Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 104 (since 2010-12-14 04:23:00)

Tom Suarez

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

Showing comments 104 - 101
Page:

  • Liberal Israeli leaders were contemplating genocide in Gaza already in 1967
    • Regarding CitizenC,

      Just to clarify, the quote you ascribe to me, that comparisons of Zionism and Nazism had the effect of “calibrating Palestinian suffering by European Jewish standards, and obscuring Palestine,” is not mine at all, but a paraphrasing of the comment of an audience member. For the record, I have put a video of everything that was said on this topic at the Columbia event you cite, both in the talk proper and in the Q&A, here (about 4 minutes);

      https://youtu.be/myGUhdJoJfs

      Regarding Professor Khalidi, I don’t think it is accurate to say that he “was so upset he had to declare” etc. He was making an unimpassioned, academic distinctions. Nor do I think he “categorically dismissed" the influence of the Israeli lobby, but rather placed it in its relative proportion to other, more powerful elements of US support for Israel.

  • Yaffa - the city my family once called home
    • Thank you!
      It is often overlooked that Yaffa was part of the Palestinian state according to UNGA Res 181 (Partition), not the Israeli state. The drafters of 181 of course realized that leaving Yaffa as a Palestinian island within Israel would cause logistical problems for the Palestinians, but the alternative divisions, they pointed out, would inconvenience the Israelis. The truth, I think, is that they knew that it wouldn't matter. They knew that Israel would simply take it.
      By the way, are you related to the Abu-Lughods, the authors/researchers?

  • Smear campaign is defused as Tom Suarez speaks at UMass
  • Wichita teacher sues Kansas for denying her work because she boycotts Israel
  • A Jewish atonement for Zionism
  • Chomsky on what 'everyone knows'
    • (oops... I see my final sentence is backwards --- should be: "It must be challenged, and that is what Jonathan has done.")

    • To clarify my previous comment in which I referred to Chomsky as a "demi-god":
      This was not an "ad hominem attack" on Chomsky. It was a characterization of the attitude of his stalwart followers to him (and to which he certainly seems to have no objection).
      Why is it so difficult to suggest that arguments stand or fall on their own merits, independent of who makes them? One may pay special care in dismissing an argument put forth by someone like Chomsky, who has earned great respect for his knowledge and intellect; but flawed arguments and flawed ethics/morality are not made whole by virtue of who made them.
      Chomsky's extraordinary, counter-intellectual, counter-legal, counter-justice position on Return, literal atomic bomb or not, is especially destructive precisely because of his stature. It must not be left unchallenged, and that is what Jonathan has done.

    • Thank you, Jonathan, for tackling the dangerous circular reasoning that keeps Chomsky a demi-god.
      It goes: Chomsky an intellectual giant and therefore we normal people are arrogant to challenge his edicts, and thus he is always right and, therefore, an intellectual giant (hmm...). Arguments — data, logic, reasoning — stand or fall on their own merits, and yours stand. His falls rather precipitously, a stark betrayal of all the meticulous logic and insight for which he gained such high esteem in his main field.

  • Israel would use nuclear weapons to keep refugees from returning -- Noam Chomsky
  • Avishai's prophetic 'Tragedy of Zionism' was denied by Jewish community 32 years ago
    • Regarding: “the Palestinians embarked on a campaign of cross-border raids and terrorism…”

      This is a most egregious historical lie. It was in fact Israel that embarked on a barbaric campaign of cross-border raids and terrorism, while at the same time murdering any Palestinian who attempted to return to his/her rightful, legal home.

      A study of the relevant records shows clearly that Israeli claims of violence by ‘infiltrators’ (= people wanting to return home) were largely fabricated.

      By 1953, Israel terror did indeed create some armed reprisals, minuscule in comparison to the provocation.

      The additional irony is that if the claim WERE true but the ethnicities were reversed — had “Arabs” ethnically cleansed nearly a million Jews and defied UN demands to allow them to return — a “campaign of cross-border raids and terrorism” by the displaced would be extolled by the ‘international community’ as self-defence.

  • Young survivors of Gaza beach slaughter three years ago 'lost their minds'
    • Hello Jon 66,
      Let's first of all agree that all violence against civilians ("civilians" a word applied with gross inequity in Is-Pal) should be condemned, yes?
      Now let's look at your logic.
      For ANY civilization subjected to what the Palestinians have been subjected to, there will be people who will be driven to respond in wrongheaded /immoral ways, especially when that group has been denied any conventional means of self-defence. To use this as an argument in the "conflict" [sic] is grotesque logic: you can then do to any people whatever you wish, secure in the knowledge that some blow-back will be terrorism, which you can then point at as proof of what "they" are like, and that therefore your ongoing expropriation, ethnic cleansing, and dehumanization of "them" is justified.

    • There was also the Israeli shelling of the Gaza beach during Cast Lead that exterminated a girl's family, as she was left in shock wandering amidst the rubble and corpses. The aftermath was captured on video; and so Israel fabricated the story (which the US media dutifully swallowed) that it was a Hamas shell, and began character assassination of the girl.

    • This film includes some important interviews, but the narration itself is conspicuously naive, essentially framing what it calls the "conflict" (the descriptor repeatedly used) in a framework beneficial to Israel: a complex quagmire that will take "both sides" to solve. Even Donald Trump is seen as sincere in his intentions.

  • Radiation and ringworm: a tale of social policy, racism, and health care
    • Alice, thank you for this (horrifying!) article that sheds so much light on the behavior of the early Israeli state.
      I am confused by this:
      "...more money was spent on the ringworm radiation “treatments” than the entire Israeli national budget..."
      Obviously this sounds extraordinary — this means literally the way it reads? To take 1953 as an example, the budget was 216,330,000 pounds, of which 12,500,000 pounds was for “health services”. So, the radiation treatments were not included anywhere in the 216,330,000 pounds, and the cost of the treatments was above that figure?

  • Amazon pulls blank 'History of Palestinian People' -- which aims to dehumanize in order to subjugate
    • Hello Nathan, thanks for the comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Thanks, Tom S

    • Indeed, Alan Dershowitz' "Case for Israel", which owes much to Peters' pseudo-history, remains a big seller.

  • Thousands in Jerusalem protest abduction of Yemenite babies following disclosure some were experimented on
    • Hello Shiraz Grinbaum and Yotam Ronen,
      Is there anything more known about these alleged "experiments"? This would be such a horrific revelation, and warrants far more than the simple mention of it.
      Is it possible to supply what the Knesset committee said? Or any other credible information?
      Many thanks.

  • Canada Park, a popular picnicking spot for Israelis, created upon the rubble of Palestinian homes
    • Thank you for this excellent piece.
      Nor did Israel leave these villages alone between 1948 & 1967. The followed extracted from "State of Terror" 295-296:
      On the 2nd of November 1950, an Israeli patrol of twelve soldiers penetrated about 400 metres into the West Bank and discovered three children from Yalo village collecting wood. One, an eight-year old girl, ran away at the sight of the patrol, escaping with a bullet in her thigh. The soldiers dragged away the other two children, a brother and sister aged twelve and ten, just as their father and uncle rushed to the scene. As described by Glubb, the children were forced into a ditch “and there butchered by one soldier with a sten-gun, while the rest of the patrol looked on. All this was plainly visible to their parents, standing helpless on the border only a few hundred yards away”.
      The boy was dead, with two bullets in his head and one in his shoulder. The girl—ten-year old Fakhriyeh Muhammad Ali Alayyan—had been shot seven times, but was still breathing. Once the soldiers moved on, her father carried her away, while the uncle carried the boy’s body. Fakhriyeh lived several hours, long enough to make a statement to the authorities.
      This atrocity was unusual in that it was witnessed, documented, and hit the British press, saddling Israel with a public relations problem. Questions were raised in the House of Commons, and the British Zionist establishment’s denials convinced few. Both the MAC and UN observers confirmed the incident as do, we know these decades later, internal Israeli records.
      Yalo was targeted again less than three months later, on 29 January (1951). About sixteen Israeli soldiers descended on the village, approaching simultaneously from two directions while attacking with gunfire and grenades. The Tulkarm area was invaded by Israeli soldiers on the night on 2 February, and the following day the IDF killed three Palestinians in an attack on Saffa.

  • Orientalism, intersectionality, and the 'New York Times'
    • Phil, HUGE thanks for the entire paragraph: "As someone who tried to do this myself when I first got into this movement... [etc]"
      Now, if only you were editor of the NY Times (along with MW)...

  • New website sets Zionist myths vs. the historical record
    • Ah, yes indeed, should be "cowed" --- thanks.
      Also I note my error "Its sampling of documents demonstrate" (should of course be "demonstrates").

    • Hi Echinococcus, I had deliberately denied him the "honor", but if you click on the second link above, you'll see him.

  • Diaspora Jews go to Palestine to fight the occupation
    • I thank Mr. Warner and his colleagues for their good work --- but like others, I was taken aback to see the use of the term "Diaspora Jews", which is a messianic construct used by the Zionists to affirm their "right" to expropriate Palestine. I am from a Christian background. Christianity was born in Palestine. I am not a "Diaspora Christian".

  • Map map on the wall, who's most existing of them all?
    • Hello Echinococcus,
      My opinion: Settler children (whether born in Israel or O.T.s) are blameless. They should be equal citizens.

    • Hello Jeff B., thank you for the comment. Your definition of a country as "a nation residing in a territory governing that territory" is indeed today's geo-political mindset, as I hoped I had made clear in my article. But why is this relevant as regards the Zionist project? (the messianic application would be deemed laughable in any other circumstance and is NOT part of today's geo-political mindset). As regards the right of Israelis born in Palestine (aka Israel) to live there, yes of course. I hope I was not misunderstood to suggest otherwise.

  • 'Why do I not cry out for the right of return?' -- an exchange between Uri Avnery and Salman Abu Sitta
    • Mr. Avneri,
      Your arguments are altogether immoral.
      You say that “both sides believed that it (1948) was an existential battle”. This is nonsense. It was an existential battle for the Palestinians, versus an existential battle for the Zionist racial state — NOT an existential battle for Jews --- except of course as Zionism forced Jewish DPs into Palestine as the alleged only answer to their plight (while sabotaging all others).
      You claim that the ethnic cleansing was on "both sides". No, please, this is absurd --- what you call the "ethnic cleaning" by the Palestinians was a consequence of Zionist theft of their land and impending ethnic cleansing --- which Palestinians (and any informed observer) knew was imminent.
      You say that “there is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of Israelis would freely agree to the return of all the refugees and their descendants” and therefore that it is not “peace made between consenting parties”. Are you not embarrassed by the immorality and absurdity of this statement? The perpetrators of ethnic cleanser do not “agree” to undo their crime, therefore it is “not peace made between consenting parties”? Really?! And if we extend this “logic” to any other crime against humanity? If the criminals do not “agree” to undo their handiwork, therefore it’s not consensual?
      Ditto to all you other rationalisations, on and on and on. All of your rationlisations are based on the same sorry manifestations of ethno-fascism that humanity thought we’d left behind after two catastrophic world wars.
      That you align yourself with the cause of peace is an affront.

  • Why so many are twisting Ken Livingstone’s words about Hitler and Zionism
  • New book by Larry Derfner, the American-turned-Israeli journalist, crushes liberal Zionism
    • Like Sibiriak, I am struck by Mr. Derfner’s stated goal of getting Israel “to give up the occupation alone” but not “for it to give up Jewish statehood”.
      This is a remarkable statement for someone claiming to critique “liberal” Zionists. For all of Mr. Derfner’s good intentions, as long as he believes that the problem is “the occupation”, and that “Jewish statehood” is not newspeak for apartheid, then nothing, in the final analysis, has changed.

  • In gratitude and hope: A message from Omar Barghouti
  • Feel-good co-existence story on NPR fails to point out that one side lives under occupation
    • Philip, thanks for this --- very sorry to learn that NPR has not improved. I consider it to be worse than than the "commercial" media (well, NPR is of course also commercial) in that it purports to be enlightened ... and so much of its audience believe they are getting honest reporting. What a disgrace.

  • Banksy's hotel isn't gentrification, it is an invitation for people to come see the occupation for what it is
    • I have a less generous "take" on the W-O Hotel----my thanks to Rory Evans for this piece challenging my (perhaps knee-jerk) opinion on it.
      But more importantly...
      In my opinion we need to stop playing into Israel's hands by saying that the "occupation" is fifty years old, and the siege of Gaza is ten years old. The Israeli occupation of land far beyond its legal limits began in mid-1948 (even if one accepts Res 181 as legal), and the siege of Gaza by the end of 1948 (indeed many Palestinians made refugees in Gaza were slaughtered in the attempt to break the siege and reach the somewhat less horrific conditions in the West Bank).
      If we were actually able to go back to the so-called 1967 borders, it would be a rude morning after. The core problem would be unchanged.

  • 'BDS is a terrorist movement' - exposing David Collier
  • Character assassination as a tool to silence a Palestinian activist
    • Brava, and thank you, Malaka.
      Here in the UK we are in the terrifying situation in which (most visibly) two organisations, the self-proclaimed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and equally self-proclaimed Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, exploit and betray their professed missions, instead wielding the smear of anti-Semitism on behalf of a foreign pariah state --- and with the collusion of our own government. Many of us, myself included, are waking up to find speaking engagements or other events cancelled in deference to that foreign pariah state, and even a women's day event by the human rights organisation CADFA, scheduled for tomorrow, has twice within the past three days had their public community centre booking revoked because of a ... "complaint". Hopefully it will proceed at the third venue, a church, without further sabotage.
      It is long past time to stand up to this and challenge it, as Malaka has so eloquently done.

  • Open letter from Palestinian students in Gaza: 'we call on you to get involved in Israeli Apartheid Week'
    • Now a total of three universities here in the UK have caved to intimidation and cancelled the week's activities.

  • The Palestine Philharmonie -- an orchestra is born in Bethlehem
  • Fordham bans Students for Justice in Palestine
  • Antisemitism and its useful idiots
    • Hello Sibiriak,
      Thanks for the comment regarding my reference to the Trump Administration and anti-Semitism. Rather than go into anti-Semitism among some Trump advisors (about which we could discuss and agree or disagree), I will point out that this is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand. All that matters for the argument I presented is that prominent Zionists BELIEVE the Trump Administration to be anti-Semitic, and that they believe this to be a good thing. THAT is the issue. Whether you or I or anyone else consider any individual in the Administration to be anti-Semitic does not change this.

  • Terrorism: How the Israeli state was won
    • I would like to thank everyone who added their thoughts to this article, and offer a short general final comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Hello Jackdaw,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Resolution for 2017: Stop substituting 'the occupation' for 'Zionism'
    • Hello Sibiriak, I never said, or meant to suggest, that there is no occupation. Rather, the occupation is a symptom, not the disease itself. Get rid of the “occupation”, and it will be a rude morning after when you realize that the problem itself has not changed.
      Also, I do not agree at all about the geographic parameters of the occupation being somehow universally (or even casually) agreed upon. Quite the contrary, the “bar” has continually been shifted, with no valid resolution to the intermediate thefts.
      As one example, Israel was never given the land between the Partition and the Armistice Line — it is as much stolen land as the West Bank etc. Israel’s only vague legal claim to unoccupied land is within the Res 181 confines (though it was an illegal Resolution), and then only if it stops blocking the return of the Palestinians within those parameters. There are many aspects of the “occupation” that are a matter of common — but false — presumption, always, to Israel’s favor: Jaffa, as one example.
      Finally, that Israel hates reference to the “occupation” is in no way inconsistent with this. The occupation is a means to an end. But to regard the occupation as the actual core problem, is a grave mistake.

    • Thank you, Nada Elia ! The term "occupation" (whichever of its myriad possible definitions, geographic and otherwise) has always worked to Israel's favor, obscuring the actual issue.

  • After wins abroad, BDS conference in West Bank sees local traction
    • Mr. Schipper,
      Imagine you were in a historically economically self-sufficient society, that was then commandeered by invaders who destroyed your economy and imposed a totalitarian regime that kept you a forced market to their goods and sabotaged attempts at economic improvement.
      And then someone on the outside came along and said in response that there are worse-off people in the world...
      Saying that there are worse-off people is an insult. All that matters is that the occupying power should be thrown out and the people left to the dignity of their own lives.

  • Palestinians grapple with knife attacks as violence enters fifth month
    • Hello El Cazador,
      While I understand (and agree with) the intent of your posting, your history is a bit convoluted. Important to be accurate so you're not shot down by the Dark Side on details.

  • Over 60 Massachusetts organizations protest ‘anti BDS’ legislation
    • My guess is that the pro-Israeli forces that are pushing legislators to outlaw BDS will soon wish they had never raised the issue. They can not possibly expect that any but the most fickle of those working for justice in Palestine will suddenly say, "oh, gee, okay, I'll stop". Rather, the inescapable result of outlawing BDS will be to give far greater public visibility to the question of WHY so many people support boycott. And getting the public to ask “why boycott?” is boycott's most powerful aspect. But perhaps the barometer to watch is France, where such laws are not only a reality, but enforced.

  • BDS Victory: Ahava moving factory out of occupied West Bank
    • No, this is NOT a victory for boycott --- not yet

      The location of the factory is important, yes, but it is a secondary issue---the principle crime is the theft of Palestine's minerals, and that seems to be unaddressed. I am afraid that we are being hoodwinked in our enthusiasm to see victories.

      If in fact Ahava will simply truck Palestinian minerals over the Armistice Line for processing, then nothing of substance has changed. If this is the case (and it certainly appears to be) it is important that Ahava's shenanigans be exposed and we NOT pretend victory.

  • As Tel Aviv prepares to welcome Beyoncé, here's a review of Israel's atrocious record towards black people
    • Hi, no, I am certainly not mixing up East & West Jerusalem. I am surprised this is such a misunderstanding. Although East Jerusalem is by international law in Palestine, Israel built its Wall to the east of East Jerusalem in order to "annex" it. East Jerusalem is on the ISRAELI side of the Wall. If you're in East Jerusalem, you are in (international law aside) Israel. There is no barrier of any sort between you and (the rest of) Israel.
      You go from the West Bank (Ramallah, Abu Dis, Bethlehem, etc) through the Wall's checkpoints to go to East Jerusalem.

    • Thank you for the excellent piece.
      I am however confused by the reference to being "trapped behind Israel’s separation walls in occupied East Jerusalem..."
      East Jerusalem is on the Israeli side of the Wall, not on the West Bank side of the Wall. Palestinians in East Jerusalem do not get a permit to enter Israel; they are already "in" Israel.

  • Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the ghost of U.N. past
    • Indeed ... except that foreign countries do not further limit our options by kidnapping or assassinating prospective candidates who will not "cooperate" with them.

    • James, I agree that's what Ban Ki-moon evidently presumes. The question, then, is Why? The Armistice explicitly stated that Israel was NOT being given the extra land it had seized between the Partition and the cease-fire line. But just as every case before and after, it simply refused to budge. One can understand the US mass media audience believing otherwise, but not the Secretary General of the United Nations.

  • Adelson newspaper suggests Swedish foreign minister deserves assassination for questioning Israeli policy
    • Bernadotte secured the release of some 30,000 Jews from German death camps, and this was one of the reasons he was selected for the task of mending the disaster of Res 181's aftermath: the UN naively thought that because of his history, he would command respect from the Zionists. With Ben-Gurion at the helm, Bernadotte's murder scene was left unsecured, and the suspects were pardoned even as they refused to renounce terror (some had joined the government). It was left to Sweden to investigate the assassination.

  • Palestinians in Hebron demand Israel return bodies of family members killed by the IDF
    • There has long been suspicion that Israel's historic refusal to return the bodies of slain Palestinians is tied to organ harvesting. That suspicion remains justified as long as it behaves thus.

  • Trump's claim of 9/11 celebration in New Jersey is based on arrest of 5 'laughing' Israelis
    • Philip, thank you for bringing this out. That's what Trump's claim immediately sounded like, and so I was dumbfounded that the media were not even mentioning the possible ... "confusion".

  • 'Netanyahu destroyed hope' -- Erekat
    • While I realize that it may have been the politically necessary thing to say, it's ridiculous to suggest that Netanyahu destroyed the two-state solution. The two-state solution was D.O.A.

      If it ever was a "solution" at all (and I think it never was), Ben-Gurion destroyed it in 1948.

  • Over 2,000 take to the streets of London as part of 'International Wave of Solidarity for Palestine'
    • The attendance was significantly impaired by big problems in mass transit affecting that area with little or no viable alternative. I tried to get to the demo and after being held at a tube stop for a half hour, all trains that way were cancelled. No alternate route was running either. Eventually I gave up and went home.

  • Did the BBC cover up the anti-Semitism of Gaza's children?
  • Night of horror at Ben Gurion airport for two French music students
    • Those of us here at the Conservatory who have had the honor of working with Philomene and Bastien all devastated by what has happened. The incident is of course hardly unusual, but this instance was particularly upsetting.

      As regards the comment "why go there when you can go so many other places", hopefully this statement was intended to be ironic, but to be sure, they were not going to Israel. They were going to Palestine, where they were welcomed. A foreign military blocked them.

  • The moral hypocrisy of American Muslims for Palestine on the Armenian Genocide
    • A M for P has betrayed not just the Armenians, but the Palestinians as well. A more "balanced" approach? Where have I heard that before? Would A M for P like a more "balanced" approach to 1948? To Cast Lead? Protective Edge?

  • On Netanyahu's apology to Palestinian citizens of Israel
    • Why does no one raise the Achilles heel of East Jerusalem, which Netanyahu considers to be a part of Israel like any other, but in which non-Jews are NOT citizens and can NOT vote?
      (Not to mention the 4 millions Palestinians of whom he is effectively the unelected despot...).

  • The legacy of Joan Peters and 'From Time Immemorial'
    • Thank you, David Samel, for this excellent piece on the Joan Peters phenomenon, which still informs much discourse [sic] in the US.

  • Caroline Glick melts down with European diplomats
    • Huge thanks, Annie, for this important piece.
      What was striking to me even more than Ms. Glick's pathetic theatre was Ambassador Vahr's equally pathetic logic, premises, and "narrative" (which I mean in a pejorative way). Is he really that dumb, or was his strained reasoning the inevitable result of having to reassure everyone that he really does love Israel, honest, really I do? All in all, a classic all around...

  • 'Ethnic cleansing for a better world' -- Richard Cohen says Palestinians brought the Nakba on themselves
    • Thank you, Phil. Didn't know about this guy.
      Just to point out that the 750k or 770k figures cited as Palestinians refugees is based on a technical definition that understates the reality. Only people who were thrown off their land past the Armistice Line, and whose entire villages/farms/etc lie on the Israeli side, were classified as refugees. Thousands of people we would call refugees are not in those figures. But in any even, my sincere gratitude to Mr. Cohen for blurting it all out. I much prefer his ilk to the Thomas Friedmans or Roger Cohens who are SO liberal and moral, but ... arrive ... at ... the .. same ... result ... couched ... in ... nice ... lingo.

  • Chomsky and BDS
    • Ah... Thanks.

    • Thanks --- I ,too, think the power of the Israeli lobby is over-rated. While it certainly helps, ultimately the powers actually running the US must have their own vested interests for empowering Israel, else it wouldn't be this ... weird. But all this is irrelevant to the issue of Chomsky. (Or at least I don't see the connection.)

  • 'Cycle of violence' is the new narrative (and inaccurate, but a step forward)
    • I think that toppling the myth that the "conflict" has much of anything to do with tit-for-tat violence is key...

  • Largest British union refuses to offer support for peace talks
    • Unite, of course, would fully support a peace process. It is, rather, refusing to support the "peace process". The "peace process" has not failed; it has achieved precisely what it was designed to achieve.

  • BBC to censor violinist Nigel Kennedy's statement about Israeli apartheid from TV broadcast
    • Hello Krauss, just to acknowledge your points, which are of course valid. I should have included Nigel's quote originally. Ms. Deech was quoted because she was the one quoted by the JC, which at that time was the only source for the BBC's move, though as others have pointed out, she is not presently part of the BBC.

    • eGuard, thank you for alerting me to the omission of the word "former" governor. The correction has now been made.
      - Tom S

    • Hmmm, actually it's quite clear-cut.
      Go down the list. Can I, a non-Jew, marry a Jew in Israel? No. Not a matter of opinion, not a gray area, but a categorical "no". I'd have to leave Israel to do it. Does Israel divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos? Yes. No mystery, yes. Does Israel expropriate property belonging to a racial group? Yes. Etc., etc., down the list, no "opinion" involved.
      To address your examples, e.g., it's not that the US "cannot figure out if a coup happen in Egypt" but that the US is pulling the strings and has to spin it the right way.
      But no matter, it's irrelevant, the reality re Israel is simple fact, not judgement.

    • My sense of Barenboim is that he is vocal ... to a point. My sense is that his concern is preserving Israel, not justice for Palestine, and so he is "outspoken" only because he knowns that Israel is on a self-destruct course. I would be happily surprised if he ever invoked the "A" word.

  • BBC festival features Palestine Strings and condemnation of apartheid to jubilant applause
  • Maureen Dowd joins Joyce Carol Oates as expert on gender relations of Arabs
    • Abedin was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Both her parents were educators. They moved to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, when she was two.
      Her father was an alumnus of Aligarh Muslim University, and later received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. Her mother received her Ph.D. from University of Pennsylvania also, and is currently an associate professor of sociology at Dar Al-Hekma College in Jeddah.
      Abedin returned to the United States when she was 18, and attended George Washington University.

  • Video - The Prawer Plan: What you need to know
    • Hello OlegR,
      Bedouin villages were less transitory than you seem to think. But your reasoning will boomerang on you:
      About 25% of pre-1967 Israel was not actually part of Israel in 1948 either. Wanna trade? Israel gives back the roughly 50% of what was legally Palestine and not part of Israel, and...

    • I’ve a small quibble with the video, a minor criticism offered with great respect for Adalah’s work and presented only constructively, should others agree, for future work.

      I thought it was unfair to put the Bedouin man in the position of having to ‘justify’ his aversion to being moved to the cities. Put on the spot, it seems the interviewer wants something more than because it’s my land, my house, my home, that’s why, so the man invokes ideas of ancestral lands and customs—all valid of course—but he should not have to ‘explain’ it.

      The very posing of the question of ‘why’ they don’t want to move to the ghettos Israel has in store for them, is to frame the issue as though a reason were relevant to the issue. What would any of us say if asked why we don’t want to be ethnically cleansed?

      Am I over-thinking this?

  • Haaretz warns 'Israel is facing its moment of truth' as Europe explores sanctions against companies tied to the occupation
  • Violinist tumbles while climbing separation wall, is unable to perform historic concert
    • Regarding East Jerusalem [re mondonut]
      The Green Line—which of course was never meant to award Israel the land it seized beyond the Partition, but ended up doing so because Israel simply refused to budge—unequivocally placed East Jerusalem on the Palestinian side.

      Then Israel militarily seized it in 1967.

      Various UN Resolutions since then have reaffirmed that East Jerusalem is not in Israel and specifically restated that no amount of Israeli intringisence (facts on the ground, ethnic cleansing) will change that.

      • 1968: Res 252
      • 1969: Res 267
      • 1969: Res 271
      • 1971: Res 298
      • 1980: Res 465
      • 1980: Res 476
      • 1980: Res 478

      All these specifically reaffirm that [1] East Jerusalem is not in Israel; [2] Israel's ethnic cleansing and 'annexation' of it do nothing to change this; [3] creating 'facts on the ground' can not be used in the future to claim a fait accompli.

  • First stop for presidential contenders begins with I, but it's not Iowa
    • One of the most articulate warnings of Israel's corrupting effect on the United States remains Moshe Menuhin's classic "Decadence of Judaism in Our Time" (1965). He published a second edition in 1969 that includes a section on the 1967 war. Used copies of both editions are readily available and highly recommended.
      Moshe Menuhin (1893-1983), the father of the great violinst Yehudi, lived through the rise of Zionism and attended the nationalistic Gymnasia Herzlia in Jaffa.

  • 9-year-old dies in Gaza, without fulfilling 'human rights' dream, to see imprisoned father
    • All the "peripheral" horrors for which Israel is not seen as culpable, but which are ultimately the result of its actions...

  • The Young and Palestinian
    • Comment to Lena:
      Thank you ! for your gorgeous piece. Usually things seem so dismal, and even young people so apathetic, that one feels hopeless and pushes on only because one must... but with people like you inheriting the world, I feel a new purpose. Please write more.

      Comment to Yonah:
      Hamas was an Israeli invention, as you know, to split Fatah. Most Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so not because they wanted a socially conservative religious party, but because we (Israel & US) gave them a choice between the frying pan or the fire --- a party increasingly seen as corrupt collaborators (Fatah), or a party that was perceived as scrupulous with funds and would stand up against Israel---but had tons of other warts. Given that choice... well that's what happened.
      My point is that Hamas is a function of Israeli fascism. A liberated Palestine would have no need for Hamas as we know it, and Fatah would not be serving at the pleasure of Palestine's enemies.

  • 'Democracy Now' focuses on 'TWA 800' documentary by Borjesson and Stalcup
    • Many "9-11" Truthers are indeed nutty. The government's own conspiracy explanation is even nuttier. Then there's the rest of us, who simply want to know what happened ... whatever that is, and it is demonstrably not what we're being told.

  • 'Fuck it, I Love Israel' -- Artists 4 Israel bombards Ibiza with hasbara condoms
  • My 72 depressing hours on Obama's trail
    • Why do many of the commentators refer to "46 years"?
      The 1967 war is a diversion from the core issue. The occupation began in 1948 (really late '47), and nothing will be resolved if we pretend otherwise. The Partition Resolution was a sham (blatantly contrary to the UN Charter, and would never have survived a court review, which we blocked). The Green Line was NEVER a gift to Israel of the land between it and the Partition; it was ONLY a cease-fire line. And, finally, Israel never abided by the terms of the Partition Resolution which de facto created it, even after promising to in order to gain admittance to the UN.

  • Report from Bethlehem: Obama exploits the messenger of peace for a photo-op
    • "DICKERSON3870" commented that the “formidable police and soldiers” of the Palestinian Authority are considered by some Palestinians to be collaborators with the Israel in its occupation.

      Just to say I completely agree. The PA serves only at the pleasure of Israel and the US, and many of its soldiers were trained by the CIA. I hope I did not give any impression to the contrary.

  • What is 'the helicopter on the Saigon embassy roof moment' for US and Israel?
    • To me, the interesting aspect will be whether the "helicopter on the roof" will carry away with it the decades of misinformation and mythology which have empowered US empowerment, or whether --- as was the case with Vietnam --- the US never admits that it was the bad guy. How will "we" explain cutting (or even narrowing) the umbilical cord to our neo-colonial surrogate? Indeed if our standard line about Israel were true, we've been getting a good deal all these years, a mere some-odd billion a year for stability and a shining beacon of enlightenment furthering our own security.
      Will the "helicopter on the roof" leave behind the "elephant in the room" for all to see?

  • Google and the eternal, undivided capital of the Jewish people
    • Thanks---but as I noted on pabelmont's posting, the issue itself is irrelevant. There is no Israeli municipal or local law in East Jerusalem for international law to have to trump. Israel's presence there is illegitimate, period.

    • Hello Pabelmont, thank you for the comment.
      Actually it's not a matter of international law trumping local law. East Jerusalem does not lie in Israel, so there is no Israeli local or municipal law there to begin with---only a military occupation running the show by force. This is especially important to remember when Israel uses the "permit" issue as legal cover for ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem. One not need even expose the scam of the permits themselves, since Israel has no jurisdiction there anyway---no more than than Saddam Hussein had in Kuwait City.

  • CUFI: Keep Israel the focus of US elections
    • In 1963, Congress briefly investigated the issue of Israeli "interests" [aka foreign agents] not registering as such, and being tax-exempt. A good summary and commentary is in Moshe Menuhin's classic "Decadence of Judaism in Our Time."

  • The (what about) China syndrome
    • Good piece, Philip!

    • Anan, well, no, the $3b figure is just the outright above-board donation. The true figure is more than twice that.
      As for the US "influencing" Israel, why do you invoke that word? No one's talking about our "influencing" Israel.

  • Backer of NY ads exposing Palestinian land-loss says response has been 'astounding' and news 'coverage is pouring in'
  • 'Do you feel more Arab or more American?': Two women's story of being detained and interrogated at Ben Gurion
    • To those (e.g., the US gov!) who try to deflate the greater issues raised with the diversion that every country has the right to its own entry policies, it must continually be stated that Israel is not just deciding who will enter Israel (and abusing them based on ethnicity) -- it is deciding who will enter other people's land as well. Israel controls all access to Palestine. An accurate analogy would be if Saddam Hussein, after claiming to have annexed Kuwait, decided who may enter Kuwait, terrorized and humiliated the "wrong" people attempting to enter (whether US citizens or other), and the US response was well, shucks, wadaya gonna do...

    • Thank you, Najwa Doughman and Sasha Al-Sarabi, for this important record of what happened to you.

  • Before '60 Minutes' piece aired, Jewish Federations called for 'flood' of 'discourse' to CBS (what's next, locusts?)
  • '60 Minutes' profiles Palestinian Christians, Michael Oren falls on his face
    • A shame 60 Minutes perpetuates the myth about the Wall having anything to do with stopping terrorism (and a few other quibbles...), but nonetheless for the US mass media to air this at all, we have to be grateful!

  • The Palestine National Orchestra: a view from the violin section
    • Just to clarify the issue raised by 'Mayhem', the PNO performed in Haifa in January 2011. I was not involved with the orchestra then.
      The PNO did not go to Israel (or even East Jerusalem, which is not in Israel) this year. None of the concert series covered in my commentary (PNO, children's, and youth orchestras) involved entering Israel.

Showing comments 104 - 101
Page: