Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 981 (since 2012-07-11 03:25:13)

Lived in the ME for six years.

Showing comments 981 - 901
Page:

  • 'NYT' columnist says struggle for equal rights in one state is upon us
  • How corporate media tacitly justify the murder of Palestinian children
    • Jackdaw

      Reality:

      During Israel's Operation Cast Lead 1,417 Palestinians were killed, including 926 civilians, of whom 313 were children and 121 were women. Israel suffered some damaged buildings and 13 dead, including three civilians from rocket fire and three soldiers killed in a friendly-fire incident. In short, Operation Cast Lead was a slaughter of imprisoned people.

      I also remind you of Israel's other attacks against the Gaza Strip, including "Operation Protective Edge," (8 July to 27 August 2014), during which 2,200 Palestinians, most of whom were non-combatants, including about 500 children, were killed. 40 Israelis died, mostly soldiers.

      Nor should we forget that under international law, the Gaza Strip is still illegally and brutally occupied by Israel:

      To wit:

      Human Rights Watch, 2005: "...Israel will continue to be an Occupying Power [of the Gaza Strip] under international law and bound by the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention because it will retain effective control over the territory and over crucial aspects of civilian life. Israel will not be withdrawing and handing power over to a sovereign authority - indeed, the word 'withdrawal' does not appear in the [2005 disengagement] document at all… The IDF will retain control over Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace, and will reserve the right to enter Gaza at will. According to the Hague Regulations, 'A territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised'. International jurisprudence has clarified that the mere repositioning of troops is not sufficient to relieve an occupier of its responsibilities if it retains its overall authority and the ability to reassert direct control at will."

      The International Committee of the Red Cross: "The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, ratified by Israel, bans collective punishment of a civilian population.”

      “In practice, Gaza has become a huge, let me be blunt, concentration camp for right now 1,800,000 people” - Amira Hass, 2015, correspondent for Haaretz, speaking at the Forum for Scholars and Publics at Duke University.

      "‘The significance of the [then proposed] disengagement plan [implemented in 2005] is the freezing of the peace process,’ Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Ha’aretz. ‘And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda....' Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking in an interview with Ha’aretz for the Friday Magazine. ‘The disengagement is actually formaldehyde,’ he said. ‘It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.’" (Top PM Aide: Gaza Plan Aims to Freeze the Peace Process, Ha’aretz, October 6, 2004)

    • Down memory lane:

      During its 2008/09 "Operation Cast Lead" assault on the Gaza Strip, Israel illegally used white phosphorous, which burns flesh to the bone, in attacks against civilians along with flechettes, i.e., 4-cm metal darts fired from missiles, planes or tanks "that penetrate straight through human bone and can cause serious, often fatal, injuries." (It has also used cluster bombs during its attacks against and invasions of Lebanon.)

      In response to Israel's "Operation Cast Lead," the United Nations Goldstone Report charged Israel with using phosphorous incendiary shells on a UN compound sheltering more than 600 civilians, using phosphorous and high explosive artillery shells on Al-Quds hospital and it rejected Israel’s assertion that Hamas or other militants were using the hospital. Israel was also accused of attacking a crowded mosque during evening prayers (the panel rejected the contention that armed militants were inside), using flechettes and of using Palestinians as human shields during house searches, a "war crime under the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court." No evidence was found that Hamas had used Palestinians as human shields.

      In a report issued on 2 July 2009, Amnesty International states that “more than 3,000 homes were destroyed and some 20,000 damaged in Israeli attacks which reduced entire neighborhoods of Gaza to rubble and left an already dire economic situation in ruins. Much of the destruction was wanton and could not be justified on grounds of ‘military necessity.’" Amnesty also noted that “During Operation ‘Cast Lead’ Israeli forces made extensive use of white phosphorus, often launched from 155mm artillery shells, in residential areas, causing death and injuries to civilians. Homes, schools, medical facilities and UN buildings – all civilian objects – took direct hits.” Neither Amnesty nor Human Rights Watch accused Hamas of using "human shields." Amnesty, however, accused Israel.

      To quote Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy, “[Israel] has already used weapons prohibited by international law - white phosphorous and flechette rounds against a civilian population in Gaza, and cluster munitions in Lebanon - and the world did not raise a finger." ( "'Moral superpower'? Give me a break," Haaretz, Sept. 1, 2013)

  • Trump's Jerusalem speech will foster the liberal Jewish awakening
    • Meanwhile, in Canada, the Zio-fascists are gathering:

      https://nowtoronto.com/news/worlds-top-islamophobe-pamela-geller-to-speak-in-toronto/

      "'World's top Islamophobe,'" Pamela Geller, to speak at Jewish Defence League event in Toronto."

      "The Quebec-based Groupe de recherche sur l'extrême droite et ses allié-e-s is calling on the federal government to deny Geller entry into Canada for December 18 speaking engagement
      by Enzo DiMatteo"

      NOW, December 8, 2017

      EXCERPT:
      "Pamela Geller, co-founder of Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), is scheduled to appear at a speaking engagement organized by the Jewish Defence League (JDL) at Canada Christian College on December 18.

      "The JDL, which has come under increasing scrutiny from its own supporters in the Jewish community over its alignment with neo-Nazi and anti-immigrant groups at anti-Muslim rallies in Toronto and around the GTA in recent months, is promising a barnburner. A promotion for the event on the group's website says the evening will include excerpts from the documentary Can’t We Talk About This? The Islamic Jihad Against Free Speech, which features interviews with far right Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has also written the forward to Geller's new book, 'and many other heroes of freedom.'

      "Geller's speech will be followed by a one-on-one interview with Rebel Commander Ezra Levant of Rebel Media, 'the only truthful media outlet daring to talk about radical Jihad and radical Islam,' according to the JDL promo. An exclusive 'meet Pamela' dinner is also being organized the day before the Canada Christian College event. Tickets for the dinner are being sold at $180 a pop."

  • Israeli ‘leftist hero’ Barak regrets US didn’t recognize Jerusalem 65 years ago
  • Palestinian officials say, Trump 'destroyed' the two-state solution
    • @Emet

      It never ceases to amaze me how appallingly ignorant you and your ilk are of history.

      The Jebusite/Canaanites, ancestors of today’s Palestinians, who along with their ancestors have lived continuously between the River and the Sea for at least 15,000 years,** founded Jerusalem around 3000 BCE. It is estimated that the biblical Hebrews did not arrive until circa 1800 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.

      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 the 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/)

      For the record, regarding West and East Jerusalem in 1947:

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

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

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

      **
      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.

      EXCERPTS:
      “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).”

    • https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/07/opinion/trump-jerusalem-capital-palestinian.html

      "Trump Is Making a Huge Mistake on Jerusalem" New York Times editorial

      By Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, Dec. 7/17

  • A majority of one is pushing for embassy move -- Sheldon Adelson
  • 'Violence on both sides' -- 'New York Times' erases the Nakba
    • @Jerry Hirsch

      "... actually the Palestinian Arabs were responsible for instigating ALL major violent attacks in Palestine from 1920-1936. "

      Rubbish!!

      Reality:

      1921 riots and Hebron 1929:
      On May 1, 1921, inevitable large scale violence broke out in Jaffa and elsewhere in which 90 Jews and 62 Arabs were killed and many more wounded. (Smith, Palestine And The Israel/Arab Conflict, p. 72) The clashes were ignited in Tel Aviv and spread to Jaffa when Jewish socialists began protesting against Jewish communists who were parading in support of a Soviet Palestine. These disturbances by a foreign minority that espoused alien ideologies and showed little respect for local customs and mores (e.g., Jewish women dressing immodestly in public) were an unacceptable affront to Palestinians. As they saw it, their country and way of life were under siege from within by interlopers who as the 1919 U.S. King-Crane Commission had asserted, intended to dispossess them. They could take no more and vented their rage by attacking Zionists in their midst.

      In 1925, Vladimir Jabotinsky, a Zionist zealot from Poland, founded the fascistic Betar or Brown Shirts along with the Revisionist Party (origin of today’s Likud) which advocated "revision" of the British Mandate to include forcible Jewish colonization of then Transjordan in addition to Palestine. Such Jewish extremism, along with the racist rants of Rabbi Kook and threats against the Dome of the Rock by Revisionist demonstrators led to the terrible and bloody riots of 1929, resulting in the deaths of 133 Jews in Hebron and elsewhere.

      Although never acknowledged by Israel and its supporters, hundreds of Hebron's Jews were taken in and protected by Muslims. Tragically, 64 of Hebron's Jews died, but 650 were saved. Throughout the country 133 Jews were killed and 339 wounded while Palestinians suffered 116 dead and 232 wounded (mostly at the hands of the British.)

      Vincent Sheean, an eminent American journalist who arrived in Palestine as a pro-Zionist just days before the riots erupted, was shocked at what he saw: As he later wrote: "I was bitterly indignant with the Zionists for having, as I believed, brought on the disaster.... [W]hy couldn't the Zionists leave it [Palestine] alone, it would never hold enough Jews to make even a beginning towards the solution of the Jewish problem; it would always be a prey to such ghastly horrors as those I saw everyday and every night....” (Vincent Sheean, Personal History, New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc. 1935)

      Bitterly ironic is the fact that most Jews living in Hebron in 1929 were anti-Zionist. They were the descendants of the Sephardim who had founded the city's Jewish Quarter near the tomb of the Patriarchs in the 1500's after Jews were expelled from Spain and then welcomed and given sanctuary in the Arab world. Their numbers increased somewhat during the early 1900's with the arrival of Hasidim from Poland who came to study. Many Muslims who were driven out of Spain by the Christians also moved to Hebron. Prior to Zionism, Jews and Muslims lived together harmoniously in Hebron for 400 years with the Jews always forming a small minority. There were very few if any Christians in the city.

      The friendship that existed between Muslims and Jews in Hebron was attested to by Israeli journalist Chaim Hanegbi, whose great grandfather was the city's last Rabbi: "My grandfather lived very peacefully with his Arab neighbours.... His family joined the grape harvest every year, and the [Muslim] neighbours cooked kosher food so the Jews could share the feasts with them." (Canada's Globe and Mail, February 18, 1997)

      It should also be noted that in the spirit of reconciliation, Hebron's mayor has stated publicly that he and his fellow Muslims would welcome the descendants of the city's Jews if they chose to return and replace the Zionist fanatics who are presently there.

      BTW, in response to claims by Zionists today that properties of Jews in Hebron were illegally taken over by Arabs, it should be noted that evidence in the form of receipts for annual payments up to the year 1936 have been produced by Anwar Katib, former Jordanian governor of the District of Jerusalem which prove that much of the property they occupied was in fact leased. (Patricia Sellick, "The Old City of Hebron: Can It Be Saved?;" Journal of Palestine Studies, #92, Vol. XXlll, Summer 1994, p.75).

      In response to Palestinians’ expected angry response to the Partition Plan, on 5 December 1947, Ben-Gurion, leader of the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine), ordered "immediate action to expand Jewish settlement in three areas assigned to the Arab state: the South West (Negev), the South-East (Etzion bloc) and Western Galilee." (Political and Diplomatic Documents of the Jewish Agency, 1947- 48, no. 12). Thus, Ben-Gurion revealed that the Jewish Agency had no intention of abiding by the terms of the Partition Plan.

      In his December 13/47 dispatch to London, Sir Alan Cunningham, the British High Commissioner to Palestine blamed the Yishuv for the deteriorating situation and loss of life: "The initial Arab outbreaks were spontaneous and unorganized and were more demonstrations of displeasures at the UN decision than determined attacks on Jews. The weapons initially employed [by Palestinians] were sticks and stones and had it not been for Jewish resource to firearms, it is not impossible that the excitement would have subsided and little loss of life caused.... [T]here is reliable evidence that the Arab Higher Committee as a whole and the Mufti in particular, were not in favour of serious outbreaks." (MEC: Cunningham Papers, box 2, file 3)

      Ben-Gurion agreed with Cunningham. In a letter dated 15 December 1947 to Moshe Sharett, head of the political department of the Jewish Agency, he stated: "The [Palestinian] peasant masses are not taking part in the riots." (Three months later in a letter to Sharett and Golda Meir he observed: "The [Palestinian] Arabs in their great majority are not seeking war with us.")

      On December 13, the Irgun carried out coordinated assaults in Jerusalem, Jaffa, and the village of Tireh near Haifa, killing 35 Palestinian civilians and wounding many more. The 14 December issue of the New York Times observed that "The hope for a decrease in tension, arising from Arab reaction to the United States decision on partition of Palestine, seemed destroyed by the Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorist bombings of Arabs yesterday." (John Quigley, Palestine and Israel..., p. 41)

      Shortly after Britain's announcement that it intended to withdraw from Palestine beginning 15 May 1948, Ben-Gurion directed the Irgunists, Sternists and Palmach to increase the ferocity of their strikes against Palestinian Arabs. He ordered that "in each attack, a decisive blow should be struck, resulting in the destruction of homes and the expulsion of the population." (Ben-Gurion's Diary-in Hebrew, vol. 1, 19 December 1947) The Zionists were implementing what they called Plans A, B and C or Tochnit May (Plan May), more commonly known as Plan Gimmel. Its objectives were to buy time for the mobilization of Jewish forces by seizing strategic points the British vacated and to terrorize the Palestinian population into submission. (Harvard Professor Walid Khalidi, Haven to Conquest, p.lxxix)

  • US embassy move to Jerusalem would spark 'fanaticism and violence' and end US status as negotiator -- Arab leaders
    • @Nathan

      Reality:

      Israel's 1980 annexation of East Jerusalem was unanimously rejected by the UN Security Council in Resolution 476 (June 30, 1980): "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the Occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

      In accordance with the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified by Israel, and further underscoring the illegality of the settlements, Part 2, Article 8, section B, paragraph viii of the Rome Statute of the International Court (1998) defines "the transfer directly or indirectly by the Occupying power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies " as a War Crime, indictable by the International Criminal Court.

      On 24 February 2004, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its earlier position in a report entitled Israel and the Occupied Territories, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: "Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights after the 1967 War.... The international community does not recognize Israel's sovereignty over any part of the occupied territories.”

      In its 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice unanimously ruled that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” The World Court denoted this principle a “corollary” of the U.N. Charter and as such “customary international law” and a “customary rule” binding on all member States of the United Nations.

      US Secretary of State, John Kerry: "The US views all of the settlements as illegitimate." (13 August 2013, Reuters Video)

      British Foreign Secretary William Hague regarding Jewish settlements in the West Bank (5 April 2011): "This is not disputed territory. It is occupied Palestinian territory and ongoing settlement expansion is illegal under international law..."

      UN Security Council Resolution 2334, December 23, 2016: “Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
      “Reaffirming the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice,
      “Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions,….”
      “1.Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;
      “2.Reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it fully respect all of its legal obligations in this regard;
      “3. Underlines that it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations;..”

      There is no special provision in international law (e.g., the UN Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The Fourth Geneva Convention, the Rome Statute, which are binding on all UN members and came about in large measure as a result of horrors of WWII, including the slaughter of 6 million Jews) that enables Israel to violate it with impunity.

  • Netanyahu has been interfering in U.S. politics for a long, long time
  • War rumblings continue, as Netanhayu says Iran is another Nazi Germany
    • Meanwhile:

      https://ahtribune.com/politics/2033-collapse-of-israeli-saudi-american-alliance.html

      "The Inevitable Collapse of Israeli-Saudi-American Alliance Against Iran and Resistance"
      By Miko Peled.

      American Herald Tribune, Dec. 2/17

      Excerpt:

      "Mohammad Bin Salman summoning the Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri and attempting to force him to discredit Hezbollah - a legitimate and stabilizing part of the Lebanese government - and the summoning of Mahmoud Abbas from Ramallah and ordering him to accept the new peace deal, is nothing more than a show of muscle by a new and inexperienced player. Even the praise Thomas Friedman heaped on him in the New York Times, where Friedman rather foolishly wrote that, 'The most significant reform process underway anywhere in the Middle East today is in Saudi Arabia,' can't hide the fact that over reaching and that he is too young and inexperienced to understand the Middle East. Having failed miserably in Yemen, Syria and Iraq, Saudi Arabia lost massive ground to the Iranians and he hopes that Trump and Netanyahu will come to his aid. But he is relying on some very weak allies: The very legitimacy of Netanyahu and the entire Zionist project are now being brought to question and Trump will be fortunate if he is able to see the end of his first term as president without being forced to resign. One hopes that with the inevitable collapse of this alliance a new one will rise, one that will support a free Palestine and a peaceful Middle East."

  • Why a children's book has Zionists losing their minds
    • @Keith

      Agreed.

      Also, for the record:

      "In 1938, a thirty-one nation conference was held in Evian, France, on resettlement of the victims of Nazism. The World Zionist Organization refused to participate, fearing that resettlement of Jews in other states would reduce the number available for Palestine." (John Quigley, Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice, as quoted in "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict," second edition, published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East, Berkeley, California, p. 21.)

      The Jewish Agency in Palestine was very concerned about the implications of the Evian Conference. "It was summed up in the meeting [of the Jewish Agency's Executive on June 26, 1938] that the Zionist thing to do 'is belittle the [Evian] Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing.... We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection efforts'.... Ben-Gurion's statement at the meeting: 'No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.'" (Boas Evron, Jewish State or Israeli Nation? as quoted in "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict," by John Quigley, second edition, p. 21.)

      On 7 December 1938, during a meeting of the Mapai Central Committee (precursor of the Labour Party), David Ben-Gurion revealed his true feelings regarding the plight of German Jews: "If I knew it was possible to save all the [Jewish] children in Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second..." He attempted to explain his twisted reasoning by adding that he would make such a choice "...because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people." Ben-Gurion also expressed his fear that "'the human conscience' might bring various countries to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Germany. He saw this as a threat and warned: 'Zionism is in danger!'" (Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, Hill and Wang, New York, 1994, p. 28.)

      During another speech to the Mapai Central Committee on 7 December 1938, Ben-Gurion admitted that "in these terrible days of the beginning of the disaster that threatens European Jewry, I am still more worried about the elections at the [Mapai] branch in Tel Aviv." (Segev, p. 105.)

      On 27 November 1942, the Yishuv newspaper Davar published an article that referred to the extermination of European Jews as "'punishment from heaven' for not having come to Palestine." (Tom Segev, p. 98). As Ben-Gurion so callously put it on 8 December 1942, during a Mapai meeting: "'They did not want to listen to us' ....in their deaths they had sabotaged the Zionist dream.’" (David Ben-Gurion at a gathering of Mapai workers, 8 Dec. 1942; quoted by Tom Segev)

      That saving Jews from the Nazis was not the priority of American Zionists was clearly shown during the war. When President Roosevelt became aware of the dire circumstances of European Jews (who were thought at the time to be about 80% of the total number of refugees), he sent his close friend Morris Ernst (a key member of the Democratic party and leader of the New York Jewish community) to London during the middle of the war to see if England and the Commonwealth would join the United States and other countries in taking in a half million Jewish refugees through a generous worldwide policy of political asylum once Hitler was defeated. (Roosevelt felt he could sell the plan to the American Congress if Britain agreed.)

      Ernst returned home jubilant and advised the President that Britain agreed to "match the United States up to 150,000." Roosevelt replied:"150,000 to England - 150,000 to match that in the United States - pick up 200,000 or 300,000 elsewhere, and we can start with half a million of these oppressed people." One week later, however, the President informed Ernst that the program had to be abandoned because "...the dominant vocal Jewish leadership of America won't stand for it...the Zionist movement knows [that it] can raise vast sums for Palestine by saying to donors, `There is no other place this poor Jew can go.'"

      Ernst refused to believe Roosevelt and went about seeking the support of American Jews for the plan. Their response shocked him: "I was thrown out of parlours of friends of mine who very frankly said, `Morris, this is treason. You are undermining the Zionist movement'. [I found] a deep genuine, often fanatically emotional vested interest in putting over the [movement in men] who are little concerned about human blood if it is not their own." (Morris Ernst, So Far So Good, Harper & Brothers: New York, 1948, pp. 172-177)

      In 1947, Representative William G. Stratton introduced a bill to the Congress aimed primarily at Jewish refugees which would have admitted up to 400,000 displaced persons of all faiths into the United States. Shamefully, however, the Stratton Bill never got past hearings of the House Foreign Affairs Committee because it was ignored by the Zionist lobby which wanted nothing to interfere with the flow of Jews into Palestine.

      The Zionist campaign to force European Jews to go to Palestine (and later Israel) after the war while doing everything possible to prevent them from finding new homes in the United States, did not escape criticism by all American Jews. The Yiddish Bulletin wrote: "...by insisting that Jewish D.P.'s do not wish to go to any country outside of Israel; by not participating in the negotiations on behalf of the D.P.'s; and by refraining from a campaign of their own - by all this they [the Zionists] certainly did not help to open the gates of America for Jews. In fact, they sacrificed the interests of living people - their brothers and sisters who went through a world of pain - to the politics of their own movement." (Yiddish Bulletin, Free Jewish Club, May 19, 1950)

      The Zionists made it very clear to Truman that their backing would only be forthcoming if he did not impede their efforts to take possession of Palestine by allowing European Jewish refugees to immigrate to the United States. "...an aide sympathetic to Zionism [advised Truman] not to offer haven to Jewish displaced persons in the United States as this would dilute the argument that an independent Jewish state was required to absorb them." (Professor Charles Smith, Palestine And The Arab/Israel Confict, p. 128)

      Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Agency were preventing European Jews who had sought temporary sanctuary in Palestine during the war from returning to their homes. Britain was well aware of this and Lord Halifax, British Ambassador to the United States made a point of informing Secretary of State Byrnes "that the Zionists were using every possible form of intimidation to stop Jews from leaving Palestine to go back to Europe and play their part in its reconstruction." (FR: 1945, Vol. Vlll p. 775; cited by Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection and What Price Israel?)

      Some American Jews publicly criticized the Zionists for using their influence to prevent the admission of Jewish refugees into the United States. Among them was Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times who called for a reversal of Zionist policy that put statehood first, refugees last: "Admitting that the Jews of Europe have suffered beyond expression, why in God's name should the fate of all these unhappy people be subordinated to the single cry of Statehood? I cannot rid myself of the feeling that the unfortunate Jews of Europe's D.P. [Displaced Persons] camps are helpless hostages for whom statehood has been made the only ransom." (New York Times, October 27, 1946; quoted by Lilienthal, WPI? p. 37)

      During an interview in 1951, one of America's most renowned theologians, Dr. Louis Finkelstein of the Jewish Theological Seminary in Manhattan declared that he had always felt "if United States Jews had put as much effort into getting [Jewish] D.P.'s admitted to this country as they put into Zionism, a home could have been found in the New World for all the displaced Jews of Europe." (Quoted by Lilienthal, WPI?, p. 36)

      On 2 May 1948, in a report delivered to the pro-Zionist American Jewish Conference regarding "Jewish Displaced Persons in the American Occupied Zone of Germany," Jewish Chaplain Klausner (a dedicated Zionist) stated that "The Jews as a group are not overwhelmingly desirous of going to Palestine...we may predict that perhaps 30% of the people will go to Palestine." (Lilienthal, WPI? p. 260)

      Klausner concluded that the displaced Jews "... must be forced to go to Palestine.... By 'force' I suggest a program. It is not a new program. It was used before, and most recently. It was used in the evacuation of the Jews from Poland and in the story of [the refugee ship] the `Exodus'." Klausner went on to explain what his "program" would involve: "The first step...is the adoption of the principle that it is the conviction of the world Jewish community that these people must go to Palestine. The second step is the transmittal of that policy to the Displaced Persons. The third step is for the world Jewish community to offer the people the opportunity to go to Palestine...."

      The strategy suggested by Klausner to persuade Jews in the Displaced Persons camps to immigrate to Israel was implemented. Its tactics included: "confiscation of food rations, dismissal from work, smashing of machines sent by Americans to train D.P.'s in useful skills, taking away legal protection and visa rights from dissenters, expulsion from the camps of political opponents and, in one instance, even the public flogging of a recalcitrant recruit for the Israel Army. Trucks of the Jewish Agency were known to drive through the Jewish camps in Germany, 'picking up' boys and young men. Strange transports left Germany every week for France where, as a first step en route to Israel, the herded people were kept in camps established at Marseilles. In Germany's D.P. camps, stories were spread that pogroms were taking place in parts of the United States." (Lilienthal, WPI?, pp. 196-197)

      As they were reluctant to heed the "call of Zion," Israeli immigration agents had to "encourage" and in some cases, force Eastern European Jews to immigrate to Israel. "The government [of Israel] made great efforts to encourage Jews in Eastern Europe to migrate to Israel. Its immigration agent in Romania reported in 1950: 'Working through the local leadership and every reliable Jew we have met, we are urging Jews to make application for emigration and for passports.' Agents tried to get emigrating Jews to Israel. In Poland Israeli officials would 'send the people directly to the port, so they would not be able to stop en route,' reported Samuel Eliashiv, Israel's ambassador to Czechoslovakia. Israel's consul in Warsaw, Israel Carmel, found that persuasion was difficult. 'The awakening of the Jews in Poland will not happen by itself,' he reported in 1949. 'They must be motivated and organized.'" (Quigley, p. 99)

    • @Mayhem

      To be brief:
      What a ludicrous response. Yes, there is no "P" in Arabic. Hence, when speaking Arabic, Palestinians and others who speak Arabic refer to Palestine as "Filastin."

      It is abundantly clear that this book is directed towards Palestinian and other Arab children who speak or are learning English as well as English only speaking children whose enlightened parents want them to learn the ugly truth about what befell the indigenous inhabitants of historic Palestine at the hands of foreign Zionists, i.e., we must all recognize and oppose racism and fascism.

      In short your comment is "B" for bull crap.

    • @Maghlawatan

      I think its important to remember that Zionists' "hatred against innocent Palestinians" was well entrenched decades before WWII.

      To wit:

      The mistreatment of Palestinians by Jewish settlers caused eminent Jewish essayist, Ahad Ha’am, great distress. In 1891 he wrote: “They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, unscrupulously deprive them of their rights, insult them without cause, and even boast of such deeds; and none opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.” (Ha’am, Ahad, by Am Sheideweg, Berlin 1923, vol.1, p.107; quoted by Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p. 24)

      Ha’am concluded that this aggressive behaviour on the part of Jews stemmed from anger “…towards those who remind them that there is still another people in the land of Israel that have been living there and does not intend to leave.” (Hans Kohn, Zionism Reconsidered, Michael Selzer, ed. London: 1970, p. 195; quoted by Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians…, p. 7)

      Theodor Herzl’s diaries not only confirm that his objective was the establishment of a “Jewish state” in Palestine, but that it would be an expansionist state. In the year of his death he described its borders as being “…in the north the mountains facing Cappadocia [Turkey], in the south, the Suez Canal [Egypt] in the east, the Euphrates [Iraq].” (Theodor Herzl, The Complete Diaries, 11 p. 711)

      In true nineteenth century colonialist fashion, Herzl contended that his “Jewish state” would protect Europe and its superior culture from the uncivilized East. “We should there [in Palestine] form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.” (Theodor Herzl, Judenstaat (The Jewish State), 1896, p. 26)

      Even more revealing as to how Herzl intended to deal with Palestinians is the “Charter for Zionist Colonization of Palestine and Syria” which he drafted sometime between the summer of 1901 and early 1902. Much to his disappointment, however, he was denied the opportunity to present it to the Ottoman Sultanate. Article Vl of the charter called for Istanbul to grant the Zionists, in the form of the Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC), “complete autonomy, guaranteed by the Ottoman Empire” while Article III gave them in effect, the right to deport the native population to other areas of the empire. Article 111 “[pertained] to the Palestinian and other Arab owners and inhabitants of the three categories of land to be purchased/owned by the JOLC – the large and small private landholdings, the Sultan’s state domain, and the land for which there is no title.”

      Israel Zangwill, the influential Anglo-Jewish essayist and Zionist first believed that the Palestinians would simply “fold their tents and slip away.” It was Zangwill who first voiced the lie that Palestine was a “land without a people, waiting for a people without a land.” (Zangwill, Israel, “The Return to Palestine”, New Liberal Review 11, Dec. 1901 p 627, quoted by David Hirst, p. 19)

      In 1905, Zangwill contradicted himself during a talk in Manchester when he observed that Palestine was “already twice as thickly populated as the United States…. [W]e must be prepared to either drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population….” (Zangwill, Speeches, p. 210, quoted by Nur Masalah , Expulsion of the Palestinians…., 1992, p. 10)

      In the February 1919 issue of the League of Nations Journal, Zangwill proposed that the Palestinians “should be gradually transplanted” in Arab countries and at a public meeting in the same year he remarked that “many [Palestinians] are semi-nomad, they have given nothing to Palestine and are not entitled to the rules of democracy.” (Jewish Chronicle, Dec. 12 1919, quoted by Masalha, Expulsion…, p.14)

      In 1920, Zangwill proposed in The Voice of Jerusalem, that there should be an “‘Arab exodus’…based on ‘race redistribution’ or a ‘trek like that of the Boers from Cape Colony,’ which he advocated as ‘literally the only way out of the difficulty of creating a Jewish State in Palestine.'” He continued: “We cannot allow the Arabs to block so valuable a piece of historic reconstruction….To fold their tents and silently steal away is their proverbial habit: let them exemplify it now.” (Zangwill, The Voice of Jerusalem, p. 103, quoted by Masalha, EOTP pp. 13- 14)

      Other Zionist leaders saw the future Jewish state in Palestine not only free of Arabs, but the first step towards the creation of a much larger country. In 1918, Ben-Gurion described the future borders of the Jewish state as: “to the north, the Litani River; to the northeast, the Wadi’Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into the Sinai at least up to Wadi al-`Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan.” (Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, pp. 34-34; cited by Masalah, Expulsion…, p. 87)

      In 1930 (when Jews privately owned only about four per cent of Palestine), Arthur Ruppin, a pivotal figure in political Zionism, wrote that displacement of Arab farmers was inevitable because “land is the most necessary thing for our establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands in Palestine, we are bound in each case of the purchase of land and its settlement to remove the peasants who cultivated the land so far, both owners of the land and tenants.” (Rashid Khalidi, in Blaming the Victims)

  • American Jewish visitor forced to sign loyalty oath in order to get tourist visa to Israel
    • @Mayhem

      For your much needed edification:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHPC8JeMJWA&feature=youtu.be

      Just released video - 4 minutes, 32 seconds .

      "Palestine 101: Not That Complicated"

      "Many people are held back from taking a stand on the issue of Palestine/Israel by the common misconception that it is 'complicated.' Here, we explain the steady continuation of the more than 100 year old settler colonial project that is Zionism. Palestine 101: Not That Complicated can help folks both familiar and unfamiliar with the issue understand the ongoing process of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and the legacy of Palestinian resistance to the colonization of their homeland."

    • Apartheid thrives west of the Green Line:

      “Former Foreign Ministry director-general invokes South Africa comparisons. ‘Joint Israel-West Bank’ reality is an apartheid state”
      EXCERPT: “Similarities between the ‘original apartheid’ as it was practiced in South Africa and the situation in ISRAEL [my emphasis] and the West Bank today ‘scream to the heavens,’ added [Alon] Liel, who was Israel’s ambassador in Pretoria from 1992 to 1994. There can be little doubt that the suffering of Palestinians is not less intense than that of blacks during apartheid-era South Africa, he asserted.” (Times of Israel, February 21, 2013)

      Adi Ophir, professor of philosophy, Tel Aviv University: "...the adoption of the political forms of an ethnocentric and racist nation-state in general, are turning Israel into the most dangerous place in the world for the humanity and morality of the Jewish community, for the continuity of Jewish cultures and perhaps for Jewish existence itself." (1998 issue of "Theory and Criticism," published in Israel)

      Video: Israeli TV Host Implores Israelis: Wake Up and Smell the Apartheid
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyyUvxHLYr4

      In its 2015 Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor acknowledges the “institutional and societal discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel.” (U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor)

      “Construction, Not Destruction”
      “While Israeli Arabs constitute 20 percent of the population, Arab communities’ jurisdictions occupy just 2.5 percent of the state’s land area, and the process of approving new construction in Arab towns takes decades.” (Haaretz Editorial, April 4, 2017)

      One example of apartheid within Israel:
      “Jewish town won’t let Arab build home on his own land ”
      Excerpt: “Aadel Suad first came to the planning and construction committee of the Misgav Local Council in 1997. Suad, an educator, was seeking a construction permit to build a home on a plot of land he owns in the community of Mitzpeh Kamon. The reply he got, from a senior official on the committee, was a memorable one. ‘Don’t waste your time,’ he reportedly told Suad. ‘We’ll keep you waiting for 30 years.’” (Haaretz, 14 December 2009)

      Shlomo Gazit, retired IDF Major General: "[Israel's] legal system that enforces the law in a discriminatory way on the basis of national identity, is actually maintaining an apartheid regime." (Haaretz, July 19, 2011)

      Ronnie Kasrils, a key player in the struggle against the former South African apartheid regime, minister for intelligence and a devout Jew: "The Palestinian minority in Israel has for decades been denied basic equality in health, education, housing and land possession, solely because it is not Jewish. The fact that this minority is allowed to vote hardly redresses the rampant injustice in all other basic human rights. They are excluded from the very definition of the 'Jewish state', and have virtually no influence on the laws, or political, social and economic policies. Hence, their similarity to the black South Africans [under apartheid]." (The Guardian, 25 May 2005)

      To the best of my knowledge, Israel is the only country in the world that differentiates between citizenship and nationality, i.e., “Israeli” nationality does not exist, only Jews and non-Jews, and each citizen carries an appropriate identity card. While the implications of this absurdity for discrimination and racism against non-Jews are obvious, it has been upheld by Israel’s Supreme Court.

      The effect of Israel’s blatantly racist “Citizenship Law” and more than fifty other restrictions Arab citizens have to endure is well expressed by writer and Knesset member, Ahmed Tibi, “…dutifully defining the state [of Israel] as ‘Jewish and democratic,’ ignores the fact that in practice ‘democratic’ refers to Jews, and the Arabs are nothing more than citizens without citizenship.” (Ma’ariv, 1.6.2005)

  • Forget pinkwashing, it's brownwashing time: self-Orientalizing on the US campus
    • @mcohen

      "What i find interesting is how much easier it is for israeli society to intergrate people of colour."

      What world are you living in?

      Reality:

      http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/1890-even-in-death-ethiopian-jews-face-racism-from-other-jews
      “Even in death, Ethiopian Jews face racism from other Jews”
      Middle East Monitor, December 28,2010.
      Excerpt: “An Israeli newspaper has claimed that the racism prevalent between Israeli Jews extends to Ethiopian Jews even after their death. According to Ma’ariv, graves in a Jewish cemetery are separated according to the colour of the corpses; a fence has been built between the graves of Ethiopian Jews and the others in the graveyard.”

      Israel’s Jewish citizens of Ethiopian origin/ancestry suffer from discrimination and human rights violations:
      Haaretz, January 27, 2013 - “Israel admits Ethiopian women were given birth control shots.”
      EXCERPTS: “A government official has for the first time acknowledged the practice of injecting women of Ethiopian origin with the long-acting contraceptive Depo-Provera.”
      “The women’s testimony could help explain the almost 50-percent decline over the past 10 years in the birth rate of Israel’s Ethiopian community.”

      Council for the National Interest – Sept. 30, 2013
      http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/?p=1791#.WNGMT4WcFZU
      "Israel Gave Birth Control to Ethiopian Immigrants Without Their Consent
      In January 2013, Israel acknowledged that medical authorities have been giving Ethiopian immigrants long-term birth-control injections, often without their knowledge or consent. The Israeli government had previously denied the charges, which were first brought to light by investigative reporter Gal Gabbay in a December 8, 2012, broadcast of Israeli Educational Television’s news program, Vacuum. In January, the Israeli Health Ministry’s director-general, Ron Gamzu, ordered all gynecologists to stop administering the drugs.

      "Gabbay interviewed over thirty women from Ethiopia in an attempt to discover why birth rates in the immigrant community were so low. Israeli medical authorities had been injecting women of Ethiopian origin with a drug alleged to be Depo-Provera, a highly effective and long-lasting form of contraception. In some cases, the drugs were reportedly administered to women waiting in transit camps for permission to immigrate to Israel."

      "Nearly 100,000 Ethiopian Jews have moved to Israel under the Law of Return since the 1980s, but some rabbis have questioned their Jewishness. In May 2012, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu ignited controversy when he warned that illegal immigrants from Africa 'threaten our existence as a Jewish and democratic state.'”

      Alistair Dawber: “Israel Gave Birth Control to Ethiopian Jews without Their Consent,” The Independent, January 27, 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gave-birth-control-to-ethiopian-jews-without-their-consent-8468800.html.

      Ali Abunimah, “Did Israel Violate the Genocide Convention by Forcing Contraceptives on Ethiopian Women?” Electronic Intifada, January 28, 2013,http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/did-israel-violate-genocide-convention-forcing-contraceptives-ethiopian-women.

      Beth Brogan, “Israel Admits Forced Birth Control For Ethiopian Immigrants,” Common Dreams, January 29, 2013, http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/01/29-0.

  • Trump administration using unjust US law to pressure Palestinians
    • Just released video: 4 minutes, 32 seconds.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHPC8JeMJWA&feature=youtu.be

      "Palestine 101: Not That Complicated."

      "Many people are held back from taking a stand on the issue of Palestine/Israel by the common misconception that it is 'complicated.' Here, we explain the steady continuation of the more than 100 year old settler colonial project that is Zionism. Palestine 101: Not That Complicated can help folks both familiar and unfamiliar with the issue understand the ongoing process of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and the legacy of Palestinian resistance to the colonization of their homeland."

    • Excellent read:

      http://www.tothepointanalyses.com/

      "Where is Zionism Taking Us? – An Analysis" (27 November 2017) by Professor Lawrence Davidson

      EXCERPTS;

      "Part I – The Inevitable Apartheid Nation"

      "We know where Zionism has taken Israel. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 led the way. In that imperial and colonial document, the British promised the World Zionist Organization a Jewish 'National Home' in Palestine. They did so, as Edward Said put it, in 'flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority residents in that territory.'”

      "You cannot introduce one people, in this case a large number of Europeans who happen to be Jewish, into a territory populated by hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans, without negative consequences. And, if the incoming Europeans have the goal of creating a state exclusively for their group alone, those consequences are going to be dire indeed. Surrounded by 'the other,' the only way you can achieve your exclusive state is through discriminatory practices and laws ultimately producing an apartheid nation. And that is what happened.

      "While this has meant, and continues to mean, segregation, ethnic cleansing and Bantustans for the Palestinians, for the Jews it means that their religion is tied to a racist political ideology. There is no instance of Israeli prejudice exercised against the Palestinians, no act of violence committed against them, that does not simultaneously dishonor and debase the Jewish religion and people.

      "Part II – Worldwide Consequences"

      "How about the rest of world? The consequences of Zionism are threatening both security and equality everywhere. Here is how this is happening:"

  • 'Where did we go wrong in our homes and schools?' David Harris laments young Jews' hostility to Israel
    • "‘Where did we go wrong in our homes and schools?’"

      It's very simple David. Reality is overcoming your lies.

      To be brief: With the rapid emergence of modern instant communications, including television and the Internet over the decades since 1947, the hideous truth about racist, fascistic Zionism and its spawn, the militaristic, expansionist, illegal/brutal occupier entity known as "Israel," has become increasingly visible for peoples around the world, including American Jews, especially youth, who as a result, are abandoning the fraudulent "light unto nations." The handwriting is on the wall. Zionism is on a downward slide and will never recover.

      Check out today's statement by Dr. Hannan Ashrawi:
      http://www.dci.plo.ps/en/article/7241/November-28,-2017-Dr-Ashrawi-on-the-ramifications-of-Partition-and-the-moral-imperative-for-the-international-community-to-stand-on-the-right-side-of-justice

      "November 28, 2017: Dr. Ashrawi on the ramifications of Partition and the moral imperative for the international community to stand on the right side of justice."

      EXCERPTS:
      "On the occasion of the seventy-year anniversary of Partition and the fortieth anniversary of marking the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, PLO Executive Committee Member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi said:

      “'On November 29 seventy years ago, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution 181 (II). With the partition of historic Palestine, the victimization and suffering of the Palestinian people began. The state of Israel was created at the expense of the indigenous people of the land who were violently uprooted. For decades, the ramifications of this resolution have only intensified, manifesting themselves in three ways:'

      "'1. Dispossession, dispersion and exile of a massive refugee population

      2. Systematic discrimination and oppression within Israel due to its racist and exclusionary system

      3. Captivity and enslavement under occupation within the remaining 22% of historic Palestine.'"

      "'On this significant date in the history of Palestine, we call on the international community to translate solidarity into positive engagement, to put an end to this historical injustice, to bring Israel to full withdrawal, to affect a just solution to the Palestinian refugee issue on the basis of United Nations Resolution 194, and to establish the independent state of Palestine on the 1967 boundaries with East Jerusalem as its capital.'

      "'Now is the time to engage in the actual rectification of the historical victimization of Palestine and its people.'”

  • Israel has more legitimacy than US because the bible mentions Jerusalem, not New York -- says David Harris
    • Actually, it appears that today's Palestinians and their ancestors have been living continuously between the River and the Sea for around 15,000 years whereas it is estimated that the biblical Hebrews did not arrive until circa 1800 BCE.

      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.

      EXCERPTS:
      “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).”

    • For the much needed edification of David Harris. (Not that he's interested in the facts.)

      Re: Jerusalem:
      It was the Jebusite/Canaanites, ancestors of today’s Palestinians, who 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.

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

      Re: The 1937 Peel Report:
      In 1936, Britain commissioned the Peel Commission to analyze and recommend a formula to end the violence in Palestine. In 1937, the Commission submitted its report and its major recommendation was to propose partition as a solution. The Report was not accepted by Britain's government as it was in violation of the League of Nations Class A mandate (which, prohibited a Jewish state in Palestine or any form of partition.) It was also rejected during a meeting a month later in Zurich by the Zionist Congress (they wanted even more land than they would receive) and for obvious reasons, by the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine.

      As proposed by the Peel Report, what would have most certainly been an unviable Arab state, was to be made part of what was then Transjordan while Britain was to retain control of specific areas of Palestine, including East (the Old City) and West Jerusalem along with Bethlehem, and also control access to the Mediterranean Sea through the port of Jaffa. This outrageous scheme would have given Jews (about 90% of foreign origin comprising about thirty per cent of the population and owning just 5.6 per cent of the land) about one third of Palestine including its most fertile regions, such as the wholly Arab owned Galilee, the Plains of Esdraelon south of Nazareth, as well as the equally Arab and Jewish owned lush coastal plain from the Lebanese border to a point south of Jaffa, which itself would remain Arab.

      Apparently, of the view that Palestinians had no rights whatsoever, the Peel Report also recommended that 225,000 Arabs in the proposed Jewish state should be exchanged for what were a mere 1,250 Jews in the envisaged Arab state. While they were deliberately ambiguous as to whether Arabs in the Galilee should be forcibly removed, the commissioners did advocate that as "a last resort," the transfer of Palestinians inhabiting the bountiful Esdraelon and coastal plains "should be compulsory." Obviously, Britain had no option other than to reject the Peel Report.

      On 7 August 1937, following publication of the Peel Commission Report, Ben-Gurion stated the following before the Twentieth Zionist Congress meeting in Zurich: "In many parts of the country new Jewish settlement will not be possible unless there is a transfer of the Arab fellahs [i.e., farmers]. The [Peel] Commission dealt with this matter seriously, and it is important that this plan [i.e., the commission's proposal that 225,000 Arabs be transferred out of the prospective Jewish state] came from them and not from us...."

      To settle the matter once and for all, in May 1939, the British government issued the MacDonald White Paper, which in accordance with the Mandate, ruled out any possibility of a Jewish state, and declared Great Britain "could not have intended Palestine should be converted into a Jewish state against the will of the Arab population of the country." It called for a Palestinian state in which Jews and Arabs would govern jointly based on a constitution to be drafted by their representatives and those of Britain. The constitution would safeguard the "Jewish National Home" in Palestine and if good relations developed between Jews and Arabs, the country would be granted independence in ten years. Land sales to Jews were to be restricted and the annual level of Jewish immigration was to be limited to 15,000 for five years, following which, Palestinian Arab acquiescence would be required.

      ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Re: The Partition Plan
      Palestinians rejected the Partition Plan (UNGA Res. 181, Nov. 29/47) for entirely justified reasons based on international law. While Jews made up just 31% of the population (90% of foreign origin, only 30% had become citizens, thousands were illegal immigrants) and privately owned only between 6% and 7% of the land, the Partition Plan (recommendatory only, no legal foundation, contrary to the British Class A Mandate and the Atlantic Charter, never adopted by the UNSC) outrageously recommended they receive 56% of Palestine (including its most fertile areas) in which Palestinians made up 45% of the population. (10% of Palestine’s Jewish population consisted of native Palestinian/Arab Jews who were anti-Zionist.)

      48% of the total land area of mandated Palestine was privately owned (‘mulk khaas’) by Palestinian Arabs. As noted, total Jewish privately owned land was only between 6% and 7%. About 45% of the total land area was state owned, i.e. by citizens of Palestine, and it was comprised of Communal Property (‘mashaa’), Endowment Property, (‘waqf’), and Government Property, (‘miri’.) (The British Mandate kept an extensive land registry and the UN used the registry during its early deliberations. It has in its archives 453,000 records of individual Palestinian owners defined by name, location & area.)

      Although Palestinian Arab citizens made up at least 69% of the population and to repeat, privately owned 48% of the land, the Partition Plan recommended they receive only 42% as a state. (The 2% of Palestine comprised of Jerusalem and Bethlehem was to be placed under international control, a corpus separatum.)

  • Shutting PLO office in DC could shut down Kushner-Greenblatt peace effort, Palestinian official warns
  • Israel's top diplomat spouts anti-Semitic criticism of American Jews -- 'having quite convenient lives'
    • The "bloom" is off Zionism's "rose." No surprise!!

      "Support for Israel among American Jewish college students is in decline"
      Times of Israel, June 21/17:
      http://www.timesofisrael.com/devastating-survey-shows-huge-loss-of-israel-support-among-jewish-college-students/

      http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.806869
      EXCERPT:
      “More Israelis Left Israel Than Moved Back in Six Year Record. 16,700 left and 8,500 came back in 2015, in first year since 2009 that more Israelis exited than returned.” By Lior Dattel. Aug 15, 2017, Haaretz.

      Why Do A Third of Israelis Want To Leave The Country?
      The Forward, March 22, 2017 By Naomi Zeveloff
      “A third of Jewish Israelis would leave the country if they could, according to a poll conducted by Masa Israeli, a group looking at the divisions of Jewish society in Israel.
      “It found that secular Jews were the most likely to want to emigrate, with 36% saying they would leave the country if they could. Orthodox Jews were the least likely to want to emigrate; only 7% said they would leave. The poll, which was reported by the Walla! news site, found that while 44% of secular Jewish Israelis identify as Israelis foremost, 83% of traditional and 90% of religious Jewish Israelis identify as Jews foremost.
      “The poll was conducted ahead of a conference called the “Israeli Journey to Change” in the Knesset which is looking for common ground in Israel.
      “ ‘The survey data indicates a problem with a sense of identity, connection and belonging to the people, to the land and to the state among a growing part of society in Israel and that reality already has created a rift and split in all of Israeli society,’ said Masa Israeli director, Uri Cohen.”

      “Support for Israel on Campus Drops by ‘Devastating’ 27%: Study” – The Forward, June 21/17
      “The Brand Israel Group, a coalition of volunteer advertising and marketing specialists, has released a survey that shows a significant decrease in Israel’s approval rating among Americans.
      “’The future of America no longer believe that Israel shares their values. This is huge! Devastating,’ Fern Oppenheim, a co-founder of BIG, told The Times of Israel. While approval of Israel among American college students dropped 27% between the group’s 2010 and 2016 surveys, Israel’s approval rating among all Americans dropped 14 points, from 76% to 62%.”

      Furthermore, regarding the USA: http://forward.com/news/ national/376097/study-israel- losing-support-among- democrats-minorities- millennials/ The Forward July 2, 2017
      ”Study: Israel Losing Support Among Democrats, Minorities, Millennials ‘It appears that the more Americans learn about Israel, the less they like it.’”

  • No way to treat a child
    • @Jack Green

      Re your response to Ossinev.

      To be brief:

      Video: ‘Stone Cold Justice’ on Israel’s torture of Palestinian children

      A film produced by a group of Australian journalists has sparked an international outcry against Israel after it explicitly detailed Tel Aviv's use of torture against Palestinian children.

      The film, titled ‘Stone Cold Justice’ documents how Palestinian children, who have been arrested and detained by Israeli forces, are subjected to physical abuse, torture and forced into false confessions and pushed into gathering intelligence on Palestinian activists. Australia's foreign minister Julie Bishop has spoken out against Israeli's use of torture stating that ‘I am deeply concerned by allegations of the mistreatment of Palestinian children,’ Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor has described the human rights abuses documented in the film as ‘intolerable.’ But rights groups have slammed this statement, saying that the Israelis are doing nothing to change Tel Aviv's policy to torture Palestinian children.

      Last year a report by the United Nations International Emergency Children's Fund or UNICEF concluded that Palestinian children are often targeted in night arrests and raids of their homes, threatened with death and subjected to physical violence, solitary confinement and sexual assault. The film Stone Cold Justice has sparked an international outcry about Israel's treatment of children in Israeli jails. However, rights groups have criticized Tel Aviv for not doing anything to create a policy that protects Palestinian children against arbitrary arrest and torture.

      Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uDPeeD_RPk
      Precarious Childhood: Arrests of Jerusalemite Children
      This film addresses the process of arrest, interrogation, and the policy of house arrest and their effects on children. The film provides accounts of children who were arrested in order to highlight a larger policy of persecution and targeting of Palestinian children in Jerusalem.

      Re: The Gaza Strip
      Video: http://obliteratedfamilies.com/en/story/shuheibar/

      The International Committee of the Red Cross: "The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, ratified by Israel, bans collective punishment of a civilian population.”

      “In practice, Gaza has become a huge, let me be blunt, concentration camp for right now 1, 800,000 people” - Amira Hass, 2015 correspondent for Haaretz, speaking at the Forum for Scholars and Publics at Duke University.

      Dov Weisglass, PM Ariel Sharon's senior adviser:
      "‘The significance of the [then proposed] disengagement plan [implemented in 2005] is the freezing of the peace process,’ Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Ha’aretz. ‘And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda....' Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking in an interview with Ha’aretz for the Friday Magazine. ‘The disengagement is actually formaldehyde,’ he said. ‘It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.’" (Top PM Aide: Gaza Plan Aims to Freeze the Peace Process, Ha’aretz, October 6, 2004)

      Israeli journalist Bradley Burston aptly sums up the horrors Israel inflicts on Palestinian adults and children in the illegally occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem:
      “Occupation is Slavery”
      EXCERPT:
      “In the name of occupation, generation after generation of Palestinians have been treated as property. They can be moved at will, shackled at will, tortured at will, have their families separated at will. They can be denied the right to vote, to own property, to meet or speak to family and friends. They can be hounded or even shot dead by their masters, who claim their position by biblical right, and also use them to build and work on the plantations the toilers cannot themselves ever hope to own. The masters dehumanize them, call them by the names of beasts.” (Haaretz, Feb. 26/13)

    • @Jack Green

      Sigh.
      "There wouldn't be an occupation if Palestinians had not attacked Israel..."

      Reality:

      Israel started the 1967 war, not the Palestinians.

      To wit:
      Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former Minister without portfolio in PM Levi Eshkol’s cabinet, while addressing Israel’s National Defence College on 8 August 1982: “In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” (New York Times, 21 August 1982)

      Meir Amit, chief of Israel’s Mossad: “Egypt was not ready for a war and Nasser did not want a war.” (Dr. Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality)

      Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” (Le Monde, 25 February, 1968)

      Prime Minister Eshkol: “The Egyptian layout in the Sinai and the general military buildup there testified to a military defensive Egyptian set-up south of Israel.” (Yediot Aharonot, l8 October 1967)

      Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defence: “Three separate intelligence groups had looked carefully into the matter [and] it was our best judgment that a UAR attack was not imminent." (The Vantage Point, Lyndon Johnson, p. 293)

      An article published in the New York Times (4 June 1967) just hours before Israel attacked notes that Major General Indar Jit Rikhye, Commander of UNEF in the Middle East, "who toured the Egyptian front, confirms that Egyptian troops were not poised for an offensive."

      On May 26, in reply to Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban’s assertion that according to Israeli intelligence, "an Egyptian and Syrian attack is imminent," Secretary of State Dean Rusk dismissed the claim and assured Eban that Israel faced no threat of attack from Egypt. On the same day, during a meeting at the Pentagon, Eban was also told by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his aides that "...Egyptian forces were not in an aggressive posture and that Israel was not opening itself to peril by not attacking immediately. The contrary was true, Eban was told.” (Donald Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem, pp. 140-41)

      BTW, as the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) Commander, Major General Idar Jit Rikhye, revealed, Nasser was not enforcing the blockade of the Tiran straits: “[The Egyptian] navy had searched a couple of ships after the establishment of the blockade and thereafter relaxed its implementation.” (Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality, p. 139)

      Furthermore: According to Patrick Seale, highly regarded historian and journalist, Israel had been meticulously preparing for another war against the Arabs since its 1956 invasion of Egypt: "In the decade since the Suez campaign Israel had built up forces that could move fast and hit hard: mobile armoured units able to cover long distances, mechanized infantry, heliborne and naval paratroopers for use behind enemy lines, and above all an air force of Mirage and Super-Mystere interceptors and Mystere fighter-bombers of unchallenged superiority. The main lesson Israel had learned from the [1956] Suez war was the importance of air dominance not only to neutralize Arab air forces but also for use as flying artillery against infantry and tanks." (Patrick Seale, Asad..., p. 117)

      Ezer Weizman, former commander of Israel's Air Force confirmed in his memoirs that Israel spent years meticulously planning the attack against Egypt: "For five years I had been talking of this operation, explaining it, hatching it, dreaming of it, manufacturing it link by link, training men to carry it out." Recalling how he felt at 7:30 A.M. on 5 June 1967, Weizman wrote: "Now in a quarter of an hour, we would know if it was only a dream or whether it would come true...." (Donald Neff, Warriors for Jerusalem..., p. 202

      "The occupation wouldn't have lasted this long if Palestinians were willing to live in peace with Israel."

      Reality:

      In 1988, the PLO recognized Israel as a sovereign state within the borders of the 1947 recommendatory only UNGA Partition Plan, Res. 181, which violated the terms of the British Class A Mandate for Palestine and the Atlantic Charter, was never adopted by the UNSC and was grossly unfair to the indigenous Palestinian Arab inhabitants.

      By signing the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO accepted UNSC Res. 242 and thereby agreed to recognize a sovereign Israel within the 1949 armistice lines, i.e., as of 4 June 1967 – 78% of mandate Palestine.

      The PLO also agreed to the US/EU/UN supported 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative, which offers Israel full recognition as a sovereign state (per UNSC Res. 242, i.e., within its June 4/67 boundaries with possible minor, equal and mutually agreed land swaps), exchange of ambassadors, trade, tourism, etc., if Israel complies with international law (e.g., the UN Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute.) Fully aware of Israel’s demographic concerns, the Beirut initiative does not demand the return of all Palestinian refugees. In accordance with Israel’s pledge given to the UNGA in 1949 and by signing the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference Protocol to abide by UNGA Res. 194 regarding the then 800,000 Palestinian refugees as a precondition for admittance to the UN (after being rejected twice), the Arab League’s Initiative “calls upon Israel to affirm” that it agrees to help pursue the “achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem…”

      Along with all Arab states and the PLO, Hezbollah and Iran have also accepted the Arab League’s 2002 Beirut Summit Peace Initiative. (In its revised Charter, April, 2017, Hamas agreed to a Palestinian state based on the 4 June 1967 borders. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Israel promptly rejected the Hamas overture instead of using it to open a dialogue.)

      Regrettably, then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon summarily dismissed the Arab League’s peace overture, as Israel did in 2008 and thereafter.

      As for the much touted 2000 Camp David Summit, working in tandem, Barak and Clinton tried to shove a very bad deal down Arafat’s throat. It could only be rejected. Suffice to quote Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s foreign minister and lead negotiator at Camp David: “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.” (National Public Radio, 14 February 2006.)

      The “offer” made in 2008 by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert was never seen as serious because it lacked cabinet approval, he was under indictment with only a few weeks left in office, had a 6% favorable rating, and, therefore, couldn’t have closed the deal, even if the Palestinians had accepted it. (Olmert was imprisoned.)

      Unfortunately, Israel’s response to every peace overture from the Palestinians and Arab states, has been an escalation of illegal settlement construction and dispossession/oppression in illegally occupied Palestinian (and other Arab) lands.

  • Israeli Labor sells out African refugees, as 'infiltrators'
  • Liberal Israeli leaders were contemplating genocide in Gaza already in 1967
    • @stopthelie

      Nonsense!!

      Reality:

      In 1988, the PLO recognized Israel as a sovereign state within the borders of the 1947 recommendatory only UNGA Partition Plan, Res. 181, which violated the terms of the British Class A Mandate for Palestine and the Atlantic Charter, was never adopted by the UNSC and was grossly unfair to the indigenous Palestinian Arab inhabitants.

      By signing the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO accepted UNSC Res. 242 and thereby agreed to recognize a sovereign Israel within the 1949 armistice lines, i.e., as of 4 June 1967 – 78% of mandate Palestine.

      The PLO also agreed to the US/EU/UN supported 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative, which offers Israel full recognition as a sovereign state (per UNSC Res. 242, i.e., within its June 4/67 boundaries with possible minor, equal and mutually agreed land swaps), exchange of ambassadors, trade, tourism, etc., if Israel complies with international law (e.g., the UN Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute.) Fully aware of Israel’s demographic concerns, the Beirut initiative does not demand the return of all Palestinian refugees. In accordance with Israel’s pledge given to the UNGA in 1949 and by signing the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference Protocol to abide by UNGA Res. 194 regarding the then 800,000 Palestinian refugees as a precondition for admittance to the UN (after being rejected twice), the Arab League’s Initiative “calls upon Israel to affirm” that it agrees to help pursue the “achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem…”

      Along with all Arab states and the PLO, Hezbollah and Iran have also accepted the Arab League’s 2002 Beirut Summit Peace Initiative. (In its revised Charter, April, 2017, Hamas agreed to a Palestinian state based on the 4 June 1967 borders. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Israel promptly rejected the Hamas overture instead of using it to open a dialogue.)

      Regrettably, then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon summarily dismissed the Arab League’s peace overture, as did Israel in 2008 and thereafter.

      As for the much touted 2000 Camp David Summit, working in tandem, Barak and Clinton tried to shove a very bad deal down Arafat’s throat. It could only be rejected. Suffice to quote Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s foreign minister and lead negotiator at Camp David: “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.” (National Public Radio, 14 February 2006.)

      The “offer” made in 2008 by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert was never seen as serious because it lacked cabinet approval, he was under indictment with only a few weeks left in office, had a 6% favorable rating, and, therefore, couldn’t have closed the deal, even if the Palestinians had accepted it. (Olmert was imprisoned.)

      Unfortunately, Israel’s response to every peace overture from the Palestinians and Arab states, has been an escalation of illegal settlement construction in occupied Palestinian and other Arab lands.

  • Yaffa - the city my family once called home
    • @JosephA

      Well and truly stated!!!

    • @jackdaw

      Re: Jaffa

      To be brief:
      The Jewish assault on Jaffa began on April 25 with the same results that had occurred in Haifa. Its only means of defense was a small and poorly armed contingent of the ALA. (Indeed, desperate to mount some form of defense, the ALA even attempted to employ the ancient Ramadam cannon.)

      With Jaffa cut off from the rest of Palestine by advancing Jewish forces who controlled the Jerusalem highway, civilians could only escape what had become a relentless mortar barrage by sea. Shell-shocked and panic stricken, thousands of them jammed the port looking for any type of craft (even row boats) that could take them to Gaza or Lebanon and while they waited, many were cold-bloodedly murdered by Irgun snipers.

      Scores of those who managed to get on the overcrowded boats, yachts, and other vessels, fell overboard and drowned. Iris Shammout, who was then 12 years of age, recalled the scene vividly. “‘…bullets went through the bodies of people standing by the seashore…. Women and children were weeping and screaming’ as they filed into small boats in an effort to reach a Greek steamship that they hoped would take them to safety. Many people were drowned because the tiny fishing vessels could not hold the multitude. Babies fell overboard and mothers were forced to choose which ones to save. The Shammouts were luckier than most since all members of the family were able to get aboard the Greek vessel which eventually reached Beirut. But many of those who attempted to sail to Gaza or Beirut in small boats were lost at sea. Their bodies were washed up along the coast of Palestine.” (Michael Palumbo, The Palestinian Catastrophe, pp. 89-90)

      These terrible events were witnessed by British observers in the harbour. They noted in their reports that as had occurred in Haifa, “... refugees [were] fired on by Jewish snipers as they moved off.” (Palumbo, TPC, p. 90)

      Jaffa's inhabitants knew their city would soon be in the hands of the Jews, so when the opportunity came to escape by land without coming under mortar fire, thousands took it despite appeals by the local Arab National Committee for them to stay. In a state of terror, a sea of refugees began fleeing the city in assorted vehicles heading for Jerusalem, Nablus, Hebron, and Jordan. By April 30, more than eighty percent of Jaffa's population had fled.

      The British commander at Jaffa, General Sir Horatius Murray witnessed the exodus: "I saw a scene which I never thought to see in my life. It was the sight of the whole population of Jaffa pouring out on to the road carrying in their hands whatever they could pick up. [They were heading south] as fast as their legs could carry them. It was a case of sheer terror..." (Palumbo, TPC, p. 87)

      In the end, about 75,000 Arab citizens of Jaffa were dispossessed and expelled. It was only the beginning of the Nakba.

    • @jackdaw

      Reality:
      ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
      Of course the Palestinians rejected the Partition Plan (UNGA Res. 181, Nov. 29/47) and for entirely justified reasons based on international law. While Jews made up just 31% of the population (90% of foreign origin, only 30% had become citizens, thousands were illegal immigrants) and privately owned only between 6% and 7% of the land, the Partition Plan (recommendatory only, no legal foundation, contrary to the British Class A Mandate and the Atlantic Charter, grossly unfair to the indigenous Palestinian Arabs and NEVER RATIFIED BY THE UNSC) outrageously recommended they receive 56% of Palestine (including its most fertile areas) in which Palestinians made up 45% of the population. (10% of Palestine’s Jewish population consisted of native Palestinian/Arab Jews who were anti-Zionist.)

      48% of the total land area of mandated Palestine was privately owned (‘mulk khaas’) by Palestinian Arabs. To repeat, total Jewish privately owned land was only between 6% and 7%. About 45% of the total land area was state owned, i.e. by citizens of Palestine, and it was comprised of Communal Property (‘mashaa’), Endowment Property, (‘waqf’), and Government Property, (‘miri’.) (The British Mandate kept an extensive land registry and the UN used the registry during its early deliberations. It has in its archives 453,000 records of individual Palestinian owners defined by name, location & area.)

      Although Palestinian Arab citizens made up at least 69% of the population and to repeat, privately owned 48% of the land, the Partition Plan recommended they receive only 42% as a state. (The 2% of Palestine comprised of Jerusalem and Bethlehem was to be placed under international control, a corpus separatum.)

      Re: Jerusalem:
      Population of and land ownership in West and East Jerusalem in 1947: The total population of West Jerusalem (the New City) and East Jerusalem (the Old City) and their environs was about 200,000 with a slight Arab majority. (Professor Walid Khalidi, Harvard, "Plan Dalet," Journal of Palestine Studies, Autumn, 1988, p. 17)

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

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

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

      Furthermore, members of the UNGA were pressured by the Truman administration to support the Partition Plan. For instance, although the Philippines initially opposed partition and Liberia and Haiti wanted to abstain, the United States and the Zionists pressured these countries to vote in favor, thereby gaining the necessary two-thirds approval. "Under threat of a Jewish boycott of Firestone rubber and tire products, Harvey Firestone told Liberia that he would recommend suspension of plans for the expansion of development there if Liberia voted against partition." (Michael Cohen, Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948, Princeton, N.J., 1982, p. 295-300)

      These bullying tactics were aptly described by James Forrestal, then U.S. Secretary of Defence: "The methods that had been used...to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely onto scandal." (Millis, Walter, ed., The Forrestal Diaries, New York: the Viking Press, 1951, p. 363)

      David Niles, the Zionists' point man in the White House, managed to minimize the influence of the State Department on formulating the U.S. position in the debate over the Partition Plan: "...David Niles was able to have Truman appoint a pro-Zionist, General John Hilldring, to the United Nations' American delegation to offset the views of the appointees from the State Department. Through Hilldring, Niles established a direct liaison between the United Nations and Truman; indeed, U.S. positions were occasionally relayed directly from the White House without the State Department's having been consulted. Thus, for example, after a private conversation with Chaim Weizmann, Truman phoned the U.N. delegation and told them to reverse American backing for the Arab claim that the Negev (southern Palestine) should be part of an Arab state; the United States would support its inclusion in the Jewish state as recommended in UNSCOP's majority proposal." (Charles D. Smith, Palestine And The Arab-Israel Conflict, 1988, p. 139)

      In response to Palestinians’ angry response to the Partition Plan, on 5 December 1947, Ben-Gurion ordered "immediate action to expand Jewish settlement in three areas assigned to the Arab state: the South West (Negev), the South-East (Etzion bloc) and Western Galilee." (Political and Diplomatic Documents of the Jewish Agency, 1947- 48, no. 12). Thus, Ben-Gurion revealed that the Jewish Agency had no intention of abiding by the terms of the Partition Plan.

  • Israel bars Palestinian grandmother from visiting slain father's grave for 70 years
    • @Jackdaw

      Utterly irrelevant. More drivel.

      Didn't (as so declared by Walter Eytan, then Director General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry) Jewish forces and the IDF dispossess and expel about 800,000 essentially defenseless Palestinian Arabs (the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine) between late 1947 and the fall of 1948? As well documented, they accomplished this by means of armed force, several massacres, mass rape and intimidation. They also destroyed over 500 of the Palestinians' towns and villages while seizing 78% of Palestine, i.e. 22% more than the 56% the recommendatory only Partition Plan suggested? (Nor should we forget that a further 25,000 Palestinians were driven out just before and during Israel's 1956 invasion of Egypt as well as an additional 250,000 during and after Israel launched the June 1967 war and invaded and occupied the remaining 22% of mandated Palestine)

      Since June 1967, Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have been subject to an illegal and brutal occupation in violation of the UN Charter and the Fourth Geneva Convention. (BTW, Israel is still belligerently/illegally occupying Syria's Golan Heights and Lebanon's Shebaa Farms and Kfarshuba hills.)

      Eminent Jewish Israeli journalist Bradley Burston aptly sums up the horrors Israel inflicts on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem:
      “Occupation is Slavery”
      EXCERPT:
      “In the name of occupation, generation after generation of Palestinians have been treated as property. They can be moved at will, shackled at will, tortured at will, have their families separated at will. They can be denied the right to vote, to own property, to meet or speak to family and friends. They can be hounded or even shot dead by their masters, who claim their position by biblical right, and also use them to build and work on the plantations the toilers cannot themselves ever hope to own. The masters dehumanize them, call them by the names of beasts.” (Haaretz, Feb. 26/13)

      As for the Gaza Strip, to this day if remains belligerently and illegally occupied by Israel.
      To wit:
      Human Rights Watch, 2005: "...Israel will continue to be an Occupying Power [of the Gaza Strip] under international law and bound by the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention because it will retain effective control over the territory and over crucial aspects of civilian life. Israel will not be withdrawing and handing power over to a sovereign authority - indeed, the word 'withdrawal' does not appear in the [2005 disengagement] document at all… The IDF will retain control over Gaza's borders, coastline, and airspace, and will reserve the right to enter Gaza at will. According to the Hague Regulations, 'A territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised'. International jurisprudence has clarified that the mere repositioning of troops is not sufficient to relieve an occupier of its responsibilities if it retains its overall authority and the ability to reassert direct control at will."

      The International Committee of the Red Cross: "The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, ratified by Israel, bans collective punishment of a civilian population.”

      “In practice, Gaza has become a huge, let me be blunt, concentration camp for right now 1,800,000 people” - Amira Hass, 2015, correspondent for Haaretz, speaking at the Forum for Scholars and Publics at Duke University.

      "‘The significance of the [then proposed] disengagement plan [implemented in 2005] is the freezing of the peace process,’ Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior adviser Dov Weisglass has told Ha’aretz. ‘And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda....' Weisglass, who was one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, was speaking in an interview with Ha’aretz for the Friday Magazine. ‘The disengagement is actually formaldehyde,’ he said. ‘It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.’" (Top PM Aide: Gaza Plan Aims to Freeze the Peace Process, Ha’aretz, October 6, 2004)

      In short, Zionism is racism; Zionism is theft; Zionism is fascism.
      The good news is that it is doomed. No one understands this more than ever increasing numbers of young, enlightened Jews around the world who are abandoning Zionism and its spawn, the anachronistic entity known as "Israel."

    • Well and truly said.!!!

  • 'Want to boycott Israel? Be my guest, there will be a pricetag' -- Israeli official warns Europe
    • The Zionists are in panic mode. They're reading the handwriting on the wall. It is only going to get worse for them, much worse. The harder they try to suppress BDS, the more it will grow. Ever increasing numbers of people around the world, including all important youth and enlightened Jews, are realizing that the entity known as "Israel" is a racist, fascistic monster.

  • Video: Brisbane musicians rework Nick Cave classic to demand he cancel Israel show
  • Target Hezbollah
    • Surely, there can be no doubt that the forced creation of the anachronistic, racist, fascistic, militaristic, expansionist, ethnic cleanser, illegal occupier entity known as "Israel" was and remains the number one geopolitical blunder of the post WWII era.

  • The goy and the golem: James Angleton and the rise of Israel
    • There is a theory that the 1967 war was arranged between Meir Amit (Chief Director and the head of global operations for Mossad from 1963 to 1968) and James Angleton, the CIA's official liaison with the Mossad. Angleton was a fervent anti-communist who, like Israel, wanted to "break Nasser in pieces," to destroy him as a political force. (Dangerous Liaison, The Inside Story of he U.S. - Israeli Covert Relationship, by Andrew and Leslie Cockburn, 1991, p. 146.) "One long-serving official at the CIA's ancient rival, the code-breaking National Security Agency, states flatly that 'Jim Angleton and the Israelis spent a year cooking up the '67 war. It was a CIA operation, designed to get Nasser.' Such a verdict, from a source inside an agency that had the inclination and the facilities to monitor both the CIA and the Israelis, must carry some weight." (Dangerous... pp.146-47)

  • Open letter to singer Nick Cave from the Gaza war protesters he once supported
  • Prince Charles decried White House's failure to take on 'Jewish lobby' over Israel
    • @jackdaw

      "Having lived in both places, I can say from experience, that Israel is a decent place for Jews and Arabs to live in."

      Reality:

      Hendrik Verwoerd, then prime minister of South Africa and the architect of South Africa’s apartheid policies, 1961: “Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.” (Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961)

      Jacobus Johannes Fouché, South African Minister of Defence during the apartheid era, compared the two states and said that Israel also practiced apartheid.
      (Gideon Shimoni (1980). Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910-1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp. 310–336. ISBN 0195701798.

      “Former Foreign Ministry director-general invokes South Africa comparisons. ‘Joint Israel-West Bank’ reality is an apartheid state”
      EXCERPT: “Similarities between the ‘original apartheid’ as it was practiced in South Africa and the situation in ISRAEL [my emphasis] and the West Bank today ‘scream to the heavens,’ added [Alon] Liel, who was Israel’s ambassador in Pretoria from 1992 to 1994. There can be little doubt that the suffering of Palestinians is not less intense than that of blacks during apartheid-era South Africa, he asserted.” (Times of Israel, February 21, 2013)

      Video: Israeli TV Host Implores Israelis: Wake Up and Smell the Apartheid
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyyUvxHLYr4

      In its 2015 Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor acknowledges the “institutional and societal discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel.” (U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor)

      “Construction, Not Destruction”
      “While Israeli Arabs constitute 20 percent of the population, Arab communities’ jurisdictions occupy just 2.5 percent of the state’s land area, and the process of approving new construction in Arab towns takes decades.” (Haaretz Editorial, April 4, 2017)

      One example of apartheid within Israel:
      “Jewish town won’t let Arab build home on his own land ”
      Excerpt: “Aadel Suad first came to the planning and construction committee of the Misgav Local Council in 1997. Suad, an educator, was seeking a construction permit to build a home on a plot of land he owns in the community of Mitzpeh Kamon. The reply he got, from a senior official on the committee, was a memorable one. ‘Don’t waste your time,’ he reportedly told Suad. ‘We’ll keep you waiting for 30 years.’” (Haaretz, 14 December 2009)

      Ronnie Kasrils, a key player in the struggle against the former South African apartheid regime, minister for intelligence and a devout Jew: "The Palestinian minority in Israel has for decades been denied basic equality in health, education, housing and land possession, solely because it is not Jewish. The fact that this minority is allowed to vote hardly redresses the rampant injustice in all other basic human rights. They are excluded from the very definition of the 'Jewish state', and have virtually no influence on the laws, or political, social and economic policies. Hence, their similarity to the black South Africans [under apartheid]." (The Guardian, 25 May 2005)

      Shlomo Gazit, retired IDF Major General: "[Israel's] legal system that enforces the law in a discriminatory way on the basis of national identity, is actually maintaining an apartheid regime." (Haaretz, July 19, 2011)

      To the best of my knowledge, Israel is the only country in the world that differentiates between citizenship and nationality, i.e., “Israeli” nationality does not exist, only Jews and non-Jews, and each citizen carries an appropriate identity card. While the implications of this absurdity for discrimination and racism against non-Jews are obvious, it has been upheld by Israel’s Supreme Court.

      The effect of Israel’s blatantly racist “Citizenship Law” and more than fifty other restrictions Arab citizens have to endure is well expressed by writer and Knesset member, Ahmed Tibi, “…dutifully defining the state [of Israel] as ‘Jewish and democratic,’ ignores the fact that in practice ‘democratic’ refers to Jews, and the Arabs are nothing more than citizens without citizenship.” (Ma’ariv, 1.6.2005)

  • How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
    • The Oslo accords were preceded by both parties signing a Declaration of Principles and the following letter of intent from Yasser Arafat to Prime Minister Rabin. Among other commitments, the PLO agreed to alter the Palestinian Covenant (July, 1968) by removing clauses calling for "armed struggle," "the elimination of Zionism in Palestine," "[liberation of the Palestinian] homeland," and those referring to the illegitimacy of Israel.

      "September 9, 1993

      Yitzhak Rabin
      Prime Minister of Israel

      Mr. Prime Minister,
      "The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

      "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

      "The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

      "The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

      "The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators

      "In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant."

      "Sincerely,
      Yasser Arafat
      Chairman
      The Palestine Liberation Organization"

      In January 1998, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO and President of the PNC, sent the following letter to President Clinton reminding him that contrary to assertions by Israel's Likud government under Netanyahu, the PLO Charter had been formally amended in accordance with commitments made to Yitzhak Rabin in 1993.

      "January 13, 1998

      Dear Mr. President.

      "In the mutual recognition letters between me and the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of September 9/10, 1993, the PLO committed to recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security, to accept UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides. The PLO also agreed to secure the necessary changes in the Palestinian Covenant to reflect these commitments.

      "Accordingly, the P.N.C. was held in Gaza city between 22-25 of April 1996, and in an extraordinary session decided that the 'Palestine National Charter is hereby amended by cancelling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O and the Government of Israel on 9/10 September 1993.'

      "It should be noted that the above mentioned resolution acquired the consent of both the American Administration and the Israeli Government. Afterwards I sent letters concerning this historic resolution to your Excellency and Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and later a similar letter was sent to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

      "Both your Excellency and Prime Minister Peres warmly welcomed the P.N.C. Resolution.

      "The Israeli Labor Party, and in appreciation of the P.N.C. resolution dropped its objection to the establishment of a Palestinian State from its political platform.

      "From time to time questions have been raised about the effect of the Palestine National Council's action, particularly concerning which of the 33 articles of the Palestinian Covenant have been changed.

      "We would like to put to rest these concerns. The Palestine National Council's resolution, in accordance with Article 33 of the Covenant, is a comprehensive amendment of the Covenant. All of the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the P.L.O. commitment to recognize and live in peace side by side with Israel are no longer in effect.

      "As a result, Articles 6-10, 15, 19-23, and 30 have been nullified, and the parts in Articles 1-5, 11-14, 16-l8, 25-27 and 29 that are inconsistent with the above mentioned commitments have also been nullified.

      "I can assure you on behalf of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority that all the provisions of the Covenant that were inconsistent with the commitments (of September 9/10, 1993) to Prime Minister Rabin, have been nullified.

      Nablus: January 13, 1998
      Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the P.L.O., President of the P.N.A."

      As for Netanyahu and the Likud party, here's a brief summation of their positions that explain why the conflict continues:

      The Likud Party Platform states:

      a. “The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel.”

      b. “Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem”

      c. “The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.”

      d. “The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.”

  • Seven members of Jewish Voice for Peace arrested in demonstration at ADL
    • Reality:

      In 1988, the PLO recognized Israel as a sovereign state within the borders of the 1947 recommendatory only UNGA Partition Plan, Res. 181, which violated the terms of the British Class A Mandate for Palestine and the Atlantic Charter, was never adopted by the UNSC and was grossly unfair to the indigenous Palestinian Arab inhabitants.

      By signing the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PLO accepted UNSC Res. 242 and thereby agreed to recognize a sovereign Israel within the 1949 armistice lines, i.e., as of 4 June 1967 – 78% of mandate Palestine.

      The PLO also agreed to the US/EU/UN supported 2002 Arab League Beirut Summit Peace Initiative, which offers Israel full recognition as a sovereign state (per UNSC Res. 242, i.e., within its June 4/67 boundaries with possible minor, equal and mutually agreed land swaps), exchange of ambassadors, trade, tourism, etc., if Israel complies with international law (e.g., the UN Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Rome Statute.) Fully aware of Israel’s demographic concerns, the Beirut initiative does not demand the return of all Palestinian refugees. In accordance with Israel’s pledge given to the UNGA in 1949 and by signing the 1949 Lausanne Peace Conference Protocol to abide by UNGA Res. 194 regarding the then 800,000 Palestinian refugees as a precondition for admittance to the UN (after being rejected twice), the Arab League’s Initiative “calls upon Israel to affirm” that it agrees to help pursue the “achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem…”

      In all likelihood, only a small percentage of Palestinians would choose to return to what is now Israel, i.e., west of the green line. The reasons should be obvious. The vast majority, in accordance with UNGA Resolution 194, would choose sufficient financial compensation to enable them to build new lives and invest in an independent Palestinian state based on the 4 June 1967 borders or emigrate elsewhere.

      Along with all Arab states and the PLO, Hezbollah and Iran have also accepted the Arab League’s 2002 Beirut Summit Peace Initiative. (In its revised Charter, April, 2017, Hamas agreed to a Palestinian state based on the 4 June 1967 borders. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Israel promptly rejected the Hamas overture instead of using it to open a dialogue.)

      Regrettably, then Israeli PM Ariel Sharon summarily dismissed the Arab League’s peace overture, as did Israel in 2008 and thereafter.

      For the record, other peace initiatives that Israeli governments have rebuffed include: U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers’ The Rogers Plan (1969); The Scranton Mission on behalf of President Nixon (1970); Egyptian President Sadat’s land for peace and mutual recognition proposal (1971); U.S. President Jimmy Carter’s call for a Geneva international conference (1977); Saudi Arabian King Fahd’s peace offer (1981); U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s Reagan Plan (1982); U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz’s Schultz Plan (1988); U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s Baker Plan (1989); and the previously noted 1993 Oslo accords signed by Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin that unravelled following the latter’s assassination and subsequent return to power of the Likud party from 1996-1999 under Benjamin Netanyahu; continuation of the Taba II negotiations (2001); the unofficial Geneva Peace Initiative of November/December 2003; and the 2014 Kerry Initiative.

      As for the much touted 2000 Camp David Summit, working in tandem, Barak and Clinton tried to shove a very bad deal down Arafat’s throat. It could only be rejected. Suffice to quote Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s foreign minister and lead negotiator at Camp David: “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.” (National Public Radio, 14 February 2006.)

      The “offer” made in 2008 by then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert was never seen as serious because it lacked cabinet approval, he was under indictment with only a few weeks left in office, had a 6% favorable rating, and, therefore, couldn’t have closed the deal, even if the Palestinians had accepted it. (Olmert was imprisoned.)

      Unfortunately, Israel’s response to every peace overture from the Palestinians and Arab states, has been an escalation of illegal settlement construction in occupied Palestinian and other Arab lands.

  • Dear Simon Schama, you need a history lesson on Zionism
  • Israeli musicians to Nick Cave: Send a strong message -- refuse to play in Israel
    • In 1929, Professor Albert Einstein replied as follows to his friend Chaim Weizmann (then president of the British Zionist Federation) who had written to him about the Jewish Zionist question: “Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our 2,000 years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us,” he wrote, adding, “should the Jews not learn to live in peace with the Arabs, the struggle against them will follow them for decades in the future.” (“When Albert Einstein was a Holy Land Ladies’ Man,” Haaretz, February 3, 2015, by Gili Izkovitch)

      In 1939 he prophetically wrote: “There could be no greater calamity than a permanent discord between us and the Arab people…. We must strive for a just and lasting compromise with the Arab people…. Let us recall that in former times no people lived in greater friendship with us than the ancestors of these Arabs.”

      It is unfortunate that the Truman administration ignored the wisdom expressed by Einstein in his testimony before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in January 1946. When asked whether refugee settlement in Palestine demanded a Jewish state, he replied: “The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-mindedness and economic obstacles. I believe it is bad. I have always been against it.”

      In his Out of My Later Years, Einstein reiterated his views on partition, which was then reality: “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from the practical consideration, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain – especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state.” (Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, Citadel Press, Secaucus, New Jersey, 1956; p. 263) .

    • Speaking of "a fascist terrorist organization:"

      https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.821905?utm_source=smartfocus&utm_medium=email&utm_content=www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.821905&utm_campaign=Gideon+Levy&utm_term=20171109-19:14&writerAlerts=true

      By Gideon Levy and Alex Levac. Nov 09, 2017 - Haaretz.

      "A Palestinian's Lost Boyhood: Jailed, Isolated and Shot by Israeli Police."

      "Majed Mustafa, a 16-year-old from East Jerusalem who was convicted of throwing stones, is recuperating from a splenectomy. After that, it's back to jail."

      EXCERPT:
      "Here’s a brief history of the life of Majed Mustafa, the 16-year-old son of a construction worker from Jerusalem’s Isawiyah neighborhood, which abuts Mount Scopus: two convictions; half a year in prison; 14 months under house arrest far from his home; a fairly serious gunshot wound inflicted by the police; surgery and hospitalization, including removal of the spleen; severance from his school and friends. And in less than another two months, after he recovers from his injuries, he is slated to return to prison. He’ll never complete his education, he’s missed three years of school: He left in the eighth grade to enter prison, and never returned; today, his friends are in the 11th grade. He also lost any contact with most of those friends during the years in which he was cut off from his home. And all because of stone throwing.

      "This is the lost boyhood of Majed Mustafa, a Palestinian youth in East Jerusalem, not in the Gaza Strip and not in the West Bank."

    • Very interesting:

      https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.821663

      Haaretz - Nov. 8, 2017

      "Young U.S. Jews want to know why no one told them about the Israeli occupation"
      By Debra Nussbaum Cohen

      "IfNotNow launches 'You Never Told Me' campaign, calling on Jewish educational groups to inform students about Israel's policies and to include the Palestinian narrative."

      EXCERPT:
      "NEW YORK – About 20 protesters from the U.S. anti-occupation group IfNotNow held a rally outside the Jewish Theological Seminary on Tuesday night, standing in the rain to demand that the Conservative movement’s Camp Ramah start talking about the Israeli occupation.

      "It was the first demonstration in the mainly millennial group’s 'You Never Told Me' campaign, which calls on Jewish educational groups to include information about the occupation in their teachings about Israel.

      "The campaign’s official website says it came out of 'realizations that the Israel education we received during our youth was one-sided and incomplete,' calling on the institutions to 'include an honest understanding of the occupation and Palestinian narratives.'

      "The website quotes dozens of alumni of various Jewish schools, camps and youth groups with writers saying they feel mislead by their education."

Showing comments 981 - 901
Page: