Terrorism: How the Israeli state was won

Middle East
on 188 Comments

On December 14, Tom Suárez spoke at The House of Lords, London, at the invitation of Baroness Jenny Tonge. Drawing from his recently published book State of Terror, he addressed the centennial of the Balfour Declaration and his views on the way toward ending today’s Israel-Palestine “conflict”. The following are Suárez’s remarks. The book was reviewed here by David Gerald Fincham.

Good evening, thank you so much for taking time out of what I know are your busy schedules to be here now. My thanks to Jenny Tonge for making this meeting possible; and I would like to thank three people without whom the book would not exist: Karl Sabbagh, my publisher; Ghada Karmi, who inspired the book; and my partner, Nancy Elan, who was my constant alter-ego during my research and without whom I surely would have given up.

My work is based principally on declassified source documents in the National Archives in Kew. When I have had to rely on published works, I have trusted established historians who cite first-hand sources. Everything I will say here tonight is based on such source material.

Our topic is of course the so-called “conflict” in Israel-Palestine, a tragedy that has dragged on for so long that it feels static, indeed almost normalised. But unlike other deadly conflicts, this one is wholly in our power to stop—“our” meaning the United States and Europe. It is in our power to stop it, because we are the ones empowering it.

We are now approaching the centennial of the British Original Sin in this tragedy, the Balfour Declaration. The British role in Palestine was a case of ‘hit & run’: The Balfour Declaration, in which the British gave away other people’s land, was the hit; and thirty years later, Resolution 181—Partition—was the run, leaving the Palestinians abandoned in a ditch.

Zionism was of course among the incarnations of racial-nationalism that evolved in the late nineteenth century. Bigots were Zionism’s avid fans—it was the anti-Semites who championed the Zionists. Gertrude Bell, the famous English writer, traveler, archaeologist, and spy, reported, based on her personal experience, that those who supported Zionism did so because it provided a way to get rid of Jews.

The London Standard’s correspondent to the first Zionist Conference in 1897 I think described Zionism perfectly. He reported that

…the degeneration which calls itself Anti-Semitism [bear in mind that ‘anti-Semitism’ was then a very new term] has begotten the degeneration which adorns itself with the name of Zionism.

Indeed, most Jews and Jewish leaders dismissed Zionism as the latest anti-Semitic cult. They had fought for equality, and resented being told that they should now make a new ghetto—and worse yet, to do so on other people’s land. They resented being cast as a separate race of people as Zionism demanded.

They had had quite enough of that from non-Jewish bigots.

For others, the idea of going to a place where one could act out racial superiority was seductive. As the political theorist Eduard Bernstein put it at about the time the Balfour Declaration was being finessed, Zionism is “a kind of intoxication which acts like an epidemic”.

An Israeli soldier clears out of the way as a specially-built IDF vehicle begins to douse Bethlehem in "skunk spray", chemical warfare intended to make life miserable for the civilian population. Photo: T Suárez

An Israeli soldier clears out of the way as a specially-built IDF vehicle begins to douse Bethlehem in “skunk spray”, chemical warfare intended to make life miserable for the civilian population. Photo: T Suárez

By the time the Balfour Declaration was finalised, thirty-plus years of Zionist settlement had made clear that the Zionists intended to ethnically cleanse the land for a settler state based on racial superiority; and it was the behind-the-scenes demands of the principal Zionist leaders, notably Chaim Weizmann and Baron Rothschild.

First-hand accounts of Zionist settlement in Palestine had already painted a picture of violent racial displacement. I will cite one of the lesser known reports, by Dr. Paul Nathan, a prominent Jewish leader in Berlin, who went to Palestine on behalf of the German Jewish National Relief Association. He was so horrified by what he found that he published a pamphlet in January, 1914, in which he described the Zionist settlers as carrying on

a campaign of terror modelled almost on Russian pogrom models.

A few years later, the Balfour Declaration’s deliberately ambiguous wording was being finalized. Sceptics—and the British Cabinet—were assured that it did not mean a Zionist state. Yet simultaneously, Weizmann was pushing to create that very state immediately. He demanded that his state extend all the way to the Jordan River within three or four years of the Declaration—that is, by 1921—and then expand beyond it.

In their behind-the-scenes meetings, Weizmann and Rothschild treated the ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Palestinians as indispensable to their plans, and they repeatedly complained to the British that the settlers were not being treated preferentially enough over the Palestinians. And they insisted that the British must lie about the scheme until it is too late for anyone to do anything about it.

In correspondence with Balfour, Weizmann justified his lies by slandering the Palestinians and Jews—that is, the Middle East’s indigenous Jews, who were overwhelmingly opposed to Zionism and whom Weizmann smeared with classic anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Palestinians he dismissed as, in so many words, a lower type of human, and this was among the reasons he and other Zionist leaders used for refusing democracy in Palestine—if the “Arabs” had the vote, he said, it would lower the Jew down to the level of a “native”.

With the establishment of the British Mandate, four decades of peaceful Palestinian resistance had proved futile, and armed Palestinian resistance—which included terrorism—began. Zionist terror became the domain of formal organizations that attacked anyone in the way of its messianic goals—Palestinian, Jew, or British. These terror organizations operated from within the Zionist settlements and were actively empowered and shielded by the settlements and the Jewish Agency, the recognized semi-autonomous government of the Zionist settlements, what would become the Israeli government.

There was no substantive difference between the acknowledged terror organizations—most famously, the Irgun, and Lehi, the so-called Stern Gang—and the Jewish Agency, and its terror gang, the Hagana. The Agency cooperated, collaborated, and even helped finance the Irgun.

The relationship between the Jewish Agency, and the Irgun and Lehi, was symbiotic. The Irgun in particular would act on behalf of the Hagana so that the Jewish Agency could feign innocence. The Agency would then tell the British that they condemn the terror, while steadfastly refusing any cooperation against it, indeed doing what they could to shield it.

The fascist nature of the Zionist enterprise was apparent both to US and British intelligence. The Jewish Agency tolerated no dissent and sought to dictate the fates of all Jews. Children were radicalised as part of the methodology of all three major organizations, and by extension, the Jewish Agency.

Britain’s wake-up call regarding the Zionists’ indoctrination of children came on the 8th of July, 1938. That day, the Irgun blew up a bus filled with Palestinian villagers. Now, this was not the first time the Irgun had done something of this sort, but this time the British caught the bomber. She was a twelve year old schoolgirl.

Teenagers, both boys and girls, were commonly used to plant bombs in Palestinian markets and conduct other terror attacks. Teachers were threatened or removed if they tried to intervene in the indoctrination of their students, and the students themselves were blocked from advancement if they resisted, even being taught to betray their own parents if those parents tried to instill some moderation. Jews who opposed and tried to warn of the emerging fascism were assassinated, and indeed most victims of Zionist assassinations—that is, targeted, rather than indiscriminate—were Jews.

From the beginning of World War II through to the summer of 1947, there were virtually no Palestinian attacks, even though Zionist terror against Palestinians continued. A British explanation for the Palestinians’ failure to respond in kind was that they understood that the attacks were a trap, intended to elicit a response that the Zionists would frame as an attack against which they would have to ‘defend’ themselves. This was a Zionist tactic noted by the British as early as 1918, and it remains Israel’s default strategy today, most blatantly in Gaza, but also in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As late as the fall of 1947, the Jewish Agency was concerned by the Palestinians’ failure to respond to its provocation, but when the end of 1947 came and the Jewish Agency could wait no longer for the civil war it needed, it was simply a matter of ratcheting up the terror.

Throughout the Mandate period, the takeover and ethnic cleansing of Palestine remained Zionism’s unwavering goal. As but one illustration, I will summarize a key meeting of twenty people held in London on the 9th of September, 1941.

“To be treated as most secret” is the red ink heading of the transcript. Present were Weizmann, who had called the meeting, David Ben-Gurion, and other Zionist leaders such as Simon Marks (of Marks & Spencer); and the prominent non-Zionist industrialist, Robert Waley Cohen. Discussing the path to the proposed Jewish State, the conversation ran along the lines of George Orwell’s still-to-be-published Animal Farm, in which all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Anthony de Rothschild began by stressing that there would be no “discrimination … against any group of its citizens” in the Jewish state, not even “to meet immediate needs”. Weizmann and Ben-Gurion also assured the sceptics: “Arabs”—Palestinians—would have equal rights. However, they clarified that within that absolute equality, Jewish settlers would have to have special privileges. Weizmann’s ‘absolute equality’ included the transfer of most non-Jews out of Palestine while permitting “a certain percentage of Arab and other elements” to remain in his Jewish state, the insinuation being as a pool of cheap labour.

Anthony de Rothschild’s vision of equality and non-discrimination was equally compelling: it “depended on turning an Arab majority into a minority”, and to achieve this, there would be “no equal rights” for non-Jews.

Cohen found the scheme dangerous, submitting that the Zionists were “starting with the kind of aims with which Hitler had started”. Cohen did not stop there: he suggested that if a state with equality for everyone were indeed intended, the state should be named with a neutral geographic term. He suggested … ‘Palestine’. The others were horrified at this idea, arguing that if the state had a non-Jewish name, “they would never get a Jewish majority”, in effect acknowledging the use of messianic fundamentalism as a calculated political strategy.

In another obvious but rarely spoken admission, Ben-Gurion clarified that the ‘Jewish state’ was not based on Judaism; it was, rather, based on being a ‘Jew’, that is, by the Zionists’ racial definition.

Asked about borders of his settler state, Weizmann continued in the same surreal manner. He replied that he would consider the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission four years earlier, in 1937, but that “the line” (the Partition) “would be the Jordan”. This was nonsensical: the Jordan was the Commission’s eastern border for the two states, and so Weizmann’s ‘partition’ meant 100% for his state, 0% for the Palestinians. He went further still: he would “very much” like to “cross the Jordan”, that is, take Transjordan along with Palestine.

At the end of the meeting Weizmann sought to put his proposals into effect officially in the name of all Jews worldwide. Those against his proposals were, in his word, “antisemites”.

Meanwhile, World War II was raging. What was the Jewish Agency’s reaction to the most terrible enemy Jewry has ever known? From the beginning, it was to lobby the Yishuv, the Jewish settlers, not to enlist in the Allied struggle against the Nazis, because doing so would not serve Zionism—even taking advantage of May Day 1940 to lecture the Yishuv to stay in Palestine rather than join the war effort. Another reaction was to conduct a massive theft ring of Allied weapons and munitions, “as if”, as one British military record put it, “paid by Hitler himself”.

1952: The IDF militarily commandeers the UN office dedicated to peace-keeping along the Armistice Line in order to block the exposing of its violations. (See Suárez, State of Terror, 301-303.) Photo: John Scofield

1952: The IDF militarily commandeers the UN office dedicated to peace-keeping along the Armistice Line in order to block the exposing of its violations. (See Suárez, State of Terror, 301-303.) Photo: John Scofield

Much has been written on the collaboration between the Zionists and fascists during the war, the best known of course being the Haavara Transfer agreement that broke the anti-Nazi boycott. One of the least known was Lehi’s attempted collaboration with the Italian fascists. In its nearly concluded ‘Jerusalem Agreement’ of late 1940, Lehi would help the fascists win the war, and in return the fascists would uproot any Jewish communities not in Palestine and force their populations to Palestine.

If this sounds like a scheme so extreme that only fanatical Lehi could have conjured it, it is essentially what the Israeli state ultimately succeeded at in the early 1950s—most catastrophically, when it conducted a false-flag terror campaign against Jews in Iraq to destroy that ancient community and move its population to Israel as ethnic fodder.

Violence targeting Jews was, and I would argue remains, a core tactic of Zionism. In fact, the single most deadly terror attack of the entire Mandate period was not the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 as is commonly thought. Even some of the Irgun’s bombings of Palestinian markets killed more people than the King David attack. But the most deadly single terror attack was the Jewish Agency’s bombing of the immigrant ship Patria in 1940, killing an estimated 267 people, of whom more than 200 were Jews fleeing the Nazis.

The Jewish Agency bombed the Patria because it was bringing the DPs to Mauritius, where the British had facilities for them. The Agency needed the DPs to be settlers in Palestine without delay, and was willing to risk the lives of all aboard in order to get the survivors to remain—which, indeed, they did.

In further violence against its Jewish victims, the Agency framed the dead for the bombing. It spread the lie that the DPs themselves blew up the vessel, that they committed mass suicide rather than not go directly to Palestine, posthumously conscripting the dead to serve the Zionist myth.

This was no aberration, but the driving principle of the Zionist project: Persecuted Jews served the political project, not the other way around.

Another major tactic of violence against Jews by the Jewish Agency and American Zionist leadership was the sabotaging of safe haven in order to force them to Palestine. As but one example, in 1944 US Zionist leaders sabotaged President Roosevelt’s provisional success in establishing a half million new homes for European DPs, most of these homes in the United States and Britain. When Roosevelt’s aide Morris Ernst visited the Zionist leaders in an attempt to save the program, he was, in his words, “thrown out of parlours and accused of treason”— ‘treason’, because he was Jewish, and the Zionists owned Jews.

Nor were those already settled safe. In 1946, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Yitzhak Herzog, conducted a massive kidnapping operation of Jewish orphans that had been adopted by European families when their parents perished years earlier. Removing ten thousand children from their homes was the number he cited to the NY Times as his goal. In the National Archives, I found a copy of his own record of the trip.

Herzog railed against the fierce resistance he met in every country by horrified local Jewish leaders who tried to protect the children. But Herzog used his political clout to circumvent them. In France, for example, facing the steadfast refusal of the Jewish leaders to betray the children, Herzog

met the Prime Minister of France from whom I demanded promulgation of a law which would oblige every family to declare the particulars of the children it houses,

so that those of Jewish background could be exposed and put back in orphanages until they can be shipped to Palestine—quite a Kafkaesque twist on Passover for these children who had just been spared the Nazis.

Herzog’s justification for the kidnappings was that for a Jew to be raised in a non-Jewish home is “much worse than physical murder”. Yet even this ghastly justification fails to explain what was actually taking place, because at the same time Herzog was ‘rescuing’ Jewish orphans from this fate “much worse than physical murder”, his Jewish Agency colleagues were sabotaging Jewish adoptive homes in England for young survivors still in the camps. The real reason for all of it, of course, was that the children were needed to serve the settler project as demographic fodder.

To that end, the Jewish Agency had coerced President Truman to segregate Jewish DPs into Zionist indoctrination camps, despite objections that it echoed Nazi behaviour. For these people who had just survived the unthinkable, then severed from the rest of humanity into these brainwashing camps, there was no such thing as free thought.

The camps nurtured such fanaticism that it shocked a joint US-UK committee that visited in 1946. Before these camps, few DPs wanted to go to Palestine. But now the Committee found them in a delirious state, threatening mass suicide if they did not go to Palestine. Suggestions of new homes in the United States, which had always been the favored destination, were again met with threats of mass suicide.

DPs were also groomed to bring Zionist terrorism to Europe, bombing Allied trains and Allied facilities. The bombing of the British embassy in Rome in 1946, for example, was by DPs brainwashed in these camps, as was a near-catastrophe in the Austrian Alps in 1947 when DPs nearly blew a train off a steep trestle into a deep abyss, which would almost certainly have sent its two hundred civilians and Allied troops to their deaths.

German Jewish immigrants to Palestine during war were outraged by the Zionists’ exploitation of the Nazi horrors they had just fled. This outrage given voice by, among others, the prominent journalist Robert Weltsch, editor of Berlin newspaper until banned by the Nazis in 1938.

Weltsch warned that Zionist leaders

have not yet understood that the enemy seeks the destruction of the Jews … We who have been here only a few years, we know what Nazism is.

Zionists, rather, are “taking part in the crash of European Jewry only as spectators”, fighting the British and keeping Jews from joining the Allied struggle while getting comfortable and rich from their political project in Palestine. Recent immigrants from Germany and Central Europe, he said, have no representation among the Zionist ruling establishment. If they did,

we would have demanded that the Yishuv should put itself at the disposal of Britain for the fight against Hitler and Nazism.

But—and I am still quoting Weltsch—

They do not want to fight against Hitler because his fascist methods are also theirs … They do not want our young men to join the [Allied] Forces … day after day they are sabotaging the English War Effort.

These German Jewish immigrants were shunned by the Zionists, their publications and presses bombed. Even Kiosks were bombed for selling non-Hebrew papers to German Jewish immigrants.

In 1943, a man whom British records describe as “a Jew whose integrity is not open to question” risked his life to warn the British about the threat of Zionism. For his safety, he was referred to only by the code-name ‘Z’.

Z described Zionism as a parallel movement to Nazism. He warned that the Zionist indoctrination of Jewish youth was producing a society of extremists who will use any method necessary to achieve Zionist goals; and he pointed out that, as fascism in Europe has demonstrated, such a society is very difficult to undo once it has taken root. The result, I’m afraid, is what we, or more accurately the Palestinians, are facing today in the so-called ‘conflict’.

How trustworthy is this anonymous testimony? I found at the National Archives a private letter in which Z is identified — he was J.S. Bentwich, the Senior Inspector of Jewish Schools in Palestine.

Zionists

would have got further towards rescuing the unfortunates in Axis Europe, had they not complicated the question by always dragging Palestine into the picture

—so judged a report by US Intelligence in the Middle East, dated the 4th of June, 1943, entitled “Latest Aspects of the Palestine Zionist-Arab Problem”. It described “Zionism in Palestine” as

a type of nationalism which in any other country would be stigmatised as retrograde Nazism,

and stated that anti-Semitism was essential to it. Whereas

assimilated Jews in Europe and America are noted for being … stout opponents of racialism and discrimination,

Zionism has bred the opposite mentality in Palestine,

a spirit closely akin to Nazism, namely, an attempt to regiment the community, even by force, and to resort to force to get what they want.

US intelligence assailed “the crude conception” being spread of the Palestinian people as “a nomad tent-dweller … with a little seasonal agriculture”, as being “too absurd to need refutation”. The report noted the irony that it was from them that Zionist settlers learned the cultivation of Jaffa oranges. Whereas the Palestinians were self-sufficient, the Zionist settlements exist on massive external financing, and should Jews overseas ever tire of supporting the settlers, “the venture will collapse like a pricked balloon”. The conclusion of this early US intelligence report was however naïve, or at least premature: now that the world “has seen the lengths to which the Nazi creed has carried the nations”, it reasoned that the Zionists “are due to find themselves an anachronism”.

After the war, the Jewish Agency discussed its enemies. They were democracy; the Atlantic Charter, which of course became the basis for the United Nations; Reconstruction; and the fall in anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism having always been Zionism’s drug, without which it would be irrelevant. The Agency sought to exploit anti-Semitism and blamed declining anti-Semitism in the United States on America’s so-called “democratic attitude”.

Nor was this merely a post-war abuse. Even as Jews were still being carted off to the death camps, the New Zionist Organization’s Arieh Altman was typical in arguing that anti-Semitism must “form the foundation of Zionist propaganda”, and the Defence Security Officer in Palestine, Henry Hunloke, reported that it was important for the Jewish Agency to “stir up anti-Semitism … in order to force Jews … to come to Palestine”.

Now, today, when anything approaching this topic is raised, it is twisted by some into the pejorative misstatement that the speaker—in this case, me—is blaming Jews for anti-Semitism.

NO. Rather, it is the simple fact that Zionism requires anti-Semitism, is addicted to it, and seeks to insure that it, or at least the appearance of it, never ends. One need look no further than the satisfaction among many Zionists today at the true anti-Semitism of the incoming US administration of Donald Trump, with Israeli journalists like Yaron London openly applauding this anti-Semitism as welcome news. More about that in a few minutes.

I also mentioned Reconstruction. As one former settlement member, a man named Newton, explained, Zionist leaders were afraid that with the improvement of conditions in Europe the pressure on Palestine would subside. Any improvement in Europe was an anathema to their plans.

The ethnic cleansing of Jaffa, 1948, as survivors are rescued by boats. Photographer unknown.

The ethnic cleansing of Jaffa, 1948, as survivors are rescued by boats. Photographer unknown.

What was the Jewish Agency’s reaction to Britain’s role in defeating the worst enemy Jewry has ever known? It saw an opportunity for extortion. The war had devastated Britain’s economy; but when Britain turned to the US for a long term loan to recuperate from its battle against the Nazis, the Agency tried to pressure Washington to deny the loan unless Britain acceded to Zionist demands. The loan was of course ultimately approved, but still in 1948 Zionists assailed US Congressmen for being pro- Marshall Plan, and the Truman administration itself dangled the loan in front of British officials when they tried to bring attention to Zionist atrocities.

By 1946, Zionist terrorism had become the defining daily challenge of life in Palestine, and one hundred thousand British troops proved unable to contain it. Anyone or anything that kept Palestine a functioning society was a target of the Zionists. Trains, roads, bridges, communications, oil facilities, and Coast Guard stations were constantly being bombed. Utility workers, telephone repairmen, railway workers, bomb disposal personnel were murdered. Police were long a favoured target and were gunned down by the dozens.

Among the smaller terror organizations that popped up was one specifically dedicated to Zionists’ long-running fear of Jews befriending non-Jews, the ultimate fear of course being polluting what for the Zionists was the pure Jewish race. As a sample of its methods, the terror group doused a disobedient Jewish girl with acid, severely injuring her and blinding her in one eye.

Zionist terror was aided by the Jewish Agency’s phenomenal intelligence network. The Agency had informers all the way to high-placed sympathetic US officials that fed them intelligence, such that the British learned not even to trust direct messages to US President Truman.

When the UN’s Palestine committee, UNSCOP, visited Palestine in the summer of 1947, the Agency had replaced the committee members’ drivers with spies; had replaced the waiters at the main restaurant they frequented with spies; and most productively, sent five young women to serve at what was called a “theatre network” of house attendants at the building where the members, all men, were being housed. The young women were required to be smart and educated, but above all, in the Agency’s word, to be “daring”. Whatever ‘daring’ meant, they extracted a wealth of information from the key people who were deliberating Palestine’s future.

suarez___kew__wo_275-79_img_2881__extract

Extract from Airborne Field Security, Report No. 54, week ending 19 November 47, regarding Jewish sex workers forced to be Zionist spies. National Archives, Kew, FCO 141/14286.

Jewish sex workers were involuntarily recruited as spies. They were told that upon the Zionist victory they would be executed for ‘sleeping with the enemy’, but might be spared if they cooperated now. The practice was so widespread that a standard questionnaire was printed up that the women were to fill out after each British customer. [note: see document detail, above]

To demonstrate the degree to which Jewish Agency plants infiltrated the government and everyday life, a couple of months after one coast guard station was attacked and bombed by the Hagana, it blew up again … but the British were baffled, because this time there had been no attack. They discovered that the construction crew that had rebuilt the station after the previous attack were Hagana, and had simply embedded explosives in the reconstruction, to be detonated when desired.

But the worst problem of infiltration was in the military service, where deadly sabotage by Zionist plants who had joined the forces led, tragically, to orders to remove all Jews from service in Palestine, because there was no way to tell the Zionists from the Jews.

By 1948, this problem spread to key medical personnel. After the Jewish Agency poisoned the water supply of Acre with typhoid in order to expedite the ethnic cleansing of this city that lies on the Palestinian side of Partition, the bacteriologist hired by the British proved to be a Hagana plant or sympathizer, an obstacle to the availability of the vaccine. [Note: see document detail, below. For the injection of typhoid into the aqueduct at Acre, see e.g., Ilan Pappé, Ethnic Cleansing, pp 100-101, and Naeim Giladi, Ben Gurion’s Scandals, pp 10-11]

Hagana biological warfare and the "obstructionist" attitude of the bacteriologist. Extract from telegram No. 1293, from High Commissioner Cunningham, "dispatched 1900 hrs. 8.5.48", and marked "IMMEDIATE. SECRET".

Hagana biological warfare and the “obstructive” attitude of the bacteriologist. Extract from telegram No. 1293, from High Commissioner Cunningham, “dispatched 1900 hrs. 8.5.48”, marked “IMMEDIATE. SECRET”. National Archives, Kew, WO 275/79.

Selling terror required effective marketing, and for that the Agency harnessed the plight of European Jews at the same time it was exploiting them. A very brief look at the iconic Zionist immigrant story is illustrative—that is of course the USS Warfield, renamed the Exodus for the obvious Biblical iconography.

The Exodus was sold to the world as the desperate attempt of 4,515 Holocaust survivors to reach their last hope of safety and a new life, their promised land. The British, instead, forced them back, not just to Europe, but to their ultimate nightmare: Germany.

That was the story the US and European public got.

In truth, the Exodus was a monstrous propaganda event, grand theatre, not for benefit but at the expense of Jewish survivors. The Jewish Agency knew that Exodus passengers would be turned back, for, among other reasons, their flooding of Palestine with settlers was a tactic to force its political goals. And remember that the entire Exodus cargo of immigrants equalled less than one percent of President Roosevelt’s resettlement plan that the Zionists sabotaged. The DPs themselves were products of the Zionist camps and had been rehearsed to repeat, as one witness described it, whatever Zionist mumbo-jumbo was demanded of them.

As for the return to Germany, it was the Jewish Agency, not the British, that forced the DPs back to Germany. Attempts were being made to find new homes for the Exodus passengers elsewhere—Denmark was one possibility—but this was sabotaged by Ben-Gurion, because it would spoil the Exodus plot.

There was in fact already an alternative to Germany. All the Exodus DPs had the right to disembark in Southern France rather than Germany, but the Agency used violence to prevent them from leaving. The Exodus show required the pathetic spectacle of their forced return to Germany.

The British decided to call the Agency’s bluff. They visited Golda Meir (then Meyerson), and spoke as though it went without saying that the Agency would do anything to spare the DPs the horrific return to Germany. They said that perhaps the DPs do not realize that they are free to disembark in southern France if they wish, or do not believe the British, and suggested that the Agency send a representative to tell them. Meir refused. To paraphrase Israeli Professor Idith Zertal, the greater the suffering of these survivors of the Holocaust, the greater their political and media effectiveness for the Zionists.

A few months after the Exodus affair, the UN recommended partition, with the assumption that a Zionist state would follow. This decision was directly influenced by the certainty of continuing Zionist terror if they did not, as was the disproportionately large land area the UN gave the Zionists.

According to British Cabinet papers, giving the Zionists so much land up front was an attempt to delay the Zionists’ expansionist wars. They knew they couldn’t stop Israeli expansionism, but they hoped to delay it. This appeasement of course failed: within a few months of Resolution 181, the Zionist armies were already waging their first expansionist war, confiscating more than half of the Palestinian side of Partition.

But in a consummately Orwellian irony, the fact that the British were occupying Palestine enabled Zionist leaders to juxtapose their settler project as a liberation movement against British colonizers, and thus for their 1948 terror campaign of expropriation and ethnic cleansing to be spun instead as a war of ‘independence’ or ‘emancipation’.

This so-called war of independence was in truth, to quote the British High Commissioner at the time, “operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children”. Its broadcasts boasting of their successes, “both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany”. The Zionists were “jubilant” he reported, with “their campaign of calculated aggression coupled with brutality”.

British intelligence, meanwhile, reported that “the internal machinery of the Jewish State and all the equipment of a totalitarian regime is complete, including a Custodian of Enemy Property to handle Arab lands”.

In the Yishuv itself, “persecution of Christian Jews”, by which I assume they meant converts, “and others who offend against national discipline has shown a marked increase and in some cases has reached mediaeval standards”.

All this, to be sure, was before any Arab resistance.

Finally, on the 15th of May, 1948, Britain fled the scene of its crime, for which the Palestinians have been paying ever since. The post-statehood period continued full throttle with the same violent messianic goals, evolving with the new dynamics.

Now, there is no point in my having taken up your time here, no point any tree wasting its paper on this book, unless I thought that it had some value in the collective effort toward ending the conflict. So … How do I think that this book, how do I think my approach, might be constructive?

The historical record makes plain what should already have been obvious from the present reality—that Israel’s and Zionism’s pretenses regarding Jews and Judaism, and in particular its pretense of being a response to anti-Semitism and Jewish persecution, is a fraud. Indeed quite the opposite, it thrives by exacerbating and capitalizing on these, and has turned them into a cynical, deadly business.

Exposing this, in my opinion, is Israel’s—and the conflict’s—Achilles Heel. And this should be a simple case of the Emperor’s New Clothes—except that every time the child points out that the Emperor is naked, he or she is labelled an anti-Semite and silenced.

The IDF attacks the area between the 'Azza and Aida refugee camps, Bethlehem, as an ambulance tries to rescue victims. December, 2015. Photo: T Suárez

The IDF attacks the area between the ‘Azza and Aida refugee camps, Bethlehem, as an ambulance (center, background) tries to rescue victims. December, 2015. Photo: T Suárez

The US and other governments empower the conflict for their own geopolitical reasons, but why do the publics of those allegedly democratic countries give their tacit acquiescence?

Israel has one of the world’s largest militaries, but its most powerful weapon, the one without which all its others would be impotent, is its Narrative, its creation myth, its auto-biography.

Under the Twilight Zone of this Narrative, Israel is not merely a political entity like any other nation-state, but is transformed into the Old Testament kingdom whose name it adopted for that strategic purpose, striking a powerful chord in the collective Western sub-conscious.

We all know the Narrative more or less, but in order for that Narrative to be ever-present, Israel has crammed it into a 3-word mantra: ‘The Jewish State’.

This phrase—Israel’s self-identity—is a unique construct in the modern world. It is qualitatively distinct from any other country’s relationship with any other religion or cultural group. Judaism is not Israel’s state religion in the sense of a national faith that any nation might adopt. Rather, it presents itself as THE Jewish state, the metaphysical embodiment of Jewry itself, of Judaism, Jewish history, culture, persecution, and most cynical and exploitative of all, the Holocaust.

No country claims it is the Catholic state. Costa Rica, for example, is a Catholic state; it does not suggest that it owns Catholicism, Catholics, or historic Christian martyrdom. We do not have the British government issuing guidelines as to when criticism of the Costa Rican government becomes anti-Catholic hate speech. Norway is a Lutheran state; Tunisia is one of several nations that maintains Islam as a national faith; Cambodia is a Buddhist state. Israel, in contrast, would never acknowledge even the possibility of another Jewish state because it has body-snatched everything Jewish, and holds it hostage to empower its crimes.

Criticise Israeli terror, you will instead hit this three-word human shield—‘The Jewish State’— that Israel hides behind.
What other country on this earth is permitted this perverse tribal claim over a religious or cultural group? This self-proclaimed exceptionalism should strike us as bizarre—even weird—yet we continue to be party to it.

We hear a lot about anti-Semitism these days, and there is of course anti-Semitism in the world, as there are all varieties of bigotry. But let’s just blurt out the obvious: Virtually all of the alleged anti-Semitism we hear about from the Zionists is a lie, smears calculated to silence anyone who seeks to end the horror.

This smear campaign has been compared to the McCarthy witch hunt of the 1950s, but it is in truth much worse, because whereas Communism is merely a political and economic theory that one can argue for or against, anti-Semitism is inherently evil. In other words, with McCarthyism, one could ultimately respond by saying, Well, let’s say I am a communist, so what?

Zionism’s abuse of anti-Semitism, its exploitation of Judaism and historic Jewish persecution for immoral ends, is profoundly anti-Semitic. Zionism, taken at its word, makes Judaism complicit in its crimes, and thus—taken at its word—succeeds where all the conventional bigots throughout the centuries were powerless.

Meanwhile, as we are seeing more bluntly than ever in the United States, true anti-Semitism is embraced by Zionists because it is invariably pro-Israel.

One hundred years ago, MP Edwin Montagu accused the British government of anti-Semitism for colluding with the Zionists. History has proven him correct. If Israel is forced to stop this anti-Semitic abuse, if it is forced to come out from hiding behind its human shield, the conflict will be seen for what it is and so could not continue. Israel-Palestine will become a democratic, secular country of equals.

And what more poetic year than the Balfour centennial for that to happen.

Thank you.

 

About Tom Suarez

Tom Suarez is the author most recently of State of Terror. Ordering and reviews can be found at state-of-terror.net

Other posts by .


Posted In:

188 Responses

  1. lonely rico
    January 1, 2017, 7:58 pm

    Just spent the last two days reading Suarez’ tough book.

    The British High Commissioner –

    “… operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children”. Its [Zionist’s] broadcasts boasting of their successes, “both in content and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of Nazi Germany”. The Zionists were “jubilant” he reported, with “their campaign of calculated aggression coupled with brutality.”

    Seven (+) decades later, the aggression and brutality continues.

    • RoHa
      January 2, 2017, 12:34 am

      “Just spent the last two days reading Suarez’ tough book.”

      Very brave of you. I used to be able to do that sort of thing, but I am too delicate for it now. Even reading this article (and I already knew a lot of the material) was hard work.

    • Jackdaw
      January 6, 2017, 10:29 am

      Wait a minute. The British R.A.F. bombed German cities to cinders, killing hundreds of thousand of civilians, and the Zionists acted like Nazis?

      Wow.

      • echinococcus
        January 6, 2017, 11:12 am

        Jack,

        No minute necessary. Nazis and Zionists, belonging to twin ideologies, unleashed and glorified war of aggression for racial supremacy. Both carry the entire, undiscounted responsibility of any and all consequences of their aggression. Learn to live with it –you’ll pay.

  2. JWalters
    January 1, 2017, 10:12 pm

    Thank you for this spectacularly informative article. Surely Tom Suarez will soon be interviewed on the PBS Newshour, Morning Joe, etc.

    “Whereas the Palestinians were self-sufficient, the Zionist settlements exist on massive external financing”

    More on the massive external financing is online in “War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror”, for readers who haven’t seen it.

  3. RoHa
    January 1, 2017, 11:43 pm

    “he published a pamphlet in January, 1914, in which he described the Zionist settlers as carrying on

    a campaign of terror modelled almost on Russian pogrom models.”

    But we keep getting told that everything was sunshine and lollipops until the Hebron riots of 1929.

    • eljay
      January 2, 2017, 8:11 am

      || RoHa: … But we keep getting told that everything was sunshine and lollipops until the Hebron riots of 1929. ||

      Everything Zionists do is sunshine and lollipops. Who but an anti-Semite would suggest otherwise?

    • Jackdaw
      January 6, 2017, 10:31 am

      Suarez lies. Dr. Paul Nathan was a good German Jew and was adament that the Zionists speak German, not Hebrew. He wasn’t talking about violence against Arabs.

      My God.

      • echinococcus
        January 6, 2017, 11:15 am

        Dr. Paul Nathan ..was adament [sic] that the Zionists speak German, not Hebrew

        He is to be highly commended: at last one Zionist with a little common sense.

  4. Marnie
    January 2, 2017, 12:48 am

    Zionism is evil, period. Shame on Roosevelt and Truman for knowing it, and doing nothing about it. And it’s all about money. Using children to plant bombs? Did they use children as human shields too, or was that the job of the ‘arab’ jews or the survivors of auschwitz? Jewish children were brainwashed to the point of betraying their parents if they weren’t ‘zionist’ enough. How are the zionists different from nazis again?

    Excellent, eye-opening article.

  5. Blake
    January 2, 2017, 2:32 am

    Born out of terrorism, sustained by terrorism.

    I have the book and it has amazing facts. Still he got trolled in the amazon review section by hasbara. Please give him some good reviews on there.

    • John O
      January 3, 2017, 11:21 am

      No customer reviews at all on Amazon UK site, either for the paper or kindle editions. Not sure if I should read anything into that, but I can say that the kindle edition is a bargain and I’ve downloaded it. Will start reading once I’ve finished re-reading “The Great Gatsby”, which seemed a somewhat appropriate choice of book in the run-up to you-know-whose disauguration.

  6. Maghlawatan
    January 2, 2017, 4:57 am

    I will buy the book. The thing about Israel is that they can’t turn off the violence. And they can’t stop the brainwashing. Because it is Israeli identity .

  7. Annie Robbins
    January 2, 2017, 9:32 am

    truly an excellent excellent lecture. it took me a little while to get to it because it’s so long and i wanted to give it the attention it deserved.

    the evidence of blackmailing, threatening women to be spies for the state under threat of death: http://19453-presscdn.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/suarez___KEW__WO_275-79_IMG_2881__extract.jpg

    hideous! too much to mention but i’m buying the book for sure. i had the opportunity to read a few pages of it when i was at my friend rawan’s house over the holiday, it reads really well. also, the focus on narrative — israel’s most powerful weapon “THE Jewish state” “the jewish state”, is exactly correct. i still cringe when people refer to israel like that, which is almost constant in the press, continually used for sympathy, it drives me crazy. and this:

    let’s just blurt out the obvious: Virtually all of the alleged anti-Semitism we hear about from the Zionists is a lie, smears calculated to silence anyone who seeks to end the horror.

    i agree.

    Zionism’s abuse of anti-Semitism, its exploitation of Judaism and historic Jewish persecution for immoral ends, is profoundly anti-Semitic. Zionism, taken at its word, makes Judaism complicit in its crimes, and thus—taken at its word—succeeds where all the conventional bigots throughout the centuries were powerless.

    i agree. thank you so much tom.

  8. CigarGod
    January 2, 2017, 9:38 am

    Brilliant work, Tom.
    I hope Palestinians will soon be able to publish their notebooks.
    “All is written in our notebooks.”

  9. Elizabeth Block
    January 2, 2017, 10:46 am

    Wow. I’m going to disseminate this, including using it (with attribution, of course!) for a flyer at our weekly vigil in front of the Israeli consulate in Toronto.
    Some of this was known before. But not all of it. And documented like this? Nope.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 2, 2017, 11:26 am

      elizabeth, don’t forget to buy the book! http://www.state-of-terror.net/

      • JWalters
        January 2, 2017, 6:53 pm

        Annie,

        What would it take to get this book on the New York Times best seller list? What stores to they monitor? How many sales are needed?

        Elizabeth,

        Fully agree. I hope everyone posts links to this article all over the web (in appropriate comments to appropriate articles of course).

      • Annie Robbins
        January 6, 2017, 11:42 am

        jwalters, i know nothing about how to get a book on the nyt best seller list or how many sales it requires. i would imagine there would be a concerted effort, by the usual suspects, to smear it. but something tells me it may become quite popular.

  10. John O
    January 2, 2017, 11:25 am

    Very illuminating. I’d never heard of the Patria bombing – horrific.

  11. YoniFalic
    January 2, 2017, 1:05 pm

    There is a great deal of continuity from Jewish violence in Czarist Empire to Jewish violence in Palestine. Billington discusses the former violence in Fire in the Minds of Men. Much of the Jewish violence in the Czarist Empire seems to have been intended to provoke a reaction that could then be used for fundraisers or for anti-Czarist propaganda to undermine the Czarist state.

  12. amigo
    January 2, 2017, 1:25 pm

    Before Israel had “the most moral army ” they had “the “the most moral terrorists “.Israel was forced into this most moral terrorism.They never wanted to morally terrorise anyone , but their mortal enemies just refused to lie down and die, or leave and left them no choice but to bomb markets .Note they never bombed a market with more than 100 people present unlike their Arab enemies who cared less how many Jews are present.That is the difference between Jewish terrorism and Arab ” Terrrroreeeests”.

  13. just
    January 2, 2017, 3:26 pm

    Enormous thanks for speaking and writing the truth, Tom Suarez! I would also like to thank the indomitable Jenny Tonge.

    Wow. Just wow! Congratulations.

    I only just heard that another brave man, Hilarion Capucci has died. May he rest in peace.

  14. Steve Macklevore
    January 2, 2017, 3:57 pm

    This is a brilliant article – typical of Mondoweiss – the best pro-Palestinian website in the world.

    • just
      January 2, 2017, 8:15 pm

      I remember and listen to the too-soon gone poet & musician, Warren Zevon, often and loudly!

      His powerful music of resistance lives on… he was informed. So is Roger Waters and Jackson Browne.

      • Marnie
        January 3, 2017, 12:44 am

        Beautiful…

      • ThePolemicist
        January 6, 2017, 2:26 pm

        Many thanks for posting that.

  15. Bar Kochbar
    January 2, 2017, 6:03 pm

    Forgive my challenging the grain (I guess this will get deleted). Jews have always lived in the region. Jerusalem has only ever been the capital of a state 3 times, all 3 times Jewish. Tel Avi was established in 1880 long before the Holocaust. 1905 famine saw 25% of both Jews and Arabs perish from hunger as there was no government there. 1919 saw 90% of the land becoming Jordan. 1937 saw the Peel plan recommendation for division, rejected by the Arabs. Talking of Nazis, why did the grand Mufti of Jerusalem live in Berlin during the war? Irgun and hagannah actually fought over refugee and weapon issues. In 1967 the Israelis did a crap job at demolishing the dome of the rock given your conviction of their anti-Islam nonsense. The photos of Israelis using skunk may be unpleasant but no one has died of it, do you prefer the Hamas castration, lynching and driving corpses along the dirt track option?I have visited Israel and stayed in some pretty nice hotels where the inhabitants are very religious Jews and Moslems (they both come from Abraham) and they get on absolutely fine. Given the rumoured Nukes, planes, tanks and so forth Israel has to be in the Guinness Book of records for the worst attempt of Genocide since Fluffy the rabbit. Finally, Israel is the size of El Salvador, has a population in excess of Sweden and Wales combined complete with motorways, universities, hospitals, cities – It is not a few “zionists” wearing 1950s uniforms that we can ship out to Argentina or Saudi but a thriving and tolerant (religious, LGBT etc) entire nation so ranting and dismissing it with the pseudo-selective history above will not solve the issue, mutual recognition and respect is the only way. The settlements in Gaza went under Ariel Sharon (a hawk compared to Bibbi), the Judea and Samaria ones can also be exchanged for peace – the good news is that Jew-Haters now talk about constraining settlements now not the sea flowing with Jewish blood – so progress at last.

    • just
      January 2, 2017, 8:40 pm

      “The photos of Israelis using skunk may be unpleasant but no one has died of it, do you prefer the Hamas castration, lynching and driving corpses along the dirt track option?”

      Is that really a question???

      “Israeli forces killed 31 Palestinian youths in the occupied West Bank in 2016
      FeaturesIsrael/Palestine Kate on December 27, 2016”
      – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/israeli-forces-palestinian-occupied/#sthash.mJKN7opk.dpuf

      “I have visited Israel and stayed in some pretty nice hotels where the inhabitants are very religious Jews and Moslems (they both come from Abraham) and they get on absolutely fine.”

      “Waqf: 14,806 Israeli settler incursions on Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in 2016” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/israeli-incursions-compound/#sthash.j4MCGNJu.dpuf
      Pray tell!

      Do!

      Quickly.

      “The settlements in Gaza went under Ariel Sharon (a hawk compared to Bibbi), the Judea and Samaria ones can also be exchanged for peace – the good news is that Jew-Haters now talk about constraining settlements now not the sea flowing with Jewish blood – so progress at last.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/terrorism-israeli-state/comment-page-1/#comment-865497

      There is no “Judea and Samaria”.

      The land is and was Palestine, yesterday, today and forever. There’s plenty of their ‘blood” in the Palestinians’ sea, courtesy of the Zionists..

    • RoHa
      January 2, 2017, 9:18 pm

      “Jews have always lived in the region.”

      So what? That doesn’t give Polish Jews a right to push into the region and drive out the Muslims and Christians.

      “Jerusalem has only ever been the capital of a state 3 times, all 3 times Jewish. ”

      Jerusalem was the capital of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem.

      “Tel Avi was established in 1880 long before the Holocaust. ”

      So what?

      “1905 famine saw 25% of both Jews and Arabs perish from hunger as there was no government there.”

      Unfortunate, but so what?

      ” 1919 saw 90% of the land becoming Jordan. ”

      But Transjordan isn’t part of Palestine.

      “1937 saw the Peel plan recommendation for division, rejected by the Arabs. ”

      And quite right, too. Why should the Arabs agree to having their land cut into pieces to accommodate the crazy ideas of foreign immigrants and their local born children?

      • mig
        January 2, 2017, 11:23 pm

        “1937 saw the Peel plan recommendation for division, rejected by the Arabs. ” Actually it was rejected by both sides, not just only arabs.

      • Bar Kochbar
        January 3, 2017, 3:18 am

        Thanks for publishing my counter comments – open discussion is like being in Israel!

        The above original article is highly selective and biased. As was my balancing comments but all food for thought. The response to my response was equally subjective but welcome.

        In a nutshell

        Jordan was part of Palestine and it being taken away to form Jordan is some how acceptable but when Jews get their land back it is not.

        Judaea and Samaria or the West Bank of Jordan has never had local rule – between 1948 and 1967 it was owned by Jordan (as is the Dome of the Rock to this day) – never complained about by the Anti-Jew press.

        The Heart of the article is about Europeans somehow appeasing the holocaust yet continued Jewish presence, Tel Aviv, the Peel Report had nothing to do with the holocaust. The Dhimmi turned desert into meadows…. live with it.

        The only reference to government in the region in the above response was Christian Jerusalem – Arab nationalism and statehood did not exist before the routing of Turkey and British encouragement…

        In perspective, the rumoured numbers of deaths by these Zionists is less than Lawnmowers kill in the USA in a year. The rumoured deaths include the removal of nutters smashing children’s brains out, attackers of schools, attacks on buses and malls at the scene – if Israel really wanted the Gaza and the ex-Jordan West Bank lands then they would have the death penalty for every act and be bussing people across the border… pretty poor show isn’t by the people who have the brains and technology behind PCs, IPhones, Modern Medicine and Big Data… perhaps the answer is they just want the State granted and agreed post armistice.

        Tel-Aviv to the Judea and Samaria or ex-Jordanian West Bank is 15 miles. If the Arabs offered recognition and peace then Israel would be on the back foot – instead they insist on destruction so nothing happens except more rhetoric, bias and discomfort.

        As regards 1937 division refusal – 80 years – in your comfy armchair and typing on a web site is easy to State “quite-right” don’t settle for it… After all it is better to stand by principles than resolve anything ever…

      • Maghlawatan
        January 3, 2017, 4:52 am

        Lawnmowers kill around 300 americans per year. Lawnmowing Gaza killed 1500 people last time. Zionism is a murderous ideology.

      • RoHa
        January 3, 2017, 5:29 am

        Jordan was part of Palestine and it being taken away to form Jordan is some how acceptable”

        It was not part of Palestine, and it wasn’t taken away from anyone. Jordan is the state of the people who lived there.

        “but when Jews get their land back it is not.”

        Palestine was not the land of foreign Jews. It was the land of the people who lived there.

        “Judaea and Samaria or the West Bank of Jordan has never had local rule ”

        So what?

        ” between 1948 and 1967 it was owned by Jordan (as is the Dome of the Rock to this day) – never complained about by the Anti-Jew press.”

        Since the native people who lived in the West Bank put it into Jordanian trusteeship, there was nothing to complain about. What anti-Jew press?

        “The Heart of the article is about Europeans somehow appeasing the holocaust”

        No, the heart of the article is the long tradition of terrorism that the Zionists employ.

        ” yet continued Jewish presence,”

        Which doesn’t give foreign Jews any right to live there, let alone drive out anyone else and establish a state.

        “Tel Aviv, the Peel Report had nothing to do with the holocaust. ”

        No one said it did.

        “The Dhimmi turned desert into meadows”

        Mostly the Zionists stole the farms that the Palestinian Arabs had established.

        “The only reference to government in the region in the above response was Christian Jerusalem”

        Proving you were wrong about your previous claim.

        “Arab nationalism and statehood did not exist before the routing of Turkey and British encouragement…”

        From the seventh century to the first Crusade, Palestine was part of an essentially Arab State. Later it became part of the Ottoman state. There was always a state present. As for the rise of Arab nationalism, how does the time it arose give any rights to Jews to take over Palestine?

        Instead of just tossing this stuff out, show why it is a justification for Zionism.

        “As regards 1937 division refusal – 80 years – in your comfy armchair and typing on a web site is easy to State “quite-right” don’t settle for it… After all it is better to stand by principles than resolve anything ever…”

        The Palestinians offered a resolution: a democratic state in Palestine which even the foreign immigrants would be accepted as full and equal citizens. But the Zionists wouldn’t accept equality.

      • talknic
        January 3, 2017, 8:49 am

        @ Bar Kochbar January 3, 2017, 3:18 am

        “Jordan was part of Palestine and it being taken away to form Jordan is some how acceptable but when Jews get their land back it is not”

        The West Bank as it is now officially named, was legally annexed at the request of representatives of the majority of the legitimate citizens of the territory. Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only by demand of the other Arab states (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950) in keeping with the UN Charter Chapt XI.

        Unlike Israel, Jordan did not build illegal settlements or unilaterally claim the West Bank as its own.

        ” between 1948 and 1967 it was owned by Jordan (as is the Dome of the Rock to this day)

        See above

        ” – never complained about …”

        Why would they? The majority of the legitimate population of the West Bank WANTED to be under the protection of Jordanian sovereignty rather than the rule of military occupation

        “The Dhimmi turned desert into meadows …. live with it”

        So what? It’s completely irrelevant to the legal status of Israel’s actual proclaimed and recognized territories and Israel’s illegal activities in territories illegally acquired by war and/or under Israeli Military Occupation.

        “In perspective, the rumoured numbers of deaths by these Zionists is less than Lawnmowers kill in the USA in a year”

        Deaths by lawn mower are accidents. The purposeful usurping of the Palestinians since 1897 was planned

        “if Israel really wanted the Gaza and the ex-Jordan West Bank lands..”

        There’s been no change since 1897 in the Zionist Federation coveting other folks territories

        ” … the people who have the brains and technology behind PCs, IPhones, Modern Medicine and Big Data …”

        Care to substantiate your claims? Good luck!

        ” If the Arabs offered recognition and peace …”

        Like the Arab Peace initiative to which Israel has yet to respond?

        “As regards 1937 division refusal – 80 years – in your comfy armchair and typing on a web site is easy to State “quite-right” don’t settle for it… After all it is better to stand by principles than resolve anything ever”

        Hey there buddy, Israel proclaimed its borders and was recognized by them http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk Nothing outside of Israel’s actual proclaimed and recognized frontiers was Israeli or simply there for the taking. No one has taken anything of Israel’s. No one has invaded Israel. No wars have been fought in Israel. It is Israel refusing to stop colonizing other folks territories

        All Israel’s wars have been fought in the territories of the surrounding Arab States and in territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”!

        Go Ziopoop somewhere else, the stench is sickening

      • eljay
        January 3, 2017, 10:20 am

        || Bar Kochbar: … After all it is better to stand by principles than resolve anything ever… ||

        Funny stuff, coming from a Zionist who…
        – stands by the unjust and immoral principles of Jewish supremacism in/and an unapologetically oppressive, colonialist, belligerent, intransigent, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine,
        – rather than resolve anything by accepting justice, accountability and equality in/and two secular and democratic states of and for their respective citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally.

      • Mooser
        January 3, 2017, 11:11 am

        Bar Kochbar? Good user-name! Reminds us of the fearsome reach and success of Jewish militarism.

        Shorter “Bar Kochbar”: ‘If 2 billion Jews want a Jewish State, nobody can stop them!’

      • Mooser
        January 3, 2017, 11:42 am

        “… After all it is better to stand by principles than resolve anything ever…”

        And after all, a principled delay can only bring a redoubling of Jewish numbers, an ever more implacable Zionist unity among Jews, and increasing Jewish alienation from Gentiles.
        You bet “Bar”, old boy, time-ime-i- ime is on our side, yes it is!

    • RoHa
      January 2, 2017, 11:07 pm

      “mutual recognition and respect is the only way.”

      Let the Israelis start by recognising the Right of Return.

    • Rashers2
      January 3, 2017, 1:33 am

      For a few seconds, I was bemused by Bar Kochbar’s meandering, deflective cr*p, which appears intended as some kind of apologia for the Zionist project. I then realised that, faced with reliable, credible historical sources mustered into a cogent case leading to Mr. Suarez’s inevitable conclusion, this was probably about the best one could expect from the Ziopaths, since the indefensible is quite simply that: incapable of being defended.

    • eljay
      January 3, 2017, 10:26 am

      || Bar Kochbar: … mutual recognition and respect is the only way … ||

      It is the only way if what is desired is Zionist “peace”, which allows Zionists and their religion-supremacist “Jewish State” construct:
      – to keep as much as possible of what they have stolen; and
      – to be absolved of their past and on-going (war) crimes and their obligations under international law.

      Justice, accountability and equality – these should consistently be the only way.

      • Bar Kochbar
        January 3, 2017, 3:29 pm

        Thank you for all your lovely comments – clearly we agree to differ. So much to pick apart… apologies if I fail to address all your points.

        I am sorry that my responses are long ones but I am the only non Jew-hater here so have much to say…

        Firstly, thank you for the compliment of being labelled a Zionist, I regard myself as but a mere Humanist. A true Zionist would know that this site is a lost cause and not waste his or her time trying to be helpful.

        As regards Zion, In the same way as a Moslem prays to Mecca, a Jew prays to Jerusalem and asks to return – Jerusalem is Zion.

        Bar Kochbar was a Jewish Leader in 132CE – he revolted against the Romans trying to liberate Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple…. Not sure which Bar Kochbar your history book refers to, certainly not an expansionist.

        The wars fought always outside Israel… hmmm. Is this referring to the olympiads slaughtered in Munic or the defence of Yad Modechai ner Ashdod? call me old fashioned when the Arabs invaded in 1948 the Israelis counter attacked…. as regards 1956, Israel took Sinai and gave it back, they gave back Gaza – so they do give back land.

        I love the idea of Jews not coming from Israel, its so romantic and convenient, except their genes (check out Cohen) prove continuity. Interestingly 4 of the 5 mothers of Islam were Jews so that should also be interesting to live with for any Jew haters. Jews and Arabs are Semites…

        As regards the secular state of Palestine, I think the Hamas handling of the Jewish synagogues, the annual attempts to destroy Joseph’s tomb and the stoning of worshippers at the wailing wall are indications of the tolerance that this myth would entail. Alas this idea is truly dead.

        I was also bemused by not understanding genoicide – I believe it is about exterminating an entire race or possibly nation like the Mufti’s mate Hitler did to 6,000,000 Jews or in Rwanda… I would not call it “participating as members of Knesset, own universities, own hospitals, own police force but losing an figure of 1,500 terrorists in the process”…

        I did like the idea that Jordanians owning Samaria and Judea as still seen as acceptable. Once peace is agreed the Jordanians would make excellent rulers. The trouble is they would have to handle the Palestinians like in 1970.

        My point that no government existed before the Jordanians and Egypt pulled out from Judaea, Samaria and Gaza has been accepted thanks – my point is there was no Palestinian nation just clans… so all the comments about a unified Palestinian view, response or direction before 1967 is unfounded.

        As regards the right of return… again good idea – The Jews came from there so this is very relevant while the Arabs originate from Saudi, Iraq and the Bayswater road (someone quoted 7th century above so clearly interlopers) so let them return thence. I would consider the Canaanites being allowed back though. Perhaps the other Arab states could spend their oil money on addressing the problem instead of letting it fester for 70 years.

        Finally, instead of hating a nation of 7,000,000 to no avail, why not use this site to be constructive.

        One solution is that all the Arabs are killed or all the Jews – neither popular. Or they all love each other and say sorry and whoosh it’s a miracle – you need a lot of hallucigenic drugs to pull that one off. You could leave it where it is and hope that Arabs not helping fellow Arabs will lead to a battle of all battles with some suicidal march at the ramparts (something out of world war Z) – pretty painful and inhumane and probably pointless…

        So this is my constructive solution not as an apologist anything… feel free to tweak. The Israeli Arabs can stay and be educated, serve in the army (like the Bedouin and Druze) just like the previous 70 years and any gripes can be addressed. Gays can also remain as can atheists. Swop the refugee card for the settler card, both sides won’t accept them in their respective half of the balance – The refugees can take up the land that 1m+Arab Jews left behind in 1948 that was usurped by the locals. OK, I understand that you cannot simply recognise Israel as this is a capitulation whilst the settlers see their role as g-d given duty to prevent Israel being destroyed by people who have no respect or recognition for Jews or Israel… so since the Arabs have most to gain, why not break the impasse and bravely recognise with a “subject to” clause (perhaps no settlements, no open borders, all the aquifers…) it’s called the moral high ground. Then true Arab lovers can pour in cash to make this Arab partition acceptable. I realise this is what Oslo proposed but with Yasser safely dead and rotting in hell, the new generation of Arabs can claim to have made the suggestions. Once both sides aren’t winding each other up and both sides have decent lives in or out of the region then they can all read books about the unfairness of history instead of killing etc and wounds can slowly heal.

        So please do respond with a solution that could work… below instead of ranting….

      • Mooser
        January 3, 2017, 4:31 pm

        That’s it “Kochbar” go for the long nutter-mutter.

        “Bar Kochbar was a Jewish Leader in 132CE – he revolted against the Romans trying to liberate Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple…. Not sure which Bar Kochbar your history book refers to, certainly not an expansionist”

        Very true, Bar Kochba didn’t do much expanding. Instead, he blew the entire thing.
        May you be blessed with as much success as he had.

      • eljay
        January 3, 2017, 6:07 pm

        || Bar Kochbar @ January 3, 2017, 3:29 pm ||

        Wow, that’s a lot of words just to express your belief that people who choose to be/come Jewish are entitled:
        – to Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine; and
        – to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

        What you are merely is not a Humanist, but a hypocrite.

        A solution that could work involves justice, accountability and equality including but not limited to:
        – two secular and democratic states – Israel and New State (or whatever it is to be called) – of and for all of their respective citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally;
        – respect for and adherence to international laws; and
        – honouring of obligations (incl. RoR) under international law.

      • Mooser
        January 3, 2017, 6:10 pm

        “So please do respond with a solution that could work… below instead of ranting.”

        Sure, but we’ll need to know how many Jewish Israelis can be guaranteed to stay in Palestine under new, non-Zionist conditions. If a solution makes living in Israel less attractive, or leaves Israel with reparatory burdens, can Israel guarantee enough Jews will stay to make it viable?

      • echinococcus
        January 3, 2017, 9:16 pm

        Bar Kochbar was a Jewish Leader in 132CE – he revolted against the Romans trying to liberate Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple…

        Hey, Bar-Cochabamba, I fail to see what justifies adding letters to historic names.
        Be that as may be, the character you mention was not a “Jewish leader” from the facts we have, but a mortal enemy of the majority of the restricted Jewish population of Palestine at the time, who happened to be mainly relatively civilized and Hellenized. In fact, whatever history we have –especially that provided by his own, show that this was a deeply obscurantist leader of murderous religious fanatics. The Abubakr al Baghdadi of the super-Da’esh of his own times, hell-bent on massacring his “own” Jews for failing to be as stupidly superstitious as his own hateful self.
        Read more history and read it from creditable historians, not Zionist lowbrows.

      • RoHa
        January 3, 2017, 9:36 pm

        ” I am the only non Jew-hater here so have much to say…”

        If you think that anyone who disagrees with you about Israel is a Jew hater, that rather dims the prospect of rational discussion. But I’ll give it a shot, anyway.

        “As regards Zion, In the same way as a Moslem prays to Mecca, a Jew prays to Jerusalem and asks to return – Jerusalem is Zion.”

        How does this justify the conception, creation, and conduct of Israel?

        “I love the idea of Jews not coming from Israel”
        Modern Israeli Jews come from Israel. Modern British Jews come from Britain. Many of the Jews who poured into Palestine during the Mandate were Polish Jews. They came from Poland.

        “As regards the secular state of Palestine, I think the Hamas handling of the Jewish synagogues, the annual attempts to destroy Joseph’s tomb and the stoning of worshippers at the wailing wall are indications of the tolerance that this myth would entail. Alas this idea is truly dead.”

        From the nineteenth century onwards, Zionists have worked very hard both to make the Palestinians hate Jews, and to teach themselves to hate Palestinians. And they have succeeded. Even as late as the 1930s (still well before Israel created Hamas) the Arabs were willing to have a go at living together with the Zionists. But the Zionists wanted their Jewish state.

        It will be very difficult now for the hatred to be overcome. Certainly a Truth and Reconciliation process will be needed. Zionists are not interested
        in reconciliation. They just want the land. And Zionists will have nothing to do with truth. No truth-handlers, they. So for a T&R process to succeed, Israelis will have to give up Zionism.

        “I did like the idea that Jordanians owning Samaria and Judea as still seen as acceptable.”

        The West Bank wasn’t “owned” by Jordanians. It was governed by Jordan, and this was acceptable at the time because it was agreed with the people who lived there.

        “My point that no government existed before the Jordanians and Egypt pulled out from Judaea, Samaria and Gaza has been accepted thanks ”
        Of course there was a government. The Jordanian government ran the West Bank.

        “my point is there was no Palestinian nation just clans… so all the comments about a unified Palestinian view, response or direction before 1967 is unfounded.”
        A “nation” is not necessary for a unified Palestinian view. And even if there wasn’t a unified Palestinian view, that does not justify the terrorism and dispossession of the Palestinians.

        “As regards the right of return… again good idea – The Jews came from there so this is very relevant while the Arabs originate from Saudi, Iraq and the Bayswater road (someone quoted 7th century above so clearly interlopers) so let them return thence. ”

        I thought the Jews were supposed to be descendants of Abraham, who was an Iraqi. So Jews originate from Iraq as well. Arabs, on the other hand, are people who speak Arabic as first language, regardless of where their ancestors came from. And the ancestors of the Palestinians are most likely the Canaanites, Samaritans, and Jews who converted to Christianity and Islam.

        Of course, the Right of Return applies not to “races” or “nations” or “peoples”. It applies to refugees who were driven from their homes.

        As for constructive solutions that would work, there cannot be one until the Israelis give up the Zionist ideology and start behaving reasonably.

      • Sibiriak
        January 3, 2017, 9:50 pm

        Bar Kochbar: So this is my constructive solution […] Swop the refugee card for the settler card,
        ——————

        Great idea. Quite reasonable. The problem is: the Palestinians WERE willing to swap the refugee card and offered to do so in various negotiations (largely symbolic “right of return” + compensation/international aid; land swaps allowing some but not all settlements to be annexed by Israel), but the Israeli’s WERE NOT willing to compromise on the settlements.

        What you are describing is the international two-state consensus, ACCEPTED by the Palestinian leadership, Arab states, and most of the world; REJECTED by Israel.

        The Israelis have never negotiated in good faith. They have never come around to accepting the idea of a genuine, sovereign Palestine next to Israel.

        The “peace process” has never been anything except a Zionist fraud used as cover for continual expansion.

      • talknic
        January 3, 2017, 11:27 pm

        @ Bar Kochbar January 3, 2017, 3:29 pm

        ” clearly we agree to differ”

        Clearly you’re delusional

        ” A true Zionist would know that this site is a lost cause and not waste his or her time trying to be helpful.”

        An apologist for Zionist colonization trying to be helpful? What a laugh. So why are you here apart from spreading Ziopoop?

        “As regards Zion, In the same way as a Moslem prays to Mecca, a Jew prays to Jerusalem and asks to return – Jerusalem is Zion.”

        Jerusalem was not and is still not within Israel’s self Proclaimed and majority recognized territories.

        “… when the Arabs invaded in 1948 the Israelis counter attacked…”

        Nonsense. Under Plan Dalet, Jewish forces were already outside of Israel’s proclaimed borders even as they were being proclaimed. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Plan_Dalet.html

        The Arab states invaded “Palestine” according to the Israel Govt http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx

        There are no UNSC resolutions condemning the Arab States invasion of Palestine

        ” Israel took Sinai and gave it back, they gave back Gaza – so they do give back land”

        A) “land” is ‘real estate’. Territory on the other hand belongs to all of its legitimate inhabitants whether they own land, rent or lease land or live under a bridge.

        B) Israel illegally acquired Egyptian territory by war. Israel’s withdrawal was mandatory, per UNSC res 242 . It’s withdrawal from other folk’s territories for peace. Not land for peace

        C) Gaza is still under Israeli occupation. Israel has military control of Palestinian territorial waters off the coast of Gaza. It controls Gaza’s airspace. It controls what goes in and out of Gaza and has the right as an Occupying Power to have all of Gaza’s crossings including those with Egypt. (Egypt is not the Occupying Power).

        “I love the idea of Jews not coming from Israel”

        Israel didn’t exist when according to the scriptures our Jewish forefathers invaded the region

        “… their genes (check out Cohen) prove continuity.”

        The scriptures say otherwise and genetics show a link between Jews who were historically from the region with non-Jews historically from the region. BTW conversion does not alter ones genes. There are Chinese Jews, Australian Aboriginal Jews etc who do not have any genetic connection with people who’re actually from the region

        “As regards the secular state of Palestine, I think the Hamas handling of the Jewish synagogues”

        Nonsense. Once the Torah is removed a building is no longer a Synagogue

        “… genoicide – I believe it is about exterminating an entire race or possibly nation “

        Read the UN definition. It’s what all UN Members are bound by, including Israel.

        “I did like the idea that Jordanians owning Samaria and Judea as still seen as acceptable”

        Jordan handed the West Bank back to the PLO in 1988

        ” Once peace is agreed the Jordanians would make excellent rulers.”

        Over illegal Israeli settlers too?

        “My point that no government existed before the Jordanians and Egypt pulled out from Judaea, Samaria and Gaza has been accepted thanks – my point is there was no Palestinian nation”

        Your point is another smelly Zioturd. Palestinian Nationality Law was adopted in 1925 per the LoN Mandate for Palestine Article 7 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7 Under the Mandate for Palestine, Palestine was a Nation State where Jewish folk could achieve PALESTINIAN citizenship!

        “As regards the right of return… again good idea – The Jews came from there…”

        According to the scriptures our Jewish forefathers invaded the region

        “while the Arabs originate from …”

        Irrelevant to Israel’s proclaimed and recognized territories and Israel’s illegal actions in territories outside the State of Israel.

        “Finally, instead of hating a nation of 7,000,000 to no avail, why not use this site to be constructive”

        Calling for a State to withdraw from other folks territories, stop illegal settlements is hatred? Israel’s refusal to adhere to the UN Charter and International Law is constructive?

        “… Arabs not helping fellow Arabs ..”

        Strange. The Arab States have fought the legal battle on behalf of Palestine since becoming states. They have fought wars for Palestine in non Israeli territories and they have provided, at great expense, refuge for millions of dispossessed Palestinians and dispossessed non-Jewish Israeli citizens for 70 years

        ” … this is my constructive solution …

        Look up the word constructive

        “The Israeli Arabs can stay … Gays can also remain as can atheists. “

        WOW Allowing Israel’s own non-Jewish citizens incl gays and atheists to stay in Israel … that’s amazing. Think of it yourself?

        ” … The refugees can take up the land that 1m+Arab Jews left behind in 1948″

        Palestinian refugees are not from the Arab States of 1948. They do not have RoR to the Arab States

        Meanwhile it is NORMAL for countries at war to intern or expel and freeze the assets of possible allies of one’s enemies. The UK, US, Australia expelled or interned their own citizens of German, Italian and Japanese extraction in WW2. It’s also NORMAL to allow their return and to unfreeze their assets once hostilities have ceased, unless of course they have taken up citizenship in a country other than that of return, whereby they are no longer refugees.

        ” OK, I understand that you cannot simply recognise Israel “

        Palestine recognized Israel in 1988, within the ’67 demarcation lines. It’s the only state that has recognized Israel beyond the Jewish State’s self proclaimed UNGA res 181 frontiers

        ” … the settlers see their role as g-d given duty to prevent Israel being destroyed by people who have no respect or recognition for Jews or Israel… “

        Wonderful. Let ’em do it in Israel instead of illegally settling in non-Israeli territories

        ” why not break the impasse and bravely recognise with a “subject to” clause (perhaps no settlements, no open borders, all the aquifers…) it’s called the moral high ground.”

        The high moral ground would be for Israel to adhere to International Law, the UN Charter, the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and Judaisms basic common sense tenets

        ” please do respond with a solution that could work… below instead of ranting….”

        Israeli withdrawal from all non-Israeli territories for peace. Worked with Egypt

      • Keith
        January 4, 2017, 11:56 am

        BAR KOCHBAR- “I am sorry that my responses are long ones but I am the only non Jew-hater here so have much to say…”

        Just what Mondoweiss needs, a long-winded Hophmi.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 4, 2017, 12:07 pm

        keith, did you notice the line about “jew-haters” talking about “the sea flowing with Jewish blood”? you can always tell when they’re jacked up on ziocaine whenever they start yammering about others supposed hatreds, but in all my years here i’ve yet to read anything even resembling this latest gruesome accusation.

      • Mooser
        January 4, 2017, 12:07 pm

        “I thought the Jews were supposed to be descendants of Abraham, who was an Iraqi.”

        An Iraqi? All this time I thought we were a designer people, and we’re just an Iraqi knock-off? What ever happened to Jews sui generis!

    • RobertB
      January 3, 2017, 10:52 am

      Top Ten Reasons East Jerusalem does not belong to Jewish-Israelis

      By Juan Cole | Mar. 23, 2010 |

      “Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the American Israel Public Affairs Council on Monday that “Jerusalem is not a settlement.” He continued that the historical connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel cannot be denied. He added that neither could the historical connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem. He insisted, “The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today.” He said, “Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.” He told his applauding audience of 7500 that he was simply following the policies of all Israeli governments since the 1967 conquest of Jerusalem in the Six Day War.

      Netanyahu mixed together Romantic-nationalist cliches with a series of historically false assertions. But even more important was everything he left out of the history, and his citation of his warped and inaccurate history instead of considering laws, rights or common human decency toward others not of his ethnic group.

      So here are the reasons that Netanyahu is profoundly wrong, and East Jerusalem does not belong to him.

      1. In international law, East Jerusalem is occupied territory, as are the parts of the West Bank that Israel unilaterally annexed to its district of Jerusalem. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 forbid occupying powers to alter the lifeways of civilians who are occupied, and forbid the settling of people from the occupiers’ country in the occupied territory. Israel’s expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem, its usurpation of Palestinian property there, and its settling of Israelis on Palestinian land are all gross violations of international law. Israeli claims that they are not occupying Palestinians because the Palestinians have no state are cruel and tautological. Israeli claims that they are building on empty territory are laughable. My back yard is empty, but that does not give Netanyahu the right to put up an apartment complex on it.

      2. Israeli governments have not in fact been united or consistent about what to do with East Jerusalem and the West Bank, contrary to what Netanyahu says. The Galili Plan for settlements in the West Bank was adopted only in 1973. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin gave undertakings as part of the Oslo Peace Process to withdraw from Palestinian territory and grant Palestinians a state, promises for which he was assassinated by the Israeli far right (elements of which are now supporting Netanyahu’s government). As late as 2000, then Prime Minister Ehud Barak claims that he gave oral assurances that Palestinians could have almost all of the West Bank and could have some arrangement by which East Jerusalem could be its capital. Netanyahu tried to give the impression that far rightwing Likud policy on East Jerusalem and the West Bank has been shared by all previous Israeli governments, but this is simply not true.

      3. Romantic nationalism imagines a “people” as eternal and as having an eternal connection with a specific piece of land. This way of thinking is fantastic and mythological. Peoples are formed and change and sometimes cease to be, though they might have descendants who abandoned that religion or ethnicity or language. Human beings have moved all around and are not directly tied to any territory in an exclusive way, since many groups have lived on most pieces of land. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews, i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese, many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not exist.

      4. Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of Peace but rather ‘built-up place of Shalem.”

      5. The “Jewish people” were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine. (See Daniel Lazare’s Harper’s article on the archeological disproof of the Bible, preserved at this website (I am not endorsing the web site).

      6. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent “Jewish people” in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history. Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates for the united kingdom under David and Solomon. So Jerusalem was not ‘the city of David,’ since there was no city when he is said to have lived. No sign of magnificent palaces or great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens, don’t know about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine.

      7. Since archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander’s descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander’s other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE (CE= ‘Common Era’ or what Christians call AD). The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.

      The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 and ruled it until 1099 when the Crusaders conquered it. The Crusaders killed or expelled Jews and Muslims from the city. The Muslims under Saladin took it back in 1187 CE and allowed Jews to return, and Muslims ruled it until the end of World War I, or altogether for about 1192 years.

      Adherents of Judaism did not found Jerusalem. It existed for perhaps 2700 years before anything we might recognize as Judaism arose. Jewish rule may have been no longer than 170 years or so, i.e., the kingdom of the Hasmoneans.

      8. Therefore if historical building of Jerusalem and historical connection with Jerusalem establishes sovereignty over it as Netanyahu claims, here are the groups that have the greatest claim to the city:

      A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.

      B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second millennium BCE.

      C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.

      D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under the Sasanids.

      E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and introduce a Syrian one.

      F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.

      G. There is an Iraqi claim to Jerusalem based on the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, as well as perhaps the rule of the Ayyubids (Saladin’s dynasty), who were Kurds from Iraq.

      9. Of course, Jews are historically connected to Jerusalem by the Temple, whenever that connection is dated to. But that link mostly was pursued when Jews were not in political control of the city, under Iranian, Greek and Roman rule. It cannot therefore be deployed to make a demand for political control of the whole city.

      10. The Jews of Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine did not for the most part leave after the failure of the Bar Kochba revolt against the Romans in 136 CE. They continued to live there and to farm in Palestine under Roman rule and then Byzantine. They gradually converted to Christianity. After 638 CE all but 10 percent gradually converted to Islam. The present-day Palestinians are the descendants of the ancient Jews and have every right to live where their ancestors have lived for centuries.”

      http://www.juancole.com/2010/03/top-ten-reasons-east-jerusalem-does-not.html

      • MHughes976
        January 3, 2017, 3:58 pm

        Everyone in relevant ancient times knew that Jerusalem was not of Israelite or Jewish origins – and people thought origins important. Jewish theologians accepted that Jerusalem was first known as the capital of the non-Jewish priest-king Melchizedek (Gen.14), servant of God Most High, whose role descended to the priests who anointed the Kings of Judah, themselves not of pure Israelite blood but specially linked with the city by God’s decree. There was always a sense in which non-Jews had a place in Jerusalem, which is recognised in the Temple”s role as house of prayer for all nations.

      • talknic
        January 3, 2017, 11:29 pm

        It doesn’t belong to non-Jewish Israelis either.

      • Marnie
        January 4, 2017, 12:19 am

        Thanks for this link and the final reference to Bar Kochba.

    • Talkback
      January 3, 2017, 10:53 am

      @Bar Kochbar

      > “Jews have always lived in the region.”

      So did Nonjews.

      > Jerusalem has only ever been the capital of a state 3 times, all 3 times Jewish.

      Jerusalem was also the capital city of the mandated State of Palestine.

      > 1937 saw the Peel plan recommendation for division, rejected by the Arabs.

      Now why would a country’s majority allow the violation of their country’s territorial integrity and the “cumpolsary transfer” of people? Would Israeli Jews allow this?

      > Talking of Nazis, why did the grand Mufti of Jerusalem live in Berlin during the war?

      He thought that the Nazis would win and then help Palestinians with their national inspirations (and against Zionism). That’s the same reason why the Jewish terror organisation Lehi contaced the Nazis to ally with them.

      > The photos of Israelis using skunk may be unpleasant but no one has died of it, …”

      I guess it’s ok for you, if nonlethal,disgusting chemicals are used against Jews, too.

      “I have visited Israel and stayed in some pretty nice hotels where the inhabitants are very religious Jews and Moslems (they both come from Abraham) and they get on absolutely fine.”

      Before Zionism: The shared life of Jews and Palestinians
      https://972mag.com/before-zionism-the-shared-life-of-jews-and-palestinians/118408/

      > Given the rumoured Nukes, planes, tanks and so forth Israel has to be in the Guinness Book of records for the worst attempt of Genocide since Fluffy the rabbit.

      You obviously don’t understand the definition of Genocide.

      > the good news is that Jew-Haters now talk about constraining settlements now not the sea flowing with Jewish blood – so progress at last.

      The bad news is that Nonjew-Haters think that the job of “flowing the sea” with Nonjewish “blood” is unfinished.

      > In perspective, the rumoured numbers of deaths by these Zionists is less than Lawnmowers kill in the USA in a year. ”

      Oh, so its ok to kill Jews, too, as long as it is not more than 20,000 in one go?

      > As regards 1937 division refusal – 80 years – in your comfy armchair and typing on a web site is easy to State “quite-right” don’t settle for it… After all it is better to stand by principles than resolve anything ever…”

      How about the century long refusal of Zionists to allow Palestine to be the country of its citizens and instead aiming of taking over the whole country and either dominating or getting rid of its majority? Is that your solution?

    • Mooser
      January 3, 2017, 2:33 pm

      “Forgive my challenging the grain (I guess this will get deleted).” “Bar Kochbars”

      What a surprising and original opening gambit. Never seen a Zionist open a comment that way before.

      • MHughes976
        January 3, 2017, 5:13 pm

        Well, we do still have a rule against Nakba denial, which I have always understood as a rule against Nakba justification, which I think is what’s going on here..

      • RoHa
        January 4, 2017, 5:38 pm

        I’m not sure it is wise to conflate “It didn’t happen” with “It happened, and a jolly good thing, too!”

    • Tom Suarez
      January 5, 2017, 3:46 pm

      Hello Bar Kochbar,
      By stating that the Palestinians rejected the Peel Commission’s partition, you imply that the Zionists accepted it. Forget for the moment that the Peel Commission had no more moral or legal right deciding Palestine’s future than I have deciding your future, the Zionist absolutely rejected the Peel Commission’s proposal because it did not give them all of Palestine. To anyone who states otherwise, asked them what it means to “accept” the proposal. It was all smoke and mirrors: some “agreed” to the plan, without agreeing to the borders. They agreed only to the population transfer. In truth, did any Zionist leaders agree to the Peel Commission plan? Absolutely not.

  16. jaypali
    January 2, 2017, 8:37 pm

    Hi does any one have an email for Tom Suarez?I would love to ask him questions about the 1929 Hebron massacre. Perhaps it was zionists who convinced Palestinians in hebron that Palestinians were being massacred in Jerusalem.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 2, 2017, 9:02 pm

      you can ask him a question right here jay — he will likely read it.

      what did you think of Tom’s article:

      First-hand accounts of Zionist settlement in Palestine had already painted a picture of violent racial displacement. I will cite one of the lesser known reports, by Dr. Paul Nathan, a prominent Jewish leader in Berlin, who went to Palestine on behalf of the German Jewish National Relief Association. He was so horrified by what he found that he published a pamphlet in January, 1914, in which he described the Zionist settlers as carrying on

      a campaign of terror modelled almost on Russian pogrom models.

      • yonah fredman
        January 2, 2017, 10:02 pm

        Never heard of Paul Nathan before and it seems he was referring to intra Jewish tensions over language. The clear implication here was that the violence was focused on arabs, but as far as I could tell from the times archive article it was a language war between jews that occasioned his statement.

      • lonely rico
        January 3, 2017, 7:11 pm

        “The growth of Fascism in Palestine at a time when the liberated nations will put it into its grave is a tragi-comedy”
        Physicist Wolfgang Yourgrau, a German Jew who emigrated to Palestine but left in 1948, in the journal Orient, February 1943
        [From Suarez’ book.]

        Israel not yet liberated from tragi-comic (not much comedy for the last 70 years) cruel insanity.

    • Tom Suarez
      January 2, 2017, 11:00 pm

      Hello Jaypali, thank you for the posting. I have no information regarding the origin of the (false) rumor that Palestinians were being massacred, that allegedly precipitated the infamous Hebron massacre. While it would indeed be interesting to know what did cause that deadly rumor, my guess is that it was all too easy for such a rumor to arise spontaneously, without any conspiracy.

      • Jackdaw
        January 6, 2017, 8:31 am

        @Tom Suarez

        “While it would indeed be interesting to know what did cause that deadly rumor, my guess is that it was all too easy for such a rumor to arise spontaneously, without any conspiracy ”

        Doctored photographs claiming to show that the al Aqsa mosque had been bombed by Jews, precipitated the Hevron Massacre.

        http://en.hebron.org.il/history/199

        Obviously, the massacre was well planned and organized.

        Tom. You stepped in dog poo, and you’re tracking it all over Mondoweiss. Stop embarrassing yourself and the editors.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 6, 2017, 11:10 am

        Stop embarrassing yourself and the editors.

        he’s not embarrassing himself in the least, and as a mondoweiss editor i can assure you he’s not embarrassing me.

        about your link jack, do you know what “first-hand testimony” means. seriously, are you insinuating the text at your link was witnessed by the author? i’d say that sounds rather impossible.

      • Jackdaw
        January 6, 2017, 2:35 pm

        @Annie

        Pierre Van Paassen was a journalist who covered the pogroms in Hebron and Jerusalem. He was an eyewitness to the carnage.

        https://www.amazon.com/Days-our-years-Pierre-Paassen/dp/B0006AOVWM

        Now you are embarrassing YOUR self.

      • gamal
        January 6, 2017, 6:48 pm

        Dear Mr. Suarez

        972 mag had a Hillel Cohen piece that i thought was interesting for a number of reasons about 1929 in Palestine.

        https://972mag.com/what-the-1929-palestine-riots-teach-us-about-todays-violence/112830/

      • echinococcus
        January 7, 2017, 4:52 am

        Hey Jack,

        Who invited the armed invaders to make themselves comfortable in El-Khaleel? The local Palestinian population?

        No sense in asking any other question.

    • Dan
      January 4, 2017, 7:44 am

      I believe Yonah is correct.
      It appears the Nathan pamphlet reported on a dispute over German vs.
      Hebrew as the language of instruction at technical schools that were being established.
      He advocated for German while many in the local community insisted on Hebrew.
      He was condemning protests and actions against the organizers of the school, not against the local Arab community. Also, his allegations were challenged at the time.

      https://books.google.com/booksid=5REDeI6_QQkC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=dr+paul+nathan+pamphlet&source=bl&ots=G416pd_P8r&sig=NJ8QacB_J3NHnzZv6LNnvHX9VsU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc8PGdy6PRAhUDOiYKHd68BxUQ6AEIMzAH#v=onepage&q=dr%20paul%20nathan%20pamphlet&f=false

      I also suspect that the quote isn’t by Nathan himself, but from a 1914 NYT article, reporting on the pamphlet.

      • Tom Suarez
        January 4, 2017, 4:49 pm

        Thank you Yonah & Dan, for bringing this question to my attention. I was aware of the language aspect of Nathan’s complaint, but had discerned that the “pogrom” quote had to do with the actions against Palestinians. I will review this and if I can not substantiate this will add it to errata and corrections for a possible future edition. In the larger picture, of course, the violence against non-Jews is well documented, so the correction would be simply to qualify this as Zionist vs anti-Zionist violence. I also was aware that Nathan was disputed, but, then, everyone contesting Zionism was contested.

      • RoHa
        January 4, 2017, 5:43 pm

        So it was Zionists being nasty to other, slightly less fanatical, Zionists. That will restore their good name.

      • Dan
        January 5, 2017, 6:38 am

        Tom Suarez

        What is the source of your quote?
        You discerned based on what?

        I think at the time they were all Zionists so assuming you can substantiate that there was
        any actual violence related to this dispute, it might be characterized as Zionist vs Zionist violence.
        Of course,if you can’t substantiate that, one assumes you’d report it as disputed, or as alleged.

  17. jaypali
    January 2, 2017, 9:46 pm

    Annie I thought it was excellent. I am, however , fascinated by the 1929 massacre in the sense that I can not find a single article from the palestinian perspective as to what happened that terrible day. Lots of Zionist propaganda though. I think it’s important to know everything because after that day we all know that Palestinians lost the support of the Arab Jews. Perhaps Tom has some info that can shed some light on it.

    • Sibiriak
      January 3, 2017, 11:20 am

      @jaypali

      Tom Segev (not a Palestinian source, of course) gives a detailed account of the Hebron riot in his book One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate . Imo, it lends credence to Tom Suarez’s conjecture.

      First of all, it should be noted that there was plenty enough chaotic violence in Jerusalem the day before the Hebron riot to provide an impetus for rumors of a massacre.

      Brief excerpt:

      [Tom Segev:] In the early-morning hours of Friday, August 23, 1929, thousands of Arab villagers began streaming into Jerusalem from the surrounding villages. They had come to pray at the Temple Mount; many were armed with sticks and knives, and the city was filled with a sense of tension and violence. Harry Luke, as acting high commissioner, requested reinforcements from Amman. Toward 9: 30 the Jewish merchants began closing their stores. About an hour and a quarter later, the mufti promised the Jerusalem police commander that the worshipers were carrying sticks and knives only out of fear that the Jews might try to create some sort of provocation. When one of the preachers made a nationalist speech calling on the Islamic faithful to fight against the Jews to the last drop of their blood, mufti al-Husseini urged his community to keep the peace. 1

      At roughly 11: 00 A.M., twenty or thirty gunshots were heard on the Temple Mount, apparently intended to work up the crowd. Several hundred worshipers swarmed through the alleys of the marketplace and began attacking Jewish pedestrians. Edwin Samuel, Luke’s secretary, was in his office, not far from the Nablus Gate. The sound of the mob was indistinct and seemed to come from far away; Samuel at first thought he was hearing the buzz of a swarm of bees. 2 A crowd had gathered beneath his window. Luke quickly got the mutfi on the phone and demanded that he take control of his people. The mufti came to talk to the mob, but Luke’s impression was that the religious leader’s presence was not calming people down— in fact, it seemed to be having precisely the opposite effect. Later, the mufti explained that by the time he’d arrived, the crowd had been joined by Arabs injured by Jews, which made keeping the peace very difficult. Edwin Samuel remembered the flash of the rioters’ daggers glinting in the noonday sun. 3

      At midday, Edward Keith-Roach was on a tour of the Old City. Near the Jaffa Gate, he saw a Jew running for his life, followed by a crowd of Arab thugs waving sticks. Yitzhak Ben-Zvi also saw a man fleeing from a gang— he may have been the same one. Ben-Zvi had been sitting in the Zionist Executive office on Jaffa Street. At first he was told that the worshipers were dispersing quietly; then he heard there were problems. He rushed to the Jaffa Gate, where he met the man, bloody and injured. Before being rushed to the hospital, the man managed to tell Ben-Zvi that he had been sitting in the doorway of his son’s shop when the first of the worshipers came down from the Temple Mount and pounced on him. 4

      While this was taking place, the tensions had reached the Jewish Mea She’arim neighborhood, and two or three Arabs were murdered there. A report from the American consulate, which documented the events in nearly minute-by-minute detail, determined that the killings occurred between 12: 00 and 12: 30. Afterward there was much controversy over whether the day’s first victims had been Jews or Arabs. 5

      Violence spread quickly throughout most of the city and into its suburbs. [p. 315 ]

    • Sibiriak
      January 3, 2017, 11:23 am

      (Cont.)

      Segev gives this account of the massacre rumors being spread in Hebron:

      At 2: 45 [Raymond Cafferata, British Police Superintendent in charge at Hebron] reported nothing unusual, but having heard of the trouble in Jerusalem, he decided at 3: 00 to station three of his men at the outskirts of the town; their task was to search for weapons in the cars coming back from prayers in Jerusalem. The passengers who stopped spoke of what was going on there, and the rumor that Jews were killing Arabs spread quickly.

      People soon began gathering at the municipal bus station, intending to travel to Jerusalem. One man, Sheikh Talib Markha, made a speech. Cafferata went to the station to persuade the crowd that the rumors were baseless; as he approached, Sheikh Markha fell silent. Everything was quiet in Jerusalem, Cafferata lied, estimating the crowd at around seven hundred. He sent some men to patrol the Jewish houses and went along as well, taking eight mounted policemen with him. Cafferata noted that many Jews were standing on their roofs or balconies. He ordered them into their homes, but they ignored him. [emphasis added] [p. 319]

      The fact that many of the Arab Palestinian rioters were from villages outside of Hebron also suggests the rumors were not product of a Zionist conspiracy since it is doubtful that Jewish Zionists had the necessary presence in those villages to spread rumors.

    • Sibiriak
      January 3, 2017, 11:25 am

      (cont.)

      Fwiw, after giving accounts of the killings and terrible atrocities, Segev provides this overview of the events:

      Sixty-seven Jews had been killed. Most were Ashkenazic men, but there were also a dozen women and three children under the age of five among the dead. Seven of the victims were yeshiva students from the United States and Canada. Dozens of people had been wounded, about half of them women, and quite a few children, including a one-year-old boy whose parents had both been murdered. The American consulate reported that nine Arabs had been killed. 20 The Hebron Jews were buried in mass graves; the survivors, including the wounded, were taken to Jerusalem.

      * * * * *

      David Ben-Gurion compared the massacre in Hebron to the Kishinev pogrom, and he would later use the Nazi expression Judenrein to describe Hebron after the Jews left. “The pogrom was committed by Hebron’s Arab masses,” wrote Rehavam Ze’evi, who edited a book on the event. “All the Arabs of Hebron did this,” he noted, “[ w] ith the exception of individuals who provided shelter for their Jewish neighbors.” He added the Hebron massacre to the historic roster of anti-Jewish persecutions. “Pogroms, slaughters, and massacres have been part of our nation’s history in their Diaspora and now this horrifying spectacle has been repeated in the Land of Israel,” he wrote. 22 But he was wrong.

      The murder of Jews in Hebron was not a pogrom in the historic sense. Unlike attacks on the Jews of Eastern Europe, the authorities did not initiate the Hebron riots, and the police did not simply stand aside. Raymond Cafferata did his best, but the Hebron police force was just too weak to be effective. Thirty years later David Ben-Gurion wrote, “What can a lone British officer do in a city like Hebron?” He could have been writing about British rule in Palestine as a whole. The British could do very little.

      The riots struck at the professional honor of the men responsible for law and order in the country and also violated their sense of fairness. Eric Mills, assistant chief administrative secretary, said that one of the bitterest moments of his life was when he, an Englishman, saw what had happened under the British flag. At the same time, the police forces’ actions to save the Jews did not necessarily reflect sympathy for the Zionist enterprise. Cafferata wrote to his mother that he would not be surprised if there was another outbreak of violence and Palestine became a “repetition of the Irish show,” unless the government accepted some of the Arab demands. He believed the Arabs would not be satisfied with anything less than a revocation of the Balfour Declaration, and he criticized the government for refusing to do this.

      The attack on the Jews of Hebron was born of fear and hatred. The Muslims believed the Jews intended to violate the sanctity of Islam, and that the Zionists wanted to dispossess them of their country. According to the American consulate, the Jews were also murdered for economic reasons, as merchants and as moneylenders. 24 The Arabs hated them as foreigners— most had come from Europe and America. And a few probably attacked Jews out of some appetite for murder, without any clearly defined reason. Many of the rioters were not from Hebron but from the surrounding villages.

      Most of Hebron’s Jews were saved because Arabs hid them in their homes. The community confirmed this, writing, “Had it not been for a few Arab families not a Jewish soul would have remained in Hebron.” The Zionist Archives preserves lists of Hebron Jews who were saved by Arabs; one list contains 435 names. Over two-thirds of the community, then, found refuge in twenty-eight Arab homes, some of which took in dozens of Jews. “Arabs were hurt defending their neighbors,” one Jew testified afterward. Dr. Abdal Aal, an Egyptian doctor, received a letter of gratitude from Colonel Kisch for the assistance he rendered the Jews of Hebron; in addition to the care he gave the wounded, he himself protected an entire family. 25 [pp. 324-25]

      * * * * *

      The violence spread across the country; Arabs even tried to penetrate Tel Aviv. The British called in reinforcements from Egypt and Transjordan, but despite the additional forces the atrocities continued. Events in Safed were much like those in Hebron. Colonel Kisch met five girls who had seen their parents murdered. 29 Arab spokesmen reported acts of terror perpetrated by Jews, including the lynching of Arab passersby and the murder of women and children. In a few cases, the Arabs claimed, Jews attacked people who had given them refuge. The Jewish Agency investigated some of these charges and concluded that “in isolated cases” there were Jews “who shamefully went beyond the limits of self-defense.” One memorandum reporting that Jews had broken into a mosque and set sacred books on fire bears a scribbled note: “This unfortunately is true.” When the violence finally subsided, 133 Jews and 116 Arabs were dead: 339 Jews and 232 Arabs were injured. 30

      (pp 326-327)

    • Annie Robbins
      January 6, 2017, 11:39 am

      after that day we all know that Palestinians lost the support of the Arab Jews

      i didn’t know that.

      I can not find a single article from the palestinian perspective

      that’s interesting. have you tried googling in arabic?

  18. JLewisDickerson
    January 2, 2017, 10:09 pm

    RE: “In 1946, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Yitzhak Herzog, conducted a massive kidnapping operation of Jewish orphans that had been adopted by European families when their parents perished years earlier… Herzog’s justification for the kidnappings was that for a Jew to be raised in a non-Jewish home is ‘much worse than physical murder’.” ~ Suárez

    MY COMMENT: That was certainly a very Masada-like (i.e., death cult-like) sentiment on Herzog’s part!
    Sadly, I can’t help but recall that Goebbels and his wife so loved their six children that they decided to “euthanize” (i.e., poison) them so as to spare them the misery of having to grow up without the benefit(s) of National Socialism (and absent the tutelage of “Uncle” Adolph). Now, that’s real ‘brand loyalty’ for you!

    • JLewisDickerson
      January 3, 2017, 10:28 pm

      Goebbels Biography (the goebbels experiment)
      289,048 views
      1,017 60
      Published on Jul 18, 2012
      Fantastic documentary on the life of Goebbels based on his diaries.

      IMDb:
      The Goebbels Experiment (2005) 7.4/10 863
      Das Goebbels-Experiment (original title)
      1h 48min | Documentary, Biography, History | 13 April 2005 (Germany)
      Through archival footage and dramatic readings of his personal writings, the life of Nazi Germany’s Propaganda Minister, Josef Goebbels, is examined.
      LINK – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458375/

      MOVIES | FILM REVIEW
      “From the Revealing Journals of a Propaganda Mastermind”
      By Jeannette Catsoulis | NYTimes | August 12, 2005
      LINK – http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/movies/from-the-revealing-journals-of-a-propaganda-mastermind.html

      NETFLIX DVD:
      The Goebbels Experiment
      2005 NR Rated NR1hr 47m
      Average of 193473 ratings: 3.5 stars
      Reading from the diaries kept by Third Reich propagandist Joseph Goebbels between 1924 and 1945, Kenneth Branagh brings the infamous Nazi spin doctor to life, all the way up to his suicide at the end of World War II. Using this primary source material as their canvas, filmmakers Lutz Hachmeister and Michael Kloft paint a portrait of a 20th century figure who was sometimes a success, sometimes a failure and always fascinating.
      LINK – https://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/The-Goebbels-Experiment/70041019

  19. Sibiriak
    January 3, 2017, 12:09 am

    @Tom Suarez

    I’d love to buy the book. Do you know if it will be coming out in Kindle or other eBook form?

    • Talkback
      January 3, 2017, 10:10 am

      +1

    • John O
      January 3, 2017, 11:23 am

      Yes. Kindle edition available at Amazon UK at a very good price.

      • Sibiriak
        January 4, 2017, 2:51 am

        Thanks! I’m going to buy the book. I log in. I select the Kindle version.

        Oh noooooo!!

        “Kindle Edition This title is available to UK customers only.”

      • John O
        January 4, 2017, 1:09 pm

        @Sibiriak

        Oh, dear. Must be the first known case of UK exceptionalism.

  20. Rashers2
    January 3, 2017, 1:13 am

    Further; later. First, congratulations on to Mr. Suarez on one of the best articles/addresses I’ve read courtesy of MW; and thanks to Baroness Tonge for providing Tom Suarez with an appropriate platform for his speech.

  21. Ossinev
    January 3, 2017, 5:25 am

    @BarKochbar
    “Finally, Israel is the size of El Salvador, has a population in excess of Sweden and Wales combined complete with motorways, universities, hospitals, cities”

    What is with you ZioLoons and this fixation with Wales.Have the Welsh shown themselves to be specifically Anti-Zio? It is usually “Israel a country the size of Wales”. Now it is the Welsh population combined FFS with the population of Sweden and the Israeli population (presumably including the 20% and growing!!! Arab Israeli population) being in excess of this combined population. And WTF does being complete with motorways,universities,hospitals.cities (you forgot MacDonalds and Burger Kings although to be fair you did mention skunk water ) got to do with anything.

    You should really get out more

  22. Sisyphus
    January 3, 2017, 5:11 pm

    Suarez delivered an impressive conference. Riveting reading.
    I just asked my local library to purchase Suarez’s book.
    The conference he gave alludes to so many things. The recent release of information from the British archives is adding material to this ongoing discussion. I am interested in looking as Suarez’s footnotes with the aim of confirming the documentation that supports his text.
    Can anyone confirm that his facts are checked or “checkable” – or simply that there are footnotes?

    I’ve been reading news stories from Mondoweiss and the comments section for a couple of years and am impressed by the lucidity of the observations and the determination to fight the good fight. I find it all very encouraging that the people left in the ‘ditch’ that Suarez mentions are acknowledged and supported. Thank you.

    • Mooser
      January 3, 2017, 9:08 pm

      “Can anyone confirm that his facts are checked or “checkable”

      The website for the book is linked in the first (italic) paragraph of the post.

    • JLewisDickerson
      January 3, 2017, 9:56 pm

      ■ Amazon.com: “Masters of Discourse” eBook by Israel Shamir $0.99
      LINK – https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002XQ1OV8

      Masters of Discourse Kindle Edition (PRICE: $0.99)
      by Israel Shamir (Author)

      Welcome to the new world order, where mass media, a fully integrated public-opinion-forming machine of mind control had rendered the Left and Right obsolete and subservient to Zionism. Who are the people who own and operate this machine? Are they actually the Jewish Lobby? No, says Shamir. The formidable Jewish Lobby is just the visible tip of the iceberg, while below there are miles and miles of solid ice: media lords, chief editors, their favourite university pundits – in short, the Masters of Discourse In this third volume of his writing, Israel Shamir travels around the world to find the reason for their captive hold over our thinking.

      About the Author
      Israel Adam Shamir is a leading Israeli writer and intellectual turned dissident. He served as paratrooper in the army and fought in the 1973 war, has reported for the Haaretz, the BBC, and major media. He was a parliamentary spokesman for the Israeli Socialist Party, but later became disenchanted with Zionism. He called for dismantling the exclusivist Jewish State, and for full equality of a Jew and Gentile in all of Palestine/Israel. He was received in the Orthodox Church of the Holy Land in 2003, after being baptized by Archbishop Theodosius Attala Hanna. His books Galilee Flowers and Cabbala of Power were published in many languages and countries. He also translated the Renaissance Jewish chronics The Book of Lineage and the Odyssey of Homer. He is hailed as one of the great humanists of our time. Shamir’s website is http://www.israelshamir.net . He lives in the mixed Jewish-Arab town of Jaffa on the Mediterranean shore described in his stories. Shamir (60) is father of three sons.

      Product Details
      File Size: 1708 KB
      Print Length: 698 pages
      Page Numbers Source ISBN: 1419692437
      Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
      Publisher: BookSurge Publishing (May 14, 2008)
      Publication Date: May 14, 2008
      Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
      Language: English
      ASIN: B002XQ1OV8
      Text-to-Speech: Enabled
      X-Ray:
      Not Enabled
      Word Wise: Enabled
      Lending: Enabled
      Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
      Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #116,220 Paid in Kindle Store

    • Tom Suarez
      January 6, 2017, 2:29 pm

      Hello Sisyphus,
      Thanks — I have tried to cite the source material as specifically as possible. Due to the nature of the source documents, it is rarely as easy as a citation in published material, since they are generally collected documents not numbered or in any clear order. But if you can get to the National Archives, the folder citations are clear.

  23. yonah fredman
    January 3, 2017, 5:52 pm

    This piece is propaganda. The choir cheers. But it does not stand up to analysis.

    Try this paragraph:
    Indeed, most Jews and Jewish leaders dismissed Zionism as the latest anti-Semitic cult. They had fought for equality, and resented being told that they should now make a new ghetto—and worse yet, to do so on other people’s land. They resented being cast as a separate race of people as Zionism demanded. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/terrorism-israeli-state/#sthash.FG6A2UnR.dpuf

    Maybe this is true for British Jewry and maybe American Jewry. (Even regarding British Jews and American Jews, the language of antisemitic cult is certainly anachronistic.) But in 1897 the majority of Jews did not live in free societies, they lived under the rule of the Russian Czar. These Jews might have wished for equality rather than what most considered a quixotic quest for an opportunity to rule themselves, but they were still in a ghetto (the Pale of Settlement) and the opposition of most of their leaders (religious leaders) was based upon quietism, not rocking the boat, and had nothing to do with opposition to being viewed as a separate people, which indeed the majority of rabbis did view themselves. As far as “worse yet, on other people’s land”, this is clearly an anachronistic imagination by Mister Suarez, the idea of colonialism was still riding sufficiently high in 1897 that the concern for the rights of the indigenous certainly was not their first concern, even if we might wish to imagine their moral sensibilities being ahead of their time rather than of their time.

    No, Mister Suarez is basing these supposed thoughts upon an imagination of British Jewry, which was a small percentage of world Jewry and in fact putting his own thoughts in their minds and mouths.

    That the House of Lords would put up with listening to Mister Suarez is a testament either to the patience and politeness of the House of Lords or to their apathy and ignorance.

    • Mooser
      January 3, 2017, 7:52 pm

      . “But it does not stand up to analysis.”

      Your comment stands up to 8 clicks of the wheel. But that’s about it.

      (And BTW, sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “Na-na, I can’t hear you!” is not exactly “analysis”, “Yonah”)

    • RoHa
      January 3, 2017, 8:56 pm

      And do you also deny the continual terrorism?

    • yonah fredman
      January 4, 2017, 2:26 am

      Zionism was based upon the Jewish will towards self rule in a specific place, viewing the natives as obstacles. It took advantage of the last gasp of British colonialism. The big dreamers saw the necessity of exiling populations, which in itself is an act of violence against civilians.

      The acceptance of the necessity of violence was essential. How do you unleash violence and then rein it in? There is no formula .

      The haavara agreement certainly causes discomfort. I’m not enough of a historian to assess the possible success of the boycott to assess the damage done to the cause by the agreement.

      My current frame of mind attempts to follow yeshayahu leibowitz ‘s logic. Accepting the very human Jewish urge to self rule, recognizing that violence was necessary, but ultimately was used carelessly by early israel, but the true catastrophe is the occupation, rather specifically the west bank.

      When I grew up there were riots in Detroit in 67, and h. Rap Brown said, “violence is as american as cherry pie.” I’d say that violence is part and parcel of history. The urge to self rule occurred at a time of great tumult and violence in eastern europe and the move to self rule in that spot there, entailed violence and keeping that violence measured was never an easy proposition. The capturing of the west bank with its allure for settlers without giving citizenship to those already there was a gross error.

      I try to imagine a history without the nakba, but the only way I can write it out is by editing out hitler as well. A gradual increase in population could have created a Jewish homeland without full statehood, more coexistence and less violence. But history is a given and the tumult of 47 to 48 was a direct result of ww2. (33 to 45)

      • Annie Robbins
        January 4, 2017, 3:10 am

        yonah, ultimately violence was not used “carelessly” by early zionists, it was used deliberately with great calculation.

      • eljay
        January 4, 2017, 9:38 am

        || yonah fredman: … the true catastrophe is the occupation, rather specifically the west bank. … ||

        What a lovely way to sanitize the catastrophes of:
        – the terrorism committed by Jews;
        – the ethnic cleansing committed by Jews;
        – the establishment of a religion-supremacist state by Jews;
        – the decades (and counting) of oppression, torture and murder committed by Jews; or
        – the refusal by Jews to allow non-Jewish refugees to return to their homes and lands.

        It’s like sanitizing the kidnapping, imprisonment, beatings and rape – all very human urges to self-determine – by focusing on the “true catastrophe” of a dirty mattress and tight shackles.

      • Mooser
        January 4, 2017, 12:27 pm

        “Zionism was based upon the Jewish will towards self rule in a specific place,”

        Yes, a regular ‘triumph of the will’, wasn’t it, “Yonah”?

      • Mooser
        January 4, 2017, 1:00 pm

        “Yonah” can we clear up one point? Do you contend that Zionism, allowing a Jewish State is a moral obligation on the part of the world? Something they owe us? (And what is our part in the moral bargain? Or is there ‘no strings attached’)

        Or is Zionism, the Jewish will to power, something the world must accept (and if they’re smart, cooperate with) because of the Jewish power to impose it, to establish and maintain a state? And Judaism’s burgeoning numbers and power?

        Or do you intend to cycle back and forth between triumphalism and victimology at 60 Herzls per second?

      • yonah fredman
        January 5, 2017, 2:11 am

        Mooser, you asked a serious question, but you are not a serious person. How should I respond?

      • Mooser
        January 5, 2017, 3:43 pm

        “Mooser you asked a serious question”

        And here it is, shorn of any ornamental verbiage:

        Do you intend to cycle back and forth between triumphalism and victimology?”

        How should I respond?”

        Simple “aye” or “nay” will do it, “Yonah”. Or feel free to comment at length. You be serious, and I’ll be Roebucks. We’ll start a store.

      • RoHa
        January 5, 2017, 6:46 pm

        Seriously.

        Mooser believes that a spoonful of humour helps the medicine go down, but he wears not motley in his brain. He has enough wit to tell a hawk from a handsaw, and a deep moral concern for humanity. His comments mix subtle insights with pointed criticism, sometimes in plain text, sometimes wrapped in jokes. He takes the role of a jester, a fool who speaks wisely of what “wise” men do foolishly. That is serious business.

    • Sibiriak
      January 4, 2017, 2:32 am

      yonah fredman: This piece is propaganda.

      —————

      No, it’s an anti-Zionist polemic. A prosecutorial case. The most damning facts and interpretations are laid out, along with illustrative exhibits. A prosecutor is under no obligation to dwell on complicating factors, confusing details or exculpatory evidence. One-sidedness is a prosecutorial virtue, not a vice.

      It’s up to others such as yourself to take up the defense, if you so wish. You seem to have made a good start.

  24. john_manyjars
    January 3, 2017, 6:34 pm

    ….I can’t even begin….and we spend billions of our taxes and squander our global reputation to support this. Thank you for this, will forward as much as I can.

  25. xanadou
    January 3, 2017, 8:11 pm

    Many thanks to Tom Suarez for this brilliant, yet simply told, horrific history lesson. I have, of course, reposted this article to my blog. Have just ordered the book, too.

    Holy Mother… Lawrrd have mercy…. Like most, I have had a faint idea of the underlying deep sea of blood in which the vampiric state of israel has been created and in which it still stands. But the numbers, the horrific, centuries-long history that makes the oft-mentioned last 50 years into a ghastly and bitter joke…. I had no idea.

    The true Jewish Holocaust is clearly centuries old; a creation by a minority of generations of pathocrats who called themselves Jews, but who have lived separate and unequal lives away from their coreligionist useful idiots huddled in ghettoes and oblivious of the real world outside their prison walls. Present-day israel is clearly a walled-in massive ghetto full of contemporary useful idiots, esp. the settlers who confirm the existence and efficacy of the indoctrination that, not so long ago, had created terrorist bombers out of 12-year-old little girls.

    I hope this article and book will find its way to the German govt’l hierarchy who must stop guilt-ridding themselves and immediately cease the insane funding of the genocidal israeli fascists. Now would also be a good time for the US to try and revoke the Memorandum of Understanding that is expected to keep israel going for at least another decade.

    I hope that the True Believers of Judaism will find a way to permanently separate themselves from their self-appointed monstrous masters. Judaism is a religion; a Jew is one who identifies with the religious tenets, not the political indoctrination and ab-use.

    I hope that the jurists of the forthcoming case to be tried by the ICC will have a chance to read the book before the case comences. Knowledge of the true history of “israel” and Palestine is essential to grasp the unfathomable cruelty of the last too many decades that promise an eternity of more of the same.

  26. The Hasbara Buster
    January 3, 2017, 9:42 pm

    On the subject of Jewish terror, I once wrote a post debunking three commonly-made claims, and then a further post debunking yet another claim. Basically, Jews mass-murdered Arabs in terror attacks, celebrated their own terrorists and continue to celebrate them to this day.

  27. Shingo
    January 3, 2017, 10:22 pm

    Thanks you for this extraordinary article. I have had to ready it a number of times just to get my head around this explosive content.

    If this is based on declassified data, it boggles the mind what the still classified sources would reveal.

    I thought I had heard it all and that nothing could surprise me about the evils of Zionism but this has even shocked me.

  28. mcohen.
    January 4, 2017, 2:38 am

    was general custer

    1.a freedom fighter
    2.a terrorist
    3.an imperial enforcer
    4.related to bibi

    • Mooser
      January 4, 2017, 12:19 pm

      “was general custer”

      And how did things work out for Custer?

      • mcohen.
        January 4, 2017, 3:33 pm

        See mooser

        Made you take the blue pill.

      • gamal
        January 6, 2017, 7:49 pm

        “work out for Custer?”

        like the Jews emphasise hubris gets you every time, have you noticed how the msm is trying to provoke race war, everything gone helter-skelter, in Europe its refugees raping white women and groping Aryan thighs, Isis Islam encroaching everywhere, if you think Arabs are naive like Native Americans, take a deep breath we fight over millennia, our papers are in order too, whats wrong with Americans? you in a Margherita haze?

  29. Kay24
    January 4, 2017, 6:26 am

    So the soldier that assassinated a Palestinian who lay wounded on the street has been found guilty of manslaughter (should have been a more harsher charge). The judge apparently did not buy the excuses.

    “An Israeli soldier who killed a wounded Palestinian in the West Bank city of Hebron in March last year has been found guilty of manslaughter at the end of one of the country’s most polarising court cases in recent memory.

    A military court sitting in Tel Aviv ruled that Sgt Elor Azaria, who was 19 at the time, had acted outside the army’s rules of engagement when he killed Abdel Fattah al-Sharif, shortly after Sharif and another Palestinian had stabbed and wounded a solider at an Israeli military checkpoint.

    The other Palestinian involved in the knife attack was shot and died immediately, but Sharif was alive when Azaria killed him. Accounts of the incident given by Azaria were “unreliable and problematic” and his defence contradictory and flawed, the court said.

    Prosecutors had called for Azaria to be charged with murder but instead settled on a lesser charge of manslaughter, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. Sentencing is expected in about a month and Azaria is likely to appeal.”

    Chances are he will get away after a very lenient sentence.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/04/israeli-soldier-guilty-manslaughter-shooting-palestinian-elor-azaria-abdel-fattah-al-sharif

  30. Ossinev
    January 4, 2017, 6:28 am

    @YonahFriedman
    “Accepting the very human Jewish urge to self rule”

    I am a lapsed Christian now a practising atheist. I recently have developed this insatiable urge to self rule. I have spoken to a number of other atheists and they confirm that they are having the same urges. We have scanned the globe and we all agree that our chosen location for this self rule should be Luxembourg. The only problem of course is that the location is full of native Luxemburgians the vast majority of whom are non atheist. Not to worry – we will simply push these unclean believers aside. After all we are the Chosen atheists.

    This urge to self rule could go viral. Who next – Pagans , Scientologists , Monster Raving Loonies. Just a question of identifying a suitable location, adding a fairy tale connection giving you the right of abode , , infiltrating the corridors of power and the media in the US and Europe ( lots of serious money helps ) and off you go.

    • catalan
      January 4, 2017, 10:40 am

      “This urge to self rule could go viral”. Ossinev
      I think that it was more of an urge to live away from people like yourself. Relatable, even for me, though I just made it to New Mexico (much better than any European country for Jews).

    • echinococcus
      January 4, 2017, 10:55 am

      What with the speedy nosedive in Catholicism in Luxemburg, Atheism must already have reached majority status there. You wouldn’t want to self-determine in your fellow Atheist’s home, now, would you? Why not choose Saudi or the US of A?

    • Eva Smagacz
      January 4, 2017, 2:03 pm

      I always had this urge to self-rule in Iraq, between Tigris and Euphrates rivers, where Bible says Eden was located. My name, Eva, and my religion, Christianity, make me a paid up member of “urge” brigade.

    • yonah fredman
      January 5, 2017, 2:09 am

      In 1881 or 1897 or 1917 what percentage of Russians or poles or Ukrainians or Hungarians or Romanians said about the jews living in their geographic neighborhood, “They are of the same nation as us, they only pray to God differently than us.” Very few. The nations considered the jews a nation apart. Jews who moved to the US were in a different category, because there was a separation of church and state in the constitution of the US and an aspiration for such enlightenment elsewhere in the west. In the east, not so.

      So play your games of anti historical analogies, the choir will cheer you on, but as soon as you are ready to deal with history rather than your college dorm nonsense let me know.

      • Maghlawatan
        January 5, 2017, 10:03 am

        Israeli Jews today are so different to European Jews in 1917 or 1881 as to have virtually nothing in common. Compare how the 2 groups are and were educated. Israelis are brainwashed.

      • Mooser
        January 5, 2017, 3:35 pm

        . “Jews who moved to the US were in a different category, because there was a separation of church and state in the constitution of the US”

        And think how much that principle could have done for Israel, “Yonah”!

        “but as soon as you are ready to deal with history”

        Okay, then, let’s start. How do you intend to keep world Jewry supporting and even allying in criminality with intransigent Zionism? Why should Jews have to put up with that crap? How you intend to keep people in Israel as conditions get worse? You wouldn’t stay there, as I recall.

        Or did you mean by “history” Israel’s founding documents and borders? Or perhaps the history in the article?

      • RoHa
        January 5, 2017, 8:19 pm

        “The nations considered the jews a nation apart.”

        So how does that justify Zionism? Spell out the moral argument for us.

      • yonah fredman
        January 5, 2017, 9:30 pm

        Roha- as far as Zionism goes, the urge towards self rule does not suffice, because the oppressing nation or the nation that refused to recognize the Jews as one with the rest of the nation, did not have to pay a price for their treating them as “other” and instead it was the Palestinians who were not involved in European “otherness ideation” who paid the price for the “they are not of us” attitude of eastern Europe, so there is no justification (that I cited) for the specific place that zionism focused upon.

        but it is juvenile and puerile to compare the nationalism or urge to self rule of 1897 eastern (and central) european jewry to 2017 when someone who lives in a multicultural society stops believing in a belief that is no longer a key tenet of the society (or even if it is a key tenet, the belief does not cause the majority to relate to the disbeliever as other in his ethnicity but strictly other in terms of belief. ) 2017 britain or US or Australia has an openness to multiple ethnicities, let alone deviant belief systems, that does not at all describe the situation of the Jews in Eastern Europe in 1897. (The Jews were considered, “not one of us” by those nations and thus the urge to self rule is not some silliness, but serious business, resulting from serious exclusion which the excluding people or nations concocted through ideas that they based on nationalism.)

      • Bumblebye
        January 6, 2017, 4:33 am

        yonah, hadn’t jewish leaders themselves negotiated that strange position of being a nation within a nation for themselves in order to keep control of their fellow jews, in order to apply their verdion of religious laws over their lives and behavior? and in order to be able to keep the real state authorities from being able to scrutinise jewish business? don’t blame thr neighbors for a situation they didn’t make.

        where do you get off with this “deviant belief systems?! what kind of arbiter are you?

      • RoHa
        January 6, 2017, 8:56 am

        “as far as Zionism goes, the urge towards self rule does not suffice, ”

        Then “accepting ” that urge seems morally questionable.

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2017, 12:12 pm

        ““The nations considered the jews a nation apart.”

        While every other nation, race and creed basked in the universal acceptance and love the human condition distributes so bountifully.
        Everybody was “in with the in crowd”, except us poor Jews.

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2017, 12:29 pm

        “the urge towards self rule does not suffice, because the oppressing nation or the nation that refused to recognize the Jews as one with the rest of the nation, did not have to pay a price for their treating them as “other”

        Ummm, “Yonah”, if the Jews want to make the “oppressing nation” “pay a price”, we have two choices; we can chuck a few of those illegal nuclear weapons at them, or we Jews can have a lot more babies, enough to boss the world around.

        So that is our big Jewish accomplishment, we made the Palestinians “pay a price”? Oh, how the world will admire us.
        Oh brave new world, that has such screechers in it. The Jews are gonna make them “pay a price”.

  31. Sibiriak
    January 4, 2017, 9:13 am

    Tom Suarez: Bigots were Zionism’s avid fans—it was the anti-Semites who championed the Zionists.
    —————–

    I thought there were a few philo-Semites championing Zionism as well; not to mention a smattering of Christian Zionists; a few calculating British imperialists too. I even read somewhere that there was some genuine concern about anti-Semitism, Russian pogroms and the like… hmmm….

    Gertrude Bell, the famous English writer, traveler, archaeologist, and spy, reported, based on her personal experience, that those who supported Zionism did so because it provided a way to get rid of Jews.

    Well, if Gertrude Bell said it, that settles the matter.

    • Mooser
      January 4, 2017, 12:29 pm

      “I even read somewhere that there was some genuine concern about anti-Semitism, Russian pogroms and the like… hmmm…. “

      By Palestinians?

      • Sibiriak
        January 4, 2017, 7:17 pm

        No, dear Mooser, the Palestinians were not among those “championing Zionism.”

        They preferred not have their land stolen, their national aspirations crushed, and their lives made a nightmare by ethnic cleansing, massacres and terror.

        But we knew that, didn’t we??

    • Tom Suarez
      January 4, 2017, 4:57 pm

      Hello Sibiriak,
      I am not sure your point. No one, neither I nor anyone in these postings ever suggested that there was not horrific anti-Semitism in Europe and Russia. There is a rather stark non-sequitur here…
      The Palestinians were not responsible for European anti-Semitism. Many Jews had gone to the Middle East to get away from such persecution. But Zionists [1] exploited this anti-Semitism, and [2] did not go to Palestine as equals, but a usurpers.

      • Tom Suarez
        January 5, 2017, 3:53 am

        (Apologies, my previous comment should have been addressed to Mooser, not Sibiriak)

      • Jackdaw
        January 5, 2017, 12:37 pm

        @Tom Suarez

        ” What was the Jewish Agency’s reaction to the most terrible enemy Jewry has ever known? From the beginning, it was to lobby the Yishuv, the Jewish settlers, not to enlist in the Allied struggle against the Nazis, because doing so would not serve Zionism—even taking advantage of May Day 1940 to lecture the Yishuv to stay in Palestine rather than join the war effort.

        Well. Here is one of Suarez particularly vicious lies.

        The Jews of Palestine tried in vain to join the allied effort fighting at the Nazis, but as a singular, exclusive JEWISH BRIGADE!

        Eventually, after years of wartime lobbying, the British Government relented and created the Jewish Brigade, a force which saw action in Italy, albeit,late in the war.
        “Prime Minister had announced in the Commons that the Government had decided to accede to the request of the Jewish Agency for Palestine that a Jewish Brigade Group should be formed to take part in active operations ”
        http://www.newwestend.org.uk/magP02/Rothschild.htm

        “The announcement that a Jewish Brigade will fight with the British Army is welcome, if five years late. Once regrets that the British Government has been so slow to seize a great opportunity.”–The Manchester Guardian.

      • Mooser
        January 5, 2017, 4:02 pm

        “(Apologies, my previous comment should have been addressed to Mooser,”

        I thank you for the kind response, and honesty compels me to say it is I who owe the apology, as my original comment was made without fully apprehending the context at that point.

  32. Tom Suarez
    January 5, 2017, 3:59 pm

    Hello Jackdaw,
    no, sorry, you are absolutely wrong. The Jewish Agency systematically refused any assistance to the war effort, indeed hampered it for the various reasons I cite and document in the book.
    The Jewish Brigade was concocted to help the Zionists’ claim to statehood, NOT to help the war effort. It was, as military officials testified, a ploy to claim Zionist “nationality” retroactively, and to have the Allies train a professional army to return to Palestine better prepared to secure their aims by force. The Zionist insistence on a segregated army [1] robbed the Allies of these soldiers’ help until the war was almost over, and [2] made training them inefficient when in the summer of 1944 Churchill, under intense pressure from the US, caved.
    Answer this, please: Jews had always served in the Allied Forces along with everyone else… Why did the Zionists suddenly demand they serve as a segregated force, or not at all?
    You quote the zealously pro-Zionist Manchester Guardian. Here is an extract from my book:
    The NY Times as well argued that the Brigade was a ploy to claim
    statehood, and criticised US politicians who pressured Britain to
    accept it. Sixty-two US rabbis signed a press statement condemning
    the idea of a segregated Brigade, saying it would “add to the unhappy plight of our stricken people”. Writing eloquently against the Brigade, Morris Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at City College, described as anti-Semitic the “contention that the Jews are a foreign national group everywhere except in Palestine”, and warned that “the complete moral bankruptcy of racialist nationalism [referring to Zionism] has been made obvious by Nazi Germany”.

    • RoHa
      January 5, 2017, 8:15 pm

      The Jewish Brigade should not be confused with the Palestine Regiment.

      https://www.countercurrents.org/fisk171103.htm

    • Jackdaw
      January 6, 2017, 12:24 am

      @Tom Suarez

      “Answer this, please: Jews had always served in the Allied Forces along with everyone else… Why did the Zionists suddenly demand they serve as a segregated force, or not at all?

      For a ‘researcher’, you are blindingly ignorant. Jews fought for the Allies during World War 1 as part of a segregated force, The Zion Mule Corp.

      ‘I have here, fighting under my orders, a purely Jewish unit – the Zion Mule Corps. As far as I know, this is the first time in the Christian era such a thing has happened. They have shown great courage taking supplies up to the line under heavy fire’ and proved ‘invaluable to us’
      –General Sir Ian Hamilton, Commander-in-Chief of the Anglo-French Expeditionary Force in the Dardenelles, 1915.

      You’re trying to bury your lie with more lies, and that won’t work here.

      Why did the Zionists insist on a segregated fighting force?
      Well, the first things that come to mind is ‘esprit d’corp’, that means ‘pride’.

      Did you serve?

      • Annie Robbins
        January 6, 2017, 2:50 am

        jack, it claims here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mulecorp.html

        Vladimir Jabotinsky proposed that a Jewish legion be formed to join the British in liberating Palestine from the Turks during World War I, but the British resisted the idea of Jewish volunteers fighting on the Palestinian front. Instead, they suggested the Jews serve as a detachment for mule transport at another location along the Turkish front. Joseph Trumpeldor subsequently formed the 650-strong Zion Mule Corps, of whom 562 were sent to the Gallipoli front.

        anyway, this doesn’t refute the notion Jews had always served in the Allied Forces along with everyone else.

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2017, 12:34 pm

        “Why did the Zionists insist on a segregated fighting force?”

        Because they didn’t want to eat in the trefa Mess Tent?

    • Jackdaw
      January 6, 2017, 1:29 am

      @Tom Suarez

      “You quote the zealously pro-Zionist Manchester Guardian. ”

      Tom. The Daily Mail labeled you an ‘anti-Semitic hate speaker’.
      It must be a ‘pro-Zionist newspaper, as well.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3918000/Zionism-racist-fascist-cult-Israeli-embassy-s-fury-anti-Semitic-hate-speaker-gives-talk-London-university.html

      • Annie Robbins
        January 6, 2017, 2:32 am

        jack, the headline didn’t reflect what was reported in the story! while the story accurately reported:

        Mr Curiel’s comments have led to the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism filing a formal complaint with the university. A section of the letter read: ‘SOAS is sometimes referred to in the Jewish community as the ‘School of Anti-Semitism…

        no where in the article did the journalist report tom was an “anti-Semitic hate speaker”. the article opened with:

        The Israeli Embassy has reacted with fury after a ‘hate speaker’ delivered an hour-long rant on Jews and Zionism to students at a top London university.

        i think they were clearly citing the Israeli embassy! anyway, the headline writer, or the daily mail, should at least try to be consistent with the journalist covering the story. and what a extraordinary thing that the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” in the UK would accuse someone of anti semitism (NOT)!!!

      • Jackdaw
        January 6, 2017, 3:26 am

        @Annie

        “Vladimir Jabotinsky proposed that a Jewish legion be formed to join the British in liberating Palestine from the Turks during World War I.”

        Right. And Great Britain subsequently liberated Palestine without using Jewish troops. They used British and Commonwealth troops from Australia, New Zealand and India. Prior to liberation, Great Britain relied heavily on the Jewish, ‘NILI’ intelligence ring, centered in Zichron Yaakov. The NILI spies were arrested and shot by the Turks.

        What is your point?

      • John O
        January 6, 2017, 3:36 am

        @Jackdaw

        The Daily Mail. Where to begin? The paper that recently labelled judges who gave a ruling that its editor didn’t like “enemies of the people”; the paper that relegated the verdict on the man who murdered MP Jo Cox last year to page 30; the paper that called the father of the then Labour leader – a Jewish refugee from Hitler who fought the Nazis with distinction – “the man who hated Britain”; the paper that supported Mosley’s Blackshirts and complained of “swarms” of Jewish refugees coming to Britain in the thirties.

        Basically, if the Daily Heil takes a swing at you, you must be doing something right.

  33. Tom Suarez
    January 6, 2017, 7:16 am

    A reply to Jackdaw’s position on the Jewish Brigade, the charge of “lies”, and his invoking the Daily Mail headline that I am an “anti-Semitic hate speaker”:

    Hello Jackdaw,

    First, please identify what “lies” you are talking about (?)

    I am well aware of the Zion Mule Corps, and Jabotinsky’s Jewish legion, etc — indeed there is a fair amount about this in the National Archives — perhaps you might make a trip to Kew, as it is quite interesting material. I do not understand its relevancy to the Jewish Brigade issue, other than that it was an earlier attempt at a similar project, with a variant outcome.

    I find it remarkable that you are not ashamed to invoke the Ben-Gurion et al “pride” excuse for rallying Jews not to serve unless as a segregated force. Really! So, let me understand: We have the most terrible scourge humanity has ever faced, with Jews among those at the top of its target list; but the Zionist leadership, instead of proactively assisting the Allied struggle, holds the war effort hostage to their settler scheme because of “pride” (while it steals Allied arms and further aggravates the war effort with its continued violence in Palestine).

    BY DEFINITION, segregated armies are inefficient. Should Catholics have insisted on a Catholic Brigade for “pride”, otherwise refuse to serve? A Homosexual Brigade? A Communist Brigade? Otherwise refuse to help the war effort? Please, this “pride” line is an embarrassment. Zionists exploited the war for their political goals, holding the war effort for ransom. Both of the British military’s predictions about the Brigade came true: [1] that it was a ploy to claim de facto acknowledgement of Jewish “nationality” (and thus sovereignty in Palestine), and [2] that the professional military training better prepared Zionist militias to seize Palestine by force.

    Now, as for the Daily Mail article:
    I gave a talk at SOAS in London, similar to that in this article. The talk was attended by a handful of saboteurs whose ringleader was one David Collier. They disrupted the talk, and when security tried to intervene, Collier yelled ASSAULT! (though no one had touched him) and successfully intimidated the guards, who then refused to do anything, the meeting thus grinding to a halt as Collier & crew effectively took it over. They and the Orwellian-named “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” fed their story to the Daily Mail, the most infamous of the UK tabloids, without any attempt to contact me.

    Sorry, it is Collier and the CAA that are anti-Semitic.

    • Jackdaw
      January 6, 2017, 8:02 am

      “What lie?”

      ‘Jews had always served in the Allied Forces along with everyone else… Why did the Zionists suddenly demand they serve as a segregated force, or not at all?’

      That lie.
      Because you knew when you wrote that lie, that Jews had fought, segregated, during the First World War.

      You did say, ‘always’. You did say, ‘suddenly’.

      ‘Segregated armies are inefficent’?
      Not according to the Commander and Chief of the Gallipoli Expedition, and the officers who commanded the Zion Mule Corp. But, Captain Saurez say inefficient, so…… And, heaven forfend; a ‘homosexual brigade’. How can we have that, Captain Suarez?
      “One of classical Greece’s best-known elite units may very well be the Sacred Band of Thebes. Formed in 378 BCE by the Theban general Gorgidas, the legendary army was made up exclusively of 150 same-sex couples. ”
      http://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/02/09/classical-commandos-11-elite-forces-of-the-ancient-world/
      You have a problem with gay pride? Do tell.

      “Please, this “pride” line is an embarrassment. Zionists exploited the war for their political goals, holding the war effort for ransom. ”

      Yet another lie.
      The Zionists did no such thing. As early as 1940, Chaim Weizman publicly called for a Palestinian Jewish Legion, one that could field 50,000 fighting men. It was H.M.G. who refused that generous offer. Even so, Weizman repeatedly lobbied Churchill until the British military finally relented, and the force was mustered and sent to Italy

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2017, 12:38 pm

        “Classical Commandos! Elite Forces of the Ancient World”

        ROTFLMSJAO!

      • MHughes976
        January 6, 2017, 4:16 pm

        The Theban Sacred Band, where being in an active gay relationship was a condition of membership, made a great impression on the Hellenistic and Roman world but had no clearly recognisable succcessor and was not regarded as the efficient model for the way forward. The success at Leuctra in 371 was balanced by total failure at Chaeronea in 338. Virgil’s Aeneid Book IX, through the characters Nisus and Euryslus, who form a Sacred Band, makes us think, despite the very sympathetic prrsentation of these heroes, that a military unit based on passion will not be good at carrying out a rational plana and that passion may become bloodlust.
        I would have thought that a determination to defeat the Axis at all costs would have implied cooperating with the UK war effort – we were the leaders in that battle – on UK terms, those terms including our disinclination formally to segregate our armed forces, on the American model of the time, by race.

      • RoHa
        January 7, 2017, 6:07 am

        I am no expert on this topic, but I do want to make a few comments.

        Jackdaw has seized on TS’s use of “always”, and pointed out that this was not literally true. There were occasions when Jews served in Jews-only unit of the British Army. But most of us would point this out with a smug smirk, rather than frantic accusations of lying.

        As far as I can tell, most British Jews were lumped in same units as the CofEs, RCs, and fancy buggers (as the sergeant phrased at church parade), but, in Palestine, in 1939 the British Army began setting up infantry companies which were later combined into the Palestine Regiment. And these companies were segregated.

        Note that this started before Chaim Weizman’s “generous offer”.

        Given the context of the position of Britain in Palestine, and especially the brutal response to the Arab revolt just a few years previously, I find it surprising that the British were able to recruit any Palestinian Arabs at all. Eventually, of course, the Zionists decided that this wouldn’t do. Under the British flag, alongside Arabs? Fighting the Nazis was not important enough to put up with that.

    • Jackdaw
      January 6, 2017, 9:26 am

      @Tom Suarez

      ” They disrupted the talk, and when security tried to intervene, Collier yelled ASSAULT! (though no one had touched him)”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zLvmb4DOio

      Maybe not a criminal assault, but the bloke in the grey shirt slapped Collier on the shoulder twice, @1:59. Loud enough that it’s audible.

      I wouldn’t like a stranger touching me that way.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 6, 2017, 10:51 am

        the bloke in the grey shirt slapped Collier

        the problem with that lie assertion is you can see part of that interaction on the video and it doesn’t hold water. and no, i couldn’t “hear” it.

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2017, 1:29 pm

        “I wouldn’t like a stranger touching me that way.”

        You’d prefer maybe a nice little pat on the tuchus?

      • Tom Suarez
        January 6, 2017, 2:20 pm

        Hello again Jackdaw,
        I am not sure how to respond to your comments, as they are a mixture of non-linear reasoning, non-sequiturs, and (as far as I can see) fabricated accusations, but in any event this will be my last attempt to sort out your postings. I will be brief.
        I have tried in vain to understand what you think I am lying about. To take the example of Jabotinsky’s Jewish Legion, not only did I never deny this, but indeed I told you how I’d researched it and the Mule Corps in the source documents at the National Archives. This was contentious at the time, just as the later Brigade was in the early 1940s. It was all for the same reasons. I really don’t understand your point.
        I will also comment about the preposterousness of your starting premise, your mindset, your presumptions. You state that “as early as 1940, Chaim Weizman[n] publicly called for a Palestinian Jewish Legion, one that could field 50,000 fighting men,” and refer to this as a “generous offer” that HMG refused. You seem to take as a given that, in the midst of the most difficult days in the battle against the Axis, the UK was, on behalf of the Zionists, to treat Jews as distinct from all other people and create a special segregated force. And that the Brits were ungrateful to decline this generous offer — rather than wonder why Weizmann’s fifty thousand didn’t just join the Allies as equals, along with everyone else. I confess I am truly dumbfounded.
        As for David Collier, I was right in front of him, about eight feet away, when the alleged “assault” (!) occurred. It was comical.
        It was either him or another in his circle that not too long ago stalked a young woman because she was leafleting “pro-Palestinian” flyers, and when she turned to confront him and yelled at him to go away, he alleged assault and brought her to court. Unfortunately for him, a surveillance video turned up.
        As I said, I will not reply to anything further on your thread.

      • Jackdaw
        January 6, 2017, 4:09 pm

        @Tom Suarez

        I will be even more brief. Here is everything that you don’t know about H.M.G, the Zionists, and the Jewish Brigade.

        https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1885119569/ref=tmm_hrd_used_olp_sr?ie=UTF8&condition=used&qid=1483736504&sr=8-1

        Now sod off.

      • Mooser
        January 6, 2017, 6:35 pm

        “Now sod off.”

        Is it all-right with you if Mr. Suarez continues to keep his book in publication, and give talks and stuff?

  34. A.T.
    January 6, 2017, 4:12 pm

    I’m only guessing this and I hope I’m wrong, but on or about the time that the US abstained—instead of the usual veto—to vote on the UNSC’s vote about Israeli settlements, this book went on sale! Is it a coincidence, or is it possible that the book was out to let all Nations/people know that, if the Zionists can kill, intimidate, force relocations, etc. on their own people—who disagreed with them—then they can do anything they wish to get what they want–including using atomic bombs to destroy, Paris, London, Berlin, etc! It might sound like a “conspiracy theory”—which I’m adamantly against—but it’s not. I’m not saying that conspiracies do not exist, far from it, but I’m now dead set to read the book to find out for myself, what the motivation is—if any—behind the publication of the book by an Israeli who had access to the archives.

    • Tom Suarez
      January 6, 2017, 8:51 pm

      Hello A.T.,
      Thank you for the comment. Just to clarify: While I do hope you will read the book, I am not Israeli, and the “National Archives” referred to are British. So there is no connection to the recent SC vote. The book is, however, directly relevant to the ongoing “conflict”, despite ending at the Suez Crisis.

      • A.T.
        January 7, 2017, 4:17 am

        Hi Mr. suarez,

        Thanks! I stand corrected.

  35. xanadou
    January 8, 2017, 3:17 pm

    Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose…

    “A six-month Al Jazeera investigation is about to lay bare the extent of the Israel lobby’s influence on the UK government and opposition Labour Party.

    A four-part series that Al Jazeera will broadcast starting 15 January reveals an Israeli embassy agent plotting to “take down” British lawmakers deemed barriers to Israeli policy.

    The network has released excerpts of the footage, filmed secretly in October, which can be seen at link posted below.”

    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/secret-video-reveals-israeli-plot-take-down-uk-minister

  36. taylorwilson
    January 10, 2017, 3:06 am

    There is no any religion of a terrorist because no any country teaches to destroy the innocent lives, from the past few years; many countries are a target of terrorism. Our class was told to prepare the assignment on terrorism, but I was not able to complete it because of the pictures available of the bombing and the dead bodies. So, I preferred to Buy Assignment Online from http://www.Aoneessays.net/

    • Annie Robbins
      January 10, 2017, 3:34 am

      a little tip taylor. first of all big congrats, because usually we don’t ever publish these sorts of advertisement/comments for “Buy Assignment Online” sites, although people continually try to post them. but since you made the effort to at least address the general topic, i’m clearing yours for moderation.

      however, you might have an english speaker check your text next time. in english, one might either say “There is no religion of a terrorist” or “There is not any religion of a terrorist”, or perhaps “There is not a religion of a terrorist” but it is grammatically incorrect (always, as far as i know) to ever say “no any”. either just say “no” or “not a / not any”.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv354.shtml

      no = emphatic use

      Note that we tend to use no, rather than not a or not any when we want to emphasise a negative idea. In the lonely man example above, no is more effective than not a / not any. Compare:

      He must lead a lonely life: he doesn’t have a wife and he doesn’t have any children.

      With subject nouns, when no is used emphatically, not a / not any are not possible:

      No politician tells the truth all the time.
      No writer has won the Booker prize more than once.

      Note that singular use sounds more natural in these examples.

      no collocations

      There are a number of common nouns that normally combine with no, rather than not a or not any. Most of them are uncountable and include no amount, no time, no idea, no doubt, no reason, no need, no evidence, no problem, no way, no point, no use. Study these examples of use:
      [see examples]

      our commenter RoHa knows a lot more about grammer than i do, but any ordinary english speaker would wince at the combination of “no any”. that is certainly a glaring mistake, especially for someone promoting a “Buy Assignment Online” site. good luck!

      • Mooser
        January 10, 2017, 12:37 pm

        “our commenter RoHa knows a lot more about grammer than i do”

        She was quite a lady in her day, and considered a very witty conversationalist.

    • eljay
      January 10, 2017, 7:22 am

      || taylorwilson: There is no any religion of a terrorist because no any country teaches to destroy the innocent lives … ||

      Countries don’t need to teach “to destroy the innocent lives” in order for terrorists to hold religious beliefs. Fail #1.  :-(

      || … Our class was told to prepare the assignment on terrorism, but I was not able to complete it because of the pictures available of the bombing and the dead bodies. … ||

      You could have completed your assignment without looking at pictures of “the bombing and the dead bodies”. Fail #2.nbsp; :-(

      || … So, I preferred to Buy Assignment Online from http://www.Aoneessays.net/ ||

      Ah, so you did the “liberal Zionist” thing: You “held your nose” and let hardier people do the dirty work.

    • RoHa
      January 10, 2017, 7:03 pm

      If you were real, RoHa the grammarian would suggest that you learn more English, and RoHa the old academic would throw you out of the class for cheating.

      But actually you are a liar. It is your website, and you are just promoting your immoral and corrupting business.

  37. Maghlawatan
    January 10, 2017, 3:47 am

    When Gaza is no longer livable there won’t be any hasbara to defend what Israel has done

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/1.764055

    Some 95 percent of the water in Gaza’s aquifer isn’t fit to drink, and purified water is distributed to households under unhygienic conditions; there is electricity for eight hours a day or less; about 100 million liters of sewage flow into the sea every day, both because of the power outages and because of delays in bringing spare parts and new pumps into Gaza; the residue of spent Israeli ammunition affects the environment and people’s health in ways that have yet to be investigated; unemployment has soared to about 40

    percent, because Israeli movement restrictions have strangled production; and hundreds of thousands of young people who have never left this crowded enclave know no other reality.

  38. Tom Suarez
    January 10, 2017, 4:23 am

    I would like to thank everyone who added their thoughts to this article, and offer a short general final comment.

    First, to include myself in the voices of those who took offense at the bait-&-switch of the terms “Zionists” and “Jews”, exemplified by Bar Kochbar’s “…but I am the only non Jew-hater here…”. I could have done no better to vindicate one of my book’s principal points: that Zionism’s holding Jewry hostage is anti-Semitic.

    Another oft-discussed point was the lack, or alleged lack, of any previous political entity in Palestine, as a justification for the behavior of the Israeli state. I have never understood this frequently cited argument. Above all, it is irrelevant—whatever label you wish to give it, people lived there. Even if the alleged lack of any autonomous ruling structure were true, So what? Does this rob the lands inhabitants of their individual sovereign rights? People lived there, end-of-story. Moreover, it is not true, and imposes the modern notion of nation-state, a development of the last milli-second of human existence—a litmus test never applied elsewhere.

    Ancient or Biblical history is invoked as relevant to the right-or-wrong of today. I would argue that this, too, is entirely irrelevant, and the danger of discussing it in context of the “conflict” is to suggest that it matters. Let’s say that the region, contrary to the historical evidence, was once a vast “Hebrew Kingdom” that endured for a substantial length of time; does that require the “re-establishment” of it now, and at the exclusion of those not of the same “group”? Are we to enforce this upheaval throughout the world? Why only in Palestine? And who is this “group” that claims this alleged ancient mantle? By virtue of practicing the same religion (indeed many/most don’t)? Because of alleged blood descent (Ashkenazy Jews? Really? for those who claim this, if it mattered…) No matter the rationale, we are asked to enter an alternate realm in which the norms of the rest of the world do not apply, and we are asked not to question the patently absurd. Questions of ancient history are fascinating, but have no bearing on today’s “conflict”.

    My thanks again for the lively—and, for me, very helpful—comments.

    • Annie Robbins
      January 10, 2017, 4:43 am

      thank you tom. every word, i agree with every word. your voice illuminates and gives us power.

    • Maghlawatan
      January 10, 2017, 5:03 am

      Tom

      the argument that there never was a political state called Palestine is nonsense. It canot be used to deny people rights. An invading army could by the same logic take over a chunk of Israel , call it PamelaAndersonstan and claim it under God by saying no Jewish kingdom called PamelaAndersonstan had ever existed .

      • RoHa
        January 10, 2017, 7:22 pm

        You have now filled me with a desire to create a beach state called Pamela Andersonstan.

    • RoHa
      January 10, 2017, 7:20 pm

      “lack, or alleged lack, of any previous political entity in Palestine”

      I regularly ask Zionists why this is relevant. They just as regularly fail to answer.

      Yonah Fredman seems to be promoting a somewhat different history-based argument to the effect that the concept of justification for the creation of Israel is no more appropriate than it would be for an earthquake. The whole business was brought about, not by moral agents, but by the Dictates of History, against which all, Zionist and anti-Zionist, strive in vain. Thus, as with Albert and the Lion, no-one is really to blame.

      It just happened to work out the way the Zionists wanted, and tough on the Palestinians.

      • yonah fredman
        January 11, 2017, 12:56 am

        Roha- I would put it as follows: the Jewish urge to self rule in 1897 was natural and good. The location chosen for that self rule was wrong, from the perspective of the Palestinians. Since in fact hundreds of thousands of jews who made it to palestine before 1939 saved their lives based upon the evil done to the Palestinians, it emerges that a great salvation and a great catastrophe occurred as a result of the same act.

      • eljay
        January 11, 2017, 11:24 am

        || yonah fredman: … Since in fact hundreds of thousands of jews who made it to palestine before 1939 saved their lives based upon the evil done to the Palestinians, it emerges that a great salvation and a great catastrophe occurred as a result of the same act. ||

        In the very classy words of “liberal Zionist” RW:

        “I feel that the nakba [sic] was a necessary wrong … ”

        “The nakba [sic] that occurred in 1948 was accompanied by the independence, the liberation, of the Jewish community. So, I primarily celebrate … “

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2017, 11:32 am

        “the Jewish urge to self rule in 1897 was natural and good.”

        The Jewish urge to reject self-rule, knowing the history and religion of Judaism and Zionism, is natural and good.

      • amigo
        January 11, 2017, 12:20 pm

        ” The location chosen for that self rule was wrong, from the perspective of the Palestinians.”YF.

        What,s your perspective Yonah. Was the expelling of 700,000 Palestinians (at the point of a gun ) from their historic homeland and destruction of circa 400 of their villages and the decades long illegal occupation and theft of their land wrong from your perspective or is that prospective , just a prerogative of “the victims”.

        The Olympic Committee should introduce a new sport in the form of “Mental Gymnastics”. You Zionists will walk away with the gold every time.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2017, 12:35 pm

        “The Olympic Committee should introduce a new sport in the form of “Mental Gymnastics”. You Zionists will walk away with the gold every time.”

        I doubt it. The doping test will reveal they’re hopped up on pilpuls.

      • Mooser
        January 11, 2017, 12:50 pm

        “hundreds of thousands of jews who made it to palestine before 1939 saved their lives based upon the evil done to the Palestinians”

        “Yonah”, if Jews have to “save their lives based upon the evil done to” others, you better hope Jewish women start having decuplets.

      • oldgeezer
        January 11, 2017, 1:34 pm

        @yonah

        That kind of twisted thinking only works if you feel Jewish life is superior to a Palestinian life.

        It is twisted on many levels, not the least being, that it was planned long before the rise of nazi germany and therefore it wasn’t a reaction to the holocaust in progress.

        There is no whitewashing it. It was merely and purely evil.

      • RoHa
        January 11, 2017, 8:18 pm

        “the Jewish urge to self rule in 1897 was natural and good.”

        Natural, just maybe. But I see nothing good about it. Can you explain why you think it was a good urge?

        “The location chosen for that self rule was wrong, from the perspective of the Palestinians.”

        No, not from anyone’s “perspective”. It was flat out morally wrong.

        “Since in fact hundreds of thousands of jews who made it to palestine before 1939 saved their lives based upon the evil done to the Palestinians”

        It has already been pointed out to you that it is morally dubious to benefit from evil done to others.

        “it emerges that a great salvation and a great catastrophe occurred as a result of the same act.”

        Not exactly. The salvation did not automatically entail the catastrophe. The catastrophe was a deliberate decision on the part of the Zionists.

        The “great salvation” occurred because the British Government allowed Jewish immigration.

        The great catastrophe occurred because those Jews were not prepared to integrate and become good citizens and good neighbours, but chose to create a super-ghetto for themselves, and suppressed or drove out the Palestinians.

        You seem to be trying to claim some sort of moral neutrality or moral balance between Zionist and Palestinian. There is none.

        Israel was evil in conception, evil in creation, and is evil in conduct.

        Zionism is merely and purely evil.

      • yonah fredman
        January 12, 2017, 12:49 am

        The urge to survive is natural and good. The urge to reject the coercive powers of the czar and like minded ministers and peasants is good. Freedom is good.

        The choice of Palestine was a logical choice, for any urge for self rule required attracting large numbers and only a popular destination could attract the sacrifice and effort that would be required for the attempt at self rule.

        I have cousins who are alive today because of zionism. (They were able to escape poland where they were fated to be slaughtered and instead settled in palestine, due to the existence of the British mandate.) I do not expect Palestinians to value the life of my cousins to the degree of accepting their own loss of freedom and their homes. But in effect you are telling me to regret the survival of my cousins. I do not regret their survival.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 12, 2017, 1:11 am

        did you just take a shot of ziocaine yonah? had israel not been there your cousins would have gone somewhere else.

        in effect you are telling me to regret the survival of my cousins

        no, we are not “in effect” telling you anything of the sort.

      • Maghlawatan
        January 12, 2017, 3:10 am

        Palestine was a poor choice. It set Judaism against Islam. It means the Jewish state is on the edge of a hostile continent. Inland mountains force the JS to run apartheid. The society isnt intellectual. It is militaristic. its wars have destabilised the region. Israel is not a country people can be proud of. Because Israel is isolated it is dependent on outside power.
        The reason why the original Jewish Kingdom failed will be why Israel fails. Regional power shifts.

      • RoHa
        January 12, 2017, 5:04 am

        “The urge to survive is natural and good.”

        That depends on what the survival is for. If the survivors (say, singers or French postmodernists) are going to inflict suffering on others, is the urge good?

        I have written about the morality of survival here. Read it again.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/02/new-york-times-picks-up-bernie-sanderss-socialist-kibbutz-but-leaves-out-the-ethnic-cleansing/#comment-824138

        “The urge to reject the coercive powers of the czar and like minded ministers and peasants is good. Freedom is good.”

        But those urges does not entail setting up a Jewish State. The people of Revolutionary Yiddishland had those urges, but did not fall into Zionism.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2017/01/remembering-revolutionary-yiddishland/

        “The choice of Palestine was a logical choice, for any urge for self rule required attracting large numbers and only a popular destination could attract the sacrifice and effort that would be required for the attempt at self rule.”

        But since Palestine was a morally wrong choice, another destination should have been chosen. And if no other destination was morally acceptable, the project of self rule should have been abandoned. There is no moral principle that says Jews should get what they want.

        “They were able to escape poland where they were fated to be slaughtered and instead settled in palestine”

        And when they arrived, did they say to the Palestinians, “Thank you for having us in your country. We will try our best to live in harmony with you, and help you to make Palestine a better place for us all”?

        Or did they do the other thing?

      • eljay
        January 12, 2017, 7:36 am

        || yonah fredman: The urge to survive is natural and good. The urge to reject the coercive powers of the czar and like minded ministers and peasants is good. Freedom is good. … ||

        Yup, yup and yup.

        || … The choice of Palestine was a logical choice, for any urge for self rule required attracting large numbers and only a popular destination could attract the sacrifice and effort that would be required for the attempt at self rule. … ||

        And here you transition from your defence of self-rule for diverse oppressed groups to justifying a full-blown “Jewish State” project necessarily involving ethnic cleansing, colonialism and the establishment of a religion-supremacist state – none of which is “just and good”.

        || … I do not expect Palestinians to value the life of my cousins to the degree of accepting their own loss of freedom and their homes. … ||

        But you do expect Palestinians to accept their losses for the sake of your cousins…as well as for the sake of every other Jewish person who chose to colonize Palestine at their expense.

        That’s a truly big “f*ck you” to Palestinians. Do you do outreach work with hophmi?

        || But in effect you are telling me to regret the survival of my cousins. … ||

        Nice bit of victimhood there, but in effect you are saying that the lives of your Polish cousins matter more than the lives and livelihoods and freedoms and (human) rights of the Palestinians of Palestine. That, too, is a big “f*ck you” to Palestinians.

      • oldgeezer
        January 12, 2017, 10:14 am

        @eljay

        Well said.

        Luckily the world has an ever increasing f* you to racists and warmongers which include Israel and it’s supporters.

      • Mooser
        January 28, 2017, 11:12 pm

        ““The urge to survive is natural and good.” “Yonah”

        Careful, “Yonah” if we keep on talking about that “natural” and “good” “urge to survive” the conversation is going to get lascivious!

        But really, don’t you think swelling our own ranks rather than trying to reduce the rest of the world is a much more sensible way to go about it? Nod-nod-, wink-wink.

  39. rosross
    January 28, 2017, 12:41 am

    @Yonah,

    Judaism is a religion. The first Jew was a convert. No Judaism, no Jews. Drop Judaism or convert to another religion and you are no longer a Jew. Convert to Judaism and you are a Jew.

    No different to any religion. Religions don’t get self-determination. Religions don’t get homelands. Religions don’t make a people beyond religious metaphor.

    Jews had no right to a State anywhere and they certainly had no right to set one up on someone else’s land in the name of a backward religious bigotry which doomed non-Jews to permanent subjugation and no human rights.

    You seem to take a position which has followers of Judaism as somehow superior to all others and not bound by common human standards.

    • yonah fredman
      January 28, 2017, 3:44 pm

      The danger facing the Jewish tribe in Eastern Europe was not based on their religion primarily. in fact the sentiment that sought to exclude the Jews from the national identities of various countries was not based on Christ or the new testament, but upon race and ethnicity and nation.

      Zionism was in its start a reaction to external factors. There were certainly internal factors that drove its location (territorial goals) and attitudes. But the pogroms of 1881 and the nationalism of nonJewish host nations (with its heavy dose of Jew hatred) were the most important factors in the birth of Zionism.

      • Mooser
        January 28, 2017, 11:05 pm

        “The danger facing the Jewish tribe”

        “The Jewish tribe”? Who was our Chief? Shouldn’t you be saying “tribes”?
        Why are you positing Jewish unity when it is very well known that there was very little?

        “Zionism was in its start a reaction to external factors.”

        It’s all their fault.

Leave a Reply