want to control their own narrative and that it would not be natural for Israelis to promote the founding of their state in the negative way it is seen by Palestinians.
    B) This new war that is “heating up” between liberal Zionists and non-Zionist….where is it? It is in small pockets of mostly urban areas populated by large numbers of left-wing sympathizers. Its in small but influential circles of the Israeli left-wing elite. Again-as I said yesterday-the conversation may well be ‘heating up’ as pw says but the numbers are simply not there to justify getting so excited about it. I don’t know what % of left-wing Jews are :sitting on the fence” about Zionism but the % of Jews who identify as Zionist is still well over 90%.

    • DaBakr
      April 30, 2015, 3:32 pm

      C) I could very easily take a video any day of the week of a Palestinian teen boy willing to spew anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish invective. So -is there really a point to the video other then the obvious power dynamic in that the gov’t is Israeli. I am sure a Jew wandering the streets of Ramallah might expect some stupid teenage behavior as well.

      • pjdude
        April 30, 2015, 8:55 pm

        there is a difference though which you fail to understand. the palestinians hate is a product of what others did to him. the Israelis is a product of what he is done to others. he learned to hate so he could harm innocents.

      • DaBakr
        May 2, 2015, 5:45 pm

        @pj

        not so sure there is ANY difference but you choose to see one. your right. your bias. your truth. not ours. truth. a funny concept.

      • pjdude
        May 5, 2015, 11:54 am

        @dabakr

        there is no bias its a simple fact i understand why it scares you. of course it not your “truth” but at the end of the day what you support is criminal that you lack the decency to stand up to it is not my problem. and truth isn’t a funny concept. the truth is simply the facts something zionist have yet to come to terms with.

        I never said the difference was large but there is a difference and it does make a difference in how we approach them. you need the palestinians to mindless creatures of hate so you can defend your beliefs but the reality is there the innocent victims of your hate.

    • RoHa
      April 30, 2015, 8:04 pm

      “it was clearly taught in both Israel and I believe to an extant in American hebrew school.”

      Do you know there are people in America who do not go to Hebrew school?

      • DaBakr
        April 30, 2015, 9:47 pm

        @rh
        yes, I know that. And whats the point? There are people in the US who did not go to hebrew school and do not know who John Adams is or the capital of California let alone the differences between an Israeli and Palestinian narrative. Get a grip.

      • RoHa
        April 30, 2015, 10:51 pm

        The point is that, although the story of the Nakba might have been told in Hebrew School, it was, by and large, hardly ever mentioned outside that very restricted environment.

        It was, we can say, suppressed by deliberate neglect.

      • Mooser
        April 30, 2015, 11:11 pm

        “Do you know there are people in America who do not go to Hebrew school?”

        Wow, I never thought about that. If they knew what they were missing, it would make them so jealous! Good thing they don’t.

      • DaBakr
        May 2, 2015, 5:49 pm

        @rh

        so let me get this straight:

        The Nakba (even though it wasn’t referred to as ‘nakba’ yet) was taught or alluded to in Hebrew schools but in the general American system of education there was some type of conspiracy to prevent anything about Palestinians being taught? Im trying not to laugh at the amount of credit your giving to the US educational system-even before all the budget issues during the post ww2 ‘hey-day’.

        Did not it take almost 100 yrs after the Wounded Knee and ghost dancers before the actual history of the American conquest of the west was taught…

        and am I to guess the group responsible for this conspiracy of ‘suppression’ of the Palestinian narrative either Jewish or Zionist?

      • RoHa
        May 2, 2015, 10:32 pm

        I’m not talking about American schools. As far as I can tell, they don’t teach anything. I’m referring to the various public media. Most of them seem to work hard at making “Israel is an ally” a major item in the minimally furnished American mind, and manage to avoid mentioning the Nakba.

      • Walid
        May 3, 2015, 5:17 am

        “… American schools. As far as I can tell, they don’t teach anything. –
        … a major item in the minimally furnished American mind, ” (RoHa)

        You must have privilege of the parliamentary kind, RoHa, I usually don’t get away unscathed saying much much less than that, what’s your secret weapon?

      • Keith
        May 4, 2015, 5:37 pm

        ROHA- “I’m not talking about American schools. As far as I can tell, they don’t teach anything.”

        That is what is known as American exceptionalism!

      • Keith
        May 4, 2015, 6:03 pm

        DABAKR- “Did not it take almost 100 yrs after the Wounded Knee and ghost dancers before the actual history of the American conquest of the west was taught…”

        The educational system is part of the doctrinal system which establishes the social mythology conducive to the attainment of elite goals and objectives. The content of the social mythology is usually a contest between competing power centers. Stories are told if power wants them told and stories are not told if power doesn’t want them told. Zionist power absolutely controlled the Israel/Palestine narrative until recently. The Nakba tale is only belatedly being told because modern telecommunications permitted the visualization of ongoing Israeli atrocities giving the lie to endless propaganda. To try to label this reality as a conspiracy theory is more Zionist apologetics.

        DaBakr- “the story of the expelled Palestinians was never “suppressed”.

        Of course it was. For how long has Israel lied that the Palestinians fled after Arab radio broadcasts told them to as a prelude to a massive Arab invasion? There is a reason that they call the new historians the new historians. And there is also a reason that only a re-Zionified Benny Morris remains.

      • Mooser
        May 6, 2015, 11:29 pm

        Dabakr is absolutely right, American colonization decimated and reduced the Native Americans. And paid a tremendous price for it. I’m sure you will agree to that, Dabakr, that we have paid a price, don’t you?
        You think Israel is ready to pay that price, “Debacle”? You think Israel can afford it?

      • catalan
        May 6, 2015, 11:56 pm

        “decimated and reduced the Native Americans. And paid a tremendous price for it – ” Mooser
        What price have Americans paid? Or is that sarcasm?

    • pjdude
      April 30, 2015, 8:54 pm

      a single ember can burn an entire forest. and whitewashing somethat happened as oppossed to a more factual telling is suppressing it.

    • Donald
      April 30, 2015, 10:15 pm

      The narrative in the U.S. was that the Palestinians fled at the behest of Arab leaders and the Zionists begged them to stay. There was a mayor in Haifa, I think, who was supposed to have done this. One variation of the story is that the Palestinians intended to come back on the heels of the Arab armed and plunder their Jewish neighbors.

      I read a version of this in James Michener’s novel The Source, where it was presented as fact proven by documented evidence. A Christian Zionist friend of mine told me this as though it were true in a conversation we had last year. Big lies never die.

  6. Qualtrough
    April 30, 2015, 3:43 pm

    For the life of me I can’t understand Hopfmi’s feeling that Jews displaced in the aftermath of WWII or Jews murdered in rioting in the 1920s is relevant to Israel denying Palestinians the right to return to the land they were born in, much less return there to live. The video of the kid on the horse sums up the humiliation Palestinians face. An adult in the land he and his ancestors were born in being ordered around by an arrogant kid on his high horse. Jesus wept, how can Hopfmi not get it?

  7. yonah fredman
    April 30, 2015, 3:55 pm

    Phil- The sins of the occupation (Hebron) and of the Nakba (1950) are not confessed by all liberal Zionists, but I accept that a full human response to the Palestinians requires facing up to these sins. In fact as a liberal Zionist I do not have an alternative to posit to the BDS that you propose.

    That is why it seems to me that the cultural antiSemitism that you promoted earlier this week is exactly the wrong route for you to take. http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/forgiving-anti-semites#comment-145456 It is self indulgence. This is your blog and if you feel an urge to diss Jews or aspects of Jewish culture, no one can stop you. It’s your blog. But if you wish to communicate with Jews who do not like the Lillian Hellman types calling low class Jews, “kikes” then you will have to control yourself. But if your object is self expression keep those antisemitic tropes coming as long as your heart desires to express itself. If you wish to dialogue or communicate with Jews who don’t like hearing “kike” (or even the equivalent of “kike” from this week’s column) then stick to arguments like this one and avoid the self indulgent self expression.

    • Mooser
      April 30, 2015, 9:24 pm

      “If you wish to dialogue or communicate with Jews who don’t like hearing “kike”” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/challenge-zionist-friends#sthash.OetX2eRI.dpuf

      I went to the Mondo article you linked, Yonah. The word “kike” cannot be found on the page. ?

      So, is this what you call an ‘invitation to the dialogue’? A vicious and fantastical lie? Are you saying, Yonah, that Phil Weiss goes around calling people, anybody, ‘a kike’?
      I’m sorry, but what the hell is wrong with you? What is it that you think you are accomplishing?

      • yonah fredman
        April 30, 2015, 9:53 pm

        mooser- I know that my comment to phil was public, but it really wasn’t meant for you or others, it was meant for Phil. Here he has explicitly invited, or challenged liberal Zionists, which means me and not you. and I answered. but i also told him, that if he really wants to challenge liberal zionists he ought to cut out the self indulgent cultural jew hatred.

        no, he did not use the word “kike”. but the column was deeply offensive to me and to the other liberal zionists who reacted to it. and if all he wants to do is communicate with the amen chorus, fine. but then don’t come two days later and challenge the liberal zionists, as if all is well and peaceful. it’s not all well and peaceful, phil. your column this week was really off the mark and if you want to turn around two days later and challenge the liberal zionists, then go right ahead. but it’s not okay with me. mooser approves, so challenge him with some question, if you want to challenge liberal zionists then stop with the Jew hatred crap.

        journalism is supposed to be the rough draft of history, phil. but your column two days ago was the rough draft for Father Coughlin’s sunday evening Jew baiting speech.

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2015, 2:19 pm

        “mooser- I know that my comment to phil was public, but it really wasn’t meant for you or others, it was meant for Phil.”

        Send him a personal e-mail. I’m sure he would looooove to “dialog” with you all day and night.

        But if you put it our here, it’s public. It was just another sneaky little passive-agressive schmutz you do so badly.

        Haven’t you noticed, Yonah, that people are starting to treat you with the same contempt you so obviously feel for yourself?

        You’ve announced that you must lie. You have announced that your purpose is completely ad hominem (all in recent comments, do I need to link?) You’ve announced an honest discussion does not suit your purposes.
        So, what are you up to?

    • Mooser
      April 30, 2015, 11:20 pm

      ,” but I accept that a full human response to the Palestinians requires facing up to these sins”

      “Sins”. Oh, please, Yonah. They are called crimes. And your (Oh my gawd) “full human response” means nothing. How about a legal accounting, and oh, I don’t know, some move by Israel to at least ameliorate its intransigence in any area?

    • socialconscience
      May 1, 2015, 10:28 am

      so PW’s blog is self indulgent?

      well let he who is without sin cast the first stone Yonah.

      Perhaps you can post a link to your blog which shines a light on the brutalities of project Zion that have affected every facet of Palestinian life?

      The blog were you have had to put your career, family and friends on the line because you are prepared to publicly question and indeed renounce many of the ‘facts of life’ that you have been brought up to believe were true but now realise as a corrupt sham.

      Or let us imagine that sharing one’s own personal experiences and how this might shape their thought processes is a legitimate mode of demonstrating one’s point of view

      American Zionists are so caught up in their own Zio political world where ‘public relations’ are just SO important…

      If the above quoted article is an example of anti-Semitism then what does it say for your sense of humanity that you have wasted the time typing your pedantic response, moreover demonstrating your blinkered view of the world?

      let us talk of the 2200 people murdered, in the name of Zionism, during operation protective edge :

      2/3 were innocent civilians

      89 families were wiped out!

      all the while being cheered on by Israelis from the hills above Sderot

      in other news 6000 children have been illegally arrested since year 2000

      and more of statistics – 750,000 Palestinians were displaced in the first year following commencement of the ongoing Nakba…..

      and whaddya know – one of the many discriminatory laws of this apartheid state penalises any institution that commemorates the Nakba as a day of mourning!

      the list is never ending

      so if PW is self indulgent, what does that make you?

      Yonah Fredman I say you are a hypocrite

      This tangled web that Zionism has so deceitfully woven must be rejected to be overcome.

      You have your part to play as do we all. Only, as a Zionist your starting position would be stronger and more influential than most.

      Shouldn’t you do all in your power to draw attention to Israel’s crimes against humanity by whatever means at your disposal?

      If you could only lift your head out of you own narrow Zio bubble you might be able to see Palestine without Bias

      • yonah fredman
        May 2, 2015, 11:05 am

        socialconscience- I have never communicated with you before and you did not exactly start us off on the right foot. If in fact you desire to communicate rather than to pontificate, I will consider the slate clean. No, I do not have a blog. But yes, I am allowed to comment about Phil Weiss’s blog. I will discuss my Zionism at length, but prefer not to at this time. and you, all I can tell is that you are impressed with yourself enough to give yourself a highfallutin’ nom de blog. I’ve met an anti Zionist or two in my life that I got along with, but let’s see if we can’t exchange a thought or an idea or two before calling me names. Tell me something about yourself. Do you come here often?

      • Mooser
        May 2, 2015, 2:21 pm

        “Tell me something about yourself. Do you come here often?”

        Yonah! Don’t get lascivious! Do you want “blurred lines”?

        “no, he did not use the word “kike”. “

        And you are a vicious liar, and not even fit to represent Zionism, (and that, my friend, is pretty low) let alone, God forbid, Judaism.
        Unless, of course, you are trying to demonstrate that Zionism is the province of vicious liars. At that, you are tops.

        Up to you.

      • socialconscience
        May 2, 2015, 9:38 pm

        well I can tell you that I did not chose this nom de blog as a vain attempt at elevating myself above any man or woman….

        Personally always having been aware of the ‘conflict in Palestine,’ as the MSM often describes It, my attention to the ME was well and truly grabbed into a chokehold following the events of protective edge

        I feel ashamed that I was not even aware of cast lead and other comparable atrocities until carrying out some research in the independent media….

        It is now clear to me that the United States of Israels’ ongoing genocide is unique on the world stage in that we have 2 rogue nations using each other for their own gain be that financial, territorial, theocratic…fill in the blank…..

        see Chas Freeman

        ”our exemption of Israel from laws requiring the suspension of military aid when a country uses US weapons to commit gross abuses of human rights, as Israel does daily in the West Bank and Gaza. In practice, we don’t seem to care about human rights anymore. ”
        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/derailing-interview-freeman#sthash.F19vv6Zu.dpuf

        Your subtle indication that I am an Anti Zionist only proves my point that the American Zionist is egocentric, trapped in their own world.

        As a critical thinking human being and once neutral observer of the ME, my social conscience leads me to be repelled by the murderous tendencies of project Zion…..Thus I am neither Zionist nor anti Zionist…but humanist

        Is it time to exercise your own social conscience and burst out of your Zio bubble Yonah?

      • Mooser
        May 4, 2015, 9:19 pm

        “I will discuss my Zionism at length, but prefer not to at this time. and you, all I can tell is that you are impressed with yourself enough to give yourself a highfallutin’ nom de blog”

        You are really quite mad, aren’t you Yonah, err, I mean “Wondering Jew” ?

        Oh well, I suppose displaying your crazy on Mondo is fairly harmless. It’s better than what happens if they let you wander around NY city, asking people “Which way to Jerusalem?”

  8. echinococcus
    April 30, 2015, 4:21 pm

    They won’t really hear all your “how can you”s and “how could you”s because these “liberal Zionist” and “socialist Zionist” vipers have been around for much longer than the 1948 state. Zionism itself has started as a bad cop-good cop act and we have had proof in the course of many decades that the “liberals” “and “socialists” are only the National-hyphenated version of these things.
    Calling them “my friends” and sucking up to their so-called sensitivities doesn’t help you. Your aim is, I take it, to end Zionism, theirs is to salvage it, and that’s all there is to it.

  9. Mooser
    April 30, 2015, 6:02 pm

    “I wonder what the boy on the horse is up to these days.”

    He shouldn’t be too hard to find, if you want to follow his burgeoning career. If I remember, his Dad was a big wheel in the settlement biz. and the kid’s name might have been in the original Mondo article.

  10. just
    April 30, 2015, 6:18 pm

    You’ve presented your challenge in a great way, Phil.

    Thank you for the videos, and for your challenge.

    I saw this today, and perhaps it can add to the challenge:

    “A new film by Gaza-based university lecturer and independent filmmaker Wael al-Sousi highlights in elegiac footage the scale of the devastation which Israeli bombardment visited on the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun in summer 2014.

    Echoes of Beit Hanoun is a simple but beautifully shot short film. It is screening at several festivals this summer and will be available for public viewing on YouTube for five days from the date of publication of this post, and then from September.

    With slow, sweeping footage, the somehow spectacular and almost unbelievable scale of the destruction is rendered all the more poignant by the beauty of the sunsets and golden quality of the Gazan sunlight in which it is filmed. …”

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/sarah-irving/short-film-highlights-devastation-northern-gaza

    • Kris
      April 30, 2015, 7:35 pm

      Thanks for this link, just! If a picture is worth a thousand words, this short film is worth millions of words.

      • just
        April 30, 2015, 8:33 pm

        You’re welcome Kris. It’s really so well done, and I am glad that “it is screening at several festivals this summer”.

        People should never, ever be allowed to forget. And this summer marks one year on with nothing being reconstructed at all.

  11. Clif Brown
    May 1, 2015, 1:35 am

    I watched the entire “Sands of Sorrow”.

    The most notable line in the old film speaks of the refugee children: “are they too to be doomed to a life of continuing uncertainty and lack of hope?” Thanks to the United States, the answer is now known and unequivocal – yes! Not once in the film is Israel mentioned as the responsible party for the disaster, it was being let off the hook even then, and viewers are asked to contact their churches to help the relief effort!

  12. eusebio
    May 1, 2015, 9:43 am

    Thank you the short film is millions of words

  13. Ian Berman
    May 3, 2015, 6:33 pm

    The key points that Liberal Zionists do not appreciate or refuse to acknowledge.

    1. Israel was created on the land of a whole other nation. A land that they took by conducting ethnic cleansing during a colonial war and thereafter, they refused to allow its inhabitants to rightfully return.

    2. Even if we were to ignore that the land was taken by the gun, the Israelis never lived up to the terms of the documents and decrees that “justify” its “legal” creation.

    ———————

    First, I would like to thank Hophmi for waging the battle. Without him, we would have no discourse.

    Second, while I find all the detail fascinating, it reminds me of learning to speak a language fluently. You have to learn 5 to 10,000 words so that you are most comfortable with the 5-600 most commonly used words.

    So let’s bring this back to history and morality on the larger scale.

    About two decades before Israel’s Declaration of Independence, Jews were a small minority of the population in Palestine. Yet they had already decided they would build a state for Jews on that land. By this time, it was well known that a decade earlier European Jews had cut a deal with Palestine’s European Ruler to take this land for Jews (the celebrated Balfour Declaration we will return to later). So Jews did not immigrate to Palestine with neighborly intentions. They did not come to build a great country side by side with those already there. They came to take the land for themselves. This was long before the Holocaust mind you.

    So who amongst the so called liberal Zionists would say if they were Palestinian, they would accept this? Does it really matter that Palestinians governed themselves or were ruled by foreigners with the military power to suppress them? This is where they lived. For millennia. Can anyone honestly say that today they would give up their homeland to new colonialists determined to set up an exclusionary government by definition? Of course not. So to expect Palestinians to not react to the Zionist cause is simply a complete lack of empathy and an understanding of the human condition.

    Then, as the members of the newly formed UN try to lessen the shame of a world in which the Holocaust happened, a relatively small number of countries in the world, 33, voted in favor of a resolution to forward to the Security Council the idea of a partition of Palestine, giving 55% of the land to 1/3 of the population, most of whom arrived in the last 20 years. We should also note that not only was it a bad idea to give away someone else’s land, but that the Security Council never acted upon the resolution, meaning it had no legal effect, and there was nothing in the UN Charter that allows for giving away or partitioning of land. The resolution that Israel points to for legitimacy has no legal effect.

    So the Zionists accepted something with no legal effect. As one would expect, the Arabs rejected it. Would any American accept such a granting of 55% of Canada to a third population by the vote of an international body? Would any American accept that of their own home?

    Then came the battles in Palestine between a people with no formal military and the Zionist Haganah and paramilitary forces with far greater manpower and military hardware. The Israelis quickly routed the Palestinian resistance. Surrounding Arab forces did not join the conflict immediately as Zionist propaganda would have you believe. Only after at least 200,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed did the Arab armies enter. Still, their militaries were only half the size and had inferior military hardware, leading to the Zionist victory.

    So Israel was created not by legal resolution, but by the gun. And during the battle for Palestine, Israel ethnically cleansed at least 750,000 Palestinians, destroyed 500 villages, towns and cities and took 78% of the land. They did not give or leave anything to the Palestinian population. The remaining 22% was promised to Jordan to keep them out of the war.

    http://mondediplo.com/1997/12/palestine

    Of course liberal Zionists won’t admit this because they refuse to look at the work of Benny Morris, Ilan Pappe, Ari Shavit and others. Yet the conclusion is no longer controversial among historians of Israel and Palestine, especially among Israeli historians. So their so called liberal stance is based upon an ostrich strategy of refusing to examine history. A history that is inconvenient to their position of Zionist support which is far more important than their liberal values.

    Those same liberal values would also endorse the right of return for Palestinians, a human right under international law, agreed to by Israel, but always thwarted, because it would create a “demographic problem.” Yes it would. A problem that people would return to their homes or the places where their towns once existed and want to live with a government that treated them as equal human beings. Something the Zionist colonialists could not accept. And so we have 67 years of dispossession and counting. Enforced by the rule of the gun.

    Still, the liberal Zionists say, yes, but, BUT, the British promised us a country of our own with the Balfour Declaration. Yes Great Britain’s Lord Balfour issued a declaration, which was approved by the Cabinet, but was not an act of Parliament, principally stating:

    “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object”

    yet the heart of the declaration did not stop there, although liberal Zionists pretend it does. The Declaration continues:

    “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

    Similarly, the UN Resolution Israel so readily accepted stated that there would be no transfer of populations regardless of which side of the partition upon which they live.

    Therefore, even if these were legitimate legal foundations for the creation of Israel, what liberal Zionist can say Israel has lived up to any deal that grants it legitimacy?

    • Kris
      May 3, 2015, 11:14 pm

      Many thanks, Ian Berman, for this very clear summary. Yours is an outstanding post, and adds so much to my understanding.

      • just
        May 4, 2015, 7:01 am

        Lets me add my thanks and praise for your post, Ian!

        It is outstanding.

    • echinococcus
      May 3, 2015, 11:53 pm

      Congratulations and thank you for producing one of the clearest summaries of the famous legitimacy discussions, in a minimum of words. It should be mandatory reading.

    • bintbiba
      May 4, 2015, 7:33 am

      My heartfelt thanks for your post, Ian Berman !

      I am one of the 800,000s who are the product and consequence of what Balfour, the British, the UN have wrought in Palestine ….my Brithplace and Birthright ( ironic,no ? )

      If only some US MSM would have the decency and righteous courage to publish your good ,decent , honest truth telling work.

      • Mooser
        May 4, 2015, 3:47 pm

        Gotta ad my praise to the rest. Berman’s comment was an article in itself.

      • Mooser
        May 4, 2015, 9:29 pm

        Mr. Berman, can’t tell you what to do, but this “JeffB” is, well, coo-coo. Once you answer him, he will simply go on at greater and greater length, hoping to win (it’s like the defense mechanism of a lizard or insect) by spewing logorrhea all over.

    • JeffB
      May 4, 2015, 9:58 am

      @Ian —

      I find it remarkable in an article talking about what Liberal Zionists refuse to accept how many factual errors you have. Let’s start with this one:

      Then came the battles in Palestine between a people with no formal military and the Zionist Haganah and paramilitary forces with far greater manpower and military hardware. The Israelis quickly routed the Palestinian resistance. Surrounding Arab forces did not join the conflict immediately as Zionist propaganda would have you believe. Only after at least 200,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed did the Arab armies enter

      Well first off the surrounding arab forces did enter immediately. The Arab Liberation Army was a mercenary, terrorist army funded primarily by Egypt and Syria though with troops from Lebanon, Transjordan and scattered irregulars. The formal actual armies didn’t come in after the ethnic cleansing they came in because in 1947 the Mandate was still under British control. To have invaded then would be to declare war on Britain. Operation Hiram, the Battle for Jerusalem, the Battle of Mishmar HaEmek and the Battle of Ramat Yohanan all happened between the Haganah and foreign fighters prior to your claim of when the Arabs attacked.

      Maybe you should consider that Liberal Zionists don’t believe the BDS version of history because you all cite facts like this that are just blatantly false.

      Let’s pick the next example:

      About two decades before Israel’s Declaration of Independence, Jews were a small minority of the population in Palestine. Yet they had already decided they would build a state for Jews on that land.

      That’s also not true. There quite a lot of Jews who supported a Jewish homeland not a Jewish state in 1928. There certainly were elements of Zionism that wanted a Jewish state and not merely a homeland but to pretend there was uniformity in 1928 or even a solid majority is simply to read the present into the past. In 1928 I suspect the most popular views were either:

      a) That Israel should be a Jewish homeland within the single worldwide Communist state that would soon form from proletarian internationalism.

      b) A colonial model similar to what was still growing in white Africa.

      These 1920s Jews don’t know that within one generation Eastern European Judaism will mostly cease to exist and the empire system that had existed for centuries was permanently destroyed by World War I. Thus they have an entirely different ideas than the Zionist leadership twenty years later or today. I’m not sure you would have found 2% that supported a democratic neo-liberal capitalist state with institutional theocratic elements.

      This is where they [the Palestinians] lived. For millennia.

      This of course is also not true. We have histories of multiple large scale migrations during the last two millennia with regard to Palestine where the population or at least large chunks of it was replaced. If you wanted to make that case with respect to the Levant you perhaps could but again that’s the sort of historical facts that confuse your narrative.

      I could well over a dozen of these types of factual errors in your post. So what I’d say is you are a good example of the pot calling the kettle black. If you are going to accuse someone of not accepting facts and sticking their head in the sand to avoid uncomfortable facts it is probably best not to do the same thing and oversimplify when it confuses your simple narrative.

      • Bumblebye
        May 4, 2015, 2:11 pm

        JeffyB – the man who wouldn’t know a factual error from a fart!

        Remind us, please, which of your “battles” was fought WITHIN the boundaries brand new Israel had just declared? Oh, is that a muttered “none”? Maybe that explains why UNSC resolutions were against Israel, already coloring in its blue&white outside the lines! The Arab armies were attempting to prevent further theft and ethnic cleansing in the Palestinian portion. Sadly unsuccessfully.

        Most of the immigrant Jews 20 years before the establishment of Israel were there because of Zionism, which from its inception was an aggressive plan to usurp the indigenous population. You provide no links and only your own suspicions to declare their views?!! That’s how you counter what you call “factual errors”?!!

        Where is your evidence for large scale migrations into Palestine, “where the population or at least large chunks of it was replaced”? The factual errors seem to be stored in the grey sludge between your ears, ready and waiting to be regurgitated when you think you can bamboozle someone new to the site!

      • JeffB
        May 4, 2015, 3:24 pm

        @Bumblebye

        The question is one of date “. Surrounding Arab forces did not join the conflict immediately.” Why BDSers think their constant stream of hate is anymore valuable than farting in public is beyond me. You claim to be concerned about morality. Demonstrate some. Your comments about my factual skills without checking really do say a lot about your character.

        That being said you are also wrong. The Battle of Mishmar HaEmek one of the 4 I specifically mentioned above, started with an Arab attack on the kibbutz at Mishmar HaEmek. Mishmar HaEmek was wiithin the territory the UN allocated to Israel. A clear example of where the Palestinians / Arabs were ethnically cleansing Jews in territory within the UN partition plan for the Jewish state.

        Most of the immigrant Jews 20 years before the establishment of Israel were there because of Zionism

        That wasn’t the point in question. The point in question was Jewish homeland vs. Jewish state both of which were at the time Zionist positions.

        Regardless however it is still false. In 1928 the majority of Jews were still primarily the children of religious immigrants, though by that point they were often at least semi-Zionist because of the anti-Jewish attacks of the 1920s.

        That’s how you counter what you call “factual errors”?!!

        If someone is going to claim knowledge of Israeli history, then not understand the major waves of immigration disproves that claim.

        About 8k Jews migrate for Zionism in the 19th century. 30,000 Jews were added between 1905 and 1914 in the 2nd wave from Russia and Poland. Lots of Jews from that wave die and some leave during WW1. In the 1922 census there are 89k Jews in Palestine. So how are the majority Zionist immigrants? This data comes from the Peel Report in (1937), which is the standard source.

        Where is your evidence for large scale migrations into Palestine

        For starters the tracked migration after the British take control. They are importing cheap labor to help the exploding citrus boom, quite openly.

      • Mooser
        May 4, 2015, 3:54 pm

        That’s it “JeffyB”! And make sure to fill your darling daughter in on the facts before she goes off to school, so she can correct the profs and activists. Or she might go near the water!

Leave a Reply