There are two narratives, but one reality: Palestinian dispossession

Middle East
on 105 Comments

I just finished reading Palestine The Reality: The Inside Story of the Balfour Declaration 1917-1938, by J.M.N. Jeffries, a British journalist for The Daily Mail at the time of the events discussed.  Who would think that a 748-page book on the diplomatic history of the Balfour Declaration and its aftermath could be a page-turner, but this book definitely is.  It’s a truly remarkable achievement and a fascinating read in many ways.  First a bit of back story.

The book was published originally in Great Britain in 1940.  It appears it was largely ignored, with very few reviews.  But then what really sent it to oblivion was the German blitz, in which the warehouse holding almost all the copies of the book was destroyed.  Recently Michel Moushabeck, a Palestinian man who runs Interlink Publishing (and a neighbor of mine, a musician, and fellow activist, here in Western Massachusetts), was told about a copy of the book held by the British Museum and, after reading it there, decided it needed to be reissued.  It came out in time for the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, and the world of Palestine scholarship and activism owes a great debt of gratitude to Interlink Publishing for bringing this extraordinary work to light.

If one is looking for an “objective”, impartial treatment of the history, this isn’t it.  Far from it.  Jeffries makes clear from the outset that he has a polemical goal and that is to present “the Arab case”.  This he does with passion, skillful writing, meticulous attention to detail, amazing wit, and insightful analysis.  It’s especially interesting to see the events leading up to and including the first two decades of the British Mandate through the eyes of a contemporary – someone without the knowledge of what was yet to come – WWII, the Holocaust, and then the Nakba and creation of Israel in 1948.  Jeffries, a man of his times, is no foe of European colonialism in general, but still he finds the treatment of the indigenous people of Palestine by the British and the Zionists to be an affront to justice and the honor of Great Britain.  His sense of righteous indignation screams out from almost every page, yet not in a way that either clouds his judgment (which appears razor sharp throughout) or obscures the narrative he has to tell.

No short review can do this book justice, so I’ll just try to hit some of the points that I especially found striking.  Not being a trained historian of Zionism or the British Mandate, I’m not in a position to determine how much of what he presents is news; but I have to say that as someone who has read quite a bit as an amateur, I found a number of his arguments either totally new to me or at least a new spin on what I already was aware of.

The first point that struck me – and it’s consonant with the material presented in John Judis’s recent book, Genesis, which deals with the American role in the creation of the State of Israel, especially the American Zionist movement – is how similar the political climate in Great Britain during the period Jeffries covers was to the political climate in the US now.  As WWI’s end was envisaged by the British and deliberations about what to do with the former Ottoman colonies, including Palestine, were conducted at the highest levels of the government, Zionist leaders – both British and American – had special access to and influence over these deliberations. Arab voices were almost completely ignored.  This situation prevailed during the entire period covered by the book.  What is clear from his description of the diplomatic maneuvers of the time is that, despite whatever anti-Semitism was present in British society and ruling circles, figures like Chaim Weizmann and Louis Brandeis were treated as worthy partners in the project of spreading European – i.e. white – culture around the world.  For Palestine, it seems, the fix was in from the get-go.

Three features of the early years are especially noteworthy and take up a good bit of Jeffries’s discussion.  First, the British clearly had signed a treaty, thus legally binding them to its provisions, with Sherif Hussein of Arabia.  In a series of letters between Sir Henry McMahon (High Commissioner in Egypt during WWI) and Sherif Hussein, then the principal Arab leader residing in what is now Saudi Arabia, the British government committed itself to the establishment of an Arab state, under Arab control, within a wide swath that included Arabia and Syria – in particular Palestine.  In exchange Sherif Hussein promised to begin the “Arab revolt” against the Ottoman forces to help Great Britain’s war effort against the Turks. Jeffries goes to great pains to document the detailed correspondence, and the fact that the Arab forces fully lived up to their commitment and were crucial in enabling Great Britain to wrest control of Arab lands, including Palestine, from the Turks. Though Winston Churchill later, in 1922, tried to argue that Palestine was not originally included within the borders of the promised Arab state, Jeffries methodically refutes his claim.  In his usual witty manner, Jeffries notes that Damascus would have to be 300 miles long to make sense of Churchill’s argument.  So giving Palestine away to the Zionists to build the “national home” for the Jewish people was, as Jeffries saw it, a clear-cut violation of Great Britain’s treaty commitments to the Arab people (not to mention an affront to plain justice).

The second noteworthy feature is the degree to which Zionist leaders – again, both British and American – had a leading hand in constructing the Balfour Declaration itself, the document that essentially pulled sovereignty out from under the feet of the indigenous people of Palestine.  Jeffries goes through all the different drafts of the document circulated by Zionist leaders during 1916-1917, demonstrating both that it was they who formulated the policy and also that they had always intended to erect a state in all of Palestine under exclusive Jewish control.  This was envisaged at a time when Jews made up less than 10% of Palestine’s population.

With regard to their real program, Jeffries presents the position put forward by the Zionist Organization in October 1916 as their official representation to the Allied Powers concerning the disposition of former Turkish colonies should they fall under the control of the Allied Powers.  As Jeffries emphasizes, it is in itself a remarkable fact that Great Britain, along with the other powers, accepted this formal statement in an official capacity,

as though the Zionist Organization possessed an internationally established status which might be affected by the advance of England and of France into Syrian territories.  Whence this status was gained remains undiscoverable.  But the document which presupposed it was adroitly presented by the Zionist leaders and was adroitly accepted by the British government and thereby the said status, though it did not exist (my emphasis), was recognized. (page 133)

When added to all of the other events and documents presented in this book, I think it terribly important to let this passage sink in.  What he shows is that the initial, game-changing trick, long before the Nakba, long before “the Occupation”, was pulled off back in 1916.  Representatives of an organization with no legal or moral claim to be a “stakeholder” in the disposition of Arab lands following the war was recognized to have such a right, and indeed deference to their interests was shown over and above those of the people who had lived there for centuries.  This very recognition of the Zionist Organization’s status as a “stakeholder” was already a great violation of the Palestinian Arabs’ rights, violations that only were compounded as time went on.

Among the demands presented to the Allied Powers was for the establishment of a Jewish Chartered Company that would “…exercise the right of pre-emption of Crown and other lands and to acquire for its own use all or any concessions which may at any time be granted by the suzerain Government or Governments.” (page 133) As Jeffries wonders in response, “Why have a suzerain Government at all?… Nothing was left for the suzerain to do but the clerical work of surrendering everything and expropriating everybody.”

Finally noting that there is after all an indigenous population on the ground, the Zionist proposal adds, “The present population, being too small, too poor, and too little trained to make rapid progress, requires the introduction of a new and progressive element in the population, desirous of devoting all its energies and capital to the work of colonization along modern lines.” (my emphasis, page 134)  So much for the argument that Zionism was not a colonial enterprise.

Of course there was a lot of editing of drafts and back and forth negotiations among the British and American Zionists and the British and American governments before the final text of the Balfour Declaration was approved, but Jeffries demonstrates that the Zionist leaders very much dominated that process.  Indeed, a much stronger statement would have been promulgated but for the intervention of important non-Zionist Jewish voices – not marginal, as in contemporary times, but leaders of the British Jewish community.  For instance, in July of 1917, about four months before the official issuance of Balfour’s letter, the following draft of the letter had been agreed to and almost issued:

“His Majesty’s Government, after considering the aims of the Zionist Organization, accepts the principle of recognizing Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish people and the right of the Jewish people to build up its National life in Palestine under a protection to be established at the conclusion of Peace, following upon the successful issue of the War.

His Majesty’s Government regards as essential for the realization of this principle the grant of internal autonomy to the Jewish nationality in Palestine, freedom of immigration for the Jews, and the establishment of a Jewish National Colonizing corporation for the resettlement and economic development of the country.” (my emphasis, page 171)

Notice, unlike the letter Balfour finally sent, copied below, the whole of Palestine was to be turned into the National Home and the rights of a state almost immediately given to the Zionists.  No mention of the indigenous people whatsoever appears in this draft.

The letter that was ultimately issued, sent on November 2, 1917, from Arthur Balfour, Foreign Secretary, to Lord Rothschild, was this:

“I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet.

His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.”

As Jeffries acidly observes, after recounting the commanding role played by the Zionists in writing this letter, “Nothing more cynically humorous than the final couple of lines of this letter has ever been penned.” (page 178)

While the actual declaration was an improvement, from the Palestinian Arab point of view, over the draft of July, in that it didn’t promise the entirety of Palestine as the National Home, but only the establishment in Palestine of a national home, and it also mentioned safeguards for the “non-Jewish” communities, it still basically gave away the store.  What’s more, as Jeffries documents in gruesome detail, what actually happened once the British took over, with immediate privileges granted to the newly established “Zionist Commission” and the complete denial of any political rights to the Arabs, was basically in line with the earlier drafts and the Zionists’ October 1916 program.  Jeffries is especially cynical about the apparent safeguards for the Arabs.  As he points out, to refer to over 90% of the population, a people with a culture rooted in the land for centuries, as the “existing non-Jewish communities” is patently absurd.  Also, while denying any political rights to the indigenous people, even its provision to protect their “civil and religious rights” is empty, given that no explanation is presented as to the content of these rights.  In one of my favorite passages in the book, Jeffries goes off on this point:

“The crux arrives with ‘civil rights’.  What are ‘civil rights’?  All turns on this point.  If civil rights remain undefined it is only a mockery to guarantee them.  To guarantee anything, and at the same time not to let anyone know what it is, that is Alice in Wonderland legislation.  ‘I guarantee your civil rights’, said the White Queen to Alice in Palestineland.  ‘Oh, thank you!’, said Alice, ‘what are they, please?’  ‘I’m sure I can’t tell you, my dear’, said the White Queen, ‘but I’ll guarantee very hard!’” (page 186)

The third feature of Jeffries’s account that I want to highlight is something I’ve never run across before.  It turns out that the British ruled Palestine illegally for a crucial period of about three years.  The standard story is that the British conquered Palestine from the Turks in 1917 under General Edmund Allenby and then ruled under the law of military occupation until passage of the Mandate by the League of Nations gave civil control to Great Britain in 1922.  (See Raja Shehadeh’s piece in the latest New York Review of Books on the West Bank, an otherwise excellent article, in which he presents precisely this history).  However, that isn’t actually how it went down.  The military government was expressing its exasperation with the Zionist Commission and attempting to govern Palestine in a way that didn’t prejudice the ultimate disposition of the country and this caused British leaders in London to replace the military government with a civil government pledged to the Zionist project three years before a treaty with Turkey was signed.  Until this treaty was signed, Turkey still held sovereignty, and so no civil administration by Great Britain was legal – only the rule of military occupation was internationally recognized.  Yet Great Britain proceeded to act under the Mandate as if they already had it!

The process of writing the Mandate was quite similar to the one for the Balfour Declaration.  Zionist leaders were collaborators with British officials in writing the terms of the Mandate which was allegedly being granted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, but into which the League had essentially no input.  Jeffries presents a detailed analysis of both the language of the Mandate itself and also of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under which authority to grant the Mandate was exerciced.  Jeffries shows, over and over again, how the Mandate, by incorporating the Balfour Declaration into it, violated one of the most basic tenets of Article 22.  The relevant passage reads:

“Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.  The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

Leave aside for now the incredible hubris and expression of white European supremacy screaming from the passage.  Still, what’s clear is that provisional governments expressing the popular will were supposed to be instituted, with the role of the Mandatory to be the nurturing of this expression of self-determination until such time as they were deemed capable of standing on their own. But allowing the Arabs of Palestine representative rule would be inconsistent with the Zionist project, for the simple reason that the Palestinian Arabs, like pretty much every other people, were adamantly opposed to handing over their country to another people.  So given this conflict between the clear meaning of Article 22 of the Covenant and the fostering of the Zionist project, it was the clear meaning of Article 22 – and, much more importantly, the aspirations of the native population – that went ignored.

The saga of the next twenty years, with violent eruptions of Arab discontent punctuating the steady rise and power of the Zionist forces, always followed by official commissions to report on the causes of the “disturbances”, is recounted in great detail by Jeffries.  While those investigating the causes of disturbances were clear that it was opposition to the Mandate’s Zionist project that fueled them, the British government kept hiding behind its alleged sacred trust from the League to build the National Home.  But of course this was Britain’s own trust to itself and never had legal or moral status.

One of the more poignant passages – and yes, one that exhibits Jeffries’s own European chauvinism – is his description of a letter by Palestinian Arab notables during the “Arab revolt” of 1936-1939.  He says:

“To read the memorandum carries the mind back to the Damascus Resolutions of the Syrian Congress, seventeen years before. [This Congress, during WWI, voted to seek independence for the Arab nation and to determine the parameters of engagement with Great Britain in order to shake off Ottoman rule.]  It has the same quiet reasonableness.  The same thought must come to the mind upon reading it as upon reading the Damascus Resolutions – how could men who wrote like this be treated as illiterate tribesmen unable to govern themselves.” (page 692)

After reading Jeffries’s account of how delegation after delegation from the Palestinian Arabs was ignored and disrespected over the course of twenty years even as the Zionist leaders were treated as if they were part of the government themselves, it’s hard not to share in the outrage coming from these pages. This quote from Jeffries, at the close of the book, summarizes the whole sordid story of the Mandate.  He writes,

“There is not very much more to say.  Perhaps it is as well to recall and to expose again the other falsetto cry which tinkles side by side with the appeal to the verdict of the Fifty-seven.  [He’s referring here to the 57 nations who constituted the League of Nations and to whom appeal was often made by Great Britain and the Zionists for their legal and moral basis in pursuing the national home policy.]  ‘We must act impartially towards the two peoples of Palestine.’  Once and for all, there are not two peoples in Palestine.  [my emphasis] There is the Arab people there.  The Zionists we have imported.  In Palestine, when we came there, there was only an Arab population with a small Jewish colony in it.  There were ninety-one Arabs for every nine Jews, and these were not political Zionists.  We have imported some hundred thousand Zionists to [emphasis in original] Palestine, and our Zionophile politicians dishonestly speak of them as though they always had been there.” (page 740)

As you can see, nothing much has changed, only it’s gotten a lot worse.

Finally, I have two thoughts about the book, one about its significance for someone reading it today and the other about a nagging question he never really addresses. First, the nagging
question. It’s clear from Jeffries’s account that British Zionist leaders – in particular, Chaim Weizmann, but not only him – had enormous influence over the early, crucial determinations of what to do with the former Turkish colonies. It also seems clear that American Zionist leaders had enormous influence over US policy, which itself was a major factor in determining British policy. In fact, Jeffries has a habit of referring to the Wilson administration, when speaking of its policies vis-à-vis Palestine, as the “Brandeis regime”. The question: what accounts for this influence? Why were British and American leaders, but especially British ones, during the crucial years of the Mandate, so wedded to the Zionist project? From Jeffries’s point of view, it was not helpful to overall British security and strength in the region. So why did they do it? Here the old debate about the influence of “the Lobby” vs. great power interests rears its head, though during a much earlier period. I don’t pretend to have an answer. Probably, as usual in history, a number of factors – a “perfect storm” as it were. You take the odd Christian Zionist beliefs of personalities like Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour, their simultaneous elite anti-Semitism (that pushes them to finding a place outside of Europe for the Jews), their deep-seated white Eurocentrism, which is probably stronger than their anti-Semitism, and so moves them to totally discount the aspirations of indigenous Palestinian Arabs, and some ideas that having Europeans (even if Jews) in charge of a strategic location near the Suez Canal is a good idea, and together you have a recipe for the Mandate policy. Maybe that’s all one can say.

Regarding the significance of the book for us, I think it’s important for people to read an account by an honest observer of the formative events early on, someone who hasn’t yet had time to grow accustomed to the reality of the Jewish State in Palestine. I keep reading in lots of liberal venues about how the two peoples each have their narrative and claims and a way forward must be found that takes legitimate account of both sides. What Jeffries shows so dramatically is that there may be two narratives, but only one of them, the Palestinian one, has much connection to reality. As we see from his vantage point so clearly, the land of Palestine was stolen from its people by a major world power and given to another group of people who had no claim to it whatsoever. That last quote from Jeffries near the end of the book says it all. Of course there is now a Jewish community in Palestine that cannot be ignored or just sent back to where they came from, so one cannot undo the original sin. But so long as we don’t properly acknowledge that original sin – and this is what Jeffries’s book helps us do so well – I don’t see that genuine peace with justice is possible.

About Joseph Levine

Joseph Levine is Professor of Philosophy at UMass Amherst, member of the Academic Council of JVP, and member of Western Mass chapter of JVP.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

105 Responses

  1. larspil
    January 24, 2018, 11:44 am

    “Why were British and American leaders, but especially British ones, during the crucial years of the Mandate, so wedded to the Zionist project?”, Levine asks.

    Well, why is the US today so wedded to the Zionist project? Because, as Mondoweiss et.al. repeatedly shows, the Zionist project is backed by powerful people in media and business.

    At the time of the Balfour Declaration, powerful zionists were people like Rothschild (“an immensely wealthy financier of the international Rothschild financial dynasty” (https://goo.gl/mEYCbw), to whom the declaration was sent, and, in the US, a notable zionist was Louis Brandeis (Mondoweiss: https://goo.gl/3DfA8r), the “Brandeis regime” behind Wilson’s Palestine policy. Among others, they were ‘the lobby’ of the day.

  2. LHunter
    January 24, 2018, 2:19 pm

    Great read – Thank you Mr. Levine.

    As to the question asked “: what accounts for this influence? Why were British and American leaders, but especially British ones, during the crucial years of the Mandate, so wedded to the Zionist project?”

    I say start the investigation by following the money.

    Given the enormous unparalleled financial clout of the confirmed Zionist Rothschilds (and their peers like the Warburgs) and their lust for a Jewish state, one would be remiss not to investigate what, if anything, the Rothschilds did or leveraged or withheld or promised or paid or extorted to get the US and GB to ignore the Arabs/Palestinians and provide a Jewish supremacist homeland in Palestine.

    One thing is for sure, money buys politicians/elections/power; perhaps even a country.

    • Citizen
      January 24, 2018, 3:58 pm

      A Warburg figures very prominently in the stealth establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank & IRS in 2013.

  3. Citizen
    January 24, 2018, 4:05 pm
  4. Maghlawatan
    January 24, 2018, 4:27 pm

    More than Palestinian dispossession is the destruction of Judaism. The dispossessed can regain what they lost. Once Judaism is destroyed that will be it. Sociopathic Jews are pointless.

  5. Boris
    January 24, 2018, 5:24 pm

    The term “indigenous people” appears 6 times in this article.

    Yet the author fails to understand that it is the Jews who are the indigenous people of that area and that the British simply recognized this fact.

    • eljay
      January 24, 2018, 7:22 pm

      || Boris: … the author fails to understand that it is the Jews who are the indigenous people of that area … ||

      Zionists fail to understand that some Jews – and many more non-Jews – were indigenous to geographic Palestine at the time of its partition and for generations prior to that.

      Pretending to be an “ancient Israelite” does not make a foreign national a geographic Palestinian.

      • Misterioso
        January 25, 2018, 10:52 am

        @Boris

        Sigh. You are flogging a dead horse.

        Reality:

        As determined conclusively by recent in depth DNA analysis, today’s Palestinians and their ancestors have lived continuously between the River and the Sea for over 15,000 years.**

        The Jebusite/Canaanites were ancestors of today’s Palestinians and it was they who founded Jerusalem around 3000 BCE. It is estimated that the Hebrews did not invade until circa 1800 BCE.

        Originally known as Jebus, the first recorded reference to it as “Rushalimum” or “Urussalim,” site of the sacred Foundation Rock, appears in Egyptian Execration Texts of the nineteenth century BCE, nearly 800 years before it is alleged King David was born. Its name “seems to have incorporated the name of the Syrian god Shalem [the Canaanite God of Dusk], who was identified with the setting sun or the evening star…and] can probably be translated as ‘Shalem has founded’.” (Karen Armstrong, Jerusalem, One City, Three Faiths; Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1996, pp.6-7)

        BTW, thus far, no archaeological evidence, or more importantly, writings of contemporaneous civilizations, have been found that prove Solomon or David actually existed. (Nor has any evidence been discovered to confirm that the Jewish exodus from Egypt ever occurred. )

        To quote renowned 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/)

        **
        http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full
        Front. Genet., 21 June 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087

        “The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and Yiddish”

        “Recent genetic samples from bones found in Palestine dating to the Epipaleolithic (20000-10500 BCE) showed remarkable resemblance to modern day Palestinians.”

        Furthermore:
        “The non-Levantine origin of AJs [Ashkenazi Jews] is further supported by an ancient DNA analysis of six Natufians and a Levantine Neolithic (Lazaridis et al., 2016), some of the most likely Judaean progenitors (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002; Frendo, 2004). In a principle component analysis (PCA), the ancient Levantines clustered predominantly with modern-day Palestinians and Bedouins and marginally overlapped with Arabian Jews, whereas AJs clustered away from Levantine individuals and adjacent to Neolithic Anatolians and Late Neolithic and Bronze Age Europeans.”

        “Overall, the combined results are in a strong agreement with the predictions of the Irano-Turko-Slavic hypothesis (Table 1) and rule out an ancient Levantine origin for AJs, which is predominant among modern-day Levantine populations (e.g., Bedouins and Palestinians). This is not surprising since Jews differed in cultural practices and norms (Sand, 2011) and tended to adopt local customs (Falk, 2006). Very little Palestinian Jewish culture survived outside of Palestine (Sand, 2009). For example, the folklore and folkways of the Jews in northern Europe is distinctly pre-Christian German (Patai, 1983) and Slavic in origin, which disappeared among the latter (Wexler, 1993, 2012).”

      • Talkback
        January 25, 2018, 12:38 pm

        Misterioso: “It is estimated that the Hebrews did not invade until circa 1800 BCE. ”

        What??? Another invasion?

      • Boris
        January 26, 2018, 8:50 am

        @Mr. ioso

        You are soooo wrong.

        Everybody knows that Paleostinians trace their ancestry to dinosaurs.

      • Boris
        January 27, 2018, 2:21 pm

        Misterioso
        Is no more so.

        The quote about Kings David and Solomon that you had attributed to Uri Avnery is not in the link you had provided. But thanks for the article – I totally agree with its ideas.

        The other two links point to the same article that was thoroughly discredited by the scientific community.

        Me think you are a fraud.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 27, 2018, 3:05 pm

        The quote about Kings David and Solomon that you had attributed to Uri Avnery is not in the link you had provided.

        that’s funny, i read it.

        The People of Israel was born in a conversation between God and Abraham in a place located in today’s Iraq. This is of course a legend, like a large part of the Hebrew Bible, including the forefathers, the exodus and the kingdoms of David and Solomon. (Their existence is disproved, inter alia, by their total absence from the voluminous correspondence of Egyptian rulers and spies in the Land of Canaan.)

      • Boris
        January 27, 2018, 3:10 pm

        that’s funny, i read it

        I stand corrected. The quote is there. He is only half-a-fraud.

      • Keith
        January 27, 2018, 4:18 pm

        BORIS- “The other two links point to the same article that was thoroughly discredited by the scientific community.”

        No it hasn’t.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 27, 2018, 5:31 pm

        if i had a dollar for every time one of these guys claims theories they don’t like have been “thoroughly discredited by the scientific community”.

      • Nathan
        January 27, 2018, 5:01 pm

        Annie Robbins – Perhaps, what you wanted to say is that David and Solomon are not (in your judgment) historic figures. However, don’t get carried away by saying that their kingdoms didn’t exist. There is no question at all that there was a Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judah in Biblical times (the Iron Age). Both kingdoms are reported in Assyrian and Babylonian annals. The Mesha Stone mentions the king of Israel as well, repeating an incident that appears in the Book of Kings. You do know that the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah are real history, don’t you.

        In case you are interested in the history of the ancient Middle East, it is important to note that the Egyptians retreated from Canaan in about the 12th century BC. In their absence, all these little kingdoms could be founded (Ammon, Moab, Israel, Judah, Tyre, the Philistines, the Arameans and others). If you’re looking for a mention of these kingdoms, you might want to read their sources (not the Egyptian sources). The Arameans mentioned “the king of Israel and the king of the House of David”. I understand from our past debates that you regard this Tel-Dan inscription to be a likely forgery (but it’s not). As mentioned, the Moabite king (Mesha) mentions Omri (king of Israel), and you can read the inscription for yourself at the Louvre Museum.

        Anyway, I’d be curious to hear if you really maintain that the Kingdom of Israel is just a legend (like the Exodus). So you shouldn’t feel “boxed in, I’ll grant that it is possible to accept the historicity of ancient Israel and still be anti-Israel.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 27, 2018, 5:29 pm

        nathan, i think you’re misunderstanding what i meant by boxed in. i mean when one adds so many qualifiers to statements or conditions that options become limited.

        Perhaps, what you wanted to say is that

        if you want to know what i want to say, just click on my name.

      • MHughes976
        January 27, 2018, 5:49 pm

        Nathan is quite right about the existence of inscriptions referring to Israel (often called Omria) and to the House of David – though it’s not the easiest thing to map the events described in the Mesha Stela on to those described in Kings. Avnery’s reference to Egyptian records is not conclusive but he is entitled to say that there is little record of the ‘United Monarchy’ of David and Solomon with its golden city and glorious Temple – and not clear what was the name of the Kingdom.
        I have stood in front of the Stela though I certainly can’t read it. Whatever it is it’s rather impressive.

      • Nathan
        January 27, 2018, 5:59 pm

        Annie Robbins – So, were there a Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judah in antiquity (in the Iron Age)?

      • Kaisa of Finland
        January 27, 2018, 6:05 pm

        “..if i had a dollar ..”

        :)

      • eljay
        January 27, 2018, 10:52 pm

        || Nathan: Annie Robbins – So, were there a Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judah in antiquity … ||

        It doesn’t matter one sweet f*ck what existed “in antiquity”. In the mid-20th century, geographic Palestine was inhabited. People all over the world – citizens of homelands all over the world – who embraced the religion-based identity of Jewish were not entitled steal, militarily occupy and colonize any part of geographic Palestine in order to establish in as much as possible of it a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily of and for Jewish (geographic) Palestinians and non-(geographic) Palestinian Jews.

      • Nathan
        January 28, 2018, 8:12 pm

        eljay – You claim that it doesn’t make any difference if the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah existed in antiquity. However, it seems to be an important issue for Annie Robbins. She has claimed that the kingdoms of David and Solomon are a legend, and this is an interesting issue. Why is it important to comment about the ancient kingdoms? Would there be an ideological problem if it turned out that there was a Kingdom of Israel? I don’t think so. I am convinced that an anti-Israel activist is able to maintain an anti-Israel point of view even if it is obvious that there was a Kingdom of Judah, but it seems to me that Annie Robbins might have a problem with admitting that the ancient Hebrew kingdoms are real history. I asked her twice, but she prefers not to comment.

        Uri Avnery has written that David’s kingdom is fiction, and he mentions that David is not mentioned in the ancient sources. However, Mr Avnery is not saying that there was no ancient Kingdom of Israel or no ancient Kingdom of Judah. There’s no debate that these kingdoms are real history.

      • eljay
        January 29, 2018, 7:37 am

        || Nathan: eljay – You claim that it doesn’t make any difference if the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah existed in antiquity. … ||

        I did, because it doesn’t.

    • Emory Riddle
      January 24, 2018, 7:32 pm

      Boris does not understand the meaning of the word indigenous.

      • LHunter
        January 24, 2018, 11:16 pm

        It’s really amazing how daft these Zionuts are. Information from third party sources on the demographics of Palestine pre-1948 are readily available.

        https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/A682CABF739FEBAA052565E8006D907C

        I think Boris has fun instigating but he has no idea how fun it is to make him look like a fool. Time to burn your copy of From Time Immemorial Boris and start reading some nonfiction.

      • Boris
        January 25, 2018, 12:02 am

        It does not look like a riddle – indigenous means native.

        As a nation – the Jewish people are the oldest nation existing today that had originated, lived, and had its nation state in the area known today as Palestine.

      • eljay
        January 25, 2018, 7:23 am

        || Boris: … As a nation – the Jewish people are the oldest nation existing today … ||

        Jewish is the oldest religion-based identity existing today, sure.

      • Talkback
        January 25, 2018, 9:49 am

        Boris: “It does not look like a riddle – indigenous means native.

        As a nation – the Jewish people are the oldest nation existing today that had originated, lived, and had its nation state in the area known today as Palestine.”

        Jews WERE indigenous to Palestine thousands of years ago. Jewish Foreign settlers and their descendents are not indigenous.

      • oldgeezer
        January 25, 2018, 11:45 am

        @eljay

        I would say oldest religion based identity is false too. Of course boris is delusional in the extreme.

      • eljay
        January 25, 2018, 12:31 pm

        || oldgeezer: @eljay

        I would say oldest religion based identity is false too. … ||

        Could very well be.

        || … Of course boris is delusional in the extreme. ||

        Makes sense: He’s a Zionist.

      • MHughes976
        January 25, 2018, 12:50 pm

        The New Testament was available, more or less as is, though not yet officially defined, around 150 CE. At that time the Talmud was barely starting to be written, so perhaps Christianity is the oldest ‘western’ religious identity.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2018, 9:50 pm

        “As a nation – the Jewish people are the oldest nation existing today” “Boris”

        “Boris”, that “nation” nonsense just ain’t good enough. If Jews are a “nation” how come Israel cannot tax or recruit Jews outside of Israel, or punish them if they get out of line.

        “Boris”, the very first requirement of any nation is to have control of its people. The Jewish nation does not, except for the poor schlimazels in Israel.

      • RoHa
        January 25, 2018, 9:59 pm

        That “more or less” covers a lot of ground. But, regardless of the status of the writings, it does seem to be the case that there was a Christian religious identity in 150 CE.

        But why should we put on the “Western” restriction?
        Zoroastrianism has been around for much longer. The Rig Veda texts were composed sometime before 1200 BCE. Even the earliest texts of that upstart newbie Buddhism seem to have been written down by the first century BCE.

        (I am doubtful about the current tendency to early dates for the gospels. I suspect too much weight has been placed on the Rylands fragment P52. See:

        Nongbri, Brent (2005) “The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel.” Harvard Theological Review 98:23-52.)

      • gamal
        January 25, 2018, 11:57 pm

        “The Rig Veda texts were composed sometime before 1200 BCE.”

        I always liked the end of the 2nd Brahmana of the 3rd adhyaya, in the 13 core upanishads, which may not be that old but well speaks for itself nevermind the dogma feel the sentiment,

        ……… ‘Yājñavalkya,’ said he, ‘when a man dies, do the breaths go out of him, or no?’

        ‘No,’ said Yājñavalkya. ‘They are gathered together right there. He swells up. He is inflated. The dead man lies inflated.’

        12. ‘Yājñavalkya,’ said he, ‘when a man dies, what does not leave him?’

        ‘The name. Endless, verily, is the name. Endless are the All-gods. An endless world he wins thereby.’

        13. ‘Yājñavalkya,’ said he, ‘when the voice of a dead man goes into fire, his breath into wind, his eye into the sun, his mind into the moon, his hearing into the quarters of heaven, his body into the earth, his soul (ātman) into space, the hairs of his head into plants, the hairs of his body into trees, and his blood and semen are placed in water, what then becomes of this person (puruṣa)?’

        ‘Ārtabhāga, my dear, take my hand. We two only will know of this. This is not for us two [to speak of] in public.’

        and Kaisas horses head G-dfather reference put me in mind of a bit that comes a little before

        “Upon Dadhyañc Ātharvaṇa ye Aśvins

        Did substitute a horse’s head.

        He, keeping true, declared to you the honey

        Of Tvashtṛi, which is your secret, O ye mighty ones.’ ”

        Proper Aryan stuff, introducing the honey doctrine ….been some mad bastards from way back..

      • JosephA
        January 26, 2018, 12:35 am

        In which bright Boris, yet again, gets served by Misterioso. Then, Misterioso drops the microphone.

      • Emory Riddle
        January 26, 2018, 7:40 am

        White Jews from Poland and Russia and Hungary are not indigenous to the Middle East. Cut and dry.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2018, 3:34 pm

        “White Jews from Poland and Russia and Hungary are not indigenous to the Middle East. Cut and dry.”

        And why does “Emet” think we will reverse what we know to be true and believe him?

        1)Sometimes, we might do that for people we love very much. In certain non-critical areas. (” Why, that hat is swell, sweetheart”). Is he counting on the world’s love for the Jews?

        2) Sometimes, we can be compelled to hypocrisy by something which has complete power over us, and can compel belief or at least agreement by punishment for non-conforming. Does he think we should be afraid, and conform to his beliefs?

        3) And I guess many people, all of us in some ways, can ignore or postpone reality if the pay-off is big enough. If ignoring or contradicting certain unpleasant facts brings big rewards. What pay-off does “Emet” think he can offer?

        And that’s what I cannot figure out about “Emet”, (and the whole herd of ilk):
        Which one of those three do they think they have working for them?
        In such quantities that it will make us ignore reality and deny our own conscience, too.
        I cannot figure that out. Maybe he will explain it to us.

      • RoHa
        January 26, 2018, 9:54 pm

        Gamal, that’s what comes of going to soma parties.

    • snaidamast
      January 26, 2018, 3:37 pm

      OK Boris, you have a bit of history and anthropology to study.

      To date, modern archeologists even in Israel cannot find any evidence to support Old Testament claims to the land that was ancient Israel. In fact, a number of studies have found that instead it was the Phoenicians that were the original inhabitants of this land.

      There is also no evidence whatsoever to be found that modern-day Jews in the West or Eastern Europe have any link to the ancient Israelites. In fact, it is being slowly recognized that the indigenous Palestinian population living there now could be direct descendants of the ancient Israelites…

      • Nathan
        January 28, 2018, 7:33 pm

        snaidamast – If the Phoenicians were the original inhabitants of the country, shouldn’t you be claiming that the Palestinians could be direct descendants of the ancient Phoenicians? The Palestinians claim to be the descendants of the Canaanites, and they maintain that the Israelites were in the country only for seventy years (after which they were expelled). They adamantly reject the claim that they are the Israelites who are regarded to be a foreign invasion.

        You claim that “there is also no evidence whatsoever to be found that modern-day Jews in the West or Eastern Europe have any link to the ancient Israelites”. This claim raises two interesting questions. Since you are speaking of European Jews, are you hinting that there are other Jews (not from Europe) who do have a link to the ancient Israelites? And the more important question is why would it be necessary to have evidence that links Jews to the ancient Israelites?

      • MHughes976
        January 29, 2018, 4:02 pm

        Phoenicia and Canaan seem to be names of similar meaning, ‘the red dye producing area’. Sheshonq’s inscription – 920-ish BCE – refers to the Palestine area as ‘all the lands of the Phoenicians’. Much later, around 170, Beirut claims in coinage to be the Mother of Canaan.

  6. JohnSmith
    January 24, 2018, 6:05 pm

    Yesterday, in a Politico article “What Mike Pence Just Did In Jerusalem, the writer and apparent staunch Israel supporter Aaron David Miller chose to attack Mahmoud Abbas and I wrote the following letter. I thought about emailing Miller and I thought about writing to his Chevy Chase manor house, but I’m not going to bother. I’m sure his brain is unreachable. Maybe someone who is not a regular mondoweiss reader will read what I have written and recognize the truth of it:

    Dear Mr. Miller,

    I have just read your article at Politico, and as far as I know most of it was reasonable and factual, but I cannot help noticing that you “veer” into anti-Palestinian racism and bigotry when you portray Mahmoud Abbas as giving an “unhinged speech” and stating that he “veered into rank anti-Semitism.”

    Zionist Israel is a colonial enterprise, it is now an apartheid state covering Israel “proper,” the West Bank, and Gaza, and there is no magical right for a group of Europeans to take over the land and rule it as overlords and members of an Aryan-style Master Race.

    Modern “Israel” was not even necessarily going to become “Israel.”  The name was chosen to entice more of the religious to the country, the better to swamp and destroy the native population.  The largest and most deadly instances of anti-Jewish violence in Israel have been Zionist attacks against Zionist and non-Zionist Jews.

    And yet every Palestinian is portrayed as a brutal and subhuman racial inferior, with IDF soldiers wearing extreme riot gear to portray even quiet Palestinian protestors as nothing but animals, while wearing casual street wear when dealing with hyper-violent settlers to show that the members of the Master Race are all super-cool.

    It is unfortunate that you feel contempt for true democracy and the incredible suffering of the Palestinians.  Most of the brutalization visited upon them is not in response to any violence or threat on their parts but to get them to SHUT UP about their relentless victimization.  Thus, the massive amounts of gas used against suffering Palestinians in refugee camps.  I have wondered how the toxicity of this gas compares to the toxicity of the gas used against Jews in the concentration camps of Germany in World War II.

    All Palestinians, even so-called terrorists, are right to protest the abuse of the Palestinian people.  And that is why Israel is so massively, incredibly brutal in victimizing even the most passive, the most innocent.  Because if Israel admits some of them are right, Israel would have to admit that all of them are right.

    I have no doubt that you have been relentlessly lied to and propagandized for all of your 68 years, and that is why you are not able to recognize the truth about Zionism, the well-documented plan for the decimation of the Palestinian people that was hatched probably before your grandparents were even born, and decades before the rise of Hitler in Germany.

    Zionism is not about religion, it is about ethnicity.  Netanyahu is widely recognized as not even being Jewish–he’s an ethnic Jew, but not a believer.  I suspect that if either you or he contributed a DNA sample for a maternal DNA (mtDNA) test, you would both find that your Jewish maternal ancestry does not go back to the middle east, demonstrating pretty conclusively a descent from European converts and zero connection to the Arab Jews of the Bible or Torah.

    It is unfortunate that you chose to pollute an article about Israel with anti-Palestinian racism and bigotry, and were unable to see that Abbas’s statements were correct and factual.

    Your twitter account says you have been a “negotiator” on Middle Eastern matters.  Clearly, you would never be a worthy negotiator in Israel.  Your bigotry is too strong.

    Sincerely,

    John Smith

    • Boris
      January 25, 2018, 12:15 am

      John,

      You are mistaken.

      I am a Jew, born in Ukraine.

      My maternal haplogroup is K1a9.

      23andme.com says “You descend from a long line of women that can be traced back to eastern Africa over 150,000 years ago”.

      Eastern Africa (if you are geographically challenged, that’s near Middle East) – not Europe.

      So, now you have to write another letter with apologies…

      • RoHa
        January 25, 2018, 12:41 am

        “I am a Jew, born in Ukraine.”

        So you can be traced back to Europe.

        “ descend from a long line of women that can be traced back to eastern Africa over 150,000 years ago”.

        I thought most humans could be traced back to Eastern Africa. It is our historic homeland.

        “Eastern Africa (if you are geographically challenged, that’s near Middle East)”

        Which bit of Eastern Africa? Eastern Africa covers the Cape to Cairo. Most of it is a long way from the ME.

        The various versions of human evolution tend to centre on Kenya.
        From Nairobi to Jerusalem is about 3,683 Km.
        But from Kiev to Jerusalem is about 2,110km.
        That makes Ukraine (Europe ) closer than Kenya!

      • lonely rico
        January 25, 2018, 5:02 am

        Boris,

        From Nature Communications 4 (08 October 2013 ) –

        “Like Judaism, mitochondrial DNA is passed along the maternal line … Here we show that all four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested …”

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543

        Furthermore Boris, it appears we are ALL* from East Africa.
        ALL OF US Boris, even Palestinians and other Gentiles.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

        “According to the model, known as the African origin of modern humans, modern humans evolved in East Africa between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago. There were then at least two dispersal events from Africa to the rest of the world. The first wave took place between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago via northern Africa … “

        Worth noting Boris, (I know the geography is difficult), but Israel is NOT in East Africa.

        * You should demand a refund from 23andme.com.

      • John O
        January 25, 2018, 8:55 am

        @Boris

        Very interesting bloodline, but I’ll continue to judge you by the content of your character.

      • Boris
        January 25, 2018, 9:44 am

        @lonely rico

        The nature article is full of “most plausible”, “most likely” and such. It is inconclusive, to say the least.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K_(mtDNA)

        Overall mtDNA Haplogroup K is found in about 6% of the population of Europe and the Near East, but it is more common in certain of these populations. Approximately 16% of the Druze of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan, belong to haplogroup K. It is also found among 8% of Palestinians. Additionally, K reaches a level of 17% in Kurdistan.

      • oldgeezer
        January 25, 2018, 11:25 am

        @Boris

        From your own link 68% of Ashkenazi are not of haplogroup K. Additionally your subgroup is found in 10% of all Europeans.

        There is no evidence of any sort that supports a claim that Jews as a group are indigenous to any part of the Middle East.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2018, 8:29 pm

        “Boris” must have Jewish genes! His genes shrink to fit. They must be Levis 501.

      • Mooser
        January 25, 2018, 9:59 pm

        “Very interesting bloodline, but I’ll continue to judge you by the content of your character.” “John O”

        Well, said Mr “O”, but “Boris” seems convinced shouting “I’m a Jew !I’m a Jew!” will get him a whole lot more than any old character content. Kind hearts are good, but coronets are worth much more.

        I’ve never seen anything like this. They think we are some kind of aristocracy!

      • Boris
        January 26, 2018, 9:08 am

        In the Soviet Union everyone’s ethnicity was recorded in internal passport. Mine was a “Jew” because both of my parents are Jewish.

        However, they don’t hit you in your passport, they hit you in your face. We, the Jews, are easily identifiable. And, as I wrote before, we have Semitic features that are foreign to Europeans, and, as history shows, we had been identified 6,000,000 times before.

        I am just stating simple facts that you chose to ignore.

      • Boris
        January 26, 2018, 1:47 pm

        Mooser refused to give me her picture so that I can tell her if she looks Jewish.

        But look at photographs of Norman Finkelstein. His parents were Polish Jews – the area roughly where I am from. Finkelstein is very easily identifiable as a Jew, as his face has very obvious Semitic features.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2018, 3:43 pm

        ” Finkelstein is very easily identifiable as a Jew, as his face has very obvious Semitic features.”

        We still must be very careful “Boris”! What if a non-Jew who just looked like a Jew, or bunches of them, tried to pass themselves off as Jewish, just to get the benefits and privileges of being Jewish?*
        Or worse yet, acted as spies and saboteurs?

        Also, “Boris, we need a cut-off point, what with so many half, quarter, and even lower fractional Jews around. A certain purity of blood ( no ripped genes,so to speak) must be maintained. Where should it be set? At what fractional point, quarter-Jewish, third-Jewish, fifth, or eighth-Jewish, should it be set?
        I assume the master-list of all real Jews will be kept in Jerusalem, of course?

        * Of course, “Boris” you can always tell a Jew, sometimes just “by the look in their eyes”, but what about the rest of us whose Jew-dar isn’t as finely tuned? Any reliable standards we can turn to? I think a man named Rosenberg knew some. Can you suggest a guide for the perplexed?

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2018, 4:05 pm

        “However, they don’t hit you in your passport, they hit you in your face. We, the Jews, are easily identifiable. And, as I wrote before, we have Semitic features that are foreign to Europeans, and, as history shows, we had been identified 6,000,000 times before.”

        So “Boris” is back to recommending the Nazi and/or Soviet State way of identifying Jews. As far as “Boris” is concerned, the Nazis got it right.

        “Boris” do you think maybe you could come up with a system of identifying Jews which wasn’t designed to oppress them (Soviet) or wipe them out (Nazi)?
        That would be nice, you know. Can you do it?

      • Boris
        January 26, 2018, 4:31 pm

        … what about the rest of us whose Jew-dar isn’t as finely tuned?

        I gave you this answer before — it is the antisemites who are the best judges of who is a Jew and they will easily identify you just by your looks.

        And they don’t care about your politics, religion, or cultural/educational level. It is not what you do, it is who you are. And if you are born a Jew, you will remain a Jew for the rest of your life, and you will pass it to your children.

        Capisce?

      • Talkback
        January 26, 2018, 4:35 pm

        Boris: “Finkelstein is very easily identifiable as a Jew, as his face has very obvious Semitic features.”

        You sound like a Nazi, again. Maybe Ukranian Neo-Nazi?

      • oldgeezer
        January 26, 2018, 5:37 pm

        @Boris
        “all these are fighting words.
        Do you still want to fight?
        Ok. Be my guest. Then don’t come back crying when you lose.”

        “. Finkelstein is very easily identifiable as a Jew, as his face has very obvious Semitic features.”

        “Capisce?”

        zionists are racists and thugs. Boris a prime example.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2018, 5:55 pm

        ” — it is the antisemites who are the best judges of who is a Jew and they will easily identify you just by your looks.”

        I wonder why “Boris” is so comfortable with anti-semites telling him who is Jewish? What is his problem?

        “And if you are born a Jew, you will remain a Jew for the rest of your life, and you will pass it to your children.”

        Well, “Boris” since well over half of all Jews are marrying non-Jews, can you detail what gets passed on in that case?
        Remember, Jews marrying non-Jews is more common than Jews marrying Jews
        What do their kids faces look like? “Half-Jewish”? Which half, right or left?

      • eljay
        January 26, 2018, 6:44 pm

        || Boris: … it is the antisemites who are the best judges of who is a Jew and they will easily identify you just by your looks. … ||

        Funny, I thought it was considered anti-Semitic to suggest that Jews look a certain way. But I’m not surprised to see a Zionist spouting anti-Semitism.

        || … if you are born a Jew, you will remain a Jew for the rest of your life, and you will pass it to your children. … ||

        Thanks for confirming that Jewish is a religion-based identity, acquired by:
        – undergoing a religious conversion to Judaism; or, as is the case in this instance,
        – by being descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

        But Jewish is not a permanent identity. It can be acquired and it can be relinquished. The decision should be a personal one, not one that is made by anti-Semites or Zionists (pardon the redundancy).

      • Boris
        January 26, 2018, 6:45 pm

        I wonder why “Boris” is so comfortable with anti-semites telling him who is Jewish?

        Moo, it is called “radical acceptance”.

        You chose to ignore reality, I don’t.

      • RoHa
        January 26, 2018, 7:07 pm

        “Finkelstein is very easily identifiable as a Jew, as his face has very obvious Semitic features.”

        Can’t see it myself. His nose looks pretty straight, his forehead high rather than sloping, his lips fairly thin. Not at all like the pictures in Der Stürmer.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2018, 7:41 pm

        “Moo, it is called “radical acceptance”.”

        ‘This analysis is nothing new. It is typical of “Boris” writing, which suggests, as it always does, the “Boris” has internalized anti-Jewish hatred, and like those secularist Jews in Europe who looked down upon their brethren or converted to Christianity to escape their Judaism, “Boris” adopts the classic tropes of the self-hater.
        Self-hatred is a disease. It is a sad disease borne of many generations of persecution, but it is a disease. And it is usually the self-haters who cause the worst damage to the Jewish community, precisely because of how small it is’.

        “You chose to ignore reality, I don’t.”

        Gosh, I didn’t know the “reality” is that bad in Israel, “Boris”. Which anti-semites are determining who isn’t or is a Jew over there?
        Even in Israel anti-semites get to say who is Jewish? That’s awful.

      • Mooser
        January 26, 2018, 8:13 pm

        “Not at all like the pictures in Der Stürmer”

        You should see me. Patrician arches, legs by Buckingham, body by Adonis, hair like the raven’s wing, and a nose by Pythagoras.

      • Talkback
        January 27, 2018, 7:28 am
      • Boris
        January 27, 2018, 8:26 am

        … “Boris” adopts the classic tropes of the self-hater.
        Self-hatred is a disease. It is a sad disease borne of many generations of persecution, but it is a disease.

        My poor Moo-Moo,

        I don’t hate myself. I proudly accept my destiny of being part of Jewish nation.

        It is you who shows clear signs of self-hatred. Throughout your comments you show your feeling of being trapped, of being part of yudenkite. And that what motivates your hatred toward Israel.

        I have only pity for people like you — it sucks to be you — but I also accept the fact that you are part of us.

      • Mooser
        January 27, 2018, 12:49 pm

        “I have only pity for people like you — it sucks to be you — but I also accept the fact that you are part of us.” “Boris”

        OK, “Boris”, if I’m such a big “part of us” , send me a bill, or tax statement, or draft notice, or tell me what to say.

        Better still, write to the US government, and tell them to send me to Israel.

        A please-and-thank-you “nation”. And “no, thank you” seems to work quite effectively. Get used to hearing it.

      • Mooser
        January 27, 2018, 1:29 pm

        “Mooser refused to give me her picture so that I can tell her if she looks Jewish.” “Boris”

        You’re off to a great start. When the Nazis come again, “Boris”, you should offer them your services changing key on their guitars.

      • Mooser
        January 27, 2018, 1:32 pm

        “And none of us ignores what you are, you antisemitic racist.”

        Oh, say not so, “Talkback”! “Boris” understands a simple truth: “In Israel, all Jews are equal, but frum Jews are more equal than others.”

      • Boris
        January 27, 2018, 2:11 pm

        No, little mosie, yours is not “no, thank you”.

        Yours is more like – “I am a good Jew, don’t beat me! Those are the bad Jews – beat them!”

      • amigo
        January 27, 2018, 3:34 pm

        “I don’t hate myself. I proudly accept my destiny of being part of Jewish nation.” boris

        What Jewish nation are you on about.

        Show us the map.

      • amigo
        January 27, 2018, 3:43 pm

        “Yours is more like – “I am a good Jew, don’t beat me! Those are the bad Jews – beat them!”boris

        Boris as an onlooker I would advise you to put thye shovel down.There are other Jews watching and worse still there are Goys taking note and learning how create Tribal warfare amongst the chosen People.

        You wouldn,t want that on your conscience , now would you —if you can find it , that is.

      • Boris
        January 28, 2018, 9:37 am

        Sancta Simplicitas

        My dear amigo, I appreciate your concern.

        However, this Jewish infighting is nothing new. Throughout history we had Jews turning on their brothers.

        After all, moser (Mooser) is a Hebrew word for a Jew who informs on fellow Jews to a non-Jewish authority. And then such authorities would use this traitor testimony to punish the Jewish community.

        Sometimes it would be even worse. For example the Spanish Inquisition was established by Torquemada, who was himself an ethnic Jew.

        Today antisemites love to point to Jewish critics of Israel like Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Anna Baltzer, JVP, etc. Hey, this very website is being run by Jews.

        But don’t despair my friend, we now have our own state, and what is Pappe compared to Torquemada or Mondoweiss compared to the Spanish Inquisition?

        As for where are we – we are everywhere. Remember? We run the world!

      • Talkback
        January 28, 2018, 11:32 am

        Boris: “Today antisemites love to point to Jewish critics of Israel like Norman Finkelstein, Ilan Pappe, Anna Baltzer, JVP, etc.”

        Doesn’t touch the validity of their arguments.

      • Mooser
        January 28, 2018, 1:49 pm

        “After all, moser (Mooser) is a Hebrew word for a Jew who informs on fellow Jews to a non-Jewish authority.”

        “Boris” STOP LYING ABOUT ME!!! Anybody can see that moser has ONE “O”! “Mooser” has TWO “O’s”! TWO!! And they are pronounced differently. As soon as they stop drinking in moderation, you are gonna get it!

      • Mooser
        January 28, 2018, 2:00 pm

        “But don’t despair my friend, we now have our own state”

        Oh, really? How big is it? As big as…?

    • DaBakr
      January 25, 2018, 3:42 am

      @js

      You wrote all that just to complain about the author’veering’ off to accuse Abbas of rank bigotry and jew-hatred? news flash: it’s been a well established fact that since his days at the soviet university (at least) that gave him a graduate degree in rank holocaust denial he has been a rank jew-hating bigot who consistently claims zionists are not real jews and quite a few other little ditties that most commenters here on ol MW agree with.
      david aaron miller would probably have had a nice chuckle had you sent your earnest letter to his “manor house”*
      * how do you even know the guy has a manor house? did you spy on him or does he list that in his credits?

  7. Keith
    January 24, 2018, 6:37 pm

    JOSEPH LEVINE- ” First, the British clearly had signed a treaty, thus legally binding them to its provisions, with Sherif Hussein of Arabia.”

    One of the characteristics of successful power-seeking, whether by individuals, organizations or nations, is the skillful use of deception to achieve objectives. Great powers and powerful organizations should never be trusted or taken at face value.

  8. Bataween
    January 25, 2018, 9:53 am

    Have you read ‘Uprooted’ by Lyn Julius? Now that is a real narrative of dispossession.

    • Mooser
      January 25, 2018, 10:04 pm

      ” a real narrative of dispossession”

      Yes, when Zionism couldn’t get enough Western Jews and their assets into Israel, all kinds of machinations were used by the Zionists to force Iraqi and other Jews in the area into Israel. Many were dispossessed in the process.

    • oldgeezer
      January 25, 2018, 10:51 pm

      To the mods … I fail to see how this post does not amount to nakba denial. Were i to post saying about xxx now that is a real narrative of a holocaust.

      Lyn Julius clearly has some self interest at stake here. The odd part of her bio is that her parents fled from zionist led terrorism into zionist arms.

      Where Jewish ppl were forced from their actual homeland, as opposed to the zionist hysterical homeland, they are entitled to compensation and remedial actions. I support them in that. The Palestinians have no responsibility for what happened in Iraq.

      The negotiation of that also has no bearing on the Palestinians rights be suppressed and the solutions to that.

      Where individuals were forced to flee due to Israeli terrorism from other middle eastern countries the Israeli state has the burden
      Good luck with that lol you signed onto a criminal racist state born and supported through the blood of innocents. Buy a mirror.

  9. CitizenC
    January 25, 2018, 11:19 am

    This may be a superset of J M N Jeffries “The Palestine Deception”, containing the text of the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, recently reissued by the Institute for Palestine Studies

    Ignore the intro by William Mathew, which undermines Jeffries account, rather than providing any background for it. It is part of the reluctance of the current Palestine intellectual establishment to confront the Israel Lobby argument.

    Jeffries’ book appeared in 1923, and fueled a debate in Parliament in which the newly elected Conservative government, far less committed to Zionism than the wartime govt of Lloyd George, Balfour et al, reconsidered the Decl.

    http://www.palestine-studies.org/books/palestine-deception-1915%E2%80%931923-mcmahon-hussein-correspondence-balfour-declaration-and-jewish

    The Zionist lobby prevailed in the end, more for reasons of committed prestige than any other, argues Sahar Huneidi, in “Broken Trust”, about the first British civilian admin in Palestine, and its diplomatic origins. She recounts the clashes betw the military admin and the Zionist-influenced Foreign Office inter alia. Huneidi’s book appeared in 1999, is out of print, rare in libraries. and expensive in the used book market.

    http://www.ibtauris.com/books/humanities/history/regional%20%20national%20history/asian%20history/middle%20eastern%20history/a%20broken%20trust%20herbert%20samuel%20zionism%20and%20the%20palestinians

  10. Elizabeth Block
    January 25, 2018, 12:51 pm

    There’s a more recent book about the Balfour Declaration, by Jonathan Schneer, which begins with an account of T.H. Lawrence – Lawrence of Arabia – being summoned to the palace. When he got there, he learned that he was to be knighted. He turned it down – walked out. Why? Because his government, the government that wanted to honour him, had a liar out of him. The Arabs had been promised their own country, but once the war was won, with their help, the British reneged on their promise.

  11. MHughes976
    January 25, 2018, 2:29 pm

    Warren Dockter, a research Fellow at Cambridge, has an article called ‘Flying in a Hurricane’ about Lawrence and Churchill. He argues that Churchill was satisfied that L had treated the King respectfully, but others question this. He also argues that L, during his time at the Colonial Office postwar, resisted Zionist influence on C. But his sympathies lay with the Arab aristocrats and definitely not with the Palestinians, of whom he spoke scornfully – Dockter says that this was because they, like the majority of Arabs, had been supportive of the Ottoman cause during the war years. It is very hard to find influential pro-Palestine voices in the West during the fateful 1920s!

  12. Nathan
    January 25, 2018, 6:02 pm

    “…someone who hasn’t yet had time to grow accustomed to the reality of the Jewish State in Palestine”. Well, at least this is a problem that can be solved satisfactorily. If one hasn’t had enough time to grow accustomed to the reality of the Jewish state in Palestine, then perhaps in a few more years Mr Jeffries will learn to accept reality. It shouldn’t be too difficult.

    “Of course there is now a Jewish community in Palestine that cannot be ignored or just sent back to where they came from….” So it would seem that someone has learned to accept reality after all. That was quick.

    The last sentence of the article raises the strange point that properly acknowledging the original sin (that can’t be undone) should bring genuine peace with justice. I don’t think that is a very convincing argument. I think that I’d like to hear in more concrete terms what is the definition of “genuine peace with justice” and how such a peace could be attained through “acknowledging”. The conflict is not so simple. Perhaps, just once, we could get an outline of a real plan of action that is beyond the mantra of “oy, oy, oy, Zionism is the original sin”.

    • JosephA
      January 26, 2018, 12:42 am

      Zionism isn’t just the original sin – It’s an ongoing sin. I used to believe that Israel and Palestine needed a truth-in-reconciliation commission. I am now convinced that there’s almost nothing that can change the racist zionists. They are digging in their heels, becoming more violent by the day, acting with monstrous impunity. This is now a generational problem.

    • Brewer
      January 26, 2018, 1:20 am

      ” acknowledging the original sin (that can’t be undone) ”
      And here was me thinking that Zionism was dedicated to undoing an original sin that supposedly was committed against Judaics back around 70AD. One for which there is scant evidence I should add.
      Strange that a very well documented “original sin” committed within living memory can’t be undone yet a mythical one two millennia previously can.
      This despite the ongoing settlements of tribal claims in post-colonial societies all around the globe.
      I disagree that “The conflict is not so simple”. What could be more simple than obeying every concept of justice (not to mention International Law) and permitting an illegally displaced citizenry to return to their homes and property?

    • Talkback
      January 26, 2018, 3:16 am

      Nathan: “If one hasn’t had enough time to grow accustomed to the reality of the Jewish state in Palestine, then perhaps in a few more years Mr Jeffries will learn to accept reality”

      Imagine what Nathan would have said if the Aryan state in Germany would have succeded.

      Nathan: “So it would seem that someone has learned to accept reality after all. That was quick.”

      This has nothing to do with reality, but with ethics and morality. Something you can’t comprehend, because it is inherently build on universal values or menshkeit.

      Nathan: “The last sentence of the article raises the strange point that properly acknowledging the original sin (that can’t be undone) should bring genuine peace with justice. … The conflict is not so simple. Perhaps, just once, we could get an outline of a real plan of action that is beyond the mantra of “oy, oy, oy, Zionism is the original sin”.”

      You keep fabricating that the original sin is the mere presence of Jews in Palestine. Besides the fact that your claim is blatantly antisemitic you just want to distract from the fact that the original sin is Zionism, its settler colonialism, it’s hostile takeover of Palestine and mass expulsion of its majority. You just can’t cope with this reality. You just don’t have any counter arguments and you know it.

      • Nathan
        January 27, 2018, 4:21 pm

        Talkback – The “original sin is the terminology of the article. The article itself defines Zionism as “colonialism”. Neither one of those terms (“original sin” / “colonialism”) is mine. You think (quite strangely) that I can’t cope with reality as you see it, but it’s simply not true. I’m coping with everything just fine: the State of Israel exists and it’s doing quite well. I think that it’s obvious that Israel has proven that she can cope with all the challenges she faces (including the nasty coverage at this blog), and the call for her demise is really very entertaining. Moreover, I’m enjoying the debates at Mondoweiss, even if some of my debating adversaries are quite rude. If you like, you could actually answer my comment. I asked to hear “an outline of a real plan of action that is beyond the mantra of ‘oy, oy, oy, Zionism is the original sin’.” It doesn’t really make a difference what anyone of us thinks, because our comments will have zero impact on the outcome of events in any case. However, as a hobby (or as an intellectual discussion), it would be fun to discuss theoretical ideas as to how this conflict could be resolved. Most people here are busy with undefined and debatable terms such as “international law”. The conflict is not going to be resolved through the court system anyway, and Israel is not going to disappear after the presentation of a superb analysis of “settler-colonialism”, the legality (or illegality) of the Balfour Declaration, the Jewish roots (or lack of roots) in the country, etc, etc.

        Really, what should we do tomorrow morning, Talkback? There are really just three options: (1) You might want to try and defeat Israel militarily; (2) You might want to negotiate an end of conflict that both sides could accept; (3) You might prefer that the present situation continue indefinitely. I think the best thing would be if the Palestinians would agree to negotiate an end of conflict with Israel. I think a peace agreement is nicer than going to war, and it’s nicer than the present situation of conflict. What do you think is best?

      • RoHa
        January 28, 2018, 12:22 am

        “I think the best thing would be if the Palestinians would agree to negotiate an end of conflict with Israel.”

        Negotiate with people who have no honour, no honesty, no decency?

        Negotiate an agreement which the Israeli government will break the next day?

        The record is clear. The only agreement that the Israelis would keep is one in which the Palestinians abandoned all claims to Palestine, to their homes, their farms, their companies, and all their property, and then walked across to Jordan. The Israeli Jews might then refrain from killing them as they went.

      • MHughes976
        January 28, 2018, 10:12 am

        A successfully negotiated outcome might not be ideal but would probably be better than the status quo – and the ideal might be unattainable. Negotiations need starting points. So all concerned, most especially Israel because its superior power makes it the most important potential negotiator, should say what they would consider a fair long term situation. The process of bringing the positions closer could then start.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 28, 2018, 11:20 am

        Israel…. should say what they would consider a fair long term situation.

        seriously mhughes, are you crazy? israel has no interest in being fair nor any motivation to do anything other than what it’s been doing, toying around while others suffer. think of this as nathan’s “fun” “hobby”: “It doesn’t really make a difference … comments will have zero impact“. no different than the sadistic state he represents. BDS is the only answer.

      • Talkback
        January 28, 2018, 11:30 am

        Nathan: “The “original sin is the terminology of the article. The article itself defines Zionism as “colonialism”. Neither one of those terms (“original sin” / “colonialism”) is mine.”

        A straw man. Nobody said they were.

        Nathan: “You think (quite strangely) that I can’t cope with reality as you see it, but it’s simply not true. I’m coping with everything just fine: the State of Israel exists and it’s doing quite well.”

        Another straw man. You can’t cope with the reality that the original sin is Jewish settler colonialism.

        Nathan: “Most people here are busy with undefined and debatable terms such as “international law”.”

        There is nothing undefined or debatable to any UN member state except your Apartheid Junta when it comes its violation of international law.

        Nathan: “I think the best thing would be if the Palestinians would agree to negotiate an end of conflict with Israel. ”

        Your Apartheid Junta is not interested in peace. It’s interested in keeping control over the whole of Palestine.

        Nathan: “What do you think is best?”

        BDS.

      • Mooser
        January 28, 2018, 2:06 pm

        “lsrael because its superior power makes it the most important potential negotiator, should say what they would consider a fair long term situation.”

        “MHughes” endorses ‘might makes right’? And Israel’s “superior power” comes from the fact that the US pays Israel’s “security” bill.

      • MHughes976
        January 28, 2018, 3:58 pm

        Annie, electissima domina, I do not for my own part think that Israel has any interest in objective fairness or justice but they are for ever saying that they do. So let them say what justice and fairness means to them and let us see how their ideas approach objective validity. Mooser, ungulate doctissime, I do not think that might makes right but that it makes obligations.

      • Mooser
        January 28, 2018, 4:47 pm

        What fantastic powers do Zionists think are inherent in the words, the words “people” or “nation” and “state” or “State”?

        Never been able to figure that out.

      • Mooser
        January 28, 2018, 4:57 pm

        ” The “original sin is the terminology of the article. The article itself defines Zionism as “colonialism” “Nathan”

        And you know what, “Nathan”? Even in today’s world, where efforts are made to invoke international law, you can get absolution for colonialism if you have some powerful reason, some desperately valuable resource to offer if colonialism proceeds.
        I don’t think rebuilding The Temple is it.

      • Mooser
        January 28, 2018, 5:40 pm

        ” Mooser, ungulate doctissime, I do not think that might makes right but that it makes obligations.”

        Really? And which of the “obligations” of might do you see Israel as inclined to honor?

  13. snaidamast
    January 26, 2018, 3:32 pm

    I am very impressed by the writing in this article and plan to print out the entire piece as a result so I can read it in a more leisurely fashion.

    That being said, as a student of WWI military history, one of the underlying factors to the creation of the Balfour Declaration was the position of Britain in WWI; in short she was losing the effort and in late 1916\early 1917 she was considering removing her troops from the continent to make a separate peace with Germany.

    Zionist officials went through Lord Rothschild in order to have them convince the British government against removing her troops in Europe and as such remain in the war. In return, Zionists made a promise to use their influence in the United States to get her to enter the war on the Allied side.

    This was quite disingenuous of the Zionists, considering that Jewish influence at that time in the United States was hardly what it is now. In this respect, I disagree with the author of the article on this point where he brings it up; unless of course he was relating what Jeffries thought at the time. Wilson was old-time southern Christian boy who most believe was from New Jersey. He wasn’t. He was born and bred in George and was quite a part of the southern belief systems.

    In addition, since 1914 British propaganda endeavors were going full steam in the US to push it to join the Allies in the conflict. As a result, in reality, Zionists had to do very little to convince the US to enter the war.

    However, the real wild-card was President Woodrow Wilson, who once he became convinced that he could “save the world for democracy” (a statement that no one even at the time understood like many of Wilson’s declarations), Wilson’s god-complex went into overdrive and he needed no prodding whatsoever to get the US into the war. Besides, the Wilson administration was already violating all the international laws of neutrality with his support for the Allies, so this was not as huge a step as many would like to believe as many in Congress were also more than happy to go along with America’s entry into the war.

    The British interest in Palestine was also as a result of their belief that there may be oil in the region, with which the Zionists would be expected to trade with Britain. However, during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there was quite a bit of intrigue between Britain and France over both Palestine and Syria, the latter for which the French government believed were large stores of oil as well. In this regard, the British got the short end of the stick.

    On a final note, for any who would like to understand the insidiousness of the Zionist project in Palestine, I would strongly recommend reading Thomas Suarez’s latest work, “State of Terror”. Culled from Israeli and Zionist primary source material, Suarez recounts the degenerate terrorism that Zionism used against the Palestinian People as well as the Palestinian Jewish Community in graphic and violent detail. It will leave you with nightmares for weeks…

    >>>

    “Of course there is now a Jewish community in Palestine that cannot be ignored or just sent back to where they came from, so one cannot undo the original sin.”

    Well we could simply lock up the current Israeli regime for their maintenance of such an insidious enterprise…

  14. Ossinev
    January 28, 2018, 12:14 pm

    @Boris
    “For example the Spanish Inquisition was established by Torquemada, who was himself an ethnic Jew”

    Ah so he was getting on for 1500 years old when he became a Grand Inquisitor. I had of course heard about the cherry tomatoes and the Intel chips and the other wonders of Judeanism but this ethnic Judean longevity really takes the breathe away.

    I suppose you yourself must be what at least 2018 years old ?

    Keep up the flow Doris. You are an absolute hoot.

    • Mooser
      January 29, 2018, 11:42 am

      “Ah so he was getting on for 1500 years old when he became a Grand Inquisitor.”

      No wonder he was so Inquisitive! Waiting a millennium or more for a well-deserved promotion can really sour a guy.

  15. biggerjake
    January 29, 2018, 11:51 am

    Boris:

    I’m here to help.

    Here are the 3 characteristics that help identify Jews:

    Number one: The Great Jewish Love Affair With Shellfish – what is a more common scene than seeing a hungry Jew wolf down a plate of moules frites? Why are Jews so expertly capable of squeezing just the right amount of mayonnaise onto their scampi? Why is it that there are always such great deals in the Waitrose, in Temple Fortune, on the “Frozen Scallops with Herby Garlic Butter”?

    Number two: The Jewess’s Revelation at the Benefits of the Foreskin – There is the necessary shock experience for the Jewess (and in some cases the male Jew) of the first exposure to the foreskin which, when growing up a in strictly snipped environment, is quite an eye-opener!

    Number Three: Creative Expressions and Outpourings of Satirical Comment, Criticism and Top of the Range Piss-Taking with regards to Establishment Predictability and Mundanity – From the Talmud, (or was it the mad Communist Great Uncle we all had, but never knew?), we learn that sophistry and satire are intrinsic to the Jewish neshama (soul).

    • Mooser
      January 29, 2018, 12:45 pm

      “Here are the 3 characteristics that help identify Jews:”

      Thank you. Finally, some objectivity! Facts, not ancient legends or pseudo-science!

      • biggerjake
        January 29, 2018, 5:27 pm

        You are too funny.

        I think I love you….

      • Annie Robbins
        January 29, 2018, 5:34 pm

        me too for sure. mooser ROCKS.

      • Mooser
        January 30, 2018, 11:50 am

        “I think I love you…”

        So what am I so afraid of? Afraid that I’m not sure of a love there is no cure for?

Leave a Reply