Amazon pulls blank ‘History of Palestinian People’ — which aims to dehumanize in order to subjugate

Israel/Palestine
on 170 Comments

A History of the Palestinian People From Ancient Times to the Modern Era
Assaf A. Voll
Translated and adapted from the Hebrew by Alan Slater
Vollume Publishing; undated

 

This new book by the Israeli “publicist, editor and creative specialist” Assaf A. Voll, reduces three thousand years of Palestinian history and achievement to 132 bank pages — blank, except for a printed watermark of a Palestinian flag superimposed over Palestinian/Roman pillars.

The book caused an avalanche of five-star ‘reviews’ on Amazon by gleeful Zionists, and outrage among others for its obvious intent as racist weaponry. When Amazon, responding to complaints, removed the book, there was new outrage at Amazon’s selectiveness. As the JewishPress.com put it,

Hypocrisy: Amazon Removes ‘Palestinian History’ Book, Keeps Selling ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’

Indeed the headline’s claim is correct: the infamous Protocols is readily available through Amazon. One might further argue that whereas a private, independent bookseller with a specific inventory must decide which books fit the shop’s criteria and deserve to occupy shelf space, Amazon is in reality a common utility, a portal for anything published and available.

Screen shot of the History of the Palestinian People From Ancient Times to the Modern Era, a “book” filled with blank pages was sold on Amazon, with the intention of claiming Palestinians are not a people. (Image: The Jewish Press)

Amazon might instead have responded by placing a disclaimer on the book’s listing: Notice: In conflict with the publisher’s description, this book consists of 132 blank pages. There is no text. But instead it pulled the book while, as critics point out, selling acknowledged hate forgeries.

The gimmick behind this blank ‘history’ book is not new. Most recently, in February a blank book entitled Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide was smash hit, reaching the single-digits on Amazon’s sales ranking. The 2011 blank book Everything Obama Knows About the Economy was another big seller. On quite a different level, there is for example mention of a book conceived in the 1960s by the surrealist playwright H.M. Koutoukas, entitled The Great Book of Lesbian Humor, consisting of 7 blank pages — if it was ever made.

If these four examples are identical in gimmick, they are vastly different in their human chemistry. The Democrats and Obama tomes can be easily dismissed as political cartoons, offensive only in their boringness. With Koutoukas’ apocryphal book, the intent of the author and the changing sensibilities of the audience and of society are at issue.

But History of the Palestinian People is explicitly intended to reinforce the dehumanization of an entire people in order to grease the machinery of subjugation and ethnic cleansing. That it seeks to erase the history of a vibrant, ancient civilization is however, only its second-worse crime; foremost is its implicit mentality that the grandeur of one’s forebears’ history determines one’s ‘right’ to live one’s own life on one’s own land.

Dehumanization has of course been a standard tactic of racial settler-colonialism for centuries — indeed, one can safely say, millennia — and has been an every-present feature of Zionism. It can take subtle-but-insidious form, like Ben-Gurion referring to the Palestinians as “Arabs who happen to be in Palestine,”* overtly grotesque forms, like this 1948 cartoon by the noted illustrator and political caricaturist Arthur Szyk — and allegedly benign, humorous, form, like the book at issue, likely to be defended by cries against ‘political correctness’, but in truth a gear in a brutal seventy year military campaign waged by a century-plus racial-nationalist movement.

(* see Suárez, State of Terror, page 238)

About Tom Suarez

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

170 Responses

  1. RoHa
    June 30, 2017, 7:37 pm

    Amazon still sells From Time Immemorial.

    • Tom Suarez
      June 30, 2017, 8:08 pm

      Indeed, Alan Dershowitz’ “Case for Israel”, which owes much to Peters’ pseudo-history, remains a big seller.

  2. Emet
    July 1, 2017, 1:22 am

    Can someone please tell me what language these Palestinians, referred to today as “Palestinian Arabs”, spoke at the time of the First Jewish Temple and during the period of the Second Jewish Temple? Both in these Temples of course stood on the spot the Muslims conquered and later built a mosque. Language defines a people, right?

    • John O
      July 1, 2017, 4:04 am

      Hmm … tricky. Canada – French and English; Belgium – French and Dutch; Switzerland – French, German and Italian. Yep, you’re so right.

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 8:48 am

        John O, as emigrants from Europe, should not Canadian colonialists go back to Europe? And when you mention two languages together, are you implying that the Palestinians had this confederation of multiple regions speaking different languages? Interesting? Please produce some references. Otherwise what you are saying has no relevance to what happened in the region in the context of the local population have rights to anything. Someone sitting on a hilltop somewhere has no rights to what others are doing in the region.

      • John O
        July 2, 2017, 12:26 pm

        @emet

        You fail to understand the point I was making, which was that language does not define a people. I gave examples of three modern countries; I said nothing about Palestinians. Do try to stick the subject and answer points raised when debating with commentators on this website, my dear old thing.

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 1:42 pm

        John O, are you confirming that the Palestinian people are a modern people. Thank you. I have been trying to find one person on this site who is able to see it this way.
        What you fail to understand is that the conflict is a religious one, which starts a long, long time before 1948. If it was not a religious conflict in 1948 then is sure is now. Have you ever asked yourself why the Palestinians did not accept the 1947 Partition plan. The plan gave them:
        1. A huge part of northern Israel (North of Haifa)
        2. A much greater West Bank that what you even see on your maps today.
        3. Gaza
        4. East Jerusalem

        And what do you know, they rejected the plan. All they had to do was accept the plan and they chose violence. Offered the same plan today Abbas would take it but Hamas would still reject. Ask yourself why.

      • eljay
        July 2, 2017, 3:12 pm

        || Emet: … Have you ever asked yourself why the Palestinians did not accept the 1947 Partition plan. The plan gave them:
        1. A huge part of northern Israel (North of Haifa)
        2. A much greater West Bank that what you even see on your maps today.
        3. Gaza
        4. East Jerusalem

        And what do you know, they rejected the plan. … Ask yourself why. ||

        The indigenous population of geographic Palestine rejected the Partition plan because they were not required to accept it. Zionist Jews accepted the Partition plan because it gave to them something to which they were not entitled.

        I would gladly accept half of everything that’s yours even though I’m not entitled to it. You would likely reject any attempt to have taken from you half of everything that is yours. Ask yourself why.

      • Talkback
        July 2, 2017, 4:02 pm

        Emet: “John O, are you confirming that the Palestinian people are a modern people.”

        Israelis are even more modern even if Zionists deny their existence, too.

        Emet: “What you fail to understand is that the conflict is a religious one, which starts a long, long time before 1948.”

        Sure, the first Zionist settlement was created in 1872, but it’s not a religious conflict at all. To the contrary. Religious Jews were originally ‘Antizionist’ and that’s the reason why there wasn’t any Jewish movement which wanted to make their way to Palestine in 1900 years. This conflict is about settler colonialism and Apartheid.

        Emet: “Have you ever asked yourself why the Palestinians did not accept the 1947 Partition plan.”

        Now that’s an easy question. Would Israel accept a partition plan?

        Emet: “The plan gave them.”

        It was NOBODYS right to give anything away accept the citizens of Palestine by majority ruling. Your Zionist colonial mindset fails to acknowledge the right to self determination of Nonjews.

        Emet: “ll they had to do was accept the plan and they chose violence.”

        Here are two questions for you: Who in 1948 needed a war to aquire territory for a state and who needed to expell others to achieve a significant majority?

        It was actually the Zionist who chose violence to acquire their national goals. Their terrorism started in the late 30s when the British White book effectively ended their dream of a state. And when the partition plan was not accepted by the Security Council in April 1948 and its resolution prohibited the creation of state “pending further consideration of the future Government of Palestine by the General Assembly” the Zionists started capturing territories beyod the partition plan. In the end of April the Arab countries accepted US brokered truce proposal, but the Jewish Agency rejected it.

        The US diplomat Robert McKlintock noticed: “The Jewish Agency refusal exposes its aim to set up its separate state by force of arm the military action after May 15 will be conducted by the Haganah with the help of the terrorist organizations, the Irgun and LEHI, [and] the UN will face a distorted situation. The Jews will be the real aggressors against the Arabs, but will claim that they are only defending the borders of the state, decided upon … by the General Assembly.”

        The conflict is about settler colonialism and their terrorism.

      • Emory Riddle
        July 3, 2017, 2:17 pm

        Aramaic. I already posted this once. Why was it removed?

      • Mooser
        July 3, 2017, 9:18 pm

        “Why was it removed?”

        I’ve noticed a few things, too. I think the system is ‘glitching’.

    • RoHa
      July 1, 2017, 5:10 am

      Mostly they would have spoken Aramaic (now used mostly by Christians and Muslims in Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran) and, for the poncey types, Koine Greek.

      (In the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, built on the temple mount where the Dome of the Rock now stands, probably Latin and even posher forms of Greek would have been used.)

      I know you want to use this linguistic question to try to deny that the Palestinians are a “people”, but why does it matter? The Zionists took over their land and denied them their rights. Why does “peoplehood” change the immorality of Zionism?

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 9:02 am

        Roha, you don’t have to be a Zionist to know that Israel was and will continue to be the homeland of the Jewish people.

    • Bont Eastlake
      July 1, 2017, 6:08 am

      People define people by self association. They probably spoke a variant of the Semitic language, unlike the recent ancestors of Israeli Jews from Europe. Also, if language alone defines a people why the white elite of Israel rather mingle and associate with the Europeans rather than their fellow black and brown Jews who speak in Hebrew?

    • Eva Smagacz
      July 1, 2017, 8:06 am

      Aramaic, of course.
      Is there even much of an argument about that?

      And language does not always define people.
      Look at the fate of Yiddish.

      • Ellen
        July 1, 2017, 11:14 pm

        Yiddish, an old German dialect. Yiddish speakers and German speakers can understand one another each in their distinct dialect, which makes it the same language as linguists would perhaps define a dialect within a single language.

        So does that make Yiddish speakers German?

      • gamal
        July 2, 2017, 10:46 am

        “So does that make Yiddish speakers German?”

        that all depends on what you mean by “German”, do they appropriate sun-loungers with towels,

        in a moment that I will recall on my death bed, a journalist asked a 17 year old working class white girl, rather aggressively, as she was coiffed and dressed in a distinctly black manner, and caring for a mixed baby, ( “spoil whiteman” as the Jamaicans term it)

        “are you white!”

        without missing a beat she calmly asked “Depends, what do you mean by “White”? ” that was in 93, he is still considering his reply as far as I am aware. Out of the mouths of babes and teenage mothers.

      • Jackdaw
        July 2, 2017, 2:38 pm

        Yiddish is mostly old german, with some Hebrew and Aramaic words, and written in the Hebrew alphabet

    • eljay
      July 1, 2017, 8:48 am

      || Emet: Can someone please tell me what language these Palestinians, referred to today as “Palestinian Arabs”, spoke at the time of the First Jewish Temple and during the period of the Second Jewish Temple? … ||

      Regardless of what language they or anyone else spoke in the very distant past, the religion-based identity of Jewish did not and does not comprise the right…
      – to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine; or
      – to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them,
      …in the 20th and 21st centuries (CE).

      • Emet
        July 1, 2017, 12:37 pm

        eljay, so what did King David rule over?

      • eljay
        July 1, 2017, 1:35 pm

        || Emet: eljay, so what did King David rule over? ||

        Absolutely nothing that would entitle people in the 20th and 21st centuries who choose to hold the religion-based identity of Jewish the right:
        – to a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine; or
        – to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality they would not have others do unto them.

      • Misterioso
        July 1, 2017, 4:59 pm

        @Emet

        “eljay, so what did King David rule over?”

        For your further and much needed edification:

        The Jebusite/Canaanites, ancestors of today’s Palestinians, founded Jerusalem around 3000 BCE. Originally known as Jebus, the first recorded reference to it as “Rushalimum” (or “Urussalim”) appears in Egyptian Execration Texts of the nineteenth century BCE, nearly 800 years before it is alleged King David was born.

        Thus far, no archaeological evidence, or more importantly, writings of contemporaneous civilizations have been discovered that prove Solomon or David actually existed. To quote renowned Jewish Israeli writer/columnist, Uri Avnery: “[David and Solomon’s] existence is disproved, inter alia, by their total absence from the voluminous correspondence of Egyptian rulers and spies in the Land of Canaan.” (“A Curious National Home,” by Uri Avnery, May 13/17 –
        http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1494589093/)

        Furthermore, no archaeological evidence has yet been found that proves the “Jewish Exodus” from Egypt actually took place.

      • Keith
        July 1, 2017, 5:21 pm

        EMET- “…so what did King David rule over?”

        Ah, a monarchist! Yes, let us restore the ancient monarchy! Down with Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism! Secular Jews? Don’t even ask! Emet wants to return to temple Judaism! Only through animal sacrifice can God be appeased and the Gentiles be removed from the sacred soil! Why else bring up ancient myths? Myths which burn so bright in Ashkenazi (European) hearts!

      • echinococcus
        July 1, 2017, 6:11 pm

        Keith,

        Only through animal sacrifice can God be appeased…

        Animal sacrifice? Leave that to the meek and weak. It’s passé.
        Zionism is triumphant thanks to human sacrifice. By the thousands.

      • Talkback
        July 1, 2017, 10:13 pm

        Emet: eljay, so what did King David rule over?”

        Was he a citizen of Palestine in 1948? If not, he had no right to self determination in Palestine and to decide its future by majority ruling.

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 4:06 am

        Misteriso, Uri Avneri is as pro-Israel as you are and he displays his political views on his collar. So quoting him on anything is a total waste of time for those who have any interest in the truth.

        Now for archeological evidence, there is a reason that the Palestinians destroy any and all such evidence on the Temple Mount. I ask you the following, if evidence was found, would you retract your support for the Palestinian Arabs and would you shift your support to the Jewish people? As your answer will be a resounding no, then why do you waste our time with references to archeological evidence? If you are not the hypocrite you just made yourself out to be, then go and visit the excavations in Ir David, which is located just below the Temple Mount.

        By the way, there is zero evidence that the Jebusite/Canaanites are ancestors of today’s Palestinians. You have just tried to mislead the readers here.

      • John O
        July 2, 2017, 9:31 am

        @emet

        If you’re going to take Misterioso on in a discussion, you would do well to emulate his/her method and CITE SOME BLOODY SOURCES for your statements. You could start by providing some proof that Palestinians have destroyed archaeological evidence at the Temple Mount.

      • Mooser
        July 2, 2017, 11:24 am

        “emulate his/her method and CITE SOME BLOODY SOURCES for your statements.”

        That will never work. In order for the discussion to proceed on an ethical basis the Zionist should be granted omniscience, and complete objectivity.
        After all, they are proceeding on that basis, why won’t we?

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 12:42 pm

        John O, I have a feeling that if I point you in the direction of some of my sources, you will be dismissive which is typical of those on the Left.
        For example:
        http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp483.htm

        and

        http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Whos-destroying-antiquities-in-Jerusalem

        Not sure if these are bloody enough for you, so here is another bloody source:

        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163528

      • Mooser
        July 2, 2017, 1:25 pm

        “Emet”! How authoritative you are! I am sure that you are helping lots of people make up their mind about Zionism. Beyond the mere facts, the way you present yourself should go a long way towards helping them.
        I can see why Zionist leaders appointed you as their spokesperson.

      • John O
        July 2, 2017, 4:20 pm

        @emet

        “John O, are you confirming that the Palestinian people are a modern people. Thank you. I have been trying to find one person on this site who is able to see it this way.”

        Er … what on earth are you on about? As I said in my previous reply, I have not mentioned the Palestinians. You keep dragging those poor people into this discussion. I am not talking about them. You seem obsessed with them.

      • Mooser
        July 2, 2017, 4:24 pm

        “eljay, so what did King David rule over?”

        Well, “Emet” if you read the Bible, you’ll know King David wasn’t exactly master of his domain if you get my drift.

        “…so typical of those on the Left”

        “Typical”? Now, where have I heard “typical” used as a pejorative before? ‘He’s a typical…’??? Nah, it escapes me at the moment.

      • John O
        July 2, 2017, 4:26 pm

        @emet

        “John O, I have a feeling that if I point you in the direction of some of my sources, you will be dismissive which is typical of those on the Left.”

        Too right I’m dismissive of them. Any source that discusses archaeology and in its first sentence claims that a mythical figure from prehistory planted the stones that can still be seen on an archaeological site today is worthless. And it’s not about right or left; it’s about fact and opinion.

    • Talkback
      July 1, 2017, 9:17 am

      Emet: “Language defines a people, right?”

      Don’t be stupid, Emet. How many countries speak English, Russian, Arab, Spanish, Portugese etc Does that mean that we are dealing each time only with one people? And what was the language of Jews in the last 2000 years?

      Your problem is that you simply cannot define people as being the denizens/citizens of a country, isn’t it? So you have to come up with any nonsense to justify the settler colonialism of foreign Jews.

      • Nathan
        July 1, 2017, 6:21 pm

        No one has any need “to justify the settler colonialism of foreign Jews”. A state comes into existence, and its citizens are now local people. This simple fact of life is actually your opinion, Talkback. You have defined people “as being denizens/citizens of a country”.

      • Talkback
        July 1, 2017, 10:06 pm

        Nathan: “No one has any need “to justify the settler colonialism of foreign Jews”.”

        That’s the only thing that Israel and its Hasbara trolls do.

        Nathan: “A state comes into existence, and its citizens are now local people.”

        1.) The State of Israel didn’t “come” into existence, but was enforced through war and expulsion by terrorists and in clear violation of the right to self determinationa of the citizens of Palestine.
        2.) Israel expelled most of the people who should have been citizens of Israel and keeps them expelled for the very same reason. It has been an Apartheid state from the get go.

        Nathan: “This simple fact of life is actually your opinion, Talkback. You have defined people “as being denizens/citizens of a country”.

        Exactly. Jews are not a nation. And the majority of them weren’t even citizens of Palestine in 1948 and therefore never had the right to self determination in Palestine. It was simply settler colonialism by foreign Jews. Every prime minister of Israel or his/her ascendents came from the Russian Empire. The state founder of Israel even illegaly immigrated into the Ottoman Empire. Go figure.

      • eljay
        July 1, 2017, 11:12 pm

        || Nathan: No one has any need “to justify the settler colonialism of foreign Jews”. … ||

        Zionism – Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine – is unjustifiable. But that hasn’t stopped Zionists from constantly trying to justify it.

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 12:51 pm

        One cannot colonize your own home. Go read Josephus Flavious. I am not going to mention the Bible and Torah in this discussion. Josephus should be a good starting point.

      • Mooser
        July 2, 2017, 1:31 pm

        “Go read Josephus Flavious.”

        “Emet” is referring to Joseph Flavious XXXVI. Known as “36 Flavious”, his ideas about franchise ice-cream stores were later stolen by Baskin and Robbins.

      • Talkback
        July 2, 2017, 4:09 pm

        Emet: “One cannot colonize your own home.”

        One can claim without any shred of evidence that 1.) one is the descendent of someone who 2.) owned a house two millenia ago and that 3.) this would be legally relevant I’m sure you can make a case at a Zionist Supreme kangaroo court. Everybody else will laugh.

        When will you accept that not a single Israeli historian can prove a Jewish exile? The home belongs to the 1948er citizens of Palestine, whether they are Jewish or not.

      • MHughes976
        July 2, 2017, 4:52 pm

        Let me recommend the Oxford History of the Biblical World, the Quest for the Historical Israel (Finkelstein and Mazar), the Archaeology of the Holy Land (Magness), Ancient Israel (Grabbe), Ancient Canaan and Israel ((Golden).

      • Keith
        July 2, 2017, 5:18 pm

        EMET- “One cannot colonize your own home.”

        Eastern Europe was the home of the early Zionists.

      • eljay
        July 2, 2017, 6:17 pm

        || Emet: One cannot colonize your own home. ||

        And that’s why Zionist Jews have been colonizing geographic Palestine.

      • MHughes976
        July 3, 2017, 9:52 am

        There is nothing impossible about a population’s starting to colonise an area where many of their ancestors lived, i.e. Increase their numbers and influence there – which is not necessarily either a good or a bad thing, just a possible one. Perhaps the Welsh population might increase in London, a city which has retained its Welsh name over the centuries when the Welsh presence has been minor. If the increase in their numbers leads to violence and injustice (not that it would really, of course) against Poles and Bangladeshis that would be colonisation in a bad way.

    • Kaisa of Finland
      July 1, 2017, 10:01 am

      Emet:

      “Language defines a people”

      Again these Jewish definitions make me so confused:

      In Finland there is a minority of Jews living in here. Most of them are descendants of Russian Jews who came to Finland in the 18th century from Russia (and spoke Russian at that time). Now-a-days most of them speak Finnish or Swedish as their “mother tongue” and are considered as Finnish people since Judaism here is understood as one religion among the others. So the Finnish Jews are not considered here as some “separate people” who’s true homeland is somewhere around the “Judea and Samaria”..

      When the Zionists went to Palestine in the beginning of the 1900, most of it’s original Jewish, Christian and Muslim inhabitants spoke Arabic and they still do. No-one in the world spoke Hebrew as their native language at that time. And in the Middle East there has also been Christian, Jewish and Muslim people who’s “native” language is Farsi or Kurdi*. So how do all these languages define the Jewish people??

      *Well, I have no-idea what the languge of the Kurds is called in English, in Finnish it is Kurdi.

      • Talkback
        July 1, 2017, 11:27 am

        Kaisa Of Finland: “Again these Jewish definitions make me so confused.”

        It’s not a Jewish definition at all, it is a Zionist scam.

        Kaisa OF Finland: “So the Finnish Jews are not considered here as some “separate people” who’s true homeland is somewhere around the “Judea and Samaria”..”

        That Jews are considered as a “seperate people” whose “true homeland” is somwhere else is an antisemitic invention which Zionism picked up fromm their true Hertzlian “allies”.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 1, 2017, 12:20 pm

        Talkback:

        “Kaisa Of Finland: “Again these Jewish definitions make me so confused.” – It’s not a Jewish definition at all, it is a Zionist scam..”

        Sorry, I just get so confused with all these definitions. So I did not mean to sound insulting..

      • Talkback
        July 1, 2017, 9:59 pm

        You weren’t insulting at all., Kaisa.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 2, 2017, 2:30 am

        Just to correct a fact – Earlier I wrote: “Jews who came to Finland in the 18th century..” So they came to Finland in 19th century, starting around 1850’s. In Finnish it would be in “1800-luku” so that is what confused me. I am sorry for that, won’t make that mistake again.

    • Misterioso
      July 1, 2017, 11:18 am

      @Emet

      Primarily, they spoke Aramaic.

      Re: “Both in [sic] these Temples of course stood on the spot the Muslims conquered and later built a mosque.”

      Some relevant facts:

      Jerusalem was captured from the Byzantines in 637 CE, by Arab Muslims under the command of Caliph Omar bin al-Khattab (the second caliph after Muhammad.) By the next year they ruled all of Palestine and would do so until 1085, when Turkish Seljuk Muslims took control for fourteen years.

      As Muslims considered it a holy city, Omar treated Jerusalem with great respect and its residents with compassion. “Never in the sorry story of conquest up to that day, and rarely since, were such noble and generous sentiments displayed by a conqueror as those extended to Jerusalem by Omar.” (Report by Sir William Fitzgerald on the Local Administration of Jerusalem, Jerusalem: Government Printer, 1945, p.4)

      After he cleared and purified the location of the ancient Jewish Temple (used as a garbage dump under Christian rule) Omar built Jerusalem’s first mosque, a simple wooden structure. Between 688 and 691, the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock was constructed by Caliph Abd al-Malik and behind it his son al-Walid built the Mosque of al-Aqsa during his caliphate (705-715.) To this day the entire site is known as the Noble Sanctuary.

      Caliph Omar opened Jerusalem to Jews (who had been denied residency by the Byzantines), granted Christians full religious freedom as well as unrestricted use of their churches and the right to build new ones and encouraged European pilgrims to visit the holy places. In 638, Omar also signed what is still referred to as the Covenant of Omar or Al-Uhda al-Omariyya, a document little known outside of the Christian and Islamic communities in Palestine in which he pledged to Sophronius, Jerusalem’s Christian patriarch, to protect Christians along with their properties and churches and right of worship. The covenant guarantees that Christians would “not be coerced in their religion.”

      Except for outbreaks of anti-Christian fanaticism in 966 (in which Jews took part), and 1009, when Al Hakim, the insane Caliph burned down the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (rebuilt by his successor) the three faiths shared Jerusalem in peace.

      Although the great majority of Palestinians eventually converted to Islam, many Christians kept their faith as did most Jews. “The inhabitants of Palestine seem to have prospered during much of this period from the Muslim conquest to the appearance of the Crusaders…. Muslim rule was generally unobtrusive…. Friction among the religious communities and the official sanction of violence against one group or another were infrequent.” (Professor Charles D. Smith, Palestine And the Arab-Israeli Conflict, p. 9)

      Muslim rule was interrupted by the Crusaders who occupied Palestine in 1099 and established the short-lived Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. They massacred not only Muslims and Jews, but Christians as well, referring to them as “pagani and barbari.” (The Arab Christian: A History in the Middle East, by Kenneth Cragg, Louisville KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991, p. 111) The small Jewish community in Palestine was almost completely wiped out by the Crusaders. “A Jewish pilgrim, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Palestine in 1170, found only 1,440 Jews in the whole country.” (R. Garaudy, The Case of Israel: a Study of Political Zionism, Shorouk International, 1983, p. 35)

      • Emet
        July 1, 2017, 11:59 am

        Early Islamic texts honored the Jewish foundation connection to Jerusalem, confirming the important the place is for Jews. As Muslims wanted something similar, they came up with the story that Jews were not worthy and Muslims were now the “right” people to run things. We can see just how worthy the Muslims have been with inner fighting and bloodshed. Don’t seem worthy to me.

      • Misterioso
        July 1, 2017, 2:42 pm

        @Emet

        Sigh

        Au contraire. To state the obvious, my previous posting attests that the Muslims were entirely “worthy.”

        Let’s consult a real expert, renowned Professor David J. Wasserstein, who also happens to be Jewish.

        Audio of his lecture delivered in May, 2012:

        https://www.soas.ac.uk/religions-and-philosophies/events/jordan-lectures-in-comparative-religion/14may2012-opening-lecture-how-islam-saved-the-jews.html

        “So, what did the Muslims do for the Jews? – How Islam Saved the Jews.”

        David J Wasserstein is the Eugene Greener Jr. Professor of Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt University.

        Excerpt:
        “Islam saved Jewry. This is an unpopular, discomforting claim in the modern world. But it is a historical truth. The argument for it is double. First, in 570 CE, when the Prophet Mohammad was born, the Jews and Judaism were on the way to oblivion. And second, the coming of Islam saved them, providing a new context in which they not only survived, but flourished, laying foundations for subsequent Jewish cultural prosperity – also in Christendom – through the medieval period into the modern world.”

        An uncomfortable truth for a Zionist zealot like you obsessed with demonizing Muslims, I’m sure!!

        To quote Dr. Ella Habiba Shohat, Professor of Cultural Studies and Women’s Studies at the City University of New York (CUNY), a self described “Arab Jew” born in Israel of Iraqi ancestry now living in the United States:

        “Our history simply cannot be discussed in European Jewish terminology. As Iraqi Jews, while retaining a communal identity, we were generally well integrated and indigenous to the country, forming an inseparable part of its social and cultural life. Thoroughly Arabized, we used Arabic even in hymns and religious ceremonies. The liberal and secular trends of the 20th century engendered an even stronger association of Iraqi Jews and Arab culture, which brought Jews into an extremely active arena in public and cultural life. Prominent Jewish writers, poets and scholars played a vital role in Arab culture, distinguishing themselves in Arabic speaking theatre, in music, as singers, composers, and players of traditional instruments.

        “In Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Tunisia, Jews became members of legislatures, of municipal councils, of the judiciary, and even occupied high economic positions. (The finance minister of Iraq in the ’40s was Ishak Sasson, and in Egypt, Jamas Sanua–higher positions, ironically, than those our community had generally achieved within the Jewish state until the 1990s!)” (“Reflections by an Arab Jew” – http://www.bintjbeil. com/E/occupatio n/arab_jew.html )

        Needless to say, when Zionism, a 19th century European racist, colonialist ideology infected the entire region in the 20th century and led to the dispossession and expulsion of well over one million native Palestinian Muslims and Christians between late 1947 and 1967, relations between Arabs and Jews deteriorated and led to conflict. No surprise!!

        Also, bearing in mind the fact that both Caliph Omar, in 637, and Saladin, in 1187, liberated Jerusalem from brutal oppressors (i.e., Byzantine Christian zealots and the Crusaders) and invited the exiled Jews to return and practice their faith freely, it is easy to understand why Palestine’s indigenous Arab Jews were among Zionism’s most ardent opponents.

        To quote Rabbi Menachem Froman, chief rabbi of the West Bank settlement of Tekoa, a champion of inter-religious reconciliation: “[E]very Jew who learns the writings of the great sages – who, at the head of them all stands Maimonides – knows that our great thinkers wrote in the Arabic language, lived in Islamic states and participated with the great Muslim thinkers in the effort to explain the words of God, according to the paths of the sages and amidst the difficult bloody battles that we have had since the beginning of Zionism with the Muslims.”

        “We know… that the war between the Jews and the Muslims is the work of the cursed devil. We know that Islam is named after peace.” (Haaretz, September 18, 2006)

        GET EDUCATED!! YOU’RE DROWNING IN HASBARA!!
        BYE BYE

      • gamal
        July 1, 2017, 6:05 pm

        I might add we could rummage around a few centuries ago

        the fatwas of Khayr ad din ar ramli (born Ramla 1585) an invaluable insight to the society at large and the territorial concept Palestine, certain contracts were null if you left a particular territory, and Palestinians.

        from one fatwa :” ala ana kul wahid min al qurush bi thalathin qira wakul qira bi-ashara min al fulus al musamma bil judad fi istilah AHL FILASTIN ”

        many others typing them in English is a chore

        the Turkish author Evliya Celebi says he was in Palestine from 1648-50

        look up al-Diyar al-Qudsiyya

        ones is always ready for a pop quiz, we are all after knowledge after all.

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 1:46 pm

        Misteriso, interesting in your history summary of Jerusalem that you leave out the period from 1,000 BC to 637 CE. That’s 1637 years you just skipped. Just like that.

      • Jackdaw
        July 2, 2017, 3:17 pm

        @Misterioso

        Uhh…..you or Professor Smith omit mention of Arab v Arab fighting that destroyed a great deal of Palestine-Jordan in the late 8th century.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qays%E2%80%93Yaman_war_(793%E2%80%93796)

      • John O
        July 2, 2017, 4:34 pm

        @Jackdaw

        “Uhh…..you or Professor Smith omit mention of Arab v Arab fighting that destroyed a great deal of Palestine-Jordan in the late 8th century.”

        Here’s a challenge: How is the fighting between King Alfred of Wessex and Guthrum the Dane, that destroyed a great deal of England in the 9th century, relevant to the current political situation in the United Kingdom? (Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.)

    • Emet
      July 1, 2017, 12:03 pm

      And lets not forget that the local non-Jewish population in the region has never ruled Jerusalem, ever.

      • Misterioso
        July 1, 2017, 5:45 pm

        @Emet

        “And lets not forget that the local non-Jewish population in the region has never ruled Jerusalem, ever.”

        Reality: Over the centuries, along with many Jews, the “local non-Jewish population,” including Christians, merged/intermarried with the Muslim population and converted to Islam. They “ruled Jerusalem” for centuries. Jews, however, ruled Jerusalem for only about 77 years prior to their current illegal occupation.

      • RoHa
        July 1, 2017, 8:12 pm

        You keep tossing out these scraps of ancient history, but you never say why they are important.

        As eljay keeps pointing out, none of this stuff gives Zionists any rights to their Jewish-supremacist state or the associated injustice and immorality.

      • Talkback
        July 1, 2017, 9:51 pm

        Emet: “And lets not forget that the local non-Jewish population in the region has never ruled Jerusalem, ever.”

        Of course they have. As citizens of the Ottoman Empire for example. But what’s your point? That only people that have ruled over a territory in the past are legitimate rulers of the future? Where would you like to start? Egypt?

        You are only trying to invent a legitimacy for settler colonialism to deny the right to self determination of an indigenous population. Because you need to ignore the relevant criteria for entitlement which is Palestinian citizenship before 1948.

      • RoHa
        July 1, 2017, 11:31 pm

        “Jews, however, ruled Jerusalem for only about 77 years prior to their current illegal occupation.”

        Whereas the Romans ruled the city for about 500 years, and the Byzantines for another 200 or so. For most of that time it was called Aelia Capitolina, and was first pagan and then Christian.

      • Keith
        July 2, 2017, 12:43 am

        ROHA- “You keep tossing out these scraps of ancient history….”

        History or myth-history? Nothing Emet says should be taken at face value.

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 4:21 am

        Roha, the point is that this land is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people and Jews have a right to live in these lands, no less than anyone else. And when Jews started to return, after being exiled by the Roman’s, the local Arab population was not interested in the history. They were not interested in living side by side with more and more Jews. So they chose violence instead of looking to the history and finding a way to live together. That’s exactly what happened.

        It was the Arab’s regrettable choice of reverting to violence that has set the tone for the last 150 years. The Arabs must take responsibility for their own actions and and need to pay a price for what they have done. History cannot be re-written.

        Too many readers here have the notion that the conflict started in 1948 as well as the history. If this was the case then Jews have no right to even live in these lands. If you do believe that Jews have some rights in these lands then you need to look at the history prior to 1948, and you are left with no choice but to go back 3,000 years.

      • Mooser
        July 2, 2017, 11:00 am

        “Nothing Emet says should be taken at face value.”

        “Keith”, if you can’t grant, as the only reasonable grounds for a discussion, omniscience and perfect objectivity to every Zionist here, well, I just don’t see how this debate can continue.

      • Mooser
        July 2, 2017, 11:14 am

        “and you are left with no choice but to go back 3,000 years.”

        Okay, “Emet” but before you start the Delorean don’t you feel that you should praise Mondo for their strong freedom-of-speech principles?

        Just think: Mondo publishes your comments even tho your comments can (nay! they will!) bring this entire tower of anti-Zionist babble down around their ears.

      • eljay
        July 2, 2017, 3:03 pm

        || Emet: … the point is that this land is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people and Jews have a right to live in these lands … ||

        Geographic Palestine is not the ancient homeland of all people who chose or choose to hold the religion-based identity of Jewish.

        The religion-based identity of Jewish does not comprise a right:
        – to live in geographic Palestine;
        – to establish a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in geographic Palestine (or anywhere else in the world); or
        – to do unto others acts of injustice and immorality holders of the religion-based identity of Jewish would not have others do unto them.

        That is the point.

      • Talkback
        July 2, 2017, 4:51 pm

        Emet: “Roha, the point is that this land is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people and Jews have a right to live in these lands, no less than anyone else.”

        Shut up you supremacist hypocrite shmock. “Anyone else” means for you that Palestinians who were expelled by other racist shmocks don’t have the right to live there and you even call for the Palestinians who still live there to leave.

        Emet: “And when Jews started to return, after being exiled by the Roman’s …”

        Again, the exile is a hoax. Not a single Israeli historian can prove that there was an exile of Jews. The “return” is part of this hoax. Jews are not returning, they are invading.

        Emet: “If this was the case then Jews have no right to even live in these lands.”

        Nonsense. Jews and their descendants who lived their in Ottoman times have a right to live there. Jews who legally immigrate to Palestine have this right, too. Jewish settlers who forced themselves upon the natives didn’t. That means most of the Jews in 1948.

        Emet: “If you do believe that Jews have some rights in these lands then you need to look at the history prior to 1948, and you are left with no choice but to go back 3,000 years.”

        Of course. Settler who violently enforce themselves upon a native population to conquer the land always have to create some nonsensesical legitimacy. And in all cases it has been a racist legitimation so far and had nothing to do with the natives right to self determination.

      • RoHa
        July 2, 2017, 10:13 pm

        “Roha, the point is that this land is the ancient homeland of the Jewish people and Jews have a right to live in these lands”

        You will not be able to convince anyone with more than twelve functioning brain cells simply by saying this. You need to provide definitions and arguments.

        By “homeland” you can’t mean that all Jews have their homes there. Many of the world’s Jews are born, educated, marry, live, and die in homes in other countries.

        You seem to mean “the place where the biological ancestors of modern Jews lived a few thousand years ago” and “the place where Judaism originated”.

        Even if we accept both of those claims, how do you then get to the idea that foreign Jews have a right to live there? (I do not dispute the right of Jews born in the territory.) What is your chain of reasoning?

        On the face of it, it seems absurd. Two or three thousand years ago my ancestors in central and Northern Europe were carrying out religious rites* in sacred groves. That would make those bits of Europe my “homeland”. Does this give me a right to go to those areas, throw out the people and set up home there? And does the same apply to everyone everywhere? If so, we will have nothing but chaos.

        And Palestine is the place that Christianity originated, so do all the world’s Christians have a right to live there?

        So if you want to convince us that European and American Jews have a moral right to live in Palestine, explain how you derive that right.

        (*We do not know what these rites were, but they were probably pretty disgusting.)

      • Marnie
        July 3, 2017, 12:20 am

        “If you do believe that Jews have some rights in these lands then you need to look at the history prior to 1948, and you are left with no choice but to go back 3,000 years”.

        That statement is ridiculous. You can’t prove any of it. You can’t prove you any connection to the ancient Hebrews or have a special entitlement to steal palestinian land. Nobody has documents to substantiate their claim to this. Maybe there are a handful of jews who have lived here for centuries; but there are thousands upon thousands of palestinians who have. The israeli gov’t and their enablers have been working nonstop since 1948 to attempt to erase the palestinian footprint on this land. If palestinians are of no consequence, are not a people, insert any hasbara here, why would the zionists be working so very, very hard to disprove their existance?

        Zionist apologists and their comrades in changing history to suit their goals don’t like that so much so ‘you are left with no choice to go back 3000 years’, which is a big mistake. Yes, by all means go back to a very, very brief period of time when jews ruled. The zionists have occupied Palestine longer in the present day than the Hebrews did in the past and you know it.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 3, 2017, 8:08 am

        Roha,

        All nationalist narratives are fundamentally irrational although some are definitely more convincing than others. In my humble opinion, Israeli claim on Palestinian land based on twisted Biblical tales is no more irrational than Canadas or Australias sovereignity claims for example.

        You can spend a lifetime debating and debunking these narratives, but at the end of the day nobody is going to give up ownership of prime real estate because they lost an argument.

        Debates and discussions are useful for ingroups with matching goals and interests, not for dealing with the enemy. We have BDS for that and even with limited support and patronage it has made a bigger impact on Israeli behavior than all debate and criticisms ever made. We will see how much Israelis believe in their own BS when the Euro-American blood money fueled gravy train stops.

      • Emet
        July 4, 2017, 8:11 am

        And the antisemitic hate fest continues. How did Churchill put it? “Never, in all of history, have so many supported a cause so not deserving and so full of contradiction and falsehoods, and all because of hate for the other, even though the other is so deserving.”

        Question for those who dismiss sources supporting Jewish claims: “Is all of the Bible a fable or is some of it true?”

      • RoHa
        July 4, 2017, 10:12 am

        “And the antisemitic hate fest continues.”

        So we don’t disagree with you because we have rational ground for thinking you are wrong. We disagree because we are anti-Semites full of hate.

        “Is all of the Bible a fable or is some of it true?”

        Regardless of how much of it is true or false, it is irrelevant.

      • eljay
        July 4, 2017, 10:51 am

        || Emet: … How did Churchill put it? “Never, in all of history, have so many supported a cause so not deserving and so full of contradiction and falsehoods … ||

        Good ol’ Winston – he really nailed that description of Zionism and “Jewish State” supremacism. Thanks for the quote. :-)

      • Mooser
        July 4, 2017, 12:22 pm

        “And the antisemitic hate fest continues.”

        Okay, maybe it does, “Emet”. That being the case, why on earth would you try to convince people to accept Zionism using Judeo-centric sources? If they don’t like us, why on earth would they accept our word for it?
        You are using evidence for Zionism that only people who love Jews would accept, to convince “antisemitics” they should support Zionism? Makes no sense.

        “Emet” given that the “antisemitic hate fest continues”, why not take a sensible, effective approach to getting support for Zionism? Simply say “Look, you can get rid of all the Jews in your country by sending them to Israel! Then they will leave you alone, and you will be rid of them!”

      • Mooser
        July 4, 2017, 12:29 pm

        “Question for those who dismiss sources supporting Jewish claims: “Is all of the Bible a fable or is some of it true?”

        “Emet”, I am shocked! Please see the “About” page, and the “Comments Policy”. I will quote the relevant section:

        ‘Mondoweiss accepts as inerrant and true in all respects, every single word of the Bible,( except for the part written by goyim) All comments must be in accord with Scripture’

      • Mooser
        July 4, 2017, 12:54 pm

        .” How did Churchill put it? “Never, in all of history, have so many supported a cause so not deserving…

        You bet, “Emet”, that’s just how Churchill would put it.
        Right, “RoHa”?

        “So not deserving….” Churchill as a “valley girl’

    • Emet
      July 1, 2017, 12:05 pm

      And with Aramaic such an ancient language, how come there is nothing written about the local non-Jewish population? Nothing, absolutely zero. They must have been such an important people for nothing to have been written about them. Makes you think no?

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 1, 2017, 2:12 pm

        Emet:

        You sound like you think you are a very important person. I just want to ask, after 2000 years from now, who do you think remembers who you were??

      • echinococcus
        July 1, 2017, 6:32 pm

        how come there is nothing written about the local non-Jewish population? Nothing, absolutely zero. They must have been such an important people for nothing to have been written about them. Makes you think no?

        Very good, Emmett!
        You start asking the right questions.

        In effect, the Aramaic-speaking population of Palestine was largely Jewish.

        It converted to later religions, which it found better: Christianism, then Islam; many abandoned superstition, too.

        That’s why it’s so f*** unlikely that any contemporary Jew could be descended from the Hebrews.

        Continue asking, Emmett.

      • Talkback
        July 1, 2017, 9:56 pm

        Emet: “And with Aramaic such an ancient language, how come there is nothing written about the local non-Jewish population? Nothing, absolutely zero. They must have been such an important people for nothing to have been written about them. Makes you think no?”

        Who was a citizen of Palestine in 1948, Emet? Only they had the right to self determination and to decide Palestine’s future by majority ruling in other words by democratic means.

        You are just trying to distract from this by inventing legally irrelevant criterias of entitlement to justify settler colonialism and a century of the denial of Palestinian self determination either by Zionist or on their behalf.

      • RoHa
        July 1, 2017, 11:59 pm

        So we have a tricky problem, Emet. Who should have Palestine?

        On the one hand we have the Aramaic speakers, whose claim to Palestine is based on being the “people” whose language was spoken in Palestine about 2000 years ago.

        On the other we have the Italians, whose claim is that of heirs to the Romans. The Romans actually ruled the place for a long time, and planned and built the basics of what is now known as the Old City of Jerusalem.

        What we should do is ask the King of Spain, who still uses the title “King of Jerusalem”, to form a committee with the other potential claimants to that title, and then make the decision.

        Do you agree?

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 6:59 am

        Kaisa of Finland, with modern archives and the internet, in 2000 years from now they will be able to go back to each day we are now living in.
        The Palestinian Arabs were perfectly comfortable under Ottoman Rule. They did not ask, never mind demand, independence from their Turkish masters. Why is that all the while living in the caliphate? I know why. It’s because they never felt part of a separate national identity. Also many Arabs moved to the area from neighboring areas in order to find work. That’s why we say that the Palestinian Arab people are a modern invention, and so should you.
        The modern day Palestinians want to own the Temple Mount, the holiest site for Jews. Just who do the Palestinians think they are. This is never going to happen, it should not happen, and people like you should tell them this. Believe me, this is the core issue of the conflict.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 2, 2017, 10:39 am

        Emet:

        “Kaisa of Finland, with modern archives and the internet, in 2000 years from now they will be able to go back to each day we are now living in..”

        Oh please, Emet, don’t tell me you really believe so.. We do not have any idea what kind of information will be saved from us to the future.. There might come an Ice Age or what ever before that. Maybe in 4017 someone will find a piece of your laptop in her garden, but I doubt that she’d know what it is..

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 2, 2017, 11:02 am

        p.s. Emet:

        When writing the following:

        “That’s why we say that the Palestinian Arab people are a modern invention, and so should you. The modern day Palestinians want to own the Temple Mount, the holiest site for Jews. Just who do the Palestinians think they are. This is never going to happen, it should not happen, and people like you should tell them this. Believe me, this is the core issue of the conflict..”

        Did you address this to me personally? I have lived in Israel, I have also been to the West Bank, I have lived with Israelis (Jewish) and met many Palestinians too, so why should I do what you say or believe you more than my own experience?? I am sorry to say Emet, but all what you write here sounds B*ll S*it to me.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 2, 2017, 11:33 am

        Emet:

        I just got stuck with this sentence of yours:

        “Just who do the Palestinians think they are..”

        Well, I have to say that those Palestinians I met, did not think anything special about themselves.. Mostly they thought themselves as humanbeings who deserve a normal life with out an occupation. I did not meet anyone who would have wanted to “own the Temple Mountain”. I just met people who wanted to raise their kids in normal surroundings.

        (Normal meaning a home, clean clothes, food, water, school, friends without soldiers, guns and fear of the house demolitions as part of their everyday life..)

      • Mooser
        July 2, 2017, 12:31 pm

        “That’s why we say that the Palestinian Arab people are a modern invention, and so should you.” “Emet”

        Of course they should, “Emet”. When hasn’t the entire world agreed with the Jews, and accepted our explanations for everything and anything? You know how much they love us and want to agree with everything we say, right?

      • Jackdaw
        July 2, 2017, 3:47 pm

        Please recall that waves of messianic religious Zionists repeatedly tried to return and settle in Zion from the 1200’s to the 1900’s. Their efforts were continually met with hostility.

        http://azure.org.il/include/print.php?id=264

      • Talkback
        July 2, 2017, 4:35 pm

        Emet: “They did not ask, never mind demand, independence from their Turkish masters. … It’s because they never felt part of a separate national identity.”

        That was enfoced on them by Great Britain on behalf of Zionism. Otherwise Palestine would have been a part of Syria.

        Emet: “That’s why we say that the Palestinian Arab people are a modern invention, and so should you.”

        They are. But 27 years less modern than the Israeli people who were “invented” in 1952. So you should say that Israelis were legally invented after Palestinians were legally “invented”.

        Emet: “Also many Arabs moved to the area from neighboring areas in order to find work. ”

        They came for seasonal work. The number of those people who stayed in Palestine was insignificant. And if they legally immigrated its even irrelevant, because contrary to Nazis and you its only relevant who is a legal citizen of a country and not what his or her faith or heritage is. But most of the Jews illegaly entered Palestine before 1948 and never acquired Palestinian citizenship.

        Emet: “The modern day Palestinians want to own the Temple Mount, the holiest site for Jews. Just who do the Palestinians think they are.”

        The Palestinans who think this way probably don’t think that they’re exclusive claim is as imbecile as those of Jews who think likewise.

        Emet: “Believe me, this is the core issue of the conflict.”

        Really? Which Jews claimed that this was a core issue of a conflict before Zionist came and took Palestine through war and expulsion? According to religious Jews it is even forbidden to enter the Temple Mount. Don’t you even know that it is forbidden for Jews to “storm the wall”? You probably know even less about religious Judaism than about Palestinian history.

      • Mooser
        July 2, 2017, 4:55 pm

        “Please recall that waves of messianic religious Zionists repeatedly tried to return and settle in Zion from the 1200’s to the 1900’s. Their efforts were continually met with hostility.”

        You sure know how to step in it “Jackdaw”. You really don’t want to talk about a lot of that stuff.

      • RoHa
        July 2, 2017, 6:41 pm

        “a home, clean clothes, food, water, school, friends without soldiers, guns and fear of the house demolitions as part of their everyday life.”

        See, that’s why peace is impossible. The Palestinians are going to have to make some real concessions and give up those absurd demands.

      • Keith
        July 3, 2017, 12:32 am

        JACKDAW- “Please recall that waves of messianic religious Zionists repeatedly tried to return and settle in Zion from the 1200’s to the 1900’s. Their efforts were continually met with hostility.”

        Where do you come up with this crap? The history of Zionism is clear. Until 1967, Jews tended to avoid Palestine, preferring Britain and the US to Israel/Palestine. Zionist “recruitment” in the post World War II Jewish refugee camps is scandalous. Even the Russian refugees preferred the US and GERMANY to Israel. Reality is what it is. Deal with it.

      • Jackdaw
        July 3, 2017, 1:26 am

        @Mooser

        “You really don’t want to talk about a lot of that stuff.”

        Bring it.

    • RoHa
      July 1, 2017, 8:04 pm

      Since you think that language defines a “people”, then it would seem that the Muslim and Christian Aramaic speakers of Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran constitute a ” people”. Perhaps it is this “people” who have the right to form a state in Palestine, the territory of their Aramaic-speaking ancestors.

      • gamal
        July 2, 2017, 7:45 am

        “that language defines a “people” ”

        and climate, soil type and air quality, I think this ideology is called Terroirism, I of course am Corked.

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 8:31 am

        The point is that Jews organized and the religion took shape. The language and literature advanced. And the history books and the literature show this. The First and Second Jewish Temples stood as the dominate structures in Jerusalem for nearly 1000 years. That’s right, Jerusalem then was all about Jewish life. Nothing in any peace of evidence shows otherwise. Same goes for Bethlehem and Hebron. To come now and say that this was insignificant, as you and many here like to say, is an attempt to change history in order to support modern day political aspirations of Palestinian Arabs.
        Palestinian Arabs were not responsible for the destruction of the Jewish Temples and the dispersion of Jews to the 4 corners of the planet. What the Palestinian Arabs are responsible for is the denial of the Jewish connection and importance to Jerusalem coupled with the demand that they must have it.

      • gamal
        July 2, 2017, 8:52 am

        “Jerusalem then was all about Jewish life”

        but isn’t everything always.

        “Nothing in any peace of evidence shows otherwise”

        thats nice. But can you hear anything with your fingers in your ears like that?

      • amigo
        July 2, 2017, 2:38 pm

        “The First and Second Jewish Temples stood as the dominate structures in Jerusalem for nearly 1000 years.”emet

        I believe the word you are looking for is “dominant”but after mature reflection , “Dominate ” is a far better choice and so apt.

      • amigo
        July 2, 2017, 2:45 pm

        “That’s right, Jerusalem then was all about Jewish life. Nothing in any peace of evidence shows otherwise.” emet

        Did you mean to say there is no evidence of “Peace” in Jewish life in Jerusalem.

        emet , you will always hate a “piece” of yourself as long as you deny others “Peace”.

        Btw , any links to all that drivel (hasbara) you just posted.

      • Mooser
        July 2, 2017, 3:54 pm

        “The point is that Jews organized and the religion took shape. The language and literature advanced. And the history books and the literature show this. The First and Second Jewish Temples stood as the dominate structures in Jerusalem for nearly 1000 years.”

        If G-d had wanted us Jews to keep it, we would have. The story is plainly told by our Prophets.
        Did I miss a revelation from God which changed any of that?

      • Emet
        July 2, 2017, 5:19 pm

        Amigo, how about the Bible?

      • amigo
        July 3, 2017, 3:40 pm

        “Amigo , How about the Bible.”

        Emet , I tend to steer away from fiction , unless I know something about the author/s .

        Hell , much as I hate to admit it , Joan Peter,s “Time Immemorial ” has more , (barely) credibility than the bible.

      • Mooser
        July 3, 2017, 7:15 pm

        “I tend to steer away from fiction , unless I know something about the author/s .”

        I find Jeremiah to be very instructive.

      • amigo
        July 4, 2017, 8:38 am

        “I find Jeremiah to be very instructive.” Mooser.

        Agreed , but you are not of the zionist ilk who have no time for prophets of doom.I dare say if he was around to day and warned of the destruction of Jerusalem , he would be jailed without trial for uttering anti Israel propaganda and fake news.

      • Mooser
        July 4, 2017, 1:08 pm

        “Agreed , but you are not of the zionist ilk who have no time for prophets of doom”

        Look, Jeremiah was a Prophet, was a good friend of mine. I never understood a single word he said, but I helped him a-drink his wine.
        And he always had some mighty fine wine.

    • MLE
      July 1, 2017, 10:07 pm

      Probably Aramaic.

      • MHughes976
        July 3, 2017, 4:06 pm

        The Bible contains some historical information, you just have to be careful with it. In some ways, such as never pretending that the Israelites were indigenous in Palestine or that the Israelites of ancient times were faithful to the Mosaic religion, it is very illuminating. The Zionist Bible seems to consist of the Book of Joshua in letters of fire four inches high.

    • Emet
      July 2, 2017, 5:16 pm

      Eljay, I don’t know who or what you are but you sound like you should be in Raqqa at the moment fighting to the death for ISIS. With all the history, the evidence, the archaeology and you still show views that totally reject a Jewish State, in any borders.

      • eljay
        July 2, 2017, 10:18 pm

        || Emet: Eljay, I don’t know who or what you are but you sound like you should be in Raqqa at the moment fighting to the death for ISIS. … ||

        ISIS are your kind of people: Religion-based supremacists. Sounds like you should be palling around with them.

        || … With all the history, the evidence, the archaeology and you still show views that totally reject a Jewish State, in any borders. ||

        “Jewish State” is a religion-supremacist construct. It has no more right to exist than does “Islamic State”. I oppose both supremacist constructs. Zionist hypocrite that you are, you rightly oppose one and wrongly champion the other.

      • RoHa
        July 3, 2017, 2:14 am

        ISIS shows no animosity towards Israel at all. Not surprising, seeing that the Israeli Air Force acts on behalf of ISIS.

      • amigo
        July 3, 2017, 7:09 am

        “With all the history, the evidence, the archaeology and you still show views that totally reject a Jewish State, in any borders.” emet

        If and when Israel accepts it,s self declared Borders of 1948 , which never mentioned a “Jewish State” , and engages in running a State , (Israel) for all it,s Citizens versus a Supremacist racist entity , then and only then can we recognise a State in which Jews live and afford equality to non Jewish citizens.

        Until then , your so called Jewish State is a non starter .Consider yourself lucky you get even that much , given the History of how you achieved it.

      • Bont Eastlake
        July 3, 2017, 7:45 am

        Emet,

        You know what your spewing is utter bull yet you can’t stop yourself from doing it out of the perverse gratification youre getting from this sick exercise. But like many Zionists on the rank, your just a coward who is afraid to face reality, deadly afraid that it won’t treat you as good as your Zionist delusions does.

        If you’re so certain of having historical rights to Palestine over the indigenous Arabic speaking populace, why don’t you argue on that basis at the UN? Why are you arguing with random strangers concerning the most critical aspect of your identity, and existance? I’ll believe you once I see some form of consistent academic and political backing of your views by neutral actors. Which is exactly the case with the Palestinian perspective in this conflict.

    • Emory Riddle
      July 3, 2017, 11:45 am

      Aramaic.

      Like all those who lived in the region.

    • ahadhaadam
      July 4, 2017, 10:40 am

      If it was up to me, I would ban you from this site for this stupid question alone. What language did Egyptians speak 2000 years ago? or Syrians or Nigerians or Germans? Why go that far and not look in your own mirror: what language did Jews speak 150 years ago? they spoke Yiddish, German, French, English, Arabic and dozens of other languages, yet none of them spoke Hebrew as a daily language. So what does this prove? Absolutely nothing. Please explain to us how a theory about ancient origin gives a person from Poland or Russia a “right” to a distant land to which he can prove neither ownership nor ancestry.

    • talknic
      July 5, 2017, 1:13 am

      @ Emet July 1, 2017, 1:22 am

      “Can someone please tell me what language these Palestinians, referred to today as “Palestinian Arabs”, spoke at the time of the First Jewish Temple and during the period of the Second Jewish Temple?”

      Why? It’s entirely irrelevant to the declared and recognized territory of the State of Israel and that state’s illegal activities in territories territories the Israeli Government itself claimed on May 22nd 1948 were “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine” as defined in the Israeli plea for recognition May 15, 1948

      Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republicwithin frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”

      Got any other stupid bullshit questions pal?

      ” Both in these Temples of course stood on the spot the Muslims conquered and later built a mosque.”

      So what? Muslims build mosques. You want they should build a Synagogue?

      ” Language defines a people, right?”

      Tell that to US citizens. They must be English. Right?

      • Talkback
        July 6, 2017, 3:29 pm

        Say Talknic, how many times do I have to quote the GoI’s statement that the boundaries would be the result of negotiations and that the UN refered to this statement (amongst other) when it accepted Israel into the UN?

  3. MHughes976
    July 1, 2017, 6:05 am

    To some extent we give Peters a victory just by arguing with her and rebutting what she says about increase of population due to immigration versus improved birth and survival rates and about so many other topics. We (certainly including me) get drawn into the supposition that the question of human rights for Palestinians now is contingent in some way on these matters from way back then, which it is not.

  4. Tuyzentfloot
    July 1, 2017, 6:30 am

    One can argue that dehumanizing is not hate. Hate is a specialty of those who are oppressed, or that least, those that feel they’re being done injustice to.
    So Israel was a land without a people, since you can have as many persons as you want in that area but that doesn’t make it a people, and you can oppress and destroy them without hating them, so what is the problem. Down with hate speech!

    • MHughes976
      July 1, 2017, 1:58 pm

      It may sometimes be useful to distinguish hate from contempt, I suppose.

      • Tuyzentfloot
        July 2, 2017, 2:03 pm

        It may sometimes be useful to distinguish hate from contempt, I suppose.

        Yes, when people claim in their defense that they’re not hating. But contempt isn’t needed either. In Plato’s world getting rid of unwanted people was not a matter of contempt either. He was just making things better. When you dehumanize people you don’t have to hate them.

        On the other hand it is to be expected that when you abuse people systematicallly some will hate you for it. My point is that the division of good guys who do not hate and bad guys who hate can very legitimately be reversed into the bad guys who don’t hate and the good guys who do. Did the Nazi’s hate gypsies? I doubt it.

    • Talkback
      July 1, 2017, 10:20 pm

      Tuyzentfloot: “So Israel was a land without a people, since you can have as many persons as you want in that area but that doesn’t make it a people, ”

      The nationality law of the people of Palestine was enacted in 1925. Everybody who has an ex Ottoman and habitually residing in Palestine became ipso facto a citizen of Palestine. Palestinian is the term of a constitutive peoplec contrary to “Jewish” which is not a citizenship and will never be.

      • Talkback
        July 2, 2017, 4:46 am

        Correction “Everybody who WAS …” not “has”.

      • Tuyzentfloot
        July 2, 2017, 2:05 pm

        The nationality law of the people of Palestine was enacted in 1925.

        Nah, that’s people-ish, not a real people like the Jews!

      • Talkback
        July 2, 2017, 3:39 pm

        Yeah, so real that one can convert to this so called people.

      • Nathan
        July 2, 2017, 7:32 pm

        The nationality law of 1925 was enacted, obviously, by the British mandatory authorities. Does this mean that you accept the authority of the British? These are, after all, the same British who granted the Balfour Declaration (and the Balfour Declaration is the preamble of the Constitution of Palestine).

      • Tuyzentfloot
        July 3, 2017, 9:32 am

        Yeah, so real that one can convert to this so called people.

        I’m told that it’s so real you can feel it in your blood. I don’t have much experience there, but I think it’s a bit like when I eat a lot of strong mints and then having to pee.

      • MHughes976
        July 3, 2017, 11:20 am

        I don’t know what passage of Plato you’re thinking of, Tuy? I would think that it’s impossible to dehumanise those who as a matter of fact are human without an element of contempt.

      • echinococcus
        July 3, 2017, 5:23 pm

        Nathan,

        Very good catch.

        The Palestinian immigration and citizenship was administered in bad faith by the GB imperialists pushing for the destruction of Palestine and its takeover by their Zionist colonial invaders.

        In fact, the British mandatory awarded Palestinian citizenship to tens of thousands of Zionist invaders, who had openly declared their intent to take over sovereignty already in 1897.

        None of these invaders have been recognized as legitimate Palestinian citizens or even legitimate residents by a proper plebiscite of the Palestinian population.

      • Tuyzentfloot
        July 5, 2017, 7:21 am

        I don’t know what passage of Plato you’re thinking of, Tuy? I would think that it’s impossible to dehumanist those who as a matter of fact are human without an element of contempt.

        The Republic. Some extrapolation/deduction is needed though since it’s all so benign. But it’s got the seeds for totalitarianism with eugenics. The point is that enforcing a darwinian selection on the population can be seen as a good thing(whether Plato supported it or not). In such a case the discussion shifts to implementation details(let’s be nice and just make sure some people cannot reproduce), and to what the good criteria are(Roma and mentally ill ok, but by God, not the Jews!).

      • MHughes976
        July 5, 2017, 1:50 pm

        It’s not obvious though, to me at least, what passages in the Republic are relevant. The Cambridge History of World Slavery vol 1 p.85 mentions the ‘animalisation’ of the Helots – they sometimes had to dress up in animal skins – which is definitely what we might call dehumanisation and surely contempt. The attitude attributed to the Helots to the Spartans – ‘they desire to eat them raw’ – is what we might call hatred. I agree with Tuy that ‘hate’ gets overused and that anti-hate rhetoric is often itself a clumsy and brutal thing.

  5. Ossinev
    July 1, 2017, 6:31 am

    “Can someone please tell me what language these Palestinians, referred to today as “Palestinian Arabs”, spoke at the time of the First Jewish Temple and during the period of the Second Jewish Temple?”

    Well I am fairly certain it wasn`t Brooklynish,Finchleyish,Polish,Ukrainian or Russian. Hope that helps.

  6. Shingo
    July 1, 2017, 7:20 am

    Herzl proposed that the language for the Jewish state should be German. I take it that implies Jews were really German. After all, language defines a people right?

  7. Ronald Johnson
    July 1, 2017, 8:32 am

    What Language? likely Aramaic. Another question would be, what language did the Ashkenazi ancestors speak on the Steppes of Asia during the period of the two temples in Jerusalem? But then, the temple locations are in question; the sacred Western Wall may only be a revetment of a fortress, the Temple site being at the pool of Siloam:

    http://www.askelm.com/temple/t130901.PDF

    • Elizabeth Block
      July 1, 2017, 11:06 am

      Isaac Azimov, quoted by Shlomo Sand, says (I’m paraphrasing from memory): It turns out that I may not be descended from people who lived in ancient Palestine, but from people who lived in Central Asia in the 700s. Who knows? and who cares?

      • Mooser
        July 1, 2017, 1:24 pm

        “It turns out that I may not be descended from people who lived in ancient Palestine, but from people who lived in Central Asia in the 700s.”

        Big deal. I’m descended from people who lived in Central Park.

    • MHughes976
      July 3, 2017, 11:58 am

      Brown University, bless it, maintains a database of Holy Land inscriptions from about 500 – 500 BCE – CE. A few things stand out, one being the non-prevalence of Hebrew, what Isaiah had called ‘the language of Canaan’ (itself an interesting term), and the extensiveness of Aramaic, the business language of the Persian Empire, and then of Greek. I looked up the inscriptions mentioning equivalents of ‘house’, which seems, at least on first sight, to make these points quite well.. In the earlier stages Jewish religious terms are not universal – I noticed some references to God under his Edomite name Qos. In the later stages there is a lot of Christian piety. The non-Jews of Palestine did exist: mind you, the question of how you told the difference between Jew and non-Jew in say 450 BCE, when Herodotus was writing of the Syrians of Palestine, is not an easy question. However, there is no denying that the Hasmonean and
      Herodian policy of religious uniformity except perhaps in certain pockets on the fringes of their expanding dominions, like the Decapolis where Greek pagan literature appeared, surely took increasing hold. The effects of that policy, accepted seemingly by the Jewish masses as a sacred mission, are indeed being felt to this day. But there is no moral reason outside Biblical exposition – and many of us would expound the Bible differently – why the policy of this brief period should be so determinative of what happens now as it has become.
      People refer to Flavius Josephus, often making one of his Latin names end in ‘ous’, which suggests non-careful reading. He is of value for the period near his own time but the history of the period that was ancient to him is mainly dependent on the Bible.

  8. Edward Q
    July 1, 2017, 10:05 am

    There was a similar slur against Arabs in an online dictionary. I have forgotten the wording of the definition.

    • YoniFalic
      July 2, 2017, 4:35 pm
      • Edward Q
        July 3, 2017, 11:15 am

        No, this was a definition for “Arab”, and it was very offensive. This happened about 20 years ago. My sister saw something similar in a North Korean dictionary once. Americans and Europeans were defined as something along the lines of “imperialist running dogs”.

      • Nathan
        July 6, 2017, 6:40 am

        In a comment below, you tell the Zios that it is “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”. Is this wisdom true also when one puts one’s words in writing? I never would have imagined that you had once been a total idiot when you were discrete about this serious problem; but, now that you have gone on record that “BTW, I was a total idiot….”, you have removed all doubt.

      • Mooser
        July 6, 2017, 4:06 pm

        …bettter to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”. Is this wisdom true also when one puts one’s words in writing?”

        You bet, “Nathan”! That’s why you, too will have an word-searchable archive of comments available to anyone who clicks your name.

  9. TRG-42
    July 1, 2017, 10:54 am

    I wonder what would be the extent of the outrage if someone reversed this ‘publication’ under a title such as ‘Jewish history: from Temple Mount to Birkenau’.

  10. Elizabeth Block
    July 1, 2017, 11:04 am

    Please keep publishing Tom Suarez. He’s wonderful. And to my fellow Mondoweiss readers: Read his book, State of Terror. It will tell you things you didn’t know.

    As for Amazon, I too think they should have kept it, but with the disclaimer that it consists of blank pages. (But I’m glad they didn’t.)

  11. lonely rico
    July 1, 2017, 11:55 am

    > MHughes976

    To some extent we give Peters a victory just by arguing with her …
    As several commentators have done with emet.

    eljay gets it right (for about the 9000th time),
    that no Zionist argument, none, not ever
    can justify the establishment of a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine, which does unto others (non-Jews) acts of injustice and immorality.

    emet should be avoided (side by side with the likes of Tuyzentfloot),
    pissing into the wind.

    • echinococcus
      July 1, 2017, 6:22 pm

      Rico,

      What cannot be justified is the establishment of any state on other people’s land.

      Even if the Zionist entity were not supremacist, even if it were the most perfect democratic utopia, it is illegitimate and criminal and must go away.

      You forgot to check the absurdity of the term “religion-supremacist”. Zionism is racist, period.

      • Nathan
        July 2, 2017, 9:23 pm

        The Zionist entity is a member of the UN. Therefore, you are absolved of the need to find a justification for its existence. Others have done that for you already.

      • Mooser
        July 3, 2017, 12:19 pm

        “The Zionist entity is a member of the UN…”

        “The Zionist entity”? Yup, Israel most definitely does not pay these people. I’m pretty sure Israel wouldn’t give you a sheckel to call it “the Zionist entity”.

      • echinococcus
        July 3, 2017, 5:39 pm

        Nathan,

        Member of the UN means jack$. Dismembering has been done for less.

  12. Kaisa of Finland
    July 1, 2017, 6:51 pm

    If RoHa is here, I have a question:

    Earlier I wrote in a sentence: “Russian Jews who came to Finland in the 18th century..”

    And this bothers me, In Finnish “1800-luku” means the same as in Swedish “1800-talet”, so the years from 1800 to 1899, but is this in English the 18th or 19th century?? How is it counted?? So if the Russian Jews came to Finland starting about 1850’s, what should it be?? This always confuses me, so help me please!!

    • Bumblebye
      July 1, 2017, 9:27 pm

      19th century.
      Just as birth to first birthday is an infant’s first year, so 18 to 19 would be the 19th year. So for the centuries.

      • Kaisa of Finland
        July 2, 2017, 2:12 am

        Bumblebye:

        Thanks, now I’ll remember it..

  13. andrew r
    July 1, 2017, 10:07 pm

    New book announcement: A History of Non-Violence in the Zionist Movement. Based on Herzl’s published diaries and British and German archival sources, take a tour of the methods employed by the Zionist movement which did not somehow involve the backing of a militaristic European power.

    Okay, there might be enough material for about a dozen pages of actual text. Herzl’s offers to bribe the Ottoman rulers may constitute non-violence.

  14. echinococcus
    July 2, 2017, 9:24 pm

    Looks to me as if every other discussion post at the bottom of most articles intends to be a “response” to totally insane, random posts by the disruptive madman “Emmett” from the zionistische Propaganda-Abteilung.

    He sure is earning his keep by being taken seriously.

    • Keith
      July 3, 2017, 12:17 am

      ECHINOCOCCUS- “Looks to me as if every other discussion post at the bottom of most articles intends to be a “response” to totally insane, random posts by the disruptive madman “Emmett” from the zionistische Propaganda-Abteilung.”

      Indeed, Mondoweiss is in danger of drowning in Zionist bullshit. Long discredited Zionist memes resurrected as legitimate topics of discussion. This is a difficult topic for Mondoweiss to deal with, but deal with it they must.

      • echinococcus
        July 3, 2017, 5:12 pm

        Mondoweiss is in danger of drowning in Zionist bullshit

        That’s almost optimistic.

      • Nathan
        July 3, 2017, 8:11 pm

        I think that you could put things in proportion. All the articles in Mondoweiss without exception present a clear anti-Zionist / anti-Israel point of view. The vast majority of comments from the public are also anti-Zionist / anti-Israel. It’s hard to imagine why you feel “a danger of drowning”.

      • echinococcus
        July 3, 2017, 11:44 pm

        Gee, they found the right tactics!

        “Emmett” is not yet finished yet and “Nathan” rears its pretty head. Whaddya want to bet that the place drowns in responses to the new pimple by the usual suspects “debating” the new name’s nonsense? Let’s just hope at least that it’s not in comments to yet one more “liberal” Zionist article.

      • Keith
        July 4, 2017, 12:44 am

        NATHAN- “It’s hard to imagine why you feel “a danger of drowning”.

        Drowning in bullshit. Most of these memes are regurgitations of old Zionist talking points long since demonstrated lies by common sense and the “new historians.” All of this crap has been discussed and should have been dispensed with long ago. The notion of little Israel surrounded by Arab hordes wanting to throw the Jews into the sea is a contemptible inversion of reality only believed by the indoctrinated faithful. Is that you, Nathan, is that you? And to continue bringing up discredited crap is what Zionist trolling is all about. Is that you, Nathan, is that you?

      • Mooser
        July 4, 2017, 11:53 am

        “Whaddya want to bet that the place drowns in responses to the new pimple by the usual suspects “debating” the new name’s nonsense?”

        We’ve got to try and stop them, “echin”! 24/7 activity and long comment threads have destroyed many websites, we can’t let it happen here!

    • RoHa
      July 3, 2017, 2:10 am

      Tedious though it is to respond to Emet, I do so for the casual MW reader who might, in a moment of inattention, think that Emet could almost have a worthwhile point.

      • Mooser
        July 3, 2017, 11:25 am

        “I do so for the casual MW reader who might, in a moment of inattention, think that Emet could almost have a worthwhile point.”

        Well, you have a lower opinion of Mondo readers than I do. As far as I can see, “Emet’s” way of commenting invalidates any point he might have.

        After all, it gets hard to posit the Jews as a persecuted people begging for a refuge when “Emet” insists we should give them that refuge based on the most self-serving, Judeo-centric bunch of BS.

      • echinococcus
        July 3, 2017, 11:46 pm

        RoHa,

        There are almost no Zionists left intelligent enough to be believable anywhere.

      • Mooser
        July 5, 2017, 12:30 pm

        “There are almost no Zionists left intelligent enough to be believable anywhere.”

        But they are incapable of keeping their mouths shut, and staying on message.

      • YoniFalic
        July 5, 2017, 2:26 pm

        Zios need to ponder the following.

        Here are two versions of an entertaining saying that is usually credited to Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.

        BTW, I was a total idiot when I was a Zio. I did not have a clue how little I knew until I began to take Jewish studies courses at Columbia.

  15. Sulphurdunn
    July 4, 2017, 2:32 pm

    Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is possible for people not to have a history, either collectively or individually, what does that have to do with their rights as individuals? Assuming, for the sake of argument, that some people have long and ancient histories, how does that confer upon them rights not also possessed by those with no history? What the hell does history have do with human rights? What agency, natural or supernatural in any moral universe, dispenses rights to one group of people by taking them from another? What ethical argument dares use a history of past injustice to justify injustice in the present? How can any people with or without a history not repudiate such an argument?

  16. Tom Suarez
    July 4, 2017, 4:18 pm

    I would like here to make a general reply to two main points made by Emet, rather than reply to each of his separate, related comments.

    1. PARTITION
    Emet, you repeat the myth that the Palestinians could have had a state in 1948, but they instead refused Resolution 181 the preceding November and chose violence.
    No, they could not have had a state, and they knew this. And the record makes clear that they did not respond with violence, that they resisted violence until the ethnic cleansing began in early 1948.
    — During the entire Mandate period, it was without question acknowledged that Zionist leaders would not stop until they had taken all the land at least to the Jordan, and preferably beyond. The British knew this, the Americans knew this, and above all the Palestinians knew this.
    — From 1939 to late 1947, the Palestinians stood fast to a policy of non-violence despite the ever-increasing Zionist terror attacks, such that their refusal to “take the bait” amazed British observers on the scene. Fast-forward to November, 1947, and Palestinians above all knew what was in store for them once the British evacuated.
    — By the summer of 1947, when UNSCOP made its two recommendations, NO observer (I cannot find a single exception) believed that the Zionists had any intention of honoring Partition. The Palestinians above all knew this.
    — THE reason that UNSCOP settled on Partition (which = Zionist statehood which = subsequent expansion) rather than the alternate plan, a bi-national state (which the Palestinians would have accepted as a compromise) was the certainty of continuing Zionist terrorism if UNSCOP displeased the Jewish Agency. The Partition was a capitulation to the years of Zionist terror. This is obvious from events, and British then-secret documents actually state this. Yet the Palestinians, who knew this better than anyone, were supposed to go along with what they knew was their own demise.
    — The disproportionately large land area Res 181 “gave” the Zionists was also done in fear of Zionist terrorism. The planners hope the large up-front grant would delay (not prevent) Israel’s expansionist wars. Yes, British records actually state this (but no, it didn’t work — the first expansionist war came in 1948). But the Palestinians were supposed to trust this document…
    — In late 1947 – early1948, the UK and the US are both admitting that not only is the Partition itself a ruse, but the very promise of a Palestinian state on any portion of the land will never be.
    — Finally, the Palestinians, contrary to what you say, did not turn to violence as a result of Res 181. Indeed Ben-Gurion and that lot were concerned by the Palestinians’ passivity, as they needed a civil war, a “Palestinian threat,” to have a reason for the long-planned ethnic cleansing. So they kept rachetting up the anti-Palestinian terror until they succeeded.
    — Partition was a cynical scam — to treat it now as if it were some honorable proposal is a gross injustice. But even if it were for real, it would have been a violation of everything that the UN had been formed to prevent, a violation of its own Charter.

    Some supporting documents to this can be seen here http://paldocs.net

    2. ANCIENT HISTORY
    Why on earth are you invoking ancient history? The whole issue of what happened in ancient times in the Levant is a fascinating subject — a fascinating historical subject. It has precisely zero relevancy to today’s “conflict” in Israel-Palestine. The fact that claims of who-ruled-where two, three thousand years ago is cited as somehow vindicating or mitigating anything going on today is wholly preposterous, regardless of the veracity of your or anyone else’s version of ancient history. Like so many aspects of this “conflict”, it seems that this construct — the presumption that ancient history get calculated in with current legality/morality — applies only to Israel-Palestine. Anyplace else, it would be laughed at. It should be laughed at in this context as well. The King-Crane report of 1919 did so, and it was buried.

    Thanks, Tom S

    • Nathan
      July 4, 2017, 10:30 pm

      The Palestinians reject also the concept of a bi-national state, so it is absolutely not true that “the Palestinians would have accepted as a compromise” the alternative plan. “Bi-national” assumes as self-evident that there are two national groups in one land. In the Palestinian perspective, the Jews are not a nation (they are a religious community), and so they have no homeland. Accepting a bi-national plan would have meant that the Palestinians accept the viewpoint of Zionism (i.e. the Jews are a nation whose homeland is in Palestine). If the Palestinians would have been interested in a compromise of any sort, they would have sought negotiations.

      • Tom Suarez
        July 5, 2017, 9:41 am

        Hello Nathan, thanks for the comment.

        The Palestinians most certainly did try to negotiate. After 181 was shoved through undemocratically by Truman, the Palestinians were by form given an opportunity for a counter proposal. They proposed what the Times described as a constitution similar to that of the USA — refused out of hand by the Zionists, who held all the clout. An attempt was also made to bring Res 181 to the international court, but that altogether reasonable attempt was also blocked.

        The fact is that no matter what the Palestinians did, the Zionist demands would be honored by the decision makers. The idea of “negotiating” was a farce, as it remains today — one side fully empowered, the other fully disempowered.

        As for the bi-national state, no, it was not what the Palestinians wanted — anything other than simple self-determination was a betrayal of what they legally deserved. But I quote from (alas, then-secret) British documents: “Despite their objections to the minority proposal for a federal State … the Arabs might be persuaded to acquiesce in this solution,” and surely would have rather than endure what happened. The actual arguments presented by Palestinian negotiators, if you read them, are eminently reasoned. They were looking for a solution. Signing off on their own ethnic cleansing was not one.

        So, then, why was the “federated” state not pursued? The only reason — the SOLE reason, was that since the Zionists insisted on a state and subsequent expansion, “it [the compromise solution] would therefore be followed by an intensification of Jewish terrorism.” And so, bowing to the certainty of Zionist terror, it was not pursued.

        Imagine if the ethnicities in this equation were reversed — that the threat of Palestinian terrorism decided the issue to the disadvantage of the Jewish settlers’ inalienable rights — would you then claim that the Zionists were unwilling to “negotiate”?

        REF: http://thomassuarez.com/res181.html

      • Mooser
        July 5, 2017, 12:25 pm

        “The Palestinians reject also the concept of a bi-national state…

        We Jews rejected Christ. So we must endure the consequences of our obstinacy.

      • RoHa
        July 6, 2017, 7:14 am

        Ungrammatical as well as untrue.
        It should be
        “If the Palestinians had been interested in a compromise of any sort, they would have sought negotiations.”

        Do not put “would have” in the “if” clause. Staunch Zionist William Safire would have told you that, if he were still alive.

Leave a Reply