Finders Keepers in the Holy Land: So who was there first?

Middle East
on 233 Comments

2017 will undoubtedly be a critical year for Palestine. We are standing at the crossroads of many different possibilities that could have serious implications for the future of the area. Positive or negative, disastrous or beneficial, the people between the river and the sea wait in anticipation to see which direction the future will take them. However, I can’t help but feel that the adage “the more things change, the more they stay the same” is appropriate here. No matter how many times people insist that we are on the cusp of a new era in the “conflict”, the same old arguments and myths animating much of the debate on Palestine since the beginning of the 20th century remain remarkably persistent.

For those familiar with Palestinian activism, or have studied Palestine academically, these arguments and slogans have become clichés and inside jokes. If you’re reading this, I’m sure you’ve also had your fair share of encounters with classics such as:

Israel made the desert bloom

There was never a state called Palestine

Or my favorite:

A land without a people, for a people without a land.

This last one I find especially entertaining, as it clashes so terribly with other Israeli talking points. In the end it amounts to something similar to “We are under existential threat from the people who don’t exist..

One such frequently recurring theme when discussing the historic narratives of both peoples, is the question of “who was there first?”. The implication being, whoever was there first deserves ownership of the land. I have lost count of how many times I have encountered the argument that “The Jewish people have been in Palestine before the Muslims/Arabs,” or a variation thereof. This has always struck me as an interesting example of how people learn just enough history to support their world view, separating it completely from any historical context or the larger picture of the region.

Since this question is so widespread, and since I see it answered in different, and in my opinion, unhelpful ways, I would like to open up the topic for wider discussion.

The argument is simple to follow: Palestinians today are mostly Arabs. The Arabs came to the Levant with the Muslim conquest of the region. Therefore, Arabs -and as an extension Palestinians- have only been in Palestine and the Levant since the seventh century AD.

There are a couple of glaring problems with this line of thought. First of all, there is a clear conflation of Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians. None of these are interchangeable. Arabs have had a long history in the Levant before the advent of Islam. For example, The Nabataean kingdom ruled over Jordan, southern Palestine and Sinai a whole millennium before Muslims ever set foot in the area. Another example would be the Ghassanid kingdom, which was a Christian Arab kingdom that extended over vast areas of the region. As a matter of fact, many prominent Christian families in Palestine today, such as Maalouf, Haddad and Khoury, can trace back their lineage to the Ghassanid kingdom.

The second problem with this is that there is a misunderstanding of the process that is the Arabization of the Middle East and North Africa. Once again, we must view the Islamization of newly conquered lands and their Arabization as two distinct phenomena. The Islamization process began instantly, albeit slowly. Persia, for example took over 2 centuries to become a majority Muslim province. The Levant, much longer. The Arabization of conquered provinces though, began later than their Islamization. The beginning of this process can be traced back to the Marwanid dynasty of the Ummayad Caliphate. Until that point, each province was ruled mostly with its own language, laws and currency. The process of the Arabization of the state united all these under Arabic speaking officials, and made it law that the language of state and of commerce would become Arabic. Thus, it became advantageous to claim this identity, as many government positions and trade deals were offered only to Muslim Arabs.

So although the vast majority of the population of these lands were not ethnically Arab, they came to identify as such over a millennium, for various reasons*. Nowhere is this clearer than in Egypt. In the last century, Egypt has served as the hub for Pan-Arabist nationalism and ideology. However, recent studies show that only 17% of Egyptian DNA is actually comprised of Arab DNA. A similar process was seen in Lebanon, where 44% of Lebanese DNA is of Arab origins. This is important to understand, because in contrast to European colonialism of the new world, where the native population was mostly eradicated to make place for the invaders, the process in MENA is one of the conquered peoples mixing with and coming to identify as their conquerors without being physically removed, if not as Arabs, then as Muslims.

Following from this, the Palestinian Arabs of today did not suddenly appear from the Arabian peninsula in the 7th century to settle in Palestine, but are the same indigenous peoples living there who changed how they identified over time**. This includes the descendants of every group that has ever called Palestine their home. When regions change rulers, they don’t normally change populations. Throughout history, peoples have often changed how they identified politically. The Sardinians eventually became Italians, Prussians became Germans. We must separate the political nationalist identity of people from their personhood as human beings, as nationalism is a relatively modern concept, especially in the Middle East.

So what does this all mean for our argument?

Absolutely nothing.

Although the argument has many ahistorical assumptions and claims, which I have tried to correct, it is not these which form its greatest weakness. The whole argument is a trap. The basic implication of this line of argumentation is as follows:

If the Jewish people were in Palestine before the Arabs, then the land belongs to them. Therefore the creation of Israel is justified.

From my experience, whenever this argument is used, the automatic response of Palestinians is to say that their ancestors were there first. These ancestors being the Canaanites. The idea that Palestinians are the descendants of only one particular group in a region with mass migrations and dozens of different empires and peoples is not only ahistorical, but this line of thought indirectly legitimizes the original argument they are fighting against.

Because it implies that the only reason Israel’s creation is unjustified is because their Palestinian ancestors were there first. It implies that the problem with the argument lies in the details, not that the argument as a whole is absolute nonsense and shouldn’t be entertained, it should be utterly rejected.

The ethnic cleansing, massacres and colonialism needed to establish Israel can never be justified, regardless of who was there first. It’s a moot point. Even if we follow the argument that Palestinians have only been there for 1300 years, does this suddenly legitimize the expulsion of hundreds of thousands? Of course not. There is no possible scenario where it is excusable to perpetrate war crimes against a people. Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years.

If we reject the “we were there first” argument, and not treat it as a legitimizing factor for Israel’s creation, then we can focus on the real history, without any ideological agendas. We could trace how our pasts intersected throughout the centuries. After all, there is indeed Jewish history in Palestine. This history forms a part of the Palestinian past and heritage, just like every other group, kingdom or empire that settled there does. We must stop viewing Palestinian and Jewish histories as competing, mutually exclusive entities.

These positions can be maintained while simultaneously rejecting Zionism and the Nakba.

This ideologically driven impulse to imagine our ancestors as some closed, well defined, unchanging heterogeneous group having exclusive ownership over the land has nothing to do with the actual history of the area, and everything to do with modern notions of ethnic nationalism and statehood.

So, in the end, who was there first?

If you’re still asking this within the context of the Palestinian question, then I’m afraid to say you’re asking the wrong question. It doesn’t matter. Human rights don’t have an expiration date.

*The Arabization of the new Muslim provinces and the Arabization push accompanying the surge of pan-Arab nationalism in the 20th century are two different phenomena. Regardless, I found it important to clarify that such a process was not free of coercion in one way or another. Especially in the latter case, Arabization included the repression of natives who defined themselves differently. Prominent examples being our Amazigh, Kurdish and Nubian brothers and sisters. It should be understood that I condemn all such actions.

**Naturally, no region is a closed container. Trade, immigration, invasion and intermarriage all played a role in creating the current build up of Palestinian society. There were many additions to the people of the land over the millennia. However, the fact remains that there was never a process where Arab or Muslim conquerors completely replaced the native population living there, only added to them.

About Fathi Nemer

Fathi Nemer is a specialist on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and activist based in Palestine. He currently works at the Ramallah Center for Human Rights Studies. You can follow him on Twitter @amaninthesun

Other posts by .


Posted In:

233 Responses

  1. JLewisDickerson
    March 2, 2017, 10:47 am

    RE: The Umayyad Mosque in Damascus

    MY COMMENT: The similarities to the Piazza San Marco in Venice are quite striking.

    Piazza San Marco – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_San_Marco

  2. Maghlawatan
    March 2, 2017, 11:31 am

    The Holy Land is like the Nineveh plain. It has been important for a very long time to many different groups. And it has to be shared. Israel is like ISIS. It blows up stuff and pretends everything belongs to it.

  3. JeffB
    March 2, 2017, 11:31 am

    Finally an anti-zionist who is talking real history! Good post, especially, “Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years.”

    • eljay
      March 2, 2017, 11:53 am

      || JeffB: Finally an anti-zionist who is talking real history! Good post, especially, “Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years.” ||

      Yup, and human rights do not include the right to steal, occupy and colonize territory and set up any sort of supremacist state. Glad to know you’ve finally abandoned Zionism. :-)

      • JeffB
        March 2, 2017, 2:35 pm

        I don’t want to get into arguments here, too one sided. But I’ve never been in favor of “theft”. I don’t consider a government regulating propertywithin its domain including exercising eminent domain (at an above market price) to be theft though. I’d love NJ to eminent domain my property pocket the equity some state excess profits while avoiding all the costs of sale.

        As for colonize she’s saying the opposite. She’s getting away from the whole colonizer / colonized framework and instead asking about rights for all people living in a country on an equal basis. I’ve always fully supported equal rights. Where we disagree is:
        a) You don’t tolerate state churches
        b) You want to extend citizenship to massive numbers of people born in other states, Her line about 1 yr applies to ethnic Palestinians born in and living in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan…

        I do support a belief in the necessity of states to occupy territory though I think this happens far too often. As far as Israel as you know I don’t consider Israel to be an occupying power. In Gaza it is not exercising enough control to qualify, I’d consider Israel to be a warring power against the quasi-state of Gaza. While in the West Bank and Golan it is clearly making permanent claim and thus is the governing power not an occupying power.

      • amigo
        March 2, 2017, 4:06 pm

        “I don’t want to get into arguments here, too one sided.”JeffB.

        You sure go a strange way about avoiding them.

        I mean all that bs about Israel not being an occupier.

        Btw , Sarge , how is the “Northridge ” empire.

      • diasp0ra
        March 2, 2017, 4:58 pm

        @JeffB

        I believe you completely misunderstood my points.

        ” Her line about 1 yr applies to ethnic Palestinians born in and living in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan..”

        No my line refers to the argument used to deny Palestinian rights because supposedly they haven’t been in Palestine for long enough. This was a line of logic used to justify ethnic cleansing. This is what my point refers to. (Also what are ethnic Palestinians?)

        It is impossible to solve the conflict without the colonizer/colonized framework, because this is reality. We want to get beyond this reality. I want equality in an egalitarian state not based on outmoded ethnic nationalism for any group. But we can never get there if Jewish Israelis are not willing to address this fact.

        “While in the West Bank and Golan it is clearly making permanent claim and thus is the governing power not an occupying power”

        Then it is an Apartheid state. I have 0 rights in Israel.

      • eljay
        March 2, 2017, 5:07 pm

        || JeffB @ March 2, 2017, 2:35 pm ||

        Well, that didn’t last very long.

      • talknic
        March 2, 2017, 5:17 pm

        @ JeffB March 2, 2017, 2:35 pm

        “… I’ve never been in favor of “theft”.”

        Strange your whole argument attempts to justify it

        “I don’t consider a government regulating property within its domain including exercising eminent domain (at an above market price) to be theft though.”

        You’re talking about ‘real estate’ not territory and your talking about real estate within the territory of a state. Territory belongs to all its legitimate inhabitants whether they own/lease/rent real estate or live under a bridge. Np Palestinian territory belongs to Israel.

        ” I’d love NJ to eminent domain my property pocket the equity some state excess profits while avoiding all the costs of sale.”

        Your property is in the territory of NJ. No territory outside of Israel’s borders belongs to Israel.

        ” … You want to extend citizenship to massive numbers of people born in other states”

        RoR is for citizens of states who’re displaced from those states

        “I do support a belief in the necessity of states to occupy territory though I think this happens far too often.”

        Start naming those since 1945 when the UN codified International Law regarding the illegality of acquiring territory by any coercive measure

        “As far as Israel as you know I don’t consider Israel to be an occupying power. “

        Tough. Israel is a UN Member. The UN tells us Israel is in breach of International Law, the UN Charter and relative Conventions

        “In Gaza it is not exercising enough control to qualify, “

        The UN tells us you’re in denial

        “I’d consider Israel to be a warring power against the quasi-state of Gaza.”

        So Israel is bound by the laws of war and occupation. Israel controls Palestinian airspace, its territorial waters, all of its border crossings including under the 2005 agreement and the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty, those between Gaza and Egypt. Israel controls who and what and when anything or anyone passes through all of Gaza’s crossings. Only an Occupying Power has those rights

        ” While in the West Bank and Golan it is clearly making permanent claim and thus is the governing power not an occupying power”

        You’re quite delusional UNSC Resolution 476 is one of at least EIGHT reminders of the 21st May 1968 UNSC Res 252
        267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980. None of which have anything to do with race or religion. They’re based on the UN Charter, International Law and the GC’s, all of which Israel obliged itself to uphold. Alas it hasn’t.

        Go spread your stupid ZIoTheories somewhere else, your sh*t doesn’t schtick here

      • lyn117
        March 4, 2017, 12:57 am

        @jeffb

        “I don’t consider a government regulating propertywithin its domain including exercising eminent domain (at an above market price) to be theft though. ”

        When a government such as Israel exercises eminent domain in order to confiscate property from the people of one ethnicity and use it to benefit their favored ethnicity, that’s apartheid.

        When a government such as Israel exercises “eminent domain” in areas beyond its territory and in order to benefit people of one ethnicity, that’s also theft. If that government evicts people under threat of mass murder, that’s also theft.

        If you consider Israel’s regulating of property a simple matter of exercising eminent domain, you are very far away from supporting equal rights.

      • Mooser
        March 4, 2017, 4:51 pm

        Every time “JeffB” argues for some ineffable ambiguous “right” or “claim” he is simply projecting Zionism’s weaknesses, it’s inability to deliver on its own promises, on to the rest of the world as an obligation.
        That ought to work, “JeffyB”. .

  4. pabelmont
    March 2, 2017, 12:55 pm

    Zionism claims Palestine as a land (or the land) for “a people without a land”, that landless people being of course the (so-called-by-some) “Jewish People” ™.

    But take care. Read Shlomo Sand’s “The Invention of the Jewish People” ( https://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844676234 ) which makes a very strong case that there are lots of Jews but no “Jewish people” especially if by “people” is meant a racial group, descendants of a few folks from a single place. Far far too many Jews had no “blood” connection to the “soil” of Palestine. There were converts to Judaism back in the day. Just are there a re quite a few “Russian Jews” who immigrated into Israel recently who have little connection to the so-called Jewish people ™ even religion.

    And of course a lot of Jews remained in Palestine after the Roman period and became Christians and Arabs and Muslims. Armies swept through this hub, this centerpoint, and people died and people remained who came from afar and people were born with fathers from afar. I don’t know anyone who thinks that those second-class citizens of Israel, the Jews from Africa and India and China (all — if any) are “blood descendants” of Jews from 1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, 3000 years ago. From which I conclude that this (formerly so-called) “land without a people” had a lot of people in it already who called themselve Palestinian Christians and Muslims and (“and, not “but”) who were descendants (in part, isn’t it always so?) from Jews-in-Palestine in, say, year 0.

  5. George Smith
    March 2, 2017, 4:57 pm

    “These positions can be maintained while simultaneously rejecting Zionism and the Nakba.” –Fathi Nemer

    ?? Zionism and the Nakba belong to different categories. Zionism is an ethnocentric ideology, and indeed we ought to reject it. But the Nakba is the accepted name for an undeniable historical event. Surely we must NOT reject it.

    I think what Fathi Nemer wants us to reject is not the historical truth of the Nakba, but Palestinian ethnocentric nationalism–the flip side of Zionism. In my opinion, ethnocentrism is much less intense among Palestinian Arabs than among Israeli Jews. Palestinians love their country and culture with great intensity, but I don’t think they have a deep need to be the only inhabitants of Palestine.

    • diasp0ra
      March 2, 2017, 5:11 pm

      George,

      I did not mean we needed to reject the history of the Nakba. It is fact, as you said.

      What is implied is that we must reject any of the legitimizations given for the Nakba. As some use this argument to justify why the Palestinians were forcibly expelled.

      I hope this clears it up a bit.

  6. talknic
    March 2, 2017, 4:57 pm

    It’s another stupid distraction.

    Like ‘we made the desert bloom’ … ‘there’s no such thing as a Palestinian people’ … ‘there was no Palestinian state’, ‘who was first in the region’ is just another nonsense argument, completely irrelevant to the borders of the State of Israel and that state’s illegal activities in and illegal claims to, territories outside of its borders since they were proclaimed effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

  7. JeffB
    March 2, 2017, 6:55 pm

    @diaspora

    Thank you for responding directly to my points.

    I believe you completely misunderstood my points.

    That’s quite possible. I was in what I thought was enthusiastic agreement with an anti-Zionist. That agreement deriving from a misunderstanding is unfortunately likely. But let’s make sure.

    I’ll hit this out of order:

    Also what are ethnic Palestinians?

    People whose ancestors came from the territory of Palestine primarily that still identify as Palestinian.

    No my line refers to the argument used to deny Palestinian rights because supposedly they haven’t been in Palestine for long enough.

    I agree it was meant to apply there. But what I don’t follow isn’t why wouldn’t that line also apply to ethnic Palestinians born in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq… That is a generalized belief that everyone should have citizenship where they are born as a human right. And then also why wouldn’t this apply to Israeli settlers?

    It is impossible to solve the conflict without the colonizer/colonized framework, because this is reality. We want to get beyond this reality. I want equality in an egalitarian state not based on outmoded ethnic nationalism for any group.

    First off I agree with your end goal I think. But I think we may be disagreeing a bit on the definition of ethnicity. So I’m going to get a bit more specific here on the racial / ethnic / national framework. What I would say is there should be (and I believe there is, though I understand you wouldn’t agree) an inclusive ethnic nationalism. I think you are asserting using colonial language that:
    a) There is racial difference between Israelis and Palestinians
    b) Israel discriminates on the basis of that racial difference.
    I would assert that racially Palestinians are the same as Mizrahi Jews. So here we do disagree. Israel can’t be discriminating based on a distinction that doesn’t exist.

    Ethnicity includes however a larger cultural component. A person’s ethnicity can change. through national identification their race cannot change regardless of their own culture of belief (though race is partially a social construct and thus racial classification can change based on other’s beliefs). You given an excellent example in the article of “Arab” as an ethnic identity and not simply a racial identity. During the period of “Arabization” (to use your term) Arab was an inclusive identity, though today it is more exclusive (i.e. it excludes Israelis, Kurds…)

    I think of “Israeli” as an ethnic identity in the same way. Clearly there is no race of Jews. Genetically Jews a hundred years ago are more similar to the populations in which they lived than they were to each other. However Zionism created an inclusive ethnic identity for all them and then built a common culture in Israel from which they share. So today Jews have an Israeli ethnicity (a Jewish ethnicity), regardless of whether they are Israeli. That is while there was an Ashkenazi ethnicity a 100 years ago there was no such thing as a Jewish ethnicity, today there is. And thus within Israel itself there is a even a deeper cultural ties and thus an Israeli national identity. The Israeli national identity can be extended to ethnic Palestinians and thus assimilate them into the nation which of course also assimilates them ethnically as well.

    I think the designation “Israeli-Arab” was a step in this direction. The Israeli-Arab’s choice to identify as Palestinian rather than Israeli in the early 1980s hindered the progress in this direction, but the door remains open as demonstrated by the slow progress that is occurring. And that I think overtime an assimilation process similar to what is happening to the Israeli-Arabs is how the goal of an inclusive egalitarian state is accomplished for the West Bank.

    Then it is an Apartheid state. I have 0 rights in Israel.

    See above. I think the situational is transitional regarding having a military dictatorship in the West Bank and a Democracy in ’48 Israel. I think the democracy is going to be spread to East Jerusalem, Area C and Golan in the very near future with citizenship and a model of almost full equality before the law (I won’t disagree there is discrimination in Israel) over almost all the territory. That does for the short term leave behind Area A as a self governing autonomy zone for people who live there and don’t want to be part of Israel. Because no Jews live there and it has autonomy I don’t think that quite qualifies as apartheid. Were the residents of Area A to ask to fully join the Israeli state / nation and if they were rebuffed on racial ground I do think that would be apartheid but that hasn’t happened. Nor do I think it is likely to happen. You have 0 rights in Israel [assuming the bio above is correct and you live in Ramallah] now because collectively you claim to be citizens of an imaginary state called “Palestine” not citizens of Israel. Were the people of Ramallah willing to be Israeli it is my belief they would soon find themselves being Israeli legally.

    • diasp0ra
      March 3, 2017, 6:44 am

      “People whose ancestors came from the territory of Palestine primarily that still identify as Palestinian.”

      But that isn’t an ethnic Palestinian, that’s just a Palestinian. There is no defined ethnicity, it’s an inclusive civic identity.

      “a) There is racial difference between Israelis and Palestinians b) Israel discriminates on the basis of that racial difference. I would assert that racially Palestinians are the same as Mizrahi Jews. So here we do disagree. Israel can’t be discriminating based on a distinction that doesn’t exist.“

      Literally, perhaps. But politically any Jewish person in Israel is considered a different ethnicity than their Palestinian neighbors. Even your ID cards say this. But this is a moot point, we’re not discussing genealogy but rather the actual material conditions which differ in Israel based on your perceived ethnicity. There is a clear discrimination, and different standards for each group. You’re arguing semantics and definitions and avoiding the very real discrimination on the ground.

      “I think the designation “Israeli-Arab” was a step in this direction. The Israeli-Arab’s choice to identify as Palestinian rather than Israeli in the early 1980s hindered the progress in this direction, but the door remains open as demonstrated by the slow progress that is occurring. And that I think overtime an assimilation process similar to what is happening to the Israeli-Arabs is how the goal of an inclusive egalitarian state is accomplished for the West Bank.”

      What you’re describing is complete capitulation of any Palestinian culture or rights. I would remind you that Zionists came from across the sea to establish their state over an already existing people. It is settler colonialism. It should be resisted. There will never be justice if one group needs to dominate another in Israel, and in essence, this is what Zionism needs to have a functioning state. If both of our goals is an egalitarian state for all, then it cannot be a Zionist one.

      Your final paragraph, is frankly, quite insulting. And typical of colonizers everywhere talking down to the colonized. I do not wish to discuss this matter with you further, I just hope that one day you will see the horrors needed to sustain Israel, and it can never be reformed.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 3, 2017, 1:50 pm

      The ethnic cleansing, massacres and colonialism needed to establish Israel can never be justified, regardless of who was there first. It’s a moot point. Even if we follow the argument that Palestinians have only been there for 1300 years, does this suddenly legitimize the expulsion of hundreds of thousands? Of course not. There is no possible scenario where it is excusable to perpetrate war crimes against a people. Human rights apply to people universally, regardless of whether they have lived in an area for a year or ten thousand years. –

      Jeff b: what I don’t follow isn’t why wouldn’t that line also apply to ethnic Palestinians born in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq… That is a generalized belief that everyone should have citizenship where they are born as a human right. And then also why wouldn’t this apply to Israeli settlers? –

      there is no generalized belief that everyone should have citizenship where they are born as a human right. in fact, the universal declaration of human rights doesn’t mention citizenship. maybe you’re confusing human rights for civil rights. they are different although some human rights bleed into civil rights. here’s a link you might find helpful distinguishing the differences: https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31546

      and here’s another example of jeff’s argument by strawman:

      I think you are asserting using colonial language that: a) There is racial difference between Israelis and Palestinians b) Israel discriminates on the basis of that racial difference. I would assert that racially Palestinians are the same as Mizrahi Jews. So here we do disagree.

      Fathi never asserted there was a “racial difference Israelis and Palestinians”. so claiming he did and then disagreeing with him is winning an argument of your own making.

      The Israeli national identity can be extended to ethnic Palestinians and thus assimilate them into the nation which of course also assimilates them ethnically as well.

      israel’s supreme court doesn’t agree with you. they do not recognize an israeli nationality, they only recognize ethnic nationalities. and only jews are allowed favored national status, there’s a whole slew of privileges they get over and above the rights of citizenship afforded to some palestinians and not afforded to others. israel has a “nationality law” that breaks down who gets what, i suggest you google it and get informed. definitely not equal. iow, you’re just wrong.

      israel is an ethnic nationalist state that privileges jews by law, via their nationality law. no amount of “i think this” and whatever creative theories you may have will change that.

      • MHughes976
        March 3, 2017, 5:02 pm

        It seems to me that the basic political right is to be an enfranchised citizen of a sovereign state, since without enfranchisement one is to some degree at the disposal of others within one’s own society and without sovereignty one is to some degree at the disposal of outsiders – and both these things limit ability to be an effective and responsible moral agent, a status which we must have some need and duty to attain. Even so, there’s room for practical compromises by common consent and for the good of all, not that any major compromise of this
        kind exists in Palestine just now. Israel is an illegitimate polity because it exercises sovereign power in many ways over many people in disfranchised state and does so in the absence of any agreed compromise. I agree that it should be normal for people to be enfranchised where they are born, since anything else implies enormous insecurity. But marauders with axes in their hands do not have civil rights in the places they have ravaged, do not gain rights by making the desert where they stand after their raids and forays bloom (since that does nothing to make things good for their victims) and cannot transmit to their children rights which would perpetuate the wrongs they have done, since that is not what rights do. But no ongoing situation is so bad that there can be no compromise.

      • echinococcus
        March 4, 2017, 1:17 am

        Hughes,

        I like the way you worded it. I’d propose that there is one situation “so bad that there can be no compromise”: that in which the axe-wielding marauders and heirs are so totally uncompromising (and suicidal when cornered), due to their ideology, that they represent the only specimen on earth of the Unmoving Object.

  8. JeffB
    March 2, 2017, 7:33 pm

    @talknic

    Most of what you list is just the UN disagrees with Israel. Well yes it does.

    But this is new. I guess I’ll try responding.

    JeffB: “I do support a belief in the necessity of states to occupy territory though I think this happens far too often.”

    talknic: Start naming those since 1945 when the UN codified International Law regarding the illegality of acquiring territory by any coercive measure

    My point above is that once territory is acquired it isn’t occupied. Which is one of the reasons I think the UN’s position is nonsensical. However some occupations I agree with:

    1) USA occupation of the Dominican Republic to stop a civil war and ensure elections in 1965.
    2) Israeli occupation of the Sinai regarding Egypt’s aggression 1967
    3) South African occupation of parts of Angola to defend against attack 1975
    4) Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia to stop a genocide 1979
    5) USA occupation of Grenada to liberate communist conquered territory 1983
    6) NATO occupation of Kosovo to stop a genocide 1999
    7) Russian occupation of Crimea to advance self determination, 2014

    The UN has mostly been opposed to most of these most shockingly the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. So they aren’t only wrong in the case of Israel.

    • talknic
      March 3, 2017, 12:33 am

      Watching the Zionist supporter dig a deeper cat hole

      @ JeffB March 2, 2017, 7:33 pm

      “… this is new. I guess I’ll try responding.

      JeffB: “I do support a belief in the necessity of states to occupy territory though I think this happens far too often.”

      talknic: Start naming those since 1945 when the UN codified International Law regarding the illegality of acquiring territory by any coercive measure

      My point above is that once territory is acquired it isn’t occupied. “

      It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/force/any coercive measure. It may be restored. However, Israel has never had any territory taken in order to restore it Professor Stephen M. Schwebel – (NB: ‘Professor’ not at the time of his statement a Judge of International Court of Justice) as quoted by

      Mr. HERZOG (Israel):
      99. The state of the law has been correctly summarized by Elihu Lauterpacht, a distinguished authority on international law, as follows:
      “… territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the unlawful use of force. But to omit the word `unlawful’ is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor’s charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territorial change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct.”

      restore the lawful sovereign.
      A) It is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war, aggressive/illegal OR defensive/legal. The reason the phrase does not include an ‘aggressive/illegal’ or ‘defensive/legal’ qualification is because it means ANY war. The inhabitants might not have voted for or even been able to vote for the regime in power at the start of the conflict. The UN Charter stipulates ‘self determination’. Not the determination of a conquering power.

      “Which is one of the reasons I think the UN’s position is nonsensical.”

      What a supporter of the illegal actions of the State of Israel thinks isn’t very convincing

      ” However some occupations I agree with:

      1) USA occupation of the Dominican Republic to stop a civil war and ensure elections in 1965.”
      Does the US claim it? Do US citizens illegally settle there?

      “2) Israeli occupation of the Sinai regarding Egypt’s aggression 1967”

      A ) Israel’s attack was preemptive. There was no Egyptian aggression, no UNSC condemnation of Egypt’s self defensive actions,
      B) As shown by the Egypt/Israel Peace Treaty, under UNSC res 242 /338 Israel was required to withdraw from all Egyptian territories

      “3) South African occupation of parts of Angola to defend against attack 1975”

      Did they claim it for Sth Africa? Did Sth Africans illegally settle in Angola?

      4) Vietnam’s occupation of Cambodia to stop a genocide 1979

      Did they claim it for Vietnam? Did Vietnamese citizen illegally settle in Cambodia?

      “5) USA occupation of Grenada to liberate communist conquered territory 1983”

      Did the US claim Grenada for itself? Did US citizens illegally settle in Grenada?

      “6) NATO occupation of Kosovo to stop a genocide 1999”

      “7) Russian occupation of Crimea to advance self determination, 2014”

      There was a referendum (per the UN notions of self determination) in Russia’s favor

      “The UN has mostly been opposed to most of these most shockingly the Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. So they aren’t only wrong in the case of Israel”

      Unlike the others, Israel is illegally claiming non-Israeli territories as its own and it is assisting Israeli citizens to illegally settle in non-Israeli territories

      • Talkback
        March 4, 2017, 4:11 am

        Talknic: “A ) Israel’s attack was preemptive.”

        Not exactly. Israel’s attack simply was an attack to expanse Israel’s territory even beyond the borders of former mandated Palestine and in accordance with biblical claims. This has been a goal before 1948 and this was the reason why Israel immediately started to settle the Sinai, Syria’s Golan Heights and the Palestinian’s Gaza and Westbank.

      • JeffB
        March 4, 2017, 9:52 am

        @talknic

        I’m dropping out of this conversation. But I think you lost the thread of the argument entirely based on your response. Eljay was talking about occupation as some sort of intrinsic injustice. I was giving examples of occupations I fully approved of. Your point that those occupations don’t involve settlement would if true simply emphasize the point that occupation and population migration are mostly distinct phenomena.

        As an aside you are wrong about Vietnam and Cambodia. Cambodia had experienced substantial Vietnamese migration since the 1830s. The Cambodians considered the Vietnamese to be illegal settlers and thus didn’t grant them citizenship after gaining independence from Japan. The Khmer Rouge shared your politics regarding illegal settlers and genocided the community: about 80% were ethnically cleansed to Vietnam with the remainder mostly killed off. Vietnam responded quite reasonably by invading Cambodia and establishing a occupation government. They put an end to all the Khmer Rouge genocidal policies which at that point had killed off somewhere around 25% of the Cambodian population the religious Cambodians plus those people they considered the descendants of illegal settlers (Vietnamese, Chinese, Buddhists, Chan Muslims…)

        During the occupation the Vietnamese encouraged descendants of those displaced plus other Vietnamese to migrate back. When Vietnam was forced to retreat (by the USA and China via. the UN) Cambodian politics reasserted itself and the Vietnamese in Cambodia are mostly considered “a disease infecting Cambodia” rather than citizens.

        Far from not being a good analogy The Khmer Rouge are a terrific example of what your sort of anti-settlement philosophy looks like in victory. The Vietnamese response is what sane and healthy people do when confronted by your politics. Its a true pity for humanity that the Vietnamese occupation didn’t continue until they could reorient Cambodia politically. The UN’s response to this whole situation imposing heavy sanctions on the Vietnamese essentially to facilitate another round of the genocide proves yet another example of why the UN is a truly evil organization.

      • talknic
        March 4, 2017, 11:30 am

        @ JeffB March 4, 2017, 9:52 am

        “Your point that those occupations don’t involve settlement would if true simply emphasize the point that occupation and population migration are mostly distinct phenomena.”

        Israelis aren’t ‘migrating’ to territories in the West Bank. They’re illegally settling

        ” Cambodia had experienced substantial Vietnamese migration since the 1830s …”

        I believe the 1830’s was more than a century BEFORE 1945 http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/finders-keepers-there/#comment-175586

        “The Khmer Rouge shared your politics regarding illegal settlers and genocided the community”

        Strange I’ve never advocated genocide on anyone. I do advocate that Israel to resettle its illegal settlers back in Israel.

        False accusations are against the basic tenets of Judaism. That you’re willing to falsely accuse on behalf of the Jewish State is really quite bizarre. It shows folk just how low ZioNutters are willing to go. Keep up the good work

        “Vietnam responded quite reasonably by invading Cambodia and establishing a occupation government. They put an end to all the Khmer Rouge genocidal policies”

        You seem to be saying someone ought invade Palestine and end Israel’s slow motion genocidal policies

        “Far from not being a good analogy The Khmer Rouge are a terrific example of what your sort of anti-settlement philosophy looks like in victory”

        Care to give an example of where I’ve advocated genocide on anyone … thx I’ll wait

      • talknic
        March 8, 2017, 1:10 am

        and wait …

  9. YoniFalic
    March 2, 2017, 7:40 pm

    Zionism is a mixed Central & Eastern European political ideology. Most of the associated propaganda reflects its origin. Hence the interminable arguing whether Palestinians constitute a genuine people (i.e. Volk in the German sense or naród in the Polish/Russian/Serbo-Croatian sense). Such ideas belong to racist organic nationalism. (There are also non-racist forms of organic nationalism.)

    Such concepts of nationalism do exist in American intellectual history. Thomas Dixon, who wrote The Leopard’s Spots and The Clansman, used white and Aryan nationalism interchangeably.

    In contrast, mainstream American thinkers have tended to start from Wilsonian voluntary or civil nationalist ideas of democratic self-determination of a population resident in a region.

    Arab thought has encompassed both civil and organic nationalist concepts, but today such ideas seem to have lost out to less Westernized more Islamic concepts.

  10. Boris
    March 2, 2017, 8:47 pm

    Total b/s.

    First of all, Prussians were eradicated by Germans. They were forbidden to have children.

    Second, yes, there are some Palestinians Arabs who are descendants of Jews. I remember watching a movie about a clan, that Pals themselves call Yahud – Jews. They had converted in recent memory – and people still remember that.

    The territory that is known as Palestine today was inhabited by various ethnicities. For example, Samarians, Greeks, etc. Later, Bosnians, some Russian Cassaks, etc. This is not the point.

    Only Jews had their ethnic state there. It is a historical fact. And for centuries we reminded ourselves about it.

    I was born in Ukraine. My family and all my ancestors were always Jewish.

    23andme says that my DNA is similar to Kurds and people from Lebanon. Why? Because my ancestors came from that region. So, it was not that some Slav or a Turk had converted to Judaism.

    Like Native Tribes in America who retain their claim to their ancestral land – I have the same claim to my. It is in my blood, in my genes, and in my culture and identity.

    People who converted and severed their tie to Jewish people don’t have that right.

    • talknic
      March 3, 2017, 2:39 am

      @ Boris March 2, 2017, 8:47 pm

      “Like Native Tribes in America who retain their claim to their ancestral land – I have the same claim to my.”

      The Native Tribes are from and in America. The Ukraine was never in Palestine or Israel.

      BTW The Kingdom of David only lasted a few years and in all likelihood Jews were never a majority in the region. The far greater part of Jewish history in the region has been as Palestinian Jews.

      • Boris
        March 5, 2017, 9:38 pm

        Cherokees are from Georgia. Where are they now?

        And yes, Americans are not as vicious as Romans, times are different, and it’s been less than 200 years since they were forced on the Trail of Tears.

    • diasp0ra
      March 3, 2017, 6:32 am

      “First of all, Prussians were eradicated by Germans. They were forbidden to have children.”

      Boris, The Prussians were the ones leading the Germanization efforts and were arguably the most powerful and influential state until it was dissolved by the Allies. Most leaders and industrialists were Prussian. I haven’t heard of them ever being denied children, let alone by the Germans, but I’m open to learning if you could provide documentation.

      “The territory that is known as Palestine today was inhabited by various ethnicities. For example, Samarians, Greeks, etc. Later, Bosnians, some Russian Cassaks, etc. This is not the point. Only Jews had their ethnic state there. It is a historical fact. And for centuries we reminded ourselves about it.”

      Palestine was home to dozens of empires and kingdoms. Why is it only the right of the Jewish people to have an exclusive state there out of all of those kingdoms and empires and groups? You’re using modern understandings of ethnicity that didn’t exist at the time. You’re trying to bend history to fit your ideology.

      “Like Native Tribes in America who retain their claim to their ancestral land – I have the same claim to my. It is in my blood, in my genes, and in my culture and identity. People who converted and severed their tie to Jewish people don’t have that right.”

      You’re conflating Zionism and Judaism. Nothing contradicts being Palestinian and Jewish and for you to live in your indigenous land. But it is also my indigenous land. You don’t get an exclusive claim over it, it should be for all, under an inclusive identity not based on ethnicity. The land wasn’t put on hold for a particular group and no other group has a claim. I hope you realize how unrealistic and ahistorical your claim is.

      As for your claim of BS. Everything stated in the article is factual. If it doesn’t support your ideology, then maybe reexamine your ideology.

      • Maghlawatan
        March 3, 2017, 9:56 am

        Boris is right about Prussians. There is an extinct baltic language called Prussian which was spoken by the native people prior to the German colonisation of Prussia in the 13th century. The pied piper of Hamelin story is believed to be linked to the colonisation.

      • YoniFalic
        March 3, 2017, 12:35 pm

        Careful scholars distinguish Old Prussians and Old Prussian from modern Prussians (a Germanic group) and modern Prussian (a dialect of German). The German use of Prussian is somewhat reminiscent of a Roman general’s use of a gentilic derived from the name of a people that he conquered, e.g., Germanicus.

        In the case of the Prussian Germanic nobility, it distinguished itself from other Germanic nobility by adding the adjective Prussian to indicate that it had conquered Prussia and the Prussians.

        With increasing democratization since the Reformation, non-nobles of the region began to think of themselves as Prussians rather than as members of the peasantry or of the bourgeoisie.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 3, 2017, 3:07 pm

        You’re using modern understandings of ethnicity that didn’t exist at the time. You’re trying to bend history to fit your ideology. –

        he’s also using a modern understanding of “state”, that didn’t exist at the time, and he’s doing it with fluidity, applying it when it suits his argument.

        when he says “Like Native Tribes in America who retain their claim to their ancestral land”, he forgets native american tribes didn’t have our modern understanding of state either. so what — it’s not their ancestral land anymore?

        “People who converted and severed their tie to Jewish people don’t have that right”

        this is insane logic. article 18 in the declaration of human rights says

        Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

        and Article 30:

        Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

        so whatever recognized rights to ancestral land he imagine jews have to palestine, can’t be stripped by changing ones religion, or it would violate the declaration of human rights. and by his own standards one could make the argument that because native americans never declared a “state”, the US is not their ancestral land.

        palestinians have much in common native americans. european colonizers of palestine, not so much.

        and the absurdity that someone like ivanka trump could gain a ‘right to their ancestral homeland’ in palestine (“It is in my blood, in my genes, and in my culture and identity.”) over and above that of a palestinian by virtue of her faith is overwhelmingly difficult to comprehend. logically, requiring some kind of pretzel pilpul contortions.

      • Boris
        March 8, 2017, 7:42 am

        Hey, Annie, your anti-Semitism is showing – half of Israel’s Jewish population is from Arab/Muslim countries.

    • zaid
      March 3, 2017, 6:35 am

      Sorry to disappoint you but Kurds are not from the region, and they are not Semites, their homeland is in Anatolia and western Iran.

      Kurds are a linguistic group (like Arabs and Latinos) and not an ethnic one ,Kurds are a mix of Persians and turks (khazars) and their language is an Iranian language and not a Semitic one. Some Kurds drifted to the Levant recently including lebanon (Druze are partially Kurds)

      Recent Genetic study of Ancient remain dating to the bronze age found in Palestine showed them to resemble Modern Palestinians. on the other hand modern Ashkenazi Jews like you resemble people who lived in north Anatolia and not the Levant.

      http://www.timesofisrael.com/new-dna-tech-pinpoints-yiddish-origins-to-north-turkey/

      • Boris
        March 8, 2017, 7:38 am

        You switching arguments and facts like a swindler does with the three cards monte game.

        The link you are pointing to is about how Yiddish was originated 1,000 years ago, not how Jews had originated in what is known today as Palestine or that Paleostinians are related to dinosaurs.

    • eljay
      March 3, 2017, 6:42 am

      || Boris: … I was born in Ukraine. … ||

      So you’re Ukrainian.

      || … My family and all my ancestors were always Jewish. … ||

      A religion-based identity.

      || … Like Native Tribes in America who retain their claim to their ancestral land – I have the same claim to my. … ||

      Like Native Tribes in America, the non-Jewish and Jewish indigenous population of geographic Palestine – and not some guy from Ukraine who chooses to hold a religion-based identity – are the colonized. They retain their claim to their ancestral land.

      • MHughes976
        March 3, 2017, 5:14 pm

        We are always dealing with variations on the theme of divine donation, God’s overriding of the normal ethical rules in the assignment of territory to people who are then under an obligation to maintain an identity that puts God’s decree into effect. This theme has had its impact on Christianity. That many of its main proponents should have been atheists is remarkable.

    • Mooser
      March 3, 2017, 12:45 pm

      “Like Native Tribes in America who retain their claim to their ancestral land – I have the same claim to my. It is in my blood, in my genes, and in my culture and identity.”

      Oh fer god’s fucking sake.

      “People who converted and severed their tie to Jewish people don’t have that right.”

      Yup, we need to make Judaism, and its attendant “right” as exclusive as possible! No phonies, ringers, backsliders and reduced rights for Reformers. (But what about Refrummers?)
      Careful, “Boris”. You don’t want to make Jewish rights so exclusive there aren’t enough Jews to operate the country.

      Yeah, yeah, it’s in your blut and the boden on your genes.

    • Mooser
      March 3, 2017, 3:48 pm

      .” It is in my blood, in my genes, and in my culture and identity.”

      I think I get it. Sussex England produced Piltdown Man, and Palestine gave rise to Jewdown Man?

      • gamal
        March 3, 2017, 4:57 pm

        “and Palestine gave rise to Jewdown Man?”

        thats really fine Mooser, a novel in a sentence,

        pleistocene people are such a drag

        Boris, please anyone expect Palestinians to address Jeff or Boris

        guys like Fathi are so decent, not like me, so stable reliable and calm, it really hurts to see fools like the two Zionists mess with them, its revolting.

      • Mooser
        March 4, 2017, 11:23 am

        ,” a novel in a sentence,”

        A paperback novel, the kind the drugstore sells.

    • Talkback
      March 4, 2017, 4:16 am

      @ Boris

      “23andme says that my DNA is similar to Kurds and people from Lebanon … “Like Native Tribes in America who retain their claim to their ancestral land – I have the same claim to my. ”

      So when can we expect you to terrorize Kurds or Lebanese, take their land by force and expelle anyone who isn’t Jewish?

    • Theo
      March 6, 2017, 12:52 pm

      Boris

      “First of all, prussians were eradicated by the germans”….. and other BS.
      I think you should go back to school to brush up on history! The prussians are one of the germanic tribes, among the bavarians, franken, suedes, alemannen, hessen, east and west goths, vandalen, longobarden, vikinger, danen, etc., etc. Further, the sachsen and angeln settled on the british island, creating an anglo-saxon nation, the nordmannen settled in Frankreich´s Normandie, etc. When Bismark united the so many german states into the German Reich, the prussian king became the emperor and could have as many children as he wanted!

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2017, 1:38 pm

        “The prussians are one of the germanic tribes,”

        And if I am not mistaken, the landowning class of Prussians were the first to corner the scrap-iron-and-recycled-steel business.
        Got themselves quite a name for it.

  11. Kay24
    March 3, 2017, 2:27 am

    This must be karma.

    “US officials have raided three Caterpillar sites as part of a criminal probe into tax irregularities at the heavy machinery manufacturer.
    The raid sent the company’s stocks sharply lower to close down 4.3%.
    Caterpillar said it thought the probe was linked to profits from Swiss subsidiary CSARL.
    The company is accused of shifting billions of profits abroad to avoid paying taxes in the US.”
    BBC news

    Bulldozers inc. getting their just desserts.

  12. WH
    March 3, 2017, 2:31 am

    >Prussians were eradicated by Germans. They were forbidden to have children.

    Do you have some facts to support this claim? Prussia and Germany were both political constructs; Prussia was a muilti-ethnic kingdom, then state, and was absorbed into the German Empire. Are you talking about East Prussians, Slavic Prussians? There was no eradication, their political identity simply changed. And ffter the decline of the German Empire and then Nazi Germany, ethnic Germans were expelled from former provinces like parts of Poland and Czechoslovakia.

  13. Blake
    March 3, 2017, 6:23 am

    Firstly, that is not something a Palestinian claims. Its the impostor propagandists who make the claim they were there first and denies the Palestinian history. Its the impostors who did not want to integrate, merely dispossess.

    Secondly, 5000 years ago a succession of population groups migrated north from the Arabian peninsula into areas of the Middle east. These people are labelled together as Semites because their languages were all related & derived from a common tongue. These groups were organized and founded civilizations across the region. The group that populated the area of Palestine became known as the Canaanites (Palestinian parent tree). Another group of Semites arrived 2000 years after the Canaanites where they became known as the Hebrews (from the word ‘habiru’ meaning ‘nomad’).

    Finally, Lord Shaftesbury was driven by Christian messianic prophecy and believed that ‘Jewish Restorationists’ would hasten the second coming of Jesus. In 1838 he used the term ‘a nation without people for people without a nation’ He was instrumental in setting up the British Consulate in Jerusalem and getting another Restorationist, James Finn, appointed as the Consul. His family links with Palmerston enabled him to influence government policy and this was half a century before Herzl’s Zionism started.

    • Boris
      March 8, 2017, 7:47 am

      Yes, that was Emperor Hadrian’s idea – to rename Judea to Palestine in order to wipe out Jewish history, disperse Jews all over his empire and have them to disappear, or, as you say – “integrate”.

      It did work with other peoples, but we, the Jews, are too stubborn…

      • YoniFalic
        March 8, 2017, 8:49 am

        There are a lot of people that like me can read koine and Classical Greek. Judean, Judaic, and pagan authors in Greek all identify Judea as a region in Palestine long before Emperor Hadrian.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2017, 11:41 am

        “It did work with other peoples, but we, the Jews, are too stubborn… “

        Nonsense. We are a famously easy-going, hale-fellow-well-met, I’m-allright-you’re-allright, L’Chaim! kind of people.
        Real Jews seek compromise and consensus.
        And, my Bible tells me, are always ready to play Baal.

        That’s how we got “as numerous as the Chinese”.

      • Boris
        March 8, 2017, 12:05 pm

        That’s b/s. You don’t read originals. Whatever you read was copied and modified in middle ages.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2017, 1:09 pm

        “That’s b/s. You don’t read originals”

        Look, I had to link to the movie on You-Tube. But we had the “Original Broadway Cast” album when I was a kid, and I listened to it over and over. Don’t talk to me about original sources. And, talk about apocrypha, we had “Milk and Honey”, too.

      • Boris
        March 8, 2017, 9:25 pm

        MS-DOS copy is much more reliable than those medieval monks.

      • RoHa
        March 8, 2017, 10:25 pm

        And those famously anti-Semitic mediaeval monks carefully edited Ovid to make sure the text conformed with an ancient pagan emperor’s wishes. And they managed to fit “Palestine” in without changing Ovid’s metrical structure. And then they edited all the other ancient texts to make it seem that Judea was a region in Palestine.

        Do you have the slightest scrap of evidence for this?

      • RoHa
        March 9, 2017, 11:28 am

        I’m going to expand on that. When I claim that a part of the NT is an interpolation or a forgery, I provide evidence in the form of philological arguments, comparisons of manuscripts, etc.

        Do you have any such evidence for the falsification of ancient manuscripts that referred to Palestine? The untrustworthiness of mediaeval monks is not evidence. It simply opens the possibility.

        If not, it looks as though you are saying “I don’t want to believe it, so I’ll deny the evidence for it with no good reason”. And that is just self-deception.

        Though I suppose that Zionists need to practice self-deception in order to continue lying to the rest of us. A sort of inversion of the principle expounded by that prosy old bore Polonius.

  14. MHughes976
    March 3, 2017, 7:32 am

    If a group of people set up an ethnic state – one where membership is hereditary, inherited from the group’s original members, one from which others are excluded? – in a certain territory then the right to be a full citizen in a state which includes at least some – or must it be all? – of that territory continues for ever, inherited like a name or property and eliminated or modified by nothing except embracing a religion not characteristic of that ethnicity, and there are no other relevant rights?
    Or would it be enough to be a full citizen of an area which includes but is not limited by the boundaries of ancient times?
    It is possible that more than one ethnic state satisfying this definition should have existed in the same area at different times. This would seem to me to make the general claim paradoxical. Then again, if it happens that only one state over time has been fully ethnic it follows that the others that have existed there have been less exclusive on ethnic and perhaps religious grounds than the one in question. I can see no reason why these polities are less valid as social contracts or less able to create hereditary rights extending for ever than the ethnic ones.
    How can it make no difference if the bearers of hereditary citizenship rights accept full citizenship or profess full allegiance to a polity other than the one in question?
    Native American rights exist but there have been agreements for a degree of mutual advantage. Because of these agreements N American rights are not advocated as if no one else living in the American continents had any right to a share of sovereignty over the place. Welsh rights exist but for similar reasons the Welsh do not claim the right to exclude the descendants of the English invaders of 500 CE from Britain.

  15. Misterioso
    March 3, 2017, 11:25 am

    Some pertinent facts:

    Land ownership by Sub-district in all of mandated Palestine in 1947:
    Acre: 87% Palestinian Arab owned, 3% Jewish owned, 10% state owned; Safed: 68% Palestinian Arab owned, 18% Jewish owned, 14% state owned; Haifa: 42% Palestinian Arab owned, 35% Jewish owned, 23% state owned; Nazareth: 52% Palestinian Arab owned, 28% Jewish owned, 20% state owned; Tiberias: 51% Palestinian Arab owned, 38% Jewish owned, 11% state owned; Jenin: 84% Palestinian Arab owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 16% state owned; Beisan: 44% Palestinian Arab owned, 34% Jewish owned, 22% state owned; Tulkarm: 78% Palestinan Arab owned; 17% Jewish owned, 5% state owned; Nablus: 87% Palestinian Arab owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 13% state owned; Jaffa: 47% Palestinian Arab owned, 39% Jewish owned, 14% state owned; Ramleh: 77% Palestinian Arab owned, 14% Jewish owned, 9% state owned; Ramallah: 99% Arab Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, less than 1% state owned; Jerusalem (West and East): 84% Palestinian Arab owned, 2% Jewish owned, 14% state owned; Gaza: 75% Palestinian Arab owned, 4% Jewish owned, 21% state owned; Hebron: 96% Palestinian Arab owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 4% state owned; Bersheeba (Negev): 15% Palestinian Arab owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 85% state owned. (Village Statistics, Jerusalem: Palestine Government, 1945; subsequently published as United Nations Map no. 94b, August, 1950)

    Population of and land ownership in West and East Jerusalem in 1947:

    The total population of West Jerusalem (the New City) and East Jerusalem (the Old City) and their environs was about 200,000 with a slight Arab majority. (Professor Walid Khalidi, Harvard, “Plan Dalet,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Autumn, 1988, p. 17)

    The total land area of West Jerusalem (the New City) in 1947 was 19,331 dunams (about 4,833 acres) of which 40 per cent was owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians, 26.12 per cent by Jews and 13.86 per cent by others, including Christian communities. Government and municipal land made up 2.90 per cent and roads and railways 17.12 per cent.

    East Jerusalem (the Old City) consisted of 800 dunams (about 240 acres) of which five dunams (just over one acre) were Jewish owned and the remaining 795 dunams were owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians. (“Assessing Palestinian Property in the City,” by Dalia Habash and Terry Rempel, Jerusalem 1948: The Arab Neighbourhoods and their Fate in the War, edited by Salim Tamari, The Institute of Jerusalem Studies, 1999, map, pp. 184-85)

    Apart from its illegality (e.g., in violation of the League of Nations Class A British mandate, recommendatory only, never adopted by the UNSC), the Partition Plan was also grossly unfair to the native Palestinian Arab citizens. Despite massive immigration during the British Mandate, which included tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, by 1948, Jews made up just 31% of the population and only about 30% of them had taken out Palestinian citizenship. Around ten per cent of the Jewish population consisted of native Palestinian Arab Jews who vehemently opposed Zionism. Arab Palestinians comprised 69% of the population and privately owned (‘mulk khaas’) 48% of the land area of mandated Palestine. Jews privately owned between six and seven per cent of the land. About 45% of Palestine’s land area was state owned (i.e., by its citizens) and it was comprised of Communal Property (‘mashaa’), Endowment Property, (‘waqf’), and Government Property, (‘miri’.)

    In short, Palestinians were entirely justified and in full accordance with international law when they rejected the Partition Plan.

    Rubbing salt into the wound, the United States quashed a proposal based on international law put forth by Arab delegates at the UN that a referendum be conducted in Palestine to determine the wishes of the majority regarding the Partition Plan. The United States also thwarted their request to have the matter referred to the International Court of Justice.

  16. rosross
    March 3, 2017, 9:19 pm

    This is an interesting article, but of course it is the wrong question.

    What matters is that the human rights of all are taken into account and the construction of a so-called Jewish State, which is really a Zionist State which does not represent Jews or Judaism, on Palestine demands the subjugation and denial of human rights for the indigenous people of the land.

    That cannot be tolerated. It is utterly irrelevant who can trace their ancestry back further, since there is only one race, the human race, and anyway, Judaism like all religions comprises all races and is not a distinct race in itself and probably, given the intermixing of peoples, the rape and pillage, common to all religions, never was.

    This article touches upon a point often overlooked in terms of Anglo/European colonisations, and that is intermixing. It is simply not true that the colonists eradicated the people they found living in the land they settled and since men frequently came first and women were few, the reality was that indigenous women took up with male colonists and this ultimately diluted the indigenous peoples.

    Just as most British people have links to the Royal Family, if their ancestors have been around for a long time, so too do most Americans, Canadian, Australians etc., have indigenous links. That is and always has been, the way of it.

    Israel is forever talking about peace, ignoring the fact it is the only side which can bring peace, when the issue is simply about justice.

  17. Boris
    March 3, 2017, 9:45 pm

    Thanks for responding to my comment.

    However, I am not going to respond since my comments are “moderated”. There is no point of having a conversation with a wall.

    • Mooser
      March 4, 2017, 11:21 am

      “However, I am not going to respond since my comments are “moderated”.”

      All comments, every one, are moderated. And are you sure you pushed “Post Comment”?

      “There is no point of having a conversation with a wall.”

      Little known fact: There was once a quay on Puget Sound from which cetaceans could be harpooned. They called it the Whaling Wall.

      • Boris
        March 5, 2017, 9:33 pm

        Well, the “moderation” for me results in my comments not being published. This invariably happens when Mondo staff can’t argue with facts and logic. They just drop them.

        So, what’s the point of spending time writing them, Moser?

      • talknic
        March 6, 2017, 1:24 am

        @ Boris March 5, 2017, 9:33 pm

        “Well, the “moderation” for me results in my comments not being published. This invariably happens when Mondo staff can’t argue with facts and logic. They just drop them”

        Strange there are plenty of posts published on MW from ZioNutters who disagree with facts and logic

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2017, 11:14 am

        “Well, the “moderation” for me results in my comments not being published”

        “Boris” bad enough, you blame the Moderators!

        How many times do I have to tell you, you must push “Post Comment” after each post.

  18. CHUCKMAN
    March 4, 2017, 11:50 am

    Pretty good piece.

    But there is a major flaw in starting from the question, “So, in the end, who was there first?”

    You are playing Israel’s own crooked game by even trying to answer.

    The fact is that that is a totally irrelevant question for any territory or country you care to name.

    Should Turkey be Greek owing to the Trojan War three thousand years ago?

    Should Israel be Lebanese owing to the ancient Phoenicians who were there before Hebrews?

    If you want to get ridiculous, you could say Europe belongs to descendants with Neanderthal genes (and there are such).

    What possibly could be more ridiculous than basing anything in modern affairs on words from old manuscripts which speak of turning a woman into salt and a big fish swallowing a man?

    It’s not only intellectually obtuse, it is guaranteed formula for conflict.

    The fact is that the people running and populating most of today’s Israel are of European descent, the Ashkenazi.

    Their native language, yiddish, is related to German, and their food and physical culture point to central and eastern Europe – Latkes, schmaltz, bagels, etc. None of it is Middle Eastern.

    DNA testing indicates two origins. One a group arising near Italy about a thousand years ago which migrated north. Other tests support the old Khazars idea, a people from around Ukraine about a thousand years ago.

    At some point the Hebrews became evangelical, seeing the immense success of Christianity which started as an obscure Hebrew cult. The two groups above both were converts.

    DNA shows some admixture of Semite people, but that is to be expected with movements in and out of various Jewish groups.

    The Hebrew language, except among some scholars and religious students, died. It was artificially revived by modern Israel.

    The bottom line is that the Ashkenazi of Israel are not descendants of the Hebrews.

    Indeed, the great irony is that the Palestinians have the best claim to that title. The Romans who were excellent record keepers recorded no expulsion of Jews in the conquest of the Holy Land. Indeed, it was not their habit to do so in their various conquests.

    The whole story of the wandering Jews of the last two thousand years is a myth, as complete a myth as Jonah being swallowed or Noah and the Ark.

    The Hebrews in Palestine themselves suffered conquests, conversions, and migrations, but that body of people is as close as we have to the ancient Hebrews.

    • MHughes976
      March 6, 2017, 5:13 am

      It’s interesting that we began with an article suggesting that ancient/medieval history does not determine human rights now but that we keep returning to and disputing those historical facts and myths. Such is human nature, I suppose. You mention Troy. I’ve never been to Heinrich Schliemann’s site and am somewhat sceptical about it but I’m told that the Turks are quite keen on appropriating the Trojans and that there is a large wooden horse, eternal symbol of Greek treachery, in the car park.

      • echinococcus
        March 6, 2017, 12:45 pm

        Hughes,

        Looks like you missed the fun about Turkey. The Turkish nationalist dictatorships are still as ludicrously nationalist as any Zionists. Not only the Trojans: they annexed the Sumerians, the Hittites and the whole bunch. All Turks of the first water.

      • MHughes976
        March 6, 2017, 2:47 pm

        A ziggurat next, then?

  19. Boris
    March 4, 2017, 1:01 pm

    Most of you missed my point.

    We all trace our ancestry to one pre-historic woman in Africa. This does not mean that we can all claim some African country citizenship.

    Jewish people as a historical entity has the oldest claim to the piece of land now called Palestine.

    Yes, there were other people in there. As people – they are all gone. Their genes have been inherited by other people, but as ethnic entities – they are gone. We – the Jews – remain.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 4, 2017, 1:23 pm

      As people – they are all gone. Their genes have been inherited by other people …. We – the Jews – remain.

      what garbage.

    • Mooser
      March 4, 2017, 2:50 pm

      “We – the Jews – remain.”

      And as intermarriage, backsliding and assimilation takes its toll, not to mention our refusal to have an adequate number of children, we need to think about what the minimum number which can operate Israel might be, and where they will come from.

      What do you think “Boris”?

      • Boris
        March 5, 2017, 9:41 pm

        Jews are one of the most ancient people. If not for forced assimilation and genocide we would have been as numerous as Chinese. However, now, with strong Israel this process will be reversed.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 6, 2017, 2:12 pm

        now, with strong Israel this process will be reversed.

        you can now sleep soundly rest assured that, like the chinese, jews will be billions strong in a few thousand years, the global majority — no doubt, because of israel.

      • eljay
        March 6, 2017, 8:52 am

        || Boris: Jews are one of the most ancient people. If not for forced assimilation and genocide we would have been as numerous as Chinese. … ||

        Amalekites are even more ancient. If not for their total annihilation by Jews, they would have been as numerous as Chinese.

        || … However, now, with strong Israel this process will be reversed. ||

        Yup, the thousand year “Jewish State” is impossibly strong…except for when it’s a tiny blue dot in a sea of green that’s perpetually on the verge of being wiped off the map and pushed into the sea.

      • talknic
        March 6, 2017, 8:59 am

        @ Boris March 5, 2017, 9:41 pm

        “Jews are one of the most ancient people. “

        Nonsense. The Australian Aboriginals span some 45,000 years. Jews and subsequent Christians and Muslims are newbies

        If not for forced assimilation and genocide we would have been as numerous as Chinese. However, now, with strong Israel this process will be reversed.
        – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/finders-keepers-there/#comment-175586

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2017, 11:19 am

        “Jews are one of the most ancient people. If not for forced assimilation and genocide we would have been as numerous as Chinese. However, now, with strong Israel this process will be reversed.”

        See, “Boris”? What did I tell you? When you remember to push “Post Comment”, your comment appears, no matter how absurd.

        Try and remember to push “Post Comment” . I want to know how Israel is going to expand from 2 to 7 billion.

      • eljay
        March 6, 2017, 12:20 pm

        || Mooser: … I want to know how Israel is going to expand from 2 to 7 billion. ||

        No hurry – Israel still has ~930 years to meet its target.

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2017, 1:32 pm

        “No hurry – Israel still has ~930 years to meet its target.”

        Oh, good. I did not want to be the one to get all, well, lascivious and explain to Boris that the usual order is population first, then power.

        And unlike the Prussians, there’s nobody telling us we can’t have children.

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2017, 1:47 pm

        “Jews are one of the most ancient people. “

        You know, speaking demographically, I would think “Boris” has a point. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if the age distribution was heavily waited towards the ancient.

      • RoHa
        March 7, 2017, 1:36 am

        If you think that the modern Chinese are descendants from a single “people”, you know nothing of the history of China.

    • eljay
      March 4, 2017, 3:28 pm

      || Boris: Most of you missed my point. … ||

      There wasn’t a valid point to miss.

      || … Jewish people as a historical entity has the oldest claim to the piece of land now called Palestine.

      Yes, there were other people in there. As people – they are all gone. Their genes have been inherited by other people, but as ethnic entities – they are gone. We – the Jews – remain. … ||

      You weren’t the first in geographic Palestine, so you don’t have the oldest claim. There hasn’t been a “Jewish State” there for a couple thousand years, so you don’t have the most recent claim to it. “The Jews” remain, but so do the non-Jews.

      The fact that some geographic Palestinians chose to hold (and still choose to hold) the religion-based identity of “Jewish” does not give them or Jewish-identity-holding citizens of homelands all over the world the right to establish a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in Palestine.

    • MHughes976
      March 4, 2017, 4:38 pm

      Is it asserted that genes transmitted through ‘a single ethnic identity’ give prior rights over genes transmitted through several ethnic identities or without regard to ethnic identity? What is an ethnic identity? Why does it have moral importance? Is it the case that no other rights matter when these ethic (or indeed racial) rights are in question?

    • Theo
      March 5, 2017, 12:37 pm

      Boris, (the russian immigrant?)

      “We – the jews – remain”.
      There is no such thing as a jewish nation nowdays, enough was written on this subject to fill a whole library. Present jews in the west, and also the majority in Israel, are nothing, but converted khasars, a TURKISH language nation, powerful during the 8 -11th century, when the mongols overran their empire. Their decendents moved further toward the west in Europe, had many children, and eventually immigrated to the Americas. These people has absolutly nothing to do with the original hebrew tribes and bloodline.
      To Israel immigrated millions of slavic jews, the decendents of those khasars, and according to reliable sources about 30% of them were not even jewish, but people who wanted a better life outside the Sovietunion and later the GUS states.
      Judaism is a religion, not a nation, and it should be treated as such. The area was called Palestine 3,000 years ago, just look at any greek maps of the area. Before Joshua came, there were the Caananits, the Philisters, (therefore the name Palestina), and a few other empires before even Joshua crossed their border, and their decendents are still there. On the other hand, the khasars are just johnny come lately in the history of that land!

      Your ancestry may derive from that little 32 inches woman ape scientists try to sell us as our great o-ma. Mine came later, crossing the Med with boats, and singing O Sole Mio, (and those italians think they have a long history of culture)! I suggest you go to YouTube and search for the 1961 speech of Mr. Freedman, who left judaism when you zionists showd up in the USA!

      • Mooser
        March 5, 2017, 2:22 pm

        “I suggest you go to YouTube and search for the 1961 speech of Mr. Freedman,”

        Can’t go wrong with Benjamin H. Freedman, a most unequivocal fellow.

      • Boris
        March 5, 2017, 9:35 pm

        As I had written earlier, science contradicts your “Khazar theory”.

      • YoniFalic
        March 6, 2017, 7:16 am

        Science hardly contradicts the theory that Eastern European Jews like Boris and me descend entirely from Slavic, Turkic, and other pagan converts.

        Classical writers whether Judaic, Judean, or pagan all agree that the vast majority of the Judaic population at the time of Emperor Augustus (27 BCE-14CE) was of non-Judean convert origin.

        The reaction of closed minds to the facts is always amusing even as it shows how dangerous Zionist bigotry and fanaticism truly is.

        I saw Don’t Buy the Junk Science That Says Yiddish Originated in Turkey in The Forward.

        I disagree with Elhaik’s and Wexler’s hypotheses about the origin of Yiddish on several key points, but I doubt neither Elhaik’s understanding of mathematical genetics nor Wexler’s grasp of linguistic processes, and I have no problem with considering myself ethnically SlavoTurk — something that seems to strike a nerve with many bigots of E. European Jewish ancestry.

        The sputtering of the commentators was mostly incoherent, but one comment actually included some relevant historical facts and made a reasonable argument.

        The author uses two arguments here, sandwiched between a lot of hokum and gibberish. First he tries to discount the theory because it might lead to antisemitic attack… This is no argument at all, only a paper defense of no merit and is foolishness. Secondly, he tries to undermine the theory by claiming that it can’t be true because there is nothing in the language relating to Turkish. Of course there isn’t. If the Ashkenazim came from the NE part of Turkey along the Black Sea and later moved to Kazaria and later Germany, they never heard a word of Turkish unless they learned it from travels into what is today Mongolia and Turkmenistan and that area of Asia. The Seljuk did not arrive in Turkey and establish their rule in Konya until 1200 which was at least 600 years after the Ashkenazim would have left the region according to the theory. This land around the years between 500 and 700 was controlled by the Christian Byzantines to the West from Constantinople, but the area in particular was controlled by the Christian Armenians. During this time there were two great Iconoclastic movements and Islam was born (both anti-idolatry oriented). Times were very violent among the Christians and then between the Christians and Muslims. The violence would have been a good probable cause for an exodus from that part of Anatolia. That part of Turkey even today is very remote and isolated and remains rustic and isolated. In Anatolia Greek was spoke and in Armenia, Armenian was spoken. So the fact that Yiddish has no substantive association with Turkish is moot. On the other-hand if such a claim could be raised regarding Armenian or Greek structure that might have some significance. At the same time a central core of the theory is that Yiddish was created as a secret trading language… If so why would such a language adopt Greek or Armenia into it, if its creators wanted the language to be a not understood and wanted it to be a secret trading language. If the language has Persian influence this would be understood, as the Persians were the most cultured people from the Mediterranean to India and the greatest Ancient power. Persian was not stripped from Turkish until the time of Ataturk. Persian would have been an important trading language.

      • Maghlawatan
        March 6, 2017, 8:28 am

        It doesn’t, Boris. Ashkenazim do not look Middle Eastern

      • echinococcus
        March 6, 2017, 12:42 pm

        Yoni,

        Your commenter is mighty confused. Not only is there no reason at all to suppose that Khazars passed at any time through wider Asia Minor, heshe also invents a necessity to have traces of a Turkic language in a later language of a population (=no such requirement ever established.) In fact, Khazars most probably came to the Caspian shore following the northern route of the early barbarian invasions. Way earlier than any Turkic arrivals to Asia Minor (as noted.) Most Turkic arrivals to the West skipped Asia Minor. No matter the discussion of Slavic-area German dialect vs relexified German (as you suggest), using as an argument the absence of traces of a Turkic substratum several centuries after a radical change of language of the population is totally ridiculous. That commenter forgot to explain on the absence of ancient Oghuz Turkish in modern Bulgarian…

      • Theo
        March 6, 2017, 1:09 pm

        YoniFalik

        Thank you for your comment. It really doesn´t make a difference whose your ancient or even recent parents are, important is only what you are! We all can be proud of our ancestors, however we cannot demand that others do the same!
        Besides, with all these turbulances, wars, etc. we really never know who really our ancestors are, and it is good so, we can concentrate on the present and future. I never met a person whom I could not like, until I did not like him, however not because of his nationality, race, religion, but what he or she was!

      • YoniFalic
        March 7, 2017, 5:38 am

        Elhaik was addressing how descendants of ancient Judaic (not Judean) populations reached Khazar-ruled areas. He was arguing that they would have entered through Pontus, Armenia, and Parthia, where Turkish was not spoken and where he alleges that Judaic merchants developed a secret merchants language, which was later relexified to a Germanic vocabulary. With respect to those three regions the commentator is certainly correct about the pre-Khazar time period.

        Wexler has alluded to the problem of the origins of the earliest stratum of Yiddish, which contains a noticeable Christian vocabulary. Elhaik was also concerned about certain studies that connect Ashkenazim to some ME populations generally not Levantine with possible exception of the Druze, who in any case never had a presence in Palestine. Those studies have all been discredited.

        Neither Wexler nor Elhaik are Medievalists. I am also not, but I know more about coresident Slav and German populations in the early Medieval period than either of them. Different inheritance practices made it not uncommon for males from the upper Slavic classes to marry women from the upper German classes. Because of differential development there was a social cultural pressure to learn and to adopt German vocabulary. To this day the Polish word for nobility Szlachta (= Geschlecht) is of German origin.

        The development of a Germano-Slavic pidgin among Christians seems likely and was probably a major input into the linguistic shift of Slavic (and possibly Turkic) speaking Jewish/Judaic merchants to an early stage of Yiddish.

        For those of us in Jewish studies, burying the ridiculous Zionist propaganda that Boris believes is extremely important because it interferes with scholarly analytical understanding of the development of the E European Jewish community in the context of language shift, Talmudization, and historical political economics. From a political standpoint there is immense value in burying the nonsense that Zios use to justify themselves and to enmesh ignorant Christians in Zionist evil.

        It is interesting that the Polish Szlachta has an origin narrative of migration from Sarmatia, and this narrative parallels the Jewish Khazarian origin narrative, whose original sources are to a large extent Jewish.

        In any case, in the 18th century no one had any doubt that Polish Jews (Żydzi) were an indigenous autochthonous population of historic Poland, which included the border region of the Ukraine. (My family actually comes from Volhynia, which today is part of the Ukraine.)

        During the late 18th century partitions of Poland, the size of the Czarist Jewish population increased tremendously, but the Polish Jewish population, which had formerly lived at the center of the mighty Polish Republic now lived in the boondocks (new word for me) of the expanding Czarist Empire. Obviously,a financial commercial population would want the freedom to move toward the political center, but the Czarist Empire confined populations to their national homelands. The Jewish national homeland (the Pales of Settlement) was huge and the government added the territories of Chernigov and New Russia.

        Yet for Jewish merchants and financiers this region was not enough, and the Czarist government under the influence of the Enlightenment saw value in providing Jews, who had useful business skills, with more freedom of movement. Someone (and it is not exactly clear who) had the brilliant idea of changing the term for Jew from Żyd/жид (nowadays a slur in Russian) to Hebrew/hebrajski/Еврей, and Czarist or later Soviet Jews began to believe nonsense that they were really displaced Hebrews with no homeland in the Czarist or Soviet Empire.

        From the standpoint of the Czarist government, this nonsense was useful because it became a rationalization to allow many Jews to live outside of their native territory of Russian Poland and the Ukraine. Unfortunately, ideas can have evil consequences, and the poorly educated Jews of the Czarist and Soviet empires came to believe they have the right to steal Palestine from the native population, which actually descends from ancient Judeans and ancient Hebrew, and to commit genocide on the natives, who resist invasion and depredations by white genocidal European invaders.

      • amigo
        March 7, 2017, 11:16 am

        You should follow your own advice Theo.

        “By the way, it is not polite to get into the conversations of others , unless you are invited.- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/theo/#sthash.zNYgryvs.dpuf

      • Boris
        March 8, 2017, 8:31 pm

        @YoniFalic

        You speak with an air of authority, but it is total B/S.

        Jews were never accepted in Poland as indigenous population. As the matter of fact, Jews never had their own land in Poland, and were actually prohibited from owning one.

        Jews migrated to Poland from Western Europe, escaping persecution by the Church, pogroms, and expulsions from various countries. They were welcomed by Polish nobility who were looking for money and someone to manage their peasants.

        Some Jews lived as managers at their rich employers’ estate, but most lived in small villages – shtetls. Polish landowners allowed Jews to settle on their land and pay rent. Typically, they would not charge rent for a synagogue in order to attract initial construction.

        Jews did try to enter Russia, but Catherine the Great did not allow this. When Poland was divided, some Jews ended up in Russia, but were prohibited to move into Russia proper from what was called a “Pale of Settlement”.

        Yiddish had definitely originated as a Germanic language, and, as Jews moved further East, it picked up a significant portion of Slavic vocabulary.

      • Keith
        March 9, 2017, 1:00 pm

        BORIS- “Jews were never accepted in Poland as indigenous population.”

        And what was the relationship between Polish Jews and the Polish peasants?

    • talknic
      March 6, 2017, 1:29 am

      Boris March 4, 2017, 1:01 pm

      “Jewish people as a historical entity has the oldest claim to the piece of land now called Palestine.

      Strange. According to the Jewish scriptures our Jewish forefathers conquered folk who were already there. Did they, contrary to the same scriptures, slaughter every single one?

      “Yes, there were other people in there. As people – they are all gone”

      Where?

      ” Their genes have been inherited by other people”

      So they’re still there. Contradicting yourself is so ZioPuke. If their genes were inherited, then they are related to those people who were there before our brutal forefathers

      ” but as ethnic entities – they are gone. We – the Jews – remain”

      You’re delusional

      • Boris
        March 8, 2017, 8:18 pm

        @talknic

        I am going to answer you only because you wrote “our Jewish forefathers”.

        You are asking – where did other people “go”?

        Where had Romans, Etruscans, Sumerians, Abyssinians, etc. “go”? Their genes were inherited by their descendants, but their culture, their very identity as such people is not more.

        Unless you can point me to a nice Sumerian restaurant…

      • talknic
        March 8, 2017, 11:36 pm

        “Their genes were inherited by their descendants ..”

        That makes ’em …. er … lemme think of th’ word … Oh Yeh … descendants

        ” but their culture, their very identity as such people is not more”

        Cultures change according to needs, biodiversity, wars, propaganda, technology, natural disasters, pandemics, social climate, medical advances

  20. JeffB
    March 4, 2017, 1:08 pm

    @lyn117

    When a government such as Israel exercises eminent domain in order to confiscate property from the people of one ethnicity and use it to benefit their favored ethnicity, that’s apartheid

    OK I guess I am going to do this.

    I don’t agree with you that this in and of itself would be apartheid. But I would agree with you it would be a horrific discrimination. If that was what were happening in Israel I’d object.

    What I see is a policy very similar to one that was thankfully ending in lots of communities when I was a child: gang violence to stop the natural sale of land between people of different ethnicities. I certainly remember times when neighborhood discrimination was ferocious and if someone sold a house to a black the family was treated quite badly and the house not uncommonly burned down. My grandparents could tell similar stories about Protestant / Catholic violence like that.

    In that case the government frequently stepped in and changed demographics of neighborhoods to break up claims of racial exclusivity. The government frequently had to force sales or otherwise act legally on the real estate markets to accomplish these situations. In the West Bank today you have a culture where selling land to Jews is often punished by death to the sellers via. vigilantism. A government can and should intervene to block that sort of thing. I didn’t object when the USA did it, and I don’t object when Israel is doing it.

    I should also mention you do have housing discrimination in the other direction which certainly doesn’t help and is a policy I’d like to see overturned as well. Inside Israel proper there needs to be far more mixed housing than there is. But in one situation you have vigilante violence similar to what ethnic organized crime or the klan did and in the other you have small agricultural and religious communities acting like bigots. Neither is appropriate and I support the state when its acts against both.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 4, 2017, 1:21 pm

      “What I see” says the man with blinders on to block out all the light.

      • Mooser
        March 4, 2017, 2:55 pm

        You know, I can’t help thinking that Ziocaine Syndrome Amnesia gives rise to a tremendously wasteful duplication of effort.
        “JeffB” has forgotten none of his BS sold last time, so he’s come back to repeat all the same drek over and over again.

  21. JeffB
    March 4, 2017, 1:30 pm

    @talknic

    Israelis aren’t ‘migrating’ to territories in the West Bank. They’re illegally settling

    That was exactly the position of the Khmer Rouge regarding the Vietnamese.

    Strange I’ve never advocated genocide on anyone. I do advocate that Israel to resettle its illegal settlers back in Israel.

    As did the Khmer Rouge. They didn’t kill Vietnamese who agreed to resettle back in Vietnam. They only killed those Vietnamese who wouldn’t resettle.

    Care to give an example of where I’ve advocated genocide on anyone … thx I’ll wait

    See above. You advocated their positions in the same post you were arguing you weren’t agreeing with them.

    I believe the 1830’s was more than a century BEFORE 1945 – See more at:

    And 1992 was after 1945. The Cambodians are still at it.

    _______

    @Annie

    israel’s supreme court doesn’t agree with you. they do not recognize an israeli nationality,

    I agree they don’t recognize an Israeli nationality. I’d also assert that nationalities are a matter of reality not law. Trump’s declaration that it was sunny for his inauguration as a matter of law changed the weather, it didn’t change it as a matter of fact. There doesn’t exist a Jewish nationality. I don’t speak Hebrew (though I can chant it). I didn’t go to an Israeli school, serve in the IDF, lose immediate family to terrorism… Etc…. I’m not part of the Israeli nation. I am merely part of ethnic / religious minority that the Israeli nation arose out of, the remnants of the Judean nation. Israel is the restoration of Judaea but that doesn’t mean that all Judean descendants are Israeli rather merely than they are invited to be. That case was wrongly decided.

    Your point about civil rights vs. human rights is a good one. Using the language from that article I’d assert that everyone should enjoy civil rights where they are born.

    ___

    @MHughes976

    Everyone is the descendent of axe wielding marauders (in the metaphorical sense you were using it). If you don’t want human rights for the descendants of conquers you don’t want human rights for anyone.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 4, 2017, 3:36 pm

      I’d also assert that nationalities are a matter of reality not law.

      you can assert all you want jeff but in israel nationalities are a matter of law, that’s a reality. the term “nation” has two meanings. it’s typically been used (when i was growing up for example, always) to connote a state of people regardless of what ethnicity they are. but there’s been a recent upsurge in the usage of the term to be applied to “a people”. and the state of israel refers to the term “nation” as the jewish people. therefore they will commit to know definition of nation that includes “others”, hence no nation of israel and all it’s citizens.

      There doesn’t exist a Jewish nationality.

      not according to the state of israel, hence, see their nationality law.

      your trump analogy is only applicable if you fix the definition of “sunny” as

      “bright with sunlight… cloudless, without a cloud in the sky, sun-drenched
      “a sunny day”

      but, like nation, there is another definition of sunny.

      (of a person or their temperament) cheery and bright.
      “he had a sunny disposition”
      synonyms: cheerful, cheery, happy, lighthearted, bright, merry, joyful, bubbly, blithe, jolly, jovial, animated, buoyant, ebullient, upbeat, vivacious

      so maybe for trump and his supporters it was very sunny indeed, as a matter of “fact”.

      Israel is the restoration of Judaea

      uh huh, because judaea was a little high tech start up nation engaged in apartheid.

      I’d assert that everyone should enjoy civil rights where they are born.

      I’d assert that everyone should enjoy civil rights where ever they are born or regardless of where they are born.

      either way, you took a comment about human rights and flipped it (diverted it) into (off topic) advocacy hasbara for other states besides israel granting palestinians full citizenship thereby essentially advocating palestinians abandoning their refugee status and right to return. rather off topic but we caught your drift.

    • MHughes976
      March 4, 2017, 4:50 pm

      I don’t know whether or not you agree with me that invaders and marauders do not win rights by their actions and do not transmit rights that they never had. I’d be interested to know your view on the general question of right issuing from might alone.
      No one has rights, say I, won by the bloody axe of marauding ancestors. The rights we have must come from other sources, perhaps from agreements that were made as periods of violence drew to an end.

      • JeffB
        March 4, 2017, 8:30 pm

        @MHughes976

        Since you are asking my opinion. I don’t really like the language of “rights” in an abstract sense they get used here. I think rights are derived from a legal framework. My rights in the sense they are used here derive from law. Law is derived from a government. A government is an entitle capable of exercising an effective monopoly of force on a territory. So I’d assert all rights derive from might. Without the power of enforcement there are no rights. Which incidentally is why I don’t consider the UN’s legal rulings to be legitimate, they lack enforcement capability and thus aren’t a government at all. Now that’s usually a sticking point on right-left dialogue (even worse for Israel-Palestine) So I tend to compromise there to some extent bite my tongue and just use “right” to mean essentially a moral claim as a subset of “the good”. But if you are asking my opinion then I’d really say the heart of the debate is about the definition of law, right and government.

        I think the idea of creating ethnic classes of people to whom one can or worse still should commit horrific acts against because you don’t like their ancestors is a very bad thing. That sounds very much children of Ham defense of slavery from my country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham#European.2FAmerican_slavery.2C_seventeenth_and_eighteenth_centuries ) . Given the horrors of all of an ancestors going back billions of years I don’t think anyone can claim an ethical ancestry. Everyone who exists today does so because of millions of generations of slaughter and rape intermixed with their trillion generations of ancestors. Call it an atheist version of original sin.

        To what extent can I punish Fathi because I don’t like the Arab conquest? My answer would be not at all he is not responsible for it even though he descends from the people who did it. Or to pick a more recent example from the USA my family (grandparents) lost property in the in 1960s race riots that would have directly benefited me. To what extent does that give me license to steal property from blacks in those same areas? Again my answer would be it doesn’t. The descendants of the rioters aren’t responsible for my loss and I don’t gain license to punish them from some sort of historical right.

        So I tend to reject any claim of racial or ethnic ownership of land. The people who have moral title to the land are the people who now live on the land and make improvements to it (yes the Locke definition whom I know you are a fan of). This allows for a simple theory of international relations which is very utilitarian. What is the best solution to the problem now, forgetting at all about how we got here?

        So in short when it comes to civil rights (especially citizenship) all babies should be born with the same status regardless of who their parents are. In the USA we have a 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The children of illegal immigrants are Americans the same as I am. The children of criminals have the same rights I do. I consider that Amendment a moral triumph arising from a country that had a deep historical understand of what the alternative was. The people who passed the 14th Amendment had seen what happens when a class of people are delegitimized. I fully support the 14th not just for the USA but as a general principle that should be applied everywhere throughout the world. That’s the reason I think Fathi has the right (in the moral sense) to be Israeli while you don’t.

        Contra-positively all moral claims to territory last one generation. If a group (including a nation) hasn’t been able to realize them during a lifetime they are forever forfeit for their descendants.

        In short all punishments one wants to dole out for marauding need to be done to the actual marauders not their progeny. So yes the marauders can pass rights to a territory on to their children.

      • eljay
        March 5, 2017, 8:36 am

        || JeffB: … In short all punishments one wants to dole out for marauding need to be done to the actual marauders … ||

        Unless the marauders are Jews because, according to you, all Jews are responsible for the actions of some Jews.

        JeffB: There is nothing anti-Semitic with blaming Jews for stuff that Jews institutionally support. … Not holding the Jews responsible for Jewish policy on the excuse that “well some Jews didn’t agree” is denying them agency. …

      • talknic
        March 8, 2017, 2:26 am

        @ JeffB March 4, 2017, 8:30 pm

        “Without the power of enforcement there are no rights. Which incidentally is why I don’t consider the UN’s legal rulings to be legitimate, they lack enforcement capability and thus aren’t a government at all”

        B) The UN wasn’t set up as a government

        A) The UN enforced Saddam’s expulsion from Kuwait. Secured Indonesia’s withdrawal from East Timor etc. It is quite capable. The veto vote prevents that capability from being exercised and it is controlled by vested interests, not any sense of justice or morality,

        C) I guess you’re also against Israel having a right to exist. Yes? http://pages.citebite.com/g2v1s9i7g1qsd

        “… my family (grandparents) lost property in the in 1960s race riots that would have directly benefited me. To what extent does that give me license to steal property from blacks in those same areas? Again my answer would be it doesn’t. The descendants of the rioters aren’t responsible for my loss and I don’t gain license to punish them from some sort of historical right”

        Interesting theories you expound. So the Palestinians, who didn’t play a part in the Holocaust and who didn’t expel Jews in the Roman era deserve to have more than half their territory given away for a Jewish state. Right?

        “The people who have moral title to the land are the people who now live on the land and make improvements to it …”

        WOW!!! So if I decide to take care of a piece of land in the US as a non-US citizen, I have a moral right to take it away from a US citizen who might not take care of it as well as I might. Right?

        “This allows for a simple theory of international relations which is very utilitarian”

        … and will start many wars.

        “What is the best solution to the problem now, forgetting at all about how we got here?”

        Try getting out of a room not knowing where the door is.

        ” Contra-positively all moral claims to territory last one generation. If a group (including a nation) hasn’t been able to realize them during a lifetime they are forever forfeit for their descendants.”

        You’re doing a great job. So Jews from the diaspora of 2,000 years can f*ck off out of Israel and Palestine. Right?

        “In short all punishments one wants to dole out for marauding need to be done to the actual marauders not their progeny.”

        Israel slaughtered how many innocent children in its unwarranted attacks on Gaza?

    • talknic
      March 4, 2017, 4:53 pm

      @ JeffB March 4, 2017, 1:30 pm

      “As did the Khmer Rouge. They didn’t kill Vietnamese who agreed to resettle back in Vietnam. They only killed those Vietnamese who wouldn’t resettle.”

      Strange I’ve never advocated Israelis who refuse to resettle back in Israel be killed. Why do idiots for Zionist colonization need to make false accusations?

      //Care to give an example of where I’ve advocated genocide on anyone … thx I’ll wait//

      “See above. You advocated their positions in the same post you were arguing you weren’t agreeing with them.”

      Your false accusations aren’t evidence. You haven’t given any evidence.

      ” And 1992 was after 1945. The Cambodians are still at it.”

      A) Vietnam didn’t illegally annex Cambodia or claim Cambodia as its own B) Doesn’t change the illegality of Israelis settling in non-Israeli territories held under Israeli Occupation.

    • talknic
      March 4, 2017, 5:04 pm

      Never trust a Zionist

      @ JeffB March 4, 2017, 9:52 am

      “I’m dropping out of this conversation.”

      • MHughes976
        March 5, 2017, 1:04 pm

        Nice to see that Jeff can’t tear himself away from us! I must thank him for a full reply.
        I think that this is the sort of ‘anti-anstract’ or ‘strong positivist’ view of rights contained in Marvell’s famous poem ‘…Though justice against fate complain
        And plead the ancient right in vain –
        For these do hold or break
        As men are strong or weak’
        though there are references to moral right in a sense which seems to go beyond right in the sense of in which rights are simply artifacts of positive laws. There is quite a high logical price to pay for this view. I’m not making a full reply – will come back later.
        Might note that even Hobbes, giving great scope to sovereigns and laws as artificial things, has to found the whole system on some basic ‘laws of nature’.
        I don’t deny, indeed I assert, that the descendants of marauders may have rights, though I do deny that they have rights derived from their ancestors’ wrongdoing and I think that there is paradox in the idea of a right to maintain a wrong.

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2017, 2:00 pm

        “though I do deny that they have rights derived from their ancestors’ wrongdoing”

        Or maybe, just maybe, “rights” is simply a fall-back position for what they could not achieve by power. (And what the Zionists want can only be achieved that way)
        So the Zionist recasts this as a “right” they are being denied, which you must defend (if you want to call yourself a good person.)!!
        It is a cheap sophistry which is supposed to make Zionist failure the world’s responsibility.

      • MHughes976
        March 6, 2017, 3:42 pm

        Just to say that it’s possible to argue that the only rights (or comparable standards of good and evil) are the legal rights established by a power structure to which the agent is subject. However, this means that there is no objection to anything regarded as an enormity or atrocity that is not illegal for the ‘perpetrator’s’ purposes: absolutely no objection, which is very hard for most to accept intuitively.
        More importantly in a way, it is hard to see how the various power structures and their law codes become established if they have no general basis in human nature and a natural sense of right and wrong. Hard in turn to think how that natural sense has nothing to do with our rationality or is something that we might well repudiate on a personal basis. So there must, I think, be some room for rights conceived in ‘abstraction’ from laws and from power, i.e. universal.
        I think it’s agreed that marauders don’t win rights by marauding. The idea of transmitting what one does not have seems highly paradoxical. I couldn’t hand you a box of chocolates I don’t hold in my hand. I could get someone to give it to you but then it is he, not me, who does the transmission. A marauder could make peace and obtain an agreement which legitimated his children’s presence, but then the right and legitimacy would be transmitted by all those making the agreement while axes are beaten into doorstoppers.
        It is possible to say that the marauder’s charming daughter is not complicit in her father’s crimes and deserves, by ‘abstract’/universalist argument, to have citizen rights where she was born ‘because everyone does’. But there can’t be complete equation between those who are there by rightful inheritance and those who are there primarily because a bloody axe was wielded, i.e. without transmitted right. If ‘everyone’s rights’ are to be claimed on their behalf it must be part of a claim which also concedes relevant rights to everyone concerned – otherwise it would be self-defeating – and is put forward in search of an agreement.
        So I think that there is hope that Israelis may secure a rightful position for their offspring but only when the offer ending the scandal of the Palestinians’ disfranchised and sub-sovereign existence has been made.
        That was far too long. And it’s a big long nothingburger, as Hillary Clinton used to say, since absolutely nothing like this will happen. As Mooser remarks, it’s all about power.

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2017, 6:02 pm

        ” it’s all about power.”

        And even those with some power must adapt themselves to circumstances they themselves cannot control. Zionism is too weak to do even that.

      • RoHa
        March 7, 2017, 1:22 am

        MHughes, I’m enjoying your discussion about rights. I think you are making some very important points, and particularly these two:
        Moral rights logically precede legal rights.
        There cannot be a right to maintain a wrong. ( Logically impossible.)

  22. Ossinev
    March 4, 2017, 2:07 pm

    @NativeUkrainianBoris

    “Only Jews had their ethnic state there”. I am an atheist can you let me know where my ethnic state is. I fancy a move.

    “Like Native Tribes in America who retain their claim to their ancestral land – I have the same claim to my. It is in my blood, in my genes, and in my culture and identity”

    “People who converted and severed their tie to Jewish people don’t have that right”.

    Speaking as a Ukrainian ??? what is your percentage estimate of your “Judaic” blood? Are you eg the progeny of a 3000 year old totally unassimilated gold standard Judaic” Jewish lineage.

    Make up your mind sunshine – you are speaking nonsense. How FFS does “conversion” to another religion alter blood and genes.

    BTW what do you Ukrainian Zionists put in the “nationality ” box when arriving on foreign soil and completing immigration forms – “Ukrainian” , “Jewish Ukrainian” “Jewish” or “Judaic”. Is there specific advice on this thorny dual loyalty issue from Hasbara Central. I don`t think there is a “not sure” option on these forms but I may be wrong.

    It must be so frustrating being a non native native in your native land.

    • MHughes976
      March 6, 2017, 5:02 am

      In the Zionist rhetorical card trick rights of blood and rights of true religion flit around – now you see them, now you don’t, now you see one, now the other. It has had an absolutely mesmerising effect and is an incredible achievement. I put it down to the yearning of our world for religion substitutes.

  23. JeffB
    March 5, 2017, 9:32 am

    @Eljay

    You are conflating two very different things.

    1) Holding a group collectively responsible for the actions of its collective agents, for example holding a nation responsible for the actions of the state it controls.

    2) Holding individuals in a group collectively responsible for the actions of their ancestors.

    Those aren’t the same things. For example as an American I was individually opposed to the Iraqi occupation. I was in a 26% minority when the occupation started. America did occupy Iraq and collectively I’m responsible for that regardless of my individual opinion on that matter. I’m not individually responsible for it but I am collectively responsible for it.

    On the other hand I almost invariably have many ancestors who fought in the Rus’–Byzantine War of 941. I’m not individually or collectively responsible for it.

    • Mooser
      March 5, 2017, 11:44 am

      Well, “JeffyB”, I must say, you have said all there is to be said, and with this last post, have put a definitive cast upon the subject.
      What more, after this, need be said?
      Thank you, and goodbye, until Ziocaine Syndrome amnesia brings you back again.

    • eljay
      March 5, 2017, 1:33 pm

      || JeffB: @Eljay

      You are conflating two very different things.

      1) Holding a group collectively responsible for the actions of its collective agents, for example holding a nation responsible for the actions of the state it controls.

      2) Holding individuals in a group collectively responsible for the actions of their ancestors.

      Those aren’t the same things. … ||

      Fair enough.

      || … For example as an American I was individually opposed to the Iraqi occupation. … I’m not individually responsible for it but I am collectively responsible for it. … ||

      1. You’re not a collective.
      2. You’re not responsible for actions you oppose.
      3. But even if your assertion were true, all non-Israelis who choose to hold the religion-based identity of Jewish would be responsible for the actions of the State of Israel only if one were anti-Semitically to conflate – as you do – all Jews with Israel and Israel with all Jews.

      • JeffB
        March 5, 2017, 6:13 pm

        @Eljay

        I agree I’m an individual. America is a collective to which I belong, The trillions of dollars lost to the Iraqi occupation impacted me personally. I was collectively held responsible even though I individually opposed it.

        As for Jews and Israelis. Jews have chosen to identify with Israel. Zionism is Judaism greatest achievement recently (biblical poetry, and a ideal of justice that transcends the material may its overall greatest achievements). As I’ve said before there is nothing Antisemetic in holding Jews responsible for what Jews collective do, in the same way it is not anti-American to hold Americans responsible for what Americans collectively do. All Jews can vote in the Word Zionist Organization every 5 years. Where they agree with Israel and support Israel they can be held responsible. Where they disagree (for example status of Reform Judaism in Israel) not so much.

        It is Antisemetic to hold Jews responsible for things they don’t do. It is Antisemetic to hold Jews to a standard not applied to others (something I think you are often guilty of, though of late you are getting better on that score). But no it is not Antisemetic to hold diaspora Jews responsible for things they actively support and encourage collectively even though some individuals disagree.

        I stand by the quote.

      • eljay
        March 5, 2017, 7:25 pm

        || JeffB: @Eljay

        I agree I’m an individual. America is a collective to which I belong, The trillions of dollars lost to the Iraqi occupation impacted me personally. I was collectively held responsible even though I individually opposed it. … ||

        Being impacted by the actions of your government is not the same as being held responsible for the actions of your government. And you’re still not a collective.

        || … As for Jews and Israelis. Jews have chosen to identify with Israel. … ||

        Little girls identify with princesses, but it doesn’t make them princesses. And, anyway, AFAIK not all Jews identify with Israel. I wouldn’t presume to anti-Semitically lump all people who are Jewish into a single “the Jews” collective.

        || … Zionism is Judaism greatest achievement recently … ||

        So…Judaism’s greatest achievement is ethnic cleansing, terrorism, theft, occupation, colonialism, (war) crimes and supremacism. Huh.

        || … As I’ve said before there is nothing Antisemetic in holding Jews responsible for what Jews collective do, in the same way it is not anti-American to hold Americans responsible for what Americans collectively do. … ||

        It is anti-American to hold all Americans responsible for what a subset of Americans do. It is anti-Israeli to hold all Israelis responsible for what a subset of Israelis do. It is anti-Semitic to hold all Jews responsible for what a subset of Jewish people do.

        || … I stand by the quote. ||

        Of course you do – you’re a Zionist.

      • Keith
        March 6, 2017, 12:51 am

        JEFFB- “Zionism is Judaism greatest achievement recently….”

        Are you serious? Zionism is a throwback to medieval Classical Judaism. Zionism is a refutation of the enlightenment. You support this? You support tribalism? You support a people that shall dwell apart? You believe in eternal and irrational Gentile anti-Semitism?

      • talknic
        March 6, 2017, 1:53 am

        @ JeffB March 5, 2017, 6:13 pm

        “As for Jews and Israelis. Jews have chosen to identify with Israel”

        You’re delusional. Neither I or any of my Jewish friends identify with a state in breach of its International obligations and the most basic of Judaism’s tenets

        “Zionism is Judaism greatest achievement recently”

        Breaking the basic tenets of Judaism is a great achievement? WOW. You really need help dude.

        There’s nothing ‘great’ about the purveyors of a vile pyramid scheme that requires more and more territory to survive and that preys specifically on poor Jews in order to loan them money at interest, on the condition that they place themselves on the front lines in the putrid war on Palestine

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2017, 11:32 am

        “I stand by the quote.”

        And the quote, naturally, is outstanding in its field.

      • Mooser
        March 6, 2017, 2:38 pm

        “Zionism is Judaism greatest achievement recently”

        “JeffyB” do you think the UN will declare a “World Zionism Day” in gratitude for and recognition of “Judaism (sic) greatest achievement”?

  24. talknic
    March 6, 2017, 1:39 am

    Poor poor Jeff, he’ll say anything, absolutely anything, no matter how ridiculous, insane, illogical it makes him look.

  25. Boris
    March 6, 2017, 9:41 pm

    I don’t have time to answer each of your comments separately, so, here is one response.

    I am an atheist. Now, some of you may argue that I am not a Jew. Well, my Soviet passport said that I was. Why? Because both of my parents were Jewish. And so were their parents.

    However, there was a saying “they don’t hit you in your passport, they hit you in your face”. I have a Jewish face – or, as the saying goes – I “look Jewish”.

    23andme says that I am 98.1 percent Ashkenazi Jew. And I look like an Ashkenazi Jew.

    Do you want to know what Ashkenazi Jews look like? Go to New York’s Metropolitan Museum. In their Egyptian section there is a picture of a Hittite prince. He “looks Jewish”. That’s what Ashkenazi Jews look like.

    My genetic data shows that Jews, Kurds, Iranians, and other people in that area had common ancestry. However, they all developed their own cultures and had their own historical paths. That’s how they evolved into their own nations.

    All this absolutely proves that Ashkenazi Jews came from that area, unlike other people we had retained our identity and our connection to the area. We and our children most definitely have a moral right to settle there.

    I understand that there are some other people already there. I am not denying that there is a Palestinian identity. I would argue that this is a very recent identity, and it developed as an answer to the creation of Israel. Fair or not, there should be a way to find a way to accommodate them without sacrificing Jewish rights.

    BTW, that claim that Palestinians “owned” some percentage of Palestine is total B/S.

    Now, talk among yourselves…

    • oldgeezer
      March 6, 2017, 10:39 pm

      @boris

      With all due respect you have shown yourself to be a self indulgent ignoramus. And a twat!

      • Boris
        March 7, 2017, 7:24 am

        For the oldfart – enjoy

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2017, 5:19 pm

        “Boris” is using a British “Monty Python” clip due to the fact that Jewish culture contains no sarcasm, insults, or epithets. Gotta go to England for that.

      • Boris
        March 8, 2017, 9:28 pm

        No, Moooser,

        It was just the oldfart comment reminded me of that French guy.

    • Annie Robbins
      March 6, 2017, 11:12 pm

      shorter boris — ‘i’m going to totally ignore all of your responses and make even more illogical and inflammatory statements — now, discuss what i said.’

      • Boris
        March 6, 2017, 11:39 pm

        @Annie Robbins

        I bet you know that you run a giant echo chamber. You are all irrelevant and talk to yourselves.

        However, among you there is one person who still has an open mind. This is the person I am talking to.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 7, 2017, 12:03 am

        i don’t run it, not even moderating anymore. these are my personal comments.

      • Boris
        March 7, 2017, 7:21 am

        Oh!

        So, you were the one who was not posting or, when posting, altering my comments!

        As I mentioned earlier, I have noticed a change in “moderation” of this website.

      • echinococcus
        March 7, 2017, 9:34 am

        Boris,

        So then produce your personal papers, i.e. at least one, identified, first-degree relative with regular, legitimate citizenship, or grounds for acceptation to citizenship, and apply to a legitimate representation of the Palestinian people (not existent yet.)

        No personal papers? Then stay in the US or move to the Ukraine. Or Poland or Russia or Bielorussia, depending on exactly where you were supposed to be from.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2017, 11:39 am

        “However, among you there is one person who still has an open mind. This is the person I am talking to.”

        I’m listening, “Boris”! You tell ’em, “Boris”. Tell them what’s grey and always carries a trunk.

      • just
        March 7, 2017, 7:36 pm

        “i don’t run it, not even moderating anymore. these are my personal comments.”

        Huge loss for all of us that you are not “moderating anymore”. I do so appreciate your “personal comments”, dear Annie. You have a huge heart and a very thoughtful, informed, and engaged brain. I respect you very much.

        MW is richer and more successful because of you.

    • RoHa
      March 7, 2017, 12:52 am

      I don’t understand how

      “All this absolutely proves that Ashkenazi Jews came from that area, unlike other people we had retained our identity and our connection to the area. ”

      leads to

      “We and our children most definitely have a moral right to settle there. ”

      Could you spell out the argument in more detail, please?

      • Boris
        March 7, 2017, 7:22 am

        Because it is our ancestral land. What is not clear?

      • eljay
        March 7, 2017, 8:31 am

        || Boris: Because it is our ancestral land. … ||

        If you’re more than n-generations removed from geographic Palestine, it’s not your ancestral land. From what you’ve said so far, your ancestral land is Ukraine. Stop hating your homeland.

      • MHughes976
        March 7, 2017, 9:48 am

        That is not expanding on the original argument, at least it is not offering a principle about political rights that explains why they belong to people whose ancestors have the characteristics you mention – giving the practical syllogism a major premise.
        Is it something to do with correcting wrongs done in the past, in this case by the Romans? Is the right to correct such wrongs absolutely overriding, so that any amount of deprivation can be imposed on others?
        Let me say what I think. For obvious reasons of utility, people are generally assigned citizenship where they are born, though they are – also for utility – allowed some degree of hereditary right, so that the temporary absence of parents from their normal country does not have permanent consequences that would cause pointless inconvenience and distress. This hereditary right can be extended quite generously but has reasonable limits. If someone has clearly chosen to make his life in another country there is no serious inconvenience in his/ her not having full citizenship where his grandmother lived.
        Setting these limits is clearly within the rights of the sovereign, which is an illustration of the sovereign’s duty to make it clear who the people are over whom jurisdiction is claimed and whose interests an opinions are to be taken into account in the formation of national policy. Thus there is right to control immigration by measures within reason, though it is unreasonable to refuse admission to people who will obey the law of the land and contribute substantially to its welfare without ulterior purpose or loyalty.
        I must break off. My wife is pointing out that the grass urgently needs cutting and that rain is imminent. I’ll be back.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2017, 11:43 am

        “Because it is our ancestral land.”

        You bet it is.
        Now, how and where do you plan to get enough Jews to take it, and deliver on Zionism’s promises? Better act fast, “Boris” we’re “ancient”.

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2017, 11:47 am

        “My wife is pointing out that the grass urgently needs cutting and that rain is imminent. “

        You are a lucky guy. Here, the rain is immanent.

      • MHughes976
        March 7, 2017, 11:51 am

        She was wrong – overestimated a passing cloud. That often happens in marriage.
        Ancestralists make a series of increasingly strong claims – that they have an unconditional right to settle, that they have a right so powerful that other rights are to be considered on,y if theirs are given priority and met in full, that they have a right to exclude previous residents or disfranchise them or subject them to compulsory assimilation. But I think that the true conception – also the common sense conception, surely – of human rights excludes even the least of these claims because it removes the right of the existing inhabitants to control (within reason. as stated) matters of immigration.
        The increasingly strong claims are therefore even more unacceptable, not to say quite shocking, as everyone really knows.
        Well, there may be special considerations if you say that the area in question lacks any legitimate citizens because of anarchy or usurpation. There may be special considerations if you say that God has made a special decree, as in the theology of Ezra and Nehemiah. But these are rather unusual arguments.
        There are further paradoxes within ancestralism, notably its arbitrary choices among different ancestral lines and links with places, such as ancestry related to a small province, such as Palestine, versus ancestry related to a large kingdom, such as that of the Ottomans.

      • Maghlawatan
        March 7, 2017, 12:45 pm

        Ancestral land is such a crock of shit

        Hasidic wedding

        Furry hats : name one non Jewish sect from the Middle East that wears furry hats, FFS

      • RoHa
        March 8, 2017, 1:40 am

        It is not clear that people have a right to settle in the land where their distant ancestors lived.

        If we avert our eyes (as we should) from the Welsh side of my family, it is very probable that many of my ancestors lived in Northern Germany and/or Denmark. Let us suppose that I can show, through a genealogy acceptable to the Royal College of Heralds (and that should be our criterion) that I am a direct descendant of Harald Blåtand’s under-gardener. Why would this fact of ancestry give me a right to settle in Denmark?

        MHughes gives good reason for doubting such a right. What are the reasons for claiming the right?

      • RoHa
        March 8, 2017, 1:57 am

        @MHughes

        Consider these fundamental truths.

        1. Grass never needs to be cut urgently.
        2. Rain is always imminent in England.
        3. Wives are always right.

        I suspect they form an inconsistent set, which suggests that the universe itself is inconsistent. But that implies that the universe cannot exist. Are we suffering a collective illusion?

      • Boris
        March 8, 2017, 11:59 am

        Hey, Moser,

        I answered your question about Jewish birth rate, but they would not publish it.

        Happy Women’s Day!

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2017, 12:29 pm

        .” What are the reasons for claiming the right?”

        “The reasons for claiming the right”? I think it’s pretty simple, “RoHa”. Zionists claim this “right” for two reasons:

        1) “Claiming the right” obfuscates the fact that Zionism has neither the power or resources to deliver on it’s promises.
        2) Making a failed Zionist conquest somehow a matter of “right” is supposed to make Zionist “rights” your obligation.

        That whole “rights” discussion is grey and carries a trunk. It’s irrelevant, and trying to cast the discussion in that light is, in reality, an admission of Zionist failure. An attempt to make it the world’s responsibility to reduce the Palestinians and provide an ethnic, religious (whatever) paradise for the right Jews.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2017, 12:49 pm

        “I answered your question about Jewish birth rate, but they would not publish it.”

        Nah, I doubt it “Boris”. More likely you got so famischt typing the comment, you went to the kitchen for a snack and forgot to push “Post Comment”.

        But don’t worry about it “Boris”. I am old enough (geez, a couple times over) to know about the birds and the bees and the Jewish birth-rate. No further explanations needed.

      • MHughes976
        March 8, 2017, 2:17 pm

        As for collective illusion and Mooser’s immanent rain I think we might need to discover the secret of transcendent rain. That would surely render the universe rational, solving the ME problem in the process, and establish the RoHa standard for all definitions, thus making everyone intelligible to everyone else. A new era of peace, prosperity and love!
        Meanwhile, thanks very much for kind words.

    • eljay
      March 7, 2017, 8:26 am

      || Boris: … I am an atheist. … ||

      That’s nice. So am I. :-)

      || … Now, some of you may argue that I am not a Jew. Well, my Soviet passport said that I was. Why? Because both of my parents were Jewish. And so were their parents. … ||

      I won’t argue that you’re not a Jew. You are descended from someone who…
      – underwent a religious conversion to Judaism; or
      – descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism,
      …and you’ve chosen to retain that identity. So you’re a Jewish Ukrainian person.

      || … I have a Jewish face … ||

      And I have a really big nose. We all have our crosses to bear. ;-)

      || … We and our children most definitely have a moral right to settle there. … ||

      No, you don’t. The indigenous population of a geographic region – and people up to n-generations removed from it – have a right to settle there. The religion-based identity of Jewish – even if it’s held by some guy in Ukraine – is not a license to steal, occupy and colonize geographic Palestine. Ancient claims to a geographic region are not a license to steal, occupy and colonize that geographic region.

      || … Now, talk among yourselves… ||

      Now mutter to yourself some more, Hittite prince.

    • Talkback
      March 7, 2017, 9:18 am

      Boris: “I am not denying that there is a Palestinian identity. I would argue that this is a very recent identity, and it developed as an answer to the creation of Israel.”

      Nope. The Palestinian citizenship legally exists since 1925. It was altered in 1964 by the PLO to exclude the Jews which immigrated during mandate times, but still includes Jews and their descendants (patrilinial) who were native Palestinians. In other words: “Palestinians” are a nation, a constitutive people. Contrary to Jews. Nobody can become a Jew by acquiring the citizenship of any state.

      Boris: “BTW, that claim that Palestinians “owned” some percentage of Palestine is total B/S.”

      Nope. According to the “Village Statistics” (1945) which was published by the Mandatory Palestine Government for the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry in 1946 …

      48,50% belonged to Arabs
      6,67% belonged to Jews
      6,67% were public lands and
      40,16% were unassigned, uncultivable land in the Bersheeba Sub-district (in other words, the Negev Desert)
      http://www.palestineremembered.com/download/VillageStatistics/4-The%20Land%20And%20Its%20Ownership/Page-019.jpg

      I would like to add that the British respected the Ottoman land regulations and Bedouin’s grazing traditions contrary to the Zionist terror state’s thiefs and looters.

      • Sibiriak
        March 7, 2017, 10:11 pm

        Talkback: ..the British respected the Ottoman land regulations and Bedouin’s grazing traditions contrary to the Zionist terror state’s thiefs and looters
        —————

        While the British did build on the Ottoman legal structure, and made some efforts to protect traditional Palestinian land rights, they also made major changes to land regulations, often to the benefit of Zionist land acquisition.

        See:

        “Zionism and Land Tenure in Mandate Palestine”
        by Aida Essaid

        Book description:

        […]With her new book, Aida A. Essaid has made a worthwhile entry into this debate over Mandatory land policy and the related question of the aims of British land policy.

        […] Her book’s conclusions align closest to Gavish’s thinking, arguing that the Mandatory government “allowed Zionism to take an active and collaborative role in every stage of the land tenure system…” (p. 15). As a result, Essaid believes that Zionism then used the resulting system to acquire the land needed for a Jewish state.

        The author arrives at this conclusion by way of an intricate, archives-based study of the legal framework and of British land policies that were promulgated in Palestine during the Mandate.

        http://www.palestine-studies.org/jps/fulltext/186702
        ——————————-

        Excerpt from “Zionism and Land Tenure in Mandate Palestine”

        In less than a century, beginning with the reforms of the Ottoman Land Code of 1858 and ending with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, landownership in modern Palestine was completely revolutionized. The most substantial part of this transformation took place under the British Mandate administration, since it was during that period that the land tenure system was used by Zionist actors to fulfill another purpose – the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine through the means of a colonial-settler movement.

        The question posed in this book was whether the British Mandate land tenure system in Palestine facilitated the transfer of land from Palestinians to Zionist Jews, and if it did, to what extent?

        It was argued that in each process of the land tenure system, the Jewish Agency and Zionist actors played a collaborative role. This study therefore concludes that by penetrating every part of the land tenure system, consisting of legislation, land survey, registration, transfers, and disputes, Zionist actors were able to manipulate the land tenure system in Palestine.

        Furthermore, it contends that not only did they succeed in purchasing a small percentage of the land, but that this was the most fertile land and that in buying it they also dispossessed many Palestinian fellahin from their land while dividing and destabilizing the already weak economy. Finally, the strategic location of the land thus acquired would form the outline map for the proposed partition of Palestine at the end of the British Mandate. [p.238 ]

      • Talkback
        March 8, 2017, 8:19 am

        Thank you Sibiriak.

    • Theo
      March 7, 2017, 10:27 am

      Boris

      “I look like a jew”
      Don´t say that, Moosie will jump on you immediately! A few years ago I made the statement that I usually can identify a jew, here I ment the european kind who immigrated to the USA, the great majority of them. Moosie offered me immediately to rearrange my facial features as a thank you for my great capacity. He probably looks like Meir, Shamir and other great heroes of Israel and don´t want everyone to know it!

      • Mooser
        March 7, 2017, 11:45 am

        “Theo”, I read that. It was like a smack with a wet fish which doesn’t have bones or scales!

      • Boris
        March 7, 2017, 10:44 pm

        Theo, this people don’t live in reality.

    • Mooser
      March 7, 2017, 12:54 pm

      “I have a Jewish face – or, as the saying goes – I “look Jewish”.”

      And there’s an even more reliable indicator just a bit south of the ol’ physiognomy.
      Or maybe that changed when you became an “atheist”?

      • amigo
        March 7, 2017, 2:12 pm

        “Or maybe that changed when you became an “atheist”.” Mooser

        I was born without religion but that changed after 2 weeks when I was baptized and I got my first face transplant . Some years later , I became an atheist and got my second face transplant . Later , I got religion again and underwent my third face transplant.

        You may well laugh but applying for a new passport can be very disconcerting.

      • Boris
        March 7, 2017, 10:47 pm

        Moser,

        We all have our own life experiences.

        My experience is that Ukrainian and Russian anti-Semites could easily identify me as a Jew, although I don’t wear any special clothes. Just by looking at my face.

      • amigo
        March 8, 2017, 6:00 am

        “My experience is that Ukrainian and Russian anti-Semites could easily identify me as a Jew, although I don’t wear any special clothes. Just by looking at my face. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/03/finders-keepers-there/#comment-175586” boris

        How does a non anti semite (russian or Ukranian ) , tell if you are Jewish???.

        Do elaborate Boris.Please provide images of what a Jew looks like.

        Serious request. I want to avoid any possible future embarrassment .Include images of Jews who inhabit your planet.

      • eljay
        March 8, 2017, 7:37 am

        || Booris: Moser, We all have our own life experiences. My experience is that Ukrainian and Russian anti-Semites could easily identify me as a Jew, although I don’t wear any special clothes. Just by looking at my face. ||

        It’s odd that they wouldn’t identify you as a Hittite prince. Regardless, the unjust and immoral actions of anti-Semites do not justify the acts of injustice and immorality you and your fellow Zionists have advocated / committed / supported and continue to advocate / commit / support in the name of Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2017, 11:35 am

        “My experience is that Ukrainian and Russian anti-Semites could easily identify me as a Jew, although I don’t wear any special clothes”

        ROTFLMSJAO!!! “Boris”, if you wore “special clothes” that ‘identify you as a Jew’ you would be arrested for indecent exposure!

      • Boris
        March 8, 2017, 11:47 am

        Hola, amigo!

        Happy Women’s day.

        I have already answered the question what it means to “look Jewish”.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2017, 12:05 pm
      • yonah fredman
        March 9, 2017, 8:30 pm

        Growing up in primarily ashkenazi jewish milieus, the common phrase, “he looks jewish” or “she doesn’t look jewish” is just a part of where and when I grew up. ( I would imagine in a reform congregation today surrounded by converts or children of intermarriage such phrases might be frowned upon, and rightly so, converts should not be ashamed of their choice and highlighting the common roots of jews born as jews, might make them feel like outsiders, which is forbidden by jewish law.) Further jews of color and mizrachi jews have given voice to the false assumptions of the ashkenazi centric mindset revealed in such phrases.

        Nonetheless to pretend that such a concept as a Jewish face does not exist because of these above reasons is frivolous. It is precisely to deny the existence of a Jewish ethnic reality. It is ideological and venomous. The Jewish ethnic reality is fading with time and intermarriage. So it is not permanent. But it existed in a big way in america from 1880 to say 1980 and this game, there is no such thing as a Jewish face is culturally and historically ignorant ideological and venomous. But don’t worry. I read somewhere: Ignorance is Strength! So you and the Donald are on the right track.

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2017, 9:47 pm

        Uh, “Yonah”, you use the same comment, with a different second paragraph, downthread.

        Recycling your own comments, in the same thread?

      • talknic
        March 10, 2017, 12:57 am

        As if it isn’t enough that Jewishness or lack of, Jewish identity or lack of, Jewish DNA or lack of, Jewish culture or lack of, Jewish nose, colour, foreskin or lack of are entirely irrelevant to the legal status of Israeli territories and that state’s illegal activities in territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”, we have this completely ridiculous notion and argument about physical Jewish ‘look’. It’s completely irrelevant to the issue at hand

        By grooming, attire, actions and accoutrements one can spot a Jewish person, like wise a Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic Rastafarian

        Butt naked there are
        more Ashkenazi looking people in the world that there are Ashkenazi;
        more circumcised men in the world than there are Jewish men and if there is actually such a thing as a Jewish look;
        more Jewish looking people in the world than there are Jews

      • oldgeezer
        March 10, 2017, 11:15 am

        @yonah

        That there is and was a concept of a Jewish face held by racists is something we can agree on. That was never the question that was posed.

        Apart from that you’re just blowi g hot air but that’s par for the course for you. There still pools of ignorance arohnd and dear ole boris is waist deep in it. Anyone with more than a single digit iq now knows that stereotypes are false and misleading.

        I would like you to expound on the Jewish ethnic reality given that Jewishness spans many ethnicities. Perhaps you are using some different meaning of the word ethnicity. Just like Israelis use a different meaning of the word democracy than the rest of the world.

        (Note to site… what’s up with the lack of https and insecure logins? Any estimate on when it will be corrected?)

      • Mooser
        March 10, 2017, 11:19 am

        “Jewish identity or lack of, Jewish DNA or lack of, Jewish culture or lack of, Jewish nose, colour, foreskin or lack of…”

        It’s just amazing what DNA, or lack of, can do, isn’t it?

      • Mooser
        March 10, 2017, 12:36 pm

        “more circumcised men in the world than there are Jewish men and if there is actually such a thing as a Jewish look;”

        The look is “high and tight”. brit periah. “Circumcision” covers a lot of, uh, options.

      • yonah fredman
        March 10, 2017, 3:05 pm

        People who can’t say anything positive about jews suddenly the phrase, a Jewish face is forbidden to their sensitive souls. In a word, you’re full of hooey and you should get a life. Given that the primary Jewish event of the 20th century focused on ashkenazi jews who were persecuted for racial rather than religious ressons, I consider you a collection of worthless scum.

      • Mooser
        March 10, 2017, 4:20 pm

        “Yonah” if you want to think of yourself using anti-semitic concepts, we can’t stop you. But you can’t force other people to do it, too.

      • Mooser
        March 10, 2017, 4:29 pm

        “Given that the primary Jewish event of the 20th century focused on ashkenazi jews who were persecuted for racial…”

        Yes, “Yonah” you want to give the victory to the Nazis, and use their standards to define ourselves as a race.
        I’m not sure that’s a good way to go.

      • oldgeezer
        March 10, 2017, 4:33 pm

        @yonah

        What are you smoking dude.

        I couldn’t care less if you use the phrase. Or anyone else. But that doesn’t mean i have to associate with you if you do use it. Not even remotely forbidden ya twat.

        Similarly what’s this can’t say a good word about Jews crap. If you are conflating Jews with the rogue state of Israel or with zionists who support the criminal acts over the past half century then you are the one who is wrong.

        Jewish people have made wonderful contributions to our societies and our life on this planet. They even spawned two other equally great religions. And I say that as an atheist

        When it comes to any individual person I will judge them individually.

        As usual you’re blowing smoke. Try to cut down. It is bad for your lungs. And apparently your mental health.

      • Maghlawatan
        March 10, 2017, 5:40 pm

        The greatest Jewish event of the 20th century?

        don’t let the Nazis win

      • Mooser
        March 10, 2017, 6:07 pm

        “Given that the primary Jewish event of the 20th century focused on ashkenazi jews who were persecuted for racial…”

        “Yonah” how can you say that?
        I thought the “primary Jewish event of the 20th Century” was the establishment of Israel.
        Don’t you agree? And you can hardly call the Holocaust a “Jewish event”. It is not something we wanted to do, it was forced on us.

    • talknic
      March 9, 2017, 5:32 am

      ” I look like an Ashkenazi Jew.”

      Stereotyping Jews is surely Antisemitic

      • yonah fredman
        March 10, 2017, 3:09 pm

        People who can’t say anything positive about jews suddenly the phrase, a Jewish face is forbidden to their sensitive souls. In a word, you’re full of hooey and you should get a life. Given that the primary Jewish event of the 20th century focused on ashkenazi jews who were persecuted for racial rather than religious reasons, I consider you a collection of ludicrous idiots, who ought to stop telling jews how to talk about themselves.

      • Mooser
        March 10, 2017, 4:25 pm

        “I consider you a collection of ludicrous idiots, who ought to stop telling jews how to talk about themselves.”

        No, that’s not true. Anything we can do to break the hold of these anti-semitic tropes and memes within the Jewish community, we must try.
        There is every reason to try and encourage a more positive, less prejudiced outlook.

        But hey, “Yonah” if you want to spend your days and nights worrying about who “looks Jewish” we can’t stop you. But don’t expect anybody to congratulate you for it. You really should try to stop, it’s not healthy

  26. Boris
    March 8, 2017, 11:50 am

    @eljay

    Just imagine for a moment that Cherokees have got enough power to return to their ancestral lands. I think not all Georgian peanut farmers would be happy.

    • Mooser
      March 8, 2017, 12:37 pm

      Just imagine for a moment…

      Imagination is silly. You go around willy-nilly.

    • eljay
      March 8, 2017, 12:57 pm

      || Boris: @eljay

      Just imagine for a moment that Cherokees have got enough power to return to their ancestral lands. I think not all Georgian peanut farmers would be happy. ||

      Just as Zionists will not be happy when Palestinians return to their ancestral lands. But don’t worry: Ukrainians will be happy to see you – a native son – back in your ancestral homeland.

      • MHughes976
        March 8, 2017, 2:40 pm

        I believe that there is already no legal discrimination throughout most of the United States in respect of rights of franchise and property according to whether you are or are not a Cherokee. I presume that there are privileges for those of Cherokee blood in the tribal areas – mainly in Oklahoma?? This is because there are agreements in place. If the Cherokee gained the power and the will to dispossess the current farmers and appropriate the peanuts I would be sorry, though not as sorry as the barefoot descendants of Jimmy Carter dragging their pathetic possssions over the dirt tracks with many groans and sighs, perhaps urged on by Ch snipers as I’e heard that the fleeing population of Lydda once was. Agreements would have been violated. I would question whether the Ch were really acting in their own best interests. On the other hand if the legal relationship between the people of various ancestry in Palestine were the same as those now prevailing in Oklahoma (the musical of that name was based on a play by a Ch author, I believe) I think that would call for some celebration. If a cheerful drama called ‘Gaza!’ by a Palestinian author were to hit the theatres I would buy tickets and have a drink.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2017, 6:16 pm

        “Boris” tried the “Cherokees and Georgia Peanut Farmers” wheeze back in August of 2016:
        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/boris/#sthash.uutxy5SK.dpuf

        Oh, here it is again:

        “Palestinians are as indigenous to Palestine as Americans are indigenous to America.
        Jews are the Cherokees of the Middle East. The only difference is that we were able to come back to our native lands.”

        http://mondoweiss.net/profile/boris/#sthash.uutxy5SK.dpuf

      • Boris
        March 8, 2017, 8:07 pm

        @MHughes976

        Agreements? Tell it to the Cherokees.

      • gamal
        March 8, 2017, 8:35 pm

        “Palestinians are as indigenous to Palestine as Americans are indigenous to America”

        you can actually read Americans denouncing Palestinians as “seventh century interlopers”

        Is there someone else there we can talk to.

      • Boris
        March 9, 2017, 8:41 am

        Moser,

        Thanks for finding my old comment.

        It works every time because it is true. Some people just need a reminder.

      • MHughes976
        March 9, 2017, 11:31 am

        If you asked the Cherokee about their agreements with the United States I would bet a pound to a peanut that the main reply would that it is rather important that the agreements be honoured.

      • Boris
        March 9, 2017, 4:13 pm

        @976

        “I would bet a pound to a peanut”

        You are full of it. Who would want a pound of anything from you?

  27. amigo
    March 8, 2017, 12:55 pm

    “I have already answered the question what it means to “look Jewish”. “Boris

    Was this what you had in mind ??.

    You stated that you are 98.1% Ashkenazi Jew.

    2 questions.

    1 , Are all Jews Ashkenazi and if so what happened to all those Haredi Jews and the Beta Jews.

    2 What does the remaining 1.9% represent—Arab Jew.

    Btw , I checked your 68 comments and found no logical description of what a Jew looks like.

    Don,t keep me walled off from your superior knowledge and explain again.Maybe your previous attempt was the victim of those antisemitic moderators.

    • yonah fredman
      March 8, 2017, 1:51 pm

      Amigo, in the relatively recent past under a specific regime, being Jewish was deemed a capital crime and many sought to blend in to society. Those of blonde hair and blue eyes had an easier job of that masquerade.

      Whether mizrachi jews can see a difference between themselves and the nonjews of their respective host countries, I don’t know. And certainly since my people lived among blonds rather than in Greece or Italy the specific coloring difference I mentioned was not a universal factor.

      • amigo
        March 8, 2017, 3:17 pm

        yonah ,Why don,t you do what I asked Boris to do.

        Show me what a Jew looks like.I would really like to know.

      • Mooser
        March 8, 2017, 5:07 pm

        “Show me what a Jew looks like.I would really like to know.”

        That should be easy, these thoroughly modern days. So I put “Jew” into Google, and click “images”

      • yonah fredman
        March 8, 2017, 7:10 pm

        Google George s kaufman. Early in his career he was fired because he looked jewish.
        Charlie rose once asked jerzy kozinski about his travails in ww2. Jerzy said, if I looked like you, I wouldn’t have had such a tough time hiding. So Google their faces and compare.

      • amigo
        March 9, 2017, 11:31 am

        “So Google their faces and compare.” YonahF

        Ok so if you wish to have a serious discussion them click on the link below.Otherwise dont waste my time with BS.

        “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_Jews”

      • yonah fredman
        March 9, 2017, 1:29 pm

        Amigo- you wish to make a specific point regarding jewishness/judaism as religion. I wish to make a specific point regarding the ethnic discrimination that existed for quite some time in the part of the world that boris comes from. Declaring anyone as unserious because of a different ( but historically accurate) perspective merely demonstrates your deafness to other perspectives. Obtuse ness does not make you serious. It makes you obtuse.

      • amigo
        March 9, 2017, 2:42 pm

        “I wish to make a specific point regarding the ethnic discrimination that existed for quite some time in the part of the world that boris comes from.” Yonah F.

        Try to keep up Yonah. The original question was , “What does a Jew look like”.It was not what does a Jew look like in Ukraine/Hawaii or Germany or Finland etc.

        We are all , except you , talking about Jews in general.

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2017, 5:11 pm

        “the ethnic discrimination that existed for quite some time in the part of the world that boris comes from.”

        Yes, a very unfortunate, strife-torn, part of the world, very true.

        But retreating to a fantasy world in which Jews become “as numerous as Chinese” is no solution.

    • Boris
      March 8, 2017, 8:04 pm

      Your search abilities need some improvement, my friend.

      See my March 6, 2017, 9:41 pm comment.

      That’s why some here call me Hittite prince, although I’ve been a King for long time.

      • eljay
        March 9, 2017, 7:22 am

        || Boris: … That’s why some here call me Hittite prince, although I’ve been a King for long time. ||

        Where’s your crown, King Nothing?

      • Mooser
        March 10, 2017, 6:24 pm

        “See my March 6, 2017, 9:41 pm comment.”

        You’re very proud of that “Cherokee vs. Georgia Peanut farmer” thing, “Boris”.
        So proud you thought of it twice!

  28. Ossinev
    March 8, 2017, 2:38 pm

    @Amigo
    “Btw , I checked your 68 comments and found no logical description of what a Jew looks like

    Perhaps this might help:
    http://popchassid.com/10-photos-to-remind-you-that-jews-dont-fit-into-a-stereotype-and-never-have/

    Sorry couldn`t find any Hittite Princes or Princesses though – certainly not any Ukrainian looking ones.

    • amigo
      March 8, 2017, 4:44 pm

      Thanks 0ssinev.

      That should confuse Boris.He thinks all Jews look the same.Now you debunked another one of his myths .The ability of the zionist mind to self delude knows no bounderies, just like Israel , I guess.

    • talknic
      March 8, 2017, 7:21 pm

      Boris and co will be along shortly to dig their cat hole a little deeper. It’s a ZioTradition

    • Boris
      March 9, 2017, 8:43 am

      @ossinev

      So what does an expression that someone “looks Jewish” means to you?

      • amigo
        March 9, 2017, 11:20 am

        “So what does an expression that someone “looks Jewish” means to you? – ” .boris.

        I don,t know about 0ssinev , but to me it looks like antisemitism.Given that Jewish is a religion and not all Jews are one colour.

        To give you an analogy—“What does a Catholic look like”.

        See what I mean Boris???????.

      • echinococcus
        March 9, 2017, 12:57 pm

        Very funny, aren’t you? Of course you don’t even realize it.

        https://toldotyisrael.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tor.jpg

      • oldgeezer
        March 9, 2017, 1:29 pm

        @boris

        I can’t answer for ossinev but when i hear someone say that expression i know i am conversing with an ignorant buffoon (if not a racist) and it’s time to get away and stay away from them.

        Their stupidity might be an explanation but it isn’t an excuse.

      • Boris
        March 9, 2017, 3:05 pm

        Amigo,

        There is no such expression.

        People do say that someone looks like a Scandinavian or a Native American.

        No one says that someone looks like a Catholic or a Protestant.

        That’s what I’ve been writing all along – you people don’t live in reality.

      • eljay
        March 9, 2017, 3:12 pm

        || Boris: People do say that someone looks like a Scandinavian or a Native American. No one says that someone looks like a Catholic or a Protestant. … ||

        But they do say that someone looks like a Muslim. Go figure.

      • Maghlawatan
        March 9, 2017, 3:45 pm

        Boris, habibi

        Zionism is not reality. It isn’t even Jewish

      • amigo
        March 9, 2017, 4:02 pm

        ” No one says that someone looks like a Catholic or a Protestant. ” Boris

        That,s very smart of them . It would be racist as Catholics /Protestants come in all shapes and sizes —-and colours.

        The same applies to someone who says they can pick out a Jew in a crowd .I refer you to Theo. Again –being Jewish is being part of a religious group , and they too come in all shapes and sizes , and colours.

        End of story.

        Boris , why do you hate Jews so much??.

        .

      • Keith
        March 9, 2017, 4:05 pm

        BORIS- “People do say that someone looks like a Scandinavian or a Native American.”

        And what does a Scandinavian Jew look like? Or a British Jew? Or an American Jew? In typical Zionist fashion, you attempt to make “Jewishness” a condition of birth which cannot be changed. While a Catholic can leave the church and become an ex-Catholic, Jewish identity is considered to be unalterable by Jewish tribalists who seek to maintain Jewish “kinship” in a multicultural society. The primary purpose of Israel and Zionism is to prevent assimilation.

      • yonah fredman
        March 9, 2017, 8:34 pm

        Growing up in primarily ashkenazi jewish milieus, the common phrase, “he looks jewish” or “she doesn’t look jewish” is just a part of where and when I grew up. ( I would imagine in a reform congregation today surrounded by converts or children of intermarriage such phrases might be frowned upon, and rightly so, converts should not be ashamed of their choice and highlighting the common roots of jews born as jews, might make them feel like outsiders, which is forbidden by jewish law.) Further jews of color and mizrachi jews have given voice to the false assumptions of the ashkenazi centric mindset revealed in such phrases.

        Nonetheless to pretend that such a concept as a Jewish face does not exist because of these above reasons is frivolous. It is precisely to deny the existence of a Jewish ethnic reality. It is ideological and venomous. The Jewish ethnic reality is fading with time and intermarriage. So it is not permanent. But it existed in a big way in america from 1880 to say 1980 and this game, there is no such thing as a Jewish face is a way of refusing to recognize the existence of a cultural concept. It is historically ignorant ideological and venomous.

      • echinococcus
        March 10, 2017, 1:55 am

        It is precisely to deny the existence of a Jewish ethnic reality.

        Very good, Mr. Ferdman! Finally the penny dropped! Of course there is no such ethny or reality as “Jewish”. Ashkenazi it is, and should be called that –has nothing to do with “Jewish”.
        Keep your own little village culture for yourself and don’t try to confuse clear minds, now.

        Learn to say “Ashkenaze” or “Ostjiddisch” or whatever defines your own particular clan and don’t mix with general words. Thank you.

      • eljay
        March 10, 2017, 2:48 pm

        || yonah fredman: … Nonetheless to pretend that such a concept as a Jewish face does not exist because of these above reasons is frivolous. It is precisely to deny the existence of a Jewish ethnic reality. … ||

        A “Homosexual ethnic reality” based on the fact that a subset of homosexuals look gay does not constitute an entitlement to a sexual orientation-supremacist “Homosexual State”. Similarly, a “Jewish ethnic reality” based on the fact that a subset of Jewish people look Jewish does not constitute an entitlement to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”.

  29. diasp0ra
    March 9, 2017, 5:31 am

    I’m kind of surprised at the huge amount of comments on this article. Though I have yet to read a convincing comment by Boris or Jeff et al on why they deserve exclusive ownership of the land, as opposed to the dozens of other empires/peoples that considered Palestine their home.

    What is it about equality for all with no ethnic hierarchies that terrifies Zionists so much?

    • Boris
      March 9, 2017, 11:33 am

      @diasp0ra

      ### I’m kind of surprised at the huge amount of comments on this article ####

      This is what happens when you have freedom of speech.

      As I had mentioned, I feel that the moderation policy on this website has changed. Not that I made any new friends, but was able to get my point across.

      ### What is it about equality for all with no ethnic hierarchies that terrifies Zionists so much? ###

      History teaches us that it doesn’t work. At least in our case.

      • Maghlawatan
        March 9, 2017, 3:54 pm

        Apartheid won’t work either

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2017, 4:21 pm

        .” Not that I made any new friends, but was able to get my point across.”

        You sure did.I believe this was it:

        “If not for forced assimilation and genocide we would have been as numerous as Chinese”

      • Mooser
        March 9, 2017, 4:27 pm

        “History teaches us that it doesn’t work. At least in our case.”

        So true. Look what happened to those poor Jews who blundered into the murderous maw of American egalitarianism!

        And the “liberty’s and immunities” of American citizenship prevented all support of Zionism by American Jews, too!

      • diasp0ra
        March 9, 2017, 4:32 pm

        @Boris

        Thank you for your candidness. At least now I know not to engage, since you openly admit that you are against equality and think one group should dominate another.

      • amigo
        March 9, 2017, 5:34 pm

        ” Not that I made any new friends, but was able to get my point across.”boris

        Hate to bother you Boris , but do you have a tracking number for that package you sent . It hasn,t arrived yet.

      • MHughes976
        March 10, 2017, 4:43 am

        I think that that Dia is not objecting to free speech but expressing the surprise and worry that comes when a plea for common sense leads to massive to-and-fro argy-bargy. The thing about common sense is that it shouldn’t need elaborate disputation to defend it.
        Hierarchy has its defenders such as Shakespeare’s character who says ‘Take but degree away, untune that string, and mark what discord follows’. Perhaps that argument could be used in defence of hierarchy based on race, though at first sight it would seem that discord has come to the modern world when the string of racial ‘degree’ is tightened rather than when it is untuned. The idea, even the hint, that the argument for the social necessity of hierarchy becomes stronger when some members of society are Jewish turns me rather green.

      • diasp0ra
        March 10, 2017, 11:26 am

        @MHughes976

        Exactly, I’m quite happy with the amount of comments. I’m just surprised that an at its core humanitarian message turned out to be so controversial for some. But at least they are now being honest.

  30. Ossinev
    March 9, 2017, 3:54 pm

    @Boris
    “So what does the expression that someone looks Jewish means to you”

    Sorry sunshine but I have really dug deep and am having difficulties with this one. I haven’t the foggiest idea what a “Jewish” person looks like. I can certainly recognise what I suspect to be a practitioner of the Jewish religion looks like – the tell tale signs are eg overturned saucer shaped cloth caps on the top of the head , cylindrical shaped furry hats on the head , strange curly wispy hair ringlets training down below the ears etc. But if you were take it all that away and they were all gathered there in the buff well no I would definitely not have the foggiest. Still you are the one who brought up the recognition of aJew feature – was it I am 98% Ashkenazi Jewish recognizable so perhaps you can put me and a lot of the other commentators out of our misery as you appear to be somewhat of an authority. I am waiting eagerly for you to list all those characteristics and when I am next out and about amongst the UK populace I can do a sort of DIY survey (not inc of course the obviously recognisable ones as in furry hats etc).

  31. Boris
    March 9, 2017, 5:37 pm

    Well, we are close to 200 comments in this thread, with a significant portion of them directed at me.

    At this point your responses are getting increasingly sillier – not that they were smart from the beginning.

    This would be my last comment here.

    Thanks to the moderator who published without modifications most of my writing.

    Read you around.

    • talknic
      March 9, 2017, 8:34 pm

      @ Boris March 9, 2017, 5:37 pm

      “Well, we are close to 200 comments in this thread, with a significant portion of them directed at me.”

      Indeed. When someone is as wrong and as full of bullsh*t as you are

      “This would be my last comment here.”

      Registering a new abuser name?

      • MHughes976
        March 10, 2017, 4:27 am

        And sad that an article specifically asking for attention to the present rather than the past arouses discussion that keeps sliding back into the past and becoming mired in it. One might have thought that a claim to political rights that depended even to a degree on physical appearance as evidence of inheriting some ancient status was already ‘reduced to the absurd’ but perhaps such ideas run deeper than we care to admit.
        At least our Zionist colleagues can’t for the most part say that their remarks are ignored. What is imoortant here is that we keep those reasons coming.

  32. yonah fredman
    March 10, 2017, 5:58 pm

    Old geezer- sorry I offended you. You are not noteworthy for obscenity, you consider courtesy a nuisance, but nonetheless your usage of 4 letter words indicates some miscommunication.
    You aren’t the only one who commented. A couple people here hate jews and my reaction to them spilled on you.

    I have a college yiddish textbook in my apartment and it devotes a chapter to the myth of the Jewish nose. It is not only racists who have dealt with this subject. Minstrelsy is part of America , its a deep topic and the jewish face or punim is worthy of chapters, but the geniuses here write two half baked sentences and consider the subject closed.

    When someone says, I have a Jewish face, for the mw choir to toss their broken bottles shows the low level here.

    Your conduct as a rule is not hateful towards jews and if I gave that impression I was wrong.

    Oh, yeah. Eat mierde.

    • Mooser
      March 10, 2017, 8:14 pm

      “I have a college yiddish textbook in my apartment and it devotes a chapter to the myth of the Jewish nose.”

      “The myth of the Jewish nose”. So there you go, it’s a myth, so don’t worry about it.

      “Oh, yeah. Eat mierde.”

      Gee, “Yonah” old pal, maybe it’s not the nose, that’s the problem. Maybe it’s the mouth.

Leave a Reply